missal of the schoolmaster, schoolmistress, &c. &c. A committee including laymen is, indeed, provided for, in certain cases; but the functions of these are to be limited entirely to the control of the building funds, endowments, &c. &c.

Thus, then, whether we look at the impatience which the National Society manifests of a concurrent appeal to the Lord President and the Bishop, or, to the claim put forward by a party which appears to over-ride the Society, and which seeks to exclude the laity from all control over schools though supported by lay contributions, we find that the principle asserted is the same. The education of the people, under whatever form, is claimed as the exclusive function of the clergy, and the whole question treated as a Church question. So far the people are assumed to be given to the Church as a possession. Education is for the advancement of the Church, and not the Church for the advancement of education. It seems, indeed, in these discussions to be accounted a thing of no other earthly use or value, except to keep the people from wandering from the Church into the folds of dissent.

Thus, the Management Clauses are, after all, the occasion, and not the cause, of the present dispute. The real ground of controversy is in the question, who is to teach the people, and what are they to be taught? It is our affair, says the Church,—and ours, too, replies the State. Yes, rejoins the Church, it is your business to pay for it.

Now let it be observed that the pretensions of the Church are limited to the children who are said to be in communion with her. This description she applies, however, to all children who attend Church schools. These children are asserted to be nearly a million in number*, and over these she claims, so far as education is concerned, an absolute right-body and soul. But a large proportion of them are the children of Dissenters, who attend Church schools not from choice, but because in the great majority of parishes there are no other elementary schools which they can attend; and, of the rest, another large proportion are the children of persons who are utterly regardless of religion: So that if the number of children in Church schools, whose parents are even occasional attendants at Church were

* This number includes Dames' Schools, some of which being under the active supervision of the clergy are perhaps fairly entitled to be called Church Schools. A large proportion, according to Archdeacon Wigram, are not, however, to be so named. Charge to the Archdeaconry of Winchester, 1850;' quoted in the Nat. Soc. Monthly 'Paper, June, 1850.'

6

1850.

Responsibilities of the State.

119

counted, they would be found, in all probability, a very small fraction of the whole; the rest being children who attend Church schools only because-by the neglect of the State-there are no others for them to attend.

If the Church were charged with the repression of crime in the case of all that portion of the labouring population, which is continually replenished from the million of children in Church schools,-if it undertook to provide for their destitution, to put down the political combinations and agrarian outrages in which they may take part, and to maintain prisons and penal settlements for them, then it might with some show of justice claim to itself an absolute control over the antecedents of their crime and pauperism, and the entire disposal of them during that period of life when the seeds of these are sown. Under these circumstances there might have been some colour for the claim of the Church, -to give what education it chose to the children in its schools, or none at all. But inasmuch as the children, besides being children of the Church, are children also of the State; and since their irreligion, their moral degradation and ignorance, fill our prisons andorkhouses, and strike at the roots of the national prosperity and the public safety, the State, too, has surely its rights with regard to their education and also its responsibilities.

The rights and responsibilities of the State were not only recognised but vehemently asserted at the Meeting at Willis's Rooms, in February, by Mr. Sewell - from whose views on education, its principles and objects, in all other respects, we so seriously differ.

'Do you mean to tell me,' said Mr. Sewell, that the civil power ought not to superintend and take charge of the education ' of its subjects? I answer yes; it is the first function which "God has entrusted to you. You are responsible not only for 'the bodies, but the souls of your subjects. Their blood rests on your head; you will be called to account for them at a 'future day. Your business is to educate them, and to do it on right principles.'*

These rights and responsibilities, accordingly, the State would not be justified in transferring to the Church, even if the Church were able to provide adequately for the education of the people at her own cost and charge. This, however, she is unable to do; and, indeed, makes no contribution at all to it from her proper revenues, but only by the voluntary contributions of those in communion with her. Meanwhile she, or rather those who take upon

* Supplement to the 'Guardian' newspaper, Feb. 13. 1850.

themselves to represent her interests in this matter, thrust upon the people of this country and upon the Government a claim to the entire and irresponsible control of all that is to be done for the education of the people, in secular as well as in religious knowledge, allowing to the State, or the community at large, no other share in it than a right of inspection, together with the obligation of providing for the expenses from the public money.

Now let us suppose that the State were to concede this claim, and to grant the Church for the future whatever she might require for educational purposes without check or restraint; we are satisfied, that with no other action of the State on the education of the country than this, the whole would be a failure, and that the education of the people—the object of all this expenditure-would not be accomplished.

-

The Church could not educate the people though the State were to pour uncounted gold into her lap. She is unequal to the responsibility the interests at stake are too great to be entrusted to her. Were her ancient discipline indeed restored, -were dioceses so framed that the supervision of the Bishop could reach to the affairs of every separate pish, and did the laws of the land invest the episcopal office with such weight and authority that the Bishop could secure of the obedience of his clergy admonish the careless and rebuke the wayward or indifferent among them, then (the zeal of the Bishop himself in the cause of education being supposed, and his practical knowledge of what belongs to it), there might be reasonable ground to hope for a general diffusion of education by the influence of the clergy alone.

Every thing in the actual state of the Church is, however, the very opposite of this. Looked at as a means (humanly speaking) of accomplishing this or any other great practical result, it breaks up into as many parts as there are incumbents; each, as in almost every thing else, so in the matter of education, is independent of the Bishop, and of any other authority, except public opinion; and, alas! sometimes setting even that at defiance. The educational machinery of the Church, looked at in this point of view, falls to pieces. It is a rope of sand—each incumbent will do what he likes in his own parish-have a school or not, as it jumps with his humour; or, if he have one, use it as a means of educating the children, or preventing them from being educated, as he thinks fit-have this kind of knowledge taught in it or that, much or little, and give to it a greater or less degree of attention, or none, according as he is more or less influenced by a sense of obligation, and alive to the inportance of education, or according as he is more or less burdened

1850.

What a good School is.

121

with other responsible duties in his parish. The interests at stake are too serious, we repeat, to be thus perilled.

It is a much more difficult thing to get a good school than most people imagine; and the principal difficulty would not be removed, if the State were to supply all the necessary funds. Some of the worst schools are not so for want of funds; and some of the best are among the poorest. The converse of this proposition may indeed be taken; the worst schools being among the richest. Ample proofs of this will be found in the inspectors' reports.

A right conception on the part of the promoters of what a good school is, is the first condition of getting one. This conception of what really belongs to elementary education is as yet very imperfectly formed among the clergy. Not one clergyman in five would probably be found, on inquiry, to set much value upon elementary education; and of these not a half, to know much of what belongs to it. We believe, therefore, that we are not exaggerating the difficulties of the case when we say, that not one school in ten, if left entirely in the hands of the clergyman, would become a good school, however liberally the State might contribute to its support. † And we can imagine no probable condition of the Church in which matters would be much remedied in this respect, unless, indeed, with its ancient discipline, there were revived the good old custom of educating the clergy for the practical duties of their office in diocesan colleges;

The State, by its inspectors, and by their reports, has done much towards the formation in the public mind of the idea of a good school. Much more, however, remains to be done; and if the clergy were called upon to-morrow to realise the conceptions they may happen to have formed of such schools, we can imagine nothing more absurd than the result. Of the possibility of finding good teachers, we begin to be hopeful. In case the Church perseveres to show herself alive to her responsibilities in the efficient maintenance of training schools, we can scarcely fail of succeeding in this, thanks to the pupil-teachers. If there were an official board composed of persons practically acquainted with elementary education, and making all that belongs to it their special study, to whom the clergy and other promoters of schools might apply for advice and assistance in the organisation of their schools, in the procuring of teachers, in the choice of books, and in the selection of subjects of instruction, - we think that it would tend greatly to the progress of education;-the board being supposed to be so constituted as to have the confidence of the Church as well as of the Committee of Council.

† We are, of course, speaking with reference to the existing state of opinion in educational matters, and the existing facilities for getting good teachers.

and among these duties a proper place should be assigned to the superintendence of the parish school. It is only under some such training that we can imagine them to acquire that knowledge which might justify them, without superior advice and guidance, in taking upon themselves the responsible trust of the education of the people.

Let us not, however, be unjust to the clergy. Almost all that has been done for education, otherwise than through the State by members of the Church of England, has been done by them. We know that, often opposed, and seldom cordially supported by the laity, they have contributed to the full extent of their means, and sometimes beyond their means, to the building of school-houses and the maintenance of schools. We are far from accusing them of a want of liberality, and are ready to admit, that of all classes of the community, they contribute the most towards the public good by private sacrifices. The question is not as to liberality in supporting schools, but judgment and skill in managing them.

Whilst to give the education of the country wholly into the hands of the clergy is, in our opinion, to give it up, we are far from thinking that it can be carried on without them. They are a body of men of no little weight and influence in England; no body of ecclesiastics in any other civilised country can, we imagine, compare with them in this respect. The most educated portion of the community, in many branches of secular, as well as of religious knowledge,-living much in society, partaking largely in the spirit of the age, -inheriting a large share of the wealth of the mercantile and commercial classes, reticulated over the whole face of the country, and exercising great power over public opinion, the aid they might render to the Government in dealing with great social questions, has not been duly felt either on one side or the other. Had the clergy felt it, they could not but have embraced joyfully the opportunity of so much usefulness to the State; had the State felt it, it would, we think, have used, in some respects, more precautions to conciliate the good will of the clergy. The old ground of union between Church and State has passed from under the feet of both. We cannot revert to the time of James II. But here is new grounds, which it requires only mutual forbearance to take. The good which might be done if the Church were to co-operate with the State, on such questions as Education, Penal Reform, Sanitary Reform, and Emigration, defies calculation. A common interest in the demoralised masses of the people, and a common labour for their welfare, might re-unite the link which seems well-nigh broken.