a defect the more to be regretted, as the ease with which they might be learnt equals their importance." Mr Jack, discussing the same subject, observes, "The master attacks his subject as it might be well to do were his pupil an inhabitant of another planet, in whose company he happened to be approaching the earth; when it might be proper to begin by informing him first of the globular shape of the earth, of the millions of square miles of land and of sea, and of the general shape and outlines of the four quarters of the globe.... Why should his master not condescend to start hand in hand with him from his familiar home centre, and shew him afterwards, if he has time for it, how large is the world?" In order fully to appreciate the force of the above quotations, it will be necessary to bear in mind that both gentlemen virtually refer to the same district, for, until last year, when it was divided between them, Mr Jack acted as Mr Gordon's assistant. Is it then too much to suppose that their general remarks in a general report apply to the district as a whole? Here, then, we have Mr Gordon lugubriously bewailing the want of interest manifested by the teachers of the west, in mathematical geography, and Mr Jack, with the jaunty air of a superior being, attributing the geographical failings of the same gentlemen to an exclusive devotion to mathematical geography. Let us be charitable, however, Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit. "All very well," somebody will say, "but bear in mind, Quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi."

Not only is it impossible for different inspectors to produce uniform results, but it is evident from their own testimony that the same inspector cannot do so, and that his results are merely an approximation to uniformity. In a former communication I took occasion to quote Mr Fearon's opinion, that no inspector should be guided by an uncertain and random estimate residing somewhere in his own imagination, and sure to vary when he was fatigued, annoyed, or unwell. His remedy for this human failing is a rigid adherence to a mechanical system, which he fondly dreams will convert him into a calculating machine. "Writing, Standards III. and IV., not more than four mistakes of any kind allowed;" and so of the other subjects of examination. Now, did Mr Fearon prescribe exactly the same reading, writing, and arithmetic exercises, according to standard, to all the schools of his district, this test would be somewhat intelligible, provided always that schools in advance got no inkling of their nature,—a large assumption. But when we know that it is impossible to prescribe exactly the same

VOL. II.

exercises in two different schools, on what principle does this test ensure more uniform results than those furnished by his erring judgment? Is it not this same erring judgment, so continually liable to disturbing influences, that determines the exercises to be prescribed, and decides on their parity of difficulty? In reality, then, instead of discarding this helpless victim of fatigue, anger, or spleen, he has merely subjected it to a process of legerdemain, which will, happily, impose on no one but himself. Mr Fearon can no more escape the exercise of judgment than he can resist its implacable foes. He must judge for himself, notwithstanding the conviction that his judgments will be erroneous more frequently than might be desirable, unless, indeed, he copy the example of Mr Capel (page 42, Blue-book), and give the youngsters of Standard III. half an hour to learn their spelling, when, I should fancy, the mental effort of judgment would not be oppressive. Somebody says that a man's religion depends on the state of his stomach. If so, how much must depend on the varying moods of an inspector jaded by monotony, teased by ruthless questioners, and perhaps wet and hungry. I believe I have seen them suffering from all these composing influences at once. Just fancy a year's labours tested under such circumstances in the magnificent space of two minutes. Yes, two whole minutes without deduction, and in cases of extraordinary difficulty with the addition of another half-minute. Such is Dr Cumming's allowance (page 280, Blue-book). The effects of the counsels, admonitions, reproofs, of the moral precepts and social maxims, in short, of the endless influences exerted by the teacher on the pupil's mind in the course of a year, are tested by an inspector in two minutes. Truly, they must be great men.

Let us now suppose that examinations are conducted on a uniform basis. Does it follow that the results are a fair criterion of the teacher's work during the year? Certainly not. The innumerable influences that operate on an examination day to deprive the hard-wrought master of his credit and pay, can never be removed, nor reduced to an inconsiderable minimum. These things, however, have been already so often and so ably pointed out in the Museum, that I will merely allude to the effects of the Inspector's presence on the juvenile mind.

The apparition of a carriage suddenly drawn up with a jerk at the door of a country school, where carriages are probably rare enough, produces in the little minds an uneasy flutter, which is speedily, in the case of the more timid, converted into something like terror, when the great

сс

man, bristling all over with importance, bustles up the floor with ominous looking papers, bags, coats, and umbrellas, and takes his stand in the most commanding position in the room. For a moment every eye is turned on the inspectorial "countenance divine" for signs of cloud or sunshine, and as each has formed an opinion, a slight shifting of position indicates the completion of the process. Much, very much depends on these first impressions: children have a great dislike to some inspectors, and can never acquire confidence in their presence. If the truth were known, I daresay there are teachers who share this dislike with the children, and perhaps not without good reason. It is but right, however, to observe that others are favourites both with children and teachers. To return to the work of inspection, under the most favourable circumstances the timid children, to a certain extent, break down; but should the great man's countenance be forbidding, and his manner curt and tart, as is not unfrequently the case, then the nervous boy bungles his reading: the words flit like ants before his eyes. His multiplication slips through a hole in his memory, and if he does not exactly forget his own name, he runs considerable risk of forgetting how to spell it. Unfortunately, every teacher knows that such failures are far from few. If such be a faithful representation of the muchvaunted "Uniform Standard of Examination,"and who that has faith in the Reports of Government Inspectors, favourable to that sham, can doubt it?—what is to be said for "Payment by Results?" Simply, that it is an absurdity. It is a pretence of paying, by measure, for things immeasurable; or at best, it is the payment of a fixed price for things the same in name, but ever varying in substance. True, it would be extremely convenient were the theoretical view of uniformity the correct one; so it would be if a thousand other absurd theories were correct. But since it so happens that an inspector is no more competent to test exactly the quantity and quality of the educative influence exerted on a boy during the year, than of determining the quantity of beef consumed by him, during the same period, by an annual process of weighing him, is it very much more absurd to pay the butcher than the teacher by results? A PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTER.

SCHOLASTIC REGISTRATION. SIR, Your correspondents last month appear puzzled to know whether I am in favour of Scholastic Registration, or opposed to it. Personally, it is a matter of infinite unimportance.

Curiously, however, I am just as puzzled as they. It is a subject upon which much can be said on both sides. The interest taken in the question is proved by the elaborate attention my remarks have received. When we see a writer's observations taken seriatim and commented upon, it shews something in the observations. It will even justify you in allowing me a few more last words.

Let me say that I do not yield to any one in devotion to the cause of education. I have been a Nazarite from my mother's womb. I have moved and lived and had my being in educational work. Whatever can promote the holy crusade against ignorance would find in me an advocate, if not an eloquent one. If, therefore, this scheme of registration can be shewn to be feasible and useful, no one will hail its advent with greater gladness than I. The question is one entirely of possibilities. We need not discuss the importance of education, nor of best methods of teaching, nor of training of teachers. Is there so far an analogy between teaching as a profession and the registered professions as to admit of teaching coming into the same category? The suggestive difficulties thrown out in my paper on the subject have been met and not been met by your very able correspondents. The seriatim minor points are all taken up, and what can be advanced on the other side is urged with taste and talent. But the general difficulty which every one feels remains unremoved. This difficulty has two phases. There is the indefinite scope of a Registration Act, and there is the legal intangibility of mental neglect. No profession but is more clearly defined than that of education. Divinity, law, medicine, were distinct things before registrations were thought of. Institutions existed round which members of these professions gathered, and academic degrees were granted in each. The preliminaries had thus been arranged for registration. With regard to teaching as a profession, nothing of this sort exists. Our Normal Colleges, and College of Preceptors, and kindred institutions, are all modern, and cannot exert the force of prescription. There is nothing of a national character about them. Were education, however, a faculty, as well as a profession, the ground would be levelled for incorporation and registration. Scholastic registration, in this view, is the ultimate, not the proximate, object teachers should aim at. We should be " unhasting, unresting" to bring both objects about, but in due place and course. While the first article on this subject was printing, the summary of the intentions of the Scholastic Registration Committee appeared. These

documents indicate how difficulties have daily multiplied. Restrictions have evidently been found impracticable, whether upon claimants for registration or upon bodies claiming the right to register. The herald of the Committee proclaims aloud, "Register! Register! Register!" The scheme is obliged to embrace every claim, however small. No invidious distinctions must be made between institutions or between individuals. The Committee, as might be foreseen, cannot afford to reject the countenance of any institution. Authority to register is to be thrown broadcast. The Committee, in widening the scheme, as certainly loosen it. Individuals are to be dealt with in the same liberal spirit. We are to net, in one great catch, fish of all kinds and sizes. How shall we keep out the slippery eels? The qualification will be so small, that Mr Squeers could qualify. It is knavery in the ranks, not the knavery of outsiders, that requires guarding against. There are few charlatans keeping schools who are quite unconnected with education by previous practice and experience. Registration will not keep the ill-qualified from pretending to teach Greek, nor stop other forms of dishonesty. Again, some of our most successful schoolmasters are pardonably proud of the nudity of their names. Great commoners of the craft, they rejoice in the service, but disdain titles. Men who, for their qualifications, can answer, Ecce signum, pointing to their work, these men registration would shut out.

It were easy to take up the points referred to by your correspondents, and re-answer them. I do not, however, stand upon details simply, but upon the spirit of the whole. The philosophy of the question may be thus expressed. The term profession always implies two things. It implies distinctive men and distinctive work. The learned professions so-called, were definitely recognised bodies before registration was known, despite the fact that they were subject to the intrusion of charlatans. This definiteness was primarily owing to academic distinctions. Law, Divinity, Medicine, were all faculties. The ground was thus prepared for incorporation, and, by consequence, registration. Now, education is not thus prepared. It is not distinctive enough, either in the men or the work, to claim with validity the honour of being a profession. It has no specific academic distinctions. Yet, if a profession at all, it is a learned profession, and must rely upon these distinctions as its groundwork. Were it possible even to define the limits of the men and the work, and to incorporate the whole body of teachers, the prestige and status of the learned professions would by none the more be teached. Position

can only be gained by passing ordeals to merit it. We, none of us, wish education to become a lowcaste profession. To make education, therefore,' a faculty, would be to give it a worthy test for aspirants to its honours; to remove vagueness of interpretation; to make the subject a specialty, and therefore a valid profession; to facilitate the incorporation of its members, and to place it on a level with the recognised professions. The nearest approach to educational degrees, and to the incorporation of educators, is made by the College of Preceptors. We do not, however, disparage this useful and most respectable body, by saying that it represents but a very limited number of our teachers, and exercises very limited influence. Till the College can do and dare more, there is no probability of its becoming anything of national importance. The degrees granted are only College degrees. It is Member, or Associate, or Licentiate, or Fellow of the College. Might not this be made a stepping-stone to degrees in education itself? The limited would thus become general. Something like the College of Surgeons in nature and functions would thus arise. We believe, unfortunately, that the jealousies of other institutions, more than the want of "go" in the College of Preceptors, prevents this last body, and, in fact, any other body, from becoming a common centre for the profession to rally round. Surgeons are loyal to their College. Teachers have a choice of twenty loyalties, and their attachment to any one is proportioned inversely to the number to choose from. To dissipate our loyalty in this manner militates against our useful incorporation. We want a sovereignty amongst us to incite a useful loyalty.

We thus summarise the obstacles to scholastic registration. The indefiniteness of the workers and the work. The absence of a sovereignty in any institution, and the resulting absence of an esprit de corps, or loyalty amongst individuals. Lastly, the non-criminality of the damage done by unqualified teachers. False doctrine, injury to health, failure of justice, are equal offences by the canon or the civil law, if overtly brought about by unqualified preachers and practitioners. Ignorance is no crime. It is not penal. Injury to faith, to health, and to property, were provided against by guarding the entrance to the learned professions with registration. We cannot in this way guard against ignorance, which is no offence in law. The mere assumption of a title by a quack is venial, though it indicates a low morality. The harm arises from the ignorance of the man, and culminates in the ignorance of the pupil. If scholastic registration merely puts an end to the