for 1874-5, page xiii). And it is also no doubt true that in many schools in which these subjects were more or less efficiently kept up, they were not much noticed by the inspectors, after the introduction of the Revised Code. A good deal of unfair blame has been bestowed on the authors of the Code, on the schools, and on the inspectors, for this. We must bear in mind, as regards the blame which is sometimes given to the Education Department,(a). That it was an essential thing to be assured that the elements were thoroughly done; and that if the effort of the Education Department was a little overstrained in this direction, to the damage of other subjects, it was a fault in the right direction. No great change, or reform, is likely to be perfect at first; and possibly it would have been better if from the very first grants had been given, and payments by results had been made, for these subjects, as well as for reading, writing, and arithmetic, as is now done. But at any rate it is better that we should have first made sure of the elements, and be now gradually creeping up to other subjects, than that, by aiming at too much, we should have run the least risk of making the elements imperfect. Even now, it is a question whether some of the time likely to be given, under the Code of 1875, to geography and English grammar, might not be better employed in English composition, and improved, or extended, arithmetic.

(b). As regards the blame which is sometimes given to the schools, it must not be forgotten that the wishes and aspirations of Parliament, as to the results to be obtained from our elementary schools, have always been ahead of the means which Parliament has been willing to put at the disposal of

schools for the purpose of securing such results. The schools-all at any rate, except those in the biggest towns-might fairly say to Parliament, "You call upon us not only to secure to each child the possession of the elements, but also to give him some culture. Yet you decline, on the grounds of expense, and of social and religious differences, to organize us so thoroughly that our time may not be wasted, to supply us with a really competent staff of teachers, or to secure the universally regular attendance of our scholars." our scholars." Many of these schools-those for example in rural districts, or those amid a very poor and fluctuating population— could not really do justice to the elementary subjects, and at the same time teach such subjects as geography, grammar, and history. And in so far as the Revised Code forced such schools to give up their more tempting and showy work, and to apply themselves to the drudgery of the essentials, it did good service.

(c). As regards the blame which has been sometimes given to the inspectors for their having dropped these subjects in their examinations, it must be remembered, that the Revised Code, whilst it doubled or trebled the inspectors' mechanical and mental labour in the inspection of the schools, and really, by the great changes it introduced, may almost be said to have forced them into a new modus vivendi, gave them at first no additional assistance in their work. They were expected to inspect as many schools in the week, under the Revised Code, as they had inspected under the Old Code, and yet were told to do it in a way which took them three times as long, and tired them incalculably more. If all the inspectors had been from the first supplied, as

they are now, with certificated teachers, as assistantinspectors, to help them in conducting the individual examination in the elements which was required by the Revised Code, and thus to relieve them from some of the mechanical drudgery of their work, they would have gladly applied themselves to the more congenial task of keeping up the instruction in higher subjects.

27. Difficulty of Teaching English Grammar: Knowledge of Old English Required. But to return to the fifth year pupil-teacher's grammar lesson (see § 25). There is no more difficult subject with which an inspector has to deal, whether in the elementary schools or in the training colleges, than the question of teaching English grammar. The difficulty has two parts-the incurable and the curable. The incurable part may be dismissed in a few words. It lies in the fact that English is a modern and colloquial as well as a literary language, very much altered in the course of centuries, by loss of inflexions and by the general processes of phonetic corruption, from its ancient and much more highly inflected form, or forms; and that, consequently, no person who has not studied Old English, to say nothing of any other cognate German dialects, can treat English grammar with any safety. This is why so many of those persons, who teach English grammar, or examine in it, or write books about it, however versatile and wary they may be, are liable to blunder, to find themselves making mistakes which are ludicrous to the student of Old English, and which make all those who have to deal with the subject feel how unsatisfactory it is, in comparison with arithmetic or composition, for purposes of instruction in elementary schools. To ask a boy

to parse "Woe worth the chase" or "methinks," is to demand from him a good deal more than a knowledge of modern English. And, as I say, this evil is, for the purposes of elementary schools, incurable.

28. Knowledge of another Language, such as Latin, Desirable. The curable part of the difficulty of dealing with instruction in English grammar in schools requires more consideration. English grammar is unfortunately taught in our elementary schools by teachers who for the most part are unacquainted with the grammar of any other language. The consequence of this is that they have no power of steadying their thoughts and testing their conclusions in English grammar, by comparison of them with their thoughts and conclusions in the grammar of any other language living or dead. The inspector, even if he does not know anything of Old English or German, is saved from many a mistake into which the teacher falls by his knowledge of Latin; and it is impossible to overrate the importance of even a little knowledge of Latin for the purposes of an elementary school teacher. The study of grammar is not of much value, until it can be treated comparatively. It would not be worth while, probably, to require our elementary school teachers to learn Old English or German, for the sake of teaching English grammar. But it is well worth while to make them learn something of Latin; because some knowledge of that language will not only help them in giving grammar lessons, but will enlarge and enlighten their understanding upon the whole range of subjects, from spelling up to history, with which as learners or teachers they have to deal. It is to be hoped that the recent insertion, in the schedule

of qualifications required of pupil-teachers, of the column headed "additional subjects" will do something towards remedying this defect in the teachers of our elementary schools (see Appendix III.). But the degree of effect to be produced by this regulation will be found to depend very much on the inspector. If, when he inspects a school and hears a pupil-teacher giving a grammar lesson, he takes the opportunity to inquire whether he is studying Latin, German, or any other language than English, and expresses his disapproval, if he finds that that is not the case, both to the pupil-teacher and the principal teacher, it will soon become common for our teachers to have some knowledge of another language besides their own. I look, therefore, upon this great defect in the present teaching of English grammar in our elementary schools, viz., that teachers do not know anything of the grammar of any other language, as a curable defect. I observe that the Education Department is making an effort to amend the defect; and I think that it now rests with the inspectors to push that effort home.

29. How to Teach English Grammar.-Another curable defect in the teaching of English grammar as commonly practised in our elementary schools, is that it is taught as if it were a highly-inflected language, instead of being taught as a language which depends for its construction more upon the position and logical relation of its words than upon their inflexions. The proper way to teach English grammar is not to begin, as in the case of Latin, or of any other highly-inflected language, with the study of the noun, adjective, and verb, and their inflexions, but to begin with the study of their logical relations; or, in other words, to begin with