The Quarterly Review

Early in April will appear No. 1. of a new Periodical Publication, from the
CAMBRIDCE UNIVERSITY PRESS, to be called

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL RESEARCHES.

The sole object of this Work is the promotion of Classical Literature in its various
departments.

The Numbers will appear once in Three or Four Months. The Price of each will
be about 46.

Printed for JOHN MURRAY, 50, Albemarle-strect; J. Mawman, Ludgate-hill;
T. Payne, Pall-mall; Deighton, Cambridge; Parker, Oxford;

and W. Blackwood, Edinburgh.

THE

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

SEPTEMBER, 1812.

1812.

ART. I. First annual Report of the National Society for promo ting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church. With an Account of the Proceedings for the Formation of the Society, and an Appendix of Documents; together with a List of Subscribers to the Society in London, and to Societies in the Country, in Union with the National Society. Svo. pp. 198. London. Murray, Albemarle Street. FIFTEEN months have scarcely elapsed since the Lancasterian system was carrying all before it, and Mr. Lancaster had the prospect of becoming the national schoolmaster. By the Laucasterian system we understand the association of religious instruction, which is peculiar to Mr. Lancaster, with that principle of tuition which he employs in cominon with Dr. Bell. This principle, which is tuition by the scholars themselves, may be exercised in combination with any religion. It may with equal facility (as observed by a writer attached to Dr. Bell, and supposed to be well acquainted with his system) be made subservient under Dr. Bell, to the extension of the Church of England; under Mr. Lancaster to the spread of general knowledge, independent of peculiar doctrines; under the Mufti to the dissemination of the moral Code of Maho med; or under the Bramins to the improvement of society among the Hindoos.' We are far, indeed, from thinking, that the union of the general principle with the doctrine and discipline of the established church is the sole point, in which the system, as employed by Dr. Bell, is more entitled to the support of churchmen, than the system as employed by Mr. Lancaster. There are various subsidiary practices in the application of the general principle, which distinguish the schools of Dr. Bell from those of Mr. Lancaster; among the foremost of which is the art of stimulating the exertions of the scholars without corporal punishment, the art of preventing its necessity, instead of employing either the ancient mode, or the new devices of Mr. Lancaster, the shackles and the manacles, the basket and the go-cart. But, as these subjects have been sufficiently considered in the Eleventh Number of our Review, it is unnecessary to expatiate on them at present. Nor shall we renew the controversy, respecting the question, whether the principle, which is common to both parties, was invented by Dr. Bell, by Mr. Lancaster,

VOL. VII. NO. XV.

caster, or by neither. We have already expressed our opinion on that subject; and that opinion we still retain. But as present utility, and not priority of invention, must determine us in the choice of the two systems, the latter question concerns rather the honour of the parties themselves, than the public at large. Even if Mr. Lancaster were the inventor, we should still prefer it, when applied in support of the established religion. On the other hand, should Mr. Lancaster concede what he now disputes, his system would still be retained by those, whose interest it is, that the general principle should not be applied to the furtherance of the established religion. With respect to the subsidiary practices, though we decidedly prefer those which are used by Dr. Bell, to those which are used by Mr. Lancaster, we cannot consider them as forming the essential difference between the two systems. The subsidiary practices in the schools of Dr. Bell may be easily transferred to those of Mr. Lancaster, without any derangement of the general principle; while the real improvements in the schools of Mr. Lancaster, may with equal facility be transferred to those of Dr. Bell. But if they agree in the general principle, and the subsidiary practices are mutually transferable, there is nothing in the mechanical part, whether primary or secondary, which forms an insuperable barrier between the two systems. Consequently, if there is a radical or essential difference between them, it must be sought elsewhere. Now the difference in the religious combination of the two systems is really such, that they are not mutually transferable. The combination of the general principle with the doctrine and discipline of the established church, a combination which has ever distinguished the system of Dr. Bell, can never be adopted in a school, which is really Lancasterian. Where the religion, which is taught, is professed to be a religion for all, the instruction of that school can never be appropriated to the distinguishing doctrines of any. Such a restriction of doctrine, in favour of any one religious party, would not only be a deviation from the avowed plan of Mr. Lancaster, but a violation of good faith toward all those patrons and contributors to the institution, whose religious opinions were different from those which were attempted to be generally introduced. Nor would the restriction, in respect to religious worship, be less impracticable; for when churchmen and dissenters make a common cause in education, the religious rites of the latter must be holden as sacred as those of the former. Where the contributions are common, the claims are also common. The dissenters, who contribute to the Lancasterian schools, obtain thereby a right to enforce that distinction, which hitherto has been made neither in our foundation nor our charity schools; they obtain a right to insist, that in the place of worship, frequented by the children on a Sunday, the choice should be left to the discretion of the parents. An

appli

applicant, who objected to any peculiar form of worship, can never receive from the trustees of such a joint concern, the same answer, as from the governors, either of our own foundation schools, or of academies belonging to the dissenters themselves. In either of the two latter cases the answer would be, If you cannot consent that your son should conform to the religious, as well as literary usage of this seminary, you must place him elsewhere.' But in the first case the right is formally abandoned, to prescribe in the institution itself, the religion to which the children shall be brought up. In the schools therefore of Mr. Lancaster, which are jointly supported by churchmen and dissenters, the principle of tuition, which he has in common with Dr. Bell, can never enter into perfect union with the doctrine and discipline of the established church: a separation on the sabbath day will unavoidably take place; and though provision may be made by the intervention of other causes, to obtain a partial attendance at churches or chapels under the establishment, such attendance can never become a permanent and general rule. On the other hand, though the broad basis of the Lancasterian system prevents it from being made subservient to the support of any one religious party, and of assuming therefore the character of Dr. Bell's system, as hitherto practised, it is not impossible that the latter should assume the nature of the former. Though the religious combination is not mutually transferable, yet one at least of the systems is capable of change. Though we cannot enforce, in the schools of Mr. Lancaster, a general rule for attendance at church, we can introduce into the schools of Dr. Bell the same latitude in respect to places of divine worship which exists in the schools of Mr. Lancaster. But then the character which has hitherto attached to Dr. Bell's system, and which has chiefly recommended it to the friends of the establishment would be changed; as far as education has influence on religion, which used to be considered as a principal part of it, the two systems would be reduced to a footing of equality; and the system of Dr. Bell, by whatever name it might be called, would in fact become Lancasterian. But as we cannot imagine that either Dr. Bell should desire, or his patrons advise a departure from that religious combination which has hitherto distinguished and recommended his system, we shall continue to consider such religious combination as forming the essential difference between his own and that of Mr. Lancaster.

After these preliminary observations on the nature of the two systems, let us consider their relative situation at the period to which we have alluded; namely, the month of June 1811; from that month we may date the commencement of those measures which led to the formation of the national society of which the first Report is now under consideration. At that time the system of

Mr. Lancaster, aided by exalted patronage, was rapidly spreading throughout the kingdom, while the number of schools which had been organized by Dr. Bell was comparatively small. Various attempts had indeed been made to explain the consequences to which the general adoption of the Lancasterian system would ultimately lead but nothing seemed to be capable of arresting its progress, and there was reason to apprehend, that a system of educatio would become general in this kingdom, in which no provision was made for the established religion. And as the history of all ages and all countries attests, that the religion of the people is dependent on their education, the rising generation was exposed to the danger of losing the religion of their fathers. Mr. Lancaster himself had declared, that if any particular sect obtained the principal care in a national system of education, that part would soon be likely to possess the greatest power and influence in the state.' The consequence therefore of entrusting this national education to any one who neglected to found it on the national religion, must, according to Mr, Lancaster's own acknowledgment, be the final prevalence of the substituted religious system over that which is at present established. This inference applies not so much to the person as to the plan; it is not merely because Dr. Bell is a churchman, that the friends of the establishment (as falsely asserted) have preferred him to Mr. Lancaster; for if Dr. Bell himself conducted religious education on the same broad basis with Mr. Lancaster, the inference would be equally true, and the objections equally valid. If therefore the religion, by law established in this country, is to be transmitted to posterity, as we have received it from our forefathers, it is this religion, and not any generalized system of christianity which must be made the foundation of national education. To establish a religion by law, and yet to make any other religion, whether general or particular, the foundation of a national system of education, is to destroy with one hand what we build with the other; and it would be more rational to abolish our religious establishment at once, than to have recourse to such an absurdity.

Reflexions like these were, at the period above-mentioned, submitted to the public from the pulpit of St. Paul's, and very generally diffused throughout the kingdom. The friends of the establishment very soon perceived the necessity of active measures to restore the established religion to that place in our system of education which it had been accustomed to occupy, but was then in danger of losing. The impulse being once given, a number of zealous and real patriots, whose names have been modestly con cealed from the public, formed a plan for a general association throughout the kingdom, in support of the established religion,

For

« Προηγούμενη Συνέχεια »

Βιβλία

The Quarterly Review, Τόμος 8