AvGuUST 3, 1899] 
NATURE 
ay 
o 
cas) 
index to the views of persons who are ever ready to pass 
judgment upon the educating capabilities of science and 
art. A course of instruction which ignores science and 
gives the cold shoulder to art is in one sense “ second- 
ary,” but in no respect can it be called education. 
“Secondary education, properly so called,” cannot exist 
distinct from “instruction in science and art.” In fact, 
it is a little difficult to imagine what meaning Sir William | 
It would seem that he | 
Anson is intending to express. 
wishes to draw a distinction between the education 
offered in institutions of the grammar school type and 
those in which the curricula are at present directly 
governed by the Department of Science and Art. But it 
is a noteworthy circumstance that quite a number of old 
grammar schools provide, side by side with their 
classical work, classes in science which are actually 
subsidised by the much maligned department at 
South Kensington. And what is even more strange, 
judged from the point of view of Sir William Anson’s 
letter, quite a number of these old grammar schools 
are also what is technically called “organised schools 
of science,” which being interpreted, means that their 
time tables are modelled upon the regulations laid 
down in the Science and Art Directory, since they must 
be approved by the Inspector of the Department. 
But the inference of the second quotation is of a more 
perverted type. “Scientific teaching alone will not pro- 
duce the educated man,” &c. Here again, something 
different from what is actually said is meant. Of course, 
Sir William Anson would agree that no teaching which 
is not scientific will do much towards educating anybody. 
As he himself said in a debate in the House of Commons 
on June 26, teachers should be taught how to teach, that 
is, should have “scientific” teaching explained to them. 
What is doubtless meant in the Zzzes letter is, that 
instruction in natural science alone will not produce the 
educated man. 
With this statement every man of science will agree ; 
but neither will instruction in any single branch_ of 
human knowledge by itself educate. It would be just 
about as wise to attempt to educate a boy without intro- 
ducing him to the beauties of our own incomparable 
national literature or that of some other great country, 
as it would to attempt to make him a cultured man and 
at the same time keep him ignorant of his place in the 
scheme of the universe and of the grandeur and beauty 
of the laws which govern things material. Culture is not 
the narrow business which the products of an exclusively 
classical training would have the world believe. Those 
authorities who claim for themselves alone the positions 
of priests in the temple of culture, are anachronisms— 
they should have lived in the Middle Ages. No education 
is worthy of the name which fails to endow its possessor 
with a sufficient breadth of view to give him a charitable 
demeanour towards every department of mental activity, 
and most of all to that wonderful accumulation of scien- 
tific knowledge to which we owe all that is best in life at 
the end of the nineteenth century. The man of science 
is as devout an admirer of literature, whether classical or 
modern, as any man. He is as ready with a profound 
admiration for the unique creations of the highest art, 
whether pictorial, musical, dramatic or what not, as any 
man. But he does claim that his goddess, science, is 
as worthy of attention as any other, and he has a 
right to expect that the reverence which he willingly ex- 
tends to other deities shall similarly be shown by those 
who approach his particular shrine. 
“The scientific expert may not be the best judge of the 
value of literary and historical studies or of the re- 
spective parts which science and the humanities should 
play, even in an education which is mainly scientific.” 
So writes Sir William Anson. Possibly not, isthe natural 
answer. But it is just as true that the classical (or 
historical) expert may not be the best judge of the value 
NO. 1553, VOL. 60] 
of scientific and artistic studies, or of the respective 
parts which the humanities and science should play, even 
in an education which is mainly classical. This is only 
a verbose way of saying that no individual can know 
everything. There is just as good reason, to say nothing 
stronger, for giving the control of the classical part of 
secondary education into the hands of a widely cultured 
and eminent man of science as there is for making a 
similarly great classical authority responsible for the 
government of the teaching of science or art. We sur- 
mise that no good will come of special pleading of this 
specious kind. 
With the third quotation from Sir William Anson’s 
letter given above there can be no disagreement if it is 
, rightly understood. No man of science would imagine 
the youth of the country to be educated who had merely 
acquired some useful knowledge. We all want our 
secondary education to be given well. But let us look 
facts in the face. It is possible to spend twenty years 
in studying classics and to remain uneducated. We 
may become familiar with the histories of all the nations 
of the earth and be as far from culture as when we 
started the study. The secrets of nature may all have 
been laid bare before our understanding eyes, and yet 
we may still dwell with the Philistines. Let it be 
thoroughly understood that education and culture are 
greater than history, greater than classics, greater than 
science, but include them all, each in its proper place, 
and these narrow-minded bickerings as to the place of 
this or that subject of study will become things unknown. 
One more reference to Huxley will define the scope of 
education from the point of view of a representative man 
of science. Speaking in 1868 to the working men of 
South London, Huxley defined the well-educated man: 
‘“That man, I think, has had a liberal education who has 
been so trained in youth that his body is the ready 
servant of his will, and does with ease and pleasure all 
the work that, as a mechanism, it is capable of ; whose 
intellect is a clear, cold, logic engine, with all its parts 
of equal strength, and in smooth working order ; ready, 
like a steain engine, to be turned to any kind of work, 
and spin the gossamers as well as forge the anchors of 
the mind ; whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the 
great and fundamental truths of Nature and of the laws 
of her operations ; one who, no stunted ascetic, is full of 
life and fire, but whose passions are trained to come to 
heel by a vigorous will, the servant of a tender con- 
science ; who has learned to love all beauty, whether of 
Nature or of art, to hate all vileness, and to respect 
others as himself.” 
THE .UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. 
ae supplementary vote of 65,000/. required in con- 
nection with the housing of the University of 
London in the Imperial Institute building at South 
Kensington was agreed to by the House of Commons on 
Monday. 
A portion of the western end of the building is to be 
assigned to the Institute free of rent, and the eastern and 
central portion of the building will form the new home 
of the London University. The space which will be 
given to the University in the building will be far greater 
than was now enjoyed by that body. In consideration 
for the transfer of the lease to the Office of Works, 
the Government will provide funds sufficient to pay off 
the existing mortgage of 40,000/. and discharge the 
floating debt of 15,0007. In addition to the cost of 
structural alterations, estimated at 7000/., the vote in- 
cluded 3000/. for the maintenance and repair of the 
buildings and for the purchase of the necessary furniture. 
The Treasury Minute, dated July 13, containing par- 
ticulars of the transfer, is reprinted below :— 
