greater or lefs in proportion as his command over the means of gratification is greater or lefs!" Fergufon, to whom the author is more than once indebted, has ufed the fame fentiment, but with a very different principle. Mr. Forfyth, with confiderable ingenuity, indeed, denies that happiness was defigned for man, and Mr. Macdiarmid makes it confift in the means of gratification; but as neither of them can guide us to happiness, they muft pardon us for configning fuch opinions to the oblivion which their worthleffnefs deferves. As fubordination is inherent in the inftitutions of nature, we can have no knowledge of the "effects, of natural fubordination;" and the author has devoted five chapters to illuftrate the effects of a law of nature, without the poffibility of our poffeffing any knowledge of what would have been the fate of things, had no fuch law exifted. Here again the author has confounded natural with artificial effects, and has treated of the "increafe and diminution of wealth," which is entirely artificial, without any relation to a ftate of nature.

Part three is occupied with "the Neceffity and Nature of artificial Subordination," in which there is a fufficient number of common fenfe remarks. Its principal divifions treat of the nature. and origin of injuries, connection of natural fubordination with injuries, expedients for the prevention of injuries, connection of artificial fubordination with the prevention of injuries, relation of artificial to natural fubordination, and the means of rendering artificial fubordination effectual. Thefe topics are again fubdivided with much fyftematic accuracy, indeed, into fections, fuch as on felf-love, confcience, legiflators, arbitrators, public inftructors, &c, From the latter we thall give an extract, which conveys a fair idea of the author's opinions of morality,

"Were moral education commenced at a fufficiently early period, and conducted with skill and diligence, it is fcarcely poffible for us, who are accuftomed to fee it fo imperfectly and negligently managed, to conceive the general diffufion of moral knowledge which might take place in a fociety. The inftructor might, by a diligent application of his talents, acquire a much greater portion of moral knowledge than the other members of the fociety. He might, by a careful education, transfufe the greater portion of this knowledge into his pupil, while the faculties of the latter were ftill capable of much further improvement, and while he had still before him a long period of health and ftrength. The pupil thus educated would be placed in a condition to advance much further in the acquifition of moral knowledge than his inftructor: he would already be as far advanced on his way, and would ftill be fresh and vigorous, while his inftructor was about to fink exhaufted to the duft. But if the further acquifitions in moral knowledge, made by the pupil thus inftructed, were in turn communicated to another pupil more near the commencement of his career, the latter would be placed in a condition to advance ftill further than his immediate inftructor; and much farther than the inftructor of his infructor.

"Thus by an early and careful education, the moral knowledge of fociety might be increafed from generation to generation. Every generation might, at an early period of life, attain that degree of moral knowledge which was poffeffed, at a mature age, by the preceding generation; and might, on arriving in its turn at maturity, be poffeffed of a greater degree of moral knowledge than any generation by which it had been preceded."

Unfortunately there has always been more moral knowledge in the world than moral practice; and whilft the human mind con tinues to be influenced by motives, all of which are in favour of the acquifition of moral knowledge, but many of which operate against moral practice, the propagation of fuch knowledge in the minds of youth muft ever be a bufinefs of much greater facility than the formation of moral habits, or the complete establishment of efficient virtuous principles,

The fourth and laft part of this inquiry is on" the Effects of British Martial Law on Military Subordination." In the "diftinction between civil and military fubordination," Mr. Macdiarmid difplays his ufual critical acumen, and very fagaciously tells u$ that civil fubordination relates to every thing that is not military, and that military fubordination relates to foldiers and the army. His remarks, however, on the prefent mode of electing officers, on the diftribution of commiffions, and the means of preferment in the military fervice in this country, are more animated, and, we are forry to fay, are but too juft. After arraigning the baleful practice of making military promotions depend on the influence or intereft of the candidate, he adds:

"However great the rewards attached to commands in the army might be made, they could have no effect in attracting candidates properly qua lified, fo long as officers are appointed in the manner we have seen. Thofe who have neither money nor intereft would ftill be prevented from acquiring the requifite qualifications, by the defpair of turning them to advantage thofe who had either money or intereft would equally neglect to acquire qualifications which they know to be fuperfluous.

From thefe obfervations it appears that the laws and ufages, by which the election of military officers is at prefent regulated in Great Britain, not only afford no provifion for fecuring the competency of those officers at the period of their appointment, but have a direct tendency to preclude every chance of their being competent at that period. But we have feen that Military Subordination must neceffarily be ineffectual, or, according to a more common expreffion, muft be at an end, while thofe who command, and on whom moft depends, are incapable of executing the duties of their ftation."

The reflections on the mode of recruiting, and on the general condition of the private foldiers, are in a great measure obviated by the new regulations which have been adopted in our military

organization. The powers of courts martial are alfo very vague and extenfive; their punishments very inadequately, not to fay unjustly, defined; but we cannot agree with the author in thinking that all officers, because they require to have either property or influence to procure them their commiffions, muft therefore neceffarily be "ignorant, petulant, fwaggering, boisterous, vain, infolent, harth, oppreflive, and cruel!" Such a fuppofition is equally revolting to common fenfe and to found philofophy. On the contrary, experience has long fince rendered it proverbial, that young men born to fortune are in general much more diffident, and poffefs far lefs of the above qualities, than the parvenus of their day. It is certainly, however, much to be wifhed that promotion, in the army, was placed on the fame principles as that in the navy, and that the paths to honour were as open to men of talents in the one department as in the other. We agree, alfo, with the author, that the morality of the armed force is of confiderable confequence, not only from its influence on public manners, but likewife from its fuperior utility to the nation; but we defpife the infinuation that British officers, in moments of adverfity, would act the part of cowards or traitors. Hitherto we have feen no fymptoms of fuch degeneracy, and it is with pleasure we can affert that the nation is yet far above even the fufpicion of fuch turpitude.

In a note at the end of this volume, Mr. M. arraigns the plan of education adopted in our military fchools, and with fome plaufibility charges it with being more likely to produce an intolerant and vindictive fpirit than to form enlightened and virtuous minds, qualified to direct the operations of armies, and to profit by the fuperior bravery of Englishmen to infure important and fignal victories. The fyftem of literary education, indeed, if fairly reprefented by the author, refembles much more the mechanical efforts of the drill-ferjeant, than the ufual means adopted by profeffors to initiate youth into a knowledge of the arts and fciences. On the particular merits or defects of this inquiry we think it unneceffary to make any farther remarks; and we fall only obferve, that the language is in general neat without being elegant: but fentences merely correct are no compenfation for vapid and trite fentiments, nor is an uniform diction any equivalent for inanity of feufe. If the author would be influenced by our opinion, we would recommend him to turn his attention in future to lefs abftrufe fubjects, in which the exercife of the imagination would be more neceffary than that of a found judgment. It may have efcaped his obfervation, but it is nevertheless true, that after a violent controverfy, efpecially when the number of combatants has been confiderable, a fecond clafs ufually arifes of very inferior powers, and, affecting to unite the wifdom of all their predeceffors,

not unfrequently adopts the exploded principles of the one, and the popular conclufions of the other, and thus produces an ephemeral work, which vanishes

And like the bafelefs fabric of a vision,
Leaves not a wreck behind.

;

A Letter addreffed to Samuel Whitbread, Efq., M.P., in Confequence of the unqualified Approbation expreffed by him, in the Houfe of Commons, of Mr. Lancaster's System of Education the religious Part of which is here shewn to be incompatible with the Safety of the Established Church, and, in its Tendency, fubverfive of Christianity itself. Including alfo fome curfory Obfervations on the Claims of the Irish Romanists, as they affect the Safety of the Established Church. By John Bowles, Efq. 8vo, pp. 64. Hatchard, London; Meyler, Bath. 1807.

MR. Bowles, by undertaking to call Mr. Whitbread to account for his unqualified approbation of Mr. Lancafter's Syftem of Education, has faved us the trouble of giving a leffon to that gentleman, who, we hefitate not to fay, by fuch approbation, proved himfelf utterly unqualified for providing a proper fyftem of education for the youth of this realm. Of Mr. Lancafter's plan, our opinion was declared without referye, in our review of Mrs. Trimmer's excellent analyfis of it; and Mr. Bowles's fentiments are in perfect unifon with thofe which we then expreffed. He enters into an able and elaborate difquifition, in order to prove, which he does completely, that Lancafter's plan is calculated to make the boys any thing but members of the Eftablifhed Church; and certainly not calculated to make them Chriftians.

"With Mr. Lancaster's religious opinions, or creeds of faith,' I have no right to meddle; but I confider myself not only entitled, but bound to fay, that the fyftem of religious inftruction propofed by him is highly objectionable in a religious, a moral, and a political view. It leads to confequences of which, I fhould hope, Mr. Lancaster is not aware, and which, if he were aware of them, he would moft earnestly deprecate. One of those confequences is, that his fyftem, if univerfally adopted, would tend to the fubversion of Chriftianity itself, Strong as this affertion may appear, I pledge myself to prove that it is well founded."

This propofition Mr. Bowles very fully and fatisfactorily demonftrates, in a train of reafoning which neither Lancafter himfelf,, nor his eulogift, Mr. Whitbread, will find it eafy to refute or to evade. His arguments on the fubject, which are strong, connected, and conclufive, occupy the firft thirty pages of the tract, He then fubjoins the following remarks.

"When I had written nearly thus far, I faw a publication, containing a reply on the part of Mr. Lancafter to the objections which have been rged against his fyftem, under the catching title of An Appeal for Juftice in the Caufe of ten thousand poor and orphan Children, and for the Honour of the Holy Scriptures.' In this reply, which is one of the most defultory performances I have ever feen, is contained much illiberal and unfounded cenfure on two of the most distinguished characters of the prefent day the one* an eminent theologian, and a moft able champion of the Church; to whom that establishment is indebted for having, on various occafions, moft fuccefsfully vindicated her truly apoftolical conftitution, and her truly orthodox doctrines: the othert a lady of diftinguished talents, and, what is far better, of the foundeft principles; who has contributed more than almost any other individual of thefe times to check the progress of infidelity and vice, and whofe correct views of Chriftian education are particularly deferving of Mr. Lancaster's attention. Mr. Lancaster's main object in this publication feems to be to vindicate himself against the charges brought against him by the above writers, by an appeal to the practice of his school, and a profeffion of his faith. He endeavours to fhew that neither the former nor the latter justifies the charge of favouring a deiftical system of education. But the true question in iffue relates neither to Mr. Lancaster's practice, nor his particular belief, but merely to the fyftem of education which he recommends to the nation. This, as I truft I have fatisfactorily fhewn, is in fubftance a deiftical fyftem; at least it certainly is not a Christian one. If his practice be not conformable with it, that circumstance evinces his own inconfiftency, and thereby furnishes a conclufive argument against his fyftem, by proving that upon experiment he found it not fit for practice. In fuch a cafe he furely ought to have taken the earliest opportunity of publicly renouncing it, and of acknowledging his error. But instead of doing this, he publishes edition after edition of his original work, in each of which his pernicious theory is repeated; and it is a remarkable circumftance, that at the end of the fixth edition, from which the paffages here cited are extracted, appears an advertisement of his Appeal to Justice,' which of course must have been published previously to the edition in queftion. Thus does he at the fame time perfift in promulgating an antichriftian theory, while he endeavours to vindicate himself from the charges which, on that very account, had been brought againft him, by pleading that his practice and his faith are Chriftian. What is this but blowing hot and cold with the fame mouth? Let it not, however, be fuppofed that the practice in his fchool, with regard to religious infiruction, comes up to that ftandard which, for the reafons above stated, can alone be permitted to regulate a fyftem of national education. It is

"* Rev. Charles Daubeny, Archdeacon of Sarum.

Mrs. Trimmer, author of the Guardian of Education, and of many other valuable works.

What fuch a fyftem ought to be, in regard to religious inftruction, may be feen by referring to a publication entitled, A new and appropriate Syftem of Education for the labouring People, elucidated and explained according to the Plan which has been established for the religious and moral Instruction of male and female Children admitted into the Freefchool, No. 19, Orchard Street, Weftminster, &c.' By P. Colquhoun, LL.D.