BROUGHAM'S ABANDONMENT OF COMPULSION.

235

tax, your petitioners will cheerfully bear their part of the burthen," though they felt that there were ample endowments for this purpose, and referred to the case of the Manchester Free Grammar School, with an income of £4,400 and only 150 boys, some of whom were paying scholars. It was pointed out by Mr Brotherton that, according to the returns made to Parliament, the revenues of endowed schools in England amounted to upwards of £3,000,000 annually'. On February 18th inhabitants of Liverpool petitioned the House of Commons, and prayed the House "to adopt measures for promoting and improving the National Education." On April 15th members of the Literary and Scientific Institution of the City of Worcester petitioned for "a general system of National Education"." On April 25th Mr Lennard presented petitions from the towns of Epping and Harlow, calling on the House to devise a plan by which the children of the poorer classes might be provided with education suited to their situation in society, and which might not interfere with their religious feelings and opinions. The petitioners pointed out that statistics showed that crime prevailed the most amongst the least educated. Mr Joseph Hume, the Member for Middlesex, made this petition the opportunity for a violent attack on the Government and Lord Althorpe. On August 1st, 1833, inhabitants of Brechin prayed for "the speedy establishment of a School in every parish in England and Ireland," with a Bible class in school hours. They suggested that the funds should be found in the same manner as in Scotland3. All these straws showed how the wind had set. Even Liverpool had changed its mind. In 1807 it had petitioned against Mr Whitbread's Bill".

In the meantime a significant event had happened. On

1 Hansard, vol. xv. col. 760; Commons Journal, vol. LXXXVIII. p. 45. 2 Loc. cit. p. 57. 3 Loc. cit. p. 269.

4 Loc. cit. p. 309; Hansard, vol. xvII. col. 593. 5 Commons Journal, vol. LXXXVIII. p. 623.

6 Ibid. vol. LXII. p. 744, and see p. 223, supra.

236

Roebuck's scheme of compulsory education.

ROEBUCK'S COMPULSORY SCHEME.

March 14th, 1833', Lord Brougham announced in the House of Lords his abandonment of the principle of compulsory education upon which he had based his Bill of 1820. . He felt that the voluntary principle had done so much in the preceding thirty years that a compulsory rate was no longer necessary. This unfortunate change of view was based on the fact that in 1833 there were 1,030,000 children in the unendowed schools, in addition to 165,000 in the endowed schools. This was such an immense increase since 1820 that Lord Brougham felt that voluntary education had justified itself?. On July 30th, 1833, Mr Roebuck brought forward, in opposition to the changed views of Lord Brougham, a compulsory scheme of education. He moved "That this House, deeply impressed with the necessity of providing for a due Education of the People at large; and believing that to this end the aid and care of the State are absolutely needed, will, early during the next Session of Parliament, proceed to devise a means for the universal and national Education of the whole People3." His lengthy and didactic speech is very interesting as showing the way in which the idea of national education was growing*. "Education," said Mr Roebuck, "means not merely these necessary means or instruments for the acquiring of knowledge, but it means also the so training or fashioning the intellectual and moral qualities of the individual, that he may be able and willing to acquire knowledge, and to turn it to its right use"." Mr Roebuck referred to the compulsory 1 Hansard, vol. xvI. col. 635.

2 His change of view began in 1828. On May 24th, 1833, Lord Kerry moved an address of the House of Commons asking the King to give directions that a Return as to the amount of education in the country should be laid before the House. This Return belongs to the history of the important period 1833-1839. Lord Melbourne's reluctance to spend £1,000 delayed the necessary inquiries till the late autumn of 1833. See Parliamentary Paper, No. 62, of 1835; Parliamentary Paper, No. 572, pp. 1, 222, of 1834.

3 Commons Journal, vol. LXXXVIII. p. 615. 4 Hansard, vol. xx. cols. 139-166.

5 Loc. cit. col. 142.

PROPOSALS FOR A MINISTER OF EDUCATION, 1833. 237

system of education that had in 1833 been introduced into France, and to the compulsory systems at work in Prussia and Saxony, and stated his opinion that it was necessary to introduce a similar system into this country. "In general terms, I would say, that I would oblige, by law, every child in Great Britain and Ireland, from, perhaps, six years of age to twelve years of age to be a regular attendant at school. If the parents be able to give, and actually do give their children elsewhere sufficient education, then they should not be compelled to send them to the national school. If, however, they should be unable or unwilling to give them such instruction, then the State should step in and supply this want, by compelling the parent to send the child to the school of the State." This of course was the exact idea of the Act of 1876. Mr Roebuck's conception was to set up three classes of State schools -namely, infants' schools, schools of industry, in which would be taught, in addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the elements of art, hygiene, natural history, and the proper knowledge of some trade, and normal schools, for the training of teachers, who would receive from such schools the qualifying teaching certificate. Evening schools in towns were also advocated. Mr Roebuck believed that the country should be divided into school districts, where the voters should elect a school committee. The control of education should, he thought, be placed in the hands of a member of the Cabinet, who would supervise the National School system.

An interest

Debate on Mr Roebuck's proposal.

It is probable that Mr Roebuck's ideas to an appreciable extent affected the ultimate settlement of 1870. ing debate followed, Mr Grote was in favour of a national system. Lord Althorp could not agree that there should be any provision to make it penal in a father not to educate his child. was of opinion, that they might give a father the means of educating his children, and put it in the power of a man who could not afford the expense to do so without expense; but

"He

238

PEEL AND NATIONAL EDUCATION.

the actually punishing a man for not having his child properly educated, would, in his mind, be going further than they ought." Mr O'Connell thought that a normal school would give great offence to the people. They should go no further than give countenance to religious instruction and assist literary instruction. "Facility of education should be encouraged, but all domination ought to be abolished. Nothing could be more destructive than to imitate the example of France, in respect to her system of national education." Mr Hume advocated undenominational State education for the very poor. Sir Robert Peel considered "it was not quite correct to assert that education in this empire was so very imperfect." The care of the State towards education was a doubtful question. A compulsory system of education appeared to him to trench upon religious toleration; for it must, almost of necessity, interfere with religious opinion.......He did not wish to speak with disrespect of the mayors of this country, but would the French system of leaving the education of every town to its mayor do here? Any Bill which made the mayors of the different towns of England comptrollers of education within them, would create a degree of jealousy and resistance which the hon. Member would not be able to overcome." He doubted whether education ought not in a free country to be left free from control'. This debate occupies thirty-five columns of Hansard, a fact that shows how great had been the increase of popular interest in the subject3. 57. On August 16th, 1833, the sum of £1,264 was granted by Parliament to defray the expenses of salaries and allowances to certain professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. There were some objections to the grant on the ground that Dissenters were not admitted to the Universities, and one Member (Mr Ewart) said that were they

Parliamentary grants for English education in 1833.

1 Hansard, vol. xx. col. 173.

2 Loc. cit. cols. 139-174.

THE FIRST PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.

239

admitted he would have wished to have seen a far larger grant'.

The first

grant for

elementary education. August 17th,

1833.

On Saturday, August 17th, 1833, in a very empty House of Commons, a vote of £20,000 for the purposes of education was passed after a hot debate by 50 votes to 26 votes. Mr T. B. Macaulay voted with the majority in favour of the grant. Lord Althorp English explained that the object of the grant was to build schools where there already existed the means of carrying on such schools. In the debate Lord John Russell pointed out, in answer to a complaint that no ground for the experiment had been shown, that in the Report of the Education Committee in 1818 there were cases referred to of parishes which, if they could have been assisted in the first outlay, would afterwards have supported their own schools. This was still the case in 1833, and justified a vote for building grants. Mr William Cobbett, the Member for Oldham, opposed the grant on the ground that education was not improving the condition of the country. In the country districts, he said, the father was a better man and a better labourer than his son. Reports on the table of the House proved, he declared, that men became more and more immoral every year. Then what had become of the benefits of education? Education had been more and more spread; but to what did it all tend? "Nothing but to increase the number of schoolmasters and schoolmistressesthat new race of idlers. Crime, too, went on increasing. If so, what reason was there to tax the people for the increase of education? It was nothing but an attempt to force education-it was a French-it was a Doctrinaire-plan, and he

1 Hansard, vol. xx. col. 719. The first University grant of this type appears to have been made on June 28th, 1821 (Commons Journal, vol. LXXVI. p. 487).

2 See p. 225, supra.

3 (1762-1835). It should be remembered that in 1803 he originated the Parliamentary Debates which became Hansard in 1812.