We are happily come to a period when this most important of questions can be discussed without party-spirit, and has therefore, for the first time, some chance of a fair hearing and a wise decision. Till the last few months, the question was encompassed with political and religious difficulties, the latter especially. The leading religious denominations, of whatever hue, (or at least their public mouthpieces,) had, as if by common consent, been accustomed to make the inculcation of religious creeds in the day-school a sine quá non in education; and while this was the case, it was difficult to see how the State could interfere without religious partizanship. There were High-Churchmen, indeed, who claimed such interference and boldly insisted that the religious doctrines and discipline of the "National Church" should be an integral part of the "National Education;" but these were mere Churchmen, with no eyes for the world as it is, or for the course it is taking, living mostly in cathedral towns or rural villages, and simply ignorant of the rights and power of the Dissenting community, and of that wider social force which cares little for the small sectarianisms of Church or Dissent, in comparison with sound secular instruction and good moral training. But even a High-Churchman, if living in the heart of a manufacturing and commercial district and disinterestedly intent upon his duties as a parish priest, while possessed of superior powers of observation and reflection, such as constitute Dr. Hook's glorious common sense, might be expected to find for himself a more firm and practical position than that of hopelessly regretting antiquity. And the Vicar of Leeds has paved the way to a practical adjustment of the question of State Education, by proposing that the State should strictly confine itself to the business of secular and moral education, and allow facilities for the voluntary zeal alike of the clergy and of Dissenting ministers to supply doctrinal instruction according to their special views. Whether Dr. Hook's plan would prove sufficient in its working details, we may doubt; and we shall speak of this hereafter; but he has given his adhesion to the scheme of separating the

* Dr. Hook's Letter to the Bishop of St. David's.

Mr. Baines's Letters to Lord John Russell; reprinted from Leeds Mercury. Dr. Vaughan's Letters to the Morning Chronicle, and Article on Education in British Quarterly Review, November, 1846.

Quarterly Review, October, 1846.

Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review, October, 1846.

Mr. Burgess's (Hon. Sec. to London Diocesan Board of Education) Letter to Dr. Hook.

Mr. Swaine's (Member of Congregational Board of Education) Hints for a just System of National Education.

doctrinal (we do not call it the religious, though he does) from the secular and moral offices of school education; and this is the great step now gained towards the adjustment of the whole question. It is no longer an essential to High-Churchmanship to demand the use of the Bible and Prayer-book as part and parcel of the business of a day-school. It is no longer a "godless" system to do one thing at a time, and reserve distinct things for distinct times. The Bible is no longer the bone of contention among religious parties in reference to the education of the poor. Difference of opinion remains, indeed, on all parts of the Education question; but it no longer coincides with religious and political differences. Dr. Hook as a High-Churchman advocates the separation of the secular from the theological school. Mr. Burgess and other High-Churchmen protest against it. Mr. Baines, an ultra-voluntaryist, both in education and in religion, protests as loudly against it. Mr. Swaine, a brother Congregationalist of his, equally decided in religious voluntaryism, but advocating State education, advocates the separation. Again, as regards the right or duty of the State to assist in secular education, we have a complete fusion of parties. Mr. Baines's ultra-voluntaryism is as unwelcome to his Dissenting friends, Dr. Vaughan and Mr. Swaine, as it is to Dr. Hook. Again: we find the Quarterly Reviewer and the Westminster agreeing to advocate the same principle of State education, as limited to the secular and moral. Now this is as delightful as it is new. We are all thinking the matter over in right earnest, without regard to party; nay, we cannot espouse a mere party view if we would-for all views are found among all parties. To Dr. Hook's avowal of opinion we are chiefly indebted for this open and healthy atmosphere of discussion. Whatever the plans of the Government may prove to be when declared in Parliament, they are more likely to obtain a calm and reasonable consideration than could have been expected at any previous time. Yet it by no means follows that it would, even now, be an easy matter for the Government to make any deep organic change in our school system (or no-system), or that the nation is ready to receive any grand centralized system of educational machinery, such as has been instituted in Prussia or in France. The proper functions of Government in respect to the education of the people are by no means agreed upon. There is as much difference of opinion as ever on this question, though not now ranged rank and file with religious or political parties. Public opinion on the subject has only now gained the opportunity of healthy action; and its new freedom from sectarian trammels should be allowed quietly to work, and not too soon invited to public action for or against any new organism.

In this new calm and freedom of thought on a great public question of vital importance to the mind of the nation, we desire to contribute, if we can, towards just and practical views of what is best to be done.

The main question now is, as to the right or duty of the State to interfere at all in the education of the people; and, if that right or duty be admitted, the proper limits to that interference. We have, apparently, extreme advocates of both views; those who would have the State do every thing, and those who would have it do nothing. But the principle of voluntaryism (an ugly word, lately introduced to describe the Dissenting principle in religion, and now used to denote

the repudiation of State interference in education)-the principle of voluntaryism is not necessarily the negation of State help. There may be room enough and work enough for individuals and voluntary societies, and for the State too. Possibly the true solution of the question may be in the union of the two modes of action. The disputants, as is usual and natural, are apt to overstate the question. It is taken for granted by objectors to State education, that the State is about to monopolize the care of the whole mind of the nation, to lay violent hands on all existing schools and "establishments," to swamp the voluntary system altogether, and become one universal schoolmaster. It is assumed that the State education will be a compulsory system, and that children found at play will be taken into school custody by the police or military, as in Prussia. Voluntaryism necessarily repudiates the idea of such compulsion, and thinks it has settled the question of State education in so deciding. But not the slightest symptom has appeared, in any act or declaration of the Ministry or their reputed educational expounders, of any such design. A despotic system like that of Prussia, or even one so highly centralized as that of France, we may safely assure ourselves, is not dreamt of by British statesmen. Mr. Baines, in one of his letters, raised this phantom; and Mr. Ewart in a brief reply (in the Leeds Mercury) laid it so completely, that Mr. Baines confessed his great difficulty in arguing the question to be, the absence of any distinct avowal of the ultimate designs of the Russell Education movement. What if Lord John Russell has no ultimate designs? Why should he? Why should he, now in 1847, when desiring to give the powerful assistance of the Government to the promotion of general education, decide just what he or his successors shall do in 1857 or in 1900? What if he is satisfied to ascertain the best means at present available for promoting the object, and trust to experience to confirm or modify the measures now taken? The advocates of State education maintain it as designed, not to supersede, but to supplement, the efforts of benevolent individuals and societies. They see that the "voluntary principle" has had so large a part in all that has hitherto been done, as to make it incredible that any English Legislature should attempt to supersede it, or even run any needless risk of damping its energy. They think there is more to be done than voluntaryism can or will reach; and look upon the State as an auxiliary, and not a rival, educator.*

* While we write, we read the following in the newspaper report of a speech by Lord Morpeth, spoken at York, Dec. 22nd, at the half-yearly meeting of the York and Ripon Diocesan Board of Education, his Lordship being in the chair: "Of course I feel that in this place and on this occasion it will not be fitting in me to enter into any of those controverted questions which have excited public attention of late to a considerable extent, and which may be made the subjects of discussion and possibly of difference in the Legislature. I will not encounter the topic as to how far the State ought to act, how far the State ought to move, or how far the State ought to stand aloof with respect to the education of the people. I may perhaps, without incurring the imputation of great rashness, venture to conjecture that the fittest course to pursue would be, not that which is indicated by an extreme view on either side of the case. I think it certainly possible that the State may meddle too much, or leave alone too much; for in dealing with such a question (like the dinner we have to eat), there is always

But the ultra-voluntary, in the person of Mr. Baines, denies in the outset, absolutely and in toto, the assumed right of the State to institute schools at all. Mr. Baines puts the question of State education on the same footing as that of a State religion, and holds that Dissenters ought to object to the one as much as to the other.

Now, if this be the legitimate application of "Dissenting principles," the question of State education is virtually settled at once. If conscientious Dissenters feel that the interference of the State on behalf of education is an infringement of religious liberty, they will, of course, unite as one man to oppose all such interference; and that which they unitedly resist as religious persecution, cannot and ought not to become law.

But the simple answer to this argument is, that Dissenters in general do not agree with Mr. Baines. He is, among the writers that we have seen on this subject, absolutely solitary in taking this high ground of voluntaryism. Dissenters in general have, for years and years past, been continually acting on the very opposite principle. They have distinguished between State religion and State education. They have objected to the one, and no less earnestly coveted the other. Some years ago, they petitioned Parliament for admission, without religious tests, to Oxford and Cambridge. Failing of this claim, they hailed the incorporation of the London University as their best compensation; and their sons are daily matriculating, studying, graduating B.A., A.M., LL.D. and M.D., without scruple of conscience, though the Board of Examiners are salaried by the State, and the degree is for ever after a State certificate of their literary, scientific or medical proficiency. And while thus using the educational advantages offered by the State for their own sons, they have received without scruple the Parliamentary grants of money in aid of schools for the poor, which have been given without partiality to the National Schools and those of the British and Foreign School Society, and received in equal good conscience by Church committees and Dissenting ones. Yet here, we are free to admit, a scrupulous "voluntary-principle-in-religion' advocate might have felt some qualms of conscience about receiving State money for a school not purely secular, but in which his religious opinions are taught to the children. We are not aware, however, that even the Leeds Dissenters ever made protest against this abomination

the double risk of things being over-done and under-done. But I will certainly further venture to say, that with respect to the country at large, I am not satisfied with the exact state of things which prevails at present. I think there is a call for more schools than we have; I think there is a call for better schools than many of those we have; I think that many of our systems are still imperfect; that many of our masters are ill qualified for their office, and almost all less well paid than we would wish. And, speaking here in the midst of this institution, and in this comely and suitable building in which I am glad to see it housed, I for one do not regret the assistance which has been conferred by the State, in addition to local contributions and private munificence. But one thing I think is absolutely clear, and in stating it I may challenge contradiction, that whatever the State may do, whether it shall leave the work of education entirely alone, or whether it shall proceed so far as the most venturous interferers would wish, it is quite plain that there would still be much more left to be done, there would be still much more which private effort, private superintendence private generosity, must always do the best, and will frequently alone be able to do."

of a State grant to the British and Foreign School Society. We think they never did; but we may be mistaken. Again: Parliamentary grants have been lately applied to the institution and annual support of Schools of Design in many of our large towns-Leeds, we believe, among the rest; and it was not felt as any dereliction of Dissenting principles to receive this aid. Mr. Ewart's Bill, of a session or two since, for establishing Museums by borough-rate in municipal towns, where the corporation choose to do it, recognizes again the right of the community to apply public money in aid of public education, and has not, so far as we know, been regarded as a violation of the religious equality or spiritualism claimed by Dissenters.

In fact, the principle of State education does not now first arise for discussion. It has been so far settled as to be acted upon again and again, without a word of objection in point of principle or conscience. To Dissenters in general, the distinction is clear enough between State religion and State education; and they will never, we think, be found petitioning Parliament for the cessation of the grant to the British and Foreign School Society, and the abrogation of the London University Charter, as infractions of religious liberty. The State does educate, and it must educate, on a wider scale even than that of schools for children. It educates by giving the franchise, parliamentary or municipal; the exercise of these rights is the State-training of citizens. It educates by its penny post, training the letter-writers to social and domestic duty. It means to educate, we trust, by improved sanitary regulations, which, if they promote health of body, must thereby promote health of mind and morals. And further, we think, the State, which does educate, and cannot help educating in various ways, ought to educate in the way of providing school education for children.

The State may punish, and does punish, the transgression of the laws. Herein the State assumes that offenders know and understand, or might know and understand, the laws. Is not the argument sound, that the State ought to do all in its power to provide that they all shall have sufficient opportunity of knowing and understanding the general requirements of the law? Reading and writing, though insufficient tests of knowledge and intelligence, are, in an age and country like ours, the necessary elements of even the lowest degrees of education. They are the indispensable means of knowledge. If these are not acquired, there can be little perception of social rights or of legal obligations, which in the main coincide.

Perhaps the nearest parallel to the argument for State education as supplementing voluntary arrangements, is the case of Poor-laws. The State does not mean to supersede the better and higher agencies of family love and duty among the poor, or of private benevolence towards them. The maintenance of his children is the parent's duty; and so is their education. But if there are parents so destitute as to be unable to maintain their children, or so vicious as to be indifferent about them, the State does not willingly let these destitute children perish. Its Poor-laws endeavour to protect and preserve such destitute children. Why may it not, and ought it not, to make provision equally for destitution of mind?

What we have said, and what we have still to say, applies to secular education, and not to religious, if by religious education is meant (as