« PreviousContinue »
one as for the other.' Nor is the Inventor of the system, who combines with it the national religion, less willing or less able, than his dissenting rival, to promote it, both by his advice and his personal exertions. The alacrity with which he consented, and the ability with which he proceed. ed, to regulate some of the schools, which are now before us, afford sufficient proof of the assertion. It is true, that the appellation now given to the system, does not operate in his favor. Like Columbus, he has lost the honor of giving name to his own discovery. But, though the title has been transferred to him, who, in adopting the system, has estranged it from the establishment, the Inventor has suffered no diminution of his real worth.
That Disscnters should apply to a friend of the establishment for the regulation of their schools, however greatly, in other respects, they might approve his method of instruction, it would be useless on our part to desire. But if
· Mr. Lancaster's mode of education is described in his work, enti. tled “Improvements in Education,” of which the first edition was printed in 1803, the sixth in 1806. Dr. Bell's mode of education was first described in 1797, in the pamphlet quoted, note 13, of which a second edition was printed in 1805. More complete information is to be obtained from his octavo volume, published in 1808, called “ The Madras School, or Elements of Tuition.” With this work should be united his “ Instructions for conducting a school through the agency of the scholars themselves,” of which the 2d edition was printed in 1809. Mr. Colquhoun's pamphlet, already quoted, contains inuch valuable information for those who wish to conduct a school on Dr. Bell's plan. The Reports likewise may be usefully consulted, which have been published by the Trustees of those schools, where Dr. Bell's method has been adopted.
? I would not be understood to throw any blame on the Dissenters, for not applying to Dr. Bell. On the contrary, I commend them for not applying to Dr. Bell. They are then only blameable, when they censure us for acting on similar principles ; when they consider us as
the Dissenters are too wise to promote a plan of education in unison with the doctrines of the Church, shall the members of that Church have the weakness, to promote an education, from which those doctrines are excluded ? It is by no means a matter of indifference to which of the two principal Directors we apply for assistance. The schools which we desire, either to found or to regulate, may perhaps in either case have equal mechanical advantages.' But the religious impulse, which they will receive from their respective Conductors, must carry them into opposite directions. It is true, that the impulse, which is unfavora able to the establishment, may in some cases be checked : and by the interposition of Churchmen, where such interposition avails, may be gradually introduced some forms of compliance with the established church. But such amended seminaries will not so easily attain the character of a Church-of-England institution, as those which are modelled for the Church from the beginning,
intolerant for paying the same attention to our interests, which they invariably pay to their own. In fact, we cannot be intolerant in prefer, ring Dr. Bell to Mr. Lancaster, unless they are intolerant in preferring Mr. Lancaster to Dr. Bell. If it be said, that liberal-minded Chris. tians should lay aside all party distinctions, and that the names of Bell or Lancaster should be disregarded in the great cause of religion, it is not very consistent with this professed indifference to have constant recourse to Mr. Lancaster. I could easily declaim on the illiberality of rejecting such a man as Dr. Bell, were it not that declamation of this kind is sound without sense.
Luld be DELICT
ced is nuch Dr.
'It is obvious that the principle of “ Tuition by the Scholars themselves,” is not only capable of, but perhaps requires, various modifications, according to a variation of circumstances. These modifications, or subsidiary practices in the application of the general principle, are, some of them, different in Mr. Lancaster's from those in Dr. Bell's Schools. I do not profess to have sufficient experience in the detail of the mechanism, to determine what subsidiary practices
· Why then should the members of the Establishment, where they have the choice of the two Directors, have recourse to any but their own ? Why should they abandon the Establishment to obtain instruction for the poor, when that instruction may be had with equal advantage in the Church? If Masters are wanted, we have a seminary for that purpose. Nay, have we not before our eyes, at this very moment, perhaps a hundred among these charity children, who either are, or soon will be, enabled by their education, to assist in directing a school on the new system? Has not the Royal Military Asylum, which has been most successfully guided by our own Director, already furnished assistance of this kind ?'
Why also should we relinquish the old institutions altogether? Why should we not endeavour to adapt our gre. sent schools, if possible, to the new system? And have we not before our eyes abundant proof, that such endeavours may be crowned with success? That an adversary of the establishment should argue and act, as if our present parochial and charity schools had either no existence, or no capability of improvement, is not a matter of surprise. Our parochial and charity schools have been hitherto Church-of-England schools. They are unserviceable, therefore, for purposes, which are not friendly to the Establishment. But this is a reason why we should be anxious to retain them, to retain them as institutions, which the Church may consider as its own. Who, indeed, in this
are the best. But wherever Mr. Lancaster, or any one else, has introduced a real improvement, it should of course be adopted, especially as it may be done without deranging the general system.
'Namely, for the Marybone Charity School. See the evidence of Mr. Cox, the Master of that School, quoted in the British Review, No. I. p. 201.
great audience would not deeply lament, if the numerous charity schools, which are here assembled, were condemned to dissolution, in order to make way for a few great seminaries, from which the children would never more be conducted to this place? What friend of the Establishment would not rather desire, by an extensive application of the new system under our own Director, to expand the benefits of these very schools, and thus embrace, within the pale of the Church, the indigent children of the whole metro
With those, who are members of the Church from a conviction of the Truth of our Religion, no further arguments can be wanted, to determine their choice of the form, under which the new system should be adopted. But other arguments are necessary to influence those, who, though members of an Establishment, which is a compound of Church and State, are indifferent with respect to its reli. gious ingredients. It would indeed be foreign to the present purpose, to offer arguments, either for the Truth of Christianity in general, or for that pure and reformed
"Of the augmentation in the number of the children, without an augmentation of expense, of which these schools are capable on Dr. Bell's system, some judgment may be formed by consulting Mr. Colquhoun's new and appropriate System of Education for the labor. ing People, p. 66.
? Even were it true, that Mr. Lancaster invented the mechanism of this system, and even if Dr. Bell had no other merit than that of com. bining it with the doctrines of the Church, the mechanism so combined would equally recommend itself to our acceptance.
part of it, to which we belong. Equally foreign to the present purpose would be the examination of the question, whether a national religion, or a religion of the state, is a thing desirable, or not ; whether all religious parties should be placed on an equal footing, or the State, by an alliance with one religion, should afford it an Establishment, and only tolerate the rest. Indeed, these questions have been already so ably discussed, that it would be as useless, as it would be foreign to the present purpose, to attempt any further illustration. We are now concerned with the facts, that there is a religion by law established in this country ; that the State has made an alliance with the Church; that it has allied itself with the Church of England; that, for the security of this Church, provision has been made, not only by repeated Acts of Parliament, but by his Majesty's coronation oath; and lastly, that every man, who accepts an office of trust or power even in the civil administration, is by law required, to profess himself a member of this Church by attending the most solemn of its rites, the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Now, whether men consider Religion as merely an engine of the State, or regard it also, as they ought, for its own excellence and truth, as the means of obtaining happiness in another world, they must in either case admit, that its alliance with the State implies utility to the State. Without a prospect of some advantage to be derived from the Church, the State would have neither sought its alliance, nor granted it protection, Whether our ancestors judged rightly in this respect, or whether civil society (as some modern theorists imagine) can be as well conducted, without the aid of an established religion, yet as long as the present Constitution remains, it is both the duty and the interest of all, who are members of it, to adhere to the principles, on which it is founded. It is the interest of Statesmen, as well as of Clergymer, to pre