1886.] EDlTOlilAL AOTES. 541 



are uufavourable, and that only certain characters are strong enough 

 to rise above their inthieiice and shine in tlieir after occupation 

 despite tlie trammels of the schools. Well, no doul't tlie system of 

 elementary schools is not all it should be, but they certainly tend to 

 discipline the pupils and enlarge tlieir understandings on general 

 and technical matters in an elementary way ; and if some only rise 

 above mediocrity in their grasp of the subjects taught, surely that is 

 only a proof of our contention that diversity, not similarity of result, 

 is attained. Our friend would not, we presume, wish the world to 

 be deprived of the benefits of the aggregate mediocre intelligence 

 that results from our schools because only a few of the more able 

 distinguish themselves and take their natural place as leaders of 

 men. If not, why should he tilt against the general results of 

 teaching ? They are the same under all systems, and in every 

 department of knowledge — as various as the capacity of the 

 individual pupils. 



But "in teaching or learning Forestry," we are told, "the conditions 

 are essentially different." "It is a thing that cannot be learnt by rote, 

 and Mdiat would be correct practice on one particular site would be 

 radically wrong on another." No one will deny the truth expressed 

 in the latter sentence, but it is just this fact that to our mind shows 

 the necessity for a Forestry School most clearly, and that the writer 

 is wholly wrong in stating that " the conditions of teaching or 

 learning Forestry are essentially different" from learning any other 

 trade or profession. Forestry, we allow, cannot be learned by rote, 

 but neither on the other hand can it be learned by empiricism. The 

 latter is the system or school in which by far too many of our 

 foresters have been taught, and in their laborious lives and often 

 isolated positions it is little wonder if the ordinary incentives to 

 take action and teach themselves the principles of their craft should 

 have proved ineffectual. But we will be told there are plenty of 

 accomplished foresters who would, with their exceptional oppor- 

 tunities for combining practical with theoretical instruction in their 

 own fields of practice, be superior teachers to any that could be 

 found in a Forestry School. Well, we do not attempt to deny that 

 this might be so, were it not for several rather important considera- 

 tions bearing, as we think, rather adversely against the possibility. 

 The most powerful of these adverse considerations is the fact that 

 few, if any, of the foresters that are qualified to teach the theory or 

 rather the technical subjects which are essential to the right com- 

 prehension of the principles and practice of Forestry, have time to 

 devote to pupils. Their multifarious duties fully occupy their time, 

 and we fear their pupils would grow slack in their attention to subjects 

 which could only be treated of in a desultory inanner by the master. 



