Chapter LXVIII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (44)

But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands, tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless it be _bona fide_ for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise made shall be void.

By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest conversation, and also for right understanding of GOD’S true religion; and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it containeth nothing contrary to the word of GOD, and may lawfully be used.”

And in the case of _Cory_ and _Pepper_, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or the prerogative royal.—2 _Lev._ 222. _Gibs._ 995.

But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman, that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not obligatory.

Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out of the ancient canon law, (_Gibs._ 1099,) which, although perhaps not perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.

The argument in _Cox’s case_ seems to contain the substance of what has been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order, alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing schools, reading schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of ecclesiastical cognizance.

By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10; one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise for one year.

By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm, except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day so wittingly offending 40_s._; half to the king, and half to him that shall sue.

And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be utterly disabled, and _ipso facto_ deprived of the same, and the said school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.

And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall pay 12_d._ only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail; and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5. (S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)

M. 9 G. II. _The King_ against _the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry_. A mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.

And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected.”

By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.

In _Bales’s case_, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons, the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was his freehold.

Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, that if this be any bar to his being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority. And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school, notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed, than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and unlimited.—_Gibson_, 1110.

By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate, which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase of his living, and training up of children in principles of true religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said public school.”

By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write, or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him be suspended from teaching school any longer.

“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI., which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools; which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562, and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and substance of our reformed religion.—_Gibson_, 374.

“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. _Betcham_, and _Barnardiston_. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.

“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared, that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience, and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only; everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”

By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money, given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great seal, to inquire and take order therein.

Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—_Gibson_, 1110.

Thus, in the case of _The King_ against _the Bailiff’s of Morpeth_, a mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the Crown.

And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a public nature, as constituted for public government, they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor whom he appoints, and to no other.

In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any difference between schools and colleges in this respect.

H. 1725. _Eden_ and _Foster_. The free grammar school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors. After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king, having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder, there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves. And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits (as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word _governor_ did not of itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well issued.—2 _P. Will._ 325.

The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in 1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three, they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and had nominated Cowper to officiate there, and he was got into possession. The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee, he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants, who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore, although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated there.

By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided, that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits, arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or employments.

Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes, and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands, revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, shall be charged.—_Burn._

The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24, facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.

From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length, in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such education, without instruction in other branches of literature and science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons, visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors, and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas it is expedient that in certain cases grammar schools in the same place should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the founder.

The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.

The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his visitation charge of 1847:—

“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them, that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme. With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods, assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems to have originated in political considerations. The population of the country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence. At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a multitude of schools that could not otherwise have had existence. The treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former; thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of education which animated Churchmen.

“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his family.

“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results, as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory; and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a nature as will qualify them for many other employments better remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more lucrative and alluring.

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or _normal school_, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education _in which religion might have little or no share_, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into _general_ and _special_, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to _recommend_ certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by _recommendation_ the Committee of Privy Council meant _enforcement_, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his _Secunda Secundæ_, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.

2. Bonaventure, surnamed the _Seraphic Doctor_, born at Bagnarea, a city of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233, and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General Council of Lyons, held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.

3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the _Angelical Doctor_, was descended of the kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road, and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his _Summa_ is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.

4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the _Subtile Doctor_, was a Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and Thomists.

5. William Ocham, surnamed the _Singular Doctor_, was born in a village of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.

6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans. Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by ranging certain general terms under different classes.

7. Durandus, surnamed the _Most resolving Doctor_, was of St. Pourcain, a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.