COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 705, 15 January 1853, Page 3

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS.

House oe Commons, Monday, June 21. Lord John Russell called the attention of the house to the recent minute of the Committee of Council on education. He sketched the history of the educational grant from 1852, and the op- ■ position which had been made in 4859 to the placing it in the hands of the Privy Council, at which lime the present Lord Derby had imputed every kind of dishonourable motive to the then administration. The then proposed arrangement had, however, been carried., though by small majorities ; hostility and jealously had gradually been allayed, and a decided improvement had been made in popular education. More recent changes had again been ■made, chiefly with a view to satisfy the advocates of the voluntary principle ; but (he Church of England had no reason to complain of an arrangement which left her schools 78 per cent, of the whole grant, and allowed no inspection of them without the sanction of the archlMshop ot (he province. Yet even this bad dieted no complaints from dissenters. It had, however, been distinctly decided that in the committees of management no absolute power over secular education was to be left in the hands ot the clergy. A certain small but very active portion of the clerical body had struggled for sole power, but a satisfactory stale of things had continued until the accession of Lord Derby to office. (He Lord John Russell) thought it would have been wise in the present government not to have altered general rules, hut only to have listened to particular applications. “1 own, (he continued,) it appears to me, that it ’would have been wise, considering all these difliculties and differences—considering that (lie Established Church and the various dissenting bodies are satisfied with what had been done — •wise to have left this question so far untouched as only to carry on the business connected with • the different applications made by schools, and not to have altered the general rules for their .management. (Hear, hear.) However, such is not the view taken by the present government. They appointed a Committee of Council, of course of persons taken from amongst the responsible ministers of the Crown. The Committee of Council on the 12th of June, came to a very important resolution. At present, if there is any difference between the committee conducting the school and the clergyman in respect to religious instruction, there is an appeal to the bishop of the diocese, and the bishop of the diocese has the sole power of determining their differences. But if, on the other hand, there is a difference with regard to any other subject which does not include religious instruction —in that case it was provided, after a great deal of communication on the subject, that the Lord President of the Council should name one of the inspectors of the Church schools, that the bishop should name a clergyman, and that if the two should not agree, a magistrate, a layman of the county in which the school was, should be added, and by these three the whole question should he decided. Whilst Ihe Lord President was restricted to a church inspector, who was almost always a clergyman, the bishop might name also any clergyman of his diocese ; and, therefore,

from this body of three persons, two of whom belonged to the Established Church, there could be no danger (hat the question would be decided with any unfair bias towards the Church. It appeared to the Committee of Council that there was not here security enough, and they have therefore inserted a provision to the effect that teachers may be dismissed on other grounds. It was said in a former minute that the minister nnd committee of management might differ in respect to the dismissal of any teacher toi unsound instruction of the children in religion, and that in such case the bishop would finally have lb decide. The committee have now written in the margin of the minute, ‘or on other moral or religious grounds.’ The insertion of these words places the schoolmaster in entire dependence on the Bishop. (Hear,hear.) There can be no doubt as to that; for it will depend on the views which the clergyman takes of moral grounds whether or not he will think proper to continue the schoolmaster in his situation. These words, ‘ moral grounds, include every conceivable objection that may be made. It may be impossible for the schoolmaster to satisfy the clergyman of bis parish. We all know that there are different parties in the Church, and that their views sometimes differ as to what would be moral conduct in a school-master. One may object that he is too lax, and giving to to much recreation to his pupils. Another may object that he is too puritanical and strict in his observances. There is no ground of objection to a schoolmaster which may not be said to be a moral ground. This is the first ground of objection to this minute. I think I have often slated that it is most desirable that the station of the schoolmaster should be raised that he should be a man who should have a chance of a competent living in the conduct of his school, and that his position as an instructor of youth should be viewed with respect, and elevated in the opinion of society. Now, the consequence of this altered minute is to degrade and lower the condition of every schoolmaster; and I was not surprised that some gentlemen called upon me this morning to represent the effect of this minute. They said that not more than thirty teachers in these schools had been collected; hut that they had no doubt, if a meeting had been advertised, there would have been a large meeting of schoolmasters of Church of England schools, because they all fell that their situation was changed, and that any opinion on the part of Ihe clergyman (o his disadvantage would at once deprive the schoolmaster of his situation, and that he would no longer have the opportunity of earning his bread and maintaining his position. There is, it is true, an appeal to the bishop; hut there could he no doubt that the bishop would not, in the majority of cases go through the particulars of Ihe complaint, hut that he would he disposed to lake it as he heard it from Ihe clergyman, and that in nineteen cases out of twenty he would decide the complaint in accordance* with the previous judgment of the clergyman.” (Hear, hear.) Mis second objection w'as because it tended to weaken the influence of the lay members of committees, whereas our policy ought to be to make such members lake an active interest in the school; and thirdly, that as regarded Hie church itself, it introduced an element of danger, the strength of the church lying in the cordial co-operalion ol

clergy and laity. It would he most dangerous 1« her should the clergy seek for other foundations for authority and influence than in the affection and confidence of the laity. Therefore, he considered this step very objectionable ; but, at the same time, he conceived that its perni cious effects would not he fell for some lime, and, indeed, Lord Derby had said that uo step was to be taken until parliament should have had to consider a tnrlher grant, lint this was but a beginning made by a government which, not strong in the present parliament, had undertaken to adopt humble and useful measures only. u liul it has begun, (he continued,) on this subject of education in a manner in which neither humility nor utility are apparent. If that is the beginning, what are we to expect if the people of this country give them greater confidence and greater power? Nothing less than this, that there w ill he a series of minutes, totally destroying the system of popular education as now established, placing it in other hands, and thereby undoing Ihe whole system and all Ihe votes of parliament in support of it. Having been Ihe person who first recommended the appointment of the Committee of Council, i cannot but express my apprehensions when I

see this beginning of change introduced by the government. No sooner has it been announced by Archdeacon Denison that he had had his own way than a general alarm had taken place amongst those who had been his opponents. Sonic said, that the charter of the National Society must have been revoked or altered. One party in the committee were received with applause* and the other parly was rebuffed ' from the doors. After all, it was said that it | was hut an allowance to (he local committees to choose in what form their own subscriptions shall be given, and in what manner the schools I shall he conducted. This is not the fact, for this minute would permanently affect all the i schools that shall he permanently established, and not merely the present subscribers. It is said that the late government, with respect to Roman Catholic schools, made a similar provisos What was conceded to the committee of the Roman Catholic schools was that the bishop j and priest should conduct the religious instruction, and should decide what should be that instruction. The constitution of the Roman Catholic Church is very different from that of the Established Church of Egland. The Church of England consists not alone of the clergy, hut also of the clergy and laity. Hear, hear.) This is a point which, I think, it is most desirable to keep in view, and which, I believe, toe people of this country will keep in view. So long as the Church of England exists, they will think, whatever may he the constitution of other churches, that the Church of England consists of clergy and of laity (hear, hear) and that upon all questions of education the clergy and laity together should decide, 1 have now staled my views upon the subject. I have not slated them as between one party and another parly. I believe that there are many now r silting on the opposite benches who, whatever they may think of (his minute, agree with me in regard (o the principle which 1 am now supporting. 1 believe they think, ns I do, that the strength of the Church of England docs consist in having the support of the laity as well as the clergy—that the general affection of the people of England is the soil in which the roots of the Church of England arc firmly planted. If that be the case, I say that (he government ought to be most careful in settling any alterations as to the mode in which these grants shall be distributed, by which an impression may go forth that hereafter the schoolmaster of the parish is to depend upon the will and opinion of the minister of the parish and of the bishop of the diocese, without any interference on the part of the taity- I understand that the noble lord at the head of government has given an assurance that the grant shall not he disturbed, according to the*altered minute ; and that until some ' fresh vote shall he made, we shall have a secu- { rily upon this point. I hope that in the interim 1 the matter will be fully considered both by the government and the people ol this country, and ; 1 trust that they will sec how important it is not !

(o disturb a system which has worked so harmoniously—a system that has produced so j much good with respect to the education ot the people. I say, I trust that they will rather maintain this principle than seek to overthrow j it.” (Hear, hear.) Mr. Secretary Walpole was glad to have an opportunity of removing illusions upon the sub- ; jecl of this minute, which it seemed Lord J. | Russell himself had not fully comprehended. ; The minute merely proposed to restore to mem- | hers of the Church of England what Parliament had always intended they should have. It had ; been decided, when the grant was first made, | that there should he no inspection ol Church ■ ! schools except as regarded financial and statist!- j | cal questions; and when, in 1859, an alteration in this system was proposed, so great a stir was raised, that the Government of the day was i obliged to surrender its first intentions. But, j in 1840, an arrangement was made between the j Privy Council and (he Church, by which it was | provided that there should he no further control | or inspection of the Church Schools than was j necessary to ascertain the due application ol tlie parliamentary grant. And so matters remained until 1810, when the late Government effected an entire change, not, however, through Parliament, but by means of private letters, by which the management clauses were forced into adoption by threats that any shares in the grant would he conditional on their acceptance. This was decidedly in contravention of the understanding of 1810. The restoration of the latter would promote harmony in the Church, lie j met Lord John Bussell's triple objections, and i declared that the sum and substance of the alterations was that the clerical and lay promoters of schools should he at liberty to agree to constitute such schools as they pleased, and he dwelt upon the importance of preserving this principle of liberty. Without the proposed relaxation of the rules, he conceived that a check j was offered lo the foundation of new schools. He adverted to the dissenlions which had existed in 1810 in the National Society, and pointed to (he fact that (he introduction of this minute had l at once prevented such dissenlions. He advoi caled Ilia allowing people lo endow schools in (heir own way, and urged that the elements ol ' strength might he found in the Church if her 1 members would agree to work together without i calling in the interference of Government. Par--1 ties were now for the first time put upon a fair i equality, and he trusted that the policy in qnes- | iion would lie found wise and beneficial, and I added that, if it tended to allay differences in the i Church, a greater boon could not he conferred upon her. Sir Harry Vcrncy said that the promoters of schools were not the only persons lo he considered, as he thought the scholars had an equal claim. He said that the honour of the country was pledged to the maintenance of the former minutes, and reminded the Home Secretary that (lie National Society represented hut a small portion of the Church.

.Mr. Gladstone thought that the mountain in labour of a mouse was represented by the hopes and fears which had been excited in reference to this matter. He must emphatically dissent from the doctrine which (he Home Secretary appeared (o have advanced, namely, that an unlimited freedom should exist on the part of the founders of schools; but as regarded the recent changes, he thought them far from unreasonable. He could have understood Lord John Hassell's argument as regarded dissentions, had it now been proposed tp introduce control on religions, and not on moral grounds, as divisions might arise from one clergyman holding that to be orthodox which another considered heterodox ; hat he was not aware that the dissentions in the Church extended to questions ofmorality. Nordicl he.see any fear that all kinds of questions might he construed into moral ones ; for it was not proposed to leave to the clergy any definition of such questions; and if they interfered improperly there was an appeal to the Privy Council. It was only designed to extend (heir jurisdiction from leaching to conduct; and this he thought right, for a man's teaching might he sound, while j his morals were lax. He admitted the necessity of enlisting the greatest possible amount of lay agency in promoting these schools. Rut he reminded the house that it was necessary to deal not only with large towns in which intelligent committees could he procured, but with thousands of little country parishes where there were j perhaps not above three or four parishioners above the grade of a labourer. He conceived that the aileralion might actually encourage the formation of Committees. As regarded the temporary power of suspension psoposed to be given, he thought this might be useful to prevent scandal; but it might also be abused. Elc was most anxious to elevate the character of the schoolmaster. Meantime the question must be looked at as a whole, and he remarked (hat though there might he a dinference of opinion as regarded the tenets of the clergy, there could he I no doubt that they were thoroughly in earnest in I the cause of education. He saw no ground for ! impcaching this minute, or (he animus which had dictated it. Mr. Hume regretted the alteration which had

been made in a system which was working so we!!. Mr. W. Miles defended the recent minute, the necessity for which lie considered very clear. Mr. J*. A. Smith condemned the proceeding, which he characterised as designed to promote election purposes. After some observations from Mr. Slancy and Mr. Evans, the order was agreed to.