It will be remembered that we made a distinction between the educational and the social return. This distinction is not recognised by everyone, and many good people take into account only the social return. There are those who would judge the school of Bicêtre by one thing only--the number of patients who are made useful to society. This is a question of great interest, but it is wrong to think that it is the only one to be considered. It would be unjust to confine oneself to it. The injustice can be understood by supposing that one is considering an institution which receives idiots only. Would one judge such an institution by asking how many of its patients become capable of winning their livelihood? Certainly not. It is possible to be of real service to the patients without raising them to such a level. The cure of dirty habits, for example, is not a thing to be disdained. Not only does it result in an economy of linen and washing, but it makes the patient less disgusting, less difficult to take care of. Here we have material and moral improvement which, even for those who consider expense only, cannot be considered negligible, for in the end the result is pecuniary economy. But, having stated this principle, it would be necessary to find out what is the value, what is the duration, what is the frequency of such improvements. It would be necessary to know what is their cost, and to compare the cost with the results in order to find out where one was. This kind of stock-taking, both financial and medical, has no place in the publications of the Bicêtre, and cannot be replaced by isolated observations on the treatment and improvement of idiot children. There is here, therefore, a first lacuna. We note also with regret the absence of any inspection of the teachers in the schools, who are left to themselves without any supervision but that of the doctor. Now, the doctor is not usually an educationist, and it is to be regretted that he does not himself recognise his incompetency in pedagogy, but that, on the contrary, his nature, often prone to take offence, will not submit to any collaboration in his work. Having said this, we are going to confine ourselves to the social return of the school of Bicêtre, since it is affirmed that such a return exists.