imaginative brains of a child, are discussed with perfect freedom and the greatest animation.

When one scholar whispers, another must hear and perhaps may reply; the attention of two, therefore, is necessarily taken by every communication that happens in school, and most likely all the pupils in the immediate neighborhood are more or less disturbed. Sometimes a witty remark passes from one to another, till the attention of the whole school is diverted. What, for example, is the occasion of this sudden smiling and tittering all over the room? What has happened now to excite the attention and cast a broad grin over the countenance of all? That young lad whom you see in the corner, with eyes intently fixed upon his book, diligently engaged in study, with a countenance so demure, that it would seem no smile could ever find lodgment there, and whose whole appearance indicates the loss of all earthly friends, that young lad, who never did anything wrong, and who always meets the unjust suspicion of his teacher, with the frank "Me, Sir! what have I done?"- that young lad has just started a joke, which, passing rapidly from mouth to mouth, has electrified the whole school. It is apparent, therefore, that whispering causes a great waste of time, in addition to the noise and general disorder, which it inevitably

creates.

But it is unnecessary to pursue this part of the subject farther. The evils of communication are obvious, and will readily suggest themselves to one at all acquainted with the theory or practice of teaching.

The question of the greatest importance, which we will now proceed to consider, is, How may these evils be most easily and effectually remedied?

In the first place, let the teacher give his pupils a correct idea of the nature of the offence. Whispering is not morally wrong, and the teacher who so regards it, will fail of his object. Children cannot be made to believe, and they ought not if they could, that the simple act of communication, in any manner, or under any circumstances, is an offence to be compared with profanity, lying, &c. As has been already stated, a school may be so small and select, that whispering may be allowed without any serious injury. But this is not the case with schools generally, and it is for the teacher to explain to his pupils, why it is right in one case, and wrong in another. This may be readily done. It will be easy for all scholars to see, that, in our common public schools, a general license to pupils to communicate together, would be destructive of all order, and would defeat the very end for which schools are established. Each teacher will have his own method of impressing this fact upon his pupils; one will do it with much greater facility than

another, but no one of common ingenuity will find any difficulty in obtaining their intellectual assent to the necessity of an entire prohibition of communication in school. This point being gained, the next step is to obtain their cordial coöperation in carrying out the prohibition. And here there is nothing peculiar; the same course may be pursued, the same steps taken, the same motives urged, as would be done in reference to any other rule of school. The various considerations that might be offered, it would be out of place here to consider, as it would be, in effect, taking up the whole subject of the management of a school; and our object now is, to dwell on those particulars only, which have special reference to the subject of this essay:

One point, however, is of sufficient consequence to demand a moment's attention. The duty and the importance of self control should be brought home to the mind and conscience of every child. No favorable opportunity for its exercise should be neglected, and no rule of school will be more favorable than the one we are now considering. Indeed, children are so constantly exposed to temptation, and the ease with which they may escape detection under ordinary circumstances is so great, that the child who will abstain from all communication, has acquired a command of himself, which he will find of great advantage in any and every situation in life.

And now, having explained the nature and the effect of communication, the reasonableness of its prohibition, and having secured the coöperation of his pupils, as far as he may be able, the teacher is prepared to proclaim its entire banishment from school. And here no half-way temporizing policy will answer; total abstinence is the only remedy, and total abstinence must be firmly but wisely insisted on. Whispering has become an offence against the good order of the school; and if persisted in, it must be punished as other offences are, according to the judgment of the teacher.

In the next place, the teacher should make such a disposition of his scholars as will place the fewest temptations in their way. For this purpose, those most likely to violate the rule, should be seated apart, and in such a position that the teacher may have a constant and easy supervision over them. Neither should scholars who have a strong friendship for each other be seated together, their earnest entreaties to the contrary notwithstanding; for the temptation to evil is so great, that few children will be able to resist it. But a very important principle in seating scholars, is, that no two of the same class shall come in contact. For scholars, sitting side by side, pursuing the same branches, and preparing the same lessons, the desire to communicate together is so great, and the opportunity to do it is so

frequent and so easy, that they are almost irresistible. Suppose the lesson be one in arithmetic; the erasure of a single figure may point out a mistake, or the making of one may reveal the whole secret of the solution of a difficult problem. If it be in defining, how easy for one scholar to point out to another the particular signification of the word under consideration. Or suppose it be a lesson in geography. The pupil, with one finger pointing to a word in his text-book, is with another crossing seas and rivers, traversing deserts and clambering over mountains, till the eye is weary with the fruitless search for some little lake, or village, or river; how easy, then, for the point of a neighbor's pencil to remove the whole difficulty in a moment.

Again, scholars should have enough to do, and be required to do it. It is unreasonable to expect a child, who has no occupation, to sit for any length of time without being engaged in play, or in the violation of some rule. But if he has a task which must be performed, of sufficient length to occupy his attention, not only will most of the temptations to evil be removed, but he will have no time to yield to those which may remain.

We have now supposed that a school has a correct idea of the nature of whispering and the necessity of its prohibition; that the better portion of it are willing to yield to the wishes of the teacher, and practise self-denial. We have supposed the pupils to be arranged in a manner the most favorable for its prevention, and to have sufficient employment to occupy their time. And yet, in spite of the closest watchfulness on the part of the teacher, in spite of severity of punishment in cases of detection, it will undoubtedly be found, that there still exists a vast amount of whispering in school. What farther steps can be taken to remedy the evil?

We answer: In all schools above the grade of Primary, let the pupils be held to a strict accountability, and be called upon to report once or twice each half day, whether they have had communication, and if so, the number of times. This, for a time, should be entirely voluntary, and not the slightest punishment should follow even the highest number of offences. At first, especially where communication has been practised to any extent, not more than two or three will be found to have abstained. entirely. Some will have whispered once, others twice, and so on, perhaps up to ten or twelve violations of the rule. Without a word of reproof for the worst cases, let those who have done well be commended, and all encouraged to try again. A perceptible improvement will be manifest each time the account is taken, and in a few days or a week, a large majority will be able to render a perfect, and with little temptation to wrong,

we may suppose an honest report. Let this course be pursued till the pupils shall have unconsciously demonstrated to each other and themselves, their abilty to abstain from all communication, and till they shall have formed the habit of closely watching their conduct, and noting the number of delinquencies. It now only remains for the teacher to call for the report at stated times, and to affix a penalty to each transgression. The punishment may be a mark of discredit, or some trifling inconvenience, but in most cases it should be slight, though with the understanding that the practice must be entirely abandoned. In this manner, it is believed, that communication, if not wholly, may be so nearly banished from school, that the little which remains shall cease to be of any serious injury.

But to this method, there are some serious objections of a moral nature, which demand careful consideration. In the Ninth Annual Report of the first Secretary of the Board of Education, this subject is very fully discussed, and the objections to the method here proposed, are very ably and forcibly presented. Taking those objections to be the strongest that can be offered, we may consider our own case made out, if we are able satisfactorily to answer them.

The great objection, and indeed the only one, as it includes all the rest, is this: "To prevent whispering, it tempts to falsehood." But the prohibition itself, it will be conceded by all, leads to a vast amount of practical falsehood. Yet the majority, and probably a large majority of teachers think it necessary that the prohibition should be made. It is impossible to promulgate a single rule, the observance of which would be beneficial to society, that some one would not be tempted to break. But shall all rules and laws be annulled, that we may have no temptation to sin? All the regulations of a school, all the laws in fact of a civil community, must contravene the wishes or the interests of some, else there would be no necessity for making them. We are all surrounded by temptation, and as children like others must constantly meet with it, they should be early taught how to meet and to overcome.

But the child, by being called upon to report an offence, is liable to commit the much more heinous one of falsehood. But what is it to report, except to answer the. question, "Are you guilty or not guilty?" How different from any interrogatory, except for convenience it is put to and answered by the whole school at once? Has not every teacher the right, the moral right, we mean, to call up a pupil and question him with regard to the violation of any rule? Shall the parent, on returning to his home, hesitate to inquire of his child respecting some mischief done, lest he may be the wrong-doer and be tempted to tell a falsehood? What is the integrity of that child, or of

any child, worth, whom the teacher or parent may fear to interrogate? And how many offences must be committed, and how much moral instruction given, and how long before he may venture to put the question plainly, "Did you or did you not do this?" The principle is the same in both cases; if the temptation is stronger in the one than the other, it is made so by the attendant circumstances.

But the greatest caution should be exercised in calling for the report. There should be no loophole of retreat, no opportunity for evasion. The question should be put in such a form and manner, that a direct answer must be given; and the scholar made to see that there is no half way, that he must either tell the truth or a falsehood. Suppose, for instance, that scholars who have had communication, are required to come forward, or to stand in their seats; or suppose that all the names are called, and each one is expected to report the number of offences; in such cases the scholar may argue to himself, and perhaps satisfy his own conscience, that by simply neglecting to report, he escapes detection, and is not, at the same time, guilty of telling a falsehood. But let those pupils who have had no communication be called upon to stand, and the guilty ones will of course be left in their seats; or let the whole school be made to rise, and permission given to those who have had no communication to be seated, and the guilty ones will be left standing. Now it would be easy to make all scholars see and feel, that if guilty, by standing in the one case, or being seated in the other, they tell a lie as plainly as they could do it in words.

Frequent opportunities should also be taken to impress upon their minds the great importance of always telling the truth, and of showing them that no comparison can be instituted between the offences of whispering and telling a falsehood. No severity of discipline either should follow this voluntary report; as the temptation (for temptation it certainly is,) should be made no greater than the child ought to be able to resist. And indeed, no severity of discipline will often be needed; for the child who can be induced to give in a true report, will generally refrain from whispering that he may not be obliged to report it, without regard to the consequences following it.

But the objector in closing, asks with an air of triumph the following important question: "If it be practicable to train a school to such a high point of principle and honorable feeling, that its members will promptly acknowledge the transgression of a rule, may not the same members be so trained as not to be guilty of the transgression itself?" To this question we unhesitatingly reply in the negative. And the reasons for this answer are obvious. For, in the first place, apart from the