Page images
PDF
EPUB

whole a decided improvement, will, in some respects, have an unfortunate effect on elementary education.

The revised code of 1861 introduced an improved system of payment by results, which indeed, having regard to the increased amount of Government aid, had become almost a necessity; but it was open to the objection that it recognized proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic only, and thus tended greatly to discourage all other subjects.

We have to thank Mr. Forster for many eminent services to the cause of education; and if some are disposed to complain of him for being too conciliatory to Conservatives, it is only fair to remember that to this very fact we are perhaps indebted for a better educational measure than might otherwise have been possible. But however this may be, Mr. Forster has the merit of having introduced a system of payment for history, geography, and some other branches of knowledge, the choice of which was left to the school boards or committees, subject to arrangement with the school inspectors. Nevertheless, the maximum grant allowed being 15s. a head, and good schools being able to obtain this without any grant for the so-called extra subjects, it is not surprising that out of the whole number of children in elementary schools, only 62,000 passed in any extra subject, and only 26,474 in more than one.

Lord Sandon has endeavoured to remedy this, but the present code is, it seems to me, open to the grave objection that it regulates too minutely the system of education, thus weakening the school boards and committees, and greatly checking those improvements which experience would suggest, and which, beginning in a few schools, would gradually become general. Thus, by article 19c, it is provided that the classes from which the children are examined in Standards II.-VI. should "pass a creditable examination in grammar, history (political), geography, and plain needlework, or in any two of these subjects." Now it is obvious that if two subjects are thus made compulsory, all others are practically excluded. We have already seen that out of all England only 26,474 children passed last year in two subjects, and we may be sure that the number who will pass in three must be quite insignificant.

Under these circumstances, the list of specific subjects, and the mode in which they are to be taught, become no doubt less important; nevertheless, on both of these points the code is, I think, open to objection. There are some other minor considerations, but these are the principal questions to which I am anxious to call attention.

It cannot, I think, be denied that by making history, political geography, and grammar, or to speak more correctly, two of

them, compulsory subjects, all others are practically excluded, and the managers of schools deprived of the power of selection which they previously exercised.

Nothing, however, but the most absolute unanimity of opinion amongst those qualified to judge, could justify such a course, which moreover would, under such circumstances, be unnecessary. So far, however, from this being the case, there is still so much difference as to the best system of education, that it is very undesirable to lay down cast-iron rules of this kind, and thus to stereotype a system which, after all, may prove to be by no means the best.

No doubt the great majority of schools have selected history, geography, or grammar; but some on the other hand have made a different choice. The Committee of Council, indeed, say that "a fair proportion of scholars take up other branches of study." Well then, if they themselves admit that the school boards have acted with judgment, that in their opinion the different subjects have been judiciously chosen, why take away a power which has been so wisely exercised?

I am anxious at the outset to deny that I wish to render the school examinations any more difficult, or to introduce profound subjects, above the comprehension of children. The very reverse is the case, and one of my main objections to our present system is that it is above the children in many respects, and that there is no sufficient element of reality in it-it has no connection with their every-day life, or the common objects around them.

One of the so-called specific subjects is domestic economy. This is defined on p. 164 as follows: "Food and its preparation. Clothing and materials. The dwelling; warming, cleaning, and ventilation. Rules for health; the management of sickness. Cottage income, expenditure, and savings." Surely this is all very sensible and appropriate, but it can only be taken up after history, geography, and grammar, or two of them; and even then is restricted to girls. Why should not boys, also, be allowed to learn about food and clothing? Are not cleanliness and ventilation as necessary for men as for women? Are boys never ill? men never improvident? Surely there might be advantage, and could be no evil, in allowing boys, as well as girls, to be instructed in these humble, yet most important subjects.

Why should so decided a preference be given to grammar? English grammar, as it is ordinarily taught in elementary schools, seems to me of very doubtful value. Moreover, the power of speaking grammatically is more a matter of practice and tact, than of tuition. I do not wish to undervalue grammar, with reference to language, but would say in the words of George Herbert::

"Who cannot dress it well, want wit, not words."

Savages, indeed, often possess a very complicated grammar. which they use most correctly; and what we call the bad grammar of the less well-educated classes, is often a matter not so much of ignorance, as of local idiom. Moreover, grammar is not generally interesting to children, and this is a point, the importance of which we are, it seems to me, very far from appreciating. In venturing, however, to express these doubts regarding grammar, it will of course be understood that I am only speaking with reference to elementary schools.

As regards history, again, though it is doubtless one of the most important branches of human knowledge, still, as generally taught with a view to the government grant, it seems to combine the respective disadvantages of the multiplication table and the Newgate Calendar, being little better than a list of dates and battles, enlivened by murders and other crimes, with a sprinkling of entertaining stories, most of which are now no longer regarded as authentic, and which we are taught first to believe and afterwards to disbelieve.

We have all heard the proverb, "Happy the nation which has no history." And if this proverb is not equally true of the child who has no history to learn, this at least may be said, that ordinary history is misleading in this respect that it dwells on periods of war and bloodshed, passing over almost without comment that peaceful progress which brings about the development of nations; for the real condition of a people depends more upon their wisdom in peace than on their success in war.

Let us take the case of Scotch children. The younger and by far the more numerous classes have, under the present code, to study the period from the time of Robert the Bruce to the union of the two crowns.

The history of Scotland during this period, as treated in any of the condensed histories, consists mainly of the long and bloody struggle with England, varied by feuds between the great Scotch clans and nobles.

Of course wars and battles cannot be omitted; it would be as base and ungrateful, as it would be impossible, to exclude Wallace and Bruce from Scotch history. English children, as well as Scotch, thrill with interest as they follow the adventures of Bruce, and burn at the melancholy end of Wallace. It is only when wars and dates are made almost the sole constituents of history, and when history itself is used to exclude other not less important branches of education, that some protest seems to be necessary.

I will take, for instance, MacArthur's "History of Scotland," which was specially prepared for the use of schools, and which is edited by no less eminent an authority than Mr. Freeman.

[blocks in formation]

The part in question begins on page 45, where we have the execution of Wallace, "who was hanged, drawn, and quartered, according to the barbarous practice which was then coming into use in England.”

In the following page (46) we have the murder of Red Comyn by Bruce in the church of the Grey Friars.

On page 47 the execution of such of the murderers as could be captured.

P. 48. The struggles of Bruce.

P. 49. The Herrying of Buchan and the invasion of Scotland by Edward.

P. 50. The battle of Bannockburn.

P. 51.-Murder in cold blood of the English garrison in Douglas Castle.

P. 52. Summary of preceding struggles.

P. 53. Battle of the Chapter of Mitton.

P. 54.-A general description of border raids.

P. 55.-Intense hatred of everything English and alliance with France.

P. 56.-Death of Black Douglas in a skirmish with the Moors.

P. 57.-Edward Balliol's invasion and battle of Duplin.

P. 58. Battle of Halidon Hill and that of Neville's Cross.

P. 59.-English inroad known as Burnt Candlemass.

P. 60.--The raid of Otterburn.

P. 61.--Chevy Chase.

P. 62.-Murder of the Wolf of Badenoch and the clan battle near Perth.

P. 63. Battle of Homildon.

P. 64.-Battle of Harlaw.

P. 65. Battle of Beaugé and great slaughter of the Scots at the battle of Verneuil.

P. 66.-Burning of John Reseby and his books on a charge of heresy.

P. 67.-Struggle of James I. and his barons.

P. 68. Treacherous execution of various Highland chieftains. P. 69.-Murder of King James.

P. 70. This is a very curious page.

There is neither a battle,

an execution, nor a murder mentioned in it.

P. 71.-Execution of the murderers of King James.

P. 72.—Judicial murder of William Douglas and his brother.

P. 73.-Murder of MacLellan and Douglas.

P. 74.-Murder of Douglas and battle of Arkinholm.

P. 75.-Siege and destruction of Roxburgh.

P. 76.-Execution of Alexander, son of the Earl of Arran.

P. 77. Suspected poisoning of the Earl of Mar by King James.

P. 78.-Slaughter of Cochrane and other favourites of King James.

P. 79.-Battle of Sauchieburn and murder of King James.

P. 80.-English intrigues and Highland feuds.

P. 81. Revolt of Donald Dhu and storming of Carrick Fergus. P. 82.-Battle of Flodden.

P. 83.-Execution of Lord Home and his brother

P. 84. Brawls of the Hamiltons and Douglases.

P. 85.--Storming of Jedburgh.

P. 86.-Execution of John Armstrong and border troubles. P. 87.-Execution of Lady Glammis, the Master of Forbes, and James Hamilton; war with England.

P. 88. Battle of Solway Moss.

P. 89. Intrigues with Henry VIII. and first English invasion. P. 90.-Second English invasion under Hertford, who appeared just at harvest time" at the head of a motley host, swelled by half-savage Irish and by foreign hirelings, and repeated the wild work of the year before. The invaders attacked and plundered the religious houses. The ruins of Kelso, Melrose, Dryburgh, Roxburgh, and Coldingham still bear witness to their zeal in carrying out the orders of their master. Towns, manors, churches, and between two and three hundred villages were left in ashes behind them. All this misery was wantonly inflicted without winning for Henry a foot of ground or a single new subject." P. 91.-Third English invasion; battle of Pinkie.

P. 92. Murder of Cardinal Beaton.

And so on. In this case I have purposely chosen a history which, as might naturally be expected from Mr. Freeman, is written with the utmost fairness as between England and Scotland. There. are others, however, of a very different character. The following extracts are from a History of the country, by Rev. J. Mackenzie, forming a part of "Nelson's School Series," and, as we are told, especially adapted for the young. Speaking of the state of things in Wallace's time the reverend gentleman says:

"Wasted by the ravages of war, the country suffers miserably from famine. The English lord it insolently and cruelly over us, taking by force whatever they want-beating, wounding, and killing if the owners resist."

Further on:

"The English governor took a vile revenge. He seized the wife of Wallace, and had her put to death.”

Then :

"The English laid a horrid trap for the formidable warrior. They pretended to treat about a peace. Wallace, and a number of the Scottish

« PreviousContinue »