The Press.
London, England, 1855-04-21 00:00:00

EDUCATIONAL PRINCIPLES.

IN dealing with Sir JOHN Paxtrierrox's bill, it
must not be forgotten that its principles and
leading features alone—not the details of the
measure—are properly under consideration by
Parliament. For though printed, and though
the second reading be fixed for a day not now
distant, it has been stated from the first, both
by Sir Rats himself, and by his friends, that
it will be considered together with those of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. MILNER °mom—
the three plans being laid simultaneously before
the House. Minor arrangements.thereforq-s-tbe

APRIL 21, 1855.

exact form and shape of the machinery by
which proposed results are to be carried out—
may be, and must be postponed. If adequate
to their purpose, they may pass; if faulty, a
remedy will be found, or others may be sub-
stituted ; the immediate question at issue is—
on what principles shall the educational sys-
tem of England be henceforth based ?
Three only can be pointed out—the secular,
the voluntary, and the denominational. Of
the first of these, abstractedly, we say no-
thing, convinced that its practical adoption is,
in the present temper of the English people,
impossible—that it would provoke an opposi•
tion irresistible, universal, and which time
would rather increase than abate ; conse
quently, that however interesting as a theory,
it has no value as a legislative scheme meant
to be adapted to the present time. So, again,
with the " voluntary" theory; which, whether
believed in or not, was, in fact, acted upon
until some five•and twenty years ago, with
what results those conversant with the state
of England in the last generation can best tell
Against both secularists and voluntaries the
people of England, were they polled to.
morrow, would pronounce by a majority of
two to one State teaching there must be—
or rather State assistance to those who teach
—religious teaching there must be—and the
problem is, to combine both these without
either allowing to the Government a cen-
tralising dictatorial authority in educational
matters, or giving occasion (too easily taken)
of mutual offence and exasperation between
contending sects. To guard against the first
of these risks, local self-government is ado: led
as the leading principle of Sir JOHN PAIING.
TON'S bill; there is no compulsion in it. A
district in which the plan is unpopular may
simply ignore it, and go on as before. The
" voluntaries" are not meddled with—no taxa-
tion is meditated except self taxation—that
interference of the governing power is cut
down to the lowest point, and will be still fur-
ther controlled when, as Sir JOHN proposes,
the Committee of Council receives, what it
ought to have had long ago, its due represen-
tation in both Houses of Parliament.

The last, or sectarian difficulty, is the most
formidable of all ; and we do not say that any
method has, or can be, discovered by which it
can be either wholly evaded, or wholly over-
come. But under the present measure, as
compared with any other that has been, or that
is likely to be, proposed, what party will
have a right to complain? The Dissenter?
He well knows that the establishment of
• secular schools (even supposing that his con
science allows him to send his children to
each), cannot be made compulsory, and that if
left optional the permission will remain, over
nine-tenths of the country, a dead letter. He
is equally well assured, it the inhabitant of a
rural district, that his fellow-sectarians, scat-
tered far and wide in numbers comparatively
small, cannot unite for educational purposes,
such union necessarily requiring proximity of
residence, as well as community of sentiments.
His alternative, therefore, unless he reside in
a town, is to educate his children himself, or
send them to a Church school for education.
By the proposed bill he will have access, as a
matter of right, to the Churoh school, coupled
with exemption from compulsory attendance
on religious teaching. He is so far a clear
gainer, with the added advantage, that if he
dislike the school system adopted in the union
where he resides, he,like every other ratepayer,
has it in his power practically to protest, by
withholding or cutting down the rate.
Again, the Churchman,—in what respect is
he a loser by the bill ? It is true that on him,
as on his rival, is laid an obligation of tole-
rance in the prohibition of compulsory reli-
gious teaching. But this is no interference
with the management of his school—it is
simply a stipulation on the part of the State,
that in return for aid given by the State, he
shall forego the exercise of a power which no
sensible man could desire to possess, and by
the abandonment of which he himself may
profit, in localities where a non conformist
mrjm•ity pre'. ails. If the rigid rule of deno-
p in ttional exclusion is not to be maintained—
if any consideration is to be shown to the