Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

clouded, and the heart broken. All punishments are attended with serious evils, but none are so bad as those which have a tendency to destroy the mind, on whose improvement we rest our hopes of instilling the principles of subordination.'

Of late years, severe punishments have almost disappeared from the army and navy. It has been found that, where they are greatly necessary, the fault lies more with the officers than the men. The soldier is not now, as formerly, received as an outcast or blackguard, who is to be only turned to use and kept in order by terror. Some deference is paid to his feelings; means for improving his mind are adopted; his little interests are strictly respected; and certain honours and rewards are put before him as the prizes of good conduct. In short, the system of 'love' is gradually supplanting that of force and fear, and its good effects tell upon the poor soldier as upon all other human beings.

LOVE IS POWER-AMONGST CHILDREN.

The return of anger for anger, bad words for bad words, a blow for a blow, is usually the first impulse. Children being extremely liable to follow their first impulses, it follows that enmities and fightings are very apt to arise amongst them. There was more of this evil a few years ago than there is now, because grown people were not so careful as they ought to have been to preserve peace and good feeling amongst the young. Even now, it is too common to see brothers in one family, or boys attending the same school, or young persons generally at their play, fall into quarrels, and come to blows. Fortunately, youthful feelings of any kind being very transient, these hatreds and hostilities are seldom kept up for any length of time. Yet there can be no doubt that great harm often ensues from them, and that they take much from the happiness which the young might enjoy. With boys and girls it is just as true as with their eldersthat all angry passion produces wretchedness; while kind feelings, and a mild and forgiving behaviour, tend to make life pass agreeably.

We shall illustrate this by a few anecdotes, taken from an American book written for children, entitled A Kiss for a Blow; but we are sure that everybody must remember scores of facts of a similar kind. 'Two boys, named Abel and George, were at the same school in New York. Each was about ten years old: they were not brothers, but schoolmates and classmates. Both of them had irritable tempers, and had been taught to think that they must resent injuries, and defend their rights at all hazards. Playing pin was a common

*By Henry C. Wright, a temperance lecturer. This volume, of which it were to be wished that every family in the country had a copy, was reprinted in Dublin (Webb and Chapman). It is an invaluable little book.

amusement in the school. They played in this way: two boys would take a hat, and set it down between them, crown upward. Each boy would lay a pin on the crown of the hat, and push it; first one boy would push the pin, and then the other. He who could push the pins so as to make them lie across each other, became entitled to them both. One day, during play-hour, Abel and George were playing pin. They pushed the pins about for some time. Both became much excited by the game. At last Abel pushed the pin, so that, as he said, one lay across the point of the other. George denied it. Abel declared they did, and snatched up both pins. George's anger broke forth in a moment, and he struck Abel in the face with his fist. This excited Abel's wrath. They began to fight-the other boys clustering around, not to part them, but to urge them on. Some cried: "Hit him, Abel!" and some: "Give it to him, George!" thus stimulating them to quarrel. The boys seized each other, and finally came tumbling to the ground, Abel uppermost. Then Abel, in his fury, beat George in the face till the blood spouted from his nose and mouth, and he lay like one dead. Then the boys pulled Abel off. But George could not get up. The boys began to be alarmed. They were afraid Abel had killed him. The teacher was called. He carried George in, and washed the blood from his face and head, which he found bruised in a shocking manner. One of his eyes was so hurt and swollen that he could not open it; and from that day the sight of it grew more and more dim, till it became blind.' Here was a dreadful mischief produced by the angry style of conduct. Now hear, in contrast with this, an anecdote in which the opposite plan was pursued.

Thomas and Gerald lived in Rhode Island, and were brothers. One cold day, when the ground was frozen, they were out driving a hoop. Both boys were following and driving the same hoop. This is rather dangerous, as the boy who runs behind is in danger of throwing the other down. As they were driving their hoop down the street, running as fast as they could, Thomas, who was foremost, struck his foot against a stone, and fell headlong upon the frozen ground, coming down with violence upon his bare hands and face. Gerald, being close behind, and running fast, could not stop, but came down with his whole weight on Thomas. This hurt Thomas still more, and he was angry with Gerald for falling on him.

'They both rose. Thomas began to scold and storm at his brother, and to beat him. What did Gerald do? Did he cry out, and strike in return? He did no such thing. He put his hand into his pocket hurriedly, rummaged about, and soon drew out a stick of candy, which he thrust into his brother's mouth as he was scolding and beating him. Thomas instantly stopped scolding and beating Gerald, and looked confused and ashamed. His brother urged him to take the candy. He took it, and began to eat-evidently feeling very sorry that he had struck his generous brother.

'Thus his wrath was disarmed, and his blows were staid, by love and kindness.'

It is the same as to the angry assertion of supposed rights: in proof of which, let us read the following little story, and the sound reflections which the author makes upon it.

'Ruth and Amy were sisters, and lived in Pennsylvania. In early spring, as the violets began to bloom, they were playing in a meadow near their father's house. They both happened at the same time to see a violet before them. Both ran to it. Ruth, the elder sister, came to it first, and plucked it. Amy was angry, and cried out: "Í saw it first, and it belongs to me." "No, it is not yours; it is mine," said Ruth; "for I saw it as soon as you did, and I got to it first, and plucked it so I have got it, and you shall not have it." Amy was quite furious, snatched at the flower, and struck her sister. Then Ruth became angry, and struck Amy. So they fought about it, and screamed, and beat each other. Their mother heard them, and came to see what was the matter. She found her little daughters tearing and beating each other.

"What does this mean?" asked the mother.

"Ruth got my flower," said Amy.

"No, I did not, mother," said Ruth. "It was mine. I saw it first, and plucked it.”

"But where is the flower?" asked their mother.

'Lo! it had been torn to pieces in the fight! Thus each claimed the flower by right of first discovery; and in fighting to decide who saw it first, and who should have it, both lost it!

"How could this fight have been prevented, and the sweet violet, and the sweeter spirit of sisterly love and affection, been preserved? Ruth said she saw it first, and claimed it. Amy said she saw it first, and claimed it. Now, though Ruth had the violet in her hand, if, when Amy said: "It is mine-I saw it first-I will have it," Ruth had said to her: "Sister, if you think the pretty flower is yours, you may have it; I should rather let you have it than keep it myself; I would rather have your love than all the flowers that grow," would there have been any fight-any coldness or unkindness between the sisters? None. They would have saved their sisterly affection from so rude a shock, and the sweet_violet too; and Amy would not have cared whether the flower had been in her sister's hand or in her own. She would have enjoyed it just as much-nay, more-had it been in her sister's. The sweet and pretty flower belonged to Him who made it. God made it to delight the two sisters. How wicked in them to get angry and to fight about it!

'Our heavenly Father made the earth and all the beautiful things that adorn it. They are all his. He invites all his children to come and enjoy them. We admire them; we see that there is more than enough for all; and it would seem that, as children of a common

Father, we might look at them, and use and enjoy them, in love and peace. Yet as soon as we see the beautiful things our Father has laid before us, to please us and make us happy in his love, and in each other's love, we begin to fight for them, as Ruth and Amy did for that pretty violet. Another says:

'One says: "This land is mine-I found it first." "No, it is mine-I found it first."

66 This gold and silver are mine," says one; "let none dare touch them without my leave." "They are mine," angrily responds another; 'I will 'kill, slay, and destroy' all who touch them without consulting me."

'One gets possession of the treasure first. The other comes up, and tries to snatch it away. The first struggles to keep it-the other to take it. One strikes the other. The other strikes in return. Both get enraged. Blows follow. Love gets out-wrath comes in. Blood flows, limbs are broken, and bodies torn to pieces. Thus these brothers and sisters-children of the same family-fight about the sweet and pleasant things their kind and loving Father has given them! Can it be? It would be far better for them to say in such a case: "If you think this land, grove, spring, river, ocean, mountain, or valley is yours, take it and keep it; only love me, and give me a brother's love. I would rather have the affection of one kind and loving heart, than all the gold and silver of the earth."

The monkeys in Exeter 'Change menagerie were placed in a row of cages, with only thin partitions between each other. Before each cage was a pan for the monkey's food, and these pans were supplied several times a day. Now, the behaviour of the monkeys at their meals was one of the amusing sights of the place. It was this: no sooner had the food been placed in the pans, than these foolish creatures began to eat, not out of their own pans, but out of those of their neighbours. Each stretched his paw obliquely along to his neighbour's pan, in order, if possible, to filch a little from him, expecting to have his own pan to empty at leisure besides. But as every monkey did the same, it happened that, while one was attempting to steal from his neighbour, his neighbour on the other side was taking the opportunity, while his attention was thus engaged, to steal from him. So no one was the better for it. The result was quite the reverse; for whenever any one found his pan invaded by a neighbour, he tried to get a bite at him, or to filch from his pan in return; and thus splutterings and fights took place, in the course of which a great quantity of the food was cast out, and lost upon the ground. In short, the simple effect of the plan of mutual aggression was to make the whole of the monkeys have uncomfortable instead of comfortable meals, and much less to eat than they otherwise would have had. Had each been content with his own pan, the general happiness would have been greatly increased.

Now, monkeys are only poor dumb animals, from whom hardly any better is to be expected. But human beings have superior principles to act upon if they choose, and reason to enable them to see how much better it is for them to do good instead of evil to their neighbours. Yet is it not true that, in many families, we see the various children looking jealously at any distribution of food or good things amongst them, to see that their neighbours do not get an over-proportion, and setting up a great clamour if they think they have got a particle less than their neighbours? Do not children, indeed, often fight about shares on such occasions, and thus make themselves as unhappy as the monkeys? The author of A Kiss for a Blow tells us of a father who complained to him of the quarrelsome dispositions of his children. It turned out that this gentleman was particularly careful in training his children always to stand up for their rights, and never to submit to insults or injuries without shewing a proper resentment. He thought he was teaching them a proper spirit, when he was in reality training them to fight about every trifling difference that might happen amongst them. another family which Mr Wright visited, there took place at supper `exactly such a scene as often occurs in families where the feelings of the children have never been rightly regulated. The mother had helped her young people to pieces of custard-pie. Each looked keenly at the others' pieces, to see if none were better off than another. Charles, who had got the largest, boasted of it, which was an additional provocation to James and Jane. James, after in vain requesting a larger piece from his mother, tried to snatch Charles's piece. Being prevented, he struggled and kicked, struck at his brother and sister, and finally tumbled the pie over upon the floor. When the uproar had subsided, and peace been restored, Mr Wright told the family the following anecdote, which, notwithstanding the largeness of former quotations, we are tempted to give in his own words:

.

In

‘Last evening I supped with Lydia's father and mother. Before supper, Lydia, her parents, and myself, were sitting in the room together, and her little brother Oliver was out in the yard drawing his cart about. Their mother went out and brought in some peaches, a few of which were large red-cheeked rare-ripes, the rest small ordinary peaches. The father handed me one of the rareripes, gave one to the mother, and then one of the best to his little daughter, who was eight years old. He then took one of the smaller ones and gave it to Lydia, and told her to give it to her brother, who was about four years old. Lydia went out, and returned in about ten minutes.

"Did you give your brother the peach I sent him?" asked her father. 'Lydia blushed, turned away, and did not answer.

"Did you give your brother the peach I sent him?" asked her father again a little sharply.

« ForrigeFortsæt »