474 bepokt— 1879. 



3. The ' German ' Speech and Lip Reading System of Teaching the Deaf. 



By David Buxton, Ph.D. 



The number of those who are deprived of hearing, though relatively small, is 

 larger than is commonly supposed, and quite large enough to form a very important 

 item in that world of humanity with which science, and philanthropy taught and 

 directed by science, have to deal.. In the various populations of the world the 

 deaf are probably not less in number than a million of souls ; the distribution of 

 this number is very unequal, no doubt, and varies not only in different countries 

 but in different districts of the same country, as in our own for example, some 

 counties in England showing twice and even three times as many deaf persons to 

 the general population as are to be found in other counties not far distant. In 

 the whole of Great Britain and Ireland at the census of 1871, the number of per- 

 sons returned as ' deaf and dumb ' was 19,237, being a proportion to the whole 

 population of one in 1644, the local differences ranging from one in 1972 for 

 England and Wales, to one in 975 for Ireland. In April 1881 the next enumera- 

 tion of the people will take place. Many striking facts of recent occurrence have 

 led thoughtful observers to the conclusion that our deaf population will then 

 exhibit a considerable increase ; that it will reach as high a figure as 30,000. 

 The ' German ' system of teaching the deaf is the only one which invokes science 

 and applies science in its operations. That England does stand far in the rear of 

 most other countries in respect of the teaching of her deaf children is as true as 

 it is humiliating. She does not teach so many and she does not teach so well. 

 The number of deaf children of the school age is always reckoned as sixteen per 

 cent, of the whole deaf population. This on the census of 1871 would give us nearly 

 3200 as the number who should have been at school ; the best calculation I was 

 able to make showed that the actual number was under 2000. In July 1877 (ac- 

 cording to the 'Organ,' a periodical devoted to the special subject), the institutions 

 and schools for the ' deaf and dumb ' in Germany numbered forty-nine, and contained 

 2932 pupils, under the instruction of 288 teachers, giving an average of 10T8 

 pupils to each teacher. The increase in the number of institutions within the 

 previous two years had been nine, of pupils 682, of teachers 118. Probably, 

 no other country can show equal progress during the same period. In 1872, 

 the Swiss schools contained 344 deaf pupils, under the instruction of thirty- 

 seven teachers : an average of nine to a teacher. What is the case in the institu- 

 tions of Great Britain ? A table compiled in 1877 gives 2340 pupils and a total of 

 171 instructors, including pupil teachers and deaf persons promoted out of the school 

 to take the charge of classes. The number of these latter is thirty-three, and the 

 number of female teachers, including fifteen nuns engaged at St. Mary's, Dublin, 

 sixty-eight. This gives an average of fourteen to one teacher, the German average 

 being 10T8, and the Swiss only nine per teacher. Thus, on the mere ground of 

 numbers, we compare very unfavourably, but when we reflect upon the materials of 

 which the teaching staff in England is so largely composed, it is no wonder that 

 the subject is one which, in the minds of all who are interested in the welfare of 

 the deaf, has for a long time created the deepest anxiety. Few of those who are 

 engaged in teaching have entered upon the work with any special qualifications for 

 it, none have been trained to it, and a very large proportion tire of it before they 

 have acquired sufficient experience to make their teaching of any value. The 

 superiority of the ' German ' system nobody questions. Its bitterest opponents do 

 not deny that ; they only say, in effect, that the other is good enough for its pur- 

 pose, that it is cheaper, and that in some cases where the time and capacity of the 

 learner are limited, the ' German ' method is inapplicable. But is this great country 

 content to be put off with an inferior system in the matter of education to that 

 which poorer countries are determined to have and willing to pay for ? Germany 

 is poor, especially Prussia proper. Switzerland is not rich, nor is Italy, nor Hol- 

 land, in comparison with ourselves. Yet all these countries afford to support 

 almost universally the ' German ' system, which it has been alleged is so expensive 

 as compared with the French. But is it a fact that the ' German ' system requires 



