such of the Overseers as chose to attend. The of fender having kneeled, the President prayed, after which the corporal punishment was inflicted; and the solemnities were closed by another prayer from the President.' (See Pierce's History Harvard University.) There is no reason to suppose, that there was anything revolting in this, either to the opinions or the feelings of the age or country. On the contrary, it was in strict accordance with the habits and general notions of discipline prevalent at the period. These formal inflictions gradually grew out of use; but more than a century elapsed after the foundation of the college, before corporal punishments were obliterated from its code.' The law authorizing fines and corporal punishment in Harvard University, at the time such punishments were allowed there, reads: 'It is hereby ordered that the President and Fellows of Harvard College, for the time being, or the major part of them, are hereby empowered, according to their best discretion, to punish all misdemeanors of the youth in their society, either by fine, or whipping in the hall openly, as the nature of the offence shall require, not exceeding ten shillings or ten stripes for one offence; and this law to continue in force until this court or the Overseers of the college provide some other order to punish such offences. The magistrates have passed this with reference to the consent of their brethren, the deputies, thereunto.' Voted in the affirmative, October 21, 1656. When the unmanly practice of corporal punishment was abolished, suspension and expulsion were substituted,

and the pupil whose conduct was detrimental to the college was obliged to leave the same. The undersigned believe the same principle should be established in our public schools.

"Force is always a stimulant to antagonism; force appeals to the baser passions; force invariably excites a corresponding feeling in the mind of the child, or of the adult.

Corporal punishment should be abolished, because children are often whipped for not getting lessons, which they have not the mental capacity to learn. This is one of the most disgraceful things in our public schools. Children of feeble minds, and of no less feeble bodies, are often made to suffer, for what in reality they cannot help. God has not made them with the same capacity of some of their fellows, and consequently they must be whipped into the knowledge. Oh, how true it is, that the ambition of many a poor child has been prostrated, or a lying spirit engendered, by the whippings received in schools! Many children cannot learn their lessons from fear that if they fail they shall be punished; particularly is this true of the naturally timid child, whose memory almost becomes paralyzed under such fear, when the smiles and encouragement of the teacher would produce the opposite effect. Can it be that we live in a Christian age, and such inhumanity exists? It is said that Mrs. Wesley, the mother of John and Charles, was a woman of singular talents and rare excellence; so learned, that she was able to prepare her sons for college. She had the chief education

of her numerous children. One day her husband, the worthy rector of Epworth, was busy with his learned labor, probably with his 'Commentary on Job.' Mrs. Wesley was teaching the children in the same room, and had occasion to repeat, again and again, the same lesson. Mr. Wesley, perhaps a little irritated by his abstruse studies, arose and said with much feeling, 'My dear, why do you teach the child the same thing twenty times over?' She replied, with feminine meekness, 'Because, my love, nineteen times won't do.'

"Spencer says: 'No one can compare the faces and manners of two boys, the one made happy by mastering interesting subjects, and the other made miserable by disgust with his studies, or incapacity, producing consequent failure, by cold looks, by threats and punishment, without seeing that the disposition of the one is being benefited, and that of the other greatly injured. Whoever has marked the effect of intellectual success upon the mind, and the power of the mind over the body, will see that in the one case both temper and health are favorably affected, whilst in the other there is danger of permanent moroseness, of permanent timidity, and even of permanent constitutional depression. To all which considerations we must add the further one, that the relationship between teachers and their pupils, is, other things equal, rendered friendly and influential, or antagonistic and powerless, according as the system of culture produces happiness or misery. Human beings are at the mercy of their associated ideas. A

minister of pain cannot fail to be regarded with a secret dislike, and if he causes no emotions but painful ones, will inevitably be hated. Conversely, he who constantly aids children to their ends, hourly provides them with the satisfactions of conquest, hourly encourages them through their difficulties, and sympathizes in their successes, cannot fail to be loved; nay, if his behavior is consistent throughout, must be

loved. And when we remember how efficient and benign is the control of a master who is felt to be a friend, when compared with the control of one who is looked upon with aversion, or at best indifference, we may infer that the indirect advantages of conducting education on the happiness principle, do not fall far short of the direct ones. To all who question the possibility of acting out the system here advocated, we reply as before, that not only does theory point to it, but experience commends it. To the many verdicts of distinguished teachers who, since Pestalozzi's time, have testified this, may be here added that of Professor Pillans, who asserts that, "Where young people are taught as they ought to be, they are quite as happy in school as at play, seldom less delighted, nay, often more, with the well directed exercise of their mental energies, than with that of their muscular powers." Pestalozzi loved to train poor children to exertion, by forbearing and assiduous discipline, and by the ever powerful stimulus of love. He aimed to possess himself of their hearts, and from that point produce everything noble and great in humanity.'

"Demetz, the great reformatory teacher says, 'Every child has a good side to his character by which he may be approached, and through which his feelings may be touched and softened; and, if this only be carefully studied, and means earnestly sought by which the teacher may gain influence over him, assuredly they will be found, if the appeal be made from heart to heart.'

"Dr. Morrill Wyman, who has ever seconded the efforts of one of the undersigned in the cause of the abolition of corporal punishment, says:

Should corporal punishment in schools be forbidden by law? The right to punish corporally, children and marriageable females in schools, is derived from the English common law, which also authorized the whipping of wives and apprentices.

There is no statute in Massachusetts for the protection of children against excessive punishment in school.

Corporal punishment should be defined as defined by the Cambridge School Board: "any punishment intended to act through the production of bodily pain.”

It should be forbidden by law with regard to girls, and be either forbidden with regard to boys or allowed only after mature deliberation, with the consent of the school committee and parent or guardian in each case first obtained.

Corporal punishment is unnecessary.

The best teachers govern without it. It benefits poor teachers only, and these are not wanted in our schools.

The school children of a whole nation have been governed without it. In the schools of the Netherlands, confessedly the best in Europe, not a blow has been legally inflicted for nearly half a century. In Prussia, Austria, France and Netherlands, children in school are under the protection of statute law. It is abolished by statute in New Jersey.

Not a blow has been inflicted upon a girl in the Grammar schools