dred, in point of numbers-its weight, as far as understanding goes, we had better leave to be illustrated by himself.

This country gentleman' determined to sift the matter to the bottom, and to begin at the beginning, first proposes to inquire into the nature of the Being to whom this style of education is vouchsafed,'-next into the character of the Government under which he lives; and, thirdly, into the situation he fills under that government. His solutions of the three problems are short and oracular, and not likely to be much disputed. In reply to these queries (says he), I affirm-the Being is Man -the character of our Government is what is called a limited Monarchy; and, lastly, the persons alluded to belong to a description of persons called the Working Classes of Society.' (p. 3.) This theory of our Government is of a geometrical nature; and he ingeniously derives its properties from those of the Pyramid.

The next step is, to inquire whether there be any thing in that limited monarchy under which we live, that should make any alteration in the question? I think there is; and to prove it, I shall beg your Lordship's attention to what I may call an outline of such a Government. From one hereditary chief Magistrate it proceeds, by gentle and scarcely perceptible gradations, to the great bulk of the people, which compose, if I may so say, the base of the constitution. It may be likened in fact to a Pyramid, which is the most lasting of all buildings, in much the same manner as a limited Monarchy is the most durable of all Governments. From an extended base, its superstructure is raised, gradually getting smaller and smaller, till it reaches a point; one part not being too heavy or too light for another; the part below feeling not the weight of that above it; a correct proportion appearing throughout, and combining, as a whole, one mass of beauty and of strength. M. de Calonne says, that no where else in the world does such harmony subsist between the several ranks of citizens as in England; and the celebrated historian,* in commenting on the passage, calls "this harmony the firm foundation on which the proud superstructure of the British constitution rests. Ranks vary as much, or perhaps more, than elsewhere; but no one rank has that gigantic pre-eminence which can enable it to trample on its next inferior. In the scale of subordination the distance from top to bottom is great, but the gradation is scarcely perceptible, and the connexion intimate. Each rank, moreover, is interested in the support of the next superior; none are excluded from the hope of rising; † and

* Mitford.'

+ This is no such blunder as it may at first sight appear: the simile halts a little, but it is a mere trifle. In the change which takes place in society one rises and another falls; the character of the country remains unchanged, as one may suppose in a pyramid of cannon-balls, one removed for another, whereby the figure is not destroyed, nor its durability endangered! '

of all the various ranks, the highest is most interested in the support of the whole." What can bear a more correct resemblance to a pyramid? At all events, a pyramid, nearer than any other figure, may be said to represent a limited monarchy, in the same way that a space, inclosed by four equal lines at right angles with each other, is called a square !

Presuming this to be admitted, we come now to the consideration of what place in society do those persons, called the working classes, fill? The answer is clear. They occupy that important part in the pyramid which is called the base, and on which the superstructure rests.

We have thus seen that Man is a most imperfect being, swayed by inclination or passion, and that the constitution of the country is like a pyramid, of which figure the working classes form the base.

This doctrine he illustrates by a diagram, representing two pyramids, with the classes of society, one above the other; and we are surprised to observe him place the gentry below both lawyers and merchants; which almost inclines us to suspect that he is not, after all, a true country gentleman, but something else, though in sheep's clothing,' and acting the part, as far as learning and acuteness are concerned, in great perfection.

The sum of his argument, if such it can be called, even in courtesy, is, that by giving scientific education to the working classes, you destroy the proportion between them and their superiors, who will no longer be able to retain their more clevated station. If our author will only take the trouble to reflect upon the large portion of every working man's time which is necessarily consumed in providing for his daily wants, he will perceive how easy it must always be for the wealthy to keep far above their inferiors, in every pursuit of knowledge. Undoubtedly, when a taste for such noble acquirements as those he dreads sometimes, and sometimes contemns, pervades the the body of the people, the upper classes will naturally improve themselves as well as the rest; But a very little sacrifice of the indulgences incident to their station, will always suffice to maintain their superiority in this, as in the less valuable and dignified circumstances of life.

As for the topics resorted to by our author to vindicate his alarms, and support his unfavourable opinions of learning, they really consist either of misrepresentations of other men's positions-most innocent, no doubt, as arising from manifest misapprehension-or of scraps of instances misapplied-as the case of the Gnostics, who, he says, were great philosophers, believing learning to be the summum bonum, and who maintained,' he assures us, that men, however vicious their practice, would be saved by their learning'-and that of Lord Bacon, who, he says was also a great philosopher-and yet was mean, avaricious, and dishonest!' The dangers of a

little learning are easily traced in such errors as this writer has fallen into, and the arguments he supports them by. The following is a very fair average sample of the reasoning and declamation of which the 77 pages now before us consist. We believe it contains also about as rational views of the subject as are to be found in the lucubrations of most of the visionaries who rack their imaginations to furnish alarming topics, for the purpose of securing men from improvement.

It surely is incumbent on Mr Brougham to let us know to what extent he would carry his mechanic's education; or, to be still more specific, to declare at once, if he would give the working classes as good an education as the Houses of Lords or Commons. If it falls short of that, it cannot bring about the blessed results of the learned gentleman's expectations; it being well known, I believe, that he entertains a very humble opinion of those bodies. Nay, he has, I believe, accused them of intolerance, want of justice, want of principle, of corruption and selfinterest. Admitting, for the sake of argument, all this to be true;-then, has education, advanced so far, not improved the man! But, supposing that the working classes were superior to our senate in ability? Are they to take their places? Is it possible to suppose they will be satisfied with any thing less? And having them, will they be satisfied without their estates? It is absurd to think, that these enlightened mechanics will be such a heaven-born race as to have no passions, no prejudices like other people; that they will be content to till the ground or mend the streets when they are able to instruct the Lords and Commons; that they will feel so much gratitude to their superiors as never to meddle with the government, giving their advice, when called upon, without reward or hope of it; that they will live like labourers, work like labourers, but devote what time they can spare from working hours, to ascertain the longitude, to penetrate the dark recesses of science, or peradventure to find out the philosopher's stone. This, my Lord, it is next to impossible to suppose; yet if they are not thus to act, their talents are of no use; or being used, they will take the helm into their own hands, and steer the vessel of the state into the fanciful harbour of perfection. Hail glorious day! that shall witness "this consummation so devoutly to be wished," when man shall cast off his mortal infirmities, and with them the inclinations and passions inherent in our nature.

At first sight, my Lord, I admit that it seems hard to deny our fellow-creatures what we confess to have derived considerable enjoyment from ourselves. But, with the same propriety, may the person that claims education from your Lordship on such terms, claim part of your estate! Yet I know this is not unfrequently urged in favour of education. It does not deserve the name of an argument-it is but a superficial remark; and whatever is looked at superficially is, generally speaking, incorrect. The populace ever judge superficially; the probability therefore is, that they are ever wrong: nor, with the little time they are able to devote to study, will all the education they can receive ever do

them good, for they will become dissatisfied with their ignorance, before they will be wise enough to profit by their knowledge. It is reported, I think, of Cato, when the populace cheered a remark he made, that he asked his neighbour what he had said amiss. Why should not your Lordship, like another Cato, hold their applause in like contempt; and, like him stand forward as your country's champion ?

In this proposal of the learned Gentleman's there is nothing to merit praise. It has not even novelty to recommend it. It must be in the recollection of your Lordship that Voltaire attempted, alas! too successfully, the philosophizing his unfortunate countrymen by nearly the same means. He formed his disciples into coteries, who met periodically to discuss subjects and read books suggested and recommended by him.' Then follows one of the usual invectives of the speculative writer against knowledge, as leading to infidelity; and, assuming the French school to be the model which the English is now following, though he candidly allows, without intending it or perceiving the consequences, he adds an appendix of Atheistical quotations from Mirabaud, Diderot, &c. with literal translations. We need hardly state, that he therefore earnestly implores the Noble Lord to whom his alarms are addressed, to save the country from the irretrievable ruin and despair into which the plans of the Educators must speedily plunge it. In aid of these apprehensions, he asserts, that he is informed 6 that some of Mr Brougham's leading cooperators are Unitarians, and consequently members of a sect hostile to the Established Church.' Whether he alludes to Lord Liverpool or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have openly avowed the strongest opinions in favour of education being extended to all classes; and have nobly said, God forbid that any science should be deemed too good to be taught the working part of the community!'-or to Mr Peel and Mr Huskisson, who have encouraged, by their subscriptions and exhortations, Mechanics' Institutions and Schools of Arts, we are not enabled very precisely to ascertain. Possibly it may be the late Bishop of Durham whom our author may have in his eye, for no man showed a more decided favour towards the scientific instruction of the people. The places even where those dreadful seminaries of Jacobinism and Atheism are holden, do not escape our author's indignation. But here he is not so happy in his facts. The mistaking Cato for Phocion in his classical allusions was very harmless to the subject-matter; but he confounds Dr Lindsay of the Essex Street Chapel, who has been dead many years, with the venerable teacher of the Congregation in Monkwell Street, and then charges the London Mechanics Institution with being cradled in a Socinian place of worship.' The same eagerness to bring a kind of accusation,

VOL. XLV. No. 89.

N

which always bears the highest premium in the market of outcry and alarm, has led many other controversialists of late to make the same statement with absolute confidence. They find a passage in Mr Brougham's Tract on Popular Education, expressing a most just respect for the late Dr Lindsay, of Monkwell Street, as a steady and enlightened friend of civil and religious liberty; and therewithal they are pleased to forget the difference between Monkwell Street and Essex Street, (though Theophilus Lindsay's chapel is always mentioned in connexion with Essex Street), in order to raise the outcry of Socinianism. The Monkwell Street Congregation, and their venerable Pastor, are well known to have been strict Presbyterians; and we fear our Mother-church and all her branches are pretty well known for a still more unrelenting hatred of Socinians than even the Romish or Episcopalian communions.

To make the reader some amends for the commonplace topics of this very well meaning, but visionary and ill-informed writer, we may give the following as a novelty in the almost expiring controversy between the dark-loving school and the educators.

Unwilling as I am to trespass longer upon your Lordship's patience, I cannot resist calling your attention to a few further observations, which occur to me in opposition to this baneful project. Suppose, for instance, that some friend to humanity were to attempt to improve the condition of the beasts of the field;-to teach the horse his power, and the cow her value;-would he be that tractable and useful animal he is, and would she be so profuse of her treasures to a helpless child? Could any thing be more impolitic? Yet there is not, that I know of, any express law against it; nor would it be one jot more ridiculous than teaching tailors and cobblers "the beautiful system of geometry."

There is, however, in this pamphlet, a very praiseworthy spirit of mildness and candour, with few exceptions. It is not perhaps among these, but through inadvertence, that the author tells Mr Brougham how much better he would employ his great talents and laudable motions in proposing some improvements in our Universities and first rate schools'-forgetting the reception which that Gentleman met, from the alarmists of our author's class, when he formerly ventured to cast a glance towards those Institutions. But we fear the Postscript can hardly be exempted from the charge of wanting candour; for there the writer speaks of that amiable gentleman, William Carlyle, as Mr B.'s very honourable associate and very meritorious cooperator in this beautiful system of philosophy'— without being pleased to recollect the bitter attacks of Mr C. and his associates upon the London Mechanics' Institution, for refusing the use of its Hall to them, when they grant it to all the world besides.