1887

Microcosmus: Man and his World. 315

portant to cause us to regard them as a turning-point in history.'' Lotze's remarks upon the bodily resurrection seem to be directed only against very carnal notions of it, which are not applied in Scripture or by the Church either to the risen body of the Lord or to the 'house from heaven' with which we desire to be clothed. And his observations upon the failures of dogmatic theology to make things plainer for our faith may be admitted in general very willingly. The Church has ever confessed that in these great matters it was dealing with mysteries. Its definitions have never been meant to explain the infinite and incomprehensible, but merely to establish and maintain such a condition of intellectual thinking as, imperfect though it is, might offer help and not hindrance to the movements of the soul, in which faith really consists. We know that we cannot determine the 'exact signification ' of the term Son of God, in which we express that which Lotze allows to be the most distinctive article of the Church's belief. We might even in a certain sense allow that what the phrase expresses is clearer to the believing soul without than with the dogmatic determinations which have been attached to it. Had these determinations been necessary or absolutely advantageous in themselves they would have been given in the New Testament. But in order to show that the Church was wrong in making these determinations it must be proved that the faith is clear to the soul, not merely if these determinations be unknown, but if the contrary of them be believed. Heretics asserted the contrary of these definitions. Could the Church have left their assertions to stand and yet preserved the access of the soul to its Saviour clear and unimpeded. And the same may be said of definitions of the Atonement, on which we have further to remark that there has been a great deal of definition of it on the part of particular divines to which the Catholic body has never pledged itself.

But we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into controversy with an author to whom we feel nothing but gratitude. Our readers will not take our praise to imply agreement with everything contained in two volumes of philosophy from the German. What we pledge ourselves to is this, that the philosophical basis laid with such lavish expenditure of knowledge and thought, and such loyalty and earnestness in the use of them, stands good for Christian and Catholic religion in the most genuine forms of belief, devotion, and conduct. We

1 Vol. ii. p. 479.

know that there are many excellent and able persons who even under the impulse of the times cannot interest themselves. in works of this nature; but to those who either for the sake of others or of their own needs are compelled to touch the primary questions, we recommend this book as one which it is expedient to buy even if you only buy half a dozen volumes in the year, and to read once and again even if you can only spare an hour a day for reading. The accomplished ladies who have made it available for English students have rendered a service to honest thinking and true religion which we rate very highly indeed.

ART. III. THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON

ELEMENTARY

EDUCATION.

First Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Elementary Education Acts in England and Wales. (London, 1886.)

THE Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Elementary Education Acts in England and Wales has presented its first report, which cannot fail to interest all engaged in the work concerning which it treats, and are anxious to preserve its religious and voluntary character.

Our readers may probably have understood the motives which led to the issuing of this Commission by Lord Salisbury's Government during its short tenure of office last year. There had been for some time a growing feeling of uneasiness that the school boards were elbowing out the voluntary schools; that their encroachments were encouraged, if not stimulated, by the Education Department; that the Department had become too autocratic, and had been placed in such a position that it could gradually and unostentatiously make most serious alterations in our educational system without violating a single provision of an Act of Parliament, so that it might be found at no distant day that the elementary education of the country had drifted into pure secularism, or, what is nearly as bad, into secular instruction with a thin veneer of undenominational religious teaching which no one really did or could value. In addition to this the managers of many voluntary schools, and notably those belonging to

the Roman Catholics, uttered loud complaints of the inadequacy of the Government grants when placed side by side with Government requirements, and demanded some alleviation of the financial pressure put upon them for the maintenance of their schools. And then, as a crowning difficulty, there was no agreement as to the facts of the case, managers of voluntary schools affirming that Government had not fulfilled the promises made at the passing of the Education Act of 1870, whilst the Department asserted that all, and more than all, which had been promised, had been performed. In addition to this, serious complaints were made of the manner in which the Government grant was administered; the teachers almost universally condemning it as fatal to sound education, whilst managers complained that much was given to large schools charging high fees, and little to poor schools that were caring for the poorest of the population and necessarily obtaining small fees. How far these accusations were based upon substantial grounds few people seemed to understand, whilst amid the conflicting statements made it would have been impossible to determine whether any or what changes were needed; whether the time had arrived for re-opening the education question, or whether it was desirable to wait yet a little longer for more experience before attempting a settlement of what is obviously a very difficult problem.

Under these circumstances the only course was to institute an inquiry, so that the Ministry and the country might have the case placed fairly before them, and the Government of Lord Salisbury in our opinion did wisely in appointing a Royal Commission for the purpose. It was no easy matter to select the members of whom the Commission should be composed, and in choosing them the Government pursued the bold, but in the long run the judicious, course, of appointing those who in their opinion were the best representatives of the various schools of thought with respect to education, thus preferring experts to partisans. The constitution of the Commission gives the assurance that when its report is drawn up every point will be fully and ably discussed, and if the members can arrive at conclusions with any degree of unanimity, there will be good reason to hope that the country and Parliament will adopt what is commended to their acceptance by so representative a body of men.

The report just issued gives no intimation of the views of the Commission; it simply contains the evidence received, and is no doubt intended to educate public opinion by enabling

those who care to understand the question to obtain such information as they may require from the most unexceptionable sources. The witnesses who have been examined have all been of an official character, and as yet there are several material classes of witnesses who have not been heard at all. The Department has been represented by its chief secretary, Mr. Cumin-who was before the Commission for seven days, and answered 2258 questions-and by four chief inspectors of schools. Then came the four principal educational societiesthe National, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, and British and Foreign School Societies-who were represented by their secretaries; and after them came the principals of training colleges, of whom the heads of four male and three female colleges were examined. As yet the managers and teachers of voluntary schools, the members of school boards, and the teachers themselves, the assistant inspectors, and the various associations for supporting schools and for improving the education given in them, have not been heard. The labours of the Commission are therefore far from being completed, and it will probably take at least another year's hard steady work before the end is reached.

We have, therefore, now to deal only with what may be regarded as a portion of the labours of the Commission, which, however, is so important that we feel it desirable to point out to our readers some of the more salient points which this evidence places before us. The Commission drew up a syllabus of points for inquiry, which is printed in their appendix, and to judge from the manner in which the evidence is given, we presume that the witnesses were examined by the several members of the Commission, to a greater or less extent, in the several subjects as they are ranged in this syllabus, and in the order therein prescribed. As there are twenty-three members of the Commission, and as each one seems to have been expected to follow the same order in questioning the witnesses, the result in reading the evidence is somewhat perplexing, and it needs time and patience to investigate the complete views of any of the witnesses upon any subject. When the evidence has all been. given, it will be most desirable for this difficulty to be met, so far as it can be, by an index which shall make it comparatively easy to ascertain what each witness has really said about each of the various points on which he has been examined.

We do not intend to attempt anything of the kind, but only to call our readers' attention to some of the more prominent points which it is important for them to bear in

1887

Elementary Education.

319

mind when considering what are the real evils and grievances in the present position of the education question, and what steps ought to be taken for placing it on a more satisfactory footing. We shall assume it to be known that there is a sufficient supply of schools for immediate educational wants, and that there has been a rapid and great increase in the number of schools and of scholars attending them, since the passing of the Education Act in 1870. The two points to which we would call special attention are:

1. The power claimed and exercised by the Education Department over the education of the country.

2. The religious aspect of the question.

And first with respect to the power claimed and exercised by the Department over the education of the country. We sometimes smile when we hear of the boast of the Education Minister of France, that during the school hours of the elementary schools in that country he can at any moment tell what is being done in every one of them throughout France, and we congratulate ourselves that our bureaucratic system has not reached that state of completeness. In the exact form no doubt this is the case, for such a species of development is essentially French and not English; but when all things are considered, it becomes a serious question whether the control of the Department is not practically as complete with us as it is with our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. Let us test this by the power of the Department on the three most essential points, (1) the supply of schools, (2) the curriculum of study, (3) the amount of state aid given for their maintenance. The chief witness, in most cases the only one whom we shall cite, is Mr. Patrick Cumin, the present secretary of the Education Department.

The first point of importance is the supply of schools. It must be obvious to all that unless either the voluntary or the board system is allowed to develop itself as necessity may arise, its days must be numbered. With a rapidly increasing population, a certain number of new schools must be annually required, and if the whole of these are compelled to be supplied by boards or by voluntary agency the alternative system must continually, if not rapidly, be declining in relative influence and usefulness. To allay any fears the friends of voluntary schools entertained on this head, when the Education Bill of 1870 was under discussion, Lord de Grey and Ripon, then President of the Council, said in the House of Lords on July 25: