MORAL INFLUENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.

459

gret, that the kind and degree of education which had hithertobeen introduced into this country (England), had not had theeffect of diminishing crime.”

In the same debate, Lord Melbourne said, in reply, “ that itwas not to be made a charge against the church, against theschools and universities of the country, against mechanics’ insti-tutes and societies, that they had not produced what, in such astate of society, was an impossibility ; to wit, perfect purity andvirtue. His noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had said, he didnot perceive that any of those advantages had resulted from edu-cation which had been anticipated, nor did he expect that any ofthose advantages would flow from it in future. But, in sayingthis, he had not made any distinction between education and theobjects to which it was directed. The object of education wasthe diffusion of knowledge, and knowledge, as they were justlytold, was power. But power of itself was neither good nor bad,but beneficial or disadvantageous, according as it was used or ap-plied. Knowledge itself did not secure virtue, and they knewby melancholy examples, that the possession of the highest men-tal endowments, and the most cultivated intellect, did not (always)save the possessors from the stains of immorality and vice.Bonis Uteris Grads imbutus , bonam mentern non induerat. Theeffects resulting from education, must depend on the nature andobject of the education. If the education given were such as togive the lower orders opinions above their situation, and to im-part to them a distaste for labor, it would be the most fatal anddestructive gift which could be presented to them, — an applefrom the tree of death. But, if the education given to them weresuch, as to teach them the necessity of labor, and of conformingthemselves to their situations in life, he could have no doubt thateducation, based upon such principles, and conducted in such amanner, would be productive of the most advantageous results.”

On the same occasion, Lord Brougham (then Lord Chancel-lor) said, “ it was very possible, that the diminution of crimehad not borne that proportion which sanguine men expected, tothe progress of improvement in society. But this circumstanceought not to fill them with despair, with apprehension for the fu-ture, or regret for their past efforts, or even make them disin-