control; and, when they are of an age at which the world can be kept from them no longer, shall they be plunged abruptly into scenes to which they are habitually unsuited, and, in regard to which, they are in fact, uneducated.

There are two points, at least, of practical education, in which they should be well trained, before the time arrives, when they must be turned entirely adrift in the world. The first, how to exert a good influence, even the best they can, upon others. The second, how to avoid the evil effect of a bad influence from others. How to do the most good to those around them, and how best to avoid the harm others might do to them. Since our children must, at some period, if they live, come in contact with the world, should they not be taught, when they see evil, not to be contaminated by it; when they see vulgarity, not to adopt it; when they witness ill manners, to disapprove and avoid the like; to know temptations, and to resist them. Such is the education which God provides for us all. Surrounding evil and temptation is the discipline of that school in which he is educating us. And doth not his Providence clearly suggest the mode for us to follow with our children? that of bringing them while young, and for the purpose of training, into prudent contact with the young world? to acquaint them early with their cotemporaries? While, in their pupilage, when the teacher may teach them to do the good and to avoid the evil, while the parents have their full share in forming the manners, when children are most susceptible of the salutary influence of the domestic circle, and are brought from day to day, under the careful inspection of parental solicitude, does not the public school present, on the whole, a favorable opportunity for securing their training in one of the main branches of education? How practicable it is, and to faithful and enlightened parents how delightful, when the boy is sent forth on his little excursions for learning the world in a promiscuous school, to teach how the good is to be distinguished and followed, and how the bad is to be detected and shunned; to bring all the strength of home influence into competition with bad example; to advise, to warn, to correct, at the precise time when it is needful. How interesting to parental fondness to observe the development of a discriminating judgment and a tender conscience, the strengthening of tested principle, the growth of ingenuous virtue under trial and temptation! Where pains are taken to perform these duties faith

fully, they will be more or less successful in preserving the manners and morals of children in the public school, and parents will reap the richest rewards of satisfaction on having discharged with fidelity the office which the God of nature and of men hath assigned them.

But the question may be asked-"What is the actual effect of this careful training of the child, in the public school, upon his manners? Will you, after all, produce the same style of manners, which education, in a more select sphere, might have secured?" Perhaps not precisely the same.

And here permit me to ask do not parents sometimes err in their estimate of good manners? In their anxiety to keep their children from the contamination of vulgar companions, do they not so urge their prohibitions, and compass them with such circumstances, as to give the impression distinctly that other children are essentially and necessarily inferior to themselves; that there is a difference, which no efforts, or training, or conduct, can obviate. This impression, studiously inculcated on the tender mind, for the sake of rearing a barrier of separation as a safeguard to the manners of their children, has an obvious influence upon their behaviour. It is likely to mark their manners with peculiarity. Perhaps the self-consequence, so sedulously, and withal so easily, inculcated, may have produced a certain dignity of bearing flattering to the pride of the parents. But is there not at the same time a supercilious and overbearing spirit continually gleaming through that haughtiness of manner, which has come by filling the mind's eye with self; an unkind, ungentle deportment, which, though it be not vulgar, though it seem to the fond parent to serve his purpose of distinction, is, nevertheless, as unlovely to the considerate, the wise, and the good, as it is injurious to the heart of the possessor? If such dignity be necessary to genteel deportment, then may we set to work to make our children more selfish that they may be more exclusive beings. The bold and easy impudence resulting from overweening notions of self, and the air put on to make others feel a sense of inferiority, we think need not, and should not be incorporated into the manners as a necessary part of good breeding. May not the parent carry his notions of distinction so far as to misapprehend the quality of manners which his child exhibits? The true gentility is the result of kindness of heart, extensive knowledge of the world, and great care as to the minute matters of deportment. The

foundation must commonly be laid by the parents themselves, and may be cultivated by them, successfully, during the child's connexion with the public school.

It is thought by many to be an advantage to have but a small number of pupils in a school; and it is not uncommon for parents to send to the private school, because, there being so few that attend, they fancy their children must get a greater share of instruction. They seem to forget that direct, personal communication with the pupil, cannot supersede the necessity of study, and that, beyond a certain proportion of the time, the personal attentions of the teacher are but an interruption. When the school is so small that the teacher must wait for the pupils to prepare themselves, the almost sure consequence is a listlessness of the school, and a lassitude in the exercises, unfavorable to intellectual effort and improvement. The strictness of school discipline gives place to a sort of colloquial ease and familiarity, of which, slackness of mind, and carelessness of preparation, are too often the consequences. A large school, if a due supply of teaching be provided, has many and decided advantages. There is more activity and animation; the order and discipline are more exact; the exercises are more prompt and sprightly, urging the mind to an habitual readiness. The excitement of numbers gives a perceptible elasticity and vigor to the movements of the school. The public sentiment, in a large school, less liable to be affected by the perversity of a few leading pupils, becomes, under the management of a skilful teacher, a powerful and happy auxiliary to the good training and culture of the whole. I consider it a clear advantage of public schools, that they are usually larger, and less fluctuating, than the private.

In public schools, where the studies and exercises are well regulated, judiciously arranged, and superintended by an intelligent committee, the loose ends and yawning chasms of waste time are worked up; you get more study out of the pupils, and more instruction out of the teachers; and the effect is seen in the good order and vivacity of the school, and in the intellectual activity of the pupils. There is in the private school (unless in the hands of a master-spirit) a slackness, and sleepiness, which makes the discipline an entirely different thing from that of the public schools. A teacher may be quite satisfactory in the former, and be found utterly incompetent to the latter.

I might pursue the comparison. But as I have already