In 1840, the legislative council sanctioned the establishment of a college and the erection of buildings. The cost was variously estimated from £12,000. The Queen's school, intended to be afterwards a preparatory institution, was first formed. The denominational leaning of the college awakened considerable opposition. The Roman catholic vicar-general declared that the authorised version of the scriptures was a mutilation, and compiled to suit the views of the translators; that catholics could not pray with protestants; and urged other objections, not new to theologians, but which appeared outrageous to a colony accustomed to a liberal intercourse. The presbyterians prayed for religious equality, and other sects joined in the general aversion to an episcopal institution at the public cost.
The government, by the advice of Mr. Gell and the archdeacon, selected New Norfolk as the college site. On the 6th of November, 1840, the foundation-stone was laid by Sir John Franklin, assisted by the members of council and heads of departments, and by Captains Ross and Crozier, of the antarctic expedition. "The college was dedicated to Christ,—intended to train up Christian youth in the faith as well as the learning of Christian gentlemen."[226] The night following the ceremony, thieves overturned the foundation, and stole the inscription and the coins. But difficulties more fatal beset the institution. The pride of equality and the ambition of pre-eminence, not less than tenderness of conscience on either side, prevented a compromise. In private life concessions are found compatible with the utmost zeal, but the rivalry of churches has never been adjusted. The Queen's school, the pilot institution, was not more successful. At an expense of £1000 per annum twenty-three scholars (1843), for the most part children of government officers and opulent shopkeepers, were educated. The institution was broken up by Sir E. Wilmot; and a petition, signed by great numbers, requested the erection of a school on a more comprehensive basis. This memorial being remitted to the secretary of state, Lord Stanley replied (1846) that, when established, a proprietary school would receive from the crown whatever assistance the public resources might justify. The direct interference of the government in the education of the higher classes thus terminated.
The schools for the working classes were originally controlled by the government. Mr. P. A. Mulgrave, many years chairman of quarter sessions, arrived with the appointment of superintendent. This office was, however, filled by the senior chaplain; and until 1838 the schools were exclusively episcopalian. The altered policy of the crown, in reference to religion, suggested a change in the organisation of the schools. A letter, written by Sir Wm. Herschell, was transmitted by Lord John Russell, detailing the system at the Cape of Good Hope, and recommending the British and Foreign system for colonial adoption. On this plan schools were established in 1838, subject to a board nominated by the crown. It was intended to comprehend all denominations. The clergy of the Anglican church were from the first hostile to comprehension. Archdeacon Hutchins demanded that if an exclusive system were no longer attainable, a fixed sum should be divided among the different denominations, to be expended in separate schools, in proportion to the money issued under the church act. The laity in general, however, did not object to the union of all sects on the plan proposed; and to the last the British system was supported by a considerable majority, including clergymen of every sect, both protestant and catholic.
In New South Wales an attempt was made to establish the Irish system, the school books of which were sanctioned by the chief prelates of the protestant and catholic churches in Ireland. The protestant bodies were, however, averse to the exclusion of the "entire scriptures," as a discreditable compromise, and met the project with decided resistance. A committee, of which one half were episcopalians, organised under the sanction of Bishop Broughton, called on the laity to exert themselves in the "holy cause"[227] of opposition to the project of Sir Richard Bourke; and they succeeded in its defeat: but when, after their victory, they met to collate their plans for further action, the meeting was abruptly terminated by Dr. Broughton, who declared that he could co-operate in no scheme not framed on the recognition of the episcopal catechism and clerical superintendence. Denominational schools were, therefore, established, and those abuses arose inseparable from a plan which makes men the assessors of their own pecuniary claims.
A committee of the legislative council recommended the establishment of a general system, on the plan of Lord Stanley (1844). They alleged that by the denominational system more than half were left uneducated, and that the thinness of population, the diversity of opinion, the inferior character of the schoolmasters, and the great expense compared with the benefit secured, enforced the importance of a general and comprehensive scheme. Sir George Gipps warmly seconded these opinions, but was compelled to yield to the strength of the opposition offered by the clergy, and which no concession short of ecclesiastical control was deemed sufficient to remove. The agitation of this subject for several years has lessened none of the difficulties which attended it, and it remains a vexed question for solution by future legislators.
When the British system was established in Van Diemen's Land, masters were sent out by Lord John Russell, at the colonial cost. The schools were, however, regarded with increasing aversion by the episcopal clergy. Messrs. Lock and Fry, the last a clergyman and the author of a work on apostolical succession, visited the schools to report on them. They saw, or thought they saw, laxity, sectarianism, and partiality; and they gave the results of their enquiries in a copious publication. On the arrival of the Right Rev. Dr. Nixon this book was placed in his hands. He petitioned to be heard by counsel against the British system. His request being granted, he delivered an earnest address, in which he not only opposed the principle of the school, but reiterated many of the statements of Messrs. Lock and Fry. The Board of Education had, however, forwarded minute contradictions to these allegations; and Governor Wilmot resolved to support the schools until, on a full consideration of the adverse testimony, the secretary of state should otherwise determine (1843). Lord Stanley recommended the appointment of a commission of enquiry, which was accordingly confided to three episcopalian laymen, who acquitted the schools of most of the imputations of their former visitors. But the seals of the colonial-office had fallen into the hands of Mr. Gladstone. This event was fatal to the British system. The scholastic minister professed to examine elaborately the principles of colonial and church education, and came to the conclusion that a scheme of biblical instruction, confided to various teachers of uncertain creeds, was too little for the churchmen, ought to be too much for the catholics, and could only be agreeable to independents. He argued that church teaching includes all that a church believes, and that its inculcation was necessary to meet the fair requirements of religious liberty. Acting on a suggestion in his despatch, Sir William Denison granted a fixed sum per head to the denominational schools, dissolved the board of education, and appointed as inspector the son of the illustrious Arnold.
FOOTNOTES:
[225] Lord Glenelg's despatch, 1836.
[226] Sir J. Franklin's Narrative, p. 77.
[227] Address of Committee.