CHAPTER J.

THE EDUCATIONAL DUTY OF THE STATE.

Tuis elementary but important sabject is most systematically intro duced by Dr. Watts, and we shall commence therefore with that part of his examination which relates to it,

541. Chairman.—Do you think that it is the daty of Government to endeavour to promote primary instruction ? I do certainly. . . It seems to me that the sphere of Government is direct in this matter; its primary duty being to maintain society, and that the secondary duty of Government is to be an executive for the people. Education seems to me to be civilization, and it would be as rational, I think, to expect a cotton male to turn out calico ready woven, as to expect an uneducated man to perform properly the duties of civilized life. General neglect of education for one generation would cast us back into barbarism ; and it seems to me that what is necessary for society in the mass ought to be guaranteed to every individual composing that mass. We all start in life entirely ignorant, and every additional mechanical or other discovery throws the uneducated man still further behind. The only defence of society is, that it confers mutual benefits. But what benefit do the neglected in education derive from society? I confess inyself unable to see the benefit which men derive, unless they are edacated up to the necessary level to fit them for the duties of civilized life.

The first sentence in this paragraph is pithily expressed, and seems to contain the cream of Dr. Watts's educational philosophy :-“The sphere of Government is direct in this matter; its primary duty being to maintain society," and its second “ to be an executive for the people." At a later period of the same gentleman's examination we meet again with the same statement, in a connexion which throws considerable light on its value.

862. Chairman.—Then you attach no great weight to the objection that is sometimes urged, that education is beyond the sphere of the Government My impression is, that the first duty of the Government is the preservation of society, and that its second duty is to do whatever work is delegated to it by the people, and that therefore education may be as fairly delegated to the Government as anything else.

On this fallacious and unwary statement the witness was immediately taken up by one of the shrewdest members of the Committee, Mr. Fox, who, as a secular educationist, saw in a moment (what Dr. Watts, practised debater as he is, evidently did not see) the advantage thus given to the advocates of the Local scheme,

863. Mr. W. For.-If the definition of the word education is made to include religious training, it goes beyond the province of Government? Yes, it does then go beyond the province of Government, as the whole of my evidence tends to show.

864. Mr. K. Seymer.—Provided it were delegated by the people to the Government, then upon your own principle it would be within the province of the Government? If delegated by the people en masse it would be ; and the only reason why the Government cannot take the religious teaching is, because all the people are not agreed on religion, and because religion is not a subject of experience, and therefore any error committed cannot be repaired

Dr. Watts is here betrayed into palpable inconclusiveness, inconsistency, and confusion. In the first place he argues that, since it is the duty of the Government “ to do whatever work is delegated to it by the people." " therefore education may as well be delegated to the Government as any thing else;" which is a clear non sequitur. Even admitting the duty of the Government as laid down, it obviously infers nothing as to the nature of the matters which may properly be delegated to it. Dr. Watts, however, is immediately obliged to modify his first principle, and to allow that religious training, even if it were delegated to the Government by the people, would still be beyond its province ; and yet, in a desperate effort to maintain his consistency, he goes on to say that even religious training would be within the province of the Government if it were delegated to them by the people en masse. If we ask him how this could be, he explains, that " the only reason why Government cannot take the religious teaching is because all the people are not agreed in religion ;” and yet, upon recollecting himself, he finds there is another reason too, (which he had himself previously stated,) namely, that “religion is not a subject of experience, and therefore any error cannot be repaired”-a reason which, clearly, even a delegation by the people en masse could never supersede.

The absolute effect of delegation by the people, is thus fairly denied by Dr. Watts himself, and the question is again remitted to us, what may properly be delegated by the people to the Government? On this point Dr. Watts lays down the general principle that “the first duty of the Government is the preservation of society," and therefore, we are to infer, the first duty of the Government comprehends education. But, as religion also tends to the preservation of society, is religious teaching likewise the duty of the Government ? To this Dr. Watts answers, No; and we now rejoin-It is then evident that the duty of the Government in relation to society is not absolute but limited ; one admitted limit is prescribed by the nature of religion, and it is certainly possible that other limitations may exist.

In the latter part of the paragraph Dr. Watts assigns to Government the specific object of promoting civilization, and consequently education, because education is civilization. Far be it from us to question or depreciate the civilizing power of education, but we are sure Dr. Watts will admit that religion has at least an equal civilizing power; and the assertion rests on his own authority that religious teaching is not within the province of the Government.

Dr. Watts affirms that with respect to education “ the sphere of the Gorerument is direct;" meaning, we suppose (for without any intention to be critical, we must confess that we do not know what “ direct sphere" is,) that the duty of Government to educate is primary and immediate. We can scarcely see our way to admit this ; for if this be so, then is the obligation universal, imperative, and exclusive. The state in this case has a right to educate, not only some, but all; it not only has a right to educate all, but it is bound to educate all; and it is nothing less than an intrusion on its province for parents of any class to educate their own children. Hard, but inevitable conclusions these. We have proof, however, in the course of his examination, that Dr. Watts does not really think that the

a

duty of the state to educate is of the nature of a primary obligation. Let him be heard.

859. Chairman.-It is said that the State ought not to interfere in the matter of education ; that it is the duty of the parent; and that is an objection urged against national education ; how do you reply to that objection The reply is, that if all parents exercised the right and performed that duty, it would pass unquestioned; but to attempt to prevent the Legislature from dealing with the neglected children, is to assert, not the right to educate, but the right to neglect or to pervert; which right once conceded, society is at an end.

Thus Dr. Watts plainly acknowledges the duty of the parent to be prior to that of the state-as, indeed, in the nature of things, it must be since the family is prior to society—and that of the state, of course, to be secondary and subordinate. What he contents himself with asserting here is the right of the legislature to deal with neglected children, which is taking very much narrower, and indeed undisputed ground.

A similar concession was extracted from Dr. M'Kerrow. 365. Mr. Peto.— With regard to the province of Government, is not the education of children primarily the duty of parents ; do you see no difference between the education of paupers and criminals, and the education of the working classes generally? With respect to paupers and criminals, is not the State in loco parentis; and would you have the State interfere with those who are educating their own children ; with those who can and show themselves unwilling, would it not be better to use persuasion to induce them to do their duty, than to take it out of their hands ; if the interest of parents could be awakened, might they not be relied upon to educate their children better than on any national system ?-I do not think we propose at all to interfere with the responsibility of the parents; we, on the contrary, furnish then with the means of instructing their children according to the sense of their responsibility; and if they have no interest in the instruction of their children, we imagine that society is bound to protect itself, and would be greatly benefited by bringing those children under instruction ; and that we are not to look merely to the circumstances of the parents, but more especially to the condition of society ; because if children are not instructed, of course they are growing up and forming vicious habits which are contracted in the streets. But there have been so many questions proposed at one time that I cannot retain them all. The putting of " so many questions at one time" was certaiuly infelici

“ tous, especially as explicit answers from the witness to the whole series would have been of considerable value ; shortly afterwards, however, we have a useful answer from this gentleman to a question put by itself.

380. Mr. Peto.—Does it not underlie all voluntary educational effort that the people ought to educate themselves, and ought only to be helped as far as necessary, and temporarily ?-Certainly, if people have the means of educating their own children they ought to do it ; but if they neglect their duty, I do not see that that is any reason why we should allow the poor children to suffer for the neglect of the parents ; the parent may have no claim on society, but I think the neglected child has a strong claim on society.

Granted. " The neglected child has a strong claim on society;" but Dr. M'Kerrow admits, let it be observed, that parents ought to educate their own children, and that the duty of the state herein begins only when parents neglect theirs.

;

From civilization Dr. Watts proceeds to crimiual jurisprudence, a subject which he treats in the following manner.

542. Have you anything further to add upon the duty of Government in reference to criminal jurisprudence ?

Several answers now follow on the importance of people being taught to read the laws which they are to obey, a point on which we have no difference with Dr. Watts; we content ourselves with observing that nothing can be inferred from this beyond the obligation of government to teach those who are not otherwise taught. The real gist of this argument lies in the following passages.

518. It seems to me unjust to punish those who have not been educated. Idiots and lunatics are legally exempt, as not knowing, or not being able to control themselves in the doing of right or wrong. Now, men's capacities depend very much on their education, and it appears to me that responsibility should be in accordance with capacity, and with advantages, and that punishment is at best but a very clumsy expedient in place of education. The right of punishment seems to me to imply the right to prevent crime, for if that be not its object, punishinent is gratuitous cruelty.

519. I wish to add, that if the right to punish crime be conceded, then it seems to me ridiculous to confine the Governinent to the worst possible mode of prevention, which is punishment. Gaol chaplains, schoolmasters, and industrial teachers may, and do, cure criminal dispositions, but punishment properly so called, that is, the infliction of pain, it seems to me never can.

550. Mr. Bouyer.-Would you give up punishinent altogether ?-I would not abolish punishment at once, but it seems to me that the question of criminal jurisprudence requires to be wholly reconsidered. The history of the Warwick County Asylum for Juvenile Offenders, and of our various juvenile schools of industry, all prove the economy of reformatory measures, but prevention by education is much easier than reforin. It would be the simple exchange of the policeman for the schoolmaster. I conclude, therefore, that it is clearly within the sphere of Government to guarantee education to all. The policy of such function in the hands of the Central Executive will remain to be considered, but I hold that wherever the tax-collector or the policeman penetrate that there the schoolmaster ought also to be known.

His colleague, Dr. M'Kerrow, expresses similar sentiments.

303. Chairman.- What is your next head ?-My next head refers to the general principle, that I think it coines within the province of Government, not merely to punish, but also to prevent crime ; not merely to repress social

; evils by the strong hand of power, but also to proinote by active means the safety, public order, virtue, and the improvement of the community at large. I am aware that there are many things which it is not necessary for the legislature, nor for any association of people under the authority and arrangement of law, to do, which indeed neither the one nor the other ought to do ; but it does not follow that there is nothing which they should not prosecute in this manner ; and I cannot understand why it should be considered right to support the poor, and to carry on measures of sanitary improvement under national authority, and by means of legal association, and wrong to adopt the same method of diffusing the blessings of moral and secular instruction. Neither can I perceive why we should be permitted to enlighten the mind and discipline the heart of a child when it becomes a pauper or a criminal, and wrong to attempt to save him from ignorance and vice until he becomes an inmate of a workhouse or a gaol.

In another place the same witness pointedly affirms, that “the right to educate is the only justification of legal punishment," (351.)

The proposition here maintained is, that, in the arrangements of societs, the obligation to educate is a necessary correlative of the right to punish. Our reply to this would be, that, in this case, the obligation of the Goveroment to educate must, since the right to punish is universal, be universal also, and comprehend, both all classes of the community, and all the elements of education—a conclusion we should suppose far from universally agreeable. We should rather say, that, since the education of children is primarily a parental duty, it is for social purposes*presumed to take place within the domestic circle, and that it cannot be regarded as devolving upon society in any other cases than those in which it is, either by destitution or neglect, left undone by parents or next friends. If the educational obligation of the state is allowed to go beyond this line, there is no consistent reasoning by which it can be withheld from superseding parental rights altogether. A secondary and subordinate obligation would thus be allowed to annul and absorb a primary and immediate one.

It is clear to me, says Mr. Hinton, that one and the same thing cannot, at one and the same moment, be the duty of two distinct and incompatible parties ; and if this be so, then I say that the education of children cannot be the duty of the State, because it is the duty of parents; a general principle which is allowed to “pass unquestioned” by Dr. Watts himself (859). — Appendix, p. 243.

And to Dr. MóKerrow's statement he thus replies :

Dr. M‘Kerrow says he cannot perceive why the State should be permitted to enlighten the mind and discipline the heart of a child when he becomes a pauper, and not to save him from ignorance and vice before he becomes an inmate of a work house or gaol,” (303.) To my mind there is a reason for this, namely, that in the latter case the State is in loco parentis, and in the former it is not.--Appendix, p. 243.

It might be observed further upon this topic, that, as for civilization generally, so for the prevention of crime in particular, nothing is so powerful as religious training; but religious training is admitted not to be within the province of the Government, and consequently the duty of the Government as to the prevention of crime is not an absolute but a qualified and restricted one. In further illustration of this point we introduce the following remarks of Mr. Hinton.

Much stress has been laid upon a proposition put in this form, that, as the Government must be a moral administrator, so it may be a moral teacher; and some parade has been made by Sir Kay Shuttleworth of the name of the Rev. Dr. Vaughan (because he happens to be a Dissenter, I suppose), as supporting it. I totally deny the major term of this proposition, namely, that the Government must be a moral administrator. Lord John Russell, indeed, (Speech, p. 14),* directly asserts, that "it is the great duty of the State .... to enforce the observance of the rules of morality." This, I think, is assuming for human governments what is the exclusive prerogative of the Divine. But if this be really so, how is it that by far the greater part of our moral duties have their observance never once inquired into by Government? It is true, that some of the acts which the State punishes are breaches of the rules of morality-theft, for example; but the State punishes them, not as violations of morality, but as offences against society; else it would punish lying as well as theft, which it does not. Besides, if the State have charge of our morals, it must also have charge of our religion, out of which they spring. Lord John Russell saw this, and consistently claims for the State a right of interference in the religious, as well as the moral training of the people ; while Dr. Vaughan, strange to say, so far agrees with him, as to admit that “ it may be the duty

a