to whom I allude is no other than Locke. That celebrated
philosopher has preceded the Edinburgh Reviewers in condemning the
ordinary subjects in which boys are instructed at school, on the ground
that they are not needed by them in after life; and before quoting what
his disciples have said in the present century, I will refer to a few
passages of the master. "'Tis matter of astonishment," he says in his work
on Education, "that men of quality and parts should suffer themselves to
be so far misled by custom and implicit faith. Reason, if consulted with,
would advise, that their children's time should be spent in acquiring what
might be _useful_ to them, when they come to be men, rather than that
their heads should be stuffed with a deal of trash, a great part whereof
they usually never do ('tis certain they never need to) think on again as
long as they live; and so much of it as does stick by them they are only
the worse for."

And so again, speaking of verse-making, he says, "I know not what reason a
father can have to wish his son a poet, who does not desire him to _bid
defiance to all other callings and business_; which is not yet the worst
of the case; for, if he proves a successful rhymer, and gets once the
reputation of a wit, I desire it to be considered, what company and places
he is likely to spend his time in, nay, and estate too; for it is very
seldom seen that any one discovers _mines of gold or silver in Parnassus_.
'Tis a pleasant air, but a barren soil."

In another passage he distinctly limits utility in education to its
bearing on the future profession or trade of the pupil, that is, he scorns
the idea of any education of the intellect, simply as such. "Can there be
any thing more ridiculous," he asks, "than that a father should waste his
own money, and his son's time, in setting him to _learn the Roman
language_, when at the same time he _designs him for a trade_, wherein he,
having no use of Latin, fails not to forget that little which he brought
from school, and which 'tis ten to one he abhors for the ill-usage it
procured him? Could it be believed, unless we have every where amongst us
examples of it, that a child should be forced to learn the rudiments of a
language, which _he is never to use in the course of life that he is
designed to_, and neglect all the while the writing a good hand, and
casting accounts, which are of great advantage in all conditions of life,
and to most trades indispensably