Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

it does not seem unlikely that we are nearer a settlement of the question; for the spirit of opposition is giving place to that of compromise, as is the usual ending of selfish agitations. The present session may give us a Bill which will transfer the monopoly in the teacher's office from Established Churchmen to Evangelicals, make an addition to our supply of school-accommodation, and raise the emoluments of our schoolmasters; and the people of Scotland may shout aloud for joy at this blissful consummation, and consider themselves at liberty to banish all further thought on the subject. Soon, however, they will be roused from their slumber by a resuscitation of discontent, and they will find, to their cost, that compromise forms but a slippery foundation, more especially when avowedly accompanied by injustice to a portion of the community. The reasons, too, are easily discernible; for succeeding generations will partake of the same party-feelings, but not of the same appreciation of the status quo entailed upon them; and the victims of injustice will ever be impatient of the yoke, and ready to seize every favourable opportunity of throwing it off. The passing of a Bill, such as has been described, would thus be a very uncertain good; while the attainment of agreement on even a trifling point would prove the reverse. Let the principle "that every child ought to be educated," be approved of, and the partiality of the devotees of voluntaryism and of the Established Church; the overbearing of those who would claim for their own pretensions an exclusive hearing; and the uncertainty of the wranglers about the per-centage of educated subjects, which should be deemed sufficient, would all be put to rout, and he alone would have a right to speak who did so consistently with the recognised established principle.

Holding such views, we shall indeed be sorry if the scheme we are about to propound should be discarded; but it will be no small consolation if our effort but bring about an understanding on one or more salient points, which may serve as bases for ulterior progress.

We start with the assumptions, that all children are to be educated, that Government is called upon to interfere, and that compulsion, in some shape or other, must be resorted to. What treatment then should these children receive? It appears to us, that the great defect observable in the plans hitherto proposed is a onesidedness, which aims at placing all and sundry, indiscriminately, on one and the same footing; the secularists demanding that nought but secular instruction, or what they choose to understand by the term, be administered in the government schools; and churchmen no less determined upon having the youth of the nation taught the Church, or else the Shorter Catechism. Were Government to go to either of these extremes, it would exchange a system defective, as regards its working, for one rotten at the core, and such a procedure would not only defeat its own object, but call for the most bitter and justifiable animosity throughout the land. And this, indeed, to no inconsiderable extent, even among that particular section which it was alone calculated to satisfy.

The truth of all this is so obvious, that the friends of "National Education" have, for the most part, steered a middle course, and sought to devise some project which might reasonably be expected to conciliate at least a majority of the nation. But such halfmeasures operate always at a disadvantage, and too often fail of achieving the desired results, by reason of the necessity for holding principles but loosely, and not pushing them to their legitimate consequences. We would humbly suggest that Government, instead of striving to carry all the subjects it is called upon to care for to the one goal by one highway, should not scruple to bring them thither by different paths adapted to the wishes of the different parties. We hope to show how this might be accomplished by the improvement of the existing appliances, and the trivial addition of a new element, without rendering the machinery above one degree more complicated, than the single motion proposed by those who have written before us.

All classes of the community are agreed as to the necessity of educating our poor population, not merely on account of the benefits conferred upon the recipients, but also of its being the surest safeguard against anarchy and crime-a consideration to the nation at large not to be lost sight of, as it has a very direct bearing upon the financial side of the question. It has been already hinted that this harmony does not extend beyond the bare admission of the existence of this necessity, and that when it is proposed to meet it, the greatest disagreement prevails. Still the classification of the disputing sections is not very difficult, and we think that the task is done when we propose to speak of Protestants, Voluntaries, Romanists, and Non-Trinitarians. Hitherto Government has all but wholly confined the bestowal of its aid to the first of these classes, and has thought proper to do this by means of government grants, which it has conferred upon the different denominations according to the claims on its assistance which their co-operation entitled each to make. If this system could be made universal, so that Romanists, Jews, Unitarians, Secularists, and all the rest of them, were also assisted in proportion to their pretensions, it would be the fairest, though not the most effective, which could be devised.

But the peculiarity of our Constitution renders, or ought to render this impossible. According to the spirit of it, government is debarred from endowing ought else than Protestantism-not because of the hollow maxim that it is wrong to endow error, seeing that it can never be the function of a government to answer the question, "What is truth?" but because Great Britain is no more a kingdom than it is a Christian one, and not only that, but also a Protestant Even supposing the Cabinet to be composed of Romanists or Unitarians, it could as little decree anything contrary to Christianity or to Protestantism, without first introducing a change into the Constitution of the land, as the present ministry. Pleading guilty, however, as Government cannot avoid doing, to the charge of partiality, notwithstanding its trifling, in our opinion, unconstitutional

one.

concessions to Romanists, it must needs change its policy if anything like satisfaction is to animate the nation.

An unbiassed consideration of the fruits education may be made to bear will assist us in determining in what this change should consist. Now, every thinking man, be he a Romanist or a Unitarian, in short, of any religion whatever, must admit that the best opportunities for subjecting a people to the moral enactments of any creed are furnished by the binding of the young to its direct or indirect inculcation. Hence it will be found that in infidel schools morality is enforced by appeals to natural religion, and it may be assumed that no class of the community, not even atheists, who would invoke the sanctions of necessity, desires secular instruction as a thing intrinsically excellent, but simply on account of the expediency of having children, whose parents hold different opinions, taught together, when it is impossible to found morality on a basis approved of by all.

Furthermore, if a school be the best place for imparting religious instruction, and if, by the constitution of a country, the state religion be not only Christian and Protestant, but if the government be obliged to recognise and maintain a State Church, the question may be asked, ought it to avail itself of the vantage ground presented by national schools for the purpose of disseminating the tenets peculiar to such establishment? The answer we would give would be, "certainly," so far as is consistent with the recognition of the glorious principles of religious freedom. As rulers of a Protestant and Christian country, it must also be the duty of a good government to have the children of the Protestant majority trained in the formulas of that faith; and we see no reason why all who call themselves Protestants should not be able to procure such instruction for their offspring of a perfectly unsectarian character. They all acknowledge the authority of the Bible, and derive, to all intents and purposes, the same moral law from it, and they profess the same belief in the doctrine of justification by faith. It can surely be no difficult task for a teacher belonging to any Protestant denomination to rest contented with speaking of our heavenly Father as having been in Christ Jesus, His Son, reconciling the world to himself, and without discoursing on apostolical succession, predestination, the import of the sacraments, etc., etc.-the more so that children do not feel the want of a clear insight into the connection of the mysteries in which they believe, nor are called upon to do so by the demands of different sects for their church membership. If, therefore, the Bible be read-and we would rather see this reverently done by the teacher than have it blundered through like a common primer by the children-if its catholic portions be authoritatively impressed upon the young minds, and if they be taught to regard the God of nature as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we make bold to say, that all the requirements of a sound Christian education will have been met.

Perhaps it would be well to impart a knowledge of Church History,

as it is, doubtless, owing to the ignorance of the people on this subject, that the vulgar shallow infidelity has made such way. Our pastors have done well in preaching the Gospel with authority, but ill in neglecting to convince their flocks of the validity of their credentials. But where shall we find a text-book for this branch of instruction? Can any one write a history of the Church at all able, without speaking as a sectary? It is to be feared not; in like manner, however, as the Bible is the manual of all Christians, might Eusebius' history be used in government schools; and it is reasonable to expect, that when the people know the antecedents of Christianity, they will be able to withstand the reasonings of a Holyoake-they are not likely to be much endangered by the refined scepticism of a Newman --and to decide with more discrimination as to what religious body they should connect themselves with. This is the religious training we propose to give to all who attend Protestant schools; and it can be administered by a member of any Protestant denomination. The tests, then, for a teacher would be simply, that he should be such a member, and come under an obligation to restrict his teaching within the prescribed bounds.

But it was also a part of our plan that the tenets of the Established Church should be propagated to a certain extent, and we would propose the adoption of a system in use in many parts of Germany. At fixed times, during two hours weekly we think, a clergyman of the Established Church comes to the school, and after allowing all, whose parents wish it, to depart, he gives such special religious instruction as is accounted best by the Constitution of the land. Let the ministers of our Established Churches do likewise; let them teach the Church Catechism in England, and the Shorter Catechism in Scotland, to all those who have their parents' permission to attend; and it will be their legitimate sphere to endeavour to persuade those parents who refuse to grant it, as also that of dissenting clergymen to withstand them.

After thus providing for the education of the majority-in other words, of the Protestant portion of the community-there still remain the Voluntaries, Romanists, and Non-Trinitarians uncared for; the Voluntaries excluding themselves from the benefits of the proposed scheme, by their objection to State instruction altogether, or at all events, as regards the religious element; the Romanists by their refusal to have their children taught out of the authorised version of the Bible; and the Non-Trinitarians by their denial of the received truths of Christianity, and consequent conscientious determination to preserve their children from the inculcation of what appears to them to be error.

We have already said, that, according to the spirit of our Constitution, Government cannot pay for the dissemination of Romanist or Non-Trinitarian doctrines. We hold that it would be contrary to the rights of religious freedom to force the children of Voluntaries, Romanists, or Non-Trinitarians, to submit to the infliction of teaching disapproved of, either as regards its substantial or circumstantial

merits, by their natural guardians, and if such are to be instructed at all-we have maintained that every child ought to be instructed-it must be elsewhere than in the Protestant schools, the establishment of which we have advocated.

[ocr errors]

At this point, we would bid "Secular Education welcome, and propose that Government establish secular schools wherever and whenever cause shall have been shown why it should do so. Fix a minimum for the attendance of government schools, and whenever those who prefer secular education can show that they have the requisite number of children, open government schools to them, in which the wished-for instruction shall be imparted in the same manner as in the "classes" so liberally patronised by the wealthier portion of the community. It must be a first principle to have dogmatic teaching utterly excluded. Even in the matter of discipline, the bad must be held up to disapprobation, and the good to admiration, and no reason given. The children come to school to learn to read, write, calculate, etc., etc., and they must ever be treated simply as candidates for proficiency in such knowledge. The post of teacher in such schools might therefore be bestowed without reference to ought else than ability; and the sole requirement in the interest of religion would be, that the successful candidate bind himself to the exclusion of everything not really and truly implied in the term "secular instruction," from his teaching. It will be seen that we divide instruction into two branches: "religious" and "secular;" whatever pertains in any way to the former must be separated from the latter. Our so-called Secular Educationists do not carry out this principle, inasmuch as they undertake not merely to enforce but to teach morality; and, therefore, when we recommend the admission of the isolated secular element, we must not be understood to belong to this miscalled party. If it be objected that it is inconsistent to acknowledge that secular instruction may be given not only independently of, but without direct prejudice to religion, and yet to desire Protestant schools, we would answer, that it has never been maintained that, because the fox in the fable lost his brush, and his brethren did not feel inclined to adopt the soi-disant newest fashion, the lion king should have ordered them to be shorn of that graceful appendage, and be made companions in his misfortune; and no more ought those who are more fortunate in matters of faith to be reduced to the condition of them that are less so.

Guided by the consideration of justice, we have now sketched the outlines of a system of National Education, all-embracing, entitled, we humbly think, to the appellations of "Christian, equitable, efficient, and reasonable;" but whatever is really good will also be expedient, and to the test of expediency we shall now submit it.

It is desiderated that all children be instructed: here is provision for all. Government is at liberty to take compulsory measures of an indirect, or, if necessary, a direct character, because it ceases to enforce anything to which the conscience can object. The recognition of a State Church constrains Government to lose no opportunity of

« ZurückWeiter »