applicant, who objected to any peculiar form of worship, can never receive from the trustees of such a joint concern, the same answer, as from the governors, either of our own foundation schools, or of academies belonging to the dissenters themselves. In either of the two latter cases the answer would be, If you cannot consent that your son should conform to the religious, as well as literary usage of this seminary, you must place him elsewhere.' But in the first case the right is formally abandoned, to prescribe in the institution itself, the religion to which the children shall be brought up. In the schools therefore of Mr. Lancaster, which are jointly supported by churchmen and dissenters, the principle of tuition, which he has in common with Dr. Bell, can never enter into perfect union with the doctrine and discipline of the established church: a separation on the sabbath day will unavoidably take place; and though provision may be made by the intervention of other causes, to obtain a partial attendance at churches or chapels under the establishment, such attendance can never become a permanent and general rule, On the other hand, though the broad basis of the Lancasterian system prevents it from being made subservient to the support of any one religious party, and of assuming therefore the character of Dr. Bell's system, as hitherto practised, it is not impossible that the latter should assume the nature of the former. Though the religious combination is not mutually transferable, yet one at least of the systems is capable of change. Though we cannot enforce, in the schools of Mr. Lancaster, a general rule for attendance at church, we can introduce into the schools of Dr. Bell the same latitude in respect to places of divine worship which exists in the schools of Mr. Lancaster. But then the character which has hitherto attached to Dr. Bell's system, and which has chiefly recommended it to the friends of the establishment would be changed; as far as education has influence on religion, which used to be considered as a principal part of it, the two systems would be reduced to a footing of equality; and the system of Dr. Bell, by whatever name it might be called, would in fact become Lancasterian. But as we cannot imagine that either Dr. Bell should desire, or his patrons advise a departure from that religious combination which has hitherto distinguished and recommended his system, we shall continue to consider such religious combination as forming the essential difference between his own and that of Mr. Lancaster.

After these preliminary observations on the nature of the two systems, let us consider their relative situation at the period to which we have alluded; namely, the month of June 1811; from that month we may date the commencement of those measures which led to the formation of the national society of which the first Report is now under consideration. At that time the system of

Mr. Lancaster, aided by exalted patronage, was rapidly spreading throughout the kingdom, while the number of schools which had been organized by Dr. Bell was comparatively small. Various attempts had indeed been made to explain the consequences to which the general adoption of the Lancasterian system would ultimately lead but nothing seemed to be capable of arresting its progress, and there was reason to apprehend, that a system of education would become general in this kingdom, in which no provision was made for the established religion. And as the history of all ages and all countries attests, that the religion of the people is dependent on their education, the rising generation was exposed to the danger of losing the religion of their fathers. Mr. Lancaster himself had declared, that if any particular sect obtained the principal care in a national system of education, that part would soon be likely to possess the greatest power and influence in the state.' The consequence therefore of entrusting this national education to any one who neglected to found it on the national religion, must, according to Mr. Lancaster's own acknowledgment, be the final prevalence of the substituted religious system over that which is at present established. This inference applies not so much to the person as to the plan; it is not merely because Dr. Bell is a churchman, that the friends of the establishment (as falsely asserted) have preferred him to Mr. Lancaster; for if Dr. Bell himself conducted religious education on the same broad basis with Mr. Lancaster, the inference would be equally true, and the objections equally valid. If therefore the religion, by law established in this country, is to be transmitted to posterity, as we have received it from our forefathers, it is this religion, and not any generalized system of christianity which must be made the foundation of national education. To establish a religion by law, and yet to make any other religion, whether general or particular, the foundation of a national system of education, is to destroy with one hand what we build with the other; and it would be more rational to abolish our religious establishment at once, than to have recourse to such an absurdity.

Reflexions like these were, at the period above-mentioned, submitted to the public from the pulpit of St. Paul's, and very generally diffused throughout the kingdom. The friends of the establishment very soon perceived the necessity of active measures to restore the established religion to that place in our system of education which it had been accustomed to occupy, but was then in danger of losing. The impulse being once given, a number of zealous and real patriots, whose names have been modestly concealed from the public, formed a plan for a general association throughout the kingdom, in support of the established religion.

For

For this purpose a Prospectus was drawn up, and communicated to the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, who expressed their approbation of it, and promised their co-operation. At the same time the Archbishop of Canterbury consulted the Prince Regent, who likewise expressed his approbation of the intended institution, and afterwards became its supporter and patron. In this Prospectus it was stated, that

Beside the advantages resulting from the mechanism of the new system, another benefit, of the highest importance to the nation at large, is derived from the circumstance, that this mechanism is conducted by Dr. Bell, in perfect unison with the doctrine and discipline of the established church. It is indeed essential to the preservation of the constitution, both in church and in state, that the national religion should be made the foundation of national education; and it is evident, that if the children of the poor, who constitute so large a portion of the population of the country, should be generally educated in other principles than those of the established church, the established church, in the course of another generation, would have a majority against it. That this event, with the consequent downfall of the church itself, is really to be apprehended, unless speedy measures be taken to prevent it, is manifest from the rapid progress which is now making toward the diffusion of the mechanical part of this system detached from the religious part of it, as practised by Dr. Bell."

But as the proposed institution was designed only as a measure of self-defence, as a measure necessary for retaining in the establishment the children of the poor, who might otherwise be withdrawn from it, and was not at all designed to interfere with the just privileges of the dissenters, the following declaration was immediately added.

'It must indeed be admitted in this country of civil and religious liberty, that every man has a right to pursue the plan of education that is best adapted to the religion which he himself professes. Whatever religious tenets, therefore, men of other persuasions may think proper to combine with the mechanism of the new system, whether tenets peculiar to themselves, or tenets of a more general nature, they are free to use the new system so combined, without reproach or interruption from the members of the establishment. On the other hand, the members of the establishment are not only warranted, but in duty bound to preserve that system, as originally practised, in the form of a church of England education.'

The Prospectus then concluded with the following exhortation.

The friends, therefore, of the establishment throughout the kingdom, are earnestly requested to associate and co-operate, for the purpose of promoting the education of the poor in the doctrine and discipline of the established church. It is hoped that such co-operation will not be wanting, when the object in view is nothing less than the preservation of the national religion, by ensuring to the great body of

A 3

the

the people an education adapted to its principles. And since that object can be attained by no other means, it may be fairly presumed, that every man will be ready to co-operate, who is attached to our invaluable constitution, of which the parts are so interwoven, that the destruction of the one must lead to the dissolution of the other.'

The necessary steps having been thus taken to bring the proposed institution into existence, a meeting was held at Bartlett's Buildings on the 16th of October, 1811, (the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair,) at which it was resolved, that the proposed institution should be established, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be the president, and that a committee, of which the Bishop of London was appointed chairman, should draw up rules for the government of the society, which assumed the title of the National Society for the Education of the Poor, throughout England and Wales, in the Principles of the Established Church. On the 21st of October the Archbishop again took the chair at a general meeting held in the vestry-room at Bow Church, when the rules for the government of the society were unanimously approved. The whole of the proceedings were then submitted to the Prince Regent, who expressed his entire approbation of them, and became the patron of the National Society.

We have thought it the more necessary to give a short account of the origin and formation of this important institution, as they are not generally known, and indeed have been elsewhere incorrectly related. Its subsequent history is furnished by the documents which are now published. The institution, as soon as known, was very liberally supported: not only the Prince Regent, but the Dukes of York, Cumberland, Cambridge, and Gloucester, were among the foremost of the subscribers; the bench of bishops, with a very large proportion of temporal peers and privy councillors, in short the clergy and laity of every description shewed equal zeal in their support of an institution which involved the interest of church and state. The two universities subscribed five hundred pounds each, independently of individual subscriptions to a considerable amount. Aided by these contributions, which, in the course of a few weeks, extended to as many thousands of pounds, the committee proceeded to carry into execution the designs for which the society was founded; a correspondence was opened in various parts of the kingdom with the view of gradually promoting a general co-operation among the friends of the establishment: and to effect the two-fold purpose of educating the poor in thé metropolis, and providing a constant supply of masters for the provincial schools, which should enter into union with the parent institution, they determined to erect a central school in such a situation, as from the number and the indigence of the inhabitants,

appeared

appeared best suited to the purpose. Six months have scarcely elapsed from the commencement of these measures, yet a school has been built and already opened in Baldwin's Gardens, in which a thousand children are now instructed, and where masters and mistresses are now in training, according to the system of Dr. Bell. Dr. Bell himself has for this purpose passed the winter in London, employing his time and talents without other remuneration than what arises from the consciousness of doing good. We have, with pleasure, surveyed the progress already made in this charitable seminary; and if a doubt should still be entertained whether writing and arithmetic, as well as reading, are patronized by the National Society, and taught in the schools of Dr. Bell, that doubt may be removed at the seminary itself, which is open to the curiosity and to the instruction of every visitor.

Having assigned the motives for the formation of the National Society, given some account of the steps which were taken for that purpose, and briefly stated the nature of its operations, which greatly exceed what the novelty of the institution might have led us to expect, and for which we are highly indebted to the conductors of it, let us now take a review of the principles on which the society is founded, with reference to the various objections which have been made to them. These principles were stated in the prospectus originally communicated to the archbishops and bishops, and of which we have already quoted the material parts. When the society was formed, the same principles were adopted as the charter of the institution; and the public address, in which the terms were explained on which contributions were solicited, bore the title of Education in the Principles of the Established Church!' The professed object, therefore, of the institution, the avowed purpose for which the friends of the establishment were requested to contribute and co-operate, was not merely to espouse or to oppose the cause of an individual; it was not merely to enter into party views or party spirit; it was not merely to elevate one name or to depress another; it was not merely to proclaim that the mechanism of the new system was more skilfully conducted in one school than in another. Much higher ground was taken by the National Society, which was founded on the unalterable basis 'Education in the Principles of the Established Church.' It was the religious combination of the new mechanism, as practised by Dr. Bell, which determined the National Society to adopt his system in preference to the other. This indeed is expressly declared in the public address prefixed to the primary resolutions. The members of the establishment (it says) are not only warranted, but in duty bound, to preserve that system, as originally practised at Madras, in the form of a Church-of-England education.' And