them. Now, in our humble apprehension, their funds are as ample and as extensive as their powers; and if they will select for their churches men of unquestionable talent and piety, intelligence and prudence, gentlemanly manners and extensive erudition, and consult, at the same time, the several congregations in the choice of their Pastor, when they need one, they will find that the churches, with very small rents, will endow themselves, and amply reward the services and labours of their Clergymen, whilst they will keep the population together.

Royal Burghs, in so far as their territorial property extends, are under the same laws of Teinds as landward parishes. For the order and welfare of the community, they are bound to build churches to hold the population;-the fifth of the rental is liable for this. Where a parish consists of Burgh and landward, the rule for defraying the expenses of building, or repairing the churches, was, that land-owners paid their proportion according to their valued rents, and the feuars, or Burgh proprietors of houses, according to their real rents. This was the rule in the cases of Crieff, Campbeltown, St. Andrews, and Forfar, before 1791; but in a later case, that of Peterhead, this rule was set aside as inept; and the House of Lords, reversing the decision of the Court of Session, which proceeded on the above cases, ordered the expense of building the church of Peterhead to be laid on the whole proprietors, whether of land or houses, according to the real rent of each.

Applying this rule to Glasgow, how ample are her funds! Accord ing to Mr Cleland's Statistical Account, the rental of Glasgow, in the years 1822 and 1823, was £.264,120 Sterling. The fifth of this is £.52,824 Sterling. The stipends of the nine Ministers, at £.400 each, is £.3600 ayear, being a mere fraction of this

£.52,824, which may be considered the legal fund, in that city, for the support of the Established Religion.

It is very true, things have been ordered otherwise in Burghs, from time immemorial. The method followed out till about 1710, is stated by Pardovan: He says, some seats are built and repaired at the general charge of the parish, in which all have a common interest;-and there are others which particular Heritors have built for their own use, with consent of the Kirk-Session, or which they have a prescribed right unto, by forty years possession. In several Burghs-Royal within this kingdom, the disposal of all the church seats, at least upon the bounds allotted to them, for their inhabitants, by the Kirk-Session, is thereafter ordered and parcelled out by the Town Council, and burdened with certain yearly sums for a Minister's stipend; and where the seats are disposed upon to Burgesses without that burden, and it be found, that, without it, there cannot be a competent stipend to the Ministers; the dispositions and rights so made, may, no doubt, be reduced on that head; for it was never the intention of the Church Session, who gave these rights, to authorise an absolute alienation of seats, to the obstructing and preventing funds for maintaining the public preaching of God's word *."

With respect to Burghs, three things are stated here; 1st, That the disposal of the seats, in the first instance, was in the Kirk-Session †; 2d, That that portion of them, given over for the use of the inhabitants, was parcelled to them by the Town Council, and burdened with a yearly rent; and, 3d, That there were seats disposed to the Burgesses without that burden; in other words, Burgesses paid no seat-rents, and were liable to none, except when a competent stipend could not otherwise be found.

Applying this to the case of Edinburgh, it is clear that the Burgesses and inhabitants there are not liable to pay rents for church-seats. The burden was imposed for payment of the Ministers' stipends, and now, when their stipends depend, not on the seats, but upon other funds, it is obvious as sunshine, that the operation of this law ceases, in so far, at least, as Edinburgh is concerned; and if so, it is altogether illegal for the Magistrates to levy seat-rents from the citizens. In an able pamphlet "respecting the seat-rents of the churches of the city of Edinburgh, in the question betwixt the KirkSessions and the Magistrates, &c.," the principle, that the Magistrates have a right to exact rent from the sitters, till the original expense of building the church, and all subsequent repairs, have been paid up, is conceded. Now, this principle we cannot admit. The city churches, being built and upheld for the general good of the city, ought to be built and upheld at the general expense, on the same principle that our Courts, Judges, and other officers, are upheld and paid by the State. If any body do not like our Courts of Justice, &c., and would rather chuse arbiters of their own to settle their differences, let them, we challenge neither their judgment, nor condemn their choice; but does this free them from supporting such institutions, so useful and beneficial to the country? So it is with an Established Church and Established Parochial Schools. In innumerable places of the land, no churches or school-houses could be built, and no Ministers and Schoolmasters could be supported, by reason of the poverty of the people; while, in other parts of the country, the people are wealthy, and can provide teachers for them selves but does this exempt them from contributing to the general in struction of the nation, and thereby promoting religion and morality a inong all classes? What would be come of the Highlands of Scotland, and many other places, were it not for parochial churches and parochial schools? Would not the people be sitting in gross darkness, and ignorant of their truest happiness? The outcry of Dissenters against the Established

Church, while they are enjoying substantially its direct benefits, in the security of life, property, and character, and in the general influ ence of knowledge and morality, which she diffuses throughout all ranks in the land, reminds us of the conduct of that moral and amiable class of people, the Quakers, who refuse to support war, and to contribute to the upholding of our fleets and our armies, though, by their deeds of valour, the enemy is kept from their gates, and they are left, amidst the quiet enjoyment of their fortunes, to hear only of wars and rumours of wars at a distance.

The truth is, the principle of contributing to the public good, where our interest is not direct, and where even the thing goes against our individual creed, is an every-day occurrence. The religious or irreligious opinions of the poor do not restrain the hand of charity. The assessment for the Police is not grudged, though our houses and our persons are not attacked; because, in the general protection of the city, our safety is secured. We contribute annually, through the public funds, sums of no small extent, for the education of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland; in which grant, as members of the Church of Scotland, we, in our religious capacity, have no interest, and from which we can be supposed to derive no benefit; and yet these sums are the joint contribution of all the Protestant classes of the community. We contribute, too, for the support of the Presbyterian Dissenters in Ireland, and give annually to their Clergy large sums; yet neither the Church of Scotland nor the Church of England have ever made any invidious objections to all this; but, whenever any contribution is called for to support the Establishment, all the various classes of Dissenters are in arms, though bound to contribute from their lands, as we have seen, as much for the erection of churches in the Establishment, as for the tithes, and the poor-rates, and other public burdens.

Taking it, therefore, as the duty of all religious classes in a burgh or city, whatever their different creeds and persuasions may be, to contribute

to the support of the Established Churches in Royal Burghs, we would have the burden, as it ought, le gally laid upon the feus, whenever churches are to be repaired, or a new church built; and the expenses being thus defrayed in common, let the churches too be common, and free to the inhabitants. Do this, and place in them, as hinted above, men of learning and ability, and instead of empty PEWS, you will have them filled, even to overflowing and again, give to Ministers that just and legitimate influence over the public nind, in matters of religion, which, through a different system, may unhappily be lost, and which may deprive society and the State of those energies that tend to promote good order and the best interests of the community.

We have only farther to observe, that Magistrates, in levying seat rents from the members of the Es tablishment, are taxing them trebly for supplying the revenues of the city, while they tax the other classes of the citizens only once! This is quite evident. 1st, Those who sit in city churches pay all the local taxes, as well as others; 2d, To these they add their collections also on Sunday; and, 3d, The price of their seats year ly. Now, just according to the extent of their collections and seat-rents annually, to that extent are all the other citizens exempted, or eased of the common good. From the tables before us it appears that the amount of the seat-rents of the eleven citychurches in Edinburgh, from Martinmas 1822 to Martinmas 1823, was £.6,359, 2s.; and taking, on a low average, the collections from the same at £.2000 yearly, the two sums will be £.8,359; which sums come wholly out of the pockets of the members of the Establishment, and, being applied to general purposes, just relieve the rest of the citizens to that extent. We can conceive few things more grievous and oppressive than this; for it is, in reality, making the seats in the city-churches a source of revenue, applicable to the general purposes of the Burgh, to the relief of Dissenters, and of all others who attend no church.

In fairness, therefore, we contend that Magistrates have no such power by the constitution of our church, and still less by the original paction, in Edinburgh, of levying seat-rents. According to Forbes, "the disposal of all the church seats," (in Edin burgh,) is ordered by the Town Council, and "the rents appropriated as a partial fund for payment of the Ministers' stipends *." But the Mi nisters' stipends are now paid from other funds; and, therefore, as the cause has ceased, so should the effects. To levy rents for a specific purpose which no longer exists, is truly absurd, though just of a piece with many other transactions of close burghs.

Under this impression, we conclude with the following summary principles:

1st, That to let seats in landward parishes is inconsistent with the first principles of a religious establishment, because, to whatever expense Heritors are put, they are relieved from that expense by the national fund, which, as Trustees for behoof of the parishioners, they hold in their hands, for the special purpose of building and upholding churches, wherein the parishioners may enjoy the benefit of the word and sacrament.

2d, That to call on church members to pay seat-rents, is to reduce them to a level with Dissenters, and to enable the Heritors to derive a double remuneration for the expense of erecting churches; a remuneration, first, from the national fund in their lands, and a remuneration from the seat-rents!-thus creating to themselves one source, at least, of positive and extensive yearly gain, and to which they are not entitled.

3d, That whilst the Acts and Commissions of Parliament command churches to be erected and endowed, that all may have the FREE exercise of religion administered to them, the Court of Session, (Skirving & Young against Vernor, June 21, 1796,) have found, that all tenants and occupiers of the land are universally entitled, as such, to suitable accommodation in parish churches. The idea that Heritors are to be relieved, to a cer

WE have not been so well informed as we could have desired, respecting the interesting struggles of which South America, both Spanish and Portuguese, has long been the scene. But light is now breaking in upon us from various quarters. The travellers who have of late visited those countries, have freely dispensed their information to the public, and have enabled us to estimate, with tolerable accuracy, the resources and the views of the two parties who are now struggling for the ascendancy. Captain Hall's work, of which we gave an account in a former Number, is full of the most interesting information; it is as entertaining as Anson's voyage, and far more instructive. The present work, though not containing, perhaps, the same valuable information, gives, however, very clear and satisfactory accounts of the state of Brazil. The writer, Mrs Graham, is already known to the public by her former work on India, in which she has given good specimens of her capacity for observation, and for lively delineations of scenery and manners. Having accompanied her husband, Captain Graham of the Doris frigate, to Brazil and Chili, she has thrown together her observations on the former country, to which the present work entirely relates; giving an entertaining description of the state of political sentiment among the people, of their manners, the state of improvement, and various other interesting particulars, collected as the vessel touched at the different ports, and in the course of a residence of some months at Rio Janeiro, where, mixing freely in general society, she had good opportunities of observation. She has accordingly composed a very interesting work, of which her own private history forms a part. Her husband died after leaving Rio Janeiro, and when the vessel was on her passage round Cape Horn. This event is briefly and delicately mentioned, but in a manner sufficiently touching. The

writer has evidently no wish to intrude her private sorrows upon the reader; yet the manner in which the melancholy event is related, is calculated to excite an emotion of tender interest in her fate.

The Doris touched at Pernambu co, Bahia, and Rio Janeiro, at the time these places were in a political ferment, the country being then in the crisis of its fate. Mrs Graham describes the universal sentiment of the people to be for independence,their hatred of the tyranny of Portugal, and their resentment of their recent ill-treatment by the Portuguese Cortes, to be violent, and to pervade all classes. The Prince, Don Pedro, declared Emperor of Brazil, according to Mrs Graham, and according to his own decided acts, sincerely sympathizes in all those sentiments of the people, and really appears to be a constitutional King, anxious to rule justly, and to reform the inveterate corruptions which, in Brazil, had long pervaded every branch of the public management, and even extend his inquiring eye into many to private institutions, such as hospitals and other charitable establishments, where every species of abuse prevailed. This was, unquestionably, extremely praiseworthy, and much more so in one who had been trained up in the school of Portuguese despotism. Nor were his exertions less conspicuous or earnest in the cause of Brazilian independence. When he assumed the reins of go.vernment, every thing was in confusion, the finances in the greatest disorder, the treasury empty,-credit at its lowest ebb,-the provinces disorganized;—and to add to all these evils, the country was threatened by Portuguese troops, with subjection to its former yoke, under the mother country. There was neither army nor navy, and, what was worse, there was no money to pay them; but in the midst of all these difficulties, this patriotic prince (for so he is represented by Mrs Graham, who had good