declares, that by the ancient law of Scotland, the presenting of ministers to vacant churches belonged of right to the patrons, until taken from them by an act passed in 1690, and given to the heritors and elders of parishes. This act of 1711, was, however, for a long time very unpopular in Scotland. Two parties were hostile to it: one, on religious grounds, claimed for parishioners the right of electing their pastors; another alleged that it had been passed under Jacobite influence for the purpose of facilitating the restoration of the Stuart family. It accordingly formed a subject of contention during the greater part of the 18th century. In the mean time, the General Assembly of the church occasionally made regulations which had a modifying tendency; for instance, in 1736, a resolution was passed, declaring it to be the principle of the church that no minister should be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation. This seems to have been the model of the declaratory act adopted by the same body in May, 1834, nearly a century after; but it goes much further, as it gives the congregation a veto, and forms the question on which the present case turns. This document, entitled, "Overture and Interim Act on Calls," declares, that it is the fundamental law of the church that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation, and proceeds to ordain, that if the major part of the heads of families in full communion with the church, disapprove of a person in whose favour a call is proposed to be moderated, that disapproval shall be deemed sufficient ground for the Presbytery rejecting such person. Notwithstanding this decree, on the church of Auchterarder becoming vacant, in August, 1834, the Earl of Kinnoul, the patron, presented, in due form, the Rev. Robert Young to that living. The Presbytery were, of course, required to take trial of the qualifications of the presentee, and on his being found qualified, to induct him. The Presbytery, on the contrary, acting in accordance with the before-mentioned "Interim Act," afforded opportunities to the male heads of families in communion with the church to give in dissents, and having ascertained that there was a majority of dissents, they rejected the said Robert Young. This decision of the Presbytery, dated July 7, 1835, the Earl of Kinnoul held to be ultra vires and illegal, and forthwith a process against it was instituted before the Court of Session in the name of the Earl of Kinnoul, and Mr. Young. Judgment was given on the 8th of last month. All the proceedings, the pleadings of counsel, and opinions of the judges, have just been published, in two volumes, at Edinburgh, under the authority of the Court, by "Charles Robertson, Esq., Advocate, one of the collectors of decisions, by appointment of the Faculty of Advocates." Those who wish rightly to understand this interesting case, may therefore peruse these volumes with a perfect confidence in the accuracy of all the details. The judges were divided in opinion, eight supporting the claims of the Earl of Kinnoul and Mr. Young, and five being in favour of the Presbytery. The following is an extract from the judgment:-" Find that the Earl of Kinnoul has legally, validly, and effectually, exercised his right as patron of the church and parish of Auchterarder, by presenting the pursuer, the said Robert Young, to the said church and parish: find, that the defenders, the Presbytery of Auchterarder, did refuse, and continue to refuse, to take trial of the qualifications of the said Robert Young, and have rejected him as presentee to the said church and parish, on the sole ground, (as they admit on the record), that a majority of the male heads of families, communicants in the said parish, have dissented, without any reason assigned, from his admission as minister: find, that the said Presbytery in so doing have acted to the hurt and prejudice of the said pursuers, illegally, and in violation of their duty, and contrary to the provisions of certain statutes libelled on, and in particular contrary to the provisions of the statute of 10 Anne, c. 12, entitled, An act to restore Patrons to their ancient rights of presenting Ministers to the churches vacant in that part of Great Britain called Scotland." The final decision remains with the House of Lords, for the Presbytery have appealed.

VOL. XIII.-May, 1838.

4 A

REGISTRATION BILL.

"PERSONS having children born subsequently to the operation of the act are obliged to give the information necessary for the purposes of the act to the registrar WHEN he applies for the same. But they are not obliged to send him the information.

"If they do not have their children registered till six weeks have elapsed since the birth, and wISH to have them registered then, they must pay a fee to the registrar. But they are NOT compelled to have them registered at all, nor consequently to pay anything. The ONLY point on which the act is compulsory upon them is, that they must give information when required to do so by the proper officer."

The Lewes Journal (a Radical paper) thought proper to call a statement made in this Magazine respecting the Registration Bill not being compulsory, a deliberate falsehood, and having followed this up by a statement which deserves no other name, it is better to re-state the matter clearly. As the editor of the British Magazine was charged with deliberate falsehood in that paper, it is right to state that it was for an article quoted expressly from an Oxford paper, and that the words on which the falsehood was attempted to be charged were a fair deduction from an official letter of Mr. Mann, chief clerk to the general registration office, which letter was subjoined to the article in question, and formed its foundation. What can be said of persons who make such a charge, and dare not quote the article on which they animadvert?

REASONS AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A SECOND GENERAL SOCIETY FOR SUPPLYING CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION TO THE BRITISH COLONIES.*

I. THAT one general society already exists, which has long and exclusively devoted itself to this object; namely, the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts: and it cannot be supposed, that persons who repose confidence in that society would desire the establishment of a second society for precisely the same objects, or would contribute to its funds if established.

II. Therefore, that in the event of the formation of a second society for the spiritual instruction of the colonies in general, it must either fall to the ground for want of support, or be supported by a class of subscribers different from those who repose confidence in the Society for Propagating the Gospel.

III. That the only difference by which persons willing to subscribe for missionary purposes can be distinguished into separate classes-(for the purpose of this argument)-is, difference of religious views; and it would be impossible for two societies, supported by classes of subscribers differing generally in religious views, to occupy one field of labour without rivalry or jealousy of each other's operations.

IV. That nothing could so strongly tend to perpetuate distinctions of party in the church, as the incorporation of existing parties into rival societies, instituted for one purpose, and occupying one field of labour.

V. That the missionaries of two such societies, meeting on the same ground, would, in most cases, feel and act as the representatives of opposite parties, rather than as the common servants of one Lord, and members of one church; from whence great scandals and schisms would arise, and the preaching of the gospel would be materially hindered.

This excellent paper was drawn up in consequence of an anonymous statement which has been put into circulation, and was apparently calculated to create the inconveniences here specified. It has been recorded here for its able and practical views of the question.

VI. That the Society for Propagating the Gospel enjoys the confidence and is under the government of the bishops of our church, to whom we owe respect and obedience; and that any opposition to that society would be felt at home and abroad, and would practically operate, as opposition to them.

VII. That it would be impossible to conduct a society discountenanced by the bishops of our church, upon strict church principles; and that it could not expect to meet with the support of those who believed in the divine authority and essential importance of episcopal government.

VIII. That no division of the sphere of labour could be, in practice, effected between two societies professedly instituted for one and the same purpose, and supported by different classes of subscribers; no part of the globe being so fully supplied with the means of Christian instruction as not to afford plausible grounds for the direction of additional efforts to that quarter.

IX. That particular societies (such as the Upper Canada Clergy Society, and the Australian Church Missionary Society), instituted for limited and local objects, may co-operate, without rivalry, with a large society embracing the same objects under a wider and more general system; and are likely to obtain the support of those who prefer the local to the general claim, without tending to create disorder or disunion in the church.

X. That all who would be willing to contribute to a general society for promoting Christian instruction in the colonies, in preference to a number of local societies, or any of them, have already such a general society as they desire in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

XI. That the pecuniary saving to the cause, which might arise from consolidating the separate agencies and separate machinery of the smaller societies, cannot be worth a thought, in comparison with the jealousies and disorders which would ensue.

XII. That if, in the event of a general society being formed without the concurrence of the Newfoundland School Society and Upper-Canada Clergy Society, the Australian Church Missionary Society would (as they profess) "feel it a point of duty to avoid all encroachment upon the spheres which those societies have marked out for themselves," it must also be their duty now to avoid encroachment on the sphere which the Society for Propagating the Gospel has marked out for itself; since it is certain, that the Newfoundland Society and the Canadian Society can no more supply the whole wants of Newfoundland and Upper Canada, than the Society for Propagating the Gospel can supply the whole wants of the British colonies.

XIII. That although it is most true, and deeply to be lamented, that no adequate provision exists for the preaching of the word throughout the British colonies, yet if this consideration would justify the establishment of one rival society to the Society for Propagating the Gospel, it would justify the establishment of any number of rival societies, since it is not likely that many such societies could adequately supply the want; and upon the same principle, a multitude of general church-missionary societies, general Christian-know ledge societies, &c., might be formed, to the manifest injury of religion throughout the world.

Lastly, That it is our duty, not so much to consider whether need exists, as whether we are the persons called upon to supply it; and if so, whether or not in the manner proposed. If the world is governed by God, the need which exists, exists by his permission only; and he will remove it in his own good time, and in the manner which seemeth him best. If we are thought worthy to be his instruments, we may be sure he will enable us to accomplish his purpose, without bringing evil upon his church. But if no method of action is left open to us, except one which would be the occasion of new disturbance to the peace and unity of the church, the conclusion is inevitable, that either we are not the instruments chosen for the work, or the present is not the appointed time.

CONSISTORIAL COURT OF ARMAGH.-JUDGMENT OF DR. MILLER.

The Rev. ARTHUR ELLIS, Promoter of the Office of the Judge of the Consistory Court of Armagh, Promovent; the Rev. EDWARD NIXON, Impugnant.

ON Wednesday, March the 28th, judgment was given by the Surrogate, Dr. MILLER, in this case. As involving the question of the lawfulness and expediency of the Home Mission, which has been a few years in operation in Ireland, it is peculiarly interesting. A copy of the judgment is subjoined.

"This is a cause of discipline, in which the Rev. Arthur Ellis, incumbent of the parish of Ardee, in this diocese, is promovent, and the Rev. Edward Nixon is impugnant. The former has complained that the latter, who is a beneficed clergyman in the diocese of Meath, came into his parish of Ardee, in the diocese of Armagh, and there, having posted a placard, announcing his intention of preaching in the market-house of Ardee, under the direction of the Home Mission, and did persist in preaching, notwithstanding that the promovent had protested against the proceeding in a personal interview with the impugnant. A requisition was accordingly issued to the Bishop of Meath, requesting his assistance in citing to this court the person so charged, which was afforded, and the impugnant attended here, but under a protestation against the jurisdiction of this court, as he was, at the time of the alleged offence, a beneficed clergyman of the diocese of Meath, and consequently, as he pleaded, not amenable to the Consistorial Court of Armagh. The protest having been overruled, an appeal was carried to the High Court of Delegates, before which the question of jurisdiction was solemnly argued; and it was decided by that court, that the act charged was an offence against the authority of the ordinary of the diocese in which it was alleged to have occurred, and that the person against whom it was so charged was therefore bound to answer before this court for his conduct.

"The original cause having been remitted to this court, to be tried upon its merits, has been accordingly resumed; and the facts alleged by the promovent having been admitted by the impugnant, it is now my duty to pronounce the judgment of the court. If it were a simple case of the intrusion of one clergyman into the benefice of another, in which he persisted in preaching in a place not licensed for divine worship, I should only have to cite the canon which I might conceive to be violated by such conduct, and to apply it for the correction of the offender. But the present cause involves a consideration of far greater importance than that of the conduct of an individual minister, for it is especially important, as it may tend to determine whether a certain society, denominating itself the Established Church Home Mission, has a right to send its preachers into every diocese and every parish in Ireland to preach with the consent of the incumbent or his curate if it may be obtained, or without it if it should be withheld, and, in the latter case especially, though commonly also in the former, in some other place than the church of the parish. The cause here at issue belongs to the latter part of the alternative; but it may be satisfactory, in this first trial of such a question, to consider it in both its aspects, and thus to endeavour to communicate generally a correct conception of a system, in the maintenance of which, I am well aware, many seriously-religious persons believe the interests of religion to be vitally concerned; while others, not less entitled to regard, apprehend from it conse

From the Newry Commercial Telegraph.

quences destructive of that very establishment of which it professes to be a devoted and valuable auxiliary. I, for my own part, have approached the question with much solicitude, for I fully appreciate its importance. I have, accordingly, bestowed upon it all the consideration in my power, and I trust that I have collected my conclusions from well examined and sound principles. "A persuasion has been for some time entertained, that every incumbent of a benefice, and, for the like reason, every curate, in the absence of the incumbent, possesses the dominion of his own pulpit so absolutely and exclusively, that the ordinary of the diocese, when he examines the book containing the names of the preachers, has a right only of inquiring whether they were all regularly ordained ministers of the established church. If this persuasion be well authorized, all discussion of the former part of the question is precluded, provided that the missionary should choose, as indeed is rarely done, to preach in the church. The preachers of the Home Mission, if they had obtained the consent of the incumbent or curate, might freely preach in his church, as any other regularly ordained ministers, whom he might choose to permit, might preach there, and could be required only to produce their letters of ordination in proof of qualification.

"It was once deemed to belong to the freedom of the pulpit, that the minister should be allowed to address his admonitions personally to any individual of his congregation, reminding him particularly of his duties, and animadverting upon and censuring his actions. This notion of the freedom of the pulpit was however found to be in practice offensive and mischievous, and was gradually abandoned. We may say of it, as the Latin poet says on a different subject, grave virus munditiæ pepulere.' It is now contended only that the preacher may be changed indefinitely, at the discretion of the incumbent or curate, without making any reference to his ecclesiastical superior, and with no other limitation than that the stranger should have been regularly ordained. It is obvious that such a liberty might be extended so far as to render the local charge of a particular congregation, and the licence of a bishop committing it to an individual, little more than empty forms. Yet, if it be a matter of strict and absolute right, how can it be restrained? I freely admit, indeed, that the occasional assistance which clergymen mutually afford in cases of necessity, and even an occasional interchange of duty for mere convenience, both which have been long practised without reprehension, are not only demanded for the accommodation of ministers, but even beneficial to their congregations, who, in the one case, might also be deprived of the benefit of divine service, and even in the other may derive some advantage from the opportunity of hearing a variety of preachers. This practice, as it has heretofore prevailed, I am far from wishing to abridge. But the present question does not relate to a practice restrained within the limits of necessity, or of occasional convenience. It concerns a claim of an abstract right, which, if it exist at all, may be pushed to an extent excluding almost all subordination to ecclesiastical authority, because admitting an indefinite change of ministers, and thus even suspending altogether the express direction of the ninth of the Irish canons, which requires that an incumbent should personally discharge his duty by preaching on every Sunday to his own congregation.

"In support of this pretension, reliance appears to have been chiefly placed on the judgment pronounced by Sir John Nicholl, in the case of Gates v. Chambers, in the Arches Court of Canterbury, in the year 1824. But what was this case, as reported in 2 Addams? It was that of a single performance of duty by a curate of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, at the request of the rector of a parish in the neighbouring diocese of Peterborough, then absent in attendance upon a sick wife. The judge, in disposing of this case, said, 'that occasional assistance so given is punishable as an ecclesiastical offence, merely because the minister, so assistant, has not been licensed, as curate, by the bishop of the diocese, is more than, without further consideration and other authorities being adduced, I am prepared to lay down as the rule of law; such a rule would be highly inconvenient to the clergy, and might not unfrequently