we question if many Jewish children are likely to attend any schools taught by Christians; and we presume that a few instances, to be found in those of the two Societies, offer no great reason in favour of a contrary opinion; for if there are six in the British and Foreign Society's School, (Report, 1816, p. 182.) there are seven in the National School, (Ib. p. 83.) and therefore we may infer, that they are children of parents who are only nominally Jews. As for Catholics, the evidence seems to show, that though, when publicly interrogated, the bishops and priests must, according to the doctrine as well as discipline of their church, object to the use of a Protestant version, and indeed, even to the using their own version as a common school book; yet they are not disposed to throw impediments in the way of children attending schools where only the Scriptures are taught, provided no Catechism is used, and attendance at church is dispensed with. But, at any rate, the difficulty is no greater as to the proposed parish schools, than as to those of the British and Foreign Society; for there the Bible is taught, and, of course, from the Protestant version.

We may therefore conclude, that as far as a positive enactment can make schools open to all sects, those under the Bill will be of this description.... Much is said of the tendency of Churchmen to oppress. We trust it is far less strong now than formerly; and that it is daily giving way to more kindly and liberal feelings. But happily there is an equal and opposite tendency at work, and that is the tendency of the Dissenters to resist oppression; a tendency which, we hope to God, never will diminish, or only give way when they are placed in all respects upon an equal footing with their fellow subjects, as is their right.... How is a poor labourer the more in his employer's power, for sending his child to the parish school? And if it is said that the master will make a difference between the children of Churchmen and Dissenters, we may ask whether this has ever been complained of in those National Schools, where full liberty has been given to the children to attend or not all the religious branches of the tuition.? Has the master no interest in treating all his scholars well? Assuredly he has; for part of his livelihood depends on them. How is he under the power of the parson? Every provision of the Bill is so devised as to make him independent of him, with the single exception of the approbation of an usher. In all other respects, the parson can only exercise any direct authority during a vacancy in the master's office. The whole of his emoluments he has during his incumbency; and even the hours of teaching and times of vacation are fixed for the same period. ....

In electing the master, if he were not required to be a Churchman, it must be presumed that the majority being, in almost all VOL. III.

28

cases, of the Established Church, they would prefer a candidate of their own persuasion. This circumstance seems to lie at the very root of the whole question, as far as regards the peculiar objections of the Dissenters. Those are rather pointed at the unavoidable consequences of diversity in religious opinions, than at the particular provisions of the Bill. It may admit of a doubt indeed, whether, in a community so circumstanced, any plan can be free from serious objection, which proposes to instruct the children of all sects in common. But we would fain indulge the hope, that the increased liberality of the age-the extraordinary desire of education which pervades all classes-and the friendly disposition towards teaching the poor which prevails among their richer neighbours, may render it possible to overcome this dif ficulty, the existence of which cannot be denied, but which must lessen daily, as knowledge dispels prejudice, and makes bigotry and rancour give way to charity and mutual forbearance.

The view which has been taken of the Bill, as subjecting Nonconformists to a stigma, requires, we think, a much more serious consideration. It seems difficult to connect the system with the Establishment, and yet to admit Dissenters as masters; nevertheless, there appears to be no absolute necessity for their exclusion; and, unquestionably, if they feel this to be a degradation, it is absurd to argue that it is not, and that it cannot be intended as such, any more than the grant of money to build new churches degrades all sects to whom both the doors of those churches and of their pulpits must of necessity be shut. And here the dispute is almost nominal; for there would be little chance of a conscientious Dissenter, though he were made eligible by law, offering himself as a candidate for a place which obliged him to attend the worship of the Church, and to teach the Catechism. It is, however, not impossible that some modifications may be devised of this branch of the plan, with a view, perhaps, of relaxing it in parishes, where a great proportion of the inhabitants are Nonconformists. We speak, now, rather out of tenderness towards the feelings of the Dissenters, for which we entertain the most unfeigned respect, than from any very clear idea that they ought to feel hurt at the provisions in question, or any very distinct opinion that this matter can be satisfactorily adjusted so as to give all parties contentment. We would fain hope, that those fast friends to the Education of the Poor will be found willing, upon further reflection, to regard the great equivalent held out by the plan to all who really set a high estimation upon the progress of instruction and the improvement of the people-an equivalent far more than sufficient to counterbalance a little increase of clerical power, and an exclusion from offices essentially untenable by those who belong not to the Establishment. * * *

It has been alleged, that the deficiency in day-schools is supplied by Sunday schools. We have been charged with underrating the numbers there instructed; the advocates of the Bill have been taxed with underrating those excellent institutions. That those in London are considerably more numerous than they appear to be in the Tables, is admitted; but that any material omissions have been made elsewhere may be questioned, upon the same grounds on which we have maintained the general accuracy of the returns. If it be said that Sunday schools are more in the hands of Dissenters than others, the Digest shows, in every page, that there is no reluctance in the Clergy to state the progress made by sectaries in educating the poor. The witnesses connected with the Sunday School Union, have naturally a great partiality to that mode of instruction, and would represent the children who profit by it as almost entirely occupied in labour during the week; and state their numbers at 40,000 in 1816. In the Report of 1818, they raise them to 50,000. To suppose any thing like this number of children working in manufactories in London, seems extremely wild. . . . Mr. Crawfurd, a gentleman well known to every friend of charitable institutions and enlightened principles, speaks of Sunday schools as 'in general attending day schools.' He adds, that there is a considerable difference in the habits of those who attend 'Sunday schools only, to the disadvantage of the latter.' Both he and Mr. Pickton state the time taken to learn by those children, as much longer than the gentlemen connected with the Union seems willing to allow. Mr. Crawfurd makes it four years. Upon the whole, we may suppose that, in manufacturing districts, a greater proportion of children attend Sunday schools alone, than in other parts of the country. But where they can be carried into practice, as in large towns, abounding in charitable and zealous persons, no words can be too strong to express the benefits they are calculated to bestow. The use of Sunday schools is, no doubt, chiefly as a substitute for the more perfect instruction, and more constant, and therefore salutary discipline, of day-schools; and they are led away by a natural, but fallacious prepossession, who think that children not employed either in work, or at school during the week, can be greatly benefitted in moral habits, by the discipline of a few hours once in seven days. But they are equally mistaken, on the other hand, who esteem lightly the advantages derived by poor children from the kindly intercourse with their superiors at those weekly meetings-advantages which must improve their character, unless the rest of their time is spent in idle and dissolute habits. Perhaps, however, the greatest error of all is theirs who think, that if there were abundance of day-schools, all, or nearly all the Sunday scholars, would not frequent them-not perhaps at the age at which they

now attend Sunday schools, and work during the week, but before they are old enough to gain by work.

It remains to address our attention to the alarm entertained, lest a compulsory payment may discourage the efforts now making by private benevolence. The two Societies have done much; but let us not deceive ourselves, and fancy they have done all that appears in statement. . . . .Beside the inadequacy of their funds, we must recollect, that the exertions made at the commencement of a new plan, are always far more strenuous than in its continuance; and, above all, we should never forget that the efforts of Joseph Lancaster, his progresses round the country, his lectures, his exhibitions, all his qualities more or less to be admired, were most powerful engines both for the British and Foreign system, and for the rival establishment to which it gave rise. Both the labours of Lancaster, and the emulation of the Foreign Societies, are now well nigh closed; and, unless by local exertions in the metropolis, we can hardly expect much to be done by either. Their plan is admitted not to extend to places of a small or even middling size.

As to the effects of the New Plan upon local exertions, we can hardly conceive them to be prejudicial. . . . Let us recollect, that those who give their labour and their money to schools, do so because their hearts are in the good work, and not because they feel obliged to contribute, and are watching for occasions and pretexts to give it up. As for Dissenters, we have not a doubt that they will rather increase than diminish their exertions in consequence of the Bill; and generally, it may be observed, that wherever there are most endowed schools, there too are to be found most seminaries established by individuals.

*

The temper of the times is in many respects peculiarly auspicious to the establishment of a system for diffusing universally, and fixing upon a permanent basis, the education of the people. A very general inclination prevails among all classes to see the poor instructed; and an anxiety for it, on their parts, exists more generally and more strongly than at any other period. Is it not desirable to take advantage of so favourable a moment? As the mind of an individual varies in its feelings and bent, so oftentimes does that of a people, and with still greater and more rapid transitions. While the thirst for knowledge is eager, let us open the fountain to them, and induce a habit of repairing to the purest source of virtue and happiness. But, circumstanced as we are in respect of religious differences, obstacles

*The effects, at no distant period, of universal education in improving the poor, and diminishing the parish burthens, have been so often dwelt upon, that we need only point out this compensation, in speaking of the expenses of the plan.

present themselves. How glorious would it be to see each party making efforts over their own prejudices and animosities, for the sake of so vast a good to mankind! We hardly dare to hope for such mutual concessions. and so much forbearance. If both remained in their present frame of mind, to carry the measure would not be possible; if either held out, perhaps it might not be desirable. Time and reflection must then be looked to as the only sure preparation for ultimate success; and the Plan of Educating the whole People together, will have to sustain the reproach of coming a little too early, and being founded upon an estimate somewhat too favourable of the liberality of the age.

ART. VII.-FOSTER, ON THE EVILS OF POPULAR IGNORANCE.

[Our Reviewers not having furnished any extracts from this original and extraordinary production, we will make them ourselves, to illustrate the necessity of National Education every where.]

(On the intellectual state of the people denominated Christian, during the long course of age spreceding the Reformation,' he remarks as follows:) After heathenism there was a grand change in the policy of evil. All manner of reprobate things, heathenism itself among them, rushed as by general conspiracy, into treacherous conjunction with christianity, retaining their own quality under the sanction of its name, and by a rapid process reducing it to surrender almost every thing distinctive of it but that dishonoured name. There were expedients and pretexts to be made for keeping the sacred oracles secreted, and a kind of reverence to be pretended in doing so. In the progress of version from their original languages, they could be stopped short in a language but little less unintelligible to the bulk of the people, in order that this "profane vulgar" might never hear the word of God, but only such report as it should please certain men, at their discretion, to give of what he had said.' There was a grand security, too, against the understanding its language, in keeping the people so destitute of the knowledge of letters, that the Bible, if such a rare thing ever fell into any of their hands, should be no more to them than a scroll of hieroglyphics. And when to this was added, the great cost of a copy before the invention of printing, it remained only worth while, (and it would be a matter of very little difficulty or daring,) to make it, in the matured state of the system, an offence, and a sacrilegious invasion of sacerdotal privilege, to look into the Scriptures. If it might seem hard thus to constitute a new sin, in addition to the long list already denounced