mes, which would be, _first_,
disproportionate to our limits--_secondly_, out of its best situation,
because it would be desirable to examine those schemes separately for
the direct purpose of determining their own absolute value, and not
indirectly and incidentally for the purpose of a comparison. The
Madras system, again, is excluded from the comparison--not so much for
the reason alleged (pp. 123-5), by the author before us--as though
that system were _essentially_ different from his own in its purpose
and application: the _purpose_ of the Madras system is not exclusively
economy of expense, but in combination with that purpose a far greater
accuracy (and therefore reality) in the knowledge communicated than
could be obtained on the old systems; on this account therefore the
possible _application_ of the Madras system is not simply to the
education of the poor, though as yet the actual application of it may
have been chiefly to them, but also to the education of the rich; and
in fact it is well known that the Madras system (so far from being
_essentially_ a system for the poor) has been adopted in some of the
great classical schools of the kingdom.[34] The difference is more
logically stated thus--that the Madras system regards singly the
quality of the knowledge given, and (with a view to _that_) the mode
of giving it: whereas the system, which we are going to review, does
not confine its view to _man as a being capable of knowledge_, but
extends it to _man as a being capable of action, moral or prudential_:
it is therefore a much more comprehensive system. The system before us
does not exclude the final purpose of the Madras system: on the
contrary, it is laudably solicitous for the fullest and most accurate
communication of knowledge, and suggests many hints for the attainment
of that end as just and as useful as they are enlightened. But it does
not stop here: it goes further, and contemplates the whole man with a
reference to his total means of usefulness and happiness in life. And
hence, by the way, it seems to us essential--that the whole child
should on this system be surrendered to the school; _i. e._ that there
should be no day-scholars; and this principle we shall further on
endeavour to establish on the evidence of a case related by the author
himself.[35] On the whole therefore we have designedly stated our
general estimate of the author's system with a reference to that of
the Edgeworths; not only becaus