ments, pro and con, respecting the Rev. Dr. Bell," so called, and "Mr. Lancaster, each of them so highly meritorious in their respective labours, that their name never ought to be brought in contact, but in cases of unavoidable necessity; but no such delicacy is necessary with regard to their schools: these ought, and ever must be open to comparison and animadversion. But observe, althongh I say schools, there is but one system, and that indisputably owes its origin to Dr. BELL, that which LANCASTER is pleased to call his, being but a second edition of the Madras system, tricked out with a string of puerilities, vulgar as barbarous, and now no less ostentatiously than falsely ushered into the world, under the glittering title of The Royal Lancastrian System.' Royal"-it seems it may be, "since it cannot be denied that our excellent sovereign," he says, "was inadvertently drawn in to honour Mr. Lancaster with his patronage; but as to

Observer thus boldly exercises their judical authority-" Such is the general organization of this gigantic establishment, this tremendous instrument of good and evil, by which the education of the rising race is wholly monopolized by the state. What is said on the subject of educating the lower orders, is vague and indeterminate; and donbtless one object of Bonaparte, in thus acquiring the complete sovereignty over the minds as well as the bodies of his subjects, is, to have it in his power to withhold from them all knowledge which will not tend to mould them to his will. So much is it the object of this system to destroy the free exercise of individual judgement, and to produce a slavish uniformity of opinion, that it is made criminal to use in school any book, even a primer, which has not been sanctioned by the sign-manual of the emperor." (vide Lit. and PhilIntel. p. 272, 273. vol. VII.) Thus much for this (once) "citizen," first consul, and "renovator of the world;" "lover of liberty and literature," and "star to all nations." E. W.

the system itself, it ever was, still is, and ever will remain that of its inventor, Dr. BELL."* That these two great philantropists should differ as widely as their profession or denomination, I have no doubt

on my mind; but as their schools are open for comparison," any one hath a right, it appears, to examine their merits. Reviewers have devoted their criticism-the daily prints have been made the medium of discussion," and the advocates of Bell's system appear determined on a victory over Lancaster, by what is called "writing a man down." Yes, Bell's partizans seem to have outstripped all former supporters of paradoxical assertions!"

Whoever wishes to obtain more information, or "a clear view of the comparative merits of the two systems," may, perhaps, be fully satisfied by perusing an "Account" (or a Review) of "a Vindication of Lancaster's system of education, from the aspersions of professor Marsh;" or in the quarterly British Anti-jacobin Review, &c. I shall only make the following observation from "the Baptists' Magazine for 4th month, 1812. (p. 174-176.) "We certainly do live in an age of extraordinaries. Astonishing discoveries are constantly pressing upon our attention, from every branch of science: things that were wont to be regarded as the very elements of nature, have been decomposed, and proved to be compounds of materials never suspected to have existence together, till this discovering age detected their coalition." "If any of our pious forefathers imagined that no improvement could take place in the first

* No. 287, for the 7th month, 1812, p. 430, 431.

principles in these important branches of human science, they would have stood correct immediately, on being introduced to some learned professor," or some keen-eyed critics of the present day.

To say nothing of the variety of contradictions and extraordinary opinions respecting "the education of the poor," neither any thing about the difference of the expenses for instruction, on the plan of these two great schools; perhaps they may be nearly equal, the true question, in many hundred instances is, and will be, shall the poor receive any instruction or none ?-upon the system of the Lancastrian, or according to that of the Madras, called Dr. Bell's ? A plan "falsely and very improperly termed national." For it should seem "Bell's system, as given to the public by its patrons, rejects all those whose parents are not of the establishment, or who cannot conscientiously permit their children to be taught to repeat its formularies.” And, although we find a learned bishop in the west, some time since declared his opinion" (on the degree of knowledge for the poor)" that all this will be best accomplished by giving them no instruction whatsoever-' there must be an ignorant class to do the drudgery of the community;'" yet the reviewer assures us also "the aspect of things has changed since the promulgation of that opinion, and the right reverend prelate is become, with other anti-instructionists, a patron of Dr. Bell's system of education, for the instruction of the poor."

But as it respects the "inconsistency of conduct" I allude to at Duncan Street School: would a Me

thodist, a Baptist, or an Independent suffer their charity children to become "a prey to the wolves," or beasts of prey-" to be led captive”—or at least to go to any place of worship they please, or perhaps to none? I say would any of these denominations of christians suffer these children to attend a "silent meeting?" I believe the contrary. If I am informed right, something of this sort would be the language of a Calvinistic Dissenter, to such a child, desirous, perhaps, to exercise liberty of conscience in the midst of different practices-instruction. "My dear, you had better stay where you are, either come wholly (over) to us, or attend wholly where you are!"

Indeed, I do believe, your liberality (or rather, latitudinarian spirit) is not to be paralleled in this important matter. This should be the invitation (if I was one of the committee) I would hold to all the parents (if there be any) of poor children. Neighbour, wilt thou permit us to educate thy child (or children) clothe and feed them, and instruct their souls in the nurture and fear of the Lord, after the same manner as we do our own children-teaching them to "worship the God of our fathers ?" &c. If such a one should answer in the affirmative, it might be well with him; if in the negative, to such a one I would say, go thy ways, conscience is free, and thou art at liberty to do as thou wilt with thine own but consider, and mark well what thou doest.

But perhaps some of you may urge, that upon my plan it would be impossible to do one-twentieth part of the good which you now (think you) do. Ad

mitted for argument's sake, and that there is no necessity (so small a part you make of "the millions!") that you should do more than the other parts; yet, is it not better that ten souls should be reclaimed from the errors of the times,-from darkness into marvellous light,-"light within," than to be accessary to hundreds going astray,-wandering like sheep without a shepherd? If nothing further was required to be done, than simply teaching reading and arithmetic, so far would be praise worthy; particularly if their parents are not able (I won't say not willing) to give it them. But why not feed the hungry, and clothe the naked? Are not these commands of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ (not to say any thing here of the injunctions and examples of his immediate disciples) as powerful and binding upon us in the nineteenth century, as it is to preach repentance unto salvation? I know nothing in favour of the former (that of simple education) than that it takes but little out of the pockets of the wealthy, (upon the Lancastrian, or Dr. Bell's plan,) and little of the time of those who have little else to do!

You cannot, I think, urge, that you have not the necessary means," the needful." Yea, I believe you can do it (for as many as may be required at, your hands), if that you can be "taking up carriages," 'keeping of horses and dogs,” and “laying out hundreds of pounds on your villas," (and town dwelling houses,) "in costly furniture, sofas," &c. &c. what can, at least, what ought, to hinder?

66

But if all the poor children which you take im