dulged in their presence? Their sense of propriety is outraged, and their moral feelings painfully invaded by every expression of this nature. Is it the part of a gentleman to allow himself to do this? I apprehend that every man of common sense and common decency will emphatically say, no. And yet how strange is it that many who would be astonished and offended to hear their claim to the character of gentlemen called in question, at the same time, do not scruple every day to wound the feelings of those with whom they converse with language, which, if it be not grossly blasphemous, is such as is adapted to give pain to the pious, if not to the decently moral hearer.

If these sentiments be just, what shall be said of that young man who, when he sees a clergyman, or other well known professor of religion, approaching him, within a few feet, or immediately after having passed him a similar distance, is heard to blurt out as loudly as to insure its being audible the most profane or otherwise indecent language? This is not merely impious; it is brutal, and those who can be guilty of it, ought to be abhorred as well as despised.

The practice which I have sometimes known to be indulged in colleges of turning particular students into ridicule, by repeating disrespectful nicknames, or by satirizing certain peculiarities or characteristics, is certainly an infringment of those good

manners which ought to be cultivated in every literary institution. Suppose a gentleman in common life were called upon to be frequently in the company of a respectable Jew, or a person who had lost an eye, or who, on account of lameness, moved about on crutches, what would be thought of him if he were continually to address these persons respectively by nicknames reminding each of his peculiarity? Suppose he were always to call the first, whenever he spoke to him, "Israelite;" the second, "Blinkard;" and the third, "Crutch"would he be considered as a man of good manners? Yet an offence against good manners in this respect is one of the most common faults in all the colleges I have ever known. I once knew a respectable and promising young Jew who entered one of our colleges. His talents were good, his temper amiable, and his manners of the most inoffensive kind. Yet he was so continually twitted by a few-I am happy to say it was by a very few, of the coarse vulgar young men around him-by referring to his circumcision-by offering him pork, and by a variety of similar forms of ridicule, that the residence of a few weeks convinced him that he could not longer remain with comfort a member of the institution. He was withdrawn; and was prevented from ever passing through any college. How disgraceful as well as injurious is such conduct on the part of young men, estimating the value of and seek

ing to obtain a liberal education, and claiming the character of gentlemen!

And must all the principles of decorum and delicacy be set aside for the sake of giving leave to coarse young men, whenever an unfortunate companion approaches them, to remind him of his infirmity by a ludicrous or contemptuous nickname? It would be outrageous in the walks of decent life to address an acquaintance as " Mr. Clubfoot,""Mr. Squintum," "Mr. Humpback," or one remarkably thin, "Mr. Barebones." Ought it to be deemed otherwise in college life, where decorum and refinement ought to hold a sacred reign?

My dear sons, there is more, after all, in the efficacy of manners than I can tell you in one short letter. If it be true, as has been sometimes said, that "a good face is an open letter of recommendation," it is equally true that there is a magic in pleasant manners which scarcely any thing can resist. They can cover a multitude of defects; and they have a thousand times done more for men than all their substantial qualities put together. The youth who undervalues or neglects them, whatever other advantages he may possess, is under a miserable delusion.

I have dwelt so long on this subject that I fear you will begin to think it an intricate one, and imagine that tolerable skill in this matter will be of difficult attainment. If this be the case you

greatly mistake. I grant, indeed, that the conventional habits of courtly society are not to be acquired at once by the inexperienced youth. Much intercourse with the polite world and close observation are indispensable to familiarity and skill in these matters. But the cultivation and attainment of those manners for which I now plead is a simple and easy thing. Let the most youthful student who can be expected to be found within the walls of a college, only possess good sense, true benevolence, and, of course, an unwillingness to give pain to any one, and a sincere desire to make all around him happy; let him be affable, goodtempered, and desirous of pleasing all around him. Suppose him to possess these simple elements of moral character, and nothing more will be necessary to make him an inoffensive and pleasant companion in a literary institution, or in any part of the world.

68

LETTER IV.

MORALS.

Qui proficit in literis, et deficit in moribus, non proficit, sed deficit." OECOLAMPADIUS. "The excesses of our youth are drafts upon our old age, payable, with interest, about thirty years after date." LACON I. 76.

MY DEAR SONS,

THE disposition to prefer intellectual to moral reputation is deplorably prevalent in seminaries of learning. Many an ambitious youth, if he could establish a character for distinguished genius and scholarship, would be quite content to lie under the imputation of moral delinquency. Or, at least, if he must be defective in either, he would decisively choose that it should be in regard to moral purity. I need not say, that this preference is an instance of deplorable infatuation. It is as much opposed to common sense as it is to the word of God. And it is of the utmost importance that the minds of youth be early imbued with sentiments adapted to its correction.

I am aware that many sober thinkers are op