Lecture I.

On Primary Education.

I Need scarcely say that we are not about to traverse the whole field of primary education, but merely such portions of it as bear upon the technical instruction of the people; and in doing so I shall endeavour to avoid subjects of political controversy.

During the discussions of the Scotch Education Bill in the last session, the Vice-President of the Council took two occasions to warn the Scottish people that they were resting too much on the traditions of the past, and that they might lose their proud pre-eminence in education, unless they infused new life into it. This warning struck me forcibly, as coming from a man whom all parties unite in praising for prudence, foresight, and sagacity. He did not deny that Scotland was in advance of England in the general education of her people, but when two are running a race, the last man may become first, if he accelerate his pace, while the former slackens his rate. Now it is perfectly true that England is bestowing an extraordinary amount of attention on the subject of education, in relation both to the primary and secondary instruction of the people, while Scotland dreams of her past triumphs, and has not begun to buckle herself for a new race. Last session England passed an Act of the most revolutionary kind, in order to throw the gigantic resources of the old endowed schools into the common educational movement of the country; while Scotland allowed the corporations, now managing those schools, to obtain a feeble permissive Act, under which improvements may doubtless be effected, though without coherence or system, and purely local in character. So Scotland lost her chance of getting a graded page 4 system of education, such as is being established in England. It lost, in fact, the peculiar merit of the Scotch national system, held up to us as an example by the reformers of the 16th century, that schools should be so connected with each other that the meritorious poor, without favour or patronage, and by the freest competition, should find an easy ascent to the University through different roads representing varieties in their talents and attainments. Well, England has adopted this fine old Scotch principle in regard to her own endowed schools, and when I fought in the last session of Parliament to secure it for Scotland also, there were only two persons who spoke in favour of it. I need not tell you that the wealth and energy of England will enable her to make gigantic educational strides, now that she has fairly begun her course. I wish that I saw the same prospect for my own country in an access of educational zeal, for that would compensate in the future, as it has done in the past, for our national poverty. But I am bound to say that I think Mr. Forster, the Vice-President of the Council, was justified in his warning. The Scotch members fought their educational measure last session with but little backing from their constituencies.¹ There was certainly no want of denominational zeal on the part of the churches, nor was there any lack of interest on the side of teachers, but the people of Scotland stood aloof, and gave us little support. We had at our head Moncreiff, a veteran educational reformer and hero of a hundred fights, but he had heavy difficulties to contend with from dissensions in his own ranks, the opposing interests of churches, and above all, from the want of expression of the public will; and now we are deprived of his aid, though I hope he will continue to look with interest on our struggles, in the placid contentment that is derived from fixity of tenure. The measure earned through the House of Commons, but rejected by the Lords, was far from being a perfect one, though it contained important general principles, to have gained which would have been a victory. One of them, not opposed, I am proud to say, by any church or party in Scotland, was that the inspections of schools should be undenominational. Under

¹ The recent animated and excellent discussion of the bill by the Edinburgh Town-Council is, I hope, a sign of reviving interest.

page 5 the present system, inspectors waste their own time and powers, and the money of the nation, by visiting only schools of one particular denomination,—four sets of inspectors doing one kind of work in the same locality. Had the measure become law, we should by this time have had district inspections all over the country. By such a consolidation of the duties of inspectors, new reforms in education would arise. The time is coming when there must be special inspectors of subjects, and not merely of localities. Take, for example, the subject of drill, strangely neglected in our Scotch schools, and which is so important, not only in its educational and disciplinary relations, but also in many national points of view, that before long it will become the special concern of the State. Then the hygienic state of schools will rise in importance when compulsory education becomes law; for if existing schools be filled to overflowing, this will increase their power, already marked, of propagating epidemic diseases. Had the Scotch measure passed, we would have been already preparing provision for 90,000 children,¹ who are perishing for lack of knowledge, and for 80,000 more who are wretchedly fed. Had it passed into law, Scotland would have been assured that its own national system of education would have been preserved and superintended by a Board of Education in Edinburgh, instead of being regulated by clerks in the Privy Council Office in London. Had the bill passed into an Act, you would have confirmed for all Scotland, and have given an example to England, that it is the duty of localities to educate the people by rates levied in them. Then there was in the bill the seeds of a great reform, for it gave power to districts to form educational unions for the promotion of special branches of knowledge, and their utility would have prepared the public mind for one of the greatest improvements in the education of the people,—the division of the country into educational unions large enough for the efficient administration of all instructional measures.

Now with these positive advantages, how was it that the measure was only coldly supported by some of the representatives of the people? Doubtless because it was transparently a bill of compromises and not of general principles. Yet how could it have been otherwise? The education of Scotland has

¹ The Royal Commissioners say 92,000. Rep. II. p. 173.

page 6 been created by a variety of churches, and their views required to be consulted. Originating in the efforts of the Church of Rome to raise the people as a check on the power of the nobles, it was carried on by the Church of Scotland through a parochial system, and was then largely supplemented by the Free Church, which, since its formation, has spent £600,000 on schools. Under such existing systems, no bill could be carried that is not based on compromises. My own views as to the desirableness of having an unsectarian system of education are pronounced, but when I know that Scotch schools are practically, though not theoretically, carried on in an undenominational spirit, am I to see so many children of the nation starving for want of the bread of education, because I cannot get it in the form of a whole loaf, when most of its substance lies before me in the form of slices? If we wait for an Education Bill that will satisfy all parties, we must wait till the crack of doom. This is not a place to refer to politics, and I shall not transgress a proper reserve. But it may be permitted me to say, that those who look to Ireland as an example of how we should reform education in Scotland, have little knowledge of the working of the two systems. The practical working is, in fact, in the inverse ratio of the professions made. Ireland professes to have an undenominational system, and in practice is quite denominational; while Scotland, with a denominational profession, is practically undenominational in the actual teaching of all her Presbyterian schools. In my view, the Scotch Education Bill, as it was introduced to the House of Lords, and even as it left the Commons, had in it so much of good, that its operation would have insured excellent education for the people. Scotland deceives herself if she believe that there is any longer a national system of education in the country. It is true that a really national system was created in 1696, while England did not begin seriously till 1839. On this glorious recollection of the past we are apt to reason with complacency, when in truth it is a national system no longer. The parochial system began when none of the towns in Scotland were worthy of the name. Though Glasgow, Greenock, and Paisley existed, their real development was after the Union. The parochial system does not apply to towns; and this is the age of towns. page 7 If you separate the towns in Scotland having populations above 10,000, you will find that they contain thirty-three per cent., or one-third of the whole people. To such towns the old educational system is inapplicable, and it is vain any longer to deceive ourselves with the belief that Scotland possesses a national education.

The present Lord Advocate, a few days since, in replying to a deputation of the Town-Council, threw it out "for consideration," whether it would not be well for the present to leave the country districts alone, and legislate only for the burghs, giving them, as I understand, permissive powers to rate themselves for the support of schools. I have given to this subject the consideration which his Lordship invites, and I will tell you what is likely to be the upshot of this proposal. There are now in Scotland 365,288 children of school ages, the sons and daughters of the wage-making class. Of this number 146,549 reside in burghs with a population above 3000, and the towns with a less population have scarcely grown out of the reach of the parochial system. Now, assuming that every one of these towns rated itself for the support of schools, there would still remain 218,739 school children for the parochial system. But parish schools can only take 76,493 of these, so that 142,246 children would be left beyond the pale of a national or rate-supported system.^* I need not, however, tell you that it is entirely hopeless for us to look to a universal rating under a permissive system. We know how inoperative the Free Libraries Act has been, and that trusted to self-imposed taxation. One or two large towns, in extreme educational destitution, might impose such rates; but the great bulk of them would be content as hitherto to repose on the efforts resulting from denominational zeal; for "ignorant impatience of taxation" thrives wonderfully under a permissive system. If the rates for towns had been compulsory on them, as the educational rates on land are on parishes, the proposed measure might have met one-half of our educational wants. In this case, like Cap- page 8 tain Cuttle in Dickens's novel, I would have been prepared to say, "that half a loaf is better than no bread;" but, in the view of the petty results that can alone be expected from the mea-sure offered to us, I cannot coincide with that notable personage in saying, "that the same remark applies to crumbs." The educational crumbs, which the Lord Advocate offers, will satisfy nobody, and least of all those members of the House of Commons who objected to the Bill of last year because of its incompleteness. After the long and able inquiry of a Royal Commission; after the Queen, in her opening speech, had promised that Government would bring in a national measure of education for Scotland; after the House of Commons had shown, by passing a Bill, that they considered the subject ripe for legislation, I cannot believe that the Lord Advocate was serious in suggesting such a small measure, and I apprehend, therefore, that he threw it out merely as a test to ascertain whether Scotland earnestly desires a national system of education.

Unless the people of Scotland press upon Government and the Legislature the necessity of passing a measure,—better if you can get it, no worse, let us hope, than that of last session,—our education will be postponed to the exigencies of that of England and Ireland. England intends to reform her primary education this year, and Ireland will press for educational schemes in the following year; so unless our constituencies manifest an unmistakable will, the interests of our nation will certainly suffer. There is a great temptation to shunt the Scotch Bill into a siding, for though, in the opinion of many, it was not advanced enough, it was far too advanced for England and Ireland, and would be an unpleasant example to both. The Scottish members are willing and ready to do their duty, but unless the country gives to them full and adequate support, they will not be able to resist the convenience of the Government, which would like the Scotch Bill to be out of sight while England and Ireland settle their educational reforms. This danger for Scotland may be avoided by an adequate expression of the public will.

This danger, however, is not that which is implied in Mr. Forster's warning. He doubtless meant two things,—first, that England, with its Revised Code and access of educational page 9 zeal, will ultimately distance Scotland in primary education; and next, that the secondary schools of Scotland have no chance of remaining equal to those of England, now that the latter has thrown her endowed schools into the educational movement under public authorities alive to the importance of modern requirements, while our public endowments are subject to no such public authorities, and may, if they like, keep themselves altogether outside the general education of the country. I have elsewhere expressed my own views in sufficiently strong terms about the latter question, and so do not enlarge upon it.

I would ask your attention, however, to the general question, Whether our parochial and higher schools are sufficiently alive to the changing character of education in schools, so as to fit them to the requirements of the age? I could point to some in Edinburgh and Perth that undoubtedly are so; but I could also indicate many others which are not. Nor is this surprising when we bear in mind how our present school system arose. It was systematized by John Knox, but it had its origin long before his time. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries schools, generally attached to monasteries, were in the chief towns of Scotland; and they were regularly inspected by a monk detailed for this purpose as district inspector. The instruction in these ancient schools was far from despicable, and, in some points, was more comprehensive than that in modern schools.¹ In the Perth school, during the sixteenth century, it is recorded that the boys spoke Latin during the day, and French in the boarding-houses in the evening—accomplishments that even my friend Dr. Millar, the Rector of that academy, could not claim for his pupils. Naturally, after the revival of letters, Latin was the chief, though by no means the exclusive, object of study. When James IV. of Scotland passed his celebrated Statute of 1494, ordaining that the eldest sons of barons and freeholders should have a compulsory elementary education, he ordered, at the same time, that they should pursue a technical instruction to fit them to perform aright their duties in life, for they were to attend, during three

¹ Alcuin, in his letters to Charlemagne, gives the curriculum of the school at York as far back as the middle of the eighth century, and states that it included grammar and rhetoric, jurisprudence, poetry, astronomy, natural history, mathematics, chronology, and the Holy Scriptures.

page 10 years, a school of law, in order that they might administer, discreetly and wisely, justices' justice to the poor people of the realm. What a pity this compulsory education for eldest sons does not now prevail! When John Knox systematized the education of his time, he was far too wise to limit it to a mere linguistic scheme; for all youth are charged, when attending burgh schools, to devote "a certain time to grammar and the Latin tongue, and a certain time to the arts of philosophy and other tongues, and a certain time to that study which they intend chiefly to pursue for the profit of the commonwealth;" in other words, that each boy was to receive an education, such as we now call technical or professional, meaning thereby having special adaptation to his future avocations. Now how is it that John Knox's wise counsel has been neglected, and that the higher education, as given in our parish and superior primary schools, should mainly, though not exclusively, consist of classics? We have not to look far to find the reason. The Church of the Reformation threw itself warmly into the parochial system of education, and, to some extent, usurped the examination of the schools. The Book of Discipline did not give the visitation to the ministers and elders alone, but directed that they should associate with themselves all the people of learning in the district¹ in a quarterly examination of pupils. But as the Church depended on the schools for a supply of its future ministers, it naturally looked carefully after them. Every presbytery was enjoined to send up to the universities boys of promise, and to pay the expenses of their education, either by bursaries and benefactions or by church collections. The best preparation for these future ministers was obviously a classical one, so that Latin and Greek became not only the ornaments, but even the necessities, of the upper classes in the parochial schools. Every Scotch peasant hoped, like the father and mother of Dominie Sampson, to live to see his son "wag his head in the pulpit." It was not till 1747 that the presbyteries

¹ "And for this purposs must discreit learned and grave men be appointed to visit all scholles for the tryall of their exercise, proffit, and continewance; to wit, the ministeris and elderis, with the best learned in everie toun" (in edition 1621, "and the rest of the learned men in every town") "shall every quarter take examination how the youth hath profited."—Knox's Works, vol ii. p. 211.

page 11 were discharged from this pious duty, and then only on account "of the multitude of probationers in the Church," the supply being in fact greater than the demand. But you will readily understand how the impress of classical instruction was made upon our schools. Towards the end of that century, the vernacular began to be used by the learned classes, who had been long separated from, but now began again to intermingle with, the industrial classes of the community. The active productive classes had been amassing knowledge by the inventions and experience of centuries, while the learned class had been asleep on Greek and Roman beds, which had never been made anew, but remained the same as when their original occupants left them. Luckily they were only a class, getting gradually more and more separated from the nation, otherwise they would have done infinite harm. In China all intellectual effort belongs to one class, who, unfortunately, will think of nothing that is not to be found in the books of Confucius, and so for twenty-three centuries that strange nation has not advanced. Now the world which we inhabit is not a stationary globe. Truly it moves round and round on one axis, but then it goes forward at the same time. Since I began to address you this evening we have gone twenty thousand miles onwards through space. The intellectual world, like the physical world, moves with a re-sistless onward sweep. The splendid achievements of the ancients, which our classicists so justly admire, were not attained by reposing on a period prior to their own time. Their philosophers were actively engaged in life; for most of them were merchants or traders, who drew their knowledge from familiar contact with the people. Aristotle, the son of a doctor, as is shown by his Problems, was amassing knowledge from the masons, carpenters, and engineers around him. Thales was an oil-merchant, Socrates a sculptor, Thucydides a gold-miner, while Plato and Solon derived profits from commerce. The men of our own time, who have advanced civilisation as much as any of these intellectual heroes of antiquity, have also derived their experience and mental strength from the productive classes around them. Stephenson was a stoker and a collier; Harrison a carpenter; Arkwright a barber; Brindley a millwright; Watt a philosophical instrument maker; Dalton the son of page 12 a weaver; Davy a druggist; and Faraday a bookbinder. Any exclusive system of education which expends a fourth of a life-time in acquiring a small amount of two extinct languages, and, during that period, separates the youth from the experience of their generation, must retard the progress of a nation. Of course our parochial schools are not responsible for this error of purely classical schools, but they have been influenced by their origin, and by the prevailing custom, to look to Latin and Greek as the chief aim of their highest instruction, and so they make the pupils who stay long enough go drearily round on this treadmill handed down by tradition. In the parish and other schools inspected and examined during this year by the presbyteries, 5670 boys were studying Latin, and 664 Greek, while only 3239 were occupied with French, and 156 with German. As to the natural and physical sciences, they have not even a place in the schedule of the Church, though about 2000 boys seem to be engaged with mathematics, the language of the sciences. The sort of secondary instruction given in our parish schools is no longer abreast of the age, and though fitted fairly enough for men who are to enter professions, does not at all adapt itself to the classes who ought chiefly to be benefited by such schools. It is not the object of the State to expend money on primary schools for the cultivation of professions, but for the advancement of knowledge among the poor industrial classes of the community, so that they may be better adapted for their occupations. No doubt these schools teach excellently what they profess, and send up the largest proportion of young men to our Scotch universities for professions; they might send up still more if they gave an education that tended in the direction of productive industry. When we examine the results of the preliminary examinations at the university, for those who are about to study medicine, we find that they closely correspond with the proportionate attention given to the ancient and modern subjects of instruction in our primary schools. While there are from 80 to 90 per cent, of passes in classics and mathematics, the modern languages, including English, the physical and the mental sciences show exceedingly variable results. Thus in 1868, at one of the half-yearly examinations, more than half of the candidates were rejected in English, the language in which Shake- page 13 speare and Milton wrote, but which does not possess the same charms to schoolmasters as the languages of Homer and Horace. The other subjects, like English, oscillate so much that it is obvious they are less acquired by a process of steady instruction than by the art of cram.¹

I am speaking of secondary subjects, as they are taught in Scotch primary schools, and which, in this respect, are wholly unlike English primary schools. Nor can we afford to dispense with this aid until the secondary schools of Scotland are augmented and rendered efficient. I have no desire to exclude from the former Latin and Greek, when pupils have special aptitudes for them, or require them for a professional career. But our schools must remember that Scotchmen do not distinguish themselves greatly at competitive examinations for employment. Dr. Cleghorn of St. Andrews, who is one of the Examiners for the Forest Department in India, is constantly deploring to me that Scotch boys come up so ignorant in French, German, and chemistry, that they have few chances of passing in competition with English and Irish boys. Our schools ought to remember that the country at large feels an imperative necessity that those who are destined for industrial

¹ In verification of this remark, I append instances of the failures, to show that the candidates have no great powers of applying their knowledge to special cases. The following answers are literally extracted:—"Epidemic" is a powder given to excite vomiting. "Hypothesis," to one candidate, means after death; to another, an implement for drawing out water. The word "Idea" is derived from the Latin words Id and Ea. "Sepulchre" arises from se, negative, and pulcher, fair, because "it is the place where beauty fades." "Cabal" is a sort of a cabinet, it is a conspiracy of five members; it is a rope for mooring a ship. An "abstract noun" is a noun that abstracts or pulls away something from another noun; it is a proper name like Cæsar; or it is a noun drawn out in some way from another noun. "Catechism" is a word derived from κατα and χαsµα, a gap, from being a set of questions designed to keep persons from falling into a gap, or, in other words, the bottomless pit of hell. After such examples, I need not say that the failures in science are novel and startling. A student on being asked to name one of the central forces, besides gravity, that acts inversely as the square of the distance, boldly replies, "the force of habit." A "statical couple" is the mode of harnessing two horses in a carriage. As to the names of men who have made science glorious, the answers are singularly wild. The favourite idea is that Galileo and Copernicus are famous Italian painters, or ancient Roman warriors, who both perished in mortal combat with each other. One student knew Galileo as the name of an Italian who was notorious in his own country by the commission of five murders; and another, with some chemical perceptions, was sure that Copernicus was a rare kind of metal, and was derived from Copper and Nicus, perhaps having heard of kupfernickel.

page 14 occupations should have an education suited to their callings; and if our schools wish to keep the place which they have so long done in the scheme of education, they must meet this growing demand. They must not only train our ministers and dominies, hut they must lay the foundation for the success of the next generation of emigrants, tradesmen, and manufacturers, who more and more find that the principles of science and art form the basis of their several callings. Unless they do so, Government will not understand their peculiar mission in the country, and will restrict them, as they do English schools, to the humble task of teaching the three R.'s; for I found by experience, that it is hard to make the House of Commons understand that our primary schools should be allowed to teach Latin and Greek to four per cent, of the scholars. The Government and the Legislature fear, in spite of our long experience to the contrary, that the State is thus paying for rich cake to these few, and is diminishing the amount of wholesome bread to the many. As our schoolmasters are men of great ability and sagacity, they will see how the wind is blowing in time to trim the sails to meet it. If they do not, it does not require a prophet to say that they will be taken aback before long.

I now pass from subjects exclusively relating to Scotland, and invite your attention to an obstacle which is in the way of the primary instruction of the working classes all over the kingdom. I allude to the difficulty of teaching new and higher subjects during the short average time devoted to education by the children of the wage-making class. Unless we sow the seed of scientific and artistic instruction in primary schools, we cannot expect to reap crops in technical schools. The difficulty is not confined to the poor, but meets us in another way among the middle classes, who are also pressed by the wants of industry into active service, and do not, to the extent desirable, avail themselves of higher university or technical instruction. Even the great public schools like Rugby, Eton, Winchester, and Harrow, though they offer many scholarships and other inducements for their scholars to advance in an educational course, are unable to send more than a third of them to the universities, two-thirds receiving no further edu- page 15 cation than that they have got at school. So also in Scotland, for, although there are 16,000 scholars at our burgh and other secondary schools, they send less than 1500 to the universities. In the case of the middle classes, therefore, it is necessary to develop the instruction given in secondary schools, as they have to equip such a large proportion of the youth of the country for their battle of life. But how much stronger does the case become when we descend the social scale, and find that the primary school is the only means of preparation for working men. At the present time, little more than three years, between the ages of six and ten, is the period devoted to the education of the working classes. Only six in the hundred attend four years at one school. What are we to do against such difficulties? How are we to economize precious time, so as to make the most of it, and how are we to induce parents to give us more time for the benefit of their children? Our ancestors appear to have had a greater educational power than we now possess, for John Knox tells us, in his First Book of Discipline, that two years "are more than sufficient for to learn to read perfectly, to answer the Catechism, and to have entries in the first rudiments of grammar." Germany, with her trained staff of teachers, organized and recognised as a profession, gives three years for elementary instruction, such as is embraced in our Privy Council Standards; but in this country we do not succeed in accomplishing it. Mr. Morrison, the well-known teacher in Glasgow, thinks if a child had been well trained in an infant-school before entering the primary one, that four and a half years might suffice to give him a fair elementary education. Certainly the statistics of the Committee of Council are very depressing as to the results of our educational efforts. You are aware that inspectors conduct an individual examination of such scholars as are presented to them at schools, aided by the Government. Few are presented above Standard III., which simply requires that the child shall read a short paragraph from an elementary book, write it when dictated in single words, and work a sum in a simple rule as far as short division. This standard of attainments is very small,—but what is the sum-total of our educational achievements in this country? I reply in the very words of the Committee of Council, lest you page 16 should think me guilty of gross exaggeration. In describing the attainments of boys of ten years of age, when the ordinary schooling of this class of children ends, the Report says,—"Of four-fifths of the scholars about to leave school, either no account, or an unsatisfactory one, is given by an examination of the most elementary kind." Should we then give up the whole subject in despair, and abandon the hope of introducing higher subjects into schools, inasmuch as the lower subjects are not acquired? If we did so, it would be in imitation of the course pursued by a Scotch minister, who said that whenever he encountered difficulties he looked them full in the face, and then passed them by on the other side. Let us rather look at them on all sides, and see whether they cannot be pushed out of our path. Now what we have to look at has three aspects, each of which must be briefly examined in answering the following questions:—

1.	How can a compulsory education of the poorer classes be best enforced?
2.	Would administrative reforms in schools tend to economy of time and efficiency of instruction?
3.	Is it possible to give a higher education in primary schools than is attempted by the Revised Code?

If compulsory education be enforced, there are two methods of effecting it. The first is the direct method, by which police agency enforces the law on parents and guardians who neglect the education of their children. The second is the indirect method, in which employers of labour are prohibited from employing children unless they are in possession of elementary education. Both of these systems are in successful operation in Continental States, and, in some of them, both methods are in force in the same State. The first also exists in theory, though the practice is not efficient, in the United States of America. As to the abstract principle involved in the two methods, there is nothing to choose between them. It is quite as respectable and humane to drive children into school by the policeman's truncheon, as it is to threaten them with starvation by refusing employment to the uneducated. The choice between them, to my mind, is one of simple expediency. That we have come to this pass I must assume, though I am aware that there page 17 are some sanguine people who think we can get along without compulsion, which they fancy is very un-English. One thing is very certain, that it is peculiarly English to have one-half of our children growing up without elementary education worthy of the name, and the sooner England can free herself from this disgrace to her civilisation the better. But if compulsory education be objected to because it is inconsistent with liberty, I deny that altogether. Retention of a population in ignorance is slavery. Elevation to knowledge is emancipation. As England forced the slave-owners to liberate their slaves, so may she force parents to give intellectual liberty to their children. In Scotland, which has valued liberty above all things for many centuries, the notion of compulsion has become familiarized by our traditions. I have already alluded to the compulsory law of 1494, which affected the nobles and freeholders only. But the Church looked after the people, and, with a dash of wholesome despotism, used to drive truants into church and into school. John Knox had no doubts about the matter when he says, "for this must be carefully avoided, that no father, of what estate or condition that ever he be, use his children at his own fantasie, especially in their youthhead, but all must be compelled to bring up children in learning and virtue,", and so the Church decreed in their Book of Discipline, and acted on it for many years. Poverty was not admitted as an excuse for ignorance, as the following extract shows:—"The rich and potent may not be permitted to suffer their children to spend their youth in vaine idlenesse .... for they must train them up to the good of the commonwealth at their own expense, because they are able. The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the Kirk, tryall being taken whether the spirit of docility be in them found or not." So we are just arriving at the perception of compulsion which our forefathers used in Scotland centuries ago. The fact of Scotland having long been subject to a rating system for education, naturally prepares us for compulsion. For it is a logical sequence, that if it be right to compel a community to educate its population, it is equally right to compel each individual of that community to receive education.

Now, as regards compulsion, my own preference, as a matter page 18 of expediency, is for the indirect principle. Direct compulsion, by fine and imprisonment of the parent, is only attainable where there is a strong public feeling to support it; when the feeling prevailing among the working classes is that the parent who keeps his child away from school is as unnatural a brute, and as much to be despised, as he who starves it or beats it with a red-hot poker. With one-half of the children of the working classes growing up without education, or, at the best, with a miserable caricature of it, you can have no such universal feeling to support the Executive in the administration of a compulsory law. It is true Prussia may be quoted as a nation in which such a law works successfully. But then the compulsory system began in 1763, in the reign of Frederick the Great; that king who, even as a boy, "got a lively, and, in some sort, genial perception of things round him—of the strange confusedly opulent universe he had got into; and of the noble and supreme function which intelligence holds there; supreme in art as in nature, beyond all other functions whatsoever." It was well that the conception began in the reign of such a king, though troublous times, then and later, made education go on with many haltings: still even the existing law dates from 1825, though it has since received additional supports. In constitutional governments it has not been found possible to work a law of direct compulsion until the great bulk of the people had become educated, and, under the best conditions, this requires two generations to effect. In consequence of this difficulty many educationalists see a solution of it in an extension of the Factory and Workshops Act. Mr. Forster would seem to look in this direction, if we recollect his Manchester speeches, before he entered office. The principle of the Factory Act is, that children between eight and thirteen must attend school once each day that they are employed. The faults of the Act render it inoperative, for it provides no security for the quality of the education. Nevertheless, in a few of these half-time schools the results are eminently satisfactory, though in most of them they are far from being so. To render them efficient would require such a system of superintendence and inspection on the part of the State, as Parliament is not likely to sanction. Besides, factory schools, under page 19 the present system, must be very wasteful of educational powers, for children enter them in all stages of ignorance, and defy adequate classification.

I do not see any solution of our difficulties by an extension of the factory system on its present basis, though I by no means desire to abolish half-time schools. On the contrary, I desire that they should become the natural secondary schools for the working classes, to whom they might give knowledge in the sciences and arts bearing on their trades. Experience proves that boys of twelve years of age, if they have a fair primary training, may receive an excellent secondary education of the kind indicated in two or three years; in fact, two years are considered sufficient in the famous "École Martinière" of Lyons.

Let me explain myself. The Scandinavian States and those of North Germany have wisely ruled that education is the first tool which a labouring child should possess for any occupation, and that no employer should be permitted to use him till he is in possession of that tool. A similar condition for work is partially included in our Collieries Act, which prohibits young children from being employed, until they can read and write to the satisfaction of a schoolmaster. But the law is inoperative, for there is no power to enforce it, and some schoolmasters of lax conscience trade upon the looseness of the Act by selling certificates without examination. This failure seems to have discouraged even such an ardent educational reformer as the Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce, for in his Colliery Bill of last year the old educational clause was omitted. I therefore thought it my duty to move an amendment to the effect that no boy should be allowed to work in collieries till he had passed Standard II. of the Revised Code; it ought to have been Standard III., but I desired moderation. I am glad to see that Mr. Tremenheere advocates a similar principle in relation to agricultural labourers. Now, if we could make elementary education, however moderate in quantity, an absolute condition for employment, we would obtain far more advantages than on the present half-time system, and I shall explain why.

The factory half-time system, instead of encouraging elementary education, positively discourages it as a duty of the page 20 parent, and throws it from him to the employers of labour. Parents naturally say, As our children must attend school from eight to thirteen while in factories, let us postpone all attempts to educate them till they begin to earn wages for themselves. Hence the results at the best are poor. Hear what the Rev. Alfred Dewes, a hard-working Lancashire clergyman, gives as the result of his experience of education under this law:—"In the course of eighteen years, I have known many hundreds of children who have passed through schools as half-timers, and if I were to say that ten per cent, could read and write with ease when they left school, I should be guilty of great exaggeration." Now let us consider the moral and intellectual advantages of making a defined educational standard, say Standard III. of the Revised Code, the only entrance to labour, and then we may ascertain whether the disadvantages outweigh them. The first advantage is that you enlist every parent on the side of education, from noble motives if he possess them, from ignoble motives if he do not. Poor parents require the fruit of their children's labour to aid in their support, so that if wages can only be obtained through education, that will be pressed on their children with all the power at their command. If reading, writing, and arithmetic be made essential tools for labour, parents will insist on them, as they would on a hammer, chisel, and gimlet, if their sons were to be carpenters. This possession of the educational tools is our aim, and if an educated parent aid the schoolmaster in obtaining them for his child in a short period, there will be no necessity for forcing a given number of days of gross attendance on a school. The examination and certificate of results should be only attainable at an inspected school, and under official authority.

A great many years since, I sent in a paper to the Treasury, proposing that an educational door of this kind should be the only means of entrance to Government employment. The proposal was then thought very absurd, although it was published in one of the dreary Blue-Books which so few people read. The Civil Service Commissioners, however, now guard such a door with great efficiency. The proposal of an indirect educational compulsion for the poor is nothing more than this Government condition for employment, and only applies to page 21 them that which is obligatory on the professions of the upper and middle classes. The Army and Navy, the Public Offices, the Medical Profession, the Law, the Church, have such preliminary examinations as a condition for employment. Even the mercantile classes are considering whether they should not adopt them. Therefore, I only propose to apply to the labour of the poor that which is nearly universally a condition for the labour of the rich. There must be some merit in a scheme which enlists the very vices of the parents—their selfishness, their improvidence, their recklessness—as well as their virtues—parental affection, prudence, and love of duty—in the promotion of education. But the chief merit of it in my eyes is, that it would then be possible to make factory schools secondary schools, like the "improvement schools" of the Continent. Instead of confining them as at present to the three R's, the mere tools of education, they would find these ready made, and could use them for fashioning utilities. Thus would be solved one of our greatest difficulties in the technical education of the people. Let us follow out the application in the case of the typical boy, the universal John Smith. You, John Smith, shall not enter into employment till you can pass Standard III., and even then you shall not be more than a half-timer till sixteen, perhaps till you are of legal age, unless you pass higher standards, which will not be those of the Revised Code, but such as will be of direct use to you in your trade. It depends upon yourself at what age you may earn two-third wages or full wages. We do not desire to keep you at school longer than is for your own good, and it lies within your power to increase your wages beyond those of your fellows by application and industry which may be exhibited either at school or in your own home. Note this difference, for it is important. The factory law says that you must attend school as long as you continue of a certain age. We do not compel a uniform time for school attendance, but insist on an educational standard which you must attain. If you are incorrigibly idle, as you grow older you will still be treated as a child, and be kept as a half-timer till you do learn what it is necessary for a good citizen to know, and that for as long as you are a minor in the eye of the law, after which the State page 22 washes its hands of you, and I hope, in the course of reform, will refuse such an ignoramus as you the honours of citizenship, for you are unfit to be intrusted with the exercise of the suffrage.

Now for the objections to such a scheme. The first is that there must be some exceptions for the absolutely idiotic or incompetent, who never could master the third Standard, low as it is. To shut them out from work altogether would be inhuman, but such work as they can perform involves little skill and requires small knowledge. The second objection is that you are punishing the child for the neglect of the parent. I deny that it would be a punishment, for you are rendering him at the same time more productive to himself and to the community. But I admit that, though the scheme enlists every motive of the parent to educate his children, there will still be a residue of the neglected. Well, you may still punish the parent for a double crime against his children and society, but it would pay better to make the localities responsible for such neglect, and compel them to sweep this residue (which would always be decreasing) into industrial schools, until the elementary qualification is attained. As children are a source of profit to wage-making parents, a large residue is most unlikely. Your invitation to school would be made in such a pressing fashion that there would be no need to go into the highways and hedges to compel them to come in. As long ago as Henry VIII. compulsory education was enforced on the idle and vagrant children.¹ We require little legislation for this residuum, which may now be swept in by the existing Acts for poor-law and industrial schools. The compulsory powers are sufficient if they are applied, but we require to compel the localities to enforce them. Instead of having eighty or ninety industrial schools in the kingdom, we ought to have a number sufficient to give full account of the residuum. Neither the one system of compulsion nor the other can be abruptly carried into effect; in the first place, because there is a deficiency of schools; and next, because it will take years before the neglected classes would know the requirements of the law. A considerable time is

¹ 27 Henry VIII. cap. 25, "That they might not be driven by want or incapacity to dishonest courses."

page 23 requisite before knowledge of any kind percolates the lowest stratum of society. In proof of this, go to a prison, and find out how many prisoners are yet ignorant of the fact that Queen Victoria is on the throne, how many are ignorant of the name of Wellington, though that of Nelson has reached them; or, if you have not time for such inquiries, read Mr. Clay's reports.¹ Nevertheless, I think that, within half a generation, we might have a compulsory system in full operation. It will take you two generations to do this by the direct system. We cannot wait so long as that for the result, because mighty influences are at work in other States. As Jules Simon says:—"Le peuple qui a les meilleures écoles est le premier peuple; s'il ne l'est pas aujourd'hui, il le sera, demain." The nations having a compulsory system of education already include the United States of America, Austria, Prussia, Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Saxony, the German Duchies, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, most of Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the Principalities. France, Holland, and England still retain the voluntary principle. France is making itself ready for a compulsory law, and Holland has reduced her uneducated to twenty-three per cent, of the population, and has a system both of primary and secondary education far ahead of that of England. How much longer will this country remain isolated in the ignorance of her people? This ignorance certainly exists in any way we may take the statistics of the question. It may be true, as many assert, that there are two millions of children of school age in England absolutely devoid of all education, or it may be true, as the Union assert, that there are only half a million. But what is understood by the term "education" in both estimates is no education at all, when compared with that given by foreign States to their working people. No one claims more than fifty per cent, of our children as being efficiently instructed in the most elementary subjects of reading and writing with ease, and that is the highest production we can claim for all our educational machinery. Now is there any machine in the world that would be thought to do its work in a tolerable manner, if it performed only half of the

¹ Nor is this surprising, when it is borne in mind that out of 130,000 persons committed to prison in 1867, only 4137 could read and write well.

page 24 work for which it was designed, and even that half in the most incomplete fashion? Is it not time that our engineers in Whitehall should overhaul the whole machine, and put it in real working order?

The next point for our consideration is, whether we can economize school-time, and promote teaching efficiency, by improved methods of administration. Some most important facts have been gathered on this head by my friend Edwin Chadwick, the great social reformer, whose labours will be appreciated by posterity even more than at the present day. He has proved that, up to a certain point, the teaching power is in direct proportion to the numbers taught. Thus, a small school of twenty will not produce such a good educational outcome as a larger school of one hundred, provided the master has adequate assistance. In the larger school, classification of pupils is more easy, while the vigour and emulation of a large class carry forward sluggish children in spite of themselves. The average price of education in Scotch schools is twenty-six shillings and sixpence per boy annually; in England it is twenty-nine shillings; and for these sums only elementary education of a low type is procured. The annual cost of a higher education in a well-organized school of 400 boys is about twenty shillings, and there is a saving of from one and a half to two years in the attainments of each boy of average ability. In the Jewish school in London, with 1500 boys, and 30 masters, the cost is thirty-two shillings; but then, out of the most wretched boys on entrance, many of whom are so degraded that they neither know their own names nor those of their parents, are turned out veritable youthful scholars, who are taught mathematics, algebra, mechanics, history, geography, grammar, political economy, physiology, and an ancient language, viz., Hebrew. A scheme of consolidation of small schools, by which a maximum of educational attainment is combined "with a minimum expenditure, both in money and in time, is one worthy of attention, and the more so because it involves a large augmentation in the salaries of teachers—a point of the first importance. I have visited many of those large schools, and I can testify that the results appear to me much more satisfactory than in the smaller ones, both as regards average attainments and special distinctions. The reverse is seen in Ireland, where the multiplication of small page 25 schools has produced evils of a most serious character. One of the most pronounced of these has been the lowering of the position, and necessarily of the qualifications, of the male teachers, whose average emoluments are stated on good authority¹ to be £35, of which 84 per cent, are furnished by the State, local subscriptions amounting to only 4 per cent., and school-fees making up the remainder. Can any one be surprised that these educated men, the victims of an administrative error, should in far too many cases side with the disaffected of the population. If, by consolidation, we can raise the position of teachers and gain one or two years in school-time, that becomes of great importance for the future technical education of the people. But to work out this problem, large subjects crowd upon us, and I can do no more than state them as questions. Are we to waste teaching power by separating boys from girls in primary education? How are we to map out the country into educational unions so as to facilitate consolidation, administration, and inspection? The system of such unions is illustrated in district poor-law union schools in England; and in special cases at Faversham and Merthyr Tydvil. In Holland this union system is in effective work. But these questions are too large for me to dwell upon now.

I come now to the final subject proposed for our consideration, viz., Whether the Privy Council wisely restrict their subjects to the three R's? I know that the answer in Scotland is emphatically No; but I fear such a negative answer would not be unanimously given in England. There is still there a lurking, though inexpressed fear, that the lower orders may be too highly educated, and there is a sentiment, the offspring of that fear, that the State has done its duty when it imparts the mere rudiments of knowledge. This, as you all know, has not been our practice in Scotland, and we are convinced that the prosperity of the country is largely due to the higher education given in our primary schools. No nation, except England, takes such a mean view of the functions of primary schools. I might prove this to you by quoting the subjects taught in the primary schools of the chief Continental States, but you will be satisfied with one illustration on my assuring you that

¹ Evidence of Irish National Teachers' Association, p. x.

page 26 it is a fair average example. I take Holland, because I have to refer to its secondary schools in my next lecture. The Dutch primary schools, in addition to the three R's, have the following subjects as their compulsory minimum, viz., the form of bodies, principles of the Dutch language, geography, history, elements of natural science and singing. But should any locality express a desire for further instruction in their primary schools, then the following branches are added, viz., rudiments of modern languages, mathematics, agriculture, calisthenics, drawing from nature and copy, and fancy work for girls. Foreign nations perceive that if they are to educate their working classes in a knowledge of the principles of their occupations, they must sow the seed in the primary schools, and having thus given a taste for science and art, then rely on the people to follow out these studies in the "improvement" schools.

The principle of our Revised Code is, that the State will pay for passes in certain definite standards, which are made the measure of successful work. Now I know this principle is not popular in Scotland, but it is easy to work in application, and may be considered as thoroughly established. I believe the discontent and unpopularity of the Code rest chiefly on the vulgarism of the standards adopted, not mainly on the abstract principle of paying by results. Scotch teachers believe that its operation is to lower true educational, as distinguished from cramming, effort on the part of teachers; and hence, except in lessening the demands on the Exchequer, they allege that it has failed as a scheme of education. Why? Because it has mistaken the foundation for the superstructure. Instead of considering Standards I, II, III., as achievements worthy of a nation, these are the foundations which the localities might be asked to lay down before the State gave its aid. For a higher development of education the State should be liberal; but only if the foundation had been laid on a broad basis in the whole school. The State mistakes her functions when she lowers and vulgarizes education, as she now does by the limitation of the Code. I shall show you in next lecture that this is the reason why our kingdom obtains such small results, with much larger educational votes, than those of any Continental State. page 27 In Scotland our experience is that an infusion of higher subjects into primary schools brings out a life and ambition, which act powerfully in developing the elementary branches. But then these higher subjects ought to be adapted to the wage-making class. The life of a labourer is spent in dealing with things and converting them into utilities. In doing so he must take the properties inherent in each kind of matter, and combine them into utilities by an intelligent application of natural forces; for man has not the power to give to things a single new property, or to bring to bear upon them a single new force. Yet the primary education aided by the State ignores all this. Not even in the training of our pupil-teachers is physical or natural science made a necessity. Words, not things, are held out by the State as only worthy of attention and reward.

I have kept you long upon a topic which has become dreary by constant discussion and repetition; but the Managers selected the subject, and I have complied with their request. We have seen that, by compulsion and the improved administration of educational resources, we might make our factory and workshop schools means of educating the working population in the principles of science and art suited to their trades. We might thus bestow upon them a higher life—a life of intelligence and knowledge, in which their will might govern effects,—instead of one of mere animal instinct and manipulative dexterity, which keep them in subjection to the effects produced around them, without their minds being able in the slightest degree to modify or expand them. We might thus improve the industrial resources of the nation, and enable our country to hold a proud position in the advancing industrial competition of the world. As Martin Luther long since said: "The prosperity of a State rests neither on its revenues, its fortresses, nor its beautiful edifices; its highest interest, its security and its power, depend on its possession of cultivated and honourable citizens, who have been educated to a clear intelligence."

No maxim is more trite than that "Knowledge is power;" nor none more true than that ignorance is power also. The one is a power for good; the other is a power for evil. Shakespeare points this well in the dialogue between Oliver and page 28 Orlando. "Oliver.—Now, sir, what make you here? Orlando.—Nothing. I am not taught to make anything. Oliver.—What mar you then, sir? Orlando.—Many sir, I am helping you to mar, that which God made, a poor unworthy brother of yours by idleness." Knowledge is like that great power rayed to the world by the sun, which is the physical source of almost all power on the earth; for knowledge like it can be made convertible to suit the exigencies and add to the comforts of intellectual beings who know how to apply it. Ignorance, on the other hand, may be compared to gravity, which drags down everything to itself. We cannot go on as a nation in our present state, for the ignorant classes are augmenting fearfully, and must drag us down in proportion to their mass. Yet they are capable of being breathed upon by the spirit of religion and intelligence, and, like the dry bones of the valley, may be vivified into forms of spiritual and intellectual life. The dry bones, seen in the first part of the vision of Ezekiel, became covered with sinews and flesh and skin, "yet did they not live." Let us pray like the prophet, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live."