In contrast with this mode of proceeding, our correspondent proposes the following outline. “If it were possible,” he says, “I would keep every boy at least three years, and I would have him understand, when he comes into the Refuge, that he must not expect to be discharged in less than three years, so that his mind should be at ease on that point. I would have them employed at trades, that would be useful to them after their discharge. In three years they would acquire so much knowledge of a common trade, that their services would become desirable to respectable mechanics. In three years, if properly disciplined, their habits of industry, obedience, &c., would acquire a degree of strength. They would become weaned from their old associates and habits. In three years the older ones, (if too old for apprentices,) would become sufficiently acquainted with their business to earn their living. Their parents would not feel that their time was lost. They would see, and the boys themselves would see, that they are acquiring that sort of knowledge that will be useful to them in after life. Many of our older boys think now, that their time is in a good degree lost. They know, indeed, that the intellectual education they acquire will be of service to them, but they feel, at the same time, that they are not learning any thing that will secure them a livelihood after their discharge.” Among the obvious evils of a short continuance in the Refuge, (besides the impracticability of forming new habits in the children,) are, (1.) The state of constant restlessness in the alternation of hope and disappointment, respecting a release. Parents are permitted to visit their children once in two months, and in these visits the principal subject of conversation is about their “getting out.” The children are constantly urging their parents to have them released, and the parents are equally constant in promising to do so. This excites much uneasiness in the former, and neutralizes what would otherwise be the useful discipline of the house; and, (2.) The institution is deprived of the fruits of its good discipline as fast, nearly, as they appear. “By constantly sending out the best, we lose their influence, which might be of much service with the more vicious. If, in any community, the best members were constantly leaving, and only bad members coming in to supply their places, the condition of that community, with regard to morals, would become very low, if not hopeless.”