tionally misunderstood for education by the clergy. He (the Archdeacon) disclaimed all such intention on his part, and he thought he might say on the part of the whole of the clergy of the diocese. Their earnest wish was to kindle more and more the zeal of the laity of the Church of of England; for though they believed the Church to be a spiritual body, divinely founded, and to have an apostolical ministry, they believed that in the work of education there was a large amount of detail which did not properly attach to the office of the clergy. The office of the clergy was of a higher character in many respects. Their duties principally related to the administration of the sacraments, public teaching in the Church, and the constant and careful guidance of the flock committed to their charge. The duty of education was that of the parent first, and primarily by nature and by God's revealed will. Another misunderstanding that prevailed was, that the clergy, by the course of opposition on which they had entered, desired to offer obstacles to the Government, whereas the great wish of the clergy was to remove obstacles from their path (hear, hear). It was their desire, as it was their duty, to co-operate in all things lawful and Christian with the State; and so far as the education of the country was consistent with the principles of the Church, their duty was to co-operate with the State in promoting its extension. By education, they meant the training of baptized children in their religious and social duties, and it was impossible, he contended, to separate religious and secular education, for they were not to be divided (hear, hear). Persons who spoke of separating secular and religious education evidently spoke of what they did not understand; but when the Church spoke of the education of children based upon the principles she professed, she talked of making them not only good Christians, but the best of citizens. But while the Church could thus fulfil the ends of the State, the State could not fulfil the ends of the Church. Another conclusion to which he arrived was, that so far as the State departed one hair's breadth from the principles of the Church in education, so far it departed from its own benefit, inasmuch as it introduced a lower standard of education than that which the Church maintained. So that when they saw any differences between the Church and the State, they might be assured that the conflict between good and evil was about to commence. They were now in that critical period. The Committee of Privy Council, representing the State, and the National Society, in a loose sense of the term, representing the Church, differed upon points of very material importance connected with the subject of education. In 1846 the secretary of the National Society observed ("observed," as though he was star-gazing) that the secretary of the Committee of Privy Council on Education was recommending certain formulas, and that the secretary of the Committee of Council was generally successful in bringing his recommendations to a successful issue. Upon that ensued the correspondence which had taken place between Dr. Kay Shuttleworth and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It appeared from an early portion of that correspondence, that on the 28th June, 1847, the Committee of Council passed a minute, though it was not made public till some time afterwards, in which they appeared to have converted their recommendation of the management clauses into a requirement. These clauses, and indeed all the measures of the Committee of Privy Council had been cautiously, and from time to time, put forward; whereas the Church demanded, as she certainly had a right to demand, that the whole scheme should be put forth at once, so that all persons interested in the question might know on what sort of a basis they were working, and what security they were to have for future exertion. Such then being the present state of things, he came to practical measures; and these, he thought, resolved themselves into two-1st. He believed that it would be most important that a memorial should be addressed to the National Society, strongly expressive of their opinions on the disputed points, and earnestly recommending that certain alterations hitherto contended for should be pressed upon the acceptance of the Committee of Privy Council; 2nd. That they should proceed to address the Legislature, praying for a final measure, whereby they might distinctly ascertain how they stood upon the question of education-that they might henceforth contend against the introduction of new and visionary schemes, and free from those constant mutations with which they had of late been so frequently annoyed. The Archdeacon dwelt upon these points at some length, and concluded by expressing a hope that the differences which had sprung up between the civil and ecclesiastical powers might be amicably settled, and that both would unite in some effective plan for securing the amelioration of the condition of the people. The Rev. W. Eedle, Rector of South Bersted, moved the following resolution:- "That it is the duty of the clergy and laity to extend and improve, by all means in their power, the education of the people, and to render an active and effectual cooperation to the State in all its measures relating to education, so far as they are consistent with the faith and principles of the Church. That this co-operation is at the present time unhappily impeded, partly by general mistrust arising from the want of clear and certain laws defining the character and powers of the Committee of Council on Education, and partly from the objectionable nature of progressive plans which from time to time have been proposed by that committee, and that the existence of such mistrust is greatly to be deplored, as opposing a serious obstacle to the work of education, discouraging the efforts of those who are now zealously labouring to educate the people, and laying the seeds of future variance and division. That in this view the suspension of correspondence between the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society is to be lamented, especially as the cause of it is to be found in the refusal of the Committee of Council. That there appears to be no adequate remedy for the mistrust which has been excited, and no way to restore their confidence, without the effectual co-operation of the Church with the State, which can only be secured by an act of Parliament defining and fixing the powers of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and its relations with the schools of the Church." -The Rev. Stair Douglass seconded the resolution, which, after some discussion, was agreed to, as was also the following petition : "To the Right Hon. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled. "The humble petition of the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Chichester, "Showeth-That your petitioners are deeply convinced, that it is the duty of the clergy and laity to extend and improve, by all means in their power, the education of the people, and to render an active and effectual co-operation to the State in all its measures relating to education, so far as they are consistent with the faith and principles of the Church; that this co-operation is at the present time unhappily impeded, partly by general mistrust, arising from the want of clear and certain laws, defining the character and powers of the Committee of Council on Education, and partly from the objectionable nature of progressive plans which from time to time have been proposed by that committee. That the existence of such mistrust is greatly to be deplored as opposing a serious obstacle to the work of education, discouraging the efforts of those who are now zealously labouring to educate the people, and laying the seeds of future variance and division. That in this view the suspension of correspondence between the Committee of Privy Council is to be lamented, especially as the cause of it is to be found in the refusal of the Committee of Council. That there appears to be no adequate remedy for the future mistrust which has been excited, and no way to restore their confidence, without the effectual co-operation of the Church with the State, which can only be ensured by an act of Parliament de fining and fixing the powers of the Committee of Privy Council, and its relations with the schools of the Church. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Right Honourable House to pass such an act as may clearly define the extent of the powers of the Committee of Council on Education, by laying a fixed and permanent foundation on which they may proceed with confidence in the work of national education. "And your petitioners, &c., will ever pray. The Bishop of Glasgow proposed the following resolution : :- "That the clergy of this archdeaconry view with much alarm and distrust the increased influence which the Government have acquired, and are continually acquiring, on the system on which the Church schools are managed, especially as in its semiofficial publication of the Committee of Council on Education a preference is plainly declared for this foreign combined system of education, and a disinclination is as plainly shown to relax this rule, by which all children in Church schools are required to be learnt the Church Catechism; that the clergy of this archdeaconry are sensible that the concessions recently made are neither few nor unimportant, but they consider that these concessions are still insufficient after past expe rience; that the principal points for further concession are-that every inspector shall be in holy orders; that care shall be taken not to countenance the notion that religious and secular education shall be divided; and that the minister of the parish shall have control not only over the religious instruction of the scholars, but over the school itself in its moral and religious discipline. That, if founders of schools be desirous of an appeal from the Committee of Privy Council to the bishop of the diocese, it shall not be a bar to a grant of money. That, in the opinion of the clergy of this archdeaconry, no arrangement between the National Society and the Committee of Council should be effected, until the opinion of the Church generally be taken on the subject."-His Lordship advocated these several points, and contended that, unless speedy attention were paid to them, the result would be most disastrous to the Church.-The Rev. T. Sockett, Rector of Petworth, seconded the resolutions, and they were adopted. It was agreed that the petition to the House of Lords should be entrusted to the Bishop of Chichester for presentation, and that to the House of Commons to the Earl of March.-A vote of thanks to Archdeacon Manning for convening the meeting closed the proceedings. To Correspondents. The Title and Index to the volume for 1848 will be given in the February number. R. H. is thanked for his suggestions, but, unfortunately, the Stamp-office regulations do not allow the price to be attached without payment of advertisement duty. We beg to thank Mr. E. C. Ecclesall, of Sheffield, for the Card of Attendance and Conduct used in his school. It is hardly so original as to be worth publication. S. H.-We know of one village, "Shanklin," Isle of Wight, which is without a school; but we have no means, from official sources, of answering your interesting question. We regret that we have not room for Mr. Boyes's communication. H. W. W.'s geographical paper hardly suits us: it is not constructed on any philosophical principle. Mr. Humphries is thanked for his communication. The Editor refers him to the Papers on Parsing and Paraphrasing. These are Model Lessons on those important subjects. A Model Lesson on Reading is in course of preparation. I. T. B.-The volume referred to was issued separately by Mr. Murray, but we do not think it can be obtained so now. R. S.-We regret that we have not room for the Christmas Carol; it shall be noticed when the music is published. E. S.-The answers to the Questions on Pedagogy in our next. Notices of Books are unavoidably postponed. PARIS, AND ITS SCHOOLS UNDER THE REPUBLIC. BY AN EYE-WITNESS. (Continued from page 14.) An elaborate article upon the system of public education in France, from the decree of the National Convention for the organization of primary schools, passed on the 12th of December, 1792, to the present time, has recently appeared in the "English Journal of Education." The leading features of that system are therefore known to your readers, and need not be recapitulated here. It is difficult to form an exact estimate of the amount of knowledge possessed by the normal pupils, or teachers in training, at the Primary Normal Schools, at the close of their course of instruction. There is reason to fear that this course is too multifarious and extensive to be profoundly understood. It is not of the kind to produce modesty or reserve, nor marked by the prominence of any exact subject of study likely to discipline the understanding. It does not comprehend a scheme of theology, properly so called, and its mathematics are brief and desultory. The young men who have been whirled through such a cycle are likely to have a smattering of many things, and the power of applying themselves diligently to none. It is just the course to make a conceited sciolist; one of that ambitious and discontented race of teachers who have yet to learn themselves, and of whom the late King of Prussia is said to have remarked, that "they think they could assist the Deity in the creation of the world." I do not mean to bring so harsh and so sweeping a charge against the elementary teachers of France, but merely state an opinion as to the danger of their studies. Surely these, being of so multifarious a character, would require to be balanced by a strong and impulsive religious element. Such, under the present constitution of the national system of education, cannot be the case. On inquiring of a distinguished French author if Jews were admitted on the same terms as Roman Catholics into the Primary Normal Schools, his reply was, "Yes, they may be; and now, that Algeria is a constituent part of France, Mahometans also." The practical effect of this arrangement must be sceptical indifference, rather than religious fervour, in the minds of the pupils. Points of debate would be gradually ignored. The tendency would be unfavourable to positive and strong belief of any kind. Negation would inevitably be the order of the day. These views have been not a little corroborated by the perusal of a volume, in thick octavo, entitled, "Manuel des Aspirants au Brevet de capacité pour l'enseignment primaire VOL. VII.-NO. II. B supérieur, contenant les réponses aux Questions qui peuvent être adresseés aux aspirants sur l'instruction morale et religieuse, les devoirs de l'Instituteur; l'histoire sainte, la géographie sacrée; les procédés de la lecture, de l'écriture, la grammaire Française, l'arithmétique, le système légal des poids et mesures; le dessin linéaire, la géométrie, l'arpentage; la physique, la chimie; l'histoire naturelle, la géographie, l'histoire ancienne, du moyen âge, moderne, et de France; le chant; les méthodes d'enseignement; la loi sur l'instruction primaire, &c. &c. Par M. M. Lamotte, Inspecteur de l'instruction primaire de la Seine; Achille Meissas, Auteur de plusieurs ouvrages d'Education; Michelot, ancien élève de l'Ecole Polytechnique. Ouvrage autorisé par le conseil royal de l'Université. Sizième edition." This volume, countersigned by Villemain, authorized by the University, and designed apparently to be to the elementary teacher what Hutton's well-known compilation was formerly to the mathematician, is, in plain English, a book of cram. While its intention is excellent-that of presenting in one portable volume all that is required to be known by an elementary teacher, in order that he may pass his examination—the book is a failure, as far as the true objects of education are concerned. It has apparently neither unity, nor order, nor proportion; and its defects are in a great measure owing to the encyclopædical character of the knowledge required by the French University in its candidates for diplomas. Were I not afraid of being flippant, I should describe the whole system of the university as a sort of polytechnic academy, in which everything was taught, including "Deportment, single-stick, and use of the globes." In order to show that my remarks are not overcharged, let me extract some passages from this favourite volume, in its sixth edition, promoted, as I have said, by the central authorities on education. No short-lived brochure, this—at least, as likely to last as the dynasties and constitutions of the country which has produced it ;-no little volume got up by some speculative printer in the newspaper office of a university town, to help an idler in concealing his ignorance; no "summary or compendium," to be hidden from the gaze of tutors and governors, as if it contained heresy and sedition; but authorized; and that not by some independent normal school, struggling amidst littlenesses; nor by a single college, nor by a simple union of colleges, such as are our universities, Kaт'èçoxηv: but by the grave and great University of France, Minister of Instruction, Council, and all. 66 One might have thought that in such a volume, published beneath the very shadows of the Sorbonne, the Pantheon, and the Louvre, if prolixity were pardonable anywhere, it would have been in the chapter dedicated, in the department of ancient history, to |