House to the distribution of the grant; but as a member of the Church of England, he did object to it. Understanding that the subject was under discussion between the National Society and the Committee of Council, he had delayed bringing it forward, being perfectly confident that the National Society, having on its Committee the whole bench of bishops, the question I could not be left in better hands. It went on for two years, and it was not until December last that the National Society closed their correspondence with the Com The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-mittee. QUER considered that they should go on with the question, due notice having been given of bringing it on that night. MR. HENLEY thought the course taken by the Government was hardly a fair one, considering the importance of the subject. It was impossible to have anything like a fair discussion at that hour of the night. LORD J. MANNERS said, as the subject was important, and as there was an understanding that they would not go on with it at a late hour, it should not then be pressed forward. LORD J. RUSSELL considered that at that period of the Session it was not an unreasonable hour to proceed with the discussion. The Society had placed before the Committee petitions asking for freedom being given to local founders and for an appeal to the bishops; but they were refused. Previously to 1839 the grant of 23,000l. annually voted by Parliament for the promotion of education, was divided by the Treasury between the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society. In 1839, however, when the Members of the present Administration were in office, they issued orders in Council relative to normal and model schools, which excited the deepest feeling throughout the country against what was then termed a scheme of godless education. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved resolutions against the scheme in the House of MR. GLADSTONE said, that the ques-Lords, which were carried by a majority of tion had not been discussed for some time, and when a particular Member took it in charge it should not be considered he brought it on at that late hour. So far as he was individually concerned, he would be satisfied to wait for the result of the inquiry which he understood there was a distinct understanding should take place elsewhere. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, with respect to the Minute relating to the Kneller-hall Training School. He had read the minutes and the general arrangements, and an account of the subjects in which candidates were to be examined, and he did not find in the list of subjects for schoolmasters, who are to be members of the Church of England, any subject that identified them in that capacity. SIR G. GREY said, the examination of the candidates who were members of the Church of England took place under the superintendence of the principal and the clergyman, and they were to be examined in the formularies of the Church of Eng land. MR. W. MILES said, he felt great diffidence in calling the attention of the Arch 111. That for a time stopped the pro- been arrived at in another place, he did not think it necessary to submit a Motion upon the subject. that that half of the schools which had applied for aid to the Committee of Council, had rejected it rather than submit to the conSIR G. GREY said, that the impression ditions which the Committee of Council wished to impose on them. One of the under which the hon. Gentleman had adpetitions which he had the honour to dressed the House with reference to the present, and which was numerously and probability of an inquiry into the system respectably signed, after complaining of of education established under the supermany of these circumstances to which he intendence of the Committee of Council on referred, alluded to the Kneller-hall es- Education, led him to state at once that to tablishment, which it declared to be full such an inquiry the Government would ofof danger to the teaching of the public, fer no objection. The hon. Gentleman and was the commencement of a system had directed the attention of the House to of latitudinarianism. When they had two points-the management clauses and With examined the schoolmasters of their the establishment at Kneller-hall. unions, they found that but little atten- respect to the first, the principle on which tion had been paid to religious instruc- the Government felt bound to act was, tion, and that the highest knowledge in it was the duty of the State, and of the divinity that was therein required, was a Government as representing the State, and good Biblical knowledge, and the know-intrusted with the administration of the ledge of the geography of Palestine. What funds, to demand ample security for the They had did they find in a Minute to which his management of the schools. right hon. Friend alluded relative to Knel- not felt themselves at liberty to interfere ler-hall? No student was required to with the nature of the religious instruction. learn any religious formula to which he With respect to the Church schools, the had a conscientious objection; and this hon. Gentleman must be aware that the was in a school where schoolmasters were constitution of many of them having been trained entirely for the administration of shown to be most defective, it was thought pauper education in workhouses, and essential by the Committee of Privy Councriminal education of youth in prison. cil, in 1845, when presided over by Lord no examination in the cate- Wharncliffe, to take security against the chism, in the ordinances, or the prayer- continuance of that defective constitution book; there was, in fact, nothing whatever of the schools. In 1845 the first manageA correto show the distinctive mark of the Church ment clauses were prepared. of England. These schoolmasters were spondence took place on the subject bebound, upon the expiration of the term of tween the National Society and the Comtheir apprenticeship, to serve in these mittee of Privy Council on Education, and schools for a period of seven years. He it seemed to be admitted that the Commitcould not but think that an education com- tee, so far as they felt it consistent with municated under such circumstances must their duty, had shown themselves ready to produce the worst results. Since the meet any objections which could be urged question had been discussed in the other to the details of the management clauses. House of Parliament, it had taken a dif- But this the Committee did think it necesthat where it was ferent turn. Although a Committee had sary to insist uponbeen denied to the noble Lord who made possible to combine lay with clerical the Motion in the other House, yet the agency, lay should be combined with clerinoble Lord the President of the Council cal agency. At the same time, there was stated, that the time had come when he not the slightest approach to an infringethought an inquiry was necessary, and he ment of the right of the clergy to have the only objected to it then, becouse it would exclusive charge of the religious education be impossible to come to a conclusion on of the schools. The Committee had the the subject before the end of the present full concurrence of a portion of the clergy Session of Parliament. As he (Mr. Miles) who did not enter into the views of the understood, there would be no objection National Society. A statement was made to an inquiry in the next year, as the that some clergymen, who had made appetitioners stated the applicants were un- plication for grants, afterwards withdrew able, from conscientious scruples, to par- their applications on perceiving what was ticipate in those advantages which it was described as the insidious character of the But the mischief evidently intended by the Legislature they management clauses. should enjoy. After the decision that had which lurked in these management clauses There was was not indicated. man mean to say the clergyman who had made and withdrawn applications apprehended the mixture of the laity as of a dangerous character? Such appeared to be the real nature of the objection. Allusion had been made to petitions against the management clauses. In one from the clergy and laity resident in the diocese of Bath and Wells it was said "We find ourselves called upon by present events to declare our conviction that national peace and prosperity depend essentially on the early education of the poor." They went on to state "That by the term 'education' we mean training for time and eternity, and that according to our belief the Church of England is the divinelyappointed teacher of the English nation." Did the hon. Gentle- | was his desire that the Church should secure, and the continuance of which was essential to the best interests of the country. With respect to Kneller-hall, it seemed to be imagined that the institution there was full of danger; but it ought to be remembered that it, Kneller-hall, was established as a normal school for two classes of schoolmasters-teachers for prisons, and teachers for workhouses. For some years past the want of qualified teachers for prisons had been felt. Many of those who were appointed were drawn from Scotland-not a few from the admirable training school in Glasgow, known as Mr. Stow's; and of these it could not be said that they have received instruction in the principles of the Church of England. So with respect to the workhouses; the teachers were taken from whatever sources were available. It had never been made a condition that they should be members of the Church of England. With respect to Kneller-hall, it was thought desirable that when a portion of the salaries of schoolmasters was defrayed by the public, measures should be taken for training schoolmasters; with that object it was thought desirable that the institution should be established, and that those who were educated there should be instructed in the principles of the Christian religion. Future opportunities would present themselves for discussing the subject more in detail; but he had thought it due to the hon. Gentleman that he should give the brief explanation he had now offered. The petitioners further said 'We deeply regret to perceive that within the last ten years a vast change has been rapidly taking place in the education of the children of the poor, and that this change has been introduced, and is now being carried into effect, by the Committee of Council on Education.' It was obvious that they objected to the existence of the Committee of Privy Council as trenching upon the rights of the Church as the divinely-appointed teacher of the nation. "We observe that this Committee does not recognise the Church as the teacher of the people, but regards various and conflicting religionists as equally qualified to teach, and thus is morally disqualified from exercising any influence over the form and substance of religious instruction." They denounced the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council as an interference with the apostolical and evangelical mission of the Church. Such were what he must call the extravagant views of, he would not say a large portion, but of a portion of the National Society, who had taken a leading part in opposition to the views of the Committee of Privy Council. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to co in these extreme views. But was it just to say that the system of the Committee on Education was that pursued in France, Germany, and other parts of the Continent? Those having the control and management of the Church schools must be members of the Church. Those clergymen of the Church of England who expressed apprehensions as to the interference of laymen, and who would have the clergy have the exclusive control of the schools, were doing little to increase the affection, esteem, and regard which it LORD J. MANNERS said, that in the spring of 1847, the Government had greatly extended the system of education. The Government proposal was strongly resisted by the Dissenters; but he asked any one who witnessed that debate, if he could for a moment have thought that it was the intention of the Committee of Privy Council to make those management clauses compulsory. Late in 1847, when such a rumour was propagated, he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether such was the intention, and the answer then given was such as to remove all doubt upon the subject. The answer given by the noble Lord on the 12th of July, 1847, was— "With regard to the first question of the noble Lord, he said that before the present Government were in office, certain propositions and conditions were placed before it by persons in connexion with the National Society. În order to prevent those new conditions from being carried into effect in the arbitrary interference of the Coma manner the Committee of the Privy Council mittee of the Privy Council? But the thought injurious, it suggested four forms of right. hon. Gentleman said that the maclauses that might be adopted in these trust deeds. A proposition to that effect had been jority of the clergy was in favour of those made to the Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter compulsory clauses. Very likely. But did from the Secretary to the Committee of Privy the right hon. Baronet lay it down as a Council, and the suggestion was adopted; the only limitation being that, as his Grace desired, principle that the consciences of the mathe local committees should be left at liberty to jority were to be strictly respected, while accept or reject. The further proposition was the consciences of the minority were utmade, that normal as well as other schools should terly disregarded? Was that the theory be included. With regard to the last question, of men who had the words "civil and rethe Committee of Privy Council had taken the He suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury into ligious liberty" always on their lips? consideration, and had adopted it in nearly the must also allude to the memorial which same words; but the clauses respecting trust had been presented respecting those comdeeds had again been submitted to his Grace, with pulsory clauses. [Sir G. GREY said, that a view to the admission of laymen; these clauses he did not consider those schools could be seemed to the Government to have been essential, and, as the National Society had not expressed efficiently carried on unless those compulany objection to them, he (Lord J. Russell) hoped sory clauses were enforced.] Did the right they would be agreed to. They had, in point of hon. Baronet mean to lay down as a posifact, already been adopted in almost all the tion that those schools could not be effischools which had since received aid from the Go- ciently managed by the clergy? He hoped vernment. With respect to the second question of the noble Lord, whether preferment in Ireland this dictum of the right hon. Baronet would was only to be given to clergymen approving of go forth to the country. He objected to the scheme of national schools, he had to state the constitution of the Committee of Privy Of Council altogether. What the memorialcourse, every Government had its own reasons ists asked for, what he asked for, and what for preferring certain persons; but undoubtedly there would be no exclusion on the ground of the country had a right to expect was, freenon-adherence to the scheme of the national sys- dom and liberty of instruction. That right tem." could not be consistently resisted, and would not long be successfully resisted. They only asked for themselves that which they willingly conceded to others; and his belief was that, if the Government persisted in its present course, it would excite feelings of suspicion, distrust, and alienation amongst a great body of the Church of England. Let them do justiceeven-handed justice that was all he asked. that there was no foundation for the rumour. And yet, not long after the period when the noble Lord made his statement, a minute was entered upon the books of the Committee of Privy Council, by which the operation of those clauses was made compulsory. He had frequently heard hon. Gentlemen opposite declaim very loudly, and very warmly, on the blessings of religious liberty. Would they support a Government in a direct infringement on that liberty? What could be more against religious liberty, or against the cause of education, than to insist that, before any money was granted by the State to aid in the purposes of instruction, the layman or clergyman who applied for the grant should be obliged to conform to the dicta, or prejudices, or caprices of half a dozen gentlemen sitting in Whitehall? He repeated that political and religious liberty was invaded by the enforcement of those clauses. It was all very well so long as they were recommendatory and not compulsory; but why should it be presumed that the decisions of the Committee of the Privy Council were infallible? Why should it be sup-right hon. Gentleman whether it was dealposed that Englishmen who were willing to subscribe funds-pious, well-disposed men, men who were willing to build and found schools-should not be able to have those schools properly conducted without MR. ADDERLEY said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had represented the feelings of the petitioners to be that of arrogating to the Church the exclusive right of educating the people of the country in the schools in the hands of the Church. Now, he (Mr. Adderley) considered that an entire mistake. What the petitioners asked for was, that if any body of Churchmen wished to raise funds for starting a school of their own, they should be allowed the same participation in the national grant as was conceded to other bodies for the purpose of carrying out their own system. And he would put it to the ing with equal fairness towards all, if Churchmen, desirous of instituting schools for themselves, were deprived of a share of public money merely because they wished to have their own particular school |