of a fair measure of ability, on the one side, and of natural capacity on the other, the intellectual faculties, whatever bias happens to belong to them, may receive a culture, and a preparation for culture, incalculably surpassing that which is ordinarily effected at school. Let it be granted that school education is as good as it can be, under all circumstances:—but home education may be good absolutely. The one conveys certain easily communicated portions, or samples of learning; the other may impart the elements of all, in due proportion; and may put the mind in a position to accumulate knowledge in any one direction, with the greatest advantage.
Another, and a very material point of contrast, obtruding itself while comparing public and private education is this, that, at school, and indeed in almost all cases of professional teaching—honourable as is the profession, and upright as may be the intentions of the teacher, there must, from obvious motives, be far more regard had to immediate and ostensible results—to the tangible product of the process of instruction, than to its remote influence and future effect, as bearing upon the adult development and actual employment of the faculties. Ordinary teachers, and even the most efficient and distinguished of them, are almost inevitably impelled by the wish, whether confessed or not, to make it appear, in no questionable manner, that they are fairly earning their remuneration, and are honestly rendering the quid pro quo to their employers. How conscious soever they may be of aiming always at the real advantage of their pupils, they can hardly have stoicism enough to sustain, in silence, the imputation, very likely to be thrown upon them by inconsiderate and ignorant parents, of not having imparted an amount of learning equivalent to the stipend received. The training of the mind with a view to remote results is not what can fairly be expected from professional teachers.
