Pearson imagine that these children get adequate religious instruction at home, or indeed, anywhere?

But, says he, whether they do or not, I affirm that State-schoolmasters are not fit to give religious instruction; or that if they be called on to do it, the instruction they give will be valueless. I will consider the former of these statements first. "What we cannot stipulate," says Professor Pearson, "is that they shall be interested in, or even believe what they teach." "We should not," he says, "send our sons to learn history from a man who thought history an old almanac, or to study political economy at the feet of a teacher whose conscientious convictions were opposed to the subdivision of labour." I admit it; but how does such an illustration apply to the case before us? What is it that our schoolmasters are asked to do? Not as Professor Pearson imagines, to impart "the spirit and perfume of religion," but, as I have explained, to teach its two great ethical principles, love of God and of our neighbour. Can it then be said with any show of truth, that our teachers look upon the portions of the Bible which teach these truths as an old almanac? or, that they would look on the teaching of these principles as a bore, to be rattled over as quickly as possible? I do not believe that there are fifty teachers in Victoria, who would object to such teaching, nay, who would regard it as anything but a relief from secular drudgery and a welcome auxiliary to moral influence and discipline. All the Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic, believe in the truth of those principles, and in the sanctity of the book which teaches them. Dogmatic differences need not emerge in such a mode of teaching; no, nor even sceptical hesitation. What does Professor Pearson, himself, say about our population? "The class of theorists who shall declare religious speculation to be unprofitable, or religious teaching to be unnecessary, has yet, I believe, to be born in this country." And again, "Our population, which is so often taunted with being secular, does not, in fact, contain secularists enough to start a single school at the present moment." Such then being the state of general opinion, is there anything in the character of our teachers to prevent them from imparting instruction in Christian ethics? In the Dominion of Canada, the characteristics of the common school teacher are laid down as follows, "He should be of unblemished character, should be honest, candid and truthful, should cultivate gentleness and forbearance among his pupils, should frown down rudeness, boisterousness, and quarrelling; should cultivate respect for the aged, sympathy for the infirm and

unfortunate, and a generous regard for each others' rights; should himself be a pattern of gentleness, kindness, forbearance, and true politeness-in fact, a man and a gentleman, in every sense of the word." Can we be contented in Victoria with a lower standard than this? And if not, will it be denied that the teaching of children, out of the Bible, to love God and to love their neighbour, will at once help the teacher to be what he should be, and to teach what he should teach? Nay, the possibility of such teaching has been established by the example of the London School Board beyond the reach of doubt or question.

In the board schools of London, religious instruction is given from the Bible to nearly 200,000 children under the following conditions:

(1.)-It is provided in the 14th section of the Education Act of 1870, that "no religious catechism or religious formularies which are distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school."

(2.) In the 7th section of the same Act, it is provided that religious instruction shall be given "either at the beginning, or at the end, or at the beginning and the end," of any meeting of the school, and that" any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent, from such observance or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school."

(3.) Subject to these provisions, the London School Board has resolved:

:

(a)—“ That in the schools provided by the Board, the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations and such instructions therefrom, in the principles of morality and religion, as are suited to the capacities of the scholars."

(3)—“ That such explanations and instructions as are recognised by the foregoing resolutions shall be given by the responsible teachers of the schools."

(y)—“ That during the time of religious teaching or religious observance, any children withdrawn from such teaching or observance shall receive separate instruction in secular subjects."

Readers of the Victorian Review will recognise in these provisions, the scheme of religious education which I have recommended for the primary schools of Victoria. The scheme is not one of my own devising. It is a scheme which has received the hearty approval of men like Professor Huxley, and it has been worked in

London for the last 10 years. What then, let us ask, has been the degree of its success? Have the teachers found themselves unable to give the prescribed instruction? Have the parents of the semicriminal classes justified Professor Pearson's apprehensions by withdrawing their children under the conscience clause? Or has the instruction turned out, as he imagines it would do, a farce and a form? Not one of these things has happened. The London School Board adopted a scheme of examination in religious knowledge, for prizes offered by Mr. Peek. I do not possess the latest returns, which exhibit the most favourable results. But in 1877, in distributing the prizes at the Crystal Palace, Lord Sandon, Vice-President of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, stated the following facts:-82,000 children had voluntarily competed for the prizes, having all attended upon the religious exercises at least 240 times during the year. Out of 150,000 children, the total number at that time in attendance, only 50 parents had withdrawn their children from religious instruction. "It was also stated that the teachers had so faithfully performed their duty in keeping their teaching free from sectarianism, that there had not been a single complaint from the parents, during the whole seven years the above regulation had been in force, and that this system worked so well, that it had effectually settled all difficulties on the subject." Is it not quite apparent, on the face of these facts, that Professor Pearson's difficulties are imaginary; such as were stated over and over again in England before the establishment of the London Board Schools, very much in the Professor's own words, though they are now recognised as having been effectually disposed of?

Professor Pearson, however, has one last objection; granting that the schoolmasters could give such instruction, and that parents were willing that their children should receive it, it would still seem to him to be little better than worthless. "Believing," he says, "as I do, that nothing worth knowing can be taught to Protestant children under the plan Dr. Moorhouse proposes, I desire to pause before surrendering what we have." If I shared Professor Pearson's belief, I should also show his hesitation. If I thought that Protestant children would gain no advantage from my recommendation, I also should hesitate to recommend changes in the Act, or such concessions to Roman Catholics as I am still willing to make. But what is the fact? If teachers can give instruction without a shadow of doubt or reluctance, and putting their whole heart into their work, in the two great Bible principles of love to God, and love to our

neighbours, can any one doubt that it would brighten their own task, elevate the moral tone of their schools, and be of incalculable value to their pupils? Professor Pearson seems to imagine that if religion fails to produce its full effect upon children, it must needs be valueless; that if it be less than a heavenly force, kindling mightily the unselfish motives, and lifting the spirit into conscious communion with heaven, it is nothing or worthless. But how will this conclusion bear the slightest examination? In childhood, the strongest passions are as yet unawakened, the most alluring and most dangerous temptations cannot so much as be understood. Nor can any one predict the period when to any particular soul, the great crisis of his life will come. What, however, can be done, and what, therefore, it is of the last importance to attempt, is this, that before the great plunge is taken, before the soul finds itself at deathgrips with an all but irresistible foe, it shall be furnished with the sword and shield of religious principle. Teach a child that it has a Father in heaven whom it is bound to love and obey; to whom it can flee for help and comfort when it is in straits; and, though the impression of these facts may be made principally at first on the reason and memory, it will only need the presence of temptation to convert the knowledge of them into a moral force, operating through the conscience, to anticipate danger, and to avert spiritual shipwreck.

Or take even the most unfavourable event; suppose that the knowledge of these religious principles remains nothing more than dead, inactive lumber in the memory, impressing feebly the understanding, but gaining no real grip of the conscience and motives. Is it, therefore, useless? Suppose that a crisis comes in the man's life; that his heart is softened by sorrow or suffering, opened by pity or remorse, or penetrated by the mighty words of some great prophetic teacher; is he in no better condition to respond to such appeals, to profit by such emergencies, than if he had never read of the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan? I believe that the religious teaching which I recommend is of such pressing necessity, and of such inestimable value, that it is difficult to imagine a price which is too great to pay for it.

I hope it will be apparent, from what I have said, that, except to a limited extent, to meet the Roman Catholic difficulty, I am not in favour of Denominational Education. I am opposed to payment by results, because, by restoring denominationalism, it would lead to the erection of competing schools, and waste the vast sums which

We

have been spent on our present schools and their apparatus. may ultimately come to the adoption of the Canadian system. But Mr. Harper has very fairly reminded us that "in order to get the benefit of the Canadian solution of the religious difficulty, local rating must be introduced." This, I believe to be a very healthy system, when any community is sufficiently advanced in means and intelligence, to exert a wise local control over education. As, however, I do not think this to be the case in many of our country districts, I believe that, with the example of America before us, we shall do well to approach the Canadian system only by slow degrees, beginning at our most populous and enlightened centres. For this reason I am not in favour of the immediate and universal adoption of the Canadian system. So far I agree with Professor Pearson. And I must express my gratitude to him, that with his views on this subject, he has exhibited so much enlightened consideration, in his proposed concessions to those who differ from him. If those concessions be made by any Victorian Government, I shall thankfully accept, and endeavour to improve them. But I cannot conceal my belief that they are wholly insufficient to meet our present needs. Professor Pearson would give to ministers of religion the right to teach in the State Schools two hours before or after the regular time of attendance, and he would further allow any schoolmasters who were willing, to teach religion under similar regulations.

Ministers of religion will never be able to do the work which it is proposed to commit to them. Taken altogether, they only number 703, while the number of instructors in public schools amounts to 4130. Nor is this the full measure of the disparity between the two bodies. The teachers are better distributed. No fewer than 172 ministers are stationed in Melbourne and the suburbs, leaving little more than 500 to visit and teach in all the other schools of the colony. This would give to many of the country clergy no fewer than seven schools each. If they had nothing else to do, this would be a very considerable task. But what is the fact? The Geelong Advertiser was guilty of no exaggeration when it wrote as follows:Nominally, every clergyman is supposed to look after the young of his flock; practically, however, it is out of his power to do so. Clergymen in outlying districts have, as a rule, a rough time of it in shepherding the sheep, and but little chance of attending to the lambs. Some of them work as hard as navvies, their incomes approximating more nearly to the pay of the railway labourer, than to the reward of the educated gentleman. Many perform journeys