Mr JOHN HUNTER said he was not prepared to agree to the motion, as it would be making the House approve of a Report which was only partially known.

Mr DUFF remarked that the objection to the whole thing was, that the statement was not printed before.

Mr MILROY was disposed to take Dr Grierson's original proposal, and move, as a matter of importance, that this statement of Mr Wilson's be submitted to the inspection of a small Committee with the view of its being printed, with the general approbation of the Assembly.

The MODERATOR said, that if he could gather the opinion of the House about this matter, it was quite unanimous. There was a general feeling, so far as he could ascertain, that this was a paper which it would be very important to have circulated. (Hear, hear.) He did not understand the House to be desirous of committing itself more than what was implied in that expression of opinion. It had been suggested that, instead of a more formal way of expressing it, the request should be made that the Committee should print the statement. It was, of course, for Dr Grierson to say whether he would substitute that suggestion for his motion.

Dr GRIERSON.—Oh, yes.

The MODERATOR then asked whether the motion in that form was agreed to. (Cheers.)

SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Sir HENRY MONCREIFF gave in the Report of the Committee on Sabbath Observance. (See Appendix.) Sir Henry stated that the name of Mr Agnew had been suggested as Convener in his room, and he cordially agreed in that proposal. It had also been suggested that he (Sir Henry) should act as clerk to the Committee, which he would be happy to do whenever he could attend.

Bailie BLACKADDER moved the adoption of the Report, and urged on Sir Henry Moncreiff to continue as Convener, seeing he had taken such a deep interest in the matters that were before the Committee.

Sir HENRY MONCREIFF explained that the Sabbath Observance Committee had done almost nothing last year, but the subject had been taken up heartily by the Presbytery of Edinburgh. In the Presbytery they had had the most valuable services of Mr Martin of Greyfriars', who had been mainly instrumental in all that had been done in this matter. It was his (Sir Henry's) design to have suggested Mr Martin's name as Convener, but he was unable to accept the office from the state of his health. The great amount of correspondence which had to be carried on necessitated a new Convener, and he hoped Mr Agnew would be appointed. (Applause.)

The Report was then approved.

REPORT ON TEMPERANCE.

Professor MILLER, in introducing the Report of the Committee on Temperance, said,―The Report touches upon two points. The first is in reference to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Forbes Mackenzie Act,—a matter which follows very naturally in sequence to the consideration of the Report on Sabbath Observance. We take leave to congratulate ourselves, the Assembly, and the public at large, on the estab

lishment of that inquiry. We believe that the establishment of that inquiry upon a broad basis, and the conducting of it in the impartial and admirable manner in which the Commissioners discharged their duty, was one of the best things that possibly could have been done in favour, not only of the cause of temperance, but of the cause of Sabbath observance and the cause of true religion. We are happy to think that the result of that inquiry will be a change in not one whit of the efficient parts of that most important public enactment. I understand that the Report of the Commissioners is printed, but some little technicalities are still standing in the way of its publication. In the course of a day or two it will be in the hands of the public; and I believe, upon what is good authority, that that portion of the enactment which tends to limit the traffic in strong drink, and more especially to the protection of Sabbath observance, will be left, so far as the Report of the Commissioners is concerned, intact. (Applause.) It is interesting to know that, whilst some people are making very great efforts to do away with the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland, our friends over the way on the other side of the Atlantic have been getting up a similar enactment for themselves. They have recently introduced into the city of New York what may be really called a sort of American edition of the Forbes Mackenzie Bill, prohibiting the Sabbath traffic in that city; and the result following that enactment has beeneven although the law is worked most imperfectly-that what they call Sabbath crime has been reduced to the extent of 85 per cent. The other point which is alluded to in our Report is in reference to the Wine Licences Bill, in connexion with the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and we do not venture to give any opinion upon that bit of legislation in a political sense; but we are somewhat distrustful of that portion of it which is connected with Sabbath observance; and if it is proposed, as it may be, to bring that bill across the Border, I trust that we shall lend it our most thorough opposition. I may say for myself, that I have altogether ceased to have any hope of legislative aid from any Chancellor of the Exchequer, however able and admirable he may be in all other respects,—and I think we can have perhaps no Chancellor of the Exchequer in future more admirable in these respects than the present,-in reference to the diminishing of drinking customs and drunkenness. They must have revenue; and they seem to look upon it as a thing irreversibly set down and settled that a large portion of that revenue must come by the consumption of strong drink in some shape or other. They do not venture to let the field lie fallow for a year or two, with a little draining, and get a crop a hundred times better than before; but they must go on scourging, scourging, and having their annual revenue at whatever cost, however detrimental that may be to the productiveness and character of the soil. (Applause.) I am at a loss what to do,-whether to magnify my office, and make a speech, or seem to give this important question a little of the go-by, and say nothing more; but I am in the hands of the House. (Cries of "Go on.") Very well, then, I would just say this, that there is a little paragraph at the beginning of the Report, which says that we deplore still the prevalence of intemperance in the midst of us; and would seek this Assembly, and all rightminded people, to lend their utmost efforts towards its suppression. I would say, if you will excuse me for still harping on a hobby, that we should have as many as possible of the ministers of this Church lending

us their most powerful aid, by their personal example, joining the Free Church Temperance Society, in which I am happy to say the number of ordained ministers now amounts to two hundred and fifty-(applause)— and in regard to which it is an interesting matter, and a matter of some importance perhaps, not only that we are large in numbers, but that we have always had, until the last few days, the fathers of the Free Church among us. I would still urge this matter on all the members of our Church, though I do not wish to take the liberty which I did last year, I am afraid, in a moment of hot haste, of asking the House all at once to jump to the conclusion of joining us. I have only to say, in way of apology, that this request sprang from my enthusiasm, which was to be excused, perhaps, seeing that at that time the number of our adhering ministers amounted to two hundred and twelve-the boiling point. (Hear, hear.) I would still urge the fathers and brethren to take the matter into their most serious consideration. If they will allow me, I will put into their hands, in the course of the next six months, a little tract upon that subject, wherein I propose a very ambitious project—to try and prove that this nephalism, as we are beginning to call it, or Christian abstinence from all strong drink, may be defended on the same platform as Calvinism, namely, as Principal Cunningham stated, on grounds Scriptural, on grounds philosophical, and on grounds experimental; and all that I ask in the meantime is, that they will give this little pamphlet their impartial consideration. Further, I would say to my reverend friends, that instead of finding abstinence a drawback in their Christian calling, they will find it a powerful assistant. The husband of the authoress of "Haste to the Rescue," is a rector at Shrewsbury. He and his curates had long preached to the masses, but made nothing of them. Then his wife went down with her Bible in her hand, and she made nothing of them either. At that time she hated teetotalism, but she soon found that the masses must be made teetotallers; and at last she discovered that, if she were to do real good, she must become a teetotaller herself. Now she feels that she dare not in future be anything else; and the result of her operations among them had been most gratifying. With her Bible and abstinence, she had accomplished what both she and her husband with the Bible alone had failed to reach. This was a proof, surely, that the system of nephalism was not antagonistic, but highly subservient to Christianity and the highest of all Christian work-the reclaiming of souls. And as regards ministers themselves, is it wrong for me to ask this question, Is there any means whereby the sad calamity may be averted year by year of a brother of this Church being brought up under discipline for personal intemperance? Is there any means consistent, or not inconsistent, with reason or religion, whereby such a thing as this may be avoided-documents lying on your table craving that a minister of the gospel of Christ shall be "punished according to the rules and discipline of the Church, for the glory of God and edification of the Church, and to the terror of others holding the like sacred office?" These are terrible words. Is there any means whereby this recurrence may be avoided? If there be, why should we not try it? Professor Miller then instanced the case of the Vicar of Plumstead, who joined the Temperance Society, and within a week after four hundred of his flock followed his example, to shew how much might be effected by ministers taking the pledge. He also mentioned, as an instance of the opposition which the movement received,

that after the meeting of last Assembly, a friend called on an elder in the north, and asked him if he were not going to join the Society? He looked hard at his inquirer, and said "Sir, do you think I would pollute my holy religion with that?" He asked what religion was; and entered somewhat fully into a proof that abstinence on Christian principles was part and parcel of true religion. There was a company of two armies within him, the flesh and the Spirit, warring against each other, and surely it was his business that the spiritual should keep down the carnal. But what if it were a necessary consequence of unnecessary indulgence in strong drink, even to a moderate extent, to weaken the spiritual man and strengthen the carnal man? Was he not bound, on these considerations, to abandon that custom, and to act with a clear conscience as regarded both himself and others? He narrated the case of a gentleman who, afflicted with a butler of intemperate habits, made him sign the pledge, but who felt that he could not let the man stand behind him and his friends while they were drinking, and, therefore, he also joined the Temperance Society for the sake of that servant. Suppose a minister in this Church had lapsed through intemperance, and that, after recovery from his habits, he had been reponed, and was sent to a charge. Surely it was the duty of the people to whom he went to abstain from putting a stumbling-block in the way of that brother. What was the duty of the Presbytery? To do the same. And so of the Synod, and of the Church generally; their reward coming, through God's blessing, in the preservation of that once fallen brother; and perhaps in the strengthening and saving of some other brother not yet fallen, but whose spiritual life might be trembling even now in the balance. He concluded by making a strong appeal on behalf of the Free Church Temperance Society.

Mr THOMSON of Banchory moved the adoption of the Report. Considering the very limited time of the House, and the business on the table still to be disposed of, and especially the very able manner in which the cause of temperance has been advocated by the Convener of the Committee, he would only occupy the Assembly for a few moments. As a county magistrate, he begged to bear the strongest testimony to the mischiefs arising from intemperance, and the importance of using every means of repressing so enormous an evil. He was firmly persuaded that nine-tenths of the immorality, nine-tenths of the crime of the country, and nine-tenths of the pauperism, had their origin wholly and exclusively in the habits of intemperance which prevail among us. These are enormous social evils-they are sapping the foundations of society and good order; and yet these are not the worst of the effects of drunkenness. As a Church, we must look with far deeper feelings to the thousands in our land who yearly go down to a drunkard's tomb, without a reasonable hope for eternity. This is the right view of the matter which, as a Church, ought ever to be before us. If he might presume to offer his advice, he would say specially to the pastors of country congregations, speaking from his own knowledge, that they would find that their hands would be strengthened a hundred-fold in dealing with their people, if they only saw it their duty to join the temperance movement, and go among their flocks as avowed total abstainers. They would find the work they had so much at heart prospering infinitely more, and he trusted they would carefully ponder the weighty truths addressed to them by the Convener of the Committee. Were this movement but

heartily carried out for a few years by the united exertions of ministers and people, we might yet live to see the reproach of Scotland being the most drunken nation in Europe wiped away, and that for ever. (Applause.)

PROFESSOR LUMSDEN'S PAMPHLET.

The Assembly then took up the petition from Messrs M'Corkle and Hislop anent Professor Lumsden's pamphlet. The petitioners took their seats at the bar.

Professor LUMSDEN requested the permission of the Assembly to make a statement before parties were called.

Mr HISLOP.-I would wish to ask a question in the first instance. The MODERATOR.—I must remind Mr Hislop that this question must be decided by the House.

Mr HISLOP. In regard to the matter of competency

The MODERATOR.-There is no question of competency before the House at all at present. The simple question before the House is whether, before hearing the parties, they will allow Professor Lumsden to make a statement.

Professor GIBSON.-With all deference, and with every anxiety to hear Professor Lumsden, and to put him in the most favourable position, I am afraid that this is too late. Mr Hislop is a member of the House; and if he is not allowed to state his case from the bar, he must be brought back as a member of the House, and allowed to give his opinion on the proposal.

Dr SMYTH. I think Professor Lumsden may give us such a statement as may preclude the necessity of any statement from the bar at all, and I do respectfully suggest that this House should hear Professor Lumsden.

Mr TRAILL, Glasgow.-The question of competency, we were distinctly told, was reserved, and if Professor Lumsden is not to be heard, I shall claim my right to raise that question; and, therefore, to say that we are to have the permission of the parties at the bar to hear a statement from Professor Lumsden, would put me in a position which I would not like to occupy. I therefore think most decidedly with Dr Smyth, that it would be a simple act of courtesy to Professor Lumsden, in the circumstances, to hear him first; and I am hopeful, besides, that the statement will be such that I shall be saved the disagreeable duty of raising the question of competency, or that we may have to hear the parties.

Professor GIBSON.-May I be allowed to explain my position? My position simply was this:-I think an objection was made to Mr Hislop being heard at all. (Cries of "No, no.") If Mr Hislop is to be allowed to speak as a member of the House, and not to be considered as a party at the bar not entitled to speak, that is a different question; but I think that Mr Hislop, as a member of the House, should be allowed to say whether or not he consents before the matter be summarily closed.

Mr WILSON said, Mr Hislop stood on the same footing as any other member of the House.

Mr HISLOP.-I only wish to say, that I have no objections at all on my part to Professor Lumsden making any statement that he may choose to make. (Hear, hear.) I have to say the same for my friend Mr M'Corkle.

It was then agreed to hear Professor Lumsden.