190 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



on the ' Scotia/ in conjunction with Mrs. Scott Siddons, when he was 

 returning last from England, yielded $300 for the Seaman's Orphan 

 Asylum, Liverpool." 



The modesty of this last paragraph reminds one of a story related 

 at the expense of a brother merchant who was a near neighbour of Mr. 

 Boyd's, and who was wont to allude to the establishment in which he 

 was a junior as being conducted by " me and Mr. Turgar." 



As Mr. Boyd was one of the Maritime ^Monthly Club, it would at 

 least have been in good taste had the article so Mghly eulogistic of 

 liimself been suppressed. 



In the fifth number of volume 4 appears a vigorous and scathing 

 review, twelve pages in extent, of a sermon upon " The Apostolic 

 Origin, of the Church of England," by the Eev. Francis Partridge, now 

 Dean of the Cathedral at Fredericton, and at that time Rector of Rothe- 

 say, N.B. The sermon referred to was preached in Trinity Church, 

 St. John, on the 2nd July, 1874. 



From the literary .style of this composition, the well known opi- 

 nions of Rev. James Bennett upon such subjects, and his connection 

 with the magazine, we may reasonably infer that the review was from 

 the pen of that well known Presbyterian divine. 



Whether we concur in the views expressed by Dean Partridge or 

 not, we must at least admit that he was quite within his rights in 

 preaching such a sermon if he wished to, and like the eulogy of Mr. 

 Boyd we cannot but feel that it would have been in the best interests of 

 the magazine had the article not been permitted to appear. 



Soon after this date The Maritime Monthly appears to have be- 

 come embroiled with The Daily Telegraph, then edited by Rev. 

 William Elder, D.D. over the " Louisiana Difficulty." Upon this topic 

 the Monthly takes occasion to remark that; — 



" Last month we expressed our candid convictions about the much 

 talked of Louisiana difficulty. We do not believe in forming conclu- 

 sions Uipon exparte statement of facts. Our remarks appear to have 

 offended The Telegraph. We were by it held up as a disgrace to 

 the " Canadian Press," for our fearless and independent expression of 

 opinion. We hope no more serious charge can be brought against the 

 " Canadian Press." We sincerely pity the editor who is capable of 

 flinging such impotent thunder upon such a flimsy pretext. But mira- 

 hile dictu, we are told that we should be ashamed of ourselves for ex- 

 pressing opinions upon such a topic, different from The Telegraph, and 

 the great majority of leading newspapers, and some very eminent men in 

 England and America. On the contrary we are not ashamed, but we 



