this dilemma: either they are ignorant concerning the disposition of boys, and so unfit for the work they have taken up, or else they are trying to draw money into their pockets on false pretenses. There is no escape from this position.

In the present day, when the number of schools has so greatly increased, to make a success it is often necessary to have some specialty; this is right and fair. Go in for no dead languages, for increased athletics, for separate bed-rooms, or anything of the sort which may seem likely to attract parents who have fads, so long as your speciality is really something honest. But when "No Corporal Punishment" is put on the prospectus as an inducement to some softhearted and soft-headed parent, honesty appears not to be very strongly considered. "My son," said the Yankee, "get dollars honestly if you can, but get them." "Get pupils," say the professors, "and get them by any appeal to the mawkish sentiment of the nineteenth century."

But now to consider the question itself for the benefit of parents and of those who have not studied the various dispositions of boys. Let it be taken for granted only that some boys, for the sake of argument-some boys are not angels and will occasionally break rules and offend against discipline, or be idle and not learn their lessons; what is to be done with such offenders? After appeals to their better feelings have failed, what is to be done? Suppose that they are given impositions, lines to write out or learn by heart, and they do not write them or learn them properly; the punishment is increased, and the result remains the same; what then is to be done? Either the rebel or the lazy boy remains triumphant, or the fortiter in re must take its proper place; there is nothing else, no third course open in the extreme case imagined; extreme, but common among boys. By all means let the suaviter in modo be tried; it will go a long way, but it must be understood that behind it there remains the fortiter in re.

Next let it be granted, and it cannot be denied, that boys do require punishment sometimes. What punishment is better than corporal punishment? Impositions may be given, and if the boy will do them he is punished; but at the expense first of his handwriting and next of his health, as he is deprived of the out-door exercise necessary for him. There are many boys, strange as it may seem, who will get impositions on purpose, especially in winter, that they may have an excuse for not going out and joining in games; a properly managed imposition will last certain boys for days, and enable them to sit over the fire and read novels, running back to their desks when they hear

CALT

I A

THE PACIFIC EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL.

223

the master approaching the school-room. Again, boys may be deprived, as a punishment, of their meals, and given bread and water instead. No one will argue that this punishment can be good for boys. Will one of the professors of Cant enlighten us as to the means he employs in dealing with idle boys? Putting corporal punishment on one side it is difficult to say what remains.

A boy does not work or break a rule and he is punished; he is not really injured, but made to feel there is an authority over him to which he must bow; he is careful not to offend again, and there the matter ends. In a well-regulated school, where it is well understood that corporal punishment will be inflicted if necessary, it is astonishing how seldom it has to be inflicted.

The great mistake lies in the false sentimentality which would make us imagine that a boy is degraded by being punished; boys have faults to be corrected, and these must be attended to or their education will be a failure; the object of education is to train a boy morally, and impart to him the knowledge necessary for him; if this can be done without corporal punishment, of course, so much the better, but with the great majority of boys, some power, to be exercised when necessary, is absolutely required. Boys themselves recognize this at once; in a large school a little time ago, to the writer's knowledge, the question was put to the boys whether corporal punishment was good for boys or not, and out of eighty boys seventy-five replied in the affirmative, and the voting was secret! Common sense, experience, knowledge of boys, all show that those gentlemen who profess to manage boys without corporal punishment, are simply in the same category as the agitators in labor disputes; these men invent, for the most part, grievances for the men that they may get fat at their expense, while advocates for no corporal punishment for boys also invent a grievance, that boys are not sensible of, in order that they themselves may draw pupils to their schools from sentimental parents, and thus put money in their purses.-The Headmaster's Guide, (London.)

THE EDUCATION OF WOMAN.

The question of woman's educational advance might also appear superfluous in a day in which the ancient barriers no longer cross the onward path of the women who would know something.

The high schools and colleges of the country, once closed against women, are now in great measure open to them. Their record in

these institutions shows their studious zeal and capacity. Thorough intellectual training is making plain to woman the laws which underlie her most gracious instincts, giving her the rationale of the poetic saying, that

"Spirits are not finely touched

But to fine issues."

The pursuit of the higher education for women has been met by two grave difficulties, viz., the fear that its emancipation would react unfavorably upon their moral nature, and the persuasion that severe mental application would impair the physical condition of the mothers of the race.

The first of these conclusions springs from the tyrannical instinct which is at certain stages of society the leading force among human tendencies. Not men only, but women also, wishing to command, naturally desire that others should be incapacitated from sharing their rule. The surest way to do this is to keep for themselves the secrets of the knowledge which is power. Statecraft and priestcraft have closely allied themselves with these views, and in our days a sort of "rank craft" has done what it could in the same way.

The heroic men who have vindicated the cause of human freedom have brought society out of this rut of fear and repression. They have shown, and history has shown with them, that the true danger of society lies in ignorance and not in intelligence. The Channings, Garrisons, Phillips have made the atmosphere all clear and bright about us. Before their time the saintly women of the Puritans and of the Quakers, and in their time, the brave women of the anti-slavery movement, have aided in trampling out the embers of the old inquisitorial fires. And to-day, the women of the suffrage movement may point to Ann Hutchinson, Maria Weston Chapman, Harriet Martineau and a host of others and ask whether a woman is less a woman because more a citizen-less fit for home duties because she has learned to apprehend rightly the relation of these duties to the State?

The question of woman's physical improvement comes last in my list of queries. I mention it here as being closely allied to the topic of extended education.

The demand that the college curriculum should be as free to women as to men called forth from members of the medical profession an indignant protest. All the ill that flesh is heir to would visit them and their posterity if this demand should be granted. Insanity, sterility, deformity would afflict the college-bred woman. Either they would stay the men fatally in the race for academic honors, or the

effort to keep up with these would shipwreck the health of the young girls for life.

In spite of these threats, coming from high quarters, the demand was persevered in, granted and availed of.

What followed? The inevitable conclusion that young women are as well able to bear the strain of college studies as young men are. It also appeared that if some girls are physically disqualified for sustained intellectual labor, a certain proportion of the young men are subject to the same limitation. Cases of breaking down among the male undergraduates came to be observed and reported. Non omnia possumus omnes.

We can't all go to college, men and women of us, but many women can and should go. And, thank heaven, they did go and still continue to do so.

What an hysterical view was this, that all the discoveries of science, the improvements of hygiene, the ameliorated views of diet, ventilation and of the use and care of the body, should not sufficiently benefit women to offset the danger of a thorough course of Latin, Greek and mathematics!

How much were it to be wished that the zeal of the faculty had directed itself as openly and efficiently against late hours, tight lacing, high-heeled shoes and the use of nerve stimulants and cosmetics, as it did against the healthful and satisfying pursuit of learning!

Much as I consider women to have gained by the position and opportunities secured to them in America, I have yet to name an important item, which is both a condition and a mark of their improveThis is the fact of their over-increasing tendency to associated

action.

The social instinct is strong in human nature, but it does not attain its best results without study and self-discipline.

The women's clubs which are springing up all over the country are marks of this study and discipline. I know of many of them, and I do not know of one which does not keep in view serious and worthy objects. The feeling of sisterhood which naturally grows out of club intercourse among women tends to put out of sight the inordinate ambitions of the few and the self-distrusting passivity of the many.

In the club it is soon found that one woman can not do everything. All must help, and tasks are constantly found which give scope to the activity of each and all. A generous and far-reaching sympathy tends more and more to take the place of fantastic aims and illusory relations.

The women's clubs are, as I see them, the sign and seal of the advance of woman in health, in sound life and in rational enjoyment and service. JULIA WARD HOWE in Educational News.

RESULTS OF THE JUNE EXAMINATIONS.

ALAMEDA COUNTY.

Twenty-seven of the forty-three ladies and gentlemen who entered upon the examination for teachers' certificates were successful. The following is the complete list :

GRAMMAR SCHOOL COURSE-Cora M. Boone of Livermore and Mary J. Reid of Alameda.

GRAMMAR GRADE-Laura De Laguna, Evelina L. Dickenson, Alice F. Keefer, Susie M. Kingbury, Roberta Conway and Lou A. Beauvais of Oakland; Clara A. Blodgett of Temescal; Nina Long of Alameda and Mary E. Cahill of Castro Valley.

PRIMARY-Hattie F. Howell, Mary V. Boardman, Allen Burdick, Evie Thompson, Louise J. Amerman, Marian B. Cullen and Irma L. Elzy of Oakland; Peter J. Crosby of Centerville; Olive Barnum and Martha Crooks of Alameda; Ellen Wilson, F. R. Woolsey and Etta S. Higgins of Berkeley, Jennie Robb of San Francisco; Jennie Barrows of Lorin and Eleanor G. Harrington of Haywards.-Oakland Times.

NAPA COUNTY.

The Teachers' Examination resulted in the following named applicants receiving primary grade certificates, the position of their names indicating their relative standing as shown by the per cent of questions properly answered: Sarah F. Haire, St. Helena; Theodore Bell, St. Helena; James O'Connor, Napa; Louise Graham, Napa; John A. Imrie, Napa; Maud Ellis, Lidell; Visa Ammons, Sacramento; Libbie B. Stephens, Napa; Cyrene E. Cope, San Francisco; Lenore Bennett, St. Helena.

Miss Myrtle Bennett of Calistoga was the best of all. She stood first as applicant for a higher (grammar) grade, Miss Olive Wright of Napa being second, and the only other one receiving such certificate.

The Register says that the "applicants were nearly all quite young, three being just past eighteen, the age required."-Calistogan.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

The following applicants were granted certificates on examination : Primary certificates-Alice Church, J. H. Mitchell, Oliver Petty, Clara McQuaid, Mary Halloran, Patrick Madden, Charles Boscow, Nellie