the
neighbours on each side of the street to make proper speeches as his
pupil passed by their doors, which alarmed and piqued the boy
effectually. At length the child was met at a proper time, by a friend
who had been appointed to watch him; and thus he was brought home
submissive. This scene, as Rousseau observes, was admirably well
performed;[47] but what occasion could there be for so much
contrivance and deceit? If his pupil had not been uncommonly deficient
in penetration, he would soon have discovered his preceptor in some of
his artifices; then adieu both to obedience and confidence. A false
idea of the pleasures of liberty misled Rousseau. Children have not
our abstract ideas of the pleasures of liberty; they do not, until
they have suffered from ill judged restraints, feel any strong desire
to exercise what we call free will; liberty is, with them, the liberty
of doing certain specific things which they have found to be
agreeable; liberty is not the general idea of pleasure, in doing
whatever they WILL _to do_. Rousseau desires, that _we should not let
our pupil know, that in doing our will he is obedient to us_. But why?
Why should we not let a child know the truth? If we attempt to conceal
it, we shall only get into endless absurdities and difficulties. Lord
Kames tells us, that he was acquainted with a couple, who, in the
education of their family, pursued as much as possible Rousseau's
plan. One evening, as the father was playing at chess with a friend,
one of his children, a boy of about four years old, took a piece from
the board, and ran away to play with it. The father, whose principles
would not permit him to assert his right to his own chessman, began to
bargain for his property with his son. "Harry," said he, "let us have
back the man, and there's an apple for you." The apple was soon
devoured, and the child returned to the chess board, and kidnapped
another chessman. What this man's ransom might be, we are not yet
informed; but Lord Kames tells us, that the father was obliged to
suspend his game at chess until his son was led away to his supper.
Does it seem just, that parents should become slaves to the liberties
of their children? If one set of beings or another should sacrifice a
portion of happiness, surely those who are the most useful, and the
most capable of increasing the knowledge and the pleasures of life,
have some claim to a preference; and when the power is entirely in
their own hands