ing evils of any great importance in comparison with the results at which it aims." But surely it is unnecessary to remind this practical writer and thinker that courses of conduct are judged, not by the evil they do in comparison with the good at which they aim, but according to the net balance they yield of good or evil. Here again we are left with an insoluble equation on our hands. What we want to know is what good is done by social intolerance, either to those who exercise it or to those who are its objects; but upon this point we get no information whatever-we are simply told that the good aimed at is immense in comparison with the evil wrought. This leaves us face to face with a confession that some evil is wrought, and if we cannot ascertain that any good is effected as a counterpoise, we are to comfort ourselves with the thought of all the good that is aimed at !

Suppose now that a man comes to Mr. Stephen for advice as to whether or not he should practise "social intolerance" towards a neighbour whose opinions he considers "dangerous." "Well, my good man," we might expect the gentleman consulted to say, "if your opinions are true, and if the other man's are, as you say, false and dangerous, you could hardly do better than be intolerant towards him; the evil you will do will be as nothing in comparison with the good at which you aim." But would Mr. Stephen really say this? It seems not; for we read further on: "No one has a right to be morally intolerant of doctrines which he has not carefully studied. . . Most people have no right to any opinions whatever upon these questions [scil., questions of religion and morals], except in so far as they are necessary for the regulation of their own affairs." Once more, and at the most critical moment, Mr. Stephen draws off his forces from the citadel of liberty, which he seemed bent upon forcing to surrender at discretion. We breathe freely again and raise joyful eyes to heaven, as we learn that the luxury of social intolerance is not à l'usage de tout le monde, not for the million, not for anyone who does not understand, who has not "carefully studied" the opinions he undertakes to condemn. Balaam has indeed blessed us altogether; the good he has done is only equalled by the mischief he aimed at doing. Deliver us from the brute prejudice of the masses, and we

can bravely stand the judgment of competent and honest men. They at least know what evidence is; they know something of the genesis of opinion in candid minds; they can distinguish involuntary error from wilful trifling with the truth; above all, their own minds are not sealed against further light, and they may therefore learn even from those whom they set themselves to controvert. Is it not manifest that such men cannot be intolerant in the sense the word has always hitherto borne,—that self-respect and a consciousness of the intellectual rights of others will compel them to be simply just? Mr. Stephen's final judgment under this head is contained in the following sentence: "I think it highly important that men who really study these matters should feel themselves at liberty not merely to dissent from, but to disapprove of, opinions which appear to them to require it, and should express that disapprobation." To which we say: Most decidedly, provided only that no injurious imputations as to motives or character be indulged in, unless there is full and conclusive evidence that these are deserved, and that their expression is a matter of public duty. What Mr. Mill contended against was the fashion of arguing from opinions to character without reference to the mode or spirit in which the opinions might be set forth. Truth as well as error may be "held in unrighteousness;" and error as well as truth may be held in a sincere and religious spirit. There are perhaps not many men living whom Mr. Stephen would be content to hear inveighing in a tone of lofty moral disapprobation against Spinoza, Hume, Strauss, Grote, Mill, or Spencer.

Let us, however, leaving Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, consider briefly what attitude it is desirable, on general grounds, to maintain towards new opinions and their authors or adherents. The first thing to consider is, that all our opinions were at one time new, and that many of them have been pronounced preposterous and even blasphemous. To the Jew, Christianity itself was a stumblingblock, and to the Greek it was foolishness. To the rulers of the Roman Empire it was an anti-social doctrine, which could only lead to the overthrow of all order in the State. The sciences of astronomy, geology, and ethnology have had to fight against established prejudices for almost every inch of ground they at present possess. We

ments are being produced in greatest abundance, when men's minds are fullest of new thoughts, and when old lines of defence are felt to be most inadequate. It is a poor device at the best, and can scarcely impose even on those who resort to it. When arguments have really been exhausted, it will be quite unnecessary to discourage further discussion. The late Dr. Brownson was, to his dying day, by no means satisfied that the sun did not revolve round the earth; but his doubts were not considered dangerous to the orthodox system of astronomy. The only trouble he would have had, if he had wished to ventilate his peculiar views, would have been to get anybody to listen to him.

Let us consider, lastly, that, constituted and situated as men are, differences of opinion, even upon matters of the greatest moment, are inevitable. Minds are not all of one pattern, nor are any two men acted upon by precisely the same external influences. Every one is apt to think his point of view the only true one; but should not sensible people be on their guard against this only too natural illusion? On the simple principle of doing to others as we would be done by, we should treat all sincerelyheld opinions with respect, while maintaining our own with all needful energy and firmness. It does not in the least follow that a man must himself be in a wavering state of mind because he is willing to give a fair hearing to opinions opposed to his own. A really earnest believer, who is persuaded that, at every point, his view is in harmony with truth, will be glad to have the difficulties that others feel, or the objections they make, fully stated in order that they may be as fully met. Every one may not feel himself competent to defend his opinions by argument; but he is entitled to ask those whose guidance he follows to make good their claim to be his guides, by showing themselves ready to defend what they teach. Every opinion, it should be remembered, that finds expression in print represents a more or less considerable body of similar opinion that has never found such expression; and if they who regard themselves as possessing the truth have a sincere desire to bring it home to the minds of all men, they will rejoice to be supplied with indications as to the directions in which it is most necessary to work-always supposing that they

are truly settled and grounded in the faith they profess,-that their minds are not haunted with doubts, nor their hearts with misgivings. Of course, if the latter is their state, much that we see every day becomes intelligible.

The practical question with which the public of this country has to deal is, what complexion our growing civilization shall assume-whether it shall bear the mark of a free and vigorous intellectual life, elevating and dignifying all lower activities; or whether it shall tell of thought in fetters, conventionalism triumphant, and all materializing influences bearing unchecked sway. We boast of our system of education, primary and secondary; but what do we propose as regards the intellectual future of the youth whom we are yearly sending out, brighteyed and full of hope, from our schools and universities? Do we wish to veil from them the true condition of the intellectual world, to accustom them to look askance-never fair in the face-at opinions that are considered dangerous? Are we prepared to tell them that the Apostle's injunction to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good," was fulfilled long ago, and that nothing now remains but to approve what our forefathers proved, or thought they did? We may, if we like, adopt this tone and this policy. We may, by a well-directed pressure on the organs of public opinion, bind them for some years longer to the service of a stereotyped orthodoxy in politics, philosophy, and religion; we may tell those who would help to build up our national literature that unless they can work to pattern, they had better keep their labours to themselves; in a word—a word homely, but strong-we may, if we like, boom ourselves in, like so many saw-logs, from the maincurrent of thought in the present day; but, if we do, the future of Canada is not one to which any man or woman whose pulse keeps time with the great movement of the world can look forward with much enthusiasm.

"There is one road

To peace, and that is truth, which follow ye!" It is but a mockery of peace that comes of repression-a hateful hiding-place of hypocrisies, a treacherous calm before the abyss of revolution.

TH

HE daily press brings to our homes not only useful information, tales of joy, of sadness, and of woe, but ofttimes rich food for laughter-odd glimpses of humanity nowhere else to be found. Not a few of the most curious items it supplies, are to be seen where one is perhaps least likely to look for them the advertising columns. It occurred to the writer a few years ago to make a collection of advertisements; and this, though by no means very extensive or varied, nevertheless includes some morceaux which it would be a pity to consign altogether to oblivion.

To begin with, let us take the Births, Deaths, and Marriages. What must have been the feelings of Paterfamilias as he penned the following brief notice of his oft-repeated blessings?:

"In B―, on the 21st June, the wife of Mr. E. P- of a son, it being the twentyeighth child of the prolific parent."

Prolific indeed! one a year for twentyeighth years; or perhaps, indeed, they came by twos and threes! No doubt that twentyeight times blessed parent rejoiced with the Psalmist, and was not ashamed to meet his enemy in the gate.

Here we have one who is evidently an ecstatic Irishman, rejoicing over the birth of a son in the following terms:

“M. Hurrah for the Kingdom of Canada! Birth. In this city, on Monday, the 9th of September, the wife of Mr. John M- of a son. Union for ever! Beattie and Cameron! Harrison and Wallis! God save the Queen !"

Perhaps by the time this happy father has chronicled the arrival of his twenty-eighth infant, his feelings may have become less exuberant; in the meantime who could be heartless enough to find fault with the seeming extravagance of his joy?

Matrimony is essentially invested with a certain poetic halo, and yet, for the most part, advertisements of marriages are principally noticeable for the unromantic uniformity

with which they are expressed, and it is almost a relief when they do step a little out of the beaten track, even if it be only to bring to the notice of all whom it may concern, that the bride's great-grand-cousin twice removed was bootblack to his Serene Highness, the King of the Cannibal Islands. Here is an announcement, however, which breathes of nothing but orange flowers, moonlight, and gentle zephyrs. It tells how two hearts were made as one:

"By Dr. J. A. Sherrill, at twilight, on Wednesday evening, February 28th, 1866, in Catawba County, N. C., at the house of the bride's widowed mother, after a short but most delicious courtship," &c.

Among advertisements of deaths, few have occurred of recent years more remarkable than the following:

"At New Deer, on the 13th instant, in the 87th year of her age, Bathia Reid, sister of the late Chief Justice Reid, Montreal, North America, and relict of the late Mr. John Copland, Peterhead. For 53 years she practised midwifery, and brought into the world upwards of 3,000 children."

Few ladies, we presume, can show such a record of industrious perseverance, as that exhibited in the life of this lamented lady— an average of rather over a child a week for fifty-three years! Who can beat that?

It is with somewhat different feelings that we read the following note, appended to an announcement of the death of a lady from consumption :

"The husband of deceased wishes to return his heartfelt thanks to the Rev. Messrs. N-, E. C., A-, Presbyterian, and M--, Methodist, for their constant attendance in divine matters, and also to the neighbours for their kindness during illness, and the honour paid her at death, it being the largest funeral ever seen in this section of Canada."

Passing over the telegraphic style in which this "card" is written, one would be inclined to doubt whether the constant tendance in divine matters" of three reve

at