H:* 
 
 
 ^^^^j /t' ^k^^BB^terfl 
 
 ^dF^s 
 
 £^
 
 L I E) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1VE.R5 ITY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 ^

 
 ' f
 
 Y^ 
 
 EDUCATION-PRIMARY AND SECONDARY. 
 
 REV. CANON GREGORY. • 
 
 \_A Paper Read at the Church Congress, Brighton, 1874.] 
 
 Is the Education Act of 1870 working justly and satisfactorily, or ought 
 some of its provisions to be modified or altered ? It is doing much to 
 secure the erection of schools, and increased attendance of scholars. Is 
 this being accomplished without unfairly injuring existing schools, or is 
 it creating a sense of injustice in those previously interested in the 
 cause of education ? Is the new system working smoothly, or are 
 rankling sores being created that it is wise to try and heal before they 
 spread further % 
 
 -There are three parties in the State of whom we may fairly ask these ques- 
 tions. There are, first, those who have already expended much time and 
 money in the cause of popular educatiori. These must be considered under 
 two heads, for whilst the two are agreed that it is desirable to give a religious 
 education, they differ as to what constitutes a religious education. One party 
 means by these words religion with a definite creed ; the other, creedless or 
 unsectarian religious teaching. Beside these, there is a third party, which 
 advocates secular instruction. This party differs from the others, in that it 
 has at present done nothing for education beyond criticising what others 
 have done ; it has expended no money in erecting or maintaining schools, 
 and it has accomplished nothing by which to test its capacity for practically 
 dealing with the question ; but it has created a violent agitation on the 
 subject, and claims to represent the nation. Let us hear what answer 
 each of these would give to our questions. 
 
 As the Church of England has done the most in this great cause, let 
 us first hear what its advocates hav^ to say. It has provided school 
 accommodation for 1,816,911 children, at a cost to its supporters of about 
 £8,383,000, supplemented by grants from the Committee of Council to 
 the amount of £1,269,039.* Upon the maintenance of these schools it 
 last year expended £427,184, raised by voluntary contributions to meet 
 
 * In the Bluebook of 1872, the grants from the Committee of Council amounted to the 
 sum named above, and it is stated that £3,217,937 had been given by the promoters of 
 the scliools assisted, which would accommodate 844,558 schohirs. Supposing the 
 remainder of the accommodation provided without help from the Committee of Council 
 to have cost the same j)er child as that provided with their help, the sum named above 
 would be the amount expended.
 
 j£451,50:. paid by scholars, and X'>49,42G out of the Government grant. 
 Wliat do the promoters of these s:^'iools say of the working of the Act of 
 1870? 
 
 (1.) 1 _. ' t has injured them in every place where it is in active operation 
 by vindue ompetition. They assert that School Boards plant new schools, 
 erected at a cost of nearly double ?»f what was expended upon voluntary 
 schools, in unfair proximity to exiting schools, and in numbers greatly 
 in excess of the educational wants of the places where they are built ; 
 and that the attendance of chil'jren at previously existing schools is 
 thereby dinunished. These last two points they prove by showing that 
 the increased attendance of children in 18G9 was equal to 82 '25 per cent, 
 of the school accommodation pro* i:led during that year ; and in 1870 it 
 was equal to 88*25 per cent. ; ^ut in 1872 only 37 ])er cent, of the 
 school accommodation [)rovided w.is occupied, and in 1873 only 51 per 
 cent. The result consequently i^, that whereas in 1870, of every 100 
 school places existing iolSi were filled, and 38-66 empty; in 1873 
 only 57 '4 are occupied, and 42 6 unoccupied. When it is remembered 
 that these figures represent the whole school supply in England and 
 Wales, and that the excessive supply of schools is only in certain places, it 
 will be seen how severely some schools must be suffering. 
 
 (2.) That this undue competition has greatly increased the rates, and 
 thereby rendered it more difficult to obtain subscriptions. Moreover, 
 voluntary schools are themselves taxed with rates for the support of 
 Board schools, and so the cost of maintaining them is increased. 
 
 (3.) That when voluntary schools are overwhelmed by the excessive 
 competition brought to bear upon them, and the consequent loss of in- 
 come derived from voluntary sub;it riptions, they can be handed over for 
 ever to a School Board, without any deference being paid to their trust- 
 deeds. So that schools erected for the express purpose of training chil- 
 dren to be members of the Church of England can be transferred to a 
 body bound by Act of Parliament not to allow the Apostles' Creed or the 
 Church Catechism to be taught within their walls. This can be accom- 
 plished, though every person who subscribed towards the erection of such 
 schools should protest against the transfer. This has actually been 
 done in several cases. And when Ine National Society opposed in Chancery 
 one such transfer of a school that had not been erected seven years, and to 
 the transfer of which every person who had contributed to its erection 
 objected, the Vice-Chancellor decided the case against them. If the possi- 
 bility that certain founders of schools, who died more than two hundred 
 years since, might have sympathised with Nonconformist views is sufficient 
 cause to hinder schools so founded from being handed over to the Church, 
 what shall be said of the justice which permits schools founded by members 
 of the Church of England, in order that the doctrines of the Church of 
 England might be taught in them, to be confiscated in the lifetime of their 
 founders, and, in spite of their urgent remonstrances, to purposes alien to 
 their intentions and wishes 1 
 
 But the Act of 1870 inflicts a still greater injustice upon members of 
 the Church of England. It decrees, by the Cowper-Temple clause, that in 
 no school founded or supported by rates can there be religious teaching of 
 which they can approve. Nonconformists complain that a few shillings or 
 pence of their money can be bestowed in paying the fees of poor children
 
 at Clmrcb schools. Church people may justly complaiu that the whole of 
 their rates is applied to the sustenance of schools founded to teach religion 
 in the N<nic()nformist fashion — according to the principles of the British 
 and Foreign School Society. 
 
 The original framers of the Bill, to their honour be it spoken, sought to 
 guard against this possible injustice, and provided that grants in aid might 
 be paid out of the rates to denominational schools. This clause was thrown 
 out in the Committee of the House of Commons ; and instead of it increased 
 grants were promised in behalf of the Education Department to all schools. 
 The loss inflicted by the withdrawal of the clause has proved a very 
 real one ; the gain by what was substituted for it very illusory. In the 
 last Bluebook there is a comparative view of the annual income of elemen- 
 tary schools inspected for annual grants during the last ten years. I quote 
 from this table. It gives the grant per child in Church schools as 8s. 9d. 
 in 1870, 8s. 9|d. in 1871, 9s. lOJd. in 1872, 10s. lOd. in 1873;* in 
 1864 it was lis. 3d. The increased grant, therefore, according to this 
 table, was 2s. Id. in excess in 1873 over what it was in 1870, and less 
 than what it had been in 1864. In the same volume there is an abstract 
 of the expenditure in elementary schools. In Church schools, the educa- 
 tion of each child cost in 1870, £1, 5s. 7id. ; in 1871, £1, 5s. d^d. ; in 
 1872, £1, 7s. 8d. ; in 1873, £1, 10s. Id. Whilst therefore the grant had 
 only increased by 2s. Id. per child in 1873 over 1870, the expenditure 
 had grown by 4s. 5jd., so that the managers of schools were really worse 
 off by 2s. 4 id. per child in 1873 than they were in 1870. This growth 
 of expense has been entirely caused by the competition of School Boards. 
 The money they expend being provided by rates, they can aflford to be 
 lavish ; and as their object is to excel voluntary schools, they can and do 
 outbid them, and so expenditure is increased. 
 
 The Education Act of 1870 may thus be shown to have been a serious 
 injury to the Church of England, and its whole working is towards weak- 
 ening its hold upon the education of the country. When it passed, some 
 sanguine Church people congratulated themselves that it was no worse. 
 Such an estimate could only have been formed by men who anticipated 
 that a Liberal majority would utterly destroy all Church schools. 
 
 The Roman Catholics and the Jews equally dislike the operation of the 
 Education Act from their respective points of view ; and the Roman Catho- 
 lics have expended about £605,000 of their own money, supplemented by 
 grants from the Education Department to the amount of £42,770, in pro- 
 viding school accommodation for 113,490 children ; whilst the Jews have 
 erected large schools, at their own cost, in London, if not elsewhere, but 
 as these are included in the school accommodation provided by the Non- 
 conformists, I cannot give exact figures ; and as my time is limited, I 
 must content myself with referring to what they have done, as I dare 
 not attempt to state their objections in the few minutes allotted to me. 
 
 * I ought to say that in another portion of the Bluebook the grant is stated to be 
 12s. 6fd. for each child in average attendance in Church schools in 1873 ; this is nearly 
 Is. 3d. per child higher than the amount I have given. It does not materially affect the 
 argument, as the schools would still have to provide more by subscription in 1873 than 
 in 1870. There is no comparative vievi^ of the grant as thus stated with what was given 
 in other years, and as there is in the page I have quoted from, it was on that account I 
 took it, as there are probably deductions which are made in the one case and not in the 
 other.
 
 Let us next inquire what the Nonconformists think of the working of 
 the Act. Before it passed, some bodies of them had done a good deal for 
 education. They have provided school accommodation for 556,783 chil- 
 dren, at a cost to themselves of about £2,310,000, supplemented by grants 
 from the Education Department to the amount of £349,748, and last year 
 they expended £85,169 upon the maintenance of their schools. 
 
 At first sight it would seem as though a large number of them must be 
 content. The various bodies who united to support the British, and 
 Foreign School Society, and by whom * not quite two-thirds of the Non- 
 conformist schools have been built, find their system of religious instruction 
 invested with the dignity of being the only established form of religious 
 education. They see Churchmen, in consequence, compelled to support 
 it, in spite of their own preferences, but as a less evil than a system 
 of mere secular instruction. Moreover, they are enabled to transfer their 
 schools, whenever they are so disposed, to School Boards, secure of find- 
 ing the selfsame system of religious teaching carried on as themselves 
 had established, in very many cases able to obtain the nomination of the 
 same persons to manage the schools as previously formed the Committee of 
 Management, and not infrequently, in addition, they receive from the School 
 Board rent for the schoolroom thus transferred, and so provide, at the 
 cost of the ratepayers, an acceptable endowment to the chapel with which 
 the school is connected. Beside this, in less than three years School 
 Boards have arranged to extend their system almost indefinitely ; for they 
 have borrowed three millions for the erection of schools in which their 
 system of religious teaching must be followed unless the schools are 
 to be secular. 
 
 It might have been thought tliat those who derived such advantages 
 from the Education Act would have been satisfied with its working ; but 
 such has not proved to be the case. Having gained so much from the legis- 
 lature, they think they ought to have obtained more. It is not enough 
 for their system to be endowed, unless at the same time that of the 
 Church is wholly overthrown. It is not enough that more than three 
 millions to be paid out of the rates are to be expended in building 
 schools ; and that the system of religious teaching in these schools, if 
 there is to be one, must be their own, and that this sum will be largely 
 added to every year : all this counts for nothing if Church people are to 
 have a few hundred thousands out of the taxes to supplement a million or 
 two more of their own money for the erection of schools, though of such 
 assistance there is now an absolute end. It is not enough for them that 
 School Boards can expend more than a million a year upon the promotion 
 of a scheme of education of which they approve, if a miserable sum of less 
 than £6000 a year can be paid out of the rates for the education of a few 
 poor Church children at Church schools. It is not enough for them that 
 Churchmen have to pay pounds a year in rates for maintaining a religious 
 system which they dislike, if themselves have to contribute a few far- 
 things that may in any way benefit Church schools. Nay, still more 
 remarkably, their own system of religious education has lost all its charms 
 
 * Of schools aided by grants for building, those provided by the British and Foreign 
 School Society accommodate 81,152 scholars, those furnished by the Wesleyans, 47,o40 ; 
 of the remainder, sonie belong to the Jews, whilst the great i)ortion were built without 
 Government liclp.
 
 5 
 
 for them, wlien they see Church people willing that the children of the 
 poor should be trained in it, nither than be brought up in hopeless igno- 
 rance of all religion and morality ; and they not infrequently oppose at 
 School Boards the inculcation of religion in the very way which their co- 
 religionists had founded a society to promote. It would seem as though 
 in the eyes of such persons all religion ceased to be true when it became 
 tolerable to Church people. I am far from saying that this is the course 
 of action of the whole Nonconformist body ; but it is what has been done 
 by that very influential portion of it which has violently protested against 
 Clause 25, and which is agitating for a secular system of instruction. 
 
 What do the secularists say to the working of the Bill 1 So long as 
 private efforts were needed to establish schools, their voice was all but 
 unheard. So long as personal gifts and self-denials were required to further 
 the education of the people, their zeal was kept within the prudent 
 bounds of an occasional speech at a political gathering. But now that 
 they may tax other people for the purpose^ the case is altered. Their 
 strength lies in the divisions of those to whom they are opposed ; and 
 had Church people been betrayed into following the example set them by 
 the Nonconformists, the secularist party might have triumphed. The 
 Nonconformists, as a body, have opposed paying the fees of poor Church 
 people at Church schools out of the rates much more eagerly than they 
 have resisted the exclusion of religious instruction from Board schools ; 
 whilst Church people have seen their own religious teaching extruded 
 from all Board schools, and yet have eagerly contended for the religious 
 teaching of the Nonconformists in those schools rather than they should 
 become secular. For when the cry of religious education has been raised 
 at School Board elections, the system of religious education intended is 
 that of the British and Foreign School Society, and the British and 
 Foreign School Society is the educational organ of the Nonconformists. 
 We think Church people have acted wisely and religiously in doing as 
 they have done. 
 
 So far the secularist party has not made much progress. At Birming- 
 ham they have succeeded in banishing all religious teaching from the 
 schools, but there has been too much religious feeling amongst the people 
 to permit such a system to extend elsewhere. And it is one of the 
 pleasanter features in this contest that the parents of the children to be 
 taught are almost universally on the side of those who advocate definite 
 religious instruction. So long as it was thought possible to make the 
 parents' conscience a weapon against the Church management of Church 
 schools, it was largely invoked ; but now that it is found to be on the 
 side of religious teaching, it is treated as a matter of small concern. It 
 is the objecting ratepayer who alone is supposed to be endowed with a 
 conscience that ought to be respected. But notwithstanding all this, 
 we may not shut our eyes to the fact that it will need great care to 
 prevent a secular system from eventually triumphing. In the United 
 States, at the first, a system of secular instruction would have been held 
 in abhorrence : it is now universal. The only sure hindrance must be 
 sought in absolute fairness to all. At present the popular feeling is 
 strongly on the side of religious education ; any injustice, any unfair or 
 onesided application of a rate-supported system, would certainly convert 
 the popular feeling to the other side, as a means of escape from theological
 
 differences. One great reason why I am anxious for a change in the 
 present Act, is because I think that there is great injustice in its working ; 
 it is only prevented from overturning all religious teaching by the self- 
 restraint of Churchmen, who prefer giving an advantage to their rivals to 
 risking the little religious teaching now given, and it is not wise to count 
 upon the continuance of such self-restraint. 
 
 The alterations I should suggest in the Education Act are proposed to 
 redress some of the wrongs which Churchmen now suffer ; though even if 
 all were granted, the Education Act would continue to inflict injury upon 
 the Church in the matter of education, whilst benefiting the denominations. 
 
 In the interests of fair play, we think the first change ought to be the 
 repeal of the Cowper-Temple clause. In the metropolis, and in many large 
 boroughs, it may eventually be found that the system it enforces is the only 
 system making any pretence to be religious that is practicable : but this is 
 a question for the ratepayers to determine. They have a right to choose 
 for themselves how their schools shall be conducted. At present, Church 
 people certainly pay at least lialf the rates everywhere. I believe, if the 
 Nonconformists could ever have screwed up their courage so far as to per- 
 mit us to have a religious census, it would have been seen that Church people 
 are much more than one-half of the people. They ought not therefore to be 
 excluded from having a single rate- supported school taught in their own 
 way. The Nonconformist can have the schools instructed upon the prin- 
 ciples he advocates — the secularist or infidel upon the principles he approves; 
 but the Churchman cannot have a Board school taught in the manner 
 he thinks best, though every person who pays a rate for its maintenance 
 might wish it to be so taught. I would in no way restrict the force of 
 the conscience clause in the rate-supported school, but I think we might 
 claim that during the time set apart for religious instruction, facilities 
 should be given for allowing those interested in the children to teach 
 them religion according to the principles of their parents. For instance, 
 suppose a place where the existing system of religious teaching upon the 
 principles of the British and Foreign School Society is in the ascendant : 
 liere allow Church people to teach the children of Church people Creed 
 and Catechism in the class-room ; and if the parents of a suflScient number 
 of children should wish them to be taught in another faith, say that of 
 the Roman Catholic, the Wesleyan Methodist, or the Jew, then let 
 proper facilities be provided for them. Or reverse the case : suppose a 
 borough or a parish where the School Board decided that the teaching of 
 the school should be in accordance with the teaching of the Church ; then 
 give like facilities for parents of children wishing their children to be 
 otherwise taught, to obtain religious instruction according to their own 
 tenets. 
 
 Again, provision is urgently needed to meet the case of voluTitary 
 schools unable longer to support an independent existence. It ought to 
 be remembered that these schools have special claims for consideration : 
 for a long time they supplied the whole of the primary education of the 
 country. They were called into existence in many cases by the proffered 
 help of the State ; they seemed by such invitation to have fair play 
 guaranteed to them. The promoters of the Act of 1870 promised to respect 
 their fair claims upon consideration, and it cannot be said that these pro- 
 mises have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the managers of voluntary
 
 schools. A system of rates is prejudicial to a system of voluntary sub- 
 scriptions, and in many places completely destroys it. About twelve 
 millions of money have been given by the charitable for the erection of 
 these schools. Policy, not less than justice, therefore demands that they 
 should be dealt with upon principles of which their founders would 
 approve. For our own part, we infinitely prefer the voluntary principle 
 to any otlier for educating the people. I devoutly hope that most of the 
 voluntary schools, particularly the Church schools, will continue as they 
 now are ; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that some will succumb. 
 Applications from Church schools are now being made to the London 
 School Board for absorption into their system more frequently than I at 
 all like ; in fact, I feel that an evil is committed whenever a trans- 
 fer is accepted. But I fear that in some cases such a result is inevit- 
 able. I wish, therefore, to see terms proposed that may be fair and 
 just, so that the work of liberal founders may not be undone, or turned to 
 a purpose of which they would disapprove. What I believe would meet 
 the case would be this : whenever a transfer is made without rent being 
 paid or pecuniary advantage secured to the founders or managers of the 
 school, that then the teacher placed in charge of the school should be of 
 the same religion with the founders, and that during the time devoted to 
 religious instruction the teaching in the school should be in accordance 
 with the provisions of the trust-deeds, facilities being given in the class- 
 rooms for other religious teaching when it is desired ; and in schools 
 which had belonged to the Church, the clergyman of the parish should 
 be allowed to teach ; in schools which had belonged to the Nonconform- 
 ists or Wesleyans, the like liberty being accorded to their ministers. 
 
 Such an advantage would be but a small recompense for the great sav- 
 ing to the ratepayers of having the school buildings provided for them 
 free of charge. Few schools in towns cost less than X2000. When this 
 is borrowed with authority from the Education Department, it inflicts 
 an annual charge of £110 for fifty years. When School Boards rent 
 existing schools, they seldom pay less than 5s. per child per annum, 
 which is nearly equal to one-half of the Government grant. Whichever 
 of these reckonings we take by which to estimate the value of the loan of 
 school premises to a School Board without rent, we shall have a sum 
 which would do far more than pay a teacher for giving religious instruc- 
 tion for one hour a day. It could not, therefore, be fairly said that reli- 
 gious teaching was paid for by the rates, if the plan now proposed were 
 adopted. If the religious convictions of Churchmen or other school 
 founders cannot be respected so far as to permit this to be done, then we 
 ought to agitate for power to be given to those who pay the rates to be 
 able to allocate the sums they pay to schools of which they approve. It 
 cannot be just for the Nonconformist ratepayer to claim a right to inter- 
 fere with the disposal of every part of the sum to which he contributes a 
 very small proportion, whilst the voices of all other ratepayers are disre- 
 garded. And yet this seems to be our present condition. 
 
 Should the very modest proposals I have made for the removal of pre- 
 sent injustice be adopted, it wall be necessary that some security should be 
 given to the Church, and other founders of schools, against what might prove 
 an abuse. There can be no doubt that the tendency of the changes sug- 
 gested would be to remove objections to the formation of School Boards
 
 / 
 
 and the transfer of schools. And I am aware that many will object to my 
 proposals on this account ; but I W))uld earnestly ask such persons to con- 
 sider whether it is not desirable for-ns to try to make the national system 
 tolerable to Church people, whilst v/e have the opportunity, rather than 
 leave our poorer brethren to a hopeless struggle. Some schools are now 
 being transferred ; I fear that I see signs of that number increasing. Now such 
 atransfer means that a school founded to promote definite religious teaching 
 is handed over to a system which absolutely prohibits such teaching. 
 Alter the Act as I suggest, and then the teachiiig for which the school 
 was founded will still be given, though the religious body for whose bene- 
 fit the school was erected will lose many other benefits which it previously 
 enjoyed in its use of the school. Sut whilst advocating this change, I 
 think we must take care that the founders of schools are protected 
 against the complete alienation of their freeholds. Let facilities be 
 given for leasing the buildings for an indefinite period, terminable 
 by a notice of two or three years, but protect those who would be 
 willing to lease their schools upon such terms as have been mentioned 
 from the possible evils which might befall them by a sudden change of 
 policy on the part of the legislature. Our object is to preserve religious 
 education in our primary schools : if instead of leases we had transfers of 
 the freeholds, our object might be defeated by a vote of the legislature, 
 compelling the instruction in all Board schools to be secular. 
 
 Much might be said in favour of a liberal system of grants in aid by 
 Boards to voluntary schools, as proposed by the Act when first introduced. 
 Personally, I should very much prefer such a system to what I have now 
 proposed. It would have the advantage of being more economical, an3. 
 of retaining the management of schools in the hands of those who now 
 overlook them ; but my object has been to propose the smallest amount 
 of change needed to make the present system tolerable to Churchmen 
 possessing any real religious convictions, and to do it in the way which 
 would be least objectionable to those from whom they differ in matters 
 of faith. I venture to hope that these alterations will be made, because 
 they would go far towards removing sore feelings and heart-burnings 
 which exist, and they would enable Churchmen to take a more hearty 
 interest in promoting the education of the people in conjunction with 
 School Boards. 
 
 I will conclude with simply recapitulating the changes I wish to see 
 made in the law : — 
 
 1st. llepeal of the Cowper-Temple clause. 
 
 2d. Freedom to give separate religious instruction in Board Schools. 
 
 3d. That in schools transferred without pecuniary consideration, the 
 religion taught during the time devoted to religious instruction shall be in 
 accordance with the trust-deeds of the school, permission being given to 
 impart different religious instruction in the class rooms. 
 
 4th. That better provision should be made against the confiscation of 
 schools to purposes not intended by their founders.
 
 
 %% 
 
 ^Lj^:km 
 
 "Jis^ 
 
 
 ^