Education.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 227, 15 January 1876, Page 18

Education.

PROFESSOR MAX MUIXER ON NATIONAL EDUCATION. (From the Daily Neios, October 28.)

Professor Max Muller delivered a speech at Manchester, on October 27, on the occasion of the distribution of prizes gained by scholars at the Oxford and Cambridge local examinations, in which he avowed himself in favor of a universally free, compulsory, and secular education as a basis of a national system. After giving an historical survey of the progress of the German national system of education, he said: Education has been for many years our national hobby in Germany, the one great luxury in which so poor a country, as Germany is and always must be, has freely indulged. But I may confess that it was influenced, perhaps, not only by a national bias, but by what is now called family bias a mysterious power which preserves certain hereditary peculiarities in certain families, and which, if it is true that we are descended from some lower animals, may soon even help to explain some strange and perplexing features in human nature. It was old Barsdow who, about a hundred years ago, raised the great war cry for national education in Germany. (Applause.) Perhaps he attempted too much, and was too much in advance of his time ; but, whatever his strong and whatever his weak points, this one great principle he established, and it remained firmly established in the German mind ever since—that national education is a national duty; that national education is a sacred duty ; and that to leave national education to chance, church, or charity is a national sin. (Applause.) That conviction remained ingrained on the German mind, even in the days of our lowest political degradation, and it is to that conviction, and

to the nation acting up to it, that Germanyowes her very existence among the nations of Europe. Another principle which followed, in fact as a matter of course, as soon as the first principle was granted, was this, that in schools supported by the nation at large you can only teach that on which we all agree. Hence, when children belono- to different sects you cannot teach theoW. (Hear, hear.) However irresistible the argument was, the opposition which it aroused was terrific. Barsdow thought for a, time that he could frame a kind of dduted relio-ion, which should give no offence to any one°of the sects —not even to Jews or Mahommedans ; but in that attempt he naturally failed. His was a deeply religious mind,

but national education had becoma with him so absorbing a passion that he thought everything else ought to give way to it. I confess I fully share myself the same conviction. If it were possible to imagine a religion, or a sect-that should try to oppose or retard the education of. the people, then I should say that religion cannot be a true religion, and the sooner it is swept away the better. I say the same of national education. If there were—if there could be—a system of national education that should exclude religious education, that system cannot be the true system, and the sooner it is swept away the better. (Applause.) Many of Barsdow's theories had to be given up. But the true fundamental principles of national education remained firmly established, and have, never been shaken. They have spread all over Germany ; they are adopted in Denmark, Sweden, and Russia ; they have lately found their way into Italy, which is making the greatest efforts for national education, knoAVing that her very existence depends on it. Two countries only, France and England, still stand aloof. We hear the Minister of Instruction in France say, "ITes, there are schools, many schools, but one thing is still wanting, and it is for this that I do not die. We have not yet obtained compulsory and gratuitous instruction." In England Ave see the convictions with regard to national education become so strong that Mr. Forster would rather break away from his party,than yield his. deep and honest convictions—(hear, hear) —and Mr. Cross is more liberal, more bold than even Mr. Forster in favor of compulsory national education. (Applause.) Your own excellent and outspoken bishop asks that the church may be relieved of the schools. (Applause.) We may, therefore, be certain that the time has come when England also will recognise these two fundamental principles—education by the nation and for the nation, and complete separation of school teaching and church teaching. (Applause.) Believe me as soon as these two principles are acknowledged, most of the difficulties that now beset the education question, whether theological or financial, Avill vanish—applause) and the clergy Avill be relieved from their present false and invidious position. Then Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Noncomformist will be able to .teach during certain hours on Aveek days, and in Sunday schools, the religion Avhieh it is their right and duty to teach. The time Avill be amply sufficient, for the less a child learns of theology as distinct from religion the better. (Applausft.) There Avill be no conscience clause, no conscientious scruples to disturb the teachers of religion, and as to their proper remuneration I hold that if every shilling that is now subscribed for church schools were given to.the clergy, particularly to the poor curates, as the religious instructors to their flock, the money Avould be Avell bestoAved. (Applause.) Then no doubt the Avhole charge for national education, a large portion of Avhieh is now covered by private charity, Avould have to be paid by the nation at large,, as in the case of the army, navy, and the civil service. , WheneA-er I state this, the ready answer I receive is, " Yes, it is very Avell for the foreigner to say that, but it is an utterly un-English idea ; no sensible Englishman Avould listen to it for one moment. I have always looked on that answer as a most hopeful sign. - It shows that all other argumentative ammunition has been expended, for no gentleman would fire off that blank cartridge if he still possessed ball cartridges in his pouch. (Applause and laughter.) Noav, first of all by making national education an annual charge on the national exchequer, all you do is to substitute a national and rational taxation for an irrational and haphazard taxation. It .is John Bull Avho pays the taxes, it is John Bull Avho pays the charities, and the only people who-have any intelligible motive for opposing an equitable distribution of the educational tax are those who do not Avant to pay their fair share. (Applause.) Secondly, nothing can be more Avasteful than the present system, Svhen every parish, or at all events every clergyman, Avants to haA r e his OAvn little school.' By combining three or four schools into one, you would not only save money, but you would be able to bring the teaching poAver, which is now often miserable, to the highest degree of efficiency. Make education a branch.of the civil service, make the schoolmasters what they really are in the true sense of the Avord—servants of the Queen —and you Avill find the best talent and best moral stuff in the country ready at hand for. making really efficient schoolmasters. (Applause.) HoAvever, Avith all the saving that could be effected by combined schools, there Avould still be, no doubt, a large expenditure at first. Only let us call it by its right name ; it is not expenditure, it is investment—(hear, hear) —and the best the safest, the most lucrative investment in the Avorld. (Applause.) That is Avhat I often preach to parents Avho think that the education of their children is too expensive. It is far better to spend the money on the very best education that can be had than to leave each child a thousand pounds more. The same shoidd be preached all over the country till the nation at large, Avhieh after all consists of so many parents, understands that it will receive far higher interest for capital spent on an English education than on. capital invested in the English, in the Turkish funds. (Applause.) As foolish parents ha\-e to pay their children's debts, foolish nations have to spend for prisons and Avorkhouses what they might have spent on national schools. (Applause.) But it is not only that nearly every nation at present is trying to improve its material condition by national education ; but in the peaceful though not the less fierce and determined Avarfare of com mercial competition, depend on it the worst drilleil, the Avorst educated country will go. to the Avail. A man in these days Avho cannot read is like a blind man. A man Avho cannot write is like a dumb and deaf man. Are those the men whom England Avants to rear ? Once show the people of England |

Avhat is right, and they will do it. Is England a poorer country than Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, or Italy ? If all these countries tax themselves to the utmost for compulsory gratuitous education, is. England to say, "I cannot afford it?" . There is the strongest feeling among .the statesmen of Germany that the greatest efforts have to be made for improving our national education ; only Avhat Ave Avant for it is Avhat Ave are not likely to get—a long peace ; and Bismarck and Moltke rolled up into one Minister of Public Instruction. (Laughter.) In England you have everything, and there is no reason Avhy your national education should not be as much ahead of that of Germany as the education of Germany is to that of China. You have money, you have peace, you have public spirit, and yoxi have Avhat is best of all-—a practical religion. I mean, you still do a thing, however much you may dislike it, because you belie A re it is the Avill of God. Well, then, invest your money, utilise your peace, rouse your public spirit, and convince the Avorld that one-half, three-fourths, nine-tenths of real practical religion is education, national education, compulsory ; and, it may be, gratuitous education. (Applause.)