Mr. De Peyster evidently uses the word “religious proselytism” in the French, not the English, sense. The French word “proselyte” is nearly equivalent to the English “convert.” That the _Ecoles de Garde_ of the McAll Mission do have a religious motive goes without saying. About ten minutes of religious instruction are given daily, but absolutely without proselyting intent. Most of the parents of these children are free thinkers or violently opposed to religion, a few are Roman Catholics, but never a word is said which could mar the influence of any religiously disposed parent. As for the others, the widely established fact that more children from the McAll _Ecoles de Garde_ pass their examinations than any others makes even anti-religious parents eager to have their children attend them. For in France the whole future of every child depends upon his school examinations. LOUISE SEYMOUR HOUGHTON. Washington, D. C. THE NEW PUBLICITY TO THE EDITOR: In a recent book review of a modern novel, the writer speaks of “episodes which violate the reserve that is bred in the bone of the English-speaking peoples.” It is a serious matter, to my mind, that that reserve is being deliberately violated by a number of well-meaning people at this time in the campaign that is being carried on against certain diseases. “It is necessary,” these people say, “to speak plainly. Great harm has been wrought by ignorance. The innocence of the child has been its weakness. Under plea of modesty fathers and mothers have been foolish and cowardly,” and so on. You hear and see it everywhere, and lectures are being delivered, to mixed audiences, on things which, the apostle said, it was a shame even to speak of. Now I believe that the necessary information can, and should be, given to children from twelve to fifteen; but it is my positive belief that it should be done by the parents, or else by the use of carefully prepared printed matter. A short, modestly written pamphlet can tell all that is necessary. It can be placed in the hands of the child with instruction that it should be _read and destroyed_; also that the parent will give any further information required. I believe that oral instruction on these matters, _to more than one child present at a time_, is bad and harmful. I feel deeply in the matter, for I feel that harm is being done when a strong, fine, racial trait is being violated, in attempting a good work that can be _better_ done, in my opinion, when it is done in harmony with our best traditions. Attempts at allegory, comparisons with plant life, and so on, are all best left aside. The child should be told what is right and what is wrong, and why. But it should not be told in company with others, and especially not in mixed audiences. The inbred reserve spoken of is too precious a possession to be thrown away, even in a good cause.