to awaken Parliament to the ignorance of the poor; and to his vigilance was it due, that many educational endowments were restored to the uses for which they were designed. Again, in 1820, he proposed a scheme for the systematic education of the poor.1 To the general education of the people, however, there was not only indifference, but repugnance. The elevation of the lower grades of society was dreaded, as dangerous to the state. Such instruction as impressed them with the duty of contentment and obedience might be well; but education which should raise their intelligence and encourage freedom of thought, would promote democracy, if not revolution. It was right that the children of the poor should be taught the church catechism: it was wrong that they should learn to read newspapers. So long as this feeling prevailed, it was vain to hope for any systematic extension of secular education; but the church and other religious bodies were exerting themselves earnestly, in their proper sphere of instruction. In their schools religious teaching was the primary object; but great advances were also made in the general education of the poor. Meanwhile, the increasing prosperity of the country was rapidly developing the independent education of the children of other classes, who needed no encouragement or assistance. As society advanced, it became more alive to the evils of ignorance; and in a reformed Parliament, the jealousy of popular education was speedily overcome. any scheme In Ireland, as we have seen, a broad scheme of national education was introduced, in 1831, on the princi- Obstacles to le of "a combined literary, and a separate re- of national igious education." In Great Britain, however, there were obstacles to any such system of national education. In the schools of the church, and of dissenters, re 8 education. 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., ii. 49; Harwood's Mem. of Lord Brougham, 124, 161. 2 See Lord Cockburn's Life of Jeffrey, i. 68; Porter's Progress, 694 8 Supra, p. 455. Parliamentary grants in aid of education. -- ligious teaching was the basis of education. The patrons of both were jealous of one another, resentful of interference, and unwilling to coöperate in any combined scheme of national education. The church claimed the exclusive right of educating the people; dissenters asserted an equal title to direct the education of the children of their own sects. Both parties were equally opposed to any scheme of secular education, distinct from their own religious teaching. Hence the government was obliged to proceed with the utmost caution. Its connection with education was commenced in 1834, by a small parliamentary grant, in aid of the building of school-houses. The administration of this fund was confided to the Treasury, by whom it was to be distributed, through the National School Society, representing the church, and the British and Foreign School Society, to whose schools children of all religious denominations were admitted. This arrangement was continued until 1839; when Lord Melbourne's government vested the management of the education funds in a Committee of Privy Council. This change was effected, in contemplation of a more comprehensive scheme, by which aid should be given directly to schools connected with the church and other religious bodies. The church was alarmed, lest her own privileges should be disturbed; many of the conservative party were still adverse, on political grounds, to the extension of education; and the government scheme was nearly overthrown. The annual grant met with strenuous resistance; and was voted in the Commons by a bare majority of two. The Lords, coming to the aid of the church and their own party, hastened to condemn the new scheme, in an address to the Crown.2 Their lordships, how ever, received a courteous rebuke from the throne; and the scheme was vigorously carried out. Despite of jealousies and distrust, the operations of the Committee of Privy Coun1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xlviii. 229, et seq. 2 Ibid., 1332. 8 Ibid., xlix. 128; Ann. Reg., 1839, 171. cil were speedily extended. Society was awakened to the duty of educating the people; local liberality abounded; the rivalry of the church and dissenters prompted them to increased exertions; and every year larger demands were made upon the public fund, until, in 1860, the annual grant amounted to nearly 700,000l. However such a system may fall short of a complete scheme of national education, embracing the poorest and most neglected classes, it has given an extraordinary impulse to popular education; and bears ample testimony to the earnestness of the state in promoting the social improvement of the people. Let us now turn to the material interests of the country; its commerce, its industry, its productive energies. Commercial How were these treated by a close and irresponsible Policy. government? and how by a government based upon public opinion, and striving to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people? Our former commercial policy was founded on monopolies, and artificial protections and encouragements, maintained for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. The trade of the East was monopolized by the East India Company; the trade of the Mediterranean by the Levant Company; the trade of a large portion of North America by the Hudson's Bay Company. The trade of Ireland and the colonies was shackled for the sake of English producers and manufacturers. Every produce and manufacture of England was protected, by high duties or prohibitions, against the competition of imported commodities of the like nature. Many exports were encouraged by bounties and drawbacks. Every one sought protection or encouragement for himself, utterly regardless of the welfare of others. The protected interests were favored by the state, while the whole community suffered from prices artificially raised and industry unnaturally disturbed. This 2 1 This Company was wound up in 1826.-6 Geo IV. c. 33. selfish and illiberal policy found support in erroneous doc trines of political economy; but its foundation was narrow self-interest. First one monopoly was established, and then another, until protected interests dominated over a Parliament in which the whole community were unrepresented. Lord North and Mr. Pitt, generally commanding obedient majorities, were unable to do justice to the industry of Ireland, in opposition to English traders. No power short of rebellion could have arrested the monstrous corn bill of 1815, which landowners, with one voice, demanded. But political science and liberty advanced together the one pointing out the true interests of the people, the other insuring their just consideration. : It was not until fifty years after Adam Smith had exposed Free trade. what he termed "the mean and malignant expedients of the mercantile system," that this narrow policy was disturbed. Mr. Huskisson was the first minister after Mr. Pitt, who ventured to touch protected interests. A close representation still governed; but public opinion had already begun to exercise a powerful influence over Parliament; and he was able to remove some protections from the silk and woollen trades, to restore the right of free emigration to artisans, and to break in upon the close monopoly of the navigation laws. These were the beginnings of free trade; but a further development of political liberty was essential to the triumph of that generous and fruitful policy. A wider representation wrested exclusive power from the hands of the favored classes; and monopolies fell, one after another, in quick succession. The trade of the East was thrown open to the free enterprise of our merchants; the productions of the world were admitted, for the consumption and comfort of our teeming multitudes; exclusive interests in shipping, in the colonies, in commerce and manufactures, were made to yield to the public good. But above all, the most baneful of monopolies, and the most powerful of pro1 Supra, p. 496. Such a tected interests, were overborne. The lords of the soil, once dominant in Parliament, had secured to themselves a monopoly in the food of the people. To insure high rents, it had been decreed that multitudes should hunger. monopoly was not to be endured; and so soon as public opinion had fully accepted the conclusions of science, it fell before enlightened statesmen and a popular Parliament. The fruits of free trade are to be seen in the marvellous development of British industry. England will ever hold in grateful remembrance the names of the foremost promoters of this new policy, of Huskisson, Poulett, Thomson, Hume, Villiers, and Labouchere, of Cobden and Bright,— of Peel and Gladstone; but let her not forget that their fruitful statesmanship was quickened by the life of freedom. The financial policy of this period was conceived in the same spirit of enlightened liberality, and regarded Financial no less the general welfare and happiness of the policy. people. Industry, while groaning under protection, had further been burdened by oppressive taxes, imposed simply for purposes of revenue. It has been the policy of modern finance to dispense with duties on raw materials, on which the skill and labor of our industrious artisans is exercised. Free scope has been given to productive industry. The employment and comfort of the people have been further encouraged by the removal or reduction of duties on manufactured articles of universal use, - on glass, on bricks and tiles, on soap and paper, and hundreds of other articles. The luxuries of the many, as well as their food, have also been relieved from the pressure of taxation. Tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa, - nay, nearly all articles which contribute to the comfort and enjoyment of daily life, have been placed within reach of the poorest. And among financial changes conceived in the interest of the whole community, the remarkable penny postage of Sir Rowland Hill deserves an 1 In 1842, the customs' tariff embraced 1163 articles; in 1860, it comprised less than fifty, of which fifteen contributed nearly the whole revenue |