1857 the control and direction of science and art teaching was taken over by the Committee of Council, and grants were instituted for art, so that localities desiring to have them, could start schools of art, which were subsidised in this way by the Government. In the following year a department of science was formed to bring under one management the control of the science, trade, and navigation schools which already existed.

The declared object of the Science and Art Department from the first was to give higher education, and it was only some time after its institution that certificates were granted to teachers to teach science in the schools. In 1861 the first May examination in Science and Art was held, and in 1862 the principle of payment by results was adopted. Thus from the first, in art teaching as well as science teaching, the instruction was mainly intended for adults, and was only subsequently introduced into the schools. This goes far to account for the shortcomings of the system.

The syllabuses of the examinations in science were based entirely upon the information required by the average man in his daily work, and the educative value of the course laid down and the method of approach of the various subjects were matters of subordinate importance. For the purpose for which they were intended these syllabuses were undoubtedly admirably adapted, and if they had been confined to adults all would have been well. But the work of the Science and Art Department extended very rapidly, and, under certain conditions, children in day schools were admitted to the examination, in many cases, I fear, rather with the view of obtaining grants than for the appropriateness of the subjects chosen for educational purposes. It was in this haphazard way, which is so eminently characteristic of educational movements in England, that the general idea arose that the one object of education in science was to give information which would be of value in the after-life of those attending the classes.

The time-honoured maxims, "learn by doing," "never

teach a child that which he can learn by himself,” and others which convey the same idea, are well known to all interested in the theory and practice of education. That the science teaching in English schools has, generally speaking, been in direct opposition to such maxims is also well known. Here comes in the great difficulty which has been the most important factor in retarding the progress of rational teaching in this country-the absence of any direct influence of those immediately concerned in the teaching of children with those who are responsible for drawing up the syllabuses of public examinations.

Mr Reeves, who was for a long time Minister of Education in New Zealand, read a paper at an Educational Congress a short time since, on Education in New Zealand. In that paper he described how in that go-ahead colony they have a Central Department, with its Minister of Education, exercising control over powerful Local Education Boards throughout the country, these being aided again by district school committees responsible for the inspection of the schools, supplemented, of course, by Government inspection. And what, to my mind, is a matter of supreme importance, they have an Educational Institute, which is practically a national union of teachers, which is recognised by statute, is consulted continually by the Central Department and the Local Boards, and exerts a very considerable influence, to the great advantage of teachers and administrators.

Had there been any such official connection between teachers and the public departments concerned in education in this country the old style of science teaching in schools would long since have disappeared. Unfortunately, those in control of public educational institutions are not necessarily qualified to judge of the value of the instruction being given. But it is quite remarkable how many people, otherwise modest and estimable, persuade themselves without the slightest foundation that they are competent to judge on all matters relating to

education. All who have been so unfortunate as to be present at many prize-givings at schools know too well how anybody, from the curate fresh from the university down to the local mayor, is prepared to speak at great length, to the infinite boredom of everybody, on the subject of education. Governing bodies exercising little influence in educational matters, teachers have been very largely at the mercy of boards of examiners.

It will be interesting to see in the future administration of education how far the matters to which I have referred will be remedied by the presence of a consultative committee of educational experts which shall advise the Board of Education, as provided for in the Board of Education Bill. Very much will depend upon the extent to which this committee will be consulted in drawing up syllabuses and schemes of study. In the Bill it is stated that the work of the committee will consist of (a) framing, with the approval of the Board of Education, regulations for the formation of a register for teachers, and (6) advising the Board of Education on any matter referred to the committee by the Board. It is evident from (ẻ) that the consultative committee is not to speak unless it is spoken to; it rests entirely with the Board of Education how much or how little influence this committee shall have. It will hold a very different position from the Educational Institute in the scheme of administration in New Zealand. However, we must hope for the best.

The syllabuses of the Science and Art Department were drawn up by men distinguished in science, holding the highest academic positions, but who disregarded entirely in the course of instruction laid down the suitability of such subjects for mental training and discipline. The consequence was the ground covered by the syllabuses represented the amount of information which could be imparted by a successful teacher in thirty lessons, and the subject-matter was largely determined by its value as information.

This is the issue on which the whole matter turns. Is

instruction to be given in schools in science for the purpose of information in these subjects, or for the purpose of mental training?-a perfectly plain issue, utility or education-an issue on which there can be no compromise. A syllabus of work excellent from one point of view is quite useless from the other. If the intelligence is to be developed by this means, if the child is to find out things for himself, if he is to perform experiments, address his own questions to nature, make his own observations, and draw his own conclusions, and simply have the proper conditions supplied by, and receive suitable information and guidance where necessary from, his teacher, the amount of marketable information which he will acquire, as tested by ordinary methods, in a session will be about the same as his teacher might have imparted to him as information in two or three lectures. Further than this, the teacher who is most successful in storing the child's mind with the greatest amount of information is also the most successful in removing any necessity for the child to think for himself. He has simply to receive information and reproduce it preferably in the exact order in which it was given at a suitable opportunity in reply to examination questions.

There is a vast deal of truth in Thring's condemnation of this kind of teaching. "Education," he says, "is not bookworm work, but the giving the subtle power of observation, the faculty of seeing...... If the cursed rule-mongering and technical terms could be banished to limbo, something might be done. Three parts of teaching and learning in England is the hiding common sense and disguising ignorance under phrases."

A very influential committee was appointed by the British Association in 1887 to enquire into the present methods of teaching chemistry. The full report, issued in 1889, was strongly in favour of chemistry being taught as a branch of mental education. As this report has had such a remarkable influence in modifying the teaching of science in schools, I make no apology for giving some important extracts from it.

British Association Report, 1889.

"The Committee are convinced that the high educational value of instruction in physical science has never been exhibited to its full advantage in most of our educational institutions. Nevertheless, there exists already a considerable body of experience which proves that there is no more effective and attractive method of training the logical faculties than that which is afforded by a properly arranged course of instruction in physical science; by no other means are the powers of accurately ascertaining facts, and of drawing correct inferences from them, so surely developed as they are by the study of this subject.

"It cannot be too strongly insisted that elementary physical science should be taught from the first as a branch of mental education, and not mainly as useful knowledge. It is a subject which, when taught with this object in view, is capable of developing mental qualities that are not aroused, and indeed are frequently deadened, by the exclusive study of languages, history, and mathematics. In order that the study of physical science may effect this mental education, it is necessary that it should be employed to illustrate the scientific method in investigating nature, by means of observation, experimenting, and measuring, with the aid of hypothesis; the learners should be put in the attitude of discoverers, and should themselves be made to perform many of the experiments. The lessons ought to have reference to subjects which can be readily understood by children, and illustrations should be selected from objects and operations that are familiar to them in every-day life. Chemistry is particularly well adapted for affording this kind of instruction, and the committee are of opinion that a course which is mainly chemical will be most useful in developing logical habits of thought.

"Chemical enquiry involves, however, the use of various physical processes, and these are themselves of great value