losophy of naturalism, which bids us follow the lead of some blind self-developing instinct, is subject to the rebuke uttered by Bishop Butler long ago: "A late author [Wollaston] of great and deserved reputation says, that to place virtue in following nature, is at best a loose way to talk. And he has reason to say this, if what I think he intends to express, though with great decency, be true, that scarce any other sense can be put upon those words, but acting as any of the several parts, without distinction, of a man's nature happened most to incline him."

In these practical and, perhaps, debatable applications we may seem to have got far away from the man whom I upheld as the typical spokesman of philosophical science. In fact the rational hypothesis of evolution as proclaimed by Huxley was, superficially considered, the very opposite of the confessedly anti-rational hypothesis that lends authority to the doctrine of moral laissez-faire. Nevertheless their parentage is certain, and even in Huxley hints of the derived philosophy are not infrequent.

In education, though Huxley's interests were too broad and in some respects too literary to permit a harsh condemnation of humanities, yet all his energy was devoted to introducing science into the curriculum of the universities and schools. No doubt his action was justifiable to a certain extent and redounded to the genuine profit of pure science; but it had also the negative result at least of starting that transformation which has made of our classrooms a nursery for the sophisms of philosophical science. He was convinced that the sciences in themselves are sufficient for a liberal education, and on occasion he was ready to commend a foundation which made "no provision for 'mere literary instruction and education,'" meaning by this "the ordinary classical course of our schools and universities." Biology, he thought, included really the whole philosophy of life; and education he limited to "instruction of the intellect in the laws of nature."

If there was apparent liberality in his extension of these laws of nature to include "not merely things and their forces, but men and their ways," there was also in it the germ of a mischievous ambiguity.

In matters political Huxley's practical sense of affairs kept his judgment clearer, and I do not know that there is anything in his writings which contradicts his expressed fear and dislike of "regimentation and individualism — enforced Socialism and Anarchy." He has ringing words of rebuke for the whole policy of drifting (see, for instance, his letter of March 21, 1886, to a Member of Parliament). Yet the real tendency of his ideas comes out plainly enough in his attitude towards female suffrage. He was himself strongly opposed to the admission of women into politics, holding for biological reasons a sharp distinction between the spheres of the two sexes. Nevertheless, when he came to deal directly with the emancipation of women his method was that of the man in the street. "Let them have a fair field," he said, "but let them understand, as the necessary correlative, that they are to have no favour. Let nature alone sit high above the lists, 'rain influence and judge the prize.'

The new romantic philosophy of evolution as a continuous process of self-creation had scarcely arisen to perturb the rationalism of Huxley, and he was too stalwartly intellectual to have succumbed to it even if it had been in the air; yet the outcome of his teaching was that exaltation of science which laid the minds of the next generation open to its alluring seduction. The final influence of his words, if not always his avowed intention, was to establish the new law of progress: Let nature sit high above the lists; which may be interpreted by his own remark on another occasion: "The best way of getting disorder into order [is] to let it alone." Not many lives in the Victorian era were more unselfish than his, not many men pursued truth with a nobler devotion, not many had broader and finer interests; nevertheless, in the end it

must be said, sadly and reverently, that his legacy to mankind was confusion of ideas and relaxation of judgment.

We have seen the triumphs of Huxley at Oxford, the seat of his enemies. Let us take leave of this somewhat ungrateful theme by calling up another scene at the same university. In 1864, there was a Diocesan Conference at Oxford. There chanced at this time to be in the neighborhood a man who was neither priest nor scientist, a man given to absurd freaks of intellectual charlatanry, yet showing at times also such marvelous and sudden penetration into the heart of things as comes only to genius. It was Disraeli. "He lounged into the assembly," so the scene is described by Froude, "in a black velvet shooting-coat and a wide-awake hat, as if he had been accidentally passing through the town. . . He began in his usual affected manner, slowly and rather pompously, as if he had nothing to say beyond perfunctory platitudes.” And then, turning to the presiding officer, the same Bishop Wilberforce whom four years earlier Huxley had so crushingly rebuked, he uttered one of his enigmatic and unforgettable epigrams: "What is the question now placed before society with a glibness the most astounding? The question is this: Is man an ape or an angel? I, my lord, am on the side of the angels." The audience, not kindly disposed to the speaker, applauded the words as a jest; they were carried the next day over the whole land by the newspapers; they have often been repeated as an example of Disraeli's brilliant but empty wit. I suspect that beneath their surface glitter, and hidden within their metaphor pointed to suit an Oriental taste, these words contain a truth that shall some day break to pieces the new philosophy which Huxley spent his life so devotedly to establish.

EDUCATION FOR EFFICIENCY 1

EUGENE DAVENPORT

It is dangerous to attempt to educate a live boy
with no reference to the vocational.2

THE first general principle to be recognized is this: That industrial education cannot be considered by itself alone any more than industrial people can live alone. It is at best but part of a general scheme of education that aims at a higher efficiency of all classes of people, and it is in this light that industrial education should be studied and its problems solved.

The most significant educational fact to-day is that men of all classes have come to look upon education as a thing that will better their condition; and they mean by that, first of all, something to make their labor more effective and more profitable; and second, they mean something that will enable them to live fuller lives. They have no very clear idea of the methods for bringing it all about, nor have they any very good means of impressing their views and desires upon us at educational conventions; but to better their condition through education is the abiding faith and purpose of all men everywhere, and they will persist until it is realized.

The ruling passion of the race to-day is for education; and colleges and schools of all sorts, both public and private, day classes and night classes, winter and summer, are filled to

1 From Education for Efficiency; copyright. Reprinted by permission of the author and of D. C. Heath and Company.

2 This chapter covers the general line of thought developed by the author in an address at the dedication of the new agricultural building at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, May 28, 1909.

overflowing. The only educational institution that is being deserted is the old-time district school, and that is failing only where it is unable to satisfy the new demands, and where this occurs its lineal successor is the public high school, which is everywhere becoming the favorite agency of modern education of the masses in America.

The training of the young for the duties of life is no longer left to the charity of the church nor to private endowment, however munificent.

We do not ask a man to pay the expense of his own education, and we no longer require the parent to pay for the school of his child. We have come to recognize that in the last analysis the child belongs to the community, and public welfare requires that he be educated. So we have the policy of universal education well established among us and the largest item of public as well as of private expense is for schools.

Now this is not sentiment, it is business; it is not charity, it is statesmanship. We propose to maintain all sorts of education for all sorts of people, and to keep them in school as long as we can so far have we gone already in this worship of the idol of our day and time.

Yes, truly the ruling passion of the race is for education. Individuals would amass wealth; individuals would exert influence and power; individuals would live lives of luxury and ease, but the common purpose of the masses of men from all the walks of life is a set determination to acquire knowledge. Daughters of washerwomen graduate from the high school, and ditchers' sons go to college not by ones and twos, but literally by hundreds and thousands, and if the ruling passion fails in individual cases, we have a law that puts the child into school, willy-nilly, on the ground that to this extent, at least, he is public property.

Now what is to be the consequence of all this? What will the daughter of the washerwoman do after she has graduated