Over-pressure would not be relieved, while neglect and carelessness would be encouraged; and no one ought to be led to imagine that an unsatisfactory pupil can safely be neglected, for such an idea would work great injury to many children, as well as constitute a grave injustice to the parents. I believe, moreover, that the proposal would be not only injurious, but is also unnecessary; for practically, under the new Code, the teachers will suggest the withdrawals, though they will not dare, even if they wish, to withhold children except for reasons which they can justify to the managers, who are responsible to the inspector. Even now the inspectors, as a rule, allow the proposed withdrawals; and the more the new regulations and the Instructions to Inspectors are studied, the more it will be realised that in the future-it has not always been so in the past-honest withdrawal is to be encouraged, and that, where educational pressure is likely to be injurious, it is the desire of the Department that the 'reasonable excuse' shall be liberally interpreted, and the children freely withdrawn.

In all these matters which I have mentioned, and in other ways, the later Codes (especially those of 1883 and 1884) have done much to encourage freedom of working and to diminish centralisation. The Instructions to Inspectors, lately issued, are even more explicit, in their directions to the inspectors to use their powers with a wise discretion. It is too early as yet to judge whether these reforms will relieve the teachers and the children, and, while preventing neglect and idleness, will tend to distinguish between varying capacities. They seem to be drawn on the right lines, and we may hope that they may do something to make our system of education yet more conducive to the mental and physical health of the children.

The Department, in all this, are accused of trying to relieve themselves of responsibility for the care of the children, and of endeavouring to place it on the shoulders of the managers. But this is surely the right principle to follow. It would be monstrous to expect the Department to be responsible for, or to supervise the physical and mental progress of individual children-that would be over-centralisation indeed. The duty clearly belongs to the local managers, whose personal watchfulness would be much more effective than any amount of redtape regulations from Whitehall. It is said-I fear in some cases with truth-that in many instances the committee of managers of elementary schools are non-existent, concentrated in one person, or inefficient. And now that the managers are more and more receiving official recognition, now that by the Code they have real and responsible duties cast upon them, it seems certainly advisable, in order to remedy this state of affairs, that the Department should insist that each school to which a grant is paid should have an efficient body of managers. But, short of this, and in any case, the more the managers are recognised, utilised, and made responsible, the more

efficient will be the men and women attracted to the work, and the better will the duties be performed. I hail with satisfaction, therefore, the additional work now thrown on the managers. These duties and responsibilities will assist to raise up a feeling of esprit de corps amongst them, and will teach them that the whole duty of a manager is not comprised in attending-perhaps irregularly-the monthly meetings, and occasionally signing a schedule; but that it includes constant visits to the school, intimacy with the teachers, acquaintance, as far as may be, with the names and faces of the children, and the exercise of that humanising influence of personal contact, which does so much to elevate and refine the tone of a school. Managers, moreover, should see to the healthiness, lighting, and ventilation of the building, and that the playground (where it exists) is utilised to the full. They should take care that the school is well staffed-a most essential point-that the curriculum is not overcrowded with subjects, that the time-table is well arranged, and that intervals of rest and recreation are allowed. In the selection of teachers, while the passes should count for much, the managers should also look to general merit, and prefer a less gifted teacher who can teach, to a universal genius who cannot. They should encourage the teachers to do their duty, and assist them to prevent overstrain by freely withdrawing children, at the same time taking care that the continuity of the instruction is kept up, and that twelve months' work is not pressed into six. They should keep a sharp look-out over the punishment book. They might, where necessary, arrange (I will not here discuss the pros and cons of the subject) for the provision of self-supporting penny meals for the children. And -very important indeed-they should invariably remove the temptation to over-pressure, and relieve the teachers of much strain and anxiety, by paying fixed salaries instead of allowing them, as is still occasionally the case, to depend on the grant.

Space does not permit of the discussion of the questions of Home Lessons and Keeping-in. For myself, the more the former is minimised and the latter abolished, the better I shall be pleased. Where pressure exists, it must of necessity be intensified by home lessons and by keeping-in; the latter prolongs hours already sufficiently extended, the former causes work to be done under the most unfavourable conditions. Yet, unless discouraged by the Department and carefully supervised or forbidden by the managers, both are sure to continue and increase. Nor must I here more than note the extraordinary affection evinced by the Department for that dullest and most useless of all subjects-grammar. It is unfortunate that My Lords' cannot be induced to allow teachers full latitude in the selection of class subjects, and will insist on English,' and always English,' to the detriment of geography, natural science, and history. History, indeed, has a bad time of it, being given the least honoured place in the

6

6

Code, and almost ignored in the Instructions. Yet, if history were not taught as though it had tailed off with advancing centuries, if its events were made to appear as a record of national progress, and not as a catalogue of battle, murder, and sudden death, no subject would be more interesting, or more useful to our future masters.' Whether technical or industrial training might be introduced into elementary schools, on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, is also too large a subject for present discussion. Give a dog a bad name and hang him;' and it is unfortunate that we confine our useful industrial training, so-called, to 'Industrial' and Reformatory schools, thereby making odious its very name.

In these remarks, and in the suggestions which I have ventured to make, I have looked at the question of over-pressure from the point of view of the children, rather than from that of the teachers, for after all the teachers-pupil-teachers and adults—are free agents, while the children are not. At the same time the interests of the teacher and child are largely coincident. Pressure on the latter is doubly pressure on the former; and thus any change of procedure, any relief which is given, any reforms introduced with the primary object of relieving the child, will react to the advantage of the teacher.

The weak spot in the teaching profession is undoubtedly the pupil-teachers—those boys and girls who, in order to live, have to teach, and in order to fit themselves to teach, have at the same time to learn. Dr. Allbutt hardly exaggerated when he said, at Huddersfield, that the pupil-teacher is a mischief to his scholars, a mischief to his superiors, and a mischief to himself;' and it is a matter of congratulation that the number of pupil-teachers is diminishing by thousands year by year, and that they are being replaced by grown men and women.

On the whole, I doubt whether teachers are quite as much to be pitied as their self-constituted spokesmen have of late been so loudly asserting. The profession stands far higher in the social scale than it ever did before. The average salaries of the certificated teachers have increased over 25 per cent. in the last ten years, and not only are they better paid, but, though they may complain of their work, it has certainly become more varied and interesting.

In fine, without wishing to assert that everything is for the best in the best of all possible Departments, or that Education is the one thing needful, we may, I think, feel secure that, under Mr. Mundella's watchful supervision, the Code and its administration are being perfected, year by year, and that over-pressure, if it exists, must tend to disappear as the new Regulations come to be thoroughly understood, and universally applied.

SYDNEY C. BUXTON.

VOL. XVI.-No. 93.

3 K

LAST WORDS ABOUT AGNOSTICISM AND THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY.

THOSE who expected from Mr. Harrison an interesting rejoinder to my reply, will not be disappointed. Those who looked for points skilfully made, which either are, or seem to be, telling, will be fully satisfied. Those who sought pleasure from witnessing a display of literary power, will close his article gratified with the hour they have spent over it. Those only will be not altogether contented who supposed that my outspoken criticism of Mr. Harrison's statements and views, would excite him to an unusual display of that trenchant style for which he is famous; since he has, for the most part, continued the discussion with calmness. After saying thus much it may seem that some apology is needed for continuing a controversy of which many, if not most, readers, have by this time become weary. But gladly as I would leave the matter where it stands, alike to save my own time and others' attention, there are sundry motives which forbid me. Partly my excuse must be the profound importance and perennial interest of the questions raised. Partly I am prompted by the consideration that it is a pity to cease just when a few more pages will make clear sundry of the issues, and leave readers in a better position for deciding. Partly it seems to me wrong to leave grave misunderstandings unrectified. And partly I am reluctant on personal grounds to pass by some of Mr. Harrison's statements unnoticed.

One of these statements, indeed, it would be imperative on me to notice, since it reflects on me in a serious way. Speaking of the Descriptive Sociology, which contains a large part (though by no means all) of the evidence used in the Principles of Sociology, and referring to the compilers who, under my superintendence, selected the materials forming that work, Mr. Harrison says:—

Of course these intelligent gentlemen had little difficulty in clipping from hun dreds of books about foreign races sentences which seem to support Mr. Spencer's doctrines. The whole proceeding is too much like that of a famous lawyer who wrote a law-book, and then gave it to his pupils to find the 'cases' which supported his law.

Had Mr. Harrison observed the dates, he would have seen that since the compilation of the Descriptive Sociology was commenced in 1867 and the writing of the Principles of Sociology in 1874, the parallel he draws is not altogether applicable: the fact being that the Descriptive Sociology was commenced seven years in advance for the purpose (as stated in the preface) of obtaining adequate materials for generalizations: sundry of which, I may remark in passing, have been quite at variance with my pre-conceptions.' I think that on consideration, Mr. Harrison will regret having made so grave an insinuation without very good warrant; and he has no warrant. Charity would almost lead one to suppose that he was not fully conscious of its implications when he wrote the above passage; for he practically cancels them immediately afterwards. He says:— But of course one can find in this medley of tables almost any view. And I find facts which make for my view as often as any other.' How this last statement consists with the insinuation that what Mr. Harrison calls a 'medley' of tables contains evidence vitiated by special selection of facts, it is difficult to understand. If the purpose was to justify a foregone conclusion, how does it happen that there are (according to Mr. Harrison) as many facts which make against it as there are facts which make for it?

The question here incidentally raised concerns the primitive religious idea. Which is the original belief, fetichism or the ghosttheory? The answer should profoundly interest all who care to understand the course of human thought; and I shall therefore not apologize for pursuing the question a little further.

Having had them counted, I find that in those four parts of the Descriptive Sociology which give accounts of the uncivilized races, there are 697 extracts which refer to the ghost-theory: illustrating the belief in a wandering double which goes away during sleep, or fainting, or other form of insensibility, and deserts the body for a longer period at death,-a double which can enter into and possess other persons, causing disease, epilepsy, insanity, etc., which gives rise to ideas of spirits, demons, etc., and which originates propitiation and worship of ghosts. On the other hand there are 87 extracts which refer to the worship of inanimate objects or belief in their supernatural powers. Now even did these 87 extracts support Mr. Harrison's view, this ratio of 8 to 1 would hardly justify his statement that the facts make for my [his] view

1 Elsewhere Mr. Harrison contemptuously refers to the Descriptive Sociology as 'a pile of clippings made to order.' While I have been writing, the original directions to compilers have been found by my present secretary, Mr. James Bridge; and he has drawn my attention to one of the 'orders.' It says that all works are 'to be read not with a view to any particular class of facts but with a view to all classes of facts.'