The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-09 00:00:00

THE.PRESS, OCTOBER 9, 1858. :- with good results in many parts of England. system there are one or two tough objections. out, reading-rooms will not attract those to w 1 toil. And we may add that the appetite for stronger than it is likely to be in the large n' _ labourers to counteract the effects of a long and hard day's work: It occurs to us that after all Mr. BEST was the speaker who hit the right nail upon the head He said he was of opinion that "education alone would not ' raise the moral status of the humbler classes. Their social position must be improved. They must be provided with better cottages, and to enable them to participate in that benefit there must be a corresponding effort to put the payment of wages on a sound basis, so that the labourer might be able to pay his increased rent, and to put the skilled labourer and man of integrity in his proper position." The education of the poor, like the education of the rich, i s i n rea li ty b ut a question of money; with this distinction, that we believe the poor mart will often make the greater sacrifice to attain it. But, practically, what is the difference between Giles Hedger taking his boy from the village school to earn 4d. a day by " tenting," and Mr. Broadcloth removing his son and heir from Rugby to help him in the counting-house? None whatever : it is a question of money, we repeat, with both. But place the labouring man in a position to dispense with Tommy's services for a year or two longer, and we believe he would eagerly grasp at the opportunity of making his boy " a scholar." More, we fear, than can always be said for his superior. As far, then, as the agricultural poor are concerned, it is scarcely too much to affirm that, twist the matter as we may, the much vexed question of education is more or less a question of wages. With the subject of mechanics institutes a different set of considerations, of course, come into play. But Sir JoitN PAKINGTON did not say anything at Worcester suggestive of any corollary to our remarks of last week upon this subject. We must, however, with all deference to the First Lord of the Admiralty, take exception to the terms in which he concluded his address. We are told, says he, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. "I am not afraid of knowledge, but I am afraid of ignorance." Now, what is all ignorance but little knowledge ? The subject of middle class examinations was discussed this week at Norwich. Nothing novel, however, was advanced by any of the speakers ; and we have only there ore to repeat the hope, frequently expressed in these columns, that the system will not be abused, and act as a temptation to certain classes in the community to satisfy themselves with a lower scale of education for their children than they would otherwise have done. Middle-class examinations are by no means intended for the whole middle class. This is an error, against which we must be carefully on our guard. For there is always danger that in striving to extend knowledge we may only depre ciate education. If this rock ahead be steadily kept in view, we trust that the new system may answer all the expectations of its founders. If we allude to the very sensible language of the Bishop of LINooLN, delivered on the occasion of his triennial visitation on Wednesday last, it is rather to call attention to an important general evil to which his words bore witness than to the specific subjects he discussed. Both on the ques tion of Church-rates and also the revision of the Prayer-book his Lordship expressed an opinion that a decided majority of the nation were adverse to any change. It is possible that a change might be expedient for all that. But that is not the point of our present observations. The power which noisy and persevering minorities are gradually coming to exercise in this country is a most dangerous and discreditable fact. Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is another case in point. And if the new Reform Bill contain any provision by which the quiet convictions of the whole people may be enabled to control the clamour of a few interested individuals, that one feature alone will entitle it to the gratitude of posterity. The last event in the nature of a public meeting that we have to record is the meeting of the Court of Common Council to do honour to Lord CLYDE and Sir JAMES OUTRAN. The two speeches delivered on this occasion by Mr. CHARLES REED (who certainly has not " plagiarized " from history) are somewhat remarkable. There is so much, indeed, in his narrative of recent events that is entirely novel, or original, that we are at a loss where to commence our selections. We learn, however, among other things, that in 1849 Sir COLIN CAMPBELL was a Brigadier-General in Affghanistan, and that " the record of his services there is too fresh in our memory to " need even a passing reference. Unfortunately, so far as our own memory is concerned, we are not aware of any services performed by the illustrious General during his command of the Peshawur division on the frontiers of Affghanistan, beyond the dispersion of some mountaineers and the destruction of a few villages. That "he it was who turned the for " tunes of the day at Balaklava " may be nothing more than a rhetorical i hyperbole, but the summary of Lord CLYDE'S Indian campaign s as remarkable for the confusion and inaccuracy of its facts as for the vehe mence of its language • " Retrieving the false step of WismiAm, gaining the bridge of boats, his object at Cawnpore being secured, Sir (mu.; hastens to join OUTRAM at the Alumbagh, and by a combined attack to repossess themselves of Lucknow. We know how that work was accomplished—how, throwing off the officialism of the general, the commander of the noble army became a personal leader—how, exposing his own life, he covered the pos►tion of his men, sparing life everywhere. We know how he effected a complete, and, speaking by comparison, a bloodless victory, gaining possession of one of the largest cities in India, and turning the retreat of the mutineers into a tumultuous flight. We know how he chased them in confusion to Rohilcund and Bareilly (some people suppose I3areilly to be in Rohilamd), and scattered them far up into the wild recesses of the Himalayas." It is quite possible that all this may be known to Mr. CHARLES REED, but a great deal of it appears strange to ourselves, though not so much so as the startling revelations with which we are favoured touching the career of Sir JAMES OUTRAN! : "In 1839 the Shah SHOOJAH, exposed to peril from a lawless banditti, finds a generous protector in OUTRAM ; and the Ameer of SCLYDE shortly But then, again, even to this . As the Times has pointed 'horn reading at all is still a or intellectual food must be 111 1 najority of our labourers t. THE WEEK. IT is characteristic of Englishmen that they make their business a pleasure, and their pleasure a business. Parliament is not sitting, it is true; but the work of Parliament is going on. To be debarred from making a speech for six long months is more than your regular politician can endure. So, notwithstanding all the professions of fatigue that used to emanate from our honoured representatives a month or two ago, we find them very soon yielding again to the seduction of their regular calling, and getting up miniature Parliaments of' their own wherever a public meeting can be got together. Politics, of course, take the lead ; and on this subject Sir G. C. LEWIS and Sir J. WALSH at Knighton, Messrs. COLLIER and WRITE at Plymouth, and Colonel SYKES at Aberdeen, have been delivering themselves of the ideas accumulated since August. The first mentioned gentleman's opinions on Parliamentary Reform we have dis cussed elsewhere. Sir J. WALSH'S observations on the subject of democracy and despotism were excellent. We only wish the truth they conveyed was more taken to heart than it is. The only point deserving particular notice in Mr. COLLIER'S speech was his repetition of the old maxim about measures not men. " The great question with the " people," said he, " was whether they were well governed—it then being " of minor importance which of the parties it was that governed." This bit of political cant first began to make itself heard some ninety years ago, and those who would fully comprehend its hollowness should turn to BURKE'S admirable treatise, " Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents." The Hon. Gentleman was also good enough to inform us that he did not go with the Chartists in paying members of Parliament. We wonder how Mr. BRIGHT likes to see himself ranked with that class of politicians. Colonel SYKES at Aberdeen, after a general condemnation of the past session from every point of view, and reiterating the phrase about men and measures, recommended that the one hundred and twenty Independent Liberals should enter " into an intelligible and practical combination." With whom, or for what special object, he does not inform us. If they are to combine, they must combine with somebody. Yet nobody in the House, according to the Gallant Colonel, deserves their confidence. Up to this time, however, the majority of these gentlemen do not seem to be of the same opinion as their would-be spokesman, but have accorded a hearty support to her Majesty's Government. The subject of Education has this week been handled by some of the most accomplished and experienced gentlemen in the country. Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT, the Bishop of SALISBURY, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, and others, have each of them been illustrating it from different points of view. Let us see, therefore, to what conclusions, if any, these various addresses will enable us to arrive. Mr. ADDER LEY, who spoke at an educational meeting in Staffordshire, on what is more specially known as " National Education," tells us that the general feeling of the people of this country is not in favour of the secular system. This he thinks proved by the large number of candidates who elect to be examined in the Scriptures. The statement, however, is one in which we can readily believe, without demanding any special evidence; and our confidence in its correctness leads us to accept at once his further asser tion, at variance with the opinions of the school inspectors,—that the reli gious difficulty is still an obstacle to any comprehensive scheme of educa tion. Mr. NORRIS, the inspector, reasoning from the fact that two hundred children of all denominations consented to be examined by him in the Scriptures, had rather hastily jumped to the conclusion that the " religious difficulty " no longer existed. We must confess for our own part that we should be rather sorry if it disappeared. The present system, known as the " denominational," we believe to be working very well ; and increased economy and efficiency would be dearly purchased by the smallest sacrifice of religious earnestness. Mr. ADDERLEY said that the secular system might be adopted if the parents were sensible and the managers of schools trustworthy. We think he might have left out the first-mentioned condition ; for if the schoolmasters were trustworthy, the parents would shortly become " sensible." But this same trustworthiness— i.e., the power of an honest and complete abstinence from the introduction of religious opinions—is a quality so rarely met with that any system to which it is indispensable must for ever be relegated to Utopia. Even among the most highly cultivated and philosophical minds the art of so wording lessons on history or science as never to jar upon the religious convictions of those who differ from the teacher is a comparatively rare gift. Can we ever hope to have a class of national schoolmasters who, as a rule, are endowed with it ? This, in our opinion, is the hinge of the religious diffi culty—a topic from which Mr. ADDERLEY passed on without proposing any solution, of a subject which also occupied the attention of Mr. EmotrßT—viz., by what means it was possible to prolong educational influences among the children of the labouring poor after they had quitted school ? Both deprecated the idea of " keeping the children of labourers " from the labour which was their real school for life." But Mr. ESTCOURT thought a system of prizes might do much towards preventing parents from setting their children to field work before their strength was equal to it. We have no doubt that in the purely agricultural districts such a plan might be partially successful ; but over a wide area of the midland and manufacturing counties the indoor labour of young children can be turned to very profitable account without the least injury to their bodily strength. In these districts, therefore, we doubt if the proposed plan would be effectual. Mr. ESTCOURT is in &your of evening-schools and reading-rooms in all our villages, which we know have been already tried 980