The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-07-21 00:00:00

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

The Rev. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, has published a
letter on this eubjeot, Borne of the acntimenta of which
will surprise those who are acquainted with his theo-
logical opinions. It is addressed to the Lord Bishop of
St. David's, and after an earnest appeal on behalf of the
people, a complaint of the inadequacy of the means pro-
vided for their instruction, and an aver eent that the State
cannot be required to vote funds levied from all denomi-
nations of its subjects for the benefit of one denomination,
he says :
" It is a pure fiction to assert that the State, by any act
of Parliament, has established the Church of England, or
any other form of Christianity, to which it is exclusively
bound to render pecuniary support, or to afford any other
support, than such as every class of her Majesty's sub-
jects have a right to demand. This is proved by the
impossibility of producing any act of Parliament by which
this establishment was ordained. The Church has in-
herited property, together with certain rights, and it has a
claim upon protection, precisely similar to the claim for
protection which may be urged by the Lord Mayor and
the Corporation of London, who are also invested with
certain rights and property handed down to them from
their predecessors. The Church has no more claim for
exclusive pecuniary aid from the State, or for any pecu-
niary aid at all, than is possessed by any other of those
many corporations with which our country abounds. To
call upon Parliament to vote any money for the exclusive
supp2o of the Church of England, is to call upon Par-
liament to do what is unjust. The taxes are collected
from persons of all religions, and cannot be fairly ex-
pended for the exclusive maintenance of one. I may,
indeed, in passing, observe, that the outcry is unjust
which is sometimes raised against government for nut
establishing bishoprics in the colonies. It the govern-
ment is to support our bishops, it is equally bound to sup-
port prelates of the church of Rome, and Presbyterian
ministers, and by seeking, therefore, for, such support,
we should only fare the worse. If the Church has a
right to demand protection from the State, the State has
an equal right to demand of the Churco that, with her
ample endowments, she shall make provision for her
wants, without seeking grants from the public funds,
which are raised by the taxation of the people. I think
that our colonial bishops ought to be supported, not
merely by private subscriptions, but by the more wealth✓
bishops at home; but, be this as it may, we have
certainly no right to make a demand for such a purpose
upon the state. And if the Church of England claims a
right to the exclusive education of the people, it becomes
her duty to seek to supply the deficiency of the funds re-
quired, by appropriating her property to this purpos
Our bishops are, on this principle, bound to go do

the House of Lords, and seek powers from the legislature
to sell their estates, and their example should he followed
by the more opulent of the inferior clergy. The help of
the laity would be then sufficient. It would be better for
the Church to hare a pauperised hierarchy, than an un-
educated people; and never could the hierarchy be more
respectable than when pauperised in such a cause. But,
though I shrink not from ceclaring what must be, and
ought to be, the consequence of asserting the principle
that the education of the people, secular as well as re-
ligious, pertains exclusively to the Church, I admit that
such a measure is not to be required, because the country
will not accept the education of the Church; and for the
religious education of those who will receive education at
our hands, we have at present sufficient funds, though
they are insufficient for that which it is useless for the
Church to attempt—the general education of the people.

His plan for carrying out his principle of State edUcafion
may be collected from what follows :
Having concealed and asserted the principle that in any,
measure of education the State must admit the co-opera-
tion of Dissenters as well as that of the Church ; let us
proceed to consider what religious men of all parties would
require before they would submit to the direct interfe-
rence of the State. They would require a recognition
on the part of the State on the solemn importance of
religious training—training is what is called special or
doctrinal religion. Now, if the State were to establish a
school in which literary and scientific instruction only
should be given by the master appointed by government,
would not this principle be sufficiently affirmed, provided
it were required by every child to bring on the Monday of
every week a certificate of his having attended to the
Sunday school of his parish church, or of some place of
worship legally licensed, and also of his having attended
for similar religious instruction, at some period set apart
during the week. Let this, then, be a principle laid
down—that the State mi:!ht endow schools in which in-
struction purely literary or secular should be imparted,
with due care to impress upon the minds of the children
the fact that this instruction is not in itself sufficient ;
but'that, to complete the system of education, religious
instruction is also secured for them, in accordance with
those traditions, whether of church or of dissent, which
they have received from their parents.
To effect this object, there should be attached to every
school thus established by the State a class-room, in
which the clergyman of the parish, or his deputies, might
gibe religious instruction to the people, on the afternoon
of every Wednesday and Friday, another cl3ss being pro-
vided for a similar purpose for dissenting ministers. Sup-
pose this to be done, in addition to the requiring of the
children an attendance at some Sunday school, and I do
not ask whether such an arrangement would be preferred
to any other by each party, for each party would prefer
having everything in their way ; but I do ask whether
there could be any violation of principle on either side ?
I ask whether for the sake of a great national object,
there might not be a saCTifiCg, not of principle, but of
prejudice on either side?