Through the intervention of an inspector, M. Belot, we have inquired of twenty heads of schools what has become of the defectives whom they notified to us two years ago. We have made these inquiries with regard to sixty-six children only. Poor figures, indeed, and we would not give them, but that a little is better than nothing. These sixty-six children may be classified thus: Thirty-five are defective, twenty-six ill-balanced, and three both defective and ill-balanced. Retardation is quite plain in the unstable, amounting to from one to two years; it is very marked in the case of the defectives (one alone has a retardation of two years, the others have a retardation of three, four, six, and even seven years). We give these figures only that it may not be imagined that we are dealing with cases of slight feeble-mindedness with a retardation of one or two years. It is necessary to understand these details in order to form a correct idea of the value of the figures. The particulars regarding the ultimate destiny of these sixty-six children are as follows: 1. _No Return in the Case of Fourteen Children._--Some left the district without giving an address. Some even left school with insults from the parents directed against the teachers. 2. _Children still at School._--These number twenty-two. We have already spoken about this little group, and have remarked that some of them have improved. 3. _Children sent Home or placed in Asylums._--There are three who have been sent to asylums. We know one of them, an imbecile, but he had bad instincts, and who knows but that he might have been made useful? With regard to the others, who have been sent home, we have only very vague particulars, and the interpretation of their condition is quite arbitrary. Some of them seem to be useful. Some girls help at home. Some boys assist their fathers at their work, but are said to be wanting in balance or to require constant supervision. We have thought it well to include them in this third category, which stands for the social waste. They number ten. We repeat that the limits of this group are extremely ill-defined. With a little optimism one might have passed three-quarters into the following group; with a little more strictness, on the other hand, the present group would have been larger. We emphasise the difficulty of limiting the frontier impartially. It would be a good thing to make use of a criterion, good or bad, but exact. One will, no doubt, be found, but in the meantime we have none.