260

SINCE the above pages were printed, the author is glad (in common no doubt with many others who think that the State may properly aid Education) to find that, in answer to the questions of Sir De Lacy Evans, in the House of Commons, (June 25th.,) the Prime Minister has intimated that a modification of the "Minutes," so far as they affect Dissenters, will be acceded to, in reference to any future grants which may be voted for schools; though "those of the present year will be made strictly according to the declarations stated in the House when the vote was passed." The omission from the "Minutes," of those clauses which, in the judgment of many Nonconformists, demanded conditions inconsistent with their principles, will certainly, when it comes into operation, remove the strongest of all the objections that have been urged against the measure. How far this step will induce co-operation with the Government, remains to be seen. The delay in the working of the relief thus secured to those who felt the above clauses to be a barrier to application for grants, is the more to be regretted, because it is now evident that had a united effort been made to obtain the modification, before the vote was passed, such effort would have proved successful. Lord John Russell also expressed the willingness of the Government to adopt certain means which appear likely to encourage "National Schools" to be more national, because less exclusive, than the "National Society"-by admitting the children of Dissenters to the schools, without compelling them to learn the "Catechism." Whatever be the results, the disposition thus manifested by the Government towards reasonable concessions, is a mark of progress in the principles of civil and religious liberty; and the Government will receive credit for it, from candid minds.

261

APPENDIX.

A. p. 115.

THE author must content himself with a very brief notice of the educational controversy in which Mr. Edward Baines, Jun., of Leeds, has taken so prominent a part. That gentleman's "Letters to Lord John Russell" on "State Education," may safely be pronounced to have exhausted the argument on his own side of the question, and to have left those who agree with him in maintaining the doctrine that States ought not to have anything to do with promoting the education of the People, nothing further to say or to desire. It must be admitted that the author of these Letters has shown a command over the sources of statistical information, and an acquaintance with the practical science of the subject, not commonly found, and which have given him a great advantage over some of his opponents and reviewers. Nor is he less distinguished by the style of his writing, on a theme some parts of which are wont to be thought dry and unattractive enough by the ordinary reader. Luminous, eloquent, popular, admirable for skill and tact-earnest and ardent, sometimes humorous, but free from that sort of dogmatism which offends good taste, and prejudices the reader, these Letters have no doubt produced a far greater effect than anything else which has been written on the subject; and they have decided the form of the opposition which the recent “Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education" have encountered:-not modification, but rejection being the characteristic of the movement; on the principle that "the state ought to have no concern, whatever, with the education of the people."

"State

The summary of Mr. Baines's views may be given as follows: education is wrong in principle"—there is not "the alleged necessity for committing the education of the people into the hands of Government"—it is not said "that we have no deficiency in the means of education;" but there is reason to believe that the deficiency is not great"—" the people are able to supply the deficiency with the utmost possible ease, and they are actually doing it with very great rapidity"-"education is not so inefficient as often represented; its quality is in course of rapid improvement, and is more likely to improve, if left free, than if placed under government direction"—" the systematic exclusion of religion from the ordinary instructions of the schoolmaster, would be a fearful evil"-" the Continental systems of education are unfavourable to liberty; and the American system is unfavourable to religion, as it is found in these (latter) schools impossible to teach it"-" state education is destructive of voluntary exertion."

The opinion which the author of the present work has been led to entertain on most or all of these points, will have been gathered by those who have read the above pages. It will have been seen that he differs from Mr. Baines on the fundamental principle which he understands that gentleman to lay down; and which, if he mistakes not, is, that no State ought, under any circumstances, to have anything to do with the education of the people. The author thinks that no such doctrine is capable of being soundly derived from the "moral sciences" -ethics, politics, jurisprudence, or the like, any more than from the Bible; and that, but for the peculiar state of parties, especially religious, among us, this general principle would not have met with the reception which has been given to it by many. It appears to him to be of the growth of circumstances, and not to have any foundation in the general relations between a State and its subjects.

Will any one deny that the best government is that which is adapted to develop the greatest amount of social good? There are circumstances in which this good can only be promoted by "State-education," in the strict sense-by the "government taking the education of the people into its own hands." Suppose a new and enlightened monarch, in advance of his age and country, to ascend the throne in a nation of barbarians ruled by a despotism: could he do anything more patriotic than to establish schools universally? Would not this be the first step towards rational freedom? But in our own country, (so differently situated,) it is not “state-education,” nor the "committal of education into the hands of government," nor the "training of the public mind by government," that is contended for by many who do not see with Mr.Baines. There is a difference between aiding others to do a work, and doing it all without them. It does not follow that because society can do, and ought to do, and has done, and will do a great deal for education, in England; therefore no government ought, under any circumstances, to do any thing whatever for that object. It does not follow that because, in some countries, the government may do what it ought not, or what ought not to be done here; therefore our government must not do any thing at all. The interference of a government in education, is surely a question of circumstances; one to which no general rule can be applied, excepting that of promoting what seems to be the "greatest public good." On the principle of the division of labour, parents cannot, in person, best educate their own children: their education must be delegated to others: these must be paid: if the parents are too poor to pay them, the question is whether the state can do good by aiding them in the object? It is no wonder if, in proportion as the abstract principle has been maintained, the opponents of the "Minutes" should damage their influence with the government to secure terms on which the great object (which seems in some danger of being eclipsed by other considerations) might be promoted on satisfactory terms.

The abstract principle is no doubt the sharpest weapon for cutting the Gordian knot of difficulty; but the present author has not often found this principle consistently adhered to. The real basis of opposition to ali possible methods of state-aid for education, he conceives to be the idea that no plan can be devised, in this country, which will not give too much influence to the government, and which will not tend to foster the principle of religious establishments. The author will not repeat what he has already stated on these subjects, further than

to say that, in his view, those who have desired modification of the "Minutes," have desired a recognition, on the part of government, of the very principle that it ought to respect the religious opinions of those who require that its agency should be limited to what is strictly secular; and that the influence and control of the state over education, appear to him much more likely to be increased, than diminished, by the professed and warmest advocates for freedom standing aloof from all negociation, and all idea of terms of co-operation.

That Continental Systems are not suited to our own country may well be admitted. But it should be remembered that, while the evils to be met with in continental states prove that a system of education which is the growth of their political condition, for ages past, will not at once, or alone, cure all mischiefs; it does not follow that a much more limited agency of government, in a different form, in a state where there is incomparably greater liberty, where the press and tongues are free, must of course degenerate into despotism. The best safeguard against this, is the principle of aided voluntary societies.

On the subject of German education, it is worth while to notice a Letter in the Congregational Magazine, for May, 1847, by a gentleman intimately acquainted with that subject, and who has "now been in Great Britain for a great many years, and kept a watchful eye, from the very first, upon the educational establishments of the country." Dr. Leonard Schmitz, Head Master of the High School in Edinburgh, states as follows: "Mr. Baines, in his address (in Edinburgh) is reported to have said, that in the Continental States in which a government scheme of education is established, the government take into their hands both the pulpit and the press. He does not seem to be aware of the fact, that both the pulpit and the press were in the hands of those governments long before their system of education was thought of, and that one of the first-fruits of their very system of education was an attempt, in several parts of Germany, to emancipate the pulpit and the press from the hands of the government. The struggle has been going on ever since the year 1819, and every one who reads newspapers must know that, at this moment, in consequence of the general diffusion of education, the people in that country are more clamorous for religious and political liberty than they have ever been; and that, in some instances, great objects have already been gained. The government system of education, therefore, far from having, even in Germany, and under despotic governments, checked the growing desire for religious and political liberty, has, on the contrary, conjured up those very spirits, for whose safety, in a free country, our orators are so much alarmed. Every day furnishes fresh examples of the truth of what I have here stated." Dr. Schmitz then proceeds to compare the qualifications of teachers in Prussia, with those of the same profession in England and Scotland, where "they are admitted either without any examination at all, and on the mere recommendation of kind friends, or the examination is of the very slenderest and lowest kind. I have been present at some, and been obliged to act the part of examiner at others, and in each case I have been amazed at the little which satisfied the patrons of schools. I am not singular in expressing this opinion: it is one of the main reasons which have recently led the more intelligent teachers in Ireland, England, and Scotland, to form associations for the purpose of raising the standard of education. The teachers themselves are beginning to feel that their profession is degraded by the ignorance of those who are admitted to it.

A person who in this country is regarded as a very fit teacher, would, in Prussia, scarcely be admitted as a student into a normal school." After describing the subjects taught in the various kinds of schools in Prussia, Dr. Schmitz concludes: “Now I ask you, in which of our schools can this kind, or this amount of information be obtained? And can a population trained in these branches, and trained not in a mere mechanical way, but in a manner calculated to rouse their thinking and intellectual powers, be said to be trained for religious or political slavery? Experience says, No! I, for one, feel the strongest conviction that a reasonable government-system of education, in this free country, would confer upon the population blessings far beyond those which most people anticipate, and certainly greater blessings than were and are attainable in despotic countries."

As to the exclusion of religious teaching from the functions of the schoolmaster, as in America-whether this be desirable or not, it seems as certain as most things, that no such plan will be adopted among ourselves, either on the strictly voluntary, or any other form of popular education; for it is contrary to the views of most parties. All that we seem able to do is, so to separate secular from religious instruction, as to provide for exemption from the latter, when parents desire it; and this is imperative on the principles of justice.

As an illustration of the effect of government-aid in being “destructive of voluntary exertion," Mr. Baines states the fact, that after £450 had been subscribed, in a certain town, for the erection of day-schools, the intervention of some expectation that the government was coming out with a scheme of aid for education, produced a letter from a subscriber to the Secretary of the Education Society, asking "whether it would not be better to wait and see what the government would do? for if the government was about to provide schools, they might as well keep their money in their pockets." Now this is only saying that so long as there may be any uncertainty whether government will not provide all the expense of erecting and maintaining a school, private bounty will be checked. But what if government defrays a considerable fixed proportion? In how many instances must what was before impracticable, now be within compass of ability? No doubt local wealth and rivalries would sometimes do all that was required, but what shall we say of the whole country?

With respect to the inefficiency of schools, the reports of inspectors can alone be appealed to. No man who has not gone fairly through the examination of a school, personally, can be so adequate a judge of its condition; and the uniform testimony, which it is hard to combat, has been, that the schools are suffering for want of more and better teachers. Unless, therefore, the voluntary principle can meet the required appliances, it does not appear how schools can "improve more" under it, than by means of further public aid.

Though the author has spoken thus, in detail, of the objections to all government-aid and agency, he repeats that he is fully prepared to admit that the strictly voluntary system would be the best, if it would do the work, and all the work, and well. Mr. Baines, in his fourth letter, remarks: "I do not say that we have no deficiency in the means of education. But in the face of the documents and facts adduced, I am compelled to believe that the deficiency is not great." The author's views on this subject are given at length in the sixth chapter, above. The proofs of this (the statistical) part of the work were forwarded to