I

other classes of discoverers, unchallenged? Can it be that a selfish love of notoriety is the spring of those exertions which have benefited mankind with all the progress of the sciences and arts? have been astonished to see that one witness before the Commission, himself a scientific man of the highest standing, holds all original research to be selfish and demoralising. He said (Question 1,287), speaking of vivisection: "It is amenable to abuse when employed for the purposes of research; and I must say that, with regard to all absorbing studies, that is the besetting sin of them, and of original research, that they lift a man so entirely above the ordinary sphere of daily duty that they betray him into selfishness and unscrupulous neglect of duty." And again he says: "I mean to say that vivisection, in its application to research, may be somewhat more demoralising than other kinds of devotion to research; every kind of original research being a gratification of self, and liable to develop selfishness, which of course is the root of all unscrupulousness." Did ever a scientific man take so extraordinary a view of the moral aspects of the work in which he was engaged? I had previously been under the impression that, of all kinds of occupations, the labours of the scientific discoverer are least open to the charge of selfishness. The labours of the engineer, lawyer, banker, merchant, are not specially selfish, but they often result in the acquisition of so much riches that the individual may fairly aspire to the pleasure of shooting his own partridges, or even renting a grouse moor. But I should like to know how far the salary received by a professor of practical physiology, in respect of his skilful cutting up of dogs and cats, would go, after the payment of household expenses, towards the purchase of the privilege of slaughtering birds in the fashionable way. The vivisector, like most discoverers in pure science, must look for his reward in the pleasure of pursuing knowledge for its own sake, or for the sake of the millions of men who will in the future be benefited by his discoveries. Of course, I do not mean to say that the vivisector has clearly before his mind in each experiment the good of mankind generally. Men are usually driven to work for a great end by some instinctive tendency, some pleasure in the action itself, or some minor motive, just as the bee gathers a store of honey, not because he is conscious of its future utility, but because it is agreeable to gather it. We approve the industrious actions of the bee because they lead to a useful end, and it is quite sufficient defence of the vivisector's character that his labours are likely to result in the diminution of disease and suffering.

Moreover, suppose that the vivisector is consciously urged on by the love of reputation or fame, I have yet to learn that there is anything immoral or selfish in such love. Milton has described the love of fame as "that last infirmity of noble minds." To call it

the love of notoriety is to use a question-begging epithet, assuming that vivisection is a cruel and morally bad practice. Notoriety is reputation gained by bad means, or those injurious to the community; fame is reputation gained by good means, or those beneficial to the community. There are not the slightest grounds upon which to attribute notoriety to the vivisector, while we attribute fame to the great statesman, orator, artist, engineer. And the desire of reputation, too, may be merely the desire of means towards an unselfish end. One who aspires to repeat the labours of a Harvey, a Jenner, or a Simpson, might well adopt the words which Tennyson has put into the mouth of Merlin :

Looking to all the circumstances, we must conclude that this agitation against vivisection consists in a kind of sentimental frenzy, excited in persons of peculiar susceptibility by the minute descriptions of novel and sometimes painful operations described in books on practical physiology. The actual amount of pain inflicted cannot really be the ground of agitation, because, on any supposition, the physical pain needlessly inflicted by sportsmen, ratcatchers, and others, is infinitely greater. As I have already maintained, the moral element of cruelty is altogether wanting in vivisection-in all but a very few cases. It is merely the novelty of the thing to people's minds, the apparent villany and cool-bloodedness of cutting live animals, which excites the imagination. Sociology and psychology enable us perfectly to comprehend the frenzy of the Anti-Vivisection Society, but science and common sense will teach us to bear a slight wound to our sympathetic feelings that we may secure immeasurable blessings for future generations. Vaccination has already saved more lives than all the wars of Napoleon destroyed. Chloroform has prevented inconceivable amounts of pain. From the continued application of experiment to physiology we may look for other gifts such as these. "Where the pursuit of scientific truth and common compassion come into collision, it seems to me that the ends of civilisation, no less than of morality, require us to be guided by the latter or higher principle." So says Mr. Hutton in his separate report as member of the Commission;

but the pursuit of scientific truth is the highest and most civilising and most compassionate work in which a man can engage. If he holds that we may not cause pain to a dog that we may save greater pain to a thousand human beings, then further argument would be useless. Mr. Hutton also seems to think that it is more justifiable to make experiments upon sheep, in a way likely to benefit other sheep, than if we experiment purely in the interests of man. We may injure one sensitive creature for the good of other creatures of the same rank, but not for the good of creatures of higher or, I suppose, lower rank. If this be his meaning, I can only allow that he possesses moral sentiments of a kind to which I am wholly a stranger.

I do not believe that there is any need for legislation in this matter at all. It is undesirable that students should privately practise vivisection, and it is most desirable that anesthetics should be employed to the utmost possible extent; but after the attention of the public has been so strongly drawn to the subject, it is very unlikely that the slight abuses shown to have occurred will be repeated. The professors of practical physiology will have every reason to keep a watch, and they are more likely to be able to restrain their students than the police or the societies; but if prosecutions like that of M. Magnan are to be repeated, it will be necessary to protect vivisection by legislation, giving the duly qualified dissector a licence to make experiments, somewhat as provided in Dr. Playfair's bill.

In view of the infinite benefits to mankind and the lower animals which we may confidently anticipate from this tardy application of true scientific method to the phenomena of life, it is altogether out of the question that we should attempt to repress or hinder vivisection. Legislation should be directed to legalising the practice on the part of those who are most likely to conduct it usefully, skilfully, and, as far as circumstances will allow, painlessly. W. STANLEY JEVONS.

SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THE EDUCATION ACT AND CODE OF 1870.

THERE is an aspect of the Education question so purely administrative that some hope may be entertained that the results of recent legislation may be subjected to an analysis as free from political or religious controversy as questions of natural science ought to be. The Government has become responsible only for the secular instruction in the school, and takes little cognizance of its external relations. An examination might be made of the consequences of the Education Act 1870, as to the increase of the number, resources, and efficiency of the inspected schools, without entering into any other matter affecting the preference of one class of schools over another, or lying beyond the region of their secular success.

The intention of this paper, after a few preliminary remarks indispensable for a right understanding of what follows, is to make such an analysis of some of the results of the Education Act up to the period of the latest statistics, on the 31st of August, 1875.

The origin of efforts for the education of the manual labour class made during the last hundred years cannot be traced to the Civil Power. It was otherwise at the Reformation, and during the reigns of Edward VI., Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., when the Free Grammar Schools were founded chiefly by appropriations of ecclesiastical property, and were made accessible to all who had leisure and means to avail themselves of these advantages. Not a few of the children of yeomen, of humble tradesmen, and even some sons of artisans, or labourers, were educated in these schools. This provision was made, to a great extent, in the interest of the reformed ecclesiastical polity. But, after the Commonwealth, the interference of the Civil Power to promote education was intermittent and feeble.

The Sunday schools were founded, in the last century, by Christian charity. They gave rise to the day schools of the religious communions. For the promotion of such schools, the National School Society came to represent the Church, and the British and Foreign School Society chiefly the Congregational Dissenters and the Society of Friends. There were also many private adventure schools. But very few elementary schools were founded by any civil authority. Until 1832, these two societies had received neither recognition nor aid from the Government, though their schools, founded and supported by voluntary contributions, had even then become

numerous.

The first interference of the Government asserted no authority, and gave little evidence of interest. Parliament was moved, in 1832, to vote £20,000 to be distributed in grants to promote the building of schools connected with these two associations. The amount of the grants was determined by the area of the schoolrooms, but no conditions were imposed as to the scholastic or sanitary structure of the buildings. Neither plans, nor specifications, nor school deeds were submitted. The stability of the schoolhouses and the security of the trust were to be assured by the two societies, without any inspection or check from the Government. This grant of £20,000 was annually voted until 1839, when the Treasury had distributed £140,000 in aid of voluntary contributions for the building of schools.

But the growth of the sense of the political and social importance of national education had been more rapid than this increase of the number of schools. Yet even this conviction was in 1839 by no means general. It was almost confined to leading statesmen, economists, and members of Parliament. The desire to plant the Christian faith, by making the Bible an open book to the masses, stimulated the compassion and zeal of the religious bodies to efforts and sacrifices. But out of the range of this desire there was rather a dread that education might unfit the workman for manual labour.

When, therefore, the Government founded the Committee of Council on Education, in 1839, and increased the amount of the annual grant, there was no other civil authority or organization as zealous for popular education as were the religious communions and their associations. The day schools which existed were in their hands, and had become numerous. The several representative bodies entrusted with local government were occupied each with some administrative improvement. With rare exceptions, they would have been little inclined to exercise any power which might have been confided to them for the founding and management of schools. On the other hand, there was among the religious communions a burning zeal to establish and support schools-a zeal which even regarded all action of the civil power with jealousy, and claimed as a function of the clergy, or of the church or congregation, authority to bring up the youth of this country in the Christian faith. The Government could not, however, divest itself of responsibility for all the purely civil aspects of education. The new Department had primarily to solve the question how the schools of the religious communions could be made efficient for all secular purposes, while the responsibility for religious instruction continued to be charged on the church and the congregation.

In attempting the solution of this problem, the Department had to encounter various antagonistic forces, which regarded each succes