sakes to disturb our principles. In short, to vulgar prejudice they die martyrs. Religion, it is true, is called in; but in the form of a Quaker. I consider The Mother and Daughter as a book of a very bad tendency; and Mrs. Opie's insinuations, as more likely to do mischief, than Mrs. Manley's impudence." PP. 27, 28.

With respect to the Tales, they "are of very unequal merit,"it seems: and the tale of most merit, it also seems, is that, where Ellen Percival, the daughter of a farmer, is seduced by a French nobleman; is driven by shame and impiety to destroy her bastard child; is of course tried for her life, and deservedly condemned to be hanged; and on the evening before her execution on the gallows, "It is writes a very moving letter to the said French nobleman. impossible" (observe our young critics)" to read this letter without being struck with the tone of natural and gentle feeling which it expresses so admirably.” Then follows the pathetic letter from "poor Ellen Percival." Such is the specimen and the only specimen of Mrs. Opie's Simple Tales, which the Edinburgh reviewers have laid before the public, in order to secure to them with that public a favourable reception. And do the Edinburgh reviewers really think, that the sympathy thus excited can have no immoral tendency? Is it right, that we should feel the interest this tale is calculated to produce, in behalf of a barlot and a murderess the murderess of her own child? Is it becoming in Mrs. Opie? Is it not revolting to female delicacy, thus to plead for a vice, the very thought of which used to raise blushes on the cheeks of our daughters, but which Mrs. Opie has, in many instances, endeavoured to soften down by gentle and natural expressions," and to familiarise to their minds? And, to say nothing more of incontinence, which this lady, doubtless, thinks a pardonable frailty (if at all a frailty), shall the most dreadful of all murders - shall infanticide be thus apologised for and the laws of our country be attacked and rendered obnoxious to our apprehensions, as cruel and tyrannical —— shall all this be done, not only with impunity, but done and gloried in, applauded and admired? - For shame, Mrs. Opie! For shame, you self-erected censors -you, who in so many places boast of your immaculate purity. even of your Calvinistic rigour! After an extract so offensive to virtue, could it be expected, that with all the complacency in the world you should have concluded in such terms as follow your review of the "Simple Tales?"- "We cannot place Mrs. Opie so high in the scale of intellect as Miss Edgeworth; nor are her Tales, though perfectly unobjectionable on the score of morality, calculated to do so much good. Her writings, however, are very amiable and very beautiful; and exhibit virtuous emotions under a very graceful aspect.' They certainly exhibit vicious emotions under an aspect as graceful.

The next person, that claims our attention, is a female of a far different complexion*, Mrs. Trimmer. Her Comparative View of the New Plan of Education promulgated by Mr. Joseph Lancaster," &c. &c. had a large space allotted to it in the pages of our Review,

* See Edinburgh Review, vol. ix. pp. 177-184.

And to those pages we refer our readers with pleasure and with pride. Our account of the reception which this lady has met with in the North, will now, without much difficulty, be anticipated. The inhospitality, the rudeness with which she is treated, is, indeed, beyond all former example. And such prejudiced opinion and glaring injustice were never, perhaps, before exhibited to the world. So that we almost recall our words, when we spoke of anticipation e for the possibility of such impudence existing as could dictate the following sentence, can hardly, we think, be imagined. "This is a book written by a lady who has gained considerable reputation at the corner of St. Paul's Churchyard; who flames in the van of Mr. Newberry's shop; and is, upon the whole, dearer to mothers and aunts, than any other author who pours the milk of science into the mouths of babes and sucklings. fired at last of scribbling for children, and getting ripe in ambition, she has now written a book for grown-up people," &c. &c. In this strain of ridicule, the article proceeds, without argument, without method. Surely, though these critics may convince the world that they possess some share of wit, they cannot conceive, that their Journal will be seriously consulted, as an index to the publications of the day. With those. who have little principle, and a great deal of ill-nature, the Edin burgh Review will long continue a favourite. And we are sorry (for the honour of human nature) to acknowledge, that a large part of mankind are of this description. Be this as it may-it is our duty to animadvert on what we think reprehensible, and expose to full view what we deem worthy of reprobation.

دو

*

Of some small part of Mr. Lancaster's book," Mrs. Trimmer, it seems, speaks well. But she has no right (say the critics) to speak well!!- "Such a right must be earned by something more difficult than the writing sixpenny books for children! not one of which books, they ever remember to have seen.' Here may be witbut where is the argument, the justice, or the grammar? Impertinence, like this, requires no serious confutation. To "the principles on which Mr. Lancaster's school is conducted," Mrs. Trimmer objects, "that he exalts the fear of man above the fear of God." This objection can never be done away by all the casuistry of the Edinburgh reviewer. The main object, however, for which Mrs. Trimmer has favoured the public with her excellent " Comparative View," is to set the friends of the Church of England on their guard; since she has fully proved that the Ecclesiastical Establishment is in danger from the increase of Mr. Lancaster's institutions. Mr. Lancaster is himself a Quaker. But "I pledge myself" (says he) "not to teach my own creed: I will confine myself to those points of Christianity in which Christians all agree. In order to do this we must subtract from Christianity its characteristic institutions and its most essential doctrines. Not a

"

* "Writing" is used as a substantive: " consequently be in the genitive case. The The writing of sixpenny books."

run,

never) is misplaced.

must

Sixpenny books" sentence should have Afterwards, ever (or

word must be said of Baptism, or of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. So much in favour of Quakerism, which disallows both the Sacraments!! Thus slyly is Mr. Lancaster proceeding — in silence and by imperceptible degrees introducing his own persuasion, whilst he openly professes the utmost impartiality. So that "the suppression of his own creed in common with other creeds" is a mere fallacy. And what becomes of that essential doctrine, the Atones ments — It were useless to pursue this inquiry. Nothing can be more clear, than that to bring all his pupils upon a footing in res pect to religion, Mr. Lancaster would or must reduce Christianity to Deism. And the Edinburgh Reviewer has acted very unwisely, if he wished to bave credit as a sound logician, by touching on this point in a serious way. He ought to have treated it jocosely and sarcastically, and to have kept his reasons in reserve. All he says is (how much to the purpose, let any one judge)"It appears to us very easy to confine the religious instruction of the poor, in the first years of life, to those general feelings and principles which are suitable to the Established Church and to every sect." As to the first years of life," we have only to answer, that we prefer "to bring up a child in the way in which he should go; and, when he is old, he will not depart from it." And what are those principles and feelings? The reviewer must find great difficulty in a definition of them. If he be a Quaker, he will tell us, with friend Lancaster, that feelings cannot be defined. In short, we cannot do better than refer our critics to their own article of Lessing's Nathan The Wise." (vii. p. 150.] And we scruple not to pronounce on Lancaster what they pronounced on Lessing, with the alteration of a few words only: "It must be confessed, that he inculcates the duty of mutual indulgence in religious opinions in a very radi cal and effectual way, by arguing the extreme insignificance of all peculiar systems of faith, or rather, the strong presumption against any of them being at all worth attending to, or in any respect better than another. The author's whole secret, for reconciling Papists, Protestants, Quakers, Calvinists, Arians, Socinians, &c. &c. to each other, is to persuade them all to renounce their pecu, liar tenets, and to rest satisfied with a kind of philosophical deism, in which they may all agree." In Lessing's Play, a poor Christian woman, having happened to say

The creed of Mr. Lancaster appears to be equally liberal and accommodating.

In the conclusion of this account of Mrs. Trimmer (on which wẹ have commented enough to prove it to be one of the grossest misreprezentations ever produced to the public eye)—the critics say;

Our principal argument is, that Mr. Lancaster's plan is at least better than the nothing which preceded it." This, we think, is virtually a concession to Mrs. Trimmer of the whole argument. And they discover their chagrin at so much labour in vain, by the closing sentence: "The authoress herself seems to be a fady of respectable opinions, and very ordinary talents; defending what is right without judgment, and believing what is holy without charity." When people speak out boldly and impudently, without regard to truth or decency, we can tolerably well perceive who they are; we are disgusted with their manners, and we turn with indignation from themselves and their doctrines. But when specious characters appear insinuating good, but intending evil, when Sunday schools, for instance, are taught by Methodists and rank Dissenters, under the semblance of all that is right and religious, yet with a secret view of undermining the Church-when such a deceitfal institution as this of Lancaster lays claim to encouragement, we lament the spectacle, not only of an indiscerning multitude imposed upon and led astray, but even of the good, the wise, and the great involved in one common error, and, with difficulty, recovering from their mistake.

On Sunday schools a great deal has been said and written; and the question has been repeatedly discussed in our Review. But facts, after all, must determine the question. One fact will weigh more than a world of speculation. We repeat this remark in reference to a passage in Vancouver's General View of the Agriculture of Devon which appears more convincing than any arguments or any facts that have met our observation.

"From the first establishment" (says Mr. Vancouver, pp. 466, 467, 468,) “of Sunday schools, I have looked forward with dread to the probable consequences of such a measure. If the illumination of the peasant mind would make him more moral, better satisfied with his state and condition in life, and on all occasions more desirous of excelling in the exercise of those duties his peculiar situation in society dooms him to perform; much private satisfaction. and public benefit would naturally result from such institutions. But the peasant mind, thus opened to a contemplation of various situations in life, is rendered, by these very means, dissatisfied with his own. Hence the restlessness of the Irish peasantry, all of whom, but slightly acquainted with the English language, are instructed to read and write." "Numbers annually ship themselves as redemptioners to different parts of the United States of North America-induced by the prospects from advantages-they have derived from books, or a direct correspondence with their American friends."-" The English peasant, under the same influence, would act in the same manner."-"The disposition of the Scotch to emigrate, arises from the enlargement of the views by the education they receive when young."--"In certain grades of society, the seeking for what he does not possess, constitutes the happiness of the individual, whilst in that pursuit the noblest energies of his nature are unfolded. It is widely different with the peasantry of a country, whose part in life is distinctly marked out; · and in which any measure that may tend to draw them beyond such

ور

limits, must in the end prove injurious, if not fatal, to the interests of the community. In short, the peasant's mind should never be inspired with a desire to amend his circumstances by the quitting of his cast.' "What but the members from the affiliated societies, and the number of pen and ink gentry on board our ships of war, created and kept up the mutiny in the navy, in the year 1797 ? And how will it be possible to suppress communications and a concert among the multitude, when they are all gifted with the means of corresponding and contriving schemes of sedition and insurrection? The peasant life must be considered, with respect to his condition, as solitary, beyond the society of his family, and that of other labourers with whom he is occasionally employed. Give him the power of reflecting upon what he reads at his leisure, or receives in correspondence from the village Hampdens of his country, and it is not difficult to anticipate the issue of a mind bursting thus the restraints of penury. such as he is thus taught to believe, is incompatible with the rights of man."

These remarks certainly merit the most serious attention, although, in their utmost extent, and in their general application, they are not entitled to unqualified assent, or indiscriminate praise. The great disparity in the situation of the Scotch, Irish, and English peasantry precludes all comparison. The impolicy of teaching peasants to write is indeed so glaring, that, among men of sound principles and good understandings, we are rather surprised that there should be two opinions upon it. As to reading, there are so many considerations connected with that question, that it would be the height of improvident rashness to decide upon it without much reflexion on its tendency and consequences. The difficulty, in the present state of society, of preventing the peasantry from learning to read, should also be considered, as well as the folly, injustice, and tyranny of compelling them to learn.

We have now extended our article to so great a length, that we shall content ourselves with a few references to the pages of this Ninth Volume of the Edinburgh Review, which appear to us to contain objectionable passages; simply naming the books reviewed. These are, P. 2, Barrow's Voyage to Cochin-China; P. 84, Craig's Life of Millar; P. 344, Turnbull's Voyage round the World; P. 407-408, Orme's Historical Fragments; P. 426, Hunter's Reasons for not making Peace. Cum multis aliis.

So incorrigible is wit -so confident, so self-conceited is youth, when some degree of attention has been drawn to its talents and exertions, that we do not expect to work an immediate reformation on the Critics of the North. But we think we shall, ere long, succeed in opening the eyes of the public to their false doctrines, and their temerity in maintaining them. Of the personal prejudices that influence these gentlemen, and their want of candour, the public must be already aware. At all events, we are resolved to persevere in the task which we have begun. Our motives are right; and our labours cannot ultimately prove abortive.

Our next Article will include a Review of Volumes X. and XI.