Infant Schools and Dissenters: A Vindication of "a letter of affectionate remonstrance," &c., from the mistakes respecting it made by William Geary ... and from the misrepresentations of it made by ... John Perowne ... in their respective pamphletsAlexander, John
Religion
Infant Schools and Dissenters: A Vindication of "a letter of affectionate remonstrance," &c., from the mistakes respecting it made by William Geary ... and from the misrepresentations of it made by ... John Perowne ... in their respective pamphlets
Alexander, John
Church and education -- England
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St. Andrew’s
Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers, that it had been
determined on, at a meeting held in the Guildhall, to which none but
members of the Establishment were invited. William Moore, Esq. was in
the chair, and the following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the
system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this city;
and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its advantages, _that
there should be an examination of the children now receiving instruction
in the Infant Schools of this city_.” The meeting which adopted that
resolution, appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination
of the schools—and, whatever private understanding there might be with
Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what the resolution stated;
and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as accomplishing “his own
speculation,” but as the agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its
resolution into effect. I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in
the eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne out by all the
facts of the case.
I said nothing in my “Letter” to intimate that the children of Dissenters
would be excluded from the proposed schools. My explanation of the
“Advertisement” which occasioned the “Letter” was this: “I understand it
to mean, that the members of no other Christian church shall be allowed
to participate with you _in the formation of the society_, _or in its
committee_, _or in its operations_.” If, however, I had expressed a fear
that the church catechism might be introduced, or that some arrangement
might be made which would prevent Dissenters from sending their children
to the schools, the speeches at the public meeting, and Mr. Geary’s
pamphlet, satisfactorily negative such an apprehension. All parties have
united in declaring that _the schools will be open to all classes_, and
that there will be no rules nor formulas against which Dissenters can
object. At the public meeting, as reported in the newspapers, the Dean
expressly stated, that “they had no desire to exclude the children of any
persons of whatever religion, because _the children would not be
instructed in any points that any person might not learn_; as they would
be taught to worship and adore God, to know the merits of our Saviour, to
fear God and honour the King, and to live in peace and unity with one
another. Their rules, said he, would be _open to persons of all
denominations_, who would have the opportunity of sending their children,
if they accorded with those rules.” Mr. G. Seppings “stated that the
school would be open to the children of persons of _all denominations_,
who might choose to send them.” In full accordance with these decisive
statements, Mr. Geary says, “I cannot help again recurring to a mistake
into which my reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account