it is fairly up; and when up, it does not, for a long time, in most cases, shine with so much brightness as it does afterward. Even if it were bright as the candle, it is farther off, and, somehow or other, would not seem to affect us so much. You will say it is very bright after it gets well on towards the meridian. So it is; but your eyes become in a measure accustomed to it, at least if you begin right in the morning. Besides, there is a curtain placed between your eyes and the sun; but no curtain interposed, in most cases, between your eyes and the lamp or candle. Do you ask what I mean by a curtain? The upper eyelid is designed by the great Framer of our bodies to serve us as a curtain. It has, indeed, other uses, but this is the most important.

We might take a hint or two from this great fact, and, by a simple contrivance, do much in the way of co-operating with the great Creator to save the eyes. We might contrive to suspend our lamps and candles a little above our heads, over our tables or desks, in such a way that the light can no more shine directly into our eyes than that of the sun at mid-day. And we ought to do this especially in the morning. Good eyes are worth more than they are aware who never felt the want of them. But to have good eyes, we must be willing to pay the taxes which are necessary. Such an arrangement as I have mentioned is one of them. Nor is such taxation any tyranny.

One reason why we should not let the light of the lamp, or candle, or fire shine directly into our eyes, either in the morning or at any other time, is because it affects our nervous systems unfavor*ably, and even disturbs the stomach. I may not have time, now, to make plain to you the reasons why this is so, but I will give you a short anecdote which will do something towards it.

When I was a student of medicine at New Haven, in Connecticut, I had a room-mate who was famous for getting up early, striking up a light, and going immediately to reading. It is well to rise early, put our room in order, and attend to our devotions, ablutions, &c.; and this I did myself. But I was very cautious, when I lighted up, not to look the light directly in the face for some time. My associate, on the contrary, was careless; and being of a very delicate and susceptible constitution, he had to pay the penalty immediately.

It frequently made him sick at the stomach, and once I knew it to make him vomit.

I suppose some of you will say to yourselves, "Well, it don't hurt me. I have a constitution strong enough to bear it." How do you know this? All you know is, that no punishment has fallen upon you which you could trace directly to this cause. But do not you know that you have not suffered by it; and above all, you do not know that you will never suffer hereafter. I tell you, on the contrary, that if your eyes are as strong as mine once were, or as strong as an eagle's, you must, in such a way, sooner or later suffer. The eagle himself would suffer were he to look long at the sun.

The light of the fire or stove, shining directly in your face, is usually accompanied by more or less of radiating heat, as the chemists call it. This makes it worse for the eyes than mere light. I could always read longer by a light with my back towards the fire, than with my face towards it, and so can you and everybody.

But I am saying too much, perhaps, for once. Children, and even grown men and women, like short things in these days. And I do not much blame them. Long articles are almost as objectionable as long dinners. A little at a time, and well digested, is best for the stomach of the mind, as well as for that of the body.

ORIGIN OF THE TERM "FOOLSCAP."

WHEN Oliver Cromwell became Protector, after the execution of Charles I. he caused the stamp of the cap of Liberty to be placed upon the paper used by the government. Soon after the restoration of Charles II. having occasion to use some paper for despatches, some of this government paper was brought to him. On looking at it, and discovering the stamp, he. inquired the meaning of it, and on being told, he said, "Take it away; I'll have nothing to do with a fool's cap." Thus originated the term Foolscap, which has since been applied to a size of writing paper usually about sixteen by thirteen inches.

A ROGUE OUTWITTED.

CURIOUS instance occurred in London not long ago, in which a rascal was outwitted. A bachelor gentleman, who was a very superior draughtsman and caricaturist, was laid up in his apartments with gout in both feet. He could not move, but was wheeled in his chair in and out of his sitting-room. A well-known vagabond, ascertaining the fact, watched till his servant was sent upon a message. The area door communicated with the kitchen, through which the vagabond entered, and walked up stairs, where, as he expected, he found the gentleman quite alone and helpless.

"I am sorry to see you in such a situation," said the rogue; "you cannot move, and the servant is out."

The gentleman started.

"It is excessively careless to leave yourself so exposed; for, behold the consequences! I take the liberty of removing this watch and seals off the table, and putting them in my own pocket; and as I perceive your keys are here, I shall unlock these drawers, and see what suits my purpose."

"Pray, help yourself," replied the gentleman, who was aware that he could do nothing to prevent him.

The rogue did so, accordingly. He found the plate in the sideboard, and many other things that suited him; and in ten minutes, having made up his bundle, he made the gentleman a low bow and decamped. But the gentleman had the use of his hand, and had not been idle; he had taken an exact likeness of the thief with the pencil; and, on the servant's returning soon after, he despatched him immediately to Bow Street with the drawing, and an account of what had happened. The likeness was so good, that the man was immediately identified by the runners, and was captured before he had time to dispose of a single article. He was brought to the gentleman two hours afterward, identified, the property on him sworn to, and in six weeks was on his way to Botany Bay.

SNAILS AND SNAIL-EATING.

EVERY one, I suppose, is familiar enough with the snails which crawl around the garden in the summer. They are not a very interesting race of animals, to be sure, judging of them by their appearance; and I should not be at all surprised to hear you speak of them as quite worthless. But in many parts of Europe they are regarded as very valuable for food. In France and Italy multitudes of them are served up and eaten as a very delicious dish, not so much by the poor-for they are by no means a cheap article of food-as by the rich. Snails are more abundant in many European countries than they are with us. I saw greater numbers of them in England than I ever saw at home; and in some portions of France they are plentier still. The English people do not eat snails; but in France they are very highly esteemed. In some of the departments, the fattening of them forms the principal business of many of the farmers. Those produced in Lorraine and Burgundy, I was informed, are held in the greatest repute by the snail-epicures, and tons of them are brought from these sections of the country to Paris.

VOL. III.

8

AL

There are now fifty restaurants, and more than twelve hundred private tables, in Paris, where snails are accepted as a delicacy by from eight thousand to ten thousand consumers. The price is about fifty cents per hundred. In the markets at Rome and Naples, I also noticed an abundance of snails exposed for sale. Aye, and it is not an uncommon thing, in either of these places, to see a man walk up to a stall where they are kept, and eat a dozen of them raw, for his dinner. Do you smile at this, and are you inclined to wonder how such an absurd taste was formed? Well, it does indeed seem absurd to us, as we have been educated. But just suppose, for a moment, that no man or woman, since the creation of the world, had ever eaten either a snail or an oyster. Don't you think that, if both were served up for your dinner, you would be as likely to choose the former as the latter?

HOW THE RACK WAS ABOLISHED.

TORTURE applied to extort confession, was discontinued, it is said, in the public courts of Portugal, in consequence of the following circumstances: A conscientious judge, having observed the effects of the rack upon supposed criminals, in making them confess anything, to the sacrifice of their lives, to get released from the torture, determined to try an experiment. It is a capital crime in that country to kill a horse or a mule; and he had one of the former which he much valued. He took care one night to have all his servants employed, so that no one but the groom could go into the stable. When all were fast asleep in their beds, he stole thither himself, and cut the horse so that he bled to death. The groom was apprehended and committed to prison. He pleaded not guilty; but the presumption being strong against him, he was ordered to the rack, where the extremity of the torture soon wrung from him a confession of the crime. Upon this confession he had sentence of hanging passed on him, when his master went to the tribunal, and there exposed the fallibility of confessions obtained by such means, by owning the fact himself, and disclosing the motives which had influenced him in making the experiment.