struction of the prey. The policy of the Scotch landlord operates more slowly, but just as surely. We may illustrate this by a reference to what is taking place on the estates of the Duke of Richmond. When the farms on his Grace's princely domains in Scotland were let about six years ago, a large number of the smaller holders were compelled to an immediate surrender of their possessions, to make way for the annexation of these to the larger adjacent farms. These smaller tenantry were composed partly of those who held immediately of the Duke, and partly of those who held of the tenant, commonly known in Scotland by the name of subtenants. A considerable number of the smaller holders were allowed to retain their little farms in the meantime, but were refused, almost without exception, a renewal of their leases. The class of subtenants the heritor did not feel himself obliged to recognise at all, and in no case were they allowed to retain occupation of their acres. It is but fair to say, at the same time, that those stripped of their possessions, including the sub-tenants, were not ejected from their houses. In almost every instance they were allowed to occupy a house and garden at a nominal rent. We may remark in passing, however, that this seeming leniency cannot be regarded as very great indulgence after all. What are a house and garden to the man whom you have stripped of the resource from which alone he drew the subsistence of himself and family? Almost nothing. And this is evident from what has since taken place. The vast majority of these poor people, their means of living gone, have felt themselves necessitated to go where they could be more advantageously located. To resume-It is extremely probable we think that the Duke originally contemplated the immediate and wholesale annexation of the smaller to the larger farms, but was restrained by the storm of public indignation with which the partial development of his system was received, and had recourse to the more slow but equally sure way, by refusing a renewal of leases, the purpose of which, as proved by the event, was to effectuate the accomplishment of his scheme in the way of gradual annexation. Accordingly, on the decease of the occupant of a small holding, his possession is annexed to the larger contiguous farm, his remaining family being compelled to seek a livelihood elsewhere. This depopulating system is going on in rapid progress. Croft after croft, merges in the larger farms in quick succession. The large farms are all becoming monster farms. They are swallowing up the smaller as Aaron's rod swallowed up the rods of the Egyptian magicians. We recollect reading the report of a speech delivered by his Grace at an agricultural meeting, in which he employed these ords, "I would wish to be considered the father of my tenantry." So far as the larger tenantry are concerned, the Duke, we believe, is a respectable landlord; but as to the smaller, he appears to us to have done violence to nature, and the scriptural hypothesis founded on it: "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?" It is pleasing to turn from this stern and unwise policy to record our testimony in favour of that of a neighbouring proprietor of his Grace, the Earl of Fife. His lordship, in adjusting his leases on a recent occasion, found on his estates a class of sub-tenants similar to those whom the Duke found on his. Instead of refusing to recognise them, however, he raised them at once to the position of tenants; re

moved them from under the grinding superiority of the tenant, and brought them into immediate and advantageous relation to himself. About six years ago, when there was a large and simultaneous removal of the smaller tenantry from the Duke's estates, and these were looking for openings under other heritors, as application after application was addressed to Lord Fife, that generous-hearted nobleman is reported to have said, "I really wish his Grace would not put them out faster than I am able to take them in." But his Lordship could not take them all in, and the vast majority were compelled to retake themselves to the neighbouring villages and larger

towns.

Now what must be the effect of this on the villages situated in the heart of an agricultural district? We hesitate not to say, perfectly ruinous. What is the history of these villages? They have manifestly risen by their connexion with the circumjacent agricultural population. Their various shopkeepers and tradesmen have thus found a ready outlet for their commo-dities, and have in consequence thence drawn their means of subsistence; and just in proportion as these districts are depopulated do the villages suffer; and not only do they suffer by a large subtraction from their incomes, but by an increased drain upon their means and substance. This drain is the result of an influx of the ejected, who, when the sum obtained by the displenish of their places is exhausted, are in frequent instances compelled to seek enrolment as paupers. This, of course, leads to an increase of poorrate, and this latter again combined with the depopulation of the surrounding country to a depreciation of property, We think, therefore, that it does not admit of a moment's doubt, that the prosperity of these villages is in the inverse ratio of the depopulating process going on around them.

But to judge accurately of the effect of the clearing system, we must not look at it simply as exemplified in isolated instances, but inquire what would be the result of its extensive or universal adoption, and the present tendency of it is in that direction. In such a case some of the ejected would perhaps be driven to emigrate, but a large proportion would take refuge in the towns generally. Now, what is true of the effect on villages, is true in regard to large towns; and, of course, on a proportionably extended scale. The influx into these would be the multiplication of competitors for every department of labour, and the inseparable accompaniment of this latter again, unless in times of extraordinary demand, would be the diminution of wages. Looking at the recent exhibi-tions in our large towns, is this desirable? There would be also the additional effect of casting on the towns an undue and unfair proportion of the pauperism of our country, and consequently adding to their already exorbitant poor-rates. And would it not tell detrimentally on the merchant and manufacturer? True, the larger manufacturers export largely to the foreign market, but a considerable quantity of their goods are consumed at home. And would not this consumption be seriously abridged? Manifestly it would. Compare the population after an extensive clearing with what it was before. The number of hands necessary for labouring these large farms is an insignificant fraction of the number of displaced inhabitants. In some districts with which we are acquainted, we have in several instances known a large farm raised on the ruins of some twenty or thirty "reeking houses." If such be the effect upon the

towns, what can we imagine more caiculated than this policy to foster and encourage that spirit of jealousy and antagonism which is so apt to spring up, and which, alas! is now in vigorous existence between the agricultural and commercial sections of society. The attempt of the landlords to cast an undue burden upon towns, while they are at the same time locking up one great outlet for manufactured commodities, destroying the consumpt of the various articles of mercantile retail, and contributing to the reduction of the operatives' wages, cannot fail to place these interests in direct hostility to those who interpose such obstruction to their prosperity.

And how does this system tend to destroy the balance of interests between the two great classes of the community-the agricultural and commercial? Whatever tends to destroy or even disturb this balance is fraught with the most pernicious consequences to national prosperity. The welfare of these classes is identical. They are mutually dependent. Where they flourish together, they are always found to embrace proportional numbers of a country's population. The nation is the most stable and prosperous that has a due proportion of each, and extends equal encouragement to both. Yon cannot permanently exalt the one at the expense of the other. The favoured one will eventually exhibit symptoms of decay, when the other is in a crippled and depressed condition. So far as the agricultural is concerned, the want of a due proportion of this class has been the downfal of other states, and the removal or weakening of that element of strength may issue in the downfal of our own. If this system be permitted to be fully acted out, an honest and industrious peasantry, "their country's pride," will live but in the imagination of the poet. We have been saddened in surveying some of the depeopled districts, to look upon the blackened ruin here and there, formerly the homestead of some happy family now forced into a foreign land, or into contact with the temptations and vices of a town.

Contemplate for a moment the result of this policy on the larger agriculturists themselves, in respect of the supply and quality of farm-servants. Whence is this supply now drawn? Not from towns. The taste for the special employments of farm-servants is not imbibed or fostered in towns, but in the actual scene of such operations. Hitherto the smaller holdings have been so many nurseries for farm-servants. The members of a family, familiar from childhood with agricultural work on the "paterna jugera,” behold in miniature the employments which await them on the larger farms. A number of the family is perhaps compelled to quit the paternal roof at an early age, and engage with the neighbouring farmer to perform some of the lowest and initiatory departments of farm-work. While so occupied, perhaps in tending the cattle, he looks to his fellow-servant in the higher department, and aspires to the promotion, when grown up, of holding the plough! And farmers can calculate on a comparative virtuous race of servants. From the proximity of the paternal dwelling, the parental eye is much upon the young people, and in their frequent visits to home, they receive the benefit of parental counsel. On the other hand, servants drawn from towns are but too often adept in the vices incident to a crowded population, and import these into their new homes, to the corrupting of their fellow-servants.

Need we point to the atrocious bothy system? No

one needs be told that it is an inseparable concomi tant of the extension of farms. Already in Aber deenshire, according to a very recent calculation, bothies are found to exist to the number of between five and six hundred. We can calculate the pestiferous influences upon morals which exhale from these sinks of iniquity!

What, again, is the effect of the large farm system on the prospects of farm-servants? Does it not completely darken their future prospects? Few or none of them contemplate working on a farm to the end of their days. They have an ulterior object. They wish to make a provision for declining years. In order to this, they look forward to the probability of their one day becoming possessed of the smaller holdings. Inspired with this hope, they carefully lay up their little earnings, the accumulated amount of which, they expect, will put them into little farms of their own, where they can bring up their families, and terminate their days in independence and comfort. In the prosecution of this aim, have we not a pretty strong guarantee for industry, economy, and sobriety? The debauched will in vain solicit such to indulge in the neighbouring public-house. The man with the little holding in his eye, will strive to commend himself to his master, who, rather than part with such a servant, will be ready to increase the wages on which his project of independence is based. True, this is but a subordinate motive, still it does not preclude the higher. Withdraw it, and you remove a strong incentive to diligence. Let servants save wages, and in the absence of such prospect, what are they to do with it-how invest it? The journeyman shopkeeper knows where to invest his earnings. Suppress small farms, and you rob the farm-servant of an investment. for his. Without such investment, is it not manifest that, on retiring from service, his accumulated earnings, being subjected to continued drains for himself and family, will soon be reduced to nothing! Besides, knowing that their is legal provision for him in old age, improvidence is even encouraged. This is too much the case already; but deprive the farm-servant of an investment, and you increase the evil in an incalculably great degree.

Look at this system in connexion with our rapidly increasing population. Our population is swelling in a prodigious ratio-how is it to be disposed of? Our statesmen are embarrassed with this question-and is it a time to add to this embarrassment? What is to be done with the rejected tenantry? Let them emigrate, says the landlords. We may be very well satisfied if emigration relieve us of the excess of our population above our resources, or a measure of that excess. Emigration should meet a state of things for which there is no alternative, not an emergency of our own creating. At all events it should be voluntary, and not, as in the case supposed, the effect of direct compulsion. Let it proceed upon the conviction that a man's circumstances will thereby be bettered, but give him every facility for living at home. Let it be resorted to by him as an enterprise pregnant with hope-not as a last and desperate resource. Not to speak of the sum lost to the country in the means which emigrants carry along with them, small singly, but large in cumulo, or of the industrious, perhaps religious, habits, the deprivation of whose influence on the social economy is a serious loss, the rupturing of the ties of home and kindred is always the most painful when the effect of stern necessity. And then the attachment of Scotsmen to their father-land is more

THE SUSTENTATION FUND.

vetia.

Thus every good his native wilds impart
Imprints the patriot passion on his heart;

And even those ills that round his mansion rise,
Enhance the bliss his scanty fund supplies.
Dear is that shed to which his soul conforms,
And dear that hill which lifts him to the storms:
And as a child, whom scaring sounds molest,
Cling close and closer to the mother's breast;
So the loud torrent and the whirlwinds roar,
But bind him to his native mountains more.

Why, then, force him to leave them?

In connexion with this, we hear a great deal of talk about the reclamation of waste lands; but would it not be more advisible to attempt a more equal partition and occupation of those already reclaimed? Exhaust the space here first. Stud these with our population. The soil is the right of the people, and recent events teaches not to trench on the natural rights of men. But how is this to be accomplished? Legislative interference may be considered inexpedient; but in what other way is a remedy to be applied? We do not think an agrarian law, in the Roman sense of the term, would suit our state of society. The man with capital, whose tastes may lie in the direction of agriculture, should find scope for the employment of his capital in that department, just as the man with commercial tastes should find investment for his capital in the department of commerce. But we think the State would be doing no injustice to capitalists-neither to landlord nor tenant-by imposing a limit upon the extent of farms, and adjusting the proportion of large and small farms on estates. At all events, the evil on which we have been commenting, must receive a Legislative check in some shape.

The Free Church is specially interested in the settlement of this question. The part of the population who are sufferers by the system are principally her members. The landlord cannot compel their return to the Establishment, but he may seriously thin our ranks in the way indicated. The vast proportion of our country adherents is drawn from the class of small tenants. We recently visited some of the con. gregations in the depopulated districts, which we had visited soon after the Disruption, and were astonished by the diminution of numbers. The allowed cause is the clearance system. The families who had left were enumerated to us, and their number was alarmingly

great.

Not the Free Church only, but the whole country is interested in this matter. Let them force the evil on the attention of the Legislature. Our legislators do not commonly interpose a remedy till the evil is full-grown. The general public concern themselves but little with it while it exists in detached localities —it is less under their eye. Would it not be wisdom to come with it in its infancy? Leave it till it assume giant proportions, and it may defy any effort for its overthrow short of civil convulsion. The certain or probable development of an existing evil warrants Legislative interposition. If any are made to guard against what men may do, it is surely time to interpose when you have a certain indication of what they will do; and this what, if unchecked, will convulse society to its very centre.

Fund. This movement seems to us singularly illtimed, and, were it likely to meet with any considerable support in the Church, dangerous. It is much easier to write a pamphlet proposing a new plan, than vigorously to discharge a present and manifest duty. But we cordially deprecate this way of responding to Dr Buchanan's appeal.

The language of this tract is worthy of notice. The writer of it quietly assumes, that he holds views in common " with many of the best and most enlightened friends of the cause," and he speaks of what the result would have been, "had our financial system been properly adjusted, and honestly worked." This last expression ought certainly not to have been used, especially by the elder of a congregation that is already to some extent "aid-receiving." His own congregation has not only got what justice and honesty would have dicated, but has received the fruit of a striking generosity, to which no other Church affords a parallel.

The object of the pamphlet, is to induce the Church to seize upon all the local funds of our congregations, and add them, with the exception of a small drawback, to the Sustentation Fund-to prohibit all congregations from supplementing the stipends of their own ministers, and to pay all the ministers exclusively from the General Fund. But let us quote:

exertions have been made throughout the country at large, in "A strong feeling has been expressed, and considerable favour of the movement so ably conducted by Dr Buchanan of Glasgow, with the view of augmenting the stipends of the ministers of the Free Church. Most heartily do I approve of this object, so far as it goes; my only regret is, that the sum aimed at had not been stated at £200 per annum as the minimum stipend. But, in common with many of the best and most enlightened friends of the cause, I hold that the system, according to which our ministers are at present paid, is fundamentally wrong. Until it is disencumbered of the appendage fastened upon it in an evil hour; until the enact ment which gives to every deacons' court the discretionary power of supplementing the stipend of their own minister, out of the funds of the congregation, be recalled; and until, in terms of the original pledge and design, the whole of the resources available for the supply of Christian ordinances in the land, be administered on a fixed principle, and according to rule, it will be vain to expect that the Free Church, as a great institute, can possibly flourish and prevail. It will speedily find its own sectarian level, and lay its boasted nationality in the dust. On the other hand, I believe that a change of the system would, in the course of a very few years, secure for the Free Church such a place in the affections, and such a hold upon the highest principles, of the people, that it would be found erect and strong, when, perhaps, the ancient Establishments of the land had fallen into decay, and when other Churches were offering but a feeble resistance to the abounding inroads of infidelity and error."

Again

"I have in my hands the report for 1846-7, of all the money raised by the Free Church for the various objects which she so zealously prosecutes. It is not, I think, too much to presume, that, had some plan similar to that which I

have suggested been acted upon, the Pastoral Fund would not have fallen short of the gross amount said to be realized by our local associations, and by collections at the church door for congregational purposes, and that in addition to this amount all other local expenses might have been specially provided for and easily raised. The amount arising from

from whence it came.

"The smallest amount which any minister would receive as an addition to his stipend, being determined by the sum sent to the general treasury, will be 158. 73d., and the highest, being restricted by our regulating principle, would be £160, whilst the average would be upwards of £40. At this very moment, therefore, had our financial system been properly adjusted and honestly worked, the ministers of the Free Church would have been receiving a minimum stipend of fully £160, an average of about £200, and a maximum of upwards of £320."

There are several distinct points raised by this proposal, which it may be well to keep apart. We feel the deepest sympathy, not indeed for our young unmarried ministers, not for those who formerly occupied quoad sacra churches, but for our aged ministers with large families, and formerly with large stipends. If any plan could be proposed for helping them, which did not involve a dangerous 'general principle, we should be most happy to support it. We have heard it proposed, for example, that those who formerly were quoad sacra ministers, should get only at present the amount of their former stipends from the General Fund, and that the balance should go to augment the stipends of the meritorious class referred to, or that a separate Fund should be created for the purpose. But there is something so simple and so satisfactory in the working of the equal dividend, that we should be sorry to disturb it. Still we should like to see some other plan for securing this most important object. The question is,

1st. Is the plan of supplementing minister's stipends a novelty? The elder of Selkirk says that it is. But we should like to hear him attempt to prove it. It is notorious that Dr Chalmers regarded it as a vital part of his plan. He maintained that there were two duties equally binding upon congregationsone enjoined by the text, "Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth," i.e., to his own minister," in all good things;"-the other, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." The one has reference to the General Fund, the other to the supplementing of stipends—the one brings out the congregational feeling, the other the patriotic; but both are equally scriptural, and were equally pressed by Dr Chalmers. The General Assembly also, from the very first, announced this as part of the regular system of the Free Church, and made her rules accordingly. It is therefore a very singular but thorough mistake, to call this an "appendage fastened upon it in an evil hour," and implies either entire ignorance of the whole subject, or an extratordinary confusion of ideas.

But suppose it were not so, is it not,

24. An essential and a right thing, apart from all previous resolutions! We apprehend it is. Refer ence is sometimes made to the primitive Church as warranting an entire community of goods amongst ministers. It is plain that in so far as this plan was

adopted in the early ages, it was entirely spontaneous, and not the result of any such rigid legislation as the Selkirk elder proposes. "Whilst it was with thee," says the apostle, "was it not thine own, and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" Besides, it was not confined to ministers. We may whisper to our friend of Selkirk, that it extended to the whole congregation is so far as it did prevail, and that "as many as had lands sold them, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles feet." The company of the disciples, as well as the ministers, had, to a great extent, a common stock. Is this proposed now? And, besides, the plan seems to have been afterwards abandoned as being fitted to encourage the idle to "sorn upon the industrious; and it was ordained that if any man would not work, neither should he eat.

It is quite plain, besides, that we should lose onehalf of our strength, as Dr Chalmers well knew, by throwing away the fruits of personal attachment to individual ministers. It may look very plausible to say, "Add all the supplements to the Sustentation Fund, and we shall increase the dividend;" but since those supplements are contributed expressly for individual ministers, it would be most dishonest to attempt this, and not unlike the plan of the French, to swell their private means by coining their neighbours' silver spoons. But even if the law were changed, is there any evidence that much of this money would ever be given at all? The very attempt, if made by the General Assembly, might create such differences as might wreck the General Fund altogether. No greater blunder can be committed in such a legislation as ours, than to leave out of our calculations the mighty element of the human will. A country congre. gation getting, let us say, at present, £50 a-year more from the General Fund than it sends, may say, “We would get £100 a year from the same quarter, if we could only, by a law of the Church, cast into the Fund the supplements of all the ministers." But, first, the proposal is not remarkable for its modesty; and second, the first effect of such a law probably would be at the very least to make that money be withheld altogether. And here we would notice the dexterous attempt made to induce the elders and deacons to favour this wild proposal.

"It would relieve our deacons' courts of a discretionary power in a matter of peculiar delicacy; and, by rendering their work purely ministerial, would at the same time make it pleasant and easy."

It would render their work "purely ministerial," i.e., they would become mere "hewers of wood, and drawers of water" to the general Church, and be deprived of all "discretionary power," in regard to the affairs of their respective congregations. This may seem all "pleasant and easy" to those who intend to take the trouble of spending their money without any of the labour of collecting it, but we suspect it will not be found so very agreeable to the others.

It is to be hoped that our Free Church will be prevented from listening to any crude and ill-digested plan of organic change. The Church in Canada may well act as a beacon. They made a law that all congregational funds should be sent in to the general treasury, and then dealt out in certain fixed proportions. But they were forced, on that account, to make the adoption of the scheme at all optional on the part of congregations, and the result was, that many, and some of these amongst the richest, never joined at all, and others having joined, soon broke off. By grasping thus at too much, they have nearly

46

defeated their scheme altogether. Let us keep steadily in view the raising of the dividend to £150, or, what would be far better, £200, the raising of manses, &c.; but let us avoid all idle speculations which have only a tendency to breed unjust discontent, and to relax local exertion. It is well to find that in some country districts the people are vigorously aiming at reaching the self-sustaining point. This is a nobler object than grumbling at our well supplemented metropolitans," who receive nothing which they do not work for, and who go far to maintain some of our country brethren to the bargain. All our charges, besides, are now open to public competition. The most obscure country minister, if he is diligent and eminent, may become pastor of St George's, and there ought not to be, therefore, "discontent with our own estate." But since we trust the Church will determinedly oppose all organic change in the Sustentation Fund, "let us," in the language of this tract, "zealously, but peacefully in our different localities, do the most for it we can, and to the God of Providence let us in faith and prayer commit

the issue."

PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS AS TO THE MODE OF CONDUCTING FAMILY WORSHIP.* To one who is conscientiously resolved to honour God in his household, a clear conception of the duty itself, and some method in the observance of it, are indispensable.

The very first question which offers itself, is, By whom is this service to be rendered? To this the name is a reply: It is family worship. All the dwellers in one house. More particularly the parents, the children, or such as occupy the children's place, as wards, pupils, apprentices; the lodgers, and other inmates; the guests and sojourners; and the servants. On the duty of masters it may suffice to say, that every Christian householder should acknowledge his solemn obligation to extend the blessings of domestic religion to as much as to his children. All proper means his servants, should be used to secure the attendance of every individual engaged in the labour of the family, even if this should render it needful to sacrifice some momentary convenience in regard to meals and other arrangements. The beauty of this service depends, in no small degree, on the presence of the whole family. The reverse of this is too common; and there are houses, where, from sloth or irreligion, some members habitually absent themselves from the prayers. Even in boarding-houses and inns, we have known the most happy effects to flow from the practice of gathering all who were under the roof at the time of worship. It is also a good usage, to proceed with the accustomed devotion, even though casual visitors may be present. Providence may thus be opening a door for unexpected influence. The time for family worship demands our consideration. By common consent the Christian world has allotted to it the two seasons of morning and the evening; not that there is any virtue in this number, or in these seasons, but because it seems just and fit to place our acknowledgment of God at these natural terms of our working-day. There have been those who have found edification in three hours of prayer: "Evening and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud, and he shall hear my voice." (Ps. lv. 17.)

* By the Rev. J. W. Alexander, D.D., New York.

That which is most important in regard to the time of family worship, is, that it should be fixed. We ascribe great value to this particular. It adds dignity to the service, by showing that it is not to give way to the changes or caprice of business or amusement. It saves the time of the household; and it tends to that method and punctuality in domestic affairs, which is a chief ornament of a Christian house.

Morning prayer should, in our humble judgment, be early in the morning. Here there is diversity of usage, and we are not of those who would impose our own preferences on others, or invent any ceremonial yoke. But we have noted striking advantages, in observing family devotion at as early an hour as the whole household can be assembled. There is a Christian decorum in resorting to God before we gather around the table of his bounty. The refreshment of food seems to acquire a blessing; "for it is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer." (1 Tim. iv. 5.) It appears right to seek food for the soul before we seek food for the body. Otherwise, we lose the delightful feeling of having begun the day with God. The moment of repletion from a meal is of all others Moreover, by seizing an early hour, we avoid numethe least comely for a solemn approach to heaven. rous interruptions, and that sense of hurry and impatience which attend the time immediately preceding the forenoon's business. All these reasons may, however, be controlled by considerations of health and business, and every man must be left to his own judgment.

Evening prayer is, of course, the closing domestic service. Hence it has been the prevalent custom to make it the last thing before retiring for the night; and there is certainly something beautiful in the arrangement. In many houses it is the only time which can be secured. Yet it must be acknowledged that there is a practical difficulty connected with this; and family-worship may be too late for those who, agreeably to our view of the subject, are principally concerned to wit, servants, and especially children. The younger members of a family are apt to be unfit for the service, as being overcome with sleep; and it is scarcely just that they should be robbed of one half of domestic prayer, as they must be, if they retire at an early hour. Even adults are often disqualified for enjoying the work of praise, by the weariness and stupor consequent on a long day of toil. Hence some have thought they found an advantage in calling together the family immediately before, or immediately after the evening meal. It is a laudable method; but here, as in all things connected with form, we would ask and give the largest liberty, only "let all things be done decently, and in order." (1 Cor. xiv. 40.)

The person whose office it is to lead in familyworship, is undoubtedly the head of the household. The father is here in his proper place, as the prophet and patriarch of his little state. In the occasional absence of the father, or in the lamented event of his removal, Providence has devolved this, with all other parental trusts, on the solitary, or the widowed mother. And though it brings with it a keen trial to diffidence and feminine reserve, it is also eminently amiable and touching; and dutiful sons will make every sacrifice in order to lessen the burdens of the maternal heart, when engaged in such a duty. The parent may sometimes see cause to depute this office to a son or brother, when the latter, from edu