594 
The term practical must not be understood as the antithesis of 
theoretical. Practice is inseparable from theory in all true 
teaching, the advance from one practical step to the next being 
always over a bridge of theory. But ifit be granted that educa- 
tion necessarily has two sides, it follows that the Committee on 
Military Education are illogical in their recommendation that 
Latin and Experimental Science may be treated as alternative 
subjects ; they are but complementary, not alternative, subjects. 
The only possible alternative to Latin would be a subject in the 
literary branch—another language, in fact. 
But the recommendations of the Committee are also far from 
satisfactory on the subject of languages. ‘‘The study of 
languages,” they say, ‘‘forms a third main feature of a sound 
general education. Of these the most important, from an 
educational point of view, is Latin. Modern languages, though 
much inferior to Latin as a means of mental discipline (at least 
as generally taught), must none the less be regarded as an 
important part of a sound general education.” In face of this 
conclusion it would have been logical to make a modern lan- 
guage rather than Latin the alternative to Experimental Science, 
but obviously the Committee dared not omit the modern 
language. It is true the recognition of Experimental Science 
and Latin as possible alternatives may be regarded as a high 
compliment to the latter, but it was never intended to be such; 
in truth it marks the recognition of the inevitable; that Latin 
will ere long be deposed from its high estate and intellectual 
freedom granted to our schools, greatly to the advantage of 
Latin, I believe. There is no doubt that the relative value of 
Latin as an educational subject is grossly exaggerated ; those 
who dwell on its merits are rarely conversant with other subjects 
to a sufficient extent to be able to appreciate the effects these 
would produce if equally well taught. As a matter of fact, in 
the case of Latin the most capable teachers have been chosen to 
teach the most capable boys, and the results obtained have been 
unfairly quoted in proof of the superior value of the subject. We 
have yet to discover the highest value of other subjects, their 
depth of power as disciplinary agents having been most im- 
perfectly sounded. And if we consider results, do not they 
afford proof that the belief in Latin (as taught) is misplaced ? 
It has been the staple subject of education and has been 
supposed to afford the most valuable training possible in com- 
position. Nevertheless the complaint is general, and not only 
here but also in Germany—where Latin is far more taught and 
believed in—that composition is the one subject of all others 
which the schools do not teach. The fact is, Latin is a subject 
which appeals to the minority of scholars, and the time of the 
majority is wasted in studying it. I would give to all an 
opportunity of proving their aptitude in Latin and Greek, or at 
least some opportunity of appreciating the construction of these 
languages ; but I am inclined to favour the proposal—made by 
high authority, I believe—that such studies should follow that 
of modern languages rather than precede it. The true study of 
classical languages should be reserved for the University. In 
any case, it is beyond question that a very large proportion of 
those who would make magnificent officers are incapable of 
learning Latin to advantage; such will in future enjoy the 
inestimable advantage of studying Experimental Science ; but 
if those who take up Latin are in consequence to lose all 
opportunity of acquiring some power of reading the secrets of 
Nature and of thereby developing thought-power and mental 
alertness—and such must be the effect of the adoption of the 
recommendations of the Committee—they will prove to be of 
little value to the army in comparison with their colleagues 
whose eyes have been trained as well as their ‘‘ intellect.” In 
the course of the evidence given to the Committee, Dr. Warre 
expressed the view that Science would kill Latin eventually. 
Nothing could be more unfortunate, but the course adopted by 
the Committee is that most calculated to bring about such a 
result, as Latin is thereby put in competition with a subject 
which must ere long be regarded as a necessary subject of school 
1 Dr. Warre was continually harping on this point in his questions to 
witnesses examined by the Committee. Thus (Q. 3124): “I want to put 
Geography and History into English, and «your composition would be 
tested in that way. We think, for instance, that Composition is admir- 
ably taught by translation from Latin or Greek. (To the witness:) Would 
you agree with that, that translation from another language is teaching 
English Composition ?”” 
Again (Q. 3129): ‘‘ When officers have talked to us of the uselessness of 
Greek and Latin, they have neglected the fact that Greek and Latin are 
the great instructors in English.” Witness (the Rey. A. Robertson): “I 
quite concur in that.” 
NO. 1719, VOL. 66] 
NATOK E 
[OcToBER 9, 1902 
instruction under all conditions. Latin should be made one of 
the optional subjects along with Greek. 
In their scheme of marks for the examination, the Com- 
mittee put Latin, French or German and Experimental 
Science on an equality by assigning 2000 marks to each ; but 
English and Mathematics are rated at a higher value, each 
receiving 3000 marks. It would have been better to have 
assigned equal values to the several group-subjects regarded as 
essential to a sound general education. It should scarcely be 
necessary to put a premium on the proper study of a man’s own 
language ; the subject has naturally a great advantage over 
others. As to Mathematics, there is no doubt that this also 
is a subject of which the relative value as mental training has 
been greatly over-valued, and that the methods adopted in 
teaching it have been very faulty ; consequently much time has 
been wasted and its true value has not been appreciated, as it 
has been made to appear unnecessarily difficult and forbidding. 
The evidence before the Committee against Mathematics being 
carried too far was very strong. Thus Captain Lee, in examin- 
ing Major-General Sir C. Grove (speaking of the training at 
Woolwich), said (Q. 604): ‘‘There was an immense amount 
of pure mathematics and so forth, which one never has 
occasion to utilise afterwards, unless one becomes an 
Instructor of Cadets at Woolwich, where you teach them the 
same useless things you have learned yourself.” This elicited 
from General Grove the reply: ‘‘ Well, there is a strange 
tendency in Mathematics—I do not know why—that wherever 
you introduce them they encroach horribly. I am always 
struggling to cut down advanced mathematics.” And more to 
the same effect. Again, Lieutenant-Colonel S. Moores, when 
asked whether he considered the syllabus for the entrance 
examinations at Woolwich and Sandhurst to be reasonable 
(Q. 2353), at once replied, ‘‘ No, sir; Mathematics are, in my 
opinion, very much over-valued as a subject for Army examina- 
tions, excepting for the Royal Engineers.” 
After all, if reasonable standards were adopted both in 
Mathematics and Latin, these subjects would not create the 
difficulty they do in examinations at present by absorbing so 
much of the time in school that no proper attention can be given 
to subjects in reality at least of equal importance. It should be 
insisted that fundamentals be thoroughly taught, and by 
practical methods, so that the knowledge acquired may be real 
and usable ; it is astonishing how far students may be carried 
in Mathematics, and how real and interesting the subject 
becomes, when they grasp the fact that it has a practical 
bearing. 
While dealing with Mathematics, I cannot refrain from 
quoting a statement made by Captain Lee (Q. 4209), with 
regard to the relative values of this subject and science to 
military men, as the opinion he expressed is of very general 
application. ‘‘I think it is quite true,” said Captain Lee, 
“that a great number of Artillery officers do go through their 
service without using Science, but I think they feel that any 
science they know proves of much more practical use to them in 
their profession than the Mathematics they have learned. As 
far as I know, in the most scientific branch of the Artillery, the 
Garrison Artillery, there are practically no occasions where a 
knowledge of Mathematics is required beyond the Mathematics 
necessary to solve a simple formula, whereas the lack of know- 
ledge of Electricity, Steam and Hydraulics is often a serious 
handicap to the officer.” I will venture to enlarge on this and 
say that, assuming Latin, Mathematics and Experimental 
Science were taught equally well, by equally sound methods, 
and that they proved to be of equal value as forms of mental 
training (though of course, developing somewhat different 
faculties), the training gained through Experimental Science 
would be far the most valuable because the recipients would be 
brought thereby most intimately into contact with the world 
and most fitted to help themselves by having their thought- 
power developed. Of course this is but an opinion, but one 
which, I venture to think, many share with me; and yet I make 
no superior claim for the subject, and ask only that it should 
rank equally with literary and mathematical training among the 
necessary subjects of education. 
It still remains to consider the specific recommendations of 
the Committee with regard to Experimental Science, as these 
are most unsatisfactory. Nothing could be more satisfactory 
than the manner in which the subject is dealt with by the 
Committee in their general report, paragraph 20, : already 
quoted (p. 592). But on turning to the scheme of the proposed 
