Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page


- (itoitigs, —<$.—

- ŒJ£tI£ml JMts.





EDUCATION. TO THE EDITon OF THE PRINCIPALITY. Sin,—The .printer, or my friend Mr. D. G., has made a mis- take in the last letter he wrote, which mistake I think will do as my reply to the inconsistent sentences-" I think no man of common sense will consider these two expressions equivalent, for a good reason, that they are utterly irrecoiicilible I say no more on what is so plain, unless Mr. D. G. should think proper again to defend their consistency. There is a plausibility about his observations on my consis- tency in holding an office under the Poor-law. lie believed that this is a "parallel case" with his in procuring aid from the Government for the education of the poor." We agreo that both are "wrong in principle." But he forgets that it is possible to make a law inoperative,though on the statute book. The canon laws for the most part are so. There is no more reason to "procure" the operation of an education law which is wrong in principle" than there is for the Bishop of Exeter to revive the old persecuting laws of our establishment. I wonder if my friend would feel disposed to induce som: clerical zealot to make him to "forfeit E20 a month to the Queen" for notr-attending the Church service, just because such a law had been "enacted," and is now on the Statute Book ? If he would, then to be consistent, he would have th toleration act to be a dead letter He makes no difference between extending the operation of a bad law, and holding an office under such a law which has been fm-ced into operation, in order to prevent it doing the mischief which it might otherwise do. Many parishes held out a long time against the introduction of the new Poor-law, and would never have had it in operation if they could have kept it out. But once forced upon them they put themselves to watch the bad thing, as best they could, just as Dissenters attend vestry meetings, by virtue of certain local qualifications to oppose those who would impose upon them an illegal Church-rate. A very different thing to their going there to "procure" the im- position of the rate, for the advantage of "poor" churchmen, the same as Mr. D. G. would "procure Government aid for the education of the poor." Dissenters in Wales are in a position to prevent the operation of the education law among the people. It cannot be forced upon them the same as the poor-law, so far as Dissenters are concerned; it may be put with obsolete canon laws among the wrong things of the past, that cannot be opera- tive in our improved times. But perhaps my friend will reply and say, (as a learned tutor also argued the case in a private letter the other day,) "that the Church folks will extend its operations, therefore that it cannot be rendered obsolete." But let me remind him that many of the canon laws are not obsolete as it regards the Church folks; and there is no more reason that we should extend the operation of a bad educational law because the Church finks will do it, than to seek a chapel extension, because they seek Church extension, by State aid. My friend suffers his mental vision to be blinded by the benevolence of his heart towards the poor, whose education by State aid he would "encourage." He justifies the means by the end. He condemns the means as "wrong in principle," and yet he would "procure" such bad means (although they never were in existence before) in order to educate the poor, when at the same time he knows that such means might net have their bad influence, nor himself be involved in a compro- mise of principle, unless he or other such Dissenters would interfere to get them. Now I do not expect that my friend will acknowledge the self-evident truth in my argument, but I shall just quote an authority, which no doubt Mr. D. G. respects, in contradiction of his views of education. In his first letter, Mr. D. G. said, "I do not consider that we are to look at it (education) at all as a religious question, I was once inclined to think that we were bound to have religious education, but I am convinced of the fallacy of those notions, and indeed of the evil tendency of such a scheme." Then Mr. D. G. compares the schoolmaster to a "surgeon or a lawyer." His learned relative, the Rev. H. Griffiths, of Brecon, follow- ing the strain, and almost in the same words as the immortal Charles" of Bih, said in his address at the Llandovery Con- ference in 1845 :— "Fearful, indeed, is the responsibility of a parent when making a choice of a school; little as it may bn thought of by many, it is one of the most solemn events in the whole history of his family—perhaps the turning point for time and eternity." Away with the suggestion of indolence, secu- larity, of cowardice and of bigotry." Mr. D. G. now thinks that the notions about religious education are" fallacious," and in the "evil tendency of such a scheme" the Rev. K. Griffiths says, in the address, Our prisons arc comparatively empty. This we ascribe entirely to the prevalence of religion in fact, Christian ministers are our only authoritative bench Sanday-school teachers are our omy effective police." Care must be taken to make it, (the Normal College,) a thoroughly good school. It should also be strictly evangelical I" One might suppose by Mr. D. G., that education has nothing to do with character, any more than the profession of a lawyer or surgeon," but the Rev. H. Griffiths says, in his pamphlet addressed to the Rev. L. Edwards, M.A., of Bala, Nothing can exceed the ignorance which prevails as to th,' real character of our schools. Of the governing difficulties and temptations of peculiar circumstances, constitution, or charac- ter, no notice is taken. Indeed, in most cases, they are all but actually ignored," more caution is often exercised in selecting a jockey to break in a colt, than in choosing a teacher for a hundred immortals. If a child can only be moderately instructed it is taken for granted, character will come as a matter of course." Mr. D. G. considers it a bad scheme to have religion in the school. The Rev. II. Griffiths says, The disproportionate development of one faculty invariably avenges itself on the rest. Healthful tuition is pancratic, that is, it consists in main- taining equilibrium of character, and an harmonic action of all the powers, physical, intellectual, and moral; full and finished men should be the educator's ideal, not precocious wonders, or calculating machines. No mere art can do this. Souls only can generate or rightfully influence souls." Mr. D. G. regards the word of God too sacred to be used in the day school. He would by that, I suppose, confine it to the Sunday schools; but the Rev. H. Griffiths proves that the Sunday school is not sufficient to counteract the evil influence of the secularity of a day school. In the pamphlet alluded o he says, It has been my painful lot were than once to watch the history of classes whose week-day discipline, utterly spoiled them for the exercises of the Sabbath." And why r Not be- cause of the inefficiency of the Schoolmaster to communicate religious knowledge and religious principles; but just the re- verse. "It cannot be expected," he says, "that our Sunday school teachers should be able to rise to a level with the pro- fessisnal teachers of the week." According to Mr. D. G., the moral importance of the office of a Schoolmaster is nothing more than that of a surgeon or lawyer." That morality does not essentially belong to the office, though a useful appendage. But the Rev. II. Griffiths says, Is it surprising that children should turn out badly, when their education is entrusted to men who spend less time in acquiring the art than their con- temporaries do in learning to cut their hair or mend their shoes ? who can number the souls thus annually rulined Every trade but that of school-keeping ;-every work, but that of character- making, is supposed to require years of definite preparation. Their name is legion who think they can manage extenip: that infinitely more complicated and delicate instrument, a hu- man spirit." Should Mr. D. G. be able to find sentences in the writings of the Rev. H. Griffiths to corroborate his views that would only expose other inconsistencies besides his own. I hope my friend, Ir. D. G. will now feel satisfied for it appears evident to me that the inconsistencies rest with himself and his own party not as regards a Poor Law and a Parish Guardian, but as regards Education itself—the grand question of the day. I remain, Sir, Yours &e., St. Davids. EBENEZER WILLIAMS. [Mr. Williams will perceive that we have omitted the two last paragraphs of his letter, which, however good in them- selves, have no bearing on the question at issue between him and his friend Mr. David Griflithp.-ED.]