attempt the Grand Turk and the Pope. But that spirit has evaporated, and in disclaiming any wish of instilling his own tenets into the minds of his pupils, Mr. Lancaster acted in conformity to the practice of the present Quakers. Of this the persons who first took the alarm at his success were ignorant; they attacked him because he was a Quaker; and the ignorance and bigotry with which he was thus assailed gave him all the advantages he could wish.

Some, however, of Mr. Lancaster's opponents objected, upon better ground, to the general extension of his schools. A good old lady, whose writings for the nursery display much talent and uniform goodness, calmly represented the ill consequences which might arise to the national church, if the children of the labouring classes were not trained up in its doctrines. She expressed her disapprobation also of the principle of punishment which he had chosen to introduce. Speaking of the tin or paper crowns, with which it is his custom to dress up an offender in mockery, surely,' she said, 'it should be remembered, that the Saviour of the world was crowned with thorns in derision, and that this is a reason why crowning is an improper punishment for a slovenly boy.' The association may not have been judicious; but it proceeded from a deep sense of piety: and precisely to the same association we owe the disuse of the dreadful punishment of the cross in all Christian countries,-humanity alone would not yet have effected its abolition. For this passage a judge more conspicuously gifted (as it should seem) with a sense of ridicule than of justice, not only condemned the authoress as a weak and silly woman, but bade her attribute to his opinion of her imbecility 'the milk and mildness with which she was treated ;' for, otherwise, he 'would have drawn blood from her at every line, and left her in a state of martyrdom more piteous than that of St. Uba." "*

"The grand basis of Christianity alone,' says Mr. Lancaster, is broad enough for the whole bulk of mankind to stand on, and join hands as children of one family.' Happy would it be if this wellsounding sentence contained any practicable meaning. The basis,' he continues,' is glory to God, and the increase of peace and

* Who St. Uba may be, the critic has not informed us: our knowledge of the noble army of martyrs is, we believe, somewhat more extensive than he can pretend to; but St. Uba is unknown to us. Perhaps her history may be in the same volume which confutes certain hitherto established facts in American history, and contains that passage marked in inverted commas as Mr. Thelwall's, which, unluckily happened not to be in the work from which it was quoted. The writer wanted a martyr, and not improbably hit upon St. Uba as a patron-saint for the town of St. Ubes, as Setubal is vulgarly called: it was less trouble to invent a name than to look for one.

good will among men;' but he himself narrows this basis by professing to instruct youth in the leading and uncontroverted truths of Christianity. His temple, therefore, is not an open building; he makes a door to it, and establishes a principle of exclusion: even if Socinianism be suffered to pass, the Deist and the Jew cannot obtain admittance. Mr. Lancaster finds that some tenets must be presupposed, and holds it an essential part of education to teach what, according to his creed, are necessary religious opinions. We entirely agree with him; but the question thus arises, upon his own grounds, what religious opinious are necessary; and here the wellbeing of the state must be considered, as well as the moral improvement of the individual. A state is secure in proportion as the subjects are attached to the laws and institutions of their country; it ought, therefore, to be the first and paramount business of the state to provide that the subjects shall be educated conformably to those institutions; that they shall be trained up in the way they should go;' that is, in attachment to the national government and national religion. The system of English policy consists of church and state; they are the two pillars of the temple of our prosperity; they must stand together or fall together; and the fall of either would draw after it the ruin of the finest fabric ever yet reared by human wisdom under divine favour. Now to propose a system of national education, of which it is the avowed and distinguishing principle that the children shall not be instructed in the national religion, is to propose what is palpably absurd. This position is irrefragably stated by Dr. Herbert Marsh. The religion by law established,' he says, 'must always be regarded as the national religion. But in every country the national education must be conducted on the principles of the national religion. For a violation of this rule would involve, not only an absurdity, but a principle of self-destruction; it would counteract by authority what it enjoins by authority.' (p. 5.) The same able reasoner (to whom the country is so much indebted for the manly and decisive manner in which he has delivered his opinions upon this important controversy) exposes the specious and insiduous argument that no injury is done to the national religion, because Mr. Lancaster teaches nothing hostile to it, and appears in his school as a Christian only, teaching nothing but what all Christians agree in revering.'

• Whether our religion, when thus curtailed, does not lose the character of Christianity altogether, or whether enough of it remains to satisfy the demands of any other religious party in this country, it is certain that the doctrines of Christianity, as taught by the Church of England, have no admission there. That dissenters therefore, dissenters of every description, should join in promoting such a plan of education, is not a matter of surprise. To supersede the parochial and charity schools,

which our forefathers had founded on the maxim in the text, of training up a child in the way that he should go, and to raise up seminaries in their stead, where the children should not be trained in the way of the Established Church, was to them an advantage, too obvious to be overlooked. If no predilection for any peculiar sect was thereby excited, one point at least was gained, and that an important one-that the children educated in such seminaries, would acquire an indifference to the establishment. And not only indifference, but secession from the Established Church will be the final result.

Education, on whatever principles it be conducted, must have some influence, either favourable or unfavourable, on the established religion. Even neutrality, however strictly observed, is in this case a kind of hostility. It is hostility to the Establishment, to deprive our children of that early attachment to it, which an education in the church cannot fail to inspire, and which, if lost in their youth, can never after be recovered.' Sermon, pp. 10, 11.

These consequences are as perilous as they are certain. Let it, however, be distinctly understood, that no part of the censure which we have past upon some of the practices of Mr. Lancaster, nor of the heavier condemnation which we must pass upon his conduct, arises from this consideration. Believing, as he believes, it is his duty to exclude from his institutions all means of instruction which might prepossess the children in favour of the Church: believing, as we believe, it is our duty to see that this very object should be one special end of national education.-The fathers of the English Church knew this to be their duty, and, therefore, they enjoined the curate of every parish to instruct and examine, openly in the church, on Sundays and holidays, 'so many children of his parish sent unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some parts of their catechism.' They enjoined parents to send their children, and masters their servants and apprentices, (if they have not learnt their catechism,) obediently to hear aud be ordered by the curate, until such time as they have learnt all, that is here (by the rubrics) appointed for them to learn.' Thus, then,' says the Margaret Professor, 'it appears that our reformers themselves laid at least the foundation for a system of religious education, to be conducted under the sperintendance of the parochial clergy. As a farther security, it was required by the canons that every schoolmaster should not only be licensed by the bishop of the diocese, but previously subscribe to the liturgy and articles; and all schoolmasters were enjoined to use the church catechism, and to bring their scholars to the parish church. Upon these principles the parochial and charity schools, founded or new modelled after the Reformation, were invariably conducted; and had this system of parochial education,' says Dr. Marsh, been carried to a greater extent,

or had it been more generally retained, the defection from the national church would never have been raised to its present height.'

So far as the laws respecting education prevented dissenters from having schoolmasters of their own persuasion, they were intolerant; in all other points they were perfectly wise and proper. The objectionable parts have been repealed, but the others have fallen into disuse. It is in vain to deny or extenuate the fact-we cannot conceal from others, and we ought not to disguise from ourselves, that both the government and the clergy had too long neglected one of the most important duties incumbent upon both. No provision for parish schools has yet been made in this country as it has in Scotland; and the clergy have very generally failed to supply, as far as they could, the neglect of government. We say this not as a reproach, now that the sense of duty is awakened, and so general and honourable a spirit seems to be arising among them, but we say it as a warning, and as a stimulus to continued exertion. Neither should it be forgotten, that some splendid exceptions were at all times to be found, and that, whatever benefit may hereafter be derived from the new system of education, it is to a clergyman of the Church of England that this country and the world will be indebted; for that system is Dr. Bell's invention, and his name will be blessed and honoured for it, to the latest generations, as one of the greatest benefactors of mankind.

When Dr. Bell, in 1797, first published the account of his experiments, he stated in his preface, that as the result had appeared to those who witnessed it convincing and decisive in regard to charitable establishments, the Madras system had, after the experience of several years, been, by those whose opinions were likely to have the greatest weight, recommended to similar establishments. How far such a system, he said, would apply to education in general, might be inferred from the tenor of his publication, the aim of which was that farther and similar trials might be made. In 1805, he published a second edition of this little pamphlet, prefixing the scheme of a school on the Madras model, and suggesting the expediency of forming a board of education. As there are never wanting in this country men of rank, and of active benevolence, who are willing to undertake such offices as are conducive to the welfare of the people and the prosperity of the state; a board formed of such men would, he thought, have influence sufficient to induce parish officers to adopt such improvements and reformations, compatible with the existing laws, as it might see tit to recommend: and in many instances great advantages would arise from barely giving publicity to the administration of our poor laws, requiring detailed statements of the parochial expenditure according to a prescribed form, and comparing these statements

new system, and by their desire the rector of the parish wrote to the inventor, requesting his advice. Dr. Bell put himself in a coach the same evening in which he received the letter, and appeared in Whitechapel the following morning. Having organized the school, he was invited to Lambeth, to Mary-le-bone, and to the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea, and every where his system was attended with that success which it ensures. This, however, was but a silent progress compared with the rapid steps which Mr. Lancaster was making in public opinion, aided by the notoriety which his subscriptions occasioned, and the means which they placed at his disposal. Still the merit of the discovery was not yet claimed for him; and Mr. Whitbread, when he made his speech on the poor laws, distinctly spoke of Dr. Bell as the discoverer, and of Mr. Lancaster as having acknowledged * it. Mr. Lancaster upon this occasion, in a letter to Mr. Whitbread, again acknowledged the obligation he had to Dr. Bell,' wished not to detract from his honour or merit, nor to arrogate to himself any thing to which Dr. Bell was entitled.' At the same time he asserted, that many of the useful methods practised in his school were exclusively his own. This is perfectly true; many of the practices are his own, some to which we have given due praise as exceedingly useful, some which we have shown to be exceedingly mischievous, and some, which being neither the one nor the other, may properly be called good-for-nothing. Shortly afterwards, however, Mr. Lancaster did arrogate to himself the merit to which Dr. Bell is entitled; for he introduced an advertisement in the newspapers with the following sentence: Joseph Lancaster, of the Free-school, Borough Road, London, having invented under the blessing of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, a new and mechanical system of education for the use of schools, feels anxious to disseminate the knowledge of its advantages, through the United Kingdom. It was offensive enough to see a quack advertise his balm of Quito by Divine Providence,' as a sanction which was to be had cheaper than the King's patent; but this is the first time, we believe, that an attempt to pilfer another man's reputation has been made in the phraseology of religion.

The first person who came forward to support Mr. Lancaster

The meritorious person with whom parts of the plan of education to which I have alluded have had their rise, who has had also the good sense unostentatiously to add the acknowledged discoveries of others to his own, is well known to many members of this House. The gentleman whom I mean to point out to you is Mr. Joseph Lancaster.'-Substance of a speech on the Poor Laws by Mr. Whitbread. And again in a note to the same speech, at p. 98, after stating the dates of Dr. Bell's experiment and publication, Mr. Lancaster's free school in the Borough was not opened till the year 1800; so that Dr. Bell unquestionably preceded Mr. Lancaster, and to him the world are first indebted for one of the most useful discoveries which has ever been submitted to society,'