Any one who will take the trouble to examine the "Abstracts of the School Returns," will see how much the school committees have been influenced by the suggestions of the Board of Education and its Secretary, and what testimony they bear to the wisdom of their measures and to the benefits which have resulted from their labors. We are far however from supposing, that all which has been done among us for the improvement of common Schools since the establishment of the Board is their work. The Board itself is but the result of causes, which are constantly operating to effect the ends for which it was instituted. The equality of privileges in this country occasions. a general competition for power and influence. Whatever gives one man among us a superiority over his fellows, provokes their emulation. Among these sources of superiority knowledge is prominent. Our age more than any previous one has demonstrated that knowledge is power, and has thus made it an object of general desire. The craving for knowledge on the part of the people naturally urges a representative government into measures for the promotion of popular education. This is a ground on which the philanthropist and the politician meet, an object which appeals alike to the love of man and the hope of man's favor. Hence we see so many of the State Governments bestirring themselves in aid of the education of the people. The causes which gave origin to the Board of Education are in constant activity and have constantly cooperated with it. But no unprejudiced man can doubt that the exertions of the Board have greatly aided the natural course of things. It has given direction and steadiness to the popular impulses, has increased men's interest in the cause of education, and shown them what to aim at and how to reach it.

During the earlier part of the existence of the Board it met with some opposition, and an attempt was made in the Legislature, in 1840, to procure its abolition. The attempt failed, and the Board has since that time gained more and more the confidence of the community.

In February, 1844, a communication appeared in the Christian Witness endeavoring to excite the feelings of the Orthodox against the Board and its Secretary. A controversy followed, between Mr. Mann on one side and the

editor of the Christian Witness and his correspondent on the other. The two latter professedly appealed to the Orthodox, as suffering a great wrong because the peculiar doctrines of Orthodoxy were not taught in the schools. For the exclusion of them they held the Board of Education, or rather its Secretary, responsible, although a law of the Commonwealth had been in existence ever since the year 1827, long before the establishment of the Board, by which law, "books calculated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians" were forbidden to be taught in the schools. Their argument for the teaching of the doctrines common to the Orthodox sects, is that such doctrines are not sectarian. But they were born too late. The day is past when Orthodoxy and Christianity were one in the eye of the law. In such a contest the Secretary gained an easy victory. We come now to the late lamentable controversy between Mr. Mann and a large number of the teachers of the public schools of this city. The assailants have been called by one of our contemporaries "conspirators." If they were such, we believe that many of them were drawn on, as conspirators often are, much farther than they had originally intended to go, or than their sober judgment would have induced them to go. We do not believe that the teachers of our grammar and writing schools, as a body, were impelled by jealousy of the progress of the other schools of the Commonwealth, and the feeling that their own were losing their relative rank, to attack the man who had given the great impulse to the work of improvement. It is natural to suppose that thirty-one men were actuated by a variety of motives, and it is probable that personal illwill and the jealousy above alluded to existed in the minds of some of them. But the prevailing motive we think to have been, offence taken at certain views and expressions of Mr. Mann, particularly his language on the subject of school discipline. Mr. Mann's temperament is impetuous, his language is free and unguarded, and not unfrequently sarcastic. He has been in the habit of speaking and writing respecting corporal punishment in schools as if it were a relic of barbarism. The effect which this language was likely to produce upon those teachers who felt obliged occasionally to resort to it, was not much qualified by the admission which he has always made, that in the present

state of education among us, and particularly with the present teachers, corporal punishment could not be entirely dispensed with. The admission amounts only to this, that a barbarous system must be continued because we have unenlightened teachers. Its effect of course was anything but soothing. The teachers felt also, that the excitement which existed in the community on this subject increased the difficulty of maintaining discipline in the schools. Mr. 'Mann's notions, too, respecting the mode in which reading should be taught to young children were far from being acceptable to most of them. And when his Seventh Annual Report came out, in which his usual opinions were enforced with more than his usual energy, and a description of foreign schools was given in which they were represented as far excelling those of this Commonwealth, the feeling of soreness was much increased, and a disposition to expose what they considered to be his errors grew up among the teachers. In this state of things it would not be surprising, if personal ill-will should have made some of their number peculiarly active, and led them to excite the rest till they were allowed to present their own views and feelings as the views and feelings of the teachers at large. This supposition we think naturally accounts for the fact, that a portion of the teachers' "Remarks" breathes a spirit inconsistent with the known feelings of some of their body in time past towards Mr. Mann. The portion to which we allude is the introductory essay, for which all have made themselves responsible by affixing their signatures to the pamphlet, but which we are far from considering as indicating the sentiment of the signers in general. This portion deserves the severe criticism which it has received from all quarters, but the subsequent pieces are written in a much better spirit, and contain little at which Mr. Mann should be offended.

The second article treats of the Prussian mode of instruction, and of the use of text-books. It contains some sensible views respecting text-books. But the criticism on the Prussian mode of teaching does not come with much authority, because the writer seems to derive all his knowledge of the subject from the Report which he criticises.

The third article is on "Modes of teaching children to read." It is written with much ability. We are glad to

find from Mr Mann's "Reply" that his notions respecting the teaching of words before letters do not differ so widely from those of most persons, as had been supposed by the writer of this article and by many others.

The fourth article treats of "School Discipline." Much has been said among us of late against corporal punishment as a means of school government. The writer of the remarks on school discipline, fearing that the opponents of corporal punishment are running into an injurious extreme, undertakes to show that the right of inflicting it should not be taken from the master. He says nothing which indicates the opinion, that such punishment should be used to the exclusion of higher means of influence, or that it should be the means ordinarily employed. He merely contends that the master ought to be allowed to resort to it, if all other means of enforcing his orders fail. And this, as we have hitherto supposed, is Mr Mann's own doctrine. He has been in the habit of expressing himself with earnestness against the abuse of corporal punishment, but he has always admitted the propriety of its use in extreme cases in the present condition of the schools. But in his reply to the teachers on this subject he manifests more than his usual warmth. His excitement hurries him so far that he misrepresents his opponent's argument. Because the writer of the article on school discipline lays down the principle that obedience is the fundamental law of a school, and must in case of necessity be enforced by corporal punishment, Mr Mann treats him as if he had maintained that fear and pain should be the master's ordinary means of government. This assumption pervades and vitiates his reply to this portion of the "Remarks."

With all our respect for Mr. Mann's eminent merit and usefulness, we cannot think that his "Reply to Thirty-one Boston Schoolmasters" is written in the right spirit. We admit that the introductory portion of the "Remarks" of the schoolmasters misrepresented him, and was peculiarly fitted to irritate an ardent, susceptible mind. But it is painful to see a man of his standing and influence replying in a similar tone. The public are too apt to regard a controversy conducted in this spirit as a personal quarrel, and to think less of the great points at issue than of which party VOL. XXXVIII. 4TH S. VOL. III. NO. II.

21

hits hardest. If his manner had been more moderate, his reply would have been more dignified and effective.

The "Observations" signed G. B. E. and understood to be from the pen of Mr. George B. Emerson, are written with candor and impartiality. We differ from him, however, in regard to the merits of the public schools of this city. Some years of official connexion with them have given us a higher opinion of their character than he appears to entertain.

On calling back our thoughts from this unfortunate controversy to the efforts which have been made of late years, and are now in progress, for the improvement of the young in this country, and particularly in our Commonwealth, we feel constrained to remind all who are interested in this object, of the necessity of a liberal spirit and united action. We are free to choose between good and ill. No benevolent despot can compel us to be prosperous and happy, to be wise and virtuous, against our will. We must choose and act for ourselves. It is by union of action among the wise and good that improvements in our condition are to be effected. A Peter the Great might drag a reluctant nation out of darkness into light; but the will which was concentrated in him is here diffused through that unwieldy mass, a majority of the people. The task of convincing tens of thousands must be gone through, before great measures can be adopted for the attainment of great ends. Concert of action is indispensable, and such concert cannot be obtained, and far less can it be maintained, without some sacrifice of individual opinions. When the difficulties that attend the outset of an important enterprise have been overcome, and plans which have been adopted deliberately are operating successfully, it becomes every wise man to aid the movement, though it may not coincide with his views in every particular. Above all, he should scorn to let any personal pique, any jealousy of party or sect, induce him to throw obstructions in the way of an undertaking which promises well for his country. If the course of the Board of Education has been attended with some great and good results, and is likely to produce more, it is the part of sound discretion and right feeling to encourage it to continued exertion, and cheerfully co-operate with it in the work of sowing knowledge and virtue broadcast through the Commonwealth.

E. W.