fault must lie in the books, and forthwith set about making books for themselves. After much labor and much compilation they produce a work which they fondly hope has met every practical difficulty, and is to supersede all the rest. But, alas! when tested, the invariable result is experienced; while the book is good enough, and embodies all the principles of its predecessors, and perhaps something more, derived from their more extended research, the scholars will not learn to apply the principles, pertinaciously persist in solecisms, and wantonly luxuriate in the grossest violations of the plainest grammatical laws. Another practical teacher, finding that the grammars commonly used agree in all the fundamental doctrines, and differ only in insignificant details, and having satisfied himself that they are all alike practically impotent to impart skill in English speech, fancies that the difficulty lies in the nomenclature, and in the number of the details; and he hopes to find a remedy in a thorough simplification of all the doctrines, and a reduction of all the principles of the language to a few general rules which shall be easily mastered.

It was with this plea that Mr. I. J. Morris, a citizen of this State, prepared a little work not larger than the Westminster Catechism, in which the whole art was to be taught in sixteen lessons. He attacked what he called "the old systems," remorselessly; and, in order to make good his pretensions, he was compelled to attack the very fundamentals of general grammar, and to dispense with any discriminating analysis of the parts of speech.

When, however, the second edition of this work appeared, the little pamphlet had grown into a stereotyped book, fully as large as any of those which he had made the object of attack. Thus his system which had been made philosophically absurd for the sake of brevity, became in process of time, fully as cumbrous as the old systems; and, like them, it has shared the common fate.

If there were no other argument for the doctrine of total depravity, the teacher of English Grammar finds enough to demonstrate it to his own mind in the perverse habits of his pupils, who, "while they know the right, do yet the wrong pursue." And his sad experience is revealed in that desparing interrogatory annually propounded to us from all quarters of the State, "in English Grammar, who will show us any good?"

It would be presumptuous in me to undertake to give a satisfactory answer to this question, but having been called upon to express my views upon this important subject, and to designate such text-books as I deem best for use in our schools, the Association will pardon me if I dwell at some length upon the principles that would guide me in the selection of a text-book in grammar.

In pursuing the subject, I propose,

1. To define Grammar.

2. To discuss the ends which the study of English Grammar proposes to accomplish.

3. To discuss the true methods by which these ends may be accomplished.

4. To make a few remarks upon the text-books which have been sent to me for examination.

1. What is Grammar?

"In its widest signification, Grammar is the doctrine of words and sentences. It is the science which unfolds the laws by which the various forms of thought appear in language; by which logical ideas and conceptions, in themselves and in their relations, embody themselves in words, and logical judgments in sentences."

Thus the sphere of Grammar is limited to the sentence and the words which compose it. Its domain is bounded at one extremity by a capital letter, at the other by a period. It has nothing to do with the graces of 1 composition, or with the arrangement of consecutive sentences. These belong to the province of rhetoric. The sentence, and the sentence only, is its legitimate empire. In every discourse, Grammar has numerous principalities, all separated from each other, in which it establishes an #independent authority, while rhetoric presides over all together. Grammar rules the parts as parts; rhetoric, the whole as a whole.

English Grammar is the doctrine of English words and sentences. It is a species, of which general Grammar is the genus. It is an exhibition of the laws of general Grammar, as they have been modified in their adaptation to a particular language. In its true character it is not an art, but a science—a particular phase of the science of universal Grammar, working out its laws in the English language. It is a scientific embodiment of the usages of the English language. It is a scientific embodiment

of the usages of the English language, and a systematic exhibition of the laws which govern us in our attempts to write or speak that language. Thus far the authors of English Grammars are right, but when they go on to say, as is said in the first Grammar which I open at random, "A knowledge of English Grammar enables us to read, write, and speak the English language correctly," I deny the assertion, and appeal to experience and observation.

I appeal to your experience as teachers to know whether you invariably speak the language correctly, even in your school-rooms; to your observation, to know whether your best scholars do not violate the rules of Grammar even while they repeat them; whether they do not in the ordinary recitations on other subjects, and in the sports of the play-ground, habitually outrage those grammatical laws which they know by heart and thoroughly understand; whether, in short, your whole observation would not lead you to conclude that a knowledge of English Grammar enables us to read, write, and speak the English language most barbarously. This leads me to the second point I proposed for consideration.

2. The ends which you propose to accomplish by teaching English Grammar in our common schools.

You will all agree that you teach English Grammar in your schools in order to train your pupils to accuracy in the use of their vernacular. Allow me to ask, with how many of your pupils have you succeeded in this aim? If I am to judge from my limited experience in the intercourse I have have had with those pupils, I should say, with about one in every fifty. Do not misunderstand me. In examining them after they leave your schools, I find many among them who give good evidence of faithful drilling in the principles of the science; many who can recite all the rules of syntax by their numbers, and in their proper order; many who can resolve a sentence into its grammatical elements; but scarcely one in a hundred who speaks and writes correctly. And yet, If I mistake not, the avowed object of the study is to gain this end, and this end only.

Now in the practical business of life, when a means, which has been frequently tried, uniformly fails to secure the end in view, we are apt to abandon it as unworthy of further experiment. Not so with us in the teaching of our language- We persist in telling our pupils, and in persuading ourselves, that the study of English Grammar is a means of learning to speak and write good English; and we go on from year to year in the same old track, hoping that one day the falsehood may become a truth. But with the experience of all the land to bear me out, I unhesitatingly deny the dogma. And now I go further, and assert that this is not the legitimate end to be sought in the study of the grammar of our language.

The numerous failures we have experienced ought to convince us that we are teaching grammar with a wrong aim; or, if the aim we have is one worthy of pursuit, that we are seeking it by the wrong methods. I shall show in another part of this essay what is the legitimate design of the study of English Grammar. but at this point of the discussion I shall content myself with the simple assertion that English Grammar cannot teach, and is not adapted to teach, the art of speaking and writing the English language to children. I, therefore, hold that the universality of our failure in teaching this art is to be ascribed to the fact that we have not adapted the means to the end. I am prepared for the surprise which such an announcement is calculated to produce: and I almost fear that such apparent radicalism will exclude me from your sympathies. But, like the old Greek, I would say, "strike, but hear me." And this leads me to the third point I propose to examine. To be Continued.

CHARLESS.-Miss Charless, daughter of the lately murdered Joseph Charless, of St. Louis, has given $20,000 to endow the Professorship of Physical Science in Westminster College, Fulton, Mo. Her father had expressed special interest in that object.

REPORT

OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION APPOINTED TO PROCURE A RVISION OF THE SCHOOL LAW-READ BEFORE THE ASSOCIATION, AT MADISON, JULY 29, 1859, IN BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, BY REV. J. B. PRADT.

THE Committee appointed to lay before the Legislature those modifications of our school system which were approved by the Assocociation at its last meeting, and to procure, if practicable, their enactment into a law, respectfully report that their efforts have been attended with but partial success.

A BILL OFFERED TO THE LEGISLATURE.

After much consultation and correspondence with other members of the committee, and with many intelligent friends of education within and without the State, the chairman drew up a bill for a School Law, embodying in detail the modified system submitted by a former committee, and adopted by the Association. The bill was further discussed and amended in a meeting of the committee in Madison, in February last; likewise, in a joint meeting of the committee and several members of the committee of the Assembly on Education. Your committee were fortunate in the circumstance that one of their number was also chairman of the committee of the Assembly on Education. Through his offices, the bill was twice read, referred to the appropriate committee, and 500 copies ordered printed. It was not, however returned to the Assembly, and therefore not finally passed upon.*

The subject has, nevertheless, been brought fairly before the Legislature; and the discussion there given to the matter, and the circulation of copies of the bill in question in various parts of the State, together with previous discussion in the Association' and in the Journal of Education, have contributed, it may be hoped, to prepare the way for favorable legislation at a future time.

THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.

Another step gained, is presented in the fact that the Legislature itself, before adjournment, appointed a committee to revise the School Law; and the importance of this appointment will be appreciated when it is remembered that the committee embraces a gentleman so eminently qualified, by his past labors and experience, to direct the revision, as its chairman.† In view of this feature of the appointment, it can scarcely

* It should, perhaps, here be mentioned, that the friends of the bill, in the Committee, were satisfied that it could not pass, and, therefore, forbore to press it. † Hon. HENRY BARNARD, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin.

be regretted that the needed legislation still remains to be effected; and the Association may congratulate itself that its efforts have been so far successful as to bring about this auspicious preliminary to legislative action. But, by this appointment of the Legislature, the labors of your committee seem, in some sense. to be terminated. Were they, or any similar committee, to communicate again to the Legislature the views and wishes of the Association in the premises, they would naturally meet with the reply, that the Legislature already have the matter in hand, and are awaiting the report of a competent committee. Believing, however, that those changes in our school system which have been submitted to the Legislature, are of vital importance to the welfare of our schools, it may be proper to advert to them again briefly before closing this report.

REVIEW OF THE BILL OFFERED BY THE COMMITTEE.

Without disturbing the name, or extinguishing the individuality of the School District, the bill drawn up by Mr. Pickett provides for the consolidation of the interests of the several districts in a town, in such a manner as to insure far greater efficiency and uniformity in the schools than obtained at present. The advantages of the Union, or Town District, under one board of officers, with a proper gradation of the schools, and provision for central High Schools, over the old New-England and NewYork system of a multitude of isolated independent schools, without gradation, harmony, or sympathy, are too palpable, and too generally acknowledged, by all intelligent persons, to need argument or explanation here. It is natural indeed-or perhaps we may say it is a dictate of natural selfishness-to feel an especial interest, only in the school in one's own neighborhood, or which one's own children attend. Without entirely overlooking this fact, the plan of Union Districts, which is proposed, would lead each local district, or school neighborhood to "look on things of others," as well as its own; while a Town Board, consisting of one member from each local district, would secure a representation of each part of the Union District. Under such a system, the several schools of the town, grouped around the central High School, would become a matter of common interest to all parts of the town. It is true that a School Board composed in this way, would sometimes be inconveniently large; but with a majority of the Board for a quorum, which would naturally embrace the most efficient members, and usually transact business, the objection would be found merely theoretical. On the other hand, the numerous and obvious advantages of the Union District, and single board, recommend the plan to early adoption. It combines the advantages of the local school committee, known in New-England and New-York, and the consolidated town board, as adopted in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states. This feature of the plan is not its least recommendation. In