There is a great controversy now going on in regard to general education. It is whether the higher institutions of education-that is, those higher than common schools and academies― shall endeavor to teach necessary things well, or many things superficially? A good teacher would say that is no problem, for nothing should be taught which is not taught well. Very well, sir, and perhaps if the world was to decide by its reason, it would be on your side; but, in fact, the world decides against you, and is trying very hard to teach a great many things very superficially. This it has done ever since (probably about eighty years) the period when it was deemed absolutely necessary for an educated gentleman to be a good classical scholar and master of the principal sciences. Then it was possible, and because possible, necessary to a well educated man. We should all decide the same way, if it were possible to do it, but it is not, and hence we must either limit what is called a standard education, or attempt the impossible, and really do the superficial. The last is what we are doing. I think we are the best educated people in the world up to a certain level, and one of the poorest in the learning above that. This is practical in its true sense, for it has given intelligence enough to the great masses of the people to become responsible voters. That was the first problem we had to solve; for we could not remain a Republic without intelligence and virtue. The former we have, but how is it with virtue ?

Is there not fear of a decline- -a fearful decline from that standard of which Washington spoke in his farewell address? General intelligence we have, and the want of higher learning is, in the practical business of the people, made up by that keen sagacity, that quick perception, that strong common sense, in which the American people surpass all others. Hence, I say, as in a former article, that in practical results the products of free institutions have surpassed those of any system of government or of education upon earth. Yet so fast has the circle of knowledge increased that, even in this country, the question has come up, as it is agitated in Europe, must we limit the code (curriculum) of what is received as a regular education, or must we attempt the whole round of knowledge? In other words the question is, as I have put it, shall we select some necessary things and teach them well, or shall we teach the whole superficially? This is the practical question which some of the best minds in Europe have been discussing, and which we must discuss in this country till it is settled. There must be what may be called the unit of education, and there must be a unit for what is called a regular or good education,-what was signified a half a century ago by a college degree. This is the point discussed by Mill, Dr. M'Cosh recently at Princeton, and many others. Now, let us see how this question arose, and how, if possible, it must be solved.

1. How did this question arise? Why is it not as easy to determine what is a standard education to-day as it was a century ago? If I were to answer this question historically or philosophically, it would require a volume, and a most instructive and interesting volume it would be, if written by a christian and philosophical mind. But fortunately the statement of outline ideas may be made in a few words. First, and at the bottom of the whole, is the extension of elementary knowledge, especially in the last century. Let us take some illustrations. Chemistry is certainly now one of the most important sciences; but chemistry did not exist as a science a century ago. I have in my library elementary works on chemistry, written not more than eighty years ago, which are mere pioneers, the whole amount of which a boy might acquire thoroughly in ten days. But now chemistry is an elaborate science which must go into every college course. Natural History of any kind was unknown to college courses till very recently. Political Economy, as an elementary science, has only been put in shape within a very few years, and is not yet properly reduced to text-books, but certainly it is very