2
10
16
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/16e9506922b777816d99a6f419b2195d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dFfDg-cWswN8a%7E6l-J840ZTkr2nO4y7aTr%7ERwy3H0wc0iUEJR6YLfDTn3cLKm3DA7jVtxbHpYEY02ju1yE87VHY4C4ApNqF5zLuM9NUpnpNMticua3ZrtRRCU3BpZYo0hBMWjLk1y6aTXS-5BWj7U2A98u0xHY5QELCj5-BFaQEk7u8d3XRJ6fOqc-i1Frg2Z5tZgzql9VANswC3zSuctRHSA3iCsxfsjnuQH2pNTBd24JtYBC687J3EHtY6T7WOSmyK8CzqtCDT7dEFE%7EkXEM6N6McyGn1XJX7bXEyvav3xAu9rl%7E88C%7E3ZdbOosWHTCKMPz6ifY8yaLW754Zifdg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f414eefa0ab0749c7d0c1b7743df6c34
PDF Text
Text
REPORT
. \
OF THE
FIRST GENERAL MEETING OF MEMBERS
OF THE
I
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE,
HELD AT BIRMINGHAM,
4*.
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12 & 13, 1869.
PRICE, TO NON-MEMBERS, ONE SHILLING.
BIRMINGHAM:
“THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET.
1869.
��NATIONAL
EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices: 47, ANN STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
PROVISIONAL
COMMITTEE.
GEORGE DIXON, Esq., M.P., Chairman, Birmingham.
J. CHAMBERLAIN, Esq., Vice-Chairman.
JOHN JAFFRAY, Esq., Treasurer.
COUNCILLOR JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec.
FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary.
Holland Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Baker, George, Councillor, Tennant Street, Birmingham.
Beale, W. J., Westbourne Road, Edgbaston.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Wordsworth Place, Small Heath, Birm.
Chamberlain, J. H., Christ Church Buildings, New Street, Birmingham.
Chance, R. L., Chad Hill House, Harborne Road. Edgbaston.
Clarke, Rev. C., F.L.S., Edgbaston.
Crosskey, Rev. Henry W., F.G.S., George Street, Edgbaston.
Dawson, George, M.A., Hawksley, West Heath, Worcestershire.
Field, A., Parade, Birmingham.
Harris, W., Councillor, Stratford Road, Camp Hill, Birmingham.
Hawkes, H., Aiderman, Grampian House, Bristol Road, Edgbaston.
Heslop, T. P., M.D., Temple Row West, Birmingham.
Holliday, W., J.P., Chad Valley, Edgbaston.
Johnson, G. J., Waterloo Street, Birmingham.
Kenrick, Timothy, J.P., Maple Bank, Edgbaston.
Kenrick, John Arthur, J.P., Fallowiield, Edgbaston.
Kenrick, Wm., Mountlands, Edgbaston.
Lloyd, G. B., Wellington Road, Edgbaston.
Mathews, C. E., Augustus Road, Edgbaston.
Middlemore, Wm., J.P., Elvetham Road, Edgbaston.
Osborne, E. C., Aiderman, Carpenter Road, Edgbaston.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., South Bank, Edgbaston.
Ryland, Arthur, Aiderman, Cannon Street, Birmingham.
Ryland, Wm., Noel Road, Edgbaston.
Timmins,-Samuel, F.R.S.L., Elvetham Lodge, Edgbaston.
Vince, Rev. C., Hockley Hill, Birmingham.
Wiggin, H., J.P., Aiderman, Metchley Grange, Harhorne.
Wright, J. S., Church Hill, Handsworth.
�The following is a copy of the first circular which was issued by
the Provisional Committee.
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Birmingham, February, 1869.
Sir,
I am requested by the Provisional Committee, formed for the
promotion of a National Education League, to forward to you the annexed
draft of a scheme which they have drawn up for the furtherance of a system
of education which shall reach all those children who are now growing up in
a degree of ignorance injurious alike to their own interests and to that of
the community at large.
The Provisional Committee are of opinion, that in those parts of the
country where a sufficient school organization does not exist, the deficiency
can be speedily and adequately supplied only by the combined action of the
central and local authorities.
The new machinery to be provided by this
joint action need not injuriously interfere with those existing schools which
are satisfactorily educating the people ; but the Provisional Committee are of
opinion that it is all-important that no time should be lost in bringing a good
education within the reach of even the poorest and the most neglected
children in the country ; and they are also of opinion, that when the means
of education shall everywhere exist, the poverty or apathy of parents ought
not to be allowed to prevent those means being availed of by their children.
If you are willing to assist in carrying out the objects of the proposed
League, I shall feel obliged by you signing and returning to me the enclosed
form.
I am
Your obedient servant,
GEORGE DIXON-
�NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
'
OBJECT.
The establishment of a system which shall secure the education of every
child in England and Wales.
1.
MEANS.
Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient school
accommodation is provided for every child in their district.
2.
The cost of founding and maintaining such schools as may be required
shall be provided out of the Local Rates, supplemented by Government
Grants.
3.
All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the management of Local
Authorities and subject to Government Inspection.
4.
AU Schools aided by Local Rates shaU be Unsectarian.
5.
To aU Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6.
School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local Authorities
shall have power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age
not otherwise receiving education.
The payment of an annual subscription shaU constitute membership.
The Executive Body shaU be a Council elected at a general meeting of
the members, convened for that purpose.
The Council shall appoint a Chairman, an Honorary Secretary, a Treasurer,
and such paid officers as may be required.
The general business of the League shall be conducted by the Council, and
they shall make aU arrangements for the formation of branch societies, collect
and disseminate information, and prepare the way for such legislation as wiU
carry out the objects of the League.
�The following is a copy of the invitation to the General
Meeting.
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices—47, Ann Street, Birmingham.
September 16tli, 1869.
Sir,
We beg to inform you that a General Meeting of the
Members of the National Education League will be held at the
Exchange Assembly Rooms, Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday,
the 12th and 13th of October, and to hand you a Programme of theproceedings.
The Provisional Committee desire to express their earnest hope that
you will be able to attend dming the whole, or at least a part of this very
important Meeting, at which a large number of the leading Members of
the League are expected to be present.
It will much facilitate the completion of the arrangements for the
Meeting if you will inform us at your earliest convenience whether you
will be able to attend.
We are, Sir,
Yours respectfully,
GEORGE DIXON, Chairman.
JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec.
FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary.
�PROGRAMME
FOR THE FIRST
GENERAL MEETING TO BE HELD AT BIRMINGHAM,
On Tuesday and, Wednesday, October 12th and, 13th, 18G9.
TUESDA Y,
OCTOBER 12tli.
Morning Sitting, from Ten o’clock a.m. till One p.m.
Election of Chairman.
The Report of the Provisional Committee to be read.
Election of the Council, Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Committee.
The following Resolution will be submitted to the Meeting :—
“Resolved, that a Bill, embodying the principles of the League,
be prepared for introduction into Parliament early next
Session.”
Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m. to Five
p.m.
Papers and Discussion on the best system for National Schools, based
upon Local Rates and Government Grants.
Evening, Eight p.m.
Soiree at the Town Hall, given by the Mayor of Birmingham.
WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 13th.
Morning Sitting, Ten
a.m.
to
One p.m.
Papers and Discussion on Compulsory Attendance, and on the best
means of enforcing it.
Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m.
to
Five p.m.
Papers and Discussion on Unsectarian and Free Schools.
Evening, Half-past Seven p.m.
Public Meeting in the Town Hall; the Mayor in the Chair.
Members wishing to contribute Papers are requested to communicat
with the Secretary.
��NATIONAL
EDUCATION
LEAGUE.
FIRST MEETING OF MEMBERS.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN.
Henry Holland, Esq., Mayor of Birmingham, moved that Mr.
George Dixon, M.P., be elected Chairman. He said that Mr.
Dixon, as the originator of the League, and by the zeal, ability,
and devotion which he had shown, not only of late but in past
years, in the cause of education, was deserving of the position
which it was proposed that he should occupy. The appointment
of Mr. Dixon would give satisfaction, not only to the ladies and
gentlemen present, but to those friends of education throughout
the kingdom who were with the League in spirit, though there
were many of them who could not attend the meeting.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., delegate from Carlisle, seconded
the motion, which was carried.
THE CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS.
The Chairman said: The movement which we have met to in
augurate to-day is one of momentous national importance, involving
in its issues not merely the future material prosperity of the
nation, but its intellectual moral, and I will venture to add, its
religious progress. The originators of this movement have met
with a response far exceeding their expectations. On their behalf, I
very heartily welcome here the many eminent men who have come
from various parts of the country to assist in the deliberations of
the League, to return to their homes, I trust, with a deepened
sense of the importance of the scheme, and with a stronger
�10
determination to exercise all their influence in its favour. We
have as yet made no appeal for subscriptions; but our expenses
have been heavy, and will rapidly increase as the area of our
operations widens. To collect information upon all the various
branches of the great subject we have taken up, to put this
information into a popular form, and to circulate it everywhere,
especially among the working classes, will require very large funds
indeed. But, in addition, we desire to send able lecturers all
through the country, who shall explain our views, and excite
discussion upon them everywhere. To create an irresistible
public opinion is a work of the greatest magnitude, and one which
will task our powers to the utmost. Our success will largely
depend upon the means placed at our disposal. You will see, by
the paper which has been placed in your hands, that a few friends
have commenced a subscription list, upon a scale which, if
imitated in other parts of the country, will give us all we want;
and I invite you to fill up the forms with as large amounts as
you are able. And to stimulate you further in this good work, I
will read you a few letters which have been received by me. The
first is from the Secretary to the Society for the Encouragement of
Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in London, Mr. P. Le Neve
Foster. He says :—
“The Council of this Society have much pleasure in sending
(enclosed) a cheque for twenty guineas as a donation to the funds of the
National Education League, and have directed me to attend with a depu
tation, and represent the Society at the meetings of the League at
Birmingham next week. The Rev. Wm. Rogers, and Messrs. E. Chadwick,
C.B., and E. Carleton Tufnell, have been requested to form the deputation.
The Council think it right to say that they cordially concur in the programme
of the League in so far as its object is to ensure the groundwork of
instruction to all the children of the United Kingdom, and that they shall
not be less well educated than children in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden,
and Norway ; but as a question of general policy, and as representing many
different opinions among the numerous members of the Society, they hesitate
at the present time to pledge the Society to all the details of the League
programme. The Council think it desirable that all the various modes of
ensuring universal instruction to the children of the United Kingdom should
be amply discussed from many points of view, and they intend to invite
members of the Society and others to a discussion of them after the meetings
�11
have been held in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, &c. For the con
sideration of the Birmingham meeting the Council transmit a paper, which
has been prepared by some members of the Council, and which appears to be
worthy of serious attention.”
On the paper you have in your hand you will find some subscrip
tions of unusually large amount for Birmingham; hut I will
venture to say that no subscription has given greater encouragement
to the Provisional Committee than that from a working man,
whose letter I am now going to read :
“Dear Sir,—Would you kindly forward me a prospectus or programme of
the National Education League, of which I am informed you are president,
and say if it is open to mechanics to become members, as I understand
from the report of your Sheffield address. I am myself an engineer, and am
at times utterly astonished at the fearful amount of ignorance among my
fellow workmen. In the works in which I am foreman, out of 200 hands not
20 either read the daily papers or care for the welfare of their fellows. Sir, I
assure you this is a deplorable fact, and if it was not for our glorious Free
Library it would be much worse. If I can do anything towards improving
this state of things I will willingly subscribe 7s. 6d. (a day’s wages) every
month. I know the want of education, as I could not write until I was
fifteen. If you could send me a few papers, so that I could interest my
fellow-workmen in this good work, I should be pleased.”
Now, the programme of the meeting, which yon have all read,
tells you exactly what the course of business is to be. The
arrangements are not, in some respects, so perfect as we could have
wished, but they are the result of full and anxious consideration;
and I hope, therefore, that if anyone should find that they are not
quite what he thinks best, he will accept them as a whole, and try
to be satisfied with them. One of the greatest difficulties which we
have to encounter is that the time at our disposal is extremely
short. We dare not ask our friends at a distance to come here for
more than two days; but we have a great deal more work to do in
those two days than we shall be able to get through to our satis
faction. We have had more papers sent to us than there will be
time to read; and after the papers are read there will be, I am
sorry to say, but very little time left for discussion. I have,
therefore, to beg not only that papers may be read as quickly as
possible, but that the speeches afterwards be as short and con
tain as much as possible. Next year, when we again have a
�12
general meeting of members, we shall be better acquainted with
each other, we shall know who are really the leading spirits in this
movement throughout the country • and then our arrangements will
no doubt be more perfect. There is one thing to which I wish
most particularly to call your attention. It is that we are not
met here for the purpose of discussing our principles.
Our
platform is already laid. We have accepted the bases of our
constitution, and we must not stray from them. But we have
met to discuss the best manner in which we can carry out our
principles. Upon that part of the question we may differ, and we
want all the light thrown upon it that it is possible for us to get.
This meeting has been called, by mistake, a conference. It is not
a conference. It is a meeting of the members of the League and
their friends, pledged to a certain course of action. We are not
answerable, as a League, for the individual opinions that will be
expressed in the papers and in the discussions. We are only
answerable for that programme, for that scheme, which has been
circulated throughout the country; but it is right that I should
explain one word in that scheme. We have had a great number of
letters upon the subject, and I believe that there are differences of
opinion upon it. There are some who do not understand what is
meant when we say that “ all schools aided by local rates ” are to be
“unsectarian.” Now, what we mean by this word “unsectarian” is
that in all national rate-schools it shall be prohibited to teach cate
chisms, creeds, or theological tenets peculiar to particular sects. These
are not to be taught during school hours. But beyond this prohi
bition we are not going; we leave everything else to be decided by
the school managers, who as the representatives of the ratepayers
will follow the best guides in these matters, viz., the wishes of the
inhabitants of their districts. School managers, for instance, will
have power to permit or prohibit the use of the Bible; but if
sanctioned it must be read without note or comment. Then they
will also have power to grant or to refuse the use of class-rooms,
out of school hours, for the purpose of religious instruction; but
of course an unjust preference must not be given to particular sects.
I trust we are all agreed that the best way of dealing with what is
called the religious difficulty is to put it on one side. Having
�13
decided to adopt the principle of excluding from the curriculum of
our primary schools all those religious subjects about which there
are differences of opinion, let us leave the carrying out of that
principle to the school authorities in a spirit of generous confidence.
A self-governing people ought to have faith in the discretion of
representatives whom it chooses and can remove. I will now call
upon the Secretary, Mr. Adams, to read letters from gentlemen who
are unable to attend here to-day.
LETTERS.
Mr. Francis Adams (Secretary) then read the following letters:—
From Edward Miall, Esq., M.P.
Welland House, Forest Hill, S.E., October 9th, 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
I find it quite impracticable so to arrange my engagements
as to leave me at liberty to be present at the Education Conference, on
Tuesday and Wednesday next. I much regret this, because I had hoped to
derive from the papers to be read, and the discussions which may be had
upon them, clearer views of one or two of the principles of the League than
I can pretend to hold at present. I trust, however, that due care 'will be
taken to give publicity to the proceedings, and that I and others who happen
to be precluded from availing ourselves of your courteous invitation, will have
an opportunity of making ourselves fully acquainted -with what has been
said and done at the Conference.
As I have already made you aware, I heartily concur in the “object”
which the Conference has been assembled to promote, and generally in the
“means” to be adopted -with a view to it. I am anxious, however, to
reserve my freedom of action, as well as of speech, [to thejextent which I will,
with your leave, endeavour to describe.
With regard to the 6th article in the programme, that “the State or the
local authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of children of
suitable age, not otherwise receiving education,” I give in my adhesion to
the principle involved. I confess I have tried hard to escape the necessity
of acceding to a resort to compulsion in furtherance of the end we have in
view, and have been driven only by the force of facts to surrender my
objections to it. Consequently, I am a little more sensitive on this point
than on others, and I can easily imagine modes of compulsion resorted to
which I could not bring my mind to approve. I wish, therefore, while
agreeing to the principle, to refrain from committing myself beforehand to
any particular scheme for carrying it into effect.
�u
As to free. admission to all schools aided by local rates, I suggest that the
provision should be coupled with this condition : That in every case in which
a school is rate-supported, it should be by a separate rate, to be called a
“ SCHOOL RATE.” In order to prevent that non-appreciation of education
which would inevitably come of the idea that it can be got for nothing, every
ratepayer should be made to understand distinctly that, in availing himself
of a free school for his children, he is but receiving back in value that which
in proportion to his means he has paid for. He will readily understand and
feel this, if he is periodically called upon to pay a specific rate for the purpose,
and I think he will be the less disposed to trifle with the right he has thus
acquired.
My chief anxiety, however, is to guard myself from being committed,
under the fourth article of the programme, to conclusions which in my
honest judgment I reject. In that article, as now worded, I thoroughly
concur. It is of the utmost importance that schools aided by local rates shaU
be unsectarian. Denominational education I take to be the greatest obstacle
to National education. It causes an enormous waste of teaching power. It
misleads a large proportion of the public as to the true end of public schools,
and it serves to stereotype instead of softening down religious disctinctions. I
do not believe it to be in any sense necessary. The public, generally, do not
care to perpetuate it. The demand for it is almost exclusively a clerical
demand, and I think the time is come for attempting to get rid of it—
cautiously and gradually, of course, but, in due time, effectually. But whilst
I attach high importance to unsectarian education, I am bound to say that I do
not feel obliged to exclude the religious element from rate-supported schools.
1 would not insist upon it as a condition of receiving public aid, but neither
would I insist upon its being eliminated from primary education. Thus
much, I think, might be safely left to the decision of the local authorities—
to be authorised to open and close their schools, if they please, with some
catholic form of devotion, and to adopt the Bible as one of the books to be
read; of course, protecting every parent from being compelled to subject his
children to either. My reason is this : I feel convinced that if by “unsectarian” schools, the interpretation is to be the rigid exclusion of all
religion from the schools, the nation will lose the very best teachers, for,
ceeteris paribus, they are the best teachers who bring a religious spirit and
motive to their work. I am sure the working classes, as a body, would not
care to shut out Christianity altogether from the schools to which they send
their children. I think it would be a mistake so tightly to tie up the hands
of teachers as to make all reference to the great facts aud precepts of
Christianity a forbidden thing to them. At any rate, it might well be left to
the local authorities to exercise their free choice in the matter. Such being
my opinion, I beg to hold myself uncommitted to the article in question, if
by the epithet “unsectarian” be meant “ necessarily and exclusively secular. ”
�15
I have no objection to give public aid to schools confined to secular educa
tion ; but I do not think it would be wise to impose upon local authorities the
obligation to shut out the religious element to this extent.
Pardon the liberty I have taken, and believe me to be,
,
Dear Mr. Dixon,
Yours, very faithfully,
EDWARD MIALL.
George Dixox, Esq., M.P.
From J. C. Buchnaster, Esq.
St. John’s Hill, Wandsworth, S.W., October lltli, 1869.
Dear Sir,
I regret very much that I am quite unable to accept your
invitation for the 13th. I cheerfully give my adhesion to the general principles
of the Education League, because I believe it offers the only equitable solution
of the educational difficulty. I wish the working classes (who are mostly
interested in this matter) would give some expression of opinion on the
subject, so as to help you and others in Parliament to obtain a national system
of education. Hitherto all our arrangements for the education of the children
of the working classes have been settled by the political influence of religious
parties, and, to avoid as much as possible all difficulty, every denomination has
been tempted to receive,' State assistance. The result is a great waste of
educational effort. I frequently find two and three schools in places with a
population scarcely sufficient to maintain one with efficiency. We have the same
number of inspectors without any concert with each other, going every year
to the same place to do precisely the same work. Ever since the Committee
of Council came into existence I have been in various ways connected with
the present system, and I believe it was the only scheme at that time capable
of meeting the enormous difficulties and resistance of religious bodies. This
opposition, controlled, as it appeared to me, by no reason, was a great national
calamity, and a source of much sorrow. I have carefully watched and taken
part in the working of the present system, and I am reluctantly compelled to
admit that the denominational system fails to accomplish its object. T have
been for several years Churchwarden of the parish in which I reside. I have
taught in elementary schools aided by the State, and Sunday schools, and
when at home I go regularly to church on Sunday, and at the corner of almost
every street I see a number of men with short pipes and unlaced boots, whose
faces twenty years ago were familiar to me as pupils in the parish school and
Sunday school. Why don’t they go to some place of religious worship ? When
at the parish school theyheard prayers and scripture lessons every morning from
students in the Training College—twice or three times a week lessons in the
Catechism and Liturgy from the curate or vicar—twice on Sunday religious
instruction in the Sunday school and two sermons; and where is the result of
�16
all this in the after life and character of the pupils ? If a purely secular
system had been inaugurated by the minutes of 1846 and 1847 this indiffer
ence to religious worship and conduct would have been charged on that
system. Some time ago I made enquiries, as far as I was able, as to the
practical result of the religious instruction given in our parish schools. 120
pupils were grown up and still living in the parish ; some of them married,
with children passing through the same course of religious instruction. Only
nine were in the habit of attending any place of worship regularly, and two
of these were paid singers. Ninety, so far as I could learn, had never been
either to church or chapel since they earned their own living, except to a
wedding or a baptism. The complaint that the working classes as a rule never
go to any place of worship is, I fear, a sad reality; but where is the result of all
our denominational teaching, and religious instruction? Theology and
Scripture proofs of various doctrines are no doubt taught in most of our
schools, but religion is not taught, and cannot be taught. The one is a
science, the other a sentiment; and we have been mistaking the one for the
other. You must not infer from this that I am insensible to the great
blessings of a religious life; but the teaching of dogmatic theology never
secures it. The tone and atmosphere of a school-room should stand in contrast
with the wretched dirty homes from which many of the children come. They
should be surrounded, as far as possible, with everything which tends to
soften and refine their hearts and feelings ; for it is through the senses that
the better impulses of our nature are called into activity and life. We want
clean and cheerful school-rooms, with good pictures on the walls, and specimens
of good art, and these may now be obtained at a small cost. The obstacle in
the way of progress is the ever active spirit which seeks to obtain supporters
to particular views and disciples for particular sects. The love of power un
consciously takes the semblance of religious anxiety, and every man acts as
if he alone had the true faith which ought to be taught to the young. The
only practical way is for the State to restrict itself to teaching those truths
upon which we all agree. All knowledge which is cognisable by our senses
may be safely taught at the public expense. It is only when we leave the
things of this world, and enter upon the consideration of those of the next,
that we lose the means of deciding who is right and who is wrong.
But I
think we must all agree that the more perfectly men are educated in a
knowledge of undisputed truths the better they will be prepared for the. study
of Divine truth. This is most assuredly the basis upon which we ought to
start. Society and human nature must be taken as it is, and not as some
think it should be. For these and other reasons I shall have much pleasure
in rendering what assistance I can in promoting the objects you have in view.
Yours truly,
J. C. BUCKMASTER.
George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
�17
From the Marquis of Lome, M.P. for Argyleshire.
The Queen’s Hotel, Glasgow, Sept. 17th, 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
Your very kind letter has only just reached me, and I
therefore hope you will excuse my apparent neglect in not having answered
before this.
1 shall not be able, I am very sorry to say, to attend the meeting, as I
mean to spend the time between this and November in Ireland.
With many thanks,
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
LORNE.
To George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From the Rev. Charles Kingsley.
Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, Sep. 17th, 1869.
My dear Sir,
I am still more sorry that I cannot attend your meeting on
reading through your Education Society’s Report. It seems to me a con
vincing proof that the voluntary denominational system is in great towns a
failure, and unless you forbid me, I shall use its statistics to that effect at
Bristol. That it is a failure in country parishes I know from 27 years’
experience as a parson.
I remain,
Your much obliged,
C. KINGSLEY.
I am much gratified by finding in your second Education League list so
many names personally dear to me, and so many of my own cloth.
From Sir Henry A. Hoare, M.P. for Chelsea.
*
Stourhead, Bath, 17th Sep. 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
I received yours of the loth this morning. I cannot, as I
told you in town, undertake to be present in Birmingham on the 12th and
following day, but I shall be truly glad to hear that the General Meeting has
done something.
I do hope that with respect to the principle of compulsion there will be no
faint-heartedness, and no dilution whatsoever of the power to enforce
attendance.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
HENRY A. HOARE.
»
B
�18
From Professor Huxley.
Swanage, Dorset, September 21, 1869.
My dear Sir,
I received your letter of the 17th yesterday, after I had.
written a reply to that of earlier date.
I wish again to say how very sorry I am I cannot do what you and the
Committee desire of me ; but not being a bird, as Mr. Boyle Poach said, I
cannot be in two places at once, and I am bound to be lecturing in London on
both the twelfth and the thirteenth of October.
I am, very faithfully, yours,
T. W. HUXLEY.
To George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From Dr. Schmitz.
The London International College,
Spring Grove, Middlesex, W., Sep. 16th, 1869.
Dear Sir,
It would give me the greatest pleasure at the approaching
Meeting of the National Education League, at Birmingham, to read a paper
on the great necessity there is in this country for compulsory education, a
subject upon which I feel very strongly, but unfortunately the time of the
meeting coincides with the reassembling of our College, so that it is even
more than doubtful whether I shall be able to attend the meeting.
I am extremely sorry, therefore, that I am unable to have the honour
which your Committee has assigned to me, by inviting me to prepare a paper
for the occasion.
I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
L. SCHMITZ.
From E. H. Brodie, Esq., Inspector of Schools.
Education Department, Council Office, Downing Street, London,
September 29th, 1869.
Dear Sir,
It is with the greatest regret that I write to say that I am
unable to attend the meeting of the National Education League, at
Birmingham.
My official engagements for October are heavy and numerous, and I cannot
spare even half-a-day.
I shall read the newspaper accounts of the meeting with the deepest
interest.
�19
After 10| years’ experience of the present system of education, I have
quite come to the conclusion that the poor both are not and never will be
reached by it, except very partially, especially in our large towns, so fruitful
of the criminal class. Assuring you of my sincerest sympathy for the cause,
and regretting my unavoidable absence,
I remain, dear Sir,
Faithful yours,
E. H. BRODIE.
To Jesse Collings, Esq.
From P. A. Taylor, Esq., M.P. for Leicester.
Aubrey House, Notting Hill, W., October 9th, 1869.
My dear Mr. Dixon,
I am sony that it will not be in my power to attend the
Conference next week.
Do not attribute my absence to any lukewarmness in the cause.
Of all the great reforms we have before us, this is perhaps the greatest.
I ain entirely at one with your programme.
You may rely on my humble support on all occasions.
&
1
Yours truly,
P. A. TAYLOR.
George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From an oversight the following important letter was not read
at the meeting.
From the Rev. J. J. Brawn.
Birmingham, 8th Oct., 1869.
My dear Sir,
I beg to inform you that at the Autumnal Session of the
Baptist Union, held at Leicester on the 7th Oct. instant, the following
Resolution was adopted:
“That this Union, without pledging itself to the support of the programme
of the National Education League, hereby requests the Chairman (Dr. Brock)
and Secretary (Rev. J. H. Millard, B.A., Huntingdon), with the Revs. Drs.
Underwood and Haycroft, J. Bigwood, and J. J. Brown, to act as its repre
sentatives at the General Meeting to be held under the auspices of the League
next week at Birmingham.”
I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
J. J. BROWN.
To Francis Adams, Esq.
�20
From Blanchard Jerrold, Esq.
SCHOOLS OF SKILL.
Reform Club, S.W., Oct. 13, 1869.
Sir,
Being unavoidably detained away from the meetings of the
League by professional duties, the Executive will, I trust, permit me to state
in a letter the heads of the subject I was anxious to submit viva voce to the
friends of popular education who are at this moment assembled at Birmingham.
It seems to be pretty generally agreed that the distress under wdiich so
many thousands of our fellow countrymen are suffering is caused, not by over
population, but by a superabundance of that labour which the continual
extension of machinery has depreciated. The demand for unskilled labour
is eVer on the decline—a fact on which we should have every reason to
congratulate ourselves if the instruction of labour were keeping pace with
the spread of machinery. But, unfortunately, while the inventive genius of
our race and the energy of our capitalists have given no truce to time, the
friends of popular education have been squabbling all the while because they
go different ways on Sundays—unmindful of Farquhar’s warning. Hence the
growth of blind Labour in the face of the Machine, its mighty and uncon
querable rival ; and hence the increase of pauperism, and of that saddest
condition of life—work w'ithout hope, which “ draws nectar in a sieve.”
The point on wdiich I am anxious to insist, and which will, I am sure, find a
wide acceptance in the Midlands, is this. The superabundance of blind labour
being the cause of the wide-spread distress and heavy poor rates that afflict and
fetter us, our first care must be to teach skill. It is because skill and taste are
■wide-spread among the working population of France that our neighbours
have not the parallel of those townships of even misery wdiich are black spots
upon the map of every considerable city in this kingdom. In the front of the
education movement Trade Schools must be placed. The State is bound to
see that every child is duly provided for the battle of life with those doughty
weapons, the three R’s. Granted. But surely the first duty society owes to
the child is to fortify it so as to assure it, at maturity, the self-dependent
strength of perfect citizenship. The children of the poor should first be taught
some form of skill by the exercise of wdiich they may raise themselves out of
the slough of poverty to which the untutored labour of their parents has sunk
them.
Had the Ragged Schools been sound trade schools, less given to the Old
Hundredth and more to the profitable methods of bread-earning, they would
have effected more good in city lanes and alleys than they can fairly claim to
have done with the teaching of the three R’s.
If the schoolmaster of the poor were himself re-educated, and taught to
implant in his pale scholars the art of living by w’ork—if the primary school
�were a school of skill, as well as one of catechism—the daily practice of industry
with intelligence would strengthen the heart while it informed the hand, and
we should be attending prosperously to
“ The kindred points of Heaven and Home.”
I have honour to remain, Sir,
Your faithful servant,
BLANCHARD JERROLD.
To Francis Adams, Esq.,
Secretary of the National Education League.
Letters expressing regret at not being able to attend were also
received from the following members of the League :—
Jacob Bright, M.P.
Colonel Sykes, M.P.
Josh. Grieve, M.P.
George Melly, M.P.
Peter Rylands, M.P.
James Howard, M.P.
Thomas Hughes, M.P.
P. H. Muntz, M.P.
Sir Sydney Waterlow, M.P.
Captain Sherard Osborne.
Sir John Lubbock.
Dr. Michael Foster.
Russell Martineau.
Rev. George Style.
Professor Roscoe.
Professor Jevons.
John E. Gray.
Dr. Schmitz.
Professor Leone Levi.
Mr. Edwin A. Abbott.
Sir John Bowring.
Mr. Samuel Smiles.
Rev. Charles Voysey.
Hon. George Howard.
Dr. John Shortt.
Mr. M. D. Conway.
Dr. Gotch.
�22
REPORT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
•
Mr. Jesse Collings (Honorary Secretary) read the following
Report of the Provisional Committee :—
The Provisional Committee think it desirable to lay before the
first meeting of members a brief statement of the reasons
which led to the formation of the National Education League,
the object of the Association, and the steps which have been taken
towards its organization.
On all hands it has long since been admitted that the present
system of education fails to meet the requirements of the country,
that voluntary efforts reach only the richer districts, and these
imperfectly, and that the poorer districts are left practically
uncared for, Government aid being wholly dependent upon
previous local expenditure.
Recent enquiries prove that even in districts best provided
with educational means, the real value of these means is greatly
below what is was supposed to be. The reports of the Manchester
Education Aid Society, and of the Birmingham Education Society,
for instance, reveal a state of things calculated to arrest attention
and excite alarm.
An enquiry instituted by the Manchester Society showed that
in Manchester and Salford the number of children of all classes,
between three years and twelve years, was 100,000. Of these
only 55,000 were on the books of public elementary schools, and
of this latter number the average attendance was but 38,000.
In Birmingham, out of 35,018 children between the ages of
three and twelve visited by the agents of the Education Society,
only 15,490 were at school. Of 45,056 children between three
and fifteen years, 17,023 were at school, 6,337 at work, and 21,696
were neither at school nor at work. Of the 17,023 who were at
school, 10,890 were under nine years of age.
The results of such education as had been given were shown to
be equally unsatisfactory.
In Manchester, in 1,916 families visited, there were, 1,660
persons between the ages of twelve and twenty. Of these, 759
were unable to read. Out of 1,672 fathers, 465 could not
p
�23
read, and out of 1,857 mothers the number unable to read
was 815.
In Birmingham, Mr. Long, one of the masters of the
Worcester, Lichfield, and Hereford Diocesan Training College,
visited a number of the manufactories (fairly chosen to represent
the whole), and examined 988 young persons between the ages of
thirteen and twenty-one. His report was that, “ in reading and
writing nearly one-half of the whole number examined do nothing,
or next to nothing, and only one-third do at all well. In
arithmetic and general knowledge more than three-fourths fail, or
nearly so; and only one in twenty shows anything like a
satisfactory degree of attainment.”
The facts thus ascertained are corroborated by the statements
of the Bight Hon. H. A. Bruce, in a recent address, in which,
quoting from a report of the London Diocesan Board of Education,
he said there were in London from 150 thousand to 200 thousand
children without the means of education, and that during the
preceding five or six years all that had been done served only to
prevent retrogression.
The report of the Committee of Council (1867-8, p. xxiii.)
demonstrates the inefficiency of instruction even in the best
primary schools—those under Government inspection. Of the
children attending a large proportion are declared to be unfit for
examination; and of those examined above ten years of age,
“ only 3.13 per cent, passed in the three higher standards without
failure” : these standards being of an extremely elementary
character.
These and other facts exhibiting the want of educational means
and the defective quality of instruction actually given, naturally
attracted special attention at the moment when, by an extension of
the franchise, a great change had been made in the distribution of
political power. Persons who took an interest in education were
led to the enquiry whether the present voluntary system, based
upon denominational effort, could by any possibility cover in the
future, with increasing population and more urgent demands, the
ground which it had failed to cover in the past. Conceding to the
voluntary principle the utmost conceivable measure of success, the
�24
advocates of education were further driven to enquire whether,
considering the new conditions of political arrangements, and the
rate at which education has hitherto progressed, it would be
prudent to wait until the present system has received a longer
trial. Educational reformers felt themselves compelled to ask yet
another question, whether, considering the right of every child to
education, it would be just to persevere in a system which,
however benevolent its motive and however strenuous its
exertions, experience has proved to reach only part of the children
having the right to instruction, and to deal imperfectly with those
whom it succeeded in reaching.
To all these questions only negative replies could be given.
The advocates of extended education found themselves obliged to
conclude that the voluntary system had failed to meet the wants
of the country, that considering the new political conditions re
sulting from an extended franchise, it would be imprudent to
persevere with a system admitted to be inadequate, and that con
sidering the right of all children to instruction, a national system
was demanded not less by justice than by expediency.
The result of these convictions was the introduction of a bill,
promoted by an influential Committee emanating from the Man
chester Education Aid Society, permitting the imposition of local
rates for the maintenance of schools. A permissive measure being,
however, felt to be inadequate, a subsequent bill was introduced,
allowing Government to compel the imposition of local educational
rates whcrs these might be found necessary. These bills were intro
duced by Mr. Bruce and Mr. Forster, and at the same time it was
intended that Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Bazley should move clauses
enforcing attendance at school.
The measures above mentioned mark the advance of public
opinion. The formation of the National Education League in
dicates a still greater and more important progress. It was felt
by several gentlemen in Birmingham that the time had come for
the establishment of an organisation uniting all those, throughout
the country, who desired to promote a really national system of
education, reaching all places unprovided for, based as to means
upon local taxation supplemented by imperial grants, becoming,
�25
therefore, unsectarian and free, and having the power to compel
attendance as the only way of overcoming parental neglect.
Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, the National
* Education League was formed upon the following basis, and upon
this basis only, which the founders regard as fundamental, were
educational reformers throughout the country invited to join the
League.
Object :
The establishment of a system which shall secure the Education of
every Child in England and Wales.*
Means :
1. —Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient
School Accommodation is provided for every Child in their
district.
2. —The cost of founding and maintaining such Schools as may be
recpiired shall be provided out of Local Rates, supplemented
by Government Grants.
8.—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the manage
ment of Locul Authorities and subject to Government
Inspection.
Jf..—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be Unsectarian.
5. —To all Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6. —School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local
Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of
children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education.
That this movement was happily timed, at the moment when
opinion was ripe for it, is proved by the fact that although no
public meeting has been held by the League, no means adopted but
the circulation of the scheme recorded above, near two thousand
five hundred- persons of influence, including forty members of the
* A slight verbal alteration was agreed, to at a meeting of the Provisional
Committee, held 22nd Sept., viz., that in all future circulars, addresses, &c.,
the words “ in the country" should be substituted for the words “ in England
and Wales.”
�House of Commons, and. between three and four hundred ministers
of religion, have already joined the League, by formally assenting
to its principles; and this number is daily increasing.
It is now proposed to complete the working organisation of the
League by electing a Council and an Executive Committee, charged
with the transaction of general business, the appointment of officers,
and the formation of branch committees. The last-mentioned work
has already been commenced. It was intended that it should have
been deferred until after this meeting ; but the response to the
invitation of the Provisional Committee was so great that it was
found necessary to form branch committees without delay, and
branches have accordingly been constituted in London, Manchester,
Bradford, Bristol, Leicester, Sheffield, Liverpool, Leeds, Hudders
field, Exeter, Bath, Warrington, Devonport, Carlisle, Merthyr
Tydvil, Wednesbury, South Hants, and the Isle of Wight.
With reference to the funds necessary for carrying on the
operations of the League, it was thought desirable to abstain from
issuing an appeal until after the general meeting of members ; but
a number of gentlemen, having the work strongly at heart, have
offered the sums undermentioned, payable by annual instalments
extending over ten years :—
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
G. Dixon, M.P., Birmingham....................... .£1,000
A. Brogden, M.P., Ulverstone ................... 1,000
E. L. Chance, Birmingham........................... 1,000
J. Chamberlain, Birmingham ....................... 1,000
Joseph Chamberlain, Birmingham ............... 1,000
G. B. Lloyd, Birmingham ........................... 1,000
A. Field, Birmingham.................................... 1,000
Follett Osler, F.E.S., Birmingham............... 1,000
W. Middlemore, Birmingham....................... 1,000
Archibald Kenrick, Birmingham ............... 1,000
F. S. Bolton, Birmingham ............................ 1,000
Edmund Potter, M.P., Carlisle...................
500
T. Kenrick, Birmingham................................
500
William Kenrick, Birmingham ...................
500
J. Arthur Kenrick, Birmingham...................
500
�27
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
John Jaffray, Birmingham...........................
Harold Lees, Manchester................................
William Dudley, Birmingham ...................
John Webster, Birmingham .......................
H. Swinglehurst, Milnthorpe .......................
500
400
200
200
110
As regards the general meeting of members, it is thought
desirable that it shall be held annually in different parts of the
kingdom. It is proposed that the Council, to be chosen at each
annual meeting, shall be a consultative body, assembling at such
intervals and in such places as may be required, and shall include
all Members of Parliament who may join the League, large donors
to the funds of the association, and at least one representative of
each branch committee. A body so numerous, and consisting of
persons so widely scattered, being obviously too large for the
transaction of current business, it is proposed to appoint an Execu
tive Committee, to whom, subject to resolutions of the annual
meeting, and the general revision of the Council, shall be entrusted
the conduct of the business of the League. This Committee will
meet at the central offices of the League in Birmingham.
The work of the League will be to collect and disseminate
through its various branches, by means of meetings, publications,
lectures, and otherwise, all available information on the subject of
education; to stimulate discussion upon educational reforms; to
create and guide public opinion; to influence Members of Parlia
ment through their constituents ; to hasten and strengthen the
action of Government; and to promote the adoption by the Legis
lature of measures which shall ensure the education of every child
in the country, and which shall provide instruction so accessible
and so graduated that the child of the poorest artisan shall have it
within his power to fit himself for any position capable of being
attained by a citizen of the United Kingdom. To this work the
members of the League have set themselves with a serious convic
tion of its vital importance, and under a sense of personal
responsibility and public duty ; and to this work they intend to
remain constant until it is accomplished, and the reproach and curse
Qf ignorance is wiped away from the land.
�28
TREASURER’S REPORT.
Birmingham, October 8th, 1869.
I have to report that the donations and subscriptions already
received amount to £1,212 10s. 6d. The orders made upon me for
payments are £418 19s., leaving a balance in hand of £793 11s. 6d.
There are liabilities incurred amounting to nearly £600, including
the expenses incidental to the general meeting, and the publication
•of the report of its proceedings.
JOHN JAFFRAY, Treasurer.
The Venerable Archdeacon Sandford said : Mr. Chairman and
gentlemen,—I have been requested to move the adoption of the
concise and lucid and complete report which has just been read to
you; and when I tell you that I am labouring under a serious
attack of indisposition, I am sure you will feel that my presence on
this platform to-day is a proof of my deep and continued interest
in the all-important question which we are met to discuss. I
deeply feel the honour which on this occasion is conferred on me,
and the responsibility which I incur in coming forward to move
the adoption of the report, and I wish to keep distinctly before
my own mind and before yours the object proposed by this Educa
tion League, which justifies, I believe, the course that you and I are
about to adopt. It is to provide the means of education for every
child in England and Wales—that is, to supply education, the best
gift that can be bestowed on any human being, to the multitudes
of the children of our native land who are at this moment ignorant
of those essential truths which are to qualify them for the duties
of this life and for the hopes of a better. I remember hearing it
observed by the late Lord Brougham, some years ago, in the House
of Lords, that he had never met a Frenchman of any condition or
occupation whatever, who did not consider that, after the Emperor,
he was himself the fittest and the sole man to solve the constitu
tional difficulties, and to work out the political destiny of his country.
Now, I am not so aspiring or so self-reliant, but you can understand
that no man can have been connected as a pastor of the people, as
I have been, for more than thirty years, with the education of the
�29
children of the poor, without having rny own views upon this allmomentous subject, and even believing that I could suggest to you
a scheme preferable to that which has been elaborated by my friend
Mr. Dixon and his provisional committee. But in our excellent
chairman we have a commander-in-chief who is not only sagacious
and vigilant, but whom I have found to be inexorable, and what
ever discussions have taken place in the Council, he will allow no
divergence of opinion whatever on the eve of battle and in the
face of the foe. To this very judicious decision I most meekly
submit. My consolation is the belief that in the discussions
which will ensue there will be found gentlemen less compliant,
who will be sure to bring forward and to press those very
objections and those very preferences which have occurred to
myself. Gentlemen, we stand in the presence of an overwhelming
necessity, and of a great national danger, and that necessity
and that danger are involved in the fact, as you have heard
in this luminous report, that there are thousands and tens of
thousands of the children of our people, for whom we are responsible
in the sight of God and man, who are the outcasts, the pariahs of
society, who are growing up without any moral influences whatever
being brought to bear on them, and who in the course of a few
years must constitute a very large and important portion of the
community, invested with legal rights, which they may use for the
injury of themselves and the destruction of society. Now, that is
my reason for keeping back any preferences and objects of my own,
and coming forward, as I believe I ought to do on this occasion,
to endorse the report which has been read to you. What
we want to do is to give the means of education to all those
wretched children ; and it is quite clear from what has been uttered
here, and what has appeared in many and voluminous publications,
that the voluntary system, however admirable it may be, has utterly
failed in providing what is required ; yes, and the character of the
education imparted is very deficient indeed. Well, now, to secure
universal education for our people, I have long believed that we
must have compulsory education. And this is no new light that
has broken upon me since this Education League was proposed,
because I advocated compulsory education months ago, at Man
�30
Chester. Well, then, to have compulsory education you must have
a rate, and to have a rate you must have—I will not call it
secular education, for I abhor the term, and I do not like the
phrase adopted in this report, “ unsectarian education;” I very
much prefer the term “ undenominational education.” It is quite
dear that in a country like ours, with our various denominational
churches, and with our many differences in point of religion, it
will be quite impossible to have an education supported by rate
unless you have the teaching undenominational. Now, with regard
to the rate itself, I believe—and I know that it is the conviction
of many of the inspectors of schools in the country-—that it is
required to compel employers, and to compel parents who do not
discharge their duties in this respect, to bear their portion of the
burden. I am quite satisfied that very many severe things will be
said of your platform. We shall be told, no doubt, that it is a
godless scheme; that it is a revolutionary scheme; that it is a
scheme utterly unsuited to the taste and the feeling of the British
people; that it cannot succeed, that if it is carried out it will flood
the land with a number of atheists and infidels, who will be the
curse of society; that we are departing from the course of duty;
yes, and that we deserve very severe vituperation ourselves because
we have the effrontery to propose this scheme to the public. All I
can say is this, that after a man at my time of life has been pronounced
sacrilegious and an atheist because he has presumed to utter an
opinion not upon a religious but upon a political question, he
becomes rather callous, and is prepared to do his duty, and, if needs
must be, to stand alone, whatever may be said of him by ignorant and
interested parties. I am now about to allude, not towhat is propounded
in this place, and of which for the first time I received a statement
to-day, but to another scheme, which was brought forward a little
time ago with a great flourish of trumpets; and that is, that all
religious sections of the kingdom should be paid to bring up the
children of their denominations in the strictest tenets of their own
faith. Now I confess that I utterly object to that proposition. I
have a very great and affectionate respect for my friend Mr. Vince;
I have an equally great and affectionate respect for my friend
Mr. George Dawson; but I am not prepared to endorse their
�31
theological opinions or to pay for them, for my theological
platform is different from theirs. This scheme, as it appears to me,
proposes that the children of Mr. Vince’s denomination should be
taught, and that the State should provide the means—I suppose
by rate—for their being taught, that Christian baptism is a
delusion ■ and that the children of the school of Mr. Dawson
should be taught that the Christian priesthood is a sham ; yes, and
that the children in Jewish schools should be taught, at the
expense of the State, that the author of Christianity himself is an
impostor. I believe that the proposal of the League, which, at what
ever risk, I am prepared to endorse, shows me to be a much more
sound and conscientious Churchman than he is who professes the
other scheme, which, in my belief, could only tend to per
petuate and to intensify those divisions among Christians which
are, and which have been so long, the bane and the scandal of
Christendom. There are other speakers of far more note and of
far more weight than myself who are to address this meeting, and
therefore I will not trouble you with any further observations of
my own. I am to be followed by one that cometh out of Samaria,
which has supplied redoubtable champions in former times ; and I
am proud and happy to be associated with Mr. Dawson in this work
of education. It is, of course, a most unnatural and a most
monstrous conjunction, and one which twenty years ago, perhaps
ten years ago, would have been quite impossible ; when I, perhaps,
■considered Mr. Dawson somewhat of a firebrand, and he used to
remark on me as an ornamental, but not very useful, appendage to
the Church. Ah ! but, God be praised! things move rapidly in
the present day: to that consummation which as citizens and as
Christians we all ought to desire, when good men of all parties
and of all religious creeds can unite together in the cause of a com
mon country and a common humanity. I have had brought strongly
before me the teachings and example of one who, though himself
born and bred a Jew, though he maintained that salvation was of
the Jews, though he protested against every conceivable form of
error, and at last died a martyr to the truth, yet was on friendly
terms with Samaritans, and has set forth in the Book of Books a
Samaritan as the grand type of practical benevolence for the imita
�tion and admiration of the Church and the world throughout all
time. Before that sublime and magnificent example I bow in loving
adoration. I wish to be imbued with that spirit. I wish to tread
in those footprints, and therefore I rejoice to-day to come forward
to co-operate with my Nonconformist brethren in an endeavour to
redeem and to raise the outcasts of society who are left at this
moment lying in wretchedness and in the dark, and who, but for
this intervention, I believe in God, would be left to perish without
instruction, without moral instincts, without any moral or religious
knowledge at all.
Mr. George Dawson : It is not for me to enter into the reasons
why I have been asked to second this resolution, though I guess it
is because on this question there is no man that holds more extreme
■views than I do. It is certain that if I state my views, I shall
state all yours, and, with regard to many of you, a great deal more
besides. Courtesy demands that I should reciprocate the kindness
of the Archdeacon. He has told you he has ceased to regard me as
a firebrand. Well, I have long since ceased to regard him as
a fogey. We have made mutual concessions ; and it gives me,
as I am sure it gives you, pleasure to see a man so eminent in
the Church discharge the duty of a true leader of the people,
opening his eyes widely and clearly to know the signs of the
times; for his Master and mine pronounced a severe condemna
tion upon those leaders of the people who are unable to know the
signs of the times. One word of congratulation, and that is that
we have advanced. We have not to argue that the poor have a right
to be educated, or ought to be educated. That is gone by. So far,
we have got through the meeting without any gentleman telling
us the difference between instruction and education. That used to
be a stumbling block. We have got to this proposition—th at every
child in this nation ought to be taught. We hold the doctrine of the
family life of the nation. I believe the majority of you do feel as
I do, that every ragged, filthy, untaught, cursing, blaspheming child
should be looked upon as a child of our household, and should bring
shame and disgrace upon us. I would that at heart you and I could
say with him of old, “ Mine eyes run down with tears for the
iniquities of my people.” But at all events we have come to see
�33
that there is no human remedy hut education, and that education
is always good, he it little or much. We dismiss Mr. Alexander
Pope’s couplet about drinking deep or not touching at all as a piece
of antiquated nonsense. We bow, with great respect, those clergy
out of our road, represented by one in this town, who once said
that unless he could have religious education he would shut up the
schoolhouse, put the key in his pocket, and walk away. We have
most of us got rid of that foolish distinction between sacred
and secular. We believe all knowledge to be of God, and
therefore towards good. I believe that he who teaches two
letters of the alphabet to a child who yesterday knew but one, has
furthered that child’s chances of future instruction, and of all
well-being. These things we have not to discuss. A word of
warning : I shall go ' further than you will follow; but, in a
discussion like this, ill-temper would he out of place, and large
allowance for individualism is what we require. We all mean the
same thing, only we travel different paces. We all wish to lay the
foundation of a national educational system. It must be laid with
lucid simplicity and with great breadth, to bear the strain of the
future. We are not here to patch existing systems—-to patch the
garment of semi-charity and semi-ecclesiasticism, which forms a
large part of the present education, but to lay a broad system, by
declaring at once that the world—by which I mean all people that
do not call themselves the Church—has its rights, and that the
world is not to be governed by the good people in anything which
belongs entirely to the world. All men whose opinion is of valuehave come to know that what for present purposes we call secular
education is an affair of the world—an affair of the nation—acting
through its Government. We have got rid of some bugbears—we
are no longer afraid of the Government. This used to be, perhaps, a
necessity; but it is a disgrace if it remains so now. What is the
Government of this country 1 It is the nation itself. There is no
antagonism between the people and the Government now. We
are not here to bury the voluntary principle—its great supporters
buried it long ago. We have lived to hear the recantations of a
Miall and a Baines—to hear them declare that their mistakes about
voluntaryism were what we all knew them to be—well
c
�34
intentioned ; and that voluntaryism is quite an inadequate basis for
a national system. A national system must be laid in simplicity,
and it must be paid for by rates. I am a lover of rates myself. I
was never guilty of that “ ignorant impatience” of taxation which
a great statesman once spoke of. I like to see the tax-gatherer
come, provided the ends to which the taxes are devoted are holy
and noble, and it will be one of the pleasantest sights when the
tax-gatherer comes to lay upon me the noble hand of national com
pulsion, to pay a rate in order that every child in the nation
shall be educated. But, remember, rates mean compulsion. I
hope most of you have done with compulsion as a bugbear. All
life is compulsion. Society is based upon compulsion. What is
government but law made compulsory ? Happy the man who
by-and-by shall escape from the necessities of compulsion, and do
that from the law of liberty which at first he must be made to do
with reluctance. I like rates because they touch everybody,
because I get hold of the fat and selfish manufacturer and
touch him up, because I lay hold of the man that visits no
church and visits no chapel, and make him pay; and I advocate
not only local rates but national taxation for educational purposes.
It is time that a good deal of work that the religious bodies have
burdened themselves with should be given over to the world.
Let society do its own business. What is going on just now is
an operation like what goes on when sheep get mixed. There is
a meeting of shepherds to look over the flocks, and each selects
his own sheep. We have just restored to the Church a sheep
that had got into the State fold. We have handed to the volun
tary principle—to the good people—the Irish Church. Marked
with the sign of the cross, that sheep belonged to the Church, and
it has been restored. Now our turn comes—I mean the world ;
for I never profess anything more than that. Looking over the
Church flock we find a sheep there that belongs to us, and that
is education—theprimary education of the nation. It does not
belong to the Church in any sense—it belongs to the whole
nation. It belongs to the Government, and ought to be done
by the Government. I have no more notion of sectarian
education, or denominational education, in the sense of mere
j
�35
primary instruction, than I have of a denominational wate rcart
or a sectarian vaccinator. What has our history been for years
but the putting of sheep into the right fold ? I am old enough
to remember when nobody could be married except they went
to Church. I sat once at supper with a High Churchman who
asked me whether I was married or not ? I said I was. “ Who
married you ?” I named the person. “ A priest in' the true sue.
cession ?” “ Oh dear, no.” Said he, “You are not married at all.”
I said, “ What am I ?” “ You are only joined together.” “ Well,”
I said, “ as a practical man, for me that will do.” By degrees
society found out that marriage did not belong to priests, and we
established civil marriage. For those who wish to be married in
Church, liberty ; for those who do not, liberty also. Why must
a man be married in the name of a God he does not believe in ?
Why should a Jew be compelled to invoke a Trinity he despises
and abhors ? As to compulsory matters, there is the vaccination
question. Is education, in the sense in which we use the word—the
education about which we are all agreed, the education that relates
to this life—is that a matter that the State should now kindly take
out of the Church’s hand, and do for itself ? I say it is. And
with that education the clergy have no more to do as a matter of
right than the parish doctor or the parish lawyer. I for one am
profoundly thankful to clergy of all sorts for what they have done.
If the squirearchy and the nobility and gentry of England had done
their duty half as well as the clergy, old England would be further
advanced than to be only now laying the foundation stone of a
national system of education. The poor Dissenting minister has
done his duty. He has not had the chances of the Church, but it
was often the poor Nonconformist man who held up the flag of true
liberty, and maintained the fundamental principle of all just poli
tics—“ Do unto others as ye would that they should do
unto you.” Now, however, it is time that the matter should be
taken out of the hands of clergy and ministers. Why should the
Church educate the world in matters about which the world is
entirely capable of looking after itself ? Religious people have quite
enough to do without this. What an advantage it will be to you
Churchmen, if we take all this business, and leave your purse and
�36
your time free ! And, instead of our system being contrary to the
interests of religion, it is the best system for forwarding it. I have
been connected with Sunday schools all my life. We get a child
for an hour and a half every Sunday morning professedly to teach
it religion. The child does not know the alphabet. The hour and
half is spent in the painful attempt to teach it what the world ought
to have done. What an opportunity for those of you who set store
by these things, to pour in the precious dogmas of your theology
into minds which we have made open and receptive ! I have heard
that when the Pope washes the feet of beggars somebody first takes
off the worst of the dirt. We will take these dirty, ignorant children
and take the worst of the dirt off before we hand them over to you
to touch them up with the diaper! To argue that between knowledge
of any kind and true religion there can be any real hostility, would
be to assume that we are speaking to fossils, and not to men who
discern the signs of the times. We want compulsion • we want
rates. If we have rates, we must have free schools ; and if this
system be once adopted, the existing system must go, by a slow,
sure, and I hope, painless form of extinction• and who will regret
it if a wiser thing be put in its place ? For I trust none of you
are idolators, worshippers of mere means. I should be sorry to
think that the interests of your little denominational school weighed
more with you than the interests of the nation. Our people are
ill-taught. Our children die at a rate which is shameful and dis
graceful. Our people live in filth and disease. Large parts of
our great cities are a shame and disgrace, and the odours of cor
poreal nastiness interfere even with the propagation of the Gospel.
We believe we have a remedy for all this ; and, being an extreme
man, I prophesy that, in the end—and that end not distant—
our schools will be supported by rates • and that means com
pulsion, and it means that the schools must be purely secular. Dis
guise it as you may, to that complexion you must come at last. If
we attempt to make school rates to support denominational schools,
we shall have, in fact, our old friend the church-rates back again,
and some John Giles, of Bungay, will go to prison rather than pay
and members of the Society of Friends will allow their umbrellas
to be seized. It is not pleasant to hear how quietly and coolly
�37
the religions world assumes that it has a right to have its dogmas
and doctrines taught. I and many others begin to doubt whether
we ought to pay for your doctrines. I am a Latitudinarian avowedly.
Why should I pay to have done on the week days what I spend
all my Sundays endeavouring to undo ? Is it not time that the
little children should not be plagued with the reverse of what the
scholarship of England and the right learning of the Church have
shown to be the only things that a scholar can hold ? If gentle
men present can show you that Moses did not write the whole of the
Pentateuch, am I to be compelled to pay for telling children that
he did ? Is it not time that children should not build up what it
will be their first duty when they are older to pull down ? Have
not some of us gone through that bitter and painful process of
taking our fathers’ creed slowly down ? And do we not know what
it costs ? Is it pleasant for a man to have to forsake the creed
of his youth? Is the process so agreeable that it is right to
subject the children of this country to it ? Why am I to pay for
teaching a child—as it is stated in a catechism which I shall not name
—that for His good pleasure and greater glory, God elected certain
people to reprobation ? I am willing to pay for teaching the things
about which we are agreed. When they go out of school you
shepherds can catch them, and take them to the fold. Teach them
what you think proper, but do not ask me to pay for that part.
Short of what I have stated I shall not be satisfied, but I shall
travel with you on the same road as far as you will go with me ;
and I hope you will make allowance for me if I go farther
than you do. Compulsory, national, secular education—that is my
faith.
The resolution adopting the report was then put and carried
unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS, COUNCIL, AND
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., rose to move the appointment of
the officers, Council, and Executive Committee. He said : I must at
once frankly admit that though I have joined the League, I do not,
like some of our friends who have spoken before me, agree with every
�proposition that it has laid down. Yet, as I say, I have joined the
League, and having joined it faithfully and loyally, I mean to do
what I can to assist it upon its hroad and general principles, hut
still holding myself free to go even farther than the League itself.
I, like my friend Mr. Dawson, am an extreme man; hut perhaps
I view the question from a different point from that of any other
speaker. I am hound to view it more as a representative of
the people than as a philanthropist, and I look upon the
question as one of great political and social moment. It is a
political question of great urgency and great danger; and my
feeling in joining the League was that by meetings and con
ferences like the present public opinion may be fully and clearly
expressed, and that by it we may be able to force the Govern
ment to give a sound and comprehensive measure of education.
And I say frankly, that to my mind no measure would be
sound or comprehensive or satisfactory which did not at least
go as far as the principles of your League. Upon the political
point of the question, let me say that I look upon the present
state of the country with very great dread. I am not going to
trouble you with statistics, but just to say this : that it is well
known—and it is admitted by men competent to form an
accurate opinion—that of the twenty millions of population in
England and Wales no less than four millions are in a state
of crime, ignorance, misery, vice, and pauperism. Now, what
is the cause of this ? In my opinion it is simply this—that
hitherto education has never touched, or has scarcely touched, the
classes comprised in those four millions. True, there are some few
charitable institutions which have gone below a certain line; but
still there is a hard and fast line below which denominationalism
has never gone—cannot go. And for what reason? Simply
because it is denominational. Denominational institutions are
all supported by the subscriptions of the different sects and by
Government grants, but below that dark black line to which I have
referred there are no subscriptions at all. Denominationalism
cannot permeate to that depth where there is scarcely any religion,
if any at all. Yet I won’t say that there is no religion at all;
for I am convinced that every man has a religion of some sort, if
�39
it is only a strong faith, in another world where, perhaps, there
might he a better chance for him, and where he might change places
with us who are better off. Now, in regard to the line below
which denominationalism does not go, let me say that religious
bodies have never, or at least in very few instances, been able
to get deeper than that line. In Bethnal Green, where there is
a population of 180,000 people, there are only 2,000 people who
are known ever to go to a place of worship. That 2,000 is
just the class which denominationalism can touch, and it
can touch no more. What is the remedy for this ? I believe
it is a purely secular system of education. With a secular
system you may, I believe, carry out education amongst the
classes below the line, and having educated these three or four
millions, surely religious teachers might easily follow. Indeed,
there would be opened up to them an opportunity which they never
had before. But we must have a wide-spread education amongst
these classes to which I refer. Is it not remarkable as a
social question, that in a commercial community like this, with
perfect free trade, strong competition, and the greater part of our
wealth springing from trade—that in such a community four
millions of people should have been so long allowed to remain
in a state of ignorance ? All the results of our labour in that
respect have been lost—completely lost ! Now, how can we cure
this evil? You can only cure it by education. The greater
part of the vice and misery amongst the lower classes arises
simply from ignorance; and it is only by teaching those classes
to help themselves that you will get a cure for the evil. Now, I
am perfectly well aware that a Bill will be brought into the House
of Commons next session, but I am afraid that that Bill—judging
by those who are to frame it—will fall very far short of our expec
tations. I hope, therefore, that those Members of Parliament who
have joined this League will be prepared—for this is not a party
question, and ought not to be made one—to bring in a Bill of their
own, and to force the question to the greatest possible extent. If
we do not accomplish the whole of our object, which is to obtain
a complete system of compulsory, secular, and free education,
we shall at least have made a step towards its attainment.
�40
Concede compulsion, and a free and secular education must
inevitably follow. We have seen how little progress has
been made up till now. In point of fact, as I said before, the
present system has stopped at a certain line. Its results have
increased only five per cent, during the last five years. Look
ing to the increase in population and wealth during that period,
it is a really astounding result. And I am perfectly satisfied
that there the results of the system must rest. When the
different points of the question of compulsory secular education
come to be discussed, I shall be glad to offer opinions; but I may
just say that I myself have worked under compulsion for the last
thirty or forty years. The working of the Factory Acts in
some respects has been very good, but in the matter of education
they have failed most lamentably. And why is that ? Because
we have no free schools to which to send our children. It is a per
fect farce to say to parents “ Educate your children,” when the only
possible way of getting education is by a charge of 2d. per week
upon them. The Factory Acts have completely failed in sending
large numbers of children to school, except in those cases in which
masters have taken a Christian interest in their workpeople and
have provided education for the children. I am perfectly satisfied
that if we determine to bring in a Bill we shall not find the plan of
organization or the settlement of the details to be at all difficult
To my mind, this question comes only second in importance to the
Irish question; and it behoves us therefore to set earnestly and at
once to work. I don’t myself see why we should wait a single
session for the Bill; and if members of Parhament will only work
for it as hard and as zealously as they did over the Bankruptcy Bill
and one or two other measures of last session, the whole thing may
be carried next session. I now beg to move the following formal
resolution :
That the following gentlemen be the officers of the League for
the ensuing year :—
George Dixon, Esq., M.P., Chairman.
Jesse Collings, Esq, Hon. Secretary.
John Jaffray, Esq., Treasurer.
�41
That the Council of the League consist of—
(1)—All Members of the League who are Members of Parliament,
comprising at present: —
The Right Hon. the Earl of Portsmouth
Anstruther, Sir Robert, Bart., M. P. for Fifeshire
Armitstead, G., M.P. for Dundee
Bass, M. Arthur, M.P. for Stafford
Beaumont, Somerset, M.P. for Wakefield
Bright, Jacob, M.P. for Manchester
Brocklehurst, W. C., M.P. for Macclesfield
Brogden, Alexander, M.P. for Wednesbury
Campbell, H., M.P. for Stirling
Carter, R. M., M.P. for Leeds
Clement, W. J., M.P. for Shrewsbury
Dalrymple. Donald, M.P. for Bath
Dilke, Sir Charles Wentworth, Bart., M.P. for Chelsea
Dixon, George, M.P. for Birmingham
Fawcett, H., M.P. for Brighton
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund, M.P. for Caine
Gower, Lord Rowland Leveson, M. P. for Sutherland
Grieve, J. 0., M.P. for Greenock
Grosvenor, Captain The Hon. R. W., M.P. for Westminster
Hoare, Sir Henry A., Bart., M.P. for Chelsea
Howard, James, M.P. for Bedford
Hughes, T., M.P. for Frome
Lome, The Marquis of, M. P. for Argyleshire
Melly, G., M.P. for Stoke-on-Trent
Miall, Edward, M.P. for Bradford
Mitchell, S. A., M.P. for Bridport
Morgan, George Osborn, Q.C., M.P. for Denbeighshire
Morrison, W., M. P. for Plymouth
Mundella, A. J., M.P. for Sheffield
Muntz, P. H., M.P. for Birmingham
Parry, T. L. D. J., M.P. for Carnarvonshire
Platt, J., M.P. for Oldham
Playfair, Dr. Lyon, C. B., M.P. for Edinburgh, &c. Universities.
Potter, Edmund, F.R.S., M.P. for Carlisle.
Price, W. E., M.P. for Tewkesbury.
Price, W. P., M.P. for Gloucester.
Rylands, Peter, M.P. for Warrington.
Samuelson, Bernhard, M.P. for Banbury.
Seely, Charles, M.P. for Nottingham.
Simon, John, Serjeant-at-Law, M.P. for Dewsbury.
�42
Sykes, Col.W.H., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.R.G.S., M.P. for Aberdeen.
Taylor, P.A., M.P. for Leicester.
Wedderburn, Sir David, Bart., M.P. for South Ayrshire.
Williams, Watkin, M.P. for Denbigh.
Winterbotham, H. S. P., M.P. for Stroud.
(2) —AR Donors to the funds of the League of £590. and upwards,
comprising at present: —
Bolton, F. S., Birmingham.
Brogden, A., M.P., Ulverstone.
Chamberlain, J., Moor Green Hall.
Chamberlain, Jos., Birmingham.
Chance, R. L., Birmingham.
Dixon, Geo., M.P., Birmingham.
Field, A., Birmingham.
Jaffray, John, J.P., Birmingham.
Kenrick, A., Birmingham.
Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Birmingham.
Kenrick, T., Birmingham.
Kenrick, Wm., Birmingham.
Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham.
Middlemore, W., Birmingham.
Osler, Clarkson, Birmingham.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Phillips, Aiderman, Birmingham.
Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle.
(3) —One Representative from each Branch of the League ;
And the following ladies and gentlemen, namely:—
Abbott, E. A., M.A., St. John’s Wood, London.
Ackworth, Rev. James, L.L.D., Scarborough.
Albright, Arthur, Edgbaston.
Allman, Professor George J., F.R.S., University of Edinburgh.
Ambler, Councillor John, Walmer Villas, Bradford.
Angus, Rev. Joseph, D.D., Regent’s Park College, London.
Anstey, T. Chisholm, Temple, London.
Applegarth, Robert, Stamford Street, London.
Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester.
Baines, John, Mayor of Leicester.
Bain, Alexander, Professor of Logic, University of Aberdeen.
Barlow, James Mayor of Bolton.
Barmby, Rev. Goodwyn, Wakefield.
Bazley, Charles H., J.P., Manchester.
�43
Beal, Councillor Michael, Sheffield.
Beales, Edmond, M.A., Lincoln’s Inn, London.
Beard, Bev. Charles, B.A., Liverpool.
Becker, Miss Lydia E., Manchester.
Belsey, F. H., Rochester.
Bennett, J. N., Plymouth.
Bessemer, Henry, Denmark Hill, London.
Best, Hon. and Rev. Samuel, M.A., Andover, Hampshire.
Binns, Rev. William, Devonport.
Birks, Rev. John, Kingswood Parsonage, near Alvechurch.
Bond, Francis T., M.D., Southampton.
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bowring, Sir John, LL.D., Exeter.
Brodie, Dr., Edinburgh.
Brown, John, J.P., Merionethshire.
Brodie, E. H., Inspector of Schools, London.
Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington, near Warwick.
Brodrick, the Hon. George, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford.
Brock, G. B., J.P., Swansea.
Brown, Aiderman E. R., Plymouth.
Brown, Potto, Houghton.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Burch, A. E., J.P., Bedford.
Butcher, William, Bristol.
Butler, Mrs., Liverpool.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Grammar School, Bristol.
Campbell, Rev. Dr., Bradford.
Carpenter, Rev. J. Estlin, M.A., Leeds.
Carson, W. H., Warminster.
Chadwick, Edwin, C.B., Mortlake, Surrey.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Churchill, Lord A. S., 16, Rutland Gate, London.
Clark, John F., Tarland, Aberdeenshire.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Clarke, E. G., Bristol.
Clarke, Joseph, J.P., Southampton.
Collier, W. F., Plymouth.
Cockburn, Mr. Councillor John T., Carlisle.
Cowen, Councillor Joseph, jun., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Collins, Councillor Henry, M.D., Wolverhampton.
Conway, M. D., Notting Hill Square, London.
Courtauld, Samuel, Essex.
Courtauld, George, near Halstead, Essex.
«
�Coxe, Sir James, M.D., F.R.S., Murrayfield, Edinburgh.
Cremer, W. R., George Street, Euston Road.
Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Darnton, Rev. P. W., B.A., Newport, Monmouthshire.
Darwin, C. E., Southampton.
Davies, Jesse Conway, M.D., F.A.S., Holywell, Flintshire.
Davis, Rev. John, Tonmawr, Neath, Glamorganshire.
Dawson, G., M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Deykin, W. H., Edgbaston.
Dick, A. H., M.A., L.L.B., Normal College, Glasgow.
Dixon, Joshua, Winslade, Exeter.
Dowson, Rev. H. E., B.A., Gee Cross, Manchester.
Drake, W., M.A., Hon. Canon of Worcester.
Dyster, Frederic D., M.D., F.L.S., J.P., Tenby.
Eadie, Robert, C.E., LL.D., F.R.G.S., London.
Emanuel, Rev. G. J., B.A., Edgbaston.
Emerson, George R., Editor of Weekly Dispatch.
Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College,Oxford.
Evans, William H., M.A., J.P., Forde Abbey, Dorsetshire.
Everett, J. D., M.A., D.C.L., Queen’s College, Belfast.
Falconer, Thomas, F.G.S., County Court Judge, Usk.
Fallows, W., J.P., Middlesbro’.
Faunthorpe, J. P., M.A., St. John’s College, Battersea.
Fawcett, Mrs., The Close, Salisbury.
Ferguson, Robert M., Carlisle.
Fleming, A., M.D., Birmingham.
Foster, Michael, F.R.C.S., Huntingdon.
Foster, Dr. Michael, London University.
Foster, G. C., B.A,, F.R.S., University College.
Fowle, Rev. T. W., M.A., Cambridge Place, London.
Fry, Herbert, Editor of “ Our Schools,” &c., London.
Fuller, W. M., Wolverhampton.
Fuller, Rev. A. G., Wolverhampton.
Gairdner, W. 8., M.D., Glasgow.
George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Goodeve, H. H., M.D., Bristol.
Gotch, F. W., L.L.D., Baptist College, Bristol.
Grant, David, Ecclesall College, Sheffield.
Grayson, Charles, Liverpool.
Greenbank, Professor, L.L.D., Manchester.
Grenfell, J. G., B.A., Birmingham.
Grinrod, R. B., M.D., L.L.D., Malvern.
�45
Groome, William, B.A., F.G.S., Bedford.
Guise, Sir William Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester.
Hall, Rev. Edward, M.A., Eton College.
Hammond, James L., M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Camb.
Hanham, Captain, J., R.N., near Blandford, Dorsetshire.
Hankin, C. W., M.A., Grammar School, Southampton.
Hansard, Rev. S., M.A., Bethnal Green, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Hatton, Thomas S., Wednesbury.
Haycroft, Rev. Nathaniel, M.A., D.D., Leicester.
Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington.
Herbert, the Hon. A., London.
Hicks, Wm., Salisbury.
Hildick, John, Mayor of Walsall.
Hill, Rev. Micaiah, Braithwaite Road, Edgbaston.
Hill, Sir Rowland, London.
Hinks, John, Edgbaston.
Hodges, J. T., M.D., F.C.S., Queen’s College, Belfast.
Hodgson, W. B., L.L.D., Grove End Road, London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Holland, Samuel, J.P., Glanwilliam, Tan-y-Bwlch.
Holyoake, G. J., Waterloo Chambers, London.
Hoppus, Rev. John, L.L.D., F.R.S., Camden Street, London.
Horton, Rev. H. H., M.A., Gerrard Street, Birmingham.
Howard, Hon. George, Haworth Castle, Brampton, Cumberland.
Howard, Rev. W. W., H.M. Inspector of Schools, Exeter.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Hutton, Charles W. C., ex-Slieriff of London.
Howell, George, Buckingham Street, Strand, London.
Huxley, Professor, St. John’s Wood, London.
Jackson, Rev. Edward, M.A., St. James’s, Leeds.
James, Rev. A., Bewdley.
James, Rev. William, Clifton.
Jeaffreson, C. H., Giggleswick Grammar School.
Jevons, Professor W. S., Withington, Manchester.
Jones, Rev. Griffith, Bridgend, Glamorganshire.
Jones, Rev. Hugh, Llangollen.
Jones, Rev. James, Barmouth.
Jones, Rev. T. S., Trewen, Cardiganshire.
Jackson, T. W., Fellow Worcester College, Oxford.
Kane, Sir Robert, L.L.D., F.R.S., Queen’s College, Cork.
Kedwards, Rev. J., Lye Waste, Cradley.
�46
King, William, Queen’s College, Galway.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Eversley Rectory,
Winchfield.
Kirk, John S., Ph. D., M.A., Carnarvon.
Lambert, Rev. Brooke, Whitechapel.
Lampard, Joseph, St. Mark Street, Birmingham.
Langley, J. B., M.R.C.S., F.L.S., Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
Larkin, Rev. E. R., M.A., Burton, near Lincoln.
Leckenby, John, J.P., F.G.S., Scarborough.
Lee, Rev. F. F., D.D., Lancaster.
Lees, Harold, Woodheys, Sale, Manchester.
Leppoc, H. J., Manchester.
Lestrange, Thomas, Belfast.
Levi, Professor Leone, F.S.A., F.S.S., King’s College, London.
Liveing, G. D., M.A., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Lloyd, Sampson, Wednesbury.
Lloyd, Thomas, J.P., Priory, Warwick.
Locket, Joseph, J.P., Dunoon, Argyleshire.
Lowe, T. C., B.A., Handsworth.
Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., London.
Lupton, Darnton, J.P., Leeds.
Lushington, G. Westminster.
Lushington, Vernon, Q.C., Temple.
Lyell, Sir Charles, Bart., L.L.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., London.
M‘Cance, Finlay, J.P., Suffolk, Antrim, Ireland.
MacCarthy, Rev. F. E. M., M.A., Second Master of King
Edward’s School, Birmingham.
Mander, C. B., J.P., Wolverhampton.
Martineau, Robert, J.P., Edgbaston.
Martineau, Russell, M.A., British Museum, London.
Maginnis, Rev. D., Stourbridge.
Manton, Aiderman, Birmingham.
Mason, Hugh, Ashton-under-Lyne
Mason, Josiah, Birmingham.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain R.N., Southampton.
McLaren, Rev. Alexander, Manchester.
McMichael, Rev. N., D.D., Edinburgh.
Miles, Rev. C. P., M.A., F.L.S., Monkwearmouth, Durham.
Millard, J. H., B.A., Huntingdon.
Mills, John, Manchester.
Milner, Edward, Warrington.
Molyneux, William, F.G.S., Burton-on-Trent.
�47
Mottram, Rev. W., Warminster.
Moses, Rev. R. G., B.A., Falmouth.
Muller, Professor Max, University, Oxford.
Murcli, 0. J., Recorder of Barnstaple and Bideford.
Murch, Jerom, Bath.
New, Herbert, Evesham.
Nicholls, John, Mayor of Launceston, Cornwall.
Norrington, Councillor Henry, Exeter.
Odger, George, Bloomsbury, London.
Oram, Richard, Stonehouse, Devonshire.
Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham.
Osborne, Captain Sherard, Hyde Park.
Page, David, L.L.D., F.R.S.E., 38, Gilmore Place, Edinburgh.
Paget, Charles, J.P., Nottingham.
Parker, Rev. J. W., Banbury.
Paul, Rev. C. Regan, Sturminster Marshall, Dorsetshire.
Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Pemberton, Oliver, Birmingham.
Pentecost, J., Stourbridge.
Pinnock, Henry, Newport, Isle of Wight.
Pulsford, Rev. William, D.D., Glasgow.
Purdy, Frederick, F.S.S., Poor Law Board, London.
Prichard, Thomas, M.D., Abington Abbey, Northamptonshire.
■Quain, Dr. Richard, F.R.S., University College, London.
Radford, Wm., Birmingham.
Raffles, J., Birmingham.
Ransome, Robert C., Ipswich.
Rathbone, P. H., Liverpool.
Rawlinson, Robert, C'.B., West Brompton.
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, C.B., Upton-on-Severn.
Reed, E. J., Chief Constructor of the Navy, Whitehall.
Richards, R. C., J.P., Clifton Lodge, near Preston.
Rigby, Samuel, J.P., Warrington.
Ritchie, Rev. W., Liskeard, Cornwall.
Roberts, Rev. J. B., Alnwick, Northumberland.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rogers, Professor J. E. Thorold, Oxford.
Roper, Richard, F.G.S., F.C.S., Cwmbraen, near Newport, Mon.
Roscoe, Professor, Owen’s College, Manchester. •
Rowlands, Rev. David, B.A., Welchpool.
Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham.
Rumney, Aiderman, Manchester.
�48
Sales, Henry H., Leeds.
Salt, Councillor Titus, jun., Bradford.
Sandford, Archdeacon, Alvechurch.
Sandwith, Humphrey, C.B., Denbigh.
Schmitz, L., L. L.D., Ph. D., International College, London.
Scott, Thomas, Ramsgate.
Seeley, Harry G., F.G.S., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Shaen, W., M.A., Bedford Row, London.
Short, Rev. J. L., Kenwood Road, Sheffield.
Sieveking, Edward IL, M.D., Manchester Square, London.
Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil.
Smith, Joseph, M.D., J.P., 'Warrington.
Stansfeld, James, Halifax.
Stanley, the Hon. E. L., Aderley Park, Congleton.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Stock, Rev. John, LL.D., Devonport.
Strut, Rev, J. C., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Style, Rev. George, Giggleswick Grammar School.
Sully, G. B., Mayor of Bridgwater.
Symonds, Rev. W. S., Tewkesbury.
Symonds, Dr., Clifton, Bristol.
Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield.
Teschemaker, Major T. R., Sydenham, Kent.
Thomas, Rev. John, B.A., Huddersfield.
Thomas, Christopher J., J.P., Bristol.
Thomas, Rev. IT. R., Bristol.
Thomas, Rev. W., Llandyssul, Cardiganshire.
Thursfield, James R., Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.
Tichbourne, C. R. C., F.C.S., Dublin.
Tonks, Edmund, B.C.L., Knowle.
Trevelyan, Arthur, J.P., Teynholm, East Lothian.
Trimble, Robert, Liverpool.
Turner, J. P., Handsworth.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Voysey, Rev. Charles, B.A., Healaugh Vicarage.
Webb, C. Locock, Lincoln’s Inn.
Wilson, Rev. H. B., St. Neots.
Williams, Rev. Rowland, LL.D., Broadclialke Vicarage.
Williams, Evan, M.A., Merthyr Tydvil.
Wolstenholme, Miss E. C., Moody Hall, Congleton.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. Barham, M.A., Ipswich.
�49
And that the Executive Committee consist of the Officers and
forty members of the League, namely, the following thirty gentle
men, and ten others to be chosen by them and the officers :—
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bunce, J. Thaekray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Bristol.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dawson, George, M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Ferguson, Major, Carlisle.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London.
Hodgson, W.B., LL.D., London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Howell, George, London.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Kenrick, William, Birmingham.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, Eversley.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain, R.N., Southampton.
Middlemore, William, Birmingham.
Osborne, E. C., Birmingham.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Ryland, Arthur, Birmingham.
Simons, William, Merthyr Tydvil.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. B., M.A., Ipswich.
The Chairman : Dr. Hodgson, of London—one of the five or
six gentlemen who started the Manchester National Association for
Secular Eate-paid Education in 1847—will second the resolution.
Dr. Hodgson : My friend Mr. Potter, who preceded me, has
described the motion as one of form • but still I am sure that it will
be received with that feeling of interest and enthusiasm which .it
properly deserves, both on account of the character of the persons
D
�50
to be appointed and the greatness of the object which they will have
in hand to promote. The list of the Executive Committee contains
a large number of members of Parliament who have distinguished
themselves in various ways ; but this may be said of the body col
lectively, that it is composed almost wholly of gentlemen who have
brought this union to its present position, and what they have
already done is a guarantee of what they may be expected to do.
The best way to prove our gratitude to them for services already
rendered is to call upon them to continue those services, and to come
before us next year with a large account of work done. The
President’s reference to the Manchester Association leads me to say
that although death has thinned the ranks of those who composed
that association for obtaining secular rate-paid education, there still
remains a large number who, instead of looking upon the labours of
this League with jealousy, will hail its co-operation with the greatest
earnestness and enthusiasm, not even desiring to meet it in friendly
rivalry. I beg to second the resolution.
In reply to a gentleman who spoke from the body of the hall,
The President said : In the selection of the names mentioned
in the resolution, the principle of having all parts of the country
represented has been carried out.
Mr. Albright : I should like to know if the name of Mr. G. B.
Lloyd is on the Council.
The President : His name is on it.
Dr. Bligh : The suggestion I would make is that in the place of
the words “ ten gentlemen,” &c., the words “ with power to add to
their number” should be inserted. And I do so for this reason, that
whilst I do not in any way doubt the discretion of the Executive
in nominating these gentlemen to the Council, I consider that as the
movement extends all over the country there is room for the taking
in of a large number of representative men not now on the Council.
I beg to move that suggestion.
The President : The objection to that suggestion is that the
executive body ought to be small. It might under your suggestion
become unwieldy ; but still if it is the wish of the meeting that the
alteration should be made, the Committee, of course, will be very
glad to adopt it.
•
�51
A Gentleman : Perhaps the matter might be got over by making
vice-presidents.
The President : We have no vice-presidents. Vice-presidents
are only ornamental people, and we require no ornamental people
here.
The Rev. H. Solly, of London: I do not see the name of any
Congregational minister on the list. I do not belong to that body
myself; but I know that they are very zealous in the cause of
education, and I think it is only fair that they should be repre
sented.
The President : When we have some Congregational minister
willing to join and work upon the Executive Committee, we shall
be very willing to receive his name and to appoint him. We were
very willing to appoint the Rev. R. W. Dale; but some scruple
upon a minor point has prevented him from joining hitherto. If
Mr. Solly will undertake the duty of inducing that gentleman to
join we shall be very glad. These minor points wiU soon settle
themselves.
The resolution, as altered in accordance with the suggestion of
Dr. Bligh, was put to the meeting and agreed to.
NATIONAL EDUCATION BILL.
Professor Eawcett, M.P. for Brighton, rose to move that a
Bill embodying the principles of the League be introduced into
Parliament. He said: The resolution I have the honour and
pleasure to move will give a pledge to the whole nation that this
League, representing a great and an increasing force of public
opinion, is resolved to adopt practical and decisive action. The
subject of national education has now happily advanced a stage
beyond that of doubt and inquiry; it has reached the stage when it
is ripe for action. The reproach is too often with truth made
against Leagues and Congresses that they begin with talk, they go
on with talk, they end in talk, and that is their only result. But
if from this meeting a Btll shall emanate, the whole country will
then see placed in a practical form, in a definite shape—so definite
that they will be able to express their opinions upon it—what are
the views we hold upon this great question, and how we think
�52
these views may be practically carried out. It may be said, of
course, that Government intends to introduce an Education Bill
next session, and that we who repose confidence in the Govern
ment should wait until we see what its measure is. In reply to
that possible objection to this resolution, it is only necessary to
remark that if the Government measure—I am afraid it is too
bright an anticipation—comes up to what we require, if it
embodies the principles of this League, then all that we shall have
to do will be at once to withdraw the Bill which we introduce into
Parliament, and use the whole strength of this organisation in
support of the Government and its measure. But if, on the
other hand, the Government measure should have in it any
shortcomings which we conceive are antagonistic to the great
principles of this League—we cannot, of course, expect that any
measure will meet our programme in all its detail—but if, for
instance, the Government measure should infringe any of our
great fundamental principles—if it should be too denominational
in its character—if it should commit what, to my mind, is the fatal
mistake of having compulsory rating without compulsory
attendance—then our bill will be before the country, and the
nation will be able to decide—and I think I can anticipate their
decision with confidence—to which measure they will give their
support. Now, it would be idle to deny that it is impossible for
the great body of men who compose this League to be entirely
agreed upon details ; but so long as we can get our great aim and
ends secured, we should, I venture to say, sacrifice our individual
preferences upon minor points; and I for one am prepared on all
questions of detail to give up my own opinions and bow cheerfully
to the sentiments of the majority. Thus I may have my own
opinions as to which would be the best title to adopt—undenomi
national, secular, or unsectarian; but I am perfectly prepared to
accept any one of these three words which the majority of the
League think should be the word in our programme. Then again,
I have a preference for parents paying for the education of their
children, instead of sending them to free schools ; but here again
I am perfectly willing to give up my own individual opinions, and
if the majority of the Conference is in favour of free schools, I,
�53
for one, will not shrink for a moment. What I conceive to he the
fundamental principle of this organisation, what I look upon as
the essential point upon which every one of us must be agreed,
which is the bond of our union, the basis of our existence, is this :
that we are absolutely determined that elementary education shall
be guaranteed to every boy and girl in this country, and that if
there is a deficiency of educational appliances, then schools shall
be built and maintained out of the rates. Upon this fundamental
principle I conceive that there can be no difference whatever
amongst us. Now comes the question, if we are to have a Bill,
what are to be the main principles of this Bill, in order to carry
out compulsory attendance and compulsory rating? As far as I
understand the programme of the League, they contemplate that
the schools—at any rate, in the first instance, the rate-supported
schools—shall be unsectarian, and not secular. For a long time, I
must confess, I found it somewhat difficult to discover the differ
ence between these phrases. I think the best explanation that can
be given of the difference is this: that in the rate-supported
schools no catechism shall be used, no dogmas of religion shall be
taught, but it shall be perfectly optional with the managers of a
school whether, in that school, the Bible shall be read, without
any such comment as persons would object to from sectarian
feeling. Therefore, if we adopt this plan of having unsectarian
schools, I think we at once meet the argument of those who say
that the education we propose will be irreligious. No one, I
think, can pretend to say that the British and Foreign schools in
this country are irreligious schools ; and, to put our meaning about
unsectarian schools in a definite and intelligible form, it seems to
me that what we contemplate is this : there will be nothing
whatever in our programme to prevent the managers of ratesupported schools from making their schools exactly analogous in
their religious character to the schools which at present belong to
the British and Foreign School organisation. These schools are
not irreligious ; they are supported by Nonconformists, who have
shown the greatest enthusiasm, for religion. The second point is
this: Do we propose to deal with existing schools ? We
contemplate, I conceive, leaving existing schools untouched. If
�54
a district or a locality prefer voluntaryism to compulsion—if they
choose by their own efforts to provide themselves with schools
according to the present system, they should have the power to do
so. We only contemplate that the educational rate should be
imposed in those districts in which the Government inspector
reports that the educational appliances are not adequate for the
education of all the children in the locality. Now, the next point
is this : is it better that these schools should he supported by
rates, or from the national exchequer ? I believe some gentlemen
who are entirely in favour of the great principle of compulsory
education have not joined our League because they think that
schools should be supported from the Consolidated Fund, and not
from the rates. In reply to these gentlemen I would only say
thus much—that I believe that if you take money from the
Consolidated Fund there is a chance of its being extravagantly
administered, and that if we made a proposal to take
it from the Consolidated Fund we should at once declare
open war against existing schools, for it would be idle to
pretend that any existing schools could continue if the public
could draw for the support of schools from the Consolidated Fund.
In reply to those gentlemen who are in favour of existing schools,
and wish to see them maintained, we can truly say that there is
nothing whatever in our programme that is in the least degree
antagonistic to those schools. If events should show that ratesupported schools are better, then of course the existing schools
would gradually cease. But it is quite possible to conceive that the
power to levy an educational rate may give a great stimulus to the
existing schools, for it is quite possible that many clergymen and
ministers of religion, who now find it difficult or almost impossible
to support their schools, in consequence of the shabbiness and
stinginess of the landed proprietors, may be able to induce them to
come forward if they can use this practical argument, that, unless
they subscribe, rates will be levied upon them and their tenants.
Therefore it is quite possible in some cases that compulsory rating,
instead of touching the present system, may give it a greater
stimulus and render it far more efficient. The last point, upon
which I should like to say a few words—and I speak upon it chiefly
�55
to show you that I am anxious, as far as possible, to be conciliatory
—is upon the question of free schools. I know there is a very
strong feeling in this League in favour of making education free,
but what I object to in this may be briefly stated in one sentence :
I fear the principle of free education may weaken that sentiment of
responsibility which parents should feel towards their children. I
think we should lay down the doctrine that it is as much the duty
■of the parent to provide his child with education as it is to provide
him with food and clothing. I know it may be said, in reply to my
objections, that in certain extreme cases you support the child upon
the rates—that you will not let children starve, but as a last
resource you maintain them upon the rates. Yes ; but if the parent
refuses to support his child when he has the means to do so, you
say that he shall be punished—he commits a criminal act. Simi
larly I should hold that rather than let a child’s mind be starved, as
a last resource he should be provided with a free education ; but I
should like to see the principle never sacrificed, that if a parent who
has the means to give his child education refuses to do so, he too
should be regarded as being guilty of a criminal act. I know it
may be said every parent will contribute indirectly through the
■rates. There is no doubt some force in that argument; but it
would be equally, just to say it was the duty of the State to feed
and clothe children, and not the duty of parents, because the money
devoted to the purpose would be taken from the taxes, and there
fore parents would in the aggregate contribute. But this after all
is only a detail of the great measure we have in view; and I am per
fectly willing to sacrifice my own individual views. If we introduce
a Bill next session, let me give you one word of advice—let it be
introduced almost the very first day of the session. Anyone who
knows the House of Commons will know the importance of that.
And let it be forced on through all its stages. My short experience
in the House of Commons has taught me that persistence is a most
valuable quality. "When we have prepared this Bill, let us never
abandon it until the Government is prepared to carry a measure
similar to it, or until that day will arrive—and I believe it will
never arrive—when the nation shall unmistakeably express its
'desire that the great problem of national education should be settled
�56
upon principles different from those which form the basis of our
organization. I beg to move, “ That the Executive Council be
instructed to prepare a Bill embodying the principles of this League,
and that that Bill be introduced in the early part of next session.”
Professor Thorold Rogers, seconded the resolution, He said :
When I entered again into your town of Birmingham, the first little
phenomenon that came before my attention was the conclusion of
an article in a local paper, that article being, I make no doubt,
exceedingly intelligent and instructive. It was to the effect that,
if we who compose together the body of this Education League
should succeed in proving our point, should show that we had not
hitherto been the decided enemies of education, but that we
intend—I am only paraphrasing the language of the article—a
vast public good, then the editor of this paper, and I suppose
those who read it, will quite abandon for ever the opposition which
they feel towards us, and come over to our side. Now, I am not in
a position to determine the exact numerical value of this possible
conversion. I dare say it will be very considerable. But even if
it be small, ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have reason to
congratulate ourselves ; because our main object—or at least, one
of our main objects—is the reformation of the dangerous classes.
Now, gentlemen, the central point of our Bill, of the movement which
We propose, is the object with which the whole statement of the pur
poses of this National League commences : the establishment of a
system which shall secure the education of every child in the
country. That, I repeat, is the central point, the great object,
the true meaning that we have in all that we say and undertake.
For my part, I think that if we can only achieve the general accep
tance of this principle, all the other points—points of detail—
which have been adverted to in the report readjust now, and which
may hereafter come up for consideration, will follow as a matter of
logical necessity. I entirely agree with my friend Mr. Potter, and
the previous speaker, that if we establish a compulsory system of
education, it is a matter of necessity that that compulsory
education should be supplied, in some form or other, from
public funds. I also agree entirely with Mr. Potter, that if you do
establish a system of compulsory education, the machinery of which
�57
is supplied from the public funds, it must inevitably be what people
call secular, unsectarian, undenominational. I feel, ladies and
gentlemen, that to dispute or doubt about the position laid down by
those gentlemen, is to be ignorant of the facts of the society in
which we live; and that whether we like it or not, for the very welldefined reasons glanced at, I was glad to see, by Mr. Dawson, we
must thoroughly accept their necessary and proper conclusion. I
shall not indeed, for I think it is out of question now, enter into
the reasons why I hold these views, differing as I do upon theological
topics at least—as I understand—from Mr. Dawson. Well, that is
the only allusion I shall make to the subject. But anything like a
Permissive Bill would be wholly and hopelessly out of place.
I will here allude to a distinguished individual in the Church to
which I belong—Archdeacon Denison; with whom, by the way,
I do not agree in almost any point whatever. He avowed one
of the finest sentiments I ever heard in my life the other
day, to the effect that all permissive legislation was a hoax,
a sham, and a delusion. All education, I think, must be
universal and compulsory ■ and it must, I also think, be sup
plied from some public fund. What that fund shall be I do not
intend to discuss now, because I have prepared a paper to read on
that subject this afternoon. How then, having cleared the way
in this fashion, let us, endeavouring to reply to the objections
urged against us, say why we should carry out the platform which
is before us to-day. I was at some trouble to investigate, with
Dr. Barr, of the Registrar General’s office, what might be the
number of children in this country above five and under thirteen
years of age—a period of life during which, I imagine, this
education would be generally bestowed—and we concluded that
there were very nearly four millions and a half of such children in
England and Wales. Now, we know from the little book pub
lished annually by the Board of Trade that the number of children
educated in schools under inspection is about twelve hundred
thousand. I confess that I think it will be a very liberal estimate
to say that a million and a half more are being educated by their
parents, in schools that will not accept Government grants, and
by those various other methods of voluntary teaching which, to
�58
a large degree, supplement public education in this country. Thus
I am left with the horrid conclusion that nearly two millions of
children between the ages of five and thirteen are not getting any
education at all! I sincerely agree with my friend Archdeacon
Sandford, in confessing that I think that that Christianity is a very
queer sort of fabric that will suffer men to be willing that some
thing like two millions of children should grow, up in ignorance
and sin a scandal to the whole civilised world—because they
cannot make up their minds whether or not these children should
be taught something which is no necessary part of school education
at all. I should like the gentleman who edits that local newspaper
to ask himself the question—if he is content, under existing
circumstances, to grapple with the problem, and supposing he will
not accept general and compulsory education—how he proposes to
provide against the growing and terrible fact that you have so
many thousands and tens of thousands of children in this country
who are getting no proper education and culture at all. It is all
very well to talk about our institutions, and to laud the state of
things that exists, but underneath what we see there is a great deal
that is not seen, or that, being seen, is not seen with sufficiently
careful and scrutinising eyes; and amongst those facts nothing is
to me more terrible than that whole hosts of children should
be living and growing up without the smallest prospect of having
their minds or morals trained—and I quite believe that no man
can have his mind trained without his morals being trained
likewise, and that the training of the mind should be antece
dent to the training of the morals. I confess that the difficulty
raised by Professor Fawcett appears to me to be superfluous,
and I will tell you why. If I argue on abstract grounds, he may
object to my commenting on what he said, and may say he has a
right to his belief. But my proofs are derived from existing facts.
What is the country, among the people of our own race, where
there is the most education given by the Government'? It is the
United States. I will not say that there they have compulsory
education, but they have so extended a system that compulsion is
not needed. The education is provided by the State; but does
anyone tell us that American fathers and mothers do not care for it ?
�59
There are no people under the canopy of heaven who are more
willing to make sacrifices, and none amongst whom the results of
education are more satisfactory. We are told—and it is true, at
any rate, of the Northern States—that there is hardly a child to he
found, born of American parents, who does not derive benefits from
the law of education. What reason is there to suppose that if we
get a system like it—or, considering the ignorance of our people, a
more stringent system—our people will not also be desirous of
giving the benefits of education to their children ? I should like to
put this before the editor of your local paper. He says there does
not seem to be any profound anxiety for the progress we intend. I
can only say that I made many speeches about the country to
working men last year, and I constantly alluded to the absolute
necessity of having this system of compulsory education, and I have
no hesitation in saying that whenever I mentioned it there was,
without any exception, a unanimous shout of applause. They
always tell you in their conversation that, surrounded as they are by
people who will not educate their children, and on account of the
freedom they have necessarily to give their children, and of the
circumstances under which they have to be so much away from
them, they are driven to demand that there should be that compul
sion put on the whole mass of their numbers which may or may
not be necessary for the education of those who are in a better
condition of life—to whom the advantages of a good education are
not more obvious, but to whom the machinery of a good education
is at present more accessible. Now we shall be told, I dare say,
that we are a number of unimportant persons ; we shall be informed
by some of the organs of the gentlemanly press that very few
members of Parliament were present, that the parties collected
together were local obscurities, and that the movement, as it has
been started, is one which any respectable people may very well
pooh-pooh. I should like to ask those who are familiar with
political agitation whether it was ever begun by influential persons 1
You may depend on it that if you wait for a national education
till you get, I will not say the whole Liberal party in the House of
Commons, but the influential people in this country, to support it,
■ you will wait till Doomsday before you get it. I challenge denial
�60
of the fact that almost all social, political, and economical reforms
have commenced with the labours of persons whom the gentlemanly
press calls obscurities. Professor Fawcett, as a member of Par] is ment, gives you advice. Let me, as sincerely wishing the success
of this movement, give you this advice : Be content with nothing
but your Bill. You lay down a principle which is theoretically
unassailable, and that principle involves means logically necessary;
let no attempt divert you from these ends. If your principle is
admitted, if the Bill introduced by Government during the next
session involves your principle, you may safely leave the details to
be worked out afterwards; but if the principle is not taken up you
had better go without the Bill than have your principle broken up.
Gentlemen here can remember the progress of the agitation for the
repeal of the Corn Laws, which I need not say was one of the
greatest triumphs the country ever, achieved. That was almost
wrecked at the commencement by the proposal for an 8s. duty.
The advocates of the Anti Com Law League—a League greater in
its historic importance, but not greater in its object than our own—
resolved that no such compromise should be accepted, and held to
the doctrine of total and unconditional repeal. And so I venture
to say it will be your wisdom, and I am certain it will be your
success, if you hold to the total and unconditional concession of the
principle which stands at the head of these statements that are
made in italics. Stick to that, and you will win; abandon it for
anything that falls short of it, and you are pretty certain to lose.
The enemies of national education, and they are many, count on
disunion in your ranks, or timidity on the part of some who sup
port you. They expect you will put up with something less than
you demand, and they know that if you do, you will not get what
you ought to have. I second the resolution.
Mr. Lloyd Jones, in the absence of Mr. George Odger, supported
the resolution : He came to the meeting, he said, certainly of his
ewn desire, but also as the representative of a body of men sitting
in London, composed for the most part of secretaries of the largest
trades’ unions in the kingdom. Those men had organized them
selves for the purpose of securing, if possible, the return of working
men to the British House of Parliament. That was their special
�61
object; but when they heard that the League had been organized,
that its agitation was about to commence, they at once took up the
question as one the most deeply interesting that could be brought
before them, affecting as it did the particular business of their lives.
There was a large number of members present at the meeting which
was called to consider the matter, and not one word of objection was
uttered to the platform of the League. On the contrary, they passed
a resolution declaring that the principles of the League were worthy
of hearty support, and promising to assist the object in view by
every means in their power. That resolution was signed by a large
number of secretaries, one of whom represented between 30,000 and
40,000 engineers. Now, in entering that resolution, he could not
pledge himself that the League would have the moral and practical
support of the men of all trades in London; but he thought he
might pledge himself that it would at least have the support of all
those men represented in the names subscribed to the resolution,
and in saying that he really gave in the adhesion of the working
classes of the country. He was an old working man himself, and
his sympathies, therefore, were with the working men. "Whenever
he could labour with them for the furtherance of any great object, he
invariably did so. His own professional pursuits now compelled him
to go through a deal of reading which was by no means so dry as many
people were disposed to think : he referred to the blue books issued
by the Government. Now, if they referred to the reports of those
gentlemen who were sent by Government to report upon the pro
ducts of industry in the various countries of the world, they would
find that whilst they in England were disputing and debating
about creeds and differences in theology—subjects, no doubt, very
interesting and important in, their way—other nations were
giving a practical education to their people, who were rising
up, not to discuss and fight about theology, but to carry
off the industry of this country in cotton and wool and
iron. If they did not give to the artizans of this country
the same educational advantages as those enjoyed by the
artizans of other nations, they shut them out from competition •
for the markets were open to foreigners as well as to English
men. Why, then, permit other countries to beat their own in
�62
the educational and technical stimulus required for the perfection of
industry ? They might depend upon it, that if this question of
education was not speedily and satisfactorily settled, England would
go back as a nation, not theologically, but in the skill and power
of her industry—she would lose her manufacturing supremacy,
and when she had lost that he was afraid their theological disputes
would be of very little use or interest. Mr. Murray, one of the
Commissioners who reported upon the cotton fabrics at the
Exposition at Paris in 1867, describing the Swiss goods, said that
if in all countries there existed such a good system of education
as in Switzerland, the commercial position of England would be
menaced in various ways. Again, Mr. Massey, who reported upon
the woollen goods, said that there was no doubt the French were
greatly indebted for their progress in manufactures to the very
superior technical education which was obtained by the artizans
through schools instituted for special instruction. Mr. Massey
argued that if in England they wanted to have skilled working
men, special regard must be given to general education. Now, they
stood there to-day in the presence of as great an educational
failure as had ever taken place on the face of the earth. The
denominational system had promised to do everything, yet they
were told from the platform that day, that there were above two
•million children in the country receiving no education at all ! That
was a state of things utterly discreditable to them as a nation, and
did they not adjust their differences and throw overboard their
prejudices, England would sink as a nation in position and influence,
theology not being able to save them from the fall.
The Rev. H. E. Dowson, addressing the Chairman, said : I
understood that we came here to support secular education, but I
find that we are now asked to support the British School system,
and against that I utterly protest. I say it is a compromise, and
every compromise deserves to fail.
The Chairman : Mr. Dowson has entirely misunderstood what
has taken place. We do not use the word “ secular”; but we
exclude all theological parts of religion, and I am sure that what
is left is what even Mr. Dowson himself would call “ secular.”
But at any rate, however that may be, Mr. Dowson must remember
�63
that we have placed, or we wish to place, the decision of the
question in the hands of the people themselves in each district, in
the hands of the fathers of children who are to be educated, or,
what is the same thing, their representatives on the school
committees. Before I put the resolution, I wish to make one
remark in reference to an observation which fell from Professor
Bogers. He said that, in the estimation of some people, some
members of the League were “ obscurities.” Now, I do not wish
to point to the gentlemen who have addressed you to-day from this
platform, nor to the 40 members of Parliament heading our list,
nor yet to the 300 or 400 ministers of all denominations who
have joined, nor to the most eminent men of science whose names
appear upon the list ; but I would just say that we have been told
upon the highest authority that we have upon our list of members
certain persons of very great influence—indeed, of much greater
weight and influence than we in Birmingham are at all conscious
of. Therefore, although Professor Rogers is perfectly right in
saying that we depend mainly upon the righteousness and goodness
of our cause; that we intend to go not to celebrities, not to leaders,
but to the people themselves (to whom we look for that strength
and for that power which will ultimately most certainly carry
the measure) ; yet still it will be seen that we are not altogether
“ political obscurities. ”
The resolution was then put and carried, and the meeting
• adjourned.
THE CHAIRMAN’S PAPER ON NATIONAL
SCHOOLS.
On the reassembling of the meeting in the afternoon, the
Chairman read the following paper :—
The paper I am about to read on “ The Best System for National
Schools, based upon Local Rates and Government Grants,” must
not be supposed to emanate from the Provisional Committee, nor to
have any more authority as an exposition of the views of the
National Education League than a paper by any other member
present would have. The central idea in the scheme of the National
�Education League is that the education of the people should no
longer continue to be based exclusively upon the isolated, and often
fitful, efforts of individuals, however noble and valuable those
efforts might be ; but that the State should become responsible for
the education of the whole of its children. This responsibility
need not involve taking immediate charge of all existing schools.
Where education is being satisfactorily carried on there, it may be
that no further action by the State will be required. It will suffice
if provision be made for the transfer to the School Boards of those
schools whose managers may desire it. It appears to me that no
measure for a national system would be complete unless it contained
the following enactments :—The entire cost of erecting or main
taining national-rate schools, to be defrayed out of the rates and
taxes of the country, in the proportion of one-third from the former
and two-thirds from the latter. The principle of payment on results
to be continued. Power to be given for the compulsory purchase
of school sites. In every county and in every large municipality a
School Board to be elected of the ratepayers or their representatives.
These Boards shall ascertain where schools are wanted, and see that
they are provided; shall negociate the transfer of existing schools
to the local authorities, whenever such transfer is desired by the
managers, and will be advantageous to the district; shall appoint
committees to manage schools or groups of schools ; shall levy the
necessary rates, claim the Government grants, and pay all the
expenses of the schools; shall keep registers of all the children of
school age within their districts, placing opposite to each child’s
name that of the school which may be fixed upon by the parents,
guardians, or school officers, and shall send a list of the names and
addresses of the children assigned to each school to the respective
school committees; shall appoint school officers to make out and
periodically revise the above registers, and undertake the duty of
enforcing attendance, under the direction of the school committees.
(The duties of these school officers might be performed by the school
master in thinly-populated districts, and where the schools are
small.) Shall fix the number of, and the period for, the attendances
to be required of children in the course of the year, within the
limits prescribed by the Committee of Privy Council on Education ;
�65
and shall take care that all other provisions of the Act of Parliament
under which they are appointed be carried out. The School Com
mittees shall appoint the masters and mistresses, subject to the
approval of the School Boards ; shall see that the school buildings
are kept in repair, and supervise and sanction the expenditure of the
school; shall report to the School Boards all irregularities and
infractions of rules ; shall cause registers to be kept of the attend
ances of all the children belonging to their schools, see that the
school officers call on the parents or guardians of those children who
attend irregularly, or do not attend at all, and acquaint them with
their duties, with the meaning and object of the school laws, and
the penalties following a disregard of them, and shall summon
before them absentee children, or their parents or guardians, and
admonish them; and in the event of their injunctions being dis
obeyed, shall cause them to be summoned before a magistrate, with
whom shall rest the infliction of a fine. All national-rate schools
shall be free, and no catechisms, creeds, or tenets peculiar to any
particular sect shall be taught in them during the recognised
school hours. But the school committee shall have power to
permit the use of the Bible without note or comment, and to grant
the use of the class rooms for religious instruction out of school
hours, on condition that one sect is not favoured more than
another. Whenever a parent or guardian can substantiate a plea
of poverty as a reason for not sending a child to school, and
there is no free school within reach, the committee shall have
power to pay the school fees of such child ; and it shall be
obligatory on the managers of the school selected by the parent, if
such school be receiving Government aid, to admit the child, and
to refrain from teaching it any catechism, creed, or tenet peculiar
to any particular sect. The managers of any non-national rate
school may negotiate with the School Board for its transfer to the
local authorities, and the Board shall, if the transfer be otherwise
desirable, and the managers wish it, agree to appoint the said
managers to be the School Committee, until their resignation or
death, on the condition that all the provisions of the School Act
are observed by them. Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall cease to
examine on religious subjects, and in each district there shall
E
�66
consequently be only one inspector. The number of inspectors
shall be augmented, and the following additional duties shall be
imposed upon them :—They shall report to the Committee of
Privy Council on Education, and to the School Boards—whether,
in their opinion, a sufficient number of efficient schools exists for
the wants of the district; in what schools the education is
defective, and the manner in which the defects can best be
remedied; whether the attendance of the children has been
satisfactory, and if not, whether the proper steps have been taken
to enforce it. In the event of the School Boards failing to obtain
such results as may be deemed satisfactory by the Committee of
Privy Council on Education, it shall be the duty of the Committee
of Privy Council to direct what additional measures are to be
taken, and Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall see that those measures
are adopted. If the scheme above described were carried out, I
am of opinion that we should achieve the following results. We
should avoid the evils of centralisation on the one hand, and of
local inefficiency on the other. Whilst retaining all the advan
tages of local self-government, and of the immediate and direct
action of public opinion based on local knowledge, we should
be guarded by an enlightened inspection and strong Government
control against the danger of our standard of efficiency
being lowered in some districts by the ignorance and niggardliness
of the ratepayers. The new schools provided by the local
authorities would be of a class equal, if not superior, to the best
denominational schools. The heavy responsibilities and large
expenditure involved would prevent the ratepayers from providing
more schools than were absolutely necessary. The new schools
would be mainly, if not entirely, erected in those districts which
are now destitute of them—that is, in those districts where, by
reason of the poverty of the inhabitants, free schools are most
needed. Existing well-managed schools would be able to maintain
their ground, if it be true, as is alleged, that the religious
teaching given in them is valued by the subscribers and by
the parents of the pupils. I would recommend that the
Government grants to all existing denominational schools which
accept a conscience clause should be the same as those to the
�67
national-rate schools—that is, that they should be increased from
the present amount of one-third of the total cost to two-thirds,
thus relieving the managers of one-half of their present responsi
bilities. The remaining half would not be too much to pay for
the assured advantages of religious instruction and the supposed
superiority of voluntary management. It is also probable that
some of these denominational schools would be preferred by
parents as being more select; and as this would in part be owing
to the fees required, those fees would on that account be more
willingly paid. The result of the rivalry that would take place
between the denominational and the national-rate schools might be
that the upper portion of the working classes would prefer the
former for the reasons mentioned above ; but, in my opinion, the
instruction given in the national-rate schools would be found to be
generally so superior as to cause them, in the course of time, to
supersede the others. But the process would be gradual, and no
inconvenience would be felt by the transfer of schools that would
he continually taking place. , Should my anticipations be realised,
I am further of opinion that the knowledge and influence of
religion would become far more widely spread than is now the
case; because the groundwork for it would be universally laid, and
the clergy would be able to devote themselves more exclusively
to the giving of religious instruction. I do not believe that the
spirit of voluntaryism would languish under the new system.
Those persons who now take an interest in primary schools would
he placed on the school committees, and as there would be more
schools, their services would be in greater request. The necessity
for voluntary contributions of money would also be quite as
paramount as ever; but instead of these contributions being
devoted to the building and maintenance of schools for the
higher classes of working men, some, if not all, of whom are well
able to pay the entire cost of the education of their children, they
would be devoted to the providing of clothing and perhaps even of
food, for those destitute children who are now unable to attend
schools of any sort, because they are starving and in rags. The
greatest difficulty in the way of compulsory school attendance is
the sacrifice of the child’s earnings; but this difficulty may be.
�68
considered to have been already grappled with by the Factory
Acts, the extension of which to all parts of the country is called
for by public opinion. In some cases, however, a modification of
the half-time system will be necessary, especially in the agri
cultural districts, where a cessation of school attendance might be
advantageously allowed during the period of harvest. As some
time will elapse before compulsory attendance powers will be
granted to the local authorities, and as they will even then be
inoperative until sufficient schools have been provided, the public
mind will have become prepared for the law before its operation
commences. And inasmuch as its enforcement will be in the
hands of local committees—that is, of gentlemen well known and
esteemed in their respective districts, whose sympathies with the
poor have been already called into active exercise—it is not likely
that the law will be harshly enforced. For a long time the
operations of the committee will be necessarily restricted to the
instruction of the parents in their duties to the children, and it is
probable that one or two cases only of refractory parents being
summoned before a magistrate will suffice to bring into school
nine-tenths of those children who are now idling about the streets.
One important result of the adoption of this system of national
education would be that parents would feel an interest in the
schools unknown, and indeed impossible, before. Hitherto they
have had no voice whatever in the management of that which was
of more importance to them than anything else in the State, and
it is not surprising that the apathy has followed which usually
results from absence of responsibility. It is a common remark of
earnest clergymen that when they are labouring to induce the
attendance of children at school, the attitude of parents is that of
persons who think they are asked to confer a favour, and who
believe that the managers of a school, like the owners of a shop,
have some personal end to serve. But when these parents find
that the schools belong to themselves, that they are paid for
and managed by the people, and that they would save nothing, but
lose much, by not using them, then their attitude towards them
will be entirely changed, and one great obstacle to school
attendance will be removed. Some may shrink from the cost of
�69
so complete a system, but this is one of those cases where a wellregulated expenditure is economy, where the niggardliness of
inefficiency is extravagance. If every child in the United
Kingdom were brought into school the total increased charge
upon the taxpayers of the country would probably not reach onethird of the money expended upon our paupers and our criminals.
The cost per scholar would not be greater if the charge of educa
ting the people were thrown upon the State. The total amount
spent upon education would be augmented only in proportion to
the increase of scholars. The choice before us is expenditure on
education, or expenditure on paupers and criminals.
PROFESSOR THOROLD ROGERS OK SECULAR
EDUCATION.
The Rev. J. E. Thorold Rogers read the following paper :—
I assume that this Congress accepts the position that primary
education should be universal, should be compulsory, should be
as a necessary consequence gratuitous, and that, since the State does
not enforce or constrain any particular form of religious belief, should
be secular. In order to obviate any unfriendly interpretation of
this word, I may state that I do not use it in any sense which
implies resistance to religion, indifference to religion, or substitution
for religion. I take for granted that the functions of a religious
teacher and a schoolmaster in purely intellectual culture can be
separated, and that the State is bound to find the latter, but that
it cannot and ought not to provide the former, still less
to import such an element into a compulsory system. The
question as to the source from which the funds necessary to
provide for the machinery of secular learning should come ought to
be settled, and can be settled, on purely economical considerations.
Should the class immediately benefited by a system of primary
education contribute the requisite funds ? Is society at large so
considerably benefited by the change which the Congress seeks to
effect that the necessary charge should be raised from the general
resources of society ? Is it in accordance with the principles of
political justice, as now interpreted, that the fund supplied for
the purpose should be levied by the whole community on the
�70
resources of a part of the community 2 If it be determined that it
should be levied on the whole community, what is the most
equitable way in which the fund should be raised, and what is the
way in which it should be distributed so as to secure that
maximum of efficiency which is supposed to be obtained by the
instituted supervision of those who are intrusted with its manage
ment ? I will attempt as simply as possible to answer these
questions. No one, I imagine, will contest the position that the
immediate benefit of a system of primary education falls to the
labourer. Every one agrees that such an education renders his
work more intelligible, and therefore easier.
If, therefore,
an educated body of labourers do not derive an increased rate
of remuneration from the education which they obtain, they earn
the rate which they do get on lighter terms and with less toil.
Besides, the effect of education in sharpening the intelligence of the
labourer is or may be extended to supplying him with the
knowledge of the best market for his labour. If he becomes handy
because he is intelligent, the same mental power will direct him
to the best means for bettering his condition, and so afford him a
positive as well as a relative increase in his resources. Nor must
it be forgotten that the remuneration of labour is, on the whole,
determined by the cost of supplying it, and that if the
age at which productive labour is employed is delayed or
postponed, the wages earned are, cceteris paribus, invariably
higher. This rule might be illustrated abundantly from every-day
experience, and holds good even if the labourer does not contribute a
single penny towards the cost of his own education. He must
be kept while he learns, and this charge will produce the effect
referred to. If it could be shown, then, that all the benefits of a
system of primary education accrue to the material advantage of theclass for which we seek to provide such an education, and produce
no effect, near or remote, on the general well-being of society, the
cost of supplying this education ought to be entirely defrayed by the
parties who desire the benefit, in just the same way as the outlay
on a field, or the stocking of a shop, should be supplied at the
charges of the persons who gain a profit on either. Nor would it
be impossible to obtain such funds from the direct contribution of
�71
the class for whose purposes such a tax would he expended.
The State might levy a poll or income tax on all parties who
might need this instruction, rateably to the claims which they make
on the machinery. Such a poll tax is levied in many of the states
composing the American Union. If a half-time system were
adopted, the requisite quota might he even collected from the
child’s earnings, and a very small sum per week would be sufficient
to meet the cost of supplying this necessary of life in the case
of children too young to work at all. Ill paid as the agricultural
labourer is, he is seldom so straitened as to be incapable of finding a
few pence per week for the cost of instructing his children, just as
he is generally able to find much more for their clothing. It is
said that the Wesleyans are able to maintain their organization
by a penny a week from each member of their body. Everybody
knows, too, that the voluntary expenditure of the poor on taxable
commodities is enormously in excess of any possible amount which
might be demanded for public education. In the case, of course, of
those who are utterly destitute, a machinery like that of the Poor
Law would supply instruction, as it now does, with food, clothing,
and lodging. My hearers are aware, that with many persons the
contribution of children’s pence is, apart from its amount, con
ceived to be necessary as an acknowledgment of the benefit
which education is, and of the moral obligation which rests on
parents to supply that which is only immediately less important
than wbat are called the necessaries of life. But the fact is, the
benefit of education to the mass of labourers is only more obvious
than the benefit of the process to society at large. The employer
of labour gets his advantage from education. Many of us know
the fact, for instance, that an educated recruit learns his drill in
half the time, and at less than half the expense, incurred in
training another who is wholly unlettered. Over and over again
employers find that labour may be more highly paid, and be cheaper
after all, because more effective. And here I may observe, that the
faults of a low system of education are not to be charged on education
itself. One of the worst kinds of education which is given in
England—and it is very costly into the bargain—is, as I know
from my experience as a Poor Law Guardian, that which is given
�72
in industrial schools for pauper children. But I must not enter
on this topic. I only refer to it in order to obviate an objection.
But if a sound system of education is of advantage to the person
who receives it, and also to the person who lines the services of
those who have enjoyed it, it is of no less advantage to the public at
large. A good education is the best preventive of crime. Men are
quite as much degraded by ignorance as by vice. Harrow men’s
faculties, and you strengthen the temptation to the grosser forms
of indulgence. Enlarge them wisely, give men an insight into the
moral and material interests—never really separable—of the
society in which they live, and which claims their allegiance,
because it bestows on them the highest services, and gives them
the fairest field for their labour, and you will ultimately need no
police except for those who are utterly and hopelessly depraved.
It is, I am persuaded, possible to cultivate a public opinion
which shall do more to correct vicious tendencies than all the
repressive forces of the most rigorous police. And what is
a sound public opinion but the outcome of public education?
But if the advantages of a really national education, the course and
details of which are wisely determined, are so generally diffused
over society, it is the duty of society at large to bear the charge of
this, which is, after all, the cheapest as well as the most effective
police. I have tried to answer two of the questions which I put
at the outset of this paper. But supposing the tax is to be levied,
not on one class but on all, how should the rate be laid ? We have
got in this country a rough-and-ready way of levying taxes for local
purposes, by putting a rate on the occupier of property. Such a
form of taxation is very often grossly unfair. For example, a poor
rate is practically an indirect means of paying wages, or at least ofsupplying the means by which certain liabilities affecting the con
dition of the labourer are met from other than his own resources.
Now, if the occupier who does not employ labour with a view to
profit, is called upon to contribute to the fund by which the man
who does employ labour with a view to profit, ekes out wages, I see
that the former is wronged. I might, if time permitted, illustrate
my position by a variety of examples, indicating the incidence of
local taxation, and confirming my statement that the present process
�of assessment is radically unequal. But a wrong which I protest
against I should strive not to commit; and hence, assuming that
the benefits of a national education are national, I think it
would be a crying injustice to provide the funds by taxing the
occupiers of one kind of property only, and a still greater injustice
if the tax were levied directly on the owners of real estate; though
perhaps I need hardly say, that the theory which assumes that the
landowner pays the tenant’s rates in a diminished rent, is sheer
pedantry, which everybody’s experience refutes. If you could get
a just income-tax-—and as yet I see no prospect of so desirable a
consummation, though it is perfectly easy to show the basis of a
just income-tax—such a tax would be theoretically the fund from
which an education rate should be levied. I am of opinion that it
is wise policy to appropriate not only the proceeds of taxation
strictly, which no one disputes, but to import into a system of
finance a rule that special taxes should have special objects ; and I
am sure that economies of taxation could be far more easily achieved
if people understood the object to which an impost was directed.
Not a little of the extravagance of administration arises from the
practice (originally adopted by desperate financiers) of consolidating
taxes into a fund, and then charging all kinds of expenditure on
that common fund. If I were in the position of a financial reformer,
the first basis of my reform would be, special taxes to special objects.
As it is, I am driven to recommend that the tax for education should
be derived from that financial abomination, the Consolidated Fund.
I know that there is a strong indifference to economy in dealing
with funds granted from the State; and my hearers, if they agree
with me in my dislike of taxation being agglomerated into one or
a few units, will see why people are ready to play fast and loose
with great quantities, the vastness of which renders them unintelli
gible. There is a famous question on record, answered, I believe, very
facetiously in this town : What is a pound ? In the administration
of public funds, and in due economy in their administration, the
question “ What is a million pounds ?” is, I fancy, a matter which
tasks the understanding more stringently. I have alluded to my
experience as a Poor Law guardian. I have constantly found that
while my colleagues will waste a whole afternoon in debating
�74
whether they should spend £5, they look with a sort of puzzled
curiosity, as though they do not know whether I am a fool or an
astute impostor with ulterior views, when I have pointed out that
such and such a change in their arrangements will save the Govern
ment £500. If, then, we get the necessary funds from Government,
and appropriate them, under the equitable administration of a
Minister of Education, by local boards—an argument on the consti
tution of which does not fall within the scope of this paper—we
shall perhaps be able to do the best that can be done during the
interval between our use of the existing financial system and its
probable improvement in the future. I may perhaps be personally
excused for referring, in conclusion, to the incidental topic with
which I commenced. Objections are raised against our purpose in
this agitation, on the ground that we are unfriendly to religion, by
which I hope is meant Christianity. No sensible man, I presume,
would condescend to answer the calumnies of polemical or political
partisans. But how strong would Christianity be if it repudiated
its professional advocates, and trusted for its victories to those
who believe and live for the patient practice which it invariably
enjoins1
REV. A. STEINTHAL ON LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
RATING.
The Rev. S. A. Steinthal, of Manchester, read the follow
ing paper :—In the few remarks which I propose to address to the
Congress, I shall take for granted, that we are all of us agreed upon
the importance of the leading features of the scheme, put forward
by the National Education League, and have no doubt as to the
need which exists of largely extending the means of giving education
to the people. I shall not stay to discuss whether there is any
serious error in the statistics published by the Manchester and
Birmingham Education Aid Societies. Even if the numbers with
which they have appalled the country should, on further examina
tion, be shown to have overdrawn the sad picture of the condition
of the towns in which their useful labours have been exerted, there
is so undeniable an amount of unreached ignorance around us, that
it would be sinful to waste time in discussing the accuracy or in
�75
accuracy of mere figures while human souls are perishing for lack
of knowledge. I shall nor enter upon the topic reserved for other
papers as to the undenominational character which all schools sup
ported by public money ought in justice to bear ; or try to prove—
what I believe would not he difficult to prove—-that it is wiser, under
all circumstances, to confine the ordinary instruction of the dayschool to so-called secular subjects, instead of pretending to intro
duce theological matters, to which justice cannot be done in common
schools, while teaching the elements of ordinary knowledge. It is
not my intention to discuss the important subject, of whether
attendance at school is to be made compulsory, or the production of
satisfactory evidence of education being received elsewhere, insisted
upon. I would simply state in passing, that unless school attend
ance, or its equivalent, is made compulsory, I should not advocate,
as I intend doing in this paper, the need of levying a local rate to
be applied, in addition to the Government grant for school purposes.
It is the fact that the common weal demands the universal education
of all citizens, which justifies the community in insisting upon the
attendance of all children at school; and it is the right of. every
individual member of the community to find the means within his
reach of fully developing not only his physical, but mental and
moral capacities. The community has the right to insist upon every
child being educated, and the child has the right to demand that
school accommodation and proper means of teaching should be pro
vided for it. It seems to me that what is thus needful for all, and
for all alike, should not be left to the unreliable and spasmodic
exertions of voluntary benevolence. Experience has proved to us
that voluntary benevolence will not effect the object required. It
is useless to go over the old, well-trodden ground to show how, in
the first place, parents have neglected their duties, how Christian
charity has been unable to supply the void of parental negligence,
or how even State aid to voluntaryism has failed to overcome the
amount of ignorance we have permitted to exist among us. There
are many districts in which there are no persons sufficiently inter
ested in promoting education, to devote any portion of their means
to the establishment and maintenance of schools • and, under our
present system, to those places no share of Government aid is allowed
�76
to go; and while the children in such localities are left either in
entire ignorance, or are exposed to the inefficient training of the
dame school, there are other places where benevolence, stimulated
by sectarian zeal, multiplies unnecessary accommodation, and wastes
large sums in erecting buildings and in supporting a staff of teachers
far in excess of the real wants of the neighbourhood. This is no
new complaint, but it is not less true now because it is old. More
than eighteen years ago Dr. Hodgson gave a typical illustration of
the wasteful character of leaving the support of schools to volun
tary effort. “ At New Mills, near Manchester, an active clergyman
of the Church of England came into competition with the Wesleyan
school, but did not succeed till he established a day school. The
Wesleyan school was capable of accommodating -150 scholars, but
the clergyman succeeded so well that only 17 scholars were left in
it. The Wesleyans determined not to be annihilated. They got
up a day school, and obtained a teacher whom nothing could dis
hearten. The result, according to the Methodist minister, had not
been well for both schools. He expressed his sorrow that they had
nearly put an extinguisher upon the Church schools : two pews could
contain all its scholars, while their Sunday schools numbered from
5 to 600 scholars.” Is it not sad that while the evil waste of such
rivalry was recognised twenty years ago, we should be suffering
under similar evils this day, and still obliged to discuss the need of
obviating such sectarian jealousies ? Nor does it seem to me to be
just to throw the burden of education upon voluntary givers, even
were it prudent to do so. Are not all of us who are in any way
connected with the multiform methods of charitable exertion well
aware how small is the number of those who are the supporters of
all benevolent efforts ? The same names, not always the wealthiest
in a district, are time after time compelled to contribute, and though
the most generous givers are generally the last to complain of having
to do so much, are they not prevented from devoting their means to
objects in which they take special interest, because they cannot
conscientiously allow the absolutely essential work of education to
be left undone, on account of the niggardliness of those who will not
give until forced by law ? But even the benevolent cannot ensure
their children being alike generous with themselves, nor has any
�11
district the certainty of the wealthy remaining amongst them. A
manufacturing town is not always the most agreeable residence, and
many who have made their money in overcrowded places, retire to
enjoy their well-earned prosperity far from the scene of their earlier
life; and new claims prevent their still contributing to schools,which
languish in consequence. Every now and then, it is true, the sad
neglect of the education of the poor strikes the attention of some
philanthropist like the late Mr. Edward Brotherton, of Manchester,
and a new attempt is made to stimulate the activity of benevolence
—only to prove, as experience had done before, and is doing again,
how vain it is to rely upon benevolent voluntary effort alone. This
unreliability and spasmodic character, is all the more fatal to educa
tional progress, as the conditions under which Government aid is
granted claim a certain amount from local effort or endowment
before any money can he given under the Minutes of Council. So
important a matter as the education of the people can no longer be
left to efforts nearly twenty years ago justly characterised as “ im
pulsive, irregular, uncertain, unequal, and capricious in their opera
tion.” (West. Rev., July, 1851.) Our choice, then, in seeking for
the means of establishing and supporting schools must lie between
grants from the central government, local rating, or a combination
of these two methods. The advocates of a school system supported
altogether from funds derived from the national government, have no
weak argument in their behalf when they point out, how very heavy
the burden of local taxation is at present, and how limit 3(1 the area
is upon which rates are levied : how the wealthy fundholder will
escape almost untaxed for schools under a rating system, while the
burden would be less felt by the poor and struggling if the cost cf
education be defrayed from national taxation. The income from
which national taxation is paid is estimated atleast at.£500,000,000,
while the assessment of the whole country is only £150,000,000.
Twopence in the pound on the former sum would raise more than
the £4,000,000 which it is estimated would suffice to provide
primary education for all our children, while a rate of nearly seven
pence in the pound would be required for the same purpose. It is
further true that under any rating scheme some part of the popu
lation would escape from payment, even as in the case of our present
�78
rates, under which we know that the most destitute classes are
uniformly excused from paying the rate imposed ; while everyone
does contribute something to the general taxation, and will do so as
long as tea and coffee and sugar, to say nothing of intoxicating
drinks and tobacco, are made to add so much to the national
revenue. But, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that,
if the whole amount of the educational expenses of the
country is paid from national funds, its expenditure must be
entirely entrusted to the central authority; and I am quite
prepared to declare my own strong objection to giving more
influence to the Government than I am obliged to do, even though
I do not altogether hold the opinion that, nothing beyond
securing life and property should fall within the purview of the
State. I believe that local management is absolutely necessary for
the efficient management of the schools, and therefore I believe
that the greater portion of the funds should be raised as well as
expended in the localities to be themselves benefited. It is very
customary at the present day to sneer at everything connected
with local self-government. No joke is more readily welcomed
than one pointed at the narrowness and stupidity of a Board of
Guardians, or a Town Council. But does not this arise from the fact
that the objects which such boards have before them are often
regarded as too low to claim the attention of educated men ? When a
Board of Guardians undertakes to make its hospital a model hos
pital, and its treatment of pauperism, a means of lessening the
evils of pauperism, do we not find educated men devoting
themselves assiduously, as I have known them do in Chorlton,
Manchester, and Liverpool, and as no doubt they frequently do
elsewhere ? Do we not see in corporations where there are free
libraries, that men are willing to enter the Council that they may
sit upon the Library Committee ? I have even lately had proof
that the Public-house Closing Act, which enables Town Councils
to close those prolific sources of misery, immorality, and crime for a
few hours, has induced men to enter them, that they might support
such measures of improving the social condition of the people.
May we not, therefore, anticipate that if a municipal Board of
Education be constituted the best men amongst us would be
�willing to serve upon it? And as it is proposed that all
rate-supported schools should be free, the increased burden
imposed by the rate would be lightened, on the other hand, by the
exemption of all who desired it from the payment of school-pence,
and voluntary subscriptions towards the maintenance of
schools. The fact that a special educational rate was levied
would tend to interest every ratepayer in the school. He would
be anxious to see it prosper, would take a pride in its efficiency.
That this is no theoretical advantage is seen by the experience of
■our Australian colonies, where each district strives to rival its
neighbours in the excellence of its educational institutions. If, as
I trust, there should be a system adopted whereby the best
children in the schools could obtain scholarships to enable
them to pursue their studies in higher schools; and to assist them,
if need be, to the highest scholarships; this healthful emulation
would be increased still more, as a successful student would throw
back some reflected fame upon his school, and upon the district
which had enabled him to attain success. I am well aware that
ratepaying is not the most pleasing of duties ; but as soon as men
perceived, as they soon would do, that an educational rate would
lessen the poor rate, the police rate, the expenses of the criminal
courts, and the like, the economy of giving a good education would
be recognised, and the payments would he made cheerfully and
without complaint. It should, however, be always insisted upon,
in my opinion, that the school rate should be kept separate from all
other rates, and should not be merged with that long list which is
.attached to the present poor-rate paper. I urge this, as I wish that
every parent should be distinctly impressed with the fact that he
does not receive an altogether gratuitous education for his children.
I am not afraid that the children attending a free school would feel
themselves pauperised, for education always raises the nobler
feelings of the taught, and never degrades them. Nor am I
anxious lest parents should feel themselves robbed of their inde
pendence by their children being able to attend school without pay
ment of the weekly pence. They would know that they are paying
their quota, and as has often been said, we none of us feel ourselves
■degraded by the fact that our streets are lighted by gas, that ouj
�80
security is preserved by policemen, and that the many comforts we
enjoy owing to municipal government arc not paid for directly, but
are supported by rates to which we all contribute according to our
means. There are very few, comparatively speaking, in this
country who do pay directly the cost of their children’s education.
The working classes make use of schools sustained by voluntary
subscriptions, endowments, and Government grants. The middle
and higher classes find in grammar schools and colleges that their
ancestors’ benevolence has freed them from this burden. We none
of us are pauperised under these influences. Why the change from
school pence and voluntary subscriptions should suddenly make
such a change I cannot understand. Schools under such a system
would indeed be even less charity schools than they are now.
I have, however, not proposed in the above argument to pay the
whole expenses of the school from local sources ; nor do I intend
to do so. The cost of a child’s training in a school is, I believe,
estimated in the Revised Code at 30s. a year, of which sum I think
the Committee of Council generally pay about a third. I would not
alter this, but would simply raise the sum needed to make up the
total by rates instead of by the present means. I am quite ready
to acknowledge that local authorities are not unfrequently actuated
by an economical spirit which approaches to niggardliness; and as a
corrective to this tendency being applied to schools, I would insist
upon Government inspectors visiting the school, upon whose
favourable report alone should any Government help be given. It
does not fall within the scope of my paper to discuss the nature
of the examination which should be insisted upon; but I would
incidentally remark that I hope the meagre standard of the
Revised Code will not be long maintained. Nor have I to consider
the character of the authority which should appoint the inspectors,
although I hope a responsible Minister of Education may soon take
the place of the Committee of Council, in whose constitution I
have very little confidence. But I believe that by no means can
the wants of the community be better met than by such a method
as I have sketched. I hardly know whether I am expected while
speaking of rate-supported schools which offer free instruction to
all comers, to speak of the conditions under which existing schools
�81
should be admitted to the benefits such a plan offers. I should
avoid as much as possible building new school buildings ; but I
would do so by freely offering to all existing schools the privilege of
becoming rate-supported schools on complying with the two require
ments, that the education given in them should be unsectarian, and
should be free. Unsectarian, because to allow denominational
schools to be aided by the rate would be to revive with increased
difficulty the old Church-rate contest; free, because, supported by
public money, the public should justly be entitled to receive the
benefits they offered. A truly national system could thus be
established with no infringement of any existing rights, with a
perfect preservation of local self-government, and yet, through the
system of Government inspection, always maintaining a high
standard of efficient training for all who are to be the future
citizens of our native land.
MR. PENTECOST ON COMPULSION.
Mr. Pentecost, of Stourbridge, read the following paper on
Compulsory Attendance. He said : If any one part of the scheme
of national education is of greater importance than another, it
is, I think, that relating to “ compulsory attendance.” Educa
tion may be free and schools may be multiplied, but without
compulsory attendance there would be still a large proportion of
children preferring the street to the school. The work would be
only partially done, since the very class it is most desirable to
reach would be left untouched.’ The opponents of a compulsory
measure perceive that it involves the establishment of free non
sectarian schools; hence their opposition. The public is assured by
them that the English nation, especially the working classes, will not
submit to compulsion. The working classes are farther advanced
upon this question than seems to be supposed. Moral, social, and
political progress will not be rejected for mere sentiment.
Moreover, the working and other classes do submit to compulsion,
for we have it in our sanitary laws, and Workshops Acts; only
here it is restricted in its operation to the industrious portion
of the community, and only indolence is allowed the privilege
of free ignorance. But compulsory attendance would necessitate
F
�82
tlie establishment of free non-sectarian schools, at least in large
towns, and ultimately, perhaps, throughout the kingdom ; and the
cry is raised that an education in such schools would be a “godless
education.” A knowledge of the constitution of the human
body, to elucidate the laws of health, especially with reference to
cleanliness, ventilation, recreation, and diet, is godless—the
ordinary subjects of primary education are godless—unless issued
from the mint bearing the imprint of some denomination or sect.
With the bane the antidote should be supplied. An elementary
knowledge of natural history or physical science, should carry its
corrective in a catechism, and a knowledge of Scripture names and
dates should serve as a counterpoise to the dangers attendant on
reading, writing, and arithmetic. In a leading article on the
debate on education in the House of Commons last March, the
Times took much trouble to enforce the statement, that the good
expected from any new system of education would be nullified
by the dangerous lessons of home example, and that parents
must be educated. That is what the advocates of a new national
system desire—they wish to educate the parents of future
generations. Then again, it has been said that the League
proposes to educate children out of their religion. The advocates
of a free non-sectarian education are not actuated by hostility
to religion, but by hostility to ignorance and its results.
Religious instruction can still be given'—no one can hinder it;
but as there appears no prospect of an agreement as to what
should be considered religious teaching, the advocates of a
new free system of education wish to enable children to
become acquainted with the laws of God, regulating the material
world, and thus be guided to live in temperance, soberness, and
chastity; to learn and labour truly to get their own living in any
state of life to which they may be called. Deficient, however, as
the present voluntary system is acknowledged to be, even by its
own advocates, we would gladly admit that the clergy and
ministers of various denominations have performed a great work
in building up and supporting the present system of educa
tion. That it is now inefficient is to be ascribed not to
any neglect or shortcoming on their part, but to the inevitable
�83
march of events. Recognising the value of the present
system, the question arises : is there any possibility of co
operation ? Is it not possible to combine a new national free and
non-sectarian system with the existing denominational voluntary
system, and thus preserve the present system, or at least a large
part of it ? The new system would then gradually win its way in
public favour. With a desire to preserve the present system, I
jotted down the following rough notes, which I will submit to
your consideration :—1. That parents or guardians of children, of a
certain specified age, shall be required to send them to school
regularly and constantly, for a certain number of weeks in each year
■—Sunday-school attendance not to be counted; and those who
neglect the performance of this duty, shall be liable to a recurring
penalty, to be recovered by the inspector or sub-inspector of
schools for the district. The production of a school certificate of
attendance to be the only complete answer to the charge; the
exemptions from this rule of attendance being those children, who
are mentally or corporeally incapacitated from attendance, or from
receiving instruction, and also children who are receiving instruc
tion at home or elsewhere, from tutors, governesses, or parents.
Proper evidence of such instruction to be rendered to the inspector
of schools for the district, whenever required by him. 2. That
parents or guardians, who are unable to pay the ordinary school
fees shall be furnished with a pass, entitling their children to free
admission to any assisted, inspected school in the parish or district
in which they reside, and to assistance in procuring books, &c.
When there is room for choice, the parents to be allowed to select
a school. The fees for such pupils (by whatever name they may ‘
be known, or by whatever means they may be raised) to be paid to
the schools according to a certain fixed scale. That public and
private schools, and grammar schools, shall be registered upon pay
ment of a small registration fee, and shall then he allowed to grant
certificates of attendance ; due provision, of course, being made for
preventing any kind of traffic in certificates, and allowing the
Government Department superintending education the power of
refusing to register notoriously inefficient schools. 3. That all
national schools, British schools, and denominational schools, shall
�84
be entitled to be registered, and to receive free scholars, to be paid
for by rates or Government grants; provided the managers of such
schools submit to Government inspection, and accept a conscience
clause, specifying that they shall not allow religious instruc
tion of any kind to interfere with the ordinary secular instruc
tion, but that it shall be imparted at such times and in such
a manner as not to break or interrupt the routine of secular
studies. 4. In parishes or districts where there is no school
accommodation of this kind, for the reception of non-sectarian free
scholars, or where there is only insufficient accommodation of the
kind, the Government Department superintending education shall,
upon satisfactory representations of such deficiency, cause notice to
be given to the guardians of the poor, or other authorities, that
school buildings and teachers must be provided by the parish or
district, the cost to be defrayed by a rate levied on the district;
and where the proper authorities neglect to provide the necessary
school accommodation, then the Government shall intervene, and
provide a school or schools, educational appliances, and teachers,
and recover from the district the amount expended. Existing
schools, the managers of which refuse to adopt the conscience
clause, shall not be registered; and a district containing such
schools only, shall be considered as destitute of educational
facilities, and shall be required to provide free non-sectarian schools,
under local management and Government inspection.
RESOLUTION OE LONDON TRADES’
COUNCIL.
The President announced that Mr. George Odger was unable
to speak, as he had promised to do; but that he had sent the follow
ing resolution of the London Trades’ Council:—“This Council is of
opinion that the National Education League, whose object is the
education of the people, upon national and unsectarian principles,
is in every sense worthy of our support; therefore we appoint
our secretary, Mr. George Odger, to attend the congress to be held
in Birmingham ; and we pledge ourselves to use our best endeavours
in aid of so laudable a movement.”
�85
DISCUSSION.
Mr. Simons, of Merthyr Tydvil, opened the discussion by reading
the prospectus of an education society with which he was connected
in his own town; and he then said: Although an ardent sup
porter of the League, I venture to say that the march onward will
never cease, until every one of the principles of that programme is
adopted. I am willing to go with the League as far as we agree,
and whilst we are together I should like to endeavour to induce
you to march on with me, to the beacon which this programme offers
to you. Now, I want to make one observation upon what I call
a delusion and a snare—the conscience clause. Test the conscience
clause by this : is there any ardent thorough Protestant in this room
who, if he lived in the centre of a Roman Catholic community, with
the means of education entirely in the hands of the Roman Catholic
priest, would send his child to school there, with the protection
only of the conscience clause ? I have asked the question often
before, and have never had an answer in the affirmative. The
conscience clause, I repeat, is a delusion and a snare. It affords
no protection whatever, and it makes more necessary for the
youth of the country the prayer—“ Lead us not into temptation.”
I ask you all to consider the question of the conscience clause. The
grant of State aid to Remap Catholic schools, would virtually be
a grant for the purpose of teaching the Roman Catholic religion.
Believe me that I do not intend, that one word which escapes my
lips shall give pain; for the day has passed, happily, when differ
ences of opinion lead to hostility, or discord among fellow Christians.
My references to Catholics are made entirely upon principle ; I have
no objection to them as a body. Well, we know that if a grant
were given them for school purposes, it would substantially
be a grant for teaching the Roman Catholic religion in this
country. Bear in mind that they are about a quarter of the
entire population, and if four millions were given in grants
they would be entitled to one-fourth—one million given for
teaching the Roman Catholic religion. The logic of Roman
Catholics is irresistible, that so long as you maintain sectarian
�86
schools in this country, so long will they be entitled to teach in
them their religion, and to receive their proportion of Government
aid. That is a question which I have not heard put on any plat
form except when I have given utterance to it. Next, I would ask
how long in this country are the middle classes going to contribute
towards schools for the working classes ? I am here as a middle
class man, to say that no system of education will satisfy me, unless
the two classes are put upon exactly the same footing. We speak
of compulsion as a thing applicable only to one order of the
people. I am an advocate for the application of compulsion to
every class. I don’t know why the middle-class man should have
the opportunity of bringing up his child in ignorance, any more than
the working-class man. I am also an advocate for the institution
of imperial universities, and for this reason : after we get com
pulsory education, how long will it be before the people ask for a
further opportunity of advancing and brightening the intellects of
their children, and of fitting them to occupy any position in the
world, even up to that of the Lord Chancellor ?
Mr. Applegarth, secretary to the Amalgamated Society of
Carpenters and Joiners, followed : So much has been said in the
name of working men, that it is almost presumption on the part of
a working man to speak for his class; but as I conceive that much
has been said in their name, which is not exactly true, perhaps it
will not be out of place for me to say a few words. My claim to
speak is simply that I have lived and associated with working men
all the days of my life; and I am here, as the delegate of one of
the largest trade societies in the kingdom, to demand that education
shall be placed within the reach of every child, however poor,
however degraded. The first meeting of my fellow working men
that I addressed was about twelve years ago, the last one last
night. On every occasion I have tested the men in regard to
education, and I never yet found an exception to my own
opinion—that what we want is a national compulsory, unsectarian
system: Now, I have a little score to settle both with Mr. Edmund
Potter, M.P., and with the Archbishop of York, and I give notice
that I shall hit them very hard. The other day, the Archbishop of’
York ventured to say that, if an attempt were made to introduce
�87
a compulsory system of education, such a system would meet
with a hard reception from a large proportion of the working
classes. Well, then, Mr. Potter, in his place in the House of
Commons, said, too, that the working classes were opposed to
compulsion in connection with education.
Mr. Potter : No, no.
Mr. Applegarth : The Times is responsible for my statement;
and I am glad to hear Mr. Potter say “ No, no.” It is not the first
mistake the Times has made. To go back, then, to the Archbishop
of York. Wherever he gets his information from I can’t tell. For
a number of years I worked in different parts of the country, and
in every place I tested the working man upon this question of
education. For instance, at one meeting, at which Mr. Geo. Dawson
was in the chair, he distinctly asked, “ Do you agree with me that
we want a national compulsory, unsectarian system of education ?”
and not a dissenting voice did I hear. The working classes would
never feel compulsion, and they would be only too glad of the
opportunity to send their children to schools, where they would get
a good education. But no one knows better than the men them
selves, that there are amongst the working people two classes.
There is the sot, the careless and indifferent man, who has been so
long neglected, and degraded that he does not understand the value
of education; and him the other class, the better class of working
men, have to carry upon their backs. But those men who do not
understand the value of education, must be made to understand it.
The Archbishop of York said the voluntary system had done a
noble work, and that it was competent to meet all the requirements
of the future. I am not one to disparage the efforts of the clergy
in the voluntary system; but I will say this—that that portion of
the clergy which has done the real work in the education of the
people consists of underpaid curates, who would only be too glad to
get rid of this extra work, and get a little extra pay for the reli
gious services which they have to conduct. What has voluntaryism
done ? Why, it has provided school accommodation for two million
children; but for the want of that great principle, compulsion, there
are 700,000 vacant seats. We are told that this voluntary system
has provided 16,000 schools ; but so unequally are they distributed
�88
that in the diocese of Norfolk there are 120 parishes without one
day school. From the report of the Select Committee issued in
1866 we find that out of 14,895 parishes, there are 11,000 of them,
embracing a population of over six millions, that receive no direct
assistance from the State ; out of 755,000 children of the working
classes, from 10 to 12 years of age, only 250,000 are at school. Again
I ask what has the voluntary system done? According to 18th and
19th Victoria, chap. 34, the guardians of the poor have the power
to educate out-door pauper children from 4 to 16 years of age.
Now, we find that in nine counties of England, where there were
no less than 38,451 of these out-door pauper children, the guardians
educated the enormous number of 11, at an annual cost of £2. 4s. 8d.
That is what we have done under the voluntary system. Now,
next, if we have a compulsory system we must have, too, a free
system. The object of the League, I take it, is to work in contra
distinction to the present system, which helps those who are best
able to help themselves, leaving to starve and rot in ignorance those
who have not the power to help themselves, even if they had the
disposition. The object of the League is to help those who are least
able to help themselves. Some people have said that they fear that
if we have a free system of education the working classes would
not know how to appreciate it. Well, if they do not know how to
appreciate it we must make them know. I have seen the school
systems both of America and Switzerland, and I never came across
a man in either of those countries, who felt that he was not doing
his duty because he allowed his children to go to a free school. And
what can be said of the people of America, and Switzerland, would
no doubt be said of the people of England, if our educational system
were made compulsory. It is no use trying to mix up a national
education with any portion of religion, however small the dose.
We are not prepared to have gospel and geography mixed together.
The working classes want education. They know that the classes
above them have been tinkering with this question, whilst vice and
misery and prostitution, have piled up a colossal mountain of iniquity.
If the League knows its duty, it will go in for a compulsory, un
sectarian, and free system—for a measure which will put high and
low upon the same level in an educational sense. And now, sir, I
�89
am here to give my adhesion to the National Education League, not
that I think that its principles reach exactly and altogether the
wants of the working classes, hut because it goes a step in the right
direction; and I shall be only too glad if the Legislature see their
course to a thoroughly radical measure.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., speaking in explanation, said : I am
sorry Mr. Applegarth has not watched my course more closely,
because I believe that if one Member of Parliament more than
another has expressed himself definitely, forcibly, and frequently
upon this subject, it is myself. Speaking in the House, in reply to
Mr. Forster on the question of Trades’ Unions, I said that no Bill
would be of any use unless it was accompanied by compulsory
education. Before then, I spoke upon the educational question
itself, and no such opinion ever escaped my lips as that which
is attributed to me. I should not, too, have been charged with
opposition to compulsion, for I was one of the strongest advocates
of the Factory Acts, the great benefit of which was, as I said
in the House, that they gave compulsory, unsectarian education.
Mr. Applegarth : I.am delighted to hear from Mr. Potter that
he did not say that which he was reported in the Times to have
said. I have placed the report in his hands.
Mr. Green, Chairman of the Birmingham Trades’ Council,
continued the discussion. He said : I take it that what the League
especially wants to know from me, is whether the working men of
this town are in favour of its scheme, and whether they think that
the system of education to be adopted should be compulsory,
unsectarian, and free. Now, Mr. Applegarth, speaking for the
working men he represents, said they- were; and I, too, have to
report that in this locality, as throughout the length and breadth of
the land, a very large section of the working men are in favour of
the scheme. The society which sends me here is composed of men
of all politics, and of all religions—from the Bed Republican to the
milk-and-water Liberal-Conservative, from the Roman Catholic to
the latest discovered sect, the Hallelujah Band; yet when we dis
cussed this question of to-day, and of sending a delegate here, there
was not a dissentient voice. A few weeks ago a paper upon the
subject of compulsory and unsectarian education was read by Mr.
�90
Hibbs, a working man, before a national conference of Trades’
Unions in this town. Everyone voted for the principle, and one of
the strongest supporters was Mr. Wood, of Manchester, a strong
Tory. This matter, therefore, cannot be considered, and ought
not to be considered, a party question; but it seems to me that
clergymen seem determined to go against the working man on this,
as on some past occasions. A little while ago we heard the question,
why does not the working man go to Church? I don’t know
whether the interrogators drew a list of reasons; but if they did,
and they have not inserted this, they may add, opposition to the
scheme of unsectarian education as one of them. A local paper
says that we wish lo eliminate religious teaching from education.
Well, if that religious teaching is founded upon dogmas or creeds,
we do wish to do so. To teach a child truth is to teach it religion,
and by teaching it that, you advance it in the path in which you
wish it to tread. The clergy object to this system of the League
because under it they will not teach their creed; but I can tell
them this—that if they want to get the good-will of the people, if
they want to diminish pauperism and crime, and to raise the people
to an appreciation of what is noble and good, they should support,
not oppose, the scheme. Under it I believe the nation would pro
gress in all that is good, and those who now ask the question, why
do not working men attend a place of worship 1 would then have
to set about building more places of worship for them to attend. It
is the duty of everyone who wishes to see the children of the
country grow up, in the way they should go, and kept out of vice
and poverty, to support this scheme of the League. The working
men do not make a great deal of noise about it, but I can assure
you that they feel upon the subject very acutely indeed; for they
do not like to see the class immediately above them taking advan
tage of all the endowed educational means of the country, whilst
they are left without anything at all. They desire a better state
of things. There is no need of discussion as to compulsion—that
is settled ; and the working men of Birmingham, I am authorised
to say, will do all they can to help on a system of national com
pulsory, unsectarian education, although they would prefer that that
education should be secular.
�91
Sir C. Rawlinson gave his support to the programme of the
League. He conceived that the new educational system must be sup
ported by local rates, supplemented by Government aid. He held that
opinion upon two clear grounds. He protested against the education
of the country being handed over entirely to Government, because in
the 'first place the administration would in that case turn to rank
jobbery and gross expenditure; and, secondly, he did nor want to see
education ’ conducted without reference to the principle of local selfgovernment, the vigour and success of which was the best guarantee
for the liberties of England. It was all very well to laugh at
corporations, but they had been the safeguards of liberty. In
how many evil days had the Corporation of the City of London
stood forth in defence of the people ? For these reasons he was
extremely sorry to hear anybody say that the education grant
ought to come exclusively from Government. On the other hand,
he objected to the schools being supported wholly from local rates,
because, for a variety of reasons, it was desirable and even necessary
to have Government inspection. He need not pursue this matter. It
was obvious that for the sake of some degree of uniformity, and for
the purpose of ensuring efficiency in places where the local authori
ties might possibly not be disposed to do their duty, and for other
reasons, it was desirable that the whole system should be under the
control of a central power. Then with regard to the religious
difficulty, surely the country had had sufficient experience to
have found out by this time that it was impossible to base
education upon religion. He appealed to the whole people, then,
to aid the active spirits of the League to base religion upon
education. That was the natural course. It was a miscon
ception, which in practice led to disastrous failure, to suppose
that religion could be made the basis of education. Religion
was the flower of life, and no greater fallacy had ever beguiled
the people of this or any other country than to suppose
that it was possible to begin with religion. How could it ever
have entered anybody’s mind, that a child of seven or eight years
of age was made better, or was benefited in any conceivable way,
by repeating unchangeably the words of a catechism which it did
not understand 1 He saw, the other day, a child who had returned
�92
from a high-class school with a prize for divinity. How did he
win it? “I went,” he said, “through the whole of the kings of
Israel, and I said two Psalms by heart.” It was a farce. He
would not have joined the League if he supposed that the educa
tion it proposed was to be godless. If he were in power, he
would propose that the American Common Schools should be
the foundation of our schools. The instructions given to the
teachers and others connected with those schools, as to the
manner in which they were to endeavour to discharge their
functions, were well worth considering. They were read in
Birmingham a short time ago by Lord Lyttelton, but, unfortunately,
very little attention was paid to them. The directions were:—
“ All instructors of youth are to exert their best endeavours to
impress upon the minds of the children and youth committed to
their care, principles of piety and justice, a strict regard to truth,
love of their country, humanity, and universal benevolence,
sobriety, industry, and frugality, chastity, and moderation, and
those other virtues which are the ornaments of human society.”
That was the foundation of the Common School in America. It was
unsectarian ; and in an excellent pamphlet, which everybody ought
to read, in reply to those who said this was a godless education
(how anybody could, after full consideration, say so was inconceiv
able), Mr. Frazer answered : “ If the cultivation of some of the
choicest intellectual gifts bestowed by God—the perception,
memory, taste, judgment, and reason; if the creation of habits
of punctuality, attention, and industry, the reading of a daily
portion of God’s Word, and the daily saying of Christ’s universal
prayer—if all this is said to be the cultivation of clever devils,
it would be vain, I think, to argue with such prejudice.” He
believed that the cultivation of any one of God’s good gifts, or the
attempt to develop any one right principle or worthy habit, so far
as they went, were steps, not only in the direction of morality,
but of piety and real religion. Was it possible that a clergyman
would rather have in his Sunday school, or in his church, to
hear the truths of religion, or the dogmas of theology, a number
of densely ignorant children or other persons, than a corresponding
number of bright, intelligent, well-taught persons, such as the
�93
national schools would produce? Which could be most rapidly
and thoroughly influenced by the teaching of the Sunday school
or the pulpit ? He was sorry to hear that in Birmingham a party
was got up, to oppose and denounce those who felt themselves hound,
by the necessities of the case, to endeavour to educate the masses
of the nation. He did not believe that if any of those men could
get into their minds the real state of things—if they would
endeavour to form a conception of the appalling magnitude of the
facts—they would take the course they seemed determined upon ;
but he trusted that the League would disseminate facts upon facts,
as to the number of utterly destitute children in this country, in
order to rouse the attention of persons who at present seemed to be
satisfied to sit with folded hands, doing nothing to avert the evil
which, it was scarcely any exaggeration to say, threatened to over
whelm the country. What with ignorance, poverty, and crime, in
which so large a portion of the population was steeped, it was
impossible to look to the future without gloomy apprehensions.
If England was to maintain her present position among the nations
—if she was to maintain her high character for order and civiliza
tion—if she was to maintain her pre-eminence for commerce, it
would not be owing to her army, and certainly not to her poor
houses or her gaols, but to her having a great, intelligent, and
well-educated labouring class—that class upon whose intelligence,
honesty, and sobriety the whole strength and existence of the
kingdom depended.
Sir W. Guise : After those who have gone before me, I feel
that my position is doubtful, for I have no pretensions to represent
anybody but myself. We have been favoured of late with long
reports of Social Science meetings, Church Congresses, Episcopal
Conferences, and so on, and at all of them the question of education
has been a prominent item of discussion ; but after reading these
reports with considerable care I have come to the conclusion
that there was no result arrived at whatever. The fact is that in
those assemblies the matter is taken up in so perfunctory
a manner that it is not likely that anything of value could come of
it. Everything charitable, kind, and good is talked of but nothing
of the smallest value in a practical fashion is the result. I come
�94
now among practical men, and I embrace most heartily and
enthusiastically the programme of this platform-—compulsory,
unsectarian, national education. The denominational system has
been tried and it has failed. It has failed to reach a very large,
a very important, and, I may add, a growing and a dangerous class
of the community; and it is evident that that class never will
be reached by the means provided by the denominational system,
the fact being that the teachers under that system cannot shake
themselves free from creeds and catechismsj and I have long
felt myself that these creeds and catechisms, as taught by differ
ent sects, are becoming more and more an impediment to free
Christian intercourse amongst us. I am afraid we shall never
get rid of them—certainly not without a national unsectarian
system of education. I quite agree with the gentleman who has
gone before me, that you cannot have religion until you have
•education. Nobody who has ever been engaged in education can
help feeling that in teaching great moral truths—our duty to
God and man-—we are teaching religion. Education, as has
just been shown, must precede religion. Catechisms are utterly
unintelligible to children in general, and even to a great many
grown-up people. With regard to making money grants to
denominational schools, it should be remembered that if you make
grants to such schools in this country, you cannot refuse them to
the Catholics in Ireland. We have seen their object. The
hierarchy in that country have put forward a programme, desiring to
grasp the whole of the education of the youth of that country. It
is perfectly natural. Every faith that has faith in itself proselytises,
but England and Scotland will not consent to hand over Ireland
to the exclusive control of the priesthood. But you cannot
consistently insist upon that for yourselves, which you are not
prepared to concede to others. I used the same argument the
other day to our bishop, when I declined to attend an episcopal
conference on the subject. I feel that the system of denominational
education, subsidised by the State, has failed and must be given up.
We have then in front of us this fact—that education has become
an absolute necessity, not merely because of the danger of having
an uneducated class amongst us, but because it is impossible to
�95
look abroad upon this dark mass of uneducated humanity without
feeling that they were made for better things—that their powers
were given them for other purposes, than to allow them to waste
in ignorance, vice, and crime ; and it is our business, as a brother
hood, to stretch out our hands to those who cannot help themselves,
and help them to raise themselves in the scale of humanity. I am
not one for pulling down those who are above, to the level of
those who are below. I appreciate far too highly the value of
intellect, civilization, and refinement, to wish to see any portion
taken away ; but I wish to see the day come when those who are
below me may be be able to partake of some of the benefits of the
civilization which I enjoy. For these reasons, I have very great
pleasure in joining the association with all my heart.
The Hon. Auberon Herbert said it was clear that the voluntary
system could not cover the whole work. The word itself, without
any other facts, showed that. In a district which wished to do its
duty, and with parents who would send their children to school, the
voluntary system was all that was necessary ; but what was to be
done in a district which had no wish to do its duty and where
parents would not send their children to school'? Therefore it was
quite clear that by the side of the voluntary system another must
be placed. They were also, he thought, agreed that the system
they were going to introduce must be complete in itself. To use
Mr. Dawson’s excellent words, it must be a system of “ lucid sim
plicity,” and therefore he ventured to hope that before the Congress
broke up they would define the word “unsectarian” somewhat more
precisely than had yet been done. He took that opportunity of
expressing his entire subordination to those with whom he was
acting, in the same manner as Mr. Fawcett had done ; but it would
save them much difficulty hereafter if they construed that word
“ unsectarian” severely and precisely. He believed that if there
was religious teaching at all in the schools, it would be a constant
difficulty, for this reason—that if it was real in its nature, there
would be constant intrigue as to the appointment of a teacher ; and
other difficulties of the same nature would arise. If, on the con
trary, the religious teaching was not to be real—if they were using
a word in order to satisfy a few persons—it was unworthy of them
�96
to put out a sham. It would be to the advantage of all of them
that the State should be manly enough to take upon itself openly
its own duty, leaving the Church to take upon itself its duties. He
scarcely.need add a word as to the fact that unsectarian or secular
education was not godless education. The feeling of the meeting
had been expressed very strongly in favour of the old truth, that the
gates of heaven were upon earth, and that to make good citizens for
the heavenly kingdom, good citizens must be made for the earthly
kingdom. What had to be done was to see how the two systems
-—the new and the old—could be interwoven. That which they
had to ask seemed to him to be this : to be allowed to introduce
their unsectarian system in two instances. One should be whore the
district failed in its duty and did not provide sufficient school
ac’cbmmodation.
In that case the Government or the District
Board should have power to say to the district: You must provide
schools, you must rate yourselves for them, and they must be unsec
tarian. The second case in which there should be power to intro
duce the unsectarian system should be where the district itself
desired it. They had all realized that where there was a rate there
must be an unsectarian system, and where there was an unsectarian
system there must be a fate. As regards the old schools, he did not
see why they should not for a long time maintain their place by the
side of the new system, if only (and this was absolutely necessary)
they made certain concessions. A system of compulsion could not
be carried out unless the schools accepted a thoroughly satisfactory
conscience clause, unless they put themselves under Government
inspection, and unless they kept a register of attendance. The
present system need not be deranged further than by the acceptance
of these three things. They had heard and would hear a greatmany appeals against the proposed system, in the name of religion.
He would warn those who made such appeals that it was very pos
sible, if this controversy lasted a very long time—-should the over
whelming necessity for the education of two millions of children be
not speedily satisfied (he did not state the numbers on his own
authority, but took them as they had been given)—should those
two millions of children be left to perish in ignorance, whilst the
“ religious difficulty” was debated, it was very possible that the
�97
words “religion” and “ irreligion” might change places, and it would
be thought that there could he no act more irreligious than that of
those, who would be responsible for the delay. When he saw a
large part of the working classes, as a pledge of their earnestness,
willing to submit themselves to a law of compulsion, not for their
advantage, but for that of their children, he felt that that act on
their part, was far more religious than the words of the Archbishop
of York,when he appealed to the working men, to allow their selfish
fears and jealousies, to stand between them and this act of self
sacrifice.
The meeting then adjourned.
SOIREE IK THE TOWN HALL.
The members of the League were entertained by the Mayor in
the Town Hall, in the evening, at a Soiree. There were upwards of
800 ladies and gentlemen present.
G
�SECOND DAY.
On the reassembling of the meeting on Wednesday morning,
the Chairman (Mr. Dixon, M.P.), announced that Aiderman
Thomas Phillips had given £1,000 to the funds of the League.
COMPULSION.
The Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams, Vicar of Broadchalke, Wilts,
read a paper on “ The Legislative Enforcement of Attendance, par
ticularly in Rural Districts.” He said :—I find myself in this paper
arguing some things which do not, it seems, need arguing in Bir
mingham at all, and therefore I shall not read all that I have
written. For instance, I find myself saying a good word for the
Conscience Clause, which a gentleman from Merthyr Tydvil
yesterday said was a delusion and a snare. That arises from the
fact that in Wiltshire, in a meeting of the clergy, I have been the
only clergyman in the room who did not sign a petition against the
Conscience Clause, as being too liberal and sacrificing too much.
And just before I left South Wales to go into Wiltshire, the same
thing happened. There, also, I was the only one who would not
sign a petition against the Conscience Clause, because it gave up too
much of the rights of the Church. Hence you see how it arises
that a person of average sanity otherwise, comes here to say a good
word for that, which you once offered, but will not offer again. I
shall pass over some matters in my paper which are of an antedeluvian character, and touch on some others lightly which are
subjects for reasonable argument. I shall leave out some remarks
on the agricultural labourer, intended to show that he is not so
ignorant as is sometimes said, and that he is not tyrannised
over by the farmers. Then I go on as follows :—The range
of human thought is so complex and diversified by ramifica
�99
tions, that hardly any question is so simple (e. g. the idiom of
a particle) as not to entail upon persons treating it, the risk of
being occasionally pushed forward into the discussion of difficult
problems. A similar remark would hold good almost equally, of tha
field of human action. Only, as the mass of mankind are compelled
to act in some way, common sense has taught them the necessity
of habitually setting aside, with a view to joint action, questions
however important, not relevant to the matter in hand. The most
ardent politicians on different sides, are not necessarily prevented
from transacting commercial business together. Institutions, such
as hospitals or asylums, in which human suffering appeals to bene
volence, present a still more obvious field in which the propriety
of setting aside the jealousies incidental to divided opinion meets
with general acknowledgment. It may be true, that the strongest
moral inducements to the benevolent action in which men agree,
are derived from the religious sentiment in which they differ. But
such a circumstance is not found fatal to co-operation ; nor would
it, I apprehend, be a just conclusion, that joint action for a definite
purpose implies an absence of proper zeal in respect of other duties
or aspirations, upon which unanimity has not yet been attained.
On this principle, although my personal feeling, no less than any
clerical prepossession, might induce me to prefer the lively presence
of the religious element in any system of teaching ; yet, if either
the intellectual differences which we have been taught to associate
with the religious sentiment, or the social organisations which have
arisen as their embodiments, impede the introduction into our
schools of theological standards, I still desire the school to be
preserved, and those objects of school teaching on which we can
agree promoted, even at the price of setting aside whatever becomes
an entanglement. I refrain from pursuing this topic, because in
those districts with which I am best acquainted, the conscience
clause, when enforced as a reality, sufficiently meets the difficulty,
and the treatment of the more complex cases of large towns will
fall into abler hands. Turning to the special subject of this paper,
the desirableness of enforcing attendance in schools, especially in
rural districts, I find myself still met by that complexity of con
siderations which belongs to action of a public kind. It would be
�100
foolish, to recommend a legislative policy on this subject, without
considering the objections to such a policy which arise from the
social circumstances of the country. Hence I must ask so much of
your attention, as may show that this aspect of things has not been
forgotten, to the condition of the labourer in the south-west of
England. We do not, in Wiltshire, admit the accuracy of the highlycoloured pictures, which benevolent writers have sometimes drawn
of a dead level of ignorance among our labourers. We find many
varieties in the race ; some very good, and, in proportion to their
rank in life, intelligent; others of various degrees of badness. We
see no great wit in classing together men so unlike each other,
under the generic name Hodge, anymore than in classifying
literary artists as Dodge. Again, we do not admit that farmers
are, as a general rule, tyrannical, or forgetful of the claim of the
labouring class to humane consideration. The price of labour is
what it will fetch ; and farmers can, as little as any other class in the
community, permit themselves to be dragged down into pauperism,
by undertaking payments on a large scale, beyond the value of
that which they receive. One of the primary requisites for their
business, amidst the vicissitudes of the seasons and the growing
magnitude of their transactions, is nerve ; and one object upon which
nerve has to employ itself is the maintenance of discipline. Even
on the strong supposition, that the maintenance of a due supply of
labourers in adequate comfort should be naturally regarded as a
preliminary charge on the land, the class upon which the benevo
lent portion of such a requirement would justly fall, are not the
immediate employers, whose rents have been fixed according to the
common rules of demand and supply. Again, observing, how much
is deducted by unfavourable weather, and by short days, from the
value of the services of labourers (about three-fourths of whom the
farmer maintains through the year), I must demur to the
criticisms often lavished upon the heads of agricultural employers,
as part of the wrong habitually done to silent men. But after
all qualifications, the life of our rural labourer is hard. Suppos
ing his weekly nine shillings, virtually stretched by piece-work,
harvest-time, and allowances, to thirteen (which is an extremely,
favourable estimate), it barely covers the first necessaries of
�101
life • and, if the family are numerous, hardly gives them bread.
Fire, clothing, rent, the distant approach to luxury involved in tea,
sugar, bacon, are still to he met. When one first observes these
people one exclaims, “ How do they ever live?” We gradually dis
cover that they live in part, by the aid of their children’s labour.
From six or seven years old to sixteen or seventeen, the young
rustic goes through a rising scale of crow-scaring, and horse keeping,
for which he receives wages rising from eighteen-pence, to six or
seven shillings. Hence the boys in a family are a treasure. The
girls are, in our account, not so useful. Now the question to
which I must ask the attention of the members of our League,
and for the sake of which these details have been introduced,
is this :—Are we justified in asking the Legislature to interpose,
not only between parent and child, but between the children
and their bread; or in desiring to remove, in our scholastic
zeal, into a sphere of book-work, these poor children of the
poor, who are at present more usefully employed? Would
there not be some cruelty in such removal? Nay, even some
danger of so narrowing the possibilities of subsistence, as to
bring the parental and self-preserving instincts into collision ?
Again, this question comes clogged with an allegation. It is
alleged, that unless children go young into the fields they will not
be worth their salt; that they are not improved by schooling in
books, for the work which will be the business of their life.
Hence we are invited to let well alone, or to fall back upon the
voluntary system, which suits the genius of Englishmen, and has
made them what they are; and if there be any point at which
the influence of agricultural employers is injuriously exercised, it
is in the form of pressure, to secure the services of children at an
age tender in the judgment of the parents, who profit by it; more
so, in that of physiological observers. Agriculture is not the
only employment on which discussions of this kind have been
known. Our answer to the question raised will be found most
easily by a reference to the existence of the Factory Acts, but
more convincingly by a consideration of the principle on which
these Acts are founded, while it may be fortified by moral reflections.
We may ascribe in part to Christianity, in part to the growing
�102
humanity of the age, and, not least, to the democratic element in
our constitution, the wide acceptance of this principle—that the
human being is not to be altogether sacrificed to mechanical excel
lence in his particular calling. Man is to be made man before he
is labourer or artisan. Suppose we could develope some useful
animal instincts more strongly by surrendering what is human, we
ought not to do so. Thus, if it were true (which is a large con
cession for argument’s sake) that a little early book-work dis
inclined men for plodding field-work, we are still bound to awaken
in them a nature more than merely animal. Indeed, the possi
bility of such a collateral issue being raised, tends to throw light
on our main question ; for it indicates the existence on the part of
the parents, of so low a degree of interest on the subject as may
almost be called indifference, and it fastens our attention on the
prevalence among employers of views such as our League may
fairly counteract. Against the element of passive indifference, and
against such a low estimate of education as amounts to dis
couragement, the Legislature of the country may be called upon to
set its higher intelligence in operation. The province of an
enlightened Legislature comprehends care for the physical develop
ment of the young, and (as I have contended) for the possibilities
of their moral or mental training. Say, that in its action towards
these ends the Legislature, should indirectly suggest to our peasantry
something of that foresight which their social superiors are com
pelled to exercise in marrying, or something of that effort, on
behalf of their children’s minds which they acknowledge a duty
on behalf of their bodies—and say even that it opens to charitable
persons a new object, or fresh direction, for the aid which they often
lavish upon the poor—none of these collateral results would be so
injurious as to destroy the argument for the enforcement of primary
education. My proposal to the League is this : Let the Legislature
be asked, in pursuance of its own inquiries, to fix an age (my own
tentative suggestion would be ten) within which field-labour and
stable-labour should be restricted in kind, or forbidden altogether.
Let there be a second limit of age (I would tentatively suggest
twelve), within which employment of boys should only be per
mitted upon the production of satisfactory proof, that schooling for
�103
three or four years has secured fair results. There would be no
difficulty in either creating an officer for each union, hundred, or
larger district, or in selecting from our overseers, surveyors,
inspectors, tax-gatherers, some one who should be charged with
the duty of verifying a certificate from the Government Inspector
of Schools. Only I would deprecate the selection for this purpose
of the clergyman, whose province, lying properly in persuasion,
ought not to be encumbered with compulsory requirements.
Suppose such a system were enforced, it would reach in the first
place all the outlying squatters on the borders of parochial civilisa
tion, whose children are too often a reproach to us. Secondly, it
would stimulate opinion among the average peasantry; and,
thirdly, it would throw the shield of its powerful protection over
the mother, who too often sees her child taken from school sooner
than she likes to think of, and sooner than necessity requires.
Fourthly, it would enable us to bring to bear upon a riper age those
instructive agencies which, in the absence of preliminary training,
are almost thrown away. The night-school, of which I speak from
experience, cannot possibly be a substitute for a proper amount of
early day schooling; as anyone who observes how many of the
higher classes, after a day of hard business or hard pleasure, sit
down in the evening to the study of a Greek author, will easily
conceive. Rain and darkness, with a mile or two to walk, wet
clothes and weary eyes, hardly suit the first initiation in the
mysteries of book-work. But where the taste for reading, writing,
and calculating has been early awakened, the night-school affords a
chance of such a recurrence to such things as may be a refresh
ment. A like remark would hold good of penny readings,
lectures, newspapers. (Local journals, with local news, and an
element of religious gossip, are welcome ; but we are a long way in
Wiltshire from the bewildering topics of London journalism). I
do not speak without having tried these things. My experience
convinces me that all such agencies, and I will venture to add that
(supposing the Christianity of England to be something different
from that of Abyssinia), the instructions of the pulpit, would have a
more wholesome or energetic operation, if preceded in early life by
some three years of compulsory education for the labourer’s
�104
child. The suggestion which others have made of half-time, or of
requiring school attendance for a portion of the day, or of the year,
is one which I could only admit as valuable, upon the same con
dition as the agencies already glanced at—namely, upon the con
dition that some three years of continuous education had been its
preliminary. Nor ought mere infancy to count, if included in these
three years ? The ultimate result aimed at would be the production
of a more intelligent—therefore, we must trust, a happier—order of
men, in our rural parishes. The fear that such men would be found
less devoted to their work, or less skilful in it, less virtuous, or
harder to govern, seems to me the most chimerical fear that ever
was entertained. Men are far more easily governed than brutes;
only they require to have the fitness of things shown to them. A
public school, recruited from our higher classes, is far more amenable
to discipline than would be the same number of young rustics,
with their alternations of blind credulity and obstinate incredulity,
both guided, not by knowledge, but by invincible self-will.
Schools do wisely not to pretend to anticipate the experience of
life. But intelligence counts for something, even in handling a
spade, certainly in managing a steam-engine. That intelligence
should apply itself to the improvement of its own condition, does
not involve unfaithfulness to the interests of its employer. One
of the most direct, and in my judgment one of the happiest,
results of education, would be to increase the facilities for com
paring the value of labour in different parts of the world. It
is not important that our labourers should attend the meet
ings of the British Association; but it is very desirable that
they should be able to inform themselves how to place their con
dition on a level with their fellows at home or abroad. Nor does
it appear to me that there would be any injustice to employers, if
such a peaceful and voluntary redistribution of labour as I con
template, were to leave the natural laws of demand and supply free
to operate in the assessment of wages, instead of permitting these
to be governed by a calculation (perhaps humane) of the pos
sibilities of subsistence. At present, a certain percentage of the
labourers in each parish is unattached, or employed only out of
charity during the slack season of the year. If such men tend to
�105
keep down the price of labour, they are also a perpetual threat to
the rates. Hence a voluntary sifting of our rural population
would be a gain to the remaining peasantry; but also to the
ratepayer. Probably, in time, rates might be much diminished,
though hardly swept away. Suppose, as another result, that our
political economists and our legislators should find themselves
called upon to exercise their joint sciences in rendering the con
dition of the labourer, by means of house and pasture-land,
so attractive as to prevent the depopulation of districts already
sparsely populated, I should consider the result not unworthy
of means so peaceful and so innocent as simple education.
It would not grieve me if, by a natural process, meat and milk
were earned, and enjoyed more largely as earnings, by the poor
and by their children. This plan of enabling our poor to place
themselves by intelligence, on a level with their fellows else
where, has nothing in common with schemes for the artificial
depression of the higher, in order to bring them down to
the lower. Again, we should not grudge the labourer whatever
acquired habit of intelligent locomotion may be requisite, to
prevent a plentiful harvest, which gladdens so many classes in the
community, from bringing to him only a lowering of his wages. I
am not blaming a process due to natural causes; but I desire the
equally natural means of adjustment. Again, if the waste of life
in our large towns requires constantly to be repaired by an influx
from the rural population, such a process would become more
salutary as the raw material was improved. "We are apt m rural
districts ‘ to conceive of society in general, as a Providential
scheme, in which protection is the duty of one part, and submis
sion of the other. While I readily acknowledge the just mutual
interdependence of all ranks, and no word ever escapes me
in my ministrations calculated to set class against class, I see
reason sometimes to regret a taint of surviving feudalism, and to
dread the spread of ingrained mendicancy. It is not wholesome
that any class of men should be unable to help themselves. The
truest, the most permanent, of all forms of charity, would be that
which should restore this almost forgotten power. Because educa
tion is the most effective instrument to that holy end, it deserves
�106
promotion ; and because it cannot be adequately promoted without
aid from the strong arm of the law, I applaud this National Educa
tion League for inscribing on its banners the unpopular word com
pulsion. I hat word ought not in our age to have the same alarm
ing sound, as it had under the dynasty of the Stuarts or the Tudors.
For in proportion as our Constitution receives its full popular de
velopment, it ought to be discerned that the State is only a name
for the People, giving itself on a large scale the benefit of self-conscious
organisation. Here the jealousies, too natural in times of repression,
with which the smaller social bodies once regarded the central
authority, ought to be softened until they ultimately pass away,
and the great commonwealth of our country, expressing its mind
deliberately in the Senate, should be regarded (in the Apostle’s
words) as the nurse and mother of us all. If I have not
wearied the meeting, I will venture to add a few illustrative
remarks on some collateral points. It may be assumed that
this League will not have for its object the establishment of
new schools, to the detriment of those which exist in satisfactory
working order. Again, it is by no means a necessity that the sup
port of a school by rates, or other form of public money, should
interfere with the exaction of such payments on the part of the
children as may be easily obtained, or of such as may be found
useful in giving the education a value in the eyes of the parents.
Again, it does not follow, because we deliberately set aside such
sectarian forms of religion as include proselytism as an essential
element, that we are therefore bound to surrender the contribu
tions to man’s intellectual growth which may be derived from
literature of a sacred kind. What is called the denominational
difficulty, may seem in some cases to be only merging itself in the
form of the Scriptural difficulty; and this may happen the more in
cases where religious bodies are not agreed as to the relations of the
co-ordinate authority of the Bible, the Church, and the personal
Conscience, or Reason. But I am persuaded no such difficulty need
be found insuperable in practice. Most religious persons are
agreed that, on the ground of reverence, the Bible should not be
degraded into a mechanical lesson-book for reading, as a primer or
a horn-book. Most men of the world (like Mr. Roebuck, at Salis
�107
bury) are eager in proclaiming that many useful lessons are to be
learnt from modern history and from secular literature. Again, all
persons who have accepted frankly the principle of the Con
science Clause (though I fear its operation still needs extension and
enforcement) will concede, and even contend, that denominational
inferences from Scripture lessons are not to be pressed upon children
against the wish of their parents. It is a matter of experience, that
very energetic Dissenters will let their children attend the schools of
a clergyman, whose doctrines they disapprove, provided they are sure
of his good faith in the matter of abstinence from proselytism.
So when once it is understood that in schools supported by public
money, rates or taxes, the Bible is to have but an indirectly
religious influence, and is not to be employed for any denominational
purpose whatsoever, the difficulty will vanish. There will still
remain a treasury of sacred poetry, history, precepts, religious
instances and examples, which may subserve the noblest ends of the
teacher’s office, without prejudice to the conscience of the parent.
But if influential persons, or important bodies of men, remain
amongst us, who are not contented with such a practical application
of the principle of the conscience clause, but contend for the
enforcement upon children of points in which large classes of the
community are not agreed, the survival of such persons, or bodies,
amongs' us, is one of the strongest reasons which could be devised
for calling into existence this national League for securing the
education of every child in England and Wales. Let me end
with a story, and a reflection. A man in my parish could not
read, and his wife could not read; but they possessed a book
the library of their household. He said, with touching gen
erosity, “ Best give him (i.e., the book), to some one else; he is
no use to any of we.” Now, it is often imagined that such sayings
belong to the generation whose childhood was in days long by
gone ; when “ there was not the talk of schools there is now.”
My own observation convinces me that the tares grow as fast as
the wheat grows ; that the cultivation of human life is a constant
struggle against enemies, whose activity equals, if not exceeds any
which is exercised against them. Hence I conclude that we
require stronger remedies than anything short of legislative action
�108
can supply. If we continue in our present course, sending infancy
to school, childhood into the stable and the field, manhood to the
beerhouse, old age to the workhouse, the second generation
hence will, in fifty years more, still find men whose library
is a solitary book, and who may be ignorant enough, if not
generous enough, to exclaim, “ Best give him to some one else; he
is no use to any of we.”
ALDERMAN RUMNEY ON COMPULSION.
Aiderman Rumney, of Manchester, read a paper on “ Compul
sory Education.” He said :—The present educational system has
been in operation a sufficient time to test its value. The controversy
with the voluntaries, commencing with the introduction of the
Minutes of Council, ceased long ago, and there has been no hin
drance to the efficient working of the system. The Government
has rather been in advance of the people, in its willingness to con
tribute funds for educational purposes. The voluntaries, although
withdrawing from the controversy, have not withdrawn from their
share of their work, and the results are—the educational condition
of England at the present moment. What might have been the
state of things if the voluntary principle, pure and simple, had
been adopted, cannot now be determined. Its advocates may say
with some truth, “ It has never had a fair trial;” but it is certain
that the schools aided by public funds, and the schools supported
by voluntary contributions, have not together succeeded in educat
ing more than a small _portion of the children of the working
classes, and that both in country districts and in populous places
there is a mass of ignorance truly appalling. The Duke of Marl
borough may express his satisfaction with things as they are, but
most men who have given attention to the subject are generally
dissatisfied, while scarcely a meeting is held in town or country
at which the ignorance of the people is not deplored, and methods
of instruction urged upon them. Without troubling the Conference
with voluminous statistics, I would only refer to two or three state
ments as illustrative and typical. In a return called the “ Parishes
Return,” made to the House of Lords, it appears there are 14,877
parishes in England and Wales. Of these only 7,40G are reported
�109
by the Committee of Council as having schools fulfilling the required
conditions of approved schools ; 2,779 as inspection schools, but
not entitled to capitation fees ; and 4,692 parishes respecting which
there is no evidence of any good schools at all, although of course
in many such, doubtless, good schools not inspected may exist. The
character of these 7,406 approved schools may be learned from the
fact, that of all the children registered in 1868, only 60 per cent,
were sufficiently advanced to be presented for examination to Her
Majesty’s Inspectors; while of these only 67 per cent, passed in
reading, writing, and arithmetic ; and only a fourth were prepared
for an examination in the higher standards. Canon Morris, at one
time Inspector of Schools in Staffordshire, wrote thus :—“ Con
sidering how many schools are still inefficient, and how in the best
schools the majority of the children leave before reaching the
first class, I fear I should be rather over than under the mark
if I said that one-fifth or one-sixth part of the children of the
country are being reached by our improved system of educa
tion.” Inspector the Rev. W. W. Howard, speaking of his district
jn Devonshire, says :—“ Looking to the small number of schools
in the district in which efficient teaching is given, and
the small result of such teachings from irregularity of attendance
and other causes, I am convinced that some legislative measure is
needed, which shall secure better means of education, and shall
compel the attendance of children, that they may benefit by the
education offered.” Of Birmingham, Mr. Jesse Collings says :—
“Out of 45,000 children there were 21,696 wandering about the
streets, neither at school nor at work; and 26,000 that could
neither read nor write.” About the same may be said of Man
chester—the lowest estimate given of children who ought to be at
school and are not, is from 10,000 to 20,000, the highest from
40,000 to 50,000. The Rev. H. W. Bellairs, another inspector,
writes thus : “ The present condition of education in Great Britain
may be thus stated:—one half of the children of the working
classes between three and thirteen years of age, are under no schoolastic education at all • and of the other half it cannot be truly
said that, under our present system, they will ever be half
educated.” One country place may be taken as illustrating the
�110
educational condition of the agricultural districts; the national
schoolmaster of Evesham writes :—“ I have been in charge of this
school for five years, and from my observation and experience
during that time, I am of opinion that there is a deplorable amount
of ignorance amongst the children of the labouring class in this
neighbourhood ; I have become very strongly impressed with the
conviction, that our present educational appliances are quite in
adequate to cope with the appalling ignorance, and moral destitu
tion so prevalent in this locality.” Such, then, is the condition of
England after a lengthened trial of the system now in operation.
Doubtless there are exceptions. The northern counties are in this
respect superior to the southern, while in many towns a larger pro
portion of children will be found attending school, than in Bir
mingham and Manchester, but in no place, whether in town or
country, is the educational condition of the people satisfactory, nor
is there any hope of improvement with the present system. It is
not progressive, has no tendency to propagate itself; it helps those
who help themselves which is well enough, but the children of
those who have neither the means nor the will, it leaves to mental
and moral starvation; the rich schools are supplied adundantly,
the poor are sent empty away. “ To him that hath shall be given ;
from him that hath not, shall be taken away ”—not that which he
hath, but that which he might have, if he had only the means where
with to obtain it. The system has failed in enlisting the support
and sympathy of any but those actually interested in its manage
ment. In country districts, the clergyman is almost the only person
outside the school who takes any interest in the work within ;
there is no active and equal co-operation. He may ask, and some
times obtain the help of his neighbours, but they soon leave him to
his duties and responsibilities—they say, it is a part of the parson’s
work,* and does not concern them. In towns there are committees
and more equality between clergymen and laymen ; and there is
oversight and vigour for a time, but in the absence of anything
stimulating and requiring thought and effort, a committee soon
becomes a soulless form, only roused to periodic action for the
purpose of securing as much money from the State as possible, at
the least cost of time and labour. There is no competition among
�Ill
schools, nothing to stimulate teachers and managers; and that
which ought to interest a whole neighbourhood—the education of
the children—fails to secure more sympathy and support, than a
few annual subscriptions paid grudgingly towards the school funds.
Then, they are avowedly religious schools, established on tho
assumption that the State is bound to see to the religious instruc
tion of the young; and so all religious creeds and opinions are,
by authority of the State, taught in the day schools. Roman
Catholic doctrine and history, Protestant doctrine and history,
each declaring the other erroneous; Jewish creeds, declaring both
wrong; and, if the Mormons are numerous enough to establish
schools of their own, (for the Mormon religion is permitted by law),
then the State would pay for teaching that the Mormon Bible is
the only revealed word, and all else obsolete and erroneous. What
is truth ? is replied to by “ Whatever you please. It is of no
consequence; only let something be taught which you call religion,
and that will be sufficient.” So the Government, while compelling,
declines to interfere with the religious teaching; it merely asks
whether the managers are satisfied, with the religious condition of
the school, and if an affirmative answer be given, the capitation
grant is allowed without further question. Thus, under the shelter
of a piece of ill-concealed hypocrisy, if the managers of a
purely secular school will enforce the reading of a single verse in
the Bible daily—no matter what it may be—and declare themselves
satisfied, State aid would be afforded; while, if they are honest
enough to declare it is not a religious school, and there is no
religious teaching, it will be withheld. A singular illustration of
this anomaly was recently brought before the President of the
Council, in order, if possible, to obtain a remedy. In connection
with a large number of Mechanics’ Institutions, which are for
purely secular teaching, there are day schools as well as night
classes taught by certified teachers. These being secular are
denied the capitation grant, but if the same evening class pupils
taught by the same masters are removed to a building—a National
School for instance—where the day school is an inspected religious
school, then the night pupils are included in the returns, and the
capitation fee is paid for them. The religious influence of another
�112
class of pupils, taught in the same building in the day
extending to them as evening pupils, is as curious an illustration
of religion by proxy, or imputed righteousness, as will be found
in Church or State, in this or any civilized or uncivilized country.
Surely it is time these absurdities were committed to the Paradise
of Fools, and we adopted a course manly and intelligent in our
dealing with this question. We exhort men to cease their religious
strife, to live in harmony, to form Christian unions and alliances,
and at the same time commence with the propagation of all these
differences with the children in the day school—tell them on the one
hand how very naughty it is for men to differ so much about religion,
and on the other that it is necessary all these differences should be
perpetuated at the expense of the State, and as a part of their
education. The remedy generally proposed for meeting our educa
tional difficulties is an extension of the Factory Half-time Act.
This Act provides that no children shall be employed in factories
under a certain age, without at the same time attending school a
certain number of hours per week. Regarded as a whole, and
compared with what it might have accomplished, it has been a con
spicuous failure. Doubtless, in cases where the employer takes a
personal interest in the education of his workpeople, the Act has
worked advantageously; but such cases are the exception, not the
rule, and there is not a large town in the Factory districts, where
hundreds of young persons who have attended school at half-times
may not be found unable to read or write, and in fact almost as
ignorant, as if they had never attended school at all. Mr. Redgrave,
Inspector of -Factories, in his Report just presented, declares that
“ the present half-time system cannot be allowed to remain as it is.
It is a state of things which the Legislature did not intend, and
which cannot continue unredressed
and he then offers some sug
gestions for its improvement. The provisions of the Factory Act
have been extended to other trades and occupations where young
children are employed, but there has not been time yet to
determine with what results. Mr. Redgrave writes that he has no
doubt, “ when the Act of 1867 has become more familiar to the
manufacturers, we shall find fewer objections to the employ
ment of half-time children. But,” he adds, “ it is well to
�113
consider what the Act of 1867 has done in this respect,
as a guide to us in connection with that great subject which
in effect it has left untouched—the education o£ the people."
Charges of indifference have been brought against employers, but
the reply is obvious—it is not their business to attend to the
education of their workpeople ; if tjiey find them employment it
may bo required that it shall be in healthy rooms, and employ
ment which shall not in itself be unhealthy, and that they pay
them adequate wages : they are responsible for employing children
without a certificate and suffer the consequences ; they ought not
to be made responsible for determining the value of the certificate
presented. The cardinal defect of the Half-time Act is that it assumes
the child learns at school, but does not require it to be proved. The
certificate is given simply for school attendance, not school attain
ments ; and so, with indifferent parents and children, and too often
not efficient teachers, the children pass out of the period of bondage
to that of freedom without reaping the advantages intended by the
Act. The mind is set upon the termination of the school period, not
on learning; earning wages is a luxury, attending school a sacrifice.
This defect suggests the remedy. If there are nearly one or two
millions of children who ought to be at school but are not—if all
attempts have failed in converting ignorant parents to the conviction
that it is their duty and interest to secure the education of their
children, somehow or other, then nothing short of compulsory school
attendance, or rather compulsory school attainments, will effect the
object; an Act simple in its main features, and modified in its details,
as might be found expedient, would be needed. Regarding attend
ance at school as secondary, it would make it a criminal offence,
punishable by fine or imprisonment, for a parent or guardian to
allow a child to grow up without instruction; and a like offence for
an employer to engage and pay wages to a child without the pro
duction of a certificate of attainments. In this way the strongest
possible inducement would be held out both to parent and child—
not simply to attend school, but to obtain the instruction by which
alone he could earn wages. Self interest would quicken the
apathetic ; no knowledge no wages, would soon fill the schools, and
a generation would not pass away before the laws of compulsory
H
�114
school attendance would be unnecessary. There would be no
great difficulty in fixing the standard of attainments, or securing a
proper examination ; these things are done at present by the
Oxford and Cambridge Universities, by the Society of Arts, the
Government in the Science Class examination, and other bodies.
It is assumed the examinations would be confined to what are
called secular subjects. A complete education is not contemplated;
but rather that elementary training of the faculties of hand, eye, and
mind, by which the educational process may be carried forward—
the culture and use of the implements rather than the work they
are destined to perform. Primarily, reading, writing, and arithmetic
—possibly geography, history, grammar, drawing, &c.—would form
the subjects upon which examinations would be held, the particular
standard being adjusted to meet the requirements of the case, as in
the examinations already referred to ; it would be determined by
competent and independent authority, and modified from time to
time as might be found necessary. It is satisfactory on this point
to be fortified by the opinion of Mr. Redgrave, Inspector of Factories,
already referred to, who recommends, in suggesting improvements
in the Factory and Employment of Children Acts, “ that no young
person under the age of 16 should be employed for full time unless
a certificate be produced, given in a prescribed form by a certified
schoolmaster, minister, inspector of schools, or justice of the peace,
certifying that the young person can read and write well, and work
sums in the four first rules of arithmetic.” It may be further
remarked, that no country has in modern times secured an educated
people in the absence of compulsory school attendance. In Prus
sia, Switzerland, partly in Holland—the best educated European
States—school attendance is compulsory. In Canada it is the
same, and in the United States it is now, or has been; in some
States the law has ceased to be operative, superseded by the stronger
law of public opinion ; in others, where school attendance is not
satisfactory, a renewal of the compulsory law is suggested as the
only remedy. The principal objections to compulsory school attend
ance are that it is un-English, an interference with the liberty of
the subject, and would not be submitted to by the people. With
a large number of people everything new is un-English. “ That
�115
which has been shall be” is with them a maxim incapable of refu
tation ; they look back on the past, not for lessons to guide, but for
precedents to follow. Through predilections and prejudices every
question is viewed, seldom directly and abstractedly, and hence
almost all accepted truths have had to fight their way through
contempt, obloquy, misrepresentation, and argument, to victoiy.
There is this encouragement—many things formerly regarded as
un-English are now established. All legislation on social questions,
Sanitary Acts, Health and Nuisances Removal Acts, are of this
description. A man cannot build his house as he pleases, so far
has law invaded the domain of social and private life; and yet the
people are not in rebellion-—nay, rather, the demand is for more,
not less of legislation in this direction. Doubtless, it would be
better if people could be induced to do without so much legal
enactment. Whatever people can do for themselves they ought to
do it better than the State, in its organized capacity, can do it for
them ; but, unfortunately, they do not attend to their own well-being,
even when the duty is obvious ; and although experience is valuable
as a teacher, her school fees are so heavy, that of late years there
has grown up a disposition to devolve many duties upon the State,
which were formerly regarded as beyond its legitimate province.
That compulsory school attendance interferes with the liberty of
the parent is unquestionable, but only so far as the parent violates
the primitive and inherent rights of the child. The child has the
same right to have the mind fed as the body, and if the neglect to
afford proper nourishment for the body exposes the parent to
punishment, there is no reason why the same or even greater
punishment should not be inflicted when he neglects to supply the
necessary food required by the mind. In one sense all law inter
feres with personal liberty, but only when the exercise of liberty
interferes with the rights of others. To punish the burglar is to
interfere with his liberty to plunder; to punish the parents for
withholding from their children the right to be instructed is to do
the same thing. The State takes upon itself the guardianship of
the rights of the weak and helpless, as against the strong, but the
law in each case is founded upon man’s moral nature, is not afbitary, and would be respected. Compulsory school attendance • need
�116
not necessarily interfere with, the liberty of instruction. The child
may be taught at home or at school; the only obligation is that he
shall. not grow up in ignorance. In bringing children into the
world, parents have contracted certain obligations towards them—
they are bound to bring them up and fit them for citizenship ; but
these children are helpless, and unable to secure the fulfilment of
the-obligation, and hence the State interferes as their guardian, to
obtain from the parent, if he is able—and by some other means if
he is not—the completion of the contract into which he had
entered. That there would be cases of hardship where children
are employed and earning wages is likely enough—all social
laws press heavily on some—but regard for the child’s permanent
welfare should over-ride all considerations of temporary advantage
to the parent; and surely it is a less evil to restrain a parent from
Eving upon the earnings of a child, than that the child should be
deprived of the instruction by which he can earn his own bread in
after life, and discharge properly the duties of a citizen. The evil
would not be serious—it would be a displacement of labour to some
extent. There is a certain quantity of juvenile work to be done in
the country, and if children of six to eight years are prevented
doing it, older children and more efficient will be employed for the
purpose. On this subject Monsieur Cousan says : £k A law which
compels parents and guardians under penalties to secure the in
struction of children, is based on the principle that the degree of
education necessary to the knowledge and practice of our duties is
of itself the first of all duties; and,” he adds, “ I do not know a
single country where this law is absent, where popular education
flourishes.” Would a law so inoperative be observed? It is said
such an. amount of hostility would be created as to render the law
inoperative. It may be so, but is it not more likely the influence
would be altogether in the other direction ? The Act would be the
corporate seal of the nation set to the declaration that the children
shall be educated ; it would have the support of the majority, of all
who are really favourable to the nation’s advancement. On parents
disposed to have their children instructed it would exert no
pressure, would not be felt oppressive; they are doing exactly
what the Legislature declares they ought to do. On the vicious only
�117
would it press heavily. In the middle class, and a large section of
the working men, the feeling in favour of education is strong and
general; and this feeling, supported hy public law, would create an
opinion and influence upon the class below tending to secure
respect and observance, and calculated to render criminal proceed
ings infrequent, and in time unnecessary. Again, it may be
questioned whether there is much force in the opinion so
frequently urged, that abolishing school fees, and supporting the
schools out of the taxation of the country, would tend to lower the
value of instruction in the estimation of the people. It can hardly
be conceived that parents, having a due regard for the welfare of
their children, will neglect to send them to school because they
have no occasion to send at the same time 4d. or 6d. per week as pay
ment for the instruction; and it is still less conceivable that those who
have no such regard for their offspring will make this an excuse for
their negligence, and urge that if the sacrifice involved in the per
formance of their duty were greater, they would be more disposed to
undertake it. Be it as it may, there is the fact that a large number
of the children of the working class are without instruction—a
sufficient number to suggest the question, “What will they do with
us ? ” if we cannot do something more with them, than has been
done. Parents do not send them to school, and will not', and no
other remedy is suggested but compulsion. But if compulsion
is applied to one it must be to all ; the law must be equal in its
dealings. Ignorance and criminality, as a matter of fact, are insepar
ably connected. One of the functions of Government is- the
repression of crime, and, in the interests of society and the welfare
of the helpless child, it surely may interfere to prevent the abuse of
parental authority. At present a parent may do whatever he pleases
with his child, short of actual bodily cruelty ; he may educate it or he
may not, and the law does not interfere. Substitute the imperative
for the conditional—you shall for you may—and there will be a
prospect that in a few years our educational condition will no longer
be a bye-word and reproach to all intelligent foreigners. In carrying
out this law of compulsory school attendance, it is clear schools must
be provided; it does not necessarily follow they should be free,
except to the children of parents who cannot afford to pay. Whether
�118
they should be free to all is fairly open to discussion, bnt all certi
fied schools, whether without school fees or with them, on the part
of those able to pay, should be open without restriction or limita
tion in so far as they are aided and inspected by public authorityThey should neither be denominational nor sectarian schools, nor, in
the ordinary sense in which the term is used, should they be religious
schools. It is not now regarded as the paramount duty of the State
to attend to the religious interests of the people. The world is
ultimately ruled by thought, and it cannot be questioned that the
thought of England and Europe is strongly in favour of leaving
religion to individual conscience, withdrawing it from the sphere
of law, and, in spite of popes and prelates, leaving every man to
settle for himself what form of religion he shall adopt, and what
mode of worship he shall observe. But it does not follow that all
existing schools cannot be utilized and used, and only if and when
found inadequate need new schools be erected : the simple provision
would be that during ordinary school hours the instruction should
be confined to the subjects in which examinations are conducted,
and dogmatic religious teaching be excluded. Instead of a con
science clause, which is but a clumsy contrivance for protecting the
Dissenter from outward violations of conscience, while it exposes
the child to social degradation, the religious instruction, as such,
should be limited to certain hours, open to all who choose to accept
it, but not forced -on any. There is one objection to the use of
existing schools pointed out by Mathew Arnold. It is this : “ That
the moment the working class of this country have this question of
instruction really brought home to them, their self-respect will make
them demand, like the working classes on the Continent, public
schools, and not schools which the clergyman, or the squire, or the
millowner calls 1 my school.’ ” There is another objection still more
formidable, viz., that the interest of the nation will never be fully
enlisted in the work of popular education so long as instruction is
confined to denominational schools. The continuance of these
schools is urged solely on religious grounds; they are supposed to
secure, by their connection with a place of worship, the religious
culture of the children, and this is regarded as all-important. It is
singular the unanimity there is among a certain class of speakers
�119
and writers in favour of combining religion with elementary instruc
tion in schools for the poor. They look with horror on what they
term the divorce of religion from the learning of the alphabet in the
national schools ; yet respecting the schools for their own children,
the middle and upper class schools, there is no anxiety. The last
thing people send their children to be taught in the grammar or
private schools is religion, and as a matter of fact it is not taught;
and yet when it is proposed to omit this teaching from schools for
working men, an outcry is raised, the scheme denounced as godless,
and the supporters of it no better than infidels. Lurking under this
loose talk is the idea that religion is a good thing for the poor man,
and it must be supplied to him whether he likes it or not; but for
other people—why, they can please themselves. Ask, however, the
working men themselves respecting the education of their own
children, and they would pronounce unhesitatingly in favour of
non-denominational and secular schools. In this respect also the
present system must be regarded as a failure : it is based on the
idea of making men Christians that they may be good citizens. If
it had succeeded, its continuance might be justified; but has it ?
Notoriously, a vast majority of the working classes are outside the
pale of direct religious influences, and yet these have been trained
to a large extent in our existing schools. Not a Congress of Bishops
and Clergy can be held—not a Conference of Dissenting ministers
of any denomination—where the question respecting the alienation
of the working classes from religion is not earnestly discussed, and
sundry plans devised for their recovery. The “ heathenism of our
large towns ” is always a favourite subject, and how to adapt church
services to suit their tastes, and so bring them into the religious
edifices, occupies a conspicuous place in all their deliberations. Let
anyone examine the Reports of the Inspectors of the National
Schools on Gospel History, or any subject embraced in religious
teaching, and, with some exceptions, it is about the saddest exhi
bition of ignorance to be found in connection with school teaching.
Committing to memory religious dogmas they cannot understand,
or which, if they do, they find daily the subject of controversy, is
not the way to make children religious, or to form the basis of a
true Christian character. In fact, religion cannot be taught, it must
�120
grow by all the holy influences with which a child can be sur
rounded ; but these influences may be entirely absent where there
is most of professedly religious teaching. Between “teaching
religion ” and “ religious teaching ” we have failed to recognize any
distinction, and this confounding of two things essentially different
is a mistake which pervades our entire system of education. An
improved national System must have for its object the making
of good citizens. The real learning of a man is of more public
importance than any particular religious opinions he may entertain,
and we must learn to separate the teaching of religious doctrine
from the ordinary instruction of primary schools, before we can
expect to train up good citizens or intelligent Christians. It may
be admitted that there can be no complete education if religion is
altogether excluded; but elementary and technical instruction can
be given alone, and religious instruction may be safely left to
private individuals or the public bodies which may choose to under
take it. Aworthy prelate at a recent Church Congress again hoisted
the American flag, to frighten us from the adoption of this godless
scheme of secular education. Whether rhe distinguished prelate is
acquainted with the American system or not does not appear, but
the results will challenge comparison with anything he can produce
in this country. The system is based upon the idea of citizenship.
The teaching of religion is prohibited; religious teaching is not.
The Bible is not degraded by being made a school book, and ex
plained by an incompetent teacher; but the school is opened by a
portion read without note or comment, the Lord’s Prayer is recited
or chanted, a hymn or piece of sacred music is sung; and, when
conducted by an intelligent and religious teacher, it is difficult to
imagine a service more beautiful or impressive than may be wit
nessed daily at the opening of an American primary school. And
what are the results ? The American youths are more intelligent
than the English. The American people are as loyal to their
Government, and, as a whole, as law-abiding as any under the old
monarchies of Europe, and, judged by any of the ordinary tests, they
are more religious than the people of this country Sunday is better
observed than here, a larger number of people attend church; the
religious, educational, and philanthropic institutions supported by
�121
voluntary contributions are equal in extent to those in this country.
A religious tone enters into and affects the whole of society, which
has no counterpart in this country, while in the more purely
American States, where the foreign element has less influence, there
is a higher general and religious culture than could be found either
in this country or in any of the old countries of Europe. And yet
reverend men at Church Congresses talk about this secular education
as leading to irreligion and infidelity. The leading features of a
measure may be briefly summarised. A Minister of Education, and
a Council, and Examining Board would be essential; provision for
training and certifying competent teachers ; in every district a com
mittee to superintend all school arrangements, and disburse the funds
levied for school purposes. The funds should be partly national,
partly local—national as contributed by the whole people, and
local in order to secure personal local interest, and a provident dis
bursement. The area of local taxation should be so wide as to
avoid severe and unequal pressure, and not so large as to destroy
individual supervision. In corporate towns, and towns with Local
Boards, these bodies would be intrusted with the work and manage
ment ; in country districts, the Poor Law Unions would afford
the basis of organization. In all cases the duty of superintending
school instruction should be regarded as the proper business of
the governing body, and not of the clergy. Their work is the
religious teaching; but only as citizens have they need to meddle
with general instruction. The scramble hitherto to induce children
to attend school, that they might be got to church and figure in
ecclesiastical statistics, has hindered rather than helped the progress
of education. If the responsibility of looking after the instruction
of children be taken from the clergy, and placed upon the rate
payers in each locality, self-interest and preservation would act as
powerful incentives to vigorous action against a too parsimonious
provision. A minimum salary could be fixed where a given mrmber of scholars are taught, so that a school would in no case be
starved by an economical committee. Another important feature
would be thorough inspection and frequent examinations, and the
results of the examinations circulated as soon as possible. At
present the reports of the Inspectors are almost useless. They are
�122
sent in by a department of the Government, printed among the
blue books, and ready for use if anybody cares to apply for them ;
but, supposing the reports of a district were printed and circulated
quickly, the peculiarities—excellences or deficiencies—of each
school pointed out, what an interest would be excited! Com
mittees and managers would read and consider them. Conferences
of teachers would be held, they would be discussed, a healthy
stimulus would be applied, and then would happen, what it is
utterly in vain to expect under the present system : the people,
regarding the work as their own, would do it with all the judgment
and energy of which they are capable, and which characterises
their proceedings in other matters of local and personal interest.
DISCUSSION.
Mr. E. Potter, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen—
In the first place, let me express my strong feelings of admiration for
the address which we have just heard from Mr. Alderman Eumney,
than whom no man is more competent to give an opinion on the
working of the educational system in the district from which he
comes. I heard him a year or two ago, before a Parliamentary com
mittee, say that he considered the factory education little less than a
sham. I agree with him, and the causes are, to my mind, very patent.
In the first place, the factory system only embraced a single section
of the trade of the country. It was forced on the cotton trade, and
the country felt that it was unjust to compel one trade only to
submit to it. Among millowners there was a strong and a natural
feeling, and even the best masters, who had had educational estab
lishments of their own previous to the time, said, “ If it comes to a
question of force, the people may educate themselves.” They
would not be forced, as a single class, to do it, and their feeling
upon the matter was strong. Now, factory education has been
very good under certain circumstances, and bad under other circum
stances. Where a master has taken an interest in education, it has
been successful, but it has been a very difficult thing to carry out.
It is a difficult thing to exercise a moral compulsion. Those of us
who are large employers may be able to persuade many, but un
fortunately others would take a different course. They would pre
�123
fer sending their children to where they could work full time. The
inefficiency of the factory system is that it does not embrace the
whole country. The great benefit of the compulsory principle is
that it would reach all classes. Now, it must be carried out mainly
by the extension of the factory and half-time system. That is the
great object of the bill I advocate. It would compel the education
of every child, labouring or not. I see no difficulty in doing this ;
the organisation would be very easy—-no more difficult for a district
than it is now for a single factory. There are large factories,
employing five or six thousand hands, and I do not see that it
would be more difficult to educate the children in a small
town, say, of 8,000 inhabitants, than it is to educate the
children in a large mill. There is one point I am anxious about
in connection with the League, and that is, that this education
should be kept perfectly distinct from the present denominational
system. If it is given on something like the factory system, I
believe it will not interfere with, but tend to support, the present
system. I say this advisedly. There is a large class of workmen
who, when forced to educate their children, will, as a matter of
pride, send them to the denominational rather than to the free
schools, and pay for them rather than accept State aid. In a few
years it would have that effect. At all events, the two systems
must be kept perfectly distinct. There is nothing worse in a
denominational school than the education of half-timers. School
masters do not like to have them, because they interfere with the
working of the school. I had some knowledge of a school ten
years before the Factory Act came into existence. It was pretty
successful, and well supported, and the proprietor had some
influence over a certain number of hands. I believe it was a
higher class school then than it was when transformed into a
school of half-time. The master could not give attendance to the
half-timers, and the school rather fell off, and the ultimate con
clusion of the proprietor was, to make it altogether into a half
time school. The privilege was extended to the master of taking
any number of children from the neighbouring district to educate,
and of having the fees himself j but he has never succeeded in
this respect, and he said to me in conversation, that there was a
�124
feeling among the better class workmen against sending their
children into the half-time school. I think that feeling exists, hut
if the free and compulsory system is worked on the half-time
principle only, the Factory Act will be carried out very efficiently.
I am an advocate for the half-time system, but it must be kept
distinct from the other. We have been working half a century
under the Factory Act, and it has been compulsory, as far as it
went, and secular. There has been no compulsion to teach religion
the employer not teaching his own creed-"—or to have the school
purely secular. I think many of the best schools have been
purely secular. I think, then, that the new schools which will be
established, if I may say so, below the line, should be classed as
distinct working-class schools entirely. I am very anxious that
every encouragement should be given to keeping them separate.
I should not like any injury to be inflicted on the higher class
denominational schools. My great interest in joining this society
is to keep the schools distinct. I think we shall do a fatal damage
if we injure the denominational schools at all, because there is
il ample room and verge enough” for us below them. I am per
fectly satisfied we can supply education in the schools below them
to another million children. Why should they not be perfectly
distinct ? The one class of schools will be compulsory, and that
very compulsion should make them free and secular. We might
as well meet the thing at once, openly and honestly. In
denominational schools you can enforce denominational teaching;
but with us, under a compulsory system, it must be secular. I
wish the two questions to be worked harmoniously, side by side,
but to be separate from each other.
The Rev. C. Clarke : I am to speak a few words on the subject
of compulsion, and on the supposition that in the course of a few
years we shall have our bill passed through the Houses of Parlia
ment, and that local authorities will have the power to found and
establish free secular schools, is it likely in such case that the
poor, the ignorant, the thoughtless, those of our fellow countrymen
who are unacquainted with the blessings and advantages of educa
tion, will be able to oppose the national will and the intentions of
the Legislature by refusing to send their children to school ? Are
�125
they likely to succeed in any attempt of that sort ? Now, with
regard to the schools which we desire to establish, I wish to notice
a remark which proceeded yesterday from the lips of Professor
Fawcett. I understood him to say—and in fact he is reported this
morning in the papers as having said—that it was the intention, or
it would be the work, of the League, to establish such schools as
the British schools.
Professor Fawcett : Should I be in order if I rise to explain ?
There is some misunderstanding. I made the remark in conse
quence of a letter last week in the Spectator, signed “ Jesse
Collings.” I stated distinctly yesterday that it was my duty simply
to explain the programme of the League—I did not express my own
individual opinion. What Mr. Collings stated, writing in the name
of the League, was this : that it was not the intention, or desire’ or
object of the League that free British schools should be established.
What he did state distinctly was this : that it was their intention
to give the local managers of these rate-supported schools the
authority, if they desired it, to establish schools analogous to the
British schools. If he misinterpreted the intentions of the League,
it is his fault, and not mine.
Mr. Jesse Collings : I think this renders a further explana
tion necessary. It will be seen from my letter to the Spectator
that it is not the intention of this League to found schools like the
British schools. My letter was written in answer to a rather
unfair article in the Spectator, and to numerous inquiries whether
the Bible should be read or not. The answer is : The League has
nothing to say about the Bible ; the reading of the Bible, like any
other book, or any other question affecting the discipline or instruction
of the school, will be left in the hands of the local authorities. There
fore in our bill, to be founded on this principle, we shall have nothing
at all to say about the Bible. The words about British schools
were brought in incidentally, and they were these—“In this respect
(in being unsectarian) the League goes no further than the British
and Foreign School Society.” I was not speaking of the practice Of
that society ; but their theory, which is that there shall be no theo
logical instruction given in the schools. That is what we mean—that
there shall be no religious creed or catechism of any kind taught in
�126
the schools we are about to found. If the British and Foreign
Society do allow these things to be taught, then I was in error.
We do not intend that they shall be taught in our schools.
The Rev. C. Clarke : Some of us in Birmingham have to do
with schools in which daily the Scriptures are read, but in which
no express theological or religious instruction of any kind is given.
Now, originally, the British schools had this foundation, and no
other, but I thought it was notorious that during the last twenty
years the authorities of those schools, the head-quarters of which
are in the Borough Road, have (in the judgment of many persons)
utterly perverted their trust. They have taught a sectarianism, and
when called to account, or when an explanation was demanded,
they still persisted in doing it; and persons who had for many
years supported their institutions on the ground of their supposed
unsectarian character, were obliged to leave the British schools
altogether. Now I wish to say that some of us, in promoting the
objects of the League, wish to take every precaution against an
abuse such as that. The Scriptures will not be read, except in
such schools as are governed by authorities who desire that
they shall be read, and insist on their being read. We would
like to see this matter carefully considered. For having to
do with schools, knowing how they are conducted, and what
goes on in them ; and having after long use some reasonable
and proper regard for the Scriptures, we are a little dubious, and
inclined to hesitate on the question whether a true regard for them
can be shown by the unthinking, an4 unreasonable, and improper
use made of them sometimes in schools. But however this may
be, it would be improper and unbecoming for us of the League to
say that the Bible shall not be used. Let the Bible be used if the
authorities in any district insist on its being used, but let us have,
at any rate, in our constitution the clearest and most positive
statement to the effect that no theological teaching, no note or com
ment of any sort whatever, shall be allowed in the national schools
of our country. Now, on the supposition that the local authorities
have the power to establish schools of this kind—secular free
schools—ought the people, by reason of their ignorance, and
the manner in which hitherto they have been neglected, to
�127
be allowed to oppose their inclinations to the decision of
the Legislature and the just wishes of the nation? We know,
all of us, that we have to submit to regulations and laws in con
nection with the maintenance of the poor, the punishment and
confinement of criminals, and the public health; and all of us
who think at all on the matter know that if the nation chooses to
express its will through the public laws in connection with the
matter of our sending our children to school, we shall have to
submit in that respect as well as in the others. With regard to
modes of compulsion, none of us think of compulsion as an end.
We are sometimes spoken of as though we were endeavouring to
introduce some principle of compulsion as an end. It is not an
end—it is a means; and those who observe the laws in this case,
who do what they ought to do in connection with their children,
will be under no form of compulsion whatever other than their
own sense of duty. As to the manner in which the principle of
compulsion may be applied, it would, of course, be possible to
introduce here in England what I understand to be the law in
Prussia, in which there is a complete system of registration, so
that the members of every family are registered, and in a sense
known • and the children of every family have in a certain manner
to be accounted for if not in their places at school. We might
have a system of registration of that sort. But without proceeding
so far as that, we might have a system by which no children
should be employed whatever when they ought to be at school.
This would be a kind of compulsion which possibly might be
exceedingly offensive. But in addition to having a labour clause
utterly excluding children in those years when they ought to be at
school from factories and workshops, we might have a vagrant or
truant clause similar to that which is enforced in Massachusetts.
Mr. Field, who is well acquainted with the American system, and
who, in his visits to Massachusetts, has taken pains thoroughly
to inform himself, has told me that the people have clauses
in operation of this nature. If children, for instance, are seen
in the streets of Boston during the school hours, they are at
once captured by the officers, inquiries are made of their parents
as to why they are in the streets, and not at school, and their parents
�128
are seriously warned and admonished that they will incur penalties
if this is continued. Of course, if the children go to school all is
well; if they do not go to school, the parents, as sometimes happens,
are fined in any sum not exceeding 20 dollars ; or the children, if
they show themselves to be incorrigible, are taken before a magis
trate, and by him committed to a truant institution. These penalties
are enforced in Massachusetts, and inflicted from year to year. If
we were wise enough to have a clause excluding children from
factories and workshops, and another keeping them from the streets,
these forms of compulsion might be sufficient; but if they did not
prove sufficient, it would be open to the Government to introduce
clauses of a more stringent nature. I talk to my friends and
acquaintances on the subject, and find a few of them shrinking in
regard to compulsion, but I tell them, as I will tell you, that most
happily we have now the power by which knots of various intricate
kinds and characters may be either untied or cut. We have this
in the political power which the people possess, and if only we will
take our stand on grounds that are logical and right, and appeal to
the country at large, but especially to those artisans who are really
intelligent and upright, and anxious for their own welfare and the
country’s good, we shall get the help whereby these intricate knots,
so puzzling and painful to timid and cautious people, may be alto
gether untied or cut, the difficulties will not trouble or embarrass
us at all. Let us, I say, take our stand on grounds that are legiti
mate and right, and appeal to the common sense and conscience of
the nation, and then we shall find we have just the force we need
to carry out educational measures, and everything else relating to
the well-being, honour, and happiness of our country.
Mr. Mundella, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen—
After the remarks of the last speaker, and, indeed, of some of the
preceding speakers, I think I cannot do better than submit to this
audience something of my experience of what compulsory education
has done abroad, what is the machinery by which it has effected those
results, and the necessity for it at home; and I trust the audience
will forgive me for saying that the few remarks I submit to you
will not be the remarks of a mere theorist or doctrinaire. I am
the son of a working man. I left school at nine and a half years
�129
of age, and my first master, to whom I served my apprenticeship,
is now in the body of the hall. I have been an employer of
4,000 workpeople, and have been an employer abroad, where com
pulsory education is carried out. I have addressed large audiences
of from 10,000 to 20,000 workpeople at once, in this country, on
compulsory education, and I never met with but one response—a
hearty assent to it. I just state these facts, not in order to give
you anything of my personal affairs, but that my remarks may not
be regarded as those of a theorist or doctrinaire, who wishes to
force his crotchets on the people. My attention was first drawn
to the necessity for compulsory education by observing its work
abroad. I first saw it in Switzerland, then in Saxony, and then in
Prussia. Ten years ago I saw it first in Switzerland, but my visits
to Saxony, as an employer of 600 or 700 workmen, have been
annual for some years, and the results of education there are so
remarkable, so incredible, that I should be afraid to describe them
to you. Nobody could realise or believe it. We are not only
incomparably inferior in the quantity of our education, but also
inferior in the quality ; indeed, we are more inferior in the quality
than in the quantity. We cannot realise in England what can be
attained by children under a compulsory system of primary educa
tion. Now, I have visited the schools in Saxony again, and again,
and again; and I have seen the children of peasants and
of framework-knitters, children of the humblest classes, of spinners,
and of weavers, and of ironworkers, at twelve years of age, convert
moneys from English into German, from thalers and groschen into
dollars and cents, then into francs and centimes, and transpose them
back again into German. I have gone the length and breadth of
the land, and have examined children by the wayside, children in
factories and cottages, and have never found one at twelve years of
age who could not read and write well—not as we understand
reading and writing, but such reading and such writing as I or any
other in this room have attained. They read and write intelli
gently. I have tried to find some comer or some spot in Saxony,
or the Canton of Zurich, or some Swiss Canton, where there are
uneducated children. I have always failed, and school directors
have said to me, “ It is in vain you search for them; there is no
I
�130
child in Saxony who cannot read and write.” My manager, who
has now been nine years in that country, and has had a daily
correspondence with numbers of workpeople scattered in the
mountains, with handlooms in their own cottages, has never yet
found a workman who could not correspond with him perfectly
and intelligibly about his own work. You need not wonder that
the North German Confederation is making such marvellous pro
gress. Well, I shall next say something of the machinery by
which it has been accomplished, because English people have
an idea, and interested parties are disseminating that idea,
that com pulsion means espionage and the policeman. A greater
fiction never entered into the mind of man. There is no
espionage, no policeman, in the case. I confess to you I under
took this part of the subject in fear and trembling. After being
shown a school of 3,000 boys, fifty in a class—the school, by the
way, being The handsomest building in the place—I said to the
head director in his counting-house, with his clerks around him,
“ Now, sir, tell me how often you have to call in the aid of the
policeman;” and he stood aghast. “I have been years head
director of this school,” he said; “ I never yet had to call in the
policeman.” He said, “ You do not understand the machinery by
which our schools are worked.” I have since mastered it; and I
tell you I do not believe in any truant law or vagrant law, or
Factory Act, or Workshops Act. They are all nonsense, and
will not answer the purpose. The machinery is simply this :
Every child in every cottage, hamlet, or town in Ger
many, Prussia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Wirtemburg, or Switzer
land, is registered. You can keep a register of voters for household
suffrage; why not keep a register of children ? They have a house
hold register, and there are schools everywhere. They are not free
schools either; although the population is poor, they pay. The
children at six years of age must go to school. There are infant
schools, and they may go there before that age; but the compulsion
commences at 6 years, and does not end till 14. Well, the names
are inscribed in the register, and at the end of the sixth year the
parent receives a notice from the local board—the school board.
You could have a central board, and your political divisions would
�131
be your school divisions. It is so in Switzerland and in Prussia.
The wards of the town have their own local boards, represented at
the central board, and the local board would give notice to the
parent, “ Your child is six years of age, and must now come to
school.” The child comes to school or he does not; but suppose he
does not, there is no magistrate, no policeman, in the case. The
criminal law is never called into operation at all; the board has all
power, and they send for the parent. The head director said to me,
“ When it occurs that the parent does not send his children to
school, or neglects to send them regularly, after a certain number of
omissions I send for him and read the Act to him, or tell him to
read it himself, and say to him, ‘ If you are in duty bound, accord
ing to law, to send your child to school, why have you not done
so
This generally answers the purpose. But suppose the man
is contumacious, his case is laid before the school board, and he is
fined a franc. That is the first proceeding. Well, the matter
rarely, if ever, goes beyond it, for in a district of 50 odd thousand
persons, the school director told me he had only 42 cases of con
tumacy in 8 years ; and he is a strict man. But it is said by our
opponents, “ Oh, compulsion is not necessary there ; public opinion
does the work, and it will do just as well without compulsion.”
Now, I have put this question again and again. I am in corre
spondence with some of the principal school authorities in Saxony,
Prussia, and Switzerland, and I have asked them, “ Have you any
difficulty?” The answer has been, “We had a good deal of
difficulty at first, but after the first year or two it was wonderful
how smoothly things went.” “ Then,” I said, “ dare you now
relax the law ? ” In every instance I have had but one answer,
“We dare not relax the law.” And the reason is obvious. In all
communities there are some persons who shrink into habits of vice
and intemperance, and these persons would drag their chileren
down with them, and they would increase and multiply the vice
and ignorance of the country; but that the law prevents them. And
in answer to our opponents, who say that where there is a healthy
public opinion there is no need of law, let me make some allusions
to America. The Americans have been spoken of very honourably
by the last speaker, and I wish to speak of them with great admir
�132
ation; but there is one defect in the American system, and the
Americans are becoming conscious of it. They know they want
the compulsory power. The result is that public opinion, which
was a power when America was more sparsely populated, is now
ceasing to act. America is fast sinking into ignorance; and in
order that I may not misrepresent that great country, which has
made more munificent provision for education than any other, I
will give these facts. The superintendent of the Cincinnati schools
states that this is the percentage of daily attendance : In Cincinnati,
70-1 ; in Chicago, 58’9 ; in New York, 42’6. Is that the state of
things you wish to copy ? Listen to what he says about Prussia—
“ I refer to the Prussian system of education to call attention to
that feature of it which makes education compulsory, and I do this
because I believe that if we shall ever hope to derive the best
possible fruits from our own munificent system of education, this
feature must be incorporated into it.” This is American opinion.
America has recently appointed a Bureau of Education, and that
bureau is finding that with all this munificent provision, there are
thousands and tens of thousands who are not availing themselves
of it, and America is fast waking up to the consciousness —her best
men are already aware of it—that they must introduce compulsion
if they would wish to succeed. Now, our Workshops and our
Factory Acts are failures. Never was anything a more complete
failure than the Workshops Act. To neglect a child till he is 8, 9,
or 10 years of age, and then, when he first commences to work, to
insist on his going to school, is about the most objectionable and
unreasonable form of compulsion, I think, that it was possible for
the human mind.to devise. And, you know, in workshops and
factories we have espionage and the policeman, for nothing is done
unless either a policeman or a detective officer goes in. The Factory
Inspector is not a policeman, it is true, but he summons men before
the^criminal courts. Surely we can devise some means by which,
when children are neither at work nor at school, they shall be got
at. Low I ‘will notice the objection, that if we have compulsory
education labour will suffer. What a farce it is to say that parents
cannot afford to send their children to school because they will
sacrifice their children’s earnings. Children can begin to learn at a
�133
very early age, and where the education is persistent, as in Saxony,
what they learn is something marvellous. Now, I have the new
Labour Act of North Germany, which I received yesterday morning.
It applies to the whole labouring population of Germany, and it
prescribes that no child shall begin to work until the age of 12, and
he has been 6 years at school. That is the first clause. Every
child from 12 to 14 shall not work more than 6 hours daily, and
shall, attend school three hours daily. Every child from 14
to. 16 shall attend school 6 hours per week. Now mark this—
here technical education comes in, scientific instruction, know
ledge of languages; and then consider the moral, and not
only the moral, but the material prosperity of the country that
must follow. I say this: unless we wake up to this question
there are other interests at stake than moral interests ; there is the
interest of the stomachs of the people, their employment, which
will suffer as well as their moral necessities. Now, I do hope
nobody will believe I advocate this because I desire there should
be less religious instruction. What I have had I am most grate
ful for, and my reason for advocating education is that there
may be more. That word “ secular” is scandalously abused. All
truth is holy. The order, and system, and cleanliness of a school
are the most religious influences, I think, that can be brought to
bear. Go through the population of Prussia, and never, even in
its poorest districts, will you meet with the wretchedness, squalor,
and filth that stare us in the face in our large towns, and make
us so ashamed and humiliated. Now, following just after the new
law of the North German Confederation, I have received the new
Austrian school law. Austria has discovered that knowledge is
power, and that ignorance is weakness, and that to be weak is to
be miserable. What is the result ? Baron von Beust, the
Minister of Saxony, is now the Minister of Austria, and he has
taken the Saxon school system into Austria, and the Austrian
school system is now the most liberal in Europe. I ask you,
Englishmen and Englishwomen, are Austrian children to be
educated before English children ? My inquiries abroad have
stimulated me to plumb the depth of ignorance at home, and
I find it impossible to do it. I have, with the assistance of your
�134
Chairman, and at other times, in different parts of the country,
examined more than 12,000 young persons at work, who had
nearly all of them been at school; and what a farce our education
is 1 I mean religious education. How many have been at school,
and where much religious education is given, and yet some of them
do not know even that God is their Creator? It seems incredible,
but it is so. When they say a prayer, it is the merest confusion
imaginable. Ask them to say the Lord’s Prayer to you word for
word, and the first sentence is, “ Our Father, ’ch art in heaven.”
Again and again, hundreds of times, I have heard them say it.
What is the meaning? They have only a vague idea what is
meant. This comes from our system of teaching. I say to our friends
here that I am not a convert to the League. I was a convert to
national compulsory education for years, when many of my friends
thought I was an enthusiast and was going mad. Some of our con
verts, with all the zeal of neophytes, go further than myself; but I
say, with reference to this system, that I believe it can be applied to
agricultural as well as to manufacturing districts. There is in this
room a friend in the body of the hall who has for twenty years past
had his ploughboys in a good state of education ; he has done it with
out any sacrifice, and his people are the best tenantry in England,
and his farm is the best cultivated. He has his ploughboys so
well educated that a member of Parliament said, on examining one
of them, “ That fellow a ploughman ! he is a gentleman.” I thank
the meeting very cordially for having heard me patiently, and I
would say to those friends who stand aloof from us, “ Stand aloof
no longer. We have had some difficulty to arrive where we are,
but public opinion is growing so fast that the terms we offered
yesterday we cannot make to-day, and the terms we would gladly
make to-day cannot be offered to-morrow. We wish to deal with
you tenderly and gratefully for what you have done in the past;
but I would say, the sibyl is at the door with her last offer.”
Lord Campbell and Stratheden said : It seems to me that one
of the wants required to be supplied is some argument against the
compulsory principle. Such an argument it is utterly beyond my
capacity to furnish. Arguments in favour of the principle may
rather overstock the market to-day. • It would be useless to touch
�135
upon its necessity; for the whole audience seem to be agreed that
until the principle is introduced we cannot bring into schools the
whole of the masses we mean to have there. It is useless to touch
upon its justice, for the whole audience seem to feel that neglected
children really have no parents, that they become the wards of
the State, thrown upon the fatherhood of the law and the protection
of society. It would be superfluous, though easy, to dwell upon
the facilities for giving practical effect to this principle. There are
only two points that I, therefore, will venture upon, both of which,
if I am not deceived, have something practical about them. Of
course, on this question, as on many others, there is a great differ
ence of opinion. All are not equally advanced in their conviction
as to the necessity of the compulsory principle, and there is some
prejudice yet to be encountered. That prejudice, where it exists,
bases itself upon the idea that the State, or the central power,
ought not to be armed with domiciliary or autocratic functions such
as are proposed. I wish, therefore, to suggest to this audience a
distinction between a grant of such powers to the State, and the
accordance of them to local bodies, such as Town Councils or muni
cipal authorities, which are the immediate emanation of the very
individuals to be supervised. Don’t let it be imagined that I am
hostile to a grant of such powers to the State. All I suggest is,
that in conferring such powers upon municipal authorities, you meet
and indulge the prejudices of those who would view with jealousy
such powers if the central body happened to receive them. The other
observation I have to make is this—that it seems to me that the whole
question may be brought into a very narrow focus, and reduced to one
of downright justice to the taxpayer and ratepayer. It is obvious to
all men that to extend popular instruction in any shape or form there
must be a new expenditure. That expenditure must come from
general taxation imposed by Parliament, or it must come from the
local rates agreed to by municipal assemblies. In the one case, the
burden would fall upon the taxpayer ; in the other, upon the rate
payer. Both taxpayer and ratepayer are entitled to resist the
burden you are going to throw upon them, unless those burdens
involve some security for the attainment of the object aimed at.
The taxpayer might fairly say, “Now you are going to spend, say a
�136
million and a half, derived from general taxation. I will submit
to the payment of my share if your system involves some
guarantee that the schools shall be filled with children j but I will
not submit to the imposition of another Is. 6d. in the pound when
I know that there is a possibility of these schools being empty.”
Although we know from experience that our schools may be filled
without compulsion, yet until the principle is introduced you have
no guarantee for the attendance of even one child in all the school'
accommodation provided. So, too, might the ratepayer declare,
“ I am willing to submit to 2d., 3d., 4d., or even Is. in the pound
additional rates for a great public object which I am able to appre
ciate—for the conquest of ignorance, the repression of crime, and
the prevention of misery in many shapes ; but I will not submit
to any further rate for the erection of schools, or the employment
of schoolmasters when I have no security that another 100 will
come within the reach of these advantages.” I do trust that this
latter view may sink deeply into the minds of the taxpayer and the
ratepayer, without whose concurrence the great objects of your
association are impossible of attainment; and that so sinking into
their minds, it will create a general and irresistible concurrence of
opinion that, however the question of religion may be decided—
that whatever form of education is promoted—some powers for
ensuring the attendance of children at school shall exist.
Mr. George Howell, of London: I am decidedly in favour
of compulsory, free, secular education. This word “ secular ”
appears to me as though it were used to imply teaching the
peculiar dogmas of a small party in the country called
“ secularists.” Now, if it were so intended, this would at once be
sectarian teaching. We use the word “ secular ” as simply opposed
to ecclesiastical. The office of the clergyman or minister is eccle
siastical, but that of the schoolmaster is secular. By secular,
then, we mean that education which teaches those things which fit
children for the duties of this life as men and citizens. We want
our children educated in the practical knowledge and business of
life. Denominational, or religious, teaching must be left to the
home, the Sunday school, and the church. If we once admit the
teaching of theology into our public schools, where can it end but
�137
in compulsion ? Catholics, Protestants, and Secularistswill each
have their claim. Even the use of the Bible, as a text book in
our National Schools, will involve some difficulty, inasmuch as in
Ireland, and in all Catholic districts, the Catholics would claim
something different from our Protestant Bible. Besides which, I am
afraid that it would revive all the religious animosities which we
sought to remove by the dis-establishment of the State Church in
Ireland. With regard to compulsory education, the very term law
involves compulsion. We have compulsory laws to punish crime,
let us now try compulsion to prevent it. We demand compulsory
education for the benefit of the entire community, just as we demand
quarantine for the safety of our ports; and the removal of nuisances
for the protection of the health of our cities and towns; nay, even the
regulation of our traffic for the convenience of our streets. Ignor
ance is at once the most noxious of all nuisances, and the most
contaminating. It is also enormously expensive. The objections
to compulsion do not come from working men, although some wellmeaning men speak in their name as though we did object. Mr.
Walter, M.P., at a recent agricultural meeting at Maidenhead, spoke
somewhat against the platform of the League. During the last few
weeks I have been in personal communication with several of the
reformers of Worcester Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud, and Tewkes
bury, and in those towns I found no hesitation whatever in endors
ing the principle of compulsory, free, and secular education. And
here I may say that I am informed that so near home as the Scilly
Islands an almost complete system of compulsory education is in
operation. At the last general election I was a candidate for Ayles
bury, and one of the most prominent points in my address was
this one of national, compulsory, free, and secular education. I
visited every hamlet and village in the large borough, and not one
voice did I hear raised up against the principle. The only oppo
sition I found came from the clergymen and farmers. The farmers
were under the impression that education would unfit men for
work in the field; but both manufacturers and artisans know full
well that education is an immense benefit to both parties in the
daily work of life. In short, the working classes of this country
are anxious for, and demand, a complete national system of educa-
�138
,
tion, which shall reach all classes, and which shalj. be be compul
sory, unsectarian, and free.
Dr. Hodgson said the text of the few remarks he had to make
would be drawn from the admirable speech of Mr. Mundella. Mr.
Mundella said, most truly, that we were behind other countries, not
. so much in the quantity as in the quality of our education, and the
question of compulsion was very much mixed up with the quality
of education we intended to supply. The question they had to
discuss was compulsory attendance in schools, not the compulsory
provision of schools, for the schools must be provided before they
could be attended. He asked why it was that this necessity ex
isted ? There were many reasons ; but one special reason was the
indolence of parents who did not take any interest in the educa
tion of their children, and another reason was the indolence of the
• children themselves. He should regret exceedingly if it were to go
abroad as a general impression that the object of the League was to
establish a compulsory education which should be simply, or even
mainly, for the teaching of reading and writing, with even arith
metic superadded. They were not likely to disagree as to the
importance of reading and writing as instruments of education, but
one thing was certain—if we did not aim at something a great deal
beyond these things, we should neither obtain nor deserve that
support which would be requisite to carry the measure through the
House of Commons. The staple of our existing schools was reading
and writing, and what was the result? Everyone’s experience
answered this question, but he would mention one or two cases.
He had elsewhere published an account of a visit paid to a school
in the South of England, where the children read very passably
indeed. The passage read was a description of a crab. The
district was an inland one, and he asked the children if any of
them had ever seen a crab? There was a great sensation, and
after a little delay one girl said she had, but it appeared it was
not a marine crab, but a crab apple. That was the amount of
intelligence that had been developed. That child, and all the
others, would have passed muster in reading and writing. Another
story was told him by a benevolent lady, residing in the neighbour
hood of a country school, who took an opportunity of giving the
�139
children a lesson on their senses. It was a revelation to them that
they had senses. The lady asked, 11 What is the use of your nose?”
There was great silence for a time, broken by a boy who said, “ To
be wiped.” Another story was told him by Mr. Leonard Horner,
Factory Inspector, and it related to Birmingham. When the pre
sent Bishop of Manchester was head master of King Edward’s
School, Mr. Horner accompanied him on a tour for the purpose of
ascertaining the efficiency of instruction in the district, and espe
cially in the matter of religion. In one case the Scripture passage
read contained the word “ sacrifice,” and none of the children could
give the slightest explanation of the word except one girl, who had
been about four years in the school, and her answer was, “The
place where Jesus Christ offered up his son Isaac.” Now, this was
a state of things that must be put an end to. The instruction must
be made of such a nature as to develop the intelligence and to cul
tivate the understanding. There must be that kind of useful
knowledge imparted which would be suited to the comprehension
of the youngest child, and which was indispensable to children
when they grew up for their guidance in their after lives. He
wished to impress upon the audience that compulsion was not
tyranny, but the result of a law which we ourselves had imposed
for the general good. The way to make compulsion not only tole
rable, but successful, was so to dispose people that they should do
of their own accord those things which, if they did not do, the law
would compel them. In the schools for the poor the time allotted
for instruction was lamentably short, and therefore attention must
be concentrated upon those things which were most useful, most
indispensable, and most capable of application in after life.
Mr. Paget, formerly M.P. for Nottingham: I have now for, I'
think, sixteen years, as an agricultural employer, insisted that the
boys should spend some of their days at school, and some at work.
I felt that some such movement as this was evidently in the future,
and that it was better to be prepared with a knowledge of facts for
a time like this. And within my experience the results have been
so uniformly good that I have no hesitation whatever in saying that
the practice I have mentioned is a proved success. I have thirtyfour children upon the farm, employed on the condition that they
�140
spend the alternate days at school. It has been without any sacri
fice on my part. I felt that it must be a business success to justify
me in calling on my neighbours to adopt it, and it has been a
business success; for not only have I not lost anything, but I am
convinced that I have been better served, and my bailiff is of the
same opinion. I receive the boys at nine years of age, on condi
tion that they are able to write decently ; and I am quite certain
that no system of mixed school and labour will succeed, without that
preliminary condition. Coming on my farm at that age, and being
able to write decently then, they go to school and work on the
farm alternate days. I attend at the examinations in school, and
I have full proof that my boys fully maintain their ground against
those who are, or pretend to be, constantly at school. I have at
the age of 13 all the children who choose it, in the village, ex
amimed, and to those who can write correctly from dictation, read
intelligently, and work the first four rules of arithmetic, simple and
compound, I give a prize. There have been only two instances out
of 34 in which my boys have not had the prize. A very independ
ent witness—Mr. Sternhold, the Commissioner to examine into the
state of the children employed in agriculture—took very great
pains in the matter. He wrote to the employers of these children,
who are now some of them 25 years of age, and more than that; and
he received a uniform reply from the masters that they were
satisfied with their servants, and almost every one of the young
men wrote him letters, of which he spoke in high terms, and
which showed that they had not discontinued their education.
This, I conceive, is one of the very great advantages of the
system I have adopted; school-work becomes a relaxation and
a pleasure instead of being drudgery, because the boy compares
his day at school, not with a holiday or a day of bird’s nesting,
but with a day on the farm.
All his associations with books
are therefore pleasant, and in every instance I believe my lads con
tinue their education after they leave school. I asked one what he
was doing, and he said he was working logarithms; and another is
under-secretary to the Reform Club in London. They are qualified
for superior situations. There is no difficulty whatever in obtain
ing situations as farm servants for them after they leave me, because
�141
they are better than the ordinary run of boys. My bailiff says
when he was at their age he went to school till he was thirteen, and
then he had to go to the farm, and suffered extremely during the
first few months, because the labour was new to him. But my boys
are never tired ; they work one day on the farm, and rest the next
at school. They walk straight not slovenly, in the way those do who
are tired to death. Their minds and bodies are both improved.
The great subject, Lfancy, this morning, is how far education should
be compulsory. I have always held, and stated it publicly many
times, when I had the honour of representing Nottingham, that in
my opinion, society, being bound to provide for the poor and
criminal, have a right to see that the poor are brought up in such
a way that there shall be the least possible probability of their
becoming paupers or criminals. Therefore I have never had any
hesitation in saying I was in favour of compulsory education, and
I fully endorse what has been said by several gentlemen, that it
will not be ill received by the labouring classes. The schoolmaster
in my village tells me that men who are not educated themselves,
and who never cared about education before, send their children to
him to fit them to come upon my farm, because they find that is
the road to it. With respect to the religious question, I think it
will be an advantage to set the Sunday school free for religious
teaching. I think religion will not in any way suffer, but will
gain greatly by the education of the people being properly attended
to.
Professor Pawcett, M.P. : After the general remarks that have
been made this morning, and especially after the admirable speech
of my friend Mr. Mundella, it would be superfluous for me to say a
word in favour of the principle of compulsion. It may, however,
be assumed that every one who has joined this League has clearly
and distinctly made up his mind to this fact—that no settlement of
the educational question ought ever to be listened to, much less
earned as a permanent settlement, unless it involve the principle
of compelling the attendance of children at the school. I shall
endeavour to make the few remarks I have to address to you as
practical as possible. Will you, therefore, allow me to point out to
you what in my mind is the great danger which threatens the future
�142
|
of this education question ? I fear there is some chance that it
may be wrecked in the same way as so many good measures have
been wrecked, by accepting a compromise in part. It is all very
well for us to make bold speeches and talk outspoken language on
platforms like this, but you are little aware of the blandishments
which are brought to bear upon Liberal members when their party
introduces a bill. You say you think the bill unsatisfactory. You
then hear it whispered in your ear—“ Not going to support the bill
of your party? why, you are faithless to those whom you ought to
support 1” To show that my suspicions are not altogether illfounded, let me in one or two sentences describe to you the great
peril which the education question only narrowly escaped last
session. A National Education Bill for Scotland was introduced
into the House of Lords—a strange proceeding, to begin with. The
Dill—had when it was sent there—was infinitely worse when it left.
When it came down to the House of Commons, seeing that the Scotch
members are jealous of the interference of English members, I knew
it was no use moving myself. I went to a Scotch member, a friend,
and asked him to put down an amendment for the second reading
—an amendment similar to that which it is quite possible we may
have to move next session—that no measure of national education
could be satisfactory if it involved compulsory rating without com
pulsory attendance. You can have no conception of the pressure
which was immediately brought to bear upon that hon. member. He
was young, and he did not stand firm ; but I trust, at any rate, if
next session compulsory rating is introduced without compulsory
attendance, one at least of the fifty members of Parliament who
have joined this League—Mr. Mundella or Mr. Dixon—will be
stern enough to say this is a question on which there can he no
compromise. We are willing to wait one year, two years, or three
years, but when we have a national education measure passed, it
shall be such a measure as shall absolutely, with perfect certainty,
guarantee elementary education to every child in this kingdom.
What became of the Scotch Education Bill ? Liberal members
were told they ought to vote for it, and they did. I do not say it
to my own credit, but I believe I am almost the only English
member who, whenever there was a division on the subject, steadily
�143
walked out of the house. And what were the arguments to make
English members vote for it ? That bill, it is true, introduced into
Scotland what was never introduced into Scotland before—•
undenominational education ; but it was said, this undenomina
tional education was introduced in such a slight, slender, and
delicate form, that it ought to be passed with hurry and precipitation,
because there would be something worse in the English measure
next session. What I want is, that we shall be representing
you—the thousands who have joined this League—representing
you faithfully and accurately, if we say it is your earnest
desire that no measure of national education shall be passed
until we have the power to get a compulsory and unsectarian
system. I think we ought to have absolute security that no child
shall be permitted to work—whether we fix the age of nine, ten,
eleven, or, as Mr. Mundella suggested, twelve—no child shall be
allowed to work until it can show that it has been to school a
certain number of years. With regard to the only remaining
branch of the subject on which I shall speak—that is, the question
of applying some kind of compulsory education to the agricultural
districts—I was rejoiced more than I can describe to hear the
remarks of Mr. Paget—to hear from his own lips the admirable
success of his movement. He must be regarded as a benefactor—
the nation must feel grateful to him for having been a pioneer. When
I mention the word agricultural, I am reminded of another danger.
Here is a case you must watch carefully. Persons will rise
in the House of Commons as they have done already, and they
will say it is very well to apply the half-time system or the alter
nate day system to the industry of such a town as Birmingham,
but there is something exceptional about agriculture; we must
have a different system there. Are we not expressing your opinions
if we say that it is your desire that agriculture should not be thus
exceptionally treated ? The system that is proposed is that in
agriculture a child should not attend school either half time or
alternate days, but should attend school so many hours in the year.
If this scheme is proposed, we can at once meet it with most
valuable experience—that is the scheme that was introduced with
regard to the Print Works Act; and I say that experience con
�144
clusively demonstrates that the scheme of so many school hours’
attendance in the year has proved a lamentable and disastrous
failure. The great principle, I consider, of the half-time system
is this—that if it is properly worked, if there is a good school,
judiciously managed, the children learn better after a certain age,
and work better, if they attend school so many hours a day and
work so many hours a day. This, I believe, is one great principle
connected with the half-time system. I must, in conclusion,
apologise for having apparently introduced, yesterday, a certain
amount of discord into your deliberations. I fear some of my
remarks were misunderstood. There are some men who have not
joined this League because they differ upon minor points of detail,
upon which I also differ; especially, one of the most eminent of
your townsmen, the Bev. B. W. Dale,—no good movement in
Birmingham ought to be without his name attached to it—has
objections which I know are exactly analagous to mine. I thought,
therefore, I should state as strongly as I could what were my
objections, and that I was perfectly willing to forgive and forget
them in order to get a united movement on behalf of the movement
in order to get some good men to join this League. I am willing
to sacrifice any matter of individual opinion in order to throw my
whole heart and strength into the great, the unequalled, object of
securing unsectarian, or, if you like it better, secular compulsory
education in this country.
Mr. Webster, Q.C.: I should have hesitated to address you on
the present occasion, after the most powerful speech you have heard,,
if I had not the greatest anxiety to contribute, in whatever small
measure I can, to the success of this great movement. I am not
wholly inexperienced. I have watched for many years, as far as
time would permit me, the educational questions which have been
brought before the public' from time to time, and I have had the
satisfaction of establishing a Church of England schoool in spite of
the clergyman, in spite of the bishop, in an agricultural district
where there was none when I went into it. Nobody knows the
difficulty of such a labour who has not gone through it. I rejoice
that this League is placed upon a foundation from which it cannot
be displaced. I am satisfied, from considerable experience of Con
�145
gresses, that a more successful meeting of inauguration never took
place. I think we have to some extent lost sight, in our discus
sions, of the great practical fact with which we have to deal. The
Archdeacon, says there is an overwhelming necessity for education—
that it is a great public danger that there should be two millions of
uneducated children, growing up as Arabs in our public streets, who
will be the paupers and criminals of the next generation. That is
the fact we have to deal with, and when we are told that the
denominational or voluntary system has failed—I don’t quite like
the use of that word, failed—but it has been found incompetent to
deal with this great calamity; and therefore I trust this League will
he the means of founding a different system, which shall be more
calculated to deal with the difficulty. Let us not forget that great
fact—that we have two millions of uneducated children growing
up amongst us. That fact becomes a civil question as well as a moral
question. It is a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it
is patent that compulsion is the rock upon which our new system
must be founded. On this subject I adopt the admirable views of
Mr. Mundella ; and it is worthy of observation that in dealing with
this evil of ignorance we shall, in my opinion, do something to
remedy another evil also. By employing female teachers, you will
provide employment for women, and it has been proved in America
that they are admirable teachers. My own opinion about it is, that
it is an exceptional thing to find a woman who is not a good teacher,
and it is exceptional to find a man who is not a bad one. I look,
therefore, to this movement as contributing to the removal of two
great social calamities—the ignorance of the people, and the
want of employment for women. I believe we may appeal to our
friends on the other side of the Atlantic to show what might be
done by the system of Common Schools ; and, although it is
possible, for the reason stated—the want of compulsory powers—
that it may not have had all the succces that was hoped for, still
we may look to America for an example, which we shall do well to
follow. Let me remind you, that with compulsory attendance
schools must be free, and founded upon rates—local rates, because
you want local management, by men who are acquainted with the
wants and requirements of the district; and the schools must be
K
�146
subsidized by national funds, because you w,ant Government super
vision. The first step to be taken is to have a proper register kept
of all parents and children. Why should not towns be divided
into districts, as in Boston, and other cities of the States?
We have an approximation to it with reference to the elective
franchise, but we want a more perfect system to carry out that
■which, as Mr. Mundella pointed out with great force, is done so well
in Saxony. These are the practical matters we have to deal with.
If we want to get these schools free, I believe means will be found
whereby existing schools may be to a certain extent utilized; but
whether or not, let us not forget that we have to deal with two
millions of children who are growing up to be criminals or paupers,
and who will overwhelm us unless we deal with them fearlesslv.
Let me mention Joseph Lancaster : the motto he inscribed over his
own door was—“ All that will may send their children and have
them educated freely, and those who don’t wish education for
nothing may pay if they please.” He was the pioneer, in Bristol, of
what has been called the voluntary system, which lias produced
great effects, though it is inadequate to deal with the present difficulty. About the religious question : I would be very unwilling,
except from the necessity of conceding something in order that we
may all go hand in hand—I would be very unwilling that a portion
of the Scriptures should not be read day by day. But having
expressed that opinion, I would exclude all sectarian and denomi
national teaching whatever. I would follow the example of our
brethren across the Atlantic, and make it a rule that no book
teaching the tenets of any particular sect of Christians should be
purchased or used, but that they should use a portion of the Bible, in
the common English version, daily. But this is a secondary ques
tion, and I am delighted to hear Dr. Rowland Williams use the
expression “ men must be men,” because with these children left
as they are, they cannot become men—they cannot become citizens;
and let us remember people are citizens before they are Christ.ia.nR,
Our object is first to make them good citizens, and then bring them
under the influence of a proper system of religious teaching—not
teaching them religion, for I acknowledge the distinction between
religious teaching and teaching religion; but I assume religious
�147
teaching is that everything should be done with a proper regard to
■hose great truths of revelation, in which we all believe and trust.
T would not quarrel with the decision if the locality wished any
portion of the Scriptures read ; but Sunday should be kept for
religious purposes, and it should not be distracted by that kind of
teaching which is more fitted for the week days.
Dr. J. A. Langford : I am anxious to make two remarks—one
upon a point which, I think, has not been alluded to at the
Conference before, namely, that we have the highest cause to
congratulate ourselves, upon the progress which this question of
national secular education has made in this country during the last
few years. In the year 1849—only twenty years ago—an attempt
was made, in this and other towns, to organise a similar society to
this, for a similar object. It alfiiost enterely failed ; and here we
are to-day holding meetings like this, and listening to papers such
as we have heard. We have great cause to congratulate ourselves,
and to be hopeful for the future. I wanted to say also, that this League
must stick absolutely firm to the four principles which it sets out with :
that education should be compulsory, national, secular, free. There
may be a temptation to give up one of these points, because there
may be fear of a long agitation ; but it will be far better for us,
far better for the education of this country, and the question will
be far more speedily settled finally, if we persist in agitating for
this programme, than if we give up any one of the items ; for I
believe if we give up any one, the whole structure will fall about
our ears, and our children will have to do the work over again,
which we are doing now. I wished to say these two things to the
meeting, because I have laboured in this question more than .twenty
years, of my comparatively short life. Don’t let us squabble about
the meaning of the words “ sacred ” and “ secular.” Shakespeare
settled that point 300 years ago, when he said :
“ Ignorance is the curse of God.”
“ Knowledge, the wing wherewith we fly to Heaven.”
All knowledge is divine, and we have only to give children a
good secular education, and their children’s children will have for
themselves a religious education built upon it. Many people
who profess to speak for the working classes have said they
�148
were opposed to this compulsory measure. You have heard
from Mr. Applegarth, and others who mix with the working
classes, that they will not object to it, and I—as the representative
of one of the most active educational societies in this town, the
Society of Artisans, every member of which is a representative
man—can assure you that the working classes will not object to it..
Whenever this question has been brought before that society, they
have one and all declared, in support of a national system of educa
tion, secular, voluntary, free, rate-supported, supplemented by money
from the Consolidated Fund. There is no charity in going to a
school supported by rates. Look at our free libraries. Every man
who uses a book has contributed towards the purchase of it, and it
is part of his own proporty, because it is the property of the town.
So it will be with rate-supported schools ; there is no charity. They
must be secular and free.
FREE SCHOOLS.
The proceedings were resumed at half-past two, when
Mr. Alfred Field read the following paper on “Free Schools:”
—England, in the higher education, may not be behind the rest of
the world, but in the diffusion of a good general education Eng
land is very much behind other countries ; certainly much behind
Prussia, Northern Germany, Switzerland, and the United States.
It is not far from the truth if we say that while in those countries
every child receives a good useful education, less than half the
children of England carry into life with them an education that is
of any uge to them. And from this statement let us not conclude
that the education, of the masses of this country is half as good as
that of the Germans, Swiss, or Americans. Our comparative
deficiency is far greater than that; for the education of the children
I am obliged to let pass as educated, in order to make up the
half of the children of England, is very inferior in value, to the
good average education of all the children of those nations. We .
deal out a meagre pittance to half our children ; they give a liberal
measure to all. To understand more fully why the difference is so
great in the intelligence of the working classes of England, and of
�149
those countries I have referred to, we must remember that school
■education is only putting tools into the hands of the young for
after use in the real education of life ; and in those countries the
men and women, who in early life have had the doors of their minds
unlocked by instruction in excellent schools, meet together in their
homes and workshops, in the streets and in public places, and by
intelligent, social, and political intercourse, continue, or rather really
■enter into, their true education. In this country our working
people have no such educated families and neighbours to associate
with. In America the diffusion of popular knowledge and quick
intelligence, down to the very bottom of society is most astonishing
to all observant travellers. And the contrast of the slow, benighted
. minds of our lowest class, should be a warning and strong impulse,
in the cause of education, to Englishmen. You cannot discover in
the United States any line of separation, or marks of distinction
between the working classes and those we should suppose above
them. You hear people talking in groups, on the steamboats or in
the railroad carriages, with ready language and quick intelligence,
with easy manners and natural politeness ; and if you could learn,
you would find that nearly all had been educated in the public free
schools of the country, and that a good proportion of them were
working men. It cannot possibly be doubted, that the foundation
of this wonderful spread of popular knowledge and universally
quickened intellect, is the public free school. The only way in
which we can get the mass of the people of England educated, as
quickly and efficiently as will meet the awakened demand of the
country, is by a complete national system similar in principle to
that in America. If we are to make this national system complete
and sufficient, I do not think wo can dispense with any one of the
six points of our League. Our plan is clastic in its power of de
velopment. The beginning, of course, would be the establishment
everywhere of the sadly-needed efficient primary school. We must
start with primary schools. But then let each school district, as fast
as it pleases, build on them a system of secondary and high schools.
Ultimately, I hope, the new national school system will grow and
be a complete and connected system of graded schools—-primary,
secondary, and high schools—all free. Tliis system might readily be
�150
connected with the large endowed schools of the country, and
perhaps, by a system of scholarships, with the Universities. I will
ask everyone to compare a complete connected system of this sort
with the present schools. The voluntary and denominational sys
tem sets up separate, competitive, even hostile schools ; and if you
were ever to get this system developed enough to make a really good
education possible to all, you would have rival schools everywhere
too many in some parts, not enough in others—and each school
obliged to go to great expense to have a staff of different teachers,
from the infant class, to the really educated boys and girls of 14 to
16 years old. I on may have the contemptible pittance now offered
to the country continued and extended, but you cannot have the
good education demanded by England, out of the isolated denomi
national system, without enormous expense ; and this heavy cost
must in some way fall on the resources of the country. [ appeal to
everyone, acquainted with schools and education, whether, to give a
good education to all the children of England, and one higher and
more extended to the capable and diligent, it is not necessary that
we should have a connected system of graded schools, through
which the pupils shall rise by examination. As a matter of money,
the difference of cost of good education for England, between one
system and the other, is a difference between pounds and shillings.
As a practical fact, England cannot (jet good education by the deno
minational system, and she can easily by a truly national system. The
public school system of the United States, is a model for the general
education of a people. Such a system as their graded schools—pri
mary, secondary, and high schools—is demanded by economy,
and is absolutely necessary to efficient success. And the plan
of the League, not copied from them, is in truth the same in principle,
but improved, I believe, in details. The Americans are the same
people as ourselves, on the western side of the Atlantic instead of the
eastern. What they can do we can do. It is a firm and a safe position
for our League that we advocate no untried scheme, that we can
point to the complete, and grand success of it in America. The
public school system of the United States is the foundation of
their political edifice, and is the true cause of their extraordinary
industrial, and commercial prosperity. The rapid growth of wealth
�151
in the country, the happiness and morality of its people, and the
political safety of the nation, depend on the public school system.
Now, I have a few words to say on the desirability of having our
schools free to the scholars, and paid for out of rates supplemented
by Government grants—not by voluntary contributions, and school
pence. It is a necessary part of the completeness of the system
that the schools should he paid for by rates. If the control of the
national schools, of each school district should rest, as we think it
should, with the Corporation or other local authorities, who would
doubtless appoint a school committee to manage them, then the
right of the Corporations to this control, would be derived from
their being elected by the ratepayers, who would pay for the schools.
I have tried to show that a complete, connected, organized system of
graded schools is necessary to efficiency and economy; in fact, that
we cannot get a good education for all the people without. It
might be possible to have such an organized connected system of
national schools in France, without their being under the local
authorities : I do not think this is possible in England any more
than in America. I think that the position that schools should be
paid for by rates, is naturally connected with the other one, that
they should be under the control of local authorities ; and that
they should be free to all, would be made easy by their being
paid for by rates and Government grants. I think, first, that they
should be free to all children; and, secondly, that all children should
be required by law to go to the national schools, or some other school,
are two conditions, independent and complementary one of the
other. I cannot practically and successfully say to a man, 11 I will
compel you to send your child to school,” unless I say at the same
time, “ Here is a good school without charge, which belongs to you
tor the use of your children.” On the other hand, I cannot justly
say to a man, “You must pay your quota to the school-rate,”
unless I am able, in answer to his enquiry, also to say “ that all
children will now go to school; the law requires it and gives us
power to compel attendance, and we will see the law carried out
gently, considerately, with patient persuasion, but ultimately and as a
last resourse, by force, if in some few cases it should turn out to be
necessary.” I can tell this ratepayer that he himself will be bene
�152
fited by the money lie pays, that he never made so good an invest
ment in his life, or one that will bring so good a monetary return.
A commercial man myself, with almost as much personal knowledge
of America as I have of England, I have often pointed out to my
fellow merchants that the United States are now manufacturing
and exporting to the English Colonies and the common markets of
the world many articles, to a large amount, that formerly were
made in this district. In doing this, the American manufacturers
work under the enormous weight of nearly double the cost of the
iron and steel out of which the articles are made, and nearly double
the English rate of wages, to the American workmen that make
them ; and yet they send these articles to our English Colonies, and
thus supersede those that used to be imported from Birmingham.
What is the explanation ? There is none other than that of the greater
intelligence of the American workmen. And the foundation of this
high intelligence and ductility of mind is the American public free
school. Every £1,000 rightly expended for the education of the
future English workmen will produce, in a very few years, a return
of £10,000 to the country. Every ratepayer will receive an ample
return, at an early day, in the increased material wealth of the
country, of which all deserving merchants, manufacturers, trades
men, and capitalists will get each his own share. England, to
maintain her place among the nations, must educate her people.
Even as a manufacturing country, to keep her place—or, rather, to
check the yearly diminution of her proportion of the supply
of the world, with articles above the coarsest product of low
labour—England must educate her people. German merchants
have been for years, and rapidly too, supplanting English
goods the world over, with the products of the educated work
men of Rhenish Prussia, Saxony, and North Germany. The
manufactories of the United States, have been for years sending
hardware, and other manufactures to all new countries of the world
in place of English goods. And whenever they get rid of the
burden of an absurd protection system, the American manufacturers
are destined to cover the world, with their skilfully made articles,
each so intelligently suited to the purpose it is. intended for.
Without education, England must fall behind other nations ; we
�153
have already lost much, and we cannot begin too soon to knock oft'
the shackles of ignorance from our workmen. On the other hand,
with education, the sturdy inhabitants of the land, will make Great
Britain more and more the wonderful island of the world. In this
way, indirect though it may be called, I believe will the chief
return come to the ratepayers, for their investment in the new
national schools. But look at a more direct saving :—The rate
payers of England and Wales paid last year nearly eleven and a
half millions for poor rates ; the cost of the police for the year was
more than two millions • the cost of the prisons for the year was
more than one million ;—reformatories I have left out. Put the
poor rates, prisons, and police together, and the sum is more than
fourteen and a half millions. Educate the people, and does not
every one see, that the annual sum he will pay for the school rate
will soon reduce a man’s expense in poor rates, police and prison
expenses ? This dreadful sum—fourteen and a half millions—paid
for catching and punishing our rogues and maintaining our paupers,
is the shame of England. Educate your people, and in a very few
years the saving out of this fourteen and a half millions, will more
than pay your school rates. One proof that education will diminish
crime, and therefore the expense of punishing it, is found in the
ignorance oi our convicted criminals. The returns of the state of
education of the inmates of our gaols, for each of the two last
years show, that ninety-six out of every hundred could not read or
write, or only so imperfectly as to be of no use to them. In
America a native-born mendicant or pauper is very rare indeed.
Why is this ? Mainly because all have been educated, in the
public free schools of the country. Our present voluntary system
is unfair: the few contributors to the expenses of the denomi
national schools, pay for the large number who will not give. The
payment by rates will cause every man who pays rates to contribute
his proportion : and by so doing he will obtain a just right to use
the schools for which he pays his share. Those who are too poor
to pay rates, will send their children without pay, but without the
degradation of thinking they are paid for by charity. The child
ren of the country will stream into the new national schools—all
equal in the right to enter there, none oppressed with the degrading
�154
badge of charity. The very poor, and no others, will send their
children without contributing to the cost of the schools. Let me
ask many excellent men, who object to our schools being free,
whether this would not be a result much the same as they advocate.
Every ratepayer will be interested in the schools being well con
ducted. A real public opinion, exactly to the purpose, will be
created, and upon public opinion the character and success of the
schools will essentially depend. The ratepayer will justly want to
see the schools good enough to receive his own children. This will
help the schools to improve; and in school districts, with many
primary schools, secondary schools will soon spring up, to be fol
lowed later, probably, by a high school, belonging to several
districts. Thus, many ratepayers will get their money’s worth in
such schools as suit their own children. But some gentlemen
object, in the outset, to schools being free, saying, “ Englishmen are
apt to attach little value to what costs them nothing.” To this
objection I would reply, that at present, under the denominational
system, of those who send their children to National or British
Schools, none pay, in school pence, more than about one-third the
cost of teaching, and the very poor are, from charity, generally paid
for by others. In the system of payment by rates, all but the very
poor will pay in their rates ; and the very poor are now paid for in
a way tending more to injure their self-respect, than the way we
propose. But is it true that people do not value what they do not
pay for ? Englishmen value free parks, free common rights, and,
what is closer to the present case, free libraries paid for out of rates,
and free grammar schools. The truth is, I think, that people
value anything that is good, even if they do not pay for it. The
people of the United States,'who are of the same stock as ourselves,
value their free public schools, as their dearest birthright ; yes,
almost as much as they value the Union inself. I think gentlemen
uttering this objection will, on a little thought, give it up. Looking
at the call for education, from no higher point of view than the
mere economical one, I would say that not the coal of England,
not her iron, not the fields of her cultivated farms, can compare
in importance even to her material wealth, with the minds of her
people. In the brains of the children of this country Englishmen
�155
will find the true mine of wealth to work in. You may work here
without fear of exhausting the ore, and the wealth here contained
includes all the rest.
UNSECTARIANISM.
The Rev. F. Bariiam Zincke, Vicar of Wherstead, Suffolk, and
Chaplain-in-Ordinary to the Queen, read the following paper :—
I have been requested by our Committee to lay before the members
of the National Education League, at this our first general meeting,
a brief summary of the reasons which have brought us to the con
clusion, that the teaching of the schools we wish to see established
ought to be unsectarian. By unsectarian, we mean teaching, that
omits the inculcation of those particulars of religious instruction
which differentiate, the conflicting sections of the religious world in
this country. The reasons which have brought us to this conclusion
may be readily stated. Of course, wn are not satisfied with our
existing schools. First, because they fail to reach large classes of
our population. In this very town in which we are assembled there
is a sufficient number of children of the school age, growing up
uneducated, to form the population of no mean city. It is so, more
or less, in every city of the kingdom, and with a very large propor
tion of the rural population. To go into particulars—it is so
with the children of our criminal classes ; it is so with that class
which supplies our 1,000,000 paupers, and that still larger host
which is pauperised in spirit, and on the brink of the abyss of
pauperism. Take the first 100 agricultural labourers you can col
lect from the fields, take 100 operatives from the nearest factory,
take 150,000 soldiers, or 50,000 sailors, and what, we may ask,
will be the proportion, in these different sections of the community,
that our present school system has effectually reached 1 The state
of things this reveals we regard as an enormous evil, the continuance
of which can be no longer tolerated. Our present denominational,
and, as it is called, voluntary system—but it would be nearer the
truth to call it eleemosynary,—has, after a long and fair trial, left
us in this position. We believe that it has failed because it is
denominational and eleemosynary. Such a system does not aim at
educating the nation, and could not succeed were it to aim at doing
�156
it. But as it has been tried, and found wanting, and as we are
fully persuaded that it can never accomplish what is needed, we are
driven to the conclusion that nothing can do the work except a
public system; and we hold that nothing else will befit the dignity
of a free, and, very properly, a proud people. A public system, of
■course, can only be supported by public funds, and therefore must
be unsectarian ; for everyone who contributes either towards the
local rates, or the general taxation of the country, will have grounds
for insisting, that his contributions shall not be used for the purpose
of teaching what he conscientiously objects to. The compromise
-of our present denominational system, is a demonstration that the
great majority of, at all events, the upper and middle classes of the
people of this country feel in this way. Another reason for om’
dissatisfaction with the present system, is the insufficiency of the
instruction it gives, to those whom it does, in some sort, reach. Our
present theory and practice appear to come to this, that nothing is
possible or desirable, for the great bulk of the people—the
lower strata of the middle classes, and the working millions
{setting the -question of religion aside for the moment)—but
a smattering of grammar. This is a natural deduction from
the idea, that all that is possible or desirable in our highest education
—that is, for the education of that part of the people of this country
who are giving up nearly a third of tlieir lives to school and college—
is, that they should become the subjects, or the victims, of an attempt
to make them classical scholars. So that when the work of education
has been completed (it is so for all classes among us alike), no one
thing has been taught, which has the slightest bearing on the know
ledge or the thoughts of the age; which in any way fits us for the life
we have to live, and the world we have to live in or which makes
us at all acquainted with the materials we shall have to work with,
■or which gives us any guidance for the work we shall have to do.
Nothing has been taught which does at all contribute, as Bacon
puts it, towards the relief of man’s estate, or towards making us
more manly or more godly. I use this last word, because it calls
attention to the accusation, our opponents are so loud in alleging
against the scientific training we wish to see imparted in our
.schools. Bor our part, we do not believe that the effect of the ac
�157
quaintance with. Latin and Greek, and of the little grammatical
instruction that is given in our existing schools, is especially
religious. But we are of opinion that science, being only a know
ledge of the ideas that were in the intelligence of God, before they
were embodied in the objects, the operations, the forces, and thelaws of nature, can never take _us further from, but must always
bring us nearer to, God. In short, our present aims appear to us
very much like a pretence to teach something—a something, we
believe, which will rarely awaken thought, and will be of incon
ceivably little use to any of us, just and precisely for the very pur
pose of hindering the teaching of something else, which would
awaken thought, and which would be of very great use. We do
not, then, go in for a reform of these ideas and practices, but—I
hope I shall not compromise our League by the word—for a
revolution. We wish to give every one an opportunity for being
taught just what he will want to know. We wish to see our
primary schools, teaching the whole population the instrumental
parts of education—reading, writing, and ciphering—as well and as
universally as these things are taught in Northern Germany, and in
the New England States. And we wish to see the schools, cominw
next above our primary schools, aming chiefly at industrial, tech
nical, and scientific training, and at the correct use of our mother
tongue. I need not now say anything about schools of a higher
grade. It is possible for us—for it is done elsewhere—to impart
even to working men a very serviceable amount of this kind of
knowledge, which will not only make them better workmen, and
so enable us to maintain our position in the open market of the
world, but will also make the recipients of this knowledge them
selves, better and wiser men. Our beau ideal of a national system
of education is, that it should be so organised as to place within the
reach of every child in the country, free of all cost, the most
complete and thorough training our present knowledge admits of,
whatever his employment or profession is to be—whether that of
an agricultural labourer, a mechanic, or a miner; whether a
physician, a minister of religion, or a literary man;—and that no
bounties should be given to, and special preferences shown for,
any particular callings or professions, but that the circumstances of
�158
the parents, and the disposition and aptitude of the child, should
alone decide in each, case what the calling or profession is to be.
The realisation of such an ideal might a few years back, have
appeared quite beyond our reach; but it does not appear to be so
now, at all events to the members of this League; for we fancy
that we are able to catch a glimpse of it; and some approximation
to it is the goal of our thoughts and efforts. Now, we see no hope
of the general establishment, under the present system, of schools
of the kind I have been speaking of. It is inconceivable that
they will ever be established by the clergy, or by the ministers
of Nonconformist congregations, who are the chief promoters
and managers of our present schools. Because, then, we see no
shadow of a prospect of these things being taught in our present
denominational schools, which have been established for quite a
different object, we advocate the establishment of another set of
schools without any sectarian objects, which, as they will be partly
supported by local funds, will be managed by persons who will be
interested in having these things taught. This is the conclusion
we come to, when we regard the schools from the point of view
that will be taken, by those who will pay for them. We come to
the same conclusion, if we look at them from the point of view
that will be taken by those who are to use them. They must be
•equally free to all. No hindrance must be interposed, which would
be an obstacle to their being used by any member of the
•community. Now, the inculcation in the schools, of denomina.tional differences would be a hindrance of this kind. From our
wish, therefore, to make the schools equally open to all, we would
not have anything taught in them, to which any Christian people
do conscientiously object. We are all of opinion that as things
now are (we believe that it will not always be so), in some cases
some form or degree of compulsion, to secure attendance will be
necessary. Things have now come to such a pass, that the security
and well-being of society demand this. As we have already noticed,
with a yearly aggregate of 125,000 committals, with more than
1,000,000 paupers, and with a still vaster host on the brink of pauper
ism ; and with multitudes among us who do not know the name of
the reigning Sovereign, or of the Saviour of the World, and who
�159
derive their only ideas of right and wrong from the policeman; and
with our agricultural labourers, in a condition intellectually so
degraded, that the most sanguine politicians among us forbear to
demand for them the franchise, we think this necessary. But we
trust that, like the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland,
the necessity for compulsion will be temporary. The late extension
of the franchise, which places political power largely in the hands
of the uneducated, confirms us in our view of this necessity. But,
of course, the question of compulsion cannot be for a moment
entertained, so long as we have no other than our present denomina
tional schools. We cannot compel the children of Nonconformists
to attend the rector’s or vicar’s school; and the children of
Episcopalians anti-prelatical schools. The attempt could not be
made. These converging reasons, then, oblige us to advocate
unsectarian education in the schools we aim at establishing. But
we have not arrived at this conclusion, without having carefully
weighed the consequences of what we propose. We have looked
into the facts which bear on the consideration of the question,
and have estimated the pros and cons of the arguments that deal
with its probabilities; and, having done this, we have found no
.grounds for apprehension. The great and conspicuous facts con
tributed by past and contemporary history are easily stated, and
will be easily understood. In Italy and Spain—the countries in
which, whatever education there may have been, has been most
■completely of the kind, advocated by the supporters of our denominational system—the result has not been good as regards literature,
science, and, above all, as regards religion itself. The example of
Erance, as far as the education of the people of that country has
been in the hands of the clergy, points to the same conclusion.
There, too, the reaction against religion appears to be in the ratio
of the force religion has brought to bear, in the manner we are
now speaking of, upon the minds of the young. I should not
think it worth while to recall the fact, that the most celebrated
pupil of the Jesuits was Voltaire, were it not that the spirit of
Voltaire is so common among Frenchmen. Every one will under
stand that there is no question about bringing up children without
religion; the only question is as to the best way of making a
�160
people religious. The lesson Ave are taught by the experience of
Prussia is on the same side. There the Government has made
religious instruction, according to a certain formula, a part of the
school course. Again we ask what has been the result ? Upon
this very question, we have lately had a discussion in the columns
of the Times, which has left pretty distinctly impressed upon us
one fact, at all e\ ents that in Prussia the attempt to teach religion
in the school, according to a definite formulary has been a signal
and complete failure. The reason is not far to seek. It is impossible to teach religion in this way. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody
else, would be disposed in favour of doctrines forced upon us in this
Avay. Religion is not the child of drill and compulsion. I pass
from Northern Germany to another great country, Avhere, fortu
nately for the purposes of this inquiry, the two systems are brought
into the closest and most distinct contrast. The fruits of the one
are seen, side by side with the fruits of the other. In the United
States of America a large proportion of the population are German
immigrants, Avho were brought up under the school system just
mentioned. Throughout the North and the great West, they are
everywhere living intermingled with the native population, Avho
have all been brought up in Avhat we should call unsectarian schools.
It thus becomes easy to judge, upon which of these two people
religion has the greater hold. In the winter of 1867-68,1 travelled
through the Union, with the exception of the Pacific States. Among
other matters, my attention was naturally very much directed to
Avhatever had any bearings on the religious question. I frequently
heard native Americans speaking of the absence, as it appeared to
them, of the religious element in the character of their German felloAV
citizens; while at the same time, I everywhere saw clear evidence
of the streng religious feeling of the native population, brought up,,
almost to a man, as I just noticed, not merely in unsectarian, but
in secular schools. Wherever I Avent I saw and inspected schools
of this kind, and no others—on the Prairies of the West, and the
Rocky Mountains, as well as in Massachusetts. But the first
buildings that met my eyes, almost in every place, were the
churches—at Denver, beyond the Prairies and the Plains, and
further on, in the little mining toAvns in the Rocky Mountains, as
�161
much as in Boston itself. And we must remember, that these
churches have been built, and that their Ministers are supported
by those, who were all the while very busy in clearing away the
forest, and reclaiming the wilderness, and raising the first shelter for
man. As a general ride in the country I am speaking of, where all the
schools are secular, the foundations of the homestead and of the
House of God, are laid simultaneously. I believe—though of course
no one can be in a position to prove it—that a larger amount of
money is raised every year, by voluntary contributions for religious
purposes in the United States, than, over the whole continent of
Europe. Those who question our conclusion will have to convince
us that, notwithstanding these facts, the Continental school system
is more conducive to the interests of religion than the American.
What we want them to do is to disprove, or if they are unable
to do this, to bring into harmony with their theory, the asser
tion, that in those countries in which their plan has been most
thoroughly carried out, there exists the greatest amount of
hostility to religion; while in that great country in which
education is most throughly secular, more so than in any
other country in the world, more money is voluntarily given for
religious purposes, and the ministers of religion are held in higher
estimation, than in any other part of Christendom. But we are
not without experience ourselves on this question. Generally
speaking, our schools are denominational; and, again speaking
generally, the class which in the towns is most largely indebted to
them for its education, is that of the artisans. Now, if the theory
of our opponents is the true one, we ought to see the good results
of it here. But what is the fact ? We have been told again and
again, that there is no other class in the community which has
strayed so largely, and so far from the fold in which they were
brought up. Take a large London national school, under the
shadow of an imposing London Church. I take it for granted that
the greater part of the scholars, are either children of artisans or,
if not, still will be brought up to some handicraft. We may ask
how many of those, who have been brought up in that school are
ever seen in that Church? and what is the expectation in this
matter, respecting those who are now in the school ? It can, then,
L
�162
hardly be the results of our present system, which make any of us
desirous of maintaining it. We have another domestic instance
in the case of the Irish Roman Catholics, who for many generations
have maintained their religion, as no other people in Europe have
done, in consequence, not of the aid, but of the neglect, and even
the hostility of the State. Facts of this kind lead us to the
conclusion, that in advocating unsectarian schools, we are most
assuredly not acting in hostility to religion. I will only make one
more remark. All these schools will be day schools. The
children will, therefore, be still living at home. The parents will
thus have, in the morning and evening of each day, and during
the whole of Saturday and Sunday, as much opportunity as
probably they have at present, for bringing up their children
religiously. The Sunday school will supply similar opportunities
to the clergy, and other religiously-disposed persons. We know
that there will always be parents, who will be living immoral and
irreligious lives; but in the case of the children even of such
parents as these, we do not think that any advantage would result
from the teaching of the schools, being of a sectarian character.
Of course, no one supposes for a moment that there will be any
irreligious, or anti-Christian instruction, given in any school in the
kingdom supported by public money, and under the joint super
vision of a Government inspector, and of a local board of manage
ment. I will sum up in half a dozen words the different
arguments I have been laying before you—we cannot get what
we want without unsectarian teaching; and we see no reason for
supposing that evil consequences of any kind will result from it.
SECULAR EDUCATION.
The Hon. Auberon Herbert read the following paper on
“ Secular Education”:—In asking that national education should be
unsectarian—that is, unconnected with the teaching of any creed—
we shall all recognize the obligation of considering gravely if, under
such a system, the moral and spiritual life of the people will suffer
injury. With such a feeling in my mind, I shall try to show that
it is not merely the readiest way of dealing with our religious diffi
culties, but that it is to be desired in itself, as the system under
�163
which the office that the State, and the office that ministers of
religion hold in trust for the people, will he better understood and
better discharged. There still exists amongst us some confusion of
thought on this subject. We have formed the habit of looking
upon morality as the property, the special province of the clergy.
If this were a just view—as morality is of all things the most
important—then the present denominational system would be very
incomplete, the system of the middle ages, and Dr. Manning’s
teaching of to-day would be right, and all education ought to be
placed in the hands of the Churches. But morality is not to be
enclosed within such narrow bounds. Morality is of the home, and
the street, and the public building, as much as of the Church and the
class-room. Its limits, its tendencies, its developments are not
determined by a class amongst us, but by the action of all those
mixed intelligences which form society. The professional teachers
have always conformed, and must conform, to the climate of opinion
that grows round them. Even the seat of infallibility itself cannot
rise above this influence, and thanks to “modern Liberalism,” which
it excommunicates, the syllabus of to-day is milder than the syllabus
of earlier ages. If, then, morality is in no fashion a class-property,
who are to be responsible for the teaching of it 1 I answer, the
State, for that which concerns the State; our Churches, for that,
which concerns the Churches. Both have duties of teaching morality,. ■
though their appeal lies to different sanctions. The State has.
simply to deal with the relations of man to man ; the minister of
religion deals not only with these, but with the relations of man to
God. It may, however, be urged that the relations of man to man
are too vague, to be a matter of teaching. I reply, that the State
has never yet found them too vague to be a matter of punishment;
and he who is an awarder of punishment, is bound to know why he
punishes, is bound to act on principles which he can clearly explain,
and which, when explained, will command the moral consent of
those who obey. How shall the State do this ? I answer, by giving
to every child a clear conception, of the fact of his existence as a
member of society, and of the birth with him of obligations whicH
limit his actions towards others • by leading him to understand
what law is—to understand the necessity that where men and women.
�164
live together they should live under law, and the spirit and inten
tions of the laws, which a civilized community imposes on itself. It
must show him that the happiness of society, its power of progres
sion, its power of enjoying higher pleasures, impose on its members,
many obligations—obligations of truthful speech, of upright dealing,
of respect for feelings as well as rights—obligations which cannot
be neglected, without somewhere inflicting injury upon that society
which he is learning to place higher than his own individual ex
istence. Under such teachings the social bond will pass from the
region of phrases, and become to our children as they grow up a
distinct and living reality. The State will no longer be to them a
powei existing outside of themselves, a machine of resistless force
for imposing burdens, and inflicting penalties; but duties owed to
the State will be duties owed to themselves, and slowly, after’
many centuries, but safely in the end, for them if not for us, the
neglected facts of a common humanity will emerge out of the dif
ferences of class and sect. Such is the office of the State as regards
moral teaching, an office which it cannot rightly place out of itsown hands. The minister of religion appeals above, and beyond
these earthly sanctions. It is his, to lead us to form the largest and
noblest conceptions of God, and of God’s dealings ; to teach us to.
know the depth of that spiritual nature which is within us, and
the never-ceasing consolation we may draw from it. The last
minutes of my time, shall be given to consider the influence which
an unsectarian system of education, would exert upon the teachings
of the churches. These teachings would not be diminished ; for
those who labour for the spread of any religious belief would be
freed from all anxiety and responsibility, as regards the other parts
of education, and would be able to devote all their energy to their
special work. By the side of the State education there would grow
up, as in America, a great religious organization, voluntary in man
agement, voluntary in attendance, and taking great hold of the
mind of the people. Still greater would be the influence of the
system, upon the spirit of the teaching. As the State assumes an
attitude of perfect toleration and impartiality, refusing to disavow
the unity of national life, refusing to believe that those things
which divide are stronger than those which unite, I cannot doubt
�165
that the religious teachings of this country, will be affected by the
-example of the State, and gain in breadth and charity. Do not let
us hide from ourselves the fact, that the religious teachings of to-day
must pass through the fire, and all that is narrow and intolerant —
■all that is superstitious, all that fears the light, must be burnt
from them, if in the future they are to command the strongest
minds, and to act with a living, force upon the consciences of the
people. That this may come to pass, that the spiritual life amongst
us may be freer and purer, the State must faithfully discharge its
-own duties, and leave the churches to discharge theirs. A
■country whose churches are built upon the belief, (I quote the
words) “ that every individual must find his separate way to God
by the use of his own intellect and conscience,” cannot make a
State-lesson of the teaching of any church. But one thing it owes to
-every church, and that is to act in the belief, that great national
measures, across the face of which a people’s unity, and a people’s
toleration for every belief and opinion are written in plain
■characters, are religious lessons, which, however silently, reach all
hearts and influence all lives. I ought to add to this paper an ex
planation of a practical character. I have tried to show that un
sectarian education is not irreligious in its influence, I have tried
to show that it is the best form of national education ; but let it be
■understood that I do not wish to displace the present system. All
that I ask is, that the State should frankly recognize the unsectarian
system, allowing it to be introduced, first, where the inhabitants of
-a district desire the system, and decide to rate themselves • secondly,
where a district fails to supply itself with proper school accomo
dation, and is required to rate itself, by the central office or the
■district board. Where schools on the new and old system come
together in the same district, I confess my belief that the old
•schools must give up children’s pence, as a condition of existence ;
but if the State grant be raised, as Mr. Dixon proposes, to twothirds of the total expenses, school managers will have only to
raise about the same sum as at present, which is not an unfair tax
for continuing the luxury of denominational teaching. If all
■existing denominational schools, are wise enough to accept a
satisfactory conscience clause, Government inspection, and a
�166
registry of school attendance, they have probably a long life
before them ; as long, indeed, as their own vitality lasts. Englishwise, we wish, if it be possible, to work out the new pattern, with
out destroying the threads of the old warp.
MISCONCEPTIONS AS TO SECULAR INSTRUCTION.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake read a paper entitled “ Misconceptions as
to Secular Instruction.” He said : In public life it sometimes
: happens that particular persons excite terror and apprehension, yet
when the nation comes to know them, they are found to be wise
and pacific counsellors. The same thing often occurs with
debatable terms. A particular phrase is regarded with hasty
distrust, which, should it be looked at dispassionately, would be
found to indicate exactly what the nation is in want of. Such a
phrase is secular instruction. Eor all the purposes of national
education, it is sufficient to define secular instruction, as that kind
of instruction which pertains to the efficiency of the workman
and the duties of the citizen ; instruction which must be given,
and given with very great distinctness, or the working class will be
cheated of that knowledge which can alone make them creditable
and intelligent members of the State, able to acquit themselves in
the international competition, destined to grow fiercer in coming
years. Now, the term secular in no way denies or questions
that spiritual education which, in proper time and place, can,
in the opinion of most persons, inculcate yet higher motives to
nobleness, and peradventure conduct to the knowledge of God.
That knowledge which is secular is not, as many imagine,
necessarily opposed to that which is religious. It is merely distinct
from it. It merely ignores that which stands outside its province.
Just as mathematics ignores chemistry and does not assail it; just
as jurisprudence ignores geology, but does not deny it; so that
which is secular, stands apart from theology, but neither denies nor
assails it. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I, who have
elsewhere given special currency to the term, have always defined
and explained it. It is true that some persons, not understanding
the integrity of the term, have used it in a confusing way ; but I
take it, that the educated instinct of gentlemen is to employ a term
�167
in its intrinsic signification, and not to insist upon an interpretation
of it, founded upon its obvious abuse. All that the advocates of
secular instruction ask is, that the education given at the cost of
the State shall relate to the duties exacted by the State; and
these duties are, that the workman shall be able to maintain his
family, to pay whatever taxes are levied upon him, give no trouble
to the police, make no demands upon the parish, and fight generally
whomsoever the Government may see fit to involve us in war with.
Whatever knowledge is necessary, to enable the future workman to
do these things is his right, and should be given him in the
speediest manner ; and any other inculcation which shall delay this
knowledge on its way, or confuse the learner in acquiring it, is a
loss to the State and a peril to the child. It is in the interest of
public economy, that secular instruction should be given by order,
and religious instruction by option. Anyone who has had
experience of the working class, knows that what they suffer most
from is confusion of mind. They cannot see one thing at a
time. They mix up other considerations with the case in
hand. They judge the question before them, in the light of
something else. This is the source of that weakness and
prejudice, which often make them so impracticable. This habit
of the untrained mind, instead of being corrected, has been
confirmed by that mixed education, that confusion of things sacred
and secular, which charity and misconception, have made the
rule in this country. In Parliament, that member alone is regarded
as competent, and as not wasting the time of the House, who can
discern what the point before it is, and who can keep to it when he
does. We want this power in the workshop. The national scheme
which is not going to impart it, is going to waste the money of the
ratepayer. Mixed education makes muddle-minded scholars. To
acquire only what you need to know, to think out one thing at a
time, to keep separate things distinct in the mind, is economy in
learning, and is the shortest path to efficiency. The nation is busy,
and the people have no money or time to spare, and the State is
bound to adopt the speediest and cheapest transit to public know
ledge. No one has a right to stand in the way of this, in the
presence of a nation ignorant and struggling ; and struggling because
�168
it is ignorant. Many demur to secular knowledge because they do
not know why it is wanted, nor perceive what it will do. They
forget, that in England every inch of ground has a proprietor. Not
a fish in the river, not a bird in the air, hardly a flower on the
bank, but has an owner. A mechanic, as a rule, finds that employ
ment comes by chance, and wages by caprice. He must not steal,
or conspire, or fight. Secular sense and secular skill, are the only
usable weapons which can keep him from the poorhouse. Piety,
ever so conspicuous, scarcely fetches any price in the market. The
most devout employer, adjusts the wages he gives according to the
swiftness and expertness of his workmen. There is no creed, the
profession of which will induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
remit the assessed taxes, or the magistrate to excuse the non
payment of local rates. The State, therefore, is bound to expend
the public money in productive knowledge, and the only knowledge
which is productive is secular; and this knowledge the State is
bound in prudence and justice to give to the people. But this
knowledge, which will mercifully aid the children of the workman,
will make them clear-minded and grateful : and gratitude and intel
ligence, are the fairest of all the handmaids of reverence. With
secular instruction, religion will acquire freshness and new force.
The clergyman and the minister, will exercise a new influence,
because their ministrations will have dignity and definiteness. They
will no longer delegate things declared by them to be sacred, to be
taught second-hand by the harassed, over-worked, and oft reluctant
schoolmaster and schoolmistress, who must contradict the gentleness
of religion by the peremptoriness of the pedagogue, and efface the
precept that “ God is love,” by an incontinent application of the
birch. An enemy of religion would prescribe exactly this course,
if he sought to make it distasteful, and terrorful to the child. It is
not secular instruction which breeds irreverence, but this ill-timed
familiarity with the reputed things of God, which robs divinity of
its divineness. There is one advantage of the secular rule of instruc
tion which might commend it to all earnest men. So long as
religion is taught apart from school instruction, and with optional
attendance, it will matter little whether it is “ sectarian” or not.
Sectarianism is not a sin, when it ceases to be intolerant. It is then
�169
but that honest form of faith, which best supplies the wants of the
soul professing it. To reduce religion to an impossible generalization
of the Bible, and the mere belief in God—creating a sort of Par
liamentary piety (which is what is meant by “unsectarianism”)—is
to efface the individuality of devotion, which makes religion pic
turesque and passionate, and is harder for the earnest believer to
accept than secular instruction, which meddles intentionally neither
with his faith, nor his conscience. The last misconception relates to
the extent of this question. A magnitude is imputed to it which
does not exist. We are not dealing with education in its full sense
at all. That means the sum of all those influences of home, and
church, and society, which form the individual character. The State
never proposes to deal with these. The scheme before us does not
contemplate it, and would have no power to effect it if it did. All
we ask is, that in every district in England, the children of the
working class shall surely get as good an intellectual training, as the
children of the working class can get in any country in the world.
Tliis can be given in a few hours a day—in a few years of every
child’s life. This is the extent of the scheme proposed by this
League. Secular instruction, if adopted, will deal, during that brief
term, merely with the mechanical routine of elementary knowledge,
and the passionless facts of science; while it leaves in all the other
years, and during all other times, the young learner to the teachers
of religion, whose province is that side of human nature which
comes in contact with the infinite; where emotions arise which
colour life for evermore, and passions are stirred which pertain to
eternity, by the side of which, most men deem all that pertains to
this life minor and transitory. Should we succeed to the utmost of
our wishes, the State-student will still be under the far-reaching
influences of the nurse, the mother, and the minister ; churches and
chapels will still exist, and Sunday schools will still remain open,
and able to confine themselves to Sunday knowledge, which will
have distinctive value then. Household piety will still prevail,with
an interest which it now lacks ; theologians will still write, and
their literature still cover the land ; the institutions and character
of the country will still be Christian, and in a more self-respecting
and genial sense than now. Splendid philanthropy will still illus
�170
trate the human tenderness of Christ. Nothing will have been
changed, except that the nation will have added intelligence to its
greatness. The brain of the common people will be cleared and
trained, and every working father and mother, will thank with
gratefid heart that State which has given their clrildren the priceless
blessing of self-defensive knowledge.
DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.
Mr. Jesse Collings, Honorary Secretary, read a paper which had
been prepared by Mr. H. J. Slack, and in which the “principle” of
Denominational Schools was examined. Mr. Slack, in his paper
said :—As powerful parties in this country, holding various and
opposite opinions upon theological subjects, have pronounced in
favour of what is called the “ Denominational System of National
Education,” an accurate investigation of the principles of such a
scheme, and of the consequences which flow therefrom, is urgently
needed. An objection of some force might be taken, at starting, to
the illogical linking together of the two distinct things designated
by the words, “ Denominational ” and “ National.” In a country
in which a multiplicity of denominations flourish, and divide
society into numerous parties, that which is denominational stands
in obvious contrast to that which is national. Considered from
the point of theological classification, to be denominational is to be
sectarian, and if regarded from a purely social or political point of
view, it is to be sectional, and though the nation comprehends all
its subordinate divisions, it cannot be confounded with them ; and
it should be remembered that large masses of people do not range
themselves in definite ranks, and that consequently the whole of
the denominations is a much smaller quantity than the whole of
the people. It is not customary to consider any church as a
national church, unless it is the special object of a State patronage
not accorded to other churches. If it merely stands as one
amongst many religious bodies, all of which receive State aid in
proportion to their numbers, it would be regarded as the church of
a larger or smaller section of the community, as the case might be,
and any such institution having the support of the majority to-day,
might, from change of opinion, represent only a minority to-morrow.
�171
In countries where various religious communities receive State pay,
the term “ concurrent endowment ” designates the kind of relation
that is thus established. In like manner, an educational system in
which various bodies, holding distinctive opinions, all received
pecuniary support from the general taxation of the country, would
be one of “ concurrent endowmentand if differences of theo
logical creed separated these bodies from each other, the Govern
ment which supported, or helped to support all, would act quite as
much upon the plan of “ concurrent endowment of religions,” as if,
instead of providing funds towards mingling reading and writing
with particular creeds, it gave the same amount of money towards
the church services of each sect. The denominational school
master, who is engaged to teach particular theological propositions as
well as to conduct the ordinary secular studies of a school, is, if not
the priest, at least the minister, of the sect employing him j and as
his two functions would be intimately blended, it would be a mere
subterfuge to say that State aid was given to him for his arith
metic without his catechism ; not for his doctrines of salvation, but
his rule-of-three. If the State aid took the form of local rates,
levied throughout the country, by order of an Imperial Act
of Parliament, and upon general principles of assessment, the
Government by which the scheme was carried out, would com
pel each ratepayer to contribute to the support of other folks’
religions, whether he liked them or not. The Evangelical Dis
senter would be compelled to contribute towards teaching, in the
schools of the Roman Catholics, what he conscientiously believed
to be soul-destroying errors; the Trinitarian would give his sub
scription towards inculcating the doctrines of the Unitarian, and
each party, in turn, would find • its conscience and its pocket
oppressed with the burden of sustaining doctrines it denied and
opinions it deemed to be mischievous and absurd. To be con
sistent in legislation, State aid for teaching various kinds of
theology in denominational schools ought to be supplemented by
similar aid, if required, to support the same sorts of theology in
churches or chapels. When, under the name of “ concurrent
endowment, it was recently proposed to do this in Ireland, an over
whelming mass of public opinion decided against it, and, indeed,
�172
if the nation had been in favour of the principle it involved, we
should not in this country have arrived at the abolition of com
pulsory church rates ; but our Legislature would have arranged
that if Dissenters paid for the theology of Churchmen, Churchmen
should make all square by paying for dissenting theology a pro
portionate sum.
The reason why compulsory church rates have
been abolished, and why the Irish Protestant Church has been dis
established, is that a strong conviction has arisen amongst the
majority of thinkers, that it is morally wrong for the State to
arrogate to itself the power of choosing a religion for the people,
inasmuch as this is a matter in which each man’s own con
science and intellect should be his guides.
But if religion is
so left to the conscience and intellect of individuals, no one can,
without violation of the principle of such an arrangement, be
compelled to pay in any shape towards the support of a multiplicity
of theologies differing from his own.
That everybody should be
called upon to support everybody else’s creed, is not a doctrine of
liberty, but a proposal of despotism, and it is none the better
because the compulsory aid is to take effect in one building called
a school, instead of in another called a church.
No one who
admits the principle which led to the disestablishment of the
Irish Church, can dispute the position taken by the Boman
Catholics, that the State ought to do for them, in proportion to
their numbers, what it does in the way of benefit for other religious
bodies ; and if all the theological sects were equally endowed for
educational purposes, the State would still have to meet the claims
of secularists, and of those who decline to register themselves
under any denominational formula.
When we consider the fact
admitted by all sects, that great masses of the working class,
especially in large towns, are in this position, the magnitude of this
question becomes apparent; and if we pass from masses of men to
distinguished individuals, the names will at once occur to our
minds of philosophers standing high in various departments of
scientific enquiry, who do not belong to any existing church.
Hitherto the denominational system, has not been associated with
any direct legislative compulsion to attend the schools; but the
country is obviously tending to the belief that the State must pro
�173
tect and safeguard the right of the child to education, even when
the parent desires to keep it away from instruction. Compulsory
education cannot be justly resorted to, unless religious liberty, that
is, perfect freedom upon speculative questions—is well protected
from aggression. Religious liberty is based upon the right of
private judgment, while the denominational teaching of the young
is intended to produce a strong bias, in favour of what those who
employ it believe to be true. In chemistry or astronomy, a pro
fessor does not hesitate to tell his pupils frankly, that upon certain
questions the opinions of men of learning differ, nor does he
shrink from explaining the grounds upon which diverging or con
tradictory theories are held ; but would any denominational school
master be allowed to show why historical critics, philological
scholars, or geologists, doubted or denied the particular propositions
he was paid to teach? Those who, upon grounds of critical
inquiry, reject the propositions of orthodoxy, ought not to be parties
towards compelling the orthodox to support their heresy in the
schoolroom; and if Dean Close, for example, cannot be justly
deprived of his shillings or pounds for an institute in which
Huxley or Tyndall might lecture, ought they or their followers to
be mulcted for a kind of education in which their labours are
spoken of in the following terms :—“ There was no question that
there is in the present day an evil spirit of the ‘ bottomless pit ’
rising up among us, poisoning God’s truth, poisoning the faith of
thousands, and turning them away from godliness ; and he was
bound to say he laid a large portion of it at the door of science.
Did not philosophers at the present day, dig out of the bowels
of the earth evidences against God ? Did they not seek in the
heavens, in nations, and in languages, every means to shake our faith
in the Bible? How fearful and how humbling a thing it was, that
there were those who would venture to overturn the whole Bible
narrative of the creation of man, which involved man’s salvation
by Christ, and would prefer any dream, however foolish or vain, to
the faithful testimony of God respecting the origin of our species f
He was bold to say that in all the dreams of Hindoos, and all the
false religions corrupted, degraded, and ridiculous—that were ever
amusing among the Pagans, there were none so frivolous and childish
�174
as those, unto which the science of the present day had reduced our
scientific men.” This passage is not quoted for the pleasure of
raising a laugh at its absurdity, but because the learned ecclesiastic
who uttered it is, to speak in natural history phraseology, a
remarkably fine specimen of a species, considerable in numbers and
tolerably wide in the area of its distribution. All the members of
this religious species would have a right, under the denominational
system, to State aid in frightening their pupils with bug-a-boo
pictures of the horrors of science, and the wickedness of scientific
men. It may be said, that a “ conscience clause” would be a suf
ficient protection against theological aggression, but this is emphati
cally contradicted by facts. At a recent Conference of the Wesleyans,
a body which carefully avoids separating itself from the Estab
lished Church, much complaint was made of the persecution to
which Wesleyan children were subjected at National Schools, on
account of their attending the Sunday schools of the Chapel
instead of those of the Church ; and where a school was founded upon
a theological basis, children who were not subjected to its theological
teachings, would occupy a position inferior to those who were. The
denominational system directly tends to brand, with the stigma of
inferiority children and their parents who do not belong to the most
influential sect of the locality. In Ireland the Protestant child
would be subjected to this injury in the Romish school, if he attended
one, on account of there being no other in the neighbourhood; and in
other places the children of Romanists, Jews, and Dissenters in
general, would come under the ban. In rural districts of England
the social distinction between pupils of the British, and pupils of
the National Schools, is painfully apparent. The park of the lord
or squire receives the little Nationals at their annual holiday, and
“ county families” assist at their cricket or kiss-in-the-ring. The
small “ Britishers” may look through the palings, but as they did
not learn the right catechism, they must not enjoy the fun. The
■Government, as the guardian of political and social interests, is
bound, upon the principles of civil and religious liberty, to permit
nothing, that can encourage odious distinctions in any school that it
-supports. So long as education was left’to voluntaryism, there was
some excuse for aiding sectarian schools; but to have made that
�175
system approximately fair, secular schools should have had equal
rights with denominational establishments. Voluntaryism has been
found insufficient in supplying school accommodation, and it is
generally believed that attendance at some school should be made
compulsory; and would it not inflict a great wrong upon the people,
if they were obliged to send their children to schools in which, in
any shape or way, a theological test was applied to discriminate and
separate the beloved sheep of any orthodoxy, from the suspected
goats of any heresy ? In large towns, schools of all kinds, from
Romanist to secular, would be established, and there would be con
siderable choice ; but in smaller places much hardship could not
fail to occur. Large-minded reformers, anxious for human brother
hood, and wishing that the progress we are making towards de
mocracy, should be accompanied by circumstances of safety to society,
and good-will amongst men, desire that the schoolroom should be
free from envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness. The honours of
that place should go exclusively to merit of conduct, and proficiency
of study ; no child should be made ashamed or uncomfortable on
account of his father’s opinions, or lack of opinions, on subjects of
theological speculation; no child should imbibe lessons of sectarian
hatred, or be encouraged to think himself better than another child,
because he had been taught something different about creed or
•catechism. Let voluntaryism provide all the theological divisions
it believes to be usefid, and keep them in their right place ; let the
State deal with a larger question of human culture, adapted to the
people as a whole.
FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
Captain Maxse, R.N., read a paper, of which the following
is an abstract, on “Free and Compulsory Elementary Education.”
He commenced by saying that he was the representative of a
branch which was in course of formation in South Hants, to
■co-operate with the League; and he had long been an advocate
•of compulsory gratuitous elementary education. He proceeded:
First, I should like to say a word or two about the term
secular, as applied to the movement. In its best sense, I myself,
am prepared to accept this designation of—what I hope, gentle
�176
men of Birmingham, you will allow me now to call—our scheme :
in its ignoble sense, as implying irreverence, or gross worldliness, I
utterly repudiate it. If by “ secular” is meant of this world, as in
contrast to another one, I reply, that what is of this world is of
God, and I denounce as mischievous and unwarrantable the arbi
trary distinction, that an attempt is made to establish between the
spiritual and the earthly. I believe that it is intended, provided
we are worthy of the intention, that human nature shall be elevated
in this world ; and that it depends entirely upon ourselves whether
we, the English, are to assist in this elevation, or are to be pushed
aside by a stronger race, better fitted for progress than we, more
resolute to fulfil the nobler aspirations of human nature. I wish to
see children, taught, first to live, as the most religious duty that they
can discharge, taught to live in this world for the ennobling of
themselves and others, taught that the greater portion of human
misery is the result of human error, taught that we can be better if
we try to be better with courage, with faith, and with inflexible
honesty. I believe there is little hope for us in life until we place
morality upon a solid basis; until we learn that it is best to be good for
its own sake; until we learn that evil, as evil, is the cause of misery
to ourselves and others, and realize (I fortify myself by a quotation
from Locke) that “ To love truth for truth’s sake is the principal
part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all
virtues.” The object of this League is simply to teach the “ com
prehensible” to all neglected children ; to save them from despair,
degradation, and death, by placing about every child some moral
influence, giving them the opportunity of distinguishing between
right and wrong, and by securing to all persons in the realm the
additional means of livelihood which, in a civilized community, is
represented by familiarity -with letters and numbers. A movement
having such an object as this, I can only regard as a profoundly
religious one. In the interest of religion, not less than in the interest
of the national cause we advocate, there is but one course to adopt,
(and this course is a sorrowful course for some, but they must
remember we are pressed to it by a still more sorrowful condition;)
it is, to stand respectfully aside from Bible reading, not less than
from the use of the Catechism. Nevertheless, I desire myself to
�177
see some reverential attitude on the part of State schools, in rela
tion to the Unknown Power, and I believe this might be fulfilled
by drawing up a daily prayer, which would satisfy every shade of
religious opinion. If, however, this cannot be done, I am ready to
acknowledge the necessity of confining ourselves strictly to secular
education. And how much this means ! It means giving sight to
the blind, and limbs to the maimed. I hold, myself, that whoever
is permitted to grow up, without having had the opportunity of
learning to read and write, has a direct grievance, not only against
his parents, but also against the State. “ In a civilized community
reading and writing may be regarded as supplementary senses.
Not a few of us would hesitate, if the alternative wore suddenly
presented of losing a sense, such as the sense of hearing, or of
losing the faculty of reading. Who is there among us, who would
assume the responsibility of destroying a sense? Is there much
less in neglecting to provide for the liberation of a faculty, mani
festly equal to it in value ? It should never be forgotten that the
higher our civilization, the greater becomes our responsibility to
wards the poor. Civilization means luxury, comfort, and security
for all of us ; but, I fear, only rigour for those who have to provide
the necessaries of life. The advantage of quitting a natural state
is great, for those who are able to command food-—hardly so for those
who have to obtain it. Therefore, the Government of a civilized
State assumes, or should assume, a responsibility towards the indi
gent, in direct proportion to the degree of its civilization. It is for
those responsible—for those who, in a free country, frame public
opinion—to see that the disadvantage the poor are placed under by
civilization, is reduced to a minimum • and the least acknowledgment
of this duty is to provide for, and secure the liberation of what I
have called the supplementary senses. This does not in the least im
ply that the poor man or labourer is to be given learning, the latter
is for himself to achieve; he is to receive only the instrument to it, to
be given his hearing, not to be provided with music. I hardly
think myself that we have the right to protect property, if we do
not make known to everyone the reason why property should be
sacred, and this can only be done through education. It seems to
me that, as we advance in civilization, the one anxious problem we
M
�178
have to deal with is, how to preserve the food-getting condition of
the poor. A speaker at the Social Science Congress, the other day,
said that the misery with which we are surrounded is not the result
of ignorance, but is the result of poverty. And is not ignorance
one of the causes of poverty—one of the main causes ? It is owing
to ignorance that the labour-market is overstocked. The men who
are unable to read and write, are prohibited from entering any
calling but that of mere manual labour. How often do we hear it
said of some good agricultural labourer “ The worst of it is, he is
no scholarthe scholarly attainment in request being, perhaps,
to decipher an invoice of drain pipes, or sum up the productions of
a dairy. I am quite aware of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s views on the
subject of education, and I have listened respectfully to Mr. Faw
cett’s objection to free education as relieving the parents of proper
responsibility. Nevertheless, I remain an advocate of gratuitous
education. I do not believe that the majority of the parents we
require to reach are in a position to exercise responsibility. I
know that Mr. Fawcett would leave power to school managers to
supply education gratis, when the parents are destitute and unable
to pay, on much the same principle as food is supplied under the
poor-law; hut I cannot help thinking that there would be some
invidious distinction arising from this system ; the establishment of
a class that would be termed a pauper class, of which all callous
and improvident parents, would avail themselves at the expense of
the provident. I have never advocated myself the State’s providing,
free, more than elementary education. I believe that directly
parents are in a position to afford the indulgence of feeling respon
sibility, on the educational head, they will remove their children
from the public to the private and higher school. My experience
tells me that the responsibility of education is now evaded by
parents who can afford to educate their children. I constantly find
parents availing themselves of “ National School” education at the
(to them) nominal expense of Id. or 2d. per week, which school is
mainly supported by others, not for them, but for the very poor.
I would do nothing to weaken the responsibility that should exist
on the part of parents to their children. I recognise the force of
the argument, that parents should not. summon beings into the
�179
world without being able to provide for them, and I by no means
desire to see the individual gradually perish in the State; but we
must not demand too much, we must not insist on an ideal con
ception of parental duty for those who have not the means, or the
prospect of the means, of fulfilling it. To do so, would, in my opinion,
afford but too ready an excuse for society to return to its fatal
slumber. I would add, that the right to be instructed in the lan
guage of civilization offers the opportunity, which must be seized,
of supplying higher teaching. We can hardly teach how to read
and write, without imparting some rudimentary knowledge, without
teaching, I am happy to think, some of the facts of the universe,
and expounding reverentially some of the miracles of nature that
are ever at hand, whether exemplified in the anatomy of a tree
leaf, or expressed in the infinite immensity of the heavens. Finally,
we have the opportunity of awakening the conscience to a sense of
right and wrong. This briefly represents my idea of education for
the people. Call the process secular if you like, call it undenomi
national if you please—call it what you will—it must remain
neither more nor less, than noble and exalting. Perhaps you will
let me here offer a word or two upon my own experience, of the
effect of a compulsory education proposal among working men; it
will serve to supplement the larger experience of Mr. Applegarth.
I was one of the candidates at the general election for the represen
tation of Southampton, a town, as you are aware, far south. My
own pet subject, at every meeting, and upon every possible
occasion during a long house-to-house canvass was, not the “ glo
rious principles of our noble constitution,” but compulsory educa
tion. I do not believe the idea had ever been broached before,
certainly it had never been prominently broached before. It
was not long after I had commenced, that one or two leaders of
the party, who were conversant with the working class feeling,
were saying to me, “ Go on speaking about education, it takes
wonderfully; I should stick to that ideaand so on. I always
felt myself, that I struck a truly popular chord; the response
upon this subject was more fevent than upon any other. The
simple explanation is, that the working classes have common
sense, and that we have only to appeal to this on subjects which
concern them, to secure ultimately their hearty allegiance.
�180
DISCUSSION.
Mr. Edmond Beales, of London, most heartily congratulated
the President and all the Council of the League—if that congratu
lation was of any value—upon their admirable commencement of
the great work which they had set themselves to accomplish. The
fundamental principle of the League appeared to bo this, that every
one of those two millions of children, now without instruction,
should be educated, and that the frightful state of things which
they now saw, in the punishment of persons for the violation of
laws which they had never been taught to know or respect, should
cease to exist. The fruitful evils now resulting from the fact of so
many children being uneducated, was a shame and a disgrace to any
Christian country. The principle of the League was, that their
system, supported as it would be, partly by Government grants, and
partly by local rates, should be free and wholly unsectarian, as
it necessarily must be. He held that Christian morality was
the highest of all morality ; that no philosophy which ever
existed, could find an adequate substitute for it, and that the
Gospel of Christ was the best possible means of making a man
wise, just, honest, and virtuous. Still, he could never for the
life of him understand, how to teach a child to read and write, to
calculate, to instruct him in the elements of science, and in all
that was necessary for the faithful discharge of his after profes
sion or occupation, could make that child the less a good Christian.
He entirely agreed with Mr. Mundella, that all truth was holy; and
also with the principles laid down in the paper of the Hon. Auberon
Herbert; for whilst he conceived it to be the duty of the State to
assist in the education of the country, he also considered it the
duty of the State, not to interfere with the consciences or religious
principles of the parents. Still, no parent, whether Churchman,
Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic, should be allowed to exclude
his children from education simply because in unsectarian schools,
if they were established, there was not taught the special doc
trines of his faith. As he understood it, the League did not intend
to exclude the consideration of religion, or of the Bible from the
schools, nor to interfere at all with the existing d on om in ati on al
�181
systemj but what it was prepared to enforce at all times, and under
all circumstances, was, that the State must do its duty, and not
interfere with the freedom of religious conviction; that the parent
must do his duty, and not allow religious conviction to interfere
with the education which the State declared was necessary, to make
his child a good, upright, and honest citizen. Such a system
woidd bring about greater concord, and greater harmony between all
classes of society. No longer would there be antagonism and dis
union amongst them ; there would be one bond of mutual respect,
good-will, kindness, and social attachment pervading, interlacing,
and knitting together the whole national body, whilst the
individual welfare of each part of the body, would be promoted
and developed.
The Hon. G-. Brodrick : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—
In following Mr. Beales, as I have been invited to do, and heartily
supporting his views, I do not feel competent to speak from any
personal experience of the practical details of school management,
but I am desirous to add my testimony to the broad principle of
national unsectarian education, inasmuch as there is no one of our
principles in which I more cordially concur. This principle, as we
have been reminded, gives offence to some. I observed the other
day, that Sir Stafford Northcote, who is a good friend to education^
said at Exeter that he heartily wished the words “ sectarian ” and
“ unsectarian ” had never been imported into this subject. I partly
agree with him, and yet I differ from him; for he dislikes the word,,
and I dislike the thing. Now, there is one objection to which
reference, I think, has not been made to-day, but which I believe
to be very widely prevalent. I mean the objection that some five
and twenty years ago a kind of compact, as it has been called, was
made between the State and the religious bodies of this country,
and that we are, as it were, morally bound to carry out the spirit of
that compact. I might, and do, reply, that we arc not proposing
to disendow denominational education, that we are not proposing
to disestablish it, that we are not even proposing to supersede it,
but only to supplement it. But I go further, and I must say, I
should like to know when the compact was made, by whom it was
made, and what were its terms. And even supposing any such
�182
compact to have been made, I want to know who were the parties
to it. Were yon and I—those bf us, at least, who are less than
fifty years old, and perhaps at that very time were under education
—were you and I parties to it ? Were those who are children, who
are now growing up in ignorance and vice, to be the inmates of
our woikliouses and our gaols, were these children, then unborn,
parties to the compact ? Were the working classes, then excluded
from the franchise, but now admitted to it, and who must
ultimately guide and govern the policy of the country, were they
parties to it ? And if not, what force is there in alleging the
existence of an imaginary compact, made a generation ago ? There
is one other objection, to which reference has frequently been made,
to unsectarian education, and that is, the religious objection. On
that I can only say, I entirely adopt what has fallen from so many
speakers. We leave untouched the influence of the church and
the chapel, we leave untouched the influence of home, we leave
untouched the influence of Sunday schools; we leave it in the dis
cretion of the managers or school committee, as the Chairman has
explained, to admit the teaching, the dogmatic teaching, of religion
out of school hours, and, if they think proper, to allow the reading
of the Scriptures, without note or comment, even during school hours.
Then, I ask—and this is the root of the matter—what is the religion
which we are said to sacrifice ? Not the practical religion of every
day life ; not the sublime and simple religion of the Gospel; not the
pure and undefiled religion of St. James, who teaches us to visit
the fatherless and the widows in their affliction; not the religion
of St. Paul, which embraces all things true and all things pure, and
all things lovely and honest and of good report; but the religion of
creeds and articles and formularies, the religion of dogmatic
theology,—the parent of the persecution which has been the re
proach of Christianity ; the religion which boasts, not of its power
of including, but of its power to exclude; the religion which at
this moment contributes to uphold caste and to prevent the growth
of national unity in this country, and which is the main obstacle to
the moral union of Christendom.
Mr. Follett Osler : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—I
feel considerable hesitation, in undertaking to say a few words on
�183
the present occasion, but having been asked to address you, I have
jotted down a few remarks which have occurred to me, connected with
the recent journey I have made to America. Though I, in common
with a large portion of our countrymen, have long felt it most de
sirable that education should be extended throughout this realm,
so as to render it truly national, I never was so strongly impressed
with the importance of this, as after a tour I made last autumn in
the United States. In taking this journey I had no particular
object in view, beyond the desire to see and learn all I could of the
country, its people and institutions ; to accomplish which, I visited
most of the Northern States, from the Atlantic to the Rocky
Mountains. But it is not possible for anyone to travel in that
country at all observantly, without being struck by the great intel
ligence of the mass of the people. Even in the country districts
this is as noticeable as in the towns. So striking was this appa
rently universal education, that I was involuntarily led to inquire
into the system, and to visit the schools that produced such good
results. Accordingly, I devoted some time to that object, feeling
more strongly than I had ever done before, the pressing importance
of real national education, and that it was one of the first subjects
to which our Legislature should direct them attention. The question
that is of most interest and importance to us at the present moment
is, whether the main features of the system which has been so suc
cessfully carried out in the United States, may not be applicable to
this country. Some persons take alarm at the word “ America,”
and seem afraid lest we should denationalize our people ; but surely,
the adoption of a broad and extended scheme of national education,
be it based on the system adopted in the United States, or Prussia,
or of any other nation, or on the systems of all combined, does
not make us adopt, or desire to adopt, the mode cf government or
the political institutions of any of those countries ; though the
recent changes in our political institutions may render national
education not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. But, in
addition to any political considerations, it is necessary that our ar
tisans should be placed in a position, to enable us to compete with
those nations that, I regret to say, have left us far behind with re
gard to the education of the people. I contend that education, to
�184
be national, that is, universal, must be free. A large portion of
the population cannot pay; and if some are to do so, it will be ne
cessary to decide who are not. No arbitrary amount of wages can
settle it. A man with one child, and earning 20s. a-week, may be
richer than another earning 30s. or 40s. a-week, who has a number
of children. Then, as to those who can pay—is the sum to be uni
form, or is it to be graduated according to the means of the pupil’s
parents ? The subject becomes more complicated and difficult, the
deeper we go into it. Again, if some schools are free, and others
demand a fee, a class feeling will be provoked; for among artisans
there is an honourable pride, as great as among the wealthier members
of the community, and a distinction will cause the schools, where no
payment is made, to be regarded as pauper or charity schools. The
difficulties attending payment are so great, and the advantages of
having education free are so manifest to my mind, that I am sur
prised there should be any hesitation as to the course this country
should adopt. When in Philadelphia, I had some interesting con
versation on the subject with Mr. Shippen, the excellent President
of the Board of Controllers of the Public Schools of Philadelphia,
who strongly advises our schools being altogether free. Mr. Osler
here read the following letter from Mr. Shippen :—
“ Philadelphia, June 18th, 1869.
“ S.E. Cor. 6th and Walnut Streets.
“ Mr. Follett Osler,
Dear Sir, —Your favour of June 5tli is received. I am pleased to
accede to your wishes, and mail with this, six copies of my address, which
please use to your best advantage.
“The experience of all educators and legislators in this country, con
firms me in my judgment of the utter uselessness of legislation for classes in
the public schools. We built our system upon poor laws—pauper laws. We
practically divided our people into classes, and just so long as these founda
tions lasted, was the system a positive failure. This is not only the experience
in Pennsylvania, but of every other State which adopted the same discrimi
nating principles. I have studied this subject well, have given it the fifteen
years of my official connection with our public schools. I have remarked to
Lord Amberley, and other inquiring English gentlemen who have visited our
schools, that if England, in establishing her national school system, fell into
the grave error into which we fell, the system would in the end be a failure,
and the money laid out upon it would be expended with but trifling advantage.
�185
“Establish your schools ‘ for every child that draws the breath of life
within your borders.’ The system need not be compulsory, but open. You
will be met at the threshold with the objection that the lower class will de
moralize the higher ; that the morals of the lower class will contaminate the
higher. This is a dangerous and most fearful error. My experience does not
prove it. If there be any rule on the subject, it is the very reverse. The
poor girl or boy is not less virtuous than the rich. The rich have the means
to indulge in vice, while the poor have none. I candidly tell you that in
placing my children at school, I would infinitely prefer placing them in public
schools than private schools, and, in doing so, I would thus consult the better
their moral, spiritual, and scholastic welfare. So far as social relations are
concerned, I can always regulate this myself. The school association is only
an association of school hours. It need not be otherwise. England must
come to our open national system sooner or later, and, I trust, will avail itself
of our experience at the outset, and not wait to be taught her error. I take
a deep interest in the cause everywhere, and shall ever be happy to lend a
helping hand.
“ Very respectfully yours,
“Edward Shippen.”
I would only wish further to say, that I think we have been looking
too much on the dense dark spots of ignorance, among the poorer
children, and have not sufficiently borne in mind that we are now
contemplating a great national system of education to embrace all
classes. As these dark spots get lighter, we shall see more clearly
that there are very dark shades in higher grades, and shall become
more sensible that the whole system must be efficiently worked out
on one broad plan. I should like it to be possible for a child to
enter into the lowest class, and gradually progress to the highest
education that can be obtained in this country. I mention this
because a desire has been expressed by some persons to have schools
for the working classes only, to give them an elementary education,
and when they have reached a certain grade say, “ You are going to
be artisans, what need for anything further ?” I think all should
be on one system of general education, embracing even the higher
departments of knowledge ; so that while all go cn together, each
pupil may be able, as he advances, to study such special subjects as
his abilities or the circumstances of his case may render advisable.
A Gentleman here asked that the sense of the meeting might
be taken, as to the proposing of a resolution. He said the London
�18G
and other branches should be informed,what were the actual inten
tions of the League, and what was the meaning of “ unsectarian.”
The Chairman : We shall, at half-past seven, have a meeting in
the Town Hall, and it was intended that we should finish our pro
ceedings to-day. We have only eight minutes left, and the question
is, shall we enter into a discussion upon a resolution about which
we have heard nothing, or hear the three gentlemen who yet have
to speak? But let me tell you what the resolution is. When,
yesterday morning, I opened the proceedings of the Conference, I
said there had been a difficulty in some people’s minds as to the
meaning of the word “ unsectarian,” and I then proceeded to give
an explanation or definition of the meaning. Now, it would appear
that to some gentlemen’s minds that definition was not sufficiently
clear. Therefore, what they desire to do is this, to move a reso
lution, which resolution shall make clear what I failed to make clear
yesterday morning. Now, I have to observe that I have had two
distinct resolutions on that very same subject, and now another
gentleman wishes to draw up a resolution. In my opinion, not
one of those resolutions is any more clear than my definition—
in fact, not so clear. And further, if those three resolutions are put
to the meeting, we have no sort of confidence that there will not be
half-a-dozen more ; and my opinion is, that of necessity there will
be some more, though I do not know how many. What are we to
do under these circumstances ? The Provisional Committee specially
decided that there should be no resolutions whatever taken, and the
order of proceeding having been fixed, the question that arises in
my mind is, whether, as Chairman, I am to observe the order of
proceeding pre-arranged, or whether I am to open up, at the request
of one or two gentlemen—-whose object is certainly admirable—a
discussion, the length of which we really cannot foresee. What I
might do is this : I might put it to the meeting whether or not such
a discussion should be entered into. But I am inclined to think,
on consideration, that the meeting would rather that the Chairman
should perform his own duty, and decide the question for them.
However, I have been asked this question, which will take only
one minute to answer, and probably the answer to this question will
meet all that is desired in these resolutions. The Hon. Auberon
�187
Herbert asks me, 11 What is unsectarian education 1 Is it education
excluding all dogmatic and theological teaching, or creeds, or cate
chisms?” I feel authorized, on behalf of the Provisional Com
mittee, to say yes. He further asks, “ Whether the scheme
of the League necessarily excludes from the national rate schools,
the Bible, without note or comment 2” And I say, what I said
yesterday morning, that it does not; that that, is to be left to the
decision of the school committee, who will be the representatives
of the parents of the children.
The Eev. Septimus Hansard : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen,—I have to congratulate you on the perfect unanimity
on the general object of this League, which has pervaded these
meetings ; and it is a matter of considerable congratulation to
myself, as a clergyman of the Church of England, to find on this
platform, engaged in the same work, clergymen of different
denominations, and men who differ from me as widely as my friend
Mr. Holyoake does. It is a matter of congratulation to me to find
that in the speech which Mr. Holyoake made on this subject, on
which we all feel so strongly in common, he spoke in the language
of what I may strictly call the deepest piety. I have, as some of
you know, been now occupied over twenty years, in labouring
among the working populations of London ; and I do assure you,
that much as is the satisfaction, that all who, like myself, are
interested in education, must have in seeing the success of the
different educational works around them, nothing is more painful
than to see that there is still a residuum of savagery, and brutality
among the humbler classes of our neighbours. That is a blot
on our common Christianity, and a shame to us all. Let us take
it to heart, and see if we cannot combine to remedy it, putting
aside the special doctrines which distinguish us one from another,
and in a common cause, working for the welfare of those miserable
and neglected ones all around us. What a disgrace it is to us, who
boast of the Christian civilization of England, who are so proud,
and bragging about our Protestant truth, and about the light of
the Gospel shining on us, as we hear from every platform and
pidpit, to know that in these last few years we have been obliged
to invent a new name in the English language—“the rouyfe”—to
�188
■express the miserable condition of those who live in the back
streets of our large towns. Whenever you use that term, as
applied to the inhabitants of our back streets, you are using a
term which, however true it may he in its application, should
bring home a lesson to you, and a sense of disgrace to us all, that,
as Englishmen, such beings should live among us. Therefore, I
should like to say a few words to disarm the prejudices of those
who, I think, are at one with us, but who as yet hesitate about
joining us. It is a matter of regret, to find absent from the list of
those who have joined the League, a very large number of laymen,
Members of Parliament, and clergymen, who, from their liberal
principles, well known and established, might be expected to be with
us. I believe they are a little frightened—naturally enough—
because our movement is a new one, and because, as you know,
there is at the bottom of every Englishman a stratum of Toryism
which it takes a good deal to knock out of him; and because I
think there has been a great deal of misapprehension about these
very untoward expressions, “ secular,” and “ unsectarian.” I will
not detain you with an exposition of my opinions, but I would say
to all those who are able to join the League, “Deal as tenderly as
you can with religious people who have an objection to your
League; no scruples have more demand on your respect than
religious scruples, and I am quite sure the supporters and
■originators of the League, woifld not desire to say one word
which would express contempt to those who differ from us
in religious opinions.” But on the other hand, I would call
on clergymen of all denominations, to bear in mind that if schools
for primary education become an established fact, more religious
influence will be thrown into the hands of those, who wish to give
religious teaching, than they possess now. I am perfectly con
vinced that if you have a good school, managed without any special
religious teaching whatever, and if, as I presume, you must and
ought to allow the clergymen and dissenting minister, at the
recorded wish of the parents of the children, at some stated time,
to give religious education or instruction to those children, the
religious teachers will have infinitely more power, more real vital
power, of bringing home to the hearts of the children the words and
�189
example of their master, Christ, than they ever had by the system
that now prevails, of deputing to the schoolmaster the perfunctory
lesson which we know is given in most of our schools. To give
you an instance of what I mean, I know a clergyman of a certain
district in London, who collects together at certain times, once a
month, for two hours, any children of any school in his large
parish, who may choose to come into the church to be educated in
the Bible and Catechism; and the church is crowded with
volunteer children, who come and sit there with their minds as
attentive as grown-up persons, answering the questions that are
put, and evidently having those lessons brought home to the
practice of their daily life, in such a manner as is not done in
schools. A very High Churchman and Ritualist told me that he
believed it was the right way of giving education ; and I believe
instruction must be so given under the system we are advocating
I think the objection that will be made by the religious world
against that system, is an unnecessary bugbear, which I hope we
shall all do our best, when we talk to religious people, to remove,
by showing that we do not in the least wish to do away with
religious teaching, but simply to separate from it dogmatic teaching.
The Rev. H. W. Crosskey : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen, I rise for the purpose of mentioning one or two facts
which have not been alluded to at this Conference. Although re
ferences have been made to Saxony and America, there have been no
allusions to the educational system of Scotland, one or two facts
connected with which, I think, will interest the Conference as bearing
on the practical working of the subject. In the first place, I hold
that this so-called religious, or, rather, most irreligious, difficulty is
a thing that vanishes before the logic of practical facts. It disappears
entirely in the education of our own children. In ’Scotland, a
country that has not a reputation foi liberality, out of 12,572
children of Catholic laity, 7,343 have attended for many years
without compulsion the Protestant schools, in which freedom of
conscience is permitted. The Catholic laity have had no objection
to send their children to the schools, but now a cry is being raised
against them by the priests, and in both Ireland and Scotland an
attempt will be made to secure the denominational system. But
�*
190
here is the fact, directly and distinctly proving that if the laity are
left free to act, if the priest is told that he must not interfere with
the liberty of the subject, and the Government is firm, there can
be no practical difficidty in the matter. Now for another point,
touching the character of the schools. I would strongly protest
against the idea of striving to make the schools merely working
class schools. There is a free road open in Scotland from the public
schools to the Universities. Last year, I saw in the Highlands a
gipsy encampment pitched close to the school house, and a gipsy
bad sent his large family of children to school, with the children of
the farmers. Last year, also, a friend, shooting in the Highlands,
had for a gillie a youth, who in this way earned the money to pay
for his education at the University in the winter. In another case,
a shepherd was found reading a Greek author on his sick bed for
his amusement. I think it is perfectly possible to have national
schools, to which we can send all the children of the community. I
am ashamed to visit the school where my own children are,
and see that they there can get a knowledge of languages
and sciences; and then go to schools in this town, and see,
large branches of knowledge being kept back, that the children’s
minds are limited and confined, that they are taught only
rudimentary things, and that there is no chance of their obtaining
the liberal culture which we require for our own children. I would
express to this meeting a most thorough satisfaction with the
explanation made by Mr. Dixon, of the views and intentions of the
League. I think it should go forth, that while we do not in any
way wish to offend the feelings or injure the interests of the great
religious bodies of this country; while we are prepared to give the
freest scope to every sect and party to carry out its own ends and
aims in charity and peace, we do propose that the instruction of the
common school shall be confined to matters of common culture, and
that we do this for the sake of religion. We believe that religion
is injured by being made a task within the school. We are of
opinion that in the quiet atmosphere of home, in the sanctity of
those places where children are brought together apart from the
noise and tumult of their daily school-life, the great seeds of religion
ought to be sown • that religion is not a technical thing, to be
�191
taught by rule, but a loving influence, a power to thrill the spirit
within them. The education which we propose to give would be
favourable to religion, because if we excite the religious feelings,
without Culture, we have superstition. Who is there would not
rather plead for his Gospel to an educated than to an ignorant
man ? I will appeal to the clergy of the country whether, if they
had intelligent men and women to address, the divineness of the
Gospel ought not to be shown in the warmer enthusiasm of its
reception 1 It is a poor and weak timidity that distrusts the power
of an educated people. I hail this meeting with satisfaction. Its
object is the greatest cause we can engage in, and it has to me the
sanctity of an apostolic work. The future of our country depends
on it. A large and liberal culture will the better enable a man to
perform the humblest tasks of life, while the more cultivated the
mind, the larger the knowledge of the constitution and history of
the world, the greater will be the progress of morality and religion;
and our countrymen, instead of growing up mere devotees of sec
tarian interests, narrow in mind and distrustful of each other, will
become free men in the noblest sense, able to give an intelligent
reason for their faith, and to exercise a wide charity to their
brethren. The only boundary we can place to this movement, is
to furnish every child born within this kingdom with fair oppor
tunities for cultivating all the faculties God has given it.
Rev. Mr. Caldecott : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, I
will not detain the meeting by offering any arguments on the ques
tion of unsectarian education. That some such system is accepted
by you I suppose, or else why are we here to-day ? And some such
system I believe to be in a very fair way to be accepted by the
country. What I wish to do is to congratulate the members of
this League on the great advance that has been made in public
feeling of late as regards this matter. On all hands, whatever lan
guage may be held, the principle of a denominational system of
education is virtually abandoned. It is true that gentlemen seek
to cover their concessions, and to conceal their retreat under a mist
of words about compromises and conscience clauses. But, sir, the
day for conscience clauses has gone by. It is too late in England,
in the year 1869, to attempt, in a system of national education, to
�192
brand with a ticket the children of any creed as inferior to their
fellows of another creed. There is at this moment but a shadow of
a shade, that separates the adherents of the denominational principle
of education from ourselves. They insist upon it that some reli
gious teaching shall be given to all children, provided that the
parents of those children do not object to it. We, on the other
hand, would be glad that they, or any of them, should teach their
system of religion to any child, provided that his parents desire it.
At the last Social Science Meeting, in Bristol, this question was
very fully discussed; papers were read and speeches were made
upon it, and various suggestions were offered both in public and in
private. Speaker after speaker insisted upon the necessity of main
taining religious—that is to say, denominational—education ; but
as not one of those gentlemen condescended to leave his theories
behind and to come to the plain practical question, what was the
religious teaching that he was prepared to give, the whole fabric of
their schemes melted away. There was one gentleman who did
maintain that there can be no religion, there can be no morality,
there can be no goodness, that is not based on some creed or some
catechism; but I heard no one else in the meeting rise to support
that view. There was another gentleman who insisted that in all
State Schools, all children should be regularly instructed and pe
riodically examined in the main principles of Christianity; but
that gentleman did not explain to us what he himself conceived
those main principles to be, nor did he give the slightest indication
what is to be the authority that is to determine them. With the
great mass of practical speakers on this point, both in public and
in private, there seemed to be one thing agreed, that they would be
perfectly satisfied with the advocacy of the undenominational prin
ciple, if you would only allow, during some time, in the day a portion
of Scripture to be read to the pupils without interpretation, without
question, and without comment of any kind, merely as a recognition
of religion. Well, sir, I cannot help thinking it is something like
an abuse of words to dignify such a scanty scrap as this, with
the name of religious education. Yes, and when the advo
cates of denominational principle have come to this, we may fairly
congratulate ourselves on having found the vanishing point of the
�193
denominational system. The fact is, the time is ripe for the intro
duction of this League among the friends of denominationalism. I
believe there is really but one demand on which they seriously
insist; that demand is, that there shall be some recognition in
education of some religious principle or other. It is not that these
gentlemen love denominationalism for itself—far from it. They
fear that if you exclude denominationalism from the schools, you
will exclude religion from education. But surely the remarks you
have heard from Mr. Hansard, will show you their fears are vain.
The fact is, that at the basis of all our systems, the common foun
dation on which they, every one of them, rest, there are two reli
gious principles upon which we are all agreed, because God has
written those principles in the heart of every one of us ; they are
the principles upon which we recognize God’s love to us, and our
duty to our fellow men. Those are exactly the two principles
about which our neglected childhood knows nothing, and has never*
even heard. Those are exactly the principles which in the schools
to be founded, I hope, under the auspices of this League, every
child will be taught, without variance or without distinction.
Every child must be taught them, for there can be no teaching
given with respect to God’s works in God’s world, which does not
assume and develop them. These principles are the only principles
which the State, as a State, can teach in religion, because they are
the only principles in religion that all men, whatever may he their
creeds, will alike accept. I know it will be said that this is not
enough—that something more is required. Something more is re
quired, and in God’s name Jet something more be given. But the
State cannot give it. There are special voluntary associations whose
duty, whose right, whose delight it will be to give to their children
this something more ; for the question is, not whether denomina
tional schools shall cease to exist ■ the question is, upon what
material shall those denominational schools work ? Shall they
work upon young savages, or shall they work upon children who
liave already been taught to know something of civilization and
the truth ? Denominational schools can never cease to exist; they
will be everywhere, where men are .to be found who are fired with
zeal for God’s service, and are inspired with belief in God’s word.
N
�194
Surely it is the interest of every one of us, that the managers of
these schools should receive their pupils from the hands of the State,
already prepared for their instruction—decent, so to speak, and
clothed, and in their right minds; and should not have to hunt them
out, for themselves, through all the moral caverns, and the moral
tombs of our great cities, where at this moment they are hiding in
thousands, unclean and unclothed, and possessed by the legions of
evil spirits of wickedness and of crime.
On the motion of Professor Rogers, a vote of thanks was passed
to the Chairman.
The Chairman, after acknowledging the vote said : I have had
another question put to me—“If the school committee should
•decide that the Bible is to be read, must it be read without note or
•comment ?” My answer is, yes. Now, I wish to mention that a
gentlemen of the name of--------- , from London, writes and says
he is obliged to leave the meeting early, and he concludes by giving
fifty guineas to the funds of the League, and saying he has no doubt
whatever we shall have great support in London. And I am also
happy to say that we have an announcement of a donation of £50
from one, who calls himself a convert to our views by what he has
heard to-day. Now, in concluding our two days’ meeting, let me
say, on behalf of the Provisional Committee, that we have to give
•our warmest thanks to those gentlemen, who have come from a
distance to read papers, and to make those valuable speeches upon
this subject, which we have so much at heart. But let me repeat
what I said at first, that the League, as a League, is not responsible
for .what has been said ; each individual writer and speaker is alone
responsible, for the individual opinions that have been uttered. I
also thank, on behalf of the Committee, all those who have attended
at these meetings to support us ; and I fervently hope that the day
is not far distant when they will look back with honest pride upon
this meeting; and congratulate themselves that they took their part
in the inauguration of one of the most beneficial measures of this
-century.
The meeting then terminated.
�PUBLIC MEETING IN
THE
TOWN
HALL.
WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 13th, 1869.
A public meeting, convened by the Executive Committee of the
League, was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday evening. The
Mayor (Mr. Henry Holland) presided. The orchestra was filled
■chiefly by gentlemen, who had been present at the meetings in the
Assembly Room. The side galleries were given up to members of
the League and to ladies, and the floor and great gallery were
•occupied principally by working men.
The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, said the League wa8
founded for the purpose of obtaining the establishment of a national
system of education, which would ensure elementary instruction
to every child in the kingdom; and he trusted that it would not
•dissolve, until it should have accomplished its object, whatever
•difficulties might have to be encountered.
Mr. Dixon, M.P. (Chairman of the League) was received with
•cheers. He said: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen—The resolution
which I have the honour to move is, “ That, in the opinion of thia
meeting, the scheme of the National Education League is the one
best adapted, to secure the education of every child in the country.”
The Manchester Education Aid Society, after a most minute inves
tigation, came to the conclusion that one half the children of the
working classes of that great town were uneducated, and that the
remaining half were educated very imperfectly. The Birmingham
Education Society, after equally, if not more, minute investiga-
�196
tions, came to precisely the same conclusion with regard to
the children in this town ; and the London Diocesan Board of
Education reported that from 150,000 to 200,000 children, in one
portion only of the Metropolis, were without means of education..
There is reason to believe that the number of children educated in
large towns has not, during the last ten or twenty years, increased
much, if any, more than in proportion to the increase of the
population. Such is the state of things in our large towns. How
is it in the agricultural districts ? Canon Kingsley has written to
us, saying that he lias read the report of the Birmingham Education
Aid Society with great interest ; he did not know how' badly
educated we were, but he did know from twenty-seven years’
experience as a parson, that the voluntary denominational system
was a failure in the agricultural districts. Mr. Villiers, who was
called by Sir John Pakington one of our most able school
inspectors, corroborates the statement by saying that half the
children of the working classes in the rural districts, between the
age of ten and thirteen, receive no scholastic education at all,
and the other half, so long as the present system remains, will
nevei be more than half educated. Other school inspectors, and
not only school inspectors, but also a Cabinet Minister, a member
of the late administration, believe and endorse these statements.
These are the circumstances under which the National Education
League has sprung into existence, and my only surprise is that
it was not formed long ago. We begin by putting our hands
upon what we conceive to be the cause of all this ignorance.
think that it cannot be expected to be otherwise, when
we remember, that the whole educational system of this country'
is based, upon the benevolent activities of so small a number
of mon. The basis of our system is too narrow'. In this
condition of things what does the State do ? Where there happens
to be a clergyman who understands his duties; vdiere there
happen to be rich manufacturers or benevolent individuals,
who undertake to erect and partially maintain schools—where
it finds there is some education, defective though it be—
there it is ready to help ; but in other districts, where benevolent
individuals do not exist, and there is no education at all, what docs
�197
the State do ? Like the priest ’and the Levite of old, it passes by
on the other side. Its assistance is given where assistance is least
needed. Where the wealthy are doing something it heaps its
riches. The practice of the State with regard to education
reminds us of what the poet says of sleep :—
“ He, like the world, his ready visit pays
Where fortune smiles; the wretched he forsakes ;
Swift on his downy pinion flies from woe,
And lights on lids unsullied with a tear.”
What the League professes is this : not to interfere with the exist
ing system where it is effective. We don’t wish to revolutionise
the present schools, we don’t wish to sweep them away. What
we do wish is this : that where voluntaryism and denominationalism have failed, the State should step in; and that, the State
should be called upon to recognize the highest of all its duties, the
duty of saying, that every citizen shall be brought up to be able to
understand the laws he is bound to obey, and to understand
what are the duties of a citizen. Now, we propose that this should
be effected in the following manner :—That in every large town, and
in every county, school boards should be elected by the ratepayers
or their representatives ; that these school boards should ascertain
where there is a deficiency of education, and, wherever they are
wanted, erect and maintain free and unsectarian schools. Having
done that, they should appoint committees to manage those schools.
The State inspectors should have power to see that the various
localities perform, and perform efficiently, the duties imposed
upon them. If the school boards fail to perform these duties, the
State inspectors should then step in, and see that they are performed.
We propose—or rather I propose, for I am speaking now as much
in my own name as in that of the League—I propose that the
schools should be maintained not only by the State, but by the
local rates, in the proportion of two-thirds from the central govern
ment, and one-third from the local authorities. Now, the objection
to this system, in the first instance is, according to our opponents,
that it will kill voluntaryism. To that I reply, it need do no
such thing. We shall leave voluntaryism alone. Nay, we shall do
more—we shall create half as many more schools as are now in ex
�istence, and we shall require for these schools an army of volun
teers. Every member of our school boards, every member of our
echool committees, will be as much a voluntaryist as any school
manager under the existing system, and he will be a better, a more
efficient, voluntaryist j foi' he will have to do with an organised
system, and he will not only have the promptings of his own
benevolence to lead him to his duty, but he will have the ex
perience and the authority of the State system to guide him.
Besides, there is another most important thing to be remembered :
what is it that keeps enormous numbers of our children now out of
school, but poverty ■ poverty to that degree that they cannot
appear in our streets, because they are too ragged, and
have not food to maintain themselves. These children never
appear in our schools. If there be any excess of volunteers
wanting employment in this country, let it seek out thesechildren, and feed and clothe them, so that when they do appear in
our schools they may appear in that condition which will enablethem to take advantage of the teaching they are to receive. Let
me illustrate this. Time was, when in this town the rich peoplewere called upon to contribute from their own libraries, to thelending libraries attached to our Church institutions; that was
voluntaryism. There was much of that voluntary effort. But the
State stepped in and provided for the people those magnificent freelibraries which are now our boast. Voluntaryism may be said to havebeen killed there, but it only made place for something infinitely
superior; and the spirit of voluntaryism still lives, and has a betterand a wider field of action. Depend upon it, that so far from
voluntaryism being killed by the institution of State schools, it
will be utilized, it will be organized and developed. Another
objection is, that the education given in these schools will
be a godless education. But we have heard during the last few
days that in many of our schools—I will not say in most of them
—the education which is there given, and is called religious educa
tion, has but a very small tincture of real religion in it; and we
have been told by the most eminent men, who understand what
they are talking about, that in the new schools—schools wherethere will be no sectarian theology taught—there may be, and we-
�199
believe there will be, as much religion as in nine-tenths of the
schools that exist now. And even supposing that there were no
theology; supposing the children left those schools without any
knowledge of the difference between one sect and another, and did
not know what you meant when you asked what sect they belonged
to—what then ? The foundation would have been laid upon which
any or all of the sects could operate to advantage, and, no doubt,
upon the foundation thus laid, a superstructure of religion could be
raised that would be worth having. Having supplied these schools
—schools based upon the taxation of the country, and managed by
the representatives of the ratepayers, and belonging to the people
absolutely, because they would have paid for them, as much as if
they had taken the money out of their own pockets, in the shape
of subscriptions—three things would of necessity follow. We say
that most schools must of necessity be schools, where there shall
be no theological teaching of any sort whatever. We say that
we have no choice in the matter, if schools are to be national
schools they must be unsectarian. We say besides that, having
provided these schools, it would be not merely illogical, but it
would be a most unjust thing, if we allowed the children still to
run idle about the streets. Do you think it likely for a moment
that a ratepayer would consent to pay an additional rate in order
that children might be educated, and yet to see these poor children
for whom he paid the rate, neglected by their apathetic parents,
and not receiving the benefit which had been provided for
them ? It would be impossible to collect a school-rate under such
circumstances. Some people say that there would be great harsh
ness—that it would be un-English—that the people would resist
anything in the shape of compulsion. Now, I will not dwell upon
it to-night, because there is one who is going to follow me who is
able to do it much better than I can myself; but I will simply say
this, that the manner in which this compulsion may be exercised in
this country is extremely simple, and, in my opinion, will be com
pletely in harmony with the wishes of the people. It is most easy
to obtain a complete registration of all the children in the country ;
S3 easy as it is to obtain a registration of voters. When you have
obtained this registration, you must put against each child’s name
�200
the name of the school that it is intended to go to. Then send to
each one of the school committees a list of the children that ought
to attend its school, and throw upon the school committee the
duty of seeing that these children attend. Give the school
committee, officers, whose duty it shall he to go to the houses of all
parents whose children are not attending regularly at school. Let
these school officers explain to the parents what their duties are,
and the penalties that may attach to the non-performance of them.
And remember that these schools will be free schools—remember
that the Factory Acts will prevent parents from sending their
children to work, and then consider what motive can there be in
the minds of any parents to prevent their children going to school,
when they are entitled to send them, under such circumstances ? I
will engage to say that, after a year or two of the operation of such
a system as that, there will be very few, indeed, who will not regu
larly and willingly send their children to school. Of these few it
may be necessary to make one or two examples. Let them, if they
persist in neglect, be summoned before the magistrates; and what
will usually result is this—the magistrates will warn, and, on promise
of amendment, no other result will follow; but when the parent
is brought up a second time, the infliction of a fine will be very
well merited, and I am sure will not shock the sense of justice and
propriety of the working classes. Now, we say in the third place,
that these schools, if attendance he compulsory, must be free. I
have received, this morning, a letter from Edward Polson, and he
says—“ As one of the working classes, I wish to ask you if, in your
opinion, it is fair for an honest, hard-working, steady man, to be
forced to pay rates for the education of a drunken, lazy man’s
children ? In my opinion, it is not at all a fair thing; but perhaps
you can show me that it is fair. For my part, I cannot see it.”
Now, I am not at all surprised at this state of feeling ; but I would
reply, that he is already subject to this very injustice, because he is
called upon to pay a very much larger sum than he will ever
be called upon to pay for an education rate, in order that that
drunken and lazy man’s child-—nay, that man himself—shall
be kept in the workhouse, or shall be punished in the gaol. Meeting
the writer of this letter upon his own ground, namely, his desire to
�201
save himself from taxation, I say it is for his own interest that he
should ask for this education rate. But even supposing that it were
not so—supposing that for a few years he should have to pay
increased rates—surely there are considerations of a higher nature.
'Can he—not merely the rich, but the poor man, the working man
—can he pass by these poor children in our gutters, these neglected
Arabs of the streets—can he pass them by, knowing their miserable
state, and their wretched prospects, and steel his heart against their
highest interest, having the power to place them in a better position,
merely because their unnatural parents—(The close of the sentence
was lost in an enthusiastic outburst of cheering, which was prolonged
for a considerable time.) When these parents neglect their duty,
what the League says is this : that it is the duty of the State to
come in and be a parent to these innocent victims. And what we
wish to do is, to call upon the Legislature of this country to take'
upon itself that duty. We don’t wish to say anything in disparage
ment of the services of those men who have hitherto taken charge
of the education of the country; but we say that they have proved
that they cannot undertake to educate all, and we say that all
must be educated, and all shall be educated; and that it is the
State alone that has the power to act up to this. The State can do
it, and the State will do it. We have now a Minister of Education,
in Mr. Forster, who, in my opinion, has the will to do it; but I am
not so certain that he has the power. But what we are going to do
is this : by means of this League and its branches, we are going to
rouse the people—in whom now, happily, is placed political power—
in order that we may say to Mr. Forster, “ Be our leader, and give
us what we want; we’ll support you.” But if Mr. Forster should
hesitate, if he will not transfer the education of this country from
the voluntary and denominational basis, upon which it now rests, to
the basis of the taxation and self-governing energy of this country,
then, much as we respect Mr. Forster, much as we esteem his
strength of character, his excellent will and his great skill, it will
be our duty to say, even to Mr. Forster, our hitherto leader, that we
can follow him no longer. We shall say, “ We have taken upon
ourselves the performance of a duty than which, none can be higher
- the duty of seeing to the education of every child in this country •
�202
and that duty we shall perforin—with you as our leader, if you will,
hut if not, in spite of you.
The Mayor then called upon Professor Fawcett.
Professor Fawcett was received with cheers. He said, Mr.
Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—It is my privilege to speak to you
this evening on the greatest and most important of all social and
political questions. During the last two days the National
Education League has been inaugurated under the happiest auspices,
and the people of this town may indeed be congratulated, that the
name of Birmingham is destined to be associated with an organ
ization which will. prove as fruitful in its blessings, as were the
labours of the Anti-Corn Law League. This organization has been
inaugurated under happy auspices. A great body of gentlemen,
living different lives, looking upon questions from different points
of view, have come together with one common object. They have
resolved to sacrifice all minor differences of opinion upon points of
detail, because they are determined that they will be a united body
in the effort they intend to make, an effort which they promise you
shall never cease, until elementary education has been guaranteed
to every boy and girl in this country. Perhaps the greatest
danger that threatens this movement is, the possibility that some of
us may be tempted to accept a compromise. This is the rock
which has imperilled so many great movements. Free trade was
endangered by the offer of an 8s. fixed duty. Household suffrage
was imperilled by the offer of a .^6 rating and a <£7 rental
franchise; the future of national education in Scotland ran a
narrow risk of being wrecked last session, by as bad a bill as was
ever spoiled by the House of Lords. But will you authorize us to
say in the House of Commons, in your name—you, representing
a great body of the industrious classes of this country—that you
agree with us, that nothing will, nothing ought to satisfy you,
short of a measure which will impose rates 'where educational
appliances are insufficient, and which will compel the attendance
of those children at school, upon whom, by their parents, the
irreparable wrrong is being inflicted of allowing them to grow up in
a state of ignorance ? This, no doubt, is a great movement, and it
will require hard labour to bring it to a successful issue. It is a
�203
great movement indeed, because what is our end, and what is our
aim? To raise millions of our fellow-countrymen who are sunk
deep in the depths of ignorance. This is a movement which will
require all the popular support which such vast audiences as thia
can render it. No one can tell the effect which may be produced
upon the minds of our statesmen and our rulers by such meetings
as this. It is our privilege at the present time to be governed by a
Prime Minister who is ever ready to be instructed by the intel
ligently expressed public opinion of this country, and if Mr Glad
stone has not made up his mind on the educational question yet,
nothing is so likely to give clearness and distinctiveness of view
and firmness of resolution, as the expression of opinion of such an
audience as this, in favour of unsectarian, compulsory national
education. It is sometimes said that our proposals are revolutionary.
We cheerfully accept the title. We intend to effect a great
revolution, because we intend, if possible, to root out ignorance,
with its attendant misery and vice, and substitute in their place all
the self-dependence, all the material welfare, which result from
intellectual culture. If the revolution should be successful, the
displacement of the worst tyrant that ever afflicted a country will
not confer greater blessings, than will our efforts upon this country.
It is almost unnecessary for me to speak to you of the usual
aspect of this question. It is almost a truism to say that no
social reform, no scheme of philanthropy, can produce any per
manent effect, unless it makes the labourer self-dependent. If a
child is permitted to grow up to manhood in ignorance, he has to
pass through life, as it were, crippled and maimed, deprived of
half the power with which he has been endowed by nature to
secure his own mental and material advancement. Sometimes it
is said that these proposals of ours are anti-English. There is
something which is not only anti-English, but which is anti-human,
and that is the spectacle of millions sunk in such ignorance as if
they were living in a heathen land. Anti-English! will the
Conservatives venture to raise the cry? They-have not passed
many legislative measures during the last thirty years. But
what is the measure from 'which they take some credit ? Why,
they are never tired of talking about the honour which is due
�204
to their party by the passing of the Factory Acts. What is
one of the most valuable provisions in the Factory Acts ? The
compulsory educational provision, which declares that it shall be
illegal to employ any child unless he attends school so many hours
a week. By recent legislation the compulsory educational pro
visions of the Factory Acts have been extended—not in a good
form, indeed, but still the principle has been extended to every
branch of industry in England, except agriculture; and we shall
not be generous, we shall not be fair, to the class of labourers who
most require State intervention, if we much longer permit agricul
ture to be thus excepted. Assuming, then, as we may, that the
principle of the Factory Acts has now been approved of by all
political parties, it is indisputable that the principle of compulsory
education has been accepted.
How, then, can the monstrous
anomaly be permitted to intervene, that we should say, as we are say
ing at the present moment, that if a parent sends his child to work,
education shall be enforced upon that child, but that no similar
compulsion shall be used against the parent who is so base, so
degraded, that he will neither send his child to school nor to work ?
Many of you, most of you, whom I am addressing, are engaged,
either as employers or employed, in the industry of this town. You
know that facts, painful facts, are every day brought under your
notice which show, that unless we have national education, it will
be absolutely impossible for England to maintain her commercial
position. In various trades we have each year to carry on a keener
and more closely-contested competition with foreign countries.
Industry requires, now, the use of delicate machinery; it requires
the skilful application of that machinery; it requires those moral
qualities which make the labourer most valuable, and which enable
him to understand the true principles of trade. Bearing this in
mind, it is as impossible to expect that an uneducated country will
be able successfully to compete against an educated country, as it
would be to suppose that a hand-loom weaver, could profitably
struggle against the appliances of modern mechanical invention.
We are too much prone to deceive ourselves by the signs of material
wealth. We are accustomed to sing poeans of exultation over
increasing exports and imports, but behind all this glitter and show,
�205
behind all this evidence of material wealth, there are the ugly, there
are the portentous facts, that one out of twenty of our population is
a pauper, and there are countless thousands who are in such a
state of misery that they are verging upon pauperism. Tor twenty
years, various material appliances have been brought into operation,
all of which have tended to stimulate the production of wealth.
We have had free trade, we have had mechanical inventions, we
have had the extension of the railway system. When these facts
are borne in mind, does it not convince us of this great truth—a
truth which should never be lost sight of—that there is something
more required to make a nation great, and happy, and prosperous,
than mere material agencies. You must act upon the mind, and, in
that way, upon the morality and social character of the people. The
Education League has, to my mind most wisely, in the first instance,
confined itself to elementary education. Of course, this is the
first, this is the essential thing to be done. But this ought to be
regarded as only a part of our work. The opinion I am about
to express is, I know not whether it will be thought extreme, or
Quixotic, but I have long entertained the idea, and I do not mean
to relinquish it, that we never ought to be satisfied until the
poorest child in this country, if he has the requisite ability, should
have an opportunity of enjoying the very best education the nation
can afford. You ask me, perhaps, how is this end to be attained ?
I believe it can be attained by a just, by a wise administration of
our vast educational endowments. Those educational endowments
ought, to my mind, to bo devoted to reward the meritorious, to what
ever class and whatever religion they belong. I would not give, as a
matter of right, a free education, but no child should suffer from
want of education in consequence of the poverty of its parents.
But I hold that the greatest of all human responsibilities is incurred
by bringing a human being into the world, and I think every
parent should feel, that it is as much his duty to give his children
education as it is to provide them with food and clothing. Now,
with regard to the administration of the educational resources of
the country, much has already been done by the Endowed Schools
Bill, which was passed last session; for the main principle of the
Bill was this—that those endowments should be devoted to reward
�206
meritorious students. Therefore, when we have these elementaryschools which Mr. Dixon, who represents the League, proposes
should be established, we may look forward to see poor boys ad
vanced from the elementary schools to the first grade school, and to
the second grade school, and thence to the University. When
they get there, I can only say that we shall cordially welcome them;
for it is the great glory of those Universities, that they welcome
mental cultivation and intellectual power, from whatever class they
are drawn. As a Cambridge man—and I know I am expressing the
opinion of many Oxford friends also—I can say that we should
rejoice to see in Oxford or Cambridge two or three hundred stu
dents, sons alike of the poorest men and the wealthiest merchants
of this town, all being brought under the influence of the educa
tion which we can give them. There, we know no social favouritism,
we never ask who a man’s father is, we have no governing families.
What a happy thing it would be if the same remark could be
made with regard to English politics. But you may perhaps say
that something will require to be done, before the Universities can
do what you wish them to do. You know that there are still there
religious liabilities, and religious tests; but I venture to think that
the overwhelming majority of the country has already declared
that those disabilities and those tests shall be completely swept
away. A University Tests Bill—I say a University Tests Bill, for
it was only a half measure—passed the House of Commons last
session. Here again is an illustration of the danger of great ques
tions being wrecked upon the rocks of compromise. That bill
would have only done its work after a long course of years. It
would not have swept away those tests and disabilities, it would
only have given the colleges the power to sweep them away if they
liked, and the bill might possibly for years to come have produced
very little effect whatever. The bill passed the House of Commons;
but sometimes we derive signal advantage from the unreasoning
resistance of the House of Lords, and I feel more profoundly
.grateful to them than I can describe. It seems to me that the
one useful function which they perform, is to reject a bill when
it is a compromise, and thus give the House of Commons an op
portunity of waking up to its senses, and seeing its true position.
�207
Political predictions are dangerous, but I venture to predict that the
House of Lords will never see that bill again. The next session
they will have to express their opinion upon a very different measure.
They will have to say “aye” or “no” to a proposal which will
abolish, at once and for ever, every remaining vestige of religious
test and disability, and thus make the Universities truly national
institutions. It is for such audiences as this to say that this is your
will, and that nothing short of it will satisfy your just demands.
But great as is the vista which is opened by the education question
in all its aspects in England, we may, perhaps, not improbably have
to render as great service to the sister country as we have rendered
to her by the disestablishment of the Church, and as we shall
render to her by passing a land bill. Undenominational education
is a great principle in England. But it is a principle still more
dearly, still more carefully to be cherished in Ireland. There is
danger that the national school system of that country, which is
undenominational, may be imperilled. There is danger that the
University question in that country may be settled on a denomina
tional basis. I believe that if we permit this to be done, we shall do
more harm to Ireland by permitting the ascendancy of an ultramon
tane hierarchy, than we have done good by the destruction of the
ascendancy of the State Church. In conclusion, if I have not
already detained you too long, perhaps you will permit me to say
that the science which it is my privilege to teach, instructs us in the
lesson, that nothing more tends to promote efficiency and industry
than division of labour. With division of labour, each individual
can devote himself to the particular process for which he has the
greatest capacity, and without it we should find skilled mechani
cians doing what might be equally well done by unskilled labourers.
Unrestricted commerce, again, enables the capital and labour of
each country, to be applied to those branches of industry for which
it has the greatest natural advantages. This is the secret of free,
trade. Similarly, we believe that a complete system of national
education would enable the individual capacity of each person to
be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of his country.
Many a person there may be, now toiling monotonously in the
fields, labouring in some deep-sunk mine, or carrying out, year after
�208
year, some work of mere routine, who, if his abilities had been
properly developed, might have executed some work of art, invented
some new machine, organized some political or social movement, or
produced some literary work which might have permanently en
riched and benefited mankind. There is in life no more melan
choly spectacle, than that generation after generation should pass
away, without sufficient knowledge to understand the beauties and
wonders with which Nature has surrounded them. Can it be
right, can it be just, that Nature, which has been so boun
tiful, should not be appreciated as she might he? And
is it not strangely sad, that some people who seem to arrogate to
themselves the title of religious, seem to care more about the
paltry triumph of a creed, than they do about education, which
would elevate the people from the ignorance which is alike degrad
ing to human nature, and antagonistic to moral and material
advancement ? Some of those who are willing that the education
question should stand still whilst they wrangle about bringing
children under the influence of some barren formality, such as
Apostolic succession, should remember the significant words of the
Prophet when he said, “ My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge.”
The Mayor then called upon Mr. Mundella, member forSheffield.
Mr. Mundella, M.P.: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—Thefew words that I shall say to you shall be in support of theresolution which has been so ably and exhaustively moved and
seconded by my two honourable friends who preceded me. I shall
address myself mainly to the working men, by the request of mv
friend your worthy member ■ and as it is the first time I have had
the honour of addressing an audience of working men in Birming
ham, I confess that I feel proud of the opportunitv of doing so,
•because you are represented in the House of Commons by one
of the noblest men and most honest politicians of any age orcountry. The considerations which I venture to submit to you
shall be of a purely practical character. First, I ask, what are theobjects of the association ? The establishment of a system which
shall secure the education of every child in England and Wales.
�209
How do we propose to effect it ? School accommodation being
provided, the State or the local authorities shall have the power to
compel the attendance of children of suitable age, not otherwise
receiving education. The means therefore are, first, by making
provision, and then compelling attendance. Now, I desire to point
out to you what has already been effected elsewhere, by compulsory
education, because although this is a new doctrine in England, it
has been in operation thirty years in Switzerland, forty years in
Saxony, and thirty-five years in Prussia, and on the first of
January next it will come into operation in Austria. Eighty
millions of the people of Europe will, on the first of January next,,
be subject to the operation of this law. What has been its effect
in the free republic of Switzerland ? They are the most intelligent
and best educated people in the world. You may go from canton
to canton, you may go from one end of the country to the other,
and you cannot find a child of twelve years of age that will not read
and write ivell, that does not know something, intelligently too,
of the history of its country, and has not also a knowledge of other
useful acquirements. It has been my fortune for some years past
to have an opportunity, of studying the effect of compulsory
education on the Continent, and I wish you, working men of
Birmingham, to comprehend what the effect of the system is.
I am an employer in the little kingdom of Saxony, now
part of the North German Confederation. I have a manager
there who has been fixed there for nine years. I have gone
there year after year, and have remained there a month
at a time, and I have visited its schools, which are marvels of
arrangement and pedagogic science (for these are the words with
them), and I have never yet found, nor has the manager yet found,
a man in the country who could not correspond intelligently with
his employer, nor a child of ten or twelve years of age who could
not read and write as well as myself; and although that country,
and Prussia, and Switzerland have many disadvantages, as
compared with ourselves, although their commercial position is
infinitely inferior to ours, although there is a lack of capital, and
geographically they are much worse in their position than Great
Britain, yet I am ashamed to say that I have never met there with
o
/
�210
that squalor, that brutal ignorance, that terrible destitution, which
I meet m my own country. Now, what is the state of things as
we see it m England? You working men, you know well what it
is. What has been the effect of the present system? It has
reversed the teaching of Scripture—it has filled the rich with good
things, and the poor it has sent empty away. It has bettered those
•who can and ought to help themselves, but those who can do
nothing for themselves it has utterly neglected. Look at our ragged
schools; they have had no assistance from the State, and look at
the thousands of poor children who cannot obtain admission even
into the ragged schools. You know—no men know so well as the
working classes—what is the educational condition of the poor that
surround you in the streets, and lanes, and alleys of our large
towns. By the assistance of your worthy member, an education
society was formed in this town, and 1,000 children in employ
ment were tested. I have had an opportunity of testing thousands
of children, in this and other towns, children, the great majority of
whom have passed through our schools ; and what is the result of
our education ? What with irregular attendance, few attendances,
and attendances for a short time only, when the child grows up to
fourteen or fifteen years of age, it has almost forgotten anything it
■ever learned at school, and the very little it retains is utterly use
less for any practical purpose. And what is it that we propose to
■accomplish ? We propose that the child shall commence at a cer
tain age and attend, for a certain number of years consecutively,
regularly at school • that when the child enters upon its labours, it
shall have the benefit of the half-time system for some years longer •
and that the poor man’s child shall, as the hon. member for Brighton
has said, have the same opportunities which the rich man’s child
has, to develop those faculties with which it has been endowed.
One thing you may be well assured of, the rich man in the middle
classes will take care that his children are educated, because he
knows that without education their career in the world is utterly
ruined and destroyed. Why shouldn’t the poor man’s children
be educated, then, in the same manner ? Why should they not
have open to them the same career and the same advantages ?
It simply depends upon audiences like this to demand it. Now
►
�211
I want to point out to you the machinery by which this is
to be accomplished; because many objections are raised to it,
and you are cautioned, above all things, that your liberties are
about to be destroyed, and your parental rights taken away. You
are told that, if you submit to the system of compulsory education,
the policeman will drag you before the magistrates, and you will be
shut up in prison, because your children may not be in attendance
at school. I wish to show exactly how this is done elsewhere, for
the 80,000,000 of people I have before referred to. Every child
in the North German Confederation, and in Switzerland is registered,
and next year every child in Austria will be registered, on a system
precisely the same as that of the political register in England. The
school boundaries are conterminous with the political boundaries ;
they are divided in Switzerland into cantons, districts, towns ; in
Prussia, into towns, counties, divisions of towns ; and in Birming
ham there would be the central district, and the wards. They are
managed by local bodies. These local bodies have the power to
demand that the children be sent to school, and it is their duty to
see that they are sent. If the parent neglects to send his child to
school, what is the result ? Is a policeman sent to him with a
summons in his pocket? No. There are persons called school
messengers. These school messengers are generally pupil teachers,
or have just finished their education in the school. They go to the
house and inquire why the child is not at school. If, as in nine
cases out of ten, or, I might say, in ninety-nine cases out of a
hundred, the child’s absence can be accounted for, it is perfectly
satisfactory. But if it is through neglect, and continued neglect,
the parent is brought before the school committee, and the law is
pointed out to him, and he is told that it will be enforced against
him if he rebels. If he continues contumacious, he is filled. I
have known it 6d., 10d., and up to 2s. 6d. for a second or third
time. But I tell you what has been the result of the compulsory
system : there is the same wholesome state of public opinion
with respect to the father who starves the intellect of his
child, as there is with you when a father starves his child
by denying it bread. It is a constant thing with me,
whenever I have an opportunity—it has become almost a
�212
habit with me—to seize upon poor children wherever I find them,
whether in the factory, the workshop, or the street, arid ascertain
exactly what our glorious system of education has done forthem.
A fortnight ago I found on the step of my counting-house door a
number of lads, and I coaxed them up-stairs into my counting
house. There were nine of them, and some were very ragged
specimens indeed. They thought I had some sinister motive,°and
it was with some difficulty I induced them to go with me. I
examined them separately on their educational acquirements. Not
one of those poor boys could read the simplest word. I had the
Times newspaper before me. Two of them could manage the The,
but not one of them could spell Times. Not one of thZm had the
slightest idea of the existence of God, except to use his name in
blaspheming. Yes, but some of them said, they had once been at
school, at five or six years of age, and they had been since, some
at the brickyard, some at one employment, some at another.
Their ages ranged from eleven to sixteen. There was only
one of those children, for whom there was any reasonable
excuse why he had not been regularly at school. The
absence of the others was mainly owing to drunkenness on the
part of the parents. Now I ask you, is this to be continued any
longer ? Are these children to be thrown as paupers or criminals
upon society, and that in the name of the most sacred rights_
British freedom, parental authority, and so on—to breed up a race
of criminals, paupers, and wretches to prey upon society ? We are
told that the working classes cannot afford to lose the earnings of
their children. It is this I wish to meet, and I think I can do so,
because it is really the gravest argument that can be brought to
bear upon the whole question. Now, I find in the countries I
have referred to in North Germany particularly—a new Labour
Act comes into operation next year, and this new Act runs thus :__
No child shall be employed in any regular employment, except
domestic employment, by the parent after school hours, until it is
twelve years of age. It has been repeatedly said to me that the
English workman cannot do without his child’s earnings until the
child is twelve years of age. “ What is to become of a man with
six or eight children ? ” they say, “ You are depriving him of the
�213
earnings of his children.” But those who make this objection take
children as if they were like rabbits—all of an age. They forget
that if a man has six children, the chances are that they run
something like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; that he has not to struggle to
keep them all at school at once, and that in a year or two, when
the eldest gets employment, it earns a great deal more money if it
has been educated. Nay, and what is more—and this is a question
I wonder that trades unionists have not seen, and I don’t care how
soon they do—if there were not so many children employed who
ought not to be employed, many parents would be better paid than
they are. Now, assuredly what can be done by 80,000,000 of peo
ple in other parts of Europe can be done by Englishmen, must be
done by them, if they are to keep their place as a nation. Are we
content to be the last in the race—we, who have been supposed to
be in the van of civilization and humanity ? Well, there is another
consideration, and that is the religious difficulty. Now, I never
find that this religious difficulty exists with the working classes;
it exists with those generally who make the objection, on behalf,
they say, of the working classes. T should be exceedingly grieved
- I should be more than grieved—if anything we did tended to
make working men irreligious or irreverent; but I know it is im
possible to effect anything of the kind by the means we propose. I
know that the more knowledge we give, even that secular know
ledge which is so much despised, the better they will be prepared
for the reception of religious truth. What is the drudgery of our
Sunday school teachers, what is the drudgery of our ministers,
dealing with unintelligent children and unintelligent congregations?
Why, I believe we should raise our people entirely, from that brutal
ignorance, and that state of besotted intemperance, that pauperism
and that misery which characterise the lower three or four millions
of the people of England, if we were to give them a good educa
tion. I regret to hear that some association has been formed in
this town, with a view of opposing this benevolent movement.
But I would venture to remind those who engage in that opposition
of some remarkable lines that were written by Charles Dickens,’
describing the constant contests between the sects, and this great
�214
religious difficulty which we now stand in the face of.
said,—
He
“So have I seen a country on the earth,
Where darkness sat upon the living waters,
And brutal ignorance, and toil, and dearth,
Were the hard portion of its sons and daughters ;
And yet where those who should have ope’d the door
Of truth and charity to all men’s finding,
Squabbled for words upon the altar floor,
And rent the book in struggles for the binding.”
The Mayor rose to put the resolution.
Mr. J. Rutherford interposed, asking permission to move an
amendment.
The Mayor said that that was a meeting of the members of the
National Education League, for the transaction of certain business,
and he could not receive any proposition that had not been allowed,
and accepted by the general committee.
The resolution was then carried, Mr. Rutherford' and another
being the only persons who voted against it.
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain : I have been asked to move the fol
lowing resolution:—“ That the Executive Committee of the
National Education League be requested to prepare a bill, based
upon the principles of the League, for introduction into the House
of Commons during the next session of Parliament.” Inasmuch as
this resolution is in fact a formal one, and follows almost necessa
rily from that which has just been, all but unanimously adopted, it
is not necessary for me to say much in its favour. It is clearly
desirable, that our views should be presented as early as possible to
the Legislature in a practical shape; and inasmuch as we believe
that we now have a Government, who are determined faithfully to
carry out the wishes of the people, it will be an assistance, and not
a hindrance, to them that our views should be presented in a proper
form. But I have been requested, as an officer of the local com
mittee, to say a few words in support of the objects and principles
of the League ; and, in the first place, I think I may congratulate
this meeting, and all the friends of education, upon the enor
mous advance, to which this meeting testifies, on the great
question of education. I see in this advance the result
�•215
and the justification of the great political reform, which has
made those most interested in education, the depositories of
a great share of political power. There can be no doubt that
the present officers and members of the League have not, and
cannot have, any personal or selfish motive in the agitation of
this question. One common motive we have, and that is the love
of our common country, which induces us to seek its prosperity and
progress, and which, in the present case, incites us to obtain that
prosperity by cultivating the intelligence, and securing the enlighten
ment of the people. But you have a much nearer and more
personal interest in this matter. Bor it is not merely a question
whether this country shall continue to maintain its position among
the nations, or whether it shall lag behind in civilization, and leave
the victory in industrial and intellectual progress to other nations ;
but for you, it is also a question of the future of your own class,
and perhaps of your families; and you have to say whether they
shall enjoy the advantages which education confers, or whether they
shall remain in the position to which ignorance will condemn them,
even if they do not enter into the ranks of pauperism and crime.
As one guide to your decision upon this question, I ask you to con
sider the character, both of the support and of the opposition which
our proposition excites. As to the friends of this movement, I will
only refer to the adhesions we have received, during the present
Congress from the delegates and representatives of the great Trades
Councils throughout the kingdom; so that, I believe we may say
that directly or indirectly, from 800,000 to 1,000,000 working men
have, at these meetings in Birmingham, given their support to the
platform of the League. But it is chiefly from the opposition
which our propositions excite, that I anticipate a favourable
result—not that the opposition is not formidable, both in ex
tent and in numbers.; but when I see, taking sides against us
upon this question, the selfish hosts whom we have seen ranged
against us, again and again, upon previous questions, and whom we
have again and again defeated, I see an augury of a good result. I
have read that Napoleon I., on the morning of one of his great
battles, told his soldiers that they saw before them those self-same
Prussians whom they had beaten at Jena, whom they routed at
�216
i
s
t:
ii
w
si
to
so
mi
of
wl
■ow
•anc
fou
•eve
less
acct
tain
regu
shah
and
has j
has,
One
classe
know
ruinei
be ed'
have
It sim
Leipsic, and whom they would crush that day; and when I see
taking sides against us now, a great portion of the Conservative
landowners, and a certain section of the clergy, I think of the Com
Laws, of Reform, and of the Irish Church. But the signs of our
success are even more apparent in the trepidation and doubt which
are beginning to operate in the opposite camp. President Lincoln
had a homely proverb, that it was “ bad to swop horses when
crossing a stream but we see our opponents, in the middle of this
discussion, abandon their old hobbies, in the hope that they may
yet save something out of the wreck of the system which is fast
passing away. Only a few years ago, at a meeting wrhich was held
in this town, to consider the state of its education, the local clergy
who were present voted, to a man, against compulsory education,
and most of them were opposed to local rating; but now you find,
in the programme of the society which has been started within the
last few months, in opposition to our League, these two points made
the principal points of their platform. But we, in the meantime,
have advanced a little further, and so these gentlemen are, as usual,
left behind. So it will always be, until they learn to give
up their prejudices a little more graciously, and a little more
quickly. Until they do that, they will never overtake the full
confidence of the people whom they profess to wish to serve. The
present issue between us is simply this : we say that the old
system, which has failed, after a trial of twenty years, should at
least be supplemented by something new; but they say, No, let
us extend and contiuue the old. We say that the nation has
been growing fast, and has outgrown its old clothes, and that it
ought to have a new suit; but they want to let out a tuck here,
and put in a patch there, to make the old rags last a little longer.
Underlying all this resistance, is the fear that, if we do have a new
outfit, we may refuse to employ those who made such a miserable
misfit of the last. His Grace the Archbishop of York, at a meeting
which was held in Liverpool the other day, and which was called a
working man’s meeting, because a large portion of the room was
filled by the clergy, at that meeting his Grace told his audience
that three-fourths of the education of the country was owing to
the clergy, and that the men and the system that had done such
�217
great things ought not to be superseded. I should be the last to
deny or depreciate the enormous sacrifices which have been made
by many of the clergy to establish and maintain schools; but I say
that, on their own confession, their motive has been, not the educa
tion of the people as a thing which is good in itself, but the main
tenance of the doctrines of the Church of England ; and the conse
quence has been, that secular education has been subordinate to this
object, and we remain at this time one of the worst educated nations
in Europe. I say that, even if they had been a great deal more
snccessful than they really have been, it is the worst kind of Con
servatism to say that, because a thing is good of its kind, it shall
not be supplanted by something which is better and more complete.
I cannot understand the propriety of keeping a grown-up man in
swaddling clothes, because he looked very well in them when he
was a baby. To plead for the retention of the denominational
system, under which more than half the children of this country
are growing up without any education worthy the name, because
three-fourths of the remainder are brought up in the Church of
England schools, is as ridiculous as for an old Protectionist to have
pleaded for the Corn Laws, at a time when thousands were perishing
for want of food, because three-fourths of the rest, drew their daily
supplies from the granaries of the farmers. But the real reason
why our opponents support the denominational system is, not be
cause they believe it to be the best means of securing the education
of the people, but because they believe it to be the only means by
which they can maintain a monopoly of instruction. Our choice is
between the education of the people, and the interests of the Church.
Education, to be national, must be unsectarian ; and I cannot sup
pose that there will be a moment’s hesitation as to the choice which
the majority of the nation would make, if it were not that theolo
gical professors, who ought to recognize in education the best foun
dation upon which religion can rear her temple, have perverted the
meaning of religion until, indirectly, it has become a hindrance and
a stumbling-block. The day is not far distant when all will look
back with wonder at this time, and be astonished that intelligent,
earnest, and conscientious men could have thought a profession of
faith in any creed, worth anything as long as it was unintelligent, and
�218
could have been bjind to the fact, that the best handmaid which
any truth can have is a mind trained for its apprehension. It is a
curious and instructive fact, that while almost all other sects are
welcoming the prospect of increased education, as the best pre
paration for their own religious work, there are two which strain
every nerve to preserve and extend the present system, in spite of
its clear deficiencies. These two parties are the Roman Catholic
Church, and the Evangelical section of the Church of England. I
think the latter should have some doubt about the propriety of
the course they are taking, when they see into what company
it has brought them. You know what the pious organ of the
party, the Record, said, when it discovered that Mr. Gladstone
had an acquaintance with Archbishop Manning; you know that
all the resources of Biblical bad language were exhausted, and
men searched the Scriptures diligently to find parallels for the
supposed baseness of the great Statesman. Now the same gentle
men who shuddered at the iniquity of conversing with a Roman
Catholic prelate, are actually rowing in the same boat with the
ecclesiastics of Rome. The interest of the Roman Catholics in
this matter is very clear. If denominational education is to be
extended in England, how can you in justice refuse denominational
education in Ireland? And then you will have this glorious
anomaly in our splendid constitutional system: you will have
the State spending money on mutually destructive objects, and
the patient people will be called upon in one breath, to swallow the
poison and the antidote, and to pay the bill for both. The only
way by which this baneful, dangerous, and senseless application of
the public money can be avoided, is to insist firmly upon the
principle that the secular education of the people should
be the province of the Government, apart from all theological
instruction, which should be left to the respective ministers.
This, at all events, is what the League sets before you. I
read, the other day, that Lord Sandon, in a speech which
he made in the House, said that, speaking from an intimate
acquaintance with the working classes, he was confident that they
would never accept any education which had not impressed upon it
a religious character. If his lordship’s acquaintance with the
�219
working class be correct, our work will be vain; but I prefer to
believe, with John Stuart Mill, that the time is shortly coming when,
the working class will no longer be content to accept a religion of
other people’s prescribing. And if this matter of education is taken up
by the working class, as we hope and believe it will be, and if it is
made part of their political programme, then our success is certain,
and we may yet live to see the glorious time when, prizing know
ledge as her noblest wealth and best production, this imperial realm,
while she exacts allegiance, will admit the obligation, on her part,
to teach those who are born to serve her • and thus only shall we
maintain our position as a great nation, and guard and protect the
highest interests of every class of the community,
Mr. Cremer : I apprehend that the reasons which induced the
committee to ask me to second this resolution were, because I am
known to entertain strong convictions in reference to the question
of national, secular, and compulsory education; and, secondly,
because, being a working man, I may fairly claim to speak of the
wants and wishes of the working class. Those of us who, year after
year, contended for the extension of the suffrage to the working
class, asserted that one of the first objects which the working men,
when they obtained the suffrage, would seek to realize, would be a
system of secular and compulsory education. That prophesy has
received a partial fulfilment in the establishment of the National
Education League, in the successful meetings it has held during the
last two days, and the enthusiastic manner in which you have
endorsed the platform of the League at this meeting ; and I am sure
that when the matter is fairly before the country, our prophecies
will have a complete triumph. Some three years ago, the working
men in the borough in which I reside in London, formed a political
association, and one of the planks in their platform—three years
ago, remember—was national, secular, and compulsory education,
and they declared that any man who came to them in the future to
ask for their suffrages, must be distinctly in favour of secular and
comprdsory education. The result was, that at the last general
election nearly 6,000 workmen recorded their suffrages for the man
who made that the most prominent feature of his political pro
gramme. The tendency of modern legislation was, I think, rightly
�220
described by Sir Stafford Northcote at the Social Science Congress,
when he said it was in the direction of more and stronger govern
ment. The old do-nothing policy has passed away for ever, and has
been succeeded by an earnest determination on the part of the
people to do something useful, and to do ’it well. I fear Mr.
Forster is likely to bring in next session a Bill based upon
the denominational system. I hope, therefore, that the Executive
Committee will as speedily as possible frame a bill embodying the
principles of the League, and get some staunch friend of education,
such as Professor Fawcett, Mr. Mundella, or Mr. Dixon, to intro
duce it into the House of Commons ; because its being in their
hands will be the best guarantee that there will be no unholy
compromise upon this question. Professor Fawcett’s conduct last
session proves that there is no greater enemy of compromise than
he. I wish we had a House composed of such men. With regard
to education, I know there are a great many who are exceedingly
timid at the mention of compulsion. They are quite willing to
provide schools, but the idea of forcing children to attend is
repugnant to them. But the right of the State to compel, where
the well-being of society is concerned, was acknowledged long
ago. In fact, this principle is at the root of all government. To come
to what has been done within our own day : was not the right of the
State to use compulsion acknowledged when the Factory Acts were
passed ? when the Bleaching and Dyeing Act was passed? when
the Inspection of Coal Mines Act was passed ? when the Health of
Towns Act was passed? when the Vaccination Act was passed?
When we talk of freedom, we mean freedom to do what is right;
when we say we don’t want Government to interfere, we mean
that we object to its mischievous interference; but the very pur
pose of its existence is forgotten unless it interferes beneficently.
The only question, then, is whether it is well for us to be educated,
and if so, whether we can have the work done more effectually by
Government than by any other agency ? If so, then the Govern
ment must interfere and do it. We provide inspectors to see that
people whitewash their houses and drain them, and we punish
people who injure society by neglect in these particulars. I have
read, within the last three or four weeks, of thirty or forty cases
�221
where, in the Metropolitan Police Courts, heads of families have
been fined for not having their children vaccinated. There may
be difference of opinion as to whether vaccination is beneficial or
not, and those who think it is not beneficial of course object to
people being fined for not practising it; but among men who are
convinced that vaccination is useful, there is no objection to Go
vernment enforcing it; in fact all people who believe it is good,
want it enforced for the benefit of society at large. It is only
when they become convinced that it is bad that they object toGovernmental compulsion. I hold that the case of education is
precisely similar. If it is good, let us have it—let compulsion be
used if necessary; let it be punished as a crime to starve a child’s
mind, as we punish it as a crime to starve its body ; but if it is
bad, or merely indifferent—if it is of little or no consequence whe
ther people are educated or not—let us have no compulsion. But
we who hold that it is good, and that it is a remedy against moral
pestilence, want the same principle applied to it as to the preven
tion of contagious diseases. Some people object to the programme
of the League, because they say the policeman must be called in to
enforce it. Mr. Mundella has just now disposed of that cry ; but
for my part, even if it were a well-founded objection, I should be
very glad to see a policeman drag a child io school, if I thought
there was a reasonable prospect that by that means he would be
saved the trouble of dragging him to gaol in after years. I would
rather employ the police to save our children from the moral snares
which beset them, than in preventing the snaring of hares, the
beneficent work which our aristocracy have found for a large num
ber of them. As to the state of education hr this country com
pared with some nations abroad, it was my good fortune to visit
Switzerland some years ago. I went through the cities, towns, and
villages, and into the mountains. I had full opportunities of
judging of the education of the people, and I can confinn the
statement of Mr. Mundella that there is not a man or woman,
or a child of ten or twelve years of age—not one, so far as I
could make out—who has not received a thoroughly sound and
practical education. They have not the miserable charity schools
that we have in this country for the people, but they have magni-
�222
cent colleges, built at the expense of the State, where the children
of the shopkeeper, the artisan, and the labourer sit on one commrm
form, and receive a common education; and nothing seemed
to me more likely to root out caste, prejudice, and privilege, and
to knit all classes together, than this intermixture of the children
of all classes in school. When I saw this hi Switzerland, I could
not help hoping that the time was not far distant when we should
see a similar state of things in the United Kingdom. A word to
my fellow-workmen : We are apt to lament the gulf which separates
class from class, and to bemoan our fate, and regret that there should
be such a thing as caste and privilege in society; but you may
depend upon it that you will never get rid of these things of which
you are the victims, until you place yourself upon an intellectual
equality with the other classes of society. That is the necessary
condition of all equality. Do what you will, a rude and ignorant
class can never be upon an equality with a polished and educated
class. What you have to do, therefore, is to educate and polish
yourselves; and if you do that, other classes will lose alike the
wish, and the power to elbow you aside and treat you with contempt.
I insist, therefore, upon education. Take no denial, be turned
aside by no pretext, but insist upon that as the one thing needful,
without which all the victories you have ever achieved or can
achieve, will possess but half then* value, and without which, there
aremany victories which will be impossible. I believe the programme
of the League will help to this intellectual equality which we now
require, and that is the reason why I give it my cordial support.
Let us, as working men, speak out boldly and manfully on this
question. It is of vital importance to us. Let there be no tempo
rising or compromising with us. Let us enter into no unholy
alliances, but do this thing now with all our might, for there never
was a work more worthy of all our energy. I believe we are all
Teady. Four years ago, when I was in the eastern counties, I
found the labourers in the villages, and in the country quite ripe
upon this question even then, and my conviction is that we shall
find an overwhelming force to help us onward. I hope you will
give us all the assistance in your power, and justify the predictions
made in your behalf when the franchise was demanded for you.
�223
One of these predictions was, that as soon as you canre into posses
sion of political power, you would insist upon the education of
every child in the kingdom.
Mr. Carter, M.P. : I don’t intend to inflict a speech upon you
at this late hour of the evening; hut one or two gentlemen have
referred to a speech of the Archbishop of York, and as I know
something of the views of the working men of Yorkshire, I
rise to assure you that when the Archbishop of York tells the
people of Liverpool that the working men of Yorkshire will be
opposed to secular and compulsory education, he says what he is
not authorized to say, and what he will find himself very much
mistaken about, if he will consult the working men of Yorkshire.
The gentleman who has preceded me has told you that a candidate
who inscribed compulsory and unsectarian education on his banner
got 6,000 votes. I did that, and I got 15,000 votes. You re
member that the Bishop of Ripon told the House of Lords, during
the discussion on the Irish Church Bill, that a great change had
come over the working men of Yorkshire, especially in the large
towns, where he said, they were going strongly against Mr. Gladstone.
Now, Archbishops and Bishops, I think, are not generally the best
informed of men on the subject of the feelings of the working
classes. At all events, Mr. Baines and I, a few days after that state
ment was made by the Bishop of Ripon, addressed a meeting of
15,000 working, men in the Leeds Cloth Hall, and we asked them,
was the Bishop of Ripon right ? And about twenty said he was.
Now I take it that the Archbishop of York, knows about as much
as the Bishop of Ripon does, of the views of the working men of
Yorkshire. I know as much of the working men of North York
shire as any man in Yorkshire, and I tell you that they will stand
•shoulder to shoulder with you in this fight. Mr. Mundella can tell
you what they think in South Yorkshire ; he himself represents
their views. One of the previous speakers has observed that if Mr.
Gladstone or Mr. 'Forster should shrink upon this question, you
know how, by your meetings and demonstrations, to give them
firmness and courage, and make them go faster ; you will find that
the men of Yorkshire will assist you.
Mr. Lloyd Jones : It is necessary that we should under
�224
stand precisely the ground we occupy. We are told that wo
shall have to meet a very vigorous opposition, and I have not
the least doubt of it; but I claim to know something of the
working people of this country, and I deny most positively
that any part of that opposition will come from them. It is
said that they have a very strong dislike to compulsion, but I
say that that depends altogether upon what it is, that they are tobe compelled to do. People are very ingenious in finding ex
cuses for inactivity, when they dislike doing anything. We know
Mr. Disraeli declared that the discontent of Ireland was due to the
proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, and that as England could not
remove
it was quite useless to attempt to do anything. Now,,
his party urge as a great obstacle to this movement, that the work
ing classes dislike compulsion, and we know that the party
have reason for considering compulsion a most painful thing;for what have we been doing with them within living memory, but
compelling them? We have kept them under a continued system
of compulsion, and they find it very irksome. We have com
pelled them to pass from one reform to another, and havecompelled them—if not to do—at least to accept, with the best
grace they could, the doing of things which every man fifty years
ago would have declared to be impossible. Only a few days agowe compelled them to disestablish the Irish Church, and, if neces
sary, we shall compel them, in a few days or months more, to
acquiesce in a system which shall educate the whole of the people
of this country. We were told by Mr. Lowe, when the late
Reform Bill was before the House of Commons, that the country
would have to teach its masters their letters ; and that is just what
in real earnest we mean now to do. We know he said it in no
friendly tone to the working classes, but we mean to do it in a
different spirit. The working people are now in possession of'
political power, and it is necessary to educate them to use it
for their own and the country’s good. We want them to be
educated, not that they may become the master-class—because we
believe the mastership of classes in this country has been destroyed
for ever—but we wish to educate them in order that they may be
able to take their part wisely with their fellow-citizens of other ■
�225
classes. With regard to compulsory education, it is said that it
may do very well for the artisan, but will be impracticable in the
agricultural districts, because a family deprived of the labour of its
children will not be able to sustain itself. If that is true, the
sooner such a state of tilings is put an end to by some means the
better. If the children of the agricultural labourers must either
remain in absolute ignorance, or else starve, that is a state of things
which every Englishman with a heart in his body, ought at once to
set about rectifying, if possible. But is it true ? I am sure the
working men will not be turned from the path of duty by
difficulties, especially by difficulties which are not yet actually
in the way, but are only expected ahead, and which may
be found to have no existence, or not to be of so formidable
a nature as is anticipated. We expect difficulties, but we
are determined to conquer difficulties, and do our duty in
spite of them; and the performance of every duty in turn,
as our hand finds it to do, will strengthen us for the performance
of the next. We intend to go on steadily, step by step,
vanquishing difficulties as they appear. A very wise man has
•told us that there is no culminating point in the ascension
of nations, that nations have fallen, not because they had gone
as high as nations could go, but because they have placed their feet
upon a rotten round of the ladder, and it has given way with
them. If we go stupidly and blindly into the future, with an
uneducated people, depend upon it we shall sooner or later step
upon that rotten round of the ladder, and come to grief. With
regard to the assertions which are made that the working people
are opposed to this movement, let those who say so produce the
working people who are opposed to it, let us see them. We can
produce tens of thousands of working men in its favour; let them
show us those who are against it. I know that the working men
of England will go heart and soul with this movement, and I have
no doubt whatever that before long we shall see a thorough system
of national education, unsectarian, free, and compulsory, established
in this country • and when we see that, we shall feel assured of
the perpetual growth of the nation.
The resolution was then put, and carried unanimously,
p
�226
Mr. Jesse Collings (Hon. Sec.): I have great pleasure in pro
posing , “ That the best thanks of the meeting be presented to the
Mayor for his conduct in the chair.” I have also to announce that
“ an early member of the League ”—I am not permitted to give any
name—who has been waiting for his faith to be confirmed by this
Conference, will give £200 in yearly instalments. That is the
second sum of the kind we have had to-day. There is something
very appropriate in having our Mayor in the chair, seeing that
before many of us knew anything about this question, and before
some of us were born, the principles for which we now contend
were matters of settled conviction with him. He is one of those
who hailed this movement in Birmingham, with recognition of the
greatness that belonged to it. He threw himself heartily into the
work of the formation of this League at the beginning, and he has
never ceased, up to the present moment, to give it his hearty aid
and sympathy. I congratulate the town that it has so appropriate
a chairman on this occasion, and I congratulate the Mayor, that it
has fallen to his lot, to inaugurate the most important movement of
modern times in this country. Our scheme is fairly launched to
night • or rather I should call it yours, for you have received it’
with a fervour which makes it yours, and which gives us confidence
in its success. It is a system that all may understand, whilst as to
the scheme or system opposed to it, if it have any principles at
all, no two of them fit into each other. We men of business
wish to deal as soon as possible with this great question; and
remember that if Members of Parliament make the law, the
people make the Members of Parliament. You have, therefore,
the making of the law in your own hands. Do not accept as a
Member of Parliament, any man who will not accept the prin
ciples which you desire to see carried out with regard to educa
tion. The leaders of our opponents could only tell us the other
■day, at the Social Science Congress, that the poor must do what
Canon Girdlestone described, as shutting their eyes and opening their
mouths, and waiting for what Heaven might send them. They
have done that long enough; and now we want them to shut their
mouths and open their eyes, and see what Heaven has sent them.
Let them see the rights sent them by Heaven, out of which they
�227
have been unjustly kept. One right—the dearest of all—is to
have their children educated as human beings. There has been
talk about compromise. We mean no compromise; it is well that
that should be understood. The road has been laid down for you
to-night; you have only to walk in it. It may be a little difficult,
but it goes straight to the point, and if you follow it earnestly and
with determination, you will find what you want.
Mr. Dixon, M.P.: I rise with the greatest pleasure to second
this resolution. We are extremely fortunate in having such a
Mayor to help us as we have this year. I cannot forget that
when I introduced, some time ago, into the Town Council a resolu
tion on the subject of education, our present Mayor moved an
amendment, because he said my resolution did not go far enough,
and he carried his resolution, and the Town Council did that which
was an honour to the town, and an example to the country; and we
are now doing that which satisfies, I am happy to say, our Mayor.
He is satisfied with us, and we are satisfied with him.
The resolution was carried with acclamation.
The Mayor : Ladies and gentlemen,—When my term of office be
longs to the things of the past, there is no event connected with it
that will give me so much pleasure, as that the formation of the Na
tional Education League, and the great movement which has been
inaugurated by it, took place during that term. Ladies and gen
tlemen, I thank you.
This terminated the proceedings.
�1
�FIRST
GENERAL
MEETING,
OCTOBER 12th and 13th, 1869.
LIST
OF
VISITORS.
Adair, Thomas, Derby.
Adams, Francis, Birmingham, Secretary.
Aitken, W. C., Birmingham.
Albright, Arthur, Birmingham.
Applebee, Rev. J. Kay, London.
Applegarth, Robert, London.
Ashford, W. W., Edgbaston.
Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester.
Bacchus, J. 0., Birmingham.
Baker, George, Birmingham.
Barber, Stephen, Birmingham.
Barnett, William, Birmingham.
Baron, Joshua, J.P., Over Darwen.
Bartleet, Thomas S., Edgbaston.
Basnett, George, Birmingham.
Basnett, S., Birmingham.
Bastard, Thomas Horlock, Blandford.
Batchelor, John, Cardiff.
Bayly, J., Plymouth.
Beal, Michael, Sheffield.
Beale, W. J., Birmingham.
Beale, J. HE., Banbury.
Beales, Edmond, London.
Best, J., Andover.
Bigwood, Rev. John, London.
�230
Binns, Rev. William, Devonport.
Black, Rev. Janies, M.A., Stockport.
Blackham, G., Selly Oak.
Bourne, Alfred, London.
Bottomley, J. Firth, London.
Bovill, W. J., London.
Bray, Rev. Charles, Coventry.
Bremner, John A., Manchester.
Broadhurst, Samuel, Warrington.
Brock, Rev. Dr.
Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington.
Brown, Rev. John Jenkyn, Birmingham.
Brodrick, the Hon. George, London.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Burman, R. H., Birmingham.
Busk, Wm., M.R.C.P., F.S.A., &c., London.
Butcher, W., Bristol.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M. A., Bristol.
Campbell, Lord, London.
Carrington, R. C., Farnham.
Carter, R. M., M.P., Leeds.
Carter, John, Birmingham.
Chamberlain, J. H., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham, Chairman of Executive Com..
Chadwick, Edwin, C. B., London.
Chapman, Samuel, Rochdale.
Charles, David, Aberystwith.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Edgbaston.
Clarke, Edward G., Hon. Sec. Bristol Branch, Bristol.
Clarke, Thomas Chatfield, London.
Clarkson, Rev. W. F., B.A., Lincoln.
Clayden, Rev. P. W., London.
Coe, Rev. Charles C., Leicester.
Colley, William, Leamington.
Collings, Jesse, Birmingham, Hon. Sec.
Congreve, Rev. John, Rector of Tooting, Graveney.
Connor, Rev. W. A., B.A., Manchester.
�231
Cole, Alfred A., Walsall.
Cornish, Charles Leslie, Birmingham.
Cox, Robert, Edinburgh.
Cox, J. Charles, Hazlewood, Belper.
Cremer, W. R., London.
Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton Col., Oxford.
Crosskey, Rev. H., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Curme, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Sandford.
Dale, Rev. R. W., M.A,, Birmingham.
Davies, Rev. F., D.D., Haverfordwest.
Dawson, George, M.A., Birmingham.
Dixon, George, M.P., Birmingham, Chairman of the Council of
the League.
Dowson, Rev. H. E., Hyde.
Draper, E. Herbert, Kenilworth.
Earl, William, Birmingham.
Edwards, Richard Passmore, Bath.
Edwards, Charles H., Birmingham.
Ellenberger, Dr., Worksop.
Ellis, J. H., Leicester.
Emanuel, Rev. G. J., Edgbaston.
Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton Coll., Oxford.
Evans, Rev. C., Birmingham.
Fawcett, Professor.
Fawcett, Mrs.
Felkin, Robert, Wolverhampton.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fillingham, John Charles, Sanitary Inspector, Sheffield.
Fish, John, J.P., Blackburn.
Fooks, William, L.L.B., London.
Foster, Dr. Balthazer.
Franklin, Geo. B., Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, Hon. Sec. of the London Branch, London.
�232
Galpin, Thomas D., London.
Gasquoine, Rev. T., B.A., Oswestry.
Gaunt, Edwin, Leeds.
Geikie, Rev. J. Cunningham, London.
George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Gillions, Charles Edward B., Bedford.
Glydon, William, Birmingham.
Gore, George, F.R.S., Edgbaston.
Gosling, Alfred, Birmingham.
Grattan, John James, Sheffield.
Grayson, Charles, Liverpool.
Green, T. H., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
Green, Thomas, Birmingham.
Greg, Louis, Liverpool.
Grenfell, E. F., M.A., Rugby.
Grew, Frederick, Birmingham.
Griffith, Geo., Wolverhampton.
Guedalla, Joseph, London.
Guest, William, F.G.S., Gravesend.
Guile, Daniel, London.
Guise, Sir Wm. Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester.
Guttery, Rev. Thomas, Wolverhampton.
Haarbleicher, M. J., Manchester.
Hall, James, Sheffield.
Hammer, Geo. M., London.
Hansard, Rev. Septimus, M.A., Rector of Bethnal Green.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Harrison, John, Birmingham.
Hatton, Joseph.
Hawkes, Aiderman H., Birmingham.
Haycroft, Rev. Dr.
Haye, E., Stoney Stratford.
Heinrick, Hugh, Birmingham.
Heath, Rev. E., Blackburn.
Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London.
Heslop, T. P., M.D., Birmingham.
�233
Hibbs, Charles, Birmingham.
Hill, Alsager Hay, London.
Hills, Harris, Essex.
Hime, Dr., A.B., M.B., Sheffield.
Hinds, Miss, St. Neots, Hunts.
Hodgson, W. B., LL.D., London.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Holliday, William, J.P., Birmingham.
Holyoake. George J., London.
Houghton, Rev. C. E., Rugby.
Hosken, R. F., Leamington.
Howell, George, London.
Hudson, J. Davidson, Birmingham.
Huhne, Thomas, Stoke-on-Trent.
Jacob, Alfred, Birmingham.
Jaffray, John, Birmingham, Treasurer.
James, William, Edgbaston.
James, E. H., Birmingham.
James, Rev. Wm., Bristol.
Johnson, G. J., Birmingham.
Jones, Lewis, Birmingham.
Jones, Lloyd, London.
Jordan, Henry, Birmingham Exchange.
Jubb, Rev. W. Walker, West Smethwick.
Judge, Thomas, Brackley.
Klein, Dr. Julius, London.
Kempson, W., Leicester.
Kenrick, William, Birmingham.
Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Edgbaston.
Kenrick, T., Edgbaston.
Langford, John Alfred, Birmingham.
Ladd, W., London.
Lake, Rev. J. W., Warwick.
Le Neve Foster, P., London.
Lester, Wm., Wrexham.
�234
Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham.
Long, William, jun., Warrington.
Longmore, J., Worcester.
Luckett, Rev. Henry, West Bromwich.
Maclean, L. M., Worcester.
Macfie, Rev. M., Birmingham.
Mackenzie, Rev. J. R., D.D., Edgbaston.
McRae, Robert, Birmingham.
Mantle, George H., Birmingham.
Manton, Aiderman Henry, Birmingham.
Manton, John S., Birmingham.
Martin, Robert, M.D., Warrington.
Martineau, R., Edgbaston.
Martineau, R. F., Edgbaston.
Mason, W., Leeds.
Matthews, Evans, Birmingham.
Mathews, C. E., Birmingham.
Maxse, Capt., R.N., Southampton.
McDougal, Rev. J. M., Darwen.
Miall, Rev. William, Dalston.
Middlemore, William, J.P., Birmingham.
Millard, James H., B.A., Sec. of the Baptist]Union of Great
Britain and Ireland.
Milner, Edward, J.P., Warrington.
Milward, R. H., Birmingham.
Moore, Septimus P., LL.B., F.G.S., London.
Morison, Colonel.
Morgan, William, Birmingham.
Mundella, A. J., M.P., Nottingham.
Murch, Jerom, Bath.
Muspratt, Edmund R., Liverpool
Naden, Joseph, Sheffield.
Nash, Thomas, Manchester.
Noel, Ernest, Godstone, Surrey.
�235
Odger, George, London.
Olding, B.
Olsen, Samuel, Birmingham.
Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham.
Osborne, William, York.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Owen, Edward, Lee Port.
Paget, Charles, Buddington Grange, Notts.
Palmer, W., M.R.C.P., Warwick.
Park, John, Walsall.
Parkhurst, R. M., L.L.D., Manchester.
Partridge, J. Arthur, Birmingham.
Paton, W., Atherstone.
Payton, Henry, Birmingham.
Pears, Edwin, London.
Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Bristol.
Peiser, J., Manchester.
Pentecost, John, Stourbridge.
Peyton, H., Birmingham.
Phillips, Thomas, J.P., Birmingham.
Pliillpotts, J. S., B.C.L., Rugby.
Pinnock, R., Mayor, Newport, Isle of Wight.
Popplewell, W. J., Manchester.
Postgate, John, Birmingham.
Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Priddy, G. M., M.D., Wolverhampton.
Pryse, Joseph, London.
Quin, F. B. Wyndham, LL.D., F.R.G.S., Market Drayton..
Rabone, John, Birmingham.
Rafferty, Michael, Birmingham.
Ransom, Edwin, Bedford.
Ransome, R. C., Ipswich.
Rawling, S. B., Devonport.
Rawlins, James H., Wrexham.
�236
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, Upton-on-Severn.
Richards, S. Wall, Birmingham.
Richards, Rev. James, Stourbridge.
Robertson, Dover, Liverpool.
Rogers, W., Edgbaston.
Rogers, Rev. Wm., London.
Rogers, James E. Thorold, Oxford.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rumney, Aiderman Robert, Manchester.
Rusden, R. W., Manchester.
Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham.
Ryland, T. H., Birmingham.
Sandford, the Ven. Archdeacon, Redditch.
Sandwith, H., Llandovery.
Salwey, Col. Henry, Runnymede.
Sayle, Philip, Liver-pool.
Schnadhorst, Frank, Birmingham.
Sharp, James, Southampton.
Shelley, Rev. Richard, Great Yarmouth.
Simon, Serjeant, M.P.
Simon, Louis, Nottingham.
Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil.
Smith, Joseph, M.D., Warrington.
Solly, Rev. H., London.
Soul, Joseph, London.
Spark, H. H., Darlington.
Sykes, James Albert, Liverpool.
St. Clair, George, Banbury.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Stepney, W. F. Cowell, London.
Stevenson, George, Leicester.
Swinglehurst, Henry, Milnethorpe.
Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield.
Taylor, J., Sheffield.
Taylor, Rev. Sedley, Cambridge.
Thomas, Joshua, Birmingham.
�237
Thomas, John, South Shields.
Thomas, J. H., Cardiff.
Thompson, H. B. S., Birmingham.
Thompson, James, Leicester.
Tilley, Alfred, Cardiff.
Timmins, Samuel, Birmingham.
Tobley, James S., London.
Tufnell, E., Carlton, London.
Tunstall, E., Smethwick.
Turner, George, Birmingham.
Underwood, Rev. Wm., D.D., Chilwell College, Notts..
Vickers, Wm., J.P., Nottingham.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Webb, Edward, Worcester.
Webster, John, Birmingham.
Webster, Thomas, Q.C., London.
Wells, James, Northampton.
Williams, H. M., London.
Williams, R., West Bromwich.
Williams, Rev. Rowland, D.D., Broadchalk.
Williamson, W.B., Worcester.
Whitehead, James, Catford Bridge, London.
Wood, William Robert, Brighton.
Woodhill, J. C., Edgbaston.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Wynne, T., Stone.
Yates, Aiderman Edwin, Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. B., Ipswich.
With many others, whose names have not been ascertained.
THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
�' Ji ft! ;Hli 7/ ,!>a»W
..'■J
i
v ....'crrMT ./• .1
''
it:
jjjoV/
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 & 13, 1869
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Education League
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 237 p. : 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
'The Journal'
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5188
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 & 13, 1869), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Education
National Education League
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/da7f8a4d731f76f073c29cf20de1cdbf.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=L82RF5NMBrClDMYrwk63flBqWMaGnpHzGK%7E68262EwGKlRAjgFEyrPHE2vOqP2kWiryWAfsDAR0Ee8npEOJs8Hgp3Me5wq%7Exk99IDesYnqC9Ptrcw2--oRl0xISkfPwBkfvug3fXp9JVckh3uafmMW8aG5Po3-SP8d5TO9eYjCOMaGZJOVjLfhnBtTjslRXfiERHVCQCm5qd6KwGJCoZXxBINI5PWldP8PK1Cn2HI8W4v5wjPMhWK%7EdkUqizzcsb4Et2pzADT8zJtqSO3AwVQeY89RdEP%7EWnzmD3BUkL7HKMvcX18st048ctt%7EDhCa8h%7EFTGeP2TngwonSrxADxUqw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
619876693ffcff36f332e6dd3ddc8a2d
PDF Text
Text
t
CHRISTIANITY A BATTLE,
NOT A DREAM.
A DISCOURSE BY MR. WENDELL PHILLIPS,
OS’
BOSTON,
At the Thirteenth Sunday Afternoon Meeting, at Horticultural Hall,
&
Boston, April 11>, 1869.
bonbon:
CHERRY & FLETCHER, 6, WARDROBE PLACE,
DOCTORS’ COMMONS, E.C.
1869.
��PREFACE.
It has been frequently remarked by many whose wisdom cannot
be doubted, that as Christianity exists one must make the most of
it. It is not for us to depict how it has passed through the earth
and been polluted. How we can make the most of it as it at present
exists is our task; and as a sample of an effort towards it I
beg to place before the public this present discourse of Mr. Wendell
Phillips.
W. F. C. S.
Lausanne, September, 1869.
��“CHRISTIANITY A BATTLE, NOT A DREAM.”
To tell the truth, the subject is one not very familiar to my
beaten path of thought, and I am present rather at the urgency
of the committee to take a share in the discussion of the topics
for which the doors were opened, than from any earnest wish of
my own. But still I should be ashamed to say, after having lived
thirty years of active life in a community stirred as ours has been
that I have not some suggestions to.offer on a topic so vital as the
one now before me. Every man who has lived thoughtfully
in the midst of the great issues that have been struggling for
attention and settlement, every man who has striven to rouse to
action the elemental forces of society and civilization which ought
to grapple with these problems, must have had his thoughts turned
often, constantly, to the nature of Christianity itself, and to the
place which it ought to hold, compared to that which it really
occupies, amid the great elements which are to mould our future.
There is a great deal of talk about Christianity as the mere re
flection of the morals and intellect of the passing age; as some
thing which may be made to take any form, assume any principle,
or direct itself against any point at the bidding of the spirit of the
current time. It is looked upon as an ephemeral result, not as
a permanent cause ; and when viewed as such, men very naturally
class it with the other religions of the world, which have all been
results, not causes—effects, not sources of action. As I look at
Christianity in its relation to absolute religion—religion, the
Science of duty to ourselves, to our fellows, and to God—as I look
at Christianity in reference to religion, I want to say at the outset
that it, for me, occupies an entirely distinct place, an entirely
�6
different level from any other of what arc called or have been
known as the religions of the world.
If you go to the East, for the last three thousand years you find
a religion the reflection of its civilization; the outgrowth of its
thought; steeped in its animal life ; dragged down by
its
animal temptations; rotted through with license, cruelty, and with
all that grows out of the abnormal relation of the body to the soul.
And the only distinctive element in this outburst of Hi n ring
religions, Buddha and Brahma too, the only redeeming point, is a
sort of exceptional intellectual life, which busied itself exclusively
with the future; which struggled to plan and shape life, and mould
it on the principle that to be like God you were to trample out all
human affection and interests, thought, duties, and relations; and
the moment you became utterly passionless, thoughtless, without
interest in aught external, you were God-like—absorbed into the
Infinite, and ready for the hereafter.
The only thing remarkable in these Asiatic religions is that
they were infinitely below the popular level of morality and intelli
gence, while the intellectual conception in them busied itself with
nothing but the future state; not in one single thought, or effort^
or plan, or method, with man as God places him on the surface of
this planet. And it was a religion so much the actual result of
the moral and intellectual life, so moonlike a reflection, that in due
time, after a century or two, society in Hindostán was infinitely
better than its religion. I know, of course, of the bright gems of
thought that glisten here and there on Hindoo sacred pages; inter
polated nobody can possibly say when; but, whether so or not, they
are exceptions to the broad, popular estimate of the religion of the
age. That was in itself so weak, so poor, so immoral, so degraded,
so animal, that any social system in Hindostán which had not been
better than its gods would have rotted out from inherent corruption,
I utterly and indignantly repudiate the supposition that in any
sense Christianity is to be grouped with the religious demonstra
tions of Asia.
If you cross the Straits and come to the fair humanities of I
ancient Greece, to the classic mythology which gave us the civiliza» I
tion of Greece, the same general truth obtains. The mythology
of the age was so literally and utterly a mere reflex of its earliest 1
�7
civilization, that the finest specimens of human life find no proto
type for the nobleness of Socrates or the integrity of Cato ? If
Athens and Rome had not been far better than Olympus, neither
empire would have survived long enough to have given us Phocion,
Demosthenes, or Cato.
Religion is the soul, of which society and civil polity are the body,
and when you bring forward the exceptional lives of thoughtful
men, living either in Greece or on the banks of the Ganges, as a
measure of the religion of their age and country, I reject it; for
I go out into the streets of both continents to ask what is the
broad result (grouping a dozen centuries together) of the great
religious force which always, in some form or other, underlies every
social development; and when I seek it either in Greece, or Asia,
or Mahomet, I find a civilization of caste, exclusively a civilization
of animal supremacy—a civilization in itself natural, not wholly
useless, but superficial, grovelling and short-lived.
In a world covered over with this religious experience, out of a
world lying in murky ignorance—except where one or two points
like Athens and some old cities of Asia towered out of it by an
intellectual life—all at once there started up a system which we
call Christianity; the outgrowth of the narrowest, and, as the
world supposed, the most degraded tribe of human beings that
occupied its surface. I am not going to touch on its doctrines,
because I do not believe that it has many doctrines. I do not
believe that out of the New Testament you can, by any torture of
ingenuity, make a creed. I do not believe that the New Testament
writers intended you should make a creed. The sneer of the infidel
is that you may get anything out of the New Testament. It is
like a napkin in the hands of a juggler. It can be made to assume
many shapes—church tower, rabbit’s head, baby’s cradle—but it is
a napkin still. When you torture the New Testament into
Calvinism, or Romanism, or Catholicism, or Universalism, or
Unitarianism, it is nothing but the New Testament after all.
There are certain great principles inherent in Christianity, as a
religious and an intellectual movement, that distinguish it from all
others, judging in two ways—either by the fair current of its
records, or by the fruit of its existence. There, are two ways of
judging Christianity: one to open its records, and the other to
�8
trace Europe and its history under the influence of Christianity.
I wish to call attention to two or three principles of Christianity
which are not included in any other religious system, and the first
is the principle of sacrifice. “ Bear ye one another’s burdens
is the cardinal principle that underlies Christianity. All other
religions allow that the strong have the right to use the weald
Like Darwin’s principle of philosophy, the best, the strongest, the
educated, the powerful, have the right to have the world to
themselves, and to absorb the less privileged in their enjoyable
career. Carlyle represents that element in modern literature.
Christianity ignores it in its central principle. Wealth, health,
and knowledge are a trust. “If any man be chief among you let
him be your servant.” If you know anything communicate it.
Whatever you hold it is not yours. See that you make your
self the servant of the weakness of your age.
God in his providence, to which Christ gave us the key, is th®
mover of the ages, and has always been dragging down the great
and lifting up the poor; and Christianity was the first testimony
of religion w'hich recognised the decree of Providence that the
greater is the servant of the lesser.
Again, Christianity endeavours to reform the world by ideas.
There is not such another attempt in the history of the race.
There is nowhere a single religious leader that ever said, “ I will re
model the world, and I will re-model it by thought.” • Christianity
not only trusts itself to the mind, to the supremacy of the soul, bull
it is aggressive on that line. It not only says, with every thought
ful man, the mind is stronger than the body, but the Saviour says,
“ Go out and. preach the gospel to every creature.” The great
agitator of the centuries is Jesus Christ of Jerusalem, who under
took to found his power on an idea, and at the same time
announce his faith and to teach his disciples “ This idea shall remould the world.” No other religion has attempted it; no other
religious leader has proclaimed any such purpose, plan, or faith.
Christianity has another element that distinguishes it from all
religions. It does not appeal to education; it does not appeal to
caste; it does not appeal to culture and the disciplined mind—in
this century or any other. To the poor the gospel is preached.
Christianity did not condescend to the lowest ignorance; it selected
�9
the lowest ignorance as the depositary of its trust. Some one has
said, 11 Christianity is the highest wisdom condescending to the
lowest ignorance.” That is an insufficient statement.
Christ
entrusted his gospel to the poor—to the common sense of the race
—to the instincts of human nature. He turned away from sanhe
drim and school; from Pharisee, who represented observance, and
Sadducee, who personated sceptical inquiry, and called to his side
the unlearned; planted the seeds of his empire in the masses; no
caste, no college, no ilinside” clique of adepts, and no “outside”
herd of dupes. Christ proclaims spiritual equality and brotherhood.
You see in the Bible that the Saviour was considered a babbler,
B disorganiser, a pestilent fellow, a stirrer-up of sedition. All the
names that have been bestowed on men that ever came to turn the
world upside down were heaped upon that leader of Christianity in
the streets of Jerusalem. If he should come to-day into these
streets as he stood up in the corners of the streets of Jerusalem
and arraigned the church and state of his day, he would be denied
and crucified exactly as he was in the streets of Jerusalem 1800
years ago. This is a most singular and unique characteristic of
Christianity. It did not affect the schools; did not ask the en
dorsement of the Academy of Plato; it went to the people; it
trusted the human race. It said, “ I am as immortal as man. I
accept human nature, and the evidence of my divinity will be that
every successive development of a fact of human nature will come
back here and find its key.” Christianity says, “I leave my record
with the instincts of the race. The accumulating evidence of my
divine mission shall be that nowhere can the race travel, under no
climate, in the midst of no circumstances can it develop anything,
of which I have not offered beforehand the explanation and the
key.”
The fourth element peculiar to Christianity is its ideal of woman.
In all civilization, as in every individual case—in all times, as well
as in all men—-this rule holds. The level of a man’s spiritual life,
and the spiritual life of an age, is exactly this—its ideal of a
woman. No matter where you test society, what is its intellectual
or moral development, the idea that it has held of woman is the
measure and the test of the progress it has made. The black
woman in the South holds in her hands to-day the social recon
�10
struction of half the Union. The black man of the South holds
its material and its industrial future. Its spiritual and moral
possibility lies in the place which woman shall compel her fellow- .
beings to accord her in their ideas of the future. So wherever
you go—into Asia or Greece—the idea that each religion held of
woman is a test of its absolute spiritual truth and life. Christianity
is the only religion that ever accorded to woman her true place in
the Providence of God. It was exceptional; it was antagonistic I
to the whole spirit of the age. The elements I have named ar©
those which distinguish Christianity.
Is Christianity an inspired faith or not? Shakespeare and
Plato tower above the intellectual level of their times like the
peaks of Teneriffe and Mont Blanc. We look at them, and it
seems impossible to measure the interval that separates them from
the intellectual development around them. But if this Jewish boy
in that era of the world, in Palestine, with the Ganges on one side
of him and the Olympus of Athens on the other, ever produced a
religion with these four elements, he towers so far above Shake
speare and Plato that the difference between Shakespeare and
Plato and their times in the comparison becomes an imperceptible
wrinkle on the surface of the earth. I think it a greater credulity
to believe that there ever was a man so much superior to Athene
and to England as this Jewish youth was, if he was a mere man,
than it is to believe that in the fulness of time a higher wisdom
than was ever vouchsafed to a human being undertook to tell the»
human race the secret by which it could lift itself to a higher plan®
of moral and intellectual existence. I have weighed Christianity
as the great vital and elemental force which underlies Europe, to ‘
which we are indebted for European civilization. I have en- '
deavoured to measure its strength, to estimate its permanence, to
analyse its elements; and if they ever came from the unassisted
brain of one uneducated Jew, while Shakespeare is' admirable, and
Plato is admirable, and Goethe is admirable, this Jewish boy take»
a higher level: he is marvellous, wonderful; he is in himself a
miracle. The miracles he wrought are nothing to the miracle he
was, if at that era and in that condition of the world he invented
Christianity. Whately says, “ To disbelieve is to believe.” I
cannot be so credulous as to believe that any mere man invented
�11
Christianity. Until you show me some loving heart that has felt
more profoundly, some strong brain that, even with the aid of his
example, has thought further, and added something important to
religion, I must still use my common sense and say, Ao man did
all this. I know Buddah’s protest, and what he is said to have
tried to do. To all that my answer is, India past and present. In
testing ideas and elemental forces, if you give them centuries to
work in, success is the only criterion. “By their fruits” is an in
spired rule, not yet half understood and appreciated.
Our religion was never at peace with its age. Ours is the only
faith whose first teacher and eleven out of the twelve original
disciples died martyrs to their ideas. There is no other faith
whose first teacher was not cherished and deified. The proof that
some mighty power took possession of this Jewish mind, and lifted
it above and flung it against its age, is that he himself and eleven
of his twelve disciples forfeited, to the age, their lives for the
message they brought.
I put aside all the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount—the
fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man; all the gleams which
the noblest intellects of the classic and Asiatic world had un
doubtedly of the truth. That was not it. A man who says that
Christianity is but the outgrowth of a human intellect, must ex
plain to me Europe as she stands to-day—the intelligence, morality
and civilization of Europe as compared with the Asiatic civiliza
tion which has died out. Asiatic civilization failed from no lack
of intellectual vigour or development. Tocqueville showed us that
all the social problems and questions that agitate Europe and
America to-day were debated to rags in Hindostan ages ago.
Every one knows that Saracen Spain outshone all the rest of
Europe for three or four centuries. The force wanting was a
spiritual one. Body and brain without soul, Asia rotted away.
From Confucius to Cicero there is light enough, but no heat.
If this is the essence of Christianity, what is our duty in view
of it? A large proportion of the men who discuss radical religion,
as well as othodox religionists, mistake the essence of Christianity
for speculation. We have an immense amount of speculation as
to the nature of God, the soul’s relation to God, the essence of the
soul, the inspiration of the scriptures, the nature of sin, and the
t
�12
characteristics of another state. . It seems to me that most of that
is dream and reverie. The marvel of the New Testament is that
when you read it through only about one line in foui' touches upon
any such problems. There is very little of it there. Christianity
did not attempt to teach us any of these metaphysics. The
glimpses it gave us of it were all accidental and indirect in passing
along. All through the New Testament it is not the future life
and the essence of the soul that are dwelt upon, it is the problems
that make up the society of to-day. Open your New Testament'
and you will be surprised to find the comparative, the relative,
amount that there is on one topic to what there is on the otherI think that while bishops were discussing the metaphysics of the
soul, and German theologians were dividing brains, Christianity
was writing its record by the pen of Beccaria, when he taught
Europe a better system of penal laws. I remember, of course, the
duty and value of prayer, the place devotion has, and the need all
human nature has for meditation and self-culture. John Augustus
kneeling at a Cathedral shrine would have been a Christian sight.
But John Augustus in the Courts, saving drunkards from the
shame and temptation and debasement of our jails, was a more
Christ-like one. Viewed broadly, and noting the distinctive
nature of Christianity, when Voltaire thundered across Europe in
defence of Calas, struggling for rational religion, he was nearer
to the heart of Christ than Jeremy Taylor when he wrote his
eloquent and most religious essay, “ Holy Living and Dying.”
Bating some human imperffection, trampling under foot his per
sonal vices, and remembering only his large service to his race,
when even that name of all names which the Christian has been
taught to hate—when Thomas Paine went into the other world he
was much more likely to be received with “Well done, good and
faithful servant,” than many a bishop who died under an English
mitre.
There are two classes of philanthropy : one alleviates and the
other cures. There is one class of philanthropy that undertakes
when a man commits an evil to help him out cf it. ■ There is
another class that endeavours to abolish the temptation. The
first is sentiment, the last is Christianity.
The religion of to-day has too many pulpits. Men say we have
�13
not churches enough. We have top many. Two hundred thousand
men in New York never enter a church. There is not room.
Thank God for that! If there are two hundred thousand Christian
men in New York that cannot get into church, all the better.
They do not need to enter. Christianity never intended the
pulpit in the guise in which we have it. In yonder college do they
keep boys for seventy years on their hands, lecturing to them on
science? When Agassiz has taught his pupils fully, he sends
them out to learn by practice. Of these fifty or sixty pulpits in
this city we don’t need more than ten or twenty. They will
accommodate all who should hear preaching. The rest should
be in the State Prison talking to the inmates; they should be in
North Street labouring there amongst the poor and depraved.
Their worship should be putting their gifts to use, not sitting
down and hearing for a hundredth time a repetition of arguments
against theft. There will never be any practical Christianity
until we cease to teach it, and let men begin to learn by practice.
You never saw a Quaker pauper, because the moment a member
begins to fail, the better influences surround and besiege him, help
him over the shallows, strengthen his purpose, watch his steps,
hold up the weary hands and feeble knees, and see to it that he
never falls so low as to be pauper. Break down these narrow
Quaker walls, and let your Christianity model a world on the finer
elements of that sect.
I would not have so many pulpits. “ I’m not going to inflict a
sermon on you,” says your generously considerate friend. What a
testimony! You should go to church when you absolutely need a
message. You should go as the old Christian did, who went to
pray and then off to his work. The existence of a poor class in
a Christian community is an evidence that it is not a Christian
community. There ought to be no permanently poor class in a
Christian community. “Bear ye one another’s burdens.” Who
shall so slander society as to say that there is not enough wealth
to lift up its poverty ? We never look at our duty in this respect.
Christianity goes round amid the institutions of the world and
stamps each as sin. Fashion cries no; wealth says it shall not
be; and churches work to prevent it. But by-and-by the whole
crashes down. Christianity marked slavery as sin one hundred
�14
years ago. You may go to England and find blue-books that
might be piled as high as Bunker’s Hill, which were written by in
telligent committees set to inquire whether it is safe to do right»
The principle of truth was there carried out, however, and cul
minated with Wilberforce as he carried up eight hundred thousand
broken fetters to God.
[Mr. Phillips here read an extract of an article published in one
of the most religious of the daily papers in 1861, in which it was
stated that the struggle between the North and the South might
go on with such bitterness that we should be obliged to emancipate
the slaves. The article said “the ordeal was one in which hypo
critical philanthropists and bigoted religionists might exult, but
from which genuine Christianity would pray most earnestly that
the nation might be saved.”]
Every man in political life now will say that he knew for years
that slavery was wrong, but he didn’t think it best to say so.
Christianity says, “ Whatever God tells you, don’t look back to
see if there is a man standing on your level who cannot see it;
walk forward and tell what God has told you.” Christianity does
not reside in metaphysics. You won’t find it in some of the most
brilliant articles of the Radical, or in the stern creed of Andover.
But you will find it in the Peace Society, the temperance organiza
tion, in prison discipline, in anti-slavery, in women’s rights, and
in the eight-hour movement. Some may smile at that, but the
man who recognizes the right of every labouring man, and shows
that he knows he has a soul, is nearer Christianity than he who
can discuss all the points of the Godhead, live he either at Concord
or anywhere else. But there is more real, essential Christianity
at Concord than sleeps under a score of steeples.
In my recent argument before the legislative committee on the
labour question I endeavoured to show that the working men
should have better opportunities to improve themselves physically,
morally, and spiritually, with the aid of more leisure, and thus
secure a better civilization ; but the only consideration that could
be expected to have weight with the committee was this: You
must show that a man can do as much work in eight as he can in
ten hours.
At New York, in a recent speech before an audience of three
�15
thousand people, I alluded to the Governor’s argument that
alcohol was “ food,” and had nutritive properties as well as beef.
Without consulting authorities, if alcohol was food, and any one
would prove to me that beef caused two-thirds of the pauperism
and crime in the community, then I demanded the prohibition of
beef. One-half of the audience started at the fanaticism, and even
the platform trembled at the audacity of such a claim. But
Paul, the ever blessed fanatic and agitator, once said, “ [f meat
rnaketh my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world
standeth.”
I believe in the regeneration of the world through Christianity,
and that we are in a transition state. Christianity is moving for
ward to fresh triumphs, but there never will be a union of thought.
You never can get the Methodist to stand side-by-side with the
Calvinist, and the conservative and the radical to read the New
Testament in the light of the same interpretation. It is a purpose
and an opportunity, not a creed, that will unite Christianity ; a
benevolent movement, not an intellectual effort, that will ever
make a seamless garment of the Christian church. If John Stuart
Mill, who rejects the four Gospels, shall agitate Europe, so that
working men shall be lifted from the pit they now occupy (a pit
which is worse than any hell Calvin ever imagined), then I would
say that Lord Shaftesbury is a dreamer, and John Stuart Mill the
apostolic successor of St.- Paul. “ By their fruits ye shall know
them,” said the Master. Wherever a chain is broken, wherever a
ray of light is admitted, wherever a noble purpose is struggling,
wherever an obstacle is removed, there is Christianity.
There may be mummies hidden in the churches—metaphysicians
dividing the truth according to the north or north-western side of
a hair; but they will never be crucified; never have the Pharisees’
and Sadducees’ feeling that their time is come; they will never
have the devils of their age asking to be sent into the swine. We
don’t know Jesus, and no man would know him if he came to-day.
We imagine that he was a respectable, sentimental, decorous,
moderate, careful, conservative element, who took a hall, and was
decently surrounded. He was the sedition of the streets. He
said to wealth, “ You’re robbery,” and Christendom stood aghast.
He said to Judah, “You are a tyranny.” He arraigned unjust
�16
power at its own feet. If a man does so now we send him to the
Coventry of public contempt, or the house of correction. But that
is where Christianity goes. That is the way it entered the world,
and that is the way it grapples the world to-day. As the old
Italian said in 1554, “ There has not a Christian died in his bed
for two hundred years.” There will never be a Christian die in his
bed in the sense in which he meant it. The distinctive representa
tive, the typical, advanced Christian of his age will never die in a
respectable bed, because the society of to-day, though growing out
of a Christian subsoil, struggles yet to defy its master.
I have endeavoured to show the wise men at the State House
that they were gravitating toward the despotism of incorporated
wealth. I showed them that in a republican community you could
not afford to have half the individuality of the masses taken awayj
because you would have no basis for our form of government to
rest upon. I did not dare to say to that Legislature, “ God gives to
you the keeping, annually, of so many hundred thousand souls, and
whether they are good voters or trustworthy citizens is a secondary
matter. You should make these streets safe for immortal souls to
grow up in.” And yet that Legislature is better than a church, for
it says there shall be no distinction of colour. It don’t know caste.
But when you go down to the old South church you find it has taken
a leaf out of Hindostan, and has black men in one place and white
men in another. This is church; the other is Christianity.
I have impressed this fact: Christianity is a divine force; it is
the force to which we owe Europe. It is the key that unlocks the
government, the society, the literature of Europe. It unfolds to you
the goal to which we are all hastening, but you must not seek for
it in the religious organizations. You must seek for it in repre
sentative and organized systems which undertake to hold its essence.
The church as a milestone shows how far morals have travelled up
to that moment. The moment it is found it is useless. It is like the
bulwarks of Holland, good when the waters are outside, but all the
worse when the waters are inside to keep them in. The pioneer
goes through the forest girdling the trees as he moves, and five
years after these trees are dead lumber. So Christianity goes
through society dooming now this institution and now that custom
as sinful,—soon they die. Look back forty years. Christianity
�17
branded slavery as sin. Wealth laughed scornfully at the fanati
cism. Fashion swept haughtily past in her pride. The State
thought to smother the protest by statutes. The church clasped
hands and blessed the plot. But a printer’s boy yielded himself to
the sublime inspiration; gave life to the martyrdom of the message;
and when his hand struck off three million of fetters, the church
said, “ Yes, I did it, for did I not always say, ‘There was no bond
in Christ Jesus?’” Yes, you did. But when to take that terrible
protest from your treasure-house and flare it in the face of an
■angry nation was grave peril and cruel sacrifice, you hid it! You
always had the truth; your only lack was life to believe and courage
to apply it. The question that lies beyond, and has for thirty
years, is the question of race. We lifted races on to a dead level,
and the church said, “Didn’t I tell you God hath made of one
blood all the nations of the earth?” And we all said: “Yes, you
did. The trouble was that when it was crucifixion to apply it you
could not see it.”
The thing that lies beyond is sex. Will you crush woman out
of her opportunities ? The church says “ Yes.” But the age travels
on, and by-and-by she will take her place side-by -side with man in
politics as she does in society, and then the church will say,
i4Didn’t I tell you so ? There is neither male nor female in Christ.”
Thon we shall say: “Yes you did: but when it was vulgar and
unpopular and isolated to apply it, you were not there.” And
beyond that lies the darkened chamber of the labourer, who only rises
f» toil and lies down to rest. It is lighted by no hope, mellowed by no
comfort; looks into gardens it created, and up to wealth which it
has garnered, and has no pleasure thence; looks down into its
cradle—there is no hope; and Stuart Mill says to the church,
“ Come and claim for labour its great share in civilization and its
products;” the bench of bishops say, “Let us have a charity
school;” Episcopacy says, “We will print a primer;” the dissent
ing interest says, “We will have cheap soup-houses;” Lord
Shaftesbury says, “We will have May-day pastimes;” and gaunt
labour says, “I don’t ask pity, I ask for justice. In the name of
the Christian brotherhood I ask for justice.” And the church
quietly hides itself behind its prayer-book, and the great vital
force underneath bears us onward, till by-and-by through th,e ballot,
�18
by the power of selfish interest, by the combination of necessity,
labour will clutch its rights, and the church will say, “ So, I did it!”
You have no right to luxuriate. If you are Christian men you
should sell your sword and garments, go into your neighbor’s house
and start a public opinion and rouse and educate the masses.
One soul with an idea out-weighs ninety-nine men moved only by
interest. Though they are powerful obstacles in our pathway
they will be permeated by the idea we advocate, as was Caesar’s
palace by the weeds nurtured by an Italian summer. It was
supposed that nothing less than an earthquake that would shake
the seven hills could disturb the solid walls; but the tiny weeds of
an Italian summer struck root between them and tossed the huge
blocks of granite into shapeless ruins. So must inevitably our
ideas—the only living forces—for a while overawed by marble, and
gold, and iron, and organization—heave all to ruin and rebuild
on a finer model.
Cherry & Fletcher, Printers, 6, Wardrobe Place, Doctors’ Commons E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity a battle, not a dream: a discourse
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Phillips, Wendell
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Delivered at the Sunday afternoon meeting at Horticultural Hall, Boston, April 11,1869.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Cherry & Fletcher
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5298
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christianity a battle, not a dream: a discourse), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b258b9b6318374007680c5bc3306d718.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LHmMN0AJAJnhEMeRlQA3f1MJXHsCMHaf7IPDxUT%7ETElNJMwAH0ijbWwDk9bfiYM%7ELqFh4bd91pMcgSUYlhkqWoijUupjcc1zMP-EgKkm1AMfZyhXDbHF2HF5ZaUciyUDPEBu1qZwJvO%7ERosi3MlaH11fC9dWsl1H9ADMgRsUELR2jTXCu2Bd%7EkE9C-imaFXD88wu5FuA90TKhTu3p9hITxEVivx62QnVJdLcAfFvOeGlWWlCyZUvgr2mnf6zHREyHoLVDLWHoshd9jFp7Qu73LwMrqKofCvHL3b9mbMFJthOQLGrqy0wEJFxdO2yw6ORL7NI%7Eyb5ZPmU8ZVam5riuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c916069e72144ad2af048bc94222fb6c
PDF Text
Text
SOUTH-PLACE CHAPEL,
SOUTH PLACE, FINSBURY.
MR. MONCURE D. CONWAY
Will deliver the following Discourses, during the present and ensuing
months, on Sunday Mornings:
March 21,1869.
THE RELIGIONS OF EGYPT AND CHALD2EA.
Anthem. (Welden) : “In Thee, 0 Lord !”
March 28.
THE HINDU RELIGION.
Anthem (Dr. Boyce) : “The heavens declare the glory of God.”
April 4.
■
THE PERSIAN RELIGION.
Anthem, (Kent) : “Lord, what love have I?”
April 11.
’
THE CHINESE RELIGION.
Anthem, (Anon.) : “Like circles, widening round.”
April 18.
THE ANCIENT GREEK RELIGION.
Antitem, (Mendelssohn) : “ Oh, come, every one that thirsteth !”
April 25.
THE HEBREW RELIGION.
Anthem (Dr. Clarke Whiteield) : “ In Jewry is God known.”
May 2.
•
MOHAMMEDANISM.
Anthem, (J. Goss): “The Wilderness.”
May 9.
THE SCANDINAVIAN RELIGION.
Anthem, (Kent) : “ Blessed be thou.”
May 16.
THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY.
Anthem, (Mendelssohn) : “How lovely are the messengers !”—St. Paul.
“ Why are we not willing to consider all religions merely as progressive steps, by which
the human understanding has developed itself in every time and place, and will still
develop itself in the future ?”■—Lessing.
This Series of Discourses will not be interrupted unless some special subject requires
attention.
’
9
The Service begins at 11.15 a.m.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
South Place Chapel, South Place, Finsbury [lecture programme]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
South Place Religious Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 1 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5702
Subject
The topic of the resource
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (South Place Chapel, South Place, Finsbury [lecture programme]), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church Services
Conway Tracts
Moncure Conway
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/17759d70e5581ce53df7ccdfe947f1da.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CB8sXEG8LTED%7EzXfDG1Wv6UuekLF29jE%7Ewry1MOWD1CcJ2-1IVOcyqRG%7Eu7wIpRFequOEW1HBYf5LfFOscIvWR%7EGmNGJoOcDLOgHVC1KdTcIZOPvx9jEnkaNbt6OegfhHzxfxel5VHUVQxNAZXYxmAN92aEcKWDyC8xfOD27wS-ORdsDxLEam0pRg7tNgjluijpSzEFWDAPiUCg8Sff0inu2J6xm6YXnRiU%7ECarqvxgylQZ7Uq2vbuff0jEOjMOrY5X7ZUG9TenpoJ%7Eq9hyqUQMoQ8hjzvpt%7ECOz9lUCIMzu28OoIx%7Ezx659faodZw04zwVonGEikcvAf4INsgUOYg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ad0529b9bbf6f532e8820dc8952e543b
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3bc3d67420baa83898d91c6aa1dc5128.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OHBFx20ZmXoBuLyivGAGEyo96ZAL9q6t6kiGip2jLlgiJRlLUYIHnCz7GRpeoVXR4czVhP9CHjzLHR6IpORm-B4HDhKLP%7EIYfU0dlfJ5nwhkVUt8DR9DUig4g-VVNqPwcbjtMpAWCl0CuupPSXG57-aw%7EeBLFdJD2P-FjwTOFPpcFTYumrfKct8464oNRUdxHlduvPKI747jCSvTA4g0mn0l8eMLqZkeP07PvUpB%7EOU5UYAYKqX6DoCFxUQkSVnHcuKElJD8-dUbJM%7EkwqNCD3fb3C6Fa-C-YeZMaFwpkwtRoQSVTP9VF0nEtW36X3wzg89W%7EiwGNlKGn4C6NFLKvw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fbc19f560d2cc62b62faa7ddf9f66356
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5c3db7316e1f5022b01435378023fd61.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c6qSF93KBzZsCKYGwMeZ%7Ec8rEA7KCFs6dXMhz53%7EhPUs5Yq0nMiZNgwrphip%7EU0OhTpUNg4JpgpDajtG9X0l3T7MVu4btgeC7BWRVWh8V69ZrahkHPw2M4Ck1viVY54QeEGZmuZu7MI95M09DO9UlvwHoLXjLOVZO%7E1hRQbll%7ESqZloNgLV9Wf5eEQhQ2Y6qNf%7EFe3g3GHP1qcMVmqKeXBH3eLZkMc7L9rilS56tExtpgTlu6zHzf4egnrLZNHJwSg2-94VUjTwryBSgXopsZixiRdnQ%7E%7EWqYW4T%7EK7iOzme6Bvib-k9UcgkzcwC7IL3dY4p-1LXS4lCCVKoKXKvVg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4ea4e181940dbf3d2a38f0a7c59b4ced
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Architecture and Place
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Humanist Library and Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2016
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised items from the Humanist Library and Archives telling the story of buildings and spaces occupied by the Conway Hall Ethical Society (formerly the South Place Ethical Society). Also includes several born digital items.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Architecture
Conway Hall (London, England)
South Place Chapel, Finsbury
Mansford, Frederick Herbert (1871-1946)
Language
A language of the resource
English
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Parchment
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Counterpart lease of 17, 18, 19 and 20 Lambs Conduit Passage, 31 July 1869
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Counterpart lease of 17,18,19,20 Lambs Conduit Passage, (31 July 1869).</p>
<ul><li>(1) John Henry Strickland of Wye House, Buxton, Derbs, esq, a person of unsound mind, by Frances Strickland of Apperley Court, Glos, spinster, the committee of his estate</li>
<li>(2) William Howse of 38 Gloucester St, Queen Square, St George Bloomsbury, Middx, plumber</li>
</ul><p>Pursuant to an order of Masters in Lunacy (as per endorsement of 29 July 1869), and in consideration of costs of (2) in substantially repairing the premises, (1)-(2) 4 messuages, nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 Lambs Conduit Passage.</p>
<p>Term: 21 years from 24 June 1866</p>
<p>Rent: for 1st quarter a peppercorn; for subsequent 3 quarters to 24 June 1867 £27 10s per quarter; for remainder of term £116 pa.</p>
<p>(2) covenants to insure premises for at least £2000.</p>
<p>Includes floor plan of premises showing internal details and detailed schedule of landlord's fixtures and furniture in each property by rooms.</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Unknown
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Subject
The topic of the resource
Leases
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
SPES/3/1/1/18
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p>Licenced for digitisation by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works" target="_blank">Intellectual Property Office</a> under Orphan Works Licence <a href="https://www.orphanworkslicensing.service.gov.uk/view-register/details?owlsNumber=OWLS000075-6" target="_blank">OWLS000075-6</a>.</p>
Lamb's Conduit Passage, Holborn
Strickland, Frances
Strickland, John Henry
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f5fa044cf927e1f0f9a100d0b6e2ac7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uc%7E4ojv%7Ec6QJJHCPii-ulAhlmL3Ba7i6Bju8z3x0XFIM2XqT0QPBQIaCFwcrzpA6miP9ZkYr01KSAbuaOvQEroX7PYm8Uyhrkfm-lYRfPHbOZj2CCyaTIyyOOHv8px3xemAkF6FOERzw7BinguaxP9EJdXaktwoLdEy8D4Rp%7EyOPljPyhh%7El7TGzsOngfk0n8hqWGi7qtAIt7t36Ybftoy2%7EYh3OkwnH3p48TiOIqBqYrib9ZfMVJ-bQEsgt1vM%7EI7uHJRG3q%7E1qvq0NLNRgoZnzr-rM0VvDMt7%7Ecr04rILkBJfs6aldK1Z7E1G9IomOzDzF53avlVEFS5T4v-v-2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e8497e74d27e10e6ec16629316a503eb
PDF Text
Text
THE
PAST AND THE FUTURE,
BY
ISAAC S. VARIAN.
JANUARY, 1868.
*
DUBLIN :
R. D. WEBB & SON, PRINTERS, GT. BRUNSWICK ST.
1869.
�The following short address was delivered before a small body
of persons of kindred religious thought. It was not intended
for publication ; but as the writer has since been called to join
the loved ones to whom he so feelingly refers, and as even a
slight memento of him will be very precious to many who held
him in especial esteem and veneration, as a man of unwonted
purity and nobleness of mind, it has been thought well to print
a few copies for private circulation.
Other members of the same circle have been called from this
earth within the past year, or have had to lament the loss of
those dear to them. May not these pages help to strengthen
and encourage such on the earthly path that yet lies before
them ?
A. W.
Dublin, January, 1869.
�THE PAST AND THE FUTURE,
January, 1868.
“ One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh.
---------- > ♦ ♦ ♦ <----------
Since we last met together, another year has closed upon
us—another year has opened. Once again has our earth in
its ceaseless never-ending whirl, completed its great circle—
swift as the lightning—deep and calm and solemn as a
midnight hell:—another year has formed the connecting
link between two eternities—The Past and The Future.
What a wdrld of solemn meaning there is in the words.
But a while ago and the past was ours—ours to use and to
enjoy; it is gone from us, never, never to return. All those
loves and affections; those kindnesses given and received ;
those high resolves; those manifestations of pure and ex
alted soul, of tender loving nature ; all are but memories—
sweet and beautiful—yet but memories. As time draws
over them his dark and shadowy pall, are they indeed
quite gone from us for ever—nothing done that we might re
touch, nothing said that we might unsay, nothing omitted
that we might now supply? Alas, yes ! The present
moment only is ours; the past is irrevocable. Yet it lives
for ever in memory; it writes its history upon our souls
with an “ iron pen and lead as upon a rock for ever.” Let
us therefore be careful that we use it aright, let our acts
�4
not alone be good, but our very best, our wisest, our most
saintly. Let us throw into them all our thought, all our
energy, all our devotion, for when once done they must
remain ever as they are. No after-thought can alter them,
however thoughtlessly or recklessly they may have been
performed; under whatever impulse of passion, however
instigated, they can never be blotted out. Rarely is the
opportunity granted us even to make amends when we
have done wrong, and even then we do it with sorrow and
humiliation. And let us remember that although irreme
diable they are not therefore inactive. Not alone in
memory do they live ; yea are they not all as seed put into
the ground which will grow. Every act brings another,
aye ten others, we know not how many, after it.
By our acts our minds are formed, and our position, and
that of those around us fixed ; and we must act—life is a
succession of acts—well or ill, -wisely or unwisely, usefully
or injuriously. Life means action. Life is before us to
act in—in time or in eternity. It is no choice of ours.
We are here. We cannot annihilate ourselves, as surely
as we cannot create ourselves. Nay we could not if we
would annihilate one particle of the matter of which even
our bodies are composed; how much less can we destroy
our souls. It is no choice of ours that we are here, and
that we must act; our acts are the seed of future action, of
future joy or future sorrow.
And they are eternal.
Therefore we must get knowledge, so as to act with greater
wisdom. It is a sacred duty, for we cannot be too wise.
Therefore let us cultivate holy and blessed thoughts ; let
us cleanse our minds of everything that is impure and that
is unlovely.
We cannot be too good. Alas, at our very best, with
our greatest care, with our greatest energy, how full of
sorrow and Ttgret are our lives. What a consciousness of
�errors and short comings. How frail, how feeble are we.
We fail in will, and we fail in knowledge, and no prayer
suits us so well as that of the desponding publican—“ God
he merciful to us sinners.” Almost docs the crushed soul
cry out “ The work is too great for me, I cannot under
take it. I cannot act wisely and well. Take back, oh !
Creator, thy great but too perilous gift.” But it cannot be.
We cannot falter or turn back in the great journey—no,
nor even halt on the way. With fear and trembling it
may be, or with a firm and reliant step ; in cloud, and dark
ness, and trouble it may be, or in sunshine and prosperity.
Through well-known beaten paths it may be, dr in devious
and uncertain ways where there is nothing but the inner
light to guide us,—still must we ever onward. Well may
the faint and weary heart fail within us, as we tread that
path on which there must be no faltering, no false step, no
going aside to the right or to the left ; for assuredly if we
do, trouble and tribulation, suffering and sorrow, will
inevitably follow—for such is the decree that has gone
forth from Eternity, that has resounded through the ages.
It is undeviating. It is unavoidable. The wisest, the
most loving, the holiest are not exempted from it. Ye
must always act wisely and well. There is no exception
either in time, place, or person.
This is a great subject, including all of religion, morals,
and philosophy. Let us think well over it. There are
laws of being in all its phases; laws of our material bodies,
of health and disease ; laws of our moral nature ; of our
fellow beings—the society in which we move; and laws of
our spiritual nature—our duties to our souls—of our rela
tions to the Great Author of our being. And the breach
of any one of those laws, any misunderstanding and con
sequent misapplication of them, any want of knowledge of
them whereby they may be set aside or disregarded, is
�followed by the inevitable sentence “ Retribution.” No plea
of ignorance, inadvertence, forgetfulness, will avail us.
Nay, no appeal to higher duty will supersede in the small
est iota the divine laws of nature. Fatigue follows overexertion, in however holy a cause it may be undergone;
disease follows infection, however benevolent or loving the
motive which drew us to the bedside of sickness. In every
instance the punishment is inexorably demanded. Suffer
ing, physical or mental—sorrow, pain, or loss of some sort—
follows every breach, however occasioned, of those varied
and all-pervading laws. How necessary is all our care and
all our thoughtful anxiety.
If, indeed, we must tread this path—this path that is
marked out for us—do this work that is set before us, and
do it always perfectly, always wisely and well, surely^very
nerve should be strung, every power and faculty heightened,
every means and opportunity of gaining knowledge resorted
to, so that we should be prepared in body and mind, ready
for every emergency, like men of God, “ perfect and entire,
wanting nothing.” Alas, how far from such a condition do
we find ourselves ; how feeble and frail; how fickle ; how
ignorant, and short-sighted; how often forgetful or reckless
of our highest dpties !
And for us there is no substitute, no mediator, no atone
ment in the orthodox and usually accepted sense. We are face
to face with God; there is no go-between. We live sur
rounded by His laws, always within His influence. Thankful
are we that God, as we believe Him, is not a hard task
master, expecting perfect service from imperfect creatures.
True obedience is required to all His laws, and their breach is
ever followed by the appointed punishment. Yet is it ever
inflicted as by the ever-loving Father, to warn us of our
danger, or to guide us into life. Anger or vengeance belong
not to Him. His justice requires not satisfaction. It is for
�ourselves alone, and for our soul's good, that His laws
exist; and this His awful law of Retribution, is but one
amongst His many mercies. If wise and good actions were
to bring no happy pleasurable results, or unwise or simple
ones no painful, then indeed would we lose our chief
guide and warning. Better for us to bear the inevitable
penalty, and be lead back again to the path of life.
I will not pursue this subject further—it is too wide
and many-sided—only so far as to indicate the nature of
the Divine dealings. Thus, the rewards and punishments
that flow from obedience or disobedience to the divine laws
participate in the nature of those laws themselves. The
physical have relation to health of body—and the effect of
neglect of them, or defiance from whatever cause, is bodily
pain, weakness, infirmity, death. The moral laws, having
relation to our dealings with our fellow beings, have their
punishment in mental and moral debasement, social exclu
sion and self condemnation ; and the spiritual laws, having
relation to our own soul, and its connection with the great
soul of the universe, have also their glorious rewards and
most terrible penalties.
Of those penalties how shall I speak ? Is there
any bodily anguish so severe as the consciousness of
having lost—aye, though inadvertently—the tender affec
tion or even the confidence of a loved or valued friend—
—of a brother or sister, father or mother, or dear, dear,
relative. How will the recollection of the act haunt
our thoughts by day, and our dreams by night; until
we seek by unwearied assiduity and thoughtfulness to
win back again the affection and esteem of our friend. So
also in our relation to our God, if we feel that we have
polluted our soul, that we have lowered it from its high
position, and that we dare not come into the presence of
our Maker, that at best we can but stand trembling in the
�8
outer court of the temple, and smite upon our breasts,
saying “ God be merciful to me a sinner/’ there is no
anguish equal to our anguish, and we are ready to exclaim
with him of old “ my punishment is greater than I can bear.”
Yet how beautiful and excellent is the retributive law,
which brings us in sorrow and anguish to the footstool of the
throne, and, opening our bleeding heart to our Heavenly
Father, makes us resolve upon renewed and holier life.
So also of the rewards of the spiritual life, of the intense
delight which follows a loving, true, and devoted action.
Who can tell the joy that is concentrated in the expiring
moments of the martyr for truth, for love, or for liberty ;
nay, we none of us can express it, but we all instinctively
feel that we would not exchange its joy or its triumph for
all the glory or the glitter of an earthly conqueror.
Thus have I endeavoured to explain the nature of our
destiny, and the complication and variety of the laws we
are compelled to understand and obey. But it is important
we should view them also in their relation to each other.
No doubt each is obligatory. Retribution follows their
breach or non-observance with equal certainty ; but yet are
they placed one above another. We must, as far as it is in
our power, build up a healthy body, and guard its health
with scrupulous care, but at the slightest whisperings of the
soul, must we put all its warnings aside. We must at the
call of duty overtask its powers, expose it to hardship, stint
its food ; at the call of love, expose it to contagion, weari
ness, anxiety; aye in the cause of truth, humanity, and
progress, peril to the uttermost even its very existence; and
we feel that we can point to acts, which if judged of the
material laws solely, were undoubtedly foolish—examples
of extravagant enthusiasm and infatuation—but judged of
by the spiritual laws, become our highest wisdom. Thus
can we join in the true spirit of the popular song
�9
“ John Brown’s body is mouldering in the clay,
But his soul keeps marching on.”
So say we of all the martyrs who have died for truth and
humanity—sowing the earth -wide with lessons of truth and
heroism ; of love and virtue. They died not in vain
for their own or for their race’s benefit. A little more
knowledge, perhaps a little more insight into human
affairs, would have saved their lives for a time. Others,
perhaps with more wisdom or greater knowledge, may have
doubted or disbelieved the righteousness of their cause or
the justice of their measures. What matters it to them ?
It was their highest light—their loftiest duty. They have
gone through with it “ and their souls keep marching on,”
a countless and innumerable army.
Let us gather up the great subject. Here have we thrust
upon us this glorious and blessed patrimony of life, with its
countless duties, laws and responsibilities; its struggles, its
trials, and its dangers, but oh ! with its gracious blessings,
its loving providences, and its most glorious anticipations.
Who will halt or falter on the way ? Who will not “ be
strong and of a good courage?” The path is clearly marked
and well defined, full of snares and pitfalls for the unwary
and ignorant, and of delusions for the heedless. All the
laws of our being must be attended to, and while “ the
mint and cummin ” of the bodily life are duly regarded
Justice, Mercy, Truth, (the soul’s high watchwords) must
be the touchstones of every thought and action. Then
shall we move gloriously forward in the path of duty with
certain and sure footsteps, with the everlasting arms sup
porting us, and the voice of the Eternal Father ever sound
ing in our ears.
Ours is no Simplon pass of eternal snows, lighted by
dim twilight, with a grim devil ever at our elbow, seeking
how he may entangle our slippery feet—obscuring still
�io
more the paths before us, or hurling us headlong into the
abyss below; while in the dim misty light, many voices
sound in our ears, each one shrieking in his peculiar
key, “No! this is the way;” “This is the true way;”
“This is the infallible light; all others leadeth to destruc
tion, ” and each holds up his little lurid light, and now
and again shouts “We alone shall climb the holy hill; we
alone shall see the celestial city.” No ! our step is ever on
the solid earth, and the sunshine cf, Heaven rests upon it.
We feel the Holiest ever at our side; often do we struggle
on in sad forgetfulness, yet do we know He is ever
there, helping our weaknesses, healing our backslidings,
and ever making our clip run over with blessings, heedless
of our unthankfulness, of our ingratitude, often even of our
grumblings and discontent. No ! our faith is firm, leading,
it is true, from we know not where, commencing from before
our consciousness—but ever lying in pleasant places, ever
resounding with cheering voices and beaming with cheer
ful faces; sometimes overcast with cloud and storm, and
anon aglow with light and love.
Many a trial and hard fought struggle have we gone
through. Each heart knows its own bitterness; yet is
hopeful life strong within us, and we trust we have
gathered strength from sufferings. We would fain bind up
our loins for our eternal journey; and while we add
another mark to the record of our lives, prepare ourselves
with joyful alacrity for whatever the future has in store for
us.
During the last revolution, two beautiful spirits have
passed from us—passed within the veil into the Holy of
Holies ; and while we try and peer beneath the curtain into
the resplendent glories beyond—where they have gone to
meet the noble army of martyrs, the glorious company of
the just made perfect, to join the seraphim who love most,
�11
and cherubim who know most—fain would we see the meet
ing with the other loved ones, who one after another long
before had left our own circle—some in mature years, some
amid abundant cares and useful life, and some in bounding
youth and toddling infancy—fain would we witness the
raptured embrace, the endearing, loving remembrance.
Nay, it is not given us to see. We cannot enter within
that veil with our mortal bodies, yet can we with the soul’s
eyes sometimes see them round about the eternal throne,
ever circling joyfully, not without song, not without holy
work in everlasting jubilee. But surely, wre hear some scorner whisper in our ears, “ How know you that we live
again 1 What you call revelation is but old wives’ tales—
give us facts—facts—all else is worthless.” Ah ! friend,
one great stupendous fact has been pealing in our ears since
childhood, has been about our path and about our bed, has
beset us behind and before, from infancy up to manhood—
through it we live, and move, and have our being. Oh! it
has been very bountiful to us. It has given us thought
and affection, and hope, and memory. It has, science tells
us, moulded this beautiful world myriads of years ago, far
longer than thought can reach ; has taken it atom by atom,
and minute crystal by crystal, until through ceaseless
never-ending change this beauteous world has been produ
ced, every operation carefully, thoughtfully prepared for—
never missing of its purpose, never failing—nothing forget
ting, nothing misplaced, nothing wasted or lost, an undevi
ating movement onward—onward through all ages—from
glory to glory. Do we not see it even in our own short
lives ?
Shall we, then, separate our loved ones from the same
kindly Providence which we feel within us and in every
atom around us, animate and inanimate 1 Their bodies may
moulder in the ground. They were beautiful, but they
�12
were of the earth, and have returned to their beautiful
mother. But their souls cannot die. Their love, their
truth, their hope, their faith, their devotion—these live for
ever. They are entities. They have life. Their souls keep
marching "bn ; and when one by one we too are called to
tread the darksome valley, we shall, as we hope, tread fear
lessly, aye joyously. We shall feel “ our Father’s right
hand in the darkness, and be lifted up and strengthened
we shall hear His soft kind voice sounding in our ears
“ It is I, be not afraid
and with trusting fearless hand,
shall we lift that mystic awful veil, and stand with Him
within the Holy of Holies.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The past and the future
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varian, Isaac S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Dublin
Collation: 12 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Introductory paragraph signed 'A.W.' From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R.D. Webb & Son
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5175
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The past and the future), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
God
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a3f4b1d919a7ef247f92b0499e59429.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=n9FN09qMJGLSmPT8kBYuuHD1ndINa51uZ7R0%7EN1l3%7E2%7EPVTDCvJU5qnQYadO-kNKVjpDOm1CucazcvXobN0kBE8I1Gk4X-x8%7EejS%7ElWSzS5CVxkunHSzv4fvAm8kr568-l1ZpWWkxl-NBGCQH1jWAWo-KyMy-Sal3NvWhJF7%7EpkRs5qgzznYhxiZgFnEzaKuojrMuQlKiFeRkgU-I5zROVuZQpf3QQ-ewOzIUT7blsDi3gP4rwAot8sHWpyDEnCI4FTfAz-6fLq27jP%7EGXy0n-BhRnlZLiO3Oc7SfyCS%7EplBCNqLOMBR5n5O0YHtfPkazAtaax330uElKcnPVTkg4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9d10d5d9943bc37d8a3ca8c9f2e3988d
PDF Text
Text
METHOD OF EDUCATION:
A. 1ST ADDRESS
INTRODUCTORY TO THE SESSION 1859-60
♦
OF THE
ST. LOUIS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
BY
J. H. WATTERS, M.D.,
Professor of Physiology and Medical Jurisprudence.
ST. LOUIS:
GEORGE KNAPP & CO., PRINTERS.
1 8 59.
��METHOD OF EDUCATION:
An Address Introductory to the Session 1859-60 of the St. Louis Medical
College. By J. H. WATTERS, M.D., Professor of Physiology and Med
ical Jurisprudence.
Gentlemen,—Under favorable auspices we meet to-night to
celebrate the opening of our eighteenth session, and in behalf of
the faculty I welcome you as students to these halls dedicated to
medical education.
The ardent aspirations of the young of a country to fit them
selves for useful and honorable activities, brings happiness not
only to the individual, but secures life, intelligence and refine
ment to society—stability, power and influence to the state. It is
this which engenders and fosters the very vitality, spirit and soul
of a community. General society — yes, our whole country—is
interested in this assemblage of young men gathered hither from
the various parts of our extensive and prosperous valley, all in
spired with a common desire to be enabled to render a reasonable
answer to the problem of life. Some answer, whether it be rea
sonable or not, must be given by every man. It is not optional,
but the necessity is implied in the very existence of a rational be
ing : it is not a request, but an imperative demand. Should one
think to avoid it by silence or refusal to act, he deceives himself;
for his very silence and supineness become contempt, and contain
already his answer.
Man is by nature most munificently gifted; but his character and
activities are the apswer he renders to the question, “ what will he
do with it”—with his life, his mind, his reason, his image of God?
The various grades of characters, from the lowest besotted dregs
of society to the highest and noblest men, present merely the dif
ferent uses made of nature’s high gifts. Consider now
“ The wisest of the sages of the earth
That ever from the stores of reason drew
Science, and truth, and virtue’s dreadless tone
�6
and now reflect upon this solemn fact, that
“ Him, every slave now dragging through the filth
Of some corrupted city his sad life,
Pining with famine, swoln with luxury,
Blunting the keenness of his spiritual sense
With narrow schemings and unworthy cares,
Or, madly rushing through all violent crime,
To move the deep stagnation of his soul,—
Might imitate and equal.”
We hear in our youth too much cant about “ poor weak human
nature, the flesh, and the deviland those who would throw
upon the shoulders of these imaginary personalities the necessary
and legitimate results of individual slothfulness, inactivity, and re
fusal to use what has been given, would obliterate what little of
the image of God is yet visible in humanity, and would put a stop
to progress—not by bold and open opposition, which would be ac
companied with corresponding reaction, but by smothering and
destroying the already enfeebled energy and spirit.
That each individual may use his talents and powers in the best
and most reasonable way possible, is the object of all education,
whether literary, professional, scientific, or religious. In other
words, the object of education is to enable man, in his activities,
to harmonize with the Infinite, the Universal, the Absolute. It is
only as his activities do harmonize and thus cooperate with the
Infinite, that man is emancipated and exalted; while in so far as
they are discordant, man militates against God, and in the con
flict is always vanquished, degraded and enslaved. This proposi
tion is universal, and extends in its application through the whole
range of human activities. And, gentlemen, as you propose to as
sume the responsible vocation of physicians, the object of your
professional studies is that you may be enabled so to act upon
physical nature as to cure disease and relieve suffering. This,
too, can be done only by cooperating with the universal and abso
lute in perfect obedience to the physical laws; which laws are to
us the outward expression or representation, in space and time, of
universal reason. If our acts are not in obedience to these laws,
our medications, like the prayers of the wicked, are an abomina
tion. It is a common saying that nature cures disease, and that
the physician’s province is to assist nature. While this expression
admits of very liberal interpretations, yet literally it is most false.
Man under no circumstances assists nature; this is neither his
province nor prerogative : it is his highest privilege to use nature.
But how are we to use nature ? By what method are we enabled
�7
to take advantage of her laws ? In other words, what relation has
education to success, science to art? This is the question I pro
pose discussing to-night; and while I address you, gentlemen,
especially, as medical students, the method by which you will be
enabled to attain the objects of your calling, is the method of
every human activity whatever—of your social and political rela
tions no less than professional.
As the object of all education is to enable man to harmonize his
activities with the Infinite, the Universal, the Absolute, this object
can be attained only so far as we know the Infinite, the Universal,
the Absolute. I am aware that there are those high in authority
who contend that the capacity for this knowledge is not vouch
safed to man. If this be so, then indeed are we most miserably
circumstanced. What! here—possessing hopes, desires, aspira
tions, longings for something better—condemned to disappoint
ment and ignoble defeat upon every side, except in so far as our
activities are in harmony with the Infinite, and yet having no ca
pacity to know that Infinite by whom we are judged and to whom
we are subject! This can not be so: else man could not adapt
means to ends; the result of his spontaneity would be altogether
accidental; his fortune would not be in his own hands. It is not so:
the development of science condemns it; our railroads, telegraphs,
and manufactures, and all the arts, condemn it; our social, politi
cal and religious relations condemn it; all culture and progress
condemn it. As the result of every human activity is determined
by its relation to the Infinite, the relation which any people bear
to the Infinite is expressed not only in their moral, social, political
and religious condition, but also as well in their machinery, their'
manufactures, their agriculture, their navigation, their architecture,
their painting, their sculpture, their poetry, their ornaments, their
dress, in all their activities and in every expression of their sponta
neity. All advancement and progress of the individual, of society,
of humanity, is proof that we have the faculty to know the Abso
lute to which we are subject, as all success is but an expression of
this knowledge, and a resulting harmony between our activities
and the Infinite.
But man is guided in his activities by his intelligence, and mind
is in its very nature active, spontaneous, self-determinate. Know
ledge, therefore, must be the determination of the mind itself, else
the spontaneity and self-determination of mind would be super
seded and abrogated by knowledge, which is absurd. Consequent
ly, the mind must possess the faculty of determining itself harmo
niously with the Universal and Absolutewhether you agree to
�8
designate this power of the mind thus to determine itself, as know
ledge of the Universal and Absolute, or not, matters nothing, so far
as the question under discussion is concerned—By what method
is man enabled to harmonize his activities with the Infinite, the
Universal, the Absolute ? This faculty is reason. Reason being
one and absolute to man, to nature, and to God, it is most appa
rent, that, so far as our activities harmonize with reason, they must
in that very fact harmonize with the Universe and with God.
Therefore, the method by which the object of all education is to
be attained, is the method by which we are enabled to harmonize
our activities with .Reason. This proposition, gentlemen, embod
ies the central idea which I hope to present to you to-night in an
intelligible manner. You yill observe the important point, that
in this proposition we have substituted Jieason for the Infi
nite, the Universal, the Absolute. I know full well, that, in
making this substitution here in a public lecture, I am in no little
danger of being understood as making man equal with God. But
if there were no danger here, there would be little or no occasion
for this lecture ; and if, on account of this danger, I had chosen
another theme, or had treated this in a manner to conform to the
more general and popular notions, I would in that have been hug
ging my own shackles; whereas my theme this night is, How are
we freed, emancipated, exalted? A just man has not his freedom
curtailed by just laws in so far as he cognizes justice, because the
law unto himself frees him from the external laws; that is, the ex
ternal laws cease to bind and restrain him just in so far as from his
own self-determination he would fulfil them. Just so, and for the
same reason, a reasonable man has not his freedom annulled by
the laws of reason in so far as he knows reason. As one in his own
spontaneity determines himself according to reason, he ceases to
be restrained by the external laws of reason. If all moral and
physical laws be laws of reason, then indeed can man be delivered
from the dominion of necessity only so far as reason in him be
comes self-conscious. We believe in Divine Omnipotence; that
in the Infinite “we live, and move, and have our beingthat with
out Him we can not think a good thought or do a good act; and
yet we believe that man is free and justly accountable. The truth
and consistency of these two positions is all I contend for in the
substitution I have made of Reason for the Infinite, the Absolute,
the Universal. He who believes in human freedom can not but
believe that man possesses the faculty of determining liimsflf in
harmony with the Universal; for in so far as man is determined
by anywhat not himself, he is necessitated and not free. He who
�9
believes in human freedom and also in Divine Omnipotence and
Omniscience, must believe these twq positions consistent; unless,
indeed, he be himself a slave, clinging in blind fanaticism to the
very chains which bind him. And what does he mean by consist
ency except their mutual harmony with reason? And when he
acknowledges that two truths must be consistent, in this necessity
he recognizes reason as the universal umpire, authoritative to man,
to nature, and to God.
If, therefore, the object of all education is to enable us to har
monize our activities with reason, then the method we seek is the
method of reason becoming self-conscious, or, in other words, it is
the method of reason coming to a knowledge of itself. This is
perfectly clear, that in order that we may harmonize our activities
with reason we must know reason. But the reason alone can
know reason; consequently we can know reason only as the reason
becomes self-conscious. Did you ever see a little child held before
a looking-glass ? Through its senses it cognizes the phenomenon
and through its understanding it is convinced of duality,—it peeps
behind the glass fully expecting to find another child. But as it
comes to know itself, with apparent rapture it recognizes itself
in the image. Not the senses, nor yet the understanding, but only
reason can know and comprehend reason. The spontaneity of man
may be under the dominion of the senses, or of the understanding,
or of the passions; but as these are all finite and related to the in
finite only in and through reason, when they guide, the blind lead
the blind and both fall into the ditch together. But when oui*
spontaneity is guided by reason, the outward expressions of this
spontaneity—our activities, our works—must harmonize with rea
son, with nature, and with God. The great problem of humanity,
therefore, is to identify our spontaneity in each, every and all of
its various possibilities with self-conscious reason. Our question,
therefore, as to the method by which the object of education is to
be attained is now reduced to this form: What is the method of
the reason in becoming self-conscious ?
As we are students of nature, and as in this department especial
ly we hope to assist in the great struggle of humanity, and to leave
the world the better of our having lived, (if this be not our ambi
tion we are unworthy of humanity,) I shall seek this method only
as expressed in the more developed sciences. And we may hope
to get some insight thus, because Science is the formal recognition
of reason. Do not allow yourselves to anticipate me here, and to
object in your thoughts to this position, that the physical sciences
treat of nature and her laws, and, consequently, that a knowledge
�10
of these laws can be obtained only through observation and ex
periment. Be patient one moment and we will consider this matter
together. It is admitted that observation and experiment are ne
cessary conditions to a knowledge of nature and her laws, but you
must admit also that you neither see, feel, taste, nor smell the physi
cal sciences. It is true you put ores and compounds into the
crucible, but you neither put therein nor take hence the science of
chemistry; it is true certain angles and distances must be obtained
by observation, but the transit instrument and the telescope are not
wonderfully devised machines for the manufacture of the science
of astronomy; you may examine and peep, but the science is not
there—you can not get it thus. What, then, is the relation between
observation and science ? This question is sub judice, and until
decided it might be well to suspend our anticipated objection.
Physical science is rendered possible only in and through the
identity of the laws of nature and the laws of thought. This is
a self-evident proposition; for if nature could in her mode of
action be whimsical or unreasonable, where, I ask, would be the
criterion whereby we could know nature or determine her mode
of action ? There would be none, and we would necessarily be ut
terly in the dark. If there be physical science at all, therefore, the
laws of nature must be identical with the laws of thought, and
Science must be the recognized identity. The senses do not and
can not give us science; observation and experiment can only give
phenomena. Physical science exists only so far as reason has come
to a recognition of itself in the phenomenal. That is, so far as we
have science reason must have become the criterion whereby na
ture is recognized as laws of thought. But reason can become
the criterion only in so far as it becomes self-conscious, or as it
knows itself. Consequently, we may hope by an examination and
careful analysis of the sciences, to learn something of the method
whereby the object of all education is to be attained; in other
words, of the method of reason in becoming self-conscious or in
recognizing itself. Though we may thus only obtain a partial in
sight, yet even this is not to be altogether despised.
As mathematics is more developed and more generally under
stood than any other science, we will direct our attention to it
especially. And let it be understood that our object here is not
to reduce all science to what has been termed the mathematical
method, but rather to seek in the mathematics the method of the
reason in becoming self-conscious, as all science (mathematics, of
course, included) has been shown to be the reason coming to know
and recognize itself. As my object, as a teacher, is always more to
�11
excite thought than to amuse,—to draw out the mind rather than
to instil dogmas, I hope you will excuse me for selecting for your
consideration a subject requiring so much study. My excuse is
that the principles involved in this subject, though they may seem
abstract, are most practical, forming as they do the very foundation
of all knowledge and all success.
Mathematics as a science starts with certain primary proposi
tions, which are divided usually into two classes—Definitions and
Axioms. But what mean these propositions ? whence came they,
and where is the authority for the use made of them in mathemat
ics ? If we can obtain correct answers to these questions, we will
have approached very near what we seek: but do not be uneasy, I do
not intend to lead you over the paths already well worn by the Sen
sationalists and Idealists. First let me call your attention to this most
important consideration— That there can be no existence, law, mode
of action, or phenomenon, without limitations; for all these im
ply determinations, and there can be no determinations without lim
itations. This is self-evident and absolute; think of it one moment.
There can be no this and that without a difference, and there can be
no difference without limitations. To vision, pure light would be
equivalent to pure darkness; there can be no seeing without a
mingling of the two—without shades or colors. Power is equiva
lent to no power without resistance; you can not lift yourself by
the hair; as Archimedes could not find a pou std, or place to fix
his machine, he could not move the earth. The equation sign
stands forever between absolute motion and no motion; the an
cients did not recognize the parallel lines, and they attached the
predicate no motion to the earth. And our physical sciences (so
called) now are mostly legerdemain to induce the student, by com
plicating the process, to believe he has succeeded in lifting him
self ; in lieu of the earth, physical science is placed on the back of
a tortoise. As there could be nothing to know, therefore, without
limitations, so there could be no knowing. As all things and phe
nomena depend upon the union of opposites, as of motion and rest,
of power and resistance, of light and darkness; so science is based
upon the union of opposites necessarily. As what is to be known
has its existence in this union, evidently the knowing must be bas
ed upon it. Now pure space, like pure light, is without limits, and
consequently is without determination. There is no this, as deter
mined from that; there is no here and no there; no outside and
no inside; no circumference, and no centre. As, for vision pure
light must be united with its opposite—darkness, so the science
of geometry must be based upon the union of the pure idea space
�12
and its opposite. Now, what stands opposed to space as darkness
is opposed to light? You at once recognize it as the point. The
point is not space, but it is related to space as its opposite, as its
negation, as its limitation. We are now prepared to understand
the meaning of the Definitions upon which geometry is based.
These definitions are the limitations of space by its opposite—the
point;—the motion of a point may be said to generate a line; the
motion of a line, to generate a surface; the motion of a surface, to
generate a solid. So, while pure space is without limitations or
determinations, yet united with its opposite we have definitions as
the bases of science. We now have a here and a there, a this and
a that. By this union we have a straight line, a curved line, a tri
angle, a square, a polygon, a circle, an ellipse, a parabola, an hy
perbola, a polyedron, a prism, a parallelopipedon, a sphere, an ellip
soid, &c. &c.
But before investigating further the meaning of the definitions
of mathematics, we must investigate whence they came; a know
ledge of their origin will contribute to the understanding of their
nature. You are aware that many contend that all our knowledge,
including of course mathematical definitions and axioms, is deri
ved from sensation; and that others contend, no less confidently,
for the existence of innate ideas, and for this origin of all know
ledge. It is not pertinent to our present object to meddle with
either of these systems. We have seen that all determination is
through limitation; that is, if all limitation were removed from
any thing, all determination would be removed; and what would
be left would be equivalent to nought—is nothing—the thing
would no longer have existence. But do you say something would
still be left ? Think one moment; your something left being with
out determinations, wherein, I ask, is its difference from nothing ?
You call it something, I call it nothing, and you can not apply a
predicate to your something which I can not also apply to my
nothing; if you can, then your “something left” has limitations
which is contrary to the hypothesis. It is perfectly apparent,
therefore, if we know not the limitations, we know not the thing;
and that, in so far as we know the limitations, we know the thing
in itself—the thing having an existence only in these limitations.
Therefore, if things in themselves were not related to us, we could
never know them; if there were no bond of union between nature
and ourselves, all things in nature by which we are surrounded
would be to us as though they were not,—we would be uncon
scious of their existence. Consequently, if we know nature at all,
(and no one will be likely to deny this,) there must be some means
�13
of our knowing or becoming conscious of the limitations of things
in themselves. But how can the mind know or become conscious
of that which is outside of itself? This is the difficult but most
important question. If we admit the duality of nature and mind,
must we admit that the mind can get outside of itself to know na
ture ? This would be a manifest absurdity, for nothing can get
outside of itself. Then, to admit a knowledge of nature, are we
compelled to do away with the duality, and to become out and out
materialists on the one hand, or idealists on the other ? I think
not. Then, if the mind can not get out of itself, how can the mind
know nature if duality be admitted ? I think I see one, and only
one possible solution of this problem; for, in admitting that the
mind can not get out of itself, we admit that our knowledge of na
ture comes from the mind knowing itself. This is the problem:
Admitting the duality of nature and mind, and that the mind can
not get out of itself, how can the mind know nature ?
It is admitted that we have some knowledge of nature, and, con
sequently, that there must be some relation between mind and
the external world. Now if we admit duality, the only possible
relation is that of mutual limitation; that is, in so far as nature and
mind are distinct and dual, they must reciprocally exclude and ne
gate each other. And in so far as they are distinct, the only pos
sible relation they can have on the side of their duality must be
xthe mutual limitation through this reciprocal exclusion and nega
tion. This is the only possible relation upon the admission of dual
ity, because neither could get outside of itself, which would of
course be necessary for any other relation. Consequently, this re
lation, so far from requiring the denial, is in virtue of the duality;
and, as this is the only possible relation consistent with duality, this
must be the avenue to a knowledge of nature; or else, we must de
ny either the duality, or, the possibility of such knowledge. These
three are the only possible alternatives:—You must either do away
with the duality and become materialists on the one side, or ideal
ists on the other; or else, admitting the duality, you must deny
the possibility of a knowledge of nature; or else, admitting both
the duality and a possibility of a knowledge of nature, you must
find in the mutual exclusion and limitation the condition of this
knowledge. Endorsing this last alternative, we must endeavor to see
how nature and mind mutually excluding and limiting each other, is
the avenue to a knowledge of nature. We are not now concerned
with the inquiry how nature and mind limit each other, but our
present inquiry starts with the fact that they must limit each other,
upon the admission of duality. This is the solution: Nature and
�14
mind mutually excluding and limiting each other, in so far as the
mind cognizes its own limitation, in that act, being limited by na
ture, it recognizes the limitation of nature. To illustrate: suppose
A and B own adjacent farms; A, in knowing the limitations of his,
knows, in that very fact, the limitations of B’s so far as they mutu
ally limit each other; just so, the mind, in knowing its own limita
tions, knows the limitations of nature so far as they exclude and
limit each other. Thus the mind knows nature in knowing itself.
This is the only possible solution; but we need no other as this is in
every respect most satisfactory, containing within itself evidence
of its truth, and is therefore worthy of all acceptation, even though
we were not forced to adopt it, or else either materialism or ideal
ism, or the doctrine that all knowledge of nature is impossible.
But, at first glance, all this may seem to have little to do with the
Definitions of mathematics. Upon reflection, however, I suspect it
will be found to have somewhat to do not only with mathematics
but with our political, social and even religious condition, with the
steam engine and weaver’s shuttle and doctor’s pill, and even with
our bread and butter.
But to continue;—all knowledge, therefore, including mathema
tics and the natural sciences, is the mind knowing itself. If this
be so, you may ask, how do we know that nature is actual and
real? You may say, “upon the admission of the duality of nature
and mind, and, that they mutually limit each other, it is clear
enough that the mind, in knowing itself, knows nature in so far as
they thus limit each other; but, if the mind only knows itself, how
do you get the duality ? How does the mind know that an actual
nature stands over against it limiting it; and that these limitations
of itself, which only it knows, have an external condition at all ?”
This knowledge comes through sensation, which gives us a con
sciousness of objectivity. This will be clear, I think, if you will
call to mind a point already discussed at some length. As we have
seen that all existence and phenomena depend upon the union of
opposites, as of motion and rest, of power and resistance, of light
and darkness, so all consciousness implies duality. Consequently,
consciousness in the line of our spontaneity—that is, a limitation
where we know there is no internal limitation—gives us objectiv
ity authoritatively. The primary condition of our knowledge of
the existence of nature, as opposed to and as limiting mind, is mo
tion. But I must not dwell upon this part of my subject.
On the other hand again, one disposed to sensationalism will ob
ject,—“this is all nonsense to talk about the mind knowing nature
by knowing itself,—I see and feel objects themselves, but I do not
�15
know the mind,—I can not see it!” I grant you your position fully—
that you see and feel objects, and that you know mind very little;
probably if you could only get it under a microscope, or into a cruci
ble, you would know it better. But I thank you for your objection
just here in close juxtaposition with the one of the idealist already
considered; as we have to steer here between Scylla and Charybdis,
we must keep in mind their localities. In reply to idealism just now,
it was maintained that objectivity is given authoritatively in sensa
tion, in that all consciousness implies duality,—the union of op
posites. This seems to the senses to approach dangerously close
to you, O voracious Charybdis! who would draw all knowledge
into th£ abyss of sensationalism. You say you do not know mind,
but that you know nature, objects, matter, which are given in
sensation. Hence you peep at nature; you make observations and
experiments; you turn her round to make her present herself to
your senses on as many sides as possible; probably you may use
a microscope to assist the senses; you note down very carefully
the results—what you see; you classify this and call it Physical
Science ! And to be so lucky as to see something fir§t, say a new
fossil, and to describe it and classify it, entitles one to endless fame
in the history of Science ! Can it be that now, in the latter half of
the nineteenth century, such a gross and bungling counterfeit is
palmed upon humanity so currently! You say you know little or
nothing of mind because you can not see it,—this I have granted
without the slightest mental reservation; but you say you know
nature and objects around you because you see them and feel
them! Hold! you feel the fire and say it is hot; you see the rose
and say it is red; you taste sugar and say it is sweet. But the
sugar is not sweet, the rose is not red, the fire is not hot; these are
but sensations which you objectify and put into things which you
say you know in sensation. Now you must acknowledge that you
know not the things you imagine you see, and you say that you
know not mind as you can not see it;—what, then, do you know ?
Your physical science is no science, containing as it does the two
factors—the things seen and the individual seeing—most hetero
geneously mixed up, neither known, both undetermined, and one
of them (the individual seeing) extremely variable. Call this
Science! It is mockery, it is trifling with common sense to palm
such stuff off as science.
We have seen that the mind can know nature only in knowing
itself, and, consequently, that the mind can know nature only in so
far as they mutually limit each other. Now the grossest sensa
tionalist acts upon this position; for when he says the rose is red,
�16
that sugar is sweet, that fii’e is hot, he actually makes his own
limitations in sensation the limitations of things; and the more re
fined of the class who say, “we can know nothing of nature except
the phenomena,” in this fully endorse the same position. The real
difference between these and me is not here therefore, but rather
in this, that they would restrict mind to sensation, or at most to
the understanding. They, no less than I, acknowledge their own
limitations as all they know of nature or indeed can know. But
it may be asked,—“ if the limitations of mind are the means of our
knowing things, or all of nature that we can know, are we not right
in objectifying our sensations?” Certainly we are right; if we
wished to, we could not help seeing the rose as red, feeling* the fire
as hot, and tasting sugar as sweet. But I do most solemnly pro
test against the currency of this, or of any classification or gen
eralization of what is given in sensation, as science either of na
ture or mind. It is not science, because the mind does not Tcnow
and recognize itself in what is given in sensation. It cognizes
only the sensation, the feeling, the redness, the heat, the sweet
ness, &c., which are cognized as well by beasts; for no doubt
they see the grass as green and feel the fire as hot as well as we.
In the language of Scripture,—“The ox knoweth his owner, and
the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth
not consider.” The mere cognition of phenomena is not know
ledge either of the thing or of mind; and although phenomena are
an essential condition of physical science, it is a gross blunder to
suppose we can get knowledge or science by an accumulation,
classification, and generalization of no-knowledge, no-science. You
can not hang your coat on the shadow of a nail; it will not sustain
it, try it as often as you please. From all we have said, it follows
most manifestly that, as the thing exists only in its limitations as
we have seen, and as the limitations of nature are the limitations of
reason, physical science can only exist in this,—the reason becoming
self-conscious and recognizing itself in what is given in sensation.
This is a most difficult process, but it alone is worthy of humanity
and of our highest ambition; the reason in becoming self-conscious
pulls down the “wall of partition,” and admits us into the very
presence of the Infinite, the Universal, the Absolute. It alone can
make us free indeed, not by doing away with the external law, but
by enabling us in our own spontaneity to fulfil the law; which is the
object of all education, and should be of all human aspiration.
But, as we have seen, the mind can not get out of itself, and yet,
what has been given in sensation you have thrown from you and
already put in the thing, or rather, have made it the thing. IIow
�17
are you to get it back into mind again, to enable the reason to re
cognize itself in it? It is absolutely necessary, as you see, to get in
terms of the reasoning the limitations given first in sensation. The
only possibility left now for science, is for the reason to go out and
limit itself by the limitations of sense made object. To illustrate:
suppose you wish to get a cast containing the limitations or form
of a given object; you first take an impression in plaster; you now
make it the object of 'which you take an impression in a given
metal; you now have in metal the limitations of the original ob
ject. So you first take an impression of nature in the terms of ex
ternal sense, you now make this the object and take an impression
of it in terms of the reason. You now have, not science, but the
first condition of science; you have the object in terms of the rea
son,—but the science is the reason coming to know and recognize
itself in this its own object. As the thing in itself exists in those
same limitations which you now have in terms of the reason, the
reason in knowing itself in its own object, knows the thing in itself.
The object of reason thus obtained is always an idea limited by its
opposite,—as we have already seen the “definitions” upon which
geometry is based consist of the idea Space limited by its opposite.
Now we see whence the definitions come, and understand clearly
what they are. We now have some insight, I think, back to where
science must begin, if it begin at all. The definitions upon which
geometry is based, are, in distinction from the objects of sense, ob
jects of reason : they are ideal, not sensual. The words, point, line,
triangle, &c., are but signs to represent to the understanding the lim
itations of the idea; consequently, when I say a triangle is a figure
bounded by three straight lines, I give only a verbal definition of the
word triangle; but the word defined is only a sigu of the Conception.
So when I draw a triangle on the blackboard, the diagram is only a
sensual representation. The real, which the verbal definition and
diagram represent, is the ideal object—the object of reason. There
are many who think they study mathematics, who never grasp the
real definitions, but only the shadow as given in sensations. All these
ever reach are forms and rules. When they get a little older and
dabble in philosophy, they tell us mathematics is based upon hy
potheses and even absurdities; for, say they, “nothing can have
position which has neithei- length, breadth, nor thickness, as the
the mathematician predicates of & point.” This only shows that
the objector himself does not see the point, and it is to be feared
he never will see it, because not given in sensation.
The science of mathematics, in all its various branches, from the
determining the product of two and two, to the highest achieve
�18
ments of Newton or LaPlace, is constituted of the expressions of
the reason in the act of coming to know itself in the various limit
ations of the idea Quantity. This definition follows from what has
already been sufficiently insisted upon, but I will try to make it
even more clear. The data of every mathematical problem must
limit the problem, or it can not be solved. This involves, if clearly
understood, the most that I have said to-night. Every standard
measure of real things must be given both in sensation and in rea
son ; that is, it must be both cognized in sensation and recognized
by the reason. For instance, when I say a foot is one straight line
twelve inches long, here the straight line and numbers one and
twelve are recognized limitations of reason, whereas foot and inch
are cognized limitations of objects. All the standard measures are
such as as are both cognized and recognized together, and hence
used with the least possible effort. But all which is necessary is
that the data should limit both the thing and the idea. Hence, on
the side of sensation I may use inch, foot, yard, pole, or any stand
ard, provided I cognize it; so on the side of reason I am not
restricted to straight line, but may use triangle, square, circle, &c.,
&c., provided they can be both cognized and recognized. Hence
you see the application of the whole of mathematics to physical
science in regard to its quantitative determinations. Though I
can not measure the height of a steeple with a straight line, a foot
stick, I can measure it with a triangle. Here the cognition and
recognition are not together, and apparently in the same act of
mind, as when a foot rule is used, since we can not recognize the
triangle in all its properties by a simple act of the reason. Hence,
when we get the base line, or one side of the triangle, in units of
feet, and the angles in units of degrees—all of which are both cog
nized and recognized—we neglect for a time the side of sensation,
that the reason may recognize itself in the triangle; and when we
thus recognize the other leg of the triangle in units—terms Of the
reason—we then put back these units into feet from which we took
them, and now both cognize and recognize the height of the stee
ple at once; that is, we know it. This is an illustration of every
application of mathematics to physical science.
But the different sciences may involve different ideas; quantity
is not the only idea involved in the physical sciences. The ancient
Greeks did not, for obvious reasons, succeed in developing a science
of other ideas as they did of the idea quantity, and with us other
ideas have but little to do with assumed knowledge, with sci
ence. We do not recognize the Platonic “Idea” as the very
life of all science, of all knowledge and all success; and it is
�19
fashionable in these days to declare, both implicitly and expli
citly, that the Organon of Bacon has superseded the Organon of
Aristotle. As both sensation and reason are essential to physical
science—the one to give the condition, the other the essence and
life—it is difficult to comprehend how the one can supersede the
other, except upon the assumption that reason is nonessential to
science. But if, as we have seen, science consists in the reason
knowing and recognizing itself, then this judgment can be but a
sign of ourselves, that sense has superseded reason in us;—
“ Doth the harmony
In the sweet lute-strings belong
To the purchaser, who, dull of ear, doth keep
The instrument ? True, she hath bought tjhz right
To strike it into fragments,—yet no art /
To wake its silvery tones, and melt with/bliss
Of thrilling song! Truth to the wise exists,
And beauty for the feeling heart.”
I now find that many points are left untouched which I intend
ed to discuss, and which would be necessary to give unity to the
subject; but I find time will not permit, and I must hasten to a
conclusion. Let me remark, however, that Axioms are but expres
sions in terms of the understanding of the living-force of the rea
son of each individual. How erroneous, therefore, is the definition
that an axiom is that which all men receive as absolutely true. An
axiom is an absolute and universal truth, but it may not be recog
nized by all men. If I had sufficient energy of thought or living
force of self-conscious reason, the proposition that the square of the
hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two
sides of a right-angled triangle, would become an axiom; but as I
have not this, and as the mind can not transcend itself, I have to
use the lever of method. But as all this is but the carrying out of
what has already been said, I need not dwell upon it. This living
energy of reason was so great in Plato, Shakspeare, and Goethe,
that they could lift greater weights directly than most men could
with all the appliances of levers and pullies.
We have seen that, as the mind can not get out of itself, (and
this position is implicitly admitted by all, though it may be expli
citly denied,) it can know only through a knowledge of itself. We
have seen that we can know physical nature even, only because
nature exists in its limitations, and these limitations are identical
with the limitations of mind or the laws of thought. And God being
Infinite Mind, in whose image we are created, the mind knows God
only in so far as it becomes self-conscious or knows itself. “ God
�20
is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spi
rit and in truth.” But we have seen, also, that the mind can know
itself only in self-conscious reason, and that reason hence is the
only criterion of truth. It is sad to reflect how little self-conscious
reason there is in the world, in humanity. Though reason is the
only criterion of truth, and it alone can exalt us and free us, by en
abling us to unite and cooperate with the Universal and Absolute,
yet, do we not see this our only hope condemned and upbraided
even in the pulpit, driven from the state, and trampled down and
spit upon by politics, and treated little better by science, so-called ?
When this is gone, what have we left? Nothing but individual
tape-strings! Oh, yes! they all talk loudly about the “ Higher
Law,” and say “ do right! do right I” And you ask them, what is
the Higher Law? what is right?—and they immediately and with
the most impudent assurance present their individual tape-strings,
and commence straightway measuring! measuring! But by what
authority are these stamped? By the senses, the feelings, the pas
sions. But each individual has a different standard stamped by
the same authority, except where what is called education induces
many to use the same string. And what power is umpire in these
irrepressible conflicts thus inevitably induced ? God is out of the
question, as reason has been dethroned, apd nothing is left but
physical force. Hence family, political and religious discord and
strife—one tape-string in conflict with another; no self-conscious
reason, no knowledge of the Absolute. If you direct your mind
through the whole range of human activities, you find labels ac
cording to these tape-strings stuck on every thing—the most sa
cred no less than secular. And this is called Knowledge! Truth!
Higher Law! And Education, in all its various departments, is,
in the main, the drilling into the young these lifeless forms, these
shams, these midnight apparitions, these labels arranged in order
to suit the easy method of the sensational understanding. Oh! it
is sad to behold how grossly humanity is engulfed into the senses.
We boast that we are the lords of creation; which means, that we
can bridle the horse, and that we will ultimately exterminate the
lion: for, the spirit of humanity is indicated, not in the question,
how shall we use those gifts to us which have not been vouchsafed
to beasts ? but rather, how shall we make up our deficit in beastly
gifts ?—“ What shall we eat ? what shall we drink ? and where
withal shall we be clothed?”
�St. Louis Medical College,
November 1st, 1859.
’
Prof. J. H. Watters.
Dear Sir,
At a meeting held by the Class, J. T. Marsh in the
chair, it was unanimously resolved, that a committee be appointed for the pur- •
pose of requesting from you permission to publish your Introductory Address,
delivered before the Class, in College Hall, on the evening of October 31st.
Hoping that the above resolve may receive your approbation, a favorable reply
will meet with the thanks of the Class, and of yours,
Respectfully,
J. L. WILCOX,
GRATZ A. MOSES,
CHAS. KNOWER,
JOHN THOMPSON,
J. C. HICKERSON.
St. Louis, Nov. 2, 1859.
Dear Sirs,
The manuscript of my lecture is at your service ; please present
to the Class my acknowledgment of the compliment,
And believe me, as ever,
Your attached friend,
J. H. WATTERS.
To Messrs. Wilcox, Moses, Knower, Thompson, Hickerson.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Method of education: an address introductory to the session 1859-60 of the St. Louis Medical College
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watters, J. H.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: St. Louis
Collation: 20 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
George Knapp & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5184
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Medicine
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Method of education: an address introductory to the session 1859-60 of the St. Louis Medical College), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Education
Medicine