his classes on the same bench, found the instruction equally fitted to the age and capacity of each, and made uniformly the same progress, at least for a considerable part of the course."

Now, restraining the expression of our indignation at this unnatural and indecorous confounding of age, rank, and character, unless Mr. Hamilton intends to say that his senior pupils had so far advanced in life that juvenility had recommenced, his proposition is rather too startling. But, perhaps, he will defend himself by telling us, what he before asserted, that the advantage accruing to the pupils arose from "the plain and simple mechanism of the system." If so, then the understanding is by no means consulted, and, therefore, the knowledge thus communicated cannot be very valuable. He then proceeds :

"The amount of the proficiency thus attained by Mr. Hamilton's pupils, without disgusting labour or painful application, without getting any thing by rote, or the previous study or knowledge of the grammar of their own or any other language, is to be able to pronounce with propriety, to read, and translate, and to have actually read and translated the whole of the gospel of St. John in French, (comprehending, with the inflexions of the verbs, not less than ten thousand different words,) in ten lessons of one hour each, with a correctness of gramma. tical analysis, and a precision of meaning, wholly unknown, or at least never attempted in the schools."

Oh! this is a glorious system for blockheads, idlers, and ignoramuses! The differences of capacity, of genius, of industry, of attention, are now to be for ever annihilated; and, with regard to the acquirement of languages, Mithridates and the admirable Crichton will shrink into nothingness before an infant or a dotard, who has but studied in Mr. Hamilton's classes! His pupils are "to pronounce with propriety." Who is to judge of this propriety? Mr. Hamilton.-Who is to pronounce? Mr. Hamilton. So it is not the pronunciation of a Frenchman, but of Mr. Hamilton, which his pupils are to learn. But, supposing Mr. Hamilton to be as familiar with English and French as was the famous Chambaud, can it be expected that he enjoys a similar knowledge in the other four modern European languages, which he undertakes to teach? Credat Judæus Apella. Probably, however, Mr. Hamilton considers the acquirement of the pronunciation peculiar to the countries, in which the different languages he teaches are spoken, of no importance; if so, then he makes every language of Europe a mere dialect of English. Then ten thousand words are to be learned in ten hours; that is, sixteen words a minute, or one word in rather less than four seconds. Now, let any person consider the time it takes to pronounce a word, and then to imitate "with propriety”

6

that word, and it will be pretty clear that he whose organs can do that in the period allotted, must be highly gifted by nature, But this is not all; these words are to be pronounced, repeated, learned, remembered, and that "with a correctness of grammatical analysis, and a precision of meaning and construction, wholly unknown, or at least never attempted in the schools;" and that by devoting three seconds and a fraction to each word. It is really difficult to decide whether the boldness of the writer, or the supposed credulity of the reader, ought more to be admired.

Mr. Hamilton then goes on to mention the progress to be made in the subsequent lessons: they are much in the same style; but, if he can induce his readers to believe the possibility of this progress in the first ten lessons, it will be very easy to produce the same effect with regard to the others.

"Mr. Hamilton begs to have it distinctly understood, that grammar is taught with the first word of the language professed to be taught ; and that the pupil is perfected by grammar only, as the sole means by which it is possible to communicate a correct knowledge of any lan+ guage; but no grammar is put into the hands of the pupil till he is al. ready a practical grammarian. He gets not its rules by rote; they are addressed to his understanding by practical demonstration and familiar examples only, and are retained with a facility and certainty, of which the mode of getting by heart, or studying written rules, can furnish neither example nor idea."

This certainly appears very plausible. No one will deny the propriety of understanding the rules of grammar, or the advantage of grammar, as indispensably necessary to obtain a correct knowledge of a language; but certainly we cannot admit, that a sufficient knowledge of grammar can be acquired by the mere viva voce explanations of a master. The pupil may understand the rules, but can he remember them with their exceptions, in such a manner as to apply them with facility and correctness? Supposing a pupil to forget the rules laid down by his instructor during the lesson, (and we believe nothing is more common,) to whom or to what is he to have recourse? To his master! Certainly not, according to Mr. H.'s system, to such an engine of folly as a grammar. We will put it to Mr. H.'s own knowledge of the difficulty which persons of matured years, who, it may be supposed, give all necessary attention to the instructions of a teacher, find in remembering those rules, to say whether he thinks it possible for children, who do not possess the same mental advantages, to make the improvement he promises? If he answers candidly, it must be in the negative. Mr. H. avails himself of the phrase "by rote," a mode of expression particularly popular with idlers, and calculated to throw a very agreeable

veil over those things, which must appear faults in his system. He raises a phantom, and then he exerts all his magical powers in order to lay it. Who ever contended, in favour of the present system of education, that, " getting by heart," rules will be sufficient to give a correct knowledge of any language? What school, which has any pretensions to the title of a good one, ever pursued such a method? If Mr. Hamilton's knowledge of the schools of England only extends to such establishments, we wonder not; but such an acquaintance, surely, does not entitle him to make so wide, and so sweeping a remark.

Mr. Hamilton, after remarking that he does not intend to account theoretically for the beneficial effects of his system, says thus much he will assert, that-"The present system of tuition throughout the civilized world is so essentially vicious in the primary schools, that, whatever be the talent and integrity of the teacher, (and no profession can boast a greater mass of either,) very little instruction is, or can be communicated in them." Now, really this is one of the boldest assertions with which the public has been honoured for some time. If Mr. H. had confined his proposition to the limits of his own knowledge or experience, no person would have blamed him, because ultra posse non est esse; but to tell us that "the present system of tuition throughout the civilized world is so essentially vicious," that such poor effects can be found resulting from it is to make a proposition to which no one can accede. Perhaps Mr. H. doubts that there ever was such a being in existence as a scholar, either in this country or in any other. If so, we can carry the argument no further: but, if he will admit that such an animal has existed, then it is to this very vicious system of tuition that his attainments must be attributed. Nor let Mr. Hamilton imagine that the phrase "primary schools" will alter the case, since it is in those " primary schools" that the foundations of a good education are laid; and, if they are weak, however splendid the superstructure subsequently erected, the whole will be but tottering.

"The primary object of these institutions, if that object be to teach, is entirely lost sight of the pupil is ordered to learn, and too fre. quently punished, without measure or mercy, for not learning; but, from the first moment of his entering school till his education is what is called completed, he is taught nothing."

What does Mr. Hamilton mean by "he is taught nothing,' which words he takes care to mark in italics? Does he mean, that boys are obliged merely to get by heart, and no explanation given them of what is so learned?-or does he complain that boys should be obliged to attain knowledge in

any other manner than by listening to their master's voice? If the former be his meaning, Mr. H. is mistaken; if the latter, we conceive his wishes impracticable for reasons above given.

"Thus he learns, by his almost unaided efforts, in eight or ten years, what might be communicated to him, with delight to pupil and teacher, in as many months upon the Hamiltonian system."

This description of Mr. H.'s system reminds us of the wonders of the Peake, the further we go, the more we are astonished. It is, in fact, to tell us, that a boy of eight years and ten months shall, through the medium of Mr. H.'s system, have learned as much as a boy of eighteen, according to the present mode adopted; or, in other words, that Mr. H. undertakes to fit young gentlemen for either of the universities at the age of eight years and ten months. Mr. Hamilton cannot here complain, that we have taken an unfair age at which this improvement is to be expected; for he has already told us, that "ladies and gentlemen of sixty and upwards, and children of eight years, and even younger, the parent and the child seated in Mr. Hamilton's classes on the same bench, found the instruction equally fitted to the age and capacity of each."

Mr. H. then makes another of his general assertions, as to the badness of the present mode of education, and proceeds: "The trash which, under the name of grammar, occupies several of our most precious years, to the utter exclusion of all useful knowledge, is never known by the pupil, and generally totally misunderstood by the master. What are the grammars to which he refers? What is this "trash" And how can Mr. Hamilton say, that several of our most useful years are thus occupied, to the utter exclusion of all useful knowledge. But, if Mr. H. here affects to speak from his own personal knowledge, how can he with such philosophical coolness state, that it is "generally totally misunderstood by the master?" The masters, under whom Mr. Hamilton has studied, may have been of this description, but surely this does not authorize him to make such an assertion. Let him look a little at the fardel with which his own shoulder is burdened, beside that which he sees upon his neighbour's.

"There are at this moment 500,000 boys and girls, from 7 to 13, studying grammar in these United Kingdoms, and not one would be able to parse, or analyse, many of the most simple phrases of their mother tongue."

Hic iterum Crispinus. Has Mr. H. examined this halfmillion of children, in order to discover their gross ignorance?

If he has not, the proposition is only of the same nature as the others to which we have referred; and, if he has, we cannot avoid complimenting him on the ingenuity and industry he has displayed, in thus selecting every child in the different schools he has examined, who was so lamentably deficient. We will however venture to assert, that the schools to which his attention has been directed, in making this extraordinary discovery, have been very little superior to charity-schools; and they are certainly not the species of establishments which ought to serve as a criterion of the present mode of education.

Mr. Hamilton then speaks of the facts, which he can bring forward to attest the statements he has made. we shall hereafter examine. He then remarks

Those

"It will be evident to every man who witnesses the first lecture, or lesson, that, if the object of study be to attain the knowledge of words and their meaning, that mode, which presents these words with their meaning affixed to the eye of the pupil, at the same moment that he hears them distinctly pronounced, must impress them on his memory in a manner immeasurably superior to the fugitive and uncertain idea he could derive from a dictionary; while, at the same time, he escapes the disgusting and unavailing drudgery of it."

Here we beg leave to differ from Mr. Hamilton altogether. We would appeal to any persons, who have learned the meaning of words from the mouth of their master, and who have also sought their meaning in a dictionary. We would ask them whether the former are not soon forgotten, while the latter remain long engraven on the memory? That the answer would be in the affirmative, we have no doubt. The reason of this is obvious. In the one case, the mind may or may not be attentive to the master; but in the other the exertion of seeking in the dictionary, awakens all its observation. It is true, there may be what Mr. H. calls "disgusting drudgery," but it is certainly not "unavailing ;" for the memory is far better impressed by the latter method than by the former, which may properly be called “fugitive

"The Roman children spoke and wrote the Latin language at eight years old with correctness and facility; our children do the same in English; but, after five years' study of Latin, there often remains in the unhappy student little more than an invincible antipathy to every thing that savours of literature; the natural result of the unnatural and preposterous mode in which the pupil is pretended to be taught.”

This probably appears a very clear and conclusive propo sition to Mr. Hamilton's mind, but our weak understandings cannot trace the various syllogisms on which, we presume, this sorites is formed. How the fact of Roman and English