« ZurückWeiter »
nature. To discover this law, and to learn by experience the bearing which it has upon the development of the child, was the great object of his present exertions. He had thrown off all the fetters by which human society generally disqualifies man for that higher freedom in which God would lead him on.” Need we wonder at the indomitable enthusiasm of a man entertaining such an estimate of the nature of his calling ? He ignores recognised modes of instruction; he braves the accusations of ignorance and malevolence, and through seeming defeats wins his way to ultimate, acknowledged success.
Your matter-of-fact men, who can only see what is before their eyes, pronounced the Stantz experiment a failure, like his preceding. Just as Pestalozzi was bringing it to that condition which would have demonstrated its success, the Austrians took possession of Stantz, and the asylum was broken up. A few who took a deeper interest in it than the average public, because more capable of appreciating Pestalozzi's efforts, sincerely lamented its fate; but the more general remark was, “It is a pity indeed that the Austrians should have driven him away; had he been left to himself, he would not have gone on much longer, and then he would have been without excuse." Scorned thus by the very persons for whose good he was spending his soul's best energics, he fled for sympathy to Nature, the great bosom friend of all humanity, whose counsels are ever wise, and in whose vast and beautiful economy the meanest, honest worker is never scorned or wronged. In the solitudes of the Alps he found that repose from his labours which the scorn of his countrymen denied him in society.
Recruited in health, bodily and mental, by his sojourn among the mountains, he returned to his work with, if possible, increased zeal and hopefulness. By dint of influence—for some of the more discerning were now beginning to appreciate him-he succeeded in gaining admittance to a public school, where he continued his experiments until he alarmed the parents of the pupils by his misunderstood innovations. Discarded from this post, he soon found another in an infant school, where he was allowed to teach as he chose, people being indifferent about what seemed to them child's work in more senses than one, but which Pestalozzi knew to be as difficult and as delicate work as the more advanced stages of education.
We are now approaching the realisation of the grand purpose of his life. While pursuing his experiments, he had attracted the notice of earnest, shrewd men. Fisher, one of the under-secretaries of state to the Helvetic Government, had been ordered to form national schools, and had begun by organising one in the Castle of Burgdorf, under the superintendence of Kruesi, a skilful teacher. Fisher, deeply interested in education, which he had carefully studied, watched attentively the experiments of Pestalozzi, and rendered him a very important service, by introducing him to Kruesi; for after his death they joined schools, which were then put under the complete control of Pestalozzi.
STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS IN THE MATTER OF
NATIONAL EDUCATION. 1. Bill to make better provision for Scottish Parochial Schoolmasters, without materially disturbing the existing system-introluced into House of Lords by Lord Monteagle. (Read for the first time.)
2. Bill to provide for the Education of the People in Scotland in Parishes and Burghs in which the existing means are insufficient-introduced into House of Lords by Lord Kinnaird. (Read for the first time.)
3. Bill to regulate and make further provision for Parochial Schools in Scotland; and
4. Bill to make provision for Education within Burghs in Scotlandintroduced into House of Commons by Lord Advocate. (Both read for the first time.)
It is with a heavy heart that, at the close of another month, we address ourselves to a review of the events which bear upon our subject. Although our anticipations of progress were sufficiently subdued, we must almit that we were not prepared for retrogression. It is not that we looked for the passing of important measures—we thought, and still think, that Lord Monteagle's Parish School Bill, in its original form, or modified so as to remove the stain of injustice with regard to teachers whose dissent is not of a nature to disqualify them, might be carried as a matter of expediency-more we did not see reason to expect—but that we should have to render so poor an account of the three motions no longer included in our list, is discouraging indeed. Lord Granville's Bill for England has been withdrawn for the present Session, and this, in consequence of the refusal of the House of Commons, by a majority of 102, to deliberate seriatim on the whole or any portion of Lord John Russell's Resolutions when brought before a Committee of the whole House, according to notice. The tone of the debate has conveyed to the public mind the impression that, resiling from its old position, the House of Commons has declared against State interference with the Education of the people of England. This, however, we can hardly believe, nor is the real state of the case likely to be apparent until the votes for educational purposes shall have been submitted to this so marvellously converted assembly. Should "second thoughts" but confirm the sentence apparently pronounced-should these recruits to the voluntary cause by consistent action relieve the public purse of the annual strain of £100,000, or thereby--which has been forcibly extracted from it in the name of voluntaryism—then we shall understand to what extent the Commons of England have retrograded in this momentous matter; whereas, in the meantime, we but labour under an undefined dread.
We do not deplore the issue of Lord John Russell's well-meant efforts, as partisans, for we have already given it as our opinion that "they were not well chosen, nor addressed to the points which chiefly call for a settlement.” It has been well urged by Sir James Graham that details are proposed first instead of the principles involved in them. The first Resolution contained a vague statement about the minutes of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, while the next four were confined to dogmatic assertions on the subject, not of inspection, but of how it should be conducted. Yet, for the sake of these five propositions, Lord John would fain have seen the debate proceeded with. To us the first Resolution does seem of sufficient importance, for it would have afforded us, had we had a voice in the matter, an opportunity of moving as an amendment, " That the minutes of the Committee of Privy Council on Education be so remodelled that the injustice of sectarian and unlawfulness of Non-Protestant endowments be no more perpetrated.” We fear, however, that the system
which appears so objectionable to us, disinterested and conscientious spectators, has clouded the vision of the majority by means of the advantages it confers. Certainly no such consideration invested this Resolution with importance in the eyes of its framer, nor had it a single opponent on this
The country need not therefore make much ado about the fate of mere details. The Resolution with regard to Charitable Trusts involved a weighty principle; but to mix it up with matters with which it had no necessary connection was most unwise, and Lord John Russell has to attribute his defeat, in no small degree, to this mistake. As to the intrinsic merits of the Resolution, we opine that when so many learned and good men have considered it justifiable and expedient to give a salutary direction to the pious intentions of donors whose eyes cannot see, nor their wills be changed by the altered state of circumstances or of insight, there are fair prospects of the question being one day settled in the way proposed, if the subject be brought forward in a regular manner.
We come now to the consideration of Lord John Russell's principles as enunciated in subsequent Resolutions. It may be safely asserted, that the rocks. on which his scheme principally foundered, were the dogmas that rates might—under certain circumstances must-be levied, and that compulsion should be applied to employers with a view to securing the education of the children employed. The watchwords round which the majority rallied were, “ Protection to voluntary efforts," and, “The liberty of Old England.” With the first of these we can sympathise in some measure. We deem it a well-attested fact, that the establishment of institutions supported by rates has ever been fatal to the action of beneficent endeavours as a competing factor. There are other and parallel channels open to it, however, and a good man will always find scope for usefulness, although the forcing others to do their duty may close some particular ones against him. This much we will say on the subject, that if any measure can be devised which would induce the discharge of parental duties, and afford the benevolent opportunity of doing real good, while at same time making provision for the supply of possible deficiencies, and the withholding of bonus to the less deserving, we would hail it with gladness. But do the benevolent deserve all the praise lavished upon them? We fear they do not. It may be that we have to thank them for the extension of sectarian rancour to spheres which might have been preserved from it—for much useless expenditure by reason of the maintenance of competition instead of cooperation–for much dereliction from duty on the part of parents avowedly esteeming the doctrines inculcated pernicious—for the free or cheap education of many whose parents can well afford to bear the whole expense, while, as all admit, the Arabs are left to ignorance and vice; and we may add, precisely in those places where the want is greatest is the supply smallest. If the founders and supporters of schools were acting on “patriotic” principles—if they were looking beyond sect and neighbourhood and anticipating the action of Government by overtaking its work, then would they deserve praise of their country which can now but deplore while
acknowledging their misdirected zeal. “ The liberty of the subject!" what is this battle-cry worth? Much, evidently to the mercenary and in-humane employer-to the selfish or necessitous parent. Little to the children. It is a sickening thought that, mayhap, our throne of commercial empire is founded on oppression and wrong: Is it right that labour should be so ill paid that the labourer cannot keep his children in being without the aid derived from their industry, and that the idea of his providing for their educational wants is in many cases preposterous? Withdraw children from the labour market, and their parents will, perforce, be more adequately remunerated, though Britain may, at first, no longer beat foreign countries in the cheapness of her wares, just as we abolished slavery, and the West Indies were beaten by Brazil. If we do not repent of the latter act, no more would we of the former. We said to the slaves, “be free," let us say to the children, “be educated." The owners had to pay for free, why should not employers pay for adult labour? Such considerations may serve to show the hollowness of the motto we are treating of in its present application. Lord John Russell is no enemy to British liberty. We think, however, his provisions for compelling them to come in ” were unhappy. The “ Manchester manufacturer," quoted by Lord R. Grosvenor, deserves a better hearing. His plan is that persons should not be allowed to employ labourers unless they can produce a certificate of some previous elucation; his opinion, that no objection, even in this free country, could be taken, and we would agree with him in toto if he would permit us to say should be taken. All manufacturers are not so liberal. It is one of the merits of Lord Kinnaird's Bill that he is in unison on this point with our liberal-minded employer; as we have pointed out on a former occasion, however, he renders his provisions almost nugatory by adopting too low a standard of qualification. On this head a good deal was declaimed during the late debates, but we cannot say there was much insight into the educational wants of a human being, no matter how humble, displayed. Of course, all that Parliament should fix is a minimum standard, but we must have something higher than the ability to read.
It will be seen from our revised list of measures that the Lord Advocate's Bills for Scotland have now been read for the first time. The second readings, fixed originally for the 18th April, have been delayed by other business, and at the time of our going to press they are still in abeyance. It is hardly to be expected that he will proceed with his Burgh School Bill, as it is identical in principle with that of Lord Granville, for England, already withdrawn in consequence of Lord John Russell's defeat. Its object is to give Town Councils permission to enforce a rate for educational purposes. Now although it meets in Scotland with favour from many, and opposition from few, and although some English members seemed to have a desire, although not the power, to confine their strictures on Lord John Russell's Resolutions to them, as applied to England, still the evil of a local rate for such purposes was too completely demonstrated to admit of its employment being sanctioned even in Scotland viewed through English eyes. We believe that the sole reason why such proposals are mado is the wish to secure local management. But we would ask, might not the management of schools be vested in Town Councils, or similar popularly elected Boards, supposing the schools maintained out of the ordinary revenue or by means of a national tax? Such management, however, dare not involve the consideration of any vexed question. Were we, for instance, Romanists, we would not feel a whit less aggrieved if we were rated by authority of a Town Council for the support of a school to which we could not conscientiously send our children than if it were by authority of Parliament. Nay, would we not feel much more so? What, for instance, is the decision of some of the leading members of the House of Commons on the subject of the religious element? Why that nothing short of secular education is consistent with the enacting of a rate. What weight then would an opposing decision of a local Board carry? Of this there can be no doubt, that, if there is to be but one class of schools, justice makes this demand. We parry so hateful an alternative, however, with the question, By what law is it forbidden to have two sets of schools, “ Religious Schools” and “Secular Schools,” and to let the people individually make their choice?
A very brief notice of the Lord Advocate's Parochial School Bill will suffice. It differs mainly from that introduced by Lord Monteagle on behalf of Lord Kinnaird in the provisions affecting teachers. The Lord Advocate's throws the schools open to all, leaving the election in the hands of the present electors. Viewed as an act of justice, this is most laudable; but when we expressed a wish for this change, we did not consider we were asking for the abolition of “tests." Of the test, was a necessary consequence, but we have yet to learn that because a particular test is unworthy of being continued, all tests must be equally so.
By all means abolish what is unjust, but why what is both just and expedient? This provision not only will, but ought to prove fatal to this measure; and our only hope of a more satisfactory settlement of the Parish School question than Lord Kinnaird's Bill offers, lies in the chance of its being modified in the way we have pointed out, while some suitable test is devised which can be assented to by all those whose tenets do not prohibit their taking office.
Although the Lord Advocate only gave notice of two Bills, he actually contemplated the introduction of three-the third embodying the features of his last year's Bill, and meeting the shortcoming of the other one. This circumstance accounts for the absence of provision for Scotland on a comprehensive plan. In this respect Mr Moncrieff has displayed sound discretion, and, we would fain trust, a real desire to see the evil of ignorance reduced, no matter in how small a degree. To him, also, the hostile decision on Lord John Russell's Resolutions will sound as a death-knell to his hopes of effecting more than a very little in the way of legislation. But surely the people of Britain do not think thus of State Education. They may not have any well-defined views on the subject, but opposed to it they are not. A general election is not an improbable conjuncture. We would urge our fellow-countrymen to take care that their good wishes for the unoffending children be thoroughly represented whenever a new Parliament shall assemble.
Second Notice. D. O. IIIll. This respectable painter exhibits six pictures this year, but none of them rise above mediocrity. "320. The Bruce's Castle of Turnberry, Carrick Shore," painted for John Faed, R.S.A., appears to be the best in point of design and general management, but the colouring is very inky and dirty. Perhaps the drawing of the wave (which tumbles, however, somewhat lazily on the shore,) is the best point in the picture. “392. Ludlow Castle, anciently the residence of the Lords Presidents of Wales;” “198. Castle of the Mains, a residence of Claverhouse.”—These two pictures, though under different atmospheric effects, are pretty much alike in character. The sky tints of both are very sickly and insipid, though the one has a little more inkiness than the other. The trees of both seem stuck stiffly into the ground rather than to spring from it with the easy lines of natural growth. There is, too, a parallelism among the different trunks which aids this appearance. The drawing of the foliage is hard, stiff, and spotty-the leaves look like heavy, hard, round pellets about to drop off the branches, and in some cases the branches really are drawn as if drooping with their weight. All these things give this artist's pictures of these few years back a mannered and artificial appearance, which detracts from Nature without adding anything of technic or ideal