« ZurückWeiter »
With the Warwick House escapade ends Miss Knight's appearance on the historical stage. She was dismissed, as we have seen, that evening. She kicked and bounced a good deal,' as Lord Eldon would have phrased it; 'begged to know in what she had offended ;' but the Regent answered, he made no complaints, and should make none.' She was excessively angry when the Morning Post' informed mankind that, by means of one of the most pious and virtuous characters of the land, it was soon discovered that many of the Princess's associates were persons possessing pernicious sentiments alike hostile to the daughter, the father, and the country,' and wrote to the Bishop of Salisbury to know if she was one of the obnoxious associates' in question. What answer the pious and virtuous prelate made does not appear. She once more endeavoured to mollify the Prince Regent, whom she assured I have no acquaintance, nor have I had any communication, with persons of seditious principles, improper conduct, or sentiments hostile to your Royal Highness; but equally in vain. It is clear she was suspected of aiding and comforting the Whigs in their designs against the heiress presumptive. The exalted Toryism of this Autobiography reads like a posthumous protest against such injustice. She was never admitted within the precincts of the Regent's household again. But she was allowed the consolation of attending one drawing-room, in March, 1815. She had a pension of 3001. a-year (as a compensation for having left the Queen's service to attend on Princess Charlotte ;' in strictness perhaps a sufficient acknowledgment, but not a very ample one, for the devotion of her later years to the service of the family. She was gratified when a person who had the means of knowing many things relative to the Princess Charlotte told her the Regent and Queen had opened their eyes with respect to her, and were now persuaded that her conduct had been such as they could not think injurious to themselves. It is probable,” she adds, that they knew who was the mischief-maker' (vol. ii. p. 113). After the final separation from the Court her little chronicle loses, of course, its historical importance, if such a phrase can be used in reference to it. But for those readers who find some amusement in tracing the romance of a dull life,' there is something of interest in watching the way in which the poor lady clung for a long time to the associations of that circle from which she was now dissevered. She catalogues very fondly every letter she received from Princess Charlotte, and these were at first rather numerous and affectionate;' entering into details respecting the little occupations and annoyances of her life. Their frequency soon diminishes ; as in the ordinary case of friendship between a
superior and an inferior. When their personal communication is interrupted, the former breaks gradually away, not through unkindness, but engrossed by new scenes and subjects, from that tie of intiinacy which the latter still cherishes, and vainly endeavours to maintain. Marriage, and its new employments, obliterated the impressions left by the old humble companion. At last, on July 30, 1817, Miss Knight, on going abroad, called to take leave of Princess Charlotte, but could not see her, as Prince Leopold was suffering from a pain in his face! She wrote me a very affectionate note afterwards to apologise.' Such was the end of their intimacy, for in a few months more the
young Princess had ceased to exist. • The entry in Miss Knight's diary, on this afflicting subject, is brief and inexpressive,' says the editor.
'I received a visit from Miss Knight,' says Lady Charlotte Bury, in 1820; "her presence recalled Kensington and the poor Princess to my mind. She conversed with sense and kindliness on these topics, but her exceeding prudence always restrains the expression of her feelings, and she appeared averse to dwelling on the subject. ... Miss Knight has a very refined mind, and takes delight in every subject connected with literature and the fine arts. She is exceedingly well read, and has an excellent judgment in these matters. I alluded once to the poor Princess Charlotte's death, but Miss Knight only replied, “Ah! that was a melancholy event," and passed on to other subjects. She did not impress me with the idea of lamenting the Princess so much as I supposed she would have done. But perhaps she may in reality mourn her melancholy fate, and only forbears speaking of her lest she should say too much. Certainly Miss Knight was very ill-used by the Queen and the Regent, and I do not think Princess Charlotte liked, though she esteemed her.
Miss Knight was not sufficiently gay, or of a style of character suited to Her Royal Highness.'-Diary, vol. iv. p. 7.
Certainly the misgiving that her own life had, after all, been thrown away by mistake, seems to have visited the poor excompanion in her disgrace :
“I have lived,' she says, near the close of her life, to witness the termination of many things, and I humbly bend with resignation and gratitude to the Divine dispensations. With respect to myself all I can say is this, I cannot help regretting having left the Queen. My intentions were not bad, but in many respects I consulted my feelings more than my reason. My mind was then too active, perhaps now it is too indolent; but either I ought to have remained with the Queen, or I ought to have carried things with a higher hand to be really useful while I was with Princess Charlotte. I had no support from the
Autobiography of Miss Cornelia Knight. loose statements by way of note as that 'the Duke of Wellington called the battle of Navarino an untoward accident' (ii., 270). The biographical notices in the notes of persons mentioned by Miss Knight are of the usual order of indolence: those comparatively unknown, of whom we should have been glad to learn something, are regularly passed over without remark; while we are treated to detailed memoirs of those with whom everybody is familiar. These, however, are not always very appropriate-as when the only mention made of the literary works of the gay Chevalier de Bouflers is that he published a book called Libre Arbitre,' and of those of the once famous M. de Fontanes, that he translated into French Pope's Essay on Man.' Miss Knight says of Dumouriez, . He had been both a lawyer and a soldier, and I used to fancy that I could trace in him the distinctive features of both professions.' This, says the editor, 'is an error. At the age of eighteen young Dumouriez distinguished himself at an affair of the advanced posts under Marshal d'Estrées, and in the following year he obtained a cornetcy of horse.' True; but he does not add that Dumouriez was "reformed' immediately afterwards—that for twenty years he performed scarcely any military duty, but, though never a lawyer, was employed almost wholly as a civilian; which accounts for the tàm Marte quàm Mercurio air which the fair writer ascribes to him. seem trifles to remark on; but, in truth, they are not so to those who are really fond of biographical study, and know how much the good editing of a book of that description contributes to the pleasure of reading it.
Art. III.-1. Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into the State of Popular Education in England. 6 vols. 1861. 2. Suggestions on Popular Education. By Nassau W. Senior.
London, 1861. 3. Letter to Earl Granville, written by Sir James Kay Shuttle
worth on the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into
the State of National Education. 1861. 4. Remarks on some Portions of the Report of the Royal Commis
sion on Education. London, 1861. 5. Remarks on the Discouragements to Religious Teaching in the
Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
State of Popular Education in England. London, 1861. 6. Report of the Committee on Council of Education for 1860-1. London, 1861.
7. Fiftieth 7. Fiftieth Annual Report of the Incorporated National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church throughout England and Wales. 1861. 8. A Letter to J. Bowstead, Esq., H. M. Inspector of British and Foreign Schools, concerning Education in South Wales. By Connop Thirlwall, D.D., Bishop of St. David's. London, 1861. 9. Speech of the Right Hon. Robert Lowe, M.P., on Moving the Education Estimate in Committee of Supply, July 11th, 1861.
London, 1861. 10. Minute of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education,
establishing a Revised Code of Regulations. 1861. 11. Letter to Earl Granville, K.G., on the Revised Code of Regu
lations contained in the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated July 29th, 1861. By Sir James Kay Shuttle
worth, Bart. London, 1861. 12. The New Educational Code : Grouping by Age, and Paying
for Results. Two Letters. By John Menet, M.A., Chaplain
of the Hockerill Training School. London, 1861. 13. Letter of the Wesleyan Committee of Education to the Right
Honourable Earl Granville, K.G., on the Revised Educational
Code. 1861. 14. Memorial of the Committee of the Rochester Diocesan Train
ing Institution at Hockerill to the Right Hon. Earl Granvilie, K.G., on the Revised Code of the Committee of Council on Edu
cation. 1861. 15. The Revised Code of the Committee of Council on Education
dispassionately considered. By Charles John Vaughan, D.D.,
Vicar of Doncaster. Cambridge, 1861. 16. The Revised Code. By James Fraser, M.A., Rector of
Ufton, late Assistant-Commissioner in the Education Inquiry.
London, 1861. IT is well known that Popular Education in England and
Wales has for upwards of twenty years back been materially aided by a grant of money annually voted by Parliament, and has been very much influenced and controlled by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, to whom the administration of the grant has been committed ; that a Royal Commission has lately made a Report, in which certain important changes are recommended ; and that the Committee of Council has still more recently issued a minute containing what is called the Revised Code, as the canon by which it proposes to be guided after the 31st March, 1862.
It is important in the first place to ascertain the real merits of the system which is actually in operation, and next to con
sider the new plan now under discussion ; and therefore we shall here notice, in the order in which they appeared, the Report of the Commissioners, and the Revised Code of the Committee of Council. We need scarcely say, after the remarks contained in our last number, that we do not intend to take much for granted in favour of the existing system. On the contrary, we shall especially note and examine the Royal Commissioners' criticism on its working; for it is to their judgment, or their supposed judgment, on things as they are, that the new regulations owe their birth.
The main object of the Commission was to elicit information. A second object was to recommend measures for the extension of sound and cheap elementary instruction to all classes of the people.' To elicit information, there is no better machinery than a mixed Commission consisting of men of independent minds, clear heads, and ordinary judgment, who have not been previously connected in any special manner with the subject which they have to investigate. To make recommendations worthy of attention, more practical acquaintance with the subject is needed. And so it happens that the part of the Report which is concerned with investigation and criticism is remarkably good, while the recommendations are wholly impracticable.
The amount of education in this country as stated by the Commissioners is undoubtedly most encouraging. Indeed, the progress reported to have been made in the last fifty years is from 500,000 to 2,500,000, from 1 in 17 of the population to 1 in 7,-an enormous stride. Out of a population of some 20,000,000 there are, we learn, but 120,000 children wholly without instruction, and of these 100,000 are the children of out-door paupers who may be dealt with immediately and separately by a legislative enactment. We have yet to include within our meshes the untaught 100,000 and the 20,000. But we are better off than any of our continental neighbours. In France the proportion of children receiving instruction to the whole population is 1 in 9, in Holland 1 in 8, and the slight superiority of Prussia, where the proportion is 1 in 6, is dearly bought by her compulsory system of schooling. These are the only nations whose educational statistics are supplied by the Commissioners.
In our own country the importance of the figures which we have quoted is only seen when we look back a few years and mark their steady growth. In 1858 there was one person in seven under instruction (it is probable that by this time the proportion may be one in six), in 1851 one in eight, in 1843 one in ten, in 1833 one in eleven, in 1818 one in seventeen, and at the beginning of the present century there was hardly any basis