BELL CHAIR OF THE THEORY, HISTORY,

AND ART OF EDUCATION.*

THE first occupant of a Chair new to the Universities of Great Britain is placed in a somewhat peculiar position. It may be fairly expected of him not merely to correlate the new subject with the other studies of a University, but to vindicate for it a right to the promotion which it has obtained, to explain its bearing on the educational interests of the country at large, and to satisfy the sceptical as to its direct utility. Were I, however, to undertake to maintain a thesis so large, I should weary even the well-disposed listener, and probably fail after all to convince or convert the unfriendly. A broad treatment of the subject would involve me in a range of argument, fact, and illustration, so wide and varied, that I think it better to assume very much on the general question. I am entitled indeed to make large assumptions, if the educational movement of the last thirty-five years has had any genuineness and honesty in it; if education * Inaugural Address.

has been anything more than a pretext for political and ecclesiastical contention. It is not improbable, moreover, that by limiting my range of observation, and confining myself to the objections taken to the foundation of this particular Chair, while at the same time giving some indication of my own point of view with respect to the question of Education, I may do more than could be accomplished by a general treatment, to reconcile the hostile and the sceptical to this new event in educational history. But, first, a few words as to the foundation.

DR. ANDREW BELL was born in St. Andrews, in 1753. At the ancient University of that town he was distinguished in most subjects of study, but especially in Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. After spending some years as a tutor in the Southern States of America, he returned to this country, took orders in the Church of England, and sailed for Madras. There, he was appointed to an army chaplaincy, and undertook, along with his other duties, the superintendence of the Military Male Orphan Asylum, which was instituted after his arrival in the Presidency. It was while devoting himself with singular earnestness and assiduity to the work of education in this hospital that he was driven, almost by the necessity of his position, to invent the system of mutual tuition with which his name will be ever associated. After Dr. Bell's return to this country he devoted himself to the dissemination of his system, being sustained in his

unceasing activity not a little by the rivalry of Joseph Lancaster. Out of the labours of the latter grew the British and Foreign School Society, and out of the labours of the former the National Society in connection with the Church of England.

The principle of mutual instruction of boys by boys was the discovery by which Dr. Bell hoped to regenerate the world. But in truth the invention and application of this method was not his sole merit. He was a genuine teacher, having quick sympathy with the nature of boys, and great readiness of resource in the schoolroom. Many of our established practices were first introduced by him, and some of his improvements are only now being adopted. My impression is that prior to his undertaking the charge of the Madras Orphan Asylum in 1789, it was not usual strictly to classify the pupils of a primary school; and we are all aware that it is only the other day that the leading schools of Scotland began to arrange their pupils in classes according to their progress, and that in some schools of high reputation (incredible as it may seem), classification on this basis has not even yet been attempted! I shall not on this occasion enter further into Dr. Bell's educational reforms, but content myself with saying that at present, and until better informed, I am disposed to regard him as the founder of the Art of Primary Education in this country, as a conscious art.

Dr. Bell destined his large fortune mainly for the foundation of specific Educational Institutions, the

residue to be applied to educational purposes, according to the discretion of his Trustees, enjoining on them always to have due regard to the promotion of his system. The interest of this money was for many years paid away in small grants to various schools throughout the country in connection with the Church of Scotland; but after the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, in 1872, which made universal provision for schools, the Trustees, who at present are the Earl of Leven and Melville, Lord Kirkcaldie, and Mr. John Cook, W.S., resolved to employ a portion of the funds in their keeping for the purpose of instituting Chairs of Education in Edinburgh and St. Andrews, to be called the "Bell Chairs of the Theory, History, and Art of Education,” imposing on the occupants the duty of expounding, in the course of their prelections, Bell's principles and system. They thereby fulfilled in the most effectual way, under existing circumstances, the objects which Dr. Bell had in view in originally constituting the trust. Certainly no one who has read the "Life of Dr. Bell," by Southey, will doubt that this resolution of the Trustees would have been in the highest degree pleasing to him. Almost with one voice the teaching profession have hailed the action of the Trustees as a great educational advance. It has been felt that the three gentlemen above named have conferred honour on a department of work which Dr. Bell delighted to honour. They have unquestionably done very much to promote education in Scotland, not only by raising

the work of the schoolmaster in public estimation, but also by attracting public attention to education as being not merely a question of national machinery for the institution of schools (essential though this undoubtedly is), but a question of principles and methods -in brief, of philosophy.

I can do no more on this occasion than make a merely passing allusion to the zealous efforts of the late Professor Pillans to do what the Bell Trustees have now accomplished.

A Chair of the Theory, History, and Art of Education having been instituted, we have now to ask what the objects of such a Chair are. There has been much misunderstanding with regard to these. Some are at a loss to know what there is to say on education within the walls of a University, and what the principles and history of that subject have to do with the schoolmaster's work. Others, who have not to be instructed on these points, dread the competition of an Education Chair with the existing Training Colleges. The latter class of objectors is the more important. They are at least aware that the necessity of training teachers in methods and in school organization is not a question to be now for the first time debated. They know that the question has been settled these thirty years by the combined intelligence of the Government of the country and of the Education Committees of the various Churches. The former class of objectors have nothing to urge against the