of all the passengers wear spectacles, and asked me whether I wore spectacles. I answered, no sir. Then he said: I only of all the passengers wear them. This explanation was not satisfactory; for how could I seize the very shadowy difference between I alone and I only? It was very hard for me. He tried to write another sentence, and said: You alone understand French, or you understand French alone. You understand only French or you understand French only. It seemed to me that only in the latter sentence was an adverb, and not an adjective; so I did not understand better. Then he wrote another sentence, and said: I only am laughing; you alone are laughing. I did not understand much better. He then wrote another sentence, and said: The king only rides, he never walks. The king alone rides, his attendants walk. The word only in the first sentence was an adverb, and not an adjective. Then he wrote another sentence, viz: the king of Rome is an only child. There is a child alone in the room below. Then I understood better. I now comprehended that an only child was one who had neither brother nor sister, and that a child alone was one who was left by itself.

Only then imports that there is no other of the same kind, and alone imports being accompanied by no other.

When these words are used precisely, There is a difference between these two phrases:

"Virtue only makes us happy."

and

"Virtue alone makes us happy."

Virtue only makes us happy, imports that nothing else can do it. Virtue alone makes us happy, imports that virtue by itself, or unaccompanied with other advantages, is sufficient to do it. It was also very hard for me to understand the difference between some and any. I continued to confound them for several years. I succeeded in distinguishing the difference only in time, by conversing and by reading.

It is thus that we should endeavor to convey to our pupils the knowledge of words which the sign cannot give. Analysis and definition will do better than anything else. Let us,

then, make our pupils define words; let us do it often, even every day when an opportunity presents itself, and we shall see how their intellectual faculties will develop themselves, and what more rapid progress they will make in the knowledge of language. Each of them having a dictionary, let us require them every time we give them a certain number of words to commit to memory in their evening study-hours, to learn their definitions at the same time, or at least to read them, which they do not do in general. Then they will be better able to give other definitions of their own.

Whenever there was a word that I did not understand, not having my dictionary by myself to look in, Mr. Sicard did not explain it to me by signs, but spelled another word of nearly the same meaning, and if I understood it neither, he gave me another word, and then another, and did not drop the subject until he was satisfied I understood it. Witness the following incident which occurred, one day, at our public lectures at London, in the spring of 1815. As neither Mr. Massieu nor myself, not even Mr. Sicard himself, knew the English language, it was in French that we were exhibited. Well! the word brouillon (a foul copy) having occurred during the course of a lecture, one of the auditors requested Mr. Sicard to ask us the following question: "What difference is there between un brouillon de papier et un brouillon de Société ?" (a foul copy and an embroiler or pragmatic fellow.) My own answer was: "A brouillon de papier" is a bit of paper on which one writes out his ideas, arranges his style and puts his words or sentences in their regular order, so that the composition may be clear, correct and graceful, to be afterwards fairly copied on another sheet of paper." A brouillon de Société is a mixture, an assemblage of persons of various conditions, of persons of distinction and men of mean extraction, of lords and citizens, of rich and poor, old and young, learned and ignorant, and the like." It was easily perceived that neither Mr. Massieu nor myself understood the meaning of the phrase brouillon de Société, or rather that we considered it as an abstraction of the verb Brouiller (to embroil, or to trouble, or to disunite) in the

same manner as the word action is an abstraction of the verb agir (to act.)

It was, therefore, necessary to make us acquainted with the peculiar acceptation of the word. To go the quicker to work, a common teacher would have contented himself with dictating it, but then he would have addressed himself to our memory and not to our mind, and this is precisely what constitutes the immense difference between the invaluable method of the Abbé Sicard and the one which is generally pursued in the common way of instructing children. What then were the means used by Mr. Sicard to rectify our mistakes? Analysis, that admirable guide, which, if not the quickest, is at least the most philosophical, the most certain, because similar to the operation in the exact sciences, it constantly goes from what is known to what is unknown. These are the questions to which Mr. Sicard recurred.

"What is the meaning of the word maconner" (to build)? It means to build with mortar and stones or brick and other materials.

"What does masonry mean?"

It means the work of a mason or the trade of him who builds with mortar, plaster, stones, bricks, &c.

"How do you call the man who builds ?"

A mason.

"Do you know the meaning of brouiller ?" (to embroil.) I do, it means to mix, to derange, to disunite, to overthrow. It also means to set either things in confusion, in disorder or persons at enmity, to spread dissension in an assembly or state.

"What does brouillerie mean?"

It means dissension, dispute, quarrel, discord, debate, misunderstanding, discussion, disunion, &c.

Mr. Sicard was going to continue his questions when without waiting any longer, Massieu first guessed and hinted to me that a brouillon de Société was a personal noun and not an abstract noun as each of us believed; so we set about writing down, viz:

Mr. Massieu-" A brouillon de Société is a man who dis

turbs society, good order, tranquillity, concord and harmony, who disunites friends, who causes divisions, who seeks to corrupt; an individual, in a word, who deserves to be banished from society, a perturbator, a scoundrel, a traitor."

My own answer was: A brouillon de Société is he who disturbs society, who sets all in confusion, who causes division between persons before united, who alters the mind or the heart, in fact, one that sets friends at variance.

So, I wish we might proceed with our most forward pupils. This mode of exercise will greatly develop their intelligence and awaken their imagination or ingenuity.

On motion of Mr. TURNER,

The Convention adjourned to meet at nine o'clock, A. M., on the following day.

SECOND DAY.

Thursday, August 28, 1851.

MORNING SESSION.

The Convention opened at nine o'clock, the PRESIDENT in the chair.

Dr. PEET gave an exposition of a passage of Scripture, Mark x. 52: "And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way."

Prayer was then offered in the language of signs.

The SECRETARY read the minutes of the previous day, which were approved.

The Hon. Mr. WALKER, Secretary of State of Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat as a delegate to the Con

vention.

Dr. PEET, from the Business Committee, reported the following resolution in regard to school-room arrangements: Resolved, That a detailed statement of school-room operations, embracing the entire history of a day, or such longer

period as may be required to present a complete view of class exercises, be made the special order for to-morrow, (Friday,) immediately after the reading of the minutes.

Mr. O. D. COOKE moved that the discussion be confined to one hour.

Mr. STONE seconded the motion.

Dr. PEET did not know whether it need exceed an hour; yet, if we set out to accomplish a desirable object, it should be accomplished, or our time is spent to disadvantage. He was not in favor of restricting the discussion, but considered that it need not occupy an hour.

The amendment offered by Mr. Cooke was then withdrawn, and the resolution adopted.

Judge TERRY, from the Committee on Invitations, reported the names of the following gentlemen who had been invited to attend the sittings of the Convention, viz: Rev. S. Bartlett, of East Windsor, Conn.; Nelson Smith, Esq., of Carrollton, Alabama; Mason C. Weld, Esq., of the Chemical Department, Yale College; Hon. Mr. Manly, of North Carolina; Norman Smith, Esq., of Hartford; James C. Donnell, Esq., of Philadelphia; and Rev. William A. Smallwood, of Zanesville, Ohio.

Dr. PEET called for papers on the subject of Instruction, continued from the previous day.

Mr. WELD, Principal of the American Asylum, then read the following paper-" Suggestions on Certain Varieties of the Language of Signs, as used in the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb."