ordinary private channels of communication, conveying innumerable reports of scandalous outrages, were equally polluted. That the outbreak was of much less turbulent and alarming a nature than any former one with which it could be compared, we cheerfully record; and also that the 'faction' failed through the christian principle' of a few, and the improved sense of many, on whom it sought to practise,' joined to the general conviction of the irresistible power of the law. The remembrance alone, however, of what we saw, and heard from the best authorities, throughout the week of riot, setting aside the more important acts of depredation reported in the newspapers, compels us to examine most cautiously the estimate of the morality of the poor formed by an advocate who asserts that: Save in one spot, there was no depredation on property.' Yet have we seen very many instances of distinguished excellence among the poor; we doubt if any one has seen superior. Acquaintance with them has been an augmentation of our happiness, and a stimulus to personal improvement. For all this, we are unable to think of a single family that corresponds to the idea which, we believe, an intelligent stranger would form of the families of the poor in general, if instructed by no one but our author. We fear that his assertions relative to their morality require modifications as important as those we have suggested of his hints concerning their 'simple taste of elegance,' and of his account of the turn-out.' The superior instances that we have known, have been of christian people, or, at least, of people subject from their childhood to the action of the gospel. Their intellectual nature has been developed, not 'feebly,' but with extraordinary power; some features of their moral character have been heroic; their general course has been dignified and respectable. Blemishes and deficiencies, more grievous, too, than mere readers of Dr. Hamilton's volume would think possible, we have candidly considered as their misfortune rather than their fault. They would serve us admirably for subjects, were we preparing "Tales of the English Peasantry; and they are of great use, though not of such as that to which our author applies them, when we turn our thoughts to popular education. But people of this kind, (and we fancy that it was of such favoured objects of his own ministry that our author was thinking, when he undertook a description of the Poor'), are not fair representatives of their crowded order. The larger part of what our author treats as the morality of the poor, we regard as conventionalisms and traditionary usages,' unworthy of the name of moral virtue. We have sometimes thought that he uses the word 'morals' as opposed to crimes in the judgment of the law,' or to such 'vices as we predicate of animals, rather than as syno

nymous with virtues that spring from moral principle;' but altogether, we are constrained to suppose that he employs it in the latter and more philosophical sense; the one, too, which is, to his readers, the ordinary sense. And supposing this, we are staggered, not so much by his comparative estimate of the moral character of the poor, as by his account of its own independent worth. With the comparison between it and the moral state of other classes, we have no present business; though certainly we are not prepared to assign its rank according to our author's apparent leaning. But when we read his description of their moral feelings, principles, and conduct, inquiries such as these burst from us in surprise: Can there be this moral culture, or this uncultivated but most beauteous moral nature, with merely a 'feeble' intellectual development? Can there be such a moral state as this, and yet the sluggishness so prevalent among them to employ the means of intellectual elevation already in their hand? Would a people with such morals, be in need of external provision for the formation of their minds? Are not the really moralized among them independent of such aid? Would the present loud outcry for the education of the people' have arisen among almost all the wealthier classes, had not appearances the reverse of moral awakened and alarmed them? In short, told of their industry, can we forget it is inevitable; of their love and pride of children, how generally the love is in proportion to the children's probable or actual earnings; of their conjugal fidelity, that, we believe more frequently than not, it has been preceded by the degradation of the maiden; of their longing after home, that it is usually a form of combined self-conceit, envy, and inertness; of their simple welcome of hospitality, that it is compatible with the most artful forms of dependency; of their truth, that it is associated with an almost savage cunning; of their keen anguish of bereavement, that the neglecters and abusers of the living are not the least distinguished for it; of their patience in illness, that mindless insensibility presents the same appearances; and of their confiding and grateful susceptibility, that moral gratitude can warm no heart but that which trusts, and that suspicion is the last vice we ever expect to see thoroughly eradicated from the heart of man?

We shall neither work up the few hints we thus communicate, nor proceed in the same strain. We would rather tell the class whose selfishness and despotism have forced the transmission of demoralized feelings and habits through ages and generations' of the poor, what crimes are chargeable on them, and what are the only accounts they have it in their power to render. But our chief motive to do either would be, desire to

contribute something towards furthering popular education of a much more thorough, emotional, pains-taking, and self-perpetuating kind, than what will ever be instituted if the poor are thought to be in the moral stage depicted by our author. We never blamed a poor man for his contracted, dim, and perverted moral views. If he is to be censured, God is the judge; and He will judge uprightly. But we hold it as a very obvious truth, that the poor of this country have not yet been placed in circumstances to obtain superior views; and the result of our observations coincides with our belief. We cannot, therefore, even seem to adopt and recommend such statements of their condition, however plausible and flattering, as can but, at the best, produce an immediate pleasurable excitement in their favour, at the loss of much painful but well-directed and sustained exertion to promote their highest good. They are already distinguished by as much moral beauty in proportion to the moral culture they have received, as any man, whether sanguine friend or captious foe, can reasonably expect. This, we do not deny, clothes them with some poetic interest; but their capabilities, their wrongs, their debasement, and their immortality, are fitter themes for the production of a strong, enduring, and efficacious sympathy on their behalf.

The third chapter, 'on the principal divisions of the labouring community,' is, in our esteem, both instructive and, because felicitous in doing justice, delightful. Its chief object is to redeem the employment of the manufacturing artizan from the reproaches so freely and so foully cast upon it by parliamentary and other aristocratagogues, as if it were eminently and designedly charged with unhealthful, stupifying, and demoralizing elements. We have already adverted to one instance contained in this chapter, of what we think the author's partial advocacy of his clients. More than one might, perhaps, be pointed out; but we have said enough upon this subject. The entire chapter is very valuable. It is inserted, we suppose, in order to efface the impression, that the education of the manufacturing poor is necessarily a hopeless task, and that they must be distributed in other occupations ere they will appreciate, or fructify under, educational advantages. We particularly direct attention to the comparison between the tendencies of the hind's circumstances in this country, and those of the artizan, to develop intellect, to injure health, to promote happiness, and to sustain an independent spirit. No man, with a judgment free to pronounce according to evidence, can read this chapter and not at once conclude, that it will be Britain's wisdom to improve, as much as may be, her manufacturers' condition, and at the same time to multiply their numbers. Let her only unfetter their

powers, and honour their vocation, and they will improve their own condition. Their freedom and their other dues enjoyed, they will become the glory of their race.

The kind of education adapted to the poor,' is the important subject of the following chapter. The topics introduced are many; we could have wished for others, and also for a more thorough discussion of two or three. No reference is made to the large and pitiable class of 'pauper children,' the inmates of our workhouses, or to the practical difficulties in the way of their education. The case, too, of female children, is barely noticed. A page and a half only is devoted to them; and that is occupied with little except pleading that they be not despised or overlooked. The specialities of their condition and wants are only subjects of remote allusion; and no effort is made either to sketch the requisite provision, or to describe its action. Throughout the chapter, indeed, the opinions and recommendations are characterized by a vagueness and generality, not more unsatisfactory to a man ready to oppose, than to another desirous to adopt them. Thus, the fundamental inquiries relative to the necessity and the desirableness of direct religious instruction in the common day-school, are neither analysed so that all which they involve appears, nor answered so that the friends of the poor may know whether or not they have the weighty authority of Dr. Hamilton in sanction of their conduct. He says in one place, That all knowledge should be accompanied by christianity, is only saying, that christianity is so important that it should give temper to all our pursuits. To say that all knowledge should be based on christianity, is little short of absurd. Almost every province of science lies out of the field of Revelation. Both possess independent grounds.' (pp. 61, 62.) Almost immediately afterwards we read, Religion has been prominently placed and urged' in certain schemes of education. With this we can bave no dissatisfaction. Christianity, the religion of salvation by the cross of Christ, cannot be made too public and disciplinary in moral training.' Of the same tendency is the following: 'Let the youngest scholar be taught the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divine Incarnation of the Eternal Son, the Atonement of the Cross,' &c. The hold of these blessed verities on the mind cannot be too early given.' That the author is not speaking of either domestic or Sundayschool instruction, but of the ordinary day-school, we are forced to suppose; not only because there is no limiting specification, but because he presently adds; Nor can it be unimportant in the present day to make the explanation and defence of protestantism a very prominent article in our schools.' Ile then writes; 'In this connexion we are the stout advocates

of catechetical methods and forms. have invented nothing wiser. . .

so well-contrived an instrument for teaching religion? Why compromise ourselves that we may receive a tribute to our liberalism?' On p. 79, too, we find, 'The education which is denounced, because wholly secular, requires some little noticc. Does such exist in our country? Is there the school in which is found no inspired verse? Is not morality infused into the reading-lesson and copy-book?' And yet, seemingly on the other side, in part at least, we are told on pp. 82, 83, And in stating the kind of information required by the working classes, the most sacred regard must be manifested towards conscience. It must be allowed that men have spoken of the poor as materials to be worked up into any religious profession. And education has been made to act this tyrannic part. It has been refused to all who would not subscribe to particular formulary, or bow in particular rite. . . . Is there not danger of demanding this compromise in the very extension of education? Distinct denominations of religionists are beginning to devise methods of meeting the wants of the people. The probability is, that numerous schools will shortly arise among us, more sectarian, (the epithet is not employed invidiously), than have hitherto existed. Every place of worship may set up one as its proper appendage. These will be indebted to their own communities. A corresponding impress will be stamped upon each. This is natural and unavoidable. The place of worship and the school will have one doctrine. But general education is a good. Should you fetter its possession by any pledge of religious conformity? Many may need that education, who are not of that religious enrolment: it may be that they cannot elsewhere obtain it. Will you deny it them? Teach them, over whom you have just control, or admitted influence, all you believe even to its particle but refuse not to teach them, whom you cannot thus sway rightfully, as far as they will be taught, only because conscience declines the ulterior instruction.' This last passage contains the only approximation to a luminous and formal statement of our author's views. Till we read it, we were unable to divine them. While studying the preceding twenty pages, we had attributed to him first one opinion, then another. It would almost seem, that till he was engaged in writing he had not felt all the difficulties of his subject, and had not determined what tertium quid would best anticipate opposition. What appears his final choice, that religion should be always taught, and, of course, according to the convictions of those who have made themselves responsible for the maintenance of the school, but that children whose guardians disapprove of the religious dogmas