Magazine  of  the  School  of  Agriculture. 
27 
Lord  Salisbury,  speaking  at  a meeting  held  at 
the  Mansion  House  four  years  ago  for  establishing 
Polytechnic  Institutes  in  London,  identified 
Technical  Education  with  Secondary  Education, 
meaning  the  education  which  follows  school 
education,  including  therefore  the  training  for 
the  liberal  professions. 
“ In  one  sense,”  says  Sir  Lyon  Playfair,  lately 
raised  to  the  Peerage, — by  what  title  I do 
not  know, — and  who  has  been  connected  with  the 
advancement  of  technical  education  for  the 
last  50  years,  “Technical  Education  should  begin 
at  the  Kindergarten  and  end  at  the  College,  for 
its  great  object  is  to  teach  men  to  observe,  to 
appreciate,  and  to  think.” 
I could  easily  adduce  other  authorities,  if 
necessary,  in  support  of  the  view  I have  ad- 
vanced, that  in  a certain  sense  the  use  of  the 
term  Technical  as  applying  to  all  education 
that  is  preparatory  to  a special  end,  as  distin- 
guished from  education  which  is  of  a general 
character  only,  whether  it  be  disciplinary  or 
developmental,  is  perfectly  correct,  legitimate, 
and  well  recognised.  Now  in  this  high  and 
broad  sense  of  the  word  ” technical,”  you  and  I 
and  nearly  every  one  in  this  room,  whose 
education  has  been  of  a preparatory  or  special 
character,  including  even  the  ladies  who  have 
been  kind  enough  to  honour  me  with  their 
presence  here  today,  and  whose  professional  or 
special  education  may  have  been  directed  to 
such  branches  of  practical  work,  as  needlework 
and  cookery  and  dressmaking  and  domestic  eco- 
nomy— all  recognised  branches  of  technics — or 
embracing  it  may  be  Nursing  and  Hygiene  and 
the  education  of  the  young,  are  technical  stu- 
dents ; in  this  sense,  I say,  our  elementary  and 
public  schools  so  far  as  they  train  for  the 
liberal  professions,  the  clerical  service,  for  mer- 
cantile or  agricultural  pursuits,  or  other  distinct 
callings,  are  technical  schools  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  and  technical  education,  so 
far  from  being  something  new  and  foreign, 
which  is  about  to  be  introduced  for  the  first 
time,  is  a form  of  education  with  which  we 
are  already  familiar,  and  the  Government  may 
easily  cry  off  in  answer  to  the  popular  agitation 
for  technical  education  by  pointing  out  that  the 
boon  demanded  has  been  granted  already.  Now 
pray  do  not  suppose  that  I want  to  hinder 
reform  in  our  educational  machinery  by  putting 
forward  some  fanciful  crotchet  to  tempt  your 
imagination  astray.  You  know,  or  have  heard, 
how  in  fox-hunting  countries  little  boys  out  of 
mischief,  or  “in  the  interests  of  the  fox,”  can 
spoil  a hunt  by  dragging  a herring  across  the 
scent.  Now  I have  no  such  sinister  motive  to 
actuate  me.  My  purpose  is  far  otherwise,  as 
you  will  see  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
question  of  technical  education  in  reference  to 
our  local  requirements. 
For  the  present,  however,  I shall  intermit  the 
use  of  the  term  technical  education  in  its 
broad  and  comprehensive  sense,  and  employ  it 
only  in  its  strict,  narrow,  conventional  signifi- 
cation, in  the  sense  it  was  employed  by 
Mr.  Wall,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  generally 
understood  by  educationalists  at  least,  for  a 
more  vague,  elastic  Protean  term  that  than  of 
technical  education  1 do  not  know.  Derived 
from  the  Greek  root  tekne—art,  the  strict 
meaning  of  the  word  technical  is  “relating  to 
art  based  on  scientific  principles  systematically 
studied  and  developed.’’  That  is  its  strict 
meaning,  but  its  actual  signification  or  rather 
the  various  senses  in  which  it  is  understood 
by  different  classes  of  people  are  far  different. 
It  is  applied  for  instance  with  equal  indif- 
ference to  Industrial  Schools,  to  Reformatories, 
to  Trade  Schools,  to  Manual  Training  Schools, 
to  Schools  of  Design,  to  Mechanics’  Institutes, 
to  Evening  Classes  for  workmen,  to  Engineering 
Colleges  and  Polytechnic  Institutes  of  the  Regent 
Street  type,  to  Polytechnic  High  Schools  of 
university  character,  and  in  no  two  of  these 
various  educational  institutions  which  I have 
just  enumerated  are  the  objects  of  study  or  the 
methods  of  instruction  exactly  the  same.  Ap- 
plied to  education  it  means  one  thing  to  the 
factory  hand , another  to  the  handicraftsman , 
a third  to  the  trade  designer,  a fourth  to  the 
manufacturer , a fifth  to  the  merchant,  fyc.  It 
means,  for  instance,  the  training  in  the  me- 
chanical arts,  to  the  artisan  or  his  children, 
who  desire  to  find  a substitute  for  the  old 
apprenticeship  now  rendered  almost  obsolete. 
It  means  Commercial  Education  to  the  student 
desiring  to  prepare  himself  for  clerical  or  mer- 
cantile pursuits^  It  means  Scientific  Knowledge 
applied  to  the  arts,  to  the  manufacturer  who 
needs  trained  heads  more  than  skilled  hands. 
It  means  instruction  in  the  processes  and  opera- 
tions of  Art  Industries  to  the  workman,  who 
under  the  present  system  of  “ division  of  labor” 
is  limited  to  a minute  portion  of  work,  and 
gains  no  intelligent  knowledge  of  the  machinery 
he  serves,  or  the  article  he  assists  in  turning 
out.  Hence  the  great  variety  in  the  character 
of  the  different  technical  institutions  in  dif- 
ferent countries,  and  even  in  the  same  country, 
to  meet  the  varying  requirements  of  different 
classes  of  people. 
And  yet  fifty  years  ago  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  Technical  Education  known  in  Europe. 
When  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  in  1762  “struck 
the  keynote  of  technical  education  ” in  his 
Emile,  in  that  memorable  phrase  “ comtez,  pesez, 
mesurez,  comparez,”  and  taught  people  that 
education  consisted  in  the  study  of  nature  and 
things  not  in  that  of  books  and  words,  in  observation 
and  experience  not  in  book  knowledge  and  theoretic 
speculation,  he  was,  as  Sir  Philip  Magnus  shews, 
fully  halt  a century  in  advance  of  his  age.  People 
could  not  understand  him,  nor  the  system  of 
education  he  advocated,  because  “it  was  out  of 
relation  with  the  occupations  with  which  the 
majority  of  the  people  were  then  engaged.” 
How  much  in  advance,  and  how  much  in  har- 
mony with  the  wants  and  leading  ideas  of  the 
present  day  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that 
Rousseau  makes  Emile,  his  moral  pupil,  learn 
a useful  trade.  While  being  trained  for  a 
liberal  profession,  he  is  taught  to  be  a good 
carpenter,  so  as  to  be  able  in  case  of  necessity 
to  live  by  it,  and  in  the  meantime  to  overcome 
and  defy  the  prevailing  prejudice  against 
handiwork. 
It  was  not  Rousseau  alone  who  was  misunder- 
stood, and  whose  teaching  was  ignored  because 
it  was  out  of  relation  to  the  wants  of  the 
time.  Even  Pestalozzi,  with  his  objective  teach- 
ings and  Frobel,  the  founder  of  the  Kindergarten 
