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.
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:
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]
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."
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 |
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:
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]
The very basic tenets for educating the poor had yet to become established in society, so the committee presented the reasoning with evidence:
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Whilst the recommendations on charities of the inquiry were generally accepted, they were mainly rejected in the field of general education.
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.
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 utilise 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]
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.
The committee gathered information from the following sources: -
Responses to questionnaires from the committee
Charitable income assessment
Results from previous surveys and field studies
Interviews
Unsolicited approaches
Documentation
Edward Baines (1774–1848) was the editor and proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, politician, and the author of historical and geographic works of reference. On his death in 1848, the Leeds Intelligencer described his as "one who has earned for himself an indisputable title to be numbered among the notable men of Leeds".
The Charity Commission for England and Wales is a non-ministerial department of His Majesty's Government that regulates registered charities in England and Wales and maintains the Central Register of Charities. Its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland.
Henry Peter Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux, was a British statesman who became Lord High Chancellor and played a prominent role in passing the Reform Act 1832 and Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington, was a British Whig statesman who served continuously in government from 1715 until his death in 1743. He sat in the English and British House of Commons between 1698 and 1728, and was then raised to the peerage and sat in the House of Lords. He served as the prime minister of Great Britain from 1742 until his death in 1743. He is considered to have been Britain's second prime minister, after Robert Walpole, but worked closely with the Secretary of State, Lord Carteret, in order to secure the support of the various factions making up the government.
Neil Quentin Gordon Parish is a British farmer and former politician who served as Member of Parliament (MP) for Tiverton and Honiton from 2010 until his resignation in 2022. A member of the Conservative Party, he was previously a member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South West England from 1999 to 2009. Parish chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee from 2015 until his resignation from the House of Commons.
A parochial church council (PCC) is the executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the laity. It has its origins in the vestry committee, which looked after both religious and secular matters in a parish. It is a corporate charitable body.
The Mariam Appeal was a political campaign in the United Kingdom (UK) established in 1998 which ceased operation in 2003. The objects of the Appeal as stated in its constitution were "to provide medicines, medical equipment and medical assistance to the people of Iraq; to highlight the causes and results of the cancer epidemic in Iraq and to arrange for the medical treatment of a number of Iraqi children outside Iraq". The campaign was founded by the politician George Galloway, then a member of parliament, Princess Sarvath, wife of then Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, was patron of the Appeal.
A foundling hospital was originally an institution for the reception of foundlings, i.e., children who had been abandoned or exposed, and left for the public to find and save. A foundling hospital was not necessarily a medical hospital, but more commonly a children's home, offering shelter and education to foundlings.
St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School is a Church of England voluntary aided school situated in the district of Redcliffe, Bristol, England. The school was formed by a merger of Redcliffe Boys School and Temple Colston school; the former was founded in 1571. It provides education for approximately 1,600 students aged 11 to 18. The school's church is St Mary Redcliffe. It is one of the many Church of England Schools in the Diocese of Bristol. The headteacher is Del Planter and the Director of Sixth Form is Richard Wheeler.
A bill for the better regulating of Select Vestries, usually referred to as the Select Vestries Bill, is customarily the first bill introduced and debated in the United Kingdom's House of Lords at the start of each session of Parliament. The equivalent bill used by the House of Commons is the Outlawries Bill.
Michael Thomas Sadler was a British Tory Member of Parliament (MP) whose Evangelical Anglicanism and prior experience as a Poor Law administrator in Leeds led him to oppose Malthusian theories of population and their use to decry state provision for the poor.
The Factories Act 1847, also known as the Ten Hours Act was a United Kingdom Act of Parliament which restricted the working hours of women and young persons (13–18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day. The practicalities of running a textile mill were such that the Act should have effectively set the same limit on the working hours of adult male mill-workers.
William Duncombe, 2nd Baron Feversham, was a British peer with a large estate in the North Riding of Yorkshire. He was prominent in the affairs of the Royal Agricultural Society and owner of a prize-winning herd of short-horn cattle. He served as a Tory Member of Parliament (MP) for the Riding from 1832 to 1841, after which he sat in the House of Lords, having succeeded to the title on the death of his father. From 1826 to 1831 he had sat as an Ultra-Tory MP. He was the first MP to support Richard Oastler's campaign for Factory Reform, and gave it unwavering support for the rest of his life; in 1847 he seconded the Second Reading in the Lords of the Factory Act of that year.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom whose aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising and promoting climate change denial.
Fairstead is a village and civil parish in the Braintree district of Essex, England. Whilst isolated in a community of farming hamlets, the parish of Fairstead has close connections with Great Leighs and is 9.8 miles (15.8 km) from Chelmsford, Essex's county town.
Daniel Gaskell was a British Liberal Party politician.
Richard Watts Charities incorporate Richard Watts Charity set up in the will of Richard Watts in 1579, as well as several other charities in Rochester, Medway. The will originally provided for an almshouse in Rochester High Street: The Poor Travellers House; over time, the money later provided for almshouses in Maidstone Road, along with other accommodation in Rochester, totalling 66 self-contained flats. Other charities absorbed by the Richard Watts Charity include St Catherine's Hospital founded under the Charity of Symond Potyn in 1315.
Elementary schools were the first schools in England and Wales intended to give a basic education to the children of working class families. At the start of the 19th century, the only schooling available to these young people was run by private concerns or by charities, and was often of a very poor standard. In the first decades of that century, a network of elementary schools was established by societies backed by the Christian churches. In an effort to expand this "voluntary" system, the government made grants available to these societies, initially for new school buildings but later towards their running costs. It became apparent that although this system worked reasonably well in rural communities, it was far less successful in the rapidly expanding industrial cities, and that Britain was falling behind the rest of the developed world. In 1870, an act of parliament established elected school boards throughout England and Wales, which were empowered to create secular "board schools" funded by local taxation where there was no provision by the church societies. Further legislation made school attendance compulsory, and eventually free of charge. The problem of how the education of older pupils should be managed was solved by abolishing school boards in 1902 and passing responsibility to local councils. Elementary schools were eventually replaced in 1944 by the system of primary and secondary education.
William Rookes Crompton-Stansfield of Esholt Hall, Yorkshire, and Frimley Park, Surrey, was a British landowner and Whig politician who was MP for Huddersfield, Yorkshire, from 1837 to 1853.
Joseph Merceron (1764–1839) was a British businessman, property developer, parochial politician and magistrate notorious for his corrupt practices.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)