No person, surely, will pretend to say that physical power and daring intrepidity do not exist in as great a degree in England as they ever were known in France; or that an infuriated mob here would be less dangerous than in that country. This narrowed view of the question extends so far only as regards worldly prudence: if examined more broadly, the duty will be found paramount and imperative on all, to guard with jealous care the principles on which our social edifice is raised, and which under the British Constitution deservedly excites the admiration of the world. But if the bases of this glorious structure be shaken or impaired, that which is the production of the aggregate wisdom of ages must crumble into dust. Society could no longer then exist, there being no bond to link together the disunited members; there would in fact be nothing for which existence could be desirable. Odious anarchy would stifle in blood every feeling that could render our labours useful, and life a blessing: the affections between parents, children, and brethren, would be deadened, and the treasures of friendship devastated by selfish rapacity. “Crimes of every description,” says Dr. Colquhoun, “have their origin in the vicious and immoral habits of the people; in the little attention paid to the education of the inferior orders; and in the want of some plan for regulating the morals of this useful class of the community.” No one, it is presumed, will controvert the truth of this sentiment; but while the necessity of _educating the inferior orders_ is generally admitted, very few come forward willingly to engage in that important task, nay, I will call it positive duty. Should it be attributed to the lower class as a _crime_, that their parents were too poor or too profligate to procure for them the benefits of education, sufficient at least to enable them to peruse the Scriptures, and thereby be impressed with the obligations of Christianity,—their duty to God and their neighbour? It will be said, perhaps, that the inculcation of those duties belongs exclusively to the Clergy. Persons maintaining this opinion are, I fear, but little influenced by the true spirit of charity, although the _letter_ or external signs of it may be familiar to them. It is, in truth, the duty of every one who is qualified for the task, whether clergyman, or layman, whether Protestant or Catholic, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Methodist or Independent, or be his Christian creed what it may, to instruct his fellow creature “in the way he should go,” and, if found ignorant or erring, to put him right if he can: no sect or denomination of Christians can, without manifest injustice, be excluded from the labour of philanthropy.