The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-06 00:00:00

Lion for education in the country. Could any one say
that William of Wykehacri was opposed to the Intellec-
tual development ; or that the other schools, such as
Eton and Westminster, which were founded on
the model of his, had ever neglected the development
of intellect? The Church had also fostered throughout
all ages the progress of intellectuel development. In all
times, even when there were plenty of philosophers who
talked wisely of the destruction of secular and religious
instruction, the great advancers of
.education were the
clergy. At the time of the Restoration the moat dis-
tinguished in the cause of education were the most distin-
guished in the Church. Stillingfleet, Tillotson, nay, he
would name even Baxter, for his argument was that the
clergy were the most ardent promoters of education, and
the Church always the foremost. The Hon. Member
for 'Manchester said that the Church always came se-
cond, and he (Mr. Wood) was sorry that there was such
an amount of ignorance even in that place. Why, who
were the founders of the Society for the Promotion of
Christian Knowledge, which had done so much for
the advancement of knowledge in this country?
He denied that the Church had been backward in estab-
lishing schools for the education of the people. It had
been said they had never thought of farming national
schools until the Wesleyans and the Dissenters had set
the example; but the truth was, that Dr. Bell establishd
a school at St. Botolph, Aldgate, is 1789, at which
time Mr. Lancaster, the celebrated founder of the
Lancasterian schools, was only eighteen years of
age. The question was whether the Church had done
her duty to the people. If not, ho was quite ready to
admit that all she had hitherto done went for nothing;
but the facts were otherwise.. The National Society
was first established in 1811, and from that time
up to 1835 it had expended 104,0001. to promote the
education of the people, and from 1838, when the
voluntary exertions of the society were stimulated
by the Government grants, up to 1847, the sum it an-
nually expended was increased to 188,0001. That sys-
temi was producing great and valuable results, and, t
properly carried out, would complete the education of
the people throughout the country. The number of day
schools connected with the Church was 10,800 in.
1837, and 17,000 in 1847, and the number of
scholars attending them was, in the former
increase
in 518,000, and in the latter 950,000, the
in those few years being 6,200 schools and 400,000
scholars. Facts of that kind ought to guide them more
than declamation and fanciful theories. Now, he thought
he had established three points—that the education of
the people had up to the present time been con-
ducted on religious principles, that the Church had
throughout borne her share of the duty, and taken
the lead in the movement, and that the existing system
of education, combined with religious instruction, was
ample for the wants of the times, as well as sufficient to
nseet future exigencies. The annual sum spent by the
Church from 1833 to 1838, to promote education,
ameented to 87,4001. ; and since 1838, it
had been increased to 720,0001 But be bad
a correction of some importance to make. There
were some contributions of a pleasing character
that had been received from the scholars, and he found
that out of the total, 199,0001, expended by the Committee
of Council on Education, no less than 80,0001. had been
contributed by the children. Stilt making all these
deductions, the Church expended half a million of
money in promoting education. But there was another
mode by which the Church was promoting education.
In Lancashire, in Middlesex. in Surrey, and other parts
of the country, training schools had been established for
preparing masters, upon which no less than 90,0001.
had been spent, and from which as many
as 1,050 masters had been sent out.—(Hear, hear.)
These masters were mast efficient indeed, since, a little
while ago, the knowledge they had attained would have
entitled them to a common degree at Cambridge, fully
proving the admirable system upon which the training
schools were conducted.—(Hear.) It was a mistake to
suppose that the crime and immorality arose from any
defect in the mode of education now in operation, it re..
stilted from the incompetency of the parties who were
sotrusted with the care of schools; and therefore, if the
Heise or the Government wished the country improved
in the: t respect, they would promote the establishment of
these t.saming schools, and help the masters in obtaining
ample r emuneration for their services.—(Hear, hear.)
Some alluetns hd been made to the dispute going on
between Go o
vernma ent and the Church on the subject of
the education el orders, but the principle involved
in that dispute was so trilling that he entertained
a confident hope of a speedy settlement.—(Hear,
hear.) At all eve.ets, there could be no doubt of the
fact that the working of the existing system had kept
pace with the increase in the population, and as the
principle contained in this Bill had been tried, and to a
certain extent failed, it wets the duty of the House not
to support it. There a as; no necessity f;,r it—
nay, it would prove highly injierious to the state, beca'ise
it must inevitably obstruct the' progress of a system
which had produced, and was producing, the
most satisfactory results.—(He er.) The age was
too far advanced in civilization to adroit of
the state neglecting the education of children.
The mind of a child in its early condition was like a
.blank book, and if the Government did not write upon
it they might depend upon it some one else woo d.
But in educating children Government should be careful
not to encourage the exclusive system proposed by this
Bill. At present there were schools enough in
all the larg towns for every sect, and the parent who
did Hot like to send his child to a school where the
principles of the Church of England were taught,
could select some other where they were excluded.
Under the present system of training they would hare
teachers whose feelings came not from any selfish mo-
tives, but direct from the inmost heart.—(Cheers.)
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to say a few words before
he gave a vote on this Bill. With reference to the Hon.
Member for Oxford, he had used in the speech he had
just delivered all those stale arguments which he should
never have expected from a gentleman who was so well
able to bring much better and abler arguments. If an in-
dividual Member had no right to bring forward a question
of such great importance, pray when would the question
ever be brought before the House ? The great masses
of the working classes in the manufacturing districts
were almost unanimously in favour of the principle of
secular education. He did not think there was any prin-
ciple in which the working classes took a greater iuterest
than in this; and he thought that the working classes in
those districts, since the passing of the Bill by which all
children employed in mills were obliged to attend
schools, were placed in a very peculiar position. For
if school attendance were made a condition of earning
bread, and if religious freedom were anything but a
name, he thought they were bound to provide schools
where the children would not be exposed to proselytizing
influences. They ought not to place the working
classes in the position of having to choose be-
tween their religion and their bread. Why, if the
principle were true, there was no reason why
they should not extend it to the agricultural districts.
If there was such a superfluity of education in different
parts of the country, it could not be supposed that the
ratepayers would come together and lay a rate upon
themselves to establish schools which were totally un-
necessary. He was ready to admit that much valuable
and disinterested aid to education had been rendered by
Churchmen as well as Dissenters, and he thought
controofveres aa
it was useless and beside the question to enter into
a
stie.
to who
education.—(Hear,
hfiersiro tin
Thethe Bflieilldwians the
cause
ob-
jected to because it made no' provision for religious in-
structis a, but it did not render that instruction less than
at present, and it should be remembered that this coun-
try spent twice as much as any other in the
world to promote the religious education of
the people. According to the present system
religious instruction was given at a separate
and distinct period from secular education, and he saw
no reason why the two should be pursued at different
times. What he wanted was, that the poor should have
within their reach a bona fide system of secular educa-
tion, such as the middle classes now had; and if they
had, he believed that, instead of doing away with
religious teaching and moral training, they would be
placed at least in a much better situation than at
present, when there was neither religious nor secular
education.—(Hear.) He could not understand the prin-
ciple that because they could not teach everything
they should teach nothing. If the people had
secular education, no doubt the zeal of the Church
and of ministers of different denominations would
take care of their religious instruction. He
never heard it was the duty of the Church to give
secular instruction. It might be the duty of the Church
to teach revealed religion, but he denied that it was her
province to give secular instruction. If it were her duty
to give secular instruction, what a lamentable reproach
it was to her that so many hundreds of adult persons ap-
peared at her altar who could neither read nor write.
)Ir. NAPIER had endeavoured to understand the
principle of this Bill, which was, as he understood it,
that it was the duty of the State to provide an education
which compelled the exclusion of religion. He thought
it would be hardly said that it was a religions obligation
to exclude religion.—(Hear, hear.) It was enough,
he thought, to state the proposition to ensure its
(Hear, ebxecaurs.e)d
Hein swtaernvilndg
aver,his sowuhl.
at
refutation. He would contend that a man was no
.
State to provide'
a princi I
might exist, that it had
we had hithertope.theavne r his
differences
i ffme ri en nd s
.. been the religious duty of the
religion.to.the people. This Bill em-
bodiedaannttaouisticto the principle on which
we might choose between had made religion theweinthiscountry,
people.basts of the education of our
thechoose sbaemtdweeentimaem;
serve theca both
were called upon to
ereansdeculwaer
wanted education
to andext e
na
dn
thedeuhcalet;isoinngbaasnef
dupoh religion. He
education, but it was
impossible to accede to the Bill befored House, seeing
thatetthChristianity
usually and enßtill made
that they had always acknowledg
parties who called upon
seumepeosi
should be the basis of education, and
asked only tow who
oe
were taughttthe
ec
sCI i a
rily. 717
the House to pass this measure.? Only
section of the community, who held somewhat laxa
notions tespecting education. Ho contended that
with respect to education the State stood in
the relation of loco parentiv to the child of parents who
were unaele to provide him with a suitable education.
The authority of a parent was derived from God, and
that authority was not a power but. a trust. Instead of
' ton the necessary basis. of education, this
making religion
Bill made it a mere casual consideration. Ile contended
that the Bible would not necessarily be taught in tho
schools under this Bill.
.Ihe great glory ot the
Reformation was that it opened the Word
of God to every man,
and it ba-1 made this country
great, happy, and free.—(Hear, hear.) lle submitted
that if education was important with regard to the train-
ing of the whole man in his public duties and relations,
and in the moral principles of private .life, the i.nerel ley
extending the intellect, without giving it any princip
to purify the affections and the heart, would go a
very short way indeed to accomplish those ends.
A disti • nguished man had said that the strength of the
country was in the depth and purity of this religious