Jump to content

Reports on the Education of the Lower Orders

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Select Committee of Inquiry on the Education of the Lower Orders (1816–1818)
by order of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Inquiry overview
Formed1816
Preceding Inquiry
  • Education in Ireland (1809–1812)
Dissolved1818
Superseding Inquiry
  • The Select Committee of Inquiry into the present state of the Education of the People in England and Wales and into the application and effects of the Grant made by Parliament for the erection of Schools (1834)
JurisdictionExpanded from London to England & Wales then Great Britain
Key document
  • Reports on the Education of the Lower Orders (1816–1819)

The Reports on the Education of the Lower Orders were published between 1816 and 1819 by a select committee of the House of Commons (Parliament of the United Kingdom) under the chairmanship of Henry Brougham. The committee made only the second ever government inquiry into education, as it comprehensively investigated the provision of education for poor working class children in Great Britain during the early 19th century. The reports exposed the inadequate provision of schooling and the maladministration of charitable funds given for educating the poor. It was eventually used to justify the first state intervention into English and Welsh education in 1833 when the Treasury started to help fund the badly needed construction of new school-houses through an annual grant. It also started a parliamentary commission of inquiry into improving charitable foundations which eventually led to formation of present-day charities commission.

Background

[edit]
Illustration (1840) showing children labouring in Manchester's textile mills, from Frances Trollope's novel, Michael Armstrong, the factory boy

In the early 19th century, most poor working class children were expected to work in factories or on farms at a very young age, so received little or no education. It was debated whether the state should intervene and promote universal education, for instance along the lines of the Prussian education system. The case for such state intervention was made in their major publications by contemporary philosophers such as Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations), La Chalotais (Essay on National Education) and Tom Paine (Rights of Man).[1][2][3] At that time, education for the children of the poor was mainly provided by charities, led by two charitable societies: the British & Foreign School Society and the Anglican National Society, who both advocated the use of the Monitorial System as a cheap and effective method to teach poor children. Although a degree of state support for education had existed in Scotland since 1633, and grants had recently been introduced in Ireland, there was none in England & Wales. Consequently Samuel Whitbread, a founder of the British & Foreign School Society, submitted to parliament the Parochial Schools Bill in 1807, which tried to extend a similar system to that of the Scots, to the rest of Great Britain;[4] but this was blocked in parliament with the following arguments used to oppose the bill:

  • Minimal State: There existed a deep-rooted idea that the state should not interfere in peoples' lives, including the provision of education, which should be left to the churches, charities and private schools.[5][6]
  • Subservience: It was thought that educating the working class would cause unrest, whereas the uneducated working class were more accepting of their place in society and their poor living and working conditions[7]
  • Taxes: Landowners and factory owners were against being forced to pay rates (taxes) for education; they argued this should be funded by benevolent voluntary donations.[8]
  • Secularisation: The Anglican church was concerned that the state would eventually introduce secular education, taking away churches' sway over education and so undermining the Anglican faith in future generations.[9][10]
  • Non-Conformists: Non-conformists were concerned that state-provided education would become dominated by Anglican denominational teaching, undermining their faiths for future generations.[11][12]

Although these arguments succeeded in blocking this bill, it was clear from the parliamentary debate that a general sympathy had emerged in parliament for action to improve education for poor children.[4]

Parliamentary inquiry

[edit]
Illustration showing pauper children begging in the street with their mother (Anonymous Lithograph in Welcome Collection)

After Whitbread's death by suicide in 1815, Henry Brougham who was also on the Lancastrian committee supporting the British & Foreign School Society,[13] became the new de facto leader of the parliamentary group endeavouring to improve education for poor children.[14] Subsequently, in May 1816, Brougham secured the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the education of the lower orders of the metropolis (London) under his chairmanship with the following remit: – [15][16]

"To consider what may be fit to be done with respect to the children of paupers who shall be found begging in the streets in and near the metropolis, or who shall be carried out by persons asking for charity, and whose parents, or other persons who they accompany, have not sent such children to any of the schools provided for the education of poor children."

— Terms of Reference, Report of the 1816 Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis[17][note 1]

Membership of the committee

[edit]
The membership of the committee expanded considerably over time in line with its expansion of scope, at the end of its tenure in 1818, it consisted of the following: -[21][note 2][note 3]

Reports

[edit]
The following reports were submitted to the House of Commons by the select committee then subsequently published: -[note 4]
Submitted Report Section Section Description Pages
7 June 1816[26] Reports from the 1816 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis[27] Report[17] Terms of Reference, Report & Recommendations i – ii
First Report[28] Minutes of Evidence (22/05/1816 – 01/06/1816) 001–194
13 June 1816[29] Second Report[30] Minutes of Evidence (03/06/1816 – 05/06/1816) 195–294
19 June 1816[31] Third Report[32] Minutes of Evidence (06/06/1816 – 13/06/1816) 295–482
20 June 1816[33] Fourth Report[34] Minutes of Evidence (14/06/1816 – 19/06/1816) 483–554
Appendix[35] Information Returns from London Charity Schools 555–568
Gilbert Act 1786, Educational Charity Returns 569–577
Addenda[36] Extracts from Deed of Gift of St Martins Library 579–580
Example Charter for King Edward VI hospital 580–590
Extracts from Bull Unigenitus 591–596
Index[37] 597–608
7 July 1817[38] Report from the 1817 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis[39] Report[40] Recommend expanding remit to England & Wales 001 -853
17 March 1818[41] Reports from the 1818 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders[39] First Report Recommending Proceedings
25 May 1818[42] Second Report Parochial & Other Schools
3 June 1818[43] Third Report Abuses at Charities for the Education the Poor et al.
5 June 1818[44] Appendix A Eton Statutes
6 June 1818[45] Appendix B Statutes of Trinity and St John's College Cambridge
1 April 1819[46] Digest of Parochial Returns made to the Education Committee of 1818 Volume I[47] England (part 1) – Counties by alphabetic order 001–576
Volume II[48] England (part 2) – Counties by alphabetic order 577–1170
Volume III[49] Wales, Scotland, British Isles and Additional Returns 1171–1496

Findings

[edit]

Charities

[edit]
Land was often bequeathed to school charities so tenant farmers paid rent for the right to work the land with the income used to fund schools for the poor (Engraving by J. Cousen after J. Linnell)

Education for poor children was mostly funded by charitable trusts. Unfortunately the committee found high levels of abuse and maladministration in those charities, in particular in managing valuable endowments bequeathed by benevolent donors to fund the charity schools. This took many forms:

  • Neglect: Trustees were often negligent or careless in their management of charitable estates, for instance in failing to increase rents, this was partly explained by the fact they normally acted on a voluntary basis and were unpaid.[50]
  • Limited Powers: Trustees often had not been granted powers by the trust deed to manage estates efficiently, for instance to sell under-developed land for building purposes then use the proceeds to buy higher yielding alternative property.[51]
  • Surplus: Often the income from an estate would expand well beyond the amounts needed for its charitable purpose resulting in large unused surplus funds, the trustees had not the powers to expand the original charitable purpose.[52]
  • No Trustees: Some trust deeds had no clauses for appointment of new trustees; thus, on the last trustee's death the endowment trust would become unmanaged; while others fell into the same situation accidentally when the last trustee did not appoint a successor before their death.[53]
  • Diversion: The clergy, who were often the trustees, sometimes diverted funds earmarked for the poor to teaching middle-class ecclesiastical subjects such as Latin and Greek needed for future clergymen[54]
  • Under-funding: Trustees sometimes under-funded their charity schools by hiring unqualified teachers, or allowing schools to fall into disrepair, or taking on very few scholars, then embezzling the majority of the endowment income for themselves.[55]
  • Nepotism: Trustees sometimes rented estates out to family or friends at much reduced rents or vastly extended leases, thus dispossessing the charity of income.[56]
  • Fraud: Endowed assets were sometimes stolen through outright fraud.[57]
  • Teachers: Schoolmasters sometimes received funding, including board and lodgings but taught no poor children in return.[58]
  • Audits: Charity auditors, sometimes known as visitors, were supposed to check that charitable trusts were acting appropriately, but some deeds never appointed visitors; while in other cases, the visitors failed to carry out their duties.[59]

Cases of such abuses and maladministration were most prominently publicised through speeches in parliament, the reports of the inquiries and the public letter from Brougham to Romilly of 20 August 1818, where examples were given for the following schools: St. Bees, Winchester, Highgate, Pocklington, Brentwood, Mere, Spital, Yeovil, Huntingdon and Eton College.[24][25] Furthermore, the final committee found anecdotal evidence that similar situations were likely to be found at all charities.[60]

Educational provision

[edit]

The basis for educating poor children

[edit]
An 1817 illustration of the Borough Road (Royal Free) School, the principle school of the British and Foreign School Society

The very basic tenets for educating the poor had yet to become established in society, so the committee presented the reasoning with evidence:

  • Poor parents universally desired and sought to educate their children, dispelling any misconceptions which may have suggested otherwise[61]
  • There was deemed to be a great public benefit to educating the poor, in particular to improve their morals through reading of scriptures and prayer books and to reduce crime.[62][63]
  • Charity schools were applauded for the education they provided poor children,[64] and by using the efficient Monitorial System, testaments estimated that £400,000 per annum would be sufficient to educate all the poor children in England.[65]
  • Unfortunately, there was a substantive shortage of free or subsidised school places to educate poor children at charity schools.[66]

Shortage of school places

[edit]

The committee endeavoured to quantify the shortage of both schools and school places. The 1818 select committee had expanded its remit to include rural parishes, whereupon they discovered that 3,500 of the 12,000 parishes had no school whatsoever.[67] In addition, the extensive returns in the digest of parochial returns showed 650,000 children were educated, 1⁄14 to 1⁄15 of the total population of England.[68] Edmund Halley's seminal demographic analysis of Breslau had suggested that the number of children of school-going age should be 1⁄9 of the population; meanwhile the digest of parochial returns suggested that in England this ratio should be closer to 1⁄10 of the population, making between 1⁄9 and 1⁄10 of the population (approx. one million) being children who required education; this meant that about 350,000 children were receiving no education.[69]

Religious constraints

[edit]
Painting by Jules-Alexis Muenier showing the teaching of the catechism which was denominational and so acted as a barrier to education for children of other denominations

The majority of charitable schools were parochial schools including those of the largest charitable society, the Anglican National School Society, these schools would often only take children whose parents were members of the local church's congregation.[70] In addition, these parochial schools had denominated religious teaching within their curriculum including the catechism of their theology which parents and clergy of other theologies would object to and so refuse to send their children to those schools. For instance Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters & Jews may refuse to send their children to an Anglican school which taught the Anglican catechisms.[71][72] This was not necessarily a problem in urban areas where the large populations could support many schools of different faiths but in small rural parishes where it was only economical for a single school to exist, this prevented children of some faiths from receiving any education.[73]

The committee further noted that in Scotland there was a greater degree of homogeneity between their faiths than in England, people being predominantly Calvinist and Presbyterian, especially in the rural parishes. This meant that the parish schools inclusively allowed all children to attend and parents were happy to learn the catechisms taught in their local school as they would differ little to those of their own churches. England though had a wider diversity with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Dissenting Protestants and Jews differing to an extent where children were not sent across the faith divide to be educated.[74] The unfortunate consequence was that the much admired Scottish Parish school system which provided universal education, could not be easily copied to England & Wales as Whitbread had discovered with the failure of the Parochial Bill in 1807.[75]

Recommendations

[edit]

Main plan of persuasion

[edit]

The committee needed to get about 350,000 poor children in England & Wales off the streets and into charity schools, which did not have sufficient school-places. They aimed to achieve this by better using the existing resources in the charity school system rather than by introducing a new public school system which had been opposed previously because of resistance to new taxes and the desire to have a minimal state.[76] Two elements were needed to better exploit the resources in the charity school system, firstly the income from charitable sources could be increased by ending the endemic neglect & abuses at charitable trusts,[77][78] and secondly charity schools could more efficiently provision extra school-places by increasing the use of the Monitorial System, the mantra being quantity over quality.[79]

To achieve this plan, the committee were inclined to persuade charitable trustees and school masters to act differently by inculcating new ideas to them, the committee had proven through their own inquiries how the mere act of inquiry had changed the way charitable trustees and schools operated, hence the committee proposed two separate parliamentary commissions to continue the process of engaging charitable trustees and schools throughout the country.[80] One commission was to look into the workings of the charities and the other the workings of the schools.[81] As the commission for charities had to tackle corruption, Brougham proposed a stronger commission of remunerated full time itinerant commissioners with the powers to subpoena witnesses, take evidence under oath and demand documents under penalty of fine or imprisonment.[82][83]

Erection of schoolhouses

[edit]
The large hall sized interior of the Borough Road (Royal Free) School (1805 engraving), The single teacher is at the front teaching monitors (older pupils), whist other monitors teach the younger children. Playground toys hang from the ceiling:- hoops, rackets & balls.

For charity schools, their main cost was the salaries of schoolmasters but by persuading more schools to adopt the Monitorial System of Andrew Bell & Joseph Lancaster, a much larger number of poor children could be educated for the same cost, the main drawback was the need for schoolhouses with hall sized classrooms needed for the large classes of the Monitorial System.[84] Notwithstanding the need to re-model school buildings, there was a chronic shortage of schoolhouses anyway and although charitable income was deemed sufficient for the ongoing expenses of charity schools, it was recognised that it was insufficient for the capital outlays needed to build new schoolhouses.[85] The committee hence recommended that parliament should contribute to the construction of new school-houses.[86] The committee left open two options for parliament on how these funds could be spent. Firstly, the monies could simply be spent with the two preeminent educational societies promoting the Monitorial System: – the British & Foreign School Society and the Anglican National School Society. Alternatively, the monies could additionally be directed to the mass of smaller, mainly parochial school societies but this would need Commissioners to agree terms, which invariably would have been to adopt the Monitorial System and to allow children of all denominations & faiths.[87]

Removal of religious constraints

[edit]

The other major act of persuasion needed was to coax all parochial schools to accept poor children of other faiths & denominations and to exempt such children from learning denominated catechisms and reading from the scriptures if it was religiously sensitive.[88][89] This was only imperative in parishes which could only support a single school so children of all denominations needed to be able to attend that single school.[90] This task of persuasion was to fall on the proposed parliamentary commission for the workings of the schools.[91]

Rural parishes without schools

[edit]
Kingsford Clachan School in Scotland during the 1840s, exemplifying the Scottish Parochial School system .

Unfortunately the committee also had to accept that this broad plan would not work in some rural parishes where there was no school, and the small populations meant charitable contributions were meagre and the economies of scale in the Monitorial System were unrealizable. The result was insufficient funds to educate the children of such rural parishes.[92] So as an exception, the committee proposed to emulate the Scottish Parochial School system in these places by legislation so schools for rural parishes would be funded by taxation on the local landowners.[93] As with Whitbread's Parochial Bill of 1807, the main issue once again was how to find a compromise acceptable to both the Anglican & Dissenting Protestant churches who were both strongly represented in parliament.[94]

Outcomes

[edit]

Charities

[edit]
Henry Brougham in 1825, nine years after the inauguration of the select committee (Portrait in Oil by Sir Thomas Lawrence)

A Bill to appoint commissioners to inquire into the abuses in charities was passed in a limited form on 10 June 1818 (58 Geo. III),[95][96] its remit was continuously widened and powers strengthened as periodically the commission was revived by parliament. This was in no small part due to the pressure caused by Brougham as he courted publicity for the subject through speeches in parliament, the publication of the reports and a public letter from Brougham to Romilly, which widely socialised the problems present in charities. The resulting commission became known as the Brougham Commission but neither Brougham nor any member of the committee were originally appointed as commissioners by the Tory government.[97]

The commissions' investigations were to take twenty years and resulted in a survey of nearly 30,000 charities, documented in forty volumes of reports, published in six parts between 1837 and 1840 which eventually cost £250,000, the final report recommended the establishment of a permanent charity commission, which Parliament eventually adopted albeit not until 1853.[98]

As expected by the Inquiry, the commission's investigatory process itself abated many evils in charity administration, mostly making it unnecessary to commence legal proceedings. Many trustees who had been ignorant of their duties or guilty of nonfeasance focused for the first time on their fiduciary obligations. This by itself improved the accountability of many charities. The Commissioners also offered technical assistance, mediated disputes, recommended changes in practices, offered suggestions and observations, and, where needed, occasionally threatened and browbeat trustees. Altogether 2,100 trusts were reformed or renovated in some way without legal retort, unfortunately, 400 charities had to be referred to the Attorney General for prosecution, most of which were acted on, through the Court of Chancery. This left nearly ninety percent of those charities examined to be deemed to be in good order, albeit the mere existence of a charity commission and threat of inquiry was thought to have had salutary effect causing this good behaviour.[99]

Educational provision

[edit]

While the recommendations on charities of the inquiry were generally accepted, they were mainly rejected in the field of general education.

Commission for education

[edit]

Brougham's initial proposed commission into general education was struck down by the House of Lords and the subsequent reiteration for such a commission in the final report was never accepted.[100][101] This left no mechanism to increase the numbers of children educated by promoting the Monitorial System, or to persuade for the removal of religious constraints which were a barrier to education for some children.

Public education

[edit]

Between 1820 and 1821, Brougham went on to make two attempts at implementing a state education system equivalent to the Scottish Parochial School system, but limited to the educationally deprived rural areas of England & Wales.[102] These attempts were through the Education of the Poor Bill,[103] the first attempt in 1820 failed due to resistance to the additional tax burden from such a scheme.[104] In the second attempt in 1821, Brougham removed the tax burden and instead proposed to use excess funds from charitable endowments through two separate bills.[105] This time the attempt failed because Protestant Dissenters felt Brougham had made too many compromises to the Anglican church so opposed the bills.[106] Just like Whitbread before him, Brougham had been unable to find a compromise which appeased both the established Anglican church and the non-conformists.[107]

Funding the construction of school-houses

[edit]
The Houses of Parliament (1872) after Gustav Dore. Depicts night time when the funding for education was passed.

The only success was the third recommendation from the committee, for parliament to fund the construction of school-houses. Even this recommendation had to wait over a decade until after Earl Grey's Whig government had replaced the Tory administration; helpfully, a complement of the committee became ministers in the new government, including Brougham himself, who had become the Lord Chancellor.[note 5] Despite the Whig majority, debates in parliament including a proposed resolution for National Education by John Roebuck evidenced the previous religious, tax and minarchy arguments still continued to oppose any progress in education.[108]

The Whig government concluded that any parliamentary assistance for education had to be passed somewhat surreptitiously, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althrop waited until mid-August 1833, a fortnight before the summer recess, when few parliamentarians remained in the Commons. At 2 am in the early hours of Friday 16 August 1833, at the very end of the Supply and Miscellaneous Estimates committee session and without any written notice to the committee, he sprung a surprise verbal resolution, proposing an annual grant of £20,000 for the construction of school-houses in accordance with the recommendations of the education committee fifteen years prior![109] Despite protests for a proper parliamentary debate with formal notice, and at a sensible time within a full House of Commons, it was passed. The very next day, which was a Saturday, the supply of the grant was debated and passed with other finance measures in a sparse parliament by 50 votes for and 26 votes against (only 76 MPs out of a possible 658 were present).

Although the amount of the annual grant was small for its purpose, many historians have considered this a significant watershed moment in the history of education, as state promotion of education had now started across the whole of the United Kingdom and would expand with time. At the same time, as this had not been achieved through primary legislation by a dedicated act of parliament, the government civil service needed to manage the educational monies to be set up later through secondary legislation by the Privy Council. This was unsatisfactory, as education was then overseen by the Privy Council rather than by a cabinet minister with authority divested from parliament. Despite the substantial expansion in the education budget and powers of the authority, this state of affairs was to persist until the 20th century.

Sources for the inquiries

[edit]
Corridor to the committee rooms of the House of Commons, Westminster where select committee members gathered prior to their committee meetings (Illustrated London News 1853)

The committee gathered information from the following sources: –

Responses to questionnaires from the committee

  • In 1816, questionnaires were sent out through a circular letter to a sample of charity schools in London.[110]
  • In 1818, a refined questionnaire was sent out to the clergy of the 12,000 parishes in England & Wales, with replies received from 11,800.[111] The returns were compiled into the fifteen hundred page, digest of parochial returns with the help of two Barristers of the Court of Chancery,[112] this has become a major historical source today,[113] the extract for the county of Rutland exemplifies their level of detail.[114]

Charitable income assessment

  • The Return of Charitable Donations Act of 1786 obliged parishes to provide accurate figures on both poor law expenditure and charitable payments to the poor during the previous three years, these were known as the Gilbert Returns.[115] On 17 June 1816, the poor return office in Whitehall responded to a request by the committee by providing the annual donations made to each school charity in the London area, consisting of the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, plus a summary for the surrounding home counties of Bedford, Kent and Berkshire.[116]
  • The inquiries also obtained information on the levels of charitable donations and presence of endowments from the returns to the questionnaires.[117]

Results from previous surveys and field studies

  • Door to door inquiries had been carried out by various organisations in certain poor districts, these were used to estimate the number of poor children who received no education, the largest surveys were by: – the Soup Institute in Spitalfields,[118] the West London Lancastrian Society in Covent Garden,[119] the Southwark School Auxiliary Society in Southwark,[120] and the East London Auxiliary Sunday School Union Society in East London.[121]

Interviews

  • The main source of information for the reports was interviews with a wide variety of individuals involved in the provision of education for poor children, such as schoolmasters and treasurers of the charitable societies providing education. In particular, Brougham already had an association with the West London Lancastrian Association and the British & Foreign School Society through his work on the Lancastrian Committee and their representatives were interviewed extensively.[122] These interviews were documented in the minutes of evidence of the inquiry.[27][39]

Unsolicited approaches

  • The inquiry generated a great a deal of public awareness as the committee and its members publicised the abuses at charities,[123] this publicity in itself resulted in a large number of unsolicited letters and petitions from the public informing the committee of further abuses.[124]

Documentation

  • Educational charities supplied example statutes, deeds of gifts and charters to the committee, of particular note was the statutes of Eton and both the college's of St. Johns and Trinity of Cambridge University.[125]
  • As another example, the Bull Unigenitus was supplied as evidence of the sensitivity of the Roman Catholic church to the religious education of their children.[126]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The committee was renewed in May 1817 but were unable to continue their inquiries and then renewed again in March 1818, when the committee's remit was extended from London to the whole of England & Wales, it was then further extended to include Scotland in May 1818.[18][19][20]
  2. ^ After the full impact of the select committee had become apparent, government accusations were made in parliament by Robert Peel in 1819, that the committee had been packed by opposition Whigs and Independents, whereas MPs who normally voted with the Tory government had been under represented.[22]
  3. ^ The Whig members were of a high calibre as many went onto higher ministerial offices when a Whig government eventually replaced the Tories in 1830, those members were: – Henry Brougham, William Lamb, John Lambton Henry Parnell, The Marquess of Tavistock, and Sir James Graham. The Tories on the other hand had no ministers, senior figures or other notable representatives who would attain high office except Lord Binning who only joined the committee at a very late stage.[23]
  4. ^ The key findings were documented in the third and final report of the 1818 committee. In addition, to publicise the charitable abuses which the select committee had discovered, Brougham wrote an open public letter with an appendix to Romilly on 20 August 1818 prior to the printing & distribution of the 1818 reports.[24][25]
  5. ^ The Whig members were of a high calibre as many went to higher ministerial offices when a Whig government eventually replaced the Tories in 1830. Those members were: Henry Brougham, William Lamb, John Lambton Henry Parnell, The Marquess of Tavistock, and Sir James Graham. The Tories, on the other hand, had no ministers, senior figures or other notable representatives who would attain high office except Lord Binning, who only joined the committee at a very late stage.[23]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Smith 1802, p. 150–236, Book V – Article 2 – For the Expense of Institutions of the Education of the Youth.
  2. ^ Paine 1792, p. 127-136.
  3. ^ La Chalotais 1934.
  4. ^ a b Parochial Schools Bill 1807.
  5. ^ Sturges Bourne 1807. His great objection to the bill in its present form was the mode of carrying into effect the relief proposed, namely, by compulsion. He disapproved entirely of compulsion;
  6. ^ Chitty 1992, p. 5, what separated Britain from the major continental states was .. that all sections of the ruling class shared a marked hostility to the state and were deeply suspicious of the idea of state control of education
  7. ^ Giddy 1807, giving education to the labouring classes of the poor… would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants in agriculture and other laborious employments to which their rank in society had destined them.
  8. ^ Giddy 1807, p. Column 799, it (state funding of education) would burden the country with a most enormous and incalculable expense, and to load the industrious orders of society with still heavier imposts (taxes).
  9. ^ Stanhope 1807, p. Column 1176- The Lord Chancellor opposed the bill..."it tended to a departure from the great principle of instruction in this country, by taking it in a great measure out of the superintendence and control of the clergy (Anglican)".
  10. ^ Lawson & Silver 1973, p. 249a, the Church of England was anxious to preserve what it saw as its guardianship of spiritual, including educational, matters.
  11. ^ Stanhope 1807, p. Column 1177, Earl Stanhope was sorry to differ .. on what he must call the abominable principle, that no part of the population of this country ought to receive education unless in the tenets of the established church (Anglican).
  12. ^ Lawson & Silver 1973, p. 249b, the nonconformists were anxious to prevent education from coming under the control of the established church.
  13. ^ McManners 1952, p. 59, Brougham was connected with a Utilitarian – Radical group, ...(which) had entered into relations with the philanthropists, religious or irreligious, who at this time were obsessed with the idea of reforming humanity by instruction. ... Broughams activities in education commenced when he gave ear to their appeal for his aid in the conduct of the Royal Lancastrian Association.
  14. ^ Washington 1988, p. 160, Brougham's principal contribution, however, followed his return to Parliament in 1816. With the suicide of Samuel Whitbread in 1815, it fell to Brougham to pick up the mantle of Parliamentary leader for education and many friends looked to him to promote their interests.
  15. ^ Adamson 1907, in 1816, he (Brougham) secured the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the education of the lower orders of the metropolis.
  16. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 386.
  17. ^ a b House of Commons Report 1816, p. (i).
  18. ^ House of Commons Journal 1817, p. 297, renewal of committee in 1817
  19. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 135, renewal of committee in 1818 with restriction to the Metropolis (London) removed
  20. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 384, committee were instructed to extend their inquiries to Scotland
  21. ^ Brougham & 1818 Appendix, p. 5.
  22. ^ Peel 1819.
  23. ^ a b House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 357, 19th May 1818, Ordered that Sir James Graham and Lord Binning be added to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Education of the Lower Orders
  24. ^ a b Brougham & 1818 Letter.
  25. ^ a b Brougham & 1818 Appendix.
  26. ^ House of Commons Journal 1816, p. 434.
  27. ^ a b House of Commons Report 1816.
  28. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 1, FIRST REPORT.
  29. ^ House of Commons Journal 1816, p. 456.
  30. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 195, SECOND REPORT.
  31. ^ House of Commons Journal 1816, p. 486.
  32. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 295, THIRD REPORT.
  33. ^ House of Commons Journal 1816, p. 493.
  34. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 483, FOURTH REPORT.
  35. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 555, APPENDICIES.
  36. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 579, ADDENDA.
  37. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 597, INDEX.
  38. ^ House of Commons Journal 1817, p. 464.
  39. ^ a b c House of Commons Report 1818.
  40. ^ House of Commons Report 1817, p. 479.
  41. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 192.
  42. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 384b.
  43. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 415.
  44. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 421.
  45. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 424.
  46. ^ House of Commons Journal 1819, p. 295.
  47. ^ Parish Returns & 1819 Vol1.
  48. ^ Parish Returns & 1819 Vol2.
  49. ^ Parish Returns & 1819 Vol3.
  50. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 734b, trustees exhibited negligence in all its branches, including carelessness, ignorance, indolence, and omission.
  51. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 733, trustees had insufficient powers for the profitable management of the funds under their care. For example, they could not sell or exchange lands in the middle of towns.
  52. ^ McManners 1952, p. 80-81, (Brougham) cited the case of Tunbridge School which had an income of £4,500 a year. £500 was twice as much as the school required. The superfluous £4,000 would support two hundred schools, to educate the whole county of Kent.
  53. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 734, there was a diminution of revenue because of loss of property through defects in the original charitable instrument and a consequent extinction of the trustees without the possibility of supplying their replacements.
  54. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 735, schools which had received educational endowments for the children of the poor to learn Latin or Greek for entry into the church benefited the well-to-do; parents of the poor .. were not accommodated.
  55. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 733d, in others (cases), the trustees were alive but had pocketed the endowment.
  56. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 735a, school lands at St. Bees Cumberland had been let for 1000 years, with an additional lease for mineral rights to the family of the trustees of the school.
  57. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 733b, charitable funds disappeared.
  58. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 733a, in other cases, schools lapsed, but teachers remained, still receiving their sinecures... schoolmasters received a salary but did no teaching.
  59. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 735b, In the notorious Pocklington school, which had a large endowment where but one boy was taught, ... yet, the school had visitors from no less than St. John's College, Cambridge
  60. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (59) paragraph (4), REPORT, In the course of their inquiries, Your committee have incidentally observed, that charitable funds, connected with education, are not alone liable to great abuses. Equal negligence and malversation appears to have prevailed in all other charities;
  61. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (6), THIRD REPORT, Your committee are happy in being able to state, that in all the Returns, and in all the information laid before them, there is the most unquestionable evidence that the anxiety of the poor for education continues not only, but daily increasing; that it extends to every part of the country, and is to be found equally prevalent in those smaller towns and country districts, where no means of gratifying it are provided by the charitable efforts of the richer classes.
  62. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 133, Testimony of Mr William Freeman Lloyd (Blackwell Hall Factor), Would it (Education) in your opinion lessen public crimes? – 'I have no doubt of it for the most guilty criminal characters are commonly the most ignorant'.
  63. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 143, Testimony of Edward Wentworth (Sunday School Master), Do you observe any improvement in the children after they come to the school in their manners or their morals? 'Particularly so I do not know of any institution better calculated to improve their morals'.
  64. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. (i)c, your Committee have also observed with much satisfaction the highly beneficial effects produced upon all those parts of the population which assisted in whole or in part by various Charitable Institutions have enjoyed the benefits of Education.
  65. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 295b, certainly if the sum of £400,000 could be devoted to that purpose every child requiring this sort of education might be provided with it throughout England and Wales so as to leave not an uneducated person in the country.
  66. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. (i)b, a very large number of poor children are wholly without any means of instruction, although their parents seem to be generally very desirous of obtaining that advantage of them.
  67. ^ Brougham 1820a, there were about 12,000 ecclesiastical district parishes, or chapelries, in England; of these 3,500 had not the vestige of a school, endowed, un-endowed, or dame; they had no more means of education than were to be found in the country of the Hottentots.
  68. ^ Brougham 1820a, p. column 60, it appeared from those returns that there were now educated at un-endowed schools 490,000 children, and to these were to be added about 11,000 for 150 parishes from which no returns had yet been made. In the endowed schools 165,432 children were educated; making a total (exclusive of the 11,000) of 655,432. In England it appeared that on the average 1/14th or 1/15th of the whole population was placed in the way of receiving education.
  69. ^ Brougham 1820a, column 60a, the Breslau tables, on which the calculations were made in France, included children between the ages of 7 and 13 years, and represented one-ninth as the proportion of the population which required education. He had gone through the laborious task of checking those tables by the digests now before the House, which digests were made up from the actual statements of clergymen, from the personal knowledge of their own parishes; and the result was, that instead of one-ninth being the ratio of children requiring education, as compared with the whole mass of the population, he found that it was nearer one-tenth.
  70. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 490, Daniel Wilson, Minister of Saint John's Chapel, Bedford Row, We do not make their attendance absolutely a condition but we understand the school is for the children of families who come to the chapel and though we are not very strict upon that point it certainly encourages the attendance of the parents upon the Sunday.
  71. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 428, Robert Owen, What are the obstacles to children being taught at the National schools? 'The principle on which the schools are founded which obliges the children of Dissenters to learn the Catechism and to attend the Established Church on a Sunday'. Do you believe that that prevents many Dissenters from attending? 'I can have no doubt of it particularly because many Dissenters have had no godfathers or godmothers at the children's baptism and when their children are compelled to repeat the catechism of the Church of England they are compelled solemnly to repeat falsehoods'.
  72. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 139, William Johnson – Master, Chaplain and Accountant of the Central National school situated in Baldwin's gardens, Have there been to your knowledge any objections stated by the parents of children sent to this institution on account of your teaching the Catechism according to the church of England? 'Not one excepting in one case and that was complied with it was one Jew boy whom we have at this moment and since that he complies with all the regulations of the school'
  73. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (56) paragraph (3), THIRD REPORT, another point to which it is material to direct the attention of Parliament, regards the two opposite principles, of founding schools for children of all sorts, and for those only who belong to the Established Church. Where the means exist of erecting two schools, one upon each principle, education is not checked by the exclusive principle plan being adopted in one of them, because the other may comprehend the children of sectaries. In places where only one school can be supported, it is manifest that any regulations which exclude Dissenters, deprive the Poor of that means of education.
  74. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (6)b, THIRD REPORT, but a difficulty arises in England, which is not to be found there (Scotland). The great body of the Dissenters from the Scottish Church differ little, if at all, in doctrine from the Establishment; they are separated only by certain opinions of a political rather than a religious nature, respecting the right of patronage, and by some shades of distinction as to church discipline; so that they may conscientiously send their children to parish schools connected with the Establishment, and teaching its catechism. In England the case is widely different;
  75. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (4), THIRD REPORT, your committee are persuaded that nothing can supply the deficiency but the adoption, 'under certain material modifications' of the Parish School system, so usefully established in the Northern part of the Island, ever since the latter part of the seventeenth century,
  76. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (1i), THIRD REPORT, Wherever the efforts of individuals can support the requisite number of schools, it would be unnecessary and injurious to interpose any parliamentary assistance.
  77. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (58) paragraph (2), THIRD REPORT, Your committee this session have amply confirmed the opinion which a more limited investigation had led them two years ago, upon the neglect and abuse of Charitable Funds connected with Education...although in many cases those large funds appear to have been misapplied through ignorance, or mismanaged through carelessness, yet some instances of abuse have presented themselves.
  78. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (58) paragraph (2ii), THIRD REPORT, From the investigations of the commission about to be issued under the authority of Parliament; much advantage may be expected; your committee cannot avoid hoping, that the mere report and publication of the existing abuses will have a material effect in leading the parties concerned, to correct them, and that even the apprehension of the inquiry about to be instituted may in the mean time produce a similar effect.
  79. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (55) paragraph (1i), THIRD REPORT, the discussion excited by the first report, and the arguments (for the monitorial system) urged in the Committee to various patrons of charities who were examined as witnesses, have had the salutary effect of .. inculcating the importance of rather bestowing their funds in merely educating a larger number, than in giving both instruction and other assistance to a more confined number of children.
  80. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 425 (55), THIRD REPORT, the discussion excited by the first Report, and the arguments urged in the Committee to various patrons of charities who were examined as witnesses, have had the salutary effect of improving the administration of those institutions.. As the management of these excellent establishments is necessarily placed beyond the control of the Legislature, it is only by the effects of such candid discussions that improvements in them can be effected.
  81. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (59) paragraph (3), THIRD REPORT, respecting the state of Education generally, a Commission should be issued under an Act of Parliament, or by means of an Address to the Crown, for the purpose of supplying this defect
  82. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. (ii), your Committee have received communications which show the necessity of Parliament as speedily as possible instituting an inquiry into the management of Charitable Donations and other Funds for the Instruction of the Poor of this Country and into the state of their Education generally ... your Committee are of opinion that the most effectual as well as least expensive mode of conducting such an Inquiry would be by means of a Parliamentary Commission
  83. ^ McManners 1952, p. 71, he (Brougham) proposed that parliament appoint eight itinerant salaried commissioners, who would work in four groups of two each group. They were to have powers to examine witnesses on oath, to call for papers, persons, records and deeds.
  84. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 37, Mr. Thomas Cooke – Trustee of St Giles & St. George Bloomsbury School, Suppose it were proposed that without any alteration respecting the girls or any alteration respecting the one hundred and one boys at present taught and clothed and retaining the master and his assistant but only making them teach upon the new method, 1200 boys should be taught that is to say 1100 taught only and 101 as formerly taught and clothed what objection would the trustees or subscribers be likely to make to this change – 'I should think none if we had accommodation'.
  85. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (1), THIRD REPORT, But your committee have clearly ascertained, that in many places private subscriptions could be raised to meet the yearly expenses of a school, while the original cost of undertaking, occasioned chiefly by the erection and purchase of the schoolhouse, prevents it from being attempted.
  86. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (2), THIRD REPORT, Your committee conceive, that a sum of money might be well employed in supplying this first want, leaving the charity of individuals to furnish the annual provision requisite for continuing the school, and possible for repaying the advance.
  87. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57) paragraph (3), THIRD REPORT, Whether the money should be vested in Commissioners, empowered to make the fit terms with the private parties desirous of establishing schools, or whether a certain sum should be intrusted to the two great Institutions in London for promoting Education, Your committee must leave to be determined by the wisdom of parliament.
  88. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (56)b, THIRD REPORT, in many schools where the national system (Anglican Schooling) is adopted, an increasing degree of liberality prevails, and that the church catechism is only taught, and attendance at the established place of worship only required, of those whose parents belong to the establishment (Anglican faith)
  89. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (57), THIRD REPORT, Your committee have found reason to conclude, that Roman Catholic poor are anxious to avail themselves of those Protestant Schools established in their neighbourhood, in which no catechism is taught; they indulge a hope, that the Clergy of that persuasion may offer no discouragement to their attendance
  90. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (56)d, THIRD REPORT, In places where only one school can be supported, it is manifest that any regulations which exclude Dissenters, deprive the poor of that body of all means of education.
  91. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (55) paragraph (1ii), THIRD REPORT, the discussion excited by the first Report, and the arguments urged in the Committee to various patrons of charities who were examined as witnesses, have had the salutary effect of improving the administration of those institutions.. As the management of these excellent establishments is necessarily placed beyond the control of the Legislature, it is only by the effects of such candid discussions that improvements in them can be effected.
  92. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (56) paragraph (2), THIRD REPORT, It appears from the Returns, as well as from other sources, that a very great deficiency exists in the means of educating the Poor, wherever the population is thin and scattered over country districts. The efforts of individuals combined in societies are almost wholly confined to populous places.
  93. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 427 (57) paragraph (3), THIRD REPORT, In the numerous districts where no aid from private exertions can be expected, and where the poor are manifestly without adequate means of instruction, Your committee are persuaded, that nothing can supply the deficiency but the adoption, under certain material modifications of the Parochial School system, so usefully established in the Northern part of the Island, ever since the latter part of the seventeenth centaury,
  94. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 426 (58) paragraph (1), THIRD REPORT, Your committee forbear to inquire minutely in what manner this system ought to be connected with the Church Establishment (Anglicism). That such a connection ought to be formed appears manifest; it is dictated by a regard to the prosperity and stability of both systems, and in Scotland the two are mutually connected together.
  95. ^ McManners 1952, p. 72, it (the Bill) went to the Lords . Here it was emasculated, two of the three object of the Bill, the investigation of the education of the poor generally and the examination of the abuses of all charities, were rejected . The number of commissioners was altered; they were non-salaried and appointed by the crown. They were to have no powers of enforcing attendance or of demanding the production of documents, nor could they imprison or inflict a fine They could not institute proceedings but were restricted merely to inquiring and reporting.
  96. ^ House of Commons Journal 1818, p. 426, 10 Junii, Royal Ascent..An Act for appointing Commissioners to inquire concerning Charities in England for the Education of the Poor
  97. ^ McManners 1952, p. 73-74, Lord Sidmouth (Home Secretary), by virtue of his office, selected the Commissioners and although Brougham offered his services, he was not appointed, nor were any other members of the Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders.
  98. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 736, a commission, known as the Brougham Commission, that investigated all charitable endowments and conducted a massive survey of nearly 30,000 charities. The Commission labored for the better part of two decades, produced forty volumes of reports and cost £250,000 by the time it finished its efforts. The Brougham Commission's final report appeared in six parts between 1837 and 1840, and recommended the establishment of a charity commission, which took Parliament nearly twenty years to adopt.
  99. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 739, E. The Impact of the Brougham Commission.
  100. ^ McManners 1952, p. 72b, it (the Bill) went to the Lords . Here it was emasculated,... the investigation of the education of the poor generally .. was rejected .
  101. ^ Peel 1819, p. Column 1327, Brougham – "at a time when the bill was expected to pass with a clause requiring the commissioners to examine the state of education generally, .... that clause was, with others, was struck out,"
  102. ^ McManners 1952, p. 79b, Where there was no school, power was to be given to the Grand Jury, or to the parson of the parish, or to two justices, or five resident householders ... demanding the building of a school and the endowment of a mastership.
  103. ^ Brougham 1820a, Col 89, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, for the better Education of the Poor in England and Wales."
  104. ^ McManners 1952, p. 79,The expense of building the school was to fall on manufacturers who, as a class, contributed little to the poor rates; they were to be maintained by a levy of a local rate.
  105. ^ Washington 1988, p. 171, It was brought back at the beginning of 1821, in the modified form of two education bills; one "to secure to the poorer classes a useful and religious education," the other "to regulate and improve endowments for the purposes of education." The alterations to remove the threat of additional taxation were welcomed.
  106. ^ Washington 1988, p. 172, With regard to the control of the proposed government schools, Brougham had tried to reconcile the interests of religious groups... He made a number of concessions to the Church of England to acquire support from that quarter, but by so doing he succeeded in alienating the Dissenters.
  107. ^ McManners 1952, p. 83, No doubt the strength of the bishops brought Brougham to the conclusion that he could secure the main objects of the bill only by large concessions to them. The National church gave the bill only lukewarm support and it was opposed by both Roman Catholics and Dissenters.
  108. ^ Roebuck 1833.
  109. ^ Lord Althrop 1833.
  110. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 555, Appendix A – Circular Letter.
  111. ^ Brougham 1820a, the first work of the committee had been to address a circular to the whole of the clergy of England and Wales; the object of which was to call their attention to a variety of matters connected with the present subject. The clergy set about returning answers to these circulars; .. After a little while the committee received nearly all ..; but, in a correspondence maintained with so large a number of persons as 11,400, there were, as might be expected, some defaulters; and they amounted to 600. To these another circular was addressed; whereupon, as universally happened in such cases, their number was soon greatly reduced; and about 200 ministers only were still defaulters.
  112. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. 427, THIRD REPORT, Your committee have lost no time in directing and superintending the work of digesting the valuable information contained in the Returns, according to a convenient plan, which will put the House in possession of all this information in a tabular form. They have received important assistance in this and other objects of their inquiry, from two learned Barristers, Mr. Parry, and Mr Koe of the Court of Chancery, who have devoted much of their time to the subject.
  113. ^ Stephens 1973, p. 137, Chapter VII – Education, A select committee to enquire in the 'education of the lower orders' produced not only general reports in 1817 and 1818 which contain local evidence and are indexed, but also a Digest of Parochial Returns listing from the returns made by incumbents statements of the educational provision of every parish, topographically arranged under counties. Scotland and Wales are covered. The Digest gives the capacity of schools in each parish, and distinguishes endowed and non-endowed schools, and dame and Sunday schools. There are also 'observations' which are particularly illuminating.
  114. ^ Rutland Return 1819.
  115. ^ Bloy 2016.
  116. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 569, Appendix B – Poor Return Office, Whitehall.
  117. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 555b, Appendix A – Circular Letter, 7th (question) What are the Funds and how do they arise? Specify the particulars of the last year's Income?
  118. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 217, via Mr William Allen (Treasurer of the British and Foreign School Society).
  119. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 64 and 294–299, Thomas Biggs, Secretary to the West London Lancastrian Society.
  120. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 321, via John Picton (Schoolmaster of Borough Road School).
  121. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 121, Statement by Henry Althens, Secretary to the East London Auxiliary Sunday School Society.
  122. ^ Washington 1988, p. 160, Chapter 6 – Henry Brougham, Once involved, Brougham took an important and active part in the organisation of the Lancastrian Committee and took the chair at times during the transitional phase leading to the formation of the new British and Foreign School Society in l8l4.
  123. ^ Newspapers 1818.
  124. ^ Fishman 2005, p. 732, additionally, unsolicited testimony poured in from around the country that charitable endowments were grossly misappropriated, diverted, and used for every purpose save education of the poor.
  125. ^ House of Commons Report 1818, p. Appendices (A) – (B).
  126. ^ House of Commons Report 1816, p. 579.

References

[edit]

Hansard

[edit]
  • Parochial Schools Bill (13 June 1807). "Parochial Schools Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 9. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Giddy (13 June 1807). "PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS BILL". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 9. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 798–799.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Sturges Bourne (21 July 1807). "The Parochial Schools Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 9. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 853.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Stanhope (11 August 1807). "Parochial Schools Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 9. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords. col. 1175–1178.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Peel (23 June 1819). "Charitable Foundations Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 40. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 1300–1302.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Brougham (28 June 1820). "EDUCATION OF THE POOR.". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 02. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 49–91.
  • Brougham (11 July 1820). "EDUCATION OF THE POOR BILL.". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 2. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 365–366.
  • Roebuck (30 July 1833). "National Education". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 20. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 139–174.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Lord Althrop, Chancellor of the Exchequer (16 August 1833). "SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 20. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 730–731.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Political publications

[edit]

Reports

[edit]

Legislation

[edit]

Journals

[edit]

National archives

[edit]
  • Records of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, ID: ED 9 & ED 17. National Archives.
  • 1810–1819. The British Newspaper Archive.

Theses

[edit]

Books

[edit]

Internet sites

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_on_the_Education_of_the_Lower_Orders&oldid=1254592236"