WHO can guide and govern a steam-car, unless he be acquainted with the handles to the several parts of the machine? and who can guide a child, unless he know the various handles of the mind? Some parents and instructors seize the first within their reach, which is almost sure to be the wrong one. moral machine has but one handle. address a word, reminding them of much overlook.

Others seem to think that the To both these classes we would important facts which they too

The first to which we allude is, that the same outward action may be performed from divers and diverse, nay, from totally opposite motives. One boy goes to school, because he loves his employments there; another hates his employments, but goes because he is afraid of the consequences of absence. One goes cheerfully, because he loves to study; another may go with equal cheerfulness, because he loves to meet his companions. One goes because he is a creature of habit and routine, and would be uncomfortable to-day in omitting to do as he did yesterday. It is manifest that the same external action may be the result of different, and even opposite motives. This is, indeed, a well known fact; but, perhaps, it is too little regarded in the detail of daily life, as we are sure the second is, to which we call the reader's attention; that is, —motive makes the man; or, a man is what his motives are. A selfish man is one who does, or refrains from doing, because his own interests are favorably affected by acting, or by not acting, in any particular case. A benevolent man, a noble man, a holy man, a despicable man, are in

fact so, because they are pleased with being so. Among all the varieties of character, each one has made his choice, practically deciding, that on the whole, that is best for him. But they are considered so by the world, because the world has discovered that they prefer respectively to be controlled by benevolent, noble, holy, or despicable motives. It matters not what the specific external actions are, the motives for acting, or not acting, determine the character. Now we are sure that parents overlook this important principle, when they administer praise or censure for external actions, irrespective of the motive, and when they neglect to cultivate with the most sedulous care, in their children, aversion to wrong motives and the choice of right motives. Here lies the whole foundation of all that is great and good in character.

Out of these two great facts, that motives may be so various; and, that the whole moral quality of the character depends upon the governing motives, there arise two important duties of the parent and guardian of youth. The nature and character of the several motives are to be thoroughly understood; and the best motives are to be constantly applied to the mind and heart. The word motive has a complex signification, including both the end sought in any action, and the previous desire to that end as felt by the mind. We now employ it in the latter sense; and say, that those who are guiding the youthful mind, should, at the same time, keep fully in view the distinction between an external action, as right in itself, and the motive, which may be either right or wrong. You might encourage a child to attend the public services of the house of God, in order to show a new dress. The external act of going to church is right, but the motive in this case is detestable. There are, then, three classes of motives: the positively wrong- the relatively wrong- the absolutely right; and among the right there are various grades of excellence. The positively wrong are those which lead to any action wrong in itself. The relatively wrong are those which become so by the circumstances of the case. For instance, it is right for me to take care of my property and reputation; but if I make either of those ends my chief reason for engaging in the public worship of God, the motive is vitiated by the circumstances in which it is exercised. Some are right when exercised subordinately, and wrong when supreme. Such are the desire of power, wealth, superiority, esteem, knowledge, society, action. When these are subordinated to

the desire of pleasing God, they are right; when independent of that, they are sinful. Three only are absolutely right, — the desire of pleasing God the desire of doing right toward our fellow-men the desire of personal excellence, for its own sake. Now, suppose a specific external action is to be required of a child; the learning a lesson in geography, for instance, use the right motive, we say. By which we mean, do not use a wrong motive; such as, then you

your

will get the medal - you will be the head of class you will beat Sammy Jones - you will get a whipping, or be kept in, if you do n't,' &c., &c. We mean likewise to say, use the best motive, the highest, the noblest, the purest, which the human soul can feel. And yet all this does not exclude the appeal to subordinate feelings. To make a complete character, each must be exercised in its place, and in due proportion. And it should further be remarked, that the ultimate motives which govern a parent's conduct, become obvious to their children, and go much farther to affect their imitative minds than mere words.

BY WM. A. ALCOTT..

MR. EDITOR: -It has given me much pleasure to find in you and your correspondents, a disposition to call the father of the family to the great work of assisting the mother in the formation of human character. The general truth has been, perhaps, sufficiently stated; but have your readers been shown what is intended, by examples? The world are fond of particulars, as well as generals.

I am acquainted with many families in which the mother not only concedes to the father a superiority in the presence of the children, but the latter claims it. Does a question of right or wrong occur— they are immediately referred to the father; and his decision is law.

Now, if the father were always, or even generally present, in the family, this might do very well. But, as most fathers are absent during a large part of the waking hours of the day, what is to be done then? That the father is the lawfully established umpire, so to say, when the case requires it, I do not deny. Nor do I deny that the mother should make her appeals to him, as to a higher tribunal, whenever he is present, if he requires it. But the question now is, should he require it? And is it for the best good of his children?

One father, whom I know, is in the constant habit of referring

every thing, as far as possible, to the mother. He maintains family authority — enthrones himself, as it were, in the hearts of his children - by doing all he can to establish the authority of the mother. Your mother says so or so, or thinks so or so, or prefers to have it so or so; this is the way in which he constantly speaks to his children. In a word, he labors to inspire them with confidence, more and more, in their mother. In his estimation she is, or might be, almost every thing in the family, both by her precepts and her example. If he advises, it is that they should regard and please her. If he complains, it is that they have done despite to her laws, or disobeyed her, or injured her feelings. If he corrects, it is on her behalf. He believes he best fulfils the paternal mission, when his great work appears to be, in the eyes of the children, to assist her in the fulfilment of hers the maternal.

In this way the children do not feel, the moment he is absent, as if they were left almost without restraint. They feel, indeed, a responsibility to the father; but a greater, if possible, to the mother. Now I make an appeal to every candid reader, and ask him if this is not as it should be? Should not the maternal authority be constantly strengthened by every possible means, rather than weakened? Does that father act wisely who requires, or even permits, the mother to appear to her children as a mere delegate, for the performance of his will, during his absence? Is not the custom of making this requisition one fruitful cause of the rapid growth among us of a spirit of insubordination?

This work is called, I know, the mother's assistant - not the father's. Let it not, however, be thought that what I have said is out of place. The mother's assistance is what I have aimed at; and the father is, in my view, designed by Providence to be her best assistant. He assists her best and most, as well as most effectually establishes family authority, and confers true dignity on the paternal department of it, when he aids most in establishing the authority of the mother.

It is not, so far as I know, because the father has not full confi dence in the mother, that he now takes a course nine times in ten - calculated to lessen her power to govern and educate during his own necessary absence. It is, as I suppose, from established custom. It is because he has never reasoned on the subject. He has had no time to think, in what way he can best do his part of the