an express constitutional provision opposed to it. We are told that, in 1835, Dr. Beman did not put the question, when his removal was proposed. That proceeding was peculiar. Dr. Ely, the stated clerk, presided while Dr. Beman was appointed; then, when the error was discovered, it was moved to reconsider the resolution appointing him; and, also, that the stated clerk should preside, as he naturally would have. done, during the reconsideration; and this motion, Dr. Beman himself appears to have proposed to the house. Afterterwards, Dr. Ely, as stated clerk, said, " All who are in favour of sustaining the resolution passed in the morning, by which Dr. Beman was called to the chair, will signify it by saying Aye, &c." But if the moderator could not properly put the question, the clerk should have put it. This doctrine is supported by all parliamentary precedent, and by the case of the Assembly of 1835, just referred to. The position of the clerk makes him the proper person to preside when the moderator cannot. It is urged, however, that both the moderator and clerk were implicated in a conspiracy to exclude these commissioners whose recognition was demanded. Admit that they were-though there is no evidence whatever of anything of the kind; it appears only that they concurred in thinking-conscientiously believingthat the commissioners mentioned were not entitled to seats. Admit that they were implicated, and still this does not show that they would have refused to put the proposed question. Because a man is doing wrong, and is actuated by wrong motives, is it to be taken for granted that he will do nothing right? Even though the measure was revolutionary, Mr. Cleveland was bound to suppose that the moderator and clerks, or one of them at least, would do his duty at any rate he was bound to wait until he had expressly refused, before venturing to usurp the moderator's place. The law will take for granted, since the trial was not made, that they would, any one of them, have put the question, if it was proper to be put.

But even if it has been shown, that there was an absolute necessity, both that the moderator should be removed, and that Mr. Cleveland should put the question, a heavy burden of proof still rests on the new school party. If a regularly appointed speaker propose any thing to the house, the presumption of the law is that every member hears and understands, and therefore acts intelligently. Yet, even this presumption is but prima facie; and if it can be shown that

extraordinary circumstances prevented hearing and understanding, the vote taken is not conclusive. The reason of this presumption is evident. The members are all bound to look at the speaker, and listen to what he says: they are not bound to be constantly looking over the house, to catch the eye, and the words, of any one of their number who may choose suddenly to rise and propose a question-a duty quite inconsistent with the former. If circumstances make it proper that an unauthorized member should put a question, afterwards the burden of proof that all heard and understood, lies on him and those who claim for the vote taken by him a binding efficacy. The relators, then, were to prove that the old school actually heard and understood Mr. Cleveland's motion, before they could claim the right of construing our silence into consent. Their counsel seemed aware of the necessity, but so far from their making out their case in this respect, what the law would, without proof, have presumed against the relators, the respondents fully established by irrefragable testimony. On the part of the relators it was deposed that Mr. Cleveland had spoken in a loud voice, so as to be heard all over the house, and some few persons, who had stood in remote parts of the building, declared that they had actually heard him. The fact that the old school, had they wished, could not have voted intelligently, appears from the following particulars:

1. The resolution passed by the new school convention had led them to believe that these brethren intended, not the removal of the moderator, but a separate organization.

2. Mr. Cleveland's remarks did not allude to the misconduct of the officers, or directly propose their degradation. We have already shown that they were calculated to confirm the belief already existing in our minds, that a new organization was contemplated. If any thing else was really designed, a studied concealment was practised throughoutthe transaction was fraudulent.

3. A large number of the old school commissioners could not hear even the motion: this is fully proved. If the socalled disorder of some among their own number, of the moderator and a clique around him, had been the cause, as it was not, of their being unable to hear, this would not have affected the rights of the multitude, who had not in any way been implicated in that disorder. No one of them who was examined heard the reversal of the question: of course, they had no chance to vote in the negative. If the reverse was

put at all, it was put, as Dr. Hill said, before the scattering ayes had ceased. Was there not in this circumstance a sufficient reason for our not hearing it? The new school inembers rose and crowded round their officers: the same cause that shut the latter up from our view, must have obstructed the transmission of sound. The extreme haste, which Dr. Hill tells us was intentional, and which induced a reversal of the question before all the ayes had ceased, must have rendered what was done in a great degree indistinct and confused.

No opportunity whatever was allowed for considering and debating this most extraordinary resolution, which, according to the testimony of the new school, neither Mr. Cleveland himself nor his immediate coadjutors had much reflected upon, having brought it forward in an unexpected emergency. We would not have debated it, say they, if an opportunity had been given. But is the presiding officer to judge of that, and because he thinks there will be no debate, omit to ask whether the house is ready for the question? How could any one make known his wish to debate in the hurry and impetuous precipitance of such a proceeding? Only by calling, "Order!" a call which every presiding officer is bound to regard. This fact alone, that the old school were denied all chance of discussing the resolution, would be sufficient to condemn the whole proceeding in any court of justice.

We have thus gone over the subject, touching only its prominent points, and continually reminded of the comparatively small space that we can at present devote to its consideration. A careful examination of the manner in which the suit was conducted, and of its leading incidents; of the various decisions of Judge Rogers on points of evidence; of his charge to the jury, and of the opinion of the court in bank, might be interesting to many, and not without its use; but we have already trespassed too long on the reader's patience. In conclusion, we would briefly allude to a matter that perhaps scarcely deserves notice, yet is apparently considered by some persons of vast importance. No sooner was the opinion of the court known, than those who, in anticipation, had triumphantly claimed it for themselves, but were utterly disappointed, began to denounce in no very measured terms, that portion of the bench from which it had emanated; most indecently to assert, that the associate judge, who had declined sitting in the case, and had heard no part of the evi

dence or argument, had formed and expressed a decided opinion, in their favour; and confidently to set up that opinion with the charge of Judge Rogers, and the decision of" twelve enlightened and impartial jurymen," against the solemnly pronounced judgment of the court. It so happens, that the decision of the jury was merely the effect of the charge of the learned judge, and is not to be taken as an independent concurring opinion. We have conversed with one of the most intelligent of their number, who has distinctly informed us, that he had made up his mind that the Assembly had a perfect right to cut off the four synods, though he thought it a harsh measure; that three or four of his companions, the only ones with whom he talked on the subject, were of the same opinion; but that they considered it their duty to yield to the decided judgment of the court, and gave their voices accordingly. So much for the support of twelve enlightened and impartial jurymen!

NOTE.

IN reviewing Mr. Malcom's travels, we exercised the right which is conceded to all critics, of exhibiting the subject rather than the book, and in so doing, may have done him injustice, by making the particulars, in which we differed from him, disproportionately prominent. Indeed we rather took for granted some acquaintance with the merits of the work, upon our reader's part, than undertook to give them an idea of its character. If in so doing we have failed to make them understand, that we regard the work as highly creditable to its author, and likely to be highly useful to the cause of missions, we are happy to be able to supply such a deficiency by the insertion of the author's own remarks, which we may do without relinquishing our own views as to any of the controverted points, and yet with every feeling of respect and kindness to the author.

Notice of a Review of Malcom's Travels in South Eastern Asia, in the number of the Repertory for October

1839.

Of this review, which occupies fifteen pages, the author begs opportunity to take a respectful notice, which he will compress within much smaller limits.

I. In general, it is remarkable that, in the whole article, the book itself is no where quoted, except the words "one hundred dollars," the list of Serampore translations, and a text of scripture. Nor is there the least attempt to describe the character, object, contents, or execution of the work. In the concluding paragraph, it is said "the book has its merits," and that it embodies "an immense mass of facts." But what those merits are, or what sort of facts, is not hinted. The reviewer merely holds a microscope to some half dozen particulars, in which he loses sight of the connection and bearing, and then condemns the book as hasty, cursory, and unsatisfactory. Can such an article be regarded as a “review "

II. In particular, every specific objection does injustice to the book, which I will now clearly show.

1. The reviewer says he had expected to find "a picture of the heathen world, not only accurate in the outlines, but true to the life, in the very shadings," and that he is disappointed in not finding such. "A picture of the heathen world!" Who could draw one? Except in a few general traits, no two heathen nations are alike in character, religion, or customs. The drawing of such "pictures" has caused half the misconceptions of which he complains as so prevalent. I therefore choose to give an "immense mass of facts" respecting each people visited, and leave the reader to make his own picture. Does the reviewer find any of these facts erroneous? Not one. Would he have been glad of any which are not furnished? He does not name any. He boldly says I have been "deceived by appearances." By what appearances? He does not name any. And how does he ascertain that I am deceived by appearances? I do not give my judgment on the details respecting" the heathen world," but describe just the appearances themselves.

He proceeds to say that, for want of this picture, " candidates for the work of missions are left in possession of the same vague and often false views of the character of the people, and of the kind, quality, and results of the labour to which they have devoted themselves," as prevailed before my book was published. What then becomes of "the immense mass of facts." Do they relate exclusively to other points; commercial, political, geographical, or scientific. Let the enumeration of the heads of two or three chapters answer. Of the digested notes on Burmah, Chap. III. gives "population— form and features- buildings-food-dress-manners and