It can never be too strongly impressed upon the mind, that nothing releases a parent from his duties toward a child. No waywardness, no disobedience, no rebellion,* no profligacy, can justify a father in casting a son or daughter adrift. We hear of sons being cut off with a shilling, of daughters being forbidden their father's house, and, without any exception, such cases are proof that, of whatever sins the children may have been guilty, the father is even more guilty. No person can commit against society so great a crime as a father commits who is thus false to the trust which he himself has imposed—who thus thrusts off from himself the soul which he called into being. A father should be governed by no motive but his child's best interests, and a child's interests can never be served by anything but his father's constant and loving care. If a child is so bad that his influence is feared on the other children, a separation between them may be effected. If it is feared that money bestowed upon him will be for his injury, provision may be made against that, as in the case I have mentioned. But when a father, in a fit of anger or as a reward for ill-doing, disinherits or refuses to see his child, he commits a crime which the laws indeed do not recognize, but whose guilt it would take many a legal crime to outweigh. There should be absolutely no limit to parental forgiveness and forbearance. Seven times, and seventy times seven, should the father receive the prodigal son who seeks his face; and if he never seeks it, if he goes, stubborn and rebellious, not one atom of fatherly care and interest should he relax; for the child is his child, his offspring, born of his will, and no vice or violence can release the man from his solemn obligation to guard and guide, so far as possible, the life which he dared to give.—Ladies' Repository.