EDUCATION.
THE speech with which the Bishop of LONDON prefaced his ques- tions to Lord WHARNCLIFFE, on Monday evening, deserves at- tention. The reverend Prelate is not so weak as to think popular instruction in linear drawing more dangerous than popular instruc- tion in vocal music. It is the simultaneous teaching of various branches of knowledge at Exeter Hall that has given umbrage to him. He fears that the advocates of secular education are steal- ing a march upon him. "One species of instruction might be added to the other without any religious instruction being pro- vided by the Government; and a Normal School once established, to retrace our steps would be impossible, and the question of reli- gious instruction would be left undecided."
The question of religious instruction cannot be left undecided: it has been answered in the affirmative by the nation long ago. The lands and tithes of the Established Church, the large sums contri- buted by Roman Catholics and Dissenters towards the mainte- nance of their spiritual instructors, are declarations not to be mis- understood, that the nation will have religious education. This point was settled before the question of secular education was se- riously proposed.
The preliminary question which the Bishop insists upon having decided before he will permit Normal Schools to be instituted is, whether the persons appointed to communicate religious instruc- tion are to exercise a control over all other teachers—to have the power of deciding what the latter are to teach and what not, and in what manner they are to teach. According to him, "the Church of the country was entitled to claim the instruction of tbe people, though it did not assert the right to teach the children of those who differed from it." How far the right to teach even the chil- dren of those who differed from it had been waived, was also made to appear. On the one hand, grants for educational purposes, "in proportion to the number of children educated and the amount of private subscriptions," were approved of: on the other, it was urged as an objection to the lectures on education at Exeter Hall, that " very few teachers attended the lectures who belonged either to the National Society or to the British and Foreign Society "— that " the attendants were teachers of Sunday Schools, and me- chanics." The meaning of all this is—the Church must have the power of prescribing what branches of secular education are to be taught, and in what manner they are to be taught. Where there is a numerous Dissenting body, it may be necessary to concede to it the power of educating the children of its members, in so far as it acts in a corporate capacity—as a church. It is not very agree- able to recognize the existence of a rival church, but it must be done in order to confirm the authority of a church over the laity. And in this train of reasoning "the church" means exclusively "the clergy." These views are neither unnatural nor surprising in a church-
man • but they are at variance with those which prevail among intelligent laymen, even among those who are most attached to the Church Establishment. Experience has shown that the studies and pursuits of clergymen do not qualify them to decide which is the best method of intellectual training for making good lawyers or good diplomatists, good soldiers or sailors. Experience has also shown, that with the best motives in the world, the influence of the clergy has on the whole been unfavourable to the progress of ab- stract science. They have found it necessary to watch the progress of each new controversy in physics or morals that arose, in order to be prepared to meet any insidious attack that might he made upon their doctrines under pretence of carrying it on ; and, with the love of ease natural to all men, they have generally deemed it more con- ducive to their own comfort to stop discussion at the outset, than to watch its progress in order to prevent its being misdirected. The same feelings that excited the hostility of Popish clergy against GALILEO, have set Protestant clergy in arms against speculative geologists. The conclusion to which these reflections have led many even of the most cautious friends of education is, not that religious education ought to be omitted; but that religious instruc- tors ought to be confined within their own proper sphere and not allowed any control over the teachers of other branches of knowledge.
This opinion is entertained and avowed by Churchmen as well
as Dissenters, by Tories as well as Whigs. The only thing that has hitherto prevented it from, being acted upon is the political power which the Established Church in this country, derives from its large possessions, and its control over the already existing semi- naries of education. The speech of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, which called forth the protest of the Bishop of LONDON, is not the only indication of liberal opinions in matters of education which his party has given. Lord STANLEY carried the Irish educational bill through the House of Commons; and, more than that, Lord STAN- LEY and the party to which he then belonged found that measure left by Lord WHAENGLIFFE'S older friends in the pigeon-holes of' the Home Office when the Tories were turned out. The present Cabinet cannot yield to the Bishop of LONDON without incurring a loss of character which will materially weaken them. In the matter of education, as in the matter of commercial policy, the only place of safety for them is at the head of the practicable movement.
Previous page
