No meretricious graces to beguile- None of your flash drilling impositions; these are man's—that are mechanically perfect, but spiritually dead. No; the simple family institution, as old as Adam and as heaven-derived, is the most perfect, because the most natural for developing or reforming the mental, moral, and spiritual habits of human souls, and the reason may be drawn from these paragraphs : "It is an unhappy tendency of our times, to economise too much in the staff of agents, where the education of childhood is concerned. Moral action cannot be efficacious, save when it is met person to person, heart to heart, intelligence to intelligence, with those whom we would initiate into the habits of love and goodness. "It is a singular combat to which we must give ourselves up, and if great efforts are necessary, do not let us be astonished; for we must acknowledge that the leanings of our minds are all more or less towards evil. "If we have not seen much good come of education, it is because the desciplinarian system has been too often substituted for moral influences. You may manœuvre a regiment at the word of command, or a ship's company by means of the whistle, but that will not suffice for the improvement of a child's morals.” Here it may not be inappropriate to note the radical defect of a training system well known in this part of our own country, which has arrogated to itself the title of normal-that elaborated by Mr Stow, a well-intentioned and much-respected gentleman of Glasgow. Is Stow's Training System entitled to be called a normal system? If by normal be meant conformity to acknowledged specified rules, it does deserve the appellation so far; but if these rules are the exponents of false principles, it cannot justly claim the designation, but should rather be termed abnormal. In the process of education, individuality is the main source and main spring of every thought. and action. The bare natural process must be gone through by the individual subject-external aid should only be employed to facilitate the action of that process. Again, one mind differs from another, and with the full power of its distinct nature, asserts its own modes and means, and resolutely refuses all others. Therefore, it is the educator's duty to study each pupil individually, and in his necessary classification never lose sight of that individuality. Thinking is a subtle matter to analyse, but the process is most natural, and easy because natural, if it be not hindered and marred by a blind non-recognition of the fundamental essential attribute of every thinking soul— individuality. This is the charge, and it is a serious and fatal one, we bring against the Stow system. It is a beautiful piece of well-fitting machinery. We mean to blame-not to praise. Perhaps a better illustration of what we mean is its resemblance to a well-disciplined army that performs all its movements with a brilliancy and precision that excites astonishment. Well, this is its condemnation. Indivi duality is ignored. The units of the army have no individual will of thought and action "Theirs not to reason why Theirs but to do and die." The reason is obvious. Combined-not individual thought and action -are required. Not so in training for the battle of life. There, individuality is the basis of everything. Force of individual character wins the day, and this Stow's Training System is not calculated to develop. What very absurd things we sometimes catch ourselves doing! We train a horse or a dog individually, but we train boys and girls by the gross or hundred. Dare we complain of a dearth of true thinkers, when we have so many establishments for the imposition, and so few for the education of thought. It is no new dogma that education is a subtle and delicate operation, requiring the broadest talent and the finest genius to superintend it. But here are establishments manufacturing it on a grand scale at reduced prices, like carpets and broadcloth. It is as absurd as it would be to form factories for the production of the fine arts. No! the educator must be an artist in the highest sense of the term, and must employ not machinery but manipulation. This is almost our sole objection to the system, but it is a radical one. It seems to have been suggested to a thoroughly commercial spirit by a well-known manufacturing principle, that by the agency of machinery more useful effect can be produced than by the single power of the hand. We have endeavoured to show that to education this principle is inapplicable. But we are so commercial, and love so much everything that looks business-like, that we are strongly tempted to admire and believe in the neat, ready, and superficially imposing manner which undoubtedly characterises this system. The family system is peculiarly fitted to draw out the individual bent of mind; and that system of public tuition which approaches most nearly to that, will achieve most real positive success. Institutions founded on such principles deserve to succeed; and it is with pleasure we receive from M. Demetz the statement that the Metray Institution, on the founding of which such pains were bestowed, is so successful in its practical working, and so productive of useful effect. THE SPIRIT OF THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF Debate on moving the vote for Educational purposes, (on the 13th June, 1856.) Debate on Mr Walpole's motion on Education in Ireland, (on the 18th June, 1856.) Debate on Mr Fortescue's motion on Education in Ireland, (on the 24th June, 1856.) OUR readers may remember that we, with the public in general, were thrown into no little perplexity, if not dismay, by the strong opinions in favour of Voluntaryism expressed by a majority of the House of Commons; and that not only in word, but in the deed of spurning the resolutions of Lord John Russell, even though reduced to a simple proposal for the extension of the existing system of the Committee of Privy Council. Nothing short of restoration of Voluntaryism to undivided sovereignty, seemed an adequate corollary to such high-flown plaudits, and no wonder that Mr Baines, of Voluntary celebrity, was encouraged to raise his voice for the discontinuance of State interference altogether. We knew too well the advantages conferred by the Privy Council's system-we do not venture to say on its proper objects-but on the interests represented by honourable members, who were not blind to them, though apparently to anything like a vision of consistency-we knew these too well to anticipate such an issue. We therefore regarded the debate on the Vote for Educational Purposes, with more curiosity than alarm; for while we hoped to learn how the demand could be acceeded to, we did not dare to look for a manifestation of heroic disinterestedness-a manifestation, howbeit, which we should not have hailed with gladness. No; so long as half a million of money is expended-some say squandered-in furtherance of an educational system-even though faulty, ay, even to the very core-so long have we a lever left us to raise aloft the testimony that State interference is necessary; and the hope may still be cherished that the voice of religion and justice may yet prevail, and divert this large fund from misapplication to a moral and just employment. It is because this voice has found utterance, unheeded we fear, but yet expressed; because the chaotic state of our educational appliances for the three kingdoms, in the debates on Irish Education and the Maynooth Grant, has been revealed in all its glaring inconsistency and want of principle, that we have deemed it expedient to cite them into court with a view to displaying the errors which have been committed--the errors which men have tried to commit, and the fallacy of some of the principles appealed to in justification of these erroneous acts. In the simplicity of his heart, Mr Walpole proposes the recognition of schools on the English model, by the Irish Educational Board, but meets with a rebuff—not so direct as a less timorous government would have consented to, but still, as we are prepared to show, a veritable rebuff. Hear, again, the answer given by the Committee of Privy Council, to a school founded in England on the Irish National system, which applied for assistance the other day: "Their lordships could not in England give the money of the State to support the Irish system of national education; because, under it the Holy Scriptures were not an essential part of the general instruction." But what of the Scottish Parochial School system, which, if we may take the Duke of Buccleuch's word for it, is truly a national system, if anything can be said to be one? We venture to say that the idea of recommending its adoption in any other portion of Her Majesty's dominions is too absurd to have entered even his admiring mind. It follows that what is a paragon in England, Scotland, or Ireland, has only to be transplanted to any other element of the trio, emphatically In the late debates, denominated Britain, to be voted worthless. we have had questions put like the following:-"What material did the noble lord, (Lord John Russell,) think the Irish Protestants were composed of? Did he think that that which was not good enough for the British and Foreign School Society-which was not good enough for the Wesleyans of this country, and which the lords of Council did not approve and would not recognise in England, was yet good enough for them?" We also would ask a question-a more rudimental question: "When did principle cease to be of universal application? what material are the English, Scottish, Irish men composed of, that what is justice in one country, should not be justice in all? Imitating the member for Belfast, when speaking in favour of the English system, we would ask, Why the English, Scottish, Irish system should not be introduced elsewhere? Were these what they ought to be, founded, namely, on the eternal principles of justice and morality, the question could not be raised, or if raised, no reason could be rendered. Being what they are, however, we can easily show cause. To commence with England. We would remind our readers that by consistent application of the Committee of Council's Minute of August 1, 1853, to the effect that “Aid is given to schools in connection with some religious denomination, or with some society already recognised by the Committee of Council," Romanists, Unitarians, and even Jews, have only to open their purses in order to obtain Government aid. Further, that as their Lordships are of opinion that this principle is in accordance with the will of the country, and, under these circumstances, refuse to grant aid to schools in which secular instruction is given exclusively-schools conducted in exactly the same manner as many of our Universities, or as the classes patronised by the rich are not entitled to such aid, so that it is contrary to principle to teach a child to read, write, calculate, etc., but not so to instruct him in the errors of Romanism, Unitarianism, or Judaism. A fine code of ethics this ! The justifiableness of purely secular instruction, with all deference to their lordships' authority, is so self-evident, that we shall not multiply words in its defence. Not so, however, apparently the unjustifiableness of denominational grants. Strange to say, it is the most liberal minds that are the first to admit it. Lord Robert Cecil thinks the system of teaching all kinds of religious doctrines to the children of all denominations, would bring the truthfulness of Christianity into disrepute, and lead to infidelity. To quote, again, from a divine, who has only to be named in Scotland to convey the idea of true liberality: "What I wonder at and venture to blame is, that any government should make itself a party to the management of schools with a view to the interests of the particular sects which support them-should stimulate this process by grants of public money to all parties who profess to teach any sort of religion should thus recognise, in an indirect and irregular manner, religious opinions which are not recognised in any direct or legitimate manner, and should aggrieve the conscience of the subject by compelling him to support and propagate doctrines which he privately considers erroneous, and, it may be, pernicious, and which the law and constitution do not recognise. Certainly this is a strange mode of proceeding, but it would appear that it is to be persevered in and even extended. Believing that it is radically unsound in theory, I cannot doubt that its practical effect will prove unsatisfactory, and I feel confident that anything deserving the name of National School Education will never be attained in this way." We believe that we shall not stand alone when we venture to endorse Mr Spooner's opinion, that the endowment of Maynooth is a national sin. There must surely be a goodly portion of this great and enlightened nation which can make a due distinction between "Toleration and Support." Sir John Pakington says: "The first and broadest duty which my Christianity teaches me is that of toleration and charity to all;" and so it should be. Toleration of all creeds is an evidence of Christian love; support to all, of indifference to Christianity: we will go further, and say, of indifference to Christ. How can he who does all for the * Dr Robert Lee, Old Greyfriars' Church, Edinburgh. glory of the triune God aid and abet the inculcation of doctrines which are subversive of, or detrimental to, this end? Was it for this that the battle of the Reformation was fought-for this that the Christian church was content to germinate in the blood of the Martyrs-was it, we ask, in order that when victory should have declared on the side of Protestantism, and kings become nursing fathers to the Church, taxes should be levied universally, and that all might participate in a fund raised out of the whole community? We deny it. If all cannot be taxed unless all participate, then we say, tax only conformists, or, if that be not practicable, tax none. We are disposed to take a more favourable view of the result of Mr Fortescue's motion than is generally done. It was a despicable motion in itself, and should not have been agreed to by Government unless amended so as to convey a distinct declaration that it would be at variance with the fundamental principle of the Irish system to give grants to the schools of the Church Education Society with the principles it avows. Had, therefore, Mr Walpole's motion, affirming the reverse of this, and that of Mr Fortescue, merely setting forth what all admitted-had these been the only expressions of the House's sentiments, a succeeding Cabinet might have given effect to Mr Walpole's proposal, and induced the reality we have been contemplating. Thanks to Mr Grogan, however, we have another criterion. He moved the following amendment: "But that, consistently with these principles, it is the opinion of this House that no school shall be disentitled to receive aid from the funds of the Board, because the rules of such school require a portion of Scripture to be read each day by every child as part of the general instruction of the school." In a House of 367 members this amendment was lost by 187 votes. True, Mr Grogan begged earnestly for an adjournment of the debate, on the plea that several members had left the house, and that there was no time for discussion; but it was surely reasonable to expect that if Mr Walpole's majority was as valid as he declared it to be, the minds of members favourable to Mr Grogan's view would be made up, and certainly a majority of 187, in a House of 367, is so far above comparison with a majority of ten in a House of 216, that no amount of discussion and no accession of absent friends could have turned the scale. The house has therefore refused to yield its assent to the extension of aid to schools in which each child is compelled to read a portion of Scripture daily. If, in the face of this refusal, any future Government venture to act upon Mr Walpole's address, sophistry must have taken deeper root in Britain than we would readily believe. But it is high time that we should pass judgment on the merits of Mr Walpole's motion, which is a very different thing from discussing the merits of the case. While we can fearlessly condemn, we can also frankly express less disapproving sentiments, and it is ever most pleasant to us for discover anything worthy of praise. Such a thing we find in the history of the Church Education Society. Since 1830, all schools, the managers of which were willing to co-operate with Government in carrying out what was allowed by all to be the only practicable measure for promoting education in Ireland, have been adinitted-the fulfilment of certain pecuniary conditions being presupposedto participation in the grant voted by Parliament for this object; Government insisting that no child should be subjected to the reception of any religious instruction disapproved of by its parents or guardians, and this involves the discontinuance of the rule enforced by the Kildare Street Society, that the Holy Scriptures should be read by all who attended, without note or comment. Certain of the Established clergy conceiving such a discontinuance either sinful in itself, or forbidden by their |