We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2014
The Whig educational proposals of 1839 are regarded as an important step in the centralization and growth of state control over the education of English working-class children. Introduced by Lord John Russell on February 12, the plan called for state supervision of education by a committee of the Privy Council, the erection of a nondenominational state normal school and two model schools, state inspection of all schools in receipt of the grants established in 1833, and a new system of allocation of those grants based not on the size of the voluntary contributions raised by the National Society or the British and Foreign School Society (BFSS) but on the local needs as ascertained by any “reputable” school society. Historians have viewed the proposals as the inevitable outcome of popular pressures brought to bear on government. Unable to resist their own Erastian urge to attack the privileged position of the church, and persuaded by Brougham, who figured prominently in the 1833 grant and had unsuccessfully proposed a national system as recently as the autumn of 1837, or alternatively by the Radicals J. A. Roebuck and Thomas Wyse, themselves supporters of the Central Society for Education's plans for a national secular system of education, the Whigs are regarded as having responded to popular, reformist demands. “In 1839,” wrote Halevy, “the cabinet yielded.” England was last among the Protestant countries in the matter of primary education; Roebuck, Wyse, and Brougham had failed in their separate efforts to promote the cause; and the government could do little other than propose a remedy for 3 million uneducated children.
1 For Russell's speech, see Parliamentary Debates (PD), vol. 45, cols. 273–85, February 12, 1839 (all references are from ser. 3)Google Scholar.
2 Halevy, E., The Triumph of Reform (London, 1961), pp. 221–23Google Scholar.
3 Roberts, D., Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State (New Haven, Conn., 1969), p. 55Google Scholar.
4 Clark, G. Kitson, Peel and the Conservative Party (New Haven, Conn., 1964), pp. 388–89Google Scholar. See also Silver, H., English Education and the Radicals, 1780–1850 (London, 1975), p. 94: “It is against the background of such pressure that the creation of the Committee of Privy Council in 1839 has to be seenGoogle Scholar.”
5 Gash, N., Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics, 1832–52 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 76, 186Google Scholar.
6 Prest, J., Lord John Russell (Columbia, S.C., 1972), pp. 136–37Google Scholar.
7 Paz, D. G., The Politics of Working-Class Education in Britain, 1830–50 (Manchester, 1980), pp. 13, 25Google Scholar.
8 Alexander, J. and Paz, D. G., “The Treasury Grants, 1833–1839,” British Journal of Educational Studies 22 (1973–1974): 83–84. The authors note that the grant was not increased in 1839, as usually reported. The increase had been made in 1834. In 1839, the government amalgamated the £20,000 for England with the £10,000 for Scotland into a £30,000 grant for Great BritainGoogle Scholar.
9 Paz, p. 93.
10 Ibid., pp. 78, 80.
11 Alexander, J. L., “Lord John Russell and the Origins of the Committee of Council on Education,” Historical Journal 20 (1977): 406–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Usually known as the Roebuck Committee, it was in fact chaired by Lord Althorp, whose motion for a committee to inquire into the application of schoolhouse grants, to consider the expediency of making furthergrants, and to inquire into the general state of education of the poor had followed Roebuck's withdrawal of his own proposal for a committee to inquire into the means of establishing a national system of education (PD, vol. 24, col. 130, June 3, 1834).
13 During the first five years of the grant, the National Society received £70,000 and the BFSS £30,000 (Parliamentary Papers, 1837–38, 38:325).
14 Halevy (n. 2 above), p. 223, n. 1.
15 Lord John Russell to Lord Brougham, August 15 and 27 and October 2, 1837, University College, University of London, Brougham Papers, 38162, 14425–26.
16 Chadwick, O., The Victorian Church (London, 1971), 1:61.Google Scholar
17 Best, G. F. A., “The Whigs and the Church Establishment in the Age of Grey and Holland,” History 45 (1960): 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Russell to Earl Grey, April 1834, University of Durham, Grey Papers. Russell to Lord Melbourne, August17, 1834, British Library (BL), Additional (Add.) MS 51677, fol. 123; Grey to Lord Holland, March 9, 1834, BL, Add. MS 51557, fol. 8.
19 Mitchell, L., Holland House (London, 1980), pp. 101–2, 103Google Scholar.
20 Torrens, W. M., Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne (London, 1878), 2:156Google Scholar.
21 Russell to Melbourne, August 17, 1834, BL, Add. MS 51677, fol. 123.
22 Newbould, I. D. C., “Whiggery and the Dilemma of Reform: Liberals, Radicals and the Melbourne Administration, 1835–9,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980): 233–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Howick journal, May 20, 1837, University of Durham, Grey Papers.
24 Greville, C. C. F., The Greville Memoirs, ed. Reeve, H. (London, 1899), 3:400, March 18, 1837Google Scholar.
25 Melbourne to Russell, August 18, 1837, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/389 (printed with the permission of the Broadlands Trust).
26 Melbourne to Russell, February 1, 1838, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/442.
27 Russell to Brougham, August15 and October 20, 1837, University College, University of London, Brougham Papers, 38162, 38164.
28 PD, vol.43, col.731, June 14, 1838.
29 Newbould, p. 223.
30 Kitson Clark (n. 4 above), p. 440; Gash (n. 5 above), pp. 77–78.
31 Kitson Clark, p. 438; Chadwick (n. 16 above), 1:477–78; Gladstone, W. E., The State in its Relations With the Church (London, 1838)Google Scholar.
32 For the revolutionary appeal of Newman, see Chadwick, 1:169–70.
33 Ibid., 1:337. Blomfield received financial support from, among others, Pusey, Golightly, Howley, and Keble.
34 Burgess, H. J. and Welsby, P. A., A Short History of the National Society, 1811–1961 (London, 1961), p. 11Google Scholar; Burgess, H. J., Enterprise in Education (London, 1958), pp. 68–69Google Scholar; Johnson, R., “Educating the Educators: [Experts] and the State, 1833–9,” in Social Control in Ninteenth Century Britain, ed. Donajgrodski, A. P. (London, 1977), p. 99Google Scholar.
35 Duke of Somerset, Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism (1871), in The Passing of the Whigs, 1832–1886, by Southgate, D. G. (New York, 1965), p. 219Google Scholar.
36 At the time of the appropriation resolution that brought down Peel's government in 1835, Howick and Russell defended the established churchon the grounds of utility (Lord Howick to Sir James Graham, March 9, 1835, University of Durham, Grey Papers; PD, vol. 27, col. 361, March30, 1835; Brose, O. J., Church and Parliament [London, 1959], p. 53)Google Scholar.
37 Royal Archives, Queen Victoria's journal, June 19, 1839 (this material is used by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen). Sanders, L. C., ed., Lord Melbourne's Papers (London, 1889), p. 29Google Scholar.
38 Hamburger, J., “The Whig Conscience,”in The Conscience of the Victorian State, ed. Marsh, P.(Brighton, 1979), p. 25Google Scholar.
39 Chadwick, 1:233.
40 Russell, memorandum on Ireland, February 15, 1834, Derby Papers, Liverpool City Archives, box 130, fol. 12.
41 Quoted in Walpole, S., Life of Lord John Russell (London, 1889), 2:120Google Scholar.
42 Ibid., p. 486. For an account of Russell's religious attitudes, see Southgate, pp. 218–27; and Chadwick, 1:232–37.
43 For a discussion of ecclesiastical paternalism, see Roberts, D., Paternalism in Early Victorian England (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), pp. 215–23Google Scholar. See also Alexander (n. 11 above), pp. 404–5, 415.
44 On this point, see Johnson (n. 34 above), p. 100.
45 Russell to Brougham, August 15 and September 17, 1837, University College, University of London, Brougham Papers, 38162, fol. 3.
46 Hobhouse, J. C., Broughton, Baron, Recollections of a Long Life, ed. Carleton, C., Baroness Dorchester, 6 vols. (London, 1909–1911), 5:168, November 26, 1838; Howick journal, November 26, 1838, University of Durham, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Russell, November 27, 1838, Royal Archives, Melbourne Papers, 13/99Google Scholar.
47 Thomas Spring Rice to Melbourne, September 5, 1838, Royal Archives, Melbourne Papers, 10/1.
48 PD, vol. 45, cols. 277–79, 284–87, February 12, 1839.
49 PD, vol. 45, col. 311, February 12, 1839.
50 Paz (n. 7 above), p. 82.
51 Burgess (n. 36 above), p. 70; Chadwick (n. 16 above), 1:340.
52 Russell to Lord Lansdowne, February 4, 1839, in Educational Documents, England and Wales 1816 to the Present Day, ed. Maclure, J. Stuart (London, 1973), pp. 42–45: “The reports of chaplains of gaols show that to a large number of unfortunate prisoners a knowledge of the fundamental truths of natural and revealed religion has never been imparted. … by combining moral training with general instruction, the young may be saved from temptations to crime, and the whole community receive indisputable benefitGoogle Scholar.”
53 PD, vol. 45, cols. 275, 278, 285, February 12, 1839.
54 Baring, T. G., earl of Northbrook, A Memoir (London, 1906), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.
55 Gash (n. 5 above), pp. 169–87 passim.
56 Kitson Clark (n. 4 above), p. 435.
57 On this point, see Newbould, Ian D. C., “Sir Robert Peel and the Conservative Party, 1832–1841: A Study in Failure?” English Historical Review 98 (1983): 529–57, and “Whiggery and the Dilemma of Reform” (n. 22 above), pp.229–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 PD, vol. 45, col. 305, February 12, 1839.
59 Gash, N., Sir Robert Peel (London, 1972), p. 212Google Scholar. Sir Robert Peel to Charles Arbuthnot, January 24, 1839, in Sir Robert Peel from his Private Papers, ed. Parker, C. S. (London, 1891), 2:376–77Google Scholar.
60 In Machin, G. I. T., Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1832 to 1868 (Oxford, 1977), p. 67Google Scholar.
61 Gash, , Reaction and Reconstructionin English Politics (n. 5 above), p. 77. Kitson Clark, p. 439Google Scholar.
62 See n. 39 above.
63 Soloway, R. (Prelates and People: Ecclesiastical Social Thought in England, 1783–1852 [London, 1969], p. 400) estimates that 3,000 hostile petitions were sentGoogle Scholar.
64 Quoted in Machin, p. 66.
65 Chadwick (n. 16 above), 1:341–42; Gash, , Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics, p. 89Google Scholar.
