ing, filing, etc., and, what is worst of all, they are insufficiently acquainted with the use of that instrument-which has created modern chemistry-the balance.

How are we to change all this? By a proper reorganization of the early stages of chemical instruction.

I have already indicated that lectures on chemistry should not begin with the explanation of chemical theories, but with the demonstration of facts, which should be chosen in such a manner that the theoretical conclusions may be deduced from them. In the same way instruction in the laboratory should begin with the observation of reactions, chosen in such a manner that by degrees some of the simpler methods of manipulation are acquired by the pupil. As soon as he is acquainted with these, he may begin to make preparations, starting with products of a simple composition, and transforming them into others by processes, the nature of which he is able to understand; but as soon as he begins this work he should also begin to use the balance. In every experiment he should use weighed quantities of raw material, and he should ascertain the weight of the intermediate, final, and by-products. The experiments should be chosen in such a manner that more and more complicated apparatus is required for them, and great care should be taken in insisting that every experimental plant constructed should be faultless in all its details.

Only after having acquired considerable skill in chemical manipulation should the student begin to do analytical work. After a short practice in qualitative analysis he should begin with quantitative work. Being acquainted with the necessity of ascertaining the weight of all matter taken into work, he would now easily become familiar with the use of the analytical balance, which would not remain (as it unfortunately does very often at present) an object of fearful veneration, but become an indispensable and well understood tool. This quantitative analytical work should be supplemented by a number of thermo-chemical and physico-chemical experiments.

Whilst this experimental work is carried on the student has become acquainted in his lectures with the subject of organic chemistry. Organic analysis may now be taken up in the laboratory. As soon as the young chemist shows some efficiency as an analyst of organic substances, it is time to begin with organic preparations; but here again an exact record should be kept of the quantitative conditions of every experiment. The use of weights and measures should become second nature to every chemist, and nothing is more important in the practical instruction of a chemical beginner than to imbue him with the conviction that merely qualitative work is imperfect by nature and only admissible as a preliminary preparation to the quantitative experiment, which, if properly carried out, is perfect and necessary as a supplement of the qualitative observation.

Another important point in chemical instruction is the constant reference to the practical application of facts and theories. If the teacher would take constant care to explain what are the conditions of an experiment, what alterations in the plant are necessary for its execution on a manufacturing scale, and why such alterations are necessary, then he would contribute more toward the formation and growth of industrial comprehension in his pupils than can be done by any special technical instruction.

I have no hesitation in saying that a young chemist who has followed with all necessary industry and intelligence a course of instruction such as I have sketched will be properly prepared for original research. This is equivalent to saying that he will be equally prepared to fill with advantage a position in a chemical factory in any branch whatever. His education will be complete and what he still lacks will be the experience and the rapidity of practical work, which can only be acquired by continued practice.

A few words remain to be said about the other subjects which, besides chemistry, should be taught to every young chemist. Of course he should receive a proper instruction in physics, the elements of mechanical engineering, technical drawing,

mineralogy, botany, etc. A certain knowledge of all the exact sciences is indispensable to every chemist, whether he intends to devote his work to industrial or to purely scientific research.

The essence of my investigation is, that I can not admit any fundamental difference in the methods of research of pure and applied chemistry. Consequently I can not admit the necessity of a difference of instruction for the two. A well organized instruction in pure chemical science would, in my opinion, be the best preparation for any young chemist for his future career. The method in use at present seems to be capable of improvement. Though much of what I have brought forward would not seem new to many of my colleagues, yet it can not be said to be generally admitted, and it is certainly worthy of the most serious consideration.

We want no school for producing specialists. Specialism comes as a matter of course in later life. But no matter how deep any chemist may involve himself in the intricacies of any given subject, he can still gather useful information for his own work from the contemplation of work accomplished in other branches of his science. If we want our schools to produce men fit to reap the great harvest before us, then let them produce chemists who enthusiastically embrace their science as a whole, and who are incapable both of separating practice from theory and theory from practice.

REMARKS ON THE TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY.

By GEORGE LUNGE, Ph.D., Professor of Technological Chemistry in the Federal Polytechnic School, Zürich; Past-President of the German Society of Chemical Industry.

In order to raise English chemical industry to the foremost rank which is deputed to it at present in several important branches, it is necessary that the technical management of chemical factories should not be left in the hands of "rule-of-thumb" men, but should be intrusted to real chemists. These men should have a much fuller education than the majority of chemists seem to obtain at present in Great Britain, which means that they must spend more time and money on their training than they generally do. Before entering on their proper professional study at college, they should receive a more suitable general education, in which the "classics" need not be entirely left out, but must take a secondary place in comparison with modern language, mathematics, drawing, and the elements of science. At college the student should receive a thorough training in scientific chemistry, taking this in its widest meaning, not merely as a "testing" business. Next to this, but not to the same extent, he should be taught physics, mineralogy, technology, mechanics, and the elements of engineering. Everything else is more ornamental than usefui; but I am the very last to say that the student should confine himself only to the latter.

Nobody in these times of ours is likely to turn out a first-class chemist, worthy of being later on put in charge of a large factory, who has not tried his hand in original research. This has been pointed out with such cogency and emphasis by many authoritative voices in England (in Germany it has long been held as an article of faith) that I may abstain from dilating on that topic.

There is not quite so much agreement on the point whether technical chemists should be taught at college technology and the elements of engineering. Most people would take this as a matter of course; but there are influential voices to the contrary. We meet with such in the Report on the Teaching of Chemistry, made to the Technical Education Board of the London County Council in November, 1896. One gentleman declares the teaching of technological chemistry of no value whatever for chemical industries or for the pupils. Another declares that, although he had no preliminary technical training, and had been through theoretical courses only, he found himself able to cope with anything that cropped up when he entered manufacturing practice. Both gentlemen are eminently practical men for whom I,

like all the world, entertain the greatest respect, but in the present case I can not follow them, and I believe that their experience is too one-sided. I, for my part, trust that I shall not be judged arrogant for assuming my natural capability to be up to the average, but my experience has been as follows. Having gone through a complete course of scientific chemistry and allied subjects (I rejoice to have had Bunsen and Kirchhoff as teachers), and having afterwards entered upon a technical career, I did not find myself "able to cope with anything that cropped up in practice," but I had to spend immense trouble and time, and to pay serious "Lehrgeld” for acquiring those elements of mechanical and technological knowledge which students now obtain as a matter of course in a good technical college. And this experience of my own agrees with so much else which I have observed in later life that I feel bound to retain my view of this subject as before stated. Nor do I stand alone in that. Not to speak of the practice of all the continental Polytechnics, which, after all, have some results to point to, great efforts have recently been made to introduce those technological subjects even at the German universities, as it is felt that in that respect they are suffering under a drawback in comparison with the polytechnics. A very forcible speech was delivered on April 28 of this year [1897], in the Prussian House of Commons, by Dr. Böttinger, the head of one of the largest chemical manufactories in the world, with a staff of more than a hundred chemists (the Farbenfabriken at Elberfeld). Dr. Böttinger strongly demanded the establishment of more professorships of technological chemistry, also at the old universities, in order to maintain the prominent position of Germany in the chemical industry, and the Government made a very encouraging reply to this.

It is quite intelligible why some large chemical manufacturers do not care very much about a preliminary study of technological subjects on the part of their chemists. At their colossal works they need specialists for each branch, and they can not do without a staff of fully trained engineers, so that their chemists are not called upon to do any but strictly chemical work. Some owners of works may not even like their chemists to get too much insight into the practical and mechanical part of the manufacturing operations, for reasons which need not be dwelt upon here. But that can not be our standpoint, as teachers, nor, do I venture to say, is it in the interest of the nation as a whole that a trade should be monopolized in a few hands, as it is the object of "keeping everybody to his last." On the contrary, we aim at educating our pupils in such manner that they can turn their energies into practical channels at any opportunity which may offer itself; for this purpose they must be able to cope with mechanical and technical problems at the outset, and they must be taught to think technically, not merely as test-tube men. Of this I may be allowed to give an illustration from a huge industry which is after all quite as much a branch of applied chemistry as, say, alkali making, viz, the manufacture of iron and steel. Does anybody maintain that the enormous strides made in this industry in our own generation would have been possible if the ironmasters and their assistants had been brought up on a diet of pure chemistry and physics, leav ing all the practical part and the engineering to be either performed by nonchemical engineers, or picked up at haphazard later on by themselves, instead of their going through a thorough training in the technology of metallurgy at mining schools or the like? This reductio ad absurdum is perhaps not quite so apparent and absolute in other branches of the industries built upon a chemical basis, but in my humble opinion it applies there as well. I can not consider it as an accidental coincidence that Germany, which had been one of the leaders in theoretical chemistry for a long time past, without developing a chemical industry commensurate with it, should have attained to such prominence in the same industry precisely in the period when the establishment of technical high schools had provided her with a number of chemists, trained in something else than pure science. It is really unnecessary for me to point out that such a training in pure science, and that of a most thorough kind, is the indispensable forerunner of the teaching of practical subjects, but, although speak

ing pro domo, I can not help saying that technological chemistry has also amply proved its right of existence, and its great importance for the progress of chemical industry.

I have hitherto had only those in mind who aspire to filling the higher positions in chemical works, and ultimately hope to become themselves managers or owners of factories. Of course, only a few can ever reach that goal, and the great majority must content themselves with obtaining intermediate positions, but if they have honestly worked during their college time, they may trust not to be left always in the condition of "testing-slaves," but to be promoted to manage some part or other of the real manufacture. According to the way they perform that work, they will have a chance of getting on higher and higher. Such promotion is, on the Continent, now confined to trained chemists, and I believe it is also more common than formerly in England to make chemists managers of chemical works. So long as this is not a recognized principle, it is in vain to hope for retaining a foremost rank in chemical industry. It is another question whether it is necessary or useful for that purpose, as is sometimes claimed, that the foremen, or even the common workmen, should possess a certain knowledge of chemistry and technology, such as may be imparted at board schools or at night classes for adults. I am afraid that such knowledge is quite useless to ordinary workmen, who have simply to do as they are told, and who may do more harm than good by trying to apply a superficial idea of the nature of the operations which they have to perform, without possibly having a real insight into them. I do not even think that, apart from isolated exceptions, such knowledge is of much good to the foremen, whose duty it is to carry out instructions and to see that the men do their work as prescribed by the staff, but who are not to meddle with the chemical process itself. Both classes of men may have valuable suggestions to make concerning apparatus and other outwardly visible points, but even if they have learned as much chemistry as they have had a chance to do in the ordinary way, it is most unlikely that they will be able to find out any improvements in the chemistry of the process. At all events, in Germany, even in those factories where the work is carried on with the greatest chemical refinement, the foremen and ordinary workmen are neither required nor even desired to know anything of chemistry. Formerly, it happened sometimes that one of the men, after getting such a smattering of chemistry as he was able to obtain by evening schools and the like, was driven on by an irresistible impulse to rise from the ranks, to supplement his deficiencies by hard work, and to become a successful chemical inventor. But such a contingency has become more and more scarce with the widening of the area of science and the increasing difficulty of mastering it, and it really seems a great waste of time and means to give some superficial chemical teaching to tens of thousands of workmen on the remote chance that one of them may gain some real benefit from it, while at the same time many hundreds of educated men are receiving a really efficient training in the same direction, many of whom can not find properly remunerated places owing to a great extent to the cheap labor of "bottle-washers."

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN TRADE TEACHING.

By Sir PHILIP MAGNUS, of the City and Guilds of London Technical Institute. The experience acquired during the few years since technical instruction was first generally introduced and made supplemental to trade practice has enabled us to formulate certain principles applicable to the teaching of trade subjects. The material now exists for a new chapter in pedagogy, which, if not yet written, may at any time be added to the science of education. The difficulty of determining the true relation of theory and practice in teaching the technology of any trade is shown

by the regulations of the science and art department which apply to the teaching of science in its bearing upon trades and in the technical instruction act, which expressly forbids the teaching of the practice of a trade in any technical school. The words of the act are, technical instruction "shall not include teaching the practice of any trade or industry or employment.”

It has become a recognized principle of technical training that a trade is best learned by actual practice in the factory or shop, and so strictly has this principle been adhered to that the establishment of schools similar to the apprenticeship schools of France and the Fachschulen of Austria and of other countries has been discouraged by the best authorities on the question of technical education. Nevertheless, it has been found necessary to approximate so closely to the teaching of a trade in some of our technical classes that local authorities have frequently been in doubt as to whether they have infringed the act, and the Government has been obliged to give a very broad and liberal interpretation to it to satisfy the just and proper demands of technical schools.

There is also considerable difficulty in indicating the kind of theory to be taught in a trade school. The courses of instruction prescribed by the department in the directory for science were intended to meet the requirements of students engaged in different sections of industry. But, although such courses, of instruction have been largely followed by all kinds of artisans, a protest has been continuously heard that the syllabuses of instruction are ill adapted to the workmen's needs; and we know that the instruction has failed to reach thousands of workers in some of our largest and most important industries. This fact was brought prominently under my notice when I was asked, some time since, to ascertain what proportion of the candidates at the technological examinations succeeded in qualifying for the full certificate by having passed certain examinations in allied branches of science under the science and art department. The inquiry showed that less than 17 per cent of the successful candidates were so qualified, and in some industries, notably in the textile trades, the proportion was much smaller. It appears, therefore, that for the purposes of technical education, more particularly as adapted to workmen, special methods have to be considered even in the teaching of the theory or principles of science underlying the practice of any trade.

One of the most interesting papers it has been my privilege to read is an article contributed to the Edinburgh Review in 1824, which shows how clearly its distinguished author, the late Lord Brougham, foresaw many of the difficulties we now experience. Lord Brougham, in the article t› which I refer, quotes with approval from the prospectus published in 1821 by the Edinburgh School of Arts the following passage:

The great object of this institution is to supply, at such an expense as a working tradesman can afford, instruction in the various branches of science which are of practical application to mechanics in their several trades, so that they may the better comprehend the reason for each individual operation that passes through their hands and have more certain rules to follow than the mere imitation of what they may have seen done by another. It is not intended to teach the trade of the carpenter, the mason, the dyer, or any other particular business; but there is no trade which does not depend, more or less, upon scientific principles; and to teach what these are and to point out their practical application will form the business of this establishment. He who unites a thorough knowledge of the principles of his art with that dexterity which practice, and practice only, can give, will be the most complete, and probably the most successful, tradesman.

It would appear, however, that, more specialized instruction having been required, the students at the mechanical lectures of this school proposed to form themselves into separate classes, and they selected a working joiner, by name James Sale, and David Dewar, a working cabinetmaker, from among their fellow-students to give instruction. But even this arrangement was not free from difficulties, and Lord Brougham goes on to say: "The experience of the first year, and particularly the fact that the students were of no less than forty-eight different trades, convinced ED 98-20