tion it deserves, all kinds of useful regulations would soon follow. For, after all, the greatest blame that attaches to schoolmasters concerning this question of bodily exercise is, that they do not regard it as a part of their duty to control and organise it. For example, there is as, I have said, little doubt that some boys injure themselves by overdoing it, and others by underdoing it.1 But at how many schools is any serious effort made to consider such a subject as this, and to see that a boy so exercises his body as to contribute towards the most harmonious development of all his faculties? At how many schools are such questions as these made the subject of serious and constant consideration at masters' meetings?

1 Few things, for example, can be more mischievous in a school than that excessive and exclusive devotion to athletics, which results in the establishment of an "athletic set." Such "sets" are a disgrace to a civilised society. Their affected or real contempt for one of the noblest portions of human nature— the intellect is simply degrading to that nature. But the existence of such a set, and of such opinions in a school, is not the fault of the boys. One of the reasons why they go to school is to be educated and trained to acquire a sense of right proportion in such matters as these. If a boy learns such bad lessons at school, it is the fault of the school and not of the boy.

47

CHAPTER III.

EMPLOYMENT OF TIME.

I MUST linger no longer on the fascinating and farreaching subject of exercise, except to point out that one great object to keep in view is to provide a boy with the greatest possible variety of forms of outdoor exercise, and, as far as possible, to increase the number of those forms, which, in addition to being useful merely as exercise, have also for their aim objects plainly and palpably useful in themselves.

I have mentioned certain instances of grave neglect of the laws of health in many schools, and of beneficial reform in others. In both cases I have at present confined myself to existing facts, known to myself. Alas! that the list of such reforms is so small, and is, indeed, already exhausted. But of remediable imperfections and abuses, and quite possible reforms, who can tell the number?

There is, indeed, abundance of outside testimony from experts, doctors and others, all tending to show us what

to avoid and what to practise, in this matter of robustness and health.

To take one instance of a habit which we encourage at schools, directly prejudicial to the health of the boys. At most Public Schools the boys vary in age from twelve to nineteen. Now I believe that there is a general agreement among medical men, that a boy of twelve cannot work as many hours a day as a boy of nineteen, without great risk of damaging his health. But the compulsory hours for the older and younger boys at the ordinary Public Schools are usually almost or quite the same. Further, I know of an instance where, at one Public School, several eminent medical men were independently consulted on this subject by a number of housemasters, and gave it as their opinion that, if the health of the boys was to be considered, a certain maximum of hours, named by them, must not be exceeded; which maximum was at the time being considerably exceeded. But I never heard that there was any attempt made to bring the hours of mental application within the requirements of those doctors.1

1 I know it is urged that medical men are obliged to be on the safe side when consulted about matters of this kind, and are less likely than schoolmasters to know what number of hours an ordinary boy can healthfully and profitably work his brain. For the schoolmaster has more opportunities of observing the ordinary healthy boy than the medical man, who deals chiefly with the abnormal and unhealthy cases. There is a great deal of

I am not now asserting that Public School boys as a rule work too hard. Many of them, without doubt, do not work hard enough. But I should certainly agree with many medical men in holding that their mental application is usually excessive, if their brains are actually working during the hours that are assigned to work by the school authorities. For the two questions are very different. The difficulty, as commonly stated by schoolmasters most anxious for the good of their pupils, is-"How is spare time to be employed, if hours of work are decreased? When a boy is working, we know he is well employed. If not working, and if not actually engaged in games, will he not be in mischief?" As an extreme instance of getting rid of this supposed difficulty by the clumsy and mischievous method of giving more work than is wholesome, I remember reading, in an account of a Headmasters' Conference held some

truth in this. But there can be little doubt that by the combination of the experiences of a schoolmaster and of a doctor we are most likely to arrive at the right conclusion. What I complain of is, that we schoolmasters make so much less use of our experience than we might make. And such an illustration as I have given above seems to me to warrant this conclusion. The truth is, such questions as these are not sufficiently regarded as ranking among the subjects that ought to be constantly and seriously considered by schoolmasters. We are, I think, too apt to regard such questions as less within our sphere than, for example, mere mental training. We are too apt to regard the various portions of education as almost independent of one another, instead of, as they are, inextricably interdependent. If we do, it is a very grievous mistake.

years ago, that one of the headmasters stated that this difficulty during the long summer days appeared to him so great, that he had found it necessary to increase the hours of work during the summer term! Just the very term when the hours of work should be decreased, so as to give the boys as long a time as possible out of doors.1

1 The discussion, during which the remarks that I have called attention to were used, was upon the question, "How best to counteract in schools the injurious influence of excessive amusement and luxurious habits." The exact words to which I referred are, "in the summer-time-the days of temptation— they have far more school hours than at any other time; and I now feel that we pass the summer term as satisfactorily as we do the two winter terms."

The headmasters could hardly have chosen a more important subject for discussion. Since there was apparently no protest entered against the words that I have quoted, I presume there could not have been any strong feeling among the headmasters against them. They seem, at any rate, to have received the negative sanction of the Conference. It has always been a marvel to me how any headmaster at the Conference came to use such words, and how the whole body of headmasters allowed them to pass unchallenged-to give them therefore their tacit approval. Surely, instead of giving boys "far more school hours" in summer, we should adopt precisely the opposite course, and consider whether we could not make a better use than we do of the season of the year when the weather is warm and the days are long. This season should be regarded as the great out-of-doors recreation season; and it should be distinctly recognised that more hours should then be spent in the open air, and less hours therefore given to indoor study. Also, with regard to the school holidays, would it not be an improvement in all ways if the Christmas holidays were shortened and the Easter holidays lengthened? It is, I should suppose, a common experience of