not, as good evolutionists, the right to say or even believe that the intellectual life of the world or of the individual, could have been developed in any other way. The "bon mot" of the epicure, that "of "doubtless the Lord could have made a better berry than the strawberry, but doubtless never did," would not apply to the actual fruitage of the human mind. It ought not to be forgotten, therefore, that the intellect of man, in the progress of its collective development by which it has arrived at what is called modern civilization, has arrived there, not by training in specialties, but by general culture; not by a ratiocination from the individual to the general, but from the general to the individual; not by a posteriori, but by a priori processes; not by the principles of the "novum organon" of Bacon, but by those of the "organon" of Aristotle. This was the process of tutelage of the human intellect and it is absurd for us to say that there might have been a better, or even any other possible way of intellectual development. This has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life of mind evolution, and to us it would seem to be as safe to discard Him who has constituted for the ages this triple bond of union in our religious and moral life on the ground that He had served this purpose and substitute for Him the Religion of Humanity, as for the same reason, to put in the place of a liberal education, any form of special training whatever. Is it not plain, from the very nature of things, that such a substitution in the case of religion, means a cold and calculating policy instead of a spontaneous philanthropy, and, in the case of education a narrow, sordid, penny-wise-and-poundfoolish policy which must eventually stunt intellectual growth.

The necessities of daily life compel us, more or less to special pursuits, and she who has aptly been called the "mother of invention," will doubtless furnish us all with a vocation, dependent on our desires, our ambitions, and our capabilities. These desires and capabilities, again, must depend, in larger degree, upon the character of our previous education. Just here are we again brought face to face with the great question; the actual educational dilemma: Shall we recognize district schools of learning which have nothing in common? or, must the whole system of education, properly so called, be looked upon as one undivided and indivisible whole, and should all that tends to sectionalize, to antagonize different schools, especially, schools of different degrees, be pronounced a vice and corruption?

6

The late Mr. Matthew Arnold was not far wrong in his address before the University of Pennsylvania, about three years ago. He said (referring to the cause for the superior popular education in Germany and Switzerland), that cause "has expression well given to it by an article in the constitution of Canton Zurich, which declares that there shall be an organische verburdung'; an organic connection, between all the schools of the Canton, from the lowest to the highest. It is this connection, this vital connection of popular with higher education which produces its superiority. America has been severely blamed by foreigners for contenting herself generally with instituting a good public system of common schools and leaving intermediate and higher education to chance. When one sees colleges such as Harvard, and Yale, and Columbia, one may be inclined to say that in America higher instruction seems able to take good care of itself. But the question will still remain, what connection does it hold with popular education? What influence does it exercise upon that? In England our higher instruction has no relation whatever with our popular instruction. In Germany, France, and Switzerland the case is otherwise. The popular school is naturally and properly a municipal thing. The minister dealing with it has under his direct care the training colleges where the teachers of the popular schools are formed. You can understand how this action of superior instruction upon the teacher of the common schools must affect them; how it must tend to raise their work above the common and average thing which the school work of institutions fed from the least cultivated classes and taught by instructors drawn from those classes would, of itself, tend to become. Therefore, I say, that what is most to be desired for the common school is an organic connection with higher instruction, a vivifying relation and contact with it. But for this purpose public instruction must be organized as one whole. Intermediate and higher instruction would, in my opinion, be great gainers by such an organization. I can conceive no worthier ambition than that of training all who are born in a country like this of yours to all which is human. But it will not be done unless we can impart to popular education the contempt for charlatanism and vulgarity, the sound standard of excellence by which all serious higher instruction is characterized."

In relation to these statements of Mr. Arnold, we may say that

there seems to be a growing tendency in the United States to a "rapproachement" of the higher and lower schools of the educational world, but, in default of any government organization, and of a strange lack of condescension and a certain separateness of the higher schools, this influence seems strangely to emanate from the lower to the higher, instead of, as we should expect, and as Mr. Arnold argues, from the higher to the lower, thus, debasing the higher schools rather than raising the lower. One of three situations must exist; either the universities and public schools will be separated by an impassable gulf of indifference, as is now unfortunately too much the case, or the universities will draw the lower schools up into sympathetic union with themselves, or, finally, the lower schools under sordid guidance and by the sheer weight of numbers will drag down the universities to a lower level. Something like this latter alternative seems to be the situation in those institutions where special and elective studies are entrusted too early to the choice of the immature, uncultivated and ever after uncultivable boy. But in a government like the United States, where the people are sovereign, when once they see, as sooner or later they will see, that the avenues to the highest and best in education should be freely open to them, they will have it so. And when once they see that they have a right to the best and most cultivated talent for the instruction of their children, they will have that at any cost. Would that that day might be hastened by the wisdom of our universities. Would that they might take the first step toward the formation of that organic union which sooner or later must come. Let it come from the higher source that the fitness of things may be preserved.

OUR many deeds, the thoughts that we have thought,
They go out from us, thronging every hour;
And in them all is folded up a power

That on the earth doth move them to and fro;
And mighty are the marvels they have wrought

In hearts we know not, and may never know.

BE

VISITING ENGLISH SCHOOLS.

BY MRS. H. E. MONROE, PHILADELPHIA.

I.

EFORE leaving Washington, D. C., I went to see Colonel Dawson, the United States Commissioner of Education, and told him of my desire to visit foreign schools, so as to better understand foreign methods of education. The Commissioner kindly gave me cards to several Head Masters, and to members of school. boards and to professors of high standing in colleges and universities. Armed with these it looked to me an easy matter to gain admittance to any school, but I reckoned without mine host.

I called in person at the City of London School (boys), which from its name you would suppose to be a school supported by public money. This is not the case. Their "Public" schools, of which this is one, are supported and governed much like our academies or church colleges, by an incorporated board of directors who are generally stockholders in the property, but I presume like the same bodies in our country, only endeavor to make the school self-supporting, and derive from it little or no income.

I sent the Commissioner's card with my own to the Head Master, Rev. Edwin Abbott, D. D. We were shown to the library when very soon Doctor Abbott came in to greet us. He is a slender, nervous man, about five feet four in height, with a most interesting and intellectual face. He, with all the other masters wear the black gown and a "mortar-board" hat, which shows a degree from a University. Doctor Abbott was a "fellow" of St. John's College, Cambridge.

We accompanied Doctor Abbott to his office, a large airy room overlooking the Thames. There this Great Master, this man of great learning, this author of many books (both textbooks and works on theology), was engaged in looking over boys' examination papers. He showed us a couple of the sheets of questions, which were quite easy, not as difficult as in the cities of the United States are submitted to students of the high schools. The Latin and French sentences given for translation, analysis, and parsing

did not contain over nine or ten words and contained nothing idiomatic, yet he said the boys made many mistakes in these sentences.

We told him we desired to see the actual workings of the school, and to see some classes. He informed us in the most courteous manner that the Masters did not like to teach before visitors, that no one was admitted to the classrooms, but added, "I will see Mr. Read, who may permit you to see his room, because you are Americans."

Mr. Read was called and said, he would be pleased to have us visit his classroom. This young gentleman had a most pleasing presence. Doctor Abbott apologized for the boys under this teacher, saying they were mostly boys from the Elementary (corresponding to our public) schools, and had not been well taught before coming to the City of London School.

As we passed along the hall I said: "Mr. Read, we would like to hear any recitation by your class, just such as your pupils are in the habit of giving."

Mr. Read said: "A recitation? Do you mean a poem, or a declamation?"

"No, I would like to hear your class in grammar or in arithmetic."

The boys rose to their feet on our entrance, then resumed map drawing, which Mr. Read told us was a device for filling up spare minutes. Mr. Read continued to talk to us, and only at my again suggesting that we would like to hear an exercise in any of the branches which he taught did he give the boys an oral exercise in mental arithmetic. This was well conducted, and the boys showed quick perception, and were prompt and correct in most of their answers. When each boy was ready to answer he raised his hand, and if not immediately called, shook his hand and made the gesture without the sound of snapping his fingers-a gesture not unknown to young America, and gave the result without rising from his seat.

I saw no communicating, but boys left their seats to obtain a book or to throw waste paper into the basket without permission. It seemed a comfortable and yet effective government prevailed. The boys varied in age from nine to thirteen.

The master showed us his roll of their standing, ages, and time of admission. The exercise in arithmetic lasted probably twenty