the civil state, its administration, even the police, were things sacred; in the theocracy of Moses the smallest hygienic or agricultural regulation came from the wisdom on high. Every prescription of the priest is of divine institution; the thought of heaven permeates the whole body of laws.

As soon as lay society frees itself from the rule of the priests, it is considered to have broken off all relation with the eternal order. The same laws which formerly were filled with the spirit of God are now but the caprices of chance. From the moment that this State, which was said to be of divine institution, dispenses with the priest, it is proclaimed atheistic. Yesterday it was eternal wisdom, manifested and written in the laws. To-day it is a blind person who pushes away his guide. It knows nothing, it sees nothing. Separated from the priest, what remains for it to teach? Not even the wisdom which the ant teaches the ant.

If society without the priest does not believe in justice, why does it seek from century to century to come nearer to justice in the development of law? If it does not believe in truth, why does it pursue truth in science? If it does not believe in order, why does it pursue order in the succession of its institutions and revolutions?

Justice, truth, absolute order, what are they but the eternal source of divine ideas; in other words, that essence of the God on which the customs of the State are ordered? This God of order and of justice, this eternal geometer who descends by degrees into the very groundwork of the laws of all civilized peoples, is not the one who pleases the sacerdotal castes. Is this a reason for conceding that a society contains no principle outside its Church, no moral teaching outside its clergy, or that all light dies out if it is not lighted at the altar?

People repeat incessantly that lay society has no fundamental principle and consequently nothing to teach. At least you must admit that better than any one else it can teach itself, and that is precisely the point in lay teaching.

For my part I have always claimed that society possesses a principle which it alone is in a position to profess, and that on this principle is founded its absolute right to teach in civil matters. That which forms the foundation of this society, makes its existence possible, and prevents it from falling to pieces, is precisely a point which cannot be taught with equal authority by any of the official cults. This society lives on the principle of the love of citizens for one another, independently of their beliefs.

Do you wish to free lay teaching? Dare affirm what three centuries have affirmed before you, that it is sufficient unto itself, that it exists of itself, that it itself is belief and science. How has modern science been constituted? the science of the Church. The civil law?

By breaking away from By breaking away from

canon law. The political constitution? By breaking away from the religion of the State. All the elements of modern society have developed by emancipating themselves from the Church. The most important of all education remains to be emancipated. By a conclusion deduced from all that precedes, is it not clear that we can regulate it only on condition that it be completely separated from ecclesiastical education?

290. Moral and Civic Instruction replaces the Religious (Ferry, Jules, Letter to the Primary Teachers of France, November 17, 1883; trans. in Buisson and Farrington, French Ideals of Today. World Book Company, Yonkers, New York, 1919. Reproduced by permission) Jules Ferry (1832-93) was mayor of Paris during the trying period of 1870-71; later a member of the French legislature; and from 1879 to 1885 was several times Minister of Public Instruction. From his letter to the teachers of France, in 1883, the following extract relative to moral and civic education, which now replaced the religious, is taken. This expresses well the spirit of the new government, and of the state system of education it created.

The academic year just opened will be the second since the Law of March 28, 1882, went into effect. At this time I cannot refrain from sending you personally a few brief words which you will probably not

find inopportune, in view of the experience you have just had with the new régime. Of the diverse obligations it imposes upon you, assuredly the one nearest your heart, the one which brings you the heaviest increase of work and anxiety, is your mission to instruct your pupils in ethics and citizenship. You will be grateful to me, I am sure, for answering the questions which preoccupy you at present, by trying to determine the character and the purpose of this teaching. In order to succeed more surely I shall, with your permission, put myself in your place for an instant to show you by examples borrowed from your everyday experience how you can do your duty, and your whole duty, in this respect.

The Law of March 28 is characterized by two provisions which supplement each other and harmonize completely: on the one hand it excludes the teaching of any particular

dogma; on the other it gives first place among required subjects to moral and civic teaching. Religious instruction is the province of the family; moral instruction belongs to the school.

Our legislators did not mean to pass an act that was purely negative. Doubtless their first object was to separate the school from the Church, to assure freedom of conscience to both teachers and pupils, in short, to distinguish between two domains too long confused; the domain of beliefs, which are personal, free, and variable; and that of knowledge, which, by universal consent, is common and indispensable to all. But there is something else in the law of March 28. It states the determination of the people to found here at home a national education, and to found it on the idea of duty and of right, which the legislator does not hesitate to inscribe among the fundamental truths of which no one can be ignorant.

It is on you, Sir, that the public has counted to realize this allimportant part of education. While you are relieved from religious teaching, there never was a question of relieving you from moral teaching. That would have deprived you of the chief dignity of your profession. On the contrary, it seemed quite natural that the master, while teaching the children to read and write, should also impart to them those simple rules of moral conduct which are not less universally accepted than the rules of language or of arithmetic.

CHAPTER XXIV

THE STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL ORGANIZATION IN ENGLAND

THE Readings in this chapter have been selected to illustrate the long struggle to create a national system of education in England. They cover the early beginnings, the period of the charitablevoluntary conception of education, the period of philanthropic effort to provide schools, and the long struggle to secure national support and national organization.

The first selection (291) reproduces the testimony of a witness, called before one of the many parliamentary commissions of inquiry, as to educational conditions among the poor of London, and the maintenance of a charity-school. It is typical of volumes of evidence collected in the course of a half-century by such means. The next (292) is a bookkeeping statement as to the early cost for a charity-school, and what was provided each pupil. In 1780 Sunday Schools were begun, as a means of helping solve the problem of educating and bettering the condition of the children of the poor, and in selection 293 Robert Raikes tells of the beginnings of the movement. Another form of charitable and philanthropic effort was the Ragged School, and 294 gives the Constitution and Rules for one of these, showing how they were organized and supported, for whom they were intended, and what they taught.

At about the same time that the French Revolutionary theorists were stating their theories as to education being an affair of the State, Adam Smith's celebrated book appeared, and selection 295 gives his reasoning as to why general education becomes especially necessary as society becomes more highly organized. A little later Rev. T. R. Malthus added to the argument for national education (296) by pointing out the wastefulness of poor relief, and the advantages of teaching people to help themselves.

The introduction of monitorial or mutual instruction, which was evolved near the beginning of the nineteenth century, gave a great impetus to the development of schools by making education for all for the first time seem possible. Selections 297 and 298 give

good descriptions of the organization and instruction given in the monitorial schools organized and directed by Lancaster.

In 1833 the first parliamentary grant for elementary education was made, and the conditions under which this was voted are described in 299. Now ensued a battle to extend the aid, and to enact a law organizing elementary education. This continued unsuccessfully until 1870. Selection 300 gives an extract from a speech of Lord Macaulay, declaring it the duty of the State to act in the matter. This speech is typical of many such made in both houses of Parliament. The evils of the existing conditions were pointed out in many official reports, of which 301, on the apprenticing of the children of paupers, is given as an example.

All these efforts met with much opposition, and selection 302 is introduced to show a typical conservative attitude. In 1858 a new Parliamentary Commission was appointed to review progress and to analyze needs, and a summary of the principles and recommendations of this body are given in 303. Finally the Education Act of 1870 was attained, the fundamental features of this being given in 304. It provided that children in the state schools need not attend religious instruction, and the same year another law (305) exempted students and candidates for degrees at the old English universities from similar requirements. Selection 306 is an excellent brief statement of the outstanding events in a century of English educational progress, and gives a good review of the efforts made to create a national system.

291. Charity-School Education described

(Report from Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the Education of the Lower Orders in the Metropolis. Minutes of Evidence, II. London, 1816)

This Commission was appointed, on motion of Henry Brougham (later Lord Brougham), to take evidence as to educational conditions in London, Westminster, and Southwark, and to report to the House of Commons "what may be fit to be done with respect to the children of Paupers." The Commission found one hundred and thirty thousand children without school accommodations, and recommended that Parliament should take "proper measures for supplying the deficiency of the means of Instruction which exist at present, and for extending this blessing to the Poor of all descriptions."