626 EEPOET— 1888. 



support of one of my predecessors in this chair (Sir Henry Roscoe), whose opinion 

 •will carry far greater weight than mine in deprecating premature efforts to engage 

 students in research.* 



But though it does not appear to me to be wise to encourage beginners, without 

 sufficient experience or manipulative skill, to attempt original work, one of the 

 best possible exercises preparatory to original work is to select suitable memoirs, 

 and not only to read them but to work conscientiously through the whole of the 

 preparations and analyses described, following the instructions given. Many of 

 Dr. Hofmann's papers afford excellent examples. So also do the writings of Dr. 

 Perkin and Dr. Franliland, besides those of many other chemists which could easily 

 be selected by the teacher. 



An intelligent student, possessing the requisite preliminary knowledge, would 

 obtain much instruction by repeating the work contained in such papers as the 

 following, for example : — Emerson Reynolds on the missing Sulphur Urea (' J. 

 Chem. Soc.'1869 — i.) ; Fittig and Tollens on the Synthesis of Hydrocarbons of the 

 Benzol Series (Liebig's ' Annalen,' 1864, cxxxi. 303) ; L. Claisen and Pupils on the 

 introduction of Acid Radicles into Ketones, &c. ('Berichte,' xx.) ; Lawson and 

 Collie on the action of Heat on Salts of Tetramethyl-Ammonium (* J. Chem. Soc' 

 June 1888) ; Thorpe and Hambly on Manganic Trioxide (' J. Chem. Soc' March 

 1888) ; besides many others, including papers on analytical processes. To such a? 

 these there might subsequently be added the determination of an atomic weight 

 on the model of one of the best masters, as a discipline which could not fail to be 

 impressive, and full of instruction. 



When chemistry is taught, not with professional or technical objects in view, 

 but for the sake of educational effects, as an ingredient in a liberal education, the 

 primary object is to make the pupil observe and think. But with young students 

 it is very important to proceed slowly, for chemistry is really a very difficult sub- 

 ject at first, owing to tho variety of strange materials with uncouth names. To 

 reason from particulars to generals is for the unpractised always a difficult process, 

 and in chemistry this is specially the case. With young students it is, in my 

 experience, preferable to adopt a somewhat dogmatic style, which should of course 

 be exchanged for a more cautious one as the pupil proceeds. 



Thus the law of Avogadro can only be given at first as a recognised physical 

 law, without much explanation, since the fuU apprehension of the evidence upon 

 which it rests can only be secured at a late stage of the learner's progress. There 

 is of course great advantage in the use of an inductive method if only it is em- 

 ployed judiciously. Otherwise the result is only confusion. 



A number of papers, pamphlets, and text-books have lately appeared, professing 

 to teach the principles of the science practically and by new methods. Most of these 

 turn out, upon inspection, to be very old methods indeed, but there is a small residue 

 of distinctly original character which are sure to attract, as they deserve, consider- 

 able attention. The systems I refer to provide a series of problems which the 

 pupils are called upon to solve. According to this plan the student is not allowed 

 peaceably to examine the properties of oxygen or sulphur which be now sees for 

 the first time. He must weigh, and measure, and observe, and then infer. All this 

 coming at once upon the head of a beginner seems to me to be well fitted to drive 

 liim to despair. 



I well remember the first experiment in chemistry I ever made. It consisted 

 in dissolving zinc in diluted sulphuric acid in an evaporating dish, lighting with 

 a match the bubbles of hydrogen as they rose, and afterwards leaving the solution 

 to crystallise. 1 was about sixteen, and the bubbles of gas as well as the crystals 

 I afterwards got interested me very much. If at that time I had been made to 

 weigh the zinc and acid, and measure the hydrogen with the object of answering 

 some question about the composition of zinc and hydrogen sulphates, I should have 

 been pretty much in the position of a boy ignorant of geometry shut up with the 

 propositions of Euclid and ordered to give the demonstrations. 



I think when we recall such a fact as that Priestley, who discovered oxygen in 

 1774, failed to the end of bis days to understand the process of combustion, and 



■ See Address to Section B, Montreal meeting. 



