letters occupy the leisure part of life, so I measure, we estimate the value of knowl should they occupy the leisure part of education." This language is indeed rather obscure; but the only meaning I can attach to it is, that music, drawing, poetry, etc., may be taught if time can be found when all other knowledges are provided for. This reminds me of the author whose works are so valuable that they will be studied when Shakespeare is forgotten-but not before. Any one of the sciences which Mr. Spencer considers so necessary might employ a lifetime. Where, then, shall we look for the leisure part of education when education includes them all?* edge by its influence on action, we shall probably rank "accomplishments" much higher than they have hitherto been placed in the schemes of educationists. Knowledge and skill connected with the business of life are, of necessity, acquired in the discharge of business. But the knowledge and skill which make our leisure valuable to ourselves, and a source of pleasure to others, can seldom be gained after the work of life has begun. And yet every day a man may benefit by possessing such an ability, or may suffer from the want of it. One whose eyesight has been trained by drawing and painting But, if adopting Mr. Spencer's own finds objects of interest all around him, * It is difficult to treat seriously the arguments by which Mr. Spencer endeavors to show that a knowledge of science is necessary for the practice or the enjoyment of the fine arts. Of course, the highest art of every kind is based on science, that is, on truths, which science takes cognizance of and explains; but it does not therefore follow that "without science there can be neither perfect production nor full appreciation." Mr Spencer tells us of mistakes which John Lewis and Rossetti have made for want of science. Very likely; and had those gentlemen devoted much of their time to science we should never have heard of their blunders-or of their pictures either. If they were to paint a piece of woodwork, a carpenter to which other people are blind. A primrose by the river's brim is, perhaps, more to him who has a feeling for its form and color than even to the scientific student, who can tell all about its classification and component parts. A knowledge of music is often of the greatest practical service, as by virtue of it, its possessor is valuable to his associates, to say nothing of his having a constant source of pleasure and a means of recreation which is most precious as a relief from the cares of life. Of far greater importance is the knowledge of our best poetry. One of the first reforms in our school-course would have been, I should have thought, to give this knowledge a much more prominent place; but Mr. Spencer consigns it, with music and drawing, to "the leisure part of education." Whether a had no knowledge of the fine arts, except man who was engrossed by science, who as they illustrated scientific laws, no acquaintance with the lives of great men, or with any history but sociology, and who studied the thoughts and emotions expeculiarities of his work-a question in psychology!" Still more surprising is Mr. Spencer's dic- pressed by our great poets merely with a tum about poetry. "Its rhythm, its strong and view to their psychological classification numerous metaphors, its hyperboles, its violent-whether such a man could be said to inversions, are simply exaggerations of the traits might, perhaps, detect something amiss in the mitering. If they painted a wall, a bricklayer might point out that with their arrangement of stretchers and headers the wall would tumble down for want of a proper bond. But even Mr. Spencer would not wish them to spend their time in mastering the technicalities of every handicraft, in order to avoid these inaccuracies. It is the business of the painter to give us form and color as they reveal themselves to the eye, not to prepare illustrations of scientific text-books. The physical sciences, however, are only part of the painter's necessary acquirements, according to Mr. Spencer. "He must also understand how the minds of spectators will be affected by the several of excited speech. To be good, therefore, poetry must pay attention to those laws of nervous action which excited speech obeys." It is difficult to see how poetry can pay attention to anything. The poet, of course, must not violate those laws, but, if he has paid attention to them in composing, he will do well to present his MS. to the local newspaper. "live completely" is a question to which every one, not excepting Mr. Spencer himself, would probably return the same answer. And yet this is the kind of man which Mr. Spencer's system would produce where it was most successful. Let me now briefly sum up the conclu over to the leisure part of education, is the only knowledge in his programme which I think should most certainly form a prominent part in the curriculum of every school. sions arrived at, and consider how far I but not by the children themselves. (4.) differ from Mr. Spencer. I believe that The knowledge which fits a man to disthere is no one study which is suited to charge his duties as a citizen is of great train the faculties of the mind at every importance, and, as Dr. Arnold pointed stage of its development, and that when out, is likely to be entirely neglected by we have decided on the necessity of this those who have to struggle for a livelior that knowledge, we must consider fur- hood. The schoolmaster should, therether what is the right time for acquiring fore, by no means neglect this subject it. I believe that intellectual education with those of his pupils whose schoolshould aim, not so much at communicat- days will soon be over, but, probably, all ing facts, however valuable, as at showing that he can do is to cultivate in them a the boy what true knowledge is, and giv. sense of the citizen's duty, and a capacity.. ing him the power and the disposition to for being their own teachers.* (5.) The acquire it. I believe that the exclusively knowledge of poetry, belles-letters, and scientific teaching which Mr. Spencer the fine arts, which Mr. Spencer hands approves would not effect this. It would lead at best to a very one-sided develop. ment of the mind. It might fail to engage the pupil's interest sufficiently to draw out his faculties, and in this case the net outcome of his schooldays would be no larger than at present. Of the knowledges which Mr. Spencer recommends for special objects some, I think, would not conduce to the object, and some could not be communicated early in life. (1.) For indirect self-preservation we do not require to know physiology, but the results of physiology. (2.) The science which bears on special pursuits in life has not in many cases any pecuniary value, and although it is most desirable that every one should study the science which makes his work intelligible to him, this must usually be done when his schooling is over. The school will have done its part if it has accustomed him to the intellectual processes by which sciences are learned, and has given him an intelligent appreciation of their value.* (3.) The right way of rearing and training children should be studied indeed, *Speaking of law, medicine, engineering, and the industrial arts, Mr. Mill remarks: "Whether those whose specialty they are will learn them as a branch of intelligence or as a mere trade, and whether having learnt them, they will make a wise and conscientious use of them, or the reverse, depends less on the manner in which they are taught their profession, than upon what sort of mind they bring to it-what kind of intelligence and of conscience the general system of education has developed in them."-Address at St. Andrews, p. 6. I therefore differ, though with great respect, from the conclusions at which Mr. Spencer has arrived. But I heartily agree with him that we are bound to inquire into the relative value of knowledges, and if I take, as I should willingly do, Mr. Spencer's test, and ask how does this or that knowledge influence action, (including in our inquiry its influence on mind and character, through which it bears upon action), I think we should banish from our schools much that has hitherto been taught in them, besides those old tormentors of youth (laid, I fancy, at last-requiescant in pace)—the Propria quæ Maribus and its kindred absurdities. What we should teach is, of course, not so easily decided as what we should not.-From "Essays on Educational Reformers," by ROBERT HERBERT QUICK, noticed in March No. of JOURNAL. *Vide Mill.-Address, p. 67. A MASSACHUSETTS editor is inclined to approve an English teacher's plan in examining schools to pass a newspaper about among the children, and require each to read from it, and to explain the allusions to events, institutions and per sons. WE possess only that which we comprehend. Some Remarks on the Report of President Eliot | far and how fast we have run, they can upon a National University. BY HON. T. O. HOWE, WISCONSIN. In the convention which framed the constitution of the United States the subject of a National University was somewhat considered. note that in our first century we have made the first obstruction to national culture. That is significant. It is more sig nificant that this first obstruction comes from Massachusetts. When Massachusetts had already turned her back on slave-holding, she still, in the interest of her young but most ambitious commerce, insisted on slave trading. Has Massachusetts any local interest now of such transcendent importance as will warrant her in flinging herself across the path of the national progress? Massachusetts has not yet done so. The obstruction referred to was not interposed by Massachusetts. It simply came from that State. Stranger still, it came from Cambridge. Palestine marveled that a Savior should come out of Nazareth. We must marvel that an obstruction to the cause of education should come out of Harvard. But the fact is that in August last the President of Harvard University appeared at Elmira before a national convention of educators to protest against a National University. The project found some warm friends in that illustrious body. It found no enemies there. From time to time since that date the measure has been discussed in an intermittent, peripatetic sort of way. It never has received the support it deserved. But that fact is readily explained. Until very recently the dominant school in American politics has been one which taught that we had no nation, but only a congeries of States; that what is called the Federal Government was intended rather for ornament than for use; that in our political system it supplied about the same office which in the economy of a ship is supplied by the figure-head; that it was expected to keep its head turned | constantly in the direction the ship was sailing; look very pert and keep very still, while the motions of the vessel were controlled solely by other agents, stationed on the deck or in the rigging; that it could do nothing unless expressly authorized by the representatives of all the States; that it could not lawfully even chastise a rebellion when the revolt was sanctioned by the authorities of a State.sity. Of course, while such teachings pre- President Eliot called his remonstrance vailed, it could hardly be expected that a report. But who instructed him to the ideas of a University, to be founded make a report, and who advised him to and controlled by national authority make that report do not appear. would be very generally embraced. But He treats the subject in three parts or even while that school prevailed the pro- chapters, so to speak. The first two have ject encountered no open hostility. That some value. In the first he sketches the school no longer prevails. We are now, history of the National Education Sociein 1873, preparing to celebrate the first ty in its connection with the University Centennial anniversary of our national project. It is a satisfaction to learn that independence. And now appears for as early as 1869 that large and philanthe first time an avowed enemy of a Na-thropic organization assembled at Trentional University. History has hitherto limited the march of Republics to the brief and beaten path, from liberty, through wealth and luxury, on to vice and barbarism. If any one would take an observation to see how It was in August, 1787, that James Madison, not of Massachusetts, but of Virgin ia; not a professional teacher but a practical statesman, moved in convention at Philadelphia to clothe Congress with the express power to establish such a univer ton, N. J., quite unanimously resolved "that a great American University is a leading want of American education;" that the association has ever since adhered to that declaration, and has done what such an association could do to promote the establishment of such a uni- | by one so competent, not to say so eager, versity. for the task. In the second chapter he proceeds to criticise at length two several bills which were presented to the last Congress, each proposing the founding of a university. The bills were simply presented and referred. No attempt was made to pass either of them. Doubtless they were imperfect. It is the business of legislation and the work of time to perfect them. It is not to be expected that the first charter will be beyond the reach of criticism. The organic act of Harvard itself was not. That ancient constitution was agreed to in the following words: "The court agreed to give £400 toward a schoale or colledge, whereof £200 to be paid next yeare, and £200 when the work is finished, and the next court to appoint theare and what building." On that slight foundation was started what has since become the noble university over which Mr. Eliot presides. Had the statesmen of Massachusetts then urged the defects in that charter, as an argument against the attempt to establish a college, we might never have been permitted to rejoice in the existence of Harvard. Still his criticism is not without value. For an obvious reason it was far from his purpose to indicate what provisions such a charter should contain. It is not the purpose of this notice to discuss the justice of President Eliot's criticisms. Whether, on the whole, he exposes more defects in the bills reviewed than in the reviewer, is a question on which men may differ. One of his criticisms, however, deserves mention here: He objects to both bills, that they propose to locate the university in Washington. He reminds the country that there are in it seven cities, every one of which is vastly more important to the country than Washington." Doubtless. And what It is said that seven cities once then? contended for the honor of being the place where Homer was born. The world could attend upon such a debate without detriment. But if seven cities had contended for the honor of being the place where Homer should be born, it might have fared ill with Homer, and the world might have been without the Iliad even until now. As President Eliot's aim avowedly is to prevent the location of a university anywhere, his appeal to urban But one jealousies may be well timed. would hardly have expected the President of Harvard to borrow the tactics of town meetings in resisting a measure moved in the interest of education. He will remember that the association which he addressed had declared a national uni Otherwise we can not doubt his criti-versity to be a "leading want," not of any cism would have possessed great value. American city, but of American education. He will doubtless concede, that if the want is to be supplied at all the uni But, as it happens, he could not expose the wrong without suggesting the right. He could not well point out what provis-versity must be located somewhere. He, ions such a bill ought not to contain without giving a hint, at least, of those which, in his opinion, it ought to contain. In this regard, therefore, his labor is useful. It is of use in another respect. He has unwittingly paid a high compliment to the authors of those bills, by passing their work with so few exceptions. The friends of the measure, whoever they may be, should take courage, from the fact that the first attempts to frame the great purpose into law has been so little criticised perhaps, can be persuaded that if it were proposed to locate such an institution anywhere else, even in Boston, adversaries, with but a fraction of his learning or his character, could have sounded the alarm to local jealousy with as much alacrity and possibly with as much effect as he has done. After all, it remains that if such a university is to be established it may as well be in Washington as elsewhere. And there are three reasons why it should be in Washington and not elsewhere: First. Some lawyers think that Con- founding of such an institution is outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. gress derives its authority to establish a university solely from the clause which gives it supreme legislative control over the District of Columbia, and that of course it must be placed within the District or not placed anywhere. President Eliot does not plead the limitations of the Constitution. There may be those who think the provision already made for intellectual cul adequate to the demands of our scholars. Second. There is in Washington mate-ture is sufficient-that our schools are rial indispensable to a thoroughly-equipped university, which is not found elsewhere, and cannot be provided without great expense. Of this character are the Observatory, the Congressional Library, the Bureau of Patents, of Agriculture and of Education, the Coast Survey and the Smithsonian Institute. Third. The Departments now collect a great many young men who would help stock the classes in the university, and it is confidently believed that the university would soon collect thousands of young men who would equip the departments better and cheaper than they have ever been equipped. "There is then no foundation whatever for the assumption that it is the duty of our Government to establish a National University." "The general notion that a beneficent government should provide and control an elaborate organization for teaching, just as it maintains an army, a navy or a post office, is of European origin, being a legitimate corrollary to the theory of government by divine right." This comes from the head of Harvard University, that noble outgrowth of one of the earliest laws ever enacted on this continent. The men who enacted it had rather conspicuously remonstrated against "the theory of government by divine right." It is not difficult to demonstrate that such a university, properly endowed, would in two decades, if not in one, collect classes of young men who would perform the clerical work of the Departments better than it has ever been done, and at an annual saving of cost equal to the whole annual expenditure of the uni-chusetts. That State has not been distinversity. If it were resolved that a national university should be, and the only question to be settled was where it should be, these three considerations of themselves might justify the selection of Washington instead of another city. But the great question is, Shall the National Government establish a university? It seems strange that such a man as President Eliot should answer such a question in the negative. The reasons hc assigns in support of that answer seem stranger still. This comes from a citizen of Massa guished for her attachment to "the theory of government by divine right." She is rather distinguished "for an elaborate organization for teaching," provided and controlled by government. Does President Eliot speak for Massachusetts to-day? Alas, how very dead Horace Mann must be! How long is it since Massachusetts declared by the lips of Horace Mann, that "legislators and rulers are responsible? In our country, and in our times, no man is worthy the honored name of statesman who does not include the highest practicable education of the people in all his plans of administration. He may have eloquence, he may have a knowledge of all history, jurisprudence, and by them he might There are those who may think the expenditure demanded by such an enterprise is beyond the present ability of the National Treasury. President Eliot does not plead the pov- claim, in other countries, the elevated erty of the treasury. rank of a statesman; but, unless he There may be those who think the speaks, plans, labors at all times and in |