and the Church is to complete and continue the same work, after the work in the school has ceased.

1059. Chairman.-How are those principles to be carried into practice, and made applicable to the education of the poor ?- That is the difficulty. In a well-conducted family, amongst religious people, the matter is clear and easy; and where the expenses of education can be defrayed it is easy; but when the poor, especially the poor in our manufacturing towns, are con

oncerned, we must bear in mind that there is scarcely such a thing as supervision and care of a family amongst the poor; there is no such thing, or very little such, as family instruction. The mother is at work, in very many instances, during the day, and the children are left to be cared for by each other; and when the father and mother come home tired at night, we know from sad experience that there is but too little religion amongst the people to make them think it is at all necessary beyond mere generals. Hence I consider that the school has to do still a greater part of the work of education now, and especially in the manufacturing towns, than it would have had to do in former times; or than it would have to do in a less densely populated or less fully employed district.

1116. Do not you think that a system of education purely secular would have a necessary tendency to perpetuate that state of things under which many persons go to no place of worship, and apparently belong to no religion at ali 1-It would perpetuate it and aggravate it, in my opinion.

1119. You would not wish the child to be put in a school where it would learn nothing but mere deism, or a morality founded on deism ? — No, I would not.

1122. Your objection, in point of fact, to schools, as places where deism would be taught, as it were, or where there would be no foundation for morals by faith, would apply to a great portion of the schools which it is proposed to support under this Bill ?-I most certainly do believe it.

1125. Chairman.- It applies to all schools where the only religious instruction imparted is the reading of the Scriptures in the authorised version ?-Yes; I hold that it does lead to . . . deism, and that when the children are preserved from that, some other element is brought in to bear

1131. Mr. Bowyer.— Is there not a certain class of opinions called by Roman-catholic writers“ indifferentism?”—Yes, that is * what I have heard once called “the religion of all moralities, and the morality of all religions." It is a sort of Pagan morality.

1132. Is it not strongly objected to by the Catholic Church - Most undoubtedly, because the Catholic holds faith as the foundation of all religion.

1133. Do you think that a system of secular teaching, without religion and morality, + arising out of religion, must lead necessarily to that indifferentism which is condemned by your Church ?-Yes.

1196. Sir G. Grey.-I understand your opinion to be decidedly that the best scheme of education is one which combines religious with secular instruction ?-Yes ; I said in the beginning that I contemplated the education of the whole man, body and soul, for the object for which be is created.

If, however, the Secular system is not absolutely complete and sufficient in itself, may it not be so as a week-day system, supplemented by the Sunday school ? This idea is thrown out by Dr. M‘Kerrow, and is thus treated by Mr. Hinton.

1613. Do you not thnik that the Sunday school system might be made to supply sufficient religious instruction to the children of the working classes ? - I think very highly of Sunday schools, and fully admit their capability of further development and improvement, but I do not think they could supply the place of religious instruction in the day schools.

upon them.

66

1614. For what reasons ?– First, because I should think it wrong that so large and valuable an opportunity of religious culture as the day school presents should be lost to the young, especially of the working classes. Secondly, because two or three hours of religious instruction on one day of the week would be quite overborne by a course of non-religious instruction (and probably worse) on the other six. Thirdly, because the attendance at Sunday schools can never be co-extensive with that at day schools; and thus a classs, large on the whole, would be destitute of religious instruction altogether.

1615. Are you aware of any instance in which this experiment has been tried ?- This experiment has been tried on a large scale, and is now in progress in the United States, where religion, an original element of the common schools, has been gradually thrust out of them, in the faith that the Sunday schools would supply it.

1616. Are you acquainted with the result ?—The result is given by Mr. Tremenheere, in his “ Notes on Public Subjects,” published last year, in which he says, “ The theory on which the whole public school system of the United States is based is, that the religious instruction which is not given in the day school is given in the Sunday school, exception, of course, being made in regard to the children of those parents who are able and willing to instruct their children in the doctrines of their own faith at home. In considering, however, a scheme of public instruction having special reference to the poorer and less-educated classes of society, the above qualification may be left out of view, and the proposition may stand as above stated. It is important to ascertain whether this theory is carried out in practice ; if it be so in certain parts of the United States, whether this is not so much due to local circumstances that it can afford no safe guide for ourselves ; if it fails under different circumstances, whether those are not precisely the circumstances we have to deal with in this country.” (p. 8.) "" It is clear, from the above facts, that in several of the most conspicuous cities, towns, and seats of manufacturing industry in the free states of the Union, containing populations analagous to those in this country, for which there is the most pressing need to extend the means of education, the theory of a complete education, according to the view adopted in the United States, is not fulfilled in relation to a considerable proportion of the children at their schools ; inasmuch as, in the first place, a certain and, in some cases a larger, proportion of the children attending the day schools do not attend the Sunday schools : by far the greater number, indeed nearly the whole, belong to parents incapable of giving religious instruction themselves, or indifferent to it, to the extent to battle the efforts of the various religious denominations to induce them to attend to the religious welfare of their children. I feel it necessary to add that these conclusions, founded on personal inquiry and statistical facts, are at variance with the first impressions of very many persons, whether officially or practically conversant with the subject or not, whose opinions and impressions I asked for respecting it. To the inquiry, 'Do the children regularly attend Sunday schools, and obtain there the religious instruction which is not given at the day schools ?' whether addressed to school teachers, or to gentlemen who only possessed a general acquaintance with the actual working of the system of education, the very common answer was in the affirmative ; and it was often a matter of surprise to the teachers themselves, that, on their asking the children present who attended Sunday schools to hold up their hands, so many hands were not held up. I have learnt, in the course of many inquiries of this nature, that general impressions are seldom to be trusted from any quarter, and that they are very apt to be contradicted when brought to the test of accurate inquiry. The conclusion I arrive at from the above facts, drawn from portions of the United States having populations similar to our own, is that, inasmuch as the great majority of all classes and denominations in this country agree, that no system under the sanction of and aided by the State could be consented to which did not, in some way or other, make effectual provision for religious as well as secular education, the example and experience of the United States, in so far as the localities above referred to are concerned, cannot be quoted as having fulfilled that requirement.” (pp. 25—29.) a

Dr. Watts attempted to diminish the force of this opinion by elaborately exhibiting the number of children in the United States who did attend Sunday schools. It is a fair average of the items he gives (963) to say that 80 per cent. of the children who attend day schools attend Sunday schools also. There are then twenty in every hundred who do not. On a single million of children this would amount to two hundred thousand; a number surely too large to be coolly abandoned to religious ignorance.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECULAR SCHEME-ITS SUPPLEMENT.

a

We have last spoken of the system advocated under the name of secular instruction as conceived to constitute the whole of education, or as having at best no other auxiliary than the Sunday-school. We direct attention now to another view of it which is distinctly put forward and strongly insisted in the evidence before us; namely, that the instruction proposed by the secular scheme is not the whole of education, but only a part of it, and that a period of time in the course of the week is to be secured, during which the remainder--the more religious portion---may be supplied. Thus Dr. Watts.

688. Mr. Christopher.- Is not your principle this: you think by giving secular instruction alone in these schools, that what you call religious instruction might be supplemented by the clergymen or ministers of religious denominations ? - That is precisely my view, adding also the parent.

621. The Marquis of Blandford.—What do you mean by that—"supplement the common teaching ” ?- 'To follow up the teaching of the school with the teaching of doctrines after or before the regular school hours.

We commence our examination of the scheme under this aspect by i inquiring into the nature and force of the reasons assigned for its adoption.

On this subject we do not mean to begin by imputing to the promoters of the secular scheme any improper motive. It would seem that in some quarters (we know not where) a cry has been raised against them as being " hostile to religion," and the scheme itself as “godless and irreligious." In answer to Q. 337 seq., Dr. M.Kerrow strenuously denies these imputations, and asserts that he and his friends “ desire to cultivate" in the secular schools “ both the spirit and the practice of religion.” Be it so ; we give credit for such a desire to all who profess it, we only remark that such desires will not affect the working of the system. Nor indeed can it be supposed that a profession of them would be universal. On this matter there is some truth in Mr. Hinton's remark,

It has been strongly asserted that the promoters of the Secular scheme are actuated by no hostility to religion, but that they mean to keep it safe, if not even to favour it, by detaching religious instruction from the school routine. I submit, however, that the promoters of the secular scheme cannot properly be estimated in the lump, since the advocacy of it has associated together men of otherwise very dissimilar character. Some of them are undoubtedly as sincere and ardent friends of religion as are to be found in the world; but others have,

1

on this matter, to say the least, a very equivocal aspect. I can hardly think that an injury inflicted on Christianity would be very deeply regretted by some men of sufficient notoriety in this group; and I cannot help wondering that eminently religious men have not been somewhat startled by their company. Appendix, p. 238.

Let us go on, however, to another point, and notice the attitude in relation to religion in which the secular scheme is placed by its promoters. A question was thus put to Dr. M.Kerrow.

487. Mr. K. Seymer.- Are we to take it as your opinion that the secular system is the best in itself, or that it is the only system applicable to the circumstances of this country ?—The only system applicable to the circumstances of the country; we do not consider that the secular system is the whole of education, but we consider that it furnishes an amount of education which the country can receive in accordance with the national system.

The same declaration is repeated in answer to Q. 338. And after the same tenor Dr. Watts.

573. Chairman.-You think that doctrinal religion ought not to be included in the public school ?– I think not, and I should like to give a few reasons why I think it ought not to be included. The first is, because a plan supported by general taxation ought to be equally available to all ; but a school inculcating a creed cannot be equally available to all ; and therefore it seems to me that the Rev. Dr. Hook rightly said, that the State cannot give a religious education, for to teach one religion would be unjust, to teach all absurd.

685. Mr. W. Fox.-But you do not* consider the school as the sole agency in any case whatever of what is properly called education ?-Decidedly not; the secular system of instruction, as put forward by the National Public School Association, is put forward to give as much teaching as can be given justifiably upon a rate-built system.

Here we have it confessed in the outset that the scheme of secular schools is not, even in the opinion of its staunchest advocates, “ best in itself” for educational purposes; it is a method which even they would not think of preferring on its own account, but an acknowledged injury to scholastic training, to be submitted to for the sake of facilitating the introduction of a system “supported by general taxation.” This is in our judgment paying far too high a price for so small a benefit; we should rather say, it is adding one injury to another. What, we may ask, is there in a tax-supported system of schools for the working classes of England, that should make us willing to purchase it at such a cost ? It is exhaust ing education of its highest energies in order that you may throw it, as an almost lifeless carcase, on the state; as you might be supposed to tear out the nervous system of a man in order to get him into the workhouse.

In the very teeth of this acknowledgment, however, we have it expressly set forth by the same witnesses, that the communication of religious instruction is actually facilitated by the separate communication of secular knowledge. Thus Dr. M‘Kerrow.

341. Chairman.-You wish it to be clearly understood, that the matter at issue between you and others does not refer to the propriety of founding education on a religious basis, but to the question where and by whom this basis should be laid ?-Precisely so. I recognise the right of every one to consider his own basis necessary, but it is not requisite that it should be laid by one person at one particular time. It may be better done by the parent at home than by any other person anywhere else ; better done by a Sabbath school

• Misprinted do you not.

E

teacher than by the master of a day-school ; better done in the bible-class of the Minister than in any other place or circumstance.

Thus also Mr. Bazley.

192. Mr. Bowyer.-I understood you to say that secular education would in your opinion be a good preparation for religious education ?-I think so.

And thus Dr. Watts.

652. Chairman. It is not hostile to religion ?-Decidedly not, but is a necessary preparative for efficient religious teaching.

Here our philanthropic friends are obviously on a different tack. Anon we were told that the secular scheme was not doing the best thing in itself, but only the best thing that could be done by taxation; now, however, we are assured that it really does the best thing in itself, that secular instruction is not only a “good,” but “ a necessary preparative for religious teaching,” and that “the religious basis” of education may be “better " laidindeed, in a manner“ infinitely preferable "_by other parties than by the schoolmaster. It is clear that both these statements cannot be true. Which are we to take, gentlemen ?

But to let this inconsistency pass. Mr. Royer endeavoured to drive Mr. Bazley from his position in the following manner.

192. Mr. Bouyer.-I understood you to say, that secular education would, in your opinion, be a good preparation for religious education ?-I think so.

193. Do not you think that religious education would be a good preparation for secular education ?—Certainly not; if you think for a moment upon the subject, you will find that you cannot convey abstract ideas except by means of the objects which surround us.

194. Do yo mean to say that a child cannot learn to recognise the existence of God, till it has learned arithmetic ?I do not say arithmetic; but the child must have some ideas developed in connexion with this life.

195. Is not the first thing a child generally learns to say its prayer, probably, or something of that kind 1-Yes.

196. Does not religious education in every well-ordered family precede secular education ?-I apprehend not; because education does not consist merely in the attainments of reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, geography, and so forth, but children begin their education the moment they have had their perceptive faculties directed to the world and the objects surrounding them.

197. Do not you think the father or mother begins by teaching the child some religious ideas ?—That is frequently the case; but the child must have some ideas developed before it can comprehend such teaching.

198. Supposing a child to have its faculties sufficiently developed to be capable of learning anything, do not you think that in every well-ordered family the first thing taught to the child is some ideas of religion - It is very possible.

199. Do not you think that circumstance seems to point out that religious education should have the preference to secular ?-I apprehend it will be found that we cannot communicate religious ideas without having first some ideas developed of the mundane character which I refer to.

To us it seems that this argument was out of bearing, inasmuch as it carries us back to infancy, and very far away from the school period, which alone is in question. In more direct reference to this period the same member of the Committee had another encounter with Mr. Bazley.

148. Mr. Bcwyer.- Do not you think that the children would be more likely