[5]. Matt. 7:1.

[6]. Tit. 3:2.

“2d. She can prove it from writers on moral science, who generally teach that it is wrong to utter injurious truth concerning others, except in certain specified cases, where the ends of justice require it”.

“3d. She can prove it by an argument drawn from analogy, thus:—Every person possesses a reputation, which is the estimation in which he is held by the community. This is a priceless possession, and the greatest harm we can do to another, next to corrupting his moral character, is to injure his reputation. This is what scandal does, and it is this that makes it wrong. When we expose another’s faults, without adequate cause, we virtually declare that he has more estimation than he deserves, and we proceed to strip him of a portion of it. If this is right, then when we find a dishonest man, who has more property than really belongs to him, it would be right for us to rob him of a part of it. Nobody would justify the latter case, and the other must be settled on the same principles.”

“The exceptions to this rule are few and simple. When the ends of justice, the protection of the innocent, or the good of the offender, demand the exposure of a transgressor, we are bound to tell what we know of his guilt, to those whose duty it is to call him to account, or who may be exposed to danger from him.

“We are glad our friend has called our attention to this subject. Evil-speaking is a sadly prevalent sin, in our community. Some wise man once said, that ‘if all persons knew what they said of each other, there would not be four friends in the world.’ We are afraid there are many people in our town who would think themselves suddenly deserted by every friend they ever had, if all the scandal and gossip in circulation should be borne to their ears. Let us set our faces against this mean and debasing sin.”

Miss Lee, while alluding to the facility with which scandal was circulated in that community, might have pointed to a striking exception, had it been proper. There was in that town a youth who had run a wild and reckless course, bringing sorrow and shame to his parents, and retribution to himself. He had twice been put into prison on a charge of crime, and had finally been tried and sentenced for larceny. There were three persons in the town who knew these facts in his history, and only three. So inviolably had they kept the secret, that no one else, not even the members of their own family, suspected that the young man had ever departed from the path of rectitude. That youth was Oscar Preston; and the three friends who had so jealously guarded his reputation in Highburg from injuries which seemed almost inevitable, were Mrs. Page, Miss Lee, and Marcus. They were induced to receive him into their home, because he expressed a sincere desire to reform; and to encourage him in his good purposes, they had carefully refrained from all allusion to his past errors. Oscar at one time feared that the secret had been divulged, by one of his old city comrades who passed through the town with a circus company; but so far as he could ascertain, his apprehensions were unfounded. He had now lived about six months in Highburg, and had proved himself worthy of the kindness which had been shown to him by his aunts and cousin.[[7]]

[7]. The early career of Oscar is related at length in the first two volumes of this series, “Oscar,” and “Clinton.”

CHAPTER VII.
HOW TO BE HAPPY.

When Henry Hapley left his sister, after making the promise mentioned in the last chapter, he came to the conclusion, upon a few moments’ reflection, that he had been coaxed into doing a foolish thing. The idea of loving Mrs. Allen seemed absurd; and as to pleasing her, he did not believe he could do it, if he should try as hard as possible. However, as he had made the promise, he finally concluded that he must try to keep it, at least for the week to which it was limited.