its claim to be admitted into the curriculum; but these, if they can be established, are no doubt very important. It is true, however, that doctors preserve their own life and health by their knowledge of physiology? I think the matter is open to dispute. Mr. Spencer does not. He says very truly, that many a man would blush if convicted of ignorance about the pronunciation of Iphigenia, or about the labors of Hercules, who, nevertheless, would not scruple to acknowledge that he had never heard of the Eustachian tubes, and could not tell the normal rate of pulsation. "So terribly," adds Mr. Spencer, "in our education does the ornamental override the useful!" But this is begging the question. At present classics form part of the instruction given to every gentleman, and physiology does not. This is the simpler form of Mr. Spencer's assertion about the labors of Hercules, and the Eustachian tubes, and no one denies it. But we are not so well agreed on the comparative value of these subjects. In his Address at St. Andrews, Mr. Mill showed that he at least was not convinced of the uselessness of classics, and Mr. Spencer does not tell us how the knowledge of the normal state of pulsation is useful; how, to use his own test, "it influences action." However, whether we admit the claims of physiology or not, we shall probably allow that there are certain physiological facts and rules of health, the knowledge of which would be of great practical value, and should therefore be imparted to every one. Here the doctor should come to the schoolmaster's assistance, and give him a manual from which to teach them.

Next in order of importance, according to Mr.

THE MONEY-VALUE OF SCIENCE.

233

Spencer, comes the knowledge which aids indirect self-preservation by facilitating the gaining of a livelihood. Here Mr. Spencer thinks it necessary to prove to us that such sciences as mathematics and physics and biology underlie all the practical arts and business of life. No one will think of joining issue with him on this point; but the question still remains, what influence should this have on education? "Teach science," says Mr. Spencer. “A grounding in science is of great importance, both because it prepares for all this [business of life], and because rational knowledge has an immense superiority over empirical knowledge." Should we teach all sciences to everybody? This is clearly impossible. Should we, then, decide for each child what is to be his particular means of money-getting, and instruct him in those sciences which will be most useful in that business or profession? In other words, should we have a separate school for each calling? The only attempt of this kind which has been made is, I believe, the institution of Handelschulen (commer-. cial schools) in Germany. In them, youths of fifteen or sixteen enter for a course of two or three years' instruction which aims exclusively at fitting them for commerce. But, in this case, their general education is already finished. With us, the lad commonly goes to work at the business itself quite as soon as he has the faculties for learning the sciences connected with it. If the school sends him to it with a love of knowledge, and with a mind well disciplined to acquire knowledge, this will be of more value to him than any special information.

As Mr. Spencer is here considering science merely

with reference to its importance in earning a liveli hood, it is not beside the question to remark, that in a great number of instances, the knowledge of the science which underlies an operation confers no practical ability whatever. No one sees the better for understanding the structure of the eye and the undulatory theory of light. In swimming and rowing, a senior wrangler has no advantage over a man who is entirely ignorant about the laws of fluid pressure. As far as money-getting is concerned, then, science will not be found to be universally serviceable. Mr. Spencer gives instances, indeed, where science would prevent very expensive blundering; but the true inference is, not that the blunderers should learn science, but that they should mind their own business, and take the opinion of scientific men about theirs. “Here is a mine," says he, "in the sinking of which many shareholders ruined themselves, from not knowing that a certain fossil belonged to the old red sandstone, below which no coal is found." Perhaps they were misled by the little knowledge which Pope tells us is a dangerous thing. If they had been entirely ignorant, they would surely have called in a professional geologist, whose opinion would have been more valuable than their own, even though geology had taken the place of classics in their schooling. Daily are men induced to aid in carrying out inventions which a mere tyro in science could show to be futile." But these are men whose function it would always be to lose money, not make it, whatever you might teach them.* I have great doubt, therefore, whether the

66

* "The brewer," as Mr. Spencer himself tells us, "if his business is very extensive, finds it pay to keep a chemist on the premises"

RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EMPIRICAL. 235

learning of sciences will ever be found a ready way of making a fortune. But directly we get beyond the region of pounds, shillings, and pence, I agree most cordially with Mr. Spencer that a rational knowledge has an immense superiority over empirical knowledge. And, as a part of their education, boys should be taught to distinguish the one from the other, and to desire rational knowledge. Much might be done in this way by teaching, not all the sciences and nothing else, but the main principles of some one science, which would enable the more intelligent boys to understand and appreciate the value of "a rational explanation of phenomena." I believe this addition to what was before a literary education has already been made in some of our leading schools, as Harrow, Rugby, and the City of London.*

Next, Mr. Spencer would have instruction in the proper way of rearing offspring form a part of his curriculum. There can be no question of the importance of this knowledge, and all that Mr. Spencer says of the lamentable ignorance of parents is, unfortunately, no less undeniable. But could this knowl

-pay a good deal better, I suspect, than learning chemistry at school.

* Mr. Helps, who by taste and talent is eminently literary, put in this claim for science more than twenty years ago. "The higher branches of method can not be taught at first; but you may begin by teaching orderliness of mind. Collecting, classifying, contrasting, and weighing facts are some of the processes by which method is taught.... Scientific method may be acquired without many sciences being learnt; but one or two great branches of science must be accurately known." (Friends in Council, Education.) Mr. Helps, though by his delightful style he never gives the reader any notion of over-compression, has told us more truth about education in a few pages than one sometimes meets with in a complete treatise.

edge be imparted early in life? Young people would naturally take but little interest in it. It is by parents, or at least by those who have some notion of the parental responsibility, that this knowledge should be sought. The best way in which we can teach the young will be so to bring them up that, when they themselves have to rear children, the remembrance of their own youth may be a guide and not a beacon to them. But more knowledge than this is necessary, and I differ from Mr. Spencer only as to the proper time for acquiring it.

Next comes the knowledge which fits a man for the discharge of his functions as a citizen, a subject to which Dr. Arnold attached great importance at the time of the first Reform Bill, and which deserves our attention all the more in consequence of the second. But what knowledge are we to give for this purpose? One of the subjects which seem especially suitable is history. But history, as it is now written, is, according to Mr. Spencer, useless. "It does not illustrate the right principles of political action." "The great mass of historical facts are facts from which no con

clusions can be drawn-unorganizable facts, and, therefore, facts of no service in establishing principles of conduct, which is the chief use of facts. Read them if you like for amusement, but do not flatter yourself they are instructive." About the right principles of political action we seem so completely at sea that, perhaps, the main thing we can do for the young is to point out to them the responsibilities which will hereafter devolve upon them, and the danger, both to the state and the individual, of just echoing the popu lar cry, without the least reflection, according to our