ployed the occasion to sustain with his habitual force his favorite theme. For him, modern education should predominate and be in a large measure literary. That which, in his eyes, distinguishes secondary instruction from primary instruction is the association of a foreign language with the maternal language as an instrument of analysis for training the mind. As for ourselves we have always believed that primary education was the minimum of education necessary alike to all, and that secondary education was more solid, more complete, more substantial, both in the matter of instruction and the methods employed. Mr. Stanley, of London, who took so brilliant and useful a part in all the deliberations of the Congress, demonstrated by arguments, as clear as they were judicious, that secondary modern education need not be exclusively literary nor exclusively scientific, but tending rather toward large development and high mental culture through harmonious accord with literature and science. This system, defended with spirit by M. Rosenfeld, and with emphatic language by M. Chappuis, rector of the Academy of Dijon, was adopted by a pronounced majority. The third question proposed by the committee on organization, under the title of limitation and sanction of secondary studies (baccalaureate and certificate of maturity), precipitated a series of very delicate solutions which were not entirely settled by the Congress. The necessity was clearly recognized that secondary studies should receive a sanction; that the best mode of sanction is that which permits conscientious pupils of average intelligence to obtain the certificate without special preparation by following the regular course of studies-in fine, account should be made of marks obtained in the class whatever be the mode of sanction adopted. M. Herzen, the eminent physiologist of Lausanne, desired to obtain from the Congress a bold decision, making the greater part of university studies, and particularly medical studies, open to young men coming from one or the other of the three types of secondary education above mentioned. But it was not possible without profound discussion to dispose of a question of such importance; and this discussion, which had neither been anticipated nor prepared for, was necessarily postponed, much to our regret. A very spirited debate was provoked over the preference to be accorded to the certificate of maturity, as it is awarded in Germany and on the baccalaureate, as it is given in France. M. Blanchet, commending the system in use in almost all foreign countries, insisted that the examination upon leaving college should be before the professors of the institution where the pupil had studied, and under the superior control of a delegate of the State. M. Lichtenberger spoke warmly in the same vein. The various bearings of this question prevented its being pushed to a vote. Several persons, as well in the section as in the plenary meeting, notably M. Pigeon neau and the rector of Dijon, remarked that, for several countries, the question had not only a pedagogical interest, but also a political and administrative character; that in France notably, and also in Belgium, the proposed reform broke itself against insurmountable obstacles, principally because of the unequal value of education in the various establishments of secondary instruction, public or free; that while admitting that this proposition might reunite the majority in the Congress, it never would be received by certain governments. What good was it to set forth purely platonic views, without possible sanction, and consequently without importance and effect? The question was very properly raised whether one of the resolutions already adopted by the Congress, excluding all special preparation for obtaining a certificate of study, does not give sufficient satisfaction to the adversaries of the baccalaureate in its actual form? The section of superior education, under the able direction of M. Bufnoir, examined two questions which were made the subject of two excellent reports, one by M. Cart, on the national equivalence of studies and degrees; the other, by M. Blondel, on the place to assign social sciences in superior instruction. Respecting that which concerns social sciences, we heard the interesting communications of the Marquis Alfieri, of Florence; M. Gaudenzi, of Bologne; M. Urechia, of Bucharest; M. Gentet, of Geneva; MM. Van der Rest and Hulin, of Brussels; M. Medweczky, of Pesth, and M. Blondel, of Lyons. M. Alfieri, notably presented in the section and also in the general assembly, with his great authority, considerations of the highest importance touching the Institute of Social Sciences, which he founded at Florence on the model of the Free School of Political Sciences of Paris, but under somewhat different form and with less resources. In what fashion must we organize and n what frame work must we place this education? On this point the most diverse views were presented. Some proposed to establish for its service schools or special faculties, while others inclined to attach it either to the faculty of law or the faculty of philosophy. In Belgium it is proposed to inaugurate, as an experiment, a union of conferences to which the several faculties should contribute. For our part, we have been impressed with an observation presented in the course of discussion, namely, that it will be very dangerous to incorporate this education, now new and in process of formation, with a branch of study having traditional forms long since settled. The effect of the old education upon the new might be depressing; one would fear an arrest of growth, a premature absorption. The Congress, adopting the views of the sections, avoided responding in a too positive manner to the question presented by the committee on organization, but it affirmed the importance of economic and social sciences, in expressing the opinion that they should have a larger place than heretofore in superior education. The discussion on the international equivalence of studies and degrees afforded constantly the liveliest interest and terminated in the happiest conclusions. The following resolutions were adopted: It is proper to admit and establish the international equivalence of diplomas, or of certificates, declaring the studies of secondary education required as condition of admission to studies of superior education of various orders. It is proper to recommend, as a useful international practice, the concession to the students of the right to accomplish, in a foreign university, a part of their course. It is proper, after valuation of the titles gained and without any distinction of nationality, to accord the international equivalence of certificates of examination and of degrees from a scientific standpoint and as a condition of the pursuit of a more elevated grade. Upon the proposition of M. Gentet, and in the midst of applause, the President declared, in the name of the Congress, that the vote taken in the plenary meeting was unanimous. Many of our compatriots who assisted in these debates (among whom we distinguished three deans of faculties of the Academy of Paris and several rectors) graciously admitted that, up to the present time, in these matters the traditions of France were not overliberal. In a fine discourse M. Bufnoir, resuming the debates of the section, protested particularly against that contemptible over zeal for the public treasury impressed upon our regulations and which it was important to have abolished at once. In the midst of the first section and of the general assembly following, Dr. Laskowsky, in forcible and elevated language, glowing with warm sympathy for our country, showed by decisive arguments that it was of the highest interest to France to facilitate the studies of foreigners in her dominions and of her own citizens in foreign countries. The French people did not travel enough, he said; they did not see enough; all of the French students who visited foreign nations were too much the apostles of French ideas, French interests, French civilization. One could appreciate at this moment from the standpoint of the fraternity of peoples the happy results of the presence at Paris of so many foreign students. As M. Gréard remarked, in the admirable discourse in which he reviewed the discussions and the decisions of the Congress, that had the assembly merely given the vote on the equivalence, it sufficed to mark the elevated character and utility of these international meetings. The representatives of all countries were of one accord in throwing down all the useless barriers which separate peoples in their intellectual interchanges. In this very rapid epitome, written in a sort of off-hand vein, we have only noticed the most important decisions arrived at by the Congress and mentioned the names of a few of the most eminent persons who took part in the discussion. Elevated and judicious views were presented (speaking only of foreigners) by Messrs. Harris and Clarke, delegates from the United States; M. Gavard, state councilor of Geneva; M. Collard, of the University of Louvain; M. Spruyt, of the University of Amsterdam; M. Van Hamel, of the University of Groningen; M. Geiser, of Zurich; M. Hartaux, of Namur; M. Hurdebise, of Hasselt; M. Giner, of Los Rios, and M. Ramon de Luna, of Madrid; M. Storm, of Christiania; M. Mustapha Bey, of Cairo; MM. Basiadis and Philaretos, of Athens; Mr. Widgery, of London, and many others whom we omit, whose ideas and propositions are contained in the reports of our meetings. But that which above all should be described is the good intent and cordiality and, if I may express myself thus, the joy to feel ourselves in union and able to communicate to each other all those sincere sentiments of fraternity which leave the most lasting souvenirs in our hearts. At no moment was experienced that lassitude or ennui which sometimes characterizes these reunions. There existed but the single regret that we were so soon to part. Before our separation, the representatives of several countries sought to express to the President of the Congress their gratitude and their sentiments of respect and admiration. M. Gréard could see to what extent his work and his personality gratified the foreign peoples, and how they appreciate here the great literary value and likewise the high pedagogical standard of his magnificent labors on instruction and education of all degrees. Let us add that many friends of France, who took part, notably in the name of Switzerland, England, Greece, and Italy, after having thanked the President, the members of the bureau, the many ladies who assisted in the Congress, and afforded it so charming an attraction, endeavored to mount higher and beyond (to employ their own expressions) in their sympathy and good wishes. They testified their appreciation of the extended and affectionate hospitality which they received on our soil and in our capital. A Frenchman is always happy to hear good words spoken of France, but that which gives particular value to such sentiments is the sincerity of those who express them in their own name or in the name of their country. It is for us to place a hand in that which is extended, to draw closer the bonds of fraternity that unite us to various peoples, and, as the desire was affirmed repeatedly in the Congress, to encourage anew, at an early period, another of these international meetings, where so many ideas are exchanged, where so many results are communicated, where decisions so useful to all are accepted, where personal relations so profitable and so attractive are formed by each one, and which, in bringing individuals together, contribute so powerfully to unite all peoples in the aspiration for progress and in the conception, growing each day clearer and more enlightened, of the numerous interests and wants that are common to all civilized nations. THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF SUPERIOR EDUCATION; ALSO OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION. Honorary Presidents.-MM. Berthelot, member of the Institute and senator; Jules Simon, member of the Institute and senator. President.-M. Gréard, member of the Institute and vice-rector of the Academy of Paris. Vice-Presidents.-MM. Bréal, member of the Institute and professor at the College of France; Lapparent (de); Morel, inspector-general of public instruction. Secretaries.-MM. Dreyfus-Brisac, editor in chief of the Revue Internationale de l' Enseignement, and Perrier, professor at the museum. Members.-MM. Audiffred, deputy; Beaussire, member of the Institute; Bossert, inspector-general of living languages; Boutmy, member of the Institute and director of the Free School of Political Sciences; Bufnoir, professor of the faculty of law; Combes; Compayré, deputy; Croiset, professor at the faculty of letters and president of the Society of Secondary Educations Darboux, member of the Institute and professor at the faculty of sciences; Gaufrès, municipal councilor; Girard, head master of the Condorcet Lycée; Godart, member of the superior council of public instruction and director of the School Monge; Lavisse, professor at the faculty of letters; Léon Le Fort, member of the Academy of Medicine and professor at the medical faculty: Liard, director of superior education in the ministry of public instruction; Manuel, inspector-general of secondary education; Mercadier, director of studies at the Polytechnic School; Merlet, professor of rhetoric; G. Perrot, member of the Institute and director of the Normal School; Pigeonneau, assistant professor in the faculty of letters; Camille Sée, councillor of state; Vintéjoux. BUREAU OF THE CONGRESS. The first general assembly of the Congress, reassembled Tuesday, August 6, maintained, for direction of the labors, bureau members of the committee on organization and added the following names: MM. the Marquis Alfieri, Italy; Dr. Basiadis, Constantinople; Miss Beale, directress of the Cheltenham School, England; Bogdanow, privy councilor, Moscow; Clarke, United States; Gavard, state councilor, Switzerland; Dr. Geiser, director of the Zurich (Switzerland) Polytechnic School; Giner de los Rios, professor at the University of Madrid, Spain; Dr. Harris, delegate from the Bureau of Education, United States; Machado, Portugal; De Medveczky, professor at the University of Buda-Pesth, Austria-Hungary; Montefior, Brussels, Belgium; Ramon de Luna, Spain; Lyulph Stanley, London, England; Dr. Storm, Christiania; Dr. Spruyt, Amsterdam; Van der Rest, rector of the University of Brussels, Belgium; Villari, Florence; V. A. Urechia, delegate from Roumania, member of the Senate and late minister of public instruction. M. Esparcel was designated as assistant secretary to the Congress. FOREIGN MEMBERS. Alfieri, Marquis, senator of the Kingdom of Italy, Florence. Andrews, Miss Constance E., Young Girls' College, Cheltenham. Andrews, Miss Alice M. Apostolidès, M., delegate from the Hellenic commission. Argent, Mlle. Elizabeth-Anna d', bachelor of letters, University of London. Argent, Alina d'. Armagnac, Madame, professor Young Girls' College, Cheltenham. Ascoli, Graziado, correspondent of the Institute of France, senator, Milan. |