are excessively fond of rant-particularly arbitrary with their servants, or unusually dogmatical in opinion, invariably profess democracy; and we were amused in one respect, to see this so strongly testified on the pannel before us."

From the second passage, we take a valuable hint on the subject of charity schools; it is as follows:

"Mr. Bolton, who died lately at Bowness, has bequeathed funds for the erection of a magnificent charity school, which is rising up here like Aladdin's palace, on so splendid a scale, that I supposed it was a handsome new hotel in progress. Boys belonging to the inferior ranks in life must become sadly unfit for enduring the lowly roof and humble aspect of their parents' homes, when accustomed to the spacious proportions and brilliantly lighted apartments of such a 'pauper palace' as this. No wonder that discontent and insubordination arise in after life, when young men become reduced from all the ease and splendor of a wealthy hospital, to their original level, beneath a thatched roof, and on a clay floor."

Mr. Carter deserves praise for the excellent moral character of the books which issue from his press, and we should like to see some more extensive publishers following his example.

34.-Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, Bart. By J. G. LOCKHART. Part seventh and last. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard.

THIS work, the deep interest of which has made its protracted publication doubly tedious, is at last completed. The seventh volume describes the closing scenes of Scott's life, the rapid decay of his physical and mental powers, the publications of his last novels, his travels in Italy and Germany, and his last return to the land which he had so loved, to the now desolate home which he was never again to leave.

It is mournful to see the prostration and decay of such powers of intellect and feeling, as are disclosed in this volume; and scarcely less mournful to see how, when almost every other characteristic trait of his mind had disappeared, its restless activity still remained, to urge him to tasks he was no longer able to perform, and to deprive him of the repose upon which rested his only hope of recovery. He continued to write, in spite of the remonstrances of his friends, until the pen dropped from the trembling hand which could no longer guide it, and the last fatal stroke deprived him of every thing but life.

There are few tasks more difficult than that which the biographer of a great man imposes upon himself, and perhaps none which, if well fulfilled, are more highly rewarded. But to the biographer of Scott the undertaking, if a laborious, was not a painful one. Many of those who have astonished or benefitted mankind, may be compared to persons bearing a dark lantern, who throw light upon every object except themselves. The man and the author are often so widely different, that we sometimes fear almost to be

made acquainted with the one, lest it, should diminish our respect for the other. Mr. Lockhart appears to have drawn the character of Scott with an uncommon degree of fidelity and impartiality; his greatest merit is, perhaps, that he thoroughly understood and appreciated his subject. He has presented us with a picture neither too cold nor too highly colored.

We cannot here go into an analysis of the personal character of Scott, any more than of his works, and their literary and moral influence. This we hope to do at large. We now simply remark, that Scott's was in many respects a nature most finely and happily organized; and whatever faults and foibles there were in him-judged from a high religious point of view, yet there has seldom been a person-perhaps never a distinguished literary man of genius-in whose character were united so many qualities to command at once admiration and affection. His heart and his head seem to have been naturally in fine proportion to each other. He was benevolent and honorable. His bitterest enemy-if he ever had an enemycould never have accused him of a single mean or little action in the course of his life.

35.-1. The Law of Honor. A Discourse, occasioned by the recent Duel in Washington; delivered in the Chapel of Harvard University, &c. By HENRY WARE, Jun., Professor in the University, Cambridge: pp. 24.

2. A Sermon addressed to the Second Presbyterian Congregation in Albany, March 4, 1838, the Sabbath after intelligence was received that the Hon. Jonathan Cilley, Member of Congress from Maine, had been murdered in a Duel with the Hon. William J. Graves, member from Kentucky. By WILLIAM B. SPRAGUE, D. D. Albany: pp. 15.

THESE are two excellent discourses, among the many, we believe, that were called forth by the duel at Washington last winter. The discourse of Mr. Ware, in particular, we strongly recommend― the views are sound, and the tone manly and able; and the cause of truth and virtue is eloquently enforced.

It was our wish and intention to have presented a thorough and minute analysis of the facts in evidence, in relation to the late duel, the causes and circumstances of the event, and the proceedings had thereon in Congress, that our readers might have before them a complete, as well as clear, view of the whole merits of the case, and of the conduct of all parties in any way connected with that guilty and melancholy transaction. But from unexpected and unavoidable circumstances we have been obliged to forego our purpose; and we regret it the more deeply, because we believe that the influence of party spirit, and of a profligate party press, have

on both hands contributed to pervert the truth, and the moral sense of the community.

A great crime has been committed- -a crime against all law, human and divine-a crime, too, neither required nor sanctioned by the very code under which it was perpetrated. The code of honor is the most absurd of all fantastic codes; by a wretched misnomer it involves, or at least allows, a perversion of one of the noblest sentiments of human nature. We agree with Frederick the Great, in his declaration: "I despise," said he, "the arguments of those who seek to justify it." But this was a most unjustifiable murder-perpetrated needlessly even according to that essentially ridiculous, and potentially cowardly, mode of settling difficulties among civilized men and gentle

men.

The crime, in this case, moreover, is peculiarly aggravated by being committed in violation of one of the most vital principles of a free government: we mean the INVIOLABILITY of a legislative body, and of every member of the same -as being, under the sovereign Constitution, the representatives of that SOVEREIGNTY which originally resides in the People, not merely as a RIGHT which they may exercise or not at their caprice, or in any manner that caprice may prompt- but as a SACRED DUTY, which is their right only so far as the people themselves perform their duty as responsible representatives of the majestic Supremacy of that LAW of Justice and Order whose original seat is the bosom of God-the source of eternal rectitude.

One reason we had for wishing to take up this subject in a. thorough and extended view, is, that we thought it a good occasion for setting forth what we apprehend to be the true doctrine concerning the "privileges" of members of Congress-its foundation, sacredness, and importance. It is possible we may, in a future number, recall the attention of our readers to this subject.

In the meantime, we cannot but express, as briefly as possible, the impression which an impartial study of the facts in evidence has produced upon our mind.

The guilt of Cilley's murder lies, in the first instance and most heavily on WEBB; that is to say, if his note was a hostile message, or intended to bring on a duel, of which there can be but little doubt, except on grounds that would be repelled by Webb himself. Besides, the atrocious letter of Morell and Jackson-scarcely less atrociously published in justification of Webb-leaves little room for doubt. The guilt must next fall on Graves and his friends, though there does not appear from the evidence before the committee of investigation, nor from any other quarter, the least color of pretence for the charge of a "conspiracy," put forth in such an unprincipled manner for base party purposes by a profligate party press. At the same time Graves needlessly challenged Cilley, even according to the code under which he acted.

And as to Cilley - his whole conduct, from the first, when he made the remarks which occasioned the duel, down to the time when he decided to accept Graves's challenge, appears not only unexceptionable, but truly dignified. Would he had nobly refu sed to fight with anybody! Then, if disgraced in the opinion of fools, or assaulted or assassinated, he would have indeed been a "martyr.' As it was, he violated all his obligations as a man and a representative, in accepting the challenge, as much as Graves did in sending it; though, if sincere in his declaration of his grounds and motives, there is much more to extenuate his conduct than that of Graves and his friends. We say, if sincere; for we confess there are some things in the circumstances of the case, to make us fear that in the eye of his Maker, there was a point of time when a murderous intention, born of his own suggestion, or of his friends', took possession of his mind. We would not dare be positive; we can not but doubt. The practisings with the rifle before accepting the challenge the nature of the note which led to the challenge-the choice of the weapons, &c., &c., are circumstances that make against Cilley in a moral estimate of his intentions.

Finally, as to the conduct of the parties on the field. We have no language here to express our reprobation and abhorrence of the whole procedure. It was throughout barbarous, and unjustifiable by the rules of the very law under which they acted. If we were staunch advocates-as we are despisers and loathers of the silly and wicked practice-of duelling, we should say there were almost no terms too unmeasured in which to reprobate the conduct of the seconds on that occasion. To suffer a meeting upon a mere point of form, an etiquette of honour, to proceed to such a murderous conclusion! After the first exchange of shots, the seconds should have compelled their principals to a reconciliation;-had we been in the place of either of them, no second shot should have been fired but through our body. But, as we have said, we despise the code under which they acted; and shall never cease our exertions to promote such an advancement of true civilization, as may render the giving a challenge infamous.

36.-The Voluntary System, a Discourse delivered in St. John's Church, Brooklyn, N. Y., &c. By EVAN M. JOHNSON, Rector. Brooklyn: Arnold and Van Anden. 1838.

THIS discourse presents a sufficiently clear and sensible view of a familiar argument. It has no special claim, however, upon the public attention, and would have been passed over by us without animadversion, but for the following note on page seventh :

"In an article on the present state of the Church of England, in the last New York Review, we were not a little surprised to read the following: page 306. That only one nation (unless the reign of Atheism in France be an exception) has ever yet attempted to do without a formal connexion between Church and State, and in this one case the experiment is but a few years old.' While we join most sincerely with this writer, in the hope that in the attempt to correct abuses, and to restore the doctrines and practice of the primitive church, the friends of that church may be guided by wisdom and moderation; we cannot join in that hankering' after the loaves and fishes' which is manifested so often in this whole article."

It is not perfectly clear what it is precisely in the remark of ours he has quoted, that "surprises" Mr. Johnson. The assertion, we take it, is perfectly true in point of fact, not likely to be questioned by any one competent to judge; nor is it liable, so far as we can perceive, to any inference of a nature to excite "surprise."

Let this, however, pass; it is the latter part of the note to which we take exception, in which Mr. Johnson accuses us of a "hankering after the loaves and fishes" of church establishments.

Now WE, the New York Review, are such a "synodical individual"-(individuum synodicum,) as old Andrew Marvel would say such a manifold passionless personage, that we notice this charge against us less from any special concern it gives us, than for the sake of the principle involved.

We remark, then, that to charge upon another person odious motives or dispositions has, by the consent of mankind, always been considered a grave offence against courtesy, charity, and justice. We have nowhere avowed any such "hankering" — the author of this sermon knew, of course, that the charge would be offensive to us, and repudiated by us. He knew that we should not admit that there is any thing in the article that "manifests" such a "hankering;" therefore, to make such a charge- -to charge us, by an inference of his own from something else which we have expressed, with having certain wrong feelings which we have not expressed, and which he knew we should deny-without any proof, or citations in justification of his opinion, we look'upon as a violation of christian charity and justice.

We regret that the impropriety of making such kind of charges, is too little understood or felt in the religious community. For ourselves, we simply assure the public that, as we believe we know our own feelings best, we disclaim the disposition imputed.