374 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
November  2,  1899. 
One  of  the  great  evils  of  our  elementary  educational  system  is  the 
method  by  which  a  great  portion  of  the  cost  is  raised,  either  by  rates 
or  by  voluntary  contributions.  Did  the  Government  but  undertake 
the  entire  cost  of  education,  the  nation  would  clamour  for  greatly 
advanced  and  more  practical  teaching,  but  so  long  as  the  work  has  to 
depend  on  the  unsatisfactory  sources  named,  the  cost  will  always  be 
grudged,  and  education  retarded.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
nature  of  the  speeches  or  discussion  at  the  conference  referred  to, 
nothing  is  heard  of  what  is  being  done  in  a  comparatively  limited 
way  in  some  districts  of  Surrey,  Kent,  and  Stafford,  for  instance,  to 
train  children  in  a  knowledge  of  gardening  under  County  Tech¬ 
nical  Education  Committees.  What  is  thus  done  is  thoroughly  to  the 
point,  and  so  much  is  done  in  this  way  as  well  can  be  done  anywhere 
on  a  mere  rod  of  ground  for  a  garden. 
But  efforts  in  this  direction  are  greatly  hampered  by  the  probably 
not  real,  yet  apparent  antagonism  that  exists  between  the  Education 
Department  and  Technical  Education  Committees,  as  whilst  the  latter 
bodies  seem  not  only  willing  but  even  anxious  to  oxtend  the  operation 
of  these  school  gardens  to  all  lads  old  enough  to  work  them,  the 
Department  shuts  the  door  on  all  those  attending  school,  yet  these  are 
ti  e  yery  lads  whom  it  is  so  desirable  to  have  working  them  in  the 
elementary  stage,  whilst  lads  that  have  left  school  but  still  remain  in 
the  locality  may  be  taken  on  to  more  advanced  operations.  But  as 
these  lads  may  not  work  a  school  garden  until  perhaps  fourteen  years 
of  age,  they  can  only  reach  the  elementary  stage,  as  in  two  years’ 
time  they  are  too  old  for  farther  instruction.  This  is  but  one  illus¬ 
tration  of  the  difficulty  that  now  surrounds  practical  progress  in  a 
greatly  desired  direction. 
Something  may  of  course  be  done  in  the  direction  of  furnishing 
instructors  in  gardening  for  boys  by  the  various  training  colleges,  but 
these  places  again  are  practically  private  institutions,  and  are  in  no 
way  controlled  by  the  State  or  by  public  authority.  Far  better  is  it 
to  look  for  instructors  for  the  children  from  the  ranks  of  practical 
gardeners,  of  whom  there  are  so  many  qualified  to  make  sound 
teachers.  One  such  could  take  a  district  of  several  schools,  another 
give  the  elder  boys  an  hour’s  teaching  at  least  twice  a  week.  Of 
course  there  should  be  a  good  garden  available  in  each  case,  including 
fruit,  vegetables,  and  flowers,  and  such  other  features  as  enter  generally 
into  practical  horticulture. — Inspector. 
[We  give  prominence  to  the  foregoing  communication  because  of 
the  great  importance  of  the  subject,  and  not  of  necessity  because  we 
cm  cur  in  the  whole  of  the  opinions  expressed.  From  the  practical 
character  of  the  teaching  advocated,  few  persons  who  comprehend  the 
requirements  of  rural  districts  and  the  equipment  of  the  workers  of 
the  future  will  presumably  dissent.  The  Elementary  Education  Act, 
that  was  passed  some  years  ago  amidst  the  clash  of  contending 
“  parties,”  has  by  no  means  proved  an  unmixed  blessing,  either  to  the 
labourers  or  employers  of  labour  in  rural  districts.  The  smallest 
wage-earning  class  in  the  kingdom  were,  under  the  cast-iron  law  of 
compulsory  school  attendance,  deprived  of  the  aid,  and  much-needed 
aid,  of  sundry  shillings  that  used  to  be  earned  by  strong  lads  at 
different  periods  of  the  year,  and  no  doubt  many  of  these  ceased  school 
attendance  all  too  soon.  But  from  one  extreme,  the  law  went  to  the 
other.  From  earning  a  little,  but  this  little  of  great  use  to  the 
parents,  who  were  struggling  against  adversity  in  strenuous  endeavours 
to  make  both  ends  meet  in  thousands  of  humble  homes,  they  were 
entirely  debarred  under  the  rigid  rule  of  scholastic  uniformity.  The 
aggregate  loss  thus  entailed  was  enormous  to  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
land,  who  were  least  able  to  bear  it,  while  entailing  loss  on  others,  to 
whom  it  did  not  press  with  such  immediate  force ;  but  its  effect  was 
cumulative,  and  is  felt  now,  and  not  borne  with  the  greatest 
equanimity  by  the  wage-paying  section  of  the  agricultural  com¬ 
munity. 
It  may  be  urged  by  educationists  that  this  is  taking  a  low 
materialistic  view  of  a  great  intellectual  question.  It  is  a  natural 
and  necessary  view  all  the  same,  and  even  a  venture  may  be  made  in 
suggesting  that  materialism  is  not  eutirely  ignored  as  an  objective  by 
numbers  of  excellent  and  accomplished  persons,  who  are  seeking  to 
advance,  by  precept  and  practice,  what  is  known  as  “higher  educa¬ 
tion.”  While  honestly  desiring  to  do  good  to  others,  they  are 
at  the  same  time,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  inexorable  law  of  self-preservation.  They  wish,  and  laudably 
so,  to  improve  their  own  position  in  life  by  their  own  acquirements* 
and  if  they  fail  in  this  it  is  either  by  lack  of  favourable  opportunities 
or  their  particular  education  has  not  been  conducted  in  the  right 
direction. 
This  brings  us  to  the  root  of  the  subject  in  question.  If  educa¬ 
tion  is  not  of  a  kind  to  be  the  most  helpful  to  those  to  whom  it  is 
imparted,  in  accordance  with  the  vocation  to  which  the  majority  are 
likely  to  engage,  it  fails  in  its  object.  This  has  been  exactly  the  case 
in  thousands  of  village  schools,  and  no  persons  have  been  mora 
deeply  convinced  of  this  than  thoughtful  parents  of  children  sent  to 
those  schools.  This  is  why  the  schools  have  not  been  popular. 
The  sacrifice  of  material  help  that  might  be  from  time  to  time 
afforded  by  the  earnings  of  strong  lads  would  have  been  much 
more  cheerfully  borne  if  they  had  been  gaining  knowledge  on 
subjects  closely  identified  with  country  pursuits.  For  the  purpose  of 
winning  marks  and  obtaining  grants,  the  minds  of  youths  have 
been  crammed  with  information  on  subjects  of  no  practical  use  to 
them. 
Obviously  certain  subjects  must  be  taught  in  common  in  city  and 
in  village  schools  up  to  a  certain  point,  but  beyond  this  the  teaching  to 
be  the  most  useful  must  be  differentiated.  An  uniform  curriculum 
throughout  urban  and  rural  schools  is  an  absurdity  and  entirely  dis¬ 
advantageous  to  village  populations.  Lads  who  have  attended 
elementary  schools  in  agricultural  districts  for  years,  have  been  taught 
no  more  about  subjects  and  operations  connected  with  the  land  than 
have  the  keen-witted  urchins  of  the  London  or  Liverpool  slums. 
If  lads  in  rural  villages  acquired  exact  knowledge  on  the  nature,  com¬ 
position,  and  improvement  of  various  soils  ;  on  plant  life  and  growth  ; 
on  weeds  and  their  wastefulness ;  on  food  crops  of  various  kinds,  and  their 
usefulness,  with  methods  of  production  ;  on  flowers,  insects,  and  other 
cognate  matters,  their  interest  would  be  aroused,  inquiry  incited,  and 
a  desire  created  to  put  to  practical  test  the  merits  of  such  teaching, 
and  for  this  opportunities  should  be  afforded. 
It  is  true,  elementary  school  gardens  are  formed  in  a  few  districts, 
and  grants  given  for  “  attendances,”  but  in  some  of  these  gardens  the 
work  is  the  merest  peddling;  the  teachers  do  not  even  know  how  to 
hold,  much  less  how  to  use,  the  tools,  while  school  inspectors  cannot,, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  appraise  the  value  ol  the  work  ;  indeed, 
the  majority  of  them  know  no  more  about  it  than  did  the  three 
historic  tailors  of  Tooley  Street.  But  there  are  other  of  these  gardens 
in  which  the  boys  are  taught  by  practical  men,  and  in  these  the  work, 
as  we  knowr  by  personal  examination,  is  at  least  100  per  cent,  better, 
and  in  some  instances  very  good  indeed.  It  is  a  question  of  teaching ; 
but  the  best  work  of  that  nature  is  found  in  continuation  school 
gardens,  in  which  only  youths  who  have  left  school  can  be  legally 
taught  by  County  Councils.  In  many  of  these  the  work  is  splendid, 
and  far  in  advance  of  that  of  men  in  contiguous  allotments.  If  all 
boys  over,  say,  eleven  or  twelve  years  of  age  could  be  similarly  taught, 
a  more  land-loving  race  of  men  would  follow,  and  if  the  best  of  those 
who  had  acquired  the  art  of  cultivating  the  soil  profitably  were 
afforded  facilities  for  its  acquisition  to  the  extent  that  would  be  of 
real  and  actual  benefit  to  them,  the  more  reluctant  they  would  be 
(as  Sir  William  Hart  Dyke  observed  at  the  meeting  referred  to  on 
page  357,  last  week)  to  abandon  “  the  villages  in  which  they  were  born 
and  bred.” 
Young  men  cannot  or  will  not  remain  there  until  they  have 
acquired  a  taste  for  home  pursuits,  and  can  see  something  in  view 
besides,  as  the  Dean  of  Rochester  has  said,  “  lumbago  and  the  work- 
house.”  Education  has  taught  them  the  truth,  as  phrased  by  the 
Dean,  that  “  in  every  other  department  of  life  the  working  man  has  a 
chance  to  rise,”  and  their  venerable  spokesman  wants  to  see  more 
small  holdings  op  little  farms  within  the  reach  of  earnest  striving 
workers  on  the  land.  This  social  policy  has  not  in  the  past  found 
favour — we  will  not  say  among  landowners  so  much  as  agents  and 
