the principle of lotteries, exhibited in another form, human society have placed their stamp of reprobation. There is a practice, well known in the world, having the same end and operation as I have ascribed to lotteries,--to transfer property under the direction of chance; and which finds its moving principle in the desire of getting gain without labour. This, though exhibited in many forms of more concealed or more open profligacy, has attracted the particular aversion of mankind in the characters of those who make the gaming table their resort. Now from some cause or other, from some perception of its immoral nature or some experience of the malignity of its influence, all men call the gamester's character base; and, in denouncing gambling, irresistibly they pour contempt on lotteries, if it can be shown, that the evils of the one extend to the other; and that the passions which sustain both are alike. On the mention of these propositions, after what has been proved, the mind of every man will outrun all course of argument, and spring to a conclusion before logic can deduce it. For, on the score of wasted privileges, discontented hopes, ruined habits, the two maintain, beyond all litigation, intimate affinity. Only one difference can be named; that, at the gaming table, waste and ruin are concentrated, miseries brought on at a throw; while from the lottery-office, the evils issue more diluted, yet more diffused. If this circumstance form a palliation, it cannot a specific distinction. Indeed, when the extension of damage to greater numbers is considered, the question of precedence, though not important, is not clear. A few dishonest culprits, despised and driven from society, are less formidable than a mode of tempered dishonesty, insinuating itself throughout men's dealings. But, to learn the kindred of these two systems, observe the proneness which they have toward each other. Numberless adventurers, entering the highway by means of lotteries, have come to their limit at the gaming tables. And wherever the former have gained a footing, they collect around themselves the arts of the latter, which, under the different forms of betting and insurance, connect them by insensible gradations with the lowest species of this corruption. And to learn the similar character of the passions by which the two subsist, if it be not plain already, go to the dealer, read his notices, observe his arts, note his customers, and you will have a very practical estimate of the moral dignity of the men who can be affected by such means, and the moral dignity of the means which can operate on such men. There is no hazard, therefore, in saying, that lotteries will be infamous. But when I say will be, my mind is rather turned towards lamenting the reasons which have kept them from being so already. One cause and illustration of the general indifference I see, in the fact, that some individuals of serious character uphold them by their interest as adventurers: and another, in the fact, that legislatures give sanction to them, by public acts. The last, in a measure, makes the other inaccessible to correction. For, surely," one ticket will not add to the evil, already established. It will be bought by another if not by me."-Such is the reasoning which leads many to believe that they may venture, without the responsibility of upholding the practice. Though they may feel the dreadful character of the system, when brought before them in public statements, yet the fascinating chance of being a winner, upheld by the argument of general prevalence, is too strong a tempta tion; the hand is reached forth and the forbidden fruit gathered, whose taste always brings the knowledge of evil, rarely, the knowledge of good. In the connection, therefore, of this subject with the private and public obligation of our citizens, it is important to remark; that, if the duty of individuals, with regard to lotteries, be clear, that of the State authorities is equally so. The cause of public morals and of general happiness demands their abolition. It is not an undertaking that need embarrass our public bodies in the execution. It is not even to repeal past acts; but only to decline new ones. And if a word could reach them, on the throne of legislation, they might be asked to look around and see, if the wide spread evil do not require their interference.-You sit to guard the rights of the people : will you look unconcerned upon the devastation of those morals which alone can make their rights worth having? You are entrusted with the general happiness: will you listen to the clamors or accept the gifts of interested men, who will injure it? To enlarge the revenues by encroaching on the virtue of the nation, what is it but to "do evil that good may come"? And when those revenues are seen to impoverish, in the end, the public treasuries, the act has an aspect of more unmingled harm. It is no longer doing evil, that good may come; it is doing evil, that judge will not more surely come upon their heads, than the evils which distress a people, through the neglect of upright administration, shall array themselves against their promoters. If this be evident, the cause of public morals, whether it carry the majority or minority in the "voice of the people," has an appeal reaching forward beyond the limits of time; looking to the day when truth shall assume her sceptre over men and nations-when obligations, once thought too empty for regard, shall fall with the weight of mountains; and when truths which might seem very harmless on the lips of mortals, like the seven thunders of the Apocalypse, shall "utter their voices." АНЕ. CONTINUATION OF REMARKS ON COMMON SCHOOLS. * ELEMENTARY books are another important means for promoting education. These we rejoice to see multiplying at the present day, even to superabundance. They are at once an indication of the interest excited in the community, and a facility for accomplishing its ends. Where competition is so great, improvements may reasonably be expected. These improvements will finally be embodied, and very excellent works will be the result. In the mean time, for our present exigency, we must select the best of those before us. A spelling-book by Mr. Sears, is one out of many of the same kind recently published. Whether this *From page 89. + As this work is now urging its way, and with some success, for general adoption into our common schools, perhaps a criticism on its merits from a disinterested individual, may not be untimely, nor wholly foreign to the general object of the Christian Spectator. work should have the preference of all its recent competitors, I cannot certainly say, as I have not examined them all. In a variety of respects, it is manifestly better adapted to the instruction of children than the one we have generally used in New England. The selection and arrangement of the reading lessons, are enough to give it a decided preference, provided it were equal in all other respects. They are extremely simple and such as to render it difficult, for a child to read them with a "school tone." At any rate, with a very little care, on the part of the teacher, where this is the primary book, that worst bane of common schools, may be expelled. The lessons for spelling appear also quite improved both in selection and arrangement. There is a larger proportion of words in common use, and a much smaller proportion of those which neither the pupil nor the teacher will understand, or ever see except in the spelling book. Nothing can be more absurd than to task a boy to learn the spelling of words for which he will never have occasion in practice. So far as a judgment can be formed of the probability, no word should be introduced into a spelling lesson which there will not be occasion for the pupils to use in writing. Any spelling book I have yet seen, I should think materially improved by striking out one fourth or one half of the words in the tables. Indeed I am by no means sure of the utility of spelling lessons at all, as the reading lessons may be used for the same purpose. Such simple reading lessons as Mr. Sears places first, are admirable to begin with, both for the purpose of reading and spelling. The cat runs--the dog barks-are phrases which every child can understand; and perhaps it is of nearly as much importance in its ultimate bearing on the mind, that the words for spelling should be understood, as those for reading: and a child will be much more likely to attach a correct idea to each one found in a phrase, than when separate. The author has also interspersed many useful hints to teachers in the course of his work. After what I have said above, it may easily be supposed I approve in the strongest terms of these. They supply, though very feebly, the want of more thorough instruction on school keeping. I presume, from the improvements above noticed, that Mr. Sears has himself taught school; else, I do not believe he could have made so good a book in these respects. The more learned a man becomes, and the more abstracted from juvenile intercourse, the less is he capacitated to understand what is and what is not adapted to the capacity of a child. In one or two other respects, however, as I may have occasion to show from the work before us, the accomplished philologist has the decided advantage in constructing a primary book of this kind. Mr. S. professes to follow Walker's pronunciation, and has given a notation throughout, which will be a sufficient guide to the teacher if not to the pupil. Of this improvement, though deemed perhaps the greatest by the author, I think but slightly. For children take their pronunciation from the living voice of those about them-not from books. Nor in fact should I much care whether they follow Walker implicitly or not. After having found so much to commend, I am sorry I cannot give an unqualified approbation of this book. Were it faultless, it would prove an invaluable blessing. But there is one very serious and very unaccountable blemish. I refor to his adoption of an obsolete spelling of quite a large number of words. I say it is unaccountable, for I can surmise but two possible reasons for it, neither of which is valid. The first is a manifest desire to follow Walker implicitly in all things: the second, a desire to differ from Webster as much as possible. This last I presume Mr. S. will promptly disavow, as he cannot be willing to injure the usefulness and the sale of his book, through personal antipathy. It remains for me then only to argue with him on the point of Walker's authority. This trouble I assume, in the faint hope of inducing him so to alter his very valuable book as really to fit it for use, and give it general currency. Mr. S. has completely mistaken Walker's authority on this point, if he supposes himself to have followed it. He may have been led into such a mistake by the orthography still retained in what is called Walker's dictionary. But the simple fact is, that so far as spelling and definitions are concerned, it is not Walker's dictionary at all. All he professed to do was barely to rectify the pronunciation of Johnson's dictionary, leaving it in all other respects just as he found it. Walker has, however, notwithstanding he did not see fit to extend his province to the correction of Johnson in this particular, given us his authority against the correctness of Johnson in this particular, as a standard at the present day, as I will soon show. Mr. S. may indeed adduce Johnson, and all the lexicograpers of previous date, in support of this obsolete spelling; and well he may, for at that time it was not obsolete but in full fashion. But their author is now nothing in the cases before us. It is just as absurd to refer to a lexicographer of past ages for the current spelling of a word, as to appeal to the patterns of some antiquated tailor to determine the present fashion of garments. All they can tell us is the fashion of their day. If it has since altered, it is the simple business of the orthographer of the present day to report the fact just as it now stands, whether he is pleased or displeased with the alterations that have been made. Had Dr. Johnson given us the spelling employed in the age of Chaucer, it would not have been a whit more absurd in principle than for Mr. S. now to give us the spelling of Johnson in those words which decided custom has since altered. The old maxim of Horace must forever remain the true and only guide on such a pointUsus, quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi;-not past, but present use. Walker, however, is of such modern date that his authority is still good; and had he chosen to exercise it in modernizing the spelling as he did the pronunciation of Johnson, we presume we should have been spared the trouble of the present remarks. As it is, it will certainly be with an ill grace in Mr. S., when informed of this authority, should he refuse to bow to it, when at the same time he is insisting so strenuously on our obligation to bow to the authority of the same man, on the kindred topic of pronunciation-and that too in a case in which we have not yet generally adopted the change, while the change in spelling has received. full currency. Most of the words in which I have noticed this obsolete spelling, are such as formerly were terminated with ck, but from which the k has since been dropped. Now for Walker's opinion on the point. In his remarks on the consonant k he observes; "It has been the custom within these twenty years to omit the k at the end of words when preceded by c." After expressing some groundless regrets for the change which I shall presently notice, he adds ;-" This omission of k, is however too general to be counteracted, even by the authority of Johnson." These declarations seem sufficiently indicative of Walker's opinion as to the actual fashion of spelling such words. But should a possibility of doubt remain, it must be precluded by a recurrence to almost any page of his composition. Look, for instance, at the 26th page of the introduction to his dictionary, and you will see no less than seven instances in which the k is omitted in words which retain it in the subsequent Vocabulary which he suffered to remain, literatim, as Johnson left it. Didactic, gigantic, climacteric, &c., are the words in question; and they are almost the only ones found on that page which could end in ck. Walker's authority, then, as evinced by positive declaration and by his own practice, is entirely against Mr. S. And if so good a judge as he,felt himself compelled, against his own predilections, to pronounce the change, even at that time, "too general to be counteracted even by the authority of Johnson;" how can Mr. S. hope to counteract it at the present time when the change has become much more general and more firmly established! It is wisely remarked, that, "revolutions rarely march backward;" and least of all can this be expect ed in the improvements in the mechanical part ofliterature which have been steadily progressive ever since the English has been a written language. This same article of orthography is a perfect illustration of the remark, both as to the resistless progress and the benefit of the revolution; for who could even wish it possible to bring us back to the awkward and cumbrous combination of silent vowels and teethbreaking consonants, in vogue but few ages back. Even Mr. Walker we presume does not regret the changes effected previous to his day, however naturally he may be loth to change a spelling to which he had long been accustomed. I have intimated that his regrets are groundless, and will now proceed to show it, in the hope of removing the like regrets in minds of less extensive observation, and less readiness to comply with established usage, whatever it may be. He complains that the omission of k, "has introduced a novelty into the language, which is that of ending a word with an unusual letter, and is not only a blemish in the face of it; but may possibly produce some irregularity in future formatives; for mimicking must be written with the k, though to mimic is without it." As to the blemish in the face of our language," we should think the superfluous k itself, and not its removal, were the blemish; just as the useless addition of another nose on the human "face," would be a blemish. But of such things, men are liable to judge chiefly from their customary associations. But it is "a novelty." True; and what improvement has ever been introduced into the language, which was not a novelty. But Mr. W. presents us with something more in the shape of serious objection. "It may possibly produce some irregularity in future formatives." Suppose it should, and the community by adopting them should give the strongest proof that they are improvements. A future age will be grateful for them. But let us look at the case, and see if there is really even a "possibility” of irregularity being introduced by droping the k in all the formatives. Provided it be found a fact that the greater proportion of derivatives from such words are now written without the k, it will be rather the introduction of regularity than otherwise, to drop it from the remainder. As this is a question of fact, any one may satisfy himself by recurrence to a dictionary. Take Johnson, if you please, and you will find that even he has not retained the k in one quarter of these formatives. |