souls; that her Majesty's government have expressed their readiness to issue the royal mandate for the consecration of a bishop exclusively for Upper Canada, but have distinctly refused to grant him an income; that the nation, having chosen the divinely-appointed episcopacy of the church of England for its religion, appears bound, at least in all cases where the poverty of the people, as in Upper Canada, obviously requires it, to provide for the administration of all its ordinances; that the refusal to do so must issue, although your petitioner is far from imputing any such intention to her Majesty's government, in a continuous infringement of the religious liberty of the poor members of the church; that Christians of every other denomination are at liberty to exercise their peculiar discipline over their flocks; that the Roman catholics of Upper Canada have a bishop paid by the government, and large funds also for the maintenance of their priests, independent of their right of tithes from their own people; that a salaried bishop is refused to the church of England; that thousands of her people cannot, therefore, enter into the privilege of full church membership, as they are deprived of the rite of confirmation, which the church holds to be of apostolic authority and usage; that numbers of churches are yet unconsecrated; that the scattered clergy are without an overseer and counsellor, and that, unless a bishop be appointed, and effectual pecuniary aid be given to him to increase the numbers of the clergy in some measure proportionate to the wants of the people, until the clergy reserves be sufficiently productive to afford them a decent maintenance, the established church of England in Upper Canada must decrease in efficiency, and her members necessarily lose that high character of devotion to the time-hallowed and blood-bought institutions of the land, for which they have ever been distinguished.

That your petitioner humbly submits these facts to the consideration of your right honourable house, with the prayer that your right honourable house would adopt such measures as the urgency of the case may appear to require. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

WILLIAM BEttridge.

AN ADDRESS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE LAY UNION FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE EDUCATION OF THE POOR.

THE education of the children of the poor is a subject which has lately claimed and obtained a considerable portion of the public attention, and is daily increasing in interest and importance; and, from its intimate connexion with the well-being of the community, it is exceedingly desirable that the present position of the question should be accurately understood.

Until within the last four years,-in each of which a small parliamentary grant has been made for the erection of school-houses in England,-whatever was done in this matter was attributable solely to the spontaneous exertions of Christian benevolence. Our charitable foundations owe their existence to the religious munificence of past ages; and, within the last thirty years, a variety of new efforts have been made by Christian zeal and liberality to meet the increasing wants of a rapidly augmenting population. And had the state remembered its duty, and properly filled up the outline of a church establishment bequeathed to it by the piety of our ancestors, there would have been, in all probability, but little cause for complaint, in the present day, as to the want of popular education. But, from a forgetfulness of this duty, it has followed, that in various districts of large population, and of great religious destitution, vast masses of ignorance and immorality have accumulated. While, however, this is freely admitted, and while it is also readily conceded, that it is the duty of the state to take immediate measures for the removal of these

evils, still it is not right that the fact should be overlooked,-that for all the provision which has yet been made for the education of the poor of this country we are indebted solely to the efforts of Christian benevolence.*

Now, those who have at various periods, and especially in the present age, devoted their time and their substance to these philanthropic endeavours, have ever had in view, not the spread of a system of merely mechanical instruction, but the diffusion of moral principle, by the inculcation of Christian knowledge. In their view, the power of reading, and the acquisition of some elementary knowledge in science, constituted, not an end, but the means to an end. Education, to be worthy of the name, must embrace, or rather consist in, a moral training, a grounding of the mind in religious principle, to be acquired by a course of instruction in the facts and doctrines of Christianity. It is upon this view that the whole of the education now provided for the poor of this country, by the efforts of Christian benevolence, invariably proceeds. A new theory of education, however, has been put forth within the last few years, the chief feature of which is, the inculcation of mere secular or "useful" knowledge, as it is termed, to the virtual exclusion of that knowledge which alone can make us "wise unto salvation."

This new system is chiefly advocated by a body calling itself "The Central Society of Education." That society does not consist, as its title would seem to import, of an union of all those who had laboured longest and most succesfully in the work of the education of the poor. On the contrary, it rather opposes, and seeks to render useless, all their labours. It has no connexion with, and exhibits no friendly feeling towards, the "National Society;" it opposes, and is strenuously opposed by, the "British and Foreign School Society." It emanates, in short, neither from the church of England nor from any of the sects dissenting from it, nor from any other body connected with, or concerned in, the work of education. Its leading members, on the contrary, are chiefly known in the arena of politics; and the main drift of their exertions evidently is, to change, by "liberalising," the character of the education now given to the children of the poor.

The proposition now urged upon the government and the legislature, by this "Central Society," is,-That a Board of National Education shall be formed, and provided by the state with sufficient funds to conduct the education of the children of the whole of the poor: that this board shall train masters, and establish schools, throughout the country: and that the system of education to be adopted shall, in effect, exclude all religious instruction; either by confining it to such topics only as are admitted by all, or by merely allowing the clergy, and religious teachers of various denominations, to lecture or catechise, at certain fixed hours in each week, such of the scholars as may choose to attend on them.

Now, there can be no doubt that while, on the one hand, the establishment of public schools of this kind, endowed by the state with ample means, would operate to wither up and destroy those which are now supported by voluntary contributions; so, on the other, the system proposed to be adopted would be, in effect, an irreligious system. By "irreligious," we mean a system from which religion is purposely and sedulously excluded. We are aware that the advocates of the proposed change frequently profess their intention, that the education contemplated in their theory shall comprehend a religious training; but, whatever their professions may be, their practical proposition always resolves itself into this alternative: either that the instruction given shall be such as to be inoffensive to the professors of all creeds, and the

The number of children in the schools in union with the National Society amounted in 1832 to 400,830; in 1835, to 516,181; and, in 1838, may be estimated at upwards of 600,000. The total number of church-of-England schools, in 1837, was ascertained to be 16,924, and the number of scholars to amount to 996,460.

incmbers of all communions; or that it shall be limited to a separate lecture, to be given at a certain allotted period in each week, and only to such as may choose to avail themselves of it. Now, however the advocates of this system may persuade themselves to the contrary, it is quite manifest, that either of these plans would establish an education without religion. The first proposes a system of tuition of which religion, it is said, is to form a part; but that religion is to be denuded of everything that might give offence to the professors of any one form or mode of belief. To avoid displeasing the Socinian, the divinity of the Son of God, and the consequent efficacy of his atonement, must be kept out of view; to conciliate the Romanist, the sole mediation of our Saviour, and the right of all mankind to the free and unrestricted perusal of the word of God, must be passed over in silence; while, lest the prejudices of the Jew should be wounded, all mention of the very name of Christ must be strictly forbidden. Can it be necessary to demonstrate, by any argument, that a religion without form or feature, such as this must prove, would be, in fact, no religion at all; or that a mere collection of moral precepts, isolated from those doctrines which alone can supply adequate motives for the observance of the precepts, would produce no other result than that of weariness and aversion? The connexion between doctrines and duties, faith and practice, is vital and indissoluble.

Nor could the second of these plans prove more successful. By it, every particle and vestige of religion would be cast out of the system of tuition; and a bare permission would remain for the ministers of every creed to visit the school at certain stated hours in each week, for the purpose of lecturing or catechising those among the scholars who choose to receive their instructions. But it is sufficiently obvious, that a periodical lecture of this sort, attended only at the option of the scholars, could have scarcely any perceptible value or utility. In either way, Christianity would be removed from its rightful position, as the vital and pervading principle; and would either be reduced to a meagre and useless outline, or pushed into a corner as a doubtful and optional appendage to the system.

Such is the alternative which is now pressed upon the attention of the government and the country. The question is not, whether the poor should be educated, for on that there is no controversy; but whether their education should be conducted, as heretofore, on a system of which religion forms the leading feature, or on either of these two plans of the "Central Society," by each of which it is, in effect, practically excluded.

It is needless to remark how deeply the members and friends of the church of England are interested in the right settlement of this question. For should it ever be decided by the state, that the rising generation shall be trained in schools in which Christianity is not inculcated, a habit of indifference to religion will be engendered in the popular mind, so as at once to alienate it from Christianity, and from the established church, by which Christian doctrines are so faithfully set forth. We therefore feel that this question directly affects the security of the establishment; and we are persuaded, that the time is now come when its importance ought to be urged upon the earnest attention of all the friends of the church.

Five years have elapsed since the self-styled "liberal" party commenced their exertions for the introduction of their system of education. It is impossible to deny, that during that time, owing to the inertness of Christians in general, they have made considerable advances towards their end. They have succeeded, during three sessions, in prevailing on the House of Commons to grant them committees, before which witnesses were produced for the purpose of explaining and extolling the "liberal plan of education." They have established the Central Society of Education, already alluded to, which embraces many members of parliament and other public characters, and the publications of which depreciate all descriptions of religious education, and advocate the superiority of their own plan. They have further laboured to instil their

views into the public mind throughout England by popular lectures and addresses at public meetings, and they have elicited petitions,-many of which, no doubt, have been signed by persons little aware of the tendency of their system, but which prove the progress that their doctrines are making in the country. They have therefore felt themselves, at length, sufficiently strong to bring the question under the notice of both houses of parliament in the present session. In the House of Lords, a bill has been introduced by Lord Brougham, which embodies the principle of this system, and proposes its immediate establishment. In the House of Commons, Mr. Wyse has brought forward a motion which would introduce the system, by establishing that which is one of its great features,—a central board of education nominated by government. It must not be forgotten, that both these proposals, pernicious as their obvious tendency is, have received the general approbation, expressed in parliament, of persons now high in office; and that Mr. Wyse's motion was defeated by a majority of four only, in a house consisting of one hundred and forty-four members. It is impossible, therefore, to deny that these views have made formidable progress, and that, if we would prevent their adoption in this country, we must forthwith awaken the public attention to their dangerous and antichristian character.

We are indeed fully convinced that, if the tendency of this system of education were properly understood, it would receive no countenance from the majority of the people. It would be found that, however anxious they are that the means of instruction should be widely extended, they would require that the education of the poor should be based on religion; that it should combine Christian instruction with useful knowledge; and that parliament should not impose on the members of the church of England, who are the great majority of the people, any system of education which should not inculcate the doctrines of that church; any, in short, which should not harmonize in all its parts with the discipline and polity of that church, and be conducted under the superintending care of the parochial clergy.

But it is necessary that the people should be warned of the actual position of this question, and of the danger attending the least appearance of indifference. The advocates of an education without religion have now brought the danger to our very doors. The opening of the next session of parliament must witness some very decided manifestation of opinion on the part of those who feel the importance of a religious education, or there can be little doubt that some step will be gained by the adversaries of the church, the evil consequences of which may be irremediable. Let, then, all who take any interest in the religious state and prospects of their country-all who know that a people without religion must of necessity be a people without morals, and that a demoralized population cannot long continue either free or happy-let all, in short, who are convinced that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people," resolve to oppose themselves, as strenuously and as unitedly as possible, to any system of education of which religion does not form the prominent and essential principle. By order of the Committee, SAMUEL MILLS, Secretary.

Committee Room, 28, Cockspur Street,
London, July 25, 1838.

EDUCATION IN THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS.

THE following report on this subject has been addressed to the committee of the Home and Colonial Infant-School Society by their secretary :—

"Gentlemen,-Interested as you are in all that relates to early education, it has been for some time my desire to bring before you its present state in the manufacturing districts in England; and in order to do this more satisfactorily, and to test, by personal observation, the accuracy of the information gathered

from various quarters, I have availed myself of the facility which railroads present to visit Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and some of the adjacent places.

"The act of the 3rd and 4th William IV. cap. 103, you are aware, prohibits the employment of children in the factories under nine years of age, and only those between that age and thirteen to be at work nine hours each day. From what has passed in parliament, I did not expect that this statute was fully carried into effect; but as it had not been repealed, I was not prepared for its entire abandonment, and calculated on it as affording some facilities to the work of education.

"It is obvious, however, that if many of the manufacturers disgraced the act, the better disposed are almost compelled to follow their example. The most able workmen would naturally go where they may obtain the highest reward; and as this, to family men, would be the factories were their young children obtained employment, such factories would have a decided prefer

ence.

"The manufacturers who wished to obey the law would have no remedy but to raise the wages of such workmen, and if they did so, it would at once make their competition with their neighbours unequal. A large manufacturer, who appeared to feel very much the painful situation in which he was placed, lamented to me, 'that it was the interest of the parents to deceive him as to the ages of their children,' omitting to add, as he might have done, 'that it was his interest to be deceived.' This is plainly the fact; and although doubtless there are a few honourable exceptions, in the vast majority of cases the act is a dead letter.*

"Under circumstances such as these, when all the parties concerned have an interest opposed to the law, it will be very difficult to frame any act that will not be greatly evaded; but I would not venture to say success is altogether unattainable until very different provisions, and a far more efficient machinery, have been tried. At present, however, when considering the question of education, with a view to any immediate practical steps, this act may be forgotten. Children do go to work before nine, and I may safely add before eight, and in many cases as early as seven.

This is an appalling statement, but its enormity has been too frequently and too loudly exposed to render it necessary for me to dwell on the subject; the fact itself will prepare you for the announcement, that for any purposes of education among the really manufacturing population, the National Schools and the British and Foreign Schools have entirely failed; in most instances they are not half full; and when from the excellency of the master or mistress, or the activity of the managing committee, an attendance has been procured, it will be invariably found that the older children are not the children of labourers who work in the factories, but of the little tradesmen, and the more respectable mechanics, who could well afford to pay the ordinary price for their children's instruction. One of the labouring class candidly said to me, When work is brisk, I can get 2s. or 38. a-week for my child's labour; and when work is not brisk, I cannot afford to pay for his schooling-it is enough then if I can keep myself."

"If this view did not at once approve itself to the understanding, so as to render proof unnecessary, I might refer to a recent statistical return published by Mr. Joseph Bentley, in which it is stated that six-sevenths of the children of Lancashire do not attend any daily school. Admitting this estimate to be, as I believe it is, somewhat exaggerated, still if it be only an approximation towards the truth, it affords strong evidence that the existing plan requires

*It is, perhaps, worthy of remark, that I was unable to obtain a copy of this act at any bookseller's shop in Manchester.