machine, the actions of which are explicable by the known laws of
matter and motion, is unquestionably largely true. But it is also true,
that the living body is a synthesis of innumerable physiological
elements, each of which may nearly be described, in Wolff's words, as a
fluid possessed of a "vis essentialis" and a "solidescibilitas"; or, in
modern phrase, as protoplasm susceptible of structural metamorphosis
and functional metabolism: and that the only machinery, in the precise
sense in which the Cartesian school understood mechanism, is, that
which co-ordinates and regulates these physiological units into an
organic whole.
In fact, the body is a machine of the nature of an army, not of that of
a watch or of a hydraulic apparatus. Of this army each cell is a
soldier, an organ a brigade, the central nervous system headquarters
and field telegraph, the alimentary and circulatory system the
commissariat. Losses are made good by recruits born in camp, and the
life of the individual is a campaign, conducted successfully for a
number of years, but with certain defeat in the long run.
The efficacy of an army, at any given moment, depends on the health of
the individual soldier, and on the perfection of the machinery by which
he is led and brought into action at the proper time; and, therefore,
if the analogy holds good, there can be only two kinds of diseases, the
one dependent on abnormal states of the physiological units, the other
on perturbations of their co-ordinating and alimentative machinery.
Hence, the establishment of the cell theory, in normal biology, was
swiftly followed by a "cellular pathology," as its logical counterpart.
I need not remind you how great an instrument of investigation this
doctrine has proved in the hands of the man of genius to whom its
development is due, and who would probably be the last to forget that
abnormal conditions of the co-ordinative and distributive machinery of
the body are no less important factors of disease.
Henceforward, as it appears to me, the connection of medicine with the
biological sciences is clearly indicated. Pure pathology is that branch
of biology which defines the particular perturbation of cell-life, or
of the co-ordinating machinery, or of both, on which the phenomena of
disease depend.
Those who are conversant with the present state of biology will hardly
hesitate to admit that the conception of the life of one of the higher
animals as the summation of the lives of a cell aggregate, brought into
harmonious action by a co-ordinative machinery formed by some of these
cells, constitutes a permanent acquisition of physiological science.
But the last form of the battle between the animistic and the physical
views of life is seen in the contention whether the physical analysis
of vital phenomena can be carried beyond this point or not.
There are some to whom living protoplasm is a substance, even such as
Harvey conceived the blood to be, "summâ cum providentiâ et intellectu
in finem certum agens, quasi ratiocinio quodam;" and who look with as
little favour as Bichat did, upon any attempt to apply the principles
and the methods of physics and chemistry to the investigation of the
vital processes of growth, metabolism, and contractility. They stand
upon the ancient ways; only, in accordance with that progress towards
democracy, which a great political writer has declared to be the fatal
characteristic of modern times, they substitute a republic formed by a
few billion of "animulae" for the monarchy of the all-pervading
"anima."
Others, on the contrary, supported by a robust faith in the universal
applicability of the principles laid down by Descartes, and seeing that
the actions called "vital" are, so far as we have any means of knowing,
nothing but changes of place of particles of matter, look to molecular
physics to achieve the analysis of the living protoplasm itself into a
molecular mechanism. If there is any truth in the received doctrines of
physics, that contrast between living and inert matter, on which Bichat
lays so much stress, does not exist. In nature, nothing is at rest,
nothing is amorphous; the simplest particle of that which men in their
blindness are pleased to call "brute matter" is a vast aggregate of
molecular mechanisms performing complicated movements of immense
rapidity, and sensitively adjusting themselves to every change in the
surrounding world. Living matter differs from other matter in degree
and not in kind; the microcosm repeats the macrocosm; and one chain of
causation connects the nebulous original of suns and planetary systems
with the protoplasmic foundation of life and organisation.
From this point of view, pathology is the analogue of the theory of
perturbations in astronomy; and therapeutics resolves itself into the
discovery of the means by which a system of forces competent to
eliminate any given perturbation may be introduced into the economy.
And, as pathology bases itself upon normal physiology, so therapeutics
rests upon pharmacology; which is, strictly speaking, a part of the
great biological topic of the influence of conditions on the living
organism, and has no scientific foundation apart from physiology.
It appears to me that there is no more hopeful indication of the
progress of medicine towards the ideal of Descartes than is to be
derived from a comparison of the state of pharmacology, at the present
day, with that which existed forty years ago. If we consider the
knowledge positively acquired, in this short time, of the _modus
operandi_ of urari, of atropia, of physostigmin, of veratria, of
casca, of strychnia, of bromide of potassium, of phosphorus, there can
surely be no ground for doubting that, sooner or later, the
pharmacologist will supply the physician with the means of affecting,
in any desired sense, the functions of any physiological element of the
body. It will, in short, become possible to introduce into the economy
a molecular mechanism which, like a very cunningly-contrived torpedo,
shall find its way to some particular group of living elements, and
cause an explosion among them, leaving the rest untouched.
The search for the explanation of diseased states in modified
cell-life; the discovery of the important part played by parasitic
organisms in the aetiology of disease; the elucidation of the action of
medicaments by the methods and the data of experimental physiology;
appear to me to be the greatest steps which have ever been made towards
the establishment of medicine on a scientific basis. I need hardly say
they could not have been made except for the advance of normal biology.
There can be no question, then, as to the nature or the value of the
connection between medicine and the biological sciences. There can be
no doubt that the future of pathology and of therapeutics, and,
therefore, that of practical medicine, depends upon the extent to which
those who occupy themselves with these subjects are trained in the
methods and impregnated with the fundamental truths of biology.
And, in conclusion, I venture to suggest that the collective sagacity
of this congress could occupy itself with no more important question
than with this: How is medical education to be arranged, so that,
without entangling the student in those details of the systematist
which are valueless to him, he may be enabled to obtain a firm grasp of
the great truths respecting animal and vegetable life, without which,
notwithstanding all the progress of scientific medicine, he will still
find himself an empiric?
* * * * *
Footnotes:
[1] _Discours de la Méthode_, 6e partie, Ed. Cousin, p. 193.
[2] _Ibid_. pp. 193 and 211.
[3] _De la Formation du Foetus_.
[4] _Theoria Generationis_, 1759.
[5] _Anatomie générale_, i. p. liv.
XV
THE SCHOOL BOARDS: WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND WHAT THEY MAY DO.
[1870]
An electioneering manifesto would be out of place in the pages of this
Review; but any suspicion that may arise in the mind of the reader that
the following pages partake of that nature, will be dispelled, if he
reflect that they cannot be published [1] until after the day on which
the ratepayers of the metropolis will have decided which candidates for
seats upon the Metropolitan School Board they will take, and which they
will leave.
As one of those candidates, I may be permitted to say, that I feel much
in the frame of mind of the Irish bricklayer's labourer, who bet
another that he could not carry him to the top of the ladder in his
hod. The challenged hodman won his wager, but as the stakes were handed
over, the challenger wistfully remarked, "I'd great hopes of falling at
the third round from the top." And, in view of the work and the worry
which awaits the members of the School Boards, I must confess to an
occasional ungrateful hope that the friends who are toiling upwards
with me in their hod, may, when they reach "the third round from the
top," let me fall back into peace and quietness.
But whether fortune befriend me in this rough method, or not, I should
like to submit to those of whom I am potential, but of whom I may not
be an actual, colleague, and to others who may be interested in this
most important problem--how to get the Education Act to work
efficiently--some considerations as to what are the duties of the
members of the School Boards, and what are the limits of their power.
I suppose no one will be disposed to dispute the proposition, that the
prime duty of every member of such a Board is to endeavour to
administer the Act honestly; or in accordance, not only with its
letter, but with its spirit. And if so, it would seem that the first
step towards this very desirable end is, to obtain a clear notion of
what that letter signifies, and what that spirit implies; or, in other
words, what the clauses of the Act are intended to enjoin and to
forbid. So that it is really not admissible, except for factious and
abusive purposes, to assume that any one who endeavours to get at this
clear meaning is desirous only of raising quibbles and making
difficulties.
Reading the Act with this desire to understand it, I find that its
provisions may be classified, as might naturally be expected, under two
heads: the one set relating to the subject-matter of education; the
other to the establishment, maintenance, and administration of the
schools in which that education is to be conducted.
Now it is a most important circumstance, that all the sections of the
Act, except four, belong to the latter division; that is, they refer to
mere matters of administration. The four sections in question are the
seventh, the fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the ninety-seventh. Of
these, the seventh, the fourteenth, and the ninety-seventh deal with
the subject-matter of education, while the sixteenth defines the nature
of the relations which are to exist between the "Education Department"
(an euphemism for the future Minister of Education) and the School
Boards. It is the sixteenth clause which is the most important, and, in
some respects, the most remarkable of all. It runs thus:--
"If the School Board do, or permit, any act in contravention of, or
fail to comply with, the regulations, according to which a school
provided by them is required by this Act to be conducted, the
Education Department may declare the School Board to be, and such
Board shall accordingly be deemed to be, a Board in default, and
the Education Department may proceed accordingly; and every act, or
omission, of any member of the School Board, or manager appointed
by them, or any person under the control of the Board, shall be
deemed to be permitted by the Board, unless the contrary be proved.
"If any dispute arises as to whether the School Board have done, or
permitted, any act in contravention of, or have failed to comply
with, the said regulations, _the matter shall be referred to the
Education Department, whose decision thereon shall be final_."
It will be observed that this clause gives the Minister of Education
absolute power over the doings of the School Boards. He is not only the
administrator of the Act, but he is its interpreter. I had imagined
that on the occurrence of a dispute, not as regards a question of pure
administration, but as to the meaning of a clause of the Act, a case
might be taken and referred to a court of justice. But I am led to
believe that the Legislature has, in the present instance, deliberately
taken this power out of the hands of the judges and lodged it in those
of the Minister of Education, who, in accordance with our method of
making Ministers, will necessarily be a political partisan, and who may
be a strong theological sectary into the bargain. And I am informed by
members of Parliament who watched the progress of the Act, that the
responsibility for this unusual state of things rests, not with the
Government, but with the Legislature, which exhibited a singular
disposition to accumulate power in the hands of the future Minister of
Education, and to evade the more troublesome difficulties of the
education question by leaving them to be settled between that Minister
and the School Boards.
I express no opinion whether it is, or is not, desirable that such
powers of controlling all the School Boards in the country should be
possessed by a person who may be, like Mr. Forster, eminently likely to
use these powers justly and wisely, but who also may be quite the
reverse. I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that such powers
are given to the Minister, whether he be fit or unfit. The extent of
these powers becomes apparent when the other sections of the Act
referred to are considered. The fourth clause of the seventh section
says:--
"The school shall be conducted in accordance with the conditions
required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain
an annual Parliamentary grant."
What these conditions are appears from the following clauses of the
ninety-seventh section:--
"The conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in
order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant shall be those
contained in the minutes of the Education Department in force for
the time being.... Provided that no such minute of the Education
Department, not in force at the time of the passing of this Act,
shall be deemed to be in force until it has lain for not less than
one month on the table of both Houses of Parliament."
Let us consider how this will work in practice. A school established by
a School Board may receive support from three sources--from the rates,
the school fees, and the Parliamentary grant. The latter may be as
great as the two former taken together; and as it may be assumed,
without much risk of error, that a constant pressure will be exerted by
the ratepayers on the members who represent them to get as much out of
the Government, and as little out of the rates, as possible, the School
Boards will have a very strong motive for shaping the education they
give, as nearly as may be, on the model which the Education Minister
offers for their imitation, and for the copying of which he is prepared
to pay.
The Revised Code did not compel any schoolmaster to leave off teaching
anything; but, by the very simple process of refusing to pay for many
kinds of teaching, it has practically put an end to them. Mr. Forster
is said to be engaged in revising the Revised Code; a successor of his
may re-revise it--and there will be no sort of check upon these
revisions and counter revisions, except the possibility of a
Parliamentary debate, when the revised, or added, minutes are laid upon
the table. What chance is there that any such debate will take place on
a matter of detail relating to elementary education--a subject with
which members of the Legislature, having been, for the most part, sent
to our public schools thirty years ago, have not the least practical
acquaintance, and for which they care nothing, unless it derives a
political value from its connection with sectarian politics?
I cannot but think, then, that the School Boards will have the
appearance, but not the reality, of freedom of action, in regard to the
subject-matter of what is commonly called "secular" education.
As respects what is commonly called "religious" education, the power of
the Minister of Education is even more despotic. An interest, almost
amounting to pathos, attaches itself, in my mind, to the frantic
exertions which are at present going on in almost every school
division, to elect certain candidates whose names have never before
been heard of in connection with education, and who are either
sectarian partisans, or nothing. In my own particular division, a body
organised _ad hoc_ is moving heaven and earth to get the seven
seats filled by seven gentlemen, four of whom are good Churchmen, and
three no less good Dissenters. But why should this seven times heated
fiery furnace of theological zeal be so desirous to shed its genial
warmth over the London School Board? Can it be that these zealous
sectaries mean to evade the solemn pledge given in the Act?
"No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive
of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school."
I confess I should have thought it my duty to reject any such
suggestion, as dishonouring to a number of worthy persons, if it had
not been for a leading article and some correspondence which appeared
in the _Guardian_ of November 9th, 1870.
The _Guardian_ is, as everybody knows, one of the best of the
"religious" newspapers; and, personally, I have every reason to speak
highly of the fairness, and indeed kindness, with which the editor is
good enough to deal with a writer who must, in many ways, be so
objectionable to him as myself. I quote the following passages from a
leading article on a letter of mine, therefore, with all respect, and
with a genuine conviction that the course of conduct advocated by the
writer must appear to him in a very different light from that under
which I see it:--
"The first of these points is the interpretation which Professor
Huxley puts on the 'Cowper-Temple clause.' It is, in fact, that
which we foretold some time ago as likely to be forced upon it by
those who think with him. The clause itself was one of those
compromises which it is very difficult to define or to maintain
logically. On the one side was the simple freedom to School Boards
to establish what schools they pleased, which Mr. Forster
originally gave, but against which the Nonconformists lifted up
their voices, because they conceived it likely to give too much
power to the Church. On the other side there was the proposition to
make the schools secular--intelligible enough, but in the
consideration of public opinion simply impossible--and there was
the vague impracticable idea, which Mr. Gladstone thoroughly tore
to pieces, of enacting that the teaching of all school-masters in
the new schools should be strictly 'undenominational.' The
Cowper-Temple clause was, we repeat, proposed simply to tide over
the difficulty. It was to satisfy the Nonconformists and the
'unsectarian,' as distinct from the secular party of the League, by
forbidding all distinctive 'catechisms and formularies,' which
might have the effect of openly assigning the schools to this or
that religious body. It refused, at the same time, to attempt the
impossible task of defining what was undenominational; and its
author even contended, if we understood him correctly, that it
would in no way, even indirectly, interfere with the substantial
teaching of any master in any school. This assertion we always
believed to be untenable; we could not see how, in the face of this
clause, a distinctly denominational tone could be honestly given to
schools nominally general. But beyond this mere suggestion of
an attempt at a general tone of comprehensiveness in religious
teaching it was not intended to go, and only because such was its
limitation was it accepted by the Government and by the House.
"But now we are told that it is to be construed as doing precisely
that which it refused to do. A 'formulary,' it seems, is a
collection of formulas, and formulas are simply propositions of
whatever kind touching religious faith. All such propositions, if
they cannot be accepted by all Christian denominations, are to be
proscribed; and it is added significantly that the Jews also are a
denomination, and so that any teaching distinctively Christian is
perhaps to be excluded, lest it should interfere with their freedom
and rights. Are we then to fall back on the simple reading of the
letter of the Bible? No! this, it is granted, would be an 'unworthy
pretence.' The teacher is to give 'grammatical, geographical, or
historical explanations;' but he is to keep clear of 'theology
proper,' because, as Professor Huxley takes great pains to prove,
there is no theological teaching which is not opposed by some sect
or other, from Roman Catholicism on the one hand to Unitarianism on
the other. It was not, perhaps, hard to see that this difficulty
would be started; and to those who, like Professor Huxley look at
it theoretically, without much practical experience of schools, it
may appear serious or unanswerable. But there is very little in it
practically; when it is faced determinately and handled firmly, it
will soon shrink into its true dimensions. The class who are least
frightened at it are the school teachers, simply because they know
most about it. It is quite clear that the school managers must be
cautioned against allowing their schools to be made places of
proselytism: but when this is done, the case is simple enough.
Leave the masters under this general understanding to teach freely;
if there in ground of complaint, let it be made, but leave the
_onus probandi_ on the objectors. For extreme peculiarities of
belief or unbelief there is the Conscience Clause; as to the mass
of parents, they will be more anxious to have religion taught than
afraid of its assuming this or that particular shade. They will
trust the school managers and teachers till they have reason to
distrust them, and experience has shown that they may trust them
safely enough. Any attempt to throw the burden of making the
teaching undenominational upon the managers must be sternly
resisted: it is simply evading the intentions of the Act in an
elaborate attempt to carry them out. We thank Professor Huxley for
the warning. To be forewarned is to be forearmed."
A good deal of light seems to me to be thrown on the practical
significance of the opinions expressed in the foregoing extract by the
following interesting letter, which appeared in the same paper:--
"Sir,--I venture to send to you the substance of a correspondence
with the Education Department upon the question of the lawfulness
of religious teaching in rate schools under section 14 (2) of the
Act. I asked whether the words 'which is distinctive,' &c., taken
grammatically as limiting the prohibition of any religious
formulary, might be construed as allowing (subject, however, to the
other provisions of the Act) any religious formulary common to any
two denominations anywhere in England to be taught in such schools;
and if practically the limit could not be so extended, but would
have to be fixed according to the special circumstances of each
district, then what degree of general acceptance in a district
would exempt such a formulary from the prohibition? The answer to
this was as follows:--'It was understood, when clause 14 of the
Education Act was discussed in the House of Commons, that,
according to a well-known rule of interpreting Acts of Parliament,
"denomination" must be held to include "denominations." When any
dispute is referred to the Education Department under the last
paragraph of section 16, it will be dealt with according to the
circumstances of the case.'