From the study of grammar the youth proceeds to the study of rhetoric and poetry, the middle one of the three rooms of the third floor. Cicero is here the presiding genius. From rhetoric the student proceeds to the logic of Aristotle, thus completing the trivium.
The first subject of the quadrivium is arithmetic, represented by Boethius. The remaining three subjects of the quadrivium form the fourth floor. These are astronomy, represented by Ptolemy; geometry, by Euclid, and music by Pythagoras.
Following the quadrivium come the subjects which no doubt represent “the additions to known things” in the mind of the compiler. These are the physical sciences, typified by Pythagoras, and Moral Philosophy, by Seneca. Crowning all comes the study of theology and metaphysics, represented by Peter the Lombard, whose “Sentences” had been the orthodox theological text now for two centuries.
The symbolic illustrations which accompany the book of the treatise on these several subjects are of no less interest than the tower of knowledge itself; for these go into great detail in exposition of the aim and characteristic features of each study. Such illustrations present in a concrete way the curricula and the methods of school work in the past.
Recent History
The Situation in Great Britain
BY JOHN HAYNES, PH.D., DORCHESTER HIGH SCHOOL, BOSTON, MASS.
In the last article of this series it was stated that the rejection by the House of Lords of the Budget of 1909 brought before the British people not only a fundamental question of taxation, but the constitutional question of the position of the Upper House. For centuries it had been generally conceded that the authority over finance belonged exclusively to the House of Commons. But the Lords in 1909, claiming that the new proposals were revolutionary, passed a resolution respecting the budget, “that this House is not justified in giving its consent to this bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country.” The Commons answered by another resolution that this action was “a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons.” Nevertheless it was necessary for the ministry to dissolve Parliament in January 1910, and carry the issue before the voters. In the campaign the Liberals stood for the budget, the denial of the right of the Lords to reject it, and home rule for Ireland. The Labor party, in addition to supporting the views of organized labor on questions affecting working men, were strongly in favor of the budget. The Irish Nationalists, as always, put Irish home rule before everything else. The Conservatives, under the name of Unionists, which they use to emphasize their opposition to home rule, made their campaign chiefly on the issue of “tariff reform,” which in Great Britain means the abandonment of her free trade policy. Sentiment in favor of doing this has greatly increased in recent years, and those who favor it are supplied with much greater financial resources for pushing their views than those who uphold the present policy. It would not surprise the present writer to see Great Britain return to the “protective” system, though he believes it would be a misfortune of the greatest magnitude to the British people.
The resolution passed by the Lords when they rejected the budget implied that an election would be in the nature of a referendum, and so it was to a certain extent, but it was a very imperfect one. The law which permits plural voting was, as always, a great disadvantage to the Liberals, and undoubtedly lost them several seats. Again, there has been no distribution of seats since 1885, and the present arrangement is grossly inequitable. As an extreme example the member from Romford represents over seventeen times as many voters as the member from Whitehaven. The Liberals and Labor party are the ones who suffer from this condition. Ireland, whose representation is wholly Nationalist and Conservative, has one-fourth more members of Parliament than she is justly entitled to. Another thing which helped the Conservatives were “three-cornered contests” which gave them at least five seats as representatives of districts where the Liberal and Labor voters together far outnumbered the Conservatives. Then, again, the question was so confused with other matters that there was not a direct issue on the budget. Doubtless many free traders voted for Unionist candidates from opposition to Irish home rule or the policy of the Liberals on the school and liquor questions. It is the misfortune of the Liberals that their progressive policies at the same time encounter the three powerful interests represented by the landholders, the liquor dealers, and the Anglican Church. In Ireland the home rule question so overshadowed all others that there was no expression whatever of popular opinion on the budget, though enough is known to make it pretty certain that the majority would be against it. In England, Wales and Scotland, the popular majority of the Liberals and Laborites combined in spite of plural voting, was nearly three hundred thousand. It may be concluded that notwithstanding the growth of sentiment adverse to free trade the Lloyd-George budget would be adopted by a safe margin if it were submitted as a simple question to the British people. The actual result was the choice of 274 Liberals, 273 Conservatives, 82 Irish Nationalists and 41 Labor members, a situation which gives the Irish Nationalists under the leadership of John Redmond the balance of power.