rents to send their children to school, or to prove that they educate them at home. A compulsory obligation of that nature would, perhaps, at this time, be too stern for England; we must trust rather to moral than legislative compulsion. Fortunately so great a desire for education is springing up among all classes, that the government has only to prepare the machine in order to procure the supply.Every where the feeling is in favor of education, and only two apprehensions are enlisted against it; both of these apprehensions we must conciliate. The first is, lest in general instruction religion should be neglected; the second, lest in teaching the poor to think we should forget that they are born to labour. I say we ought to conciliate both these classes of the timid.

I am perfectly pursuaded that nothing has been more unfortunate for popular education in this country than the pertinacity with which one class have insisted on coupling it solely with the Established religion, and the alarming expedient of the other class in excluding religion altogether. With respect to the last, I shall not here pause to enter into a theological discussion; I shall not speak of the advantage or the disadvantage of strengthening moral ties by religious hopes; or of establishing one fixed and certain standard of morals, which, containing all the broader principles, need not forbid the more complicated principles; a standard which shall keep us from wandering very far into the multiform theories and schisms in which the vagaries of mere speculative moralists have so often misled morality. On these advantages, if such they be, I will not now descant. I am writing as a legislator, desirous of obtaining a certain end, and I am searching for the means to obtain it. I wish then to establish a Universal Educationl I look round; I see the desire for it; I see also the materials, but so scattered, so disorganized are those materials, so many difficulties of action are in the way of the desire, that I am naturally covetous of all the assistance I can obtain.* I see a vast, wealthy, and munificent clergy, not bent against

*I am happy in this opinion to fortify myself by the expression of a similar senti ment in M. Cousin, in which it is difficult to say whether we should admire most the eloquence, or the sagacity, or the common sense. I subjoin some extracts:

The popular schools of a nation," he says, in recommending the outline of a general education in France to M Montalivet, "ought to be penetrated with the religious spirit of that nation. Is Christianity, or is it not, the religion of the people of France? We must allow that it is. Then, I ask, shall we respect the religion of the people, or shall we destroy it? If we undertake the destruction of Christianity, then, I own, we must take care not to teach it. But if we do not propose to ourselves that end, we must teach our children the faith that has civilized their parents, and the liberal spirit of which has prepared and sustains our great modern institutions. * * * * * Religion, in my eyes, is the best base of popular instruction. I know a little of Europe; nowhere have I seen good schools for the people where the Christianity was not! *** In human societies there are some things for the accomplishment of which Virtue is necessary; or, when speaking of the great masses, Religion! Were you to lavish the treasures of the state, to tax parish and district, still you could not dispense with Christian charity; or with that spirit of humbleness and self-restraint of cour ageous resignation and modest dignity, which Christianity, well understood and well taught, can alone give to the instruction of the poor. * * * It would be necessary to call Religion to our aid, were it only a matter of finance."

If M. Cousin, a philosopher, once persecuted by the priesthood, thus feels the practical necessity of enlisting religion on the side of education in France; the necessity in

education, but already anxious to diffuse it,already founding schools, already educating nearly 800,000 pupils; I look not only to them, but to the influence they command among their friends and flock; I consider and balance the weight of their names and wealth and the grave sanction of their evangelical authority. Shall I have these men and this power with me or against me? That is the question. On the one hand, if I can enlist them, I obtain a most efficient alliance; on the other hand, if I enlist them, what are the disadvantages? If indeed they tell me they will teach religion only,and that but by the mere mechanical learning of certain lessons in the Bible-if they refuse to extend and strengthen a more general knowledge applicable to the daily pnrposes of life-such as I have described in the popular education of Prussia-then, indeed, I might be contented to dispense with their assistance. But is this the case? I do not believe it. I have conversed, I have corresponded with many of the clergy, who are attached to the course of religious education, and no men have expressed themselves more anxious to combine with it all the secular and citizen instruction that we can desire. What is it then that they demand? What is the sacrifice I must make in order to obtain their assistance? They demand that the Christian religion be constituted the foundation of instruction in a Christian country. You, the Philospher, say, “I do not wish to prevent religion being taught; but to prevent the jar, and discord, and hindrance of religious differences, I wish to embrace all sects in one general plan of civil instruction; let religious instruction be given by the parents or guardians of the children according to their several persuasions."

I believe nothing can be more honest than the intentions of the philosopher; I know many most excellent Christians of the samė way of thinking. But how, sir,—I address the philosopher again, how can you for a moment accuse the clergy of the Established Church of intolerance in refusing to listen to your suggestion?— How, in common duty, and common conscience, can they act otherwise! Reverse the case. Suppose the churchman said, "We will found a system for the education of the whole people; we will teach nothing but religion in it not one word of man's civil duties; not that we wish to prevent the pupil acquiring civil knowledge, but because we wish to avoid meddling with the jarring opinions as to what form of it shall be taught. Whatever civil knowledge the children shall possess, let their parents and guardians teach them out of school, according to their several theories."

Would the philosopher agree to this? No, indeed, nor I neither. Why then should we ask a greater complaisance from the ecclesiastic; he cannot think, unless he be indeed a mercenary and a hypocrite, the very Swiss of religion, that religious knowledge is less necessary than civil instruction. He cannot believe that the understanding alone should be cultivated, and the soul forgotten. But, in fact, if we were to attempt to found a wholesale national educa

far greater in England. For here Christianity is far more deeply rooted in the land; here the church is a more wealthy friend or a more powerful foe; here, too, the church is ready to befriend education-there, to resist it

tion, in which religious instruction were not a necessary and perwading principle, I doubt very much if public opinion would allow it to be established; and I am perfectly persuaded that it could not be rendered permanent and complete. In the first place, the clergy would be justly alarmed; they would redouble their own efforts to diffuse their own education. In a highly Christian country, they would obtain a marked preference for their establishments; a certain taint and disrepute would be cast on the national system; people would be afraid to send their children to the national schools; the ecclesiastical schools would draw to themselves a vast proportion-I believe a vast majority-of children; and thus in effect the philosopher, by trying to sow unity would reap division; by trying to establish his own plan, he would weaken its best principle; and the care of education, instead of being shared by the clergy, would fall almost entirely into their hands. An education purely ecclesiastical would be in all probability bigoted, and deficient in civil and general instruction; the two orders ought to harmonize with, and watch over, and blend into, each other. Another consequence of the separation in schools which would be effected by banishing Christian instruction from some, in order to give a monopoly of ecclesiastical instruction to others, would probably be not only to throw a taint upon the former schools, but also upon whatever improvements in education they might introduce. Civil instruction would be confused with irreligious instruction, and amended systems be regarded with fear and suspicion. For all these reasons, even on the ground and for the reasons of the philosopher, I insist on the necessity of making instruction in religion the harmonizing and uniting principle of all scholastic education.

But how are we to escape from the great difficulty in the unity of education produced by differing sects? In answer to this question, just observe how the government of Prussia, under similar circumstances, emancipates itself from the dilemma. "The difference of religion," says the Prussian law," is not to be an obsticle in the form of a school society; but in forming such a society, you must have regard to the numerical proportion of the inhabitants of each faith; and, as far as it can possibly be done, you shall conjoin with the principal master professing the religion of the majority-a second master of the faith of the minority."

Again: "The difference of religion in Christian schools necessarily produces differences in religious instruction. That instruction should be always appropriate to the doctrines and spirit of the creed for which the schools shall be ordained. But as in every school of a Christian state, the dominant spirit, and the one common to all sects, is a pious and deep veneration for God; so every school may be allowed to receive children of every Christian Sect. The masters shall watch with the greatest care that no constraint and no undue proselytism be exercised. Private and especial masters, of whatever sect the pupil belongs to, shall be charged with his religious education.

If, indeed, there be some places where it is impossible for the School Committee to procure an especial instructor for every sect;

then, parents if they are unwilling their children shall adopt the lessons of the prevailing creed of the school, are entreated themselvse to undertake the task of affording them lessons in their own persuasion."

Such is the method by which the Prussian state harmonizes her system of univervsal education among various sects. That which Prussia can effect in this respect, why should not England? Let us accomplish our great task of common instruction, not by banishing all religion, but by procuring for every pupil instruction in his own. And in this large and catholic harmony of toleration, I do believe the great proportion of our divines and of our dissenters might, by a prudent government,* be induced cheerfully to concur. For both are persuaded of the necessity of education, both are willing to sacrifice a few minor considerations to a common end, and under the wide canopy of Christian faith to secure, each to each, the maintenance of individual doctrines. I propose, then that the state shall establish universal education. I propose that it shall be founded on, and combined with, religious instruction. I remove, by the suggestion I have made, the apprehension of contending sects; I proceed now to remove the apprehension of those who think that the children of the poor; if taught to be rational, may not de disposed to be industrious. I propose that to all popular schools for intellectual instruction, labour or industry schools should be appended, or rather that each school should unite both objects. I propose, that at the schools for girls (for in the system I recommend, both sexes shall be instructed,) the various branches and arts of female employment shall make a principal part of instruction; above all, that those habits of domestic management and activity in which (by all our Parliamentary Reports) the poorer females of the manufacturing towns are grossly deficient, shall be carefully formed and inculcated.t

I propose (and this also is the case in Prussia)that every boy educated at the popular schools shall learn the simple elements of agricultural and manual science; that he shall acquire the habit, the love, and the aptitude of work; that the first lesson in his moral code shall be that which teaches him to prize independence, and that he shall practically obey the rule of his catechism, and learn to get his own living.

Thus, then, briefly to sum up, the heads of the National Education I would propose for England are these:

1st. It shall be the business of the State, confided to a Minister and a subordinate Board, who shall form in our various counties and parishes, committees, with whom they shall correspond, who shall keep a vigilant eye on the general working, who shall not in

* One of the greatest benefits we derive from an intelligent and discreet govern. ment is in its power of conciliating opposing interests upon matters of detail, or of secondary principles. Where a government cannot do this, depend upon it the minis ters are bunglers.

† Schools for girls in the poorer classes are equally important as those for boys. Note in Kay's account of Manchester the slovenly inprovidence of females in a manufacluring town; note in the evidence on the Poor-laws the idleness, the open want of chastity the vicious ignorance of a vast class of females every where. Mothers have often a greater moral effect upon children than the father; if the child is to be moral, provide for the moral of the mother.

terfere vexatiously with peculiar details. The different circum stances in different localities must be cousulted, and local committees are the best judges as to the mode. I propose that the education be founded on religion; that one or more ministers of the Gospel be in every committee; that every sectarian pupil shall receive religious instruction from a priest of his own persuasion.

I propose that at every school for the poor the art and habit of an industrious calling make a necessary part of education.

A report of the working, numbers, progress, &c. of the various schools in each county should be yearly published: so emulation is excited, and abuse prevented.

If the State prescribe a certain form of education, it need not prescribe the books or the system by which it shall be acquired. To avoid alike the rashness of theories, and the unimprovable and lethargic adherence to blind custom, each schoolmaster desirous of teaching certain books, or of following peculiar systems, such as those of Hamilton. Pestalozzi, &c., shall state his wish to the committee of the county, and obtain their consent to the experiment: they shall visit the school, and observe its success; if it fail they can have the right to prohibit, if it work well they can have the power to recommend it. So will time, publicity, and experience have fair and wide scope in their natural result,-viz. the progress to perfection.

But, above all things, to obtain a full and complete plan of education, there should be schools for teachers. The success of a school depends on the talent of the master: the best system is lifeless if the soul of the preceptor fail. Each county, therefore, should establish its school for preceptors to the pupils; a preference shall be given to the preceptors chosen from them at any vacancies that occur in the popular schools for children. Here they shall not only learn to know, but also learn to teach,-two very distinct branches of instruction. Nothing so rare at present as competent teachers. Seminaries of this nature have been founded in most countries where the education of the people has become of importance.* In America, in Switzerland, lately in France and especially in Germany, their success has every where been eminent and rapid. In Prussia, M. Cousin devoted to the principal schools of this character the most minute personal attention. He gives of them a detailed and high ly interesting description. He depicts the rigid and high morality† of conduct which makes a necessary and fundamental part of the education of those who are designed to educate others: and the elaborate manner in which they are taught the practical science of teaching. On quitting the school they undergo an examination both on religious and general knowledge: the examination is conducted by two clergyman of the faith of the pupil, and two laymen. If he pass the order the pupil receives a certificate, not only vouch

In England, also, certain private associations have tacitly confessed the expediency of such institutions.

†The law even enjoins careful selection as to the town or neighbourhood in which the seminaries for teachers shrll be placed; so that the pupils may not easily acquire from the inhabitants any habits contrary to the spirit of tha moral and simple life for which they are intended,

F