which borders upon mystery. Had the National Society followed the example in withholding a list of the places annually assisted, or the neglecting to present to the public periodical lists of their schools in union, observations might with reason have been made on its "exclusiveness." I, therefore, shall hazard a conjecture. I regard the insertion of a school on the list of the National Society as a pledge, or declaration, that such school thus publicly avows its concurrence with the principles of the Society, and its obligation to conform to them, and to be judged by them. Now, my opinion is, that the British and Foreign School Society dare not make out a list of schools united with it, because that would imply that all those schools were conducted on its "principle;"-viz., not to allow "any catechism, or peculiar religious tenets to be taught in the schools," nor any "note or comment to be made on the Scriptures: and the Society is well aware that scarcely one school in the kingdom acts up to the spirit, or even to the letter, of the original regulation. If, therefore, they were to put those schools on their list, which are now become regular seminaries of various denominations, in which catechisms and peculiar notions are unscrupulously inculcated, any one who visited the schools would have an opportunity of convicting them of inconsistency.

But what is alleged by the officers of the British Society as the reason which prevents them from drawing up a list of their schools? How do they account for neglecting to do this with respect to their few schools, when the National Society every year gives a summary, and at certain fixed periods gives a catalogue, of every one of the large number in its connexion. The National Society has nothing to conceal its principles and its practices are before the world, and it challenges the most jealous scrutiny. But the British Society neither favours its subscribers with the details of the money expended, nor does it furnish any information, as far as I can learn from the report, as to the schools, which, receiving aid, are conducted on its principle. And why? The Secretary is asked by the Committee of the House of Commons

"304. What number are there throughout the country?—I have no means of answering that question correctly.

***

We

"305. Can you not give a general impression ?—I could not feel much confidence in any number that I might state. could obtain a correct list of all the schools on our system only by corresponding with every town and village in the country. The expense has hitherto deterred the Committee from undertaking it. Some years ago they applied to have their letters franked for that purpose, but the Post-office did not see it right to allow the privilege." The Committee recur again to the subject

"346. If your request had been granted, you would have been enabled to obtain much more complete information as to the number of the schools conducted on your system?-Yes. It was by that means the National School Society obtained the greater part of their information relating to the church of England schools; that privilege was, however, withdrawn.

VOL. VIII.-Oct. 1835.

31

"347. Was it withdrawn before they had completed their list ?— They enjoyed it till they had nearly completed their returns.

348. In point of fact, they do not enjoy such privilege now?— They do not now, I believe."

But, supposing the above to be true, the National Society, with all its branches, continues still, though it has no privilege of franking, to communicate to the public an authorized statement of all their schools, as it did, I believe, before it had the privilege of franking. They are anxious to afford every proof-1. Of the extent of their exertions and union. 2. Of the faithfulness with which they distribute the money entrusted to them on specific terms. 3. Of the responsibility of the parties assisted. And 4. Of the consistency of their principles and practice. The expense of the correspondence is no object to them compared with the public character of their integrity. They could not subject themselves to the charge of obscurity, or of making secret votes of money for unknown purposes, or to irresponsible persons: they afford no ground for any suspicious partiality. The places and amount of every grant are annually published, so that all the world may see what is done with the money. Now, turn to the proceedings of the British Society. 1. They have not a list of schools on their system, or in connexion with them; and can form no notion of the number. They cannot afford to pay the postage of the letters from the country-the places where they have schools being so numerous! Yet what do they? Yet what do they? They have an agent abroad, who travels through parts of Greece, and sends them full particulars of their ruined schools there! They obtain correct reports of every school at the Cape of Good Hope, &c. &c. Does all this cost nothing? Then they have an agent actually travelling through this country? Do they not pay him? Could he not collect some information? Lastly, they have a paid inspector for schools in the metropolis, and by his means they are enabled to produce a list of the schools which he inspects. They say, "these schools are on the British system"--will they be so good as to tell me whether they are on the "British principle." But, I now say, it does seem odd to me that, with means for employing, at least, three itinerant officers, they should not contrive to pay the postage of a few letters! Have they 50, 100, 200, or 300 schools in England on their original principle? What would the postage come to? They need write to those only which are in actual connexion with them; they have no business with others. Have they any in bona fide union? Or does the Society consist only of a body of men advancing a certain object under cover of a certain profession, but without requiring from those whom they assist any pledge or obligation to abide by that profession? To what parties were the 1000 circulars sent about the parliamentary grant? Who paid for them and their answers? These are questions which passing events require to be answered. 2. But supposing that all the schools in union should not be ascertained, can they not tell what schools have made application to them for assistance? Can they not tell to what places, or to what persons, they have sent money, or

lessons, or books, or slates, or other school "gear ? Can neither the secretary nor the treasurer furnish a schedule of the places which have been benefited, and the sums which have been granted? Why are they not published? Is it not usual for every society distinctly to name, with scrupulous exactness, the purpose, amount, and destination of every sum of money, that its subscribers and friends may judge of every case? 3. But if it be thought too much to require the society to go back to former years-let me ask for the particular places, and the details of the last year viz., for the sums of 6811. 15s. 10d., 533l. 3s. 10d., and 3937. 10s. 9d. = 16087. 10s. 5d. This is the amount, in their cash account, which has been expended in English and Foreign schools, and in forming auxiliary societies. I do not throw out the least doubt that the money has been correctly applied; but it would be satisfactory to have a list of the places and sums in England,—in Foreign countries, and the names of the auxiliary societies formed yearly. And for the future, as the Society have opportunity, I should wish them to imitate the National Society, and thus give the world a chance of doing them justice, which their present practice does not allow. I have pointed out this extraordinary silence of the Society, as to the numbers in connexion with them, because of the paltry reflection on the privilege they would have the public believe the National Society enjoyed; the deprivation of which, on their parts, prevented them, as they groundlessly allege, from doing that which their public duty required to be done.

In the year 1816, Mr. Allen (the treasurer then and now) was enabled to give to the Committee of the House of Commons a list of 200 boys' and 74 girls' schools-the number attending which he calculated to be, on an average, from 150 to 200. If we multiply 274 by 175 we shall produce 47,950. Have they as many children in connexion now? But this average of scholars is clearly larger than the fact would warrant. The present secretary, Mr. Dunn, does not think that the increase of their schools has been great.—(309.) But what is the real number? And where?

If, then, these reflections meet the eye of the authorities, they will perceive how desirable it will be for them to afford proofs of the real efficiency and fidelity of the Society, by declaring the particulars of their schools and grants.

There is another point, in some way connected with this, to which a few moments' attention may be directed. In their last report, which is the only one I have seen for many years, the committee make some observations "on the extent of popular ignorance," with a view to prove that "they have put forth no exaggerated statements for the sake of exciting public sympathy." What the statements alluded to may be, I know not. There can be no doubt that the destitution in large towns, with respect to daily education, is very "lamentable," especially in places where dissenters abound. They rail against the bigotry of others; they magnify the deficiency around them; but they will neither do anything themselves, nor allow others to do it peaceably. If they are so rich, so numerous, and so charitable, as they would have us believ-what have they done for the education

of the people? Is there not the greatest want of schools where they prevail? I am quite aware that the proportion (in large towns) under instruction is considerably below what it ought to be; and that every fair motive ought to be used to urge the exertions of those who have the power to remedy the defect. But I do not think that general surmises, or party correspondents, form the best ground of judgment. I have compared the proofs brought by the Society with the actual returns of schools made to Government, as far as the two printed volumes will allow; and, in some instances, at least, there appears to me something both like vagueness and exaggeration.

I assume that one in seven of the active population may be a fair proportion of children, between the ages of 7 and 14 inclusive, who may be expected to attend schools. But, in manufacturing and coal districts, a great number of young people are employed at work, from the age of 8, or 9. In consequence, it may be necessary to refer in these places to Sunday schools, which may contain and instruct those who are at labour during the week. With respect to Sunday schools, we may observe, that a few years ago they were preferred to day schools by the dissenters; and to the present time they constitute the chief object of their care, as connecting the children with their conventicles. But as there is now a chance of obtaining money from the country at large, they are beginning to be clamorous for day schools, and depreciate that instruction which before they so highly praised. In 1816, a Mr. Hargrave was pleased to give his opinion to the Committee of the House "On the benefit of Sunday schools over that of other schools. We have found, generally, that once a week, which is on the Sabbath day, the child will learn as much in that time as he would, if placed in a National school, or in a school on the British system of education, in a week." Mr. Henry Althans (1 suppose the same person who is now the inspector of the British schools) also said, at that time, "We have had many instances occur where children who go to day schools have been taken from them by their parents, and sent to our Sunday schools, on account of their education being so much neglected." (What became of the children during the week?) And Mr. Lloyd then thought that the children "seem to pay more attention on Sundays." But now, Mr. Dunn, the Secretary of the British Society, reckons very little of "Sunday instruction."-(310.) "I put that out of the question, because I never yet saw a Sunday school which I should consider worth taking into account as a place of literary instruction. I think that the moral and religious influence of Sunday schools cannot be estimated too highly; but I think it is impossible to communicate literary knowledge to any extent, during the few hours that can be devoted to such a task on the Sunday." Let us, then, look to the actual state of education in some places which the British Society has brought into notice as especially destitute.

The communication, dated "Durham city," states that "in one parish" [of the colliery districts] "there are 2200 human beings; and if one in thirty be under instruction, it is all that can possibly be found." Now, with respect to "Durham city," where the church is

powerful, daily instruction prevails to a great extent.-Population, 10,125 forty-four day schools; children, 1819; being about one in five-and-a-half of the whole inhabitants. To these we may add 245, who attend the three infant schools; the proportion will then be a little less than one in five. So much for "Durham city." The parish, whose state is represented as so "lamentable," is, I conjecture, that of Houghton-le-Spring, the population of which, in 1831, was 20,524. The number of children in daily schools is returned as 2486; on Sundays, 2724. So that the proportion under instruction is one in eight-and-a-quarter, in day schools; and on Sundays, one in seven-and-a-half; and not as the Society's correspondent affirms, one in thirty! Is this not exaggeration? The deficiency in some other places seems also enlarged. Constantine, Cornwall,-Population, 2004. The Society say, that, "including all the dame schools, only 130 are under instruction, so that there are full 300 receiving no education whatever." The 7th of 2004 is 286; and there are 219 children under instruction in day schools-whence arise the "300 without any education whatever ?"

At Redruth, out of 8191 inhabitants, it is reported, that "The only public provision made for the education of the poor, is the parish workhouse, where about fifty children are taught, who are all paupers." Now the returns give eight schools, with 716 daily attendants, and three Sunday, with 744 scholars.

At Grantham, and hamlets adjoining, the Society report, "There is a population of about 8000 souls; and, after deducting the existing schools, there must be, at least, 1300 children without any daily instruction whatever." The existing schools, in Grantham alone, contain 1197 children, being one in six of the population, (7427,) under full daily instruction. Yet the report says, there are besides these, out of about 8000 inhabitants, still" 1300 children without any daily instruction whatever." Can this be possible?

The report from Brentford calculates that there are, "in this town and neighbourhood not less than 1000 children uninstructed." Population-9868: daily children in thirty-three schools, 1238, being in the proportion of nearly one in eight. Can there be "1000" still "uninstructed," who may be expected to attend school?

"Stafford in this town and immediate vicinity, there are from 800 to 1000 children uneducated." Now what are the facts? The population of Stafford is 6956. There are thirteen daily schools with 622 children; and 711 attend on Sundays. From whence come the "1000 uneducated"? No doubt there is here, as in other places, a deficiency-but can it be so great? About one in eleven are under daily instruction.

In Wednesbury, also, it is estimated that there are "2000 children in this place destitute of instruction." As the population is 8437, the deficiency would nearly equal a quarter of the whole inhabitants. Can this be so? Certainly there are but 379 in the day schools, but on Sunday there are 1237, which is about one in seven.

These instances are sufficient to shew, that, whatever need there may be of an extension of the means of education among the poor,