The Practical Teacher.

A MONTHLY EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL.

To Subscribers.-The Practical Teacher is published on the 25th of every month. Price 6d. ; post free, 71d.; sent post free, three months for 1s. Iid.; six months, 3s. 9d.; a year, 7s. 6d.

P. O. Orders should be made payable at Chief Office. Subscribers not receiving their copies regularly are respectfully requested to write to the Publisher.

It would save time and expense if subscribers when remitting would state exactly what numbers they wish to be sent.

To Correspondents.-All literary communications should be addressed, THE EDITOR OF THE PRACTICAL TEACHER, Pilgrim Street, Ludgate Hill, London, E.C.

Accepted contributions are paid for within twentyone days of publication.

The Editor cannot return rejected MSS.; authors should therefore retain copies.

The Hon. Egulph Stanley, M.P., and the

Westminster Training College.

BY THE EDITOR.

ALL well-informed friends of denominational education who peruse the proceedings of the London School Board must have been more annoyed than alarmed at some remarks made by a prominent member on the 10th ult. The business which occupied the Board's attention was a 'Memorial to the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education' on what the now defunct Teacher' was pleased to style 'The Training College shibboleth.' In the course of the debate, which was opened by the Rev. Thomas Morse, the Hon Lyulph Stanley, M.P., is reported by one of our contemporaries to have said :—

'He must say, from what he had heard from teachers who had gone through colleges, of the discipline, the treatment, and the attitude of the principals towards the young people, that the relation in which they seemed to stand to the principals was that of third or fourth standard children in elementary schools. He knew of one college in which there was a want of generosity and a want of trust in the honour of the students, which he thought would be discreditable to any school, even one in the poorest part of the metropolis.'

At this point, a Churchman-jealous, we presume, of the honour of the institutions whose interests he represented promptly pulled him up by demanding the name of the College.

'The Hon. Lyulph Stanley said it was not a Church college. It was the Westminster Training College, and he had the information before him.'

As an old student of this College, we cannot let these scurrilous remarks pass unchallenged. After making allegations so grave as these, in common justice to his informer, himself, and, above all, to Westminster, 'the information before him' should no have been withheld. It seems to us a pity this bald statement, unsupported by one tittle of evidence, should have gained currency.

We highly respect Mr. Stanley for his past services to the profession; the manful way in which he stood by Mr. Goffin should win for him the abiding gratitude and esteem of every teacher in the country. The part he played in that unpleasant business was a noble one; it is not lightly valued, nor will it soon be forgotten.

But in this case we cannot but think he has been duped by some chagrined individual seeking to do harm to a most worthy institution. The charges which he prefers against Westminster are as groundless as they are serious. We ought to know something of the 'want of generosity' and 'want of trust in the honour of the students,' if these things exist, considering that our acquaintance with the Westminster College now extends over a period of fourteen years. Two of these years were passed within its walls as a student, and we deem it a privilege, as it is a pleasure, to emphatically deny that there exist the slightest

grounds for the complaints made by Mr. Stanley. And we feel sure, that in so speaking, we answer (almost to a man) for the hundreds of our personal friends who were trained at Westminster. It is not saying too much when we affirm that there is no set of men who entertain a sincerer regard for their Alma Mater, and who are more loyal to the permanent staff, than old Westminsters.

That occasionally a black sheep has disgraced himself, and has had dealt out to him a well-merited chastisement, we do not deny, but in what college or profession has this not been the case?

We believe that even the profession which the Hon. Member for Oldham adorns is not exempt from these black sheep.

Mr. Stanley has evidently taken for granted the truth of his information without making due enquiry. He surely is ignorant, and grossly so, of the character of the men at whose door these charges are practically laid. Had he had even a passing acquaintance with the Vice-Principal-not to speak of Dr. Rigg, his respected and vigorous chief-he would have known how impossible it was for the state of things which he describes to exist. Whatever other colleges may be— and we have not a single word to set down against any of them-Westminster yields to none in her honourable, generous, kindly-nay, affectionate treatment of her students; and all who are able to speak with the authority of knowledge will bear us out when we say that this truly honourable dealing is heartily reciprocated by the students, both present and past.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that we allow that the lamentable picture with which Mr. Stanley presents us is, and has been for years, a true one, how comes it that Westminster men have the very best schools in the country-schools in which it is the practice to spend at least one hour a day in religious teaching? We make this statement not on our own authority, but on that of Mr. Mundella himself. The Vice-President, in replying to the Wesleyan deputation which waited upon him on November 23rd, said, 'Yours are the best schools of the country, and take the largest grant.'

This result seems strangely at variance with the discipline of the College where the masters of these schools were trained-a discipline that 'would be discreditable to any school, even one in the poorest part of the Metropolis.'

We cannot now enter fully into the question which engaged the attention of the Board at the meeting to which we referred in our opening sentence. Roughly speaking, however, it seems to us that the qualifications of a candidate seeking admission into one of our training colleges should be threefold: physical, intellectual, and moral. Of the first the medical officer quickly disposes; the scholarship list determines the

second; and we sincerely hope the day is far distant when the authorities of the different colleges will not be allowed to make searching and thoroughly satisfactory enquiry with regard to the third.

We rejoice to know that the heads of our normal institutions are not ashamed to own that it is their earnest endeavour, not only to turn out skilful teachers, but Christian men and women, who shall set an example in their lives worthy of all emulation.

We trust Mr. Stanley's proofs will speedily be forthcoming, or that he will for once own that in his eager desire to help the weak, and to secure fair-play for all, he has lent his ear to the malicious wailings of an individual unworthy of his aid.

Publications Reviewed.

We are sorry to disappoint the many friends who desire us to quote the price of each work noticed in our columns. This we would respectfully point out is the publishers' duty and not ours; we give publicity enough to a book when we review it. Our readers should peruse the advertisements in our pages, and failing to find the price here, it would be no great trouble or expense to drop a line to the publishers whose name and address we will gladly give.

Lectures on Teaching. By J. G. Fitch, M.A. Cr. 8vo, 436 pp. London: Cambridge Warehouse, 17, Paternoster Row.

THIRD NOTICE.

In the next lecture Mr. Fitch dwells on the importance of the study of language. He shows that our' Grammar Schools' have failed to secure for the vast majority of their pupils anything like a 'classical education.' But, whilst desirous that Greek and especially Latin should be retained in some schools, the lecturer evidently inclines to the opinion that as instruments of mental discipline French or German may serve nearly as well as a dead language, and even that you can make the teaching of physical science as fruitful, as thoroughly disciplinal, for all the higher purposes contemplated in a liberal education as the teaching of Greek or Geometry' (p. 397.) We agree with Mr. Fitch that the mental discipline which should be the main result of a liberal education, is due less to the instrument than to the mode in which that instrument is used. Methods of instruction are, in this respect, of more importance than the subjects of study. How a pupil is taught vastly outweighs the what. But the state of things' in our Grammar Schools 'is being slowly mended,' and there is reason to hope that as they are 'modernized and improved 'other subjects will 'assert their right to recognition,' and the 'hurtful predominance' of the almost exclusive study of Latin and Greek will cease. But when Latin is taught, Mr. Fitch insists on the constant comparison of its idioms and structure with those of the English language. If French or German be adopted, the conversational method is to be preferred in the earliest stages, but always with the same practice of comparison or contrast. Many practical hints are given as to methods, and, in conclusion, as to selection of masters for teaching the modern languages. These hints are all of great value to many of our readers who are engaged in teaching languages. 'Arithmetic,' says our author, deserves a high place in our educational system, mainly on the ground that it is to be treated as a logical exercise, and relatively to the needs of a beginner is, as a science, just as valuable as the higher mathematics to a university student.' In the tenth lecture arithmetic is treated as an art, 'an instrument for the solution of problems'; and in the eleventh its scientific use 'as a

The scholars who work percentages being fairly up in fractions and decimals, each of the above methods is easily intelligible to them. In No. I we have taken. 4 per cent., which is of 100, and then, which is of the 4. A boy at this stage ought to be so well up in mechanical working that he can easily divide by 25 by short division. In No. 2 we have brought the 12s. 6d. to the decimal of a £, which most boys can easily do mentally, being = 625. We then proceed as in No. 1. In No. 4 we have mentally divided the £625 625 by 100 = £625625, which is the interest at one per cent., and then multiplied by the rate required-4. In No. 3 we have adopted method 5 as referred to above. In giving a class an early lesson, I exhibit all these methods simultaneously on the board, and remark well on each of them, leaving the scholars to adopt which measure they prefer in their own working.

Another example,-What is the simple interest of £476 135. 9d. for 4 years at 6 per cent. per annum ?

(1) £ s. d.

5 p. c. is 476 13 9

(3) £476 13s. 9d. ×.6 × 41⁄2 = £12870 11s. 3d., which divided by 100 = £128 14s. 1d. Ans.

Method I above is self-evident. In method 2 we have £476 13s. 9d. = £476·6875= £4*766875 hundreds of L's, the remainder being easy to follow. In this case method 3 is the shortest, though the least rational. I here explain that instead of dividing the principal by 100 at first, and then multiplying by 6 and 4, we simply multiply first, and then divide afterwards.

I should now explain the term amount-the sum obtained when the interest has been added to the principal-and work a question requiring it. What is the amount of £756 15s. for 3 years 10 months at 33 per cent. per annum? Here, first elicit that 33 is of 100, hence that a year's interest is of the principal-£756 15s.÷30= £25 4s. 6d., a year's interest. Then, 3 years 10 months = 35 years, hence £25 4s. 6d. ×3 £96 13s. 11d. the total interest, which added to the principal £756 15s. = £853 8s. 11d., the amount. Ans.

=

(a2) We will now find the rate per cent. when the interest of some specified principal for a given time is known.

Example:-At what rate per cent. will £450 amount to £508 10s. in 34 years? Here reiterate what rate per cent. really means-the interest of one hundred for one year; and we have in the question the interest of a number of hundred L's (42) for a number of years (34).

£508 10s. - £450 = £58 10s., int. of
£450 for 34 yrs.

£58 10s.+4 (hundreds)=13, int. of
100 for 34 yrs.

£13÷3 (years)= £4, int. of £100 for 1 yr. Ans.

Another example :-At what rate would £162 10s. amount to 184.8s. 9d. in 4 years, simple interest? We will work this question decimally. 162 10S. = £162'5 1625 hundreds, and £184 8s. 9d. £184'4375, then

=

=

£1844375-£162'5 = £21'9375, int. of 1625 hrds. for 42 yrs.

hrd.

£219375÷1625 £135, int. of 1 hrd. for 4 yrs. (£13'5÷44)=(£27÷9)= £3. Ans. Int. of for 1 year

We will also work this question by compound proportion