ble the child to respond to the loving utterances of its mother, even before it understands the meaning of words. But to adjust the organs of speech to the producing of these sounds, so that they shall come forth with accuracy and power,-nicely graded to the exact nature of what is to be expressed, and fit to stir the mind to which they are addressed,-this is a far more difficult attainment.

And even in the mere hearing of sounds culture is required. We have said that, in a general way, the natural language is easily understood. Yet there is much imperfection even here. The art of listening is very inadequately practiced by the pupils in our schools. Are they all able to discriminate between the elementary sounds of the language? What proportion of them can distinguish the rising from the falling inflection? Or, distinguishing them, can correctly declare which is the one and which the other?

The ability to read "with expression presupposes three things in addition to what has already been urged: 1. The power to distinguish by the ear the different sounds of our language, through all the varieties of pitch, force, quality, and volume, through which they can pass. 2. The power to produce these sounds in all their varieties. 3. The power to select, in any given case, the particular tone, with appropriate pitch, force, quality, and volume demanded by the sentiment. Only by a careful and thorough culture of the sense of hearing can the first of these powers be acquired; to the attainment of the second, a thorough drill of the vocal organs which are to act under the guidance of the ear, is necessary; and the third involves a thoughtful exercise of the judgment and taste, together with a reliable appreciation of the sentiment to be expressed.

A thorough drill in the elementary sounds of the language is included in the prerequisite above named. This drill necessitates a critical exercise of the ear and the vocal organs. It should be accurate. The slovenly, inarticulate, half-asleep enunciation that characterizes so many of our countrymen, should be forever abolished. Distinct utterance should mark the speech of the American people. Words clearly spoken have a might entirely wanting to the drawl or the whine or the grunt. Clean cut words match clean cut thoughts. What a terrible disfigurement of the noble English is presented in the mumbling heard in many a school-room and many a church! And how convenient a cloak it is for inaccuracy and confusion of thought! Dis

tinct enunciation, other things being equal, has always accompanied thorough mental culture. The preeminently thinking nation of antiquity could not tolerate a mispronunciation or a lisp. Nowhere does ignorance more clearly place her stamp than upon the organs used in speech.

And in the United States we have especial reason to be thorough in our teaching of phonic analysis. Our country has become the home of many nationalities. Our citizens include men whose organs have been cast in the mold of every language and dialect in Europe. A power is needed that shall fuse these diverse elements into one nation. And nothing is so powerful to this end as a common spoken language. Go to a foreign country and listen to the jargon of an unknown speech. The men that utter it scarcely seem akin to you,-they hardly seem to belong to the same race. It is a desert of strange sounds, too broad and too barren for human sympathy to traverse. But in the midst of the din, let a sentence of the native speech-the language of your childhood's home-be heard, and what a change! No formalities of introduction are needed. You recognize in the speaker a friend at once-and so every where. A sameness of spoken language is a bond of union among men: diversity is an occasion of estrangement and hostility.

Let every child in America, therefore, of native or foreign blood, be taught to speak the English language with accuracy and distinctness. Let no barbarous or foreign accent be tolerated. Let the pronunciation of the whole country be cast in one mould. Let the fisherman of the Passamaquoddy and the miner of the Golden Gate, the lumberman of the upper Mississippi and the rice grower of Georgia, the dweller in Alaska and in Florida, let them all learn a common language and speak it with a common accent, and the millions of the Republic will hail each other as brothers wherever they meet.

Very carefully, too, ought the pupils of our schools to be. drilled in the use of their voices. The thin and feeble tones should be developed into fullness and strength, the rough and discordant ones into smoothness and harmony. This can only be done by long continued and judicious practice.

And the ability to select the proper tones for the thought and emotion in hand, needs to be developed. In this there is very little success in our schools. The books (some of them) contain extensive rules on elocution, but what an insignificant minority of our children ever learn them so as to give them any real

meaning? Very few can be said to learn them at all, and fewer still are able to make any independent, practical application of their principles.

The true course is to fix upon a few general principles, which may always be developed from the thought of the pupils themselves; then to require these to be thoroughly learned and applied in practice.

These general considerations on the subject of reading in schools seem to the writer important. A proper observance of them would greatly add to the value of this exercise. That everything here recommended can in every instance be fully done, we do not claim. But that everywhere an honest effort should be put forth in the direction indicated, there can be no doubt.

The art of governing children, whether in the family or the school, depends, as all arts do, upon an underlying science. The art of child government depends chiefly upon the science of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy explains the nature and functions of the moral faculties; and it is only by the proper training of these faculties that their possessor can be governed either by himself or another. This is certainly true if the democratic idea of government be correct.

There is not so very much difference between the moral faculties of children and those of adults. Yet we are apt to excuse the errors of the young on the ground that they have not reached the years of accountability. Accountability does not always depend upon years,—at least not all accountability. The time of accountability begins with each individual when conscience begins to stir. The saying, "boys will be boys," when used to palliate an immorality, is often exceedingly pernicious. So is the proverb concerning "wild-oats." Boys will be boys, but they need not be bad; there is no necessity in this wide world for any body to sow "wild-oats" or any other evil seed. Boys and girls find out the difference between right and wrong fast enough. Throw them at once upon their consciousness of moral power and responsibility. Assume at once, and severely

recognize in them, an eternal obligation to do and be the best possible. By use alone are the faculties made strong and active. The celebrated Doctor Arnold, of Rugby, one of the most successful school governors, is said by his biographer, to have "recognized in the peculiar vices of boys the same evils which, when grown, become the source of so much social mischief. He governed the school on precisely the same principles as he would have governed a great empire; and constantly exemplified to his own mind or the minds of his scholars, the highest truths in the simplest relations of boys toward each other and toward him. The boys were treated as school boys, but as school boys who must grow up to be Christian men; whose age did not prevent their faults from being sins, or their excellencies from being noble and Christian virtues; whose situation did not make the application of Christian principles to their daily life an impractical vision." Again, "in proportion as he disliked an assumption of a false manliness in boys, was his desire to cultivate in them that manliness, as the only step to something higher, and to dwell upon earnest principle and moral thoughtfulness as the great and distinguishing mark between good and evil. Hence his wish that as much as possible should be done by the boys, and nothing for them; hence arose his practice of treating the boys as gentlemen and reasonable beings, of making them respect themselves by the mere respect he showed to them, of showing that he appealed to their own common sense and conscience."

This method of government adopted by Doctor Arnold, is a method employed by hundreds with gratifying success. It is based upon a correct theory, and can not fail if judiciously carried out. No theory should be held responsible for the results of its misapplication. Nothing is more certain than that the innate moral forces existing in every soul, should be recognized as the most reliable controllers of conduct. By what particular processes these forces are to be developed is a matter of experiment, ingenuity, and skill. Plans, devices, modes of procedure, must be varied to adapt them to existing conditions. Though all children have souls, all their souls are not in the same state of development, nor susceptible to the same influences. The carpenter uses the axe and the cross-cut saw upon the rough log; the smoothing plane, the fine chisel and the more delicate instruments of his trade, as the wood upon which he operates gradually assumes the desired outline and proportions. Each kind of work demands a suitable tool. I can cut a pine stick with my pen

knife, but a piece of iron must be heated and hammered into shape. While adapting methods to existing circumstances, it must be remembered that existing circumstances change every day. The governor must be ready to meet the demand of each new situation in which the governed are placed. It is neither quickness nor slowness, severity nor leniency, reward nor punishment, physical nor spiritual power, that, in itself, is the thing to use, but any, or all of these, according to the necessity of the

case.

THE INDIVIDUAL PECULIARITIES OF PUPILS.

Complaint is often made that in our schools the native peculiarities of the pupils are not consulted. A common educational treatment is meted to all, and all those of the same grade of attainment are made to pursue the same branches. This is spoken of as if it were a hardship, and as if injustice were thus done to the pupils. It is said that "their originality is not developed; their individuality is not unfolded or perfected." This objection is brought as well against the higher schools as the lower; the whole of modern education is affirmed to be too general, whereas it should be specific.

Is there any just ground for this complaint? Three questions arise here: Do our children and youth differ from each other in their mental characteristics to any such extent as is often asserted? If they do, how are these differences to be ascertained? If existing and known, do they require that the education of each child should be adapted to his individual peculiarities?

The existence of these differences is often taken for granted; but it is generally done in vague terms by those who indulge in indiscriminate criticism of existing methods of instruction. That there are some differences will not be denied. Every child, as every man, doubtless differs in some respects from every other. But the mental differences are no greater than the physical. In both cases the difference is in degree rather than in kind. All have the same bodily organs intended for the same functions; and so it is with the mind. The body has its wants, and so has the mind. Nor do we need to know the whole physical history in order to know what the wants are. One healthy child is nourished by the same food as another. The mother of a large