gabble, there are various forms of "ethical" teaching, advocated and
practised in America and in the elementary schools of this country. For
example, a story of an edifying sort is told to the children, and
comments are elicited upon the behaviour of the characters. "Would you
have done that?" "Oh, _no_, teacher!" "Why not?" "Because it would
be mean." The teacher goes into particulars, whittling away at the
verdict, and at last the fine point of the lesson stands out. Now it
may be indisputable that such lessons can be conducted effectively and
successfully by exceptionally brilliant teachers, that children may be
given an excellent code of good intentions, and a wonderful skill in
the research for good or bad motives for any given course of action
they may or may not want to take, but that they can be systematically
trained by the average teacher at our disposal in this desirable
"subject" is quite another question. It is one of the things that the
educational reformer must guard against most earnestly, the persuasion
that what an exceptional man can do ever and again for display purposes
can be done successfully day by day in schools. This applies to many
other things besides the teaching of ethics. Professor Armstrong can
give delightfully instructive lessons in chemistry according to the
heuristic method, but in the hands of the average teacher by whom
teaching _must_ be done for the next few years the heuristic
system will result in nothing but a pointless fumble. Mr. Mackinder
teaches geography--inimitably--just to show how to do it. Mr. David
Devant--the brilliant Egyptian Hall conjuror--will show any assembly of
parents how to amuse children quite easily, but for some reason he does
not present his legerdemain as a new discovery in educational method.

To our argument that this sort of teaching is not within the capacity
of such teachers as we have, or are likely to have, we can, fortunately
enough, add that whatever is attempted can be done far better through