II. On that which is given to us on competent authority from other
places.
My reverend friend states at page 8, “that hitherto the labourers in the
cause of Infant education in this city have been principally Dissenters,
but it is well known that they have always desired and would have gladly
received a greater number of their brethren in the establishment as
coadjutors.” This is fairly coming to the point. There was no want of
courtesy—no lack of invitations, but there was a something about those to
whom those invitations were given, which kept them back. The few from
among the members of the Establishment who have, as is stated at page 6
and 7, so cordially and charitably joined in the direction and
management, are perhaps nearly all who could, even by increased exertion,
be drawn into active co-operation with the schools on their present plan;
and had this been tenaciously adhered to, the result of our united
exertions would have added but little to the present means of extending
the cause. The whole amount of experience within our own locality so
powerfully discourages the attempt to coalesce, that I think no one would
be induced to try the experiment, who was well informed as to those facts
which bear upon the question.
II. Of the experience furnished by distant societies, there doubtless
are some, where the union has been tried to great advantage. My reverend
friend cannot feel more intense satisfaction than I do, in thus
witnessing the joyful and happy state of brethren dwelling together in
unity. If, however, Mr. Wilderspin’s book be competent authority, it is
to be feared that the cases are few. It more resembles a chronicle of
failure than of success—it savours more of antipathies than of harmony,
and leads to discouragement rather than to hope.
Of the many cases therein mentioned, I will refer to only two, and only
to those because they have been selected by my reverend friend, as among
those where a satisfactory union had been effected. The one is at
Leicester, and is noticed at page 16—the other at Taunton, at page 17.
The case of Leicester was one, of all others that have occurred or that
can occur, the most painfully illustrative of the difficulty of effecting
an efficient co-operation between parties so uncongenial. Mr. Wilderspin
has given but a partial outline of the case in merely quoting the speech
of Mr. Babington.
It was my unhappiness to be present at that meeting. The place itself
called up sacred recollections of days gone by. It was there where
Robinson the Episcopalian and Hall the Nonconformist had been wont to
meet with kindred affection, and to unite their powerful energies in
advocating the cause of religion and benevolence as occasion might offer.
It was on this spot, sacred to Christian union and charity, where the
sweet yet brilliant eloquence of Hall had afterwards burst forth into
that memorable strain of eulogy on the character of his deceased
Christian brother—that now the Christian might have wept tears of blood,
on seeing the biographer of Robinson bearing the rude personal taunts of
Hall’s talented, misguided successor, followed by another speaker,
equally talented, whose coarse expressions and personalities were utterly
at variance with his Christian profession, and backed by the yells and
hootings of men of every creed, and men of no creed at all. The
individual on whom all this was lavished was, by birth and education, a
gentleman—by profession and practice an active, pious, indefatigable,
minister,—the brother of Baron Vaughan, and whose only offence was, that
he had stated his opinions (erroneous as I conceive) in language
temperate and respectful. The weak and feeble results of this meeting is
told in the words of Mr. Wilderspin, who says at page 95, that “there are
now three schools, but, as they are managed by women, though they do
great good, the full amount of advantage is not secured.” The impression
upon my own mind is that it is all but a failure.
Nor is the quotation of the Taunton case more happy—Mr. Wilderspin’s
account of this at page 118, exhibits clearly another instance of the
difficulty of such an union, and that the altercation terminated in the
establishment of two schools—one by each party.
That there are cases of happy and beneficial union I admit, and I rejoice
in the fact that there are such; but that the majority of cases in large
towns are so I do greatly fear and doubt. My reverend friend quotes the
authority of Mr. Wilderspin, at page 18, in a manner which requires
qualifying. He says, “These quotations abundantly prove that the
originator of Infant schools, who has visited many of the towns in the
three kingdoms, and who is, perhaps, better qualified than any other
person to form an opinion as to the best mode of conducting them, is
decidedly opposed to the exclusive system advertised for Norwich.”
Now I do humbly submit to the candid reader of Mr. Wilderspin’s book,
that the cases he there notices, various as they are in character, do not
lead to this conclusion. There may be cases, and I hope there are many,
where “the union of Churchmen and Dissenters is delightful;” but that
there are others, which do but too plainly tell the sad tale of the
results of conflicting elements, cannot be denied. Much stress has been
laid throughout on the value of the testimony of Mr. Wilderspin, and some
of his statements have been so interpreted, as to bear strongly in favour
of the union, when, as I have clearly shewn, they have a directly
contrary tendency. His book bears evidence that his object is to promote
infant instruction without any distinction of the party who patronises
it. He is the willing agent of the Episcopalian or the Nonconformist;
and, however he may rejoice when the state of feeling will admit of an
union of all parties in one common bond of Christian love, he is too keen
an observer of the workings of human prejudices, not to see that there
are circumstances which would, in many cases, render an union an occasion
rather for widening than diminishing the existing chasm.
In conclusion, I cannot help again recurring to a mistake into which my
reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout implied—in regard to
the exclusion of the children of dissent. He may rest assured that
nothing is decided with respect to the discipline of the schools, which
can possibly be held to be an impediment with any conscientious
Dissenter, who desires to place his child there:—no impeding tests or
testimonials on entering the school,—no offensive rituals when there.
’Tis one of misfortune’s worst mishaps to have a bad name, and the
Churchman is often slandered unwittingly. In the present case we claim
our constitutional privilege of being heard before condemnation; and,
while we expect not the approbation of the ultra, either within or
without the pale of the Establishment, we do expect to meet the cordial
sympathy of the good, the benevolent, the pious members of every
denomination. A word or two on the subject of my reverend friend’s
closing paragraph. Only let whatever is done, be done in the spirit of
love and of duty: unhappily the field is wide enough, and too wide for us
both. Let each, caring only for the public good, plant his school, not
to annoy his associate in the benevolent work, but to select the most
destitute district for its operation. To such a school there are, I have
no doubt, Churchmen who will be happy to contribute, if conducted on
sound principles; and I take my leave of my reverend friend’s letter in
the spirit which animated the patriarch of old, when he says, “LET THERE
BE NO STRIFE I PRAY THEE BETWEEN ME AND THEE, FOR WE ARE BRETHREN; IS NOT
THE WHOLE LAND BEFORE THEE? SEPARATE THYSELF I PRAY THEE FROM ME. IF
THOU WILT TAKE THE LEFT HAND, THEN I WILL GO TO THE RIGHT, OR IF THOU
DEPART TO THE RIGHT HAND, THEN I WILL GO TO THE LEFT.”
_Norwich_, _April_ 7_th_, 1836.
* * * * *
Norwich:
PRINTED BY JOSIAH FLETCHER.