in the good intentions of its authors, as originating in religious heartlessness, and the most sinister of political designs-as it is, we should deplore its establishment as a national calamity; and only hope that through Providential interposition, or the extraordinary vitality of our old English attributes, religion and manliness would not give place, in a generation or two, to unchecked priestism and popular servility.

With these views and feelings, we cannot but rejoice that the educational voluntaries appear to be alive to the danger with which their principles and interests are threatened. We believe the danger to be real and imminent. We believe that by a combination of heteroge neous parties, and a temporary compromise of opposite designs-that with or against the consent of the secular party, and their clients, the working classes-a system of mixed religious education will be presented by the Whig ministry to the next, if not to the present Parliament. It, therefore, behoves those who have faith in the truth and power of the voluntary principle, seriously to consider how best they can preserve their convictions from violence, and their institutions from damage, at the hands of a power which should protect both, but will probably respect neither. They should be prepared for the consequences of defeat, as well as for the exertions of resistance that is to say, they should contemplate and provide for their possible position under either of the above schemes. And we will add, that to us it seems, if the secular plan should be adopted by the legislature, it will yet be possible to supplement its grave deficiencies, and counteract its mischiefs, by the indefinite improvement of our Sunday schools, and the adoption of other methods for religiously educating the people-but the evils of the other seem scarcely capable of mitigation, and only to admit of passive resist

ance.

We rejoice to find that the Congregational Board of Education have commenced a course of action well adapted, in our judgment, to the purposes we have indicated-calculated both to avert the impending danger, and to prepare for ultimate consequences. The papers, read at a public meeting convened by the Board, and which we this month enlarge our limits in order to reprint, are beautifully logical and eloquent elaborations of thoughts which we could here only express. At a conference of friends held the next day, it was resolved systematically to agitate the public mind upon the subject. It is impossible, we believe, that Englishmen should consent to the establishment in their midst of either of the systems projected, if the whole case be put before them. Even working-men, however laudably eager that their children should enjoy advantages denied to themselves, will not our knowledge of them assures us-consent to secure them at the cost of grievous injustice to large classes of the community; nor will they refuse to acknowledge that it is the very hardship of their own social condition-the little pay for much work, the heavy taxation of their comforts, the importance of even children's wages to the family earnings-that constitutes the chief recommendation to them, but is a great objection, in truth, to a free-school system. But while

our friends may well employ both argument and fact, we would earnestly urge them to furnish the demonstrative evidence of deeds. Such an educational organization as would combine the resources of several denominations, and consolidate in but a few towns the scattered machinery of congregations or local committees, would be the best, and a practical reply to taunts of inefficiency and sectarianism. No slight difficulties, we would earnestly trust, will be allowed to prevent this most desirable attainment. Finally, we would express a hearty wish that this great controversy might always be conducted in the spirit which pervaded the papers and speeches at the meetings alluded to the same candour towards opponents, the same abstinence from pointless sarcasm and exaggerated objection, which were then exhibited. It would be in keeping with the solemnity of, and promote the elimination of truth upon, a subject that may fairly be said to transcend the most important of immediate interests, and to affect less this generation than its successors-for while measures of finance or political privilege may be modified as experience may dictate, the education imparted within a few years must propel countless and irrevocable streams of influence far into the future.

FREE EDUCATION SCHEMES.*

Objections to a System of Free Education for the People, based on General or Local Taxation. A Paper read at a Public Meeting convened by the Congregational Board of Education, held June 26th. By CHARLES ROBERTSON, Esq., of Liverpool.

I CONCEIVE that I shall be most likely to accomplish the object which the originators of this meeting had in view, when summoning us together, by confining myself to those aspects of the educational question which are common to all schemes for providing popular and gratuitous instruction, by compulsory means, and showing how these schemes are each and all based on principles that inflict injustice on some one class or other of the community, and contravene those conditions of progress, which, in other departments of human action, have been so successfully established in our national experience. I am aware that there are further objections of a very grave character, to which the particular plans that have hitherto been submitted to public approval are open, and to some of these your attention will probably be directed this evening; but, putting aside the consideration of details, it has always appeared to me that a prior question demands inquiry and solution, viz.-Whether any measure for promoting education by compulsory support-be it in the form of educationrates locally levied and applied—or of grants of public money-can be instituted without invading the freedom of the individual, the responsibility of the parent, and the proper functions of the governing power? My firm conviction is, that it cannot: that all such schemes violate fundamental principles of social equity and progress, and are essentially communistic in their tendencies. I know that this charge is regarded as something slanderous by the supporters of these various plans; and it is considered that in applying it, we are having recourse to the asperities of mere party-warfare, and seeking to attach opprobrious epithets to those who differ from us, instead of meeting their statements with

We have to express our acknowledgment of the promptitude and courtesy with which the Committee of the Congregational Board of Education acceded to our request for permission to publish the above, and two following papers.-ED. Christian Spectator. M M

VOL. I.

dispassionate examination and argument. Now, it is my wish to disclaim, at the outset, all imputations of this kind. The name may be regarded by many with odium, but the thing is an unquestionable and palpable reality; nay more, if great antiquity-if venerated institutions-if celebrated names-if the all but unvarying practice of most civilized and all uncivilized governments, can make a thing respectable, then communism has some claim to be held in estimation. And, if even in countries possessing the most liberal institutions, and the largest amount of social freedom, we find that the doctrines of communism are still acted upon, though denied a recognition under that name, then, perhaps, it may happen that he, among his contemporaries, is rather the bold and singular man, who sets himself in opposition to those generally received doctrines, and avows himself to be, in all his social relations, material and moral, an anti-communist.

Allow me briefly to define what I understand by communism. Its distinguishing feature, as a theory of society, appears to me to be the assertion that the individual man, by his admission into the community, acquires rights and claims which he did not previously possess, and that the main function of the governing power is to secure for him the enjoyment of these rights and the enforcement of these claims; so that the social man has now a right to demand not merely protection, but food, clothing, shelter, employment, healing, instruction, religious guidance-in short, whatever may be considered necessary to promote his well-being. For here it will be observed, if the right be conceded, it becomes impossible to limit the sphere of its exercise; and the nature and number of the benefits can only be determined, in practice, by the power of the claimant to enforce his demands, and the capability of the society to meet them. In direct opposition to this, is what I may be permitted to call the principle of individualism, which maintains that society can confer no new rights on its members, and that government exists only to secure to each the protection of those rights which he has independently of all society, and the fullest freedom for his individual development, compatible with the exercise of the like freedom on the part of every other member.

Communism, on the contrary, professes to secure for every member the bestowal of all that may be necessary for his well-being and advancement. Such, at least, is its abstract creed. But it will be perceived at a glance that this theory could never be realized in practice, and if it could, would be productive of no possible benefit. For if I am compelled to confer a certain amount of advantage on all my neighbours, and they, in their turn, are required to reciprocate to me a like measure of advantage, it is manifest that none of us would be the gainer. It would merely be a costly and cumbrous mode of leaving every man to procure and enjoy his own advantages. Consequently, practical communism, except in the case of a few harmless dreamers, never takes this shape. It admits the theory, and then ingeniously evades it by applying it to an entirely different set of circumstances. Its principle is, that Government is bound to confer, on certain individuals and classes in the community, those benefits which are indispensable to the well-being of society; and this, of course, at the expense (though great pains are taken to conceal the fact) of other individuals and classes who are supposed either to be disqualified for the exercise of the privilege, or not to stand in need of the benefit. The universally reciprocating principle is tacitly abandoned, and the partially operating beneficence ingeniously substituted. Now this practical communism has been the main element in all governments known to us, only it has been almost invariably communism for the rich, and great, and noble, as against the industrious and the poor. It secured for the one, lands, honours, power, privilege, exemptions; and it made the other, first serfs, then, in the order of time, vassals, and latterly tax-payers. It conferred on these privileged individuals and classes the right to rule-to retain for their own use, and to transmit to their descendants, the soil which God had given for the usufruct of all-to fill the highest appointments in Church and State; it transferred to them great part of the accumulated wealth of one Church, and retained for them the dignities and patronage of another Church; it erected, or appropriated

for their use, when erected by others, colleges and halls of learning; it gave them a monopoly of legislation, by virtue of which they were enabled to shift the burden of taxation from their own shoulders to those of much-enduring industry; it multiplied, with unsparing hand, offices, and appointments, and sinecures, that it might place in comfort, and often in idleness, those favoured classes, to their most remote connexions: in a word, it carried out consistently its own principle, that whatever contributed to the well-being and prosperity of these persons, was a good conferred on the community, which Government was bound to enforce. But this happy condition of things did not always go on smoothly. Unpleasant incidents occurred-such as riots, incendiarisms, jacqueries, French revolutions, political organizations-which showed that the many did not consider the system so admirably adapted to promote the good of the community, as did kings and statesmen. And now it became necessary to provide for these altered feelings of society. What, then, will statesmen propose? Shall it be the abolition of these class privileges and distinctions, which have excited the discontent of the many, and filled them with a rankling sense of injustice? Shall the true remedy for social complaints and wrongs be sought in proclaiming the equality of all men in the eye of the law, and perfect freedom for individual development? No; such has not been the wisdom of the rulers. The remedy with them is an extension of the principle of communism-a compensatory injustice, but injustice still. And now, the avowed policy of many governments is to confer upon labour certain benefits, at the expense of property; to retain communism for the rich, but, as a set-off, to extend it to the poor, by taxing the one class for the supposed benefit of the other. Hence, we have poor-laws, which, though of comparatively an older date, may be still traced up to this change in the spirit of legislation. Hence, too, factory inspection, short-time bills, government grants to promote education among the poor, grants for additional places of worship, Irish colleges, State cemeteries, and all the multiplying tendencies recently shown by Government to do for the people everything that may be considered necessary to promote their good; and we are now told that the poor man has a civil and constitutional right to education, to be furnished with religious instruction, to be relieved in distress, to be clothed and fed in poverty, to be provided with employment, to be buried at the charge of the State. In fine, the hand of the State is to follow him from the cradle to the grave-ministering to all his wants, and conferring on him all the benefits it can dispense, or he may have the power to exact. Now this, equally with the other, is communism; only that here it is for the poor, at the charge of the wealthy. It is the infliction of one injustice in compensation for another. And, as I before said, so I repeat now, if once you admit the principle, it is not possible to limit its application. Grant only that the right to claim benefits from the community resides in any one class, and the sole limitation to its exercise is the power or disposition of that class to enforce the claim, and exact whatever may be considered by it a benefit. I am aware it may suit the purposes of some advocates of a compulsory provision for popular education to deny that this right is claimed; but I know what I am saying, when I assert that this is the language deliberately used, and repeated, by those who have been the most active and zealous in promoting such schemes of education. And, indeed, the whole system of compulsory support rests on this supposed right; without it, the thing would be a naked, unjustifiable tyranny.

If I have now, in any good measure, explained my meaning, and established my position, I am at a loss to perceive why any objection should be taken to the term communistic, as applied to a gratuitous education supported by taxation. For either I have altogether misstated the fundamental principle of communism, in defining it to be a theory of society, which invests the social man with a right to demand from the community whatever may be requisite to promote his physical and moral well-being; or, if I am right, then there must be some reason or other why education should be excluded from the category of benefits thus claimed. But why should the right to employment-to recreation-to food and clothing-to religious instruction-be communistic; and the right to school

education be alone a natural right? I am unable to discover any different foundation for these claims. Because the right to free education must mean one of two things: either that all the members of the community have an equal right to it; and then it follows that I have the same claim on my poor neighbours, or on the workmen whom I may employ, as they have on me; and, in justice, they should be taxed to provide for my son a liberal education-the means of pursuing his studies at the university, and of fitting him for a profession-in the same ratio, namely, according to their ability, that I am called upon to provide for their children instruction in reading and writing, arithmetic and geography. This would be communism in the abstract, and so far would be dealing fairly by all, whatever else may be thought of it. But do our Stateeducation friends mean this? Do they ever dream of imposing this enormous burden on the industrious and working classes, in addition to their present overwhelming load of taxation? No, far from it. Such an intention, I will do them the justice to say, they have never entertained. Then they must mean, by the right to free education, the only remaining idea of which the term is sus ceptible; and that is, a tax levied on certain classes for the benefit of certain other classes the right of my poorer brother to compel me, besides educating my own family, to do the like office for his; the right, in fact, to make me benevolent and generous by the exercise of physical force. Now, this is nothing less than practical communism; and, consequently, the term, applied to gratui tous education supported by taxes, is no calumny, but an undeniable matter of fact.

In connexion with this aspect of the subject, there are two or three plain questions, which I should wish to put to our friends who may be disposed to support one or other of the various schemes of State-education that have been, and are still so perseveringly urged forward; to which, if they can either give or get satisfactory answers, they will do more to promote the cause to which they have attached themselves, than by any representations of the extent of popular ignorance, or the inadequacy of existing institutions to supply this grievous deficiency. These representations no one disputes. They are facts admitted and deplored on all hands. And, therefore, it might be as well to dismiss them altogether from the discussion of this question, as really having nothing to do with it, beyond stimulating every friend of education and philan thropist to put forth the utmost exertion and influence that he can legitimately employ, in order to remove this opprobrium from our national character. The questions, then, which appear to me to need solution are these:-I desire to know on what ground my humble neighbour may compel me to educate his children, and yet claim to be exempt from contributing to educate mine? If this question be satisfactorily answered, I have further to ask, Is there any limit to the provision for his children's education which my neighbour has a right to exact from me; and if so, what limit? For it may happen, that his view of the education which his children have a right to receive may be somewhat different from mine. I may have thought, in my simplicity, that an elementary education would be adequate for the son of a mechanic or a factory-worker; but then, as I am not to be the sole judge in this matter, my neighbour may think that his child has talents which ought to be cultivated; and he may desire for him instruction in the classics, the sciences, the polite arts. He may even aspire to university honours-and why not? That must be clearly a matter for him to determine, if he has the prior right to exact anything; and it is for me to submit and pay. Besides, as my humbler neighbour will one day have the political power to enforce his wishes-a position which I, for one, shall be heartily rejoiced to see him occupy-and as his class will then be a majority in the State, it is not impossible, but quite the reverse, that the exercise of this right, on his part, will assume a very practical form; and it becomes a matter of personal interest for me to know whether there be any limit to this right of his to have education supplied to him at my cost. There remains another inquiry, of a practical character, for which a definite answer would be greatly esteemed. Why is my neighbour's legal claims on my benevolence to stop with the mere rudiments of instruction, or even with the inculcation of moral precepts? Hẹ