the bar should be censured and rebuked. Dr. Mearns proposed, and Dr. Inglis supported the proposal, that besides being rebuked, they should be suspended from their judicative capacity for twelve months ! After a great deal of discussion, the following motion by Dr. Nicol was agreed to without a vote. its favour; and to guard against expense, and the interference of law◄ agents, I would still farther suggest, that where proof of poverty, &c. was required, it should be taken before the Presbytery. Such is the hasty outline of a plan, which, in my opinion, would go farther to obviate the evils arising from poor rates, and which, at all events, would certainly be free from the most formidable objections attaching to the bill at present before Parliament. Now, without entering farther into the explanation of this plan, or attempting its defence, I only add, that the prudent way of introducing any amendment would be, not by rendering it compulsory or imperative, but by making it optional to any parish to adopt it. But as this is the view which I believe will be taken up by my excellent friend who is to second the motion with which I conclude, I would not take up the time of the Assembly by saying an other word on the subject. My motion is, That the General Assembly deem it inexpedient at present to force any change in the system of the Poor Laws in Scotland, and resolve to petition Parliament against any compulsory enactment. We are sorry we cannot give with the same accuracy, and with equal fulness, the speech of Dr. Chalmers, but we insert as much of it as we can obtain or recollect. He seconded Dr. Duncan's motion, and in doing so said, that with regard to the bill, he should be giving the lie to, his own sentiments and conviction were he to profess a disbelief in the practical utility of the whole of its enactments. He, nevertheless, did not hesitate to state, that it was his firm opinion that the necessity of poor rates might ultimately be wholly done away with. It was painful for him upon this occasion to quote any experience of his own, but this he did merely to show the practicability of providing for the poor without the necessity of any compulsory act of Parliament. The bill would do well for St. Giles's in London, that sink of infamy and vice. If the poor of that parish could be weaned from the delusive hope of receiving two or three thousand pounds, to the actual fact of realising double that sum by the free exercise of their own honourable and legitimate industry, he was fully persuaded they would willingly relinquish the benefit of Parliamentary enactment, which only tended to swell the catalogue of mendicity, for the more natural and self-satisfying support which flowed from the less stinted source of their own virtuous industry. But this was a fact which the generality of people were very slow to believe. The most inveterate enemies of the parochial system would do him the justice to say, that he never thrust this system on any other parish. It had nevertheless crept beyond its original bounds, and was now voluntarily working its silent way into the very hearts of those parishes that were at first its most strenuous opposers. It was much easier to convince the Jamie Macfarlanes, the Kate Simpsons, and the Andrew Thomsons, of the Gallowgate of Glasgow, of the efficacy of this mode of providing for the wants of the poor, than the conveners and committeemen of that great city.-Regarding the bill now before Parliament, he could not help noticing in particular one distinction which was neglected in the bill. He should have been happy to observe in it a distinction between the imperative and the permissive. When a law is given with 1. That the Presbytery of Inverness have shown contempt for the superior judi. catory of this Church, and acted in a manner most unwarrantable and unconstitu tional, in refusing to give effect to the sen tence of the General Assembly of 1822, which ordered the Presbytery to proceed to the induction of the Rev. Colin Fraser, the permission to adopt or reject its sentiments, as the objects of its soli citation shall see meet, it is then that the mind receives a warm impres sion of the benevolent intentions of such a proposal, and though slowly, yet surely, becomes sensible of its worth, and gradually slides into the adoption of its measures. On the contrary, when a change of our system is proposed, and a compulsory enactment made that such a change must take place, it is then that the mind, little dreaming of such alteration, becomes startled and alarmed, and involuntarily rejects the innovation of a measure, the utility of which they are prevented by terror from either examining or anticipating. In the first instance, it will be found that improvement invariably goes on progressively and quietly. The best exemplification of this was an act recently passed for Ireland, for experimen tally curing the evil of tithes. It was a permissive act, and although it met with much resistance at first, it was now amply proving the happy consequences of a permissive change in the parochial usages of that country. This was a measure which he proudly quoted, to show that the above allegations were not merely the vituperations of a whimsical or impracticable theory. Legislation should not obtrude herself like an unwelcome guest, upon our ancient and almost idolized laws and usages. She will in doing so, be flouted like a testy foe, or shrunk from like a pestilential whirlwind. Legislation should only knock at the door, and wait till the inmates of the house sanction her admission; in which case she will find herself at all times a welcome and respected guest. What he most deeply regretted in the general formation of poor rate enactments, was a false medium to deceive the public eye, but this deception the filtering process of time and experience soon laid bare to the public view. But when an act with a permissive clause was passed, there was a qualifying hardiness about it which enabled it to stand the brunt of experience, and at the same time a meekness pervaded its aspect and compelled it to shrink from the rigorous test of that experience which denounced its inutility, and had no difficulty in crushing the worthless new-born to atoms, or shrouding it in the pall of everlasting oblivion. The Rev. Doctor begged to explain the grounds on which he opposed the bill in question. The tacking of a permissive clause to this bill would have greatly softened its aspect, and would, he had no doubt, have done away with a good deal of that feeling of animosity which at present existed in that assembly against the bill. The General Assembly might make and reject laws regarding pauperism as they pleased, but still they would have poor in the land, and still these poor must be provided for ; and however they might strive by their laws against mendicity to do away with so great and so sore an evil, they would ultimately come nearly to the same purpose as a certain venerable association did, who passed a vote against the system of Copernicus, and the laws of motion as discovered by Galileo. These were his feelings and his sentiments regarding the bill under discussion; and being decidedly against a doctrinal declaration from this Assembly to the House of Commons, he should conclude by heartily seconding the motion of his Reverend and learned friend. forthwith, with all convenient speed, ac, cording to the rules of the Church. 2. The Assembly highly disapproves of the Presbytery's reading a violent protest in face of the congregation, on the day of Mr. Fraser's induction, as an irreverend interruption of a most solemn religious service, an illegal and cruel measure, calculated to keep up the seeds of dissension in the parish, and to destroy the usefulness of a brother whose hands it was their duty to have strengthened. 3. That in consideration that these members have acknowledged before the House that their conduct has been wrong, and expressed their sorrow for it-find it unnecessary to proceed farther against them than to order Messrs. M'Phail, Fraser, M⚫Lauchlan, and Clark, to be called to the bar, and there to be rebuked and admonished,—and lastly, order this deliverance to be inserted in the records of the Presbytery of Inverness, and Synod of Moray. Mr. Fraser having expressed the deep sorrow that he and his brethren felt for having incurred the displeasure of the Assembly, the Moderator administered the rebuke and admonition accordingly. * Thursday, May 27.-The Report of the Committee respecting returns to the Overture on Divinity Students was given in by the Convener, who concluded with moving that the overture should not be retransmitted. A keen discussion followed, in which many members took a part. A motion was made to re-transmit the overture; and the vote being put, it was carried to re-transmit by a majority of 117 to 74. The following account of the altercation which occurred in the course of the debate is taken from the Edinburgh Star, and may be considered as quite correct in its statements. Dr. Chalmers had risen to answer an appeal made to him about withdrawing his motion, but was called to order by Dr. Inglis as having already spoken, and was actually obliged to sit down without making the required explanation. He afterwards, upon being appealed to a second time on the same subject, rose and said what he was going to say "when he was borne down by the Rev. Doctor. Dr. Inglis here rose, and complained that his conduct had been spoken of by the Rev. Doctor in language that he was not accustomed to, and to which he would not submit. He had been charged with having borne him down. He had called the Rev. Doctor to order, because he was infringing the rules of debate, in speaking twice in reply upon one question, for he would allow no privilege to the Rev. Doctor more than every individual in that Assembly was entitled to. They were met there on the terms of Presbyterian parity; and it was the farthest from his wish to bear down any member, so long as he did not transgress the bounds of their constitutional equality. Dr. Chalmers said, that he had been called to order by the Rev. Doctor (Inglis) without any justifiable cause; that so far from wishing to monopolise the time or patience of the Assembly, he had limited his opening remarks to a general avowal of his object, and he had never availed himself of his privilege to reply, but merely spoken as to the regularity and the terms of his motion. He assured the Rev. Doctor that he desired nothing more than Presbyterian parity, which was never in greater danger than when an overbearing individual pre maturely enforces the orders of that house. [A peal of applause from the students' gallery followed the delivery of this sentiment; and we know not which, the applause or the sentiment, produced the greater effect on the members within and immediately around the bar. Dr. Inglis, Dr. Nicol, Dr. Brunton, and we know not how many others, were instantly upon their legs. Anger and indignation was strikingly visible in the centre, while the same feelings were here and there depicted by the gestures of the more ardent members of either side of the house. "Clear the gallery"—"clear that gallery,"-" Officer-officer-clear the front gallery instantly”—and nothing else than the changes on these exclamations were to be heard, until Dr. Mearns, in his determined and persuasive manner, signified a wish to be heard, and silence almost immediately prevailed.] Dr. Mearns.-Moderator, if some notice be not taken of the outrage which has just been committed, it will be said that we deliberate under the influence of a mob; and I am persuaded that many gentlemen will leave this House, if that gallery be not cleared. Principal Nicol.-It is necessary, as an example to others, that that gallery be immediately cleared. [This was followed by repeated calls for the officer to clear the ༢་། We had various remarks to offer on this case, but we have received a paper on it from a correspondent, which shall be afterwards inserted, along with some other communications on the Assembly's proceedings. VOL. XXIII. NO. VII. 3 s gallery, and Mr. Wightman once or twice thus admonished the students: "We are not upon the hustings, you know; we must have no mob here."] Dr. Brunton said he was unwilling to believe that this outrage was perpetrated by the students; he rather suspected it must have been committed by persons who had improperly mixed with them; but the Assembly could not do less than clear the gallery from which the outrage proceeded. Therefore he would advise the students as a friend, (and one whose friendship they had no title to dispute,) to retire from the gallery before the civil power interposes. [This recommendation was instantly obeyed.] Dr. Inglis now rose, and said that he spurned the expression which had been applied to him; that he was exercising his undoubted right when he called that gentleman to order; and he appealed to the Moderator whether it was consistent with the orders of the House, that one gentle man may apply to another such an offensive expression as overbearing. It was their duty, as Christian ministers, and as members of a Christian Assembly, to bear with one another, and to forbear and to honour one another; unless he received a satisfactory explanation of the language which had been used, he should certainly take the sense of the House on the subject. Dr. Nicol, as the friend of both parties, expressed his belief that a mutual misunderstanding had occurred. Dr. Inglis, on the one hand, thought that Dr. Chalmers was going to make another speech, when he was only adjusting the terms of his vote; while Dr. Chalmers, on the other hand, conceived that Dr. Inglis had shown a desire to bear him down, though it no doubt proceeded from an anxiety to save the time of the House. Dr. Mearns said, that no person ever listened to the Rev. Doctor (Chalmers) with greater pleasure than he always did; but as the time of the House would not admit of members speaking oftener than they were entitled to, and as it appeared to him that the Rev. Doctor had spoken twice on the merits of one question, he should himself have called the attention of the House to the irregularity of a third speech from the same Rev. Doctor, if he had not foreseen that the application of the remedy would probably exhaust more time than the Doctor's own good sense would allow him to engross. He believed that the misconception might have been prevented by a mutual explanation. Dr. Chalmers then rose. He said the terms which he had employed might be interpreted either in a physical or moral sense. It was certainly in its physical import that he had used it, for he had actually felt at the time as though he had been borne down by physical force. (Hear, and a laugh.) How far the term was applicable in its moral signification, as implying a disposition to bear him down, was a secret that might have remained in the breast of that Rev. Doctor, with whom he acknowledged that he was physically unable to contend. (A laugh.) But since the Rev. Doctor had said that he had no disposition to bear him down, he (Dr. Chalmers) was exceedingly sorry that he had used any expression which could prove offensive to the Rev. Doctor. ["Hear, hear!"-Dr. Inglis shook his head, and there were some cries of the explanation is not satisfactory." But after these murmurs had subsided, the discussion proceeded.] The Assembly then proceeded to take up the overtures, respecting the propagation of the gospel in heathen countries. Dr. Inglis entered at great length into the subject. The main point of difference was about the necessity of civilization going before efforts to spread Christianity. Dr. Inglis maintained this doctrine. Mr. Paull of Tillynessle, Dr. Brunton, and Dr. Duncan of Ruthwell argued to the contrary. At *The following speech of Dr. Duncan deserves to be recorded. Dr. Duncan of Ruthwell said he would not have obtruded himself on the attention of the House, could he otherwise have prevented his approbation of the measure proposed by the Reverend mover, from being interpreted into an approbation of the sentiments with which that measure was introduced. With these sentiments he was totally at variance. So far from believing that it was necessary to civilize men before they could be Christianized he believed just the converse of this proposition-he believed that the most speedy and effectual way of civilizing was to Christianize them. He would not stop to refute the plausible arguments of the Rev. Doctor, by abstract reasoning, but would refer him to a single fact, last the Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion : "That the Assembly approve the general purpose and object of these overtures; appoint a Committee to devise, and report to next Assemby a specific plan for the accomplishment of that object, and reserve for the consideration of next Assembly the he meant the present state of the islands in the South Sea. Could he look at the astonishing and heart-cheering work which was going on in these interesting regions, and venture to maintain that it was impossible to communicate the Christian religion in its purity till the mind was prepared for it by human learning and cultivation? What did he see there? A strange people at once Christianized and civilized-civilized because Christianized. What was their former state? They were described by Captain Cook as addicted to the most open and unblushing profligacy of manners-as altogether regardless of chastity, and truth, and honesty-as destroyers of their infant children to such an extent as even to depopulate the country-as debased by the most childish and cruel superstitions-as accustomed to propitiate or appease their gods by the sacrifice of human victims. Since that period they had added European vices to their own, and instead of becoming more virtuous, more happy, or more enlightened by their intercourse with civilized nations, they had only become more degraded, and more wretched. But what was their present state? Missionaries had lately carried the Gospel to their shores, and their character and circumstances were in consequence totally changed. They were no longer the same people-they had renounced their superstitions and their vices together they had given their idols "to the moles and to the bats," and had received the faith of Christ in its purity and simplicity. Christian Churches were everywhere erecting, and the Sabbath was kept with a sanctity, which put to utter shame the religious services of the great body of professing Christians in our own Christian country. Nor were these pious observances unattended with a corresponding practice. A complete change had been effected, not merely in the religious, but in the moral conduct of the natives. No man who had visited them formerly could visit them now without being beyond measure astonished at the change he would witness. Lying and stealing, debauchery and drunkenness were now held in universal detestation-kindness and generosity distinguished their social intercourse. The art of war had ceased to be cultivated-catching the true spirit of the Gospel, they had "beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks." But not only had these savages been thus suddenly exalted in their moral and religious character; they had at the same time, and from the same cause, made the most rapid advances in the arts and comforts of civilized life. Comfortable dwellings were beginning to supply the place of those miserable huts with which the desolations of war had forced them formerly to be contented-the pursuits of agriculture were beautifying and enriching those already rich and beautiful regions. The rude tyranny of babarous chieftains was giving way to order and justice to the security of regular government and of written laws. And what was still more delightful, these people, so lately ignorant and dissolute savages, were now eagerly crowding to schools of instruction. Men gray with years were plying the tasks of children, and learning to read, that they might peruse the word of God. These were the |