their children. This was the case particularly with those who were in
straitened circumstances. Others, knowing his disposition, would bring
tales of distress and destitution to his ears. Some, perhaps, turned
out to be unworthy of his goodness. In one instance, at least, where
he had taken a child into his family in its infancy, touched by
appeals made to his compassion by the parents, brought it up
carefully, watched over its education, and become attached to it, when
it had reached an age to be serviceable, the parents claimed and
insisted on their right to it, and took it away, much against his
will. But the good man's benevolence was not impaired, nor the stream
of his affectionate charities checked, by the misconduct or
ingratitude of his wards or of their friends. His plan was to do all
the good in his power to the children thus brought into his family, to
prepare them for usefulness, and start them favorably in life. In the
case of boys, he would get them apprenticed to worthy people in useful
callings. At the time of his death, there were two grown-up members of
his family, who appear to have been foisted upon his care in their
earliest childhood. But there was no blame to be attached to them in
the premises; and they were regarded by him with much affection. There
were no relations of his own in this country in need of charitable aid
or without adequate parental protection; and it was not strange that
several of his wife's connections should have availed themselves of
the benefit of his generous disposition. She herself gives a very
interesting account of an instance of this sort, in a deposition found
wrapped up among some old papers in the county court-house. The object
of the statement was to explain how a connection of hers became
domesticated in the family.

"When the child's mother was dead, my husband being with me
at my cousin's burial, and seeing our friends in so sad a