Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. 55 
preaching future subjection to German methods of universal 
interference and control, is running counter to this instinct. 
Moreover, it is helping to win the battle for prussianism. 
Changes there must be, no doubt, but any effort at a universal 
disturbance which would destroy all the old landmarks, is going to 
arouse most rancorous animosity. 
I must admit I take up the position which you condemn. I do 
say let there be more physiology taught and I do not say let there 
be nothing taught but physiology. One-sided exclusion is foolish in 
every direction, hut personal acquaintance with some of the advanced 
men on both sides leaves me in no doubt as to the side on which 
exclusiveness is lauded as a virtue, and on which it is justly 
condemned as a vice. Among those who take the former view, 
there are, I fear, bigots who would make it hardly possible for a 
morphologist to survive. If those who have signed the memorandum 
have their way the new methods will play straight into their hands. 
Morphology is to be driven into a corner, and allowed one school in 
three. Instead of the recognised basis of the science it will become 
the mere adjunct of physiology. Linder such a tripartite system no 
man could, but by chance, follow the line that nature directs him 
to. He would be bound to accommodate himself, perforce, to the 
scope of the school that is open to him for a livelihood—a neat 
system, in fact, for the manufacture of square pegs. 
Those who may raise the specious demand “ to bring botany into 
closer touch with reality ” are between a warp and woof of error. 
In one direction they plainly limit themselves to the most 
unphilosophical aspects of the theory of reality, while in the other 
direction they become committed to wholesale interference with 
the development of their colleagues’ abilities where these do not 
coincide with their own prescribed ideas. 
Well, I champion the cause of freedom ! I would claim and 
defend the right of every botanist to think and practise according 
to his own beliefs without hindrance. The only liberty I would 
deny to any man is the liberty to dictate to his neighbour’s 
conscience. Away with the imposition of scheduled uniformity, it is 
the bane and shroud of intellect! Let us all have peace and amity, 
and freedom, in heaven’s name, to do as we think fit. 
I would suggest as a counter to the proposed move, something 
more in accord with evolutionary principles, namely, the abandon¬ 
ment of restrictive schedules in all grades, so that every man may be 
free to teach according to his lights; while as a corollary, 
