nations shall always be kept separate, and be trained up separately from their earliest youth. Do not you think that that tends to perpetuate sectarian distinctions ?

Ans.-I think not.

a

How catholic the gentlemen of the House of Commons are, and averse, forsooth, to "sectarian distinctions !" Ah! It is not denominational schools which keep up “sectariau distinctions,” but a politically privileged and richly endowed church establishment; and if members of Parliament really wish to get rid of these unamiable things, let them put an end to the monster mischief which creates them.

Hear another objection. 2513. Chairman (to Mr. Adshead).-Your voluntary principle involves charity. You give the people education at less than it costs, and the rating principle is merely a mode of supplying schools so that every man pays his quota towards their support. . . . Therefore the rating principle is a more independent one than your voluntary principle ?

2495.-Would not every person in the kingdom that lives under a roof contribute, according to law, to the rate; and therefore might not every person consider that the education he obtained in the school was a return for the rate he paid? And would there in that case be any charity in it ?

These questions are suicidal. Why, Mr. Richson and Mr. Entwisle have assured us solemnly that their whole system is a charity, and it is in their very teeth that the Chairman of the Committee asserts the contrary, and commends it on this ground ! Even on his own showing, however, the rate system is liable to precisely the same charge as the voluntary system; for it clearly “gives education at less than it costs,” since it taxes the whole community to pay for the education of a part. The difference in the two cases is, that in the one the money is paid voluntarily, and in the other it is exacted by law; a difference which certainly supplies no argument of weight in favour of the rate system.

But the voluntary system, say these profound social economists, is a great hardship on the subscribers. Hear Mr. Gibson.

2500. Chairman (to Mr. Adshead).-Is it not rather a hard thing upon those who are so religiously and benevolently disposed, that society should expect them to bear the whole burden, and that persons who are enjoying great advantages in this country should not contribute in any degree to support this important matter of education ?

Ans. It is not a hard thing for those who contribute upon the voluntary principle ; and if they do not think so, I think we have nothing to do with those who will not give.

2502. Though the country is greatly indebted to those voluntaries for what they have done, still do you not think they have had more than their share of the burden, and that it is time for the country to consider whether it ought not to be more equally distributed ?

Ans.—It is time enough to distribute the burden when the voluntaries complain.

The voluntaries are certainly very much obliged to Mr. Gibson, and to “Society," whose voice he assumes to utter, for the kind appreciation of their services, and more especially for their pity under the disproportionate burden which they bear: but we beg to suggest, that if Society is really so very sorry for the voluntaries, there is a much easier, and quicker, as well as a more agreeable way of relieving them than the impo

66

sition of a school-rate; it is by a general and liberal subscription. In all respects this is much to be preferred to a rate, and not least in this, that it will not require the passing of an act of parliament, or necessitate tedious examinations before Committees of the House of Commons. We shall certainly expect, after this, to see enlarged lists of subscribers to the schools in Salford and Manchester.

Finally, the fluctuating character of the support of voluntary schools was adduced as an objection to them.

1702. Mr. Fox (to Mr. Baines).—Do you think that such a state of things as you have just described-namely, a great flowing in of contributions at one time, and the existence of debt at another, is favourable to the steady conducting of such a work as the education of the people ?

Ans.—I do think that the education of the people will have more life and power, take that whole system together, than it would have, if you adopted any compulsory mode of raising the funds.

Fluctuation in school-funds is, no doubt, an evil per se, but it is an evil which may be got rid of at too high a price. Mr. Fox's question might be asked respecting all the benevolent institutions in the land.

CHAPTER XVI.

A SCHOOL RATE COMPARED WITH COMMON RATES.

It is now time that we should pay some attention to Mr. Richson's further point, or rather his second subordinate reason for advocating a school-rate, namely, that there is no material difference between it and other rates. That we may do him no injustice in this respect we will cite that part of the evidence in which this topic is introduced.

358. Chairman (to Mr. Richson).—What distinction do you draw between a common school-rate, and a common gas rate, or a common paving rate! You do not establish a gas rate upon the consideration that people cannot afford to pay for gas, but it is a convenient mode of providing gas equally amongst the population ?

Ans. I was going to mention that as another point.

What the Rev. Gentleman was going to say upon this point, however, does not appear, since the subject, we believe, does not come up again throughout his examination-forgotten perhaps (and we can readily excuse him) in the multiplicity of points to which his attention was directed ; but, in default of further elucidation, we may find something here not unworthy of remark, and the more so because this comparison of a school. rate to a gas rate, if it was not dwelt upon in the Committee, has been strongly insisted on out of it.

In the first place, then, it is clear that this argument for a school-rate is absolutely fatal to its character as a charity. The Chairman of the Committee said very justly, and Mr. Richson seems to have tacitly assented to it, that we • do not establish a gas rate upon a consideration that people cannot afford to pay for gas,” and if a school-rate really resembles a gas rate (as some of its advocates so loudly assert), it ought not to be based on the consideration that people cannot afford to pay for schooling.

a

If Mr. Richson once allows this comparison, his charity scheme is put hors de combat for ever.

A school rate, if it be like a gas rate, must be, as the Chairman again very properly tells us, “a convenient mode of providing ” education "equally amongst the population." Very well, if there be a common need which the people can agree thus to supply, and a common article by which they can be satisfied to supply it. This is far from being the case, however. A great many people in Manchester have education for their children already, and would not have the education to be provided by the rate, even if they had not; the two cases differ widely, therefore, and the idea of a rate is not applicable. We thank the Chairman of the Committee for this clear and satisfactory exposition of the matter, with which exposition it would seem, however mysteriously, that Mr. Richson

concurs.

Even the Chairman himself, however, with all his clear-sightedness, has evidently a hankering after a rate, the principle of which he would not allow to be at all the lifeless " affair which Mr. Adshead (2509) charged it to be.

You do not find, said he, as a matter of fact, that the supply of water and sanitary matters, such as gas, paving, and lighting, which are supported by the ratepayers for their common benefit, and paid for by all, at all declines in consequence of the mode of supporting it, (2510).

Just so, Mr. Chairman, because in these cases there is an adequacy in routine labour to supply the want; but in a matter so infinitely important as education—or, which is the same thing, religion-routine work will not do. We may get an establishment of schools and schoolmasters, as we have already of churches and clergymen; but we want EDUCATION, and consequently a system of voluntary exertion.

Even the poor rate has been brought into this argument. 2466. Chairman (to Mr. Adshead).-Supposing you were to relieve the poor upon a system of voluntary contributions, do you think that the contributions of the charitable would be a good substitute for an equable rate ?

No one knows better than Mr. Gibson, we should think, that the poor rate is the worst possible mode of relieving the poor, and that its evils are at this moment (although by the strenuous exertions of successive parliaments much reduced) multiform and unmanageable. A poor rate is, however, in the present state of society a necessary evil; a school rate would be an evil of similar character, although it may be hoped not of equal magnitude, but it will be found, we rejoice to believe, unnecessary.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE COST OF PAUPERISM AND CRIME.

We have now, we believe, dealt with all the grounds, both primary and secondary, on which Mr. Richson, in the early part of his examination, announced his intention to rest the claims of the local scheme ; we find, however, one other, which, although introduced without announcement, we

F

must not pass over. It is the public and private saving to be effected by an extended system of popular education, as a means of diminishing the es. pense occasioned by pauperism and crime.

417. Mr. Bright (to Mr. Richson).-One of your arguments in favour of the principle of rating is, that there is a great deal of crime an poverty in Man chester, some considerable portion of which you think might be avoided if the people were better educated ?

Ans.-Yes. The argument fully stated is as follows :416. I was just now pointing out to the Committee that the Borough rate, when collected, is applied towards the expenses arising from a certain amount of pauperism and a certain amount of crime ; and that education appears to be the only means known, short of absolute coercion, of effectually suppressing pauperism or preventing crime. I say that money is expended for those particular purposes, and, as a mere question of economy, I think it is necessary to educate the people to save this expense.

This argument from economy has certainly a very amiable aspect, and is one not unlikely to have weight with so frugal a people as the inhabitants of Manchester generally are; we beg leave to make an observation or two, however, for their consideration.

And first, this argument is totally inconsistent with the great and leading plea employed by Mr. Richson in behalf of his bill, namely, charity. In the beginning the burden of his song was, “ the people of Manchester are poor, and want eleemosynary aid to educate their children; therefore allow a school rate as an act of charity.” Now the tune is altered, and our melodious bird sings, “there is among the people of Manchester a great deal of pauperism and crime, which cost you immense sums of money, and education will reform them; therefore grant a school rate to save your pockets.” The ever shifting character of this appeal amuses us somewhat. Nothing is fixed in it but one term, a school rate; all things else vary, but, however dissimilar, they are made to contribute to the common object. Whether liberal charity, large economy, or common convenience, supply the argument, there must be a school rate. That is a foregone conclusion. Mr. Richson must not be angry, however, if we still ask him which it is to be. Are we to open our purses in charity to the poor, or to draw them tighter by refusing to spend so much upon union houses and prisons ?

Another reply to this, however, was given by Mr. Baines, in answer to another member of the Committee.

1856. Mr. Brotherton (to Mr. Baines). — Do we not at present pay about two millions a year for the punishment of crime, and for the support of property (paupers], that might in a great measure be prevented by education ?

Ans. We pay a great deal for the punishment of crime and the support of property (paupers]

1857. That is more oppressive than a payment for education I should conceive ?

Ans.-I am not prepared to measure that. It would be vain to suppose either our workhouses, or our gaols, or our police, could be dispensed with under any system of education whatever.

We further observe that we are by no means satisfied of the efficacy of education, as either a remedy for pauperism or a preventive of crime. We recollect that a few years ago this passed current as sound philosophy, and that for a time it was unchallenged; that time is gone by, however, and

that

we wonder that Mr. Richson has retained the exploded notion. It was evidently not prevalent in the Committee, and we do not think it needful, consequently, to go far into the subject. We shall however give a few extracts from the evidence.

1628. Mr. Fox (to Mr. Baines). -An opinion has been expressed by a person having great opportunity of observation, I allude to the Chaplain of Bentonville Prison, who says in the Report of 1849 : “I am compelled again to confess, that the proportion of convicts who have been educated in some sort of school to the uneducated, is fully as high as that which exists between those classes in the general population ; a fact which should lead to the inquiry wherein the popular education is defective.”. Do you dispute his fact, or his inference ?

Ans.- I do not dispute either his fact or his inference ; but if the Committee will permit me, I will read a still later Report from the same gentleman, Mr. J. Kingsmill, relative to Pentonville Prison. He says in the last Report published, “ The value of education, both as an element of civilization, and as a means to the intelligent perusal of God's is very great. Apart from a sound religious basis, however, it is shown in our every day experience to be of no worth, and not unfrequently the cause of more serious crimes ; I mean more serious in the matters of property, in the amount abstracted, and in the violation of trust reposed in the individual. The previous educational advantages of convicts have been certainly higher, according to our experience, than in the general population. Thus in 3,000 convicts who have passed from this prison, I find 2,141 have attended some sort of school, some of them the very highest in the country.” I state that as serving to show that it would be vain to expect that education would entirely prevent crime.

Together with an improvement in the education of criminals, however, there is found to be a diminution of crime.

1708. Mr. Bright (to Mr. Baines). — Can you lay before the Committee (confining yourself to Manchester) any facts showing whether crime has increased or diminished within the last 10 years, beginning with 1840 ?

Ans.- I have examined Captain Willis's police returns for the Borough of Manchester for the last 12 years. They show a considerable diminution in crime, and an improvement in the degree of instruction of the criminals. The number of persons apprehended was 12,417 in 1840, and 4,890 in 1851.

1709. Can you state whether the numbers in the year 1840 were from any special cause unusually large, or whether they were very much like the numbers in 1841 and 1842, and whether the diminution, coming down to between 4,000 and 5,000, has been steady, and almost without exception a constant annual diminution ?

Ans. It has been a steady, and almost without exception a constant annual diminution. At the same time, in reference to the first part of the question, I must say, I do believe that the number of persons apprehended in the earlier years was considerably larger, in consequence of the much higher degree of strictness on the part of the police at that time than exists at present.

1710. Is it not the fact that, in the years 1840 and 1847, and up to the harvest of 1842, the price of food was unusually high, and the sufferings of the people in Manchester, and in that district, unusually great ?

Ans.-It was so.

1711. You would conclude, then, that, however much education in Manchester may bear upon this question, the increased comforts of the people are also to be taken into the account?

Ans.- I believe largely. 1712. Mr. W. Miles.-Was not the state of trade at that period very bad? Ans.—Yes: in 1840 and 1842. 1713. May not the state of trade have had just as much to do with it as the high price of bread ?

Ans.- I think the two things are connected together.