The Express.
London, England, 1856-04-10 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 10.

TO-NIGHT Lord JOHN Rusam brings forward his
Resolutions on the great subject of National Educa-
tion. The Order-book of the House of Commons is
crowded with notices of amendments, principally
directed to points of detail. These there will be
ample opportunity to discuss hereafter. There are,
however, two motions which go more to the root of
the matter, and on which it will be as well at once
to ell* a few obiervations. Mr. ADDERLET% amend-
ment, to the effect that it is not expedient at the
present time to propose any scheme for the promotion
of Education by aid from the Public Funds, may be
simply disposed of by the remark that it is opposed
to the well-grounded conviction of all those who have
ever thought earnestly on the existing state of what,
by a perversion of language, we currently call Na-
tional Education. If we could conscientiously think
that any system deserving of that title really existed
in this country, if we could perceive that National
Education, in any proper sense of that term, wu no-
I tually in progress amongst u, and that Lord how
RUSSELL'S Resolutions were merely the emanations
of a feverish desire to glue an nanatual im-
petus and development to such yeerest, we
should, perhaps, be disposed to agree wt* Mr.
EDDIRLET. As, however, in common with the great
majority of those who have ever thought at the
subject, we are of quite the contrary opinion; as we
cannot help perceiving that this great national nue,-
sity is now, in the fifty-sixth year of the nineteenth
century, very far indeed from anything like a sear
factory state either of attainment or growth, we are
compelled entirely to dissent from the amendment of
Mr. ADD/ALIT.

A far more important motion is that of Mr. Con.
new—namely, " that the erection and maintenance
of iftpols for teaching the various forms of doctrinal
Migl to be supported wholly or in pert out of local
rates, wfl not be deemed ajuat or satisfactory system
of education by the people of this country." Now, be-
fore prosseding to say a few words on the principle
involved in this motion, let us first consider how it
arises out of the Resolutions proposed by Lord
JOHN &MULL. Does Lord JOHN RIIIIIIELL propose
by his Resolutions "the erection and mainte-
nance of school, for teaching the various forms of
doctrinal religion P" His Tenth Resolution—the
only use which relates to this matter—is as follows:
" That in every school supported in whole or in
part by rates, a portion of the Holy Scriptures should
be read daily in the school, and such other provision
I should be made for religious instruction as the school
committee may think fit; but that no child should be
compelled to receive any religious instruction, or
attend any religious worship, to which his or her pa.
reamer guardians shall, on religious grounds, object."
Now we frankly admit that if the matter
were tee integra, if we were legislating for Sir
THOMAS Moan's " Utopia," or PLATO'S " Republic,"
or any other philosophic abstraction, and not for that
very complex and exceedingly unphilosophical entity
the People of England—we should have beer very
well content to omit all reference to the school
I reeding of the Holy Scripture, or to any other pro.
vision for religious instruction which a school coos-
=Wee might think fit to require. As a matter of
mere taste, indeed, quite apart from any views of
doctrine, we should have supposed that any thinker,
however unsectatian, might be well contented
that the Bible, which bu been such an important
element in the spiritual and intellectual development
of English society, should early be made as familiar
to the youth of England se their own Wend
history. Still, we might well doubt, on abstract
grounds, whether this kind of culture could best be
imparted in school hours, and we should not feel con-
caned to deny that the secular accomplishments of
reading, writing, and arithmetic—the three Rs of the
immortal Sir WILLIAM Conne—might very nth,.
factorily be taught in schools for the poor, as they
frequently are in schools for the middle damn, with-
out the superaddition of a fourth R in the shape of
Religion. But what has all this philosophic frank-
ness to do with the practical problem of framing such a
generally applicable mesas cf conveying secular in-
struction as the English people, being such se they
are, can alone be prevailed on to accept?
As to the question how far Mr. COBDEN'S amend-
ment is really justified by the tenor of Lord JOHN
RUBSILL'S Resolutions, we think that with candid
persons there can only be one opinion. What Lord
JoHN proposes as a sine gee son is Scripture read-
ing in school hours; all religious instruction that is
beyond this he leaves primarily to the school cam-
mitt.% and ultimately to the parents of the scholars.
No child is to be compelled " to receive any religious
instruction or attend any religious worship" to which
his parents may conscientiously object. How can
Mr. COBDEN find in such a proposal as this, a scheme
for " the erection and maintenance of schools for
teaching the various forms of doctrinal Religion ?"
The real question is, whether the principle of ao-
cording Government assistance in aid of local rates
for motional instruction is or is not so valuable as to
be purchased at some little sacrifice of strict philoso•
phis views as to the abstract functions of the State in
relation to the great duty which, in one form or
another, we all admit that it owes to its members.
We think it is. In a matter of this kind we are more
sedulous of practical good than of metaphysical re-
finements. We desire secular instruction so ar-
dently that we shall not be dissatisfied even if the
State so far treason& those limit. which the doctors
of the secular principle are plumed to prescribe, as
to give us a certain amount of Bible reading in school
hours; ay, or even such a modicum of religions
' instruction in addition as the school committee may
agree upon and the parents Dot object to.
We have left ourselves no space to dwell on the
details of Lord JOHN'S Mann. As at present ad-
vised, we are certainly of opinion that he has been at
least sufficiently liberal in his allowance of School
Inspectors, and we have no doubt at all that the pro-
posal for keeping agricultural and mechanic children
at school till they are fifteen will be found wholly
impossible in practice. The powers, too, proposed
to be vested in the Charitable Trust Commissioners
under the Sixth Resolution, though very salutary, if
properly limited, will no doubt require careful con-
sideration. It may be difficult to steer a safe course
between the ruinous Charybdis of Chancery, and the
scarcely lees objectionable evil of a despotic and
irresponsible Board. These and other kindred
matters, however, there will be abundant opportu-
nity to discus hereafter. What we are now desirous
to express is our entire adhesion to what we consider
the vital principle of the Resolutions—namely, Go-
vernment support to, and Government superintend-
ence over, schools mainly supported by the contribu-
ties, of keel ratepayers.