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 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 refused 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.

37.--Memoir of Mrs. Sarah Louisa Taylor, or an Illustration of the work of the Holy Spirit in awakening, renewing, and sanctifying the heart. By Lor JONES, A. M., Missionary, &c. NewYork: Published by John S. Taylor. 1838. 12mo. pp. 324.

THE memoirs of Mrs. Taylor, we should judge, will not be particularly interesting to the religious public at large. The incidents of her life are nowise noteworthy; and the history of her "religious experience," and the record of her sentiments and feelings in the earlier part of her life-though not, as in many books of this class, unsound, exaggerated, or morbid—are still sufficiently commonplace. We think Mr. Jones would have made a much more interesting and edifying book, by curtailing the earlier, and enlarging the latter part of the memoir.

As it is, however, whoever will read the work will receive a salutary impression from contemplating the character of a truly excellent woman, of superior endowments, and a faithful and exemplary piety. They will also derive a high impression of the affectionate fidelity of Mr. Jones, in the discharge of his peculiarly responsible duties as a city missionary in the service of the Church. We do not mean that he exalts himself: we mean that there is that sort of indirect evidence of his fidelity, which is the stronger from the simplicity and unconsciousness of the author.

NOTE. There are a number of books still before us for extended review, or briefer notice. They include several published during the last quarter, and some of previous publication. Many of these relate to subjects of great interest and importance; and we hope to do them full justice in our next number. Our readers will perceive, that we have in this number approached more nearly than before, to a fulfilment of our intention of making this article, a complete critical survey of noticeable current publications. We shall aim to realize our ideal still more completely in the succeeding numbers. In the meantime we wish to say that the maxims which govern us are: first, the judgments of this article shall be pronounced only upon a thorough examination of the works: secondly, upon literary principles, unaffected by any personal considerations: and, thirdly, from a high moral stand-point.

THE

NEW YORK REVIEW.

No. VI.

OCTOBER, 1838.

ART. I.-History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times; or a concise Account of the means by which the Genuineness and Authenticity of Ancient Historical Works are ascertained; with an Estimate of the Comparative Value of the Evidence usually adduced in Support of the Claims of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. By ISAAC TAYLOR. London: 8vo. pp. 256.

It is not our intention to enter into any analysis of the volume above named, which is well enough of its kind, though not very original, nor profound, nor meant to be. Availing ourselves of the privilege of our craft, we shall simply use the title as a starting point for some observations we are about to offer on ancient writing and its materials, and the preservation and transmission of books before the invention of the art of printing;-a subject, not without interest, considered absolutely in itself, and especially. as viewed in connexion, or rather contrast, with modern discoveries and improvements.

The extensive diffusion of the means of knowledge and intellectual gratification, the result of the multiplication of copies of books by the use of moveable types, is an advantage enjoyed at the present day, to the full value of which its very commonness renders us in a manner insensible. Books are now easy of access. They find their way into the humblest dwelling, proving themselves emphatically the poor man's friend; elevating alike his