expressed himself, objected to as informal, and as not having been known to the presbytery of Inverness-which sentiment was supported by Mr. Inglis, Parties were called in, when there appeared as counsel for Mr. Fraser, James Gordon, Esq. advocate, and for three of the ministers of the presbytery of Inverness, And, gentle reader, who do you think it was that prevented him from the exercise of that right? Why, it was no other than my Lord Succoth. His Lordship, with a loud voice, and in a vehement manner, declared that he would divide the House rather than allow counsel to be heard!! Had we been members of the House, we should have made his Lordship quiet in two minutes. In the first place, We would have told him, that he had no right to divide the House on this subject. Being an heritor of that very parish, he was a party at the bar as much as the counsel for the petitioners. And though he neglected, for what reason he knows well, and we know too, to appear before the Committee, this neglect afforded no excuse for him assuming now the double prerogative of a party and a judge in the same cause. He should have known his own place, and should have been made to keep it. Secondly, We would have argued, that if his statement was correct, it ought to have been given in to the Committee, where it could have been answered, and not reserved for the Assembly, where, it seems, it was not competent to answer it. But if one party was permitted to introduce fresh matter into the case after it came back from the Committee to the Assembly, justice required that the other party, whom it tended to injure and disappoint, should have been permitted to reply, and state what he conceived to be necessary in his own defence. This is a rule of procedure which we should have thought no fair man, and no reverend court, could have insisted upon transgressing. We would have hinted to Lord Succoth, in the third place, that his anxiety to prevent counsel from speaking when so situated, looked very like a consciousness in his Lordship, that the fallacy of his argument and the incorrectness of information, could have easily been exposed by the petitioners. And this would just have determined us the more to press the hearing of their counsel, and we think the Court could not have refused to do so, seeing all that they professed a wish to have, was such a full and authentic view of the facts and circumstances as would enable them to come to a proper decision. And we would have whispered, in the fourth place, that the whole appearance of the thing gave no indication of honest intention and honest dealing; that there were strong marks of a manœuvre having been got up to defeat the object of the petitioners ; and that the only mode of doing away that impression, was for Lord Succoth to leave the privileged seat, and take his position at the bar, cheek by jowl with the poor people from Kelvin Dock, and there submit to that scrutiny and that battling from which he had so unaccountably contrived to escape before the Committee. Why did not some member of Assembly rise up and bring Lord Succoth to his proper level? Why did Dr. Nicol allow himself to be so easily hoodwinked, or awed into a change of sentiment? Is Lord Succoth such a formidable man, that if he but open his mouth, no dog must bark? Were gentlemen so deaf to the cry of a thousand souls perishing for lack of knowledge, and yet had their ears open to receive implicitly and submissively the dicta of this Lord of Session ? Alas! alas! the time was, when a different and a nobler spirit prevailed in the Assembly. But we are fallen, fallen, fallen! Lord Succoth gets his own way!!! who had dissented from the measures taken in this affair, by the rest of the presbytery. The presbytery of Inverness not compearing at the bar of the Assembly, the follow ing motion was made by Dr. Nicol, and unanimously agreed to : "That whereas it appears, by the noncompearance of the presbytery of Inver Dr. Nicol must not forget his promise to support the measure which he so weakly gave up, if it comes forward again next Assembly, and if the fine prospects with which Lord Succoth dazzled him into acquiescence, are not realized before that period arrives. We conclude this note, with offering to our readers the reasons of dissent that were given in from the judgment on which we have been ani. madverting. They are as follow: We dissent, 1. Because the population of the parish exceeds 51,000 souls, and is yearly increasing by thousands, while there are only one parish church, and three chapels of ease, which do not, and cannot, contain above onetenth part of the population, leaving at least 20,000 souls unprovided with the means of religious instruction in the Established Church. 2. Because the Presbytery of Glasgow, who are well acquainted with the circumstances of the parish in general, and have, with the utmost diligence and faithfulness, ascertained the actual state of Kelvin Dock in particular, have unanimously declared their conviction that it stands in the greatest need of such erection, in consequence of the almost universal pievalence of ignorance, infidelity, and vice of every description; and because the Commissioners from the Presbytery have most strongly and explicitly stated in the face of this Venerable Court, that the rejection in the meantime, of the prayer of the petition, will be followed by the most deplorable and demoralizing consequences. The Presbytery of the bounds are the natural and most competent judges of the urgency of every such case; and your dissentients are humbly of opinion, that nothing whatever has been produced to the Venerable Assembly, to render the unanimous representation of the highly respectable Presbytery of Glasgow, regarding the erection of this chapel, unworthy of the ecclesiastical privilege so earnestly implored at the bar. 3. Because the Committee of this Venerable House, to whom the above application was referred, unanimously approved of the same, excepting only that the provision proposed for the minister was inadequate, being only £100, and not £150, which the Venerable Assembly were accustomed to hold as the minimum which should be accepted of: an objection which was instantly removed, by the party for the chapel at the bar offer. ing the full sum which the Committee had deemed indispensable. 4. Because the rapid increase of every species of delinquency in the above district, appears to us to render it the imperious duty of this venerable Assembly, to omit no opportunity which offers itself of immediately providing the means of religious and moral instruction, and particularly as it is a notorious fact, that the honourable the Judges of the Supreme Criminal Court, have, in the strongest language, and on various late occasions, lamented the fearful growth of every description of crime, especially in the large, populous, and manufacturing district of the west a district which, on a late occasion, was distinguished by a deep-seated disaffection, and a daring opposition to the constituted authorities of the country. The dissentients are humbly of opinion, that as the Church of Scotland forms an integral part of the National Con ness, that they are chargeable with pro- they enjoin the presbytery, with the exceedings of a most objectionable nature; ception of the three ministers of that stitution, these honourable Judges have a reasonable title to expect every co-operation within the reach of this venerable House towards the prevention of vice, and particularly of that deplorable ignorance which so obviously leads to it; that a more effectual co-operation cannot be afforded than a prompt, an immediate, and an affectionate compliance with every such pious application as the present; and as that has been withheld, without what the dissentients conceive to be an adequate reason, they conceive themselves called upon to state distinctly and strongly their non-acquiescence. 5. Because the grounds for delaying to grant the prayer of the petition, arose from a statement made by an honourable member of the House in his place, that he understood that measures were at the moment in agitation towards the erection of new churches in the above parish. The dissentients do not call in question the sincerity of the statement thus made; but as no pledge was nor could be given by the honourable member, as to the period when this arrangement should be carried into effect; and as, at all events, no such arrangement could be completed for some years to come, the Assembly, in the humble apprehension of the dissentients, had no sufficient ground for refusing a petition for the end specified, in circumstances of such immediate urgency. 6. Because, granting that such parish churches are erected without the least delay, the chapel would still be indispensably necessary-that two-thirds of the examinable population of the Barony parish, for whom church accommodation is required by law, amount to upwards of 25,000 souls that there are at present, as already stated, only one parish church, and three chapels of ease; and supposing the proposed churches were erected, making them in all nine places of public worship, more than twelve additional places of worship would still be required." 7. Because the honourable member who made the aforesaid statement in his place, was an heritor of the parish, and was, in that capacity, a party in the proceedings before the Presbytery, and cited to appear before them for his interest, while neither there nor before the Committee was any opposition made by him, and who ought therefore to have stated his objection, if he had any, not in the House, but at the bar. And, admitting that he was entitled to make the statement where he did, the ends of material justice required that an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the party at the bar to answer this new and unexpected objection-an opportunity which was peremptorily refused, though earnestly and repeatedly solicited. 8. Because a delay, in such clamant circumstances, in granting a petition so much entitled, in every point of view, to be hailed and kindly entertained by a Church of Christ, does not correspond, in the apprehension of the dissentients, with the high character of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, composed of religious characters, who vote, act, and determine on all things which come before them, to the glory of God, and the good of the Church. (Signed) W. A. THOMSON, GEO. LOGAN, presbytery who have disclaimed all connexion with such proceedings, and who pray not to be involved in the consequences that may ensue, to appear personally at the bar of the next General Assembly, to account for their conduct in that procedure, and appoint the petitions to be served on the presbytery." The case of the Rev. Mr. Fleming, minister of Neilston, was then taken up for consideration. Mr. Fleming was heard for himself as appellant against the sentence of the synod of Glasgow and Ayr, affirming a sentence of the presbytery of Paisley, which found that Mr. Fleming was censurable for using unbecoming language, and at the same time waving certain informalities which Mr. Fleming complained of in the conduct of the presbytery. The Rev. Messrs. Burns, Logan, Rankine, and Doctor Stewart, were heard for the presbytery; and Mr. Lapslie for the synod. After a good deal of discussion, the Assembly agreed in a judgment, affirming the sentence of the presby tery appealed against, reversing the sentence of the synod as informal, and instructing the moderator to reprove Mr. Fleming at the bar for his intemperate language, and to admonish him to beware of such conduct in future. Monday, June 2.-This day a great deal of fresh discussion took place respect, ing the sentence passed on Mr. Fleming. At last Mr. Fleming made an apology. which was taken down in writing; the administration of rebuke was on that account not insisted on; and Mr. Fleming was merely admonished by the Moderator, whe performed this duty, as indeed he performed all the other duties of his important office, in the most becoming and dignified manner. Dr. Inglis gave in the Report of the Committee on the subject of additional churches, and also the Report of the Committee on Prison Discipline and Burgh Schools. Dr. Lamont produced the Report of the Committee for examining Mr. Adam Smith, Presentee to the parish of Towie, which ran in these terms : "The committee of Assembly, to whom it was remitted to examine Mr. Adam Smith, having met on purpose to discharge that duty, and having examined hiin accordingly, agreed, without a vote, to recommend that Mr. Smith's appeal ought For many reasons, we do not enter into any particular discussion of this very painful case. We certainly think Mr. Fleming met with very lenient treatment, and we hope that he will never again be the means of bringing such an unworthy and degrading business before the Assembly. At the same time we do not approve altogether of the procedure by which the affair was settled. It appears to us that the sentence agreed upon at the conclusion of the Saturday's debate, ought to have been adhered to. That sentence inflicted upon Mr. Fleming the censure which his conduct merited. And both in its substance and in its mode, it maintained the dignity of the Court without bearing too hard upon the Reverend Gentleman at the bar. A foolish attempt, however, was made to get the sentence modified and reduced in its severity; but in our humble apprehension, the attempt ended in putting the individual in a worse situation than that in which he previously stood, and bringing down the Assembly from its proper tone and character in such circumstances. The Assembly actually higgled with Mr. Fleming about his begging pardon, and after threatening and coaxing, prevailed upon him to pay this (we fear involuntary) homage of his feelings to those whom he had been guilty of insulting and aspersing. He was obliged to put his acknowledgment in writing; this document, humbling to him, and not satisfactory surely to any one who knows how it was drawn from him, is, we presume, either recorded, or kept in retentis; and the Moderator's admonition, which closed the proceeding, was ordered, on the motion of a learned judge, to be inserted in the minutes; a circumstance which, with all due deference to my Lord Meadowbank, and with all our unfeigned admiration of the sentiment and language employed by Dr. Brunton on this distressing occasion, we hold to have been neither necessary nor expedient. to be sustained. At the same time, as this opinion has not been formed without extreme hesitation, and after an entirely new series of questions, the committee wish it to be distinctly understood, that in reporting this opinion, (which, if adopted by the Assembly, must infer a reversal of the judgment of the presbytery of Alford,) they also think it their duty to report, which they do unanimously, that the conduct of the presbytery in carefully conducting Mr. Smith's trials, appears to have been not only without any blame, but likewise completely justified by the circumstances of the case before them, and therefore highly proper and meritorious." Very considerable opposition was made to this report; but no vote was taken, and at last it was made the judgment of the Assembly. From this judgment Mr. R. J. Brown, Mr. Lyon, Dr. Lorimer, Mr. Logan, Dr. Campbell, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Ritchie, dissented *. * The report of the committee on Mr. Smith's case, we do not hesitate to say, was a very stupid one. We ask every man of common understanding, how the one portion of it can be reconciled with the other? If the Presbytery of Alford acted such a highly meritorious part, why is their sentence reversed, as if they had acted an unjust and unlawful part? They found Mr. Smith unfit for being ordained and inducted into the church of Towie; for this finding, the committee praise them, and yet they recommend that this finding shall be nullified, and that Mr. Smith shall, in spite of the presbytery's opinion, receive the ordination and induction that he asks! The presbytery had examined him at great length, and with much anxiety and care, and their conduct in this respect too meets with applause; the result of that examination was, that the presbytery found him unqualified; the particulars of that examination were in full and correct detail before the Assembly; the Assembly, comprising the committee, could not deny that the inference of the presbytery was legitimate and irresistible; but they thought they would give the poor man another chance, and well was it for him that this chance was given him, for the committee, who could not spend a sixth part of the time that the presbytery had spent on the subject, and could not be half so well fitted to judge of the merits of the case, discover that the presentee is well enough qualified-taking care, however, still to laud the conduct of the presbytery, who found him utterly unqualified!!! Really-we say it again, this is a very stupid report. And if it could be rendered worse by any thing out of its own showing, it might be worth while to mention that the presentee's appearance, as to literature and theology, were fully more defective before the Committee of Assembly than they were before the Presbytery of Alford. We have called the report of the committee a stupid one; but we do not say so of the judgment of the Assembly-for though the judgment was just the report put into a formal shape, we can say of the committee's doings what it would be indecorous to say of the Assembly's doings. But we cannot help condemning the Assembly's sentence. And had we been members of the Court, we should have joined the dissentients. Nay, we would have said and done a great deal before we came to the dissenting part. We would have torn the report to pieces, as a tissue of arrant and contradictory nonsense. We would have questioned its authors in as circumstantial a manner at least as they questioned Mr. Smith. We would have asked them what sort of interrogations they had put to him-how he had answered them, and whether, upon their honour as gentlemen, and their conscience as Christians, he had answered them one iota better than he had answered the interrogations of the presbytery. We would have proposed to recommit the case perhaps, with instructions to the committee to do what |