richer to the poorer, the latter from the poorer to the richer kingdom.

I trust it will not for one moment be supposed, that in making the statement which I have now given, I mean that the contributions of Christian benevolence are to be considered in the same light as the balance of trade between the two kingdoms, or as the debtor and creditor side of a merchant's accompt: the only inference which I mean to draw at present from this statement—an inference which I apprehend is undeniable-is this, that the liberality which Scotland has manifested in supporting institutions established in England, gave a Scottish Society, and especially a Scottish Missionary Society, a powerful claim to the Christian benevolence of their bre thren in the South, particularly in the metropolis.

Having been to so great an extent the benefactors of English institutions, need you wonder if we think we have some cause to complain, if, when we send a deputation to the South on a similar errand of benevolence, they are treated by many as Scottish Beggars?" Need you wonder if, on their return, they gave a faithful account of the cold and unfriendly reception they in many instances met with? Need you, in short, wonder, though these circumstances are "introduced to the notice of the friends of religion in this country, as a motive to that prudent distribution of their contributions, which will secure a just measure of support to this and to the other institutions which are more immediately connected with their own country?"

With respect to the reason which your correspondent assigns for the failure of the deputation, "the singular indiscretion of the Committee" in not considering better "the fitness of their delegated advocates," he is guilty of that kind of sophism which logiNEW SERIES, No. 15.

cians call non causa pro causa, or the assignation of a false cause. He is, in fact, chargeable with a complete anachronism. The indisposition to receive the deputation was manifested before the gentlemen composing it arrived in London, and was in a great measure independent of their qualifications for the office they had undertaken. The ministers who were so kind as to admit of the application which was made to them in the name of the Society, admitted of it on higher and more general grounds than the qualifications of the preachers: the ministers who rejected the application rejected it on totally different grounds from any apprehension that our advocates were unworthy of being heard by them or their people. All this took place before the deputation set foot in London: the arrangements in fact were nearly completed, and were actually printed before their arrival. How this was effected it may not be improper to state, especially as the statement will place the fact in a still stronger light. Several of the friends of the Society, ministers in London, accompanied one of the Secretaries who had come from Edinburgh for this very purpose, in visiting the ministers from one end of the metropolis to the other: the Secretary, in fact, spent about six weeks chiefly in making preparations for the deputation, and were he asked, I believe he would say, he had seldom been engaged in a more unpleasant or more toilsome business. These circumstances demonstrate that there is a complete anachronism in the statement of your correspondent-that the indisposition was manifested before the gentlemen composing the deputation arrived in London, and was in a great measure independent of their qualifications for the office which they had undertaken.

Your correspondent, indeed, intimates, that had the Society sent S

their qualifications for the office which they were so kind as to undertake I shall simply quote the eulogy of your correspondent: "The Rev. Gentlemen who constituted the deputation, by their courteous manners, and affectionate and evangelical labours, must have secured the respect of all who heard them." Again, "That the personal worth and the ministerial talents of the Rev. Dr. Barr, and the Rev. Mr. Smart, qualified them to be the worthy representatives of any Christian society no one can question." And, again, "Where they are known they must be received with affectionate respect; as was, for instance, the case at Liverpool, where Dr. Barr's gifts as a pastor and a polemic are remembered with a regard which secured a display of proportionate liberality." After these high eulogiums on the character of Dr. Barr and Mr. Smart, who, I ask, is chargeable with "singular indiscretion?"- the Society, in appointing such gentlemen as their advocates? or your correspondent in finding fault with that appointment?

As a confirmation of the eulogy of your correspondent, as well as of some of the statements which I have given, I may mention that one member of the deputation complained chiefly of their exclusion from the pulpits; "whereever," he said, "they had access to the people, they did their duty." Your correspondent assigns, as another reason for the failure of the deputation, the period of the year when it visited London. They appeared at a season of the year when the state of our atmosphere necessarily detains many pious persons at home, and affords to the indifferent an easy apology for their absence." Now I would ask the ministers of London, who declined receiving the deputation, did any one of them decline receiving it on the ground

of the unfavourable state of the weather? It is to be remembered, that the complaint applies to the original refusal of the deputation, not to the want of success in those congregations to which they were admitted; for, as has just been stated, wherever they had access to the people, the people did their duty; yet it would have been a failure here, to which alone the unfavourable state of the atmosphere could apply. I would ask your correspondent, or rather the ministers of London generally, at what season of the year should a deputation from Scotland appear in the metropolis in order to ensure success? In giving an answer, I have little doubt there would be no small diversity of opinion among them, nearly as much as if it were referred to mankind when we should have rain. "Not in summer,” many would say, for then our wealthiest people are gone to Margate and Brighton." "Not in autumn," would others say, "for they have not yet returned from their watering places." "Not in winter," says your correspondent, "for then our atmosphere is thick and hazy." When then, I would ask, shall we come? Why not at all," cry innumerable voices, "that will be best of all." But to be grave; I have no doubt that the question is one of considerable difficulty, and that in fact there is no period of the year which is not liable to many objections; whether the month of February is not as free from objections as most other seasons of the year, I am, of course, unable to judge, but there is one fact which I may state, to shew that where there is a disposition to receive a deputation, that season of the year is not so unfavourable as your correspondent would have us to believe, either in regard to admission into pulpits, or to the largeness of the collections. The fact is, that in 1819, the first deputation from the Scot

66

tish Missionary Society visited London at about the same season of the year, and instead of £382. 16s. 9d., the sum stated by your correspondent as received by the last deputation, raised £1,913. 14s. 10 d. exclusive of two hundred guineas from the London and Baptist Missionary Societies, by collections, subscriptions, and donations. Here we see what is the result when there is "first a willing mind."

Before I close these remarks, I cannot help noticing an apparent want of candour in your correspondent, though I am far from charging him with intentional misrepresentation. "From the abstract of the Society's accounts," he says, "I find it entered, to collections in Scotland £1,464. 10s. old. To collections by deputation to England, £744. 8s. 10d." So that the English collections amounted to one half the sum received by the same means throughout Scotland. I do not say that this is an incorrect, but it is a partial statement, and is calculated to mislead your readers. Besides the sum now alluded to, there were raised in Scotland by Societies, collectors, and subscriptions £5,531. 7s. 111⁄2d.; this sum being raised by these means, it is not to be wondered at, though the collections which, in many cases, was merely a gathering up of the fragments, do not amount to a larger sum. But were there any monies raised in England for the Scottish Missionary Society corresponding to these contributions by Societies, collectors, and subscriptions? Were the collections in that country merely a gathering up of the fragments? No. The sum, he states, was the amount received in every form from the sister kingdom in the course of that year, with the exception of a few sums received from some parts of Cumberland and Northumberland. But what

is more, the Scottish Missionary Society had received no general collections from England for two years, whereas, in the preceding year, the collections in Scotland amounted to £1,885. 16s. 6d., and the contributions from Societies, &c. to £4,276. 17s. 10d. Was it then fair and candid in your correspondent to tell his readers that the Society had no cause to complain, for that the collections in England amounted to one half of the collections in Scotland, while he at the same time passed unnoticed the circumstances to which I have now adverted?

"A

Before I close, I would notice a mistake or two into which your correspondent has fallen. deputation," says he, "from the London Missionary Society, consisting of four ministers, visited Scotland during the past summer, and though they preached not only in the pulpits of the several denominations of Dissenters, but also in those of the national church, which, in course, could not be the case here, and were, above all, aided by a public meeting, with the Lord Provost in the chair; yet, if I have not strangely mistaken my arithmetic, they did not collect in that city £200.❞ Your correspondent had stated a few lines before, that the collections for the Scottish Missionary Society in London, amounted to £382. 11s. 9d., and he maintains that the Committee had no just ground of complaint on this score; but he seems quite indignant that the deputation of the London Missionary Society did not collect in Edinburgh £200. Now I am not disposed to say that £200. was a sum worthy of the metropolis of Scotland to

He is, however, a little mistaken in his arithmetic. The deputation collected in Edinburgh, exclusive of Leith, £207. 1s. 6d, including the expenses of the deducted any more than the other expublic meeting, which ought not to be penses of the deputation.

*

collect; but this I am prepared to say, that I am utterly unable to comprehend on what principle £200. should be deemed so inadequate a sum for a city with a population of little more than One Hundred Thousand inhabitants, while £382. should be deemed an adequate sum for a city, with a population of upwards of Twelve Hundred Thousand inhabitants, and possessed of wealth prodigiously greater than the mere difference of population. This is arithmetic which I do not comprehend.

Your correspondent asserts that the deputation preached "not only in the pulpits of the several denominations of Dissenters, but also

dom. I shall not, indeed, wonder, if, when she discovers the great extent of the contributions which she has of late years sent to England, she should take into consideration whether it may not be expedient for her to retain a large portion of these funds under her own management, with the view of appropriating them to the same or similar purposes. Whether this is a desirable object, is a question which I feel myself unable to answer; but it is a question which I feel to be not unworthy of the consideration of the friends of religion in this county. A FRIEND OF MISSIONS.

NATION SERVICES.

(To the Editors.)

I trust that after a calm and candid consideration of the whole question, our brethren in England will be satisfied that it is not with the Scottish Missionary Society that the fault, in the present instance, lies, as your correspondent has endeavoured to prove, though, as I conceive, very unsuccessfully; and that if they wish the intercourse between the two countries in the great work of benevolence to be permanent, it must be on another footing than it has of late been. The union of the two crowns has proved a most beneficial event; but it has been so to both countries. In like manner, if the intercourse between the two countries in support of benevolent Institutions is to be kept up, it must be reciprocal, and on a somewhat more equal footing than it has hitherto been. Scotland is less disposed than ever to be a mere tributary to the sister king

THE simplicity, appropriateness, and solemnity of ordination services, as they are commonly conducted among Congregational Dissenters, have often been much admired, and, without doubt, most justly. It cannot but be a matter of regret then, that their beauty should ever be marred, and their effect weakened through being attended by some marked impropriety or defect. Such I apprehend to be the case, however, when a minister who undertakes a leading part in such a service, overlooks or disregards the specific design of the particular exercises in which he is engaged. It has fallen to my lot to be present at an ordination, when, in the sermon addressed to the people, which was preached by a gentleman highly and deservedly respected, there was not a single sentence from beginning to end on the duties of the people to their pastor; the proper subject, as it is presumed, of such a discourse. Instances of a similar kind, the writer of these remarks has been