i88 3 J 
On Technical Education. 
163 
manufactured in the particular factory to which they are 
attached, but they may — and, as far as such training goe's, 
will — remain ignorant of a knowledge of the principles in- 
volved in the preparation or analysis of the substances on 
which they operate. But even this kind of information is 
superior in point of utility to mere verbal information, 
whether derived from a teacher or a book ; for in the one 
case the party is able to accomplish something, whereas in 
the other case all that is possessed is merely the names of 
things , and, if this forms the alpha and the omega of the 
teaching of an experimental science, such information can 
never prove of any practical benefit to the taught, or to the 
State which has paid for such instruction. The late Prof. 
Augustus De Morgan made some appropriate remarks on 
this spurious knowledge in a letter he addressed, in 1853, to 
Prof. Michael Foster, in which he stated the objections he 
had to the system pursued in the London University. “ For 
example,” he states in the letter, “ a candidate for the B.A. 
degree is required, in addition to matters which enter the 
ancient disciplines, to be examined in animal physiology. And 
he may pass this examination without knowing more, from 
his own observation, of what is under the skin of any animal, 
than he learns from the words of a book or the lines of a 
drawing which no one can understand except he be familiar 
with the original objedL I will venture to say that a large 
majority of those who have passed the examination in phy- 
siology know nothing about the interior of the body, from 
their own observation, except that blood follows a cut in the 
finger. I appeal to the examiners whether it be not as I 
say, and whether the answers given do not clearly show it. 
Thus, for the first time in the annals of liberal education, 
a University has proclaimed that mere words, as words, 
with no meaning attached, are a worthy discipline.” 
Authors of educational works on, as well as teachers of, 
Science, too frequently overlook or forget that “ the know- 
ledge a man can use,” as Mr. Froude has remarked, “ is the 
only real knowledge, the only knowledge which has life and 
growth in it, and converts itself into practical power. The 
rest hangs like dust about the brain, or dries like rain-drops 
off the stones.” 
I have stated that I believe — and I speak with some con- 
siderable experience — we commence the teaching of some at 
least of the Sciences, especially Chemistry, on a wrong and 
erroneous system : instead of teaching detached fadts, as is 
generally done, I would teach— along with exercises on the 
language of the Science, and what are now termed the 
