The Sun.
London, England, 1861-10-18 00:00:00

measure in the Wednesday triumphs of Conserva-
tism—in the beating of a Ministry willing to be
beaten on all the m?asures of political liberty
proposed by some of their supporters ; and still
more on beating them on the great Church Rate
question. He was confident that the majority of
the country were with the Speaker in giving his
vote with the Noes. That the majority of the
county members, the majority of the clergymen
who canvas for them, the majority of the clerical
churchwardens, and the majority of the landlords
were with Mr. Speaker, we have no doubt. What
we doubt, and more than doubt, is whether the
majority of the ratepayers were with him. They
are the parties really concerned. Now we
should desire nothing more than to have
a fair ballot in every parish in the kingdom
on the question—Preserve Church-rates or Abolish
them. If the Conservative Papillon held it for a
rule that it was Conservative to abide by the deci-
sion of rate-payers, we are quite certain that his
Conservatism would carry him into the same lobby
with Sir JOHN TRELAWNY.

Thus far our PAPlLLON—anglice butterfly, as
we should perhaps have observed before—tells us
how the winds have blown ; but there is not one
little hint of the Conservative wind to be ex-
pected to-morrow. He is one of the few Conser-
vative members who have adverted to the new
minute of the Council of Education ; and his pious
fear is, that it combines "with the grant of State
money the MiISSMUM of religious instruction, with the
maximum of injustice to schoolmasters and teachers."
On both these points we may presume that the
Conservatives mean to have a triumph next session
—no Wednesday triumph, but a good regular six
or seven days' debate triumph, unless, indeed, of
which there are symptoms, the Government sur-
renders at discretion by next March.
Now, it will really be a sad thing if the Govern-
ment does this. The cry of vested interests is
too bad, in behalf of a new institution which
has been subject, like the present system, to annual
notice of probable alteration. We maintain, too,
that nearly all the teachers and their patrons who
complain so, have already, in the education and
status they have acquired, obtained a fair quid pro
quo for any little sacrifice they may have made.
We admit it may not be pleasant to them to receive pay
for results only, not as before for certificated position.
But what the country has a right to ask is, the
certificate worth, unless the certificated man can
produce the results we pay for? It is unpleasant, too,
to come do' n from the higher topics of education
to the humble matters of writing, reading, and
arithmetic. Yet just these are the only legitimate
objects of pauper education. And it should never
be forgotten that all Government education is
pauper education. As the atient who receives aid
from the parish doctor is, to that extent, pauperized,
so the parent and child who are aided out of the
State taxes, in regard to education, are so far
paupers. They eat the educational bread furnished
them by taxpayers ; and we must maintain that the
necessary elements are all that ought to be fur-
nished by what may be justly termed the Educa-
tional Poor Law.

We hope, therefore, the Government will abide
by the principle of paying for results, and for
elementary results only. This will not hinder the
managers and masters from teaching all else they
like; it will not hinder them from offering prizes
and encouragements for attainments in every other
department of education—in Latin, Greek, and
mathematics if they like—and it will limit the
pauper relief, in education, within the bounds
assigned it by reason and common sense. The pre-
sent object of the Government is not to economise in
regard to the amount of the grant, but in regard
to its application ; and the Government deserves
the support of all persons who care for the honest
appropriation of public money. We do not object
indeed, to any temporary modifications, which may
relieve a little the fears of the frightened school-
masters, but we do decidedly object to the Govern-
ment being frightened out of its duty to the tax-
payers by interested clamour.
As to the sectarian hubbub about religious
examinations, we have yet to learn that is is any
part of a Government's duty to provide for teaching
religion, and therefore for testing its quality. It
found the established and non-established sects in
possession of the educational field. It did not
desire to take it out of their hands ; it resolved, as
the more satisfactory plan, to utilise their
agency ; it said—We will help you through the
secular part if you will arrange yourselves
for the other part. On the religious part being
well done the managers could always insist as much
as they pleased ; the teacher was absolutely in their
hands—this they can do still. If, however, the
managers like to teach nothing else but their
catechisms, so be it—only let them pay themselves
for their religious crotchets. A secular Govern-
ment has quite enough to do to look to the secular
part of education, and to pay for that.