which render its Interference unavoidable.

281

chased by an invasion of the province of the voluntary agencies of society.

Does not the absurdity of such conclusions awaken a suspicion of the soundness of the theory. Is Government, then, in no sense a moral agent? May it incarcerate criminals, and separate itself, as an impassive spectator, from all the festering moral pollution of the common wards of the old prison, and the terrible agonies of the separate cell? Has it no message of peace and redemption entrusted to it by Him, who said to the penitent thief upon the cross, "To-day1 shalt thou be with me in paradise." Are the Howards and the Frys alone to convey this message? Or is the workhouse merely a pauper farm, where- certain human animals are fed at the least cost to the parish, till, nailed between rough boards, their bodies are buried like dogs by the sexton and the beadle? Is this a Christian household, or a pauper barracoon? Can the State separate itself from certain grave and high responsibilities, as to the spiritual future of these unfortunates? Are the children to remain ignorant and rude; the adults, servile or disaffected helots; the aged, torpid expectants of a grave without hope? Are the Army and the Navy to be disciplined in the terrible array of war, for the destruction of human life, with every animal energy centupled in force, by death-like engines, by organization, and the maddening sympathy of numbers? But is no still small voice to whisper "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God"? If these are conclusions which no one can adopt, where is the moral agency of the State to stop? Apparently, Government cannot separate itself from responsibility for the mental and moral condition of the criminal, pauper, and military population.

Gospel of St. Luke, chap. xxiii. v. 43.

282

The Moral Agency of the State.

What is the distinction between the reckless indigent classes out of the workhouse and those within its walls? They are both within the reach of voluntary agency. The City missionary may penetrate to both. But has Government a responsibility for the moral depravity and mental incapacity of the one, which it in no degree partakes with respect to the other? Such an argument is obviously untenable; I have already quoted the formula in which Dr. Vaughan embodies the doctrine, which falls into none of these absurdities and inconsistencies. "Government,' "1 he says, "MAY be a moral teacher to the extent that it MUST be a moral administrator."

1 No. XII. British Quarterly Review, August 1847, p. 270.

CHAP. VI.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF THE POOR.

The Mode of extending the Aid of the State so as to stimulate Voluntary Contributions.

THE preceding chapters have demonstrated that, though voluntary contributions have provided in part for the education of the poorer classes, the Schools thus founded are to a great extent without suitable buildings; a large part of the population of a School-age does not attend. them; and the great majority of the scholars still receive meagre and unskilful instruction.

The rate of progress in the erection of new School buildings, in the foundation of Training Colleges, in the settlement of well-trained teachers in charge of Schools, in the apprenticeship of pupil teachers, and the increase of the number of trained assistants, has received a great impulse from Parliamentary grants, which have now provided for an annual1 expenditure of about 200,0007.

1 The expenditure from the Parliamentary grant for 1852 was,

Towards the erection and enlargement of Elementary
Schools

Towards the building of Training Schools

Towards all objects contemplated under Minutes of 1846, viz.

188,856 12 4

The estimate submitted to Parliament for the expenditure (under the Minutes hitherto sanctioned) in the year 1853, is 213,000l.

284

The Government have vindicated their

But, notwithstanding the accelerated rate of progress caused by these grants, there is no prospect that without further aid from the public resources, the education of the poorer classes would become general and efficient within a reasonable period.

The whole of the calculations contained in Chapter III., as to the demand for the supply of new teachers; the power of the Training Colleges to absorb the supply of Queen's Scholars1; and the increase of the number of assistant teachers2 depend on the support of the present rate of progress, which could not be accomplished without a corresponding increase in the Parliamentary grants. The whole machinery of the Training Colleges, and of the apprenticeship and Queen's scholarships would come to a dead-lock, if this aid were withdrawn, and would be almost fatally embarrassed without its increase.

Moreover, there are measures which naturally flow from these arrangements, and which have been always foreseen, without which some of the public resources would be diverted from the education of the people. Such, for example, are new Minutes to provide for the employment in Elementary Schools of pupil teachers, who complete their apprenticeship, but do not obtain Queen's scholarships.3

No one will pretend that the whole of the existing new phenomena of elementary education could have been created, in thirteen years, unless society had been stirred by the elemental throes, which the successive acts of Government have occasioned. Nor, unless the collective will of the nation had received an expression in Parliament, and through the executive, could the great separate forces at work have been combined into any harmony of action. Every principle has been subjected to the most rigorous trial. But, in this ordeal,

1 Vide ante, p. 129.

2 Ibid. pp. 132, 133.

Ibid.

p. 130.

Right to promote Public Education.

285

every principle has put forth its strength. What has been accomplished has served to reveal the comparative force of those great agencies, by which the new creation of an educated people is to be wrought.

May it not be said, that the Executive Government have now vindicated their right to promote the education of the poor? The successive steps by which they have allowed the collective power of the nation to be brought into play, have exhibited the greatest forbearance. A wise deference1 to the will, even of influential minorities, has caused them to withdraw plans which would certainly have secured the sanction of Parliament. Their measures have been adapted to that expression of the popular will, which had occurred through the various Religious Communions. They have shown such respect to the freedom which voluntary action gives to minorities, as to build the whole fabric of public Schools on this foundation. They have striven to protect the rights of conscience, not only by admitting every fragment of faith to the benefits of the parliamentary grant, but also, by seeking to establish the right of the parent to determine and guide the religious training of his child. They found elementary instruction low in its aims, meagre in its outline, conducted by untrained and unskilful teachers, and their first act was a proposal to found a Normal School, in order to make it efficient. Baffled in this design as a public act, it was nevertheless carried into execution under their sanction, and followed by the establishment of numerous Training Colleges, founded upon the plan thus introduced. They exhibited no mean jealousy of these efforts. On the contrary, they gave them the most liberal support. College after college was built with

1 Thus the Education Clauses of the Factories Regulation Bill were withdrawn. Though supported by the Church and by both parties in Parliament, Sir James Graham and Sir Robert Peel wisely determined to do no violence to the convictions of non-conformists.