keeper, who looked upon him as a spy on her actions, which were not always quite honest. In the hope of causing him to be turned away, she told false tales of him to her master. But the whole of Leonard's conduct had been so good, that Mr Benson put no faith in these base insinuations. To make quite sure of the honesty of the boy, he resolved to put it to a severe proof. For this purpose he charged Leonard to make certain purchases, giving him more money than was necessary: to his great delight, Leonard returned every farthing over and above what was required. One day he left behind him in the countingroom a piece of gold, which Leonard found in the presence of the housekeeper. She requested him to divide it with her; but he declared, without a moment's hesitation, that he would return it to his master, to whom it belonged; and he immediately proceeded to do so. Mr Benson was so pleased with the boy's conduct, that he gave him a present of the money, and as he had no children of his own, he soon after adopted Leonard as his son, and left him the whole of his fortune.

MOSES ROTHSCHILD.

At the time of the French Revolution, there lived at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, in Germany, a Jewish banker, of limited means, but good reputation, named Moses Rothschild. When the French army invaded Germany, the Prince of Hesse Cassel was obliged to fly from his dominions. As he passed through Frankfort, he requested Moses Rothschild to take charge of a large sum of money and some valuable jewels, which he feared might otherwise fall into the hands of the enemy. The Jew would have declined so great a charge; but the prince was so much at a loss for the means of saving his property, that Moses at length consented. He declined, however, giving a receipt for it, as in such dangerous circumstances he could not be answerable for its being safely restored.

The money and jewels, to the value of several hundred thousand pounds, were conveyed to Frankfort; and just as the French entered the town, Mr Rothschild had succeeded in burying it in a corner of his garden. He made no attempt

to conceal his own property, which amounted only to six
thousand pounds. The French accordingly took this, with-
out suspecting that he had any larger sum in his possession.
Had he, on the contrary, pretended to have no money, they
would have certainly searched, as they did in many other
cases, and might have found and taken the whole. When
they left the town, Mr Rothschild dug up the prince's money,
and began to make use of a small portion of it.
He now
throve in his business, and soon gained much wealth of his

own.

A few years after, when peace came, the Prince of Hesse Cassel returned to his dominions. He was almost afraid to call on the Frankfort banker, for he readily reflected that, if the French had not got the money and jewels, Moses might pretend they had, and thus keep all to himself. To his great astonishment, Mr Rothschild informed him that the whole of the property was safe, and now ready to be returned, with five per cent. interest on the money. The banker at the same time related by what means he had saved it, and apologised for breaking upon the money, by representing that, to save it, he had had to sacrifice all his own. The prince was so impressed by the fidelity of Mr. Rothschild under his great trust, that he allowed the money to remain in his hands at a small rate of interest. To mark also his gratitude, he recommended the honest Jew to various European sovereigns as a money-lender. Moses was consequently employed in several great transactions for raising loans, by which he realised a vast profit. In time he became immensely rich, and put his three sons into the same kind of business in the three chief capitals of Europe-London, Paris, and Vienna. All of them prospered. They became the wealthiest private men whom the world has ever known. He who lived in London left at his death seven millions sterling. The other two have been created barons, and are perhaps not less wealthy. Thus a family whose purse has maintained war and brought about peace, owes all its greatness to one act of extraordinary honesty under trust.

Thou shalt not steal.-Eighth Commandment.

Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.-Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, iv. 28.

Why should I deprive my neighbour
Of his goods against his will?
Hands were made for honest labour,
Not to plunder or to steal.
"Tis a foolish self-deceiving,

By such tricks to hope for gain:

All that's ever got by thieving,
Turns to sorrow, shame, and pain.

mmminm

WATTS.

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS-RESPECTING THE

REPUTATION OF OTHERS.

THERE are many things besides actual property on which men set a value. Amongst these, a good name is one of the most important. By a good name is meant a general understanding respecting any person that he is a good man. When such is the general understanding respecting any one, he is esteemed by his fellow-creatures; they trust to him; they employ him; they speak favourably of him; in many ways he is advanced by his good name. Now, every one who is a good man, is entitled to have a good name. It is one of his rights. If he get it, his virtue has one of its rewards, and he is encouraged so far to persevere in goodness. But if it is withheld from him, or taken from him without just cause, he is' wronged; the encouragement to be really good is wanting; his virtue may fall off; and others, seeing how his goodness has been so ill rewarded, may not be at the pains to endeavour to be good.

We thus see how important it is that every one should be spoken of, or reputed, exactly according to his merits. There are two ways of injuring the reputation of others.

The one way is to assert something positively evil respecting a neighbour-to say that he has committed some actual wickedness, or to allege that he habitually omits some important duty. This is calumny. The other way is to speak slightingly of his merits, or surmise false motives for all the apparent good he docs. This is detraction. To destroy the good name of a fellow-creature by either means, is as wicked as to take away his goods. We should be extremely cautious, therefore, in all we say of a neighbour; and the more so, because, if we do any injury to his reputation, it is almost impossible to repair it. The words once out of our mouths, can never be recalled. They are reported by one to another; are exaggerated as they go along; and at last come to imply something much worse than what was originally meant. Our neighbour thus suffers, perhaps without ever knowing why. One who wishes to be conscientious respecting the reputation of his fellow-creatures, will never speak calumniously or detractingly of any one, and never repeat any speeches of that kind which he hears.

CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCRATES.

Socrates, the Greek philosopher, was one of the wisest and best men who ever lived. "He was," says Xenophon, "so pious, that he undertook nothing without asking counsel of the gods; so just, that he never did the smallest injury to any one, but rendered essential services to many; so temperate, that he never preferred, pleasure to virtue; and so wise, that he was able, even in the most difficult cases, without advice, to judge what was expedient and right." He spent his whole life in endeavouring to make his fellowcreatures better and happier. Yet this man was not, for all his worth, exempt from calumny.

There was a set of teachers who had great reputation and influence in Athens on account of their plausible speeches, though they had no regard for truth, and only aimed at showing off their abilities. These Sophists, as they were called, detested Socrates, for he was unsparing in his efforts to expose their errors, and save the young men from being

misled by them. He was at the same time disliked by many other persons, on account of his zeal in denouncing certain corruptions in the state by which they profited. In short, he was too honest for his time, and for the people amongst whom he lived.

The enemies of Socrates conspired to ruin him, and calumny was the means they adopted for this end. The Athenians, like many other ancient nations, worshipped a great variety of gods; but Socrates was inclined to believe that there was but one true God, the author of all things; although, from prudence, he deemed it best to conform in some measure to the superstitions of his fellow-citizens, and to conceal his real opinions. His enemies knew well what the ignorant multitude would think of him, if once convinced that he disbelieved in or despised their gods. They therefore began to insinuate publicly that Socrates did not acknowledge the gods whom the state acknowledged, and that he corrupted the youth with his strange doctrines. His pure life and true wisdom could not save him from the effects of these calumnics. Convinced that he was an impious wretch, the people forgot all their former respect for him, and wished that he should be brought to punishment. When his character had thus been ruined, his enemics came openly forward, and accused him, before judges, of what, even had it been true, would have been no offence at all. Socrates ably defended himself; but the judges, being prejudiced against him, found him guilty, and condemned him to die by drinking poison. Thus was one of the greatest sages the world ever saw destroyed through the effects of a base calumny.

HELEN PRIME.

Helen Prime is remarkable for a disposition to detract from the merits of her friends. She praises none but those who are decidedly inferior to herself in person, accomplishments, and situation in the world. All who are generally admired, she seeks by every means to depreciate, as if from an uneasy sense of their superiority to herself.

If she hears Mr So-and-So, a person of acknowledged benevolence, praised, she says, "He is benevolent, to be