« AnteriorContinuar »
result of their public school system, is the opinion of many portions of the principal religious bodies in particular the Roman Catholics, the Church of England, and the old Presbyterians or Puritans-irrespective of mere party views; although at the same time the belief is common that no other system of general education in that country is possible. It is an experiment from which, touching as it does the foundation of those great pillars of human happiness, religion and morality," to use the words of Washington, we should do well to abstain. *
* In some remarks on my book, “ Notes on Public Subjects," &c., in the "Westminster Review” for April, 1853, it is imputed to me that the information which I gave upon this subject in that volume was collected “under the influence of the ultras of the high-church party and my own bias.” I beg, in the first place, utterly to disclaim any bias towards the high-church party; and in the next, I assert that my information was collected indiscrimi. nately from a great variety of persons, and without the least attempt at inquiry as to, or any knowledge of, the tenets of those who gave it or assisted me in procuring it.
It is further said, “ that Mr. Tremenheere has been very careless, to say the least of it, in adducing authorities. Thus in enumerating his adverse testimonies, he represents the Bishop of Massachu. setts as saying, that he would prefer, in the interests of religion, & mixture of religious with secular teaching, but that this is not attainable. But we are assured by the Bishop that he was misreported. Being asked whether he would not prefer having the schools more under his control, he said “Yes,
' but added, "that this was impossible, and that he was quite satisfied with the working of the present system,' of which satisfaction we are not favoured with a hint.”-- Westminster Review, April, 1853, p. 515.
In confirmation of the correctness of my own statement, and in opposition to that of the writer of the review, I appeal to the answer given by the Bishop to Mr. Twisleton, printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Manchester and Salford Education (1852), p. 492; which answer, verified by the Bishop's signature, together with the question, was as follows :
It would be easy to quote from public documents of the United States proofs of extravagant expenditure sanctioned by Congress, and something more than extravagant
" Question 5.-Generally, do you approve or do you disapprove of that system ? and what are the main grounds on which your approbation or disapprobation of it is founded ?
“ Answer.--Although I individually should prefer arrangements under which the tenets of my own Church were directly taught in the common schools, yet, on the whole, I approve of the present system, because it ensures the means of providing a more efficient system of instruction than could permanently be maintained for all the children of the commonwealth in any other way.”
The approval of the right reverend gentleman is thus shown to be founded, not on religious grounds, but on the fact that in his opinion a more efficient system of instruction could not be permanently maintained for all. This is very different from an assertion that he "was quite satisfied with the working of the present system.”
A writer in a periodical has stated that I was only two days in Boston, and therefore had no right to give an opinion upon the schools there or in that neighbourhood. I was in Boston eleven days, from the 25th to the 27th of August, and from the 5th to the 14th of November, 1851.
[Since the above was written the official declaration of the number of votes upon the questions submitted to the electors of Massachusetts, in November last, have reached this country. The votes for the proposed new Constitution were--yeas, 63,222; nays, 68,150; majority against, 4928. For Sectarian Schools, 65,111; against, 65,512; majority against, 401. While, therefore, a purely secular system is being advocated here, on the strength of the example of Massachusetts, public opinion there is evidently undergoing a change upon that subject.]
contracts granted by public officers to individuals. But this book has been written, not to excite irritation, or designedly to give offence, or for the purposes of fattery, or to encourage national self-complacency, but simply to illustrate great political principles, in their ordinary and natural action. I therefore confine myself to the following summary, which has the appearance of being authentic, and which, if so, contributes to the proof that democratic majorities are not always the most careful guardians of the public purse :
(From the Daily National Intelligencer.)
Washington, Sept. 25, 1853. “ Amount of Appropriations reported at the last Session of Congress, by the Committee of Ways and Means, for the Service of the Year ending June 30, 1853:
Dollars. Civil and Diplomatic
6,052,770 Invalid Pensions
1,366,240 Navy ditto
45,000 Indian Department
7,396,775 Military Academy.
141,500 Rivers and Harbours
6,705,467 Transportation of Mail by Ocean Steamers 1,467,250 Lighthouses
26,188,275 In the passage through the House of Representatives the Democratic majority added to the above sum, as follows:
Dollars. Dollars. Civil and Diplomatic
1,341,502 Indian Appropriations
431,861 Rivers and Harbours
20,000 Ocean Mail Steamers
2,342,363 “ With these additions the bills went to the Senate, where the Democratic majority thought their brethren of the Lower House had not put their hands deep enough into the public Treasury, and they piled on the following accounts in addition :Civil and Diplomatic
904,014 Indian Affairs
840,167 Military Academy
3,100 Rivers and Harbours
3,413,216 In addition to these there were “indefinite appropriations," i. e. “appropriations without specifying the amounts for the different items respectively
It thus appears that (to take the lowest sum) 7,035,712 dollars (upwards of £1,400,000) were added to the expenditure of 1852–3 by Congress, beyond the sum (26,188,275 dollars, about £5,300,000) thought necessary by the Com
This is the total given; but the figures make it 7,055,579.
mittee of Ways and Means for the year; or, in other words, an addition of nearly 28 per cent. to the sum they had thought sufficient for the public service.
It is further to be borne in mind that this Democratic majority was in opposition to the general policy of the President and his Ministers, who were of the Whig party.
Presidents of the United States from the adoption of the Constitution:
1. George Washington April 30, 1789, to March 3, 1797. 2. John Adams
.March 4, 1797, to March 3, 1801. 3. Thomas Jefferson .March 4, 1801, to March 3, 1809. 4. James Madison
.March 4, 1809, to March 3, 1817. 5. James Munroe
.March 4, 1817, to March 3, 1825. 6. John Quincy Adams .March 4, 1825, to March 3, 1829. 7. Andrew Jackson...... .March 4, 1829, to March 3, 1837. 8. Martin Van Buren .March 4, 1837, to March 3, 1841. 9. Wm. Henry Harrison ... March 4, 1841, to April 4, 1841. 10. John Tyler
April 4, 1841, to March 3, 1845. 11. James Knox Polk ..March 4, 1845, to March 3, 1849. 12. Zachary Taylor . March 4, 1849, to July 9, 1850. 13. Millard Fillmore .........July 9, 1850, to March 3, 1853. 14. Franklin Pierce March 4, 1853.