· Monday, May 24.—The minutes of last sederunt being read, and some reports received, the attention of the House was called to the subject of Mr. Kennedy's bill respecting the members in Scotland. After some remarks from Mr. Nicol Brown, Dr. Inglis, Principal Baird, Dr. Chalmers, and Dr. H. Duncan, it was agreed to take up the consideration of the measure on Wednesday.

The commission from the Presbytery of Caithness was deficient in the requisite sig

nature, and therefore rejected. The commission for a substitute from the Presbytery of Chirnside was also rejected, on account of its not having the necessary attestation. And the members' names were ordered to be expunged from the roll.

His Grace the Commissioner left the Assembly, being obliged to retire from indisposition. The Assembly adjourned till next day, and formed itself into a committee of the whole House.*

either for old or young. Nay, schools form a great and an important part of the Ecclesiastical establishment. And if these are so thinly planted as to leave many without the means of education, or if they are so unskilfully and carelessly managed as not to answer the ends of their institution, surely nothing that is remotely connected with us, and which stands in the relation of an alien to us, can properly be allowed to pre-occupy our regards and our resources. If we have thousands of countrymen, who are especially intrusted to our care, destitute of the advantages which we are bound to give them, and which are as necessary at least for them as for any other human beings, have not they a right to be supplied by us with what is needful, before we stretch forth the arm of our beneficence, either to Africans or Hindoos? Have not they the paramount claim to our active assistance; and should not their case, therefore, have the preference in our deliberative consideration?

And, besides, how are we ultimately or efficiently to promote the evangelization of heathen countries, but by keeping up the evangelical standard of our own country? This country may not improperly be regarded as the grand reservoir from which the waters of saving knowledge are to be conveyed to the dry and parched lands of the Gentiles. And surely every man whose zeal is tempered with true candour, while he looks abroad with the eye of pity, and would waft the blessed element to those thirsty deserts, which he descries in so many remote regions of the globe, will continually labour for that very end, by securing and increasing the supply at home, and by giving it his first and his best attentions.

These circumstances are sufficient, we believe, to determine the question, and in our opinion should have had the effect of giving it a different issue in the General Assembly. At the same time, no great harm was done. Both measures are of vast moment and of profound interest; and we trust that both will meet with cordial, universal, and persevering support from every quarter of the church.

We should like to have the rationale of this proceeding. Will any of the ecclesiastical sages have the goodness to expound it for the benefit of such unlearned men as ourselves, who are not so far advanced in their study of the mysteries of business, as to see the propriety of such a metamorphosis? Perhaps the wise men who sit at the green table may be able to satisfy us that it was all right, lawful, and necessary. But really, with the knowledge we have of the subject, and the principles we have been accustomed to hold sacred, we must be permitted to look upon it as a piece of as useless servility, and as gratuitous degradation as we ever witnessed, or as could easily be practised. We maintain that the Assembly can hold its meetings, and transact its affairs without the presence of a Commissioner from the King at all. If not, then the King,

VOL. XXIII. NO. VII.

30

The House then took up the petition and complaint of Messrs. Donald Fraser, and Alexander Clerk, relative to the election of their Assembly Elder. The complainers appeared for themselves, and Mr. Jeffrey, advocate, for the Presbytery and for Mr.

Fraser the Elder. Parties being heard, and some members having made a few remarks, the Assembly resolved, "That the complaint should be dismissed; and the election of Mr. Fraser sanctioned.

simply by not sending a Representative of the Royal Person, has it in his power absolutely to annihilate our constitution. He has put an end to the English convocations by never summoning them. And in like manner, if the doctrine on which the measure we are now objecting to in reality proceeded, be a correct one, he can put an end to our great national synods, and then do what, from the peculiar nature of our Establishment, goes directly and literally to annihilate it, or what is the same thing, convert it into a species of Independency. It is not much more than a hundred years since Government actually made this experiment. The actings of the Assembly did not please them; and they instructed the Commissioner not to indite another Assembly, which instruction he obeyed. But the Moderator boldly asserted the independent right of the Assembly, and being cheered from all parts of the house, did solemnly indite it to meet the following year in the usual way. The Assembly accordingly met to sit, vote, and determine, for the glory of God, and the good of the Church, and would certainly have done so, in fact, without the presence of any Commissioner, had not Government found it expedient to send one, and to say nothing about contempt of Court.

And, in truth, how does the Assembly uniformly proceed? Is the personal attendance of the Commissioner marked in the minutes? No. Does business stop when he happens to retire for the purpose of taking a refreshment? No. Is there one form observed, or is there one acknowledgement made, recognizing his presence? No. Looking to the record, and listening to the discussion, we are equally at a loss to discover any token of that being in the very slightest degree essential to the constitution of the Court, or to the validity of its acts.

But, to crown all, what did the last Assembly itself do, on several subsequent days? Why, the Commissioner was prevented from attending by sickness, and he sent intimation of this sometimes by a respectful letter, and sometimes by the less ceremonious, and less decorous mode of a verbal message. And did the Assembly find itself hindered, either from proceeding at all, or from doing so without resolving into a committee of the whole House? By no means; it just acted as if no Commissioner had assisted-it acted as an Assembly, that knows its own rights and consults its own dignity, will ever do-it went on as the Assembly to hear causes, and to decide them, in the full exercise of its legitimate power. Query, should not the Moderator have stood up for our privileges?

The allegation on the part of the complainers was, that Mr. Fraser, the representative whom the Presbytery had chosen, was not eligible. This they had stated at the Presbytery, but it was overruled; and this they pleaded at the bar of the Assembly, but they did not succeed. And, we are rather inclined to think that there were some steps which they had neglected to take at the inferior Court, and by the neglect of which the Court of Review could not very consistently give a different decision from that to which it ultimately came. At the same time, we are decidedly of opinion, from what we happen to know concerning this matter, that had the case been fully before the House-not a Moderate man in

Tuesday, May 25.-This day the Assembly heard parties in the case of Dr. McFarlane. There appeared for Dr. McFarlane, the Appellant, Patrick Robertson, Esq. advocate; for the complainers against the sentence of the Synod of Glasgow, the Rev. Mr. Wilson, Dr. Laurie, and others; complainers against the Pres

bytery of Glasgow, the Rev. Mr. Lapslie, and others; for the Synod, the Rev. Mr. Robertson, Dr. Hodgson, and others, and also Francis Jeffrey, Esq. and Henry Cockburn, Esq. Advocates, as counsel; and for the Presbytery, the Rev. Dr. M.Gill, Dr. Chalmers, and others.*

it-not the most devoted of Dr. M'Farlane's friends, who saw in Mr. Fraser a vote for the plurality, would have dared to move or to support the resolution which passed. The case, we trust, is not at an end-by and by it may find its way to the same tribunal, at which it could not be expected to meet with a very gracious treatment; and then we shall see a little of the manoeuvring which goes on among the supporters of moderation. Meanwhile we put these two simple questions, and we desire any of the moderate men in the Presbytery of Inverness, or in its neighbourhood, to answer them the best way they can. First, was there a kirk session at Dores, when Mr. Fraser was said to be ordained? And, secondly, is there a word in the session record about that ordination having taken place? Perhaps Mr. Campbell of Moy, who was minister in Dores at that time, and who gave the certificate on which the Presbytery proceeded, may be able to throw some light on this curious transaction. But whether or not, if it shall turn out that Mr. Fraser was not ordained, and that Mr. Campbell certified his ordination, we must not forget the solemn opinion of Dr. Nicol, that the man who was guilty of such a thing deserved to be deposed.

* It is very seldom that we hear any thing from Lord Meadowbank, even with all the advantage he derives from his privileged seat, which calls for any remark either of censure or of commendation. On this occasion, however, something did drop from his Lordship which deserves the notice that may be comprised in one or two sentences. The Synod of Glasgow and Ayr appeared both by some of their members and by counsel. This, said Lord Meadowbank, was wrong. And why? For this very potent reason-that his Lordship never heard of such a thing! If nothing were true or right but what Lord Meadowbank has heard of, we are afraid that truth and rectitude would suffer, by his plea of ignoramus, a most grievous defalcation. We tell his Lordship, as he was told at the bar, that it is a thing which has happened fifty times, and is understood by the General Assembly to be admissible and regular, just as often as parties choose to have their defence conducted or their cause pleaded in that way. On this point Lord Meadowbank was merely most absurd; but in the course of urging it, and of supporting another proposition which we shall attend to presently, he was a great deal more than absurd. He would not allow the parties, whose privileges he was anxious to abridge or to take away, to speak for themselves. Whether this be his Lordship's mode of treating litigants in his own court we pretend not to say; but sure we are that it is most contrary to every principle of justice, and that in the General Assembly we never before saw it even attempted. We can conceive nothing more oppressive in its nature, or more injurious in its consequences, than for a court to tell those who come to it for justice, that it will not hear them, and that it will not even hear them on their right to be heard. The doctrine which was stated by Lord

The requisite papers being read, and parties being heard at great length, the Assembly after hearing two speeches, and expressing great impatience on the moder

ate side of the House, decided upon two motions that were proposed; one of them for reversing, and the other for affirming the sentences of the Synod and Presbytery

Meadowbank on this subject, and which he endeavoured to put in practice, is tyrannical in the extreme; it is not to be tolerated for a moment; and we were glad to observe the manly and conclusive manner in which his Lordship was put down both by the bar and by the House.

It was also held by Lord Meadowbank, though not so broadly, and warmly maintained by Dr. Inglis, that the House had a right to say how many speeches were to be delivered from the bar. This doctrine is as bad as the other; and deserved the same treatment. We deny that the House has any such right. Every man whom the forms of the court and of the church bring to the bar, has an unquestionable title to be heard, if he chooses to speak for himself. He may be in danger of suffering censure or deposition, as the result of the cause in which he is engaged; and can it be allowed that the General Assembly shall inflict punishment on a clergyman, or any other individual, without hearing that person, if he wishes to be heard, in his own vindication? The idea is monstrous. We hold that every person who appears at the bar, and whose compearance is marked in the record, takes upon himself a responsibility which requires that he shall not be precluded from entering in his defence and speaking for his own interest. If not, we ask not merely how the Assembly can justly, in such a case, give sentence against him, but how and by whom it is to be determined what particular persons are to enjoy the privilege of pleading? Shall it be A, B, or C? We dare say that Dr. Inglis and Lord Meadowbank would like very well to assume this power also, and to fix upon the individuals that are to be permitted to speak; for they might say, "We wish to decide against these Gentlemen. But B will either convince the House that we are wrong, or if our party sticks to us, he will at least make it difficult to carry our point with any shew of decency. We will, therefore, select A who is one of the stupidest fellows in the church, and will ruin his cause in the course of five minutes." If the parties agree among themselves that only a set number should plead, and agree also as to those who are to do the work, it is all well, and it is just what is almost uniformly done. But if any one person, whose character and interest are involved in the issue, thinks it expedient or necessary for him to be heard, he must, in justice, be heard, and the court that would shut his mouth is capable of every one act of tyranny that can be specified. We should deem it much less iniquitous to determine that only a certain select number of the judges should be allowed to deliver their sentiments; but who ever heard of such a thing being broached? A judge will not speak if he sees it disagreeable to the house; and still less will one of a party at the bar insist upon being heard if it appear to him that he would, by fatiguing, or disgusting, or otherwise offending the court, injure the very cause which he is anxious to promote. These things have hitherto gone on very well; but some how or other, whenever Dr. Inglis and Lord Meadowbank animadvert on such subjects, we may lay our account with hearing maxims uttered which run counter to all our accustomed notions of liberty and privilege. It is fortunate that these Gentlemen have not the reins of supreme authority in their hands. If they had-woe betide us!

of Glasgow. And the roll being called, and votes marked, the motion for reversing carried by a majority of 165 to 80. A

great many members dissented from this decision.

It is impossible (we use

* The question of pluralities is a vital one. the word deliberately, and in its strict sense) for any one who is in earnest about religion, to hold that his Master's work is not work enough for any minister having the cure of souls. We have, therefore, from the commencement of our labours, looked with dislike upon all attempts to combine secular business with spiritual; and though, during that period, we have seen the uncompromising opinions on this point which we profess, regarded with jealousy and hatred by great majorities of the church, it is matter of gratitude, and we deeply feel it, that a better spirit has now begun to evince itself, and that the weight of public opinion is gradually turning into the opposite scale, so as to assure us by manifest signs that a better era is approaching. It is very true, that in the case of Dr. Macfarlane, an overwhelming majority was brought together for the putting down of the salutary principle; and, in that case, it is true that it was put down. But let it not be imagined that the struggle which was made has been fruitless. Much, indeed, has the church, in various periods of its history, owed to the district of Glasgow ; and its services on the present occasion will long be felt as adding deeply to this weight of obligation.

When the opposition to Dr. Macfarlane's induction into the High Church parish was first started-few hoped, hardly any expectedthat even in the local court, the presbytery, a majority would be found to declare against this individual's unholy purpose of encountering the spiritual labour of that place and its 9000 souls, in conjunction with the superintendence of the College. But so it proved. Dr. Macgill, to his great honour, fearlessly, though with the mildness which is his peculiar characteristic, ventured, with his good cause, into the Presbytery; and they, to the great joy of the country, maintained the right by their vote. Nay, when the abettors of this enormous evil, undoubting of success, brought their case into the immediate higher court, there again they were driven off the field; and it was only in the General Assembly, that residuum of all the others, that they found kindred voters in numbers sufficient for their object.

We say voters on purpose, for was it not the feeling even of the band who, disciplined as they are, did, on this occasion, defeat the good cause, that they were not decently indulged with a show of reason for their conduct, by means of speakers? that argument was met with blustering? that high-minded, gentleman-like, and spiritual reasoning was brought into contrast only with base ribaldry, and tavern-like jests and that fact, principle, and law, were met singly by a defence of the rotten parts of our system, and by a vile and pitiful distortion of one solitary act of Assembly, stretched unto unnatural meaning, for the purpose of giving the colour of plausibility to a predetermined vote?

That there were individuals among the majority who conscientiously thought that they were forced into a bad course by the terms of the act 1817, we are disposed, in Christian charity, to imagine possible. But for the sake of these individuals, it is to be regretted that they