indeed that they do not know this discipline of daily duty to be valuable-more valuable, in fact, than the discipline of the teacher. You may often hear them remark as much. But, with the eagerness usual amongst schemers, they are so absorbed in studying the action of their proposed mechanism as to overlook its reaction. Now of all qualities which is the one men most need? To the absence of what quality are popular distresses mainly attributable? What is the quality in which the improvident masses are so deficient? Self-restraint-the ability to sacrifice a small present gratification for a prospective great one. A labourer endowed with due selfrestraint would never spend his Saturday-night's wages at the public-house. Had he enough self-restraint, the artisan would not live up to his income during prosperous times and leave the future unprovided for. More selfrestraint would prevent imprudent marriages and the growth of a pauper population. And were there no drunkenness, no extravagance, no reckless multiplication, social miseries would be trivial. Consider next how the power of self-restraint is to be increased. By a sharp experience alone can any thing be done. Those in whom this faculty needs drawing outeducating must be left to the discipline of nature, and allowed to bear the pains attendant on their defect of character. The only cure for imprudence is the suffering which imprudence entails. Nothing but bringing him face to face with stern necessity, and letting him feel how unbending, how unpitying, are her laws, can improve the man of ill-governed desires. As already shown (p. 355), all interposing between humanity and the conditions of its existence-cushioning-off consequences by poor-laws or the like-serves but to neutralize the remedy and prolong the evil. Let us never forget that the law is-adaptation CULTURE OF SELF-RESTRAINT. 387 to circumstances, be they what they may. And if, rather than allow men to come in contact with the real circumstances of their position, we place them in artificial in false circumstances, they will adapt themselves to these instead; and will, in the end, have to undergo the miseries of a readaptation to the real ones. Of all incentives to self-restraint, perhaps none is so strong as the sense of parental responsibility. And if so, to diminish that sense is to use the most effectual means of preventing self-restraint from being developed. We have ample proof of this in the encouragement of improvident marriages by a poor-law; and the effect which a poor-law produces by relieving men from the final responsibility of maintaining their children, must be produced in a smaller degree by taking away the responsibility of educating their children. The more the state undertakes to do for his family, the more are the expenses of the married man reduced, at the cost of the unmarried man, and the greater becomes the temptation to marry. Let not any think that the offer of apparently gratuitous instruction for his offspring would be of no weight with the working man deliberating on the propriety of taking a wife. Whoever has watched the freaks which strong passion plays in the councils of the intellect-has marked how it will bully into silence the weaker feelings that opposes it-how it will treat slightingly the most conclusive adverse evidence, whilst, in urging the goodness of its own cause, "trifles light as air are confirmations strong as proofs of Holy Writ"-whoever has marked this, can hardly doubt that, in the deliberations of such an one, the prospect of public training for children would in no small degree affect the decision. Nay, indeed, it would afford a positive reason for giving way to his desires. Just as a man at an expensive dinner will eat more than he knows is good for him, on the principle of having his money's worth, so would the artisan find one excuse for marrying in the fact that, unless he did so, he would be paying edu cation-rates for nothing. Nor is it only thus that a state-education would en courage men to obey present impulses. An influence unfavourable to the increase of self-control would be exercised by it throughout the whole of parental life. That powerful restraint which the anxiety to give children schooling now imposes upon the improvident tendencies of the poor, would be removed. Many a man who, as things are, can but just keep the mastery over some vicious or extravagant propensity, and whose most efficient curb is the thought that if he gives way it must be at the sacrifice of that book-learning which he is ambitious to give his family, would fall were this curb weakened-would not only cease to improve in power of selfcontrol as he is now doing, but would probably retrograde, and bequeath his offspring to a lower instead of a higher phase of civilization. Hence, as was said, a government can educate in one direction only by uneducating in another-can confer knowledge only at the expense of character. It retards the development of a quality universally needed-one in the absence of which poverty, and recklessness, and crime, must ever continue; and all that it may give a smattering of information. What a contrast is there between these futile contrivances of men and the admirable, silent-working mechan_sms of nature! Nature, with a perfect economy, turns all forces to account. She makes action and reaction alike useful. This strong affection for progeny becomes in her hands the agent of a double culture, serving at once to fashion parent and child into the desired form. And beautiful is it to see how the most powerful of instincts is made the means of holding men under a dis UNEDUCATING INFLUENCE OF THE STATE. 389 cipline to which, perhaps, nothing else could make them submit. Yet this skilfully-devised arrangement statesmen propose to dislocate, confidently opining that their own patent apparatus will answer a great dea! better! § 11. Thus, in the present, as in other cases, we find the dictate of the abstract law enforced by secondary considerations. The alleged right to education at the hands of the state proves to be untenable; first, as logically committing its supporters to other claims too absurd for consideration; and again, as being incapable of definition. Moreover, could the claim be established, it would imply the duty of government despotically to enforce its system of discipline, and the duty of the subject to submit. That education ought not to be dealt in after the same manner as other things, because in its case "the interest and judgment of the consumer are not sufficient security for the goodness of the commodity," is a plea with most suspicious antecedents; having been many times employed in other instances, and many times disproved. Neither is the implied assumption that the "interest and judgment" of a government would constitute a sufficient security admissible. On the contrary, experience proves that the interests of a government, and of all the institutions it may set up, are directly opposed to education of the most important kind. Again, to say that legislative teaching is needful, because other teaching has failed, presupposes a pitiably narrow view of human progress; and further, involves the strange scepticism that, though natural agencies have brought the enlightenment of mankind to its present height, and are even now increasing it at an unparalleled rate, they will no longer answer. The belief that education is a preventive of crime, having no foundation either in theory or fact, cannot be held an excuse for interference. And, to crown all, it turns out that the institution so much longed for is a mere dead machine, which can only give out in one form the power it absorbs in another, minus the friction-a thing which cannot stir toward effecting this kind of education without abstracting the force now accomplishing that -a thing, therefore, which cannot educate at all. CHAPTER XXVII. GOVERNMENT COLONIZATION. § 1. A colony being a community, to ask whether it is right for the state to found and govern colonies, is practically to ask, whether it is right for one community to found and govern other communities. And this question not being one in which the relationships of a society to its own authorities are alone involved, but being one into which there enter the interests of parties external to such society, is in some measure removed out of the class of questions hitherto considered. Nevertheless, our directing principle affords satisfactory guidance in this case as well as in the others. That a government cannot undertake to administer the affairs of a colony, and to support for it a judicial staff, a constabulary, a garrison, and so forth, without trespassing against the parent society, scarcely needs pointing out. Any expenditure for these purposes, be it like our own some three and a half millions sterling a year, or but a few thousands, involves a breach of state-duty. The taking from men property beyond what is needful for the better securing of their rights, we have seen to be an infringement of their rights. Colonial expenditure cannot |