Among those Sydney Smith has commemorated. whom I recommended to Her Majesty were Dr. Tait, to whom I offered the Deanery of Carlisle, and whose union of the liberal opinions of the present age with judicious moderation, has induced my successors to recommend him for the Bishopric of London in the first place, and finally to the highest post in the English Church, the Archbishopric of Canterbury. Another selection, namely, that of Dr. Milman, who by my advice was made Dean of St. Paul's, affords an instance of the fruits that may be derived from the devotion of learning and of leisure to Ecclesiastical History. The History of the Latin Church, by Dean Milman, is a work replete with accurate information and judicious criticism; but it is in six bulky octavo volumes, and while I have drawn largely from their contents, I expect that, in this busy age, the readers of poetry and of novels wilł hardly make themselves masters of so voluminous a work. I have, therefore, endeavoured to condense the details which have given to Dean Milman's History its great and unenvied reputation. Another person whom I recommended to a deanery was Dr. Dawes, whose school at King's Somborne showed how agreeably the dry lessons of reading, writing, and arithmetic might be relieved by interesting facts of natural history and some information of other kinds. Mr. Lowe, who is proud of being the author of the Revised Code, may despise the information in history and geography which can be acquired at an elementary school; but such elementary knowledge may point the way to graver studies. I remember pointing out to Mr. Baines, the member for Leeds, who at that time refused the Parliamentary grant, that boys of the humbler classes, who benefited by Government grants in a primary school, might, if they had abilities, rise high in the State or in the more liberal professions and occupations. It is to be hoped that in spite of Mr. Lowe's prejudices, the progress of the English people in liberal education will hereafter be as large as that which prevails in Scotland, in Saxony, and in Switzerland. In fact there are two great measures, which all the nations of Europe, if they value their rights and are fit judges of their interests, ought to demand. The first of these is a large and liberal education, giving to every boy and girl, termed in the language of English law infants, large and liberal instruction, neither shackled by the sacerdotal power, nor restrained by the narrow prejudices of a Minister of Finance. The next postulate on which the nations of Europe should insist is real liberty of the Press, or, as it may be more properly termed, real liberty of the human mind. If this be not obtained, the decline and the fall of national power is sure to follow. The story of Ancient Rome is told by Tacitus with his usual insight into human nature, and his usual brevity of expression. He gives this abstract as his reason for not attempting to relate the history of the Republic:6 Nam post conditam urbem, octingentos et viginti prioris ævi annos multi auctores retulerunt; dum res populi Romani memorabantur, pari cloquentia, ac libertate; postquam bellatum apud Actium, atque omnem potestatem ad unum conferri pacis interfuit, magna illa ingenia cessere.' Of course, these men of great minds ceased to exist when they could not write with liberty as well as with eloquence. The battle of Cannæ and the military genius of Hannibal did not produce the fall of Rome: 'Cannarum vindex, Romani sanguinis ultor Annulus.' The Roman state survived Canna-it could not survive Actiun. The personal government of Nero (such is the modern phrase) and the personal government of Vitellius showed what cruelty and sensuality could do to ruin the State. A long succession of Emperors ended with the triumph of a Turkish conqueror. The history of Modern Europe is not wanting in similar examples. Personal government has had its sway in Austria, in Prussia, and in Russia-it has not had the power to save from conquest Vienna, Berlin, or Moscow. On the other hand, neither the wonderful military genius of Napoleon I. nor the sagacity and prudence of Napoleon III. could give duration to the reigns of those two monarchs, and in each case despotism, to call things by their right name, has had to yield its capital to the cannon of the invader. Neither ancient nor modern history is without its moral. Cæsar was preferred to Pompey by the democratic faction of Rome. Cromwell overcame the Presbyterian party by the help of more violent democrats. Napoleon I., the greatest tyrant of our times, prevailed by his preference of the extreme to the moderate demo crats. Passing from this subject I resume the questions of our own day. It is the duty of the State to provide for the education of every child under its control. It is also the duty of the State to grant to its adult population the utmost liberty to think what it pleases, and to utter what it thinks. Of course in speaking thus generally, I do not intend to condemn measures necessary for safety. • Ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat' is a maxim which all states must observe. The President and Congress of the United States of America observe it no less than the Emperor and Senate of Russia. To Christianity for their religion, to liberty for their political institutions, the nations of the world must look, abjuring Superstition, Persecution, Intolerance in their religion; Injustice, Inequality, Despotism in their political institutions. |