t

tells you, he has hurt himfelf. Are you to deny him relief in his real neceffities? And how can you punish him by your affected disbelief, otherwife than by denying him fomewhat neceffary to him? Will not this prove dangerous?

THE natural confequences of idleness, and neglect of improvements, do not come on before the time comes, when we want to put thofe improvements to ufe, that is, before mature life. A child, or youth, may be made to feel the disadvantage of not being able to read but you cannot make him fuffer by any natural or contrived bad confequence from his reading ill or improperly; it is the fame of writing, and every other improvement. You may, indeed, contrive that fome relation, or friend, shall defire him to exhibit, and shall difapprove of his bad performance. But this would be no natural confequence from the thing itself. And you may contrive in the fame manner to convince him of his deficiency in Hebrew or Arabic. A natural confequence of the thing itself, would be his finding another employed preferably to him, on account of his deficiency; or a lofs occafioned to him by his faulty writing, fpelling, reckoning, and fo forth. But how can any fuch confequence be brought upon a youth? It is therefore manifeft, that M. ROUSSEAU's confequence-teaching scheme will fall miferably fhort in this, and most other cafes.

If it be, (as moft certainly it is) abfolutely neceffary, in this age of refinement in art, flience, and commerce, that a youth be accomplished in a variety

branches, and to a confiderable degree of perfection, in order to be, in mature life, on equal terms with his cotemporaries; it will follow, that he muft abfolutely begin his improvements at a very early age, and purfue them with a very close attention. Suppofe my fon to be, as I believe most people's fons are, more given to play than ftudy, I fhould be glad to learn of M. ROUSSEAU, how I am, by things, without words, to cure him of indolence and diffipation. How am I to make him experience the dif advantage arifing from the want of a multitude of accomplishments, which cannot come into ufe, till he comes into mature life. For M. ROUSSEAU is too original a genius to fuffer me to have recourfe to the common methods of alluring children to induftry and good behaviour by direct rewards, and deterring from bad, by punishments. They tend (he fays) to produce diffimulation, timidity, a mercenary temper, and other wrong difpofitions [k]. But the Governor of the univerfe, who knows, I believe, as well as M. RoUSSEAU, the tendencies of things, feems to have laid the main ftrefs of his adminiftration on propofed rewards and punishments. This clearly fhews, that wisdom is one thing, and speculation another. If it be faid, children differ from men, and are to be otherwife worked upon; I anfwer, neither children nor men can be hurt, by exciting in them a defire of happiness, and fear of punishment. And if little children be drawn to induftry and good behaviour by what they may innocently enjoy, and deterred from negligence by what is a real and natural evil, what harm is done? The wifeft and best man

[k] Vol. I. p. 95•

may

may endeavour to improve his fortune by lawful (which are generally the most fuccessful) means, with a direct view, among other objects, to the enjoyment of the innocent gratifications, which a competency affords, and poverty denies. The wisest and best man may be more temperate, than otherwife he need, through fear, among other confiderations, of bringing upon himself the fevere pains of the gout. I do not deny, that rewarding and punishing may, as every thing else, be injudiciously managed. But that is

no reason, why they are to be laid aúde, though it is for their being well confidered, before they be used. A child may innocently love play: Therefore he may properly be deprived of play by way of punishment. He may innocently defire to have his natural appetite fatisfied: Therefore he may have his dinner more plentifully and at an earlier hour served up to him, as a reward.

BUT, after all, does not M. ROUSSEAU's confequential punishment tend to produce exactly the fame effects with a pofitive infliction. I punish my little boy with a whipping, because he will not give over breaking the windows. M. ROUSSEAU punishes his EMILIUS with a fever, occafioned by the rain, or fnow, coming in at the un-repaired pane of glafs. Is not pain the punishment? is not the fear of pain the determent, in both cafes alike? What fhould then make the latter punishment fo much more eligible than the former, as to balance the rifque of the poor child's life in the infliction ?

M. ROUSSEAU declares war against all the means ever used for alluring youth to their improvement,

and

and emulation among others. Emulation; he thinks, is only another word for hatred. But this is merely relative to the difpofition of the perfon emulating. A malicious temper will find a pretence for hating excellence itself. To Moмus even the Goddess of Beauty feemed but plain. But, do we not emulate our mafters in arts and sciences? Do we hate our musicmafters, our drawing-mafters, our language-mafters, and our philofophy-mafters? Was there ever a great mind without emulation? Is not a difpofition to emulate excellence to be by all means encouraged?

OUR author fays [], A boy is to know nothing of authority, duty, obedience. But if you would have him to do any thing, let him know, that one good turn deferves another, and he will be glad to gain a debtor. To fay nothing of what one would think fhould be an objection to this management in M. ROUSSEAU'S judgment, if he were to be confiftent with himself [m] viz. That this is teaching the boy to act on mercenary principles; to fay nothing of this, I appeal to any perfon who is experienced in the ways of children and youth, whether this method is likely to have the fignal effects which M. RousSEAU expects from it, fo much beyond a conftant fense of authority. M. ROUSSEAU himself owns [x], that children have no regard to what is at a diftance. Befides, how are thefe returns of kindness to be regularly made! And how will this fordid traffic agree

with

[m] See

[1] Vol. I. pag. 223. Parlez lui, &c. vol. I. p. 95. [] Ibid. p. 115.-leur vue bornée, &c.

with the generous precept of returning good for evil, and fhewing kindness to the undeferving? And is the father of forty years of age, to treat the fon of fifteen with the fame refpect as the fon is to treat him? It must be edifying to be present at a dialogue between the two, which may be imagined to be carried on in the following manner nearly, fuppofing both father and fon to be named JOHN.

FATHER. JACK, come down ftairs. Here is your uncle THOMAS come, and wants to fee you.

SON. Not I, Old JACK, I am bufy here whipping my top.

FATH. But your uncle has fomething to say to you, JACK, and you know he is gouty, and cannot go up stairs.

SON. Let him ftay where he is then, old JACK: for I shan't come down, I affure you.

FATH. If you don't come down, JACK, I will refufe you the first thing you ask me.

SON. If you do, old JACK, I will refuse you the next thing you ask me; and then we are even you know.

FATH.

But harkye, JACK, if you will come down ftairs to oblige me now, I will come up stairs to oblige you another time.

SON. I thank you for nothing, old JACK, I fhan't want you to come up ftairs.

ON