20 % 
Remarks on Mr. Brougham’s Education Bill. 
similar apprehensions latel} 1, agitated 
some restless spirits in our own time. 
If with what has been -just quoted, be 
coupled what Mr. Brougham said in 
his speech, that 44 It did appear to him, 
that the system of public education 
should be closely connected,” or as he 
says in another part, 44 united and 
knitted with the church of England 
as established by law;” to which he 
added, 44 he stated this after the most 
mature consideration;” then, from what 
the Earl of Angleseaand Mr. Brougham 
have stated, the same object may be as¬ 
cribed to both the measures. 
It is not on mere surmise that the 
jealousy of the Dissenters is awakened 
with regard to the pending bill. Mr. 
Brougham mentioned on the 29th of 
June, 1820. that 44 He had heard it said. 
Compel all children , dissenters , and 
others , to go to church ; those,” he ad¬ 
ded, 44 who gave this advice founded 
their opinion on a passage in the report 
of a committee before which the Rev. 
Mr. Johnson was examined.” Mr. 
Brougham veiy properly spurned the 
advice, but who can tell what other Sir 
William Wyndham (the reputed parent 
of the schism bill) may arise, either 
during the progress of the Education 
Bill, or in some subsequent parliament; 
and declaring, that the frame work is 
fitted to receive an appendage to the 
effect we are deploring, procure its 
enactment. 
So well do some of the sentiments 
expressed by the noble lords who boldly 
opposed that act apply to the present 
purpose, that on perusing them they 
must extort approbation. Lord Cow- 
per said, 44 That the enacting part of 
this bill for the preventing the growth 
of schism, and for the further security 
of the church of England, would have 
a quite contrary effect, and prove 
equally pernicious to church and state ; 
instead ot preventing schisms and en¬ 
larging the pale of the church, this bill 
tended to introduce ignorance and . its 
inseparable attendants, superstition and 
irreligion. In many country towns, 
reading, writing, and grammar-schools 
were chiefly supported by the Dissenters , 
not only for the instruction and benefit 
©f their own children, but likewise of 
those of the poor churchmen .” The Earl 
of Wharton excepted against the word 
schism as used in the bill, and said 44 It 
is somewhat strange they should call 
schism in England what is the estab¬ 
lished religion in Scotland.” He also 
observed, 44 That both in this bill and 
[Oct. 1, 
in the speeches of those who declared 
for it, several laws were recited and 
alledged, but that there was one law 
that had not yet been mentioned then, 
turning to the bishops, his lordship 
added, 44 I expected that venerable 
bench would have put us in mind of it, 
but since they are pleased to be silent 
in this debate, 1 will myself tell, that 
it is the law of the Gospel, 4 To do unto 
others as we would be done unto.’ ” 
The Earl of Nottingham 44 thought 
himself obliged to oppose so barbarous 
a law, as tending to deprive parents of 
their natural right of educating their 
own children.” He particularly ex¬ 
cepted against that part of the bill, 
which enacts, That any person who 
should keep any public or private 
school, nr instruct any youth as tutor, 
should have a licence of the respective 
archbishop or bishop of the place, &c. 
44 My Lords,” said lie, 44 I have many 
children, and I know not whether 
God Almighty Avill vouchsafe to let 
me live to give them the education I 
could wish they had ; therefore, I own 
I tremble when I think that a certain 
divine, who is hardly suspected of being 
a Christian, is in a fair way of being a 
bishop, and may one day give licences 
to those who shall be entrusted with the 
instruction of youth.” 
The application of all this, to Mr. 
Brougham’s bill, cannot be mistaken: 
it is even confirmed by a winter, who is 
supposed to be Mr. B. himself, (the 
article alluded to has at least his im¬ 
plied sanction, and was, perhaps, sub¬ 
mitted to his revisal.) The 67th Num¬ 
ber of the Edinburgh Review contains 
this passage:— 44 The plan professedly 
and openly connects itself with the 
church establishment: it avow’s and 
claims this alliance ; so that they make 
no discovery, and still less detect any 
hidden design in its construction, who 
charge it with such a connection, or 
maintain that its tendency is to give 
the clergy an influence upon the edu¬ 
cation of youth.” (p. 246.) 
It must now r be sufficiently obvious 
to every reader, that no Dissenter can 
publicly discuss the propriety of Mr. 
Brougham's bill, without the danger of 
incurring a charge of being invidious or 
vindictive against that reverend body 
whose office and character every well- 
educated Dissenter is much more dis¬ 
posed to respect. It is imperative, how¬ 
ever, that some statements should be 
made, without which the objections un¬ 
der this head could not be correctly es¬ 
timated. 
