CHURCH MATTERS.*

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

IT is some, though but a melancholy consolation, to know that the disgust and weariness expressed last month, respecting the present condition of society as affected by the prevailing bulimy of legislation, finds a response in other minds with which the writer is well pleased to sympathize. Together with a nausea like his own, however, a corresponding feeling prevails that the sensation of disgust, oppressive as it is, must not be yielded to. For, the proof and trial of men's spirits in the matter is perhaps only beginning; at all events it is not near over. It is too evident, that indirectly as well as directly, covertly as well as openly, the church is now unceasingly assaulted along the whole line of her battlements. Considering, therefore, how few among her sons, comparatively, appear inclined to act as sentinels, (the word is used designedly, to guard against the mere appearance of monopolizing the more solemn title of watchmen), the need of observation is incessant. And of the many subjects upon which a sharp "look out" is needed, few are of more alarming consequence than that which is prefixed by way of title to the ensuing remarks. The reader's patience is accordingly entreated, first, to some evidence collected on the subject, and then to a few observations grounded on it.

The aim throughout will be rather to afford materials for thought than to lay down specific rules or counsel. The writer's great wish is to rouse attention to a point of imminent danger; leaving it to every friend and champion of existing institutions to form his own judgment, and to adopt such measures of defence or circumspection, at his own post, as circumstances may allow.

The question to be looked to will be this :-"What are the prospects of the church, as affected by the theories and language held respecting national education during the late session in Parliament? Two things are much to be regretted in the discussion of this question; one, that such discussion must unavoidably put on more of a political aspect than is either in itself agreeable, or in accordance with the general complexion of the British Magazine; although in truth there will be little of politics in the article, except in appearance; and verily the church is in an evil strait indeed, if its declared friends may not draw forth and hold up to attention men's own public words, merely because they were delivered within the Houses of Parliament! The other subject of regret is, that it should have become no less than necessary to request attention to such a mass of contradiction, crudity, and folly, as the succeeding extracts from the daily chronicles of parliamentary

The usual writer of the articles on Church Matters takes this occasion of offering his warmest thanks to the invaluable friend who has here spoken for him, and of directing the reader's attention to the important paper which follows.

harangues display." What can be done towards affording a certain measure of relief shall be attempted in two ways. A tedious progress shall be cut down into short stages, by something of a systematic classification of the evidences about to be adduced, and here and there tournaments shall be exhibited, by setting some of the fastspringing "dragon's teeth" to run a tilt with others, as they start up. Nevertheless, an irksome heaviness, relieved only by bursts of righteous indignation, must (it is feared) inevitably prove the general feeling in perusing the whole. The selection will necessarily be imperfect, and very possibly it may not be the happiest that might have been made; but it will be at least enough to serve the turn intended. The extracts to be gathered in the way of testimony shall be left to speak for themselves, until completed, without comment. The dramatis persona introduced will form but a "Select Committee" of the two Houses; yet, with the exception of a few rightly-minded men, whose observations or replies will be presented to complete the evidence, they will be found to be the leading champions of the day who have been pleased to place themselves Ev poμáxou in the strife (if strife, indeed, it be) concerning education

"Si rixa est, ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum."

The evidence to be produced (it will be seen) has not arisen altogether on the main direct question of education alone; but has sprung up by the way on others incidentally; as on the topics of the sabbath-beer bill-taxes on knowledge-drunkenness-and last, not least, the poor laws. Perhaps the incidental testimony (as is so apt to be the case) is more valuable than the direct. But it is time to leave preface, and to bring forth the witnesses.

First, then, and foremost, let the Lord Chancellor be cited to appear; and upon the thread of his leading oration on the subject shall be strung, as they are picked up, the sundry "precious pearls" of wisdom which belong to it, gathered from other depths profound.

No doubt there is allowance to be made, in some respects, for haste or incorrectness in reporting. Let every reader make accordingly such pause or drawback as he shall see fit. There cannot, however, on the whole, be much substantial misrepresentation of the opinions uttered by the several speakers. In-not to urge the little less than wonderful average fidelity of parliamentary reports-in many instances the tone and tendency of speeches following confirm the authenticity of those preceding; at other times, the laugh or cheer vouchsafed bears witness to a like effect; in other specimens, we cannot doubt that words reported are likely to have been the words said, (at any rate, in substance) from previous acquaintance with the wellknown mind and general opinions of the speaker. For instance, the Lord Brougham and Vaux was pleased to say the other night that he was, like the Duke of Wellington, "a practical man;" (words which we may be quite certain that he uttered, by reason of the notice taken of them by the Bishop of Exeter ;) but whether the one Chancellor be like the other, or not, in any one particular-it may be laid down as a certain rule for judgment, that the reported speeches never attribute to "the learned lord” the sentiments of "the illustrious duke;" nor, vice versa, do they put words into the mouth of that great Achilles which might have been more suitably spoken by the ποικιλομήτις Οδυσσεύς of the law. It is not necessary to pursue this explanation; enough has been advanced to vindicate the general correctness of the extracts about to be produced in evidence. Would it were possible so to arrange them as that they might in any way be rendered entertaining as well as instructive; for it is heavy toil to wade through them!

On the 16th of April last, in moving for certain returns on the subject of education, Lord Brougham and Vaux starts upon the text, that "in the education of the people, in the improvement of their minds, and the moral discipline of the schoolmaster, was to be found the best corrective of those evils so much lamented, and for which the legislature found so much difficulty in devising a remedy." "Many were of opinion that he ought to have advocated the introduction of a measure similar to the General School Bill of Scotland, which established a school in every parish." But he was now opposed to that. "No measure could be fraught with greater mischief." Any compulsory support of education would extinguish voluntary. It was the disposition of the Scotch to pay for the education of their children; of the English, it was not. He was therefore against compulsion. Besides, the voluntary system kept up an admirable feeling among the people. Much had been done by it. There had been a vast increase of education under it; as much as is the ratio of 5 to 3, between the dates of 1818 and 1833-4. The drift of his recommendation was, accordingly, that, to a certain extent, it were wise to let well enough alone. For, "it was lamentable to find that in this country there was not that disposition on the part of the labouring poor to send their children to school that was found to be the case, as he was well informed, in Ireland, and as was known to be the case in Scotland." He was, in short, against compulsion every way; both as respected any school rate, and as respected the attendance of children.

"But, though much had been done, and though he thus objected to compulsion, it did not follow that nothing should or would be done by government. He had never seen a sum of money in which so beneficial a return was made, as a sum of 20,0001. which had been voted for the erection of school-houses where they were greatly wanted, but where none at that time existed. Never was money better spent. A similar sum so appropriated would be attended with great benefit, and it really was required. If, then, for 40,000l. or 50,000l. of public money, with the voluntary subscriptions, you could educate 30,000,000 of people, he thought there was every reason for being satisfied."

Still, all was not right. Alas for human nature! "There was another deficiency greatly to be regretted, connected with the topic under consideration. It was to be recollected, that all was not gold which glittered:' [could the Lord Chancellor imagine that the peers doubted this?] "So, all was not education that looked like it. There might be schools well planted; many children might appear to darken the doors in a morning as they entered, and their 'busy hum' might be heard within the walls throughout the day, and they might flock around as they departed at the eventide; [!!!] yet, for want of attention paid to the means of education, no great benefit might result. The children, it was true, might be out of harm's way during the school hours; and this might possibly be one of the chief benefits following their attendance, on account of that deficiency to which he had just made allusion."

His lordship here reaches a point at which it will be well to corroborate his views by a parallelism with those of Lord Althorp, and also to attempt the kind of classification before mentioned of the further extracts about to be exhibited. Imperfect this must needs be; yet it may help a little both towards the relief of tediousness and furtherance of perspicuity. It will be seen that there is no "collision between the two Houses" here. Both peer and commoner in substance speak the same, and that a very intelligible language; both he that holds the purse, and he that moves the wires of state. "At quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is the significant motto of both.

Let then a first division of the evidence be thus entitled

I. CONTEMPLATED MACHINERY AND MANAGEMENT OF

EDUCATION.

Portentous will be found the words propounded on this head, official and non-official; those of the greater lights of government themselves, and of their satellites-e. g.

LORD BROUGHAM, April 16, "thought there was a want of schoolmasters capable of imparting instruction, and this evil ought to be remedied. It was a glaring defect in our system. He was therefore inclined to propose that PARLIAMENT should do something to remedy the defect, and he hoped and believed it would. He thought that something in this country might be adopted similar to what was done in France under the name of Normal schools. In a large and prosperous country like England something ought to be done towards educating schoolmasters, and not have it left to a casual supply."

LORD ALTHORP, June 3,

"quite agreed that GOVERNMENT ought to devote still more attention to the subject of education, and the only question was, how they could apply themselves to it most beneficially? For instance, by the appointment of schools for the education of schoolmasters. The hon. Member for Oldham might laugh at the idea of sending schoolmasters to school, but it should be recollected that nobody was born a schoolmaster, and it was highly important that he should be properly instructed, in order that there might be some security for the lessons he might teach."

As a corollary to these enunciations from the highest authorities, it may be instructive (or, at the least, admonitory) to subjoin the following dicta (propounded on another occasion) of two subordinate reformers; one, doubtless, taking his cue from the dissenters of Cornwall; the other from those of the West Riding; both of them, of course, the representatives of "large, and intelligent, and highly influential constituencies;" and, as such, entitled to especial attention from the government, in the formation of its future plans.

It seemed good to the first of these, Sir William Molesworth, (in seconding Mr. Philosopher Roebuck's education motion on the night of June 3,) to observe, that

“A principal feature in any system of education should be an elevation of the character of the teacher; but this was a point that in modern tuition was almost wholly disregarded—the teacher being treated more as a servant than as a master. He would not wish to see the education of the people trusted entirely to the clergy, although he should desire their co-operation and assistance."

The other, the Lord Viscount Morpeth, cannot be said to be peculiarly intelligible, (being perhaps too deep to be very clear) but still he is significant. In speaking the same night about the National School and British and Foreign School Societies, he—

"Did not mean to contend for the exact maintenance of all the regulations or systems of these two societies," (which, by the way, he places exactly on a level) "because he could not but think there was something in their circumstances too stiff, and distinct, and separate, to permit of their system being made the ground-work of any fiscal arrangement deserving the description of a national system.......He thought that all that was good in these societies might be preserved under some superintending and more active agency, which might fill up the void now left, and fuse what were now their somewhat discordant elements into a more general and consistent operation, which should lead to a system of more harmony and order."

There is not much comfort in the foregoing; yet in respect of all this, there still remains one shadow of security-namely, that nothing of the sort is yet LAW; and the open folly and impracticability of it might still encourage a good hope that it could never become so, if men did not so eagerly and daily expose themselves as people loving to be deceived. At all events, however, there is yet a respite in the matter. Not so in that which follows. It must be owned, this does but indirectly touch the question of machinery in education; but is it the less formidable for that?

On the night of July 24, in the House of Lords, in considering the

Poor Law Amendment Bill in committee, the Archbishop of Canterbury had expressed his astonishment, that a provision to the effect that "no pauper should be obliged to attend divine worship in opposition to his religious principles" should have been inserted in the bill at all, unless there had been other clauses providing for religious instruction in the workhouses; saying, "It appeared to him of the utmost importance that there should be such provision; for at present there was no clause for affording religious instruction at all." Upon this, the Lord Chancellor remarked, that by one of the sections of the 48th clause they were empowered to provide for the EDUCATION of the inmates of the workhouses, and so had the power of providing for their religious instruction in the most suitable way." This same 48th clause having fallen under consideration the next evening (relating to the instruction of paupers in workhouses), the archbishop proposed, as an amend

ment

"That all workhouses should be under the care and superintendence of the curate or vicar of the respective parishes in which such workhouses were situated, and that the said vicars and curates might visit such workhouses at all proper times, for the purpose of affording religious instruction to such of the inmates as professed the established religion; provided that no pauper be obliged to attend divine worship contrary to the religious belief in which he or she had been brought up; nor should any child in the workhouse be instructed in the creed of any particular religion against the wishes or feelings of the natural parents or guardians of such child.”

The Lord Chancellor said, that "the amendment proposed by the Most Rev. Prelate appeared to him to embrace every object that was necessary." At the suggestion, however, of some noble marquis (the reporter could not say distinctly who), the archbishop added, "he would have no objection to add to the amendment, that the workhouses should be always open to clergymen not of the established church.'" And so the clause was ordered to be printed. There is, of course, some mistake in the particular form of words given here; but no reason appears for doubting the substance of the report.*

The following conversation is reported among the parliamentary details of Monday, August 4. Whether the clause referred to be the one just spoken of, or not, does not distinctly appear :

"Lord Segrave moved an amendment to the regulation in workhouses allowing paupers to leave the workhouse for the bona fide" (pregnant words, if rightly and fully understood here!) "purpose of attending divine worship where they thought fit. "The Marquis of Salisbury and the Duke of Richmond pointed out the hazards of such unqualified permission.

The Lord Chancellor thought the better plan would be, to leave out both the clause which had been expunged and that which had been substituted, leaving the matter to the discretion of the masters of the workhouses.

The Bishop of London said the omission of both clauses would be consistent with the original views of the commissioners, and of course he had no objection to it. Lord Stourton (a Roman Catholic) thought the best clause in the bill was that which secured to the dissenting interest of the country their most important rights, as it would give to the children of dissenters, or the orphans of dissenting parents, the protection of their ministers."

Aug. 13.-This compromise, suggested by the Lord Chancellor, has been rejected in the House of Commons, at the instance of the Hon. Mr. Langdale, (Lord Stourton's brother,) seconded by Mr. John Wilks. The following observations, elicited on