NATIONAL AND DOMESTIC EDUCATION. 



In the bloodless crusade now going forward against arbitrary power 

 and prejudiced ignorance, woman, without any violation of her femi- 

 nine character, which I always wish her to preserve, may take the 

 field. Destructiveness, that once raised man to a hero, now debases 

 him to a demon. The wreath of glory is at present properly ad- 

 judged to those that best promote and increase human felicity, and to 

 the honours of that wreath who shall prefer prouder or fairer claims 

 than woman? But does she know what her supineness has done for 

 her ? The reformers and philanthropists, and they now form large 

 bodies, think there is no hope for humanity but in a system of na- 

 tional education, in obedience to which the infant, when a few months 

 old, is to be taken entirely from the mother! where her character is 

 such as to make this a matter of necessity I hear the proposal with 

 the burning cheek of shame where her character is such as not to 

 render it necessary, I listen to the proposal as sacrilege ! 



I heard, the other day, one of our most enlightened men one of 

 the few advocates of Christian morality, observe that if all mothers 

 did their duty, the whole aspect of society would be changed ; but 

 that mothers treated their children either with neglect, or perverted 

 them by indulgence ; that some did both, consigning them during 

 the day to domestics, and having the little creatures introduced, with 

 the sweets, after dinner, to be flattered, and the means of flattery to 

 their parents. Mothers of England is this true, or is it not ? If it 

 be true, will you not reform such a crime ? if it be not true, will you 

 not repel such a charge ? Let the words NATIONAL EDUCATION, as 

 applied to infants, be the tocsin let it ring an alarum that will wake 

 even luxurious indolence, and drown the jingling bells of mountebank 

 fashion ! 



The benevolent aim of my friend, and the advocates of national 

 education, is an improved national character. But let me ask, if 

 this may not be accomplished without a cruel violation of the ten- 

 derest of nature's ties ? without breaking up the great palladium of 

 human happiness and virtue HOME tearing from it the bright forms 

 of infancy, and leaving its echoes mute of their young voices ! 



The rage for equalizing has reached even unto the household 

 hearth. Proscription against exclusiveness would attempt to frac- 

 tionize the most indivisible affections. Mr. Owen's principle of com- 

 mon property is, as he holds it, an impossibility it is incapable of 

 general application, and as a general principle is a false one. Finite 

 beings must have definite aims ; people, to be practical, must have a 

 peculiar sphere of action, and particular associates. The principle of 

 love is, in the Creator arid creature, the same in essence, but very 

 different in its power and power of application. God may love all 

 because he can serve all, his means are infinite and universal : our 

 love must be in a great degree exclusive, because our means are con- 

 fined. If we beat out the grain into leaf-gold, what better purpose 

 shall it serve than to gild a theory ? 



Heaven preserve me, and I say this with no allusion to Mr. Owen, 

 who is one of the most estimable of men, but Heaven, I say, preserve 

 me from those universal views for the benefit of all, that interfere 

 with the individual views that may benefit even one : keep me from 



