higher education among us depends upon the common education in the lowest departments. We have colleges among

us, but no universities in the highest and proper sense of the word. In order to elevate our colleges to universities an essential preliminary step is to make elementary education sounder, more advanced, and more extensive. So, too, private education must be resorted to instead of the common school in those communities where the popular mind is uot fully enough impressed with the absolute necessity of a thorough and universal education to support such schools as will be sufficiently good for the highest and not too good for the lowest.

Besides these consequences, which we might expect to be produced from giving to education a national character, there would be another-that of raising the position of the teacher among us to one entitled to and commanding greater respect. In Germany the teacher constitutes one of the recognized professions, and a distinct course is provided in the university to prepare him for his work. Before such a training and such a profession can really exist with us, there must be a more distinct and living impression upon the national mind of the utility and necessity of the work which such a profession is to do. At present it is becoming more and more frequent for those who really adorn and are useful in the work of teaching to leave it for something else, both because of the limited attractions of this work and of the greater ones in some of the industrial occupations. It is true that the teacher must himself adorn and make respectable his occupation; but he cannot be expected to do that without the support and encouragement of the world about him, for all are subject to human passions and few are martyrs or missionaries.

It may be a long time before the proposed department and nationalization of education will accomplish the work expected of it; and it will doubtless operate in a very limited and imperfect manner at the the outset. Yet it is a matter for congratulation that it has received so much favor as it has from the representatives of the people; and we mistake if it does not receive still greater favor from them and the people themselves, as it certainly should. If such an effort to exalt and extend education should fail of sympathy and support from the people there would be reason for a feeling of discouragement in the prospect of the future growth and success of our institutions, education, their foundation stone, being so lightly regarded.

It is proper that some of the objections urged in Congress and elsewhere to this department should be considered; but we can do so but briefly. In the first place, it is stated that "it was the educated men of the South who originated and supported the rebellion." The inference intended to be adduced is that education caused the rebellion. Yet such an inference is not generally mentioned by one who makes the above statement for such a purpose, because its truth could not be supported. The rebellion was originated and became what it did in spite of, not on account of, education. Still there are some who deny the utility of education in the schools. To their minds the education of nature, so to speak, or that which one obtains in his necessary_contact with the world, is sufficient of itself and better than any other. To say nothing of any philosophical view of this opinion, the experience and testimony of the past are such that one can but infer that the future will be a still more convincing refutation of it. Self-made men are pointed to and the inference drawn that one may attain to the highest position of power and influence without any education in the schools, comparatively speaking. Do they not rather attain their respective positions of eminence in spite of, not in consequence of, their want of educational advantages? Would Webster have been any the less great if he had not gone through Dartmouth College? Or would Lincoln have failed to achieve his crown of glory had he received any but the most limited educational opportunities at school? He himself has admitted and regretted his loss. Education is not the cause of rebellions, nor ignorance of self-made men.

The apprehension was also expressed that such a department would form a precedent for other departments, as of religion, temperance, &c. With respect to these it may be said in general that while there is almost entire unanimity in regard to the utility of education, there is an endless difference of opinion in regard to the other objects. This alone forbids the consideration of any such objection at present. Again, it should be understood that the Department of Education is sought for, not simply because it will conduce to the interests of education, but because a sound common-school system extending over all sections of the country is essential to the social and political prosperity of the republic. Civilization is the foundation and support of republican institutions, and this is the result of the common school. However much other moral and religious questions

may be involved, the intelligence springing from education is the one essential. For both of these reasons, then, there is little if any force in the objection under consideration. But supposing that the formation of the proposed department does establish a precedent, no harm will result unless the de partment in question fails to accomplish the results expected, or education is not a matter of so vital moment to the republic as is claimed.

It is said that it is "not time" for such a department in our government. Might it not be said with equal if not more force, that it is too late for it? If such an agency is capable of accomplishing the work proposed, it certainly cannot begin too soon. Had such an instrumentality existed and been able, not by the force of law, but by that of public opinion and enlightened conviction, to carry the influence of education over all the South, where it had previously existed only partially, there can be good reason to believe that there would have been such counteracting influences in that section, together with tendencies calculated to assimilate and unite the people there with those in other sections of the country, that we would have been spared a civil war. But looking to the future it would seem that this is the time. when such an agency is wanted.

The freedmen need it with all the civilizing and elevating influences it can afford. That class of the whites at the South who have been and still are uneducated need it. The enormous population at the West from foreign countries-a large majority of which we believe we are safe in saying are ignorant of any practical knowledge of our language-need it. The Germans and Norwegians, it is not to be doubted, come among us realizing the change from their previous conditions of civil and social constraint, and exhibiting themselves as patriotic and industrious citizens. But is it not to be feared that the corrupting influences of gain will grow among them faster than the substantial interest in the civilization and prosperity of the country, unless education exercises its proper influences among them, which it is not likely to do unless laid before them? Also, the contemplation of the subject for some years past and the requests from the people at the present time, show the conviction that in the older parts of the country where systems of education are established a great influence for good can be exerted if the government would take the work of education under its patronage and support. More

elevated and working views upon the subject, it is expected, would be impressed upon the people. Character would be given to the work of education in this country, and a higher position and greater encouragement to those engaged in it. For accomplishing all of this, and more, it seems certainly to

be time.

If it is not time, we would ask when is it to be expected that the proper time will come? We are certainly not mistaken in regard to the great importance of education in this country, and of the desirability of its more extensive and systematic operations than at present. We may be mistaken in our hopefulness for the success of the department in question. Political influences may so impede its efficiency that it will fail of its object. It may not succeed in producing that impress upon the people which it is hoped it will; but it promises good, and no harm. The object to be attained is a desirable if not a necessary one, and no other means suggests itself. What little consideration on the subject and work of education it has given rise to in the House of Representatives has been in its favor; no less can be hoped for in the Senate. A sound and effectual instrumentality looking to so high an interest as the common schools of a republic of such dimensions as this is surpassed in interest to him who lives for his country by little if anything besides.

NOTICES AND CRITICISMS.

FIOTION.

The Sanctuary: A Story of the Civil War. By GEORGE WARD NICHOLS, author of "The Story of the Great March."

With Illustrations.

12mo, pp. 286. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1866. Sunnybank. By MARION HARLAND, author of "Alone," "Hidden Path," &c. 12mo, pp. 415. New York: Sheldon & Co., 1866.

We place these two books side by side because they are very much alike, and may be regarded as representative of a numerous brood. It may be urged that, if they are fair specimens of their kind, we might have spared ourselves the trouble of placing them anywhere, since it is not likely that our readers will occupy themselves in exploring regions where nothing is to be met with but thistles and thorns, gall and wormwood. A bird's nest may be found, it is true, here and there, and a certain amount of "billing and cooing,” but neither is natural; both are too suggestive of machinery, and the amount of art displayed in them approximates

rather closely to that displayed by the farmer in those pictures designed to frighten away the crows from his wheat or oats.

We do not mean that either of the authors before us designs to scare our swains and nymphs from making love to each other; on the contrary, we cheerfully do them the justice to admit that they vie with each other in seeking to produce the opposite effect. The difficulty is that they have not the knack of doing it. In this respect they are like the honest but unskilful artist who, having failed to produce a faithful likeness of one of his patrons, touched the picture again and again, but made it look more hideous and more unlike the original by every new applica tion of the brush. It would be cruel to blame the poor artist who tried so hard to please; we think it would be equally cruel to blame our authors in the present case, and, therefore, we will not do it.

But if authors are not to blame for failing to portray the softer and gentler affections of our nature, we think they are not entiled to similar immunity when they attempt to awaken or revive the opposite feelings. If they cannot excite love they ought at least to refrain from exciting strife; but, in our opinion, the tendency of the two volumes before us is to the latter result. Most people admit that it is not generous in any case to wound a fallen foe; it is also admitted that there are mental wounds which hurt us as much as physical wounds; accordingly, even when two foreign nations have been at war with each other it is not deemed proper for the writers of the successful side to taunt the opposite for its defeat after peace has been restored. Thus, for example, no two nations in the world have been longer at war with each other than the English and French, but if the literature of both countries be examined historically it will be found that all attacks of this kind worthy of the least notice have been made in war times.

If people who thus differ with each other in race, in language, in both religious and political faith, deem it proper to treat each other courteously, at least to avoid giving each other needless offence, how can we regard it as otherwise than improper to pursue the opposite course towards those who were, and are now, our fellow citizens; who belong to the same composite race to which we belong ourselves, who speak the same language, who, in a word, are our own flesh and blood? There is no morality in this-no philosophy; it is in flagrant violation of both. Indeed, the simple ingredient of common sense is sufficient to show how absurd it is for twenty millions of people having the advantage of an established government to publish tedious, dull books by way of exulting for having defeated about eight millions that had no government which was recognized as such by any civilized nation.

We do not charge either author or authoress with having written for the purpose of perpetuating those feelings which war is too apt to foster by itself; on the contrary, we unhesitatingly acquit both of any