tempt these schools do not deserve. Reading, spelling, tables, the rudiments of grammar, and a miscellaneous amount of moral, religious, and even scientific information; these were our earliest intellectual nourishment; and let governmental inspectors and statists say what they please, these were our actual acquirements in such a seminary. Learned doctors, perhaps, may deem these mean details beneath their observation, and refuse to count the lowest rounds of that ladder by which they themselves ascended to distinction; but with us, they lie embalmed among the most sacred recollections of earliest youth. We can scarcely forgive Wilderspin for having done so much to destroy all the poetry of childhood; nor is it likely we can pardon Dr. Vaughan, who would fain break up these unpretending establishments, and substitute for the dear old matrons the tender mercies of a hireling, licensed to teach and whip children (like felons) under state authority and inspection!

4. We object, further, that Dr. Vaughan has estimated the number of children eligible for school in 1831 at one-fourth of the population. But this estimate is manifestly false. For onefourth of the population in 1831 was 3,600,000. But according to the "Age Abstract" of the census of 1841, when the population was a million and a half greater, the number of children between the ages of five to fifteen years was only 3,624,595, being a proportion of not more than four and two-fifths of the population. By the way, this estimate would show that the numbers of school children have only increased by 24,595 in ten years, how then can our respected doctor pretend that a subsequent provision for 600,000 has not done much more than "kept pace with the increase of the population?" But so small an increase in the numbers of school children in ten years out of a million and a half of persons, is altogether incredible, and therefore the estimate that such children amounted in 1831 to one-fourth of the population must be wrong, even though all the statists in the world were agreed upon it. But if instead of dividing the population of 1831 by four we divide it by four and two-fifths (the ascertained proportion of school children according to the late census), we shall find a difference of 327,273, which Dr. Vaughan's false statement has added to

the long account of vice and ignorance which he has brought against the nation, and in favour of government interfer| ence with education.

On the whole, then, we cannot resist the impression, that the respected editor of the British Quarterly has, either with or without design, exaggerated the destitution of the country. We do not say that the quality of education is all that we could desire. We do not affirm that the means of instruction are equally diffused. In some districts there may be superabundance, in others a deficiency. Nobody disputes these points, and, in arguing upon them, Dr. Vaughan fights with shadows and contends without an adversary. But, upon a broad view of the whole question, we do not hesitate to avow our conviction, that the doctor has utterly failed in making out a case sufficient to demand government aid in a work which he himself admits the people can do much better for themselves. If, indeed, nothing short of ten years is to be accounted a proper term of schooling, then we have a few thousands more than the half of our juvenile population destitute of the means of instruction; but if five years be a reasonable average for all classes, then having to provide for only half the number of children we have but a few thousands - certainly not more than one-eighth of the wholeunfurnished with school accommodation. This eighth, be it observed, includes all that must be absent from sickness or other contingencies, who would certainly be one per cent. of school attendants, or perhaps 15,000 or 20,000 altogether; it includes all that wretched and degraded class that no school system would reach unless it were compulsory. We have taken no notice of the fact that Lord Kerry's returns relate to the numbers in actual attendance, and that consequently we may presume that-unless all those schools were full-there was accommo│dation for many more thousands than his numbers would indicate; -on these points we do not enlarge; but we put the question to any candid man, Whether, having provided means of instruction for seven-eighths of the school population, we are now, terrified by the remaining fraction, to cast ourselves upon a public tax, and confess that we cannot finish the work without the resources of the state?

We do not hesitate, therefore, to declare our conviction that nothing which

has been written can shake the conclusion of Mr. Baines. There may be trifling inaccuracies or oversights, but none that can materially affect his main positions. On the contrary, the mode of calculation adopted by Dr. Vaughan is open to very serious objections, and is quite unworthy of an author who repeatedly disclaims being a novice in these matters, on the ground that he" wrote somewhat largely upon great cities some six or seven years ago. But grant it otherwise. Let it be proved that the greater part of the young are destitute of the means of instruction, the great question would remain untouched. If the principle of national education be good, it can stand upon its own merits and necd not cast itself upon our compassion. Are the feelings of our hearts to over-rule the deliberate convictions of our judgments? For ourselves we are not satisfied that this benevolent weakness is necessary. At all events we decline to sacrifice judgment and principle even on the altar of humanity. Pile up facts upon facts, figures upon figures,-multiply thousands into myriads and myriads into millions, the question still remains untouched,-Is it the business of the state to educate the people? Prove the people to be as ignorant as you please, yet you have not thrown so much as a feather into the scale by which this point must be decided.

Now we object to national education because in the present state of parties in England it would require a separation between secular and religious instruction. If religion is to be taught, the churchman will be satisfied with no system, which does not involve the catechism, and lie under the control of the clergy; but these are terms to which dissenters cannot accede. It is possible indeed, and barely possible, that they may agree in the exclusion of religion; but, in that case, secular education will be robbed of its most valuable element, and will be no longer worth the millions that must be expended upon it. We expected to meet with advocates of a non-religious theory among worldly politicians, but never among ministers of the gospel; least of all among evangelical dissenters. We cannot but regard it as a deliberate sacrifice of religious interests to a worldly end. Though the school may be open to ministers of all denominations and a class-room be provided for their use,

this will not meet our views, or assign to religion the prominence which it demands. It should preside over all the arrangements, and sanctify the whole routine of study by its presence and influence. We will venture to affirm that no man of genuine piety, or even of integrity, could consent to enter a school in the capacity of a master bound to silence and reservation upon the most momentous of all interests-the interests of the soul. The effect of such a system must be to put a premium upon infidelity and indifference. No man is so likely to steer clear of all offence to religious parties, as the man who thinks lightly of religion, and therefore cares nothing for the disputes of its professors. The force of such consideration is obvious, but we forbear to reason further, because we are firmly convinced, that, whatever may be the opinions of individuals, neither dissenters nor churchmen will consent to make religion the victim which is to be bound and slain, even to the great modern idol of popular education.

We object, further, that in our opinion the voluntary principle is as sacred in this case as in religion itself. It should never be forgotten, that when our Lord cast the support of Christianity upon the spontaneous offerings of his people, it was not an arbitrary law, having no reason but his own authority. He adopted it because it was, in its own nature, the principle best adapted to the end in view. No man has ever yet taken the trouble to investigate the philosophy of voluntaryism. Churchmen have always despised it; and even dissenters have been content to take it upon the simple authority of their divine Master, and have concerned themselves only in watching over its operation. It is high time that voluntaries understood the reason of their distinguishing principle, and its application to all the duties of benevolence as well as of religion. It is true that education and religion are not identical, but they are kindred and inseparable subjects. Education must, if rightly conducted, influence religious opinion; it follows, therefore, that a mode of provision which Divine Wisdom has ordained for the support and extension of the one, must for the same reason be most suitable for the support and extension of the other. The violation of the voluntary principle will ruin the cause of education as surely as

it would injure the cause of religion, the difference between the two cases being simply this, that in the one our Saviour has authoritatively declared his will, in the other he has left us to gather it by inference.

We object, further, to government interference in this important matter, because it would be an additional instance of that excessive legislation which is the grand mischief of our day. What is there which the state will not undertake to do? It meddles with all subjects and all interests. Nothing is too mean; nothing too intricate; nothing too delicate; nothing too sacred, to be regarded as beyond its sphere, or out of its power. From the sweeping of our chimneys upwards to the control of consciences, and the care of souls, every thing is within its hands. When will rulers learn to retire within their own proper province, and leave the people to manage their own affairs? Give them the opportunity and the means, and they will educate themselves; a training, too, far more valuable than the state can confer. If their political condition be sufficiently raised to allow them a fair day's wages for a fair day's work they will no more ask you to provide instruction for their children, than they will require you to find them food and raiment; but as long as the struggle for the common necessaries of life is so severe that they must employ every hand as soon as it becomes strong enough to labour, you may build schools and appoint teachers in every village and hamlet in the country;—the children will be in the fields and factories, and the amount of school attendance will be no greater than before.

Besides, it must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that a national system, with a minister of instruction at the head, will be an engine of power, which the state has never before possessed in this country, and the consequences of which no man can foresee. Who shall assure us that the school will not be made the means of training the people in political subserviency, and thus prove a mighty bulwark against the advances of liberty? That such are the views of certain state-educationists is on record in their books. They evidently anticipate it as a sort of "intellectual police watching over the young in the most critical period of their history, to prevent the intrusion of dangerous thoughts, and

direct their minds into safe channels." No man can deny this who has read their writings, and whatever may be the issue it cannot be said that we were not sufficiently forewarned. Surely a wise man will pause before he permits them to take this "new spring' of influence into their own hands. Dr. Vaughan, however, treats this alarm as groundless, because America, jealous as it is of liberty, has never entertained a fear in regard to state education. But the political condition of America is very different from our own. They possess freedom even to an excess, and with a purely democratic government have no reason to fear any treacherous abuse of power. With us, on the contrary, democracy is still struggling through many difficulties against the remnants of old oppression, and may well be jealous of such a means of power thrown into the hands of its opponents. Perhaps some will boldly admit that democracy is the very thing that they wish to impede. We applaud their candour; but for that very reason we will not suffer education to be degraded into a weapon of political warfare.

Again, state systems never work with steady and heathful regularity. Corruptions invariably creep in; are tolerated for a time, and then give way before a sweeping reform. Yet even reform is but a temporary check, which must be applied again and again, as fast as new corruptions accumulate. Voluntary schemes of benevolence, supported by the people, are under constant popular inspection; proceedings are commented on by men of all parties, and public opinion can be brought to bear upon them with instant energy and effect. Hence they are kept constantly steady to the end in view. But government systems, however perfect in organization, being immoveable except by the hand of power, have a continual tendency to degenerate. Even public opinion can only affect them by long, indirect, and often disregarded agitation, and thus they either subside into torpid indolence, or become clogged by abuses, and so never accomplish the end for which they were devised.

This, in part, may be the reason why all known government organizations exhibit such very unsatisfactory results. If we may apply to them the maxim of our Lord," By their fruits ye shall know