experienced teacher will allow that he needs to be helped to the discovery of his pupils' difficulties. But if a teacher cultivate a distant reserve he cannot have the help which only the scholars can give. The instruction must roll on. If the scholars catch all they need, so far well; if they fail to understand all that is expressed, there is no help for it. If such a system be preferred under the apprehension that anything else would weaken discipline, there is either a consciousness of weakness in the teacher, or else a want of thorough reflection on the necessary conditions of school discipline. If a scholar may not freely inquire during some suitable opportunity afforded for the purpose, but must depend entirely upon catching the full meaning of all that has been said, the relation between teacher and scholar is constrained and unhealthy. There is quite enough disadvantage connected with the incessant change of places, making it a pupil's interest to conceal his ignorance, without anything else being allowed to increase that disadvantage. I do not undervalue competition among the children in the same class, nor do I think we can wisely dispense with the stimulating power it involves; but it is an obvious misfortune that, where all goes by expressed knowledge, a premium is put on concealment of ignorance, which is apt to establish concealment as a settled article in the policy of school life. In view of this danger, I am increasingly impressed with the need for opportunities for free com

munication at times when the confession of ignorance may be specially encouraged. The spirit of inquiry, so valuable in all departments of education, could be greatly stimulated in this way. In the school, as everywhere else, we want to escape routine.1 Neither teacher nor scholar should feel that the procedure each day is simply a repetition of the procedure of the preceding day. A sense of monotony is to be dreaded as one should the nightmare. If scholars are shy to speak out, as under our system they are apt to be, deliberate attempts should be made to draw them out, and ascertain what they still need to learn. It is quite essential to success that it should be somehow ascertained how much the children have got only by rote without understanding, how much they have misunderstood, and what they have never thought about which should have engaged their attention. There is nothing which more impresses one in visiting the public schools of the United States of America than the unrestrained freedom with which the pupil makes an appeal to the teacher, in the assurance of that appeal being encouraged and met as far as possible in the circumstances. This feature struck me as a general characteristic in all the

1 Dr. Noah Porter, President of Yale College, Connecticut, U.S., in a series of articles in The College Courant of Yale, writes upon "special defects in the operation of modern schools." He signalizes these two: "The spirit of formalism and routine which has grown up in our modern schools," and "the tendency to stimulate to excess the spontaneous or verbal memory." We may take warning from American experience.

schools I visited, from the primary to the normal schools. The pupils regard this as a natural feature of school life. I remember on one occasion entering the class-room of a teacher of physiology in one of the normal schools when he had just finished the lecture for the day. He was saying to the members of his class, "I shall examine on this lecture tomorrow; just let me see if your notes are accurate." One pupil at once asked what had been said as to the average weight of the human skull. The answer was immediately given. Another question followed, and another, until all were satisfied, after which the few closing minutes of the hour were spent in supplementing the lecture with such remarks as the questions seemed to suggest. This is only an example of what is common in American schools. I must express my admiration of this characteristic. I am averse to "cut and dry theories as to the best possible ways of teaching. I would have each teacher observe and reflect for himself; but by all means save us from routine. A teacher needs knowledge of human nature, and he needs freedom of action to avail himself, without reserve, of all the varied resources fitted to awaken attention and stimulate mental activity.

CHAPTER IV.

FORMATION OF CHARACTER.

IN the previous chapter attention has been

directed exclusively to the development of the intellectual powers. I proceed now to speak of the regulation of the emotional nature, -the government of all the springs of action. This brings into view the teacher's part in aiding his pupils to use intelligence for the guidance of their conduct. I have already indicated the grounds on which I conceive that this department of oversight and training belongs to the teacher. He is an instructor in the widest sense. To him is intrusted the development of the whole nature, in so far as that is found to be needful for school discipline, and possible through means of it. The two departments, instruction and training, are indeed quite distinct, and admit of separate treatment. But both ends must be sought in the midst of the same school exercises. From the one point of view, the teacher seeks to make his scholars observant, reflective, well

informed, and prompt in the use of their faculties. From the other he seeks to make them upright, generous, and brave. The relative importance of these two ends will be at once recognised. As meanness of disposition is worse than slowness of intellect; as selfishness is worse than defective memory; as cowardice is worse than ignorance, special importance is to be attached to the department of moral training. The teacher cannot, indeed, raise such training to the position of primary importance, since all the school arrangements are made expressly for instruction in the ordinary branches of knowledge. But there is no need for this, since moral training is gained not so much by formal inculcation of duty as by practice in well-doing throughout the common engagements of life. If, however, moral training do not expressly engage the attention of the scholars as a subject of study, it is to be continually the subject of consideration with the teacher. It makes no difference whether it be grammar, or geography, or history which is being taught, the formation of character goes on with equal facility. So generally is this recognised in the profession, that Mr. Currie has set this down as his first statement in his valuable work on Education:" Education comprises all the influences which go to form the character."1

On the other hand, it is not to be forgotten that it is much easier to instruct than to train. The conditions under which these two pro

1 Principles and Practice of Common School Education.