is, of the day this is intended to reach you, the ninth anniversary of your birthday!

I am very, very sorry that I cannot get home to-morrow, to be with dear mamma and you all at the rejoicings, and to find all those sixpences in the big cake tumbling out, for everybody, just as they are wanted! I tried very hard, indeed, to get off to-night, but was compelled to remain to vote to-morrow on an important question. I am very sure you will feel certain that papa would have come if he possibly could, for he loves his little daughter very dearly. Papa would have liked

very, very much to have been at home to-morrow.

But never mind, Oda dear; I will be up, if all goes well, on the day after this reaches you; and we shall have such a time, shall we not? You must keep a large piece of the cake for papa.

I wished to buy a little present for my Oda on her birthday, but could not accomplish it this morning; so I enclose a bank bill, with which Oda must buy something for herself from papa.

Tell mamma that the senate refused to sit after dinner, as a number of the members wished to go to the Governor-General's party, and that I had consequently to postpone leaving until Friday night.

Good-by, dear Oda. Make Maddie and Ginney kind little speeches from papa, and accompany them with dear little kisses on each cheek

from

YOUR LOVING PAPA.

LONDON, Aug. 18, 1875.

MY DEAR LITTLE ODA,-I got your two dear letters at the Globe office yesterday morning, and was delighted to do so. I read them joyfully; and though your name was not signed to them, I knew very well the little hand that wrote them.

Yes, the little dog, with the other fellow's head, was very glad to see us at Abden House, and barked and frisked about at a great rate, and so did Bronte and the little hounds. I hope you enjoyed your visit to Scammadale very much, and that Freddy killed a great lot of grouse for you, and that Uncle James caught lots of salmon and trout for you and Mena and Ginney.

I am glad you are enjoying the bathing so much. You should bathe every day, for it will make you strong and vigorous. The weather here is very warm, and I would like to have a plunge in the sea off Oban rocks very much.

I expect to be in London all this week, and go to the North of England on Saturday night or Monday morning. I shall be in Edinburgh on Tuesday night probably, but will leave again on Wednesday morning; and on Thursday will sail for Canada by the Moravian.

I am very sorry to part with mamma and you, and Maddie and Ginney, and it will be very lonely at Wellington Street; but the weeks will soon run round, and we shall be all together again. Won't that be delightful?

Give my loving regards to grandmamma and Auntie Jessie, and say how sorry I am not to have been with them longer, but that I trust we will meet again ere long.

Good-by, my own dear little Oda. Give Ginney six kisses from papa, and think of me always as your own fondly loving

ΣΑΡΑ.

TORONTO, September 20th, 1875.

MY DEAR WEE BOY,-I received your letter that Auntie Jessie was so kind as to write for you, but which you signed with your own very hand, and was delighted to get it.

That must have been a very fine silver haddie you caught at Kerrera ; next time you go you might catch one or two more, and send them over by the captain of the Polynesian. Eh! that little hint about Edie's pony was nicely brought in. We shall see about it when the wee girls and boys that have run away from their papa get home.

Good-by. Love to mamma and grandmamma, and all the uncles and aunties and cousins, and all the good little girls and boys, and all the rest of the people, from your much-loving

РАРА.

TORONTO, March 26th, 1877.

MY DEAR GINNEY,-Your letter came safe to hand and made me very happy. It was a great pleasure to receive a real letter, in the very own handwriting of my big boy. I mean to keep it carefully, and by comparing it with the letters I hope to get often from you hereafter, be able to judge of the progress you make in writing and composition; and I am very anxious that my Ginney shall strive hard to make rapid progress in these accomplishments.

OTTAWA, May 7th, 1879.

MY DEAR BOY,-I was very much pleased to get your funny little letter an hour ago, and as the debate is going on upon the Coteau Bridge Bill, I scrawl off this line to say so to you. I am so glad you have been getting up in your classes again, though I confess I have found it very difficult to make out the figures. What does "Latin 5, 6.50" mean? What does "Reading 9, 6.75" mean? What does "Grammar 6, 7.18" mean? What does "History 12, 12.50" mean? I quite comprehend "1 in Geography"; that is the right sort of marking-so is "Head in Latin,' and "I up in History and Reading." Suppose you send me another letter explaining these mysteries?

37

The debate is just finished and the House about to rise, so I must close, or the gas will be put out and papa left in the dark. Good night, my dearest little Ginney. Give papa's love to Maddie and Oda, and three cheers for Hanlan!

YOUR LOVING PAPA.

SPEECHES.

ANTI-CLERGY RESERVE MEETING.

This speech was delivered at the anniversary meeting of the "AntiClergy Reserve Association," held in St. Lawrence Hall, Toronto, on the 26th of July, 1851. An opposition meeting was called by the conservatives in the Lower Market at the same hour. A large portion of the rougher element left the Tory gathering and proceeded to St. Lawrence Hall, and caused a serious disturbance. Missiles were thrown, and the windows were partially smashed, causing great alarm in the audience. Finally the military were called out, and the Riot Act was read, when the mob dispersed. Mr. Brown moved the following resolution: Resolved, "That without enunciating any abstract principles on these subjects, we unanimously reiterate our deliberate and full conviction, that state endowments of religion are utterly inexpedient in a community like ours, leading, as they have hitherto done, to an indiscriminate and pernicious countenancing of error along with truth, and fostering among us religious alienation and civil discord."

He said: When the committee asked me to speak to the resolution which I have just read, I was instructed that the saving clause introduced into it for the benefit of those who do not condemn the abstract principle of state endowments, while they are opposed to its practical adoption in Canada, was intended to apply to the voting and not to the speaking; and that the speakers were quite at liberty to support the resolution by any arguments they chose. I take advantage of that liberty to say at the outset that no such saving clause was necessary for me; that I hold the principle and practice of establishments to be alike bad; that I view the payment of religious teachers by the state injurious to the cause of Christ, injurious to the pastors, injurious to the people, and injurious to the state. I hold that that church which cannot be maintained by the voluntary contributions of the Christian people is not worth supporting. It is true that learned ecclesiastics have showed from holy writ that kings were to be nursing fathers and queens nursing mothers to the church, and that by the nicest arguments they have attempted to establish on this foundation a whole fabric of priestcraft. But I confess that when

I read the history of the human race, and trace the dark record of wars and carnage, of tyranny, robbery, and injustice in every shape, which have been the fruits of state-churchism in every age; when I observe the degenerating effect which it has ever had on the purity and simplicity of the gospel of Christ, turning men's minds from its great truths, as a religion of the heart, to the mere outward tinsel, to the forms and ceremonies on which priestcraft flourishes; when I see that in all times it has been made the instrument of the rich and powerful in oppressing the poor and weak, I cannot but reject it utterly as in direct hostility to the whole spirit of the gospel, to that glorious system which teaches men to set not their hearts on this world, to walk humbly before God, and do justly by all men. There is one argument which is perfectly insuperable in my mind, and that is, that if there never had been any connection between church and state, there never could have been persecution for conscience sake. True, churches might have persecuting principles, but without the state alliance they could not have carried them out. But had I any scruple left on my mind as to the scriptural argument on the question of establishments, every vestige of it had been removed within the last few days by an able defence of the voluntary principle which has recently appeared. The authority of the document is unquestionable-it comes to us with all the authority of apostolical succession in the true and veritable line, from one who has spent his life and rent his country with strife and excitement for a quarter of a century in opposing that very principle of which he is now the eulogist. You may be astonished when I say that this combatant for the voluntary principle is Dr. John Strachan, by divine permission Church of England Bishop of Toronto. I hold in my hand the charge of the Bishop, delivered to his clergy in May of this year-it is fresh from the church mint -there is no doubt of its genuineness, and I pray you to listen to a few extracts. "But with or without its (the reserves) aid," says the Bishop, "there is nothing of moment left for us but the voluntary principle." Sad "I am not here," he adds, apologetically, "to advocate the voluntary system in itself, for I consider it exposed to the gravest objections, but"-ah! that but-"but the necessity is upon us: there is now no alternative." The case is indeed a lamentable one, but it is truly gratifying to see the new light which this fell necessity has thrown into the Bishop's mind. Now that it is "upon us," the ungodly, the infidel aspect of the thing disappears, and the voluntary principle begins to be clothed in all the beauty of apostolic antiquity! Hear the Bishop: "It (the voluntary principle) is, as all must confess, of high antiquity. It began to be acted upon in the days of the apostles." Nay, sir, he goes further; the results of the voluntary principle have been, he declares, "of infinite importance in preserving the church, her ordinances and teaching among the people," and he is quite certain that its full adoption in Canada “God will bless." If God will bless the voluntary principle to John Toronto, nobody will need to fear its being blessed to us. It was astonishing how people progressed when they once got hold of a right principle: the Bishop, a convert of yesterday, puts his finger on the very mainspring of the voluntary principle, and warns his brethren

case!

that "according to the zeal and exertions of the clergy, the voluntary principle has produced very different results." No doubt of it; and in that sentence he utterly condemns establishments, for they release the pastor from the necessity of exertion.

The first risings of priestcraft in the Christian church were seen at Rome. There was no state-churchism in the preaching or practice of our Saviour or his apostles. The church at Rome, from its position and strength, had early much influence over the churches beyond the city, and was frequently consulted; from giving advice the Roman bishops gradually assumed a position of superiority, and as priestcraft felt its weight, divine authority over all the churches was claimed. In the third century the doctrine of unity of faith began to be strongly pressed, and the scriptural doctrine of unity of spirit became gradually corrupted by designing men into unity of external faith or form. In apostolic times, those who had the spirit were members of the church, but this was now reversed, and those who were members of the church were held to have the spirit. The admission of this doctrine created a necessity for a church framework, and enabled ambitious priests to work themselves in between man and his maker, and to use their usurped authority for their own base purposes. From that time we have had the same principle showing itself in various shapes all over the world, according to the intelligence of the people. Mankind have made a great advance on this point of late years, however; but even in this age, we have not a little of it still at work. We don't burn people nowadays, but in Spain, the other day, we passed new laws to force all men to worship at one shrine; in Tuscany, two months ago, we put men in prison for reading the Gospel of St. John; in England, we merely treat those not of the true church as an inferior race, made of inferior clay, and we force them to bolt thirty-nine articles; and in Scotland, we send men to gaol for not paying the annuity tax. In Canada, we have had state-churchism in many phases, but latterly it has become quite subdued; it only takes our money, stops a Christian minister from preaching the gospel because he goes "without bands" into the presence of his "diocesan!" or, mayhap, cuts off a faithful pastor because he "encouraged schism" by going to a Methodist chapel. The demands of the state-churchmen are wonderfully lowered in Canada. They are perfectly willing to extend tolerance in religion to all; all they ask is that the state shall do its duty in maintaining the worship of God and established truth. Only give the clergy cash, and they ask no more.

Now, admitting for argument sake that it is the duty of the state to do this, how shall we, in a population made up of twenty sects, get at truth? There is no standard for truth. We cannot even agree on the meaning of words. How then shall we agree on this momentous point? Oh, we are told, use the means-read-seek divine guidance. If twenty conscientious men, of as many sects, honestly used every means possible to find this truth, can any one doubt their arriving at the conclusion that there are just twenty truths? But if eleven of the twenty agreed on one faith, the establishment principle would entitle them, nay, make it their duty, to force it down the throats of the others according to the majority of each