is opened by him. He reads the announcement, and indicates the purpose of the meeting. He introduces the several speakers as their claims give right. Every speech must either relate to a motion made or to be made, or to an amendment proposed or about to be proposed. Every motion must be in real and verbal harmony with the purpose of the meeting. (Indeed, the desirable motions, as they think, are in general prepared beforehand by the promoters of the meeting, and arrangements made for their advocacy.) It must also be in the form of an affirmation; for people meet to make affirmations, not to exhaust all possible negatives on the matter before them. When this motion has been written out, and handed to the chairman, signed by the mover, and has been properly seconded and endorsed by the person who does so, the chairman ought to read, or get read, the original motion, and before putting it to the vote, pause to allow of the appearance of any dissentient who may be desirous of moving an amendment, which also must be couched in the affirmative form. If any amendment or amendments be offered and seconded, it or they are to be handed to the chairman, in writing, signed and endorsed as was the original motion, and each should be read to the meeting as it was written and handed up.

In taking the votes, the proper order of business is to commence with the amendment last made, and having had it properly read in the hearing of the assembly, to take the votes distinctly, in definite "ayes" and "noes" respectively, on it ;-then to pass on to the previously made ones, in reverse order, till the original motion is reached, -taking the votes regarding each in the same way. The most convenient way of taking the votes is by a show of hands. When the majority is palpable to any eye, the hands are never counted. When the appearance indicates a near parity, the chairman should either count them himself, as visibly and audibly as possible, or, with the approval of the meeting, appoint tellers. The most expedient way of appointing tellers is, in general, to nominate to that duty the mover of the amendment for the "ayes," and of the previous amendment or the original motion for the "noes." Sometimes the respective seconders are put on as checks to their principals, the seconder of the motion checking off the "ayes" for the amendment, and vice versâ. The votes may also be taken by the audience crossing the room to separate sides for "aye" and "no" respectively, or by audible reply on the calling of a roll,indeed in any way that affords a true and satisfactory guage and test of the opinion of those present.

As soon as one motion and its incidental amendments, if any, have been regularly and thoroughly disposed of, another should be proceeded with if requisite or advisable. No subsequent motion or amendment ought to be put by the chairman of a meeting which contradicts or implies a contradiction nominally or really of the motion or amendment previously adopted, for that would be tantamount to the stultifying of the whole proceedings,-would be, in fact, to ask the meeting formally to record its disagreement with

that to which it had already agreed. The same procedure is to be adopted with each motion and its amendments, as was advised for the first. Immediately upon the pronouncing of the dismissal of the meeting, some person-usually agreed upon beforehand— ought to propose a vote of thanks to the chairman "for his conduct in the chair." It is not essential that this vote should be concurred in by the meeting, which has a perfect right to record its disapprobation or censure of the chairman by withholding the vote asked. Silence will tell with emphasis that the meeting is dissatisfied with his share in the proceedings. If approved of, the chairman is entitled to return thanks in the briefest possible terms. The rights and duties of the public.-The public have a right to timely, explicit, straightforward, and sufficiently widely-circulated information regarding any intended meeting-to fair and impartial admission, on the terms and at the time specified, to the meeting till the place is fully occupied, and packing a meeting is in no case justifiable; for then it is holding a meeting under false pretences. If any specific set is wanted to attend, that ought to be honestly announced, and not manoeuvringly managed. The public have also the right-unless otherwise arranged-to choose a chairman; to insist upon courtesy and fair play from him and to him; to make their voice and will heard upon the matter under consideration, whether it is accordant with or discordant from the views of the promoters; to give an attentive hearing to, and to demand respectful address from, each several speaker who keeps to the point, and "has anything to say " tending towards the elucidation of the question. It is, however, neither bound to listen to bores, egotists, dreamers, or schemers. It is often unnecessary for it to submit to addresses from known partisans-especially if there are others ready to be heard. They have the right, too, of voting, and of seeing that the votes are honestly and correctly taken. It is the duty of the public to attend. Every public meeting is, in reality, representative. It is a gauge and test of the interest, intelligence, and opinion of the locality in which it is held. Indifference to any vital interest of the body corporate indicates degradation and selfishness. Yet zealous partisans, by dexterous manoeuvring, make this very indifference act more effectively in promoting their own designs than people imagine. Every public meeting is also a culture. It affords opportunities for thought and action, with the responsibilities of action. It is never right in the public to receive passively the thoughts of some one else; it is their duty to exercise their own. Effective thinking cannot be done by proxy. Every member of a public meeting ought to regard himself as in some measure acting for the public interest, and, therefore, in the truest sense a representative. As a representative, he is bound to be honest and just. Public meetings, as means of nourishing public spirit, developing general intelligence, accustoming men to think as men responsible for their thoughts, and their results, deserve more attention than is usually given to them. If at each, men would

perform their duties, and maintain their rights, they would receive 3 beneficial mental discipline, and learn to govern themselves; acquire facility in conducting public business, and prepare themselves for taking part in other and more important public duties and offices.

We have, of course, spoken in this paper of public meetings properly so called; i. e., as hereinbefore defined. There are many socalled public meetings which are entire misnomers. Such meetings may be open to the public, but they have not a public object in view, nor are the public allowed to share in the proceedings. Meetings of electors favourable to some special candidate, of parliamentary or municipal voters pledged to one interest, of promoters of class-views, or of social or civic propagandists of any sort; meetings of sections of the religious world, ostensibly open to all, yet well known to be managed, manœuvred, and sure to be packed; meetings of a locally agitating nature, open like a net to catch the unwary, and implicate them in the schemes of the stirrers up of strifes, and many others of a similar sort. We do not, of course, here speak of meetings of social, civic, religious, or local reformers, who clearly state their object and define their views, inviting the public to consider them; nor of meetings of sects, parties, institutions, associations, societies, unions, clubs, &c., who ask the public to listen to their schemes and themes-for these, by their express form, cease to be included in public meetings properly so called. Yet a very large proportion of the rules laid down regarding assemblies open to the whole body of the people, to become art and part in the carrying on of the business, and to share in its consideration and success, is applicable also to those smaller sections of the public to whom invitations may be given. In all, the order and laws of business are alike; in many, the forms for the election of a chairman, and the method of performing his duties, are similar; in some, the speakers and the public are allowed a somewhat similar latitude. And, indeed, the more nearly they resemble in constitution and course of procedure the public meeting, the more likely are they to commend themselves to the common sense and acceptance of the public. In all, the prime requisites are justice, order, good faith, despatch of business, free discussion, and effective results.

We do not pretend to have made an exhaustive survey of the whole field of possible teaching regarding "public meetings, and how to conduct them." The difficulty, and the newness of the attempt herein made, may form apologies for those defects and imperfections which may be found in this article. Such as it is, this paper has been the result of close observation, patient noting of facts, and a desire to bring both to the test of close reasoning. The writer hopes that it may be received with indulgence for his object, viz., that the method of procedure at public meetings may be, in some degree, explained, enforced, and unified, and that those who frequent them may know what ought to be done at them, and how it ought to be done.

S. N.

Religion.

ARE THE PREVALENT FORMS OF WORSHIP IN
BRITAIN EFFECTIVE?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

"For differing forms of worship let zealous bigots fight;
He can't be in the wrong whose heart is in the right."

WE have, in our former paper, argued that the prevalent forms of worship in Britain are effective, because each church recognizes, as a chief element of all public service in the house of God, prayer and praise; and in proportion as this prayer and praise is truthful and sincere, the blessing of God has rested upon the churches, evidence of which is shown by their "increase in numbers respectively, and by their active piety and benevolence, a condition altogether unparalleled in any other part of the world." Our reply might be closed here without further remark, so far as the arguments of our opponents are concerned, since no phase of our argument has been disproved, nor even assailed with any degree of success. We, however, owe it to our readers as a duty to show the fallacies and erratic flights of our opponents, and, still further, to justify our own opinions, that they may be firmly fixed as truths in the hearts of all earnest thinking men through the length and breadth of the land.

It may be said by captious competitors that our theory may be fine, fair-sounding, and attractive to the sensationalism-loving people of the British isles, but it is unsubstantial, dream-like, as unreal as the patent ghost, and equally unprofitable, to individual piety as to public good. It may be so. Possibly we are mistaken in our views, and wisdom may die with them, while we blunder blindly on in our ignorance. However, facts are stubborn things, and we are over fond of facts from their very stubbornness; we shall follow out our predilection for them, and produce one which, we think, proves, more than all we could say, the truthfulness of our affirmation. Our hope is that it may be well received by our opponents, and prove as effective in changing their present views as it is truthful in itself.

To judge of the efficiency of a spiritual act or acts, such as prayer and praise, we must seek some fruit, some outgrowing in the life, springing from the inward germ in the heart, the connection of which must not only be apparent, but must be certain, palpable, and powerful.

In the "Report on Religious Worship" made by Horace Mann, based on the census of 1851, in p. 65, et seq., referring to the supply of increased accommodation for religious worship, he states fairly the difficulties of obtaining absolute results in his deductions, but concludes that the sources of variation from absolute certainty may, with tolerable accuracy, be considered to counterbalance each other, and although mathematical accuracy is not to be attained, real truth is obtained. He states the increase of the population and of accommodation in Table 5, p. 66, from which we extract the following figures:

Rate of Increase, between the periods, of Population and Sittings respectively.

From this it will be seen that from 1801 to 1821 the population increased in greater proportion than the accommodation for religious worship, and as these are the oldest data to which we have access, we may fairly presume that such was the state of things previous to 1801 also; but from 1821 to 1851, accommodation for religious worship increased more rapidly than the population. It is a fact well known to every person of thoughtfulness and religious activity, that, during the latter period, the active development of freer forms of public worship has taken place; these freer forms include a large proportion of the worshippers in Britain, and, therefore, they occupy a prominent position amidst the prevalent forms of worship. The development here referred to is characterized by a greater intensity of individual interest in the worship. Worship has been individualized; the general, the formal has given place to the individual, the personal; hence the mutual relation is discovered between the larger proportional increase of worshippers and population, and the effectiveness of the prevalent forms of worship. Further argument, more conclusive evidence, or more stubborn facts cannot be needed to establish our affirmation.

We proceed to notice a few of the inconsistencies and fallacies of our opponents. M. H. opens with the false assumption that worship include devotion and instruction,-how it is possible to include instruction i worship, we are at a loss to know. Worship is the act of the soul informed of its wants, seeking supplies in faith from its God, the act of a soul overwhelmed with the magnitude and number of God's good gifts of mercy and love, pouring out itself in humble yet joyous gratitude before the throne of His glory,-the act of a soul trusting in God for pardon and salvation through 1863.