of Teaching as a Profession, discussing the subject under the three following heads :

1st. There is no such profession recognized.

2d. There is a field to be occupied, to be determined by the organic structure of American society.

3d. The times demand immediate action on the part of the public, as well as of teachers themselves, to establish such a profession.

3

SECOND DAY.

THURSDAY MORNING, Aug. 1, 1867.

J. W. Bulkley, Esq., of Brooklyn, New York, one of the Vice-Presidents, called the Institute to order this morning at nine o'clock.

The Institute was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Stebbins, of Springfield.

DISCUSSION.

The subject of discussion assigned for this morning was, "The place Natural History should occupy in a Course of Instruction."

Isaac F. Cady, Esq., of Rhode Island, opened the discussion by reading a well-prepared paper on the subject, which will be found in another part of the volume.

The subject was then open for discussion by members of the Institute.

me,

Mr. Cruttenden. This paper does not need a discussion. I feel free to say that it is the best presentation of the subject to which I have ever listened, or have ever read. It carries its own conviction with it. Said an old pioneer to - a man whose back was crooked with rheumatism and who was out of shape generally, "You see how I am deformed?"-"I do.”. "That was done by hard work.”. -"Do you think," said I, "that you have spent your life wisely and well in laboring thus while others come to enjoy your fields ?” Said he, "I am content; I have done good, and I leave my family a nice home which they will enjoy." I admired the old pioneer; I admire pioneers in teaching. Words, words,

nothing but words, was the teaching of my early school-iife. Now what is the consolation in those words? One lesson, such as we have had to-day, in the right spirit, would have been worth more than all the spelling-book which was ever crammed down me. Of course we have lost the time and opportunity to be thus taught. But shall we go with the book of nature open before us and not read it? I cannot have the consolations that I might, of the works of God as I have seen them. Why? Because the whole system of school supervision, when I was in school, was wrong; it was made up of abstractions, words instead of ideas and thoughts.

This question will help answer the question in regard to school discipline. If the mind of the scholar is occupied with studies of this sort, the idle mind, which is "the devil's workshop," will become occupied, and the old workman will not succeed. I rejoice that the time has come when the youth will be put upon the right track of study, in the right time and place, when there will be no more five, or six, or eight dreary years of not much to be done, and trying to find something to employ children till they are old enough to learn something.

How frequently we have said it was important to learn the words of the dictionary. Why? Because it kept the children busy. It is exactly the argument of Mrs. Toodles, when she bought the wheelbarrow, and the old lamp-post, and the door-plate with the name "Tompkins " upon it. When her husband expostulated, she replied, "Yes, I know we have no use for it now; but if we should have a daughter, and she should marry a man by the name of Tompkins, how nice it would be to have a door-plate ready for them!"

The whole system of teaching words, was nothing but sound- to me at least. After I left college, I had one day of shooting; and in my travels I walked across a bridge, whilst

66

my dog went down through the ditch and up on the other side. I said to myself, " A bridge, to shorten," as I had for the thousandth time and more in the course of my life (for when I was a little boy I had been taught to give definitions, as they are called, from the spelling-book, while the teacher gave the words); abandon, to give up, to forsake; abase, to bring low; abet, to encourage, to assist; abide, -to dwell in a place; abound, -to have plenty; abridge, to shorten." Now, after learning this definition, I had never crossed a bridge in a road without saying to myself, "A bridge,—to shorten," but never thought what it meant. But this time, I observed that my path was much shorter than the dog's, and then I realized, for the first time, that, "to shorten," had been the definition of a bridge. (Laughter.)

Now, suppose the teacher had brought in a flower or a leaf to talk about, he could not have failed to interest his scholars, and do them more good than by their learning words only, with their definitions, by means of other words that the child could not understand. We may be spurred on to better methods of study by telling our own experience. I would give more to be able to-day to classify the different minerals with which I come in contact, than to be able to give the definitions in Webster's dictionary.

But some one may say, that would be undervaluing language. No: the best foundation for the study of language is this study of natural history. Words are signs of ideas. When do we want words? When we have ideas. If you would have a child know the meaning of a word, give him the idea. Then ideas are precious and inviting, and words are inviting because they are the means by which ideas are represented. Every word thus known is a familiar thing, and will be spelled and pronounced correctly; and it becomes an additional source of power as a means by which thoughts are made known.

If I could wipe out the present course of instruction, I would place language first, natural science next, mathematics last. I would place language first, because God taught language first. Even in the nature of the brute, he has given emotional language. For us, science furnishes the idea, and language furnishes the way to express the idea. Any system which divorces the two is false to nature-I am not a heathen it is false to God. The new system must prevail, because it is common sense; it is God's own good sense.

John B. Perry, Esq., of Burlington, Vt., said: I think this is one of the most important subjects that can come up for consideration. We see at once the place it should occupy when we look at the nature of it. We are first taught to read artificial language. Natural science is God's language. The plant, the animal, are expressions of God's thoughts. What should the child be taught to read? He should be taught to read nature, the whole world around him; natural language instead of books. It is important to be able to read the pebble, to know what it means, to read minerals and animals, and what God would tell us by them.

One word as to the method. It is well to have a child taught principles, but that is not the first thing. The first thing should be to be taught what minerals, plants, animals, and insects are. Let the teacher understand these things, and have exercises in them frequently, and he will find that more may be done in the way of discipline in this than in any other way.

David Crosby, Esq., of Nashua, N. H. I was not so fortunate as to hear the paper introducing this topic read; and I have heard but a few of the remarks of those who have discussed the subject. I came here to get instruction, and I trust I shall.