L I B RARY OF THE U N 1 VLR5 ITY Of ILLI NOIS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AND THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION: FOR WHAT ARE THE NATIONAL SOCIETY AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT ? A LETTER ADDRESSED, BY PERMISSION, TO THE HON. AND RIGHT REV. RICHARD, LOKD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS, GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON, M.A. VICAU OF EAST BRENT, SOMERSET, WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE REPORT AND MEMORIAL OF THE CHURCH UNION ASSEMBLING AT BRISTOL; A FORM OF PETITION TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT; CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL; AND RESOLUTIONS TO BE MOVED AT THE ENSUING ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY. BxtanXf (ignition. LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, ST. Paul's church yard, and waterlog place, iS49. LONDON: GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. John's square. LETTER, cV. My dear Lord, For what are the National Society, and all other members of the Church of England, to 'appeal to Parliament ? I answer — for simple and equal justice. It has been with a view to the ultimate necessity of such an appeal, that all our opposition to the course of the Committee of Council has been con- ducted throughout. It was with this view that I moved, at the annual meeting of the Society, June 7, 1848, the following resolution : — " Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this meeting, that no arrangement which shall involve the compulsory- imposition of any management clause whatsoever, as a condition of State assistance — or of any con- dition whatsoever, except the legal tenure of the A 2 site, and the right of inspection — as defined and ascertained in 1840 — can be satisfactory to, or ought to be accepted by, the Church." When it was made known, by the publication of the correspondence between the Committee of the National Society and the Committee of Council — ending August 80, 1848 — that the negotiations, which followed upon the withdrawal of that reso- lution, had entirely failed \ it was with the same view that I moved, and carried under circumstances of a very remarkable concurrence of opinion, at the ^ The fact of this failure has been questioned in a high quar- ter. I beg, very respectfully, to say that it appears to me to be established upon the clearest documentary evidence in the Re- port of the Church Union, December 11, 1848, printed in the Appendix. I believe that we are altogether justified, upon the showing of that Report, in saying that the negotiations have altogether failed ; that they have been very incomplete in respect of the things, "not asked at all," or "asked, and not insisted upon;" and that — to say nothing of the final refusal of the alternative proposition relative to the appeal — there has not been, through- out their whole course, so much as one bond fide concession. Having watched the course of the negotiations very closely, I have been strongly confirmed in a suspicion, which I expressed publicly some months ago, that it has been all along part of the policy of the Committee of Council to appear to stand out upon some one or more untenable points, that, if hard pressed, they might afterwards "concede" these points, and so get credit with the uninformed and careless for great moderation ; whereas, in reality, they would still reserve to themselves a most ample margin and sufficient vantage-ground whereon to carry on their operations against the teaching and the discipline of the Church of England. uiuc; annual meeting of our Diocesan Societies at Wells, the resolutions following: — " I. That it is just and necessary, that the two following conditions of State assistance be imposed by the State upon the founders and promoters of schools : — "1. That the site of the school buildings be legally secured, and the trusts legally con- stituted. "2. That the school be open to government inspection as agreed upon in 1840. "II. That it is wo^ just and not necessary that any other condition of State assistance, besides the two above specified, be imposed by the State upon the founders and promoters of schools. " III. That the attempt to impose any other condition, besides the two above gpecified, has operated, and must continue to operate, as a heavy penalty upon the founders and promoters of schools, and as a great and growing hindrance in the way of the education of the people." It was again with the same view that, in con- junction with other members of the Society, I wrote to the Committee, to apply for a Special General Meeting of members; upon the refusal of that application, November 9, the Requisition to His Grace the President was issued — that Requisition, though it came before the public under the great disadvantage of a very general impression that the question of a Special Meeting was already finally G disposed of, received in a few weeks the signatures of upwards of 4 GO members of the National Society. It was judged, however, that its prayer could not be complied with. I will not discuss here the grounds of this de- cision ; I will only say, that I regret it very deeply, because I am persuaded that it has thrown very great additional difficulties in the way of an appeal to Parliament. But, nevertheless, it appears to be confessed upon all hands, that this appeal must be made ; — I ask then again — for what are we to appeal ? I answer again, for simple and equal justice. By " simple justice " is meant, in this case, that the administration of the education grant be con- ducted, as it was professed in 184G-7 it should be, on the broad principle of assisting all parties, whether in communion with the Church or other- wise, to conduct their own education in their own way, without let, hindrance, or interference, direct or indirect; the due application of State grants being secured by providing, 1. That the site of the school buildings shall be legally secured by trusts legally constituted ; 2. That the school shall be open to government inspection for the purpose of ascertaining its efficiency, and of regulating the amount of State assistance. I am prepared to maintain, that, when these provi- sions have been made for the due application of State grants, all has been done which is either just, or necessary, or reasonable to be done, under the re- ligious and social circumstances of this country. All, I will say, that is possible to be done without an absolute violation of the principle upon which the education grant is based. I would observe further, that, in the case of Church schools, very great importance is to be attached to the words " as agreed upon in 1840," in reference to the condition of government inspection — because, if government inspection exceed, in any degree whatsoever, the precise limits of the letter and of the spirit of the agreement of 1840, it will be found impossible for churchmen any longer to admit even this condition of State assistance ; and such a result would be the more to be regretted, because I believe that government inspection has hitherto worked extremely well, and that there has been no disposition on the part of the inspectors themselves to encroach in any degree upon the precise limits of that agreement. Every thing indeed was working well, and every thing might have worked much better still, if it had not been for these most un- happy management clauses, and the attempt of the Committee of Council to gain through them a power of perpetual interference with the administration of Church schools, and of moulding these gradually into a shape more consistent with their own views of what Church education ought to be. For my part, I do not hesitate to say, that, looking at all the circumstances of the position of the Church of 8 England, there can be, in my judgment, little human security for the future character of Church schools, until these management clauses shall be withdrawn, and, with the entire system they so aptly represent, shall give place to a more simple, more wise, more just, and more straightforward policy. It will be plain, that with this deliberate judg- ment of what must necessarily, so to speak, be the general operation of the management clauses and of the entire system of the Committee of Council, I am bound, most respectfully, but most earnestly, to re- commend to churchmen to decline — so long, at least, as matters remain in their present most insecure and uncertain position — all further connexion with the Council Office — and to avoid taking any step, which, by however remote an implication, can be construed into an expression of confidence in the existing ad- ministration of the education grant. The favourite argument of those who advocate the adoption of the management clauses is this — that a great security will thereby be provided against a great danger. They say, that without some such clauses the schools of the Church will fall, one by one, under the control of the Committee of Coun- cil, because no sufficient provision will have been made for their constitution and management accord- ing to the principles of the Church. I doubt the result as here stated. I believe that founders, after the experience of the last three years, will be very careful indeed what they are 9 about, whatever may have been the case heretofore ; upon which, however, I pronounce no opinion ; I do not know whether it is the fact that Church schools have been insecurely constituted or no, but I incline to think that representations have been made on this head which do the promoters of them very great injustice ; but, supposing the danger to exist, it is obvious, that the value of the argument de- pends altogether upon the amount and the character of the security furnished by the management clauses. This, indeed, is virtually admitted by the use of the words " some such clauses." Now we con- tend that the clauses of the Committee of Council ])rovide no security such as is required ; that, with all their modifications, they are very faulty indeed, both in principle and detail. In our judgment, there- fore, the only effect of the acceptance of tliese ma- nagement clauses by the National Society will be, that a very faulty constitution and management of Church schools will be established as a rule with the sanction of the Society. Whereas, if the Committee OF THE National Society would, even now, take THE WORK in HAND THEMSELVES, AND FRAME AND I'UBLISH A SERIES OF MODEL TRUST DEEDS, AND RE- COMMEND THESE TO FOUNDERS OF SCHOOLS, ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BiSHOPS, THERE WOULD BE NO DANGER WORTH CONSIDERING, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE Clauses of the Committee of Council would NOT be the rule, BUT THE EXCEPTION. Again, it must be " equal justice," because the same measure of freedom which is accorded to all 10 other religious bodies, ought to be accorded to the Church — we want no other measure— we want the same measure — but we cannot take less. What I mean is this — that, if the Committee of Council have made, or are about to make, arrange- ments with the religious bodies not in communion w^ith the Church, which arrangements are either framed by those religious bodies themselves, as embodying their own views of what the constitution and management of their own schools ought to be, and are, as such, adopted, in all essential particulars, by the Committee of Council, or, vice versci, are framed by the Committee of Council, and adopted by the religious bodies as consistent in all essential particulars with their owm peculiar religious organi- zation ; this is the exact measure of freedom which ought to be accorded to the Church of England. We do not want more — M^e cannot take less"-. If all the insfenuitv of the Council Office fails in makinof ^ If the " concessions," which are said to have been already made, are measured by this measure, it will appear that what is stated of them in the Report printed in the Appendix — viz. that " they are, in reality, no concessions at all " — is strictly and literally true. 1. How is that a '* concession," which is in no sense what was asked ? 2. How is that a " concession," in which the " conceding " party insists upon retaining that very condition which was the specific ground of objection taken by the other party ? 3. How is that a " concession," which can only take effect in cases where so many local circumstances concur to insure a due regard to Church teaching and discipline, that the school ar- rangements must assume a distinct Church character without being indebted for this to the " concession," at all ? n out that any other conditions of State assistance, besides the two above specified, have been imposed upon founders of schools, not in communion with the Church, without the entire concurrence of such founders from first to last, it is plain at once that there is no ground at all upon which so much as to attempt to justify the imposing any such conditions upon unwilling churchmen. If what has taken place in respect of other religious bodies cannot, by any contrivance, be twisted into a case of compul- sory interference, neither can the claim of such com- pulsory interference be sustained as respects the Church of England. But has there been any interference with these other religious bodies? Have there been any spe- cial conditions attempted to be imposed in their case? If so, we have a right to know the exact history of the whole transaction. 1. What are these special conditions f 2. Where are they to he found f 3. And who framed them^f For it is one thing to ^ The document, printed p. xlvii, vol. 1, Minutes of Com- mittee of Council on Education, 1847-8, relating to Roman Catholic schools, and those printed pp. liv. — Ixvi. of the same vol., relating to Wesleyan and Presbyterian schools, supply no answer to these questions ; except indeed that they create a very strong presumption, that there are no special conditions of State assistance imposed in any of these cases. And with respect to Wesleyan schools, it would appear that their Model Deed— what- ever that is — was framed by themselves, and was not subjected to alteration or modification in any one essential particular by the Committee of Council. The whole tone and manner of the correspondence, when contrasted with that which pervades the correspondence with the Committee of the National Society, is very curious and significant. 12 say, " 1^ you will tell me upon wliat terms j/om think I ought to give you money, I will undertake to give it upon those terms." It is quite another thing to say, " These are the terms upon which / think I ought to give you money, and you cannot have the money upon any other terms, whether you approve of them or no." The first describes what we have every ground to believe has been the course of the Committee of Council with respect to the framing of any special conditions for those religious bodies whicli are not in communion with the Church of England, w^hether dissenters or Roman Catholics ; and it is a reasonable and a just course. The second describes what we know to have been the course of the Committee of Council with respect to the fram- ing of special conditions for the Church of England ; and it is an unreasonable and an unjust course. And then for the special conditions themselves. Now it is very possible that the most entire unani- mity may exist between the various dissenting bodies and the Committee of Council, in respect of the con- stitution and management of schools; but it is 7iot pos- sible that any such unanimity should exist between the Committee of Council and the Roman Catholics. It is indeed not possible, it is not in the nature of things, that the principles of any branch of the church catholic can be made to harmonize with the views of the committee of council ^ * This fact will not only serve to explain why the negotiations between the Committee of the National Society and the Com- mittee of Council have failed, but would have served to explain, a priori, why they must fail. 13 The office of the Church of England, as a branch of the Church Catholic, is to preserve and to extend her dogmatic teaching, as being the faithful expo- sition of the " one truth." The aim of the Committee of Council on Educa- tion is to disparage, and, ultimately, to set aside, that dogmatic teaching, in order to make room for what is called a "more comprehensive" teaching. If then there is any special arrangement under which the Committee of Council have agreed to make grants to Roman Catholic schools, it follows, by inevitable consequence, that it must be such an arrangement as does no violence at all to the princi- ples of the Roman Catholic Church. Why then, I ask again, is any arrangement to be forced upon the Church of England, which does violence to the princi- ples of the Church of England 1 Here again it is one thing to say, " Here are conditions which approve themselves to i/oic as they do to 7?ie, and so we will make them our rule." It is quite another thing to say, " Here are conditions which approve themselves to me, and, whether they approve themselves to ^ou, or whether they do not, they must he the rule." The first describes what we have every reason to believe has been the way in which the Committee of Council have dealt with religious bodies not in commu- nion with the Church of England in respect of the matter of any special conditions. The second de- scribes what we know to have been the way in which the Committee of Council have dealt with the Com- mittee of the National Society, acting in the behalf 14 of the Church of England, so far as it is competent for it to act in that behalf, in respect of the same matter. The argument of the " Examiner," the organ of the Committee of Council, assumes, that all that is neces- sary to a just and equal administration of the edu- cation grant in respect of the matter of special con- ditions of State assistance is, that the same conditions be imposed alike upon all. Now, granting for a moment that any special conditions have been im- posed upon the founders of schools not in commu- nion with the Church of England — of which fact there is no evidence, but the reverse — this argument of the "Examiner" is, nevertheless, a plain and pal- pable fallacy ; for it is easy to see that conditions, which do no violence to the conscience of dissenters, may do the utmost violence to the conscience of churchmen. To speak technically, the argument in the two cases is not in pari 7naterid. What is claimed is not, the same conditions, but, the same measure of freedom, I believe I may, very safely, challenge our oppo- nents to the proof of the two following propositions : — 1. That the Committee of Council have proceeded to force any special conditions upon founders of schools not connected with the Church of England. 2. That any cases exist, or are likely to exist, in which State assistance has been, or will be, denied to such founders in consequence of their declining to accept such special conditions. Now, it is a very significant fact, that there has 15 been no sign of a collision between the Committee of Council and those religious bodies which are separated from the Church of England — how is this ? Is it that the Church is more clamorous and less reasonable ? I apprehend that this will scarcely be maintained seriously ; is not the solution this, — that great care has been taken to throw no difficulties in the way of those other bodies f They have it all their own way; and the Committee of Council make up for their facility here, by drawing very largely indeed upon the patience and forbearance of the Church ; but what possible pretence is there that the Church of England is not to be allow^ed to con- stitute her own schools in exact accordance with her own model, and to administer them in exact accord- ance with her own system ? What possible pretence that the Church of England is not to be^assisted by the State, as all other religious bodies are, to do her own w^ork in her own way ? Is it not altogether too bad that a government board — a board with no dis- tinct Church character, should assume to itself any power of dictation at all as to what ought to be the constitution and management of a Church school ? Why, if it was a necessary element of the constitu- tion of that board, that all its members should be communicants of the Church of England, it would not, and could not, be right, even then, that they should have any such power. And does any man sup- pose that such a power is claimed with any purpose friendly to the Church ? Does any man suppose that such a claim can be set up — a claim utterly incon- 16 sistent with the very essence of Church authority, a claim so directly injurious to the Episcopal office, but with a sinister purpose ? Can any man suppose that such a claim can be successfully asserted, and carried out in practice, without grievous harm, and loss to Church teaching and discipline? Why, to suppose any thing else, is to suppose a contradiction, as must be obvious to any one who will not refuse to see it. For whether we appeal to common sense, to the reason of the thing, to the common law of the land, or to the law and practice of the Church, it is a point alike not admitting of dispute, that the effective control of a Church school should be in the clergy- man of the parish, subject to an appeal to the Bishop. Common scfise. — Because common sense declares that, in the case of all teaching there must be a power of deciding what that teaching shall be, and also an ultimate appeal. Apply this, first and principally, to the case of the dogmatic teaching of religious truth. Secondly, to the case of all other teaching — which is, all, either instrumental to that dogmatic teaching, or subordinate to it ; and we are brought at once, in respect of Church schools, to the decision of the clergyman of the parish, subject to an appeal to the Bishop. To his parishioners every clergyman is, prima facie, the repository and the exponent of the teaching and the discipline of the Church, and of the means of carrying out both one and the other. If grave doubts arise in their minds they can appeal to their Bishop ; but they can do 7io more ; 17 there is no provision beyond this consistent with the preservation of the framework of the Church. The reason of the thing. — Because a parish school is part of the parochial charge, and, as such, the clergyman of the parish is individually responsible for the conduct of it — responsible in a manner, and to an extent, which can attach to no other person, however largely he may contribute towards the expense either of founding, or of maintaining the school. It would not indeed, in my judgment, be possible to show how it is consistent with the Church system that a schoolmaster should be appointed, or retained, or dismissed at the pleasure of a com- mittee, any more than that a curate should be appointed, or retained, or dismissed at the plea- sure of the parishioners; or upon what grounds the ultimate appeal is not to rest, in the one case, as it does in the other, with the Bishop of the diocese, and the security against any arbitrary proceedings to be found in both cases in the same appeal. It is no answer to say that, in the case of the curate, the expense is defrayed solely by the incumbent, whereas, in the case of the schoolmaster, it is very commonly, though by no means uni- versally, defrayed by subscription. It would be no answer, if the clergyman contributed nothing to- wards the expenses of the school, because the real question is not, where the money comes from, but, on what principle it is given. Now, I say, that the only true Church principle upon which it can be B 18 given is this, — that, since the regular and stated sources of parochial income are very far from being- able in all cases to meet the expenses of the parish school, and ought not, for obvious reasons, to be called upon to do it in any case, the money is given to the clergyman, to enable him, or to help him, to build or to maintain the school, which is a part of his parochial charge, and a very necessary and im- portant part of it. The common law of the land. — I cannot do better upon this point than refer my readers to the first of a series of excellent letters which appeared in the " Guardian" in the course of last autumn, with the signature C, and which have since been published in the form of a pamphlet — Deightons, Cambridge ; Rivingtons, London. The law and 'practice of the Church. — It will be suflficient for the law of the Church to refer to Canons LXXVII.— LXXIX. For the practice of the Church, it cannot be disputed that, in the vast majority of Church schools — until the attempt was made — an attempt already in part successful — to alter the practice of the Church through the working of the management clauses — the schoolmaster acted, and was quite content to act, in entire subordination to the clergyman of the parish. But what is the fact before us now ? Why, that all schools of this distinct Church character are ab- solutely and peremptorily excluded from all share in the education grant. The grievance is not at all — 19 as some persons will have that we represent it — that other schools, claiming, with more or less reason, to be Church schools, are included; but that schools, which are, most undoubtedly, Church schools, are ea;cluded. Observe then the result. Roman Catholic schools may be purely Roman Catholic schools — Wesleyans — Independents — Baptists — even Socinians, find no manner of difficulty in procuring government aid. TheT/ are not met with any sort of discouragement in framing their schools according to their own model, and carrying out in their schools their own system in their own way. They are neither tempted, nor are they coerced ; but when we come to the Church of England, all this liberty is at once denied. Churchmen, it seems, must be content to be ruled according to the interpretation annexed by the Committee of Council to what the Church model and the Church system is, or ought to be, or they must have no grant at all. And T say " is, or ought to be,'' because it is not so much that the Committee of Council attempt to deny what the Church model and the Church system actually is, and always has been, as that they argue or insinuate, or both, that it is necessary for the public good, that that model and that system should now undergo an essential change. I am simply ^i2X\wg facts — the motives which have induced the Committee of Council to adopt and to persist in such a course, have been sifted elsewhere B 2 20 over and over again, and the public are tolerably well aware of tliem now — I will not, therefore, dwell upon them here — I simply state facts. I have no wish to make any appeal to excited feelings, or to give occasion, so far as in me lies, for any counter appeal. The position in which we stand is too grave and serious to admit of any thing but the plainest and simplest and most sober handling. I say then, that, with these facts before us, there is but one basis upon which it can be either fitting or safe that we should go to Parliament, and that is the basis of a claim for " simple and equal justice." It is the only fitting basis for reasons already stated — it is the only safe basis — because no other can secure the founders and promoters of Church schools from a constant repetition of those ingenious sub- tleties by which Minutes of Council are made to say exactly what they appear, to men of plain under- standing, not to say — men, who have been accus- tomed to the ordinary methods of transacting business, are confounded at finding that there is nothing, however, to all appearance, distinctly ex- pressed, which does not admit of some adverse ex- planation, and, in their bewilderment, they are looking about them for some security ^ That se- ^ The course pursued by the Committee of Council has already, to a very considerable extent, damaged even the Government inspection in the minds of churchmen. There are many and in- creasing signs of this, and the fact is, 1 think, very deeply to be regretted ; but no man can he surprised at it ; for men see that nothing is abided by as originally stated and agreed upon, and 21 curity may be found in the affirmation of a simple, broad, and intelligible principle on our side, such as is embodied in the resolution proposed June 7, and in the resolutions carried at Wells, October 19. It will be seen that the resolution of June 7 is identical in substance with the first two of October 19 ; the form only is altered for clearness' sake, and sets out, 1. What I believe the Church is prepared to admit ; 2. What I believe the Church cannot admit. Se- curity may be found in such affirmation and negation as this — but I have no belief at all that it can be found in any thing else. Many attempts have been made, and are being made still, to mislead the public mind in this matter, and to mystify the whole question ; but the people of England will not fail, in the end, to appreciate the true character of that advocacy which consists mainly in misstatements of facts and misrepresenta- tions of views and motives. Meantime the persevering repetition of these mis- statements and misrepresentations on the part of our opponents renders it necessary for us to repeat, upon our side, most distinctly and positively, — 1. That it is utterly untrue that we are either jealous of, or indifferent to, the co-operation of the Laity, and their association with the Clergy in the they are, therefore, very naturally afraid that the inspection will be dealt with after the same fashion, and be made an engine of perpetual and most vexatious and harassing interference, and, much more than this, of subverting Church teaching and discipline. 22 management of Church schools. If indeed it is meant by our opponents that it ought not to be necessary, for the purposes of such association in management, that the Laity, so to be associated, shall be in full and exclusive communion with the Church of England — or that, wheresoever a Com- mittee of Management is constituted upon this prin- ciple oi full and exclusive communion, the decision of all points of administration or control, upon which doubts may arise, ought not, nevertheless, still to be in the clergyman, subject to an appeal to the Bishop, we are bound to enter, emphatically, our protest against such association in management as is here claimed for the Laity, and we have a plain right to call upon our opponents to show upon what prin- ciple it can be claimed in the case of a Church school. On the other hand, all that we claim for the Clergy is, that, as they are the authorized and respon- sible teachers of those committed to their charge, they shall not be placed in any position which will render it impossible for them to execute duly their responsible office. 2. That it is utterly untrue that, in offering a steady resistance to the compulsory imposition of the management clauses of the Committee of Coun- cil, we have any thought or purpose of dictating to other churchmen what they shall, or shall not do in respect of the constitution and management of their schools ; — we certainly feel it to be our plain duty to use all our endeavours to persuade church- 23 men not to adopt these management clauses, and to avoid establishing any connexion between themselves and the Committee of Council; — but we disclaim all manner of dictation or compulsory interference, as we have done throughout. All we ask is freedom of action for ourselves — we want nothing more for ourselves than that simple toleration which we are ready and willing to extend to all others — we complain that this is denied us — that a system, which we know must result in latitudi- narian teaching, is pressed upon us, under a heavy penalty; we think it a hard and a strange thing that the upholders of unlimited toleration should deal thus with the Church of England — for it is surely not toleration to tempt or to seek to coerce those whose teaching is, and ever must be, dogmatic, into adopting a system which implies latitndinarian teaching, any more than it would be toleration to tempt or to coerce those whose teaching, unhappily for themselves and for the world, is latitudinarian, into adopting a system which implies dogmatic teaching. There is one more principal misstatement of facts which it is necessary to notice. It is set out in terms then, that the State, coming forward as in part founder, has certain rights in virtue of this its position. But I deny the fact- — I deny the fact of the State being in the position which is claimed for it. I say that it was no part of the understanding of 1846-7, 24 that the State should be regarded as founder at all. — The State was represented then — i. e. about two years ago, when the concurrence of the Church of England in the education scheme was much wanted — the State was represented then as coming for- ward upon the eleemosynary principle of helping all parties alike, without interfering with any one — and not one word was said, nor was any thing im- plied, about its being founder in any sense — and besides, if there is no appearance of the State acting as in part founder in respect of the schools of other religious bodies which are separated from the Church, and of exercising rights of interference in virtue of such a position conjointly with the local founders, or of withholding State aid when such rights so claimed have not been recognized nor admitted by the local founders — why are Church founders to be met with a claim which is nowhere pressed upon any one else — and why are they to be subjected to a rule from which all others are exempt ? But let us grant, for a moment, that the State is in part founder — let us grant this for a moment — What is the result as strengthening the position of the Committee of Council ? There is no result at all. For I would put the following plain question — and I would say, by way of preface to it, that I, for one, am quite content to rest the whole case upon it. If it be a thing right and reasonable in itself, that 25 Church schools should be founded as purely Church schools, without the admixture of any other element — and should for ever after be administered as purely Church schools, how can the fact of the State contributing, however largely, to their establishment and support, make it to be a thing not right and not reasonable *? .Now, it is a necessary part of such establishment and such administration, that the school should be placed in the outset, and should continue afterwards, under the effective control of the clergyman of the parish, subject to an appeal to the Bishop — for, as I said just now, common sense, the reason of the thing, the common law of the land, and the law and the practice of the Church, all alike declare this — how then, I ask, can the fact of the State contri- buting, however largely, to the establishment and support of the school, make what is thus in itself right and reasonable, to be 7iot right and not rea- sonable 1 This will serve to show, that I cannot admit that the amount of State contribution has, in fact, any thing whatever to do with the settlement of the present question between the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England and the Committee of Coun- cil on Education. It has been stated publicly^ that — " The sum expended by the Church annually for the maintenance of her schools in England alone, as ascertained by documents in the possession of the 26 National Society, is 802,460/., when the government grants for the same purpose, exclusive of the poor- house schools, (v^^hich are not under Church manage- ment,) are 25,677/. The money expended on the building of Church schools, for the last five years, was 767,980/., and of this the proportion contributed by government is about two-sevenths." Now the setting forth this statement appears to imply, that if the proportion of State contribution was less insignificant than it is, the State would, therefore, have a better right to interfere with the constitution and management of Church schools. I must demur to the implication altogether. So long as the State professes to assist Churchmen to build and to conduct Church schools, just as it professes to assist those who are not Churchmen to build and to conduct other schools, what amount it may con- tribute to this or that party is nothing to the pur- pose. If the State professed to build and to conduct State schools, it would be quite another matter that we should have to consider — and, in all probability, it will not be very long before we shall have to con- sider it. But there is nothing before us that I know of to make it necessary for us to consider it 7iow. If the people of England like to have State schools, they will, I suppose, have them in the end, and the amount of State grants will then, very properly, be a principal item in the account, but at present it is not a case — at least, avowedly it is not — of any thing in the shape of a State school. The people of Eng- 27 land have, happily for them, no liking for any thing of the kind. But if the people of England do not look a little more closely and carefully after the pro- ceedings of the Committee of Council than they have done hitherto, they will have State schools among them, without their liking^ and against their conviction of what is right and good. If, indeed — to take the case of Church schools separately — the object of the Committee of Council be that Church schools shall not be established as purely Church schools, nor administered as purely Church schools — but shall be a part of w^hat is called in the late correspondence " a system of National Education," i, e. shall be established upon a State principle, and administered, directly and indirectly, by the Committee of Council — then the whole course of the Committee of Council is intelligible enough — on no other supposition is it intelligible at all. But I would observe, it is a course which the legislature has never sanctioned, nor can sanction without the most grievous injustice — and it is a course in which the Church can, under no circumstances, acquiesce. The real question then before us is simply this : — Shall there be, or shall there not be, any purely Church schools throughout England, receiving State assistance? — or, to put it in another shape — Shall the schools of the Church of England, framed upon the Church model, and governed and administered, in all respects, in ewact accordance with the Church system, be the only schools throughout England denied assistance by the State f 28 It is surely very wonderful, and not a little alarm- ing, to trace how such a question can ever have arisen at all — it never could have arisen but through the abuse of the patience and forbearance of the Church, and her long-tried and well-known reluct- ance to assume an attitude of opposition to any State authority — a reluctance which is, I may be allowed here to say, a most excellent feature in her character ; and I use the words " to any State au- thority" advisedly, because I would wish to point out here, as I have done elsewhere, that there is a very broad distinction to be taken between the authority of the two Houses of Parliament ratified by the assent and consent of the Crown, and the authority of the Committee of Council. God forbid that the Church should be forced into collision with the Crown and Parliament upon this question, or upon any other ! There is, however, no such collision now : it is simply the irregular and usurped authority of the Committee of Council that w^e are driven to oppose. As yet there has been no decision of the Legislature against the Church. The Church then is, as she has ever been, very slow to move, even when the danger is so obvious and so great. And this slowness carries with it, moreover, this other great advantage — that when the Church does move, as she is moving now, it is a most certain sign and unmistakeable, that a great prin- ciple is at stake. And it is even so — a great principle is at stake — there are creeping in amongst us with cautious and 29 stealthy step, wearing the aspect of the most dis- interested good will, and offering every assistance to us in forwarding a great work which is very near our heart, — there are creeping in amongst us the first beginnings of a system, which, as it has been already condemned by the miserable experience of many nations, so does it carry with it, to every sound and sober, and right-thinking mind, its own most certain condemnation. But come what may upon us, we will not, by God's help, at least here in England, we will not have the combined system. Do the Committee of Council disclaim all intention of bringing in that system upon us? Do they admit that " the religious sympathies of the country revolt against it?" Let us be thankful for the admission, but let us beware how we consent to allow that to be introduced, however gradually and imperceptibly, amongst us, which will assuredly, in a very few years' time, render it not so easy a matter to make, and to accept, this admission as it is now. And do not let us be deceived into supposing that the words I have just quoted, either express or imply that the sympathies of the Committee of Council revolt against the combined system. Why, those words are part of a passage in a pamphlet which has had a very great circulation, and which is currently attributed to the prime mover of all this Anti-Church machinery, the Secretary of the Committee of Council himself, part of a passage which begins as follows : '' Little re- flection is necessary to show why a statesman should 30 prefer a system of combined education." And then come the reasons for this preference — -reasons, which are very plainly, in the mind of the writer, such as ought to be allowed to over-ride all the " religious sympathies of the country ^" But let us give the Committee of Council the benefit of their disclaimer — let us admit that they have no present intention of forcing the combined system upon an unwilling people. Well, then, we will not have that system which they do not disclaim, and which so readily and so surely paves the way for the combined system. We will not have established as a rule amongst us the comprehensive"^ system ; nor again will we have a ^ If any one doubt about this, the doubt may be cleared up at once, by referring to vol. ii. p. 547, Minutes of Committee of Council on Education, 1847-8, lately issued from the Council Office. I subjoin three extracts : — 1. '* Prussia has done most towards perfecting, on a large scale, the system of popular instruction which most closely suits itself to the wants and abilities of a large nation.'' 2. " As formal religious instruction is always given by the pastors of towns and villages, it is found easy to combine chil- dren of different religious persuasions in the same establishment, without inducing collision between them or their parents." 3. " There is a minister of public instruction at Berlin, who is also at the head of Church affairs, and communicates through the local consistories in the provinces with which he corresponds. School inspectors are appointed to various districts, one of whom is always the Superintendent or Bishop (sic) of the district." ' The exact notion of the "combined" system is this: That the school shall not have, even nominally, any one definite religious character, but that the children of the Church, and of all " persuasions," or of " no persuasion," shall be admitted alike to the *' advantages " of secular instruction. The Clergy of the 31 system which sets up, in clauses proposing to pro- vide for the constitution and management of Church schools, a broad distinction between religious and other education, and deals with that distinction as an admitted fact — least of all, will we have the steps to a State education worked out through the schools of the Church herself, still professing to be Church schools, while, in truth and reality, they are Church, and the teachers of the several "persuasions" attending at certain hours to give the " religious lesson." The schoolmaster, meantime, to continue the secular instruction of such children as are of no " persuasion." The exact notion of the "comprehensive" system is this : That the school shall be, nominally, a school of one definite religious character, i.e. Church of England, Roman Catholic, or dissenting, as the case may be, but that it should admit freely children of " all persuasions," or of " no persuasion," leaving it to the parents or friends of the children to decide whether they shall receive any, and, if any, what, religious teaching. It is obvious that, so far as the preservation, hy man, of the dogmatic teaching of Catholic truth is concerned, both systems carry with them alike the same fatal consequences. Again, the comprehensive system, as applied to a nominally Church school, is most miserably unfair to the children of the Church, in holding up to them, day by day, and under their own eyes, the strongest practical proof that soundness and unity of faith is, in the view of those who govern and instruct, who reward and punish them, a thing of secondary importance ; that in the view of these same governors and instructors, " the truth " is a thing not external to and independent of man's judgment or opinion, but simply as " every man troweth ;" and in tempting them to think little of " the unity of faith " themselves, because they see that children, whether trained in the Catholic faith, or no, have precisely the same advantages supplied to them in their pursuit after worldly knowledge. 32 any thing else. We will not have a system, nor admit an influence, by which all is lost which the Church is appointed to do in the education of the people. We are in great need of State assistance, and the course of the Committee of Council has shown how well they know in what manner to turn to their own account the fact of our necessities, by the multiplied endeavours they have made, and are making every day, to commit Church schools to the first beginnings of the State system by supplying from the Council Office, in many and tempting shapes, the means of what is called " increased efficiency." But, whatever may be our necessities, we will not sell our principles for a State grant; we will not, so far as we can prevent it, we will not have any impediments throw^n in the way of the full and unrestrained use, in Church schools, of the formularies of the Church of England. If we can- not altogether, and in every case, prevent this being done, we will never fail to enter our solemn protest against it wheresoever it is attempted to be done. We will not have the schools of the Church of England withdrawn from the supervision of the Bishop, and placed under the supervision of the Committee of Council on Education. We will not have those schools submitted to an irresponsible management, a management which offers no suffi- cient guarantee that it will be the management of the Church. We will not surrender the position in which God has placed the Clergy, and which is a 33 sacred trust in their hands, a trust to be used humbly and faithfully for the temporal and eternal welfare of Christ's people, the position of being the autho- rized and responsible teachers of His people, and of being commissioned to uphold, amid all the shiftings of political opinion, and all the wanderings of dis- sent, the one fixed, unalterable standard of Church doctrine and Catholic truth. We would seek then to act with vigour and de- termination now, as in a time of very great peril, and so to get rid, so far as we may, of causes of jealousy, and suspicion, and distrust, and to have all our time and energies to devote to more worthy ob- jects. It is naturally, so to speak, a very painful thing to us to find ourselves compelled to oppose, in any shape. State authority. It is not the vocation of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England to be forced to concert measures for registering a formal complaint, and entering a solemn protest against the unjust and injurious treatment of the government of England. May God grant that this sad necessity may cease, but most assuredly does it exist now ! It is our most earnest desire to co-operate, so far as is possible, with the State in the great work of edu- cating the people ; it shall be no fault of ours if we cannot. But if the co-operation and assistance of the State be a thing very earnestly to be desired, it is infinitely more to be desired that no part of that precious deposit, which God has committed to the c 34 keeping of His Church, should receive aught of damage at our hands. Let us hope and pray that both these things may yet be reconciled. Finally, I would most earnestly entreat the sons and daughters of the Church of England not to be deterred from offering a steady opposition to the course of the Committee of Council by an appre- hension of any rupture with the State. There is no such rupture. Shall there be any such ? How could it be defended but as the last resource, and after all things within our reach had been tried, and every effort made to avert the evil ? Who would be the gainers by it? The Church would lose in part the means of present efficiency in her schools. It is possible indeed, and, I think, more than possible, that the loss would, in time, be made good to her by the exertions and the sacrifices of her children, but it w^ould be a loss to the Church, and a great one, now. But the State — what would the State lose? — the State would lose every thing, and without hope of making good the loss ; for 1 have yet to learn in what manner the State proposes to provide for the edu- cation of the people without the hearty co-operation of the Church of England ; — there is no rupture then — there is simply a controversy with the Com- mittee of Council on Education — and surely it can- not be said by any one, that the Committee of Council have a greater claim to be heard in the matter of the education of the people than the Church of England has. Can it be said, indeed, that 35 they have, in any respects, an equal claim? — it is then, I say, simply a controversy between the Church of England and the Committee of Council on Educa- tion — there is no rupture with the State — I do not believe there is any prospect of a rupture with the State — because I am sure that the State will deal justly and wisely by the Church. There is indeed one position of this question, which, if we could think it would be permitted to continue, would supply real cause for alarm — real cause to fear the coming upon us of one of the greatest evils that could befal this land — a col- lision, and ultimately a rupture between Church and State — when those ties must, perforce, be severed, which sound sense, and right religious feeling, and love for our common Fatherland, would teach us to bind together, so long as it is possible* with the bond of peace — that position is the one in which this question is placed now — a position which seems almost to invite continual aggression on the one hand, and which makes necessary, as a religious duty, continual complaint and remonstrance, yes — and I will add, continual agitation, on the other; but why should this be so — can any reasons be adduced by the friends and advocates of State control which will suffice to bear the burden of so much evil ? or what injury could possibly accrue to the State — what could accrue to it but real and lasting benefit, if the terms upon which the State is prepared to grant assistance to the promoters of Church schools be c2 36 confined to what, on the one hand, includes every guarantee that the public has a right to ask, and on the oi\\ev Cdxliides all possibility of interference, direct or indirect, with the teaching and the discipline of the Church? there surely, where principles are most clearly ascertained, most steadily and faithfully as- serted, and most scrupulously respected, there surely is the safest and the truest peace. For these reasons — reasons which I feel most un- feignedly are not, in my hands, worthy of the cause they support — I make it my humble and respectful, but most earnest, entreaty to all members of the Church of England, that they will join in the appeal to Parliament, for " simple and equal justice." We should then go to Parliament in our united strength, upon a broad and intelligible basis — the basis of a claim that no man's conscience shall be either tempted or coerced by the action of any State authority — and such an appeal could not fail : but if we are at variance among ourselves, or if we are careless and indifferent to the issue, we shall not improbably be defeated now, and it will then be for those who will not join us in this our appeal to Parliament, to fight the battle of the Church hereafter, when the van- tage-ground has been surrendered to the enemy, as best they may — but who shall theii hope any more that this great controversy will be adjusted in such sort as not to carry with it the utmost danger to the faith and practice of the Church of England ? 37 And now, my clear Lord, one word for myself, and I have done. I have been charged with having acted in a hostile and unbecoming spirit towards the Com- mittee of the National Society. I do declare then, as in God's presence, — and in this I know I may speak for others no less than for myself, — that I have had no desire or purpose throughout this controversy, but, as in a time of very great peril, to call for the public expression of the calm and fixed determination of the Clergy and the Laity to uphold the Bishops in a claim for simple and equal justice in behalf of the Church of England — to strengthen, as much as we may, the Bishops' hands ; if, in contending for w^hat I most value, if, in my deep anxiety that, in our pursuit of worldly knowledge, that which is the beginning and the end, the sum and substance of all knowledge, should not be forgotten, — that Christian education, the education of Christ's Church, should not be dethroned by rash and irreverent hands, and a system set up in its place, which deals with Christianity as though it were given to be an adjunct of man's life, and not that life itself; if, under an overwhelming sense of the responsibility which attaches to this generation that the germ of that system shall not be allowed to take root and to bear fruit here in England, the fruit first of latitudinarianism, and lastly of infidelity, fruit to be reaped by our children, if not by ourselves ; if, in contending for the preserva- tion by man in all its integrity of the Catholic 38 faith, and of the means of teaching and delivering that faith from generation to generation, which God has entrusted to His Church, I have been betrayed, at any time, into hasty, or intemperate, or unfitting language, I am very sorry, and I trust humbly I shall not ask in vain that it be forgiven me. Believe me, My dear Lord, Always most sincerely and affectionately yours, GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON. East Brent, January J 1849. APPENDIX. REPORT ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE EDUCATION QUESTION, Agreed to at the General Meeting of the Church Union, held at Bristol, December 11, 1848. It appears to your Committee that there are certain things necessary to be done, certain alterations, both of principle and detail, necessary to be made in the Management Clauses of the Committee of Council, before these Clauses can be regarded as supplying, in any case, a safe and fitting basis for the Constitu- tion and Management of Church Schools. After these things have been done, and these alterations made, it appears to your Committee that it will be no more than what is right and reasonable, that, where Founders see cause to make their own an Exceptional case, they should be entitled to do this, under the Sanction of their Bishop, without forfeiting thereby, in any degree, their claim to a share in the Education Grant. The things referred to fall under Jive Classes, as hereinafter set down, with one or more instances under each Class, of what has taken place in respect of them in the course of the Negotia- tions of 1846-48, between the Committee of the National Society and the Committee of Council. CLASS I. Things not yet asked at all. instances. a. That no distinction between religions and other Education be set up in Clauses professing to pro- vide for the Constitution and Management of Church Schools. 40 b. That the appointment and the dismissal of the Schoolmaster,Schoolmistress, and Assistant teachers be in the Clergyman, subject to an appeal to the Bishop. CLASS II. Things asked, hut not insisted upon. instance. So much of the Clause following as is printed in Italics. " That all Members of the Managing Committee of a School, except ordained Ministers of the Church of England, shall qualify for acting on the same by subscribing a declaration that they arc bona fide Members of the Church of England, and not joined Members or frequenters of the Worship of any other religious denomination.'^ CLASS III. Things ashed, and quasi-conceded ; i.e. not in the terms in which they were ashed, nor to the effect for which they were ashed — and which, there- fore, HAVE NOT, IN REALITY, BEEN CONCEDED AT ALL. instances, a. asked. That the Clergyman shall have the Moral and Religious Superintendence of the School. conceded. b. asked. conceded. That the Clergyman shall have the Superintend- ence of the Moral and Religious instruction of the Scholars attending the School. That a free choice be left to the Promoters of Schools amongst the different Management Clauses, " The Committee of Council are ready to agree that the adoption of the Management Clause A shall not be required in those cases, in which it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Committee of Council, that, 41 from the character of the population, or other causes, the adoption of this Clause is inexpedient." June 3, 1848. " Their Lordships have to observe that it has not been the custom of the Committee of Council to insist on the adoption of Clause A in ^preference to Clause B, or vice versa, but they have always readily acceded to the wish of the promoters in the selection o? either of these Clauses. It is their Lordships' desire that it should be understood that neither of these Clauses will be required to be adopted in small parishes or districts having few inhabitants qualified by their intelligence for the Management of Schools, and that whenever one of them is proposed by the Committee of Council, the other may be adopted, if it be preferred." July 31, 1848. c. asked. That the power of having Clause D be made to depend — in Parishes of above 700 Souls — upon the vote of Subscribers representing two-thirds of the amount subscribed, or collected from all sources. Contributions from public bodies excepted. conceded. That, provided that at least one-half of the whole outlay has been subscribed by persons resident, or having property in the Parish, the power of having Clause D be made to depend upon the vote of a Majority of not less than two-thirds in number of Subscribers resident, or having property in the Parish — representing also two-thirds of the Money subscribed in the Parish. See Note ^ 1 In the " Proposition " of the Committee of the National Society the power of having Clause D and the Communicant qualification, separately or conjointly, is made to depend upon one simple Condition — viz. 1. That the requirement of both, or of either of them, be sanctioned by the Vote of Subscribers representing two-thirds of the Amount Sub- scribed, or Collected from all sources, public bodies excepted. [In 42 d. asked. That there be inserted in the Trust deed the requirement, as the qualification of a Member of a School Committee — " I, A. B., do declare that I am, and have been for three years last past, a Communicant of the Church of England," where- soever this form of declaration is preferred by the founders to that now made and signed by lay Members of the Ecclesiastical Commission — and that this insertion be made subject to the same conditions with respect to its adoption in any Parish or district as those proposed hy the Com- mittee of the National Society concerning the adoption of Clause D in populous or affluent districts. conceded. That the insertion of the above form of declara- tion be made subject to the same conditions as those proposed hy the Committee of Council, con- cerning the adoption of Clause D. See Note ', ut supra. In the " Concession" of the Committee of Council there are four Con- ditions attached to the Exercise of the same power. 1. That at least one-half of the whole outlay have been fii*st subscribed by persons resident, or hating pro}?erty in the Parish. 2. That there be a Numerical Majority in favour of the require- ment. 3. That such Numerical Majority consist of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of the Subscribers. 4. That such Numerical Majority of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Subscribers represent also two-thirds of the Money subscribed in the Parish. It is further to be observed, that as the probable mischief of requiring a Numerical Majority of not less than two-thirds was the precise ground upon which the Committee of the National Society based their proposition, the insisting upon such requirement does, of itself, absolutely nullify the ichole concession. It will be borne in mind, however, that the Committee of the National Society have neither expressed nor implied their acceptance of this " Con- cession." 43 CLASS IV. Things ashed, and conceded in the terms in which they were asked, and to the effect for which they were ashed — hut which nevertheless, require some further confirmation and security, such as would be supplied by the provisions of an Act of Par- liament. instances. a. " My Lords fully agree in the principle that, while the State, in giving assistance, has a right to de- mand ample Security for the efficient Management of Schools, the arrangements should be so framed as to secure to Members of the Church the future control of their Schools." It appears to your Committee that what the State has a right to demand ample security for, is, rather, " that the funds which it contributes shall be applied to the exact purposes for which they were asked." b. " They also entirely concur in the principle, that the Conditions on which Parliamentary grants are made should be fixed and definite." c. Also some points of detail, numbertd severally 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, under heads IV. V. of " Me- morandum bearing date April 11, 1848, commu- nicated to the Lord President of the Council, by His Grace the President of the National Society" — Conceded in paragraphs IV. V. of the letter of the Secretary of the Committee of Council bearing date June 3, 1848. Things ashed, and finally refused. That founders of Schools shall be allowed, if they wish it, to have their Bishop as sole arbitrator upon all points of difference. " They (the Committee of the National Society) must, however, urge earnestly on the Committee of Council the re-consideration of that mode of CLASS V. instance. asked as under. 44 appeal which was suggested by them in their last letter as an alternative in certain cases, and i?i the refusal of which they find it impossible to ac- quiesce.'^ Letter of His Grace the President, Aug. 12, 1848. finally refused as under. " Their Lordships must finally declare that they cannot consent to permit the permanent Constitu- tion of the School, in so important a matter as the Establishment of an appeal to the Bishop of the Diocese in matters not relating to Religious instruction, to be determined by the local Sub- scribers to Schools, to the establishment and sup- port of which it is now provided that the State should so largely contribute." Letter of the Secretary of the Committee of Council, Aug. 30, 1848. The above appears to your Committee to be a correct sum- mary of the principal things which have been done, or left un- done, in the course of the negotiations. Your Committee have further to state, with very great regret, that it appears to them, upon a careful review of the whole case, that the controversy between the Clergy and the Laity of the Church of England on the one hand, and the Committee of Council on Education on the other, is very far indeed from any bond fide and satisfactory adjustment : and that it remains now to make a direct appeal to Parliament, with a humble Petition for simple and equal justice. 45 TO HIS GRACE THE PRESIDENT, AND OTHERS, THEIR LORDSHIPS, VICE-PRESIDENTS, AND COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY. The Memorial of the undersigned, Clergy and Laity of the United Church of England and Ireland, Sheweth, 1. That your Memorialists desire very respectfully to submit to Your Grace, and to the Committee of the National Society, their judgment upon the present position of the Education Question. 2. That, while your Memorialists fully recognise the right of the State, in contributing to the establishment and support of Schools, to demand ample security that the funds so con- tributed shall be applied to the exact purposes for which they were asked, they have a clear opinion that the Church cannot surrender the principle of freedom from all com- pulsory interference on the part of the State in respect of what shall, or shall not be, the Constitution and Manage- ment of her Schools. ' 3. That the Committee of Council in proposing to make the acceptance of the Management Clauses a condition of State assistance, do propose to exercise such compulsory inter- ference. 4. That the Management Clauses themselves, notwithstanding some partial Modifications, appear to your Memorialists to be still, in many particulars, of a most objectionable cha- racter, and to be full of danger to the teaching and the dis- cipline of the Church. 5. That these Clauses do, every one of them, presuppose the distinction between religimis and other Education, and deal with it as an admitted fact. 6. That — for this reason alone — even supposing the right of appeal to the Bishop to be conceded freely and fully, and the power of having Clause D and the Communicant qualification to be relieved from all unnecessary restric- 46 tions, and made easily available in practice — it would still be matter of very grave doubt whether the Manage- ment Clauses could be regarded as supplying in any case a safe and fittinor basis for the Constitution and Manaorement of Church Schools. 7. That, in looking at the history of the attempts which have been made to improve the cliaracier of the Management Clauses, your Memorialists observe with very great regret that the Committee of Council, in professing to concede the requirement of the Committee of the National Society — " That the Clergyman shall have the moral and religious Superintendence of the School" — have employed terms very different from those in which the requirement was made, and which do in effect nullify the concession altoyether. 8. That your Memorialists beg very respectfully to suggest that it would appear to have escaped the notice of the Com- mittee of the National Society, that it is a necessary part of the above requirement that the appointment and dismissal of the Schoolmaster, Schoolmistress and Assistant teachers be in the Clergyman, subject to an appeal to the Bishop. 9. That the real question at issue appears to your Memorialists to be simply this : — Shall there be, or shall there not be, any purely Church Schools in England receiving aid from the State ? — or, to put it in another shape. Shall the Schools of the Church of England, framed upon the Church Model, and governed and administered in all respects in accord- ance with the Church System, be the only Schools denied assistance by the State ? 10. Your Memorialists feel that it is very painful to Churchmen to be thus forced into collision with the Committee of Council ; but as the controversy was not, in the outset, of their seek- ing, and as they cannot, in any sense, be held responsible for its continuance, so are they prepared to offer a steady resist- ance to all attempts to impose the Management Clauses upon the founders of Church Schools, because they do not doubt that these Clauses contain the germ and the early growth of the combined System. 47 FORM OF PETITION IN FAVOUR OF EDUCATION GRANTS WITHOUT MANAGEMENT CLAUSES. [To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, in Parliament assembled. To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.] The humble Petition of the undersigned Inhabitants of the Parish of in the County of Sheweth, That your Petitioners believe, that the principle upon which the public money has been granted by Parliament for the pur- poses of Education, is the recognition of the claims of the Church of England, and of other bodies not in communion with the Church, to participate therein in proportion to their respective efforts, leaving to all alike entire freedom to constitute and ad- minister their respective Schools upon their own model, and in exact accordance with their own system. • That your Petitioners feel assured that Parliament never in- tended to vest any further control in the administrators of the Education grant than what is necessary to the securing the due application of the public money to the purposes for which it was asked and granted, consistently with the principles of freedom above laid down, — it being, for the purpose of such security, amply sufficient to provide: 1. — That the site of the School buildings shall be legally secured by trusts, legally constituted. 2. — That the School shall be open to Government Inspection, within certain limits, as arranged in 1840. That the Education grant having, for a time, been dispensed upon this basis, your Petitioners have now, with great concern, to represent to your Right Honourable [Honourable] House that the Committee of Privy Council on Education have, of late, de- nied to the founders of Church Schools their due share of such grant, except upon the terms of their inserting into their Trust 48 Deeds one or other of certain Managenment Clauses, to which Clauses many Churchmen object as being incompatible with tlie Church system. That your Petitioners have great reason to believe that the in- sisting upon the adoption of one or other of these Clauses on the part of the Committee of Council has operated, and must con- tinue to operate, as a heavy penalty upon the founders and pro- moters of Church Schools, and as a great and growing hindrance in the way of the Education of the people. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Right Honour- able [Honourable] House, that it may be provided and settled by Act of Parliament, that the Education Grant shall hereafter be dispensed, subject to the two simple conditions of Legal Security and Government Inspection, upon the principle of freedom above declared. And your Petitioners will ever pray. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION. The question put and answered in the following letters appears to be of the utmost importance under the present aspect of the Education question, because It is here affirmed by the Committee of Council that, so far as Government Inspection is concerned, exactly the same measure of freedom is conceded to Members of the Church of England as is conceded to those who are not Members of the Church of England. There ought therefore to be no longer any difficulty in apply- ing the same principle to the Constitution and Management of Schools, and in agreeing that here also exactly the same measure of freedom shall be conceded to Members of ti)e Church of Eng- 49 land as has been already conceded to those who are not Members of the Church of England. There is only one rejoinder to this, viz. : — That it is for the good of the State that those who are not Members of the Church of England should be left free in every case to constitute and administer their Schools as they see fit, without forfeiting thereby State assistance, but that it is not for the good of the State that the same freedom should be conceded to Members of the Church of England. The Church of England has, at least, a right to demand that the truth of this rejoinder shall be discussed and proved in Par- liament, and that what the rejoinder seeks to establish shall be made to be the Law of the Land before it is acted upon. (Copy.) East Brent, Cross, Somerset, Sir, January 24, 1849. In the Report of the interview which took place in the course of the year 1847, between the Education Committee of the Free Church of Scotland and the Lord President of the Council, I ob- serve, p. 64, vol. 1, Minutes of Committee of Council on Educa- tion, 1847-8, the passage following: — " It being understood that grants for building schools are given " upon conditions of these schools being always open to Govern- " ment inspection, and it being explained that the right of in- " spection on the part of the Government, as at present limited " and defined, is fully acknowledged by the Free Church ; the " question was put; — Supposing that at any future time the " terms of inspection should be altered, or a right of inspectian " claimed beyond that now in use, — would the managers of " schools, partly built by grants of public money, be still bound " to submit to such Government inspection, thus altered and " modified ? Or, in case of their refusal to do so, would they " forfeit the property of the schools, or be bound to repay " the sums originally advanced by the Government for their " erection?" " The reply was most frank and explicit, in the negative ; and D 50 "it was added, that no objection would be made to an express " article being inserted in the title-deeds, referring to the Minute " at present defining the right of inspection, and stipulating that, " in the event of a departure from that Minute, on the part of " the Government, there shall be no obligation on the proprietors " or managers of the schools, either to submit to any inspection " other than that now in use, or to refund the money advanced " by the Government. In short, it was stated, that every security " the parties might deem desirable would be given on this subject. " It was also explained, that in the case of schools connected " with the Free Church of Scotland, the same assurance would " be given as in the case of schools belonging to several other " religious bodies ; that any Inspector named by Government " for these schools, would be one of whom the Church, through the " General Assembly, or its Committee, expressed approbation." I beg to ask, whether the understanding respecting the right of Government Inspection which is conveyed in the above reply as applicable to the case of the Schools of the " Free Church" of Scotland, is to be taken as equally applicable to the Schools of the Church of England. I beg to add, that I propose to publish this letter with your reply. I have the honour to be. Your obedient humble servant, GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON. The Secretary of the Committee of Council on Education. Committee of Council on Education. Privy Council Office, Downing Street, January 29, 1849. Reverend Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt, on the 26th instant, of your letter dated January 24, 1849. You quote, from page Ixiv of the first volume of the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education, for 1847-48, a passage 51 extracted from a Report of the substance of a conversation be- tween the Lord President of the Council and a Deputation from the Education Committee of the Free Church of Scotland ; and you inquire whether the understanding which that passage con- veys, respecting the right of Government Inspection, as regards the Schools of the Free Church, is to be taken as equally appli- cable to the Schools of the Church of England. The Lord President directs me to reply in the affirmative to your question ; and I am to add, that in every case where a School in connexion with the Church of England comes under a permanent obligation to be open to Inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, it is only required, by express declaration in the Conveyance, or other legal instrument, which renders that obligation valid, that the School shall be open to the Inspection of the Inspector or Inspectors appointed or to be appointed in conformity with the Order in Council bearing date the Tenth day of August, 1840. I have the honour to be, Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant, HARRY CHESTER. The Rev. G. A. Denison, East Brent, Cross, Somerset. RESOLUTIONS, TO BE MOVED AT THE ENSUING ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY. T. That it is the opinion of this Meeting, that it is just and necessary that the two following conditions of State assistance be imposed by the State upon the founders and promoters of Church schools : — 1. That the site of the school buildings be legally secured by trusts legally constituted. 2, That the school be open to Government inspection for the purpose of ascertaining its efficiency, and of regulating 52 the amount of State assistance — provided always, that such inspection shall not exceed the precise limits of the letter and of the spirit of the agreement of 1840. II. That it is the opinion of this Meeting, that it is not just, and not necessary that any other condition of State assistance, besides the two above specified, be imposed by the State upon the founders and promoters of Church schools. III. That it is the opinion of this Meeting, that the attempt, on the part of the Committee of Council on Education, tp^impose certain other conditions of State assistance besides the two above specified, has operated, and must continue to operate, as a heavy penalty upon the founders and promoters of Church schools, and as a'great and growing hindrance in the way of the education of the people. (Si(/ned) GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON. East Brent, Cross, Somerset, January 17, 1849. THE END. Gilbert in Rivi.nuto.n, Piiuters, St. John's Square, London. ^i^& V-! '^IP' 3f •O ^ > * "*s i .^^^ ^ :^ r^^ «^* :■"* vEs. "--^ .^ \ 1- •♦^ A' 'iS^' !• t| - >,, * /^ ,<-- ir