dren in the Prayer-book and Catechism of the Church of England: the other following the plan of Mr. Lancaster, and confining the religious education of the children strictly to the Scriptures.

The direct objection to the regulations of the first Bill is, that all the members of the community are to contribute equally, but are not to receive equal advantages. The primary source for the establishment of these new schools is in the public funds, which are supported by taxes on Great Britain and Ireland, yet the operation of the act is confined solely to England. The next source is the county-rates. Now, to both these sources Dissenters of all denominations have to contribute equally with churchmen: yet the offices in these schools, and the whole superintendence of them, are to be confined to churchmen. No person can be a candidate for the situation of schoolmaster who is not a member of the Established Church; and the clergyman of the parish has an arbitrary power of rejecting the churchman elected by all the parishioners, until they find one who is the object of his own pleasure. The sole visitations of these schools, also, is to be confided to the Ordinary of the diocese, and other functionaries of the Established Church. Putting all other considerations out of view at present, is such an arrangement equitable? If this were entirely a new system, and no schools were now in existence to be affected by these Bills, would it be just that the whole mass of the community should be forcibly compelled to pay for the building of new schools, in which all the offices are to be intrusted only to a privileged part? Is it not strange that the legislature should give effect to a system of education, for the publicity of which we are indebted to Mr. Lancaster, at least in an equal degree with any other individual, by building schools throughout the kingdom, and enacting at the same time that Mr. Lancaster is an unfit person to be elected master in any one of them? Is the parish-clerk, although such a personage may have been, as Mr. Brougham asserts, in the more ancient and better times of the church viewed as a spiritual assistant," is the clerk of modern days so much more qualified than any individual whatever among all the classes of sectaries, that he should be expressly recommended by the act as a person suitable to be elected,-for eligible he was before; while every man who is not a member of the Church of England is expressly disqualified from being a schoolmaster, in schools intended for the education of the poor of all classes and denominations of Christian worshippers? * * **

Mr. Brougham seems to enter into this sort of compromise, that, if the clergy will give up their grammar schools for the use of the poor, none of the schools for the poor shall, as far as he has any concern, be very unpalatable to the church.

The author of the "Observations on Mr. Brougham's Bill" strongly recommends that petitions should be offered without delay to both houses of parliament, for the purpose of procuring the rejection of these Bills, and annexes to his pamphlet the usual form of such petitions; and Mr. Brown joins in the recommendation of the measure, which, according to the newspapers, is in many instances carrying into effect. We believe that Mr. Brougham has been very earnestly solicited, from many friendly quarters, to reconsider the measures which he is proposing, but that he has expressed his determination to persevere. We have ourselves the greatest respect for our Establishment: but we think that the present is a measure much better calculated to aggravate the evils of ascendancy, and to place it in an obnoxious and invidious situation, than to increase its stability, or to augment the proper weight and estimation which the established clergy must always possess in their own parishes. We conceive, also, that the enactments for the visitation of the schools, offensive as they must be, are much more objectionable on the ground that they would be wholly nugatory and ineffectual; and we are convinced that the sincerest well-wishers of the Church will be the most disgusted to see measures passed into a law, which would give a preference to their own establishment in the distribution of funds for charitable purposes, that are to be levied by compulsory rates from all persons alike. We are not "restless agitators nor do we "seek the means of gratifying our own spleen or vanity by fomenting suspicion and ill-will among persons who are respectable and conscientious;" and we regret that any of Mr. Brougham's friends, in eulogizing his present plan, have deemed it necessary to have recourse to such unguarded language and such contemptible insinuations against its opponents. In the remarks that we have made, we have done what we considered as our duty; and we should be glad to see those which appear to us the objectionable clauses in these Bills either supported by their author's friends with some more efficient arguments than sneers or calumnies, or else revised and remodelled by the proposer himself, before he introduces them into the House of Commons. We understand that these Bills are Mr. Brougham's pet-nurslings. As we have not forgotten the great sacrifices which have been made by some of our public men to effect their favourite measures, we hear these tidings with much concern; and the intercourse with Mr. Pitt, and the eventual dependence on him, into which that minister contrived to inveigle Mr. Burke, by appearing to give way to him on the subject of Mr. Hastings's impeachment, press strongly as well as fearfully on our recollection. A member of the House of Commons may do something at least, and, we are willing to think, much, by consistency of conduct, by perseverance, and by weight of

character acquired in the public estimation on solid grounds; but he who, to effect a particular design, gives up his general principles, must find himself dependent for its success on those with whom he has not been accustomed to act, the gratification of his vanity even then lying at their mercy; and he will in future be devested of all real importance with any party, discarded by his former friends, and probably slighted by his new and temporary adherents.

[Edinburgh Review-March, 1821-on the 2d and 6th titles preceding, together with the following:]

8. Inquiry into the Operation of Mr. Brougham's Education Bill, as far as regards the Protestant Dissenters. By a NONCONFORMIST. London. Sherwood, 1821.

To these we might add several other publications from the same quarter, and one or two from the pens of High-churchmen, still more alarmed than the Dissenters, at what they term a plan for paganizing the education of youth, by excluding from schools the Liturgy and the Catechism of the Church. It is, however, somewhat remarkable, that although these High-Church zealots began the attack, in which one of them indeed scrupled not to represent the measure as proceeding from the immediate agency of the devil, as soon as they perceived that the Dissenters had taken it up, they drew back, and either insidiously encouraged their arguments, by pointing out in what particulars the Bill was unfavourable to sectaries, or remained quiet, in the hope that the brunt of the battle would be borne by the latter. Thus, the adversaries of all education hoped at once to see the defeat of the measure, and to shift the odium of opposing it upon their old enemies, the Dissenters.

A plan which carefully steered clear of the prejudices of both extremes, and professed to hold the scales as even between the Church and the Sects as might be possible, consistently with the existence of an Establishment, was sure to encounter pretty violent opposition from the less considerate on each side. Hitherto, however, the most formidable attack has been made by the Dissenters; and, although there may be some exceptions, yet the bulk of that most respectable and worthy body have stated their objections with perfect fairness; and shown no want of temper or of candour in the management of the controversy. The meetings which they have held (with perhaps one exception) have been marked by great animation, even much natural warmth, but no unwillingness to hear reason, or to receive with respectful deference the sentiments favourable to the measure, which fell from their most venerable and enlightened members.

And it is necessary to add, that there has appeared very little difference of opinion among them, in disapproving of the parts of the measure which affect, or are thought to affect, themselves; although it is understood, that they differ a good deal as to the propriety of resisting the measure altogether. Our present concern is with those who oppose the whole-who deny the necessity of the plan, or hold that it will impede rather than aid the object in view-who will hear of no system of education in any connexion with the Established Church, and regard the Bill as incapable of improvement, or not worth attempting to mend. Towards this opinion the attempt is making to draw all the adversaries of the Bill; and it is easy to foresee, that if the arts of misrepresentation, or the dreams of misguided zeal, be not counteracted, the Dissenters, hitherto the firmest and most useful friends of education, will suffer themselves to be led into this most erroneous view almost universally.

Each of the five objections, on account of which we have seen Dr. Brown conflicting with the Bill, is formidable in itself; and, if it had any warrant in the provisions of that measure, would operate strongly against it. Yet every one of them is a creature of the learned Doctor's own fancy, and has no more connexion with the subject than with any other that might be named. We might pick out an endless variety of other arguments, founded in misstatements, or exaggerations, or perversions of facts and of doctrines; but these will fall rather under the more general heads of discussion.

[The review then gives a history of the Bill, and of its origin in the Education Committee.]

Nor were the principles of the plan rashly adopted by the Committee; for, whoever reads the evidence, will perceive that they were, as far back as May, 1816, the subject of discussion and examination by witnesses. It will be equally apparent to any one who reads the whole of the evidence, both in 1816 and 1818, that the principal apprehension entertained by the Committee was, that the friends of the Establishment would not consent to a system like the one in contemplation; and also, that the statements of many respectable persons examined justified this fear. Certain it is, that the evidence shows far more repugnance, on the part of Churchmen, to the principles laid down in favour of Dissenters, than alarm on the part of the latter at the favour shown to the Church. If we only for a moment consider what those principles are, we shall hardly wonder that it should be so. *** We cannot help fancying, that if the Dissenters had not come forward in opposition, some other persons would; of which a specimen was indeed afforded at the earlier stage of the discussion. Nay, we still conceive that the Bill is much more likely to be lost at first, and its suc

cess deferred to a future period, from the provisions in favour of the Sects, than from those which are deemed advantageous to the Church. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that those provisions are so plainly founded in justice and sound policy, and so carefully united with others, which, while they leave Dissenters perfectly untouched, reconcile the plan to the principles of the National Society, that we are willing to indulge a hope of seeing the opposition from this quarter also removed. If it be deemed necessary to combine religious with ordinary instruction, the parish schools are open a portion of the week for that purpose, and may also be used as Sunday schools, for the still farther promotion of the same views; but Dissenting parents are at liberty to withdraw their children at those times. Thus, while the schools are, in the strictest sense, schools for all, upon the very plan of the British and Foreign Society-because there is nothing to exclude any sect-they are also, in a great degree, schools upon the principle of the National Society, because they afford the opportunity, to such as desire it, of a religious education according to the doctrines of the Church. And we may add, that there appears evidence of a tendency in the National Society to modify their principle, so as to make it no longer operate exclusively. ... No doubt there will be much prejudice to encounter, and many zealous and powerful persons will vehemently condemn a National establishment for education, which has not a daily ritual from the Liturgy of the Church. But the legislator must regard what is just and sound in itself, when attempting to found a permanent system; and if he proceeds upon that principle, he may be assured that a temporary defeat is all he has to dread. If his measures are such as ought to satisfy all the various conflicting parties, although in the beginning, they may give contentment to none, sooner or later they will be estimated as they deserve; and he will have rendered a far more precious service to the community, than if, by siding with one party alone, he had obtained its full support, and carried a scheme immediately, which, for the very reasons that made it so acceptable to some, was oppressive to others, and imperfect or noxious in its general operation.

An objection of rather a refining or captious nature, is taken by some of the disputants upon this important branch of the subject. They say that Jews are excluded, and also Roman Catholics;-Jews, because the exemption from attending the Church is given to those who frequent some other place of Christian worship; and Catholics, because the Bible is taught in a Protestant version. We presume there can be no harm whatever in making the exemption general, by leaving out Christian, as undoubtedly a child, attending the Synagogue with his parents, should be a sufficient excuse for non-attendance at church. But