amongst others one of twenty pounds from the wife of the French minister.

At the same time the reputation of the institute was spreading; the leading newspapers of the district spoke of it in the highest terms, the number of pupils steadily continued to increase, and before very long applications had to be refused for want of room.

On the 22nd of September, 1801, Mohr, in his report to the Executive Council, says:

"Pestalozzi's institute in Burgdorf Castle, the first and only one of its kind, is attracting, by its now generally recognized usefulness, numerous pupils, whom the director, for want of habitable space, is obliged to refuse, to his own great regret, and to the prejudice of public education. It is urgent that the buildings already occupied by Pestalozzi should be enlarged by the addition of two large dormitories for pupils, and six small rooms for masters."

Although the Council had decided on the 5th of the preceding August that, considering the low state of the treasury, no repairs should be executed that year on any public building, it agreed to carry out the necessary improvements in Burgdorf Castle, which, it was estimated, would cost about a hundred and twenty pounds.

In October of the same year, Pestalozzi published How Gertrude Teaches her Children, a book which was intended to give the public a full and complete account of his doctrine and of his work. As this book is of such high importance, we must reserve a detailed examination of it for another chapter; we can only say here that it gained considerable notoriety in German-speaking countries, and attracted to Burgdorf numerous visitors, amongst whom were several very distinguished men.

The very next month, for instance, there arrived together Wessenberg and Charles Victor von Bonstetten. The latter speaks of his visit in a letter to Frederic Brun, written the evening of his arrival. The letter confirms all we have said above, and contains besides some very interesting comments. As it is, unfortunately, too long to quote in full, the following extracts must suffice:

“I cannot understand why Pestalozzi should say that all

instruction is based on three chief elements-number, form, and language; but what I do see, and see clearly, is that his forty-eight children, of ages varying from five to twelve, have learned, in from six to ten months, writing, reading, drawing, and a little geography and French, and have besides made marvellous progress in arithmetic. They do everything cheerfully, and their health seems perfect. I know not whether Pestalozzi's method is good, nor whether, indeed, he has any reasoned-out method, but I see plainly that he is walking in unknown ways, and arriving at hitherto unknown results, and that, after all, is the most important consideration.

"I look upon Pestalozzi's method as a precious seed, still young and undeveloped, but full of promise. The success the method has already obtained should suffice to convince any impartial thinker of its excellence.

As it will be long before there is another Pestalozzi, I fear that the rich harvest his discovery seems to promise will be reserved for future ages. It is a pity that he should have expressed his political opinions with so much warmth; in these revolutionary times it will but add another difficulty to those which have always to be overcome before complete justice can be done to an exceptional man. For forty years Pestalozzi has devoted his life to the education of poor children; let him who has done more for humanity cast the first stone!

66 'The children know little, but what they know they know well. In my opinion, there could be nothing better than the Burgdorf school for children of eight or nine. But it will not bear fruit till upon this basis and in the light of this experience a new storey has been added to the edifice.

"The children are very happy, and evidently take great pleasure in their lessons, which says a great deal for the method."

In December, 1801, a distinguished Swiss, who had lately visited the institute, published a very favourable account of it in a series of unsigned articles in an Augsburg paper, For the sake of avoiding repetition, we shall only quote the following few lines:

"I must confess that I arrived at Burgdorf with grave

doubts as to the fitness, usefulness or success of the experiment which was being carried on there. But my fears gave place to confidence and joy when I saw how Pestalozzi and his helpers treated the children. On reaching home, I said to my friends: 'There is that going on at Burgdorf which deserves the respectful attention and support of all those who are interested in the happiness of humanity, and in the progress of public education."

The numerous visitors to the institute were particularly astonished by the children's progress in drawing and in the elements of geometry. A distinguished Nuremberg merchant, who had at first been much prejudiced against Pestalozzi's work, speaks thus:

"I was amazed when I saw these children treating the most complicated calculations of fractions as the simplest thing in the world. Problems which I myself could not solve without careful work on paper, they did easily in their heads, giving the correct answer in a few moments, and explaining the process with ease and readiness. They seemed to have no idea that they were doing anything extraordinary."

"At the Burgdorf institute," says another visitor, "children of from six to eight years draw difficult geometrical figures without rule or compass so correctly that no one would believe it who had not seen it."

"I have seen," says another, แ a child of ten, who had only been a pupil of Pestalozzi's for ten months, reduce a map of Scandinavia to a smaller scale in an hour with such exactness as to defy the most searching examination."

These accounts may, indeed, be somewhat overdrawn, but they prove, at any rate, that Pestalozzi's method of teaching arithmetic had succeeded under Krusi's direction long before Joseph Schmidt took charge of this branch of instruction. This general consensus of opinion in favour of the new school still further increased its reputation, and made it more and more an object of public attention.

"An institute," it was said, "which produces these important results with such slender means is surely deserving of

such support from the Government as will guarantee its continuance. Ought it not even to be utilized for a reform of public elementary education throughout Switzerland?"

Since the revolution of the 18th of October, 1801, Mohr had no longer been minister, and the Executive Council of the Republic had been replaced by a Petty Council. The latter, feeling the necessity of doing something for Pestalozzi, had appointed a Commission to visit the institute, in order that, before taking any decisive step, it might be in possession of reliable and detailed information as to its working.

The report of this Commission, drawn up by Ith, the president of the Council of Public Education in Berne, was presented in June, 1802.1

"On my first visit," he says, "I was full of distrust, and had thoroughly made up my mind not to let myself be dazzled by a brilliant theory, or carried away by the novelty of a few striking results." (p. 76.)

At that time there were some eighty children in the institute, of ages ranging from five to eighteen, and of almost every social condition. Amongst the number were twelve poor children, supported entirely by the establishment.

The report first endeavours to make clear the principles of the method invented by Pestalozzi, "who has discovered the real and universal laws of all elementary teaching." It then points to the excellence of the results already obtained, as established by the Commission in its late careful and thorough examination of the pupils, and especially praises the moral and religious life of the establishment, and the discipline, which, it points out, is entirely based upon affection. It recommends finally that the institute shall be turned into a normal school, to be supported by the State; that fixed salaries shall be allowed to all the masters, and that the projected new edition of Pestalozzi's works on elementary education shall be helped forward by a large subscription.

For Pestalozzi himself the Commission asked but one thing, which was that help should be given him to found a new home for orphans on his land at Neuhof, as soon as the

1 Official Report on Pestalozzi's Institute, etc., Berne and Zurich, 1802.

end to the hostilities. The French Government consented to act as mediator, and with a view to ascertaining the best means of restoring union and tranquillity amongst all parties, convoked at Paris a "Consulta," composed of deputies from the Helvetian Senate, the cantons, and any communes that wished to send them.

Pestalozzi had just published a conciliatory political pamphlet, and was now chosen by the village of Kirchberg to represent it at the Consulta. He was also chosen by canton Zurich, in company with Usteri and ex-director Laharpe.

The first meeting of the Consulta took place in Paris on the 10th of December, 1802. The First Consul had appointed a Commission to confer with the Swiss deputies, composedof Barthélemy, the president of the Conservative Senate, and formerly ambassador in Switzerland; Fouché, of Nantes; and Roederer and Desmeuniers, councillors of state. There were two opposing parties in the Consulta: one composed of forty-five members, amongst whom was Pestalozzi, for the most part favourable to the new ideas; the other, a minority of sixteen, who asked more or less explicitly for a return to the old state of things.

Pestalozzi's almost unintelligible French and his eccentric appearance were much against his getting a hearing in Paris; nor could he confine himself to the political questions under discussion, but tried to make the occasion an opportunity for expounding his educational ideas in France. He therefore exercised little or no influence in the Consulta, although Roederer was at that time displaying both zeal and talent in the matter of public instruction.

Pestalozzi was eager to obtain an audience of the First Consul, but his request was refused, Bonaparte saying that he had something else to do than consider questions of A B C. He instructed Senator Monge, however, to hear what Pestalozzi had to say.

Monge, the inventor of descriptive geometry, and the founder of the Polytechnic school, was a man of large mind and keen intellect. He listened patiently to Pestalozzi, asking question after question till he was satisfied that he had thoroughly understood him, but after carefully considering the plans the old man had proposed, he replied in halfa-dozen words: "It is too much for us."