[Footnote 6: "What you say here, is verified" (said a venerable friend to me, on reading these sheets as they were preparing for the press--a friend who at the age of 72, has taken upon him to teach 12 or 14 boys; more than half of them without compensation--) "what you say here, is verified in my school. Those who do not pay, attend hardly half their time; and one, who is anxious to learn, and would learn if he came regularly, is kept by his father to work at home, and has not _been to school_ now for more than a fortnight. And it was just so," continued he, "when I managed the W. trust fund for a charity school, 20 odd years ago. The parents could not be induced to send their children. Sometimes they were wanted at home: sometimes they were too ragged to go abroad: sometimes they had no victuals to carry to school. And when we offered to furnish them provisions if they would attend, the parents said 'no, _that_ was being too dependent.' In short, the school produced not half the good it might have done. There was the most striking difference between the charity scholars, and those who paid." Similar testimony as to such schools may be obtained of hundreds.] Observe now, I pray you, how precisely the results agree with what might have been foretold, of such a system. In 1833, nearly 33,000 _poor children_ (literary paupers) were found in 100 counties of Virginia; of whom but 17,081 _attended school at all: and these 17,081 attended on an average, but_ SIXTY-FIVE DAYS OF THE YEAR, EACH! The average of _learning_ acquired by each, during those 65 days, would be a curious subject of contemplation: but I know of no arithmetical rule, by which it could be ascertained. That it bears a much less proportion to the _reasonable_ attainments of a full scholastic year, than 65 bears to the number of days in that year, there can be no doubt.