The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-19 00:00:00

•%t • Ai

guments, drawn not from its inspiring motive, but
from sources likely to be satisfactory to the public.
Like Mr. BRIGHT arguing for peace when his
Quaker principles were the unconscious motive,
but commerce and humanity CC the pinions which
impelled the steel." The High-Church party did
not avow its intense concern that the Church
Catechism and baptismal regeneration should be
the keystone of any educational system. The
Protestant Dissenters did not put forward their
invincible repugnance to such early indoctrination
with views which they denounce as the essence of
Popery ; nor the Secular Educationists their pre-
dominant wish, first to exclude the dominancy of
priests of all denominations; and next, and chiefly,
to secure for the populace an education in secular
knowledge which should give our operatives, and
their masters too, a fair chance beside those of
America and France. We are not now sitting in
judgment on the value of these unavowed, but,
to the parties, favourite objects. We only note
that all would do well to speak out more frankly,
and to discuss how much of their aims were com-
mon to all—for that must be the ground of
un ion.

The Secularists appear, at least from this point
of view, to have the advantage. Churchmen and
Dissenters, Roman Catholics and Infidels, extremes
as they are, all coincide in wanting at least the
secular elements of education. With writing,
reading, and arithmetic no one ever pretended to
dispense ; grammar, such as COBBETT would teach,
horresco roferens—his politics, however, might be
elided—seems a next necessity ; and geography
might be kept clear enough of theological contro-
versies. Thus far there is unanimity. History,
however, may in the opinion -of the three great
religious parties be made to bias fatally the youth-
ful mind—LINGARD, or Hume, Or MACAULA Y
being viewed by the sects respectively as so many
broad roads to perdition. Going, therefore, as
far as all will go together, and stopping where
parties begin to diverge, secular educa-
tion seems a reasonable point of union. None
can do without it. The arrangements of each
must give it the chief place in point of time and
attention. No party, except on purely commer-
cial principles, objects to a rate or a grant for
teaching such knowledge to the poor. Why,
then, raise such a cry against local rates or
national grants for objects which all agree to be
of primary importance ? All of us would give
something considerable for every child in the
nation to be able to read, write, spell, and reckon
well enough to pass in these matters an examina-
tion for the civil service. A nation so far edu-
cated would be in a better position to advance
materially, socially and religiously. It would be
better material for honest, religious teachers to
work with.
But hero we are met with the charge of ex-
cluding religion from education. We only ask
those who make it to be fair. Became some ob-
scure sect of infidels has taken the name of
" Secularists," it is not surely intended to con-
found us with them. If not, we no more exclude
religion than a large proportion of day schools.
We merely insist that State instruction should be
confined to those matters in which all who are
compelled to pay for it agree. We trust none can
have the conviction more deeply than ourselves
that religion ought to he the mainspring and the
guide of life. Who of us, indeed, would trust a
person who disowned his responsibility to his
MAKER? and who would not trust him in propor-
tion as that responsibility was known to be felt ?
Custom, habit, sense of honour, even cultivated
sentiment, are but feeble reliances to pilot
any of us amid the graver dangers of
life. We hold religious principle to be the
noblest quality in man ; as indispensable to his
well-being here as to his salvation hereafter.
We demur, however, to two virtual assump-
tions ; to that which charges us with wishing to
banish religion from the instruction of youth,
when we only object to its being paid for by pub-
lic taxes or local rates, and confidently leave it to
some twenty thousand Church clergymen, to as
many Dissenting clergy, to a whole army of
Sunday-school teachers, and to the homes where
mothers teach their young ones the first lessons
of infant devotion. Next, and specially, we
demur to that narrow view of religion which is
the ground of all the contentions. The
Church of England, as the Church of the
nation, ought to be the most liberal ;
It is to be feared, however, that her pertinacity
for the inculcation of her peculiar formulae in
school teaching is the mainspring of the dissensions
on this subject. The result is, that all sects
practically act on the principles of the Austrian
concordat; and while anathematising the Jesuits,
each one aims to make the schoolmaster a recruit-
ing serjeant for his church. Love of ecclesiasti-
cal power, from the Bishop of ROME to the presi-
dent of a Methodist conference, may have much
to do with this, but power could not be sought in
this way, were not the community divided into
sections, each deeming their distinctive opinions
of more consequence than those they hold in
common. If we would but sea it, it is, in truth,
bigotry, not religion, that prevents a reasonable
measure of religious instruction in state schools.
It is only an overweening estimate of the
importance of our own peculiar opinions, not
our deep sense of the value of the common and
diviner element, which we misname concern for
religion. The misfortune is, that the misconcep-
tion renders all common action in behalf of real
religion impossible.
The attempt to generate religions moderation
among the sects may seem almost hopeless ; still
nothing perfect or approaching perfection will
be achieved till this is done. We are not a little
surprised, however, to find Archdeacon G. A.
DENISON, of Taunton, avowing firmly the opinion
that "Secular education" is the only system com-
patible with a School Rate. If this common-
sense conviction spread it may become the basis
of universal education. It seems so obvious, and
is so guiltless, of offence to the specialities of any
sect, that it may ante-date by half-a century, or a
whole one, the Era of Religious Moderation.

Another gigantic-paper-pellet—a, world-in-little
—a microcosm—is just beginning to roll forth from
the creative hands of Mr. HENRY MAYHEW, some
time contributor of facetious ideas to 66 Punch, or
the London Charivari !" It is entitled, not vaguely
like its predecessor "London Labour and the
London Poor"—(a mere pkase of the " universe of
things" making up the life and whirl of our metro-
polis)—but at once explicitly anti comprekensively
THE GREAT WORLD OF LONDON It undertakes
in the most astonishing prospectus imaginable, a
prospectus the most daring and the most elabo-
rate, to paint London as it actually is, London as
it is seen under every conceivable and inconceivabe
aspect—Street London and Shop London—Serv-
ing Lonaion and Working London—FastLondon and
Poor London—London Legal, Medical, Religious,
Commercial, Literary, Theatrical, Fashionable, Po-
litical, Genteel, Military, Nautical, Criminal, Sub-
urban, Musical, Artistic, and Locomotive ! Fancy
that !—and more—London, as it is in regard to its
Eating and Drinking, in regard to its Anti-
quity, in regard to its Exhibitions. " Every-
thing by turns and"--eyerythiug apparentll•
•