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. It comprehensively investigated the provision of education for poor working class children during the early 19th century. The reports exposed the inadequate provision of schooling and the abuses 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 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. In this environment, a debate was held in Society on 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 comprehensively articulated by philosophers-of-the-age in their major works such as Adam Smith ( Wealth of Nations), La Chalotais (Essay on National Education) and Tom Paine ( Rights of Man). [1] [2] [3] 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 existed in Scotland through the 18th century, there was none in England & Wales, hence 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 the rest of Great Britain, [4] this was blocked in parliament with the following arguments used to oppose the bill: -
Although these arguments were used to successfully block this bill, it was clear from the parliamentary debate that a general sympathy had emerged in parliament for something to be done 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 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]
"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 [16]
The committee was renewed on 22 May 1817 but were unable to continue their inquiries and then renewed again on 05 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 on 25th May 1818. [17] [18] [19]
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: - [20]
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. [21] The Whig members were indeed of 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. [22]
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
The following reports were submitted to the House of Commons by the select committee then subsequently published: -
Submitted | Report | Section | Section Description | Pages |
---|---|---|---|---|
07 June 1816 [41] | Reports from the 1816 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis [35] | Report [16] | Terms of Reference, Report & Recomendations | i - ii |
First Report [42] | Minutes of Evidence (22/05/1816 - 01/06/1816) | 001 - 194 | ||
13 June 1816 [43] | Second Report [44] | Minutes of Evidence (03/06/1816 - 05/06/1816) | 195 - 294 | |
19 June 1816 [45] | Third Report [46] | Minutes of Evidence (06/06/1816 - 13/06/1816) | 295 - 482 | |
20 June 1816 [47] | Fourth Report [48] | Minutes of Evidence (14/06/1816 - 19/06/1816) | 483 - 554 | |
Appendix [49] | Information Returns from London Charity Schools | 555 - 568 | ||
Gilbert Act 1786, Educational Charity Returns | 569 - 577 | |||
Addenda [50] | 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 [51] | 597 - 608 | |||
07 July 1817 [52] | Report from the 1817 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis [36] | Report [53] | Recommend expanding remit to England & Wales | 001 -853 |
17 March 1818 [54] | Reports from the 1818 Select Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders [36] | First Report | Recommending Proceedings | |
25 May 1818 [19] | Second Report | Parochial & Other Schools | ||
03 June 1818 [55] | Third Report | Abuses at Charities for the Education the Poor et al | ||
05 June 1818 [56] | Appendix A | Eton Statutes | ||
06 June 1818 [57] | Appendix B | Statutes of Trinity and St John's College Cambridge | ||
01 April 1819 [58] | Digest of Parochial Returns made to the Education Committee of 1818 | Volume I [59] | England (part 1) - Counties by alphabetic order | 001 - 576 |
Volume II [60] | England (part 2) - Counties by alphabetic order | 577 - 1170 | ||
Volume III [61] | Wales, Scotland, British Isles and Additional Returns | 1171-1496 |
The key findings were documented in the third and final report of the 1818 committee. In addition, in order to publicise the charitable abuses which the select committee had discovered, Brougham wrote an open public letter with an appendix to Romilly on 20th August 1818 prior to the printing & distribution of the 1818 reports. [62] [63]
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: -
These abuses were most prominently publicised through speeches in parliament, the reports of the inquiries and the public letter from Brougham to Romilly of 20th August 1818, where examples of charitable abuses were given for the following schools: - St. Bees, Winchester, Highgate, Pocklington, Brentwood, Mere, Spital, Yeovil, Huntingdon and Eton College. [62] [63] The 1818 committee further discovered that these abuses did not simply apply to charities for the education of the poor but extended to all educational charitable trusts including to those of the great public schools like Eton and the leading universities like Cambridge, furthermore the committee found anecdotal evidence that the abuses extended to all charities.
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 3,500 of the 12,000 parishes with no school whatsoever. [80] In addition, the extensive returns in the digest of parochial returns showed 650,000 children were educated, to of the total population of England. [81] Edmund Halley's seminal demographic analysis of Breslau had suggested that the number of children of school-going age should be of the population, meanwhile the digest of parochial returns suggested that in England this ratio should be closer to of the population, making between to of the population (approx. one million) being children who required education, this meant that about 350,000 children were receiving no education. [82]
The majority of charitable schools were parochial schools including 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. [83] 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 refuse to send their children, so for instance Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters & Jews may refuse to send their children to an Anglican school which taught the Anglican catechism. [84] [85] 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 an education. [86]
The committee further noted that in Scotland there was a greater degree of homogeneity between the 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. [87]
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. [88] 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, [89] [90] 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. [91]
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. [92] One commission was to look into the workings of the charities and the other the workings of the schools, [93] as the commission for charities has 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. [94] [95]
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. [96] Notwithstanding the need to re-model school buildings, there was a chronic shortage of schoolhouses 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. [97] The committee hence recommended that parliament should contribute to the construction of new school-houses. [98] 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: - British & Foreign School Society and the Anglican National 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. [99]
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. [100] [101] 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. [102] This task of persuasion was to fall on the proposed parliamentary commission for the workings of the schools. [103]
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. [104] 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. [105] 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. [106]
In March 1818, even as the 1818 committee continued its inquiries, Brougham moved the House of Commons for a Bill to appoint commissioners to inquire into the abuses in charities connected with the education of the poor in England & Wales. [107] As the Bill made its passage through parliament, it was emasculated by amendments in the House of Lords which exempted universities, public schools and all charities with special visitors (charity auditors), in addition the proposed powers of the commissioners were curbed, but it was passed on 10th June 1818 (58 Geo. III). [108] [109] Through this period and afterwards, Brougham continued to petition for the strengthening of the commission and directed the 1818 committee to make controversial inquiries into the charitable foundations of Eton & Winchester public schools, and two colleges of Cambridge university, [110] then the committee used the findings to argue for the commission to be strengthened. [111] [112] [113] Brougham continued to use publicity through speeches in parliament, the publication of the reports and a public letter from Brougham to Romilly, to widely publicise the problems present in charities. The government bowed to this public pressure and both emancipated and expanded the remit of the Commission, starting in 1819 and continuing as the Commission was regularly revived. [114]
The resulting commission became known as the Brougham Commission but neither Brougham or any member of the committee were originally appointed as commissioners by the Tory government, [115] it was not until 1831 when the Whigs won office that Brougham was finally appointed onto the commission, subsequently in its final tenure 1835 - 1837, Brougham had the honour of being the Chief Commissioner and bringing a close to the work of the commission. [116] 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 Brougham Commission's final report recommended the establishment of a permanent charity commission, which Parliament eventually adopted albeit not until 1853. [117]
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. [118]
To summarise, the commission served several important purposes:- increasing the transparency of charitable trusts, bringing malefactors to justice, reaffirming the overwhelming basic probity of the sector, advancing the cause of law reform by highlighting the lack of clear principles to guide fiduciaries, and also demonstrating the dearth of effective mechanisms for accountability. [118]
The original honorary Commissioners were: -
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. [119] [120] This left no mechanism to increase the numbers of children educated by promoting the monitorial system, or to remove the 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. [121] These attempts were through the Education of the Poor bill, [122] the first attempt in 1820 failed due to resistance to the additional tax burden from such a scheme. [123] 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. [124] This time the attempt failed because Protestant Dissenters felt Brougham had made too many compromises to the Anglican church so opposed the bills. [125] Just like Whitbread before him, Brougham had been unable to find a compromise which appeased both the established Anglican church and the non-conformists. [126]
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 a Whig government had replaced the Tory administration, helpfully a complement of the new Whig ministers having previously served as members on the committee including Brougham himself who had become the Lord Chancellor. Even this change had proved difficult to implement since.
HANSARD
POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS
REPORTS
LEGISLATION
JOURNALS
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
PAPERS
THESES
BOOKS
INTERNET SITES
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)