apostles, without any remark, for religious duties; is not this a proof that they considered the commandment still in force? The change of day from the seventh to the first does not materially affect the question. They thought more of the new creation than of the old. It is somewhat similar to the alteration in the mode of celebrating the passover. God had expressly commanded that it should be eaten in haste, in a standing posture, with shoes on their feet, and a staff in their hands, in memory of their sudden expulsion from Egypt. In later times, as a token of the rest they had found in Canaan, it was eaten at leisure, and in a recumbent pcsture. We find no commandment for this change; yet we know that our Lord sanctioned it by His example. We conceive this to be very analogous to the change from the seventh to the first day; and the reason for it is so good and so satisfactory, that it has been adopted by all the churches of Christ. It is generally allowed to have been the intention of the apostles, that under the new dispensation one day in seven should be set aside for the service of the Lord. If so, can any good reason be offered, why they should not have given a formal and express injunction on the subject, but this? They found the commandment already given; just as was the case with respect to the admission of infants into the Christian covenant. They were contented to obey, and leave it to work its way as it has done. In those times, perhaps, a more formal declaration on the subject might have shaken society to its foundations. Their wisdom and prudence prevented them from pressing forward injunctions which perhaps in that age it would have been found impossible to obey. The primeval commandment, the repetition of it on Mount Sinai, the observance of it by the apostles and first Christians, make a threefold cord which cannot be broken. Our limits do not allow "ample room and verge enough" for untwisting Dr. Hessey's Catena Patrum; but surely the expressions which even the earliest fathers use respecting the Lord's-day,-such, for instance, as that it is the true beginning of the world, the rest from evil, the day on which God created light, and others to a similar effect,-all show that in their minds they referred the origin and duty of observing one day in seven to the primal creation. That they did not lay more stress on the fourth commandment, is easily accounted for from their fear of its sabbath being confounded with the Jewish, and their reluctance to bring forth an authority which each party would have claimed for themselves. When this feeling began to wear away, we see the Christian writers soon came to juster notions on the subject, or, in Dr. Hessey's view, "a taste for Judaism soon insinuated itself into the church." It is, however, no task of ours to un ravel the tangled skein of patristic lore; for we hold the scripture, and not the fathers, to be the sole arbiter and test of truth. Dr. Hessey says well and truly, that the way in which the Lord's-day is observed is "a no uncertain index of Christian steadfastness or decline; signum stantis aut cadentis Christiani." It is on this very account that we object so strongly to his book. He deprives the Lord's-day of all divine authority, when he declares the duty of its observance to rest merely on apostolic practice; for he certainly fails in his attempt to prove that apostolic practice is divine authority. And this proof failing, the antinomian tenet, that all days are alike, is fully justified; with which Dr. Arnold agrees, so strangely sometimes do extremes meet. Truth is undoubtedly to be followed, let it lead us where it will; but we conceive a heavy responsibility rests upon those who propound theories necessarily tending to unsettle and subvert a general belief concerning a matter of the utmost practical importance, unless they can show that their theory is founded on truth; and here it is that we consider these lectures so signally to fail. R. T. POPULAR AND PAUPER EDUCATION: REPORT OF THE 1. The Workhouse Orphan. By the Author of a "Plea for the Helpless." London: Hatchard and Co. 1861. 2. Communications from Edwin Chadwick, Esq., respecting HalfTime and Military and Naval Drill. London. 1860. 3. Report of H.M. Commissioners on Education, &c. &c. &c. Published by Command. Spottiswoode. 1861. WE shall unite three subjects congenial though different-one relating to the female children of our workhouses; the other to some of the more general questions of popular education; and the last, the recent report of Her Majesty's commissioners. Mr. Chadwick, in collecting with much pains the evidence referred to above, has thrown valuable light on some interesting questions of popular education. On this, as on other occasions, we have had reason to be grateful for his services. Some violent onslaughts were directed against him some years ago, and, from the influence of the journal in which they appeared, they did him prejudice. But Mr. Chadwick has had the good sense to continue his persevering labours, and these will always secure for him, what he well deserves, our respect. Not, indeed, that we quote Mr. Chadwick as a philosopher, or cite his authority as high in general reasoning. That is not the temper of his mind. Like many men who yet render us great services, he is so intent on the object which engages him, that for the time he sees nothing else. He is like a horse that works in blinkers: art takes from him objects to the right and left, in order that he may plod vigorously and uninterruptly along his assigned road. What is lost in range is thus gained in effect. Such minds, intently poring and working along their courses of thought, bring together and collect for us heaps of facts, which other minds set themselves to arrange and classify. In this case Mr. Chadwick starts with two favourite ideas-the benefit of half-time in schools, and of drilling applied to boys in schools. He collects a quantity of evidence; he drags out numbers of facts. You might imagine from his questions that the one nostrum which is to save England, is to keep boys in school three hours in place of six hours and to draft them into regiments of soldiers, and run them up masts in Union yards. The nostrum is not infallible-the remedy is not a specific; but incidentally, and in the course of the inquiries, facts come out, which are both new and significant, and by the classification and adjustment of these we shall reach, if we mistake not, some valuable conclusions. ; It appears from the evidence collected by Mr. Chadwick, what indeed most of us have already learned, that it is not enough for success in education to collect children into a school, to subject them to regular discipline, and to submit them to the teaching of a competent master. It is too apt to be forgotten, what Wilderspin first taught us, and Mr. Stow has in practice exemplified, that the physical requirements of boyhood must be considered as well as its moral wants. There is a good deal of what we may call educational crotchets, benevolent, harmless, but still crotchets. To these the Committee of Education has lent some sanction-its rules made boarded floors a thing indispensable. Other well-meaning people must have seats, especially for girls, with backs so made as to prevent their stooping: these are fancies of educational martinets. It is preposterous to say that a boy who wears hobnailed shoes two inches thick, and who puts his feet on brick or clay floors from boyhood to age, either knows or cares whether his feet rest on brick or wood. But though these are fancies, there are some great physical facts, and this is one,-that no very young child can fix his attention long on one subject without weariness, and, where physical weariness begins, mental power is weakened and disturbed. Out of this invariable law arise many practical maxims. Not only must lessons on one subject be short, but they ought to be broken by intervals of physical activity. This is the reason why in infant schools bodily exercises are resorted to. Clapping of hands, practised gestures and attitudes, these relieve the mind by occuping the body. In early childhood, when the infant is both weaker and of a more variable nature, these exercises must be frequently interposed, and no infantschool teacher is worth his salary who does not understand and practise them. But the necessity does not cease with the infant school. It ought always to be carried into the juvenile school. In the forenoon, when the attention is more lively, it may appear unnecessary, but it is not. For it must be remembered that the master has the children during three hours. Now Mr. Stukey, the master of the British school at Richmond, says of the Borough Road school, where the teachers were efficient and the lessons interesting, that the interest of the children fell off in about half an hour, and they then became restless and inattentive. Mr. Chadwick seems to imagine that half-time school-that is, children kept in school for three hours-meets the case. His own witness-for example, the one we have quoted-shows that it does not. According to these facts, you ought to have schools for half hours; which is absurd. The remedy is to break the time, as another witness, Dr. Cawthorn, mentions, either by introducing a distinct lesson exercising different powers-a lesson of writing, or drawing, or singing, or chemistry, or by, what we should press still more where a playground exists, allowing the children five minutes occasionally in the open air. This repeated twice in the forenoon would be found no loss of time, and by the orderly departure and entrance of the children, it may become a useful instrument of discipline. Mr. Chadwick presses strongly the introduction of military drill into schools; to large schools, and especially to union schools, it is specially applicable. It has great advantages in physical discipline, in improvement of the carriage and bearing, and in giving a use of hands and arms which would be serviceable whatever the after-occupation may be. Its secondary advantages, in preparing lads for the army as a profession, are considerable; but its general advantage, as affording a means of bodily training and exercise, in towns where there are no grounds and gardens, and in the country where gardens do not always answer, are great. Mr. Rawlinson, a civil engineer, says, that in all engineering and building trades men are frequently required to use their strength in concert: two trained men will carry more, easily and safely, than four untrained. men; drill and training will probably double the effective human power of any establishment, especially if numbers are instructed in joint feats of strength. That which is taught in youth is never forgotten in after-life. Mr. William Fairbairn of Manchester, a high authority, says that he finds among mechanics a few who had been trained as sailors unusually handy, and far superior to common workmen. "In my view, a greater benefit could not be conferred on the population of the country than to provide for them a military and naval drill. Their active body-training cannot begin too early; and from my own experience as boys, when it was a favourite game to play at soldiers, it would be as agreeable as it would be useful to youth in the duties of ordinary civil life." Mr. Sykes, the foreman of an engine manufactory at Manchester, gives a similar testimony. If we pass from these, the testimonies of practical men out of doors, to the evidence of those who are competent to speak of schools, we are brought to the same conclusion. In the grammar school of the parish of St. Olave's, Southwark, which contains five hundred boys, the military drill has been, for three years, introduced. The schoolmasters uniformly report that the drill has had a beneficial influence on the order and discipline of the scholars, and, indirectly, on the progress of their tuition. It makes them, says one of the governors, other creatures. The drill-master, who is a colour-serjeant, says that from his own experience in drilling children, they may be taught to walk and practise motions from five to six years of age; may be taught the sword drill at eight years of age, and the rifle drill at ten years. The head master of another free grammar school in Southwark, consisting of five hundred and fifty boys, says that they have introduced the military drill with advantage; that it has interested the boys, and made their attendance more regular; has greatly improved the order, the obedience to command and the discipline of the school. Mr.Tufnell, who, as the inspector of union schools, is the highest authority, speaks strongly to the same point. He says that in two of the largest schools the guardians exercised their power by dismissing drill-masters; but after a year's experience the result was found to be so injurious, that in each case the drillmaster was re-introduced. This of course proves how beneficial it had been in improving the discipline of the school; and Mr. Tufnell speaks to its value in preparing boys for the army and navy, and so fitting them for these two great branches of service. Naval drill is indeed only applicable to large union schools, for this requires the purchase and erection of a mast and sails, and the employment of a regular seaman. expense of the former is at least £100. Still, where the size of the school admits of it, this is money well spent; for the trades hitherto taught, of tailors and shoemakers, are already overcrowded, while the army and navy require recruits; and it is impossible to conceive a better mode of supplying them than from these great schools, which are supported at the expense of districts in the metropolis, and where the boys, once drafted into this active service, will become a defence and benefit instead of a burden to the state. The These remarks, however, have carried us away from the subject to which one great branch of Mr. Chadwick's inquiry is devoted the benefits of half-time in education. On this |