must have arisen to strip us of this privilege on such extraordinary grounds; but no such thing. It is not even pretended that there was any necessity-any occasion. It is not, and cannot be, said that Presbyterians have abused this privilege. It is not, and cannot be, said that our laws are inadequate to prevent its abuse. No evil has arisen from its exercise in the long experience of the past; no evil can reasonably be feared from its exercise in future. Why thus insult and injure a people who have conferred such invaluable advantages on the country in which they dwell? Why fill with confusion and alarm those who have themselves been so conspicuous for their peaceful and orderly habits? Why bastardize a province? Why declare illegitimate an entire population? Why unsettle the most sacred ties, dissolve the most solemn obligations, and uproot the very foundations, and tear asunder the very bonds, of society? Why, I ask,-why are we wantonly, needlessly, stript of a privilege which we have exercised for the happiness and advantage of the community for between two and three hundred years? Why are we to stand degraded before our people and the world? Why are Presbyterians to be compelled to embrace the ceremonies of a Church which they conscientiously condemn? The marriage ceremony in the Church of England may be most excellent; but if Presbyterians think otherwise,— if they think it absurd and idolatrous, containing what is false and superstitious,— why should they be constrained to adopt it? If there be anything in which the dictates of conscience should be respected, surely it is in the formation of the matrimonial compact; and, instead of divesting it of anything calculated to impart solemnity and interest, the State should encourage its ratification in such a form as is best fitted to render it sacred and obligatory. If the State allows the taking of an ordinary oath in that form most binding and proper, how much more that one on whose observance rests the peace and purity of society? Is it right or prudent to compel a man, in the most important act of his life, to outrage his best feelings,-to sacrifice his conscientious scruples,-to inflict an insult on the church to which he is attached -to admit the incompetency of his minister to perform the very humblest function of the sacred office, and to accept the ministrations of a church alien to his heart and opposed to his convictions? To do so I affirm to be an act of the grossest folly and most intolerable oppression,-an act which, so far from promoting the interests of morality and good order, is calculated to spread depravity, disorder, and disaffection amongst all on whom it is enforced. We call upon the Free Church of Scotland, and on all the friends of freedom throughout the empire, to aid us in resisting an attempt which not only threatens our liberties, but the liberties of every non-Episcopal Protestant in the British dominions. This attempt involves a principle which, if carried out, must lay prostrate most of the religious privileges they enjoy. If the Presbyterian minister in Ireland be declared destitute of holy orders, because not episcopally ordained, does not the same declaration pronounce all Presbyterian ministers, and all Independent, and all Methodist, and all Baptist, and, in a word, all nonEpiscopal ministers, or, in other words, two-thirds of the Protestant ministers of Christendom, to be equally destitute of holy orders? And if it be decided that we are in consequence, incompetent to celebrate marriage, must not they be held equally incompetent? And if, moreover, it be pronounced, on the authority of a decree of the council of Winchester, that we are not capable of solemnizing marriage, I do not see why it may not be pronounced, on the authority of a similar decree, that we are incapable of celebrating baptism or the Lord's Supper, or of preaching the gospel. These are ordinances much more sacred in their character than marriage; and if a priest in holy orders be alone competent to administer the latter, much more so is he only competent to administer the former. If the Puseyite, Popish, persecuting spirit, which is grown into such gigantic strength, be allowed to take this step, I see not when its march is to be stopped, until it has trodden down all our Christian privileges. A principle has been established which requires only to be carried out, to place us under a yoke as grievous as was ever cast around the neck by Rome in the days of her highest intolerance. Nor are there wanting similar means to carry forward the work of persecution, to those which have been found so convenient and serviceable in its commencement. The decree of the council of Winchester is not the only one of such a character that may be disinterred from among the rubbish of

former ages. Hear my Lord Brougham on this point, in a speech which he delivered in the House of Lords on Monday last, on the consolidation of the criminal law :— "There were 234 acts of Parliament which, most inaccurately, were called obsolete. In England there could not be an obsolete statute. A statute might no longer be applicable to the circumstances of the day, as it might apply to a state of things which no longer existed-as, for instance, to villeinage. But the 234 statutes to which he now referred were quite applicable to existing circumstances, and they might be put in force by any who chose to take advantage of them. 780 statutes had expired; and 376 were repealed, or were supposed to have been repealed by implication, and were no longer acted upon. But of these 376, it was doubtful whether 142 had been repealed, or whether they were now in force. No lawyer, therefore, could tell at this moment whether these 142 statutes were or were not the law of the land. But there were two or three score-at least a score or two-which were supposed to have been directly repealed, but respecting which it was utterly impossible to determine whether they had been repealed or not. He would give their Lordships an instance. The statute of 3d and 4th Edward VI., c. 10, made it a grave offence for any person to have in his possesion images taken out of a church. But there was a merciful proviso, excepting those of noblemen or other persons who were not reputed saints. It was impossible to tell whether these acts were or were not in force at the present time; and they were justly termed by Coke, snares to entangle the public. He (Lord Brougham) thought they might rather be compared to vipers, which might remain quiescent for a time, but which the heat of party, or the malignity of private revenge, might warm into life, to sting an innocent victim. Within this description came the shilling act' of Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory, an act by which a person who neglected to attend church, and that his own parish church, for three successive Sundays, was liable to a fine of one shilling for each offence."

It is manifest from this, that the Puseyites have only opened a mine of exhaustless wealth. Numerous as are their tracts, they will find at least nine laws for every one of their ninety tracts, exactly framed to carry their principles into practical effect. But, then, it is said that the Church of England has had nothing to do with this matter, that it is a mere legal question, and to be settled and judged of accordingly. But who will believe this? Who are the party to be benefited by our deprivation? The Church of England, and that church exclusively. Have they come forward to declare their unwillingness to accept of our spoils? In such a case their silence is surely tantamount to their consent; but they have not been silent, or neutral, or inactive. The present Bishop of Meath originated the prosecution, the Primate of Ireland paid the expenses, and the Church of England, through all its organs, has been crying down and abusing those who have stood forward to resist the spoliation. What evidence could be more decisive. We hold the Church of England, and the Church of England alone, responsible for the entire proceeding, and for all the consequences which may result from it; and what these consequences may be, it is very difficult to foretell or conjecture. The Presbyterians of Ireland are no paltry or powerless body,-they are not insignificant in numbers, they are conspicuous for intelligence,—they possess vast moral strength, and they are firmly united; but above all, their geographical position gives them an influence which, if properly wielded, would be altogether irresistible. On them depends the existence of the Episcopal Establishment of Ireland, on them depends the union of Ireland with Great Britain. Without the aid of Presbyterians, the Established Church of Ireland will founder in the very first storm. She has sailed in comparative security under the convoy of the Presbyterian frigate; but let us sheer off and there is a dark and frowning war-ship looming at no great distance, who will instantly bear up, and with one broadside sweep the decks of this richly-laden galleon. Were such a catastrophe to occur, what, alas! would become of the younger sons of the English aristocracy! In what other quarter, in these impoverished times, could berths be provided for the helpless scions of the nobility of Great Britain! Nor is it the Church alone that would be placed in jeopardy. Without the Presbyterians of Ireland, it is my conviction that England could not preserve the Union, at least,

without such an expenditure of blood as it is frightful to contemplate. Presbyterian Ulster unites the two countries. Break this link, and I hardly think that all the wealth and wisdom, all the arts and arms of Britain, would suffice to keep them together. Presbyterians have hitherto been the unflinching friends of the Union. No injuries or insults on the part of the Episcopalians, nor any offers or advances on the part of Roman Catholics, have succeeded in making them advocate repeal; but should the course adopted towards us be persevered in, it may soon become a question whether we have more to dread from the Popery of Ireland or the Popery of England. Many Presbyterians have long been under the delusion that the Church of England was the great bulwark of Protestantism, and that the interests of Protestantism were identified with the interests of that party which is devoted to that Church; but the disruption of the Scotch Church,-the Puseyism of England, -the Irish marriage question,-have at length dissipated this delusion, at least from the eyes of all but those who are determined not to see. For myself, there are many reasons which would induce me to cultivate unity and peace with the Church of England. I was brought up on terms of the most affectionate intercourse with members of that Church, lay and clerical. Many of my nearest relatives are ministers or members of it,-many of my most intimate and valued friends belong to it; and besides these private grounds, there are others of a public nature which would induce me and all other Presbyterians, to live in harmony with that Church, if the interests of truth and liberty permitted; but whilst I love and admire meeting that Church, laity and clergy, as my own friends, and what is infinitely better, the friends of Christ, I cannot consider her as the bulwark of Protestantism. I cannot but view the attitude she has assumed as inimical to Protestantism. I would ask those who regard her as the bulwark and champion of the Reformation, what has she done for it in the countries in which she has been established? It is well known that the mass of the population in England are sunk in the grossest ignorance, and that, had it not been for the efforts of dissenters, they would long ere this have been generally in a state little better than heathenism. In Scotland, the great bulk of the landed property is in the hands of the Episcopalians; and what has the Episcopal Church of Scotland done for the instruction of the people? In Ireland, the Episcopal Church has had every worldly influence in her favour-boundless wealth, high rank, fashion, power, patronage, every thing; and what has she done? Protestantism, instead of advancing, has been actually retrograding under her ministration, so that in many parts of the country where she had numerous adherents, no one is now to be discovered. Popery has driven her from district to district; and, were it not for the Dissenters, I verily believe would ere this have driven her out of the island altogether. So far from having done what they might in extending religion through Ireland, they will not even allow us to do so without the most vexatious opposition; for notwithstanding the eulogy which one of our ministers passed on the Established clergy when pleading the cause of the home mission before the General Assembly, I hesitate not to affirm, that we have experienced, and are at this moment experiencing, more opposition from the Episcopal than from the Popish clergy, in carrying forward the operations of our home mission through the south and west of Ireland. It is true, indeed, the Irish Presbyterian Church is far from being free from blame. For a long period she shared the slumbers that rested on the other churches; but still, when it is considered that little more than 200 years ago there were only a few Presbyterian families, and half a dozen Presbyterian ministers in Ireland, and that there are now 800,000 Presbyterians, and 500 or 600 Presbyterian ministers,-then that Presbyterians comprise at least one half of the Protestantism of the country, and that their churches from the extremest south to the extremest north, from the extremest west to the extremest east,-when this is considered, it must be admitted that we have not been wholly unfaithful or unprofitable servants. Let any one who wishes to test the efficacy of Presbyterianism go to Ireland, and he need go no farther. Let him see the most barren province of the island rendered fertile, and made the abode of comfort, peace, intelligence, and piety unsurpassed in any quarter of the British dominions. Let him visit our poor-houses, and see them without Presbyterian paupers. Let him visit our jails and see them without Presbyterian

prisoners. Let him see all this, and more than this; and then, perhaps, he may admit, notwithstanding what may be said by Puseyite or Prelatist, that ours is a Church, and an efficient Church-ours a ministry and a most effective ministrythat our ordinances are ordinances, and most efficacious ordinances; or, if still dissatisfied with this, I would call upon him to observe what has been effected by the Free Church of Scotland during the first year. I would call upon him to observe a Church stript of everything, cast houseless, homeless, pennyless on the world, derided generally, nay frowned on, and in some cases cruelly persecuted by the great. I would call upon him to see such a Church in one short year rearing 400 churches, supporting 600 ministers, and, in addition to all, raising L.30,000 for missionary objects. Such a testimony to the power of free, vigorous Presbyterianism, can scarcely fail to win for it the admiration of the world. I trust the example you have set will not be lost on other Churches, and especially on that which I now represent. We are perhaps as closely assimilated as any two Churches in the world, in feeling, principle, interest; and I trust that, as loving sisters, we shall strive with a holy rivalry which can outstrip the other in good works, in promoting the glory of our common Head, and in aiding and encouraging each other. We strove, at least, to assist you, when you were in your struggles, and our aid would have been more zealous and timely, had it not been for the very prelatic influence to which I alluded. Through this we were cajoled, curbed. Now, in our difficulties, we implore you to render us your aid. We implore the aid of all the friends of Christian truth and freedom throughout the empire. If an invasion of the civil rights of one of the most profligate individuals that ever sat in the House of Commons entitled him to the sympathies, and obtained for him the support of the friends of civil liberty throughout the kingdom, because they felt themselves endangered and assailed through him, how much more should the Irish Presbyterian Church, when her religious rights are invaded, receive the sympathy and assistance of the friends of religious liberty of every name? for are not their religious rights indirectly assailed and imminently endangered by the attempt? This is a cause which should unite the non-Episcopal Protestants of the empire of every name; and I rejoice that we have been assailed in a point that equally interests us all, and that is therefore fitted to combine the efforts of all. This is not like the Church of Scotland question,-a merely national or local controversy. It is a controversy involving principles of universal application and of vital importance,-one easily comprehended by every mind, and coming home powerfully to every bosom. I trust, therefore, that all Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, Baptists-all will join with heart and hand in resisting this first decided, uncontrolled step made by the Puseyite spirit of the times, to crush those rights and liberties which have been so long enjoyed by the followers of the Reformation in these kingdoms. To the Free Church of Scotland, so united, so identified in every respect with our own, we especially look for aid in the present struggles; and I trust that you will without delay get up, like ourselves, public meetings on the subject in all the large towns in Scotland, and send forward petitions to Parliament from every congregation. I feel, Moderator, that I have detained you too long, but I have yet to make a brief addition to my speech,-one, however, which I have no doubt you will receive with favour. I have said little in the way of compliment. There has been abundance of this from those of our deputations who have previously addressed you; and, besides, I have but little talent in that line; but a lady, a member of my congregation, has sent by me a compliment which I am sure you will receive with more satisfaction than any I could offer. It is in the shape of a draft on the Bank of Scotland for L.300-(loud cheers)-drawn in favour of Dr Chalmers, but which I hand to you as Moderator. The same lady gave previously L.200, which was transmitted through a different channel,-making in all L.500. (Mr Dill sat down amid loud and continued cheering.)

The Rev. MR GRAY of Perth then rose to propose the thanks of the house to Dr Barnett, and Mr Dill, and adverted to the kind reception which he (Mr Gray), and the other gentlemen sent over from the Church, had experienced in Ireland. I remember the kindness, he said, with which myself and my brethren were received by the Assembly of the church in Ireland. I gratefully recollect the public attention

and private hospitality that we everywhere experienced. And, Sir, now that our Irish brethren demand our sympathy, I do trust that they will not be disappointed. I do trust that the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, and the Free Church herself, will respond to their call. They have a right to make that call on us, and to ask all the assistance which it is within our power to render. When we were struggling amidst our sore trials, our Irish Presbyterian brethren failed not to pray that our cause might be conducted to a proper issue; and after our disruption, their conduct was such as to establish a still stronger claim upon our gratitude. There were some reasons which might have tempted them to hesitate in recognizing us after that event; yet afterwards, in our Assembly, and almost without the loss of a day, they came forward and openly recognised us as the true representatives of the Church of Scotland. I say it could not have been surprising if, instead, they had hesitated to make this avowal, since they were in circumstances of receiving the substantial favours of the State, of enjoying endowments voted by the House of Commons every year. I would not have been surprised, had our brethren, being in that position, taken a short time to calculate what the effects might be of embracing us in a still closer fellowship than before; for their Church, by that act, might have been cast out of favour with the State, and stript of all its temporal emoluments. (Hear, hear.) But, Sir, they did not hesitate to do so; and I know it is the fact that they were not insensible of the peril on which they were thereby entering,-of the danger which they ran in exposing their own endowments. All honour, then, be to the men who did not delay for an instant to embrace us, who were not deterred for an instant from giving expression to the feelings of their warm Irish hearts-(applause)— by any selfish considerations whatever. (Continued applause.) We ought then, Sir, to comply with the call of our Irish friends; and may we not hope that a more auspicious alliance may be perfected now,-that the proclamation of the banns will not only not be resisted, and will not be the only part of the matrimonial alliance accomplished, but that the two Churches will be bound together in the fastest confederacy and most intimate fellowship, both in prosperity and adversity? I beg leave to propose that the thanks of this house be given to our respected friends, Dr Barnett and Mr Dill, with the assurance of the warm sympathy of this Church with the Church in Ireland. The motion was seconded by Sheriff Spiers, and agreed to by acclamation. The MODERATOR then addressed the deputation. I have great pleasure in conveying to our respected friends from Ireland the acknowledgments and thanks of this General Assembly. It always gives us pleasure to see them on this side the channel. The Church you represent stands high in our esteem and affection. It has been an instrument in the hand of Divine Providence of much good to the country where it is planted; not only protecting its members from the perverting influence of superstition and idolatry, so fatally prevalent in other parts of Ireland, but cherishing much of genuine and vital godliness. And now, for many years past rescued from admixture with the debasing dross of Arianism and Socinianism, we recognise in you the true descendants of Knox, and Melville, and Welsh, and the other heroes of the Reformation in this land. We have gathered much encouragement from your approbation of our principles, your sympathy in our conflicts, and your effective co operation in the whole progress of our affairs. We cannot forget your kind reception of our ministers and messengers that visited you, and the liberality with which you helped forward the good cause, so identified with a principle equally dear to you and to us- Christ's sole supremacy in his Church. As we are encouraged by your good opinion, I think we may also be instructed by your example in some of our arrangements. I recollect, in visiting Ireland many years ago, I was much pleased with the account given me of your mode of procedure in supplying vacant charges-that you looked out for some one preacher who seemed likely to obtain the concurrent approbation of the congregation, and, after sufficient trial of his gifts, submitted his name to the members of the church, under this rule, that if two-thirds of them, calculating both their numbers and their contributions to the support of the ministry and congregation, declared for him, he was admitted to the charge, but if that number did not concur, he was set aside, and another candidate invited. The arrangement appeared to me an excellent one, as avoiding that competition betwixt