sults which would naturally flow from the | you had your toys you left them lying on conduct, in the absence of parental the floor, and Jane had to pick them up. opinion or interference. The truly instructive and salutary consequences are not those inflicted by parents when they take upon themselves to be Nature's proxies; but they are those inflicted by Nature herself. We will endeavor to make this distinction clear by a few illustrations, which, while they show what we mean by natural reactions as contrasted with artificial ones, will afford some directly practical suggestions. In every family where there are young children there almost daily occur cases of what mothers and servants call " making a litter." A child has had out its box of toys, and leaves them scattered about the floor. Or a handful of flowers, brought in from a morning walk, is presently seen dispersed over tables and chairs. Or a little girl making doll's clothes, disfigures the room with shreds. In most cases the trouble of rectifying this disorder falls anywhere but in the right place: if in the nursery, the nurse herself, with many grumblings about "tiresome little things," etc., undertakes the task; if below stairs, the task usually devolves either on one of the elder children or on the housemaid; the transgressor being visited with nothing more than a scolding. In this very simple case, however, there are many parents wise enough to follow out, more or less consistently, the normal course-that of making the child itself collect the toys The labor of putting things in order is the true consequence of having put them in disorder. Every trader in his office, every wife in her household, has daily experience of this fact. And if education be a preparation for the business of life, then every child should also, from the beginning, have daily experience of this fact. If the natural penalty be met by any refractory behavior, (which it may perhaps be where the general system of moral discipline previously pursued has been bad,) then the proper course is to let the child feel the ulterior reaction consequent on its disobedience. Having refused or neglected to pick up and put away the things it has scattered about, and having thereby entailed the trouble of doing this on some one else, the child should, on subsequent occasions, be denied the means of giving this trouble. When next it petitions for its toy-box, the reply of its mamma should be: "The last time Jane is too busy to pick up every day the things you leave about; and I can not do it myself. So that, as you will not put away your toys when you have done with them, I can not let you have them." This is obviously a natural consequence, neither increased nor lessened; and must be so recognized by a child. The penalty comes, too, at the moment when it is most keenly felt. A new-born desire is balked at the moment of anticipated gratification; and the strong impression so produced can scarcely fail to have an effect on the future conduct: an effect which, by consistent repetition, will do whatever can be done in curing the fault. Add to which, that by this method, a child is early taught the lesson which can not be learnt too soon, that in this world of ours pleasures are rightly to be obtained only by labor. Take another case. Not long since we had frequently to listen to the reprimands visited on a little girl who was scarcely ever ready in time for the daily walk. Of eager disposition, and apt to become thoroughly absorbed in the occupation of the moment, Constance never thought of putting on her things until the rest were ready. The governess and the other children had almost invariably to wait; and from the mamma there almost invariably came the same scolding. Utterly as this system failed, it never occurred to the mamma to let Constance experience the natural penalty. Nor, indeed, would she try it when it was suggested to her. In the world the penalty of being behind time is the loss of some advantage that would else have been gained: the train is gone; or the steam-boat is just leaving its moorings; or the best things in the market are sold; or all the good seats in the concert-room are filled. And every one, in cases perpetually occurring, may see that it is the prospective deprivations entailed by being too late which prevent people from being too late. Is not the inference obvious? Should not these prospective deprivations control the child's conduct also? If Constance is not ready at the appointed time, the natural result is that of being left behind, and losing her walk. And no one can, we think, doubt that after having once or twice remained at home while the rest were enjoying themselves in the fields, and after having felt that this loss of a much-prized | Proper conduct in life is much better gratification was solely due to want of guaranteed when the good and evil conpromptitude, some amendment would take place. At any rate, the measure would be more effective than that perpetual scolding which ends only in producing callousness. sequences of actions are rationally understood, than when they are merely believed on authority. A child who finds that disorderliness entails the subsequent trouble of putting things in order, or who misses Again, when children, with more than a gratification from dilatoriness, or whose usual carelessness, break or lose the want of care is followed by the loss or things given to them, the natural penalty-breakage of some much-prized possession, the penalty which makes grown-up persons not only experiences a keenly-felt consemore careful-is the consequent inconve- quence, but gains a knowledge of causanience. The want of the lost or damaged tion: both the one and the other being article, and the cost of supplying its just like those which adult life will bring. place, are the experiences by which men Whereas a child who in such cases reand women are disciplined in these mat- ceives some reprimand or some factitious ters; and the experience of children should penalty, not only experiences a consebe as much as possible assimilated to quence for which it often cares very little, theirs. We do not refer to that early pe- but lacks that instruction respecting the riod at which toys are pulled to pieces in essential natures of good and evil conduct, the process of learning their physical pro- which it would else have gathered. It is perties, and at which the results of care- a vice of the common system of artificial lessness can not be understood; but to a rewards and punishments, long since nolater period, when the meaning and ad- ticed by the clear-sighted, that by substivantages of property are perceived. When tuting for the natural results of misbehava boy, old enough to possess a penknife, ior certain threatened tasks or castigations, uses it so roughly as to snap the blade, or it produces a radically wrong standard of leaves it in the grass by some hedge-side, moral guidance. Having throughout inwhere he was cutting a stick, a thought- fancy and boyhood always regarded paless parent, or some indulgent relative, rental or tutorial displeasure as the result will commonly forthwith buy him another; of a forbidden action, the youth has gained not seeing that, by doing this, a valuable an established association of ideas between lesson is lost. In such a case, a father such action and such displeasure, as cause may properly explain that penknives cost and effect; and consequently when pamoney, and that to get money requires rents and tutors have abdicated, and their labor; that he can not afford to purchase displeasure is not to be feared, the renew penknives for one who loses or straint on a fobidden action is in great breaks them; and that until he sees evi- measure removed: the true restraints, the dence of greater carefulness he must de- natural reäctions, having yet to be learnt cline to make good the loss. A parallel by sad experience. As writes one who discipline may be used as a means of has had personal knowledge of this shortchecking extravagance. sighted system: "Young men let loose from school, particularly those whose parents have neglected to exert their influence, plunge into every description of extravagance; they know no rule of action - they are ignorant of the reasons for moral conduct-they have no foundation to rest upon and until they have been severely disciplined by the world, are extremely dangerous members of society." These few familiar instances, here chosen because of the simplicity with which they illustrate our point, will make clear to every one the distinction between those natural penalties which we contend are the truly efficient ones, and those artificial penalties which parents commonly substitute for them. Before going on to exhibit the higher and subtler applications of this principle, let us note its many and great superiorities over the principle, or rather the empirical practice, which prevails in most families. In the first place, right conceptions of cause and effect are early formed; and by frequent and consistent experience are eventually rendered definite and complete. Another great advantage of this natu ral system of discipline is, that it is a system of pure justice; and will be recognized by every child as such. Whoso suffers nothing more than the evil which obviously follows naturally from his own misbe havior, is much less likely to think himself wrongly treated than if he suffers an evil the necessary reäction of things brings round upon them- penalties which are inflicted by impersonal agency, produce an irritation that is comparatively slight and transient; whereas, penalties which are voluntarily inflicted by a parent, and are afterwards remembered as caused by him or her, produce an irritation both greater and more continued. Just consider how disastrous would be the result if this empirical method were pursued from the beginning. Suppose it were possible for parents to take upon themselves the physical sufferings entailed on their children by ignorance and awkwardness; and that while bearing these evil consequences they visited on their children certain other evil consequences, with the view of teaching them the impropriety of their conduct. Suppose that when a child, who had been forbidden to meddle with the kettle, spilt some boiling water on its foot, the mother vicariously assumed the scald and gave a blow in place of it; and similarly in all other cases. Would not the daily mishaps be sources of far more anger than now? Would there not be chronic ill-temper on both sides? Yet an exactly parallel policy is pursued in after years. A father who punishes his boy for carelessly or willfully breaking a sister's toy, and then himself pays for a new toy, does substantially this same thing artificially inflicted on him; and this will be true of children as of men. Take the case of a boy who is habitually reckless of his clothes-scrambles through hedges without caution, or is utterly regardless of mud. If he is beaten, or sent to bed, he is apt to regard himself as ill-used; and his mind is more likely to be occupied by thinking over his injuries than repenting of his transgressions. But suppose he is required to rectify as far as he can the harm he has done-to clean off the mud with which he has covered himself, or to mend the tear as well as he can. Will he not feel that the evil is one of his own producing? Will he not while paying this penalty be continuously conscious of the connection between it and its cause? And will he not, spite his irritation, recognize more or less clearly the justice of the arrangement? If several lessons of this kind fail to produce amendment - if suits of clothes are prematurely spoiledif pursuing this same system of discipline a father declines to spend money for new ones until the ordinary time has elapsed -and if meanwhile, there occur occasions on which, having no decent clothes to go in, the boy is debarred from joining the rest of the family on holiday excursions and fete days, it is manifest that while he will keenly feel the punishment, he can scarcely fail to trace the chain of causation, and to perceive that his own carelessness-inflicts an artificial penalty on the transis the origin of it; and seeing this, he will not have that same sense of injustice as when there is no obvious connection between the transgression and its penalty. Again, the tempers both of parents and children are much less liable to be ruffled under this system than under the ordinary system. Instead of letting children experience the painful results which naturally follow from wrong conduct, the usual course pursued by parents is to inflict themselves certain other painful results. A double mischief arises from this. Making, as they do, multiplied family laws; and identifying their own supremacy and dignity with the maintenance of these laws; it happens that every transgression comes to be regarded as an offense against themselves, and a cause of anger on their part. Add to which the further irritations which result from taking upon themselves, in the shape of extra labor or cost, those evil consequences which should have been allowed to fall on the wrong-doers. Similarly with the children. Penalties which gressor, and takes the natural penalty on himself: his own feelings and those of the transgressor being alike needlessly irritated. If he simply required restitution to be made, he would produce far less heart-burning. If he told the boy that a new toy must be bought at his, the boy's, cost, and that his supply of pocket-money must be withheld to the needful extent, there would be much less cause for ebullition of temper on either side; while in the deprivation afterwards felt, the boy would experience the equitable and salutary consequence. In brief, the system of discipline by natural reactions is less injurious to temper, alike because it is perceived on both sides to be nothing more than pure justice, and because it more or less substitutes the impersonal agency of nature for the personal agency of parents. Whence also follows the manifest corollary that under this system the parental and filial relation will be a more friendly, and therefore a more influential one. Whether in parent or child, anger, how "But what is to be done with more serious misconduct?" some will ask. "How is this plan to be carried out when a petty theft has been committed? or when a lie has been told? or when some younger brother or sister has been ill-used ?" Before replying to these questions let us consider the bearings of a few illustrative facts. ever caused, and to whomsoever directed, | ceiving those penalties through the workis more or less detrimental. But anger in ing of things, rather than at the hands of a parent towards a child, and in a child an individual, its temper will be less distowards a parent, is especially detrimental; turbed; while the parent, occupying the because it weakens that bond of sympathy comparatively passive position of taking which is essential to a beneficent control. case that the natural penalties are felt, In virtue of the general law of association will preserve a comparative equanimity. of ideas, it inevitably results, both in And Fourth. That mutual exasperation young and old, that dislike is contracted being thus in great measure prevented, a towards things which in our experience much happier, and a more influential state are habitually connected with disagreea of feeling, will exist between parent and ble feelings. Or where attachment origi- child. nally existed, it is weakened, or destroyed, or turned into repugnance, according to the quantity of painful impressions received. Parental wrath, with its accompanying reprimands and castigations, can not fail, if often repeated, to produce filial alienation; while the resentment and sulkiness of children can not fail to weaken the affection felt for them, and may even end in destroying it. Hence the numerous cases in which parents (and especially fa- Living in the family of his brother-inthers, who are commonly deputed to ex-law, a friend of ours had undertaken the press the anger and inflict the punishment) are regarded with indifference if not with aversion; and hence the equally numerous cases in which children are looked upon as inflictions. Seeing, then, as all must do, that estrangement of this kind is fatal to a salutary moral culture, it follows that parents can not be too solicitous in avoiding occasions of direct antagonism with their children-occasions of personal resentment. And therefore they can not too anxiously avail themselves of this discipline of natural consequences-this system of letting the penalty be inflicted by the laws of things; which, by saving the parent from the function of a penal agent, prevents these mutual exasperations and estrangements. Thus we see that this method of moral culture by experience of the normal reactions, which is the divinely-ordained method alike for infancy and for adult life, is equally applicable during the intermediate childhood and youth. And among the advantages of this method we see-First. That it gives that rational comprehension of right and wrong conduct which results from actual experience of the good and bad consequences caused by them. Second. That the child, suffering nothing more than the painful effects brought upon it by its own wrong actions, must recognize more or less clearly the justice of the penalties. Third. That, recognizing the justice of the penalties, and re education of his little nephew and niece. This he had conducted, more perhaps from natural sympathy than from reasoned-out conclusions, in the spirit of the method above set forth. The two children were in-doors his pupils and out of doors his companions. They daily joined him in walks and botanizing excursions, eagerly sought out plants for him, looked on while he examined and identified them, and in this and other ways were ever gaining both pleasure and instruction in his society. In short, morally considered, he stood to them much more in the position of parent than either their father or mother did. Describing to us the results of this policy, he gave, among other instances, the following. One evening, having need for some article lying in another part of the house, he asked his nephew to fetch it for him. Deeply interested as the boy was in some amusement of the moment, he, contrary to his wont, either exhibited great reluctance or refused, we forget which. His uncle, disapproving of a coercive course, fetched it himself; merely exhibiting by his manner the annoyance this ill-behavior gave him. And when, later in the evening, the boy made overtures for the usual play, they were gravely repelled-the uncle manifested just that coldness of feeling naturally produced in him, and so let the boy experi ence the necessary consequences of his conduct. Next morning at the usual time for rising, our friend heard a new voice outside the door, and in walked his little nephew with the hot water; and then the boy, peering about the room to see what else could be done, exclaimed, "Oh! you want your boots," and forthwith rushed down stairs to fetch them. In this and other ways he showed a true penitence for his misconduct; he endeavored by unusual services to make up for the service he had refused; his higher feelings had of themselves conquered his lower ones, and acquired strength by the conquest; and he valued more than before the friendship he thus regained. This gentleman is now himself a father; acts on the same system; and finds it answer completely. He makes himself thoroughly his children's friend. The evening is longed for by them because he will be at home; and they especially enjoy the Sunday because he is with them all day. Thus possessing their perfect confidence and affection, he finds that the simple display of his approbation or disapprobation gives him abundant power of control. If, on his return home, he hears that one of his boys has been naughty, he behaves towards him with that comparative coldness which the consciousness of the boy's misconduct naturally produces; and he finds this a most efficient punishment. The mere withholding of the usual caresses, is a source of the keenest distress-produces a much more prolonged fit of crying than a beating would do. And the dread of this purely moral penalty is, he says, ever present during his absence: so much so, that frequently during the day his children inquire of their mamma how they have behaved, and whether the report will be good. Recently, the eldest, an active urchin of five, in one of those bursts of animal spirits common in healthy children, committed sundry extravagances during his mamma's absence-cut off part of his brother's hair, and wounded himself with a razor taken from his father's dressingcase. Hearing of these occurrences on his return, the father did not speak to the boy either that night or next morning. Not only was the tribulation great, but the subsequent effect was, that when, a few days after, the mamma was about to go out, she was earnestly entreated by the boy not to do so; and on inquiry it appeared his fear was that he might again transgress in her absence. We have introduced these facts before replying to the question-" What is to be done with the graver offenses ?" for the purpose of first exhibiting the relation that may and ought to be established between parents and children; for on the existence of this relation depends the successful treatment of these graver offenses. And as a further preliminary, we must now point out that the establishment of this relation will result from adopting the system we advocate. Already we have shown that by letting a child experience simply the painful reactions of its own wrong actions, a parent in great measure avoids assuming the attitude of an enemy, and escapes being regarded as one; but it still remains to be shown that where this course has been consistently pursued from the beginning, a strong feeling of active friendship will be generated. At present, mothers and fathers are mostly considered by their offspring as friend-enemies. Determined as their impressions inevitably are by the treatment they receive; and oscillating as that treatment does between bribery and thwarting, between petting and scoling, between gentleness and castigation; children necessarily acquire conflicting beliefs respecting the parental character. A mother commonly thinks it quite sufficient to tell her little boy that she is his best friend; and assuming that he is in duty bound to believe her, concludes that he will forthwith do so. "It is all for your good;" "I know what is proper for you better than you do yourself;" "You are not old enough to understand it now, but when you grow up you will thank me for doing what I do" these, and like assertions, are daily reiterated. Meanwhile the boy is daily suffering positive penalties; and is hourly forbidden to do this, that, and the other, which he was anxious to do. By words he hears that his happiness is the end in view; but from the accompanying deeds he habitually receives more or less pain. Utterly incompetent as he is to understand that future which his mother has in view, or how this treatment conduces to the happiness of that future, he judges by such results as he feels; and finding these results any thing but pleasurable, he becomes skeptical respecting these professions of friendship. And is it not folly to expect any other issue? Must not the child judge by such evidence as he has got? and |