Note to p. 23.
I have spoken in the text of Analytical Chemistry as an instrument of education not unsuited to boys under certain circumstances. In so speaking I surrendered my own first impressions out of deference to the authority of a distinguished member of the University to which I belong. But the opinion of Professor Voelcker on the other side is entitled to every weight, because his bias would naturally be expected to act in favour of chemistry; and he speaks after long experience of continental education, and also of the class of Englishmen whose education is here treated of. I am very much obliged to him for allowing me to print the following letter, called out by a difference of opinion in arranging questions for the West of England Examination. I ought, however, to say, that the questions to which Professor Voelcker refers are not so much intended for boys as for young men of 16 or 17; and that the particular point aimed at is to give candidates an opportunity of proving that they have handled, and can distinguish some of the substances about which they write, and that they have not acquired their knowledge from books only; in short, that their knowledge is real and not only verbal.
Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the age at which the study of chemistry should begin, there will be none among real educators or lovers of science as to the kind of knowledge to be encouraged.
My dear Sir,
I find that I differ from your friend as to the character of the chemistry which may be taught with advantage in schools.
I would restrict the instruction to the teaching of chemical physics, and have a very strong conviction that it is not desirable to teach practical chemistry, or, indeed, chemistry properly so called, in schools.
As an educational means, chemistry is not to be compared with other means of training the mind. The reasons are too obvious to require notice. The direct benefit resulting from the teaching of analytical chemistry in schools is nil.
Chemical science I believe can only be taught by lectures, illustrated by experiments, and by practical instruction in the laboratory. The lecturing system applied to schools for lads who ought to be made to work in class-hours, I consider to be one of the delusions of the present time, a delusion fraught with evil consequences. And as to the practical instruction, I beg to say that the question whether it is desirable or not to attach laboratories to schools, is no longer a matter of individual opinion, insomuch as it is a fact that laboratories in connexion with schools have proved complete failures.
I grant that two or three boys out of fifty may be benefited by practical instruction in experimental and analytical chemistry, but am also bound to add, that the rest only waste time which may be more usefully employed. This is the result not only of my own personal experience, but also that of many of my scientific friends in this country, at least of those who love science and desire its prosperity. Moreover, I would direct your attention to the fact, that the attempt has been made in Germany, on a large scale, to teach chemistry practically in schools for lads under 16 years of age, and has proved so complete a failure, that it has been all but universally abandoned in my native country.
You will thus observe that I differ from your friend in principle, and as I
