local examinations of Oxford and Cambridge, which have begun to touch the middle-class schools in precisely the same way as the periodical examinations of the universities have always operated on the public schools. Why not extend these examinations to girls? I am sorry to find Miss Beale, for whose opinion I have great respect, is opposed to that proposal; but I would ask to be allowed to say a few words on the point. The objection, I think, is founded on an entire misapprehension as to a matter of fact. It is said you educate girls differently from the way in which you educate boys; I am not arguing the point, but taking it as a fact. The subjects on which you chiefly educate girls are somewhat different; then it is said, how absurd to propose that girls and boys should be subjected to the same examination! Now, if you will only inquire what the nature of the examination is, you will see there is no force whatever in the objection. There is only a few subjects compulsory on all; and these are such as girls are taught as a matter of course; the English language, arithmetic, &c. Then there are a wide range of subjects in which they may choose to be examined, Latin, French, music, &c. Now if girls go into this examination, they will do what boys now do they will choose the subjects on which they think they are most likely to distinguish themselves. When a boy has to go through his examination, he considers what subjects he will go in for. If he is up in Latin and Greek, he goes in for them; if in French or German, he goes in for them; and so with the girls. The range of subjects out of which they may choose, comprehends those on which they are now supposed to be educated, and it is only natural that girls will choose those subjects after passing their compulsory portion, and that voluntary examination will be of precisely the same value to them as to the boys. And here I would repeat what I said at York, that it is quite a mistake to suppose that the young women of this country desire only to be educated in the modern languages and for this reason, that a considerable number of those who require a good education, belong to the class of women engaged in family tuition. Many governesses find it necessary to acquire a knowledge of Latin, and what can be more desirable than that when a woman does so, she should obtain a certificate of her competence? It is desirable that she should be able to say-"Here is my first-class certificate, showing that I am well acquainted with Latin and with French, and with the science of music;" and I say, if a woman is able to take a certificate of that sort in her hand, she would at once be placed in a very superior position for pursuing her profession as a governess. And therefore, it is not only on the ground that you ought generally to elevate female education, and that you can do that by applying the same kind of test that you do in the case of male education, but also on the ground that you ought to give to women who are to earn their living the means of showing their competency in their profession, that I advocate, as I have always done, the necessity of a public examination for girls. I am glad to say that, in a very considerable degree through the exertions of this Association, the University of Cambridge has resolved to extend its local examinations to girls. We held a sort of tentative examination in London, last Christmas twelvemonth, with the permission of the Syndicate of the University. The Syndicate doubted the possibility of doing it, but we said, "Let us try it." And very generously the University said, "You shall try it; we won't give our authority for it, but if you will hold an examination, you shall have the papers of our examiners, and the examination shall be conducted in every respect as for boys, except that we shall not give any certificate." Well, that experiment succeeded perfectly, for though comparatively little known, upwards of eighty girls presented themselves, and many of them passed the requirements of the examiners in the most satisfactory manner. I do hope that not only the University of Cambridge, but also that of Oxford, will think fit to extend their examinations in that direction, and that the University of London will adopt something like the same policy; and I am sure that in no respect can the universities of this country do more real good in promoting the cause of education, than by advancing the culture of those who have really the whole education of the nation in their hands; for every man is in early life indebted to woman for the instruction he gets, and the bent which his mind receives.

Mr. JOSEPH PAYNE: My experience as a teacher has been very much like that of Dr. Hodgson, and my opinions are precisely the same. We all know very well that though the subject is trite, and though the things said are like those said a

thousand times before, yet this trite subject has always a new interest in it, and it is very important that we should, if possible, go from facts to principles. Where we have to deal with a common mind, both the subjects taught and the mode of teaching must be in a great degree common. We are not teaching a different, but the same kind of human being. The mind has properly no sex. It is the mind of the human being, and consequently there must be of necessity a similarity in the instruction of both sexes. It has been said that the female mind is not by nature so susceptible of attention to what is called truth; I rather think, as regards the point of conscience, the balance must be thrown the other way, and that there is really a more conscientious regard to truth among women than men. But, taking the word truth merely as accuracy, I have thought there is something in woman that glances now and again over the surface of things. If that be so, a woman is more likely to succeed with the sound rather than the sense. The merely vocal part of language will strike her more deeply, and she will catch up the pronunciation more rapidly and more accurately, and more readily acquire the idioms and peculiarities of it. She will seize upon all those things which lie on the surface, rather than those which belong to the positive genius and structure of the language. If that be the case, it may be a question for all ladies engaged in teaching to consider whether they do not pay a somewhat unwise attention to the things they do easily. The thing we do easily does not teach us; the benefit we get is in doing what is not easy, and in doing that for which we have no special aptitude. Our attention, then, ought to be given to those things which are difficult for us; and therefore it would seem that though the general curriculum ought to be the same, in order to teach the common mind, yet it ought to be supplemented by those studies which will best call forth those faculties which are not so ready. If there be, for example, no great aptitude for accuracy and reasoning, keeping the attention profoundly fixed on those subjects which require accuracy, and especially those requisite in the education of a woman, will tend to give that accuracy. Now the practical inference I draw from this is, that Miss Beale is probably right in not allowing so much time to be given to music. The number of hours spent in the study of music does not produce a commensurate result, and I think that when we perceive, in particular instances, that there is no aptitude in the pupil for giving that pleasure by music which it is calculated to afford, it would be wise to employ the hours on those subjects in which success was more likely to be attained. Mediocrity in art is, strictly speaking, worth nothing; a bad poet is no poet, and a bad musician ought not to exist. We want high things in art, and only high things; and if we have no probability in getting this result from thousands of hours given to one subject or another, it would be wise to give up the subject in this particular case.

LABOUR AND EDUCATION.

"What further regulations of the Labour of Children are required to promote their Education?"

In addition to the papers by Mr. Tremenhere and Mr. Wilson printed at pp. 291, 302.

Mr. E. T. CRAIG read a paper advocating industrial training for the children of the poor by alternating school lessons with occupation in the garden, the field, and the workshop, on the plan introduced and carried out by M. de Fellenberg.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. CHADWICK: I was very much pleased with the able paper of Mr. Wilson, but it is only an exemplification of what the French philosopher said, that it was one of the most difficult things to get people to see what they are seeing every day. With respect to the defence that Sheffield is exceptional in respect of its labour, I beg to say that there is this primary condition, which we enunciated

after a great deal of inquiry in 1833-34, when I had the honour to be one of the central board of factory commissioners, that wherever young children were worked for the same stages as adults, it was mischievous and wasteful. It is just as if a farmer were to work a young colt through all the same stages as he works his horses. You never can get a man to work as he might do when you begin by over-working bim as a child. I remember some thirty years ago the opposition we met from what are called model establishments, and it is always model establishments which stand in the way of the extension of general regulations, and which offer the greatest resistance to all sound improvement. People in Lancashire who had their own schools and were very attentive to their workpeople made great opposition, and I have often wished we had no such things as model manufactories, model schools, or model parishes. My friend Mr. Senior wrote an article on abstract economical grounds in support of the principle of factory legislation and against the principle of Mr. Wilson, on the ground that it would reduce the amount of labour and put us to a disadvantage in foreign competition. The best way of competing with everybody is to have a body of strength, and unless you husband your strength you go to the wall in the competition with foreign countries, where from the climate or other circumstances they may be in better health. Manchester, with its restricted labour of ten hours, fears no competition in the world. Many of the manufacturers that were opposed to restriction, and opposed on the same grounds now taken up by Mr. Wilson and those he represents, are now the leading supporters of the limitation of the labour of young children. And not only is it a principle applicable to manufactories; Mr. Paget, late M.P. for South Notts, and others, have warmly advocated the extension of the same principle to agricultural districts. Mr. Tuffnell in his paper speaks of the difficulty of obtaining the extension of the Act. We shall never get on if we cannot extend the system more rapidly than by Acts passed at intervals of five years from each other. I think our experience is quite sufficient to warrant subordinate legislation by order in council extending from trade to trade, which will be far better than any legislation in the House of Commons, being more tentative and capable of revocation if it does not answer. With respect to the notion that it will tend to reduce wages, that notion once prevailed in Lancashire, but the result was that it augmented wages. I hold this to be a primary principle and a universal principle, applicable to Sheffield as to other places, that the child is not to be worked the same stages as the adult. I maintain that the children who work at Rodgers' or any other of the best establishments, are working in detrimental excess of their strength, if they are working the same stages as the adult, for if the stage be sufficient for the adult it is certainly in excess for the child. There is one thing that seems to be lost sight of in this matter, namely, the compulsory education clause, the requirement of a certificate that the child has been three hours a day of the week preceding in some school or other. There is in that provision a security against the child working the same stages as the adult. It was once put to me how were we to prevent a child which had worked six hours a day in one factory under the name of John Jones going to another for other six hours and working under the name of John Smith? My reply was that if you require a certificate that the child has been for three hours a day in some school that puts out of the question the possibility of his taking two employments. There are no doubt some difficulties in dealing with small manufactories where they have only two or three children employed; but my answer is that it is not the inspection of the manufactories that is wanted, but looking after the children, seeing whether they are in the schools so many hours a day, whether they be with their father or any other employer. That provision secures not only that the children shall not be overworked, that they shall not be worked the same stages as the adult, but that they shall not be excluded from the benefits of education. Indeed that is the great and only security in the manufacturing districts.

Mr. NASH STEPHENSON: I would beg to ask what would you do in the case of the children not being at school?

Mr. CHADWICK: Exact a penalty for employing children at any given work without having a certificate that they have been three hours a day at school. A resolution has been put into my hands by Professor Hancock, which I beg

to submit. It is in these terms:-"That in the opinion of this department the most practicable way of carrying out the recommendations of the Children's Employment Commission would be to enable the Privy Council to extend the factory legislation to the different trades where women and young persons under eighteen are employed, with such appropriate regulations as may be suited to each trade.

Rev. Mr. SANDFORD, Inspector of Schools: I have had some experience in this question, both in the cotton and woollen districts, and also for twelve years in the Staffordshire Potteries and in South Staffordshire, where we also hope to see the Act applied. I wish to address myself to meeting those objections which have been raised by Mr. Wilson to the application of the Act to the trades carried on in Sheffield. I have been at many meetings and discussions where this question of the protection of children has been discussed, and I have always found that the representatives of each trade and manufacture have found out some special reason why that trade should be exempt from the operation of the Act. So it is here; there are particular reasons assigned why the Act should not be applied to Sheffield. It is said there is not here to be found that number of young children employed as are to be found in Bradford and Halifax. In one respect that is rather a recommendation for the application of the Act, because its application would be all the less troublesome to the manufacturer. On the other hand, if there are so many children employed, they want the protection of the Act as much as others do. I cannot help thinking that one or two facts in the Report of the Commission have been overlooked by those who object to the application of the Act to the hardware trades. Now there may not be any very large number of children employed in these trades, but there are such children, and they require protection. If there are few here to be reached by an Act of this sort, all I can say is that in my district of South Staffordshire there are a great many, and if you do not want the Act for the sake of Sheffield children, I hope the manufacturers here will not oppose the Act, seeing it is so much wanted for the sake of the South Staffordshire children. But I cannot help thinking there may be great need for it even here, and especially when I look at the ignorance of many of the children found in Sheffield. Here is one case; a little boy, eight years of age, cannot read, and does not know who Jesus Christ was. One little boy thought Christ was different from other people, because He was religious and other people are not. I have been twelve years an inspector of schools in the Midland districts, and especially in Staffordshire, and I do not know any district that suffers more than it from the premature employment of children. I find in the evening schools hard-working lads, of whom 40 per cent. cannot read the simplest narratives; and among the colliers the case is even worse. I find very few who know who the Queen of England is; some have heard of the Princess Alexandra, for these poor colliery boys, though they do not go to school, always manage to find a connection with some school on fete days, and at the marriage of the Princess Alexandra they heard of her, but she was the only great personage they ever heard anything of. With regard to the Potteries, I went with Lord Lichfield to see the workmen there, and we were much gratified by what we saw. The Act does not apply to children of 13 until next year, but I know of one district, Longton, where education was lately at a very low ebb, and hardly one school under inspection; and where, on our visit, we found one school with 200 children, not one of whom, a year before, had been at school, and these were all half-time working children; and we were convinced that when the Act came fully into operation, its effects would be still more remarkable. I did not find that the manufacturers there were very strong in their opposition. The smaller manufacturers were sometimes very troublesome, but the larger manufacturers were either indifferent or favourable; and I think the names of Minton and Ridgeway should always be mentioned with honour in connection with this subject, because they were most anxious for the extension of the Act to their own manufactories; and I cannot help hoping that their example will be followed by others who are still standing neutral in this matter, when they come to see the beneficial operation of the Act. Many who were formerly objectors to the Act have greatly modified their objections, and will yet I hope see that their interest lies in giving effect to the Act.

Professor HANCOCK: I beg to second the resolution read by Mr. Chadwick. I think it is evident that we require a considerable amount of regulation in this question as to matters of detail. The House of Commons is undoubtedly the proper place to settle great questions of principle, but it is much better to leave details to be regulated by some subordinate department, by which they may be modified from time to time. I attended with great interest to Mr. Wilson's paper, for I was anxious to hear what could be said against the extension of the Act to Sheffield, and I think we must all admire the candour and ability he displayed. But at the same time that very candour and fairness convinced me that he bad failed to prove his case. In the first place, he told us that he took the most favourable cases. Now everybody who knows anything of social science knows that we must not take favourable cases but the reverse. The object of legislation is not to provide for the case of good trades and good masters, but for bad ones. Therefore when he admitted, to begin with, that he took favourable cases, I think his whole argument failed. But even when we got an account of the most favourable cases, we did not get the beau ideal picture we expected, but, on the contrary, we were told that in one large establishment in Sheffield there were no fewer than 86 boys employed under 13 years of age. He made another admission, namely, that when a little pressure came, they just kept the boys in. I think Mr. Wilson's paper admitted the whole case, and showed that legislation was absolutely necessary. He said he objected to the half-time system, and he said that, under the half-time system, they should have the school near the factory in a smoky place, but he never thought of the hardship of being at work all day in that smoky place. Another thing that surprised me was, that a gentleman so intelligent as Mr. Wilson should have referred without any objection to the system of apprenticeship at £20 fees. Adam Smith long ago denounced the system of high fees as one not intended for the benefit of the boys, but of the masters and workmen, and I am surprised that such an antiquated institution should exist in Sheffield as these long apprenticeships and high fees. Now in this Association, and in all this legislation, what every one stands up for is the interests of society, not the interests of the individual, and I say Mr. Wilson's statement showed me that these boys were not safe in the hands of teachers who looked only to themselves. Another thing that surprised me was that while Mr. Wilson protested against State interforence, he advocated trade interference. Now compulsory legislation in this matter has been in operation in this country for twenty years. The commissioners suggested the practical difficulty of interfering in small cases. Now it appears to me that the solution of this question is a matter of science; the practical way will follow afterwards. It appears to me, we should say "If you employ that child for your benefit, we insist he shall be educated." That implies some means of seeing that the children are educated. I think that this is quite practicable. We should then have a complete means of knowing whether children are overworked or not; for if they did not come to the school we should know that they were overworked. You would then have the whole clergy, schoolmasters, and inspectors enlisted in carrying out the principle that the first duty of a parent towards his child is to properly and adequately educate him; and that each parent should be bound to educate his child up to the age of thirteen or fourteen. I would, in conclusion, make another observation; namely, that Mr. Wilson made one very wise and just remark, that a great deal of the ignorance of the children arises from the apathy of their parents, from their not knowing the value of education. It always offends me when I hear the principles of political economy brought up against state interference in education. We all know that in this era of progressive knowledge there are very few parents who are competent judges of what is the best education for their children. Again, the principle of supply and demand is referred to; a principle which applies very well to the markets for bread and butter, meat and clothes, but I deny that, in nine cases out of ten, the parents are the best judges of what is necessary for the education of their children, and hence it is necessary that the state should not leave the matter entirely in the hands of the parents, and the interference of the state in that way is no violation of the principle that the state ought not to interfere in matters of trade.