2 10 46 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/59ccdfb11019e8c8dde6b0cc69bdc38e.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=loxDH9jcJxe3ES%7EonlljH8oA4ZqSPzMyS2KsUMpUBLrNrnKfKsfQxXSPWBJFtr9DUyvS2%7EtWARcGcXJFKDpNd5HNy10g7HJ1Tjv1oE3dFyPAkV4o-BKzQpNqpoHjIRbDJBXQ%7ERhCVMEu4H8Ri46klZSn2qCHDsc59u%7Eb0aN4ZQAYGm6aywNQrNT2RiYiq3eiwS3AHlepV3L4sHLK8F7cSXP0dTBZ%7EepUzEaHEBhaKwrSnDTxuc-iRdZWOU3mUGuC8ZQpCxGH9muQR4OQWpOCMT899CZGSKiNsjKI6c06pQ94zmnlHRzvZzGcYswAsoSTT7cTTuULOuW%7EYWqWsGOvhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ff8a686b7730c6edf13068430281026c PDF Text Text K 237^ nJ NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 4 (S. -“3 aXA-x^vx, essa;y i. Jod. Thou breathest to Thou who art life itself.’ us the breath of life, hi. IV. II The student who has patiently followed these essays thus far through the labyrinth of cumbrous dissertations is now to lift his head from the darkness which abides under the skirt of Wisdom, and from groping after Her secret trea­ sures of This Place nro mpn m, to behold for a season the light of Her countenance without: to the end that from that which is above he may understand that which is below, and from that which is below may seek that which is above: and so learning to live for Her by whom and for whom all worlds exist may strive and fight for Her, not as one that beateth the air. We are now to breathe a new atmosphere, the daylight of the outer and upper sky where it gleams abroad on the busy world, on the vast mart of individual and social interests. The shadowy cloister of philosophy must soon throw open its doors, and our disputants Ish and Adam walk forth together into the high road and join the motley throng of human beings as they are, in order to see and hear what now is, and to judge what shall be hereafter. They must carry with them no prejudices, not even such as seemingly tend to the social elevation of woman ; for flat­ tery is hardly less detrimental to that cause than deprecia­ tion. Preceding arguments have more than once been directed to point out the all-important philosophic distinc­ tion between woman and women; and we must not mix up the eternal Divinity of the former with the manifold and multiform failings and imperfections of the latter. Our task is to teach what women are born to be, and to show that the education and consequent habits of the world hitherto have directly tended to bring girls up to woman­ hood in complete and exact reversal of that course of development which belongs to their innate qualities and �2 THE EDUCATION OE GIBUS. powers; the consequence of which perversion—that is, thcfirst consequence ; for a ghastly and almost endless train attaches to it—is the undeniable, though perhaps not obvious, fact, that no one has ever yet seen a real grown-up woman, and no one knows what such a woman woidd be capable of. This may seem a paradox, but it is really an axiom. No' existing woman nor man would have become what she or he is at this moment but for her or his social surroundings, past and present. We are each and all what our social circumstances and the use we have put them to have made us ; and the vast differences, especially mental differences, which we observe among members of the same sex are, generally speaking, quite as much, if not more, induced from without than arising from within; no idiosyncracy being strong enough to stand quite alone in all matters whatever against the current of the time. Well, then, who can point to a time and a place in the world’s history where the current of social life, the influenceof the social atmosphere, flowed in the direction of treating­ woman as the spiritual superior, or even equal, of man ? Where and when has this been done, I ask—done soearnestly and effectually that adverse influences from with­ out could never penetrate and vitiate that hallowed sphere ; When and where did any woman, during her growth to womanhood, ever breathe a social atmosphere the main, weight of which was not dead against female supremacy in either world ? But if such a state of things can nowhere be pointed at, we come back perforce to this conclusion: a real grown-up woman has not yet appeared in this icorld. And even this is not all; the question follows, whether man can be fully human while woman is not. In the subsequent pages it will be considered whether he can. Meanwhile here is on exposition of her views on the great social question, written by a lady to the Examiner periodical of' May 20th, 1871, showing how some few of our women, even * as they are, can rise equal to occasion. WOMAN SUFFRAGE. Sir,—At the various meetings and conferences that have been held, and in the lectures that have been delivered, during the last few weeks on the Woman Suffrage question, an enor­ mous amount of reason and argument in favour of the removal of �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. o political disabilities from women has been brought to bear on it. It has, indeed, been asserted by several of the speakers, that all the reason is on their side of the question, and the assertion has not been disproved. “The objections of our opponents,” said Dr. Lyon Playfair at the meeting at St. James’s Hall, “are entirely of a sentimental character.” Now, while perfectly concurring in the judgment that in deciding all questions affecting great human interests, reason should have the first place and sentiment the second; and that in this particular question there is a weight of reason on one side, and on the other nothing but sentiment, and sentiment mostly of a very weak and washy character, it ought not to be put so completely out of the question as the advocates of the measure generally do. For even were the stout offensive weapons of reason sheathed altogether, it could hold its ground, and ulti­ mately win its way by the preponderating force of the highest and purest sentiment it has in its favour. There is now, say the opponents of Woman Suffrage, an amiable forbearance to the ignorances and follies of women, and an affection—occasionally a little contemptuous, no doubt—for their weakness and defects, on the part of men, which is very pleasant to see; while, on the other hand, women look up to men with a sweet fearful humility, confide their whole social and moral well-being to them with a beautiful unquestioning trustfulness that is equally delightful and refreshing to behold. All of which would be utterly destroyed by the social equality of the sexes that the gift of political power to women would necessary entail; and also by the intellectual equality that, women’s minds being thus raised to take interest in a higher range of subjects than they have yet done, must inevitably follow. One honourable member of the House of Commons, in the recent debate, reminded his brethren that a woman’s husband should rule over her, and that “fear and blushing” were her proper mental and physical conditions: while another dutifully called to their remembrance the “ illogical and unreasonable words which they had heard at their mothers’ knees,” and warned them that if this bill passed their sons and grandsons to come would have no such agreeable recollections to solace and comfort them in manhood and old age. He also called upon them to observe the dangerous element of priestly power that would thus be introduced into our legislature, priests and such­ like persons having always a pernicious influence over the illo­ gical minds of women; a line of talk—I won’t dignify it by the name of argument—carried still further by another honourable member, who, with the eye of a seer, perceived in Woman Suffrage the beginning of a Jesuitical rule that would ultimately submerge all the Protestant liberties of England. r! But none of these honourable gentleman saw in this Bill the foundation of a hope that finds a place in the breast of every �4 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. one who takes a large and comprehensive view of society as it has been, as it is, as it may be in the time to come ; for a new and higher, and—for both—a happier moral and intellectual relation of the sexes than the contemptuous forbearance and terrified confidence—the latter too often misplaced—that, on the showing of those who are doing their utmost to maintain it, form the type of the existing state of things. Looking each no further than himself and his own illogical woman—or women, as the member for Kilmarnock naively suggested—whom he finds it agreeable to him to have and to hold in a state of admir­ ing subjection to his superior wisdom, their minds were closed to that far nobler conception of the human life, in its twofold aspect, that the promoters of this Bill aspire to see realised among us; not, as now, exceptionally, but universally, as humanity advances still further towards perfection. The conception of man and woman united, not as the master and the slave, the possessor and the possessed, which places an almost insurmountable barrier between their moral natures, but as co­ inheritors of all freedom and knowledge and truth; working together for the same great end, the moral, intellectual, and physical advancement of the human race. The diversities of the two natures, not of necessity dividing them in every aim and object and pursuit in life, but recognised rather as intended that, the two working for the same purpose, each shall supply the lack of the other. The inequalities of two natures fitted together until they become one nature ; the greater breadth of thought filling the space left by the narrower ; the firmer grasp of mind holding the weaker in its place ; the quicker perceptions stimulating the slower; the readier sympathies bringing out the more backward; and the more acute reasoning faculties, and the more profound, giving each to each what the other wants, all joined together harmoniously to form a perfect whole. This is the relation between the sexes that those who are demanding the political equality of women hope to see arise, upon the destruction of the other which the opponents of the measure say—and with the very correct prescience—will be its inevitable result. But that such a relation could be established until women have equal political rights and equal educational advantages with men is impossible. It is met with now, no doubt, but only in rare individual cases where men, contemning the power the law gives them, practically make it a dead letter, and where women, having educated themselves, notwithstanding that they are deprived of political rights, work by any indirect means that they can to advance great political ends, the furtherence of social reforms and the general welfare of the community. But the number of men who, having power, will not use it, are few. And the number of women who will have convictions and interests without the right to give them effect, and who will have �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. $ tie Courage and resolution to work on themselves to undo all that governess, and the schoolmistress, and the world in general have done for them—and when they have destroyed the super­ structure of folly and frivolity and falsehood that these have raised up upon their minds to build another of true knowledge and common sense there instead—are fewer still. For it is a (much harder thing to do ; truly any one of the labours of Hercules was light in comparison ! And yet this is what every woman must do who wants to raise herself out of the slough of Ignorance and apathy and error about everything that is good and great, in which the majority of her sex are sunk, unless she kappen to have had the good fortune not to be educated at all, When her labour is diminished one half. ®ie folly that supposes political rights and educational advan­ tages would make every woman aspire to rule the State and toeglcet her personal duties, is scarcely worth noticing. It is sufficient for its refutation to say that as the power to vote does not make the bank-clerk or the shopkeeper neglect his desk or OffittBter, to indulge in dreams of being Chancellor of the Ex­ chequer or Prime Minister, there can be no possible grounds for Supposing that it would make his mother or sister do so : or, if dreaded universal suffrage came to pass, his wife or daughter either; even though they were all educated to be bank clerks and shopkeepers’ wives and mothers, instead of poor imitations of fine ladies as they are at present. Placing women on an equality with men would never raise them .above them. The * terror that some of these lower orders of men now indulge in, of the world under the new regime coming to such a pass that they Would have none but female Gladstones and John Stuart Mills ®nd Professor Huxleys in petticoats to marry, is without a shadow of .foundation. Education will always be controlled by capacity, if not by circumstance ; while, given its fair chance, genius is sure to rise to its own level. But, as all political economists know, everyone who works Conscientiously and intelligently in his own place—be that place ever so small and obscure a one—is giving his quota of help to #ie prosperity of the State. And it is hard for women, whatever be their place, to work either conscientiously or intelligently, with the moral and mental obliquities, consequent on their mis­ directed education, and the degraded social status that they suffer from at present. Another of the fanciful terrors that haunt the minds of men opposed to women having political power, and the natural con­ sequence of political power, political convictions, is, that politics would then form one of the general topics of conversa­ tion between men and women in society, and would introduce an dement of bitterness and dissension instead of the sweet That remains to be seen. [Present Author.} �6 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. melliferousness that now characterises such intercourse. This spectre, it is true, has some more reality about him than those already disposed of; he has rattling bones at least, and is Lnot one of the mere “airy nothings” they were. I admit that women having a knowledge of, and an interest in, questions that men only are now informed about and interested in, would be likely to alter, to a very considerable degree, what is at present the almost prevailing tone of the mixed society of both sexes. But I cannot think that this would be an evil; on the con­ trary, I believe that it would be a good; and a good so great that to bring it about would be alone worth making the change. As society at present exists, conversation between young men and women, who are in person or manner excessively un­ attractive to each other, is utterly insane and uninteresting to both, and done merely as a duty to society. But, on the con­ trary, if there be anything outwardly attractive in either to the other, often when only very slightly attractive, sometimes when merely negative, this intercourse assumes a tone called by different names in the parlance of society, but which is, in reality, a mutual excitation, or attempt at excitation, in a greater or less degree, of sexual feelings, equally pernicious in its effects on both. This will doubtless be called exaggeration, but I need only point to the lists of broken troth-plights and miserable marriages that the newspapers and each person’s private circle of acquaintance furnish to verify the truth of the assertion. What do these innumerable cases of men and women, without the slightest real affinity in their natures, rush­ ing into engagements and unions that end either in shameful faithlessness or miserable bondage arise from but the fact that, in the ordinary intercourse between men and women, there is no opening for either to know anything of the other’s real mind or disposition, while every effort is made on both sides to excite a spurious admiration and love ? * With no fear that educated Englishmen and Englishwomen will ever be roused by political feeling to throw wine-glasses or tea-cups at each other’s heads, or, in any other way, to forget the respect due to each other, and each other’s honest convic­ tions, serious thinking people might well rejoice to see elements introduced into their association that would develop their real sympathies and antipathies, bringing together only those whom nature intended to be brought together, and sundering those who ought to be sundered. “Fancy,” cry the ghoul-hunted “a Conservative man married to a Radical woman, or vice versa! There would be an end to all domestic peace ! ” We need fancy no such thing. The skeleton of the rattling bones puts * As spurious it is no doubt pernicious ; but were Divine Order fol­ lowed, and sexual relations placed on a different footing, it would not be so. [Present Author.] �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 7 this phantom completely to rout. On the showing of those whose imaginations are frighted by these hobgoblins, such a thing would be an impossibility. But without going so far as to suppose that Conservative young men and Radical young women, or the reverse, would ever be led, by the difference of their opinions, to pull each other’s hair or punch each other’s heads when they met in society, we must believe that the great differences of mind that lead to these two mental conditions would then be so apparent that there would be no possibility of making a mistake on the subject; though the mistake may easily occur under the present state of things, when, if a woman happen to have any unlawful political opinions, she is frightened into concealing them by the threat of her else incurring the dreaded odium of all her male acquaintances. But, with a new era of equal rights and equal knowledge for women, we may hope to see this reign of terror for both sexes come to an end. Then the day will come when a man will not shrink, through a miserable vanity and self-conceit, from owning that his wife is gifted with reason, as he is, and has the same right to use it; above all, when he will be ashamed to proclaim before his countrymen that he believes her to be such a slave to the bigotry and superstition of priests, that even his great controlling wisdom cannot direct her how to use her liberty aright, and that he, therefore, dreads to give her the common free­ dom and rights of a citizen—rather when he will rejoice in having beside him a companion and fellow-worker to aid him in carrying out his greatest aims, and in realising his highest aspirations.—I am, &c., Alice Perrier. Still more powerful is the following extract from a pam­ phlet on the same subject by a well-known writer and lecturer, Mrs. Annie Besant:— Lastly, I would urge on those who believe in women’s natural inferiority, why, in the name of common sense, are you so terribly afraid of putting your theory to the proof? Open to women the learned professions; unlock the gates which bar her out from your mental strifes; give her no favour, no special advantage; let her race you on even terms. She must fail, if nature be against her—she must be beaten, if nature has in­ capacitated her for the struggle. Why do you fear to let her challenge you, if she is weighted not only with the transmitted effects of long centuries of inferiority, but is also bound with nature’s iron chain? Try. If you are so sure about nature’s verdict, do not fear her arbitration; but if you shrink from our rivalry, wemustbelievethatyoufeel ourequality, and, to cover your own doubts of your superiority, you prattle about our feebleness. “Women are indifferent about the possession of the fran­ chise.” If this is altogether true, it is very odd that there �8 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. should be so much agitation going on about the subject. But I am quite willing to grant that the mass of women are indif­ ferent about the matter. Alas! it has always been so. Those who stand up to champion an oppressed class do not look for gratitude from those for whom they labour. It is the bitterest curse of oppression that it crushes out in the breast of the oppressed the very wish to be free. A man once spent long years in the Bastille ; shut up in his youth, old age found him still in his dungeon. The people assailed the prison, and amongst others, this prisoner was set free; but the sunshine was agony to the eyes long accustomed to the darkness, and the fresh stir of life was as thunder to the ears accustomed to the silence of the dungeon; the prisoner pleaded to be kept a prisoner still. Was his action a proof that freedom is not fair? The slaves, after generations of bondage, were willing to remain slaves where their masters were kind and good. Is this a proof that liberty is not the birthright of a man ? And this rule holds good in all, and not only in the extreme cases I have cited. Habit, custom, make hard things easy. If a woman is educated to regard man as her natural lord, she will do so. If the man to whom her lot falls is kind to her, she will be contented; if he is unkind, she will be unhappy; but, unless she be an excep­ tional character, she will not think of resistance. But women are now beginning to think of resistance ; a deep, low, mur­ muring is going on, suppressed as yet, but daily growing in intensity; and such a murmur has always been the herald of revolt. Further, do men think of what they are doing when they taunt the present agitators with the indifference shown by women? They are, in effect, telling us, that if we are in earnest in this matter, we must force it on their attention; we must agitate till every home in England rings with the subject; we must agitate till mass meetings in every town compel them to hear us ; we must agitate till every woman has our arguments at her fingers’ end. Ah! you are not wise to throw in our * teeth the indifference of women. You are stinging us into a determination that this indifference shall not last; you are nerving us to a struggle, which will be fiercer than you dream ; you are forcing us into an agitation which will convulse the State. You dare to make indifference a plea for injustice. Very well; then the indifference shall soon be a thing of the past. You have as yet the frivolous, the childish, the thoughtless on your side; but the cream of womanhood is against you. We will educate women to reason and to think, and then the mass will only want a leader. However, it is not to be pretended that philosophic, any * Argumentative agitation ought of course, to be tried in the first place; but, should arguments fail, women have a reserve force in waiting. [Present Author. ] �THE JEOTJCATION OR GIRLS. more than diplomatic, controversy can be carried on withont a definite basis of negotiation ; and if we are to predi­ cate right and wrong of a given state or states of society at large, we must adopt some standard of what ought to be, whereby to judge the character of what is. It hardly needs to be said that the standard adopted in this work is the hypothesis of the work—namely, the essential spiritual Supremacy of woman over every other being in the universe, and so of course over the universe of Nature itself, in the same manner in which an individual woman is over and above her own speech or her own clothes. Hence it is necessary to take the religious aspect of the question as the fundamental groundwork of every other aspect; for indeed religion is truly but the final summing-up of all kinds of practical utility. The great lesson to be learnt, the fundamental axiom to be engrained upon the mind of every one who aspires to break the fetters wrought by a false and evil social edu­ cation, is that this question of woman’s spiritual birthright is one about which there can be no sort of parley or com­ promise. The writer of the letter to the Examiner speaks in a tone which seems to encourage the idea of sexual equality. Now this is right enough in a certain restricted sense, but in that only. It is only in view of the temporal co-operatfon of the sexes toward reunion in the Divine Female Unity that the question of equality can be entertained. It is certainly requisite that women should compete with men on fair and equitable terms in all mundane matters, great and small, in the government of Europe and America, as at the chess-board, or in any other game. But to infer, from the fact of the two sexes getting on best by mutual help and competition in the earth-world, that man can be the equal of woman spiritually, is neither more nor less than to make Good and Evil equal, or two Infinites—a manifest ab­ surdity. It is the destiny of the masculine or evil principle in the universe to be finally reabsorbed into the feminine or good principle, and so annihilated; hence doctrine or prac­ tice which may be inconsistent with this knowledge must always end in futility and failure, as it always has done. This being clearly understood, and the spiritual dominion * * Demonstration of the doctrines thus sketched cannot be given ■within the compass of this pamphlet, which has a more immediate and practical purpose. �10 THE EDUCATION OE GIRLS. being put aside as inherently and essentially belonging to woman only, we can afford to be quite impartial between the sexes in all other concerns. And the best service which those who have the opportunity can render to women is not to flatter or favour them, but to provide fair oppor­ tunities for both sexes to compete, and then pay or reward by results only, and not according to the sex of the worker, or on any other extraneous consideration. There will, pro­ bably, always be some physical matters in which a man can do better than a woman, just as there are others in which a horse or ox can do better than a man; these will soon show themselves under any regime. For the rest open competition will prove woman’s best title-deed. The one-sided system under which we live cramps the efforts even of wealthy benevolence. We see many a wealthy philanthropist, no doubt, men who would do good far and wide if they could, and who would not be narrow and selfish if they could help it. But they cannot help it so long as the social atmosphere they breathe is one of general suspicion and distrust, of caution against being over-reached, even by one’s friends, for their own benefit or aggrandisement; so long as misunderstanding and envy take the place of co-operation and sympathy. And I say that so long as one of the sexes—and that the higher sex— is kept from its rights, and artificially stunted in its capaci­ ties, this state of things cannot be altered. History will repeat itself with its woes and horrors, for there is nothing to prevent similar circumstances kindling similar passions, however hard they may have been scrubbed in the meanwhile by the polishing-brush of an unsound civilisation. The Dialogists may now appear. Adam. You know well, Ish, how to state your views forcibly; but a good statement does not always involve a strong case. Granted the folly and unmanliness of sitting down helpless under admitted evils, it does not follow that we are safe in receiving with open arms the first worldbetterer who comes forward with an offer of ready made universal regeneration. Many plausible panaceas have been tried, and you will agree with me that they have all failed in their main object. Wh^ should we expect for yours a better fortune than for all those that have gone before ? �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 11 Ish. The upshot of all which is—that there is never to he a sensible improvement here in the circumstances of mankind! If so, I think Wordsworth’s supposition about fire coming down from far to scorch earth’s pleasant habitations and dry up old ocean, in his bed left singed and bare, was no idle one. The sooner this planet is burnt the better. After all, the idea is not peculiar to Wordsworth or to his times. Paul, I think, said something about the elements melting some day with fervent heat; and thus much, at any rate, is well known, that certain of the heavenly bodies have already disappeared suddenly and unaccountably. May we not reasonably fancy that their inhabitants had been offered the last chance and would not take it ? But putting poets and theologians aside, it is quite safe to say that in the absence of much greater knowledge than our men of science yet possess concerning the possible contingent causes of sudden generation of excessive heat in the sun or in some still more powerful star—the tenure of this little tem­ poral home of ours, with its beauties and its drawbacks, may be much more precarious than we are accustomed to believe. A. Save us, Ish! that is a tremendous threat. I hope this earth will take care to improve before so violent a remedy as that becomes necessary. I. Not on its present style of going on. But my hope and belief is that things will change for the better and obviate all occasion for the human race to be rubbed out, and have to begin again at the beginning. A. I hope so too. I do not go so far as to deny the likelihood of the world being bettered, I assure you. I. Well, then, how far do you go ? Let us have something definite. A. I mean no more than what I have already said, that a heavy burden of proof lies on the side of such innovation as yours. I. As heavy as you please. Only the proof, mind you, lies not in talking, but in doing. I do not ask you or society to take my words for anything ; I ask you to do your duty by woman, and set her free from her present thralls, and it will then be for her, not me, to prove the truth of what I say. The burden of proof may |ie upon me, but the burden of unperformed duty lies upon your side ; and that is a far more serious matter. �12 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. A. Ah, then you do not rest your claim for woman’s emancipation upon the fact of her essential divinity ? I. Certainly not. I make, it is true, both claims; but they are quite independent of each other. I arraign you in the first instance for systematically ill-treating a portion, the greater portion, I believe, of mankind. That is the first step ; my assertion of her exclusive divinity is a step beyond. A. I see. Well, then, to deal with the first step; how does it happen that the female race exists in a generally inferior position to the male race all over the world? You denounce the fact as an abuse; but I should like to hear you account for it. I. It happens simply by the law of brute force; which law, as humanity develops more, that is, rises in the scale of its own being, gradually gives way to the higher law, that of spiritual force, which is woman’s strength. A. You mean, then, that man has no other superiority over woman than that which great brutes have over him. I. Just so. A. But is it so? Putting causes aside, and looking to their effects, do you not find yourself obliged for candour’s sake to allow that, as men and women have hitherto been and still are, the male sex has excelled the female in per­ formances which savour not at all of the brutal, but quite the contrary ? To take notorious instances near home, what woman has written like Shakspere, has composed like Beethoven—in short, not to enlarge, where have women hitherto accomplished works in any department open to both sexes equal to the best that men have accomplished ? It does seem to me strange at the outset, that the superior sex should be beaten by the inferior in nearly all—I am by no means sure I might not say quite all—real practical doings. I will add that, let alone higher things, it has yet to be shown that men could not, by practice, also tend children, and make beds, and mend clothes, and do all other domestic duties commonly supposed to be women’s special province, as well, aye and better, than women themselves. I am free to avow that my notion of superiority is one of superior performance even more than of beautiful appearance; and if women generally cannot do what men generally can, what is their superiority worth, even if it exist? You see, it is one thing to aspire to the glories of heaven, and another to condescend to recognise the utilities of earth. �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 13 I. Is that meant to imply that the glories of heaven are not worth taking trouble about, while the utilities of earth are? At any rate, then, let the glories of heaven be left to woman, and let man confine himself to the utilities of earth. A. No, but I don’t see how to reach the higher without employing the lower. I. Well, man has certainly not reached the glories of heaven by his able use of earthly means. There can hardly therefore, be that connection between the two which you suppose J A. Come then, I waive heaven; woman shall be welcome to it, so long as you leave earth to man. I. I might retort that a compulsory cession is not meri­ torious ; but let that pass. I cannot, however, leave man to his misrule and usurpation of earth. A. I suppose he must go to hell, then ? I. Nay, nay; justice between the sexes in this world makes the best earth for the male sex and the best heaven for the female. But that justice has yet to be done. When it is done, done in fulness without stint or reserve, then the nations who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death will have seen the beginning of a new heaven and a new earth wherein shall dwell righteousness. I grant, however, that your case would look strong enough so far as regards the test by works, if only you could show that women have had equal opportunities with men, and therefore that their backwardness in productive arts must proceed from some inherent defect of their nature. But my argument—which I shall proceed to make good in detail —is that the reason why women have not turned out Shaksperes and Beethovens, &c., is because they have not been trained from early youth in such a manner as to give their latent faculties a fair chance. I do not say but what there might always remain a perceptible sexual difference of mind as well as of body; but you have no ground for assuming that such difference would place the female at disadvantage; on the contrary, it is evident that analogy__ the only test we have to go by—points to a superiority on the female side in the department of mind corresponding to that she already undisputedly possesses in that of matter —her physical beauty. Meanwhile, I am satisfied for the present if you sincerely concede the first step and give up the religious department of life to woman unreservedly. �14 THE EDUCATION OF GIFTS. ESSAY ‘ But now ‘ II. been, how worse than [blind ! Day by day we resist thy saving grace.’ blind have we in. iv. iv. The Dialogists may resume. A. Come to the point, Ish; what do you formally pro­ pose to substitute for a woman’s present surroundings and bringing up ? I. I propose, in a few words, that woman, from her earliest infancy shall be systematically developed instead of being systematically repressed and snubbed, as she is. A. How is she so ? I must say that I cannot see it. I. Let us begin, then, at the beginning proper, the earliest influences common to childhood; and you will discover, before we have done, that these influences are the same as, or strictly analogous with, those which determine our character at the close of this life—character, that one thing which though we brought it not with us into the world, yet it is certain we must carry out. The child is father to the man, as Wordsworth says, in this sense, that the career of the adult is foreshadowed by the peculiarities of the infant; but then these peculiarities themselves assume a healthy or an unhealthy form, accordingly as they are judi­ ciously or injudiciously treated by those who have the rear­ ing of the young mind. Now, although between the treatment respectively of a girl and of a boy just born there can hardly be much external difference, there will, nevertheless, be a difference, too subtle for ordinary people to observe, perhaps, but by no means too subtle to affect the infants. I mean the differ­ ence of what is termed atmosphere, in reference to the spiritual world. Even while the new-born babe is wrapped in a flannel covering and taken in the nurse’s arms, the �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 15 persons around the latter will begin to make their observa­ tions ; and their words, which the babe cannot understand, will be accompanied with looks expressive of affection or of indifference, which there is good reason to believe it can. The tones of the voice also have ei idently a strong effect both on children and on lower animals. Now, without assuming that we should everywhere meet with much differ­ ence in the welcome given to a male or a female child; without any ignoring of the fact that girls are often wel­ comed where boys would not be—still I maintain that the impulses generally evoked by the birth of a girl into a family, the discussion of her promise of attractiveness, her possible prospects in matrimony, &c., in short, her tacitly recognised place as a tributary and appendage to the male—these things floating and being ventilated around her, almost from the very hour of her birth, coagulate the first stratum of that poisoned spiritual atmosphere wherein she is destined to grow up. The fondness for a baby girl felt in particular instances by her parents and nurses may happen to exceed that for a boy; but the fondness is of a different kind. Ordinary persons have been accustomed to look upon boys as those intended hereafter to be equals among themselves in proportion to rank and wealth, and to be the masters of women in their respective degrees. Consequently, it is not to be expected that the future superior and the future inferior in all matters of life should be regarded at the outset of their lives with the same kind of affection, even where the degree of it is in favour of the girl. Thus, even before parents or guardians have begun to dogmatise about the religious or moral training up of the new-born girl, the atmosphere of that small society into which she comes at her birth is dead against her. Of warm love she may receive plenty; but it is rarely love of the most precious kind; at the best, it is love that will provide all attainable comforts and advantages for her lower nature, and leave—nay, lead—her higher nature to perish. Be they to whose care the infant is committed Jews, Christians, Mahomedans, non-religionists, what you will, they all agree in a common warfare against the divine order of the universe. So the new-born girl inhales an atmosphere dead against her spiritual life, so soon as her young eyes can discern faces and her ears distinguish tones. Let it not be thought that kindness of any sort, however �16 THE EDUCATION OE GTKL.S. mistaken its mode of working, is to be depreciated. The young blind, led by the adult blind, will both, indeed, fall into the ditch; but no one is further than I am from disbelieving that the blind guides, as a rule, do their best for their infant charge; and, moreover, I am sure that there are some amongst them so honest and single-minded in their simplicity, as to be capable of turning aside from the evil way and walking in the right one, if only they could be shown it. But, unfortunately, these are not the persons who in this world form the mind and set the fashions of society. It would almost seem as if mental culture were laboured for only to be abused, so that in place of the head being ruled by a good heart, the heart is misruled by a perverted head until it has ceased to be honest. At any rate, the knowledge of the sanctity hitherto attained by the classes who make it their profession, has not exceeded that amount which is proverbially dangerous ; the history of priestcraft being a history of knowledge sufficient to become an engine for misleading the masses, but not sufficient to demonstrate beforehand what the event proves, that such policy must bring about the falsification and corruption of all social relations, and sooner or later bring down on its authors and promoters the just execration of the lamely pro­ gressing nations of the earth—still just, even although the nations themselves were doubly in fault; first for having made to themselves those crooked rules, and then for not cutting them down like rotten trees so soon as ever their character appeared. That character, it is true, depends upon society, which thus moves in a vicious circle. A superstitious laity sets up priests without natural qualifica­ tion for their office; and these naturally take advantage of their position to keep the laity conveniently superstitious. And so the wheel goes round, without remedy, that I can see, but in calling to our aid the dormant capacity of the female race, and substituting the religion of nature and true humanity for an ignoble idolatry which usurps its place. �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 17 ESSAY III. [The same continued.'] I. I said that the fact of its social surroundings tending to affect the character of an infant, is one which not all minds may be able to comprehend. I think, however, that few will be able to follow me into the next field of inquiry, a spacious and sunny ground, where the objects to which I shall direct attention are large, and simple, and common; so that no hearer of my words shall be able to plead the miserable excuse of his own intellectual weakness. However hazy may be the notions many people have concerning such things as spiritual atmosphere, they ought to be able to follow me when 1 pass on to the period where children begin to speak their little syllables and to take in the drift of short sentences spoken to them, to distinguish faces constantly seen, and to exercise acts of recent memory. And here, in this manifest opening of education, comme-ces the working of that evil spell which is to bruise and bll lit the opening powers of the female child, and through her to ruin the character of the male children with whom she con­ verses, and through both to people the world with beings who grow up, the one sex to be but half men, the other, it is hardly exaggeration to say, not women at all. Where, then, is the commencement of this evil spell’s operation ? A little girl who has brothers ought to be inti lectually the better for it; the sexual character of mines, under the present terrestrial dispensation, being as much intended for reciprocation as that of bodies. But what benefits do we actually find ? The girl a year or two old, just able to prattle and comprehend a few sentences, is at once put by her mother or nurse, or both, into subjection under her male companions on every occasion of a little nursery quarrel about playthings, or some other storm in a tea-cup. At best the little brothers are told that they should give way to the little sisters on principles of chivalry, &c., �18 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. so far as children can be taught such things ; that is to say, because they are supposed to be the stronger, being: boys, and the strong should always be generous to the weak. The boy is to be kind to the girl on the principle that the merci­ ful man is to be kind to his beast. I don’t mean that people tell boys this in express words : but if they insinuate it that is just as bad. They are doing their best, however unwit­ tingly, to train up a child in the way of sacrilege and wrong; and when he is old—nay, when he has attained the prime of life—he will not depart from it. A. Spoken like yourself, Ish. And, indeed, I am alive to the reality of how much may be done by early impressions for good or ill; but are you not making too much of it ? For my part, I should be inclined to leave mothers and nurses alone until the children are old enough to come under wider influences, and then take care that these new influences, which can easily be made to obliterate the old ones, are of the right sort. I. But why, my good friend, why go putting off to a convenient season the duty which it behoves us to do to­ day ? Why adopt or sanction a system of beginning wickedly and foolishly, in the ungrounded confidence that you will afterwards proceed righteously and wisely? If you may spiritually debase your daughters at, say, four years old, why not at seven ; if at seven, why not at seventeen, and so on? Do you imagine it is so easy to say to the powers of darkness, Thus far shall je go, and no further? No, no; the only safety is in teaching children the principles of divine order so soon as they are able to learn anything. And I do not pretend that it will be a light task to neutra­ lise the evil influence of so many past generations. But it has to be done ; therefore, the sooner all classes buckle to the business the better for all. A. Well, but, Ish, how, for instance, in teaching young children, would you account to them for the greater brute force of the male ? I. In the first place, I have great doubts whether this quiet assumption about the male’s greater physical force is not an utter delusion—I mean, of course, when we com­ pare males and females of the same calibre. Of course, I do not deny that men in general grow to a larger stature than women in general, and have proportionally so much more of that force which is identical with material weight. �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. It Although, mind you, there is no reason why this order of nature should continue. A very few generations might reverse it. For instance, I believe the largest and tallest huma^ being now alive is a woman who lately exhibited herse1^London; and I lately read somewhere that Cuvier remarked ’ that the largest and heaviest brain he ever exfLmine(j wag... that of a woman. These little straws show that tpe wjnq seed not always set in the direction of Loan’s superiority * even in mere brute weight and its force, Moreover let me remind you that enormous importance should attach to the notorious fact that the existing modes of life of men and boys generally is very much more calculated to develop and haiden muscle than that of women and girls. So much the worse for society and its customs; nevertheless, such is the fact. And the difference between the muscles of the same person properly exercised and not properly exercised, is second only to that between the muscles of different persons. Meanwhile, if great brute weight or force is ■ to be called superiority well and good. Only in that case, while you point out to children how 11 superior ” man isto woman, you must also point out to them how “ supe­ rior” the elephant is to man, how “ superior” a great steamengine is to an elephant, how “superior” a falling cliff or an irruption of the sea is to the steam-engine. Let it once be cleaily settled that superiority means simply a greater mass of inert matter, and then the assertion that man is generally woman’s “ superior ” remains harmless so lon°- as it holds good. ° A. But are you sure that in a state of society where men am women had equal opportunities and no favour physically Old mentally, there would not be some performances in which men would always excel women, as there would be others m which women would excel men ? 7. I know of no evidence to show that men need always surpass women in anything except those kinds of hard labour, e.g., carrying heavy loads, which a woman in preg. nancy, or during her menstrual periods, ought certainly to avoid if possible. J . .4’ now> Ish, how would you take measures for initiating very young children into your doctrine of Divine ‘ Order, so as to prevent the young religious or aspiring faculty from going wrong ? X I do not see that there is any necessity fcr trying thei? �20 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS heads with deep matters at all. Not the ineffable Tetragrammaton, the universal one, but Elohim, the Godhead or Divine Plurality—in other words, not Woman, but her re­ presentative aspects, or individual women—constitute the temporal object of worship which alone can belong to our temporal conditions. We can worship and behold the One olny through and in the Many. A. Bless us, Ish ! do not you call that a deep matter? I should like to find the child who could be posted up in it. I. But, my dear Sir, alb you have to teach children is that they are never to worship any other object than a female—their own mother in the first instance, if you like. As they get older, the idea can be gradually extended from the single individual. Surely that is both simple and natural. A. Not quite such plain sailing as it might seem It is all very well to talk of worship; but you yourself, Ish, had you been taught on your present principles when you were a child, would have knelt before a particular woman or girl, and prayed to her with a homage as purely external and objective as the attention paid to an article of food set before you, and perhaps also as vague as, let us say, one’s ordinary notion of “ London ” or “ the sea.” 1. Well, I cannot help that. Of course children’s worship will be childish. All we can do is to see that rudimentary and inchoate religion shall not develop wrongly. If a child can only “ love ” a woman in the way that “ Charley Cram loved raspberry jam,” that, at any rate, is better than its living in awe of the detestable nightmare of a false god, as all children who are taught religion at all are still com­ pelled to do. A. Return your sword, Ish; we must examine these minutiae dispassionately. 1. Willingly. I have said nothing, however, but what I am prepared deliberately to repeat. A. Well then, now suppose that a child has reached that stage of religious development where it can begin to extend the sphere of its worship of women, or rather of woman ; and suppose that two or more of those lovely objects of worship happen to fall out and tear each other’s character to rags, in their young devotee’s presence. It strikes me that the growing Church of the Future would soon learn that in mutual scolding, if in nothing else, the Divine �THE EDUCATION OP GIRLS. Plurality undoubtedly excels her humble subject, the male. I. Well, that would be the first lesson—rather a rude one, it is true, and therefore to be avoided if possible—upon the difference hetween the Unity and the Plurality, between perfection and imperfection. Indeed they are pretty sure to find out imperfections and inconsistencies in the objects of their worship under even the most favourable circum­ stances ; therefore it is to be kept in view that they should learn to look higher than the individual, so soon as they are able to understand the simple formula that there is a Woman greater and better than all other women, who rules the (world, and some day or other will set right everything that goes wrong here. This, of course, is but a child’s way of looking at the matter, and perhaps better modes of convey­ ing the truth might be stated; all I strenuously insist on is that though it may be impossible to convey the whole truth to the young child, it is at all events possible, and a solemn duty, moreover, to convey to it nothing but the truth. Where there’s a will there’s a way : and if mothers, nurses, &c., only set themselves right, it is not likely that the infants and children under their care will wander far from the path of Divine Order. 41. I should be glad, nevertheless, to hear something more like explicit directions. I. You must not rate any directions of this sort which I can give as anything more positive than suggestion. Here is a suggestion, however, if you please. If it be desired that children begin religious practice very early, say by repeating a short sentence at bed-time, why not tell them that the God to whom this little prayer is made is simply a Woman, like, btft more lovely than, all other women together, and that though She cannot be seen and talked with in this life, yet if we pray to Her and trust in Her now, we shall live in enjoyment with Her in a happier life hereafter? To a very intelligent child it might be added that in that happier life there will be only women and girls, all good men having been changed into them; but this could only be said use­ fully to very thoughtful children. There then, Adam, I have done my best to throw you out a hint or sketch; you or others might, no doubt, easily improve upon it. Anyhow it is right so far as it goes, though that be only a little way. You would have shown the children—or put them in the �22 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS right road to find out—that the God to whom they pray is an ever ready help and comfort in trouble, an ever ready eompanion and sympathiser in pleasures, be they ever so childish, a real God at hand to heal and bless, not a false and mean and revengeful and selfish God afar off to disap­ point and mock. A. Yes ; I see no objection to that. I. Contrast such a faith of living warm sweetness and reality, which daily experience and spontaneous observation would mainly tend to confirm without the aid of unnatural distortive struggles of imagination—contrast it with the cold blast of Infinity, or with the bloody horrors of the historic tragedy on Calvary. Is there not between the two kinds of religious education almost the difference between giving a a child its mother’s milk, and dashing its head against the stones ? Those who have young children to bring up will do well to consider that they live in an age of rapid transition, when the old faiths are crumbling away and fated soon to lie mingled with the dust. Hence, to bring up children in reliance upon those collapsing walls is decidedly worse than to give them no religious education at all. It is but to expend time, labour, and means upon work which will have to be picked to pieces, upon lessons which will have to be unlearnt, and unlearnt by no means cheaply. If in­ deed a new and higher dispensation appear too startling to be acquiesced in at once, it is surely better to suspend judgment than to persist in a futile and discreditable course. Let parents consider that their children, when they are grown up men and women, living under a stronger and purer light, will assuredly not hold them blameless, will assuredly not esteem blundering affection any sufficient excuse for having forced their young charge to cling by their side to that which was visibly and palpably rotten. A. You speak very harshly of beliefs which, although I do not share them, are dear to many harmless and benevo­ lent people. I. I mean no injury to any one’s creed, regarded as a purely religious ideal. But when that creed is made the pretext for a social and political code of injustice and oppression, it must incur the condemnation due to the wrongs which it is abused to sanction. �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 23 ESSAY IV. [Ish’s Discourse continued.] * 1 Sic fatur lacrymans classique immittit habenas the Saturday Review of January 4th, 1868 :— 'There are, it must be owned, few things on earth of less interest at first sight than a girl in her teens. She is a mere bundle of pale, colourless virtues, a little shy, slightly studious, passively obedient, tamely religious. Her tastes are “simple;” she has to particular preference, that is, for anything; her aims incline mildly towards a future of balls to come ; her rule of life is an hourly reference to “ mamma.” She is without even the charm of variety; she has been hot-pressed in the most approved finishing establishments, and is turned out the exact double of her sister, or her cousin, or her friend, with the same stereotyped manner, the same smattering of accomplishments, the same con­ tribution to society of her little sum of superficial information. We wonder how it is that any one can take an interest in a creature of this sort, just as we wonder how any one can take an interest in the Court Circular. And yet there are few sentiments more pardonable, as there are none more national than our interest in that marvellous document___ It is precisely the same interest which attaches us to the loosely-tied bundle of virtue and accom­ plishments which we call a girl. We recognise in her our future ruler. The shy, modest creature who has no thought but a dance, and no will but mamma’s, will in a few years be our master, changing our habits, moulding our tastes, bending our character to her own. In the midst of our own drawing­ room, in our pet easy chair, we shall see that retiring figure quietly establish, with downcast eyes and hands busy with their crochet needles, what Knox called, in days before a higher knowledge had dawned, “ The Monstrous Regimen of Woman.” ,..... Feminine rule is certainly not favourable to anything like largeness of mind or breadth of view...... Woman lives from her childhood in a world of petty details, of minute household and other cares...... The habit of mind which is formed by these and similar influences becomes the spirit of the house—a spirit admirable, no doubt, in many ways, but excessively small. The quarrels of a woman’s life, her social warfare, her battles about precedence, her upward progress from set to set, have all on �24 > THE EDUCATION OE GIKLS. them the stamp of Lilliput. But it is to these small details, these little pleasures, and littie anxieties, and little disappoint­ ments, and little ambitions, that a wife generally manages to bend the temper of her spouse. He gets gradually to share her indifference to large interests, to broad public questions. He imbibes little by little the most fatal of all kinds of selfishness— the selfishness of the home...... Whether from innate narrowness of mind, or from defective training, or from the excessive development of the affections, family interests far outweigh in the feminine estimation any larger national or human consideration...... Justice is a quality unknown to woman, and against which she wages a fierce battle in the house and in the world. The first question here is whether the accusations quoted, or any of them, be true. If not, there is no occasion to give them a thought; they may be set affde with the easy supposition that such writers are bachelors, or others, “ crossed iD love,” and seeking to revenge indiscriminately upon the sex at large the wrongs, or fancied wrongs, they have suffered at the hands of individuals. But if, on the other hand, even growling bachelors and disappointed voluptuaries have nevertheless a real, solid foundation in fact for their ungallant observations, the evils they complain of will not be cured by being shrugged at and hushed up; on the contrary, the more you whitewash the outside, the more the inside will fester. It is not quite accurate to say that a girl can be “ turned out the exact double ” of another girl; the differences between characters are as irrepressible as between faces. Yet, just as the soldiers in a regiment, with all their various characters, can be drilled into something like uniformity in working, so can the girls in a house or in a school, and thence in a larger or smaller circle of society, be drilled after the pattern of a fixed conventionality, until their life becomes a tissue of hypocrisy so thorough and so subtle that it may almost be called conscientious hypocrisy. The great Oriental maxim of human wisdom is reversed; and Know not Thyself becomes the rule of polite society, the basis of good manners, and last, not least, the chevcd de lataille of that art of arts, that sport of sports, man­ catching. Let women of culture and of independent courage say what they will for themselves ; I revere—surely I have well shown how deeply—the bright side of their disposition; but I am now obliged to treat of the dark one. And I �THE EDUCATION OE GIRLS. 25 contend that the sway of the False God throughout known history has so darkened the world with its evil shadow that the most powerful among female minds now on this earth can hardly hope to shake it off completely—at least, I have not met with such an one. Turn to any religion or to any doctrinal system you please, and the Male is still practically in the ascendant; can we wonder, then, that lay society, which voluntarily entrusts its spiritual interests to the hands of a professional class, should model both its morals and its fashions after the accepted teaching ? When it has come to this, that a cultivated writer in a periodical can state, without provoking the resentment of all readers, that “ a girl in her teens ” is one of the most uninteresting objects in the world, we may sit down. The world, in that case, must be quite topsy-turvy, and the whole must be less than its part. So it is futile to go any further with science or philosophy; those useless occupa­ tions had better be cast aside ; for the further they go, the more they will go wrong. If she who is—or was intended to be—the crown and consummation of nature be among the most uninteresting objects of nature, it is hard to see reason for taking an interest in anything. According to this, it were better to be a mummy than a living and useful human being. Yet, for all that, is the apparent blasphemy entirely devoid of foundation ? I fear not. For example, some time ago I read a series of private letters addressed to a female relative from an unfortunate young lady, who had given birth to an illegitimate child, and had evidently suffered much in mind, if not in body, before she departed this life a short time after. The letter# evinced no want of good feeling of a certain sort; they ex­ pressed no anger against any one but herself; but here was just the hitch. I confess that, with all good will to sympa­ thise with the girl’s sufferings, I could not help laughing at these letters, and feeling my sympathies cheated. It was all such unexceptionable sin, sorrow, and repentance; the regular old story unaltered. The sin and sorrow were all done into such correct, angular, book-like phrases; they were so much in the style of the Perfect Letter-writer, so unmistakeably the sin and sorrow of a well-drilled Miss, instead of the unobtrusive grief of a natural, fresh girl; the Oh !’s and Ah !’s came into their right places with such” a weary, dreary precision of unbroken common-place; the �26 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. whole business was so exactly what one has met with over and over again in penny romances—that the most pathetic passages in the communications of this accurately-sinning and accurately-repenting Miss were certainly more provoca­ tive of a guffaw than of a sigh. It was the most complete travestie and burlesque of woe that I ever came across A. Poor Miss ! You are a very hard-hearted philosopher, Ish. I. I hope not; but I freely admit that I hate humbug, especially second-hand humbug. And especially, to do our English girls justice, does it sit ill upon them, who have the sterling heart-of-oak nature hidden beneath all this con­ founded rubbish, which would enable them to rise high above it all, if they chose. A.' Well, well; continue. I. The amount of mischief, both to the individual and to the society whereof the future woman or man is to form a part, which is done by this systematic early perversion is not to be estimated—unless, indeed, by forcing ourselves to contemplate all the misery and wickedness that contact with the world can reveal. From the horrors of a gigantic war, with its mangled and agonised bodies, its desolated and desecrated homes, down to the pettiest domestic trou­ bles and quarrels, we may only too safely affirm that early false impressions respecting good and evil lie at the bottom of it a. A. That is an awful impeachment. And I must say, it seems to me far too much to assume. I. Treat it as an assumption if you will, but I think you will find examination bear it out. Let us continue the examination. The first antagonism between children that rests on inculcated principle is that of the sexes. This, therefore, leaves its traces on brothers and sisters perma­ nently, while all other differences and quarrels are effaced. The young girl has been distorted and coerced into a false appreciation of the other sex from her earliest years of in­ telligence ; is she likely to forget the lesson during those most susceptible years of her life, the years approaching puberty ? Nay, nay; fidelity to her education, be it good or bad, is, if any other, a characteristic of the female ; after you have once spoilt her in early youth, it is very hard— although I do not say impossible—to un-spoil her after­ wards. Very well, then ; the character of the future mis­ �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 27 tress of the home, as the Saturday Reviewei’ says, is dormant in the mis-educated, and therefore uninteresting, girl “ in her teens ” that he sees before him. But to vitiate the home is to vitiate the world; for the characters, male or female, which can withstand home influence are few and far between. And the home influence is polluted thus in all departments. While the children are very young the boy is encouraged to be rough and “ manly” in his exploits under the nursery-table, or among the garden flower-beds, or in the orchard, while the girl is to be meek and mincing and “maidenly;” never to wrestle and kick about and harden her muscles, nor to raise her voice and strengthen her lungs. And now, when the children are passing out of childhood, and leaving off extremely childish things, the same principle is carried on, only that, in addition to pre­ vious repression, the girl’s mind, as well as her body, is attacked by her blind guides, and she is taught to repress her natural curiosity about sexual relations, which could be legitimately satisfied with judicious, but thoroughly scien­ tific, instruction, analysing the passions, and bringing them jfcrto subjection to the cultivated intellect; and so she is forced to think about these things only in that cramped, unwholesome, morbid, cowardly, and generally idiotic way in which a polite society or a polite church dares to think of them. Is it any wonder if a girl in her teens is made uninteresting? Yet, for all that there is a part of her which not even this persistent regime of devilry can sup­ press : and whoso hath eyes to see it, let him see it. A. The compliments of the season seem to be flying about to-day. Would it not be well, perhaps, to ventilate the matter in a rather more forensic tone ? I. No ; I doubt if it would. Silver speech is not likely to be listened to by those with whom I have to deal. Well, then, again ; to take another point of a girl’s education. A favourite feminine virtue is supposed to be humility. But humility towards whom or what? If humility of the individual human being towards the universal Human Being were meant, well and good. But then this would apply even more to man than to woman, since he is only the indirect form of the Universal One, while she is the direct form. Or if it were meant to convey that mankind, children especially, should never be too proud to learn, but always take to heart a useful hint on any subject, no matter �28 THE EDUCATION OE GIRLS. from how obseure a quarter; or if it were meant that we should be just, even in our quarrels, and never ashamed to recede from a clearly false position, and to make amends to the extent of our error—this humility also would be most commendable- and valuable. I doubt whether any one could become a philosopher without it, or indeed attain real greatness in any walk. So here are two kinds of humility which I admit to be very desirable in man or woman. But it is easy to see that the “humility ” incul­ cated by priestcraft and its morals is something altogether different. By this sacerdotal humility, which enslaves the conscience, beauty is to be humbled to material size and weight, sweetness to coarseness, intelligence and refinement to stupidity and brutality, the law of love to that of physical tyranny among barbarous peoples, and of moral tyranny among others ; the higher organism is to be humbled to the lower; and thence by logical necessity—although this is not admitted—Spirit to Matter, the Creator of the world to its subordinate forms, Good to Evil. A. You have a fine talent for making mountains out of molehills. I. I thought you said just now that the miseries of this world were not a molehill, but an awful contemplation. They are the molehill which the perversion of young girls has created. M. Nay, that is just the question. I. Be it so ; you will tread any other road in vain to settle the question. But that, of course, can only be finally decided by your own experience. Meanwhile, pray go and “ humble ” yourself as the Chair of St. Peter would tell you, and see whither your “humility” will lead. M. Well, keep your course again. I. Not even the excuse of negligenee—a fault to which we are all more or less prone in our various ways—can be alleged in defence of the ideas of their mutual duties in which those responsible cause the young of each sex to grow up. It will not avail for parents to say, “ Ah, well; we can’t be at the trouble to bring up our children differ­ ently from other people’s children; they must take their chance.” This kind of shelving the dispute will not hold, because to take trouble is just what they do, as it happens. They take enormous pains and trouble, only it is in a wrong direction. The work, of encouraging the frolics and freaks �THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS. 29 and gambols and outspokenness of boys, and of snubbing and strait waistcoating those of girls, is an aggregate of trouble in itself. Even if the work be shifted altogether to schoolmasters and mistresses, a sacrifice of money is gene­ rally entailed on the parents ; and a few would send their children off without any inquiries about the place of their paid-for instruction ; so that in any case a conscious effort has been made, and its results deliberately calculated upon. Hence, supposing that utter indifference what becomes of children were an excuse for allowing them to be perverted, that indifference is, generally speaking, not a fact, and the excuse falls to the ground. But, indeed, it is hardly worth considering; for there are comparatively few children so isolated from their home as to be out of the way of home influence on social relations. Example is a powerful agent in the education of the young. Any attempt to give them a sound ideal of conduct is sure to fail, so long as girls and boys hear grown-up women talking about the inability of ladies to do this or that, to take long walks, to bear heat or cold, to be out in the evening damp, to take their part thoroughly in any game or amusement, in anything that calls for exertion of body or mind ; and while they hear grown-up men ratifying and encouraging all this absurd nonsense and delicateladyism, contrasting feminine fragility and good-for-nothingness with their own god-like strength and wisdom. Is it to be expected that the buds of ideality, coming out in that imitation of men and women at which all children delight to play, should take any other form than that of setting up their men as heroes or villains of unlimited power, and their women as a set of washy fairies, bound to wait on their hirsute lords, and do their pleasure ? These things are not trifles ; for the future character of children is made even more at play than at work. The same vein runs through their amusements, whether they be children or adults. From “ This is the man all tattered and torn, that kissed the maiden all forlorn, that milked the cow with the crumpled horn,” &c., up—if, indeed, it be not rather down than up—to the most fashionable of sensational love­ novels, the same light and airy aspect of woman as the “ forlorn ” dependent of man, awaiting his favour, is pre­ sented by a myriad of channels to the imagination of youth. In the nursery, in the playground at school, at table with �30 THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS their elders, at public worship interpreted from the pulpit, in the entire routine of daily and weekly life, it is the same old story, the same sophistry and hypocrisy and arrogance on the one side; the same external cringing acquiescence, but practical hostility, on the other. On the one side are developed selfishness and contempt; on the other, servility, guile, and spite. This is not said at wedding-breakfasts; but it is, nevertheless, the ugly reality inaugurated there and everywhere else. And children cannot fail to see it, no, not more than they can fail to acquire the rudiments of their mother tongue. It may be wrapped in a silver paper of plausibilities, but it is a poison whose work is sure. I hardly need insist longer on the importance of early impressions ; these have always been recognised, and acted upon, alas! with only too fatal success by the self-seeking enemies of light and knowledge. The question before us is this: has any people in any age ever tried the experiment of an unprejudiced and unrestrictive education of girls, an education which, starting with no foregone conclusions about feminine capacity or duty, seeks rather to find out what girls can do than to restrain them from doing ? If not, it is surely time that we should turn and try while liberty of choice is left. The old religions of the world have proved themselves to be mostly delusions; the morals of the world have been something worse; failure has been stamped upon every undertaking, however grand, to improve the condition of mankind at large in any degree proportioned to the sacrifices demanded. But expediency is only one view of the question, and some might think it the lower view. There are the requisitions of eternal truth and justice to be satisfied; and if we who have the task entrusted to us to perform freely and generously, neglect our duty from short-sighted motives of whatsoever kind—those laws of disintegration which are inexorable in reforming the lower kingdoms of nature, will certainly not be long delayed in their action upon a community which has shown repeatedly that it is not fit to work out its destiny for itself. London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bbadlaugh, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C. ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The education of girls Description An account of the resource Edition: 2nd ed. Place of publication: [London] Collation: 30 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Four essays, mainly in the form of dialogues between "Adam" and "Ish". Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Date of publication from British Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dalton, Henry Robert Samuel Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Freethought Publishing Company] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1879] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N184 Subject The topic of the resource Women's rights Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The education of girls), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Education of Girls Suffrage Women's Emancipation Women's Rights https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dbc167bbdb0a78097b2f9c4d00631ae3.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=qPnjokHDlt92ykymLtXEFZHsS8F6XnCtDFuAIH6YEn0d4mh5Jlk-X1m7Aa6QKqyUiKjWp%7E3bJcFJuDT%7EhAZzTEw%7EexE0uBM7QoLSuBzNWFotl%7EU6eFJQZoKUnOQ7ReTHBFz%7Eh0InM6IoO30pw72ZEJEITybMU9Ep51efBOsN0bDD5XjpW6k1tY59b%7EV7t3DZraD5%7EocpK2gC%7El9TlW74De9uT5hOmQ3tn0P65u5GEYYnpQkZvXmaboAOP2JlgdOYky8MWrC0fJMTMXEWIup6vZ9aT8tTRjGHvlUFquCLe-djpURDW4mwpDkeFV6rG4ng4JB9Wfeez-xCE3VcKP4Zsw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cc71a15ef517f9d1851412d6e1fa49d2 PDF Text Text THE CURRICULUM OF MODERN EDUCATION, AND THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF CLASSICS AND SCIENCE TO BE REPRESENTED IN IT CONSIDERED : BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF TWO LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE MONTHLY EVENING MEETINGS OF THE COLLEGE OF PRECEPTORS, APRIL 11TH, & MAY 9th, 1866. By JOSEPH PAYNE, LATE OF LEATHERHEAD; FELLOW, AND ONE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENTS, OF THE COLLEGE OF PRECEPTORS, MEMBER OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, ETC. “ Not to know at large of things remote From use, obscure and subtle, but to know That which before us lies in daily life, Is the prime wisdom: what is more is fume, Or emptiness, or fond impertinence, And renders us, in things that most concern, Unpractised, unprepared, and still to seek.” Milton. LONDON: VIRTUE, BROTHERS, & CO., 26, IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1866. �°So each study in its turn can give rea­ sons why it should be cultivated to the utmost. But all these very arguments are met by an unanswerable fact, that our time is limited. It is not possible to teach boys everything. “ If it is attempted, the result is generally a superficial knowledge of exceedingly little value, and liable to the great moral objection, that it encourages conceit and discourages hard work. A boy who knows the general principles of the study, without knowing its details, easily gets the credit of knowing much, while the test of putting his knowledge to use will quickly prove that he knows very little. Meanwhile he acquires a dis­ taste for the drudgery of details, without which drudgery nothing worth doing ever yet was done.”—Dr. Temple’s Answer to Questions of the Commissioners on Public Schools. “ If we are to choose a study which shall pre­ eminently fit a man for life, it will be that which shall best enable him to enter into the thoughts, the feelings, the motives of his fellows.”—Ibid. “ All education really comes from intercourse with other minds. The desire to supply bodily needs and to get bodily comforts would prompt even a solitary human being (if he lived long enough) to acquire some rude knowledge of nature. But this would not make him more of a man. That which supplies the perpetual spur to the whole human race to continue incessantly adding to our stores of knowledge; that which refines and elevates, and does not educate merely the moral, nor merely the intellectual faculties, but the whole man, is our connection with each other; and the highest study is that which most promotes this connexion, by enlarging its sphere, by correcting and purifying its influences, by giving perfect and pure models of what ordinary experience can, for the most part, show only in adulterated and imperfect forms.”—Ibid. “The classic life contains precisely the true corrective for the chief defects of modern life. The classic writers exhibit precisely that order of virtues in which we are apt to be deficient. They altogether show human life on a grander scale, with less benevolence, but more patriotism; less sentiment, but more self-control; of a lower average of virtue, but more striking individual examples of it; fewer small goodnesses, but more greatness and appreciation of greatness; more which tends to exalt the imagination and inspire high conceptions of the capabilities of human nature. If, as every one must see, the want of the affinity of these studies to the modem mind is gradually lowering them in popular estima­ tion, this is but a confirmation of the need of them, and renders it more incumbent on those who have the power, to do their utmost to aid in preventing their decline.”—John Stuart Mill. “ We would have classics and logic taught far more really and deeply than at present, and would add to them other studies more alien than any which yet exist to the ‘business of the world,’ but more germane to the great business ofevery rational being—the strengthening and en­ larging of his own intellect and character.”—Ibid. “ In nations, as in men, in intellect as in social condition, true nobility consists in inheriting what is best in the possessions and character of a line of ancestry. Those who can trace the descent of their own ideas and their own lan­ guage through the race of cultivated nations, who can show that those whom they represent or reverence as their parents have everywhere been foremost in the field of thought and in­ tellectual progress: these are the true nobility of the world of mind; the persons who have received true culture; and such it should be the business of a liberal education to make men.”— Anon. “ The ancient classics would not be worse, but better taught in th'- highest forms, did the pupil receive a more general culture in his early course.”—Dr. Hodgson, “Classical Instruc­ tion,” an Article reprinted from the Westmin­ ster Review, Oct. 1853. " It is the early age at which classical studies are begun that, rendering the work at once tedious and unprofitable, necessitates so terrible an expenditure of time, and prevents their suc­ cessful prosecution. Difficulties which are now surmounted, if at all, with infinite labour and many tears; details which are now mastered, if at all, by children who can have but little compre­ hension of their meaning and purpose, and but little motive to mental effort, would afford only an easy and a pleasant exercise to minds more mature and better prepared.”—Ibid. “1 claim for the study of physics the recog­ nition that it answers to an impulse implanted by nature in the human constitution, and he who would oppose such study must be prepared to exhibit the credentials which authorize him to contravene nature’s manifest design.”—On the Importance of the Study of Physics as a Branch of Education for all Classes. By Professor Tyndall. “Leave out the physiological sciences from your curriculum, and you launch the student into the world undisciplined in that science whose subject matter would best develope his powers of observation; ignorant of facts of the deepest importance for his own and others’ wel­ fare ; blind to the richest sources of beauty in God’s creation; and unprovided with that belief in a living law, and an order manifesting itself in and through endless change and variety, which might serve to check and moderate that phase of despair through which, if he take an earnest interest in social problems, he will as­ suredly, sooner or later, pass.”—On the Educa­ tional Value of the Natural History Sciences. By Professor T. H. Huxley. . “ J’aime les sciences mathfimatiques et phy­ siques; chacune d’elles, 1’algfcbre, la chimie, la botanique, est une belle application partielle de l’esprit humain; Les Lettres. e'est Vesprit luimtme; l’6tude des lettres,Jc’estl’^ducation gfinfirale qui prepare h tout, l’iducation de l’ime.”— Napoleon I., quoted by Dr. Hodgson. “ Wenn uns miser Schulunterricht immer auf das Alterthum hinweist, das Studium der griechischen und latcinischen Sprache fordert, so konnen wir uns Gluck wiinschen, dass diese zu einer hoheren Cultur so nothigen Studien I niemals riickgangig werden.”—Gothe. �PREFACE. The following pages contain the substance, with some alterations and additions, of two Lectures lately delivered at the College of Preceptors, and the writer seeks by the publication of them the suffrages of that larger audi­ ence with which lies the ultimate decision in discussions of this kind. The question of the curriculum is daily becoming more and more im­ portant. The demand that it shall represent, in a far greater degree than it has hitherto done, the wants and wishes, the active energies, and in short the spirit, of the age, cannot be, and ought not to be, set aside. This claim, which involves particularly the pretensions of physical science to be represented in the curriculum, is much strengthened by the con­ sideration, that science furnishes, when properly taught, a kind of educational training of special value, as a complement to that of language. The writer has attempted to show, that science teaches better, that is, more directly and soundly, than any other study, how to observe, how to arrange and classify, how to connect causes with effects, how to comprehend details under general laws, how to estimate the practical value of facts. Having, however, dealt out this measure of justice to science, he maintains that the difficulties which lie in the way of the attainment of these valuable results, by means of school education, have not yet been overcome ; and that even if they were, and science were fully admitted into the curriculum,—which ought to be the case, —that the classical and literary training is better adapted to the development of the whole man than the scientific, and should therefore take the lead. In pursuing this argument, he has been led specially to deal with two fallacies, which, under a variety of forms, are extensively prevalent at present, and, by their evil influence, tend very much to hinder the cause which they are, apparently, designed to promote. The first is, That because there is so much to know in the world, we are bound to try to make our children learn it all. The second is, That because there is so much to do in the world, we ought to force all kinds of business upon children’s attention beforehand, by way of preparation for it; in other words, that the onine scibile and the omne facibile (to use a barbarous Latin word) ought to be comprehended in every good curriculum of education. If he has succeeded in exploding these fallacies, and in making good his own pro­ position, that all true education involves, fundamentally, training, and training of a kind that is quite incompatible with the claims of any system in which accumu- B 2 �IV lation is the first principle, and special preparation the second, he hopes to gain the thanks of all judicious and really competent authorities in science; of all who mean by teaching science, training the mind to scientific method, to habits of investigation, and the diligent search after truth. There can be little doubt that the recent Report on the results of classical teaching in our public schools, and especially in the case of Eton, has done much to strengthen the cause of those who wish to see a reform in the curri­ culum. Few men, perhaps, at the head of public institutions have ever stood in a more humiliating position than that occupied, about four years ago, by the Head-Master of Eton, who, being under examination before the Commission on Public Schools, could only say, in reply to the following pungent remarks of Lord Clarendon, the chairman, that he was “ sorry —thus allowing the full force of the charges implied. “Nothing can be worse,” said his Lordship, “than this state of.things, when we find modern languages,geography,history, chronology, and everything else which a well-educated English gentleman ought to know, given up, in order that the full time should be devoted to the classics; and at the same time we are told, that the boys go up to Oxford not only not proficient, but in a lamentable state of deficiency with respect to the classics.” It is not to be wondered at, that those who were before discontented with the established course of study in our public schools, became, after such a state­ ment of facts, amply borne out as it was by the evidence, so indignant, as to demand, in the interests of philanthropy as well as science, that the system which had borne such fruits should be not only degraded, but deposed. This violent reaction cannot, however, be sustained. The abuse must not be con­ founded with the use. It may be true that very little besides classics is taught at Eton, and that they are not learnt; but this is no argument against either the theory or the practice of classical instruction. But while the present writer, who has had long experience in teaching, defends generally that theory and practice, he believes that the time is come for such a modification of its working, at least in middle-class schools, as will admit of the honourable intro­ duction of science into the curriculum. It is then as a friend, and not an enemy, to science, that he has endeavoured to clear the ground of some of the frivolous and damaging arguments which theorists have imported into the discussion, and to plead that it shall be so taught as to make it a real mental exercise. Thus introduced as a coordinate discipline, it would prove a most valuable ally in education, and take its proper place among the great elements which are moulding the civilisation of the age. 4, Kildare Gardens, Bayswater, July 1, 1866. �THE CURRICULUM OF MODERN EDUCATION, AND THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF CLASSICS AND SCIENCE TO BE REPRESENTED IN IT CONSIDERED. From tlie time when the idea was first con­ out by Wisdom to build her house upon. The * ceived of interfering with the natural liberty structure, however, then, and for a thousand of children, and setting them down on benches years after, remained unfinished ; and even at or on the ground to “learn,” the question of the present day it must be acknowledged that what they should be taught could not fail to Wisdom’s house of education is by no means be one of great interest. An inquiry into the distinguished for symmetrical beauty and details of the various curricula arranged for completeness. In the rivalry which, not un­ the purpose of instruction by the wise men of naturally, arose between these two courses of the different nations of antiquity, would no study, it would appear that the physical or doubt elicit much that would be valuable for strict sciences were usually defeated; for, the purpose of a writer on the History of either from indolence or distaste, the founda Education, but opens up far too wide a field tion of the Trivium, to which precedence in for our present limits. It may, however, be education was considered due, was generally observed generally, in passing, that the scien­ so long in laying that the pupil rarely reached tific or practical element seems to have pre­ what was then treated as the higher course. vailed more in the primary schools of Egypt, Practically, indeed, in the lower schools, no India, Phoenicia, and Persia ; the linguistic attempt was made to go much beyond or literary in those of Judea, China, Greece, “ Grammar,” which, in connection with the and Rome. Exception may, no doubt, be study of Latin alone at first, and subsequently taken to this general statement, which, how­ of Greek, with a little reading, writing, and ever, I must leave in its vagueness, without arithmetic, formed the common course for even a momentary effort to estimate the com­ English boys in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and parative value of the various curricula in their sixteenth centuries. If the curriculum of school relation to the spirit and character of the education is to be considered as reflecting the respective nations which adopted them ; and spirit of the age, which, however, is not, as we without even contrasting, as educational pro­ see in our own case, a fair criterion, it would ducts, Plato, the pupil of Socrates, on the one appear that physical science was in those side, and Alexander the Great, the pupil of times, if not altogether neglected, at least Aristotle, on the other. treated with indifference; for not only in Descending, then, as at a leap, to the com­ schools, but even in the universities, the quamencement of the Middle Ages, in Europe, we drivials were, as Harrison remarks, “ smallie find the omne scibile comprehended, for the pur­ regarded.”} This state of things, continuing pose of teaching, in two groups; the Trivium, almost unaltered to the seventeenth century, consisting of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric ; roused the indignation of Milton, who denounces and the Quadrivium, of Arithmetic, Music, Geo­ metry, and Astronomy. These subjects were de­ * “Wisdom hath builded her house: she hath hewn out her seven pillars.” (Prov. ix. 1.) signated by Cassiodorus, the literary adviser and I f Harrison’s “Description of England,” prefixed to friend of Theodoric, the “ seven pillars ” hewn Holinshed’s Chronicle, 1577. �“ the haling and dragging of our choicest and commended, too, by their much closer connec­ hopefullest wits to that asinine feast of sow­ tion with the interests and happiness of mankind. thistles and brambles, which is commonly set The fact cannot be denied, that our general before them as all the food and entertainment school curriculum includes much that is not of their tenderest and most docible age practically available in the world for which it while Cowley, rather later, pleads for the is by theory a preparation, and excludes much initiation of children into “ the knowledge that is ; that it rests mainly on the traditions of things as well as words,” and for the “ in­ and experience of the past; and that it does fusing knowledge and language at the same not appear to keep pace, pari passu, with the time into them.” Both these eminent men actual life, the feelings, and hopes, and aspi­ constructed schemes, on paper, for revolution­ rations of the present. If these admissions, izing the existing curriculum in accordance with literally interpreted, are to be considered their views. Inasmuch, however, as they were sufficient causes for condemnation, the ques­ in no respect themselves the fruit of the system tion is at once decided, and society has only they advocated, nor recommended it (I allude to order the delinquent for execution without specially to Milton) by their own practice, delay. Before, however, the matter is thus the public generally seems to have attached summarily disposed of, the defendant should, little importance to their views, and certainly and indeed must, in all fairness, be allowed to showed no desire to adopt them. plead his cause at the bar of reason and com­ After their days, the established system was mon sense. In the case of this as of other occasionally complained of (notably by Locke, time-honoured institutions, it will probably be and Clarke, and more recently by Sydney found that we are not so very much wiser Smith); but within the last fifty years, various than our fathers as we may at first sight be causes have tended to strengthen the assailants disposed to flatter ourselves. The very fact of and give piquancy to the strife ; and at the pre­ the antiquity of an institution is, at all events, sent moment, more than ever before, the advo­ a respectable plea, and should not be wantonly cates of the old and new systems respectively rejected. It must, however, be admitted that are pertinaciously presenting their claims to the this plea has not in our day the strength which arbitration of the public. The maintenance it once had. Old institutions, of whatever of a hostile feeling is, however, much to be kind, are nowrequired to prove that they deserve deprecated. This question may be, it is to live, if that privilege is to be allowed them. hoped, dispassionately discussed; and for In the case before us, we have an extreme myself, though advocating the retention of party of reformers, who without hesitation much of the old system, I am, as will be seen, declare that the proper place for Classical strongly impressed with the great claims of instruction in the curriculum is no place at science, and disposed to recommend a fair all—who would not only dethrone it from the and liberal compromise. I cannot but think position it has so long held, but thrust it that a curriculum framed in such a way ignominiously forth. This is the not unnatural as to retain the sound discipline of the old reaction against the unwarrantable assumption classical course, and to embrace the vivifying on the other side, that the proper place of influences of the scientific element, would prove classics in the curriculum is the whole cur­ advantageous to both. Science, judiciously riculum ; that they alone constitute “ learn­ and thoroughly taught, supplies a training of a ing and that the most honourable and different kind from that supplied by classics, lucrative positions in society ought to be and of a kind especially adapted to correct the allotted, as a matter of course, to those who defects of the latter. This has been, indeed, hold their certificate. Exaggerated preten­ to some extent, admitted by the general intro­ sions, however, on whichever side they are duction of mathematics into the curriculum. held, only injure the cause of those who main­ It will, however, be shown that pure mathe­ tain them, and in the present case are espe­ matics are not sufficiently comprehensive for cially unsuitable. For, as between the rival the purpose. The observational and experi­ claims of language and literature on the one mental sciences, besides being more generally side, and science on the other, there is surely inviting as a study than mathematics, are re­ much to be said for both so true and so reason- �able as to claim the respectful attention of all fair and competent judges. It must never be forgotten that out of those ages in which science, properly so called, was unknown, came forth the great teachers of mankind, the pioneers, nay more, the efficient agents, by words and deeds, in originating and carrying on the civilization of the human race. /Phis important work was accomplished by men utterly unacquainted with geology, the steamengine, the electric telegraph, spectrum analysis, or the dynamic theory of heat. Without these means and appliances, or even an atom of the spirit of which they are the fruit,—without any of the enthusiasm of modern physical philosophy,—statesmen and warriors, heroes, patriots, and artists, of whom all ages are proud, have so lived as to leave an imperishable name behind them. Whether the age of science will produce grander results, has yet to be proved. On the other hand, it is most reasonable that science too should, in our day especially, claim its proper place in education as a civilizing agent. It may point with pride to what it has done and is doing, and may without rebuke exclaim : “If you need memorials of my power and influence, look around you ; the results are everywhere. Nay more, if, instead of mere details, dry facts, and practical applications, you have a taste for sublime speculations and theories, I can furnish you with views into the distant and the past almost unequalled for elevation, range, and depth, and fraught with the profouudest interest to the present and all future genera­ tions.” We may therefore, without slavish humility, bow reverentially before both these claimants on our homage, and denounce impartially the zealots and fanatics on either side,—the men who audaciously, declare that sci­ entific instruction is “ worthless,” and equally those who stigmatize the classics as “ useless,” —in the curriculum of modern education. In dealing with the subject of my lecture, I propose in the first place, to consider generally the curriculum of modern education for the middle classes, and to discuss some ot the plans proposed for its reformation; and secondly, to advocate the claims of classical instruction to continue to hold the leading place in it as a mental discipline. The object we have in view is to discuss the curriculum of modern education, as far as the middle classes of society are con­ cerned— excluding, on the one hand, those whose instruction must, from circumstances, be limited to the barest elements of learn­ ing ; and those, on the other hand, whose course is intended to terminate in a uni­ versity career. The question then is—con­ sidering the age in which we live, with its immense accumulation, and wonderful appli­ cations, of knowledge; considering too that the longest life is too short for securing for the individual man any large portion of this, which constitutes the treasury of the race; and that the immature faculties of the child can grasp only a very limited portion of that which is ultimately attained by the mau— whether we do wisely in giving up any consi­ derable portion of the small space of time available for acquisition, to the attainment of a kind of knowledge which appears, in com­ parison with scientific and general information, to be only slightly demanded by the wants and the wishes of the age. If it is neces­ sary, or even important and desirable, that we should all attempt to know all things, this question is at once settled by the exi­ gencies of the case. Every moment of the time devoted to instruction must, on that assumption, be given up to the earnest and unremitting pursuit of the “ things that lie about in daily life;” and everything which impedes or interferes with that pursuit must be regarded as impertinent. It is, however, perfectly clear that the attempt to force the individual man to keep up with the intel­ lectual march of the human race, must end in utter disappointment; and, moreover, involves a fatal misconception of the object which all true education should. have in view. It can­ not be too frequently repeated, that develop­ ment and training, and not the acquisition of knowledge, however valuable in itself, is the true and proper end of elementary educa­ tion, nor too strongly insisted on, that he who grasps too much holds feebly, or, as the French pithily express it, qui trop em.brasse mal etreint. The fact that there is a vast store of knowledge in the world is no more a reason why I should acquire it all, than the fact that there is an immense store of food is a reason why I should eat it all. We may mourn over the limitation of our powers, but as our fate in this respect is quite inevitable, it �is our duty, as rational creatures, to submit to sented in the former. The other principle it, and to be satisfied with doing, if not all seems to be, that as men are often found that we fondly wish, yet all that we can, and, “ unpractised, unprepared, and still to seek,” what is more important, as well as we can. in regard to the circumstances in which they 1 cannot but think that the protest of the are actually placed in life, we should anticipate high-minded and conscientious men who are this difficulty by making children acquainted in our day aiming at the reform of the beforehand with “ the leading kinds of activity school curriculum, would be much more whicji constitute human life”—in other words, influential with the public if they would keep with all varieties of practical business. In closely to the true issue in discussing this enforcing both these views, touching appeals question. It is most desirable, certainly, that ad misericordiam are made by their supporters, there should be a thorough reform; but it is based, first, on the cruelty of withholding from equally desirable that the reform should be the child that knowledge of science which has established on a sound basis, and that both become the inheritance of the race, and which parties should co-operate in arriving at a wise he so much desires to have ; and again, on the decision on this point. criminal neglect of his teachers in not secur­ It is much to be regretted that so many of ing him, by ample knowledge of practical those who have handled the subject of the business, against the dangers into which, from curriculum in the interests of philanthropy, ignorance and inexperience, he is not only should be disqualified from treating it judi­ likely, but certain to fall. The theory, then, ciously by a want of practical acquaintance with stated in its bare simplicity, is, that the boy education. Very much at their ease, they con­ is to be provided by his education, first, with struct airy and fantastic theories, founded not all scientific knowledge; and secondly, with on what is practicable, but what is desirable ; all practical knowledge, as his proper equip­ recommend them earnestly, as if they were ment for the battle of life. the genuine fruits of experience, and too fre­ That I may not, however, be suspected quently reproach the hard-working teachers, of misrepresenting these theoretical views of who, however much they may admire such the curriculum, I will now endeavour to ex­ theories, cannot by any amount of labour hibit them, as taken from the works in which realize them, and therefore feel themselves they are to be found. aggrieved at having their actual educational In the first number of the “ Westmin­ product unfairly brought into comparison with ster Review,” published in 1824, we find the highly-coloured results promised by the an article mainly devoted to the explanation theorist. These writers, men, if you will, of and enforcement of Mr. Bentham’s “ Chrestobenevolent hearts, certainly of lively imagina­ mathia”* as a scheme of instruction which tions, evince far too little sympathy with -(to use the reviewer’s words) should “ compre­ the actual work of the practical teacher, with his hend the various branches of education which arduous, long continued, little appreciated toils, are spread over the whole field of knowledge, his never-ending struggle against the natural giving to each its due share of importance volatility, ignorance, dulness, obstinacy, and with a view to the greatest possible sum of sometimes depravity, of his pupils ; and com­ practical benefit.” It is curious to see the prehend not the true vital organisation of that course of study proposed by Bentham, and “ pleasing, anxious (professional) being,” which which has been extended by the enthusiastic perhaps, after all, no earnest teacher ever resigns Mr. Simpson, in his work entitled “ The Philo­ without some “ longing, lingering look behind. ’ ’ sophy of Education.” Two leading principles seem to charac­ The subjects proposed for the Chrestomathic terize most of the theories which have been, in modern times, proposed for the reform of the * “ Chrestomathia: being a Collection of Papers old curriculum. The first is, that the cur­ explanatory of the Design of an Institution proposed to be set on foot, under the name of the Chrestoma­ riculum ought to be considered as a counter­ thic Day-Schools, or Chrestomathic School, for the part or reflex of the world of knowledge to Extension of the New System of Instruction to the Higher Branches of of the which it is introductory, and that therefore Middling and HigherLearning, for the use Jeremy Ranks of Life.” By the omne scibile of the latter should be repre­ Bentham, Esq. London: 1816. �9 curriculum of study in the case of boys, and girls too, “ between the ages of seven and four­ teen,” are as follows :— Elementary Arts.—Reading, writing, arith­ metic. 1 st Stage.—Mineralogy, botany, zoology, geo­ graphy, geometry (definitions only), history, chronology, drawing. 2nd Stage.—Same subjects, with mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, pneu­ matics, acoustics, optics. Chemistry, mineral, vegetable, animal. Meteorology, magnetism, elec­ tricity, galvanism, balistics. Archaeology, statistics. English, Latin, Greek, French, and German grammars. 3rc? Stage.—Subjects of previous stages, and mining, geology, land-survey­ ing, architecture, husbandry, including the theory of vegeta­ tion and gardening. Physical economics—i. e., the ap­ plication of mechanics and che­ mistry to domestic manage­ ment, involving “maximization of bodily comfort in all its shapes, minimization of bodily discomfort in all its shapes,” biography. 4.th Stage.—Hygiastics (art of preserving and restoring health), comprising physiology, anatomy, patho­ logy, nosology, dietetics, mate­ ria medica, prophylactics (art of warding off evils), surgery, therapeutics, zohygiastics (art of taking care of animals). Phthisozoics (art of destroying noxious animals : vermin kill­ ing, ratcatching, &c.). 5th Stage.—Geometry (with demonstrations), algebra, mathematical geogra­ phy, astronomy. Technology, or arts and manu­ factures in general. Bookkeeping, or the art of regis­ tration or recordation. Commercial book-keeping. Note-taking. Such is the scheme of the Chrcstomatbia, which designedly omits (as Mr .’Bentham tells us) gymnastic exercises, fine arts, applications of mechanics and chemistry, belles lettres, and moral arts and sciences. These are omitted on various grounds which I have no time to specify, except to mention one, which might indeed have very suitably excluded five-sixths at least of those enumerated—“time of life too early.” Mr. Simpson, approving of the whole of the above curriculum, thought it still incomplete, and therefore introduced the department of Moral Science omitted by Bentham, as a 6th Stage.—History, government, commerce. Political economy. Philosophy of the human mind. Risum teneatis, amici! Was anything more extraordinary ever proposed in the whole his­ tory of man ? This imposing display of the triumphs of the entire human race is actually presented as a curriculum of study for children between seven and fourteen years of age 1 Such is the scheme lauded by a writer who complains that “ hitherto the education proper for civil and active life has been neglected, and nothing has been done to enable those who are to conduct the affairs of the world to carry them on in a manner worthy of the age and country in which they live, by communicating to them the knowledge and the spirit of their age and country.” This is the panacea, then, proposed by the Chrestomathic school for the cure of the educational maladies of the day. Education, according to this view, is to con­ sist in the administration of infinitesimal doses of knowledge: a little drop of this, a pinch of that, an atom of the third article, and so on ; the names and technicalities of a great range of subjects, and mastery and power over none. Comment on such a scheme is unnecessary. It condemns itself, as a method of teaching superficiality and sciolism on system. Is there any connection between such a course and the “complete and generous education” (these are Milton’s words) that “ fits a man to perform justly, skilfully, and magnanimously all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war”? Are we not rather injuring than aiding true mental development, and perhaps moral too, by pretending to teach the sciences when all the while we are teaching little beyond their names ? Is such a scheme as this to super­ sede the sound instruction and invigorating dis- �10 eipline of the old school ? Is this the desidera­ tum so eagerly looked for as a means of pro­ ducing men capable of carrying on the affairs of the world in “a manner worthy of the age and country in which we live ”? I quite agree with the most advanced of the reformers in ques­ tion as to the need of reform ; but I hope they will agree with me that this is not the direction in which it is to be promoted, and that if the new crusade is to be successful in its objects, Messrs. Bentham and Simpson must not be permitted to head the movement. Another theoretical writer on modern edu­ cation is Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, in his work entitled “Education, Intellectual, Moral, and Physical,” has presented us with a scheme —evolved apparently out of the depths of his own consciousness; for he does not profess to have any practical experience as a teacher or schoolmaster—so ingenious, and pretty, and complete, that one can only sigh over the limited capacity of human nature, which will, it is to be feared, for ever prevent its being realised. While agreeing for the most part with Mr. Bentham, that a child can and ought to learn—at least, what he calls learning—an immense number of subjects, he insists with great earnestness upon the principle (which, if rightly interpreted, no one questions), that education should prepare the pupil for the duties of life; or, as he styles it, for “ the right ruling of conduct in all directions, and under all circumstances.” This, as he remarks, —and everyone will agree with him,—is the “ general problem, which comprehends every special problemand he goes on further to tell us, that the solution of it involves our knowing “ in what way to treat the body; in what way to treat the mind ; in what way to manage our affairs ; in what way to bring up a family; in what way to behave as a citizen; and in what way to utilise those sources of happiness which nature supplies; how to use our faculties to the greatest advantage of our­ selves and others; how to live completely. And this being the great thing needful for us to learn, is by consequence the great thing which education has to teach.” This is an epitome of Mr. Spencer’s views on the curriculum, and it appears to be impos­ sible to satisfy the conditions of his theory by anything short of special preparation for all the contingencies of life. My limits will not allow of a close investigation of arguments and illustrations, spread over nearly sixty pages of his book; but a practical school­ master has surely some right to inquire, whether he is serious in adducing, as evidences of defect in the school curriculum, nume­ rous instances of persons injuring their eye­ sight by over-study, and their limbs by over-ex­ ercise ; of others suffering “ from heart-disease, consequent on a rheumatic fever that fol­ lowed reckless exposureand again, of “ the engineer who misapplies his formulae for the strength of materials, and builds a bridge that breaks downof the shipbuilder who, “ by adhering to the old model, is outsailed by one who builds on the mechanically-jus­ tified wave-line principle;” of the bleacher, the dyer, the sugar-refiner, the farmer, who fail more or less, because unacquainted with chemistry ; and notably of the mining speculators, who ruin themselves from igno­ rance of geology; and the constructors of electro-magnetic engines, “ who might have had better balances at their bankers,” if they had understood “ the general law of the cor­ relation, and equivalence of forces.” Are all these sad delinquencies, and many more, recounted with terrible accuracy by Mr. Spen­ cer, fairly to be laid to lack of service and duty and sense in the schoolmaster ? Ought the elementary schoolmaster—that is the real question—to have furnished all hispupilsoffrom seven to fourteen years of age with the know­ ledge, and judgment, and common sense, and experience, which are the proper safeguards against the failures I have enumerated ? I answer distinctly, that he is not responsible; and I might say this much more strongly, but that I respect Mr. Spencer’s earnestness and true sincerity of purpose. But Mr. Spencer, who is no schoolmaster himself, having, it would appear, a most exalted opinion of the omnipo­ tent and omniscient faculties of that func­ tionary, demands still something more of him, and regarding it as “an astonishing fact, that not one word of instruction on the treatment of offspring is ever given to those who will by and by be parents,” that is, given by the schoolmaster, lays that obligation also upon him. Here too, it appears to me, the prac­ tical schoolmaster has a right to ask, very specifically, what kind of information “on the treatment of offspring” Mr. Spencer would �11 himself propose to give, as a sortof model school inefficient and enervating. General truths, to lesson, to a child of twelve or fourteen years be of due and permanent use, must be earned.’’ of age ? The child is, to be sure, in a certain The same principle would seem to decide sense, “the father of the man’’; but it is coming the question of special preparation. The ex­ down rather sharply upon him to apply this perience of those who have gone before us literally, and make him leave his tops and cannot supersede our own ; and no conceivable balls so early in life, and set about this unsea­ improvement, therefore, in the curriculum will sonable preparation for the duties of paternity. ever provide for “ the right ruling of conduct The general conclusion, then, from our re­ in all directions, under all circumstances ;” or, view of Mr. Spencer’s theory is, that its due in other words, furnish a child beforehand satisfaction involves the assumption that every with the mental and moral powers which are man is to be his own doctor, lawyer, architect, to be developed in the actual life of the man. bailiff, tailor, and, I suppose,—clergyman; so It is by living that we learn to live. that the Chrestomathic scheme, which required I have already suggested, that development the child to learn the omne scibile, is supple­ and training, not the acquisition of knowledge, mented, as not being comprehensive enough, however valuable in itself, is the true and by Mr. Spencer’s, for learning also the omne proper end of elementary education. In a * facibile; and both must, I fear, be condemned, I general way it may be asserted that the former not only as being utterly impracticable, (though is the main tenet of the old or conservative, that might beasufficient objection,) butas being the latter of the new or reforming school. We based on a total misconception of what ele­ shall have to dwell at some length on this mentary education ought to be.t point, that we may be prepared to recognise The fact is, that however captivating to the the respective claims of various subjects to be imagination the idea may be of communicating admitted into the curriculum. It is perfectly to our pupil those immense stores of knowledge, true that neither view of necessity excludes the possession of which distinguishes the pre­ the other. Any subject, however suitable in sent from all previous ages, it is one which, itself for the discipline of the pupil, may be so when brought to the test of experience, proves taught as to involve no good training ; and a utterly illusory. A higher power than that subject presumptively unsuitable may, by the of either the theoretical educationist, or the skill of the teacher, be made to yield the practical schoolmaster, has ordained that into happiest fruits. Still the prominence given the kingdom of knowledge, as into the king­ to these respective features in theory must dom of heaven, we must enter as little children. materially affect the practice founded on them. We must begin at the beginning, and learn I need not refer to the very etymology of the the prima elementa each for himself, as all word “ education” to support the more oldchildren before us have done, gaining little ad­ fashioned view of the case. All will allow vantage as individuals from the achievements that it means training or development; but which science has effected for our race. We I would dwell for a moment on the meaning of find, too, that if, from a desire to spare our the cognate term“ instruction,”in support of the pupil the labour of learning fact after fact in same argument, and also to show that a real apparently endless succession, we frame com­ and judicious teaching of science, not a ran­ pendious formulae, rules, and general prin­ dom gathering together of scraps of “ useful ciples, founded on other men’s mental expe­ knowledge,” does indeed involve a genuine dis­ rience, and endeavour to feed his mind with cipline of the mind. The original meaning them, they prove, in the early stage of instruc­ of instruere is to heap up, or pile up, or tion, utterly indigestible, and minister no put together in a heap generally, and seems proper nourishment for him. Mr. Spencer, in somewhat to countenance the Chrestomathic another part of his book, justly remarks: notion ; but the secondary meaning, and that “ To give the net product of inquiry, without with which we are more concerned, is “ to put the inquiry that leads to it, is found to be both together in order, to build or construct”; so that instruction is the orderly arrangement * This phrase is, I am aware, non-classical. It is, and disposition of knowledge, a branch of however, to be found in Ducange. t See Appendix, Note A. mental discipline which all must acknowledge �12 to be of great importance and value. But rate, and mature all the faculties, so as to heaping bricks together, and building a house exhibit them in that harmonious combination with them, are two very different things. The which is at once the index and the result of orderly arrangement of facts in the mind im­ manly growth. In order to gain the ends I plies a knowledge of their relation to each have specified, or indeed any considerable other ; and, if carried out to a certain extent, number of them, it is essential that the studies furnishes the ground-work for the establish­ embraced in the training course should be ment of those general laws which constitute few. We cannot hope to have, in the early what is properly called science. The knowledge, stage of life, both quantity and quality. In however, of these mutual relations is gained by giving a preference to the latter, we do but quiet, earnest brooding over facts, viewing them consult the exigencies of the case. At the in every kind of light, comparing them care­ same time, it may be hoped that, because the fully together for the detection of resemblances aim is to enrich and prepare the soil, the ulti­ * and differences, classifying them, experi­ mate harvest will be proportionately bountiful. menting upon them, and so on. Allowing, I have said that the subjects to be studied then, to science, properly so called, all in the training course should be few. But I that can be claimed for it as a con­ proceed further, and maintain that for the stituent of the curriculum—and of its im­ purpose of real discipline it is advisable—nay, mense value in education I shall have to even necessary—to concentrate the energies speak presently—we must explode, definitely for a long period together on some one general and finally, the notion that these valuable subject, and make that for a time the leading results can be elicited by frittering away the feature, the central study of the course— powers of the mind on a great variety of keeping others in subordination to it. By subjects. Nor must we be led away by the giving this degree of prominence to some par­ frequently meaningless clamour for “ useful ticular branch of instruction, we may hope to knowledge.” Knowledge which may be un­ have it studied to such an extent, so closely, questionably useful to some persons may so accurately, so soundly, so completely, that not be useful at all to others; therefore, it may become a real possession to the pupil although education is to be a preparation —a source of vital power, which the mind for after life, yet it is to be a general, not “ will not willingly let die.” The concentration a professional, preparation, and cannot pro­ of mind and range of research necessary for vide for minute and special contingencies. this purpose obviously involve many of the The object of education is to form the man, advantages I have recently enumerated. In not the baker—the man, not the lawyer—the this way, too, the pupil will become fully con­ man, not the civil engineer. scious of the difference between knowing a What then, we may now inquire, should be the thing and knowing something about it, and main features of a training, as distinguished will be forcibly impressed with the superiority from an accumulating, system of instruction ? of the former kind of knowledge. This con­ It should, I conceive, aim at quickening and viction is of no small importance; for it gives strengthening the powers of observation and him a clear, experimental appreciation of the memory, and forming habits of careful agency—the measure and kind of intellectual and persevering attention; it should habitu­ effort—by which the complete and accurate ate the pupil to distinguish points of difference knowledge was gained, and thus can hardly and recognise those of resemblance, to analyse fail to exercise a valuable influence upon his and investigate, to arrange and classify. It character. He who has learned by experience should awaken and invigorate the understand­ the difficulty of obtaining a thorough mastery ing, mature the reason, chasten while it kindles of a subject, has made no trifling advance in the imagination, exercise the judgment and re­ fine the taste. It should cultivate habits of * The opinion of Locke confirms this view. His words are:—“ The business of education is not, as I order and precision, and of spontaneous, inde­ think, to perfect the learner in any of the sciences, pendent, and long continued application. It but to give his mind that freedom, and disposition, and those habits which may enable him to attain should, in short, be a species of mental gym­ every part of knowledge himself.” (Some Thoughts nastics, fitted to draw forth, exercise, invigo­ concerning Education.) F - �13 the knowledge of himself. He has tested his preceded it; he must also keep it in recollec­ power of struggling with difficulties, and ac­ tion, that he may observe its connection with quired in the contest that command over his what follows. When he encounters difficulties faculties, and that habit of sustained and which he cannot at the moment solve, he must vigorous application, which will ensure success retain them in mind until the clue to their in any undertaking. He who has only begun solution is gained. He must often retrace his a study, or advanced but little in it, is a steps with the experience he has acquired in ad­ stranger to that consciousness of strength and vancing, and then advance again with the added range of mental vision which are involved in knowledge gained in his retrogression. It is only the cultivation of it to a high point. The by thus wrestling—agonising, as it were—with knowledge, thus thoroughly acquired and pos­ a subject, that we eventually subdue it, and sessed as a familiar instrument by the pupil, make it ours, and a part of us. By such or becomes not only a powerful auxiliary to his analogous processes, constantly and patiently further attainments, but a high standard to pursued, we rise at last to the highest gene­ which he may continually refer them. * ralisations ; so that a knowledge of the pheno­ One of the chief reasons why the study of one mena of the material world is digested into thing, one subject, or one book, is so valuable Science, a knowledge of the facts and matter a discipline, is that the matter thus sub­ of language is elaborated into Learning, and a mitted to the mind’s action forms a whole, knowledge and intimate appreciation of the and by degrees reacts on the mind itself, and facts of human life ripens into Wisdom. 'creates within it the idea of unity and harmony. Everyone will bear me out in the remark, Suppose, for instance, that we read a book that it is from those few books that we with the view of thoroughly studying and read most carefully — that we “chew and mastering it. We find, as a consequence of digest,” to use Bacon’s words—that we pe­ the unity of thought and expression pervading ruse again and again with still increasing it, that one part explains another, that what interest—that we take to our bosom a3 friends is hinted at in one page is amplified in the and counsellers; it is from these that we are next, that the matter of the first few sentences is conscious of deriving real nourishment for the the nucleus (the oak in the acorn, as it were) of mind. Nor is it perhaps rash to assert that the entire work. Thus the beginning of the book the general tendency, in our day, to dissipate throws light upon the end, which the end in its the attention on all sorts of books, on all sorts turn reflectsupon the beginning. He who studies of subjects, which just flash before the mind, in this way must carefully weigh each word, and excite it for a moment, leave a vague impres­ estimate its value in the sentence of which it is sion, and are gone, is stamping a character a part, and its bearing on those which have upon the age which will render nugatory the well-meant efforts which have of late been made for the enlightenment of the popular * The above argument is powerfully confirmed in the following passage from an “ Introductory Lecture” mind, and the extension of useful knowledge. by Professor De Morgan, delivered at University It is, I say, characteristic of the age, that we College, October 17,1837:— “ When the student has occupied his time in learn­ emasculate and enfeeble our powers by the ing a moderate portion of many different things, vain attempt to know everything which every­ what has he acquired—extensive knowledge or useful habits? Even if he can be said to have varied body else knows ; and learn, in conformity to learning, it will not long be true of him, for nothing the fashion of the times, even to feel it as a flies so quickly as half-digested knowledge; and when reproach that we have not “dipped into,” or this is gone, there remains but a slender portion of useful power. A small quantity of learning quickly “skimmed over,” or “glanced at” (very evaporates from a mind which never held any learn­ significant phrases) all the articles in all the ing, except in small quantities; and the intellectual philosopher can perhaps explain the following pheno­ newspapers, magazines, and reviews of the menon :—that men who have given deep attention to day. We indolently allow ourselves to be one or more liberal studies, can learn to the end of their lives, and are able to retain and apply very carried on, in spite of our silent protest, small quantities of other kinds of knowledge; while against our real convictions, with the shallow those who have never learnt much of any one thing tide which is sweeping over the land; and, seldom acquire new knowledge after they attain to years of maturity, and frequently lose the greater' inasmuch as we do so, are neutralising the part of that which they once possessed.” (p. 12.) real interests of the cause we profess to be �14 advocating, and preventing the formation of valuable and useful judgments on any subject whatever. If you consider with me that this general dissipation is an evil, you will also sympathise with the desire to prevent the organization and establishment of the prin­ ciple in the curriculum of elementary education. A thousand times better, in my opinion, to have the old hum-drum monotony, the cease­ less drill, which ended only in preparing the faculties to work to some purpose, when they did work, on the problems of life, than the counterfeit knowledge which can give an opi nion on every subject because substantially uninformed on any. It is not, perhaps, too much to assert, that concentration of mind on a few subjects is, and ever has been, the only passport to excel­ lence. All the great literary and scientific men of all ages, whose opinions we value, whose judgments are received as the dictates of wisdom and authority, have acted on the conviction, that the powers of the mind are strengthened by concentration, and weakened by dissipation. * The practical inference from the foregoing remarks is, that in order to train the mind usefully, concentration, and not accumulation, must be our guiding principle; in other words, we must direct the most strenuous efforts of our pupils to the complete and full comprehen­ sion of some one subject as an instrument of intellectual discipline. The next consideration, then, is, what the subject submitted to this accurate and com­ plete study ought to be. And here we come again nearly to the point at which we set out, and must now for ourselves renew the friendly strife between the “ trivials” and the “ quadrivials” once more. I say “ friendly,” because the claims of both are so reasonable, that it really ought not to be very difficult to adjust them, and no angry feeling therefore ought to accompany the discussion. We have left the theorists behind, and are now to settle such questions as practical and experienced men, with reference to their real merits, judicially, and with some degree of authority. On the general subject of the curriculum, I will quote some remarks which I have lately met with in a pamphlet by an able American writer, apparently acquainted by experience with his subject. * He is strongly opposed to what we usually call the Classical System, but candidly admits that its defenders have hitherto had greatly the advantage of their opponents in the line of argument they have pursued. “Disagree with them,” he says, “ as you may as to what studies go to make up a liberal education, you must go to them for a true definition of that training of mind in which a liberal education consists.” As he is one of the ablest advocates of the claims of science, we may listen to what he says on its behalf as a part of school education. He assumes, then, as axioms these following propositions:— “1. That in the Science and Art of edu­ cation we must study and follow nature,—that we shall only be successful as far as we do. “ 2. That there is a certain natural order in the development of the human faculties ; and that a true system of education will follow, not run counter to, that order. “ 3. That we may divide the faculties of the mind, for the purposes of education, into observing and reflective; and that in the order of development the observing faculties come first. * See some very interesting illustrations in D’Israeli’s “ Curiosities of Literature,” in the essay entitled, “ The Man of One Book.” To these may be added, as an instructive, though somewhat extra­ vagant, specimen of the non-multa-sed-muUwn principle advocated in the text, the following, taken from the “ Foreign Quarterly Review” for 1841:— “ Porpora, an Italian teacher of music, having conceived an affection for one of his pupils, asked him if he had courage to pursue indefatigably a course which he would point out, however tiresome it might appear. Upon receiving an answer in the affirmative, he noted upon a page of ruled paper, the diatonic and chromatic scales, ascending and descend­ ing with leaps of a third, fourth, &c., to acquire the intervals promptly, with shakes, turns, appoggiature, and various passages of vocalisation. This leaf employed master and pupil for a year; the follow­ ing year was bestowed upon it; the third year there was no talk of changing it: the pupil began to murmur, but was reminded of his promise. A fourth year elapsed, then a fifth, and every day came the eternal leaf. At the sixth it was not done with, but lessons of articulation, pronunciation, and declama­ tion were added to the practice. At the end of this year, however, the scholar, who still imagined that he was but at the elements, was much surprised when his master exclaimed, ‘ Go, my son; thou hast * “ Classical and Scientific Studies, and the Great nothing more to learn; thou art the first singer of Italy, and of the world.’ He said true. This singer Schools of England.” By W. P. Atkinson, Cam­ bridge (U.S.), 1865. was Caffarelli.” �15 “4. That individual minds come into the wor'd with individual characteristics; often, in the case of superior minds, strongly marked, and qualifying them for the more successful pursuit of some one career, than of any other. “ 5. That the study of the material world may be said to be the divinely appointed instrument for the cultivation and development of the observing faculties ; while the study of the immaterial mind, with all that belongs to it, including the study of language as the instrument of thought, is the chief agent in the development of the reflective faculties.” Speaking in the interests of that reform in the curriculum which is very decidedly needed, I would frankly accept these propositions, though the terms of some of them, especially those of the fourth and fifth, might give a caviller a favourable opportunity. Of one point essentially involved in them, I have no doubt; and that is, that any rational curriculum of elementary study must be based on the fact that the observing, are called into action before the reflecting, faculties ; in other words, that the food must be swallowed before it is digested ; though 1 believe it to be an educa­ tional fallacy to maintain that therefore no food should be swallowed that cannot be instantly digested. The general consideration would, however, seem to justify us in carry­ ing forward, before anything else is attempted, the instruction which the child has already commenced for himself, in the study of the phenomena of the external world, and in that of the mother tongue. Professor Tyndall has shown, in his interesting lecture on the study of Physics, that even the new-born babe is an experimental philosopher, and improvises by instinct a suction-pump to supply himself with his natural food, and day after day, by experiment and observation, makes himself acquainted with the ordinary properties of matter, acquires the idea of distance, sound, and gravitation, and so on, and, by burning his fingers and scalding his tongue, learns also the conditions of his physical well being. In this hand-to-mouth way the pupil in the great school of nature begins his lessons, and surely it is most natural that he should be encouraged to continue this self-education, and, under judicious guidance, he may very properly be made acquainted with the things “ which lie about in daily life,” and also be trained to the study of that proper con­ nection between things and words which is the true basis of a good knowledge of his own language. Such a course of instruction, such “ lessons on objects,” will no doubt amuse and interest the young natural philosopher, and may be the means of eliciting, even quite early in life, thosepredilectionsofwhichMr. Atkinson speaks as the special characteristics of the individual, and which, in certain cases, may furnish sug­ gestions to be afterwards employed in con­ ducting his education. Having arrived at this point in the discus­ sion of ray subject, I must make a confession ; —which, however, is not humiliating, because, though I have to speak of personal failure, I am supported by the consciousness of honest intentions. I have always been fond of science in every shape, and well remember the delight with which, when a boy, I adopted as the pocket companions of my leisure hours the little volumes of Joyce’s “ Scientific Dialogues,” and Miss Edge­ worth’s charming “ Harry and Lucy.” I say this to show that in the experiments which I made in teaching something that might be called science to young children, I was working con amore, and with a real desire to succeed. But I found my young natural philosophers somewhat difficult to manage. As long as everything was new, and striking, and amusing, they were attentive enough : but as soon as anything like training was attempted, as soon as I required perfect accu­ racy in observing, and careful classification and retention of results, my popularity waned astonishingly. They were, for the most part, satisfied with the attainments which they had made in the knowledge of the external world within the first three or four years of their lives, and did not discover that “craving after knowledge’’ which, I am told by Mr. Spencer and others, is always exhibited by children until it is for ever extinguished by the spectral display of the Latin grammar, which, like the famous Medusa’s head, turns every one that looks at it into stone. According to my own ex­ perience, the young natural philosophers gene­ rally preferred choosing their own subject of instruction, and their own arena for the exer­ cise ; and that subject was what is usually called play, and the arena the playground. It is true enough that there is a great deal to �]6 be learned of the properties of matter,—resist­ with this evening. Neither children nor men ance, elasticity, action and reaction, the com­ naturally like the difficulties, the drudgery of position of forces, &c.,—in playing at bat, any subject whatever. No practical teacher trap, and ball ; but I doubt very much will pretend that they do. Yet these diffi­ * whether there is any natural craving after culties must be overcome, if the subject is to such knowledge as the final cause of the game. be really learned. But we may test my posi­ In general, I must say from experience that tion by reference to music. I might, of course, it is as possible to make even abstract subjects, indulge in any amount of rhapsody about such as arithmetic and grammar, quite as music,—its exquisite charms,—its universal interesting to young children as those parts popularity, and so on,—but what verdict of science which really call for mental effort, would a jury of little girls give on what is tech­ and involve minute accuracy and care. Facts nically termed “practice,”and on the “gram­ and phenomena certainly do interest the mar of music”? That “practice,” however, and young; but science, as such, the knowledge of that “grammar, ” are the very foundation of the the relations between them, does not. Practical excellent performance which so delights our teachers are well aware of this fact, which ears and our taste, and without the one we theoretical writers too often forget, or, most absolutely cannot have the other. I wonder, indeed, whether, if we could collect all the probably, do not know. Because children attending a lecture on tears which have been shed by children re­ natural science open their eyes very wide, and spectively learning the Latin grammar and look intensely interested when they hear a the piano in two separate receptacles, the loud bang, or see some of those striking ex­ music lachrymatory would not contain the periments performed—often in a sort of a la\ larger quantity. And yet music is so delight­ Stodare fashion—which form the stock-in- ful, and the Latin grammar so horridly dis­ trade of the lecturer on, say oxygen and agreeable 1 To return, however, to my main hydrogen gases, it is too hastily concluded argument. that that would be the normal condition of The early stage of life is doubtless the most their attention to the science of chemistry in suitable time for improving and exercising general. Look, however, at the same children the natural faculty of observation, and much when the lecturer takes his chalk in hand, may be done at this time in preparing the and endeavours, by a diagram of very simple mind for the great benefit which the proper character, to make them understand the study of science is to confer upon it. But I causes of the phenomena. The lack-lustre must protest against dignifying the desultory eyes and the yawning mouth very soon tell us scraps of information thus acquired — the that what we just witnessed was simple excite­ results of the process of taking up one sub­ ment, a matter of the senses, nerves, and ject after another to keep the child in good muscles mainly, and being connected with humour — the cakes and honey supplied amusement, and therefore involving no mental to sweeten the youthful lips—by the name exertion, caught the attention for an instant, of science; nor do I feel inclined to think but was not in itself an element of mental that we have at last reached the long-sought improvement. The moment the mind was desideratum in teaching, when a band of chil­ called on, it obeyed the summons with just dren, in all the frolic and fun belonging to as much alacrity as it usually displays their nature, gather handfuls of flowers, and run when invited to dissect a diagram of up to the teacher to ask the names of them, and Euclid. The assertion, that, as a general —to forget them as soon as named. * How­ rule (and independently of the all-important ever, if this is science, I would certainly teach question of what sort of a man the teacher is), it in the early stage of instruction. Children children love science and hate language, is generally like this desultory style of skipping another fallacy of the same kind as those * Mr. Henslow’s interesting experiments in teach­ we have been already so liberally dealing ing village children accomplished much more than this; and, indeed, proves the applicability of the sub­ * Thia is very pleasantly exemplified in Dr. Paris’s ject to the wants of the early stage of education. (See Museum, vol. iii. p. 4, and Educational Times, Nov., ingenious little book, “Philosophy in Sport made Science in Earnest.” I860.) �17 from subject to subject. It stimulates their senses, brings them into contact with nature herself in the open air, interests them in her glorious variety and boundless fulness, and thus supplies happy emotions; it calls for little exertion on their part, does not “bother their brains,” and is rarely the occasion of tears or punishments. * If this is science, I would teach it as a part of the training of the observing faculties, a discipline which has been too much neglected by the ordinary systems and in the hands of a judicious teacher, out of these random efforts real instruction may grow; and the bricks thrown together in a heap, and so far valueless, may, under the genial influ­ ence of the educational Ainphion, rise up, like the walls of the fabulous Thebes, into the form of a harmonious fabric. We must not, however, forget that our young philosopher, who has learnt so much by him­ self in the first two or three years of his life by exercising his faculty of observation, also developes, in the same space of time, eminent powers as a linguist; and if we follow nature in aiding and encouraging his researches in the one field, it appears quite right to do the same in the other. Indeed, the two faculties are exactly adapted to assist each other ; for not­ withstanding all that is said about the learning of things as opposed to the learning of words, there is a sense in which they are one and the same, and it is very curious to see how Mr. Spencer, for instance, in describing what he evidently considers model lessons in elementary science, speaks as if a great part of the object of these lessons was to teach the accurate mean­ ing of words. “The mother,” he says, “must familiarize her little boy with the names of the simpler attributes, hardness, softness, colour; in * It is well, too, to encourage children to make eollections of leaves, butterflies, Deetles, &c. Every­ thing should be done to make the connexion between teacher and pupils pleasant for both; and therefore sympathy should be warmly evinced in such pursuits as these. Professor Blackie has well expressed these views in the following passage from a lecture delivered in Latin, at the Marischal College, Aberdeen:—“ Exeant in campos pneri, fluminum cursus vestigent, in montes adscendant; saxa, lapides, arbores, herbas, flores notent, et notando amare discant; oculis non vagis, fluitantibus et somniculosis, sed apertis, Claris, firmis; auribus non obtusis incertisque sed erectis atque accuratis rerum varietatem percipiant.” (De Latinarum literarum proestantia atque utititate, p. 13.) t See Appendix, note B. doing which she finds him eagerly help by bringing this to show that it is red, and the other to make her feel that it is hard, as fast as she gives him words for these properties.” There is much more to the same purport, which I have no time to quote. But is it not singular that so ingenious a man does not see that this process, which he lauds so highly, is only a sensible way of teaching, not science merely,but the mother-tongue? The teacher is trying to get the pupil to attach clear ideas to the use of words; and, while professing to despise the teaching of words, is in reality doing little else; for words are, in a well understood sense, the depositories of the knowledge, spirit, and wisdom of a nation. * I am perfectly aware that the pupil, while thus engaged, is learning much more than mere words ; but I maintain that he is also learning words while he is learning things, and that the antithesis so much insisted on is more specious than real. However this may be, I quite approve of these lessons on things, or lessons on words, which­ ever they may be called, as a part of the ele­ mentary stage of instruction, which may be practically considered as terminating at twelve years of age. But this stage is also the most suitable for learning the use of a foreign tongue, and, there­ fore, to the elementary subjects which must, as a matter of course, come into the cur­ riculum—reading, writing, arithmetic, taught at first by palpable objects, or counters; geography, commencing with the topography of the house and parish in which the pupil lives ; history, made picturesque by oral teach­ ing in such a way as to arrest the attention and stimulate the imagination ; lessons on objects as introductory to the rudiments of science; word-lessons,t gradually extended from the names of material objects to those of moral and intellectual notions—should be added the study of French. The lessons in this lan­ guage should be eminently practical; accurate pronunciation should be insisted on, and as * He who completely knows a word knows all that that word is or ever was intended to convey, its etymological origin, its first meaning as fixed in the language, its subsequent history, its varying for­ tunes, and the idea it suggests to various classes of persons. f Hints for such lessons might be gained from Wood’s Account of the Edinburgh Sessional School; but better ones can easily be framed. C �18 rapidly as possible the actual practice secured. the Curriculum ; and henceforth the develop­ This is the main point. At no period of life ment of the reflective faculties, and the acquisi­ will so good an opportunity be found' for tion of habits of industry and hard work, are doing this in an easy, natural way. The the main objects to be kept in view. This is organs are in a flexible condition, the ear to be especially the stage of discipline ; disci­ is apt at catching, the mouth at imitating, pline by means of Science (including Mathe­ sounds ; and without even talking of grammar matics) and Language. The question now is, (should such talk seem very alarming) a true which shall take the lead. Vitiation into the language may be gained. Science may, for our present purpose, be All that has now been suggested appears to defined to be the knowledge of the laws of be quite consistent with the principle above nature, as gained by reflection on facts which recommended, of continuing the exercise of the have been previously arranged in an orderly and faculties of observation and imitation already methodical manner in the mind, in accordance commenced by nature. with their natural relation to each other. Such rudimentary lessons in science as have Every one must see that such a subject as been proposed above, do not appear to involve this affords abundant scope for a life-long, and much strict mental discipline ; nor do I believe, not merely a school, education. Considering, for reasons which will presently be suggested, too, that this knowledge is not only deeply that true science can advantageously be studied interesting in itself, but, being gained for the by very young pupils. * There is, however, one very purpose of diffusion, adds greatly to the subject, which might, perhaps, be taken as sum of human happiness and prosperity, the the disciplinary study of the elementary stage, motives to its pursuit are indeed transcendantly and with the greatest advantage. That sub­ powerful, so that it must be a matter of great ject is Arithmetic, which, ifjudiciously taught, concern to all to secure for those who are to involves a genuine mental discipline of the pursue it, even in a subordinate degree, a worthy most valuable kind ; and though really abstract training. in its nature, is capable of exciting the live­ If science, then, is to constitute a real liest interest, while it forms in the pupil habits discipline for the mind, much, nay every­ of mental attention, argumentative sequence, thing, will depend on the manner in which absolute accuracy, and satisfaction in truth as it is studied. In the first place, it is to be re­ a result, that do not seem to spring equally membered that (to use the oft-quoted phrase) from the study of any other subject suitable to the pupil is about to study things, not words ; this elementary stage of instruction. and therefore treatises on science are not to be At twelve years of age the pupil may be in the first instance placed before him. He considered as entering on the second stage of must commence with the accurate examination (for which he has been partially prepared by * It is only fair to place in view here the opinions the first stage of instruction) of the objects and on this point of Dr. Carpenter and Mr. Faraday, to whose judgment on any subject great deference is phenpmena themselves, not of descriptions of due; only adding, that I should attach more value to1 them prepared by others. By this means not their opinions on teaching men, to which they are | accustomed, than on teaching children, to which, as only will his attention be excited, the power far as I know, they are not accustomed. In this of observation, previously awakened, much matter as in others referred to before (see p. I strengthened, and the senses exercised and 13), going through with a thing is very different from merely beginning it, or touching it at special disciplined, but the very important habit of selected points. Have these gentlemen taught children doing homage to the authority of facts hour after hour, year after year? “ At ten years old a boy [and therefore the average rather than to the authority of men, be initiated. of boys] is quite capable of understanding a very These different objects and phenomena may be large proportion of what is set down for matricula­ tion at the London University under the head of placed and viewed together, and thus the Natural Philosophy.” (Dr. Carpenter's Evidence mental faculties of comparison and discrimina­ before Commission on Public Schools, vol. iv. p. 364.) tion usefully practised. They may, in the next . “ I would teach a little boy of eleven years of age ft. e. the average boys of eleven?] of ordinary intel­ place, be methodically arranged and classified, ligence, all these things that come before classics and thus the mind may become accustomed to in this programme of the London University, i. e. mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, optics,” &c. an orderly arrangement of its knowledge. (Mr. Faraday's Evidence, vol. iv.p. 378.) Then tlie accidental may be distinguished from �19 the essential, the common from the special, and so the habit of generalization may be acquired ; and lastly, advancing from effects to causes, or conversely from principles to their necessary conclusions, the pupil becomes acquainted with induction and deduction—processes of the highest value and importance. Every one will allow that such a course as this, faithfully carried out, must prove to be a very valuable training. It would not, in­ deed, discipline the mind so closely as pure mathematics, yet its range is wider, and it is more closely connected with human in­ terests and feelings. It is no small advantage, too, that it affords, both in its pursuit and its results,—both in the chase and the capture,— a very large amount of legitimate and generous mental pleasure, and of a kind which the pupil will probably be desirous of renewing for himself after he has left school. After all, however, it will be observed that, while the study of the physical sciences tends to give power over the material forces of the universe, it leaves un­ touched the greater forces of the human heart; it makes a botanist, a geologist, an electrician, an architect, an engineer, but it does not make a man. The hopes, the fears, the hatreds and the loves, the emotions which stir us to heroic action, the reverence which bows in the presence of the inexpressibly good and great; the sen­ sitive moral taste which shrinks from vice and approves virtue ; the sensitive mental taste, which appreciates the sublime and beautiful in art, and sheds delicious tears over the immortal works of genius—all this wonderful world of sensation and emotion lies outside that world which is especially cultivated by the physical sciences. This is no argument, of course, against their forming a proper, nay an essential, part of the curriculum, but it is an argument against their taking the first place. They are intimately’connected, of course, with our daily wants and conveniences. The study of them cultivates in the best way the faculties of observation, and leads naturally to the for­ mation in the mind of the idea of natural law, and so ultimately to investigations and sugges­ tions of a very high order, in the pursuit of which it is sought to define the shadowy boundary be­ tween mind and matter, or to reveal to present time the long buried secrets of the past. But in order to attain at last these eminent heights of science, the preliminary training must be rigorous and exact. It must embrace the difficult as well as the pleasing and amusing —that which requires close and long-con­ tinued attention as well as that which only ministers to a transient curiosity. It must be based on the “ firm ground of experi­ ment,” and be ind .pendent of mere book study, which, it has been well observed, is, in rela­ tion to science, only as valuable, in the absence of the facts, as a commentary on the Iliad would be to him who had never read the poem. We may assent then, on the whole, without hesitation, to the wise and careful judgment passed on the study of physical science as a part of the Curriculum by the Public School Com­ missioners in their report. “ It quickens,’’they say, “ and cultivates directly, the faculty of ob­ servation, whichin very many personslies almost dormant through life, the power of accurate and rapid generalisation, and the mental habit of method and arrangement; it accustoms young persons to trace the sequence of cause and effect; it familiarizes them with a kind of reasoning which interests them, and which they can promptly compreheud ; and it is perhaps the best corrective for that indolence which is the vice of half-awakened minds, and which shrinks from any exertion that is not, like an effort of memory, merely mechanical.” In spite, then,’ of Dr. Moberly’s denunciation of such studies as “worthless,” and as “giving no power” in edu­ * cation, 1 maintain that it is utterly impos­ sible to exclude a subject with pretensions like these from our curriculum. They must and will occupy a considerable space in it—they deserve to do so. For reasons, however, already stated, I would not give them the post of the highest distinction, which ought to be reserved for the studies which exercise, not special faculties, but the whole man ; not the man as a profes­ sional and with a utilitarian end in view, but as a citizen of the world, as one who is to meet his fellow men and to influence their decisions upon the difficult and complicated problems of society.! * “ In a school like this (Winchester), I consider instruction in physical science, in the way in which we can give it, is worthless......... A scientific fact.... is a fact which produces nothing in a boy’s mind.... It leads to nothing. It does not germinate; it is a perfectly unfruitful fact..........These things give no power whatever.” (Evidence before Commission on Public Schools, vol. Hi. p. 344.) f See Dr. Johnson’s opinion, Appendix C. �20 Some think that pure mathematics should occupy this central post of honour. A moment’s consideration, however, will show that the study of algebra, geometry, the calculus, <fcc., not only does not embrace those topics of common interest which are essential for our purpose; but has a special and limited office to perform — I mean, of course, independently of their practical appli­ cations. Lord Bacon has judiciously summed up their special functions. “ They do,” he says, “ remedy and cure many defects in the wit and faculties intellectual ; for if the wit be too dull, they sharpen it; if too wandering, they fix it ; if too inherent in the sense, they abstract it. So that, as tennis is a game of no use of itself, but of great use in respect it maketh a quick eye, and a body ready to put itself into all postures ; so with mathematics, that use which is collateral and intervenient is no less worthy than that which is principal and in­ tended.” These words aptly characterise the advantages of the study of mathematics, and point out their proper office in education. They cannot, from their very nature, exercise a formative power over the whole mind ; but they are very profitably employed in correcting certain defects, and in teaching, as scarcely anything else can teach, habits of accu­ racy. They call into play but few of the faculties ; but these they exercise rigorously, and therefore usefully. It has been objected to them, that when pursued to any considerable extent, without the counterpoise of more gene­ ral studies, they become particularly exclusive and mechanical in their influence; but this perhaps can hardly be considered as an essen­ tial characteristic. On the whole, however, it can scarcely be maintained that mathematics will serve as the basis we require for our educa­ tional operations, though no education can be considered as complete which excludes them. Having then shown that, notwithstand­ ing the great value both of physics and of mathematics in education, they are too special in their application to serve as the central subject in our curriculum, we turn once more to language, and especially to the Latin lan­ guage which I should propose as the exer­ cising ground best adapted for the intellectual drilling of our young soldier. Greek, in the case of those whose school education is to terminate at sixteen years of age, must, I think, be displaced in favour of the prac­ tical claims of German. This concession, and this only, would I recommend making to pub­ lic opinion. And it is the less necessary to con­ test this point, as nearly all the disciplinary advantages which so eminently characterise the study of the classical languages may be gained from the study of Latin alone. It may then, I conceive, be fairly maintained that the place which classical instruction holds in the curriculum of English education is not due to prejudice, as some believe; nor to ignorance of what is going on in society around us, as others pretend; but to a well-judged estimate of its importance and value as a discipline for the youthful mind, and as an element of the highest rank among the civilising influences of the world. This study may be considered under two aspects, the language itself and its literature. My first proposition is that the study of the Latin language itself does eminently discipline the faculties, and secure, to a greater degree than that of the other subjects we have discussed, the formation and growth of those mental qualities which are the best preparatives for the business of life—whether that business is to consist in making fresh mental acquisitions, or in directing the powers, thus strengthened and matured, to professional or other pursuits. Written language consists of sentences, and sentences of words. In commencing the study of a language, we may consider these words as things, which we have to investigate and analyse. They possess many qualities in common with natural objects, and may be therefore treated in a somewhat similar way. They have material qualities; they can be seen — they can be named (their sound is their name)—they can be compared together —their resemblances and differences discrimi­ nated, and arrangements or classifications of them made in accordance with observed simi­ larity or difference in form. The memory, too, is practically and systematically exer­ cised. The paradigms of inflexions must be accurately learnt by heart, and so familiarly known that the constant comparison between them as standards, and the varying forms which arise for interpretation, may be spon­ taneous and easy. And these acts of com­ parison are themselves of great value, and tend to cultivate accuracy of judgment: the �21 very blunders made are instructive: the half­ when placed in juxtaposition with words perception induced by indolence must be of our language, or when viewed in connec­ corrected by increased labour. The attempt tion with cognates of their own, capable of at evasion ends in a more complete reception ; affording vivid illustrations of the methods hence a moral as well as a mental lesson. Thus, and artifices by which languages are formed. acts of attention, observation, memory, and Hence arise exercises in derivation, or tracing judgment are called forth; and these acts, by of words up to their roots, and in analysis, being performed numberless times, grow into or breaking up the compounds into their habits. Again, these words can be analysed, several components. These exercises in deri­ separated into their component parts, and these vation cultivate moreover, when properly car­ parts severally examined, and their functions ried out, the habit of deducing the secondary ascertained. Conversely, we may employ the and figurative senses of words from the pri­ synthetic process. We may fashion these mary and literal. Such an exercise leads the elements in conformity with some given model, pupil beyond the boundaries of mere language. and thus adapt them to some given end. By In pursuing it, he learns to study the mode closer investigation and comparison, affinities in which the early stages of society formed before unperceived are traced and appreciated, their conceptions, and to notice how, as the transformation of letters detected, and civilization advanced, the language too bore the foundation laid for the science of Philo­ evidence of the change. Thus the word guberlogy. It should be observed, that all these nare primarily means to pilot a vessel; second­ operations or experiments (for so they may be arily, to direct the vessel of the state, to * called) are performed on facts—on objects (a govern But words, in themselves vital organisms, word is as much an object as a flower) directly exposed to observation; that they are though frequently the life is rather latent than at the same time simple in their nature, and visible, are also to b3 considered in their com­ though requiring minute attention, and so bination in sentences. Their vitality now forming the habit of accuracy, are evidently becomes intensified. The original author, within the competency of a child. It is no speaking to men of his own nation, and aptly small advantage that the means of training employing the resources of his craft, had by the mind to such habits are always within a kind of intellectual magnetism converted reach, and available to an unlimited extent; the neutral and indifferent into the active and and not, as is often the case with respect to significant, and constrained all to cooperate in physical objects, adapted to elicit somewhat effecting his great purpose of speaking out to similar exertions, obtained with difficulty, and other minds. And there before the eyes of therefore, perhaps, only heard of, and not seen. our pupil is the result. But it does not speak But the attention of the pupil, at times out to him. That sentence, beginning with a necessarily occupied with the accidents or in­ capital and ending with a full stop, is a body flexions—the characteristic point of difference with a soul in it, with which he has to com­ between his own and the Latin language—is municate. But how to do this? His eye at others directed especially to what we may passes over it. It looks unattractive, dark, call the being of each word, the idea which it and cold. Soon, however, something is seen is intended to convey or suggest. And now in the words or their inflexions, which he these words, lately treated as simply material, recognises, by a kind of momentary flash, as inanimate, and dead—anatomical “ subjects” significant. The soul within begins to speak —are to be considered as invested with a kind to him ; and he catches some faint conception of physiological interest, and as exhibiting * Tnis phenomena of life whose nature it becomes interestingsort of investigation, often opens a very field of inquiry. Thus the word virtue, important to study. Our pupil’s interest in in different stages of the Roman history, meant suc­ cessively, active physical courage or manhood, and them, viewed under this aspect, cannot but be active moral courage, or virtue ; while later, in much augmented. Words are now no longer Rome’s comparatively degenerate days, virtu signified things merely, but significant symbols of ideas. a taste for the fine arts! a pregnant commentary on people. That people, however, These little organisms, in one sense mere the character of the has already begun to restore the it may be remarked, torpid aggregations of matter, are in another, original meaning of the word. �22 of what it would reveal. As he still gives heed, described, can only be accomplished by <5ne other points show symptoms of life, and the who is armed with grammatical power. With­ lately brute and torpid mass becomes vocal out this, the efforts made to communicate with and articulate. One after another the words the soul of the author must be feeble and kindle into expression ; clause after clause is ineffectual. It is one of the special objects of disentangled from its connection with the the course I am advocating, to cultivate this main body of the sentence, and appreciated faculty, because in doing so we are in fact cul­ both separately and in combination, until at tivating to a high degree the reasoning powers length a thrill of intelligence pervades the of the pupil. The construction of words in a whole, and the passage, before dark, inani­ sentence does not depend upon arbitrary laws, mate, and unmeaning, becomes instinct with but upon right reason, upon the exact cor­ light and life. respondence between expression and thought, By these and similar processes, which it is and therefore “ good grammar,” as has been needless to specify, the pupil learns to apprehend well observed, “ is neither more nor less than his author’s meaning, though perhaps at first good sense.”* only obscurely. The next stage in his training A wise teacher—one who wishes to quicken, is to find wordsand phrases in his native tongue and is anxious not to deaden, his pupil’s mind— suited to express it. To do this adequately, he will not, of course, force upon him those indi­ must not only ascertain the meaning of each gestible boluses, the technical rules and defini­ term, but conceive fully and correctly all the tions of syntax, before training him to observe propositions that constitute a complete sen­ the facts on which the rules are founded ; but tence, in their natural connection and interde­ will accustom him to the habit of reasoning only pendence ; he must observe the bearing of the in the presence offacts, which is so valuable previous sentences on the one under considera­ at all times. The habit of reasoning on the tion, and the ultimate point to which all are construction, the syntax of one language, is, tending. Now, in order to convey perfectly of course, generally applicable to others ; and to others the meaning, which he has himself its practice in connection with Latin tends by laboriously acquired, he must not only have an amount of experience which countervails made an exact logical analysis of the sentence, all theory, to prepare the pupil for learning so as to see what he has to say, but must his own language thoroughly. exercise his judgment and taste (not to say In addition to the grammatical advantage knowledge) on the choice of words and just named, there are two others I would men­ phrases which will best answer the purpose, tion, which prove that learning Latin is a and truly represent the clearness, energy, or good preparation for the better knowledge of eloquence of the author. To do this fault­ the mother tongue. The one is, that as so large lessly requires of course the matured judg­ a part of the vocabulary of the English lan­ ment and refined taste of the accomplished guage is derived from the Latin, either directly, scholar; but the very effort involved in the or indirectly through the French, no accurate attempt to grasp the spirit of the author, to study of the former can be accomplished rise to the elevation of his thoughts, and to gain without a fundamental knowledge of Latin. the sympathy of others for them by an ade­ According to Archbishop Trench, thirty per quate and worthy representation of them in his native language, cannot but elevate his * As the analysis of sentences is now become a own mental stature. “ We strive to ascend, regular part of the study of English in all good and we ascend in our striving.” schools, I would strongly recommend its also being The advantages of such a course as I have made ancillary in the study of Latin. Lessons on a sentence, and now sketched must be acknowledged to be the essential elements of predicative,on “subject” and “predicate,” and on the attributive, very great, although only the language is as other relations (such as may be found admirably dis­ Mason English Grammar), form yet under consideration. But there are two or played in of the ’steaching of Latin, asshould do of the basis they three other points that must not be omitted. English, syntax. Their application to Caesar, Cicero, The first of these is the value of the strict or Virgil, would be not only most valuable in itself as mental training, but would greatly lessen the diffi­ grammatical analysis required. The process culties felt by a boy in dealing with complicated of eliciting light out _of darkness, before constructions which are new-Jto him. �23 cent, of the vocabulary actually used by our authors is derived from the Latin; and the proportion is still greater, if we analyse the columns of our English dictionary, where the words are what is called “ at rest.” Indeed, to so great a degree have we admitted these aliens into our language, that we have learnt to attach Latin prefixes and suffixes to pure English roots, so as to form new and hybiid compounds. But further,—and this point is less obvious than that just adduced,—as almost all our greatest authors were trained in the clas­ sical school, both their vocabulary and phrase­ ology, their language and their thoughts, bear a characteristic stamp upon them which can only be fully appreciated by those who have undergone a similar training. It is not too much to say that many exquisite graces, both of thought and expression, in the works of Bacon, Milton, Sir T. Brown, Jeremy Taylor, Sir W. Temple, Gray, Young, Cowper, and others, must elude the notice—and so far fail in their object—of a reader not qualified to meet the authors as it were on their own ground. * And may I add that, as far as my own observa­ tion goes, by far the most enthusiastic lovers of our own language and literature are the votaries of classical learning. They love more because they can appreciate better. But it will be thought that I have sufficiently pleaded the cause of Latin as fai as the lan­ * guage is concerned. I must, therefore, devote a few words to its literature. In a course such as I have proposed, and which I would commence at 12, with the idea of carrying it on up to the age of 16, and employing in it half the hours of every school day, and which would comprehend, besides the study of the lan­ guage, such cultivation of geography, history, * Examples are numberless: just three or four occur at this moment. Take Milton— “ Satan exalted sat, by merit raised To that bad eminence.”—(Par. Lost, ii. 5.) “ The undaunted fiend what this might be admired ; Admired, not feared.”—(Par. Lost, ii. 677.) “ That wise and civil Roman, Julius Agricola.” (Areopagitica.) “ Sadness does, in some cases, become aChristian, as being an index of a pious mind, of compassion, and a wise, proper resentment of things.”—(Jeremy Taylor.) ‘‘ Prevent us, 0 Lord, with thy most gracious favour.” (Book of Common Prayer.) “ This proud man affects imperial sway.”—(Dryden.) It is obvious that a mere English scholar, unedu­ cated in classics, would not, of himself, see the exact meaning of the words in italics. archaeology, <fcc., as would be required for the elucidation of the text, and also the parallel study of English literature, we could not hope to read many authors. Indeed, faithful to the principle, multum non multa, I would not even attempt it. A selection of the best might be made, to be studied on the principle that they were to be actually known, not merely “ gone through,”* by means of which not only would the pupil profit by the invigorating dis­ cipline I have described, but be subjected to the enlarging and refining influence which would place him in communion with some of the master spirits of antiquity, and therefore give him an introduction to those great authors of all modern times whose labours have tended to form the civilization of Europe. In no other way can he so well be introduced to the commonwealth of letters, and be made free to avail himself of its privileges. The fact that these finished works of literary art still survive amongst us, as real substantial powers whose influence cannot be gainsaid, is a won­ drous proof of their merit as models of com­ position. They present us with histories which still enlighten and instruct men in the art of government, with oratory which still speaks in trumpet tones to the human heart, with poetry still “musical as is Apollo’s lute”; in short, with matter which, however now dispar­ aged, has served in successive ages both to furnish men with thoughts, and to teach them how to think; so that in truth, though styled dead, they are, in the highest sense, ever liv­ ing ; having (to use Hobbes’s eloquent expres­ sion) “ put off flesh and blood, and put on immortality.” But I must pass in review a few of the objections commonly taken against the posi­ tions I have maintained in this paper. 1st. Some object to the very principle of a central or fundamental study, and denounce it as a fundamental fallacy. Since it is admitted, they say, that it is not so much the subject as the manner of learning it that constitutes the discipline, one subject is as good as another ; and as it is a matter of great importance to interest the pupil, we had better adopt sub­ jects pro re nata, which seem likely to accom­ plish that object, without respect to their rank in the circle of knowledge. We may thus se­ * See Appendix, D. �cure the object in view without the difficulty, perplexity, hard work, and sometimes even tears, which are attendant on a stricter disci­ pline, and which often set the pupil against learning altogether. To refute this objection, I should have to repeat much of my previous argument, in which you will remember I con­ tended for the upholding of one subject, or at least very few subjects, on the principle that while, with regard to some, we may be con­ tented with a general knowledge, there should be one at least which should be learned as well as possible, and serve as a sort of standard of comparison. I accept, however, these objec­ tions as valid, on condition that those who uphold them will promise that their pupils shall not shirk the drudgery, the drill, which must be undergone in the learning of any sub­ ject whatever, and which often constitutes the most valuable part of the process; that in teaching music they will strictly require the “ practice” and also the “grammar of music in teaching languages, perfect grammatical analysis; in teaching science, rigidly close attention to details, however irksome, and to every step of the reasoning properly de­ duced from them. If the objectors accept this test, they surrender the position that the study is to be accommodated to the pupil, and therefore tacitly allow the principle of a train­ ing subject; if they do not, they are driven back upon the Chrestomathic curriculum, and the idea of real education, as I understand the term, is given up. 2nd. It is maintained that if a leading sub­ ject is desirable, modem languages, or our jown, would more usefully occupy that position. First, with regard to the modern languages. Their eminent claims to a high place in our curriculum are at once admitted. They have a great practical value as languages; and their literatures are brilliant and attractive, and fraught with modern interest. Both French and German, too, have affinities with English, the one as being a daughter of that paternal stock from which we derive so much, and the other as belonging to the great Teutonic family of languages, of which ours is also a member. Then, in consequence of the in­ creasing intercourse between nations, they are becoming every day more and more useful; and lastly, involving as they do many of the advantages claimed for Latin, they are much more easily and rapidly acquired; These are valid reasons for admission into the curriculum, but not for taking the leading place in it. As to French, so many of its words resemble our own, and its construction is apparently so simple and transparent, that a pupil is tempted to guess or scramble at the meaning, rather than carefully approach it by thought­ ful consideration, as he must do in Latin. Without dwelling on this as an evil in itself, I must insist on it as a great disadvantage in a training subject. A certain amount of resistance, enough to encourage effort, and not enough to intimidate, is an advantage rather than otherwise to the pupil. It serves to detain him awhile in face of the difficulty, and gives him the opportunity of estimating both it and the resources with which past experience has furnished him for its solution, and thus trains the mind to encounter successfully other diffi­ culties. On the other hand, as we avowedly learn French and German more for practical than literary purposes, more as means than ends, the less resistance we meet with, the more rapid the acquisition, the better. The training subject is, however, in a certain sense, the end itself; and losing time in acquiring it may be an ultimate gain. The same general remarks apply, though less strictly, to Ger­ man, which I have recommended as a sub­ stitute for Greek. Secondly, as to the claims of English to occupy the leading place. The main objec­ tion to this claim, as far as the language itself is concerned, is that we are, as is some­ times said of a material object, too near to see it. We must stand at some distance from it, in order to comprehend its form and features, or, which is often easier, study the form and features of something else of the same kind, and then apply the knowledge thus gained to the case in point. Those who ask us to study the general principles of grammar, by the acknowledgment of all so valuable, in our own language first, pretend that they are substituting the easy for the difficult; but it is not so. The real difficulty is to abstract the clear and transparent medium in which our ideas circulate, and to view it by itself. So with the study of human nature; obvious as it seems to look at home, to know ourselves, to watch the operations of our own hearts and minds, yet general experience admits that it �25 is far easier to gather its principles from valuable, so indispensable, as a means to the observing the actions of other men projected, end they have in view, the attainment of com­ as it were, before our view, and favourably plete command over them, that they recommend adapted for our examination. Our own lan­ constant repetition of the same exercise until guage, then, is to be the object, rather than it is thoroughly mastered, rather than rapid the means, of our pupil’s training. Through­ advancement to the next stage of knowledge; out his entire course his training in another so that for a while—to the horror of the objec­ language is preparing him most effectually to tors just quoted—they treat the means as if learn his own, and the practical application of they were the end. The usual success of this the disciplinary power should keep pace with policy may perhaps be allowed to pass as an its attainment. argument for its continuance. This view, of Another objection against the spirit of the course, does not satisfy those who think that method I would recommend has been taken, everything should be made pleasant to a child and may be deserving of a brief treatment. —that he should have no experience of diffi­ It is said that much of what I have described culty, or trial, or ennui. * Such is not, how­ is simply “drill,” and that it is absurd to ever the spirit of the old system. We con­ expend a great amount of labour on mental sider that the man who has not encountered gymnastics, merely for the sake of the dis­ and overcome difficulties is only half a man. cipline, while, by taking up a more suitable Nor would we be so little friendly to the child subject, we may get both discipline and know­ as to remove them all from his path, and ledge together. Why, says the objector, make leave him unwarned and unprepared for those a postman, who has to walk about all day, go which he must meet with in his journey through through a preliminary drill every morning, life. If the result of the training be that the since he gets his exercise in his work ? And pupil comes forth from it firm in mind and * the argument seems to be, that exercise for limb, robust and well developed, in perfect the direct purpose of developing power, which health and capable of enduring fatigue, we may be developed by ordinary action, is un­ may be well contented with these as the results desirable. Without attempting a full reply of the process that he has gone through. to this objection, I would however suggest, And now, before closing my paper, I would in the first place, that, if logically carried out, make a few remarks on the pretensions of it would abolish education altogether. If the science to supersede—for that is what some re­ ordinary spontaneous action is sufficient, teach­ formers aim at—the classical training of our ing is tyranny, for it implies that the pupil schools. I have shown my appreciation of the must be constrained. Why not allow the great value of science, not only in itself, but child to wander about and play from morning as a means of education; but I confess that I to night, ‘ ‘ at his own sweet will ’ ’ ? His senses have not, never having been enlightened on this and his thoughts will be employed in some way point, a clear idea of the manner in which it or another, and practice will make perfect. is to be taught, so as to be a real mental dis­ No teacher, however, adopts such principles cipline in schools. Those gentlemen—one of as these, nor are they worthy of serious refu­ whom we proudly include in the governing tation. Secondly, I would remark that the body of our College — who a few years practice of all professed trainers, whether of men or animals, refutes the objection. In * This too is one of the notions of Mr. Spencer. order to make a soldier, it is generally thought Everything is to be made easy and delightful. He forgets that this is not really consistent with his own well to keep him on the parade-ground a long idea of education as a preparation for life. A prac­ time, doing goose or other steps, which he is tical teacher would remind him of the established not to use at all after the training is over. So dictum, On ne s'instruit pas era s’amusant. Every study is, indeed, to be rendered interesting to the it is with music, dancing, riding, rowing, and pupil. The work of the teacher fails if he does not other accomplishments, in which the training accomplish this. The apt teacher, however, succeeds, not by amusing his pupil, but by sympathising with exercises are the essence of the teaching. The him, and thus gaining his confidence—by under­ teachers of these arts consider practice so standing and entering into his difficulties—by en­ * See Atkinson’s pamphlet, before quoted, p. 33. couraging him with word or look, when he is puzzled, —never intruding help when it is not needed, never withholding it when it is. �26 ago, at the Royal Institution, pleaded so noble, aspirations. But the question returns, eloquently the claims of chemistry, physics, How is science to be taught ? It will not be * philology, phys'ology, and economic science, pretended that the scientific mind is formed to be adopted in the curriculum as branches by a lecture once a week on electricity or of education for all classes, meant of course chemistry, as the case may be, nor by the that all these subjects were to be intro occasional cramming of a text-book on the duced. Even lately, two gentlemen, every subject. The advocates of science mean some­ way competent to speak upon the subject, thing far transcending this, or they mean have urged in this room the claims of botany just nothing. But I am compelled to say and zoology as branches of education for all that their utterances on the practical part of classes. We have, then—breaking up Professor the subject are singularly vague and unsatis­ Tyndall’s “physics” into mechanics, hydro­ factory. “Teach science,” they say; but statics, optics, pneumatics, sound, heat, &c„ then Professor Huxley does not mean, teach some fifteen or twenty subjects claiming ad­ Pneumatics, he means, teach Physiology. mission into the school curriculum. I again Professor Tyndall means by these words, ask, how are they to be taught ? Each of Physics, and not Botany, and so on. Each these accomplished men of course considers thinks, and naturally enough, that his own his own special subject as worthy of every special subject is the one to be taught, and attention, and would not be satisfied with therefore the general recommendation in­ the communication of a mere smattering volves the teaching of them all, and we come of it as representing his idea of its value. back to the Chrestomathic idea which, pre­ Would any one of them be contented to hand sented pur et simple to these authorities in over his subject to either Mr. Bentham or Mr. science, would be indignantly rejected. I Spencer to teach ? Certainly not. They would have read with much interest the evidence all wish the subjects which they know so well, given before the late Commission on Public which they appreciate so highly, and on which Schools, by those eminent men, Carpenter, they have expended so much thought and Lyell, Faraday, Hooker, Owen, Airey, and labour themselves, to be thoroughly taught— Acland. Whatever such men say must, of to become a real possession of the pupil. But course, be interesting ; but I confess that the how is this to be done ? That is the question, impression left on my mind was not that of pro­ the satisfactory solution of which will do more found admiration for their practical “faculty.” to advance the claims of science to admission Their remarks and suggestions—very valuable, into the curriculum than all the arguments no doubt, as “hints”—leave the real difficulties that have hitherto been adduced. We hear of teaching science in schools untouched; and the pleadings in favour of each fair claimant indeed will be found so various and inconsistent for our regard, as she appears before us,—we as frequently to neutralize one another. With admire her charms,—we admire all the char­ very few exceptions, these eminent men scarcely mers,—but we cannot marry them all; we seem to have perceived, or at least appreciated, cannot take them all for better, for worse, the fundamental principle, that teaching sci­ to have and to hold, &c. ence does not mean teaching electricity, or What, then, are we to do ? We not only optics, or chemistry, or geology, but training admit, but claim, the aid of science in educa­ the mind to scientific method; and that if all tion. That general enlightenment—that apt the “ologies,” from A to Z, are to have a handling of business—“faculty,” as some peo­ chance of occupying the field, a general meltie ple callit; that appreciation of cause and effect; will be the result, which will effectually frus­ that comprehension of details under general trate the object. In that case, all the sci­ laws ; these, which are the proper fruits of ences might be taught—if that is the word scientific culture, would form the best correc­ for it—but science would not be learned. tive of Literature, would simplify and give a Dr. Acland’s evidence is, however, very much definite aim to her somewhat vague, though to the point. He had clearly given thought to the subject, and handled it like a man of * The lectures were delivered by Drs. Whewell, business. He recommended that Physics, Che­ Faraday, Latham, Daubeny, and Hodgson, and mistry, and Physiology should be required of Messrs. Tyndall and Paget. �"As an educational means,” he says, in a letter all educated men, and that the two former should be learnt at school. When reminded, published by Mr. T. Dyke Acland, in a document prepared by the latter for the Commission, “ che­ however, that the Matriculation Examination mistry is not to be compared with other means of of the London University comprised these and training the mind.......... The direct benefit result­ other cognate subjects, he gave an opiuion, in ing from the teaching of analytical chemistry in which I confess I agree, upon the value of such schools is nil.......... I grant that two or three boys out of fifty may be benefited by practical instruc­ scientific teaching as that examination pre­ tion in experimental and analytical chemistry; supposes. It is so much to the point that 1 but am also bound to add, that the rest only will quote it:—“ I may say, genei ally, that I waste the time which may be more usefully em­ This is the result, should value all knowledge of these physical ployed. experience, but also not only of my own personal that of many of my sciences very little indeed unless it was other­ scientific friends in this country, at least of those wise than book-work. If it is merely a ques­ who love science and desire its prosperity. More­ tion of getting up certain books, and being over, I would direct your attention to the fact, that the attempt has been made in Germany, on a able to answer certain book-questions, that is large scale, to teach chemistry practically in merely an exercise of the memory of a very schools for lads under sixteen years of age, and has useless kind. The great object, though not proved so complete a iailure, that it has been all the sole object, of the training should be to but universally abandoned in my native country.” It appears, then, that there are difficulties in get the boys to observe and understand the action of matter in-some department or another, the way of teaching science, even where the and though I am perfectly aware that what is subject is well chosen, the field comparatively called practical knowledge, if merely mani­ limited, and the means and appliances am­ pulatory, on any subject whatever, is a humble ply provided. Dr. Volcker’s cold and dry thing enough ; yet, on the other hand, I must experience does not perfectly accord with Mr. say that the utmost amount of knowledge on Spencer’s enthusiastic theory, and does not go these subjects, without that practical and expe­ to prove that children eagerly hunger after rimental knowledge, is to most persons nearly scientific knowledge as they do after their daily as useless. You want the combination of the food. Of course it is easy to throw the blame two; and for youths, I value very little the of failure on the teacher; but Dr. Volcker’s mere acquisition of a quantity of book-facts on words are too definite, and apply to too large these subjects. I want them to see and know an area to admit of this. Still, there can be the things, and in that way they will evoke no manner of doubt that science is immensely many qualities of the mind which the study of attractive; that it is favoured by the spirit these subjects is intended to develope.” Thus of the age; and that it will and ought to speaks the true teacher and votary of science, be extensively taught in schools. But its llis anxiety is to form the scientific mind, not educational advocates have, as yet, no prac­ merely to communicate information on science. tical plan involving good scientific discipline, From a great part of the evidence of the men and no well digested results, to show. Their whose names I just quoted, you can only gather voice will be powerful enough when they a commentary, by “eminenthands” certainly, have, and will command the attention of on the text, “ That the soul be without know­ all. As the case now stands, we have pracledge, it is not good;” which—though not a I tice on the one side, and theory on the other. Solomon myself—I would supplement by add­ An amount of experience which no one can ing, “ That the soul attempt to grasp all effectually gainsay attests the value of the knowledge, it is not wise.” Classical training ; while an amount of theo­ Dr. Acland, it will be observed, recommends retical plausibility, which no sane man can that chemistry be adopted as a general study ; affect to despise, supports the claims of Science and from some little opportunity I have had of to a trial. Why should there not be a com­ seeing that this subject may, to a certain promise ? Intellectual education is strictly the extent, be adopted into the school course, I training of all the mental faculties in the best should have thought it a wise suggestion. But way. Science teaches better, that is, more observe what a practical teacher of chemistry on directly and thoroughly, than any other study, a large scale, Dr. Volcker, of the Cirencester how to observe, how to arrange and classify, Agricultural College, says on this point:— how to connect causes with effects, how to �estimate the practical value of facts. Why not adopt it then as the proper complement of the literary element ? Let botany be taught quite early in life,—in the first stage of instruc­ tion,—together with such parts of physics as give general views of science, and interest the mind in it. In the second stage, let some one or two branches of physics be taken as the basis of a sound training in science, with a view to the formation of the really scientific mind. * The classical course would thrive the better for the collateral study of science, and the scientific would thrive the better for the classical. Why should not both work harmoniously together in the curriculum ? The principle appears to be sound in general, that the spirit of the age should be repre­ sented in the education of our schools;— this is the reforming element of the question. See Appendix, E. At the same time it seems equally reasonable that we should not forego our hold on that mighty past of which the present is the legi­ timate offspring ;—and this is the conservative element. It is well for the son, when prepared for the world of life, to leave his father’s home and create one for himself. It is not well that he should do so too early, before he is prepared. Physical science may become—probably is des­ tined to become—the organic representative of the civilisation of the age. At present it can­ not be so considered ; and its claims, therefore, to take the lead in the curriculum of education are inadmissible. While it is labouring to attain that position, 1 would advise its votaries to aid those of classical instruction in securing the great advantages of the training I have recommended. The minds so prepared would be the fittest of all for sharing in the researches of science, and promoting its triumphs. �APPENDIX. It is necessary to say this, since the confound­ A. (See page 11.) ing of the two is evident in many of the docu­ In a very interesting address of Lord Ash­ ments that have been published of late on these burton’s, at the Meeting of Schoolmasters in very important subjects. Many persons seem Manchester, in 1853, we find the follow­ to fancy that the elements that should consti­ ing remarkable words :—“ In this progressive tute a sound and manly education are anta­ country we neglect all that knowledge in which gonistic ; that the cultivation of taste through there is progress, to devote ourselves to those purely literary studies, and of reasoning branches in which we are scarcely, if at all, supe­ through logic and mathematics, one or both, rior to our ancestors. In this practical country, is opposed to the training in the equally im­ theknowledgeof all thatgives power over nature portant matter of observation through those is left to be picked up by chance on a man’s sciences that are descriptive and experimental. way through life. In this religious country, Surely this is an error. Partisanship of the the knowledge of God’s works forms no part one or other method, or rather department, of of the education of the people, no part even mental training, to the exclusion of the rest, of the accomplishments of a gentleman.” is a narrow-minded and cramping view, from It appears from this passage that Lord Ash­ whatsoever point it be taken. Equal develop­ burton does, after all, consider this to be a ment and strengthening of all are required for progressive, practical, and religious country, the constitution of the complete mind ; and it though nothing would seem to be done to is full time that we should begin to do now make it so. The work goes on, and bravely what we ought to have done long ago.” too, in spite of the assumed general low level of attainments, and the indifference with regard to progress. Lord Ashburton does C. (Seep. 19.) not see that there is, in fact, no “ common “ The purpose of Milton, as it seems, was measure” between the progress of a nation to teach something more solid than the com­ and that of an individual. The time may mon literature of schools, by reading those come when the progress of knowledge and the I authors that treat of physical subjects, such practical applications of it may be tenfold as the Georgic (i.e. agricultural) and astrono­ what they now are. But we shall still have to mical treatises of the ancients. This was a consider the average capacity of the race as a scheme of improvement which seems to have “constant quantity,’’and frame our curriculum busied many literary projectors of that age. accordingly. The progress in question arises Cowley, who had more means than Milton of from the impulses generated in the minds of knowing what was wanting in the embellish­ those who, being endowed beyond their fellows, ments of life, formed the same plan of education stand forth as their leaders to the promised in hi3 imaginary college. land ; but the common mass have to begin at “ But the truth is, that the knowledge of the beginning still in their instruction, just as external nature, and the sciences which that if none had gone before them. knowledge requires or includes, are not the great or the frequent business of the. human mind. Whether we provide for action or con­ B. (See page 17.) versation, whether we wish to be useful or The following valuable remarks on the cul­ pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and tivation of the observing powers are from an moral knowledge of right and wrong; the “ Introductory Lecture” on the Educational next is an acquaintance with the history of Uses of Museums, by the late Professor Ed­ mankind, and with those examples which may ward Forbes, 1865:— be said to embody truth and prove by events “ The great defect of our systems of educa­ the reasonableness of opinions. Prudence and tion is the neglect of the educating of the ob­ justice are virtues and excellencies of all times serving powers—a very distinct matter, be it and of all places; we are perpetually moralists, noted, from scientific or industrial instruction. but we are geometricians only by chance. Our �30 intercourse with intellectual nature is neces­ sary ; our speculations upon matter are volun­ tary and at leisure. Physiological (physical?) learning is of such rare emergence that a man may know another half his life without being able to estimate his skill in hydrostatics or astronomy; but his moral and prudential cha­ racter immediately appears. Those authors, therefore, are to be read at schools that supply most maxims of prudence, most principles of moral truth, and most materials for conversa­ tion; and these purposes are best served by poets, orators, and historians.” (Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, vol. i. p. 92.) D. (See page 23.) E. _ Subjoined is a scheme of an amended cur­ riculum :— First Stage of Instruction. (From about eight to twelve years of age.) First Division (about two years). 1. Reading, Spelling, and Writing. 2. History, Scriptural and English. 3. Geography, Topographical and Physical. 4. French, Elementary Speaking and Read­ ing. 5. Lessons on Objects. 6. Lessons on Words. 7. Arithmetic, chiefly Mental. Second Division (about two years). Same subjects, as far as may be necessary, with Arithmetic, as an art generally. Botany, Structural ana Systematic. Elementary Physics, general facts and phenomena. English Grammar, Parsing and Analysis of Sentences. Merely as a suggestion, the following scheme 1. for the study of Latin may be proposed :— 2. 1. Dr. W. Smith’s Principia Latina, Parts I. 3. and II. 4. 2. C®sar—De Bello Gallico. 3. Virgil—Eclogse, books 1, 3, 4, and 5. Georgica, books 1 and 2. Second Stage of Instruction. JEneis, books I, 2, 3, 6, and 12. (From about twelve to sixteen years of age.) 4. Cicero—Oratio pro Milone. First Division (about two years). Orationes in Catilinam. Proportion of De Amicitia. time, taking 5. Livy, books 1 and 21. 40 hours per week for 6. Terence—Andria. school-work. 7. Tacitus—Agricola. 1. Latin, taught as a training subject 20 Annales, books 1 and 2. 2. French and German, practical 8. Horace—Odse, Epistolse, and Ars Poetica. mainly .................................... 5 3. Mathematics, especially Euclid ... 5 This matter should be thoroughly studied in 4. Physics, taught as a training sub­ the spirit of the method described in the text ject ........................................... 6 (pp. 13, 20, 21), and would require therefore’to 5. English Language and Literature 5 be gone over, parts of it at least—the Caesar and Second Division (about two years). Virgil—three times: first very slowly, weighing and investigating nearly every word; the second 1. Latin (time diminished)............... 10 time less deliberately, improving the transla­ 2. French and German (time increased for more composition) ........... 10 tion and enlarging the illustration; and the third time rapidly and in good English, so as 3. Mathematics — analytical, with practical applications ........... 5 to evince familiarity with both language and matter. The passages from Virgil and Horace 4. Chemistry or Human Physiology 10 5. English Language and Literature 5 should be committed to memory. Of course “Latin” and “English” both in­ clude the subjects—such as geography, history, archaeology—which may be necessary for their illustration. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The curriculum of modern education, and the respective claims of classics and science to be represented: being the substance of two lectures delivered at the monthly evening meetings of the College of Perceptors, April 11th, & May 9th, 1866 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Payne, Joseph [1808-1876.] Description An account of the resource Payne presents his recommendations for the reformation of the curriculum. He writes of his belief that science should be fully introduced and that education should represent the spirit of the age. Place of publication: London Collation: 30 p. ; 24 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: With the author's compliments. Printed in double columns. Includes appendices. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Virtue, Brothers, & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1866 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5191 Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The curriculum of modern education, and the respective claims of classics and science to be represented: being the substance of two lectures delivered at the monthly evening meetings of the College of Perceptors, April 11th, &amp; May 9th, 1866), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Classical Education Education Science and Education https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/886b0dee9bfe1d02569e9288a73f0ec6.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=v-KdAeOTbynu8MqyM0M8ygM9Jmbey0etxOA2THJRGapyLyIm0ck46C5c0lnmSWSgFTXfxJQzdFjcxW6Ba2F7rqL7t2u%7EX9rsGeUGoxdtdki7gvRS6veEHfAIfh2LLV88sBqG969NaHck514ywsIXGeZDybNJZ0B9bso-urkcBG5wbm2K-inZw53XMzFl%7ETeDgN4i2EhiiyN3bt4Wxcg5eFbQFJ3p4EdFErjc9Mcf6SqktWKmRtNkf66OAjslOm4fNlf7ReB8ZW7RobdpfDxiz1hgCY1pNH2SNB1LHDpr-Ut3xSqnl7duXVcVWLy8tPZGALewpfoqQ2OoAYyXuw83uA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9722b50d4c5abe162a404b6d28b7fa54 PDF Text Text T 'JET K/ CORNELL UNIVERSITY AT ITHACA, N. Y. FIRST GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT. TRUSTEES. *His Excellency, REUBEN E. FENTON, Governor. *His Honor STEWART L. WOODFORD, Lieutenant-Governor. *Hon. WILLIAM HITCHMAN, Speaker. *Hon. THOMAS H. FAILE, President State Agricultural Society *Hon. VICTOR M. RICE, Superintendent of Public Instruction. *Hon. EZRA CORNELL, Chairman of Board of Trustees. *Hon. ANDREW D. WHITE, President of the University. *FRANCIS M. FINCH, Esq., Librarian Cornell Public Libra/ry. *ALONZO B. CORNELL, Esq., Ithaca. Hon. HORACE GREELEY, New York. Hon. EDWIN D. MORGAN, New York. Hon. ERASTUS BROOKS,k New York. Hon. WILLIAM KELLY, Rhinebeck. Gen. J. MEREDITH READ, Albany. Hon. GEORGE H. ANDREWS, Springfield, Otsego Co. Hon. ABRAM B. WEAVER, Deerfield, Onf.tda Co. Hon. CHARLES J. FOLGER, Geneva. Hon. EDWIN B. MORGAN, Aurora. Hon. JOHN M. PARKER, Owego. * HIRAM SIBLEY, Esq., Rochester. Hon. JOSIAH B. WILLIAMS, Ithaca. Hon. GEORGE W. SCHUYLER, Ithaca, Treas.ofthe University, WILLIAM ANDRUS, Esq., Ithaca. JOHN McGRAW, Esq., Ithaca. * Trustees Ex Officio. ��RESIDENT PROFESSORS. HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, EL. D., PRESIDENT AND PROP. OP HISTORY. EVAN W. EVANS, M. A., PROP. OF MATHEMATICS. WILLIAM CHANNING RUSSELL, M. A., PROP. OF SOUTH EUROPEAN LANGUAGES AND ASSOCIATE PROF. OF HISTORY. ELI WHITNEY BLAKE, M. A., PH. D., PROF. OF PHYSICS AND INDUSTRIAL MECHANICS. GEORGE C. CALDWELL, M. S., PH. D., PROF. OP AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY. JAMES M. CRAFTS, M. S., PH. D.t PROF. OF GENERAL AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY. BURT G. WILDER, M. D., PROF. OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY AND NATURAL HISTORY. JOSEPH HARRIS, PROF. OF PRACTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE. Major JOSEPH H. WHITTLESEY (U. S. Army), PROF. OF MILITARY SCIENCE. LEBBEUS H. MITCHELL, B. A., PH. D., PROF. OF MINING AND METALLURGY. DANIEL WILLARD FISKE, M. A., PH. D., PROF. OF NORTH EUROPEAN LANGUAGES AND LIBRARIAN. The following are to be elected in July and September. PROF. OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHY. PROF. OF GENERAL, ECONOMIC AND AGRICULTURAL GEOLOGY. PROF. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING. PROF. OF ANCIENT LANGUAGES. * �4 FACULTY. PROF. OF BOTANY, HORTICULTURE AND ARBORICULTURE. PROF. OF RHETORIC, ORATORY AND VOCAL CULTURE NON-RESIDENT PROFESSORS AND LECTURERS. LOUIS AGASSIZ, LL. D., prof, of natural history . (20 Lectures). Hon. FREDERICK HOLBROOK, LL. D., PROF. OF MECHANICS APPLIED TO AGRICULTURE (12 Lectures) JAMES HALL, LL. D., PROF. OF GENERAL GEOLOGY (12 Lectures). JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL, M. A., PROF. OF ENGLISH LITERATURE (12 Lectures). Hon. GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, M. A., PROF. OF RECENT LITERATURE (12 Lectures). Hon. THEODORE W. DWIGHT, LL. D. PROF. OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND LECTURER ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED states (13 Lectures). The following are to be elected at an early day. PROF. OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. PROF. OF RURAL ECONOMY AND ARCHITECTURE. PROF. OF AMERICAN HISTORY. PROF. OF VETERINARY SURGERY AND BREEDING OF ANIMALS. PROF. OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY AND LECTURER ON INSECTS INJURIOUS TO VEGETATION. S * > �CORNELL UNIVERSITY. FIRST GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT. The first term of the Cornell University, at Ithaca, N. Y., will open on the last Wednesday in September, 1868, with the inauguration of’ the President and Professors. The examination of candidates for admission will be con­ ducted by the Professors elect in the several departments, on the Monday and Tuesday preceding. Though students can be received at a later period, it is greatly desired that they appear on Monday and Tuesday as above. The organization of Divisions, Departments, Courses and Classes will immediately follow the inauguration exercises, and there will be no delay in the commencement of instruction. All instruction at the University will be comprehended under two Divisions. I. The Division of Special Sciences and Arts. II. The Division of Science, Literature, and the Arts in GENERAL. Departments and Courses, in these two Divisions, will be organized as follows: I. DIVISION OF SPECIAL SCIENCES AND ARTS. 1. The Department of Agriculture. 2. “ “ The Mechanic Arts. 3. “ “ Civil Engineering. 4. “ “ Military Engineering and Tactics. 5. “ “ Mining and Practical Geology. 6. “ “ History, Social and Political Science. �6 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. In all the instruction in these Departments a constant effort will be made to educate men to speedily become practically useful in developing the resources and in aiding in the general progress of the country. In the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, science and practice will go together, not to rear a body of amateur agri­ culturists, but to bring scientific methods to bear in ordinary agriculture, so that, tried by an economic test, the result shall be to advance the prosperity of the country. Special attention will be given to the education of young men, ambitious to become instructors and professors in the numerous agricultural colleges now rising in nearly all the States of the Union. In the DEPARTMENT OF THE “ MECHANIC ARTS,” science will also be applied to practice, fitting men to take positions of influence and usefulness, in developing the manu­ facturing and mechanical resources and interests of the country. Special attention will be paid to the practical education of those who wish to take charge of manufactories and work-shops of various sorts. In the DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING the same idea of making thoroughly scientific men for speedy prac­ tical use will be carried out. The DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY ENGINEERING AND TACTICS is placed under the supervision of graduates of the National Academy at West Point. The DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND PRACTICAL GEOLOGY has for its aim the fitting of men to develop the vast mineral resources of the nation. When it is considered * what immense losses have been incurred under the manage­ ment of unscientific or half-scientific men, the importance of this Department will be recognized. Situated, as the Univer­ sity is, near one of the greatest mining districts of the United States, it presents special attractions to all students desiring real preparation for work of the kind contemplated. In the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, the need of the country for a higher and more thorough education for the public service, will be �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 7 constantly kept in view. Principles, as thought out hy Econo­ mists, Statesmen and Historians, will be constantly applied to what has been actually wrought out in society. The trustees will endeavor, in questions of Political Economy, upon which good and able men differ, to have both sides ably presented and discussed. No attempt will be made, however, to proselyte students to any peculiar or partisan views. II. DIVISION OF SCIENCE, LITERATURE, AND TILE ARTS IN GENERAL. 1. First General Course, or “Modern Course.” This will extend through four years. To Modern Languages, which have become so indispensable in a good education, will be mainly assigned the place and labor usually given to Ancient Languages. The course will be suited to the needs of students, so far as possible, by the allowance of options-between studies in the latter years of the course, on a plan somewhat similar to that lately adopted at Harvard University. 2. “Modern Course Abridged.” This course will extend through three years. This, as well as the abridged courses which follow, are intended to meet the needs of those students who have not time for a full general course. It will give the main studies of the extended course, the subordinate studies being omitted so as to decrease the time one year. 3. Second General Course, or “ Combined Course.” This course will extend through four years. In this the lan­ guages studied will be Latin and German, the remainder of the course being essentially the same as the “ General Course.” To those who wish to make a thorough study of Modern Languages this course will be valuable, as combining the most useful parts, practically, of the courses usually pursued in Colleges, with a broader course; giving the two sides of all the great Modern Languages and literatures, including our own, and aiding the �8 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. scientific student greatly in the literature and nomenclature of science. 4. “ Combined Course Abridged.” This wifi extend through three years. character. Its name explains its 5. Third General Course, or “ Classical Course.” This will be mainly like the “First General Course,” with the option of Ancient Languages for Modern. While making full provision, in other courses, for Scientific instruction, full attention will be given, in this course, to Classical instruction. The aim will constantly be to provide a Classical Course, as full and thorough as that of any College in the land—to make, not smatterers, but sound classical scholars; to strengthen the student, by giving him an insight into the great thoughts of great thinkers—not to burden his mind with scraps of doubtful philosophy and second-hand pedantry. 6. “ Scientific Course.” This will extend through three years, affording a general scientific preparation for either of the first four departments in the “ First Division,” as named above. A special effort will be made to bring this department fully up to the needs of the times, both by the course adopted and by the professors elected to maintain it. 7. Scientific Course Abridged. This will extend through two years. Its name explains its character. 8. Optional Course. This is similar to that allowed American students in the greater German Universities; also like the “Select Course” at the University of Michigan ; and which, in both cases, has been very successful. In this course the student, on consultation with friends and the appropriate instructors, selects any three studies for which he may be fitted, from the whole range of studies pursued in .the entire University, follows them up to * �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 9 such a point as may be agreed upon, and receives, from the Governing Board of the University, at the completion of his work, a certificate, showing the extent of the course he has taken. 9. Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates. Appropriate degrees, attested by diplomas or certificates, wiii be conferred upon all students passing satisfactorily through any of the above named departments or courses. But it is thoroughly to be understood that no distinction will be made between the courses extending through four years, as to the name, character or value of the degree or diploma, and the trustees pledge themselves to use every effort to prevent any caste-spirit in any department or course as compared with another. It is intended to confer the degree of A. B. (Bachelor of Arts) on all students wTho shall have satisfactorily passed either of the above courses, requiring four years of study. It is intended to confer the degree of B. S. (Bachelor of Science) on all students passing through the “ Scientific Course” (No. 6), requiring three years of study. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION. General Requirements. ’ All candidates for admission to any department or course must present satisfactory evidences of good moral character. All candidates for admission to any of the special depart­ ments in the “First Division ” must be at least sixteen years of age. All candidates for admission to any of the courses of the “ Second Division ” must be at least fifteen years of age. Candidates for advanced standing will be examined in the previous studies of the course which they purpose to enter, and if they come from another College or University will present certificates of honorable dismission. Entering the University will be considered a pledge to obey its rules and regulations. Candidates for admission to any department or course must have received a good common English education, and be 2 �10 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. morally, mentally and physically qualified to pursue to advan­ tage the course of study to which they purpose to give their attention.* Special Requirements. Department oe Civil Engineering- and Archi­ Military Engineering and Tactics, and Mining and Practical Geology. In addition to the general requirements, candidates will be examined in the whole of Elementary and Plane Geometry. 2. For the “ Combined Course ” in the Second Division, in which Latin is taken as an optional study in place of one of the Modern Languages, in addition to the general require­ ments the candidate will be examined in Caesar’s Commen­ taries, Cicero’s Select Orations, six books of the EEneid and forty-five exercises in Arnold’s Prose Composition, or in a course equivalent to this. 3. For the “ Third General Course,” or “ Classical Course,” an examination will be made similar to that for enter­ ing the first year at the existing Colleges of a good grade. 1. In the tecture, Of Candidates Imperfectly Prepared. For candidates* found to be of good mental quality, but defective in preparation, provision will be made for special pre­ paratory instruction in a department separate and distinct, but under the control and direction of the University Faculty, until such students are fully competent to enter the University. Students intending to enter are urged to give their main atten­ tion, from the time of receiving this circular, to strengthening themselves in a “sound, ordinary English education such as can be obtained in every good public school or academy. Let their efforts be laid out in perfecting themselves in the following course: In English Grammar, the general practical principles, with the strictest attention to exercises in Orthography. In En* The same qualifications as those named for the Lawrence Scientific School at Cam­ bridge. �THU CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 11 glisli composition each applicant should take pains to cultivate skill and facility. To this end frequent and brief essays and »imprCMnptu compositions, oral and written, are recommended. In Geography, the leading facts of General Geography, with special attention to the Geography of Europe and America, to be learned, not by ‘"parroting” from text books, but by com­ mon-sense study of any atlas, taking one map after another, fastening into the mind the leading, physical and political features in the Geography of each continent and of each country, and finally grouping them mentally together. To this end map drawing will be found of the greatest use. Three weeks’ study, in this way, will do more than “ three years’ ” study after the ordinary method. In Arithmetic, attention should be especially directed to fundamental principles. These should be clearly apprehended, and fairly fixed in the student’s mind. In view of the course to be pursued in the University, too much importance cannot be given to a thorough prelimi­ nary drill in Mental Arithmetic. Good health, good habits, and a good thorough education in the common English branches, are then the simple requirements for admission. Every failure in institutions for higher educa­ tion may be traced to a defect in one of these respects. On these, as a basis, the University pledges itself to build a good superstructure. Fees eor Tuition. The fees for tuition to persons not exempt under the charter as “ State Students,” are ten dollars for each term, or thirty dollars for the year. Neither matriculation fees nor initiation fees are required. In special cases of students of decided merit, who are proven to be in great need, a remission will be made, either wholly or in part, of tuition fees, such remission being considered as a loan, the student giving a note or promise to pay them so soon as he shall become able after leaving the University. In all other cases payment for each terra must be made in advance. Students will be held responsible for any injury which mav be done by them to the University property. �12 * Payments THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. for Materials used in Laboratory Practice. Chemicals and other materials used in laboratory practice will be charged to the student using them at actual cost price. “ State Students.” In the original act of incorporation of the University is the following section: “ § 9. The several departments of study in the said Univer­ sity shall be open to applicants for admission thereto at the lowest rates of expense consistent with its welfare and effi­ ciency, and without distinction as to rank, class, previous occupation or locality. But, with a view to equalize its advan­ tages to all parts of the State, the institution shall annually receive students, one from each Assembly District in the State, to be selected as hereinafter provided, and shall give them instruction in any or in all the prescribed branches of study in any department of said institution, free of any tuition fee, or of any incidental charges, to be paid to said University, unless such incidental charges shall have been made to compensate for damages needlessly or purposely done by the students to the property of said University. The said free instruction shall moreover be accorded to said students in consideration of their superior ability, and as a reward for superior scholarship in the academies and public schools of this State. Said students shall be selected as the Legislature may, from time to time, direct, and until otherwise ordered, as follows: The School Commis­ sioner or Commissioners of each county, and the Board of Education of each city, or those performing the duties of such a board, shall select annually the best scholar from each acad­ emy and each public school of their respective counties or cities as candidates for the University scholarship. The candi­ dates thus selected in each county or city shall meet at such time and place in the year as the Board of Supervisors of the county shall appoint, to be examined by a board consisting of the School Commissioner or Commissioners of the county, or by the said Board of Education of the cities, with such other persons as the Supervisors shall appoint, who shall examine said candidates and determine which of them are the best scholars; and the Board of Supervisors shall then select there­ from to the number of one for each assembly district in said county or city, and furnish the candidates thus selected with a certificate of such selection, which certificate shall entitle said student to admission to said University, subject to the examina­ �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 13 tion and approval of the Faculty of said University. In making these selections, preference shall be given (where other qualifications are equal) to the sons of those who have died in the military or naval service of the United States; considera­ tion shall be had also of the physical ability of the candidate. Whenever any student selected as above described shall have been, from any cause, removed from the University before the expiration of the time for which he was selected, then one of the competitors to his place in the University from his district may be elected to succeed him therein, as the School Commis­ sioner or Commissioners of the county of his residence, or the Board of Education of the city of his residence, may direct.” Under this the Superintendent of Public Instruction will, at an early day, issue a circular defining the duties of School Commissioners regarding the examinations under this act, and making suggestions as to the best manner of conducting them. All students presenting themselves at the University with a certificate, such as is contemplated in the section above cited, showing that after an examination he has been adjudged the “ best scholar,” will be admitted to any department or course for which he is fitted, and continue for four years, or as long as he shall profitably employ his time in the University, free of all matriculation fees, term taxes, or any other payment for tuition. Booms. Suites of rooms will be provided, in the College buildings and near the grounds, sufficient for the accommodation of about two hundred students. Each suite in the buildings con­ sists of a study with bedrooms and closets adjoining. They are large and convenient, with careful provision for heat and ventilation, and no study or bedroom has been or will be con­ structed without direct communication with the outer light and air. It is intended, at the expense of the University to provide neat and durable furniture. The rent of rooms and furniture will range from sixty cents to one dollar per week, according to the occupation of the suite of rooms by two students or by three. Rooms can also be obtained, at reasonable rates, with families in the town. �14 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. Board. Board can be obtained in the village at moderate rates. Probably good board could be secured, at a lower price, by the formation of clubs among the students. The University stew­ ard will be authorized, in such case, to aid clubs, by the pur­ chase of stores for them at wholesale, and by securing rooms. Fuel. The direct communication with the neighboring coal mines D O gives advantages in this respect. The University steward will purchase coal at wholesale, and retail it to students at whole­ sale prices. OFFICERS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY. Faculty. A resident Faculty will be in readiness, which, it is believed, will command the confidence of all friends of advanced and extended education. In addition to these, it is intended to secure, as non-resident professors, a number of gentlemen especially distinguished to deliver courses of lectures in their several departments. Several gentlemen of acknowledged eminence in science, literature and the practical arts, have already signified their willingness to accept such positions, and it is intended to announce the names of the Faculty, resident and non-resident, through the public prints, early in the summer of 1868. The system recommended by the President in his “Plan of Organization,” has been adopted, which is to “secure for the resident professorships, for the hard work of building up the University, active, energetic young men who have a reputation to make and who can make it; and for the non­ resident professors, men of the highest reputation, who will at once elevate the whole tone of instruction and give us from the outset a position which could not be attained in any other manner.” Buildings. Two large stone buildings, four stories in height, have already been erected; another of the same character is in prog­ �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 15 ress. In these, besides dormitories for over three hundred students, are library, lecture and recitation rooms, over thirty in number, and of various sizes. Laboratories. There will be two laboratories well equipped, one under the 'direction of the professor of agricultural chemistry, and the other under the professor of general chemistry. Collections. The University already possesses the Jewett collection in Palseontology and Geology, at a cost of ten thousand dollars, and has received a donation from the State of a collection of duplicates from the State geological collection, and has funds now in hand to make large additional collections for illustration in the different departments. Libraries. The trustees feel warranted in stating that the University will commence with a scientific and general library sufficient for the immediate wants of Faculty and Students, and constant appropriations will be made for its increase. Student Labor and Practical Instruction in Agriculture. There is much labor to be done upon the farm attached to the Agricultural department, and a large number of students can be employed from one to three hours a day, at fair prices. Shortly after the organization of the University, the University steward will organize voluntary corps for systematized and remunerated labor, unde” the direction of the Professors of Agriculture and Engineering. Student Labor and Practical Instruction in the Mechanic Arts. It is intended to erect workshops upon the University prop­ erty where students, under proper direction, can have practical instruction in Mechanic Arts. The first of these will be a £ �16 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. workshop fitted with the proper machinery for working in wood and iron, in which students can labor at fair prices upon agricultural implements and machinery in general, and upon models for the University collections of machinery and apparatus. Accomplished artisans will superintend this work, and the attention of those young men who would qualify themselves, by scientific study, for the most responsible and remunerative positions as master mechanics and superintendents of work­ shops, is invited to this feature in the course of practical instruction. Prizes. The following prizes are offered by the Founder of the Uni­ versity to aid meritorious students : To the student of the Volunteer labor Corps in Agricul­ ture, who, without neglecting his other University duties, shall have shown himself most efficient, practically and scientifically, upon the University farm,............................................................................. $50 To the second in merit,..................................................... 20 To the third in merit,......................................................... 10 To the student of the Volunteer labor Corps in the Mechanic Arts, who, without neglecting his other University duties, shall have shown himself most efficient, practically and scientifically, in the Uni­ versity workshops,..................................................... 50 To the second in merit,.................................................. 20 To the third in merit,............ '.............................. 10 The above shall be known as the “ Founder’s prizes.” 00 00 00 00 00 00 The following prizes are offered by the President of the University to aid meritorious students : To the student showing the most satisfactory progress in the “ Modern Course ” during the first year,... $50 00 To the second in merit,..................................................... 20 00 �17 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 7 To the student showing the most satisfactory progress in the “ Combined Course ” during the first year,. To the second in merit,..................................................... To the student showing the most satisfactory progress in the “ Classical Course ” during the first year,... To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in General and Analytical Chemistry,..................................................... To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in Chemistry as ap­ plied to Agriculture,................................................ To the second in merit,.................................................... To the most meritorious student in Practical Mechanics and Physics,................................................................. To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in Civil Engineering, To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in General History,.. To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in Modern History,.. To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious student in Botany,.................. Tb the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious Report or Thesis upon an original investigation in Agriculture,.................... To the second in merit,..................................................... To the most meritorious Report or Thesis upon an original investigation in Geology,.......................... To the second in merit,..................................................... To the writer of the best English Essay,...................... To the second in merit,..................................................... To the third in merit,......................................................... To the student who, without neglecting his other duties as a member of the University, shall make the most satisfactory development in physical culture, To the second in merit, .. <,............................................... To the third in merit,........................................................ 8 K $50 00 20 00 50 00 20 00 50 00 20 00 50 00 20 00 50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 50 00 20 00 50 20 50 20 10 00 00« 00 00 00 50 00 20 00 10 00 �18 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. The committees of examination reserve the right to withhold a prize where the competition shows a standard not sufficiently elevated. * The above shall be known as the “President’s prizes.” ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSITY. The establishment of the Cornell University is due to the combined bounty of the General Government and of the lion. Ezra Cornell. On the second of July, 1862, Congress passed an act grant­ ing public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts. 1 Under this act thirty thousand acres for each of its Sena­ tors and Representatives in Congress were appropriated to each State, and under this provision the share of the State of New York was in land scrip representing 990,000 acres. From the first, the State of New York determined to cease the policy of scattering its educational resources, and to con­ centrate this fund in a single institution worthy so great a Commonwealth. Common sense, with the very signal failure of the Sta>te of Michigan in scattering such a fund, and her great success after concentrating it were conclusive in favor of such a policy. Acting upon this idea, the State first appropriated the entire amount of land scrip to the People’s College upon certain very easy conditions. These conditions not being complied with, the Legislature, by chapter 585, of the Laws of 1865, following the same policy of concentration, against much opposition and many attempts to scatter the fund, re-affirmed its old decision to concentrate the fund, by overwhelming majorities in each house, and gave the proceeds of the entire amount of scrip to the Cornell University on certain conditions, of which the most important were, that Ezra Cornell should give to the Institu­ tion five hundred thousand dollars, and that one student should annually be received and educated, free of all charge for tuition, �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 19 from each of the one hundred and twenty-eight Assembly Dis­ tricts of the State, as a reward of merit for superior scholarship in the public schools or academies. Such.student to be desig­ nated by a competitive examination, to be conducted on a plan laid down in the act. At the first meeting of the trustees thereafter, Mr. Cornell complied with the conditions of the charter by a gift of five hundred thousand' dollars in due form. He then made the additional gift of two hundred acres of excellent land, with buildings, as a farm to be attached to the Agricultural Depart­ ment ; the Jewett collection in Geology and Palaeontology, which had cost him ten thousand dollars, and since that time other gifts to the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars. Besides this, Mr. Cornell has expended about three hundred thousand dollars in purchasing the land scrip anti locating the lands for the University, and it is proper to state here, that, * previous to all these gifts, he had erected in the village of Ithaca, at a cost of nearly one hundred thousand dollars, a free public library with large halls, and with lecture rooms which will be exceedingly useful as affording supplementary accommodations for the lectures and public exercises of the University. Thus laying the foundation for a sure and a large endowment, sufficient to enable the trustees to tender, as soon as the fund shall suffice, free board as well as instruction to the State Students. Relations oe the University to the State. The act organizing the Cornell University makes it an organic part of the educational system of the State. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State,. Superin­ tendent of Public Instruction and Speaker of the House of Assembly are ex officio trustees. • The President of the State Agricultural Society is also ex officio a member of the board. It’may be mentioned here, that the Board of Trustees are not a body sitting for life, but that they are constantly renewed, the term of office being five years ; three being selected every year—one of them by the Alumni whenever they shall number �20 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. fifty. This, it is hoped, will do much to insure vigor and prevent the stagnation from which so many institutions of learning have suffered. Scope op the University. The special department referred to above will be developed conscientiously and as thoroughly as possible. The prominence plainly given the first two by the Act of Congress will be loy­ ally remembered. It must also be constantly recollected that education is here to be made, not only scientific, but practical. Military education will also be provided for. Moreover, the trustees are also pledged to try fully and fairly the experiment of allowing students in appropriate departments to do some­ thing toward paying their way by organized manual labor, under scientific direction. This, however, will be voluntary, as the freedom of our University demands. But beside these special departments, the trustees provide, in accordance with the clearly expressed intent of the Congres­ sional act, general instruction. Mr. Cornell’s gift is made in order to round the whole institution into the proportions of an University worthy of the State. He expressed plainly and tersely the whole University theory when he said, “ I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study T Features of the University. First. Every effort will be made that the education given be practically useful. The idea of doing a student’s mind some vague general gofod by studies which do not interest him, will not control. The constant policy will be to give mental disci­ pline to every student by studies which take practical hold upon the tastes, aspirations and work of his life. Second. There is to be University liberty of choice. Several courses carefully arranged will be presented, and the student, aided by friends and instructors, can make his choice among them. When we consider that young men are constantly obliged to make choice unaided in regard to matters of even more difii- �* THfi CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 21 culty and danger than courses of study, it will not be thought so absolutely necessary that but one single course should be allowed, and all men pf all minds forced to fit it. Third. There will be no Fetichism in regard to any single course of study. All good studies will be allowed their due worth. While the beauty and worth of ancient classics will not be denied, it is hoped to give the study of modern classics, especially those of our own language, a far more important place than they have hitherto held in our colleges. Special attention will be paid to these. Fourth. Historical studies and studies in Political and Social science will be held in high honor, and will have more atten­ tion than is usual in our higher institutions of learning. Besides thorough regular courses, it is intended to present special courses of lectures by non-resident professors of emi­ nence. Fifth. There will be no petty daily marking system, a pe­ dantic device, which has eaten out from so many colleges all capacity among students to seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Those professors will be sought who can stir enthusiasm, and who can thus cause students to do far more than under a perfunctory piecemeal study. Sixth. It enters into the plan adopted by the Board of the Cornell University to bring about a closer and more manly intercourse and sympathy between Faculty and students than is usual in most of the colleges. Seventh. The study of Human Anatomy, Physiology and Hygiene, with exercises for physical training, will be most carefully provided for. Eighth. The Cornell University, as its highest aim, seeks to promote Christian civilization. But it cannot be sectarian. Established by a general government which recognizes no dis­ tinctions in creed, and by a citizen who holds the same view, it would be false to its trust were it to seek to promote any creed or to exclude any. The State of New York, in designating this institution as the recipient of the bounty of the general government, has also �2^ THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. declared the same doctrine. By the terms of the charter, no trustee, professor or student can be accepted or rejected on account of any religious or political opinions which he may or may not’hold. ” * The success of the University of Michigan, where the Faculty comprises men of all religious sects and of all parties, is a suffi­ cient refutation of those who assert that an institution of learn­ ing must be sectarian to be successful. Access to the University Town. The Cornell University is established at Ithaca, Tompkins ' county, New York. From the south, east and west, the most easy access is by the New York and Erie railway, leaving that road at Owego and taking the cars for Ithaca. From the north, east and west, access is easy by the New York Central railroad, taking the “old road” between Roch­ ester and Syracuse, and leaving it at Cayuga Bridge, whence steamboats run directly to Ithaca. Any additional information can be obtained of Francis M. Finch, Secretary of the Board of Trustees, Ithaca, New York, or of Andrew D. White, President of the University, Syracuse, New*York. ' ' REPORT. To give in brief the latest exhibit of the affairs of the University, the following report of the recent meeting of the Trustees is appended, as published in the Albany Evening Journal, of February 15th : The meeting of the Trustees of the Cornell University, held Thursday at the Agricultural Rooms, was one of the most gratifying since the inception of that enterprise. The reports presented by the various committees showed the most satisfactory condition of the University in every respect. The financial basis seems even better than the most sanguine �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 23 have hoped. Of the buildings, one large edifice in stone is ready for students, and two more will be ready at the opening of the University in September; giving excellent accommoda­ tions for nearly four hundred students. The Jewett Cabinet in Geology, etc., is all arranged ready for use, and negotiations were ordered in relation to other scientific collections, including that of Dr. Newcomb, of San Francisco; which, with one or two exceptions, is the finest of its kind in existence. The report of the President showed that seven Professors had already been appointed, as follows : . President—Andrew D. White, LL. D., formerly Professor of History in the State University of Michigan. Professor of Mathematics—Evan W. Evans, A. M. Professor of South European Languages and Associate Professor of History—W. C. Russell, A. M. Professor of Physics and Medicine—Eli W. Blake, Ph. D. Professor of Chemistry—James M. Crafts. Professor of Agricultural Chemistry—George C. Caldwell. Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Natural History— Burt G. Wilder, M. D. • The following Professors were elected Thursday: Professor of Military Science—Major J. H. Whittlesey, United States Army. Professor of North European Languages and Librarian— Daniel W. Fiske, A.M. Professor of Mining and Metallurgy—J. II. Mitchell, A. B. Also, the following as non-resident Professors: Professor of Natural History—Louis Agassiz, LL. D. Duties, twenty lectures each year. Professor of Mechanics applied to Agriculture—Governor Frederick Holbrook, of Vermont. Duties, twenty lectures each year. Professor of General Geology—James Hall, LL. D., State Geologist of New York. Duties, twenty lectures each year. Professor of English Literature—James Russell Lowell Duties, twelve lectures each year. �24 THE COKNELL UNIVERSITY. Professor of Recent Literature—(jEorge Wm. Curtis. Duties, tweive lectures. Professor of Constitutional Law—Theodore W. Dwight, LL. D. Duties, twelve lectures on the Constitution of the United States. All these gentlemen, with the exception of Governor Hol­ brook, have already entered heartily into the plan, and will be ready to give instruction at Ithaca during the first year, and it is believed that Governor Holbrook will not hesitate to accept this position. His election was the result of a vote taken in the Executive Committee of the State Agricultural Society, at the request’of the Cornell trustees. It is intended to commence instruction on the third Wednes­ day in September, with eighteen resident and about ten non­ resident professors. All the leading courses, general and special, will then be opened, including modern course, scientific course, and classical course, and special courses in agriculture, mechanic arts, civil engineering, mining, military science, and history. A gift was received from President White of one thousand dollars to be distributed in premiums, to the most meritorious students in the various departments, who jshall enter the first year. Another gift of three * hundred dollars was received from another gentleman to be applied to the same purpose. On motion of Hon. William Kelly, President White was requested, during his approaching visits, to investigate the insti­ tutions for Agricultural and Industrial Education in England, France and Germany, and to report at his return. Also to superintend purchases of bonks, apparatus, collections, etc. The plan of general military instructions presented by Major Whittlesey, was ably supported in its main features by Lieu­ tenant-Governor Woodford, and adopted. Much satisfaction was experienced regarding the elections thus far for the Faculty. The plan of organization of the President has been carried out fully in this respect. That plan is “to have for the hard �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 25 work of building up the University mainly young and active men—men who have a reputation to make, and who can make it.” Great pains have been taken to secure the most promising young men for this purpose, and the Committee have been strongly aided by Professors Agassiz, Dana, Gibbs, Chandler, President Alden, President Wilson, President McClintock and others. With one exception, every one of these young resident Professors "have had the best instruction, both in lead­ ing American and European institutions. Professor Evans, who graduated with the highest honors at Yale, in 1851, was afterward acting Professor of Mathematics at that institution, and then at Marietta College, Ohio, and in both of these positions he distinguished himself as a teacher and a writer. lie is the author of a mathematical text-book in extensive use, and of papers in Silliman’s Journal. For the last year he has been studying a second time in Europe. Professor Russell graduated at Columbia College, N. Y., and won golden opinions as a Professor at Horace Mann’s Col­ lege in Ohio. lie is now studying in Europe. Professor Caldwell studied at the Agricultural College at Cirencester, England, and afterward at the University of Got­ tingen, Germany, and is now Vice-President of the State Agricultural Society of Pennsylvania. Professor Blake graduated at Yale, first in the classical and afterward in the scientific school, then studied at Heidelberg, Germany, four years. He has been Professor in the Uni­ versity of Vermont, and is now acting Professor at Columbia College. Professor Crafts, after graduating at the Harvard Scientific School, studied chemistry four years in France and Germany. Though a young man, his original investigations were published by the French Academy of Sciences and Silliman’s Journal. He is now lecturing in the Cambridge Scientific School, where he is Assistant Professor. Professor Wilder is a graduate of the Lawrence Scientific School, and now the First Assistant of Professor Agassiz. Though one of the youngest of all he has distinguished himself 4 �26 THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. as a lecturer, he having delivered a course of the “ Lowell Lec­ tures” in Boston, and a course of University lectures at Harvard. He is the author of sundry contributions to Silliman’s Journal and the Atlantic Monthly. Professor Harris studied at the Agricultural College at Cirencester, England; was afterward leading editor of the Genesee Farmer, and lias succeeded in applying science to agriculture in a common-sense way and in 'making it pay. Professor' Whittlesey is a graduate of West Point, Major in the regular army, and the estimation in which he is held is shown by the fact that he was appointed by General Grant expressly to draw up a national plan for military education to meet the wants of the increased army, to be presented to Congress. Professor Fiske was formerly at Flamilton College, where he attracted attention for his zeal in literature. lie afterward studied at the University of Heidelberg, in Germany, and Upsala, in Sweden. Returning to America, he contributed to the New American Encyclopaedia, and did other excellent literary work. Going abroad again, he was .for a time the secretary and trusted friend of Motley, the historian, our min­ ister at Vienna. Returning, he was made literary editor of the Syracuse Daily Journal, where he gained the respect of a large circle of friends. He is now traveling in Egypt and the Holy Land as a cor respondent of several leading journals. It should be mentioned that while he was contributing to Appleton’s Encyclopaedia he was assistant librarian at the Astor Library, where he gained the experience which induced the Cornell authorities to make him not merely a professor but also librarian of the University. Professor Mitchell is a St. Lawrence county boy, who studied engineering at Union College under the lamented Gillespie; then was an engineer upon sundry railroads, then Principal of the High School at Davenport, Iowa, where he organized the whole school system and distinguished himself as an instructor; thence to Harvard, where he graduated among the first in his class; then into the army, where he did faithful service in the �THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 27 Topographical Engineers; then to the Training Schools of Paris and Frey berg. It will be seen that these are “ live men,” and in selecting, them the Committee have been guided by the fact, not merely of their energy and ability, but also of nobleness of character. The Committee have been mindful of the fact that a Professor to succeed must be not only a scholar, but a man and a gentle­ man, and it is believed that in the above selections such have been secured. Of the non-resident Professors it is unnecessary to speak. The reputations of Agassiz, Governor Holbrook, James Rus­ sell Lowell, James Hall, George William Curtis and Theo­ dore W. Dwight, are part of American History. ft was determined to have a joint meeting of Trustees and' Faculty immediately after the return of President White early in July, and to make at that time all final arrangements neces­ sary for commencing active instructions in September. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Cornell University at Ithaca, N.Y. : First general announcement Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cornell University Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ithaca, USA Collation: 27 p. ; 23 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1868] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5684 Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Cornell University at Ithaca, N.Y. : First general announcement), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Cornell University Education-United States https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b0f4d5b5b9a2a3cd600b46d689297a43.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=e0M-%7ETGbPuOVMIy2SZa0eNHs2LURJFIfGdoCg%7EDrDghz9s4CDCNFZYBX0JlpJqH6rbIPFBrXel6q1jTaXL6BzWgl8-9ygVSXvuGmWhbIdGC3BHqGYchU37W-zOO5l1dKA6uF2vmIamcmAtLGGPCVZiDp%7E0oxK0mhKveEe1ErqfhZ8DBwVTlUQRHmEKq1iQatDEZ4QvAmoFlSP6LeWwwow74U5HnDLYgpMXLZpztspx28hTSxh7AHboe4Z9fwAclk18bBLYWJwUN6hrgdnHgo5Vy7-Cv4N3%7EFnZW-NQkIN3XADJeODfhpl3cyCO%7ENCI3I53jzzZ7aTviuAvIBDevkoA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 11200ea062c08e571f2712e4643af829 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL A QUESTION OF ETHICS NEW EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE COMING EDUCATION BILL BY J. ALLANSON PICTON, M.A. (Formerly M.P. for Leicester and a Member of the first School Boardfor London) [issued for the rationalist press association, limited] London: WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. ��CONTENTS - PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION - ■ v - - xv THE BIBLE SPHINX............................................................... i RELIGIOUS EQUALITY............................................................... 9 THE NEW CHURCH RATE .... 16 NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES ... 23 MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS - - - 34 THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN - - 43 THE WRONG TO THE NATION ... 56 CONCLUSION..........................................................................62 INDEX- 77 ��PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION In the arena of education the most significant event since the first issue of this Essay has been the production and withdrawal of TMr. Birrell’s Bill. I do not mention the Act of 1902, because it has appeared to me significant of little but the illimitable evils occasioned by passionate blunders in patriotism. It was the inevitable effect of a “ khaki election.” But the Bill of 1906 was an attempt to correct, so far as education was concerned, that mistake—with what results we know. If, however, our belief in the continuity of progress be sound, it is incon­ ceivable that the reactionary law of 1902 can remain much longer in force. Such a notion would be as simple as that of the child who fancies that an exceptionally long receding ripple indicates the turn of the advancing tide. But if a new Education Bill is introduced, as we are assured it will be, all highest interests demand that it shall not be drawn on lines which will ensure its delivery into the hands of its sectarian foes. In other words, no loophole must be left for associating the public authority, whether imperial or local, with the teaching of dogmas that divide us. A nation which sets to its Government an impossible task ought not to be captious in criticism of failure. Now the task appointed by a reputed majority of English people to successive Ministers of Education has been the establishment of religious equality in the schools, together with security for “ simple Bible teaching.” And this latter phrase practically means, as is abundantly proved in the following pages, the ordinary Scriptural instruction common to the Sunday-schools of the great evangelical sects—Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and all Wcsleyans. But this common belief of those influential sects is, after all, not the belief of the whole nation. For the Church of England, through the voices of her most •zealous and self-sacrificing clergy and most devout laity, denounces that common belief as not only insufficient, but misleading. The Roman Catholics, as a matter of course, protest. It is matter of common fame, to which I shall refer again, that a rapidly The Educa­ tion Bill of 1906. A failure, and the reason why. �vi The prefer­ ence of undenominationalism fatal to religious equality. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION increasing number of Nonconformists themselves have surrendered most important elements of that once common belief. And outside of all these is a dim, uncounted, but formidable host, who utterly deny all miraculous revelation, and who insist, as they have always done, but more loudly than ever now, that their rejection of revelation does not in the least invalidate their claim to full citizenship, including religious equality. What the reputed majority demand, then, amounts to this: that in a nation notoriously divided as to forms1 of religious belief a delusive attempt must be made to establish as “undenominational” one particular form of belief that happens to be shared by certain great and influential sects. Such a position reminds us of what is said of the Emperor Julian by Mr. T. R. Glover in his Life and Letters in the Fourth Century: “A zealot whose principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of one stands in slippery places.” In our times we have to do, not with an individual zealot, but with a congregate or multi-personal zealot, constituted by an alliance of the great evangelical denominations. The principle enunciated by Mr. Glover is, however, quite as applicable in the twentieth century as in the fourth. And the story of the Education Bill of 1906 cruelly exposes the fate of the modern zealot “whose principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of one.” Perhaps I may fairly claim that this painful and wasteful episode in the struggle for national education is a glaring illustration of the main thesis of the following pages. For that thesis, in few words, is simply this: that to teach in the schools of the nation, and by authority of the nation, a transcendental subject on which the nation is for the present irrecon­ cilably divided in opinion is worse than impracticable. It is not only a waste of time and money: it is a perennial source of strife, a deadly injury to citizen education, a cause of hypocrisy, falsehood, and all the forms of immorality inevitably propagated by these vices. Yet hardly once in the course of the Parliamentary debates on that misbegotten Bill was this essential issue fairly faced. With certain happy exceptions, especially among the Labour Members, the prevalent assumption was that we are all agreed on “simple Bible teaching,” though not one champion of a lost cause attempted an articulate explanation of what 1 I say forms because one of my deepest convictions is that the division is super­ ficial only. But the actual realities feebly represented by those forms were earnestly taught in a strictly “ secular” school which I attended for six years of my boyhood. �PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION vii that teaching is. And nearly all ignored the patent fact that this effete assumption has been long drummed out of existence by the discordant sectarian bands who drowned by their noise all the more practical educational issues at School Board elections. Nor has the abolition of School Boards cured the mischief. For it has simply transferred the battle of the Bible to municipal elections, and especially to the choice of “ co-opted members ” on Education Committees. But other signs of the times have portentously risen on the horizon ; Theology?’ and perhaps most significant among them is what is called “the New Theology.” With that I have nothing whatever to do except to insist that, however incorrectly the epithet “ new ” may be otherwise applied, the movement is a novel and, I might even add, a startling illustration of the main positions maintained in this Essay. For, instead of the supposed unanimity of a reputed majority of the nation about the “simple Bible teaching ” of which samples are given in the following pages, we find even among the evangelical Nonconformists themselves an outbreak of the most discordant opinions touching the origin, nature, infallibility, and authority of the very Book whose exclusion from the schools, they tell us, would be sacrilege. Now I am perfectly aware that such dis­ cordance of opinion would be no sufficient objection to the inclusion of the Bible as a “ classic ” in the school curriculum, always provided that it could be treated as schoolmasters treat any other classic, and that every teacher could be really freed from theological bondage. But, as an old School Board hand and present member of a county education committee, I know that these premises are at present simply impossible. For the Bible is in the schools, not as a “ classic,” but as “ the word of God.” Yet now the advocates of the New Theology, from their dis­ tinguished leader the Rev. R. J. Campbell downwards, have practically repudiated every intelligible sense in which the Book could be honestly called the word of God. I must dwell for a moment on this point, because, unfortunately, the theological habits slowly formed during two millenniums impose on good and honest men, I will not say a slippery, but certainly a subtle, use of words which pleases the eye or ear, but leaves the reason befogged. It is therefore necessary here to particularise the new forms which the old problem of the Bible in school has assumed. For when we are told that there is nothing in the new views held by so many Nonconformists at all inconsistent with their advocacy of the old use of �viii Contrast of the new views with ‘ * simple Bible teaching." PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION the Bible as a class-book, it is surely needful to get a clear idea of those new views, and also to remind ourselves of what the old use of the Bible in school was and is. I will dismiss the latter first, because it is only necessary to refer readers to the later pages of this book,1 which, after six years, remain substantially, and indeed for the most pait exactly, true of present practice. In sum, the ancient and present usage amounts to this : That the Bible is presented to the children as the very word of God, as “ God’s letter to mankind,” and bearing everywhere the stamp of divine authority, which it is wicked to doubt. But, of course, the time spirit is too strong for uniform insistence on the old rigid literal interpretation. Thus there is often an attempt on the part of the more intelligent teachers in municipal schools to evade the difficulties of the Creation story, the Fall, and the Tower of Babel, or perhaps of the Almighty’s visit to Abraham’s tent, by feeble suggestions of “ allegory,” always with the reservation that all is the “ word of God.” In this view of contem­ porary Bible-teaching I am generally confirmed by Mr. Nevinson’s recent most interesting letters to the Westminster Gazette on visits which he paid to various elementary schools during the hour of religious instruction. His remarks on the evident anxiety of Council school teachers to avoid any suspicion of heresy were suggestive and painful. Now let us note the contrast between the established usage in public elementary schools—even those called “ undenominational ”— and the ideas so rapidly spreading among Nonconformist supporters of the Bible in school.23 To the “ New Theology,” as expounded by its leader, the Bible has just as much authority as each individual mind feels impelled to assign to it. But its claim to be “ the word of God ” is gone. The first books of the Bible—so constantly prescribed by Council “ syllabuses ” for the religious inspiration of infant minds—are a collection of myths mainly of Babylonian origin. “ The Fall theory is not only impossible in face of the findings of modern science; it is a real hindrance to religion.” The Incarnation, as understood by all recognised 1 See pp. 29 and following. 2 It is.only just to the Rev. R. J. Campbell to note that he at least is consistent, and has joined the Secular Education I.eague. It is only what I should expect of a man with a single eye to veracity. 3 Rev. R. J. Campbell, in The New Theology, p. 64. The italics are my own. But the words are well worth emphasising in view of the constancy with which this old myth is taught to young children as the starting-point of genuine religious history. �PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ix doctors of theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, is explained away. Not that the divinity of Christ is denied. But it is regarded only as a resplendent illustration of the divinity partly expressed, partly latent, in every other man.1 It is true that, with expansive tolerance, Mr. Campbell thinks “ even the Athanasian Creed is a magnificent piece of work, if only the Churches would consent to understand it in terms of the oldest theology of all”! The date and authority of this “oldest theology ” are not given ; and it is not my business to conjecture the author’s meaning. For my sole purpose in alluding to the book at all is to show how far it shatters the persistent assumption that there is such a thing as “simple Bible teaching” on which the dominant sects are agreed. And the book proves my point, because it is written by the most popular Nonconformist preacher of the day, occupying a sort of episcopal pre-eminence in the central temple of Evangelical Noncon­ formity, and because the book has attained a circulation rarely accorded even to works of fiction. Take up any syllabus23of religious instruction approved by local Education Authorities, and note how impossible its prescription must be to an honest teacher holding the “new theology.” For the greater number of such documents—in fact, almost all—prescribe the story of the Fall for the edification of the youngest children, together with the narrative of the Deluge and the adventures of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of which the mythical characters are clearly involved, though not expressly stated, in the New Theology. Further, the New Testament does not remain intact. For though Mr. Campbell is quite willing that his adherents should believe the story of the Virgin-Birth if they can, he is himself of opinion that it was “ unknown to the primitive Church that it is an unauthorised addition to the earliest Gospels; and that the reference in Matthew i. 23 to the supposed prophecy of such a portent in Isaiah vii. 14 is due to the Evangelist’s ignorance of Hebrews Anyone who observes what a prominent place the story of Bethlehem takes in municipal religion as taught in Council schools can judge of the cruel position into which the New Theology forces any of its adherents who happen to be undenominational school 1 The New Theology, chap. v. 2 The character of these syllabuses, in which th? Act of 1902 has caused no change whatever, is indicated in Chapter IV» 3 New Theology, p. 98. Syllabuses of Bible teaching. �X “Canye not discern the signs of this time ?” PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION teachers. Are they to tell the children what they themselves in the new light believe to be false, or are they to resign their places ? I need not pursue the subject; or I might show that in regard to such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the Atonement, Apostolic authority, and the nature of the kingdom of God, followers of this new and popular teaching must find it impossible without hypocrisy to work up to the pattern set before them in the syllabuses adopted by the various education authorities. What, then, is the hope of those who still support such a system ? Do they really think in their heart of hearts that the adherents of the New Theology are a few aberrant and exceptional persons who are negligible in any great question of the national conscience? But in the following pages evidence is given that these ideas prevailed to a large extent among elementary teachers before ever Mr. Campbell was heard of. Are their numbers likely to be lessened now ? I will quote an authority for which I have a more rational reverence than any have who think that religion can be served by blindness to staring facts. For one feature of the character of Jesus does, I think, shine clearly upon us through all the mists breathed by imaginative affection; and that is his splendid veracity. It-was shown, as all the Gospels tell us, in his treatment of the Sabbatarian superstition in his day. It was shown in his exposure of Pharisaism at the peril of his life. It was shown in his daring to cast aside the asceticism of John the Baptist and to rejoice with the sons of men. And it seems to me it was his sense of outraged veracity which gave a tone of anger to his retort upon those who wanted a sign of what could never come, while they were blind to the plain tokens of what was coming. “ O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky. But can ye not discern the signs of this time?” It can scarcely be too often repeated that my argument does not involve any judgment one way or the other on the theological points at issue between the different schools of thought above noticed. My sole object is to expose the hollowness of the pretence that the great majority of the nation are substantially agreed about the Bible, and that they all mean the same thing by “ simple Bible teaching.” Whether the old theologians or the new are right is a question that makes no difference to my argument. At any rate, they disagree. They differ about the dates, authority, and historicity of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and most �PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xi of the other Old Testament books. They are at variance about the Fall, the meaning of Jewish sacrifices, the Messianic prophecies, the Atonement, the divinity of Christ, the extent of the inspiration of St. Paul, the historical value of the Gospels, and especially of “St. John’s.” But whatever may be the amount of truth attained by any of the contending parties, it is only one party that has the advantage of having its opinions established and endowed in the schools; and that is the rapidly lessening section which holds to the old beliefs common to Nonconformity and Low Church in the year 1871, and then stereotyped once for all by the “ Compromise ” of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith. Yet another sign of the times is the awakening of many earnest Churchmen to the fact that the establishment and endowment of religion, at least in the schools, involves humiliating conditions such as cancel the value both of privilege and money. Thus it was interesting to read in an editorial article of the Church Times on June 14th, 1907, the following endorsement of the practical conclusion which the ensuing pages were written to enforce : “ It is clear that under the conditions of religious disunion prevailing in our country the appro­ priation of public money in payment for religious teaching is a mistake. It would not be impossible to make an equitable provision for all religions alike; but the difficulties are great, and the fanaticism of a small minority can make them insuperable. The only reasonable alternative is to leave the provision of religious teaching entirely to voluntary effort.” This practical conclusion is, of course, reached by a very different course of thought from that of the following essay. And for “ the fanaticism of a small minority ” I would substitute “ the common sense of most.” But the value of the omen is its suggestion that the possessors of a living faith, as distinguished from mere formalists, are beginning to see that they dishonour their faith by allying it with injustice and falsehood. If this sentiment spreads, the wrong will cease.1 1 It is curious to contrast the above High Church frank acknowledgment of obvious justice with the eloquent plea for privileged Puritanism uttered by one of the ablest and most practical statesmen of the day. At Pontypridd, on July 20th, 1907, as reported in the Manchester Guardian, the Right Hon. D. Lloyd-George rightly denounced the system which has given the Church of England millions of public money “for the purpose of conducting little missionary schools throughout the country.” But in eulogising with well-justified patriotism “a race whose intelligence had been cultivated and strengthened and developed by a century of Puritan theology,” he perhaps naturally overlooked the fact that church people have just as good a right to object to a system which gives public money to pay for “ missionary One variety of opinion alone estab­ lished and endowed. The position of Church­ men. �xii New Regu­ lations for Training Colleges. Inconsis­ tency of M inisters of the Crown. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION Yet another sign of the times is to be found in the new “ Regula­ tions for the Training of Teachers,” issued while I write. These regula­ tions provide that no candidate for admission to any training college may under any circumstances be rejected on the ground of religious faith, “or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or any religious obser­ vance or instruction in religious subjects in the college or elsewhere."1 The last words, which I have italicised, are obviously incompatible with the requirement of any religious belief whatever in candidates for admission. They clearly leave it open to the intending student to decline any Bible instruction or any lectures in “divinity.” But, of course, the wise men of the Board of Education are quite aware of the facility with which such a regulation may be evaded in already estab­ lished training colleges. They therefore add another regulation, that after August ist, 1907, no new sectarian training college shall be recognised, nor any new hostel, unless connected with an unsectarian institution. Moreover, to ensure compliance with these regulations, as far as possible, the Board will prohibit the examination of candidates by college authorities as a condition of admission. . Other means, of course, will be taken to secure the necessary intellectual fitness of candidates. But the colleges are to be left under no temptation to favour their own theological persuasion. Now, surely, if such regula­ tions are consistently carried out, they will of themselves, without any new Education Bill, make the future use of the Bible in school impos­ sible. For no student can be compelled to receive any instruction therein either in his college “or elsewhere.” Now, if under such circumstances any would desire still to have the Bible in school, they neither love nor honour the book as I do. Unfortunately, however, this does not appear to be admitted by the Ministers of the Crown who are responsible for the new regulations. And a brief note of the attitude they assumed towards an important and influential deputation of Church dignitaries who, on July 20th, schools” of that Puritan theology propagated under the form of “simple Bible teaching.” . But even if the new Educational Bill should deny them the legal right, the moral right will remain. I am well aware that Mr. Lloyd-George would repudiate with honest indignation any idea of maintaining Puritan privilege. But to Church­ men “ simple Bible teaching” is Puritanism. So it is to Catholics and to Unitarians and Rationalists. And I think it is in the course of these pages proved to be really so. 1 Regulations for the Training of Teachers, 8 (d). �PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xiii 1907, protested against those regulations, may well find a place among the signs of this time. It is only due to the high ecclesiastics, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who represented Church opinion, to acknowledge that they argued their case with moderation and with the inevitability of conviction necessarily involved in their view of life. On the other hand, the chief merit of the response made by the Prime Minister and Mr. McKenna was their emphatic distinction between the denominational and the national point of view. They did not deny that if teachers were to give instruction in Anglican doctrine they must receive Anglican training. But they did deny that this was a purpose for which public money could be fairly ear-marked. So far as statutes and prescription guaranteed for the present the existence of training colleges with a “ denominational atmosphere,” they admitted the legality of privilege. But so far as statutes and prescription left the Board of Education a free hand in administering grants of public money for individual students, they insisted that national and not denominational interests must determine their action. But one cannot help regretting that they gave their whole case away by needless deprecation of “the secular solution.” For surely, if a teacher requires Anglican training before he can give Anglican instruction, he must also require Biblical training before he can give “ simple Bible teaching ”—all the more, indeed, if he is to make it really simple. But, so far as the regulations show, no student is obliged to receive such training. The Government abjures all responsibility for such things, but will not allow a student to be rejected by any college on account of his refusal to “attend any place of religious worship, or any religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects, in the college or elsewhere.” Indeed, to put the matter plainly, the only forces on which religious people can rely to get these young people trained for simple Bible teaching are church or chapel opinion, under­ hand preferences, spiritual espionage, and in the last issue the social boycott. Now, if by deprecating the “secular solution” our statesmen mean only that they desire a cultivation of right feeling and pure emotion, of reverence, brotherly love, and loyalty to the real order of the universe, I imagine that everyone must agree with them. But there is usually more than this connoted by language of that kind. For the idea seems to be that something very simple and obvious to common humanity is Ambiguity of the phrase “ secular solution.” �xiv PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION offered instead of ecclesiastical mysteries. But surely, when we remember that “simple Bible teaching” includes Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, the conquest of Canaan, God’s delight in David the man of blood, the Virgin-Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension, we can hardly help feeling that the concomitant rejection of the Church Catechism is rather like “straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel.” Thus much by way of new Preface has been necessary to indicate some signs of the times that have risen above the horizon since the first edition was issued, and in view of which I have considerably altered and enlarged the scope of the work. But for the sake of historical continuity the Preface to the first edition is reprinted here, and the story of the strange lapse of Nonconformity from its former consistency is repeated, because it is at least of some importance to keep on record the fact that objection to the “Compromise” of 1871 did not originate with unbelievers in the Christian revelation, but with lovers of the Bible. For a similar reason a considerable part of the earlier chapters has been preserved in the original form, because it is of still greater importance to remember that long before 1871 the first promoters of “secular” schools were not “infidels,” but religious men. J. A. P. August, 1907. �PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION Thirty years ago, in 1871, when the first School Board for London accepted, with a close approach to unanimity, the well-known resolution proposed by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., in favour of Bible­ teaching in the schools, there was a small minority of three who recorded their votes against it. Not one of these three was insensible of the value and importance of the Bible in the education of humanity. On the contrary, they had a reverence for it which was certainly not shared by some of those who voted for the motion. Indeed, two of them had devoted their whole energies up to that date to the work of religious instruction. The first of the three was the Rev. Benjamin Waugh, whose name is now known and honoured throughout the world for the salvation he has brought to tens of thousands of suffering children. The second was the late Mr. Chatfeild Clarke, a sincerely religious Unitarian. The third was the writer of the following pages. Few, if any, would like to confess that they have passed through thirty years of experience without changing an opinion; and I hope I have changed many opinions for the better. But all that I have observed in the course of many imperfect labours in the field of education has only confirmed the conviction expressed by that vote; the conviction that we should have better served the interests of religion as well as of education if we had acted on the judgment of the older Nonconformists, that the Bible is not a proper subject for State patronage and control. In so doing we should only have followed the example set us by those States of Greater Britain whose eyes discern the future more surely than ours. J. A. P. October, 1901. XV �*** In the following pages I mean by “ State schools ” all schools supported by rates and taxes and subject to the Board of Education. By “ municipal schools ” I mean schools provided, managed, and partly supported by County or Town Councils. By “transcendental" religion or doctrines I mean religious beliefs or dogmas that transcend or go beyond the sort of experience or evidence usually required for justice or legislation, and which are also outside the practical necessities of citizen life. �THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL I. THE BIBLE SPHINX The problem of the right use of the Bible in the nation’s schools is a question of morality quite as much as of religion. Yes, say the advocates of its indiscriminate use, it is a question of morality, because you can have no morality without religion, and no religion without the Bible. Without stopping now to argue either of the points thus raised, I may remind the holders of such opinions that some noteworthy men of their persuasion have made these very points a reason for objecting to the indiscriminate use of the Bible in the schools; and by the phrase “indiscriminate use” I mean placing it in the hands of every teacher, whether Catholic, Evangelical, or Rationalist, to give to the children of believers and unbelievers alike explanations and instruction therefrom in the principles of the Christian religion and of morality. The once-honoured name of Edward Miall represents now, I suppose, an extinct species of Nonconformity. Yet, whatever may have been the defects of adaptability which made the sectarian struggle for existence fatal to it, that obsolete type of Nonconformity at least commanded respect by its moral consistency. For when it proposed “the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control” it meant all that it said; and was just as much averse to “State Patronage and Control” in the school as in the Church. And therefore, from the time of Sir James Graham’s Bill, which dates my earliest recollection of the struggle for national education, the majority of English Noncon­ formists stood out against any statutory system of State schools.1 This attitude was for many years impersonated in Edward Miall, who held that under such a system it would be impossible to exclude the Bible, and that the Bible could not be properly taught by unspiritual, still less by unsympathetic or unbelieving, persons. Thus, precisely because in their view no morality was possible without religion, and religion meant to them the Bible as a divine revelation, they insisted that the Book was too sacred a thing for indiscriminate use in the sense defined above; 1 The weaker brethren supported the British and Foreign School Society, which accepted Government grants. But they vainly thought that this did not commit them to the principle of a statutory system of schools. D I The Miallites �2 Devout Secularists. Speech of Sir James A. Picton in 1850. THE BIBLE SPHINX and, therefore, they dreaded the merging of their Voluntary schools in a State system. The next step in the development of Nonconformist opinion on the question is, I fear, entirely forgotten by a younger generation, who think of “ secularists ” in regard to national education as Secularists in belief. Now, among the many historical mistakes for which ambiguity of language, and especially of party epithets, is responsible, few are more absurd than this perversion of recent fact. For just before and after the middle of last century the prophetic eye that is sometimes a gift of earnest religion began to discern not only the inevitability, but the moral and intellectual necessity, of a statutory system of elementary schools. And then some of the most earnestly religious among the Nonconformists—such as the Rev. Edward Baynes and the late Dr. Samuel Davidson—suggested that the difficulty might be evaded by confining State or municipal schools to “ secular ” subjects, and leaving to the Churches the responsibility for supplementing by religious instruction this confessedly imperfect training. I do not know that I can give a better illustration of the views then held by many of the most devout Nonconformists than a quotation from a speech delivered in 1850 by my father, the late Sir James A. Picton, who was born and brought up among the Wesleyans, and was thoroughly evangelical in his belief. At a meeting summoned by several influential men in Liverpool, to petition Parliament in favour of secular education, he moved the following resolution : “That, in order that the rights of conscience may be effectually secured, it should be a fundamental rule that nothing should be taught in any of the schools which favours the peculiar tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” But the speaker did not see in these words any suggestion of the future “ compromise.” He believed that to avoid tenets peculiar to a part only of the nation it would be necessary to confine instruction to secular subjects. At the outset he referred to an article in the Nonconformist newspaper, then conducted by Edward Miall, and strongly opposed to any rate-aided system of schools. He then proceeded as follows :— The gist of the argument is this : that because there are some things in which it would be wrong for the community or State to interfere, therefore the community should interfere in none, but should leave everything to be effected by voluntary effort...... Is the illumination of our streets to be considered all-important, and is the lighting-up of the lamp of knowledge in the souls of darkened millions to be deemed matter of no concern to the community as such?...... If it be right to provide a library, it cannot be wrong to teach to read ; if it be just in principle for the State to provide the means of intellectual gratification, it cannot be unjust to afford the necessary preparation for its enjoyment. ...... The object to be attained is the communication of that knowledge which shall fit a man to understand his social duties and duly to perform his part in relation to this world. This is common ground on which all �THE BIBLE SPHINX 3 can meet, and beyond this the community has no right to proceed. Religious liberty should be absolute, or it is worthless. There cannot justly exist any modification of it. The rights of conscience must be held paramount to all mere human laws...... The practicability of the system of education which we advocate has already been proved with the most complete success in the New England States of America...... But this system is called irreligious, godless, and inimical to religion. Could I bring my mind to this conclusion, I should regard the system with the utmost abhorrence. I have been engaged as a Sunday-school teacher for the last twenty-five years, in attempting to communicate religious instruction to the young, and sooner would I consent to this right arm being severed from my body than it should be upheld in the support of any project adverse to religious truth. It is because I consider this system most favourable to religious teaching that I give it my warmest support. Let us look at the question fairly...... A news­ paper is not of necessity irreligious unless it contain a theological treatise or a sermon. The utmost that can fairly be said is that secular teaching is incomplete ; but it is good as far as it goes. Now what have religious teachers principally to contend with?...... Not so much, I will take upon myself to say, the actual prevalence of vice in the young as a degree of mental apathy or brutal ignorance, to remove which (in Sunday-schools) often involves a most serious waste of time and labour. ...... A system, therefore, which should remove this obstacle, so far from being unfriendly to religion, ought to be looked on as its most powerful auxiliary. But, again, the communication of religious instruction1 requires a different mode of treatment from secular instruction. In the latter some degree of coercion is absolutely necessary, and the attempt to combine the two in simultaneous instruction is too often nominal rather than real, a profession rather than a practice. The element of religion should be love ; its teaching should be the voluntary effusion of a devoted heart. The affections of the young should be called into play, and everything should partake of the gentle and healing influences of Him who “ spake as never man spake.” In thus enlightening the minds of the young, and fitting them for the reception of religious truth, I believe we are acting in accordance with the precepts of the divine Redeemer, who instructed His disciples to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” No patriotic mind can look abroad on the heaving masses of life around us increasing daily in consciousness of strength, without some degree of apprehension arising, not from the character of our country­ men’s hearts, but from the ignorance and darkness of their minds. The heart of the Englishman still swells with the same generous and manly emotions as it has ever done. The same hatred of oppression, the same love of order, the same sense of justice and right, still form the leading features of his character. But he is dark and longs for light. 1 What the speaker had in his mind was not the teaching of Jewish history, which of course, if sincerity were allowed, might be communicated as easily as Greek or Roman myths, but rather the conveyance of “grace and truth.” I am aware that the distinction sounds antiquated now. And I cordially agree that, since character and conduct are the highest educational end, every teacher, whether in so-called “secular” schools or Sunday-schools, ought to be privileged to convey grace and truth if he can. But in the nation’s schools the exercise of this high prerogative must needs be subject to two essential conditions : (i) That he shall not wound the religious susceptibilities of parents ; (2) that he shall never be faced with the dilemma of hypocrisy or resignation if he should happen to differ from the religion of the majority. And under resignation I include surrender of moral teaching. �I 4 THE BIBLE SPHINX Shall it not be given him ? He thirsts for knowledge. Shall not its refreshing streams be poured into his soul? Justice, kindness, safety, patriotism, all answer yes! “Wisdom and knowledge must be the stability of our times ; then may we hope that the fear of the Lord will be our treasure.” Plausible but fallacious criticism of the "secular solution.” Three courses con­ ceivable ; but only one possible. Justice and patriotism may have answered “Yes,” but sectarianism answered “No.” And in the sequel it was seen that the latter voice was, unfortunately, more potent than was expected by such guileless prophets as the speaker. Of course, such a proposal as the above was open to obvious criticism, on account of its suggested separation of things inseparable. But many advocates of so-called “ secular ” schools were quite as well aware as their critics that the distinction between things sacred and secular is purely arbitrary. They knew that a religion of daily life—of reverence, of devotion, of enthusiasm for good—was worth more than all the rules of arithmetic, but that it might, and would, be taught, or rather inspired, by a good man or good woman even in the process of teaching those rules. They could not, however, quite see how it was possible for such a religion of daily life to be naturally or effectively taught in a course of Bible lessons wherein the good man or good woman was forced to tell lies. And this they held must be the result in a good many instances if teachers were accepted without any profes­ sion of creed, but were expected to teach the average creed of the nation, whether they believed it or not. Now, this difficulty might be avoided in one of three ways—either by allowing every teacher to use the Bible just as he would any other book, and to say of it precisely what he felt, just as he would about the Pilgrim's Progress or Paradise Lost; or, secondly, by allowing only the use of an authorised selection of Bible extracts illustrating the beauty of goodness; or, finally, as suggested by the so-called “ secu­ larists,” by keeping the Bible out altogether. The first solution is, of course, abstractly the right one, and in a hundred years will probably be adopted. But, so long as any considerable section of the people regard the Bible as miraculous and infallible, that solution is impos­ sible. And this should be remembered by liberal thinkers, who talk about the Bible as a “ classic,” which it would be vandalism to exclude from the schools. Nor am I convinced by Dr. Frank Hayward’s urgent and able plea that the Bible, treated on Herbartian principles, leads the child through “historical culture-steps”1—is, in fact, savage with the young barbarian, mythological with the boyish dreamer, while it dramatises the evolution of despotic law and then of responsible 1 Reform of Moral and Biblical Education on the Lines of Herbartianism, Critical Thought, and the Ethical Needs of the Present Day. (Swan Sonnenschein and Co. ; 1902.) �THE BIBLE SPHINX 5 freedom. For it seems to me that the writer gives up the whole case when he admits that Jowett’s suggestion to “treat the Bible like any other book ” is an impossible one. But the freedom of exposition which Dr. Hayward himself advocates would be generally regarded as compliance with Jowett’s suggestion, and would therefore be equally impracticable. To say nothing of denominational State schools, which are still very numerous, the local education committees, selected largely for religious reasons, would not allow it. And if any teacher dared to treat the stories of the Patriarchs, or Joseph, or David, or still more the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, in accordance with the modern criticism approved by Dr. Hayward, the debates of the local authority would have a special value for the local Press. The second solution, the selection of non-controversial passages, was advocated by the late Professor Huxley. But when he realised his failure, and saw what came of it, he was candid enough to own that the third solution would have worked practically better than his.1 Those who advocate this solution quite share the regret of liberal religionists that most of our great colonies and the United States have found it necessary generally to exclude or severely to limit in their primary schools the use of so precious an inheritance from great times of old. They would even agree that the expedient is a humiliating one. But, then, they do not think that the humiliation attaches to those who would treat the Bible like any other book. They rather think it falls on those who persist in investing it with unreal attributes, such as forbid truth and sincerity in using it. The idea of a book absolutely without an error is now generally, even by most of the religious sects, regarded as a figment of the ages of ignorance. But, while the possibility of error is allowed, the admission of its actual presence is guarded and limited by considerations which have no relation whatever to evidence. It is, I believe, common now for schoolmasters who know anything of geology to explain to their pupils that in the Mosaic account of creation the word “ day ” does not mean twenty-four hours, but an indefinite period of time. Yet those teachers whose culture enables them to estimate the force of congruity in determining the meaning of words, whether in literature or law, must feel sure that the six-times repeated refrain, “The evening and the morning were the ------ day,” determines beyond question the intention of the writer to picture an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. 1 In a conversation with myself. The plan was never adopted, except in the sense that, as even fanatics would not insist on having every word of the Bible read in the schools, some selection was inevitable. But it was not made on Professor Huxley’s lines. It kept always in view the dogmas common to the evangelical denominations. Prof. Huxley's proposal. An inf lllible book recog­ nised no­ where but in school. �6 The teacher and Genesis. The inquisi­ torial rate­ payer. THE BIBLE SPHINX Such teachers may know that various ancient commentators have felt the need of a larger space of time for so majestic a work. But this does not affect the impression made on their common sense that when a man of Hebrew race wrote “ evening and morning ” he must certainly have had in his mind the ordinary Jewish mode of reckoning from sunset to sunset. If, therefore, he tells his young students of truth that the sacred writer meant thousands of ages when he wrote “ days,” this teacher knows in his heart of hearts that he is not speaking the truth required at the moment. It does not in the least matter whether the view here taken as to the significance of “ evening and morning” be correct or not. The point is that it is conscientiously held by a large number of educated teachers who are required to teach the. Bible to children as “the word of God.” And, of course, this special detail as to the meaning of the six days is only fixed upon for distinctness of illustration. But let us leave that detail, or suppose it obscured in a haze of generalities about the undeniable dignity and occasional sublimity of the Bible story of Creation. From the “ Broad Church ” point of view we are told that, whatever may be the sacred writer’s errors in science, no ancient myth, no poetic imagination of uninspired men, ever so nearly approximated to the actual facts of the earth’s origin and development as recorded in the rocks. Be it so—at least, for the purpose of our present argument. Then let the teacher be free to tell this to his pupils; and, if he is a man who happens to know where the narrative came from, let him be free to tell his pupils further that it is a revised and improved edition of a story found inscribed on clay tablets among the ruins of Babylon. Certainly, if he were allowed to take this course, he would be saved from much humiliating prevarication about the “ firmament in the midst of the waters,” “ dividing the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament,” and about the grass and herbs and fruit-trees which brought forth seeds and fruit before the sun was made, and about the creation of birds before the “ creeping thing and beast of the earth.” He might most honestly tell the children that, with all its mistakes, the first chapter of Genesis is a most precious and touching record of some devout soul’s effort to find the secret of the world in God. But the requirement that he shall set it forth as a direct revelation from the Creator of what he did before there was any man to see it is surely a sore strain on any morality in which truth has its proper place. The conservators of a decaying creed, however, demur to any such freedom on the part of teachers. “ We pay our rates and taxes,” they say, “ to have the Bible taught in its simplicity as the word of God. It would be an outrage on our conscience if teachers were allowed to treat �TIIE BIBLE SPHINX 7 it as a human book.” And the advocates of a rate-aided Gospel in municipal schools would add that it is not sectarian religion they want —not, for instance, the Independent theory of Church government, nor Presbyterianism, nor Infant Baptism, nor any such high matters -but only the simple truths of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Atone­ ment, and Immortality in heaven or hell, and Salvation by the blood of Jesus. A good man whose notion of catholic comprehension is embodied in the Union of the Evangelical Free Churches cannot conceive that there is any touch of sectarianism in State-school religion as thus defined. Perhaps he never meets with anyone who does not hold the simple gospel composed of those doctrines. And if he hears that such eccentric heretics really do exist, he waves them out of sight with such phrases as “entirely exceptional” and “negligible minority.” Whether that answer to the conscientious plea raised by these heretics is in accordance with fact will be a question for our consideration later, though I may remark, in passing, that the first years of the twentieth century have already exposed the arrogance of any such assumption. For the “ New Theology ” movement—already mentioned in the Preface to the present edition of this Essay—has certainly not caused, but only revealed, the widespread scepticism pervading the outwardly orthodox majority. Meantime, I would only observe that the “Nonconformist con- Change in^ science ” has not always been content to measure its own rights by the formist consize of the minority it represented. I am old enough to remember times when the existence of even ten righteous men conscientiously objecting to pay their parish church rates, though there might be five hundred anxious to pay, was thought by good Nonconformists quite a sufficient reason for resistance, even at the cost of distraint or imprisonment. While freely granting that in this preliminary statement of the issue there are involved many incidental points on which I can have no hope of sympathy from the majority, yet, if the substance of it be summarised, I do not see how it can be denied without contradiction of patent facts notorious to all. Who will dispute that on the relations of religion to moral instruction, and of the Bible to religion, discordant and irrecon­ cilable opinions are held with equal intensity of conviction by many of the worthiest members of the commonwealth ? But those differences are more than merely intellectual divergences. They touch on deepest faiths and inspiring hopes and infinite fears. They are the clash of mutually contradictory oracles held by opponents in the debate to be the divinest utterance of their deepest and most real being. Indeed, the differences are such that, if the opinions of any one group are adopted as the law of the people’s schools, all other citizens must suffer painful �8 The only way. TI1E TITLE SPHINX and dishonourable disabilities. No matter what may be the selection made, whether the opinions of Conformists or Nonconformists, of Catholics or Protestants, of Rationalists or of “unsectarian” Evan­ gelicals, all the rest must endure what they regard as the perversion of the State’s authority and resources to mischievous and demoralising uses. As ratepayers they must support out of their wages or wealth the propagation into the new age of doctrines which they detest. As teachers they must either play the hypocrite or take an inferior position. As parents they must either acquiesce in the instillation into their children’s tender minds of what to their parental affection seems dangerous poison, or, by availing themselves of the “ Conscience Clause,” they must inflict on their families the fate of little pariahs during all their school hours. As citizens they must submit to have the whole moral energy of the land they love devoted to immortalising errors which, according to their point of view, may seem superstitious or godless, loose and latitudinarian or promotive of priestcraft, but at any rate offensive to some dearly cherished faith. Under such circumstances I cannot see how the conclusion is to be avoided, that the only way of treating the Bible honestly and reverently in our educational system is to leave it to the voluntary action of Churches, Sunday schools, and other religious organisations, to which its popularity has been much more due than to State patronage and control. In this conclusion I am supported by the invariable acknow­ ledgment of reasonable religious people that such a course is the only logical one, though persistent sentiment resists it. But there are some cases in which English contempt for logic in legislation is obviously mischievous and misplaced. And those are cases in which not merely a rough adjustment to an average expediency is required, but an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of some moral right. Of this instances might be found in the history of religious toleration, the slave trade, and slavery itself. Or if we come down to our own times, the story of the opium trade with China—nay, also of Chinese labour in the d ransvaal—proves abundantly that where the dictates of logic establish moral claims the plea of expediency is always in the end overborne. Some ingenious and plausible objections to the sovereignty of justice in this case will be best treated later on. But if the Bible has to stand like a mysterious and fatal Sphinx, with its unanswered questions and its dire penalties at the gates of knowledge, that is not the fault of the so-called secularists, but rather of the religionists, who refuse to national school teachers unfettered freedom in the interpretation of the Book. �II. RELIGIOUS EQUALITY “ Religious equality ” has too often been interpreted to mean equality of privilege for Christian sects. We have not yet entirely outgrown the feeble tolerance of kindly Commonwealth Puritans who would extend the protection of the law to Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and even Quakers, but who would bore with a hot iron the tongue of a man who should outrage their “ fundamental ” beliefs. Modern sentiment, indeed, protects us from too close an imitation of seventeenth­ century practice in this respect. But in the assumption that the claim to religious equality before the law is morally invalid in the case of Unitarians, Rationalists, Pantheists,1 and Agnostics, the germ of the old cruelty still survives. Now that is just the assumption which has underlain all nineteenth-century discussion by liberal Christians of the rights of “ultra-Rationalists,” or disbelievers in any revelation made by a personal God. The “ Broad Churchman ” repudiates with honest indignation any lingering desire to subject even the “ Infidel ” to secular pains and penalties on account of his unbelief. But he retains an equally honest conviction that the “ Infidel,” by his alleged voluntary alienation from the spiritual life of the Commonwealth, has forfeited any claim to equal consideration with Christians on any question affecting the establishment, endowment, or other public expression of the national religion. This description of the attitude of liberal Christians towards ultra-Rationalists can hardly be accused of exaggeration. Indeed, there are not a few among the former whose objection to the unrestricted citizenship of the “Infidel” is much more distinct. They say that he dishonours their God and Saviour, and that, though they hope his invincible ignorance may be leniently considered by the Supreme 1 If I do not mention “Atheists,” it is because I do not recognise the term as properly applicable to any actual form of belief or unbelief. I never met, nor do I expect ever to meet, a man who would deny that being is eternal. All the self-styled “Atheists” I have ever known have simply denied that my idea of God, or any other idea of God, answers to their notion of eternal being. I am bound to respect their negative attitude. But I should call it Agnosticism, not Atheism. When I find a man who positively denies that there is anything eternal, or, in other words, who thinks that at one moment—so to speak—in the infinite past there was nothing, and at the next moment there was everything, or “the promise and potency” of everything, I will allow him the name of Atheist. But I shall not feel bound to respect his intellect. 9 Limited notions of religious equality. �IO At least it should in­ volve the abolition of compulsory or merce­ nary sacri­ lege. Strain on conscience sometimes involved in “ simple Bible teach­ ing.” RELIGIOUS EOUA LI T\ Judge, yet they cannot consent to involve the nation in moral peril by extending to him a “religious equality” inapplicable to irreligion. It may be readily acknowledged that from this point of view the problem of religious equality raises issues far too vast to be adequately treated in connection with the right use of the Bible in the nation’s schools. But it will presently be seen that, though we cannot help indicating those larger issues, we do not need to lose ourselves in them. For even if we grant, what I, for one, absolutely decline to do, that for the public expression or recognition of the nation’s religious life the legal recognition of the Bible is desirable—as, for instance, in the Coronation service, and in swearing witnesses—yet everyone must surely acknowledge that if any particular public use of the Bible involves hypocrisy and lying, that use becomes a sacrilege, because, in theological language, it desecrates the vessels of the Temple by devoting them to the service of Satan. Now, precisely this is actually involved in the use of the Bible in schools according to the great Smith “Compromise.” Such an objection can only be met by asserting that the desecration is not inherent in the legal usage of the book, but in the infidelity or extreme Rationalism of those who cannot use it aright. And this necessarily involves the corollary that none who are unable honestly to use the Bible in accordance with prevalent opinion ought to accept any office in which such use is required. Now that means practically the exclusion of all who cannot accept the residuum of Biblical belief common to Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Methodists. The full justification of this assertion must be reserved for a later stage of the argument, when we come to discuss more particularly the position of teachers under the present order of things. Meanwhile I only assume that, if this be so, it raises the question of religious equality for Rationalists in a practical and limited form, such as need not carry us very far into the vast issues suggested above. We need not, for instance, discuss the Broad Church idea that individual alienation from the spiritual life of the Commonwealth may justify the exclusion of that individual from entire religious equality. For obviously we have to do here not with the spiritual life of the nation, but with the Biblical theories which a national school teacher is, as a matter of course, expected to hold and enforce. It is all very well to say that “ theories ” are not expected, but practical teaching. Yet if the practical point be the historical truth of the six days’ creation, or of the conversation of Eve and the Serpent, or of the argument of Balaam’s ass with its master, or the three days’ lodging of Jonah in the belly of a whale, or the Virgin Birth, or the feeding of five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, or the bodily �RELIGIOUS EQUALITY ii resurrection of Jesus guarded by angels, it is difficult to see how the conscience of the teacher can avoid the issue of fiction or fact. Either the teacher holds that the accuracy of such narratives is guaranteed by an authority independent of historical evidence, or he does not. If he holds the former theory, he can, of course, honestly teach these stories as narratives of fact. But if he does not hold it, even the chance hints occasionally let fall in the secular history lectures of a training college are enough to suggest to him that for such stories historical evidence of the sort required for secular events is not forthcoming. And unless he have a mind exceptionally impervious to the echoes of criticism in the air, he feels in his inmost soul that, however useful as parables or otherwise those old-world tales may be, they have no claim to be treated as historically true. We are not, however, at this point concerned with the special diffi­ culties of intelligent teachers. I have referred to the effect of historical lessons in training colleges only as suggestive of the far more pronounced scepticism pervading the wider circles of moderately-educated people, who are under less temptation to a biassed judgment. And if I use the word “scepticism,” I take it in its proper and original sense of an inquiring spirit. I do not say, and I do not believe, that more than one-fifth, if so many, of English-speaking people reject entirely the idea of a divine revelation given them in the Bible. But I do maintain, because the tone of our current literature of social conversation proves it, that the old matter-of-course assumption of the divinely-guaranteed historic accuracy of the Hexateuch, and the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, - has entirely disappeared from all circles of tolerably well-educated society. No literary aspirant to the pages of our most eminently respectable monthly magazines has now the slightest hesitation in treating the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as a figment of the Great Sanhedrim, or of unsupported tradition. The popularity of the late Professor Huxley’s controversial essays cannot be wholly explained by their brightness and vigour. Admiring readers might not go all lengths with him in his negative conclusions. But they were not revolted by his claim to treat the Bible on the common-sense principles that he applied to science; and even this extent of acquiescence involved an immense shifting of the foundations on which their ideas of cosmic and human origins, as well as of Judaism and Christianity, had hitherto rested. Reference to one recent publication alone may save us a good deal of detail. Surely none but bigots can rejoice over the financial diffi­ culties that prevented the completion of the “ Polychrome Bible.” But if there should be any so unsusceptible to the real “powers of the world to come ” as to imagine an interposition of a watchful Providence Sceptical attitude of the ^eneraj public. The “Poly­ chrome Bible.” �12 Religious position of its editors. EELIGIO US EQUALITY in this case, let them look at the volumes issued; let them note the list of contributing scholars, nearly all belonging to churches reckoned as orthodox; let them think of the amount of money sunk in a commer­ cially unsuccessful, but magnificently prophetic, enterprise, and they will be compelled to own that it indicates a flowing tide of new opinion about the Bible. To describe it shortly, it is an incomplete edition of the Hebrew Scriptures with a new translation, accompanied by brief pregnant notes and a very few pictorial illustrations. The feature from which the Polychrome Bible derived its name is the variegated colouring of the pages designed to show at a glance the various documents from which the Hebrew Scriptures, as we have them, are believed by the editors to have been compiled. The treatment is entirely and unreservedly free—as much so as if the subject were the Vedas or the Zendavesta. It is at the same time profoundly reverential, as is indeed most becoming whenever or wherever we study genuine records of man’s struggle upwards from the passions of the brute to the eternal life. The result, however, is a version subversive of many, or indeed most, of our traditional ideas of the Bible. The translation, if it is correct, which, so far as my knowledge goes, I believe it generally is, would often make the evangelical interpretation of crucial passages obviously impossible.1 The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is so entirely rejected that the earliest documents therein of any length and importance are attributed to the latter part of the ninth century B.c., while the narrative of creation in Genesis i. and Levitical regulations, long defended as Mosaic, if nothing else was, are regarded as the work of exiled Jews in Babylon about 500 b.c. The Prophecies of Isaiah are assigned to a number of sacred bards, among whom the Isaiah of former evangelical divines occupies a limited though luminous space. The Psalms are “ the hymn-book of the second Temple.” We are told that “it is not a question whether there be any post-Exilic Psalms, but rather whether the Psalms contain any poems written before the Exile.” My point, however, is not the amount of importance to be attributed to the scholarly judgment of the learned men responsible for this great work, but rather their representative position in the world of religious thought. Had they been condemned heretics, “ aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel,” it might be said that their views are excep­ tional and eccentric, at any rate of no value as evidence of the trend of opinion. But so far is this from being a correct description that the editors are all of them men of high position and some of distinguished fame in English, American, or German Universities, and in communion 1 E.g., Isaiah vii. 14, where for “virgin” we read “young woman.” �RELIGIOUS EQUALITY i3 with national churches or other great and respected Christian denomi­ nations. The chief editor was Dr. Paul Haupt, Professor of Hebrew and the cognate languages in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and until 1889 Professor Extraordinarius of Assyriology in the University of Gottingen, Hanover. Isaiah has been edited by Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Canon of Rochester, and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford. Exodus has been treated by Dr. Herbert E. Ryle, Hulsean Professor of Divinity and President of King’s College, Cambridge; the Book of Numbers by Dr. J. A. Paterson, Professor at the Theological Seminary, Edinburgh ; and Deuteronomy by Dr. George A. Smith, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis at the Free Church College, Glasgow. There is no need to give the rest of the thirty-eight names. With the exception of one Unitarian gentle­ man and two Jewish scholars, the three editors of two minor books, all of them would be recognised as official representatives of moderate orthodoxy in religion. Another proof of the revolution in opinion about the Bible is the Encyclopedia Biblica, of which only one volume had appeared when the first edition of the present Essay was published. This great and scholarly work, though involving large expenditure, could hardly demand the vast sum which would have been needed to carry out the original idea of the Polychrome Bible with its Hebrew text, and English trans­ lation, laboriously assigned to various older documents distinguished by different colours. But in any case it must have been a costly work, and the very fact of its completion in four large volumes suggests a popular demand which could not have been found in Great Britain or America fifty years ago. Not that there was less interest then in the Bible. But the demand was almost exclusively for works which would prove the Bible true. Now this is neither the motive nor the burden of the Encyclo­ pedia Biblica. The one purpose is to ascertain the real facts and state them. Nor does such a purpose in the least involve a negative or iconoclastic zeal. For if the Bible were not a valuable inheritance of mankind, such a work as this would not, morally or intellectually, have repaid the enormous labour involved. And, like the parts of the Polychrome Bible, it owes its existence, not to hesitant sceptics, still less to “ blatant infidels,” but to clergymen and others, who are, many of them, shining lights in reputedly orthodox churches. Of the conclusions affirmed it may be said, generally, that while the various writers differ considerably, there is scarcely one of them who can be conceived as endorsing the idea of the Bible implied in the syllabuses of scriptural instruction for public elementary schools. The elaborate and searching article on the Gospels, running to 198 columns, is by two well-known authors—the Rev. Dr. Abbott, late Head Similar case of the En­ cyclopedia Biblica, �T4 Thus ** simple Bible teach­ ing ” be­ comes a theological test. Limitations of the argument. RELIGIOUS EQUALITY Master of the City of London School, and Professor P. W. Schmiedel, holding the Chair of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich. They are not agreed, and the latter is much more “radical ” than the former. It must not be assumed that I agree with him. For, if I point to the fact that he allows only nine brief passages in the Gospels to be “absolutely credible,”1 it is by no means for the purpose of endorsing any such conclusion, but only to emphasise my main point here, that the dif­ ferences of opinion among religious people are enormously great. From which it follows that no education authority has a moral right to expect all young teachers, fresh from the higher instruction now open to them, to give, as a matter of course, such “ simple Bible teaching” as assumes the historicity of the Gospels. And to exclude the increasing number of those who cannot conscientiously do so would be a gross violation of religious equality. The inference I draw from such signs of the times as I have mentioned is not an extravagant one. It is not that the majority of the people in England or America have been converted to pure Rationalism, but only that it is unjust and absurd to say that the rejectors of the historical accuracy of the Bible are a negligible quantity, eccentric heretics, aliens from the spiritual life of their race, and therefore rightly subjected to religious disabilities where questions of national education are concerned. Probably many of my liberal religious readers will think that I have taken a great deal of unnecessary trouble to arrive at an obvious con­ clusion. Of course that is so, they will say; but where are the religious disabilities ? My answer is that those disabilities are twofold—first, denial of the just rights of conscience ; secondly, exclusion from honest and self-respecting service of the nation as teachers in its public schools. I grant that, if disbelievers in Bible history can consent to a colourable hypocrisy, they are not excluded ; but if anyone holds that eligibility to appointment under such a condition constitutes religious equality, with him I will not argue. I was brought up in a different school, and I think it is a loss to the passing generation that the principles of that school are, for the moment, out of fashion. The argument of this chapter necessarily presupposes, as a condition of its practical application, the stage of religious evolution reached by England in our own age. But it would have been manifestly inap­ plicable in any practical way of statesmanship to Wycliffe’s England or even to Oliver Cromwell’s, as that great ruler was obliged sadly to acknowledge. Further, if there are now nations whose prevalent religious feeling is mediaeval rather than modern, the argument would be practically inapplicable also to them. But it does not in the least 1 Encyclopedia Blblica, s.v. “Gospels,” paragraphs 139-40. �RELIGIOUS EQUALITY 15 follow that there is no such thing as eternal right. For, as I have said elsewhere, the only intelligible sense in which moral truth can be called eternal is this : “That whenever and wherever the same conditions occur the same moral truth holds good.” 1 Thus, where the right of private judgment on things religious has been popularly and authoritatively affirmed, justice requires that each man should allow to all others the same unreserved freedom of conscience which he claims for himself. But where the right of private judgment is both popularly and authori­ tatively denied, as it was in the Middle Ages, each man may feel bound to be almost as watchful over his neighbour’s obedience to Church authority as he is over his own. And when the alternative was ever­ lasting hell-fire or heaven I can well conceive that the golden rule of doing unto others as you would they should do unto you might well suggest denunciation of the heretic for the salvation of his soul, or at any rate for the prevention of the spread of his damnable errors. The rule was the same; but the prevalence of superstition made the conditions different, and therefore the practical application was different from what seems right to us. But, at any rate, under mediaeval con­ ditions compulsory uniformity of belief, so far as it could be practically enforced, was perfectly defensible. There is nothing in this acknow­ ledgment to detract in the least from our admiration of the martyrs for individual conviction. Indeed, there is much to enhance our admira­ tion. For they had to contend, not only against brute force, but against the universal convention which confounded ecclesiastical obedience with moral duty—just as, at the present day, acquiescence in “ simple Bible teaching ” is regarded by many as a dictate of the moral law. Yet surely England as a whole, England apart from Scotland or Ireland, England of two or three hundred sects, England of a free Press and free speech and “ liberty of prophesying,” England which has boldly inaugu­ rated of late new programmes of free thought and of free religious organisation, belongs to the twentieth century, not to the fourteenth, and cannot, with any decency, longer maintain that religious equality in the schools should be confined to Low Church and Nonconformist sects. 1 Spinoza: A Handbook to the Ethics, p. 156 «• �III. THE NEW CHURCH RATE b°fmit3th Before the year 1870 the Nonconformists held that it is wrong, unjust, Compromise and even cruel, to make a man pay for the maintenance and spread of and after. N conformist theones of functions. what he holds tQ be religioUS error. j old.fashioned enough fo be of the same opinion still, unless we happen to live in a community that still belongs to the Middle Ages. The sentimental generalities of “ Broad Churchmen,” which appear singularly attractive to Noncon­ formist “ perverts’’—like the late Right Hon. W. E. Forster1—have on this subject blurred the boundary lines of right and wrong in the minds of many influential men of Puritan traditions. With much plausibility they say that men like the late Edward Miall were wrong in assuming that there is a clear and straight-cut dividing-line between things sacied and “secular.” They were wrong, also, in assuming that a national or municipal government ought of right to confine itself to a policy of gas and water, of sewage and sanitation. They were wrong, agaill; in conceiving of government as a corporate policeman, whose only duty is to keep individual citizens from wronging each other. If the life of a man should be treated as a whole, and not as a mosaic of religion, morality, business, and politics, so ought the life of a nation to be treated as a whole. From that point ot view the business of a Government is to foster and co-ordinate all healthy forms of the national energy, w’hether ticketed as religious or secular, social or commercial, aesthetic or practical, individual or collective. Nor is this reaction against administrative nihilism ” confined to Broad Churchmen and Nonconformists. It has generally the support of the Ethical Societies and their organs, among whose aims the substitution of non-theological ethics for religious instruction in the nation’s schools is prominent. I do not understand, however, that the supporters of the Ethical Move­ ment desire to make the denial of revelation a part of our school teaching, still less to extort rates from the pockets of devout evangelicals for the support of such teaching. . ’ Though of limited outlook, Mr. Forster was a very shrewd man. The saying attributed to him, that he “ would get over the religious difficulty in a canter,” at least suggests his knowledge of Nonconformity in his day. He knew that if the sturdy opponents of State patronage and control ” were allowed to have the “ simple Bible teaching of their Sunday-schools patronised and endowed, their consciences would be satisfied ; and they would not be able to conceive any reasonable objection on grounds ot conscience by anyone else. b 16 �THE NEW CHURCH RATE 17 It is at this point that I find a limit to the generous theories of the State’s function, which have so largely superseded that of the corporate policeman. There are, I believe, other limits; for many methods of social action derive all their charm and effectiveness from voluntary impulse, and are practically paralysed if this be superseded by law. But we are concerned at present only with the particular limit that comes into view when religion is touched. It was from this point of view only that the Nonconformist opponents of church rates could be justified. In extorting from them by force the support of transcendental1 doctrines that they condemned, an indefensible wrong was done to their con­ scientious convictions. This has now been conceded to them. But most of the survivors of that struggle appear strangely blind to the bearing of their own arguments on the education rate, so far as it is spent on the present Bible teaching. I am one of a school till lately “everywhere spoken against,” who, just because we prize the Bible highly, regret very much to see the venerable Book misused as it is in our schools. Its value to us consists, not in any revelation or any otherwise inaccessible information supposed to be found in its pages, but in the unrivalled power of spiritual and moral inspiration inherent in its noblest utterances. Through all our changes of opinion, surviving all denials forced on us by evidence and honesty, rising triumphantly from the scientific grave to which a dead creed has been committed, that power seems to us indestructible, immortal. We do not think of the Bible less ; we think far more of it than when we believed in Eve’s apple and Balaam’s ass. For then it represented to us a series of violent dislocations of the order of nature. But now the Bible is to us an age-long vision of truth disentangling itself from error, of right slowly conquering wrong, of the emergence through the illusions and lies and sufferings and struggles and passions and aspirations of mankind of that more perfect state which, if the earth last long enough, must bless some future generation, and which, by its consummation of past, present, and future in one consciousness, may well be called the eternal life, or even “ the fullness of the godhead bodily.” We think such a Book degraded to low uses when it is enthroned as a fetish, before which judgment and reason grovel in the dust of super­ stition. And we protest against being made to pay for such sacrilege. Indeed, the wrong done to conscience in our case is much more offen­ sive than anything that could be alleged by our predecessors under church rates. For, after all, our evangelical fathers and grandfathers 1 As explained in a preliminary note, I use this epithet to describe doctrines going beyond the sort of evidence usually required for justice or legislation, and also outside the practical necessities of citizen life. Limits to such theories. Real value of the Bible. Degrada­ tion of the Bible. �i8 Possible limits to the rights of conscience. Where its claims are indefeasible. THE NEW CHURCH RATE agreed almost entirely with the religious and moral teaching of the Established Church. Their points of difference touched only eccle­ siastical order and sacraments, which, however important in their view, could hardly be said to affect fundamental morality. But we, in these times, are forced to support a system which we not only suspect, but know by experience, to be utterly inconsistent with a cultivation of that “ truth in the inward parts ” which in the Bible itself the Eternal is said to require. I am not so foolish as to hold that legal compulsion is necessarily barred the moment any plea of individual conscience is raised. I fully acknowledge also the difficulty of drawing a clear line between legitimate and illegitimate pleas of conscience. Nor is it essential to attempt it here. I confine myself to one class of cases in which it seems unjust and cruel to reject the plea. But I will offer one or two suggestions on the general question. In matters on which public opinion is much divided by differences depending on sentiment rather than on evidence it is always dangerous for authority to be intolerant of conscience in recusants. Further, if the differences concern transcendental questions, with no immediate or obvious bearing on the practical life of the commonwealth, such intolerance is more than dangerous; it is wrong. For one need not be a fanatical “individualist” to hold that some inner sources of individual character and will are of priceless worth to the community, and should be held sacred in every man. Among these we may surely count the individual feeling of solitary responsibility to eternal Power for personal loyalty to its rule. Without this, indeed, we have no true common­ wealth at all. For any group of creatures who fulfil only by instinct, and unconsciously, separate functions of convergent advantage to the whole of that group, are more on the level of a hive than of a common­ wealth. To this latter some intelligent consciousness of subordination to a common end is necessary, and this cannot be permanently secured without individual loyalty to a control higher than institutions and more comprehensive than the State. It was an inarticulate feeling of this truth which led the ancients to insist so much on religion as the sanction of patriotism. This also was what St. Paul had in mind when he said, perhaps too indiscriminately: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God....... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.” But when the loyalties clashed St. Paul resolutely obeyed the higher. It has taken the rulers of this world a long time to find out that it is precisely such men who, if only their conscience be respected, make the best citizens. In fact, records of our own time—such as some of the proceedings under the �THE NEW CHURCH RATE i9 so-called Blasphemy Laws, and also under the Church Discipline Acts —show that the lesson has not even yet been perfectly learned. But we have surely got so far that, if any wrong done to conscience is clearly made out, public opinion will insist on finding a remedy, lest so precious an inspiration as that of individual loyalty to truth and right should suffer sacrilege. My plea is that such a wrong is done by the present system of Bible instruction in public schools, because it forces every citizen, whatever his belief or unbelief, to pay for the propaga­ tion of transcendental doctrines having no necessary bearing whatever upon citizenship; and even though he may conscientiously think some of those doctrines not only false, but immoral, still he must pay. Before leaving this part of the subject, however, let me try to show how such reasonable claims of the religious conscience as are here raised may be distinguished from perverse individual revolts against salutary State regulations. I will take the case of the self-styled “Peculiar People,” a case by no means easy to deal with, but one which an advocate of conscience-rights ought not to shirk. If I under stand the position of these people rightly, it is their conscientious conviction that the Bible requires them in cases of sickness to depend on direct divine healing, without the intervention of a human physician. I am not competent to discuss the legal difficulties which thus arise. How far any man, whether a “ Peculiar ” brother or not, can be com­ pelled to ask and act on medical advice for his child, just as he is compelled to obtain “ efficient instruction ” for that child, I am not lawyer enough to say. He is not compelled to go to the schoolmaster for his child’s instruction if he can ensure it in some other manner. It might be plausibly asked : Why, then, should he be compelled to go to the physician for medical aid if he can obtain it in«some other manner? But “ there is much virtue in an ‘ if.’ ” The legal view, or, at any rate, the common-sense view—which lawyers tell me is the same thing—is that the “if” here does in many cases introduce an impossible, and therefore unreal, alternative. What the law requires is that the parent shall do all within his power to prevent unnecessary suffering to his child, and still more to save its life. Whether he be rich or poor, it is within his power to obtain medical aid, and there are cases in which legal evidence can prove that medical aid, so far as human judgment can discern, would make all the difference between life and death. In such cases “conscientious” objection to medical aid does not come under the conditions laid down above as defining the rights of con­ science.1 It may be, indeed, a case of false sentiment, but it is still more a stolid refusal of evidence. Transcendental doctrine may, 1 See p. 18. Spurious claims. The “ Peculiar People." �20 Difference of the case of the objec­ tor to vaccination. THE NE W CHURCH RA TE perhaps, be involved, and on that the parent may keep his own opinion. But sickness and healing are matters of physiology rather than of mysticism. They have a palpable and immediate bearing on the practical life of the commonwealth. Where this is the case, and where the requirement of medical aid is based upon an overwhelming con­ sensus of experience and opinion, the community is abundantly justified in telling the recalcitrant parent to keep his scruples for the kingdom of heaven, and to render his due obedience to the kingdom of this world. The conscientious objector to vaccination may claim to be in a different and stronger position, not because his conscience is more sacred than that of the “ Peculiar ” person, but simply because there is not the same overwhelming consensus of experience and opinion to support compulsory vaccination as there is to support compulsory recourse to medical aid for serious illness. If experience had con­ firmed Jenner’s assertion that one good vaccination would make the patient insusceptible to small-pox for the remainder of his life, the probability is that the question of compulsion would never have arisen. The popularity at one time of the system of inoculation shows how anxious people were to protect themselves. It is improbable that, if no cases of small-pox after vaccination had been known, such a marvellous preventive would have needed enforcement by fine or imprisonment. But if, contrary to probability, resistance had been encountered similar in its eccentricity to the attitude of the “ Peculiar People,” a claim to exemption on conscientious grounds would have had small chance of sympathy in the face of such overwhelming proof of a palpable and obvious benefit to the practical life of the community. Even to the plea that a man might well be allowed to leave his own children unvaccinated, seeing that all others could, if they chose, be guaranteed by this infallible antidote against danger from his neglect, it might perhaps have been justly replied that he would be exposing his own children to unnecessary danger and suffering, contrary to the spirit of modern law. But all such arguments are annulled by the now notorious fact that the vaccinated sufferers from small-pox outnumber the unvaccinated in about the same proportion as the vaccinated bear to the unvaccinated in the whole population.1 If a man draws from this fact the conclusion that the alleged preventive makes no difference, but practically leaves things just as they would be were vaccination entirely abolished, I do not say that he would be unanswerable ; but I do say that it is unjust to treat him as an obstinate fanatic or a traitor to society. This, in 1 See Report of the Dissentient Commissioners, annexed to that of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, 1901. The “ Conscience Clause ” unanimously recom­ mended on the motion of the late Lord Herschell would never have been suggested if vaccination had accomplished what Jenner declared it would. �THE NEW CHURCH RATE 21 fact, is just what the recent law has recognised by excusing from compulsion all who, in proper form, make a declaration of conscientious objection. In other words, the case is authoritatively pronounced to be one in which the plea of conscience cannot justly be ignored. Quakers and I will take yet another case to elucidate the principle suggested war taxes. above as a test of the rights of conscience. The other day I observed in the newspapers the report of a sale by legal order of certain goods belonging to a worthy Quaker who had refused to pay his taxes because of the South African War. He would not voluntarily support bloodshed, and therefore took joyfully the spoiling of his goods. But, with all respect for one who is clearly a man of high character and strong individuality, I hold his plea to be entirely illegitimate. The main­ tenance of peace and the making of war both belong to the practical, material life of the commonwealth. In such matters, if it is to act at all, it must act as a whole. There may be, and there nearly always is, division of opinion. But the majority determines the action, and it is carried out as the action of the whole. On no other conceivable plan could a commonwealth exist at all. This action as a whole, however, is only secured by the subordination of the wills and opinions of the minority to those of the majority. After doing all they can to secure that right counsels should prevail, the minority are no longer responsible in foro conscientice. To refuse at least passive obedience to the general voice in a matter strictly within the functions of a commonwealth would be to invalidate social order. Of course, social custom or law may sometimes be so bad that it ought to be resisted. And in that case chaos must be endured for a while that a better order may succeed. But such extreme crises are very exceptional, and perhaps they never arise unless the common­ wealth, or those who usurp its powers, have exceeded its functions of organising the practical, earthly (or, if we may use the word, secular) life. This happened in the seventeenth century in England, and it is the chronic state of things in Russia. But to say that the act of the community in making external war can justify those who object to it in refusing to pay taxes would be to declare any commonwealth impossible, and to assert the principle of anarchism. The conscientious objection felt by an increasing number of English Strength of the case people to be made to pay for the present Bible-teaching in the nation’s against the Bible rate. schools is not open to any such condemnation. Such teaching cannot fairly be described as one of those public functions in which the commonwealth, if it act at all, must act as a whole. Indeed, so far as public elementary schools are concerned, such an assumption has been solemnly repudiated by Parliament in the Act of 1870. That Act does, indeed, forbid any “ creed or formulary distinctive of any �22 THE NEW CHURCH RATE particular denomination ”—a prohibition found perfectly consistent with strongly dogmatic teaching. But it does not require that there shall be any religious teaching at all. It throws the odium of persecution on the local authority. Even in the elementary schools of the “ National Society ” the State now declines any responsibility for religion except so far as concerns the maintenance of the “ Conscience Clause.” It does not examine in religion, and it does not “inspect” religious instruction. It is clear, therefore, that in modern statecraft the support of religious teaching is not placed on a par with the maintenance of war, or with the provision of secular instruction as the duty of the whole commonwealth acting together. Further, it cannot reasonably be said in defence of municipal school practice that the infallibility of the Bible or its historic accuracy, or the transcendental doctrines taught from it, have a palpable or necessary bearing on the practical life of the nation. If, therefore, any Rationalist were moved by his conscience to refuse to pay his school rate on the ground that it is applied to propagate “free church ” dogmas, his conduct would certainly not be open to the same criticism as that of the conscientious Quaker mentioned above. And if the evangelical Nonconformists were right, as I presume they still think they were, in objecting to pay church rates, they ought to realise the gross inconsistency of which they are guilty in compelling rejectors of their creed to pay for teaching it. This is in flagrant contradiction to the doctrine of religious equality which, with stammering tongues, they still assert. Survivors, if there are any, of the noble army of “church-rate martyrs ” might ask why Rationalist nonconformity does not prove its sincerity by a similar martyrdom. It is a question of proportion. Unbelievers in supernatural religion have often gone to prison, or suffered odious wrong in law courts, rather than play the hypocrite But the devotion of part of a rate to a purpose they disapprove, while they heartily applaud the use of the greater part of it, hardly seems to them to justify martyrdom. The church rate was devoted wholly to church uses. It would be scarcely becoming in the advocates of religious equality as the right of a free-born Englishman to urge that a man must have his goods distrained before he can fairly claim that right. �IV. NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES Religious equality is also outraged by the exclusion of non-Evangelical ^ouki^ Nonconformists from honest and self-respecting service of the nation in belief ex... l-i r i r t elude from its public schools. This is a wrong which cannot, ot course, be felt so the nation’s widely as the last, because, naturally, those born with an imperious service vocation to teaching are a small minority. But where this particular form of injustice strikes it is felt with a special bitterness. And the number whom it affects is rapidly increasing. I do not mean merely that the number of silent protestants against the doctrinal residuum constituting “undenominational religion” is increasing, but that the number among them who find either open or tacit hypocrisy intolerable is rapidly growing. In proportion as the impossibility of retaining the old beliefs becomes more widely felt, the demand for relief from any pretence of believing them becomes more urgent. There was a great change in the theology of the middle classes during the later years of the nineteenth century. Even so recently as the School Board era of 1870, the sharpness of ^j^ons the issue between the creed of the Evangelical Alliance and actual fact question is . . 0 . . more urgent was not generally realised with anything like the same distinctness as now than in now. The significance of Assyrian and Egyptian records had not been grasped except by a very few profound scholars. The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets, with their revelation of the condition of Palestine about the time assigned to the Mosaic exodus, had not been discovered. The Polychrome Bible had not presented its rainbow spectre of Bible origins. The Encyclopedia Biblica had not appeared. Even the “ Moabite Stone,” though discovered in 1868, was not generally known, nor for years afterwards fully appreciated. The inscription of Menephthah, recording a victory over certain “ Israhili ” in North Palestine, about the date when he was supposed to have been drowned in a mad pursuit of Israel through the Red Sea, was as yet unknown. The enormous antiquity of the human race, and even of civilisation and organised religion, was as yet entirely under-estimated, but has since been enlarged beyond the dreams of old-fashioned anthropologists by recent excavations in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Crete. So far as the spade had then recovered the past of sacred lands, it was believed that the correspondence of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Chaldean ceremonies and forms of worship with Biblical references confirmed the Scripture 23 �24 Suspense judgment then more possible than now. Acknow­ ledgments of a Free Church Council. NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES record; while the actual occurrence in inscriptions of names mentioned m the Old Testament was thought to have finally settled the question of its historical veracity. It is true that the epoch-making book of Darwin had been published eleven years before. But even among scientific men there was considerable hesitation in applying the theory of natural selection to man. And religious liberals who toyed with edged tools dwelt fondly on the absence of the “ missing link.” While such was the state of popular knowledge and opinion, it was not difficult for conscientious teachers of the young to find relief in suspense of judgment. Members of a profession largely under clerical influence, and charged quite as much with the moral as with the intellectual training of their pupils, were naturally predisposed to believe that it was their duty in the meantime to go on teaching “divinity” as it had been taught to them. Comfort was found in the reflection that God’s voice in nature and God’s word in the Bible could not possibly contradict each other; and the meaning given to both terms remained so very vague that there was ample scope for temporary accommodation. Even in cases where inconveniently definite questions were asked, it was always possible for instruction to disappear in a haze of reverence. “Do you think, sir, that we must take this literally?” asked a boy in a class studying the ass’s argument with Balaam. “Such an occurrence,” replied the master, “is so very remarkable, and, indeed, unparalleled, that in the present state of our knowledge I would rather not give an opinion. Perhaps there is some explanation of which we are not at present aware.” So long as this kind of mental attitude remained possible the disabilities of doubt were not acutely felt. The supposed foundations of morality could be accepted as they stood, with an acknowledgment that their relation to the foundations of knowledge was an unsolved question. But the state of things is very different now. The surrender of the historic accuracy of a large part of the Old Testament is so general that a very considerable number of teachers are conscious of a clear contradiction between what they are expected to teach and what they themselves believe. It is difficult to understand how an honest man can accept a position like that. In March, 1901, the “National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches,” in its meetings at Cardiff, heard some plain speaking on this point from the Rev. Dr. Monro Gibson. It is true that his subject was that of Sunday-school teaching. But the principles he laid down are plainly applicable to all national schools in which the Bible is taught as a divine revelation.1 And, 1 The analogy between undenominational State schools and Nonconformist Sunday-schools, so far as concerns religious instruction, is far closer than is commonly supposed. The effect of Mr. W. H. Smith’s resolution of 1871 was practically to �REIV RELIGIO US DISA BILITIES 25 although no Board-school teacher is called upon to sign a creed or to make any profession of faith, he would not be allowed to give religious instruction if he did not assume this view of the Bible in all his lessons.1 So far as the Bible is concerned, then, the words of Dr. Gibson have a clear bearing upon the position of municipal school teachers. He fully admitted that “ within recent years difficulties had arisen on account of the change of view brought about in the minds of many Christians by the results, or supposed results, of recent investigations.” He was quite willing to allow to Sunday-school teachers a latitude which experience shows to be impossible in State elementary schools. The sectarian equilibrium in the management of the latter is so exceedingly delicate that it can only be preserved by excluding from the lessons everything but what is held in common by the most conservative and orthodox sections of each evangelical denomination represented. On the other hand, liberal clergymen, like Dr. Gibson, can often secure a great deal of freedom to the teachers within their own communion. This must be remembered in applying the following observations to the case of municipal schools, and accordingly the warnings must be interpreted more stringently. The italics are my own :— They were confronted (said Dr. Gibson) with the difficult and delicate question as to what must be the attitude of our Sunday-schools towards this burning question of the day. It should be laid down as an axiom to start with that only those who firmly believed in the divine authority of both Testaments had the right to be Sunday-school teachers at all. (Cheers.) A man who had no message of God to declare, but only doubts of his own to ventilate, was quite out of place in the pulpit or in the chair of a teacher. Those who were themselves wandering in mist and dark­ ness were no proper guides for others—least of all for the children. Most intelligent people, indeed, had doubts and difficulties in minor matters, so they could not expect their teachers to be all-round introduce into nearly all the Board schools under Mr. Forster’s Act precisely the evangelical teaching given in common by very low Churchmen, Wesleyans, Presby­ terians, Independents, and Baptists. So far was this carried that for some time the Catechism approved by representatives of the Evangelical Free Churches was actually used by the School Board for Liverpool in its schools. 1 The experience of Mr. F. J. Gould, the author of an excellent manual of Ethical teaching, and formerly an assistant master under the London Board, is decisive on this point. Being exceptionally conscientious, he could not reconcile it with his sense of right to teach a “syllabus” implying doctrines which he no longer believed. True, he was generously relieved of the duty while still retained on the staff. But he became a marked man, and the promotion deserved by his uncommon abilities was barred. He naturally left the profession. But he has since written handbooks of moral instruction valued even by the orthodox clergy, and is prominent as a leader in the beneficent movement for the reform of moral teaching in our schools. This is the sort of man whom our “tests” involved in “simple Bible teaching” banish to the ranks of aggressive secularism. He is at this present time of writing the honoured “minister”—if I may use the title—of the Leicester Secularist Society. If anyone supposes that Mr. Gould’s case is peculiar, except in regard to his unusual punctiliousness of conscience—well, such an one does not know as much us I do of the working of ‘ ‘ simple Bible teaching. ” Testimony Gibson, �26 NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES dogmatists, though even in the minor matters they should be careful not to parade their doubts. But if their doubts touched the great question whether God had really spoken to man and given himself for our salva­ tion, then must the doubter be silent; or, if he must speak, let it be under the banner of infidelity, not under the flag of Christ. (Hear, hear.) The teacher must be honest. If a teacher believed that the Pentateuch was a composite production, he must not teach his scholars that Moses wrote it all as his own original composition. He took this as a simple illustration, which was none the worse in that it suggested the remark that a good Sunday-school teacher was likely to find something much better to do than to occupy his time with a matter which was of no spiritual value when there were so many urgent themes pressing for attention. (Cheers.) A man must either teach what he believed or not teach at all. (Hear, hear.) In the great majority of the lessons in the Old Testament, as well as the New, there need be no occasion whatever for raising any of these questions. One of the greatest dangers of our time was making far too much of the letter of Scripture and far too little of the spirit. What of those cases where a difficult question was sprung upon them ? In that case he should consider it to be the teacher’s duty to state what he considered to be the truth on the matter, but at the same time to intimate that this was a subject on which good Christians differed, and therefore it was a matter which was not essential, on which a person might think either this way or that without serious harm. It should, in fact, be treated as an open question. It was the dogmatism that did the mischief on both sides. Suppose he had the story of Eden to deal with, and had reached the record of the Fall, and a smart boy popped the question, “Was that a real serpent, teacher ?” Now he maintained that, in the present state of opinion among good critics, it would be a grave fault to say either “yes ” or “ no.” He should answer : “ Some say yes, others say no ; but it does not matter in the smallest degree to our great lesson of to-day which of them is right.” But some might ask: “ If you leave stick questions open, do you not unsettle the mind of the scholar ? ” His answer was that their minds ought to be unsettled on questions which were unsettled. (Hear, hear.) The settling of the mind on a question which was unsettled was most mischievous and in the highest degree dangerous for the future. Who could tell, for example, what dire mischief was done in the childhood of Professor Huxley by those who succeeded in settling in his mind that the Bible must teach science with the rigorous position of the nineteenth century or be utterly discredited ? Noone could read intelligently Huxley’s anti-Christian writings without seeing that his fierce antagonism to Christianity was determined by the fact that he was taught in his youth to regard as settled questions those which all intelligent Christians now treated as open or as settled in the opposite way. What had been rubbed into him from his earliest days was the mischievous dogma that, if there was a solitary inaccuracy in any reference which touched the domain of science in any of the books which made up the Bible, it was impossible to accept the Scripture as from God. If only the minds of men like Huxley and Tyndall had been unsettled on the question of the relation between science and inspiration, how different might the history of Christian thought have been in the last fifty years. He did not say they would have become Christians ; that was not the result of an intellectual process, but the work of the Spirit. But they certainly would not have spent their strength in sowing broadcast the seeds of unbelief, and if they had not accepted Christ themselves they would, at all events, have looked with favour, and not with deadly hostility, on the truth. In guiding the steps of the young they should see to it first that they were leading them up, and not down, �NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES 27 and next that the steps were made easy to them, so that they might not stumble as they climbed.1 It must be a very prejudiced mind which would fail to recognise and respect the moral and intellectual courage shown in these words from the occupant of an orthodox pulpit. But the conclusion of the report from which the above is an extract is even more instructive:— Professor Rendel Harris (University lecturer in Palaeography at Cambridge) opened the discussion. He said he thought that Dr. Gibson was a little in danger of sailing down the channel of “ no meaning ” between “yes” and “no.” As to the serpent mentioned in the Eden story, if he were asked he should at once say that it was mythical, and should be treated as such. (Oh.) When they were dealing with the educated sense of mankind they should not hesitate to speak out bravely and face the question, and say : “ Man is older than we thought him to be at one time.” He asked them to appeal from the smaller Bible to the larger Bible of nature. They learnt from Genesis that Adam sewed together fig leaves. Well, the only fact they got there was that primitive man could sew. (Laughter.) If, however, they went into Kent’s Cavern at Torquay, they would find the actual needle used by primitive man. That was much more convincing than any story, and he pressed upon them the importance of studying the Bible by the light of nature and not nature by the light of the Bible. During Professor Harris’s speech many present dissented from his views. Having exhausted his time-limit, a vote was taken as to whether he should continue his speech. Several delegates voted against the motion, and Professor Harris said he had no intention to break the time rule. (Laughter.) The Rev. P. Williams (Derby) thought that Dr. Gibson ought to have dwelt longer on some of the important points, and not have passed over them by using catch phrases. They would like to have had a definition of the “Divine Authority of Scripture” and the “human element in the Bible.” They knew both were there, but still they wanted the matter defined so that other people might know they were there. (Cheers.) Dr. Gibson, in reply, said he was bound by a time-limit, and could not, of course, deal with all questions in a single paper. The six years elapsed since that Free Church Council was held have not lessened, but, so far, have rather increased, the moral difficulties so frankly acknowledged. Now, if in a conference of “ Free Churches,” with no fear of ratepayers before their eyes, and no sacred “compromise” to maintain, it is so difficult to obtain a sanction for honesty in teaching the Bible, how much harder, indeed how impossible, must it be to secure it for teachers in rate-supported schools whose directors represent a carefully-schemed balance of sectarian jealousies ! The only possible expedient for maintaining an unreal appearance of agreement is to adhere strictly to such explanations as are not likely to be challenged by any section of evangelical believers. A paradoxical state of things thus arises. For, while the liberty of teaching is necessarily much narrower 1 Manchester Guardian, March 14th, 1901. Professor Rendel Harris. Aggrava­ tion of the difficulty in Public Ele­ mentary Schools. �28 NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES in rate-supported schools than in Sunday-schools under the liberal influence of clergymen like Dr. Monro Gibson, the area from which the teachers are, or may be, drawn is much wider in the former schools than in the latter, and nominally there is no imposition of any creed whatever. The moral Is this anomaly favourable to the honesty so earnestly insisted upon in the above extract? Honest and self-respecting service in Board schools under the present system is obviously made impossible to consistent Rationalists—nay, more, it is impossible to young men trained under liberal Christian influences and encouraged to accept the results of modern research, so far as these may appear consistent with the retention of belief in revelation. Suppose a young teacher entering school life with the teaching of Professor Rendel Harris fresh in his mind, and impressed with Dr. Gibson’s manly exhortation not to teach what he does not believe. There is handed to him a “ syllabus ” of religious instruction in which “ The Life of Abraham ” is mentioned as a subject. To the younger children he may teach it as a story without saying whether he thinks it historical or not. Yet he cannot but be aware that his little pupils receive it as actual fact. That it would be possible to teach it otherwise is known to him by his ofoidTes- exPerience of the effect produced when he indulges them with a fairy tament tale such as Little Snowdrop or The Kins: of the Golden River. The stones as ... mythology children are as much interested in these stories as though he had assured them they were actual facts. Yet they know quite well that it is not so. The stories belong to that wonderland where historic criticism never intrudes. But when he relates to them “The Life of Abraham,” including the divine demand for a human sacrifice, he is aware that they receive it as a statement of solemn fact, while at the same time he does not believe that it is so. With the higher standards, containing children from twelve to fifteen years of age, the difficulty is much more serious. Encouraged by the liberty allowed him by clergymen such as Dr. Monro Gibson, he has yielded to arguments which convince him that the records of Abraham’s life in Genesis are a composite production, showing an unsuccessful attempt to piece together a consistent whole out of discordant materials. Warned against dishonesty in teaching, he cannot tell his pupils that the narrative is guaranteed by the authorship of Moses. If among his bTty of’ scholars a prize-winner in the examinations of the Sunday School Union answering should ask how it is that a precisely similar incident, arising out of a falsequestions. hood about a wife, is related twice of Abraham and once of Isaac, the same king being concerned at a considerable interval of time in two of the stories, what shall this honest follower of Dr. Monro Gibson say ? If he says what in his own conviction is the truth, that the confusion arises through the unskilful patching of different materials, all of which are �NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES 29 largely, if not wholly, mythical, there will be a disturbance at the local Education Committee, and the teacher’s career will be at an end. If he prevaricates, and says that it really does not matter, that in any case the moral lesson is the same, it is very doubtful whether even this would satisfy the weak brethren of the Education Authority; but it would certainly be fatal to the teacher’s own self-respect. These observations are not in the least invalidated by the suggestion that the opinions adopted by the teacher are possibly incorrect. From the point of view of religious equality in the nation’s schools, such a suggestion is entirely inept. The consideration of importance is that even Christian opinion, as represented by men like Dr. Monro Gibson, has now got the length of encouraging young people not to feel guilty of mortal sin if their reading convinces them of the composite and imperfect nature of “ The Life of Abraham.” And yet if they act on the declara­ tion above quoted, that “ a man must either teach what he believes or cruel not teach at all,” the second alternative alone is open to them. Even The form ­of lest religious though they should have the genius of a Pestalozzi or a Froebel, they inequality. are excluded from the nation’s schools, except on condition of open or tacit hypocrisy. If this is not religious inequality, and inequality of a shameful and odious kind, I do not know what can deserve the name. Readers who keep pace with the times in matters of opinion, but are unfamiliar with the working of the elementary school system, may pehaps be incredulous as to the existence of such a state of things as is here described. Is not the teaching “unsectarian”? they ask. The reply is that it is only so in the sense of teaching all that the “Evangelical Free Churches” hold in common. “Is not Bible­ teaching confined to necessary explanations in grammar, geography, and archaeology?” No, it is not, as.is clearly proved by the adoption, for a time, of the Free Church catechism by the Liverpool School Board.1 By the Shrewsbury School Board the teaching of the Apostles, Creed was ordered, and, by the courtesy of the Town Clerk, I am informed it is to this day continued by the local Education Committee under the Act of 1902. But as this point of the amount of disputed dogma possible under the Cowper-Temple clause is very important, and is also the subject of very general misunderstanding, I will give more detailed evidence. And as most of this was previously given in the former edition, I shall first show cause why it cannot be considered out of date. Indeed, it will never be out of date as long as the creed common to certain 1 It is no answer to say that the answers on sacraments and Church order were omitted. Of course they were. But to Nonconformists they are unimportant, com­ pared with the body of divinity contained in the other answers. �3° The Presi­ dent of the Board of Education on the “ CowperTemple Clause." NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES influential sects and rejected by all the rest of the nation continues to be legally treated as “ undenominational.” The Times of June 26th, 1907, gave a brief but significant report of the reception on the previous day by Mr. McKenna, President of the Board of Education, of a joint deputation of educational and Non­ conformist bodies on the question of the enforcement of the CowperTemple clause.1 The deputation, which included the Rev. Dr. Clifford and the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, complained that the clause was being interpreted in such an elastic manner that it practically gave no protection to the evangelical Nonconformist conscience. I quote the report of part of Mr. McKenna’s reply :— He distinguished very considerably between what was the view of the Board as to the law on this question and what its view was as to policv. He had to deal with Acts of Parliament as they were. He did not approve them, and he did not defend them. As regards the construction which had been put upon the Cowper-Temple clause as to its value, he was heartily in sympathy with everyone who had spoken. But when he was asked whether they were to-day where they used to be between the period 1879 and 1902, he was bound to answer that they were not. The Act of 1902 made a very serious difference in the law. He had no longer the power finally to determine whether or not the Cowper-Temple clause was being contravened. He had been told that section 16 of the Act of 1902 did not give him power to determine whether there had been a breach of the clause, but, if there had been a breach, it gave him power to enforce the law. There, again, it was a question of law ; it was not a question for the layman. It was a question of the strict construction of section 16 of the Act of 1902. Section 16 of the Act of 1902 enabled the Board of Education to compel an authority to fulfil their duty by proceeding in the Courts of Law on an action of mandamus. A local authority was under no obligation to compile a syllabus of religious instruction at all, and was under no obligation to give religious instruction in schools. Therefore, if a local authority did not compile a syllabus or did not give religious instruction at all, they had not failed to fulfil a duty. (Hear, hear.) He had no power under the Acts of Parliament alone to enforce the Cowper-Temple clause by withholding the grant. He could only deal with the Code at this moment as it existed. The rest of the reply dealt partly with a hypothetical future Bill, and partly with the wrongs of religious Nonconformists in Preston, who, it appears, suffer specially in that town the form of injustice which Nonconformists themselves are quite ready to inflict on those who believe less than they do. But what I have quoted is sufficient to prove that, in the opinion of a Minister of Education with all sources of official information at his command, the interpretation of the Cowper-Temple clause, so far from being more just and rigorous, is x I.e., Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 prohibiting in Board schools the use of any “ religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination.” �NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES 3» more favourable to sectarian dogma than when this essay first appeared. I am perfectly justified, therefore, in once more calling attention to the report of the Royal Commission on Education issued in 1888. And I may say that not one fact adduced by me in 1901 has been disputed. Among a great variety of interesting information the Report included an account of the religious instruction given in the elementary schools. I learn from this Report that Pulliblank’s Teachers' Handbook io the Bible and Mr. M. F. Lloyd’s Abridged Bible Catechism were being used in Board schools with the apparent approval of the Education Department. This fact shows what is meant by “unsec­ tarian ” teaching. Of Mr. Pulliblank’s book I desire to say no more than that it assumes throughout the literal historical accuracy of the Old Testament, even of the early chapters of Genesis. Mr. Lloyd’s Catechism, on the other hand, is an ingenious scheme to set forth the whole evangelical doctrine of the plan of salvation by contriving to furnish in the exact words of the Bible the answers to a number of leading questions. Thus, to the question, “ What promise of a Saviour was made to our first parents?” the answer is: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” It is unnecessary to quote further. The assumption that the serpent-myth is actual history, that the serpent was Satan and the seed Christ, sufficiently shows how the plea of the Bible, and the Bible alone, may be made to support the teaching under the name of unsectarian religion, of beliefs abandoned by educated people and condemned by the spirit of the age. This should be borne in mind when we note the selections of Scripture made by School Boards and their successors for the teaching of children. It appears that at the date of the Report—and I can find no evidence of any change—the Bible narratives of the Creation, of the Fall, of the Flood, and of Noah’s exploits were considered to be specially suitable for the moral instruction of infants. 'They were prescribed for this purpose by the School Boards for Bolton, Manchester, Rochdale, Newport, with St. Moollos, and many others. In Liverpool the Book of Genesis was taken for the first year’s course; but whether that included babies docs not clearly appear. The School Board for London does not seem to have regarded those narratives as milk for babes, and its selections were much above the ordinary level. But in its prescription of the “lives” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as subjects for study, it certainly intended that they should be treated as historical, and this all teachers understand. The same remark may be made wherever a particular book or section of Scripture is prescribed Illustration of “ simple Bible teach­ ing' ” under the C.-T. Clause. �32 Lessons in Massacre. Divine im­ morality. The case of the New Testament. NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES by this or any other Board. Thus, under the Wanstead Board, the higher standards were set to study Joshua and Judges. It would be difficult to find in all literature two books more full of bloodshed, murder, massacre, and savagery. I can appreciate as well as anyone the gleams of a higher life that flash from their pages here and there. And even the most shocking pictures they give of the ancient alliance between superstition and cruelty might conceivably be used by a teacher entrusted with perfect “ liberty of prophesying ” to illustrate the depths out of which the evolution of reason and morality has raised us. But that is not allowed to municipal school teachers any more than to “sectarian” teachers. Indeed, the former are more tightly bound by the “ Compromise.” The Book says that God over­ threw the walls of Jericho by a miracle, and that by his express and particular command the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword.” Now, if any teacher were to tell his pupils that the massacre might be historical, but that the allegation of a divine command was clearly false, there would undoubtedly be trouble at the next Education Committee meeting, and probably at many others to follow. The same may be said of the slaughter of Achan and his family, of the murder of the five kings at Makkedah, of the assassination of Eglon, of the treachery to Sisera, and a dozen other sanguinary deeds which, in reading Joshua and Judges, children are taught to regard as excepted by divine command from ordinary rules of morality. How can any educated man or woman read these sanguinary legends with their innocent pupils without hastening to assure the children that these are no words of God ? It is not a case in which silence can appease the conscience. The absence of explanation or denial confirms the misbelief in young hearts that are forming their faith for life. If the truth cannot be told, at least let such horrible narratives be banished from the schools.1 In dealing with the New Testament it might be thought that the course is clearer. When we find selections from the life of Christ, or the story of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, ordered to be taught, or the Acts, or St. Paul’s Epistles, it might be thought that here at least the plan of “ unsectarian ” instruction can meet with no difficulty. I am not so sure of that. It is notorious that what is called “the Higher 1 I do not speak without experience. I taught Bible classes for many years. I don’t think I ever took the Book of Joshua. But I did try to make Hebrew folklore interesting. I remember I was specially pleased with the written reproduction, by a boy of twelve, of my story of the Deluge. He concluded thus : “ All this sounds very terrible ; but it would be still more terrible if it were true.” �NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES 33 Criticism” has no more spared the New Testament than the Old. Moreover, the acceptance of the results of that criticism is not confined to “Secularist” lecturers, nor even to Unitarians. We have only to glance at the list of contributors to the new Encyclopedia Biblica, and at the opinions they support, to see that many scholarly Churchmen have entirely abandoned the literal truth of New Testament history, together with the authenticity of several epistles. I do not urge their ecclesiastical authority as conclusive against the Bible-instruction rate. But at least it helps to refute the arrogant assumption of Nonconformist perverts and others that School-board religion represents the views of all but an eccentric and negligible group of ratepayers. The rational desire to treat the New as well as the Old Testament like any other book is now supported by clergymen of the Church of England who repudiate even a literal belief in the physical resurrection of Christ. No one with an eye for the signs of this time can doubt that these clergymen represent the theology of the future. Nevertheless, any teacher who is now of that opinion can only gain employment in a public elementary school on condition of playing the hypocrite. Let it be clearly understood that what I am urging is not the permission to teach such opinions in the schools, but only the exclusion of a subject of instruction which, in the present chaotic condition of belief, imposes on many of the best candidates for the office of teacher the cruel alternative of insincerity or proscription. If it be asked how such a paradoxical state of things as above described can have been established in the entire absence of any authoritative “ creed or formulary,” the explanation lies, as previously explained,1 in the great renunciation of principle by Nonconformists in 1870. In consequence of that and the great Smith compromise the creed of School Boards and of the later committees came to be, like the creed of the Free Churches, the consensus, undefined in words, but very rigid in substance, of the supposed opinions of the majority. “ And why not?” cry some. “Surely true democracy consists in the rule of the majority.” Well, in our time the democracy stands for Caesar. And Nonconformists before 1870 used to be very eloquent on a certain text in the Gospels reserving “the things of God” from Caesar’s control. They, too, perhaps, are touched by the rationalism of the age, and now explain that text away. But they cannot explain away facts; and it is surely a shameful fact that, however clearly a young man is marked out as a born teacher, his adhesion to the views of Robertson Smith, Driver, and Cheyne on the Old Testament, and of Dr. Abbott or Professor Schmiedel on the Gospels, excludes him from the freedom of the profession except on one condition—that he shall speak or act a lie. 1 Tp. 16, 17, ante. D �V. MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS On July 15th, 1907, there appeared in the Times an interesting and impressive letter from Dr. T. J. Macnamara, M.P. This letter was evoked by Mr. A. J. Balfour’s attack' on the new regulations governing the admission of students to residential training colleges—an attack supported by many fierce articles in the ecclesiastical press. To the regulations themselves I have already referred in the Preface to this edition. But the letter made special reference to the demoralising effect of theological tests, and certain words which I shall quote from it may very appropriately open the argument of this chapter. Thus, after explaining how a “ King’s Scholarship ” gives the successful candidate “a considerable Government grant in aid of a course of college training,” Dr. Macnamara proceeded :— Roughly, about 5,000 young people win this training “scholarship” year by year ; but, when they seek to utilise it at a residential training college, they find that about 4,300 of the 5,000 residential places open to them are strictly reserved for students who are willing—over and above their success in the Government examination—to subscribe to a pretty rigid denominational test. As a matter of fact, the majority of these 4,300 residential places are open only to members of the Established Church. What is the result ? If the student be a Nonconformist, he must take a very high place indeed in the Government examination if he is to secure admission to one of the very few undenominational residential colleges. Because not only are the places open to him very few, but they are open also to members of the Church of England. Failing to secure entrance to an undenominational college, he telegraphs right and left to the other training colleges, and is promptly told that he will be admitted with pleasure if he is a member of the Church of England. A number of young people, to my certain knowledge, succumb to the temptation, and are admitted to the Church solely for the purpose of utilising their dearly won Government "'scholarship.” Others very properly decline to conform, and go on as ex-pupil teachers, and, having been at this critical stage thrown off the track, never afterwards succeed in completing the course for the teachers’ certificate. The grievous hardship of all this is the fact that the Church colleges take in year after year students who are far less meritorious and able than many of those who are shut out. This is not only unfair to the apprentice ; it devotes the State grant to the training of inferior material. The italics are, of course, my own, and are intended to mark the moral considerations with which I am about to deal. For, notwith­ standing the idiosyncrasies of exceptional latitudinarians, ordinary people, I believe, still regard a profession of faith as a moral or an 34 �MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS 35 immoral act according as it is made truly or falsely. Now, I suppose, evangelical Nonconformists, almost without exception, have heartily approved the above letter. For very many of them have known cases of bright boys and girls, devoted Sunday scholars and welcome additions to Church membership, who have been subjected to precisely the temptation described in the letter. News of their passing the King’s Scholarship examination was eagerly welcomed by the chapel circle, and a happy career was predicted for them in which “simple Bible teaching,” unpolluted by catechism or formulary, was to be a con­ spicuous feature. Then came the check, the change, the fall. For, though they had done very well in the examination, their success was not so exceptional as to enable them to command one of the very small number of places available in Nonconformist or undenomina­ tional colleges. But their success had been quite sufficient to make them desirable candidates elsewhere. And as the vast majority of available places were elsewhere, the painful alternative arose of taking a permanently inferior standing as teachers or of changing their profes­ sion of faith. Dr. Macnamara deals very gently with the occasional or perhaps frequent result. But, he says, “a number of young people, to my certain knowledge, succumb to the temptation.” He seems to be paraphrasing a very old account of the same transition : “ They give up all religion and go to church.” That is not my judgment. Heaven forbid! But if we talk of “ succumbing to temptation,” it is implied that there is something morally wrong. And so, no doubt, thought the pastors and the deacons and the Sunday-school superintendents of the various chapels to which these perverts had belonged. But I can imagine—nay, I have known—strictly analogous cases which the same religious people would not see at all in the same light. For in these days of “New Theology” and “re-statements” of doctrine there is an ever-increasing number of young people with the teacher’s gift and enthusiasm who do not, and cannot if they are to be true to themselves, pretend to accept that view of the Bible which is implied or presupposed in what is called “ simple Bible teaching.” That is, there are very few narratives of either the Old or the New Testament which they can conscientiously teach as historic fact; and very much of the morality they think to be interesting rather as a record of ethical evolu­ tion than as “ revelation.” Now, the crisis in the moral and spiritual development of such young people may not occur so early as the time of the King’s scholarship examination. Up to that period they have accepted, almost as a matter of course, the Bible as “the word of God,” and as an infallible revelation. But either towards the close of their - college career or afterwards the rational spirit, which at the present day A Moral dilemma. �36 Are the rights of conscience a monopoly of the advo­ cates of “ simple Bible teaching” ? MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS is more or less immanent in all forms of literature and learning, stirs in them a questioning mood. They read Mr. R. J. Campbell’s New Theology, and, their appetite for hitherto forbidden knowledge being quickened, they look up the Encyclopedia Biblica in a public library, and next are led to translations of Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe; and then, with a hunger for more spiritual food, they apply to the public library again for the works of the various Anglican and Presbyterian divines who have re-stated in once startling, but now familiar, forms the theory of revelation. The end of it is that at a period when they are expecting to become head teachers they find that their views of both the Old and the New Testament have so fundamentally changed that they can no longer give “ simple Bible teaching ” with sincerity. They cannot, without doing violence to their convictions, teach as fact “ the life of Abraham ” or of Jacob as set down in the syllabus. They cannot sincerely teach the Ten Commandments as laws written by the finger of God, because they are now quite sure that they are nothing of the kind. Even the Gospels they now regard as, to a large extent, legendary; and they are as certain as they can be of anything that the Fourth Gospel was not written by Zebedee’s son. What are they to do ? If they frankly avow their position, they will probably be treated with courtesy, and something will be said in praise of their honesty. But they will soon experience the bitter truth uttered by Juvenal: “Probitas laudatur et alget.” For they will be relieved of giving Scripture instruction, and their prospects of promotion permanently barred. It would be trifling with common sense and notorious facts to pretend ignorance that there are large numbers of young teachers, both men and women, in that very position at the present time. Here, then, is a moral dilemma precisely analogous to that sympathetically described in Dr. Macnamara’s letter to the Times. For these young men and women must either prematurely blight their prospects of promotion or they must set their teeth and put a strain on conscience such as will be a life-long burden. But where now is the Nonconformist sympathy so eagerly extended to the young chapel-folk whom Dr. Macnamara described as “ succumbing to the temptation ” to go over to the Church ? I am afraid it is sadly lacking. But why ? Surely the two cases are on all fours in principle. Unless, indeed, Nonconformists would draw the line at their own “ simple Bible ” views, and maintain that, while it is perfectly right to doubt or deny any other religion, it is wicked to doubt or deny theirs. One almost despairs of getting even good and kindly and otherwise fair-minded people to see straight where the Bible is concerned. But sometimes, when the plainest proof of injustice fails of access to �MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS 37 the conscience through the ear, the ugly consequences of the wrong may become so repulsive as to enforce conviction. And if I can only show what the consequences are in this case both to teachers and children, I do not despair of success. Indeed, I venture to think that, if Dr. Macnamara could only realise how the moral difficulty he has pointed out is necessarily involved in the retention of the Bible in school, he would refuse to endorse any new Education Bill that should transgress beyond secular lines. The last words of the preceding chapter may by some be thought too strong. But I shall establish their literal truth. It will be remem­ bered that, in introducing the subject of the religious disabilities set up by School Boards, and continued by local Education Authorities under the Act of 1892, I have carefully refrained from asserting that the barriers are absolutely impassable. All I allege is that the tests implied, though not avowed, exclude Rationalists, whether Christian or non­ Christian, from “ honest and self-respecting service as teachers in the nation’s schools.” But they are, of course, not excluded from service of a different kind. As an illustration of the sort of service which latitudinarians or heretics are allowed to give, take the following extract from a letter printed in Democracy^ of February 23rd, 1901. The occasion of it was a previous letter from a Board-school teacher, com­ plaining of the odious task of teaching what he did not believe. Whereupon “Another Board-School Teacher” addressed the editor thus :— Sir,—The state of feeling disclosed by the remark of the “ Board-school Licensed hypocrisy. Teacher” anent the pressure put upon him to teach “ Scripture” against his wish is, 1 am afraid, common to many others of that class of the community. One docs lose a certain amount of self-respect in standing before a class and teaching for truth what one believes to be false. But under somewhat similar circumstances I ask myself: Why be honest ? Why trouble at all about the matter ? The Scripture lessons occupy little time, after all, and the harm done cannot amount to much. In view of the facts that all the work done in school may be described as an attempt to enable the children to conform to the canons of Christian or commercial morality (sic), and that no degree of conformity to those of either cult will abate the ills or conduce to the welfare of humanity, I feel that more harm is done in the ordinary school work than in the time set apart for religious instruction. But one must get a living somehow ; so I, personally, comply with the terms of my agreement with my employers, and let conscience go hang. I will not do any body of teachers the injustice of accepting this gentleman as a fair representative of their moral tone. But my own experience, and a fairly extensive intercourse with them during many years, assures me that the first sentence in the above extract is substantially correct. The discontent, however, is caused not by “ the 1 Since become The Ethical World. Significance of the above letter. �38 A dangerous position. MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS pressure put upon them to teach ‘Scripture,’” but by the necessity imposed upon them to teach it in a fashion inconsistent with their own convictions. I will undertake to say that, if permission to teach honestly what they believe about the Bible were given to school teachers, three-fourths of them, at the very least, would tell the children that the greater part of the Hexateuch must be regarded in the same light as a series of fairy tales ; that the story of Jonah is a moral fable, very impressive in its way, but probably destitute of even a basis of fact; that the Book of Daniel is a romance, and that of Esther a political apologue. I believe, also, that, if they dared, the same propor­ tion of teachers would treat all the miracles of the Old Testament as originating in the imagination of Jewish patriots and poets, rather than in actual fact. Even if I put the proportion numerically too high, the most sanguine believer in the evangelical fervour inspired by our training colleges must surely feel that the letter above quoted is indicative of considerable mental unrest. Let the extent of Rationalism among teachers be minimised to the utmost possible degree consistent with notorious facts, still it will remain true that a large number are forced into teaching what they do not believe. Now, this is a sort of fact of which the moral import is not dependent on statistics. If only twenty per cent, of the men and women who stand before their classes with the life of Abraham, or the account of the Deluge, or the story of the Virgin Birth, or of the Resurrection, m their hands as the basis of moral instruction, hold these parts of the Bible to be unhistorical, while they are obliged to treat them as solemn facts, it seems too like taking “ a lie in their right hand ” for the inculcation of truth. The misdirected satire of Jean Ingelow in ridiculing a theory of spiritual evolution which she did not understand would be much more applicable to the case of these teachers :— Gracious deceivers who have lifted us Out of the slough where passed our unknown youth ; Beneficent liars who have gifted us With sacred love of truth. Human nature is too complex and unfathomable to allow of any sweeping affirmation of demoralising consequences in such a case. I was once asked by one of the best men I ever knew, himself an Anglican clergyman, why I did not seek orders in the Established Church. I replied that “ for one reason I had never, up to that moment, seen any creed that I could sign.” “ Indeed !” he responded ; “never seen the creed you could sign, hav’n’t you ? Well, now, / have never seen the creed I couldn’t sign.” Making all allowance for my friend’s love of paradox, I yet could not but feel that between his notion of responsibility for assenting to a creed and mine there was an �MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS 39 impassable difference. Yet I knew him to be in all other relations a man of unimpeachable honour and courageously truthful.1 I should be very loth, therefore, to deny the possibility that analogous instances, of personal paradox may be found among teachers who believe one thing and teach another. But the letter I have quoted above is sufficient proof that the position is a dangerous one. Let it be granted that the moral degeneracy exhibited in that letter ofthe is an extreme and exceptional instance of the working of the system. teachers, Let it further be conceded that at the other end of the scale there are a number of sincere and devout Evangelical teachers whose Biblical creed is an inspiration to them. There will remain the large majority who belong neither to one class nor to the other. Pledged to no creed, possessed of culture enough to appreciate the revolution in educated opinion on the origins and authority of the Bible, they yet feel no special impulse to any independent study of such questions, and ordinary prudence warns them against any precipitancy in adopting ideas which would create a daily consciousness of discord between duty and conviction. The result is an attitude of conventional acquiescence which guards their mental comfort, but empties their Scriptural teaching of all reality. Some of the more studious among them, while shy of reading distinctly Rationalistic books, find much edification in the works of a contemporary school which suggest that after all there is nothing exactly true, and it does not much matter. Mr. A. J. Balfour’s elegant disquisition on the duty of believing with the majority, Professor Percy Gardner’s charming explanation in his Exploratio Evangeltca of the possibility that a creed may be both true and false at the same time, have great attractions for honest men in such circumstances. Pretending to their own consciences to adopt, though without legitimate authority or open avowal, a freedom which I have above suggested as their due if they are to teach the Bible at all, they tell the stories of the Old Testament without any pretence of discriminating fact from fiction even in their own minds. What does it matter ? they ask. If they were telling the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, they would not feel it necessary to warn their infant hearers that beans do not, as a rule, produce stalks reaching up to heaven. The attitude of the child’s mind towards such a narrative is, they well know, neither that of belief nor that of unbelief. It is simply that of interest and wonder at an unfold­ ing vision. Why should the case be different with the story of Eve and the Serpent ? 1 There can be no harm now in stating that the clergyman was the late Rev. John Rodgers, Vicar of St. Thomas Charterhouse—not “hang theology Rogers,” but his successor in that cure—and for some time Vice-Chairman of the School Board for London. Of his courage various education campaigns in London afforded ample proof. �40 The moral difficulty is that Bible History is tacitly accepted in school as divine and infallible. MORA L EFFECT ON TEA CIIERS It is not for me to answer that question. The point of my whole argument is that, if Hebrew myth or legend is to be treated at all in State schools, they should be treated precisely in that manner. What I complain of is that they are not so treated, but rather as parts of a divine and infallible history. And the position is such that they cannot be otherwise treated, unless the children under instruction are expressly told so. This would be quite possible in Sunday-schools, even of orthodox churches, if liberal influences like those of Dr. Monro Gibson or Professor Rendel Harris happened to prevail there. But in no Board school is it at all possible, because the attempt would lead to theological discussion on the Board, and revive the religious difficulty in its most obnoxious form. The result is that teachers have to treat as solemn fact every Hebrew legend or impossible miracle read as a Scripture lesson. Those whom I have described above as receptive of modern dissolving views, wherein historic falsehood shades off into spiritual truth, may flatter themselves that they are only giving a moral lesson through a parable. But the illusion is dissipated the moment that any intelligent pupil asks such critical questions as occur to precocious children. “ Mother,” asked a four-year-old enfant terrible whom I once knew, “ what does God sit down on when he’s tired ? ” “ O, my dear,” said the mother, “ God is never tired.” “ But,” retorted the child, “you said he rested on the seventh day.” Now, critical questions of children are of no disadvantage whatever, if suggested by the inconsistencies of an avowed parable or fable. But any question of the kind may rudely dispel the rationalising teacher’s notion that he can use Hebrew myths as he uses JEsop’s Fables with­ out letting his pupils know it. If it be said that as a matter of fact such questions are rarely or never asked in school, so much the worse for the system. For the absence of any such sign of intelligent interest shows that the whole lesson is regarded as a ceremonial observance having no relation to realities. Besides, there are many cases in which an intel­ ligent and rational teacher, who was really free, would anticipate such questions for the sake of the spiritual impression he is seeking to make. If, for instance, he is using the infatuated Pharaoh of the Exodus as a type of earthly power, scornful of spiritual verities, and eventually crushed by a might that it cannot understand, he must needs deny the literal truth of the assertion that “ God hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” ; or, otherwise, all modern analogies fail. To explain the arrogant contempt of George III. and his court for the new-born American patriotism, by asserting that God hardened that monarch’s heart, would not be tolerated even by literal believers of what is said about Pharaoh. It is, therefore, impossible for the teacher to make any obviously fair application of the ancient example to the modern instance. �MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS 41 Records Take, again, the alleged command given by Jahweh to Moses, early of Hebrew Joshua, and Israel at large to smite the nations of old Palestine, and savagery. “utterly to destroy them,” to “ make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.” Either this command is accepted as historical or it is not. In the former case the teacher has an unenviable task in “justifying the ways of God to men.” In the latter case a conscientious teacher would almost give all his hopes of preferment to be allowed to say that the statement was a false and blasphemous pretence of the Israelites. But even here the recipients of dissolving views may find an issue. It may not be true that any personal Deity gave such a command. Yet the doctrine of the gradual selection of higher races through the survival of the fittest in each generation’s struggle for life is, in one form or another, generally accepted; and, probably, the application of such a doctrine to the resettlement of ancient Palestine would not stir up “ the religious difficulty ” even on School Boards. But such an interpretation is estopped by the conditions under which the lesson is given. The “ compromise ” involves a tacit undertaking to assume, if not the infallibility, at least the historical accuracy, of the Bible, especially where it narrates the successive steps in the progress of the alleged revelation to which all the compromising sects are at least officially committed. One of those steps is the establishment of the chosen people in Palestine, and the suppression of the earlier inhabitants by order of a personal divine ruler in order to make room for the former. This divine ruler speaks with human speech, expresses emotions of anger and jealousy indistinguishable from human feeling. He issues orders like an earthly sovereign who has a policy of conquest to carry out. It is not Fate, or the Unknowable, who is here acting and speaking. It is an intensely personal Being, whose mercy elsewhere is said to endure for ever, and whose “ compassions fail not.” How is it possible for any honest Christian, with the words of Jesus murmuring in his heart, to tell children that such a Being ordered these massacres? Yet no Elemen­ tary schoolmaster would be supported by his Committee in treating as fictitious the terrible command above-mentioned.1 What reality can there be in the teaching of the Bible under such In such a case limitations by any man or woman touched by the spirit of the age ? “ simple Bible The possibility of simplicity and straightforwardness is confined to that teaching ” needs small minority of teachers who still hold the whole Bible to be literally devout true. Unconscious of any incongruity between modern thought and simpletons as teachers. the “ plan of salvation ” taught to them in their childhood, they are also 1 Of course, this general assertion, based on nearly forty years’ experience, must be taken for what it is worth. But it is to be remembered that even school managers, who themselves disbelieve any such divine command, would fear the “talk” of the neighbourhood and possible offence to religious ministers. �42 The intoler­ able strain on enlight­ ened teachers. MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS untroubled by any inconsistency between Old Testament fables and the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. They tell, with such fervour as a cooling faith allows, of man’s first disobedience, of the curse thereby entailed on all posterity, and of the elaborate process of miracle and prophecy, of type and sacrifice, of commandments and law and ceremony, by which a divine Being laboriously prepared the coming of the sacred victim whose death and resurrection open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. Such a course of instruction amid all the array of theo­ logical dreams it unfolds has, undoubtedly, lucid intervals in which moving appeals may be made to the heart. The loss of Eden, the passion of Cain, the aspirations of Enoch, the faith of Abraham, the story of Joseph, David’s heart-broken sorrow for Absalom—all, even when taken literally, give the opportunity of contrasting the meanness of self-will with loyalty of soul to a divine ideal. But the possibility of this does'not in the least palliate the wrong spoken of in previous pages, the injustice done to dissenting ratepayers and less orthodox teachers who object to do evil that good may come. They protest against being made aiders and abettors in the perpetuation of what they think falsehood, even though some moral truths may occasionally glimmer through it. But, outside the minority who can with their whole hearts “teach the Bible ” in the sense intended by “ the compromise,” teachers are exposed to degrees of strain varying from the abject surrender to hypocrisy quoted above, to casuistical ingenuities and non-natural interpretation of obvious duty. “ Obvious duty ” because neither by authority of ratepayers, nor by orders of a School Board, nor even at the request-of parents, is any man justified in teaching to his pupils as truth what he himself believes to be a lie. “ Parable,” “ allegory,” “ fable,” and such like, are not the words to describe the method of one who himself accepts a Bible story in one sense and takes care that the children shall under­ stand him in another. To talk about a dispensation of “ illusion ” is right enough when we are groping after an increasing purpose running through the ages of faith. In those times everyone believed the illusion, and there was no dishonesty. But when a man tells of a universal deluge or of the overthrow of Jericho’s walls by sound of trumpet, or of Joshua’s arrest of the sun, in such a manner as to make the impression that he believes them as facts when he does not believe them, this is not an economy of illusion ; it is a lie—or at least if would be so to any unsophisticated conscience, �VI. THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN At the risk of needless reiteration, I must again disclaim any inclination to deny the educational value of the Bible, if properly used. The ques­ tion here raised is, What has actually been the ethical value of the Bible as taught under the conditions already described ? After thirty-seven years of daily text-grinding in the people’s schools, or rather after a hundred years of it if we take into consideration the previous work of voluntary associations, the question of Browning’s Pope seems very pertinent:— “Well, is the thing we see salvation ?” Is the language in our streets much purer or less profane and coarse than it was in 1870 ? More than one local Council, in grief at the coarse, foul, and disgusting words constantly used in its streets, has desired the law to be strengthened. We have had practically universal and professedly com­ pulsory education for nearly six generations of school children1—and yet we have to ask the magistrates to supplement the moral work of the schoolmaster in a matter like this. The following paragraph from the Westminster Gazette, of September 6th, 1901, is very suggestive, and unfortunately is not yet irrelevant to present manners. The italics are my own :— We would gladly see the resolution passed by the East Ham Council to stop offensive language on tram-cars adopted by other local autho­ rities. The use of language of this sort is disagreeable enough to many, wherever heard ; it is particularly so on public conveyances where other passengers are compelled to listen to it. The strange thing is that those who indulge in it are, as a rule, quite unconscious of giving any cause of offence. They are so accustomed among their fellows to express them­ selves in such a way that they go on doing so wherever they may be. It will, no doubt, be possible to curb the nuisance by measures of the kind referred to ; but, as the use of objectionable language anywhere is an offence at law, it might be well, perhaps, if the law were put in motion more frequently than it is. Persons passing along the streets often have their ears assailed with foul expressions, which a few prosecu­ tions might make less common. Is it not a scandal that elementary schools should be so powerless to mould the manners of children who have attended them for six, eight, 1 For the greater part of the period compulsory attendance has begun at five years of age and ended after thirteen. 43 The voca­ bulary of the streets. �44 I ack of moral inspi­ ration in the schools. THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN or ten years?1 All these foul-mouthed people, who “are so accus­ tomed among their fellows to express themselves in such a way,” have passed through some elementary school in which the Bible, or even the Catechism, has been taught, and “ explanations have been given there­ from in the principles of the Christian religion and morality.” And yet they have not been saved from coarseness, profanity, and indecency in speech. Is the effect of cheap literature quite what we hoped and expected ? When opening our first Board schools, did we forebode that in the twentieth century the cry of “All the winners ” would sell more papers than the most thrilling announcements of scientific or archaeological discovery, or even of the most exciting political events ? If the English translation of the Bible is, as some incongruously say, a “ British classic,” should not its incessant reading have raised the intellectual tone of the people above the level where it remains ? In our incessant whining for clumsy methods of force to put down betting, bribery, and impurity, is there not a manifest despair of moral remedies? Yet I should not be at all surprised to find that the hysterical people who continually write letters to the Press urging methods of barbarism, such as the “ cat,” as infallible moral restoratives, have no less fervently throughout their lives insisted on Bible drill. And when this con­ spicuously fails, the natural conclusion, that there must have been some lack of moral inspiration in the method, does not seem to occur to them. The fine old Christian saying that “ force is not God’s way ”2 loses its significance when the Bible becomes a fetish; and “ Bible and beer ” has to be supplemented by Bible and birch. The good humour of an English mob is proverbial, and was a character acquired long before “ simple Bible teaching,” under the Cowper-Temple clause, was invented. But such good humour does not prevent outbreaks of rudeness, coarseness, and disregard for the rights of others which here and there make Bank Holidays odious. Now, if moral training in public Elementary schools is good for any­ thing, it ought surely to secure compliance with the precept, “ All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them.” But the constant recurrence of cases in which private parks, by courtesy 1 Take, for instance, the objectionable and even dangerous habit of promiscuous and continual spitting. Of late public authorities have been obliged, on hygienic grounds, to interfere. But until doctors decided that disease may be spread thereby, mere decency had no chance of consideration. I did my humble best as Board School manager in London from 1871 onwards to secure attention to the subject, but in vain. Yet if morals include “ manners,” as surely they ought, the doctors should have been anticipated by the teachers. 2 “ Bia yap ou irphaevri r<p Gecp.” It occurs in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus of uncertain but very early date (cap. vii.), and also in Irenaeus (contra Hcereses, lib. iv., cap. xxxvii. 1). �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 45 opened to the public, have had to be closed because of the abuse of such courtesy, proves that the lesson has not been successfully impressed.1 I gladly acknowledge that juvenile crime, in the sense of offences punished by sentence of magistrates or judges, has largely diminished. But this has been brought about by improvements in the law rather than in juvenile manners. Children who would, in a more barbarous though recent age, have been sent to prison are now sent to Industrial schools or Reformatories. That, however, is quite consistent with a persistently low standard of juvenile morality, and of this there is too much evidence. Of such evidence I will give a specimen forced upon my attention An illustra­ tive case. on the very day when these lines are penned. Its value must, of course, depend on the extent to which it corresponds with the experience of my readers. But I scarcely think that many will say that it is an unusual case. This morning, then (July, 1907), I was one of a bench of magis­ trates before whom eight boys, of ages varying from twelve to seventeen, were accused, some of them of stealing, and others of malicious damage, involving, as was proved, serious danger to human life. The little robbers had made a raid on certain “penny-in-the-slot” machines, by means of tin discs, which, as it turned out, worked quite as well as the penny with His Majesty’s image and superscription. Some of us thought—and many may share our opinion—that machines making theft so easy constitute an unfair temptation to our child citizens under our present feeble and futile systems of moral training. But perhaps I was alone in thinking that it was the moral training quite as much as this imperfect “ penny-in-the-slot ” system that was to blame. For, what­ ever may be the attractions of illicit chocolates and cigarettes, boys from twelve to seventeen years old ought to have—and would have under efficient moral training—sufficient feeling of the meanness of theft and of its disastrous consequences to social order to enable them to resist. There were also three accusations of malicious damage, one of the accused youngsters being a defendant also in the previous case. In a neighbouring mountain quarry the stones are run down tramways having an incline steeper than a high-pitched roof. Now, on a Saturday half­ holiday, when there was no one about, these adventurous boys, finding 1 In the former edition I gave certain then recent and notorious instances of the kind, in one of which two Sunday-school teachers in charge of a children’s excursion were concerned. I have no reason to believe that the evil is much abated since then. And I have had special opportunities during these years of not'.ng how vain are the efforts of the, Selboine Society to preserve picturesque places of resort from desecration. Picnickers seem to imagine that it is not of the least consequence in what state of filthy untidiness they leave nature’s beauties. �46 THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN a waggon securely “scotched” at the top of one of these steep The moral instruction of such juveniles, tramways, removed the “ scotch ” and started the waggon off. It was good fun, no doubt; but, as several deaths have occurred through incautious trespassing on these tramways, it was highly perilous fun, and the boys were quite old enough to know it. Compared with this danger to life, it seemed to me that the smashing of the company’s waggon was trivial. In old times these peccant children would have been sent to swell the number of juvenile criminals. But, of course, no such consequence followed in this case; and as the same just and rational leniency is now exercised in thousands of similar cases, this amply accounts for the apparently satisfactory change in the statistics of juvenile crime. Yet is it so satisfactory when we learn the real reason of the change? These latter frolicking boys, though accused of “ malicious damage,” were, I believe, not capable of malignity. No; but neither they nor the pilferers had such sense as they ought to have had at their age of their duty to their neighbour, or of their moral relations to the community which assures their safety and their prospects in life. Now, if anyone thinks this is too much to expect from boys of twelve to seventeen, let him watch them at their games of “ marbles,” or follow them to the cricket-field and the football-ground. There he will find that cheating is held in contempt, that any youth who tries to “ sneak ” an advantage from his fellows is not only pummelled, but “ boycotted.” Why should it be different when the “ game ” to be played is that of society ? But it happened that an official visit which I paid to an “ undenomi­ national” school1 at an hour earlier than the petty sessions suggested an explanation. For there I found the “religious instruction ” going on. The school was divided for this purpose into two classes, senior and junior. The elder were studying the beginning of the romance of Joseph in Genesis xxxvii. The points on which questions were asked were the reasons for Jacob’s partiality to Joseph, the delights of a “coat of many colours,” the filial obedience of Joseph—which, according to the chapter before the children, seems very questionable—the signifi­ cance of Joseph’s dreams, and the unreasonableness of his brethren and father in objecting to them. The junior children were being instructed in Matthew ii., especially the “ massacre of the innocents.” The lady teacher was particularly anxious that the children should appreciate the inferiority of Herod’s claim to be King of the Jews as compared with that of Jesus. She was also careful to explain the wiles by which that 1 Lest it should be supposed that “denominational” schools would have done better, I may as well mention that all the accused youths attended, or had attended, a Church school. �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 47 child-slayer would have cheated the innocent Magi had it not been for the intervention of the deity. And this was moral instruction ! Let it not be said that these instances are unfair because excep­ tionally inept. The contrary is the case. I have myself known teachers who realise that the practical problem is to awaken an effective moral sense, and who try to bend “simple Bible-teaching” to its solution. But it is they that are exceptional, not the type I have described. And those exceptional teachers are usually earnest in pleading for more freedom in treating the Bible and in extending the scope of moral instruction beyond it. Nor let it be supposed that I am here assuming the possibility of eliminating by any means whatever the dangers attendant on exuberance of animal life in youth. But I do say that the only way of minimising them is to develop as early as possible a sense of comradeship, fellowship, responsibility to and for society, which shall inspire the child to be as faithful to the surrounding community as he is now to the narrower circle of his playfellows in games. And I maintain that to look for any such results from a talk about Joseph’s dreams and destinies, or about the rival regal claims of Herod and Jesus, is to expect grapes from thorns and figs from thistles.1 It may be said that our failure to improve morals as fast as we increase knowledge condemns the churches as well as the schools. That is so. But in regard to the possibilities of amendment in the two cases there is this difference. The churches are much more free than the schools are to adapt their moral teaching to the needs of the time. Theological Articles scheduled in an Act of Parliament, and even Trust Deeds deposited in a denominational Muniment Room, are no more effective than the handcuffs and bonds imposed on professors of the “box-trick,” where there is the will to get rid of them. But the watchful jealousy of a majority on an Educational Committee elected for the purpose of guarding the sacred compromise is not to be eluded. As a matter of fact, it is notorious that the Churches are, to a very considerable extent, changing their methods of teaching. I have already given illustrations of the freer spirit which is gradually inspiring even Evangelical Sunday-schools. We may well hope, therefore, that, in accordance with historic precedent, the Churches will insensibly shift the standard of orthodoxy. And, meanwhile, there is little temptation to insincerity. Whatever may be the case with ministers—among whom there is a great deal more moral heroism than is commonly supposed—Sunday-school teachers, at any rate, have no temptation to 1 Anyone who supposes such an argument to imply materialism is quite mistaken. It points to a universal religion, which involves, absorbs, and transforms all the sectarian religions that have ever been conceived. Schools more stereo typed than churches. �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN continue their work of Bible teaching for a single day after they find out that they cannot do so honestly. Besides, Sunday-schools do not compel us to pay rates for their support. They have no national or municipal authority at their back. They do not involve us as citizens in responsibility for their teaching or moral influence. Whatever may be said about the lingering fiction of a “ national ” Church, its Sundayschools are entirely voluntary and unofficial. The case of public elementary day schools is very different. Attendance at one or other of them is compulsory on some eighty-four per cent, of our children. We are forced to pay for their support Every through taxes and rates. It is by the national or municipal authority, spon^Mefor or both, that every lesson in them is given. We are, therefore, responineffiXncy sible for them; and if they are allowed to demoralise the commonschools. wealth of the future, it is our fault. Or, if they are maintained on a system proved to be inefficient in attaining the highest ends of educa­ tion, every citizen is to blame. Further, the position of the elementary teacher is a much more difficult one than that of the Sunday-school teacher. To the former his work is also his livelihood. He cannot abandon it with a light heart the moment he is required to offend his conscience. Nor is there the slightest prospect at present of obtaining for him an honourable “liberty of prophesying.” This would imperil that sacred ark of the covenant, “ the compromise.” The result is that the Bible teaching in public elementary, and especially in municipal schools, is inevitably more demoralising than that of Sunday-schools. In the latter the worst evil to be feared is that of ignorance, or, perhaps, honest bigotry. But in the former the tendency of the system is to make dishonesty a necessity of life. Or if dishonesty be, considering all things, too hard a word to use, the least evil that is possible is the prevalence of a lifeless formalism in i precisely that part of school teaching which most of all requires the energy of an eternal spirit. Now, by this last phrase I mean the moral fervour which persists from age to age only on condition that it shall continually change its modes of expression into accordance with the new actualities of the times. Only use and wont can account for the indifference with which the majority of electors look on while the springs of morality are poisoned before their eyes. What does it matter? ask some. If the teaching is false, it means as little to the children as the drone of a beetle, and meantime the religious difficulty is avoided. It seems never to occur to such people that they are thus consenting parties to the waste of nearly one-fifth of a child’s school time. How can such a system be anything but demoralising ? Even the children from decent and respectable homes want waking up on moral subjects. Let �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 49 it be granted that such children hear nothing but good at home. They hear it, however, in the form of kindly platitudes about “behaving” and doing as they are told, and “honesty as the best policy”—which platitudes are neither stimulative nor impressive. They require to be made to feel that the matter of conduct is interesting, and they will never be made to feel that by a teacher who explains the grammar and geography and archaeology of a Bible story which he does not himself believe. The fate of those children—alas, too many—who have no decent homes to echo the platitudes of morality is far worse. It is simply shocking to hear little victims of society’s crimes rattling off pious phrases and shrieking saintly hymns to which they obviously attach no meaning whatever. And if their teacher is compelled by his engagements to add to the falsehoods and unrealities of their young lives a lesson on a supernatural revelation which he does not himself believe, he becomes, like the parent, to Christ inconceivable, who, instead of a fish, "would give to his child a serpent. Perhaps one reason for persistence in the present system is that its most devout supporters do not regard morality as teachable, but expect it rather to be inspired by a miracle of divine grace. The instrument for the accomplishment of this opus operatum is the word of God, and the word of God is identified wuth the Bible. A magic charm is thought to lie in the syllables of the sacred text, like the influence once attri­ buted to written spells—a charm altogether apart from any significance of the "words. Or if that be thought too strong an expression, I will try to defend it. There are scattered through Shakespeare’s works very many gems of moral truth quite clear and limpid enough to appeal to children in the upper standards of elementary schools. Thus Portia’s exquisite description of “ the quality of mercy” does not depend much upon the context for its appeal to the heart. And detached sayings, such as “Truth hath a quiet breast,” “Love’s best habit is a soothing tongue,” “ Never anything can be amiss when simpleness and duty tender it,” easily stick in the memory, and under free moral instruction would become pregnant with connotations which would return whenever the saying was remembered. But then no one attributes to such words any supernatural authority, and they are, therefore, not recog­ nised as “the word of God,” though in a clear sense they are so, as being the inevitable outcome of human experience, which is a partial expression of God. But the absence of a supernatural sanction is thought to unfit such words for the purposes of religious instruction; whereas when similar lessons are read from the Bible the supernatural sanction is assumed, and therein lies their value. In other words, it is not the moral contents, not self-evident truth, that counts, but only the E The Bible as magic. Not the truth but the sanction valued. �5o How far morality is teachable. Grace, its meaning. Communi­ cated through human in­ tercourse. THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN supernatural sanction. And this is what I meant above by saying that the Bible is valued for some supposed magic charm, akin to that of written spells. The same fond delusion which induces some well-meaning people to hang up texts in railway waiting-rooms, or to employ sandwich-men to carry texts on their backs, is also at the root of much zeal for text­ grinding in schools. If the Genesis story of the Fall of Man, or of the Flood, had been first given to the modern world by some learned excavator of cuneiform records, we should certainly have considered it extremely interesting, and in many ways suggestive of the attitude of early ages towards the mystery of life. As fables they might even have been recognised as useful for combining entertainment with instruction in the teaching of children. But no one would have dreamed of making them a formal basis of moral lessons. What is it, then, which gives such narratives their sacred and even awful importance ? It is the feeling that they are parts of a divine “plan of salvation” which must stand or fall as a whole, and of which every separate part is essential to the miraculous power of the whole. The moral significance is not the point of importance, but rather the impact of a divine word. Now there is certainly a grain of truth in the religious assumption that morality is not teachable in the same way as, for instance, arith­ metic is teachable. When, in the latter case, the main relations of the digit numbers are fixed in the memory, the rest is mere matter of com­ bination, requiring only attention. But no amount of memory work or of combination of maxims will give morality. Here the working of the sympathies and the will are absolutely essential. How is this to be ensured ? The Evangelical people, who are the lifeguard of the system, hold that it depends on a miracle of grace, and a miraculous Bible is, in their view, the best, indeed the only means for evoking that. Now, I am not going to assert that, as regards this miracle of grace, they are fundamentally wrong. At any rate, I hold they are not so wrong as those who treat of human nature as though it were wholly and utterly isolated from and independent of the divine Whole in which it lives and moves and has its being. But this expectation of grace from the mere repetition of sacred spells is unworthy of the spiritual aspirations with which it is too often associated. No; grace comes through human intercourse, and the more vivid, the more intimate, the more natural that intercourse is, the more probable is the transmission of grace. Apply this to teacher and pupils. The former is rightly expected to be the medium of a grace that touches the sympathies and moulds the wills of his pupils. But he can only discharge this function through free intercourse of mind and heart. How is that possible to him in the course of lessons which require him to pretend �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 5i a mental attitude wholly alien to his real life ? It is of no use to say that it ought not to be alien to his real life, or that he ought to be a sincere believer. There is nothing whatever in the engagement of a municipal school teacher to bind him to that, and, even if there were, the ideas of the most sincere “believers” about the Bible are now very often, indeed, identical with those held by eminent unbelievers fifty years ago. But the “ compromise ” makes no allowance for this change. And the result is that really only a minority—and, I suspect, a very small minority—of such teachers feel entirely at ease and natural in giving a Scripture lesson. How can a teacher, touched by the spirit of the age, feel at ease in teaching the life of Jesus to his class? He has, perhaps, been reading with sympathy and resistless conviction the article “Gospels” in the new Encyclopedia Biblica, edited as we have seen and largely written by eminent clergymen of the Church of England. He finds that in the judgment of the writers of this particular article—a judgment founded on evidence he cannot resist—the Gospels are a growth, rather than the work of the men whose names they bear. For the reality of the miracu­ lous events, including the resurrection, there seems to him now to be no evidence whatever of the nature usually demanded by modern historical science. And, indeed, nothing is left to him but a vision of transcendent beauty floating between earth and heaven, too pure for material solidity, and yet impossible of invention by any such minds as are reflected in the New Testament canon. The result probably is that he still keeps and still worships the Vision, as a transfiguration of a supreme manhood too great to be understood or rightly reported by disciples. I am not writing a polemic, nor yet an eirenicon. I am not, there­ fore, called upon to defend such a mental attitude as is here described. I only say that, in these times, it is one very natural to many who desire to keep both reason and emotion true. And those who go through this experience, if they have the teaching faculty, are likely to be specially quickened by that experience. The very anxieties and “searchings of heart ” they have suffered make them more sympathetic; and the spiritual heroism which prompts them to refuse the consolations of pretence gives a ring of sincerity to their utterance that tells upon children no less than on adults. But imagine such a man or woman set to give a lesson, according to the “compromise,” on the alleged birth in Bethlehem, or the feeding of the five thousand, or the walking on the sea! He must treat such things as historic facts, and is afraid lest by any chance word he should betray his real position.1 He must 1 See preface, p. viii , where reference is macle to Mr. Nevinson’s observations on this fear in his articles contributed to the Westminster Gazette. The ration­ alist teacher and the lite ot' Christ. Bondage to the letter. �52 Disappear­ ance of the spirit. To restore it get rid of insincerity. Natural morality more easily illustrated by modern instances. THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN expound the “ fulfilments of prophecy ” asserted by Matthew or Luke. He must explain away the words of Mary to the child Jesus, when she said: “Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” If questioned on the precise mode of multiplication of the baked bread and cooked fishes that fed the five thousand, he can only reply feebly that these things are a mystery, when he holds them to be fiction. The great immeasurable soul of whom he has glimpses through the preternatural transfiguration wrought by the Gospels is reduced in his inevitable teaching to an itinerant wonder-monger, who puzzled the world by a sort of holy magic. Is it strange that religion, taught after such a fashion, should be morally barren ? It may be asked, How would the position be improved by excluding the Bible ? One answer is that the moral atmosphere in many schools would be purified by the elimination of unreality and insincerity. That such evils accompany the use of the Bible in school is not the fault of the Book. It is a consequence of the conventional superstition with which it is treated. But, so long as half the population regard it as divine and infallible, while the other half believe it to be a collection of human documents, each to be taken on its merits, it is impossible to ensure sincerity and honesty in its use. If ever a time comes when it can be used with the same sort of intelligent discrimination and freedom as is claimed by university professors in teaching Cicero’s De Officiis or Plato’s Republic, it will become an exceedingly valuable handbook. But that time does not seem to be within a measurable distance now. Another answer to the above question is that if morality were taught as a part of our natural life, dependent on human experience and not on a miraculous revelation, the teacher would be more likely to bring his lessons home to the every-day life of his pupils. Which is the more likely to inspire a wholesome fear of lying—the story of Gehazi, or the account of a plague of small-pox which might have been stopped by the isolation of the first cases but for the lying denials of their relatives that there was anything wrong ? In my time it was usual to tell children that “ Don’t-care ” met a lion, and was eaten up. The warning had not much influence; but the true story of a child who walked unwarily, and fell headlong down a flight of steps, induced, at any rate for a short time, some alertness in looking to the path before us. It is no aspersion on the Bible to say that it cannot supply the place of systematic instruction in the morals of daily life. Listening to the “ explanations given therefrom in the Christian religion and morality ” by even the best elementary teachers, one cannot but feel that the knowledge of Scripture is one thing and morality another. Both teacher and taught are for the moment affecting to live in another world entirely different from this, conducted on a different method, actuated �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 53 by impossible motives, and continually corrected by miracle. The stories, the maxims, the doctrines, are items to be remembered for examinations. But they are none of them on the same plane as the child’s daily life. The notion of any practical application rarely occurs, except as a preparation for death or a key to the dream-world of heaven. In former years, when I was still a member of the School Board for Ineffectual effort to London, and much nearer in creed to the Evangelical Free Churches secure moral training’ than I am now, I was so impressed with the practical absence of under the late School systematic moral teaching from the schools that I called attention to the Board for London. subject, and obtained the appointment of a small committee to consider the question. One of the members was the late Rev. John Rodgers, Vicar of St. Thomas’s, Charterhouse, and at that time Vice-Chairman of the Board. My proposal was that a course of lessons should be based upon the summary of practical morality given by the Church Catechism in answer to the question, “ What is thy duty towards thy neighbour ? ” I thought then, as I do still, that the summary is a very good one.1 The highest classes in elementary schools are perhaps capable of receiving more definite instruction on the origin, nature, and obligations of social relationships. But for children from seven to twelve years of age it contains just the sort of practical summary of duty, in the form of a “categorical imperative,” that is adapted to their needs. Drawn out into a series of detailed lessons with ample illustrations, it would form an admirable basis for a course of moral instruction and exhorta­ tion likely to affect the life. In this conviction I went so far as to sketch the outline of such a course of lessons, which, I suppose, exists still somewhere in the archives of the extinct Board. And, as it was grounded on the Catechism, I thought myself secure of support from Evangelical Churchmen. I am glad to remember that the Rev. John Rodgers supported me. But I was sadly disappointed in the more pronounced Evangelical laymen. One of them, a most excellent man in all social and business relations, though belonging to the straitest sect of “ Low ” Churchmen, and elected to the Board entirely on account of his religiousness, declared vehemently that “ it left out everything that a Churchman cared for.” It was useless to suggest that “ everything a Churchman cared for ” could be supplied in a Churchman s own Sunday schools. The very appearance of teaching morality for its own sake, apart from the magic, symbols, and formulas of theology, was considered suspicious, and the project had to be dropped. 1 Among those who never learned this Catechism a very curious mistake is prevalent. It is supposed to urge contentment with “that state of life unto which it has pleased God to call” us, whereas, of course, the words are, “to which it shall please God to call me.” Also the word “ betters ” has been quite gratuitously taken to refer exclusively to social rank, whereas it refers just as naturally to moral worth. �54 Attempt by the Moral Instruction League to assert the rights of parents. Defeated by undenomi­ national bigotry. THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN The decision was regrettable ; but, from the point of view fixed by the “compromise,” it was perhaps inevitable. For both Churchmen and Nonconformists, having once established and endowed the Bible— and practically their common interpretation of the Bible—as the one sanction of morality recognised by the School Board, were naturally loth to imperil that settlement by any admission of merely natural ethics. But, however that may be, surely the later refusal of the same Board to allow children to be withdrawn in accordance with the Conscience Clause from Biblical instruction to receive moral lessons instead is indefensible. The facts are as follows :— A society known as the Moral Instruction League was formed before the end of last century to stimulate attention to moral teaching in schools, and to suggest what the members held to be better methods. Using a right which is presumably within the limits of the British Constitution, to influence their fellow-citizens by conversation, they visited the homes of parents having children in attendance at Board schools, and explained their ideas. They showed that by law the children could not be compelled to receive the regulation Bible teaching. They pointed to the article in the School Board Code which directs that “ during the time of religious teaching or religious observ­ ance any children withdrawn from such teaching or observance shall receive separate instruction in secular subjects.” They then suggested that the parents, if they preferred non-theological moral teaching, should withdraw their children from the Bible lessons, and at the same time request that they should, during the time of those lessons, receive separate teaching in morality. The suggestions were received by the parents with an unexpected amount of favour. As many as a hundred children, or more, were withdrawn from theological teaching in each of several schools. But so threatening a schism was met with prompt measures by the alarmed devotees of the Compromise. In the first place, separate moral instruction was refused to the children withdrawn. Instead of that, they were set to toil apart at ordinary school drudgery. Now, this appears to have been a rather hard, and even cruel, interpretation of the School Board rule; for it virtually refuses to recognise ethics as a “secular subject,” and it forces upon unwilling parents the alternative of Bible or nothing. Under such circumstances, it is easy to understand the success of the next step taken by zealots for the Compromise. The parents were visited in their homes, and the difficulty and unpleasantness of the situation created for their children were vigorously explained. The result was that the children returned to the Bible lessons; and this has probably been adduced as evidence of the unanimous desire of parents of all creeds and none to have their children taught the common faith of �THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN 55 Evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Independents. It would have been more generous, and equally in accord with their existing School Board regulations, if the Board had consented to regard natural ethics as a “secular subject,” and detailed teachers—who could easily have been found—to give the lessons to the children for whom they were asked. The refusal to do so suggests that the authorities were afraid of the experiment. Perhaps, like the authorities of Jewish orthodoxy at the first feeble beginnings of Christianity, “they doubted whereunto this would grow.” But, after all, they are ministers of law, not of their own theological views; and I cannot for a moment suppose that their legal advisers would have told them that a concession to these parents would be contrary to the law. There are some, especially among the clergy, who boldly maintain the right of every parent to have his children taught his own creed at the public expense. It is noteworthy that these extremists belong to a Church which formerly resisted fiercely the imposition of a conscience clause, and which also refused to believe that any schools were necessary except her own. But, though the new policy of the priesthood is certainly more charitable than their former action, it has the misfortune to be imprac­ ticable. Our sects are too many to allow this sort of liberality.1 But if ever there was a case in which parents were justified in asking to have their own views of moral instruction carried out, it is surely the case I have described. For they did not presume to ask that any peculiar notions of theirs on transcendental subjects should be taught to their children, nor yet any eccentricities of morality. They would probably have been quite satisfied with the practical principles of conduct set forth in the Church Catechism, as above quoted. If Bible teaching can claim to be “unsectarian,” how much more justly can the title be claimed for doctrines of morality from which not one in a million of the population would dissent! The refusal of their request was unreasonable, unjust, and ungenerous. That it would be sustained by a majority of electors zealous for the Bible even to persecution may, unhappily, be true. But it was not in the true interest of morality. It is of a piece with the policy which sets unbelievers to teach belief, and counts the conscience and heart of the teacher nothing so long as he speaks by the Book. 1 Besides, it is absurd to say that a parent has a right to have his individual opinions on transcendental subjects taught by his fellow ratepayers, and taxpayeis to his children. For what the Commonwealth seeks by its education policy is good citizens of this world, not of any unknown world. But when a parent asks that his child shall be taught at the public expense such a doctrine, for instance, as priestly absolution, he is asking not that his child shall be made a good citizen, but that he shall be taught how to secure the safety of his soul in an unknown world. „ Such, a claim is simply preposterous. If valid, it would give the “ Peculiar People a claim to have their children taught at the public expense the sinfulness of calling in a doctor. Bogus rights of parents. �VII. THE WRONG TO THE NATION Contrast of kindred States where the religious difficulty is excluded. Second in importance to the disastrous effects of a hollow compromise on the teaching of morality is its injurious influence on the development of the national intellect. In the United States, and in our own greatest Colonies, there has been an almost complete elimination of the religious question. It is true that in the older settlements of Canada friction is kept up by the survival of Catholic claims and influence. It is true also that in the United States and in Australia occasional efforts have been made by devout sectaries to disturb the settlement effected by dropping theology. We know, likewise, that in many common schools of the United States the old custom is still kept up of reading from the teacher’s desk at the commencement of school a few verses from the Bible “ without note or comment.” I am one of those who think that this comment of silence is worse than almost any other. The custom is a tribute to the survival of Puritan traditions in America. But the fact that, in spite of these traditions, the Americans have substantially left the teaching of the Bible and Christianity to the Churches is all the more creditable to their spiritual courage. At any rate, their practice affords no support whatever to the evangelical compromise in England. But these modifications of pure “secularism” have been almost a negligible quantity. It is substantially—and excluding Catholic Canada —almost exactly true that the educational policy of Greater AngloSaxondom1 has been determined solely by educational interests, and not by sectarian rivalry. I recognise, of course, that other advantages besides this blessed peace have favoured our kinsmen beyond the seas, and especially in the United States. The absence of an Established Church, the more prevalent sense of equality, and, in the great Republic, the system of common schools, which merges all class interests in the one national and patriotic interest, have, of course, conduced to the same end. But even these happy features of the new commonwealths would have been ineffectual if the religious difficulty had not been excluded. 1 This, of course, excludes the Anglo-Dutch States of South Africa. At the time of writing, the religious question in education appears to be in process of settlement for the Transvaal by the adoption of a Bill securing two and a half hours’ instruction per weekin “Bible history.” The population there has apparently not yet become as much interested in historical criticism as are the people of England. Contrasting the two populations, we may find a fresh pathos in Koheleth’s words : “ He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” 55 �iwj&i THE WRONG TO THE NA TION 57 These commonwealths have not had to balance the claims of jealous sects. They have not had to repress the enterprise of heterodox schoc? managers lest they should attract more scholars than the orthodox. They have not been tempted to minimise the number of school places needed in a district lest they should disturb sectarian monopolists who could not raise the money for enlargement. They have been privileged to consider two questions only—how many children required education, and what were the best methods of intellectual and moral culture. Whatever criticisms may be passed by our old-world scholars on the rawness of American culture, witnesses of indisputable competence—as, for instance, the correspondents commissioned to gather information for the Times newspaper on American machine manufacture—are emphatic in their testimony that the commercial and scientific progress of the States is very largely owing to the facilities for education offered from the common schools upwards. No ecclesiastical traditions, no balancing of sect against sect, not even “ pious founders,” have stood between the people and their intellectual aspirations. And this is not in the least because the American people are less bigoted than we. So far as we can judge, the Puritanical traditions of the Pilgrim Fathers still exercise a widespread and enduring influence on American religion. But, whatever may be their various beliefs, they drop them at the school door, and ignore them in their educational counsels. How different has been our experience in the old country! In 1807 ^sh^1' the then Archbishop of Canterbury stamped out Mr. Samuel Whitbread’s veto, precocious scheme of national education with a pious appeal to prejudice, pleading for Christianity in the words of a heathen poet:— Hac casti maneant in relligione nepotes. This sanctimonious, but infamous, veto1 by a titled priest against the education of a people is often quoted; but the oftener the better. Those who have studied Mr. Whitbread’s scheme know that, though it was of course far too indulgent to the Established Church, it drew the lines of a really national education. And though it would not have exorcised the demon of sectarianism any more than did the Act of 1870, yet it would have practically anticipated by sixty-three years the estab­ lishment of approximately universal elementary education. And when we think of all that the nation has lost through that long delay, it is hard to repress an indignation which, considering the sort of training received by the clergy at the very beginning of last century, may perhaps be misplaced. From that day to this the decisive consideration in every education ^nd^orlis crisis has been not how to give our children the best possible training, ^ordibut how to 17 protect first the Established Church, and next the Bible. If Church and Bible. 1 The Bill had passed the Commons, and would almost certainly have passed the Lords if the Archbishop would have allowed it. �5* Failure of Mr. Bal­ four’s Act. A lesson for the future. THE WRONG TO THE NATION the Nonconformists had not been false to their professed principles in 1870, a great part of the nation might then have adopted a wider policy which must ultimately have attracted the whole people. But at the golden opportunity their spiritual courage failed them. They dared not trust religion to the “voluntary principle” which they had invoked against the Established Church. They accepted State patronage and control for religion in the schools. After that great betrayal every School Board election became a theological battle. Questions of education were quite secondary. How many candidates gave an hour during their canvass to the best methods of teaching to read, or the most interesting modes of presenting the problems of arithmetic? The retention of the Bible, and the interpretation of “ unsectarianism,” or rather “ intersectarianism,” so as to include all evangelical doctrine, have been the two notes to which every platform has echoed. Nor has the Act of 1902 successfully evaded the difficulty as the ingenious and subtle-minded Premier of that day supposed it would. For sectarian strife has been simply transferred to County Council elections; and the balance of sects is considered more important than educational knowledge in the selection of co-opted members of the local Education Committees. In the battle of progress it is always good to fix upon some definite assertion of principle to be maintained at all costs. Supposing that principle to be chosen, as a successful general selects his point of attack, because it commands the field, victory on that point means a good deal more than the achievement of one item in a political programme. The success leavens the national mind with a new temper that suggests consequential steps of further advance. When Cobden and his associates in the Anti-Corn Law League fixed on the bread tax as their objective point of attack, they were wise in their generation. The movement was the more speedily successful because concentrated on the least defensible position of Protectionists. But when once that point was yielded, the whole case for Protection in general was practically given away; and the doctrine of customs dues for revenue alone was triumphant. In 1870 the Nonconformists had it in their power to do for the emancipation of education what Cobden and Bright accomplished for freedom of trade in 1846. The experience of religious Dissenters since the beginning of the nineteenth century might have taught them that sectarian domination, or sectarian rivalry, was hopelessly irreconcileable with freedom of educational development. Common sense dictated that the only effective way of removing the obstacle was to eliminate theology entirely from public elementary schools, and to relegate it to the free action of the Churches in accordance with the principles up to that date held by Nonconformists. The notion of any danger to religion �THE WRONG TO THE NATION L F s ’ 59 from such a policy ought to have been dissipated by the splendid examples in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. So obvious seemed the inference from such palpable facts that Mr. Gladstone himself anticipated a Nonconformist demand for a “secular” system.1 Unfortunately, he gave them credit for more faith in their own principles than they possessed. But if they had been courageous enough for consistency, tens of thousands of the generation then coming into the world would have been saved from the sectarian curse which has since - blighted their education. Let us observe what would have been gained by the exclusion of theology. In the first place, there would have been a clear and definite assertion of religious equality in the schools. Where education is carried on under State patronage and control there are only two alterna­ tive methods of maintaining religious equality in the schools. The one is to teach every creed, and the other is to teach none. In a country where a very few great denominations hold the field, as in Germany2 or Austria, the former plan is possible, or at least plausible, though even in such cases there are fragmentary sects who suffer wrong. De minimis non curat lex. In Scotland also practically the same system is possible, for Presbyterianism of one form or another is professed by nearly the whole population. In Ireland the bad traditions of Protestant supremacy have survived disestablishment: and education remains a battle-field. Now I am dealing with the case of England and Wales, not with that of Scotland or of Ireland. But, lest it should be supposed that I shirk the question of the latter country, I will say at once that, Ireland being still medieeval in religion, it would be ridiculous to try to solve the problem of either school or university education on twentieth­ century principles. Therefore no solution can possibly be found by 1 This is now too well established to need confirmation. He did not, indeed, characterise “ simple Bible teaching ” as “ a monstrosity.” But he did characterise as such the pretence of any municipal body to define what “ simple Bible teaching ” is. 2 We are sometimes pointed to the free, unhindered development of education in Germany as a proof of at least the harmlessness of a denominational, system. But between Germany and England there are very pregnant differences which make any parallel impossible. Speaking generally, religious belief is not so much a matter of individual conviction among average Germans as with us. Not that they are. less religious in sentiment. Possibly they are even more so, because of their conventional indifference about creeds. But they have not generally that idea of the duty of individual conviction which generates our innumerable sects. Their confirmations and first communions are very much a matter of social routine, like the “coming out” of girls, or the assumption of the modern substitute for the toga mnlis by boys. To such a state of feeling rate-supported catechism and scripture are of no consequence, and this indifference makes sectarianism powerless for harm to the schools. Bismarck had some trouble with Catholic obscurantists; but he gave them short shrift. Who ever heard of a German district being stinted of school places to soothe the jealousy of the Lutheran or the Reformed or the Evangelical Church ; or of a school generation being allowed to grow up in ignorance in order that the Catholics might have time to supply the needed school places ? The two alternatives. Exceptional case of Ireland. �6o Working- of the Smith compro­ mise. THE WRONG TO THE NATION ignoring the obvious fact that the Roman Church dominates the consciences of three-fourths of the people as no Church or sect whatever can claim to dominate the people of England and Wales. To insist on “simple Bible teaching” in Irish elementary schools, or on undenomi­ national universities, only adds insult to injury. The treatment must be such as is adapted to a community less advanced in religious thought than England; and “concurrent endowment” of educational institutions is inevitable. The attempt to teach the creeds of all is never satisfactory, even under the most favourable circumstances. But those cases in which it seems to be compatible with some freedom of educational development are explained by the fact that there is no desire for religious equality and no intersectarian jealousy—at least so far as the schools are concerned. They are cases of denominational supremacy by consent, in the sense that social equilibrium is found, as in Germany, to be practically secured by the recognition of a very few predominant sects in whose influence the people placidly acquiesce.1 The champions of different creeds do not fight each other over the starved minds and souls of children. In England, however, the attempt to teach the creeds of all is obviously hopeless. And those Englands beyond sea which have most fully inherited the conscientious sectarianism of the Motherland have wisely adopted the other alternative, and teach the creed of none. Let us note the consequences of our perverse attempt at an impossibility. Although the so-called “compromise”2 was devised and carried by a Churchman, he was what in the vulgar language of controversy is called a “Low Evangelical,” and, though one of the excellent of the earth, he was considered in high ecclesiastical circles as little better than a Dissenter. His evident desire to have evangelical Sunday-school teaching introduced into Board schools appealed to the weak brethren among Nonconformists. They thus gained the doubtful advantage of endowment for their common gospel. But they inflicted a grievance on Churchmen which it is impossible to explain away. For the genuine Anglican view of Christianity differs from the united Nonconformist view. And it differs from it in such a way that, if you teach the Non­ conformist view, you necessarily prejudice the pupils against the Church 1 There is nothing at all in the above passage inconsistent with what I have previously said concerning the conscience rights of minorities in a population that religiously lives up to the twentieth century. When I visited Rome under Papal government I had no scruple about conventionally “bowing my head in the House of Rimmon.” And were I to live in Ireland, which is, as I have said, mediaeval in religion, I should pay with cheerfulness either rate or tax for Catholic, Protestant, Episcopal, or Presbyterian schools or colleges. But I must repeat that there is no Chuich or denomination in England which has any colourable pretence to the position which the Roman Church holds in Ireland. 2 The resolution of the late Mr. W. II. Smith was adopted with slight modifica­ tions by so many School Boards that the case of London is typical of all. �THE WRONG TO THE NATION 61 view, although you may say nothing about it. Nonconformists are content with the Bible, and the Bible alone. Churchmen desire, also, the catechism authorised by their Church. Nonconformists are satisfied A if such explanations of Scripture are given as will set forth “the plan m. of salvation,” meaning thereby the evangelical view of the Fall, the types of Christ in Jewish history and ritual, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and justification by faith. Churchmen, on the other hand, attach great importance to the creeds and sacraments, and are naturally jealous of any teaching which tends to represent the former as sufficient without the latter. That this is actually the tendency of “ School Board religion ” can hardly with fairness be denied. 1 think, then, that Churchmen had, and still have, a grievance under local education authorities with their “ simple Bible teaching.” But the policy pursued by Churchmen to secure its removal or diminution has been a blight on the education of the country. They have resisted the building of Board schools that were urgently needed. They have insisted on keeping children in crowded and stifling rooms rather than allow the relief which would have been given by undenominational schools. They have stigmatised as “ unfair competition ” the endeavour of School Boards or municipal authorities to spend their larger resources on giving the children of ratepayers a higher education than the sects could give them. They resisted low fees, and still more free schools) as long as they could ; and when their opposition was bought out by the fee grant they managed to retain a power of exacting special fees in addition, and railed against every attempt of Liberals to rid education of such vexatious hindrances. Their influence with Parliament is enormous, and must continue to be so while the choice of electors is practically limited to a small class of moneyed men naturally susceptible to social glamour. Indeed, that influence is resistless except during the brief moments when what Edward Miall used to call “ some great blazing principle ” concentrates popular attention. Such a principle was victorious when Church rates were abolished, and when the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland was disestablished. Such a principle might have been found in a real religious equality for the schools. But the endowment of the united evangelical sects provided nothing of the kind. It made all Non­ conformist appeals to justice hollow and feeble, while it put a weapon into the hands of Churchmen which they would not otherwise have possessed. The result has been a course of reactionary legislation, the purpose of which has been to restore, or at least maintain, eccle­ siastical control, while its inevitable effect has been to obstruct and blight educational progress. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum. �VIII. CONCLUSION The next Education Bill. Should secure moral training. Objection i Material­ istic, etc. Human experience certainly spiritual, but not admittedly super­ natural. No wrong done to the orthodox conscience. In the Preface to this edition I referred to the failure of Mr. Birrell’s Education Bill, and in these concluding words I shall venture to utter a warning as to the fate of any future Bill which may be framed on the same or similar, or even analogous, lines. “Weak counsels and weak actings ”—to use Cromwell’s phrase—have brought things to this pass : that morals are the worst taught subject in our elementary schools, while by “ undenominationalists ” character and conduct, our chief educational ends, are vainly supposed to be secured by a sort of Bible teaching which Churchmen condemn, which Rationalists reject, which a large proportion of our teachers cannot sincerely give, and discussion of which even Nonconformists deprecate with a shrug. The first and essential purpose of any new Education Bill, then, should be to make obligatory in all State-aided schools a course of systematic moral train­ ing independent of any supernatural reference, and based on the experience of man. There are not so many now as there used to be who would say that this is sheer materialism and base utilitarianism. For surely human experience is not all materialistic. Indeed, “love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” belong as truly to human experience as does the desire to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. It is for the wise teacher to select the elements of human experience on which moral training is to be based. And if he selects the worse elements instead of the better, he is not fit for his post. Now, if anyone should say to me, “You have quoted the words of an Apostle; why not include them in the ordinary school lessons ?” my reply is, I am certainly most anxious to include such words as those if you will only allow them to be treated as expressions of human experience, and not of miraculous revelation. For the moment you introduce miracle or supernaturalism you let loose all the winds of controversy with which we have been buffeted in the previous pages. Nor can it be pleaded that the pious evangelical teacher would violate his conscience by treating the highest New Testament morals as matters of human experience. For, whatever they may have been in addition to that, they were at least realised in human souls and found by human experience to be the highest good. Indeed, a great deal of pulpit eloquence at the present day, and all the best Sunday-school teaching, is an appeal to common sense to try, by practising it, the 62 �CONCLUSION 63 value of Christian morals. There can therefore be no hardship what­ ever in forbidding the Christian teacher to go beyond human experience while giving moral instruction in State schools. Or, if it be rejoined that to the Christian teacher miracle and revelation are actual facts well within human experience, the reply is, firstly, that Christian teachers are so much disagreed as to the extent and interpretation of those alleged facts that no denomination can any longer claim to represent the Christianity of the nation; and, secondly, that all belief in miraculous revelation is now so widely surrendered that religious equality, nay, common justice, is impossible unless such questions are kept out of State schools. But we are told that such a scheme is impracticable. In this case, however, it is not we, but the objectors, who refuse to look facts in the face. For this so-called “impracticable” system is being actually worked with the best results by English-speaking people who, in the aggregate, number some hundred millions.1 To persist, therefore, in dogged denial of practicability is only to prove that a certain stolid attitude known as non possumus is not absolutely peculiar to Popes. Or, if it be said that the circumstances and habits of the great Republic and of our newest colonies are too different from those of the old country to allow of our adopting their practice in this case, here again the objection quietly ignores palpable fact. For we do actually during four-fifths2 of our school-time adopt the very rule that is so often said to be unEnglish, and therefore impossible. That is to say, the State makes it an essential condition of any money grant that during each half-daily session of the school there shall be two continuous hours3 devoted exclusively to “ secular ” instruction. And during these two hours, according to any strict interpretation of the law, it is illegal to devote a single moment to any religious observance, exhortation, or lesson. Now, if it is found so easy even in old English schools to give exclu­ sively secular instruction during four-fifths of school hours in all State schools of the land, why on earth should it be “ impracticable ” to do the same thing during the whole time for which public authority is responsible ? 1 The population of the United States of America is now more than eighty millions. Add New Zealand, Victoria (Australia), South Australia, together with a large part of Canada, the sum will not be far short of the figure given ; and if there should be some deficiency, every year is filling it up. The case of India is different; but it also illustrates the fact that among a population of very various, religious beliefs secular training (exclusive of morals) affords the only practicable solution of the education problem. 2 Where—if anywhere—advantage is taken of the legal permission to have religious observances, etc., at the beginning and also at the end of each school attendance, the proportion of time given to religious teaching may be slightly more. But the custom is so infrequent that the figure given above is substantially accurate. 3 It may be one hour and a half for infants ; but that does not affect the principle. Objection 2 Impractica­ bility. Solvitur anibulando. Even in England. �64 Encourage­ ment given by present system to an unreal division between things secular and sacred. Personal experience of a " secular” school. Case ot children neglected or not reached by the Churches. Repudiation in 1870 of any claim on the State. CONCL USION At this point I will make bold to say that the present arbitrary, forced, and unnatural system of a sharp time-table division does more to foster a false distinction between things secular and sacred than any State system of purely intellectual and moral training. For in New England or New Zealand the children of three equally religious neigh­ bours belonging to the Roman, Anglican, and Presbyterian communions go to school together and sit in class together without ever having the false division of things sacred and secular obtruded upon them. Having had the good fortune myself, from seven years of age to thirteen, to attend a so-called “secular” school, I know by experience what I am saying. For that exceptional school, like the “common schools”across the ocean, was frequented, even in Liverpool, by some Roman Catholics of the middle class, and I think by almost every other Christian sect, in addition to Jews. I myself, having been brought up in the strictest sect of the Methodists, may perhaps be credited with having had even at that early age some sense both of religion and morals; and I declare that the moral and even religious tone of that “ secular ” school was on the whole higher than in a clergyman’s school to which I was afterwards sent. I remember at the former school being quizzed as a “ Methody,” but it was in a very good-humoured tone; whereas, at the clergyman’s, a Jew school-fellow, being quick to resent insult to his religion, felt in honour bound on one occasion to “ demand satisfaction ” from a stronger class-fellow on that account, and got, unfortunately, rather more than he wanted. In the “secular” school—and the same thing, according to all evidence, may be said of similar schools in the New World—the fact of religious division very rarely emerged, whereas in the clerical school they were the subject of constant wrangle. To arguments such as the above, especially when based on personal reminiscences, a superficial reply is easy, but not effective, because it ignores the main question at issue. “ It is all very well,” we are told, “ for children brought up in Christian homes to hear nothing of the Bible in school. For they hear it read, and perhaps explained, morning and evening by their father. They also attend a place of worship regularly, and probably Sunday school as well. But what of the thousands of children who come from homes which have no Bible at all, or at least where it is never read?” The reply is obvious and conclusive: Caveat Ecclesia. Let those who regard the Bible as “the word of God” look to it. For the nation has distinctly and formally declared by Act of Parliament that, so far as public elementary education is concerned, it denies all responsibility for any teaching of the kind. By no statute in force is Bible reading or teaching required in the public elementary schools, although it is permitted under certain restrictions —on the express condition that no grant of money is made for it �CONCLUSION 65 out of Parliamentary funds. Not only so, but the nation emphasises its renunciation of responsibility by refusing to allow its inspectors to examine or report on the results of Biblical teaching. The plea, therefore, that, if any part of the children of the State are without Bible-teaching from voluntary sources, the State must step in and provide it, is legally estopped by the fact that the State has, for thirty-seven years past, formally repudiated any such claim. The arrangement that actually exists is an unprincipled compromise unknown anywhere else on earth, and perhaps impossible to any but the dear old land possessed by so pathetic a faith in “ muddling through.” For the teaching of the Bible is entirely voluntary: only the voluntari­ ness is a privilege not of individual ratepayers, or of individual teachers, nor yet of individual parents—for the Conscience Clause is a shamz— but only of County Councils or their Education Committees. Now, notwithstanding the awakening of thought indicated by the literature and organisations above alluded to,2 I readily acknowledge that still surviving social custom and tradition ensure at least some majority on County Councils in favour of the apparently safe generality of “simple Bible teaching.” But scarcely a ratepayer who votes for it knows what he means by it. And the interpretation has to be, not fought out—for it never is—but meanly thrown upon the teachers, with the tacit under­ standing that if, in their explanations, they offend the beliefs or super­ stitions favoured by the County Council majority, that majority will want to know the reason why. Such an arrangement may be cunning, may be “expedient ” in the very basest sense. But the Churches who think that by such a dishonest compromise they are doing their duty to neglected children, or teaching “ truth in the inward parts,” reflect shame on the faith they profess. In all reverence, I say that their nominal Lord—if I have ever understood him—would rebuke them with the words, “ Ye know not what spirit ye are of.” To such arguments I know of no reply but the ignoble plea that the “ compromise ” hushes strife, or, in other words, that it plasters over the open sore of religious schism, “saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” But surely those who know and feel what is at stake—the moral culture, the character and conduct of the English people—will no longer accept this feeble excuse for the neglect of national duty. To them the hush of theological debate—though welcome enough—will 1 This was well known to the rejectors of Mr. Birrell’s real and effective clause in 1906. That clause, in its original form, excepted from the law of compulsory attend­ ance the time during which religious instruction is given. Mr. Birrell supported this by his own experience as a Nonconformist school boy at a Church school. He “ flatly refused ” to claim exemption from Catechism, not because he differed from his father, a distinguished Baptist minister, but because he preferred to take the lesson rather than be exceptional. {Hansard, April 9th, 1906.) a See Preface to the new edition, and also pp. 5, 11—13, 54F The teach­ ing of the Bible is now voluntary; but not so as to save the rights of conscience. The policy of “ flushing up ” �66 involves the paralysis of moral teaching. Recognition of the fact by Educa­ tion Com­ mittees. The only way. National morals would gain by the “ secular ’’ system. CONCLUSION afford no sufficient compensation for the criminal neglect of our children’s training in the moral essentials of social life. For while Calvinistic and Arminian, Baptist and Low Churchman, blandly agree on “simple stories from the Old Testament,” the result is that Jacob, who impersonated nearly all the later vices of the Jews with none of their virtues, is exhibited as a type to be imitated by English children if they would please God. There are, however, signs of an awakening of the public conscience on this subject, and a considerable number of local Education Authori­ ties1 are providing for systematic moral teaching in addition to, and in many cases at a separate time from, “simple Bible teaching.” What does this mean ? It means that the Scripture lessons, as given tinder the Com­ promise, have been found inadequate for the moral ends desired. And if the truth were known, its inadequacy is the direct result of the condi­ tions under which they are given. If, therefore, the above plea be true, that the compromise hushes up controversy, the hollow truce is purchased by the exclusion from the teaching of everything that could rouse or inspire. But, indeed, the plea is not true. For Catholics of all shades cannot be, and ought not to be, satisfied with the com­ promise. And if it be retorted that neither will they be satisfied with “ secular education,” no one asks them to be satisfied with it. All they are asked to do is to accept—as they do now—some four hours daily of secular instruction from the State, and to supplement it at their own cost by their own teachers with the theological training they desire. But if objections on the ground of materialistic tendencies and of impracticability and of the sacredness of a hollow truce are proved to be futile, much more are the fears mentioned in the first words of this Essay shown to be not only groundless, but opposed to the moral and religious interests for which they are professedly concerned. For the facts adduced in Chapters V. and VI. defy contradiction. These facts, moreover, are the inevitable consequences of the moral incongruities of an educational system involving the social, political, and religious wrongs detailed in the earlier Chapters, II. to IV. Now, of those who say “ Let us do evil that good may come,” St. Paul made the severe remark, “whose damnation is just.” And, whatever the condemnation may signify, it is surely incurred by those who would encourage lying to promote truth, or who fancy that forced insincerity in the teacher can inspire “the simplicity that is in Christ.” No, no; the very first and most essential condition of improved and efficient moral training in the 1 Among these authorities are ten county councils, twenty-one borough councils, and seven urban district councils. The Education Authorities for the West Riding of Yorkshire, Cheshire, Devonshire, and Surrey have a syllabus of moral and civic instruction substantially similar to that of the Moral Instruction League. �CONCLUSION 67 nation’s schools is the relegation of all doctrine transcending human experience to the custodians of the various phases of the faith. This does not necessarily mean “ clericalism ”; for Nonconformist Sunday schools are certainly not clerical. And if any portion of our fellow­ citizens prefer clericalism, they have a perfect right to exercise their choice, provided they do not make it either a pecuniary or a moral burden on the State. Rid of such a burden, the State would be free to use all its resources, both pecuniary and moral, as it has never done yet, for the training of its children in the duties of a citizen. My argument, therefore, holds good that, so far from being a guarantee for moral training, the present permissive and quasi-voluntary system of Bible teaching in State schools actually prevents it. There is, I believe, only one other objection, which I need mention, to the proposed relegation of Bible teaching to those who believe in it, and that is the supposed overwhelming consensus of popular feeling against any such a plan. Well, the next Minister of Education who introduces a Bill may possibly have his eyes opened as to the hollowness of this assumption. My own experience suggests that as everyone is said to believe all men mortal except himself, so in this case each sensible person thinks everyone to be devoted to the great Smith compromise except himself. For over and over again have I been assured by more members of School Boards and Education Committees than memory can count that not only do they regard the present system as illogical, but they think it unfair and inconsistent with religious equality. They do not usually add that it is dishonest. For if they realised that, I will do them the justice to say that they would become “ Secularists ” at once. But they always add : “You must know that you and I are almost alone in such an opinion, and you can never carry your scheme.” Well, we shall see. But this I know, that in the evolution of heterodoxy into orthodoxy there come moments when suddenly the vast majority of people discover that they always held the hitherto discredited opinion, and on this question that moment cannot be far off. One sign of the coming change is the rapidly spreading recognition of the utter impossibility of the task we have been setting since 1870 to our Ministers of Education. And so long as the teaching of transcendental doctrines, whether supposed to be drawn from the Bible or from Church tradition, is made one of the duties of the State school teacher, the solution of the problem is far and away more difficult than that of the Sphinx’s riddle, while the consequences of failure are now likely to be, at least to the Minister of Education, analogous to the fate of the monster’s victims. The thing has always been impossible since the Toleration Act. But as misguided genius would persist in trying to square the circle long after it was mathematically shown to be an Supposed popular opposition. Growing; recognition of the im­ possibility of any other settlement. �68 Inevitable failure of any new Bill on the lines of 1906. Recent spread of rational religion. CONCLUSION irrational problem, so, notwithstanding the long-drawn agonies of the Forster Act with its reactionary amendment by Lord Sandon, and the cynical exposure by Mr. Balfour in 1902 of the real meaning of State meddling in religion, and the collapse of the final desperate effort in 1906 to secure a principle in name by surrendering it in substance, it is still possible that temporising converts, from Miallism to CowperTempleism, may beguile some unhappy Minister of Education into a fresh enactment of “ yea and nay ” in regard to religious equality in the schools. But the failure of such an attempt is as certain as that yea and nay are contradictory and mutually destructive. It may pass the House of Commons. It may even, by threats of revolution, be forced through the House of Lords. But any such settlement must be almost as shortlived as the bungle of 1902. For as that was doomed from the first by its failure to realise what is meant by religious equality among Christian sects, so any new “ compromise ” will be doomed if it stops short of extending unreserved religious equality to non-Christian people. But such religious equality will be accorded only when Parliament awakes to the fact that in passing from the nineteenth century to the twentieth we have left the domination of supernaturalism behind, and have entered upon the age of reason. If any book known to the last generation was confidently regarded as a book of facts, it was the Bible. Neither Churchmen nor educated Nonconformists are by any means agreed in so regarding it now. It is indeed a fallacy to say that they have on that account surrendered the Bible as the story of a revelation. But they have learned that the facts to which it bears witness are moral and spiritual in a much greater degree than they are historical. They are learning to treat it as a vision of spiritual evolution exhibiting not only the verities of human expe­ rience, but its illusions and unrealities as well. It is prized for its humanity rather than for its supernatural portents. In a word, it is now valued for qualities which would be impossible to an infallible book. Yet even those who take these intelligent views of the Bible are by no means agreed as to their application.1 And those who do not take such liberal views would be horrified by a proposal to trust “ simple Bible teaching,” except under the strictest safeguards, to one of their misguided brethren. But while fully conscious of this vast change, and of the controversies it stirs, we are asked to maintain, and perhaps under a new Bill to renew and continue, in State schools a system of religious instruction essentially based on the recognition of the Bible as an infallible book both of history and doctrine. 1 Of course, the so-called new views are most of them old enough. What is new is partly the fresh support found for them by recent research, and partly their acceptance to so large an extent by religious men. �CONCLUSION The result is that a large and growing number of masters and mistresses are required to teach what they do not themselves believe. Now, whether the opponents of the evangelical doctrines deduced from an infallible Bible are justified or not in stigmatising some of those doctrines as demoralising, at any rate it must be admitted that to teach to children as sacred truth what you regard as falsehood is certainly demoralising both to teacher and taught. To this, as I have insisted, is very largely due the paralysis that enfeebles moral teaching in the schools, and keeps the habits and manners of our population practically at the same level from generation to generation. The sanctimonious pretence of simple Bible belief required of teachers in all positions of the sliding scale of “ the New 1 heology ” demands either a self-con­ scious art of balancing like that of the tight-rope dancer, or a resigna­ tion to mechanical procedure by rote. In either case inspiration is impossible. Meantime this formalism or dutiful dissimulation excludes serious moral teaching in accordance with the advanced experience and needs of the age. Of course, none but a pedant would think of giving to school children a series of abstracts from scientific writers on morality. But the sense of scientific relation and proportion acquired by the teacher in his own studies may very well furnish the invisible skeleton on which his parabolic and attractive lessons on daily life are fiamed. It is not an unreasonable presumption that such lessons would be likely to bear more directly and effectively on truthfulness, cleanliness, industry, and consideration for others, than a study of Gehazi, or Ananias and Sapphira, or Mosaic camp rules, or Solomons reference to the sluggard and the ant. With regard to the last point of consideration for others, I do not dispute that a fine illustration may be found in the story of the young prophet and the borrowed axe in the Book of Kings. But it would not be morally safe unless the teacher, if he thought the floating of the axe to be fabulous, were allowed to say so. But the danger of overlooking moral flaws in beautiful Bible stories —a danger by which all we lovers of the old Book are beset—-is veil illustrated by Dr. Frank Hayward’s unreserved eulogy on the story of Joseph. “I admit,” he writes, “that the secularist should keep his eyes open, and steadily protest against the teaching of stories such as Joseph the ‘ Blagues of Egypt.’ But the objection to this story is not that it is mythological, but that it is morally pernicious. The Joseph story may be mythological, but it is morally priceless.” Is it ? Well, I admire it very much. It is—as I once heard a distinguished newspaper editor say of the Gospel narratives—“such good copy.” But when I am told that it is “ morally priceless,” I cannot forego some mild criticism. For instance, was it an amiable trait in a favourite son to be so �7o CONCLUSION Some points eager to relate the divine omens of p;s future greatness to his less morality. regarded brethren? A teacher whom—as mentioned on a previous page—I heard dealing with this point, suggested that “Joseph could not help having dreams.” True; but he could have avoided making them offensive to others. I am well aware of the absurdity of dealing thus with a relic of ancient folk-lore. But if we are seriously asked to take it as “morally priceless,” we must deal with it thus. I also heard the same teacher fumbling to find some moral element in the boy Joseph’s character to account for his divine election. But he could not find anything except “obedience to his father,” of which the evidence is Ifthe wn- scant- The one heroic moment in the story of Joseph is his resistance dent”0*' tO -P°hP^ar’s wife- And I am far from denying that, carefully related to children nearing the age of danger, the incident may be advantageously used. The reasons for his resistance concluding, “ How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God ?” are perfectly admirable. But unless the little hearers are plainly told that the whole narrative is legendary, the impression they get from it of the direction of human destiny by dreams and capricious interferences of heavenly powers, and knowledge of the future given by special favour to an arbitrary king, is not quite “morally priceless.” corneHn Again, it was no doubt astute policy in a tyrant’s vizier to take com. advantage of the seven prosperous years in order to prepare a “corner” in corn against the coming famine. But is the example “morally priceless”? “And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.” What then? A ruler whose example, on thlects was “ morallY priceless ” would surely have pitied the suffering people, people. and fed them on the most liberal terms from the king’s stored-up wealth of corn. But not so. The incomparable Joseph thought much more of dynastic interests than of the people’s welfare. Accordingly, by the interest's0 r°}al monoP°ly he first “gathered up all the money”; “and when supreme. money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan,” “Joseph said, ‘Give your cattle, and I will give you for your cattle if money fail’”; and after the cattle were all made royal property, he pressed the desperate people’s need to the bitter end by compelling them to sell themselves and their wives and children into serfdom to escape starva­ tion. Was this action “morally priceless”? Hy toMsro' On the other fiancL much is made of Joseph’s wonderful magnanimity brethren. to his cruel brothers who had sold him to the Midianites. His kindness was somewhat severe in the mental tortures it inflicted not only upon them, but upon their aged father, by the detention of Reuben and the enforced adventure of Benjamin. But when all possible credit has been allowed to his family feeling and his tears, the imagination of the �CONCLUSION child who reads the story is more fired by the exultation Joseph must have felt in the fulfilment of his dreams, and in the discovery of himself to his brothers as “ ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.” No one feels more acutely than I the incongruity of such criticism as applied to an ancient and charming myth. But when we are told that; whether mythological or not, it is “morally priceless,” the incongruity must be endured fora moment, in order that the more dangerous absurdity may be exposed. . But, after all, if the truth must be spoken, it is not really the moi al, st^utes but rather the religious, character of Joseph that is valued for purposes ^act-on? of “ simple Bible teaching.” Here was a boy from childhood chosen by God and favoured with dreams of the honour divinely intended for him. It is always supposed, though the Hebrew story does not say so, that Joseph was a very pious boy, envied by his elders not only foi his coat, but for his goodness.1 At every crisis in the narrative Joseph s good fortune is accounted for by the special providence of God. 1 bus Divmc * Potiphar “saw that the Lord2 was with him, and that the Lord made all -ward for that he did to prosper in his hand.” The narrative adds: ‘‘And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in the house and in the field.” It may very well be that by thus insisting on the “immanence” of God in Joseph and his fortunes the Jheprob-^ two writers out of whose versions of tradition the tale as we have it was compiled were using the best expressions provided by their language writers. for skill, integrity, and business enterprise. For we know that, according to Mosaic ideas, the handicraftsmen such as Bezaleel—and surely there is beauty in the belief—had all their skill in cunning works, in gold, and in silver, and in brass only because they were. “ filled with the spirit of God in wisdom and in understanding and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”3 But, unfortunately, as I think, and as ever-increasing numbers, are Modernmisthinking now, that is not the form taken by Joseph’s religion as explained tion. by teachers imbued with the evangelical traditions common to Low Church Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Independents, and Baptists. No; they inevitably describe Joseph as of the Young Mens Christian 1 There is perhaps some colour given to this—though no justification in Stephen s noble speech (Acts vii. 9). , , 2 Of course, the original word here is “ Jaliweh ; and it makes a diffeicnce, but it is not for me to point out what that difference is. I deal only with the authorised version which is used in schools. The Hebrew idea of Jahweh was not exactly the teacher’s idea of “ the Lord.” . a If rightly interpreted, this was Spinoza’s idea likewise, only with a transcendent y truer conception of God. �IN­ Its unreality. Bearing- of such con­ siderations on the coming Education Bill. Such views not irreli­ gious. CONCLUSION Association type—a very good type so far as it goes, but a recent birth of time—as pious and prayerful, and always consistent in his profession, and diligent in all religious observances. The now well-known sensi­ tiveness of the Egyptians to pollution by foreign religions is never thought of as presenting any difficulty in the way of Joseph’s court life. Nay, his “ divining cup ” and his marriage to a heathen priest’s daughter who would certainly bring her idolatries with her into his house do not seem to suggest the slightest incongruity with the Young Men’s Christian Association type. All such difficulties are ignored or explained away in order to transmute this delightful relic of old Hebrew folk-lore into a sort of ante-dated Christian biography of a pious young man, who prospered immensely because, on account of his piety, “ the Lord was with him.” It is this unreal aspect of the story, and not any “moral pricelessness,” which makes it attractive to the adherents of “the compromise.” Now, no future Education Bill permitting the seal of public authority to be attached to any such interpretations or misinterpretations of the Bible can have any chance of permanence. It matters not whether the sign of public authority be the use of local rates to pay for such teaching or whether it be the employment of a national servant, the schoolmaster, to give it; or whether it take the odious form of compulsory presence in the school during the time of such teaching under the mockery of a conscience clause, so humorously exposed by Mr. Birrell. However indirectly given, or however ingeniously concealed, the stamp of public authority on effete religious ideas condemned, or at least surrendered, by a rapidly-increasing proportion of the public is a forgery of the great seal of common consent. For the common consent does not exist, and any law that assumes it is incongruous with fact. Not only does the chaos of opinion contradict it, but the undeniable advance of knowledge condemns it. The doctrine of evolution is against such a law. Historical criticism is against it. The resurrection of Egyptian and Assyrian life confronts and rebukes it. The common sense of a generation better informed than their fathers rebels against it. And all that any good-natured Liberal Minister with a weakness for futile compromise can gain by it is a brief reprieve for an already sentenced system, and the prolongation of the infamy of a country which sacrifices its children’s intellects to the ghost of a superstition about their souls. Now, if any reader who has followed my argument from the beginning of this Essay should be able, in sincerity of conscience, to condemn these last words as the blind judgment of a materialist, I can only regret that in earlier pages I must have expressed myself badly. For it is not the judgment of a “ materialist.” It is the heartfelt conviction of one who, during a long �CONCLUSION 73 life, has cared more for religion than for anything else, and who is per­ suaded that religion cannot long survive the prevalence of insincerity and hypocrisy in the nation’s schools. If we would but faithfully apply our historic conscience to the moral utterances of the Hebrew prophets, their words would be much more valuable than they are. Certainly, considering the base expediencies, the hollow pretences, that sustain the Smith compromise, and the flagrant contradictions it impudently gives to both the spiritual and the scientific facts of contemporary life, we should tremble at the rebuke of Jeremiah: “ The prophets prophesy The Public Authority to be abso­ lutely neutral. falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so ; and what will ye do in the end thereofI” But I cannot leave the subject without observing, finally, that the present position of the Bible in the schools is typical of the general relation of religion to contemporary life and opinion. Not that I have any wish whatever for State patronage and control of any new theology. On the contrary, I have been urging all along that State and munici­ palities alike should keep out of the steam of the Medean cauldron into which the scattered limbs of old beliefs have been plunged in the expectation that they will emerge “ re-stated ”—not reinstated, but transformed. The words that I add now are only intended as an additional illustration of the absurdity of interference by either Board of Education or County Councils in the struggle for the new Reforma­ tion. For, whether their interference be on the Liberal or on the Conservative side of controversies that affect every page of the Bible as a school book, in either case they do nothing but mischief by meddling in a movement that must be spontaneous. For, again, as the old Christians said, “Force is not God’s way.” The story of Uzzah and his fate is a savage one. But it has its application to the fate of all vain­ glorious rulers, from Nero to Mr. Balfour’s late Government, who have sought to steady with rude hands the ark of transcendental religion. And if ever there was one age in which such meddling was more perilous than in any other, it must be surely our own. For, though I yield to no Archbishop, nor even to the venerable General Booth, in my conviction of the deathlessness of religion while the human race endures, its position at present is paradoxical and beyond all statecraft. The real nature of its permanent value requires some spiritual courage for its recognition; while its doubtful accidents have become idols to the superstitious. And, as always happens when form supplants substance, frank discussion is feared lest the superficiality of belief should be betrayed. Just as a guarantee against theological strife in Education Committees is sought by agreeing to treat the Bible as something which we all know it not to be, so a social eirenicon is found in a conventional acknowledgment of infallible revelation. In either Present chaos of religious opinion. �74 Makes Bible teaching' by democratic authority immoral. The New Testament and the New Theology. CONCLUSION case, acquiescence is impossible unless either by an incapacity or a deliberate refusal to recognise patent facts. Yet, so far as most of the public functions of religion are concerned, in vain, apparently, do Reverend Canons and Very Reverend Deans assure us that every book in the Old Testament, except certain of the Prophets, is of unknown authorship and compiled from ill-harmonised documents of disputable dates. In vain do they treat as mythical, fabulous, or but loosely historical every alleged fact down to the death of David, as well as every miraculous narrative that follows. Even in the pulpits, which should be first to feel the influences of these dignitaries of the Church, the Fall, the Deluge, the miraculous exodus through the Red Sea, the theophany on Sinai, and the divinely ordered massacres in Canaan, are still solemnly discussed as parts of an infallible revelation. Yet there is scarcely an intelligent, well-read man or woman among the hearers who does not know that this stolid adherence to tradition requires such defiance of the laws of evidence as would not be tolerated in regard to the disputed ownership of half-acrown. Nor do our scholarly divines offer us any better guarantee for New Testament history.1 The new Christianity does not insist on the literal historical truth of the nativity of Jesus, or of his miracles, or resurrection, or ascension. It follows the author of the Fourth Gospel, to whom the idea was more than the fact. In like manner the new reformers think they lose nothing if they keep the idea of victory by self-sacrifice as it shines out from the Gospel story. But, if I under­ stand them aright, they do not pretend that such an idea was anything new to man. They only think that in the reminiscences, part memory, part imagination, of the earliest Christians, the idea took a form which touched the common people as it had never touched them before. To the faith of the neo-Christian, therefore, it matters little that the details of the life and death of Jesus are imperfectly reported, and that of the music of his speech only a few sweet and pregnant phrases can be distinctly recalled. The evangelists, whoever they were, wTere neither magicians nor creators, and their -work is absolutely inexplicable, unless there survived through Christianity’s golden age the memory of a strong and beautiful and adorable manhood which made beholders, when they saw and heard him, think of eternal love and life and truth. To the neo-Christian the value of a spiritual vision, or of an inspiring tradition, or a combination of both, depends more upon its suggestiveness than 1 See The New Theology, by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, especially the chapter on the Incarnation of the Son of God. I expressly disclaim any intention of imputing to him more than an acknowledgment that the New Testament history is fallible, and, as regards some important events, probably erroneous. See particularly pp. 101-4 in the above-mentioned work. �CONCLUSION 75 on its correspondence with material fact. He is not, therefore, robbed of his gospel by the victory of German learning and research over oldfashioned Anglicanism. He had long ceased to look for salvation through any opus operatum of supernatural beings. He is assured of that if he is loyal to the laws of evolution by which the eternal All works out the human ideal. But he is quickened in hope and faith and practice by every concentration of moral truth in an inspiring vision. And that vision of the “ Son of Man ” which shines, though so patheti cally marred, through the pages of the New Testament like some noble but ill-kept work of genius in an ancient cathedral window, is with him always, and will be when the last fibre of dogma has been dissolved away. This digression may be pardoned if only because of a desire to show that this Essay has not been prompted by any alienation of sympathy from the spirit of the New Testament. I believe that the book will always be a source of inspiration to mankind, and that the prime origin of that inspiration lay in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. I am aware that only a small minority of religious people, as yet, are able to acquiesce in so entire a surrender of evangelical theory as that to which the learned doctors above referred to have seen their way. But, at any rate, it is notorious that the conventional view of the Bible as an infallible or absolutely authoritative book is now confined to ccremonia. services, hypocritical social intercourse, and adherents of the great Smith compromise. How much we lose by this discord between appearance and reality will only be apparent to future generations. We talk piously about the Prince of Peace, and we glorify war. We prattle about Darwin’s ideas of evolution, and we wax emotioned over a great statesman’s tribute to the “Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” We look wise when scientific lecturers explain to us the uniformity of natural law ; but when the Church thinks the season too dry it prays for a miraculous gift of rain, and when it thinks we are getting too much of that it prays for a stoppage of the gift. We read with eagerness of discoveries that carry back the arts and triumphs of civilisation at least seven millenniums before the Christian era, and then pretend to acquiesce in prayers and sermons that imply a four or five thousand year period for the whole “ plan of salvation.” Between our pious pretences and our real convictions there is a discontinuity which cuts off practical life from the real sources of inspiration still open in unwrested truth and the facts of the world’s order. And, meantime, to ensure the reign of hypocrisy in the coming age, we compel our teachers every day to instruct the rising generation in beliefs which we no longer hold ourselves. ��INDEX Churchmen’s contempt for mere morals, 53 ----- grievance a real one, xi n, 60-1 Church Times, the, consistency of, xi Civilisation, antiquity of, 23 Commonwealth, meaning and rights of, 21 Compromise of 1871, xi, xv, 10, 24 M, 41, 47, 48, 51, 54, 60, 65 ----- impossible in the future, 72 Concurrent endowment, when justifiable, 60 Conscience Clause a sham, 65, 72 Conscience, limit to its claims, 18 ----- no monopoly of “ undenomination­ alists,” 36 Conventional acquiescence stifles moral Balaam's ass, schoolmaster on, 24 inspiration, 39, 41 Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., 39, 58 Bank-holidays and moral training, 44, 45^. Cowper-Temple clause, its recent inter pretations, 30 Belief of to-day the unbelief of the past, 51 Creation, as a school lesson, 5, 6 Bezaleel, 71 Crime, juvenile, diminution of, 45 Bible, as a “classic,” vii, 44 ----- as a fetish, 44, 49 Daniel, Book of, 38 ----- and birch, 44 Democracy (now Ethical World}, letter ----- degradation by insincere use, 17, 42 ----- history necessarily, in State schools, to> 37. Disabilities, religious, 14 taught as fact, 40 Dissenters, other than orthodox, 23, 42 ----- its true value, 17, 68, 75 ----- more difficult to use in State schools Duty to my neighbour, 53 than in voluntary, 48 Education Bills, 1902, 1906, i ----- not imposed now by statute, 65 Education Bill, coming, i, 62, 68, 72 ----- rate, case against, 21 Encyclopaedia. Biblica, 13, 23 ----- see Simple ----- valued not for mere truth, but for Enfant terrible, 40 Equality, see Religious supernatural sanction, 49 ----- word of God, how far considered so Ethical Societies, 16 Evangelical Alliance, 23 now, viii, 68 Evangelical Free Churches, National Bigotry of “ undenominationalists,” 54 Council of, 24 Birrell, the Right lion. A., his Education Bill, v, vi “Fall, the,” abandonment of, viii ----- on the Conscience Clause, 65 ------------ retention of in “ syllabuses,” ix Broad Church, intolerance of, 9 Force no remedy, 44, 73 C/ESAR, things of, Nonconformists on, 33 Forster, Right lion. W. E., 16 Campbell, Rev. R. J., vii, viii »., ix, Free Church Catechism, 29 ------------ Council, 24 36, 74 n. Canada, 56 Gardner, Professor Percy, 39 Cases of conscience, ix, 5, 6, 36 Gehazi, 52, 69 “ Categorical imperative,” 53 Germany, false analogy of, 59 n. Chaos of religious opinion, 73, 74 Gibson, Rev. Dr. Monro, 24, 25 Church Catechism, its moral value, 53 Gladstone, the late Right Hon. VV. E., 59 Churches freer than State schools, 47-8 Churchmen, scholarly, Biblical criticism Glover, T. R., on spurious religious equality, vi by, 33 Abraiiam, “life of,” 28, 29, 31 Act of 1902, its significance, i, and failure, 59 Administrative nihilism, reaction against, 16 All the winners ! 44 Ananias, 69 Anti-Corn-Law League, lesson from, 58 Archbishop's, an, veto on education, 57 Athanasian Creed, Rev. R. J. Campbell on, ix Atheism, 9 n. Australia, 56, 59 77 �MORAL INSTRUCTION UNDER THE NEW EDUCATION CODE. “‘Moral Instruction’ should form an important part of every school curriculum.”—From the Board of Education's “ Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools ” figo6). “Gbe Cbilbren’s Booh of fiboral lessons,” by F. J. GOULD, will be found to be of tne greatest service to teachers. It is already in use in some thousands of Public Elementary Schools, and is giving the greatest satisfaction on all hands. THE THREE SERIES. First Series: “ Self-Control ” and “Truthfulness.” With Frontispiece by Walter Crane. 128 pp., medium 8vo, paper covers, 6d.; cloth, is. Second Series: “Kindness” and “Work and Duty.” 204 pp., cr. 8vo, cloth, 2S. Third Series: “The Family,” “People of Other Lands,” “History of Industry, Art, Science, and Religion.” 203 pp., cr. 8vo, cloth, 2s. By THE SAME AUTHOR. “Gbe Gbilbren’s plutardx” With Six Full-page Illustrations by Walter Crane. Cloth, 300 pp., 2s. 6d. net. Press Opinions: “ The work has been thoroughly well done, and should be largely used in the school, and also in the home.”—Leicester Chronicle. “ Published with a moral aim, for the illustration of which no author could be better chosen.”—Outlook. “As a gift book The Children's Plutarch would be admirable. Plutarch's Lives is a literary classic; as presented by Mr. Gould to the young people the work remains a classic.”—Midland Free Press. “ Better than any commendation of the book that I can give was the verdict of a thirteen-year-old boy to whom I gave it. He read it through at a sitting and pronounced it ‘first rate.’”—W. T. Stead, in ‘‘'‘The Review of Reviews." London: WATTS & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill Description An account of the resource Edition: New ed., rev. & enl. Place of publication: London Collation: xv,79, [1] p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Picton, J. Allanson (James Allanson) [1832-1910] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1907 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA993 N539 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible NSS Religion in the public schools Religious Education-Great Britain https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bac74f6bba313c9b2971d0a3366b0882.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=o3H9jqhbmg0QUUVxhubgjDIp37-LbZpRXnzMPv3E22fmJ1pmho6P-vDMP4PlhttIVjoUYRb-3LeTl6al2t05JzZ8ggp3ApT9qUzAGnOKshgMGGI549ONr45racJ5ARR5KFJx-ZFeIlkxfbKbvzFZqPwBCH78c7az1CzFxLzprE9Nr6oWIp65HhHRLw17lqH-J7nroPBiMFfzVONX8C2J9xmBFjYYbflVbEJbk5-wxoL-p9ZJ-AJeZRw0mRXJBSZYulBJkhdcludU-vCQNZn5R8to2uiqyIVtt0ULMpPpuWD%7E4C6UNEm71IU-EFZAS5EfL%7EOeszh7%7EPHDocOyJV-X3w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM de80925bb1f582f9d5156bbcc35a9440 PDF Text Text ® t s f i in £rn i HI s IN FAVOUR OF THE ■M. REV. JOHN BURNELL PAYNE, \A., CANDIDATE FOR THE PROFESSORSHIP OF ENGLISH LITERATURE AND HISTORY AT OWEN’S COLLEGE, MANCHESTER. �INDEX. I. Professor Birkbeck. II. E. E. Bowen, Esq. III. Rev. W. G. Clark. IV. Rev. T. L. Kinsbury. V. F. T. Palgrave, Esq. VI. H. Sidgwick, Esq. VII. C. A. Buchheim, Ph.D. VIII. H. Lee Warner, Esq. IX. Henry Jackson, M.A. X. A. Sidgwick. XI. Oscar Browning. XII. F. C. Hodgson. XIII. A. C. Swinburne. XIV. Thos. Woolmer. XV. Thos. Hodgson. XVI. A. W. Benson. XVII. T. H. Fisher. XVIII. Joseph Bickersteth. XIX. De Guingand. �Wellington College, May 12, 1866, Gentlemen, In forwarding for your inspection my Testimonials, I beg to state a few other particulars which I think may be important. I am 27 years of age, and unmarried. In 1858 I took the Degree of B.A. in the University of London, with Classical Honours. I had previously studied for two years at University College, London. The length of time since my connection with University College ceased, alone prevented my troubling the Trustees with Testimonials from my Tutors there, who were good enough to help me to gain a position as private tutor shortly after my leaving there. In 1860 I entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, which I left in 1862, on gaining a Scholarship, open to the whole University, at Downing College, In 1864 I took the Degree of B.A., and was in the Second Class in Classical Honours, First Class in the Moral Sciences Tripos. After Christmas 1864-5 I became an Assistant-Master here, and at the Christmas Ordination 1865-6 I was ordained Deacon by the Bishop of Oxford. Trusting that if I receive the honour of your selection I may deserve it, and assured that my best efforts will in that case be devoted to the service of your College, I remain, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, J. B. PAYNE, The Trustees of Owen’s College, Manchester, ��TESTIMONIALS. * I Downing College, June Is?, 1864. My dear Sir, From the opportunity I have had of forming an opinion, I believe you possess very considerable knowledge of English and General Literature, as well as the power of expressing your views with facility and clearness. I have no doubt that you would perform with much ability the duties of the office for which you are a candidate. Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, W. Ll. birkbeck, Downing Professor of Laws in the University of Cambridge. To J. B. Payne, Esq. * This Testimonial and others marked with an asterisk were presented in support of an application for the Professorship of English Literature at Lam­ peter College. B 2 �6 II * Harrow, N.W. Gentlemen, Having been informed that my friend Mr. J. B. Payne is a candidate for the Professorship of English Literature and History at Owen’s College, I have no hesitation in stating my belief that the College will be most fortunate should it succeed in obtaining his services. Everyone who has known Cambridge for the last few years must be aware of the reputation which Mr. Payne has acquired for proficiency in these and kindred subjects. I am not in a position to speak with authority on his classical attain­ ments, to which he will of course find many to do justice ; but I know him to be well versed in the literature of our own country as well as that of others, and to be, both in speaking and in writing, no mean master of the language. By his knowledge, fluency, and taste, Mr. Payne is eminently fitted for lecturing a class; and his general ability and high character will be esteemed by every student. I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, E. E. BOAVEN, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; AssistantMaster in Harrow School. HI. Cambridge. Mr. J. Burnell Payne, B.A., of Downing College, and late of Trinity, informs me that he is a candidate for the vacant Professorship at Owen’s College. I have much pleasure in stating that in my opinion he is well qualified for such an office. He has excellent abilities, and an extensive knowledge of Modern Literature, English, German, and French. As he is also able to express himself with fluency, he would, in my opinion, be an effective lecturer. W. G. CLARK, Tutor of Trinity College {Public Orator in the University'). �7 . * IV Trinity College, Cambridge. I have known Mr. Payne intimately for some years, and have great pleasure in expressing my conviction that he is eminently fitted by his literary tastes and habits, an extraordinarily wide range of reading, and his familiar acquaintance with other modern literatures beside that of his own country, to discharge with peculiar efficiency and credit the duties of the post for which he is a candidate. Having received his education partly in Germany, he has diligently availed himself of the opportunities thus afforded him of acquiring a familiar and accurate knowledge of the language and literature of that country, and his proficiency in both respects is such as even the most cultivated Englishmen very rarely attain to. T. L. KINGSBURY, Chaplain of Trinity College. N Whitehall. • Having had the pleasure of knowing Mr. J. B. Payne for some years, and having myself had considerable experience in the line of work which he is desirous of carrying on at Manchester, I think that I may, without presumption, express the opinion that he possesses more than common qualifications for a “ Professorship of English Literature, Language, and History.” In English Literature, which has more frequently been discussed between us, he seems to me to have an unusually wide and accurate range of knowledge, with a lively power of criticising what he has read. I think him a man successful in giving others the interest which he himself feels in literature, and that, as a teacher, he would be eminently likely to lead his pupils to a broad, and, at the same time, an accurate knowledge of his subject. F. T. PALGRAVE, Late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and VicePresident of the Kneller Hall Normal Training School; at present Examiner in the Education Office. �8 * VI Gentlemen, I am requested to testify to the qualifications of Mr. J. B. Payne for the Professorship of English and General Literature. I have known Mr. Payne intimately for some years, and am con­ vinced that he is unusually well qualified for such a post. His acquaintance with our own literature, especially the earlier writers, is very extensive. His knowledge of the French and German languages is accurate and complete, and his familiarity with the best writings in those languages remarkable in an Englishman. He has a sensitive perception of style, and a sound and cultivated judgment of literary merit of all kinds. He has laboriously mastered the writings of the most important thinkers in England and on the Continent, since the re-awakening of thought in Europe ; and has successfully trained his mind to take profound and philosophic views of all subjects upon which he employs it. He, moreover, combines with this capacity for wide and general views a strong interest in the individualties of different authors, and a genuine enthusiasm which would prevent the study of literature from ever becoming a dry and lifeless one in his hands. I cannot blit add, that he possesses in a high degree the power of stimulating other minds with which he comes into contact, and of communicating to them his own vivid intellectual interest. This faculty, combined with the clearness of head and readiness of expression that he possesses, can hardly fail to render him a successful teacher. I am, Gentlemen, Faithfully yours, HENRY SIDGWICK, Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. �9 VII. King’s College London, May Yith, 1866. Enjoying the privilege of a personal acquaintance with Mr. Payne, of Wellington College, I have much pleasure in bearing testimony to his high literary attainments, and to his perfect knowledge of the history and literature, not only of his own country, but also of that of Germany and France. As a further recommendation of Mr. Payne, for whom I entertain the highest respect both as a scholar and a gentleman, I beg to add that he possesses in an eminent degree a sincere devotion to the educational profession, and that he is fully acquainted with the best methods of teaching. C. A. BUCHHEIM, Ph.D., Professor of the German Language and Literature in King's College; and Examiner in German to the University of London. VIII. Rugby, May 10, 1866. My Dear Payne, I have much pleasure in being able to testify to my belief that you know more of English Literature than most of your and my contemporaries at Cambridge. If I am at all qualified to judge, your knowledge was of a very superior kind; and of this I am certain, that 1 often derived great instruction from a walk or a talk with you. Of your fitness for the place, as regards the interest you take in the subject, no one could doubt. Of your proficiency I have no doubt. Believe me, Yours sincerely, H. LEE WARNER, Fellow of S. John's College, Cambridge, Assistant Master in Rugby School. �10 IX. Having been informed that Mr. J. B. Payne, of Downing College, Cambridge, is a candidate for the vacant Professorship of English Language and Literature at Owen’s College, Man­ chester, I have great pleasure in testifying to my belief of his fitness for the post. During the last three years I have had frequent opportunities of forming an estimate of his knowledge and abilities. He has read extensively in all branches of literature : in particular he has studied vour early authors with unusual care. I well remember his acute and just criticisms upon certain of our less known poets. His own style is fluent and lively. His love of the artistic, which amounts to enthusiasm, joined with a remarkable faculty of continuous exposition and great fertility of illustration, cannot fail to interest any audience. I may add that Mr. Payne is well acquainted with the literature of Greece and Rome, and with the principal languages of modern Europe. HENRY JACKSON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. X. Rugby, May 10, 1866. Gentlemen, Mr. J. B. Payne was an intimate friend of mine during a considerable part of my residence at Cambridge, and I am there­ fore in a position to speak of his abilities not without confidence. His acquaintance with English Literature is unusually exten­ sive ; and he is at the same time possessed of a vividness and fluency in his powers of expression which cannot fail to stimulate all whom he has to teach. His critical powers are sensitive and developed; and he belongs to that small class, even among cultivated men, whose minds can be said to be really active. As a teacher of any subject he knows, he would be un­ doubtedly good; of a subject with which he is so well acquainted as English Literature he would be most excellent. Believe me, Yours obediently, ARTHUR SIDGWICK. �11 XI. Eton College, May 11. I am extremely glad to hear that my friend the Rev. J. B. P^yne is a candidate for the Professorship of English Language, Literature, and History at Owen’s College, Manchester, as, from his great knowledge of English and Foreign Literature, his cultivated taste for beauty, and his clearness and facility of expression, he appears to me admirably suited to fill such a post with credit. OSCAR BROWNING, Assistant Master at Eton College. XII. May 11, 1866. I have very great pleasure in stating that I believe Mr. J. B. Payne, who is now a Candidate for the Professorship of English Language and Literature at Owen’s College, to be exceedingly well qualified by a wide acquaintance with English Literature for that position. I believe also that his intimate knowledge of the Language and Literature of France and Ger­ many, as well as of the results of the Science of Comparative Philology, would render him highly qualified for the scientific Teaching of the English Language. F. C. HODGSON, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. XIII. I have enjoyed for some time the acquaintance of Mr. J. Burnell Payne. No man who can say the same could fail to perceive and to admire his varied and accurate knowledge, his fine and critical relish of the higher literature. Few have ever seemed to me so fit to hold, so certain to adorn, an office in which this taste and this talent would find scope at once and use. A. 0. SWINBURNE. Author of Atalanta tn Ceylon ” and u ChartelardA �29, Welbeck Street, W., May 10, 1866, I have been acquainted with the Rev. J. B. Payne for about eleven years, and, from numerous conversations during that time, believe him to possess not only an unusually extensive knowledge of English Literature, both prose and poetical, but likewise an exceedingly vivid power of expressing his own views upon the subject, and awakening a similar interest in his audience to that which he himself feels. THOS. WOOLNER, Author of “ My Beautiful Ladyf XV. May 10, 1866. Gentlemen, Though my acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Payne is of recent date, and though I have never had an opportunity of hearing him lecture, I have been frequently, in intercourse with him, been much impressed by the evidence he has incidentally given of his extensive knowledge and thoughtful appreciation of English Literature, and of the amount of reading- that he has accomplished, not in careless haste, but with profitable result. From all that I know or have heard of him, I am much disposed to believe that if he were entrusted with the Professorship to which he aspires he would speedily earn a reputation for him­ self, to the great gain of the Students and the honour of the College. I remain, Yours respectfully, W. B. HODGSON, L.L.D., Vice-President of the College of Preceptors, Examiner in the University of London, fyc. �13 XVI. May 10, 1866. The Rev. J. B. Payne has been a year and a half a Master on the Modern side of Wellington College, and now has the most important part in the administration and teaching of the Modern Classes. He is an excellent modern linguist, and is both widely read and most deeply interested in Modern Literature, English and Foreign. He is fond of teaching in itself as an art, and has most successfully cultivated it. I know, indeed, very few men whom I consider to be equally apt in catching a student’s diffi­ culties, weighing them, and meeting them by clear and lucid statement. He has great promptness, and fluency of expression, and is happy in illustration. Both by knowledge, therefore, and by cultivation, Mr. Payne appears to me to be excellently adapted for the public duties of the post which he now seeks; and at the same time his influence and example would, I am sure, be exceedingly stimulating to the private studies of his class. E. W. BENSON, Master of Wellington College, Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. XVII. Wellington College, May 11. Gentlemen, I have been associated here with Mr. Payne since he has been at the College, and have had opportunity of observing his knowledge of History, and his extensive acquaintance with English Literature ; and if conversation be any criterion for public lecturing, I can also bear witness to his great dexterity in weaving his literary knowledge into what he says to those about him. He has, besides, always had among us the reputation of an excellent teacher. I have the honour to be, Yours obediently, T. H. FISHER, Mathematical Master �14 XVIII. May 10th, 1866. The Rev. J. B. Payne, attended my lectures in the Moral Sciences in St. John’s College, and appeared to me to show not only great interest in the subject, but remarkable freshness of thought and power of expression. I believe that the Examiners for the Moral Sciences Tripos formed the same estimate of Mr. Payne’s ability from the papers which he sent up in that examination. I have little doubt that he would prove an effective lecturer. JOSEPH BICKERSTETII MAYOR M.A., Head Master of Kensington School; late Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Cambridge. XIX Mon cher Monsieur Payne, Si vous me demandez ce que je pense de votre connaissance de la langue et de la litterature Fran^aise, je repondrai a cela, toute consideration de camaraderie mise de cote, que je vous crois aussi bien verse dans la litterature Franc;aise qu’aucun de nous ; que de plus vous savez fort judicieusement en apprecier la valeur, et qu’enfin vous possedez notre langue de maniere a l’ecrire et a la parler presqu’aussi bien qu’un Francis, et qu’un Fran^ais instruit. Votre tout devout, DE GUIGNAND. Professor of French at Wellington College. �LONDON: PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SONS, st. martin’s lane. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Testimonials in favour of the Rev. John Burnell Payne, M.A., candidate for the professorship of English literature and history at Owen's College, Manchester Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Payne, John Burnell Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1864 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5682 Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Testimonials in favour of the Rev. John Burnell Payne, M.A., candidate for the professorship of English literature and history at Owen's College, Manchester), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Education https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/df7583666b81be5ee5cc4955e45e9868.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=XpGvGWNzJNb1L60GswVqUOL6K0pJIEoYp1jXx1eiDWELifvB5aADQC4Onj0bqcFqyrTomuo7gs8LWoOnkcAH9e8Hj6lA9yuRjU%7ETT1q2HaJi0i6KaBn74JgcvCfSAoTtOOBjG7WT2cQpU7WaGg3bm2P1ySLbzfJsKgFCzjpD3L7cWFHCWcO-VgLSmFc8cEgLZ3zJUVlcEzEkSBsIz46taVA5GIHxDKJZjBfCEbpM1%7EEIYPvzpIP5xpy7G5dbxjlHylQsJk0WQSnU825MJVyb9U-6M2-ZERMUa7Xf486T4iumcvwaimaw-NcrURnEggrGJsv2CZPeXnFeKMYAY4eZ1w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM e79011ab27a396496f93f167ba6335a6 PDF Text Text SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS S!MPLY_ DEFINED (FOR THE USE OF CHILDREN) St- ' 1 <■ BY ■jfelF E. L. MARSDEN •-■' ‘ ' '■ '■&\ t r' • V- [issued for the rationalist press association, limited] •a-$/Uc Bjr ' . ' -K London: WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E,C. Price Threepence �Note.—Books preceded by an X are copyright in America, and cannot be supplied to customers in that country. “ These splendid handbooks belong to an age of wonders.” f —Birmingham Gazette. HISTORY OF SCIENCE SERIES. Each about 160 pages, with Illustrations ; cloth, Is. net, by post Is. 3d. The 13 vols. post free 14s. XAstronomy (History of). By Prof. XPsyehology (History of). Vol. I: From the Earliest times to John George Forbes, M.A., F.R.S. Locke. Vol. II: From John Locke JfChemistry (History of). Vol. I: 2000 to the Present Time. By Prof J.< B. c. to 1850 A.D. Vol. II : 1850 A.D. Mark Baldwin. to Date. By Sir Edward Thorpe, C. B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S. XOld Testament Criticism (History of), By Prof. A. Duff. ^Geography (History of). By J. Scott Keltie, LL.D., and O. J. R. XNew Testament Criticism (History of). By F. C. Conybeare, M.A. Howarth, M.A. XGeolOgy (History of). By H. B. XAneient Philosophy (History of), Woodward, F.R.S., F.G.S. By A. W. Benn, author of The History of English Rationalism in XBiolOgy (History of). By Prof. L. C. the Nineteenth Century, etc. MiAll, F.R.S. XAnthropolOgy (History of). By XModern Philosophy (History of). By A. W. Benn, A. C. Haddon, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. PAMPHLETS for the MILLION. Eaeh with Coloured Cover and Portrait 1. Why I Left the Chureh. By 7. The Age of Reason. (Parts I and II only.) By Thomas Paine. 124 Joseph McCabe. 48 pp.; id. pp.; 2d. 2. XWhy am I an Agnostic ? By 8. Last Words on Evolution. By R. G. Ingersoll. 24 pp.; J^d. Professor Ernst Haeckel. 64 pp.; 3. Christianity’s Debt to Earlier id. Religions. By P. Vivian. 64 9. Science and the Purpose of pp.; id. Life. By Fridtjof Nansen, (the 4. XHow to Reform Mankind. By well-known explorer). 16 pp.; R. G. Ingersoll. 24 pp.; J^d. 5. Myth or History in the Old Tes­ 10. XThe Ghosts. By R. G. Inger32 pp.; id. tament? By S. Laing. 48 pp.; id. 6. XLiberty of Man, Woman, and 11. The Passing of Historical Christianity. By the Rev. R. Child. By R. G. Ingersoll, 48 Roberts. 16pp.; J£d. pp.; id. The Set of eleven Pamphlets post paid for Is. 2d. Special terms for quantities. (100 of any one pamphlet at half-price, plus carriage and small charge for packing.) THE INQUIRER S LIBRARY. 1, The Existence of God. By 3. The Old Testament. Joseph McCabe. 160 pp.; cloth, 9d. net, by post is. V'Z 1 By ChilEdwards. 160 pp.; cloth, 9d. net, by post is. peric 2. XThe Belief in Personal Im­ 4. Christianity and Civilization. By Charles T., Gorham. 160 pp.; mortality. By E. S. P. Haynes. 164 pp.; cloth, 9d. net, by post is. gd. het, by post is. WATTS AND CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. / , j ,71 �NEVE­ NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED FOR THE USE OF CHILDREN) BY E. L. MARSDEN ( ISSUED FOB THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED ) London: WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1914 ��FOREWORD The result of “pious” parents beginning to teach children at an early age theology, prayers, catechisms, etc., is that many children learn to use words icithout having any definite conception of their meaning. This is intellectually injurious, and as a rule azoakens a mere superstition founded to a large degree on false history. 1 have here attempted to explain in a rational manner and as simplzj as possible the meaning of a feio of those expressions zvhich children are constantly zcsizzg and hearing zcsed, words of whose meaning they have but the vaguest idea. This pamphlet is zvritten in the hope that a simple explana­ tion of some of the more comznon zoords zcsed daily izi religious instruction znay be of beziefit to the youzig, and possibly to a few of their teachers. E. L. M. May, 1914. ��SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED BIBLE TEACHING RELIGION appears to be the only subject in which teachers make no use of the most recent authorities and the latest discoveries. The practice of most Christian ministers, and of many 1 other teachers of religion, of ignoring modern Biblical criticism amounts to a scandal. Children are given the impression that the Bible is for us what it was for our ancestors. Congregations are kept in ignorance of what has taken place in historical research, textual criticism, and comparative mythology; they are not informed that, however useful and edifying as parables the old tales of the Bible may be, those tales have no claim to be treated as historically true. Knowledge and research have shown that the traditional theories about the Bible are no longer tenable ; but many children from their earliest years are given utterly false impressions on the subject. It is not honest to preach as if the Bible consists of absolutely trust­ worthy documents when scholarship, both Christian and secular, knows them to be otherwise. The old matter-of-course assumption of the divinely guaranteed accuracy of the Old Testament has dis­ appeared from the minds of the well-educated, and no well-informed person treats the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as anything but unsupported tradition. Some few years ago the Encyclopedia Biblica was issued, the purpose of which work was to ascertain the real facts and to state them. This book is the work of some of the greatest of the world’s Biblical students, and it sums up, supported by a mass of learning, the conclusions of modern criticism. A glance at the list of con­ tributors will show the large number of scholarly Churchmen who have abandoned the theory of the literal truth of the Bible. We 5 �6 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED learn from these volumes that the creation story originated in a stock of primitive myths common to the Semitic races, and is almost identical with the Babylonian myth ; that the very existence of the Old Testament patriarchs is uncertain; that the whole book of Genesis is not history, but a narrative based on older records, long since lost; that the story of Joseph was, compiled in the seventh century B.C.; that the book of Exodus is a legend; that it is doubtful whether Moses is the name of an individual or of a clan• that the alleged origin of the Ten Commandments is purely tradi­ tional ; that it is very doubtful whether David wrote any of the Psalms ; that everything in the Gospels is uncertain ; that we do not know when Jesus was born, when he died, or who was his father ; that the supposed virgin birth has no evidence in its favour; that it is impossible to separate the truth from doubtful legend and symbolical embroidery in any of the Gospels; that the accounts of the Resurrection. exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind; that the view that the four gospels bearing the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by them and appeared thirty or forty years- after the death of Jesus can no longer be maintained, nor can they be regarded as credible narratives ; that the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles is far from clear. These and a hundred other conclusions can be found in the Encyclopedia Btblica, wherein eminent Christian scholars proclaim results quite contrary to the usual orthodox teachings. Nevertheless, dogmas discarded by enlightened Christian ministers continue to be taught to our children, whereas real religion, the development and direction of the moral and spiritual feelings, is neglected to a great extent. Highly as we may prize the Bible, a system of instruction which makes it a fetish tends to degrade it, and it is much to be regretted that it should be so much misused in religious education. To treat as solemn fact every Hebrew legend and impossible miracle, to try to harmonize Old Testament fables of lust, slaughter, and deceit approved by Jehovah with the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, can do nothing but harm ; to teach a child the story of the Fall as historically true when he will soon know that man has not fallen, but gradually risen, can only unsettle his mind. If we were to exclude the idea of absolute historical accuracy in teaching the Bible, we should eliminate much unreality and insincerity from the moral atmosphere. It is not the book, but the conventional superstition with which it is treated, that is at fault. Treated with �RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 7 intelligent discrimination, it will always have its educational value, but it cannot supply the place of instruction in real religion, in the morals of daily life. Scripture is one thing, morality another. Now that many ministers of all sects admit that nearly every book in the Old Testament is of unknown authorship, and much of it is mythical and fabulous, it is time that we should protest against our children being taught that the: Fall, the Deluge, the plagues of Egypt, the massacres in Canaan, etc., are part of an infallible and divine revelation; that view is gone except for the grossly ignorant, and to cause children to regard these stories as authentic history is demoralizing both to teachers and taught. RELIGION AND THEOLOGY RELIGION is not the observance of forms and ceremonies, for men may observe these and be wholly wanting in religious life ; nor is it the belief in some particular creed, for men have held every kind of orthodox creed and yet been quite impious. Religion is a state of the heart and feelings, a state of reverence, awe, love, or dependence, according to the character of the divine object presented to the mind. Religion is the feeling, theology is the attempted explanation of that feeling; hence religion must precede theology, and they may exist independently of each other. Questions of theology, <l historical criticism ” of Scripture, and such subjects, are of undoubted importance, but are not matters of religion. The end of religious education should be the development and direction of the moral and spiritual feelings, and instruction in the morals of daily life, leading to the victory over Self. Theology is the supposed knowledge as to God and the unknown, and what man believes about supernatural beings and about those things at present inexplicable by any known laws of nature. Such beliefs should be freely discussed, but not made the subject of ridiculous quarrels, as no human being knows the truth about these matters ; and it should be remembered that man’s early theological beliefs, which we are asked to accept, were due to • thA limitations of his knowledge and experience.' "■"■L �8 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED TRUTH AND LAWS OF NATURE Truth is the most perfect knowledge attainable concerning any given .question, and such knowledge is what we depend upon for the highest ends of life. Truth is acquired by experience and study, and the only permanent truths are those of observation and inference.Formerly they were few ; but with modern scientific development they are increasing rapidly, and they stand apart from truths derived from supposed revelations. The latter’s durability is comparatively short; there are everywhere traces of extinct religions once devoutly believed. Real truths are always in harmony, not so theological truths ; time strengthens the one and weakens the other. When we seek truth, we are seeking a knowledge of that which is capable of verification and proof. In science, the truth is a statement giving a correct representation of facts; in theology, the truth is a statement supposed to be in accordance with the particular revelation which is accepted. Science appeals to facts ; theology appeals to supposed miracles, and asks us to believe in a number of events contrary to all experience, on the authority of unknown writers. “ Laws of nature” means the invariable order in which facts occur, all facts .being links in an endless chain of cause and effect; one single exception to this invariable order, and it cannot be a law of nature. Truth is founded upon laws of nature. REVELATION AND REASON In the history of the human race there have been many so-called revelations ” claiming to teach us things we should not otherwise know. Such are the Zoroastrian,. Brahman, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan; they all claim divine origin, and each condemns the others as unreliable and incomplete. In separating .what is true from what is false in these various revelations, or in .accepting one of them as the only true one, we must use our ■judgment. It follows, therefore, that our reason is a higher authority than revelation, for we cannot believe anything without �GOD 9 the approval of our reason. (What people say they believe is a different matter.) In all the revelations and bibles there are many mistakes in history and science, and numerous contradictions. Such mistakes are natural, as all these bibles are the work of man. All we can do is to follow the best light we have—our reason ; for even if it sometimes leads us into error, we have nothing better to follow. In the name of Revelation or the “ Word of God ” many of the worst crimes have been committed, and some of the world’s noblest men have either known nothing of it or disbelieved in it. Many people in this country believe that the ancient Jews were Specially favoured with a revelation ; while the Greeks, the most advanced people of antiquity, had none. If this were true, it would show that morality and intelligence are possible without revelation, and are in no way dependent upon it. Those who believe in revelation think that it makes truth known to us by “ inspiration.” If so, these questions arise: What is inspiration ? How are inspired thoughts distinguished from uninspired ? and, How did the selectors choose between genuine and spurious ? These questions have never been answered. GOD By the word “God” is meant the power which exists behind the facts of the universe. If such a power exists, its nature is unknown and unknowable. The popular idea of God is that he is a Person who created the universe, that he knows and sees every­ thing and is everywhere; also that he is just and holy. Man has made God in his own image, consequently God has grown better as man has improved in intelligence and character. The God of the savage was a savage; the God of the ancient Jews, as represented in the Old Testament, was bloodthirsty, vindictive, jealous, and petty; the God of the Christians was a being who punished the errors of this brief life with eternal torments. This is still the opinion of many Christians, but it is difficult to understand how anyone can believe this horrible doctrine. God has been known by different names in different countries—Zeus, Jove, Ormuzd, Brahm, Jehovah, Allah, among others ; he is also called the Supreme Being, �10 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED tli© Infinite, the First Cause, Nature, etc. Some people when they say God mean a person, others an idea. Belief in several Gods was the earliest belief of all nations. It is quite clear from the Old Testament that the ancient Jews believed in other Gods, of whom their God was jealous. The sun, moon, mountains, rivers, animals, almost everything, have been regarded as Gods, and men have prayed to them and sacrificed to them. As mankind advanced in knowledge the belief in Gods decreased, and now nearly all educated people believe either in one God or in none. The old argument that, as every effect must have a cause, the universe must have a cause which is God, is met by the obvious rejoinder that, if every effect must have a cause, God must also have a cause. It is just as easy or difficult to imagine a universe without a cause as a God without a cause. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated, but is a very general belief. Each man makes his own God, which word represents the highest ideal of the individual. Hence one man’s God may be better and nobler than that of another, as each man is the measure of his own ideal or God. Theologians who profess belief in an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good God have never been able to give a rational explanation of all the pain, misery, and evil which exists in the world, and some have believed that God allows an evil spirit, Satan, to tempt every­ body. If God had wished sin to abound, what more could he have done than to appoint a being to the office of tempting mankind at all times and places ? Any parent who allowed his children tli associate with bad characters would deserve censure. PRAYER Prayer is a supplication to God, or a desire for communion with him. No one prays to laws of nature or to great ideals ; prayers are always addressed to a personal God. But the idea of a God and a person is incongruous. To be a God is to be infinite ; to be a person is to be finite. Prayer originated in a desire to appease the anger or secure the favour of invisible beings. When after a long period of drought a minister prays for rain, it is in the belief that God caused the drought, and can be persuaded to discontinue it. As a drought does not last for ever, such prayers are apparently �CHRISTIANITY 11 answered. It may happen that some people are praying God to do what other people are just as earnestly praying him not to do, and such prayers imply that God is an individual ready to adapt himself to the convenience of everybody. There is no reason to believe that God has any less control over the law of gravity than over the weather, but people never pray to have the law of gravity suspended for their benefit; they know such law is inviolable, and they will stop praying about the weather when they learn that the laws governing it are equally inviolable. It is said that God demands that his creatures should continually address him in terms of glorification and endearment. Such an idea insults God ; a really great and good being would not constantly want our prayers and laudations. The idea, of course, came from the East, where sultans can only be approached with presents and salaams. Prayer makes men look for help outside themselves, and thus weakens their self-dependence. When we offer flattery, build churches, give money, etc., to obtain a favour it is an attempt to corrupt God by. bribery. It makes morality and justice of less importance than rites, prayers, and dogmas. It is inconsistent with any high ideal of God that he will be influenced by prayers and praise. Public prayer is less desirable than private prayer, as it is formal and not spontaneous, professional and not personal. Even in the New Testament Jesus is reported as saying that we should not pray in public (Matthew vi, 5-6). CHRISTIANITY It may be said that the Christian revelation has exerted more influence in the world than any other, as it has helped to shape the history of the first-class nations. This particular revelation is found in a book called the Holy Bible, divided into two parts—the Old Testament and the New Testament. It consists of sixty-six books, written by different authors at different periods in different languages and in different countries; these books were gradually collected into one volume by religious councils. The Old Testament relates the history of the Jews, their laws, customs, and wars. This history is not materially different from that of other primitive people, and there is no reason why it should be regarded as the “ Word of God.” �12 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED The New Testament consists of a number of writings collected about one hundred-and-fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ, and of these writings we have no knowledge of the authorship, with the possible exception of four letters of Paul and one of James. The titles, The Gospel according to Matthew,” etc., represent the opinion of the editors or translators ; and probably the name of an apostle was used to give the work greater authority. The apostles, expecting the world would end in their lifetime, did not write their own messages. There were many other gospels besides those in the New Testament; but they have been excluded as being doubtful—that is, they did not receive the necessary number of votes in ecclesiastical councils to be considered inspired. The books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; and as the original manuscripts from which our English Bible is said to have been translated are not in existence, we do not know that the translation is accurate. Our translation is from the supposed copies of the lost originals, which copies were produced possibly hundreds of years after the originals had been lost, so that we cannot know that the copies are reliable. The Christian revelation teaches that humanity was originally perfect, that it fell into sin, and that a select few may escape through faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. We now know that the human race has been ascending slowly, and that incarna­ tion and atonement are world-wide myths. We also realize that the idea of a guilty person pardoned through the atoning death of an innocent victim has no moral value. Christianity, in the light of modern knowledge of comparative mythology, is one member of a large family of religions (Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Mohammedan, etc.) which in one form or another are co-extensive with the history of humanity. Christianity might have led on to true religion, but has taken its place; in its petrified form it holds prisoner the forces of real religion. THE CANON OF THE BIBLE The “ canon ” of the Bible consists of those books which ecclesiastical councils have declared of divine authority; this canon has not always been the same. The earliest Christians �JESUS AND HIS TEACHINGS 13 regarded only the Old Testament as the word of God, and the Apostolic Fathers apparently did not look upon the New Testament as of equal authority with the Old. Schisms between early Chris­ tians gave rise to the idea of a canon; a generally accepted word of God was necessary, and the demand created the supply. The first reference to a canon was in the latter half of the second century. In 352 A.D. the canon of the Emperor Constantine was produced, and contained the present number of books except the book of Revelation. Many books in the Bible have been questioned at various times. Luther did not regard the book of Revelation and the Epistle of James as part of God’s word. The Roman Catholic Bible contains seventy-two books, as it includes as inspired some books that Protestants reject. Roman Catholics hold that it is the Church that gives the Bible its authority, and do not allow private interpretation of it; while Protestants look upon it as infallible, but each individual must read and interpret it for himself. The Holy Spirit does not, apparently, reveal the same meaning of the Scrip­ tures to all readers ; for, in spite of the assumed infallible revelation, all Protestants are not agreed on such important questions as Baptism, Predestination, Eternal Punishment, Atonement, and the Divinity of Jesus. Apart from the fact that the meaning of the Bible is not clear to everybody, the objection to an inspired book is that it limits the possession of truth to one people or race, and makes it a thing of the long past; it makes research needless, and gives the Church power to suppress new truth. Fortunately, the Bible’s power for harm is -decreasing now that we are beginning to regard it as the literature ■of a primitive and uninformed people. It is only worshipped as infallible by the least educated of mankind. JESUS AND HIS TEACHINGS The prevailing belief about Jesus is that he was both God and man, that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost, that he was without ■sin, that he worked miracles, and was equal to God. We have only the word of man on the subject, and, as all religions have claimed power to work miracles, there is no reason for treating the miraculous element in the life of Jesus in any other wTay than �14 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED we treat the same in the life of Buddha, Moses, or Mohammed. All our knowledge of Jesus is contained in broken records of a few months in the last year of his life. “ Towards the middle of the second century A.D. certain documents are found to be in circulation professing to describe the life of a religious teacher who had lived in a remote part of the Empire more than a hundred years before. These documents or gospels are many in number, and all of unknown authorship; they are in the possession of an obscure and fanatical sect, and many of them contain obvious absurdities. Gradually the more absurd are denounced as apocryphal, and four are retained, which, together with some letters of one of the early Christians, form the New Testament’ of future ages.” (Joseph McCabe.) With regard to these documents or records next to nothing is known. Their authors, place of origin, the motives that caused their compilation, are all matters of guesswork. The charm of the narratives, viewed as literature, is greatly due to our magnificent “ Authorized ” version. As contemporary writers are entirely silent on the subject of Jesus ; as Apostolic literature knows nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels, of his virgin birth, of his alleged miracles; as our only knowledge of him is contained in the New Testament, the utmost we are justified in thinking of Jesus is that he was a man of noble life, with a remarkable influence over his fellow-men. His undoubted sincerity in believing that he was divinely chosen to teach the people is no proof of the truth of his belief. He believed that the earth belonged to the devil, but that some day he (Jesus) would be recognized as the king of kings. “ Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” That prophecy, uttered by Jesus himself, has not been fulfilled; it was uttered about 1,900 years ago. He recognized Caesar’s authority, and advised others to do the same. He did not denounce war or slavery; but he said to his disciples : “ My peace I give unto you.” Those who called themselves Christians, however, have not lived in peace with one another, but have repeatedly waged war with one another and persecuted one another ; the worst persecutors in the world have been Christians. The teaching of Jesus is partly responsible for this, inasmuch as he said that they who did not believe on him would be damned ; and his followers, to save people from damnation, tried to compel them to become Christians. This persecution, this attempt to maintain an opinion by violence, to conquer the reason without enlightening it, has characterized the �THE CHURCH, CREEDS, AND CLERGY 15 larger part of Christian propaganda. The teachings of Jesus about love, charity, brotherhood, justice, and forgiveness, although not entirely original, embody the finest ethical code ever presented to mankind; but an attempt to make them a universal rule of conduct would in our present state of society be impracticable; no Christian shapes his life on the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. He taught that this world was of no importance, and, instead of trying to right wrong conditions here and now, he advised non-resistance to evil. He told those who wept and suffered to rejoice, for they would have their reward in another world. This teaching has consoled some people, but has prevented many from trying to right their present wrongs. It has encouraged the rich and powerful to answer the cry for justice by suggesting to the oppressed that they ought to be satisfied with the reward promised in the next world. Those in power have always encouraged religion among the poor; orthodoxy is generally on the side of the oppressors. In spite of the fact that the words of love and goodness spoken by Jesus have been an immense influence for good, his theological doctrines have caused much hatred, bloodshed, and misery. THE CHURCH, CREEDS, AND CLERGY The word “ church” originally meant an assembly or congrega­ tion, and was at first merely an organization of fellow-believers, out ■of which has gradually arisen the distinction between clergy and laymen. There are many Churches in Christendom, of which the most important is the Roman Catholic. It was organized about the time that the Roman Empire became converted to Christianity, and the Emperor Constantine, one of the worst criminals in history, was its first imperial head and protector. It soon became covetous, ambitious, partisan, and intolerant, and its domination over the ■conscience and its punishment of heretics has caused an immense amount of useless suffering. In the sixteenth century the Church was split up chiefly through Martin Luther, the principal author of the Reformation movement. The seceders from the Church of Rome were called Protestants. The Church of England dates from the time of Henry VIII, who, ■quarrelling with the Pope over a matter of divorcing his wife, founded �16 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED a new Church, of which he became master. In the past the Protestant Churches have persecuted almost as much as the Roman Church in their desire to exterminate what they looked upon as heresy. In these days, when blind belief and superstition are not regarded as a virtue, the Churches have not the power to persecute except quite indirectly. Liberal and Broad Churches exist which make little of theology and much of character, and the number of people who look upon religion as something apart from formal ritual is gradually increasing. Disagreements among believers necessitated an authoritative expression of Church doctrine; this was the origin of “ creeds,” the object of which was to enforce uniformity of belief and prevent independent thinking. The oldest Christian creed is supposed to be the Apostles’ Creed, which we know was not written by the apostles. The fundamental beliefs of this creed are those in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of the Flesh. No proofs are given; they are assumed to be true. The Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the creed of the Greek Church, the Church of England Creed (the Thirty-nine Articles), the Westminster Creed— all contain statements of belief narrow and intolerant. They tend to prevent the pursuit of truth and confine it to one sect. Our creed should be one in accord with facts, and one which keeps abreast of our growing knowledge. To subscribe to a creed thatforbids freedom of thought lowers the dignity of man, whose reason is his greatest possession. A clergyman is a man who has received Holy Orders ” from the Church. A man can become a clergyman by passing an examination and asserting his belief in the creed of the particular Church to which he applies for admission. THE EARTH AND MAN The Bible states that some six thousand years ago God created heaven and earth and all that they contain. Science teaches us that the earth is many millions of years old, and that there has been for countless ages a slow growth and gradual ascent. The origin of matter remains a mystery. Science teaches us that man is hundreds of thousands of years old, and is descended from the lower animals. In the structure and �DEATH AND IMMORTALITY 17 functions of his organs he is exactly like an animal; every bone, muscle, and organ can be paralleled in the animals ; he is composed of the same materials, and is subject to the same laws of life and death. The human embryo, before birth, passes through stages of develop­ ment when it has gills like a fish, a tail, a body covered with hair, and a brain like a monkey’s ; thus showing that man, in his long existence, has climbed through all these forms to his present state. He was not specially created, but grew slowly upwards, and his mind or reason was evolved in the same manner as his body, the struggle for existence having been the chief contributor to his development. Some people still believe that he was created “ perfect.” What they mean by “ perfect ” is probably “ as perfect as a man can be.” Had he been perfect, he could not have fallen. It is said that God permitted him to fall, and encouraged Satan to tempt him, the con­ sequence being sin, suffering, and death for all mankind. People believed these stories because their fathers and mothers believed them ; but hardly any enlightened people now hold these unreasonablebeliefs. DEATH AND IMMORTALITY Many people fear death because they think that it is the­ beginning of an irrevocable doom ; but the rational view is that it either secures happiness or ends suffering. We can conquer death by serving some noble cause in which we may live after we have passed away. When we are dead we shall not miss life, and to lose what we cannot miss is not an evil. It is popularly believed that there is a soul or spirit temporarily inhabiting the body, which soul continues to live after death; that men, but not animals, have souls ; that the body cannot live without the soul, but that the soul can live without the body. It is impos­ sible for the finite human mind to form a conception of this soul,, this spirit without form or extension. Theology teaches that at death the soul leaves the body and goes to some other world, each sect having its own view of what sort of place this other world is. The view of the Christian creeds is that only those who have thetrue faith will be happy; others will go to eternal misery. Even great and good men and women not holding the true faith will go to> �18 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED hell, according to this view. The desire for immortality, a conscious personal immortality, is almost universal ; it is an extension of the instinct of self-preservation. We know nothing of any future life, and, although the belief in it is very general throughout humanity, many general beliefs have turned out to be illusions. All we can say is that we do not know. But we can safely affirm that all that we say and do will contribute to build the world of the future, in which we shall live again as influences and examples, as moral and intellectual forces. In this sense we are certainly immortal, and the knowledge should inspire us to cultivate only what is true and noble. A future life for each personal individual is an enormous assumption to be made without proof, and yet all the alleged consolations of orthodox religion hang on this. Many people believe enough to be full of anxiety and fear, and never have complete peace ; belief to them is a source of inward unrest and alarm. For one death-bed smoothed by orthodox beliefs it is probable that hundreds have been turned into beds of torture. GOOD AND BAD ANYTHING adjusted for some purpose and efficiently accomplish­ ing that purpose is “ good when it fails in that purpose it is “ bad.” For example, a knife is good when it cuts well; a road is good when it makes travelling easy and comfortable ; a watch is good when it keeps time correctly. When a knife is blunt, a road uneven, or a watch incorrect, in each case it is “bad.” Thus efficiency is good­ ness, inefficiency badness ; and to know whether conduct is good or bad the first question to be asked is what purpose social conduct is intended to serve. Social conduct is conduct adjusted for the benefit of society, or co-operation. Conduct which tends to draw individuals closer together is good ; conduct which repels them from one another is bad. To the conduct of a single individual on a desert island, where no act of his could affect anyone but himself, the terms “ good ” and “ bad” in a moral sense would have no meaning. Man is dependent ■on the co-operation of society, and the aim of the moral code is to discourage actions injurious to social co-operation and to encourage •conduct which promotes it; therefore good and bad actions may be �THE CHIEF OBJECT OF LIFE 19 roughly defined as those which benefit or injure somebody else or society as a whole. Theologically, “ good ” and “ bad ” mean obedience or disobedience to the supposed will of some God, apart from any ethical or social value in the action itself. Adam’s crime was disobedience ; the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge was quite a capricious and arbitrary one ; no reason was given why he should not eat of it, and it was a natural thing for him to think that a knowledge of good and evil was an excellent thing to acquire. But eating the fruit, simply because it was an act of disobedience, was so great a crime that the whole human race was damned for it. Abraham agreed to commit the crime of burning his son; but because this was an act of obedience theologians hold him up as a model of virtue. We now realize that a “ good ” man is one who promotes the happiness and well-being of his fellow-creatures, and that morality does not consist in blind obedience at the expense of our conscience and reason, especially as, even assuming the existence of a God whom we ought to obey, we have no means of knowing his will. THE CHIEF OBJECT OF LIFE AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE OUR duty is to seek those things that increase and elevate life; to learn by experience (the accumulated experience of humanity as well as our own) what is right and what is wrong, good and bad. We need no revelation to tell us what is right and what is wrong; we must discover it for ourselves. Nature is the sum of all the forces which keep the world in movement; she is our first and oldest teacher. We obey her because we must. She has joined cause and consequence in such a way that every act and word bears seed. If we sow evil, we reap pain; if we sow good, we reap happiness. The reward of goodness is to be good. If we will not be good without future rewards and punishments, others will; and, by the law of the survival of the fittest, theirs will be the power of the future. What is needed is knowledge ; we must know what is for our highest good. Knowledge will give us sympathy instead of �20 SOME RELIGIOUS TERMS SIMPLY DEFINED prejudice, justice and humanity instead of oppression and greed. Knowledge will help us to make the highest use of this life, without reference to imaginary heavens and hells of which we can know nothing. In accordance with the law of evolution, we progress very slowly ; but truth will ultimately prevail, and, even if its results cause pain to some people, they must be accepted without hesitation. Man, as a rational being, will no longer accept his religious opinions without a mental conviction of their truth—a conviction demanded in every other province of knowledge. Reason and experience will replace theology, and, free from the difficulties and mysteries generated by dogmas, we shall no longer try to force our conscience and intel­ ligence to accept ancient revelations. But, although theology will die, religion will remain; not the religion which consists in singing hymns and reading bibles, in pious talk and unctuous prayers, but the religion of acting rightly and kindly. Real religion—the sense of duty arising from our relationship to some superior Power, even though the nature of that Power is unknown to us—will grow stronger. Our object in life will be to promote the well-being and happiness of our fellow creatures, and every new truth we learn will fit us better for this task. Sympathy will replace selfishness ; those tendencies injurious to social life will become weaker, those which facilitate social co-operation will become stronger. We know that all faculties and organs are strengthened by exercise and weakened by disuse. Our duty, then, is to cultivate the faculties that are social and sym­ pathetic, and to neglect those that are not. Every good act benefits not only others, but self ; for it strengthens the faculties by which it is performed. Conversely, every bad act not only injures others, but also the actor ; for it strengthens faculties which should be unexercised and allowed to die out from disuse. No churches for propitiating imaginary deities will be built, but we shall propitiate our conscience by the fulfilment of duty. No imaginary heaven will arouse hope, and no hideous phantoms of eternal hell will terrify the mind ; but we shall face the unknowable with calmness and without fear. PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Some religious terms simply defined, for the use of children Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Marsden, E. L. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 20 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Publisher's advertisements inside front cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1914 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N474 Subject The topic of the resource Religion Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Some religious terms simply defined, for the use of children), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Children NSS Religious Education https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7350d239f753092f2825d94edb82404f.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=n4c4%7EkUcxw5i-a7NxqBjxJx53vVVMKr3S1ZotA5d%7Ei6uDk-GMS5WgnU58oycpXfhbOyw54mvr4izdj-zio0TIS6ueWkFMTvgYRbWnd-86eG1aRuzJ3onh3vRmg3D9hz2abc1jV6iZeLs2uCOC6yeh9kAxMb9qFzBTruhQDDZa0UKICA3nGGsXUCptrA7qG7MPsGUJvoTwfZ-yXCfXH89VJ54Eu-nHmPGwyWSXyJiYWX5QzJLtzfcF-qQ8HN4q2TsrVCcMGO7njAxChf-76%7E7OW8PF6fQwgEOwa4OEHQGYILb2cmFtFHWdiZ7q9hTvo0o7xONyVrCrrJ7%7ERp%7Exf32vg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 37f382eb8f173c1b1dc1fe8ae5668afb PDF Text Text C( 2z5? SACRED HISTORY AS A BRANCH OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. PART I. ITS INFLUENCE ON THE INTELLECT. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price, Sixpence. �I �SACRED HISTORY AS A BRANCH OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. UGHT the teaching of Sacred History, in its tra­ ditional and biblical form, to be approved of or maintained in the primary schools of a free and pro­ gressive people 1 Such is the question which I propose to discuss. Thus stated, it does not address itself exclusively to any one nation, nor to any one Church. It is not a criticism of one denomination, nor of one school-system more than of another. It has no special reference to the religious instruction of Catholics or Protestants as such. Important and interesting for all sects and parties alike, it is addressed alike to all, and the dis­ cussion of it ought to be entirely free from party spirit and sectarian prejudice. To avoid misunderstanding, it may be well, here, at the outset, clearly to define and to circumscribe the subject proposed for consideration. The position which I am to maintain would be utterly absurd, if it were extended beyond the limits which are assigned to it by the very title of this essay. There is no question, there can be no question here, of any but the popular Sacred History,—of Biblical History as it is commonly taught O �6 Sacred History : in schools, and as we have all learned it in onr child­ hood. I declare formally that I am not to treat of the Bible, nor of Biblical History, as viewed in relation to the science of Religion, as studied in our universities, in our theological halls, and generally in the higher walks of learning, by the light of comparative philology,, of archaeology, and of all the other sciences which are now made subservient to the science of history. I most expressly restrict my subject to the now pre­ vailing popular primary teaching of Biblical History; and I shall accordingly take for reference, not this or that learned work of historical, critical, or exegetical interpretation of the Bible, but only the authorized translation of it, which every one possesses, and which is used in our schools. It will be seen that this question, though bearing closely upon the highest theological doctrines, presents itself here in a totally different relation; for it turns, in the first place and chiefly, upon a practical problem of popular education. The discussion of such a question, however various may be the opinions held regarding it, ought to be cordially welcomed by every man in a free country such as this, where true progress is universally desired. It is not difficult to discern and to state the principles by which we ought to be guided in this discussion; and there can scarcely be any dispute about these principles when stated. All must agree that education, in every stage from the lowest to the highest, ought to have a twofold purpose—the culture of the intelligence, and that of the moral conscience. Such ought especially to be the design and the aim of the primary education which addresses itself to the children of the people, among whom, in the majority of cases, it is not likely to be followed up by any other regular instruction. Before these children, who can scarcely be expected to have afterwards either the time or the means for completing �Its Influence on the Intellect. 7 or correcting the ideas which have once been inculcated on their minds, a teacher ought to say nothing, do nothing, inculcate nothing, which may not have a good effect npon the intellect or upon the heart,—nothing but what may contribute to teach them either to think aright or to act aright. To make men:-—\his is the glorious task of the teacher in modern society. To make men, is to develop, in the youths committed to his care, enlightened intellects and upright consciences. It is from this twofold point of view that we propose to consider the study of Sacred History; it is by its effects upon our two essential faculties, the intellect and the conscience, that we propose to judge it. I. The influence of Sacred History upon the DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTELLECT. Let us put ourselves in the position of a child who is being taught sacred history, and endeavour to realize and explain to ourselves the ideas of Humanity, of Nature, and of God, which will thus be conveyed to the mind of the child, in these three great depart­ ments which complete the cycle of human thought. Let us see, first, how the modern idea of humanity will harmonize with that of a sacred history. What is the meaning of this expression, sacred history ? Wherefore sacred 2 In what respect is it more sacred than other histories ? Is it that it will present to us the ideal of sanctity or holiness in action? Is it a history of the purest, the best, the most virtuous men ? This title of sacred history would be intelligi­ ble, if applied to a book which should present to our view a gallery of portraits worthy to serve as models to humanity, a series of biographies, such as those of Joseph and of Moses among the Hebrews, of Aristides, and of Socrates among the Greeks, of Cakyamouni in Hindostan, of the great Roman Stoics, of the Christian �8 Sacred History: martyrs and missionaries, of a Spinoza, of a Luther, of a Vincent de Paul, of all those in short who have lived and died for the defence of their faith, their reason, their conscience, their earnest convictions. We might thus have an admirable collection of the benefactors of the human race, of men devoted to their duty, taken impartially from all periods, from all peoples, and from all creeds. But these exalted and noble lessons are not what men call sacred history. This history is thus named, not on account of the holiness of the precepts, or of the examples which it contains, but because it is the history of a people who were not, like others, left to their own resources, of a people who received, from God himself, revelations, promises, supernatural lights, who were, in a word, the “people of God.” What idea is the child to derive from this title alone ? His first impression, if left to himself, will be that God, like men, has His favourites, His proteges; that, by an entirely unmerited choice, He honoured with a special affection and care one nation to the exclusion of all others. The child, with his simple, direct, and wholesome logic, will say exactly what Calvin said. “ Certainly,” wrote the great Reformer in his energetic freedom, “ in that God of old adopted the seed of Abraham, He has given a sufficiently clear proof that He did not love the whole human race equally. Having rejected all other nations, He loved one alone. He restricted His special love to a small number, whom He was pleased to choose from among the rest.” It is well known that, up to our own time, this theory has been frankly accepted by the theologians called orthodox. In these days, however, when it is clearly becoming impossible to maintain such a theory, a peculiar explanation has been adopted. The doctrine of absolute predestination, which Calvin consistently made the chief corner stone of the orthodox system, is now rejected by many theologians as incompatible with �Its Influence on the Intellect. 9 morality: and it is said that all nations and all men have an equal share in the love of God,—that the ■provisional and exceptional election of the Jews is not a privilege,—that Israel is chosen only as an instru­ ment, not for himself, but for the benefit of the whole human race,—as a monitor whom God employs for the general instruction of all His children. Supposing this latter interpretation to be the true one, it would in some degree be a reply to the moral objection of the Divine partiality, which we shall repeatedly find again; but it does not at all remove the historical objection, which is that the sacred history causes the child to conceive a thoroughly false idea of humanity, by the very fact that it teaches him to divide human history into two parts, the one sacred, the other profane ; the one, in which God speaks, acts, and shows Himself directly or personally on every page; and the other, in which He does not thus interfere, and in which He acts only by the operation of natural laws. Until recently, it was considered orthodox to see in ancient history, the reign of God in Israel, and the reign of the devil everywhere else; but it is now more generally thought correct to recognise a negative pre­ paration among the Gentiles, as well as a positive pre­ paration in Israel. It is thus assumed that there have been two distinct kinds of divine revelation, all the other nations having been enlightened only by the dim and indirect rays of natural light; while the Jews, on the contrary, were alone privileged to be in constant and immediate communication with God himself. See how much is implied in the mere expression—sacred history. I do not at present inquire whether this notion can be reconciled with that of divine equity; but I ask whether it can be for a moment maintained in the face of history. History now enables us to say with full assurance, that humanity is one, in all the diversity of its families; and that God, who is also One, has �io Sacred History : spoken to man always and everywhere by the same means, and in the same forms. He is the Father of all men and of all nations, and has not shown himself to some, nor concealed himself from others, any more three thousand years ago than to-day. The Jews, indeed, affirm that they received, from God himself, revelations of an entirely special and supernatural kind, which are recorded in the Bible. But the Brahmins, the Budhists, the Parsees, and I may say all the nations of the east, are no less positive in affirming the same pretension. There is not a single nation of Asia, ancient or modern, which has not its Bible, or which does not declare that it is the holy people—the chosen people of God; not one which, in support of this exceptional “ calling and election,” does not appeal to miracles, to numerous interventions of the Deity, to the testimony of thousands of their best men, and finally to books divinely inspired. When among so many Bibles, among so many Words of God, you take that of the Jews as absolutely true, and declare those of all other nations absolutely false, can you say, in all sincerity, that you have investi­ gated, with equal attention, patience, and seriousness, the claims of all these nations to this pretended revela­ tion—to this pretended office of “ special instrument ” of the Deity? Especially with reference to primary instruction, is it not manifest that neither the pupils nor the teachers are in a position to make this com­ parison between the Hebrew Bible, the Veda of India, the Avesta of Persia, the Koran of the Arabs, and the other sacred books of the East ? They are virtually forced to regard the Bible as an isolated monument, without even dreaming of the possibility of tracing the connection between the sacred codes of the various ancient religions. The children do not know, and, according to the present system, nine-tenths of them will never know, that there are as many sacred histories, and as many chosen peoples, and as many divine revela- �Its Influence on the Intellect. 11 tions, as there have been, nations in the east, and almost in all antiquity. By far the greater number, thanks to this early instruction, will probably remain, all through life, ignorant or misinformed regarding the fundamen­ tal idea of human history—the natural progressive development of all the human races, a development which each of them attributes in the first place to a miraculous revelation, but which the comparative his­ tory of civilizations shows to be governed by law's common to all, according to a general plan of divine providence. But how can the immense religious superiority of the Jews, over all other ancient nations, be explained on historical and natural grounds ? In the first place, this superiority is neither so decided nor so manifest, except to minds which are unacquainted with the study of the ancient civiliza­ tions. It is quite superfluous to say that, if we select the most beautiful of the Psalms, or the purest and most admirable pages of the Prophets, to be compared with some gross form of fetichism, or of primitive idolatry, if the Jehovah of Isaiah be opposed to the Jupiter of Lucian, our minds may well be impressed with the contrast. But take a wider view. Compare the moral precepts of the Mosaic law with those of Zoroaster, or of Manu,—the Hebrew poems with those of the Big Veda; trace and remark the analogies of almost all the prescriptions relating to manners, to legal defilements, to ablutions, to the whole system of ritual, among the Persians for example, and among the Hebrews. It will then be found that the imaginary abyss of separa­ tion has been nearly levelled up; and, instead of an immense contrast, there will remain only inequalities of various degrees. The Hebrews will have the advan­ tage upon one point, the Persians upon another, and upon a third the Hindoos, or the Egyptians. Let us, however, forget for a moment that the mono­ theism of Zoroaster is as real, if not as precise, as that �12 Sacred History: of the Hebrews; that the Persians and Parsees, no less than the Hebrews, have had a horror of any sensible representation of the Deity; that charity was recognized and preached in India at an earlier date than in Judea; that the appreciation and esteem of purity, of holiness, and of labour, were more ancient, and pro­ bably also more complete, among the Persians than among the Jews ; and that numerous passages can be quoted from the Vedas, or from the Yatpias, which would sustain, in moral sublimity, a parallel with the most admirable pages of the Bible. Let us forget for a moment all these patent facts, and many others similar, which might be noted, and let us suppose that, in religion, the Jews have had, over the rest of humanity, a clear superiority, equal to that, for example, which the Greeks have had in the domain of aesthetics. Would it be absolutely necessary, in order to explain such a difference, to place that nation out­ side of the common conditions of humanity, or to intro­ duce for them alone the supernatural into history 1 If you can explain, without any miracle, the genius of a Homer, or of a Phidias, as well as that of a Zoroaster, of a Budha, or of a Confucius, why should the same explanation not apply to the genius of a Moses or of an Isaiah ? Seriously, whether we consult our own common sense, or whether we examine the past, can we believe that this same God, who now speaks to all men in the same language, employed a few centuries ago extra­ ordinary means, to make himself known exclusively to a small Semitic tribe dwelling in Palestine, while, over all the rest of the globe, the thousands and millions of human creatures, whom He had there brought into existence, were left by Him to grope in darkness 1 If we desire to give to our children our cherished modern idea of the unity, equality, and fraternity of men of every race, and of every time, of every colour, and of every clime, is it wise or right to teach them to behold �Its Influence on the Intellect. 13 in the past some nations abandoned by God, and others enlightened by Him, a handful of elect specially sur­ rounded with miraculous cares, and all the rest,—that is to say almost the totality of the human generations, —deprived by God of these exceptional favours ? Confining ourselves to this general criticism of the dualistic character, which sacred history introduces into the notion of humanity ; let us now see whether it will give to our children better instruction upon the subject of nature, and whether it will impart to them a more correct idea of the physical than of the human world. I shall not here formally enter upon the question of the supernatural. Although perfectly convinced, for my own part, that there have never been, in any time nor in any place, more miracles than are now to be seen in our daily life, I respect and would not unneces­ sarily offend those persons who still to some extent believe in the supernatural. Thank God, history shows us, with sufficient clearness, the progress of humanity in this question. From age to age, the supernatural steadily loses ground. At the commence­ ment of civilization all is prodigy,—the thunder, the wind, an eclipse, a comet, the smallest meteor. By degrees, in proportion as men come to understand a little better the causes or the nature of such phenomena, the circle of miracle becomes narrower; until at length, as among Christians of the present day, men feel them­ selves compelled to refer miracles to a remote period of legendary antiquity, there to wait until another step of progress be accomplished, which shall cause them to be entirely renounced. Let us patiently and hopefully await, from the force of events and the development of humanity, the final fall of the few, frail, and ruinous refuges of supernaturalism which still survive. Hu­ manity moves, and is now again stirring itself; but God guides the movement, and, notwithstanding every obstacle, He will assuredly cause yet another stride on­ �14 Sacred History: wards to be taken in due time. It is only a question of time, and it is useless for us to struggle passionately against it. But, without pausing to inquire what degree of belief still generally retains its hold upon the minds of men, and judging it more useful to regard the matter from the believers’ point of view, let us seek to ascer­ tain what part ought to be assigned to miracles in education, especially in that of the children of the people. However much you may believe in miracles, I would say to a believer, yet you regard them only as exceptions. You of course acknowledge that in general the world is guided by invariable, inflexible, universal laws. Would it not be well to maintain the same position in the instruction of childhood ? Is it not necessary to insist infinitely more upon the rule than upon the exception ? In the first place, thoroughly impress upon the child that there are laws of nature; and let his mind, which is so readily inclined to fantasy, be familiarized with those laws, and accustomed to seek everywhere and always the physical explanation of phenomena. After this has been done, it will be soon enough to teach him, if you think it right to do so, that in a very small number of extraordinary cases, two or three thousand years ago, some revocations of or de­ partures from those immutable laws have taken place. If, on the contrary, at the age when his reason is still so tender, so pliant, and so unsteady, you speak to him continually of miracles and of prodigies, there must be great danger of reversing the parts, of making him take the exception for the rule, and, worst of all, of banish­ ing from his mind the idea of seeking for the rule. It ought to be borne in mind that reflection has to be learned by the child. His spontaneous conception of everything is under the figure of a material image ; and, “as he has not yet any notion of the true condi­ tions of knowledge and of certainty, his faith is in �Its Influence on the Intellect. J5 proportion to the effect produced upon his imagination, and not in proportion to the evidence. He believes in what is marvellous more easily than in what is simple. The extraordinary is not only most interesting, but also most convincing to the mind of a child. Miracle is the thing which he most readily comprehends. It is sufficient to make a strong impression upon his imagina­ tion in order to convince him. The more brilliant the colours, the more readily will his young genius be captivated therewith. Nurses know this instinctively, and hence their incredible stories often remain graven in the memories of children, while reasonable and probable narratives make little or no impression. Phantoms have a much stronger hold than realities upon the minds of children; ghosts are to them much more formidable than living men; and fantastic pic­ tures make a far stronger impression than the clear and distinct reality.” These reflections of a great modern philosopher explain how very difficult it is for a child to acquire the idea of a Nature governed by regular laws, and not by miraculous caprice. Such being the instinctive propensity of a child, must it not be injurious to the development of his reason to implant in his mind at first, as the basis of intelligence, a thick stratum of the marvellous, which cannot but tend strongly to stifle the faculty of rational reflection, of which the culture and the growth are already so difficult and so slow 1 This is precisely the danger which, in my opinion, is presented by sacred history. Taking possession, as it does, before any other history, of the still vacant mind, it widely diffuses and plants therein a taste for the miraculous, instead of furnishing an antidote to that taste already by nature so strong. Recall to mind the impressions of your childhood,— your first lessons of sacred history. You will find that these fall into two great classes, both belonging to the �i6 Sacred History: marvellous ; on the one hand legends, and on the other miracles properly so called. By legends, I mean narratives which believers them­ selves can no longer take in the literal sense, but are now constrained to regard as allegorical, while attribut­ ing to them a symbolism as profound as they may wish. Bor example, Adam and Eve are placed naked and innocent, in a delightful garden, at the centre of which two mysterious trees spread their boughs. Do you remember their magical peculiarities ? The one is the tree of life, the other gives the knowledge of good and evil. All at once a reptile, the serpent (for, do not forget, Genesis does not say that this serpent was the devil,—a personage who does not make his appearance in the Jewish religion until a very much later time;— it says merely that it was “more subtile than any of the field,” Gen. iii. 1),—the serpent, then, caused our first parents to eat the fruit of one of these trees. It was the tree of knowledge ; and you know that, as soon as they had eaten that fruit, it had indeed the effect of making them know what they had till then been ignorant of. Then, says the Bible :— Gen. iii. 22-24.—“ The Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Surely it cannot wound the religious feelings of my readers to enquire simply, whether any of them can here believe the Bible in the literal sense. Who can now be found to maintain that there really did exist two trees of which the magical fruits had these virtues, the one to make man think, and the other to render him immortal ? Who ever imagines now that the �Its Influence on the Intellect. 17 knowledge of good and evil, which we all in some degree possess, is actually derived, as Genesis says it is, from a certain fruit eaten by our first parents 1 Who can believe that God drove man out of Eden, for fear that he should steal for himself immortality, as he had already stolen knowledge ?—No one, assuredly. It is so little believed, that, among modern theologians, it is now generally thought necessary to apply a fanciful interpretation to the whole of this primitive legend. It has also been argued by some that it is impossible to determine clearly what portion of this picture ought to be taken literally, and what in a figurative sense. Perhaps so; but that is precisely the character of a myth. The phrase magical fruit, as here employed, may be objected to, because there is no such expression in the Bible; but then is not this one tree called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that other the tree of life ? These words must either signify nothing, or else they suppose qualities very different from those of ordinary trees. Doubtless you may spiritualize all this •, but then, who hinders you from doing the same with all the analogous myths of the Vedas and of the Avesta? If you were to give this story to the children, as you in reality take it your­ selves,—as a beautiful myth,—as an ancient and simple legend, enveloping a great moral truth, it might then be all right and proper. But was it necessary that God should intervene to dictate only myths ? If so, what difference, of any value, can you establish between the Word of God and mythology1? Among two neighbouring nations you find the same cosmogonic allegory under different forms more or less poetic : in the one case it shall be only an imposture, while in the other case it is celestial truth ! Is this reasonable? Without insisting upon a crowd of other myths, to which the same or similar reflections would apply, let us come to the miracles properly so called. May it not be said that the most important function B �18 Sacred History: and aim of instruction ought to be, to make children early practise the habit of putting to themselves always these two questions,—WHY ? and HOW ? It is only thus that they can acquire the knowledge that the things which they learn from their teachers or from their books, are truths and realities; and this alone is true knowledge. It is only thus that they can be educa­ tionally inspired with that thirst for the knowledge of all things real and true, which is the mainspring of human progress. It is only thus that their reasoning powers, the highest faculties of their minds, can be exercised, disciplined, trained, and developed. But will a history composed of miracles, that is to say, of things which cannot be explained—of which it is impossible to know the why and the how ;—will such a history tend to encourage or to extinguish the scien­ tific curiosity of a child ? It has, to all his questions, a stereotyped reply, which cuts short the spirit of investigation:— Why.?—Because God willed it. How? —As God willed it. It is the peculiar character of the Semitic peoples, and especially of the Jewish race, to disdain secondary causes, and to prefer always, overleaping all intermedi­ ate steps, to ascend at once to first principles, or to the great First Cause. The necessary consequence of this is a general want of relish for the detailed study of facts, for the scientific observation of nature, for comparative criticism and analysis. Ask an Arab how the grass grows, how the stream flows, what produces earth­ quakes, famines, or epidemics,-—a thousand similar questions; and he will reply to you, astonished at your ignorant curiosity,—Allah is Allah. Is not the reason and cause of everything a decree of God ? What is the use of climbing step by step in the series of secondary causes ? Why not accept the will of God as a univer­ sally sufficient explanation ? This is exactly the effect which sacred history inevi­ tably produces upon the intellect of childhood. It �Its Influence on the Intellect. J9 accustoms the mind to dispense with the laborious investigation of the how and the why, causing it to refer things directly to God without any other explana­ tion. Instead of being trained to see God in all those secondary causes and natural laws, by which He con­ stantly manifests himself to us,—instead of being made to perceive that every pathway of science leads straight up to the Author of all, the child is led, through the irregular eross-roads and by-ways of miracle, to seek God chiefly by imagination, and is hindered from learning that He is rather to be found by reason on the one hand, and by conscience on the other. Suppose that a pupil were to ask the question,— Why and how could there be a universal deluge 1—■ Instead of having imparted to him a few scientific notions as to the natural character and physical causes of the great changes and revolutions of the globe, his legitimate and wholesome curiosity will be snubbed and repulsed, and he will be instructed to behold and to wonder at the act of God, whereby “the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened,” (Gen. vii. 11). Will not that child be very much enlightened ? When the account of the appearance of the rainbow after the deluge is the Bible-lesson for the day; this might be a favourable opportunity for making the chil­ dren understand, in opposition to their natural propen­ sity for seeing miracles everywhere, that there is absolutely nothing at all supernatural about the rain­ bow, and that it was quite in the nature of things that a rainbow should be produced at the time, for example, when the rains of the deluge ceased. But listen to the explanation of the matter which they will be required to accept:— Gen. viii. 13.—“ And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth.” Gen. ix. 8-17.—“ And God spake unto Noah, and to his �20 Sacred History: sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my cove­ nant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you: . . . neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant. ... I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant be­ tween me and the earth : and it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud; . . . and I will look upon it that I may remem­ ber the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” I do not insist upon the significance of this latter clause, which, taken in its literal sense, as it must be taken by children, will represent to them God looking upon His bow in order that He may remember His covenant. The myth, which is here put in the place of natural causes, is of small importance for wellinformed persons, but the truly important consideration is that it is presented to children as an absolute fact, and that they are thus taught and accustomed to rest satisfied with merely chimerical explanations of natural phenomena. What must be the influence of a primary education, which turns thus continually upon an inexhaustible stock of marvels 1 How can we expect the intellectual faculties of our children to be awakened, confirmed and developed, if, to all their questions about the nature of things, the only reply is this,—God is God, and He is omnipotent. Master, the child will say, is it really true that there have been men who lived more than 900 years ? Is it really true that one or two men have ascended up to heaven in a chariot of fire ? That two or three others, being actually dead, have come to life again ?—What presumption to ask if these things are true ! How can you be so wicked as to doubt it ?—They are written in the Bible. Master, how can a she-ass speak?—Everything is possible to God. �Its Influence on the Intellect. 21 But that cruse of oil which never failed nor was exhausted, how was that?—God is all-powerful. And how could Jonah have been able to live three days and three nights in the belly of a fish?—My child, if the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, instead of being swallowed by it, it would still be necessary to believe it. It is thus that, while wishing to teach our children to honour God, and to believe His Word, they are in reality taught to learn nothing, but to bend their minds in passive submission to this modern and Protestant form of the worst feature of Popery,—the Bible says so, or the Bible does not say so. I have often heard it said that there is nothing which children learn more willingly than sacred history. I can easily believe it ; for, excepting fairy tales, there is nothing better suited to please their childish minds : it is so full of prodigies ! But will the recounting of prodigies convey genuine instruction to the children? Will they thus be taught to think, to reflect, to observe, and to search always for truth and reality ? Or will the influence of such teaching be exactly the reverse ? You see it is a practical question, demanding the most serious consideration. The teacher of a primary school is in the presence of children, by far the greater number of whom cannot be expected to acquire in after life any regular knowledge of the natural, physical, or mathematical sciences. It must certainly be injurious to make such children believe that one day, at the end of a battle between two Asiatic tribes, in order to con­ fer upon a Jewish captain the signal advantage of slaughtering a few more fugitives, God actually caused the sun to halt in its diurnal motion through the sky, and to stand still for “ about a whole day,” and that He moreover set to work, (for the Bible says so, and the children will take it in the most literal sense,) to “cast dozen great stones from heaven,” (hailstones) whereby more of the fugitives died than those who �22 Sacred History: were slain by the victorious Israelites. (Josh. x. 11-13.) To confirm the impression of this prodigious miracle as a literal fact upon their minds, the children will probably be reminded of another occasion, when, touched by the prayers and tears of a sick king who had been told that he was about to die, God relented so far as to promise him a supplement of fifteen years of life, and, as a sign that the promise would be ful­ filled, “ He brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz,” (2 Kings xx. 11); “So the sun returned ten degrees, by which it was gone down,” (Isaiah xxxviii. 8). What man of common sense, if he will only give the matter a serious thought, can ever be persuaded that this profusion of miracles, bidding defiance to all the conclusions of human reason, and even to the laws of mathematics, is a wholesome education for the minds of children, ignorant, credulous, imaginative, and con­ fiding, who will probably never afterwards be in a position to acquire a scientific notion of the laws of nature, and to whom therefore and henceforth, it will seem, as it did to the primitive peoples, quite natural that a miracle should, at any moment, interfere with and upset the regular course of nature ? There are, however, some teachers who, on the con­ trary, maintain that nothing is better fitted to form the intellect and to improve the mind of a child, than the study of miracles. The miraculous is, according to them, one of the best means of culture. Such a thesis can only be maintained by those who do not properly understand what a miracle is. If a child sets himself to reflect upon the miracle of Isaiah or of Joshua, how­ ever little he may have been taught of the elements of cosmography, it will immediately occur to him that, if the Sun (or the Earth) had stood still or gone backwards in space, there must have thence resulted, in instant succession, throughout vast systems of worlds, endless perturbations, huge catastrophes, universal destruction ; �Its Influence on the Intellect. 23 and, rather than, suppose such impossibilities to serve no purpose but to favour a petty Jewish king, or to complete the massacre of a troop of Amorites, a child who has been truly taught to reflect will think of these miracles exactly what you think of those of all re­ ligions, except your own. It is impossible to find any mode but one, of recon­ ciling the miraculous with good instruction ; and that is to explain it, or, in other words, to deny it; and this is what even the believers are now, in some measure, forced to do. In these days, for example, even among the orthodox, you will find very few persons who believe in the plagues of Egypt. It is not now uncommon to hear even fervent defenders of miracle explaining, that these plagues arose from natural causes which occur in Egypt every year but in smaller proportions; that frogs, lice, locusts, water resembling blood, etc., are well known there; and that the Bible narrative only shows us God giving to these facts a proportion and a fitness, which raised them to the sphere of the miraculous. Well, be it so ; but having once entered upon this path, how far are we to go ? With regard to the passage of the Red sea, the physical possibility of this famous miracle may be explained to the children by the action of the tides combined with violent winds. As to the manna and the quails it may be said that in winter innumerable flocks of quails reach the warm countries, and that the manna appears to have been the savoury fruit of a shrub which grows abundantly in thedesert of Arabia. Elsewhere, the teacher may explain to his pupils that the art of discover­ ing springs of water, and of rendering the water drink­ able, still continues to be a requisite qualification for the guide of an army or of a tribe in the sands of Arabia, etc. It is thus that some of our Protestant theologians are now disposed to treat sacred history, while others, more conservative, are ready to exclaim,—Take care what you do, to explain a miracle is to reject it, and �24 Sacred History: all the miracles hang together, so that if you reject one of them, you reject them all. Very true; and, likewise, if you adopt one of them, you adopt all the others. Human history is one great book, of which every page is full of miracles. How can the supernatural be preserved whole and entire in a single one of these pages, when it is banished with­ out hesitation from all the others? Tf God has performed miracles among the Jews, why deny that He may have done the same among the Hindoos and among the Persians, among the Celts and among the Germans, as the ancient writings of all these peoples abundantly affirm that He did ? Then you had better say at once that, in the name of science and through hatred of the supernatural, you mean to deprive us of the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments. No, this discussion has no tendency whatever to deprive you of the Bible, but only of the superstition of the Bible. Even you who profess so absolutely to revere the Bible as the “Word of God,” do you think it would be difficult to make you confess that you reject many passages of it as containing indefensible errors? Do you believe, for example, that the hare and the rabbit are ruminants ? It is not merely Moses however, it is God himself who, according to two formal texts of the Bible (I speak always of the Bible which is in every hand), directly affirms that both these animals chew the cud, (Lev. xi. 4-6; Deut. xiv. 7). If there be one single error in the Bible, there may be two, there may he ten, and we thenceforth differ from one another only about a question of number; which amounts to saying that no person can any longer maintain the absolute infallibility of the Bible; and, if it contains errors, then there is nothing, even from the believers’ point of view, to hinder us or them from regarding the supernatural as one of these errors. Upon the third point, it is often affirmed that sacred �Its Influence on the Intellect. 25 history abundantly compensates, in precious advan­ tages, for all the objections which can otherwise be brought against it. There are many who admit that it presents deficiencies and inaccuracies with regard to the knowledge of humanity and of nature, while main­ taining its entire perfection with regard to the know­ ledge of God. I do not forget that Biblical history, suitably treated from the Christian point of view, often serves admir­ ably to impress upon the children these two grand ideas, —that of the one God, and that of the living God. Even here, however, is there not some illusion ? Among the men of three or four thousand years ago, the notion of God evidently was not, could not be, that which it has become with the progress of humanity. In the earliest times of which the vestiges have been preserved to us in certain books of the Bible, it bore the stamp of a rude anthropomorphism. But, however rude it may have been, it is not we who shall forget that, in its time, anthropomorphism was a progress, and that it marked the first dawn of religious and philosophical thought. We do not at all wonder to see God humanized in the most ancient pages of this same Bible, in the later portions of which we shall find the purest and highest expression of the religious sentiment, precisely because we know that the Bible is neither an exceptional book, nor even the work of one single period ; but merely a collection of Hebrew literature from its first attempts to its highest development. In the earliest portions, everything bears the trace of a primitive social state, everything there has, so to say, the tone and the aspect of childhood; but by degrees the images change, the symbols are purified, and the worship, as well as the literature of the nation, becomes more elevated and more spiritual. If this development be taken into account, the differences which appear between Genesis, for example, and the �q.6 Sacred History: poetic writings of the later period, are not greater nor more surprising than the interval which separates the Niebelungen from Klopstock and from Goethe, or than the contrast between the “ legends of the round table ” and the works of our modern historians. If, on the contrary, this successive and progressive character be abstracted from the books of the Bible, then sacred history becomes a chaotic mixture of sublime and of rude ideas, and then it must tend, upon many points, to mislead the mind of a child. If the Bible is a human book, its anthropomorphism is not only no reproach, but must even be admired, as it is admired in the commencements of other ancient religions. When I read therein, God repents, God is angry, God forgets, and God remembers, God is glad, and God is grieved, when I read on every page, God speaks, or God appears, I easily reduce to their true value these various symbols, while fully appreciating their ingenuity or simplicity, and the beauty or the truth which they may contain. But when you give these same symbols to a child, as so many supernatural facts, derived from a book which not only is true, but which is the very Word of God, then the danger com­ mences, and it is necessary to protest against this sub­ stitution of ancient Hebrew anthropomorphism for eternal and pure truth. God is not only thus humanly personified in the Bible, but He is therein sometimes materialized to an extent which is now almost inconceivable to us, who are accustomed to contemplate Jehovah only through the light of Gospel times. For example, when Noah came out of the Ark, he offered a burnt-offering of many animals to God ; “ and the Lord smelled a sweet savour “ and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more,” (Gen. viii. 21). Would the most fervent imitators of the Biblical style now venture to employ such an expression, even under the pretext of symbolism ? �Its Influence on the Intellect. 27 It would be more than wearisome to collect here all the traces of a similar materialism, all the texts in which corporeal forms are attributed to God. Think of the burning bush; think of Sinai, where, from the midst of cloudsand of thunders, with “the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud,” God gives, with his own hand, to Moses, two tables, written, says Exodus, “with the finger of God,” (xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 16). Think especially of the prominence given to this idea,— majestic, if its poetic symbolism be understood, but extremely rude if taken literally as given in the Bible: —no man can see or hear God without instantly dying: one single people has been able to hear him, one single man has been able to see him—without perishing. Would it be easy to explain the following passages, so that they shall not have, at least for children, a sense decidedly too material ? Exod. xix. 18-24.—“And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also, which come near unto the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them........... Thou shalt come up, thou and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.” Exod. xx. 18-21.—“And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die..............And the people stood afar �Sacred History: off: and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was." Deut. v. 24-26.—“Behold, the Lord onr God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now, therefore, why should we die ? for this great fire will con­ sume us : if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, AS WE have, and lived? ” And, as a commentary upon this scene, as grand and imposing, as it is possible for an exhibition of symbols to be, addressed only to the senses through the imagination, let us see how Moses afterwards sums it up and estimates its importance:— Deut. iv. 32-36.—“ Ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it. . Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? .... Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee : and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.” Elsewhere it is not the voice, it is the sight of God which kills. It is said to have happened, in a small number of quite exceptional cases, that God has con­ sented to let himself be seen, and seen by the eyes of the flesh. These miracles are accordingly narrated to us with the greatest solemnity. One day, the seventy elders of Israel followed Moses up into “ the Mount of God.” Moses, however, alone went up to God in the mount, but the elders went up so far, that, according to the text,— Exod. xxiv. 10. 11.—“ They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his �Its Influence on the Intellect. 29 clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand : also they saw God and did eat and drink." Moses alone,—and it was this which gave him in the eyes of his people a supernatural character,-—was able to penetrate into that cloud where resided “ the glory of God,” and out of which God appeared like a con­ suming fire. God himself renders to him this testimony, that He would speak with him “ mouth to mouth" even apparently, and not in dark speeches,” (Num. xii. 8.) This peculiar privilege is repeatedly described —“The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as -a man speaketh unto his friend,” (Exod. xxxiii. 11; Deut. xxxiv. 10, &c.). Such declarations as these, and many more such might be quoted, have a character thoroughly and undeniably materialistic, if regarded as records of literal facts, and not as poetic fictions; but even these are Dot the worst. The material conception or representa­ tion of God has been carried to a degree of still more astounding grossness. Witness that passage which equals, in primitive rudeness, anything which the most barbarous nations have written about the nature of their, gods. Moses had long conversed with God, but hitherto he had not seen him. He said to God one day, “ I beseech thee, show me thy glory! ” God did not reply that his essence being incorporeal cannot be seen ; but, on the contrary, He consented to pass before Moses, and to let him hear his voice: but, added He,— Exod. xxxiii. 20-23.—“ Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and five. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by : And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.” Would it not be highly irreverent and even profane to regard this passage as a literal, and divinely inspired, �30 Sacred History: and therefore infallible record of facts ? What would be said of such a story, if it were found anywhere else than in “ the Holy Bible I ” When people and teachers come to see, in all these pretended miracles of Horeb and of Sinai, only their true character of tragic and sombre poetry, there will no longer be any question about the propriety of putting them into the hands and heads of children, any more than there is at present about the ‘ Prometheus ’ of TEschylus, or the 1 Inferno ’ of Dante, or Milton’s ‘ Paradise Lost.’ But, once more, do you not perceive what an abyss there is between admiring myths as myths, and accepting them as supernatural facts dic­ tated by God himself? Elsewhere, God is represented as a man obliged to make personal inquiry as to whether a rumour which has reached him is correct or not:— Gen. xviii. 20, 21.—“ And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” Again, men began to build a tower, whose top should reach unto heaven :— Gen. xi. 5-7.—“ And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.” And it is thus that the famous confusion of languages is explained ! Surely the specimens which I have quoted, though the series might easily be largely extended, are amply sufficient to show, to those who require such proof, that not everything in the Bible is fitted to convey to �Its Influence on the Intellect. 31 our children such a pure and spiritual notion of God as it has been customary to believe. Some one will hasten to reply:—11 But we never read these passages in the schools, we suppress them, or we suitably modify them in our lesson-hooks.”—I am fain to believe that in many cases it is so; but, whether you teach these things or not, they are never­ theless in the Bible, and are there by the same title as the most admirable passages; so that they suffice to show to us clearly, in its true aspect, the degree of civilization and of enlightenment, to which the books containing them belong. And then, although you may, in some measure, suppress such passages as bear too visibly their date upon them, you do not suppress those innumerable revelations, apparitions, or manifestations of God, of which the Bible is full, and you cannot deny that they all (excepting perhaps some of the prophecies which, moreover, do not come under the denomination of sacred history) address themselves to the senses through the imagination. From one end of the Bible to the other, God speaks to patriarchs, to judges, to kings, to warriors, to priests. Is it by the voice of conscience 1 No, it is by a vision, a “ sign,” by a miracle, by a dream. When He speaks to all his people, it is by blessings or cursings of a temporal kind. It is not from within, it is from without that He governs : it is not by love, it is by fear. Ah ! my readers, is there not still a necessity, even after so many centuries of Christianity, for a fresh and vigorous effort to extirpate that superstitious instinct, which even now makes so many people tremble at the noise of thunder and at the flash of lightning, as if God were then either more present or more to be feared than when the sun shines clearly in a serene sky ? Must we still continue to propagate, in our families or in our schools, that false idea which is the very soul of the primitive history of every nation, and of the- Jews �32 Sacred History: as of the others :—if you suffer, God is punishing you : if you prosper, God is blessing you: if an epidemic, a famine, or an earthquake ravages a country, God is angry : if the harvest is double, God is favourable : you have been victorious, then the Eternal has fought upon your side : vanquished, it is because He has abandoned you 1 One of the masterpieces of Semitic literature, which has been and must ever be in all ages admired,—the poem of Job,—presents to us the first recorded protest of the human conscience against this idea. Job is struck with plagues and afflictions, and his friends thence infer, according to the custom, that God is thus punishing him for his sin. But Job replies with indignant eloquence—“ No, I am not guilty. No, my suffering is not an expiation.” Job xiii. 15-18.—“ Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him ; but I will maintain (in the margin, prove or argue) mine own ways before him. He also shall be my salvation ; for an hypocrite shall not come before him..............Behold now, I have ordered my cause: I know that I shall be jus­ tified.” (Read also ch. xxxi. &c.). Every one knows that, at the end of the poem, God declares to the three friends that they have been wrong, and that Job’s view of the matter is correct :— Job xlii. 7.—“For ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job bath.'''' This is manifestly the chief signification and purport of the book ■, and it is to this that the attention of our children ought chiefly to be directed, if we would have them to understand what they read; instead of insisting precisely upon the one circumstance which weakens the lesson, by shewing them that, in the end, God restores to Job all his possessions, and by thus teaching them, here also, to regard material prosperity as a criterium of the divine favour. �Its Influence on the Intellect. 33 Plato, wishing to make us understand how entirely the moral life is independent of external conditions, shows to us the just man overwhelmed with sufferings, with contempt, with calumnies, and with afflictions of every kind; in the midst of which, and even upon the cross where he dies, we are taught to recognize in him the just man, the teacher of truth, the friend of God, the pattern for our imitation, and, at the same time, the most truly happy of men ! Would not this sublime lesson be worth more than hundreds of Biblical miracles for teaching our children to realize that they are more or less near to God, not in proportion to the success of their enterprises, not according to external indications of prosperity or adversity, popularity or contempt, but according to the internal testimony of their own con­ science, according to their degree of obedience to duty ? It would be absurd to look for this profound intelli­ gence of the spiritual sense of religion, in a nation or tribe at the commencement of its social development. But it is none the less absurd that, three or four thou­ sand years afterwards, it should still be imagined that we have only to reproduce, without any change, the first lispings of human thought, and to regard this reproduction as an infallible revelation. Where the notion of the Bather Almighty, revealing himself to the reason and to the conscience, has not yet acquired all its fulness, we need not wonder to find that the relations between God and man are often pre­ sented in a very imperfect fashion. Take, for example, prayer or blessing, as it appears in the first books of the Old Testament, and try to discover in these a spiritual and moral character. You will not find it any more than you will find there the God who is purely spirit and purely love. Prayer* is there, as among all the peoples of that period, a mystic spell, a sort of magic power, a cabal* And Imprecation. See the history of Balaam, Num. xxiii. 25, 26. �^4 Sacred History: istic formula. Let us look at a single specimen. It is at the crisis of a battle : Moses has not taken part in the fight, but has withdrawn to an adjoining hill, armed with his rod, and there he intercedes for his people. Exod. xvii. 11-14.—“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy ; and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon : and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side : and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.” Here again I would be the first to recognise a beauti­ ful poetic image, if the story is to be understood in the same manner as the analogous stories, which we may read in the Vedas, or elsewhere. But those who desire to make us and our children believe that the thing has actually taken place, ought to see that, if such virtue must be literally attributed to this mechanical prayer of Moses, they have no longer any right to ridicule the prayer-mills of the Budhists, or the rosaries of the Roman Catholics. But, it is said by some, this is a type, an emblem, an allegory, which we must “interpret spiritually.” Be it so, but who hinders you from interpreting spiritually all the similar imagery, which abounds in the other religious and mythological books of antiquity? If you have so much indulgence for the rudest allegories of Hebrew legend, whence comes your severity or con­ tempt for the most beautiful and symbolical stories of Greek, Hindoo, or Scandinavian legend ? God speaks, God appears in person, God dictates a book ! and that book contains pages which, in order to be accepted by reason, require to be “ spiritualized,” neither more nor less than those of Hesiod, of the Vedas, or of the Eddas! �Its Influence on the Intellect. 35 The truth, is that, among all primitive peoples, prayer, blessing, and cursing have a peculiar virtue, a mysterious influence, a magic power. Of this the history of Isaac is one of the clearest examples. The old man, wishing and intending to bless Esau, is the dupe of a coarse imposition; and the words which, in his thought, he addresses to Esau, fall, unknown to him, upon the ears of Jacob. When Esau returns from his hunting, to which he had been sent by his father himself, Isaac, astonished and trembling, says to him :— Gen. xxvii. 33-37.—“ Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing........... I have blessed him, yea, and he shall be blessed............ I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son ? ” Can it be denied in presence of words so clear, that, for the Isaac of Genesis, the blessing was a kind of talisman or spell, an enchanted formula, consisting in the words, not in the thought, and having a virtue equally independent of the intention of him who gave it, and of the merit of him who received it 1 A stolen blessing was not on that account the less valid I How can all this be explained to children 1 But an explanation is not withheld, we have often heard and read it, as follows :—Isaac knew very well that, before the birth of the twin brothers, God had said to Rebecca, “ the elder shall serve the younger.” Moreover, when the blessing had been given to Jacob, Isaac felt that it was, notwithstanding the imposture of his son, an accomplished fact, which he did not feel himself at liberty to undo, and which had acquired, by its very accomplishment, a providential character. The whole was the result of a divine decree, and this was perceived by the conscience of Isaac at the very moment when the act of blessing was consummated. �36 Sacred History: We frankly confess that, in morality no less than in good sense, this incredible theory, of an accomplished fact which acquires by its very accomplishment a provi­ dential character, appears to us even more deficient, if that be possible, than the explanation of the biblical Isaac. “ Thy brother hath come with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing, I have blessed him, yea, and he shall be blessed.” Samson is again another example, among a thousand, of these false and rude ideas, regarding the relations between God and man. Here it is neither a prayer nor a blessing, but a vow, in virtue of which the hair of Samson’s head (orthodox theologians believe it still), was the thing, the charm, or the talisman, wherein his supernatural strength lay ! Samson keeps company with a woman of loose character, (Judges xvi.); but that does not in the smallest degree deprive him of the divine favour attached to his hair. His head being cropped, he loses the distinctive blessing of God; but his hair grows again, and with it comes back the divine bless­ ing. It is impossible to see anything else in the text, unless it be put there by force; for, immediately before narrating the last exploit of Samson, the Bible explains to us how he has regained his strength by telling us :— Judges xvi. 22.—“ Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven.” What is the profound religious idea which we may hope, without sophistry, to derive from this lesson, for the improvement of the minds or the hearts of our children ? Explain it as you may, Samson will always be for them only the Jewish Hercules ; and, I confess it, I greatly prefer for their instruction the Hercules of the Greeks. The latter, at least, will not now teach them to think that God—the true God, the God whom they themselves ought to worship—has actually figured �Its Influence on the Intellect. y] in scenes and anecdotes, which, like those about Samson, are trifling, superstitious, and absurd. In conclusion :—To excite, to over-excite, in children the taste for the extraordinary, to make them seek God, not where He is ever to he found, not in the laws of the physical or moral world, not in the eternal har­ mony of the stars, not in the marvellous organisation of the flower or of the insect, not in the sublime spec­ tacle of unity and design presented by the Universe, but in all sorts of disorders and capricious interferences which, if they had taken place, would have proved nothing but the divine instability, improvidence, and weakness ; thus greatly to exaggerate and to confirm, instead of counteracting, in their young minds, their naturally fantastic and chimerical notions of things, their ignorance of causes, their disregard of rule, fear instead of thought, credulity instead of knowledge ; and then to seal the whole with this disastrous idea, that, if they have the misfortune to contest the absolute truth of even the most absurd narratives, doctrines, or miracles attested by a pretended Word of God, they are guilty of blasphemous sacrilege, and doomed therefore to eternal damnation, unless they repent and learn at least to say, that the whole book is a divine revelation of truth:—behold and consider the kind of influence which the teaching of sacred history always inevitably exerts, only in greater or less degree according to the absence or presence of various antidotes, upon the cul­ ture of our children’s intelligence, and upon the forma­ tion of their ideas of humanity, of nature, and of God. Ere long we will publish the second and the more important division of the subject; and therein we will strive to show how this kind of teaching acts upon the conscience, and upon the moral direction of life. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Sacred history as a branch elementary education. Part I. Its influence on the intellect Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 37 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1870] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT208 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Subject The topic of the resource Education Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Sacred history as a branch elementary education. Part I. Its influence on the intellect), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-Criticism Conway Tracts Education Religious Education https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/16e9506922b777816d99a6f419b2195d.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=DfwTs4K5oNmxHb2VO5bL2w4OBdwhNwfs2iy%7ER3eSBZDRVEjBy%7EIhX-fY8vXPpijpOBcYDJGFsEAR1Dbdg6g1STsbSg3kJlf51YB2Hfh5MwQmNrBoTuJqxF240Nc3oa8uXjXoTT4UzWP0ucACfTSUZQi154LWfk0zsMg9pjcJW4PBdYpF3Lywy-PmMnkrcU2xmgvTkBFtgyQxJVAHQULRBb4ImKgt0rXACJH8ThJwMMpk51cKo3zhKuk3ZjCLl%7EEw%7EXg8Vc2lJBN1ftv-q5RFepFH-Kq8gsIT7Qc8utslMUkroVCy%7EPZGp4Pebqo22qZWVnTrH2sfdl-cXQbC5-JofQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f414eefa0ab0749c7d0c1b7743df6c34 PDF Text Text REPORT . \ OF THE FIRST GENERAL MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE I NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE, HELD AT BIRMINGHAM, 4*. TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12 & 13, 1869. PRICE, TO NON-MEMBERS, ONE SHILLING. BIRMINGHAM: “THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET. 1869. ��NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE. Offices: 47, ANN STREET, BIRMINGHAM. PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE. GEORGE DIXON, Esq., M.P., Chairman, Birmingham. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Esq., Vice-Chairman. JOHN JAFFRAY, Esq., Treasurer. COUNCILLOR JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec. FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary. Holland Henry, Mayor of Birmingham. Baker, George, Councillor, Tennant Street, Birmingham. Beale, W. J., Westbourne Road, Edgbaston. Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Wordsworth Place, Small Heath, Birm. Chamberlain, J. H., Christ Church Buildings, New Street, Birmingham. Chance, R. L., Chad Hill House, Harborne Road. Edgbaston. Clarke, Rev. C., F.L.S., Edgbaston. Crosskey, Rev. Henry W., F.G.S., George Street, Edgbaston. Dawson, George, M.A., Hawksley, West Heath, Worcestershire. Field, A., Parade, Birmingham. Harris, W., Councillor, Stratford Road, Camp Hill, Birmingham. Hawkes, H., Aiderman, Grampian House, Bristol Road, Edgbaston. Heslop, T. P., M.D., Temple Row West, Birmingham. Holliday, W., J.P., Chad Valley, Edgbaston. Johnson, G. J., Waterloo Street, Birmingham. Kenrick, Timothy, J.P., Maple Bank, Edgbaston. Kenrick, John Arthur, J.P., Fallowiield, Edgbaston. Kenrick, Wm., Mountlands, Edgbaston. Lloyd, G. B., Wellington Road, Edgbaston. Mathews, C. E., Augustus Road, Edgbaston. Middlemore, Wm., J.P., Elvetham Road, Edgbaston. Osborne, E. C., Aiderman, Carpenter Road, Edgbaston. Osler, Follett, F.R.S., South Bank, Edgbaston. Ryland, Arthur, Aiderman, Cannon Street, Birmingham. Ryland, Wm., Noel Road, Edgbaston. Timmins,-Samuel, F.R.S.L., Elvetham Lodge, Edgbaston. Vince, Rev. C., Hockley Hill, Birmingham. Wiggin, H., J.P., Aiderman, Metchley Grange, Harhorne. Wright, J. S., Church Hill, Handsworth. �The following is a copy of the first circular which was issued by the Provisional Committee. NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE. Birmingham, February, 1869. Sir, I am requested by the Provisional Committee, formed for the promotion of a National Education League, to forward to you the annexed draft of a scheme which they have drawn up for the furtherance of a system of education which shall reach all those children who are now growing up in a degree of ignorance injurious alike to their own interests and to that of the community at large. The Provisional Committee are of opinion, that in those parts of the country where a sufficient school organization does not exist, the deficiency can be speedily and adequately supplied only by the combined action of the central and local authorities. The new machinery to be provided by this joint action need not injuriously interfere with those existing schools which are satisfactorily educating the people ; but the Provisional Committee are of opinion that it is all-important that no time should be lost in bringing a good education within the reach of even the poorest and the most neglected children in the country ; and they are also of opinion, that when the means of education shall everywhere exist, the poverty or apathy of parents ought not to be allowed to prevent those means being availed of by their children. If you are willing to assist in carrying out the objects of the proposed League, I shall feel obliged by you signing and returning to me the enclosed form. I am Your obedient servant, GEORGE DIXON- �NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE. ' OBJECT. The establishment of a system which shall secure the education of every child in England and Wales. 1. MEANS. Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient school accommodation is provided for every child in their district. 2. The cost of founding and maintaining such schools as may be required shall be provided out of the Local Rates, supplemented by Government Grants. 3. All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the management of Local Authorities and subject to Government Inspection. 4. AU Schools aided by Local Rates shaU be Unsectarian. 5. To aU Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free. 6. School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education. The payment of an annual subscription shaU constitute membership. The Executive Body shaU be a Council elected at a general meeting of the members, convened for that purpose. The Council shall appoint a Chairman, an Honorary Secretary, a Treasurer, and such paid officers as may be required. The general business of the League shall be conducted by the Council, and they shall make aU arrangements for the formation of branch societies, collect and disseminate information, and prepare the way for such legislation as wiU carry out the objects of the League. �The following is a copy of the invitation to the General Meeting. NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE. Offices—47, Ann Street, Birmingham. September 16tli, 1869. Sir, We beg to inform you that a General Meeting of the Members of the National Education League will be held at the Exchange Assembly Rooms, Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 12th and 13th of October, and to hand you a Programme of theproceedings. The Provisional Committee desire to express their earnest hope that you will be able to attend dming the whole, or at least a part of this very important Meeting, at which a large number of the leading Members of the League are expected to be present. It will much facilitate the completion of the arrangements for the Meeting if you will inform us at your earliest convenience whether you will be able to attend. We are, Sir, Yours respectfully, GEORGE DIXON, Chairman. JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec. FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary. �PROGRAMME FOR THE FIRST GENERAL MEETING TO BE HELD AT BIRMINGHAM, On Tuesday and, Wednesday, October 12th and, 13th, 18G9. TUESDA Y, OCTOBER 12tli. Morning Sitting, from Ten o’clock a.m. till One p.m. Election of Chairman. The Report of the Provisional Committee to be read. Election of the Council, Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Committee. The following Resolution will be submitted to the Meeting :— “Resolved, that a Bill, embodying the principles of the League, be prepared for introduction into Parliament early next Session.” Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m. to Five p.m. Papers and Discussion on the best system for National Schools, based upon Local Rates and Government Grants. Evening, Eight p.m. Soiree at the Town Hall, given by the Mayor of Birmingham. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13th. Morning Sitting, Ten a.m. to One p.m. Papers and Discussion on Compulsory Attendance, and on the best means of enforcing it. Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m. to Five p.m. Papers and Discussion on Unsectarian and Free Schools. Evening, Half-past Seven p.m. Public Meeting in the Town Hall; the Mayor in the Chair. Members wishing to contribute Papers are requested to communicat with the Secretary. ��NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE. FIRST MEETING OF MEMBERS. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN. Henry Holland, Esq., Mayor of Birmingham, moved that Mr. George Dixon, M.P., be elected Chairman. He said that Mr. Dixon, as the originator of the League, and by the zeal, ability, and devotion which he had shown, not only of late but in past years, in the cause of education, was deserving of the position which it was proposed that he should occupy. The appointment of Mr. Dixon would give satisfaction, not only to the ladies and gentlemen present, but to those friends of education throughout the kingdom who were with the League in spirit, though there were many of them who could not attend the meeting. Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., delegate from Carlisle, seconded the motion, which was carried. THE CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS. The Chairman said: The movement which we have met to in­ augurate to-day is one of momentous national importance, involving in its issues not merely the future material prosperity of the nation, but its intellectual moral, and I will venture to add, its religious progress. The originators of this movement have met with a response far exceeding their expectations. On their behalf, I very heartily welcome here the many eminent men who have come from various parts of the country to assist in the deliberations of the League, to return to their homes, I trust, with a deepened sense of the importance of the scheme, and with a stronger �10 determination to exercise all their influence in its favour. We have as yet made no appeal for subscriptions; but our expenses have been heavy, and will rapidly increase as the area of our operations widens. To collect information upon all the various branches of the great subject we have taken up, to put this information into a popular form, and to circulate it everywhere, especially among the working classes, will require very large funds indeed. But, in addition, we desire to send able lecturers all through the country, who shall explain our views, and excite discussion upon them everywhere. To create an irresistible public opinion is a work of the greatest magnitude, and one which will task our powers to the utmost. Our success will largely depend upon the means placed at our disposal. You will see, by the paper which has been placed in your hands, that a few friends have commenced a subscription list, upon a scale which, if imitated in other parts of the country, will give us all we want; and I invite you to fill up the forms with as large amounts as you are able. And to stimulate you further in this good work, I will read you a few letters which have been received by me. The first is from the Secretary to the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in London, Mr. P. Le Neve Foster. He says :— “The Council of this Society have much pleasure in sending (enclosed) a cheque for twenty guineas as a donation to the funds of the National Education League, and have directed me to attend with a depu­ tation, and represent the Society at the meetings of the League at Birmingham next week. The Rev. Wm. Rogers, and Messrs. E. Chadwick, C.B., and E. Carleton Tufnell, have been requested to form the deputation. The Council think it right to say that they cordially concur in the programme of the League in so far as its object is to ensure the groundwork of instruction to all the children of the United Kingdom, and that they shall not be less well educated than children in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway ; but as a question of general policy, and as representing many different opinions among the numerous members of the Society, they hesitate at the present time to pledge the Society to all the details of the League programme. The Council think it desirable that all the various modes of ensuring universal instruction to the children of the United Kingdom should be amply discussed from many points of view, and they intend to invite members of the Society and others to a discussion of them after the meetings �11 have been held in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, &c. For the con­ sideration of the Birmingham meeting the Council transmit a paper, which has been prepared by some members of the Council, and which appears to be worthy of serious attention.” On the paper you have in your hand you will find some subscrip­ tions of unusually large amount for Birmingham; hut I will venture to say that no subscription has given greater encouragement to the Provisional Committee than that from a working man, whose letter I am now going to read : “Dear Sir,—Would you kindly forward me a prospectus or programme of the National Education League, of which I am informed you are president, and say if it is open to mechanics to become members, as I understand from the report of your Sheffield address. I am myself an engineer, and am at times utterly astonished at the fearful amount of ignorance among my fellow workmen. In the works in which I am foreman, out of 200 hands not 20 either read the daily papers or care for the welfare of their fellows. Sir, I assure you this is a deplorable fact, and if it was not for our glorious Free Library it would be much worse. If I can do anything towards improving this state of things I will willingly subscribe 7s. 6d. (a day’s wages) every month. I know the want of education, as I could not write until I was fifteen. If you could send me a few papers, so that I could interest my fellow-workmen in this good work, I should be pleased.” Now, the programme of the meeting, which yon have all read, tells you exactly what the course of business is to be. The arrangements are not, in some respects, so perfect as we could have wished, but they are the result of full and anxious consideration; and I hope, therefore, that if anyone should find that they are not quite what he thinks best, he will accept them as a whole, and try to be satisfied with them. One of the greatest difficulties which we have to encounter is that the time at our disposal is extremely short. We dare not ask our friends at a distance to come here for more than two days; but we have a great deal more work to do in those two days than we shall be able to get through to our satis­ faction. We have had more papers sent to us than there will be time to read; and after the papers are read there will be, I am sorry to say, but very little time left for discussion. I have, therefore, to beg not only that papers may be read as quickly as possible, but that the speeches afterwards be as short and con­ tain as much as possible. Next year, when we again have a �12 general meeting of members, we shall be better acquainted with each other, we shall know who are really the leading spirits in this movement throughout the country • and then our arrangements will no doubt be more perfect. There is one thing to which I wish most particularly to call your attention. It is that we are not met here for the purpose of discussing our principles. Our platform is already laid. We have accepted the bases of our constitution, and we must not stray from them. But we have met to discuss the best manner in which we can carry out our principles. Upon that part of the question we may differ, and we want all the light thrown upon it that it is possible for us to get. This meeting has been called, by mistake, a conference. It is not a conference. It is a meeting of the members of the League and their friends, pledged to a certain course of action. We are not answerable, as a League, for the individual opinions that will be expressed in the papers and in the discussions. We are only answerable for that programme, for that scheme, which has been circulated throughout the country; but it is right that I should explain one word in that scheme. We have had a great number of letters upon the subject, and I believe that there are differences of opinion upon it. There are some who do not understand what is meant when we say that “ all schools aided by local rates ” are to be “unsectarian.” Now, what we mean by this word “unsectarian” is that in all national rate-schools it shall be prohibited to teach cate­ chisms, creeds, or theological tenets peculiar to particular sects. These are not to be taught during school hours. But beyond this prohi­ bition we are not going; we leave everything else to be decided by the school managers, who as the representatives of the ratepayers will follow the best guides in these matters, viz., the wishes of the inhabitants of their districts. School managers, for instance, will have power to permit or prohibit the use of the Bible; but if sanctioned it must be read without note or comment. Then they will also have power to grant or to refuse the use of class-rooms, out of school hours, for the purpose of religious instruction; but of course an unjust preference must not be given to particular sects. I trust we are all agreed that the best way of dealing with what is called the religious difficulty is to put it on one side. Having �13 decided to adopt the principle of excluding from the curriculum of our primary schools all those religious subjects about which there are differences of opinion, let us leave the carrying out of that principle to the school authorities in a spirit of generous confidence. A self-governing people ought to have faith in the discretion of representatives whom it chooses and can remove. I will now call upon the Secretary, Mr. Adams, to read letters from gentlemen who are unable to attend here to-day. LETTERS. Mr. Francis Adams (Secretary) then read the following letters:— From Edward Miall, Esq., M.P. Welland House, Forest Hill, S.E., October 9th, 1869. Dear Mr. Dixon, I find it quite impracticable so to arrange my engagements as to leave me at liberty to be present at the Education Conference, on Tuesday and Wednesday next. I much regret this, because I had hoped to derive from the papers to be read, and the discussions which may be had upon them, clearer views of one or two of the principles of the League than I can pretend to hold at present. I trust, however, that due care 'will be taken to give publicity to the proceedings, and that I and others who happen to be precluded from availing ourselves of your courteous invitation, will have an opportunity of making ourselves fully acquainted -with what has been said and done at the Conference. As I have already made you aware, I heartily concur in the “object” which the Conference has been assembled to promote, and generally in the “means” to be adopted -with a view to it. I am anxious, however, to reserve my freedom of action, as well as of speech, [to thejextent which I will, with your leave, endeavour to describe. With regard to the 6th article in the programme, that “the State or the local authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age, not otherwise receiving education,” I give in my adhesion to the principle involved. I confess I have tried hard to escape the necessity of acceding to a resort to compulsion in furtherance of the end we have in view, and have been driven only by the force of facts to surrender my objections to it. Consequently, I am a little more sensitive on this point than on others, and I can easily imagine modes of compulsion resorted to which I could not bring my mind to approve. I wish, therefore, while agreeing to the principle, to refrain from committing myself beforehand to any particular scheme for carrying it into effect. �u As to free. admission to all schools aided by local rates, I suggest that the provision should be coupled with this condition : That in every case in which a school is rate-supported, it should be by a separate rate, to be called a “ SCHOOL RATE.” In order to prevent that non-appreciation of education which would inevitably come of the idea that it can be got for nothing, every ratepayer should be made to understand distinctly that, in availing himself of a free school for his children, he is but receiving back in value that which in proportion to his means he has paid for. He will readily understand and feel this, if he is periodically called upon to pay a specific rate for the purpose, and I think he will be the less disposed to trifle with the right he has thus acquired. My chief anxiety, however, is to guard myself from being committed, under the fourth article of the programme, to conclusions which in my honest judgment I reject. In that article, as now worded, I thoroughly concur. It is of the utmost importance that schools aided by local rates shaU be unsectarian. Denominational education I take to be the greatest obstacle to National education. It causes an enormous waste of teaching power. It misleads a large proportion of the public as to the true end of public schools, and it serves to stereotype instead of softening down religious disctinctions. I do not believe it to be in any sense necessary. The public, generally, do not care to perpetuate it. The demand for it is almost exclusively a clerical demand, and I think the time is come for attempting to get rid of it— cautiously and gradually, of course, but, in due time, effectually. But whilst I attach high importance to unsectarian education, I am bound to say that I do not feel obliged to exclude the religious element from rate-supported schools. 1 would not insist upon it as a condition of receiving public aid, but neither would I insist upon its being eliminated from primary education. Thus much, I think, might be safely left to the decision of the local authorities— to be authorised to open and close their schools, if they please, with some catholic form of devotion, and to adopt the Bible as one of the books to be read; of course, protecting every parent from being compelled to subject his children to either. My reason is this : I feel convinced that if by “unsectarian” schools, the interpretation is to be the rigid exclusion of all religion from the schools, the nation will lose the very best teachers, for, ceeteris paribus, they are the best teachers who bring a religious spirit and motive to their work. I am sure the working classes, as a body, would not care to shut out Christianity altogether from the schools to which they send their children. I think it would be a mistake so tightly to tie up the hands of teachers as to make all reference to the great facts aud precepts of Christianity a forbidden thing to them. At any rate, it might well be left to the local authorities to exercise their free choice in the matter. Such being my opinion, I beg to hold myself uncommitted to the article in question, if by the epithet “unsectarian” be meant “ necessarily and exclusively secular. ” �15 I have no objection to give public aid to schools confined to secular educa­ tion ; but I do not think it would be wise to impose upon local authorities the obligation to shut out the religious element to this extent. Pardon the liberty I have taken, and believe me to be, , Dear Mr. Dixon, Yours, very faithfully, EDWARD MIALL. George Dixox, Esq., M.P. From J. C. Buchnaster, Esq. St. John’s Hill, Wandsworth, S.W., October lltli, 1869. Dear Sir, I regret very much that I am quite unable to accept your invitation for the 13th. I cheerfully give my adhesion to the general principles of the Education League, because I believe it offers the only equitable solution of the educational difficulty. I wish the working classes (who are mostly interested in this matter) would give some expression of opinion on the subject, so as to help you and others in Parliament to obtain a national system of education. Hitherto all our arrangements for the education of the children of the working classes have been settled by the political influence of religious parties, and, to avoid as much as possible all difficulty, every denomination has been tempted to receive,' State assistance. The result is a great waste of educational effort. I frequently find two and three schools in places with a population scarcely sufficient to maintain one with efficiency. We have the same number of inspectors without any concert with each other, going every year to the same place to do precisely the same work. Ever since the Committee of Council came into existence I have been in various ways connected with the present system, and I believe it was the only scheme at that time capable of meeting the enormous difficulties and resistance of religious bodies. This opposition, controlled, as it appeared to me, by no reason, was a great national calamity, and a source of much sorrow. I have carefully watched and taken part in the working of the present system, and I am reluctantly compelled to admit that the denominational system fails to accomplish its object. T have been for several years Churchwarden of the parish in which I reside. I have taught in elementary schools aided by the State, and Sunday schools, and when at home I go regularly to church on Sunday, and at the corner of almost every street I see a number of men with short pipes and unlaced boots, whose faces twenty years ago were familiar to me as pupils in the parish school and Sunday school. Why don’t they go to some place of religious worship ? When at the parish school theyheard prayers and scripture lessons every morning from students in the Training College—twice or three times a week lessons in the Catechism and Liturgy from the curate or vicar—twice on Sunday religious instruction in the Sunday school and two sermons; and where is the result of �16 all this in the after life and character of the pupils ? If a purely secular system had been inaugurated by the minutes of 1846 and 1847 this indiffer­ ence to religious worship and conduct would have been charged on that system. Some time ago I made enquiries, as far as I was able, as to the practical result of the religious instruction given in our parish schools. 120 pupils were grown up and still living in the parish ; some of them married, with children passing through the same course of religious instruction. Only nine were in the habit of attending any place of worship regularly, and two of these were paid singers. Ninety, so far as I could learn, had never been either to church or chapel since they earned their own living, except to a wedding or a baptism. The complaint that the working classes as a rule never go to any place of worship is, I fear, a sad reality; but where is the result of all our denominational teaching, and religious instruction? Theology and Scripture proofs of various doctrines are no doubt taught in most of our schools, but religion is not taught, and cannot be taught. The one is a science, the other a sentiment; and we have been mistaking the one for the other. You must not infer from this that I am insensible to the great blessings of a religious life; but the teaching of dogmatic theology never secures it. The tone and atmosphere of a school-room should stand in contrast with the wretched dirty homes from which many of the children come. They should be surrounded, as far as possible, with everything which tends to soften and refine their hearts and feelings ; for it is through the senses that the better impulses of our nature are called into activity and life. We want clean and cheerful school-rooms, with good pictures on the walls, and specimens of good art, and these may now be obtained at a small cost. The obstacle in the way of progress is the ever active spirit which seeks to obtain supporters to particular views and disciples for particular sects. The love of power un­ consciously takes the semblance of religious anxiety, and every man acts as if he alone had the true faith which ought to be taught to the young. The only practical way is for the State to restrict itself to teaching those truths upon which we all agree. All knowledge which is cognisable by our senses may be safely taught at the public expense. It is only when we leave the things of this world, and enter upon the consideration of those of the next, that we lose the means of deciding who is right and who is wrong. But I think we must all agree that the more perfectly men are educated in a knowledge of undisputed truths the better they will be prepared for the. study of Divine truth. This is most assuredly the basis upon which we ought to start. Society and human nature must be taken as it is, and not as some think it should be. For these and other reasons I shall have much pleasure in rendering what assistance I can in promoting the objects you have in view. Yours truly, J. C. BUCKMASTER. George Dixon, Esq., M.P. �17 From the Marquis of Lome, M.P. for Argyleshire. The Queen’s Hotel, Glasgow, Sept. 17th, 1869. Dear Mr. Dixon, Your very kind letter has only just reached me, and I therefore hope you will excuse my apparent neglect in not having answered before this. 1 shall not be able, I am very sorry to say, to attend the meeting, as I mean to spend the time between this and November in Ireland. With many thanks, Believe me, Yours very truly, LORNE. To George Dixon, Esq., M.P. From the Rev. Charles Kingsley. Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, Sep. 17th, 1869. My dear Sir, I am still more sorry that I cannot attend your meeting on reading through your Education Society’s Report. It seems to me a con­ vincing proof that the voluntary denominational system is in great towns a failure, and unless you forbid me, I shall use its statistics to that effect at Bristol. That it is a failure in country parishes I know from 27 years’ experience as a parson. I remain, Your much obliged, C. KINGSLEY. I am much gratified by finding in your second Education League list so many names personally dear to me, and so many of my own cloth. From Sir Henry A. Hoare, M.P. for Chelsea. * Stourhead, Bath, 17th Sep. 1869. Dear Mr. Dixon, I received yours of the loth this morning. I cannot, as I told you in town, undertake to be present in Birmingham on the 12th and following day, but I shall be truly glad to hear that the General Meeting has done something. I do hope that with respect to the principle of compulsion there will be no faint-heartedness, and no dilution whatsoever of the power to enforce attendance. I remain, Yours very truly, HENRY A. HOARE. » B �18 From Professor Huxley. Swanage, Dorset, September 21, 1869. My dear Sir, I received your letter of the 17th yesterday, after I had. written a reply to that of earlier date. I wish again to say how very sorry I am I cannot do what you and the Committee desire of me ; but not being a bird, as Mr. Boyle Poach said, I cannot be in two places at once, and I am bound to be lecturing in London on both the twelfth and the thirteenth of October. I am, very faithfully, yours, T. W. HUXLEY. To George Dixon, Esq., M.P. From Dr. Schmitz. The London International College, Spring Grove, Middlesex, W., Sep. 16th, 1869. Dear Sir, It would give me the greatest pleasure at the approaching Meeting of the National Education League, at Birmingham, to read a paper on the great necessity there is in this country for compulsory education, a subject upon which I feel very strongly, but unfortunately the time of the meeting coincides with the reassembling of our College, so that it is even more than doubtful whether I shall be able to attend the meeting. I am extremely sorry, therefore, that I am unable to have the honour which your Committee has assigned to me, by inviting me to prepare a paper for the occasion. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, L. SCHMITZ. From E. H. Brodie, Esq., Inspector of Schools. Education Department, Council Office, Downing Street, London, September 29th, 1869. Dear Sir, It is with the greatest regret that I write to say that I am unable to attend the meeting of the National Education League, at Birmingham. My official engagements for October are heavy and numerous, and I cannot spare even half-a-day. I shall read the newspaper accounts of the meeting with the deepest interest. �19 After 10| years’ experience of the present system of education, I have quite come to the conclusion that the poor both are not and never will be reached by it, except very partially, especially in our large towns, so fruitful of the criminal class. Assuring you of my sincerest sympathy for the cause, and regretting my unavoidable absence, I remain, dear Sir, Faithful yours, E. H. BRODIE. To Jesse Collings, Esq. From P. A. Taylor, Esq., M.P. for Leicester. Aubrey House, Notting Hill, W., October 9th, 1869. My dear Mr. Dixon, I am sony that it will not be in my power to attend the Conference next week. Do not attribute my absence to any lukewarmness in the cause. Of all the great reforms we have before us, this is perhaps the greatest. I ain entirely at one with your programme. You may rely on my humble support on all occasions. & 1 Yours truly, P. A. TAYLOR. George Dixon, Esq., M.P. From an oversight the following important letter was not read at the meeting. From the Rev. J. J. Brawn. Birmingham, 8th Oct., 1869. My dear Sir, I beg to inform you that at the Autumnal Session of the Baptist Union, held at Leicester on the 7th Oct. instant, the following Resolution was adopted: “That this Union, without pledging itself to the support of the programme of the National Education League, hereby requests the Chairman (Dr. Brock) and Secretary (Rev. J. H. Millard, B.A., Huntingdon), with the Revs. Drs. Underwood and Haycroft, J. Bigwood, and J. J. Brown, to act as its repre­ sentatives at the General Meeting to be held under the auspices of the League next week at Birmingham.” I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, J. J. BROWN. To Francis Adams, Esq. �20 From Blanchard Jerrold, Esq. SCHOOLS OF SKILL. Reform Club, S.W., Oct. 13, 1869. Sir, Being unavoidably detained away from the meetings of the League by professional duties, the Executive will, I trust, permit me to state in a letter the heads of the subject I was anxious to submit viva voce to the friends of popular education who are at this moment assembled at Birmingham. It seems to be pretty generally agreed that the distress under wdiich so many thousands of our fellow countrymen are suffering is caused, not by over­ population, but by a superabundance of that labour which the continual extension of machinery has depreciated. The demand for unskilled labour is eVer on the decline—a fact on which we should have every reason to congratulate ourselves if the instruction of labour were keeping pace with the spread of machinery. But, unfortunately, while the inventive genius of our race and the energy of our capitalists have given no truce to time, the friends of popular education have been squabbling all the while because they go different ways on Sundays—unmindful of Farquhar’s warning. Hence the growth of blind Labour in the face of the Machine, its mighty and uncon­ querable rival ; and hence the increase of pauperism, and of that saddest condition of life—work w'ithout hope, which “ draws nectar in a sieve.” The point on wdiich I am anxious to insist, and which will, I am sure, find a wide acceptance in the Midlands, is this. The superabundance of blind labour being the cause of the wide-spread distress and heavy poor rates that afflict and fetter us, our first care must be to teach skill. It is because skill and taste are ■wide-spread among the working population of France that our neighbours have not the parallel of those townships of even misery wdiich are black spots upon the map of every considerable city in this kingdom. In the front of the education movement Trade Schools must be placed. The State is bound to see that every child is duly provided for the battle of life with those doughty weapons, the three R’s. Granted. But surely the first duty society owes to the child is to fortify it so as to assure it, at maturity, the self-dependent strength of perfect citizenship. The children of the poor should first be taught some form of skill by the exercise of wdiich they may raise themselves out of the slough of poverty to which the untutored labour of their parents has sunk them. Had the Ragged Schools been sound trade schools, less given to the Old Hundredth and more to the profitable methods of bread-earning, they would have effected more good in city lanes and alleys than they can fairly claim to have done with the teaching of the three R’s. If the schoolmaster of the poor were himself re-educated, and taught to implant in his pale scholars the art of living by w’ork—if the primary school �were a school of skill, as well as one of catechism—the daily practice of industry with intelligence would strengthen the heart while it informed the hand, and we should be attending prosperously to “ The kindred points of Heaven and Home.” I have honour to remain, Sir, Your faithful servant, BLANCHARD JERROLD. To Francis Adams, Esq., Secretary of the National Education League. Letters expressing regret at not being able to attend were also received from the following members of the League :— Jacob Bright, M.P. Colonel Sykes, M.P. Josh. Grieve, M.P. George Melly, M.P. Peter Rylands, M.P. James Howard, M.P. Thomas Hughes, M.P. P. H. Muntz, M.P. Sir Sydney Waterlow, M.P. Captain Sherard Osborne. Sir John Lubbock. Dr. Michael Foster. Russell Martineau. Rev. George Style. Professor Roscoe. Professor Jevons. John E. Gray. Dr. Schmitz. Professor Leone Levi. Mr. Edwin A. Abbott. Sir John Bowring. Mr. Samuel Smiles. Rev. Charles Voysey. Hon. George Howard. Dr. John Shortt. Mr. M. D. Conway. Dr. Gotch. �22 REPORT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE. • Mr. Jesse Collings (Honorary Secretary) read the following Report of the Provisional Committee :— The Provisional Committee think it desirable to lay before the first meeting of members a brief statement of the reasons which led to the formation of the National Education League, the object of the Association, and the steps which have been taken towards its organization. On all hands it has long since been admitted that the present system of education fails to meet the requirements of the country, that voluntary efforts reach only the richer districts, and these imperfectly, and that the poorer districts are left practically uncared for, Government aid being wholly dependent upon previous local expenditure. Recent enquiries prove that even in districts best provided with educational means, the real value of these means is greatly below what is was supposed to be. The reports of the Manchester Education Aid Society, and of the Birmingham Education Society, for instance, reveal a state of things calculated to arrest attention and excite alarm. An enquiry instituted by the Manchester Society showed that in Manchester and Salford the number of children of all classes, between three years and twelve years, was 100,000. Of these only 55,000 were on the books of public elementary schools, and of this latter number the average attendance was but 38,000. In Birmingham, out of 35,018 children between the ages of three and twelve visited by the agents of the Education Society, only 15,490 were at school. Of 45,056 children between three and fifteen years, 17,023 were at school, 6,337 at work, and 21,696 were neither at school nor at work. Of the 17,023 who were at school, 10,890 were under nine years of age. The results of such education as had been given were shown to be equally unsatisfactory. In Manchester, in 1,916 families visited, there were, 1,660 persons between the ages of twelve and twenty. Of these, 759 were unable to read. Out of 1,672 fathers, 465 could not p �23 read, and out of 1,857 mothers the number unable to read was 815. In Birmingham, Mr. Long, one of the masters of the Worcester, Lichfield, and Hereford Diocesan Training College, visited a number of the manufactories (fairly chosen to represent the whole), and examined 988 young persons between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one. His report was that, “ in reading and writing nearly one-half of the whole number examined do nothing, or next to nothing, and only one-third do at all well. In arithmetic and general knowledge more than three-fourths fail, or nearly so; and only one in twenty shows anything like a satisfactory degree of attainment.” The facts thus ascertained are corroborated by the statements of the Bight Hon. H. A. Bruce, in a recent address, in which, quoting from a report of the London Diocesan Board of Education, he said there were in London from 150 thousand to 200 thousand children without the means of education, and that during the preceding five or six years all that had been done served only to prevent retrogression. The report of the Committee of Council (1867-8, p. xxiii.) demonstrates the inefficiency of instruction even in the best primary schools—those under Government inspection. Of the children attending a large proportion are declared to be unfit for examination; and of those examined above ten years of age, “ only 3.13 per cent, passed in the three higher standards without failure” : these standards being of an extremely elementary character. These and other facts exhibiting the want of educational means and the defective quality of instruction actually given, naturally attracted special attention at the moment when, by an extension of the franchise, a great change had been made in the distribution of political power. Persons who took an interest in education were led to the enquiry whether the present voluntary system, based upon denominational effort, could by any possibility cover in the future, with increasing population and more urgent demands, the ground which it had failed to cover in the past. Conceding to the voluntary principle the utmost conceivable measure of success, the �24 advocates of education were further driven to enquire whether, considering the new conditions of political arrangements, and the rate at which education has hitherto progressed, it would be prudent to wait until the present system has received a longer trial. Educational reformers felt themselves compelled to ask yet another question, whether, considering the right of every child to education, it would be just to persevere in a system which, however benevolent its motive and however strenuous its exertions, experience has proved to reach only part of the children having the right to instruction, and to deal imperfectly with those whom it succeeded in reaching. To all these questions only negative replies could be given. The advocates of extended education found themselves obliged to conclude that the voluntary system had failed to meet the wants of the country, that considering the new political conditions re­ sulting from an extended franchise, it would be imprudent to persevere with a system admitted to be inadequate, and that con­ sidering the right of all children to instruction, a national system was demanded not less by justice than by expediency. The result of these convictions was the introduction of a bill, promoted by an influential Committee emanating from the Man­ chester Education Aid Society, permitting the imposition of local rates for the maintenance of schools. A permissive measure being, however, felt to be inadequate, a subsequent bill was introduced, allowing Government to compel the imposition of local educational rates whcrs these might be found necessary. These bills were intro­ duced by Mr. Bruce and Mr. Forster, and at the same time it was intended that Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Bazley should move clauses enforcing attendance at school. The measures above mentioned mark the advance of public opinion. The formation of the National Education League in­ dicates a still greater and more important progress. It was felt by several gentlemen in Birmingham that the time had come for the establishment of an organisation uniting all those, throughout the country, who desired to promote a really national system of education, reaching all places unprovided for, based as to means upon local taxation supplemented by imperial grants, becoming, �25 therefore, unsectarian and free, and having the power to compel attendance as the only way of overcoming parental neglect. Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, the National * Education League was formed upon the following basis, and upon this basis only, which the founders regard as fundamental, were educational reformers throughout the country invited to join the League. Object : The establishment of a system which shall secure the Education of every Child in England and Wales.* Means : 1. —Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient School Accommodation is provided for every Child in their district. 2. —The cost of founding and maintaining such Schools as may be recpiired shall be provided out of Local Rates, supplemented by Government Grants. 8.—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the manage­ ment of Locul Authorities and subject to Government Inspection. Jf..—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be Unsectarian. 5. —To all Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free. 6. —School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education. That this movement was happily timed, at the moment when opinion was ripe for it, is proved by the fact that although no public meeting has been held by the League, no means adopted but the circulation of the scheme recorded above, near two thousand five hundred- persons of influence, including forty members of the * A slight verbal alteration was agreed, to at a meeting of the Provisional Committee, held 22nd Sept., viz., that in all future circulars, addresses, &c., the words “ in the country" should be substituted for the words “ in England and Wales.” �House of Commons, and. between three and four hundred ministers of religion, have already joined the League, by formally assenting to its principles; and this number is daily increasing. It is now proposed to complete the working organisation of the League by electing a Council and an Executive Committee, charged with the transaction of general business, the appointment of officers, and the formation of branch committees. The last-mentioned work has already been commenced. It was intended that it should have been deferred until after this meeting ; but the response to the invitation of the Provisional Committee was so great that it was found necessary to form branch committees without delay, and branches have accordingly been constituted in London, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Leicester, Sheffield, Liverpool, Leeds, Hudders­ field, Exeter, Bath, Warrington, Devonport, Carlisle, Merthyr Tydvil, Wednesbury, South Hants, and the Isle of Wight. With reference to the funds necessary for carrying on the operations of the League, it was thought desirable to abstain from issuing an appeal until after the general meeting of members ; but a number of gentlemen, having the work strongly at heart, have offered the sums undermentioned, payable by annual instalments extending over ten years :— Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. G. Dixon, M.P., Birmingham....................... .£1,000 A. Brogden, M.P., Ulverstone ................... 1,000 E. L. Chance, Birmingham........................... 1,000 J. Chamberlain, Birmingham ....................... 1,000 Joseph Chamberlain, Birmingham ............... 1,000 G. B. Lloyd, Birmingham ........................... 1,000 A. Field, Birmingham.................................... 1,000 Follett Osler, F.E.S., Birmingham............... 1,000 W. Middlemore, Birmingham....................... 1,000 Archibald Kenrick, Birmingham ............... 1,000 F. S. Bolton, Birmingham ............................ 1,000 Edmund Potter, M.P., Carlisle................... 500 T. Kenrick, Birmingham................................ 500 William Kenrick, Birmingham ................... 500 J. Arthur Kenrick, Birmingham................... 500 �27 Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. John Jaffray, Birmingham........................... Harold Lees, Manchester................................ William Dudley, Birmingham ................... John Webster, Birmingham ....................... H. Swinglehurst, Milnthorpe ....................... 500 400 200 200 110 As regards the general meeting of members, it is thought desirable that it shall be held annually in different parts of the kingdom. It is proposed that the Council, to be chosen at each annual meeting, shall be a consultative body, assembling at such intervals and in such places as may be required, and shall include all Members of Parliament who may join the League, large donors to the funds of the association, and at least one representative of each branch committee. A body so numerous, and consisting of persons so widely scattered, being obviously too large for the transaction of current business, it is proposed to appoint an Execu­ tive Committee, to whom, subject to resolutions of the annual meeting, and the general revision of the Council, shall be entrusted the conduct of the business of the League. This Committee will meet at the central offices of the League in Birmingham. The work of the League will be to collect and disseminate through its various branches, by means of meetings, publications, lectures, and otherwise, all available information on the subject of education; to stimulate discussion upon educational reforms; to create and guide public opinion; to influence Members of Parlia­ ment through their constituents ; to hasten and strengthen the action of Government; and to promote the adoption by the Legis­ lature of measures which shall ensure the education of every child in the country, and which shall provide instruction so accessible and so graduated that the child of the poorest artisan shall have it within his power to fit himself for any position capable of being attained by a citizen of the United Kingdom. To this work the members of the League have set themselves with a serious convic­ tion of its vital importance, and under a sense of personal responsibility and public duty ; and to this work they intend to remain constant until it is accomplished, and the reproach and curse Qf ignorance is wiped away from the land. �28 TREASURER’S REPORT. Birmingham, October 8th, 1869. I have to report that the donations and subscriptions already received amount to £1,212 10s. 6d. The orders made upon me for payments are £418 19s., leaving a balance in hand of £793 11s. 6d. There are liabilities incurred amounting to nearly £600, including the expenses incidental to the general meeting, and the publication •of the report of its proceedings. JOHN JAFFRAY, Treasurer. The Venerable Archdeacon Sandford said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,—I have been requested to move the adoption of the concise and lucid and complete report which has just been read to you; and when I tell you that I am labouring under a serious attack of indisposition, I am sure you will feel that my presence on this platform to-day is a proof of my deep and continued interest in the all-important question which we are met to discuss. I deeply feel the honour which on this occasion is conferred on me, and the responsibility which I incur in coming forward to move the adoption of the report, and I wish to keep distinctly before my own mind and before yours the object proposed by this Educa­ tion League, which justifies, I believe, the course that you and I are about to adopt. It is to provide the means of education for every child in England and Wales—that is, to supply education, the best gift that can be bestowed on any human being, to the multitudes of the children of our native land who are at this moment ignorant of those essential truths which are to qualify them for the duties of this life and for the hopes of a better. I remember hearing it observed by the late Lord Brougham, some years ago, in the House of Lords, that he had never met a Frenchman of any condition or occupation whatever, who did not consider that, after the Emperor, he was himself the fittest and the sole man to solve the constitu­ tional difficulties, and to work out the political destiny of his country. Now, I am not so aspiring or so self-reliant, but you can understand that no man can have been connected as a pastor of the people, as I have been, for more than thirty years, with the education of the �29 children of the poor, without having rny own views upon this allmomentous subject, and even believing that I could suggest to you a scheme preferable to that which has been elaborated by my friend Mr. Dixon and his provisional committee. But in our excellent chairman we have a commander-in-chief who is not only sagacious and vigilant, but whom I have found to be inexorable, and what­ ever discussions have taken place in the Council, he will allow no divergence of opinion whatever on the eve of battle and in the face of the foe. To this very judicious decision I most meekly submit. My consolation is the belief that in the discussions which will ensue there will be found gentlemen less compliant, who will be sure to bring forward and to press those very objections and those very preferences which have occurred to myself. Gentlemen, we stand in the presence of an overwhelming necessity, and of a great national danger, and that necessity and that danger are involved in the fact, as you have heard in this luminous report, that there are thousands and tens of thousands of the children of our people, for whom we are responsible in the sight of God and man, who are the outcasts, the pariahs of society, who are growing up without any moral influences whatever being brought to bear on them, and who in the course of a few years must constitute a very large and important portion of the community, invested with legal rights, which they may use for the injury of themselves and the destruction of society. Now, that is my reason for keeping back any preferences and objects of my own, and coming forward, as I believe I ought to do on this occasion, to endorse the report which has been read to you. What we want to do is to give the means of education to all those wretched children ; and it is quite clear from what has been uttered here, and what has appeared in many and voluminous publications, that the voluntary system, however admirable it may be, has utterly failed in providing what is required ; yes, and the character of the education imparted is very deficient indeed. Well, now, to secure universal education for our people, I have long believed that we must have compulsory education. And this is no new light that has broken upon me since this Education League was proposed, because I advocated compulsory education months ago, at Man­ �30 Chester. Well, then, to have compulsory education you must have a rate, and to have a rate you must have—I will not call it secular education, for I abhor the term, and I do not like the phrase adopted in this report, “ unsectarian education;” I very much prefer the term “ undenominational education.” It is quite dear that in a country like ours, with our various denominational churches, and with our many differences in point of religion, it will be quite impossible to have an education supported by rate unless you have the teaching undenominational. Now, with regard to the rate itself, I believe—and I know that it is the conviction of many of the inspectors of schools in the country-—that it is required to compel employers, and to compel parents who do not discharge their duties in this respect, to bear their portion of the burden. I am quite satisfied that very many severe things will be said of your platform. We shall be told, no doubt, that it is a godless scheme; that it is a revolutionary scheme; that it is a scheme utterly unsuited to the taste and the feeling of the British people; that it cannot succeed, that if it is carried out it will flood the land with a number of atheists and infidels, who will be the curse of society; that we are departing from the course of duty; yes, and that we deserve very severe vituperation ourselves because we have the effrontery to propose this scheme to the public. All I can say is this, that after a man at my time of life has been pronounced sacrilegious and an atheist because he has presumed to utter an opinion not upon a religious but upon a political question, he becomes rather callous, and is prepared to do his duty, and, if needs must be, to stand alone, whatever may be said of him by ignorant and interested parties. I am now about to allude, not towhat is propounded in this place, and of which for the first time I received a statement to-day, but to another scheme, which was brought forward a little time ago with a great flourish of trumpets; and that is, that all religious sections of the kingdom should be paid to bring up the children of their denominations in the strictest tenets of their own faith. Now I confess that I utterly object to that proposition. I have a very great and affectionate respect for my friend Mr. Vince; I have an equally great and affectionate respect for my friend Mr. George Dawson; but I am not prepared to endorse their �31 theological opinions or to pay for them, for my theological platform is different from theirs. This scheme, as it appears to me, proposes that the children of Mr. Vince’s denomination should be taught, and that the State should provide the means—I suppose by rate—for their being taught, that Christian baptism is a delusion ■ and that the children of the school of Mr. Dawson should be taught that the Christian priesthood is a sham ; yes, and that the children in Jewish schools should be taught, at the expense of the State, that the author of Christianity himself is an impostor. I believe that the proposal of the League, which, at what­ ever risk, I am prepared to endorse, shows me to be a much more sound and conscientious Churchman than he is who professes the other scheme, which, in my belief, could only tend to per­ petuate and to intensify those divisions among Christians which are, and which have been so long, the bane and the scandal of Christendom. There are other speakers of far more note and of far more weight than myself who are to address this meeting, and therefore I will not trouble you with any further observations of my own. I am to be followed by one that cometh out of Samaria, which has supplied redoubtable champions in former times ; and I am proud and happy to be associated with Mr. Dawson in this work of education. It is, of course, a most unnatural and a most monstrous conjunction, and one which twenty years ago, perhaps ten years ago, would have been quite impossible ; when I, perhaps, ■considered Mr. Dawson somewhat of a firebrand, and he used to remark on me as an ornamental, but not very useful, appendage to the Church. Ah ! but, God be praised! things move rapidly in the present day: to that consummation which as citizens and as Christians we all ought to desire, when good men of all parties and of all religious creeds can unite together in the cause of a com­ mon country and a common humanity. I have had brought strongly before me the teachings and example of one who, though himself born and bred a Jew, though he maintained that salvation was of the Jews, though he protested against every conceivable form of error, and at last died a martyr to the truth, yet was on friendly terms with Samaritans, and has set forth in the Book of Books a Samaritan as the grand type of practical benevolence for the imita­ �tion and admiration of the Church and the world throughout all time. Before that sublime and magnificent example I bow in loving adoration. I wish to be imbued with that spirit. I wish to tread in those footprints, and therefore I rejoice to-day to come forward to co-operate with my Nonconformist brethren in an endeavour to redeem and to raise the outcasts of society who are left at this moment lying in wretchedness and in the dark, and who, but for this intervention, I believe in God, would be left to perish without instruction, without moral instincts, without any moral or religious knowledge at all. Mr. George Dawson : It is not for me to enter into the reasons why I have been asked to second this resolution, though I guess it is because on this question there is no man that holds more extreme ■views than I do. It is certain that if I state my views, I shall state all yours, and, with regard to many of you, a great deal more besides. Courtesy demands that I should reciprocate the kindness of the Archdeacon. He has told you he has ceased to regard me as a firebrand. Well, I have long since ceased to regard him as a fogey. We have made mutual concessions ; and it gives me, as I am sure it gives you, pleasure to see a man so eminent in the Church discharge the duty of a true leader of the people, opening his eyes widely and clearly to know the signs of the times; for his Master and mine pronounced a severe condemna­ tion upon those leaders of the people who are unable to know the signs of the times. One word of congratulation, and that is that we have advanced. We have not to argue that the poor have a right to be educated, or ought to be educated. That is gone by. So far, we have got through the meeting without any gentleman telling us the difference between instruction and education. That used to be a stumbling block. We have got to this proposition—th at every child in this nation ought to be taught. We hold the doctrine of the family life of the nation. I believe the majority of you do feel as I do, that every ragged, filthy, untaught, cursing, blaspheming child should be looked upon as a child of our household, and should bring shame and disgrace upon us. I would that at heart you and I could say with him of old, “ Mine eyes run down with tears for the iniquities of my people.” But at all events we have come to see �33 that there is no human remedy hut education, and that education is always good, he it little or much. We dismiss Mr. Alexander Pope’s couplet about drinking deep or not touching at all as a piece of antiquated nonsense. We bow, with great respect, those clergy out of our road, represented by one in this town, who once said that unless he could have religious education he would shut up the schoolhouse, put the key in his pocket, and walk away. We have most of us got rid of that foolish distinction between sacred and secular. We believe all knowledge to be of God, and therefore towards good. I believe that he who teaches two letters of the alphabet to a child who yesterday knew but one, has furthered that child’s chances of future instruction, and of all well-being. These things we have not to discuss. A word of warning : I shall go ' further than you will follow; but, in a discussion like this, ill-temper would he out of place, and large allowance for individualism is what we require. We all mean the same thing, only we travel different paces. We all wish to lay the foundation of a national educational system. It must be laid with lucid simplicity and with great breadth, to bear the strain of the future. We are not here to patch existing systems—-to patch the garment of semi-charity and semi-ecclesiasticism, which forms a large part of the present education, but to lay a broad system, by declaring at once that the world—by which I mean all people that do not call themselves the Church—has its rights, and that the world is not to be governed by the good people in anything which belongs entirely to the world. All men whose opinion is of valuehave come to know that what for present purposes we call secular education is an affair of the world—an affair of the nation—acting through its Government. We have got rid of some bugbears—we are no longer afraid of the Government. This used to be, perhaps, a necessity; but it is a disgrace if it remains so now. What is the Government of this country 1 It is the nation itself. There is no antagonism between the people and the Government now. We are not here to bury the voluntary principle—its great supporters buried it long ago. We have lived to hear the recantations of a Miall and a Baines—to hear them declare that their mistakes about voluntaryism were what we all knew them to be—well c �34 intentioned ; and that voluntaryism is quite an inadequate basis for a national system. A national system must be laid in simplicity, and it must be paid for by rates. I am a lover of rates myself. I was never guilty of that “ ignorant impatience” of taxation which a great statesman once spoke of. I like to see the tax-gatherer come, provided the ends to which the taxes are devoted are holy and noble, and it will be one of the pleasantest sights when the tax-gatherer comes to lay upon me the noble hand of national com­ pulsion, to pay a rate in order that every child in the nation shall be educated. But, remember, rates mean compulsion. I hope most of you have done with compulsion as a bugbear. All life is compulsion. Society is based upon compulsion. What is government but law made compulsory ? Happy the man who by-and-by shall escape from the necessities of compulsion, and do that from the law of liberty which at first he must be made to do with reluctance. I like rates because they touch everybody, because I get hold of the fat and selfish manufacturer and touch him up, because I lay hold of the man that visits no church and visits no chapel, and make him pay; and I advocate not only local rates but national taxation for educational purposes. It is time that a good deal of work that the religious bodies have burdened themselves with should be given over to the world. Let society do its own business. What is going on just now is an operation like what goes on when sheep get mixed. There is a meeting of shepherds to look over the flocks, and each selects his own sheep. We have just restored to the Church a sheep that had got into the State fold. We have handed to the volun­ tary principle—to the good people—the Irish Church. Marked with the sign of the cross, that sheep belonged to the Church, and it has been restored. Now our turn comes—I mean the world ; for I never profess anything more than that. Looking over the Church flock we find a sheep there that belongs to us, and that is education—theprimary education of the nation. It does not belong to the Church in any sense—it belongs to the whole nation. It belongs to the Government, and ought to be done by the Government. I have no more notion of sectarian education, or denominational education, in the sense of mere j �35 primary instruction, than I have of a denominational wate rcart or a sectarian vaccinator. What has our history been for years but the putting of sheep into the right fold ? I am old enough to remember when nobody could be married except they went to Church. I sat once at supper with a High Churchman who asked me whether I was married or not ? I said I was. “ Who married you ?” I named the person. “ A priest in' the true sue. cession ?” “ Oh dear, no.” Said he, “You are not married at all.” I said, “ What am I ?” “ You are only joined together.” “ Well,” I said, “ as a practical man, for me that will do.” By degrees society found out that marriage did not belong to priests, and we established civil marriage. For those who wish to be married in Church, liberty ; for those who do not, liberty also. Why must a man be married in the name of a God he does not believe in ? Why should a Jew be compelled to invoke a Trinity he despises and abhors ? As to compulsory matters, there is the vaccination question. Is education, in the sense in which we use the word—the education about which we are all agreed, the education that relates to this life—is that a matter that the State should now kindly take out of the Church’s hand, and do for itself ? I say it is. And with that education the clergy have no more to do as a matter of right than the parish doctor or the parish lawyer. I for one am profoundly thankful to clergy of all sorts for what they have done. If the squirearchy and the nobility and gentry of England had done their duty half as well as the clergy, old England would be further advanced than to be only now laying the foundation stone of a national system of education. The poor Dissenting minister has done his duty. He has not had the chances of the Church, but it was often the poor Nonconformist man who held up the flag of true liberty, and maintained the fundamental principle of all just poli­ tics—“ Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.” Now, however, it is time that the matter should be taken out of the hands of clergy and ministers. Why should the Church educate the world in matters about which the world is entirely capable of looking after itself ? Religious people have quite enough to do without this. What an advantage it will be to you Churchmen, if we take all this business, and leave your purse and �36 your time free ! And, instead of our system being contrary to the interests of religion, it is the best system for forwarding it. I have been connected with Sunday schools all my life. We get a child for an hour and a half every Sunday morning professedly to teach it religion. The child does not know the alphabet. The hour and half is spent in the painful attempt to teach it what the world ought to have done. What an opportunity for those of you who set store by these things, to pour in the precious dogmas of your theology into minds which we have made open and receptive ! I have heard that when the Pope washes the feet of beggars somebody first takes off the worst of the dirt. We will take these dirty, ignorant children and take the worst of the dirt off before we hand them over to you to touch them up with the diaper! To argue that between knowledge of any kind and true religion there can be any real hostility, would be to assume that we are speaking to fossils, and not to men who discern the signs of the times. We want compulsion • we want rates. If we have rates, we must have free schools ; and if this system be once adopted, the existing system must go, by a slow, sure, and I hope, painless form of extinction• and who will regret it if a wiser thing be put in its place ? For I trust none of you are idolators, worshippers of mere means. I should be sorry to think that the interests of your little denominational school weighed more with you than the interests of the nation. Our people are ill-taught. Our children die at a rate which is shameful and dis­ graceful. Our people live in filth and disease. Large parts of our great cities are a shame and disgrace, and the odours of cor­ poreal nastiness interfere even with the propagation of the Gospel. We believe we have a remedy for all this ; and, being an extreme man, I prophesy that, in the end—and that end not distant— our schools will be supported by rates • and that means com­ pulsion, and it means that the schools must be purely secular. Dis­ guise it as you may, to that complexion you must come at last. If we attempt to make school rates to support denominational schools, we shall have, in fact, our old friend the church-rates back again, and some John Giles, of Bungay, will go to prison rather than pay and members of the Society of Friends will allow their umbrellas to be seized. It is not pleasant to hear how quietly and coolly �37 the religions world assumes that it has a right to have its dogmas and doctrines taught. I and many others begin to doubt whether we ought to pay for your doctrines. I am a Latitudinarian avowedly. Why should I pay to have done on the week days what I spend all my Sundays endeavouring to undo ? Is it not time that the little children should not be plagued with the reverse of what the scholarship of England and the right learning of the Church have shown to be the only things that a scholar can hold ? If gentle­ men present can show you that Moses did not write the whole of the Pentateuch, am I to be compelled to pay for telling children that he did ? Is it not time that children should not build up what it will be their first duty when they are older to pull down ? Have not some of us gone through that bitter and painful process of taking our fathers’ creed slowly down ? And do we not know what it costs ? Is it pleasant for a man to have to forsake the creed of his youth? Is the process so agreeable that it is right to subject the children of this country to it ? Why am I to pay for teaching a child—as it is stated in a catechism which I shall not name —that for His good pleasure and greater glory, God elected certain people to reprobation ? I am willing to pay for teaching the things about which we are agreed. When they go out of school you shepherds can catch them, and take them to the fold. Teach them what you think proper, but do not ask me to pay for that part. Short of what I have stated I shall not be satisfied, but I shall travel with you on the same road as far as you will go with me ; and I hope you will make allowance for me if I go farther than you do. Compulsory, national, secular education—that is my faith. The resolution adopting the report was then put and carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS, COUNCIL, AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., rose to move the appointment of the officers, Council, and Executive Committee. He said : I must at once frankly admit that though I have joined the League, I do not, like some of our friends who have spoken before me, agree with every �proposition that it has laid down. Yet, as I say, I have joined the League, and having joined it faithfully and loyally, I mean to do what I can to assist it upon its hroad and general principles, hut still holding myself free to go even farther than the League itself. I, like my friend Mr. Dawson, am an extreme man; hut perhaps I view the question from a different point from that of any other speaker. I am hound to view it more as a representative of the people than as a philanthropist, and I look upon the question as one of great political and social moment. It is a political question of great urgency and great danger; and my feeling in joining the League was that by meetings and con­ ferences like the present public opinion may be fully and clearly expressed, and that by it we may be able to force the Govern­ ment to give a sound and comprehensive measure of education. And I say frankly, that to my mind no measure would be sound or comprehensive or satisfactory which did not at least go as far as the principles of your League. Upon the political point of the question, let me say that I look upon the present state of the country with very great dread. I am not going to trouble you with statistics, but just to say this : that it is well known—and it is admitted by men competent to form an accurate opinion—that of the twenty millions of population in England and Wales no less than four millions are in a state of crime, ignorance, misery, vice, and pauperism. Now, what is the cause of this ? In my opinion it is simply this—that hitherto education has never touched, or has scarcely touched, the classes comprised in those four millions. True, there are some few charitable institutions which have gone below a certain line; but still there is a hard and fast line below which denominationalism has never gone—cannot go. And for what reason? Simply because it is denominational. Denominational institutions are all supported by the subscriptions of the different sects and by Government grants, but below that dark black line to which I have referred there are no subscriptions at all. Denominationalism cannot permeate to that depth where there is scarcely any religion, if any at all. Yet I won’t say that there is no religion at all; for I am convinced that every man has a religion of some sort, if �39 it is only a strong faith, in another world where, perhaps, there might he a better chance for him, and where he might change places with us who are better off. Now, in regard to the line below which denominationalism does not go, let me say that religious bodies have never, or at least in very few instances, been able to get deeper than that line. In Bethnal Green, where there is a population of 180,000 people, there are only 2,000 people who are known ever to go to a place of worship. That 2,000 is just the class which denominationalism can touch, and it can touch no more. What is the remedy for this ? I believe it is a purely secular system of education. With a secular system you may, I believe, carry out education amongst the classes below the line, and having educated these three or four millions, surely religious teachers might easily follow. Indeed, there would be opened up to them an opportunity which they never had before. But we must have a wide-spread education amongst these classes to which I refer. Is it not remarkable as a social question, that in a commercial community like this, with perfect free trade, strong competition, and the greater part of our wealth springing from trade—that in such a community four millions of people should have been so long allowed to remain in a state of ignorance ? All the results of our labour in that respect have been lost—completely lost ! Now, how can we cure this evil? You can only cure it by education. The greater part of the vice and misery amongst the lower classes arises simply from ignorance; and it is only by teaching those classes to help themselves that you will get a cure for the evil. Now, I am perfectly well aware that a Bill will be brought into the House of Commons next session, but I am afraid that that Bill—judging by those who are to frame it—will fall very far short of our expec­ tations. I hope, therefore, that those Members of Parliament who have joined this League will be prepared—for this is not a party question, and ought not to be made one—to bring in a Bill of their own, and to force the question to the greatest possible extent. If we do not accomplish the whole of our object, which is to obtain a complete system of compulsory, secular, and free education, we shall at least have made a step towards its attainment. �40 Concede compulsion, and a free and secular education must inevitably follow. We have seen how little progress has been made up till now. In point of fact, as I said before, the present system has stopped at a certain line. Its results have increased only five per cent, during the last five years. Look­ ing to the increase in population and wealth during that period, it is a really astounding result. And I am perfectly satisfied that there the results of the system must rest. When the different points of the question of compulsory secular education come to be discussed, I shall be glad to offer opinions; but I may just say that I myself have worked under compulsion for the last thirty or forty years. The working of the Factory Acts in some respects has been very good, but in the matter of education they have failed most lamentably. And why is that ? Because we have no free schools to which to send our children. It is a per­ fect farce to say to parents “ Educate your children,” when the only possible way of getting education is by a charge of 2d. per week upon them. The Factory Acts have completely failed in sending large numbers of children to school, except in those cases in which masters have taken a Christian interest in their workpeople and have provided education for the children. I am perfectly satisfied that if we determine to bring in a Bill we shall not find the plan of organization or the settlement of the details to be at all difficult To my mind, this question comes only second in importance to the Irish question; and it behoves us therefore to set earnestly and at once to work. I don’t myself see why we should wait a single session for the Bill; and if members of Parhament will only work for it as hard and as zealously as they did over the Bankruptcy Bill and one or two other measures of last session, the whole thing may be carried next session. I now beg to move the following formal resolution : That the following gentlemen be the officers of the League for the ensuing year :— George Dixon, Esq., M.P., Chairman. Jesse Collings, Esq, Hon. Secretary. John Jaffray, Esq., Treasurer. �41 That the Council of the League consist of— (1)—All Members of the League who are Members of Parliament, comprising at present: — The Right Hon. the Earl of Portsmouth Anstruther, Sir Robert, Bart., M. P. for Fifeshire Armitstead, G., M.P. for Dundee Bass, M. Arthur, M.P. for Stafford Beaumont, Somerset, M.P. for Wakefield Bright, Jacob, M.P. for Manchester Brocklehurst, W. C., M.P. for Macclesfield Brogden, Alexander, M.P. for Wednesbury Campbell, H., M.P. for Stirling Carter, R. M., M.P. for Leeds Clement, W. J., M.P. for Shrewsbury Dalrymple. Donald, M.P. for Bath Dilke, Sir Charles Wentworth, Bart., M.P. for Chelsea Dixon, George, M.P. for Birmingham Fawcett, H., M.P. for Brighton Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund, M.P. for Caine Gower, Lord Rowland Leveson, M. P. for Sutherland Grieve, J. 0., M.P. for Greenock Grosvenor, Captain The Hon. R. W., M.P. for Westminster Hoare, Sir Henry A., Bart., M.P. for Chelsea Howard, James, M.P. for Bedford Hughes, T., M.P. for Frome Lome, The Marquis of, M. P. for Argyleshire Melly, G., M.P. for Stoke-on-Trent Miall, Edward, M.P. for Bradford Mitchell, S. A., M.P. for Bridport Morgan, George Osborn, Q.C., M.P. for Denbeighshire Morrison, W., M. P. for Plymouth Mundella, A. J., M.P. for Sheffield Muntz, P. H., M.P. for Birmingham Parry, T. L. D. J., M.P. for Carnarvonshire Platt, J., M.P. for Oldham Playfair, Dr. Lyon, C. B., M.P. for Edinburgh, &c. Universities. Potter, Edmund, F.R.S., M.P. for Carlisle. Price, W. E., M.P. for Tewkesbury. Price, W. P., M.P. for Gloucester. Rylands, Peter, M.P. for Warrington. Samuelson, Bernhard, M.P. for Banbury. Seely, Charles, M.P. for Nottingham. Simon, John, Serjeant-at-Law, M.P. for Dewsbury. �42 Sykes, Col.W.H., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.R.G.S., M.P. for Aberdeen. Taylor, P.A., M.P. for Leicester. Wedderburn, Sir David, Bart., M.P. for South Ayrshire. Williams, Watkin, M.P. for Denbigh. Winterbotham, H. S. P., M.P. for Stroud. (2) —AR Donors to the funds of the League of £590. and upwards, comprising at present: — Bolton, F. S., Birmingham. Brogden, A., M.P., Ulverstone. Chamberlain, J., Moor Green Hall. Chamberlain, Jos., Birmingham. Chance, R. L., Birmingham. Dixon, Geo., M.P., Birmingham. Field, A., Birmingham. Jaffray, John, J.P., Birmingham. Kenrick, A., Birmingham. Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Birmingham. Kenrick, T., Birmingham. Kenrick, Wm., Birmingham. Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham. Middlemore, W., Birmingham. Osler, Clarkson, Birmingham. Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham. Phillips, Aiderman, Birmingham. Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle. (3) —One Representative from each Branch of the League ; And the following ladies and gentlemen, namely:— Abbott, E. A., M.A., St. John’s Wood, London. Ackworth, Rev. James, L.L.D., Scarborough. Albright, Arthur, Edgbaston. Allman, Professor George J., F.R.S., University of Edinburgh. Ambler, Councillor John, Walmer Villas, Bradford. Angus, Rev. Joseph, D.D., Regent’s Park College, London. Anstey, T. Chisholm, Temple, London. Applegarth, Robert, Stamford Street, London. Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester. Baines, John, Mayor of Leicester. Bain, Alexander, Professor of Logic, University of Aberdeen. Barlow, James Mayor of Bolton. Barmby, Rev. Goodwyn, Wakefield. Bazley, Charles H., J.P., Manchester. �43 Beal, Councillor Michael, Sheffield. Beales, Edmond, M.A., Lincoln’s Inn, London. Beard, Bev. Charles, B.A., Liverpool. Becker, Miss Lydia E., Manchester. Belsey, F. H., Rochester. Bennett, J. N., Plymouth. Bessemer, Henry, Denmark Hill, London. Best, Hon. and Rev. Samuel, M.A., Andover, Hampshire. Binns, Rev. William, Devonport. Birks, Rev. John, Kingswood Parsonage, near Alvechurch. Bond, Francis T., M.D., Southampton. Booth, Charles, Liverpool. Bowring, Sir John, LL.D., Exeter. Brodie, Dr., Edinburgh. Brown, John, J.P., Merionethshire. Brodie, E. H., Inspector of Schools, London. Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington, near Warwick. Brodrick, the Hon. George, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. Brock, G. B., J.P., Swansea. Brown, Aiderman E. R., Plymouth. Brown, Potto, Houghton. Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham. Burch, A. E., J.P., Bedford. Butcher, William, Bristol. Butler, Mrs., Liverpool. Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Grammar School, Bristol. Campbell, Rev. Dr., Bradford. Carpenter, Rev. J. Estlin, M.A., Leeds. Carson, W. H., Warminster. Chadwick, Edwin, C.B., Mortlake, Surrey. Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham. Churchill, Lord A. S., 16, Rutland Gate, London. Clark, John F., Tarland, Aberdeenshire. Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham. Clarke, E. G., Bristol. Clarke, Joseph, J.P., Southampton. Collier, W. F., Plymouth. Cockburn, Mr. Councillor John T., Carlisle. Cowen, Councillor Joseph, jun., Newcastle-on-Tyne. Collins, Councillor Henry, M.D., Wolverhampton. Conway, M. D., Notting Hill Square, London. Courtauld, Samuel, Essex. Courtauld, George, near Halstead, Essex. « �Coxe, Sir James, M.D., F.R.S., Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Cremer, W. R., George Street, Euston Road. Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham. Darnton, Rev. P. W., B.A., Newport, Monmouthshire. Darwin, C. E., Southampton. Davies, Jesse Conway, M.D., F.A.S., Holywell, Flintshire. Davis, Rev. John, Tonmawr, Neath, Glamorganshire. Dawson, G., M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham. Deykin, W. H., Edgbaston. Dick, A. H., M.A., L.L.B., Normal College, Glasgow. Dixon, Joshua, Winslade, Exeter. Dowson, Rev. H. E., B.A., Gee Cross, Manchester. Drake, W., M.A., Hon. Canon of Worcester. Dyster, Frederic D., M.D., F.L.S., J.P., Tenby. Eadie, Robert, C.E., LL.D., F.R.G.S., London. Emanuel, Rev. G. J., B.A., Edgbaston. Emerson, George R., Editor of Weekly Dispatch. Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College,Oxford. Evans, William H., M.A., J.P., Forde Abbey, Dorsetshire. Everett, J. D., M.A., D.C.L., Queen’s College, Belfast. Falconer, Thomas, F.G.S., County Court Judge, Usk. Fallows, W., J.P., Middlesbro’. Faunthorpe, J. P., M.A., St. John’s College, Battersea. Fawcett, Mrs., The Close, Salisbury. Ferguson, Robert M., Carlisle. Fleming, A., M.D., Birmingham. Foster, Michael, F.R.C.S., Huntingdon. Foster, Dr. Michael, London University. Foster, G. C., B.A,, F.R.S., University College. Fowle, Rev. T. W., M.A., Cambridge Place, London. Fry, Herbert, Editor of “ Our Schools,” &c., London. Fuller, W. M., Wolverhampton. Fuller, Rev. A. G., Wolverhampton. Gairdner, W. 8., M.D., Glasgow. George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford. Goodeve, H. H., M.D., Bristol. Gotch, F. W., L.L.D., Baptist College, Bristol. Grant, David, Ecclesall College, Sheffield. Grayson, Charles, Liverpool. Greenbank, Professor, L.L.D., Manchester. Grenfell, J. G., B.A., Birmingham. Grinrod, R. B., M.D., L.L.D., Malvern. �45 Groome, William, B.A., F.G.S., Bedford. Guise, Sir William Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester. Hall, Rev. Edward, M.A., Eton College. Hammond, James L., M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Camb. Hanham, Captain, J., R.N., near Blandford, Dorsetshire. Hankin, C. W., M.A., Grammar School, Southampton. Hansard, Rev. S., M.A., Bethnal Green, London. Harris, William, Birmingham. Hatton, Thomas S., Wednesbury. Haycroft, Rev. Nathaniel, M.A., D.D., Leicester. Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington. Herbert, the Hon. A., London. Hicks, Wm., Salisbury. Hildick, John, Mayor of Walsall. Hill, Rev. Micaiah, Braithwaite Road, Edgbaston. Hill, Sir Rowland, London. Hinks, John, Edgbaston. Hodges, J. T., M.D., F.C.S., Queen’s College, Belfast. Hodgson, W. B., L.L.D., Grove End Road, London. Holden, Angus, Bradford. Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham. Holland, Samuel, J.P., Glanwilliam, Tan-y-Bwlch. Holyoake, G. J., Waterloo Chambers, London. Hoppus, Rev. John, L.L.D., F.R.S., Camden Street, London. Horton, Rev. H. H., M.A., Gerrard Street, Birmingham. Howard, Hon. George, Haworth Castle, Brampton, Cumberland. Howard, Rev. W. W., H.M. Inspector of Schools, Exeter. Huth, Edward, Huddersfield. Hutton, Charles W. C., ex-Slieriff of London. Howell, George, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. Huxley, Professor, St. John’s Wood, London. Jackson, Rev. Edward, M.A., St. James’s, Leeds. James, Rev. A., Bewdley. James, Rev. William, Clifton. Jeaffreson, C. H., Giggleswick Grammar School. Jevons, Professor W. S., Withington, Manchester. Jones, Rev. Griffith, Bridgend, Glamorganshire. Jones, Rev. Hugh, Llangollen. Jones, Rev. James, Barmouth. Jones, Rev. T. S., Trewen, Cardiganshire. Jackson, T. W., Fellow Worcester College, Oxford. Kane, Sir Robert, L.L.D., F.R.S., Queen’s College, Cork. Kedwards, Rev. J., Lye Waste, Cradley. �46 King, William, Queen’s College, Galway. Kingsley, Rev. Canon, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Eversley Rectory, Winchfield. Kirk, John S., Ph. D., M.A., Carnarvon. Lambert, Rev. Brooke, Whitechapel. Lampard, Joseph, St. Mark Street, Birmingham. Langley, J. B., M.R.C.S., F.L.S., Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Larkin, Rev. E. R., M.A., Burton, near Lincoln. Leckenby, John, J.P., F.G.S., Scarborough. Lee, Rev. F. F., D.D., Lancaster. Lees, Harold, Woodheys, Sale, Manchester. Leppoc, H. J., Manchester. Lestrange, Thomas, Belfast. Levi, Professor Leone, F.S.A., F.S.S., King’s College, London. Liveing, G. D., M.A., St. John’s College, Cambridge. Lloyd, Sampson, Wednesbury. Lloyd, Thomas, J.P., Priory, Warwick. Locket, Joseph, J.P., Dunoon, Argyleshire. Lowe, T. C., B.A., Handsworth. Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., London. Lupton, Darnton, J.P., Leeds. Lushington, G. Westminster. Lushington, Vernon, Q.C., Temple. Lyell, Sir Charles, Bart., L.L.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., London. M‘Cance, Finlay, J.P., Suffolk, Antrim, Ireland. MacCarthy, Rev. F. E. M., M.A., Second Master of King Edward’s School, Birmingham. Mander, C. B., J.P., Wolverhampton. Martineau, Robert, J.P., Edgbaston. Martineau, Russell, M.A., British Museum, London. Maginnis, Rev. D., Stourbridge. Manton, Aiderman, Birmingham. Mason, Hugh, Ashton-under-Lyne Mason, Josiah, Birmingham. Maxfield, M., Leicester. Maxse, Captain R.N., Southampton. McLaren, Rev. Alexander, Manchester. McMichael, Rev. N., D.D., Edinburgh. Miles, Rev. C. P., M.A., F.L.S., Monkwearmouth, Durham. Millard, J. H., B.A., Huntingdon. Mills, John, Manchester. Milner, Edward, Warrington. Molyneux, William, F.G.S., Burton-on-Trent. �47 Mottram, Rev. W., Warminster. Moses, Rev. R. G., B.A., Falmouth. Muller, Professor Max, University, Oxford. Murcli, 0. J., Recorder of Barnstaple and Bideford. Murch, Jerom, Bath. New, Herbert, Evesham. Nicholls, John, Mayor of Launceston, Cornwall. Norrington, Councillor Henry, Exeter. Odger, George, Bloomsbury, London. Oram, Richard, Stonehouse, Devonshire. Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham. Osborne, Captain Sherard, Hyde Park. Page, David, L.L.D., F.R.S.E., 38, Gilmore Place, Edinburgh. Paget, Charles, J.P., Nottingham. Parker, Rev. J. W., Banbury. Paul, Rev. C. Regan, Sturminster Marshall, Dorsetshire. Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol. Prange, F. G., Liverpool. Pemberton, Oliver, Birmingham. Pentecost, J., Stourbridge. Pinnock, Henry, Newport, Isle of Wight. Pulsford, Rev. William, D.D., Glasgow. Purdy, Frederick, F.S.S., Poor Law Board, London. Prichard, Thomas, M.D., Abington Abbey, Northamptonshire. ■Quain, Dr. Richard, F.R.S., University College, London. Radford, Wm., Birmingham. Raffles, J., Birmingham. Ransome, Robert C., Ipswich. Rathbone, P. H., Liverpool. Rawlinson, Robert, C'.B., West Brompton. Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, C.B., Upton-on-Severn. Reed, E. J., Chief Constructor of the Navy, Whitehall. Richards, R. C., J.P., Clifton Lodge, near Preston. Rigby, Samuel, J.P., Warrington. Ritchie, Rev. W., Liskeard, Cornwall. Roberts, Rev. J. B., Alnwick, Northumberland. Rothera, G. B., Nottingham. Rogers, Professor J. E. Thorold, Oxford. Roper, Richard, F.G.S., F.C.S., Cwmbraen, near Newport, Mon. Roscoe, Professor, Owen’s College, Manchester. • Rowlands, Rev. David, B.A., Welchpool. Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham. Rumney, Aiderman, Manchester. �48 Sales, Henry H., Leeds. Salt, Councillor Titus, jun., Bradford. Sandford, Archdeacon, Alvechurch. Sandwith, Humphrey, C.B., Denbigh. Schmitz, L., L. L.D., Ph. D., International College, London. Scott, Thomas, Ramsgate. Seeley, Harry G., F.G.S., St. John’s College, Cambridge. Shaen, W., M.A., Bedford Row, London. Short, Rev. J. L., Kenwood Road, Sheffield. Sieveking, Edward IL, M.D., Manchester Square, London. Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil. Smith, Joseph, M.D., J.P., 'Warrington. Stansfeld, James, Halifax. Stanley, the Hon. E. L., Aderley Park, Congleton. Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester. Stock, Rev. John, LL.D., Devonport. Strut, Rev, J. C., Newcastle-on-Tyne. Style, Rev. George, Giggleswick Grammar School. Sully, G. B., Mayor of Bridgwater. Symonds, Rev. W. S., Tewkesbury. Symonds, Dr., Clifton, Bristol. Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield. Teschemaker, Major T. R., Sydenham, Kent. Thomas, Rev. John, B.A., Huddersfield. Thomas, Christopher J., J.P., Bristol. Thomas, Rev. IT. R., Bristol. Thomas, Rev. W., Llandyssul, Cardiganshire. Thursfield, James R., Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. Tichbourne, C. R. C., F.C.S., Dublin. Tonks, Edmund, B.C.L., Knowle. Trevelyan, Arthur, J.P., Teynholm, East Lothian. Trimble, Robert, Liverpool. Turner, J. P., Handsworth. Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham. Voysey, Rev. Charles, B.A., Healaugh Vicarage. Webb, C. Locock, Lincoln’s Inn. Wilson, Rev. H. B., St. Neots. Williams, Rev. Rowland, LL.D., Broadclialke Vicarage. Williams, Evan, M.A., Merthyr Tydvil. Wolstenholme, Miss E. C., Moody Hall, Congleton. Wright, J. S., Birmingham. Zincke, Rev. F. Barham, M.A., Ipswich. �49 And that the Executive Committee consist of the Officers and forty members of the League, namely, the following thirty gentle­ men, and ten others to be chosen by them and the officers :— Booth, Charles, Liverpool. Bunce, J. Thaekray, F.S.S., Birmingham. Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Bristol. Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham. Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham. Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham. Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham. Dawson, George, M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham. Ferguson, Major, Carlisle. Field, Alfred, Birmingham. Fry, Herbert, London. Harris, William, Birmingham. Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London. Hodgson, W.B., LL.D., London. Holden, Angus, Bradford. Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham. Howell, George, London. Huth, Edward, Huddersfield. Kenrick, William, Birmingham. Kingsley, Rev. Canon, Eversley. Maxfield, M., Leicester. Maxse, Captain, R.N., Southampton. Middlemore, William, Birmingham. Osborne, E. C., Birmingham. Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham. Ryland, Arthur, Birmingham. Simons, William, Merthyr Tydvil. Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester. Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham. Wright, J. S., Birmingham. Zincke, Rev. F. B., M.A., Ipswich. The Chairman : Dr. Hodgson, of London—one of the five or six gentlemen who started the Manchester National Association for Secular Eate-paid Education in 1847—will second the resolution. Dr. Hodgson : My friend Mr. Potter, who preceded me, has described the motion as one of form • but still I am sure that it will be received with that feeling of interest and enthusiasm which .it properly deserves, both on account of the character of the persons D �50 to be appointed and the greatness of the object which they will have in hand to promote. The list of the Executive Committee contains a large number of members of Parliament who have distinguished themselves in various ways ; but this may be said of the body col­ lectively, that it is composed almost wholly of gentlemen who have brought this union to its present position, and what they have already done is a guarantee of what they may be expected to do. The best way to prove our gratitude to them for services already rendered is to call upon them to continue those services, and to come before us next year with a large account of work done. The President’s reference to the Manchester Association leads me to say that although death has thinned the ranks of those who composed that association for obtaining secular rate-paid education, there still remains a large number who, instead of looking upon the labours of this League with jealousy, will hail its co-operation with the greatest earnestness and enthusiasm, not even desiring to meet it in friendly rivalry. I beg to second the resolution. In reply to a gentleman who spoke from the body of the hall, The President said : In the selection of the names mentioned in the resolution, the principle of having all parts of the country represented has been carried out. Mr. Albright : I should like to know if the name of Mr. G. B. Lloyd is on the Council. The President : His name is on it. Dr. Bligh : The suggestion I would make is that in the place of the words “ ten gentlemen,” &c., the words “ with power to add to their number” should be inserted. And I do so for this reason, that whilst I do not in any way doubt the discretion of the Executive in nominating these gentlemen to the Council, I consider that as the movement extends all over the country there is room for the taking in of a large number of representative men not now on the Council. I beg to move that suggestion. The President : The objection to that suggestion is that the executive body ought to be small. It might under your suggestion become unwieldy ; but still if it is the wish of the meeting that the alteration should be made, the Committee, of course, will be very glad to adopt it. • �51 A Gentleman : Perhaps the matter might be got over by making vice-presidents. The President : We have no vice-presidents. Vice-presidents are only ornamental people, and we require no ornamental people here. The Rev. H. Solly, of London: I do not see the name of any Congregational minister on the list. I do not belong to that body myself; but I know that they are very zealous in the cause of education, and I think it is only fair that they should be repre­ sented. The President : When we have some Congregational minister willing to join and work upon the Executive Committee, we shall be very willing to receive his name and to appoint him. We were very willing to appoint the Rev. R. W. Dale; but some scruple upon a minor point has prevented him from joining hitherto. If Mr. Solly will undertake the duty of inducing that gentleman to join we shall be very glad. These minor points wiU soon settle themselves. The resolution, as altered in accordance with the suggestion of Dr. Bligh, was put to the meeting and agreed to. NATIONAL EDUCATION BILL. Professor Eawcett, M.P. for Brighton, rose to move that a Bill embodying the principles of the League be introduced into Parliament. He said: The resolution I have the honour and pleasure to move will give a pledge to the whole nation that this League, representing a great and an increasing force of public opinion, is resolved to adopt practical and decisive action. The subject of national education has now happily advanced a stage beyond that of doubt and inquiry; it has reached the stage when it is ripe for action. The reproach is too often with truth made against Leagues and Congresses that they begin with talk, they go on with talk, they end in talk, and that is their only result. But if from this meeting a Btll shall emanate, the whole country will then see placed in a practical form, in a definite shape—so definite that they will be able to express their opinions upon it—what are the views we hold upon this great question, and how we think �52 these views may be practically carried out. It may be said, of course, that Government intends to introduce an Education Bill next session, and that we who repose confidence in the Govern­ ment should wait until we see what its measure is. In reply to that possible objection to this resolution, it is only necessary to remark that if the Government measure—I am afraid it is too bright an anticipation—comes up to what we require, if it embodies the principles of this League, then all that we shall have to do will be at once to withdraw the Bill which we introduce into Parliament, and use the whole strength of this organisation in support of the Government and its measure. But if, on the other hand, the Government measure should have in it any shortcomings which we conceive are antagonistic to the great principles of this League—we cannot, of course, expect that any measure will meet our programme in all its detail—but if, for instance, the Government measure should infringe any of our great fundamental principles—if it should be too denominational in its character—if it should commit what, to my mind, is the fatal mistake of having compulsory rating without compulsory attendance—then our bill will be before the country, and the nation will be able to decide—and I think I can anticipate their decision with confidence—to which measure they will give their support. Now, it would be idle to deny that it is impossible for the great body of men who compose this League to be entirely agreed upon details ; but so long as we can get our great aim and ends secured, we should, I venture to say, sacrifice our individual preferences upon minor points; and I for one am prepared on all questions of detail to give up my own opinions and bow cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority. Thus I may have my own opinions as to which would be the best title to adopt—undenomi­ national, secular, or unsectarian; but I am perfectly prepared to accept any one of these three words which the majority of the League think should be the word in our programme. Then again, I have a preference for parents paying for the education of their children, instead of sending them to free schools ; but here again I am perfectly willing to give up my own individual opinions, and if the majority of the Conference is in favour of free schools, I, �53 for one, will not shrink for a moment. What I conceive to he the fundamental principle of this organisation, what I look upon as the essential point upon which every one of us must be agreed, which is the bond of our union, the basis of our existence, is this : that we are absolutely determined that elementary education shall be guaranteed to every boy and girl in this country, and that if there is a deficiency of educational appliances, then schools shall be built and maintained out of the rates. Upon this fundamental principle I conceive that there can be no difference whatever amongst us. Now comes the question, if we are to have a Bill, what are to be the main principles of this Bill, in order to carry out compulsory attendance and compulsory rating? As far as I understand the programme of the League, they contemplate that the schools—at any rate, in the first instance, the rate-supported schools—shall be unsectarian, and not secular. For a long time, I must confess, I found it somewhat difficult to discover the differ­ ence between these phrases. I think the best explanation that can be given of the difference is this: that in the rate-supported schools no catechism shall be used, no dogmas of religion shall be taught, but it shall be perfectly optional with the managers of a school whether, in that school, the Bible shall be read, without any such comment as persons would object to from sectarian feeling. Therefore, if we adopt this plan of having unsectarian schools, I think we at once meet the argument of those who say that the education we propose will be irreligious. No one, I think, can pretend to say that the British and Foreign schools in this country are irreligious schools ; and, to put our meaning about unsectarian schools in a definite and intelligible form, it seems to me that what we contemplate is this : there will be nothing whatever in our programme to prevent the managers of ratesupported schools from making their schools exactly analogous in their religious character to the schools which at present belong to the British and Foreign School organisation. These schools are not irreligious ; they are supported by Nonconformists, who have shown the greatest enthusiasm, for religion. The second point is this: Do we propose to deal with existing schools ? We contemplate, I conceive, leaving existing schools untouched. If �54 a district or a locality prefer voluntaryism to compulsion—if they choose by their own efforts to provide themselves with schools according to the present system, they should have the power to do so. We only contemplate that the educational rate should be imposed in those districts in which the Government inspector reports that the educational appliances are not adequate for the education of all the children in the locality. Now, the next point is this : is it better that these schools should he supported by rates, or from the national exchequer ? I believe some gentlemen who are entirely in favour of the great principle of compulsory education have not joined our League because they think that schools should be supported from the Consolidated Fund, and not from the rates. In reply to these gentlemen I would only say thus much—that I believe that if you take money from the Consolidated Fund there is a chance of its being extravagantly administered, and that if we made a proposal to take it from the Consolidated Fund we should at once declare open war against existing schools, for it would be idle to pretend that any existing schools could continue if the public could draw for the support of schools from the Consolidated Fund. In reply to those gentlemen who are in favour of existing schools, and wish to see them maintained, we can truly say that there is nothing whatever in our programme that is in the least degree antagonistic to those schools. If events should show that ratesupported schools are better, then of course the existing schools would gradually cease. But it is quite possible to conceive that the power to levy an educational rate may give a great stimulus to the existing schools, for it is quite possible that many clergymen and ministers of religion, who now find it difficult or almost impossible to support their schools, in consequence of the shabbiness and stinginess of the landed proprietors, may be able to induce them to come forward if they can use this practical argument, that, unless they subscribe, rates will be levied upon them and their tenants. Therefore it is quite possible in some cases that compulsory rating, instead of touching the present system, may give it a greater stimulus and render it far more efficient. The last point, upon which I should like to say a few words—and I speak upon it chiefly �55 to show you that I am anxious, as far as possible, to be conciliatory —is upon the question of free schools. I know there is a very strong feeling in this League in favour of making education free, but what I object to in this may be briefly stated in one sentence : I fear the principle of free education may weaken that sentiment of responsibility which parents should feel towards their children. I think we should lay down the doctrine that it is as much the duty ■of the parent to provide his child with education as it is to provide him with food and clothing. I know it may be said, in reply to my objections, that in certain extreme cases you support the child upon the rates—that you will not let children starve, but as a last resource you maintain them upon the rates. Yes ; but if the parent refuses to support his child when he has the means to do so, you say that he shall be punished—he commits a criminal act. Simi­ larly I should hold that rather than let a child’s mind be starved, as a last resource he should be provided with a free education ; but I should like to see the principle never sacrificed, that if a parent who has the means to give his child education refuses to do so, he too should be regarded as being guilty of a criminal act. I know it may be said every parent will contribute indirectly through the ■rates. There is no doubt some force in that argument; but it would be equally, just to say it was the duty of the State to feed and clothe children, and not the duty of parents, because the money devoted to the purpose would be taken from the taxes, and there­ fore parents would in the aggregate contribute. But this after all is only a detail of the great measure we have in view; and I am per­ fectly willing to sacrifice my own individual views. If we introduce a Bill next session, let me give you one word of advice—let it be introduced almost the very first day of the session. Anyone who knows the House of Commons will know the importance of that. And let it be forced on through all its stages. My short experience in the House of Commons has taught me that persistence is a most valuable quality. "When we have prepared this Bill, let us never abandon it until the Government is prepared to carry a measure similar to it, or until that day will arrive—and I believe it will never arrive—when the nation shall unmistakeably express its 'desire that the great problem of national education should be settled �56 upon principles different from those which form the basis of our organization. I beg to move, “ That the Executive Council be instructed to prepare a Bill embodying the principles of this League, and that that Bill be introduced in the early part of next session.” Professor Thorold Rogers, seconded the resolution, He said : When I entered again into your town of Birmingham, the first little phenomenon that came before my attention was the conclusion of an article in a local paper, that article being, I make no doubt, exceedingly intelligent and instructive. It was to the effect that, if we who compose together the body of this Education League should succeed in proving our point, should show that we had not hitherto been the decided enemies of education, but that we intend—I am only paraphrasing the language of the article—a vast public good, then the editor of this paper, and I suppose those who read it, will quite abandon for ever the opposition which they feel towards us, and come over to our side. Now, I am not in a position to determine the exact numerical value of this possible conversion. I dare say it will be very considerable. But even if it be small, ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have reason to congratulate ourselves ; because our main object—or at least, one of our main objects—is the reformation of the dangerous classes. Now, gentlemen, the central point of our Bill, of the movement which We propose, is the object with which the whole statement of the pur­ poses of this National League commences : the establishment of a system which shall secure the education of every child in the country. That, I repeat, is the central point, the great object, the true meaning that we have in all that we say and undertake. For my part, I think that if we can only achieve the general accep­ tance of this principle, all the other points—points of detail— which have been adverted to in the report readjust now, and which may hereafter come up for consideration, will follow as a matter of logical necessity. I entirely agree with my friend Mr. Potter, and the previous speaker, that if we establish a compulsory system of education, it is a matter of necessity that that compulsory education should be supplied, in some form or other, from public funds. I also agree entirely with Mr. Potter, that if you do establish a system of compulsory education, the machinery of which �57 is supplied from the public funds, it must inevitably be what people call secular, unsectarian, undenominational. I feel, ladies and gentlemen, that to dispute or doubt about the position laid down by those gentlemen, is to be ignorant of the facts of the society in which we live; and that whether we like it or not, for the very welldefined reasons glanced at, I was glad to see, by Mr. Dawson, we must thoroughly accept their necessary and proper conclusion. I shall not indeed, for I think it is out of question now, enter into the reasons why I hold these views, differing as I do upon theological topics at least—as I understand—from Mr. Dawson. Well, that is the only allusion I shall make to the subject. But anything like a Permissive Bill would be wholly and hopelessly out of place. I will here allude to a distinguished individual in the Church to which I belong—Archdeacon Denison; with whom, by the way, I do not agree in almost any point whatever. He avowed one of the finest sentiments I ever heard in my life the other day, to the effect that all permissive legislation was a hoax, a sham, and a delusion. All education, I think, must be universal and compulsory ■ and it must, I also think, be sup­ plied from some public fund. What that fund shall be I do not intend to discuss now, because I have prepared a paper to read on that subject this afternoon. How then, having cleared the way in this fashion, let us, endeavouring to reply to the objections urged against us, say why we should carry out the platform which is before us to-day. I was at some trouble to investigate, with Dr. Barr, of the Registrar General’s office, what might be the number of children in this country above five and under thirteen years of age—a period of life during which, I imagine, this education would be generally bestowed—and we concluded that there were very nearly four millions and a half of such children in England and Wales. Now, we know from the little book pub­ lished annually by the Board of Trade that the number of children educated in schools under inspection is about twelve hundred thousand. I confess that I think it will be a very liberal estimate to say that a million and a half more are being educated by their parents, in schools that will not accept Government grants, and by those various other methods of voluntary teaching which, to �58 a large degree, supplement public education in this country. Thus I am left with the horrid conclusion that nearly two millions of children between the ages of five and thirteen are not getting any education at all! I sincerely agree with my friend Archdeacon Sandford, in confessing that I think that that Christianity is a very queer sort of fabric that will suffer men to be willing that some­ thing like two millions of children should grow, up in ignorance and sin a scandal to the whole civilised world—because they cannot make up their minds whether or not these children should be taught something which is no necessary part of school education at all. I should like the gentleman who edits that local newspaper to ask himself the question—if he is content, under existing circumstances, to grapple with the problem, and supposing he will not accept general and compulsory education—how he proposes to provide against the growing and terrible fact that you have so many thousands and tens of thousands of children in this country who are getting no proper education and culture at all. It is all very well to talk about our institutions, and to laud the state of things that exists, but underneath what we see there is a great deal that is not seen, or that, being seen, is not seen with sufficiently careful and scrutinising eyes; and amongst those facts nothing is to me more terrible than that whole hosts of children should be living and growing up without the smallest prospect of having their minds or morals trained—and I quite believe that no man can have his mind trained without his morals being trained likewise, and that the training of the mind should be antece­ dent to the training of the morals. I confess that the difficulty raised by Professor Fawcett appears to me to be superfluous, and I will tell you why. If I argue on abstract grounds, he may object to my commenting on what he said, and may say he has a right to his belief. But my proofs are derived from existing facts. What is the country, among the people of our own race, where there is the most education given by the Government'? It is the United States. I will not say that there they have compulsory education, but they have so extended a system that compulsion is not needed. The education is provided by the State; but does anyone tell us that American fathers and mothers do not care for it ? �59 There are no people under the canopy of heaven who are more willing to make sacrifices, and none amongst whom the results of education are more satisfactory. We are told—and it is true, at any rate, of the Northern States—that there is hardly a child to he found, born of American parents, who does not derive benefits from the law of education. What reason is there to suppose that if we get a system like it—or, considering the ignorance of our people, a more stringent system—our people will not also be desirous of giving the benefits of education to their children ? I should like to put this before the editor of your local paper. He says there does not seem to be any profound anxiety for the progress we intend. I can only say that I made many speeches about the country to working men last year, and I constantly alluded to the absolute necessity of having this system of compulsory education, and I have no hesitation in saying that whenever I mentioned it there was, without any exception, a unanimous shout of applause. They always tell you in their conversation that, surrounded as they are by people who will not educate their children, and on account of the freedom they have necessarily to give their children, and of the circumstances under which they have to be so much away from them, they are driven to demand that there should be that compul­ sion put on the whole mass of their numbers which may or may not be necessary for the education of those who are in a better condition of life—to whom the advantages of a good education are not more obvious, but to whom the machinery of a good education is at present more accessible. Now we shall be told, I dare say, that we are a number of unimportant persons ; we shall be informed by some of the organs of the gentlemanly press that very few members of Parliament were present, that the parties collected together were local obscurities, and that the movement, as it has been started, is one which any respectable people may very well pooh-pooh. I should like to ask those who are familiar with political agitation whether it was ever begun by influential persons 1 You may depend on it that if you wait for a national education till you get, I will not say the whole Liberal party in the House of Commons, but the influential people in this country, to support it, ■ you will wait till Doomsday before you get it. I challenge denial �60 of the fact that almost all social, political, and economical reforms have commenced with the labours of persons whom the gentlemanly press calls obscurities. Professor Fawcett, as a member of Par] is ment, gives you advice. Let me, as sincerely wishing the success of this movement, give you this advice : Be content with nothing but your Bill. You lay down a principle which is theoretically unassailable, and that principle involves means logically necessary; let no attempt divert you from these ends. If your principle is admitted, if the Bill introduced by Government during the next session involves your principle, you may safely leave the details to be worked out afterwards; but if the principle is not taken up you had better go without the Bill than have your principle broken up. Gentlemen here can remember the progress of the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, which I need not say was one of the greatest triumphs the country ever, achieved. That was almost wrecked at the commencement by the proposal for an 8s. duty. The advocates of the Anti Com Law League—a League greater in its historic importance, but not greater in its object than our own— resolved that no such compromise should be accepted, and held to the doctrine of total and unconditional repeal. And so I venture to say it will be your wisdom, and I am certain it will be your success, if you hold to the total and unconditional concession of the principle which stands at the head of these statements that are made in italics. Stick to that, and you will win; abandon it for anything that falls short of it, and you are pretty certain to lose. The enemies of national education, and they are many, count on disunion in your ranks, or timidity on the part of some who sup­ port you. They expect you will put up with something less than you demand, and they know that if you do, you will not get what you ought to have. I second the resolution. Mr. Lloyd Jones, in the absence of Mr. George Odger, supported the resolution : He came to the meeting, he said, certainly of his ewn desire, but also as the representative of a body of men sitting in London, composed for the most part of secretaries of the largest trades’ unions in the kingdom. Those men had organized them­ selves for the purpose of securing, if possible, the return of working men to the British House of Parliament. That was their special �61 object; but when they heard that the League had been organized, that its agitation was about to commence, they at once took up the question as one the most deeply interesting that could be brought before them, affecting as it did the particular business of their lives. There was a large number of members present at the meeting which was called to consider the matter, and not one word of objection was uttered to the platform of the League. On the contrary, they passed a resolution declaring that the principles of the League were worthy of hearty support, and promising to assist the object in view by every means in their power. That resolution was signed by a large number of secretaries, one of whom represented between 30,000 and 40,000 engineers. Now, in entering that resolution, he could not pledge himself that the League would have the moral and practical support of the men of all trades in London; but he thought he might pledge himself that it would at least have the support of all those men represented in the names subscribed to the resolution, and in saying that he really gave in the adhesion of the working classes of the country. He was an old working man himself, and his sympathies, therefore, were with the working men. "Whenever he could labour with them for the furtherance of any great object, he invariably did so. His own professional pursuits now compelled him to go through a deal of reading which was by no means so dry as many people were disposed to think : he referred to the blue books issued by the Government. Now, if they referred to the reports of those gentlemen who were sent by Government to report upon the pro­ ducts of industry in the various countries of the world, they would find that whilst they in England were disputing and debating about creeds and differences in theology—subjects, no doubt, very interesting and important in, their way—other nations were giving a practical education to their people, who were rising up, not to discuss and fight about theology, but to carry off the industry of this country in cotton and wool and iron. If they did not give to the artizans of this country the same educational advantages as those enjoyed by the artizans of other nations, they shut them out from competition • for the markets were open to foreigners as well as to English­ men. Why, then, permit other countries to beat their own in �62 the educational and technical stimulus required for the perfection of industry ? They might depend upon it, that if this question of education was not speedily and satisfactorily settled, England would go back as a nation, not theologically, but in the skill and power of her industry—she would lose her manufacturing supremacy, and when she had lost that he was afraid their theological disputes would be of very little use or interest. Mr. Murray, one of the Commissioners who reported upon the cotton fabrics at the Exposition at Paris in 1867, describing the Swiss goods, said that if in all countries there existed such a good system of education as in Switzerland, the commercial position of England would be menaced in various ways. Again, Mr. Massey, who reported upon the woollen goods, said that there was no doubt the French were greatly indebted for their progress in manufactures to the very superior technical education which was obtained by the artizans through schools instituted for special instruction. Mr. Massey argued that if in England they wanted to have skilled working men, special regard must be given to general education. Now, they stood there to-day in the presence of as great an educational failure as had ever taken place on the face of the earth. The denominational system had promised to do everything, yet they were told from the platform that day, that there were above two •million children in the country receiving no education at all ! That was a state of things utterly discreditable to them as a nation, and did they not adjust their differences and throw overboard their prejudices, England would sink as a nation in position and influence, theology not being able to save them from the fall. The Rev. H. E. Dowson, addressing the Chairman, said : I understood that we came here to support secular education, but I find that we are now asked to support the British School system, and against that I utterly protest. I say it is a compromise, and every compromise deserves to fail. The Chairman : Mr. Dowson has entirely misunderstood what has taken place. We do not use the word “ secular”; but we exclude all theological parts of religion, and I am sure that what is left is what even Mr. Dowson himself would call “ secular.” But at any rate, however that may be, Mr. Dowson must remember �63 that we have placed, or we wish to place, the decision of the question in the hands of the people themselves in each district, in the hands of the fathers of children who are to be educated, or, what is the same thing, their representatives on the school committees. Before I put the resolution, I wish to make one remark in reference to an observation which fell from Professor Bogers. He said that, in the estimation of some people, some members of the League were “ obscurities.” Now, I do not wish to point to the gentlemen who have addressed you to-day from this platform, nor to the 40 members of Parliament heading our list, nor yet to the 300 or 400 ministers of all denominations who have joined, nor to the most eminent men of science whose names appear upon the list ; but I would just say that we have been told upon the highest authority that we have upon our list of members certain persons of very great influence—indeed, of much greater weight and influence than we in Birmingham are at all conscious of. Therefore, although Professor Rogers is perfectly right in saying that we depend mainly upon the righteousness and goodness of our cause; that we intend to go not to celebrities, not to leaders, but to the people themselves (to whom we look for that strength and for that power which will ultimately most certainly carry the measure) ; yet still it will be seen that we are not altogether “ political obscurities. ” The resolution was then put and carried, and the meeting • adjourned. THE CHAIRMAN’S PAPER ON NATIONAL SCHOOLS. On the reassembling of the meeting in the afternoon, the Chairman read the following paper :— The paper I am about to read on “ The Best System for National Schools, based upon Local Rates and Government Grants,” must not be supposed to emanate from the Provisional Committee, nor to have any more authority as an exposition of the views of the National Education League than a paper by any other member present would have. The central idea in the scheme of the National �Education League is that the education of the people should no longer continue to be based exclusively upon the isolated, and often fitful, efforts of individuals, however noble and valuable those efforts might be ; but that the State should become responsible for the education of the whole of its children. This responsibility need not involve taking immediate charge of all existing schools. Where education is being satisfactorily carried on there, it may be­ that no further action by the State will be required. It will suffice if provision be made for the transfer to the School Boards of those schools whose managers may desire it. It appears to me that no measure for a national system would be complete unless it contained the following enactments :—The entire cost of erecting or main­ taining national-rate schools, to be defrayed out of the rates and taxes of the country, in the proportion of one-third from the former and two-thirds from the latter. The principle of payment on results to be continued. Power to be given for the compulsory purchase of school sites. In every county and in every large municipality a School Board to be elected of the ratepayers or their representatives. These Boards shall ascertain where schools are wanted, and see that they are provided; shall negociate the transfer of existing schools to the local authorities, whenever such transfer is desired by the managers, and will be advantageous to the district; shall appoint committees to manage schools or groups of schools ; shall levy the necessary rates, claim the Government grants, and pay all the expenses of the schools; shall keep registers of all the children of school age within their districts, placing opposite to each child’s name that of the school which may be fixed upon by the parents, guardians, or school officers, and shall send a list of the names and addresses of the children assigned to each school to the respective school committees; shall appoint school officers to make out and periodically revise the above registers, and undertake the duty of enforcing attendance, under the direction of the school committees. (The duties of these school officers might be performed by the school­ master in thinly-populated districts, and where the schools are small.) Shall fix the number of, and the period for, the attendances to be required of children in the course of the year, within the limits prescribed by the Committee of Privy Council on Education ; �65 and shall take care that all other provisions of the Act of Parliament under which they are appointed be carried out. The School Com­ mittees shall appoint the masters and mistresses, subject to the approval of the School Boards ; shall see that the school buildings are kept in repair, and supervise and sanction the expenditure of the school; shall report to the School Boards all irregularities and infractions of rules ; shall cause registers to be kept of the attend­ ances of all the children belonging to their schools, see that the school officers call on the parents or guardians of those children who attend irregularly, or do not attend at all, and acquaint them with their duties, with the meaning and object of the school laws, and the penalties following a disregard of them, and shall summon before them absentee children, or their parents or guardians, and admonish them; and in the event of their injunctions being dis­ obeyed, shall cause them to be summoned before a magistrate, with whom shall rest the infliction of a fine. All national-rate schools shall be free, and no catechisms, creeds, or tenets peculiar to any particular sect shall be taught in them during the recognised school hours. But the school committee shall have power to permit the use of the Bible without note or comment, and to grant the use of the class rooms for religious instruction out of school hours, on condition that one sect is not favoured more than another. Whenever a parent or guardian can substantiate a plea of poverty as a reason for not sending a child to school, and there is no free school within reach, the committee shall have power to pay the school fees of such child ; and it shall be obligatory on the managers of the school selected by the parent, if such school be receiving Government aid, to admit the child, and to refrain from teaching it any catechism, creed, or tenet peculiar to any particular sect. The managers of any non-national rate school may negotiate with the School Board for its transfer to the local authorities, and the Board shall, if the transfer be otherwise desirable, and the managers wish it, agree to appoint the said managers to be the School Committee, until their resignation or death, on the condition that all the provisions of the School Act are observed by them. Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall cease to examine on religious subjects, and in each district there shall E �66 consequently be only one inspector. The number of inspectors shall be augmented, and the following additional duties shall be imposed upon them :—They shall report to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and to the School Boards—whether, in their opinion, a sufficient number of efficient schools exists for the wants of the district; in what schools the education is defective, and the manner in which the defects can best be remedied; whether the attendance of the children has been satisfactory, and if not, whether the proper steps have been taken to enforce it. In the event of the School Boards failing to obtain such results as may be deemed satisfactory by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, it shall be the duty of the Committee of Privy Council to direct what additional measures are to be taken, and Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall see that those measures are adopted. If the scheme above described were carried out, I am of opinion that we should achieve the following results. We should avoid the evils of centralisation on the one hand, and of local inefficiency on the other. Whilst retaining all the advan­ tages of local self-government, and of the immediate and direct action of public opinion based on local knowledge, we should be guarded by an enlightened inspection and strong Government control against the danger of our standard of efficiency being lowered in some districts by the ignorance and niggardliness of the ratepayers. The new schools provided by the local authorities would be of a class equal, if not superior, to the best denominational schools. The heavy responsibilities and large expenditure involved would prevent the ratepayers from providing more schools than were absolutely necessary. The new schools would be mainly, if not entirely, erected in those districts which are now destitute of them—that is, in those districts where, by reason of the poverty of the inhabitants, free schools are most needed. Existing well-managed schools would be able to maintain their ground, if it be true, as is alleged, that the religious teaching given in them is valued by the subscribers and by the parents of the pupils. I would recommend that the Government grants to all existing denominational schools which accept a conscience clause should be the same as those to the �67 national-rate schools—that is, that they should be increased from the present amount of one-third of the total cost to two-thirds, thus relieving the managers of one-half of their present responsi­ bilities. The remaining half would not be too much to pay for the assured advantages of religious instruction and the supposed superiority of voluntary management. It is also probable that some of these denominational schools would be preferred by parents as being more select; and as this would in part be owing to the fees required, those fees would on that account be more willingly paid. The result of the rivalry that would take place between the denominational and the national-rate schools might be that the upper portion of the working classes would prefer the former for the reasons mentioned above ; but, in my opinion, the instruction given in the national-rate schools would be found to be generally so superior as to cause them, in the course of time, to supersede the others. But the process would be gradual, and no inconvenience would be felt by the transfer of schools that would he continually taking place. , Should my anticipations be realised, I am further of opinion that the knowledge and influence of religion would become far more widely spread than is now the case; because the groundwork for it would be universally laid, and the clergy would be able to devote themselves more exclusively to the giving of religious instruction. I do not believe that the spirit of voluntaryism would languish under the new system. Those persons who now take an interest in primary schools would he placed on the school committees, and as there would be more schools, their services would be in greater request. The necessity for voluntary contributions of money would also be quite as paramount as ever; but instead of these contributions being devoted to the building and maintenance of schools for the higher classes of working men, some, if not all, of whom are well able to pay the entire cost of the education of their children, they would be devoted to the providing of clothing and perhaps even of food, for those destitute children who are now unable to attend schools of any sort, because they are starving and in rags. The greatest difficulty in the way of compulsory school attendance is the sacrifice of the child’s earnings; but this difficulty may be. �68 considered to have been already grappled with by the Factory Acts, the extension of which to all parts of the country is called for by public opinion. In some cases, however, a modification of the half-time system will be necessary, especially in the agri­ cultural districts, where a cessation of school attendance might be advantageously allowed during the period of harvest. As some time will elapse before compulsory attendance powers will be granted to the local authorities, and as they will even then be inoperative until sufficient schools have been provided, the public mind will have become prepared for the law before its operation commences. And inasmuch as its enforcement will be in the hands of local committees—that is, of gentlemen well known and esteemed in their respective districts, whose sympathies with the poor have been already called into active exercise—it is not likely that the law will be harshly enforced. For a long time the operations of the committee will be necessarily restricted to the instruction of the parents in their duties to the children, and it is probable that one or two cases only of refractory parents being summoned before a magistrate will suffice to bring into school nine-tenths of those children who are now idling about the streets. One important result of the adoption of this system of national education would be that parents would feel an interest in the schools unknown, and indeed impossible, before. Hitherto they have had no voice whatever in the management of that which was of more importance to them than anything else in the State, and it is not surprising that the apathy has followed which usually results from absence of responsibility. It is a common remark of earnest clergymen that when they are labouring to induce the attendance of children at school, the attitude of parents is that of persons who think they are asked to confer a favour, and who believe that the managers of a school, like the owners of a shop, have some personal end to serve. But when these parents find that the schools belong to themselves, that they are paid for and managed by the people, and that they would save nothing, but lose much, by not using them, then their attitude towards them will be entirely changed, and one great obstacle to school attendance will be removed. Some may shrink from the cost of �69 so complete a system, but this is one of those cases where a wellregulated expenditure is economy, where the niggardliness of inefficiency is extravagance. If every child in the United Kingdom were brought into school the total increased charge upon the taxpayers of the country would probably not reach onethird of the money expended upon our paupers and our criminals. The cost per scholar would not be greater if the charge of educa­ ting the people were thrown upon the State. The total amount spent upon education would be augmented only in proportion to the increase of scholars. The choice before us is expenditure on education, or expenditure on paupers and criminals. PROFESSOR THOROLD ROGERS OK SECULAR EDUCATION. The Rev. J. E. Thorold Rogers read the following paper :— I assume that this Congress accepts the position that primary education should be universal, should be compulsory, should be as a necessary consequence gratuitous, and that, since the State does not enforce or constrain any particular form of religious belief, should be secular. In order to obviate any unfriendly interpretation of this word, I may state that I do not use it in any sense which implies resistance to religion, indifference to religion, or substitution for religion. I take for granted that the functions of a religious teacher and a schoolmaster in purely intellectual culture can be separated, and that the State is bound to find the latter, but that it cannot and ought not to provide the former, still less to import such an element into a compulsory system. The question as to the source from which the funds necessary to provide for the machinery of secular learning should come ought to be settled, and can be settled, on purely economical considerations. Should the class immediately benefited by a system of primary education contribute the requisite funds ? Is society at large so considerably benefited by the change which the Congress seeks to effect that the necessary charge should be raised from the general resources of society ? Is it in accordance with the principles of political justice, as now interpreted, that the fund supplied for the purpose should be levied by the whole community on the �70 resources of a part of the community 2 If it be determined that it should be levied on the whole community, what is the most equitable way in which the fund should be raised, and what is the way in which it should be distributed so as to secure that maximum of efficiency which is supposed to be obtained by the instituted supervision of those who are intrusted with its manage­ ment ? I will attempt as simply as possible to answer these questions. No one, I imagine, will contest the position that the immediate benefit of a system of primary education falls to the labourer. Every one agrees that such an education renders his work more intelligible, and therefore easier. If, therefore, an educated body of labourers do not derive an increased rate of remuneration from the education which they obtain, they earn the rate which they do get on lighter terms and with less toil. Besides, the effect of education in sharpening the intelligence of the labourer is or may be extended to supplying him with the knowledge of the best market for his labour. If he becomes handy because he is intelligent, the same mental power will direct him to the best means for bettering his condition, and so afford him a positive as well as a relative increase in his resources. Nor must it be forgotten that the remuneration of labour is, on the whole, determined by the cost of supplying it, and that if the age at which productive labour is employed is delayed or postponed, the wages earned are, cceteris paribus, invariably higher. This rule might be illustrated abundantly from every-day experience, and holds good even if the labourer does not contribute a single penny towards the cost of his own education. He must be kept while he learns, and this charge will produce the effect referred to. If it could be shown, then, that all the benefits of a system of primary education accrue to the material advantage of theclass for which we seek to provide such an education, and produce no effect, near or remote, on the general well-being of society, the cost of supplying this education ought to be entirely defrayed by the parties who desire the benefit, in just the same way as the outlay on a field, or the stocking of a shop, should be supplied at the charges of the persons who gain a profit on either. Nor would it be impossible to obtain such funds from the direct contribution of �71 the class for whose purposes such a tax would he expended. The State might levy a poll or income tax on all parties who might need this instruction, rateably to the claims which they make on the machinery. Such a poll tax is levied in many of the states composing the American Union. If a half-time system were adopted, the requisite quota might he even collected from the child’s earnings, and a very small sum per week would be sufficient to meet the cost of supplying this necessary of life in the case of children too young to work at all. Ill paid as the agricultural labourer is, he is seldom so straitened as to be incapable of finding a few pence per week for the cost of instructing his children, just as he is generally able to find much more for their clothing. It is said that the Wesleyans are able to maintain their organization by a penny a week from each member of their body. Everybody knows, too, that the voluntary expenditure of the poor on taxable commodities is enormously in excess of any possible amount which might be demanded for public education. In the case, of course, of those who are utterly destitute, a machinery like that of the Poor Law would supply instruction, as it now does, with food, clothing, and lodging. My hearers are aware, that with many persons the contribution of children’s pence is, apart from its amount, con­ ceived to be necessary as an acknowledgment of the benefit which education is, and of the moral obligation which rests on parents to supply that which is only immediately less important than wbat are called the necessaries of life. But the fact is, the benefit of education to the mass of labourers is only more obvious than the benefit of the process to society at large. The employer of labour gets his advantage from education. Many of us know the fact, for instance, that an educated recruit learns his drill in half the time, and at less than half the expense, incurred in training another who is wholly unlettered. Over and over again employers find that labour may be more highly paid, and be cheaper after all, because more effective. And here I may observe, that the faults of a low system of education are not to be charged on education itself. One of the worst kinds of education which is given in England—and it is very costly into the bargain—is, as I know from my experience as a Poor Law Guardian, that which is given �72 in industrial schools for pauper children. But I must not enter on this topic. I only refer to it in order to obviate an objection. But if a sound system of education is of advantage to the person who receives it, and also to the person who lines the services of those who have enjoyed it, it is of no less advantage to the public at large. A good education is the best preventive of crime. Men are quite as much degraded by ignorance as by vice. Harrow men’s faculties, and you strengthen the temptation to the grosser forms of indulgence. Enlarge them wisely, give men an insight into the moral and material interests—never really separable—of the society in which they live, and which claims their allegiance, because it bestows on them the highest services, and gives them the fairest field for their labour, and you will ultimately need no police except for those who are utterly and hopelessly depraved. It is, I am persuaded, possible to cultivate a public opinion which shall do more to correct vicious tendencies than all the repressive forces of the most rigorous police. And what is a sound public opinion but the outcome of public education? But if the advantages of a really national education, the course and details of which are wisely determined, are so generally diffused over society, it is the duty of society at large to bear the charge of this, which is, after all, the cheapest as well as the most effective police. I have tried to answer two of the questions which I put at the outset of this paper. But supposing the tax is to be levied, not on one class but on all, how should the rate be laid ? We have got in this country a rough-and-ready way of levying taxes for local purposes, by putting a rate on the occupier of property. Such a form of taxation is very often grossly unfair. For example, a poor rate is practically an indirect means of paying wages, or at least ofsupplying the means by which certain liabilities affecting the con­ dition of the labourer are met from other than his own resources. Now, if the occupier who does not employ labour with a view to profit, is called upon to contribute to the fund by which the man who does employ labour with a view to profit, ekes out wages, I see that the former is wronged. I might, if time permitted, illustrate my position by a variety of examples, indicating the incidence of local taxation, and confirming my statement that the present process �of assessment is radically unequal. But a wrong which I protest against I should strive not to commit; and hence, assuming that the benefits of a national education are national, I think it would be a crying injustice to provide the funds by taxing the occupiers of one kind of property only, and a still greater injustice if the tax were levied directly on the owners of real estate; though perhaps I need hardly say, that the theory which assumes that the landowner pays the tenant’s rates in a diminished rent, is sheer pedantry, which everybody’s experience refutes. If you could get a just income-tax-—and as yet I see no prospect of so desirable a consummation, though it is perfectly easy to show the basis of a just income-tax—such a tax would be theoretically the fund from which an education rate should be levied. I am of opinion that it is wise policy to appropriate not only the proceeds of taxation strictly, which no one disputes, but to import into a system of finance a rule that special taxes should have special objects ; and I am sure that economies of taxation could be far more easily achieved if people understood the object to which an impost was directed. Not a little of the extravagance of administration arises from the practice (originally adopted by desperate financiers) of consolidating taxes into a fund, and then charging all kinds of expenditure on that common fund. If I were in the position of a financial reformer, the first basis of my reform would be, special taxes to special objects. As it is, I am driven to recommend that the tax for education should be derived from that financial abomination, the Consolidated Fund. I know that there is a strong indifference to economy in dealing with funds granted from the State; and my hearers, if they agree with me in my dislike of taxation being agglomerated into one or a few units, will see why people are ready to play fast and loose with great quantities, the vastness of which renders them unintelli­ gible. There is a famous question on record, answered, I believe, very facetiously in this town : What is a pound ? In the administration of public funds, and in due economy in their administration, the question “ What is a million pounds ?” is, I fancy, a matter which tasks the understanding more stringently. I have alluded to my experience as a Poor Law guardian. I have constantly found that while my colleagues will waste a whole afternoon in debating �74 whether they should spend £5, they look with a sort of puzzled curiosity, as though they do not know whether I am a fool or an astute impostor with ulterior views, when I have pointed out that such and such a change in their arrangements will save the Govern­ ment £500. If, then, we get the necessary funds from Government, and appropriate them, under the equitable administration of a Minister of Education, by local boards—an argument on the consti­ tution of which does not fall within the scope of this paper—we shall perhaps be able to do the best that can be done during the interval between our use of the existing financial system and its probable improvement in the future. I may perhaps be personally excused for referring, in conclusion, to the incidental topic with which I commenced. Objections are raised against our purpose in this agitation, on the ground that we are unfriendly to religion, by which I hope is meant Christianity. No sensible man, I presume, would condescend to answer the calumnies of polemical or political partisans. But how strong would Christianity be if it repudiated its professional advocates, and trusted for its victories to those who believe and live for the patient practice which it invariably enjoins1 REV. A. STEINTHAL ON LOCAL EDUCATIONAL RATING. The Rev. S. A. Steinthal, of Manchester, read the follow­ ing paper :—In the few remarks which I propose to address to the Congress, I shall take for granted, that we are all of us agreed upon the importance of the leading features of the scheme, put forward by the National Education League, and have no doubt as to the need which exists of largely extending the means of giving education to the people. I shall not stay to discuss whether there is any serious error in the statistics published by the Manchester and Birmingham Education Aid Societies. Even if the numbers with which they have appalled the country should, on further examina­ tion, be shown to have overdrawn the sad picture of the condition of the towns in which their useful labours have been exerted, there is so undeniable an amount of unreached ignorance around us, that it would be sinful to waste time in discussing the accuracy or in­ �75 accuracy of mere figures while human souls are perishing for lack of knowledge. I shall nor enter upon the topic reserved for other papers as to the undenominational character which all schools sup­ ported by public money ought in justice to bear ; or try to prove— what I believe would not he difficult to prove—-that it is wiser, under all circumstances, to confine the ordinary instruction of the dayschool to so-called secular subjects, instead of pretending to intro­ duce theological matters, to which justice cannot be done in common schools, while teaching the elements of ordinary knowledge. It is not my intention to discuss the important subject, of whether attendance at school is to be made compulsory, or the production of satisfactory evidence of education being received elsewhere, insisted upon. I would simply state in passing, that unless school attend­ ance, or its equivalent, is made compulsory, I should not advocate, as I intend doing in this paper, the need of levying a local rate to be applied, in addition to the Government grant for school purposes. It is the fact that the common weal demands the universal education of all citizens, which justifies the community in insisting upon the attendance of all children at school; and it is the right of. every individual member of the community to find the means within his reach of fully developing not only his physical, but mental and moral capacities. The community has the right to insist upon every child being educated, and the child has the right to demand that school accommodation and proper means of teaching should be pro­ vided for it. It seems to me that what is thus needful for all, and for all alike, should not be left to the unreliable and spasmodic exertions of voluntary benevolence. Experience has proved to us that voluntary benevolence will not effect the object required. It is useless to go over the old, well-trodden ground to show how, in the first place, parents have neglected their duties, how Christian charity has been unable to supply the void of parental negligence, or how even State aid to voluntaryism has failed to overcome the amount of ignorance we have permitted to exist among us. There are many districts in which there are no persons sufficiently inter­ ested in promoting education, to devote any portion of their means to the establishment and maintenance of schools • and, under our present system, to those places no share of Government aid is allowed �76 to go; and while the children in such localities are left either in entire ignorance, or are exposed to the inefficient training of the dame school, there are other places where benevolence, stimulated by sectarian zeal, multiplies unnecessary accommodation, and wastes large sums in erecting buildings and in supporting a staff of teachers far in excess of the real wants of the neighbourhood. This is no new complaint, but it is not less true now because it is old. More than eighteen years ago Dr. Hodgson gave a typical illustration of the wasteful character of leaving the support of schools to volun­ tary effort. “ At New Mills, near Manchester, an active clergyman of the Church of England came into competition with the Wesleyan school, but did not succeed till he established a day school. The Wesleyan school was capable of accommodating -150 scholars, but the clergyman succeeded so well that only 17 scholars were left in it. The Wesleyans determined not to be annihilated. They got up a day school, and obtained a teacher whom nothing could dis­ hearten. The result, according to the Methodist minister, had not been well for both schools. He expressed his sorrow that they had nearly put an extinguisher upon the Church schools : two pews could contain all its scholars, while their Sunday schools numbered from 5 to 600 scholars.” Is it not sad that while the evil waste of such rivalry was recognised twenty years ago, we should be suffering under similar evils this day, and still obliged to discuss the need of obviating such sectarian jealousies ? Nor does it seem to me to be just to throw the burden of education upon voluntary givers, even were it prudent to do so. Are not all of us who are in any way connected with the multiform methods of charitable exertion well aware how small is the number of those who are the supporters of all benevolent efforts ? The same names, not always the wealthiest in a district, are time after time compelled to contribute, and though the most generous givers are generally the last to complain of having to do so much, are they not prevented from devoting their means to objects in which they take special interest, because they cannot conscientiously allow the absolutely essential work of education to be left undone, on account of the niggardliness of those who will not give until forced by law ? But even the benevolent cannot ensure their children being alike generous with themselves, nor has any �11 district the certainty of the wealthy remaining amongst them. A manufacturing town is not always the most agreeable residence, and many who have made their money in overcrowded places, retire to enjoy their well-earned prosperity far from the scene of their earlier life; and new claims prevent their still contributing to schools,which languish in consequence. Every now and then, it is true, the sad neglect of the education of the poor strikes the attention of some philanthropist like the late Mr. Edward Brotherton, of Manchester, and a new attempt is made to stimulate the activity of benevolence —only to prove, as experience had done before, and is doing again, how vain it is to rely upon benevolent voluntary effort alone. This unreliability and spasmodic character, is all the more fatal to educa­ tional progress, as the conditions under which Government aid is granted claim a certain amount from local effort or endowment before any money can he given under the Minutes of Council. So important a matter as the education of the people can no longer be left to efforts nearly twenty years ago justly characterised as “ im­ pulsive, irregular, uncertain, unequal, and capricious in their opera­ tion.” (West. Rev., July, 1851.) Our choice, then, in seeking for the means of establishing and supporting schools must lie between grants from the central government, local rating, or a combination of these two methods. The advocates of a school system supported altogether from funds derived from the national government, have no weak argument in their behalf when they point out, how very heavy the burden of local taxation is at present, and how limit 3(1 the area is upon which rates are levied : how the wealthy fundholder will escape almost untaxed for schools under a rating system, while the burden would be less felt by the poor and struggling if the cost cf education be defrayed from national taxation. The income from which national taxation is paid is estimated atleast at.£500,000,000, while the assessment of the whole country is only £150,000,000. Twopence in the pound on the former sum would raise more than the £4,000,000 which it is estimated would suffice to provide primary education for all our children, while a rate of nearly seven­ pence in the pound would be required for the same purpose. It is further true that under any rating scheme some part of the popu­ lation would escape from payment, even as in the case of our present �78 rates, under which we know that the most destitute classes are uniformly excused from paying the rate imposed ; while everyone does contribute something to the general taxation, and will do so as long as tea and coffee and sugar, to say nothing of intoxicating drinks and tobacco, are made to add so much to the national revenue. But, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that, if the whole amount of the educational expenses of the country is paid from national funds, its expenditure must be entirely entrusted to the central authority; and I am quite prepared to declare my own strong objection to giving more influence to the Government than I am obliged to do, even though I do not altogether hold the opinion that, nothing beyond securing life and property should fall within the purview of the State. I believe that local management is absolutely necessary for the efficient management of the schools, and therefore I believe that the greater portion of the funds should be raised as well as expended in the localities to be themselves benefited. It is very customary at the present day to sneer at everything connected with local self-government. No joke is more readily welcomed than one pointed at the narrowness and stupidity of a Board of Guardians, or a Town Council. But does not this arise from the fact that the objects which such boards have before them are often regarded as too low to claim the attention of educated men ? When a Board of Guardians undertakes to make its hospital a model hos­ pital, and its treatment of pauperism, a means of lessening the evils of pauperism, do we not find educated men devoting themselves assiduously, as I have known them do in Chorlton, Manchester, and Liverpool, and as no doubt they frequently do elsewhere ? Do we not see in corporations where there are free libraries, that men are willing to enter the Council that they may sit upon the Library Committee ? I have even lately had proof that the Public-house Closing Act, which enables Town Councils to close those prolific sources of misery, immorality, and crime for a few hours, has induced men to enter them, that they might support such measures of improving the social condition of the people. May we not, therefore, anticipate that if a municipal Board of Education be constituted the best men amongst us would be �willing to serve upon it? And as it is proposed that all rate-supported schools should be free, the increased burden imposed by the rate would be lightened, on the other hand, by the exemption of all who desired it from the payment of school-pence, and voluntary subscriptions towards the maintenance of schools. The fact that a special educational rate was levied would tend to interest every ratepayer in the school. He would be anxious to see it prosper, would take a pride in its efficiency. That this is no theoretical advantage is seen by the experience of ■our Australian colonies, where each district strives to rival its neighbours in the excellence of its educational institutions. If, as I trust, there should be a system adopted whereby the best children in the schools could obtain scholarships to enable them to pursue their studies in higher schools; and to assist them, if need be, to the highest scholarships; this healthful emulation would be increased still more, as a successful student would throw back some reflected fame upon his school, and upon the district which had enabled him to attain success. I am well aware that ratepaying is not the most pleasing of duties ; but as soon as men perceived, as they soon would do, that an educational rate would lessen the poor rate, the police rate, the expenses of the criminal courts, and the like, the economy of giving a good education would be recognised, and the payments would he made cheerfully and without complaint. It should, however, be always insisted upon, in my opinion, that the school rate should be kept separate from all other rates, and should not be merged with that long list which is .attached to the present poor-rate paper. I urge this, as I wish that every parent should be distinctly impressed with the fact that he does not receive an altogether gratuitous education for his children. I am not afraid that the children attending a free school would feel themselves pauperised, for education always raises the nobler feelings of the taught, and never degrades them. Nor am I anxious lest parents should feel themselves robbed of their inde­ pendence by their children being able to attend school without pay­ ment of the weekly pence. They would know that they are paying their quota, and as has often been said, we none of us feel ourselves ■degraded by the fact that our streets are lighted by gas, that ouj �80 security is preserved by policemen, and that the many comforts we enjoy owing to municipal government arc not paid for directly, but are supported by rates to which we all contribute according to our means. There are very few, comparatively speaking, in this country who do pay directly the cost of their children’s education. The working classes make use of schools sustained by voluntary subscriptions, endowments, and Government grants. The middle and higher classes find in grammar schools and colleges that their ancestors’ benevolence has freed them from this burden. We none of us are pauperised under these influences. Why the change from school pence and voluntary subscriptions should suddenly make such a change I cannot understand. Schools under such a system would indeed be even less charity schools than they are now. I have, however, not proposed in the above argument to pay the whole expenses of the school from local sources ; nor do I intend to do so. The cost of a child’s training in a school is, I believe, estimated in the Revised Code at 30s. a year, of which sum I think the Committee of Council generally pay about a third. I would not alter this, but would simply raise the sum needed to make up the total by rates instead of by the present means. I am quite ready to acknowledge that local authorities are not unfrequently actuated by an economical spirit which approaches to niggardliness; and as a corrective to this tendency being applied to schools, I would insist upon Government inspectors visiting the school, upon whose favourable report alone should any Government help be given. It does not fall within the scope of my paper to discuss the nature of the examination which should be insisted upon; but I would incidentally remark that I hope the meagre standard of the Revised Code will not be long maintained. Nor have I to consider the character of the authority which should appoint the inspectors, although I hope a responsible Minister of Education may soon take the place of the Committee of Council, in whose constitution I have very little confidence. But I believe that by no means can the wants of the community be better met than by such a method as I have sketched. I hardly know whether I am expected while speaking of rate-supported schools which offer free instruction to all comers, to speak of the conditions under which existing schools �81 should be admitted to the benefits such a plan offers. I should avoid as much as possible building new school buildings ; but I would do so by freely offering to all existing schools the privilege of becoming rate-supported schools on complying with the two require­ ments, that the education given in them should be unsectarian, and should be free. Unsectarian, because to allow denominational schools to be aided by the rate would be to revive with increased difficulty the old Church-rate contest; free, because, supported by public money, the public should justly be entitled to receive the benefits they offered. A truly national system could thus be established with no infringement of any existing rights, with a perfect preservation of local self-government, and yet, through the system of Government inspection, always maintaining a high standard of efficient training for all who are to be the future citizens of our native land. MR. PENTECOST ON COMPULSION. Mr. Pentecost, of Stourbridge, read the following paper on Compulsory Attendance. He said : If any one part of the scheme of national education is of greater importance than another, it is, I think, that relating to “ compulsory attendance.” Educa­ tion may be free and schools may be multiplied, but without compulsory attendance there would be still a large proportion of children preferring the street to the school. The work would be only partially done, since the very class it is most desirable to reach would be left untouched.’ The opponents of a compulsory measure perceive that it involves the establishment of free non­ sectarian schools; hence their opposition. The public is assured by them that the English nation, especially the working classes, will not submit to compulsion. The working classes are farther advanced upon this question than seems to be supposed. Moral, social, and political progress will not be rejected for mere sentiment. Moreover, the working and other classes do submit to compulsion, for we have it in our sanitary laws, and Workshops Acts; only here it is restricted in its operation to the industrious portion of the community, and only indolence is allowed the privilege of free ignorance. But compulsory attendance would necessitate F �82 tlie establishment of free non-sectarian schools, at least in large towns, and ultimately, perhaps, throughout the kingdom ; and the cry is raised that an education in such schools would be a “godless education.” A knowledge of the constitution of the human body, to elucidate the laws of health, especially with reference to cleanliness, ventilation, recreation, and diet, is godless—the ordinary subjects of primary education are godless—unless issued from the mint bearing the imprint of some denomination or sect. With the bane the antidote should be supplied. An elementary knowledge of natural history or physical science, should carry its corrective in a catechism, and a knowledge of Scripture names and dates should serve as a counterpoise to the dangers attendant on reading, writing, and arithmetic. In a leading article on the debate on education in the House of Commons last March, the Times took much trouble to enforce the statement, that the good expected from any new system of education would be nullified by the dangerous lessons of home example, and that parents must be educated. That is what the advocates of a new national system desire—they wish to educate the parents of future generations. Then again, it has been said that the League proposes to educate children out of their religion. The advocates of a free non-sectarian education are not actuated by hostility to religion, but by hostility to ignorance and its results. Religious instruction can still be given'—no one can hinder it; but as there appears no prospect of an agreement as to what should be considered religious teaching, the advocates of a new free system of education wish to enable children to become acquainted with the laws of God, regulating the material world, and thus be guided to live in temperance, soberness, and chastity; to learn and labour truly to get their own living in any state of life to which they may be called. Deficient, however, as the present voluntary system is acknowledged to be, even by its own advocates, we would gladly admit that the clergy and ministers of various denominations have performed a great work in building up and supporting the present system of educa­ tion. That it is now inefficient is to be ascribed not to any neglect or shortcoming on their part, but to the inevitable �83 march of events. Recognising the value of the present system, the question arises : is there any possibility of co­ operation ? Is it not possible to combine a new national free and non-sectarian system with the existing denominational voluntary­ system, and thus preserve the present system, or at least a large part of it ? The new system would then gradually win its way in public favour. With a desire to preserve the present system, I jotted down the following rough notes, which I will submit to your consideration :—1. That parents or guardians of children, of a certain specified age, shall be required to send them to school regularly and constantly, for a certain number of weeks in each year ■—Sunday-school attendance not to be counted; and those who neglect the performance of this duty, shall be liable to a recurring penalty, to be recovered by the inspector or sub-inspector of schools for the district. The production of a school certificate of attendance to be the only complete answer to the charge; the exemptions from this rule of attendance being those children, who are mentally or corporeally incapacitated from attendance, or from receiving instruction, and also children who are receiving instruc­ tion at home or elsewhere, from tutors, governesses, or parents. Proper evidence of such instruction to be rendered to the inspector of schools for the district, whenever required by him. 2. That parents or guardians, who are unable to pay the ordinary school fees shall be furnished with a pass, entitling their children to free admission to any assisted, inspected school in the parish or district in which they reside, and to assistance in procuring books, &c. When there is room for choice, the parents to be allowed to select a school. The fees for such pupils (by whatever name they may ‘ be known, or by whatever means they may be raised) to be paid to the schools according to a certain fixed scale. That public and private schools, and grammar schools, shall be registered upon pay­ ment of a small registration fee, and shall then he allowed to grant certificates of attendance ; due provision, of course, being made for preventing any kind of traffic in certificates, and allowing the Government Department superintending education the power of refusing to register notoriously inefficient schools. 3. That all national schools, British schools, and denominational schools, shall �84 be entitled to be registered, and to receive free scholars, to be paid for by rates or Government grants; provided the managers of such schools submit to Government inspection, and accept a conscience clause, specifying that they shall not allow religious instruc­ tion of any kind to interfere with the ordinary secular instruc­ tion, but that it shall be imparted at such times and in such a manner as not to break or interrupt the routine of secular studies. 4. In parishes or districts where there is no school accommodation of this kind, for the reception of non-sectarian free scholars, or where there is only insufficient accommodation of the kind, the Government Department superintending education shall, upon satisfactory representations of such deficiency, cause notice to be given to the guardians of the poor, or other authorities, that school buildings and teachers must be provided by the parish or district, the cost to be defrayed by a rate levied on the district; and where the proper authorities neglect to provide the necessary school accommodation, then the Government shall intervene, and provide a school or schools, educational appliances, and teachers, and recover from the district the amount expended. Existing schools, the managers of which refuse to adopt the conscience clause, shall not be registered; and a district containing such schools only, shall be considered as destitute of educational facilities, and shall be required to provide free non-sectarian schools, under local management and Government inspection. RESOLUTION OE LONDON TRADES’ COUNCIL. The President announced that Mr. George Odger was unable to speak, as he had promised to do; but that he had sent the follow­ ing resolution of the London Trades’ Council:—“This Council is of opinion that the National Education League, whose object is the education of the people, upon national and unsectarian principles, is in every sense worthy of our support; therefore we appoint our secretary, Mr. George Odger, to attend the congress to be held in Birmingham ; and we pledge ourselves to use our best endeavours in aid of so laudable a movement.” �85 DISCUSSION. Mr. Simons, of Merthyr Tydvil, opened the discussion by reading the prospectus of an education society with which he was connected in his own town; and he then said: Although an ardent sup­ porter of the League, I venture to say that the march onward will never cease, until every one of the principles of that programme is adopted. I am willing to go with the League as far as we agree, and whilst we are together I should like to endeavour to induce you to march on with me, to the beacon which this programme offers to you. Now, I want to make one observation upon what I call a delusion and a snare—the conscience clause. Test the conscience clause by this : is there any ardent thorough Protestant in this room who, if he lived in the centre of a Roman Catholic community, with the means of education entirely in the hands of the Roman Catholic priest, would send his child to school there, with the protection only of the conscience clause ? I have asked the question often before, and have never had an answer in the affirmative. The conscience clause, I repeat, is a delusion and a snare. It affords no protection whatever, and it makes more necessary for the youth of the country the prayer—“ Lead us not into temptation.” I ask you all to consider the question of the conscience clause. The grant of State aid to Remap Catholic schools, would virtually be a grant for the purpose of teaching the Roman Catholic religion. Believe me that I do not intend, that one word which escapes my lips shall give pain; for the day has passed, happily, when differ­ ences of opinion lead to hostility, or discord among fellow Christians. My references to Catholics are made entirely upon principle ; I have no objection to them as a body. Well, we know that if a grant were given them for school purposes, it would substantially be a grant for teaching the Roman Catholic religion in this country. Bear in mind that they are about a quarter of the entire population, and if four millions were given in grants they would be entitled to one-fourth—one million given for teaching the Roman Catholic religion. The logic of Roman Catholics is irresistible, that so long as you maintain sectarian �86 schools in this country, so long will they be entitled to teach in them their religion, and to receive their proportion of Government aid. That is a question which I have not heard put on any plat­ form except when I have given utterance to it. Next, I would ask how long in this country are the middle classes going to contribute towards schools for the working classes ? I am here as a middle­ class man, to say that no system of education will satisfy me, unless the two classes are put upon exactly the same footing. We speak of compulsion as a thing applicable only to one order of the people. I am an advocate for the application of compulsion to every class. I don’t know why the middle-class man should have the opportunity of bringing up his child in ignorance, any more than the working-class man. I am also an advocate for the institution of imperial universities, and for this reason : after we get com­ pulsory education, how long will it be before the people ask for a further opportunity of advancing and brightening the intellects of their children, and of fitting them to occupy any position in the world, even up to that of the Lord Chancellor ? Mr. Applegarth, secretary to the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, followed : So much has been said in the name of working men, that it is almost presumption on the part of a working man to speak for his class; but as I conceive that much has been said in their name, which is not exactly true, perhaps it will not be out of place for me to say a few words. My claim to speak is simply that I have lived and associated with working men all the days of my life; and I am here, as the delegate of one of the largest trade societies in the kingdom, to demand that education shall be placed within the reach of every child, however poor, however degraded. The first meeting of my fellow working men that I addressed was about twelve years ago, the last one last night. On every occasion I have tested the men in regard to­ education, and I never yet found an exception to my own opinion—that what we want is a national compulsory, unsectarian system: Now, I have a little score to settle both with Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., and with the Archbishop of York, and I give notice that I shall hit them very hard. The other day, the Archbishop of’ York ventured to say that, if an attempt were made to introduce �87 a compulsory system of education, such a system would meet with a hard reception from a large proportion of the working classes. Well, then, Mr. Potter, in his place in the House of Commons, said, too, that the working classes were opposed to compulsion in connection with education. Mr. Potter : No, no. Mr. Applegarth : The Times is responsible for my statement; and I am glad to hear Mr. Potter say “ No, no.” It is not the first mistake the Times has made. To go back, then, to the Archbishop of York. Wherever he gets his information from I can’t tell. For a number of years I worked in different parts of the country, and in every place I tested the working man upon this question of education. For instance, at one meeting, at which Mr. Geo. Dawson was in the chair, he distinctly asked, “ Do you agree with me that we want a national compulsory, unsectarian system of education ?” and not a dissenting voice did I hear. The working classes would never feel compulsion, and they would be only too glad of the opportunity to send their children to schools, where they would get a good education. But no one knows better than the men them­ selves, that there are amongst the working people two classes. There is the sot, the careless and indifferent man, who has been so long neglected, and degraded that he does not understand the value of education; and him the other class, the better class of working men, have to carry upon their backs. But those men who do not understand the value of education, must be made to understand it. The Archbishop of York said the voluntary system had done a noble work, and that it was competent to meet all the requirements of the future. I am not one to disparage the efforts of the clergy in the voluntary system; but I will say this—that that portion of the clergy which has done the real work in the education of the people consists of underpaid curates, who would only be too glad to get rid of this extra work, and get a little extra pay for the reli­ gious services which they have to conduct. What has voluntaryism done ? Why, it has provided school accommodation for two million children; but for the want of that great principle, compulsion, there are 700,000 vacant seats. We are told that this voluntary system has provided 16,000 schools ; but so unequally are they distributed �88 that in the diocese of Norfolk there are 120 parishes without one day school. From the report of the Select Committee issued in 1866 we find that out of 14,895 parishes, there are 11,000 of them, embracing a population of over six millions, that receive no direct assistance from the State ; out of 755,000 children of the working classes, from 10 to 12 years of age, only 250,000 are at school. Again I ask what has the voluntary system done? According to 18th and 19th Victoria, chap. 34, the guardians of the poor have the power to educate out-door pauper children from 4 to 16 years of age. Now, we find that in nine counties of England, where there were no less than 38,451 of these out-door pauper children, the guardians educated the enormous number of 11, at an annual cost of £2. 4s. 8d. That is what we have done under the voluntary system. Now, next, if we have a compulsory system we must have, too, a free system. The object of the League, I take it, is to work in contra­ distinction to the present system, which helps those who are best able to help themselves, leaving to starve and rot in ignorance those who have not the power to help themselves, even if they had the disposition. The object of the League is to help those who are least able to help themselves. Some people have said that they fear that if we have a free system of education the working classes would not know how to appreciate it. Well, if they do not know how to appreciate it we must make them know. I have seen the school systems both of America and Switzerland, and I never came across a man in either of those countries, who felt that he was not doing his duty because he allowed his children to go to a free school. And what can be said of the people of America, and Switzerland, would no doubt be said of the people of England, if our educational system were made compulsory. It is no use trying to mix up a national education with any portion of religion, however small the dose. We are not prepared to have gospel and geography mixed together. The working classes want education. They know that the classes above them have been tinkering with this question, whilst vice and misery and prostitution, have piled up a colossal mountain of iniquity. If the League knows its duty, it will go in for a compulsory, un­ sectarian, and free system—for a measure which will put high and low upon the same level in an educational sense. And now, sir, I �89 am here to give my adhesion to the National Education League, not that I think that its principles reach exactly and altogether the wants of the working classes, hut because it goes a step in the right direction; and I shall be only too glad if the Legislature see their course to a thoroughly radical measure. Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., speaking in explanation, said : I am sorry Mr. Applegarth has not watched my course more closely, because I believe that if one Member of Parliament more than another has expressed himself definitely, forcibly, and frequently upon this subject, it is myself. Speaking in the House, in reply to Mr. Forster on the question of Trades’ Unions, I said that no Bill would be of any use unless it was accompanied by compulsory education. Before then, I spoke upon the educational question itself, and no such opinion ever escaped my lips as that which is attributed to me. I should not, too, have been charged with opposition to compulsion, for I was one of the strongest advocates of the Factory Acts, the great benefit of which was, as I said in the House, that they gave compulsory, unsectarian education. Mr. Applegarth : I.am delighted to hear from Mr. Potter that he did not say that which he was reported in the Times to have said. I have placed the report in his hands. Mr. Green, Chairman of the Birmingham Trades’ Council, continued the discussion. He said : I take it that what the League especially wants to know from me, is whether the working men of this town are in favour of its scheme, and whether they think that the system of education to be adopted should be compulsory, unsectarian, and free. Now, Mr. Applegarth, speaking for the working men he represents, said they- were; and I, too, have to report that in this locality, as throughout the length and breadth of the land, a very large section of the working men are in favour of the scheme. The society which sends me here is composed of men of all politics, and of all religions—from the Bed Republican to the milk-and-water Liberal-Conservative, from the Roman Catholic to the latest discovered sect, the Hallelujah Band; yet when we dis­ cussed this question of to-day, and of sending a delegate here, there was not a dissentient voice. A few weeks ago a paper upon the subject of compulsory and unsectarian education was read by Mr. �90 Hibbs, a working man, before a national conference of Trades’ Unions in this town. Everyone voted for the principle, and one of the strongest supporters was Mr. Wood, of Manchester, a strong Tory. This matter, therefore, cannot be considered, and ought not to be considered, a party question; but it seems to me that clergymen seem determined to go against the working man on this, as on some past occasions. A little while ago we heard the question, why does not the working man go to Church? I don’t know whether the interrogators drew a list of reasons; but if they did, and they have not inserted this, they may add, opposition to the scheme of unsectarian education as one of them. A local paper says that we wish lo eliminate religious teaching from education. Well, if that religious teaching is founded upon dogmas or creeds, we do wish to do so. To teach a child truth is to teach it religion, and by teaching it that, you advance it in the path in which you wish it to tread. The clergy object to this system of the League because under it they will not teach their creed; but I can tell them this—that if they want to get the good-will of the people, if they want to diminish pauperism and crime, and to raise the people to an appreciation of what is noble and good, they should support, not oppose, the scheme. Under it I believe the nation would pro­ gress in all that is good, and those who now ask the question, why do not working men attend a place of worship 1 would then have to set about building more places of worship for them to attend. It is the duty of everyone who wishes to see the children of the country grow up, in the way they should go, and kept out of vice and poverty, to support this scheme of the League. The working men do not make a great deal of noise about it, but I can assure you that they feel upon the subject very acutely indeed; for they do not like to see the class immediately above them taking advan­ tage of all the endowed educational means of the country, whilst they are left without anything at all. They desire a better state of things. There is no need of discussion as to compulsion—that is settled ; and the working men of Birmingham, I am authorised to say, will do all they can to help on a system of national com­ pulsory, unsectarian education, although they would prefer that that education should be secular. �91 Sir C. Rawlinson gave his support to the programme of the League. He conceived that the new educational system must be sup­ ported by local rates, supplemented by Government aid. He held that opinion upon two clear grounds. He protested against the education of the country being handed over entirely to Government, because in the 'first place the administration would in that case turn to rank jobbery and gross expenditure; and, secondly, he did nor want to see education ’ conducted without reference to the principle of local selfgovernment, the vigour and success of which was the best guarantee for the liberties of England. It was all very well to laugh at corporations, but they had been the safeguards of liberty. In how many evil days had the Corporation of the City of London stood forth in defence of the people ? For these reasons he was extremely sorry to hear anybody say that the education grant ought to come exclusively from Government. On the other hand, he objected to the schools being supported wholly from local rates, because, for a variety of reasons, it was desirable and even necessary to have Government inspection. He need not pursue this matter. It was obvious that for the sake of some degree of uniformity, and for the purpose of ensuring efficiency in places where the local authori­ ties might possibly not be disposed to do their duty, and for other reasons, it was desirable that the whole system should be under the control of a central power. Then with regard to the religious difficulty, surely the country had had sufficient experience to have found out by this time that it was impossible to base education upon religion. He appealed to the whole people, then, to aid the active spirits of the League to base religion upon education. That was the natural course. It was a miscon­ ception, which in practice led to disastrous failure, to suppose that religion could be made the basis of education. Religion was the flower of life, and no greater fallacy had ever beguiled the people of this or any other country than to suppose that it was possible to begin with religion. How could it ever have entered anybody’s mind, that a child of seven or eight years of age was made better, or was benefited in any conceivable way, by repeating unchangeably the words of a catechism which it did not understand 1 He saw, the other day, a child who had returned �92 from a high-class school with a prize for divinity. How did he win it? “I went,” he said, “through the whole of the kings of Israel, and I said two Psalms by heart.” It was a farce. He would not have joined the League if he supposed that the educa­ tion it proposed was to be godless. If he were in power, he would propose that the American Common Schools should be the foundation of our schools. The instructions given to the teachers and others connected with those schools, as to the manner in which they were to endeavour to discharge their functions, were well worth considering. They were read in Birmingham a short time ago by Lord Lyttelton, but, unfortunately, very little attention was paid to them. The directions were:— “ All instructors of youth are to exert their best endeavours to impress upon the minds of the children and youth committed to their care, principles of piety and justice, a strict regard to truth, love of their country, humanity, and universal benevolence, sobriety, industry, and frugality, chastity, and moderation, and those other virtues which are the ornaments of human society.” That was the foundation of the Common School in America. It was unsectarian ; and in an excellent pamphlet, which everybody ought to read, in reply to those who said this was a godless education (how anybody could, after full consideration, say so was inconceiv­ able), Mr. Frazer answered : “ If the cultivation of some of the choicest intellectual gifts bestowed by God—the perception, memory, taste, judgment, and reason; if the creation of habits of punctuality, attention, and industry, the reading of a daily portion of God’s Word, and the daily saying of Christ’s universal prayer—if all this is said to be the cultivation of clever devils, it would be vain, I think, to argue with such prejudice.” He believed that the cultivation of any one of God’s good gifts, or the attempt to develop any one right principle or worthy habit, so far as they went, were steps, not only in the direction of morality, but of piety and real religion. Was it possible that a clergyman would rather have in his Sunday school, or in his church, to hear the truths of religion, or the dogmas of theology, a number of densely ignorant children or other persons, than a corresponding number of bright, intelligent, well-taught persons, such as the �93 national schools would produce? Which could be most rapidly and thoroughly influenced by the teaching of the Sunday school or the pulpit ? He was sorry to hear that in Birmingham a party was got up, to oppose and denounce those who felt themselves hound, by the necessities of the case, to endeavour to educate the masses of the nation. He did not believe that if any of those men could get into their minds the real state of things—if they would endeavour to form a conception of the appalling magnitude of the facts—they would take the course they seemed determined upon ; but he trusted that the League would disseminate facts upon facts, as to the number of utterly destitute children in this country, in order to rouse the attention of persons who at present seemed to be satisfied to sit with folded hands, doing nothing to avert the evil which, it was scarcely any exaggeration to say, threatened to over­ whelm the country. What with ignorance, poverty, and crime, in which so large a portion of the population was steeped, it was impossible to look to the future without gloomy apprehensions. If England was to maintain her present position among the nations —if she was to maintain her high character for order and civiliza­ tion—if she was to maintain her pre-eminence for commerce, it would not be owing to her army, and certainly not to her poor­ houses or her gaols, but to her having a great, intelligent, and well-educated labouring class—that class upon whose intelligence, honesty, and sobriety the whole strength and existence of the kingdom depended. Sir W. Guise : After those who have gone before me, I feel that my position is doubtful, for I have no pretensions to represent anybody but myself. We have been favoured of late with long reports of Social Science meetings, Church Congresses, Episcopal Conferences, and so on, and at all of them the question of education has been a prominent item of discussion ; but after reading these reports with considerable care I have come to the conclusion that there was no result arrived at whatever. The fact is that in those assemblies the matter is taken up in so perfunctory a manner that it is not likely that anything of value could come of it. Everything charitable, kind, and good is talked of but nothing of the smallest value in a practical fashion is the result. I come �94 now among practical men, and I embrace most heartily and enthusiastically the programme of this platform-—compulsory, unsectarian, national education. The denominational system has been tried and it has failed. It has failed to reach a very large, a very important, and, I may add, a growing and a dangerous class of the community; and it is evident that that class never will be reached by the means provided by the denominational system, the fact being that the teachers under that system cannot shake themselves free from creeds and catechismsj and I have long felt myself that these creeds and catechisms, as taught by differ ent sects, are becoming more and more an impediment to free Christian intercourse amongst us. I am afraid we shall never get rid of them—certainly not without a national unsectarian system of education. I quite agree with the gentleman who has gone before me, that you cannot have religion until you have •education. Nobody who has ever been engaged in education can help feeling that in teaching great moral truths—our duty to God and man-—we are teaching religion. Education, as has just been shown, must precede religion. Catechisms are utterly unintelligible to children in general, and even to a great many grown-up people. With regard to making money grants to denominational schools, it should be remembered that if you make grants to such schools in this country, you cannot refuse them to the Catholics in Ireland. We have seen their object. The hierarchy in that country have put forward a programme, desiring to grasp the whole of the education of the youth of that country. It is perfectly natural. Every faith that has faith in itself proselytises, but England and Scotland will not consent to hand over Ireland to the exclusive control of the priesthood. But you cannot consistently insist upon that for yourselves, which you are not prepared to concede to others. I used the same argument the other day to our bishop, when I declined to attend an episcopal conference on the subject. I feel that the system of denominational education, subsidised by the State, has failed and must be given up. We have then in front of us this fact—that education has become an absolute necessity, not merely because of the danger of having an uneducated class amongst us, but because it is impossible to �95 look abroad upon this dark mass of uneducated humanity without feeling that they were made for better things—that their powers were given them for other purposes, than to allow them to waste in ignorance, vice, and crime ; and it is our business, as a brother­ hood, to stretch out our hands to those who cannot help themselves, and help them to raise themselves in the scale of humanity. I am not one for pulling down those who are above, to the level of those who are below. I appreciate far too highly the value of intellect, civilization, and refinement, to wish to see any portion taken away ; but I wish to see the day come when those who are below me may be be able to partake of some of the benefits of the civilization which I enjoy. For these reasons, I have very great pleasure in joining the association with all my heart. The Hon. Auberon Herbert said it was clear that the voluntary system could not cover the whole work. The word itself, without any other facts, showed that. In a district which wished to do its duty, and with parents who would send their children to school, the voluntary system was all that was necessary ; but what was to be done in a district which had no wish to do its duty and where parents would not send their children to school'? Therefore it was quite clear that by the side of the voluntary system another must be placed. They were also, he thought, agreed that the system they were going to introduce must be complete in itself. To use Mr. Dawson’s excellent words, it must be a system of “ lucid sim­ plicity,” and therefore he ventured to hope that before the Congress broke up they would define the word “unsectarian” somewhat more precisely than had yet been done. He took that opportunity of expressing his entire subordination to those with whom he was acting, in the same manner as Mr. Fawcett had done ; but it would save them much difficulty hereafter if they construed that word “ unsectarian” severely and precisely. He believed that if there was religious teaching at all in the schools, it would be a constant difficulty, for this reason—that if it was real in its nature, there would be constant intrigue as to the appointment of a teacher ; and other difficulties of the same nature would arise. If, on the con­ trary, the religious teaching was not to be real—if they were using a word in order to satisfy a few persons—it was unworthy of them �96 to put out a sham. It would be to the advantage of all of them that the State should be manly enough to take upon itself openly its own duty, leaving the Church to take upon itself its duties. He scarcely.need add a word as to the fact that unsectarian or secular education was not godless education. The feeling of the meeting had been expressed very strongly in favour of the old truth, that the gates of heaven were upon earth, and that to make good citizens for the heavenly kingdom, good citizens must be made for the earthly kingdom. What had to be done was to see how the two systems -—the new and the old—could be interwoven. That which they had to ask seemed to him to be this : to be allowed to introduce their unsectarian system in two instances. One should be whore the district failed in its duty and did not provide sufficient school ac’cbmmodation. In that case the Government or the District Board should have power to say to the district: You must provide schools, you must rate yourselves for them, and they must be unsec­ tarian. The second case in which there should be power to intro­ duce the unsectarian system should be where the district itself desired it. They had all realized that where there was a rate there must be an unsectarian system, and where there was an unsectarian system there must be a fate. As regards the old schools, he did not see why they should not for a long time maintain their place by the side of the new system, if only (and this was absolutely necessary) they made certain concessions. A system of compulsion could not be carried out unless the schools accepted a thoroughly satisfactory conscience clause, unless they put themselves under Government inspection, and unless they kept a register of attendance. The present system need not be deranged further than by the acceptance of these three things. They had heard and would hear a greatmany appeals against the proposed system, in the name of religion. He would warn those who made such appeals that it was very pos­ sible, if this controversy lasted a very long time—-should the over­ whelming necessity for the education of two millions of children be not speedily satisfied (he did not state the numbers on his own authority, but took them as they had been given)—should those two millions of children be left to perish in ignorance, whilst the “ religious difficulty” was debated, it was very possible that the �97 words “religion” and “ irreligion” might change places, and it would be thought that there could he no act more irreligious than that of those, who would be responsible for the delay. When he saw a large part of the working classes, as a pledge of their earnestness, willing to submit themselves to a law of compulsion, not for their advantage, but for that of their children, he felt that that act on their part, was far more religious than the words of the Archbishop of York,when he appealed to the working men, to allow their selfish fears and jealousies, to stand between them and this act of self­ sacrifice. The meeting then adjourned. SOIREE IK THE TOWN HALL. The members of the League were entertained by the Mayor in the Town Hall, in the evening, at a Soiree. There were upwards of 800 ladies and gentlemen present. G �SECOND DAY. On the reassembling of the meeting on Wednesday morning, the Chairman (Mr. Dixon, M.P.), announced that Aiderman Thomas Phillips had given £1,000 to the funds of the League. COMPULSION. The Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams, Vicar of Broadchalke, Wilts, read a paper on “ The Legislative Enforcement of Attendance, par­ ticularly in Rural Districts.” He said :—I find myself in this paper arguing some things which do not, it seems, need arguing in Bir­ mingham at all, and therefore I shall not read all that I have written. For instance, I find myself saying a good word for the Conscience Clause, which a gentleman from Merthyr Tydvil yesterday said was a delusion and a snare. That arises from the fact that in Wiltshire, in a meeting of the clergy, I have been the only clergyman in the room who did not sign a petition against the Conscience Clause, as being too liberal and sacrificing too much. And just before I left South Wales to go into Wiltshire, the same thing happened. There, also, I was the only one who would not sign a petition against the Conscience Clause, because it gave up too much of the rights of the Church. Hence you see how it arises that a person of average sanity otherwise, comes here to say a good word for that, which you once offered, but will not offer again. I shall pass over some matters in my paper which are of an antedeluvian character, and touch on some others lightly which are subjects for reasonable argument. I shall leave out some remarks on the agricultural labourer, intended to show that he is not so ignorant as is sometimes said, and that he is not tyrannised over by the farmers. Then I go on as follows :—The range of human thought is so complex and diversified by ramifica­ �99 tions, that hardly any question is so simple (e. g. the idiom of a particle) as not to entail upon persons treating it, the risk of being occasionally pushed forward into the discussion of difficult problems. A similar remark would hold good almost equally, of tha field of human action. Only, as the mass of mankind are compelled to act in some way, common sense has taught them the necessity of habitually setting aside, with a view to joint action, questions however important, not relevant to the matter in hand. The most ardent politicians on different sides, are not necessarily prevented from transacting commercial business together. Institutions, such as hospitals or asylums, in which human suffering appeals to bene­ volence, present a still more obvious field in which the propriety of setting aside the jealousies incidental to divided opinion meets with general acknowledgment. It may be true, that the strongest moral inducements to the benevolent action in which men agree, are derived from the religious sentiment in which they differ. But such a circumstance is not found fatal to co-operation ; nor would it, I apprehend, be a just conclusion, that joint action for a definite purpose implies an absence of proper zeal in respect of other duties or aspirations, upon which unanimity has not yet been attained. On this principle, although my personal feeling, no less than any clerical prepossession, might induce me to prefer the lively presence of the religious element in any system of teaching ; yet, if either the intellectual differences which we have been taught to associate with the religious sentiment, or the social organisations which have arisen as their embodiments, impede the introduction into our schools of theological standards, I still desire the school to be preserved, and those objects of school teaching on which we can agree promoted, even at the price of setting aside whatever becomes an entanglement. I refrain from pursuing this topic, because in those districts with which I am best acquainted, the conscience clause, when enforced as a reality, sufficiently meets the difficulty, and the treatment of the more complex cases of large towns will fall into abler hands. Turning to the special subject of this paper, the desirableness of enforcing attendance in schools, especially in rural districts, I find myself still met by that complexity of con­ siderations which belongs to action of a public kind. It would be �100 foolish, to recommend a legislative policy on this subject, without considering the objections to such a policy which arise from the social circumstances of the country. Hence I must ask so much of your attention, as may show that this aspect of things has not been forgotten, to the condition of the labourer in the south-west of England. We do not, in Wiltshire, admit the accuracy of the highlycoloured pictures, which benevolent writers have sometimes drawn of a dead level of ignorance among our labourers. We find many varieties in the race ; some very good, and, in proportion to their rank in life, intelligent; others of various degrees of badness. We see no great wit in classing together men so unlike each other, under the generic name Hodge, anymore than in classifying literary artists as Dodge. Again, we do not admit that farmers are, as a general rule, tyrannical, or forgetful of the claim of the labouring class to humane consideration. The price of labour is what it will fetch ; and farmers can, as little as any other class in the community, permit themselves to be dragged down into pauperism, by undertaking payments on a large scale, beyond the value of that which they receive. One of the primary requisites for their business, amidst the vicissitudes of the seasons and the growing magnitude of their transactions, is nerve ; and one object upon which nerve has to employ itself is the maintenance of discipline. Even on the strong supposition, that the maintenance of a due supply of labourers in adequate comfort should be naturally regarded as a preliminary charge on the land, the class upon which the benevo­ lent portion of such a requirement would justly fall, are not the immediate employers, whose rents have been fixed according to the common rules of demand and supply. Again, observing, how much is deducted by unfavourable weather, and by short days, from the value of the services of labourers (about three-fourths of whom the farmer maintains through the year), I must demur to the criticisms often lavished upon the heads of agricultural employers, as part of the wrong habitually done to silent men. But after all qualifications, the life of our rural labourer is hard. Suppos­ ing his weekly nine shillings, virtually stretched by piece-work, harvest-time, and allowances, to thirteen (which is an extremely, favourable estimate), it barely covers the first necessaries of �101 life • and, if the family are numerous, hardly gives them bread. Fire, clothing, rent, the distant approach to luxury involved in tea, sugar, bacon, are still to he met. When one first observes these people one exclaims, “ How do they ever live?” We gradually dis­ cover that they live in part, by the aid of their children’s labour. From six or seven years old to sixteen or seventeen, the young rustic goes through a rising scale of crow-scaring, and horse keeping, for which he receives wages rising from eighteen-pence, to six or seven shillings. Hence the boys in a family are a treasure. The girls are, in our account, not so useful. Now the question to which I must ask the attention of the members of our League, and for the sake of which these details have been introduced, is this :—Are we justified in asking the Legislature to interpose, not only between parent and child, but between the children and their bread; or in desiring to remove, in our scholastic zeal, into a sphere of book-work, these poor children of the poor, who are at present more usefully employed? Would there not be some cruelty in such removal? Nay, even some danger of so narrowing the possibilities of subsistence, as to bring the parental and self-preserving instincts into collision ? Again, this question comes clogged with an allegation. It is alleged, that unless children go young into the fields they will not be worth their salt; that they are not improved by schooling in books, for the work which will be the business of their life. Hence we are invited to let well alone, or to fall back upon the voluntary system, which suits the genius of Englishmen, and has made them what they are; and if there be any point at which the influence of agricultural employers is injuriously exercised, it is in the form of pressure, to secure the services of children at an age tender in the judgment of the parents, who profit by it; more so, in that of physiological observers. Agriculture is not the only employment on which discussions of this kind have been known. Our answer to the question raised will be found most easily by a reference to the existence of the Factory Acts, but more convincingly by a consideration of the principle on which these Acts are founded, while it may be fortified by moral reflections. We may ascribe in part to Christianity, in part to the growing �102 humanity of the age, and, not least, to the democratic element in our constitution, the wide acceptance of this principle—that the human being is not to be altogether sacrificed to mechanical excel­ lence in his particular calling. Man is to be made man before he is labourer or artisan. Suppose we could develope some useful animal instincts more strongly by surrendering what is human, we ought not to do so. Thus, if it were true (which is a large con­ cession for argument’s sake) that a little early book-work dis­ inclined men for plodding field-work, we are still bound to awaken in them a nature more than merely animal. Indeed, the possi­ bility of such a collateral issue being raised, tends to throw light on our main question ; for it indicates the existence on the part of the parents, of so low a degree of interest on the subject as may almost be called indifference, and it fastens our attention on the prevalence among employers of views such as our League may fairly counteract. Against the element of passive indifference, and against such a low estimate of education as amounts to dis­ couragement, the Legislature of the country may be called upon to set its higher intelligence in operation. The province of an enlightened Legislature comprehends care for the physical develop­ ment of the young, and (as I have contended) for the possibilities of their moral or mental training. Say, that in its action towards these ends the Legislature, should indirectly suggest to our peasantry something of that foresight which their social superiors are com­ pelled to exercise in marrying, or something of that effort, on behalf of their children’s minds which they acknowledge a duty on behalf of their bodies—and say even that it opens to charitable persons a new object, or fresh direction, for the aid which they often lavish upon the poor—none of these collateral results would be so injurious as to destroy the argument for the enforcement of primary education. My proposal to the League is this : Let the Legislature be asked, in pursuance of its own inquiries, to fix an age (my own tentative suggestion would be ten) within which field-labour and stable-labour should be restricted in kind, or forbidden altogether. Let there be a second limit of age (I would tentatively suggest twelve), within which employment of boys should only be per­ mitted upon the production of satisfactory proof, that schooling for �103 three or four years has secured fair results. There would be no difficulty in either creating an officer for each union, hundred, or larger district, or in selecting from our overseers, surveyors, inspectors, tax-gatherers, some one who should be charged with the duty of verifying a certificate from the Government Inspector of Schools. Only I would deprecate the selection for this purpose of the clergyman, whose province, lying properly in persuasion, ought not to be encumbered with compulsory requirements. Suppose such a system were enforced, it would reach in the first place all the outlying squatters on the borders of parochial civilisa­ tion, whose children are too often a reproach to us. Secondly, it would stimulate opinion among the average peasantry; and, thirdly, it would throw the shield of its powerful protection over the mother, who too often sees her child taken from school sooner than she likes to think of, and sooner than necessity requires. Fourthly, it would enable us to bring to bear upon a riper age those instructive agencies which, in the absence of preliminary training, are almost thrown away. The night-school, of which I speak from experience, cannot possibly be a substitute for a proper amount of early day schooling; as anyone who observes how many of the higher classes, after a day of hard business or hard pleasure, sit down in the evening to the study of a Greek author, will easily conceive. Rain and darkness, with a mile or two to walk, wet clothes and weary eyes, hardly suit the first initiation in the mysteries of book-work. But where the taste for reading, writing, and calculating has been early awakened, the night-school affords a chance of such a recurrence to such things as may be a refresh­ ment. A like remark would hold good of penny readings, lectures, newspapers. (Local journals, with local news, and an element of religious gossip, are welcome ; but we are a long way in Wiltshire from the bewildering topics of London journalism). I do not speak without having tried these things. My experience convinces me that all such agencies, and I will venture to add that (supposing the Christianity of England to be something different from that of Abyssinia), the instructions of the pulpit, would have a more wholesome or energetic operation, if preceded in early life by some three years of compulsory education for the labourer’s �104 child. The suggestion which others have made of half-time, or of requiring school attendance for a portion of the day, or of the year, is one which I could only admit as valuable, upon the same con­ dition as the agencies already glanced at—namely, upon the con­ dition that some three years of continuous education had been its preliminary. Nor ought mere infancy to count, if included in these three years ? The ultimate result aimed at would be the production of a more intelligent—therefore, we must trust, a happier—order of men, in our rural parishes. The fear that such men would be found less devoted to their work, or less skilful in it, less virtuous, or harder to govern, seems to me the most chimerical fear that ever was entertained. Men are far more easily governed than brutes; only they require to have the fitness of things shown to them. A public school, recruited from our higher classes, is far more amenable to discipline than would be the same number of young rustics, with their alternations of blind credulity and obstinate incredulity, both guided, not by knowledge, but by invincible self-will. Schools do wisely not to pretend to anticipate the experience of life. But intelligence counts for something, even in handling a spade, certainly in managing a steam-engine. That intelligence should apply itself to the improvement of its own condition, does not involve unfaithfulness to the interests of its employer. One of the most direct, and in my judgment one of the happiest, results of education, would be to increase the facilities for com­ paring the value of labour in different parts of the world. It is not important that our labourers should attend the meet­ ings of the British Association; but it is very desirable that they should be able to inform themselves how to place their con­ dition on a level with their fellows at home or abroad. Nor does it appear to me that there would be any injustice to employers, if such a peaceful and voluntary redistribution of labour as I con­ template, were to leave the natural laws of demand and supply free to operate in the assessment of wages, instead of permitting these to be governed by a calculation (perhaps humane) of the pos­ sibilities of subsistence. At present, a certain percentage of the labourers in each parish is unattached, or employed only out of charity during the slack season of the year. If such men tend to �105 keep down the price of labour, they are also a perpetual threat to the rates. Hence a voluntary sifting of our rural population would be a gain to the remaining peasantry; but also to the ratepayer. Probably, in time, rates might be much diminished, though hardly swept away. Suppose, as another result, that our political economists and our legislators should find themselves called upon to exercise their joint sciences in rendering the con­ dition of the labourer, by means of house and pasture-land, so attractive as to prevent the depopulation of districts already sparsely populated, I should consider the result not unworthy of means so peaceful and so innocent as simple education. It would not grieve me if, by a natural process, meat and milk were earned, and enjoyed more largely as earnings, by the poor and by their children. This plan of enabling our poor to place themselves by intelligence, on a level with their fellows else­ where, has nothing in common with schemes for the artificial depression of the higher, in order to bring them down to the lower. Again, we should not grudge the labourer whatever acquired habit of intelligent locomotion may be requisite, to prevent a plentiful harvest, which gladdens so many classes in the community, from bringing to him only a lowering of his wages. I am not blaming a process due to natural causes; but I desire the equally natural means of adjustment. Again, if the waste of life in our large towns requires constantly to be repaired by an influx from the rural population, such a process would become more salutary as the raw material was improved. "We are apt m rural districts ‘ to conceive of society in general, as a Providential scheme, in which protection is the duty of one part, and submis­ sion of the other. While I readily acknowledge the just mutual interdependence of all ranks, and no word ever escapes me in my ministrations calculated to set class against class, I see reason sometimes to regret a taint of surviving feudalism, and to dread the spread of ingrained mendicancy. It is not wholesome that any class of men should be unable to help themselves. The truest, the most permanent, of all forms of charity, would be that which should restore this almost forgotten power. Because educa­ tion is the most effective instrument to that holy end, it deserves �106 promotion ; and because it cannot be adequately promoted without aid from the strong arm of the law, I applaud this National Educa­ tion League for inscribing on its banners the unpopular word com­ pulsion. I hat word ought not in our age to have the same alarm­ ing sound, as it had under the dynasty of the Stuarts or the Tudors. For in proportion as our Constitution receives its full popular de­ velopment, it ought to be discerned that the State is only a name for the People, giving itself on a large scale the benefit of self-conscious organisation. Here the jealousies, too natural in times of repression, with which the smaller social bodies once regarded the central authority, ought to be softened until they ultimately pass away, and the great commonwealth of our country, expressing its mind deliberately in the Senate, should be regarded (in the Apostle’s words) as the nurse and mother of us all. If I have not wearied the meeting, I will venture to add a few illustrative remarks on some collateral points. It may be assumed that this League will not have for its object the establishment of new schools, to the detriment of those which exist in satisfactory working order. Again, it is by no means a necessity that the sup­ port of a school by rates, or other form of public money, should interfere with the exaction of such payments on the part of the children as may be easily obtained, or of such as may be found useful in giving the education a value in the eyes of the parents. Again, it does not follow, because we deliberately set aside such sectarian forms of religion as include proselytism as an essential element, that we are therefore bound to surrender the contribu­ tions to man’s intellectual growth which may be derived from literature of a sacred kind. What is called the denominational difficulty, may seem in some cases to be only merging itself in the form of the Scriptural difficulty; and this may happen the more in cases where religious bodies are not agreed as to the relations of the co-ordinate authority of the Bible, the Church, and the personal Conscience, or Reason. But I am persuaded no such difficulty need be found insuperable in practice. Most religious persons are agreed that, on the ground of reverence, the Bible should not be degraded into a mechanical lesson-book for reading, as a primer or a horn-book. Most men of the world (like Mr. Roebuck, at Salis­ �107 bury) are eager in proclaiming that many useful lessons are to be learnt from modern history and from secular literature. Again, all persons who have accepted frankly the principle of the Con­ science Clause (though I fear its operation still needs extension and enforcement) will concede, and even contend, that denominational inferences from Scripture lessons are not to be pressed upon children against the wish of their parents. It is a matter of experience, that very energetic Dissenters will let their children attend the schools of a clergyman, whose doctrines they disapprove, provided they are sure of his good faith in the matter of abstinence from proselytism. So when once it is understood that in schools supported by public money, rates or taxes, the Bible is to have but an indirectly religious influence, and is not to be employed for any denominational purpose whatsoever, the difficulty will vanish. There will still remain a treasury of sacred poetry, history, precepts, religious instances and examples, which may subserve the noblest ends of the teacher’s office, without prejudice to the conscience of the parent. But if influential persons, or important bodies of men, remain amongst us, who are not contented with such a practical application of the principle of the conscience clause, but contend for the enforcement upon children of points in which large classes of the community are not agreed, the survival of such persons, or bodies, amongs' us, is one of the strongest reasons which could be devised for calling into existence this national League for securing the education of every child in England and Wales. Let me end with a story, and a reflection. A man in my parish could not read, and his wife could not read; but they possessed a book the library of their household. He said, with touching gen­ erosity, “ Best give him (i.e., the book), to some one else; he is no use to any of we.” Now, it is often imagined that such sayings belong to the generation whose childhood was in days long by­ gone ; when “ there was not the talk of schools there is now.” My own observation convinces me that the tares grow as fast as the wheat grows ; that the cultivation of human life is a constant struggle against enemies, whose activity equals, if not exceeds any which is exercised against them. Hence I conclude that we require stronger remedies than anything short of legislative action �108 can supply. If we continue in our present course, sending infancy to school, childhood into the stable and the field, manhood to the beerhouse, old age to the workhouse, the second generation hence will, in fifty years more, still find men whose library is a solitary book, and who may be ignorant enough, if not generous enough, to exclaim, “ Best give him to some one else; he is no use to any of we.” ALDERMAN RUMNEY ON COMPULSION. Aiderman Rumney, of Manchester, read a paper on “ Compul­ sory Education.” He said :—The present educational system has been in operation a sufficient time to test its value. The controversy with the voluntaries, commencing with the introduction of the Minutes of Council, ceased long ago, and there has been no hin­ drance to the efficient working of the system. The Government has rather been in advance of the people, in its willingness to con­ tribute funds for educational purposes. The voluntaries, although withdrawing from the controversy, have not withdrawn from their share of their work, and the results are—the educational condition of England at the present moment. What might have been the state of things if the voluntary principle, pure and simple, had been adopted, cannot now be determined. Its advocates may say with some truth, “ It has never had a fair trial;” but it is certain that the schools aided by public funds, and the schools supported by voluntary contributions, have not together succeeded in educat­ ing more than a small _portion of the children of the working classes, and that both in country districts and in populous places there is a mass of ignorance truly appalling. The Duke of Marl­ borough may express his satisfaction with things as they are, but most men who have given attention to the subject are generally dissatisfied, while scarcely a meeting is held in town or country at which the ignorance of the people is not deplored, and methods of instruction urged upon them. Without troubling the Conference with voluminous statistics, I would only refer to two or three state­ ments as illustrative and typical. In a return called the “ Parishes Return,” made to the House of Lords, it appears there are 14,877 parishes in England and Wales. Of these only 7,40G are reported �109 by the Committee of Council as having schools fulfilling the required conditions of approved schools ; 2,779 as inspection schools, but not entitled to capitation fees ; and 4,692 parishes respecting which there is no evidence of any good schools at all, although of course in many such, doubtless, good schools not inspected may exist. The character of these 7,406 approved schools may be learned from the fact, that of all the children registered in 1868, only 60 per cent, were sufficiently advanced to be presented for examination to Her Majesty’s Inspectors; while of these only 67 per cent, passed in reading, writing, and arithmetic ; and only a fourth were prepared for an examination in the higher standards. Canon Morris, at one time Inspector of Schools in Staffordshire, wrote thus :—“ Con­ sidering how many schools are still inefficient, and how in the best schools the majority of the children leave before reaching the first class, I fear I should be rather over than under the mark if I said that one-fifth or one-sixth part of the children of the country are being reached by our improved system of educa­ tion.” Inspector the Rev. W. W. Howard, speaking of his district jn Devonshire, says :—“ Looking to the small number of schools in the district in which efficient teaching is given, and the small result of such teachings from irregularity of attendance and other causes, I am convinced that some legislative measure is needed, which shall secure better means of education, and shall compel the attendance of children, that they may benefit by the education offered.” Of Birmingham, Mr. Jesse Collings says :— “Out of 45,000 children there were 21,696 wandering about the streets, neither at school nor at work; and 26,000 that could neither read nor write.” About the same may be said of Man­ chester—the lowest estimate given of children who ought to be at school and are not, is from 10,000 to 20,000, the highest from 40,000 to 50,000. The Rev. H. W. Bellairs, another inspector, writes thus : “ The present condition of education in Great Britain may be thus stated:—one half of the children of the working classes between three and thirteen years of age, are under no schoolastic education at all • and of the other half it cannot be truly said that, under our present system, they will ever be half educated.” One country place may be taken as illustrating the �110 educational condition of the agricultural districts; the national schoolmaster of Evesham writes :—“ I have been in charge of this school for five years, and from my observation and experience during that time, I am of opinion that there is a deplorable amount of ignorance amongst the children of the labouring class in this neighbourhood ; I have become very strongly impressed with the conviction, that our present educational appliances are quite in­ adequate to cope with the appalling ignorance, and moral destitu­ tion so prevalent in this locality.” Such, then, is the condition of England after a lengthened trial of the system now in operation. Doubtless there are exceptions. The northern counties are in this respect superior to the southern, while in many towns a larger pro­ portion of children will be found attending school, than in Bir­ mingham and Manchester, but in no place, whether in town or country, is the educational condition of the people satisfactory, nor is there any hope of improvement with the present system. It is not progressive, has no tendency to propagate itself; it helps those who help themselves which is well enough, but the children of those who have neither the means nor the will, it leaves to mental and moral starvation; the rich schools are supplied adundantly, the poor are sent empty away. “ To him that hath shall be given ; from him that hath not, shall be taken away ”—not that which he hath, but that which he might have, if he had only the means where­ with to obtain it. The system has failed in enlisting the support and sympathy of any but those actually interested in its manage­ ment. In country districts, the clergyman is almost the only person outside the school who takes any interest in the work within ; there is no active and equal co-operation. He may ask, and some­ times obtain the help of his neighbours, but they soon leave him to his duties and responsibilities—they say, it is a part of the parson’s work,* and does not concern them. In towns there are committees and more equality between clergymen and laymen ; and there is oversight and vigour for a time, but in the absence of anything stimulating and requiring thought and effort, a committee soon becomes a soulless form, only roused to periodic action for the purpose of securing as much money from the State as possible, at the least cost of time and labour. There is no competition among �Ill schools, nothing to stimulate teachers and managers; and that which ought to interest a whole neighbourhood—the education of the children—fails to secure more sympathy and support, than a few annual subscriptions paid grudgingly towards the school funds. Then, they are avowedly religious schools, established on tho assumption that the State is bound to see to the religious instruc­ tion of the young; and so all religious creeds and opinions are, by authority of the State, taught in the day schools. Roman Catholic doctrine and history, Protestant doctrine and history, each declaring the other erroneous; Jewish creeds, declaring both wrong; and, if the Mormons are numerous enough to establish schools of their own, (for the Mormon religion is permitted by law), then the State would pay for teaching that the Mormon Bible is the only revealed word, and all else obsolete and erroneous. What is truth ? is replied to by “ Whatever you please. It is of no consequence; only let something be taught which you call religion, and that will be sufficient.” So the Government, while compelling, declines to interfere with the religious teaching; it merely asks whether the managers are satisfied, with the religious condition of the school, and if an affirmative answer be given, the capitation grant is allowed without further question. Thus, under the shelter of a piece of ill-concealed hypocrisy, if the managers of a purely secular school will enforce the reading of a single verse in the Bible daily—no matter what it may be—and declare themselves satisfied, State aid would be afforded; while, if they are honest enough to declare it is not a religious school, and there is no religious teaching, it will be withheld. A singular illustration of this anomaly was recently brought before the President of the Council, in order, if possible, to obtain a remedy. In connection with a large number of Mechanics’ Institutions, which are for purely secular teaching, there are day schools as well as night classes taught by certified teachers. These being secular are denied the capitation grant, but if the same evening class pupils taught by the same masters are removed to a building—a National School for instance—where the day school is an inspected religious school, then the night pupils are included in the returns, and the capitation fee is paid for them. The religious influence of another �112 class of pupils, taught in the same building in the day extending to them as evening pupils, is as curious an illustration of religion by proxy, or imputed righteousness, as will be found in Church or State, in this or any civilized or uncivilized country. Surely it is time these absurdities were committed to the Paradise of Fools, and we adopted a course manly and intelligent in our dealing with this question. We exhort men to cease their religious strife, to live in harmony, to form Christian unions and alliances, and at the same time commence with the propagation of all these differences with the children in the day school—tell them on the one hand how very naughty it is for men to differ so much about religion, and on the other that it is necessary all these differences should be perpetuated at the expense of the State, and as a part of their education. The remedy generally proposed for meeting our educa­ tional difficulties is an extension of the Factory Half-time Act. This Act provides that no children shall be employed in factories under a certain age, without at the same time attending school a certain number of hours per week. Regarded as a whole, and compared with what it might have accomplished, it has been a con­ spicuous failure. Doubtless, in cases where the employer takes a personal interest in the education of his workpeople, the Act has worked advantageously; but such cases are the exception, not the rule, and there is not a large town in the Factory districts, where hundreds of young persons who have attended school at half-times may not be found unable to read or write, and in fact almost as ignorant, as if they had never attended school at all. Mr. Redgrave, Inspector of -Factories, in his Report just presented, declares that “ the present half-time system cannot be allowed to remain as it is. It is a state of things which the Legislature did not intend, and which cannot continue unredressed and he then offers some sug­ gestions for its improvement. The provisions of the Factory Act have been extended to other trades and occupations where young children are employed, but there has not been time yet to determine with what results. Mr. Redgrave writes that he has no doubt, “ when the Act of 1867 has become more familiar to the manufacturers, we shall find fewer objections to the employ­ ment of half-time children. But,” he adds, “ it is well to �113 consider what the Act of 1867 has done in this respect, as a guide to us in connection with that great subject which in effect it has left untouched—the education o£ the people." Charges of indifference have been brought against employers, but the reply is obvious—it is not their business to attend to the education of their workpeople ; if tjiey find them employment it may bo required that it shall be in healthy rooms, and employ­ ment which shall not in itself be unhealthy, and that they pay them adequate wages : they are responsible for employing children without a certificate and suffer the consequences ; they ought not to be made responsible for determining the value of the certificate presented. The cardinal defect of the Half-time Act is that it assumes the child learns at school, but does not require it to be proved. The certificate is given simply for school attendance, not school attain­ ments ; and so, with indifferent parents and children, and too often not efficient teachers, the children pass out of the period of bondage to that of freedom without reaping the advantages intended by the Act. The mind is set upon the termination of the school period, not on learning; earning wages is a luxury, attending school a sacrifice. This defect suggests the remedy. If there are nearly one or two millions of children who ought to be at school but are not—if all attempts have failed in converting ignorant parents to the conviction that it is their duty and interest to secure the education of their children, somehow or other, then nothing short of compulsory school attendance, or rather compulsory school attainments, will effect the object; an Act simple in its main features, and modified in its details, as might be found expedient, would be needed. Regarding attend­ ance at school as secondary, it would make it a criminal offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment, for a parent or guardian to allow a child to grow up without instruction; and a like offence for an employer to engage and pay wages to a child without the pro­ duction of a certificate of attainments. In this way the strongest possible inducement would be held out both to parent and child— not simply to attend school, but to obtain the instruction by which alone he could earn wages. Self interest would quicken the apathetic ; no knowledge no wages, would soon fill the schools, and a generation would not pass away before the laws of compulsory H �114 school attendance would be unnecessary. There would be no great difficulty in fixing the standard of attainments, or securing a proper examination ; these things are done at present by the Oxford and Cambridge Universities, by the Society of Arts, the Government in the Science Class examination, and other bodies. It is assumed the examinations would be confined to what are called secular subjects. A complete education is not contemplated; but rather that elementary training of the faculties of hand, eye, and mind, by which the educational process may be carried forward— the culture and use of the implements rather than the work they are destined to perform. Primarily, reading, writing, and arithmetic —possibly geography, history, grammar, drawing, &c.—would form the subjects upon which examinations would be held, the particular standard being adjusted to meet the requirements of the case, as in the examinations already referred to ; it would be determined by competent and independent authority, and modified from time to time as might be found necessary. It is satisfactory on this point to be fortified by the opinion of Mr. Redgrave, Inspector of Factories, already referred to, who recommends, in suggesting improvements in the Factory and Employment of Children Acts, “ that no young person under the age of 16 should be employed for full time unless a certificate be produced, given in a prescribed form by a certified schoolmaster, minister, inspector of schools, or justice of the peace, certifying that the young person can read and write well, and work sums in the four first rules of arithmetic.” It may be further remarked, that no country has in modern times secured an educated people in the absence of compulsory school attendance. In Prus­ sia, Switzerland, partly in Holland—the best educated European States—school attendance is compulsory. In Canada it is the same, and in the United States it is now, or has been; in some States the law has ceased to be operative, superseded by the stronger law of public opinion ; in others, where school attendance is not satisfactory, a renewal of the compulsory law is suggested as the only remedy. The principal objections to compulsory school attend­ ance are that it is un-English, an interference with the liberty of the subject, and would not be submitted to by the people. With a large number of people everything new is un-English. “ That �115 which has been shall be” is with them a maxim incapable of refu­ tation ; they look back on the past, not for lessons to guide, but for precedents to follow. Through predilections and prejudices every question is viewed, seldom directly and abstractedly, and hence almost all accepted truths have had to fight their way through contempt, obloquy, misrepresentation, and argument, to victoiy. There is this encouragement—many things formerly regarded as un-English are now established. All legislation on social questions, Sanitary Acts, Health and Nuisances Removal Acts, are of this description. A man cannot build his house as he pleases, so far has law invaded the domain of social and private life; and yet the people are not in rebellion-—nay, rather, the demand is for more, not less of legislation in this direction. Doubtless, it would be better if people could be induced to do without so much legal enactment. Whatever people can do for themselves they ought to do it better than the State, in its organized capacity, can do it for them ; but, unfortunately, they do not attend to their own well-being, even when the duty is obvious ; and although experience is valuable as a teacher, her school fees are so heavy, that of late years there has grown up a disposition to devolve many duties upon the State, which were formerly regarded as beyond its legitimate province. That compulsory school attendance interferes with the liberty of the parent is unquestionable, but only so far as the parent violates the primitive and inherent rights of the child. The child has the same right to have the mind fed as the body, and if the neglect to afford proper nourishment for the body exposes the parent to punishment, there is no reason why the same or even greater punishment should not be inflicted when he neglects to supply the necessary food required by the mind. In one sense all law inter­ feres with personal liberty, but only when the exercise of liberty interferes with the rights of others. To punish the burglar is to interfere with his liberty to plunder; to punish the parents for withholding from their children the right to be instructed is to do the same thing. The State takes upon itself the guardianship of the rights of the weak and helpless, as against the strong, but the law in each case is founded upon man’s moral nature, is not afbitary, and would be respected. Compulsory school attendance • need �116 not necessarily interfere with, the liberty of instruction. The child may be taught at home or at school; the only obligation is that he shall. not grow up in ignorance. In bringing children into the world, parents have contracted certain obligations towards them— they are bound to bring them up and fit them for citizenship ; but these children are helpless, and unable to secure the fulfilment of the-obligation, and hence the State interferes as their guardian, to obtain from the parent, if he is able—and by some other means if he is not—the completion of the contract into which he had entered. That there would be cases of hardship where children are employed and earning wages is likely enough—all social laws press heavily on some—but regard for the child’s permanent welfare should over-ride all considerations of temporary advantage to the parent; and surely it is a less evil to restrain a parent from Eving upon the earnings of a child, than that the child should be deprived of the instruction by which he can earn his own bread in after life, and discharge properly the duties of a citizen. The evil would not be serious—it would be a displacement of labour to some extent. There is a certain quantity of juvenile work to be done in the country, and if children of six to eight years are prevented doing it, older children and more efficient will be employed for the purpose. On this subject Monsieur Cousan says : £k A law which compels parents and guardians under penalties to secure the in­ struction of children, is based on the principle that the degree of education necessary to the knowledge and practice of our duties is of itself the first of all duties; and,” he adds, “ I do not know a single country where this law is absent, where popular education flourishes.” Would a law so inoperative be observed? It is said such an. amount of hostility would be created as to render the law inoperative. It may be so, but is it not more likely the influence would be altogether in the other direction ? The Act would be the corporate seal of the nation set to the declaration that the children shall be educated ; it would have the support of the majority, of all who are really favourable to the nation’s advancement. On parents disposed to have their children instructed it would exert no pressure, would not be felt oppressive; they are doing exactly what the Legislature declares they ought to do. On the vicious only �117 would it press heavily. In the middle class, and a large section of the working men, the feeling in favour of education is strong and general; and this feeling, supported hy public law, would create an opinion and influence upon the class below tending to secure respect and observance, and calculated to render criminal proceed­ ings infrequent, and in time unnecessary. Again, it may be questioned whether there is much force in the opinion so frequently urged, that abolishing school fees, and supporting the schools out of the taxation of the country, would tend to lower the value of instruction in the estimation of the people. It can hardly be conceived that parents, having a due regard for the welfare of their children, will neglect to send them to school because they have no occasion to send at the same time 4d. or 6d. per week as pay­ ment for the instruction; and it is still less conceivable that those who have no such regard for their offspring will make this an excuse for their negligence, and urge that if the sacrifice involved in the per­ formance of their duty were greater, they would be more disposed to undertake it. Be it as it may, there is the fact that a large number of the children of the working class are without instruction—a sufficient number to suggest the question, “What will they do with us ? ” if we cannot do something more with them, than has been done. Parents do not send them to school, and will not', and no other remedy is suggested but compulsion. But if compulsion is applied to one it must be to all ; the law must be equal in its dealings. Ignorance and criminality, as a matter of fact, are insepar­ ably connected. One of the functions of Government is- the repression of crime, and, in the interests of society and the welfare of the helpless child, it surely may interfere to prevent the abuse of parental authority. At present a parent may do whatever he pleases with his child, short of actual bodily cruelty ; he may educate it or he may not, and the law does not interfere. Substitute the imperative for the conditional—you shall for you may—and there will be a prospect that in a few years our educational condition will no longer be a bye-word and reproach to all intelligent foreigners. In carrying out this law of compulsory school attendance, it is clear schools must be provided; it does not necessarily follow they should be free, except to the children of parents who cannot afford to pay. Whether �118 they should be free to all is fairly open to discussion, bnt all certi­ fied schools, whether without school fees or with them, on the part of those able to pay, should be open without restriction or limita­ tion in so far as they are aided and inspected by public authorityThey should neither be denominational nor sectarian schools, nor, in the ordinary sense in which the term is used, should they be religious schools. It is not now regarded as the paramount duty of the State to attend to the religious interests of the people. The world is ultimately ruled by thought, and it cannot be questioned that the thought of England and Europe is strongly in favour of leaving religion to individual conscience, withdrawing it from the sphere of law, and, in spite of popes and prelates, leaving every man to settle for himself what form of religion he shall adopt, and what mode of worship he shall observe. But it does not follow that all existing schools cannot be utilized and used, and only if and when found inadequate need new schools be erected : the simple provision would be that during ordinary school hours the instruction should be confined to the subjects in which examinations are conducted, and dogmatic religious teaching be excluded. Instead of a con­ science clause, which is but a clumsy contrivance for protecting the Dissenter from outward violations of conscience, while it exposes the child to social degradation, the religious instruction, as such, should be limited to certain hours, open to all who choose to accept it, but not forced -on any. There is one objection to the use of existing schools pointed out by Mathew Arnold. It is this : “ That the moment the working class of this country have this question of instruction really brought home to them, their self-respect will make them demand, like the working classes on the Continent, public schools, and not schools which the clergyman, or the squire, or the millowner calls 1 my school.’ ” There is another objection still more formidable, viz., that the interest of the nation will never be fully enlisted in the work of popular education so long as instruction is confined to denominational schools. The continuance of these schools is urged solely on religious grounds; they are supposed to secure, by their connection with a place of worship, the religious culture of the children, and this is regarded as all-important. It is singular the unanimity there is among a certain class of speakers �119 and writers in favour of combining religion with elementary instruc­ tion in schools for the poor. They look with horror on what they term the divorce of religion from the learning of the alphabet in the national schools ; yet respecting the schools for their own children, the middle and upper class schools, there is no anxiety. The last thing people send their children to be taught in the grammar or private schools is religion, and as a matter of fact it is not taught; and yet when it is proposed to omit this teaching from schools for working men, an outcry is raised, the scheme denounced as godless, and the supporters of it no better than infidels. Lurking under this loose talk is the idea that religion is a good thing for the poor man, and it must be supplied to him whether he likes it or not; but for other people—why, they can please themselves. Ask, however, the working men themselves respecting the education of their own children, and they would pronounce unhesitatingly in favour of non-denominational and secular schools. In this respect also the present system must be regarded as a failure : it is based on the idea of making men Christians that they may be good citizens. If it had succeeded, its continuance might be justified; but has it ? Notoriously, a vast majority of the working classes are outside the pale of direct religious influences, and yet these have been trained to a large extent in our existing schools. Not a Congress of Bishops and Clergy can be held—not a Conference of Dissenting ministers of any denomination—where the question respecting the alienation of the working classes from religion is not earnestly discussed, and sundry plans devised for their recovery. The “ heathenism of our large towns ” is always a favourite subject, and how to adapt church services to suit their tastes, and so bring them into the religious edifices, occupies a conspicuous place in all their deliberations. Let anyone examine the Reports of the Inspectors of the National Schools on Gospel History, or any subject embraced in religious teaching, and, with some exceptions, it is about the saddest exhi­ bition of ignorance to be found in connection with school teaching. Committing to memory religious dogmas they cannot understand, or which, if they do, they find daily the subject of controversy, is not the way to make children religious, or to form the basis of a true Christian character. In fact, religion cannot be taught, it must �120 grow by all the holy influences with which a child can be sur­ rounded ; but these influences may be entirely absent where there is most of professedly religious teaching. Between “teaching religion ” and “ religious teaching ” we have failed to recognize any distinction, and this confounding of two things essentially different is a mistake which pervades our entire system of education. An improved national System must have for its object the making of good citizens. The real learning of a man is of more public importance than any particular religious opinions he may entertain, and we must learn to separate the teaching of religious doctrine from the ordinary instruction of primary schools, before we can expect to train up good citizens or intelligent Christians. It may be admitted that there can be no complete education if religion is altogether excluded; but elementary and technical instruction can be given alone, and religious instruction may be safely left to private individuals or the public bodies which may choose to under­ take it. Aworthy prelate at a recent Church Congress again hoisted the American flag, to frighten us from the adoption of this godless scheme of secular education. Whether rhe distinguished prelate is acquainted with the American system or not does not appear, but the results will challenge comparison with anything he can produce in this country. The system is based upon the idea of citizenship. The teaching of religion is prohibited; religious teaching is not. The Bible is not degraded by being made a school book, and ex­ plained by an incompetent teacher; but the school is opened by a portion read without note or comment, the Lord’s Prayer is recited or chanted, a hymn or piece of sacred music is sung; and, when conducted by an intelligent and religious teacher, it is difficult to imagine a service more beautiful or impressive than may be wit­ nessed daily at the opening of an American primary school. And what are the results ? The American youths are more intelligent than the English. The American people are as loyal to their Government, and, as a whole, as law-abiding as any under the old monarchies of Europe, and, judged by any of the ordinary tests, they are more religious than the people of this country Sunday is better observed than here, a larger number of people attend church; the religious, educational, and philanthropic institutions supported by �121 voluntary contributions are equal in extent to those in this country. A religious tone enters into and affects the whole of society, which has no counterpart in this country, while in the more purely American States, where the foreign element has less influence, there is a higher general and religious culture than could be found either in this country or in any of the old countries of Europe. And yet reverend men at Church Congresses talk about this secular education as leading to irreligion and infidelity. The leading features of a measure may be briefly summarised. A Minister of Education, and a Council, and Examining Board would be essential; provision for training and certifying competent teachers ; in every district a com­ mittee to superintend all school arrangements, and disburse the funds levied for school purposes. The funds should be partly national, partly local—national as contributed by the whole people, and local in order to secure personal local interest, and a provident dis­ bursement. The area of local taxation should be so wide as to avoid severe and unequal pressure, and not so large as to destroy individual supervision. In corporate towns, and towns with Local Boards, these bodies would be intrusted with the work and manage­ ment ; in country districts, the Poor Law Unions would afford the basis of organization. In all cases the duty of superintending school instruction should be regarded as the proper business of the governing body, and not of the clergy. Their work is the religious teaching; but only as citizens have they need to meddle with general instruction. The scramble hitherto to induce children to attend school, that they might be got to church and figure in ecclesiastical statistics, has hindered rather than helped the progress of education. If the responsibility of looking after the instruction of children be taken from the clergy, and placed upon the rate­ payers in each locality, self-interest and preservation would act as powerful incentives to vigorous action against a too parsimonious provision. A minimum salary could be fixed where a given mrmber of scholars are taught, so that a school would in no case be starved by an economical committee. Another important feature would be thorough inspection and frequent examinations, and the results of the examinations circulated as soon as possible. At present the reports of the Inspectors are almost useless. They are �122 sent in by a department of the Government, printed among the blue books, and ready for use if anybody cares to apply for them ; but, supposing the reports of a district were printed and circulated quickly, the peculiarities—excellences or deficiencies—of each school pointed out, what an interest would be excited! Com­ mittees and managers would read and consider them. Conferences of teachers would be held, they would be discussed, a healthy stimulus would be applied, and then would happen, what it is utterly in vain to expect under the present system : the people, regarding the work as their own, would do it with all the judgment and energy of which they are capable, and which characterises their proceedings in other matters of local and personal interest. DISCUSSION. Mr. E. Potter, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen— In the first place, let me express my strong feelings of admiration for the address which we have just heard from Mr. Alderman Eumney, than whom no man is more competent to give an opinion on the working of the educational system in the district from which he comes. I heard him a year or two ago, before a Parliamentary com­ mittee, say that he considered the factory education little less than a sham. I agree with him, and the causes are, to my mind, very patent. In the first place, the factory system only embraced a single section of the trade of the country. It was forced on the cotton trade, and the country felt that it was unjust to compel one trade only to submit to it. Among millowners there was a strong and a natural feeling, and even the best masters, who had had educational estab­ lishments of their own previous to the time, said, “ If it comes to a question of force, the people may educate themselves.” They would not be forced, as a single class, to do it, and their feeling upon the matter was strong. Now, factory education has been very good under certain circumstances, and bad under other circum­ stances. Where a master has taken an interest in education, it has been successful, but it has been a very difficult thing to carry out. It is a difficult thing to exercise a moral compulsion. Those of us who are large employers may be able to persuade many, but un­ fortunately others would take a different course. They would pre­ �123 fer sending their children to where they could work full time. The inefficiency of the factory system is that it does not embrace the whole country. The great benefit of the compulsory principle is that it would reach all classes. Now, it must be carried out mainly by the extension of the factory and half-time system. That is the great object of the bill I advocate. It would compel the education of every child, labouring or not. I see no difficulty in doing this ; the organisation would be very easy—-no more difficult for a district than it is now for a single factory. There are large factories, employing five or six thousand hands, and I do not see that it would be more difficult to educate the children in a small town, say, of 8,000 inhabitants, than it is to educate the children in a large mill. There is one point I am anxious about in connection with the League, and that is, that this education should be kept perfectly distinct from the present denominational system. If it is given on something like the factory system, I believe it will not interfere with, but tend to support, the present system. I say this advisedly. There is a large class of workmen who, when forced to educate their children, will, as a matter of pride, send them to the denominational rather than to the free schools, and pay for them rather than accept State aid. In a few­ years it would have that effect. At all events, the two systems must be kept perfectly distinct. There is nothing worse in a denominational school than the education of half-timers. School­ masters do not like to have them, because they interfere with the working of the school. I had some knowledge of a school ten years before the Factory Act came into existence. It was pretty successful, and well supported, and the proprietor had some influence over a certain number of hands. I believe it was a higher class school then than it was when transformed into a school of half-time. The master could not give attendance to the half-timers, and the school rather fell off, and the ultimate con­ clusion of the proprietor was, to make it altogether into a half­ time school. The privilege was extended to the master of taking any number of children from the neighbouring district to educate, and of having the fees himself j but he has never succeeded in this respect, and he said to me in conversation, that there was a �124 feeling among the better class workmen against sending their children into the half-time school. I think that feeling exists, hut if the free and compulsory system is worked on the half-time principle only, the Factory Act will be carried out very efficiently. I am an advocate for the half-time system, but it must be kept distinct from the other. We have been working half a century under the Factory Act, and it has been compulsory, as far as it went, and secular. There has been no compulsion to teach religion the employer not teaching his own creed-"—or to have the school purely secular. I think many of the best schools have been purely secular. I think, then, that the new schools which will be established, if I may say so, below the line, should be classed as distinct working-class schools entirely. I am very anxious that every encouragement should be given to keeping them separate. I should not like any injury to be inflicted on the higher class denominational schools. My great interest in joining this society is to keep the schools distinct. I think we shall do a fatal damage if we injure the denominational schools at all, because there is il ample room and verge enough” for us below them. I am per­ fectly satisfied we can supply education in the schools below them to another million children. Why should they not be perfectly distinct ? The one class of schools will be compulsory, and that very compulsion should make them free and secular. We might as well meet the thing at once, openly and honestly. In denominational schools you can enforce denominational teaching; but with us, under a compulsory system, it must be secular. I wish the two questions to be worked harmoniously, side by side, but to be separate from each other. The Rev. C. Clarke : I am to speak a few words on the subject of compulsion, and on the supposition that in the course of a few years we shall have our bill passed through the Houses of Parlia­ ment, and that local authorities will have the power to found and establish free secular schools, is it likely in such case that the poor, the ignorant, the thoughtless, those of our fellow countrymen who are unacquainted with the blessings and advantages of educa­ tion, will be able to oppose the national will and the intentions of the Legislature by refusing to send their children to school ? Are �125 they likely to succeed in any attempt of that sort ? Now, with regard to the schools which we desire to establish, I wish to notice a remark which proceeded yesterday from the lips of Professor Fawcett. I understood him to say—and in fact he is reported this morning in the papers as having said—that it was the intention, or it would be the work, of the League, to establish such schools as the British schools. Professor Fawcett : Should I be in order if I rise to explain ? There is some misunderstanding. I made the remark in conse­ quence of a letter last week in the Spectator, signed “ Jesse Collings.” I stated distinctly yesterday that it was my duty simply to explain the programme of the League—I did not express my own individual opinion. What Mr. Collings stated, writing in the name of the League, was this : that it was not the intention, or desire’ or object of the League that free British schools should be established. What he did state distinctly was this : that it was their intention to give the local managers of these rate-supported schools the authority, if they desired it, to establish schools analogous to the British schools. If he misinterpreted the intentions of the League, it is his fault, and not mine. Mr. Jesse Collings : I think this renders a further explana­ tion necessary. It will be seen from my letter to the Spectator that it is not the intention of this League to found schools like the British schools. My letter was written in answer to a rather unfair article in the Spectator, and to numerous inquiries whether the Bible should be read or not. The answer is : The League has nothing to say about the Bible ; the reading of the Bible, like any other book, or any other question affecting the discipline or instruction of the school, will be left in the hands of the local authorities. There­ fore in our bill, to be founded on this principle, we shall have nothing at all to say about the Bible. The words about British schools were brought in incidentally, and they were these—“In this respect (in being unsectarian) the League goes no further than the British and Foreign School Society.” I was not speaking of the practice Of that society ; but their theory, which is that there shall be no theo­ logical instruction given in the schools. That is what we mean—that there shall be no religious creed or catechism of any kind taught in �126 the schools we are about to found. If the British and Foreign Society do allow these things to be taught, then I was in error. We do not intend that they shall be taught in our schools. The Rev. C. Clarke : Some of us in Birmingham have to do with schools in which daily the Scriptures are read, but in which no express theological or religious instruction of any kind is given. Now, originally, the British schools had this foundation, and no other, but I thought it was notorious that during the last twenty years the authorities of those schools, the head-quarters of which are in the Borough Road, have (in the judgment of many persons) utterly perverted their trust. They have taught a sectarianism, and when called to account, or when an explanation was demanded, they still persisted in doing it; and persons who had for many years supported their institutions on the ground of their supposed unsectarian character, were obliged to leave the British schools altogether. Now I wish to say that some of us, in promoting the objects of the League, wish to take every precaution against an abuse such as that. The Scriptures will not be read, except in such schools as are governed by authorities who desire that they shall be read, and insist on their being read. We would like to see this matter carefully considered. For having to do with schools, knowing how they are conducted, and what goes on in them ; and having after long use some reasonable and proper regard for the Scriptures, we are a little dubious, and inclined to hesitate on the question whether a true regard for them can be shown by the unthinking, an4 unreasonable, and improper use made of them sometimes in schools. But however this may be, it would be improper and unbecoming for us of the League to say that the Bible shall not be used. Let the Bible be used if the authorities in any district insist on its being used, but let us have, at any rate, in our constitution the clearest and most positive statement to the effect that no theological teaching, no note or com­ ment of any sort whatever, shall be allowed in the national schools of our country. Now, on the supposition that the local authorities have the power to establish schools of this kind—secular free schools—ought the people, by reason of their ignorance, and the manner in which hitherto they have been neglected, to �127 be allowed to oppose their inclinations to the decision of the Legislature and the just wishes of the nation? We know, all of us, that we have to submit to regulations and laws in con­ nection with the maintenance of the poor, the punishment and confinement of criminals, and the public health; and all of us who think at all on the matter know that if the nation chooses to express its will through the public laws in connection with the matter of our sending our children to school, we shall have to submit in that respect as well as in the others. With regard to modes of compulsion, none of us think of compulsion as an end. We are sometimes spoken of as though we were endeavouring to introduce some principle of compulsion as an end. It is not an end—it is a means; and those who observe the laws in this case, who do what they ought to do in connection with their children, will be under no form of compulsion whatever other than their own sense of duty. As to the manner in which the principle of compulsion may be applied, it would, of course, be possible to introduce here in England what I understand to be the law in Prussia, in which there is a complete system of registration, so that the members of every family are registered, and in a sense known • and the children of every family have in a certain manner to be accounted for if not in their places at school. We might have a system of registration of that sort. But without proceeding so far as that, we might have a system by which no children should be employed whatever when they ought to be at school. This would be a kind of compulsion which possibly might be exceedingly offensive. But in addition to having a labour clause utterly excluding children in those years when they ought to be at school from factories and workshops, we might have a vagrant or truant clause similar to that which is enforced in Massachusetts. Mr. Field, who is well acquainted with the American system, and who, in his visits to Massachusetts, has taken pains thoroughly to inform himself, has told me that the people have clauses in operation of this nature. If children, for instance, are seen in the streets of Boston during the school hours, they are at once captured by the officers, inquiries are made of their parents as to why they are in the streets, and not at school, and their parents �128 are seriously warned and admonished that they will incur penalties if this is continued. Of course, if the children go to school all is well; if they do not go to school, the parents, as sometimes happens, are fined in any sum not exceeding 20 dollars ; or the children, if they show themselves to be incorrigible, are taken before a magis­ trate, and by him committed to a truant institution. These penalties are enforced in Massachusetts, and inflicted from year to year. If we were wise enough to have a clause excluding children from factories and workshops, and another keeping them from the streets, these forms of compulsion might be sufficient; but if they did not prove sufficient, it would be open to the Government to introduce clauses of a more stringent nature. I talk to my friends and acquaintances on the subject, and find a few of them shrinking in regard to compulsion, but I tell them, as I will tell you, that most happily we have now the power by which knots of various intricate kinds and characters may be either untied or cut. We have this in the political power which the people possess, and if only we will take our stand on grounds that are logical and right, and appeal to the country at large, but especially to those artisans who are really intelligent and upright, and anxious for their own welfare and the country’s good, we shall get the help whereby these intricate knots, so puzzling and painful to timid and cautious people, may be alto­ gether untied or cut, the difficulties will not trouble or embarrass us at all. Let us, I say, take our stand on grounds that are legiti­ mate and right, and appeal to the common sense and conscience of the nation, and then we shall find we have just the force we need to carry out educational measures, and everything else relating to the well-being, honour, and happiness of our country. Mr. Mundella, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen— After the remarks of the last speaker, and, indeed, of some of the preceding speakers, I think I cannot do better than submit to this audience something of my experience of what compulsory education has done abroad, what is the machinery by which it has effected those results, and the necessity for it at home; and I trust the audience will forgive me for saying that the few remarks I submit to you will not be the remarks of a mere theorist or doctrinaire. I am the son of a working man. I left school at nine and a half years �129 of age, and my first master, to whom I served my apprenticeship, is now in the body of the hall. I have been an employer of 4,000 workpeople, and have been an employer abroad, where com­ pulsory education is carried out. I have addressed large audiences of from 10,000 to 20,000 workpeople at once, in this country, on compulsory education, and I never met with but one response—a hearty assent to it. I just state these facts, not in order to give you anything of my personal affairs, but that my remarks may not be regarded as those of a theorist or doctrinaire, who wishes to force his crotchets on the people. My attention was first drawn to the necessity for compulsory education by observing its work abroad. I first saw it in Switzerland, then in Saxony, and then in Prussia. Ten years ago I saw it first in Switzerland, but my visits to Saxony, as an employer of 600 or 700 workmen, have been annual for some years, and the results of education there are so remarkable, so incredible, that I should be afraid to describe them to you. Nobody could realise or believe it. We are not only incomparably inferior in the quantity of our education, but also inferior in the quality ; indeed, we are more inferior in the quality than in the quantity. We cannot realise in England what can be attained by children under a compulsory system of primary educa­ tion. Now, I have visited the schools in Saxony again, and again, and again; and I have seen the children of peasants and of framework-knitters, children of the humblest classes, of spinners, and of weavers, and of ironworkers, at twelve years of age, convert moneys from English into German, from thalers and groschen into dollars and cents, then into francs and centimes, and transpose them back again into German. I have gone the length and breadth of the land, and have examined children by the wayside, children in factories and cottages, and have never found one at twelve years of age who could not read and write well—not as we understand reading and writing, but such reading and such writing as I or any other in this room have attained. They read and write intelli­ gently. I have tried to find some comer or some spot in Saxony, or the Canton of Zurich, or some Swiss Canton, where there are uneducated children. I have always failed, and school directors have said to me, “ It is in vain you search for them; there is no I �130 child in Saxony who cannot read and write.” My manager, who has now been nine years in that country, and has had a daily correspondence with numbers of workpeople scattered in the mountains, with handlooms in their own cottages, has never yet found a workman who could not correspond with him perfectly and intelligibly about his own work. You need not wonder that the North German Confederation is making such marvellous pro­ gress. Well, I shall next say something of the machinery by which it has been accomplished, because English people have an idea, and interested parties are disseminating that idea, that com pulsion means espionage and the policeman. A greater fiction never entered into the mind of man. There is no espionage, no policeman, in the case. I confess to you I under­ took this part of the subject in fear and trembling. After being shown a school of 3,000 boys, fifty in a class—the school, by the way, being The handsomest building in the place—I said to the head director in his counting-house, with his clerks around him, “ Now, sir, tell me how often you have to call in the aid of the policeman;” and he stood aghast. “I have been years head director of this school,” he said; “ I never yet had to call in the policeman.” He said, “ You do not understand the machinery by which our schools are worked.” I have since mastered it; and I tell you I do not believe in any truant law or vagrant law, or Factory Act, or Workshops Act. They are all nonsense, and will not answer the purpose. The machinery is simply this : Every child in every cottage, hamlet, or town in Ger­ many, Prussia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Wirtemburg, or Switzer­ land, is registered. You can keep a register of voters for household suffrage; why not keep a register of children ? They have a house­ hold register, and there are schools everywhere. They are not free schools either; although the population is poor, they pay. The children at six years of age must go to school. There are infant schools, and they may go there before that age; but the compulsion commences at 6 years, and does not end till 14. Well, the names are inscribed in the register, and at the end of the sixth year the parent receives a notice from the local board—the school board. You could have a central board, and your political divisions would �131 be your school divisions. It is so in Switzerland and in Prussia. The wards of the town have their own local boards, represented at the central board, and the local board would give notice to the parent, “ Your child is six years of age, and must now come to school.” The child comes to school or he does not; but suppose he does not, there is no magistrate, no policeman, in the case. The criminal law is never called into operation at all; the board has all power, and they send for the parent. The head director said to me, “ When it occurs that the parent does not send his children to school, or neglects to send them regularly, after a certain number of omissions I send for him and read the Act to him, or tell him to read it himself, and say to him, ‘ If you are in duty bound, accord­ ing to law, to send your child to school, why have you not done so This generally answers the purpose. But suppose the man is contumacious, his case is laid before the school board, and he is fined a franc. That is the first proceeding. Well, the matter rarely, if ever, goes beyond it, for in a district of 50 odd thousand persons, the school director told me he had only 42 cases of con­ tumacy in 8 years ; and he is a strict man. But it is said by our opponents, “ Oh, compulsion is not necessary there ; public opinion does the work, and it will do just as well without compulsion.” Now, I have put this question again and again. I am in corre­ spondence with some of the principal school authorities in Saxony, Prussia, and Switzerland, and I have asked them, “ Have you any difficulty?” The answer has been, “We had a good deal of difficulty at first, but after the first year or two it was wonderful how smoothly things went.” “ Then,” I said, “ dare you now relax the law ? ” In every instance I have had but one answer, “We dare not relax the law.” And the reason is obvious. In all communities there are some persons who shrink into habits of vice and intemperance, and these persons would drag their chileren down with them, and they would increase and multiply the vice and ignorance of the country; but that the law prevents them. And in answer to our opponents, who say that where there is a healthy public opinion there is no need of law, let me make some allusions to America. The Americans have been spoken of very honourably by the last speaker, and I wish to speak of them with great admir­ �132 ation; but there is one defect in the American system, and the Americans are becoming conscious of it. They know they want the compulsory power. The result is that public opinion, which was a power when America was more sparsely populated, is now ceasing to act. America is fast sinking into ignorance; and in order that I may not misrepresent that great country, which has made more munificent provision for education than any other, I will give these facts. The superintendent of the Cincinnati schools states that this is the percentage of daily attendance : In Cincinnati, 70-1 ; in Chicago, 58’9 ; in New York, 42’6. Is that the state of things you wish to copy ? Listen to what he says about Prussia— “ I refer to the Prussian system of education to call attention to that feature of it which makes education compulsory, and I do this because I believe that if we shall ever hope to derive the best possible fruits from our own munificent system of education, this feature must be incorporated into it.” This is American opinion. America has recently appointed a Bureau of Education, and that bureau is finding that with all this munificent provision, there are thousands and tens of thousands who are not availing themselves of it, and America is fast waking up to the consciousness —her best men are already aware of it—that they must introduce compulsion if they would wish to succeed. Now, our Workshops and our Factory Acts are failures. Never was anything a more complete failure than the Workshops Act. To neglect a child till he is 8, 9, or 10 years of age, and then, when he first commences to work, to insist on his going to school, is about the most objectionable and unreasonable form of compulsion, I think, that it was possible for the human mind.to devise. And, you know, in workshops and factories we have espionage and the policeman, for nothing is done unless either a policeman or a detective officer goes in. The Factory Inspector is not a policeman, it is true, but he summons men before the^criminal courts. Surely we can devise some means by which, when children are neither at work nor at school, they shall be got at. Low I ‘will notice the objection, that if we have compulsory education labour will suffer. What a farce it is to say that parents cannot afford to send their children to school because they will sacrifice their children’s earnings. Children can begin to learn at a �133 very early age, and where the education is persistent, as in Saxony, what they learn is something marvellous. Now, I have the new Labour Act of North Germany, which I received yesterday morning. It applies to the whole labouring population of Germany, and it prescribes that no child shall begin to work until the age of 12, and he has been 6 years at school. That is the first clause. Every child from 12 to 14 shall not work more than 6 hours daily, and shall, attend school three hours daily. Every child from 14 to. 16 shall attend school 6 hours per week. Now mark this— here technical education comes in, scientific instruction, know­ ledge of languages; and then consider the moral, and not only the moral, but the material prosperity of the country that must follow. I say this: unless we wake up to this question there are other interests at stake than moral interests ; there is the interest of the stomachs of the people, their employment, which will suffer as well as their moral necessities. Now, I do hope nobody will believe I advocate this because I desire there should be less religious instruction. What I have had I am most grate­ ful for, and my reason for advocating education is that there may be more. That word “ secular” is scandalously abused. All truth is holy. The order, and system, and cleanliness of a school are the most religious influences, I think, that can be brought to bear. Go through the population of Prussia, and never, even in its poorest districts, will you meet with the wretchedness, squalor, and filth that stare us in the face in our large towns, and make us so ashamed and humiliated. Now, following just after the new law of the North German Confederation, I have received the new Austrian school law. Austria has discovered that knowledge is power, and that ignorance is weakness, and that to be weak is to be miserable. What is the result ? Baron von Beust, the Minister of Saxony, is now the Minister of Austria, and he has taken the Saxon school system into Austria, and the Austrian school system is now the most liberal in Europe. I ask you, Englishmen and Englishwomen, are Austrian children to be educated before English children ? My inquiries abroad have stimulated me to plumb the depth of ignorance at home, and I find it impossible to do it. I have, with the assistance of your �134 Chairman, and at other times, in different parts of the country, examined more than 12,000 young persons at work, who had nearly all of them been at school; and what a farce our education is 1 I mean religious education. How many have been at school, and where much religious education is given, and yet some of them do not know even that God is their Creator? It seems incredible, but it is so. When they say a prayer, it is the merest confusion imaginable. Ask them to say the Lord’s Prayer to you word for word, and the first sentence is, “ Our Father, ’ch art in heaven.” Again and again, hundreds of times, I have heard them say it. What is the meaning? They have only a vague idea what is meant. This comes from our system of teaching. I say to our friends here that I am not a convert to the League. I was a convert to national compulsory education for years, when many of my friends thought I was an enthusiast and was going mad. Some of our con­ verts, with all the zeal of neophytes, go further than myself; but I say, with reference to this system, that I believe it can be applied to agricultural as well as to manufacturing districts. There is in this room a friend in the body of the hall who has for twenty years past had his ploughboys in a good state of education ; he has done it with­ out any sacrifice, and his people are the best tenantry in England, and his farm is the best cultivated. He has his ploughboys so well educated that a member of Parliament said, on examining one of them, “ That fellow a ploughman ! he is a gentleman.” I thank the meeting very cordially for having heard me patiently, and I would say to those friends who stand aloof from us, “ Stand aloof no longer. We have had some difficulty to arrive where we are, but public opinion is growing so fast that the terms we offered yesterday we cannot make to-day, and the terms we would gladly make to-day cannot be offered to-morrow. We wish to deal with you tenderly and gratefully for what you have done in the past; but I would say, the sibyl is at the door with her last offer.” Lord Campbell and Stratheden said : It seems to me that one of the wants required to be supplied is some argument against the compulsory principle. Such an argument it is utterly beyond my capacity to furnish. Arguments in favour of the principle may rather overstock the market to-day. • It would be useless to touch �135 upon its necessity; for the whole audience seem to be agreed that until the principle is introduced we cannot bring into schools the whole of the masses we mean to have there. It is useless to touch upon its justice, for the whole audience seem to feel that neglected children really have no parents, that they become the wards of the State, thrown upon the fatherhood of the law and the protection of society. It would be superfluous, though easy, to dwell upon the facilities for giving practical effect to this principle. There are only two points that I, therefore, will venture upon, both of which, if I am not deceived, have something practical about them. Of course, on this question, as on many others, there is a great differ­ ence of opinion. All are not equally advanced in their conviction as to the necessity of the compulsory principle, and there is some prejudice yet to be encountered. That prejudice, where it exists, bases itself upon the idea that the State, or the central power, ought not to be armed with domiciliary or autocratic functions such as are proposed. I wish, therefore, to suggest to this audience a distinction between a grant of such powers to the State, and the accordance of them to local bodies, such as Town Councils or muni­ cipal authorities, which are the immediate emanation of the very individuals to be supervised. Don’t let it be imagined that I am hostile to a grant of such powers to the State. All I suggest is, that in conferring such powers upon municipal authorities, you meet and indulge the prejudices of those who would view with jealousy such powers if the central body happened to receive them. The other observation I have to make is this—that it seems to me that the whole question may be brought into a very narrow focus, and reduced to one of downright justice to the taxpayer and ratepayer. It is obvious to all men that to extend popular instruction in any shape or form there must be a new expenditure. That expenditure must come from general taxation imposed by Parliament, or it must come from the local rates agreed to by municipal assemblies. In the one case, the burden would fall upon the taxpayer ; in the other, upon the rate­ payer. Both taxpayer and ratepayer are entitled to resist the burden you are going to throw upon them, unless those burdens involve some security for the attainment of the object aimed at. The taxpayer might fairly say, “Now you are going to spend, say a �136 million and a half, derived from general taxation. I will submit to the payment of my share if your system involves some guarantee that the schools shall be filled with children j but I will not submit to the imposition of another Is. 6d. in the pound when I know that there is a possibility of these schools being empty.” Although we know from experience that our schools may be filled without compulsion, yet until the principle is introduced you have no guarantee for the attendance of even one child in all the school' accommodation provided. So, too, might the ratepayer declare, “ I am willing to submit to 2d., 3d., 4d., or even Is. in the pound additional rates for a great public object which I am able to appre­ ciate—for the conquest of ignorance, the repression of crime, and the prevention of misery in many shapes ; but I will not submit to any further rate for the erection of schools, or the employment of schoolmasters when I have no security that another 100 will come within the reach of these advantages.” I do trust that this latter view may sink deeply into the minds of the taxpayer and the ratepayer, without whose concurrence the great objects of your association are impossible of attainment; and that so sinking into their minds, it will create a general and irresistible concurrence of opinion that, however the question of religion may be decided— that whatever form of education is promoted—some powers for ensuring the attendance of children at school shall exist. Mr. George Howell, of London: I am decidedly in favour of compulsory, free, secular education. This word “ secular ” appears to me as though it were used to imply teaching the peculiar dogmas of a small party in the country called “ secularists.” Now, if it were so intended, this would at once be sectarian teaching. We use the word “ secular ” as simply opposed to ecclesiastical. The office of the clergyman or minister is eccle­ siastical, but that of the schoolmaster is secular. By secular, then, we mean that education which teaches those things which fit children for the duties of this life as men and citizens. We want our children educated in the practical knowledge and business of life. Denominational, or religious, teaching must be left to the home, the Sunday school, and the church. If we once admit the teaching of theology into our public schools, where can it end but �137 in compulsion ? Catholics, Protestants, and Secularistswill each have their claim. Even the use of the Bible, as a text book in our National Schools, will involve some difficulty, inasmuch as in Ireland, and in all Catholic districts, the Catholics would claim something different from our Protestant Bible. Besides which, I am afraid that it would revive all the religious animosities which we sought to remove by the dis-establishment of the State Church in Ireland. With regard to compulsory education, the very term law involves compulsion. We have compulsory laws to punish crime, let us now try compulsion to prevent it. We demand compulsory education for the benefit of the entire community, just as we demand quarantine for the safety of our ports; and the removal of nuisances for the protection of the health of our cities and towns; nay, even the regulation of our traffic for the convenience of our streets. Ignor­ ance is at once the most noxious of all nuisances, and the most contaminating. It is also enormously expensive. The objections to compulsion do not come from working men, although some wellmeaning men speak in their name as though we did object. Mr. Walter, M.P., at a recent agricultural meeting at Maidenhead, spoke somewhat against the platform of the League. During the last few weeks I have been in personal communication with several of the reformers of Worcester Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud, and Tewkes­ bury, and in those towns I found no hesitation whatever in endors­ ing the principle of compulsory, free, and secular education. And here I may say that I am informed that so near home as the Scilly Islands an almost complete system of compulsory education is in operation. At the last general election I was a candidate for Ayles­ bury, and one of the most prominent points in my address was this one of national, compulsory, free, and secular education. I visited every hamlet and village in the large borough, and not one voice did I hear raised up against the principle. The only oppo­ sition I found came from the clergymen and farmers. The farmers were under the impression that education would unfit men for work in the field; but both manufacturers and artisans know full well that education is an immense benefit to both parties in the daily work of life. In short, the working classes of this country are anxious for, and demand, a complete national system of educa- �138 , tion, which shall reach all classes, and which shalj. be be compul­ sory, unsectarian, and free. Dr. Hodgson said the text of the few remarks he had to make would be drawn from the admirable speech of Mr. Mundella. Mr. Mundella said, most truly, that we were behind other countries, not . so much in the quantity as in the quality of our education, and the question of compulsion was very much mixed up with the quality of education we intended to supply. The question they had to discuss was compulsory attendance in schools, not the compulsory provision of schools, for the schools must be provided before they could be attended. He asked why it was that this necessity ex­ isted ? There were many reasons ; but one special reason was the indolence of parents who did not take any interest in the educa­ tion of their children, and another reason was the indolence of the • children themselves. He should regret exceedingly if it were to go abroad as a general impression that the object of the League was to establish a compulsory education which should be simply, or even mainly, for the teaching of reading and writing, with even arith­ metic superadded. They were not likely to disagree as to the importance of reading and writing as instruments of education, but one thing was certain—if we did not aim at something a great deal beyond these things, we should neither obtain nor deserve that support which would be requisite to carry the measure through the House of Commons. The staple of our existing schools was reading and writing, and what was the result? Everyone’s experience answered this question, but he would mention one or two cases. He had elsewhere published an account of a visit paid to a school in the South of England, where the children read very passably indeed. The passage read was a description of a crab. The district was an inland one, and he asked the children if any of them had ever seen a crab? There was a great sensation, and after a little delay one girl said she had, but it appeared it was not a marine crab, but a crab apple. That was the amount of intelligence that had been developed. That child, and all the others, would have passed muster in reading and writing. Another story was told him by a benevolent lady, residing in the neighbour­ hood of a country school, who took an opportunity of giving the �139 children a lesson on their senses. It was a revelation to them that they had senses. The lady asked, 11 What is the use of your nose?” There was great silence for a time, broken by a boy who said, “ To be wiped.” Another story was told him by Mr. Leonard Horner, Factory Inspector, and it related to Birmingham. When the pre­ sent Bishop of Manchester was head master of King Edward’s School, Mr. Horner accompanied him on a tour for the purpose of ascertaining the efficiency of instruction in the district, and espe­ cially in the matter of religion. In one case the Scripture passage read contained the word “ sacrifice,” and none of the children could give the slightest explanation of the word except one girl, who had been about four years in the school, and her answer was, “The place where Jesus Christ offered up his son Isaac.” Now, this was a state of things that must be put an end to. The instruction must be made of such a nature as to develop the intelligence and to cul­ tivate the understanding. There must be that kind of useful knowledge imparted which would be suited to the comprehension of the youngest child, and which was indispensable to children when they grew up for their guidance in their after lives. He wished to impress upon the audience that compulsion was not tyranny, but the result of a law which we ourselves had imposed for the general good. The way to make compulsion not only tole­ rable, but successful, was so to dispose people that they should do of their own accord those things which, if they did not do, the law would compel them. In the schools for the poor the time allotted for instruction was lamentably short, and therefore attention must be concentrated upon those things which were most useful, most indispensable, and most capable of application in after life. Mr. Paget, formerly M.P. for Nottingham: I have now for, I' think, sixteen years, as an agricultural employer, insisted that the boys should spend some of their days at school, and some at work. I felt that some such movement as this was evidently in the future, and that it was better to be prepared with a knowledge of facts for a time like this. And within my experience the results have been so uniformly good that I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the practice I have mentioned is a proved success. I have thirtyfour children upon the farm, employed on the condition that they �140 spend the alternate days at school. It has been without any sacri­ fice on my part. I felt that it must be a business success to justify me in calling on my neighbours to adopt it, and it has been a business success; for not only have I not lost anything, but I am convinced that I have been better served, and my bailiff is of the same opinion. I receive the boys at nine years of age, on condi­ tion that they are able to write decently ; and I am quite certain that no system of mixed school and labour will succeed, without that preliminary condition. Coming on my farm at that age, and being able to write decently then, they go to school and work on the farm alternate days. I attend at the examinations in school, and I have full proof that my boys fully maintain their ground against those who are, or pretend to be, constantly at school. I have at the age of 13 all the children who choose it, in the village, ex­ amimed, and to those who can write correctly from dictation, read intelligently, and work the first four rules of arithmetic, simple and compound, I give a prize. There have been only two instances out of 34 in which my boys have not had the prize. A very independ­ ent witness—Mr. Sternhold, the Commissioner to examine into the state of the children employed in agriculture—took very great pains in the matter. He wrote to the employers of these children, who are now some of them 25 years of age, and more than that; and he received a uniform reply from the masters that they were satisfied with their servants, and almost every one of the young men wrote him letters, of which he spoke in high terms, and which showed that they had not discontinued their education. This, I conceive, is one of the very great advantages of the system I have adopted; school-work becomes a relaxation and a pleasure instead of being drudgery, because the boy compares his day at school, not with a holiday or a day of bird’s nesting, but with a day on the farm. All his associations with books are therefore pleasant, and in every instance I believe my lads con­ tinue their education after they leave school. I asked one what he was doing, and he said he was working logarithms; and another is under-secretary to the Reform Club in London. They are qualified for superior situations. There is no difficulty whatever in obtain­ ing situations as farm servants for them after they leave me, because �141 they are better than the ordinary run of boys. My bailiff says when he was at their age he went to school till he was thirteen, and then he had to go to the farm, and suffered extremely during the first few months, because the labour was new to him. But my boys are never tired ; they work one day on the farm, and rest the next at school. They walk straight not slovenly, in the way those do who are tired to death. Their minds and bodies are both improved. The great subject, Lfancy, this morning, is how far education should be compulsory. I have always held, and stated it publicly many times, when I had the honour of representing Nottingham, that in my opinion, society, being bound to provide for the poor and criminal, have a right to see that the poor are brought up in such a way that there shall be the least possible probability of their becoming paupers or criminals. Therefore I have never had any hesitation in saying I was in favour of compulsory education, and I fully endorse what has been said by several gentlemen, that it will not be ill received by the labouring classes. The schoolmaster in my village tells me that men who are not educated themselves, and who never cared about education before, send their children to him to fit them to come upon my farm, because they find that is the road to it. With respect to the religious question, I think it will be an advantage to set the Sunday school free for religious teaching. I think religion will not in any way suffer, but will gain greatly by the education of the people being properly attended to. Professor Pawcett, M.P. : After the general remarks that have been made this morning, and especially after the admirable speech of my friend Mr. Mundella, it would be superfluous for me to say a word in favour of the principle of compulsion. It may, however, be assumed that every one who has joined this League has clearly and distinctly made up his mind to this fact—that no settlement of the educational question ought ever to be listened to, much less earned as a permanent settlement, unless it involve the principle of compelling the attendance of children at the school. I shall endeavour to make the few remarks I have to address to you as practical as possible. Will you, therefore, allow me to point out to you what in my mind is the great danger which threatens the future �142 | of this education question ? I fear there is some chance that it may be wrecked in the same way as so many good measures have been wrecked, by accepting a compromise in part. It is all very well for us to make bold speeches and talk outspoken language on platforms like this, but you are little aware of the blandishments which are brought to bear upon Liberal members when their party introduces a bill. You say you think the bill unsatisfactory. You then hear it whispered in your ear—“ Not going to support the bill of your party? why, you are faithless to those whom you ought to support 1” To show that my suspicions are not altogether illfounded, let me in one or two sentences describe to you the great peril which the education question only narrowly escaped last session. A National Education Bill for Scotland was introduced into the House of Lords—a strange proceeding, to begin with. The Dill—had when it was sent there—was infinitely worse when it left. When it came down to the House of Commons, seeing that the Scotch members are jealous of the interference of English members, I knew it was no use moving myself. I went to a Scotch member, a friend, and asked him to put down an amendment for the second reading —an amendment similar to that which it is quite possible we may have to move next session—that no measure of national education could be satisfactory if it involved compulsory rating without com­ pulsory attendance. You can have no conception of the pressure which was immediately brought to bear upon that hon. member. He was young, and he did not stand firm ; but I trust, at any rate, if next session compulsory rating is introduced without compulsory attendance, one at least of the fifty members of Parliament who have joined this League—Mr. Mundella or Mr. Dixon—will be stern enough to say this is a question on which there can he no compromise. We are willing to wait one year, two years, or three years, but when we have a national education measure passed, it shall be such a measure as shall absolutely, with perfect certainty, guarantee elementary education to every child in this kingdom. What became of the Scotch Education Bill ? Liberal members were told they ought to vote for it, and they did. I do not say it to my own credit, but I believe I am almost the only English member who, whenever there was a division on the subject, steadily �143 walked out of the house. And what were the arguments to make English members vote for it ? That bill, it is true, introduced into Scotland what was never introduced into Scotland before—• undenominational education ; but it was said, this undenomina­ tional education was introduced in such a slight, slender, and delicate form, that it ought to be passed with hurry and precipitation, because there would be something worse in the English measure next session. What I want is, that we shall be representing you—the thousands who have joined this League—representing you faithfully and accurately, if we say it is your earnest desire that no measure of national education shall be passed until we have the power to get a compulsory and unsectarian system. I think we ought to have absolute security that no child shall be permitted to work—whether we fix the age of nine, ten, eleven, or, as Mr. Mundella suggested, twelve—no child shall be allowed to work until it can show that it has been to school a certain number of years. With regard to the only remaining branch of the subject on which I shall speak—that is, the question of applying some kind of compulsory education to the agricultural districts—I was rejoiced more than I can describe to hear the remarks of Mr. Paget—to hear from his own lips the admirable success of his movement. He must be regarded as a benefactor— the nation must feel grateful to him for having been a pioneer. When I mention the word agricultural, I am reminded of another danger. Here is a case you must watch carefully. Persons will rise in the House of Commons as they have done already, and they will say it is very well to apply the half-time system or the alter­ nate day system to the industry of such a town as Birmingham, but there is something exceptional about agriculture; we must have a different system there. Are we not expressing your opinions if we say that it is your desire that agriculture should not be thus exceptionally treated ? The system that is proposed is that in agriculture a child should not attend school either half time or alternate days, but should attend school so many hours in the year. If this scheme is proposed, we can at once meet it with most valuable experience—that is the scheme that was introduced with regard to the Print Works Act; and I say that experience con­ �144 clusively demonstrates that the scheme of so many school hours’ attendance in the year has proved a lamentable and disastrous failure. The great principle, I consider, of the half-time system is this—that if it is properly worked, if there is a good school, judiciously managed, the children learn better after a certain age, and work better, if they attend school so many hours a day and work so many hours a day. This, I believe, is one great principle connected with the half-time system. I must, in conclusion, apologise for having apparently introduced, yesterday, a certain amount of discord into your deliberations. I fear some of my remarks were misunderstood. There are some men who have not joined this League because they differ upon minor points of detail, upon which I also differ; especially, one of the most eminent of your townsmen, the Bev. B. W. Dale,—no good movement in Birmingham ought to be without his name attached to it—has objections which I know are exactly analagous to mine. I thought, therefore, I should state as strongly as I could what were my objections, and that I was perfectly willing to forgive and forget them in order to get a united movement on behalf of the movement in order to get some good men to join this League. I am willing to sacrifice any matter of individual opinion in order to throw my whole heart and strength into the great, the unequalled, object of securing unsectarian, or, if you like it better, secular compulsory education in this country. Mr. Webster, Q.C.: I should have hesitated to address you on the present occasion, after the most powerful speech you have heard,, if I had not the greatest anxiety to contribute, in whatever small measure I can, to the success of this great movement. I am not wholly inexperienced. I have watched for many years, as far as time would permit me, the educational questions which have been brought before the public' from time to time, and I have had the satisfaction of establishing a Church of England schoool in spite of the clergyman, in spite of the bishop, in an agricultural district where there was none when I went into it. Nobody knows the difficulty of such a labour who has not gone through it. I rejoice that this League is placed upon a foundation from which it cannot be displaced. I am satisfied, from considerable experience of Con­ �145 gresses, that a more successful meeting of inauguration never took place. I think we have to some extent lost sight, in our discus­ sions, of the great practical fact with which we have to deal. The Archdeacon, says there is an overwhelming necessity for education— that it is a great public danger that there should be two millions of uneducated children, growing up as Arabs in our public streets, who will be the paupers and criminals of the next generation. That is the fact we have to deal with, and when we are told that the denominational or voluntary system has failed—I don’t quite like the use of that word, failed—but it has been found incompetent to deal with this great calamity; and therefore I trust this League will he the means of founding a different system, which shall be more calculated to deal with the difficulty. Let us not forget that great fact—that we have two millions of uneducated children growing up amongst us. That fact becomes a civil question as well as a moral question. It is a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it is patent that compulsion is the rock upon which our new system must be founded. On this subject I adopt the admirable views of Mr. Mundella ; and it is worthy of observation that in dealing with this evil of ignorance we shall, in my opinion, do something to remedy another evil also. By employing female teachers, you will provide employment for women, and it has been proved in America that they are admirable teachers. My own opinion about it is, that it is an exceptional thing to find a woman who is not a good teacher, and it is exceptional to find a man who is not a bad one. I look, therefore, to this movement as contributing to the removal of two great social calamities—the ignorance of the people, and the want of employment for women. I believe we may appeal to our friends on the other side of the Atlantic to show what might be done by the system of Common Schools ; and, although it is possible, for the reason stated—the want of compulsory powers— that it may not have had all the succces that was hoped for, still we may look to America for an example, which we shall do well to follow. Let me remind you, that with compulsory attendance schools must be free, and founded upon rates—local rates, because you want local management, by men who are acquainted with the wants and requirements of the district; and the schools must be K �146 subsidized by national funds, because you w,ant Government super­ vision. The first step to be taken is to have a proper register kept of all parents and children. Why should not towns be divided into districts, as in Boston, and other cities of the States? We have an approximation to it with reference to the elective franchise, but we want a more perfect system to carry out that ■which, as Mr. Mundella pointed out with great force, is done so well in Saxony. These are the practical matters we have to deal with. If we want to get these schools free, I believe means will be found whereby existing schools may be to a certain extent utilized; but whether or not, let us not forget that we have to deal with two millions of children who are growing up to be criminals or paupers, and who will overwhelm us unless we deal with them fearlesslv. Let me mention Joseph Lancaster : the motto he inscribed over his own door was—“ All that will may send their children and have them educated freely, and those who don’t wish education for nothing may pay if they please.” He was the pioneer, in Bristol, of what has been called the voluntary system, which lias produced great effects, though it is inadequate to deal with the present difficulty. About the religious question : I would be very unwilling, except from the necessity of conceding something in order that we may all go hand in hand—I would be very unwilling that a portion of the Scriptures should not be read day by day. But having expressed that opinion, I would exclude all sectarian and denomi­ national teaching whatever. I would follow the example of our brethren across the Atlantic, and make it a rule that no book teaching the tenets of any particular sect of Christians should be purchased or used, but that they should use a portion of the Bible, in the common English version, daily. But this is a secondary ques­ tion, and I am delighted to hear Dr. Rowland Williams use the expression “ men must be men,” because with these children left as they are, they cannot become men—they cannot become citizens; and let us remember people are citizens before they are Christ.ia.nR, Our object is first to make them good citizens, and then bring them under the influence of a proper system of religious teaching—not teaching them religion, for I acknowledge the distinction between religious teaching and teaching religion; but I assume religious �147 teaching is that everything should be done with a proper regard to ■hose great truths of revelation, in which we all believe and trust. T would not quarrel with the decision if the locality wished any portion of the Scriptures read ; but Sunday should be kept for religious purposes, and it should not be distracted by that kind of teaching which is more fitted for the week days. Dr. J. A. Langford : I am anxious to make two remarks—one upon a point which, I think, has not been alluded to at the Conference before, namely, that we have the highest cause to congratulate ourselves, upon the progress which this question of national secular education has made in this country during the last few years. In the year 1849—only twenty years ago—an attempt was made, in this and other towns, to organise a similar society to this, for a similar object. It alfiiost enterely failed ; and here we are to-day holding meetings like this, and listening to papers such as we have heard. We have great cause to congratulate ourselves, and to be hopeful for the future. I wanted to say also, that this League must stick absolutely firm to the four principles which it sets out with : that education should be compulsory, national, secular, free. There may be a temptation to give up one of these points, because there may be fear of a long agitation ; but it will be far better for us, far better for the education of this country, and the question will be far more speedily settled finally, if we persist in agitating for this programme, than if we give up any one of the items ; for I believe if we give up any one, the whole structure will fall about our ears, and our children will have to do the work over again, which we are doing now. I wished to say these two things to the meeting, because I have laboured in this question more than .twenty years, of my comparatively short life. Don’t let us squabble about the meaning of the words “ sacred ” and “ secular.” Shakespeare settled that point 300 years ago, when he said : “ Ignorance is the curse of God.” “ Knowledge, the wing wherewith we fly to Heaven.” All knowledge is divine, and we have only to give children a good secular education, and their children’s children will have for themselves a religious education built upon it. Many people who profess to speak for the working classes have said they �148 were opposed to this compulsory measure. You have heard from Mr. Applegarth, and others who mix with the working­ classes, that they will not object to it, and I—as the representative of one of the most active educational societies in this town, the Society of Artisans, every member of which is a representative man—can assure you that the working classes will not object to it.. Whenever this question has been brought before that society, they have one and all declared, in support of a national system of educa­ tion, secular, voluntary, free, rate-supported, supplemented by money from the Consolidated Fund. There is no charity in going to a school supported by rates. Look at our free libraries. Every man who uses a book has contributed towards the purchase of it, and it is part of his own proporty, because it is the property of the town. So it will be with rate-supported schools ; there is no charity. They must be secular and free. FREE SCHOOLS. The proceedings were resumed at half-past two, when Mr. Alfred Field read the following paper on “Free Schools:” —England, in the higher education, may not be behind the rest of the world, but in the diffusion of a good general education Eng­ land is very much behind other countries ; certainly much behind Prussia, Northern Germany, Switzerland, and the United States. It is not far from the truth if we say that while in those countries every child receives a good useful education, less than half the children of England carry into life with them an education that is of any uge to them. And from this statement let us not conclude that the education, of the masses of this country is half as good as that of the Germans, Swiss, or Americans. Our comparative deficiency is far greater than that; for the education of the children I am obliged to let pass as educated, in order to make up the half of the children of England, is very inferior in value, to the good average education of all the children of those nations. We . deal out a meagre pittance to half our children ; they give a liberal measure to all. To understand more fully why the difference is so great in the intelligence of the working classes of England, and of �149 those countries I have referred to, we must remember that school ■education is only putting tools into the hands of the young for after use in the real education of life ; and in those countries the men and women, who in early life have had the doors of their minds unlocked by instruction in excellent schools, meet together in their homes and workshops, in the streets and in public places, and by intelligent, social, and political intercourse, continue, or rather really ■enter into, their true education. In this country our working people have no such educated families and neighbours to associate with. In America the diffusion of popular knowledge and quick intelligence, down to the very bottom of society is most astonishing to all observant travellers. And the contrast of the slow, benighted . minds of our lowest class, should be a warning and strong impulse, in the cause of education, to Englishmen. You cannot discover in the United States any line of separation, or marks of distinction between the working classes and those we should suppose above them. You hear people talking in groups, on the steamboats or in the railroad carriages, with ready language and quick intelligence, with easy manners and natural politeness ; and if you could learn, you would find that nearly all had been educated in the public free schools of the country, and that a good proportion of them were working men. It cannot possibly be doubted, that the foundation of this wonderful spread of popular knowledge and universally quickened intellect, is the public free school. The only way in which we can get the mass of the people of England educated, as quickly and efficiently as will meet the awakened demand of the country, is by a complete national system similar in principle to that in America. If we are to make this national system complete and sufficient, I do not think wo can dispense with any one of the six points of our League. Our plan is clastic in its power of de­ velopment. The beginning, of course, would be the establishment everywhere of the sadly-needed efficient primary school. We must start with primary schools. But then let each school district, as fast as it pleases, build on them a system of secondary and high schools. Ultimately, I hope, the new national school system will grow and be a complete and connected system of graded schools—-primary, secondary, and high schools—all free. Tliis system might readily be �150 connected with the large endowed schools of the country, and perhaps, by a system of scholarships, with the Universities. I will ask everyone to compare a complete connected system of this sort with the present schools. The voluntary and denominational sys­ tem sets up separate, competitive, even hostile schools ; and if you were ever to get this system developed enough to make a really good education possible to all, you would have rival schools everywhere too many in some parts, not enough in others—and each school obliged to go to great expense to have a staff of different teachers, from the infant class, to the really educated boys and girls of 14 to 16 years old. I on may have the contemptible pittance now offered to the country continued and extended, but you cannot have the good education demanded by England, out of the isolated denomi­ national system, without enormous expense ; and this heavy cost must in some way fall on the resources of the country. [ appeal to everyone, acquainted with schools and education, whether, to give a good education to all the children of England, and one higher and more extended to the capable and diligent, it is not necessary that we should have a connected system of graded schools, through which the pupils shall rise by examination. As a matter of money, the difference of cost of good education for England, between one system and the other, is a difference between pounds and shillings. As a practical fact, England cannot (jet good education by the deno­ minational system, and she can easily by a truly national system. The public school system of the United States, is a model for the general education of a people. Such a system as their graded schools—pri­ mary, secondary, and high schools—is demanded by economy, and is absolutely necessary to efficient success. And the plan of the League, not copied from them, is in truth the same in principle, but improved, I believe, in details. The Americans are the same people as ourselves, on the western side of the Atlantic instead of the eastern. What they can do we can do. It is a firm and a safe position for our League that we advocate no untried scheme, that we can point to the complete, and grand success of it in America. The public school system of the United States is the foundation of their political edifice, and is the true cause of their extraordinary industrial, and commercial prosperity. The rapid growth of wealth �151 in the country, the happiness and morality of its people, and the political safety of the nation, depend on the public school system. Now, I have a few words to say on the desirability of having our schools free to the scholars, and paid for out of rates supplemented by Government grants—not by voluntary contributions, and school pence. It is a necessary part of the completeness of the system that the schools should he paid for by rates. If the control of the national schools, of each school district should rest, as we think it should, with the Corporation or other local authorities, who would doubtless appoint a school committee to manage them, then the right of the Corporations to this control, would be derived from their being elected by the ratepayers, who would pay for the schools. I have tried to show that a complete, connected, organized system of graded schools is necessary to efficiency and economy; in fact, that we cannot get a good education for all the people without. It might be possible to have such an organized connected system of national schools in France, without their being under the local authorities : I do not think this is possible in England any more than in America. I think that the position that schools should be paid for by rates, is naturally connected with the other one, that they should be under the control of local authorities ; and that they should be free to all, would be made easy by their being paid for by rates and Government grants. I think, first, that they should be free to all children; and, secondly, that all children should be required by law to go to the national schools, or some other school, are two conditions, independent and complementary one of the other. I cannot practically and successfully say to a man, 11 I will compel you to send your child to school,” unless I say at the same time, “ Here is a good school without charge, which belongs to you tor the use of your children.” On the other hand, I cannot justly say to a man, “You must pay your quota to the school-rate,” unless I am able, in answer to his enquiry, also to say “ that all children will now go to school; the law requires it and gives us power to compel attendance, and we will see the law carried out gently, considerately, with patient persuasion, but ultimately and as a last resourse, by force, if in some few cases it should turn out to be necessary.” I can tell this ratepayer that he himself will be bene­ �152 fited by the money lie pays, that he never made so good an invest­ ment in his life, or one that will bring so good a monetary return. A commercial man myself, with almost as much personal knowledge of America as I have of England, I have often pointed out to my fellow merchants that the United States are now manufacturing and exporting to the English Colonies and the common markets of the world many articles, to a large amount, that formerly were made in this district. In doing this, the American manufacturers work under the enormous weight of nearly double the cost of the iron and steel out of which the articles are made, and nearly double the English rate of wages, to the American workmen that make them ; and yet they send these articles to our English Colonies, and thus supersede those that used to be imported from Birmingham. What is the explanation ? There is none other than that of the greater intelligence of the American workmen. And the foundation of this high intelligence and ductility of mind is the American public free school. Every £1,000 rightly expended for the education of the future English workmen will produce, in a very few years, a return of £10,000 to the country. Every ratepayer will receive an ample return, at an early day, in the increased material wealth of the country, of which all deserving merchants, manufacturers, trades­ men, and capitalists will get each his own share. England, to maintain her place among the nations, must educate her people. Even as a manufacturing country, to keep her place—or, rather, to check the yearly diminution of her proportion of the supply of the world, with articles above the coarsest product of low labour—England must educate her people. German merchants have been for years, and rapidly too, supplanting English goods the world over, with the products of the educated work­ men of Rhenish Prussia, Saxony, and North Germany. The manufactories of the United States, have been for years sending hardware, and other manufactures to all new countries of the world in place of English goods. And whenever they get rid of the burden of an absurd protection system, the American manufacturers are destined to cover the world, with their skilfully made articles, each so intelligently suited to the purpose it is. intended for. Without education, England must fall behind other nations ; we �153 have already lost much, and we cannot begin too soon to knock oft' the shackles of ignorance from our workmen. On the other hand, with education, the sturdy inhabitants of the land, will make Great Britain more and more the wonderful island of the world. In this way, indirect though it may be called, I believe will the chief return come to the ratepayers, for their investment in the new national schools. But look at a more direct saving :—The rate­ payers of England and Wales paid last year nearly eleven and a half millions for poor rates ; the cost of the police for the year was more than two millions • the cost of the prisons for the year was more than one million ;—reformatories I have left out. Put the poor rates, prisons, and police together, and the sum is more than fourteen and a half millions. Educate the people, and does not every one see, that the annual sum he will pay for the school rate will soon reduce a man’s expense in poor rates, police and prison expenses ? This dreadful sum—fourteen and a half millions—paid for catching and punishing our rogues and maintaining our paupers, is the shame of England. Educate your people, and in a very few years the saving out of this fourteen and a half millions, will more than pay your school rates. One proof that education will diminish crime, and therefore the expense of punishing it, is found in the ignorance oi our convicted criminals. The returns of the state of education of the inmates of our gaols, for each of the two last years show, that ninety-six out of every hundred could not read or write, or only so imperfectly as to be of no use to them. In America a native-born mendicant or pauper is very rare indeed. Why is this ? Mainly because all have been educated, in the public free schools of the country. Our present voluntary system is unfair: the few contributors to the expenses of the denomi­ national schools, pay for the large number who will not give. The payment by rates will cause every man who pays rates to contribute his proportion : and by so doing he will obtain a just right to use the schools for which he pays his share. Those who are too poor to pay rates, will send their children without pay, but without the degradation of thinking they are paid for by charity. The child­ ren of the country will stream into the new national schools—all equal in the right to enter there, none oppressed with the degrading �154 badge of charity. The very poor, and no others, will send their children without contributing to the cost of the schools. Let me ask many excellent men, who object to our schools being free, whether this would not be a result much the same as they advocate. Every ratepayer will be interested in the schools being well con­ ducted. A real public opinion, exactly to the purpose, will be created, and upon public opinion the character and success of the schools will essentially depend. The ratepayer will justly want to see the schools good enough to receive his own children. This will help the schools to improve; and in school districts, with many primary schools, secondary schools will soon spring up, to be fol­ lowed later, probably, by a high school, belonging to several districts. Thus, many ratepayers will get their money’s worth in such schools as suit their own children. But some gentlemen object, in the outset, to schools being free, saying, “ Englishmen are apt to attach little value to what costs them nothing.” To this objection I would reply, that at present, under the denominational system, of those who send their children to National or British Schools, none pay, in school pence, more than about one-third the cost of teaching, and the very poor are, from charity, generally paid for by others. In the system of payment by rates, all but the very poor will pay in their rates ; and the very poor are now paid for in a way tending more to injure their self-respect, than the way we propose. But is it true that people do not value what they do not pay for ? Englishmen value free parks, free common rights, and, what is closer to the present case, free libraries paid for out of rates, and free grammar schools. The truth is, I think, that people value anything that is good, even if they do not pay for it. The people of the United States,'who are of the same stock as ourselves, value their free public schools, as their dearest birthright ; yes, almost as much as they value the Union inself. I think gentlemen uttering this objection will, on a little thought, give it up. Looking at the call for education, from no higher point of view than the mere economical one, I would say that not the coal of England, not her iron, not the fields of her cultivated farms, can compare in importance even to her material wealth, with the minds of her people. In the brains of the children of this country Englishmen �155 will find the true mine of wealth to work in. You may work here without fear of exhausting the ore, and the wealth here contained includes all the rest. UNSECTARIANISM. The Rev. F. Bariiam Zincke, Vicar of Wherstead, Suffolk, and Chaplain-in-Ordinary to the Queen, read the following paper :— I have been requested by our Committee to lay before the members of the National Education League, at this our first general meeting, a brief summary of the reasons which have brought us to the con­ clusion, that the teaching of the schools we wish to see established ought to be unsectarian. By unsectarian, we mean teaching, that omits the inculcation of those particulars of religious instruction which differentiate, the conflicting sections of the religious world in this country. The reasons which have brought us to this conclusion may be readily stated. Of course, wn are not satisfied with our existing schools. First, because they fail to reach large classes of our population. In this very town in which we are assembled there is a sufficient number of children of the school age, growing up uneducated, to form the population of no mean city. It is so, more or less, in every city of the kingdom, and with a very large propor­ tion of the rural population. To go into particulars—it is so with the children of our criminal classes ; it is so with that class which supplies our 1,000,000 paupers, and that still larger host which is pauperised in spirit, and on the brink of the abyss of pauperism. Take the first 100 agricultural labourers you can col­ lect from the fields, take 100 operatives from the nearest factory, take 150,000 soldiers, or 50,000 sailors, and what, we may ask, will be the proportion, in these different sections of the community, that our present school system has effectually reached 1 The state of things this reveals we regard as an enormous evil, the continuance of which can be no longer tolerated. Our present denominational, and, as it is called, voluntary system—but it would be nearer the truth to call it eleemosynary,—has, after a long and fair trial, left us in this position. We believe that it has failed because it is denominational and eleemosynary. Such a system does not aim at educating the nation, and could not succeed were it to aim at doing �156 it. But as it has been tried, and found wanting, and as we are fully persuaded that it can never accomplish what is needed, we are driven to the conclusion that nothing can do the work except a public system; and we hold that nothing else will befit the dignity of a free, and, very properly, a proud people. A public system, of ■course, can only be supported by public funds, and therefore must be unsectarian ; for everyone who contributes either towards the local rates, or the general taxation of the country, will have grounds for insisting, that his contributions shall not be used for the purpose of teaching what he conscientiously objects to. The compromise -of our present denominational system, is a demonstration that the great majority of, at all events, the upper and middle classes of the people of this country feel in this way. Another reason for om’ dissatisfaction with the present system, is the insufficiency of the instruction it gives, to those whom it does, in some sort, reach. Our present theory and practice appear to come to this, that nothing is possible or desirable, for the great bulk of the people—the lower strata of the middle classes, and the working millions {setting the -question of religion aside for the moment)—but a smattering of grammar. This is a natural deduction from the idea, that all that is possible or desirable in our highest education —that is, for the education of that part of the people of this country who are giving up nearly a third of tlieir lives to school and college— is, that they should become the subjects, or the victims, of an attempt to make them classical scholars. So that when the work of education has been completed (it is so for all classes among us alike), no one thing has been taught, which has the slightest bearing on the know­ ledge or the thoughts of the age; which in any way fits us for the life we have to live, and the world we have to live in or which makes us at all acquainted with the materials we shall have to work with, ■or which gives us any guidance for the work we shall have to do. Nothing has been taught which does at all contribute, as Bacon puts it, towards the relief of man’s estate, or towards making us more manly or more godly. I use this last word, because it calls attention to the accusation, our opponents are so loud in alleging against the scientific training we wish to see imparted in our .schools. Bor our part, we do not believe that the effect of the ac­ �157 quaintance with. Latin and Greek, and of the little grammatical instruction that is given in our existing schools, is especially religious. But we are of opinion that science, being only a know­ ledge of the ideas that were in the intelligence of God, before they were embodied in the objects, the operations, the forces, and thelaws of nature, can never take _us further from, but must always bring us nearer to, God. In short, our present aims appear to us very much like a pretence to teach something—a something, we believe, which will rarely awaken thought, and will be of incon­ ceivably little use to any of us, just and precisely for the very pur­ pose of hindering the teaching of something else, which would awaken thought, and which would be of very great use. We do not, then, go in for a reform of these ideas and practices, but—I hope I shall not compromise our League by the word—for a revolution. We wish to give every one an opportunity for being taught just what he will want to know. We wish to see our primary schools, teaching the whole population the instrumental parts of education—reading, writing, and ciphering—as well and as universally as these things are taught in Northern Germany, and in the New England States. And we wish to see the schools, cominw next above our primary schools, aming chiefly at industrial, tech­ nical, and scientific training, and at the correct use of our mother tongue. I need not now say anything about schools of a higher grade. It is possible for us—for it is done elsewhere—to impart even to working men a very serviceable amount of this kind of knowledge, which will not only make them better workmen, and so enable us to maintain our position in the open market of the world, but will also make the recipients of this knowledge them­ selves, better and wiser men. Our beau ideal of a national system of education is, that it should be so organised as to place within the reach of every child in the country, free of all cost, the most complete and thorough training our present knowledge admits of, whatever his employment or profession is to be—whether that of an agricultural labourer, a mechanic, or a miner; whether a physician, a minister of religion, or a literary man;—and that no bounties should be given to, and special preferences shown for, any particular callings or professions, but that the circumstances of �158 the parents, and the disposition and aptitude of the child, should alone decide in each, case what the calling or profession is to be. The realisation of such an ideal might a few years back, have appeared quite beyond our reach; but it does not appear to be so now, at all events to the members of this League; for we fancy that we are able to catch a glimpse of it; and some approximation to it is the goal of our thoughts and efforts. Now, we see no hope of the general establishment, under the present system, of schools of the kind I have been speaking of. It is inconceivable that they will ever be established by the clergy, or by the ministers of Nonconformist congregations, who are the chief promoters and managers of our present schools. Because, then, we see no shadow of a prospect of these things being taught in our present denominational schools, which have been established for quite a different object, we advocate the establishment of another set of schools without any sectarian objects, which, as they will be partly supported by local funds, will be managed by persons who will be interested in having these things taught. This is the conclusion we come to, when we regard the schools from the point of view that will be taken, by those who will pay for them. We come to the same conclusion, if we look at them from the point of view that will be taken by those who are to use them. They must be •equally free to all. No hindrance must be interposed, which would be an obstacle to their being used by any member of the •community. Now, the inculcation in the schools, of denomina.tional differences would be a hindrance of this kind. From our wish, therefore, to make the schools equally open to all, we would not have anything taught in them, to which any Christian people do conscientiously object. We are all of opinion that as things now are (we believe that it will not always be so), in some cases some form or degree of compulsion, to secure attendance will be necessary. Things have now come to such a pass, that the security and well-being of society demand this. As we have already noticed, with a yearly aggregate of 125,000 committals, with more than 1,000,000 paupers, and with a still vaster host on the brink of pauper­ ism ; and with multitudes among us who do not know the name of the reigning Sovereign, or of the Saviour of the World, and who �159 derive their only ideas of right and wrong from the policeman; and with our agricultural labourers, in a condition intellectually so degraded, that the most sanguine politicians among us forbear to demand for them the franchise, we think this necessary. But we trust that, like the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, the necessity for compulsion will be temporary. The late extension of the franchise, which places political power largely in the hands of the uneducated, confirms us in our view of this necessity. But, of course, the question of compulsion cannot be for a moment entertained, so long as we have no other than our present denomina­ tional schools. We cannot compel the children of Nonconformists to attend the rector’s or vicar’s school; and the children of Episcopalians anti-prelatical schools. The attempt could not be made. These converging reasons, then, oblige us to advocate unsectarian education in the schools we aim at establishing. But we have not arrived at this conclusion, without having carefully weighed the consequences of what we propose. We have looked into the facts which bear on the consideration of the question, and have estimated the pros and cons of the arguments that deal with its probabilities; and, having done this, we have found no .grounds for apprehension. The great and conspicuous facts con­ tributed by past and contemporary history are easily stated, and will be easily understood. In Italy and Spain—the countries in which, whatever education there may have been, has been most ■completely of the kind, advocated by the supporters of our denominational system—the result has not been good as regards literature, science, and, above all, as regards religion itself. The example of Erance, as far as the education of the people of that country has been in the hands of the clergy, points to the same conclusion. There, too, the reaction against religion appears to be in the ratio of the force religion has brought to bear, in the manner we are now speaking of, upon the minds of the young. I should not think it worth while to recall the fact, that the most celebrated pupil of the Jesuits was Voltaire, were it not that the spirit of Voltaire is so common among Frenchmen. Every one will under­ stand that there is no question about bringing up children without religion; the only question is as to the best way of making a �160 people religious. The lesson Ave are taught by the experience of Prussia is on the same side. There the Government has made religious instruction, according to a certain formula, a part of the school course. Again we ask what has been the result ? Upon this very question, we have lately had a discussion in the columns of the Times, which has left pretty distinctly impressed upon us one fact, at all e\ ents that in Prussia the attempt to teach religion in the school, according to a definite formulary has been a signal and complete failure. The reason is not far to seek. It is impossible to teach religion in this way. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else, would be disposed in favour of doctrines forced upon us in this Avay. Religion is not the child of drill and compulsion. I pass from Northern Germany to another great country, Avhere, fortu­ nately for the purposes of this inquiry, the two systems are brought into the closest and most distinct contrast. The fruits of the one are seen, side by side with the fruits of the other. In the United States of America a large proportion of the population are German immigrants, Avho were brought up under the school system just mentioned. Throughout the North and the great West, they are everywhere living intermingled with the native population, Avho have all been brought up in Avhat we should call unsectarian schools. It thus becomes easy to judge, upon which of these two people religion has the greater hold. In the winter of 1867-68,1 travelled through the Union, with the exception of the Pacific States. Among other matters, my attention was naturally very much directed to Avhatever had any bearings on the religious question. I frequently heard native Americans speaking of the absence, as it appeared to them, of the religious element in the character of their German felloAV citizens; while at the same time, I everywhere saw clear evidence of the streng religious feeling of the native population, brought up,, almost to a man, as I just noticed, not merely in unsectarian, but in secular schools. Wherever I Avent I saw and inspected schools of this kind, and no others—on the Prairies of the West, and the Rocky Mountains, as well as in Massachusetts. But the first buildings that met my eyes, almost in every place, were the churches—at Denver, beyond the Prairies and the Plains, and further on, in the little mining toAvns in the Rocky Mountains, as �161 much as in Boston itself. And we must remember, that these churches have been built, and that their Ministers are supported by those, who were all the while very busy in clearing away the forest, and reclaiming the wilderness, and raising the first shelter for man. As a general ride in the country I am speaking of, where all the schools are secular, the foundations of the homestead and of the House of God, are laid simultaneously. I believe—though of course no one can be in a position to prove it—that a larger amount of money is raised every year, by voluntary contributions for religious purposes in the United States, than, over the whole continent of Europe. Those who question our conclusion will have to convince us that, notwithstanding these facts, the Continental school system is more conducive to the interests of religion than the American. What we want them to do is to disprove, or if they are unable to do this, to bring into harmony with their theory, the asser­ tion, that in those countries in which their plan has been most thoroughly carried out, there exists the greatest amount of hostility to religion; while in that great country in which education is most throughly secular, more so than in any other country in the world, more money is voluntarily given for religious purposes, and the ministers of religion are held in higher estimation, than in any other part of Christendom. But we are not without experience ourselves on this question. Generally speaking, our schools are denominational; and, again speaking generally, the class which in the towns is most largely indebted to them for its education, is that of the artisans. Now, if the theory of our opponents is the true one, we ought to see the good results of it here. But what is the fact ? We have been told again and again, that there is no other class in the community which has strayed so largely, and so far from the fold in which they were brought up. Take a large London national school, under the shadow of an imposing London Church. I take it for granted that the greater part of the scholars, are either children of artisans or, if not, still will be brought up to some handicraft. We may ask how many of those, who have been brought up in that school are ever seen in that Church? and what is the expectation in this matter, respecting those who are now in the school ? It can, then, L �162 hardly be the results of our present system, which make any of us desirous of maintaining it. We have another domestic instance in the case of the Irish Roman Catholics, who for many generations have maintained their religion, as no other people in Europe have done, in consequence, not of the aid, but of the neglect, and even the hostility of the State. Facts of this kind lead us to the conclusion, that in advocating unsectarian schools, we are most assuredly not acting in hostility to religion. I will only make one more remark. All these schools will be day schools. The children will, therefore, be still living at home. The parents will thus have, in the morning and evening of each day, and during the whole of Saturday and Sunday, as much opportunity as probably they have at present, for bringing up their children religiously. The Sunday school will supply similar opportunities to the clergy, and other religiously-disposed persons. We know that there will always be parents, who will be living immoral and irreligious lives; but in the case of the children even of such parents as these, we do not think that any advantage would result from the teaching of the schools, being of a sectarian character. Of course, no one supposes for a moment that there will be any irreligious, or anti-Christian instruction, given in any school in the kingdom supported by public money, and under the joint super­ vision of a Government inspector, and of a local board of manage­ ment. I will sum up in half a dozen words the different arguments I have been laying before you—we cannot get what we want without unsectarian teaching; and we see no reason for supposing that evil consequences of any kind will result from it. SECULAR EDUCATION. The Hon. Auberon Herbert read the following paper on “ Secular Education”:—In asking that national education should be unsectarian—that is, unconnected with the teaching of any creed— we shall all recognize the obligation of considering gravely if, under such a system, the moral and spiritual life of the people will suffer injury. With such a feeling in my mind, I shall try to show that it is not merely the readiest way of dealing with our religious diffi­ culties, but that it is to be desired in itself, as the system under �163 which the office that the State, and the office that ministers of religion hold in trust for the people, will he better understood and better discharged. There still exists amongst us some confusion of thought on this subject. We have formed the habit of looking upon morality as the property, the special province of the clergy. If this were a just view—as morality is of all things the most important—then the present denominational system would be very incomplete, the system of the middle ages, and Dr. Manning’s teaching of to-day would be right, and all education ought to be placed in the hands of the Churches. But morality is not to be enclosed within such narrow bounds. Morality is of the home, and the street, and the public building, as much as of the Church and the class-room. Its limits, its tendencies, its developments are not determined by a class amongst us, but by the action of all those mixed intelligences which form society. The professional teachers have always conformed, and must conform, to the climate of opinion that grows round them. Even the seat of infallibility itself cannot rise above this influence, and thanks to “modern Liberalism,” which it excommunicates, the syllabus of to-day is milder than the syllabus of earlier ages. If, then, morality is in no fashion a class-property, who are to be responsible for the teaching of it 1 I answer, the State, for that which concerns the State; our Churches, for that, which concerns the Churches. Both have duties of teaching morality,. ■ though their appeal lies to different sanctions. The State has. simply to deal with the relations of man to man ; the minister of religion deals not only with these, but with the relations of man to God. It may, however, be urged that the relations of man to man are too vague, to be a matter of teaching. I reply, that the State has never yet found them too vague to be a matter of punishment; and he who is an awarder of punishment, is bound to know why he punishes, is bound to act on principles which he can clearly explain, and which, when explained, will command the moral consent of those who obey. How shall the State do this ? I answer, by giving to every child a clear conception, of the fact of his existence as a member of society, and of the birth with him of obligations whicH limit his actions towards others • by leading him to understand what law is—to understand the necessity that where men and women. �164 live together they should live under law, and the spirit and inten­ tions of the laws, which a civilized community imposes on itself. It must show him that the happiness of society, its power of progres­ sion, its power of enjoying higher pleasures, impose on its members, many obligations—obligations of truthful speech, of upright dealing, of respect for feelings as well as rights—obligations which cannot be neglected, without somewhere inflicting injury upon that society which he is learning to place higher than his own individual ex­ istence. Under such teachings the social bond will pass from the region of phrases, and become to our children as they grow up a distinct and living reality. The State will no longer be to them a powei existing outside of themselves, a machine of resistless force for imposing burdens, and inflicting penalties; but duties owed to the State will be duties owed to themselves, and slowly, after’ many centuries, but safely in the end, for them if not for us, the neglected facts of a common humanity will emerge out of the dif­ ferences of class and sect. Such is the office of the State as regards moral teaching, an office which it cannot rightly place out of itsown hands. The minister of religion appeals above, and beyond these earthly sanctions. It is his, to lead us to form the largest and noblest conceptions of God, and of God’s dealings ; to teach us to. know the depth of that spiritual nature which is within us, and the never-ceasing consolation we may draw from it. The last minutes of my time, shall be given to consider the influence which an unsectarian system of education, would exert upon the teachings of the churches. These teachings would not be diminished ; for those who labour for the spread of any religious belief would be freed from all anxiety and responsibility, as regards the other parts of education, and would be able to devote all their energy to their special work. By the side of the State education there would grow up, as in America, a great religious organization, voluntary in man­ agement, voluntary in attendance, and taking great hold of the mind of the people. Still greater would be the influence of the system, upon the spirit of the teaching. As the State assumes an attitude of perfect toleration and impartiality, refusing to disavow the unity of national life, refusing to believe that those things which divide are stronger than those which unite, I cannot doubt �165 that the religious teachings of this country, will be affected by the -example of the State, and gain in breadth and charity. Do not let us hide from ourselves the fact, that the religious teachings of to-day must pass through the fire, and all that is narrow and intolerant — ■all that is superstitious, all that fears the light, must be burnt from them, if in the future they are to command the strongest minds, and to act with a living, force upon the consciences of the people. That this may come to pass, that the spiritual life amongst us may be freer and purer, the State must faithfully discharge its -own duties, and leave the churches to discharge theirs. A ■country whose churches are built upon the belief, (I quote the words) “ that every individual must find his separate way to God by the use of his own intellect and conscience,” cannot make a State-lesson of the teaching of any church. But one thing it owes to -every church, and that is to act in the belief, that great national measures, across the face of which a people’s unity, and a people’s toleration for every belief and opinion are written in plain ■characters, are religious lessons, which, however silently, reach all hearts and influence all lives. I ought to add to this paper an ex­ planation of a practical character. I have tried to show that un­ sectarian education is not irreligious in its influence, I have tried to show that it is the best form of national education ; but let it be ■understood that I do not wish to displace the present system. All that I ask is, that the State should frankly recognize the unsectarian system, allowing it to be introduced, first, where the inhabitants of -a district desire the system, and decide to rate themselves • secondly, where a district fails to supply itself with proper school accomo­ dation, and is required to rate itself, by the central office or the ■district board. Where schools on the new and old system come together in the same district, I confess my belief that the old •schools must give up children’s pence, as a condition of existence ; but if the State grant be raised, as Mr. Dixon proposes, to twothirds of the total expenses, school managers will have only to raise about the same sum as at present, which is not an unfair tax for continuing the luxury of denominational teaching. If all ■existing denominational schools, are wise enough to accept a satisfactory conscience clause, Government inspection, and a �166 registry of school attendance, they have probably a long life before them ; as long, indeed, as their own vitality lasts. Englishwise, we wish, if it be possible, to work out the new pattern, with­ out destroying the threads of the old warp. MISCONCEPTIONS AS TO SECULAR INSTRUCTION. Mr. G. J. Holyoake read a paper entitled “ Misconceptions as to Secular Instruction.” He said : In public life it sometimes : happens that particular persons excite terror and apprehension, yet when the nation comes to know them, they are found to be wise and pacific counsellors. The same thing often occurs with debatable terms. A particular phrase is regarded with hasty distrust, which, should it be looked at dispassionately, would be found to indicate exactly what the nation is in want of. Such a phrase is secular instruction. Eor all the purposes of national education, it is sufficient to define secular instruction, as that kind of instruction which pertains to the efficiency of the workman and the duties of the citizen ; instruction which must be given, and given with very great distinctness, or the working class will be cheated of that knowledge which can alone make them creditable and intelligent members of the State, able to acquit themselves in the international competition, destined to grow fiercer in coming years. Now, the term secular in no way denies or questions that spiritual education which, in proper time and place, can, in the opinion of most persons, inculcate yet higher motives to nobleness, and peradventure conduct to the knowledge of God. That knowledge which is secular is not, as many imagine, necessarily opposed to that which is religious. It is merely distinct from it. It merely ignores that which stands outside its province. Just as mathematics ignores chemistry and does not assail it; just as jurisprudence ignores geology, but does not deny it; so that which is secular, stands apart from theology, but neither denies nor assails it. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I, who have elsewhere given special currency to the term, have always defined and explained it. It is true that some persons, not understanding the integrity of the term, have used it in a confusing way ; but I take it, that the educated instinct of gentlemen is to employ a term �167 in its intrinsic signification, and not to insist upon an interpretation of it, founded upon its obvious abuse. All that the advocates of secular instruction ask is, that the education given at the cost of the State shall relate to the duties exacted by the State; and these duties are, that the workman shall be able to maintain his family, to pay whatever taxes are levied upon him, give no trouble to the police, make no demands upon the parish, and fight generally whomsoever the Government may see fit to involve us in war with. Whatever knowledge is necessary, to enable the future workman to do these things is his right, and should be given him in the speediest manner ; and any other inculcation which shall delay this knowledge on its way, or confuse the learner in acquiring it, is a loss to the State and a peril to the child. It is in the interest of public economy, that secular instruction should be given by order, and religious instruction by option. Anyone who has had experience of the working class, knows that what they suffer most from is confusion of mind. They cannot see one thing at a time. They mix up other considerations with the case in hand. They judge the question before them, in the light of something else. This is the source of that weakness and prejudice, which often make them so impracticable. This habit of the untrained mind, instead of being corrected, has been confirmed by that mixed education, that confusion of things sacred and secular, which charity and misconception, have made the rule in this country. In Parliament, that member alone is regarded as competent, and as not wasting the time of the House, who can discern what the point before it is, and who can keep to it when he does. We want this power in the workshop. The national scheme which is not going to impart it, is going to waste the money of the ratepayer. Mixed education makes muddle-minded scholars. To acquire only what you need to know, to think out one thing at a time, to keep separate things distinct in the mind, is economy in learning, and is the shortest path to efficiency. The nation is busy, and the people have no money or time to spare, and the State is bound to adopt the speediest and cheapest transit to public know­ ledge. No one has a right to stand in the way of this, in the presence of a nation ignorant and struggling ; and struggling because �168 it is ignorant. Many demur to secular knowledge because they do not know why it is wanted, nor perceive what it will do. They forget, that in England every inch of ground has a proprietor. Not a fish in the river, not a bird in the air, hardly a flower on the bank, but has an owner. A mechanic, as a rule, finds that employ­ ment comes by chance, and wages by caprice. He must not steal, or conspire, or fight. Secular sense and secular skill, are the only usable weapons which can keep him from the poorhouse. Piety, ever so conspicuous, scarcely fetches any price in the market. The most devout employer, adjusts the wages he gives according to the swiftness and expertness of his workmen. There is no creed, the profession of which will induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit the assessed taxes, or the magistrate to excuse the non­ payment of local rates. The State, therefore, is bound to expend the public money in productive knowledge, and the only knowledge which is productive is secular; and this knowledge the State is bound in prudence and justice to give to the people. But this knowledge, which will mercifully aid the children of the workman, will make them clear-minded and grateful : and gratitude and intel­ ligence, are the fairest of all the handmaids of reverence. With secular instruction, religion will acquire freshness and new force. The clergyman and the minister, will exercise a new influence, because their ministrations will have dignity and definiteness. They will no longer delegate things declared by them to be sacred, to be taught second-hand by the harassed, over-worked, and oft reluctant schoolmaster and schoolmistress, who must contradict the gentleness of religion by the peremptoriness of the pedagogue, and efface the precept that “ God is love,” by an incontinent application of the birch. An enemy of religion would prescribe exactly this course, if he sought to make it distasteful, and terrorful to the child. It is not secular instruction which breeds irreverence, but this ill-timed familiarity with the reputed things of God, which robs divinity of its divineness. There is one advantage of the secular rule of instruc­ tion which might commend it to all earnest men. So long as religion is taught apart from school instruction, and with optional attendance, it will matter little whether it is “ sectarian” or not. Sectarianism is not a sin, when it ceases to be intolerant. It is then �169 but that honest form of faith, which best supplies the wants of the soul professing it. To reduce religion to an impossible generalization of the Bible, and the mere belief in God—creating a sort of Par­ liamentary piety (which is what is meant by “unsectarianism”)—is to efface the individuality of devotion, which makes religion pic­ turesque and passionate, and is harder for the earnest believer to accept than secular instruction, which meddles intentionally neither with his faith, nor his conscience. The last misconception relates to the extent of this question. A magnitude is imputed to it which does not exist. We are not dealing with education in its full sense at all. That means the sum of all those influences of home, and church, and society, which form the individual character. The State never proposes to deal with these. The scheme before us does not contemplate it, and would have no power to effect it if it did. All we ask is, that in every district in England, the children of the working class shall surely get as good an intellectual training, as the children of the working class can get in any country in the world. Tliis can be given in a few hours a day—in a few years of every child’s life. This is the extent of the scheme proposed by this League. Secular instruction, if adopted, will deal, during that brief term, merely with the mechanical routine of elementary knowledge, and the passionless facts of science; while it leaves in all the other years, and during all other times, the young learner to the teachers of religion, whose province is that side of human nature which comes in contact with the infinite; where emotions arise which colour life for evermore, and passions are stirred which pertain to eternity, by the side of which, most men deem all that pertains to this life minor and transitory. Should we succeed to the utmost of our wishes, the State-student will still be under the far-reaching influences of the nurse, the mother, and the minister ; churches and chapels will still exist, and Sunday schools will still remain open, and able to confine themselves to Sunday knowledge, which will have distinctive value then. Household piety will still prevail,with an interest which it now lacks ; theologians will still write, and their literature still cover the land ; the institutions and character of the country will still be Christian, and in a more self-respecting and genial sense than now. Splendid philanthropy will still illus­ �170 trate the human tenderness of Christ. Nothing will have been changed, except that the nation will have added intelligence to its greatness. The brain of the common people will be cleared and trained, and every working father and mother, will thank with gratefid heart that State which has given their clrildren the priceless blessing of self-defensive knowledge. DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS. Mr. Jesse Collings, Honorary Secretary, read a paper which had been prepared by Mr. H. J. Slack, and in which the “principle” of Denominational Schools was examined. Mr. Slack, in his paper said :—As powerful parties in this country, holding various and opposite opinions upon theological subjects, have pronounced in favour of what is called the “ Denominational System of National Education,” an accurate investigation of the principles of such a scheme, and of the consequences which flow therefrom, is urgently needed. An objection of some force might be taken, at starting, to the illogical linking together of the two distinct things designated by the words, “ Denominational ” and “ National.” In a country in which a multiplicity of denominations flourish, and divide society into numerous parties, that which is denominational stands in obvious contrast to that which is national. Considered from the point of theological classification, to be denominational is to be sectarian, and if regarded from a purely social or political point of view, it is to be sectional, and though the nation comprehends all its subordinate divisions, it cannot be confounded with them ; and it should be remembered that large masses of people do not range themselves in definite ranks, and that consequently the whole of the denominations is a much smaller quantity than the whole of the people. It is not customary to consider any church as a national church, unless it is the special object of a State patronage not accorded to other churches. If it merely stands as one amongst many religious bodies, all of which receive State aid in proportion to their numbers, it would be regarded as the church of a larger or smaller section of the community, as the case might be, and any such institution having the support of the majority to-day, might, from change of opinion, represent only a minority to-morrow. �171 In countries where various religious communities receive State pay, the term “ concurrent endowment ” designates the kind of relation that is thus established. In like manner, an educational system in which various bodies, holding distinctive opinions, all received pecuniary support from the general taxation of the country, would be one of “ concurrent endowmentand if differences of theo­ logical creed separated these bodies from each other, the Govern­ ment which supported, or helped to support all, would act quite as much upon the plan of “ concurrent endowment of religions,” as if, instead of providing funds towards mingling reading and writing with particular creeds, it gave the same amount of money towards the church services of each sect. The denominational school­ master, who is engaged to teach particular theological propositions as well as to conduct the ordinary secular studies of a school, is, if not the priest, at least the minister, of the sect employing him j and as his two functions would be intimately blended, it would be a mere subterfuge to say that State aid was given to him for his arith­ metic without his catechism ; not for his doctrines of salvation, but his rule-of-three. If the State aid took the form of local rates, levied throughout the country, by order of an Imperial Act of Parliament, and upon general principles of assessment, the Government by which the scheme was carried out, would com­ pel each ratepayer to contribute to the support of other folks’ religions, whether he liked them or not. The Evangelical Dis­ senter would be compelled to contribute towards teaching, in the schools of the Roman Catholics, what he conscientiously believed to be soul-destroying errors; the Trinitarian would give his sub­ scription towards inculcating the doctrines of the Unitarian, and each party, in turn, would find • its conscience and its pocket oppressed with the burden of sustaining doctrines it denied and opinions it deemed to be mischievous and absurd. To be con­ sistent in legislation, State aid for teaching various kinds of theology in denominational schools ought to be supplemented by similar aid, if required, to support the same sorts of theology in churches or chapels. When, under the name of “ concurrent endowment, it was recently proposed to do this in Ireland, an over­ whelming mass of public opinion decided against it, and, indeed, �172 if the nation had been in favour of the principle it involved, we should not in this country have arrived at the abolition of com­ pulsory church rates ; but our Legislature would have arranged that if Dissenters paid for the theology of Churchmen, Churchmen should make all square by paying for dissenting theology a pro­ portionate sum. The reason why compulsory church rates have been abolished, and why the Irish Protestant Church has been dis­ established, is that a strong conviction has arisen amongst the majority of thinkers, that it is morally wrong for the State to arrogate to itself the power of choosing a religion for the people, inasmuch as this is a matter in which each man’s own con­ science and intellect should be his guides. But if religion is so left to the conscience and intellect of individuals, no one can, without violation of the principle of such an arrangement, be compelled to pay in any shape towards the support of a multiplicity of theologies differing from his own. That everybody should be called upon to support everybody else’s creed, is not a doctrine of liberty, but a proposal of despotism, and it is none the better because the compulsory aid is to take effect in one building called a school, instead of in another called a church. No one who admits the principle which led to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, can dispute the position taken by the Boman Catholics, that the State ought to do for them, in proportion to their numbers, what it does in the way of benefit for other religious bodies ; and if all the theological sects were equally endowed for educational purposes, the State would still have to meet the claims of secularists, and of those who decline to register themselves under any denominational formula. When we consider the fact admitted by all sects, that great masses of the working class, especially in large towns, are in this position, the magnitude of this question becomes apparent; and if we pass from masses of men to distinguished individuals, the names will at once occur to our minds of philosophers standing high in various departments of scientific enquiry, who do not belong to any existing church. Hitherto the denominational system, has not been associated with any direct legislative compulsion to attend the schools; but the country is obviously tending to the belief that the State must pro­ �173 tect and safeguard the right of the child to education, even when the parent desires to keep it away from instruction. Compulsory education cannot be justly resorted to, unless religious liberty, that is, perfect freedom upon speculative questions—is well protected from aggression. Religious liberty is based upon the right of private judgment, while the denominational teaching of the young is intended to produce a strong bias, in favour of what those who employ it believe to be true. In chemistry or astronomy, a pro­ fessor does not hesitate to tell his pupils frankly, that upon certain questions the opinions of men of learning differ, nor does he shrink from explaining the grounds upon which diverging or con­ tradictory theories are held ; but would any denominational school­ master be allowed to show why historical critics, philological scholars, or geologists, doubted or denied the particular propositions he was paid to teach? Those who, upon grounds of critical inquiry, reject the propositions of orthodoxy, ought not to be parties towards compelling the orthodox to support their heresy in the schoolroom; and if Dean Close, for example, cannot be justly deprived of his shillings or pounds for an institute in which Huxley or Tyndall might lecture, ought they or their followers to be mulcted for a kind of education in which their labours are spoken of in the following terms :—“ There was no question that there is in the present day an evil spirit of the ‘ bottomless pit ’ rising up among us, poisoning God’s truth, poisoning the faith of thousands, and turning them away from godliness ; and he was bound to say he laid a large portion of it at the door of science. Did not philosophers at the present day, dig out of the bowels of the earth evidences against God ? Did they not seek in the heavens, in nations, and in languages, every means to shake our faith in the Bible? How fearful and how humbling a thing it was, that there were those who would venture to overturn the whole Bible narrative of the creation of man, which involved man’s salvation by Christ, and would prefer any dream, however foolish or vain, to the faithful testimony of God respecting the origin of our species f He was bold to say that in all the dreams of Hindoos, and all the false religions corrupted, degraded, and ridiculous—that were ever amusing among the Pagans, there were none so frivolous and childish �174 as those, unto which the science of the present day had reduced our scientific men.” This passage is not quoted for the pleasure of raising a laugh at its absurdity, but because the learned ecclesiastic who uttered it is, to speak in natural history phraseology, a remarkably fine specimen of a species, considerable in numbers and tolerably wide in the area of its distribution. All the members of this religious species would have a right, under the denominational system, to State aid in frightening their pupils with bug-a-boo pictures of the horrors of science, and the wickedness of scientific men. It may be said, that a “ conscience clause” would be a suf­ ficient protection against theological aggression, but this is emphati­ cally contradicted by facts. At a recent Conference of the Wesleyans, a body which carefully avoids separating itself from the Estab­ lished Church, much complaint was made of the persecution to which Wesleyan children were subjected at National Schools, on account of their attending the Sunday schools of the Chapel instead of those of the Church ; and where a school was founded upon a theological basis, children who were not subjected to its theological teachings, would occupy a position inferior to those who were. The denominational system directly tends to brand, with the stigma of inferiority children and their parents who do not belong to the most influential sect of the locality. In Ireland the Protestant child would be subjected to this injury in the Romish school, if he attended one, on account of there being no other in the neighbourhood; and in other places the children of Romanists, Jews, and Dissenters in general, would come under the ban. In rural districts of England the social distinction between pupils of the British, and pupils of the National Schools, is painfully apparent. The park of the lord or squire receives the little Nationals at their annual holiday, and “ county families” assist at their cricket or kiss-in-the-ring. The small “ Britishers” may look through the palings, but as they did not learn the right catechism, they must not enjoy the fun. The ■Government, as the guardian of political and social interests, is bound, upon the principles of civil and religious liberty, to permit nothing, that can encourage odious distinctions in any school that it -supports. So long as education was left’to voluntaryism, there was some excuse for aiding sectarian schools; but to have made that �175 system approximately fair, secular schools should have had equal rights with denominational establishments. Voluntaryism has been found insufficient in supplying school accommodation, and it is generally believed that attendance at some school should be made compulsory; and would it not inflict a great wrong upon the people, if they were obliged to send their children to schools in which, in any shape or way, a theological test was applied to discriminate and separate the beloved sheep of any orthodoxy, from the suspected goats of any heresy ? In large towns, schools of all kinds, from Romanist to secular, would be established, and there would be con­ siderable choice ; but in smaller places much hardship could not fail to occur. Large-minded reformers, anxious for human brother­ hood, and wishing that the progress we are making towards de­ mocracy, should be accompanied by circumstances of safety to society, and good-will amongst men, desire that the schoolroom should be free from envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness. The honours of that place should go exclusively to merit of conduct, and proficiency of study ; no child should be made ashamed or uncomfortable on account of his father’s opinions, or lack of opinions, on subjects of theological speculation; no child should imbibe lessons of sectarian hatred, or be encouraged to think himself better than another child, because he had been taught something different about creed or •catechism. Let voluntaryism provide all the theological divisions it believes to be usefid, and keep them in their right place ; let the State deal with a larger question of human culture, adapted to the people as a whole. FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION. Captain Maxse, R.N., read a paper, of which the following is an abstract, on “Free and Compulsory Elementary Education.” He commenced by saying that he was the representative of a branch which was in course of formation in South Hants, to ■co-operate with the League; and he had long been an advocate •of compulsory gratuitous elementary education. He proceeded: First, I should like to say a word or two about the term secular, as applied to the movement. In its best sense, I myself, am prepared to accept this designation of—what I hope, gentle­ �176 men of Birmingham, you will allow me now to call—our scheme : in its ignoble sense, as implying irreverence, or gross worldliness, I utterly repudiate it. If by “ secular” is meant of this world, as in contrast to another one, I reply, that what is of this world is of God, and I denounce as mischievous and unwarrantable the arbi­ trary distinction, that an attempt is made to establish between the spiritual and the earthly. I believe that it is intended, provided we are worthy of the intention, that human nature shall be elevated in this world ; and that it depends entirely upon ourselves whether we, the English, are to assist in this elevation, or are to be pushed aside by a stronger race, better fitted for progress than we, more resolute to fulfil the nobler aspirations of human nature. I wish to see children, taught, first to live, as the most religious duty that they can discharge, taught to live in this world for the ennobling of themselves and others, taught that the greater portion of human misery is the result of human error, taught that we can be better if we try to be better with courage, with faith, and with inflexible honesty. I believe there is little hope for us in life until we place morality upon a solid basis; until we learn that it is best to be good for its own sake; until we learn that evil, as evil, is the cause of misery to ourselves and others, and realize (I fortify myself by a quotation from Locke) that “ To love truth for truth’s sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all virtues.” The object of this League is simply to teach the “ com­ prehensible” to all neglected children ; to save them from despair, degradation, and death, by placing about every child some moral influence, giving them the opportunity of distinguishing between right and wrong, and by securing to all persons in the realm the additional means of livelihood which, in a civilized community, is represented by familiarity -with letters and numbers. A movement having such an object as this, I can only regard as a profoundly religious one. In the interest of religion, not less than in the interest of the national cause we advocate, there is but one course to adopt, (and this course is a sorrowful course for some, but they must remember we are pressed to it by a still more sorrowful condition;) it is, to stand respectfully aside from Bible reading, not less than from the use of the Catechism. Nevertheless, I desire myself to �177 see some reverential attitude on the part of State schools, in rela­ tion to the Unknown Power, and I believe this might be fulfilled by drawing up a daily prayer, which would satisfy every shade of religious opinion. If, however, this cannot be done, I am ready to acknowledge the necessity of confining ourselves strictly to secular education. And how much this means ! It means giving sight to the blind, and limbs to the maimed. I hold, myself, that whoever is permitted to grow up, without having had the opportunity of learning to read and write, has a direct grievance, not only against his parents, but also against the State. “ In a civilized community reading and writing may be regarded as supplementary senses. Not a few of us would hesitate, if the alternative wore suddenly presented of losing a sense, such as the sense of hearing, or of losing the faculty of reading. Who is there among us, who would assume the responsibility of destroying a sense? Is there much less in neglecting to provide for the liberation of a faculty, mani­ festly equal to it in value ? It should never be forgotten that the higher our civilization, the greater becomes our responsibility to­ wards the poor. Civilization means luxury, comfort, and security for all of us ; but, I fear, only rigour for those who have to provide the necessaries of life. The advantage of quitting a natural state is great, for those who are able to command food-—hardly so for those who have to obtain it. Therefore, the Government of a civilized State assumes, or should assume, a responsibility towards the indi­ gent, in direct proportion to the degree of its civilization. It is for those responsible—for those who, in a free country, frame public opinion—to see that the disadvantage the poor are placed under by civilization, is reduced to a minimum • and the least acknowledgment of this duty is to provide for, and secure the liberation of what I have called the supplementary senses. This does not in the least im­ ply that the poor man or labourer is to be given learning, the latter is for himself to achieve; he is to receive only the instrument to it, to be given his hearing, not to be provided with music. I hardly think myself that we have the right to protect property, if we do not make known to everyone the reason why property should be sacred, and this can only be done through education. It seems to me that, as we advance in civilization, the one anxious problem we M �178 have to deal with is, how to preserve the food-getting condition of the poor. A speaker at the Social Science Congress, the other day, said that the misery with which we are surrounded is not the result of ignorance, but is the result of poverty. And is not ignorance one of the causes of poverty—one of the main causes ? It is owing to ignorance that the labour-market is overstocked. The men who are unable to read and write, are prohibited from entering any calling but that of mere manual labour. How often do we hear it said of some good agricultural labourer “ The worst of it is, he is no scholarthe scholarly attainment in request being, perhaps, to decipher an invoice of drain pipes, or sum up the productions of a dairy. I am quite aware of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s views on the subject of education, and I have listened respectfully to Mr. Faw­ cett’s objection to free education as relieving the parents of proper responsibility. Nevertheless, I remain an advocate of gratuitous education. I do not believe that the majority of the parents we require to reach are in a position to exercise responsibility. I know that Mr. Fawcett would leave power to school managers to supply education gratis, when the parents are destitute and unable to pay, on much the same principle as food is supplied under the poor-law; hut I cannot help thinking that there would be some invidious distinction arising from this system ; the establishment of a class that would be termed a pauper class, of which all callous and improvident parents, would avail themselves at the expense of the provident. I have never advocated myself the State’s providing, free, more than elementary education. I believe that directly parents are in a position to afford the indulgence of feeling respon­ sibility, on the educational head, they will remove their children from the public to the private and higher school. My experience tells me that the responsibility of education is now evaded by parents who can afford to educate their children. I constantly find parents availing themselves of “ National School” education at the (to them) nominal expense of Id. or 2d. per week, which school is mainly supported by others, not for them, but for the very poor. I would do nothing to weaken the responsibility that should exist on the part of parents to their children. I recognise the force of the argument, that parents should not. summon beings into the �179 world without being able to provide for them, and I by no means desire to see the individual gradually perish in the State; but we must not demand too much, we must not insist on an ideal con­ ception of parental duty for those who have not the means, or the prospect of the means, of fulfilling it. To do so, would, in my opinion, afford but too ready an excuse for society to return to its fatal slumber. I would add, that the right to be instructed in the lan­ guage of civilization offers the opportunity, which must be seized, of supplying higher teaching. We can hardly teach how to read and write, without imparting some rudimentary knowledge, without teaching, I am happy to think, some of the facts of the universe, and expounding reverentially some of the miracles of nature that are ever at hand, whether exemplified in the anatomy of a tree leaf, or expressed in the infinite immensity of the heavens. Finally, we have the opportunity of awakening the conscience to a sense of right and wrong. This briefly represents my idea of education for the people. Call the process secular if you like, call it undenomi­ national if you please—call it what you will—it must remain neither more nor less, than noble and exalting. Perhaps you will let me here offer a word or two upon my own experience, of the effect of a compulsory education proposal among working men; it will serve to supplement the larger experience of Mr. Applegarth. I was one of the candidates at the general election for the represen­ tation of Southampton, a town, as you are aware, far south. My own pet subject, at every meeting, and upon every possible occasion during a long house-to-house canvass was, not the “ glo­ rious principles of our noble constitution,” but compulsory educa­ tion. I do not believe the idea had ever been broached before, certainly it had never been prominently broached before. It was not long after I had commenced, that one or two leaders of the party, who were conversant with the working class feeling, were saying to me, “ Go on speaking about education, it takes wonderfully; I should stick to that ideaand so on. I always felt myself, that I struck a truly popular chord; the response upon this subject was more fevent than upon any other. The simple explanation is, that the working classes have common sense, and that we have only to appeal to this on subjects which concern them, to secure ultimately their hearty allegiance. �180 DISCUSSION. Mr. Edmond Beales, of London, most heartily congratulated the President and all the Council of the League—if that congratu­ lation was of any value—upon their admirable commencement of the great work which they had set themselves to accomplish. The fundamental principle of the League appeared to bo this, that every one of those two millions of children, now without instruction, should be educated, and that the frightful state of things which they now saw, in the punishment of persons for the violation of laws which they had never been taught to know or respect, should cease to exist. The fruitful evils now resulting from the fact of so many children being uneducated, was a shame and a disgrace to any Christian country. The principle of the League was, that their system, supported as it would be, partly by Government grants, and partly by local rates, should be free and wholly unsectarian, as it necessarily must be. He held that Christian morality was the highest of all morality ; that no philosophy which ever existed, could find an adequate substitute for it, and that the Gospel of Christ was the best possible means of making a man wise, just, honest, and virtuous. Still, he could never for the life of him understand, how to teach a child to read and write, to calculate, to instruct him in the elements of science, and in all that was necessary for the faithful discharge of his after profes­ sion or occupation, could make that child the less a good Christian. He entirely agreed with Mr. Mundella, that all truth was holy; and also with the principles laid down in the paper of the Hon. Auberon Herbert; for whilst he conceived it to be the duty of the State to assist in the education of the country, he also considered it the duty of the State, not to interfere with the consciences or religious principles of the parents. Still, no parent, whether Churchman, Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic, should be allowed to exclude his children from education simply because in unsectarian schools, if they were established, there was not taught the special doc­ trines of his faith. As he understood it, the League did not intend to exclude the consideration of religion, or of the Bible from the schools, nor to interfere at all with the existing d on om in ati on al �181 systemj but what it was prepared to enforce at all times, and under all circumstances, was, that the State must do its duty, and not interfere with the freedom of religious conviction; that the parent must do his duty, and not allow religious conviction to interfere with the education which the State declared was necessary, to make his child a good, upright, and honest citizen. Such a system woidd bring about greater concord, and greater harmony between all classes of society. No longer would there be antagonism and dis­ union amongst them ; there would be one bond of mutual respect, good-will, kindness, and social attachment pervading, interlacing, and knitting together the whole national body, whilst the individual welfare of each part of the body, would be promoted and developed. The Hon. G-. Brodrick : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,— In following Mr. Beales, as I have been invited to do, and heartily supporting his views, I do not feel competent to speak from any personal experience of the practical details of school management, but I am desirous to add my testimony to the broad principle of national unsectarian education, inasmuch as there is no one of our principles in which I more cordially concur. This principle, as we have been reminded, gives offence to some. I observed the other day, that Sir Stafford Northcote, who is a good friend to education^ said at Exeter that he heartily wished the words “ sectarian ” and “ unsectarian ” had never been imported into this subject. I partly agree with him, and yet I differ from him; for he dislikes the word,, and I dislike the thing. Now, there is one objection to which reference, I think, has not been made to-day, but which I believe to be very widely prevalent. I mean the objection that some five and twenty years ago a kind of compact, as it has been called, was made between the State and the religious bodies of this country, and that we are, as it were, morally bound to carry out the spirit of that compact. I might, and do, reply, that we arc not proposing to disendow denominational education, that we are not proposing to disestablish it, that we are not even proposing to supersede it, but only to supplement it. But I go further, and I must say, I should like to know when the compact was made, by whom it was made, and what were its terms. And even supposing any such �182 compact to have been made, I want to know who were the parties to it. Were yon and I—those bf us, at least, who are less than fifty years old, and perhaps at that very time were under education —were you and I parties to it ? Were those who are children, who are now growing up in ignorance and vice, to be the inmates of our woikliouses and our gaols, were these children, then unborn, parties to the compact ? Were the working classes, then excluded from the franchise, but now admitted to it, and who must ultimately guide and govern the policy of the country, were they parties to it ? And if not, what force is there in alleging the existence of an imaginary compact, made a generation ago ? There is one other objection, to which reference has frequently been made, to unsectarian education, and that is, the religious objection. On that I can only say, I entirely adopt what has fallen from so many speakers. We leave untouched the influence of the church and the chapel, we leave untouched the influence of home, we leave untouched the influence of Sunday schools; we leave it in the dis­ cretion of the managers or school committee, as the Chairman has explained, to admit the teaching, the dogmatic teaching, of religion out of school hours, and, if they think proper, to allow the reading of the Scriptures, without note or comment, even during school hours. Then, I ask—and this is the root of the matter—what is the religion which we are said to sacrifice ? Not the practical religion of every­ day life ; not the sublime and simple religion of the Gospel; not the pure and undefiled religion of St. James, who teaches us to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction; not the religion of St. Paul, which embraces all things true and all things pure, and all things lovely and honest and of good report; but the religion of creeds and articles and formularies, the religion of dogmatic theology,—the parent of the persecution which has been the re­ proach of Christianity ; the religion which boasts, not of its power of including, but of its power to exclude; the religion which at this moment contributes to uphold caste and to prevent the growth of national unity in this country, and which is the main obstacle to the moral union of Christendom. Mr. Follett Osler : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—I feel considerable hesitation, in undertaking to say a few words on �183 the present occasion, but having been asked to address you, I have jotted down a few remarks which have occurred to me, connected with the recent journey I have made to America. Though I, in common with a large portion of our countrymen, have long felt it most de­ sirable that education should be extended throughout this realm, so as to render it truly national, I never was so strongly impressed with the importance of this, as after a tour I made last autumn in the United States. In taking this journey I had no particular object in view, beyond the desire to see and learn all I could of the country, its people and institutions ; to accomplish which, I visited most of the Northern States, from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. But it is not possible for anyone to travel in that country at all observantly, without being struck by the great intel­ ligence of the mass of the people. Even in the country districts this is as noticeable as in the towns. So striking was this appa­ rently universal education, that I was involuntarily led to inquire into the system, and to visit the schools that produced such good results. Accordingly, I devoted some time to that object, feeling more strongly than I had ever done before, the pressing importance of real national education, and that it was one of the first subjects to which our Legislature should direct them attention. The question that is of most interest and importance to us at the present moment is, whether the main features of the system which has been so suc­ cessfully carried out in the United States, may not be applicable to this country. Some persons take alarm at the word “ America,” and seem afraid lest we should denationalize our people ; but surely, the adoption of a broad and extended scheme of national education, be it based on the system adopted in the United States, or Prussia, or of any other nation, or on the systems of all combined, does not make us adopt, or desire to adopt, the mode cf government or the political institutions of any of those countries ; though the recent changes in our political institutions may render national education not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. But, in addition to any political considerations, it is necessary that our ar­ tisans should be placed in a position, to enable us to compete with those nations that, I regret to say, have left us far behind with re­ gard to the education of the people. I contend that education, to �184 be national, that is, universal, must be free. A large portion of the population cannot pay; and if some are to do so, it will be ne­ cessary to decide who are not. No arbitrary amount of wages can settle it. A man with one child, and earning 20s. a-week, may be richer than another earning 30s. or 40s. a-week, who has a number of children. Then, as to those who can pay—is the sum to be uni­ form, or is it to be graduated according to the means of the pupil’s parents ? The subject becomes more complicated and difficult, the deeper we go into it. Again, if some schools are free, and others demand a fee, a class feeling will be provoked; for among artisans there is an honourable pride, as great as among the wealthier members of the community, and a distinction will cause the schools, where no payment is made, to be regarded as pauper or charity schools. The difficulties attending payment are so great, and the advantages of having education free are so manifest to my mind, that I am sur­ prised there should be any hesitation as to the course this country should adopt. When in Philadelphia, I had some interesting con­ versation on the subject with Mr. Shippen, the excellent President of the Board of Controllers of the Public Schools of Philadelphia, who strongly advises our schools being altogether free. Mr. Osler here read the following letter from Mr. Shippen :— “ Philadelphia, June 18th, 1869. “ S.E. Cor. 6th and Walnut Streets. “ Mr. Follett Osler, Dear Sir, —Your favour of June 5tli is received. I am pleased to accede to your wishes, and mail with this, six copies of my address, which please use to your best advantage. “The experience of all educators and legislators in this country, con­ firms me in my judgment of the utter uselessness of legislation for classes in the public schools. We built our system upon poor laws—pauper laws. We practically divided our people into classes, and just so long as these founda­ tions lasted, was the system a positive failure. This is not only the experience in Pennsylvania, but of every other State which adopted the same discrimi­ nating principles. I have studied this subject well, have given it the fifteen years of my official connection with our public schools. I have remarked to Lord Amberley, and other inquiring English gentlemen who have visited our schools, that if England, in establishing her national school system, fell into the grave error into which we fell, the system would in the end be a failure, and the money laid out upon it would be expended with but trifling advantage. �185 “Establish your schools ‘ for every child that draws the breath of life within your borders.’ The system need not be compulsory, but open. You will be met at the threshold with the objection that the lower class will de­ moralize the higher ; that the morals of the lower class will contaminate the higher. This is a dangerous and most fearful error. My experience does not prove it. If there be any rule on the subject, it is the very reverse. The poor girl or boy is not less virtuous than the rich. The rich have the means to indulge in vice, while the poor have none. I candidly tell you that in placing my children at school, I would infinitely prefer placing them in public schools than private schools, and, in doing so, I would thus consult the better their moral, spiritual, and scholastic welfare. So far as social relations are concerned, I can always regulate this myself. The school association is only an association of school hours. It need not be otherwise. England must come to our open national system sooner or later, and, I trust, will avail itself of our experience at the outset, and not wait to be taught her error. I take a deep interest in the cause everywhere, and shall ever be happy to lend a helping hand. “ Very respectfully yours, “Edward Shippen.” I would only wish further to say, that I think we have been looking too much on the dense dark spots of ignorance, among the poorer children, and have not sufficiently borne in mind that we are now contemplating a great national system of education to embrace all classes. As these dark spots get lighter, we shall see more clearly that there are very dark shades in higher grades, and shall become more sensible that the whole system must be efficiently worked out on one broad plan. I should like it to be possible for a child to enter into the lowest class, and gradually progress to the highest education that can be obtained in this country. I mention this because a desire has been expressed by some persons to have schools for the working classes only, to give them an elementary education, and when they have reached a certain grade say, “ You are going to be artisans, what need for anything further ?” I think all should be on one system of general education, embracing even the higher departments of knowledge ; so that while all go cn together, each pupil may be able, as he advances, to study such special subjects as his abilities or the circumstances of his case may render advisable. A Gentleman here asked that the sense of the meeting might be taken, as to the proposing of a resolution. He said the London �18G and other branches should be informed,what were the actual inten­ tions of the League, and what was the meaning of “ unsectarian.” The Chairman : We shall, at half-past seven, have a meeting in the Town Hall, and it was intended that we should finish our pro­ ceedings to-day. We have only eight minutes left, and the question is, shall we enter into a discussion upon a resolution about which we have heard nothing, or hear the three gentlemen who yet have to speak? But let me tell you what the resolution is. When, yesterday morning, I opened the proceedings of the Conference, I said there had been a difficulty in some people’s minds as to the meaning of the word “ unsectarian,” and I then proceeded to give an explanation or definition of the meaning. Now, it would appear that to some gentlemen’s minds that definition was not sufficiently clear. Therefore, what they desire to do is this, to move a reso­ lution, which resolution shall make clear what I failed to make clear yesterday morning. Now, I have to observe that I have had two distinct resolutions on that very same subject, and now another gentleman wishes to draw up a resolution. In my opinion, not one of those resolutions is any more clear than my definition— in fact, not so clear. And further, if those three resolutions are put to the meeting, we have no sort of confidence that there will not be half-a-dozen more ; and my opinion is, that of necessity there will be some more, though I do not know how many. What are we to do under these circumstances ? The Provisional Committee specially decided that there should be no resolutions whatever taken, and the order of proceeding having been fixed, the question that arises in my mind is, whether, as Chairman, I am to observe the order of proceeding pre-arranged, or whether I am to open up, at the request of one or two gentlemen—-whose object is certainly admirable—a discussion, the length of which we really cannot foresee. What I might do is this : I might put it to the meeting whether or not such a discussion should be entered into. But I am inclined to think, on consideration, that the meeting would rather that the Chairman should perform his own duty, and decide the question for them. However, I have been asked this question, which will take only one minute to answer, and probably the answer to this question will meet all that is desired in these resolutions. The Hon. Auberon �187 Herbert asks me, 11 What is unsectarian education 1 Is it education excluding all dogmatic and theological teaching, or creeds, or cate­ chisms?” I feel authorized, on behalf of the Provisional Com­ mittee, to say yes. He further asks, “ Whether the scheme of the League necessarily excludes from the national rate schools, the Bible, without note or comment 2” And I say, what I said yesterday morning, that it does not; that that, is to be left to the decision of the school committee, who will be the representatives of the parents of the children. The Eev. Septimus Hansard : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen,—I have to congratulate you on the perfect unanimity on the general object of this League, which has pervaded these meetings ; and it is a matter of considerable congratulation to myself, as a clergyman of the Church of England, to find on this platform, engaged in the same work, clergymen of different denominations, and men who differ from me as widely as my friend Mr. Holyoake does. It is a matter of congratulation to me to find that in the speech which Mr. Holyoake made on this subject, on which we all feel so strongly in common, he spoke in the language of what I may strictly call the deepest piety. I have, as some of you know, been now occupied over twenty years, in labouring among the working populations of London ; and I do assure you, that much as is the satisfaction, that all who, like myself, are interested in education, must have in seeing the success of the different educational works around them, nothing is more painful than to see that there is still a residuum of savagery, and brutality among the humbler classes of our neighbours. That is a blot on our common Christianity, and a shame to us all. Let us take it to heart, and see if we cannot combine to remedy it, putting aside the special doctrines which distinguish us one from another, and in a common cause, working for the welfare of those miserable and neglected ones all around us. What a disgrace it is to us, who boast of the Christian civilization of England, who are so proud, and bragging about our Protestant truth, and about the light of the Gospel shining on us, as we hear from every platform and pidpit, to know that in these last few years we have been obliged to invent a new name in the English language—“the rouyfe”—to �188 ■express the miserable condition of those who live in the back streets of our large towns. Whenever you use that term, as applied to the inhabitants of our back streets, you are using a term which, however true it may he in its application, should bring home a lesson to you, and a sense of disgrace to us all, that, as Englishmen, such beings should live among us. Therefore, I should like to say a few words to disarm the prejudices of those who, I think, are at one with us, but who as yet hesitate about joining us. It is a matter of regret, to find absent from the list of those who have joined the League, a very large number of laymen, Members of Parliament, and clergymen, who, from their liberal principles, well known and established, might be expected to be with us. I believe they are a little frightened—naturally enough— because our movement is a new one, and because, as you know, there is at the bottom of every Englishman a stratum of Toryism which it takes a good deal to knock out of him; and because I think there has been a great deal of misapprehension about these very untoward expressions, “ secular,” and “ unsectarian.” I will not detain you with an exposition of my opinions, but I would say to all those who are able to join the League, “Deal as tenderly as you can with religious people who have an objection to your League; no scruples have more demand on your respect than religious scruples, and I am quite sure the supporters and ■originators of the League, woifld not desire to say one word which would express contempt to those who differ from us in religious opinions.” But on the other hand, I would call on clergymen of all denominations, to bear in mind that if schools for primary education become an established fact, more religious influence will be thrown into the hands of those, who wish to give religious teaching, than they possess now. I am perfectly con­ vinced that if you have a good school, managed without any special religious teaching whatever, and if, as I presume, you must and ought to allow the clergymen and dissenting minister, at the recorded wish of the parents of the children, at some stated time, to give religious education or instruction to those children, the religious teachers will have infinitely more power, more real vital power, of bringing home to the hearts of the children the words and �189 example of their master, Christ, than they ever had by the system that now prevails, of deputing to the schoolmaster the perfunctory lesson which we know is given in most of our schools. To give you an instance of what I mean, I know a clergyman of a certain district in London, who collects together at certain times, once a month, for two hours, any children of any school in his large parish, who may choose to come into the church to be educated in the Bible and Catechism; and the church is crowded with volunteer children, who come and sit there with their minds as attentive as grown-up persons, answering the questions that are put, and evidently having those lessons brought home to the practice of their daily life, in such a manner as is not done in schools. A very High Churchman and Ritualist told me that he believed it was the right way of giving education ; and I believe instruction must be so given under the system we are advocating I think the objection that will be made by the religious world against that system, is an unnecessary bugbear, which I hope we shall all do our best, when we talk to religious people, to remove, by showing that we do not in the least wish to do away with religious teaching, but simply to separate from it dogmatic teaching. The Rev. H. W. Crosskey : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, I rise for the purpose of mentioning one or two facts which have not been alluded to at this Conference. Although re­ ferences have been made to Saxony and America, there have been no allusions to the educational system of Scotland, one or two facts connected with which, I think, will interest the Conference as bearing on the practical working of the subject. In the first place, I hold that this so-called religious, or, rather, most irreligious, difficulty is a thing that vanishes before the logic of practical facts. It disappears entirely in the education of our own children. In ’Scotland, a country that has not a reputation foi liberality, out of 12,572 children of Catholic laity, 7,343 have attended for many years without compulsion the Protestant schools, in which freedom of conscience is permitted. The Catholic laity have had no objection to send their children to the schools, but now a cry is being raised against them by the priests, and in both Ireland and Scotland an attempt will be made to secure the denominational system. But �* 190 here is the fact, directly and distinctly proving that if the laity are left free to act, if the priest is told that he must not interfere with the liberty of the subject, and the Government is firm, there can be no practical difficidty in the matter. Now for another point, touching the character of the schools. I would strongly protest against the idea of striving to make the schools merely working class schools. There is a free road open in Scotland from the public schools to the Universities. Last year, I saw in the Highlands a gipsy encampment pitched close to the school house, and a gipsy bad sent his large family of children to school, with the children of the farmers. Last year, also, a friend, shooting in the Highlands, had for a gillie a youth, who in this way earned the money to pay for his education at the University in the winter. In another case, a shepherd was found reading a Greek author on his sick bed for his amusement. I think it is perfectly possible to have national schools, to which we can send all the children of the community. I am ashamed to visit the school where my own children are, and see that they there can get a knowledge of languages and sciences; and then go to schools in this town, and see, large branches of knowledge being kept back, that the children’s minds are limited and confined, that they are taught only rudimentary things, and that there is no chance of their obtaining the liberal culture which we require for our own children. I would express to this meeting a most thorough satisfaction with the explanation made by Mr. Dixon, of the views and intentions of the League. I think it should go forth, that while we do not in any way wish to offend the feelings or injure the interests of the great religious bodies of this country; while we are prepared to give the freest scope to every sect and party to carry out its own ends and aims in charity and peace, we do propose that the instruction of the common school shall be confined to matters of common culture, and that we do this for the sake of religion. We believe that religion is injured by being made a task within the school. We are of opinion that in the quiet atmosphere of home, in the sanctity of those places where children are brought together apart from the noise and tumult of their daily school-life, the great seeds of religion ought to be sown • that religion is not a technical thing, to be �191 taught by rule, but a loving influence, a power to thrill the spirit within them. The education which we propose to give would be favourable to religion, because if we excite the religious feelings, without Culture, we have superstition. Who is there would not rather plead for his Gospel to an educated than to an ignorant man ? I will appeal to the clergy of the country whether, if they had intelligent men and women to address, the divineness of the Gospel ought not to be shown in the warmer enthusiasm of its reception 1 It is a poor and weak timidity that distrusts the power of an educated people. I hail this meeting with satisfaction. Its object is the greatest cause we can engage in, and it has to me the sanctity of an apostolic work. The future of our country depends on it. A large and liberal culture will the better enable a man to perform the humblest tasks of life, while the more cultivated the mind, the larger the knowledge of the constitution and history of the world, the greater will be the progress of morality and religion; and our countrymen, instead of growing up mere devotees of sec­ tarian interests, narrow in mind and distrustful of each other, will become free men in the noblest sense, able to give an intelligent reason for their faith, and to exercise a wide charity to their brethren. The only boundary we can place to this movement, is to furnish every child born within this kingdom with fair oppor­ tunities for cultivating all the faculties God has given it. Rev. Mr. Caldecott : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, I will not detain the meeting by offering any arguments on the ques­ tion of unsectarian education. That some such system is accepted by you I suppose, or else why are we here to-day ? And some such system I believe to be in a very fair way to be accepted by the country. What I wish to do is to congratulate the members of this League on the great advance that has been made in public feeling of late as regards this matter. On all hands, whatever lan­ guage may be held, the principle of a denominational system of education is virtually abandoned. It is true that gentlemen seek to cover their concessions, and to conceal their retreat under a mist of words about compromises and conscience clauses. But, sir, the day for conscience clauses has gone by. It is too late in England, in the year 1869, to attempt, in a system of national education, to �192 brand with a ticket the children of any creed as inferior to their fellows of another creed. There is at this moment but a shadow of a shade, that separates the adherents of the denominational principle of education from ourselves. They insist upon it that some reli­ gious teaching shall be given to all children, provided that the parents of those children do not object to it. We, on the other hand, would be glad that they, or any of them, should teach their system of religion to any child, provided that his parents desire it. At the last Social Science Meeting, in Bristol, this question was very fully discussed; papers were read and speeches were made upon it, and various suggestions were offered both in public and in private. Speaker after speaker insisted upon the necessity of main­ taining religious—that is to say, denominational—education ; but as not one of those gentlemen condescended to leave his theories behind and to come to the plain practical question, what was the religious teaching that he was prepared to give, the whole fabric of their schemes melted away. There was one gentleman who did maintain that there can be no religion, there can be no morality, there can be no goodness, that is not based on some creed or some catechism; but I heard no one else in the meeting rise to support that view. There was another gentleman who insisted that in all State Schools, all children should be regularly instructed and pe­ riodically examined in the main principles of Christianity; but that gentleman did not explain to us what he himself conceived those main principles to be, nor did he give the slightest indication what is to be the authority that is to determine them. With the great mass of practical speakers on this point, both in public and in private, there seemed to be one thing agreed, that they would be perfectly satisfied with the advocacy of the undenominational prin­ ciple, if you would only allow, during some time, in the day a portion of Scripture to be read to the pupils without interpretation, without question, and without comment of any kind, merely as a recognition of religion. Well, sir, I cannot help thinking it is something like an abuse of words to dignify such a scanty scrap as this, with the name of religious education. Yes, and when the advo­ cates of denominational principle have come to this, we may fairly congratulate ourselves on having found the vanishing point of the �193 denominational system. The fact is, the time is ripe for the intro­ duction of this League among the friends of denominationalism. I believe there is really but one demand on which they seriously insist; that demand is, that there shall be some recognition in education of some religious principle or other. It is not that these gentlemen love denominationalism for itself—far from it. They fear that if you exclude denominationalism from the schools, you will exclude religion from education. But surely the remarks you have heard from Mr. Hansard, will show you their fears are vain. The fact is, that at the basis of all our systems, the common foun­ dation on which they, every one of them, rest, there are two reli­ gious principles upon which we are all agreed, because God has written those principles in the heart of every one of us ; they are the principles upon which we recognize God’s love to us, and our duty to our fellow men. Those are exactly the two principles about which our neglected childhood knows nothing, and has never* even heard. Those are exactly the principles which in the schools to be founded, I hope, under the auspices of this League, every child will be taught, without variance or without distinction. Every child must be taught them, for there can be no teaching given with respect to God’s works in God’s world, which does not assume and develop them. These principles are the only principles which the State, as a State, can teach in religion, because they are the only principles in religion that all men, whatever may he their creeds, will alike accept. I know it will be said that this is not enough—that something more is required. Something more is re­ quired, and in God’s name Jet something more be given. But the State cannot give it. There are special voluntary associations whose duty, whose right, whose delight it will be to give to their children this something more ; for the question is, not whether denomina­ tional schools shall cease to exist ■ the question is, upon what material shall those denominational schools work ? Shall they work upon young savages, or shall they work upon children who liave already been taught to know something of civilization and the truth ? Denominational schools can never cease to exist; they will be everywhere, where men are .to be found who are fired with zeal for God’s service, and are inspired with belief in God’s word. N �194 Surely it is the interest of every one of us, that the managers of these schools should receive their pupils from the hands of the State, already prepared for their instruction—decent, so to speak, and clothed, and in their right minds; and should not have to hunt them out, for themselves, through all the moral caverns, and the moral tombs of our great cities, where at this moment they are hiding in thousands, unclean and unclothed, and possessed by the legions of evil spirits of wickedness and of crime. On the motion of Professor Rogers, a vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman. The Chairman, after acknowledging the vote said : I have had another question put to me—“If the school committee should •decide that the Bible is to be read, must it be read without note or •comment ?” My answer is, yes. Now, I wish to mention that a gentlemen of the name of--------- , from London, writes and says he is obliged to leave the meeting early, and he concludes by giving fifty guineas to the funds of the League, and saying he has no doubt whatever we shall have great support in London. And I am also happy to say that we have an announcement of a donation of £50 from one, who calls himself a convert to our views by what he has heard to-day. Now, in concluding our two days’ meeting, let me say, on behalf of the Provisional Committee, that we have to give •our warmest thanks to those gentlemen, who have come from a distance to read papers, and to make those valuable speeches upon this subject, which we have so much at heart. But let me repeat what I said at first, that the League, as a League, is not responsible for .what has been said ; each individual writer and speaker is alone responsible, for the individual opinions that have been uttered. I also thank, on behalf of the Committee, all those who have attended at these meetings to support us ; and I fervently hope that the day is not far distant when they will look back with honest pride upon this meeting; and congratulate themselves that they took their part in the inauguration of one of the most beneficial measures of this -century. The meeting then terminated. �PUBLIC MEETING IN THE TOWN HALL. WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 13th, 1869. A public meeting, convened by the Executive Committee of the League, was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday evening. The Mayor (Mr. Henry Holland) presided. The orchestra was filled ■chiefly by gentlemen, who had been present at the meetings in the Assembly Room. The side galleries were given up to members of the League and to ladies, and the floor and great gallery were •occupied principally by working men. The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, said the League wa8 founded for the purpose of obtaining the establishment of a national system of education, which would ensure elementary instruction to every child in the kingdom; and he trusted that it would not •dissolve, until it should have accomplished its object, whatever •difficulties might have to be encountered. Mr. Dixon, M.P. (Chairman of the League) was received with •cheers. He said: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen—The resolution which I have the honour to move is, “ That, in the opinion of thia meeting, the scheme of the National Education League is the one best adapted, to secure the education of every child in the country.” The Manchester Education Aid Society, after a most minute inves­ tigation, came to the conclusion that one half the children of the working classes of that great town were uneducated, and that the remaining half were educated very imperfectly. The Birmingham Education Society, after equally, if not more, minute investiga- �196 tions, came to precisely the same conclusion with regard to the children in this town ; and the London Diocesan Board of Education reported that from 150,000 to 200,000 children, in one portion only of the Metropolis, were without means of education.. There is reason to believe that the number of children educated in large towns has not, during the last ten or twenty years, increased much, if any, more than in proportion to the increase of the population. Such is the state of things in our large towns. How is it in the agricultural districts ? Canon Kingsley has written to us, saying that he lias read the report of the Birmingham Education Aid Society with great interest ; he did not know how' badly educated we were, but he did know from twenty-seven years’ experience as a parson, that the voluntary denominational system was a failure in the agricultural districts. Mr. Villiers, who was called by Sir John Pakington one of our most able school inspectors, corroborates the statement by saying that half the children of the working classes in the rural districts, between the age of ten and thirteen, receive no scholastic education at all, and the other half, so long as the present system remains, will nevei be more than half educated. Other school inspectors, and not only school inspectors, but also a Cabinet Minister, a member of the late administration, believe and endorse these statements. These are the circumstances under which the National Education League has sprung into existence, and my only surprise is that it was not formed long ago. We begin by putting our hands upon what we conceive to be the cause of all this ignorance. think that it cannot be expected to be otherwise, when we remember, that the whole educational system of this country' is based, upon the benevolent activities of so small a number of mon. The basis of our system is too narrow'. In this condition of things what does the State do ? Where there happens to be a clergyman who understands his duties; vdiere there happen to be rich manufacturers or benevolent individuals, who undertake to erect and partially maintain schools—where it finds there is some education, defective though it be— there it is ready to help ; but in other districts, where benevolent individuals do not exist, and there is no education at all, what docs �197 the State do ? Like the priest ’and the Levite of old, it passes by­ on the other side. Its assistance is given where assistance is least needed. Where the wealthy are doing something it heaps its riches. The practice of the State with regard to education reminds us of what the poet says of sleep :— “ He, like the world, his ready visit pays Where fortune smiles; the wretched he forsakes ; Swift on his downy pinion flies from woe, And lights on lids unsullied with a tear.” What the League professes is this : not to interfere with the exist­ ing system where it is effective. We don’t wish to revolutionise the present schools, we don’t wish to sweep them away. What we do wish is this : that where voluntaryism and denominationalism have failed, the State should step in; and that, the State should be called upon to recognize the highest of all its duties, the duty of saying, that every citizen shall be brought up to be able to understand the laws he is bound to obey, and to understand what are the duties of a citizen. Now, we propose that this should be effected in the following manner :—That in every large town, and in every county, school boards should be elected by the ratepayers or their representatives ; that these school boards should ascertain where there is a deficiency of education, and, wherever they are wanted, erect and maintain free and unsectarian schools. Having done that, they should appoint committees to manage those schools. The State inspectors should have power to see that the various localities perform, and perform efficiently, the duties imposed upon them. If the school boards fail to perform these duties, the State inspectors should then step in, and see that they are performed. We propose—or rather I propose, for I am speaking now as much in my own name as in that of the League—I propose that the schools should be maintained not only by the State, but by the local rates, in the proportion of two-thirds from the central govern­ ment, and one-third from the local authorities. Now, the objection to this system, in the first instance is, according to our opponents, that it will kill voluntaryism. To that I reply, it need do no such thing. We shall leave voluntaryism alone. Nay, we shall do more—we shall create half as many more schools as are now in ex­ �istence, and we shall require for these schools an army of volun­ teers. Every member of our school boards, every member of our echool committees, will be as much a voluntaryist as any school manager under the existing system, and he will be a better, a more efficient, voluntaryist j foi' he will have to do with an organised system, and he will not only have the promptings of his own benevolence to lead him to his duty, but he will have the ex­ perience and the authority of the State system to guide him. Besides, there is another most important thing to be remembered : what is it that keeps enormous numbers of our children now out of school, but poverty ■ poverty to that degree that they cannot appear in our streets, because they are too ragged, and have not food to maintain themselves. These children never appear in our schools. If there be any excess of volunteers wanting employment in this country, let it seek out thesechildren, and feed and clothe them, so that when they do appear in our schools they may appear in that condition which will enablethem to take advantage of the teaching they are to receive. Let me illustrate this. Time was, when in this town the rich peoplewere called upon to contribute from their own libraries, to thelending libraries attached to our Church institutions; that was voluntaryism. There was much of that voluntary effort. But the State stepped in and provided for the people those magnificent freelibraries which are now our boast. Voluntaryism may be said to havebeen killed there, but it only made place for something infinitely superior; and the spirit of voluntaryism still lives, and has a betterand a wider field of action. Depend upon it, that so far from voluntaryism being killed by the institution of State schools, it will be utilized, it will be organized and developed. Another objection is, that the education given in these schools will be a godless education. But we have heard during the last few days that in many of our schools—I will not say in most of them —the education which is there given, and is called religious educa­ tion, has but a very small tincture of real religion in it; and we have been told by the most eminent men, who understand what they are talking about, that in the new schools—schools wherethere will be no sectarian theology taught—there may be, and we- �199 believe there will be, as much religion as in nine-tenths of the schools that exist now. And even supposing that there were no theology; supposing the children left those schools without any knowledge of the difference between one sect and another, and did not know what you meant when you asked what sect they belonged to—what then ? The foundation would have been laid upon which any or all of the sects could operate to advantage, and, no doubt, upon the foundation thus laid, a superstructure of religion could be raised that would be worth having. Having supplied these schools —schools based upon the taxation of the country, and managed by the representatives of the ratepayers, and belonging to the people absolutely, because they would have paid for them, as much as if they had taken the money out of their own pockets, in the shape of subscriptions—three things would of necessity follow. We say that most schools must of necessity be schools, where there shall be no theological teaching of any sort whatever. We say that we have no choice in the matter, if schools are to be national schools they must be unsectarian. We say besides that, having provided these schools, it would be not merely illogical, but it would be a most unjust thing, if we allowed the children still to run idle about the streets. Do you think it likely for a moment that a ratepayer would consent to pay an additional rate in order that children might be educated, and yet to see these poor children for whom he paid the rate, neglected by their apathetic parents, and not receiving the benefit which had been provided for them ? It would be impossible to collect a school-rate under such circumstances. Some people say that there would be great harsh­ ness—that it would be un-English—that the people would resist anything in the shape of compulsion. Now, I will not dwell upon it to-night, because there is one who is going to follow me who is able to do it much better than I can myself; but I will simply say this, that the manner in which this compulsion may be exercised in this country is extremely simple, and, in my opinion, will be com­ pletely in harmony with the wishes of the people. It is most easy to obtain a complete registration of all the children in the country ; S3 easy as it is to obtain a registration of voters. When you have obtained this registration, you must put against each child’s name �200 the name of the school that it is intended to go to. Then send to each one of the school committees a list of the children that ought to attend its school, and throw upon the school committee the duty of seeing that these children attend. Give the school committee, officers, whose duty it shall he to go to the houses of all parents whose children are not attending regularly at school. Let these school officers explain to the parents what their duties are, and the penalties that may attach to the non-performance of them. And remember that these schools will be free schools—remember that the Factory Acts will prevent parents from sending their children to work, and then consider what motive can there be in the minds of any parents to prevent their children going to school, when they are entitled to send them, under such circumstances ? I will engage to say that, after a year or two of the operation of such a system as that, there will be very few, indeed, who will not regu­ larly and willingly send their children to school. Of these few it may be necessary to make one or two examples. Let them, if they persist in neglect, be summoned before the magistrates; and what will usually result is this—the magistrates will warn, and, on promise of amendment, no other result will follow; but when the parent is brought up a second time, the infliction of a fine will be very well merited, and I am sure will not shock the sense of justice and propriety of the working classes. Now, we say in the third place, that these schools, if attendance he compulsory, must be free. I have received, this morning, a letter from Edward Polson, and he says—“ As one of the working classes, I wish to ask you if, in your opinion, it is fair for an honest, hard-working, steady man, to be forced to pay rates for the education of a drunken, lazy man’s children ? In my opinion, it is not at all a fair thing; but perhaps you can show me that it is fair. For my part, I cannot see it.” Now, I am not at all surprised at this state of feeling ; but I would reply, that he is already subject to this very injustice, because he is called upon to pay a very much larger sum than he will ever be called upon to pay for an education rate, in order that that drunken and lazy man’s child-—nay, that man himself—shall be kept in the workhouse, or shall be punished in the gaol. Meeting the writer of this letter upon his own ground, namely, his desire to �201 save himself from taxation, I say it is for his own interest that he should ask for this education rate. But even supposing that it were not so—supposing that for a few years he should have to pay increased rates—surely there are considerations of a higher nature. 'Can he—not merely the rich, but the poor man, the working man —can he pass by these poor children in our gutters, these neglected Arabs of the streets—can he pass them by, knowing their miserable state, and their wretched prospects, and steel his heart against their highest interest, having the power to place them in a better position, merely because their unnatural parents—(The close of the sentence was lost in an enthusiastic outburst of cheering, which was prolonged for a considerable time.) When these parents neglect their duty, what the League says is this : that it is the duty of the State to come in and be a parent to these innocent victims. And what we wish to do is, to call upon the Legislature of this country to take' upon itself that duty. We don’t wish to say anything in disparage­ ment of the services of those men who have hitherto taken charge of the education of the country; but we say that they have proved that they cannot undertake to educate all, and we say that all must be educated, and all shall be educated; and that it is the State alone that has the power to act up to this. The State can do it, and the State will do it. We have now a Minister of Education, in Mr. Forster, who, in my opinion, has the will to do it; but I am not so certain that he has the power. But what we are going to do is this : by means of this League and its branches, we are going to rouse the people—in whom now, happily, is placed political power— in order that we may say to Mr. Forster, “ Be our leader, and give us what we want; we’ll support you.” But if Mr. Forster should hesitate, if he will not transfer the education of this country from the voluntary and denominational basis, upon which it now rests, to the basis of the taxation and self-governing energy of this country, then, much as we respect Mr. Forster, much as we esteem his strength of character, his excellent will and his great skill, it will be our duty to say, even to Mr. Forster, our hitherto leader, that we can follow him no longer. We shall say, “ We have taken upon ourselves the performance of a duty than which, none can be higher - the duty of seeing to the education of every child in this country • �202 and that duty we shall perforin—with you as our leader, if you will, hut if not, in spite of you. The Mayor then called upon Professor Fawcett. Professor Fawcett was received with cheers. He said, Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—It is my privilege to speak to you this evening on the greatest and most important of all social and political questions. During the last two days the National Education League has been inaugurated under the happiest auspices, and the people of this town may indeed be congratulated, that the name of Birmingham is destined to be associated with an organ­ ization which will. prove as fruitful in its blessings, as were the labours of the Anti-Corn Law League. This organization has been inaugurated under happy auspices. A great body of gentlemen, living different lives, looking upon questions from different points of view, have come together with one common object. They have resolved to sacrifice all minor differences of opinion upon points of detail, because they are determined that they will be a united body in the effort they intend to make, an effort which they promise you shall never cease, until elementary education has been guaranteed to every boy and girl in this country. Perhaps the greatest danger that threatens this movement is, the possibility that some of us may be tempted to accept a compromise. This is the rock which has imperilled so many great movements. Free trade was endangered by the offer of an 8s. fixed duty. Household suffrage was imperilled by the offer of a .^6 rating and a <£7 rental franchise; the future of national education in Scotland ran a narrow risk of being wrecked last session, by as bad a bill as was ever spoiled by the House of Lords. But will you authorize us to say in the House of Commons, in your name—you, representing a great body of the industrious classes of this country—that you agree with us, that nothing will, nothing ought to satisfy you, short of a measure which will impose rates 'where educational appliances are insufficient, and which will compel the attendance of those children at school, upon whom, by their parents, the irreparable wrrong is being inflicted of allowing them to grow up in a state of ignorance ? This, no doubt, is a great movement, and it will require hard labour to bring it to a successful issue. It is a �203 great movement indeed, because what is our end, and what is our aim? To raise millions of our fellow-countrymen who are sunk deep in the depths of ignorance. This is a movement which will require all the popular support which such vast audiences as thia can render it. No one can tell the effect which may be produced upon the minds of our statesmen and our rulers by such meetings as this. It is our privilege at the present time to be governed by a Prime Minister who is ever ready to be instructed by the intel­ ligently expressed public opinion of this country, and if Mr Glad­ stone has not made up his mind on the educational question yet, nothing is so likely to give clearness and distinctiveness of view and firmness of resolution, as the expression of opinion of such an audience as this, in favour of unsectarian, compulsory national education. It is sometimes said that our proposals are revolutionary. We cheerfully accept the title. We intend to effect a great revolution, because we intend, if possible, to root out ignorance, with its attendant misery and vice, and substitute in their place all the self-dependence, all the material welfare, which result from intellectual culture. If the revolution should be successful, the displacement of the worst tyrant that ever afflicted a country will not confer greater blessings, than will our efforts upon this country. It is almost unnecessary for me to speak to you of the usual aspect of this question. It is almost a truism to say that no social reform, no scheme of philanthropy, can produce any per­ manent effect, unless it makes the labourer self-dependent. If a child is permitted to grow up to manhood in ignorance, he has to pass through life, as it were, crippled and maimed, deprived of half the power with which he has been endowed by nature to secure his own mental and material advancement. Sometimes it is said that these proposals of ours are anti-English. There is something which is not only anti-English, but which is anti-human, and that is the spectacle of millions sunk in such ignorance as if they were living in a heathen land. Anti-English! will the Conservatives venture to raise the cry? They-have not passed many legislative measures during the last thirty years. But what is the measure from 'which they take some credit ? Why, they are never tired of talking about the honour which is due �204 to their party by the passing of the Factory Acts. What is one of the most valuable provisions in the Factory Acts ? The compulsory educational provision, which declares that it shall be illegal to employ any child unless he attends school so many hours a week. By recent legislation the compulsory educational pro­ visions of the Factory Acts have been extended—not in a good form, indeed, but still the principle has been extended to every branch of industry in England, except agriculture; and we shall not be generous, we shall not be fair, to the class of labourers who most require State intervention, if we much longer permit agricul­ ture to be thus excepted. Assuming, then, as we may, that the principle of the Factory Acts has now been approved of by all political parties, it is indisputable that the principle of compulsory education has been accepted. How, then, can the monstrous anomaly be permitted to intervene, that we should say, as we are say­ ing at the present moment, that if a parent sends his child to work, education shall be enforced upon that child, but that no similar compulsion shall be used against the parent who is so base, so degraded, that he will neither send his child to school nor to work ? Many of you, most of you, whom I am addressing, are engaged, either as employers or employed, in the industry of this town. You know that facts, painful facts, are every day brought under your notice which show, that unless we have national education, it will be absolutely impossible for England to maintain her commercial position. In various trades we have each year to carry on a keener and more closely-contested competition with foreign countries. Industry requires, now, the use of delicate machinery; it requires the skilful application of that machinery; it requires those moral qualities which make the labourer most valuable, and which enable him to understand the true principles of trade. Bearing this in mind, it is as impossible to expect that an uneducated country will be able successfully to compete against an educated country, as it would be to suppose that a hand-loom weaver, could profitably struggle against the appliances of modern mechanical invention. We are too much prone to deceive ourselves by the signs of material wealth. We are accustomed to sing poeans of exultation over increasing exports and imports, but behind all this glitter and show, �205 behind all this evidence of material wealth, there are the ugly, there are the portentous facts, that one out of twenty of our population is a pauper, and there are countless thousands who are in such a state of misery that they are verging upon pauperism. Tor twenty years, various material appliances have been brought into operation, all of which have tended to stimulate the production of wealth. We have had free trade, we have had mechanical inventions, we have had the extension of the railway system. When these facts are borne in mind, does it not convince us of this great truth—a truth which should never be lost sight of—that there is something more required to make a nation great, and happy, and prosperous, than mere material agencies. You must act upon the mind, and, in that way, upon the morality and social character of the people. The Education League has, to my mind most wisely, in the first instance, confined itself to elementary education. Of course, this is the first, this is the essential thing to be done. But this ought to be regarded as only a part of our work. The opinion I am about to express is, I know not whether it will be thought extreme, or Quixotic, but I have long entertained the idea, and I do not mean to relinquish it, that we never ought to be satisfied until the poorest child in this country, if he has the requisite ability, should have an opportunity of enjoying the very best education the nation can afford. You ask me, perhaps, how is this end to be attained ? I believe it can be attained by a just, by a wise administration of our vast educational endowments. Those educational endowments ought, to my mind, to bo devoted to reward the meritorious, to what­ ever class and whatever religion they belong. I would not give, as a matter of right, a free education, but no child should suffer from want of education in consequence of the poverty of its parents. But I hold that the greatest of all human responsibilities is incurred by bringing a human being into the world, and I think every parent should feel, that it is as much his duty to give his children education as it is to provide them with food and clothing. Now, with regard to the administration of the educational resources of the country, much has already been done by the Endowed Schools Bill, which was passed last session; for the main principle of the Bill was this—that those endowments should be devoted to reward �206 meritorious students. Therefore, when we have these elementaryschools which Mr. Dixon, who represents the League, proposes should be established, we may look forward to see poor boys ad­ vanced from the elementary schools to the first grade school, and to the second grade school, and thence to the University. When they get there, I can only say that we shall cordially welcome them; for it is the great glory of those Universities, that they welcome mental cultivation and intellectual power, from whatever class they are drawn. As a Cambridge man—and I know I am expressing the opinion of many Oxford friends also—I can say that we should rejoice to see in Oxford or Cambridge two or three hundred stu­ dents, sons alike of the poorest men and the wealthiest merchants of this town, all being brought under the influence of the educa­ tion which we can give them. There, we know no social favouritism, we never ask who a man’s father is, we have no governing families. What a happy thing it would be if the same remark could be made with regard to English politics. But you may perhaps say that something will require to be done, before the Universities can do what you wish them to do. You know that there are still there religious liabilities, and religious tests; but I venture to think that the overwhelming majority of the country has already declared that those disabilities and those tests shall be completely swept away. A University Tests Bill—I say a University Tests Bill, for it was only a half measure—passed the House of Commons last session. Here again is an illustration of the danger of great ques­ tions being wrecked upon the rocks of compromise. That bill would have only done its work after a long course of years. It would not have swept away those tests and disabilities, it would only have given the colleges the power to sweep them away if they liked, and the bill might possibly for years to come have produced very little effect whatever. The bill passed the House of Commons; but sometimes we derive signal advantage from the unreasoning resistance of the House of Lords, and I feel more profoundly .grateful to them than I can describe. It seems to me that the one useful function which they perform, is to reject a bill when it is a compromise, and thus give the House of Commons an op­ portunity of waking up to its senses, and seeing its true position. �207 Political predictions are dangerous, but I venture to predict that the House of Lords will never see that bill again. The next session they will have to express their opinion upon a very different measure. They will have to say “aye” or “no” to a proposal which will abolish, at once and for ever, every remaining vestige of religious test and disability, and thus make the Universities truly national institutions. It is for such audiences as this to say that this is your will, and that nothing short of it will satisfy your just demands. But great as is the vista which is opened by the education question in all its aspects in England, we may, perhaps, not improbably have to render as great service to the sister country as we have rendered to her by the disestablishment of the Church, and as we shall render to her by passing a land bill. Undenominational education is a great principle in England. But it is a principle still more dearly, still more carefully to be cherished in Ireland. There is danger that the national school system of that country, which is undenominational, may be imperilled. There is danger that the University question in that country may be settled on a denomina­ tional basis. I believe that if we permit this to be done, we shall do more harm to Ireland by permitting the ascendancy of an ultramon­ tane hierarchy, than we have done good by the destruction of the ascendancy of the State Church. In conclusion, if I have not already detained you too long, perhaps you will permit me to say that the science which it is my privilege to teach, instructs us in the lesson, that nothing more tends to promote efficiency and industry than division of labour. With division of labour, each individual can devote himself to the particular process for which he has the greatest capacity, and without it we should find skilled mechani­ cians doing what might be equally well done by unskilled labourers. Unrestricted commerce, again, enables the capital and labour of each country, to be applied to those branches of industry for which it has the greatest natural advantages. This is the secret of free, trade. Similarly, we believe that a complete system of national education would enable the individual capacity of each person to be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of his country. Many a person there may be, now toiling monotonously in the fields, labouring in some deep-sunk mine, or carrying out, year after �208 year, some work of mere routine, who, if his abilities had been properly developed, might have executed some work of art, invented some new machine, organized some political or social movement, or produced some literary work which might have permanently en­ riched and benefited mankind. There is in life no more melan­ choly spectacle, than that generation after generation should pass away, without sufficient knowledge to understand the beauties and wonders with which Nature has surrounded them. Can it be right, can it be just, that Nature, which has been so boun­ tiful, should not be appreciated as she might he? And is it not strangely sad, that some people who seem to arrogate to themselves the title of religious, seem to care more about the paltry triumph of a creed, than they do about education, which would elevate the people from the ignorance which is alike degrad­ ing to human nature, and antagonistic to moral and material advancement ? Some of those who are willing that the education question should stand still whilst they wrangle about bringing children under the influence of some barren formality, such as Apostolic succession, should remember the significant words of the Prophet when he said, “ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” The Mayor then called upon Mr. Mundella, member forSheffield. Mr. Mundella, M.P.: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—Thefew words that I shall say to you shall be in support of theresolution which has been so ably and exhaustively moved and seconded by my two honourable friends who preceded me. I shall address myself mainly to the working men, by the request of mv friend your worthy member ■ and as it is the first time I have had the honour of addressing an audience of working men in Birming­ ham, I confess that I feel proud of the opportunitv of doing so, •because you are represented in the House of Commons by one of the noblest men and most honest politicians of any age orcountry. The considerations which I venture to submit to you shall be of a purely practical character. First, I ask, what are theobjects of the association ? The establishment of a system which shall secure the education of every child in England and Wales. �209 How do we propose to effect it ? School accommodation being provided, the State or the local authorities shall have the power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age, not otherwise receiving education. The means therefore are, first, by making provision, and then compelling attendance. Now, I desire to point out to you what has already been effected elsewhere, by compulsory education, because although this is a new doctrine in England, it has been in operation thirty years in Switzerland, forty years in Saxony, and thirty-five years in Prussia, and on the first of January next it will come into operation in Austria. Eighty millions of the people of Europe will, on the first of January next,, be subject to the operation of this law. What has been its effect in the free republic of Switzerland ? They are the most intelligent and best educated people in the world. You may go from canton to canton, you may go from one end of the country to the other, and you cannot find a child of twelve years of age that will not read and write ivell, that does not know something, intelligently too, of the history of its country, and has not also a knowledge of other useful acquirements. It has been my fortune for some years past to have an opportunity, of studying the effect of compulsory education on the Continent, and I wish you, working men of Birmingham, to comprehend what the effect of the system is. I am an employer in the little kingdom of Saxony, now part of the North German Confederation. I have a manager there who has been fixed there for nine years. I have gone there year after year, and have remained there a month at a time, and I have visited its schools, which are marvels of arrangement and pedagogic science (for these are the words with them), and I have never yet found, nor has the manager yet found, a man in the country who could not correspond intelligently with his employer, nor a child of ten or twelve years of age who could not read and write as well as myself; and although that country, and Prussia, and Switzerland have many disadvantages, as compared with ourselves, although their commercial position is infinitely inferior to ours, although there is a lack of capital, and geographically they are much worse in their position than Great Britain, yet I am ashamed to say that I have never met there with o / �210 that squalor, that brutal ignorance, that terrible destitution, which I meet m my own country. Now, what is the state of things as we see it m England? You working men, you know well what it is. What has been the effect of the present system? It has reversed the teaching of Scripture—it has filled the rich with good things, and the poor it has sent empty away. It has bettered those •who can and ought to help themselves, but those who can do nothing for themselves it has utterly neglected. Look at our ragged schools; they have had no assistance from the State, and look at the thousands of poor children who cannot obtain admission even into the ragged schools. You know—no men know so well as the working classes—what is the educational condition of the poor that surround you in the streets, and lanes, and alleys of our large towns. By the assistance of your worthy member, an education society was formed in this town, and 1,000 children in employ­ ment were tested. I have had an opportunity of testing thousands of children, in this and other towns, children, the great majority of whom have passed through our schools ; and what is the result of our education ? What with irregular attendance, few attendances, and attendances for a short time only, when the child grows up to fourteen or fifteen years of age, it has almost forgotten anything it ■ever learned at school, and the very little it retains is utterly use­ less for any practical purpose. And what is it that we propose to ■accomplish ? We propose that the child shall commence at a cer­ tain age and attend, for a certain number of years consecutively, regularly at school • that when the child enters upon its labours, it shall have the benefit of the half-time system for some years longer • and that the poor man’s child shall, as the hon. member for Brighton has said, have the same opportunities which the rich man’s child has, to develop those faculties with which it has been endowed. One thing you may be well assured of, the rich man in the middle classes will take care that his children are educated, because he knows that without education their career in the world is utterly ruined and destroyed. Why shouldn’t the poor man’s children be educated, then, in the same manner ? Why should they not have open to them the same career and the same advantages ? It simply depends upon audiences like this to demand it. Now ► �211 I want to point out to you the machinery by which this is to be accomplished; because many objections are raised to it, and you are cautioned, above all things, that your liberties are about to be destroyed, and your parental rights taken away. You are told that, if you submit to the system of compulsory education, the policeman will drag you before the magistrates, and you will be shut up in prison, because your children may not be in attendance at school. I wish to show exactly how this is done elsewhere, for the 80,000,000 of people I have before referred to. Every child in the North German Confederation, and in Switzerland is registered, and next year every child in Austria will be registered, on a system precisely the same as that of the political register in England. The school boundaries are conterminous with the political boundaries ; they are divided in Switzerland into cantons, districts, towns ; in Prussia, into towns, counties, divisions of towns ; and in Birming­ ham there would be the central district, and the wards. They are managed by local bodies. These local bodies have the power to demand that the children be sent to school, and it is their duty to see that they are sent. If the parent neglects to send his child to school, what is the result ? Is a policeman sent to him with a summons in his pocket? No. There are persons called school messengers. These school messengers are generally pupil teachers, or have just finished their education in the school. They go to the house and inquire why the child is not at school. If, as in nine cases out of ten, or, I might say, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the child’s absence can be accounted for, it is perfectly satisfactory. But if it is through neglect, and continued neglect, the parent is brought before the school committee, and the law is pointed out to him, and he is told that it will be enforced against him if he rebels. If he continues contumacious, he is filled. I have known it 6d., 10d., and up to 2s. 6d. for a second or third time. But I tell you what has been the result of the compulsory system : there is the same wholesome state of public opinion with respect to the father who starves the intellect of his child, as there is with you when a father starves his child by denying it bread. It is a constant thing with me, whenever I have an opportunity—it has become almost a �212 habit with me—to seize upon poor children wherever I find them, whether in the factory, the workshop, or the street, arid ascertain exactly what our glorious system of education has done forthem. A fortnight ago I found on the step of my counting-house door a number of lads, and I coaxed them up-stairs into my counting­ house. There were nine of them, and some were very ragged specimens indeed. They thought I had some sinister motive,°and it was with some difficulty I induced them to go with me. I examined them separately on their educational acquirements. Not one of those poor boys could read the simplest word. I had the Times newspaper before me. Two of them could manage the The, but not one of them could spell Times. Not one of thZm had the slightest idea of the existence of God, except to use his name in blaspheming. Yes, but some of them said, they had once been at school, at five or six years of age, and they had been since, some at the brickyard, some at one employment, some at another. Their ages ranged from eleven to sixteen. There was only one of those children, for whom there was any reasonable excuse why he had not been regularly at school. The absence of the others was mainly owing to drunkenness on the part of the parents. Now I ask you, is this to be continued any longer ? Are these children to be thrown as paupers or criminals upon society, and that in the name of the most sacred rights_ British freedom, parental authority, and so on—to breed up a race of criminals, paupers, and wretches to prey upon society ? We are told that the working classes cannot afford to lose the earnings of their children. It is this I wish to meet, and I think I can do so, because it is really the gravest argument that can be brought to bear upon the whole question. Now, I find in the countries I have referred to in North Germany particularly—a new Labour Act comes into operation next year, and this new Act runs thus :__ No child shall be employed in any regular employment, except domestic employment, by the parent after school hours, until it is twelve years of age. It has been repeatedly said to me that the English workman cannot do without his child’s earnings until the child is twelve years of age. “ What is to become of a man with six or eight children ? ” they say, “ You are depriving him of the �213 earnings of his children.” But those who make this objection take children as if they were like rabbits—all of an age. They forget that if a man has six children, the chances are that they run something like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; that he has not to struggle to keep them all at school at once, and that in a year or two, when the eldest gets employment, it earns a great deal more money if it has been educated. Nay, and what is more—and this is a question I wonder that trades unionists have not seen, and I don’t care how soon they do—if there were not so many children employed who ought not to be employed, many parents would be better paid than they are. Now, assuredly what can be done by 80,000,000 of peo­ ple in other parts of Europe can be done by Englishmen, must be done by them, if they are to keep their place as a nation. Are we content to be the last in the race—we, who have been supposed to be in the van of civilization and humanity ? Well, there is another consideration, and that is the religious difficulty. Now, I never find that this religious difficulty exists with the working classes; it exists with those generally who make the objection, on behalf, they say, of the working classes. T should be exceedingly grieved - I should be more than grieved—if anything we did tended to make working men irreligious or irreverent; but I know it is im­ possible to effect anything of the kind by the means we propose. I know that the more knowledge we give, even that secular know­ ledge which is so much despised, the better they will be prepared for the reception of religious truth. What is the drudgery of our Sunday school teachers, what is the drudgery of our ministers, dealing with unintelligent children and unintelligent congregations? Why, I believe we should raise our people entirely, from that brutal ignorance, and that state of besotted intemperance, that pauperism and that misery which characterise the lower three or four millions of the people of England, if we were to give them a good educa­ tion. I regret to hear that some association has been formed in this town, with a view of opposing this benevolent movement. But I would venture to remind those who engage in that opposition of some remarkable lines that were written by Charles Dickens,’ describing the constant contests between the sects, and this great �214 religious difficulty which we now stand in the face of. said,— He “So have I seen a country on the earth, Where darkness sat upon the living waters, And brutal ignorance, and toil, and dearth, Were the hard portion of its sons and daughters ; And yet where those who should have ope’d the door Of truth and charity to all men’s finding, Squabbled for words upon the altar floor, And rent the book in struggles for the binding.” The Mayor rose to put the resolution. Mr. J. Rutherford interposed, asking permission to move an amendment. The Mayor said that that was a meeting of the members of the National Education League, for the transaction of certain business, and he could not receive any proposition that had not been allowed, and accepted by the general committee. The resolution was then carried, Mr. Rutherford' and another being the only persons who voted against it. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain : I have been asked to move the fol­ lowing resolution:—“ That the Executive Committee of the National Education League be requested to prepare a bill, based upon the principles of the League, for introduction into the House of Commons during the next session of Parliament.” Inasmuch as this resolution is in fact a formal one, and follows almost necessa­ rily from that which has just been, all but unanimously adopted, it is not necessary for me to say much in its favour. It is clearly desirable, that our views should be presented as early as possible to the Legislature in a practical shape; and inasmuch as we believe that we now have a Government, who are determined faithfully to carry out the wishes of the people, it will be an assistance, and not a hindrance, to them that our views should be presented in a proper form. But I have been requested, as an officer of the local com­ mittee, to say a few words in support of the objects and principles of the League ; and, in the first place, I think I may congratulate this meeting, and all the friends of education, upon the enor­ mous advance, to which this meeting testifies, on the great question of education. I see in this advance the result �•215 and the justification of the great political reform, which has made those most interested in education, the depositories of a great share of political power. There can be no doubt that the present officers and members of the League have not, and cannot have, any personal or selfish motive in the agitation of this question. One common motive we have, and that is the love of our common country, which induces us to seek its prosperity and progress, and which, in the present case, incites us to obtain that prosperity by cultivating the intelligence, and securing the enlighten­ ment of the people. But you have a much nearer and more personal interest in this matter. Bor it is not merely a question whether this country shall continue to maintain its position among the nations, or whether it shall lag behind in civilization, and leave the victory in industrial and intellectual progress to other nations ; but for you, it is also a question of the future of your own class, and perhaps of your families; and you have to say whether they shall enjoy the advantages which education confers, or whether they shall remain in the position to which ignorance will condemn them, even if they do not enter into the ranks of pauperism and crime. As one guide to your decision upon this question, I ask you to con­ sider the character, both of the support and of the opposition which our proposition excites. As to the friends of this movement, I will only refer to the adhesions we have received, during the present Congress from the delegates and representatives of the great Trades Councils throughout the kingdom; so that, I believe we may say that directly or indirectly, from 800,000 to 1,000,000 working men have, at these meetings in Birmingham, given their support to the platform of the League. But it is chiefly from the opposition which our propositions excite, that I anticipate a favourable result—not that the opposition is not formidable, both in ex­ tent and in numbers.; but when I see, taking sides against us upon this question, the selfish hosts whom we have seen ranged against us, again and again, upon previous questions, and whom we have again and again defeated, I see an augury of a good result. I have read that Napoleon I., on the morning of one of his great battles, told his soldiers that they saw before them those self-same Prussians whom they had beaten at Jena, whom they routed at �216 i s t: ii w si to so mi of wl ■ow •anc fou •eve less acct tain regu shah and has j has, One classe know ruinei be ed' have It sim Leipsic, and whom they would crush that day; and when I see taking sides against us now, a great portion of the Conservative landowners, and a certain section of the clergy, I think of the Com Laws, of Reform, and of the Irish Church. But the signs of our success are even more apparent in the trepidation and doubt which are beginning to operate in the opposite camp. President Lincoln had a homely proverb, that it was “ bad to swop horses when crossing a stream but we see our opponents, in the middle of this discussion, abandon their old hobbies, in the hope that they may yet save something out of the wreck of the system which is fast passing away. Only a few years ago, at a meeting wrhich was held in this town, to consider the state of its education, the local clergy who were present voted, to a man, against compulsory education, and most of them were opposed to local rating; but now you find, in the programme of the society which has been started within the last few months, in opposition to our League, these two points made the principal points of their platform. But we, in the meantime, have advanced a little further, and so these gentlemen are, as usual, left behind. So it will always be, until they learn to give up their prejudices a little more graciously, and a little more quickly. Until they do that, they will never overtake the full confidence of the people whom they profess to wish to serve. The present issue between us is simply this : we say that the old system, which has failed, after a trial of twenty years, should at least be supplemented by something new; but they say, No, let us extend and contiuue the old. We say that the nation has been growing fast, and has outgrown its old clothes, and that it ought to have a new suit; but they want to let out a tuck here, and put in a patch there, to make the old rags last a little longer. Underlying all this resistance, is the fear that, if we do have a new outfit, we may refuse to employ those who made such a miserable misfit of the last. His Grace the Archbishop of York, at a meeting which was held in Liverpool the other day, and which was called a working man’s meeting, because a large portion of the room was filled by the clergy, at that meeting his Grace told his audience that three-fourths of the education of the country was owing to the clergy, and that the men and the system that had done such �217 great things ought not to be superseded. I should be the last to deny or depreciate the enormous sacrifices which have been made by many of the clergy to establish and maintain schools; but I say that, on their own confession, their motive has been, not the educa­ tion of the people as a thing which is good in itself, but the main­ tenance of the doctrines of the Church of England ; and the conse­ quence has been, that secular education has been subordinate to this object, and we remain at this time one of the worst educated nations in Europe. I say that, even if they had been a great deal more snccessful than they really have been, it is the worst kind of Con­ servatism to say that, because a thing is good of its kind, it shall not be supplanted by something which is better and more complete. I cannot understand the propriety of keeping a grown-up man in swaddling clothes, because he looked very well in them when he was a baby. To plead for the retention of the denominational system, under which more than half the children of this country are growing up without any education worthy the name, because three-fourths of the remainder are brought up in the Church of England schools, is as ridiculous as for an old Protectionist to have pleaded for the Corn Laws, at a time when thousands were perishing for want of food, because three-fourths of the rest, drew their daily supplies from the granaries of the farmers. But the real reason why our opponents support the denominational system is, not be­ cause they believe it to be the best means of securing the education of the people, but because they believe it to be the only means by which they can maintain a monopoly of instruction. Our choice is between the education of the people, and the interests of the Church. Education, to be national, must be unsectarian ; and I cannot sup­ pose that there will be a moment’s hesitation as to the choice which the majority of the nation would make, if it were not that theolo­ gical professors, who ought to recognize in education the best foun­ dation upon which religion can rear her temple, have perverted the meaning of religion until, indirectly, it has become a hindrance and a stumbling-block. The day is not far distant when all will look back with wonder at this time, and be astonished that intelligent, earnest, and conscientious men could have thought a profession of faith in any creed, worth anything as long as it was unintelligent, and �218 could have been bjind to the fact, that the best handmaid which any truth can have is a mind trained for its apprehension. It is a curious and instructive fact, that while almost all other sects are welcoming the prospect of increased education, as the best pre­ paration for their own religious work, there are two which strain every nerve to preserve and extend the present system, in spite of its clear deficiencies. These two parties are the Roman Catholic Church, and the Evangelical section of the Church of England. I think the latter should have some doubt about the propriety of the course they are taking, when they see into what company it has brought them. You know what the pious organ of the party, the Record, said, when it discovered that Mr. Gladstone had an acquaintance with Archbishop Manning; you know that all the resources of Biblical bad language were exhausted, and men searched the Scriptures diligently to find parallels for the supposed baseness of the great Statesman. Now the same gentle­ men who shuddered at the iniquity of conversing with a Roman Catholic prelate, are actually rowing in the same boat with the ecclesiastics of Rome. The interest of the Roman Catholics in this matter is very clear. If denominational education is to be extended in England, how can you in justice refuse denominational education in Ireland? And then you will have this glorious anomaly in our splendid constitutional system: you will have the State spending money on mutually destructive objects, and the patient people will be called upon in one breath, to swallow the poison and the antidote, and to pay the bill for both. The only way by which this baneful, dangerous, and senseless application of the public money can be avoided, is to insist firmly upon the principle that the secular education of the people should be the province of the Government, apart from all theological instruction, which should be left to the respective ministers. This, at all events, is what the League sets before you. I read, the other day, that Lord Sandon, in a speech which he made in the House, said that, speaking from an intimate acquaintance with the working classes, he was confident that they would never accept any education which had not impressed upon it a religious character. If his lordship’s acquaintance with the �219 working class be correct, our work will be vain; but I prefer to believe, with John Stuart Mill, that the time is shortly coming when, the working class will no longer be content to accept a religion of other people’s prescribing. And if this matter of education is taken up by the working class, as we hope and believe it will be, and if it is made part of their political programme, then our success is certain, and we may yet live to see the glorious time when, prizing know­ ledge as her noblest wealth and best production, this imperial realm, while she exacts allegiance, will admit the obligation, on her part, to teach those who are born to serve her • and thus only shall we maintain our position as a great nation, and guard and protect the highest interests of every class of the community, Mr. Cremer : I apprehend that the reasons which induced the committee to ask me to second this resolution were, because I am known to entertain strong convictions in reference to the question of national, secular, and compulsory education; and, secondly, because, being a working man, I may fairly claim to speak of the wants and wishes of the working class. Those of us who, year after year, contended for the extension of the suffrage to the working class, asserted that one of the first objects which the working men, when they obtained the suffrage, would seek to realize, would be a system of secular and compulsory education. That prophesy has received a partial fulfilment in the establishment of the National Education League, in the successful meetings it has held during the last two days, and the enthusiastic manner in which you have endorsed the platform of the League at this meeting ; and I am sure that when the matter is fairly before the country, our prophecies will have a complete triumph. Some three years ago, the working men in the borough in which I reside in London, formed a political association, and one of the planks in their platform—three years ago, remember—was national, secular, and compulsory education, and they declared that any man who came to them in the future to ask for their suffrages, must be distinctly in favour of secular and comprdsory education. The result was, that at the last general election nearly 6,000 workmen recorded their suffrages for the man who made that the most prominent feature of his political pro­ gramme. The tendency of modern legislation was, I think, rightly �220 described by Sir Stafford Northcote at the Social Science Congress, when he said it was in the direction of more and stronger govern­ ment. The old do-nothing policy has passed away for ever, and has been succeeded by an earnest determination on the part of the people to do something useful, and to do ’it well. I fear Mr. Forster is likely to bring in next session a Bill based upon the denominational system. I hope, therefore, that the Executive Committee will as speedily as possible frame a bill embodying the principles of the League, and get some staunch friend of education, such as Professor Fawcett, Mr. Mundella, or Mr. Dixon, to intro­ duce it into the House of Commons ; because its being in their hands will be the best guarantee that there will be no unholy compromise upon this question. Professor Fawcett’s conduct last session proves that there is no greater enemy of compromise than he. I wish we had a House composed of such men. With regard to education, I know there are a great many who are exceedingly timid at the mention of compulsion. They are quite willing to provide schools, but the idea of forcing children to attend is repugnant to them. But the right of the State to compel, where the well-being of society is concerned, was acknowledged long ago. In fact, this principle is at the root of all government. To come to what has been done within our own day : was not the right of the State to use compulsion acknowledged when the Factory Acts were passed ? when the Bleaching and Dyeing Act was passed? when the Inspection of Coal Mines Act was passed ? when the Health of Towns Act was passed? when the Vaccination Act was passed? When we talk of freedom, we mean freedom to do what is right; when we say we don’t want Government to interfere, we mean that we object to its mischievous interference; but the very pur­ pose of its existence is forgotten unless it interferes beneficently. The only question, then, is whether it is well for us to be educated, and if so, whether we can have the work done more effectually by Government than by any other agency ? If so, then the Govern­ ment must interfere and do it. We provide inspectors to see that people whitewash their houses and drain them, and we punish people who injure society by neglect in these particulars. I have read, within the last three or four weeks, of thirty or forty cases �221 where, in the Metropolitan Police Courts, heads of families have been fined for not having their children vaccinated. There may­ be difference of opinion as to whether vaccination is beneficial or not, and those who think it is not beneficial of course object to people being fined for not practising it; but among men who are convinced that vaccination is useful, there is no objection to Go­ vernment enforcing it; in fact all people who believe it is good, want it enforced for the benefit of society at large. It is only when they become convinced that it is bad that they object toGovernmental compulsion. I hold that the case of education is precisely similar. If it is good, let us have it—let compulsion be used if necessary; let it be punished as a crime to starve a child’s mind, as we punish it as a crime to starve its body ; but if it is bad, or merely indifferent—if it is of little or no consequence whe­ ther people are educated or not—let us have no compulsion. But we who hold that it is good, and that it is a remedy against moral pestilence, want the same principle applied to it as to the preven­ tion of contagious diseases. Some people object to the programme of the League, because they say the policeman must be called in to enforce it. Mr. Mundella has just now disposed of that cry ; but for my part, even if it were a well-founded objection, I should be very glad to see a policeman drag a child io school, if I thought there was a reasonable prospect that by that means he would be saved the trouble of dragging him to gaol in after years. I would rather employ the police to save our children from the moral snares which beset them, than in preventing the snaring of hares, the beneficent work which our aristocracy have found for a large num­ ber of them. As to the state of education hr this country com­ pared with some nations abroad, it was my good fortune to visit Switzerland some years ago. I went through the cities, towns, and villages, and into the mountains. I had full opportunities of judging of the education of the people, and I can confinn the statement of Mr. Mundella that there is not a man or woman, or a child of ten or twelve years of age—not one, so far as I could make out—who has not received a thoroughly sound and practical education. They have not the miserable charity schools that we have in this country for the people, but they have magni- �222 cent colleges, built at the expense of the State, where the children of the shopkeeper, the artisan, and the labourer sit on one commrm form, and receive a common education; and nothing seemed to me more likely to root out caste, prejudice, and privilege, and to knit all classes together, than this intermixture of the children of all classes in school. When I saw this hi Switzerland, I could not help hoping that the time was not far distant when we should see a similar state of things in the United Kingdom. A word to my fellow-workmen : We are apt to lament the gulf which separates class from class, and to bemoan our fate, and regret that there should be such a thing as caste and privilege in society; but you may depend upon it that you will never get rid of these things of which you are the victims, until you place yourself upon an intellectual equality with the other classes of society. That is the necessary condition of all equality. Do what you will, a rude and ignorant class can never be upon an equality with a polished and educated class. What you have to do, therefore, is to educate and polish yourselves; and if you do that, other classes will lose alike the wish, and the power to elbow you aside and treat you with contempt. I insist, therefore, upon education. Take no denial, be turned aside by no pretext, but insist upon that as the one thing needful, without which all the victories you have ever achieved or can achieve, will possess but half then* value, and without which, there aremany victories which will be impossible. I believe the programme of the League will help to this intellectual equality which we now require, and that is the reason why I give it my cordial support. Let us, as working men, speak out boldly and manfully on this question. It is of vital importance to us. Let there be no tempo­ rising or compromising with us. Let us enter into no unholy alliances, but do this thing now with all our might, for there never was a work more worthy of all our energy. I believe we are all Teady. Four years ago, when I was in the eastern counties, I found the labourers in the villages, and in the country quite ripe upon this question even then, and my conviction is that we shall find an overwhelming force to help us onward. I hope you will give us all the assistance in your power, and justify the predictions made in your behalf when the franchise was demanded for you. �223 One of these predictions was, that as soon as you canre into posses­ sion of political power, you would insist upon the education of every child in the kingdom. Mr. Carter, M.P. : I don’t intend to inflict a speech upon you at this late hour of the evening; hut one or two gentlemen have referred to a speech of the Archbishop of York, and as I know something of the views of the working men of Yorkshire, I rise to assure you that when the Archbishop of York tells the people of Liverpool that the working men of Yorkshire will be opposed to secular and compulsory education, he says what he is not authorized to say, and what he will find himself very much mistaken about, if he will consult the working men of Yorkshire. The gentleman who has preceded me has told you that a candidate who inscribed compulsory and unsectarian education on his banner got 6,000 votes. I did that, and I got 15,000 votes. You re­ member that the Bishop of Ripon told the House of Lords, during the discussion on the Irish Church Bill, that a great change had come over the working men of Yorkshire, especially in the large towns, where he said, they were going strongly against Mr. Gladstone. Now, Archbishops and Bishops, I think, are not generally the best informed of men on the subject of the feelings of the working classes. At all events, Mr. Baines and I, a few days after that state­ ment was made by the Bishop of Ripon, addressed a meeting of 15,000 working, men in the Leeds Cloth Hall, and we asked them, was the Bishop of Ripon right ? And about twenty said he was. Now I take it that the Archbishop of York, knows about as much as the Bishop of Ripon does, of the views of the working men of Yorkshire. I know as much of the working men of North York­ shire as any man in Yorkshire, and I tell you that they will stand •shoulder to shoulder with you in this fight. Mr. Mundella can tell you what they think in South Yorkshire ; he himself represents their views. One of the previous speakers has observed that if Mr. Gladstone or Mr. 'Forster should shrink upon this question, you know how, by your meetings and demonstrations, to give them firmness and courage, and make them go faster ; you will find that the men of Yorkshire will assist you. Mr. Lloyd Jones : It is necessary that we should under­ �224 stand precisely the ground we occupy. We are told that wo shall have to meet a very vigorous opposition, and I have not the least doubt of it; but I claim to know something of the working people of this country, and I deny most positively that any part of that opposition will come from them. It is said that they have a very strong dislike to compulsion, but I say that that depends altogether upon what it is, that they are tobe compelled to do. People are very ingenious in finding ex­ cuses for inactivity, when they dislike doing anything. We know Mr. Disraeli declared that the discontent of Ireland was due to the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, and that as England could not remove it was quite useless to attempt to do anything. Now,, his party urge as a great obstacle to this movement, that the work­ ing classes dislike compulsion, and we know that the party have reason for considering compulsion a most painful thing;for what have we been doing with them within living memory, but compelling them? We have kept them under a continued system of compulsion, and they find it very irksome. We have com­ pelled them to pass from one reform to another, and havecompelled them—if not to do—at least to accept, with the best grace they could, the doing of things which every man fifty years ago would have declared to be impossible. Only a few days agowe compelled them to disestablish the Irish Church, and, if neces­ sary, we shall compel them, in a few days or months more, to acquiesce in a system which shall educate the whole of the people of this country. We were told by Mr. Lowe, when the late Reform Bill was before the House of Commons, that the country would have to teach its masters their letters ; and that is just what in real earnest we mean now to do. We know he said it in no friendly tone to the working classes, but we mean to do it in a different spirit. The working people are now in possession of' political power, and it is necessary to educate them to use it for their own and the country’s good. We want them to be educated, not that they may become the master-class—because we believe the mastership of classes in this country has been destroyed for ever—but we wish to educate them in order that they may be able to take their part wisely with their fellow-citizens of other ■ �225 classes. With regard to compulsory education, it is said that it may do very well for the artisan, but will be impracticable in the agricultural districts, because a family deprived of the labour of its children will not be able to sustain itself. If that is true, the sooner such a state of tilings is put an end to by some means the better. If the children of the agricultural labourers must either remain in absolute ignorance, or else starve, that is a state of things which every Englishman with a heart in his body, ought at once to set about rectifying, if possible. But is it true ? I am sure the working men will not be turned from the path of duty by difficulties, especially by difficulties which are not yet actually in the way, but are only expected ahead, and which may be found to have no existence, or not to be of so formidable a nature as is anticipated. We expect difficulties, but we are determined to conquer difficulties, and do our duty in spite of them; and the performance of every duty in turn, as our hand finds it to do, will strengthen us for the performance of the next. We intend to go on steadily, step by step, vanquishing difficulties as they appear. A very wise man has •told us that there is no culminating point in the ascension of nations, that nations have fallen, not because they had gone as high as nations could go, but because they have placed their feet upon a rotten round of the ladder, and it has given way with them. If we go stupidly and blindly into the future, with an uneducated people, depend upon it we shall sooner or later step upon that rotten round of the ladder, and come to grief. With regard to the assertions which are made that the working people are opposed to this movement, let those who say so produce the working people who are opposed to it, let us see them. We can produce tens of thousands of working men in its favour; let them show us those who are against it. I know that the working men of England will go heart and soul with this movement, and I have no doubt whatever that before long we shall see a thorough system of national education, unsectarian, free, and compulsory, established in this country • and when we see that, we shall feel assured of the perpetual growth of the nation. The resolution was then put, and carried unanimously, p �226 Mr. Jesse Collings (Hon. Sec.): I have great pleasure in pro­ posing , “ That the best thanks of the meeting be presented to the Mayor for his conduct in the chair.” I have also to announce that “ an early member of the League ”—I am not permitted to give any name—who has been waiting for his faith to be confirmed by this Conference, will give £200 in yearly instalments. That is the second sum of the kind we have had to-day. There is something very appropriate in having our Mayor in the chair, seeing that before many of us knew anything about this question, and before some of us were born, the principles for which we now contend were matters of settled conviction with him. He is one of those who hailed this movement in Birmingham, with recognition of the greatness that belonged to it. He threw himself heartily into the work of the formation of this League at the beginning, and he has never ceased, up to the present moment, to give it his hearty aid and sympathy. I congratulate the town that it has so appropriate a chairman on this occasion, and I congratulate the Mayor, that it has fallen to his lot, to inaugurate the most important movement of modern times in this country. Our scheme is fairly launched to­ night • or rather I should call it yours, for you have received it’ with a fervour which makes it yours, and which gives us confidence in its success. It is a system that all may understand, whilst as to the scheme or system opposed to it, if it have any principles at all, no two of them fit into each other. We men of business wish to deal as soon as possible with this great question; and remember that if Members of Parliament make the law, the people make the Members of Parliament. You have, therefore, the making of the law in your own hands. Do not accept as a Member of Parliament, any man who will not accept the prin­ ciples which you desire to see carried out with regard to educa­ tion. The leaders of our opponents could only tell us the other ■day, at the Social Science Congress, that the poor must do what Canon Girdlestone described, as shutting their eyes and opening their mouths, and waiting for what Heaven might send them. They have done that long enough; and now we want them to shut their mouths and open their eyes, and see what Heaven has sent them. Let them see the rights sent them by Heaven, out of which they �227 have been unjustly kept. One right—the dearest of all—is to have their children educated as human beings. There has been talk about compromise. We mean no compromise; it is well that that should be understood. The road has been laid down for you to-night; you have only to walk in it. It may be a little difficult, but it goes straight to the point, and if you follow it earnestly and with determination, you will find what you want. Mr. Dixon, M.P.: I rise with the greatest pleasure to second this resolution. We are extremely fortunate in having such a Mayor to help us as we have this year. I cannot forget that when I introduced, some time ago, into the Town Council a resolu­ tion on the subject of education, our present Mayor moved an amendment, because he said my resolution did not go far enough, and he carried his resolution, and the Town Council did that which was an honour to the town, and an example to the country; and we are now doing that which satisfies, I am happy to say, our Mayor. He is satisfied with us, and we are satisfied with him. The resolution was carried with acclamation. The Mayor : Ladies and gentlemen,—When my term of office be­ longs to the things of the past, there is no event connected with it that will give me so much pleasure, as that the formation of the Na­ tional Education League, and the great movement which has been inaugurated by it, took place during that term. Ladies and gen­ tlemen, I thank you. This terminated the proceedings. �1 �FIRST GENERAL MEETING, OCTOBER 12th and 13th, 1869. LIST OF VISITORS. Adair, Thomas, Derby. Adams, Francis, Birmingham, Secretary. Aitken, W. C., Birmingham. Albright, Arthur, Birmingham. Applebee, Rev. J. Kay, London. Applegarth, Robert, London. Ashford, W. W., Edgbaston. Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester. Bacchus, J. 0., Birmingham. Baker, George, Birmingham. Barber, Stephen, Birmingham. Barnett, William, Birmingham. Baron, Joshua, J.P., Over Darwen. Bartleet, Thomas S., Edgbaston. Basnett, George, Birmingham. Basnett, S., Birmingham. Bastard, Thomas Horlock, Blandford. Batchelor, John, Cardiff. Bayly, J., Plymouth. Beal, Michael, Sheffield. Beale, W. J., Birmingham. Beale, J. HE., Banbury. Beales, Edmond, London. Best, J., Andover. Bigwood, Rev. John, London. �230 Binns, Rev. William, Devonport. Black, Rev. Janies, M.A., Stockport. Blackham, G., Selly Oak. Bourne, Alfred, London. Bottomley, J. Firth, London. Bovill, W. J., London. Bray, Rev. Charles, Coventry. Bremner, John A., Manchester. Broadhurst, Samuel, Warrington. Brock, Rev. Dr. Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington. Brown, Rev. John Jenkyn, Birmingham. Brodrick, the Hon. George, London. Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham. Burman, R. H., Birmingham. Busk, Wm., M.R.C.P., F.S.A., &c., London. Butcher, W., Bristol. Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M. A., Bristol. Campbell, Lord, London. Carrington, R. C., Farnham. Carter, R. M., M.P., Leeds. Carter, John, Birmingham. Chamberlain, J. H., Birmingham. Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham, Chairman of Executive Com.. Chadwick, Edwin, C. B., London. Chapman, Samuel, Rochdale. Charles, David, Aberystwith. Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Edgbaston. Clarke, Edward G., Hon. Sec. Bristol Branch, Bristol. Clarke, Thomas Chatfield, London. Clarkson, Rev. W. F., B.A., Lincoln. Clayden, Rev. P. W., London. Coe, Rev. Charles C., Leicester. Colley, William, Leamington. Collings, Jesse, Birmingham, Hon. Sec. Congreve, Rev. John, Rector of Tooting, Graveney. Connor, Rev. W. A., B.A., Manchester. �231 Cole, Alfred A., Walsall. Cornish, Charles Leslie, Birmingham. Cox, Robert, Edinburgh. Cox, J. Charles, Hazlewood, Belper. Cremer, W. R., London. Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton Col., Oxford. Crosskey, Rev. H., F.G.S., Birmingham. Curme, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Sandford. Dale, Rev. R. W., M.A,, Birmingham. Davies, Rev. F., D.D., Haverfordwest. Dawson, George, M.A., Birmingham. Dixon, George, M.P., Birmingham, Chairman of the Council of the League. Dowson, Rev. H. E., Hyde. Draper, E. Herbert, Kenilworth. Earl, William, Birmingham. Edwards, Richard Passmore, Bath. Edwards, Charles H., Birmingham. Ellenberger, Dr., Worksop. Ellis, J. H., Leicester. Emanuel, Rev. G. J., Edgbaston. Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton Coll., Oxford. Evans, Rev. C., Birmingham. Fawcett, Professor. Fawcett, Mrs. Felkin, Robert, Wolverhampton. Field, Alfred, Birmingham. Fillingham, John Charles, Sanitary Inspector, Sheffield. Fish, John, J.P., Blackburn. Fooks, William, L.L.B., London. Foster, Dr. Balthazer. Franklin, Geo. B., Birmingham. Fry, Herbert, Hon. Sec. of the London Branch, London. �232 Galpin, Thomas D., London. Gasquoine, Rev. T., B.A., Oswestry. Gaunt, Edwin, Leeds. Geikie, Rev. J. Cunningham, London. George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford. Gillions, Charles Edward B., Bedford. Glydon, William, Birmingham. Gore, George, F.R.S., Edgbaston. Gosling, Alfred, Birmingham. Grattan, John James, Sheffield. Grayson, Charles, Liverpool. Green, T. H., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Green, Thomas, Birmingham. Greg, Louis, Liverpool. Grenfell, E. F., M.A., Rugby. Grew, Frederick, Birmingham. Griffith, Geo., Wolverhampton. Guedalla, Joseph, London. Guest, William, F.G.S., Gravesend. Guile, Daniel, London. Guise, Sir Wm. Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester. Guttery, Rev. Thomas, Wolverhampton. Haarbleicher, M. J., Manchester. Hall, James, Sheffield. Hammer, Geo. M., London. Hansard, Rev. Septimus, M.A., Rector of Bethnal Green. Harris, William, Birmingham. Harrison, John, Birmingham. Hatton, Joseph. Hawkes, Aiderman H., Birmingham. Haycroft, Rev. Dr. Haye, E., Stoney Stratford. Heinrick, Hugh, Birmingham. Heath, Rev. E., Blackburn. Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington. Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London. Heslop, T. P., M.D., Birmingham. �233 Hibbs, Charles, Birmingham. Hill, Alsager Hay, London. Hills, Harris, Essex. Hime, Dr., A.B., M.B., Sheffield. Hinds, Miss, St. Neots, Hunts. Hodgson, W. B., LL.D., London. Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham. Holliday, William, J.P., Birmingham. Holyoake. George J., London. Houghton, Rev. C. E., Rugby. Hosken, R. F., Leamington. Howell, George, London. Hudson, J. Davidson, Birmingham. Huhne, Thomas, Stoke-on-Trent. Jacob, Alfred, Birmingham. Jaffray, John, Birmingham, Treasurer. James, William, Edgbaston. James, E. H., Birmingham. James, Rev. Wm., Bristol. Johnson, G. J., Birmingham. Jones, Lewis, Birmingham. Jones, Lloyd, London. Jordan, Henry, Birmingham Exchange. Jubb, Rev. W. Walker, West Smethwick. Judge, Thomas, Brackley. Klein, Dr. Julius, London. Kempson, W., Leicester. Kenrick, William, Birmingham. Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Edgbaston. Kenrick, T., Edgbaston. Langford, John Alfred, Birmingham. Ladd, W., London. Lake, Rev. J. W., Warwick. Le Neve Foster, P., London. Lester, Wm., Wrexham. �234 Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham. Long, William, jun., Warrington. Longmore, J., Worcester. Luckett, Rev. Henry, West Bromwich. Maclean, L. M., Worcester. Macfie, Rev. M., Birmingham. Mackenzie, Rev. J. R., D.D., Edgbaston. McRae, Robert, Birmingham. Mantle, George H., Birmingham. Manton, Aiderman Henry, Birmingham. Manton, John S., Birmingham. Martin, Robert, M.D., Warrington. Martineau, R., Edgbaston. Martineau, R. F., Edgbaston. Mason, W., Leeds. Matthews, Evans, Birmingham. Mathews, C. E., Birmingham. Maxse, Capt., R.N., Southampton. McDougal, Rev. J. M., Darwen. Miall, Rev. William, Dalston. Middlemore, William, J.P., Birmingham. Millard, James H., B.A., Sec. of the Baptist]Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Milner, Edward, J.P., Warrington. Milward, R. H., Birmingham. Moore, Septimus P., LL.B., F.G.S., London. Morison, Colonel. Morgan, William, Birmingham. Mundella, A. J., M.P., Nottingham. Murch, Jerom, Bath. Muspratt, Edmund R., Liverpool Naden, Joseph, Sheffield. Nash, Thomas, Manchester. Noel, Ernest, Godstone, Surrey. �235 Odger, George, London. Olding, B. Olsen, Samuel, Birmingham. Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham. Osborne, William, York. Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham. Owen, Edward, Lee Port. Paget, Charles, Buddington Grange, Notts. Palmer, W., M.R.C.P., Warwick. Park, John, Walsall. Parkhurst, R. M., L.L.D., Manchester. Partridge, J. Arthur, Birmingham. Paton, W., Atherstone. Payton, Henry, Birmingham. Pears, Edwin, London. Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Bristol. Peiser, J., Manchester. Pentecost, John, Stourbridge. Peyton, H., Birmingham. Phillips, Thomas, J.P., Birmingham. Pliillpotts, J. S., B.C.L., Rugby. Pinnock, R., Mayor, Newport, Isle of Wight. Popplewell, W. J., Manchester. Postgate, John, Birmingham. Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle. Prange, F. G., Liverpool. Priddy, G. M., M.D., Wolverhampton. Pryse, Joseph, London. Quin, F. B. Wyndham, LL.D., F.R.G.S., Market Drayton.. Rabone, John, Birmingham. Rafferty, Michael, Birmingham. Ransom, Edwin, Bedford. Ransome, R. C., Ipswich. Rawling, S. B., Devonport. Rawlins, James H., Wrexham. �236 Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, Upton-on-Severn. Richards, S. Wall, Birmingham. Richards, Rev. James, Stourbridge. Robertson, Dover, Liverpool. Rogers, W., Edgbaston. Rogers, Rev. Wm., London. Rogers, James E. Thorold, Oxford. Rothera, G. B., Nottingham. Rumney, Aiderman Robert, Manchester. Rusden, R. W., Manchester. Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham. Ryland, T. H., Birmingham. Sandford, the Ven. Archdeacon, Redditch. Sandwith, H., Llandovery. Salwey, Col. Henry, Runnymede. Sayle, Philip, Liver-pool. Schnadhorst, Frank, Birmingham. Sharp, James, Southampton. Shelley, Rev. Richard, Great Yarmouth. Simon, Serjeant, M.P. Simon, Louis, Nottingham. Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil. Smith, Joseph, M.D., Warrington. Solly, Rev. H., London. Soul, Joseph, London. Spark, H. H., Darlington. Sykes, James Albert, Liverpool. St. Clair, George, Banbury. Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester. Stepney, W. F. Cowell, London. Stevenson, George, Leicester. Swinglehurst, Henry, Milnethorpe. Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield. Taylor, J., Sheffield. Taylor, Rev. Sedley, Cambridge. Thomas, Joshua, Birmingham. �237 Thomas, John, South Shields. Thomas, J. H., Cardiff. Thompson, H. B. S., Birmingham. Thompson, James, Leicester. Tilley, Alfred, Cardiff. Timmins, Samuel, Birmingham. Tobley, James S., London. Tufnell, E., Carlton, London. Tunstall, E., Smethwick. Turner, George, Birmingham. Underwood, Rev. Wm., D.D., Chilwell College, Notts.. Vickers, Wm., J.P., Nottingham. Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham. Webb, Edward, Worcester. Webster, John, Birmingham. Webster, Thomas, Q.C., London. Wells, James, Northampton. Williams, H. M., London. Williams, R., West Bromwich. Williams, Rev. Rowland, D.D., Broadchalk. Williamson, W.B., Worcester. Whitehead, James, Catford Bridge, London. Wood, William Robert, Brighton. Woodhill, J. C., Edgbaston. Wright, J. S., Birmingham. Wynne, T., Stone. Yates, Aiderman Edwin, Birmingham. Zincke, Rev. F. B., Ipswich. With many others, whose names have not been ascertained. THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM. �' Ji ft! ;Hli 7/ ,!>a»W ..'■J i v ....'crrMT ./• .1 '' it: jjjoV/ ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 & 13, 1869 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource National Education League Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Birmingham Collation: 237 p. : 21 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available 'The Journal' Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1869 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5188 Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 &amp; 13, 1869), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Education National Education League https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53bfa41313db56eccb63212164c15c29.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=lEUGvoZiGpUpDfyH28WR-4M3hjjyyIsZRLv8J0JjpPfaavKFNNsJDe2AAczv%7EAUgwSNPqPPz8qEgDUn83E73Zkcw66Qv%7ENiojmoIOHpniCeROvYzt0gUjfs4ZJu3QNYEPi60Oa4ecwkN5QRKCuCB0cV-M7nqY%7Emcv9-9wPMavDgcJNjuBiQ7js3OhioD1ViUhJlbno8jhXlWjSoXHOnzl7x3uhqQevqZkKcLagDf9mqxiCZtrqMKEUy2oi4NhV%7ErmX6tVduJwwqXuhHSAL8VWtgupHgJyzmf7WGQL-yHReJwNZTzcATUnpETYzg61Sz2QVRjMyZn-mImpoowKhEbIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 69c80e3607ec801e86ef41f04ce465fb PDF Text Text �J 'ML A �In establishing a college on the ordinary basis, and with the ordinary scope, there are few difficulties which earnest men and moderate means will not readily surmount. The course required is simple and single; the equipment is compact; instructors are readily found for every department; precedents at every point are abundant. But the work committed to the Trustees of the Cornell Univer-. sity is far larger, far more complicated. In most cases it has few available precedents, in many it has none. The committee upon organization, therefore, cannot hope to present a plan which shall cover every point likely to arise in carrying on the institution now to be commenced; but they hope to present a plan which shall aid in setting the University in operation, and to suggest ideas which will aid it in developing healthfully and largely. Theory of the Plan of Organization. The theory on which the committee have based their plan is that throughout the national and State legislation preparatory to the establishment of the institution, and also throughout the ideas of the founder of the Cornell University, as explained to us by himself, are two leading convictions as to the educational needs of the country, and two corresponding ideas as to meeting these needs. Each of these convictions, and its corresponding idea, is sepa­ rate and distinct, yet each is necessary to the other. The first of these convictions is that there exists a necessity never yet fully met, for thorough education in various special departments, and, among them, the science and practice of Agri­ culture, Industrial Mechanics, and kindred departments of thought and action. The corresponding practical idea is that institutions be founded where such instruction can be conducted with every appliance necessary in discovering truth and in diffusing truth; that such instruction be not subordinated to any other; that the agricultural and industrial professions be regarded as the peers ’of �every other; that access to these departments be opened as widely as possible, and progress in them be pushed as far as possible. The second of these convictions is that the system of collegiate instruction now dominant leaves unsatisfied the wants of a very large number, and perhaps the majority of those who desire an advanced general education; that although there are great num­ bers of noble men doing noble work in the existing system, it has devoted its strength and machinery mainly to a single combination of studies, into which comparatively few enter heartily; that where more latitude in study has been provided for, all courses outside the single traditional course have been considered to imply a lower caste in those taking them; that the higher general educa­ tion has therefore lost its hold upon the majority of the trusted leaders of society, that it has therefore become under-estimated and distrusted by a majority of the people at large, and that there­ fore it is neglected by a majority of our young men of energy and ability. The corresponding practical idea is that colleges of wider scope be founded; that no single course be insisted upon for all alike; that various combinations of studies be provided to meet various minds and different plans; thus presenting a general course to meet that general want which existing colleges fail to satisfy. Fundamental Plan of Instruction. The labor imposed upon us then is two-fold. First, we are to make provision for special courses—special instruction in the departments of agriculture, mechanic arts, &c. Secondly, we are to provide a general course—a general course in which such instruction and culture be afforded as shall be de­ manded by the young men who come to group themselves in the different special courses. Even if it should be claimed that the whole effort of the trus­ tees ought to be devoted to agriculture and the mechanic arts alone; even if we were to construe away the plain words of the original act of Congress, which speaks of “other scientific and classical branches ” as part of the object of the government grant of lands, still the oft-repeated declaration of our founder that he “ wishes to make such provision that every person can find oppor­ tunity here to pursue any study he desires,” would be our suffi­ cient warrant in using at least his munificent gift in supplementing �5 the special instruction with general instruction, and rounding it out into the proportions of an university. • Again, even were we to found merely technical schools, giving instruction merely in special departments, the committee believe that we should be very soon obliged to supplement these special courses with a general course. Common sense, as well as general experience teaches that there must be some variation in mental labor. With rare exceptions, any man who pursues one science or art alone, devoting his mind entirely to that, though he may at first progress rapidly, soon shows that such progress is not normal. It is very firmly believed that the great majority of men who wish to attain a high place in any science or art, can rise higher, even in that, by enlarging the mind by some parallel studies, than by narrowing the mind constantly to their single pursuit. Such contracted study gives facility and accuracy, but it is too often fatal to the qualities which ensure eminence. Your committee are therefore of the opinion that there should be two great divisions of the university. The first division should comprise the separate departments devoted each to a special science and art. The second division should comprise the department of Science, Literature and the Arts in general. In accordance with this division is presented the following plan: Organization of Instruction. I. Division of Special Sciences and Arts. 1. Department of Agriculture. 2. Department of Mechanic Arts. 3. Department of Civil Engineering. 4. Department of Commerce and Trade. 5. Department of Mining. 6. Department of Medicine and Surgery. 7. Department of Law. 8. Department of Jurisprudence, Political Science and History, 9. Department of Education. II. Division of Science, Literature and the Arts in General. 1. 1st General Course. 2. 2d General Course. 3. 3d General Course. 4. Scientific Course. 5. Optional Course. �6 The character of each of the departments named in the first division is in the main, sufficiently explained by its title. Details of courses of instruction in each cannot well be arranged until, the trustees shall have consulted with the faculty, and it is recom­ mended that at periods previous to the commencement of active instruction, the Academic Senate be requested to convene for the purpose of discussing.this subject and presenting plans. But there is one department, regarding which, perhaps, some explanation is needed here : the department of Jurisprudence— Political and Social Science, and History. We believe that although there will be some attention to these subjects in the general course, there is need of a separate depart­ ment devoted to a study of them, wider and deeper. We believe too, that such a department should be established so soon as we approximate a full corps of professors. In various connections with institutions of learning, and in various public employments, the committee have been convinced: First—That great numbers of the most active young men long for such a department, would work vigorously in it, and would secure good discipline by it, and that these young men are many of them not attracted to the existing colleges. o o Secondly.—We believe that the State and nation are constantly injured by their chosen servants, who lack the simplest rudiments of knowledge which such a department could supply. No one can stand in any legislative position and not be struck with the frequent want in men otherwise strong and keen, of the simplest knowledge of principles essential to public welfare. Of technical knowledge of law, and of practical acquaintance with business, the supply is always plentiful, but it is very common that in leciding great public questions, exploded errors in political and social science are revamped, fundamental principles of law disre­ garded, and the plainest teachings of history ignored. In any republic, and especially in this, the most frequent ambi­ tion among young men will be to rise to positions in the public service, and the committee think it well at least to attempt to provide a department in view of the wants of these; a depart­ ment where there should be something more than a mere glance over one or two superseded text books,—where there should be large and hearty study and comparison of the views and methods of Guizot, and Mill, and Lieber, and Woolsey, and Bastiat, and Carey, and Mayne, and others. �There are among you, gentlemen of the board of trustees, representatives of every walk in life, of every important profes­ sion, of every party. There are among you, representatives of the highest state and national employments, and we appeal to you for corroboration of the statement, that whatever may be the opinion of cloistered men, the opinion of men active in the world at large, is decided, that there is a great branch of instruction here, for which the existing colleges make no adequate provision. It may be said that the function of colleges is to give discipline, that knowledge is subordinate. We answer that they should give both, and that as a rule, the attempt to give mental discipline by studies which the mind does not desire, is as unwise as to attempt to give physical nourishment by food which the body does not desire. Discipline comes not by studies which are “droned over.” Again, we believe that the knowledge given, is far more important than many would have us think. The main stock in political economy and history of most of our educated public men, is what they learned before they studied for their professions. Many an absurdity uncorrected at college has been wrought into the constitutions and statutes of our great commonwealths, and when we consider that constitution making for new states and old, is to be the great work in this country, of this and succeeding generations, surely, we do well to attempt more thorough instruc­ tion of those on whom the work is likely to fall. . One other department, needs, perhaps a few words of explan­ ation—that of Commerce and Trade. Throughout the country have sprung up schools known as “commercial colleges.” The number of persons attending them is such as to show that they meet a want widely felt, and the idea has suggested itself that at some future day it might be well to try the experiment of a department under the above name, in which a more thorough and large instruction could be given, than in those at present so numerous. Anything which will bring some university culture to bear upon those preparing to lead in commerce and trade, will be a benefit to the country. How far it can be done your com­ mittee will not venture to say. At least one great European uni­ versity has kept up a course of this sort for many years. In the second division, it is necessary to give a more detailed explanation of courses, and ideas upon which the courses are based. �8 The 11 First General Course ” comprises a combination of studies mainly like the classical course at the existing colleges. The “ Second General Course,” comprises a combination of studies like the first, with the substitution of the German lano-uao’o for the Greek. Giving, as such a course would, the two great elements of our language, the Romanic and the Teutonic, it is believed that it would be received with great favor by many of the best minds dissatisfied with the existing college courses. The “Third General Course,” comprises the same studies as the previous courses, except that the two languages studied are French and German. The “ Scientific Course'' is combined in view of the wants of those who intend devoting themselves wholly or mainly to the natural sciences. The “ Optional Course" is one in which the student is required to choose three subjects of study from all those pursued in the University, and to pass examination therein. This it is believed, will add greatly to the efficiency of the institution. It is a course permitted in some of the great universities of continental Europe, and with excellent results. It has been tried thoroughly at the State University of Michigan, and to nothing in its organization is that institution more indebted for its acknowledged efficiency. It is not recommended that all these departments be established at once. The Cornell University must have a development—a growth, though it is believed that its growth may be very rapid. But your committee do not hesitate to declare their belief that neither of these departments will attain full efficiency until all are established. They believe that each additional department and additional course will strengthen every other, by attracting more and more earnest minds among teachers and taught; by stimula­ ting emulation among professors and students: by throwing light upon each science and art from every other; by presenting every element of the best culture. The committee, however, recommend the immediate establish­ ment only of so much of the first division as is embraced in the departments of Agriculture, the Mechanic Arts, Civil Engineer­ ing and Mining. o o They recommend the immediate establishment of so many courses in the second division as shall be found necessary to meet the wants of the students presenting themselves at the beginning of the first term. �9 In the second division it seems advisable to present some ideas which have influenced them in determining the courses into which the division is separated. University Liberty in Choice of Studies. The first question which arises in arranging general plans of instruction is as to the amount of liberty to be allowed the student in selecting his course. On one hand are they who declare that students at the usual age of entering college are unfit to select a course, and that it must be chosen for them. Of those taking this view are some men held in deserved honor throughout the country. Ou the other hand are they who declare that the usual imposi­ tion of a single, fixed course is fatal to any true university spirit in this country; that it cramps colleges and men; that it has much to do with that strange anomaly under the existing system— scholars stepping out of the highest scholastic positions in college classes into nonentity in active life; that it has been the main agent in bringing about that relaxation of the hold which colleges once had upon the nation, which all thoughtful men deplore. The committee see much truth in the latter view. They think that the first view contains a fallacy in the virtual assumption that because a young student is not aperfect judge regarding his com­ plete wants, therefore he is no judge at all, and shall have others to choose for him; and but one course opened to their choice. We hold, indeed, that most students need advice as to details of study, and that probably none could construct the best possible course of study; but we also hold that an overwhelming majority of students are competent to choose between different courses of study, carefully balanced and arranged by men who have brought thought and experience to the work. By the aid of older friends, and the faculty of the university, a young man ought to be able to make a choice based upon his previous education and means of future education—-upon his tastes, position and ambition. Cer­ tainly the results could not be more wretched under such a sys­ tem than under the existing system, even by the confession of its most earnest advocates. The committee have carried out these views by naming different courses, so that while the student may have the benefit of the ex­ perience of men older than himself, he may have some liberty of choice; and they have added one course, giving to more mature students complete freedom of choice. �10 . Leading Disciplinary Studies in a General Course. The next question which arises regarding a general course, is as to the classes of studies to be relied upon for mental discipline, fundamental knowledge and general culture. A large party unhesitatingly declare for the Greek and Latin classics. They believe that nothing else gives so valuable a disci­ pline or so perfect a culture. The committee declare here their belief in the great value of classical studies. They do not hesitate to advise those who have time and taste for them to study them—the Greek for its wonder­ ful perfection—the Latin for its great practical value as a key to modern languages and to the nomenclature of modern sciences— and both Greek and Latin for their value in the cultivation of judgment. But while it is believed that these studies ought to hold an honored place, the committee are strongly opposed to the attempt to fetter all students to them, if for no other reason be­ cause this would be to defeat the plain intentions of those who framed the act of Congress to which the establishment of the uni­ versity is due. In the courses provided, the modern languages most in use, and the sciences which in theory and practice have in latter years attained such great importance, must be recognized at their full value in imparting instruction, and in securing mental discipline. The committee cannot forbear noticing here a fallacy regarding mental discipline which they will endeavor to avoid in presenting courses of study. That fallacy consists in the idea that the only mental discipline is that which promotes a certain keenness and precision of mind. We believe that there is another kind of mental discipline quite as valuable—discipline for breadth of mind. For the former, such studies as mathematics and philology are urged; for the latter, such studies as history and literature. To say that the latter are not disciplinary is to ignore, perhaps, the most important part of mental discipline. In American life there will always be enough keenness and sharpness of mind. But the danger is that there will be neglect of those noble studies which enlarge the mental horizon and increase mental powers in reaching out toward it—studies which give material for thought and suggestions for thought upon the great field of the history of civilization. Happily no studies are more enjoyed by the best American stu­ dents than those which give this mental breadth—historical and �11 political studies. This being the case, there need be no fears as to their value in mental discipline, for discipline comes by studies which are loved, not by studies which are loathed. There is no discipline to be obtained in droning over studies. Vigorous, energetic study, prompted by enthusiasm or a high sense of the value of the subject, is the only kind of study not positively hurt­ ful to mental power. Hence the great evil of insisting on the same curriculum for all students, regardless of their tastes or plans. Combination and Separation of Professorships. In making provision for these different departments it will be seen that they interpenetrate each other, one professorship frequently extending through two or three departments. So frequently is this the case, that it will be seen to be impos­ sible to provide professors fully for any one department without at the same time, making almost sufficient provision for the others. Of the professorships to be filled at an early day, we would present the following schedule :— 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. 5th. 6th. 7th. 8th. 9tb. I. Department of Agriculture. Professor of the Theory and Practice of Agriculture. Professor of Agricultural Chemistry. Professor of General and Analytical Chemistry. Professor of Geology and Mineralogy. Professor of Zoology and comparative anatomy. Professor of Botany. Professor of Civil Engineering. Professor of Veterinary Surgery and Breeding of Animals. Physiology, Hygiene, and Physical Culture. 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. 5th. 6th. II. Department of Mechanics. Professor of Physics and Industrial Mechanics. Professor of Civil Engineering. Professor of Architecture. Professor of General and Analytical Chemistry. Professor of Geology and Mineralogy. Professor of Mathematics. III. Department of Civil Engineering. 1st. Professor of Civil Engineering. 2d. Professor of Architecture. �12 3d. Professor of Physics and Industrial Mechanics. 4th. Professor of Geology and Mineralogy. 5th. Professor of Mathematics. 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. Professor Professor Professor Professor IV. Department of Mining. of Mining and Metallurgy. of Civil Engineering. of Geology and Mineralogy. of General and Analytical Chemistry. V. Department of Science, Literature, and the Arts. 1st. Professor of Moral and Mental Philosophy. 2d. Professor of History. 3d. Professor of Political Economy. 4th. Professor of Municipal Law. 5th. Professor of Constitutional Law. 6th. Professor of Ancient Languages. 7th. Professor of French and South European Languages. 8th. Professor of German and North European Languages. 9th. Professor of English Language and Literature. 10th. Professor of Rhetoric, Oratory and Vocal Culture. 11th. Professor of Mathematics. 12 th. Professor of Astronomy. 13th. Professor of Physics and Industrial Mechanics. 14th. Professor of Geology and Mineralogy. 15th. Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. 16th. Professor of Botany. 17th. Professor of Physiology, Hygiene and Physical Culture. 18th. Professor of Chemistry, General and Analytical. 19th. Professor of ^Esthetics, and the History of the Fine Arts. 20th. Professor of Architecture. 21st. Professor of Military Tactics. 22d. Professor of Physical Geography and Meteorology. The entire university, therefore, would comprise the following professorships:— 1. Theory and Practice of Agriculture. 2. Agricultural Chemistry. 3. Veterinary Surgery and the Breeding of Animals. 4. General and Analytical Chemistry. 5. Botany. �13 6. Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. 7. Geology and Mineralogy. 8. Physics and Industrial Mechanics. 9. Mathematics. 10. Astronomy. 11. Civil Engineering. 12. Physiology, Hygiene and Physical Culture. 13. Moral and Physical Culture. 14. History. 15. Political Economy. 16. Municipal Law. 17. Constitutional Law. 18. Rhetoric, Oratory and Vocal Culture. 19. English Language and Literature. 20. French, and South European Languages. 21. German, and North European Languages. 22. Ancient Languages.* 23. ./Esthetics, and History of the Fine Arts. 24. Architecture. 25. Military Tactics and Engineering. 26. Physical Geography and Meteorology. It will be seen, therefore, that there are twenty-six professor­ ships needed at an early day. But it is not thought that it will be necessary to have so many separate professorships at once, nor to place all upon the same basis. Some professors must, to be efficient, reside permanently at the seat of the university, giving daily recitations or lectures, and conducting daily experiments. Some will be perfectly efficient by a temporary residence, during which recitations are heard, or lectures given. Hence occurs at once, another division of a kind very different from any we have previously made—the division into resident and non­ resident professors. Having in view this division, the committee present the follow­ ing schedule:— 1. 2. 3. 4. Resident Professors. Theory and Practice of Agriculture Agricultural Chemistry. General and Analytical Chemistry. Botany. ■To be separated into two or more professorships when circumstances shall demand it. �14 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. Geology and Mineralogy. Physics and Industrial Mechanics. Mathematics. Astronomy. Civil Engineering. Moral and Mental Philosophy. History. Rhetoric, Oratory and Vocal Culture. French, and South European Languages. German, and North European Languages. Ancient Languages. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Non-Resident Professors. Veterinary Surgery and the Breeding of Animals. Physiology, Hygiene and Physical Culture. Political Economy. Municipal Law. Constitutional Law. English Language and Literature. ^Esthetics and the History of the Fine Arts. Architecture. Military Tactics and Engineering. Physical Geography and Meteorology. Temporary Modifications of the Plan. The question now arises, how much of this plan can be made practical during the first year—how many of th3se professors can we employ to advantage while the university is beginning its operations? Two plans suggest themselves. The first is to fill all these chairs immediately, to make a beginning which shall give us a reputation at once, to strike public attention on the first day of the first term, by a large programme fully carried out. The second plan is to hold during the first year, some professor­ ships in abeyance, and of the remaining departments to combine temporarily, several in one, thus commencing in a manner less striking, feeling our way somewhat at first, finding gradually what are the departments most needed. The committee pronounce for the latter method. The policy of the Cornell University has not been to make much proclamation �15 of great purposes. Its founder has steadily gone on, always performing more than his promises, and there are goodly signs that the university authorities have caught his spirit. Two of the noblest buildings for university purposes in the United States have been reared; but there has been no pompous laying of corner­ stones, no loud proclamations of new discoveries in the theory and practice of education, no publication of programmes out of all proportion to revenues, and it is to be hoped that we shall not begin an ad captandum policy now. The only question worthy of us is: What does the university practically need the first year? It is believed that the duties may be so arranged that during the first year eight or ten professors will be sufficient. Possible Modifications of the Plan in Future. Such is a general scheme offered as a point of departure in arranging professorships. The committee know well that in details it must often be departed from. The peculiar talents of a valuable member of the faculty, have much to do with the final shaping of the list of professorships. The demands made by stu­ dents have also very much to do with it. A great demand upon the professorship of Physiology, Hygiene and Physical Culture, would make it necessary to change it from the non-resident to the resident list, and so with others. The number of students too, must have a very great influence on this matter. As numbers increase, professorships must be sub­ divided. Thus, until the numbers are large, the professor of Physics can discharge the duties of professor of Industrial Mechanics, but afterwards the latter department would probably be detached. As numbers increase, too, some departments will require assistants. In some departments one system must be pursued and the responsibility fixed on one man; it cannot therefore be divided. But when numbers are greatly increased, it will probably be necessary to appoint an assistant professor or instructor, who should be subject as regards their plan of instruction, to the head of the department. As any department developes also, it will be necessary to subdivide it, and increase the number of professor­ ships in it. Thus, for example, the department of Civil Engineer­ ing, would be separated into three or four new departments, each devoted to a special part of the work, and then must be added instructors in geometrical and topographical drawing, &c. �Non-resident Professors for short terms, or University Lecturers. But there is a feature in the full organization which the committee ask the trustees to consider especially. It is one which several educators have in the recent years arrived at independ­ ently of each other. It is one promising great results, but demanding great care. This is the establishment of a system of non-resident, short term professors, or university lecturers. The plan is as follows : Have the full equipment of full term profes­ sors above given, let the trustees elect each year a small number of short-term professors or lecturers, from among the most distin­ guished in their several departments, in this or other states; let no general rule as to term of service, number of lecturers or compensation be laid down, but let such special agreement be made between each person thus called and the trustees, as shall best secure the object desired. Let the professors thus selected be either persons who are accepted as authorities regarding matters upon which they discourse, or persons whose talents, acquirements and reputations are of the highest. Let them deliver, each, a certain number of lectures, representing in a form and style as nearly suited to their audiences as possible, what they themselves, consider the highest results, or a summary of the main results of their labors. Let their course of lectures be fully announced in the public prints to the country at large. The advantage of such an addition to the regular means of instruction, are believed to be very great. First, great good would doubtless result to the Resident Faculty. The great difficulty with bodies of professors remote from great cities, and centres of thought and action is, that they lose connec­ tion with the world at large, save through books; they become provincial in spirit ; they lose that enthusiasm which contact with other leading minds in the same pursuits would arouse; they “ breed in and in;” their whole range of thought becomes inevitably narrow. But, under this system now proposed, there would be a constant influx of light and life from the great centres of thought and action. The resident professors would be thrown into close relations at once, with the special professors thus called. Their views would be enlarged, their efforts stimulated, their whole life quickened. Secondly, great good would result to students in regular attend­ ance. A great difficulty among students assembled in college is �17 a regularity in routine, a dullness, a listlessness, a want of enthu­ siasm. The general result of this, as regards study, is that it is done mechanically; that most of the scholarly work is poor in quality and small in quantity. The general result as regards conduct, is that too often, in a spirit of reaction against this listless­ ness, the energies which would do great things if directed to study, are directed to dissipation. It is believed by your committee that if these special professors were men of the greatest ability and eminence, an enthusiasm might be aroused among the students in regard to various departments of knowledge, which would direct their energies mainly into channels of study and thought. The objection has indeed been made that these special courses might cause confusion and dissipation in the minds of the students. It is believed, however, that this will be the result with compara­ tively few students, and even with these but temporarily. It is believed that in the great majority of cases, the enthusiasm created will far outweigh in good effects any evil effects arising from the disturbance of the regular routine. Thirdly, great good would result to large portions of the pub­ lic in general, which under ordinary circumstances would not avail itself of the ordinary privileges of the University. It is believed that such special courses of lectures by distinguished men would attract large numbers of citizens for brief terms, resulting in good to them and to society at large, by an immediate extension of the activity of the University among the matured minds and men already in active life. Fourthly, great good would result to the University itself. It would enable the University to make a division of labor, selecting members of the Resident Faculty, for their energy and working ability, selecting men who have a name to make and ability to make it, and not selecting men for the resident professors—for the hard work of the University—who have attained eminence and so outlived their willingness to do hard work. Again, it would greatly strengthen the University as to reputa­ tion. Let there be widely published each year, in leading jour­ nals, in addition to a meritorious Resident Faculty, a number of special professors or lecturers, whose ability in research, or in presenting the results of research, is acknowledged, and the insti­ tution would arrive in a very short time at a height of reputation which other institutions have failed to achieve during long years of ordinary administration. 2 �Again, the system thus proposed would strengthen the Univer* sity by attracting great numbers of students. The same simple reasoning which we have used to show that this system would give the University efficiency and power, also shows that it would draw great numbers of students. Nor would such a result be merely gratifying to pride. There is an educating force of no mean value in the presence of a very large body of students—a means of education through large acquaintance, and through wide observation of character—a stimu­ lus to effort through emulation, which in a small group can hardly be attained. Character of Scholarship in Professors. The question next arises, what manner of men shall these pro­ fessors be? To maintain the efficiency and reputation of the University, its faculty must constantly keep in view two great objects: first,-the discovery of truth; secondly, the diffusion of truth. By a certain class of men deservedly in high repute, there has been fostered a spirit which tends not to the undue exaltation of the discovery of new truth in science, for that cannot be unduly exalted, but to the undue depreciation of the diffusion of scientific truth. Your committee believe that in the selection of a faculty, neither of these two great functions of every professor should be exalted at the expense of the other. It is not doubted that in the largest minds devoted to science, the power of discovering truth and the power of imparting it, are almost invariably found together. Men should be sought for the faculty who can go on discovering truth and imparting it. But it should not be forgotten that in an insti­ tution of learning, facility and power in imparting truth are even more necessary than in discovering it. Where can these Professors be Found? Many persons of high standing have answered this question much as follows: “Your endowment is large: select the greatest men in this country and other countries. Have perhaps fewer professors, but range the country through and take from the lead­ ing institutions their leading men, the men who give standing to science, literature and art in America. Have the best.” Other persons thoughtfully considering this problem have ans­ �19 wered the question in a very different way: “ Your endowment is indeed large, but it has to cover an immense field. The most effi­ cient men for professorships are by no means necessarily those most frequently paraded in newspapers. Often a hard working man, who has never arrived at more than a local reputation, or a young man who has not arrived at any reputation at all, is practi­ cally better than men whose reputation is made, and who have out­ lived the necessity of hard thought and work.” There are important elements of truth in both these responses; but your committee would answer this question as follows: The division of the instructing body into the three great classes of resident, non-resident and special professors or lecturers, already recommended, suggests a solution of the problem. To bring the University to the highest standard in science, lite­ rature and the arts, at once,—to get such general advantages as come from distinguished men and great names,—have a careful eye to the selection of special lecturers; secure men for courses of twelve or fifteen or twenty lectures, who, while they could not at any sum be engaged permanently, can be secured for so short a term by liberal compensation and the display of a promising field of labor. If it be said that such instruction will be fragmentary and super­ ficial, we answer, that we believe such an assertion to be a great mistake. The greatest course of lectures ever delivered before an University,—the one which remodeled the science of history, and which is felt to-day in every historical treatise of repute, con­ sisted of but fifteen lectures. We refer to Guizot’s renowned lectures on civilization ; and there are multitudes of similar exam­ ples. But for the steady hard work of the regular resident faculty, it would be vain to seek such eminent men. It would cost immense sums to take even a few of them out of the high places into which they have climbed ; to tear them from the associations of a life­ time ; to take them from the midst of their assistants, and to put them again into a fresh field to begin their life-work anew. To take Agassiz permanently from Cambridge, we must outbid the Emperor of the French, who has already offered the most tempting prizes in vain. To take Dana permanently from Yale, or Dwight or Lieber from Columbia, Guyot from Princeton, or Park from Andover, would require our whole income ; and it is even then doubtful whether �20 these men would do our work well as resident professors, building up a new institution. The opinion of the committee is, that the better course for filling the resident body is to find out the names and characteristics of of the most promising young men, who, under these distinguished professors, have already commenced a career. Select those who have a name to make, and who can make it. We can thus secure enthusiasm, energy, ambition, willingness to work, and without paying enormous salaries. We do not, indeed, advise making up the faculty entirely of such young men. It would be judicious to select from the most successful instructors in the existing schools and colleges, men of more experience to give the faculty steadiness ; but as a rule, the committee believe that for a time, at least, the University must rely upon young men for the hard work in building up this great benefaction to the State and Naticn. General Culture of Professors. But while the first thing to be sought in professors is ability to discover truth and to impart it, there is another requirement of hardly less importance—general good culture and manliness. If, to secure some great genius in any special department, we have to bear with some lack of general culture, we ought perhaps to sacrifice the lower qualifications for the higher ; but nothing short of such extreme necessity should lead us to place men of a low grade, as to general culture, among young men whose habits of thinking and living are just receiving the form and impress which they are to bear during life. This University must not only make scholars : it has a higher duty ; it must make men—men manly, earnest, and of good gen­ eral culture. We must not make the mistake so common in older colleges—in selecting to govern and guide bright, high-spirited young men, tutors who do not and cannot know anything of the world and of what the world is thinking,—instructors who lead students to associate learning with boorishness or clownishness. We must make no man an instructor simply because he is poor or pious or a “squatter” on the college domain. We must have men who are what we would have our sons be, and we must have them at any cost. And here the committee desire to say, that for instruction in modern languages, as a rule, our best course is to secure Amcri- �21 cans. The slight advantage in correct accent possessed by an instructor from a foreign country is almost always too dearly pur­ chased by sacrifice of the qualities which ensure success in lectures or recitations. This suggestion is not made, of course, in any narrow spirit of dislike for men of foreign birth, but under the certainty that teaching American young men by foreigners has almost universally proved a failure, both as to instruction and discipline. Methods of bringing the General Culture of BEAR UPON THE STUDENTS. Professors to One of the saddest deficiencies in existing colleges is want of free intercourse, and even of acquaintance, between professors and students. In most of the larger colleges the great mass of stu­ dents know really nothing of either President or Professors. They are generally strangers, or worse than strangers. They have met in lecture rooms or recitation rooms, but they have met as natural enemies. Their only conversation outside the lecture room has been when the student made excuses, or the professor gave re­ proofs ’ and in these the student is normally a culprit, and the professor a detective. It seems all the more strange that such want of intercourse should exist under a system which deifies classic culture, when the Athenian ideal of that culture was obtained by frank, full, genial conversation between teacher and taught. It seems all the more sad, when every reflecting man knows that hearty, manly sympathy in studies and pursuits established between a young man and a man of thought, learning, character and experience, is worth more than all educational programmes and machinery. In excuse for this it is asserted that the number of students in college classes is generally so large that professors cannot know them. It is believed by your committee, that this difficulty is by no means insuperable. It has from time to time been over­ come at various large colleges, and it is worth our trouble to try some experiments at least in bringing students within range of the general culture of professors, and keeping them within it. - It is therefore recommended that the duty of acquaintance and social intercourse with students be impressed upon the faculty, and that additions be made to professors’ salaries expressly as an indemnity or provision for such social privileges to students. The �22 same principle which has led wise governments to make extra allowances to ambassadors, for the express purpose of keeping up genial social relations with the people among whom they are sent, is the basis of the experiment now suggested. The experiment can be tried, either by moderate additions to salary or deductions from rents of University houses. It is also suggested that some provision be made for weekly or fortnightly reunions of faculty and students ; that at an early day pleasant rooms be allotted for that purpose, and that some small expenditure be made to render such gatherings attractive and pro­ fitable. Even if some little time is taken from the ordinary rou­ tine, the experiment is well worth trying. Relations of Professors to Each Other. The committee desire to impress here an idea which they con­ ceive most essential to the success of the University ; simply this : The University will tolerate no feuds in the faculty. It may seem strange that this should be alluded to ; but in view of the fact that more than one American college has been ruined by such feuds, and that very many have been crippled ; in view of the cognate fact that the odium theologicum seems now outdone by hates between scientific cliques and dogmas ; that as a rule it is now impossible to secure an impartial opinion from one scien­ tific man regarding another; and that these gentlemen, in their jealousies and bickerings, are evidently only awaiting some one with a spark of the Moliere genius to cover them before the country with ridicule and contempt, we do not think that the Board is likely to give too much importance to this. We advise that in the common law of the University it be a fundamental principle, that harmony and hearty co-operation in the work here are far more essential than any one or any half­ dozen professors, and that in case feuds and quarrels arise, every professor concerned be at once requested to resign, unless the dis­ turbing person can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt ; that if ever a general want of harmony be observed, and a rapid adjust­ ment is impossible, the Gordian knot be cut, and that all con­ cerned be replaced by others who can work together. Better to have science taught less brilliantly, than to have it rendered con­ temptible. �23 How shall Professors be Found ? Various methods of securing the best mon have been resorted to, in the institutions already established. One method is, to give notice quietly that a position is vacant; to receive testimonials regarding candidates, consisting of their own statements and the written recommendations of their friends : and to select the person whose recommendations are the most numerous or laudatory. We believe such a method wretchedly delusive. A sad sort of common law obtains in our country, by which a candidate for any place has a right to demand that his townsman, neighbor or friend shall put his name to any statement necessary to secure an elec­ tion. No man of recent experience can doubt that an immense array of petitions could be obtained for the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel, and that an immense array of testimonials could be obtained, attesting the fitness of the most knavish contractor to build it. Considering this facility with which recommendations are ob­ tained, they ought never to be considered final, though they ought always to be demanded. It should also be laid down at the outset, as a fundamental law, that no testimonials are to have any weight, no matter how great the abilities of the giver, except as they are statements upon im­ portant qualifications from persons who are unquestionable authothorities upon these particular qualifications. It ought to be fully understood that the vague testimony of the foremost lawyer in the State, as to attainments in organic chemistry or microscopic anatomy, or other branches of science in which the legal gentle­ man is not an expert, pass with this Board as so much blank paper. Another method sometimes resorted to in Great Britain is, to advertise for candidates—stating duties, salary, with testimonials or tests. This has some advantages ; but after correspondence regarding this plan, with some leading men who have thought and wrought much for higher education, we do not recommend it. The only safe method would seem that, by committee or other­ wise, we make investigations for ourselves ; to obtain confidential statements as to the abilities of candidates—statements sud sigillo confessionis from those who desire our success and the promotion of the most worthy, and who can give us real information and not conventional praise. It has happened that the papers of candidates have been thus �24 far referred to this committee, and so far as possible, in the absence of full powers, we have acted upon the plan here sug­ gested. We recommend that some existing committee or some new committee be authorized to receive the testimonials of candi­ dates ] to make the investigations required, and to report to the Board at a very early day. The Administering Body. Thus far the committee have occupied themselves with the Instructing Body. They now turn to the question of the Admin­ istering Body. The immediate administering or governing body, subject to the trustees, is naturally, as regards discipline, details of instruction, &c., the Faculty. At the head of the Faculty should stand a Pre­ sident, and in so large an institution there are reasons why it might be well to name a Vice-President. These, while taking part in the instruction, should take the lead'in the administration. The experience of all institutions of learning puts it beyond a doubt that such headship is necessary. The single attempt to dispense with it, is one of the most wretched failures in the educational history of this country. The committee recommend that there be elected at an early day a President of the University. Method of Administration. The question now arises, how shall the government or adminis­ tration by the Faculty be conducted ? Two methods have been in existence : First. The discipline of students, and, indeed, the great mass of ordinary business of the institution, is committed to the Presi­ dent. The Faculty, in this plan, merely, as a rule, present reports and give advice, leaving the initiation of measures and the final decision and action upon them, to the head of the instructing body, This is the method practiced in many colleges of New England, and generally, it is believed, in those of New York. According to the other method, the Faculty occupy altogether a different position. They are not merely advisors, but legisla­ tors. They cannot throw the responsibility upon the head of the institution; they must take part in it themselves. This is the system adopted in a few of the American colleges, and, among them, in the State University of Michigan. �25 Your committee are decidedly in favor of the latter method. They believe that to the looseness of method incident to the former system, are due many of the difficulties which disgrace Faculties, and much of the bad discipline which ruins students. Your committee recommend, therefore, that in each department of the University, the Faculty belonging to that department form a legislative body, with sittings at regular and short intervals, presided over by the President, Vice-President, or a Dean elected for that purpose ; that rules of order be observed ; that in cases of discipline, or conferring degrees, every resident and non-resi­ dent professor have a vote, and that such vote be by ballot. The committee recommend that the combined Faculty of the whole University also have stated meetings at regular intervals not greater than once a month, presided over by the President, VicePresident, or a President pro tempore, for the purpose of conduct­ ing the general administration of the institution and memorializing the trustees ; discussing general questions of educational policy ; presenting papers upon special subjects in literature, science and the arts ;—that this body be known as the Academic Senate ; that its proceedings be conducted according to rules of order; that every person engaged in instruction, whether resident professors, non-resident professors, lecturers or instructors, have permission to speak, but that the right of voting be confined to the resident, non-resident professors, and to assistant professors representing complete departments in which no professor is appointed. Official Term of Professors. As regards the term of office of professors, the committee ask your attention to the following considerations : The usual, in fact the universal plan hitherto has been, to elect professors to serve indefinitely. The power of removal in such cases remains in the trustees ; but practically it has been found difficult to exercise it, even where there has been great reason for it. In his work on University Education, Dr. Wayland alludes to the great difficulty under the existing system of removing incompetent or superannuated professors. It has been a great difficulty. Hardly a college which has not suffered from retaining men not sufficiently capable, because it required positive action to remove them, which action no one wished to initiate. On the other hand, it is a matter of difficulty to engage good men for short terms of service in a Faculty. The acquirements �of a professor are not like those of a lawyer or physician, whichs if not appreciated in one town, can be exercised in the next. His fields of labor are comparatively few, and he naturally hesitates greatly to commit himself to the chance of being cast out in a few years. He will be very likely, under such circumstances, to prefer a place of less honor and more permanence. To overcome this feeling, salaries would have to be much larger than under the usual system. Again : It is not improbable that such reelections might lead to cabals and intrigue, thus distracting the institution, defiling it, and thwarting the purposes of this provision. The advantages of engaging professors for short terms are appa­ rent. Incompetent men would easily drop out at the end of six years, if not before. Such a system, too, would probably inspire every member of the Faculty to constant exertion. It is a ques­ tion, however, whether his exertion would be mainly directed to retaining his professorship by energy in instruction, or energy in intrigue. Your committee are not prepared to make any recommendation regarding the term of service of the Faculty, leaving it entirely to the future discussions of the Board. Salaries of Professors. Another question arises, of much immediate importance, regard­ ing the salaries of the Faculty. Professors’ salaries in the United States vary greatly. The sala­ ries at Columbia College are generally about four to five thousand dollars per annum; at Brown University, Providence, they are fixed at about twenty-five hundred dollars ; at Yale College, at about twenty-three hundred dollars ; at Union College, at about eighteen hundred to two thousand dollars ; at Hamilton College, at about twelve hundred dollars ; at Hobart College, at about one thousand to fourteen hundred dollars; at the University of Michigan, at about seventeen hundred dollars. Your committee would be glad to see their way clearly to a recommendation that each professor be paid according to an agree­ ment with the trustees, having in view the value of services ; but practically, they fear, this would be a matter of great difficulty. The main value of one professor consists in his earnestness ; of another, in his quickness ; of another, in his eloquence; of ano­ ther, in his reputation. The value of one professor is determined �27 by many hours, every day, of hard labor; the value of another, by a single hour, every day, of brilliant labor. To balance the claims of these is very difficult. To do it at all, without arousing jealousies which would be likely to interfere with the easy work­ ing of the institution, your committee fear would be impossible. The committee, however, recommend for trial, that grades of salary be established for resident professors and assistant profess­ ors, which grades, however, shall make no difference in the stand­ ing of such professors or assistant professors. The grade shall be determined in each case at the election of the professor, and the grade may be raised at any time by a vote of the trustees, regard being had to the amount and value of services rendered, or to the experience of the persons rendering them. Tn this view, they present the following Schedule of Salaries. I. Resident Professors. x 1st grade_________________________ _____ ___ $2,250 2d grade........ . ............. . ..................... ..... ................. 2,000 3d grade____ __________ _________ ______ ___ 1,750 II. Resident Assistant Professors. 1st grade........ . ..................... ............. ......................... $1,750 2d grade___________________________ _______ 1,500 3d grade............ ........... ......... ................... ............... .. 1,200 4th grade_____________ _____ ______ _________ 1,000 The compensation of the non-resident professors, special pro­ fessors and lecturers should be arranged by special agreement in each case. In addition to the officers already named for administrative pur­ poses, will be required a Steward, who should occupy an office' upon the grounds, keep close watch of the grounds and buildings, superintend repairs, present certificates, receive dues, keep books, etc., etc. His salary also should be matter of agreement. Modification in the Official Term of Trustees. In considering the arrangement of the governing body, the com­ mittee cannot forbear to make a suggestion as to a modification of the present charter. By that, the Board of Trustees are a selfperpetuating body; each trustee elected for life, and the whole body form a close corporation. None can deny that while such �28 an organization lias advantages as regards stability, it has disad­ vantages as regards progress and activity. Your committee be­ lieve that the history of great educational institutions, when fully written, will show that this method of electing trustees is the great cause why institutions of learning have so often been dragged on behind the age, instead of being recognized as leaders of the age. We are not prepared to present in all its details a plan for the change desired ; but we recommend that as soon as it shall be deemed expedient, some legislation be had by which the term of office for trustees shall be six years; that the elected trustees be classified by lot, and that a certain number of trustees be elected each year. The committee would suggest that each year, three new members be elected into the Board by the trus­ tees, to take the places of three who annually leave it. They recommend that this continue until such time as the graduates of the University shall number one hundred ; that thereafter two persons be elected annually into the Board by the Trustees, and one be elected by the graduates. They also recommend that the elections of the Board of Trustees be conducted in every case by ballot, and that it require a two-thirds vote of the electing body to re-elect a former trustee. The advantages of this plan in general are evident. First, it secures an influx of new life into the Board. Secondly, it does this without any jar or disturbance of harmony. - Thirdly, it recognizes the fact that the alumni of the institution never lose their vital connection with it. Fourthly, it prompts every alumnus to maintain a deep interest in the institution. The committee recommend that by the same legislation, the number of absences from meetings of the Board allowed by the Revised Statutes, be diminished. It is surely not too much to ask that men having the honor of a position in a Board of Trustees like this, should discharge the duties, or that if they cannot dis­ charge them, they give place to those who can. On a full attend­ ance upon the meetings of the Board, depends in a great measuie the success of this noble enterprise. The Equipment and Illustrative Collections. The next point to which the committee would call attention, is the Equipment. For the department of Agriculture there are two sorts of equip­ ments. First, some farm buildings and tools are necessary at an �29 / early day to meet the demands of simple practical instruction. Secondly, to give the department the character and efficiency it deserves, there must be begun and carried on as rapidly as pos­ sible, a Museum of Agriculture, embracing collections of imple­ ments, productions, and matters generally relating to the depart­ ment, in character similar to the State Agricultural collection at Albany. In the department of the Mechanic Arts, your committee believe that the order of equipment needed is exactly the reverse; that whereas in the Agricultural department an experimental farm is first needed and the illustrative collection is secondary, in the department of Mechanics the illustrative collection is first needed, and the model workshop is secondary. The reasons for this belief are as follows: For the experiments in agriculture one farm is sufficient; the main outlines of procedure in practical culture and experiments are simple ; a small range of implements is sufficient for the whole work. To cover an equally extensive field in the mechanic arts would necessitate a very great number of shops, with scores of processes entirely dissimilar, with an immense range of machines and tools. In agriculture one field will answer for nearly all the different processes and experiments ; in mechanics, as a rule, one workshop will only answer for each single branch to which it is devoted. But, in addition to this great difference between the two depart­ ments, in the ease of simple instruction in elementary practice, your committee conceive there is a radical difference between the necessities of the two departments. Scientific agriculture depends largely on experiments. Whatever may be the results of strictly scientific deductions, these results are not to be accepted until experiment has proved them useful. Thus, agricultural chemistry alone,, as a science coming out of the laboratory, is inadequate. Its results must be submitted to practice on the farm. In actual practice a great number of elements constantly arise to disturb theoretical results. In the department of Mechanic Arts, on the other hand, the results of strict scientific investigation are seldom modified by practice. Every calculation given by mathematical theory will be found to work in practice. In machines, theoretical calculations of power, modified by cal­ culations of friction will, as a general rule, express practical �30 results. There is, then, no such need of experimental workshops in this department as of experimental farms in the other. There are other reasons which might be adduced, but the com­ mittee would pass them, and recommend at an early day that there be commenced in this department a general collection, embracing drawings, casts, sectional and working models, in general character like the “Conservatory of Arts and Trades” at Paris. They also recommend that the Board take into consideration the establishment of a workshop, where young men may be employed in making sundry implements and machines for the agricultural department, and models for the collections illustrating various other departments. In the department of Engineering, collections are necessary of drawings, engravings, models, casts, &c., in general scope like that at Union College ; and among these the committee recom­ mend at an early day, in the department of Mathematics, the acquisition of a collection of the Olivier models, similar to those at the Paris Conservatory, and at Union, Harvard and Columbia Colleges, and at the Military Academy at West Point. In the division of Science, Literature, and the Arts in general, various collections are necessary. Of these, collections in Geology. Mineralogy, Zoology, Comparative Anatomy and Botany, are those most immediately needed. The University, by the munificence of its founder, possesses already one of the finest collections extant in Geology, only needing small additions in Lithology to make it sufficient. It is here submitted that much might be done in build­ ing up the collections, by employing active students in the work of collecting specimens most accessible, and in conducting ex­ changes. At the same time it will probably be advantageous to keep watch of the collections which are from time to time offered for sale in this country and in Europe, and thus secure, at comparativelv small cost, such collections as the Ward collection at Rochester; the Lederer collection at Ann Arbor, and the Gibbs collection at New Haven. Philosophical Apparatus. Another very important part of the equipment of any institution of a high class is its collection of Philosophical Apparatus. It is undoubtedly true that a skillful professor, with little apparatus, is better than a bungler with much ; yet as it is our ambition to have not only the best instructors, but also the best means of illus­ �31 tration, it is our duty to look carefully to this portion of the equipment, and to decide upon a policy regarding it. The committee believe that the trustees should make every effort to have the best; and that our policy should be two-fold : First, the professors in the department of General Chemistry, Physics, and kindred departments, should be furnished with the means of illustrating the latest results of research and initiating new re­ searches. Secondly, they should have the means of publicly illus­ trating these brilliantly. We therefore hope to see, at an early day, in the collections of the University, such comparatively rare pieces of apparatus as that of Bianchi or Thilorier for the solidi­ fication of carbonic acid ; the English apparatus for the direct generation on a large scale of electricity from steam; the Boston modification of Ruhmkorf’s coil for presenting on a large scale the effects of electricity induced by the Galvanic current; the new French apparatus for experimenting upon light; and in general those aids to instruction and illustration proper to an institution which we hope to place among the first of this country. The earlier the philosophical apparatus is put on this footing, the better; and while the committee do not urge an immediate outlay sufficient to compass all that these departments should con­ tain, they earnestly recommend at an early day a liberal expendi­ ture toward a worthy beginning. Collections Illustrative of Art. The University can never attain to the proportions we hope for it, without some collections illustrative of the great Arts of Architecture, Sculpture and Painting. While galleries of statues and paintings by artists just now in fashion, are too expensive to be thought of, art-collections of far greater educational value can be formed at an outlay compara­ tively trifling. The collections of casts at the German University at Bonn, and in the institutions at Boston, Ann Arbor and Toronto • the collec­ tions of photographs and medallions illustrating architecture and sculpture, and the collection of engravings illustrating the History of Painting, now forming at the University of Michigan, furnish examples of the equipment which ought ere long to be given to this department. �32 The Observatory. In the ordinary working of an ordinary college, an observatory can be dispensed with. But when an institution is to be made a centre for men of the highest intellect,—when it is sought to in­ crease knowledge,—when the aim is to bring every appliance to bear in revealing the power of God and in developing the power of man,—those in charge will naturally think of the establishment of an observatory. So it has been almost without exception in the great universities of the old world. So it has been at Har­ vard College, at Yale, at the, University of Michigan, at the Uni­ versity at Chicago, at the University of Alabama, at Hamilton Col­ lege, and at Vassar College, in our own country. It may be said that an observatory gives no part of what is known as practical instruction. Even if it did not, the investi­ gations which it aids are so noble, that the most severely practical men have always held them in honor. But every man at all ac­ quainted with higher education, will declare that the observatory does promote practical education. From the observatories have come some of the most practical benefactois of the race, and among them, Newton, LaPlace, Lalande, Oersted, Arago, Mitchell. No observatory was ever planned in a collegiate town, without stimu­ lating greatly the study of the exact sciences, and thus promoting progress and achievement in the departments where the exact sciences bear practically upon the welfare of mankind. We are sure that all the trustees join in our hope to see, at no distant day, standing upon our grounds, an observatory which shall be an honor to the State and Nation. No better gift could be made by any of our wealthy citizens, and no nobler monument could be reared by those who long to live in the memories of their fellow men. The cost of a suitable observatory varies. To erect a building and place in it a telescope, meridian circle, astronomical clock, and chronograph, wrould cost from forty thousand to eighty thousand dollars, according to the size and perfection of the instruments. The committee urge that this part of the equipment be not lost sight of, though at present they do not recommend any applica­ tion of funds for it. �33 The Library. The part of the equipment to which the committee would call attention, finally, is the library. It is the culmination of all­ touching all departments—meeting the needs of teachers and taught. In it all Sciences and Arts meet; from it they draw a vast part of their sustenance. We believe that, from the first, the building up of a library suited to the wants of the institution, and worthy of its aims, should be steadily kept in view. A large library is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the various de­ partments. Without it, our men of the highest ability will be frequently plodding in old circles and stumbling into old errors. Say what we may of the necessity of original investigation, the fact remains that science has never made great achievements save when its votaries have had a plentiful supply of books wherein to find necessary information and hints as to studies and investiga­ tions. The history of the progress of modern science is the history of development and accretion—development out of previous thought and work—accretion upon previous thought and work. The great progress in modern science is, to a very small degree, the result of the original investigations of men removed from access to the recorded labors of their predecessors. This is the case with every science. To attempt either -of the great functions of an university—the discovery of truth, or the diffusion of truth, regarding the two main branches of our in­ struction, Agriculture and Mechanics—without a liberal library, would be to cripple these departments ; and to continue instruc­ tion long in the departments generally without an ample library, would be a farce, were it not so sad to see a body of professors, ambitious to render services to science and to the institutions with which they are connected, crippled by want of books. What should be the character of the books ? It has been su<rgested that a library should be of the newest and best; that it need only present the latest works as embodying the highest results of thought. There is a germ of truth in this, which ought to be borne in mind ; yet it should not be forgotten that there is not a science or an art in which there are not some old investio-ations never superseded or surpassed. There are multitudes of old works which must be within reach, in order to an understanding of almost any science or art. The general rule is, that a worthy library should possess the works of every man who has made his mark in literature, science or the 3 �arts. This is true of different sciences and arts in different de­ grees, but it is sufficiently true even of the most recent sciences and arts, to show that no talk about old books and musty tomes should for a moment delude us. How should these books be obtained ? Three methods suggest themselves : First, the different mem­ bers of the Faculty might present lists of works in their several departments, with indication of those most needed, and after a collation of these lists by a committee, and a classification accord­ ing to comparative necessity, purchases might be made from year to year. This is an approved practical method, and is recom­ mended. But this does not cover the whole want of the institution. There must be a reserved force of books. Very often a book necessary to the success of an important investigation is not thought of until the moment it is wanted. Very often a professor of great acquire­ ments does not know where to find the record of an experiment; and that hint at a method or fact of immense value to him, he must seek in a full collection of works in his department, many of which he would not think of naming as those most immediately necessary. The successful use of recent books, too, necessitates a large col­ lection of those partially superseded. Partial quotations must often be known wholly; doubtful quotations must often be verified. A collection is needed as a centre to which men in all grades in every kind of investigation may gather. This can only be obtained by other methods. One of these is, to take the catalogues of leading publishers and booksellers, and having marked their valuable works, receive proposals for their purchase. This is often a useful way, and is also recommended. Another method of use in beginning a library, is the purchase wholly, or in part, of carefully gathered special collections of private individuals. Thus the University of Rochester purchased the Neander Library, and Yale College the Thilo Library. When and how can this be done ? Not in this country to any extent, for nowhere in the world are valuable books sought so eagerly and held so tenaciously. It is in foreign cities, and espe­ cially in London, that collections of works in every department, made by the most distinguished scholars, are brought under the hammer of the auctioneer. Hardly a number of the London Atheneeum is issued without advertisements of such collections. �35 Within a very few years, the private library of Buckle, so full in all its departments ; the private library of Lord Macaulay, con­ taining vast stores in English history; the library of Humboldt, containing the accumulations of his life ; and scores of others even more important, have been thus broken up in the London market. Your committee find that the prices of books thus disposed of in mass are very low, except in the case of rarities competed for by bibliomaniacs, and these are the very things for which the Univer­ sity cares little or nothing. The solid material of a large library *—the standard authorities and works of reference—the sets of lieviews, periodicals and Journals of Societies, with few excep­ tions, go at low prices. The committee are assured by one of its members, who has himself frequented, and bought largely in these sales, that collections of vast value, selected during a lifetime by the most eminent scholars in various branched, and enriched often with their notes, references and corrections, are constantly sold at prices astonishingly low. The committee, therefore, without recommending any hasty action, would suggest that an eye be kept upon these frequent sales, and that at the earliest convenient season an attempt be made to avail ourselves of them. It is also recommended that steps be taken to obtain for the library certain valuable works published by foreign governments; such as the wonderful Monographs upon the European Rural Popu­ lation, by LePlay, published by the French government; and, above all, in the department of Industrial Mechanics, the great series of Patent Reports published by the English government, copies of which are in the State Library at Albany, in the Astor Library at New York, and in the Public Library at Boston. It is believed that a copy can be obtained ot the English government at the mere cost of mounting the plates and binding the several volumes. A more valuable and appropriate work for that depart­ ment could hardly be designated. Preparation of a Code for the University. To this committee was entrusted the preparation of a code of laws for the government of the University. A large collection of the statutes of different colleges has been made, but at the out­ set a question meets us : What shall be the theory of discipline in the institution ? Shall it be after the military pattern ; shall it be the oidinaiy collegiate discipline which has been in part inherited �36 from England ; shall it be an adaptation of the free university system of continental Europe, where comparatively little is done by college police, and much is left to the students themselves ? It will be seen at once that this question must be decided before any body of statutes is framed; for the radical difference between these fundamental systems involves an entire difference between the codes which express them. The first, the military system, has undoubted advantages. It puts all students upon an equality in mere outward advantages of dress, style and living ; it subjects students to a more perfect control; it gives from among the stu­ dents, officers to aid in enforcing rigid discipline. On the other hand, the uniformity in dress, which is admired by some as con­ tributing to equality, deprives the professor of one of his best means of knowing who are before him in the lecture room,—how he shall deal with individuals, and what allowances are to be made. None acquainted with the best American colleges, will hesitate to declare that, as a rule, no student loses anything among his pro­ fessors or his fellow students, by clothing indicating poverty and frugality. It is only in after life that this makes an impor­ tant difference. In no community on earth is man estimated so exactly by what is supposed to be his real worth, as in a commu­ nity of college students. No collections of men were ever more democratic. The rigid military government, it is believed, could not possibly be applied to the whole University: for, by the fun­ damental theory of the institution, there will be students of a great number of different grades,—some attending merely courses of lectures for a single season; some in regular courses of several years ; some men not far from middle age ; some far below their majority • some residing in the college building; some residing in the town. While, therefore, military instruction must always form part of the courses, it is not recommended that the govern­ ment be military, except, perhaps, in some single departments, where efficiency may be promoted by military forms. As to the next system, the ordinary collegiate plan, although to a certain extent it may have to be adopted on account of our partial resort to dormitories, yet the system as a finality is not favored by the committee. The system of university freedom of government is believed by the committee to be our best government. In this system laws are few but speedily executed, and the University is regarded neither as an asylum nor a reform school. Much is trusted to the �manliness of the students. The attempt is to teach the students to govern themselves, and to cultivate acquaintance and confidence between Faculty and students. This the committee believe is pos­ sible. They believe that by rigid execution of a few disciplinary laws • by promotion of pleasant, extra-official intercourse between teachers and taught, in ways hereafter to be specified ■ by placing professors over students, not as police, but as a body of friends, this government may be made to work better than any other. The boundaries between government of students by university autho­ rities and government by town authorities, will be discussed else­ where. The committee will, on a future day, recommend a simple pledge and ceremony of matriculation, having in view self-governmenf by the students. Having thus given a basis for a code, we think it best to defer details until a future report. The necessity for by-laws is not im­ mediate, and much light can, it is believed, be gained from the Faculty about to be chosen. Remunerative Manual Labor by Students. One of the most interesting questions which arises in the estab­ lishment of our departments of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, regards the experiment of employing students at manual labor during a portion of the day. The argument generally used of late against this experiment is, that it has been tried several times unsuccessfully. This argument would have more force were it shown that the institutions where the manual labor system has failed, have had the means of trying the experiments fully and fairly. It is be­ lieved that such has not been the case, and that our country has seen no institution having such ample means of trying this experi­ ment as has the Cornell University. Nor is it true, as is often loosely stated, that this experiment has uniformly failed. The reports of the State Agricultural College of Michigan, at Lansing, show that its success there, if not brilliant, is substantial. Several young men have supported themselves entirely, paying their fee of tuition, room rent, board, fuel, washing, clothing, books and traveling expenses out of their earnings upon the college pro­ perty ; and a very large number in the same way have paid their expenses partially. Your committee are satisfied that the University ought to try �38 this experiment. We are not, however, prepared to recommend that every student in the University be required to do a certain amount of manual labor. This we think would impose fetters upon the student body, very dangerous to that character of breadth and freedom which we hope to establish. If, as is certain to be frequently the case, a student advanced in years considerably beyond the usual student age, and who already has labored and accumulated means to defray his expenses, presents himself and wishes, in the shortest time possible, to tit himself for a place as engineer, superintendent of chemical works, or scientific miner, it would seem doubtful policy to force him to give those hours which he desires to crowd with study, to manual labor in which he has had full experience, and remunera­ tion which he does not need. True, it is often urged that the student can do more and better mental work, with deduction of two or three hours of physical labor, than without it. Though not one man in a million among men at large acts upon this belief, it may be so among students. But, until this theory proves itself by practice, we believe that it would be a great mistake to attempt to place the entire University rigidly upon this basis. When, in our progress here, this theory shall be substantiated, there will be ample opportunity to enforce this system in all the departments. Again : Your committee are by no means certain that physical labor among young men can be made to take wholly the place of athletic sports and gymnastic exercises in giving restoration from mental labor. Even if it keep up bodily strength, it seems hardly possible that the minds of young men could be kept fresh, elastic and energetic, when the only relief from tension is the change from one form of labor to another. We understand that even in manual labor schools it has been found necessary to give some time to free, manly sports and games. But there is one practical objection which will doubtless be conclusive, even if theoretical objections are not. If any such number of students as we expect, enter the Univer­ sity, we could not provide labor for all of them. The State University of Michigan, with far less attractions than we hope to present, has fifteen hundred (1500) students. At two hours a day of manual labor by each student,—and this is an hour less than the usual allowance,—granting that the different divi­ sions of working students succeed each other with perfect preci­ �39 sion, one corps taking up the tools the instant the previous corps throws them down, there would be a constant force to be profitably employed and paid, equivalent to three hundred (300) laborers, and the University cannot employ any such force with profit for any long time. But while we do not recommend general compulsory labor, we are in favor of organizing corps of laboring students, and holding out every inducement to join them ; and we are not prepared to say that it may not be necessary to require manual labor from all the students in some special departments. We believe that a system of manual labor, rightly organized, will work to the mutual advantage of the University and the stu­ dents. There is a large amount of labor required at once upon the ornamental grounds and the farm. There are trees to be felled, roads and paths to be cut, depressions to be filled, eleva­ tions to be graded down. There will be much work requiring mere physical ability, and there will be much requiring the scien­ tific guidance of the Professors of Agriculture, of LandscapeGardening and Engineering. It will also be of use to the students in their muscular develop­ ment, and we believe can be made to give substantial aid to many pecuniarily. Physical Culture. Many plans of education have given goodly place to Physical Culture in theory ; very few have given any adequate place to it in practice. No mistake could be more unfortunate. Better the mere rudi­ ments of knowledge with a body sound, firm and strong, than the best culture of the schools with a body permanently emaciated and debilitated. It is one of the strange things in the history of education, that American votaries of classical scholarship have been so neglectful of that bodily culture which, in the ancient civilization they justly honor, was the main culture. We cannot insist upon this part of an education too strongly. As long as highly educated men are dyspeptics, so long will they be deprived of their supremacy in society by uneducated eupevand so it ought to be. We recommend: First, that in all, except the Optional Course, attendance be required on a plain series of lectures upon Anatomy, Physiology and Hygiene. �40 Secondly, that there be provided, at the opening of the Univer­ sity, a well-equipped Gymnasium, and that training in it, or equi­ valent training in manual labor or exercises in the open air, be obligatory upon all. Thirdly, that an instructor in Gymnastics be appointed, who shall conduct exercises at the gymnasium under some careful pro­ gressive system, with as much regularity and under as stringent rules regarding attendance and decorum, as are observed in any college exercise whatever. Fourthly, that in arranging hours for study, recitations or lec­ tures, physical training be regarded as equally entitled to conside­ ration with mental training, and that a regular and sufficient time be always allowed for that purpose. Fifthly, that grounds be set apart for the national game of base ball, and that the formation of clubs be encouraged; also that encouragement be given to the formation of clubs for boating upon Lake Cayuga. Sixthly, that the experiment be tried of framing an university statute to the effect that deterioration in physical culture will be held in the same category with want of progress in mental cul­ ture, and that either will subject the delinquent to deprivation of university privileges. Seventhly, in view of the importance and practical novelty of this whole subject, it is recommended that to the regular standing committees of the Board of Trustees there be added a “ Committee upon Physical Culture.” Military Education. It is recommended that the requirements of the congressional law be met by careful provisions for teaching Military Engineer­ ing and Tactics, and that the Board of Trustees at an early day adopt some plan for encouraging military drill, or for making it obligatory. Actual Commencement of Instruction. 4 The committee would also report as to the actual commencement of instruction,—the practical beginning of general university operations. A sufficient number of professors having been secured, it is recommended that at least three (3) months before the opening of the University, an advertisement be inserted in papers of wide �41 circulation, stating concisely the day when the examinations for admissions begin, the courses of instruction, the professors and their departments, the charges for instruction, the approximate charges for board and lodging, the number and character of free Scholarships, the duties of school commissioners in examining can­ didates for them under the charter, and the names of persons to ■whom applications may be made for further details. The University Year. It is recommended that there be two terms in the University year ; the first commencing on the second Thursday of September and ending on the third week-day preceding Christmas ; the second term commencing on the third week-day following New Year’s day, and ending upon the third Thursday in June, when shall be held the annual Commencement. In order, however, to commemorate an event which the insti­ tution ought ever to hold in remembrance, and, incidentally, to give some intermission in the second term, which is much longer than the first, it is recommended that the ordinary exercises be Suspended on the fourteenth day of May, the day wThen the act incorporating the University was passed, and that that day be forever known as Founder’s Day, and that exercises be then held expressive of gratitude to the benefactors of the University, and to renew the memory of their benefactions. It is recommended that some inaugural exercises be held at or near the beginning of the first term. Fees. In nothing do American institutions of learning vary more than in the fees required of students. At Yale College the charges are as follows : For tuition ................. $45 rent and care of one-half* room, average_________ 20 expenses of public rooms, repairs, &c._______ ___ 10 use of gymnasium_____ ______ _________ ____ 4 society tax________________ ____ ____ g Besides these, there are charges at graduation amounting to average price of board, $5.50. I11 the Massachusetts Institute of' Technology, at Boston, the �42 fees in the first year arc $100; second year, $125; third and fourth, $150 each. At Harvard College the fees are as follows : Instruction, library and lecture rooms, and gymnasium___ $104 Rent and care of room, &c._________________________ 28 Special repairs_________ _______ ______________ ____ 1 $133 Board is said to range from $4.50 to $7 per week. In the Lawrence Scientific School, at Cambridge, the student taking the courses of chemistry, engineering, botany, &c., pays in regular fees each year, from $250 to $300. In the Cambridge School of Mines, the fees are, for the first year, $150, and $200 for each succeeding year. At the State University of Michigan, by the catalogue of 1866, any student from without the State pays a matriculation fee of $20, and an annual fee of $-5. At Dartmouth College, tuition in the Scientific School is, per annum, $36 in the third and fourth, and $42 per annum in the first and second years. In the College proper, the fees are : For tuition......................... $51 room rent from $6 to------------- ----------------------- 12 $57 to $63 At Hamilton College the tuition is ................. $45 Room rent........ ............ 9 Sweeping and contingencies--------------- ------------------ 21 $75 At the State Agricultural College of Michigan, at Lansing, tuition to students from that State is free, but from all other States, per annum, $20 ; room rent, $4 ; matriculation fee, $5. From this great diversity no rule can be deduced. After con­ sideration, the committee, although there are one hundred and twenty-eight (128) free scholarships already provided by law, and although it is believed that instruction of the very best kind will be furnished, have concluded to suggest that the charges for the first year be very low, and they present the following schedule : Matriculation fee------------------ --------------------------- - $15 Annual fees at $10 per term........................................... 20 $35 �43 For room rent they have based their calculations upon the per­ centage which the dormitories ought to contribute upon the outlay for them, arranging the rents so as to give a return of seven (7) per cent per annum. The rent of a full suite of rooms in the main building would be 55 cents, 73 cents, 109 cents per week for each student, according as they have four, three or two occupants. Arranging rents so as to bring a return of four per cent per annum, the charges would be 32 cents, 42 cents, 63 cents per week, according as the suites of rooms are occupied by four, three or two persons. But it is not expected that any large number of the students can be accommodated in the University dormitories. There are provided in the first building, accommodations for from sixtv-four to one hundred and twenty-eight students. But it is believed that these will fall short of the accommodations required. It is not doubted that the citizens of Ithaca will do their utmost, even subjecting themselves to inconvenience, in providing rooms for students. And it is believed that they will do this at the lowest terms possible ; for nothing could be more unfortunate for the town and University than at the outset to have the impression gain ground that student lodgings in Ithaca are costly. Board. In regard to board, the committee are decidedly .of the opinion that the trustees should have nothing to do with furnishing it, unless events force them to do so. For this the citizens of Ithaca must be relied upon entirely. The same necessity for liberal treatment and low prices obtains in regard to board as in regard to lodgings. And in view of the great importance of a right beginning in this matter, it is recommended that the President of the Board designate a committee of the citizens of Ithaca, who shall bring the matter before their fellow citizens and obtain assur­ ances which shall enable the trustees in their first announcement to offer, with the other attractions of the institution, the very decided one of cheap rates of lodgings and board. The same citizen’s committee should also be relied upon to fur­ nish the University steward with names of persons willing to accommodate students, and with lists of prices, so as to provide at once for students on their arrival. If, however, such appeal be unsuccessful, which is not believed possible, it is recommended that the executive committee be em­ �44 powered to lease in the town, or erect upon the college grounds, a dining hall and kitchen, with the full understanding, however, that the University shall not undertake to manage it further than to lease it to the students. The students thus leasing it, shall choose their own stewards, employ their own servants, purchase their own provisions, and manage it in their own way, except that the trustees may vote to advance money to the clubs thus formed, to purchase leading articles of supply at wholesale, according to the system recently established in the Yale College dining clubs ; and the University authorities shall take measures, in case of need, to preserve general decency and order. Fuel. It is strongly recommended that the University purchase fuel at wholesale, to be retailed to the students at cost. This plan is found to work beneficially at Yale, Harvard and many other colleges. The Dormitory System. Two radically different ideas as to the function of an Univer­ sity have produced two different systems of lodging students and of supervision of them while not engaged in public exercises. Under the first, the student is lodged in a dormitory and kept, or rather supposed to be kept, under surveillance of the Univer­ sity authorities. Under the second, lodging and any other than general surveillance are looked upon as outside the proper function of an University, and the student left to make arrange­ ment for his lodging as any other person coming for a time into the town would do, subject to certain general regulations by the University. Care of him as a citizen is left to the town authori­ ties ■ care of him as a member of a family, to the household with which he is lodged—the University, of course, reserving the right to inflict penalties for offences against University common law and statutes. The committee believe the latter system the more sound in theory and the more satisfactory in practice. Large bodies of students collected in dormitories often arrive at a degree of tur­ bulence which small parties, gathered in the houses of citizens, seldom if ever reach. No private citizen, who lets rooms in his own house to four or six students, would tolerate for an hour the anarchy which most tutors in charge of college dormitories are compelled to overlook. �45 But even were the discipline of dormitories thoroughly en­ forced; the system tends to put the professorial corps in the atti­ tude of policemen. And the situation is made all the worse by the fact that the professor is armed with no authority under the law of the land, and so comes to be regarded not even as a police­ man, but as a spy—not as a judge, but as an inquisitor. Nothing could be more fatal to hearty, kindly relations between teachers and taught. The dormitory system, as it has existed at Oxford and Cam­ bridge, has been carried out logically in the construction of quad­ rangles—great enclosures from which egress at unsuitable hours is supposed to be rendered difficult, and in which good order can be more easily maintained. That even this most costly plan has failed every one knows, who has at all looked into the subject; blit even the poor merit of the English system seems wanting among ns, The reasons for adopting even temporarily any modification of the dormitory system in a new institution like ours, are two : First, the necessity of some check upon persons disposed to ask too large a price for student lodgings. Secondly, the necessity of observations, experiments and work upon the college land by large numbers of students. Of these reasons the first weighs little ; the second, it is hoped, will weigh less and less as the village of Ithaca is extended nearer and nearer to the University domain ;—but they have been strong enough to induce the Board of Trustees to erect a dormitory in which are provided tasteful and well-ventilated study and sleeping rooms for from sixty-four to ninety-six students. It is believed that no better accommoda­ tions are afforded in any college within the United States. It is recommended, however, that at the outset the policy of tbe trustees be declared to be in favor of making residence in the college buildings a reward of good work and conduct, and that good order in every student hall be entrusted to the self-govern­ ing powers of the students residing in it, with a full understanding that the University authorities will enter into no inquisitorial pro­ cess to discover the authors of disorder, but that if the tenants are not able to maintain good order, they must give place en masse to those who can. If this does not accomplish the purpose, the hall should be closed altogether. It is hoped that ere many years accommodations for students may be mainly provided among citizens residing in neat, tidy �46 dwellings bordering upon the University property. In these a| kindly, restraining family influence would be exercised upon stu-|nja^|ofi(|#1 1 dents, never found in the prevalent poor imitation of the EnglisMaH^ifeEW semi-monastic system. 1 The committee are decidedly opposed to any large adoption ofl a dormitory system. Relations between the Cornell University and other Insti-I tutions of Learning in the State. It is believed that the institution now to be founded can be brought into perfect harmony with the sister institutions of the hl State, While we hope for large numbers of students, it is highly fmmiQi, 4-1------------------ K---------- . .U„ -ly [ij improbable that the number at the .a.._ collegeswill 1be any M* other smaller than at present. Facilities for education, like facilities'! for travel, increase the number of those using them. In this great, commonwealth of four million souls, there is work for all. .[Ji So far from injuring the existing colleges, it is hoped that we s*' can benefit them in one way at least most gratifying to their officers. In the Faculties of these colleges are some of the best^W Wp minds in the country—some of the noblest men.' They are to-dayj almost without exception, kept upon salaries wretchedly inadequate, and to a number of students far less than ought to enjdJ^MjW^W the benefit of their teachings. By our plan of Non-resident Professors, we can avail ourselvew of the talents of these men—can give them a larger field and newer, and can add to their salaries sums which will enable them |i to work more freely in the colleges with which they are immediately connected. This plan also offers an incentive to every active professor in every college, to distinguish himself as an investigatoiwO^bsfci or instructor in some department, and thus will benefit science amH education at large. • a Relations of the a University with the School System of the ! State. The provisions of the charter of the Cornell University show k that its promoters recognized the necessity of a vital connection with the school system of the State. As that system is the sulm stratum of all we hope to build, it cannot be left out of sight. It ought never to be forgotten that we arc to draw life from it, and that we must return life into it. No scholastic traditions should jWfemi.-fi lead us to slight or undervalue this relation. It will be a greatj �47 honor to us if we knit our work as an esteemed part, into the fabric of education for a commonwealth of four millions of people. Pains have been taken to establish a relation such as has never existed between the system and any existing college. The Super­ intendent of Public Instruction is ex officio a trustee, and thus forms a vital link in the connection. The provision in the act of incorporation regarding the choice of students to scholarships in the different assembly districts, brings us directly into relations with the whole body of school commissioners throughout the State. Our labor should be to strengthen the ties thus established. Entering heartily into this vast educational work, so cherished by the people of this State, we are strong—holding ourselves aloof from it, we are weak indeed. irrnt -»q fonii arm! >" 9flt itav< iufeH A Special Test in our Work. In the arrangement of departments and in provision for them, there is one test very simple and very effectual—the original Law of Congress. That law we must neither wrest nor warp. We f^iica must satisfy its requirements without mental reservation. We must never lose sight of that great body of men to whose mental needs the act makes special reference, and of whom it speaks as the “ industrial classes.’7 ff. p The munificence of our founder does, indeed, enable us to add to this provision; but nothing can allow us to take from it. The monstrous perversion of trusts recently revealed by the il'is^l Parliamentary Commission on Collegiate Education in England, fguig must find no parallel here. iiT 5 That original law will not fetter us in our endeavors to give the qoaq people of this State the most advanced university privileges. irrsq Having guarded us from a common error, and secured certain faoT •;reat branches of practical education, it gives us by express declaroiii; ations the largest university scope—only insisting that we keep n view the real wants of this land and people. bl J [tT J The General Test in University Education. The committee have now considered the practical questions most likely to arise at the beginning of our work. That all such questions have been met, is not claimed. In regard, however, Ito those which may hereafter arise, we desire in conclusion to present a general principle, fundamental and formative—a prin­ ciple to serve as a test and guide ;—it is the principle so admirably T �enunciated by Wilhelm von Humboldt, and elaborated by John Stuart Mill: “ The. great and leading principle is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity.” This we conceive to express the object of any really great institu­ tion of learning; this our founder proclaimed in his declaration already cited. This principle we believe can only be made operative through the greatest freedom in study consistent with an University organ­ ization—freedom in choice of studies—freedom in range of studies. Development under this principle—moral, intellectual and phy­ sical—Can only be normal and healthful in an atmosphere of love of truth, beauty and goodness,’and adoration of the Centre of truth, beauty and goodness. We have under our charter no right to favor any sect or to pro­ mote any creed. No one can be accepted or rejected as trustee, professor or student, because of any opinions and theories which he may or may not hold. On that point our charter is most care­ fully guarded, and made to conform to the fundamental ideas of our Republic—ideas which too many institutions of learning have forgotten. Fervor, valor and strength in labors for truth, goodness and beauty, are the qualities to be sought in those who are to work here; and if we secure men of this fervor, valor and strength, we may be sure that, whatever their individual theories on this or that dogma, their joint labors will be for the glory of God and the elevation of man. Upon the members of the Board the committee desire to im­ press the necessity of earnest thought and energetic action. A trusteeship of this University will be no sinecure. Never was a nobler trust confided to any body of men. May we all feel our great responsibilities in this matter, and work earnestly to dis­ charge them; and in laying these foundations may we have the blessing of Heaven, that all may be fitly builded. ANDREW D. WHITE, (Signed.) Tor the Committee on Organization. 1 I ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report of the Committee on Organization, presented to the trustees of the Cornell University, October 21st 1866 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cornell University Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Albany, USA Collation: 48 p. ; 24 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1867 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5690 Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Report of the Committee on Organization, presented to the trustees of the Cornell University, October 21st 1866), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Cornell University Education-United States https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d0fafdb1b97920193fd9bdf3fe5e581.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=QtGkgNbKmqheuGzLc60Tv7PZuqA1raXBm3M1OkD0zLYvU8VCdEOC8C-qoW6DHUMO4aOi7sdtPjZPkOarc7z4Wmd%7E%7E8wncARTom55Sb94lS37JHh6npNQtI5oku5wFu1%7E5OIias1gOuI8076bVMMH4-ytyaZCDNwDjtD3noev7Y6kVpf%7Ej4o8pl%7EgJq9UCdmVfesd4DVkJXGq7p%7EjLpJelped2cLb7tzcd4bwSPh3C0I8CSFqqDZo-V2825nHXwaqmlVYACY2mNUtu02Jtuf8TXJUeGN1jqn6ukcU2wja12avgTU3ZkqLOTICTZtoN0utoLSTOIyjzCGm61cT0gZreA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 677999c7bc4db0cee188ab56e0094098 PDF Text Text REMARKS UPON THE EDUCATION OF DEAF MUTES: DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF STATE CHARITIES, AND IN REPLY TO THE CHARGES OF THE REV. COLLINS STONE, Principal of the American Asylum at Hartford. BOSTON: WALKER, FULLER & CO., PUBLISHERS. 1866. �Wright & Potter, Prs., 4 Spring Lane, Boston. �On reading the last Report of the Principal of the American Asylum for Mutes, it seemed to me that I ought to criticize it publicly, first, in the hope of promoting the true interest of deaf mutes, by calling attention to the subject of their education; second, in order to defend my colleagues of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities from some discreditable imputations; third, to set forth the real doctrines contained in their Second Report; and lastly, to exculpate myself from certain charges of inconsistency, and insinuations of selfish purposes. I thought to do this in a newspaper article ; but my interest in the subject, or my inability to condense the matter, made it impossible. When the manuscript was finished, it was laid aside ; and the pur­ pose of publishing it half abandoned. A recent event has confirmed my first purpose; but leaves not the time to recast the article. This must explain the tardiness of its appearance, and its being written in the third person. SAMUEL G. HOWE. Boston, October 21st, 1866. ��REMARKS UPON THE * EDUCATION OE DEAF MUTES. The American Asylum, for the Education and Instruction of Deaf Mutes, at Hartford, is the oldest establishment of the kind in the United States, and the only one in New England. It has been of incalculable benefit to the deaf mutes of all the country. It enjoys, and it deserves public confi­ dence and esteem. It enjoys moreover the monop­ oly of educating the public beneficiaries of all the New England States; a monopoly of which it seems to be very tenacious. Its Annual Reports are widely circulated; and are considered as valuable and reliable. They are read and regarded as entirely sound by most persons interested in the education of deaf mutes. The Institution is strictly conservative. Its Directors are men of high character, pure motives, and eminent gravity. Its system of instruction, adopted fifty years ago, is still adhered to, with few changes; and all proposals to modify it are stoutly resisted. �6 If pressed, they are repelled with sensitiveness, and sometimes with asperity; as though they were considered impertinent interference; and yet any citizen of Massachusetts, at least, has a right to press thbm, because about half the pupils of the school are beneficiaries of this State. The late lamented Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, proposed a great modification of the system of instruction; and brought powerful arguments and stubborn facts to the support of his views. But he failed to effect any material change. The Asylum yielded a little for a time, under his vigorous attacks, but swung back to its old moorings; and, held fast by the anchor of conservatism, breasts the tide of progressive ideas which sweep by it. In France, Dr. Blanchet, connected with the Imperial Institution for Deaf Mutes, has long been advocating still greater changes in the system of educating these unfortunates. His views are inge­ nious and plausible, and have found considerable favor. The Minister of Public Instruction, in a very able Circular to the Prefects of all the Departments in France, recommended Dr. Blanchet’s plan to their favorable notice several years ago. Some Departments and Municipalities have voted money, and made arrangements for testing the practicability of the proposed plan. It has been �7 in operation in some parts of France and of Russia. It is radical in its nature., and points to a partial abandonment of central Institutions, and the instruction of mutes in their several towns. This plan seems to us impractical in its full extent; but it certainly has very valuable features, and deserves notice and trial. We shall watch the experiment in France with great interest, and we wish Dr. Blanchet all the success which his zeal and enterprise merit. Meantime, the Massachusetts Board of State Charities, part of whose duty it is to visit the Hartford school and look after the interests of the beneficiaries placed there by the State, suggested, in its Second Annual Report, some important changes in the system of instructing and educating our deaf mutes, which, if carried out, would result in their being educated at home instead of being sent to Connecticut. This seems to alarm the Hartford school; and the Principal devotes almost the whole of his last Report to what purports to be an answer to the suggestions of the Board. He seems fairly roused; but not so much to the importance of the principles in question, as of defending the practices of the Hartford school, and of preserving the patronage of Massachusetts. He has at least two qualifications, which, as Byron �8 says, always make a writer interesting, to wit, "wrath and partiality.” His zeal leads him, not only to overlook facts and reasonings, but, unconsciously perhaps, to be uncourteous to the Board, and disrespectful to the Chairman, upon whom he makes a personal attack. He seems to think that if he can convict him of inconsistency, and show that he is ignorant of the best manner of educating mutes, the matter will be put to rest. He therefore avoids discussion of principles, and his Beport is mainly an argumentum ad liominem. As such, it would not call for a public reply, because the public do not care whether the Principal or the Chairman of the Board is right in his theories. But our people do desire to have our deaf mutes educated in the best manner; though do not often have the means of knowing much about it. The present, therefore, seems to be a good opportunity of drawing their attention to it; and, as most of them are rather attracted than repelled by the smack of a controversy, we shall yield to the temptation, and without following the example of the Principal, in regard to personalities, we shall assail his positions, and refute his state­ ments, so far as propriety and respect for an opponent will permit. Out of such a discussion, conducted with the desire to elicit truth, ought to come, not any scandal to the cause of public charity, but on the contrary, an advance of its best interests. �9 It will be necessary, however, first to consider some general principles which are apt to be forgot­ ten in the organization of Institutions, and of methods for educating deaf mutes, and similar classes of defectives. We can at the same time show the grounds upon which the Massachusetts Board of State Charities placed its suggestions for a change in our present system, and which called forth the displeasure of the Principal. The multitude of unfortunates into whose condi­ tion the Board was to inquire, and over which the law gives it general supervision, was divided into the Dependent class, the Destructive class, and the Criminal class. The first comprised destitute orphans; abandoned children; vagrant and vicious children, and youth; the blind, the deaf and dumb; the insane, the idiots, the confirmed drunkards, State paupers, and the like; making nearly twenty thousand persons in Massachusetts alone. The general principles to be followed in the care and direction of these unfortunates were thus set forth:— 1st. “ That it is better to separate and diffuse the dependent classes than to congregate them. 2d. “ That we ought to avail ourselves as much as possi­ ble of those remedial agencies which exist in society,—the family, social influences, industrial occupations, and the like. �10 3d. “ That we should enlist not only the greatest possible amount of popular sympathy, but the greatest number of individuals and of families, in the care and treatment of the dependent. 4th. “ That we should avail ourselves of responsible socie­ ties and organizations which aim to reform, support, or help any class of dependents, thus lessening the direct agency of the State, and enlarging that of the people themselves. 5th. “ That we should build up public institutions only in the last resort. 6th. “ That these should be kept as small as is consistent with wise economy, and arranged so as to turn the strength and faculties of the inmates to the best account. 7th. “That we should not retain the inmates any longer than is manifestly for their good, irrespective of their usefulness in the institution.” The three last propositions seem sound, but they are unwelcome to those who are wedded to public institutions, and who believe in the doctrine of teaching, improving, or supporting children and adults in masses. The Board says:— “ Our people have rather a passion for institutions ; but they have also a vague idea that great piles of brick and mortar are essential to their existence and potency. They want to see them at once, and in the concrete. Hence, we sometimes have follies of the people as well as of indi­ viduals—many stories high, too—and so strongly built, and richly endowed, that they cannot be got rid of easily.” In support of their principle the Board said:— �11 “ The hideous evils growing out of the old system of keeping men in prisons, shut up without separation, and without occupation, are too well known to need mention here ; but it is not enough considered that the chief evils arose, not from the men being especially vicious or criminal, but from the fact of their _being congregated so closely together. “ Let us see how it affects the pauper class. “ Most of those belonging to the first division mentioned above, to wit, those in whom dependence is inherent, and, of course, permanent, are infirm mentally, morally, or physically, perhaps in-all these respects. Neither can those in the other class be in a normal and vigorous condition, else they would not be dependent. There exists in them, indeed, the innate disposition or capacity for recovering the normal state, but as yet it is in abeyance. Now, out of unsound and abnormal conditions there must, *of course, grow certain mental and moral tendencies, which, to say the least, are unwholesome. And it is a natural consequence, (though disregarded in practice,) that if an individual with these tendencies lives in close association with others like himself, all his peculiarities and tendencies are intensified by the intercourse. The greater the majority of unsound persons in his community, the greater the intensification of his abnormal tendencies. Each acts upon all; and the characteristics of class, or caste, are rapidly developed. Nothing is more contagious than evil.” This principle is further illustrated by reference to special classes as of the deaf mutes, and of the blind.— �12 “ The lack of an important sense not only prevents the entire and harmonious development of mind and character, but it tends to give morbid growth in certain directions, as a plant checked in its direct upward growth grows askew. It would be a waste of words to prove this, because a denial of it would be a denial of the importance of the great senses. “ The morbid tendencies, however, are not strong—cer­ tainly not irresistible—at least with the blind. They are educable, like all tendencies and dispositions, and by skilful management may be turned to advantage. Certainly, how­ ever, they ought to be lessened, not strengthened, by educa­ tion. Now, they are lessened, and them morbid effects corrected in each individual by intimate intercourse with persons of sound and normal condition—that is, by general society; while they are strengthened by associating closely and persistently with others having the like infirmity. “ Guidecbby this principle, we should, in providing for the instruction and training of these persons, have the associa­ tion among them as little as is possible, and counteract its tendencies by encouraging association and intimacy with common society. They should be kept together no more closely and no longer than is necessary for their special instruction; and there should be no attempts to build up permanent asylums for them, or to favor the establishment of communities composed wholly, or mainly, of persons subject to a common infirmity. “ Special educational influences, to counteract these special morbid tendencies, should begin with the beginning of life and continue to its end; and they should be more uniform and persistent with mutes than with blind. “ The constant object should be to fashion them into the likeness of common men by subjecting them to common �13 social influences, and to check the tendency to isolation and to intensification of the peculiarities which grow out of their infirmity. “ A consideration of the principles imperfectly set forth above, will show that when we gather mutes and blind into institutions for the purpose of instruction, we are in danger of sowing, with sound wheat, some tares that may bring forth evil fruit. The mere instruction may be excellent, but other parts of the education tend to isolate them from common social influences, and to intensify their peculiarities, and this is bad.” These rather novel doctrines have attracted atten­ tion among thoughtful persons. They have been praised by high authorities; pronounced too radical by others; and have been assailed by a few who fear that the importance and usefulness of long established institutions, to which they themselves are honestly wedded for life, may be impaired if such doctrines should be accepted. The Board, after carefully setting forth the prin­ ciples upon which all methods of treating special classes should be based, went on to apply them to the case of the deaf mutes of Massachusetts. The present method is to send these unfortunates, at the expense of the State, to Hartford, there to reside with many others of the same class, in a great asylum, and be kept closely together during the most impressible years of their lives, deprived almost entirely of family and social relations, except �14 with each other. They have not even the advantage of family relations with their teachers, who naturally show their preference for domestic life over asylum life, by dwelling in their own houses. This arrangement, however saving of labor, and sparing of money, violates the principle so strenu­ ously urged by the Board of Charities, that defective children should be associated together as little as is possible; and with ordinary persons as much as is possible. The Board suggested that instead of this plan, the deaf mutes of Massachusetts (who are quite numerous enough to form one school as large as a school ought to be,) should be educated at home, that is, within the State. The plan did not contem­ plate an asylum, but simply one or more schools, to which mutes could go for instruction, as other chil­ dren go to common schools; and during the rest of the time be subjected to the ordinary family and social influences,—not of a great deaf mute family, but of common life. The plan certainly had many important features. The method proposed was in accordance with the principles set forth by the Board, the soundness of which has not been disproved. It avoided, as much as is possible, the acknowledged evils of congregat­ ing persons of common infirmity closely together. It involved no great expense. It was in the nature of an experiment; and could be abandoned with �15 little loss, if it should fail. In fine, it seemed to present a happy mean between the old system of the Hartford school and the system urged by Blanchet, which begins to find so much favor in France and other European countries. It incorporated the admitted advantages, and avoided the acknowledged evils of each. But it also involved the loss to the Hartford asylum of almost one-half its pupils, who are maintained there by the State of Massachusetts. It is conceivable, therefore, that it should be opposed, both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, the Principal of the American Asylum at Hartford, opposes it in his way, which is the indirect way. He devotes almost the whole of. his last Report to this matter. First, he makes a false issue with the Report of the Board of Chari­ ties; second, he makes a personal attack upon the Chairman. He raises a false issue, by devoting a large part of his Report to the subject of teaching mutes articulation, as if that had been urged by the Board. He sets forth forcibly and fully the advantages of the French method of instruction used with some modifications at Hartford, and the disadvantages of the German method used in the German, and many other European schools. If there was room to go into the matter here, it could be shown, that, with the exception of a single sentence, which should be qualified, all that is urged �16 in the Report of the Board of Charities in favor of articulation, is sound, and cannot be gainsaid. "We quote from pp. 51-55 of their Report:— “ The inherent differences between children who are blind or mute and ordinary children, are not so great as to form characteristics of a class, or to remove them from the effect of common educational influences. We are not, therefore, to modify these influences to suit their condition, but rather modify their condition to suit them. We must, however, modify our method of instruction somewhat to suit the blind, and a great deal to suit the deaf mutes. “ It is not the purpose, now, to speak of special instruction, further than to say that, other things being equal, the me'hod is best which approaches most closely the approved methods used with ordinary children. “ But in speaking of education in a more general sense, that is of the influences which are brought to bear upon the development of character, -a few words may be appropriate upon the subject under consideration, to wit,— “ Intensification of Peculiarities Growing' out of an Infirmity. “ It is to be borne in mind always, that the infirmities which characterize these classes of mutes and blind do, in spite of certain compensations, entail certain undesirable consequences,'which have unfavorable effects upon body and mind both. “ The lack of an important sense not only prevents the entire and harmonious development of mind and character, but it tends to give morbid growth in certain directions, as a plant checked in its direct upward growth grows askew. It would be a waste of words to prove this, because a �17 ! : > denial of it would be a denial of the importance of the great senses. “ The morbid tendencies, however, are not strong— •certainly not irresistible—at least with the blind. They are educable, like all tendencies and dispositions, and by skilful management may be turned to advantage. Certainly, how­ ever, they ought to be lessened, not strengthened, by educa­ tion. Now, they are lessened, and their morbid effects corrected in each individual, by intimate intercourse with persons of sound and normal condition—that is, by general society; while they are strengthened by associating closely and persistently with others having the like infirmity. They, themselves, seem to have an instinctive perception of this, and the most delicate of them feel the morbid tendency which may segregate them from ordinary people, and put them in a special class. Some of them struggle "against it in a touching manner, as the fabled nymph resisted meta­ morphosis into a lower form of life. “ They seem to cling to ordinary persons, as if fearing segregation, and strive to conform themselves to their habits, manners, and even appearance. They wish to look, to act, to be, as much like others as is possible, and to be con­ sidered as belonging to ordinary society, and not to a special class. “ It is generally supposed that this feeling, especially in the blind, arises only from the fact that blindness and poverty are associated together, and that poverty calls forth contempt, lightened, in their case, by pity. But the feeling has a deeper source. It is very strong in those of delicate and sensitive natures, and it ought always to be respected and encouraged. Our principle in treating them should be that of separation and diffusion, not congregation. We are 3 �to educate them, for society of those who hear and who see; and the earlier we begin the better. “We violate this principle when we gather them into institutions; but we do so in view of certain advantages of' instruction in common, which are not to be had in any other feasible method; as we bear with an inferior common school rather than have none. A man of wealth might, indeed— and if he were wise, would—allow his mute or blind child to spend a certain time in a well-regulated institution for like children; but it would be only a short one. “ Guided by this principle we should, in providing for the instruction and training of these persons, have the associa­ tion among them as little as is possible, and counteract its tendencies by encouraging association and intimacy with common society. They should be kept together no more closely and no longer than is necessary for their special instruction; and there should be no attempts to build up permanent asylums for them, or to favor the establishment of communities composed wholly or mainly of persons subject to a common infirmity. “ This is far more important with the mutes than with the blind, because of their speechlessness. Language, in its largest sense, is the most important instrument of thought, feeling, and emotion; and especially of social intercourse. Blindness, in so far as it prevents knowledge of and partici­ pation in the rudimentary part of language, to wit, panto­ mime, or signs, gestures, and expression of features and face, tends to isolation : but the higher and far more impor­ tant part of language, speech, is fully open to them. Then their sense of dependence strengthens their social desires; increases their knowledge and command of speech, and makes that compensate very nearly, if not quite, for igno­ �19 rance of other parts of language. The blind, if left to ordinary social influences, are in no danger of isolation. It is when we bring them together in considerable numbers that the tendency to segregation manifests itself; and this is rather from necessity than from choice, for the social cravings become more intense with them than with us. “ With mutes it is not so. Speech is essential for human development. Without it full social communion is impossi­ ble ; since there can be no effectual substitute for it. The rudimentary and lower parts of language, or pantomime, is open to mutes; but the higher and finer part, that is, speech, is forever closed ; and any substitute for it is, at best, imperfect. This begets a tendency to isolation; which not being so effectually checked during youth, as it is with the blind, by a sense of dependence, becomes more formidable. To be mute, therefore, implies tendency to isolation. The blind need little special instruction; the mutes a great deal. “ An attempt to consider different modes of instructing mutes would lead into a wide field of discussion ; but it may be remarked that in the plenitude of arguments and disputes about the comparative merit of the various systems of sign language, it has not been enough considered that, by teach­ ing a mute to articulate, we bring him to closer association with us by using our vernacular in our way, than by teach­ ing him the finger language, which can never become our vernacular. The special method tends more to segregate him and his fellows from ordinary society. In the first case one party adheres to the natural and ordinary method of speech, and the other party strives to imitate it; in the second, both use a purely arbitrary and conventional method. �20 . “ The favorite motto of the adherents of the method of dactylology betrays this fault,— 4 Lingua vicaria manus ; ’ for the very vicariousness is objectionable, and ought to be lessened as much as is possible. “ Without pretending to metaphysical precision, it may be said that by means of the senses we come into conscious relations with external nature—with men and things. Sen­ sation and perception are the roots of knowledge. The wider the circle of sensuous relations, the more rapid the acquirement of knowledge. By action and reaction between our internal nature and external nature, character is devel­ oped. But in order that there may be harmonious and entire development of human character, there must be the ordinary organs of human sense : no more and no less. “ The result, then, of the lack of any one organ of sense must be twofold; first, limitation of the circle of sensuous relations ; second, inharmonious development of character. “ In the education of the deaf mutes and of the blind we are to counteract the limitation by special instruction given through the remaining senses ; and we are to counteract the tendency to inharmonious development by special influences, both social and moral. “ Special educational influences, to counteract these special morbid tendencies, should begin with the beginning of life and continue to its end ; and they should be more uniform and persistent with mutes than with the blind. “ The constant object should be to fashion them into the likeness of common men by subjecting them to common social influences, and to check the tendency to isolation and to intensification of the peculiarities which grow out of their infirmity. , �21 “A consideration of the principles imperfectly set forth above, will show that when we gather mutes and blind into institutions for the purpose of instruction, we are in danger of sowing, with sound wheat, some tares that may bring forth evil fruit. The mere instruction may be excellent, but other parts of the education tend to isolate them from common social influences, and to intensify their peculiarities, and this is bad.” It will be seen that the Board does not commit itself to the system of articulation. Nay! the Report says expressly, (p. lviii.,) ” that while some of the members believe that articulation should be taught, others, without pretending to decide upon the com­ parative merits of different systems of instruction, believe that many benefits would arise from having the wards of the State taught within her borders. They would, therefore, suggest a plan for change in our system of educating deaf mutes.” In this plan, the Board do not recommend that articulation should be taught. This is the false issue which the Principal makes. Next, he tries to divert attention from the reason­ ing of the Board, by attacking the Chairman, and disparaging the value of his opinion. He singles him out by name; rudely insinu­ ates that he is given to riding hobby horses, and to changing them frequently; and that moreover he might have some personal end to gratify; and say­ ing for himself, with much complacency,—■" We are �22 not specially sensitive in this matter, we have no hobbies to ride, and’ no personal end whatever to gratify ! ” (p. 38.) Considering that the Report of the Board of Charities alluded to the Directors and officers of the Hartford Asylum very courteously; and admitted that the deaf mutes of Massachusetts ” have received fair and kind treatment at their hands, and been taught by a corps of able and accomplished teachers; ”* such language by one of those officers, sanctioned by those Directors, and printed in their Annual Report, appears uncourteous and strange, to say the least! Again, considering that no one charged the Rev- * erend Principal with being sensitive, or hobby horsical, his language certainly shows neither lack of sensitiveness nor abundance of Christian charity; but it does suggest the French proverb,—" gui s’ excuse s’ accuse ; ” — ” who needlessly excuses himself, accuses himself.” And yet again, considering that the Reverend Principal is not sensitive, and declares (p. 29,) that the objections urged against the Hartford system have been repeatedly met, to the satisfaction of committees of the Massachusetts Legislature, it is strange he should say, ” It may be proper to give them a passing notice: ” stranger still, that this " passing notice ” should occupy almost the whole of his Report. Report, p. 57. �23 He then proceeds, not to consider the arguments and considerations urged against the Hartford system, but to demolish them by lessening whatever weight they might derive from the character of the members of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities, in whose Report they are found. That Board consists of seven members, six, at least, of whom are gentlemen of character, and some of them eminent scholars and teachers. They all sign the Report ; and all endorse the principles which it advocates, and the application of those principles to the education of mutes; although they admit< they are not all of them, competent to decide whether mutes should be taught articulation or not. But the Principal regards them as mere men of straw, who signed what they did not understand or believe! He says (p. 35,) with regard to the question of teaching articulation, "On the side of educating mutes by signs, we find every teacher in this coun­ try, and in the British Isles, with the exceptions above named, and several of these have spent nearly forty years in the work of practical instruc­ tion; on the side of teaching articulation, we find Dr. S. GK Howe! ” And so with all the arguments and considera­ tions urged in the Report of the Board. It is, "Dr. Howe objects;” "Dr. Howe urges;” "Dr. �24 Howe complains;” "Dr. Howe suggests.” Dr. Howe is everywhere, the Board nowhere! Having deprived the principles advanced in the Report of whatever moral support the names of the doctor’s colleagues might give, he next tries to demolish whatever they might get from the name of the doctor alone. He quotes some of his opinions, expressed many years ago, and shows that they differ from those put forth in the recent Report of the Board of Charities, and then remarks,— “ It is pleasant to notice, that as Dr. Howe’s views with regard to the best arrangements for deaf mutes have not been entirely settled in the past, there is reason to hope he may come out right yet.” Amen! but he will never come out right, if he is afraid of inconsistency with former opinions; or clings to doctrines because he once professed belief in them. The doctor indeed says, in one of his Reports, that the result of many years’ experience and observation, both of blind and of mutes, con­ vince him that he made mistakes in organizing the Institution for the Blind, more than thirty years ago. There was then no school for the blind in the country, and he copied existing establishments, among others the asylum at Hartford, merely modifying it to meet the special condition of the blind. �25 He found, in a few years, that he had incorpora­ ted some fundamental errors in the plan of organi­ zation ; and in his Twentieth Report he states, that having been called upon by a committee from another State to recommend a plan for an institution for the blind, he did recommend one differing in important points from the Perkins’ Institution. He would have no "commons,” no central boarding­ house,—only a school-house. He would thus avoid the error of making them board, and lodge, and live so much together; because he finds that it encourages a spirit of caste, and intensifies the peculiarities growing out of their infirmity. He would have them associate with each other less, and with ordinary persons more, than is now done. He would now follow out this idea in the pro­ posed school for mutes in Massachusetts. He did, indeed, follow it out in establishing the workshop for the blind many years ago; and the most satisfactory results have been obtained. There are some thirty blind persons who come together in the morning to learn trades, and to work at them on wages, and go away to their several boarding places in the neighborhood. This establishment is under the general direction of the Institution; but the inmates (some of them young,) are not brought together except for instruction, or for work, and not even for work in large numbers; because the plan is to furnish work 4 �26 at their several homes whenever it is possible. They are thus subjected to ordinary family and social influences, and are trained to live in and take part with ordinary society, and not trained to become members of a special class or caste. The establish­ ment is successful; and blind persons who have been familiar with both modes of living,—asylum life and common life,—prefer the latter. It would doubtless be so with mutes if the exper­ iment were fairly tried; for all the reasons and con­ siderations in favor of such a system apply with even more force to them than to the blind. The first direct charge which the Principal brings against Dr. Howe is, that he makes "an offensive classification ” of deaf mutes. "We object to Dr. Howe’s placing, as' he does, the four hundred deaf mutes of Massachusetts among the dependent classes.” (Pep. p. 29.) And again, (p. 30,) " This offensive classification pervades the whole Report,” &c. He would be blameworthy indeed who should, eve n by careless use of language, give just cause of offence to a class of unfortunates who need all our sympathy and kindness. But we shall show that by no fair construction of the Report can such a charge be sustained; and moreover, that if the language of the Directors of the Hartford school, and of the Principal himself, were construed as he �27 construes the language of the Board, then they and he are open to the charge of very " offensive classification.” So far from anything " offensive ” to the mutes pervading the Report of the Board, they are spoken of not only respectfully, but with tender interest. Indeed, special care even is taken to combat the common opinion, (which is really offensive to the mutes,) that they form a special class, and must always do so; an opinion, by the way, which the Reports of asylums for deaf mutes, and even those of the Principal himself, often tend, inadver­ tently, to strengthen. The Board of Charities says, (p. 50,) “ It may be permitted, however, to draw a further illustra­ tion of the principle under consideration from some persons, (neither vicious nor criminal,) the similarity of whose defect or infirmity causes them to be classed together, such as the deaf mutes and the blind. It may not be improper, at the same time, to make some remarks and suggestions upon the mode of treating such of these classes as are at the charge of the State. “ It is common to regard deaf mutes and the blind as forming special classes, though speaking strictly no such classes exist in nature. “ They spring up sporadically among the people, from the existence of abnormal conditions of parentage, which produce a pretty equal average number of cases in every generation, among any given population. �28 “ They abound more in some localities and some neighbor­ hoods than in others; owing, probably, to ill-assorted marriages. “ The important points, however, are that these abnormal conditions of parentage are not inherent and essential ones ; that some of them are cognizable ; that with wider diffusion of popular knowledge more of them may be known; and that, by avoiding them, the consequences may cease, and the classes themselves gradually diminish and finally disappear. “We have no deaf or blind domestic animals; and the generations of men need not be forever burdened with blind and deaf offspring.” The idea which pervades the Report is, that the mutes and the blind, if left without special instruc­ tion and training, tend to fall into the class of dependents. If this gives just cause of offence, then must the Report of all the institutions for deaf mutes in the country be offensive; for they do constantly express the idea that deaf mutes must be a burden to their friends and to society, unless they receive special instruction. Out of the abundance of such expression we select a few. The directors of the Hartford school say: ” The translation indeed of one of the inferior orders of creation to the human species, would be only in a degree more wonderful than we have in several instances witnessed in our scholars.” The Principal quotes this language approvingly, in his able paper, in the American Annals, (p. 3.) « �29 Nay! he himself is especially open to the charge of what he calls " offensive classification.” Without meaning to be "offensive,” he often speaks of them in a way which might give pain to sensitive persons. For instance, he says: "We do not believe that another human being can be found, in savage or civilized society, whose mind is so thoroughly imbruted with ignorance and so difficult to reach as that of many a deaf mute who has grown up to maturity in the darkness and neglect consequent upon his misfortune ! ” * In many other places he speaks of them as entirely dependent upon society for salvation from a low and brutish life. He does not regard them as dependent in the sense in which ordinary chil­ dren and youth are, but specially and necessarily dependent, owing to their natural infirmity; and shows that they can be lifted out of their ignorance and dependence only by special means and costly training. Nay, more! He not only considers them as a dependent class, but he sometimes fairly puts them down in the dangerous class. He says, eloquently: “ It is the darkness and gloom of his mental condition that makes him an object of commiseration, and renders him, if uneducated, the most pitiable of all God's creatures. This darkness is as nearly total as can well exist in the midst of , * Thirty-Fifth Annual Report Ohio Institution for Deaf and Dumb, p. 9. Report of Rev. Collins Stone, Superintendent. �30 civilized and Christian society. His palsied ear shuts out from his soul, not only the Q melody of sweet sounds,’ but also the most familiar facts of common life and experience. “ He knows nothing of the history of mankind, or of the globe on which he lives, or of the immensely important truths connected with his immortality. “ He is also excluded by his infirmity from intercourse with his fellow-men. He can neither make known to them his own wants, nor understand and conform to their wishes. But while in this uneducated state he is a very ignorant being, he is by no means an innocuous one. His animal nature is fully developed. His passions are fierce and strong, and he knows no reason for their restraint. Revenge, lust, jealousy, may have dominion over him, without the presence of any moral considerations to lead him to repress their promptings. He may thus easily become an uncom­ fortable and dangerous member of society ! ” Now, if the classification of these unfortunates among the deserving but dependent members of society is "offensive,” what must be that of the Reverend Principal, who puts them among the dangerous members? But, in reality, neither meant any offence, and none ought to be taken. The criticism is not worthy of the Principal, whose actions speak louder than his words; whose devotion of his life to the education of mutes would prove him to be their friend, let his language be what it might; and though he has made more " offensive classifications ” of them than the Board has done. �31 The Principal next makes four several charges against Dr. Howe, in one paragraph, as follows: First, that ” a few years ago he advocated the plan of educating deaf mutes and blind children in one institution, on the ground that as the blind are intellectually superior, such a union would be especially for the advantage of deaf mutes.” The Principal probably had been looking at the Twelfth Report of the Trustees of the Perkins’ Institution for the Blind, without remarking that it stated that Dr. Howe had been in Europe most of the year, and did not write his usual Report. But, no matter; he stands by the Trustees’ report, and still maintains that blind children are usually much superior to mutes in capacity for intellectual attainment, by reason of the gift of hearing, which is the mother of speech; and that it would, on this and on other accounts, be better for a mute child to be asso­ ciated, while learning the English language, with a blind child, than with another mute child. His position is not understood by the Principal. He has urged that certain advantages would accrue to deaf mutes by being associated with blind chil­ dren, because they would be forced to spell their words upon their fingers, and to form distinct sen­ tences, and thus to have constant practice in the English language. Thinking persons know well that one of the greatest obstacles in the way of deaf mutes learning �32 our language is the strong tendency they have to use pantomime. The attempt to make them use the English lan­ guage in their intercourse with each other, is like trying to make our children speak French together. The little mutelings won’t take pains to spell out the words when they can flash forth their meaning with a look or a gesture. They won’t make the letters t-a-i-l-o-r if they can touch their forehead, and imitate the swing of his arm; nor h-o-r-s-e if they can crook their fore­ fingers by the side of their forehead to show his ears; nor h-o-r-s-e-m-a-n if they can set two fingers astride the other hand. They won’t restrict them­ selves to the use of letters, and words, and sentences in their intercourse with their playmates who can see; but they would be forced to do so with playmates who are blind. There is hardly a mute graduate of the Hartford school who can spell as well as Laura Bridgman does; and nothing gave her such marvellous accu­ racy, and such copious vocabulary, except the necessity of constantly practising the use of words which had been so painfully taught her. It is almost a matter of certainty that she would not have been able to spell so well as she does if she had been merely deaf and mute. Like other mutes she would have been tempted by the facility of addressing signs to the eye to neglect that patient �33 and persistent practice which is necessary to make a good speller. She could see no natural signs, and therefore, persons conversing with her were forced to spell their words; and her answers were necessarily made not by signs, but by letters and words. The case was a new and anomalous one, and if the Doctor had regarded the ” consistency ” of his record, and followed the practice of the ” schools,” he would have declined to undertake the charge of a child who did not come within the rules. The passages on which, probably, the Principal founds his first charge, merely set forth certain advantages of the kind of instruction which the blind mutes must have; and its applicability in a certain extent to the instruction of ordinary mutes. The second charge is, that " he has since been understood to favor their education by a .new system of dactylology of his own invention.” The Principal has been imposed upon by a pure invention of somebody. But should he allow himself to be imposed upon? Such a statement was worth publishing, or it was not. If it was, then the Principal should first have inquired if it were true; and a letter of inquiry would have brought the answer by return mail that it was untrue. If it was not worth publishing, then such a statement is unworthy a place in a Report professing to be a 5 �34 reply to the Report of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities. The third charge is, that " Dr. Howe once advo­ cated removing mute children from home influences and associations at a much earlier period in life than most teachers think judicious.” This is true; but if the Principal had gone on and stated the whole truth, he would have made it appear that Dr. Howe’s heretical views were finally adopted by the Directors of the American Asylum. As he has failed to go into the history of the matter, which is interesting in the history of deaf mute education in Massachusetts, we will do so. In the Twelfth Annual Report of the Institution for the Blind, for 1843, occurs the following:— “ A few words must be said with regard to the two deaf and dumb children who joined our school about a year since, at the early age of seven years. Being too young to be admitted into the Asylum for the deaf mutes at Hartford, . they were placed by their parents under our direction, with the hope that* they might, at least, gain a knowledge of language at an earlier period than has been usually the case with children in their condition. “ The success which has attended the plan of instructing Laura, by the finger language alone, has induced the instructor of these two deaf mutes to teach them only by the finger process, intentionally avoiding the use of the gesture language, taught at Institutions for the deaf and dumb. And, thus far, the plan, as in Laura’s case, has been satisfactory. �35 “ It is found these children not only learn to talk rapidly with the fingers, but are able to form a precise idea of a sentence expressed by the finger language, which cannot always be the case in the use of their natural, or gesture language; and in this important particular does the manual or finger language seems to be of greater value to the deaf mutes than the language of gesture. “ They have made considerable progress, not only in the acquisition of language, but also in writing, numerical cal­ culations, and in a knowledge of objects which attract their notice. “During the last session of our State Legislature, the Committee on Education, appointed by that body, consulted our Board on the subject of admitting the deaf and dumb to enjoy the privileges of our Institution. A consideration of this proposition was urged, and encouraged, by parents of deaf mute children, and also by educated deaf mutes, who were anxious to have the education of their unfortunate brethren commenced at an earlier age than was permitted by the regulations of the American Asylum at Hartford, and at a school nearer than that at Hartford. “ The trustees, acting under Dr. Howe’s advice, expressed a willingness to receive deaf mute pupils of tender years, on the same footing with the blind, believing that it would prove mutually beneficial to the two classes.” The Report goes on to say,— “ The question, we understand, was discussed at some length by the committee, in the presence of a deputation from the Asylum at Hartford, who protested against the pro­ posed change, and it finally resulted in the arrangement that the regulations of that Asylum should be so altered as to �36 authorize the admission of our State deaf mute beneficiaries at an earlier age than heretofore ! ” It would appear from this record that most teachers, and doubtless the deputation from Hart­ ford, disagreed with Dr. Howe’s views. Neverthe­ less, in order to prevent the loss of any Massa­ chusetts beneficiaries, they consented to make an ’ " injudicious ” arrangement. At any rate, they so far adopted the plan advo­ cated by Dr. Howe, as to change their conditions of admission, and admit pupils at what the Prin­ cipal calls ” an earlier period of life than most teachers think judicious.” Dr. Howe had long before urged that deaf mute children should begin to learn the English lan­ guage as early as possible; and in 1812 he received some young mutes into the Institution for the Blind, partly in order to see if they could not be taught advantageously at an earlier age than that fixed for admission to the Hartford asylum. From the early days of that asylum down to 1841, their Beports state that candidates for admis­ sion must be not under ten years of age nor over thirty. In 1842 they say, " State beneficiaries must be not under twelve nor over twenty-five; other applicants, between ten and thirty This was not only putting the minimum age too low, • but making besides an odious distinction between State beneficiaries and private pupils. It �37 was about this time that Dr. Howe was chairman on the part of the Massachusetts House of Repre­ sentatives, of the Committee on Public Charitable Institutions, and agitated this matter. It appears also that the Directors of the asylum soon changed their views, and announced that they would receive pupils between the ages of eight and .twenty-five, thus admitting State benefi­ ciaries four years earlier than they had before done, and abolishing the odious distinction between them and private pupils. Nor have they stopped here; for in a later Report, a committee of their Board says,— • z “ The opinion is beginning to be quite prevalent, that a longer time than six or eight years is requisite, thoroughly to educate deaf mutes; and that the legislatures of the States to which they belong should extend the term of their instruction. Indeed, there is good reason for believing that these legislatures will do this whenever the subject is fairly laid before them. In that case, the objection to receiving any pupils under ten which has hitherto been felt, would be removed, and the number of pupils actually in the asylum at any one time would be considerably increased, even if the annual admissions should be the same as heretofore. As we were the first to project and carry into effect the high class, by means of which a portion of our pupils are enabled to prosecute their studies much beyond the ordinary limit, we ought also TO SECURE TO THE AMERICAN ASYLUM THE CREDIT OF TAKING the first step in the opposite direction, and thus offer the advantages of instruction to such young �38 children as contemplate a thorough and extended course of training.” This report was approved and adopted by the whole Board. Dr. Howe urged the early instruction of mutes, upon the ground that it was very important to them; the Directors seem to have adopted it, first to prevent the loss of the beneficiaries of Massa­ chusetts; next, " to secure to the American Asylum the credit of taking the first step,” &c. Surely, we may fairly quote here the language of the Principal respecting Dr. Howe, as more appli­ cable to the Directors of his own institution, and say, ” It is pleasant to notice that as the ” Directors’ " views with regard to the best arrangement for deaf mutes have not been settled in the past, there is reason to hope they may come out right yet.” The Principal charges, fourthly, that Dr. Howe " now takes the ground that deaf mutes should not be gathered into institutions at all.” We do not believe that the Principal would pur­ posely misrepresent any one, and therefore do not understand how, with the Report before him, he could make such a statement! That document [which the Principal treats as Dr. Howe’s alone,] recommends a change in our sys­ tem of educating the deaf mutes of Massachusetts, �39 • , and gives the outline of a plan for an institution. As this is an interesting matter to all humane peo­ ple, and a very important one to deaf mutes, we will sketch this outline. The Governor and Council shall appoint three commissioners for the education of deaf mutes, who shall act without salary, [or they may be members of the Board of Education.] The commission1 ers are to select the children who are to be the beneficiaries of the State. This would certainly be an improvement on the present system, for it is well known that the Gov­ ernor and Council cannot attend to this work as carefully as they would do, and as it ought to be done. They have neither time nor means for doing it thoroughly. Besides, it is a work for which per­ sons should have some peculiar fitness. Some applicants are unfit for State beneficiaries, and are rejected after going to the asylum at the State’s charge; some are not entirely deaf; some are idiotic; some partially blind or deranged. How can the Governor and Council examine a deaf mute child and ascertain these things? But more often the applicants are children of parents who have some means, and who ought to pay part, at least, of the cost, and so lessen the charge to the Commonwealth. These commissioners, after selecting candidates, and deciding whether they should be taught wholly �40 or only partly at the expense of the State, may contract with any responsible society or organiza­ tion of citizens of Massachusetts, who will under­ take to instruct and train indigent deaf mutes belonging to the State, upon a plan of which the following is a vague outline. [It is understood that responsible parties are ready to form an organ­ ization, if the State should favor it.] “ The society to provide a suitable building for school­ house, and, if necessary, a workshop, and to employ com­ petent teachers. “ The commissioners to designate the beneficiaries, and to allow the society for each one a sum not greater than that now paid for beneficiaries at the Hartford school. Their warrant should be, not for five years, as is now the case, but from one year, and renewed, if, upon examination, the pupil proved worthy. “ The society to instruct and train these beneficiaries gra­ tuitously in its school; to board the children of parents who do not live in the neighborhood of the school in respectable families, and pay--------- dollars and cents a week for at least forty weeks in a year. “ They shall, however, if possible, place but one mute in any one family, and never more than three. “ The commissioners should have power to require the parents of beneficiaries to pay a certain part—say one third or quarter—of the cost of the board of their children ; and when they are manifestly unable to do so, then to require the towns where they have a settlement to pay a sum not exceeding one dollar in a week, for forty weeks in a year. �41 • “ The commissioners to have general supervision of the school, and of the welfare of such wards of the Common­ wealth as live more than two miles from the school. “ The advantages of such a system would be many. “ 1st. The care and oversight of these wards of the Com­ monwealth would fall where they really belong—upon our own citizens, a very large number of whom would come into constant relations with them. “ 2d. The children would be taught within the State, and nearer to their homes ; and a large proportion of them might live at home. “ 3d. The relations of family and neighborhood would not be interrupted so much, nor so long. “ The importance of this is very great in all cases, but especially so with those whose natural infirmity or peculiarity tends to isolate them. “ There are innumerable threads uniting us with society, . and giving us the unspeakable advantages of home ,and of familiar neighborhood, many of which are broken in the case of thepe unfortunates; and we should strive to strengthen, not to weaken, those that remain to them. “ 4th. The disadvantages and evils arising out of congre­ gation of great numbers of persons of like infirmity, would be lessened and counteracted. “ The Hartford school is already too large; and it is con­ tinually growing. Living many years in such a congregation strengthens that tendency to isolation which grows out of the infirmity of mutism, and intensifies other morbid tendencies. “ By the new plan all these would be lessened, and the counteracting tendencies of common social life would be greatly increased. 6 �42 “ The mutes would be together but five or six hours each day. During the rest of the time, instead of being subjected to the artificial restraint and influences of ‘ asylum life,’ which, at best, can be only a poor imitation of family life and influences, they would be subjected to the average influences of social life; which is the kind of life they are to live in future, and for which, during all the tender years of youth, they should be trained. “ 5th. The whole establishment would be simplified. There would be no need of a great building, with halls, dormitories, kitchen, dining-room and the like; but only a simple school-house, and perhaps a workshop. There would be no need of superintendent, matron or steward, with their corps of assistants ; no cooks, no domestics, and none of the cumbrous machinery of a great institution. “ 6th. Part of the burden of supporting the child would fall where part of it (at least,) surely belongs, to wit: upon the parents, and upon the neighborhood, and not all upon the State. Moreover, besides lessening the cost and the responsibility which now fall upon the State, it would divide them among the people. The tendency of this would be to cause our mutes to be educated more nearly as our other children are. Every approach to this is very important to the mutes, because it tends to prevent their social isolation, and makes them to be regarded as members of society in full communion. “ A regular course of intellectual instruction would be given in the school; but advantage might be taken of neigh­ boring workshops for teaching some, if not all, the pupils various handicrafts, as other youth are taught. This would give a wider range of choice than can be given in the asylum, where only a few trades are taught. • ' �43 '■ • “ Arrangements might be made by which children of farmers, who can be useful at home in summer, might come to the school in winter. “ Other advantages of such a change might be set forth, besides the consideration that in a new school we might have all the advantages of the long experience of the Hartford school. We might avoid some of the errors which result from its very organization which cannot be cured in one generation ; and which, perhaps, stand in the way of intro­ ducing new and improved systems of instruction.” Now, if an establishment upon this plan is not an institution for deaf mutes, then what constitutes one? Is it eating in a common hall; sleeping in a common dormitory; being subjected to daily chapel devotions; taught a particular creed; and kept cooped up in one building and yard? Are these things essential to an institution? Then are not the German universities institutions; nor our country academies, nor our common schools, ” institutions.” . Does not, then, this fourth sentence of the para­ graph show, like the three preceding ones, that in his excessive desire to put Dr. Howe in the wrong, the Reverend Principal is led to misunderstand, and then to misstate his views? The conclusion that he does is strengthened by the next paragraph, in which the Principal is led to state what is utterly at variance with known facts, and even with statements in his own Reports. He says, (p. 35) :— �44 “ Dr. Howe objects that our school is too large, and that the cost is annually increasing. * * * The annual charge is now $175. * * * The annual charge at the Institution for the Blind is $200 per pupil, &c.” This strange blending of truth and error gives the reader an entirely false impression. The annual charge at the Institution for the Blind is more than the Principal states it to be; but no matter—the animus of this sentence is clear; it gives the impression that the cost at the Hartford school is only $175 a year! Who, that is not familiar with the financial condition of the Hartford asylum, could fail to conclude, from reading this statement,, that it cost much less to support pupils there than at the Institution for the Blind, or at any similar institution in the whole land? Whereas, the actual cost is more than $175; probably nearer $275 than $175 a year. The Asylum has a fund given by the United States government for the benefit of the mutes gen­ erally, and the income of that, (and perhaps of other funds,) probably amounted last year to over $15,000. The Trustees, as in duty bound, appro­ priate this, or part of it, to keeping down the charges. They do not tell us. how much; and the Report of the Treasurer is marvellously condensed. That document, however, show that the expenses in 1865 were: for salaries $18,649.40; insurance �45 and sundries, $1,314.21; total, $19,963.61. Other expenses by the Steward, (p. 44,) $33,276.47; mak­ ing in all $53,240.08 as the cost in 1865. This sum, divided by 212, the average number of pupils, gives over $250 a year for each. The printed accounts are obscure, and there is apparent discre­ pancy between the Steward and Treasurer,—so that the actual cost may be a little less ; but certainly it is far greater than an unsuspecting reader would infer from the Report of the Principal; and probably nearer $275 than $175. There is another proof, that the eagerness of the Principal to convict Dr. Howe of inconsistency, leads him to contradict his own Report. He says, (p. 38,) comparing the pupils of the Blind Asylum with his own,— “ It is comparatively difficult for blind children to travel in public conveyances. They are exposed to constant danger, and must always’ have. an attendant. Deaf mutes, however, travel safely to all parts of the country z Here are several mistakes,—some excusable, some not. It is excusable that the Principal should not know that most of the pupils of the Institution of the Blind travel to and from home on the rail­ roads, without special attendants, and safely, and that they are trained to do it. But it is not excusable that he should publish a statement concerning them without a little inquiry into its truth. �46 Still less is it excusable that he should make state­ ments, contradictory to others in the Report of his own Institution. On page 72 of the very Report in which he states that deaf mutes travel to all parts of' the country safely, we find the following, reprinted from former Reports:— “ On the day of the commencement of the Vacation, an officer of the Asylum will accompany such pupils as are to travel upon the railroads between Hartford and Boston, taking' care of them and their baggage, on condition that their friends will make timely provision for their expenses on the way, and engage to meet and receive them immediately on the arrival of the early train at various points on the route previously agreed on, and at the station of the Boston and Worcester Railroad in Boston. A similar arrangement is made on the Connecticut River Railroads, as far as to White River Junction. No person will be sent from the Asylum to accompany the pupils on their return; but if their fare is paid and their trunks checked to Hartford, it will be safe to send them in charge of the conductor.” A critic writing in the spirit of the Principal’s Report might be tempted to say that, when it is desirable to make a point against Dr. Howe, "the deaf mutes travel safely to all parts of the country; ” but, when it is desirable to attract pupils, the parents are assured " that an officer of the Asylum will travel with them and take care of them.” �47 But the charitable conclusion is, that in his haste and eagerness to make points against an opponent, the Principal overlooked what careful thought would have made him see, to wit: that blind people are less exposed to danger in travelling than deaf people. The former are made careful by their infirmity, and their hearing is made acute by practice; the latter are made careless, and they have no hearing at all. Again, a little reflection would have shown him, that one of the many advantages of hearing, over sight, as a guardian sense, arises from the fact that in the material world warnings of danger come mainly through the ear. This is, first, because, during half the time, darkness prevails over the world, and then the sentinel at the eye is off guard; but the one at the ear listens during all the waking hours; and, even when the body sleeps, is still half awake; for the ear shuts no lid, as the eye does. And second, because the eye receives no warning unless the rays of light strike nearly from the front, and therefore more than half the circle round us is unguarded. But the ear gathers in sounds not only from all around, but from above and below. Unless the rattlesnake be in the direct path, the eye sees him not, while the ear catches the first note of warning, come it from where it may. The thinnest substance stops light; but sound traverses thick walls. Besides, sight is more voluntary,—hearing �48 more involuntary; almost automatic indeed. Sights are shut out easily; sounds with difficulty. You can be blind at will; you cannot shut out all sound, even by stopping the ears. But be the philosophy of the matter what it may, daily facts show that mutes and deaf per­ sons are more exposed to the dangers of the present mode of travel, and suffer more from them, not only than blind persons, but than any class of people whatever. We constantly hear of persons being run over on the tracks; and in a large proportion of cases they are deaf persons. If the Principal will consult the records of rail­ roads he will find many cases of mutes and deaf persons being run over; but rarely one of a blind • man being injured in that manner. Nay! if he will look into the Reports of his own Institution he will find evidence not only, of con­ stant dread of danger from the rail cars, but acci­ dents and deaths among the pupils, even, while under the protecting and watchful care of the Asylum. The Thirty-Ninth Annual Report says,— “ An accident occurred on the railroad to one of the .pupils from Canada, in September last, which resulted in his death. While walking carelessly along on the ends of the ties, out­ side of the track, he was struck down by a passing train, and so severely injured that he survived less than an hour. This x �49 is the first accident of the kind which has ever happened to one of our pupils ; and we trust with the warning given to them of the danger of a similar exposure, and the vigilance which will in future be exercised on the part of those who have the care of them, it will be the last. Several educated deaf mutes have, within a few years, been killed while walking on the track of railroads. “ The practice of thus exposing themselves to almost certain destruction cannot be too strongly reprobated, and their friends should enjoin upon them, the importance of discontinuing it under all circumstances.” But the trust and the hope were vain; and vain were the warnings and precautions, for we read in the Fortieth Report, (p. 13,) as follows:— “ A severe, but not fatal accident, happened to one of our oldest pupils in July last, in consequence of incautiously walking on the railroad track near the city. The warning given in our last Report was unheeded, and • the result was an injury, which will in a measure disable him for life.” A still more shocking accident is related in the Forty-Second Report, (p. 8) :— “Two of the small boys, John Parker, from Massachu­ setts, and Benjamin Dawson, from New Hampshire, were killed by a train of cars as they were walking along the railroad track. The caution given them but a few hours before the accident was disregarded, and their intention of being on the track but for a few moments, till they could reach the crossing of a road, brought upon them this terrible 7 �50 calamity. While we sympathize with the afflicted friends of these promising lads, and regret most sincerely their untimely end, we cannot think there has been any want of care or attention to the safety of the pupils in this particular, on the part of the officers of the Asylum to whom their imme­ diate oversight is entrusted. No rule of the establishment has been more distinctly set. forth, more frequently or more strictly enjoined, or more rigidly enforced, than that which forbids the pupils going upon the track of a railroad. Whenever an accident of the kind has happened to a deaf mute in any part of the country, the fact has been announced to them publicly, and they have been warned never to indulge in a practice so unwise and so dangerous. We trust that the lesson taught by this sad experience may never be forgotten by the pupils, and that it may prompt those who watch over them to still greater vigilance.” The records of other Institutions show that dread­ ful accidents have happened in consequence of the infirmity of the pupils. As a matter of curiosity, we have ascertained by the annual returns of all the Railroad Companies of Massachusetts, that the number of persons run over, and killed or injured by the cars, during the last fifteen years, is 701. This does not include passengers, nor persons con­ nected with the trains, but only persons outside the train, crossing the road, or walking or lying upon the track. Of these, one is supposed to have been injured in consequence of blindness, six of insanity, and seventeen of deafness. Of course the supposed cause is not always the real one; but, assuredly, if �51 the real cause were ascertained, it would swell the number of accidents to the deaf, much more than to the blind; because the blindness is obvious, deaf­ ness is not. Everybody in the neighborhood knows who is blind, but not who is deaf. In the case of a stranger, even, the corpse of a blind man would reveal his infirmity; but deaf dead men tell no tales. But even if they could, it might be useless for our purpose, because if in the face of these reasons and facts, the Principal persists in saying, even to make a point against Dr. Howe, that "deaf mutes can travel safely to all parts of the country,” he would not believe otherwise even though one rose from the dead. Enough has been said to show that the charge of ignorance and error which the Principal attempts to fasten upon the Chairman of the Board of State Charities, is laid at the wrong door. If this were all, it would not be worth saying in public. To aim at mere personal triumph would be unworthy the cause and the parties. But there are questions concerning the best modes of educating and instructing deaf mutes which are very impor­ tant to that class of unfortunates, and which would deeply interest all intelligent and humane people if they could be brought forward and fairly discussed. It is the hope of causing them to be discussed which decides us to print what has been written above. �52 While earnest and enthusiastic men like Blan­ chet, in France, plead for the immediate modifica­ tion of the old Central Institutions,- such as those of Paris, London, and Hartford, and for teaching mutes in common schools; and while eminent and experienced, but conservative men, like the Abbe Carton, in Belgium, admit that the modification of the old system is only a question of time,—we of of Massachusetts hold on to a system borrowed from the old world, nearly fifty years ago, by a legislative body not known to have been partic­ ularly enlightened upon the subject of deaf mute education. This ought not to be; and our neglect of the matter is not creditable to the Commonwealth. The slightest examination would show that we have not only failed to improve materially our method of treating mutes, but have also failed to introduce into it the system and order which characterize other departments of the public service. It would be a great mistake to say that the present method of selecting the beneficiaries of the State is a good one, for there is no real method about it; and even the existing loose and imperfect practice is left to officials who have not the time nor the means to conduct it properly. See how it works. A mother has a child who cannot hear, and when he becomes eight or ten years old she concludes, sadly, that he never will �53 talk. She takes him to the common school, but the teacher sends him home, saying he cannot do any­ thing with him—cannot teach him. By and by she learns that there is a school, somewhere, for such children; and if she will go to the State House she can find out all about it. There she is passed civilly from one official to another, until she reaches the gentlemanly clerk of the Secretary of State, who concludes the child ought to be sent to Hart­ ford, and he passes her over to the gentlemanly clerk of the Governor, who kindly assists her in making out the necessary papers, which are signed without further examination. Neither of these gentlemen, however, has any means of knowing whether the applicant is a fit subject for the school, or not. The child must then wait perhaps one month, per­ haps eleven months, until the time of the annual reception of pupils, and then be sent to Hartford; provided that, in the meantime, the parents do not change their purpose. At Hartford, if the child is found to be a proper subject, he is well cared for, and put under the instruction of able and zealous teachers. But if, as sometimes happens, the mutism is the result of insanity, or of imbecility, or if the child is partially blind, or otherwise defective, or is too feeble in health, then he must be sent home again. He has lost precious time; the poor parents have been sadly taxed for the cost of the journey; the 7* �54 State has perhaps been taxed for his clothing; and all because it is nobody’s business to see that only fit persons shall be selected as beneficiaries, and sent out of the State at public charge. Again, it is clear that parents who can afford to pay part of the expenses of the child’s education ought to do so. This would not only be just, but really beneficial to them and to their child. It would increase self-respect; attach more esteem to the advantages of education; promote punctuality of attendance; favor study at home, as preparatory for school; and be in many ways advantageous, besides being a saving of money to the State. But it is now nobody’s business to attend to this matter; consequently the pupils are, almost without exception, at the entire charge of the State for their board and instruction, and in some cases for their clothing also. Again, the Commonwealth sends about a hundred pupils to the Connecticut school, but has adopted no method for ascertaining whether her wards are taught by a system well adapted to their wants, nor even whether they have the full benefit of the system, such as it is. There is no examination, deserving the name, by any official; and no means of knowing officially whether the wards of the Commonwealth have been well and properly treated, taught, and trained, during their five or six years’ sojourn in another State. �55 The whole thing is taken upon faith. Now, we our­ selves do not lack faith in the honesty and ability of those to whose care they are committed; but officials should walk by light, and not by faith. We say there is nothing deserving the name of examination, for it would be a mistake to call the present practice by such a name. The Governor and Council, in their annual " progress ” among State institutions, sometimes go out of our bor­ ders, and visit the asylum at Hartford. The prac­ tice is a good one, and certain good results follow; but surely nobody will pretend that there is, or can be, upon that occasion, anything like an examina­ tion. It is merely an exhibition to a highly intel­ ligent and sympathetic audience. Then, once in a year, the Legislature appoints a committee to look after public charitable institu­ tions generally, and especially to see that they do not spend too much money. This committee makes a general inspection of all the charitable and penal institutions in the State; and once a year they visit the Connecticut asylum. They have reason to be pleased by what they witness; and they generally give the institution a complimentary notice in their report. It is well known, however, that members are not selected with a view to their ability or fitness for judging the merits of a system of instruction for mutes, and that their single flying visit is only a general inspection. It is not, and �56 cannot well be a thorough examination of the merits of the system of instruction and of its results. The reports of the Committee make no such pretensions. They are complimentary, of course, but very vague and general in their state­ ments. Nevertheless, they are sometimes gravely quoted by the Directors of the Hartford asylum, as proofs that the friends of deaf mutes ought to be satisfied with the excellence of their system, and of its administration! We assert with confidence that our Legislature acts without sufficient light and knowledge upon this subject. We assert, moreover, with sorrow, almost with shame, that whenever an attempt is made to bring about any change in the system of educat­ ing our mutes, it is put down by considerations not of wise economy but of mere money saving. The whole matter is in the hands of the Legisla­ ture, which are always full enough with other business. Whenever there is any likelihood of any action looking to a removal of our beneficiaries from Connecticut, a delegation of pupils is sent from Hartford to exhibit their knowledge and acquire­ ments. They make a strong appeal (not too strong,) to the sympathy of the Legislature. Then the Superintendent waits upon the Committee of Public Charitable Institutions, and exhibits his facts and figures. He makes a strong appeal (too �57 strong, alas!) to the pocket-nerve of the State. He shows that he can maintain our children, if we will send them abroad, cheaper than we can do it at home; and straightway the whole matter is left to sleep for the year. Perhaps there is no need of any change, and no room for any improvement. Perhaps the great march of improvement in all other branches of instruction, affects not the method adopted at Hartford nearly half a century ago, and followed ever since, almost without change. Perhaps noth­ ing can be borrowed for its improvement from the opposite system adopted in the excellent schools for mutes through the length and breadth of Ger­ many,—the land of learned men and of able teach­ ers. Perhaps Horace Mann was a dolt. Perhaps the Board of State Charities is all wrong in suggesting any changes in our present system of educating our mutes. But there should be no doubt about it. Either the Board of Education, or of State Charities, or some competent persons, should be specially charged to see,— First, that all the unfortunate mutes in the Commonwealth shall not only have the oppor­ tunity of being educated, but be sought out and encouraged to avail themselves of it. Second, that the present method shall be prop­ erly systematized and regulated, so that there shall �58 be strict accountability, real examinations, and positive knowledge about results. Third, that any questions about change of the 1 present method shall be decided upon broad and liberal grounds, and not by considerations of dollars and cents. Such a committee, if clothed with authority, might procure such changes in the present method as would satisfy all the friends of the deaf mutes; or they might advise the adoption of a new one. The Directors of the Connecticut asylum, which has done so much for the mutes of New England, ought not to object to any change which will pro­ mote the interests of those unfortunates, even if it should involve the loss of a monopoly which the asylum has so long enjoyed. If Massachusetts should deem it best to establish a school of her own, she has mute children enough to fill it as full as a good school need to be; or perhaps ought to be. But even if there should be competition for the beneficiaries of other States, it would be animated only by generous emulation, not as to who would take pupils cheapest, but who would teach and train them best. Of such emula­ tion, there surely would come good, and not evil. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Remarks upon the education of deaf mutes: in defence of the doctrines of the second annual report of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities and in reply to the charges of the Rev. Collins Stone, principal of the American Asylum at Hartford Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Howe, Samuel C. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Boston; Mass. Collation: 58 p. ; 23 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Wright & Potter, Boston. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Please note that this pamphlet contains language and ideas that may be upsetting to readers. These reflect the time in which the pamphlet was written and the ideologies of the author. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Walker, Fuller & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1866 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5190 G5689 Subject The topic of the resource Education Deafness Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Remarks upon the education of deaf mutes: in defence of the doctrines of the second annual report of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities and in reply to the charges of the Rev. Collins Stone, principal of the American Asylum at Hartford), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Deaf-mutes Deafness Education Muteness