R9ls
SUBSTANCE
OF
LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S
SPEECH
IN THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
June 20th, 1839 .
ON THE GOVERNMENT PLAN
FOB PROMOTING
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
FOURTH EDITION.
LONDON:
RID GW AY, PICCADILLY*
MCCCXXXIX.
%
-
.
V‘t‘ > w*r
f ■ ' JM
371.* a
Til 5
SPEECH,
Mr. Speaker,
I should certainly have thought it my duty
to endeavour at an earlier period of the debate,
to vindicate the plan of education proposed by the
Government, from the various and numerous mis¬
statements and misrepresentations which have
been adduced on the subject, in the course of the
present discussion ; but their great variety and
number deterred me from entering on the task, and
I felt, at that time, that it would be fitter to re¬
quest the attention of the House to the principles
called in question by one side and the other; and
to endeavour to show how far they are contained
in the plan under the consideration of the House.
Now, I must say, that I think the Right Hon.
Baronet who has just sat down, has but incom¬
pletely answered the arguments of my Right Hon.
Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My
Right Hon. Friend has said truly, that excitement
has been produced against the plan by not stating
its principles fairly ; and he asked Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, to state the truth openly to the country,
b 2
4
that the Government plan was opposed on the
distinct ground, that no system of education was
to be hereafter supported and encouraged by the
State, unless it was conducted under the exclusive
control and direction of the Clergy. The Right
Hon. Baronet has not directly maintained that
doctrine himself—and the Right Hon. Baronet has
denied, that the Noble Lord who commenced this
debate has ever supported that doctrine. Sup¬
posing then, Hon. Members opposite have not done
so directly and openly, they have at least advocated
that policy by implication ; and although the Right
Hon. Baronet is quite willing to allow complete
toleration, he still considers that to aid the educa¬
tion of Dissenters with the money of the State,
is inconsistent with the principles of the Esta¬
blished Church. From the principle of the Right
Hon. Baronet I entirely dissent. Hon. Members
might as well adopt the principle which the Noble
Lord, the Member for North Lancashire has
selected from the enlightened times of Henry IV.
They might say, that to the Church, and to the
Church only, should be left the education of the
people ; but by that must be meant such education
as the Church is prepared to give with her own
funds, her own colleges, and without asking in a
Committee of Supply for a vote, which, in the times
of Henry IV. the Parliament would not have been
asked for. When they say, as I think they have
done by their former votes on this subject, that the
5
public ought to promote education by grants—
when they say, that out of the taxes should
come those grants, and that schools should be
supported by them, I cannot support the prin¬
ciple, that by giving to certain classes names
which may be unpopular, they shall be debarred
from the fruits and advantages of the public
money, which is taken indiscriminately from their
means, as well as from the resources of those
who belong to the Established Church. In assert¬
ing this to be the principle which I maintain, I
deny that I am departing from the real principles
of the Established Church. I hold, that through¬
out this country, teachers of the Established Church
should be maintained, but I do not consider, that
those teachers should have the entire control of the
money to be appropriated by the state for education.
While I admire the exertions of the Church, I
utterly deny, that in proposing this vote for public
education, I am bound by any such rule. To de¬
termine how the principle which I maintain shall
be carried into effect is a different question. The
first plan proposed by the Government has been
objected to on a misapprehension. It has been
supposed, that the principles of the model school
are to be adopted as the guide and rule of all
the schools throughout the country. But I will
venture to read an extract from what I said on this
subject in introducing the question of education to
the House in February last. I then alluded to the
6
difficulties which attended the establishment of any
combined system of national instruction in these
terms: —
“ It was obvious, that a Government attempting
“ any system of education in our own country would
“find the ground in a very different state, because
“ it had been occupied in a great part by those so¬
cieties and institutions which had voluntarily un-
“ dertaken the task of educating the people. They
“ would find it occupied to a certain extent by the
“ Established Church, and in other parts by the
“ Wesleyans and other Dissenting Societies, who
“ gave education according to their own religious
“ principles. For these reasons it would not be
“possible to establish any system of education*
“ which should at once supersede those recognised
“ and established modes; and even were the new
“ system allowed by Parliament generally to be a
“ much better system of education than those at
“ present existing, it could not be expected imme-
“ diately to supplant and come in the place of those
“ various schools at present in operation; in short,
“ no general system could be introduced without
“ doing violence to the habits and feelings of the
“people of this country. Such a plan was unsuited
“ to these kingdoms, and was likely to be unsuc-
“ cessful if attempted.”
On the subject of normal schools he had also
said that—
“ He was ready to state to the House what were
7
“ the measures which the Government thought were
“ in the first place most desirable. He would say,
“ then, that the measure which was most desirable
“ was the establishment of a good normal school.
“ He said a good normal school, for whatever might
“ be the religious differences of the Church and
“ the British and Foreign School Society, yet there
“ must be questions which were not at all touched by
“ their differences, in relation to which he thought,
“ that persons must find the systems of both of them
“ defective, and he thought it would also be found,
“ that there were modes of education, some of which
“ were in operation in foreign establishments, and
“ others in this kingdom, by which the general sys-
“ tern of education in this country would be much
“ improved. It would, therefore, be the endeavour of
“ this body (the Committee of Council) to apply
“ the money granted by Parliament in the first place
“ to the foundation of a normal school, and to make
“ it as perfect as possible.”*
And yet in the face of that express and distinct
statement it has been argued, that the principles of
that model school are to be enforced in all schools
throughout the kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen have
talked of the difficulty of carrying into execution a
combined system, suitable to each religious sect;
and the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, has
argued for half an hour against what he termed
“ general religion.” The only misfortune is, that
* Hansard, vol. xlv. p.p. 275 and 128.
8
the terms general religion are not to be found in the
Government plan. But the difficulty of providing
a system agreeable to different religious sects has
been overcome, not only in the schools of the British
and Foreign School Society, to which I have for
many years belonged, and whose principles I adopt,
but by many of the Established Church. I have
been told, that in many such schools the rule is,
that the Scriptures should be read in the week
days, and the catechism be reserved for Sundays,
so that Dissenters may send their children to their
own places of instruction on the Sabbath. So far,
therefore, from this being an insurmountable dif¬
ficulty, it is one that is overcome every week in the
year, not only by those whose plans the Govern¬
ment are said to adopt because they are not reli¬
gious, but by Clergymen of the Established Church,
who wish to instruct the people of their parish, and
yet make allowance for Dissenters, without un¬
charitably excluding them from their schools.
I do not wish to go into the phrases that have been
used with regard to the first plan, but I am ready
to declare that the principles of that plan are sound,
and to defend the mode in which it was proposed
to carry that scheme into effect. But Hon. Gen¬
tlemen have, in this House, gone far beyond what
has been said by the ministers of the Established
Church. I have heard it stated as a proof of the
Government scheme being irreligious, that any¬
thing might be taught in the schools, which
9
was not of the doctrines of the Church of England,
or some particular sect. Do they mean to say there
can be no religious instruction except that which
is confined to the distinctions between different
bodies and sects of Christians ? Is there to be no
religious instruction except that which discrimi¬
nates between Protestants and Papists, and between
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other sects of
Christians ? Now, there is one book which I think
no person will object to my quoting; it is “ Dr.
Paley’s Evidences of Christianity/’ and in that work
Dr. Paley says, at the conclusion, that he had framed
his arguments in such a manner as not to offend any
particular class of Christians who held certain tenets,
but agreed on the general points.* Now, if that
book, which any person might be glad to read, and
from which all might draw instruction,—a book,
moreover, which we are told was written to prevent
infidelity,— is not to be objected to from being
general with regard to adults, to whom it was
* i{ It hath been my care, in the preceding work, to preserve the
separation between evidences and doctrines, as inviolable as I could ;
to remove from the primary question all considerations which have
been unnecessarily joined with it, and to offer a defence to Chris¬
tianity, which every Christian might read, without seeing the tenets
in which he had been brought up, attacked or decried ; and it al¬
ways afforded a satisfaction to my mind, to observe that this was
practicable ; that few or none of our many controversies with one
another, affect or relate to the proofs of our religion; that the
rent never descends to the foundation .—Evidences of Christianity ,
page 158.
10
directed, why may not some general system
apply to children under fourteen years of age ?
I could mention the works of many persons who
are greatly admired, although they are not of our
own Church, to the same effect. There are the
works of Fenelon; that excellent man wrote an
admirable treatise on female education ; he had
spoken of the manner in which religious education
should be given—not in a formal manner, as a
Catechism learned by heart, but that the thoughts
of the child should be directed to what he learned.*
It has been certainly said of that work, that it is
a proof Fenelon was not a good Roman Catholic
with respect to the education of children, because
he did not keep to the particular doctrines of the
Roman Catholic Church, and point out the diffe¬
rences between the Roman Catholics and the Pro¬
testants. The doctrines that are now put forth
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be true ; but
I would rather imbibe the errors of Paley and
of Fenelon, than bend to the authority of the
new doctrines which are now propounded. The
* Au reste, il ne s’agit point d’enseigner par memoire cette mo¬
rale aux enfants, comme on leur enseigne le catechisme; cette me-
thode n’atentiroit qu’a tourner la religion en un langage affecte, au
moins en des formalites ennuyeuses : aidez seulement leur esprit, et
mettez les en chemin de trouver ces verites dans leur propre fonds ;
elles leur en seront plus propres et plus agreables, elles s’impri-
meront plus vivement; profitez des ouvertures pour leur faire de-
velopper ce qu’ils ne voient encore que confusement.
Fenelon de VEducation des filles , 504.
11
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newark, with
other Members, maintains the exclusive doctrine.
To that Hon. Member I answered at the time,
though somewhat irregularly, that such doc¬
trines would lead to persecution and intolerance,
and it is clear from what the Hon. Gentleman
said, and from what I have read of the Hon.
Gentleman’s writings, that his objection does not
apply only to this new grant for education, but to
the religious liberty, already established. The
general system adopted in this country is attacked.
It is considered indeed as a matter of capitulation
and of treaty which cannot now be violated; but
Hon. Gentlemen refuse to admit the justice of the
principle on which it is founded ; and there is no
part of the religious liberty of this country, from
the passing of the Toleration Act to the present
time, to which they are not opposed, and against
the principles of which they do not protest.
I must state further, with regard to the plan
which is now proposed, and to the way in
which it is intended to carry it into effect, that
Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not entirely object
to the principle—'-they seem almost to admit it.
The grants are to be made to the National, and
to the British and Foreign School Societies, but in
some cases the rule requiring that one half, at least,
of the amount to be expended shall be raised by
voluntary contributions, is not to be insisted upon
when'the poverty and the population of particular
***®St7Y of
Library
‘LUNOUt
12
districts appear to require, that an exception shall
be admitted, and in some of these cases if appli¬
cation be made from particular schools, not in con¬
nection with either of the two societies, the Com¬
mittee reserve to themselves the power of aiding
such schools, if sufficient ground be stated for a
departure from the general rule. The exception
taken by Hon. Gentlemen is to a small part of
the plan. Some parts of the plan they do not deny
to be good—they deny the second principle in the
plan, and on that the present motion is founded.
“ It is very well to adopt the plan of instruction,”
say they, “ when the fund is administered through
the medium of the Board of Treasury ? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting at the Board
of Treasury is a very harmless person, but the
Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting at the Board
of Privy Council is a most dangerous enemy.”
I do not mean to contend that the plans are iden¬
tical—that there is no change between the one and
the other. There is this difference, that there is to
be a future inspection of the schools, and that there
are to be reports as to the manner in which the
schools are conducted. I think that it is a great
misfortune that much of the education which is
given in this country—and here I am not speaking
with reference to the Church, for I do not wish to
blame, on the one part, the Church for what has
been done for education, nor to blame the two
great societies on the other—is not what is pro
13
perly called education it is a certain degree of
instruction which enables the pupils to read and to
write and to cypher; but it does not affect the
hearts and the minds of the people instructed. It
is not sufficient to tell me that 590,000 persons are
educated in the National Schools, and that nearly
a million attend the Sunday Schools, for I am
obliged to say from all I have heard, and from
various reports which have been made to the
Government and to Parliament that the quality of
the education is exceedingly defective. I may
read numerous passages from reports on this sub¬
ject, but I will confine myself to one or two from
the reports of the chaplains of gaols, who are
members of the Church of England, pursuing their
most useful and meritorious duties. The chaplain
of the gaol at Lancaster says in his report of 1838,
that—
“ 516 prisoners were quite ignorant of the sim-
“ plest truths, 995 prisoners were capable of re-
“ peating the Lord’s Prayer, 37 prisoners were
“ occasional readers of the Bible, 7 were familiar
“ with the Holy Scriptures and conversant with
“ the principles of religion. Among the 516 en¬
tirely ignorant, 124 were capable of repeating
66 the Lord’s prayer. This last table corresponds
“ in its general features with that of last year; and
“ I can add little to the observations which I then
“ made upon the subject of ignorance in religion,
“unless it be to state that very few of the whole
14
“ 1,129 persons, probably not more than 20 or 30,
“ had habitually attended any place of divine
“ worship. This estimate will be almost undis-
“ puted by all those who have observed the almost
“ general desertion of the house of God by that
“ portion of the working population, which con-
“ sists of males in the prime of life ; and I think,
“ that if the subject were investigated, it would
“ appear, that this desertion is in the ratio of the
“ density of the population. Village congregations
“ would be found least obnoxious to this remark,
“ and those of large towns most so.”
I ask whether this is not a dreadful peculiarity
in the state of society ? Is it not dreadful to think,
that where there are the most criminals, and where
the population is the densest, and where there
ought to be as complete education as possible, the
house of God (by which no doubt the reverend
Gentleman means all places of religious worship,)
is deserted by that portion of the population which
consists of males in the prime of life? I ask,
whether, it is not desirable that the serious atten¬
tion of the House should be directed towards doing
something by which the instruction of the people
will be further promoted ? I cannot say, that I
think much of the objection, that in one place they
will be instilling some portion of the doctrines of
the Roman Catholics, and that in another, the
rules of Socinianism may be taught, for there is
the great and countervailing advantage of impart-
15
ing knowledge, and of giving instruction in the
simplest elements of religious truth. And even if
I agreed with the Hon. Gentlemen opposite in
their opinion of the character of the doctrines of
Roman Catholics and of Unitarians, yet I am not
prepared to say, that there is not more danger of
promoting practical infidelity by total ignorance,
than of infidelity gaining ground among a dense
population of artizans and labourers, who are forced
to earn their daily bread, by the specious and
theoretical influence of refined arguments, which
rarely reach the heart and soul, or affect more than
a small portion of the community. This infidelity
of ignorance, this infidelity of unconcern, this infi¬
delity of forgetfulness and sensual habits is that
which among the vast mass of artizans and labour¬
ers you have most to dread.
I have given one extract from the opinion of
the Chaplain of the county gaol of Lancaster, and
I must give another from a report which I received
only two days ago, from a clergyman, whom I have
never seen, but whom I have from his merits and
high character, appointed to the situation of chap¬
lain to the prison for juvenile offenders at Park-
hurst. In that report, he says : — ♦
(t In reviewing and digesting the details exhibi-
“ ting the religious and moral condition of the pri-
“ soners on entering Parkhurst prison, one point has
“ (even with their present limited number,) forci-
“ bly struck my attention, and that is, the com-
16
“ paratively large amount of acquirement in the
“mechanical elements of instruction, by means of
“ which, that condition is improved (the art of read-
“ ing and repetition from memory), contrasted with
“ the lamentably small degree of actual knowledge
“ possessed, either of moral duty or religious prin-
“ ciple. This appears mainly to have arisen from
“the meaning of the word read, or the sounds
“ repeated, having rarely been made the subject of
“ enquiry or reflection. The following digest will
“in some degree illustrate this position. Your
“ Lordship will perceive, that although 58 prison-
“ ers can in some degree read, 83 repeat some or
“ all of the Church Catechism, and 43 possess some
“ knowledge of Holy Scripture, only 29 (exactly
“ half the number of readers) can give even a little
“ account of the meaning of words read or sounds
“ in use. And of these it often appears to be the
“ strength of the intellect exercised at the moment,
“ and not the result of memory that leads them
“ to the meaning of a word. A few of this class
“ are included in the number not able to read.
“Another feature of the moral condition of the
“ Parkhurst prisoners cannot but arrest the atten-
“ tion strongly*and that is the very large propor-
“ tion that have received instruction for a consider-
“ able time in the various schools with which our
“ country abounds. A digest of this portion of
“ the general table will show, that out of 103 lads,
“ 95 have attended schools, 70 of whom have been
17
“ day scholars, for terms longer than a year, eight
“ only having never been at school; and of the 51
“ prisoners with whom the prison opened, and who
“ formed the subject of my February report, only
“ two are in that condition. Two of those men-
“ tioned to your Lordship, as being such, I have
“ since ascertained, have been at school.”
Now, what really deserves the attention of the
House is, that, though under the present system,
many are able to read, and have received the ele-
• ments of education, yet what is wanted, and what
you ought to attempt, is to give such instruction
as will excite the intelligence of the children,
raise their curiosity, teach them the meaning
of words, and implant in their hearts those doc¬
trines which are to be their guide through life.
If that is the case, am I to blame because I
say that in continuing the grants for public edu¬
cation, the Committee of the Privy Council ought
to cease to give the money in proportion merely
to some financial statement of the amount of sub¬
scription raised, or of the quantity of brick and
mortar that may happen to be put upon the ground,
but on the contrary, that they should in the future
require an inspection of the school, and a report
of what is actually learned, and of the method by
which it is taught. A great inprovement has re¬
cently occurred in the art of teaching—for though
the principles were indicated by great men in other
periods, yet the improvement in the art was not
c
18
introduced into the schools of the poorer classes till
late years. Those improved methods, instead of
burdening the memory, and rendering learning
irksome and disagreeable, teach the child to instruct
himself, and to follow with curiosity the lesson
which he learns, so that, if he be afterwards ques¬
tioned by his master, he is able to describe in
appropriate words of his own, and not by mere
rote, the entire matter of instruction conveyed to
him. This system not only prevents the irksome¬
ness formerly felt in common school exercise, but is
applicable to the instruction of the child in morals
and in religion, and in useful arts. But the objects
of this system of inspection are misrepresented.
We are told, “ The meaning of your inspection is
to make rules and regulations with respect to reli¬
gious instruction.” This is contrary to the fact.
We may, if the method of teaching general lessons
be good, presume that the religious education will
also be good; but if an unskilful method is em¬
ployed in conveying a meagre secular instruction,
requiring coercion to enforce attention, we may feel
ourselves entitled to conclude that the religious in¬
struction is not likely to be of such a character as
to improve the conduct of the child in future life;
the seed will have fallen on barren ground, and the
instruction will be of no use. On these grounds I
advocate the present plan of the Privy Council. It
contains two great and leading points : First, it is
not confined exclusively to the children of Church-
19
men : the education, so far as it can, will be ex¬
tended to all classes of the people, to whatever sect
or religion they may happen to belong. Of course
the greater portion of the fund will go to the mem¬
bers of the Established Church, who have the
greater number of schools. The second point of
the plan will give a good and efficient system of
inspection.
The plan which I propose is not a new scheme
of National Education in the country ; and so far
from the scheme being out of the control of Par¬
liament, it will be annually brought under its view;
and, in future, the great subject of education will
receive that care, that interest, and that concern on
the part of the State, which it never hitherto has
received. I feel the great difficulty of bringing
forward a plan of education which may excite mis¬
representation, be made the object of a party strug¬
gle, and raise the conscientious scruples and fears
of persons of excellent intentions. This has pressed
upon my mind, not only now, but in former times;
and I am aware of the obloquy to which such a
plan may subject me. At the same time, Sir, I
am of opinion that something must be done, and
before I sit down, the House will allow me, I
hope, to say a few words on the condition of the
people, which seems to me closely connected with
education, and with our conduct on this subject.
Sir, when I recollect the conduct of former Go¬
vernments—of Governments wffiich existed twenty
20
or thirty years ago—I cannot help thinking, that at
the commencement of this Session, had such a
Government been in power, they would have en¬
deavoured to excite alarm at the views of the
Chartists, they would have excited the fears of
the public ; they would have proposed to suspend
the Habeas Corpus Act, and would have tried to
pass laws of coercion. It would have been found
easy to excite alarm, and, if the Government had
proposed, in consequence of the alarm, to obtain
laws to put down the Chartists, such laws would have
been easily obtained. My anxious wish, nay, my
anxious labour has been—without any alteration of
the law, nay more, being determined not to ask,
till the last moment, for any suspension of any of
the constitutional rights of the people—to meet,
to encounter, and to subdue the apprehensions
which for a time have menaced the peace of
society. But, in doing so, I have been convinced
that every opportunity should be embraced, and
every means taken, to secure the public peace,
by improving the state of instruction—by advancing
the religious feeling, and the moral condition of
the people of this country. I am satisfied that we
should have had power to carry laws which would
have subdued discontent for the moment; but I
am equally convinced, that the only permanent
security of the country is to be found in the ge¬
neral knowledge of the people, as well of their
religious duties as of their moral obligations, and
21
of their fortunate state as the inhabitants of this
free country. I feel, Sir, that in taking this course,
and in making this attempt, I have had more
opposition to encounter than I should have had,
if I had taken the other course, and had proposed
measures of severity and coercion. But, Sir, I do
not regard the opposition I have encountered. I am
not to be deterred by the taunt of the Hon. Member
for Newark, who said that he wondered why, when
we were defeated in our former scheme, we should
attempt another, which is equally objectionable to
Dissenters and to Churchmen. Although, Sir, my
first plans were thwarted and defeated, at which
the Hon. Gentleman, no doubt, rejoices, I recollect
that it has happened to me, in former years, to
succeed in striking off from the Dissenters the de¬
grading fetters of the Test and Corporation Acts.
I am quite prepared for opposition to plans of this
kind—I am quite prepared to find, when they are
first proposed, that they should be misunderstood
and misrepresented, and that even the “ no popery”
cry should be revived and burnished up afresh—-
not, Sir, I fear, for the last time. Let the Hon.
Member for Newark take pride in such victories,
but I do not believe that he will succeed in re-im¬
posing the fetters which have been struck off; and
I am fully convinced that, on further examination,
the great cause of education, not only of the mem¬
bers of the Church of England, but of the whole
community, will prosper; that the happiness of
22
the people will be secured; that the degrading
pictures which have been drawn of the population
of 1839 will soon be regarded as descriptive of a
time long passed away; and that the only wonder
will be, that they could ever have been true repre¬
sentations of the condition of the people of Eng¬
land.
NORMAN AND SKEEN, PRINTERS, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARDEN.