efficient will be the men and women attracted to the work, and the better will the duties be performed. I hail with satisfaction, therefore, the additional work now thrown on the managers. These duties and responsibilities will assist to raise up a feeling of esprit de corps amongst them, and will teach them that the whole duty of a manager is not comprised in attending perhaps irregularly-the monthly meetings, and occasionally signing a schedule; but that it includes constant visits to the school, intimacy with the teachers, acquaintance, as far as may be, with the names and faces of the children, and the exercise of that humanising influence of personal contact, which does so much to elevate and refine the tone of a school. Managers, moreover, should see to the healthiness, lighting, and ventilation of the building, and that the playground (where it exists) is utilised to the full. They should take care that the school is well staffed--a most essential point-that the curriculum is not overcrowded with subjects, that the time-table is well arranged, and that intervals of rest and recreation are allowed. In the selection of teachers, while the passes should count for much, the managers should also look to general merit, and prefer a less gifted teacher who can teach, to a universal genius who cannot. They should encourage the teachers to do their duty, and assist them to prevent overstrain by freely withdrawing children, at the same time taking care that the continuity of the instruction is kept up, and that twelve months' work is not pressed into six. They should keep a sharp look-out over the punishment book. They might, where necessary, arrange (I will not here discuss the pros and cons of the subject) for the provision of self-supporting penny meals for the children. And -very important indeed-they should invariably remove the temptation to over-pressure, and relieve the teachers of much strain and anxiety, by paying fixed salaries instead of allowing them, as is still occasionally the case, to depend on the grant.

Space does not permit of the discussion of the questions of Home Lessons and Keeping-in. For myself, the more the former is minimised and the latter abolished, the better I shall be pleased. Where pressure exists, it must of necessity be intensified by home lessons and by keeping-in; the latter prolongs hours already sufficiently extended, the former causes work to be done under the most unfavourable conditions. Yet, unless discouraged by the Department and carefully supervised or forbidden by the managers, both are sure to continue and increase. Nor must I here more than note the extraordinary affection evinced by the Department for that dullest and most useless of all subjects-grammar. It is unfortunate that My Lords' cannot be induced to allow teachers full latitude in the selection of class subjects, and will insist on English,' and always English,' to the detriment of geography, natural science, and history. History, indeed, has a bad time of it, being given the least honoured place in the

6

Code, and almost ignored in the Instructions. Yet, if history were not taught as though it had tailed off with advancing centuries, if its events were made to appear as a record of national progress, and not as a catalogue of battle, murder, and sudden death, no subject would be more interesting, or more useful to our future masters.' Whether technical or industrial training might be introduced into elementary schools, on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, is also too large a subject for present discussion. Give a dog a bad name and hang him;' and it is unfortunate that we confine our useful industrial training, so-called, to 'Industrial' and Reformatory schools, thereby making odious its very name.

6

In these remarks, and in the suggestions which I have ventured to make, I have looked at the question of over-pressure from the point of view of the children, rather than from that of the teachers, for after all the teachers-pupil-teachers and adults-are free agents, while the children are not. At the same time the interests of the teacher and child are largely coincident. Pressure on the latter is doubly pressure on the former; and thus any change of procedure, any relief which is given, any reforms introduced with the primary object of relieving the child, will react to the advantage of the teacher.

The weak spot in the teaching profession is undoubtedly the pupil-teachers-those boys and girls who, in order to live, have to teach, and in order to fit themselves to teach, have at the same time to learn. Dr. Allbutt hardly exaggerated when he said, at Huddersfield, that the pupil-teacher is a mischief to his scholars, a mischief to his superiors, and a mischief to himself;' and it is a matter of congratulation that the number of pupil-teachers is diminishing by thousands year by year, and that they are being replaced by grown men and women.

On the whole, I doubt whether teachers are quite as much to be pitied as their self-constituted spokesmen have of late been so loudly asserting. The profession stands far higher in the social scale than it ever did before. The average salaries of the certificated teachers have increased over 25 per cent. in the last ten years, and not only are they better paid, but, though they may complain of their work, it has certainly become more varied and interesting.

In fine, without wishing to assert that everything is for the best in the best of all possible Departments, or that Education is the one thing needful, we may, I think, feel secure that, under Mr. Mundella's watchful supervision, the Code and its administration are being perfected, year by year, and that over-pressure, if it exists, must tend to disappear as the new Regulations come to be thoroughly understood, and universally applied.

SYDNEY C. BUXTON.

VOL. XVI.-No. 93.

3 K

LAST WORDS ABOUT AGNOSTICISM AND THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY.

THOSE who expected from Mr. Harrison an interesting rejoinder to my reply, will not be disappointed. Those who looked for points skilfully made, which either are, or seem to be, telling, will be fully satisfied. Those who sought pleasure from witnessing a display of literary power, will close his article gratified with the hour they have spent over it. Those only will be not altogether contented who supposed that my outspoken criticism of Mr. Harrison's statements and views, would excite him to an unusual display of that trenchant style for which he is famous; since he has, for the most part, continued the discussion with calmness. After saying thus much it may seem that some apology is needed for continuing a controversy of which many, if not most, readers, have by this time become weary. But gladly as I would leave the matter where it stands, alike to save my own time and others' attention, there are sundry motives which forbid me. Partly my excuse must be the profound importance and perennial interest of the questions raised. Partly I am prompted by the consideration that it is a pity to cease just when a few more pages will make clear sundry of the issues, and leave readers in a better position for deciding. Partly it seems to me wrong to leave grave misunderstandings unrectified. And partly I am reluctant on personal grounds to pass by some of Mr. Harrison's statements unnoticed.

One of these statements, indeed, it would be imperative on me to notice, since it reflects on me in a serious way. Speaking of the Descriptive Sociology, which contains a large part (though by no means all) of the evidence used in the Principles of Sociology, and referring to the compilers who, under my superintendence, selected the materials forming that work, Mr. Harrison says:

Of course these intelligent gentlemen had little difficulty in clipping from hun dreds of books about foreign races sentences which seem to support Mr. Spencer's doctrines. The whole proceeding is too much like that of a famous lawyer who wrote a law-book, and then gave it to his pupils to find the 'cases' which supported his law.

Had Mr. Harrison observed the dates, he would have seen that since the compilation of the Descriptive Sociology was commenced in 1867 and the writing of the Principles of Sociology in 1874, the parallel he draws is not altogether applicable: the fact being that the Descriptive Sociology was commenced seven years in advance for the purpose (as stated in the preface) of obtaining adequate materials for generalizations: sundry of which, I may remark in passing, have been quite at variance with my pre-conceptions.' I think that on consideration, Mr. Harrison will regret having made so grave an insinuation without very good warrant; and he has no warrant. Charity would almost lead one to suppose that he was not fully conscious of its implications when he wrote the above passage; for he practically cancels them immediately afterwards. He says:- But of course one can find in this medley of tables almost any view. And I find facts which make for my view as often as any other.' How this last statement consists with the insinuation that what Mr. Harrison calls a 'medley' of tables contains evidence vitiated by special selection of facts, it is difficult to understand. If the purpose was to justify a foregone conclusion, how does it happen that there are (according to Mr. Harrison) as many facts which make against it as there are facts which make for it?

The question here incidentally raised concerns the primitive religious idea. Which is the original belief, fetichism or the ghosttheory? The answer should profoundly interest all who care to understand the course of human thought; and I shall therefore not apologize for pursuing the question a little further.

Having had them counted, I find that in those four parts of the Descriptive Sociology which give accounts of the uncivilized races, there are 697 extracts which refer to the ghost-theory : illustrating the belief in a wandering double which goes away during sleep, or fainting, or other form of insensibility, and deserts the body for a longer period at death, a double which can enter into and possess other persons, causing disease, epilepsy, insanity, etc., which gives rise to ideas of spirits, demons, etc., and which originates propitiation and worship of ghosts. On the other hand there are 87 extracts which refer to the worship of inanimate objects or belief in their supernatural powers. Now even did these 87 extracts support Mr. Harrison's view, this ratio of 8 to 1 would hardly justify his statement that the facts make for my [his] view

Elsewhere Mr. Harrison contemptuously refers to the Descriptive Sociology as - a pile of clippings made to order.' While I have been writing, the original directions to compilers have been found by my present secretary, Mr. James Bridge; and he has drawn my attention to one of the 'orders.' It says that all works are 'to be read not with a view to any particular class of facts but with a view to all classes of facts.'

as often as any other.' But these 87 extracts do not make for his view. To get proof that the inanimate objects are worshipped for themselves simply, instances must be found in which such objects are worshipped among peoples who have no ghost-theory; for wherever the ghost-theory exists it comes into play and originates those supernatural powers which certain objects are supposed to have. When by unrelated tribes scattered all over the world, we find it held that the souls of the dead are supposed to haunt the neighbouring forests when we learn that the Karen thinks the spirits of the departed dead crowd around him;'2 that the Society Islanders imagined spirits 'surrounded them night and day watching every action; that the Nicobar people annually compel all the bad spirits to leave the dwelling;'4 that an Arab never throws anything away without asking forgiveness of the Efrits he may strike; and that the Jews thought it was because of the multitudes of spirits in synagogues that the dress of the Rabbins become so soon old and torn through their rubbing;'-when we find the accompanying belief to be that ghosts or spirits are capable of going into, and emerging from, solid bodies in general, as well as the bodies of the quick and the dead; it becomes obvious that the presence of one of these spirits swarming around, and capable of injuring or benefiting living persons, becomes a sufficient reason for propitiating an object it is assumed to have entered: the most trivial peculiarity sufficing to suggest possession --such possession being, indeed, in some cases conceived as universal, as by the Eskimo, who think every object is ruled by its or his, inuk, which word signifies "man," and also owner or inhabitant.” Such being the case, there can be no proof that the worship of the objects themselves was primordial, unless it is found to exist where the ghost-theory has not arisen; and I know no instance showing that it does so. But while those facts given in the Descriptive Sociology which imply worship of inanimate objects, or ascription of supernatural powers to them, fail to support Mr. Harrison's view, because always accompanied by the ghost-theory, sundry of them directly negative his view. There is the fact that an echo is regarded as the voice of the fetich; there is the fact that the inhabiting spirit of the fetich is supposed to enjoy the savoury smell' of meat roasted before it; and there is the fact that the fetich is supposed to die and may be revived. Further, there is the summarized statement made by Beecham, an observer of fetichism in the region where it is supposed to be specially exemplified, who says that :

6

2 Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, xxiv. part ii., p. 196.

Ellis, Polynesian Researches, vol. i. p. 525.

Journ. As. Soc. of Ben., xv. pp. 348-49.

Bastian, Mensch, ii. 109, 113.

• Supernatural Religion, 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 112.

Dr. Henry Rink, Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo, p. 37.