THE General Chronicle, AND LITERARY MAGAZINE. FOR DECEMBER, 1811. To the EDITOR of the GENERAL CHRONICLE. SIR, My attention has lately been called to many statements in the public papers, on the new system of education for the poor, and particularly to two letters of Mr. Lancaster's; and I should have availed myself sooner of your permission to make some observations suggested by those letters, if I had not been from home, and unable to refer to the publications of Dr. Bell. I considered these, from my previous acquaintance with them, capable of affording a complete confutation of all the important charges now brought forward by Mr. L.; and this, I trust I shall convince both you and the British public, was no ill-founded expectation, by the references which I propose to make to the last edition of Dr. B.'s History of the Madras School, 1808. I must, however, premise, that the great question raised by the "True Friend to Church and King,' whose Vision called forth Mr. L.'s letters, viz.-Whether he or Dr. B. is the person fittest to be trusted with the education of our national poor? is left undecided, and even untouched by Mr. L. This is, indeed, an important question, and turns not, in my opinion, on the claim of either to the merit of having invented, or of having introduced more or less skilful practices and improvements into the system of tuition by the scholars themselves. These are considerations of but comparative moment, while that, on which the question hinges, appears to me incontrovertibly to be, under which of the two men the national poor will be best trained to those principles of conduct, habits, and manners, which are likely to promote their own real happiness, and the welfare of all other ranks; and which of the systems, proposed for adoption, may appear,in points not common to both, but peculiar to each, most friendly to the envied constitution in church and state, which we now, by the favour of Providence, enjoy, and no true Briton would subject to the slightest GEN. CHRON. VOL. III. NO. XIV. 2 B danger danger of destruction or injury? On this subject, Mr. Editor, I would only ask every rational and well-disposed fellow-Briton, every member of our venerable and pure protestant church, nay, every real friend to christianity, of whatever sect, who knows and feels the blessings of the British constitution, to examine what Dr. B. and Mr. L. propose to teach to the children of the poor, to take the printed works of each into his hands, and peruse them without a single prejudice for the one or the other, and I should confidently anticipate his decision in favour of Dr. Bell. He says to the church, of which he is an affianced minister, and to his countrymen at large, there is only wanting the authority of an established system, on the principle of tuition by the scholars themselves, to produce by an education adapted to the condition of the youths in this country, effects analogous to those already produced in India' (pp. 232 and 319); and he states the main object of his plan to be, that the poor may be enabled to read their bibles, and understand the doctrines of our holy religion.' (3rd edition, p. 90). Mr. L. on the contrary, professes in the printed account of his system, to teach only the general and uncontro verted principles of christianity; and in a late prospectus of an institution proposed to be formed in Spitalfields, it is expressly stated, that the religious principles to be taught in that institu tion are such as are common to all creeds. Here I would simply ask, does not then, the latter plan exclude genuine christianity? What, that is essential to christianity, or distinguishes it from other religions; in one word, what doctrine, has not been controverted? And what religious principle is common to all creeds, and yet entitled to be considered a christian principle? In this manner might the question be treated, if the whole collected body of those who have the means of education for themselves, without the aid of charity-schools, were to have a voice in the decision. But to whom, in fact, must a proposal for the education of the poor, taken to be principally addressed? Who are, in this respect, their natural and constituted guardians? who are bound by their office, and the wholesome canons by which that office is regulated, and its spirit and energy preserved, to examine and instruct the young and ignorant persons of their parish?" (See 59th canon). To the above questions it must be superfluous to answer, the parochial clergy. And is not this respectable body the very last tribunal before whom it can be treated as a matter of less than vital importance, whether the essential truths of christianity are inculcated by the system proposed? Will not they, and their spiritual superiors, appear callous to every call of public good to the church and nation, nay, even of self-preservation, if they are not aroused to the most zealous exertions of all their influence in 1 society be 1 society, to obtain the adoption of Dr. B.'s system in preference to that of Mr. L.; and, having done so, if they are not exemplary in zeal and perseverance to ensure its genuine fruits to those for whose instruction they are responsible to God and to man? But I am anxious, having said thus much on what Mr. Lantcaster has omitted to discuss, to come to the several charges he has made; and I wish it were an unfair suspicion, that these are brought forward, rather than the main question, because he dare not meet it, and to divert the mind of the British reader from the national church (whose interests are so much at stake, and whose claims he and his friends never treat as superior to those of any sect), to the consideration of his own and Dr. Bell's personal claims to the confidence of the nation. But the charges, having been made, ought to be refuted, at least so far as they are at all relevant to the subject before us; and, with this rule to guide me, propose to consider them in the order in which they appear. The first is, that Dr. B. has falsely and unjustly claimed the invention of the new system of education; secondly, that Dr. B. is an abettor of the maxim of Mandeville, viz. that the poor should be uninstructed; thirdly, that certain practices in Mr. L.'s school e are not mentioned in Dr. B.'s first publication; fourthly, that Dr. B. acknowledges four masters to have been employed and paid in the Male Asylum at Madras; fifthly, that some of the practices in Dr. B.'s schools are calculated to obstruct rather than facilitate the diffusion of knowledge. The first of these charges, viz. that Dr. B. has falsely and unjustly claimed the invention of the new system of education, and the just and parental rights of Mr. L., are attempted to be proved by the zeal which he has shown, and the sacrifices he has made, in the nurture and advancement of his child; while Dr. B. left it to chance and charity, and spent his time in 'excursions of pleasure over the nation, or in retirement at his parsonage.' The latter expression may very well suit the estimate a Quaker has of the duties of a clergyman of the English church, but it betrays a gross ignorance of their weight and importance, and a contempt for the ministerial office altogether. But how is the fact? Dr. B. who is contented that his actions should speak for him, had spent the most valuable years of his life in bringing his discovery to maturity in India, and having done so with a zeal and liberality almost unexampled (of which the most indisputable testimony was given at the time of his departure to his native country, and which Mr. L. formerly acknowledged), he published an account of what had been done by him at Madras, the very title-page of which, if a thousand other proofs were not at hand, would be sufficient to put this question for ever at rest: 'An Experiment in Education, made at Madras, suggesting a System (3rd danger of destruction or injury? On this subject, Mr. Editor, I would only ask every rational and well-disposed fellow-Briton, every member of our venerable and pure protestant church, nay, every real friend to christianity, of whatever sect, who knows and feels the blessings of the British constitution, to examine what Dr. B. and Mr. L. propose to teach to the children of the poor, to take the printed works of each into his hands, and peruse them without a single prejudice for the one or the other, and I should confidently anticipate his decision in favour of Dr. Bell. He says to the church, of which he is an affianced minister, and to his countrymen at large, there is only wanting the authority of an established system, on the principle of tuition by the scholars themselves, to produce by an education adapted to the condition of the youths in this country, effects analogous to those already produced in India' (pp. 232 and 319); and he states the main object of his plan to be, that the poor may be enabled to read their bibles, and understand the doctrines of our holy religion.' edition, p. 90). Mr. L. on the contrary, professes in the printed account of his system, to teach only the general and uncontroverted principles of christianity; and in a late prospectus of an institution proposed to be formed in Spitalfields, it is expressly stated, that the religious principles to be taught in that institution are such as are common to all creeds." Here I would simply ask, does not then, the latter plan exclude genuine christianity? What, that is essential to christianity, or distinguishes it from other religions; in one word, what doctrine, has not been controverted? And what religious principle is common to all creeds, and yet entitled to be considered a christian principle? In this manner might the question be treated, if the whole collected body of those who have the means of education for themselves, without the aid of charity-schools, were to have a voice in the decision. But to whom, in fact, must a proposal for the education of the poor, taken to be principally addressed? Who are, in this respect, their natural and constituted guardians? who are bound by their office, and the wholesome canons by which that office is regulated, and its spirit and energy preserved, to examine and instruct the young and ignorant persons of their parish?' (See 59th canon). To the above questions it must be superfluous to answer, the parochial clergy. And is not this respectable body the very last tribunal before whom it can be treated as a matter of less than vital importance, whether the essential truths of christianity are inculcated by the system proposed? Will not they, and their spiritual superiors, appear callous to every call of public good to the church and nation, nay, even of self-preservation, if they are not aroused to the most zealous exertions of all their influence in be society society, to obtain the adoption of Dr. B.'s system in preference to that of Mr. L.; and, having done so, if they are not exemplary in zeal and perseverance to ensure its genuine fruits to those for whose instruction they are responsible to God and to man? But I am anxious, having said thus much on what Mr. Lancaster has omitted to discuss, to come to the several charges he has made; and I wish it were an unfair suspicion, that these are brought forward, rather than the main question, because he dare not meet it, and to divert the mind of the British reader from the national church (whose interests are so much at stake, and whose claims he and his friends never treat as supérior to those of any sect), to the consideration of his own and Dr. Bell's personal claims to the confidence of the nation. But the charges, having been made, ought to be refuted, at least so far as they are at all relevant to the subject before us; and, with this rule to guide me, Ipropose to consider them in the order in which they appear, The first is, that Dr. B. has falsely and unjustly claimed the invention of the new system of education; secondly, that Dr. B. is an abettor of the maxim of Mandeville, viz. that the poor should be uninstructed; thirdly, that certain practices in Mr. L.'s school are not mentioned in Dr. B.'s first publication; fourthly, that Dr. B. acknowledges four masters to have been employed and paid in the Male Asylum at Madras; fifthly, that some of the practices in Dr. B.'s schools are calculated to obstruct rather than facilitate the diffusion of knowledge. The first of these charges, viz. that Dr. B. has falsely and unjustly claimed the invention of the new system of education, and the just and parental rights of Mr. L., are attempted to be proved by the zeal which he has shown, and the sacrifices he has made, in the nurture and advancement of his child; while Dr. B. left it to chance and charity, and spent his time in 'excursions of pleasure over the nation, or in retirement at his parsonage.' The latter expression may very well suit the estimate a Quaker has of the duties of a clergyman of the English church, but it betrays a gross ignorance of their weight and importance, and a contempt for the ministerial office altogether. But how is the fact? Dr. B. who is contented that his actions should speak for him, had spent the most valuable years of his life in bringing his discovery to maturity in India, and having done so with a zeal and liberality almost unexampled (of which the most indisputable testimony was given at the time of his departure to his native country, and which Mr. L. formerly acknowledged), he published an account of what had been done by him at Madras, the very title-page of which, if a thousand other proofs were not at hand, would be sufficient to put this question for ever at rest: An Experiment in Education, made at Madras, suggesting a System |