The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-13 00:00:00

1 tin

chairman, Mr. BAINES, being an out and out Free-
trader, of course would have given half a dozen votes,

if he had had them, against monopoly. We have
looked through the evidence itself pretty carefully,

and we can confidently affirm that, if ever evidence
taken by a committee bore out its report, that
taken on the Bible monopoly does so. So far as
Free-Trade principles have already operated,
through the abolition of the patent in Scotland,
and the competition of the Universities, it is in
evidence—uncontradicted evidence, that the price
fell with the opening of the trade, and that the

accuracy and beauty of editions of the Scriptures
increased while the price fell. The inference
would seem to be that perfect Free-Trade would pro-

duce the most perfect Bible at the lowest price.
But, says our contemporary, the printing of the

Bible is not a case for the application of ordinary

free-trade principles. It is an exception to the

rule.

The reason is, that the "religious public

would be disgusted at careless editions of the Bible.
Religious sensitiveness comes in." Quite true. But
how could our oracular contemporary fail to per-
ceive that his argument is altogether in favour of
free-trade printing. What tradesman could be so
foolish as to print a book for religious people, at
which they would be " disgusted," and at which
their religious " sensitiveness" would revolt ? That
sensitiveness is strong indeed; but just in propor-
tion to its strength is the absolute certainty
of accuracy. Indeed, we may assume that
in Bibles printed on free-trade principles
accuracy would never be the point of corn•
petition, for the simple reason that inaccu-
racy would be certain failure. The competition
would be in quality—in type, paper, binding, and
all that is included in what is termed getting up.
But we demur to what all this part of the argu.
ment of the Times implies—that because it is a
religious book, of superlative importance to Protes-
tants, therefore the State is to take its printing
into its own hands, and to delegate its assumed
charge to two universities and one printer. Who
made the State our Bible provider P Who would
assert that, in other things, the work undertaken
by the State is performed equally well with that
turned out by private persons P And, especially,
who will assert that those who monopolise,
or even get fairly, Government contracts,
perform their work so well as those who
manufacture for the general public ? We deny
the right of the State to take charge
of Bible printing more than of SHAKESPEARE print-
ing. A needy monarch sot the monopoly on foot,
not for religious, but for pecuniary considerations ;
and now it is pretended that it is a deed of piety to
keep the monopoly in the hands of its presentipos-
sessors. We are actually treated to the astound-
ing conclusion that " number does not affect the case
—that when competition begins, it is just as strong
between three establishments as between three
hundred 1" Ask Messrs. COBDEN and BRIGHT—
ask the Chambers of Commerce all over the coun-
try, what they think of this doctrine; their reply
will be—yes, but two coach proprietors, or two
railways, after having half ruined each other, can,
and often will, combine against the public, and
indemnify themselves at its cost. In the present
case there is the " damning fact" that the three
monopolists did keep up their prices till the aboli-
tion of the Scottish patent, and the efforts of Dr.
ADAM THOMPSON, of Perth, in a few months
tumbled down monopolist prices some fifty per

cent. !
We have but one or two remarks to add at presen
If, after the infliction on us of an augmented income
tax, merely to make the Budget more perfectly,
indeed almost pedantically, a free trade one, Minis-
ters so grossly violate the principle of their Budget
as to saddle us with a renewal of the Bible mono-
poly, they deserve universal contempt. It will be a
piece of cowardice, or of jobbery, only to be paral-
leled by the shabbiness of the French EMPEROR
and his in shops.
The other remark is this. The Bible, that is, of
course, not the sacred originals, but the English
translation of them, does need revision. Such a
revision all persons of sound literary taste agree
should not be a retranslation and modernising of
the style, making a new book of it, but a correction
of imperfect or inaccurate renderings, and of obso-
lete or antiquated words. Are, then, all revisers of
the Bible to be compelled to print their Bibles at the
monopolists' offices ? Or, what amount of change
is to save them from the terrors of the patent and
Chancery ? The translation of the Bible, like a
translation of IhmtAcE, may be indefinitely im-
proved, and nothing whatever ought to stand in the
way of such improvement.
Perhaps we might suggest a compromise. Let
the Government fairly test the worth of its own
imprimatur. Let it appoint a board, not to be
salaried, but supported by the fees paid by those
who resort to it, for ensuring accuracy in editions
of the Bible. If such a board could get its living,
well and good—it would show that the public
"sensitiveness" and "disgust at careless editions"
required a Government guarantee, because they
were willing to pay for it out of their own pockets;
but in the name of free-trade, and especially of our
costly free-trade budget, let us have unlicensed
printing of the Word of GOD.

Although we have done but comparatively little
as yet towards the actual realisation of the popular
day-dream of National Education—the time, we re-
joice to think, is fast going by when any one above
the position of a Pauper can say with honest Mr.
TULLIVER, of Dorlicote Mill, " All the learnin' my
father ever paid for was a bit o' birch at one end and
the alphabet at th' other !" For the which exquisite
morceaux of wit, see one of the earlier chapters in
GEORGE ELIOT'S delightful new story of" The Mill
on the Floss." As a justification of our more hope-
ful view, we need only mention what was actually
done during the past year 1858-1859 towards the
achievement of the great work of National Educa-
tion—according to the reliable statistics authorita-
tively put forth in the last official report to the Queen
(dated 24th May, 1859) from the Lords of the Com-
mittee of Council on Education. From which re-
port we learn that 934,000 children had been then,
during that twelvemonth, enrolled for education
under the inspection of the Government. Recollect,
moreover,asthvaottefaor
heyductahteionhalloopsuorpoofsescoinomlBoo9s
therew
the munificent amount (munificent considering that
we are
of
b the enogwreaats enterprise)i twereat tohte
£BOO,OOO. Any.
commence-
ment
thing like overweening exultation, however, at
sight of these apparently encouraging numbers is
checked by the startling estimates advanced in the
remarkable report to which we have but just made
reference—the calculation, in the first place, that
additional provision will have to be made for the
instruction not of 934,000, but of as many as
3,000,000 children ! And further, that the sums
vanced will have to expand pro-
required to be ad
the last-mentioned grant of
portionately from
£BOO,OOO to the enormous annual outlay of
£2,500,000 ! It is consolatory, however, to find
from a brief but singularly able analysis of the Re-
port (already mentioned) from the Committee of
Council on Education, an analysis constituting one
of the most attractive papers in the newly published
number of the Edinbur
94 Review —it
• is at once