The new Number of the Quarterly Journal of Education, is
dis- tinguished by its usual stock of good sense, information, and scho- lastic gravity. Several articles might be mentioned as useful and intelligent, more particularly those which criticise the ordinary school-books. Here, if anywhere, is a sweeping measure of reform demanded ; and we trust that the Journal of Education will gain an authority which will render the censorship exercised over this im- portant class of literature effectual and final. No wonder that there should be so much ignorant Toryism afloat in high places, when the apathy of parents and teachers permits the young mind to imbibe such doctrines as are extracted and animadverted upon in the following passage. We trust that we shall extend the knowledge of the infamy of the modern editions of GOLDSMITH'S Abridgment of English History by quoting it. Who are the booksellers that dare to publish a series of libels so base and con- temptible, under the convenient name of history ? They deserve to be made notorious ; and the Journal of Education would only have done its duty by printing the firms in red letters.
" This objection applies with tenfold force to Dymock's Abridgment of Goldsmith's History, rendering it, independent of other glaring faults with which it abounds, a most improper book to be employed for the
purposes of education. In other respects, neither the manner nor mat- ter of this work can be approved ; it is not only written in a had style, but with a strong party spirit, by which every fact is distorted. Better would it be that children should remain wholly ignorant of the history of their country, than that they should obtain an acquaintance with it through such a medium.
" When we find that the volume before us is a standard school-book., ranking, together with the two just noticed, among works of such exten- sive sale as to be printed for the joint advantage of some of the most respectable publishers in London, we feel yet more forcibly how requi- site it is, that parents should be aware of the contents of books which are used in forming the minds of their children.
" The latter part of the history must of course be wholly attributed to Mr. Dymock, and for this he is therefore more peculiarly answerable. Characters, whose political opinions are at variance with his own, are generally noticed with contempt or vituperation. He thus notices that act of the Lord Mayor Beckford, for which his fellow-citizens caused his statue to be erected in their Guildhall, with that intrepid rejoinder in- scribed on its base, which, contrary indeed to courtly etiquette, but with so much manliness and propriety, he returned to the ungracious reply of the king :— " At the prorogation of Parliament, the City of London petitioned for a change of Ministry, and the royal answer not being satisfactory, one Beckford, then Lord Mayor, had the audacity to give a personal re- proof to his Sovereign, for listening to what he rudely called unconsti- tutional counsel. The Monarch, in silent indignation, heard the reproof of this insolent citizen, who had amassed great wealth as a West India planter, of which his arrogance was probably the spawn, conjoined with ignorance of what was due to the august personage in whose presence he had the honour to stand.'—P. 318.
"That enlightened statesman, the late Mr. Whitbread, who occupied so distinguished a station in the parliamentary history of this country, during a long and eventful period, has his character flippantly dismissed in the followina.° paragraph :—
" ' The trial of Lord Melville commenced on the 29th of April, in Weszininster Hall, and was conducted on the part of the Commons of Britain, by Mr. Samuel Whitbread, a brewer in London, who framed the articles of impeachment, ten in number, injudiciously. The super- abundance of his zeal formed but a poor compensation for want of pre- cision and judgment. To aggravate the guilt of the defendant, as Whit- bread vainly imagined, he frequently introduced the same charge in dif- ferent articles ; and not to render the articles too numerous, he huddled together different charges in the same article. These errors and defects, the result of a feeble uuderstanding and of acrimonious violence, would have operated in favour of the noble Lord.'—P. 400. " Examples of this kind might be multiplied, but these are perhaps suf- ficient to prove the gross partiality shown in this work. Stronger objec- tions exist against the fitness of this volume for occupying the minds of children. That event, which, in the last reign, cast so black a shade over the domestic history of royalty, and which was so revolting in its detail, that all allusion to it should have been studiously withheld in a work for juvenile readers, is here made a subject of free discussion. Some of the questions, placed at the end of the work, to which the pupils are expected to furnish answers from their recollection of the text, will sufficiently show the nature of the information which is to be instilled into the youth- ful mind:-
"' In what year did a separation take place between the Prince and Princess of Wales ? Why were commissioners appointed to examine into her conduct, and in what year ? What was the report of the commissioners ? In what year had a previous inquiry taken place, and by what name was it called? Who merited blame for the letters which the Princess wrote to their Majesties and others ? When did Parliament vote her 35,000/. a year ? What followed? Where did she at last settle? What annual sum did the Ministry offer to prevent her return to Britain ? Did she accept that proposal ? How was she re- ceived by the populace in London ? What measure did her arrival in Britain render inevitable ? Relate her trial and her conduct at the coro- nation. By whom was she now deserted? Respecting what did she form an erroneous opinion ? What would a little penetration have dis- covered ? What did her friends regret ? By whom were addresses for- warded to the sovereign ? In what respect did the opinions of the unin- formed part of the public and of the higher circles differ ? Were the declarations and conduct of the Whigs consistent? Who advised the suppression of the Queen's name in the Liturgy ? What sum a year did the Premier propose to allow her ? 'What declaration did she and her legal adviser, Mr. Brougham, make with respect to it ? By what act did she give the lie to these declarations ? When did she die ? What hap- pened at her funeral before she left London ? Who now rose in the esteem of the nation ?'—p. 49L "Who would wish their children, by qualifying themselves for answer- ing these questions, to be initiated into such kinds of knowledge—to be familiarized with subjects whose tendency is at once so depraving ar.d so humiliating to human nature?"
Previous page
