ment is inflicted more in sorrow than in anger, and with the necessary solemnity, the necessity for it will soon disappear. Children should not be punished when the wrong was not intentional, otherwise they would soon see no difference between voluntary and involuntary acts. Their sense of justice would be blunted, and their faith in correctness of principle would be destroyed.

Should be by the principal teacher. The chastisement of a child should in all cases be inflicted by the principal teacher. When a pupil misbehaves, the duty of an assistant teacher is simply to represent the misconduct to the principal teacher, on no account taking on himself the function of measuring or inflicting the punishment, or in any manner abusing or ill-treating the offending child.

Rewards. As children must be reprimanded and otherwise punished for faults, so ought they also to be rewarded for good actions, not as a motive for the performance of them, but as a means of marking how highly good actions are valued. Remember, however, that a frequent recourse either to rewards or punishments deadens their effects. A child who is frequently subjected to punishment will, in the end, become hardened and callous; and he who is always receiving rewards will be always expecting them. He will grow so accustomed to these stimulants that he will soon be unable or unwilling to act without them. Praise and blame are species of rewards and punishments, and, therefore, they also must be administered sparingly. A child may be called good or bad, pleasing or disagreeable, until he will listen to either character with indifference.

Value of discipline. By the steady and temperate enforcement of discipline, some of the greatest of the benefits of education are produced. The habits of regularity and discipline which pupils. acquire in a well-governed school, are even more valuable than their literary advancement. Reading may lead to mischief, knowledge may be abused, skill may be misdirected, but the fruits of early obedience, regularity, and discipline are everlasting and ever beneficial.

Constant employment a good means of discipline. Much of the failings of discipline and order in a school would be removed were the children kept constantly employed: it is the best way to prevent talking, confusion, restlessness, mischief, and bad habits. They should, therefore, never be allowed to idle, yet never be allowed to grow weary by detaining them too long at one subject. This is difficult. Proper organisation is the basis of success, but it is the master's eye which should control the school. It should be everywhere: the pupils should feel its influence continually, and be convinced that they cannot possibly idle or talk without

discovery. It is in this that the whole secret lies. The teacher should be able not only to keep up the attention of the particular class to which he is giving instruction, but should at the same time possess an accurate perception of everything that is going on around him. If he would have the hearty co-operation of his children, pupil-teachers or monitors, he must impress them strongly with the idea that he can do this, and that because he possesses the power he can, at any time, appreciate the exertions they are making. To do this effectually requires a keen eye and a master mind; to accomplish it in its fullest extent is what few attain to, and many are prevented from attempting it owing to the defective organisation of their schools.

14. Neatness and cleanliness closely connected with good order. These are very intimately connected with good order and discipline. Whatever value they may possess in other cases, they are beyond price when exercising their influence over a school. Children living for many hours of the day under the immediate influence of neatness and cleanliness, become gradually and unconsciously affected by them. Their good qualities become a part of their very nature, and are as certain in their action afterwards as the mental culture they receive. Dr. Newell says: 'Spelling, reading, writing, must be taught to each succeeding generation, and to every individual of it, but the inculcation of habits of cleanliness and decency carries with it an hereditary morality, if I may so speak, that descends from parent to child, and whose influence is felt by succeeding generations.' Children who have acquired in school orderly and cleanly habits will, when they become parents, be almost certain to impart these virtues to their children by precept and example, and these in their turn will do the same to the next generation. A filthy, disorderly, irregular school will form habits just as lasting as the habits of neatness and tidiness. It is difficult, therefore, to say how much harm is in reality done by the influence of such a school, or how much good by one whose aspect, general appearance, and arrangements are what they ought to be.

Fourfold consideration of this subject. We may consider this subject under four heads: (1) as to the cleanliness and neatness of the teacher's own person and dress; (2) as to the children; (3) as to the school-room; and (4) as to the school-grounds.

(1) In reference to teacher. As the master is placed so very much above his children, he is naturally accepted by them as a proper model for imitation. They imitate his looks and gesture, his dress and manners, and are negligent or attentive just as he is himself. If he come to school unclean or untidy, the chances are that they will act in the same way. Besides, a dirty, slovenly man

CARELESSNESS OF MASTERS.

303

cannot enforce cleanliness and neatness; he cannot preach these virtues any more than a drunkard can enforce or preach temperance, except, indeed, that he inculcates them by holding himself up as an example of the injurious effect of their neglect.

Examples of carelessness on masters' part. In my experience of teachers, I have had frequent occasion to call their attention to their personal appearance. I have met men with shoes unbrushed apparently for some days-with trousers upon which the traces of many a muddy walk still remained visible; with coats out at elbows, and waistcoats unbuttoned and slovenly; in fact, with a dirty dress untidily put on their faces unshaved-I shall not say unwashed-with hair either uncombed or carelessly arranged, and in all other ways so little different from the peasants whom they taught, that it required some difficulty to say who was the educator and who the educated. For these men I will quote what Addison has written upon cleanliness. He says: 'It is a mark of politeness, for it is universally agreed upon, that no one unadorned with this virtue can go into company without giving manifest offence. The different nations of the world are as much distinguished by their cleanliness as by their arts and sciences. The more they are advanced in civilisation, the more they consult this part of politeness; secondly, cleanliness may be said to be the foster-mother of affection. Beauty commonly produces love, but cleanliness preserves it. Age itself is not unamiable while it is preserved clean and unsullied. I might further observe, that as cleanliness renders us agreeable to others, it makes us easy to ourselves; that it is an excellent preservative of health, and that several vices, destructive both to body and mind, are inconsistent with the habit of it. In the third place, it bears a great analogy with purity of mind, and naturally inspires refined sentiments and passions. We find from experience that through the prevalence of custom the most vicious actions lose their horror by being made familiar to us. On the contrary, those who live in the neighbourhood of good examples fly from the first appearance of what is shocking, and thus pure and unsullied thoughts are naturally suggested to the mind by those objects that perpetually encompass us, when they are beautiful and elegant in their kind.'

He, therefore, who is unclean, is deficient in politeness, cannot enter society without offence, is uncivilised, loses the affection of his friends, and his own self-respect, injures his health, and, insensibly, contracts vices injurious to both body and mind. A teacher, therefore, habitually so, is in my opinion unfitted for his office, even if he had all the learning of Newton and all the 'didaktic art of Pestalozzi.

Dress of teacher. The income of the teacher prevents his

dressing expensively, but certainly it does not prevent his dressing neatly and tastefully. The clothes may not be good, but they can be well brushed and mended. Many teachers have an idea that anything will do for the school, even what they would be ashamed to wear in other places; but this is very incorrect. The school dress should be clean and neat, and such as will not lower him in his own opinion or in the opinion of his visitors or children. One of the maxims of dressing is, that the apparel must possess a certain degree of suitability; that is, it must be adapted to the circumstances of the wearer to his profession and his income. A man who holds a humble position is not expected to dress richly; and no man who holds an important office, and respects himself, ought to dress lightly or rakishly. The teacher is generally compared with the clergyman, and his dress should be in keeping with this estimate of his character. It should not be gaudy, flimsy, extravagant, or vain; his head-dress should be plain, not ultra-fashionable, and worn without affectation or foppery. Dress is a key to character; and no one respects those who dress unsuitably.

(2) In reference to the children. In reference to the children themselves, cleanliness and neatness are of the greatest importance. These virtues in the master are valuable, chiefly from his serving, as I have said, as a model; but it is the children themselves whom we wish to influence. It is exceedingly difficult to make them attend properly to personal cleanliness. They are too young to value or feel its influence upon the health, and too thoughtless to understand or care for the favourable impression it makes upon those with whom they associate.

The history of many schools throughout the country abundantly proves that it is possible, however, to create in children a proper regard for neatness and cleanliness, and that they can be made to exhibit these in their own persons, even when dwelling, as many of them do, in smoky, unhealthy-looking cabins, and occupied in the rough work at which the children of peasants are so frequently engaged. All that is necessary is a proper appreciation exhibited by the master himself of the beauty and value of cleanliness, and a determination to have it carried out in his school as far as practicable. When children are not clean and neat in school, the teacher is chiefly to blame. He will be found either not to value these virtues or not to enforce them. I have often thought, when -I have met with school-boys with dirty hands and faces, with hair uncut and uncombed, and with unbrushed clothes, how extremely little their teacher regarded their welfare. It is only from supposing an indifference to the true interests of his pupils that we can at all account for this neglect, for every man is fully aware of the

CLEANLINESS IN THE SCHOOL PREMISES. 305

importance of neatness and personal cleanliness; and it has always been a question with me whether one so indifferent is not wholly unfitted for his office.

Requires a constant watchfulness. Cleanliness will not be produced by a mere enunciation of its advantages for children, as I said before, cannot appreciate the force of such an argument -nor will it be produced by general directions to come clean to school. There must be, in addition to these, a constant watchfulness to detect and remove every individual instance of neglect. Five minutes are supposed in most cases to be set specially apart for this purpose, before the business of the day begins; but in country schools, and indeed in the majority of town schools, this arrangement is nugatory, for the simple reason that, owing to the extreme irregularity of attendance, at least one half of the pupils are thus passed over, and that half the very portion which most requires supervision, from being generally detained at some manual labour. At whatever time the pupils come before the teacher, in the class, in the desks, in the gallery-and all ought to come before him daily his eye should be always searching for breaches of cleanliness and neatness, and, when detected, he should at once endeavour to remove them, and take such steps as would prevent a recurrence of the faults. Children, in fact, will be clean only from habit; and the habit of cleanliness can only be formed by repeated admonitions, and by never permitting an instance of its neglect to pass unnoticed and unreproved.

(3) In reference to the school-room. Cleanliness in the school-house is almost as essential as cleanliness in the person of the teacher and his children; but happily it is more easily procured. All that is required is a little exertion and some taste. No lumber should be permitted to lie in the apartment; no broken and useless slates, no torn and soiled papers, no scraps of anything should be allowed to remain one moment longer than they could conveniently be removed. Everything, in fact, ought to be removed from the school except what is absolutely necessary for the business of each day:

Sweeping and dusting. The room should be swept each evening, and dusted each morning. To dust a room just after sweeping it, is useless. Time should be allowed for the settling down of the dust. Before sweeping the floor, if very dry, it ought to be sprinkled with water, the maps rolled up, and all tablets likely to be injured either turned, taken down, covered, or otherwise protected. All books, copybooks, &c. should also be previously put into their proper places. In dusting the school next morning, never omit to remove the dust from the tablets, maps, charts, &c., and from the desks, forms, windows, and the

X