!
Lei
185
G-7
ска
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
1
1
BY THE
→ HON. DUDLEY CAMPBELL, M.A.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
8
1870
رج
Price One Shilling.
*
.A
}


COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NIW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
30623
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
BY THE
HON. DUDLEY CAMPBELL, M.A.
1
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1870.
PREFACE.
THE following Essays, which appeared in the 'Fort-
nightly Review' for May 1868 and the 'Westminster
Review' for October 1869, are now republished as a
pamphlet, in the hope that they may be of use to
persons interested in Mr. Forster's Bill on Education.
TEMPLE: March 1870.
CONTENTS.
COMPULSORY EDUCATION
ON THE SAME SUBJECT
REMARKS ON THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES OF THE GOVERN-
MENT BILL ON EDUCATION
PAGE
. 1
26
38
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.¹
1
PRIMARY EDUCATION may now be taken up at a point
for which, a year or two ago, the public were al-
together unprepared. Many things which then would
have been warmly disputed may now be assumed. It
may be taken for granted that the more education a
man can get, consistently with the discharge of his
special duties, the better both for himself and for
society. The great question now is, how this is to be
brought about. Some would be content if the present
system were a little tinkered up; some have declared
for a permissive rating bill, and others for a compulsory
rating bill. For our own part, in spite of the cant in
quarters from which better things might have been ex-
pected, about the danger of increasing the policeman's
authority, and of encroaching on the liberty or dignity
of the subject, we think that the compulsory prin-
ciple cannot too soon be adopted. It can be shown,
we think, first, that the present educational system is
inadequate; and secondly, that this inadequacy will last
as long as parents retain the power of keeping their
1 Fortnightly Review, May 1868.
B
2
children in ignorance. Thus, coercion becomes a duty
of the State, unless (which we shall endeavour to dis-
prove) any serious objections can be alleged to State
interference.
To demonstrate the shortcomings of the present sys-
tem no elaborate exposition of details need be given.
It is enough to remind our readers that at present
Government aid is confined to those who can to a
certain extent help themselves. No one can deny the
propriety of stimulating individual effort and energy
by all legitimate means. But a plan of education
limited by this principle cannot possibly satisfy the
requirements of a nation. The chosen abodes of
wealth and benevolence, which could best afford to
dispense with extraneous assistance, are exclusively
favoured by the State; while places so smitten by
poverty and distress that the inhabitants, if told they
should establish schools, would think their adviser
mocked them, are left utterly uncared for by the
Government. Unquestionably, the strong and active
should be encouraged, but it does not follow that the
weak and paralysed should be neglected. Because
the one is done, the other need not be left undone;
for, if those who can help themselves are entitled to
aid, the helpless have, surely, a still stronger claim to
assistance.
How urgently such assistance is required, will be
seen by a glance at the following statement :- There
<
دن
were, therefore, more than 11,000 parishes which
derived no assistance from what is called our educa-
tion system, and the population of those parishes may
fairly be estimated at not less than 6,000,000.'¹ In
the debate last November on Lord Russell's resolu-
tions, the Duke of Marlborough, in a speech through-
out remarkably sanguine, seemed to think that he
had destroyed the effect of the above figures as the
basis of an argument for change. It is true that his
Grace was able to mention one or two places where
education went on without Government assistance;
but as he was only able to cut down the unaided
parishes from 11,024 to 8,368, he can hardly be con-
sidered to have shown any material inaccuracy in Lord
Russell's melancholy description of the educational
state of the country. Indeed, both in November and
again in March, when the Duke introduced the Go-
vernment bill, his mind seemed more occupied with
what had already been done in the cause of educa-
tion than with the deficiencies still remaining to be
cured.
Manchester may be taken as affording a fair speci-
men of the condition of the working-classes in the
more populous districts of England. In the Report
for 1867 of the Manchester Education Aid Society, we
1
Report of the Committee of Council, 1863-4, quoted in the
Draft Report of the Select Committee in 1866.
B 2
4
[
->
L
find the following statements to the same effect as
many others which had appeared in previous reports:
"The following is a tabular statement of the educational
condition of parents and young persons from 12 to 20 years
of age:
'Of 1,672 fathers, 465 cannot read.
'Of 1,857 mothers, 815 cannot read.
'Of 1,660 persons between 12 and 20 years, 759 cannot
read.
Nearly one-third of the fathers, almost one-half of the
mothers, and about the same proportion of the young men
and young women, are in a state of profound ignorance!
'These inquiries among the adult population have been
confined to families whom the Committee have assisted. It
is only too probable that no higher standard of education pre-
vails among families whose parents are able, but unwilling,
to pay school-fees. It has already been stated, that out of
8,427 children of school age, but not at school, 4,336 belong
to parents who can pay for education. In other words, of
every 100 children not attending school, of the school age,
51 belong to parents whose income is adequate to the pay-
ment of school-fees. No merely voluntary agency, such as
the Education Aid Society, can make any impression on such
parents.
C
Taking the total number of children of all ages above 3
years, living with parents or guardians, there were only
7,814 at school; while there were 10,205 neither at school
nor at work. The remainder were at work. Thus, in every
100 children living with parents or guardians, who are not at❤
work, there are 43 at school, and 57 not at school.'
Want of money and apathy on the part of parents
are not the only causes which keep so large a part of
our population uneducated. It not unfrequently hap-
5
10
pens that religious differences stand in the way of co-
operation. There are districts in which no sect is rich
enough to establish a school; and support from reli-
gious opponents is seldom to be expected. The best
chance of union would be the establishment of a school
on secular principles. Such a school, unfortunately,
would not be countenanced by the Government; and
it is not impossible that prejudice on this subject may
hamper the legislature for many years to come. We
venture, however, to think that two essentials of a
reformed system will be the extension of Government
support to poor districts, and the adoption of the
secular principle wherever the religious principle has
failed.
But we are far from saying that this would be
enough. Let the State be as lavish and free from
prejudice as the most advanced reformer could desire,
a large mass of people must necessarily remain unedu-
cated, unless resort be had to what, somewhat un-
luckily, is called the compulsory principle. Take the
case of a labouring man with a large family, who finds
it difficult to make ends meet, even with the four or
five shillings a week which we will suppose him to
make by sending out some of his children to work.
Though he be a man who has been educated himself,
and who values education, how great must be his fore-
sight and self-control, if he prefers the future and
contingent interest of his children to the sharp calls
6
of immediate necessity. But in a vast number of
cases no such struggle takes place in the parent's
mind. Ignorant himself, he is perfectly contented
that his children shall remain ignorant. Is it not evi-
dent, then, that as long as parents of either class are
counted by thousands, though schools were brought
to their very doors by the most ingeniously devised
system, a large mass of the population would persis-
tently refuse to leave the beaten track?
Some readers will, perhaps, agree with us up to this
point. Not denying that, in a densely crowded country
like ours, the day is far distant when the duty of edu-
cating their children will be universally recognised by
the labouring class, they will nevertheless say, 'Better
that this should be so, than that we should adopt any
principle so hateful as that of coercion. It is bad that,
improve our system as we may, men should still grow
up ignorant. Yet the evil is less than that of interfe-
rence with the sacred right of parents to manage their
children.' But having established a primâ facie case
for compulsory education, by showing that without it
a part of the population must necessarily remain igno-
rant, let us examine the objections with which the
advocates of such a system are usually met.
In the first place let it be remembered, that it is not
the children who would suffer from compulsion. They
would be no worse off than they are now. Whether
they remain at home, or their parents send them to
7
school, they equally live under control. It is important,
then, to bear in mind that the parents alone would be
coerced; they would, no doubt, experience the restric-
tion of a right now accorded to them by the law.
Why, however, does the law give a parent authority
over his child? Surely, not to promote the conveni-
ence of the parent, but to secure the interest of the
child. If the former were the ratio legis, the parent's
privilege would not cease on the child's attaining the
age of twenty-one, when, having reached years of dis-
cretion, he might be expected to be more useful than
before. The reason of the law is clear. It is the
supposed inability of a person under twenty-one to
take care of himself. And that which is the basis of
the right ought to regulate, and to a great extent does
regulate, the mode of its exercise. A parent is not
allowed to let his child starve. Now, there are many
men and women for whom an early death from neglect
would have been infinitely preferable to the lives they
are now leading of uselessness, misery, and crime,
directly traceable to want of education. Parents,
moreover, are obliged to have their children vacci-
nated, and there are several trades in which no child
may serve, unless on the condition of obedience to
certain enactments regulating the hours of work, and
making some provision for due instruction.
Nor is it by the legislature only that the duty of the
State to coerce parents in the interest of the children
8
1
and of the public has been recognised. Few principles
of the law are older or better established than that
which enables the sovereign as parens patriæ, acting,
of course, through the proper machinery, to remove
children from the care and control of parents whose
conduct is likely to be of prejudice to the morality and
education of their offspring.
Lord Eldon said, in giving a decision on this point :
'Lord Thurlow's opinion went upon this, that the law
imposed a duty upon parents, and, in general gives
them credit for ability and inclination to execute it.
But that presumption, like all others, would fail in
particular instances; and if an instance occurred in
which the father was unable or unwilling to execute
that duty, and, further, was actively proceeding against
it, of necessity the State must place somewhere a
superintending power over those who cannot take
care of themselves, and have not the benefit of that
care which is presumed to be generally effectual.'¹ It
is true that the child must have property to enable the
court to exercise its jurisdiction. But on this point
Lord Eldon remarks, 'It is not from any want of
jurisdiction that it (the Court) does not act (where it
has no property of an infant's), but from a want of the
means to exercise its jurisdiction; because the Court
cannot take on itself the maintenance of all the children
in the kingdom.'2
1 Vesey, 63.
2 2 Russell, 21.
9
As an instance of the Court's authority, we may
mention the remarkable case of Wellesley v. Duke of
Beaufort.¹ Mrs. Wellesley had been induced to live
separated from her husband in consequence of his bad
treatment, and his living with a married woman, a
Mrs. Bligh. Five days before her death, Mrs. Welles-
ley enjoined her sisters, the Misses Long, to take care
of her children, and not to allow Mr. Wellesley to
interfere with them. Shortly after he made an ap-
plication to the Court of Chancery to have his children
taken away from the Misses Long. In a letter to Mr.
Pitman he had given, as Lord Eldon expressed it, 'his
notion of law'—that a man and his children ought
to go to the devil in their own way if he please' (an
opinion, it is to be feared, which even now has fol-
lowers), adding, in a postscript, that neither God nor
the devil shall interfere between him and his children.'
Mr. Wellesley, moreover, had said, that if he had
the government of his children, he would take care
that they should be present at bull-baits, cock-fights,
dog-fights, and all other sports of the like nature, in
order to afford them opportunities of hearing and
learning to repeat oaths and blasphemous language
made use of by people usually attending such sports,
which were manly sports, and ought to be pursued by
his children in preference to any other.' The Lord
6
1 2 Russell's Reports, p. 1.
1
10
Chancellor, in refusing the application, said: "I have
no difficulty in saying, that if a father be living in a
state of habitual drunkenness, incapacitating himself
from taking care of his children's education, he is not
to be looked upon as a man of such reason and under-
standing as to enable him to discharge the duty of a
parent; and, if such a case were to occur again, as it
has occurred before, the Court would take care that
the children should not be under the control of a
person so debased himself, and so likely to injure
them.'
And in another case,¹ Lord Thurlow intimated that
he would not allow the colour of parental authority to
work the ruin of the child, he would not allow the
child to be sacrificed to the views of the father; and
he accordingly ordered the father to be restrained from
interfering with the management of the child.
Many persons have so strong a prejudice against what
they conceive to be a new and un-English principle,
that we have endeavoured, at the risk of prolixity, to
show that it is one repeatedly recognised, not only in
statutory enactments, but in legal decisions of the
highest authority. Indeed, what we advocate is no
more than common regard for consistency requires.
If it was right that the facilities of divorce, formerly
confined to the rich, should be extended to the poor,
1 Creuz v. Hunter, 2 Cox, 242.
11
the same view à fortiori holds good in the matter of
education. Every rich man's son, as we have seen,
is entitled to the protection of the law against the
neglect and shortcomings of his parents. We shall
shortly see whether our new constituencies will take
away this privilege, or insist on sharing in it them-
selves.
•
Many persons are indisposed to accept a change
which would, in their opinion, injure and demoralize
parents by interfering with their responsibility. If
you persuaded them by degrees, it would be so much
better.' Better, perhaps, for the few who allowed.
themselves to be persuaded, but not better for such
as shut their ears to all exhortation, or for those not
requiring persuasion. People, whether rich or poor,
sending their children to school as a matter of course,
would not be demoralized by the existence of a com-
pulsory law which in no wise crossed or vexed them.
An honest and peaceful man is not demoralized by the
laws against theft and violence. The argument, then,
is reduced to this: that the limited good of a small
number of parents ought to be procured at the cost of
the whole careers of multitudes of children.
To prevent so incalculable an evil, the advocates of
the laisser-aller principle are surely justified in making
some concession. They do not deny that a nuisance
should be abated. They would not let a man keep his
house in such disorder as to endanger the lives or
12
health of his neighbours. Then, what more serious
nuisance can be mentioned, than that a large portion
of the men and women among whom we live should
have reached maturity with gross minds and brutal
habits? Is there any one whose fortunes have not
been impaired, and whose life has not been to some
extent saddened, by the gloom of ignorance and
misery which surrounds him?
Again, it may be urged that many parents, if de-
prived of the assistance of their children, would be
driven to the workhouse. We reply, that even if this
should be so, a less evil would be incurred than that
of sacrificing the future of a still larger number of
children. Indeed, the same objection might be urged
against the obligation imposed on parents to feed their
children. In practice, however, the cases of hardship
would be few. If duly-appointed inspectors were
satisfied of the inability of a parent to support his child
at school, the Government should do it for him, and
then all ground of complaint would be cut away. For
a child seldom earns more than enough for its own
maintenance, generally not so much; and to anything
beyond this the parent could not set up the pretence of
a right, if it could only be insisted on at the sacrifice of
the child's permanent interests. This suggestion, in-
deed, amounts to no more than a very limited extension
of the present plan of educating workhouse children.
We admit, that assistance of so large a character ought
13
cases.
only to be afforded by the State in very exceptional
In others of a less necessitous kind, enough
would be done if the education were gratuitous. Oc-
casionally, there might be imposture; but not enough
to raise any serious difficulty. There is no more reason
for England being unable to cope with fraud and indo-
lence than those countries (including a very large part
of Europe) where assistance in bearing the burden
of education is given to parents whose necessity is
proved.
Nor let it be forgotten that, before many years had
elapsed, the compulsory system would in the main
have completed its work. A new generation lifted up
from the ground where its fathers lie shackled by
poverty and ignorance, and armed with the best
security for independence, would need little of con-
straint or assistance to induce them to afford their
offspring the advantages to which they owed their
elevation.
Not a little of the antagonism now obstructing
the adoption of a compulsory system arises from the
fear that voluntary contributions would cease to flow
in. 'Who would make donations,' it is asked, 'when
schools are not in any way dependent on charity?
What folly to inaugurate a scheme which would nip
private generosity in the bud, and deprive the com-
munity of the gratuitous offering of many thousands of
pounds!' For our own part, we believe that a multi-
14
tude of rich persons would continue to support educa-
tion with unabated zeal. Nor would they be without
an equivalent. They might, as at present, maintain
some special form of training, whether secular or re-
ligious, which, without their assistance, might fall to
the ground.
The wealthy Anglican or Methodist
would be as anxious as before to secure the propaga-
tion of his peculiar views amongst the young. The
sum subscribed would, however, be far less, and, for
the sake of argument, we will suppose that it would
sink to zero. Would the public, therefore, be to that
extent impoverished? 'Yes,' some will assert, by
reason of the greater stress on the revenue.' The
answer is, that as the money turned aside from pri-
vate contributions to schools would be equally well
employed in swelling the capital out of which wages
and taxes are provided, the national wealth would not
be impaired, and without any addition in reality to the
burdens of the country, a much better bargain in the
way of education would have been obtained.
C
Two important objections have still to be considered:
the expense of efficient education, and the dangers to
be apprehended from its implying the adoption, at
least to some extent, of the secular principle. The
sum required, if put down in figures, would, no doubt,
be startling; yet the gain of living in a purer moral
atmosphere would, we think, relieve the nation from
the charge of prodigality. Besides, from a mere
15
material point of view, the outlay would be justified.
If the multitude of schools proved costly, there would,
in compensation, be less to pay for prisons, less for re-
formatories and for police; poor rates would be dimi-
nished, and so would the heavy tax now imposed in
the form of property abstracted from society to support
in idleness an army of thieves, whose numbers are
counted by tens of thousands. In short, on the stric-
test economic principles, the return to the State would
be abundant and certain. But, unfortunately, the man
who is eager to take precautions against small evils is
too often apathetic in the case of great ones, if they do
not concern him more than his neighbours, and cannot
be fully realised without a certain intellectual effort.
And thus it is possible that a person who is careful to
insure his barn against fire, will not, if he can help it,
pay a single shilling to free himself from the conse-
quences of general vice and ignorance.
Another class of objectors is alarmed by the prospect
of Government support extended to secular education.
Now, the greater part of those who are in favour of the
compulsory principle would desire nothing less than
that the religious instruction which is now given in
schools should cease. They would even concede that
in new schools religion should be taught, where this
would not have the effect of excluding children who
were in danger of remaining uneducated. In many
districts, however, the alternatives are not religious
16
education and secular education, but secular education
and none at all.
If this is so, can there be any doubt on which
side we should range ourselves? For, surely, under
a secular system, morality would gain more than
if left entirely to chance. Was the refinement of
Greece the result of her mythology? Were the vir-
tues of Socrates independent of his culture? Such
considerations can hardly fail to weigh wherever mo-
rality is regarded as the cardinal object of religious
creeds and systems. And religion, if we do not use
the word in any narrow or illiberal sense, would gain
too. A child whose understanding had been im-
proved, would be more amenable to the teaching of
his spiritual pastor than if he had been left to his
native dulness. Even if no religious instructor were
forthcoming, a child initiated in the rudiments of
ethics would at least be better able, and more likely
than before, to read the Bible and to court the
assistance of those who could help him. Some people,
no doubt, would prefer that twenty children should
be educated according to a particular doctrine, while
eighty children were in consequence neglected, than
that the whole hundred should receive a sound
intellectual and moral training, and depend for re-
ligious instruction on their parents and ministers.
We can only hope that this mode of thinking may not
gain ground.
17
In a debate last July on Mr. Bruce's motion, it
was urged that persons not approving of secular edu-
cation, and yet compelled to contribute to it, would
be subjected to great hardship in getting no return
for their money. We may, in the first place, remark
that similar hardship is felt by such as disapprove of
religious education, or do not find the kind they re-
quire within their reach. But the above contention
obviously rests upon the fallacy that education ex-
clusively benefits the person educated. If, however,
the community gains by the imposition of a tax, a
contributor disapproving of its object has no more
right to complain than a Quaker in time of war, or a
Tory whose contributions to the revenue help to pay
the salary of a Radical minister.
If the arguments we have adduced had been brought
forward in support of an untried theory, we cannot
help thinking that they would have been difficult to
overthrow. It must not, however, be forgotten that
compulsory education has been adopted by several
European countries; and with what signal success is
testified by all competent to speak upon the subject.
Upon this point hear M. Baudouin, who, having been
employed by the French Government to examine the
Belgian, German, and Swiss systems of education,
published his admirable report in 1865.
After saying that in Germany, if the parent is ob-
lurate to both reproof and punishment, the child may
C
18
C
be taken away from him and placed under the care of
a guardian, he assures us that rigorous treatment is
hardly ever required. He is only aware of ten cases
in the year 1864 in Prussia, with its 18,000,000 inha-
bitants, and he asserts that in Saxony and Hesse during
the same period there was no case whatever. The
reason is that, L'instruction, depuis longtemps ré-
pandue partout et généralisée, a déjà fait ses preuves
et donné des résultats presque palpables, que les popu-
lations des villes et des campagnes ont pu apprécier
également.' And he goes on to explain that the chil-
dren are every way better looked after than formerly,
that there is no vagabondage among them, and that
among adults there is less drunkenness, and that
crimes and offences have sensibly diminished. He
alleges, moreover, that compulsory education is adopted
in every State in Europe, except Belgium, France,
England and Geneva, and that in all countries which
have adopted it the spread of education has been great.
On the other hand, in countries which have not yet
adopted the compulsory principle, educational in-
efficiency is a ground of constant complaint, even
where systems far better than our own are in opera-
tion. In America the public expenditure, under the
head of education, is lavish as compared with that of
Great Britain. Yet it seems that, from want of com-
pulsion, the result is far from satisfactory.
The experience of a chaplain who was attached to
19
the army of the United States during the civil war is
given as follows, at p. 11 of 'The Daily Public School
in the United States :'—' A very large majority of the
soldiers born and brought up in the North-western
States could read and write, but of these many could
read but very imperfectly, and composed a letter with
great difficulty. Union soldiers from the Slave States
were deplorably destitute of common school education.
Thousands of soldiers learned to write letters while in
the army. In my army Sunday-school of 150 to 250
from my own regiment, I found that a large number
were poor readers. They were very imperfectly
taught in the common schools. The same I found
true of schools in other regiments. The letter-writing
showed the writers were very imperfectly instructed in
orthography.' Further evidence is given at p. 12 of
the same publication: At a public meeting at
Cooper Institute, New York, last October, a member
of the Bar, largely conversant with all classes of
society, stated that the ability to read and write is by
no means so universal as is generally supposed, and in
proof of it, he mentioned that he had occasion to issue
subpoenas to forty persons, of whom thirty made their
mark!' The author of this publication also remarks :
—‘It is very doubtful whether more than three out of
every seven children of proper age are ever at one
time in regular attendance at the common schools of
the United States.'
c 2
20
(
Similar complaints are made as to France. It ap-
pears from a Report of M. Jules Simon on popular
education in that country, that of one hundred people
who present themselves for marriage, more than thirty-
five are unable to sign their names; that, of the rest,
many can write nothing but their names.
Of one
hundred of the age of twenty, twenty-seven could
neither read nor write in 1862.' And what says M.
Baudouin, after making a similar lament over Belgium
and Geneva ? • Enfin la France est mon pays; je
souffre de penser qu'en instruction, comme en tout,
elle ne se trouve pas au premier rang. . . . . Ouvrons
des écoles de toutes parts, et faisons nos efforts pour
qu'elles soient fréquentées assidûment; nous en recueil-
lerons bientôt des fruits inappréciables.' If, then, it is
true that in countries not yet resorting to compulsion
the progress made in education is unsatisfactory, while
in those applying coercion the gain has been great,
the burden of proof is evidently cast upon those who
assert that by following the example of the latter we
should be losers.
To draw the details of a bill showing how the theory
supported in these pages might be practically carried
out, would exceed our limit; we may, however, point
out that the Prussian code might very well form the
basis of a similar law for this country. The statute for
compulsory vaccination, 16 and 17 Vict., cap. 100,
might also be of service to any one framing an enact-
21
ment for compulsory education. A register of chil-
dren is kept by the Registrar of Births and Deaths in
every sub-district, and if notice sent by him to the pa-
rent or guardian of the child, requiring it to be vacci-
nated, is disregarded, the penalty imposed by the Act
may be recovered before two justices of the peace.
The language of many people might induce one to
suppose that the practical difficulties standing in the
way of enforcing the attendance of children at school
were insuperable. We maintain, however, that if the
principle be once conceded as legitimate, putting it in
operation would be perfectly easy.
With the German Codes and the Compulsory Vacci-
nation Act before them, it can hardly be beyond the
powers of experienced legislators to draw up an ade-
quate scheme-one, moreover, which need not involve
any irksome amount of inspection or interference.
The principal items would be these :-Registered lists
of children must be kept in each district; local com-
mittees must be empowered to send to any parent
suspected of not sending his child to school a notice
requiring him to do so; and they should further be
enabled to summon and question a parent who dis-
regarded the notice; and, in the event of his giving
no satisfactory excuse, and continuing to neglect their
admonition, they should have authority to summon him
before two justices of the peace, who, if convinced
that the parent was to blame, might order the proper
22
penalty to be exacted. Of course any parent who
could satisfy the local committee that he was having
his children properly educated at home would receive
an exemption; and a further modification of any
apparent severity in the law would be the giving of
assistance to the parent where this was absolutely
required. There is no reason for supposing that, if
the law were understood, punishment would be oftener
required than in Germany.
The working, moreover, of such a measure might be
unspeakably facilitated were schools all good, instead
of so many remaining, to the knowledge of the parents,
exceedingly indifferent; if, too, the Vagrant and Work-
house Acts were improved and duly enforced, and a
provision made against the employment for wages of
uneducated children in any business whatsoever. But
as, in spite of such indirect agencies, many selfish
parents might find it convenient to keep their children
at home, direct interference could only be dispensed
with at a deplorable sacrifice of efficiency.
One point we have no hesitation in conceding. How-
ever desirable a measure of coercion may be, let none
be introduced if the people refuse to submit. It would
have been better to postpone the repeal of the Naviga-
tion Laws, the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, or
the adoption of free trade in corn, than incur the evils
of civil war. It would be worse that fifty thousand
men should perish on the field of battle, than that fifty
23
thousand lives should be lost for want of a Vaccination
Act. As yet, however, we have heard of nothing to
justify us in supposing that compulsory education
would be regarded by the labouring class as an intoler-
able innovation, to be put down by armed resistance.
Some growling there might very likely be, just as
there has been in consequence of the Vaccination Act,
which has nevertheless proved exceedingly beneficial.
But the passive and temporary discontent of a section
of the community ought not to deter Parliament from
assenting to what is manifestly for the good of the
whole country, especially at a time when indications
are not wanting that a large mass of the labouring
population would heartily sympathise with any efforts
to improve their educational position. For, the more
thinking members of the working-class have become
aware that the extent of political power to which they
aspire can never be reached, and, if reached, could
serve no useful purpose, as long as the great majority
of their brethren are degraded by ignorance.
The above reasoning is, in the main, of equal appli-
cation to all civilised countries. But the course of
recent legislation has supplied an argument of special
reference to England. If it is well that all populations
should be enlightened, it is of peculiar importance that
they should not be sunk in ignorance when the direct
exercise of great political power is entrusted to their
hands. Those who think it right that non-electors
24
should be intelligent, may further insist, as a matter
affecting the destinies of this country, that the mass of
householders and lodgers who are to govern us should
know what they are about. Let us remember what
Mr. Lowe forcibly said on the third reading of the
Reform Bill (and that gentleman's opinion is the more
remarkable from his having been till last summer a
very decided enemy of the compulsory principle):—' I
was opposed to centralisation. I am ready to accept
centralisation. I was opposed to an education rate.
I am ready now to accept it. This question is no
longer a religious question-it is a political one.
From the moment that you intrust the masses with
power, their education becomes an absolute necessity;
and I believe that the existing system is one which
is much superior to the much-vaunted Continental
system. But we shall have to destroy it; it is not
quality but quantity which we shall require. You have
placed the government in the hands of the masses, and
you must, therefore, give them education. You must
take education up the very first question, and you
must press it on without delay for the peace of the
country.'
We have thus endeavoured to show the lamentable
inadequacy of the present system of education, the
utter hopelessness of any plan which leaves power in
the parent to keep his child ignorant ever becoming
thoroughly efficient, and the right, and not only the
25
right, but the absolute duty, of the State to guard the
interests of all who are in the dependent condition of
childhood. We have also discussed the arguments
against change, based on the freedom and dignity of
the subject, on the poverty of the parents, on voluntary
contributions ceasing, on expense to the State, on
danger to religion, and on injustice to unwilling con-
tributors. This reasoning we have supported by the
experience both of countries now working the com-
pulsory system, and of others not yet vigorous enough
to make the trial. We have shown how, by following
the Prussian Code and the analogy of our own Com-
pulsory Vaccination Act, a compulsory system might
at once be put in force in England. We have com-
bated the suggestion of probable resistance on the
part of the working-class, and insisted on the danger
to the community of leaving an enfranchised multitude
to be governed by the unmodified sway of their
natural prejudices. Such topics could not be ex-
hausted in a single paper; but enough, we earnestly
hope, has been said to prove the grave responsibility
resting upon any political party which, for the sake
of ease and temporary convenience, is content to
consign untold thousands of lives to uselessness and
misery.
26.
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.¹ 1
1. The Education of the People.
NORRIS. London: Macmillan.
By the Rev. CANON
1869.
2. Rapport sur l'état actuel de l'enseignement spécial et de
l'enseignement primaire en Belgique, en Allemagne, et
en Suisse. Par J. M. BAUDOUIN. Paris: Imprimerie
impériale. 1865.
THE admitted ignorance of the working-classes at
home, and the weighty evidence of the superior intelli-
gence and morality found amongst the corresponding
class in Switzerland and Germany, seem to establish
at least a primâ facie case in favour of compulsory
education. Its opponents, nevertheless, are often con-
tented with saying little more than that what suits one
country does not necessarily suit another. The objec-
tion is not without plausibility, and many instances
might be given of its proper application. Yet surely
the general utility of a principle may sometimes be
argued from its success in a single community. Poli-
tical economists do not doubt that the principle of
free trade, which has enriched England, would produce
similar results abroad. Jurists do not question that
religious toleration, so beneficent in France and Ger-
1 Westminster Review, October 1869.
27
many, would promote happiness and harmony in Spain
and Sweden. Foreign statesmen, struck with the use-
fulness of the English police force, have found no
reason to regret their imitation of it. A cheap letter
post, first carried out amongst ourselves, has been
eagerly transferred across the Channel. So has our
mode of cheap telegraphy. It does not seem to
have occurred to foreign politicians that plans for
controlling criminals and for conveying letters and
telegrams, which succeeded in an island, would pro-
bably fail on a continent. Without, however, being
accused of pressing the argument too far, we may at
least contend that the time has come when the
enemies to the introduction into England of German
education, ought to be prepared with distinct and in-
telligible reasons for their opinions.
Canon Norris has accordingly come forward in
defence of the Conservative view. Whilst warmly
approving of indirect compulsion, he thinks that any
direct method is liable to three decisive objections.
1. A revolution would be created in the management
of schools; in other words, the authority of the Angli-
can clergy would be impaired. 2. Parents would be
exposed to great hardship. 3. The people would not
submit. He further insists, in answer to those who
rely on foreign experience, that in those countries in
which compulsion has been applied, no effect has
thereby been produced on the advance of education.
28
Its progress, he believes, would have been precisely the
same under voluntary regulation.
As many people who consider direct coercion 'un-
English' look with complacency on indirect methods,
it is important to observe at the outset, that in prin-
ciple these two modes of procedure are the same.
The man obliged to do a thing, and the man who
unless he does it is deprived of some of the privileges
of freedom, are equally living under force. The payer
of income-tax has quite as much liberty as one not
allowed to have the necessaries of life till he has
satisfied the collector.
You take my house, when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life,
When you do take the means whereby I live.'
No new principle is invoked by the advocates of
direct interference. They can appeal to numberless
precedents in our legislation; to such, for instance, as
relate to sanitary arrangements. The best example,
perhaps, is afforded by the Compulsory Vaccination
Act. It is not, however, on any flaw in the principle
relied on by his opponents that Canon Norris takes his
stand.
That the clergy should view with distrust an innova-
tion which tends to limit their own power is in no
way surprising. Like other closely connected bodies of
men, they are not without an esprit de corps. More-
29
over, they may appeal with truth to much valuable
work done by them in educating the poor. They have
during the last thirty years, in many parts of the
country, been lavish, not only of personal labour and
superintendence, but of what many of them could ill
spare-pecuniary contribution. When their influence
is far less than at present, the example set by them to
the laity, in making exertions to enlighten the ignorant,
will still be remembered to their credit.
If, however, the question be, not what are the
services and deserts of the clergy, but how education
may be rendered popular, the 'revolution' which Mr.
Norris anticipates has nothing in its nature so very
appalling. The poor do not always like to be patron-
ised. Now, the education given by the clergy some-
times seems to the poor to be tainted with an air of
patronage. Then, a large portion of the working-class
happen to hold opinions which do not find any echo
in the theology professed by the Anglican clergy. It
is possible, therefore, that Government schools-not
subject, as at present, to the authority of the parson—
may be regarded with favour by the labouring class.
But the clergy need not be inconsolable. The denomi-
national schools would still hold their ground as far
as they were supported by public opinion. If they
fell in the general estimation, and consequently, as
Mr. Norris anticipates, failed to gather adequate sub-
scriptions, this would be because their inferiority to
30
the new schools, maintained by rating, had become
manifest. In this case the old schools would gradually
give way to the new; but when the reasons were
understood, even clergymen would be found who
would look on the change with approval.
The hardship to parents is forcibly depicted by
Canon Norris:-
66
6
They are returned in my political friend's statistics as
idle," being "neither at school nor at work.” But what is
the fact? They are as indispensable to the home-life of that
cottage as if they were earning three or four shillings a
week. One is going errands-most necessary errands; with
the father's meals, to the apothecary, three miles off, to the
village shop. Another collects half the fuel they use, or
acorns for the pig, or manure for the garden. A third, and
all in their turn, "mind the house," "mind the fire," "mind
the baby," while the mother is out. We must think twice
or thrice before we roughly try to apply compulsory atten-
dance to such a home as that. To require those parents to
give up their children's services, would be simply tantamount
to requiring them to keep a servant girl, at a cost of two
shillings and sixpence a week, out of an income of twelve
shillings a week.'
But in this passage Mr. Norris suggests the strongest
possible argument in favour of direct compulsion. It
is precisely because children are so indispensable to
the home life of their parents-because they are so
useful, one in going errands, with the father's meals, or
to the apothecary or village shop; another collecting
fuel, or acorns for the pig, or manure for the garden;
31
in short, doing the work of a servant-girl engaged at
two shillings and sixpence per week, that in thousands
of families they can never be got at by any indirect
method.
With Mr. Norris, we should deeply regret the loss of
comfort to the parents. But it is the duty of a states-
man to regard the evils not on one side only, but on
both sides of a question. What is the consequence
to themselves and to society if these children are left to
mind the house or the fire, or gather acorns for the
pig, or manure for the garden? This view will, we
trust, be considered by Mr. Norris in his next pub-
lication.
Again, is it true that such a law would be
practically inoperative?' Though, as the reverend
canon tells us, ' Legislation is useless unless the popular
conscience go with it,' that popular conscience is
against us must not too easily be taken as proved.
A large part of the working population is noto-
riously in favour of compulsion. They know full well
that their whole class is pulled down and degraded
by the ignorance of the larger portion, and that till
this portion is leavened by education, the whole, for
all social and political purposes, must remain unduly
weak. The subject was frequently broached at the
general election; often with the decided approbation
of the audience, and rarely, as far as we know, with
any indications of their dissent. That individuals
32
·
would feel themselves aggrieved by the new law may
be granted. Individuals, nay, thousands of families,
are aggrieved by the Compulsory Vaccination Act, yet
that Act is far from inoperative; its usefulness is
widely acknowledged amongst those best qualified to
form an opinion.
Not the least arduous part of Mr. Norris's under-
taking is his contention, that though education in
countries using compulsion is satisfactory, the results
under a free system would have been the same.
Let, however, this pregnant fact be steadily kept in
view; not only that wherever coercion is applied,
education is good and morality high; but that wher-
ever coercion is not applied, education is deficient
and morality comparatively low. What is the natural
inference?
The efficiency of a medicine can never, it is true,
be positively certain. If you tell a doctor who boasts
of a cure, that in your opinion his patient would
have done equally well without his assistance, he can-
not confute you by absolute proof. Yet, if he could
show that a number of sufferers for whom he had pre-
scribed had recovered, while an equal number, under
the same conditions, having refused his treatment, had
died, a strong presumption would have been created in
favour of his remedy.
Just such is the case of the compulsory principle.
Governments resorting to it can boast of an intelligent
33
and well-conducted population. So enviable a state of
things might possibly, as Mr. Norris urges, have come
about under a voluntary system. And if the matter
had stopped there, the evidence would have been in-
complete. When, however, you find, not only that in
these countries an agent has existed capable of produ-
ducing the effect, but that in places from which that
agent has been excluded no such effect has been
attained, as strong a chain of reasoning is presented
as in a world in which we have to act on probabilities
can often be expected.
This view is strengthened by two à priori conside-
rations. (1.) That foreign statesmen, who may be
supposed to know something of their own affairs,
would not have gratuitously introduced a stringent
law. In their opinion, at any rate, a coercive measure
was not likely to be a 'dead letter.'
(2.) Then it is a matter well ascertained, that the
opinion of a nation is largely modified by its laws.
Were the statute forbidding murder to be suddenly
repealed, few men would be deterred from their
ordinary pursuits till they had provided themselves
with arms. But whether the same security would
prevail had no law against murder ever been enacted,
is a very different question. In this respect nations are
like individuals. A man can seldom govern himself
whose youth has not been controlled by others. We
rejoice then to hear that the law in Germany affecting
D
34
parents is so seldom put in force. But we must crave
leave to think that the wisdom of adopting such
a measure has not, therefore, been in any way dis-
proved.
Though differing on many points from Mr. Norris,
we readily admit that his paper has rendered good
service to the cause of education. A careful argu-
ment, whether on the right side or on the wrong,
When distrust and prejudice
always advances truth.
are floating vaguely in the public mind, they are far
more fatal than when collected and expressed in a
clear and tangible form. Their strength, if they have
strength, no doubt becomes more impressive. But
also their weakness, if they have weakness, is more
easily brought to light.
We have pleasure in finding that Mr. Norris is
eager to extend indirect coercion to agricultural dis-
tricts.
'Of course,' he says, 'it is more difficult to enforce such
a law over scattered farms than in workshops or factories.
But I see no reasonable objection to a law requiring that no
boys or girls under fourteen years should be hired for farm
service of any kind unless they could produce certificates
signed by a teacher and countersigned by a government
school inspector, that they had passed an examination in the
fourth standard of the revised code.'
Canon Melville (who is in favour of direct com-
pulsion) writes to the same effect.
6
It is scarcely less true that, for certain field processes,
35
juvenile labour is the best. On the other hand, any one
acquainted with our rural districts must know that for no
class are the elevating effects of Education more needed.
There is no reason why this part-time system should
not be extended to agricultural as well as manufacturing
pursuits-why, in fact, it should not be made the con-
dition of all employment whatever, and forbidding out-door
employment to any child under eight; enforcing alternations.
of work and school on all employed between eight and
thirteen. Of course agriculture is more fitful than manu-
facture, but not so much as to make school-teaching im-
possible.''
We may here advert to a sophism lately pro-
pounded to the country by Mr. Disraeli and Lord
Stanley. If education is popular, they said, com-
pulsion is unnecessary; if unpopular, compulsion will
not be tolerated. The fallacy appeared to find accep-
tance with the audiences to whom it was addressed.
They failed to see that though education were popular,
isolated districts might still remain, which, fostering
ignorance and her train, would be a nuisance to the
community; or that if, on the other hand, education
were unpopular, the odium need not be so great as to
incite resistance. Laws intensely annoying to large
numbers of the population have often been passed
and worked, without producing insurrection or dis-
turbance.
Those whose scruples as to compulsion have not
1 Popular Education. By the Rev. David Melville, M.A.
Rivingtons.
D 2
36
been met in these pages, we would refer to the in-
teresting report on German education, sent in by
Monsieur Baudouin to the French Government, and to
an article by the present writer in the 'Fortnightly
Review.'¹ But, in truth, the time for discussing
principles is past. The important question is how
most quickly to give education to every child in the
kingdom. While legislators are, in a desultory man-
ner, making up their minds, irreparable mischief, that
might be averted, is daily being done to hundreds
of thousands of human beings.
We would submit that the Factory and Workshop
Acts should be extended in such a manner that no
child can be employed either in the town or the
country without a certificate attesting a certain amount
of education, and a guarantee that till the age of
fourteen, education shall continue. And that chil-
dren may not be kept from school, to remain as
servants at home, a measure should be passed re-
quiring parents who are not educating their children,
to send them to school for a portion of the year,
between the ages of five and fourteen.
Moreover, these means should be adopted, not as
cautious politicians have recommended, ten or twenty
years hence, when the public has become more en-
lightened, but now, whilst its ignorance is gross, and
1868.
(
Compulsory Primary Education.' Fortnightly Review, May
37
its need of stringent remedies the more pressing.
When a house is on fire, and water at hand, it is well
to extinguish the fire with all possible speed; not wait
till the lethargic inmates are convinced that water
would be useful.
This generation cannot, indeed, expect to get rid, at
a blow, of the bitter legacy inherited from the past.
But it is for them to say how far they will be in-
strumental in handing it on to the future. As far as
we are aware, no more effectual method lies within
their reach than making the education of the poor,
which is now a matter of accident, a matter of cer-
tainty.
38
SOME REMARKS ON THE
GOVERNMENT PLAN.
IN the Bill for National Education explained by Mr.
Forster to the House of Commons on February 16,
he proposes, where they may be required, to create
School Boards, and to empower these to compel the
parents of children between 5 and 12 to send them
to school.
It is far from my purpose to express dissent from the
approbation with which Mr. Forster's measure, in the
main, has been received. But on the clauses relating to
the compulsion of parents, to which branch of the sub-
ject I propose to confine myself, the Government, as it
seems to me, has taken a hardly tenable position. Mr.
Forster either goes too far, or not far enough. On the
one hand, he offends the sentiment of such as object to
compulsion on principle; on the other, he fails to meet
the expectation of a powerful party eager to see com-
pulsion applied in such a way as to make national
education thoroughly efficient, and convinced that,
without compulsion, efficiency can never be obtained.
39
The lovers of inertia may well look on with a com-
placent smile; for, in truth, the clauses intended to
insure the attendance of children will, as they are at
present framed, touch but a very small portion of the
country. Neither energetic nor stagnant districts will
be subjected to the new influence. Not the ener-
getic, because they will not have a School Board.
Not the stagnant, because they will prefer to let
their powers lie dormant. For, compulsory education
means the increase of rates and the decrease of
boys competent to drive carts and frighten crows.
How many farmers will allow such pressing arguments
to be outweighed by regard for the general welfare of
the community, for the superior intelligence of their
labourers, and the ultimate diminution of the poor-
rate? Country districts, we fear, as a rule, can only be
dragged into activity at the tail of the large towns.
But there is danger lest the large towns, satisfied with
the sop given them by the Bill, may cease to agitate
for a thoroughly effective measure. The question
will then die out, and we shall still have for the most
part―
'A sleepy land, where under the same wheel
The same old rut will deepen year by year.'
Another obvious difficulty in working the permissive
plan will arise from the unequal treatment of parents.
A man who would have contentedly complied with a
40
rule binding upon all without exception, may naturally
grumble on finding himself subjected to a restraint
from which his neighbour in the next parish is free.
Moreover, if Mr. Forster has such confidence in the
Local Boards as to trust them with the solution of
the religious difficulty, need he deny them the power
of exercising their discretion as to how far distance
from school ought in each case to be received as an
excuse for non-attendance? Since numbers of children
in country districts regularly go two or three miles to
school, the condition that the compulsory clauses shall
not apply where there is no school within a mile of the
child's residence, was dictated, as we can now see, after
the reception given to this part of the Bill, with ex-
cessive caution. Such a restriction will either involve
a useless multiplication of schools, or serve as a ready
pretext for negligence to a number of the parents
whom Mr. Forster is most anxious to reach by legisla-
tion.
Again, why should the Government, in proclaiming
the duty of every citizen to educate his children, say,
or at any rate imply, that at 12 education may be
considered finished? Can enough have been learnt
at 12? And if education stops then, will what has
already been learnt be remembered? Mr. Forster
tells us that he trusts not so much to actual con-
straint as to the moral force of his proposed enact-
ment. Then, should not the standard set before the
41
nation make some nearer approach to completeness?
Now, in most countries in which education is much
valued, attendance at school is enforced till 14, and
sometimes till 15. The English peasant will, we fear,
too easily persuade himself that his duty is done
when he has complied with the bald requisition of
the Government. Nor are we putting forth a mere
conjecture. Mr. Fitch, an excellent authority, says
that the portion of the labouring population coming
under the Factory Acts measure their obligation to
educate their children with the most scrupulous
adherence to the provisions of the Statute book.
The children are not sent to school before 10, nor
allowed to remain there after 13; and when the
mills stop from want of work, the children cease going
to school. It would surely be no excessive extension
of the Factory Acts, which already comprehend chil-
dren up to 13, to enact (in addition to adequate
provisions for direct compulsion till the age of 12)
that all children below 14, whether out at work, of
whatever kind, or living altogether at home, shall be
subject to some modification of the half-time principle.
We ought, moreover, to remember that, without the
widest possible application of indirect coercion, the
clauses providing for direct compulsion will be sub-
jected to a great and unnecessary strain.
A peculiar feature of the Government proposal is,
that a year is to elapse before it takes effect. There
42
is something round and attractive in the period of a
year. It gives officials time to set themselves in a
new groove. And the party of inertia, after having
been a little roused, can turn round again and continue
their slumber for a time. But, if the contentment of
these last were Mr. Forster's object, why not give
them two years, or ten, or twenty? As it is, however,
they will generally get two. In the majority of cases
the Government will find at the end of the first
year that nothing has been done; and thus, what with
official delays, and the necessary time for erecting
mere buildings, a second year will, in too many cases,
have passed before any beneficial change has resulted
from legislation. Now, if on the bill becoming law,
England were to wake from her lethargy and con-
centrate all her energies on carrying out the new
enactment, even then a year would hardly be re-
quired. But, except where sectarianism is rife, and
with mischievous promptness builds school-houses as a
means of waylaying the public funds, to the exclusion
of rival denominations, no such display of vigour can
be reasonably hoped for. It will be so much easier to
wait till specific instructions come from head-quarters,
than spontaneously to devise and carry out an ade-
quate scheme. And thus, much precious time will be
needlessly wasted.
號
​Now, a delay of even six months is a very serious
matter; one, moreover, which it is very difficult, but
43
very important, to realise in the concrete. The time
which the poor, under the most favourable circum-
stances, can give to education, is little enough To
shorten it in a multitude of instances by six unneces-
sary months, is gratuitously to inflict a terrible loss,
which can never be repaired.
Six months may very well be given to see what local
organisation is likely to effect. If plans can then be
shown likely to bear fruit by the end of the year, the
Government might still trust to local action. But
where, after such ample notice, no sign has been made,
why should the central authority any longer hesitate to
step in ?
The near approach of the day fixed for the second
reading restrains us from any longer criticism of
what has narrowly escaped being an excellent mea-
sure. If Mr. Forster does not go further, this
can hardly be from a conviction that his scheme
is complete. The pains devoted by him to the
question, and the mastery he has obtained over it,
are evidence that, had public opinion, in his judg
ment, been sufficiently ripe, he would not have
shrunk from introducing still wider changes. In
the meantime, he has, perhaps, over-estimated the
forces against him. It is far from my intention to
speak otherwise than respectfully of those, many of
them highly gifted and distinguished persons, from
whom I may differ. I only desire to point out that
44.
amongst them there is a class apt, unconsciously
perhaps, to make the liberty of the working-man
a stalking-horse to cover special interests, not ne-
cessarily bound up with the working-man's wel-
fare. Such thinkers imagine that compulsion carries
within it a principle of antagonism to the de-
nominational system. Hence, much of the jea-
lousy expended of late in defence of the labour-
ing population; and hence the dread lest their
privileges should be curtailed, or their sacred in-
dependence diminished. But, curiously enough, the
working-class themselves have no such fear. On the
contrary, they court compulsion. In numerous meet-
ings during the last few months, they have avowed
themselves eager to see compulsion established;
and their opinion is daily gaining strength. Now,
should not the class most interested in the matter be
consulted, rather than men not concerned so much
about the spread of intelligence as the acceptance of
special religious tenets? As Lord Denbigh said at
Exeter Hall, First, I am a Roman Catholic, then I am
an Englishman,' so our opponents say (or at any rate
mean), 'First, we are dogmatic theologians, then we
are upholders of education.' Such advisers are, surely,
to be distrusted.
Mr. Forster claimed as a merit of his scheme that it
was capable of development. Without lessening the
number of his followers, he might assuredly add to the
45
usefulness of the bill by introducing these three modi-
fications (1) That compulsory attendance, instead of
being permissive, shall be general, and that to carry
out this and other educational objects, Local Boards
shall at once be established throughout the country.
(2) That the half-time principle shall apply to all
children under 14 (not affected by direct compul-
sion), whether working for wages or not. (3) That
where, in any part of the country, six months have
elapsed after the bill has become law, without such
preparations as would make the means of education
adequate by the end of a year from the bill becoming
law, there the Government, without further waste of
time, shall take the requisite steps for supplying local
deficiency.
The position now held by Mr. Forster in respect of
education is truly unique. He may now do, with the
certainty of general support, what neither he nor any
other statesman of this generation can count upon
effecting hereafter. Let us hope that he will not leave
his work half finished; but that, holding occasion by
the locks,' he will secure for himself the rare retrospect
of the right thing done at the right time in a most
critical period of English history.
'
LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01104 7902
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE DUE

181985
NOV 221306
!



་་
ካ
L