urgently demands the attention of Parliament; and on the 17th of July last, in his place in the House of Commons, he said, that "after all the voluntary efforts that had been made by individuals, yet the amount of ignorance in this country, the want of education, the degree to which the Gospel is entirely a sealed book, is a most lamentable fact; but the disgrace is light in comparison with the evil itself which we have to deplore." And he concluded his speech with the following remarkable words:-“Sir, I have already said I do not wish to enter much into this subject now, but I can assure the House that it is a subject to which I shall pay the most constant attention; and I do trust that when it comes before the House again, I may have some statement to make that will show that the pains I have taken have not been in vain."

We cannot forbear recording the important and gratifying fact, that on the same day on which this declaration was made, and probably in consequence of it, the sum of 100,000. was voted for public education,—a larger amount, we believe, than has ever been given on any previous occasion for the same purpose '.

1

Ốn the whole, then, considering the exigencies of the country, considering also the declarations of the present first minister of the crown, and the dispositions and acts of the legislature, we find ourselves arrived at Dr. Hook's conclusion-a conclusion, by the way, propounded to the world by the National Society in its first circular in 1811, that we "live in an age when the question is, not whether, but how, the poor are to be educated.” ~(p. 5).

To this enquiry, as most of our readers are aware, it has been Dr. Hook's endeavour to furnish a reply in the pamphlet now under review.

Before we proceed to examine the plan which he offers for the consideration of the public, we would first request leave to make a remark on the title of his work. It is described as a Letter to the Lord Bishop of St. David's, "On the means of rendering more efficient the Education of the People." This, we would respectfully submit, is a misnomer. His pamphlet does not treat on the education of the people, but of the poor. The poor, as well as the nobility and gentry, are a part, a most important part, of the people, but they are not the people; and it appears to

1 The Parliamentary grants from 1833 to 1839 were 20,000l. a year; from 1839 to 1842 inclusive they were 30,000l.; in 1843 and 1844 they were 40,000l.; and in 1845 they were 75,000l.; or from 1833 to 1846 the whole amount of money granted by the Government in aid of the building of schools was 395,000l.-See Dr. Hook, p. 8.

us a serious error to call them so: and in our opinion it is specially incumbent on the clergy to abstain from all expressions which may give the poor a false notion of their position, and render them discontented with it. To flatter the poor that they are the people, seems to be the characteristic of a demagogue; and, of all demagogues, religious ones are the worst.

The National Society calls itself a Society incorporated "for the Education of the Poor ;" and we honour it for its frankness in this respect; Dr. Hook, on the other hand, reminds us too much of the man, "qui credidit ingens Pauperiem vitium;" he appears to wish to disguise their poverty from the class for whom he calls on the State to provide, although their poverty is the very thing which constitutes their claim to such provision. We shall see, before we close these remarks, that it is indispensable that in treating this subject we should have a clear view of the particular class concerning which we are writing; but even though no special reason existed for such distinctness in the present case, yet our readers will agree with us that it is as necessary for the politician as it is for the historian to call things by their right names— τὰ σύκα σύκα, τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγειν.

2

We proceed now to describe Dr. Hook's plan for the education of the poor of England and Wales.

I. First, he wisely lays it down as an unquestionable axiom, that there can be no education, worthy of the name, without a religious basis (pp. 5, 6).

II. He maintains with equal justice, that this basis must be a doctrinal one; that is, it must be built not on moral generalities, but on the special dogmas of Christianity. He affirms that when persons "talk of an education based on a system of morals divested of all doctrine," and call this a religious education, "they seek to deceive themselves as well as us, and utter a falsehood." (p. 35).

On this subject his observations appear to us to be excellent; and we beg to transcribe them for the gratification of our readers.

"All really Christian persons must stand opposed to any system of education which being professedly based upon this general religion, which is no religion, will in fact unchristianize the country. To separate the morality of the Gospel from the doctrines of the Gospel, every one who knows what the Gospel is knows to be impossible. The doctrines of grace and of good works are so interwoven that they must

2 Lucian. de conscribenda Historia, §. 41.

VOL. VI.-NO. XI.-SEPT. 1846.

K

stand or fall together. Faith and works, doctrine and morality, are like body and soul; the pretended mother may be willing to divide them, they who know what the Gospel is, like the true mother before the throne of Solomon, will suffer any affliction before they will consent to it. Satan could devise no scheme for the extirpation of Christianity more crafty or more sure than this, which would substitute a system of morals for religion. The generality of mankind content themselves always with the lowest degree of religion, which will silence their conscience and aid their self-deception: they desire to believe as little as they may without peril to their souls, and to do only what the majority of their neighbours say they must. On this general religion, which is no religion,-on this semblance of religion, this shadow put for the substance, the majority of the people of England will, under such a system of education, be taught to rest as sufficient. Instructed that this will suffice, they will proceed no further. They will be brought up to suppose that Christian doctrine is a thing indifferent, an exercise for the ingenuity of theologians, but of no practical importance. They will thus be educated in a state of indifference to the Christian religion; indifference will lead to contempt; contempt to hostility."-pp. 35, 36.

III. He affirms that the State of England cannot and ought not to give a religious education, and that "all parties will combine to resist any State education, which is professedly religious.” p. 36. This he maintains on the following grounds, which we trust our readers will carefully consider :

1. De jure. If the State attempts to inculcate religion, it must teach, or cause to be taught, a particular form of it. But this, he argues, it has no right to do; for, says he (p. 38), "The taxes are collected from persons of all religions, and cannot be fairly expended for the exclusive maintenance of one. To call upon Parliament to vote any money for the exclusive support of the Church of England, is to call upon Parliament to do what is unjust. The Church has no more claim for exclusive pecuniary aid from the State, or for any pecuniary aid at all, than is possessed by any other of those many corporations with which our country abounds." "It is, therefore (he says), abundantly clear that the State cannot give a religious education, as the word religion is understood by unsophisticated minds."-p. 33.

2. De facto. This question of the inability of the State to give a religious education (he affirms) is already decided. There cannot (he asserts, p. 37) "be any objection on the part of the Church to admit Dissenters to an equality in this respect; because, so far as education is concerned, this question is already settled: the State does assist both the Church and Dissent at the present time."

On this important subject he adds, and we request special attention to his words,

"The notion is now exploded which once prevailed, that the Church of England has an exclusive claim to pecuniary support, on the ground of its being the Establishment. Those who, like myself, are called High Churchmen, have little or no sympathy with mere Establishmentarians. In what way the Church of England is established, even in this portion of the British empire, it is very difficult to say. Our ancestors endowed the Church, not by legislative enactment, but by the piety of individuals; even royal benefactors acted in their individual, not their corporate, capacity, and their grants have been protected, like property devised to other corporations, by the legislature. At the Conquest the bishops were, on account of the lands they held, made barons, and invested with the rights, as well as the responsibilities, of feudal lords. It is as barons, not as bishops, that seats in the House of Lords are held by some of our prelates; not by all, for a portion of our hierarchy, eminently distinguished for learning, zeal, aud piety, the colonial bishops, are excluded. The Church thus endowed and protected, was once the Church of the whole nation: it was corrupted in the middle ages: it was reformed; and, as the old Catholic Church reformed, it remains among us to this day, one of the great corporations of the land."-p. 37.

Let us now observe the results deduced by Dr. Hook from these principles as affirmed by himself. He proposes

I. That the Lord President of the Privy Council should license Normal schools, whether of the Church or Dissent, for training masters. p. 65.

That the government should appoint a board of examiners, who should give diplomas (p. 67); and that no master should be allowed to teach in a State school, without previous training in one of the Normal schools above specified.-p. 67.

II. That literary or secular Primary schools-16,625 in number-for the education of the poor, should be established by the State throughout England and Wales.-p. 26, 67.

That in these schools "literary and scientific instruction only should be given by the masters appointed by the government." -p. 40.

But that it should be "required of every child to bring, on the Monday of every week, a certificate of his having attended the Sunday school of his parish church, or some place of worship legally licensed, and also of his having attended for similar religious instruction at some period set apart during the week" (p. 40); and that thus "religious instruction should be secured to the

children in accordance with those traditions, whether of Church or of Dissent, which they have received from their parents.”—p. 41.

That, "to effect this object, there should be attached to every school thus established by the State a class-room, in which the clergyman of the parish, or his deputies, might give religious instruction to his people, on the afternoons of every Wednesday and Friday; another class-room being provided for a similar purpose for dissenting ministers."—p. 41.

That "the supervision of these State secular schools should rest with the county magistrates and lay-inspectors appointed by the Committee of Privy Council."

That these schools should be supported from "a local fund raised by a county rate, and from parliamentary grants."-p. 67. That "the books to be used should be selected or prepared under the direction of the Committee of Privy Council."―p. 68. That the annual outlay to be thus levied would be as follows, p. 26:

16,625 Schools with salaries of 100l. to principal teachers £1,662,500 16,625 Schools, for general annual expenses, 30%. each 8,312 Schools with two apprentices, at 15l. each, or 301. 8,312 Schools with three apprentices, at 157. each or 451.

498,750

249,360

374,040

£2,784,650

"The expenses of Normal schools would average 50l. annually for each student, or for two thousand candidate masters, 100,000., and for one thousand mistresses, in training, 50,0007.” -p. 27.

Then, "that if twenty Normal schools (the number required) were established for masters, and ten for mistresses, 450,000%. would be required for the fabric and furniture of Normal schools alone. Then, again, 16,625 elementary school buildings for 160 scholars, with a master's dwelling, would each cost 500l. (or 8,312,5007.), or upwards of eight millions."

On the whole, then, Dr. Hook would demand, for the accomplishment of his plan, a grant of eight millions in the first instance; and nearly three millions annually to be raised by a county rate, or voted by Parliament.

On the other hand, supposing his schools to be well attended, and to be aided by voluntary subscriptions, he anticipates an annual revenue from those two sources of 1,862,0007.—p. 27.

Such, then, are the details of the system now proposed by Dr. Hook, for "rendering more efficient the means for the education of the" poor.