a king or queen a crown. The same ignorance has also sometimes been shown in criticising not only the lady herself, but also her friends; and the impertinent remarks and censure to which they have been exposed, have been the cause of her exclusion from the drawing-room.

Now, if ladies of refinement have received such returns for their attempts to treat governesses with kindness, can we wonder at their looking suspiciously on them as a body, and expressing the fear that there is something in their very position which produces these effects? We do not justify such a feeling, but only say that there is a strange tendency in human nature thus to generalize. "All the men in Germany are red-haired, and all the women cross-eyed," wrote a traveller when he had been a few days at an inn in that country; and in like manner a few painful specimens of teachers leads to a similar impression respecting the whole class. The over-anxiety of a mother should never be made a subject of ridicule and condemnation by her governess, though it may often weary and disturb her, to be constantly reminded of the extreme delicacy of one of her pupils, and the importance of not letting another study much, of the care she must bestow on the figure of a third, and the diet of a fourth. Nor should the interest shown in the progress of the children be deemed excessive, or the frequent inquiry resented, as to whether this or that study is sufficiently attended to. What would be thought of a mother who never troubled herself to look into these things

at all? Would she not be condemned as careless and indifferent? This solicitude may be carried to excess, but at all events it is a fault on the right side.

A conscientious governess will rejoice that the eye of the mother is so closely directed to her and her proceedings, it will encourage her to feel that she is not working alone, and it will afford her opportunity to point out both the excellences and defects of her charge.

It is admitted, that in some cases, this surveillance becomes very trying, but the duties and the cares of a mother are of that kind that no one else can estimate, and she has no right wholly to cast off the care of her children. She has a helper, but she cannot have a substitute. What God has given her to do, she can never devolve on any other. Such conduct would, indeed, be sinful, and instances are but too frequent in which children have been thus wholly left to instructors to form their minds and characters. The only time they have been seen by their mamma was in the drawing-room. She perhaps is boasting to her friends of the treasure she has in Madame, who is all the while sapping the foundation of their moral principles; but of this the mother hears nothing till she is aroused from her lethargy by some painful discovery-an elopement perhaps, and then finds how fatally she has been deceived. In looking at the position which governesses occupy in society, there are some current notions which have obtained the sanction

of writers on education, which, if sifted, will surely not be found correct. One is, that it is impossible for a lady so situated ever to become the friend of the mother. The best answer to this is, that innumerable instances may be cited to the contrary. Many cases are known to the writer, in which they are considered and treated as the most valuable friends of the families in which they reside.

The ground on which the assertion is based, is more untenable if possible, than the assertion itself. The same writer says that they cannot be treated as friends, because they are paid for their services; but can this be borne out by analogy in any condition of life? Is not the medical man who regularly receives his fee, often the most intimate friend of his patients? Is not the lawyer consulted and entrusted with the most important secrets and affairs of families, and often appointed to be the guardian of the children? Is the clergyman less esteemed, because God hath ordained "that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel?" If this subject be fairly pursued, can we point out any class to whom the same observations do not apply? Who is not in some sense or other paid for his labour, from the poorest mechanic to the highest minister of state? Is not the notion itself a low and mercenary one? For what right-minded parent thinks that the salary she gives her governess repays her toil, or if we must use such terms, settles the debtor and creditor account between them? They are united

by the feeling of mutual dependence. Neither should the governess entertain false sentimentality about the remuneration she receives; it is as much hers, as the money earned in any other profession; for "the labourer is worthy of his hire," and if she once gets rid of the notion which has been already combated, that she is a dependent, she will not be grieved by the idea of being paid- for her services.

Another false notion is also afloat, and that is, that the profession of teachers is degraded by the efforts which are now made to alleviate those sorrows and wants which were before endured in privacy, and concealed from the public eye, and that to receive charity is beneath those whose position ought to secure them from either needing or asking it. One writer has gone so far as to affirm, that "for her own part, she would prefer having recourse to that legal provision which the laws of her country allow all to claim, to receiving in the form of alms that which had been denied in the form of wages; nor can it be wondered at if the high-minded amongst the body should reject rather than be grateful for that form of compensation, which arises from public charity, and is to be sued for in formâ pauperis." We think the writer has correctly applied the term "highminded" to governesses who would prefer asking for parish pay, to accepting the willing help held out by others, who feel that "it is more blessed to give than to receive;" and we rejoice for their honour as a class, that they are not ashamed to

accept that help which the public now feel they really owe to them. What is the true meaning of charity, but love? Does any one feel it a disgrace to be the object of love? and if not, why should they shrink from having that feeling manifested, not in words only, but in deeds? Similar help is constantly bestowed on the widows and orphans of the clergy, or even on the needy amongst the clergy themselves. Almshouses and asylums are expressly provided for them, and eagerly sought for, and gratuitous schools instituted for the education of their children. The same is done for the families of both naval and military officers, many of whom are allied to the highest families in the country; and the original object of our university scholarships and fellowships was to enable this class to obtain the education to which their position in society entitled them, but which their temporal means disabled them from procuring. This is surely unlike the humility of the Son of God, who did not disdain when upon earth to let his own creatures "minister to him of their substance." Let us look at things as they really are, and not by mawkish refinement distort them from their true meaning.

There is a class of governesses who hamper themselves by excessive scrupulosity about trifles; they take upon them the responsibility which belongs to the parent. If she choose that her children should do and learn things which the teacher disapproves, then let the latter either yield, or quit the situation. She may candidly express