In such a society the simple enuncia tion by one possessed of power, that Edu cation is a part of the business of the state, would be considered as the fore runner of some measure which should lay the foundation of that unity without which the temporary prosperity of the nation can never become permanent and its real happiness can never be secured.
The particular questions that the phi losophic legislator has then to solve with respect to the education of the citizens, are-1. How are teachers to be taught, and what are they to be taught? 2. How is the body of teachers to be directed, superintended, rewarded, and punished ? 3. What schools and what kinds of schools are to be established and encouraged for the Education of the people ? 4. What are the teachers to teach in those schools? 5. Where is the immediate government of such schools to be placed ? 6. And where the ultimate and supreme direction and control of such schools ? The word Schools is here used as comprehending all places of Education.
It remains to consider those other rela tions of a man to the state in which we view him as a producer of wealth for his own enjoyment. Here the general prin ciple is, that the pursuit and enjoyment of wealth must be left as free as the pub lic interest requires ; and this amount of freedom will not depend in any great de gree on the form of government. To this head, that of the production of wealth, belong all the divisions of labour by which a man, to use a homely but ex pressive phrase, gets his living, or what in other words are called the professions, trades, and arts of a country. The only way in which the state can with any ad vantage direct or control the exercise of any profession, trade, or art, is by requir ing the person who undertakes to exer cise it to have been trained or educated for the purpose. Whether this should be done in all cases, or in some and what cases, and to what extent, and how, are questions for a legislature guided by a philosopher to answer.
In all countries called civilized this has been done to a certain extent. The legis lation of our own country offers instances of great errors committed by legislating where no legislation was wanted, or by legislating badly. Perhaps instances may also be noted in all countries where evil has arisen for want of legislation on the subject. may explain by example.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for a state to require that a shoemaker, or a tailor, or a painter, or a sculptor, should be re quired to go through a certain course of training before he exercises his art. The best shoemaker and best tailor will be sure to find employment, and individual shoemakers and tailors have as ample means of giving instruction iu their craft as can be desired. It may be true or not true, that the best painters and sculptors will meet with most employment: but is it unnecessary or is it necessary for a state to offer facilities and encouragement to those who design to educate themselves as painters and sculptors ? Most civilized nations have decided this question by doing so, and there are many reasons in favour of such a policy.
Ought the state to require the pro fessor of law, of medicine, or of religious teaching, to undergo some kind of preli minary Education, and to obtain a certi ficate thereof? Nearly all civilized countries have required the lawyer and physician to go through some coarse of Education. There are strong reasons in some countries, our own for instance, both for and against such a requisition ; but ou the whole, the reasons seem to pre ponderate in favour of requiring such Education from him who designs to prac tise law, and still more from him who designs to practise the art of healing. Most civilized countries, perhaps all, ex cept two (so far as we know), require all persons who profess the teaching of Re ligion to have received some Education, to be ascertained by some evidence. But in both the nations excepted, any person, however ignorant, may preach on subjects which the mass of the community believe or affect to believe to be of greater im portance both for their present and future welfare than any other subjects. Pro fussing to maintain, as we hope they al ways will do, the principle of religious freedom, these two nations have fallen into the greatest inconsistencies. They have checked the free expression of indi vidual opinion byword of mouth, and fet tered it in the written form, in the one country by the severe penalties of positive law, and the no less severe penalties of positive morality ; and in the other by the penalties of positive morality carried to an excess which is destructive to the interests of the society itself. (See At
torney General v. Pearson, 3 Merrivale, 353.) But both nations allow any per son, if he professes to be a teacher of religion. however ignorant he may be, to become the weekly. the daily instructor of thousands, including children, who derive and have derived no instruction of any kind except from this source. Such a teaching or preaching, if it only as sumes the name and form of religions teaching, is permitted to inculcate prin ciples which may be subversive of the political system ; and it may and often does inculcate principles the tendency of which is to undermine the foundations of all social order; for it should never be forgotten that all religions teaching mast include moral teaching, though moral teaching is quite distinct from religious teaching. And though it must be ad mitted that no teacher of religion recom mends a bad thing as bad, he may recom mend a bad thing as good, solely because he knows no better. We have endea voured to point out an anomaly which exists in certain political institutions, and which can only be allowed to exist so long as it protects itself under a specious and an honoured but misunderstood name. For though it be admitted that such anomaly exist, it may be said that it cannot be remedied without interfering with the important principle of religious freedom. But what is religious or any other freedom ? Is it the individual power of doing or saying what a man likes ? Certainly not. It means no more than a freedom not inconsistent with the public welfare. Still it may be urged that this is precisely the kind of freedom with which no state, where the principle of religious freedom is admitted, can safely interfere. But this is only bring ing us round again to the question, What is religious freedom ? To say that it cannot be interfered with is to assume an answer to the question. Does what is called religious freedom, as the same is now understood, admitting it to produce much good, produce also any evil ? If it does, can the evil be remedied ? Is the free practice of any art or profession, me dicine or law, for instance, or the art of instructing children in general know ledge, or perfect freedom in teaching and expounding religious doctrines, incon sistent with the condition of qualification ? How the qualification is to be ascertained, and what it is to be, is the question; and it is a question which may be answered. It may be asked: If a man should not be a teacher of Religion without comply ing with some previous conditions, why should he be allowed to write on Religion without some like qualification, for he may do mischief by his writing as well as his oral preaching? This is true ; and if it were possible, consistently with reli gious freedom, as here understood, to pre vent persons from writing on Religion who have not had a competent Education, it would be a good thing to prevent them. So would it also be a good thing to pre vent persons from writing on many other subjects, who know little or nothing about them, if it could be done consistently with letting those write who do under stand what they are writing about. But it cannot be done ; and as the free ex pression of opinion is essential to the full development of a nation's powers, both physical and intellectual, we must be con tent to take the bad with the good. Writ ing, however, is different from teaching and preaching. Oral instruction reaches thousands whom a book, however small or cheap, never can reach. If a man should propound doctrines destructive to all social organization in a learned and extensive work, it might be most prudent to take no notice of him. If he should propound them in a form adapted for universal circulation, the case is different; and if his doctrines are such as tend to overthrow the political system under which he lives, it would be a gross in consistency to allow them to be circu lated. Still more, if he should go about preaching them, would it be the business of the state to quench such a firebrand by any means, however severe, that are re quired for the purpose.