'You say that there are some boards which loyally accept the principles of the British and Foreign School Society: do you think that the principle of the Act of 1870 was to make the system of the British and Foreign Schools the religious system of board schools?' Mr. Bourne: I think so, undoubtedly.' Canon Gregory: 'Then you look upon the Act of 1870 as practically endowing the British and Foreign schools all over the country?' Mr. Bourne: 'I think that is a way of putting it which is correct but incomplete.'1 To adapt his views to the theory of religious liberty which professedly he holds was not an easy task, but he attempts to do so in the following manner: Mr. Molloy Then the deprivation of the rights of the citizen is in your mind a protection of the citizen? Mr. Bourne I should make a distinction between giving positive teaching and negative teaching, or the absence of teaching. I think that conscience is violated if positive teaching to which the parent objects is given to the children.' Mr. Molloy You admit that it is the right of the parent to have his children educated religiously; if you deprive him of that right, how can you call that protection ?' Mr. Bourne But I am not certain that I should acknowledge that the parent has any right to the religious education of his child by the State.' 2 And as a further explanation of this inconsistency he says in reply to a question by Lord Norton : 'As an educationist, simply, I do not think that I have to consider that question (of religious teaching); as a religious man, connected with some body of Christians, that is a question which I must take up. But as simply concerned with the education of the children I do not think that it is a question I have to consider. I am very sorry for the children, of course, and would do everything I could to get for them the proper instruction; but I should do that rather outside my functions as an educationist.' 3 He further defends this division of himself into an 'educationist and a religious man' by alleging a child's incapacity to receive a religious education, although the Divine Master Himself had said, 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' 4 In reply to a question by Sir John Lubbock, he said: 'I believe that the child is incapable of receiving all that is understood by religious education; that the foundation of religious education is knowledge of the Scriptures, and that the foundation of religious knowledge may be given, and should be given, to the children according to their age and capacity.' 5 1 First Report, p. 371. 2 Ibid. pp. 377-8. Sir John Lubbock: You look upon the moral and spiritual side of religion as being of more importance than the dogmatic side? Mr. Bourne: 'I do not know that I should be justified in answering that question, yes or no. I have myself a very strong view of the importance of dogmatic views and dogmatic instruction; but it is impossible to unite a number of people of different views on any other ground than that of keeping out of sight the dogmatic views and dogmatic instruction, which, nevertheless, you may think they ought to get in other ways. I do not wish to undervalue the importance of dogmatic instruction because we do not seek to give it.' The question then turns, in what other way than through the day school can such instruction be obtained. Dr. Rigg brought out very clearly that the real motive for promoting education in the past was religion. He asked: 'Do you not recognize as a fact that the progress of education up to this time has in all ages depended upon the Christian enthusiasm of Christian teachers ? 2 Mr. Bourne: 'Yes, to a large extent.' Dr. Rigg 'Do you think that that is likely to be promoted by divorcing the school from the church throughout the whole of the land?' Mr. Bourne: Not unless the Christians of the various denominations should agree together to meet upon a common ground, and to do a common work together instead of separately.' But there are two other sources from which religious instruction may come-the parents and the Sunday school; it may be well to hear Mr. Bourne's views respecting the possibility of either of these adequately fulfilling the office of religious teacher to the great mass of the rising generation. He was asked by Cardinal Manning: 'Do you think that in the present condition of our population at large parents have in the first place the time in the morning or evening to give religious instruction ?" Mr. Bourne 'I do not think that they have.' Cardinal Manning: 'Do you think that even if they had the time, they are themselves qualified and competent to give it?' Mr. Bourne: 'I am afraid I must say not.' 3 We next turn to the sufficiency of Sunday schools, and we find that Mr. Bourne is more than sceptical as to their present power of doing what is required. Dr. Rigg asked: 'To recur to Sunday school influences; do you think that Sunday school influence, which is to make up the deficiency, would, in its application, be co-extensive with the moral and spiritual needs of the neediest children?' 3 Ibid. p. 365. 1 First Report, p. 393. 2 Ibid. pp. 384-5. Mr. Bourne Not in the present state of things.' Dr. Rigg 'Then is it a practical remedy to say that the children are to get their instruction in the Sunday schools? You have heard Mr. Mundella's saying that there are 5,000,000 Sunday school children, a larger number than there are at all the public day schools, and therefore the Sunday schools can do the work. Do you think this view sound?' Mr. Bourne: 'No, I do not.' Dr. Rigg: ‘Are not the children who most need moral and spiritual instruction absent from the Sunday school?' Mr. Bourne 'Yes, I think most likely.' Dr. Rigg Then if moral and spiritual instruction is to be given to them at all, how is it to be given except at the day schools? Mr. Bourne: The churches should be stirred up to improve the Sunday schools, and to increase their organization for reaching the masses.' 1 And with this lame and impotent conclusion he is content. He would destroy existing means of imparting moral and religious instruction to the masses of the people, which, though far from being all we could wish, nevertheless have done much good, and to substitute for them a scheme which no one with knowledge of the existing state of things honestly considering the matter could expect to be adequate or successful. For Sunday schools are not increasing either in efficiency or popularity. The great improvement which is found in the day schools makes a Sunday school, valuable as it undoubtedly is, less of a desideratum than it used to be, whilst the superior skill of the trained teachers over the zealous but often slenderly instructed teachers in Sunday schools is so manifest to the cleverer children as to lead them to place but a light value on an institution which seemed much more perfect when it was not brought into immediate comparison with the day school system of teaching. It is not our present intention to draw any conclusions from the evidence now presented to our readers, or to suggest any remedy for the evils which, in our opinion, that evidence proves. On the two points with which we have dealt it may be assumed that practically all has been said which it is necessary for us to know. On other and very important matters the evidence is incomplete. No witness has yet spoken in favour of the abolition of school fees, though many have spoken against it; we have yet to hear a supporter of the limit of 17s. 6d. to the Government grant, although strong expressions of disapproval of it abound in the volume with which we are 1 First Report, p. 384. dealing; the same may be said of the system of payment by results as at present practised, and of the annual changes in the Code. But before discussing these points it is essential for us to hear what the managers and teachers of schools have to say on the subject, and as yet not a single witness of either class has been heard. Whenever the Commission issues its final report, or possibly its second report, containing the evidence of witnesses of the classes just described, we may possibly have more to say on the subject; but until this is before us, it would obviously be premature to deal with questions which have been only partially handled. We have not thought it necessary to place before our readers what was ably said by the representatives of several of the training colleges, as it deals chiefly with points about which Churchmen have made up their minds, and concerning which they are tolerably unanimous, or else with technical questions of management which cannot excite general interest. The only new point about which there might be a difference of opinion is that which relates to the residence in college of students preparing to become teachers. In most of the Scotch training colleges the students live at home or board out; some of the school boards in England have advocated a similar plan for this country. The argument is practically the same as that concerning the universities; in England residence in college is the rule, non-residence the exception; in Scotland non-residence is the rule, and we are not aware that in any college except that belonging to the Episcopal Church there can be said to be any exception. In the Appendix are statistical returns, some of which are new and important, whilst others only place before us in a convenient form information which we already possess. Besides this there are two circulars which are being widely distributed amongst managers and teachers in certain selected counties, so as to secure as representative a return as possible without cumbering the reports with unnecessary statistics. In the next published report we shall hope to see summarised tables of the answers given, so that we may know the opinions of those practically engaged in the work of education on those points which the Commission has thought to be of sufficient importance to consult them about. We regret to have to notice some carelessness with respect to the manner in which the volume has been published. Thus we notice in the list of representatives appended to the first report that Mr. Sydney Buxton becomes Baxter, and Sir B. Samuelson has for the representative of his Christian name W. Besides this there are several slips in the printing of the evidence, for some of which the several Commissioners, or the witnesses, to whom the 'proof' of what they had said must have been sent, may be responsible. Probably, however, the principal cause of these errors was the lamented death of the chief secretary of the Commission, Mr. Hugh Cowie, whose services were invaluable, and whose death must on every account be a most serious loss. It may have been difficult for others to take up the work which would have naturally fallen to him, and for which they may not all at once have realized their responsibility. ART. IV.-A SCOTTISH BISHOP OF THE Fournals of the Episcopal Visitation of the Right Rev. Robert Forbes, 1762 and 1770, with a History of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ross, &c. Edited and compiled by the Rev. J. B. CRAVEN. (London, 1886.) To many, perhaps to most, of our readers, the name of 'Bishop Forbes' will suggest but one train of thought, will represent but one most impressive and fascinating personality. It will recall to them that singularly refined type of moral and spiritual beauty, that union of wide culture with theological depth and exactness, of rare social gifts with unwearied pastoral energy, of the most delicate and considerate sympathy with the firmest loyalty to profound convictions, which made the name of 'Alexander, Bishop of Brechin,' so dear to thousands of Scottish and English hearts. But it must not be forgotten that during the last three centuries five other prelates of the name of Forbes have administered Scottish dioceses. One, Alexander Forbes, was consecrated to the see of Caithness in 1611, and translated in 1617 to Aberdeen, where he was succeeded by Patrick Forbes, ' of Corse,' whom Burnet describes as 'much more eminent by his learning and piety than his birth or fortune could make him,' and 'as in all things an apostolical man.' His influence formed what may be called the school of Aberdeen Doctors,' one of whom, William Forbes, impressed Charles I. as a man who 'deserved to have a see made for him,' and was accordingly appointed the 1 Preface to the Life of Bishop Bedell. |