ther, each stick should lose any of its individual strength and properties, the whole bundle would gain much in bulk and cumbrousness, but little in strength; whereas, the co operation of many different forces, and the cohesion of many parts, each communicating, but not giving up its individual properties, render the bundle compact and enduring.

In order to illustrate this, let us consider the case of our own associ ation certain subjects are submitted to us for discussion, and as long as each member is permitted to approach the subject by the path which he likes best, as long as he may treat it in accordance with the bent of his individual disposition, so long will a result be obtained, more or less beneficial, in proportion to the abilities of those who may chance to be members. But, if a rule were made that we should regard all subjects from one point of view, and treat each according to the same prejudice, then we should no longer be in union, because union implies the coalition of distinct individualities, but we should be slaves either to a particular prejudice, or to the mind of that member who should most strenuously and ably support that prejudice. And here I may quote Lord Bacon's remark upon Aristotle and the schoolmen. He says: "For as water will not ascend higher than the level of the first spring-head from whence it descendeth, so knowledge, derived from Aristotle, and exempted from liberty of examination, will not rise again higher than the knowledge of Aristotle." Indeed, it has been generally observed of literary associations, and of literary men in general, who have allowed themselves to be fettered by rules and observances, that they have been good for the collecting of facts, but not for drawing proper conclusions from the facts so collected. For to observe rules which we have not examined freely, is to surrender up our individuality of thought, without which, no discovery, no original deduction, ever was or ever can be made. A school or hospital wherein any student was permitted to study how he liked, and what he liked, and wherein the manner and subject of study were allowed to change with the changing character of the time and nation, would be as great a blessing as patriot could desire; but a seminary wherein all were made to learn the same thing in the same way, and wherein time made no alteration in the rules of study, would certainly destroy the individuality of the students, and render them fit to compete only with those whose intellects had undergone a similar process of fusion. We generally find that, when two persons, having each lost their individuality, contend, he gets the better who is most prejudiced or most conformable to rules, for the very simple reason that both use the same weapons, and the most bigoted uses them best. On the other hand, no genius has arisen to lighten the literary world, but has scared from their dark holes and corners a host of schoolmen and critics, who have striven for a time, but ineffectually, to extinguish the dazzling light.

Man is somewhat too prone to acquire passive rather than active habits, to be brave rather than daring, speculative rather than enterprising, benevolent rather than beneficent; trusting for salvation to his church, rather than to the God who enjoins active piety. The leaders of the Jesuits, well knowing this propensity, devoted all their efforts to destroying the individuality of men, and establishing their order on the ruins. And without giving credence to all that has

been written against them, it is impossible to deny that they have succeeded in destroying freedom of thought and action, not only in their victims, but in themselves. All Jesuits are amenable to their Superior, and he is bound by the irrevocable laws of the order, for which they live and breathe and have their being. For the most part, they have only succeeded in subduing those previously weakened by forms and ceremonies. The whole Roman Catholic Church has for a long time submitted to the Jesuit yoke, but its members had previously surrendered up their individuality; and in whatever foreign lands the Jesuits have made converts, they have only freed the natives from one species of intellectual slavery, in order to turn them over to another. I am quite willing to admit that other religious associations have acted upon similar principles-that, indeed, a body of avowed atheists might be equally bigoted; but this ought only to warn us how we surrender up our freedom of thought in exchange for some finite dogma, laid down by men of finite intelligence. The expansive power of Christianity is one of its chief beauties; it was suited to the capacities of the Jewish fishermen, it is equally adapted to the mighty intellect of Newton or Galileo. Hence, it preaches freedom of thought; and courts-nay, demands-investigation. But when a man, or a body of men, proceed to theorise upon these sublime truths, they are commonly vain enough to deem their dogmas infallible, and are thus compelled really, if not ostensibly, to crush individuality of thought and freedom of examination.

The character and nature of the despot in secular matters, must be viewed in the same light, and judged according to the same principles." A nation is really an association; the members whereof, if they freely and conscientiously exert their individual faculties for the good of themselves, are likely to promote the general good of the state. But when their freedom of thought and action is checked, they commonly labour neither to their own good, nor to that of the state: and, in such a condition, they are rather in a state of fusion than of union. The prejudices of caste which existed among the ancient Egyptians and Hindoos-prejudices which made the members of one class, labourers; of another, merchants; of another, soldiers; of another, priests, or rulers;—were the means of destroying all individual ambition, or spirit of emulation, because each man's path was chalked out for him; and of checking all improvement, because no new class of mind was ever brought to bear upon any branch of science, art, or polity.

In addition to this, the ruling class, sensible that any mingling with free nations would develop the defects of this system, made it a crime for any one of the people to undertake a long journey or voyage; so that the individuality of the people was in every way destroyed. Can we wonder, after this, that the beautiful is not to be found in any of the works which these two nations have left behind them ?-that the temples and statues should be vast masses, like the nations themselves; but, like the nations, also, evincing no traces of the intelligent soul? Need it be matter of surprise, that these kingdoms, and many like them, wherein the citizen had been ground into the slave, should have fallen a prey to those vast hordes of savage freemen who have at times devastated the world, and acknowledged no masters save their

individual passions? Even in the present century we have a striking example, that when despot fights against despot, the greatest despot will conquer; but that when a despot fights against a free nation, he will surely be defeated. The great empire of Turkey is powerless against Russia; but the little band of free Circassians maintains its independence against the whole power of the Czar. In a nation where a despotic government prevails, the sovereign himself cannot always preserve his individuality. He must abide by existing circumstances; he dares no more introduce free institutions, than he would dare step to the right or left if he stood on the top of a mountain with a precipice on either side of him. If he be liberal-minded, he will find so many more bigoted or more interested than himself; so many who have lost the power of thinking freely, because they have been deprived of that power so long-just as caged birds lose the power of flying-that he will give up his attempt, or persist in it at his peril. Examples of this are not wanting. Peter II., of Russia, sought to emancipate his nobles, and the nobles murdered him for his pains. Gustavus III., of Sweden, shared the same fate for the same benevolent desire. Our own William III. was continually thwarted in his plans of liberal policy by the selfishness of the aristocracy; and the present King of Prussia has been prevented introducing certain reforms into his government, partly by his own courtiers, and partly by the fears and complaints of the Russian and Austrian sovereigns, who dread the force of example upon their own enslaved subjects.

It matters little to the nation whether it be governed by one man or one class of men, if the government be despotic. Political associations are often formed to carry out a principle or destroy a prejudice; but whether they be Pro-Corn-law or Anti-Corn-law leagues, Orange or Repeal Societies, they are equally detrimental to that freedom of examination which is essential to the welfare of the subject. They may remove the prejudice, they may carry out the principle, but they are generally so prejudiced in favour of that principle as to believe no subsequent reform necessary; and thus the very machinery by which they have removed one abuse, becomes the means of preserving another. It is the boast of our constitution that our senators are at liberty to express their individual opinions for the general good. It may be that this is not always done; but surely an external influence employed to make them act in a particular way can hardly be considered necessary either to the liberty of the senator or of the subject. As Guizot well remarks, Every human power carries within itself an inherent evil, a principle of weakness and abuse which must assign it a limit. It is only the general liberty of all rights, all interests, all opinions, the free manifestation of all their forces, their legal co-existence; it is this system only that can retain each power within its legitimate limits, and hinder it from usurping the rights of others; in one word, free examination should really subsist, and for the profit of all."

66

Such are the effects of association upon the literary, religious, and political world, if it be carried to such an excess as to destroy individuality of thought and freedom of will. I have but to notice it in one more relation of life, in that of commerce. I need make no apology for considering this branch last. Bookcraft, statecraft, priestcraft, have

had predominance in other ages and in other states, but, for the England of the nineteenth century, commerce has the greatest charms. By its help, she proposes to carry her arts, her learning, her religion, to the uttermost parts of the earth; she recognises in it the incarnate spirit of freedom, the genius before whose power the chains of idleness and exclusiveness shall be as green bands: surely he will admit that freedom of thought, and will, and action, should distinguish the votaries of commerce from all other men. Not that I would allude to free trade in the general acceptation of the term; with that I have no present concern, but would rather consider the relations which traders have established amongst themselves, for the carrying on of trade. I might, if time were allowed me, dilate upon the advantages which the independent trader has over the joint-stock company; advantages arising from the free exercise of his experience and his energy. But Adam Smith has already decided this point against the joint-stock company; nor, in considering trade, ought we to consider the only pecuniary part of its transactions. Trade has higher objects than the mere acquisition of money. No, there is no relation of life more complicated than that of commerce; so, there is none which offers greater temptations to err. The tradesman and merchant may daily, nay hourly, defraud their fellow-men, without hazarding their reputation in the slightest degree. It seems, indeed, that man's trading propensities were given him as a means towards his moral training, that he might shine in his resistance to temptation. But is it just to expect the advantages of trade without incurring its perils? Is it just to delegate authority in these matters to bodies of men, who are liable to still greater temptation, because they are not personally responsible to man? Lord Coke tells us that jointstock companies have no soul; Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque tells us that they have no conscience; Blackstone calls them irresponsible bodies; the French lawyers call them sociétés anonymes, that is, societies whose members you cannot punish. What, then, can we expect from bodies possessing neither soul or conscience, and not amenable to mental shame or corporal penalty? The history of jointstock companies supplies the answer. Surely, if it be incumbent upon us to preserve our individuality in literary, or religious, or political matters, it is still more necessary to preserve it in the transactions of trade, which require so much energy, so much experience, so much firmness of character, so much purity of soul. But if a change be necessary, it cannot be brought about by any legislative enactment. To enjoin individuality of thought, will, and action, by law, would be to crush individuality entirely. Time and liberal education alone will remedy the evil; free schools and a free press will make free writers, statesmen, preachers, traders, merchants. And we, also, in our separate spheres, may, by practice rather than precept, preach the great doctrine of individuality, the glorious creed that the mind of man should wear no chain. The planet revolves on its fixed course; we can calcu late its deviations, and ascertain the compensating power which will restore it to its paths; but man is born for progress, not for revolution. The stars return on their courses, but he does not return; the universe is the same for ever, but the elements of change are within him; his path is onward always, and bounded only by eternity itself.

Q

Enquiries and Correspondence.

"Ipswich, May 14th, 1846.

"DEAR SIR,-The following essay was read on Monday evening last, at a Young Men's Mutual-Improvement Society, recently formed in this town, and possessing but about twenty members. The two oldest are infidels, including the composer of this essay, who is a young man about twenty-six or from that to thirty years of age, of considerable ability and extensive information. One of the youngest of its members delivered an essay on 'The Comparative Merits of Christianity and Atheism.' This was intended to be a reply, though, as you will see, it partakes not much of the nature of a reply; however, such as it is, it has been delivered, and has created considerable excitement. I have managed to obtain the essay for one evening, and have taken this copy, which I believe is correct, though badly written. I now send it to you, and let me beg of you to give it your earliest and most serious attention, for, to be candid, it has made me rather uneasy, some of the many objections I am not able to meet. Dear Sir, to gain your attention, I would fling in all my merits. I have been a subscriber from the commencement, but in that I am the party benefited, so I throw myself upon your goodness and the interest you have ever manifested to 'youth.'

"I have enclosed five stamps to defray the expense of postage. Should you require remuneration, please state it.*

"In haste, I am, yours obediently,

"M. B. I."

The foregoing letter will speak for itself. We are sure our readers will require from us no apology for noticing the lecture it alludes to. It is enough for us that some young men have been perplexed and bewildered by the metaphysical conjuration of this youthful lecturer. It will be our sincere endeavour to solve their difficulties, and our great happiness if we succeed in affording them mental satisfaction. We will not now stop to administer the deserved castigation to the young infidel, who, with the presumption that invariably accompanies gross ignorance, holds up to ridicule a truth held sacred by the most stupendous intellects, that shall be presently dealt to him by a pen far abler than our own. At present we will proceed to expose the suicidal nature of the reasonings he so valorously holds forth, trusting to furnish him with an argumentum ad hominem that will silence him for some time to come.

The arguments which he urges with such confidence against "the theologians," as he terms them, he has probably derived from a work published by Watson, of Paternoster-row, entitled, "A Discussion on the Existence of Deity, between the Rev. Origen Batchelor and Robert Dale Owen," the son of the founder of Socialism. The reasonings put

• We do not, of course, require any remuneration from our correspondent.