PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 725 
in his daily work, inasmuch that few men now make anything, but only a small 
portion of something. A statement was made at Dundee that 135 different 
persons were employed in the making of a boot. It is not to be expected that 
any of these 135 workers can get enthusiastic about their particular bit. We 
must recognise that as long as we live under the reign of industrial competition 
the hours of labour are likely to be hours of stress, and that when a man has 
finished his labour it is only right, it is only human, that he should have hours 
of reasonable recreation. It is with a view of making these hours of recreation 
worthy of the nation to which we belong that I feel that our educational methods 
might, and ultimately will, be altered and rendered valuable.’ 
If I may venture to summarise Mr. Dixon’s Address as a whole, it appears 
to me that the argument is somewhat as follows: It is admitted that ‘the three 
_ R’s’ are necessary for all workers, of whatever grade, almost as necessary for the 
mental as are sight and hearing for the physical equipment. A large majority 
of manual labourers, however, are not rendered any more efficient in the 
discharge of their tasks by further instruction of an academic character, and 
therefore we should aim at providing them with some form of education which 
would so quicken their intelligence as to enable them to find an interest in 
matters external to their employment and thus lead them to utilise their hours 
of recreation in a sane and healthy manner. It should be our object not so 
much to train all our soldiers as it they were to be generals, as to give them 
that education which would make them good soldiers, and to spare no expendi- 
ture of time or money in the further education and development of the small 
percentage who have shown those qualities which lead, under proper guidance, 
to high achievement. 
The assumption that all children are fitted to profit by more than the 
rudiments of academic education is, I believe, responsible for many of our 
present difficulties. In physical matters we seem to be wiser. ‘We take 
account of bodily disabilities; we do not train lame men for racing, or enter 
carthorses for the Derby; we do not accept the short-sighted or the colour- 
blind as sailors; but those who talk of compulsory further education appear to 
think that all men are on an equality as regards mental equipment. Democracy 
in its control of education counts noses rather than brains. I observe, for 
example, that the Education Committees, on which I have, or have had, the 
honour of serving, are unwilling to continue those higher technical classes in 
science in which the numbers are necessarily small. A class of four in higher 
mathematics will probably be discontinued, whereas a class of one hundred in 
shorthand will be regarded as a highly successful achievement. 
Such Education Committees, however, are only carrying out what is 
apparently the policy of those sitting in the seats of authority. A nation 
which expends but four millions for the encouragement of higher education 
and research and thirty millions on the rudiments cannot be said to lend 
that recognition, assistance, and encouragement to the best brains of the 
country which is the one form of educational outlay which is certain to 
bring, as Mr. Wells has truly indicated, not only the best return industrially, 
but also an immunity from invasion otherwise unobtainable. 
It is possible that the views taken by Mr. Dixon and the employers and 
business men whose opinions I have attempted to gather are unduly pessimistic. 
I have, therefore, turned naturally to the teachers, with many of whom I am 
brought into contact. 
T find, on the whole, much the same spirit of pessimism prevailing. J can 
only recollect one gentleman—a teacher of long experience and high standing— 
who takes a brighter view of the position. According to him, the children 
leave our schools better instructed, more intelligent, and better mannered than 
was the case some twenty years ago. 
It is true that teachers as a body agree that there has been one real advance— 
viz. the abolition of the system of payment by results—but many of them admit 
that during the past ten years progress, if any, has been slight. They plead in 
extenuation that the large size of the classes is in itself a barrier to real efficiency, 
and that the teacher is so fettered by regulations, so bothered by the fads of 
individual Inspectors, that we ought to be gratified, rather than disappointed, 
by the results achieved. It is a significant fact that the supply of teachers for 
our primary schools is diminishing, and that, as a necessary consequence, the 
