Professor Morgan's Address 141 



said: "Now mind you, professor, I don't want my boy 

 to learn about stratified deposits or fossils, about up- 

 heaval or denudation, about limestones or sandstones, 

 crystals or minerals, or any such useless stuff. I want 

 him just to be taught how to find gold and silver, 

 copper, and other precious metals or gems in paying- 

 quantities, sir, in paying quantities." That was the 

 good man's fixed idea of the use of geological study. 

 It was to open up a short cut to affluence. Now, 

 whatever may be said for or against the strictly utili- 

 tarian value of Nature-study, we must contend that 

 the good of it rather than the use of it is the primary 

 question. We must base our claim for its further and 

 fuller recognition on its educational value from the 

 general and not merely the technical point of view. 



The Board of Education fully recognizes the fact 

 that Nature-study in primary schools should not be 

 organized on narrow, technical, or utilitarian lines. 

 In the introduction to the recently issued specimen 

 courses of object-lessons on common things connected 

 with Rural Life and Industries (1901) this is made 

 perfectly clear. We are told that " In arranging 

 plans of instruction for rural schools, it is important 

 at the outset to emphasize what should be avoided. 

 It is not desirable to attempt a definite course of 

 instruction in the principles of agriculture, or to teach 

 the art of farming. The aim of primary education 

 being general and not professional, it is as undesirable 

 as it is impossible to attempt to provide a special 

 form of training in primary schools." What, then, is 

 the end in view when Nature-study is given in rural 

 schools? It is, in the opinion of those who drafted 

 the introduction to specimen courses, " that children 



