expurgated for their use. Now I think this exception had a very serious import in its obvious bearings on the influence these books exert in the instruction of our boys; and I do not hesitate to say that, even if there were any dispute as to what branches of intellectual education are fit for boys and not for girls, there is no difference of opinion on this greater and much more important point, that so far as their moral education is concerned, there must be equal care to maintain purity and goodness in the case of both. Now, in so far as regards the subjects commonly taught in schools, such as arithmetic, history, geography, mathematics, and the languages, I really do not see, and I have never been shown, any one subject on which you can confidently and wisely pronounce that it is fit for boys and not for girls. If we admit, as regards the choice of subjects, that there is no ground for such difference, the next question arises as to the modes of teaching. Is there one mode of teaching which is practically fit for boys, and another mode of teaching that is practically fit for girls? You observe we do not raise the question whether boys or girls are equal in all respects. The question is, are the essentials of their nature the same, or are they so different as to involve the necessity of a different mode of teaching? Now the Saturday Review, a few weeks ago, in speaking of a book of Mr. Ruskin's, recognised, as regards modes, only one difference; a good and a bad, a right and a wrong mode; and it would puzzle any teacher who has been in the habit of teaching the youth of both sexes, to point out one method of instruction fit for boys and unfit for girls, or one method of instruction fit for girls and unfit for boys. I believe the right mode of teaching in the one case is that which is most likely to produce good results in the other. Well, then, if, in the choice of subjects and the methods of teaching, we are right in contending for similarity, there only remains one more question as to the degree or extent to which these subjects should be carried. Now, if I have spoken strongly on the first two questions, I would speak still more strongly on the third. I would draw no line of demarcation, so as to limit the extent of knowledge which either boy or girl may acquire. I would throw open the portals of knowledge freely to both. Let each sex acquire what it can. Circumstances will draw a line of demarcation; so will ability and opportunity. There is no necessity for our drawing any other line, and there is extreme injustice in our doing so. I would apply to those differences between the male and female sex, the very same principle I would apply to the different classes of society, the rich and the poor. I say it is unwise and unjust to fix any arbitrary limit to the education the poor are to get. Their poverty already more than sufficiently limits it; and it is for us rather to try and extend the amount of instruction than to endeavour arbitrarily and intentionally to limit it. So with the female sex, I say, let us throw open the gates through which the temple of knowledge is to be entered, and let us allow fair play to every one who enters it, being satisfied that difference of capacity, difference of means. difference of opportunity, will fully maintain that inequality of knowledge, that difference of mental state which I confess is desirable. Many people seem to le afraid that if we supply a uniform system of instruction to rich and poor, to male and female, there will be no difference of individual character, that we shall all be reduced to one dead level of stagnant uniformity, all copies of one another, none of us original, but all of us reflections, not of each other's excellences, but of each other's mediocrities. Now nature has abundantly provided for this. We have each our mental constitution as it came at first, and that mental constitation, in and after the earliest stage of our progress, is modified by the circumstances that act upon it. Now these circumstances, even if they were absolutely the same, are not the same relatively to the individuals on whom they act; ani just as in the same soil and climate we find growing up the oak, the ash, and the beech, so in the same soil of instruction different minds grow up different. according to their nature. I insist, then, that there should be no limit to the instruction in the female sex any more than in the male; and I hold that it is for those who would maintain the propriety of any such restriction, to show to us clearly the grounds on which they would have it rest.

Dr. HANCOCK: I think it is scarcely necessary here to say a word in support ef the general views expressed in these papers, because I hold this Association bas by receiving them, given the strongest testimony in favour of the perfect equality

of the sexes in all the highest branches of knowledge; and that the Association has judged rightly and wisely better evidence could not be given than that of the papers now read. It appears to me that the reason of the neglect of the education of girls in the upper and middle schools is that we do not carry out with regard to them the principles which prevail in other departments of education. With regard to the poorer classes, wherever the government recognises the necessity of interfering it interferes equally. Wherever they found boys' schools they found girls schools; and in every parish school founded by the state over the three kingdoms both sexes are taught alike. But when we come to the middle and upper schools it is otherwise. As one of the papers pointed out, at the time of the Reformation we abolished all state endowments for women's education, and doubled those for men, by turning over all the endowments to the purposes of male education. The state does interfere in the higher education; but while it offers the highest bounties to promote the special education of men, it does not give any corresponding advantage to that of women. Now this principle is inconsistent with what it is doing in the matter of common school education. If we hold that universities and grammar-schools are unnecessary, abolish them; but if they are maintained as advantageous to men, we ought to give the same advantages to women. One of the grievances complained of is that a really good education for women is too expensive. The very ground on which grammar-schools are founded, is in order to provide a really good inexpensive education for men, but to women we give no corresponding opportunity. The boarding-school system is one that has been often complained of, but if we had endowed grammar-schools for girls in every moderate sized town, parents would be saved the expense of sending their daughters to boarding-schools, where the charges are often so high as to place the education beyond the reach of many who would enjoy the benefit of grammar-schools in the provincial towns. Now I think this inequality in our educational system produces some very unsatisfactory results. We live in an age when men's opinions are modifying and changing, and it is a serious disadvantage when, in the same family, the women are not educated equally with the men. Wo labour under the disadvantage of the men having more advanced views than the women. In the biography of Sir Samuel Romilly, nothing is more beautiful than the intimate companionship subsisting between that great man and his wife, in consequence of her being qualified to go into all the subjects in which he took an interest. In the recent general election, perhaps the event which created the most interest was the return of Mr. Mill; and in one of his recent books, the dedication to his wife shows how that great man considered that to a refined, accomplished, educated woman he owed much of his own knowledge and accomplishments.

Mr. MANOCKJEE CURSETJEE: I had not the remotest intention when I entered this room of taking part in this day's proceedings, but having heard these very interesting papers read I am tempted to make a few remarks. I have been for the last thirty years endeavouring, to the extent of my humble abilities, to act as a pioneer in the cause of female education in India, and one of the objects I have in attending this meeting is so to add to my stock of general information as to benefit me in my future exertions at home. The two papers read are full of information and sound thought. To show more strongly my approval of these papers, I have to beg the Secretary to solicit for me the permission of the two writers to have these papers translated and published at my own expense in my own country. The question whether women should be educated in a different way from men, or, rather, whether girls should be educated at all, is one which has of late attracted much attention in Bombay. There are some who are opposed to female education altogether, regarding it in the light of an innovation upon the customs of our ancestors. If, then, in your country you have some difficulties to contend with, ours are greater still. With these observations I would accord my sincerest approval of the views propounded in these very eloquent and excellent papers.

Mr. G. W. HASTINGS: I have had the good fortune to be present on three occasions on which, year after year, this subject has been debated in the department, and it must be a great encouragement to us all, whether in this or any other question of social importance which is controverted, to see year by year how the difficulties that encompass the subject are gradually cleared up, and a great

degree of unanimity arrived at. I think the opinions originally propounded in this department in favour of female education will come to be the opinions not only of the Association but of the public at large. I remember when this question was first debated there were great objections raised. It was said we should turn the girls into boys, and do a great deal of damage to the female character. I am not going to speak on that point, because I think it has been pretty well cleared up, as the subject has been discussed year after year. But I am very desirous of saying a few words as to what I think is the real practical answer to the question that has been propounded for discussion to day. Last spring I had the opportunity of visiting the school of which Miss Beale is the lady principal-the Ladies'College at Cheltenham. I went over it and examined the instruction given there, and I received every possible information from Miss Beale, and I must say I was astonished at the extent and accuracy of the knowledge imparted there, and the admirable manner in which the teaching is conducted. Now one great difficulty that Miss Beale had to contend with was the opposition made by the parents, and more especially the mothers of the girls who were pupils at her school. They used to come day after day saying that the course of education pursued was not what they wanted, "You don't," they said, "teach half enough music; you don't give enough time to dancing; you are giving the girls no accomplishments and a great deal too much learning." Now Miss Beale, backed by the founders of the college, was firmly resolved not to give way on that matter. She held the fundamental principle that the education should be essentially substantial. She felt she had to lay a good founda. tion, and accomplishments could be added afterwards. She always insisted that the principal part of the time should be given to the really sound branches of knowledge, and that at least one complex and difficult language should be taught, for the purpose of giving the power of accurate expression; and I was glad to hear that, after some years of labour, she had accomplished what she had set her heart on. that the parents came round to her views, that the college is now nearly, if not quite full, and every confidence is shown by her pupils, and those interested in them, in the course of instruction she has laid down. That, no doubt, is a great triumph, but what I could not help thinking at the time was that, while Miss Beale has succeeded, you cannot hope with regard to many girls' schools in England to have s person of the same firmness and enthusiasm of mind, and the same power of overcoming opposition. I believe some good might be done with those who are less fortunately situated than Miss Beale's pupils, by the establishment of official exami nations. I hold that you must apply to the education of girls the same motive power that has been applied for generations to boys. You must have an efficient test of the education given; there must be certain objects for which the girl has to work. The universities have supplied that want as to boys, though sometimes in an indifferent manner. By that means you have prevented the education of men running off into all sorts of slipshod absurdities which would not have produced the same power of accurate perception as the study of classics and mathematics. And if you want to improve the education of women you must have some certain fixed test. You must say here is a certain line which we insist on your following. You must come up to a certain standard, and if you do not come up to it you cannot enjoy the credit of being a properly educated person; and however much I approve of the suggestion of having endowments for girls' schools, I think that the principle of establishing an efficient test by public examination lies at the root of all. That was what led me here and elsewhere to support the scheme for extending to girls the local examinations of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. You all know how, in regard to our public schools for boys, the test of university examination has told, but with regard to the middle-class boys' schools, till lately there has been no efficient examination, and the consequence was that middle-class education had fallen far below what it ought to be that it had fallen so far, that this Association felt the necessity of approaching government with a memorial praying for an inquiry. The prayer of that memorial was acceded to, and a commission is at this moment inquiring into the condition of middle-class education. Now, I do not hesitate to say, that the chief cause of that unhappy condition of middle-class education, has been the want of any efficient test in the way of the examination of schools. I know that a very considerable impetus has been given to middle-class education by the establishment of the

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 difierent, 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 berett 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. Tremenherc 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. Wiler, 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