anarchy, not theocratic inquisition, not autocracy or absolutism. The lessons of history condemn them all. But as government arose out of individual transgression, ought it to stop with the punishment of the transgressor? That was no doubt the primitive idea, since negatived by the lessons of experience, but toward which the materialists have a strong leaning. Herbert Spencer was opposed to the free school system or education of children by the State, as he thought their education was a duty belonging to the parents, and therefore a private function which ought not to be saddled on the public. He looked with alarm upon all sorts of so-called paternalistic legislation, and published an essay entitled, "The Coming Slavery?" That it is the duty of every person to be self-regulating, selfsupporting, to fulfil all his obligations to his family and to society, and to take all proper means for accomplishing those ends, is more than a Spencerian maxim; it is of general acceptation. But he should have seen, as no doubt, he did see, that especially defective individuals whether incompetent or perverse, involve the general welfare and therefore become a matter of general concern, and in default of proper correctives by private means, of collective control.
Mr. Spencer would not deny that an enlightened social state is more promotive of orderly conduct than one half civilized and that repressive measures would be in less demand, wherefore the education of children and the general diffusion of knowledge is more than a private affair and becomes a matter of general concern.
But all experience proves that individuals and parents neglect or are incompetent to fulfil their obligations in this respect, and the question immediately arises as to whether those charged with governmental functions should be alike remiss and rely solely upon repressive measures for the protection of society? If reason is to be
