medical treatment would rarely become necessary. So soon, however, as the train of symptoms already detailed begins to manifest itself, the mother, or more officious nurse, without instituting any inquiry as to the cause, and the possibility of its removal, to the immediate relief of the little sufferer, forthwith administers some portion of active medicine, to be repeated as occasion may require, until they become alarmed, and send for their medical adviser, who is gravely informed that the child took slightly ill, and that notwithstanding full and repeated doses of calomel, magnesia, rhubarb or laudanum were given, it continued getting worse and worse!' But, not content with giving drugs when disease is supposed to be present, many mothers are in the habit of constantly keeping and administering one or more of the many opiate nostrums and cordials, merely in order to quiet the child or procure it sleep. The basis of all these preparations consists of opium. The almost invariable effect of these is to impair the powers of the stomach, to retard the development and growth of the body, to injure the nervous system, and to induce a state of the entire system adverse to the health and life of the child. But the evil of indulging in the use of opiates does not stop in merely producing disease, for death is very frequently the result. Agreeably to a report printed by order of the House of Commons in England, it appears that of all inquests held in England and Wales in 1837 and 1838 in cases of death from poison, oneseventh of the whole number resulted from the carelessness of mothers and nurses in administering opiates, with the properties of which they were unacquainted. Mr. Brown, the coroner of Nottingham, England, also reports that great numbers of children are annually destroyed in that borough by the use of 'Godfrey's Cordial.' There are, doubtless, many such cases which never become subjects of official notice, and the cause of death is reported as unknown. The majority of cases of this kind are the result of errors as regards the particular article intended to be administered, or in the amount of the dose. Cases of this kind frequently come under the observation of the physician.

"Although we designed, in the commencement, to confine our

selves to a few hints on these three principal errors which obtain in the physical education of infancy, we cannot under this last head refrain from adverting to the moral effect of opiates, when regularly administered to infants. The effect of this narcotic is to obtund the sensibilities of the nervous system; to becloud that sprightly vivacity which gives an irresistible charm to the speaking countenance of the infant; to induce stupor narcotism. We may easily conceive that permanence may be given to these effects by a frequent and long-continued use of this poison just at a time when the brain and the nervous system, the organs of the soul, are being called into exercise, and manifest their earliest developments. We have met with several cases in which the children of sprightly and intelligent parents were dull, inactive and stupid at adult age, notwithstanding they had good opportunities of education; and on making inquiry, our suspicions were verified by the information that during infancy those persons had, daily and regularly, portions of quieting medicines administered to them; and that when an extraordinary engagement on the part of the mother, whether at home or abroad, had required it, a double portion had been given. But the moral malady thus induced extends still farther. In the majority of the male members of those families there seemed to exist a natural propensity to intemperance.

"Never can I forget the heart-rending self-reproaches of an intelligent christian mother, who is now we trust in heaven. In speaking to me of the case of her son, she exclaimed, Alas! my poor, wandering, forlorn, lost, firstborn son! He was intemperate from his boyhood; and O! mine is the guilt, for I made him a drunkard. He was a cross and fretful child; I gave him stimulating cordials and opiates; he continued to crave them when several years old; and ever after when he could obtain spirits of any kind he would have them. Thus I made him what he is. O that I had withheld from him the pernicious drugs! My poor lost boy!'"

Our limits compel us to defer the notice of the INTELLECTUAL and MORAL training till another number.

For the Mother's Magazine.

PARENTAL GOVERNMENT.

No. III.

Having in a former article defined the limits of parental legislation, we now proceed more specifically to notice some of its most essential incidents. According to the usual definition of the term law, it is made to include every manifestation of the will of the governor, which relates to the conduct of the governed, provided only that it carries with it the obligation of obedience. This definition would include the whole business of instruction, even in relation to points concerning which the authority of the parent, from a want of ability to coerce obedience, would prove utterly useless. It has been already said, that while the parent is bound to educate the consciences and hearts of his children, these faculties cannot legitimately become the subjects of compulsion. While we are discussing the elements of parental legislation, then, let it be remembered that we speak of those rules of action. only, which the parent has both the right and the ability to enforce. The duty of instruction will form a separate head. We now confine ourselves to the consideration of coercive legislation-a legislation that is designed to control the conduct of children by the mere force of authority. In the further discussion of this topic we notice the following particulars :

1. Every rule of action prescribed by a parent for the government of his children should be both clear and specific. Rules, that are either ambiguous or of doubtful significance, are worse than useless; they are calculated to mislead and to beget inattention, if not positive disrespect. Yet very many parents give out their commands in terms so hurried and general, that their children find great difficulty in applying them. Such commands can never be regarded as furnishing suitable tests of obedience; nor can the child upon whom they are imposed, in any circumstances, be justly convicted of transgression. A law that is

couched in terms of obscurity, or, that is not adequately published, is palpably unjust; it operates as a mere trap for the unwary. It often happens in parental history, that a command is given with entire clearness, and precision; and yet the child, to whom it is uttered, owing to a pre-occupation of the mind by some exciting object, remains nearly or quite ignorant of its true import. It is of the very first importance, then, that the parent, in uttering command, or prescribing a law for the government of his child, should be entirely certain that it is clearly understood; else his government will, in many cases, become absolutely tyrannical. The faculty of attention, in young children, is apt to be exceedingly wayward, and the act of giving a command that fails to arrest it is as cruel as it is unjust. This is a point to which every parent is solemnly bound to give the most diligent heed. While neglecting it he can neither acquire nor retain the confidence or respect of those who have the misfortune to be the subjects of his authority.

2. Every law or command must be carefully adapted to the capacities of those who are to be governed by it. A parent who requires of his child the performance of an act that is beyond his capacity or skill, is guilty of gross oppression. An act of this description cannot be too highly censured. It is not often that parents exact services of their children for the performance of which they are physically incompetent; but it is not by any means infrequent that they are guilty of demanding an amount of skill utterly inconsistent with their years and with their experience. All such exactions are obviously unjust, and should be studiously avoided.

3. Parental laws should be both reasonable and just. We have already seen that a parent has no right by his commands to sanction a violation of the law of God; and we now add that all his commands in relation to those subjects, even concerning which the law of God is silent, should be consistent with the dictates of sound reason. It will be remembered that the will of the parent, in such cases, is substituted in the place of infinite intelligence; it cannot be tolerated, therefore, that its dictates should be either unjust or irrational. It is not always necessary, or even

advisable, that the child should fully perceive the reason which dictated the command. Such a course would, in the end, lead to the substitution of the will of the child for the will of the parent, and thus defeat the main object of parental authority. If we look at the history of the Divine administration we shall find that God has acted on a very different principle. In a few instances, he has kindly furnished us with the reasons which dictated particular commands; but in others, the precepts are left in the abstract form of a positive enactment without any reference to the reasons which originated them. The instances of the former kind are sufficiently numerous to induce a confident belief that all his enactments are reasonable and just; yet the cases of the latter kind are sufficiently frequent to show most clearly that he does not intend to part with his sovereignty. No one of his commands, however, can be shown to be repugnant to our reason; and we are hence bound to infer that all his requirements have originated in the dictates of wisdom. A similar rule should be adopted by parents. They should sometimes give the reasons which influence their commands, so that their children may learn to confide in their superior intelligence. At other times they should utter their requirements in the tone of absolute and irresponsible authority, in order that their children may not forget their filial allegiance. But they should give no law which may be seen to be repugnant to sound reason. They could not, otherwise, maintain their hold upon the conscience, nor retain the respect of the governed.

4. A parent should never utter an unconditional command without a full determination to see that it is promptly obeyed; nor a prohibition, without a like determination, in case of transgression, to inflict an adequate penalty. A law which is habitually disregarded with impunity is not simply a dead letter; it is a practical dethronement of the lawgiver; and the parent who contents. himself with uttering good precepts without seeking to enforce them, is guilty of a downright surrender of his parental authority. More than this; he is guilty of withholding from his children, and through them from future generations, one of the most essential elements of moral and religious development. Let it be re