&c. in niches. I have got an old suit of armour, cap, &c.—this, with a plume of black feathers, will make it look like the Castle of Otranto. I have not had a scrape of a pen from Pinkerton for two years, what he is about I know not. We expect Lady Buchan and Miss Frazer to stay some time with us; my Lord was to have been of the party, but is engaged on business. My friends, in different parts of the south, have been very attentive to my pursuit. Last week I received a large box from Bristol, with some curious petrifactions, among them a cornua amonis, eighteen inches diameter, these are now perfectly ascertained to be a shell-fish, and not a lusus naturæ, as formerly believed, some of the clam shells are very pretty, quite whole, and, I daresay, if sawed through, would shew the animal. I expect another box from Oxford with a great variety, and some painted glass. Large as this house is, I can scarcely find room, although I am every day wishing for more articles.

I lately had a digging in St Oswy's Chapple in Tynemouth,-it had been ransacked before, but found the skeleton of one of the ancient Earls of Percy under a thick oak floor; there was a large piece of a freeze of a pillar evidently made of composition at the feet. I have been every day resolving to search further, but something or other always comes in the way. I am convinced a great deal may yet be discovered, although I am informed much has been got, even valuable silver things which had been buried. I would have sent you a drawing of the sword, also of St Cuthbert's spur, but I met with an accident in my right hand, which makes me write this with the utmost difficulty. I shall hope to hear often from you, and you may depend I shall write any thing which occurs, with compliments to all friends. I remain, dear sir, yours sincerely,

A. M. LAWSON.

4. Letter from Gilbert Stuart, LL.D. to Mr George Paton.

DEAR SIR,

(No place or date.)

I duly received your letter and parcel, and am much indebted to you for both. Your offer about the lay-sermons is infinitely obliging, and I shall be happy to have them with your earliest conveni

ence.

As to the Edinburgh Magazine, I am at present so exceedingly busy, that I have not time to look into it. But I shall be happy to have a peep at it, when less engaged. Do me the favour to think of the matter I ventured to propose to you. In a little time I shall look out the papers and send them. I am always, with real regard, dear sir, your obedient servant,

GILBERT STUART.

• What the proposal was does not appear, this being the only letter by Stuart preserved in the Paton Collection.

SIR,

5. Letters from Baron Clerk* to James Anderson, Esq.†

I HAVE the favour of yours, and have written to my Lord Chief Baron and Baron Scroope in your behalf. I doubt not but they will be very ready to give a very favourable character of you, and to assist you all they can. I shall be always glad to assist a man of your merite, so far as it lyes in my power; and I wish you may not make your journie in vain, considering that my Lord Treasurer and the court is now, and will be for some time, engaged in the weightiest things that ever were before them; but no doubt you will take the opportunity of applying to them on proper occasions, though I am of opinion, that if there be a fair prospect of peace, you will succeed better. I wish you a good journie, and am, Sir, your affectionate friend and humble servant,

Can: 1. Aprile, (N. Y.)

To Mr Anderson at Edinburgh.

SIR,

JOHN CLERK.

RECEIVE the two inclosed letters which I promised to you. I wish with all my heart they may have a good effect. Pray let not your sone forget to take along with him memorials of your case, and the report that was made for you.§ At another time I'll send for Campbell's Architecture; but not till I come in myself. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

JOHN CLERK.

* Sir John Clerk, the second Baronet of Pennycuik, a man of tolerable attainment. The Clerks raised themselves in the world by persevering industry. The first of the family, William Clerk, was a tradesman in Montrose; John, his son, came to Edinburgh, and having realized in trade a considerable sum, purchased the estate of the Pennycuiks of that ilk in 1647. His son, (a burgess of Edinburgh,) was the first Baronet.

The editor of the Historical Collections relative to Queen Mary, and that most valuable work, the "Diplomata Scotia ;" and author of the "Historical Essay, shewing that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland is Imperial and Independent." Of recommendation probably.

§ In a letter to one of his patrons, of which a copy has been preserved, (but which is not addressed,) the following account of his situation occurs: "I hope your honor will see what hardship I and poor family lye under, specially by loss of an employment, which, in all probability, I might have provided handsomely for them; and now, in effect, their and my all is in the hands of the public, and the having of my affair settled upon any sure foundation, would give a most seasonable reliefe, and make me finish the work with pleasure." The employment alluded to, was that of Post-Master-General, of which he was unexpectedly deprived. His love of Scotch antiquities induced him to sacrifice a very profitable and respectable business as a Writer to the Signet. The office of Post-Master-General, which might have afforded some compensation, was taken from him, and he died, though not in absolute poverty, yet in very straitened circumstances. His magnificent "Diplomata Scotiæ," the only national work, (except Sleizer's Theatrum,) of which, till recently, Scotland had to boast, was, from want of patronage, left unfinished, and, but for the zeal of the amiable and learned Ruddiman, might still have remained so.

SIR,

BEING a little in a hurry, I have only time to return you thanks for your offer. I shall consider of it; and want not inclination but ability to go through with it. I have a great family to provide for; and so I fancy I have the same reasone to forbear setting up for a library that you have for disposing of one. I am always yours,

JOHN CLERK.

THE BROKEN HEART. (Anonymous.)

(From an unpublished work, entitled "Illustrations of the Genius of the Modern British Bards;" a work that includes a numerous list of Poets and Poetesses, whose productions, though now as little known to the public as if they had never existed, occasionally display beauties of the highest order.)

He seem'd to love her, and her youthful cheek
Wore for a while the transient bloom of joy;

And her heart throbb'd with joys she could not speak,
New to delight, and mute to ecstacy.

He won that heart in its simplicity,

All undisguised in its young tenderness;

And, smiling, saw that he, and only he,

Had power at once to wound it, or to bless.

She gave to him her innocent affection,

And the warm feelings of a guileless breast;
And from the storms of life she sought protection
In his dear love, her home of early rest
In this sweet trust her opening days were blest,
And joyously she hailed her coming years;

For well she knew, that even if distrest,

There would be one kind hand to dry her tears.

He left her--and in trouble she awoke

From her young dream of bless; but murmured not
Over her silent sufferings, nor spoke

To any one upon her cruel lot.

You would have deemed that he had been forgot,
Or thought her bosom callous to the stroke;
But on her cheek there was one hectic spot,
'Twas little, but it told her heart was broke.
And deeper and more deep the painful flush
Daily became; yet all distress seemed o'er,
Save where the life-blood gave a sudden rush,
Then "trembled into silence as before."
At once too proud, too humble to deplore,

She bowed her head in quietness.-She knew
Her blighted prospects could revive no more;
Yet she was calm, for she had Heaven in view.
She loved, and she forgave him—and in dying

She ask'd a blessing on his future years ;
And so she went to sleep; meekly relying

Upon that Power which shall efface all tears.
Her simple turf the young spring floweret wears,
And the pale primrose grows upon her tomb;
And when the storm its little blossom tears,
It bows its head-an emblem of her doom.

ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.

HOPE PARK CHAPEL.

Ar a meeting of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, on the 28th October, the question about Hope Park Chapel was resumed. Mr Cockburn appeared for Mr Lockhart, and the Dean of Faculty for the Kirk Session of St Cuthbert's. Mr Cockburn gave a very clear detail of the circumstances of the case from the record of the kirk-session. It thence appeared that the kirk-session, in whom the nomination of minister of Hope Park Chapel was vested by the constitution which the General Assembly had given it, had passed a resolution some months ago, by which they agreed to nominate Mr Lockhart, provided he should be acceptable to the congregation. This resolution was intimated to the nominee, who preached; and measures were taken to ascertain the sense of the congregation-the final result of which (without entering into the details) was that of about 1000 sitters, 501 were for Mr Lockhart-203 did not wish him—and the remainder were non liquet. Setting aside this dead weight, therefore, it was clear that Mr Lockhart had a decided majority in his favour, which would have warranted the session to pass an act of election in terms of their previous resolution. But some new doubts had begun to operate among them; and after two other persons were brought forward for the critical judgment of the congregation, and turned to the right about, the session found a Mr Runciman acceptable to a greater proportion of the people than had indicated favour for Mr Lockhart at the previous scrutiny.—The session felt itself at liberty to throw aside all the proceedings about Mr Lockhart ; and, as if there had been no impediment created thereby, they nominated Mr Runciman to be minister to this chapel; and the minute of his appointment, with the requisite bond for his stipend, were laid before the presbytery, with a view to his induction. Against this Mr Lockhart petitioned the Presbytery-and Mr Cockburn, in his behalf, contended that the kirk-session were debarred, by the earlier proceedings in favour of Mr Lockhart, from nominating Mr Runciman or any other person. The Dean of Faculty maintained that the church courts were incompetent to controul the session in the exercise of the patronage with which they were invested; that this could only be done in a civil court: and that in all they had done for a settlement of this chapel, the session had acted fairly in the exercise of a discretion with which they were intrusted. The argument on both sides was maintained with the usual ingenuity of the counsel. And after the parties were removed, Dr Inglis, while he stated, in very strong terms, his opinion that Mr Lockhart had been very ill used, and made a motion for delay, in order that that gentleman might seek redress (if so advised) by a civil process, intimated his acquiescence in a doctrine on which we must take the liberty of making a few observations; and this perhaps is more strongly called for, as Dr Brunton expressed his concurrence, and other members of Presbytery appeared to unite in his views of the case. -Our humble opinions in a matter of this kind are doubtless of little weight when opposed to those of so able and respectable a churchman as Dr Inglis; yet we may possibly throw out some remarks which will awaken deliberate inquiry into the principles involved in the case before it be finally disposed of in the Presbytery.

case.

The Dean of Faculty's main plea from the bar was, that this was not an ecclesiastical but a civil question ;—and all Dr Inglis's speech proceeded upon a concession of this dogma. Now it humbly appears to us that the very reverse of this is the The question is one peculiarly and exclusively ecclesiastical, with which, in its present aspect at least, the civil courts have no concern, and for the consideration of which they have no competent jurisdiction. The notion that it is a civil question arises from the hypothesis that the right of presentation conferred on the Kirk Session is equivalent to a right of patronage as enjoyed by a lay patron under the statute law of the land. But this is an entire mistake. The right of patronage enjoyed by corporations or by individuals is undoubtedly a civil right, because it is so declared in acts of Parliament to that effect; and therefore any question as to such civil right can only be decided by the courts of civil law. But the privilege of presentation of ministers in chapels of ease, conferred by the General Assembly on Kirk Sessions, heads of families, &c. has no such sanction. There is no act of ParVOL. II.

Ff

liament, and no decision of a court of law, by which such a doctrine is supported. On the contrary, the whole policy respecting chapels of ease is referable to an ecclesiastical law by which the erections of such cures are regulated, namely, the 5th act of Assembly 1798. The erection of chapels of ease and the government of them is a prerogative assumed by the Church, with which neither the legislature nor civil Courts have ever interfered. It is purely and entirely a matter of ecclesiastical ar rangement; and the power of electing preachers in these chapels has none of the cha racteristics of that civil right of patronage with which it has been confounded. It is not like that right held by charter and sasine. It is not transmissable to heirs or singular successors; but is an ecclesiastical trust, created by the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the country, and is exercised under the immediate superintendence and controul of the church judicatories. It might with equal truth be maintained, that the spiritual functions of inferior church courts and their multiplied blunders in the exercise of them are cognizable only in the civil courts; for these and the erection and government of chapels of ease emanate from the same source, namely, the acts of the Church itself. It appears to us to be the most gratuitous and unwarranted assumption to assimilate the spiritual power of electing a minister to a chapel of ease, to the right of patronage of the temporallies of benefices; for that is the utmost extent to which rights of patronage are carried. There is in truth no affinity, scarcely the shadow of an analogy betwixt the two cases; and it is altogether inconceivable upon what ground such a hypothesis as that under view can be rested; for, though we heard the dogma both from the bar and in the Presbytery, we heard no authority or principle referred to in support of it.

Our objection then goes to the root of this case; and our view of the matter is supported by the practice of the Assembly, and inferior courts acting as the superintendents of chapels of ease, created by their own laws, and not by the municipal statute or consuetudinary law. Dr Thomson referred to a case from Aberdeen, which we recollect distinctly, in which the Assembly reversed the proceedings of the electors in a chapel acting under the constitution given them by the Assembly-decided betwixt competing presentations—and instructed the electors as to their procedure; and so far as we recollect, there was not a doubt thrown out in any quarter as to its competency to do so. We have no doubt other cases will be found on the Assembly's record of similar interference; and with this case alone before us, it is quite unnecessary to enter into the abstract point referred to in the debate, whether or not a constituent authority has also a power of controul over the creatures of its own will. We have not a shadow of doubt, that if any set of persons who may be invested with the management of a chapel were to violate its constitution in any essential particular, it would be competent to the Assembly to abolish such chapel altogether; and we humbly maintain that the doctrine is altogether untenable, that in this case the question is civil and not ecclesiastical.

If this be correct, then, the course is clear. Dr Inglis says, and says most truly, that the kirk-session of St Cuthbert's have come under a moral obligation, and have done wrong in not fulfilling it; and this is enough, we presume, to infer, ecclesiastically speaking, that they have incurred a legal obligation which they ought still to fulfil. It will not do to get quit of the case by pushing Mr Lockhart into a civil process. Neither is it relevant to talk of the pecuniary considerations by which the session may have been actuated. A moral, and therefore in a church court, a legal obligation, has been incurred by this session, which the Presbytery has power and undoubted jurisdiction to enforce; and whatever be Mr Lockhart's merits or demerits (of which we know nothing,) the Presbytery is bound to remit to the session to implement their solemn engagements to that gentleman. Unless they do so, they will relinquish a salutary power of controul over all chapels of ease; they will leave these establishments without any other government than the caprices of the juntos by which these may be managed; and they will do an act of flagrant injustice to an individual who evidently has no other means of redress-except such means as are too precarious and costly to be available to him or any other person similarly circumstanced.*

At a meeting of the Presbytery, held on 25th curt. a letter from Mr Lockhart was given in, intimating his respectful acquiescence in the decision of the Presbytery.