EDUCATION.

Wellington Independent, Volume V, Issue 390, 7 July 1849, Page 2

EDUCATION.

CHAPTER 111. We come now to the question "whether religious education should be given in the state schools—to what extent—and by whom."

This is the most "vexed" question of the whole subject; the one on which most prejudice exists; the one which most affects personal interests. The prejudices being religious prejudices, which are always the most insurmountable of any, and the interests being those of the possessors of spiritual power, the object of the most insatiable ambition of the human mind, there is every chance

that many will be found unconvincable by any arguments which fail to support those prejudices and maintain that power. — There are many, however, who aro free from both prejudice and interest in the matter, and in the hope of convincing them, we proceed with the examination of our subject.

It is particularly necessary in treating this branch of it, to remind our readers of the position we assumed in coming to the examination of the subject, the position neither of the Minister of religion, the Sectarian, the Philosopher, or any separate class, but of the representative of them all collectively, the State.

And looking at the present question from that point of view we conclude that its solution like that of all other questions which can arise in a free nation must be, that if the people wish that Religion should be taught in the state schools, it ought to be. If, however, tho people choose to say that secular knowledge only shall be taught there, and that it shall be left to the Ministers of religion to teach religion through other channels which are open to them in a variety of directions, it will then in a free nation clearly be the business of the Government to exclude religious teaching from the schools of the State.

The question therefore, is not what is it the duty of the Government to do in the matter, but what is it most expedient that the people should direct the Government to do.

This will depend,— 1. upon principles of mutual justice between the different religious bodies existing in the community, and. 2. upon the actual feasibility of carrying into execution that system which may be theoretically best; for it is possible that a system just in principle and sagacious in design might fail in operation from extrinsic causes.

Suppose that there be but one Religious opinion in the community, as is the case in Norway. To bestow religious instruction in the State schools would clear-

ly be consistent both with justice and feasibility; and the people would probably decide that it should be done.

Suppose, however, a State composed of ten thousand Jews and ten thousand Mahometans. It is clear that for the Government to give instruction in the State schools in the Jewish religion alone would be inconsistent with justice to the Mahometans. It would probabjy be found inconsistent also with feasibility, since the Mahometans would decline to send their children to the State schools, thus defeating the very end of their institution, universality of education.

It might, however, be possible in a State composed one half of Jews and one half of Mahometans to arrange so as to teach both religions in the State schools without favoring either: in which case, if wished by both, it would be expedient and be done. But suppose a State composed of fifty or more different religions, all diametrically and fundamentally opposed to each other, what might be feasible with only two, would be impracticable here. No conceivable method could be devised by which all could be taught in the State schools. To teach only one would be unjust to all the rest. The conclusion to which such a State would arrive would be to give only secular instruction, leaving the priests and parents to give religious instruction each in his own creed elsewhere than in the State schools.

But suppose a State composed of a people of only one religion, and that religion sub-divided into fifty different sects, opposed to each other on minor points, but agreed on certain fundamental ones. It would be possible for the State consistently with both justice and feasibility to teach the fundamental points on which all were agreed, leaving the ministers of religion to incalculate elsewhere the points on which they differed. And the feasibility of such a system would be all the greater if the points on which all were agreed comprised almost all that was valuable in their common religion, while the points on which they differed were comparatively of little consequence, or only related to questions of administration.

To illustrate. —If a mortal pestilence raged in London, and the government lay under an obligation to convey all the people away to some other place, having only one State coach to carry them in, and all demanding to be carried at once, but some wishing to go to Liverpool and some to Hull, —the only thing which government could do consistently with justice and feasibility would be to carry them all to Birmingham, to which point the roads to Liverpool and Hull are one and the

same. There it must drop them leaving each party to find for itself the means of travelling to its respective destintation. To take on the State coach to Hull would be unfair to those who wished to go to Liverpool, and vice versa. The state would have done its duty in getting both parties clear of the London pestilence. Ignorance is the moral pestilence from which the State is bound to find for the people the means of escape. Having done that if the people cannot walk further in one direction, the State must leave each party to follow its own inclination. But no party has a right to demand the aid of the State to carry out its own special aim, which differs from that of the common body. Two methods have been devised in the British dominions of teaching religion in such a manner as to meet the views of a variety of Sects. 1. The British andi Foreign System. 2. The Irish National System.

1. The British and Foreign System adopts tho sacred scriptures as a class book in its schools, entire but without comment, and permitting no creeds, catechisms, articles, or sectarian expositions of religion to be used. This system it is supposed may meet the views of all protestant sects of Christianity. Of course it practically excludes Roman Catholics and Jews, who disapprove of the Christian Scriptures, or the Protestant version of them. As far as it extends, however, it has worked well. It was founded in 1810 by Joseph Lancaster. The Society which works the system has founded a great .many schools in various parts of England, and the Education they afford i° very highly spoken of, Mr. M'Culloch informing us that " the instruction given in them k very superior; that there is more play given to the faculties, more spirit in tho instruction, and a vastly greater fund of knowledge acquired than in most other schools." The excellent schools founded by Mr. Campbell, at Nelson, in which above 6UO children in a community of 3,000 souls are educated,have adopted* the British and Foreign System, as their fundamental principle. This is the system also generally adopted in the United States. In the great Birmingham school, the Harp Alley school in London, and other individual schools in England, a still more general method has been adopted, under which the moral and preceptive parts of the Scriptures are taught to the exclusion of the doctrional, and they contain indiscriminately the children of churchmen, dissenters, catholics, and Jews.

2- The Irish National System, was the result of the enquiries of a Government Commission, which investigated the subject with reference to the wants of that country, from 1807 to 1833, during which period they published 14 valuable reports. Their labours resulted in the formation of a Board of Public Instruction, which in 1833, commenced a system of National Schools, which on one or two days of the week were to be thrown open to tho teachers of the different denominations of religion, that each might instruct the children of his own sect. The class books of these schools a so contain extracts from the Scriptures carefully made by the Board, which embody much of what the various sects agree upon, but exclude every thing likely to lead to controversy or prosefytism. The introduction of this system was strenously opposed by the " Kildare Place Society," winch had established Schools in which the Church of England catechism and doctrines were taught, and also by some of the Ultra | Romanists. Notwithstanding, however, the opposition of the bigots of both factions, the Irish National Schools, have j made most satisfactory progress, the numi ber of pupils has increased from 107,042, | with which they began in 1833,t0 452,844, in 1845, the date of our latest return. During the last Session of Parliament, Lord John Russell bore testimony to their efficiency and success, and the Times, commenting on his speech, calls the Irish National Schools, " the one bright spot where all else is dark and hopeless." The people of New South Wales, shortly after obtaining representative institutions, turned their attention to public education, which as under all despotic governments had been previously much negleoted. The Legislature has adopted a system similar to the Irish National, and introduced the excellent class books of that Society. Time has not yet elapsed sufficient to test its operation, but we have heard nothing unfavorable of it. We have heard something of the Irish System having been tried and failed at Liverpool. If it be so, it is not very croditable to the people of that town,

that asystem which has eminently succeeded in Ireland, the most difficult field for educational enterprise in the world,should have broken down on the banks of the Mersey, and we venture to beleive, that its failure must be attributable less to any inherrond defects of the system, than to the incapacity of those who attempted to introduce it..

We have shewn then that there are systems under which such a religious education may be given as to meet the views of a great variety of sects. We admit that they do not meet all, and we deeply regret that all cannot be brought to sink their differences to such an extent on minor points as to enable the state to introduce one or other of the systems we have described, embodying as they do so much that is common to all. But if they will not —if sectarian bitterness and the violence of theological polemics must for ever preclude an universal union on such common ground—must the State therefore abandon the attempt to educate altogether, or is it not its duty to provide a mere secular education ? We think that the arguments we have already used in our two previous chapters, answer this question in the affirmative. We there endeavoured to shew that it was the duty of the State to educate as a means of checking crime and developing public energy, even though education be limited to mere elementary knowledge. This obligation is not lessened by its inability to give in addition such a common religious education as all can be brought to share in. It may be better that it should give both —but if that is impossible, it is bound to give what it can.

Attempt is made to frighten us from mere secular education by hard words. "The Godless system"—"the Utopian dream of a vain sceptic"—"German rationalism " —" the proposal of a lurking infidel who has not the courage to avow his infidelity,"—these and similar objurgatory sneers are launched against its supporters. It is much easier to vilify than to argue —to sneer than to prove. It would not be difficult to retaliate, to talk of fanaticism and bigotry, of priestcraft and Jesuitry, the narrow prejudices of mediaeval darkness, and the timid fears of the ignorant. But we never know a good cause much bettered by calling names; and we are contented to leave that weapon in the hands of our opponents ; we shall merely observe, that the writer of these remarks is a member of a Christian Church, educated in one of the most exclusive sects, a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel - ; and we shall now proceed to examine a few of the objections which the more rational of our adversaries urge.

1. It is is commonly urged that if no religious education be given in our State schools, we shall grow up a nation of Atheists. We see no reason for supposing it. The State by opening a school for secular, education in the week days does not close the doors of the Sunday School, or debar the minister of religion from the pulpit and private dwellings of the pupils. If the child were in a school conducted by the priests, much of its time would be given to secular knowlege, probably as much as would be given to it in a State school teaching secular knowlege exclusively. The rest of the child's time is open to the teacher of religion equally whether it receives its secular education in his school or that of the State. Can the priest teach no where but in the State School; at no hours but those during which the State school is open ? Or are his doctrines so fallible and easily impugned that they cannot stand by the side of other knowlege unless he be allowed to administer such other knowledge through a medium which may give it a colouring conformable with his religious creed. And it might be argued with some force, that to teach religion in the public schools is the very road to Atheism, because it degrades the sacred theme to a level with the rule of three or division; at least under the systems usually adopted in England or Scotland. Mr. Mann describes a scene in ome Scotch school illustrative of this. "'ltucher. What sort of death was denounced against our first parents for disobedience ? Ist. Pupil. Temporal death. Teacher. No. —(and poiuting to the second boy). 2nd. Pupil. To die. The Teacher points to the third, crying ' come away,'—and then to the fourth—a dozen pupils leap to the floor, a dozen hands are thrust out, all quivering with eagerness. 4th. Pupil. Spiritual death. Teacher. Go up Dux, (that is take head of the class.) What sort of a place is Hell ? Palpil. A place of devils. Teacher. How does tho j

Bible describe it? Pupil, hesitates. Teacher. Next. Next. Next. sth Pupil— a place of fire and brimstone. Teacher. Take'em down four." "And thus," says Mr. M., "on these awful themes, a belief and contemplation of which should turn the eyeainto a fountain of tears, and make the heart intermit its beatings, there is the same ambition for intellectual superiority as on a question, in the multiplication table." For our part, we submit, that Religion would be more effectually instilled into the heart cf the child by its father's hearth, or at its mother's knee, and that it would be more consistent with its true nature, if the child were fed with spiritual food in the sanctuary of home, than amidst the clamour, the emulation, and the worldliness of a village school. And there is authority for the fact, that in Prussia, where religious education in one or the other of two creeds is enforced in public | schools, tho result has been a tendency to infidelity both in pupils and | teachers, which they have themselves attributed to this very cause. In moral protestant and religious Holland, on the contrary, all doctrinal and religious instruction is excluded from the schools, and the Bible in not read in them; but the children have liberty to leave them for an hour a day, to receive instruction elsewhere, if their parents wish it.

2. But we are told that the evil consequences of State education without religion are manifested by experience—and France is pointed to as a proof. We deny the sufficiency of the proof. The mere fact of a revolution proves nothing. There have been revolutions in Prussia, and in Austria, where religious education was given in the State schools. The modern history of Spain is one perpetual revolution—in Spain there is no State education at all, but it is left in the hands of the r priests or to private enterprize.— A revolution, or a rebellion, is not a bad thing in itself—the barons who at the sword's point forced the magna charta from the perfidious Johnjiave never been looked upon in that particular as very reprehensible—Hampden, and those who brought in William the 111, have received the commendation of the most sagacious and enlightened historians. Even the Scriptures tell us thatHezekiah "rebelled against the King of Assyria," and "the Lord was with him." Before we can pronounce on the French educational system, or the character of the French people, we must compare them as they are now, with themselves as they were before they had that system. Are they more volatile, more immoral, more revolutionary, more atheistical, than they were in the days of the Maiutenons Pompadours and Dv Harrys, of the Diderots, D'Alemberts and Voltaires * None that know anything of France will deny that since the introduction of that system which Napoleon, gave to France, winning for himself far greener and more perennial laurels than he won at Austerlitz, Marengo, or the Pyramids, the character of the bulk of the French people has greatly improved in all respects. The State of society and morals in France at the date of the first revolution embodied all that is horrible in the eyes of humanity. That revolution terminated the reign of Cardinal Ministers and abandoned mistresses —it terminated the period during which education of the Nation was in the sole hands of the Priests. Wi'l any be bold enough to assert that France of 1849 is not, in morals and intelligence, centuries in advance of France of 1790—will any deny that much of the advance is due to the education of which Napoleon laid the foundation?— France is to be judged by her moral, social, and political progress as a whole, not by the indiscretion of the Paris mob of whom probably nine-tenths have received no education whatever. And even allowing for argument's sake, that all the late revolutions of Europe were the result of the educational systems in existence, it is far too early in their history to coudemu either the cause or effect. The result may be all that the friends of freedom and civilization would wish. The flood which has for a time overwhelmed the old land-marks, may yet subside, and like the periodical inundations of the Nile, be found to have created fertile fields where formerly all was barrenness and i dearth. I

Wo confess that we know of no other objections to mere secular education than these and such as these. If there are others we hope that our remarks may elicit them.

We shall, perhaps, bo told that we have passed over one method of State education—namely, such as exists in this

colony where the State aids all schools connected with any religious sect, or (as it might be extended) aids all schools whether connected with religious bodies or not. It is however an error to call this State education. It is only State assistance given to Voluntary education. The schools must be founded by voluntary exertion before entitled to State aid— they must be in great part supported by voluntary exertion contributed in proportion to the State aid. Now we have* already shewn that the Voluntary principle never does secure a sufficiency of education to meet the wants of the people even when aided in this way as in England.— But farther it is the least economical, method. The State will maintain one common school in each township at much less cost than it will aid ten or a dozen— and it will give a better education than they will—on the same principle as land is more cheaply and productively cultivated in one large farm of 200 acres than in 20 small farms of 10 acres each.— Further, the richest schools which require least aid, receiving State assistance in proportion to their own contributions will get most, while the poor schools which require most will get least. And the practical result is to give a monopoly of the education of the people to some two or three religious sects. The questions still remain, "To what extent and by whom may religious education be given, if given at all in the State schools."

The answer to the first follows as a corollary to the arguments used in deciding that the State may give religious education. It follows from those arguments that the extent to which the State may give such education is either unlimited, as where the Ministers of all religions are admitted on certain days ; or it is limited to the greatest extent to which the various sects can agree on grounds common to their various forms of religion. Less than this it cannot in the latter case well give if it professes to give any ; more would inflict injustice on some sect the boundary of whose belief it should pass, and whose children it would drive from the State schools.

The answer to the second question al- | so follows from what has gone before. If i a system analogous to the Irish be adopt- ! ed, provision is expressly made for the j giving of religious instruction by the :

ministers of the different denominations. If however, the schools be founded on purely nou- sectarian principles, such as the British and foreign, it is clear that the ministers of religion cannot be entrusted with the duty. The very fact of their being Ministers of a Sect proves the importance which they attach to the doctrines which divide their own sect from others, and it would be too much to ex-

pect from human or at least ecclesiastical nature, that they should abstain from inculcating their own peculiar tenets. Even if the laws of the school forbade it, there are various ways in which it may be done

inferentially and indirectly We have heard of a schoolmaster in a colony known to many of us, who being strongly addicted to the Episcopalian church used to inculcate his own views by making his scholars repeat by rote, " God bless queen Victoria who sends out a good Bishop to teach little boys and girls to read and write." This round-about method of combating presbyterianism and independeucy might be equally available for inculcating other sectarian doctrines even in a school where the direct teaching of sectarianism was forbidden, and the temptation to do it would undoubtedly be felt by the Minister of a sect were the opportunity of proselytizing the young thus placed in his way.

The conclusions then at which we have arrived under this head of our enquiry are, —That the State ought to give religious education if the people composing that State wish it, and any system can be devised in which the great bulk of them are willing to acquiesce. But if no such method can be agreed upon, then the State must limit its education to mere secular knowledge, leaving the Ministers of Religion to inculcate their doctrines elsewhere than in the State schools. The extent to which the State may give religious instruction, is either unlimited, as where the Ministers of all Religions are admitted on certain days, or it is the extent of the common grounds on which the various sects are agreed. And lastly, who shall be the teachers employed to give such education, must depend on the question whether Sectarianism is admitted or excluded : if the former, it may be Ijy the ministers of religion—if the latter, it must be by lay teachers. I

On the subjects of our present and last chapter, opinions contrary to ours are held by many men of intelligence. But there is, we think, a growing conviction in the minds of most men at home, that State education must eventually be resorted to in England, and that if* Sectarians cannot agree on a common system of education, the State had better give a secular education than none. We doubt not that there are gentlemen in the colony, very capable of setting forth their reasons for the opposite considerations to which we have referred, and we hope, that some of them will cuter the field. To arrive at truth is our aim in commencing the disoussion—and it is only by a comparison of the reasons on both sides, that we can hope to attain it.

Hamburg, Jan. 24.—A gigantic enterprise is at this moment ii contemplatim, namely, to unite the Balt'c arid the North Sea, from. Kiel to the m »uth of the Elbe. With-such communicati >n between the two seas, independent of foreign ports of the sound and the two belts, the martime power of Germany cannot prosper as it should. A few months since the Central Power sent Captain Moring, Deputy to the National Assembly, to the place for the purpose of obtaining exact information. The captain has accomplished his mission with great zeal anus kill. He proposes that the line of communication should go from Kiel—one of the best ports of Europe, if not of the world—to ! Bruntsbuttel, at the northern mouth of | the Elbe, on the other side of Cuxhaven j (southern mouth) —and that this junction : should be effected by means of a canal of ! perfectly simple construction, without ! sluices, which should traverse the soil of i Germany alone, and be protected against I every attack by the Eideror Oder Canals. I The result of the preparatory examination. i shows that the around itself offers but few j obstacles, the country being very flat, ana iin no part much above the level of the

sea. The proposal that the work should be carried oh by the Imperial troops, who will probably be assembled in great numbers in the duches during the spring, is highly probable.

Fire akd Water, —Those who wish to test the relation between fire and water may easily do so by the following cheap, and simple process :—Put some water into a bottle, and soraeiron filling ; in short time the iron will separate the water into its ele meats, by attracting the oxygen to itself and setting free the hydrogen. As this latter escapes from the bottle through a small tube fixed in the cork, it will take fire, if a candle or match be applied to the escaping gas. Thus fire may be obtained from water. If a little sulphuric acid be added to the water, this will cause the hydrogen to form with rapidity, and tend to the more complete success of the experiment—Sharpe's London Magizine.

Novel Mode oe Protecting Fruit. —Mr. R. G. Mason, the lecturer on temperance, &c , tells his audience, by way of illustration, an anecdote of a certain old gardener, who notwithstanding his strong fences, and his caution of " spring guns," "mantraps," &c, being "laid on the premises," was continually annoyed and robbed of the fruits of his labour by a lot of young urchins, who heeded not his notices. Setting his wits to work, tire old man thought of the following, which he had painted in large characters and nailed up in the most conspicuous spot: —" Whoever is found trespass'ng in this orchard shall be spacifcafed." It had the desired effect; none of the boys dare run the risk of knowing what it was to be

" spacificated."

The Poos. Law Board. —We hear that Mr. Bains, Q, C, will succeed the late lamented Charles Buller, at the head of the Poor Law Board. The appointment of the new chief will we have no doubt give general satisfaction.

Ppopertiet of Beer.—A correspondent in Douglas Jerrod's Paper, in analyzation of a pint of porter or beer, says that " a pint of ale contains one of extractive matter, and this alone can impart nourishment to the system ; of course the other parts are mere cxcitive and stupiiying matters." A °irl up town, who has a swivel or screw eye, looked so long and affeeiionatly at a gin bottle, that she drew out tho cork ! An apt instance of the power of

true love,

Tight Lacing. —A learned doctor, referring to tight lacing, avers that it is a public benefit, inasmuch as it kills all the foolish girls, and leaves the wise ones to grow to be women.