>"^-^. 
 
 \ i 
 
 f>f \ / 
 
 ^ 
 
 Tsr* 
 
 '% ^, 
 
 '«\^ 
 
 
 L^ 

 
 A REPLY 
 
 TO THK 
 
 COMMITTEE OF THE PROMOTEKS 
 
 OF THK 
 
 ilanrftfsJter anil ^alforir (ilrtiucatton ^tf)tmt. 
 
 WITH 
 
 APPENDIX; 
 
 CONTAINING : 
 
 K. EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF THE BRISTOL CHURCH UNION. 
 
 B. STATISTICS, ETC. 
 
 C. REPLY TO MR. ENTWISLE. * 
 
 D. REPLY TO MR. RICHSON. 
 
 E. CORRESPONDENCE WITH COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY. 
 
 F. STATEMENT IN REFERENCE TO THE GIRDLESTONE CIRCULAR 
 
 AND MEMORIAL. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON, M.A., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF TAUNTON. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON ; 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 
 AND NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 MANCHESTER : HALE AND EOWOilTH ; SOWLER AND SON ; AND 
 
 SIMMS AND DINHAM. 
 
 MOCCCLI.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY JOSEPH MASTpRS, 
 
 Af.DERSGATE STREET.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 It has been publicly avowed by the Authors and 
 Promoters of the Manchester and Salford " Education" 
 Scheme, that the scheme cannot succeed unless the 
 Committee of the National Society shall consent to 
 sacrifice their Rule, whereby all children who are 
 scholars of Schools in Union with the Society, are 
 required to be taught, and instructed in, the Catechism 
 of the Church of England.* 
 
 I wish to call the attention of these gentlemen to a 
 FACT, which makes any such sacrifice, or even the 
 formal consideration of it by the Committee of the 
 National Society, simply impossible. 
 
 The National Society, as incorporated by Royal 
 Charter, is intituled "The National Society for 
 Promoting the Education of the Poor in the 
 Principles of the Established Church, through- 
 out England and Wales." 
 
 Not a Society for any other kind, or manner, of 
 
 * Mr. Entwisle's Apology for a Churchman's support of the Manchester and 
 Salford Education Bill,— p. 13. Mr. Richson's " Sketch," &c.— pp. 32, 33, 
 54, 55, 68, 69.
 
 IV 
 
 *" Education ;" not a Society for '* religious Education/' 
 nor for " Education generally ;" but specially and solely, 
 a Society for " Education in the principles of the 
 Established Church." 
 
 Now it is not only a " principle " of " the Estab- 
 lished Church," that all children in her schools shall 
 be taught, and instructed in, the Catechism of the 
 Church, but the Catechism is, itself, the exponent of 
 " the principles " of the Church as applied to the 
 Education of the young. "^ 
 
 Wherefore the Committee of the National Society, 
 in whom the government of the Society is vested by 
 the Charter, is not competent — allowing, for argument's 
 sake, that it were disposed — to so much as entertain 
 the formal consideration of the rescinding or setting 
 aside, in any case whatsoever, the Rule in question ; 
 such Rule being simply the carrying out of one of the 
 most manifest principles of the Church of England, in 
 which principles, and in none other, the Committee is 
 bound by the Charter to " promote the Education of 
 the Poor.*' 
 
 I beg to subjoin an extract from the preamble of 
 the Charter, and to commend it respectfully to the 
 consideration of those of my brethren who, being 
 managers of schools in union with the National Society, 
 may have allowed themselves, under the pressure of a 
 so-called " necessity," to depart in any measure or 
 degree, from the rule in question. The preamble, in 
 reciting the reasons for granting the Charter, says : — 
 
 " 3ntl tofjeuag it has been represented to Us by the 
 den?lnd^^'' humblc pctitlou of the Most Reverend Father in God, 
 
 Vice-Pi'6si- 
 
 dents. our right trusty and right entirely beloved Councillor 
 Charles, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, on behalf of 
 
 * Vide Exhortation and direction to Sponsors, in office for " the ministra- 
 tion of public Baptism of Infants." 
 
 ^^\ 
 
 Recital of 
 the Petition 
 of the Presi-
 
 himself as President, and of the Vice-Presidents and 
 Conrjoiittee of a certain Society, called 'The National 
 Society for Promoting the Education of the 
 Poor in the Principles of the Established 
 Church throughout England and Wales :' that 
 such Society has been established between four and 
 five years ; and that its sole object was originally de- 
 clared to be * to instruct and educate the Poor in suit- 
 able learning, works of industry, and the principles of 
 the Christian Religion according to the Established 
 Church:' That the Committee has ever since the foun- 
 dation of the Society zealously and anxiously laboured 
 to carry into effect the great designs which its Founders 
 contemplated, by Educating the Children of the Poor, 
 WITHOUT any exception,'^ in the doctrine and disci- 
 pline of the Established Church, and in reading, writing, 
 and ciphering, and (whenever it was practicable) in 
 works of industry," &c. &c. &c. • 
 
 * It is difficult to account for the insertion of these words *' without any 
 ExciiPTiON," unless upon the supposition, that the founders of Ihe National 
 Society foresaw that a time would come when the security which such words 
 provide against any tampering with the primary purposes of the Society would be 
 greatly needed. That such tampering process is, and has been, in actual opera- 
 tion, is evidenced by the subjoined extract from Mr. Richson's " Sketch," p. 55. 
 *' At the same Meeting, (i.e. a Meeting of the Committee of the Manchester 
 Church Education Society,) the Committee also passed the following resolution, 
 March 7, 1850. ' That a Memorial be addressed to the Committee of the Na- 
 tional Society, praying them to alter, or remodel, the terms of union, when re- 
 quested by the managers of any Church School so to do, that parties, who have 
 heretofore received the Society's aid on those terms, may be enabled to con- 
 duct their schools in accordance with t\\eforeffoingf resolution.' The memorial 
 here alluded to, was addressed to the National Society, but without any practi- 
 cal results.'* 
 
 f " That in all Church of England Schools, we feel it imperatively our duty 
 to require, that the distinctive teaching of the Church of England should be 
 fully maintained with respect to all those who are in her Communion ; — but it 
 
 SHOULD IN NO SUCH SCHOOLS BE OBLIGATORY, THAT THE CHILDRKN OF 
 PARENTS, NOT BEING IN ChURCH OF ENGLAND COMMUNION, RECEIVE 
 OTHER DIRECT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, THAN TH \T INVOLVED IN THE 
 DAILY READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES."
 
 REPLY. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE PROMOTERS OF THE 
 MANCHESTER AND SALFORD EDUCATION BILL. 
 
 Gentlemen, — My attention has been called to a paper bearing 
 date October 23, 1851, signed " by order of the Committee, 
 C. H. Minchin, Acting Secretary," and published in the Man- 
 chester Courier of Saturday, October 25th. 
 
 The purport of this paper is to remove any unfavourable im- 
 pressions that may have been created by the remarks that I 
 have felt it my duty to make upon the scheme of School Educa- 
 tion for Manchester and Salford, which is now before the 
 country. 
 
 But the paper, before proceeding to deal with the substance 
 of my remarks, assumes that I have " misrepresented the facts 
 of the case," that I have " not met my opponents with fairness 
 and candour, or in a spirit of Christian kindness," that I have 
 " indulged in imputations at variance with the spirit of charity 
 which thinketh no evil." 
 
 It is a pity that principles, and measures founded upon them, 
 cannot be assailed and exposed without subjecting those, who 
 dare not hesitate to assail and expose them, to the charge of 
 wilful or ignorant misrepresentation, lack of candour, lack of 
 kindness, lack of charity ; that an assault upon principles and 
 measures is immediately assumed to be an assault upon men. 
 
 I beg to assure the Committee, once for all, what indeed I had 
 thought I had sufficiently stated in my published reply to the 
 Manchester Guardian and to Mr. Entwisle, that the war which I
 
 wage is one against all attempts to meet by way of an Education 
 Rate the difficulties which press upon our great cities and towns 
 in respect of School Education. I have no quarrel with any man, 
 or set of men ; I light for what I know to be " the Truth/^ and 
 in doing this I do what is not simply consistent with, but a part 
 of, the truest Charity ; hut I deny that I have either exaggerated, 
 or misstated, or misrepresented, a single point ; and, before I have 
 done, I think I can make the denial good. 
 
 I will confess that it is not without great thankfulness that I 
 find my challenge accepted, and this great controversy at length 
 forced upon public notice. It was part of my plan to state the 
 grounds of my assault with such nakedness and absence of all 
 appearance of compromise, that the promoters of the scheme 
 could hardly refuse to enter upon the discussion which is now 
 before us ; but this is not to exaggerate, or misstate, or misrepre- 
 sent. I have laboured for some years past to place the Educa- 
 tion question before men's minds in that prominence which is 
 its true position : the introduction of the Manchester and Salford 
 Scheme had brought matters to a point : I can plead guilty to 
 nothing but to having seized the opportunity, and employed it 
 for the purpose of bringing into the most startling juxta-position 
 principles which are incompatible in themselves, and which can- 
 not therefore be really elements of the same scheme, however it 
 may be possible, by means of an omission here, and a compro- 
 mise there, to present them in that aspect before the multitude 
 of men. 
 
 The Education question is the great question of the day, — 
 especially is it so to all members of the Church Catholic. For 
 the question of Church Synods, paramount as this is in impor- 
 tance, is rather a question as to the best and most legitimate 
 method of dealing with all questions affecting the Church, than 
 one of those questions themselves : the Church is as yet denied 
 her plain and indefeasible right of assembling in Synod. Mean- 
 time the dangerous position of the Education, and other vital 
 questions presses upon us in such sort that we must deal with 
 them, by Gojd^s help, as best we may. 
 
 Now I do not write in the hope of persuading the Committee 
 any more than I apprehend the Committee write in the hope of 
 persuading me ; we are so absolutely at issue upon the meaning
 
 of the very word which is the subject matter of our controversy, 
 the word " Education/' that agreement between us is simply 
 impossible. 
 
 The Committee, representing the promoters of this scheme, 
 look to an Education 
 
 1. General, 2. Mixed, 3. Undogmatic, 
 
 as providing a remedy for the difficulties which press upon the 
 whole population — Church and not Church — of the great cities 
 and towns. 
 
 But Church Education — if it is to continue Church Educa- 
 tion — must be 
 
 1. Particular, 2. Unmixed, 3. Dogmatic. 
 
 By " particular," as opposed to " general," I mean an Educa- 
 tion founded, not upon the naked acceptance of the Bible but, 
 upon " the Catholic Faith,'' " whole and undefiled," as read in, 
 and proved by, Holy Scripture, and witnessed to in all ages by 
 the Church Catholic. 
 
 By '^ unmixed,'' as opposed to *^ mixed," I mean an Educa- 
 tion which does not attempt to train in the same school children 
 of the Church and children not of the Church. 
 
 *' Dogmatic," as opposed to " undogmatic," requires no ex- 
 planation. 
 
 I have argued, and am prepared to maintain, that such an 
 Education as this — and I know of no other deserving the name 
 of Church Education — is impracticable in connection with an 
 Education Bate, either local or general. 
 
 The Committee write to clear their scheme with the public 
 from the supposed ill effects of my '' misrepresentations." I 
 write to persuade the public, — all who care for any fixity of be- 
 lief — and especially Churchmen — to beware how they touch the 
 Manchester and Salford Scheme, or indeed any scheme based 
 upon an Education Rate, with so much as their little finger, ex- 
 cept for the purpose of destroying it. 
 
 I use this language advisedly, — I am forced to speak plainly 
 by the imminence of the peril. I am not iu sensible to the diffi- 
 culties which press upon many anxious minds in respect of the 
 wants and dangers of great populations like that of Manchester 
 and Salford, but what I maintain is, that the remedy suggested 
 by the promoters of this scheme is worse than the disease.
 
 The scheme finds great numbers of children without school 
 teaching, — it proposes to give school teaching to all. Will it 
 leave one of those children established, through its agency, in 
 the Catholic Faith of the Church of England ? I cannot believe 
 it. I see nothing in the scheme to make this probable, much 
 less to guarantee it. / see very much to make it more than probable 
 that what will be taught under the scheme will be " religion" with- 
 out distinctive doctrines; and in this I see nothing but a guarantee 
 for infidelity. 
 
 I trust therefore, very earnestly, that my brethren of Manches- 
 ter and Salford will pause and reconsider the matter, lest they 
 should, unawares, become active parties to a measure, which has, 
 to some, a fair outside, but is not clean within ; and that 
 Churchmen generally will bestir themselves, for their own, and 
 their children's sake, to supply the place of this scheme with the 
 sound and wholesome agency of " Church Education/' 
 
 I proceed now to apply myself to the remarks and arguments 
 of the paper of the Committee in their order. 
 
 I. I have stated, and am prepared to maintain, that the pro- 
 vision to be applied to all schools to be built out of the Rate, 
 viz. that these shall be " without creeds,'' '^ without formula- 
 ries," '' without catechisms," — and it must therefore, I fear, be 
 added, "without prayers," — is the principle of the Manchester 
 and Salford scheme. 
 
 The Committee state that this is an "entire misrepresenta- 
 tion." They explain that it is " only a provision against a very 
 remote contingency, a contingency which, the promoters con- 
 fidently believe, will seldom or never occur." 
 
 If this be so, it is not easy to comprehend why the provision 
 has been introduced at all. The popularity of the measure is 
 not necessarily so great that the promoters of it can afford to 
 invite odium. I don't understand this process of building walls 
 for no other purpose than running one's head against them ; it 
 may be very chivalrous, but I doubt whether it be wise. But let 
 us take a fact, an argument, and a probability, inherent in the 
 reason of the thing and the nature of the case. 
 
 {a) The statistical returns printed in Appendix B. show that, 
 so far from its being a correct account of the provision in ques-
 
 tion, that it is " only a provision against a very remote contin- 
 gency," it must be brought into immediate application in the 
 most necessitous districts of Manchester and Salford; that in a 
 word, the Bill cannot effect what it proposes to effect upon any 
 other terms : — the provision then is, not remote but, immediate, 
 not exceptional but, normal. This is my fact. ^ 
 
 {b) Even if the provision in question were remote and excep- 
 tional, this would not affect the fact of what is the principle of 
 the measure ; for the principle of a measure proposing to intro- 
 duce a novelty into our social state, — such as is an Education 
 Rate, must, in all reason, be estimated, not by that wherein it 
 accommodates itself to what it finds but, by that which it super- 
 adds, and wherein it is altogether new. This is my argument. 
 
 (c) It can hardly, I think, admit of a reasonable doubt that, 
 when an Education Rate has once become law, and it is part of 
 the enactment, that schools are not only to be maintained, but may 
 be built out of the Rate, no schools will be built, after a very few 
 years, except out of the Rate, — that voluntary efforts will there- 
 fore in great measure, if not altogether, cease. Now, doubtless, 
 the promoters of the Bill contemplate for it a lengthened exist- 
 ence and operation ; ten years hence, the population of Man- 
 chester and Salford may be half a million, or even more — where 
 are the schools to come from to meet the demand ? — Out of the 
 Rate. What then will be their character ? — They will be " with- 
 out Creeds,^^ ^' without formularies,^^ '^without catechisms,^' and 
 as I said, I fear must be added, '^ without prayers." This is my 
 probability. 
 
 Is not the true account of the matter simply this — that there 
 is so little real difference between the scheme of " the National 
 Public School Association " and " the Manchester and Salford 
 Scheme," that the promoters of the latter have found it consist- 
 ent with its general principle to introduce a provision into their 
 measure, without which they could not have looked for the sup- 
 port, or even the acquiescence of the members of " the National 
 Public School Association,"t but with which the two schemes 
 become, for all purposes of practice, and indeed for all purposes 
 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
 t Vide Ml'. Entwisle's " Apology," p. 17, where he admits that the provision 
 was introduced for this specific purpose.
 
 6 
 
 of theory, in substance, if not in outward form, purely identical : 
 — when a few years shall have rubbed off the varnish from the 
 Manchester and Salford Scheme, the material and the texture of 
 the two articles will be found to be precisely the same. 
 
 II. The process whereby the School Education of the entire 
 country is sought to be gradually subjected to the control of the 
 Committee of Council on "Education/' and the assistance 
 which that laudable undertakmg will derive from the Manches- 
 ter and Salford Scheme, if it become law, requires some extended 
 notice. 
 
 I have said : — 
 
 " The attempt to introduce into England the principle of an 
 ' Education ' Rate by means of a private Bill for Manchester 
 and Salford, and, as an integral part of the scheme, to subordi- 
 nate the entire School Education of the country, in the first 
 instance for the poor and middle-classes, and ultimately for all 
 classes, to the central supervision of the State, makes it a duty 
 not simply to offer an active and uncompromising resistance to 
 this attempt, but " &c. &c. 
 
 Upon this the Committee observe : — 
 
 " The impression here sought to be conveyed, and which will 
 naturally be received from reading this passage, is that our plan 
 will place all schools directly under the authority and supervision 
 of the Committee of Council on Education, and that the admis- 
 sion of Government inspection is a necessary condition attached 
 to the reception of aid under the Manchester and Salford 
 Scheme : we know, moreover, that this impression has prevailed 
 to a great extent. '^ 
 
 The Committee must excuse me. I beg to demur to this 
 interpretation of my understanding and my motives. I am not 
 so absolutely without information as to the real provisions of 
 their measure, nor had I any wish to convey an incorrect 
 impression. I did not mean what the Committee say I meant, 
 and I had a good deal more in my mind when I wrote the sen- 
 tence quoted above than appears to have entered into their 
 calculation. 
 
 The Committee proceed to give their answer to what they 
 assume to have been my meaning. 
 
 " But what is the truth ? That while the measure adopts as
 
 a matter of course, all schools already participating in the Par- 
 liamentary grant, and subject to Government inspection, it ex- 
 pressly provides for the support of other schools, which, if not 
 at present in connexion with the Committee of Council on 
 Education will not be required to become so under the local 
 Bill/'* 
 
 Of course these " other " (existing) " schools '^ will not be 
 "required*' — probably their Trust Deeds would make any such 
 requirement nugatory — to place themselves in connexion with 
 the Committee of Council on '^ Education." But how this is an 
 answer to what I have said, I am unable to understand : when I 
 spoke of " The attempt to introduce," &c. I was looking much 
 beyond the promoters of the measure, and the measure itself — 
 much beyond the limits of Manchester and Salford — existing 
 circumstances and existing schools. 
 
 Let us look as briefly as possible at the real question before 
 the country. 
 
 Now I suppose it will not be denied, either by the Committee 
 of Council itself, or by those who think well of it, that, in their 
 judgment, it would be an excellent and salutary thing, if it did 
 exercise in behalf of the State a general control over the whole 
 School education of the country ; at least, if this is not their 
 judgment, it will be difficult to account for the past proceedings 
 of that irresponsible, and in my belief, most dangerous, body. 
 
 Again, there is no room to doubt that a general " Education " 
 Rate has been, all along, in the contemplation of those who 
 have pulled the wires of the Committee of Council, as the next 
 step to be taken with a view to the establishment of such 
 general control. 
 
 I pass by private evidence in my possession. I take public 
 facts. 
 
 1. The author of the Committee of Council on " Education '' 
 and prime agent in its work during the last ten years, is one of 
 the principal promoters of, and subscribers to, the Manchester 
 and Salford Scheme. 
 
 2. Four, at least, of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have 
 in their Reports publicly advocated an " Education Rate," and 
 have indicated that the management of such a Rate will most 
 
 * See Appendix D, under heads of Inspection and Appeal.
 
 8 
 
 fitly be placed in the hands of the Committee of Council on 
 "Education/' 
 
 3. The promoters of the Manchester and Salford Scheme " set 
 out with a full recognition of the benefits conferred by the Com- 
 mittee of Council on Education, and adopt in the main its prin- 
 ciples of action, with such additions and modifications as local 
 circumstances seem to require."* 
 
 Thus there is a most intimate connexion between the promoters 
 of the Manchester and Salford Scheme and the Committee of 
 Council on "Education." 
 
 Now I have no wish to enter into any argument with those 
 who have made up their minds that the Committee of Council on 
 " Education " is a good agency. I can only deplore the fact for 
 their own and others' sakes : but what I call the attention of 
 Churchmen to is this : — 
 
 Here is the Committee of Council not concealing its desire 
 for a general " Education " Hate, but rather parading it ; and 
 this with a view to the establishment of its own general supervi- 
 sion and control. Then comes the first local experiment in that 
 direction, under the patronage of the Council office, and adopting 
 and endorsing all its principles. Further still, it is quite idle 
 to suppose that the experiment is to be confined to Manchester 
 and Salford. 
 
 Is it then too much to say, notwithstanding the little fact, 
 which is made so much of, because it cannot be helped, viz. — 
 that existing schools will not be forced, in order to share in the 
 support proposed to be derived from an "Education" Rate 
 under the Bill, to connect themselves with the Committee of 
 Council on " Education " — is it too much to say that we have 
 before us an " attempt to introduce into England the principle 
 of an Education Rate by means of a private Bill for Manchester 
 and Salford, and to subordinate the entire School Education of 
 the country to the central supervision of the State ?" and what 
 is the value of the answer which has been given to this allegation 
 in the paper of the Committee ? 
 
 Why, indeed, the promoters of the Manchester and Salford 
 Scheme have taken what I have said in this particular so entirely 
 to themselves, I do not understand. It was aimed, not at them 
 
 * Letter of Committee, October 23, 1851.
 
 9 
 
 but, at the Committee of Council on "Education,'^ in whose 
 hands the promoters have placed themselves and their scheme ; 
 1 suspect without being well aware of what will be the issue, if 
 the attempt of the Committee of Council succeed, both as affect- 
 ing Manchester and Salford, and the country at large. 
 
 It is very curious to remark, in connection with this particu- 
 lar portion of the subject, that there is so very little general 
 apprehension of what are, however, two undoubted facts: — 1. 
 That the Committee of Council on " Education " are the origi- 
 nators of the idea of an " Education ^' Rate. 2. That they are 
 the parties chiefly interested in its success — that meetings are 
 held here and there, and speeches made, in which the system of 
 the Committee of Council is represented as being placed in 
 jeopardy by the probable success of the proposal for an " Edu- 
 cation " Rate ; and some of Her Majesty^s Inspectors, who, by 
 a process of reasoning, which is to me unintelligible, have 
 arrived at the conclusion, that the system of the Committee of 
 Council may be worked favourably for the Church, are moving 
 against an " Education " Rate, while their patrons in Downing 
 Street are moving ybr it. ' , 
 
 III. Under this head the Committee have themselves supplied 
 me with the answer to their own defence. 
 
 I have said that the Manchester and Salford Scheme is one 
 which ^^ prefers that Church children and children of all denomi- 
 nations should be jumbled together in the same school." 
 
 I say so still. Now let us see what the Committee say. 
 
 ist. They assert that the great object and jmnciple of the 
 measure is the enabling each separate " ^ den(tmination^ — the 
 Church of England is then, it seems, a ' denomination,^ one of 
 many, with the Committee, — to conduct its own particular school 
 without interference with the discipline, management, or instruc- 
 tion." 
 
 This is a curious account of the ^^ great object and principle" 
 of a measure, the promoters of which have formally expressed 
 their hope that the National Society, as representing the Church 
 of England, will see fit to modify the rule whereby all children 
 of schools in connection with the Society are required to learn 
 the Church Catechism. Indeed in Mr. Entwisle's '* Apology for 
 a Churchman's support of the Manchester and Salford Educa-
 
 10 
 
 tion Bill,'^ he goes much further and tells us something which I 
 am very glad to know, e. g., ^' it would not be too much to 
 say, that from the vast number of schools which have received 
 the Society's aid, and are therefore bound by their terms, the 
 Bill which we promote would he a failure without their (i. e. the 
 Society's) concurrence," in other words, without the con- 
 sent OF THE Society to abandon the rule of the 
 Church, whereby every child who is a scholar of 
 A church school is required to learn the Catechism 
 OF THE Church of England. Now is there any conceivable 
 reason for the expression of the hope above referred to, except 
 the fact that those who express it desire to see Church schools 
 thrown open to children of " other denominations," even at 
 THE expense of THE Church's RULE J and is this any- 
 thing else than to "prefer that the children of the Church 
 and children of all denominations should be jumbled together 
 in the same school ?" 
 
 2nd. The Committee allow that " in order to meet the possible 
 case of children of one denomination attending the school of 
 another it is provided '^ — what is provided ? Hear, ye ministers 
 and people of the Church of England, and see what it is pro- 
 posed that the schools of the Church shall become in the golden 
 age of the " Education " Rate. 
 
 It is provided that no child shall be required TO 
 
 LEARN ANY DISTINCTIVE RELIGIOUS CREED, CATECHISM, OR 
 FORMULARY, TO WHICH THE PARENTS OR THOSE HAVING THE 
 CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH CHILD SHALL, IN WRITING, 
 OBJECT. 
 
 And then the Committee are bold to say that this provision 
 is an exception to a general rule, and made to meet special cases. 
 What general rule ? Why, if every child in every school was to 
 be made a " special case,'' — what is to hinder it ? — the " general 
 rule" would, I suppose, disappear speedily under the operation 
 of a very few " special cases." 
 
 The simple truth is that one such " special case" in a school 
 is fatal to the character of that school as a " Church school," 
 If the Committee are not aware of this fact, I must take leave to 
 bring it under their notice. 
 
 IV. The Committee labour to convict me of inconsistency in
 
 11 
 
 having proposed in my ^' outline of a plan for combining State 
 assistance with the safety of Church Education/' to derive 
 assistance from the Exchequer to Church schools, upon a prin- 
 ciple common to them and to the schools of the " denominations," 
 and then assailing the Manchester and Salford scheme, which is 
 built upon an " Education '^ Rate. 
 
 " Argumenta ad hominem" of this nature are always a sign 
 of weakness. If I could be convicted of the inconsistency sup- 
 posed, it would not improve the case of the Committee. The 
 truth does not stand or fall with me. 
 
 But there is no inconsistency at all. The Committee appear 
 to argue in this way. 
 
 If a citizen may pay taxes, without feeling his conscience 
 aggrieved, part of which taxes may be applied by Government to 
 Educational purposes which he cannot approve, he ought, upon 
 the same principle, not to be aggrieved at paying an " Education" 
 Rate. 
 
 In the minor premiss of this notable syllogism it is assumed 
 that an " Education" Rate and the taxes are things of the same 
 nature. * 
 
 It is concluded therefore that what makes the mind easy 
 under the payment of the one ought to make the mind easy 
 under the payment of the other. 
 
 I deny the minor premiss, and, by consequence, the con- 
 clusion. 
 
 An Education Rate is not a thing of the same nature with the 
 taxes. 
 
 1st. Because the taxes are contributed for generaly and in 
 many respects previously unascertained, purposes, and their pro- 
 ceeds placed at the disposal of the governing power, who are 
 responsible for the use they make of them, and not the parties 
 paying them. 
 
 And it is obvious that if it were a legitimate ground of objec- 
 tion to a tax, that its proceeds, or any part of them, might after- 
 wards be applied to purposes which the payer could not approve, 
 there must be an end of taxation at once, and, therein, of 
 national existence. 
 
 2nd. An Education Rate is contributed for a particular and 
 previously ascertained purpose. 
 
 c
 
 12 
 
 And it is equally obvious here, as in the opposite case, that an 
 " Education" Rate is not necessary to national existence. 
 
 Wherefore the two things are not of the same nature. 
 
 But indeed, even if they were of the same nature, this fact 
 would not help the Committee as against me. 
 
 For the real question is, not how the money is raised, or through 
 what channel it finds its way, but on what principle it is applied. 
 
 Now money grants from the Exchequer in aid of voluntary 
 efibrts may very well and very easily, — notwithstanding our ex- 
 perience of the Committee of Council on Education, — be applied 
 upon a principle involving no interference upon the part of the 
 civil power with the matter and the manner of the teaching held 
 to be essential by the parties assisted. 
 
 But it must, I think, be obvious that when schools come to 
 be maintained, or both huilt and maintained, out of an Education 
 Rate, such freedom from interference on the part of the civil 
 authorities, either local or general, is no longer possible. 
 
 I argue thus : — 
 
 1. A priori, from the theory of Rating. 
 
 3. A posteriori, from the fact that the promoters of the Man- 
 chester and Salford scheme have not been able to avoid the 
 interference. 
 
 lo A priori. 
 
 What is the theory of a rate ? The theory of a rate is that 
 citizens be assessed, locally or generally, as the case may be, for 
 purposes which are — 
 
 (1.) Of confessed public benefit. 
 
 (2.) Such as, if men differ about the manner of carrying them 
 out, the minority may be expected to give way to the majority 
 without putting any strain upon their conscience. 
 
 For example, it is a confessed public benefit to pave and light 
 the streets of a town, and those of the inhabitants who prefer to 
 walk in the mud, or to grope their way in the dark, need not be 
 considered. And if the ratepayers diff"er about the manner of 
 lighting and paving, the minority may very fairly be expected to 
 yield to the majority, without putting any strain upon their 
 conscience. But Education is not a thing, as logicians speak, 
 " in pari materia." We may assume, indeed, that it is a con- 
 fessed public benefit to educate a people. No one will dispute
 
 13 
 
 that proposition. But when we come to what is meant by Edu- 
 cation^ i. e. to the matter and manner of Education, the differences 
 are so great, and run up so completely into first principles, tha 
 the minority cannot be expected to give way to the majority, 
 because this would involve a direct strain upon the conscience. 
 It is right and good, then, to make a rate for paving and light- 
 ing a town, or for any analogous purpose ; but, as for making a 
 rate to educate people, that is neither right nor good, nor, 
 strictly speaking, is it possible, without reducing Education to 
 the level of vague general instruction. That it shall never be 
 reduced to this level is just what the Churchman has to contend 
 for at all costs and risks. Now the majority of men take a loose 
 and low view of what is meant by Education. They confine it 
 principally to the wants of this life, and reject, as an abstrac- 
 tion, the idea that it must be based upon definite revealed 
 truths; upon the "one Faith ^^ committed by God to the keep- 
 ing of His Church ; and as the minority will no more — and 
 indeed can no more — concede these points than the majority 
 will adopt them, the difference between the two is one which 
 must always subsist. Now, a rate, and the manner of spending 
 a rate, is the expression of the will of a majority, — an expression 
 certainly not, under the present circumstances of the world, in 
 accordance with the mind of the Church, but in reality, however 
 it may be disguised, setting aside her mission and her office, and 
 weakening her hands for the discharge of her trust. I con- 
 clude, therefore, a priori, that an Education Rate, is a thing 
 neither right nor good under any conceivable circumstances of 
 our present state, and I have such confidence in the soundness 
 of the argument whereby I have arrived at this conclusion, that 
 I will add " Quod erat demonstrandum." 
 
 Some persons, however, appear to take it for granted that, in 
 one shape or another, we must be prepared to see an " Education 
 Rate " here in, England. Their judgment is, I suppose, that such 
 a Rate can he made safe. Indeed if any Churchman advocates, or 
 acquiesces in, the proposal for an " Education Rate " upon any 
 ground short of this, that man will, I hope, not be offended, if I 
 say that it is just this disposition to give way before every "pre- 
 sumed necessity " which makes it so difficult to maintain any 
 Church principle. 
 
 c 3
 
 14 
 
 Now I say that an " Education Rate " cannot he made safe. I 
 say more, I say it is simply impracticable.^^ And I would submit 
 that it can hardly have been sufficiently considered what the 
 local working of an " Education Rate ^^ would be. — I append 
 what follows by way of illustration of my argument a priori. 
 
 People who pay a Rate expect an equivalent in a tangible 
 shape, one of which they shall experience the local advantage. 
 This is quite inseparable from the idea of payment to a Rate, 
 though it is not inseparable from the idea of payment to the ge- 
 neral Taxes. 
 
 Suppose then the '^ Education Rate " assessed, and collected 
 in a parish which numbers among its rated inhabitants — as is 
 by no means an uncommon case even in country parishes — 
 Church of England members, 
 Roman Catholics, 
 Wesley an s, 
 Independents, 
 Baptists, &c., &c., &c., 
 
 and 
 People who like what are called "purely secular" 
 schools, — 
 and which at present contains the Parish School in connection 
 with the Parish Church, a Roman Catholic School, and, perhaps 
 one or more, perhaps none — in connection with the sects — and, 
 as yet, no school of the " purely secular " kind. 
 One of three things must happen. 
 
 (1.) Either all who pay the Rate will expect to be accommo- 
 dated in the '^existing schools, and most of all in the 
 Church school, at the expense of the Church's rules 
 OF doctrine and discipline. t 
 
 * Except indeed in connexion with a "purely secular" system of 
 '* Education." 
 
 -^ Ttie subjoined extract from the recent charge of the Bishop of Manchester 
 presents in a curious, though by no means novel, aspect the Bishop's estimate of 
 the manner in which it becomes the managers of Church schools to discharge 
 their responsible office, and their duty towards the children of the Church. 
 
 " Thus, while I never would consent to give up the use of the Catechism, the 
 Prayer Book, and the distinctive teaching of the Church of England in our 
 Church schools, I would restrict their use to particular periods of the week, at 
 which I would permit the child of the dissenter, at his own and his parents' 
 peril, to absent himself. I would compel him to stand rfespectfully at the reli-
 
 15 
 
 (2.) Or a separate school must be established in each separate 
 place, or within reasonable distance, for each separate form of 
 opinion, however few the Ratepayers may be who require it. 
 
 (3.) Or the Ilatepayers must be left to pay their rate, and, 
 many of them, to complain that they get no equivalent. 
 
 No. 1. Is destructive to Religion. 
 
 No. 2. Is impossible. 
 
 No. 3. Would do exceeding mischief, in creating and perpe- 
 tuating a grievance; and is besides, directly opposed to the prin- 
 ciple upon which an " Education Rate " is advocated ; viz. that 
 every Ratepayer should receive an equivalent for his Rate. 
 
 But no injury to religion, and no grievance is involved in 
 receiving aid from the Exchequer ; provided always that such 
 aid carry with it no interference, and no attempt upon the part 
 of the State to intrude a system of its own into the place of 
 those it professes to encourage and support. 
 
 2. The argument, a posteriori, stands upon the fact that the 
 promoters of the Manchester and Salford Scheme have not been 
 able to avoid the interference in question. For whether the 
 
 gious services of the school, where he is allowed to go, and where he is prayed 
 for, if unable to join in it ; and the like I would require from all dissenting 
 schools assisted by the rate. No liberty of conscience would thus be violated 
 — no unjust restraint imposed." 
 
 It seems then, that this Bishop of the Church of England is content to see 
 — nay, that he recommends — indirect contravention of the Charter of the National 
 Society, that the children of the Church be robbed of that dail]/ training in the 
 doctrine of the Church of England which is their right, and which the Clergy 
 of the Church of England have expressly in trust to give them — the result of 
 which must necessarily be that the value and practical application of dogmatic 
 teaching of the Faith, and its necessary bearing upon the daily life and con- 
 versation will be depreciated in the eyes of the children of the Church — that 
 he is content to see, nay, that he recommends, such a course as this, /or the sake 
 of giving a ^^ general Education^' to children who are not of the Church. 
 
 The latter part of the above extract, as also that which follows, will hardly 
 tend to increase the number of the Bishop's many-coloured partisans in Man- 
 chester and Salford. 
 
 " But let us recollect that schools supported wholly out of the rates, if they 
 ever do exist, could only exist in districts where no one could be persuaded to 
 set up a school of any denomination; although, certainly, the schools would 
 be assisted by the payments of all willing to resort to them. Were there such a 
 district, I should unquestionably claim a school, built in it and supported from 
 the rates, for the Established Church, subject always to the same conditions as 
 the others^
 
 16 
 
 problem of avoiding all such interference in connection with 
 an ^' Education " Kate, be capable of being solved or not,, it 
 is at least quite clear that the promoters of the Manchester and 
 Salford Scheme have not solved it : they have not so much 
 as attempted to solve it by any provisions of their proposed 
 Bill. 
 
 I am bound to believe that those of them who are Church- 
 men have attempted the solution before they drew their Bill. 
 I regret that, having found the solution impracticable, they 
 should have cut the knot with an unlawful weapon. 
 
 For their scheme advocates, with respect to existing schools, 
 that the teaching of the Catechism be not rigidly observed ; and, 
 with respect to schools to be built out of the Rate, i.e., I believe 
 with respect to all schools to he built hereafter, the scheme advo- 
 cates that these should be without any Catechism at all. If this 
 be not to interfere with Church teaching, I do not know what 
 interference is. 
 
 V. I have but one point more to touch, for the writer of the 
 article in the English Churchman, for which I am not responsi- 
 ble, will doubtless take very good care of himself. I will only 
 say that I am quite of his mind. 
 
 The remaining point brings out, more clearly, perhaps, and 
 conclusively than any other, the absolute difference in point of 
 principle between the Committee and myself. 
 
 The Committee infer that, in objecting to their measure that 
 it is " upon the plan of all persons contributing alike for the 
 dissemination of what they believe to be true and what they 
 believe to be false," I am not of course alluding to " the Bate 
 built schools, because it could not for an instant be contended 
 that the religious instruction prescribed in them — that is, the 
 daily reading of the Holy Scriptures — could, in any sense, be 
 termed the dissemination of what any body of professing Chris- 
 tians believed to be false." 
 
 This is a curious piece of reasoning ; as I think, a transparent 
 fallacy; but it may be worth while to point out wherein the 
 fallacy consists. 
 
 There are two kinds of false teaching. 
 
 1. The teaching what is in itself false. 
 
 2. The teaching what is in itself true in a false way.
 
 17 
 
 In their reply to my objection the Committee have taken 
 only the first of these two kinds of false teaching ; whereas in 
 my objection I had taken both alike. 
 
 The Committee must then excuse my declining to accept a 
 reply, which, if it be a reply at all, can only be so by being con- 
 veyed in a syllogism which has/ow?' terms. 
 
 And they must allow me to tell them, in all kindness, that to 
 ask Churchmen to contribute to a Kate out of which it is pro- 
 posed to provide schools wherein '^religious instruction" is to 
 be cared for by means of the bare reading of the Holy Scriptures, 
 is to ask Churchmen to contribute to a Kate '' for the dissemina- 
 tion alike of what they must believe to be true and what they 
 must believe to be false." 
 
 VI. I have now put in a rejoinder to all the points raised by 
 the Committee in their reply to myself. I have confined my- 
 self strictly to these points, being desirous to keep the contro- 
 versy as clear and distinct as possible. 
 
 I beg to assure the Committee of my great regret at finding 
 myself thus absolutely at variance with many of my brethren with 
 whom I would most gladly and thankfully have found myself 
 co-operating in the great cause of educating the people. But 
 as it is, I am compelled, in the Church's cause, and for the 
 people's sake, to do my utmost — everything that I lawfully 
 mav — to overthrow their scheme. 
 
 In conclusion I will set down again here the same challenge 
 which I published in the advertisement to my two sermons, 
 and to which — I say it with all respect for Mr. Entwisle — no 
 answer has yet been given. 
 
 " I challenge the authors and promoters of this notable pro- 
 ject to escape from the dilemma following : Either the reading of 
 the Holy Scriptures in the schools to be built out of the Rate 
 must be without any teaching of doctrine, in which case God's 
 Book is abused and desecrated — desecrated because employed 
 as a common lesson book — abused because it is revealed in the 
 Book itself that it is the ofiice of the Church to interpret and 
 expound the Scriptures — or it must be with such teaching, in 
 which case creeds, formularies, and Catechisms, in one shape or 
 another, are at once made a part of the teaching of the schools." 
 Mr. Entwisle appears to think that an escape from this
 
 18 
 
 dilemma is to be found by referring me to " one example of 
 teaching in the Holy Scriptures/^ out of which he challenges 
 me to " make an extract which shall justify my assertion that 
 teaching and ' doctrine ' — in the sense in which we both ac- 
 cept the word for the purposes of our argument* — are in- 
 separable." 
 
 I will make no "extract/' for the simple reason that I 
 wish to quote the whole Sermon on the Mount, and not any 
 pa7't of it separately, in justification of my assertion that "teach- 
 ing and doctrine are inseparable." 
 
 In Mr. Entwisle's proposed schools it is very possible, nay, 
 it is very probable, that a child, who has been baptized into the 
 Church Catholic, may stand side by side in a class with the 
 child of an Unitarian or Socinian. 
 
 May I ask Mr. Entwisle a simple question ? If he were 
 teaching that class, giving it " religious '' instruction in connec- 
 tion with any part of the Sermon on the Mount, how would he 
 deal with the question of the Personf and the Authority J of the 
 Preacher ? If he taught explicitly that both were Divine, he 
 would not teach Unitarianism or Socinianism, — if he did not 
 teach explicitly that both were Divine, he would not teach Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 Your obedient, faithful Servant, 
 East Brent, George A. Denison. 
 
 S. Simon and S. Jude, 1851. 
 
 * i.e. * ' the teaching of those tenets or Articles of Faith which are held as 
 distinguishing one congregation of Christians from another.'' — Mr. Entwisle's 
 letter. 
 
 t Compare S. Matt. vii. 21—23. 
 
 + Compare S. Matt. v. 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; vi. 2, 5, 16, 25 ; 
 vii. 28, 29.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 "Objections to and Remarks upon the Manchester and 
 Salford ^Education Scheme;'" reprinted from the Annual Report 
 of the Bristol Church Union, April 7th, 1851. 
 
 The argument under heads I. II. III. of this paper is to be taken as 
 proceeding simply upon the Parliamentary ground of " religious liberty." 
 
 " I. Basis of the Bill inconsistent with ' religious liberty.' , 
 
 " 1. An * Education rate ' is a thing hitherto unheard of in this country, 
 and cannot be reconciled by any arguments, however plausibly put, with 
 our institutions, and habits and modes of thought. 
 
 " 2. An * Education rate ' cannot be reconciled with * religious liberty ' 
 — because the meaning of ' religious liberty ' is that each religious body be 
 free to carry out its own religious system, and to do its own work in its 
 own way — without being subjected to the control of any other religious 
 body, and without interference, direct or indirect, on the part of the civil 
 power. 
 
 "Now an 'Education rate' is a compulsory contribution by all rate- 
 payers towards the support of a system — however impossible it may be to 
 reconcile such system, either in its principle, or in its details, with the 
 power of carrying out by the several sets of rate-payers their own religious 
 systems, respectively, and of doing their own work in their own way. 
 
 " 3. It is no answer to say — as Mr. Entwisle puts it, vaguely enough, 
 (Remarks, page 8,)— that rate payers may, 'in such a modified form as the 
 general principles of the scheme require,' apply their rate to certain parti- 
 cular schools— (iii. 7, 8, draft of Bill) — because the Bill proposes, iii. 8, 
 that * if, in any case, the amount of rate so required to be appropriated to 
 any class of Schools, as aforesaid, shall exceed the amount of aid required 
 by such Schools, under the provisions of this Act, the Municipal Council 
 shall apply such surplus to the general purposes of this Act, as if such 
 special appropriation had not been made,"
 
 20 
 
 " So that, after all, it is quite possible, and very probable, that some 
 part of every Churchman's rate may go towards the support of Schools, 
 in which teaching is given and principles inculcated, which, as Churchmen, 
 they are bound, not only not to support^ hut to condemn. 
 
 " And even if every farthing of rate imposed upon Churchmen under 
 this Bill could only be applied, under any circumstances, to the support of 
 Church Schools — which is not at all what is contemplated by the Bill — it 
 would all the same be an invasion of the ' religious liberty ' of Churchmen 
 to force them to be parties, in any shape, to a system, of which the princi- 
 pie is inconsistent with the order and the practice of the Church : to rate 
 people at all for the support of a system, notwithstanding that, upon their 
 own principles, they must disapprove of the principle of such system, under 
 whatever modifications it may be presented, is a direct invasion of their 
 * religious liberty ' and of the ' rights of conscience/ 
 
 "4. Thus the basis of the whole scheme — an 'Education Rate' — can- 
 not be made to consist with that which its promoters confess is essential 
 to its * success ' — respect for ' religious liberty.' 
 
 " 5. There is no analogy to be drawn from Church rates for obvious 
 reasons — and, if there were, it is not an argument of which the promoters 
 of this scheme would, probably, avail themselves. 
 
 " II. Principle of the Bill inconsistent with ' religious liberty J 
 " I. This is altogether one sided~it encourages everything that is lax and 
 loose — it discourages everything that is definite and precise. Here again 
 then the Bill is inconsistent with respect for * religious liberty ' — because 
 it is plain that there are those of us — that is, all Churchmen — whose * re- 
 ligious liberty ' is of a definite and precise character — that is, defined by 
 the Church herself. Now the Bill deals with all such ' religious liberty ' 
 not as a thing to be fostered and encouraged, nor indeed even as a thing 
 to be protected — but simply as an unfortunate fact, and as one which 
 ought to be made to disappear as quickly as may be. 
 
 " 2. The Principle of the Bill may be shortly described as an attempt 
 to exalt the * advantages ' of a General Scheme of ' Education,' at the ex- 
 pense of the teaching of the Catholic Faith, and the training of our 
 children in the principles of the Church of England. 
 
 "Thus all schools based upon the principle of dogmatic teaching, 
 whether belonging to the Church of England or not, are at once and 
 necessarily 'vi terminorum' placed by the Bill at a disadvantage. 
 " III. Provisions of the Bill inconsistent with * religious liberty,' 
 '* 1. They exclude all schools which are not in connection with, or 
 which shall not connect themselves with, the Committee of Council on 
 Education, from all * benefit.'* Now such connection is one which many 
 Churchmen hold to be inadmissible, on the ground that it carries with it a 
 departure from the order and the practice of the Church of England, and 
 
 * It has since been stated that this is not one of the formal provisions of the 
 Bill. But see Appendix D, under heads of Inspection and Appeal.
 
 21 
 
 involves that most dangerous distinction between 'religious and secular 
 instruction,' with various other objectionable principles, which have, 
 during the last few years, been so fully discussed in detail, that it is not 
 necessary to enter upon them here. 
 
 *' The Bill, on the other hand, assumes that such connection with the 
 Committee of Council on Education is a matter both of necessity and 
 ri(;ht. Thus it is plainly intended to operate ' unostentatiously ' for the 
 purpose of bringing all the Schools of Manchester and Salford within the 
 influence, and under the supervision, of the Committee of Council on 
 Education. 
 
 " 2. The appeal lies in no case to the Bishop of the Diocese — but 
 always to the Committee of Council on Education. This is another con- 
 travention of the ' religious liberty ' of Churchmen. 
 
 " 3. The attendance of children of persons receiving out-door relief is 
 to be compulsory. Now such compulsory attendance of pauper children, 
 with any provisions tending thereto, is most objectionable — because 
 
 '* 1. It is an exercise of power which amounts to tyranny over the 
 poor, and to a practical denial of their ' religious liberty.' 
 
 *' 2. It is degrading to the objects of it, and inflicts a stigma upon 
 them as a class. 
 
 *'3. It is just what is most calculated to make the whole class iu- 
 diff'erent to having their children at school at all. 
 
 " 4. It is a step to a general compulsion, and to the introduction of 
 the system which has borne such evil fruit on the Continent of 
 Europe. 
 
 *' IV. Some other principal objections to the Provisions of the Bill 
 are — 
 
 *' 1 . That the reading of the Holy Scriptures in the school as a safeguard 
 against what is called ' purely Secular Education,' is a delusion. It is, be- 
 sides, to use the Holy Scriptures in a way that does them great dishonour 
 — that is, as a mere school reading book. And — what is matter of gravest 
 consideration for all Churchmen — it is to use them in a way which absO' 
 lutely ignores the Office and Commission of the Church as * the witness and 
 the keeper of Holy Writ.' 
 
 2. That the Bill must discourage voluntary efforts —because it proposes 
 to confine these in future to the carrying out the details of the Bill more 
 largely and eff'ectually. 
 
 "3. That the Bill is only a step towards the plan of the * National Public 
 School Association,' and can only be accepted by that body in that view. 
 
 "4. That the 'success' of the plan detailed in the Bill is impossible, 
 unless at the expense of the principle of the National Society. — Mr. Ent- 
 wisle, p. 12. 
 
 '* 5. Allowing (for argument's sake) that there is any advantage in the 
 plan — there is plainly no advantage which might not be much better and 
 more safely attained by the return of the Committee of Council on Educa- 
 tion to the simple principle of the agreement of 1840.
 
 23 
 
 " Remarks. 
 
 "V. With reference to what Mr. Entwisle calls, p. 13, 'the peculiar 
 principle of the scheme/ namely, ' the allowing the Parents or Guardians 
 to select the School where the religious instruction is in accordance with 
 their own opinions, and the appropriating payment out of the rate to each 
 School at an equal rate per head on every child registered as attending 
 regularly at such School.' 
 " It is be observed — 
 
 " That it is a complete and palpable delusion to speak of the ' imparti- 
 ality and equity' of such principle. 
 
 ** Because — to say nothing of what has been disposed of above — namely, 
 that the entire scheme is one-sided, in favour of latitudinarianism, and of 
 dealing with differences touching the great doctrines of Christianity as 
 only * shades of opinion,' p. 14, it is obvious that the working of the scheme 
 may, at any time, and probably will at all times, apply a portion of every 
 man's rate to the dissemination of doctrines contrary to his belief, and to 
 the inculcation of principles repulsive to his conscience. 
 
 "And even if this partial and inequitable principle of the Bill did not, 
 at first, betray itself in the practical arrangements of any particular locality, 
 the objection would still lie in full force — that it is the principle of the 
 Bill : is liable to be called into active operation at any moment, and is in- 
 tended to be called into active operation whenever there is any opportunity. 
 
 " VI. It would seem difficult to devise any more certain and effectual 
 way of perpetuating and propagating heresies and schisms under the plea 
 of * free education,' than the passing and carrying out of this Bill. 
 
 " VII. Not to oppose vigorously and steadily, and much more to be a 
 party in any shape to, a scheme of this description, appears, for all the 
 above reasons, to be inconsistent with the plain duty of Churchmen — not 
 to say with the duty of all who, though not of the Communion of the 
 Church of England, make any Profession of Faith.''
 
 23 
 
 B. 
 
 The subjoined statistics, the accuracy of which will, I believe, not be 
 disputed, go far to establish some important facts in connection with the 
 proposed " Education " Rate for Manchester and Salford. 
 
 1. That school accommodation is very unequally distributed among the 
 several ecclesiastical districts. 
 
 2. That the want of such accommodation is greatest in the most popu- 
 lous and the poorest districts.* 
 
 3. That the scholars attending existing Sunday schools, whose number 
 is a very sufficient test of the number among the poorer classes who 
 will take advantage of school teaching, amount to some thousands more 
 than one-sixth of the entire population, which is the proportion of the 
 community for which it is assumed, both by the Promoters of the National 
 Public School Association, and of the Manchester and Salford Scheme, 
 that school accommodation ought to be provided. 
 
 4. That therefore there is no ground to expect that the number of 
 scholars will be increased under the Bill, unless provisions are resorted to, 
 to make attendance compulsory. 
 
 •1,2, are illustrated by a map of Manchester and Salford lying before me, in 
 which the ecclesiastical districts, 35 in number, 27 in Manchester and 8 in Salford, 
 are coloured. * 
 
 1st class. Yellow. 
 
 2nd " Red. 
 
 3rd " Black. 
 
 Yellow represents those districts in which ample accommodation or more than 
 sufficient, exists. 
 
 Red those in which the accommodation is about equal to the amount assumed 
 to be required. 
 
 Black those in which there is a decided deficiency, so as to make the building 
 of new schools out of the Rate imperative, if adequate accommodation is to be 
 provided. 
 
 In the borough of Manchester 12 districts are coloured Black, in Salford 3 ; 
 and it appears further, that the operation of the Bill will be to close so many of 
 the existing schools in three other districts of Manchester, and one of Salford, 
 that these will have to be coloured black also. 
 
 That is, there will be, under the operation of the Bill, in all 19 districts out of 
 35, in which it will be necessary to build new schools out of the Rate,
 
 24 
 
 Statistics of the 
 
 various Day and Sunday 
 
 1 Schools 
 
 in the Municipal 
 
 Borough of Manchester, 1861 
 
 
 
 
 Day 
 
 Schools 
 
 
 Sum 
 
 No. re- 
 
 
 1 
 
 Name of 
 
 Ecclesiastical 
 
 District. 
 
 No. of Day 
 
 Scholars 
 in connec- 
 tion with 
 Sunday 
 Schools. 
 
 Schools unconnected with 
 any religious body. 
 
 connect- 
 ed with 
 religious 
 bodies, 
 but not 
 
 with 
 Sunday 
 Schools. 
 
 Sunday 
 Schools. 
 
 Total 
 of scho- 
 lars at- 
 tending 
 Day 
 and 
 Sunday 
 Schools. 
 
 quiring 
 Educa- 
 tion, 
 i.e. one- 
 sixth of 
 
 the 
 popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Total 
 popula- 
 tion of 
 
 each 
 District. 
 
 < 
 
 
 Ch. 
 
 Dis. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 Ch. 
 
 Dis. 
 
 Church Dissent 
 
 
 
 
 S. Mary's . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 214 
 
 694 
 
 4,165 
 
 ■; 
 
 S. Matthew's 
 
 207 
 
 120 
 
 8 65 
 
 68 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 
 400 410 
 
 1,029 
 
 2,116 
 
 12,701 
 
 1 
 
 S. John's . 
 
 365 
 
 525 
 
 25 206 
 
 90 
 
 67 
 
 
 106 
 
 
 600 2,641 
 
 3,735 
 
 2,386 
 
 14,319 
 
 1 
 
 S. Peter's . 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 
 700 
 
 
 
 270j 28 
 
 1,023 
 
 195 
 
 1,166 
 
 ; 
 
 Cathedral* . 
 
 314 
 
 545 
 
 108 288 
 
 221 
 
 43 
 
 400 
 
 60 
 
 
 590 1,749 
 
 3,459 
 
 3,871 
 
 23,225; 
 
 
 S. Luke's* . 
 
 
 
 4o; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90; 
 
 130 
 
 199 
 
 1,195 
 
 
 S. Mark's* . 
 
 263 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 320; 
 
 320 
 
 673 
 
 4,039' 
 
 ^ 
 
 S. Ann's 
 
 275 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 475' 
 
 475 
 
 351 
 
 2,104' 
 
 
 S. Paul's . 
 
 130 
 
 
 130, 108 
 
 12 
 
 113 
 
 
 
 
 354 927 
 
 1,644 
 
 1,360 
 
 8,16lj 
 
 
 S. James' 
 
 180 
 
 150 
 
 
 90 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 
 490 1,212 
 
 1,841 
 
 994 
 
 5,962 
 
 S 1 
 
 S. Michael's 
 
 357 
 
 466 
 
 
 30 
 
 156 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 850 1,766 
 
 2,831 
 
 3,640 
 
 21,840 
 
 1,. 
 
 S. George's . 
 
 530 
 
 1923 
 
 18 356, 284 
 
 136 
 
 
 
 
 3,700 4,930 
 
 9,424 
 
 5,702 
 
 34,215 
 
 S. Thomas . 
 
 282 
 
 
 6 70, 45 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 360 100 
 
 605 
 
 1,204 
 
 7,223 
 
 •S' 
 
 S. Simon and 
 S. Jude . 
 
 320 
 
 350 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 598 1,036 
 
 1,658 
 
 825 
 
 4,949 
 
 
 S. Barnabas. 
 
 380 
 
 
 
 
 204 
 
 103 
 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 687 
 
 1,409 
 
 8,453 
 
 S 
 
 Harpurhey . 
 
 34 
 
 123 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 m^^^ 
 
 / 1,096 
 I 269 
 
 1 454 
 
 2,717 
 
 
 S. Philip's . 
 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 140 
 
 
 
 
 182j 247 
 
 569 
 
 865 
 
 5,191 
 
 
 S. Andrew's 
 
 220 
 
 92 
 
 20 778 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 
 
 600 615 
 
 2,267 
 
 2,801 
 
 16,802 
 
 
 S. Jude's 
 
 196 
 
 497 
 
 176 
 
 
 227 
 
 
 
 
 466 1,407 
 
 2,276 
 
 2,292 
 
 13,753 
 
 
 All Souls . 
 
 214 
 
 132 
 
 148 
 
 i 
 
 
 155 
 
 
 
 
 253 412 
 
 968 
 
 1,597 
 
 9,585' 
 
 
 S. Thomas' . 
 
 231 
 
 
 200 112 
 
 
 153 
 
 
 
 
 395 289 
 
 1,149 
 
 1,197 
 
 7,183 
 
 S. Silas' 
 
 200 
 
 20 
 
 1 20 
 
 1 
 
 
 249 
 
 
 
 
 601 1 1,124 
 
 1,994 
 
 1,432 
 
 8,593 
 
 til 
 
 All Saints . 
 
 240 
 
 725 
 
 486 228 
 
 465 
 
 187 
 
 
 
 460 3,217 
 
 5,043 
 
 4,771 
 
 28,628 
 
 S. Saviour's. 
 
 486 
 
 797 
 
 397 87 
 
 ! 
 
 15 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 298 
 
 486 1,194 
 
 2,507 
 
 1,153 
 
 6,918 
 
 ili 
 
 Is S j 
 ss 1 
 
 S. George's . 
 
 220 
 
 186 543 505 
 
 262 
 
 
 110 
 
 
 1 
 800| 2,644 
 
 5,050 
 
 4,690 
 
 28,141 
 
 S. Mark's . 
 
 47 
 
 
 ' 38 
 
 123 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 I8O: 
 
 381 
 
 1,045 
 
 6,274 
 
 Holy Trinity 
 
 350 
 
 270 
 
 63 52 
 
 262 
 
 366 
 
 
 
 
 476 769 
 
 1,988 
 
 3,176 
 
 19,055 
 
 1^1 
 
 
 6041 
 276 
 
 6S00 
 
 1687 3395 
 
 2475 
 
 2782 
 
 1100 
 
 276 
 
 298 
 
 15,076 27,542 
 42,618 
 
 54,631 
 
 51,092 
 
 306,557 
 
 
 298 
 
 11,439 
 
 1. The number of children will be founc 
 
 to agree in the aggregate with the Police returns 
 
 made to the Watch Committee, and is further 
 
 corroborated by the numbers returned as attending 
 
 the Peel Park demonstration. 
 
 
 2. The population of the ecclesiastical d 
 
 istricts is taken from the Registrar's return at the 
 
 late Census. 
 
 
 3. The quality of education is thus expr 
 
 essed : 1. First class. 2. Second class. 3. Poor 
 
 or Charitable Schools. 4» Dame, or Tnfa 
 
 nt Schools. 5. Public Schools, i. e.. Grammar 
 
 School, 400 ; Mechanics' Institution School, 
 
 700. 
 
 * A portion of the Cathedral district, \« 
 
 dth S. Mark's and S. Luke's, form the Township 
 
 of Cheetham. Owing to the Cathedral district 
 
 including a large part of Cheetham, it is necessary 
 
 to place 
 
 thes< 
 
 3 dist 
 
 ricts ( 
 
 ;ogetl 
 
 ler. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 25 
 
 The school statistics of Salford present the same result. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Church 
 Schools. 
 
 Dissent. 
 
 Secu- 
 lar. 
 
 Total. 
 
 One- 
 sixth. 
 
 Total 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 S. Philip's . 
 
 Trinity 
 
 Christ Church . 
 
 S. Bartholomew . 
 
 S. Stephen . 
 
 S. Matthias 
 
 S. Simon , 
 
 
 Day. 
 490 
 
 728 
 425 
 286 
 245 
 
 Sun. 
 340 
 225 
 791 
 400 
 450 
 350 
 370 
 
 Day. 
 459 
 515 
 300 
 
 90 
 190 
 
 40 
 290 
 
 Sun. 
 
 1539 
 
 1340 
 
 1121 
 
 247 
 
 1050 
 
 600 
 
 420 
 
 52 
 116 
 
 152 
 2J5 
 
 2081 
 1681 
 1912 
 
 647 
 1652 
 1165 
 
 790 
 
 1732 
 
 2081 
 1169 
 1384 
 1646 
 864 
 1015 
 
 10,392 
 12,486 
 7,013 
 8,286 
 9,888 
 5,186 
 6,093 
 
 
 2174 
 
 2926 
 
 1884 
 
 6317 
 
 535 
 
 9928 
 
 9888 
 
 59,344 
 
 There appears to be every reason to conclude that the whole of the 3rd 
 and 4th class schools will be closed by the operation of the Bill, and a large 
 proportion of class 2. 
 
 Total number of children in general attendance in Sunday Schools at 
 Manchester and Salford, January to June, 1851. 
 
 
 Manchester. 
 
 Salford. 
 
 • 
 
 Total. 
 
 Church of England 
 
 15,438 
 
 2,926 
 
 18,364 
 
 Wesley an s 
 
 
 
 
 5,384 
 
 1,928 
 
 7,312 
 
 Independents . 
 
 
 
 
 4,110 
 
 2,267 
 
 6,377 
 
 Roman Catholics 
 
 
 
 
 4,275 
 
 700 
 
 4,975 
 
 Association Methodists 
 
 
 
 
 2,355 
 
 
 2,355 
 
 Unitarians .... 
 
 
 
 
 1,390 
 
 
 1,390 
 
 Presbyterians . 
 
 
 
 
 1,277 
 
 120 
 
 1,397 
 
 Lancasterians . 
 
 
 
 
 1 ,200 
 
 
 1 ,200 
 
 Baptists .... 
 
 
 
 
 1,060 
 
 466 
 
 1,526 
 
 New Connexion Methodists 
 
 
 
 
 1,092 
 
 
 1,092 
 
 Primitive Methodists 
 
 
 
 
 963 
 
 160 
 
 1,123 
 
 Bible Christians 
 
 
 
 
 649 
 
 
 649 
 
 Welsh Calvinists, &c. 
 
 
 
 
 435 
 
 
 435 
 
 New Jerusalem 
 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 70 
 
 270 
 
 Friends .... 
 
 
 
 
 210 
 
 
 210 
 
 Jews .... 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 35 
 
 Various Bodies of Methodists, &c. 
 
 
 
 2,225 
 
 606 
 
 2,831 
 
 Schools of which the denomination is not 
 
 490 
 
 
 400 
 
 given 
 
 
 
 
 
 42,788 
 
 9,243 
 
 52,031 
 
 In 1851, the population of the municipal boroughs of Manchester and 
 Salford amounted to 365,901, according to the returns of the Registrar 
 General, in the various ecclesiastical districts. And assuming this to be
 
 26 
 
 correct, we have 60,983, as one- sixth of the population, which being be- 
 tween the ages of three and fifteen, ought to be under education. As this 
 is the ground on which both the rival schemes are founded, we will admit 
 its correctness for the purposes of argument, though it is manifest that 
 many children of such tender years could not attend a school. 
 
 A careful investigation of the state of education in these boroughs, 
 during the past year shows the following result : — 
 
 Manchester. — Number attending Sunday schools or day 
 
 schools connected with religious bodies 43,192 
 First class day schools only . . 1 ,687 
 
 Second class ditto . . . 3,395 
 
 Poor or charitable ditto . . . 2,475 
 
 Dame or infant ditto . . . 2,782 
 
 Public schools 1,100 
 
 Salford. — Number attending Sunday schools or day 
 
 schools connected with religious bodies 9,243 
 Day schools only .... 536 
 
 Making a total of . . 64,409 
 
 These numbers are given merely to show that the statement that there is 
 sufficient school accommodation without the erection of fresh buildings, has 
 much the appearance of truth ; but it would be manifestly unfair in so 
 large a population, not to look more narrowly into the statistics of the 
 locality before we admit this assertion. 
 
 The point before us is — the rival schemes agree in assessing one-sixth as 
 the proportion of the population which ought to be under instruction — 
 and as both their measures are designed to supply certain alleged wants, 
 we may conclude that they would take care that schools should be pro- 
 vided in sufficient abundance to accommodate that number. So much 
 stress has been laid on the supposed sufficiency of accommodation, that it 
 is fair to assume that the promoters of the "Manchester" scheme are not 
 sanguine as to any increased voluntary efforts for supplying any want that 
 may arise ; and if, on analysing our statistics, any great deficiency is appa- 
 rent, it will no doubt have to be supplied mainly by rate built schools. 
 The following table exhibits the town divided into districts, and I believe 
 that no one can dispute the fairness of such a division.
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 Division of Manchester and Salford into Districts. 
 
 
 Name. 
 
 
 Popula-' Day Schools 
 tioa. only. 
 
 Sunday 
 Schools 
 
 Total. 
 
 One- 
 sixth 
 of the 
 popula- 
 tion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 and 2 ^o""" °' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /\ 
 
 
 
 
 Dame. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cathedral 
 
 > 
 
 •23225 
 
 3961 
 400/ 
 
 264 
 
 2399 
 
 3059"! 
 400 ' 
 
 3871 
 
 \ Owing to some little difficulty 
 in dividing these districts exactly. 
 
 
 S. Mark's 
 
 4039 
 
 
 
 320 
 
 320 
 
 673 
 
 )it is thought best to include them 
 
 
 S. Luke's 
 
 1195 
 
 40 
 
 
 90 
 
 130 
 
 199 1 1 together, as the total for the three 
 
 J, 
 
 S. Thomas, 
 1 Red Bank 
 
 I 
 
 7223 
 
 76 
 
 69 
 
 460 
 
 605 
 
 1204 
 
 districts will be found correct. 
 
 1^ 
 
 S. Michael's 
 
 
 21840 
 
 30 
 
 185 
 
 2616 
 
 2831 
 
 3640 
 
 The 400 scholars under No. 1 
 
 iS. George's 
 
 
 34215 
 
 374 
 
 420 
 
 8630 
 
 9424 
 
 5702 
 
 and 2 in Cathedral district are 
 
 S. Barnabas 
 
 
 8453 
 
 
 307 
 
 380 
 
 687 
 
 1409 
 
 Grammar-school boys, who of 
 
 
 S. Philip's 
 
 
 5)91 
 
 
 140 
 
 429 
 
 569 
 
 865 
 
 course come from all districts of 
 
 ll^ 
 
 S. Jude's . 
 
 
 13753 
 
 176 
 
 227 
 
 1873 
 
 2276 
 
 2292 
 
 the town. 
 
 ! 
 
 All Souls . 
 
 
 9585 
 
 148 
 
 155 
 
 665 
 
 968 
 
 1597 1 
 
 
 S. Paul's . 
 
 
 8161 
 
 238 
 
 125 
 
 1281 
 
 1644 1360 
 
 
 
 S. Andrew's 
 
 
 16802 
 
 798 
 
 254 
 
 1215 
 
 2267 2801 
 
 
 N 
 
 Harpurhey 
 
 
 2717 
 
 
 40 
 
 1325 
 
 1365 
 
 454 
 
 
 J 
 
 S. Mary's . 
 
 
 4165 
 
 
 14 
 
 200 
 
 214 
 
 694 
 
 
 . 
 
 S. Ann's . 
 
 . 
 
 2104 
 
 
 
 475 
 
 475 
 
 351 
 
 
 :« 
 
 S. James* . 
 
 , 
 
 5962 
 
 90 
 
 49 
 
 1702 
 
 1841 
 
 994 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S. Simon and S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •2 i 
 
 Q ( 
 
 Jude 
 
 
 4949 
 
 
 24 
 
 1634 
 
 1658 
 
 825 
 
 • 
 
 1 
 
 iS. Peter's . 
 
 
 1166 
 
 700/ 
 
 25 
 
 298 
 
 3231 
 
 700/ 
 
 195 
 
 The 700 scholars under No. I 
 
 p^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 and 2 in S. Peter's district at- 
 
 
 S. John's . 
 
 
 14319 
 
 231 
 
 157 
 
 3342 
 
 3730 
 
 2386 
 
 tend the Mechanics' Institution 
 
 \ 
 
 S. Matthew 
 
 
 12701 
 
 73 
 
 146 
 
 810 
 
 1029 
 
 2116 
 
 School. 
 
 / 
 
 S. Philip's 
 
 
 10392 
 
 A 
 
 2029 
 
 2081 
 
 1732 
 
 
 
 52 
 
 The Salford Police Report 
 
 
 Trinity . 
 
 . 
 
 12486 
 
 116 
 
 1565 
 
 I68I 
 
 2081 
 
 gives no classification of the 
 
 ? 
 
 Christ Church . 
 
 7013 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1912 
 
 1169 
 
 qualities of education. 
 
 1 
 
 S. Bartholomew 
 
 8286 
 
 
 647 
 
 647 
 
 1384 
 
 
 S. Stephen 
 
 . 
 
 9888 
 
 152 
 
 1500 
 
 1652 
 
 1646 
 
 
 
 S. Matthias 
 
 . 
 
 5186 
 
 215 
 
 950 
 
 1165 ; 864 
 
 
 \ 
 
 S. Simon . 
 
 
 6093 
 
 
 790 
 
 790 1015 
 
 
 ^ f 
 
 
 
 
 '-^^^DT^e^;- 
 
 
 
 
 i ( 
 
 S. Silas . 
 
 
 8593 
 
 20 249 ! 
 
 1725 
 
 1994 
 
 1432 
 
 
 n 
 
 S. Thomas 
 
 • 
 
 7183 
 
 312 153 ! 
 
 684 
 
 1149 
 
 1197 
 
 
 / 
 
 S. George's 
 
 
 28141 
 
 1 
 729 767 1 
 
 3554 
 
 5050 
 
 4690 
 
 
 « \ 
 
 S. Mark's . 
 
 . 
 
 6274 
 
 38 
 
 163 
 
 180 
 
 381 
 
 1045 
 
 
 
 Holy Trinity 
 
 • 
 
 19055 
 
 115 
 
 628 
 
 1245 
 
 1988 
 
 3176 
 
 
 1 
 
 All Saints . 
 
 
 28628 
 
 714 652 3677 
 
 5043 
 
 4771 
 
 
 1( 
 
 S. Saviour's 
 
 • 
 
 6918 
 
 484 45 1978 
 
 2507 
 
 [ 
 
 1153 
 
 Under the head of Sunday Schools the number of children attending Day Schools in the 
 
 same buildings 
 
 are included with the extra number of children attending on Sunday, ex. gr., 
 
 S 
 
 >. Ann's school 2C 
 
 attenc 
 
 i in the 
 
 week, i 
 
 ind 275 
 
 extra o 
 
 n Sundi 
 
 ly ; total accommodated, 475.
 
 28 
 
 To estimate the comparative wealth of these various districts it may be 
 stated that the amount expended in relief for the poor is fully half as much 
 again in proportion to the population in Manchester and Salford, as it is in 
 Chorltou and Hulrae. 
 
 In the factory districts of Manchester, for the benefit of which this Bill 
 is professedly introduced, I find only in three an excess of school accom- 
 modation to balance the deficiency in the remainder; and it cannot be 
 supposed by any one acquainted with the locality that young children, resi- 
 ding in many parts of the town, could attend distant schools. 
 
 In the town district of Manchester, I find the school accommodation to 
 be in many cases double what is necessary, and in only two (one of which, 
 S. Matthew's, is one of the poorest districts in the whole town) is there any 
 deficiency. 
 
 In the out districts I find generally a superabundance of accommoda- 
 tion, and the deficiency which exists in the Hulme district is accounted for 
 from the fact that the population there has been literally doubled during 
 the last ten years. 
 
 I find even on the showing of the Manchester and Salford Scheme, 
 that the districts where crime, poverty and ignorance, are most prevalent, 
 are those which require new schools, and if a sense of moral responsibility 
 and religious obligation will not induce those who have the means to pro- 
 vide school accommodation now, will a heavy rate be any further aid to 
 voluntary exertion ? 
 
 The general conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing figures taken in 
 connection with the other facts of the case, and the provisions of the Bill, 
 appear to be these : — 
 
 1. That the Bill will make the present school accommodation ?;er2/ iw- 
 sufficient, by closing many schools, and will therefore necessitate the build- 
 ing of a large number of new schools out of the Rate. 
 
 2. That by the provisions of the Bill these schools must all be " without 
 creeds," " without formularies," " without catechisms." I add therefore 
 once more " without prayers." 
 
 3. That the quantity of Education will not be increased. 
 
 4. That the qualitj/ may possibly be improved in respect of the power of 
 promoting mere intellectual developement, but that there is no ground to 
 expect improvement of any other kind, but the reverse. 
 
 5. That the manner of bringing the children to school will probably 
 become compulsory. 
 
 6. That the matter of what is taught will be, in the Church schools, 
 not the Catholic Faith, but vague generalities of religion, and even these 
 administered according to every individual's crude fancies, or rejected 
 altogether as an unnecessary part of school teaching. 
 
 7. That the Sunday schools, for the support of which no provision is 
 made by the Bill, and which depend altogether upon voluntary eflbrts, will 
 be severely damaged by the introduction of the principle of a compulsory 
 Rate.
 
 29 
 
 The promoters of the Bill say at times a good deal about its bein» in- 
 tended to encourage and supplement voluntary efforts, but this cannot be 
 an exact account of the case, because I have it upon the best authority that 
 the words to that effect which appeared originally in the draft of the measure 
 were afterwards struck out, and Mr. Richson's " Sketch," which is the 
 latest manifesto of the party, is of the nature of a declaration of war 
 against all voluntary efforts. 
 
 I understand, upon the same authority, 1. that the Roman Cathohcswill 
 oppose the Bill in its present shape ; 2. that in case it is so altered as to 
 permit their acceptance of it, they would come under Government Inspec- 
 tion, but on no account, and in no instance, under the Corporation. 
 
 The following may be cited as an instance of the working of the Bill : 
 in many parts of Manchester there are large districts of very poor popu- 
 lation unprovided with school accommodation. Finding a deficiency, the 
 District Committee issue the required notice, that unless the want is sup- 
 plied in a certain time, they shall proceed to supply it themselves. In 
 many cases, perhaps, funds might be found to hire a room and fit it up, 
 but the Bill only recognises the erection of new schools, such as the Com- 
 mittee of Council approve of, i.e., of the most expensive kind, and therefore 
 it virtually prohibits the occupation of the ground by any religious body. 
 At the expiration of the appointed time, the Committee take possession 
 and proceed, if they have plenty of funds, to build a school, or if it suits 
 their purpose better, they can take the very room they will not allow us to 
 occupy, and appropriate the rate to the entire exclusion of religious 
 teaching. 
 
 I understand further that the feeling of the Wesleyans is generally against 
 the Bill, with many other of the dissenters, and that it is rare to find any 
 of the leading conductors of Church Sunday schools who lend their support 
 to the measure. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, that in the foregoing figures I have been 
 obliged, as an inevitable consequence of the principle of this scheme, to 
 acknowledge all teaching as equally important, and to treat the teaching 
 of the distinctive truths of our religion as an '* unfortunate accident," or 
 as an impediment to moral training ; and I have also placed the quality 
 of education given in every school upon a par, and even then I find a 
 deficiency. 
 
 By offering a rate to every school, which may be outwardly well con- 
 ducted, this Bill invites every heterodox kind of teaching to compete 
 against the existing system of Education on religious principles. On the 
 principle of a Government grant, religious bodies are those for whom it is 
 intended, and if any wrong party obtains it, it is by accident. By this Bill, 
 secular education is acknowledged alone, and while religious bodies can 
 obtain any benefit only so far as they apply as ordinary schools, every 
 common day school has a powerful weapon put into its hand u^aiutjt 
 schools conducted on religious principles. 
 
 D 2
 
 30 
 
 C. 
 
 After my ** Reply" was sent to the press, I received, by the kind courtesy 
 of Mr. Entwisle, a copy of his *' Apology for a Churchman's support of 
 the Manchester and Salford Education Bill.'* 
 
 I should do very ill if I did not take this opportunity of tendering to Mr. 
 Entwisle ray best acknowledgments of the tone and temper and spirit in 
 which he has defended what I have felt, and still feel, bound to assail, and 
 to endeavour to overthrow by every legitimate means within my power. 
 
 We cannot agree — that I fear is hopeless — but it is a great comfort to 
 feel that our controversy carries with it nothing on either side of bitterness 
 or personal ill-will. 
 
 Some of Mr. Entwisle's observations I have anticipated in my " reply." 
 The remainder it must now be my business to deal with as concisely and as 
 conclusively as I can. 
 
 I. Mr. Entwisle says that I " confound doctrinal religious truths with 
 formularies." 
 
 Now there is no confusion in identifying the doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church of England with the formularies of the Catholic Church of Eng- 
 land ; as a Churchman I am not concerned with any other " doctrines," 
 and indeed I know of none other in the true and proper sense of the word. 
 If the Church of England possesses the whole Catholic Faith, as I claim 
 for her, then a " doctrine " of any other rehgious body is only truly and 
 properly " a doctrine " in that it is identical with the doctrine of the 
 Church of England ; and, if so, must be truly and properly expressed by 
 the formularies of the Church of England. 
 
 I beg, in reference to this point of our controversy, to call attention to 
 the admission, page 4, of Mr. Entwisle's " Apology." 
 
 " It is, however, true that in these schools children would not be taught 
 to repeat the formula of any distinctive Faith." 
 
 II. I am not responsible for even the qualified identity between my 
 " OutUne " anil the Manchester and Salford scheme which has been 
 assumed to exist in the Article of the "English Churchman." I repudiate 
 all identity in principle and in detail, and I have shown, both on former 
 occasions and in my present " Reply," what are the grounds on which I 
 repudiate it. 
 
 III. I have never professed a desire to see, and I have no desire to see, 
 " Church schools built out of the public money," under any circumstances 
 of any locality ; all I have ever asked is aid towards building and making 
 efficient Church schools, provided always that such aid is given without 
 involving one particle of interference, direct or indirect, with the matter or 
 the manner of the teaching and the training given therein. Finding my- 
 self a citizen of a country which has, most unhappily for itself, repudiated, 
 to a great extent. Church obedience, I have no choice but to acquiesce in
 
 31 
 
 an arrangement by which the governing body, common to the Church and 
 the Separatists, shall assist each and all, upon a common principle, out of 
 the proceeds of the taxes collected from all. 
 
 IV. I am not concerned to defend any laxity which may have existed 
 on the part of the Committee of the National Society in enforcing, so far 
 as in them lies, the Rule of the Church — for it is, not a rule of 
 the National Society, but, of the Church — respecting the teaching of the 
 Catechism to all children without exception who are scholars of schools in 
 connection with the Society. 
 
 I will simply say here, that if the Committee of the National 
 Society for promoting the Education of the children of 
 the poor in the principles of the Established Church, shall 
 either abandon the Rule, or allow it to be set aside in any case when it 
 shall be in their power to prevent its being set aside, it will be far better, 
 upon all accounts, that the Society should cease to exist ; and if the 
 necessity shall arise— which I do not beheve it will — for I believe that 
 the Committee will abide strictly by the Rule, even at the cost of five 
 hundred such measures as the Manchester and Salford scheme, I shall 
 be prepared to do the utmost that is within my power to bring the ques- 
 tion to a direct issue. 
 
 V. Mr. Entwisle will not expect of me that his approval and that of the 
 Association of which he is so distinguished a member, of the principles and 
 theories and practice of the Committee of Council on Education will tend 
 to our nearer approximation. Looking to the principles and theories, and 
 to far the greater portion of the practice, of the Committee of Council on 
 *' Education," I regard its agency as simply an evil agency. The Com- 
 mittee of Council had a great Oj)portunity of doitig good, but it has alto- 
 gether failed of doing good, for the mere fact of making schools, here and 
 there, more efficient upon a vicious principle is not doing good. 
 
 VI. In my sentence, quoted correctly p. 15, of the "Apology," "that 
 it is not possible for men to care really about the Catholic Faith who are 
 content to admit into the same school with the children of the Church the 
 children of parents who are not of the Church ;" the concluding words 
 should have been written simply, "children not of the Church," meaning 
 thereby children who had not been baptized into the Church. All children 
 so baptized I am ready and glad to admit and to teach and train, as what 
 they really are, i.e. Church children, whatever may be the case with their 
 parents. 
 
 VII. I am not sure that I apprehend the full force of Mr. Entwisle's 
 argument, pp. 15 — 16. 
 
 I do not see my way to distinguishing between — 
 
 1. The teacher's own conscience. 
 
 2. The teacher's duty towards the children belonging to the Church. 
 
 3. The consideration of the conscience of the child himself. 
 
 I am afraid I must "jumble together" all the three cases, and my 
 answer is this : —
 
 32 
 
 1 cannot take one step in educating a child who has not either received, 
 or is not, if of such age as to admit of previous teaching, in a definite 
 course of preparation for, holy Baptism, and in the latter case I should not 
 admit the child into the school until holy Baptism had been received. 
 
 Every child that has been duly baptized is required by the Church to 
 " learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and all 
 otlier things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's 
 health," that, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the 
 Ten CommsLudments, and be further iristructedifi the Church Catechism set 
 forth for that purpose, he uiay be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed 
 by him. 
 
 This is THE RULE OF THE Church OP En GL AN D, repeated within 
 the four corners of the land many hundred times every day. Mr. Entwisle 
 must excuse me if I hold fast by the rule of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and decline, for any consideration whatsoever, to turn either to the 
 right hand or to the left. 
 
 VIIL The conscience of a Churchman cannot be bound to what " the 
 Nation may have committed itself to," — this would be Erastianism " pure 
 and simple." 
 
 If " the Nation is already committed to the support of Schools in 
 which no Creed, Catechism, or formulary can be taught," I am sorry for 
 the Nation, but this fact, if it be a fact, can be no reason why a Church- 
 man should assist, or even why he shouhl not denounce, the further exten- 
 sion of a system, and the system itself, which rests upon an absolute nega- 
 tion of the office and commission of the Church. 
 
 IX. Mr. Entwisle is fond of quoting Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools 
 as authorities in these matters. With all respect for Her Majesty's Inspec- 
 tors, I am disposed to prefer the authority of the Church. 
 
 X. Mr. Entwisle says, " surely there were Christians in the world before 
 the Catechism was written :" granted ; but there were no Christians in the 
 world, before the doctrine of Christ was delivered, and it is the 
 DOCTRINE OF Christ which is delivered in the Catechism. 
 
 Mr. Entwisle says again, " Nay I may go much farther, and ask whether 
 there were not Christians before such a formulary as the Apostles' Creed 
 had been heard of ?" 
 
 I need not remind Mr. Entwisle that S. Paul speaks in one place of the 
 Christians of his time as having " obeyed from the heart the form of doc- 
 trine which was delivered unto them," (Romans vi. 17,) and, in another 
 place writes to " Timothy his own son in the Faith," " Hold fast the 
 form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love which 
 is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy i. 13.) 
 
 What DIFFERENCE docs Mr. Entwisle conceive to subsist between " the 
 form of doctrine," "the form of sound words," and the Creeds of the 
 Church Catholic ?
 
 33 
 
 D. 
 
 I hope the Editor of the Manchester Courier will reconsider his opinion 
 about my " eoramon sense," notwithstanding that I have now to state that, 
 having read and considered Mr. Richson's 113 pages, if anything had been 
 wanting to estabhsh my judgment touching the Manchester and Salford 
 " Education " scheme, it would have been amply supplied by the said 
 113 pages. 
 
 I have often thought the laity of the Church of England hardly used by 
 many of their clergy in this especial particular, that they are encouraged 
 by the example and authority of the said clergy to be lax and indifferent 
 in respect of the Catholic Faith of the Church of England, and are so be- 
 trayed into promoting measures which are incompatible with any steady 
 and reasonable adherence to that Faith. 
 
 The history of the Manchester and Salford scheme supplies a memorable 
 example of this hard usage. 
 
 The ground, upon which this, and all other like schemes, proceed, is 
 " the necessity of the case." 
 
 Now there is no ground so easy to be taken, so delusive and so dan- 
 gerous, as *' the necessity of the case.'' 
 
 Those who argue from "the necessity of the case" very commonly 
 build up their theories upon the bare facts of the religious history of a 
 nation, but lose sight of principles. 
 
 This particular scheme proceeds upon three " necessities. 
 
 Of these the first is undoubtedly true. 
 
 The second is undoubtedly /aZse. 
 
 The third is a deduction from the first and second conjointly, and is 
 worse than false. 
 
 1. The people must be Educated — true. 
 
 2. The people must be ** Educated " on a national and comprehensive 
 principle— /aZ^e. 
 
 3. Wherefore, as such "national and comprehensive" "Education" 
 cannot be had without infringing the Rules op the Church, not 
 simply in respect of those who are not of the Church, but also in respect 
 of those who are of the Church, the Rules of the Church must be 
 infringed — worse than false. 
 
 It is the old story. 
 
 Rem facias, rem. 
 Si possis, recte, si non, quocunque modo, rem. 
 Now, no sooner had this promising project been set on foot by the "Clerk 
 in orders of the Cathedral Church of Manchester," than there arrive two 
 higher ecclesiastical functionaries to help it on. 
 
 The first Bishop of Manchester and the "new Dean " are found to be 
 powerful coadjutors. 
 
 "Neither his lordship nor the dean appeared to have any very great confi- 
 dence in voluntary effort as a means of supporting schools : but they both
 
 34 
 
 foresaw that no proposal to provide education out of any public resource could 
 be successful, unless the managers of church schools were prepared to make 
 some concessions in respect to teaching the dogmatic formularies of the Church 
 to children whose parents objected to such instruction. 
 
 ** Upon the necessity of making such concession, the bishop insisted so per- 
 severingly, that the object he had in view was at the time much misunderstood ; 
 and even the promoters of the secular scheme, then gradually increasing in num- 
 bers, appear to have indulged some hope that the bishop would join their 
 ranks."— pp. 32, 33, " Sketch, &c." 
 
 " Indeed, most persons began to see very clearly that some measure for pro- 
 moting national education by means of taxation could not be much longer 
 delayed ; and hence, in Manchester, the bishop continued to urge upon the 
 Church society the increased importance, under these circumstances, of formally 
 recommending to schools not bound by the rules of the National Society, that 
 they should not insist upon teaching the church formularies to children, whose 
 parents objected to such instruction. 
 
 " In this course, the bishop was earnestly supported by the dean ; and the 
 consequence was that at a meeting of the committee on March 7th, 1850, it was 
 proposed by the dean, and eventually resolved ; — 
 
 ** * That in all Church of England schools, we feel it imperatively our duty to 
 require, that the distinctive teaching of the Church of England should be fully 
 maintained with respect to all those who are in her communion ; — but it should 
 in no such schools be obligatory, that the children of parents not being in Church 
 of England communion, receive other direct religious instruction, than that in- 
 volved in the daily reading of the Holy Scriptures.' 
 
 " Although this resolution had not been carried without much difficulty, it 
 was soon found to involve more important consequences than most persons had 
 been prepared to believe ; inasmuch as it appeared shortly after, that the pass- 
 ing of this resolution by the Church society had removed one of the main 
 impediments to uniting the various religious bodies in a general scheme for 
 promoting education. 
 
 ** At the same meeting the committee also passed the following resolution ; — 
 
 " * That a memorial be addressed to the Committee of the National Society, 
 praying them to alter or remodel the terms of union, when requested by the 
 managers of any Church school so to do, that parties who have heretofore re- 
 ceived the Society's aid on those terras may be enabled to conduct their schools 
 in accordance with the foregoing resolution.' 
 
 "The memorial here alluded to, was addressed to the National Society, but 
 without any practical results." — pp. 54, 55, " Sketch, &c." 
 
 ** An incident occurred during the preliminary discussions on this measure, 
 which showed the correct foresight of the bishop and the dean in urging, as pre- 
 liminary to a general system of education, that provision should be made for 
 exceptional cases of learning the dogmatic formularies of religion. At the 
 private meeting held on the 1st of January (1851), it was proposed, in order to 
 avoid placing an undue constraint on the National Society, in respect to their 
 rule for learning the Church Catechism, that Clause V., s. 2, pt. iii. (Appendix 
 F.) should apply only to schools, which might become chargeable upon the rate 
 for repairs. The scheme was published, however, in the local newspapers as given 
 here in the appendix, and was received with expressions of approval that few
 
 35 
 
 persons were prepared to expect. But when the projected alteration became 
 known, it was met with such decided disapprobation that the promoters of the 
 measure found it necessary to declare immediately their fixed adherence to the 
 scheme as originally proposed. Indeed, it was quite evident that to have 
 adopted any other course would have been * simply fatal to the whole measure.' " 
 —pp. 68, 69, " Sketch, &c." 
 
 After this exposition of the birth, parentage and education of the Man- 
 chester and Salford scheme, it would be very unreasonable to find fault 
 with the lay inhabitants of the two boroughs for any amount of favourable 
 regard which they have bestowed upon it. 
 
 But, as I said, I think it hard usage of the laity to expose them after 
 this fashion to the grave charge of dealing with the doctrines of the Catho- 
 lic Faith as abstractions and unrealities ; and the hardship is much aggra- 
 vated by the consideration that they have been led astray by those very 
 guides whose especial business it is to show them the one true way. 
 
 I proceed to comment upon some other passages in Mr. Richson's 
 " Sketch." 
 
 I. Pages 56, 7, establish the fact that we are indebted for the Manchester 
 and Salford Scheme principally to the efforts made, and the position as- 
 sumed, by " the National Public Schools Association." There is no appear- 
 ance of its being regarded by its promoters as a scheme good in itself, but 
 only as one by which they hope to escape " at least for the present, ^^^ from 
 the vigorous and consistent efforts of the promoters of purely secular 
 " Education." 
 
 *' Mr. Entwisle's experience in Parliament had strongly impressed him with 
 the opinion that no private member, of sufficient influence, could be induced to 
 attempt the introduction of any measure whatever to promote national educa- 
 tion ; and as Government did not appear prepared for the task, he regarded the 
 difficulties of accomplishing any general measure at that time as almost in- 
 superable. But on the other hand, rightly estimating the energy and persever- 
 ance of his fellow-townsmen, and knowing how extensively the desire for a 
 national system of education was prevailing among them, he recommended that 
 the application of the present scheme should be limited to Manchester and Sal- 
 ford. Taking into consideration also the local influence of many of the promo- 
 ters of the National Public Schools Association, he further advised, that the 
 schools to be built, in case of need, out of the rate should be placed under such 
 management and conducted upon such principles as would probably afford 
 satisfaction to the more moderate of that party ; and for this purpose, that the 
 managers of rate-built schools should be conclusively laymen,-f and the use of 
 Holy Scripture as the basis of religious instruction the only condition absolutely 
 prescribed. 
 
 " In the application of the rate, the author felt himself at liberty to adopt 
 
 * " Sketch," p. 92. 
 
 t I should like to know what Mr. Entwisle and Mr. Richson understand by 
 " laymen.''
 
 36 
 
 the plan of supporting ' a system of free schools ' which the National Public 
 Schools Association had recommended." — pp. 66, 67, " Sketch, &c." 
 
 Now, compromises always begin with a leaning towards thatwhich,in 
 the judgment, or the fears, of those who compromise, makes the corapro- 
 mise " necessary ;" and end in its triumph. 
 
 It requires no great keenness of vision to see that the promoters of a 
 purely secular " Education," will not rest satisfied with the advantage they 
 have gained in the propounding of the Manchester and Salford Scheme, 
 much less with its enactment by law : they will force the matter on to its 
 only natural issue. 
 
 This is what I meant by the sentence which Mr. Entwisle has quoted — 
 that "the Manchester men, headed by their Bishop, are doing the work 
 of * the National Public Schools Association,' far more effectually than the 
 Association can, at present, hope to do it for themselves." 
 
 But upon this point, Mr. Richson has, with the most unsuspecting 
 frankness, borne conclusive testimony against his own scheme. 
 
 ** The promoters of the Public Schools Association may be properly expected 
 to be satisfied, at least for the present, with the great work they have 
 accomplished in respect to education." — p. 92. 
 
 II. It appears that the Roman Catholic gentlemen did not attend the 
 meeting of Jan 6, 1851, p. 69, and that the Rev. Dr. Errington and the 
 Rev. W. Turner, now Roman Catholic Bishops, withdrew from the Com- 
 mittee after a few attendances. — p. 7^* 
 
 This is very significant of a contrary issue to that predicted, p. 81. " The 
 Roman Catholics intend to avail themselves fully of the provisions of the 
 measure.*' 
 
 I have excellent ground for believing that in the end the Roman 
 Catholics will not touch the measure. 
 
 III. Chap. XVII. of the '* Sketch" is headed, "some provisions of the 
 measure which have been misunderstood." 
 
 1. The description given of the basis of the measure, p. 76, is vague and 
 exceptional. The only thing really definite about it is the complete sub- 
 ordination to " Government" of the system proposed to be created under 
 the Bill. 
 
 I am not concerned to defend or explain the "mistake" that "the mea- 
 sure compels all schools brought under its operation either to adopt some 
 uniform standard of religious teaching, or to exclude from the school-room 
 the teaching of distinctive religious creeds and formularies," because it is 
 not my mistake. 
 
 2. With regard to there being "nothing new" in the application of an 
 
 * Vide also Declaration of Roman Catholic Clergy, March 15, 1851, printed 
 in Appendix C. to " the Scheme of Secular Education proposed by the National 
 Public Schools Association, compared with the Manchester and Salford boroughs 
 'Education' Bill." 1851.
 
 37 
 
 " Education " Rate Mr. Richson must excuse me. The instances he quotes 
 are all instances where the ratepayer gets an equivalent for his rate, but I 
 should like to know how people who pay an " Education " Rate, and yet are 
 utterly unable, as I should be myself, to send their children to any one of 
 the schools supported out of the Rate, are to get an equivalent? But who 
 ever heard of people paying a Rate, which is a local impost, for a specific 
 
 purpose, AND GETTING NO EQUIVALENT FOR IT, BUT ONLY W»AT IS, 
 IN THEIR DELIBERATE JUDGMENT, DEEP AND LASTING MISCHIEF 
 
 TO THEMSELVES AND TO ALL? The general taxcs are one thing, as I 
 have shown elsewhere; a Rate — or a Tax for a specific purpose, which is 
 much the same impost, except that the latter lacks in some degree the 
 local character which attaches to the Rate — is quite another thing. 
 
 3. The responsibility of the Committee of Council on "Education" is 
 an absolute chimera ; from the way in which matters are managed, no body 
 was ever, in a free country, more purely arbitrary. 
 
 That, however, Mr. Richson should proceed to lay down that *' great as 
 is the error which asserts its irresponsibility, much greater is the error 
 which asserts that the local measure confers a vast additional amount of 
 influence upon it," is a proposition which I did not expect to see 
 hazarded. 
 
 Any body who will take the trouble to read the draft of the Bill will see 
 that the whole measure turns upon the sanction and approval of the Com- 
 mittee of Council. 
 
 Take the two points of inspection and appeal, i.e., the fwo primary 
 points. 
 
 What are the schools which can be admitted into union under the Bill? 
 
 1. Schools open to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors. 
 
 2. Schools open to the inspection of Inspectors to be appointed under 
 
 this Bill. 
 
 Who then are to appoint, and regulate the duties of, these local 
 Inspectors ? 
 
 The Committee of Council. Clause V., sec. 1, 3. 
 
 This is pretty well under the head of inspection. 
 
 Then for appeal. 
 
 Clause XVI. " Complaints and appeals against district Committees or 
 Inspectors to be made to Committee of Council on Education, whose 
 
 DECISION IS FINAL." 
 
 This is pretty well under the head of appeal. 
 
 I pass by, as comparatively unimportant, sundry other points in which 
 provision is made by the Bill for extending the influence of the Committee 
 of Council on Education. 
 
 4. The point of the power of the Municipal Council and the District 
 School Committee is one which I do not know that I have touched, but 
 what a curious state we must have come to when it is gravely proposed 
 to erect such bodies into the Protectors of Liberty of Con- 
 science ! — p. 79.
 
 38 
 
 The remaining alleged " mistakes," as far as I am concerned with them, 
 I have disposed of elsewhere. 
 
 IV. The only remaining provision of the Bill which it occurs to me to 
 notice here is one very abhorrent from English feelings and habits, but one 
 without which, I suspect, the Bill will altogether fail in increasing the 
 number of school children in Manchester and Salford. 
 
 I refer to Clause X., sec. 1, 2. 
 
 *' X. — Children of persons receiving out- door parochial relief required to at- 
 tend school. 
 
 ** 1. The clerks of boards of guardians, and of other persons having authority 
 to administer relief to the poor within the school district, to report from time to 
 time to district committee the names of children, between the ages of four and 
 twelve years, resident within the district, who, receiving out-door parochial re- 
 lief, are not attending school. 
 
 *' 2. Guardians of the poor to require, subject to the rules and regulations of 
 the poor law commissioners, such children to attend school." 
 
 I will never believe, till I see it happen, that the good sense and right 
 feeling of the English people will be so far perverted by the crude theories 
 of these disjointed times as to expect any result to accrue from the com- 
 pulsory attendance at school of pauper children, except the destruction of 
 every lingering feeling of independence and the confirmed degradation of 
 the poor. 
 
 E. 
 
 To the Editor of the Guardian. 
 
 Sir, — Will you have the goodness to publish the following letters. I 
 
 think we need be under no apprehension that the Rule of the Church 
 
 OF England, therein referred to, will be disturbed or compromised. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 George A. Denison. 
 East Brent, Nov. 10, 1851. 
 
 I. 
 
 East Brent, Oct. 30, 1851. 
 My dear Sir, — Will you have the goodness to lay before the Committee 
 of the National Society the subjoined extract from a pamphlet lately pub- 
 lished by William Entwisle, Esq., one of the principal promoters of the 
 Manchester and Salford "Education" Scheme, and to convey to the Com- 
 mittee my respectful request that they will take into consideration whether 
 the publication of this passage does not make it necessary for the Com- 
 mittee to declare publicly, without loss of time, that the rule of the National 
 Society therein referred to, viz., that the Catechism of the Church of Eng- 
 land shall be taught to all children attending schools in connection with 
 the Society, cannot be rescinded or set aside in any one of such schools 
 with the concurrence of the Committee.
 
 39 
 
 The proposed measure for Manchester and Salford founded upon an 
 education rate is exciting great and general alarm — an alarm not likely to 
 be diminished by the admission so distinctly made by Mr. Entwisle, that 
 the measure can only succeed through the sacrifice of the rule of the 
 National Society. 
 
 It will therefore be of the utmost service, and of great comfort to many 
 minds, to know that the Committee of the National Society do not concur 
 in Mr. Entwisle's judgment of the duty of the Church of England in this 
 great matter. 
 
 I beg to add that I propose to publish this letter together with any reply 
 with which I may be honoured by the Committee. 
 
 Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours, 
 (Signed) George A. Denison. 
 
 The Rev. the Secretary of the National Society. 
 
 Extract from an " Apology for a Churchman'' s Support of the Manchester 
 and Salford Education Bill. By W. Entwisle. * These are the schools 
 which Churchmen are combining with all denominations to create.^ — 
 Preface to Two Sermons, by the Rev. G. A. Denison. London : Simpkin, 
 Marshall, and Co. Manchester : Simms and Dinham." 
 
 "I fully admit that the National Society had a right to prescribe its 
 own terms, and that those who accepted the aid are bound by the terms; 
 but I claim on behalf of our association an equal right to lay down the 
 terms on which alone they will give their consent and aid in tfie passing of 
 a bill for rating property to support national education. I will at once put 
 the argument against us in what I believe to be its strongest form, viz. 
 that if the National Society shall refuse to rescind its rule, or even to allow 
 of its suspension in the case of schools wholly supported by payment out 
 of the rate, our scheme would fail in its main object, that of rendering all, 
 or nearly all, existing schools free to all the population. 
 
 " We place before the National Society the strongest inducement to 
 reconsider their decision under a new state of things, and shall be indeed 
 disappointed if we. find that the enforcement of the contract renders it 
 impossible for managers of schools connected with the National Society to 
 accept the aid which this measure tenders for their maintenance. It would 
 not be too much to say that from the vast number of schools which have 
 received the Society's aid, and are therefore bound by their terms, the bill 
 which we promote would be a failure without their concurrence. But I 
 hope a better result. While full liberty will be reserved to every Church 
 minister and teacher to impart to those pupils who belong to that Church 
 'all the Articles of the Christian faith' as held by themselves, and com- 
 prised in the formularies recognised by the Church, I cannot believe that 
 so great a boon as that now ofi^ered will be rejected, in order to keep alive 
 a nominal right to enforce the learning of the Church Catechism upon all 
 the children attending a Church school, whether they belong to the Church 
 or not."
 
 40 
 
 II. 
 
 National Society's office. Sanctuary, Westminster, Oct. 31, 1851. 
 My dear Sir, — I have duly received your letter of yesterday's date, with 
 the extract from Mr. Entwisle's pamphlet appended thereto ; and I will 
 lay it before the Committee of this Society at the earliest opportunity. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 (Signed) John G. Lonsdale, Secretary. 
 
 The Ven. Archdeacon Denison. 
 
 III. 
 
 National Society's office. Sanctuary, Westminster, Nov. 6, 1851. 
 My dear Sir, — I have submitted to the Committee of this Society your 
 letter of the 30th ult., together v^^ith the extract from Mr. Entwisle's pam- 
 phlet appended thereto. 
 
 I am desired by the Committee to state that, having duly considered that 
 extract, and the request preferred to them by yourself, they do not feel 
 called upon to make any declaration upon the rule of the Society to which 
 your letter refers. 
 
 Believe me, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 (Signed) John G. Lonsdale, Secretary. 
 
 The Ven. Archdeacon Denison. 
 
 F. 
 THE GIRDLESTONE AGITATION. 
 
 I beg to state, for the information of Members of the National Society, 
 in reference to the Circular and Memorial of Mr. Girdlestone and his 
 friends, which is now before the public, that I shall be prepared, if God 
 spare my life, to oiFer to every attempt based upon the principles set forth 
 in those documents, and under every aspect in which such attempt shall 
 present itself, a steady and uncompromising opposition. 
 
 If Mr. Girdlestone and his friends shall be allowed to succeed in any 
 measure or degree, or to have ground to imagine that they have succeeded, 
 it can only be, as was the case this year, through our indecision and infir- 
 mity of purpose. Such success, or imagined success, is therefore certainly 
 possible, but I cannot think that it is at all probable. 
 
 Measures will of course be taken to secure, at the next annual meeting, 
 A REAL VOTE upou the propositioDS submitted to the meeting. 
 
 It is worse than useless to attempt to disguise, or to extenuate, the 
 DIFFERENCE OF PRINCIPLE which cxists between the National Society, 
 as Incorporated by Royal Charter, and the Committee of Council on
 
 41 
 
 " Education." The attempt to introduce amongst us the principle of an 
 " Education " Rate, under the auspices, and in subservience to the agencies, 
 of the Committee of Council ; the connexion now avowed to be neces- 
 sary, between the success of the scheme proposed to be based upon an 
 " Education " Rate, and the setting aside, and assigning a secondary place 
 to, the Church Catechism, and generally, to the dogmatic teaching of the 
 Church in Church schools ; these things must, I think, have already suf- 
 ficed to open the eyes of those who have, hitherto, most refused to see. 
 
 Up to the present time, the Committee of Council has prevailed. They 
 have encountered no steady and consistent opposition except from indivi- 
 duals, and their success has been therefore great. The principles of the 
 National Society, which are the principles of the Church of England, have 
 been set aside or compromised through the operation of the Management 
 Clauses, and from various unhappy causes, the great Educational Society 
 of the Church is in imminent danger of sinking rapidly into a branch agency 
 of the Council office. This fall of the National Society would have resulted 
 from the simple continuance of the existing relations between the two 
 bodies, and it is therefore that I have laboured, but hitherto without 
 success, to get those relations altered and amended. 
 
 I am thankful for the Church's sake, that Mr. Girdlestone and his 
 friends have decided to bring the matter to a direct issue. It must, now 
 at least, be sufficiently plain how great a mistake was made in adopting 
 the " do nothing *' policy, suggested at the late annual meeting, and that 
 nothing short of a like determination on our side to bring th*e matter to a 
 direct issue can avail to save the National Society for Promo- 
 ting THE Education of the Poor in the principles of 
 THE Established Church throughout England and Wales. 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, PRINTER, ALDERSGATE STREET, LONDON.
 
 J^ 
 
 ^Wt 
 
 ti^..jiiiiai:ij?iBCM^-r^x
 
 
 K^S: 
 
 ^'- •-. 
 
 .mr 
 
 av.- ■> ■ 
 
 ^ ,'" i, 
 
 .jfa.'^iryv:, * j|<**'>i-fifl 
 
 :v- 
 
 >-■*' /f