to the teeth and the breath, I leave inquiring minds to judge for themselves.

We have been created with a certain number of cravings which our Creator meant us to gratify, in order that we might live vigorously, fulfil our duty on earth, and be happy. These cravings-hunger, thirst, &c.—are felt by all; no one needs to acquire them. Who ever heard of a man learning to eat or to drink? God has not left these matters in our hands. Our appetites are parts of our being. They return regularly, they demand satisfaction, and they get it-at least they ought to get it. But what shall we say of the craving for tobacco-smoke? It does not come naturally; on the contrary, it is so universally repulsive that there is not a man, living or dead, I venture to say, who liked it when he first began. Nature clearly points out to man what he ought to eat and drink, by giving him a positive relish for what is good for him, and a positive distaste for what is bad. The mere fact that you do not like a thing is a sufficient evidence that you should not use it.

Of course, I assume that I address a really healthy individual. There are those who have so abused their appetites as to have damaged their health and vitiated their tastes. Yonder pallid young lady driving round Hyde Park in her carriage (though she would be much wiser if she were to run round it on her legs), does not deserve to be called healthy, even although she can eat a heavy dinner at eight o'clock and dance till four in the morning. I do not say that her liking for the abominable mixtures of the pastry-cook is an evidence that they are good for her, any more than I assert that her dislike to a plain breakfast at a reasonable hour in the morning is indicative of its badness for her. We are told that man 66 was made upright," but that he has "found out many inventions." Assuredly, of all the absurd inventions he has discovered, the most outrageous is that of drawing tobacco-smoke into the mouth and puffing it out again! What would Adam and Eve have said if they had been told that the greater part of their posterity would, in future years, light little blast-furnaces in front of their noses, and convert their mouths into chimneys? An acquired taste is an unnatural taste, and, therefore, a wrong one. This applies to our taste for much that we eat and drink as well as to smoke.

If tobacco ended only in smoke it might not be worth while to raise such an outcry against it. But this is not its termination. Its legitimate end is slavery. I know men,-good, sensible, upright men,-who positively cannot get along without their pipes. They are constantly struggling with the tyrant on whom they have set their affections, but they have hugged him so long that they cannot now do without him.

They feel and know that they are getting damaged. They suffer a good deal, and, occasionally, they smash their pipes and "give up smoking." But it never lasts long. Sooner or later they come back to it. They are unable to resist the temptation to take "just a whiff or two," and although they usually speak in a semi-jesting tone of their "weakness," they are as literally enslaved as if they had been born in New Orleans with black skins and thick lips ;-with this difference, however, that instead of being born to slavery they have deliberately sold themselves to it; and whereas the American slave-owner is sometimes a kind master, the pipe never is, for the more he is indulged the more docs he tyrannise. Illogical people are always ready to render confusion worse confounded by their irrelevant observations. One of the most manly mental exercises in which boys can engage is the training of their minds to the habit of correct reasoning, so that they may detect at a glance the sophistries of such persons and expose them to deserved ridicule. Among the many stupid objections that will infallibly meet the man who condemns smoking is the following:

"Was not tobacco given to us? Why was it given to us if we were not intended to use it?" This remark is unworthy of a reply-yet I condescend on one. Was not hemlock given to us? was not deadly nightshade strychnine-opium? Why should not I smoke all or any of these? Perhaps some of them cannot be smoked-but the last can, yet not one in ten thousand Englishmen would advise me to smoke opium, simply because it has been "given to us."

I will not insult the reader's intelligence by saying more on this point; neither will I weary him with further argument to prove that smoking is essentially a bad and dirty habit. Let me just, in conclusion, recapitulate the objections to the practice :-

1st. It is unmanly;

2nd. It is hurtful to the health;

3rd.

4th.

It is filthy;

It is unnatural ;

5th. It is idiotical; and,

6th. It is enslaving.

Therefore I would once again strongly (though still in a suggestive and extremely humble way) urge and advise boys who smoke to ponder what I have said; and, if they see truth in it, to put their pipes out.

WAS THE EXECUTION OF MARY QUEEN OF

SCOTS JUSTIFIABLE?

No O better plea for the gross partiality with which historians have treated the character of Mary Queen of Scots can be found, than the words of the poet, "All orators are dumb when beauty pleadeth."

Had la belle Stuart been a plain-looking woman, there is no doubt that little sympathy would have been wasted on her; but as she has been handed down to us as one of the loveliest women of her day, while her judge, our Queen Elizabeth, who condemned her to death, is generally known as an ugly, affected, jealous creature; and as this last characteristic is often paraded as being one of the causes which induced her to sign Mary's death-warrant, we cannot feel surprised at the unjust sympathy which is bestowed by most people upon the Queen of Scotland.

We purpose, therefore, in the present paper, to endeavour to show that the conduct of Elizabeth towards her cousin, was not so unjustifiable as seems to be usually imagined.

Mary, after passing most of her childhood in France, married, when in her sixteenth year, the eldest son of Henri II. Immediately after his death, which occurred on the 5th December, 1560, the queen returned to Scotland, where, at the solicitation of Elizabeth, she married her cousin, Lord Darnley, on the 29th July, 1565. From this marriage all her troubles sprang.

At that time the nobles of Scotland were crafty, treacherous, and reckless men, whose lives were generally passed in waging war against each other, and endeavouring, often by cowardly assassination, to gratify their passions of hatred against their foes.

Darnley was a weak-minded, dissipated man, eager for all the power and titles he could obtain from his wife and queen. It is easy to imagine that a man like this was sure to be used as a tool in the hands of the plotting Scotch nobles. By these he was soon persuaded that the queen did not confer sufficient honours upon him, and, as he

in consequence treated her with coldness, she determined to be less confiding in her acts and manner. This demeanour so enraged Darnley, that he resolved to wreak his vengeance upon every person whom he deemed the cause of this change in her conduct towards him.

Now it happened that there was at the court a Piedmontese musician, one David Rizzio, who had come to Scotland with an ambassador sent by the duke of Savoy to pay his compliments to Mary. This Rizzio, who was a tolerable musician, was retained by Mary in her service after the departure of his master, and soon after, she (being offended with her secretary for French despatches), promoted Rizzio to that office, which gave him frequent opportunities of approaching her person and insinuating himself in her favour. Although a man of little education, he was shrewd and ambitious, and made such good use of the favour with which the queen regarded him, that he soon became her chief confidant, and was looked upon as her chief minister. In this position, the strolling player was courted by all who wished to obtain favour from the queen, until at last his overbearing demeanour drew down upon him the hatred of the nobility of Scotland.

Under these circumstances Darnley was easily persuaded that Rizzio was the cause of the change, as his relations with the queen, and the favours she showered upon him, were sufficient evidence of the influence which this ugly, ungainly foreigner had obtained over her.

One evening, therefore, when the queen was supping with the Countess of Argyle, and had at table Rizzio and some other servants, her husband, Darnley, followed by the hand of conspiring Scotch nobles, rushed into the room, and, dragging Rizzio into an ante-chamber, stabbed him until he died.

This insult to the queen roused in her the strongest feeling of revenge, and although Darnley had not taken any active part in the murder of her favourite, yet it was on him that she determined the great weight of her revenge should fall. To this end, not content with making him disown all connection with the assassins, she behaved towards him with contempt, and gave him everywhere strongest proofs of her displeasure and antipathy.

One of the most prominent actors in the murder of Rizzio was John Hepburn, earl of Bothwell, a man of profligate manners, who had reduced himself almost to beggary by his profuse expenses. This man soon obtained the entire confidence of the heartless Mary, whose conduct now reduced her husband to such a state of desperation, that he even provided a vessel in order to escape secretly to France or Spain. A short time, however, before his intended escape, he left the court and

retired to Glasgow, where he was seized with an illness of an extraordinary nature, which was generally ascribed to a dose of poison, said to have been administered by the queen.

Mary, on hearing the news of his illness, professed the greatest distress, and journeyed to Glasgow in order to let her courtiers note the affection she entertained for her husband. This dissimulation soon overcame any repugnance on the part of the weak-minded prince, who unhesitatingly put himself in her hands, and allowed her to take him to Edinburgh, naturally expecting that he would be allowed to reside in the castle of Holyrood. His consort, however, urging that the concourse of people about the castle would disturb his rest, caused a solitary house, known as the Kirk of Feld, to be fitted up for him. Here they lived in apparent comfort for a short time, until on the 9th of February the queen informed him that she had promised to attend the wedding of one of her servants, and would therefore be compelled to pass the night at Holyrood. About two o'clock the next morning the Kirk of Feld was blown up by gunpowder, and the dead body of the king was found in a neighbouring field.

There was not the slightest doubt that the king had been murdered, nor were there many different opinions with regard to the author of the deed. The names of Bothwell and the queen were bandied about as the assassins, and although the former was tried for the crime, yet the wellknown favour with which the queen regarded him obtained him human absolution. Soon after, he waylaid the queen with a body of 800 horse, and carried her to Dunbar, with a determination of forcing her to yield to his purpose. Little force, however, was required, as it was generally understood that the queen's detention was by her own consent. Bothwell therefore obtained a divorce from his wife, and in May, 1567, just three months after her late husband's death, Mary married the very man who had been tried on the charge of murdering him, and who, in addition to this, had taken his queen captive and forcibly detained her at one of his castles. This fact alone seems sufficient to justify us in withdrawing all sympathy from the queen on account of her beauty, when we consider what use she made of this gift, bestowed on her by Heaven. Now began her troubles. The whole kingdom was thrown into confusion by different sets of plotters. Bothwell, hated by all the nobles, was forced to flee into Denmark, whilst Mary was seized, treated with indignity, and confined in Lochleven Castle for eleven months.

It is necessary to state that this course was adopted owing to her having promised to give up Bothwell, and then calling him in a letter,