The Quarterly Review (london)

ART. I. First annual Report of the National Society for promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church. With an Account of the Proceedings for the Formation of the Society, and an Appendix of Documents; together with a List of Subscribers to the Society in London, and to Societies in the Country, in Union with the National Society. Svo. pp. 198. London. Murray, Albemarle Street. 1812. FIFTEEN months have scarcely elapsed since the Lancasterian

system was carrying all before it, and Mr. Lancaster had the prospect of becoming the national schoolmaster. By the Lancasterian system we understand the association of religious instruction, which is peculiar to Mr. Lancaster, with that principle of tuition which he employs in common with Dr. Bell. This principle, which is tuition by the scholars themselves, may be exercised in combination with any religion. It may with equal facility (as observed by a writer attached to Dr. Bell, and supposed to be well acquainted with his system) be made subservient under Dr. Bell, to the extension of the Church of England; under Mr. Lancaster to the spread of general knowledge, independent of peculiar doctrines; under the Mufti to the dissemination of the moral Code of Mahomed; or under the Bramins to the improvement of society among the Hindoos.' We are far, indeed, from thinking, that the union of the general principle with the doctrine and discipline of the established church is the sole point, in which the system, as employed by Dr. Bell, is more entitled to the support of churchmen, than the system as employed by Mr. Lancaster. There are various subsidiary practices in the application of the general principle, which distinguish the schools of Dr. Bell from those of Mr. Lancaster; among the foremost of which is the art of stimulating the exertions of the scholars without corporal punishment, the art of preventing its necessity, instead of employing either the ancient mode, or the new devices of Mr. Laucaster, the shackles and the manacles, the basket and the go-cart. But, as these subjects have been sufficiently considered in the Eleventh Number of our Review, it is unnecessary to expatiate on them at present. Nor shall we renew the controversy, respecting the question, whether the principle, which is common to both parties, was invented by Dr. Bell, by Mr. Lancaster,

VOL. VII. NO. XV.

caster, or by neither. We have already expressed our opinion on that subject; and that opinion we still retain. But as present utility, and not priority of invention, must determine us in the choice of the two systems, the latter question concerns rather the honour of the parties themselves, than the public at large. Even if Mr. Lancaster were the inventor, we should still prefer it, when applied in support of the established religion. On the other hand, should Mr. Lancaster concede what he now disputes, his system would still be retained by those, whose interest it is, that the general principle should not be applied to the furtherance of the established religion. With respect to the subsidiary practices, though we decidedly prefer those which are used by Dr. Bell, to those which are used by Mr. Lancaster, we cannot consider them as forming the essential difference between the two systems. The subsidiary practices in the schools of Dr. Bell may be easily transferred to those of Mr. Lancaster, without any derangement of the general principle; while the real improvements in the schools of Mr. Lancaster, may with equal facility be transferred to those of Dr. Bell. But if they agree in the general principle, and the subsidiary practices are mutually transferable, there is nothing in the mechanical part, whether primary or secondary, which forms an insuperable barrier between the two systems. Consequently, if there is a radical or essential difference between them, it must be sought elsewhere. Now the difference in the religious combination of the two systems is really such, that they are not mutually transferable. The combination of the general principle with the doctrine and discipline of the established church, a combination which has ever distinguished the system of Dr. Bell, can never be adopted in a school, which is really Lancasterian. Where the religion, which is taught, is professed to be a religion for all, the instruction of that school can never be appropriated to the distinguishing doctrines of any. Such a restriction of doctrine, in favour of any one religious party, would not only be a deviation from the avowed plan of Mr. Lancaster, but a violation of good faith toward all those patrons and contributors to the institution, whose religious opinions were different from those which were attempted to be generally introduced. Nor would the restriction, in respect to religious worship, be less impracticable; for when churchmen and dissenters make a common cause in education, the religious rites of the latter must be holden as sacred as those of the former. Where the contributions are common, the claims are also common. The dissenters, who contribute to the Lancasterian schools, obtain thereby a right to enforce that distinction, which hitherto has been made neither in our foundation nor our charity schools; they obtain a right to insist, that in the place of worship, frequented by the children on a Sunday, the choice should be left to the discretion of the parents. An

« Previous Continue »

Books