Sinclair, Sir George
Selection from the Correspondence. , .for the
adjustment of the Scottish Church Question
Edinburgh, 1842

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

gawre-"- __ v-g>-

SELECTION

FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE

CAJ/RIED ON DURING CERTAIN RECENT NEGOCIATIONS

FOR THE A^tftlSTMENT OF THE

SCOTTISH CHURCH aiTESTIOK

EDITED BV

SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR, BART.

EDINBURGH :
BELL & BRADFUTE, 12. BANK STREET.
LONDON : JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY.
•'$*'." ¦
MDCCCXLII.

SELECTION
FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE
¦i
CARRIED ON DURING CERTAIN RECENT NEGOCIATIONS
FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE
SCOTTISH CHURCH QUESTION.

EDITED BY

SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR, BART.

EDINBURGH :
BELL & BRADFUTE, 12. BANK STREET.
LONDON: JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY.
MDCCCXLII.

Frintedbj James Wnlker
B Jatnc-'s Court, La«<m>arket.
Ed.nburgh.

PREFACE.

As several pamphlets have already appeared, and many dis
cussions taken place in the public prints, in reference to the
negociations, in which I took a prominent part, for the settle
ment of the Church question, I have thought it due to the im
portance of the subject, as well as indispensable for my own
vindication, to lay before the country a Selection from the very
voluminous correspondence, in which I have for several months
been engaged, omitting all such passages as were of a more
private or personal nature. All parties will thus be able
to form a more correct judgment as to the objections urged
against the arrangement, which I ventured to suggest, as well
as with respect to the advantages, which might, in my opinion,
have resulted from its adoption. I had kept copies, chiefly in
shorthand, of most of my own letters, intended solely for my
own use ; but I did not think, until the recent publications just
adverted to had issued from the press, (which, however, is far
from being to me a matter of complaint or of regret,) that the
necessity would have devolved upon me, of transcribing them
again, in order to submit them to the world. I have no doubt,
however, that they will be perused with that candour and in
dulgence, which my zeal and industry in so good a cause, may,
I think, authorise me to solicit and to expect. George Sinclair.
Leamington, 21st February 1842.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH,

Page,
Walter Cook, Esq. W. S  5-23, 1*0
Rev. Dr Cook,  23-32
Bey. Dr Macleod,  •  32
Sir Robert Peel, Bart. ..-  -  33
Sir George Clerk, Bart  3?
Sir James Graham, Bart  38
Lord Melbourne  — •¦• 40
Right Hon. Fox Maule  41
Duncan M'Neill, Esq. Solicitor- General  45, 135
Archbishop of Canterbury  47
Bishop of London,  49
Lord Brougham,  50-52
Rev. Dr Candlish,  53-79
Rev. Dr P. Macfarlan,  79-83
Rev. Dr Welsh  83-88
Rev. Dr Chalmers  89-107
Rev. Dr Simpson  108
J. M. Hog, Esq. of Newliston,  109
Rev. Dr Buchanan,  110-121
John Hamilton, Esq. Advocate,  123133, 136-142
James Bridges, Esq. W. S  142
APPENDIX,  145
Rev. Mr Walker, Huntly,  149-154
Earl of Aberdeen,  154-158
Duke of Argyll,  15g
Marquis of Breadalbane  igQ
Lord Cottenham,  161-178
Conclusion,  170,

SELECTION, &c.

Letter, Walter Cook, Esq. W. S. to Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
Sir, Edinburgh, 13th December 1841.
You are probably aware, that in May last, at a numerous
meeting of Ministers and Elders of the Church of Scotland,
entertaining opinions on Church politics different from those
of the majority of last General Assembly, a Committee was
appointed to attend to the interests of the Church of Scotland,
.and to any bill which might be brought into Parliament relative
to the Church.
From a Report given in by Dr Gordon to the Commission
of the General Assembly, which met in November last, it
would appear that negociations have been going forward be
twixt certain parties, with a view to a settlement of the dif
ferences now unhappily existing amongst the members of the
Church, and the Committee have been informed, that in these
you have taken a most active part. The nature of these ne
gociations, the extent to which they had gone, and the causes
which have led to their interim or final abandonment, have
never been communicated to the above Committee ; but as the
subject may be again renewed, and the interests of the Church
are so deeply involved, I have been requested, on the part of
the Committee, to apply to you to know, if you will have the
goodness to afford them information on the following particu
lars :
1. What were the terms of the proposed settlement of the
Church questions, in the negociations referred to in the
Report by Dr Gordon to the Commission ?
2. Were these terms at any time approved of, either by any
of the ministers representing the majority of the Church,
or by any of her Majesty's Government, or by both ?
3. Did it form any condition of the proposed settlement, that

the deposed ministers of Strathbogie Presbytery should
be reponed, and if so, upon what terms ?
4. "Was the reponing of these ministers consented to by any
of the ministers forming the majority of last General As
sembly, and did Government express any opinion on this
subject ?
5. Have you any objections to favour the Committee with
copy of a minute of a conference of some of the ministers
and you, drawn up by Sir Robert Peel, of which a copy,
at the desire of Sir Robert Peel, was sent by you to the
Assembly Committee ?
6. Would you have the goodness to favour the Committee
with any other letters or papers, which you may deem
material, to give them full information on the subject of
the late negociations ?
I need not state on the part of the Committee, that the
above information is asked for by them from no idle curiosity,
but from their desire to have the fullest and most accurate in
formation on subjects so deeply interesting to the Church of
Scotland, and to which this Committee have pledged them
selves to their constituents to pay every possible attention.
And as it is their most anxious desire, that, if possible, the un
happy differences now existing in the Church should be ami
cably and satisfactorily arranged, they have felt it to be their
duty, to make the above request to you for information, the
more necessary, from the various and contradictory reports
which are in circulation, and they will be particularly obliged
by your compliance with it.
It is proper to add, that the Committee did apply to the
Lord Justice- Clerk Hope for information similar to what is
now asked for ; and although his Lordship, from his situation
as a Judge, did not feel it to be proper to make any statement
to them, he considered that the Committee might apply to
you on the subject.
I have the honour to be, with regard, your most faithful
servant,
Walter Cook.

Letter, Sir George Sinclair, Bart, to Walter Cook, Esa.
W. S. Y
Dear Sir, Leamington, 11th Dec. 1841
I was yesterday favoured with your kind letter, and I hone if
is unnecessary to state, that it was impossible for me to b

either surprised or offended at its contents. The respectable
gentlemen with whom you are associated must naturally cherish
a wish, and I even acknowledge, that they have a right, to obtain
access to such details as I consider myself at liberty to furnish,
in reference to my recent attempt to terminate the unhappy
and unseemly dissensions, which have so long disturbed the
peace, and now menace the destruction, of a Church, which, I
have no doubt, is as dear to them as it is to myself.
There are two considerations, which I shall take the liberty,
in the first instance, to premise. (1.) I shall not enter into any
discussion as to the meaning which ought to be attached to the
term Non-intrusion ; but I may say to you, as I have done to
several other correspondents, that i" am a most zealous Non-
Extrusionist, and that I have laboured, throughout, to devise
some means of keeping both parties within the pale of the Esta
blishment ; believing, that the secession of either would be at
tended with the most fatal consequences, and hoping, that, if
they were once more brought together, a sense of mutual in
terest and of common danger would induce them to act here
after more than ever in conformity with the principle of " bear
ing one another's burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ ;"
remembering, that " if they bite and devour one another," they
must " take heed that they be not consumed the one of the
other." But (2.) I wish it to be distinctly understood, that my pro
ceedings have, from first to last, been altogether spontaneous
and unauthorised. Neither the Church nor the Government,
nor any public body, nor any private individual, instigated me
to undertake a very arduous task, or ought to be held respon
sible for any errors, defects or mistakes, which have occurred
during its prosecution. Soon after my arrival in Edinburgh,
in the course of last August, I attended a prayer meeting at
St George's, on which occasion the danger of impending schism
was very powerfully dwelt upon, and its baneful consequences
pathetically deplored. On my return home, I resolved to di
rect the whole energies of my mind, (however enfeebled by long
illness,) to the momentous and heart-stirring object of striving,
in a conciliatory and peaceful spirit, to avert such an awful ca
lamity from my country. It was so ordered by a kind Provi
dence, that, very soon thereafter, I had the happiness to pass
three days at Granton, where I found, that my revered friend,
the Justice- Clerk, was as anxious as I myself could be, to con
cur in any plan, which might, if possible, satisfy both par
ties, without giving a triumph to either. I passed three days
under his hospitable roof, and a very large portion of our time
was devoted to the consideration of a question equally interest
ing to us both, and it is impossible for me to express in too

strong terms the deep and cordial feelings of admiration with
which I retrospectively contemplate his Lordship's conduct,
during the whole of our intercourse on this subject. He
seemed to me to have entirely discarded from his mind every
prejudice and every predilection, and was willing to make
any sacrifice, consistent with principle, for effecting such an
arrangement as his opponents could honourably acquiesce in.
I never found my visits (however frequent) deemed unseason
able or unwelcome ; no letter was left unanswered for a sin
gle day — no proposal not candidly weighed, and either prompt
ly acceded to, or dispassionately canvassed, and ample rea
sons assigned, why it should be either modified or abandon
ed. An interview took place at my house, a few days there
after, between the Dean and Mr Candlish. The whole sub
ject was, in all it bearings, fully and frankly gone into between
them, during a most friendly and able discussion, which lasted
three hours, and was terminated by an agreement, that the
Dean should prepare a draft of two bills for the consideration
of the Committee. About the same time, I had the honour to
pass an hour with Lord Aberdeen, when on his way to attend
the meeting of the new Parliament, and I found his Lordship
animated by the most anxious and zealous feelings towards the
Church, — deeply impressed with a sense of the inestimable
benefits, which it had, during successive generations, conferred
upon the country, — highly appreciating the talents and piety of
the individuals most opposed to himself, — desirous to hear from
me any suggestions, which might enable them to remain con
nected with the Establishment, though at the same time I
must add, that his Lordship, instead of being (as has been
imagined) intent upon again renewing his own bill, and for
cing it upon the Church, was altogether averse to any personal
interposition on his own part, because his motives had been so
much misinterpreted, and his measures so much misunderstood.
The Dean left Edinburgh soon after the interview before ad
verted to, and there appeared shortly afterwards an intima
tion, that an extraordinary meeting of the Commission was to
be held, in consequence of what I must be allowed to say,
that I could not help considering a very rash and ill-timed
declaration, or rather menace, on the part of the minority, I
have long been of opinion, that every step taken on either side
has tended to widen the breach, and add to the difficulties which
tend to impede its adjustment. The Dean being absent, and my
alarm at the prospect of intemperate speeches being made
or strong resolutions adopted, at the meeting of the Commit
sion, being very great, I adopted a measure, the propriety of
which had been discussed and assented to at Granton between
the Dean and myself. I took a copy of Lord Aberdeen's

9
bill, with which he (the Dean) had furnished me, and en
deavoured to frame such an amendment as would have remo
ved the only objection, which I had ever entertained against it.
I always thought, (perhaps erroneously,) that, under the pro
visions of the second clause, the Presbytery could not give
effect to the reasons and objections of the people, unless they
themselves homologated their conclusiveness and validity ;
whereas I wished, that they should have full latitude to give
effect to the reasons and objections, on the sole ground of
their conscientious prevalence, although the reasons and ob
jections might not be such as carried home conviction of their
validity to the minds of the Presbytery themselves ; the fullest
power being left to the Church courts in every instance to
overrule, as well as to give effect to, the reasons and objections.
I therefore, after much consideration, resolved to propose the
insertion, into the second clause of Lord Aberdeen's bill, of
the following words : After, " in respect of any of the said ob
jections or reasons," to add, " or in respect that the said ob
jections or reasons, (though not in themselves conclusive in the
judgment of the Presbytery,) are entertained by such a pro
portion of the parishioners, as (in the opinion of the Presby
tery) to preclude the prospect of his ministrations proving
useful to that particular congregation." I may here add, for
the sake of connection and perspicuity, that the Dean subse
quently proposed, and I agreed, that the words, " on Christian
and conscientious grounds," should be inserted after " enter
tained." I transmitted my proposal to Lord Aberdeen, whose
reply did not reach me until after the meeting of the Commis
sion. It was couched in the most friendly terms ; but his
' Lordship " hesitated" as to the acceptance of my amendment,
as it would go far towards legalising the veto ; and an equally
adverse opinion was expressed by your respected brother, my
correspondence with whom, during the last as well as present
year, was of the most kind and conciliatory character, and he
is of course at perfect liberty to communicate the whole of it to
you, or any other friends, and to make whatever use of it he
may think proper. Under these circumstances, I resolved to
give up any further interference, it being, as formerly, my per
suasion, that the Church could not take less, and that the Legis
lature would Hot grant more. But the Dean at this juncture
returned to Edinburgh, and wrote to inform me, that he too
had abandoned all hope of settling the question, after what had
passed both in the Commission and at the meeting held at
Glasgow. I called to explain what I had been attempting,
and had failed in, during his absence ; but when I read to him
my rejected amendment, he said, after some consideration, that
on the whole, he thought it would be advisable to try and a(j_

10
just matters on that basis ; and he undertook to recommend to
the new Government the adoption of my plan, asking at the
same time, whether, if it were judged necessary, I should be
willing to go to London, where the deputation of the Church
then was ; and I assured him that, in the event of such a step
being deemed essential, I would, notwithstanding my illness,
be prepared to do what was required. I told him, that I had
always viewed the deposition of the seven ministers with
extreme disapprobation and regret ; and had, both orally and
by letter, tendered the language of earnest remonstrance and
expostulation against such a measure being resorted to by the
General Assembly ; that I was quite certain, that no Govern
ment, and no Legislature, could or would sanction any arrange
ment of the unhappy differences, which did not involve their
restoration, but that the honour of the Church must be treat
ed with the utmost tenderness ; and that I hoped he would see
the propriety of the first step originating from the ministers,
although I neither desired nor expected any retractation of
their sentiments, in reference to the necessity which was im
posed upon them to give effect to the decisions of the civil
courts. I certainly did think, that, however unjust they them
selves and their friends might deem the sentence of suspen
sion on the part of the General Assembly to be, yet, that, as
it was pronounced by a tribunal, to which they owed canonical
obedience, they would have acted more in conformity with the
dictates of duty and of propriety, if they had thereafter ab
stained from the discharge of their spiritual functions, until
some final adjustment was effected, and whilst legal questions
were depending ; and they would have shown, by so doing, how
much they were disposed to defer to the opinions and decisions
of the Church when not compelled to do otherwise by the au
thority of the supreme civil courts. This was the point, upon
which the letter was chiefly founded, which was drawn up by
myself, and corrected, and assented to by the Dean, his alte
rations being mainly of such a nature as to render its general
import more consonant with the views and ivishes of the majority
I must confess, that I never experienced such difiiculty as
occurred, (1.) in framing such a document on this delicate
and perplexing subject, as would even satisfy my own mind •
(2.) in obtaining from my friends connected with the Church
party their consent to entertain and consider the questions at
all. To the very last, they did not absolutely pledge themselves
that the letter, as finally revised, would be accepted • and if T
had intimated, that the reponing of the ministers was to be madp
a condition even of obtainmg the Duke of Argyll's bill 7T
abolition of patronage, either of these measures would 'h°r /
once been rejected on such terms, unless the first adva EVe

11
wards the readmission of the deposed brethren had proceeded
from the seven ministers themselves. A few other preliminary
stipulations in reference to that subject were at the same time
brought forward ; of some of which I disputed the advisable-
ness, or denied the justice. But on consulting the Dean, we
both agreed, that it would be better to leave the adjustment of
these minor details, until the settlement of the main questions
had made greater progress, for that, when the former had more
nearly approached its completion, all parties would more read
ily concur in endeavouring to remove subordinate difficulties.
When the deputation from the Committee, (of which I have
not the honour to be a member,) left Edinburgh, I wrote a let
ter to head-quarters, in which I detailed my plan as fully and
as explicitly as I could, expressing at the same time my own
conviction, that no arrangement could possibly be listened to
by any Government, or sanctioned by any Parliament, of which
the reponing of the seven ministers did not constitute an essen
tial element. I received a most friendly and gratifying inti
mation, that, in the event of my being enabled to procure from
my non-intrusion friends a direct and positive assurance that
they would acquiesce in the proposed terms, there was a dis
position, on the part of Government, to agree to a settlement
on that basis ; and a most respectable member of the deputa
tion, who remained in London after most of his colleagues had
taken their departure, was also consulted by a very eminent
individual connected with the Administration, as to the pro
spect of such an arrangement being acceded to on the part of
the Church.
I think, that this is a suitable moment for doing justice to
two parties, with whom I have had much confidential inter
course on this subject, and for whose courtesy and personal
kindness I cannot too cordially express my gratitude. I may
state, in the first place, that her Majesty's Ministers have
throughout expressed to me, both viva voce and in writing, a
deep and anxious concern to restore the peace, and promote
the stability of the Church of Scotland, highly appreciating its
past usefulness and its present importance, as intimately inter
woven with the best interests of the country, — disposed to ba
nish from their minds such feelings of suspicion or estrange
ment as certain events of past years might have engendered,
and willing to take any conciliatory course, which might enable
both parties to remain connected with the Establishment, if that '
course did not involve the adoption of such a measure as was
unsound in its principle, or dangerous as a precedent. I would
next observe, in order to justify (as far as I can) the majority
of the Church from the imputation of inconsistency, that they
all expressed from the first their aversion to the mode of settle-

12
ment which I suggested : they uniformly intimated a decided
preference to the Duke of Argyll's bill, or a measure found
ed on the call. Their dislike to my clause seemed to increase in
proportion as there was a greater prospect of its being conce
ded ; and now that it may, as I firmly believe, still be obtained
without any difficulty, I have too much reason to apprehend,
that most of them are disposed altogether to reject it, — and I
am bound in candour to add, that many of them appear to have
attached a meaning to my words, which I do not think that
they bear, and which they never were intended to convey.
. When the intelligence reached Edinburgh, that Government
was disposed to adopt my proposal, I was led at the same time
to believe, that my presence in London would be considered
useful ; and as I had, from August downwards, been constantly
urging the importance of an immediate settlement, lest any
imprudent steps might be taken by either party during the re
cess, I inferred, that the Government intended to carry the bill
through, before Parliament was prorogued. But this was a
gratuitous and over-sanguine inference of my own, for it was
not at all founded on any communication addressed from Lon
don to myself, nor did I receive any direct intimation at all,
that my repairing to London was desired. The statement to
that effect proceeded from a friend, to whom, of all others, I
have been most indebted during these negociations, and he
afterwards, (as I have since discovered,) stated to me, that,
owing to the advanced period of the session, and the departure
of the deputation from the metropolis, it would be unnecessary
for me to undertake the trouble of such a journey ; but I either
did not at the time hear, or must have misunderstood, this state
ment, and I therefore resolved, that, if the Committee adopted
the proposed mode of settlement, I would forthwith repair to
London. Some correspondence and personal communications
took place between the Committee and myself, and after a
great deal of difficulty, protesting, at the same time, that they
would prefer almost any other basis of adjustment, the Com
mittee at last agreed to acquiesce in the proposal, provided
that the bill were carried through before the end of the session,
and suggesting at the same time another form of words, which
they would greatly prefer as a substitute for mine. Their
cordial anxiety for peace — the dread of fresh obstacles occur
ring during the winter, and my reiterated assurance, that they
' never could succeed in carrying the veto in any shape, or to
any extent, induced them at length to send a minute of condi
tional acceptance to their representative in London, with a
copy of which, and a separate memorandum, they had the good
ness to furnish me.
When I arrived in London, to which I hurried without stop-

13
ping, I was honoured by four of the Cabinet Ministers with a
most friendly and satisfactory interview. They stated that
they regarded the adjustment of our unhappy ecclesiastical
dissensions as an object of incalculable interest and importance ;
and they expressed their surprise and concern, that a condition
had been annexed by the Church to their acquiescence, with
which the immediate prospect of a prorogation precluded the
possibility of complying ; and it was most justly suggested by
Sir Robert Peel, that, even if the House had sat for four weeks,
instead of as many days, it would be far more respectable and
judicious to introduce a measure of such importance at the com
mencement of a session, when all the members were in town,
than to hurry it through on the eve of a prorogation, when many
of the most influential public men had quitted London. for the
season. It was, nevertheless, a great and grievous disappoint
ment to me, that this inevitable postponement took place, be
cause I well knew, that the Committee would immediately re
trace their steps, and would hope, (by reiterated applications
to Government, and by holding public meetings to enlighten the
minds of their countrymen,) that they might succeed in obtain
ing a settlement more in unison with their views and expecta
tions ; whereas I dreaded the consequences of renewed and pro
tracted agitation, and felt quite convinced that the principle of
the Duke of Argyll's bill was as repugnant to the feelings of the
Legislature, as it was consonant with the wishes of the Church.
I could not succeed in prevailing upon my friends to withdraw
their stipulation. I promised, though without holding out any
hope of success, that I would represent, (as indeed I had already
done more than once,) how much better the Church would be
satisfied with any other mode of settlement. Having remained
a few days in or near London, I had another interview with Sir
R. Peel and two of his colleagues, during which they discussed
the subject in all its bearings with the utmost frankness, and
at great length. A memorandum, embodying the substance
of what passed, was drawn up by Sir R. Peel, (as you have
stated in one of your queries,) in my presence, and I was kindly
offered permission to take a copy ; but as this was only to have
been intended for my own eye, I did not take advantage of the
suggestion, and drew up, for the information of the Committee,
a statement founded on my own recollection, mentioning a few
circumstances, which had not been adverted to in the document
penned by the Prime Minister.
Since that period, I have been in constant correspondence
with some of the leading members of the Committee, and have
interchanged frequent communications with several of her Ma
jesty's Ministers, and many influential members of both Houses
of Parliament, endeavouring, if possible, to induce both parties

14
to adhere to the terms agreed upon in October ; for it is to be ob
served, that during last interview at Whitehall, it was distinctly
acknowledged and understood that the Government, as well as
the Church, is exonerated from any pledge, either express or
implied, to carry the agreement into effect. I trust, that inter
vening occurrences, however untoward and painful, may not
have the effect of inducing them to decline all further, or at
least all favourable, interposition. But I am sorry to add, that
there seems to be at present, on the part of the Committee,
little or no disposition again to adopt the proposed basis ; and
I am firmly persuaded, (though of course I may be quite wrong,)
that they never will succeed in obtaining any of the concessions
which their recent memorial insists upon. I therefore regard
my negociations as virtually at an end.
I have thought it right, my dear Sir, thus to transmit to
you, and through you to the Committee, of which you are the
respected organ, a circumstantial and connected detail of all
my proceedings, without any intentional misrepresentation or
Concealment. But, lest I should have omitted to touch upon
any point, respecting which you wish for such information as
I should feel myself at liberty to furnish, I shall proceed to
answer seriatim your various queries, of which, I take it for
granted, you have retained a copy.
(1.) I have detailed, I think, verbatim, in the first part of
this letter, the amendment, of which I proposed the insertion
into Lord Aberdeen's bill, and which was assented to without
any question being raised as to its import on the part of the
Government, and acquiesced in by the Committee, on the con
dition of the measure being passed before the prorogation. I
have already stated, how very reluctantly their acquiescence
was obtained, and that they proposed other words in lieu of
mine, but that mine were preferred by the Government.
(2.) I perceive, that the answer to this query is anticipated
in the foregoing one ; but I may add, that several members of
the Committee have expressed an opinion, that my words con
vey a meaning somewhat different to that which I attach to
them, and more consonant with their own opinions. I appre
hend, that the views taken of their import by the Government
is similar to my own, on which subject I have ascertained the
sentiments of a high legal authority.
(3.) The Government always maintained the necessity of a
satisfactory settlement of the Strathbogie question, and that
unless the seven ministers were reponed, no arrangement
could be finally effected. This has been uniformly my own
opinion also, but some very high authorities bear me out in my
conviction, that it is most advisable to settle the matter ami
cably, and that the first step towards reconciliation should
proceed from the ministers.

15
(4.) The Government did not see the letter, which I drew
up for the consideration of the ministers, and which the Dean
kindly took great pains in correcting. I thought it so certain,
that, under these circumstances, the ministers would adopt it,
that I sent to Mr Walker the only complete copy I possessed,
and I think I have some reason to complain that it was never
returned to me *. I confidently hope, that you will be so good as
to procure the original for me, although both you and any of
the seven ministers are quite welcome, of course, to retain a
copy. The letter was frequently perused by some members
of the Committee, but although, on the whole, they believed it
would be accepted by the Church, they scarcely thought it
went so far as it ought to have. done. My own decided convic
tion was, that it would have been deemed satisfactory, and
other difficulties got over, if the main question of general set
tlement had been adjusted.
(5.) I have already explained that I do not possess a copy
of Sir R. Peel's minute, nor, if I did, should I have felt myself
at liberty to communicate it in any quarter, without his per
mission. (6.) If you were here or I at Edinburgh, I should be happy
to read to you extracts from such papers as are not marked
confidential, especially some copies of my own letters, which it
would be useless to send, as they are chiefly written in short
hand. The documents are exceedingly numerous, commen
cing (so far as the present negociations are concerned) about
the middle of August. I yesterday found, on counting them,
that during November alone, the number of letters and copies
of letters amounted to sixty-eight. I cannot with self-satisfac
tion transmit any papers, because most of them would require
to be accompanied by oral explanations. But if again applied
to, I shall cheerfully answer any questions which may be ren
dered in your opinion necessary, by the present communica
tion. And now, my dear Sir, having said so much as to the past and
present, will you bear with me, and will the Committee forgive
me, if I presume to offer for your consideration and theirs some
remarks in reference to the future ? I rejoice to learn, that
there exists on their part a " most anxious " desire for an
amicable settlement of the " unhappy differences now existing
in the Church." My unremitting efforts during the last four
months I think entitle me to say, that I largely partake in this
very natural and becoming solicitude. If your committee has
any plan to suggest, I shall be happy to give to it my candid

" I have since received a copy of my letter from Mr Walker.

16
and dispassionate consideration, and in the meantime shall re
spectfully lay before them again my sentiments as to the best
mode of settling the two main questions in dispute.
(1.) My view of the Strathbogie question has already been
clearly indicated. I always deprecated and disapproved of the
deposition of the seven ministers, remonstrated against it both
by letter and by word of mouth, and offered more than once
to move in the House of Commons for the appointment of a
Select Committee, to consider the best mode of settling the
general question ; amongst other reasons, in the hope that, while
such an inquiry was going on, the General Assembly would
have felt not only entitled, but called upon, to postpone
until next year all proceedings in reference to the case of
Strathbogie ; but neither party in Parliament would listen to
my suggestion. It does, however, appear to me, that their
restoration should, if possible, be effected by mutual agreement,
not as an indispensable condition, but as a necessary concomitant,
of the general adjustment. Supposing, that the letter, devised
by the Lord Justice-Clerk and myself, were submitted to the
consideration of Dr Brunton, Dr Muir, and Mr Hunter, I
entertain the most profound and unfeigned respect for their
talents, piety and impartiality ; let them expunge whatever
paragraph they deem objectionable, and alter or insert what
ever expressions they may deem it advisable either to amend or
to introduce. I shall read their award with every predisposi
tion to abide by it, and to recommend it most earnestly to the
Church for its adoption, though I fear, that, of late, my influence
has, in some quarters, been very much on the wane. On the
other hand, should these three eminent individuals leave any
passages untouched, which the seven ministers think they can
not subscribe, I hope they will at least agree to confer on the
subject with these gentlemen, in whose judgment and integrity
I cannot doubt, that their confidence is equal to mine, and it is
possible that, in this manner, their spruples may be removed ;
although otherwise I, of course, cannot hope, and do not ask,'
that they should adhibit their signatures to the document in
question. I may reiterate that, in my opinion, the majority
never will agree to repone the ministers in any manner dero
gatory to the honour of the Church. They would not purchase
at that price the best and most comprehensive measure which
the Government or the Legislature could offer or agree to.
I am quite aware, that the seven ministers may implicitly rely
upon the protection and the sympathy of the Government and
ol both Houses ol Parliament, and that measures would if ne
cessary, be adopted by both for enforcing their rights and de
fending their interests But such a course, (as I conceive,)
would inevitably entail upon Scotland the calamity of schism

17
and separation. The Church (for, after all, the majority must
be so designated,) would prefer disestablishment to degrada
tion. They are as firmly persuaded that they are right, as you
are that they are wrong ; and I do hope that you and your friends
will concur (I will say nothing of my own very slender author
ity, but) with some individuals, whose names I have not asked
leave to mention, and must not "therefore particularise, but
whose opinions you as well as I regard with the utmost de
ference, that it would be proper and advisable for the ministers
themselves to make the first overtures towards the Church.
2. If your Committee has no other plan to suggest, I should
venture, with all humility, to recommend, that they would consent
to the adoption of mine, which, I think, combines the following
advantages : (1.) It has been assented to by the Government.
(2.) It was agreed to by the opposite party, though most of
them seem now to repudiate it. (3.) Not being wholly satis
factory to either side, it does not give to either a triumph over
the other. Dr Cook exclaims, (I am not quoting his words,)
" You are going a great deal too far." " No, no," says Dr
Candlish, " you are not going far enough." " If this plan be
adopted," says Dr Cook, " no probationers belonging to our
party will ever get a kirk." " Only pass this measure," says Dr
Candlish, " and many unpopular and unacceptable ministers
will be intruded." Ah ! my dear Sir, if I did not ascribe to
temporary estrangement and exasperation the sentiments en
tertained and expressed by either party as to the conduct and
motives of the other, I should be almost led to think, that, if
each be right in its estimate of the other, the sooner the
Church of Scotland is put down as a nuisance, the better it
will be for the country. (4.) This measure would not, as has
been erroneously supposed, make any addition whatever to the
power of the Church courts, apart from the reasons and ob
jections of the people, to which it solely and exclusively relates.
(5.) In the case of the veto, the dissent of the majority of the
communicants must in every instance prevail, however unjust
or frivolous the reasons on which it is grounded ; whereas, by
my plan, the Presbytery would have it in their power, accord
ing as they might deem it just and advisable, on the one hand,
to overrule the reasons and objections, and on the other to give
effect to them, either because of their conclusiveness, or on ac
count of their conscientious prevalence in the minds of the peo
ple. (6.) I have substituted parishioners for communicants,
to obviate an objection sometimes urged, both against the veto
and the abolition of patronage, that it held out a temptation
for unfit and unprepared persons to approach the Lord's table,
in order to obtain a privilege annexed to the character of a
communicant.

18
I have not health or strength to pursue the subject farther, and
notwithstanding the unconscionable dimensions of this letter, I
am more inclined to apologise for its brevity than for its length.
My pen cannot do justice to the feelings of my heart, when I
attempt to write on behalf of what I regard as the most useful
and most valuable of our national institutions. Many cavillers
would say, that this is an extraordinary communication to ema
nate from the Vice-President of the Anti-patronage Society,
and the Chairman of the Church Patronage Committee. But
when the Establishment is in jeopardy, I renounce every other
consideration, but that of striving to save it from destruction.
I demand as little as it is possible to take, and if you are dispo
sed to concede any thing, I do not see how you could offer less.
Let me entreat you to make some sacrifice, rather than five to
see the day, when owing to your determination to yield nothing,
the venerated form of a Gordon shall no longer rivet every eye
in a crowded and attached congregation ; the commanding elo
quence of a Chalmers shall cease to instruct and animate
future pastors for edifying and enlightening future generations ;
our Candlishes and Macfarlanes, our Cunninghames and Buch
anans, shall transfer to other communions their transcendant
talents, and that ardent piety which have guided, and may they
long continue to guide, thousands in the ways of uprightness
and of peace. May the God of love and of concord grant, that
instead of distinct deputations, repairing from the two parties
to London, to embark in the ungracious and unseemly task
of undermining each others efforts, and disappointing each
others hopes, one embassy may be despatched by both, em
powered to say to the Government, " We agree on the whole
to accept this measure, (to which you have already assented,)
although the one party considers, that it does not go far enough,
and the other thinks, that it goes too far ; but we will honestly
co-operate in our endeavours to give it a fair trial." Such a
determination on your part may perhaps induce my non-intru
sion friends to reconsider their determination, and thus strife
would be put an end to, and harmony restored.
I must not write another line, and indeed I feel quite unable
to proceed. Yours, &c.
George Sinclair.

Letter, Walter Cook, Esq. W. S. to Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
Dear Sir,
I have had the honour of receiving the two first parts of
your most interesting communication on Church matters, and

19
I cannot delay to express how much I feel, and I am sure the
Committee to which I belong will feel, obliged to you for it.
I delay to lay it before the Committee till I receive the conclu
ding part of your letter. It were premature in me to express
any opinion on the terms of your proposed mode of settlement.
On this there will probably be diversity of opinion, but there
can be none as to the zealous and anxious part you have taken
to settle differences, on principles most honourable to your own
feelings and character.
Our Committee have never seen the letter you sent to Mr
Walker. I saw it confidentially, and have written for it ; and if
I receive it, I will send it to you. I shall also send you copy
of your very interesting letter to me. Our Committee have
never been in conference with Drs Brunton and Muir and Mr
Hunter, and unless you request me to send copy of your letter
to them, there is little chance of their seeing it, as they have
never attended any of our meetings.
In your last communication to me, you mention that a minute
of conditional acceptance was sent by the Non- Intrusion Com
mittee to their representative in London, a copy of which was
sent you. I cannot presume to ask for this paper, (I mean a
copy,) as you may have the best reason for not giving it up ;
but it were of consequence to our Committee to know, if con
sistent with what you feel to be proper, the precise terms up
on which the Non-intrusion party were at one time willing to
have settled the existing difference so far as regarded the re-
poning of the Strathbogie ministers.
I have the honour to be, with sincere regard, Dear Sir,
your most faithful servant,
Walter Cook.
Edinburgh; 21st Dee. 1841.
Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
Leamington.

Letter, Walter Cook, Esq. W. S. to Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
Dear Sir,
I have now had the honour of receiving your full answer to
my letter. The Committee met to-day, when I laid your letter
before them. They feel deeply indebted to you for your im
mediate attention to their application, and for the full, frank
and important information which you have communicated. Of
course they had not time to adopt any resolutions on the sub-
b 2

20

ject of your communication, but requested me to express their
great obligation to you for the trouble you have taken, and
their sense of the honourable and candid manner in which you
have conducted your proceedings. Allow me to express my
feelings of personal obligation for the kind and friendly manner
in which you have expressed yourself towards me.
I am always, with sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your obliged
and faithful servant,

Walter Cook.

Edinburgh, 22d Dec. 1841.
Sir George Sinclair, Bart. Leamington.

Letter, Sir George Sinclair, Bart, to Walter Cook, Esq. W. S.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 25th Dec. 1841.
I derived very great pleasure from the information which I
received this morning, that you yourself, to whose good opi
nion I attach great value, and the Committee, in whose behalf
you addressed me, have at least approved of the spirit and tem
per, with which my negociations were undertaken and con
ducted. It was, I assure you, my anxious wish to consult as
far as possible their feelings, and pay all respect to their well-
known opinions. I could not, without permission asked and
obtained, transmit a copy of the minutes confidentially intrusted
to me by the Non-Intrusion Committee at Edinburgh. But I
may state, in reference to your query, that it contained no
allusion whatever to the Strathbogie case, — that it amounted
to a conditional acceptance of Lord Aberdeen's bill with my
amendment ; — the condition being, that the bill passed before
the close of the session. The acquiescence of the Committee
was, from first to last, most reluctantly extorted by me, rather
than obtained. They did at length agree, for the sake of ob
taining a settlement, for which all parties ardently long ; but
they thought, that, if no adjustment could be procured 'until
Parliament re-assembled, they might, by dint of argument and
representation to Government, secure the Duke of Argyll's
bill, or some measure preferable to mine, and I could not suc
ceed in convincing them, how much they were (in my opinion}
mistaken. J " '
As to the Strathbogie ministers, I felt assured, that no ar
rangement could be, or ought to be concluded, in which their in
terests were not secured. But if their being reponed were
made a necessary preliminary, I knew, that th5 whole neo-ocia-

21
tion would at once come to an end, for that my friends would
rather leave the Church than submit to such a stipulation. I
wished it rather to be considered in the light of an indispensa
ble concomitant to the settlement of the general question ; and
would most respectfully, but urgently, entreat your Committee
to treat the subject on that footing. I did not entertain a
doubt, that the ministers would have approved of my letter, as
sanctioned by the authority of their best friend, and most able
and judicious adviser ; and I intended (if the bill had been in
troduced during last session, and Mr Walker had intimated
that the letter had been sent to Dr Gordon,) to have then
called upon the Committee, (before the bill could be further
proceeded with,) to give a positive guarantee, that, at the ear
liest possible period the ministers should, for certain, be reponed.
I still trust, that the written overture on the part of the minis
ters to the Church may be so modified, as to be satisfactory to
both parties, and not derogatory to either.
Permit me once more to express an ardent and anxious hope,
that your Committee will, ere long, adopt some conciliatory re
solutions as to the terms, on which they are willing that the
main question should be adjusted. If they are disposed to
concede more than I presume to expect, I shall be most agree
ably surprised. The nearer they can approach to the wishes
of the majority, the better I shall be pleased : if they prefer an
absolute veto on the part of the people, to the vesting of a judi
cial control over it in the hands of the Presbytery, I shall make
no objection. If they prefer the Duke of Argyll's bill to my
proposal, I am quite willing to retire from the field. But, oh
my dear Sir, let them beware of tendering less. The Non-In
trusion Committee, when so strenuously contending for more,
will perhaps not even be persuaded again to accept so little.
To reject even the minimum, pared down by me to the lowest di
mensions, and at one time sanctioned by an enlightened and
conciliatory Government, would, on the part of your friends, be
an idle mockery, and would belie those professions of pacific
feelings and intentions, for which I for one give them the full
est and most implicit credit.
Believe me, &c. &c.

Letter, Walter Cook, Esq. W. S. to Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
My Dear Sir,
I duly received your letter of the 1 st January, an additional
demonstration of the very warm interest which you take in en-.

22
deavouring to effect an amicable arrangement of our unfor
tunate Church differences. I feel with you an equal desire
that these differences may be amicably arranged, but, alas, the
views of the parties are so completely at variance, and on prin
ciples appearing to each so essential, that I at present do not
see in what manner they can be satisfactorily arranged ami
cably. My opinions correspond almost entirely with those of
my brother, Dr Cook, and as you are fully acquainted with his
sentiments, it were idle to trouble you with any repetition of
mine. I consider the Church as acting most illegally and un
constitutionally, in persisting in their adherence to the veto
act, after our courts of law have declared that act to be beyond
their powers to enact, and that in the deposition of the Strath
bogie ministers, and in some of their late proceedings, they have
shown a disposition and temper, rendering it most unsafe to
confer upon the Church those extensive powers which Lord
Aberdeen's bill, as corrected by you, would give them. Were
such a bill passed, / am satisfied, that no clergyman entertaining
views on Church politics, such as I hold, 'would ever be admitted
to a parochial charge in Scotland. Many of the clergymen in
the Non-intrusion party I very highly esteem, and believe to
be actuated by the most sincere conviction ; but there seems
to me to be amongst them a great want of Christian feeling
and charity, denying to others that sincerity of principle, by
which they themselves profess to be actuated.
I quite concur with you, that both parties ought to make
great sacrifice of their particular opinions, to avert the evils of
a schism in the Church, which I think would lead to its final
overthrow ; but still each party will expect, that there shall be
no abandonment of what appears to them to be essential in an
Establishment, and nothing has yet been proposed, which has
appeared to me to be likely to terminate our unhappy diffe
rences. My only hope is, that every thing is under the guidance
of a gracious and merciful God, and that he will listen to the
anxious prayers of a people, if really sincere, in giving them
that form of Government appearing to him the best fitted to
promote the glory of God, and to advance the interest of our
Saviour's kingdom ; and oh how constant and unremitting ought
these prayers to be ! " Ask, and it shall be given you • seek
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto' you,"
I have troubled you with the above general statement of my
views, with no intention of entering into any discussion, but
because I felt, after your most friendly letters, that it was not
candid to conceal my own opinion. I am perfectly open to
conviction, but I have made up my mind, after a ve/y anxious
consideration of the subject. All I can plead on an equahty

23
with you, is the sincerity of my opinions, for however erroneous
they may be, they are formed from conviction, but without any
feeling of unkindness or of prejudice against those who differ
from me ; and I only regret, that with my views, I cannot aid
you in those attempts which you have made, with feelings so
honourable to yourself, to effect an amicable arrangement.
In case you may not have seen it, I send you the Answer by
Mr Robertson of Ellon and others to the Remonstrance made
to them by a Committee of the Commission. I am aware of
many things you will disapprove of in that paper, but it con
tains the leading views by which those who think with the
minority of the Church are actuated.
I am always, with esteem, my dear Sir, your most faithful
servant,
Walter Cook.
Edinburgh, 10th Jan. 1842.

During the early part of these negociations, I wrote several
letters to my reverend friend, Dr Cook of St Andrews, by
whom I was always honoured with most kind and respectful
answers. I did not, at that period, keep such entire or regu
lar copies of my own letters, but those of Dr Cook are
entitled to the most attentive consideration, both by the clear
ness which he states his own opinions, and the sagacity with
which he foresees the result of my negociations.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Cook.
My Dear Dr Cook, Edin. 20th Aug. 1841.
My grateful recollection of the very kind manner in which
you received the communications which I addressed to you last
year, prompts me again to obtrude a few unreserved and con
fidential suggestions, in reference to the still more gloomy as
pect which the affairs of our beloved Church have now unhap
pily assumed.
I am at present deeply engaged in certain negociations and
discussions, which, I think, may lead to the adoption of a mea
sure, in which, though not altogether satisfactory to either
party, both, for the sake of peace, may be disposed to acquiesce.
When my views are a little more matured, there is no one to
whose enlightened judgment I should sooner deem it both my
duty and my interest to submit them, than to yours. * *
***** [Case of seven ministers an almost insu
perable bar in limine. Query, Might they not offer to resign,
and be reponed, &c. ?]

24

¦'T' Letter from the Rev. Dr Cook.
Manse of Lochmaben, 23d August 1841.
My Dear Sir,
I have just received the letter of the 20th instant, which you
have had the goodness to write to me, and which was forward
ed to this place from St Andrews. It gives me much plea
sure to think, that so warm and enlightened a friend of our ad
mirable Church as you are, has turned his anxious attention to
compose our unhappy dissensions, and to save the Establish
ment from the danger with which it is threatened. Most de
sirous I am, that what is of so much importance to the best in
terests of our country should De effected, and most gladly would
I weigh with all care and impartiality, any measure, which, not
compromising essential principle, was devised for so momentous
an end. I was always aware, that the strong step of deposing
the seven Strathbogie ministers, for yielding obedience to the
supreme civil court authorities of the kingdom, would be the
most formidable obstacle to any adjustment ; and unless the
dominant party are to depart a little from the ground which
they have occupied, I do not see how this obstacle is to be sur
mounted, without giving to the Established Church a degree
of power, even in civil matters, which is inconsistent, in my hum
ble opinion, with the existence of an efficient government. I
have no doubt, that these worthy men deeply deplore, that in
following out the dictates of their conscience, they should have
acted so as to throw any impediment in the way of restoring
peace, — that they would express this, — that they would de
clare their firm attachment to the Church, and their desire to
submit to its spiritual jurisdiction ; — but they cannot condemn
themselves for what they have done, and in doing which, they
have the concurrence and the support of many of their bre
thren. I am desirous that we should now cease to give them
that assistance which was requisite to show our concurrence
with them, and this with the view of not increasing irritation, —
and during this interval the negociations to which you allude
may be carried on. Should they terminate in a scheme accept
able to both parties, it would then be a matter of fair considera
tion, how we were to proceed as to the Strathbogie ministers, so
as that harmony might be restored. I have, I must acknowledge,
great fear as to the issue of any private and amicable attempt
at adjustment ; but I can most sincerely say, that nothing would
to me be more distressing, than that the Establishment should
be weakened, or that any schism should take place, depriving
it ot the services of many pious men, devoted to her interest.
It you do me the honour to submit to me any suggestion of

25
yours, I need not say with how much respect I shall examine
it, so as to get an honest and a candid opinion. I shall remain
here for a week, and get to St Andrews on Saturday se'night.
I have the honour to be, with the highest respect and regard,
my dear Sir, your most faithful and obedient servant,
George Cook.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Cook.

My Dear Dr Cook, Edin. 26th Aug. 1841.
In continuation of the letter which I had the pleasure of ad
dressing to you yesterday *, I may begin by observing, that
in the present position of affairs, only three courses are pos
sible ; (1.) one party may yield every thing ; (2.) neither party
may yield any thing ; (3.) both parties may yield something.
It is in vain to expect, and would be unjust to ask, that the
first alternative should be embraced, either by the majority or
the minority. If the second be adhered to, a schism is in
evitable ; and whichever be the expelled or seceding party, I
am convinced, that the country would, ere long, cease to have
the blessing of an ecclesiastical establishment. It remains,
therefore, to see whether any means can be devised for carrying
the system of mutual concession into effect. Alas, I see little
prospect of such a happy consummation.
The one party contends for the veto, i. e. that the objec
tions of the majority shall necessarily be paramount, even if
the Presbytery thinks that they are unfounded ; the other
party supports Lord Aberdeen's bill, which allows the Presby
tery to give effect to the objections, if they themselves homo
logate and approve of them. Now, what I suggest as a mid
dle course, is this : [Plan detailed. Case of seven ministers, —
letter proposed, not admitting they had done wrong in obeying
the law, but regretting they had not abstained, after deposition,
from performing spiritual functions. * * * *]
If both parties heard, as I do, the condescending compassion
of the Episcopalians, the supercilious sneer of the Infidel, the
exuberant self-gratulation of the Voluntary, and what is more
painful than all the rest, the sorrowful forebodings of many holy
and venerable men, who hate strife, and love the things which
make for peace, I do believe, that they would contend who

Of this letter I have no copy.

26

should be the first to act upon conciliatory principles, instead
of being, as is too often and too much the case, determined to
insist' upon every thing, and resolved to concede nothing.
God grant, that he who has so faithfully, and no doubt, with
feelings of honest satisfaction, recorded the trials and the tri
umphs of our beloved Church in past ages, may contribute at
this emergency, to its rescue from imminent peril, so as not to
become, ere long, the reluctant historian of its ruin.
Believe me, &c.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Cook.
West Park, St Andrews,
My Dear Sir, 1th Sept. 1841.
I have delayed ackowledging the two last letters which you did
me the honour to address to me, till my return home. I had
intended to use the freedom of waiting upon you, as I passed
through Edinburgh, but from the short time that 1 could re
main in town, I was unavoidably prevented. I cannot suffi
ciently express how much I was delighted with the tone of sen
timent which these interesting letters breath, and how deeply
I lament that there is so faint a prospect of such an arrange
ment between our ecclesiastical parties, as might, under the
blessing of God, restore peace to our venerated Church. In
your last letter you mentioned that you had been led in a great
degree to despond, as to what you had at one time hoped might
be effected, and from this I fear, that you had found how deter
mined the majority unfortunately are, to adhere to every thing
for which they have contended.
Should the conference to which you allude be requested, I
should most willingly concur, but on this condition only, that
there is some open ground, upon which we could enter with a
view of reaching to an adjustment. If all that is intended be, as
the resolution of the Commission seems to indicate, that an ad
monition is to given to the minority, to bring them to what are
called a better mind and juster sentiments, conference would be
useless, and must be declined.
It is fearful to consider what may be the result of the attitude
in which the parties stand to each other. There is certainly
no small danger that the Establishment may be overthrown alto
gether ; and even should this not take place, there will be a
degree of agitation, discontent and alienation, which will sadly
impair its efficiency, and render it, in many places, the minister of

27
strife, and the extinguisher of the best feelings of the heart, in
stead of conveying, as it has so long done, the influence of pure
and undefiled religion to those within its communion. Could
we have come to the momentous attempt to remove our dissen
sions in the pure and pious spirit by which you have been actu
ated, I have little doubt, that under the divine blessing, success
would have attended our efforts. I have the honour to be, with
the greatest respect, my dear Sir, your most faithful servant,
George Cook.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Cook.

My Dear Dr Cook, Edin. 8th Sept. 1841.
[Plan again detailed — Majority quite willing to settle on
footing of call — Bill, if terms adjusted, might be at once intro
duced ; and pass during present short session — Amicable con
ference proposed to take place immediately at my house, be
tween leaders of parties.]

Letter from the Rev. Dr Cook.
West Park, St Andrews,
My Dear Sir, 9th Sept. 1841.
I have just had the honour of receiving your letter of the 8th
instant ; and I think it my duty immediately to reply to it. It
appears to me that there must be time for mature deliberation,
and for fully ascertaining the amount of what is proposed in
the way of legislative enactment, before any advantage could
result from such a compromise as you propose. I think that there
is much vagueness in what has been called the liberum arbitrium,
and if it be what I am disposed to imagine that it is, I could
not acquiesce in it. I should humbly suggest that the intend
ed plan should in the first instance be clearly detailed and ex
plained, — that it should be circulated amongst the leading per
sons of both parties, — and that some attempt should be made to
ascertain whether there is any likelihood of its being approved.
I am certainly not at present sufficiently informed to assist at
a conference, and there is not sufficient time before next week
to gather the views of those with whom I act. It seems to me
quite impossible that any thing could be sanctioned by Parlia
ment in the present short session ; and that it will be all that

28
could be expected, if an arrangement could be made before next
Assembly. I must also unequivocally state, that if it be not understood that
the restoration of the Strathbogie ministers is to be effected,
or if it be laid down that they are to be abandoned, I could be
no party to any such adjustment.
Whilst the resolutions of the late Commission remain unmo
dified, or whilst no security is given that they may be departed
from, I honestly acknowledge that I can anticipate no cordial
effort to restore, through mutual concession, the peace of the
Church, which has been so unhappily broken.
I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, my dear
Sir, your most faithful servant,
George Cook.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Cook.

My Dear Dr Cook, Edin. 13th Sept. 1841.
Inured as I am to disappointments, both public and private,
by sad and frequent experience, I must own, that I have " great
heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart," when I contem
plate the too probable, or, I fear, quite certain failure, of my
well-intended endeavours to restore the peace, and, I had al
most said, prevent the destruction of our National Church as
an Establishment. I have striven to carry concession as far
as I could. Though I am altogether hostile to patronage, I
was willing to waive all my objections to it — to give up the veto,
— to abandon the Duke of Argyll's bill, and to contend only
for the minimum which the majority of the Church could by
possibility accept, in consistency with their honour, or in con
formity with their principles. I am unable to see what advan
tage can be derived from delay, as every public meeting, held
by either party, only tends to increase the distance between
them, to aggravate resentment, and renew recrimination. In
a former letter, I tried to define, as clearly as I could, the prin
ciples upon which I conscientiously thought, and fondly hoped,
that both parties might unite. I may perhaps render myself
more intelligible by entreating you to turn to Lord Aberdeen's
bill. [Here the amendment was detailed;] Thus leaving it op
tional to the Church courts to reject or give effect to the rea
sons and objections of the people, according as they think it
conducive to the spiritual welfare of the parish to follow either
the one course or the other. Surely, my dear Doctor, you will
agree with me, that the Church courts are in general more

29
favourable to the interests of the presentee than to the wishes
of the people, and would not feel inclined to reject the former,
if they thought that there was a prospect of his either being at
the time, or soon becoming, an useful and acceptable instruc
tor. But if you disapprove of my plans and suggestions, why not
favour me in return with yours ? What concessions will you
and your friends propound, for the sake of coming to an agree
ment ? What is your ultimatum ? — your maximum of sacrifice ? —
your minimum of demand ? I never for a moment thought, that
you could or would abandon the Strathbogie ministers. I sub
mitted to you two proposals for the extrication of the Church
from that difficulty. I am most anxious for their restoration,
and my opinion is, (as I told you before,) that they were treat
ed with harshness, and no sufficient allowance made for the
peculiar position in which they were placed. But I look in
vain for any annunciation on your part of any conciliatory
basis, which I might press (as it would be my wish and duty
to do) upon the acceptance of the other party.
Do not be angry, (for I really mean no offence,) but I once
heard of a dispute between two partners in the same concern,
each of whom professed the greatest respect for the other, and
a most anxious wish for an adjustment ; but each unfortunate
ly expected, that the whole concessions should proceed from
the opposite party. One of them at length said to a mutual
friend, who strove (perhaps somewhat officiously) to mediate
between them, " You know how much I am a man of peace ;
if there is any thing, upon which I might venture to pique my
self, it is my placability. I feel deeply indebted to you for the
pains, which you are taking, to bring me and my esteemed
friend together on the old footing of amity. I am not at all par
ticular as to the mode in which my claims are settled. 1 am
willing to accept either paper or bullion.' In the former case,
either English or Scotch notes will satisfy me ; and in the latter,
though I should prefer sovereigns, I could prevail upon myself
to take old guineas, provided they be of full weight. The
only point in which I insist is, that one way or the other I shall
receive twenty shillings in the pound, and 5 per cent, interest
until the day of payment."
You, my dear Doctor, and your friends, have much more
influence than I have with the present enlightened administra
tion ; and it is very probable, that you may prevail upon them
to introduce such a bill as may have the effect of expelling
from the Church the excellent and venerated men of whose in
terests, on public as well as on private grounds, I am the un
authorised but ardent advocate. The goodly ship, the Church
of Scotland, is unhappily exposed to " a tempestuous ivind, called

30
Euroclydon," {Acts, xxvii.), or, in this case, internal discord.
I, as one of the humblest of the crew, have been "fearing lest
we should enter into quicksands," — " no small tempest lies on us,"
 " all hope that we should be saved is almost taken away." But
allow me to say, in reference to the holy, zealous and beloved
brethren, whose continuance as members of the Establishment
is placed in such imminent jeopardy, " except these abide
in the ship, ye cannot be saved." The Church could
scarcely survive so fearful, so fatal a disruption. Such, at
least, is my conscientious and decided opinion, — though, if the
party, of which you are a distinguished ornament, should be
able, single-handed, to conduct its parochial ministrations pro
sperously and acceptably, when I, and those whose piety I
reverence, and whom I love both for their own sakes, and " for
the truth's sake, which dwells in them," have been driven out
of its pale, I therein will rejoice, and wish you all happiness
and success*.
Believe me, &c.
I think it due to my reverend and respected friend to insert
his reply to this communication, in order that his objections to
my plan, and the mode in which he thinks it most advisable to
deal with the question, may be brought before the public in his
own impressive and perspicuous language.

West Park, St Andrews,
My Dear Sir, 1 5th Sept. 1841.
I have had the honour of receiving your letter of the 13th
instant ; and unwilling as I am farther to intrude upon you, I
am anxious to trouble you with a few additional observations.
I may mention, that you ascribe to me much greater influence
with my own friends than I possess ; that situated as I am, I
cannot presume to negociate for them without being acquainted
with their sentiments, and that it was for this reason that I
considered it impracticable to have such a conference as you
contemplated so early as you wished. Their impression is,
that it is essential to ascertain whether the majority authorise
a conference, or whether they are prepared to recede in any
degree from the high ground which they have taken. To meet
and immediately to separate upon a preliminary objection
would do no good. I have ever been most desirous for peace,
and to preserve to the Church the faithful services of all her
ministers ; — and in the Commission of August 1840 I suggest-

¦'.u ?h}S *llud?s *° a "imour, very generally current, that a bill was to be forth
with introduced, declaring the minority to constitute the Church of Scotland.

31
ed a plan, by which I was convinced then, and I am convinced
still, that this might be effected. The import was to give to
the people all the privileges as to the induction of ministers
which they had previously to 1834, specifying these in a short
and unambiguous enactment, — to regulate our procedure in the
mean time by this act, — and, should it be found inadequate to
secure efficient and acceptable ministers, to consider how it
could be made so, and to go to the Legislature to sanction the
improvement. Some observations were made upon it, but I
need not say that it was not adopted.
With respect to the clause, which you propose to add to
Lord Aberdeen's bill, it appears to me that it vests with ab
solute and irresponsible power the judicatories of the Church,
— the courts of all others to which such power should not be
given, and by which, as in the ages which are past, it would
certainly be abused. It amounts to this, that every man, how
ever pious and exemplary, who did not coincide in all things
with what happened to be the dominant faction, might be re
jected. There is, in fact, no check, — and I am satisfied that
more injustice would be done under the liberum arbitrium than
was done even under the veto law, which, however, the clause
virtually legalises. As to what other profession would it be
for one moment held to be right, that a candidate for admission
into it should be cast, for reasons which the judges themselves
admitted not to be conclusive ? The best restraint upon power
is public opinion ; but there is left no room for it ; and when
it is recollected that members of the high party have often
boasted that they will ultimately exclude every Moderate man
from the Church, and have, by an act of last Commission,
brought the pulpit itself into requisition for accomplishing
this, can it be doubted that the adoption of the clause which
you have specified would be equivalent to the extermination
of all who hold the opinions which I, and they with whom I act,
entertain ?
I would listen with the utmost attention and the utmost can
dour to any plan which did not exclude the influence of public
opinion, or which brought prominently forward the grounds
upon which a Presbytery rested its judgment : but if the clergy
be authorised to act without the slightest regard to that opi
nion, I should consider the Established Church as a system of the
most iniquitous spiritual despotism. Having this conviction, and
persuaded that what so shocks me is that which recommends
to the majority the liberum arbitrium, I am afraid that there
is no hope of an adjustment by the Church itself; and we must
trust that He who has hitherto upheld our Zion, will, in his own
way, mercifully deliver it, so that there may yet be peace in
Israel.

32
May I be permitted to add, that the admirable letters with
which you have favoured me made a deep and lasting impres
sion upon my mind, and have raised in my estimation, even still
higherthan before, their enlightened, patriotic and pious writer?
I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, my dear
Sir, your most faithful servant,
George Cook.

Notes of a Letter addressed to my excellent Friend, the Rev. Dr
Macleod. Edinburgh, 8th Nov. 1841.
Apology, not for sending this communication, but for not
having sooner solicited his assistance and advice  Argu
ments same as in letter of 26th August to Dr Cook  Con
ference at my house proposed  Measure defining call would be
acceptable to majority  They cannot take less than my plan.
— Seven ministers must be reponed on some basis honourable
to both parties.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Macleod.
My Dear Sir, 17th September 1841.
It was my full intention to" have sent a lengthened reply to
your good letter, but it would require a pamphlet rather than a
letter, to communicate to you fully all that occurs to me on the
subject of our unfortunate difference. I greatly fear that no
good can result from a conference at present. If others, whom
you have consulted, think that a meeting at your house of some
individuals, from both sides, is likely to do good, I am most
willing to attend, as no man living is more anxious for a just
and final settlement of the question than I am. My opinion is,
that Lord Aberdeen's bill gives all the liberum arbitrium that
can be wished for. I think that measure fully adequate to sa
tisfy the claims of the Church; and beyond what that measure
proposes, I am disposed to believe the Parliament will not be
induced to advance. I think the free right of judgment of the
Presbytery, or the liberum arbitrium, is most fully secured by
that bill, and that the appeal lies entirely to the superior
Church courts for reconsideration. If Lord Aberdeen's bill
does not secure this, then let the phraseology be changed to

33
secure it,— for unquestionably that was Lord Aberdeen's wish
and intention. I think it is difficult to imagine a case under
that bill which would let in the jurisdiction of the civil courts,. —
while I must maintain that the principle of expressly excluding
the State from the power of redressing a constitutional wrong,
and absolutely giving the Church the right to violate the very
statutes to which the Establishment owes its existence, is a
point which the Legislature never will yield.
I have not been able to see Principal Macfarlane. He has
not been in town, — neither has Dr Hill since I received your
letter. The turmoil and warfare of the winter campaign of
Church agitation has commenced, and every day renders the
settlement of the question more and more difficult. The agitators
are giving to the whole matters in dispute the baneful charac
ter of religious controversy, and all our differences as to eccle
siastical polity they are converting into matters of religious
faith, — their own opinions on the points they are making the
tests of the truth, the sincerity and orthodoxy of those who differ
from them.
I hope we may be enabled to discharge our duties in such
a way as to stand all the abuse that is heaped upon us.
If you, my dear and much esteemed Sir George, can see
that good may arise from the meeting which you propose with
such good and Christian feeling — command my attendance ; but
I do despair of our coming to any agreement at the present
time. I hope that I am wrong, and that I shall be disap
pointed. I am, my dear Sir, with most sincere respect and esteem,
your most faithful servant,
Nor. Macleod.

The following three letters are inserted, in order to shew in
what manner my proposal was first submitted to the considera
tion of her Majesty's Ministers.

Letter to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart. Src. Src.
My Dear Peel, Edin. 20th Sept. 1841.
It was not my intention to have troubled you, or gratified my
self, by tendering my most cordial congratulations, not only up
on your own auspicious and well-merited elevation to the high
est office in the State, but upon the wisdom and discrimination
c

34
with which you have selected your colleagues, and placed each
in the situation most suited to his talents and experience.
Having, however, been informed (after the decision had been
adopted) that the Church of Scotland has appointed a deputa
tion to confer with you upon our ecclesiastical affairs, and un
happy dissensions, I think it right to address you unreservedly
upon the subject, as it is one, to which I have for several years,
and especially during the last few weeks, paid unremitting and
anxious attention. I have been conversing or corresponding
with the most intelligent and influential leaders on both sides,
in the ardent hope of being enabled to effect a friendly and
equitable adjustment, and although my efforts have not been
crowned with success, you will, I am sure, permit me to explain
what I conceive to be the present state of the question.
I may premise, in reference to my own views, that I have
always deemed it of primary importance to maintain the con
nection between Church and State, a connection which I re
gard as equally essential to the welfare of both. I thought, and
still think, that, in Scotland, it would be consonant with the
spirit, and conducive to the stability, of our ecclesiastical insti
tutions, to abolish lay patronage, and vest in the communi
cants the election of the pastors. But I know, that, to contend
for the attainment of that object, would be altogether hopeless
and visionary ; and I have therefore ceased to agitate the ques
tion, being most anxious, (1.) not to inflame the minds of the
people ; (2.) not to endanger the permanence of the Church as
a national establishment. These are also two considerations
which mainly prompted me, since my return to Scotland, to
labour honestly and zealously for the amicable settlement of
the unhappy disputes, which have so lamentably aggravated the
former of these evils, and menace us with the infliction of the
other. My first object was to ascertain, from a full and dispassion
ate review of all the circumstances of the case, what was the
minimum which the Church, (meaning of course the majority,)
could accept, conformably with their principles, and consistently
with their honour. And I may here add, that although I have
disapproved of many of the measures pursued, and deprecated
many of the speeches delivered by the members of that majo
rity, I can attest, without fear of contradiction, that it comprises
a very large proportion of the holiest, the ablest, and the most
devoted pastors, with which any church or any nation has, in
any age, been blessed. Nothing can be more cruel, or more un
just, than to tax them with being actuated by motives of pri
vate interest, or views of personal ambition. On the contrary,
so tar as they themselves are concerned, the line of conduct,

35
which a paramount sense of duty has compelled them to adopt,
could, in no case, increase their own emoluments, or enhance
their own power. Even the abolition of patronage would only
transfer the initiative from the patrons to the communicants,
leaving the jurisdiction of the Church precisely on its present
footing, whilst one of the main objections urged against the veto
was, that it tended to abridge or paralyse the legitimate ex
ercise of ecclesiastical authority. The main object, therefore,
of the majority was to prevent unfit and unacceptable ministers
from being obtruded upon congregations. They thankfully
acknowledge the conscientious and judicious manner, in which
many patrons now exercise the important functions, which de
volve upon them ; yet, mindful of the tyranny and oppression so
frequently practised in former times, when military force was
employed to compel reluctant parishes to receive unpopular in
cumbents, they would rather be, themselves, compelled to leave
the Church, which they love in their hearts, and which they
adorn by their lives, than abandon the defence, which they
have so generously undertaken, of the people's rights and in
terests. But I may add, that they are, (as may well be sup
posed,) desirous, if possible, to avoid the martyrdom of expul
sion, though determined, if necessary, to endure it ; and they
would cheerfully accept, or, at least, sincerely acquiesce in any
plan, which would be deemed least objectionable by their oppo
nents, and yet effectually secure the principle, which they wish
to see acknowledged and enforced.
I at once saw, that it would be useless and preposterous to
invite them to accept, in its present form, the bill which Lord
Aberdeen so seasonably and so honestly brought forward, but
which they had reluctantly, though peremptorily, declined to
assent to. On the other hand, I was equally aware, that the
minority would not accede to the veto, either in its original
shape, or as modified by the bill of the Duke of Argyle. It
therefore occurred to me, that the best mode of solving the dif
ficulty was, to introduce a kind of mezzo termine principle, — by
enabling the Church courts (not compelling them, as is the
case under the veto law,) to give effect to the reasons and
objections of the parishioners, (although not in their own
judgment conclusive,) in the event of these reasons and objec
tions prevailing amongst the people to such an extent, as to pre
sent a very great or insuperable bar to the usefulness of the
presentee's ministrations in that particular district ; whilst, at
the same time, it would be equally competent to the Church
courts to overrule the said reasons and objections, (by however
large a majority entertained,) if deemed either captious and
irrelevant, or likely to be got the better of under the influence
of time and experience. c 2

36
this I hold to be the minimum, which the Church can accept,
and they would acquiesce in it with perfect sincerity, though not
without great reluctance. My correspondence with Dr Cook
and Dr Macleod has shewn, that, although I must ever feel
most grateful to them both for the very kind and respectful
tenor of their communications, they are not disposed to view
this ultimatum as favourably as I hoped and expected, and I
have been honoured with a friendly letter from Lord Aberdeen,
in which his Lordship says, that my proposal would virtually
legalise the veto. Now, some intimate friends of mine on the
opposite side contend, that it would abolish the veto, whereas,
it seems to me in fact to do neither, but to leave to the Church
courts the nobile qfficium of arbitrating between the claims of
the patron and presentee on the one hand, and the objections
of the people on the other. In fact, it is extremely difficult to
give any satisfaction to the minority. If the veto be insisted
on, the answer is, that it allows too much to the people. If,
to obviate that objection, the liberum arbitrium is propounded,
we are met by the reply, that it enlarges too much the juris
diction of the Church courts. When the abolition of patronage
was contended for, its advocates maintained, that patronage is
the link, which is essential for connecting the Church with the
State ; when a lower ground is taken up, and the veto substi
tuted, (by which the initiative remains with the patron,) we
are told, that this is worse than the abrogation of the law of
patronage ; and when we recede still farther, and restrict our
selves to the liberum arbitrium, the reply is, that this is the
worst scheme of all.
I am thoroughly convinced, on the whole, that the dispute
might be settled at once on the basis which I have suggested,
but that the General Assembly will not and cannot take less.
I may add, that, if you should be inclined to adjust matters on
that basis, you would satisfy the consciences of those, who are
willing, for the sake of peace, to accede to these terms ; and,
on the other hand, although the Moderate party might not ap
prove of the principle, they would (as I hope and believe) re
main connected with the Church, as it has never been declared
by them, (so far as I know,) to be a matter of conscience, that
the liberum arbitrium should not be enacted. I see no other
alternative than that, which I ventured some time ago to sug
gest, viz. the appointment of a Commission for the purpose of
collecting, during the recess, the materials and information,
which might be desirable for enabling the Government and the
Legislature to come to a right conclusion.
The Voluntaries in Scotland are siding with the Moderate
party ; but why ? for the mere purpose of proving, that the
Church, as long as it is established, is in a state of thraldom

3T
and subserviency, and in the hope that, if many of the most able,
pious and influential ministers are driven from its pale, they
may be led to join in the outcry for the abolition of all ecclesias
tical establishments. I should lament more than I can express
the painful necessity of leaving the Church of my fathers. I
shall indeed be a most involuntary Voluntary ; but I fondly hope
and earnestly pray, that you may be enabled to devise and carry
such a measure, as may enable both parties to remain connected
with the Church, which would be greatly injured by the loss
of either.
Excuse the (I fear) unwarrantable length of this letter. I
deemed it right to enter at large into my own views of this
momentous question, without in the remotest degree expecting,
or asking for, any dev elopement of yours.
Believe me, &c.
I may just add, that I had formed a plan for the restoration
of the Strathbogie ministers, without compromising the princi
ples of either party. I always dreaded, deprecated, and dis
approved of their deposition.

Letter, Sir George Sinclair, Bart, to Sir G. Clerk, Bart. M. P.
My Dear Clerk, Edinburgh, 21 st Sept. 1841.
I wrote a very long letter yesterday to the first Lord of the
Treasury on Scotch Church matters, which I suppose, and
hope, that he will request you to read, and excuse me for
having inflicted upon himself. I, however, omitted one point,
which, as 1 have not the courage to importune him again, I
venture to mention to you, i. e. that the Church would very
gladly accept any measure for legalising and properly defining
the call, if that course would appear preferable either to the
minority, or to the Government. I say with perfect confidence,
that the leaders of the majority are most anxious to avoid
schism, and re-establish peace, if this most desirable end can be
obtained without a sacrifice of principle. I doubt not, that you
will lend a helping hand to this good work. Dr Cook's sug
gestion, in one of his very kind letters to me, was, to define the
checks which existed upon patronage prior to 1834, &c, but I
think that system was so defective as to admit of the most galling
tyranny and injustice, and led not only to the appointment of
very unfit and unpopular ministers, but to the Secession, which
has engendered schism and Voluntaryism throughout the length
and breadth of the land. I lean very strongly in favour of in-

38

troducing into Lord Aberdeen's bill the words, of which I sent
a copy to his Lordship, and in the adoption of which I have
every reason to believe that the majority would acquiesce.
With cordial congratulations on your accession to an office
for which you are universally admitted to be so admirably qua
lified, I ever remain, &c.

Letter, Sir George Sinclair, Bart, to the Right Hon. Sir J.
Graham, Bart. M. P. Sfc.
My Dear Sir James, Edin. 23d Sept. 1841.
Allow me to thank you for the friendly terms of your letter,
which I had the pleasure to receive yesterday morning. I in
tended to have troubled you, in a very few words, with the two
chief arguments in favour of a Commission : (1.) that it would
put a stop to clerical agitation during the winter,— an impor
tant object, because the speeches on these occasions, though
often very eloquent, are not always prudent or judicious ; (2.)
although, as you observe, much has been written on the sub
ject in dispute, I hold that very little has been read, for few
English politicians have waded through the long and elaborate
pamphlets which on both sides have issued from the press, but
most of them would, I think, peruse able and dispassionate
testimony collected under the authority of a Royal Commis
sion. Whilst, however, preparing to address you, I received a note
from the Dean, intimating his return to Edinburgh, and his
wish to see me on the subject of the Church question, respect
ing which we had previously had several most frank and ami
cable discussions, intermitted for a few weeks in consequence
of his absence. To my very great and unqualified satisfaction,
we agreed perfectly as to a basis, not altogether according to
the mind of either party, but in which I maintain that both can
honourably acquiesce. The Dean has so fully explained his
(or I may say our views, meaning mine as well as his own,) in
his masterly letter to Lord Aberdeen, that I shall not weaken
his arguments by going over the same ground. On Monday I
breakfasted with three of the leaders of the Church party, and
communicated to them in detail the failure of my negociations,
so far as some of my Moderate correspondents are concerned,
and they observed, that, if the whole of the Moderate party
knew what terms their leaders had declined to accept, a great
many would express their unqualified dissatisfaction with such
a result, and the party be almost broken up. Now I venture

39
to say, with equal confidence, that if the leaders of the wow-
intrusion party were to dissent from the course recommended
to the Government by the Dean and myself, a very large pro
portion indeed of their party would take umbrage, and their
party cease to act in concert. I do not, however, at all
anticipate such a result. I wrote at great length yester
day to Mr Candlish on the subject, and I feel quite persuaded,
that, although this mode of settling the question is not that,
which he would have preferred, yet, from all that he and
others have uniformly said to me, they will acquiesce in the
measure, and peace will be restored. It would be very desir
able to get the bill through immediately, to prevent political
intrigue, or the machinations of any ultra-malecontents during
the recess.
I can add no more, as writing so soon exhausts me, but I re
commend this matter most earnestly to your favourable consi
deration. The minimum for which I contend on behalf of the
Church will enable every Non-intrusionist to remain in, and nei
ther compel, nor induce, any of their opponents to go out. Be
lieve me, &c.

Memorandum.
In the foregoing letter, allusion is made to a suggestion,
which I had previously made orally to Lord Aberdeen, and
by letter to Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, that a
Royal Commission should forthwith be appointed, to collect
evidence, and report their opinion, as to the best mode of set
tling the question. I may take this opportunity to defend my
self against two charges, viz. that I omitted to bring the sub
ject forward in Parliament, and that I only took it up when a
Conservative Government was established. I may observe,
(I.) That I did not think it advisable to originate a discussion
in the House of Commons whilst Lord Aberdeen's bill was
pending in the House of Lords. But in the following autumn
I published in the Witness newspaper two letters, in which I
expressed my opinions at great length, and suggested a mode
of adjustment, nearly, or altogether similar to that, which I have
since propounded in a more tangible shape.
(2.) When Lord Melbourne declared, very early in 1840,
that he did not intend to introduce any measure in reference
to the Church of Scotland, I took the liberty to make a pro
posal to his Lordship, in a letter, of which a copy is here sub
joined, together with the very frank and kind communication,
with M'hich I was honoured in reply

40
My Lord, Edin. 30th Jan. 1841.
I owe many apologies to your Lordship for venturing to
offer any suggestion upon public matters, as I have not any
personal claim upon the favour or confidence of the Govern
ment. As I learn, however, from the public prints, that your
Lordship has intimated in the House of Lords your determi
nation not to propose any measure for the adjustment of the
differences, which have unhappily sprung up in Scotland be
tween the civil and ecclesiastical courts, may I take the liberty
to ask, whether the Cabinet would give their countenance to
a motion for the appointment of a select committee, to consider
the best mode of settling this most vital and momentous ques
tion ? I myself have always been, and still am, an advocate
for the total abolition of patronage ; but I am convinced, that
it would be altogether useless, and therefore detrimental, to
agitate that question in the Legislature ; and if a committee
were appointed, I should be quite willing to proceed upon the
basis, that the law of 1712 is to remain in force, and that we are
only to consider and report upon the cheeks, which either
exist under the present law, or ought to be enacted, for the
purpose of giving effect to all reasonable objections, on the
part of the congregation, to the presentee. I should propose
to examine four of the leading men on each side of the Church ;
— of the Non-intrusioriists, Dr Chalmers, Dr Gordon, Mr Can
dlish, and Mr Dunlop ; — of the other party, Dr Cook, Dr
Mearns, Dr Macleod, and Mr Wbigham, and Dr Muir, who
belongs to neither party. I cannot help thinking, that, by the
dispassionate examination of these eminent men, we might
arrive at certain conclusions, by which objections might be
silenced and difficulties removed.
I have the honour, &c.
My Dear Sir, Downing Street, Feb. 3. 1841.
I beg leave to acknowledge your letter, and to thank you
for the fairness and candour of the communication. Being
myself of opinion, that the present state of the Church of Scot
land, and of the questions which divide it, is not such as to ren
der a change in the law of patronage necessary, I should of course
be most unwilling to consent to the appointment of a commit
tee on the subject, as such a step might be an admission of the
expediency, if not of the necessity, of such a change.
I remain, my dear Sir, yours faithfully,
Melbourne.
(3.) Having failed in effecting this object, I determined to
bring on a full discussion of the question, on a supply night
soon after the commencement of the session. I intimated my

41
intention to several friends, and amongst others to the Lord Ad
vocate, whom I requested to press once more the appointment
of a committee upon the attention of her Majesty's Government.
I found his Lordship most feelingly alive to the importance of
an early settlement of these unhappy disputes, and (as in the
case of the Judges' Salaries Bill,) most candid and courteous
towards myself. But whilst I was preparing to address the
House at great length as to the general merits of the case, I
received, from a quarter entitled on my part to the most cor
dial regard and deference, a communication, of which I here
subjoin an extract. March 8. 1841.
Will you let me beg of you to take no step in the House
in the Scotch Church question for some time ? I am now en
gaged in a very delicate negociation with some of the Church
party, and I am most anxious to be allowed to bring it to a
conclusion. Any move at present might disconcert me. I
know your sincere interest in the question, and your kind con
fidence in me, and I therefore would ask of you to remain pas
sive for some time, till I can tell you either that the negocia
tion is broken off, or that it has succeeded. If the latter, it
will issue in a bill, which it would then become my duty to pro
pose to Parliament, but respecting which I should confer pre
viously with you, as I should wish you to join me in its intro
duction, &c.
In consequence of this letter, I at once relinquished my in
tention, and resolved not to originate any discussion on the
subject. (4.) Having, however, some time afterwards returned to
Scotland, I enjoyed the gratification of passing a few days with
Dr Chalmers, at the hospitable mansion of my friend, Mr
Hog, who has laboured so zealously in this cause ; and as
the Doctor, whose opinions on all subjects deserve and possess
so much weight and authority, not only with me, but with every
one, approved, on the whole, of my proposal, that a commit
tee should be appointed to investigate the state of the ques
tion, and the best mode of adjusting it, I used the freedom to
bring that suggestion once more under the consideration of
Government, by submitting it to Mr Maule, in whom the
Church deservedly places so much confidence, and by whom I
was favoured with the following answer :
My Dear Sin George,
I have been in the country for some days, and laid down
the pen to take up the rod. I see all the difficulties of our

42
Church matters, but I can do nothing to make them any bet
ter. I do not think any committee would serve the end of
inducing the Legislature to consider this question, as all parties
seem to me to shrink from it. I trust more to the convincing
power of time, and the steadiness of the Church in maintain
ing her rightful authority.
I am yours, faithfully, F. Maule.
19*A April 1841.
(5.) Finding that I had so little prospect of doing any positive
good, I resolved to try and prevent a step being adopted, which
I thought would be pernicious, if not fatal. I remonstrated
with every member of the deputation then in London, and espe
cially with the respected Moderator, Dr Makellar, against the
deposition of the seven ministers, which, I assured them, would
still more exasperate all their opponents, dishearten all their
friends, and throw almost insurmountable difficulties in the
way of a settlement. I received the following reply to a very
earnest appeal on this subject, which I addressed to a friend
of great influence and consideration in Scotland.
Dear Sir George, May 14. 1841.
I have just stated, in reply to a communication similar to yours,
that we have no choice, but, in the face of every hazard, must vin
dicate the Church's rightful authority over her own children.
We shall else expect interferences in all time coming, on every
conceivable question that might occur, and through which in
genious lawyers might find a pretext or an opening for the in
roads of the civil power. It is now imperative on us to teach
them once for all, that they have carried their experiments on the
fears or the sordidness of our Church a great deal too far.
For my own part, so decided are the views I entertain both of
the principle and the sound Church policy which are con
cerned in this matter, that I should not enter the Assembly at
all, but hide my face from them and their proceedings, as
ashamed, if I thought they would shrink from the full and
practical assertion of their own legitimate jurisdiction, in things
ecclesiastical. I ever am, dear Sir George, &c.
Though much discouraged by the general aspect of affairs,
I made a third attempt to obtain the concurrence of some dis
tinguished members on both sides to the immediate appoint
ment of a committee, which, I still fondly hoped, might, even
if it were productive of no other advantage, afford a very legi
timate and honest ground to the General Assembly for sisting,
until next year, all procedure against the Strathbogie ministers.
But as this proposal was received with much coldness in every

43
quarter, I determined to postpone (at least) all further inter
ference ; and the momentous political events, which soon after
occurred, and which involved the very existence both of the
Government and of the House of Commons, prevented me from
again undertaking any thing before the dissolution. In truth,
even in ordinary times, without speaking of such a crisis as I
have just adverted to, there are few things so discouraging as the
almost insuperable difficulty of prevailing upon English politi
cians to give their attention to this, or to any other subject, in
which Scotland is mainly concerned. In illustration of this
fact, I shall diversify these dry details, by the insertion of part
of a letter which I received from an English gentleman of great
sagacity, knowledge, and accomplishment, to whom I forwarded,
for his perusal, some documents connected with the Church
question. My Dear Sir George, Oct. 14. 1840.
In vain you ask me for an " opinion" upon your papers.
It is not merely for want of time, though of that I have not a
single moment for self or friends, from week's end to week's
end, at this tremendous crisis. But I vow to God, I do not
understand one word of all this worry about the Scotch Church,
with its intrusion, non-intrusion, vetoism, presbyteries, elders,
General Assemblies, Church patronage, Lay patronage, &c.
&c. &c. I have not brains for it, nor memory for it ; nor does
any one, with whom I hold any intercourse, know or care a
single straw about the matter ; but for its having been so ma
naged or mismanaged, as by some means or other to have
lost the good cause of Conservatism, (they tell me,) half a
score or upwards of seats, and much do I grieve to find, by
your letter, that your own is to be one of them. But it would
appear from the bustle among themselves, that the good people
of Scotland are all gone crazy upon this matter of intrusion, or
confusion, or whatever they please to call it ; just as mad as the
Yankees are about their presidential election, or the Irish
about repeal, or the French about Mehemet Ali. I repeat
that the whole question addles me. Yours, &c.
I have thought it the more necessary to enter into these de
tails, because I have been told, that most of the non-intru
sion prints represented my exclusion from Parliament, at the
subsequent election, as a matter of great triumph and satisfaction
to the party, of which they are the organs ; though I am bound
to add, that a different feeling was expressed to myself by
many of its leaders.
My whole conduct has been mainly guided by the principle,

44
that there were only two courses which the Church could con
sistently and honourably adopt.
(1.) That of remaining in connection with the State, which I
regard of the utmost importance to the peace and happiness of
the country, and to the stability of our institutions. But, for
this purpose, I hold, that it is indispensable for the Church to
fulfil all her duties and obligations, whilst she continues to en
joy all her privileges and emoluments ; and this can only be
done, by yielding prompt obedience to what the Supreme Courts
declare to be the law, and acquiescing in such a modification
of its statutory enactments as the Legislature is willing to
sanction. (2.) If the Church considers, that the decisions of the courts
are at variance with her welfare, and destructive of her rights,
and is determined not to accept such a settlement as Par
liament is prepared to grant, then I maintain, that she has no
alternative but at once, and bona fide, to renounce the temporal
benefits supplied by the State, and take, as she would then be en
titled to do, the entire regulation of her internal concerns into
her own hands, abolishing patronage, or settling the non-intru
sion principle on such a basis as she deems most advisable.
But the third course, that of declining to yield obedience to
the law, and yet retaining the emoluments which that very law
alone confers and upholds, and at the same time refusing such
a plan of adjustment as is attainable, and insisting upon the
acknowledgment of principles, and the enactment of regula
tions, which the Government and Legislature do not think it
consonant with their duty to propose or to entertain, is, I re
spectfully and reluctantly contend, an act of suicidal infatuation ;
and whilst it grieves and perplexes many persons of enlightened
piety, tends to confirm the prejudices, and impede the conver
sion of many adversaries to revealed truth, who contend, that
there is to be met with in the world, not only much principle
without religion, but much religion without principle.
The following extract of a letter from a Whig nobleman, as
universally respected for his unimpeachable integrity, as dis
tinguished for his legal knowledge and acumen, and who has most
kindly directed the energies of his most powerful mind to the
consideration of this momentous subject, with a view to its ad
justment, may here very appositely find a place.
" I WHOLLY DISAPPROVE OF THE COURSE WHICH HAS BEEN
ADOPTED, OF DISPUTING AND RESISTING THE AUTHORITY OF
THE LAW, AND, ABOVE ALL, OF INFLICTING INJURY UPON
OTHERS FOR OBEYING IT. THE IDEA OF ANY POWER WITHIN
the State, not subject to the authority of the State,

45
IS CONTRARY TO EVERY PRINCIPLE OF GOOD GOVERNMENT,
AND IS NOT THE LAW OF SCOTLAND."

Letter to Duncan M'Nei'I, Esq. Solicitor- General.
Bolsover Castle, Chesterfield,
My Dear Sir, \8th Oct. 1841.
I had on Friday last a very satisfactory interview, on the sub
ject of our Church affairs, with Sir R. Peel, Lord Aberdeen,
and Sir James Graham, with respect to the settlement of which
they manifested a most sincere and heartfelt anxiety. One
circumstance, which gratified me extremely, and which must
give great encouragement to the friends of peace and good or
der, was an intimation on the part of the Ministers, that you
are the individual through the medium of whom they are de
sirous that the Church should in future communicate with the
Cabinet. They expressed the greatest confidence in your abi
lity, candour, and right feelings, and remarked, that, on this
subject in particular, you had kept most wisely aloof from all
partisanship and turmoil.
The Committee will doubtless lay before you most cheerfully,
and most unreservedly, the present state of the question, as well
as the general tenor of their past proceedings. The Ministers
did me the honour to express their regret, that, as I am on my
way to Leamington for my health, I shall be prevented from
having personal communication with you, (at least for some
time,) in reference to an arrrangement which I have so much
at heart, and to the accomplishment of which my late efforts
have in some degree contributed. My motive for volunteering
to undertake a very arduous and unpromising duty was, that I
was greatly alarmed by the proceedings which both parties in
the Church had lately adopted, and which I thought, if no one
attempted to avert so fatal a blow to the public weal, must in
evitably have led either to schism, or to the total separation of
the Church from the State. [Here follows a narrative, similar
to what has already been given.]
As the subject may now be discussed at the very beginning
of a session instead of coming on near its close, it is obvious,
that there is thus an opportunity afforded for a much greater
latitude of procedure. Setting aside, therefore, once more the
abolition of patronage, as admitted on all hands to be hopeless,
it would, in my opinion, be very advisable that the Church
should request the Duke of Argyll to bring forward his bill at

46
the earliest period after the meeting of Parliament, and to take
the sense of the House of Lords on the second reading. Many
zealous non-intrusionists seem to think, that, as that measure
has received the sanction of the General Assembly, it will in
fallibly be carried triumphantly through both branches of the
Legislature. I shall be very glad to find that their predictions
are realised ; but my own conviction is, that it will be rejected
by an overwhelming majority. Even that decision, however,
will facilitate the settlement of the question, in as much as it
will render some portion at least of the supporters of that mea
sure more willing to acquiesce in other terms. Many gentlemen
of great influence and ability are of opinion, that a bill for de
fining and legalising the call would be not less, and perhaps
even more, acceptable to both parties in the Church than the
veto. The Dean and Mr Candlish seemed to concur as to the
practicability of framing such a measure ; and although I am so
unfortunate as to differ even from these high authorities as to
the possibility of drawing up a bill founded on the call, without
giving such an effect to the will of the people as shall, in cer
tain cases, preclude the Presbytery from acting judicially, and
imposing the onus probandi upon those, who directly or indirect
ly refuse to concur in the settlement of the presentee, (a prin
ciple, from which I think no consideration will induce the Go
vernment to depart,) yet it is possible that you may get over
• this difficulty, and it will be very gratifying to me to find that
my forebodings have been groundless. But if the Church
should not be able, even with your assistance, to prepare such
a measure founded on the call as may meet with the concur
rence of the Government, they may, if the Duke of Argyll's bill
should be rejected in the House of Lords, prevail upon Mr
Maule or Mr P. Stewart, who are staunch and able friends of
the Church, to introduce a bill of that description into the
House of Commons, and have the sense of the House taken upon
the second reading. Should that plan also be rejected, then it
would be desirable, that, as a last resource, my plan should be
resorted to, and Lord Aberdeen's bill, with my provision, in
troduced under the auspices of Government, and carried before
the meeting of the Assembly. In the meanwhile you will, I am
sure, agree with me as to the importance of avoiding all appeals
to the public, — all public meetings at which (to use a phrase of
Mr Candlish' s) my proposal would be " torn to pieces." Agita
tion MAY LEAD TO SUCH RASH DECLARATIONS AS MAY RENDER
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT TO PROPOSE, AND DEROGA
TORY for the Church to accept, what may, after all,
TURN OUT TO BE (AS I MYSELF AM ALREADY CONVINCED THAT
IT IS) THE ONLY SCHEME, WHICH CAN BE CARRIED THROUGH

47
Parliament, and prevent the Church from being most
unhappily separated from the state, or weakened,
if not destroyed, by schism.
Believe me, &c.
Sir James Graham should, I think, see this letter.

Having had occasion, in the month of October, to address
the Archbishop of Canterbury on a subject of a private nature,
I incidentally mentioned my recent negociations for the pacifi
cation of the Church of Scotland. In the very courteous reply
with which I was honoured, his Grace was pleased to say, (25th
October 1841,) " You have my best wishes for the success of
your pacific mission." Emboldened by this kind indication of
the interest taken by his Grace in this matter, I ventured (in
a letter, of which I have not preserved a copy) to state the
whole state of the case to the Archbishop, who condescended
to favour me with an answer so truly Christian in its spirit,
and so conciliatory and impressive in its tenor and language,
that I cannot withhold from the Church and people of Scotland
a communication, which must convince them how strong the
claims are, which his Grace possesses, upon their gratitude and
respect. My Dear Sir, Lambeth, Nov. 15. 1841.
Some time ago I saw an announcement in the papers, that
through your mediation an arrangement had been agreed on,
which was likely to terminate the differences unhappily existing
in the Church Establishment of Scotland, and I looked forward
with pleasure to the restoration of that tranquillity, which is
best calculated to bring forth the peaceable fruit of righteous
ness among the people, whose spiritual benefit is the object of
all Church Establishments. I have, however, been told that
this arrangement is likely to be disturbed, on the grounds of
non-compliance with the condition, by circumstances rendered
impracticable, that it should be sanctioned by Parliament during
the late short session. I must confess, that I see no reason
in this. The question is not of time, but of the admissibility
of certain terms ; and terms, that were proper in September,
must, according to my apprehension, be equally so in the Feb
ruary following. I am therefore unwilling to believe, that a con
ciliatory scheme, on which I do not pretend to pronounce an
opinion, but which appears, from the acquiescence of the parties
concerned, to be in their judgment unobjectionable, will be re-

48
jected on account of a delay, which does not affect its intrinsic
merits. 1 have always felt, that any interference on my part in
the concerns of the Scottish Church would be liable to miscon
struction, and have therefore taken no part in discussions re
lating to them ; but my earnest desire for the restoration of
harmony in a Church, which has so many claims to respect,
will, I am certain, excuse me in your eyes, for expressing this
sentiment to you.
I remain, my dear Sir, your faithful obedient servant,
W. Cantuar.

I have thought it right to insert verbatim the letters, which
I took the liberty to write to the Lord Bishop of London and
to Lord Brougham, in order to show, that I endeavoured to lay
the state of the case fairly before them. I did not, at first, in
tend to have communicated to the public their Lordships' im
pressive and admirable replies ; but it seems to be of great im
portance, that the country should be put in possession of the
sentiments entertained on this question by two of the highest
and most respected authorities in the land.
My Dear Lord, Leamington, 26th Oct. 1841.
When I had the honour and gratification of visiting your
Lordship at Fulham, I explained the nature of the negocia
tions which I had been carrying on, proprio motu, between the
Government and the Church of Scotland, and which termina
ted in the somewhat reluctant acquiescence of both parties in
certain terms, which I had taken the liberty to propound. The
Church, however, appended to their assent a condition, which
it proved quite impracticable to fulfil, viz. that the bill, for car
rying the scheme into effect, should pass during the late session
of Parliament. The consequence has been, that both parties
are now quite exonerated from the agreement which I had, with
extreme difficulty, brought about ; and I am much concerned to
add, that the work of agitation has recommenced in Scotland,
for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain an adjustment more
consonant with the claims of the non-intrusion party.
I intimated to your Lordship, that my plan consisted in the
introduction into Lord Aberdeen's bill, of certain words, which
defined or enlarged the powers of the Church courts in dealing
with the reasons and objections of the people, but left them still
to act in their judicial capacity, with the same power to over
rule the reasons and objections as to give effect to them. What

49
Dr Chalmers, Mr Candlish and others have been, and now are,
contending for, is, that (as is proposed by the Duke of Argyll's
bill) an absolute veto should be vested in a majority, (or as
some now propose, in two-thirds) of the communicants, and no
alternative left, in such cases, to the Church courts, but to set
aside the presentee, if they cannot succeed in persuading the
objectors to desist from their opposition. Now, Lord Aber
deen and many other eminent statesmen think, that this plan is
far more objectionable than the total abolition of patronage ; and
I have in vain reiterated to my 2Vbw-intrusion friends in Scot
land, my unwavering and decided conviction, first, that no Go
vernment would ever propose or sanction such a principle ;
and, secondly, that, if they did, they could not obtain the con
currence of Parliament in a bill for carrying it into effect.
Now, it has occurred to me, that if you, my dear Lord, could
favour me with such an exposition of your sentiments on the
subject as I could ^(without mentioning my authority by name)
communicate to my 2Vow-intrusion friends, who are ruining, by
the renewal of agitation, the very cause which they are rashly and
unadvisedly endeavouring to promote by it, I should be most
powerfully aided in my honest and anxious endeavours to open
their eyes to the imprudence of employing such desperate means
to achieve an unattainable object, and losing the only opportu
nity of terminating an unhallowed and unseemly strife, which
gives to the enemies of religion too much cause to speak reproach
fully, and which, if it should unhappily lead to the subversion of
the Scottish Establishment, might in some degree affect the se
curity of that Church, which is the best bulwark of England's
civil institutions, as well as of her more sacred blessings.
1 have the honour, &c.

Letter from the Bishop of London.
Fulham, 21th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
The intelligence contained in your letter, of the little success
which has attended your pious and benevolent endeavour to heal
the breach which has been made in your Church, has given me
great pain. I am not directly concerned in the issue of that un
happy dispute, which is now carrying on in Scotland, with all
the fierceness and bitterness of religious polemics. An odium
plusquam iheoiogicum seems to blind the eyes of one party at
least, to the sure results of the present course of action. It
d

50
IS WHOLLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE KIND OF VETO WHICH
THE LEADERS OF THE ASSEMBLY CONTEND FOR SHOULD BE
SANCTIONED BY PARLIAMENT. It WOULD NOT OBTAIN THE
consent of the house of commons, and in the house
of Lords it would find favour only with an insignifi
cant MINORITY. I HOLD THE PRINCIPLE, WHICH IT IN
VOLVES, TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH GOOD GOVERNMENT, AS
WELL AS WITH THE REAL INTERESTS OF THE CHURCH. No
THREAT OF SEPARATION  NO DANGER OF SCHISM, WOULD, I
AM PERSUADED, INDUCE THE HOUSE OF LORDS TO SANCTION
it. I have said, that I am not directly concerned in the issue
of this contest, but I am by no means insensible to the evil,
which it wrought by its continuance, to the Church of this coun
try, as well as to that of Scotland, and to the cause of Chris
tianity at large. If it should end in the separation of a large
body of pious and learned men from the Established Church,
that no doubt will be a great evil to Scotland, and no inconsi
derable one to England; but in my judgment it would be less
injurious to the cause of religious truth, than the affirmation of
the principle for which they are contending. I trust, that not
withstanding your disappointment you will continue your efforts
to avert the evil which threatens your country.
I remain, &c. C. J. London.

Letter to Lord Brougham.

Leamington, 29th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Lord Brougham,
I make no apology (because I am sure you will require none)
for soliciting the favour of your opinion and advice upon a sub
ject of great public importance. I shall endeavour to be as
brief, (though I hope you will be as much the reverse,) as pos
sible. I have, during upwards of two months, been most as
siduously and anxiously labouring to effect a settlement of the
Scottish Church question, which has been the cause of so much
unhallowed and unseemly dissension. I thought, that only four
plans had ever been proposed for that purpose ; (1.) the aboli
tion of patronage— (2.) the veto— (3.) legalising and defining
the call— (4.) the liberum arbitrium, as Dr Chalmers termed it.
The first 1 know to be quite unattainable — the second nearly,
if not altogether, as hopeless— the third, difficult, and never (to
my knowledge) practically arranged in the form of a bill ; and I
therefore set about endeavouring to obtain an adjustment by

51
means of the fourth scheme, by inserting into the second clause
of Lord Aberdeen's bill, words enabling, without compelling, the
Church courts to set aside the presentee, not only in respect of
the validity of the reasons and objections of the people, but
(even when they did not deem the reasons and objections to be in
themselves conclusive) on account of their conscientious pre
valence among the objectors to such an extent, that, in the judg
ment of the Presbytery, the ministrations of the presentee would
not be useful in that particular district. After some correspon
dence, and chiefly through tile frank and efficient co-operation of
the Dean, the Government agreed to adopt this view ; and I,
with great difficulty, prevailed upon the Committee at Edinburgh
to accept these terms, but on condition, that the bill passed be
fore the conclusion of the late session. With a minute to that
effect in my possession, 1 hurried to London, having been led
(by circumstances into which I need not enter) to believe that
there would be time for effecting this object. But alas ! there
remained only four days of the session, and now both parties
are mutually exonerated from their respective parts in this agree
ment ; the consequence of which has been, that the Church par
ty is renewing agitation, — promoting public meetings, and en
couraging all over Scotland the establishment of local commit
tees and associations for the defence of the Church, in the hope,
that, by such declarations and demonstrations, they may obtain
more favourable terms from the Legislature and the Govern
ment; whereas the Ministers of the Crown must naturally and
necessarily take umbrage at such (as I think) most ill-advised
and uncalled for proceedings, and the end will probably be, that
the Church, by striving for what they cannot get, will lose what
has been placed within their reach.
Now, I am persuaded, my dear Lord Brougham, that the
weight of your authority might go far towards undeceiving my
over-sanguine friends in Scotland, and convince them that it is
hopeless to contend for the veto, either as embodied in the Duke
of Argyll's bill, or, according to the subsequent suggestion of
Lord Cottenham to Mr Candlish, by vesting it in two-thirds of
the communicants, instead of a bare majority. I am most de
sirous, therefore, to be favoured with your sentiments as to the
whole matter, and chiefly, (1.) Whether you think that a legis
lative enactment is essential for effecting an adjustment. (2,)
Whether you think that either Whigs or Tories, or the Bishops,
would allow an arbitrary veto to the communicants, or any por
tion of them, to be enacted by statute. (3.) Whether you do
not agree with me, that the Church should be satisfied with
such a measure as 1 have described, and for which 1 had ob
tained the aid of the Dean, and the concurrence of the Govern-
d 2

52
ment, which leaves to the Presbytery the full exercise of their
judicial powers, and even allows them to give effect to the dis
sent, without homologating the conclusiveness of the objections,
leaving to them, of course, the alternative of, in any case, over
ruling the reasons and objections, a responsibility which the
Church wishes to avoid, but from which, I think, that the
Legislature will never exempt them. And, (4.) Whether you
do not think, at all events, that, by protracting agitation, and en
couraging rash speeches at public meetings, they injure, instead
of furthering their own cause, andafe more likely to cool the zeal
of their friends, than to calm the hostility of their opponents.
Do not be angry at the length of this letter, and pray do not
punish me by sending a short one in exchange.
Believe me, &c.

Letter from Lord Brougham.
Kingston Hill, Nov. 4. 1841.
My Dear Sir G.
I am much obliged to you for your letter, which is extremely
interesting, and I need hardly add, upon a subject of the greatest
importance. I hope you will allow me a little more time to make
up my mind upon the greater part of your queries. But as the
practical conclusion, to which 1 come upon the main point, seems
to me too clear to admit of any doubt, I will state that, and it may
render my further opinion of comparatively little moment. Whe
ther it be right or wrong to grant what you say the Government
would have given is one thing, but that the Scotch party
(non-intuusionists) can never hope to get any thing
more, and that, with their views, it is infatuation to
refuse so much, 1 hold to be quite certain. tlle con-
tinukd agitation, and above all, the resistance to the
courts, i need hardly say, appear to me not only most
reprehensible, but most injurious to the views of the
parties themselves. No one can more earnestly desire to
see the peace of the Scotch Church restored than I do, and for
so desirable an object I would sacrifice all but essentials.
Yours truly,
H. Brougham.

53
I have thought it right to insert the two following notes, in
justice to my friend Dr Candlish, for the purpose of shewing in
how- frank and conciliatory a spirit he did me the honour to take
a part in these negociations. Prestonpans, \2th August 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I ought to apologise for not answering your note. I intended
to call while in town, but had not time. And now I have joined
a portion of my family who are resident here.
In regard to your suggestion, I much fear that little good
could be expected to come from what you propose. At the same
time, I most truly honour the spirit which leads you to enter
tain it. And, for my own part, I shall be most happy to meet
with the Dean of Faculty, for the purpose you mention, when
ever you choose. I have never met the Dean, except on terms
of courtesy, and I have no doubt we might at least succeed in
making our views mutually intelligible to one another, which, in
every controversy, is a great matter. Perhaps what passed yes
terday may create new difficulty. Still, at whatever time you
may fix, I am at your service.
Believe me, yours very truly,
Rob. S. Candlish.

12. Rutland Square, 19th Aug. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I go to the country this evening, but I intend to return on
Saturday forenoon. I do not expect to be away again for some
time. You may think, perhaps, that I was somewhat suspicious and
doubtful to-day. Let me assure you, that I hail with inexpres
sible delight every opening towards conciliation. And though
1 have learned the necessity of caution, in this controversy, I
will give my days and nights to effect an adjustment — if in any
honest way it seem practicable. My belief is, that at the pre
sent juncture it might be possible, if our opponents in the
Church would merely forbear, and if a measure such as we talk
ed of were, in the meantime, matured and in progress. I pledge
myself, that if our opponents agree now to exercise forbearance,
we will interpose no new difficulty, and what happened last
week may be amicably settled. A few days, however, may make
it too late. If you can bring anything out of our very friendly
interview this morning, you will deserve the thanks of the

54
Church and country, and will do a service not soon to be for
gotten. You have my most earnest prayers.
Yours most truly,
Rob. S. Candlish.

Letter f?'om the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
London, 27th September 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I should have answered your letter sooner ; but in this place,
and with our business on hand, it is difficult to find time. What
you say of the Dean of Faculty's sentiments is, in so far, very
satisfactory, as it indicates a wish to avoid extremities, and to
grant a settlement on terms such as we might submit to. The
clause which you framed, and which the Dean now recommends
to be inserted in Lord Aberdeen's bill, with the addition wh ich he
suggests, would have the effect of leaving the Church at liberty,
in every case, if they saw fit, to give effect to the dissent of the
people. It would therefore leave our consciences free. At the
same time, it places us in a position which we do not desire to
occupy, and which, as Dr Cook's letter shews, exposes us to
the most odious misconstruction. Surely, if concession is to be
made, it should not be made in the very shape, which both we
and our opponents most dislike. We would much rather have
a general rule. In fact, the call would be most acceptable, I
believe, to all, or such a measure as the Duke of Argyll's. I
have no idea that the liberum arbitrium would settle the whole
agitation so peacefully as the other plans. But it would enable
us to work the Church's business, without clashing with the civil
courts, and that, of course, would be a great matter. I reserve
farther remarks till I see you. I hope to leave this to-morrow
night. The Government are very cautious, and will not rashly
commit themselves.
Believe me, yours very truly,
Rob. S. Candlish.

Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Sir Francis Burdett's, Embercomb,
12th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
I have just seen the corrected (not, you will think, improved)

55
version of Sir William Rae's speech at Rothsay, which seems
to be so vague, as to destroy any hope, which the Church may
have derived from his Lordship's declaration. I am, however,
on that very account, the more anxious to impress upon you the
necessity of preventing any resolutions from being adopted, or
any speeches from being made, which could render it altogether
inconsistent with the honour of the Church to accept the terms,
which the Government has virtually offered. If better can be
got I shall be very glad ; but if more cannot be obtained, even
our friend, Dunlop, admits, that the liberum arbitrium is pre
ferable to the actual disruption or disorganisation of the eccle
siastical establishment, to which the well-being of Scotland has
for ages been mainly owing. 1 am going on Thursday to the
Bishop of London's, and have on Friday, as you will perceive,
an appointment with Sir Robert Peel and some of his col
leagues. It will be my anxious wish, as well as primary duty,
to state the case of the Church as strongly and as favourably as
I possibly can. I may perhaps find some communication from
you when I return to town, especially in regard to the call ; but
I think it hopeless to say much in favour of the Duke of Ar
gyll's bill, though I shall certainly draw the attention of Go
vernment to the decisive approbation which it has received from
the General Assembly. In writing to a Cabinet Minister, I
quoted the following passage from 1 Kings, xii. 7 : " If thou
wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them,
and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be
thy servants for ever." I have many painful misgivings ; but
" the Lord reigns," and is saying, " Be still, and know that I
am God."
I thought, that as both parties admitted the necessity of mu
tual concessions, the liberum arbitrium was an exact medium be
tween their two plans, — not making it, with one hand, impera
tive, and yet, on the other, imparting the power, to give effect
to the dissent of the people, on account of the conscientious
prevalence, on their part, of certain reasons and objections ; but
the one party says, " I cannot agree to this plan, because it
goes too far," whilst the other disapproves of it, because I do
not go far enough. I have, however, done my best, and for
the best ; and if I fail, no one will more sincerely rejoice than I
shall, if a better plan is effected through better agency.
Believe me, &c.

5G
Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Arthur's, lbth Oct. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
I had this day the pleasure of a long and satisfactory con
ference on the subject of the Church question with Sir R. Peel,
Lord Aberdeen, and Sir James Graham. When I informed
them that 1 was not going back to Edinburgh, but intended,
on account of my health, to pass the winter at Leamington,
they were so kind as to express great regret at this intention,
as it was their wish, that I should communicate on Church
matters both with the Government and with the Church. I
told them, that if, after an interval, it should appear necessary,
or even desirable, that I should repair either to London or to
Edinburgh, I should deem it an honour and a duty to make any
personal effort in furtherance of so good a cause, and one, which
had, in my opinion, assumed so favourable an aspect. Sir R.
Peel committed to paper, for his own guidance, a note of what
passed on the occasion, and was so good as to allow me to read
it. I am bound to state, that, during the whole interview, I
was extremely gratified by the tone of feeling exhibited by all
parties towards the Church, and their wish, most cordially ex
pressed, to bury all unpleasant reminiscences in oblivion.
(1.) It was stated, in thefrst place, that, as the indispensable
termination of the session had rendered it impossible to intro
duce and carry through a bill, on the principle which I had
suggested, both Government and the Church are, of course,
completely exonerated from every obligation in reference to any
such measure ; but that the Government retained a most anxi
ous and undiminished wish to adjust the present unhappy dif
ferences, in such a manner as may be acceptable to both par
ties in the Church.
(2.) The second point adverted to was the position of the
seven ministers. It was intimated, that a favourable consider
ation of their case must be regarded as an indispensable element
in any settlement of the general question. The mode of accom
plishing this object, which the Dean and 1 had attempted to
follow out, was unanimously admitted to be the only one * which
could be adopted ; and great desire was expressed, that the
Church should exact as little as was consistent with her honour,
and the ministers concede as much as was compatible with their
conscientious convictions.
(3.) It was suggested by Sir Robert Peel, that all commu-
* Or at all events the best.

57
nications between the Government and the Church should in
future be carried on through the medium of the Solicitor-Ge
neral, of whose talents and character the highest opinion was
expressed, and who had never taken any part in any of the pre
ceding discussions.
(4.) It was stated by Sir Robert Peel, that he was desirous
to avoid premature discussion of details ; respecting which, it
was absolutely necessary to avoid any misunderstanding ; — and
therefore, although we did at some length take a sort of cur
sory and confidential review of all the modes of settlement
which have been proposed, I think it is, on my part, more con
sonant with discretion and propriety to pass over the particu
lars in silence. Sir Robert Peel most emphatically reiterated
the assurance of the deep and lively interest which he takes,
and had always taken, in the welfare of the Church, and again
expressed his anxiety to see its peace restored ; — and he him
self and his colleagues intimated, in highly gratifying terms, a
feeling of satisfaction, (I had almost said of obligation,) towards
myself, for the efforts which I have been making to assist in
the adjustment of the question.
I should, however, do great injustice to the cause, if I omit
ted to add, that all the Ministers considered it to be of the most
vital importance, that public meetings, and public dis
cussions SHOULD BE AVOIDED DURING THE RECESS  ON THE
GROUND, THAT THEY MAY IMPEDE, AND CANNOT FURTHER THE
GREAT OBJECT WHICH WE ALL HAVE SO MUCH AT HEART.
I have repeated at great length what are the sentiments of
the Church, in reference both to the Duke of Argyll's bill,
and a measure founded on the call. Government is quite will
ing to receive any communication, which the Church may be
disposed to make through the medium of the Solicitor- General.
I myself am honoured with permission to make to them at any
time any statement upon the subject. Neither party is at all
bound by any negociations which have hitherto taken place ;
but both have a common object in view, viz. a speedy and sa
tisfactory adjustment of the question, on a permanent and ho
nourable basis ; and if, in the present state of matters, which I,
at least, regard as very auspicious, the Committee should think
it consistent with their duty to intimate to their friends through
out Scotland, a wish, that public meetings and discus
sions SHOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE PERIOD WHEN PAR
LIAMENT re-assembles, such a mark of confidence on their
part would, I am sure, be viewed with great satisfaction by
the Government, — all cause of offence and misunderstanding
would be avoided, — the Duke of Argyll might bring his mea
sure forward at the' very commencement of the session, if his

£8
Grace (to whom the Church is so much indebted) should, in con
currence with the Church, deem it right to do so ; and should
every other proposal fail, I, for one, regard it as quite certain,
that my scheme will again be favourably considered by the Go
vernment, if, for want of one more consistent with its wishes,
the Church should think proper to accept it.
Believe me, &c.

Letter from the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Edinburgh, 16th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I have been prevented by various engagements from writing
to you sooner ; and even now I have time to write a very hur
ried note. I will write more fully next week. Two things I
wish to suggest, 1. As to any dealings with Government or the
Conservatives, either by us or on our part, there must now be
an end of the liberum arbitrium. We cannot treat on that foot
ing. Our course is clear, — to tell the Government what mea
sures would satisfy us, — and to press one of these. We have
already said enough, perhaps too much, about the liberum ar
bitrium. Let Government see what the country will think of
it. I am more and more satisfied, that it would not accomplish
the object in view. At any rate, it is most desirable, that we
should not be understood as in any manner or degree making it
the basis of an adjustment, or of any negociations with Go
vernment. We must simply tell them what we want, and let
them do as they think fit. We may even be obliged to oppose
the liberum arbitrium, on the ground, that though it might not
drive us out of the Church, it would not be a satisfactory set
tlement for our people, and would not do good. I understood,
that you were henceforth to treat with Government on the
basis of some better measure as essential, and I doubt not you
will do so. It is really not a middle measure. Both sides dis
like it. 2. As to the country, we cannot possibly give up our
movements. We must go on with our preparations, holding
meetings, forming associations, &c. Of course, we shall try to
avoid offensive language. But we cannot be quiet, else we are
lost. Government know this. See what our enemies are do
ing. The Duke of Richmond raising, most wantonly, a new
Strathbogie or Marnoch case, by presenting an assistant and
successor to the deposed minister of Glass.
I am sorry to say, that I can report nothing favourable as to

59
the Dean's sentiments. I have found, personally, the utmost
friendship and courtesy. I have seen him, and 1 have a long
letter from him. I will let you know, in a day or two, the
substance of our conference and correspondence. But I expect
no good. The essential difference between us is brought clear
ly out ; and I much fear there can be no right understanding
on the subject. Government must act independently of Lord
Aberdeen and his adviser, or we have but a poor chance.
Truly we are taught to cease from man. The Lord defend his
own cause.
Yours very truly,
Rob. S. Candlish.

Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Rev. J. H. Gray's, Bolsover Castle,
20th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
Although 1 am always happy to hear from you, the multipli
city and importance of your avocations are more than a suffi
cient apology for not writing long or frequent letters. I may
observe, in reply to yours received yesterday, that no event
would give me so much satisfaction as the settlement of our
ecclesiastical differences on a basis agreeable to the Church.
No exertions of mine shall be wanting for the accomplishment
of that object ; and if it should be possible to obtain better
terms than those for which I contended, and which the Go
vernment was almost as unwilling to concede as the Church to ac
cept, no one will be more thankful or better pleased than I
shall ; but, at the same time, I am very desirous, (as I have
often stated,) that nothing should be done to render it difficult
for the Government, or at all derogatory for the Church, to
settle matters on the footing of the liberum arbitrium, if no
other arrangement should be found practicable, though I rejoice
to hear, from an authentic and influential quarter *, that some
measure may ere long be matured, which the Church is likely
to approve of, though the exact nature of it has not yet reached
me.

* This alludes to a communication from the Dean, announcing his intention,
(as taking leave of the subject, in consequence of his elevation to the Bench,) to
suggest such a clause, to be added to, or substituted for, mine, as would place
beyond all doubt the extent and fulness of the powers allowed to the Church
courts in dealing with the reasons and objections.

60
It seems to me, that, in the present posture of affairs, it
would be advisable to bring about, what I in vain attempted
some weeks ago*, viz. an amicable meeting of some of the prin
cipal leaders on both sides, to devise a plan, which they could
all concur in applying for. Dr Macleod kindly consented to
come, even when invited only by me, — although he did not then
anticipate much benefit from such an interview ; but in the im
proved state of mutual feeling, and after the friendly manifesta
tion of sympathy and conciliation on the part of Government, I
think Dr Cook and some of his friends would not fail or hesi
tate to give their presence and co-operation. I am grieved at
the step which you inform me has been taken by the Duke of
Richmond ; but I hope that the Dean and Solicitor- General will,
through their good offices, bring the Strathbogie matter to an
amicable issue.
I am discouraged by what you announce as to the formation
of committees and holding of public meetings, — but I have said
so much against agitation, and against showing any distrust, in the
intentions or good faith of Government, that I shall cease to re
iterate advice, which my friends seem so resolved not to follow.
I shall be glad to receive, as soon as possible, any draft or drafts
of a bill for defining the call ; and although 1 am quite sure,
that Parliament will reject the Duke of Argyll's bill, it will be
quite competent (of course) for his Grace to bring it forward
early in the session, so as to ascertain whether it can, or can
not, be carried through.
I propose to set out on Friday for Leamington, where the
interests of that Church which is so justly dear to me, will oc
cupy a very prominent place in my thoughts, my efforts and my
prayers. You are of course at liberty to communicate any let
ters of mine to the Committee, whose instructions or advice I
shall always deem it an honour to receive, and a duty to attend
to. Believe me, &c.

Letter from the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Edinburgh, 20th October 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
The substance of the Dean's communication to me is to the
following effect: He rejects the suggestion founded on my conver-
* I made three separate, but abortive, attempts to effect such a meeting.

61
sation with Lord Cottenham, as wholly inadmissible, as indeed
" worse than the veto." He then proceeds to take up the two
measures, which he and I talked over in your house. He sets
aside the call, which then he seemed willing to entertain as the
basis of an adjustment. He has since, on consideration, come
to a conclusion against it. The Dean goes on to give the draft
of a clause, framed on the other plan. He submits it as sub
stantially equivalent to your clause, but bringing out still more
clearly what he understands that clause to mean. He thinks
his clause likely to be more satisfactory to us than yours. It is
in these terms :
Instead of section 2, read,
" And be it farther enacted, That when the said objections
and reasons are so considered, the Presbytery or other Church
court shall pronounce thereon such deliverance as, in their
judgment, the whole circumstances and condition of the pa
rish, and the spiritual welfare and edification of the people,
require ; — provided always, that if the Presbytery or other
Church court, in pronouncing such deliverance, shall be of
opinion, that in respect of any of the said objections or rea
sons, taken by themselves, or when judged of with a due re
gard (or with reference) to the circumstances and condition
of the parish, and the spiritual welfare and edification of the
people, the individual ought not to be settled in the said pa
rish, the Presbytery or other Church court shall set forth and
specify," &c. and so on as in the original bill.
The Dean adds, that he has always understood Lord Aber
deen's bill as giving all the power which this new clause describes.
So have I — as I have told the Dean in my reply. He farther
says, that this is the sort of clause, which, in consequence of our
conversation in your house, he would have submitted to me. He
adopted your clause as being of the same import, and because
you had previously got our opinion of it. He now proposes his
own as clearer, fuller, and more satisfactory.
You may remember, that, in the conversation, I expressed my
conviction, that, however difficult it might be at the time, and in
oral discussion, to detect the precise point of difference between
the Dean and myself, I was satisfied it would appear when his
proposition was reduced to writing. It appears, that I was right
in that surmise.
It will be matter for very serious consideration, what in these
circumstances, the Committee, or individual members of it, are
to do. Of course I shall make you aware of any resolution we
may adopt. But, in the meantime, I am very anxious to know
from you, whether you consider the Dean's clause as of the same
import with your own ; and whether that be your understand-

62
ing of the nature of the proposal which has recently been under
discussion. I think you agreed with us in putting a different
construction on it at our meeting on the day you left Edinburgh.
I remember also your mentioning that Lord Aberdeen at first
objected to the clause, as " making the repeal of the veto law
illusory," and that the Dean admitted that " it gave the Church
courts the power to enforce the veto in every particular instance,
if they chose ;" and that he agreed to it on that understanding,
and got Lord Aberdeen to agree to it. You are well aware,
that in our apprehension, what is called the " liberum arbitrium "
implies, that the Church courts have a right in every case to
act upon the principle of the veto, and to reject on the mere
ground of the number of objectors, if they think fit. I much
fear, however, that it is otherwise understood by other parties.
It has already proved a source of inextricable misunderstanding,
in the former negociations which have taken place on this sub
ject. It is essential that there be no ambiguity now. Govern
ment must be made to know unequivocally what we hold to be
the import of the proposal lately under discussion. And when
they do come to know it, I incline to think that it will not be
considered a middle measure, or less objectionable than the veto,
or the call, but that, on the contrary, they will be found more
ready to give the civil sanction to a specific rule, applicable to
all cases, and fixing the amount of popular concurrence, ex
press or tacit, to be required in all cases, — than to a vague
and arbitrary power in Church courts, which would enable them,
in every instance, if they chose, to act upon the veto, in the way
that its opponents regard as most obnoxious, by rejecting the
presentee, even though the people's reasons are bad, merely be
cause the people continue to dissent. But, however this may
be, it is most important for us, that in regard to the negociation
which is past, as well as for our guidance in future proceedings,
this matter should be put right. Lord Aberdeen, after he had
agreed to your clause, spoke of it as a mere explanation of his
bill. The Dean speaks of it, and of his own clause, in the
same terms. And I cannot but recollect what he said in regard
to a proposed change in the wording of your clause. Even in
the form in which it was finally submitted, the amendment has
in it a clause, which you suggested,—" taking into account the
reasons and objections as aforesaid," &c  which, on looking at
it again, in the light of the Dean's subsequent explanation to
me, I do not at all like. In short, I fear, that the other parties
concerned were beginning to put a different meaning on the clause
from what you and I understood it to convey ; and that this
may have been at the bottom of the overtures made by members
of the Cabinet. You will excuse me, considering the part I

63
took, and the predicament, in which I may be placed, if I am not
a little anxious on this subject. And you will greatly oblige
me, if you will have the goodness to let me know, how far your
recollections and impressions as to what passed correspond with
mine, especially as to what Lord Aberdeen and the Dean
thought of your clause, and said of it.
You will probably be somewhat vexed by the contents of this
letter. Allow me, however, to express my conviction, that what
ever be the issue of the recent negociation, you have done great
good, by bringing our case before Sir Robert Peel, and deal
ing with him in regard to it. 1 would earnestly entreat you to
consider, if you cannot make up your mind now, to pass alto
gether from the sort of middle measure, which all parties seem
to misunderstand and dislike, and to press as the lowest ground
of a settlement, the Duke of Argyll's bill, which the Assembly
so favourably entertained, not as a perfect plan, but as a good
and sufficient adjustment.
We cannot desist from our endeavours to enlighten and inte
rest the country. But if Government would consult their own
true interest, and the good of the country, by at once announ
cing a liberal and comprehensive measure, it would be gladly and
gratefully hailed. Our anxiety and all excitement would cease.
Believe me, yours very truly,
Rob. S. Candlish.
Sir George Sinclair, Bart.
There is a meeting of Committee on Tuesday first. I would
like, if possible, to have your answer before that day.

Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Leamington, 24th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
I think it right to answer, by return of post, your letter, which
reached me this morning. After the best consideration which
I could give to Lord Aberdeen's bill, in its original shape, it
appeared to me, that, under its provisions, the Presbytery
could only give effect to the reasons and objections of the peo
ple, when they (the Presbytery) themselves held, that the said
reasons and objections were in themselves valid and substantial.
My object, therefore was, to enlarge the powers of the Presbytery,
and enable them to set aside the claims of the presentee, on ac
count of the conscientious prevalence in theminds of the parishioners,

64
of reasons and objections which the Presbytery did not consider to
be conclusive, but which had taken such a hold on the minds of the
objectors, that the Presbytery did not think, under such circum
stances, the presentation ought to be sustained. 1 did not deem
it necessary to restrict the tender of reasons or objections for
the consideration of the Presbytery to communicants; although,
in the event of patronage being abolished, I thought that the
right of election should" be confined to them ; nor did I wish
that any numerical proportion should be an indispensable ele
ment for enabling the Presbytery to give effect to the dissent,
as cases might arise, in which the reasons and objections of a
respectable and influential minority ought, in my opinion, to
prevail. It, therefore, was my wish and desire, that the Pres
bytery should, in every case, have power to do, what I apprehend
they would be compelled to do under the Duke of Argyll's bill ;
the difference being, that they would, according to my arrange
ment, act in a judicial capacity, and be just as able to overrule
the reasons and objections, however prevalent, and however con
scientiously entertained, if they in their consciences thought, that,
by following that course, they promoted the glory of God, the
good of the Church, and the welfare of the parish. I under
stood the Dean to say at my house, that, according to his view
of Lord Aberdeen's bill, even before the introduction of my
words, you (for instance) had the power to give effect to the
veto ; whilst he, if a minister, would have an equal power to vote
in a church court for setting it aside *. It was for the pur
pose of bringing out this principle more distinctly and undeni
ably, that I proposed my amendment. I think that, under the
words of the provision now suggested by the Dean, as well as
under mine, the people might give in as an objection to the set
tlement, " that the presentee was not acceptable to a majority of
the communicants," and that then the Presbytery might set him
aside, either because they themselves held. that to be a valid
objection, or because the objection prevailed in the minds of
the parishioners to such an extent, that the presentee's labours
amongst them were not, in their judgment, likely to be useful
or edifying.

* The difference between Mr Candlish and the Dean was, that the former
wished the Presbytery to be at least entitled to give effect to the veto, without
considering at all the import or value of the reasons and objections, on which it
was founded. But the Dean and I meant throughout, that effect would be virtually
given to the veto, when inconclusive reasons and objections were nevertheless
sustained, on the ground of their prevalence. But that the necessity, imposed on
the Presbytery, of recording and considering the reasons and objections, and adverting
to them in their sentence, would operate as a check against their giving effect to
the dissent, when these reasons and objections were manifestly unjust and capri-

65
1 again repeat, that I regard the chief (indeed, the only)
differences between my views and those of the Duke of Argyll,
to be, (1.) that the Presbytery would, in the former case, act
judicially, not ministerially, and therefore, under a responsi
bility, which, in the latter case, could not exist ; and, (2.) that
whilst they would be able to give effect to the conscientious dis
sent even of a minority, they would have the power, if they
thought fit, to overrule the reasons and objections of a majority.
1 am perfectly willing, if the Church wishes it, to « pass al
together from the middle measurer 1 suggested it, as the only
one, which 1 thought, that the Government would adopt, or the
Legislature sanction. I retain, however, my decided and con
scientious opinion, that more cannot be obtained, and that the al
ternative will be, to leave the law exactly in its present state,
and the Church in its present position. You are quite aware, that
I had great difficulty in prevailing upon Lord Aberdeen to con
sent to the introduction of my words *, and thatthe object was
mainly achieved through the kind and seasonable instrumentality
of the Dean. 1 myself, if in Parliament, would not have felt
any scruple about supporting the Duke's bill, out of deference
to the wishes of the Church, and because I think it certainly
would have put an end to all further agitation throughout Scot
land ; at the same time, I must be permitted to state, in favour
of the liberum arbitrium, that it, in my opinion, is, (1.) more
consistent with the rights of the patron ; (2.) more just to the
presentee ; (3.) leaves the judicial functions of the Presbytery
unfettered and unimpaired.
You will, no doubt, recollect, how much we were all three
gratified by the three hours' interview, which took place at my
house, between the Dean and yourself. The result was, an
agreement, that he should favour us by drawing up two bills,
one founded on the call, and the other on the liberum arbitrium,
for, of course, he never would have consented to frame a mea
sure, which legalised the veto. I even recollect, that when I
first had the pleasure of calling at your house, after the cele
brated colloquy, you were rather vexed when 1 said, that 1 did
not feel quite secure, that the Church would accept a bill which
gave only the liberum arbitrium. You recalled, too, Mr Hamil
ton's pamphlet to my recollection, and seemed surprised at my
doubting, whether the Church would act up to the professions,
which she had uniformly made, of her readiness to accept any
mode of settlement, consistent with her avowed principles, and

In one of the letters, with which 1 was honoured by his Lordship, he reminds
me, that he never liked my amendment, and only consented to it for the sake of
peace. K

66
of which the liberum arbitrium was one, though at the same time
the least acceptable *.
The Duke of Argyll has, of course, at least as much influ
ence with Government as I have. If his Grace can persuade
them to support his bill, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I am
ready to repeat to Sir R. Peel every argument, which can be
urged in its favour, and especially the sanction, which it has
received, from a decided majority of those whom I deem the
most zealous and efficient ministers in the Church ; but I think
it quite as certain that the veto will be refused, as that the libe
rum arbitrium would be conceded ; and I earnestly entreat the
Church to pause, before they put their veto upon the only
measure, which it may be possible to obtain. I ever remain, &c.
I wish you would let the Dean peruse this letter. I feel
confident, that he will assent to my representation of the object
both of his amendment and of mine.

Letter from the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Edinburgh, 3d Nov. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I am sure you will give me credit for entire sincerity, when
I express my cordial sense of the value of the service, which
you have attempted to render to our Church. You will also
believe, that I am in earnest in desiring peace, on any terms
that may be consistent with principle. You will therefore bear
with me, while I advert to some points connected with our re
cent negociation, respecting which various rumours are afloat
here, more or less injurious to us and to our cause, and mak
ing it absolutely necessary, that you and we should understand
one another. You will not suppose, that I mean to ascribe these
rumours to you ; but they certainly have not originated with
us. At all events, there is, in certain quarters, a disposition
to misapprehend and pervert what is said in the best faith, and
I fear there is much of this apparent in the present instance.
1 shall put my observations in regular order, requesting you to
note and correct them, if wrong.

* X ne'er h^e been ab]e to see, in case the liberum arbitrium were enacted how
it would be possible for the Church courts to decide, whether thev VhonhTn, ,{,™?M
not give effect to the dissent of Ihe people, unless' the rel on "and "ifec ifn on
which it was founded were recorded and considered. oojecuons on

67
1. The extent, to which we went in declaring our opiuion
of your clause, as in certain circumstances tolerable, was very
precisely limited. We never expressed ourselves so generally
in terms of acquiescence, as you were sometimes inclined to do.
We uniformly specified the two actual results, which we thought
it might accomplish, viz. that it might enable us to act under
the bill, without positive offence to our consciences, and with
out coming into collision with the civil courts. We always add
ed, that we disliked the measure, and could not recommend it.
2. The condition of immediate legislation, on that basis,
was annexed to our answer, with your full concurrence, and, in
deed, I think on your suggestion. And it was not stated as
the condition of our submission to such a measure, but solely as
the reason for our expressing our opinion of it, so far as we
did, and as intimating that, the question remaining open and
unsettled, we never could acquiesce in that basis, as the one, on
which we were to press, for the adjustment of our affairs. This
was clearly understood by Sir James Graham, and, I think,
also by you. It is unfair to represent us as making it a mere
question of time, or as willing to take in October, what we re
fuse to take if delayed till March. Neither in October nor in
March could we take the measure, as what we want, in the
way of securing the principle of Non-intrusion. Of course, what
we said the measure would do in October, we are ready to say
it will do in March. But viewing it as we have all along de
clared that we do, we cannot be committed to approve of it, or
even to abstain from opposing and resisting it, if we see cause.
This was the obvious meaning of the reference to time in our
negociation. As to the actual working of the proposed plan,
if ever it were passed, we merely adopted the views of the Com
mittee and Assembly 1840.
3. There was no pledge, either express or implied, — no un
derstanding of any kind whatever, to the effect that we should,
during the recess, abstain from what is called agitation,  from
prosecuting our work of enlightening and organising the coun
try, and pressing for what we could really welcome as a good
measure. On the contrary, it was always distinctly stated, that
we must go on ; that we never could desist from our war of de
fence against the Moderates, whose appeal to Parliament to have
us disestablished, remained unwithdrawn, until an actual and
final settlement took place ; and that we must continue to urge
the Duke of Argyll's bill on the country and the Legislature.
All this you understood and allowed, and I own I am disap
pointed to find you clinging still to your plan of adjustment,
when I remember how often I heard you express your convic
tion, that, in the event of your negociation for an immediate set-
e 2

68
tlement failing, you would be constrained, and would be most
willing, to abandon it, and to press for something better as in
dispensably necessary. No doubt, you urge still, as you always
did, a better measure. But then, it is with such an assumption
of its hopelessness, and such a falling back on your minimum,
that it is rather a formal caveat than any thing more. But how
ever this may be, it is not fair to charge us with any approach
to a breach of faith, if we continue our efforts to resist the Mo
derate scheme, and encourage the people to ask and demand a
really good measure. The Government were made aware of
our plan and purpose. They were told, that, while we would
try to avoid offence as far as possible, we could not stop the
movement, and would not. Sir James Graham understood this
at the time. I dare say now, if they want a handle, they may
affect to complain of a breach of some understanding, and to
charge us as commencing anew a hostile agitation. It is a
mere pretence. They have nothing whatever to resent.
4. All this is on the supposition that the measure proposed
was bona fide meant to be what you and we understood it to
be, a recognition of the full, unqualified right of the Church
to give effect to the mere dissent of the people, in every case,
if she chose ; i. e. to enforce the veto, not by a general law, but
by acting upon it in each particular instance, if she should
think fit to do so. This power we understood your clause to
convey. It now appears, however, from the Lord Justice-
Clerk's correspondence, that the whole thing has been a mis
understanding, — that the clause is ambiguous in his view, and
in that of others besides, — and that there really never has been,
on the part of himself, or Lord Aberdeen, or, I much fear,
the Government, a disposition to concede to us, clearly and un
equivocally, what at the very least we must have secured to us.
The idea of treating upon your clause, or indeed upon any
clause, before we have come to a clear understanding as to the
principle to be allowed, is at an end. We cannot make our
question a mere strife of words, — a captious verbal quibble, by
which Lord Aberdeen might think to entrap us. Put it any
way you choose5< we must have, unambiguously acknowledged,
the power to reject a presentee, in every case, if we like, on
the sole ground of the dissent of the people, if we think it ho
nest, whatever their reasons. The Church courts must have
liberty to reject a man, merely because the people oppose his
settlement, without reference at all to the validity of the reasons
they may give. This is an intelligible principle. Will Govern
ment concede it ? If so, let it be put into words that will satisfy
us, on the judgment of competent law authorities. If not, let
them say so. But do not let us get into a doubtful disputation

69
about a skilfully framed form of words, fitted to harmonise, a3
if unawares, parties still diametrically opposed to one another.
Chalmers and Aberdeen tried this game long ago. We have
been trying it again.
5. Very painful reports are in circulation as to our alleged
willingness to repone the Strathbogie ministers, as a condi
tion of a settlement of the general question, and on terms im
plying the giving up of our discipline. I certainly understood
all that passed between us on that subject^ to be strictly and
sacredly private. If any thing is said about it, the letter, which
you and the Dean prepared, ought to be known, and also the
express stipulations, which we always stated as indispensable to
their being restored ; their penitence, their actual submission to
censure, and the provision to be made for the people, who
have left them. It is evidently unfair and inexpedient, that
any part of our conversations on that point should be made pub
lic, without the whole particulars being given. Nothing passed,
at the utmost, beyond certain conjectural and hypothetical hints
as to what the ministers might do in the way of submission,
and how the Church might deal with them. And it was clearly
understood, that the question of discipline, respecting them,
must be decided on its own proper merits, apart from the ge
neral settlement of the Church's affairs, with which it never
could be mixed up, on any terms of compromise or bargain. It
is injurious to us, and not serviceable to the cause of peace, to
give any impression of our yielding on a point, on which I be
lieve the Church to be especially decided.
Do not suppose, from this letter, that I am willing at once
to break off from any favourable or friendly dealing between
the Government and the Church. Notwithstanding some
ominous symptoms and reports of their trafficking with our op
ponents, and in spite of threatened bad appointments in the
exercise of patronage, I would, if possible, continue, to hope,
that the heads of the Administration are desirous of settling our
question in a right way. But do not let them try Lord Aber
deen's game over again. It will prove most fatal. They may
think to catch us in some plausible modification of his bill, some
phrase of doubtful meaning, or at least to entangle some of us
in the meshes of some such middle measure. It is wretched
policy. It will rend the Church asunder. Either let us alone,
or give us, unequivocally, what will enable us to go on, i. e. the
power of rejecting for dissent alone. Lord Aberdeen and the
Dean have clearly shown what use they meant to make of your
negociation. If the Government wish to do good, they must
resolve to legislate without respect to these advisers. Excuse
all this freedom, and believe me, yours very truly.
Rob. S. Candlish.

70
Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Leamington, 5th Nov. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
I shall, without losing a single post, answer, point by point,
your letter, with which I was favoured this morning. I am ex
tremely concerned to learn that any misunderstanding has oc
curred, and I shall do my best to explain every particular to
which you refer.
(1.) Your first observation is perfectly correct. Every mem
ber of the Committee with whom I conversed or corresponded,
before I went to London, expressed a very decided repugnance
to a settlement founded on the liberum arbitrium, and a strong
preference for the Duke of Argyll's bill. You only agreed to
acquiesce in it, if no other measure could be obtained, and as
being better than a disruption of the connection between the
Church and the State, or the continuance of the dangers and
difficulties, in which the Church has, for so long a period, been
involved. (2.) Our first discussions, and my first letter, to Lord Aber
deen, in reference to the liberum arbitrium, occurred in August,
before the accession of the present Government to office, — and
I certainly entertained at that time a most anxious desire, that
the bill for adjusting the question should be introduced without
the least delay. Some expressions indirectly conveyed to me
at a later period, when the negociations were more advanced,
encouraged me to believe, that such a result would beobtained ;
but I had misapprehended the actual state of matters, and
found, on arriving in London, that only four days of the session
remained. I always understood, that the Church would press
for a more favourable adjustment, in the event of the measure
being necessarily delayed ; and although I lamented the adop
tion of such a course, (as I felt convinced that any attempt to
procure a more acceptable bill would be fruitless,) I am bound
to declare, that, from the first, I was most positively assured,
that the Church would feel it to be a duty to urge upon the
Government and the Legislature the advisableness of con
ceding the bill introduced by the Duke of Argyll.
(3.) There was never any pledge given by the Committee,
that they would abstain from agitation. It is very true, that I con
stantly endeavoured to impress upon them the necessity, or at least
the policy, of doing so ; but I always met with a positive refusal
to comply with this request, accompanied by an assurance, that
the Committee considered it absolutely indispensable to " en
lighten the minds of the people," and urge upon them the duty of

71
assisting the Church in her struggle for their rights and interests.
My conviction, from my intercourse with public men, that no such
concessions would be obtained, was so strong, that I was sorry
to see public meetings held, which might endanger, or render
more distasteful to the country, the only measure, which could, in
my opinion, be carried through Parliament ; but I assured the
Government, on more than one occasion, that, as the bill had
(unavoidably) been put off, the renewal of such proceedings bad-
been, from the first, announced, and was inevitable^ and this
was the very reason why I pressed with so much earnestness
the immediate passing of the bill.
(4.) I think nothing can be more clear, than that my amend
ment was intended to give, and does give, a full power to the
Church courts, irrespective of the validity or conclusiveness of
the people's reasons or objections, to set aside the presentee,
on the ground of their prevalence, and because such reasons and
objections are conscientiously and strongly entertained, and can
not be removed. A Noble Lord said to me, that it was impos
sible to go nearer to the veto in point of expression, without
giving the veto. I infer from the Lord Justice-Clerk's letters,
that he takes precisely the same view ; but Government is, I
apprehend, most anxious, (1.) that the judicial functions of the
Church courts, and consequently their ( moral) responsibility,
should continue unimpaired ; (2.) that they should, as a neces
sary consequence, have full power to overrule the dissent, as well
as the same full power to give effect to it. It would be well if
you would submit this letter, and my whole correspondence, in
cluding my letters to Dr W. and Mr H., to the Solicitor- Ge
neral, and I am sure he would completely confirm my interpre
tation. Do make a point of seeing him for this purpose.
(5.) I never had greater difficulty than in prevailing on the Com
mittee to entertain any proposal in reference to the seven mi
nisters, — or in framing a letter, which I thought they could write,
or the Church accept. The Dean and I at last concocted such a
document, and even then the Committee were scarcely satisfied,
and would not listen to the restoration of the ministers being
made ^preliminary condition of settlement; as they declared, that
they would not even take the Duke of Argyll's bill on such
terras ; and I am sorry to add, that the letter, as finally drawn
up by the Dean and myself, and barely assented to by some
members of the Committee, has not yet been approved of by
the other party, but the reverse. I still, however, hope, that
proper concessions on this point may be obtained ; without
which, I admit, or rather contend, that, be the consequences
what they may, the Church cannot yield. On the other hand,
unless this matter can be honourably settled, as a concomitant

72
or consequence of adjustment, no bill will ever pass through
Parliament for the purpose. I myself always disapproved of
the deposition of the ministers, but condemned their subse
quent contumacy.
Pardon, I entreat you, these incoherent hints, penned at in
tervals, and with difficulty, by an invalid. lama" reed shaken
by the ivind," — unfit for exertion or anxiety. I grieve over
the position and prospects of our beloved Church, anu those
friends, who are its brightest ornaments. I have the most
unexceptionable evidence, written and oral, that the Duke of
Argyll's bill will never pass. My hope of carrying even my
mitigated proposal has now almost vanished. The Committee,
in all its dealings with me, has acted with perfect fairness and
honesty. I have only regretted, that they were (as I thought)
too incredulous and unyielding If they succeed, through
other channels, in carrying a more acceptable measure, my
satisfaction will be as cordial, as my surprise will be great.
But they have my best wishes and most fervent prayers ; and
although it may be my duty to lay before them what is the
real state of feeling on the subject among public men, I shall
then most cheerfully and most respectfully retire from the arena
and not presume to mar, what I fear 1 cannot mend. Believe
me, &c.
I shall be always happy to hear from you, and to furnish you
with any information in my power. Do what you can to keep
us all together, and do not thrust the liberum arbitrium uncere
moniously into the street.

Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Leamington, 6th Nov. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
In the hurried and imperfect letter, which I addressed to you
yesterday, there were two points, which I did not sufficiently
treat upon. (1.) Although I was, from the first, most anxious,
that the bill conferring the liberum arbitrium should have passed
during last session, and expressed to the Committee throughout a
most confident expectation, that this object would be accomplish
ed, I never wished, that the negociations should break off, if, from
any unavoidable occurrence, delay necessarily intervened. In
fact, I could not possibly have entertained such a notion, as
I proceeded all along upon two principles ; (a) that a legisla
tive enactment was indispensable : (b) that more would not be

73
got for the Church under any circumstances, or through any
efforts. (2.) I grieve to infer, from several passages in your letter, that
you think there is in some quarters a desire to injure or mor
tify the Church. I have heard no such feeling expressed ; but,
on the contrary, the Government intimated their cordial solici
tude to restore" peace on such a basis, as would enable you and
our respected friends to remain within its pale. But be assured,
that Whigs, as well as Tories, are convinced, that the veto never
will meet with legislative sanction. Why not then try what is
offered ? Surely the reasons of the people must be either con
clusive or not. If they are, you will of course give effect to
them ; if they are not, you are at full liberty to do so, when
ever you think their conscientious prevalence a sufficient ground.
It seems to me that the phrase, " though not in themselves
conclusive," would read better in an act of Parliament, than,
" or in respect that the said reasons and objections, however
frivolous, unjust, and unfounded in themselves," &c. Reasons
and objections of the latter class certainly come under- the cate
gory of not being " conclusive," and may, in every case, be sus
tained, (as before stated, on the mere ground of their preva
lence,) or rejected, according as the Church courts think fit.
O, my dear Sir, think of the dark clouds, which are impend
ing over our Protestant land. Do not let us any longer give
the common enemy cause to speak reproachfully. If the Church
accepted what has been tendered to her, and would refer all
the legal difficulties, in which she is involved, to the Lord Jus
tice-Clerk, Lord Moncreiff, the Solicitor-General, and Mr
Rutherfurd, with power to them, in case of necessity, to select
a fifth, we should have peace and amity restored, and all would
yet be well. I can add no more at present, but remain ever,
&c.

Letter from the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
My Dear Sir George, Edin. l\th Nov. 1841.
I feel greatly indebted to you for your answer to my last
letters, and I am most happy to find that we so entirely agree
as to the particulars of the late negociation. There is only'one
point, on which I am not sure that I quite understand you. You
seem to regard your clause and the Dean's (or Lord Justice-
Clerk's) as identical, and to hold your views^to be exactly the
same. Now, it materially concerns the character of the parties

74
• engaged in the negociation to have this point cleared up. We
considered your clause as giving power to the Church courts
in every case to act on the principle of the veto, i. e. to reject
on the grounds of the dissent of a majority of the congregation.
Of course, it implied that they were not to be bound, by any
general rule, to do so in all cases ; but they were to have liberty
to do so in every case, in which, after a consideration of all the
circumstances, they might think it right. So thoroughly was
this understood between you and us, that I well remember your
showing us a letter from Lord Aberdeen, in which he refused
to insert your clause, " because it would render the repeal of
the veto law illusory ;" and I also remember your telling us, that
" the Dean admitted, that the clause would enable Church
courts, if they chose, to act in every case on the principle of
the veto, to give effect to the veto, or mere dissent of a majority,
if they thought fit, and that he was willing to concede this for
the sake of peace," trusting to the discretion of the Church
courts. We thought, also, that it was on this understanding that
he obtained ultimately the consent of Lord Aberdeen to the in
sertion of the clause. The statement of reasons, on the part of
the people objecting, was not understood to be inconsistent with
that view of the clause. The Church courts might, if they
chose, judge of the reasons, and refuse to sustain them ; but
they might also, if they chose, without judging of the reasons at
all, reject on the ground of a majority dissenting. That is,
your clause was held to recognise their power to do so, if they
should see cause. This is not my impression only, but that of
the other parties, who were concerned in the negociation.
I am anxious to know, if possible before Wednesday next,
whether your recollection of the above particulars agrees with
ours. It may be necessary for us, at the Commission, in vin
dication of our own consistency in going so far as we did, to ad
vert to these circumstances. For my own part, so far as my un
derstanding of what passed goes, I have no hesitation in makino-
pubhcly the statement I now make to you. I should like, how°
ever, to hear from you on the subject.
It is quite clear, that, if negociation is to be continued or re
sumed, it must be not on the footing of any particular clause,
such as yours or the Lord Justice- Clerk's, but on the footing
ol the broad principle, which we must have liberty to carry into
effect, in every case, if we choose, viz. that the dissent of a ma
jority of the communicants is, of itself, a sufficient reason for
rejecting a presentee. In future, we must be quite clear and
explicit; but as to the past, we are bound to show, not only
that we made no surrender of that principle, but that we had
good reason to believe, that those, with whom we were dealing

75
acknowledged the necessity of our having full liberty to act upon
t, and construed the proposed clause as giving us that liberty.
It is fair to add, that I do not regard your last explanation
of your clause, especially when taken in connection with your
opinion in regard to its being of the same import with the Dean's,
as quite coming up to what I understood you formerly to admit
to be implied in it. I should like much if you would either con
firm, or disallow, my statements in this letter, as they stand.
Yours very truly, &c.
Rob. S. Candlish.

Letter to the Rev. R. S. Candlish.
Leamington, 15th Nov. 1841.
My Dear Mr Candlish,
I shall endeavour, in a spirit of unruffled patience, to answer
your letter, with which I was favoured yesterday, although I
confess that my spirits are nearly broken, and my life embit
tered, through the vexations, which I have brought upon myself,
by attempting to avert impending calamities from a Church,
so dear to my heart, and so valuable to my country. When I
first read my proposed amendment to you and to some other
friends at Mr Dunlop's, you all assured me that it " admirably
brought out a principle, which the Church had before found some
difficulty in making so clear." My expressions were, without
any intimation of doubt or suspicion, committed by you to writ
ing; and I informed you that Lord Aberdeen " hesitated to
adopt them," as his Lordship then thought they " would render
the repeal of the veto illusory." This took place in August,
and at a time when I believed, that my negociations were at an
end. The Lord Justice- Clerk, some time thereafter, was so
kind as to lend a favourable ear to my suggestion ; and the
Government, on his Lordship's recommendation and mine, agreed
that it would on the whole be desirable, for the sake of peace,
to adjust our unhappy differences on that basis, the Lord Justice-
Clerk and I having convinced them, that our object was, not to
give an arbitrary power of rejection to any proportion of the
communicants, but to define and enlarge the judicial discretion
of the Church courts, in dealing with the reasons and objections
of the people, so that there might be no doubt as to their autho
rity to set aside a presentee, (when they saw it right to do so,)
because of the strong and honest prevalence of the reasons and

76
objections, although they might hold the objections or reasons
themselves to be inconclusive.
I believe, that there are many persons, who, if there should
in any parish be ninety-nine communicants, forty-nine of whom
are favourable to the presentee, and desire to have him for their
pastor ; and that the rest should come forward and say, " We
dissent from the appointment, and we do not choose to assign
any reasons or any objections ; but we are fifty," — insist, that
effect should be given to such dissent in every case, and under
any circumstances. This, undoubtedly, is not, and never was,
the meaning, which I attached, to the proposed basis of agree
ment. I held, that the Presbytery would, in each instance,
act judicially, — that the parishioners would state their reasons
and objections — that these reasons and objections would be re
corded and considered — that effect would at once be given to
them, if the Presbytery thought that they were valid and conclu
sive ; — that if, on the other hand, the Presbytery regarded them
as unfounded and inconclusive, but saw, that they were strongly
and conscientiously entertained, and could not be removed by
argument or persuasion, it would be for them solemnly to weigh
all the circumstances of the" case, including, of course, thenum-
ber and the character of the dissentients, as well as the import of
the reasons and objections, and then to decide, whether, on the
whole, it was or was not advisable, that the settlement should pro
ceed ? I repeat, that I always understood, that the nature of the
reasons and objections, and the degree in which they prevailed,
should be kept in view in coming to a decision, as well as the nu
merical proportion of the parishioners by whom they were enter
tained, and that the Presbytery was equally entitled either to give
effect to the dissent, or to overrule it, according as their con
sciences dictated, and according as the spiritual interests of the
parish appeared to them to require. Undoubtedly it would, un
der my amendment, be perfectly competent for any member of
Presbytery to take up the list of dissenting parishioners, to count
how many communicants it included, and to say, " Although
the reasons and objections are not conclusive, (which holds even
of such as are frivolous and unjust) yet, as they are held by two-
thirds, three-fourths, or a majority of the communicants, I think
they ought to be given effect to," and he would vote for set
ting aside the presentation, whilst another might state, that
however numerous the objectors were, and however large the
proportion of communicants, yet, as he thought the reasons and
objections were frivolous and capricious, he would vote for sus
taining it.
I own it did and does appear to me that the Lord Justice-
Clerk's clause, which he did not mean to supersede mine, but

77
to make its import if possible clearer, and give full latitude to
the discretion of the Presbytery, conveys substantially the
same meaning which I attach to mine. But his Lordship only
intended it as an additional concession to the wishes of the
Church, and by no means as an additional restriction, and he
would be perfectly contented to leave the clause precisely as I
intended that it should stand.
The difference between you and me seems to be this. You
appear to me to hold, that the dissent of the majority may be
given effect to, without any consideration whatever being be
stowed by the Church courts upon the nature and import of
the reasons and objections, upon which the dissent is founded.
I respectfully contend, that the Church courts must be bound
to record and consider the reasons and objections in the first
instance ; but that every member is at perfect liberty to give
effect to the dissent, whether he considers the reasons and ob
jections to be conclusive or not, on the ground, that they are en
tertained by a majority of the communicants, and that he thinks
the existence of these, or of any, reasons and objections in the
minds of such a majority, however unjust or futile, preclude
(on the general principle) the prospect of the presentee's mini
strations proving useful in that particular district, every other
member of Presbytery being of course entitled to act upon the
opposite view of the question. I think I can furnish one irre
fragable proof, that 1 never intended the consideration of the
import of the reasons and objections to be thrown altogether
aside by the Church courts. When you proposed an amendment
upon my words, I said, that I could not undertake to recom
mend its adoption to the Government, unless a special and di
rect reference to the reasons and objections were introduced,
and there accordingly it stands. In fact, I believe the Church
courts shrink from the moral responsibility of giving effect, in
the exercise of their judicial functions, to reasons and objec
tions which they regard, in their own minds and consciences,
as captious and unjust ; although they have no objection, or
rather seem to be insisting, that, in every case, effect should be
given to such reasons and objections, if a majority of the com
municants choose tojiersist in them, and thus to inflict an injury
both on the patron and on the presentee, for which there shall
be no redress. But the Government and the Legislature will
no doubt say, we are willing, in each instance, to enable you to
do, what you wish to be compelled to do. We allow you to give
effect to reasons and objections, however unfounded, on the sole
ground of their prevalence in the mind of what you think an
adequate proportion of the parishioners. But we leave you the
alternative of doing otherwise, and we place a confidence -in

78
your wisdom and uprightness, which we cannot attach to the
proceedings or sentiments of a body not recognised by law, and
not influenced by public opinion ; but to whose wishes and in
terests we feel assured that you will, in every case, give the
most deliberate and most favourable consideration.
Permit me once more, with friendly and anxious earnestness,
to entreat you and my other friends to think well before you
determine finally to reject this mode of adjustment. No man,
1 believe, is better acquainted than I am with the opinions and
feelings of her Majesty's Ministers on this subject ; and I
pledge myself, that all the members of the Cabinet, with whom
I have conversed, entertain a reverential and cordial respect
for the Church of Scotland, and a most high and grateful ap
preciation of her past services and present importance. They
would make any sacrifice, except that of principle, for her pro
sperity and preservation. But they seem to me to be convinced
that the veto is unreasonable, unconstitutional, and unjust ; that
it is a novelty introduced in 1834, and declared by the Supreme
Courts to be illegal ; and that the abolition of patronage itself
would be less obnoxious, and more desirable. They have suffi
cient confidence in the wisdom and probity of the ministers of
the Church to enlarge their powers in reference to the rea
sons and objections of the people, believing, that these powers
will be exercised in a spirit of fairness and discrimination. My
object was, to carry this principle to the utmost limits, with no
other restriction than that of obliging the Church courts, in
the first instance, to consider the import of these reasons and
objections, without compelling the Presbytery to overrule them,
on the ground of their being invalid and inconclusive ; but
empowering them, as I have already stated, whenever they think
fit, to give effect to them, on the ground of their being strongly
and conscientiously held by a majority, or by any other pro
portion which, in the judgment of the Presbytery, render it
advisable that the presentation should, for the glory of God,
and the good of the parish, be set aside.
I should be very glad, that if possible, my spontaneous and
unauthorised negociations should not be discussed or alluded
to at the meeting of the Commission. They now only hang
together by a single thread ; and if any speeches should be made
or resolutions adopted, which might obstruct the proposed
mode of settlement, there may afterwards be reasons to regret
such a consummation, when it turns out, that an adjustment can
not be brought about on any other basis. But if the subject
must be discussed, and if my opinions must be promulgated I
cannot in that case object to your reading this letter, provided
that it be read entire, m order that my views may (so far as

79
depends upon me) be thoroughly explained, and perfectly un
derstood. I ever remain, most truly yours, George Sinclair,

Definition of my Amendment.
Leamington, 29th Nov. 1841.
I am anxious, once more, to explain, as fully and as clearly
as I can, the scope and import of the amendment which I pro
posed to introduce into the second clause of the Earl of Aber^
deen's bill.
The reasons and objections of the people having been stated
and recorded, are to be considered by the Presbytery, in their
judicial capacity. If the Presbytery should be of opinion that
the said reasons and objections are valid and conclusive, they
will of course sustain them accordingly. In the only other
possible event, viz. that the reasons and objections are, in them
selves, not valid or conclusive in the opinion of the Presbytery,
and cannot be removed from the minds of the objectors by ar
gument or persuasion, the Presbytery are entitled to set aside
the presentee on the sole ground of the conscientious prevalence
of the reasons and objections, (taking into account the number
and the character of the objectors,) although the reasons and
objections are neither such as the Presbytery themselves would,
under similar circumstances, have entertained, nor such as they
would have felt themselves entitled to have given effect to, had
they been compelled, before doing so, to have homologated
their validity. The Presbytery would also have, in every case,
an equal power to overrule the reasons and objections, when
they deemed it fit and proper to do so.
George Sinclair.

Letter, Sir George Sinclair, Bart, to Dr Patrick M'Farlan.
Leamington, 23d Dec. 1841.
My Dear Dr M'Farlan,
I have lately perused the last Manifesto of the Church. Being
drawn up by Mr Hamilton, it of course displays a talent, which
commands attention, and a temper, which disarms hostility. I
am bound, however, to state, that I see no prospect of a settle-,

80
ment being obtained upon the terms, which he proposes. (In
this opinion of course I may be wrong, for I speak on conjec
ture, and not from authority.) Above all, I think, that it is
imprudent and unnecessary to insist, that the Government shall
affirm an abstract principle, the true meaning of which has so
long been a subject of controversy, and which, it must be ad
mitted, is neither more nor less than the veto. Now, ^ven
ture to say, that in England, and amongst public men especially,
the veto is regarded with unqualified abhorrence, as being most
unreasonable and unjust. Whether it be so or not is quite an
other matter ; but that this is the general opinion amongst all
classes, is known to all persons, except the Committee at Edin
burgh. And it is impossible to persuade men of common sense,
that a principle, declared by the courts of law to be illegal,
can be essential to the existence, or indispensable to the well-
being, of an Established Church. Lord Aberdeen's speech on
the Duke of Argyll's bill expressed not merely his Lordship's
own sentiments, but those which will be re-echoed when Par
liament meets from every section of both Houses, if no ad
justment should previously be effected. No one will have a
right to complain if Government should say, We do not approve
of the alteration in the law proposed by the Church as a sine
qua non, and we therefore shall not interfere at all, but leave
the Church to be governed by the existing statutes, as inter
preted by the proper authorities. I have not ascertained,
that they intend to do so, but I have heard several very sensi
ble and learned men affirm, that this would be the wisest and
the safest course, which any Ministry could adopt. My proposal
is of course virtually repudiated, but I am painfully apprehensive
that nothing more acceptable will be offered to the Church.
When I (perhaps unfortunately) resolved to devote my time, and
such little influence as I possessed, to the settlement of this mo
mentous subject, I resolved (1 .) to keep all my own opinions in
abeyance, and consider not what I might wish, but what I could
get ; (2.) To avoid affirming or denying any abstract principle ;
(3.) To try and devise some practical measure, not giving a tri
umph to either party, but in which both might conscientiously
(this not without reluctance) acquiesce. Guided by these three
considerations, I was anxious, on the one hand, to steer clear
of the veto, in order, if possible, to carry the Government along
with me, and on the other, to come as near it as I safely could,
for the purpose of satisfying the Church. This I thought was
effected, by leaving the Presbytery at liberty to give effect to
the reasons and objections of the people, even when they could
not homologate their validity, on the sole ground of their con
scientious prevalence in the minds of the parishioners,  only
calling upon them, when they deemed it right to do so, to state

81
in their sentence of rejection that they themselves regarded
the reasons and objections as " not in themselves conclusive."
This declaration was intended to show, that the reasons and
objections had been considered, as well as recorded, and their
nature and import, as well as the degree in which they pre
vailed, carefully ascertained, and deliberately weighed by the
court. And this is what the Committee throws aside as un
worthy of being accepted ! They must have their own general
principle affirmed. They must carry every thing with a high
hand. O, my dear Doctor, do you think that the country will
go along with them, when the main point of difference is, not
whether the Church courts shall be compelled to concur in the
conclusiveness of the reasons and objections on which the dis
sent is founded, but whether they shall intimate either that
they do, or that they do not ? I inclose three letters for your
perusal, which you will afterwards be so good as to return.
My unwavering conviction is, that the views of the Committee
will be at least as decidedly rejected by the Government and
the Legislature, as my proposal has been by them. WTiat an
eminent prelate says with respect to the veto is the predominant
sentiment throughout England, and will be found to be so,
when the Duke brings forward the Church's bill. Ever very
respectfully, and with much regard, my dear Doctor, &c. &c.

I have great pleasure in inserting the very sensible and paci
fic reply, with which I was honoured, to the foregoing letter.
Letter from the Rev. Dr Patrick M'Farlan.
Greenock, 27th Dec. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
I am favoured with your letter of the 27th, and its inclosures,
which I return.
Since receiving your letter, I have read the " Statement" for
the third time, with all the attention of which I am capable, and
cannot discover that it is liable to the objections which you make
to it.
You say that the Committee insist, that the Government
shall affirm an abstract principle, which, you add, is neither
more nor less than the veto. Excuse me for saying in return,
that in this remark you seem to confound two things — the prin
ciple and the forms, of which the veto is one, in which that
principle is to be expressed. See p. 2. at the foot, and you

82
will find that we do not ask the Government to affirm an ab
stract principle. We only tell them, that the principle is one that
is held, and always has been held, a fundamental principle of
the Church of Scotland ; and that, because it is so, we think
it essential, that in any legislative measure which may be pro
posed, ' Government should have respect to that principle. If
the Government are not convinced that it is a fundamental prin
ciple, or, if being convinced of it, they wish by statute to alter,
and, as they think, improve our constitution, I ask you, how is
it possible for us to give our consent to such a proposal ? The
very intention of the " Statement" is, to make our view of the
constitution as clear as possible, and to prevent the recurrence
of what we were willing to believe, were the mutual misunder
standings of parties in former negociations.
On the other hand, the Committee, supposing the Govern
ment to be at one with them, as to the principle of any bill to be
laid before Parliament, express their willingness to agree to
any one of the three forms in which that principle may be ex
pressed. (See particularly p. 17. and p. 28. of " Statement.")
I am surprised at your saying that they have virtually repudia
ted your proposal. I find nothing to that effect in the " State
ment." We have said little with regard to it, because it is not
for us, who were enjoined by last Assembly to use our utmost
endeavours to encourage and aid the passing of the Duke of
Argyll's bill, to bring forward or plead for your plan. Let the
Government propose it, — let them require, if they please, the
statement of reasons of dissent, and even the recording of these,
I, at least, will not object, provided the Presbytery shall be per
mitted to reject the presentee, on the ground of the reasons and
the opposition of the people conjoined, and that in doing this,
they shall be free from the interference of the civil courts. This,
it has always appeared to me, is the true interpretation of the
act 1690.
I am fully aware of the perilous situation in which the Church
will be placed, if there shall be no legislation at all ; but I tell
you frankly, and you know 1 am not one of the extreme party,
that I would rather that the Church should fall contending man
fully, and patiently, and perse veringly against the encroach
ments of the civil courts, than that she should be revolutionised
by act of Parliament, &c. with our concurrence, and cease to
be the Church of the truly religious part of the community, and
finally be trampled under foot. We are most grateful to you
for your zealous endeavours to effect an adjustment on what
you believe to be sound principles, and to persuade influential
members of Parliament that the consequence of refusing to le
gislate on these principles will be a schism in the Church. I

83

am sorry, but not surprised to observe, that on one of your cor
respondents you have made no impression at all.

And now, my dear Sir, I may yet hope that you will use your
influence with your friends in Parliament to effect, if possible, the
final and satisfactory adjustment of this question. A plan has
been proposed which meets the approbation of a large majority
of the Church, and would have opposition from none. Why is
not this conceded ? Excuse me for saying,— I use the word
which one of your correspondents has applied to us, — it is " in
fatuation " to refuse it. If it must be refused, then let us have
the second or the third, and let the Church be saved from dis
ruption and ruin. With much respect, believe me, dear Sir
George, yours sincerely,
Patr. M'Farlan.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Welsh.
Edinburgh, October 19. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
You have no doubt heard of the letter which the Dean of
Faculty has written to Mr Candlish, in regard to the Church
question. I read it for the first time to-day, and I really have
no words to express the astonishment. and regret into which it
has thrown me. It is unnecessary for me, however, to trouble
you with my views as to the general tenor of the letter, or as
to the effects it is likely to produce. You will probably .hear
enough upon these points from other quarters. But there is
one particular, to which I feel it to be indispensably neces
sary to call your special attention, as involving to a certain ex
tent my personal character as a member of the Non- Intrusion
Committee. From the explanation which the Dean gives of
his understanding of the clause, which you proposed should be
introduced into Lord Aberdeen's bill, at now appears that he
did not consider it as giving.to the Church and people of Scot
land, more than was essentially contained in Lord Aberdeen's
bill itself, — and that at all events he has never looked upon it
as securing for us, what is called the liberum arbitrium. Now,
here, there.must.be some great mistake ; for you will recollect,
that at the meeting on the 2d instant, when an objection was
made to the wording of your clause, upon the ground, that it
might be questioned, whether it sufficiently secured for the
f2

84
Church the power of even judicially rejecting a presentee, upon
the dissent of the people with reasons, you expressly stated, that
it was understood by all the parties with whom you had consulted
as fully granting the liberum arbitrium, — that is, that by the
clause, the people were to state their reasons, and if a majority
adhered to these reasons, the Presbytery had the power to re
ject the presentee in every instance, though they might also ad
mit him if they thought fit. As there was some ambiguity in the
words, I was at first desirous that they should be modified. But,
when you stated, that your honour as a gentleman was at stake
in the matter, and when you repeated the assurance, that all
parties understood that the liberum arbitrium was intended, I at
once yielded to your wish. And in the course of the conversa
tion that ensued, when one gentleman continued to insist upon
a change in the phraseology, and when he stated, that the Dean
of Faculty would be the first to give an interpretation to the
clause different from what you explained, I confess that I agreed
with you, when you stated, that the greatest injustice was done
to the Dean in making such a supposition.
How all this bears upon my own character, and indeed upon
the proceedings of the Non- Intrusion Committee on the day
you were present, I shall now proceed to explain. When I
heard that the Government was disposed to adopt your clause,
it afforded me much satisfaction, — not that in itself I was par
tial to the liberum arbitrium, but I conceived that the Church
could conscientiously act under it, and I saw no other way at
the time, by which the country might be saved from the terrible
evils that could not fail to arise from the majority of the mem
bers of the Church being driven from the Establishment. I con
ceived also, that the greater part of my brethren in the Church
would take a similar view of the subject, and rest satisfied with
such an adjustment as you proposed. In this last particular,
however, 1 find that I had greatly erred. I find that the great
prop6rtion of my friends have a positive aversion to the liberum
arbitrium. They are of opinion, that it would work exceedingly
ill, and involve the General Assembly in all the difficulties con
nected with determining a multitude of disputed settlements.
They view with dislike, also, the idea of giving so much power
to the Church, and altogether they conceive, that a settlement
upon such a basis would prove any thing but satisfactory. With
such views, they complain that the Non-Intrusion Committee
have placed the Church in an unfavourable position, even by
the limited acquiescence they expressed in your clause  and
the more so, as it is maintained by many, that the clause does
not afford the liberum arbitrium, and in this idea they are con
firmed by the letter of the Dean of Faculty : And in reference

85
to this, I have been obliged to give the explanation contained
in the first part of this letter. The whole matter is inexplicable
to me. But that you understood the Dean's views, in the man
ner above stated, I entertain the most perfect confidence.
I cannot conclude, without expressing my sincere sorrow, that
all your generous and devoted exertions towards effecting an
adjustment have for the present proved unsuccessful. And
though we are all too apt to judge of measures by the event,
I feel assured, that the additional obligations under which you
have laid the Church of Scotland, by the course of conduct you
have followed for the last month, will not speedily be forgotten.
I only hope, that what lias taken place will induce you to exert
your influence and your talents for negociation, towards obtaining
a settlement of the question, upon a footing that may secure to
the people of our Church a larger proportion of their just rights.
Short of the Duke of Argyll's bill, 1 feel assured that no mea
sure will now serve permanently to restore peace to the coun
try. And if statesmen could be brought to know, where the
strength of Scotland really lies, I feel confident that such a
measure would be carried into effect, as the truest Conservative
policy. Appearances, however, are far from promising, and
former prejudices seem to be regaining sway. * * *
* * To " cease from man," seems
to be the lesson that the Church of Scotland is to be forced to
learn. When we look to the proceedings of political parties,
all seems discouraging. But when we look to the clergy and
people of Scotland, the prospect is very different, and additional
evidence seems to be daily afforded, if not, that we are to re
ceive deliverance from our troubles, — that patience will be given
to the Church to suffer the loss of all, rather than lose her in
tegrity. I have the honour to be, my dear Sir George, yours faith
fully, David Welsh.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Welsh.
Leamington, 27th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Dr Welsh,
I have just received your' kind and interesting letter. It is
very painful to me to learn, that there has been any mis
understanding as to the import of my amendment upon Lord
Aberdeen's bill ; but I trust, that my recent communication

86
to our friend Mr Candlish has relieved your mind from all
anxiety. My respect and regard for you, however, induce me
to recapitulate what my intentions were, and what I under
stood, and still believe, to have been those of the Dean.
I suppose that a presentee is objected to by a portion of the
parishioners. They are called upon to state their reasons and
objections, which, (1st,) is a check against their urging, or
persevering in frivolous of capricious causes of dissent ; and,
(2d,) enables the Ghurch courts to form a better estimate of
their relevancy and importance. The Presbytery may find
that these objections are valid. They, of course, set aside
the presentee, or, they think that the reasons, although con
scientiously entertained, are inadequate and inconclusive.
They endeavour to convince the people, that they are mis
taken, but are unsuccessful in the attempt to remove their op
position. The Presbytery, in that case, is entitled to set aside
the presentee, because they think the amount of dissent,
(founded, of course, on these reasons and objections) is suffi
cient to warrant a call upon them to do so ; or, if they think
fit, and are of opinion that the reasons are untenable and ab
surd, or that in time the opposition will subside, they are en
titled to proceed with the settlement. Surely, my dear Sir,
this is not only liberum, but liberrimum arbitrium. I am quite
certain that no British Parliament will exonerate the Church
courts from their judicial responsibility. It will be expected,
that they shall have equal power to resist either the caprice of
a patron in appointing an unfit minister, or, when they see it
right to do so, the caprice of the people in refusing to accept
a good one; though they would!, under my clause, have full
power to set such a one aside, whenever they thought fit;
the check being the influence of public opinion, which has a greater
hold upon a Presbytery acting judicially, and who are known and
respected as ministers of the Gospel, than upon the people, who,
to the community at large, are unknown and irresponsible.
I believe, that you and my other friends must have misun
derstood the meaning of the Justice-Clerk's communication.
His Lordship, from the first, seemed to me to hold, that the
Church courts had, by Lord Aberdeen's original clause, a much
greater latitude of discretion, than I and many others imagined.
I am convinced, that he entirely coincides in my own interpre
tation of mywords ; but thinks that the liberum arbitrium, if
exercised judicially, would, even if not exercised judiciously, be
competent under the provisions of the bill, as it stood, before
my amendment was proposed. I should be glad if you would
submit this letter to his Lordship's perusal, (should you think
fit to do so,) in order that he may have an opportunity either to
confirm or contradict my view. Be assured, that the Church

87
has not a more attached friend than he is to its liberty and to
its peace, or else I am of all men the most mistaken.
It is my duty to add, (which I do. with great pain, though*
you may perhaps hear it with some pleasure,) that I have
now much less, prospect of obtaining for. the Church the terms,
which she at present seems so much disposed to repudiate.
The rejection of my advice by the Church has, of course, greatly
tended to impair, my influence elsewhere ; and; although the
rectitude of my intentions is thankfully acknowledged, my,
plan will, I fear,, not again be so favourably entertained.
UponyoK, my dear Sir, and my other, friends in the Commit
tee, I leave the whole responsibility of protracted agitation and'
disquietude. I have acted throughout with the most perfect
good faith, and with a, fervent desire to save from grave cala
mities a Church, which I venerate and love. I had succeeded,
after much labour, in obtaining -the assent of an enlightened,
and friendly Government to a scheme, which I had always un
derstood that the Church, (though she preferred other modes of
adjustment,) would not have hesitated to accept. Other coun
sels have now prevailed; the sword' of turmoil is again un
sheathed ; and hopes are cherished, that committees and con
federacies may overawe the minds of the Government, or
affect the decisions of the Legislature. Of such a result I, for
one, entertain not the slightest expectation. I am making one
more effort to accomplish the great work of pacification, or at
least to shew to you and to my other friends the precise
ground on which you really stand. Do not, oh do not regard
these expressions as dictated by the peevishness of personal
disappointment. They are only the sincere and respectful ad
monitions of zealous and solicitous friendship. In less than a
week, I shall either succeed in attaining my object, or retire
at once and for ever from the painful and useless pursuit of
it. Believe me to remain, &c.

Letter from the Rep. Dr Welsh.
Edinburgh, Dec. 14* 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
The mortification I experienced, upon receiving your letter
of the 27th October, was so great, that my original purpose was
to refrain from troubling you with any farther correspondence
upon the subject of your negociations with Government.
I believe, however, that it is due both to you and to myself*.

88
particularly considering the very friendly tone of your letter,
that I should state, that there had been a degree of misappre
hension among all parties, on the day you met with the Non-
Intrusion Committee, that is indeed most lamentable. I had
understood by your clause, that the liberum arbitrium, as ex
plained by Dr Chalmers, was fully granted. But as now ex
plained by you, it appears that the clause would only give us
the power of judging as to reasons, — which, in fact, is nothing
more than was virtually bestowed by Lord Aberdeen's bill,
which was rejected by the Church, and under which it would
be impossible for those holding the opinions of the majority of
the Church conscientiously to act. I am as far as possible
from ascribing any blame to you in the matter, but I feel it to
be right to make you aware of the fact, that there was the most
entire misunderstanding on my part of your meaning. I still
think I made my own meaning sufficiently plain, by stating that
your clause would enable us in every case to reject a presentee,
whether the reasons might be good or bad.
You speak of the Non-Intrusion party seeking to overawe
Government by their proceedings. 1 do not suppose they have
any such idea. But they conceive it to be right, to make the
Government fully aware, that they are ready to sacrifice every
thing for the maintenance of what they believe to be a great
Scriptural principle.
With great respect, I remain, my dear Sir George, yours
very faithfully, David Welsh.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Welsh.
Leamington, 17th Dec. 1841.
My Dear Dr Welsh,
I am extremely sorry that my explanation was not satisfac
tory ; but as my negociations are at an end, my plan repudiated,
and the Committee insisting on the Church being either com
pelled, or enabled, to give effect to the veto, I must content my
self with hereafter being an anxious, but altogether inactive
spectator of a struggle, the result of which I am persuaded will
be, that neither Government nor the Legislature will sanction
any plan, which is based on such a principle. I entertain a
deliberate conviction, that the demand for the abolition of patro
nage would be at least as likely to be listened to ; but I shall be
happy, though much surprised, if my predictions should be fal
sified when Parliament meets.

89
May I be permitted to add, without offence, and with great
deference, that, in my opinion, my amendment would have done
precisely what you say you thought it would, viz. enable you in
every case to reject the presentee, whether the reasons were
good or bad. This, at least, was my intention, and I could not
myself be satisfied with less;— and the words, " though not con
clusive," &c. were inserted/or the express purpose of making it
clear, that the Presbytery had full power to give effect to rea
sons and objections, of which they did not homologate the vali
dity. The only thing which I required, was, that the words above
quoted should be introduced, for the purpose of shewing, that
the reasons and objections had been considered by the Church
courts, — a principle, which, so far as my (very general) inter
course with public men enabled me to judge, was deemed in all
quarters quite indispensable.
Excuse my dwelling upon a proposal, which I shall not at
tempt to press ; — and believe me, &c.

As the country will be most anxious to ascertain what were
the sentiments, in reference to my plan, of the individual in
Scotland whose opinions possess the greatest influence over the
public mind, and are universally considered as most influential
and authoritative, I take the liberty to insert the correspondence
which took place between us during the latter part of these ne
gociations, omitting all passages of a more private character.
Letter to the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
Leamington, 12th Nov. 1841.
My Dear Dr Chalmers,
I much fear that a letter from me on the Church question will
be distasteful and unwelcome to you, and to most of the friends
at Edinburgh, for whom I cherish the highest respect. You will
all, however, admit that my motives have been pure, and that I
have, at least, laboured with unwearied assiduity to do good,
and to prevent evil. The danger of farther delay in effecting
a settlement becomes strikingly apparent, when we consider
that each succeeding week has elicited, from one party or the
other, some declaration, or some measure, tending to place a
fresh impediment in the way of adjustment. Even since the
failure of the attempt to get a bill passed through Parliament
for that purpose before the close of last session, the appoint-

90
ment of an assistant and successor to one of the seven ministers,
and the steps taken by the Presbytery of Garioch, (to say
nothing of other circumstances,) have created new and1 formi
dable difficulties, and I feel so much discouraged and alarmed,
that I presume once more to open my heart to you, and make
through you one more appeal to the zealous and excellent men,
with whom your opinion has so much influence and authority-
I have been charged with taking too desponding a view of
the prospect, which the Church has, of obtaining the Duke: of
Argyll's bill, or such a modification of the veto principle as
that enlightened and conscientious statesman, Lord Cottenham,
has suggested. Believe me, my dear friend, my opinion as to
the hopelessness of a protracted struggle is not founded , either
upon my own wishes, or upon light and rash inferences or sur
mises. My friend Bannerman, in a letter received this morn
ing, reminds me, that, at a meeting at Lord Melbourne's, I
advocated the abolition of patronage ; but I also added, that I
would support any minor measure, which would restore peace
and avert schism. I do not contend for the Duke's bill, because
I have abundant reason to know, that the prospect of its being
carried is at least as desperate, as that of the repeal of the act
of Anne. If the Church thinks, that I am mistaken in this
opinion, — if they believe that the Duke's measure will pass in
the early part, or at any period of next session, or if they are
prepared to protract a harassing and pernicious course of liti
gation and strife for some years longer, in the hope of the ul
timate attainment of their object, then I have nothing further
to do, than to retire from the field of negociation, and leave the
cause, which I have so much at heart, to wiser and abler,
but not more attached or zealous champions.
Before, however, discontinuing my efforts, I once more ven
ture to obtrude my advice upon yourself and the respected
leaders of the Church party, beseeching you, with all earnest
ness and humility, to " hear me of your clemency a few words."
For the last time, I implore the Church to accept the terms
of adjustment, which I took the liberty to propose; and. I en
treat them to close with this offer immediately, in order to ob,.
viate the occurrence of fresh obstacles, before the meeting of
Parliament. I am ready to lay before the Committee written
evidence from Spiritual and Temporal Peers of different parties,
and from her Majesty's Government, that they cannot, in any,
shape, sanction the principle of the veto, though they are all will
ing, for the sake of peace, to support the basis of settlement,
which the Committee had conditionally, though reluctantly,, ac
quiesced in. Now, I am quite persuaded, that if these facts
were brought under the notice of the people of Scotland,—

91
if they saw it proved to a demonstration, that more favourable
terms cannot be got, and if the Committee, in a temperate ad
dress, pointed out to them how fully the Church will have the
power, in every case, to give effect to their dissent, even in spite
of the inconclusiveness of the grounds on which, that dissent
is founded, their decision will be hailed with satisfaction by a
majority of the most reasonable and dispassionate members of
the community, and harmony and amity be restored.
This step might be accompanied, or followed, by a reference
of all ' lie matters pending before the courts of law to arbitra
tion /for instance, (as I once before suggested,) to the Lord
Justice- Clerk, Lord Moncreiff, the Solicitor- General, and Mr
Rutherfurd, with power to them, in the improbable event of its
becoming necessary, to select a fifth by way of umpire.
Oh, my dear Doctor, let me once more recommend this sug
gestion to your favourable notice. Think especially of the
many holy, zealous, and most useful country ministers, who will
be compelled, by conscience and principle, to leave their homes
and their flocks, if schism and secession should unhappily prove
the result, and whose talents and influence are not so com
manding as to enable them to secure adequate incomes from
their impoverished though attached parishioners . I am not well
enough to do justice to the subject by pursuing it further. I
believe, that you and the Committee are rather inclined, to sus
pect the motives, and sometimes to question the honesty, of
public men. But the Searcher of hearts is my witness, that,
in the labour which I have cheerfully undergone, I have had
no sinister end to attain, and no mere personal feeling to gratify.
I have followed the example of good King Hezekiah, and
" spread this letter before the Lord," — praying most emphati-
cally,j;hat he maybe pleased to bless this humble effort to restore
peace to his distracted Church in my native land, and not to
inflict upon his people that spiritual destitution, which would
spread a moral desolation through many poor and extensive
districts of Scotland, if, in consequence of a separation of the
Church from the State, the ministrations of our most efficient
and inestimable Establishment should be withdrawn.
O how happy should I be, (how much more happy than if the
greatest amount of temporal prosperity should be awarded to
me and mine,) if the Lord should graciously reply, as he vouch,.
safed to do on a later occasion to the same monarch whom I
lately mentioned, " I have heard thy prayer — I have seen thy
tears." If the Committee should condescend to hold a meeting, for
the purpose of taking this my last communication and overture
into their consideration, I shall feel both honoured and gratified
by their kindness. They will have the goodness to bear in

92
mind, that what I purpose is, not that they should volunteer
to ask for the terms suggested, but should intimate to me a
readiness to accept them with a good (or at least a tolerable)
grace, if I should be empowered to tender them once more,
and should produce such evidence as I have specified, as to
the impracticability of obtaining a more satisfactory basis of
adjustment. Believe me to remain, with very great respect and regard,
my dear Doctor, most truly and faithfully yours.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
Edinburgh, Nov. 15. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
Be assured you misunderstand me, if you think that I can
receive any communications from you, with other feelings than
those of the utmost cordiality and respect.
I shall make it my business to see Dr Gordon as soon as may
be, and let you know the result.
My own mind is completely made up on the topics which you
and your various correspondents have brought under my notice,
but I will defer writing further on the subject till I see Dr
Gordon. I am, my dear Sir George, yours very truly,
Thos. Chalmers.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
Edinburgh, 20th Nov. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
The only explanation I can offer of my delay in replying to
your letter of the 13th, is extreme occupation and want of time.
Saturday is my only day of respite from the fatigues of college
duty, and the work of preparation for them is nearly incessant.
Even on Saturday I have, over and above this preparation, to
read and prepare the criticisms of four discourses, and I am not
done at near eleven at night to write as I may. In these cir
cumstances I have resolved, and am forced to this by the neces
sity of the case, to postpone a full deliverance on the points you
have brought under my notice till the Christmas vacation ;—

93
when, if God will, I shall devote at least a good many hours to
the most explicit letter on the question which I can possibly
frame. Meanwhile, suffer me to express my fears, that you are de
ceived in supposing it to be the purpose of those who have
adopted your formula to give us an unshackled liberum arbitri
um. They will allow us to give effect to the dissent of the
people if we approve of their expressed reasons, or, in other
words, if we adopt them as our reasons. But what I have re
peatedly said is, that their dissent might be a most honest and
truly religious one, and for good reasons too, which they cor
rectly feel, but cannot adequately express ; and the Presbytery
might see this, and be firmly persuaded, in consequence, that the
appointment of a minister so reclaimed against would have a
most adverse influence on the moral and religious interests of
the families in the parish. Now, is a Presbytery not to lay
their arrest upon the presentee in circumstances like these ? Or
is an ecclesiastical court not at liberty to cognosce and decide
upon all the elements which, in their judgment, affect the Chris
tian usefulness of every man whom they are called on to admit
to the cure of souls ? Now, they who would limit us to a judg
ment on the reasons of the people, do infringe upon this liberty.
They lay a most important exception on the liberum arbitrium,
— nay, the very exception that runs the most counter of any to
an oft-repeated and great constitutional principle of the Church
of Scotland.
You seem not aware that I am not a member of the Non-
Intrusion Committee. It is indispensable to my preservation
that I should retire from all public business ; nor do I mean to
mix with it, unless on the event of a disruption, which, should
an entire liberum arbitrium be denied to us, it is my firm con
viction will and ought to take place. I have been studying a
good deal the economy of our Non-Erastian Church when se
vered from the State and its endowments, — an event which I
would do much to avert, — but which, if inevitable, we ought to
be prepared for. I do not participate in your fears of an ex
tinction even for our most remote parishes. And the noble re
solution of the town ministers, to share equally with their coun
try brethren, from a common fund raised for the general behoof
of the ejected ministers, has greatly brightened my anticipa
tions of a great and glorious result, should the Government
cast us off; -and we resolve ourselves in consequence into a
great home mission, whose aim and office it should be to diffuse
the blessings of a rightly constituted and purely evangelical
Church over the whole land.
You will .not suspect me, I am sure, of any wish or purpose to

94

throw out the expressions of menace or defiance. But it is right
that you should know fully the state of matters here, and what
the purposes and prospects of the people and ministers in Scot
land really are. There are thousands in the middle ranks, who
will let down their establishments, rather than that our Church
should go to wreck from the want of endowments ; and an ex
tensive organisation for the small weekly offerings of our people,
which I should feel it my duty to promote to the uttermost, will,
I fondly hope, enable us not only to maintain the services of all
our ejected ministers, but over and above, to extend and multi
ply our exertions, so as to meet the necessities of all our families.
1 need not say to you how much more desirous I am that
this should go on with and by the help of Government, and
under its friendly and approving countenance, than that we
should be left to do it for ourselves.
I have only further to beg, that you will write me as fully as
you are inclined, between this and Christmas, as I purpose not
to omit a single topic about what you wish me to write in the
communication which I mean then to send to you.
I am now compelled by drowsiness and fatigue to give up.
I have the honour to be, my dear Sir George, yours most
respectfully, Thomas Chalmers.
Monday, Nov. 22.
I should have said, that 1 fear your proposed arbitration will
never do ; and that if the Government do insist that we shall
repone the ministers of Strathbogie, on any judgment other
than ecclesiastical, it is my firm conviction that an adjustment is
quite impracticable.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
My Dear Doctor, Leamington, 26th Nov. 1841.
Although it is probable that my " wish may be father to the
thought," I indulge in a confident expectation, that we shall
agree as to what may be regarded as essential to the fair and
practical exercise of the liberum arbitrium — with respect to
which your kind and valuable letter has just reached me.
In the first place, it is of course indispensable that the
Presbytery should be exonerated from the necessity of homo
logating the validity of the reasons and objections, upon which
the dissent is founded, and should be empowered to give effect
to them, — or to the dissent founded on them, — on the sole

95
ground of their being conscientiously and strongly entertained
by what is considered by the Presbytery, acting in their ju
dicial capacity, to be an adequate proportion of the parish
ioners. But, secondly, I must own, that I think it absolutely
necessary that the reasons and objections should be stated by
the. people, and recorded and considered by the Court, not only
as a check against the bringing forward of futile or capricious
objections, but in order that, when objections of that nature
are adduced, the Presbytery should have the power, if they
think fit, to overrule them, having however, at the same time,
an equally uncontested right to give effect to them, if they think
¦that course is, on the whole, more conducive to the spiritual
i welfare of the parish. To borrow the language lately addressed
to me in a letter from a Cabinet Minister, " you had allowed
the Presbytery to reject a presentee, if the people persevered
in reasons against him, which the Court knew to be insufficient."
I respectfully maintain, that the reasons which induce the
people to reject a presentee must arise in their own minds,
1 through the medium of language ; for our thoughts must always
be clothed in words, whether we give utterance to them or not.
Now, if they think that the preaching of the presentee is not
edifying, or his manner unimpressive, or his style unsuited to
their tastes and habits, they surely can express intelligibly what
they strongly feel ; and the Presbytery would be enabled, in
the first place, to give effect to these objections, if they thought
them well founded ; and, in the second place, even if they them
selves considered the presentee to be " eloquent and mighty
in the. Scriptures," they would be entitled, though they re
garded the reasons and objections to be inconclusive, to set
aside the presentee, on the ground of their prevalence rendering
it improbable that his ministrations would be useful in that
particular district.
I have often endeavoured to discover the exact difference,
in reference to the liberum arbitrium, between myself and some
of the friends whom I most value and respect, and it seems to
me to amount to little more than this : They wish to say, " We
give effect to the dissent of the people, even although their
reasons are unfounded and unjust ;" whereas I proposed, that
" effect should be given to the reasons, (although unfounded
and unjust,) because of the dissent of the people."
In order that I may neither fatigue you nor exhaust myself, I
shall not at present touch upon the other important consider
ations suggested by the perusal of your letter. I shall merely
observe, that though I do not doubt the readiness of many of
the most zealous and excellent of our ministers to secede from
the Church, if. duty and conscience prescribe such a course,
there are three most cogent reasons why all legitimate means

96
for averting its necessity should be adopted : first, because the
Church would at once be deprived * of a number of faithful
pastors, perhaps twenty times larger in amount than that of
the careless or unacceptable ministers, who, under any modifica
tion of the law, would be intruded in the course of fifty years ;
2dly, because I greatly question, my dear Doctor, the accu
racy of your sanguine calculation as to the sum which would
be contributed by the voluntary piety and munificence of our
land towards a general fund for the general maintenance of
evangelical ministers throughout the length and breadth of
Scotland ; and, thirdly, because the larger these subscriptions
were, the more would all the sources be dried up from whence
the means of promoting religious education through the medium
of schools, and propagating the Gospel in foreign countries, and
relieving distress and indigence, are derived. I hope, however,
better things, and things which accompany salvation. Let us
not break off our negociations because the one party wishes
to give effect to the dissent of the people, in spite of the bad
ness of their reasons, and the other prefers giving effect to the
bad reasons, in consequence of the dissent of the people.
I am ashamed to be an intruder upon your time ; but I shall
be anxious to hear, when perfectly convenient to yourself, how
far we agree or differ as to the meaning of the liberum arbitrium.
I ever remain, with great regard and respect, my dear
Doctor, most faithfully yours.
In order to prevent misapprehension, I may add, that there
is one interpretation of the liberum arbitrium which I would
never think of sanctioning or proposing, viz. that any given
number of parishioners or communicants should say, (" sans
phrase,") " We dissent from the appointment." " Why ?"
" For reasons best known to ourselves — but that is no concern
of yours." I hold that the reasons and objections must be ad
duced by the dissentients, but need not be homologated by the
Presbytery, who may (as I already stated) give effect to them
if good, on account of their goodness, or if bad, in spite of
their badness.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
My Dear Sir George, Edin. Nov. 29. 1841.
It will be truly contemptible, if the fate of a great national
institution shall be made to turn on so quibbling a difference
as you have stated. But why force the Presbytery to disgrace

97
themselves, by giving effect to reasons though unjust and un
founded? If this be to save the credit of Lord Aberdeen's bill,
it is verily too much that an absurdity shall be fastened on a
body of men, whose credit and respectability it is of so much pub
lic advantage to keep up. ****** On the other
hand, I should be quite willing that the sentence of the Pres
bytery should not be in the form of giving effect to the dissent,
any more than to the reasons of the people ; but that, in the
exercise of their high functions, as a Christian and ecclesiasti
cal court, acting in judgment on a question of Christian useful
ness, they, taking cognisance of the dissent, along with all the
other circumstances of the case, pronounce whether it is or is
not for the moral and religious good of the families in the given
parish, that the presentee who stands before them shall be ap
pointed its minister. Now, let us know fairly, whether the
Church is to be left, as even the act of Queen Anne does, the
supreme arbiter within this, its own proper and rightful pro
vince, and do not insist in fastening a ludicrous absurdity up
on the Church. Things are fast ripening towards the full ex
posure of this wretched higgling to public indignation.
There can be no possible objection both to people and Pres
bytery stating fully the reasons, both of their dissent by the
one, and of its decision by the other. It is neither experimen
tally nor philosophically true, that a people may not have reasons,
and good reasons too, which they are not capable of expressing
in adequate language.
The manly and honourable part for Lord Aberdeen would
be, to withdraw both himself and his bill from this concern alto
gether *, that this low pettifoggery might be put an end to, and

* The suspicion, that Lord Aberdeen is anxious to assume the lead, or even to
take any prominent part in the proceedings respecting the Church question, seems
to be as insuperable, as it is unfounded. My reverend friend expresses himself,
to the same effect, as here, in a letter, dated Burntisland, September 30. 1841,
from which the following is an extract. " Since writing you this morning, I have
seen the report of Sir W. Rae's speech at Rothsay ; and must say, that I look far
more hopefully to a measure wherewith he has to do, than to aught that may be
grafted on Lord Aberdeen's bill, or concocted hetween his Lordship and the Dean
of Faculty. I do think, that, after this announcement, the most graceful and be
coming thing, for both the Dean and the Earl, would be, to retire from the con
cern." His Lordship, however, expressly states, August 26. 1841, " I have
no desire to return to the subject at present, nor is there any great reason why I
should. I am quite contented to let the matter rest, so far as I am concerned, to
trust to time and reflection, and to allow the public to pronounce their judgment.
The Church will continue to be governed by those laws, under which, and by
which, it was established. These will be administered by just and impartial tri
bunals, and whatever may be the present difficulties and embarrassments, we have
every thing ultimately to hope for, from the good sense of the people, and the
wisdom of the Legislature." G

98
a free, unfettered liberum arbitrium might be given to the Church
courts, without any possibility of an obstruction in the way of
its exercise by the Court of Session. Forgive this brief and
hasty effusion. If I did not write feelingly, 1 should not write
honestly. 1 have the honour to be, my dear Sir George, yours
most respectfully,
Thos Chalmers.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
My Dear Doctor, Leamington, 1st Dec. 1841.
I shall, with the most unreserved frankness, and perfect re
spect, presume to offer a few remarks upon your note, which I
have just had the honour to receive. I can have no difficulty in
replying to your question, " why force the Presbytery to disgrace
themselves, by giving effect to reasons, though unjust and un-

And again,
" January 13. 1842. — I think, when I saw you in Edinburgh, / was disposed to
congratulate myself on the termination of my ecclesiastical negociations, and although
I wished you success, I scarcely expected that you would meet with it. At one
moment, something like it appeared to be within reach, but it was only apparent.
******* Your correspondence on this subject will now be diminish
ed ; but you have conducted it throughout with great zeal, honesty, and ability.
That you have pleased neither party, is no proof, that you have been
wrong." I most gratefully acknowledge, that Lord Aberdeen is the individual,
to whose friendship I have been most deeply indebted, and on whose advice I
have most implicitly relied, and v. ho has been most intimately acquainted with my
vicissitudes, both of hope and fear, during the whole progress of these proceedings.
His Lordship, although affairs so complicated and so diversified have been con
stantly pressing upon his attention, has promptly noticed all my communications,
and cordially entered into all my feelings. I cannot, therefore, deny to myself the
honour and gratification of here inserting an extract from one of his last letters on
this subject, dated 1st January 1842. " 1 think the part you have acted through
out these painful discussions has been highly creditable to your ability, zeal, and
honesty. Come what may, you have no reason to repent the part you have taken ;
and I will not altogether despair, even now, of your meeting with success. Your
letter to Mr Walter Cook contains a perfectly accurate account of the proceed
ings, so far as they are known to me." His Lordship adds, with too much truth,
" The course adopted by the Non-Intrusion Committee, or by the majority of
them, — for I see they are divided, — renders it very difficult for the Govern
ment to originate any measure. You are aware, that this was my opinion last
year, and it has been confirmed by all that has recently taken place." Nor can
the baneful effects of agitation be more clearly evinced than by the concluding
paragraph of his Lordship's letter. " The conduct of the leadeks has made
many recede from the concessions they were disposed to make. I have
received notice, from some very influential persons, that they would not now con
sent to support my bill if again introduced into Parliament. To say the truth, I do
not know that I can blame them."

99
founded * f" Why, this is rather an objection to your scheme than
to mine. This is the effect of the veto, and not that of the li
berum arbitrium. The difference between the two principles
is that which exists between may and must, between option and
necessity. I allow the Presbytery to give effect to reasons, of
the conclusiveness of which they "are not convinced, but I leave
as full a power to overrule them. You, by the veto, deprive the
court of all right to overrule them, by forcing them to carry
out the dissent, let the reasons on which it depends be ever so
unfounded and unjust. There is, indeed, this distinction, that
under the veto the Presbytery may " wash their hands," when
compelled to decide (on captious grounds insisted on by the peo
ple,) against the presentee, and say, " We cannot help it — it is
no fault of ours ;" — whereas, if my plan was followed, they would,
in extreme cases, (being conscious that they had an alternative,
and might prevent an unexceptionable probationer from being in
jured,) overrule the dissent, rather than " disgrace themselves by
giving effect to unjust and unfounded reasons." But this is the
only security which the patron, the presentee, the Government,
or the country can have against popular caprice or vindictive-
ness,— feelings, by which I contend, that the minds of the people
are infinitely more likely to be influenced, when sitting in judg
ment upon the selection made by a patron, than if the choice
were freely left to themselves ; for 1 believe, that in many in
stances they would veto the patron's man, however deserving,
merely because the patron had declined to nominate theirs.
Permit me calmly to state what appears to be the amount of .
difference between us. (1.) We agree, (to use your own words,)
that " there can be no possible objection both to people and
Presbytery stating fully the reasons, both of their dissent by the
one, and of its decision by the other." Very well ; — then, (2.)
of course we must both cheerfully admit, that if the reasons of the
people are deemed by the Presbytery to be valid, they should be
sustained. But suppose they are, in the opinion of the Pres
bytery, unfounded or unjust. Now here the Moderate party
are quite safe,. — for they would feel at perfect liberty to over
rule them ; and therefore the only question is, what shall be
done in such cases by Non-intrusionist members of Presbytery ?
Why, my plan leaves the solution of that problem entirely to
themselves — gives unlimited and uncontrolled power to each of
them, with his moral responsibility as a judge before his eyes,

* This expostulation of my revered friend, reminds me of that of the juryman,
who objected to serve, because he would have power to find a prisoner guilty,
though he considered the charges to be unjust and unfounded. The Judge at once
replied, — " But remember, my good Sir, that you have just as entire a liberty to
acquit him."
G 2

100
to join the Moderates in refusing to sustain unreasonable
o-rounds of dissent, or to give effect to them, if he thinks pro
per, because they are conscientiously entertained by the people,
and he cannot succeed in removing them. I contend that the
Presbytery shall, in each case, be enabled, and you contend, that
they ought to be compelled, to pursue that course.
1 may here observe, that I must take upon myself the entire
responsibility of the resuscitation of Lord Aberdeen's bill.
He had not, when I spoke to him in August, the most remote
intention to make it " Descend once more from its sepulchral
shelf." Nay, he even expressed to me the most decided re
pugnance to interfere any farther in the settlement of the ques
tion, " Me me adsum qui feci — in me convertite ferrum." It
was I who thought that, by attempting to ingraft an amend
ment upon his Lordship's bill, which exonerated the Presby
tery from being obliged to homologate the validity of the objec
tions before giving effect to them, I should, on the one hand,
prevail on the new Government to take up a measure, which
one of their own number had originally brought forward, and to
render it acceptable to the Church, by what I conceived to be
an enlargement of the powers, whicb its provisions vested in the
Presbytery ; and, on the other hand, should secure the concur
rence of the Church in its adoption, by enacting, that they
might, in effect, deal as they in each case thought proper with
the reasons and objections of the people — sustaining them when
ever they thought fit, on the ground either of their acknow
ledged conclusiveness, or of their strong and conscientious pre
valence, when regarded as in themselves inconclusive. Nothing
would be more easy than to prevail on Lord Aberdeen " to
withdraw both himself and his bill altogether." Be assured, that
I should have much less difficulty in achieving this object, than I
had in inducing him once more to undertake its introduction ; and
Ishould have to accompany my request with the offer of athousand
apologies for having recommended and entreated and persuaded
him to come forward in the capacity of a peacemaker and friend
to the Establishment. But his Lordship's retirement from the
field would naturally and necessarily be attended by that of his
colleagues, who have the most perfect confidence in his wisdom,
uprightness and patriotic motives. Do not, my dear Doctor, de
lude yourself and others, by supposing that the Government
would introduce or sanction any measure, in which Lord Aber
deen did not concur. They will neither succumb to menace,
nor submit to dictation.
In spite of the habitual and heartfelt deference, with which
I at all times address one, whose talents and influence are so
far superior to my own, I cannot help presuming to expostulate

101
with you, my revered friend, upon what seems to me a virtual
abandonment of the two great principles, in behalf of which your
efforts have been so pre-eminent and so successful. I mean
those of Church Establishment and Church Extension. You de
cline the terms offered by the Government, although, by doing
so, you admit, that a large proportion of the best and most zea
lous ministers will be forced to leave the Church, and that no
thing but a caput mortuum will remain, which, upon your own
shewing, it would be impossible long to uphold. 1'he Establish
ment has been like a goodly forest, protecting a large and rich
tract of country from destructive and desolating winds. When
all the stateliest oaks have been cut down, the blast will easily
overthrow the thin and stunted trees which remain, and then im
pair or destroy the luxuriant fertility of the fields, which will be
left without shelter or defence. But you tell me, that ample
funds will be collected by the contributions and sacrifices of the
middling classes, for the erection of places of worship, and the
endowment of ministers, and that thus Church extension at least
will make great and rapid progress. I, for one, greatly ques
tion the accuracy of your sanguine calculations, having learnt
in your own school the inadequacy and impotence of Volun
taryism. But it does appear to me, that even if you provide a
large supply of new bottles, you will not fill them with new
wine, but only decant into them old wine, emptied out of the
old bottles, in which it has already been secured ; whilst, in
stead of saving the new wine, you leave it in the vat to ferment
and evaporate ; or to drop the metaphor, you will only fill your
new churches, with hearers subtracted from the old ; and the
funds so employed will pro tanto be diverted from the prosecu
tion of that work, which you have immortalised yourself by pro
moting, viz. the erection of new edifices for the reception of
new hearers, who, in a state of neglect and heathenism, have
been living without God in the world.
When I volunteered to serve on the " forlorn hope," by
striving to effect a pacification, a friend endeavoured to dis
suade me from the arduous and adventurous task, by warning
me, that I should ere long have reason to repent of my own \x\-
fatuation; that Ishould be first misunderstood  then misrepre
sented—then abandoned— and then persecuted. The blame
of what you call " wretched higgling " entirely rests with me.
I repeat, that it was / who instigated Lord Aberdeen to re
sume his bill,— J who prevailed on the Government to accede to
a proposition devised by myself, and for the originating of
which not one of them is in any degree responsible,  I who
attempted to secure for the Church a minimum, which they
might with honour have acquiesced in, because, as a public

102
man, I had access to know, that it was impossible to obtain more.
Should a " full expose" be thought advisable by yourself, or
by the Church Committee, I shall endure with unruffled equa
nimity the threatened outbreak of " public indignation." It is on
my head that its bolt must fall,— not on that of Lord Aberdeen,
— not on that of any of his colleagues, who, in the fondness or
folly of my own self-deception, I have, I fear, unhappily be
guiled and misled. I am willing, however, to endure obloquy,
however unmerited, or rather because it is unmerited, in a good
and holy cause. I mean that of attempting to rescue a " great
national institute," (as you justly term our Church,) from being
destroyed or disestablished, either through the craft and cun
ning of its enemies, or tbe rashness and recklessness of its
friends. Ever most truly yours, &c.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
Edinburgh, Dec. 4. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
There is a great misunderstanding betwixt us, which I shall
do my best to clear up.
In the first place, I did not, in the hurried note of last Satur^
day, when I spoke of wretched higgling, glance in the remotest
degree at yourself. It was an expression I had used before,
and was suggested at the time by my recollection of a corre
spondence on the import of your clause, between an ecclesiastic
and a politician, whose names I am not free to mention, but who
have both a sufficient status in the Church negociation, to con
vince me that, even under the cover of your clause, there will
be an attempt made at the very infringement of the liberum arbi
trium, which Lord Aberdeen contemplated in his original bill.
"Whatever exposure might be made of the present efforts to
bamboozle and impose upon the best friends of the Church, I
am satisfied that you will appear in no other light than as one
of her most sincere and devoted adherents.
*********** Looking, then, exclusively at the measures, I must say, that
there seems to be a strange difference of conception betwixt us
on the import of your statement, as it affects the liberum arbi
trium ; — all the more strange, that we seem equally set on this
liberum arbitrium in all its entireness. You are willing that
Presbyteries should set aside a presentee because of the peo-

103
pie's dissent, if they judge it to be an honest one, and that it
affects his usefulness, whether they, the Presbytery, judge the
expressed reasons to be satisfactory or no. But this is not what
the legal commentators on your clause mean by it. They mean,
that our judgment shall be founded on the expressed reasons of
the people, — nay, that we must adopt them as our reasons ere we
can set aside the presentee, however satisfied we are that his
settlement would prove an incubus and a moral blight upon the
parish during the whole of his incumbency. What I contend for
is, that we ought to be satisfied of his usefulness, and take in all
the elements by which this usefulness is affected, and the fact of
the dissent apart from its reasons, among the rest. You quite
misconceive my view of the liberum arbitrium, if it is to lay any
must upon the Presbytery, either on the one side or the other.
It in fact repels the must, from both quarters, and leaves it to
its own unfettered may on every question of a settlement. Let
it give its own reasons by all means for its own decision, and
practically it never will be a decision adverse to the presentee,
but for some great palpable and public good, which it can hold
up its face in proclaiming to the world. Lord Aberdeen's bill
seems to promise a great deal when it allows the people to ob
ject to red hair ; but it nullifies the whole promise, when it would
further enact that the Presbytery must object to red hair, ere
the settlement can be arrested. It objects, only however when
it sees cause, not on this ridiculous ground, but on the ground
of such a repugnance as would prove a great moral barrier to
the usefulness of the future clergyman.
I conclude with noticing as briefly as possible your remarks
on my consistency, with attacks upon which I must lay my ac
count in this non-reading age of hasty and superficial legisla
tion, particularly by men who will only look at a complete
question in part, and have not patience for a comprehensive view
of the whole, who will peruse a pamphlet, or perhaps only a pa
ragraph, on the subject, though, for its full developement, it
would require the effort of studying an elaborate volume. 1. You
speak of my formerly avowed preference for a national establish
ment, reminding me of what you call my own theory. Now, in
my London Lectures, in my Church Extension Addresses, in
all my controversies with the Voluntaries, in my numerous writ
ings for twenty years back, the spiritual independence of the
Church has been ever brought prominently forward as an indis
pensable part of that theory, and I have uniformly stated, that
the least violation of that independence in return for a State
endowment was enough to convert a Church Establishment into
a moral nuisance. It is a little too much, that after the Con
servatives had accepted with thankfulness my defence of national

104
establishments, they should now propose to take away from me
the benefit of their main vindication, or think that an advocacy
given to a national church, solely for the sake of its religious
and moral benefits to the population, should still be continued,
after they shall have converted it from an engine of Christian
usefulness, into a mere congeries of offices, by which to uphold
the influence of patrons, and subserve the politics or the views
of a worthless partisanship.
But, (2.) you tell me of my views on the impotency of Vo
luntaryism. May I beg your perusal of my Third London
Lecture on the distinction between Voluntaryism ab intra, and
Voluntaryism ab extra. There is a perfect identity of principle
between the latter and a national establishment. I shall ever
regret the necessity of a separation from the State. But if
driven to it by principle, it is a sacrifice which must and ought
to be made. I say so, not in the spirit of menace, or for the
purpose of terrifying bull-headed Toryism out of any of its in
veteracies ; but simply to let you know that I for one shall feel
it my duty to draw both on the middle and lower ranks, indefi
nitely, in order to repair, and 1 confidently hope to overpass,
the mischief, which I fear that our enemies, in the obstinacy of
their miserable blindness, are preparing for our land.
I should have said before, that the diversity of our under
standings on the whole effect of Lord Aberdeen's amended and
patched-up bill, is one of the strongest evidences to me of the
great desirableness of its being withdrawn altogether. To say
that the Government will refuse another, because it is not his,
is saying the worst thing possible both for him and for them.
Let me therefore hope otherwise. Ever, believe me, my dear
Sir George, yours with great esteem and regard,
Thomas Chalmers.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
Leamington, 6th Dec. 1841.
My Dear Doctor,
No one cherishes towards you a more cordial and affectionate
respect than I have uniformly entertained, and, on all occasions,
deemed it both a duty and an honour to express. If any sen
timent, or any phrase, in any letter of mine, has ever given you
a moment's uneasiness, I should deeply lament an inadvertence
on my part, so utterly foreign to my feelings and wishes.
My amendment was intended to exonerate the Church courts

105
from any express or implied necessity to homologate the vali
dity of the reasons and objections urged by the people against
the settlement of the presentee, and to enable the Presbytery to
give effect to them, on the ground that theyprevailed amongst the
parishioners to such an extent, as to militate against the use
fulness of his labours in that particular district. I have a copy
of Lord Aberdeen's bill now before me, and I conceive, that, if
the Presbytery thought it advisable to set aside the presentee,
on account of the people's conscientious adherence to certain
reasons and objections, which the Presbytery had in vain en
deavoured to remove, their decision would run as follows :
" The Presbytery having considered the reasons and objec
tions stated and recorded on the part of certain of the parish
ioners, and having regard to the whole circumstances and con
dition of the parish, and to the spiritual welfare and edifica
tion of the people, find, that, although the said reasons and ob
jections are not in themselves conclusive, yet that they are en
tertained on conscientious grounds by such a proportion of the
parishioners, as, in the opinion of the Presbytery, to preclude the
prospect of the presentee's ministrations proving useful to this
particular congregation."
All these words are taken from Lord Aberdeen's bill ; and I
should be very glad if you would do me the favour to point out
what portion you think should be omitted. It does, I own, ap
pear to me, that the language, fairly considered, takes away
from the Presbytery all necessity of concurrence in the objec
tions, of which they do not recognise the validity, — and saves
the interests, character, and feelings of the presentee, whilst, at
the same time, it gives effect to the wishes of the people, al
though their reasons and objections are sustained only on ac
count of their prevalence, and not on that of their conclusive
ness. I am by no means anxious to press any further the acqui
escence of the Church in Lord Aberdeen's bill with my amend
ment, if they think they can obtain better terms through some more
influential channel ; but there never was a period, when it was
more essential to say, " That thou doest, do quickly." Every oc
currence of each day seems to interpose fresh obstacles in the
way of any adjustment. I never meant to say, that Govern
ment would adopt no bill but Lord Aberdeen's ; for such a de
claration I have no authority ;— in fact, they very properly keep
their intentions very close. All I know is, that, if the Church
accede to the terms agreed to in October, I have every rea
son to believe that Ministers will do the same.
Believe me, &c.

106

Letter from the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
My Dear Sir George, Edin. Dec. 11. 1841.
I should have replied sooner to yours of the 6th ; but Satur
day is the only day I have for writing at any length.
I am fearful, after the experience I have had, of committing
myself to any clause expressly worded for insertion in an act
of Parliament. The first clause which you proposed some
months ago, seemed fully to confer the liberum arbitrium.
Yet the Dean of Faculty, in a letter which I saw, gave his own
version of it, which version you, I understand, approved of; but
not only so, he gave his own commentary upon it, by which it
was made to grant no more than Lord Aberdeen's bill, that is,
the power of judging upon the reasons.
I therefore humbly think, Sir George, that we are at present
working at the wrong end. Let us first describe, in plain and
untechnical language, the measure we want, and the kind of
power which should be assigned to each of the parties concerned
in the settlement of a minister : — And then, after having agreed
upon that, let us make it over to the lawyer, for the purpose
of being translated by him into right, legal and parliamentary
language. I believe that, but for the reversal of this process,
the question might have been settled long ago. The lawyer
intruded too soon on the province of the legislator — in the
case of Lord Aberdeen's bill ; and so we were treated in a
wholly different manner from what we had all along expected
and striven for. And I would therefore say, keep out the law
yer till a common understanding had been fully matured and
settled among the proper and original parties in the negocia-
I can give two examples of such propositions, in common
language — made by Conservatives, and what the Church, I be
lieve, would accept — after which acceptance and agreement,
and not before it, is the time for canvassing and discussing the
import of phrases. The first was given by Mr Campbell from
the hustings of Perthshire, and at which Mr Drummond was
present. " That the power of the patron and the civil courts
should cease, from the moment when the presentee was handed
over to the Church courts." The second, though not so ac
ceptable, would still have been acceded to, from the pen of Sir
George Clerk. 1 have been seeking for it among my papers,
but cannot now lay my hands on it. If you wish for it, how
ever, I shall be able to find it for you. ******
But let me not close this letter without any notice of the
clause which you have kindly submitted to me. It appears to
me, that you lay a great deal too much on the Presbytery,

107
affirmatively to pronounce on the objections of the parishioners
as conscientious, or positively to say that there is no prospect
of the future usefulness of the presentee. It is the duty of the
Presbytery to refrain from the settlement, if they have the
data before them that would make it a hazardous thing for
the religious good of the families that it should be proceeded
in, and to satisfy them of this, it is enough, if, for aught which
appears, the objections are conscientious, and that therefore it
were exposing to a very serious risk the good of the parish, if
such a settlement were to take place. Your clause could not
be better adapted to the object of laying a most unfair onus on
a conscientious Presbytery, than if it had been skilfully word
ed by a legal practitioner for this very purpose. Why not at
once translate Mr Campbell's or Sir George Clerk's proposi
tions into the right business style, and then, after consulting
our lawyers both here and in England, we could at once tell you
how we felt disposed to them ? Or rather, why not give us the
ready-made bill of the Duke of Argyll, to which the Church
has already signified their agreement ? We have performed
the first step recommended by the Duke of Wellington in his
letter to Lord Aberdeen. It only remains for the Legislature
to adopt the second step recommended by the same high au
thority. I hope to show you Sir George Clerk's proposition shortly.
********I have the honour to be, my dear
Sir George, yours most respectfully,
Thomas Chalmers.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Chalmers.
My Dear Doctor, Leamington, \3th Dec. 1841.
It is a great comfort, as well as high honour, that I have
been a fellow labourer of yours in a cause so dear to both of us ;
but I think the wisest course which I can now adopt, is to relin
quish unavailing efforts, and not persevere in attempting to
accomplish an object which, so far as I can perceive, would
if achieved, give little satisfaction. Until lately— very lately 
I clung to the fond hope, that my suggestion might terminate
dissentions so unseemly and so pernicious. It appears, how
ever, to be otherwise ordered — and I withdraw without a mur
mur or a complaint.
If the Duke's bill is to be insisted in, his Grace's hio-h
character and personal influence with the Government render

108
him the fittest person to bring it forward with advantage. I
remember, that Sir George Clerk's proposal was perfectly satis
factory to me. He is now in office, and both possesses and
deserves a very prominent place in the esteem and confidence
of Sir Robert Peel and all his colleagues. It will give me
great pleasure to see him take up the cause ; and if he does, I
have no doubt he will succeed, and no one will more cordially
rejoice, than I shall, at so happy a consummation. All I want
is to see the Church extricated from her present perils, and her
future security and usefulness provided for. It would doubtless
have gratified me exceedingly to have been God's instrument
for rendering so important a service to my country, and rescu
ing from destruction what I regard as the most valuable of her
institutions. But I have failed. I cannot help it. There is
nothing more for me to do than to pray, that others may be
more successful. I am sure they cannot be more zealous. It will
be well for the Church to remember, that Government wished
their mutual communications to pass through the medium of the
Solicitor- General. May I be allowed to state as my final advice,
that Government would be better pleased to have all future
negociations carried on under the auspices of so much and so
justly esteemed a functionary, than through any deputation
however numerous and respectable.
With very great regard and respect, and wishing you and the
Church a speedy attainment of a satisfactory settlement, I
ever remain, &c.

I take this opportunity publicly to tender my acknowledg
ments to Dr Simpson, for his recent pamphlet in defence of my
plan, — a pamphlet equally temperate in language, and judicious
in argument. This note proves, that, in taking the steps which
he has so manfully adopted, he is only acting in strict confor
mity with the sentiments which he expressed to me some months
ago. Kirknewton, 24th Sept. 1841.
Dear Sir George Sinclair,
I have just had the honour to receive your note, and I will
have great pleasure in calling on you, the first day I am in town,
and this I will endeavour to make an early one.
Most cordially do I agree with you in regard to the desira
bleness of obtaining an adjustment of our Church matters, and
1 rejoice to find that this feeling is becoming more strong

109
AND GENERAL EVERY DAY AMONG MY BRETHREN. THIS POR
TION OF THEM WOULD HAIL WITH SATISFACTION AND GRATI
TUDE, ANY PLAN BY WHICH IT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
I have the honour to be very faithfully yours,
A. L. Simpson.

Letter to J. M. Hog, Esq. of Newliston.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 6th Jan. 1842.
Many thanks for your kind note and friendly wishes. I fear
it is now very difficult to expect or hope that Government can
or will do any thing. I wish to propound one or two remarks
to you, and through you to others, if you think it worth while.
I proposed in my late scheme that the reasons and objections
of the people should be (1.) recorded, (2.) considered, and (3.)
adverted to in the sentence of the Presbytery, when they set
aside a presentee.
The Church states her readiness to accept Dr Chalmers'
liberum arbitrium, by which she has a right to give effect or not
in each case, as she pleases, to the dissent of the people.
Now, if the Church is to be invested with this alternative, I
want to know, how she can, in any given instance, determine how
to act, unless she allows the reasons and objections, to be, 1st,
recorded, and, 2d, considered ?
Is it worth while to stand out for the amount of difference
between my plan and that of Dr Chalmers ?
I am well aware, that there is a difference ; but any other
scheme, which at all involves the veto in any shape, or to any
extent, will, I am sure, never be conceded. " Think on these
things," and let me know what you think of them. I almost
despair now of getting, even what I had, with such difficulty,
secured in October. Ever yours, &c.

Letter to J. M. Hog, Esq. of Newliston.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 18th Jan. 1842.
Many thanks for your kind, and not unexpected, intimation
that the doom of my plan has been sealed. The Committee
has, in my opinion, thrown away the only means and last op
portunity for extricating the Church from her perilous position.

110
My excellent friend C  quite concurs with me in this
view. I had a few desponding lines from him this morning. I
lately sent to Mr Hamilton the extract of a letter from an emi
nent lay Moderate, objecting to my amendment on the ground of
the extensive powers which it icould vest in the Church ; and that,
if passed into a law, no man of his party would ever get a Church.
So you see 1 had not proposed, in his estimation, any thing
inefficient or inept. I have now entirely dropped the whole
concern, and shall not come to London, or take any part in
anv future discussion, though prepared, if necessary, to defend
the steps, which 1 adopted in reference to the past.
Ever yours, &c.

In justice to the IVWz-intrusionist opponents of my scheme, I
shall give to them the benefit of the admirable letters, in which
the reasons and objections against it are most candidly and ably
stated by Dr Buchanan of Glasgow.
Letter to Dr Buchanan.
My Dear Doctor, Nov. 27. 1841.
I heard with much satisfaction and gratitude how kindly you
had seconded the efforts of our excellent friend, Colquhoun, to
prevent such a statement being made by the Church, as would
have put an end to all hope of settling our unhappy dissensions
on the footing of the liberum arbitrium. I have read this morn
ing the account laid before the Commission, of the negociations
in which I lately took a part ; and I am much gratified with the
tone and temper, in which the subject is treated. As, how
ever, general expressions often convey different notions to dif
ferent minds, I shall trouble you with a statement of what I
conceive to be meant by the term liberum arbitrium, and shall, in
return, be most happy to be favoured with your sentiments as to
its import. I may have been in error as'to the scope of Lord
Aberdeen's bill ; but the only fault I found with it was, that, as
far as I understood its purport, the Presbytery was bound to
homologate the validity and conclusiveness of the reasons and
objections urged by the people, before effect could be given to
them,— whereas I always contended, that the Presbytery should
be entitled to set aside the presentee, on the sole ground, that
the reasons and objections prevailed conscientiously in the minds
of the dissentients,— although the Presbytery themselves did not
consider them to be well founded or conclusive. This is the

Ill
sum and substance of my amendment. It leaves the Presby
tery at perfect liberty to sustain the people's objections in every
case ; when good, because they are good, — when bad, in spite of
their being bad. This, I owii, is the only liberum arbitrium of
which I recognise either the necessity or the justice, as the
Presbytery is fully empowered to give effect to the objections,
or to overrule them. They are only obliged to record and con
sider the reasons, and without being compelled in any instance
to approve, have, in every instance, a full right to give effect to
them. I believe, that some of my friends entertain a different view
as to what constitutes the liberum arbitrium. They seem to
think, that the presentee should be set aside, if a majority of
the communicants sign a mere round robin of rejection, without
any assignment of reasons, and that their sic veto, sic jubeo,
should prevail without further inquiry. Now this principle is,
in ray opinion, unreasonable and unjust. (1.) It is an undue in
terference with the right of the patron, which ought not to be in
fringed without cause shown, and reasons considered. (2.) It
is hard upon the presentee, that, without any investigation, he
should be placed in a worse position than if the patron had never
appointed him : he becomes a marked man, and is regarded with
suspicion by other congregations, who, had they known the
grounds of rejection, would have deemed them frivolous and
unfounded ; but omne ignotum pro magnifico. (3.) It is unfair
towards the members of Presbytery, who do not hold that the
mere ipse dixit of the objectors should necessarily be obeyed, —
but who, if the reasons and objections were palpably submitted
to fair and dispassionate consideration, might conscientiously
concur in giving effect to them, on account either of their con
clusiveness or of their prevalence. (4.) It is not just towards
the minority, (or perhaps majority,) who support the claim of
the presentee, and have (I think) a right to expect, that the
reasons assigned against his admission should be stated and con-
sideredi It may even, in many cases, be advantageous to the
dissenters, that they should be obliged to express their objec
tions, either because they may be removed by explanation, or
because, when fairly urged, they may be regarded as satisfac
tory by the court, and even by the patron and presentee them
selves. (6.) The public is entitled to know, on what grounds a
good man has been rejected, as well as to he informed, in spite
of what objections an unacceptable man has been intruded,  in
order that they may judge how the system works, and may not,
in other places, reject an efficient presentee, because, for un
known reasons, he has been set aside without inquiry.
It may indeed be said, — We do not object to reasons and ob-

112
jections being recorded and considered ; but we will not be
bound to give any opinion upon them, either the one way or the
other. In that case, it is quite useless that they should be re
corded or considered at all ; and it is surely an act of great
infatuation to reject an arrangement acceded to by the Govern
ment, which only requires, that the Presbytery, acting solemnly
in its judicial capacity, should take into consideration the ob
jections, and state whether they deem them to be " in themselves
conclusive " or not, without being prevented in either case from
giving effect to them, if they consider it right to do so.
My friends, who insist on overlooking the reasons, or on gi
ving effect to a dissent, of which the grounds are not to be
known or weighed, and who, if this principle be not carried to
its full extent, are prepared to destroy the Church and con
vulse the country, should remember, that no such principle was
in force when they resolved to enter the Church, or when they
became probationers, or when they were inducted into their own
benefices. My revered friend, Dr Chalmers, thinks, that, if a
large secession takes place, enough will be raised for the sup
port of the ministers, by voluntary sacrifices and contributions
on the part of the middling classes ; but when the argumentum
ad crumenam comes into play, depend upon it, that the love of
many will begin to wax cold ; and I know not whence funds
can arise for providing kirks and manses, as well as ministers.
Much of what was raised for these purposes from religious fa
milies, in middling circumstances, would pro tanto be subtracted
from the already inadequate resources of foreign missions and
domestic distress. I have written a long letter for an invalid,
and must end rather abruptly.
Believe me, &c.

Letter from the Rev. Dr Buchanan.
My Dear Sir George, 30th Nov. 1841.
Many thanks for your long and kind letter, which I have read
with much interest, and with all the attention the great impor
tance of the subject demands.
Your account of what you understand by the liberum arbi
trium appears to me, with the exception of one matter of detail,
to which I shall afterwards allude, to agree exactly with the sense
put upon that measure by the majority of the Church. In a
word, to take things in the order in which your letter presents
them, I should say, that in all contained" in your first page

113
we are'entirely at one. Your second page proceeds to deal with
" a different view" of the liberum arbitrium, which you under
stand is taken " by some of your friends." I never heard of
such a view as you there state "and combat being held as a view
of the liberum arbitrium by any one. What you describe and
oppose as a view of the liberum arbitrium, is evidently the veto
law. Many of course approve of that law, and 1 confess I am
one of that number. As such, I of course have satisfied myself
that a good and sufficient answer can be given to one and all of
the six separate objections you bring against it. But as it is
not the veto law we are dealing with, it would of course serve
no useful purpose to enter into any discussion regarding it. I
read your letter, as you were kind enough to allow me to do, to
several friends, (as Dr Paterson, Mr Lorimer, Mr Cunningham
of Edinburgh, who happened to be here yesterday,) and one and
all of them concur in the opinion, that you must be under a mis
take in supposing that any of our party take the view of the
liberum arbitrium to which I have now referred. They all un
derstand the liberum arbitrium substantially as you do yourself,
and would describe it exactly or substantially as you do in the
first page of your letter.
This, therefore, brings me to your third page, and to the
" matter of detail" to which I alluded, as a point connected with
the liberum arbitrium, where we do differ, and which, I am very
anxious to shew you, if I possibly can, involves consequences of
a kind that would be deeply injurious to the proposed measure,
whether as respects the giving satisfaction to the Church, or
the good and useful working of the measure itself.
This part of the subject you introduce as follows :
" It may indeed be said, we do not object to the reasons and
objections being recorded and considered ; but we will not be
bound to give any opinion upon them, either the one way or
the other."
Now this is a correct account of the real sentiments of the
majority of the Church, in reference to this point. Havino-
put the supposition, you add, ',' In that case, it is quite useless
that they should be considered or recorded at all." Forgive
me for saying it, but this appears to me a very perfect specimen
of the " non sequitur." Nothing seems clearer to my mind than
the fact, that many and important uses would be served by
recording and considering the reasons, though no judgment
should be pronounced upon them. Requiring the people to
state their reasons, brings them not only more strictly and fully
before the bar of their own mind and conscience, by compelling
them to put into an intelligible shape the reasons for which
they oppose the settlement, but it brings them before the bar

114
of public opinion, the moral tone of which, in putting down fri
volous objections, would be very great. Then, next, such a re
quirement secures the full benefit of whatever influence the Pres
bytery are capable of exerting in the way of dealing with the
people, for the removal of their objections, if they are considered
insufficient. These are uses, valuable and important, which are
gained by recording and considering the reasons, though no
judgment on the reasons be formally pronounced.
And while this seems to me quite indisputable on the one side,
let me entreat you to consider, on the other, what must be the
inevitable effect of making it obligatory on the Presbytery, in
every case, to pronounce and record a judgment on the reasons.
In what a ridiculous and offensive position would it be placing
a Presbytery, first, to find, by a judgment, that the reasons and
objections against the presentee were bad or insufficient ; and,
second, to find by another judgment, that these reasons should,
notwithstanding, take effect by setting the presentee aside.
I have not the shadow of a doubt, Lord Aberdeen sees
plainly, that, with such a provision, he would succeed in the very
thing for which you condemn his bill, viz. in binding the Pres
bytery " to homologate the validity and conclusiveness of any
reasons and objections urged by the people, before giving them
effect." Practically, this would be the result of it. Presbyte
ries would not consent to be placed in so odious and absurd
an attitude, and the consequence would be, your clause would
become utterly inoperative as a protection to the people, and
the amendment would leave the bill exactly where it found it.
This is my full and deliberate opinion, and that of all the friends
1 have ever consulted with on the point ; and I do beseech you
not to make it any part of your proposition. It was not in your
clause, and it will nullify your clause.
You of course hold, that it is right to allow that the presen
tee should be set aside, " on the sole ground that the reasons
and objections prevail conscientiously in the minds of the dis
sentients." Why, then, insist on the Presbytery doing, what
you mean that they should do, in a way that must inevitably
expose them and the whole proceeding to public odium ? All
that, you can wish or intend to gain by the provision, is a pro
tection for the presentee, that when the reasons and objections
urged by the people are not considered by the Presbytery to be
sufficiently good, or sufficiently grounded, and to be of themselves
conclusive against him, he should have the benefit of this cir
cumstance being known to save him from being black-balled
elsewhere. But this advantage he will have, by the dealing of
the Presbytery with the people. That process will make both
the real merits of the objections, and the light in which the

115
Presbytery regard them, sufficiently palpable and public, with
out a judgment being pronounced upon them at all. And to
require that judgment, therefore, while it is not at all necessary
for the presentee, will practically and inevitably destroy the
privilege of the people.
If such a thing be proposed in the Government's bill, I
prophesy, that it will be the very part of the bill of all others
in which Lord Aberdeen will most exult. It needs no stretch
of imagination to anticipate the triumphant argument he would
found on it against the Church, — the resistless torrent of ridicule
and sarcasm, with which he would overwhelm courts that could
befool and degrade themselves by condemning a presentee for
reasons they had themselves previously condemned. He would
concede it of course, after having exposed its worthlessness, and
demonstrated to what position its presence in the bill must re
duce the Presbytery, that of never setting aside a presentee,
but when their judgment affirmed the inherent validity of the
reasons and objections themselves.
I do earnestly hope, that when you have reconsidered the
matter, you will see the propriety of not making it any part of
your proposed measure, that the Presbytery will be required to
pronounce and record a judgment on the reasons.
Let me add in one word, though my letter is already too long,
that you are scarcely doing justice to the parties you allude to
in the following sentence :
" My friends, who insist on overlooking the reasons, or on
giving effect to a dissent, of which the grounds are not to be
known or weighed, and who, if this principle be not carried to
its full extent, are prepared to destroy the Church and convulse
the country," &c.
I really do not know to whom such a description can apply/
Not one, so far as my information goes, of those who take a
lead in the councils of the Church, would for a moment incur
the tremendous responsibility of destroying the Church, and
convulsing the country on the grounds you describe. They
are all quite willing to look at the reasons and consider them
and therefore, of course, quite willing that the reasons should
be known. They do, indeed, object to being bound to pro
nounce a formal judgment upon them ; and the grounds of
their so objecting I have endeavoured to lay before you. I
do hope, therefore, you will neither yourself entertain the idea
nor encourage any one else to hold it, that any of the leading
men in the majority of the Church are disposed to hazard the
existence of the Establishment, and the peace of the country
for the sake of any such considerations as you have named.
Forgive me for trespassing so far on your patience as I have
' H 2

116
done, by inflicting upon you a letter so unmercifully long. But
I have felt that I could not do justice to the request you had
made to me, nor discharge my duty towards this great question,
without going thus fully into the subject. I need not say, that
if I have failed, in regard to any of the points touched on, to
make myself understood, I will be most happy to offer any fur
ther explanation that may be necessary. Meanwhile, believe
me, with the utmost respect and esteem, yours most truly,
Rob. Buchanan.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Buchanan.
Leamington, 2d Dec. 1841.
My Dear Dr Buchanan,
I read with great satisfaction your letter, with which I was fa
voured this morning, and I now wish (as they say in the House of
Commons) " to explain." I am very glad, that we coincide in
our view of what is meant by the liberum arbitrium. My second
page undoubtedly contained a statement of objections to the veto,
but they were not altogether irrelevant, because I understood,
that many advocates of iVon-intrusion contend, that, if the li
berum arbitrium were enacted, they should individually be al
lowed to act as members of the Church courts, to all intents and
purposes, as if the veto were the law of the land, and to reject
the presentee without any reference or allusion to the import
of the reasons and objections. I may remark, in connection
with this branch of the subject, and with what you say after
wards as to the " point in which we do differ," that I never
wished for a formal declaration, on the part of the Presbytery,
that the reasons and objections of the people were frivolous or
unfounded — but merely for evidence, that they had been record
ed, and entered as an element into the considerations which had
influenced them, in arriving at their final decision ; and I really
thought, that the character of the Presbytery was rather saved,
than sullied, by my proposed wording of the sentence, in the
cases, in which they had not succeeded in removing from the
minds of the people objections, which they did not consider as
valid and conclusive, and yet thought that they were entertained
to such an extent, as to render it necessary for the good of the
parish to set aside the presentee, on the ground of their strong
and conscientious prevalence. Is there any thing revolting or
unbecoming in saying, " The Presbytery find, that, although
the reasons and objections urged by the people are not in them-

117
selves conclusive, yet that they prevail to such an extent," &c. ?
I have always recognised the importance of recording the rea
sons and objections on the ground adverted to by you, viz. that
they might sometimes not be persevered in, if obviously un
founded or unjust ; but I still think, that, in a great many cases,
this would be an inadequate guarantee for the rights of the pa
tron, and the interests of the presentee, if the people knew, for
certain, that by an obstinate adherence to their dissent, however,
irrelevant its grounds, they could get rid of a probationer, whose
only crime, perhaps, was, that he was the choice of an obnoxious
patron, or that he was not the man, whom they themselves
would have preferred, although they had nothing to urge against
the character or ministrations of the presentee himself. This,
you will again tell me, is the veto, and I again repeat my answer,
that I believe there are many excellent and respected friends of
ours, whom nothing will satisfy but adhering to the veto in
every case, even under the liberum arbitrium ; and although I
freely admit that they would have, and ought to have, full power
to give effect to the dissent, irrespective of the conclusiveness of
the reasons and objections, I do not hold that the verdict should
be given altogether irrespective of the reasons and objections
themselves, because, in cases of extreme hardship and injustice,
I do think, that equity and reason would require, that the rea
sons and objections should be overruled, though there certainly
would be no legal compulsion to do so.
Lord Aberdeen and the other members of the Government
are most friendly, and most anxious for the settlement of the
question on the basis, which I have taken the liberty to suggest.
All that they or I desire is, that the reasons and objections shall
be considered, — and that when the presentee is set aside on
grounds which the Presbytery has in vain endeavoured to re
move from the minds of the people, the sentence shall run in
the terms proposed to be introduced into the bill. The very
fact, that the Presbytery has deemed it a duty to expostulate
and confer with the objectors, affords (to say the least) a strono-
presumption, the reasons and objections to be not in themselves
conclusive ; and if so, why should this not appear in the sentence ?
It does seem to be no more than an act of common justice to
the rejected presentee.
I must own, that I did not speak unadvisedly, when I ad
verted with much concern and alarm to certain declarations,
which seemed'to indicate, on the part of those who made them,
a readiness, if they could not, by associations and public meet
ings, extort their own terms from the Government and the Le
gislature, to destroy the Church and convulse the country.
Have we not been told, that there shall be so extensive a seces-

118
sion, that the Church shall become a mere caput mortuum,
which must soon crumble into ruins ? Has it not been stated,
in the Witness and elsewhere, that common cause will be made
with the Scotch and English Dissenters, and a common fund
raised for behoof of their common objects ? Has it not been
publicly intimated, that the seceding members will cross the
Borders, to preach IVora-intrusion at York and Canterbury, and
everywhere else ? Why, a very distinguished and able champion
of the cause told me himself, " if once we leave the Establish
ment, depend upon it we shall become the most inveterate ene
mies of all Establishments." Now, I may be mistaken in my
principle, — but I hold, that if a country ceases to have an
established church, there is an end to all prospect of stability
for her civil institutions ; and even if our own venerated Church
should (quod Deus avertat) be overturned, / should think that
any man embarked in an unhallowed and unwarrantable crusade,
who aimed at subverting or endangering the sister Church of
England. I have done my best to avert such a catastrophe from either
country. I left the political party wkh which I had long acted,
at the moment when my respected friends, Lord Stanley and
. Sir J. Graham, did so, on account of the intended attack upon
the revenues of the Church in Ireland. I have written or re
ceived between 200 and 250 letters to and from all quarters,
during four busy months of active negociations, in the cause of
the Church of our fathers. (May it be the Church of our chil
dren also !) May its great and only Head " send by whom He will
send." " It is time for Thee, O Lord, to work." I shall not only
endure with patience, but hail with thankfulness, the failure of my
own efforts, if better terms can be obtained through better agency.
Next to the glory of Him, " whose I am, and whom I serve," I
must confess that there is no consideration so dear to my heart,
as to prevent many of His most active and zealous servants from
being compelled, for conscience sake, to impoverish their fa
milies and to abandon their flocks, — or to become dependent
upon the precarious bounty of the very persons, to whom they
would least wish to be burdensome, viz. those attached pa
rishioners, who, though often least able, would, in general,
alone be willing to " minister to them of their substance," for
they would have nothing to expect from the powerful or the
rich. I am not ashamed to own, that the tears are rolling down
my cheeks at the mere contemplation of such a national cala
mity, as the destruction of such a Church as ours, as well as of
the sufferings and privations which its subversion, or even a
large secession from its pale, would entail upon many of the
" excellent of the earth."

119
Let us strive, as well as pray, that an evil of such tremen
dous magnitude may be averted; and in once more considering
the import of the terms, which I have ventured to propound,
let me beseech you to ponder over the (I think) insuperable ob
stacles, which stand in the way of the Church's success, in her
attempts to obtain a more satisfactory settlement. In fact,
knowing, as you do, my sentiments, I presume to say, that my
being ready to ask and accept so little is, of itself, a strong evi
dence how impossible it is to get more. 1 wish you could read
this explanatory letter to those friends who saw the preceding
one, and let me have the pleasure to hear from you again, as
soon as you can do so with perfect convenience.
Most truly yours, &c.
I venture to state one remark, which struck me while read
ing your letter, and a similar one from our revered friend, Dr
Chalmers. You both complain of the hardship and disgrace
inflicted on the Church courts, by compelling them to give a
deliverance as to the injustice or irrelevancy of the objections,
and afterwards giving effect to them ; but it seems to me, that
the hardship and disgrace (whatever they may be) consist rather
in giving effect to them, than in declaring them to be, what you
must admit, that, in every such case, they really are ; — and this
is what the Legislature would take upon itself the odium and
responsibility of doing, if it legalised the veto. I may be wrong,
but I throw this out for your consideration.

Letter from the Rev. Dr. Buchanan.
My Dear Sir George, 4th Dec. 1841.
I confess I have read your letter of the 2d with consider
able regret and alarm, indicating, as it appears to do, that the
bill is already arranged, with the provision in it which appears
to me so dangerous. In reply to my argument, against re
quiring that the Presbytery shall pronounce a judgment on the
reasons, you ask, " Is there any thing revolting or unbecoming
in saying, • The Presbytery find, that although the reasons
and objections urged by the people are not in themselves con
clusive, yet that they prevail to such an extent,' &c." ?
Now, Lord Aberdeen's bill, as it originally stood, provided,
that in judging on the reasons of the people, the Presbytery
" may have a regard to the whole circumstances of the parish,
and to the spiritual welfare and edification of the people."

120
Is not this in amount exactly the same with what you have
above proposed ? I really am not able to see any substantial
difference between them.
Moreover, I am not able exactly to reconcile the words I
have quoted in expressing the form in which you wish the find
ing of the Presbytery to run, with a previous statement in an
earlier part of the same letter, in which you say,
" I never wished for a formal declaration on the part of the
Presbytery that the reasons and objections of the people were
frivolous or unfounded, but merely for evidence that they had
been recorded, and entered as an element into the considera
tions which had influenced the Presbytery in arriving at their
final decision."
The form of deliverance you afterwards give does require a
declaration that the reasons are unfounded. While, on the
other hand, if all that was sought to be secured was, that, in
coming to their final decision, the Presbytery should bear the
reasons of the people in their mind, that is gained by requiring
the people to state them, and the Presbytery to record them.
But again, as to the point itself, on which this discussion
turns, the requiring the Presbytery to pronounce and record a
judgment on the reasons and objections of the people, let me
add to what I said before, this further consideration. I sup
pose the Presbytery does find the reasons and objections of the
people valid ; what is the consequence ? The presentee is ruined.
Take, for example, the case which occurred the other day at
Kilmarnock. The people say the presentee's views of divine
truth are superficial. This may be true, you will allow. If it
be, it is a good objection why a congregation, including, it may
be, many who spiritually are men, should not be led by a babe.
But if the Presbytery pronounce a judgment to that effect, the
man is branded for life, and no other parish will look at him.
The effect would be, what all over-severe punishments are
known to produce, to save from any punishment. Just because
the result of the judgment would be so disastrous to the young
man, the Presbytery will shrink from pronouncing it, and not
pronouncing the judgment, the presentee must be intruded. In
short, the provision in question would work us to the old low
level of Moderateism, that unless there was some libellous matter
against the presentee, he must be settled. I do not of course
say, it would bind us to this by legal compulsitor, but it would
do it as effectually by the mere nature of things.
In that provision, therefore, small as it now seems, I see,
without being a prophet, the little cloud like a man's hand
rising out of the deep which will yet blacken the heavens, and

121
send down from its bosom, not showers of blessing, but storms
of ruin.
Again, therefore, I implore you not to assent to a provision
which your clause was not understood to carry in its train,
and which, if it does, will render it nugatory. With the greatest
esteem and respect, believe me, my dear Sir George, yours
most faithfully,
Rob. Buchanan.

Letter to the Rev. Dr Buchanan.
Leamington, 6th Dec. 1841.
My Dear Dr Buchanan,
There has not, so far as I know, been any alteration what
ever made in the wording of the amended clause, or in any
other part of the bill. The expression, which immediately pre
cedes mine, viz. " in respect of any of the said reasons and
objections," seemed to me to provide for the cases in which the
Presbytery homologated the reasons and objections ; and my
addition was intended to enable the Presbytery to set aside the
presentee, whenever they thought fit to do so, without being
under the necessity, of any such homologation, merely on the
ground, that the reasons and objections were entertained by
the people, could not be removed, and were so prevalent as to
preclude the prospect of the presentee (however otherwise un
exceptionable) proving a useful minister to that particular con
gregation. When I use the term judicial capacity, in reference
to the Presbytery, I mean it in contradistinction to their acting
ministerially, as tbey would do in the case of the veto, in regard
to the reasons and objections. I write with fear and trembling,
as it is reported that the minority of the Strathbogie Pres
bytery is going to exercise the jus devolutum, and some de
cisions may be made by the Court of Session on some points
at issue, which will inflame and exasperate parties still more.
If the Committee would anticipate these disastrous results, by
an immediate acquiescence in the proffered terms, or try and
obtain through another channel such a settlement as would
please them better, the Church might yet be saved. But I
own, that I see nothing but ruin as the result of farther delay,
and no hope of adjustment upon any more acceptable basis than
mine. Surely the reasons and objections may be not in them
selves conclusive, without being unfounded ; but I again repeat,
that there was no change or addition made to the bill, or any

122
intention, or any wish, to introduce a clause for the purpose
of rendering it imperative on the Presbytery to pronounce a
decision upon the reasons, any further than is involved in my
amendment ; and I also may reiterate, that, if I may instance
the famous red hair objection, 1 designed, that, if necessary, the
Presbytery might be enabled to give effect even to that, with
out stultifying themselves, by declaring, that a man's having
red hair was, in their own opinion or judgment, a valid and con
clusive objection. Or to take a more probable cause, — I mean a
prevalent prejudice against written sermons, — I wanted the
Presbytery to be empowered to set aside, when they find it ad
visable to do so, a presentee who had adopted that practice,
without being obliged to homologate the general validity of such
a reason. Government, as you know, expressed a wish, that the Solicitor-
General should be regarded as the official organ of communica
tion with the Church. He is one of the most acute, most upright
and most intelligent men in the empire. If you would permit
me to offer a suggestion, I advise you to go with another friend
to Edinburgh, and have (along with Mr Candlish and Mr
Hamilton,) a frank and unreserved interview with him. If he can
satisfy you as to the import of the clause, and intention of the
Government, I beseech you to close this tedious negociation,
and bring matters to a settlement.
Ever yours, &c.

In looking over some papers, I found this letter from Mr
Hamilton, written before my negociations commenced, and whilst
the late Government was in office. I have much pleasure in
affording this additional evidence, that the liberum arbitrium,
even according to their own construction of it, was always very
much disliked by the majority, and that not one of them has
BECOME HOSTILE TO IT FROM POLITICAL FEELING. But I
thought then, and am still convinced, that what they consider
to be a more eligible measure will not be conceded by Parlia
ment ; and as I, on that very account, ceased to contend for the
abolition of patronage, I hoped that the advocates of the veto
would, on the same ground, leave off a hopeless struggle, and
not run the risk, and incur the responsibility of breaking up the
Establishment, especially as the veto, having been declared by
the Supreme Courts to be illegal, cannot be essential to the
existence, or to the stability of the Church.

123

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, 1st March 1841.
I am much obliged by your letter.
I am quite aware of the apathy which exists in London in
relation to our great question. But people must be roused
from their apathy some time or another, — and, if it is not done
now, they will find it is too late. The object of my pamphlet
is to shew this ; and my conviction is, that it contains a much
fuller view of the truth in regard to the question, and the actual
posture of men's minds, in regard to it, than is elsewhere to be
had, and stated in such a way that any man, really wishing in
formation, may there obtain a substantially correct impression,
without any extraordinary expenditure of time or patience. It
seems to me, therefore, that those connected with Scotland,
and friendly to our cause, may do an important service, by as
suring the most influential and leading individuals, on their
personal authority, that the substantial truth is contained in
the representations of the pamphlet; and there is one addi
tional point, which is also of great practical importance, and
of which I can venture to give you the fullest assurance, viz.
that the views and sentiments expressed in the pamphlet, are
those in which the whole majority of the Church are firmly
united ; — so that every one may there see what it is he has to
deal with, and in what way he may reasonably expect to bring
about a settlement, consistently with the public interests.
With respect to the " liberum arbitrium," the Church has
always anxiously avoided any declaration, that she approved that
mode of settling the question ; in as much as such a declaration
would expose her to the charge of seeking power to herself;
and we were assured by Sir Robert Peel and many others, that
there was the strongest objection felt, against giving power to
the Church courts *. In this feeling, the Church does itself
most strongly participate ; — nobody wishing the " liberum arbi
trium," and a large body, including Candlish, Dunlop, and all the
Anti-Patronage men, most violently reprobating it. On these
grounds, I cannot think it would be desirable to bring it for
ward now. When Dr Buchanan and I urged it on Lord
Aberdeen last summer, we had ceased, for the time being, to
act as deputies from the Assembly's Committee, and proceeded

" I may, however, observe, that any power conferred on the Church courts
by my amendment, would be in no degree direct, but wholly derivative, as it would
emanate exclusively from the reasons and objections of the people, and would be
only intended as a check upon popular caprice and injustice.

124
on our own personal responsibility, and under a conviction,
(which I have no doubt was perfectly correct,) that if his Lord
ship had adopted then the liberum arbitrium, the Church would
have acquiesced in the arrangement ; — all as explained in the
pamphlet. Even yet, I think it probable — though I cannot now
speak with such entire confidence, that if that mode of settling
the matter were seriously entertained by influential individuals
in the Legislature, the Church might be induced to intimate
her acquiescence in such a way, as would be sufficient to give
their support to the measure. At the same time, it would not
be the most satisfactory way of settling the matter ; and I think
ought, if possible, to be avoided.
I do not know that I can add any thing more at present.
If the fatal apathy, now existing in London, is to be over
come, it must be by those few individuals who are warmly in
terested in the country, speaking out, and expressing their anx
iety and alarm, with earnestness, to those who have the power
to act. You, I should think, must have a good deal in your
power in that way ; and I hope you will do me the favour to
write me again soon, on the subject. I remain always, my
dear Sir George, yours very faithfully,
J. Hamilton.

My Dear Sir George,
After writing the letter which accompanies this, it occurred
to me that it might be of use, if you sent it as it is, to Sir Ro
bert Peel, as tending to shew him the actual state of feelings
here on our subject.
If Mr Patrick M. Stewart has gone to London, I think you
should endeavour to see him. He is, I believe, very warmly
interested in our cause, and gave me letters which I forwarded,
with copies of the pamphlet, early last week to Lord Melbourne,
Lord John Russell, Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Richmond,
&c. Difference in politics should not interfere at present, and
I believe will not ; for the matter is getting a great deal too
serious for that. You may shew Mr Stewart my letter, if you
like, or, at all events, impress upon him how much a, few indi
viduals may do in any matter, if they only evince sufficient ear
nestness, anxiety and alarm in regard to it. If we could get
either Sir Robert Peel or the Duke of Wellington moved, our
business would be done. I have sent copies of the pamphlet
to the Duke, through his physician, Hume, who, I do not doubt,
will lay them before him. And if his Grace really applies his
mind to the subject, I have little doubt of the result. * * *
I hope you can excuse these more last ivords ; and remain,
ever yours, J. H.

125

I request particular attention to this letter, which contains a
very able and temperate statement of some objections to the
principle of the liberum arbitrium. Much may be urged against
any arrangement, which it is possible to propose, and I am
very far from contending, that this, remark does not apply to
mine. But as the carrying out of any settlement depends en
tirely upon the Government and the Legislature, my design
was, to defer as much as possible to what I had reason to be
lieve to be the predominant feeling in those quarters, and not
to press the veto, which had been so strenuously opposed.
But though I myself prefer the liberum arbitrium, I should
have been ready, for the sake of peace, to have acquiesced in
the veto, if the Ministry and Parliament had been disposed to
sanction it. Letter from John Hamilton, Esq..
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, 16^ Oct. 1841.
You will be aware, that Mr Candlish has had some further
communication with the Dean ; and should any result follow,
you will of course hear of it directly from themselves. I
should be glad to know the result of your interview with Sir
R. Peel and his colleagues. I can have no doubt that a mea
sure, such as you have recently been negociating, on the prin
ciple of the liberum arbitrium, would be acquiesced in by the
Church. At the same time, I have just as little doubt, that
a measure of that kind is not the measure which the Govern
ment, with a view to its own undoubted and palpable interests,
ought to press upon the Church. I do not, in the least, par
ticipate in the theoretical objections urged against the liberum
arbitrium : my objections are entirely of a practical kind, and
they are mainly these : 1st, It is a fact, that this mode of carry
ing out the Non-intrusion principle is most odious, and repugnant
to the feelings of a section of the Church, including many of the
best and ablest men in her communion. Whatever else may
be said of these views, they are at least disinterested, and the
farthest removed from every thing like a desire for clerical
power. The depth and strength of these feelings it is impossible
to state in too strong terms ; and to take a course which must
necessarily wound the feelings of such a body of men, and make
them restless and uneasy, is bad policy ; and, 2dly, while the
liberum arbitrium is to my mind, as well as most others, quite
unexceptionable in point of principle, I have never been able
to see how, practically, it can ever work in a way that will not
engender discontent, and open the way to renewed agitations.

126
The Presbyteries, from their local knowledge and direct access
to the people, will have data for forming an intelligent opinion
as to the motives and temper of mind evinced by the people in
objecting to a presentee ; — and the only objection to Presby
teries, in the discharge of this duty, arises from their being ex
posed too much to local and personal influences. All the
cases, however, will be brought from the Presbyteries up to
the General Assembly *. The Assembly may be supposed free
from local influences ; — but the only information they can by
possibility have will be derived from statements made at their
bar, directly contradictory of each other, and mixed up with
much irritation and temper ; and how decisions pronounced
upon such data, and preceded by such discussions, can be
otherwise than unsatisfactory, — or how they can fail to keep up
the fever of excitement, and to open the door to agitation for
farther changes in the system, I am at a loss to conceive. The
object of the Government is to settle the question, and give
permanent quiet to the Church and country. Let them see that
they take means calculated to attain the end. We have no other
object ; and are honestly desirous of lending our best services
towards its accomplishment. Some fixed rule\, which will, or
dinarily, work of itself, with despatch, without protracted and
irritating discussions, or the possibility of imputing motives
in any quarter, will be by far the most acceptable to the
Church, and will work out for the country and for the Govern
ment the happiest results. It will render the people of Scot
land the most intelligent, moral, orderly, and easily governed
people on the face of the earth, and the most efficient guar
dians and promoters of Conservative principles. With reference
to such a measure, conceded by the Government, the text you
refer to in the Book of Kings may be applied in the fullest
extent of its import; — but with reference to the liberum. ar
bitrium, I am satisfied, that a measure upon that basis, how
ever well intended, must issue in disappointment. If you at
all enter into these views, I should be happy to go more into
detail. Excuse my offering these hints in the meantime ; and
believe me, my dear Sir George, with much regard, yours very
faithfully,
J. Hamilton.

* But may not patrons and presentees bring up all cases to the General Assembly
on the ground, that the veto had been exercised from factious motives or causeless
prejudices ? '
f A. fixed rule, which should leave the Church courts no alternative but to give
effect to the dissent of a majority, even when manifestly dictated 'by caprice
disappointment, or injustice, would often prove (if I may borrow an anti-corn-law
league phrase) a fixed injustice.

127

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sin George, 6th Nov. 1841.
I did not write you after the late meeting of Committee, —
having reason to believe that you were in communication with
members of the Committee, who would mention whatever was
important. There is no intention of preparing any appeal to
the Scottish people, — nor do the Committee contemplate any
thing, that will not be in perfect harmony with the communi
cations made to the Government, when we were in London,
with the reasonableness and propriety of which, both you and
Sir James Graham were entirely satisfied. I have no appre
hensions from the proceedings of the Committee ; but am much
alarmed for the effects of proceedings out of doors. The un
authorised words and acts of individuals, — sometimes un
guarded, — and often admitting of satisfactory explanations, are
seized upon, and construed, and then applied to the whole
party in the most unwarrantable manner, and suspicions and
enmities are awakened and strengthened, in a way that is most
painful, and ruinous to the cause of peace. Whether we are
ever to be extricated from impending ruin, God alone knows.
It is more than I have almost ever ventured to hope for.
Much will depend upon those at the head of affairs being calm,
and concluding nothing even in their own minds before the
proper time. I hope to write you at more length soon ; — and
meantime remain, always, my dear Sir George, yours most
faithfully, J. Hamilton.

Letter to John Hamilton, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 22d Nov. 1841.
I am much concerned to hear *, that you think my amend
ment ambiguous, and believe that the Government and Com
mittee differ as to its meaning. I suppose all parties allow,
that as the Presbytery is to act judicially, the objectors to the
presentee should state their reasons. It seems naturally to
follow, that these reasons should be considered. They must
be either good or bad. In either case, the Presbytery may
give effect to them, whether in consequence of their conclu-
* By a letter from a Scottish M. P.

128
siveness, or in spite of their /^conclusiveness, whenever they
think it right to do so. Can words make the liberum arbitrium
plainer ? I was much struck the other day, by reading the fol
lowing passage in Dalrymple's Memoirs : " Amendments were
made — conferences were held upon these amendments, and, in
both cases, the excess of criticism discovered the excess of suspi
cion, — individuals cavilled at words, as if they had been mat
ters of importance, and then indeed made them important by
obstinacy in their own opinions, and the violence of their oppo
sition to those of others. All the subtleties and vehemence of
temper peculiar to ecclesiastical assemblies appeared in this short
struggle," &c. I am positively certain, that the Government
take the same view of the meaning of the clause, as I do ;
and are as willing to go so far, as they are determined to go
no farther.
That the God of peace may bestow the peace of God upon
his Church in our land, is my fervent and frequent prayer.
Ever, &c.

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, 30th Nov. 1841.
I have been most desirous to answer your letter every day
since it reached me, but have been prevented by a multiplicity
of matters, with which I have been absolutely overwhelmed.
You cannot be more deeply distressed than I am, that any
misunderstanding should have arisen in regard to the late nego
ciations; but, that there hasheen a very serious misunderstanding
throughout, in the minds of some of the parties concerned, it is
impossible to doubt ; — a decisive proof of which, is the fact, that
the Lord Justice- Clerk could suppose, that the clause he pro
posed in his letter to Mr Candlish gave effect to your proposal,
and could possibly be admitted by Mr Candlish; — and another
proof of it, (which is, at the same time, some explanation of it,)
is the undoubted fact, that you use the word '¦'judicially " now,
in a sense totally different from that in which it is' understood
by the Committee and the Church, — and presuming, that you
used that word, during the negociations, in the same sense in
which you now use it,— that misunderstanding alone is itself radi
cal and essential. The word was introduced (first, I believe, by
Dr Chalmers,) in order to distinguish two modes in which the
Church could give effect to the Non-intrusion principle ; one,
when acting in her legislative capacity, as by passing the veto

129
law, the other judicially — or, by her Church courts, acting ac
cording to their views in each particular case ; — but while,
under this latter mode, the Church courts were to deliberate
and decide upon each separate case, as it arose before them,
it was always understood by the Church, — and, I think most
unequivocally explained, that in so deliberating and deciding
upon each case, the Church courts were not to sit in judgment
upon the reasons, (that might or might not be stated,) and, in
this sense, to act "judicially ;" but were to exercise a free and
unlimited discretion upon the whole circumstances of the case.
Hence, the name that was given to this mode of procedure,
which was called the " liberum arbitrium of the Presbyteries ;"
and you will find that there is no sense or propriety in the
word, except upon this explanation of its import, which was
fully and explicitly given at all times.
Now, when you submitted your clause to the Committee,
they understood it as giving, or admitting, of the exercise of
this arbitrium of the Presbyteries, and the word "judicial,"
which occurs in the negociation, they reconciled with this
view, in consequence of understanding it in the sense in which
the Church had always used it, and which I have just explain
ed. The insuperable objection to the Lord Justice- Clerk's
clause is, that it gives the "judicial" power, in the strictest
sense of the word, as a power to sit in judgment on the reasons,
— a power which the Church does not want, and it absolutely ex
cludes the power of the Church courts to exercise their " arbi
trium " on the circumstances of each case, (and so to give
effect to the dissent of the congregation, if they, in the exercise
of their free discretion, think proper so to do,) — thus excluding
the only power the Church asks, and without which it is im
possible for her to give effect to the Non-intrusion principle.
I am quite satisfied that this is the effect of the Lord Justice-
Clerk's clause, — its designed effect, — and an effect most com
pletely secured, by means of it.
If you intended by your clause, or now intend, that the
Church courts, — besides acting " judicially " in the strict sense,
by sitting in judgment on the reasons, should also have power
to exercise, in every case, a free discretion, — so as to give effect
to the simple dissent of the congregation, — if their discretion
should so lead them, it may be very important that you should
explain that such is your view. If it were to be embodied in
an act of Parliament, it would require to be done by a clause
very different, and opposite, in its whole conception and struc
ture, from the Lord Justice-Clerk's clause.
The statement of your view contained in your letter is too
brief to enable me, with certainty, to draw any conclusion as
to what you contemplate upon the above point, which you will

130
at once see is the whole matter at issue. May I beg of you,
therefore, at your convenience, to inform me distinctly how you
look upon it. It is of unspeakable importance that we should
be at one without delay ; for, otherwise, it is too plain that
we are hurrying to that crisis, to which, from the first, I have
looked forward, with dread, as the most probable issue to all
our labours. Believe me ever, my dear Sir George, yours
most truly,
J. Hamilton.

Letter to John Hamilton, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 3d Dec. 1841.
My amendment obviously referred exclusively to the man
ner in which the reasons and objections of the people were to
be dealt with, and my object was, that they should, (1.) be
stated, (2.) recorded, (3.) considered, (4.) of course given ef
fect to, if deemed valid and conclusive, (5.) but if they seemed
to be the result of caprice, causeless prejudice, or resentment,
I took it for granted, that the Presbytery would endeavour to
convince the objectors, that they were wrong, — and if they
succeeded, so much the better ; — if they did not, and the peo
ple persisted, then I was anxious that the Presbytery should
have full power to overrule the reasons and objections, if, in
the exercise of their judicial discretion, they considered it fit
to do so ; but that, if, on the other hand, they thought that, on
the whole, the feelings of the parish were so strongly adverse
to the presentee, as to render it probable, either that the
Church would be deserted by a considerable portion of the
hearers, or that, even if they continued to attend, they would
not benefit by his ministrations, why then the decision would
be worded in the language of the amendment, " The Pres
bytery find, that, although the reasons and objections of the
people are not in themselves conclusive, yet," &c.
'this formula, (1.) exonerates the Presbytery from homolo
gating the reasons and objections ; (2.) proves that the reasons
and objections formed an element among the considerations
which were present in the minds of the Presbytery ; (3.) is an
act of common justice to the presentee. The two chief rea
sons why I have always preferred the abolition of patronage,
and even the liberum arbitrium to the veto, are, (1.) that I think,
that the people are more likely to reject a good man, than to choose
a bad one ; (2.) that I think it a greater stigma upon the pre
sentee to be rejected on grounds which, of course, must be

131
more or less of a personal character, than to be unsuccessful,
in a competition with one or more candidates, for the suffrages
of a congregation ; for although one of his rivals may have been
preferred, he himself may, notwithstanding, be omni exceptione
major. In giving effect, therefore, to the dissent of the objec
tors, I think that the feelings and prospects of the presentee
should meet with the most tender and considerate attention.
I never thought for a moment, that the reasons and objections
should be more specially noticed or commented on, than is
implied in the words of my amendment, which was to be re
garded as a formula for the Presbytery's interlocutor, in the
only case which seemed to present any difficulty. I have not
for some weeks had the pleasure to hear from the Justice-
Clerk ; but whatever may be the supposed effects of his pro
posal, I know that the object was different, and that it was
meant as a concession to the wishes of the Church, and not to
thwart or disparage them.
The continuance of the law proceedings must be a source of
endless vexation, annoyance and expense. O that the two fol
lowing texts were more attended to : " Sirs, ye are brethren,"
&c. " Agree with thine adversary quickly." The former is often
lost sight of in Presbyteries, — the latter cannot be carried into
effect in the Court of Session. I ventured to suggest a re
ference of all disputed points to some eminent Scotch lawyers.
If that course be inadvisable, why not submit them to Lord
Cottenham, and two or three English Judges or barristers?
I am very much disheartened by our prospects at the pre
sent moment. Every now and then some occurrences fill me
with hope for a few days, and then the cup of fond expectation
is again dashed from my lips ; but my apprehensions arise en
tirely from the feelings manifested by the Church, and in no
degree from any correspondence with the Cabinet, whom I find
most considerate, dispassionate, and well inclined.
Believe me, &c.
I re-open my letter, to express my entire concurrence in your
view, that we must try and settle matters immediately. You
know that 1 have held such language ever since August.
When I use the term judicial capacity, I mean that Pres
byteries are to act judicially in considering the reasons and ob
jections, in contradistinction to acting ministerially, as they
would do, under the veto law, — being, in the former case, only
entitled, and, in the latter, obliged, to give effect to the
people's reasons and objections, or to the dissent founded on
t£em. If you could prevail on the Committee to see the ne
cessity of immediate adjustment, I should have no difficulty
elsewhere ; but " if we bite and devour each other, take heed,
i 2

132

that we be not consumed the one of the other." Oh what profound
wisdom is there in Scripture ! What lessons for all times, places
and circumstances ! Write soon.

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street,
My Dear Sir George, 6th Dec. 1841.
I am just favoured with yours of the 3d. Let me assure you
that the Committee, and the Church at large, are as calmly
and earnestly desirous of a settlement as you or the Government
can possibly be. They are as sincerely and as deeply inte
rested in the welfare and the peace of the country as any Go
vernment can be ; and they have personal interests at stake,
which none others have, and which give an intensity to their
desire for a settlement greater than any others can know. All
they require is — that the settlement shall not violate their prin
ciples and consciences. If it does, — they will give up all, and
leave events to God, and the responsibility to those who take
it upon them to prescribe what their religious principles and
duty should require of them.
Upon going over your letter carefully, I do not find that it
answers mine of the 30th. I there mentioned what is the sole
point at issue ; — and it is this, — that (supposing it assumed that
the Church courts are not to act " ministerially" as you ex
press it, — that is to say, — under a fixed rule prescribed to them
by the Church) they shall, then, be left, in each case, to ex
ercise their discretion, — so as they may give effect to the prin
ciples they may hold, and to their sense of duty in the discharge
of the sacred function of settling and ordaining ministers over
their flocks.
You say, — " When I use the phrase judicial capacity, I mean
that the Presbytery are to act judicially in considering the
reasons and objections, in contradistinction to acting ministe
rially, as they would do under the veto law, — being, in the
former case, only entitled, and in the latter obliged to give
effect to the people's reasons and objections, or to the dissent
founded on them." In the former part of this sentence, — you
contrast the judicial and ministerial functions of the Presby
tery, as if there were no other alternative : — but you will ob
serve that there is, obviously, another, viz. that the Presby
tery shall receive a " discretionary" power, — the liberum ar
bitrium which we ask ; — so that, whatever judgment they may

133
form upon the reasons stated, on the one hand, and though
bound by no fixed law, on the other,— it shall still be competent
to them, in the exercise of their free discretion, to give effect
to any principles or conscientious views they entertain, in regard
to their dutyjn the settlement of ministers *. Now, what I am
anxious to know is — whether you are willing to leave them this
free discretionary power ? If not, you see that you leave them
open to be coerced in matters of conscience, while discharging their
sacred duties.
The latter part of the above sentence seems to import that
you are ready to give this discretion ; — for, as it seems to me,
you state your object is that the Presbytery should be entitled
(and only not obliged) " to give effect to the reasons and objec
tions, or to the dissent founded on them." Now, if your mean
ing is, that the Presbytery shall only not be obliged by any fixed
law,— but shall, in all cases, be entitled to give effect, either to
their judgment on the reasons, or to the dissent itself— if, in
their free discretion, they think it right and necessary so to do,
—I wish very much you would say so. This, as 1 formerly
observed, appears to me to be the only point at issue ; and
hoping to receive a satisfactory answer in regard to it, I re
main always, my dear Sir George, with much regard, yours
most truly,
J. Hamilton.

Letter to John Hamilton, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 8th Dec. 1841.
There are two objects which the clause, as amended, is, in
my opinion, neither intended, nor calculated, to promote; (1.)
That of giving a discretionary power to the Presbytery to set
aside the presentee, on grounds altogether irrespective of the
dissent of the people ; (2.) That of empowering the Presbytery
to give effect to that dissent, altogether irrespective of the rea
sons and objections on which it is founded.
It is not apart from, but through the medium of, the reasons and
objections, that the dissent of the people is to be given effect
to by the Church courts. But they have full power to set aside
the presentee, either on account of the validity, or the preva
lence, of the reasons and objections, without being required, in
the latter case, to homologate their conclusiveness.

I cannot but think, that this proposal forces upon the Church courts, a great
deal of that irresponsible power which they so much deprecate and dread.

134
The only obligation laid upon the Presbytery is, " if you
do not homologate the reasons and objections, let it appear on
the record that you do not consider them, to be in themselves
conclusive against the presentee, and that thus he is set aside
on the ground of the people's entertaining them, and not on that
of their being stamped with your approbation." It has been
contended in some quarters, that reasons and objections should
not even necessarily be stated and recorded, because the people
may not be able to give an adequate account of them to the
Presbytery. But I think it would be most oppressive and un
just to allow the objectors to act upon the principle, " non possum
dicere quare." Would you allow a Presbytery, " exercising a
jurisdiction apart from that of the civil magistrate," to be more
severe in the case of probationers, than Festus was in that of a
prisoner ? " I have brought him forth before you, that, after
examination had, I might have somewhat to write. For it
seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not
withal to signify the crimes laid against him ;" (Acts, xxv. 26,
27.) Now, I say that it is still more unreasonable, that a
court should record objections, and then peremptorily refuse to
deal with them in any way. Why, if the Court of Session is
called upon to reduce a service, must not the Judges either
"sustain" or " repel" the reasons of reduction? What the
Presbytery is desired to do, when adjudicating the reduction of
a presentation, is, to sustain the reasons, if they are " good,"
and if they are invalid and inconclusive, either to repel them, or
to sustain them, if they think it right to do so, — only intimating
that they follow that course, because the people persist in the
objections, and not because they themselves homologate their
conclusiveness. Believe me, &c.

Extract of a Letter to the Solicitor General.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 8th Dec. 1841.
I have had frequent alternations of hopes and fears as to the
settlement of the Church question. The latter at present pre
ponderate. It seems that the Church construes the liberum
arbitrium into a right on their part to give effect to the bare
dissent, altogether irrespective of the reasons and objections, on
which it is founded ; whereas I contend, that they would only
be entitled^ when they could not conscientiously homologate
the reasons and objections, to set the presentee aside on the
ground of the conscientious prevalence of the reasons and ob-

135
jections in the minds of the people, admitting in their inter
locutor, that the reasons and objections were not in themselves
conclusive. Pray read and return the inclosed two letters,
which passed between Mr Hamilton and me, and tell me
whether your view of the subject corresponds with mine. I
think it will, though 1 shall be just as well pleased if it does
not, and that you give greater latitude to the power of the
Church courts than I do.
Believe me, &c.

Letter from Duncan M'Neill, Esq.
73. Great King Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, Dec. 15. 1841.
According to your desire, I return the two documents that
accompanied your letter of the 8th. I cannot say, that the one
by Mr Hamilton is to me very intelligible. But I understand the
point of difference to be just where you put it in your letter to
me of the 8th. You ask my view. If by that you mean my
opinion as to the sound construction of the clause framed by
you, as an amendment on the second section of Lord Aberdeen's
bill, I have no hesitation in saying, that I construe that clause
according to the view you take in your letter. My own opi
nions ultra are of no value one way or other.
Yesterday I had a meeting with Mr Bruce of Kennet and
Dr Simpson of Kirknewtown, at the desire of the former, to
hear their views, which were given at considerable length.
They appeared to me substantially to coincide with yours. I
put to them,' in every conceivable variety of form and expres
sion, the precise point raised in your letter, and which humbly
appears to me, so far as I am competent to judge, to be the
hinging point of the whole dispute between those who lean to
your" clause,, and those who want more. They both stated, in
language wbich appeared to me unambiguous* that to give effect
to the dissent, irrespective of the reasons on which it was founded^
would be just the veto in a worse form ; and they promised to
write me on that point. I was', however, surprised that they
appeared quite unconscious of that notion having been enter
tained by any portion of the Non- Intrusion Committee. This
made me the more anxiously put the points to them in various
shapes, and by various illustrations, and still the result was the
same. To-day I have a note from Mr Bruce, saying, that he
is to write to me fully from Kennet ; and, in the meantime,

136

sending me copy of printed statement, just issued by the Non-
Intrusion Committee, and calling my attention to page 26. But,
according to my reading of page 26, it is the very reverse of what
both you and Bruce contend for. I am, my dear Sir George,
yours very truly, Dun. M'Neill.

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, \2th Dec. 1841.
I have been so entirely occupied, that it has been, out of my
power to answer your letters sooner than now ; for which I must
beg your indulgence.
It seems to me, that the formula of a presbyterial deliverance,
contained in yours of the 6th, and also the remarks contained
in yours of the 8th, all proceed on the idea, that the proposal
which formed the basis of the late negociations is to be carried
out, according to the sense which you attached to it, and in the
words which you suggested ; and that the sense the Committee
attached to the proposal, in giving it their qualified assent, is
to be entirely overlooked. If I am right in this, I cannot think
the course proposed is quite reasonable.
I do not think that the formula, or the scheme as commented
on in your last, could be regarded as satisfactory. You say,
that, under it, the Presbytery might set aside the presentee,
" on account of the prevalence of the reasons or objections." 
But the power is not given in these general terms in your scheme,
or according to the formula ; — for, according to them, the Pres
bytery must positively affirm the conscientiousness of the people,
(which, by the bye, is an addition to your proposal) ; — and, far
ther, must declare the prevalence of the reasons and objections
to be such, as, in their judgment, to " preclude the prospect of the
presentee's usefulness (generally) in the parish." I must refer
to my last letter for the grounds on which it appears to me
that these provisions cannot be expected to be satisfactory.
But, moreover, I understand that the Committee gave such
assent as they did to the original proposal, solely in the prospect,
and with the bribe (so to speak) held out to them, — of an im
mediate settlement, and with the distinct assurance, that, in the
event of that prospect not being realised, the whole subject was
to be fully considered, with the view to a settlement on a more
ample and satisfactory basis. And I must hope, that, — full time
being now allowed, — the Government will avail themselves

137
of the opportunity to propose a sound and unambiguous mea
sure. Upon consideration, you will find that your remarks, as to
the unreasonableness of Presbyteries not giving as much justice
to a probationer, as Festus gave to his prisoner, proceed from
not adverting to the nature of the Non-intrusion principle,
and of the procedure of a Church court, in requiring the con
currence, express or tacit, of the congregation, before proceed
ing to ordain an individual as their pastor. A probationer, no
minated by a patron, is not, when offered to the congregation,
put on his trial before the Presbytery, more than he was when
the patron selected him out of the dozen individuals that may
have been suggested to him. The question before the Presby
tery is simply this : — A probationer, having the nomination of
the patron, has he also, at least, the tacit concurrence of the flock
to which it is proposed we should ordain him ? If I mistake not,
the term " probationer" properly imports, that the individual is
on probation, precisely in order to ascertain whether the exer
cise of his gifts renders him acceptable to any of the congrega
tions of the Church.
I hope, in the course of a very few days, to send you a paper,
containing a full statement of our views on these matters ; and
shall be very anxious to have your opinion upon it. In the
meantime, I remain, my dear Sir George, always yours very
faithfully, J. Hamilton.

Letter to John Hamilton, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 14th Dec. 1841.
It is most true, that the Church and the Government are
completely exonerated, from being in any degree bound to ad
here to my proposal. My correspondence with the latter is, for
the present closed ; and I have nothing further to do, than to
say, how glad I shall be, if better terms are granted through a
better channel. I only wish, that my expectations were as
sanguine, as my anxiety is sincere. My fear is, (but I speak
without any authority,) that the Government will leave the
Church to make the most of the existing law ; that the Duke of
Argyll will bring forward his bill,, under the sanction of the
Church ; that it will (of this I am sure,) be thrown out by a
majority of about ten to one at least, and that animosity will
wax more fierce and ardent every week, (I was going to have
said, every year, but the progression is far more rapid.) I
shall, with all possible respect and good will, read any docu-

138
ment, which the Church does me the honour to allow you to
communicate for my perusal ; but I am too well acquainted
with the sentiments of public men to entertain or encourage a
hope, that the wishes of the Church will be complied with. I
shall rejoice to find myself mistaken ; / am not at all wedded to
my own proposal. There are some, which I myself should greatly
prefer, especially the abolition of patronage, and others, for which
I should have voted, out of regard and deference for their au
thors and supporters, though I do not think them by any means
free from objection ; but 1 weighed the matter well, before I
Voluntarily undertook an arduous task. I endeavoured to place
the liberum arbitrium on such a footing, as I thought would in
duce statesmen to adopt, and enable the Church to acquiesce in
it. To satisfy the former, I provided, that reasons and object
tions should be recorded, considered and mentioned, as having
constituted an element amongst the grounds which influenced the
decision of the Presbytery. To save the consciences of the
latter, I- left them at liberty to" give effect to the reasons and
objections, even when irrelevant and inconclusive, on account
of their strong prevalence, which is I think almost tantamount!
to giving effect to the dissent itself.- The word " Conscientious "
was suggested by the Dean from the first, but he did not (if I
f emeiwher right) insist on its' being introduced. I mentioned
this to Mr Candlish in the letter which I wrote to him, when
he was in London with the deputation.
In thus taking a final leave of the subject, allow me, my
worthy friend, to express my gratitude for your uniform cour
tesy and kindness. You have always homologated (to use a word
of late much in vogue) the purity of my motives, and the sin
cerity with which I have acted. That a tear will, or rather
does, involuntarily trickle at this moment down the cheek of a
nervous! invalid, need not have been mentioned ; but my heart
guides my pen, and when I look to past strifes and animosities,
and foresee their continuance and aggravation, you will not be
angry or displeased, if I lament and deprecate what I have so
zealously and ineffectually striven to prevent, &c &c. Ever
yours.

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, 21st Dec 1841.
You do not state the purport of the " Statement " cor
rectly, when you say that it gives countenance to any measure

139
that would compel the Church to give effect to the dissent of
the people. The sole object of ther Church is to avoid compul
sion, and to be left at liberty to gire effect to her principles and
sense of duty, in a matter so essentially concerning her in
ternal government. I have, from the first, been on the verge
of despair, as to the Church ever obtaining the requisite liberty,
in any form ; and, certainly, there is nothing iD the present
aspect of affairs, to make my hopes brighter than at any former
period. I have all along thought, that the only probable re
sult of these contendings was, the overthrow of the Establish
ed Church. If God, in his wisdom, should so determine it, He
will, no doubt, provide for the maintenance of his own cause, and
the safety of his own people in the midst of us. * * * *
Of the purity of your intentions I never bad a shade of doubt,
nor of the great ability and zeal with which you have prose
cuted them. 1 do not, I confess, see how the Committee could
have encouraged your object farther than they did, consis
tently with the trust confided to it by the Church, or with the
principles of the Church herself. I do not consider that there
is any thing in the " Statement " that absolutely excludes a
measure such as you have pointed at, if conceived in clear and
ample terms ; though, at the same time, I can scarcely see how
a measure of that description is likely to bo promoted with much
prospect of present or ultimate benefit. I remain always, my
dear Sir George, yours most truly",.
J. Hamilton.

Letter to John Hamilton, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 1st Jan. 1842.
I thought that our last friendly interchange of letters would
have been p. p. c, as regards the Church question ; but an
idea has occurred to me, which I wish to mention. I have
lately had some very amicable correspondence with Mr Walter
Cook, who, as secretary of another Committee, .applied fo£
and received such information as I could communicate in re
ference to my proceedings. Could not each Committee select a
Sub-committee of three ministers, with whom Mr Walter Cook
and yourself could frankly discuss the best mode of adjusting
the general question ; and as a concomitant, (not preliminary,)
the restoration of the seven ministers, through the medium of
an overture from them to the Church ? I am sorry that ill
health and distance preclude me from giving my personal aid

140

to such a meeting ; but unless a bill be settled, and other mat
ters arranged between both parties amongst themselves, and
on the part of both with Government, before Parliament meets,
I shall despond, if not despair, as to any measure being passed.
Believe me, &c.

The following letter to Mr W. Cook, written on the same
day, and on the same subject, may be here inserted, having
been omitted in its proper place.
Letter to Walter Cook, Esq.
My Dear Sir, Leamington, 1st Jan. 1842.
I am much obliged to you for having had the kindness to for
ward, and to the amanuensis, who has had the trouble to trans
cribe, the copy of my first very bulky communication. It is
very painful, that the present year should commence under
what I cannot help regarding as very unpromising prospects
for our National Church, — an evil of which it is far more neces
sary to devise the cure, than to discuss the cause. Allow me
to request that you will, on my behalf, most respectfully inti
mate to your Committee, my present suggestion, that they
would, in a kindly and Christian spirit, open up a communica
tion with the other, (of which Mr Hamilton, I think, is secre
tary.) If each party will nominate a sub-committee of three mi
nisters, these six, joined with Mr Hamilton and yourself, might
hold a free and frank conference, and perhaps agree upon some
basis which, through the medium of the Solicitor- General, they
might bring under the notice of her Majesty's Government, who
are so anxious to promote peace, and prevent mischief. My own
belief is, that unless a bill be prepared, by general concurrence,
before Parliament meets, so many subjects will come on, that
we shall have no chance of seeing our business taken up in ear
nest. Such a conference would, of course, discuss two points ;
(1.) the terms of settlement for the general question ; (2.) the
mode of effecting the restoration of the seven ministers, by
means, if possible, of such a letter as they can write, and the
Church accept. The Church would never assent to such a
measure on any other footing, and Government and Parliament
will never settle the main question, unless the other matter be
simultaneously brought to a satisfactory issue. I shall write
to the same effect to Mr Hamilton, and if I may presume to
found a conjecture upon my opinion of your character, I should
not be surprised, if you were yourself to call on him with this

141

letter in your hand, and my suggestion in your heart. I al
most wish I could be present at this meeting, and at any sub
sequent discussions of this all-absorbing question.
Ever yours, &c.

Letter from John Hamilton, Esq.
3. Northumberland Street, Edin.
My Dear Sir George, 4th Jan. 1842.
I must always rejoice in any thing that is the occasion of
renewing my correspondence with you ; and am much grati
fied to find, that after all the exceeding trouble, and, I fear,
vexation you have had in our cause, you are still ready — if
possible — to serve us.
Conferences with the opposite party in the Church have been
proposed over and over again, and have either not been en
tertained, or have instantly come to nought. The truth is, the
parties have never, at heart, been ripe for making any approach
to each other ; — and I fear, at the present moment, they are
less ready for it than, perhaps, at any former period. The
Moderate party know perfectly the mind of the majority, — viz.
that up to a certain point, there is matter of principle with
them, which they cannot abate ; — but that beyond that, they
are ready to arrange every thing in the way most agreeable to
them ; — and it is obvious, that until they are ready to concede
to the majority what, to them, is matter of principle, there can
be no room for an approximation. This the Moderate party
know and feel. They know further, — that they are not pre
pared to yield the necessary principle to their brethren ; — and
it is this — and this alone — which keeps the parties at a dis
tance from each other.
At the present moment, the Moderate party are full of san
guine hope that the Government are to bring forward some
measure — which, though it does not concede the principle of
the majority, — will yet be so plausible as that the great body
of the majority will give in to it, rather than leave the Esta
blishment, and that comparatively a few only will be forced out ;
and all will then go on smoothly
In the whole of this anticipation I firmly believe, that they
will find themselves to be entirely mistaken. It is the event, how
ever, alone, which will convince them : — and, in the mean time,
you will see — that so long as they are full of their present
hopes, it would be idle, if not pernicious, for us to make any
advances towards them.

142
For my own part, I have all along lent my aid, such as it is,
towards moderate counsels. But I confess my chief solici
tude is, — that the Church, — the great and distinguished majo
rity of it, — should do nothing which would imply a sacrifice of
principle, and consequently of character and the cause of truth.
This I hope, and believe, there is no risk of their doing ; — their
resolution being to adhere to their principles, and leave events
to Him who ruleth over all.
Should you see any opening for an adjustment, or should
any thing occur to you of importance, I shall at all times be
most happy to hear from you ; and remain always, my dear Sir
George, yours most truly, J. Hamilton.

The two following letters are inserted, to shew on what
grounds I have resolved not to join in any agitation for the
abolition of patronage.

My Dear Friend, Edinburgh, Dec. 23. 1841.
I can never feel gloomy as to our Church. My only fear is
as to ourselves. If the people of the Church be true, no
Government can oppress us.
Let me mention, that we are reviving the Anti-Patronage So
ciety ; and, of course, the consideration as to the President is
a prominent subject. I fear you will not continue in office. I
need not say how sorry I am to think that such should be the
case. But our object of course is to work abolition with all
our might ; and thi3, I fear, you will not approve or co-operate
with. If you will, nothing could be more gratifying to me per
sonally than that you did so. Be good enough, at your leisure,
to favour me with your views.
With all the best wishes of the season to your family, and
commending you to the Lord and his grace, I remain, my dear
Sir George, very faithfully yours,
James Bridges.
My Dear Friend, Leamington, 26th Dec. 1841.
The first principle, which lever adopted, in reference to Church
matters, was, that it is essential to the national welfare to main
tain an ecclesiastical establishment. In subordination to that
opinion, I have contended, that it would, in Scotland, be ad
visable to transfer the initiative from the patrons to the con
gregation. For that change I made the utmost exertions in

143
my power, and if I could peaceably effect it, I should think
that I had " done the Church some service." But, although
my conviction remains the same, I have, for two reasons, de
termined to abandon the prosecution of this object : (1 .) be
cause I am unwilling to endanger the existence of the Esta
blishment by fomenting agitation and discontent ; and, (2.) be
cause I am fully persuaded, that success is altogether out of
the question, and that I have no right to " tempt God," by
seeking to attain a good end through what I regard as an unhal
lowed and unlawful channel. To you, my good friend, the whole
case appears in a different light, and I am pronouncing no cen
sure upon your conduct, but only endeavouring to account for
and justify, my own. The organization of societies throughout
Scotland, under the auspices of churchmen, for the purpose of
overawing the Government and resisting the law, is weaken
ing every day the ties, which connect those who love order
and hate strife, with the Presbyterian Church, and whilst some
of her friends contend that her principles are only non-Eras-
tian, many others are of opinion that they are non-monarchical.
I ever remain, &c.

APPENDIX.

I did not intend to have detailed all the proceedings con
nected with the settlement of the Strathbogie case, so long as
any prospect remained, that it might have been effected upon
such a basis as I had devised. But as every hope of that desi
rable consummation must now be abandoned, I shall detail,
without any comment, what actually took place.
In the discussions, which occurred between the Dean and
myself, on the subject of the letter, which it was proposed that
the seven ministers should address to the Moderator of the
General Assembly, we were both so anxious for peace, that I
endeavoured to exact as little as possible from the ministers,
and the Dean displayed as much solicitude to concede as much
as possible to the Church. The draft was frequently shewn
to several leading members of the Non- Intrusion Committee,
who, as I have already stated more than once, expressly de
clared, that they never would consent to regard the reponing
of the deposed brethren as an indispensable preliminary to the
settlement of the general question. They were, with great dif
ficulty, prevailed upon to give a kind of quasi consent to tho
adoption of the letter, provided it were accompanied, or fol
lowed, by certain measures, for which see p. 69. To some,
or indeed most of these, the Dean declared that it was impos
sible to consent ; but we both thought, that, if the bill for ad
justing the general question were once fairly in progress, and
the letter actually sent by the seven ministers to the Modera
tor, the other stipulations made by the Committee might be
either partially modified, or altogether waived. Of the accep
tance of the terms on the part of the ministers, I confess that
I did not entertain a doubt, — nor did the Dean appear to have
any misgivings on that subject.
My departure from Edinburgh was so abrupt and hurried,
having remained uncertain until two or three hours before it
took place, that I omitted, before setting out, to forward the
draft to Mr Walker ; but on finding it in my possession, when
I reached Carlisle next morning, I despatched it, together with
a few very hasty lines from myself, stating, that 1 had left
Edinburgh the day before, in the confident hope of effecting a

146
settlement of the Church question, on terms agreed to by the
Government, and acquiesced in by the majority, — that his case,
and that of his brethren, had, during the progress of the nego
ciations, been the subject of most serious and tender conside
ration,^ — that if they agreed to sign the inclosed letter, I felt
enabled to say, that the Assembly would accept it, — that the
case of Mr Edwards rested on a different footing, — that I would
try and obtain as favourable an arrangement for him as I could,
and that it was important to have the letter subscribed, and
sent to Dr Gordon, with the least possible delay, &c. The
letter which was inclosed, was to the following effect * :
Reverend Sir,
We have been informed that a deputation, appointed by the
Church, has been lately conferring with her Majesty's Govern
ment, in the hope of adjusting those unhappy dissensions, which
menace with destruction our ecclesiastical establishment, so long
the basis and the bulwark of our national prosperity. We do
not yield even to the members of that deputation, in ardent
anxiety, that their most important mission may be crowned .
with success. It is, as it has ever been, our heart's desire and
prayer, that the Church, in which our fathers worshipped, may
be transmitted to our children's children, not only with undi
minished honour and usefulness, but with increasing efficiency
and renown. .
We cannot conceal from ourselves, that the auspicious pacifi
cation, for which all the friends of our venerated Zion are so ear
nestly praying, may be prevented or retarded by the position
in which we ourselves, to our unspeakable sorrow and concern,
now stand in reference to the Church. There is no sacrifice of
private interest, and no suppression of personal feeling, to which
we would not deem it both a duty and a privilege to submit,
for the purpose of restoring peace, and terminating agitation.
It is true, that we cannot purchase even a blessing of such
transcendant magnitude, by an act of hypocrisy or dissimula
tion, and which would be not less revolting to the Church, than
degrading to ourselves. Our determination to yield obedience
to the authority of the supreme civil courts was as delibe
rately and conscientiously acted on, as it was reluctantly and
sorrowfully adopted. We were unable to see, that consistently
with our duty as subjects, we could follow any other course
than one, which we foresaw, could only prove a source of em
barrassment, trials, discouragement and suffering to ourselves,

* The paragraphs inclosed in brackets are those which were added by the Dean,
and declared to me by the Committee to be by far the most satisfactory portions
of the letter.

147
and bring upon us the displeasure of that supreme ecclesiasti
cal tribunal, whose jurisdiction we have at all times been most
solicitous both to uphold and to obey. Whilst conscious that
we ourselves acted in the strictest conformity with our own
views, both of law and of principle, we wish to speak with
the utmost tenderness and respect of the opinions, as well as
of the motives, of the majority who differed from us, all of whom
we esteem as brethren, and many of whom we venerate as
fathers. Our convictions, though not changed, could not fail
to be shaken by the consideration that they were dissented
from by men, to whose judgment and character such weight
and influence are due. At the same time, we felt bound to
give effect to the dictates of our own consciences and under
standings, however liable to error on all subjects, and more
especially in a matter of such delicacy, and so foreign to our
habits, both of thought and acting, as the line of demarcation
which separates things civil from things spiritual, in reference
to supreme jurisdiction.
We could not but think, that having been most unexpectedly,
and without any guilt of our own, involved in circumstances of
unexampled difficulty and perplexity, the sentences of suspen
sion and deposition awarded against us (more especially quoad
our spiritual functions) wrere unnecessarily severe. At the same
time, on mature reflection, we are of opinion, that we should have
acted in more strict accordance wijth the rules of canonical disci
pline, and clearly shewn our readiness to yield obedience to the
commands of the Church, (when not reluctantly compelled to
do otherwise by the conflicting authority of another tribunal,)
if we had at once abstained from the performance of those spi
ritual functions, as soon as the decision of the General As
sembly was intimated to us. We are desirous, therefore, to
express to you, Sir, and through you to the Church, our sincere
concern and regret, that [whatever steps we took for our pro
tection, we had not so far deferred to the sentences of the
Church, as in the meantime to abstain from the continued exer
cise of our ecclesiastical functions. We are aware, that by not
doing so, we increased the difficulties in which the majority of
the Church were placed, and that we exhibited to them an ap
pearance, (for it was so not in intention or purpose,) of disre
gard of the authority and discipline of the Church, which, by
another course, we might have avoided.]
On the subject of our appeal to the civil courts, from the
sentences of the General Assembly, we wish to speak with the
utmost deference and humility. We have throughout placed
our chief reliance, in an emergency so new, so painful and so
embarrassing, on the wisdom and experience of advisers more
competent to form a sound opinion respecting it, than we could
k 2

148
pretend to be. We were led to believe that certain legal
steps were indispensably necessary, not only in regard to our
patrimonial interests, and those of our families, but for the vin
dication of our previous proceedings ; — and further, we are an
xious to state, in perfect conformity with our previous decla
rations, that we never intended to ascribe to the civil court
any jurisdiction in matters purely spiritual. [On the contrary,
we concur in holding, that the civil courts, in all spiritual mat
ters, can have no jurisdiction whatever, much less any juris
diction to review the sentences of ecclesiastical courts. We
may have erred in a situation, which all will admit was alto
gether novel and most perplexing, in our views as to the ex
tent of the jurisdiction of the civil courts. It is not surprising
that we should have done so, and still less surprising, that, in
the opinion of others, we may have run counter to their prac
tical understanding of principles, which have so rarely been
brought into operation in this country. We erred, however,
we can safely say, from no indisposition towards the Church,
and from no desire to lower its authority, however mistaken
may have been our course.] But we are both willing and de
sirous, to express not only our unfeigned grief that we should
have been compelled to take such a course, but our readiness
at once to withdraw all the actions, in which we have the mis
fortune to be engaged in opposition to the Church, if we can,
by such an act, [enable the General Assembly, who have already
taken the measures which were thought necessary to vindicate
its authority, now, in the exercise of its clemency, and viewing
with tender and compassionate regard, the situation in which
we have been placed, to restore us to the exercise of our func
tions, as pastors in that Church in which we so long, and we
hope usefully, laboured; and still more, if by such an act,
we can also facilitate] an adjustment of the present unhappy
dissensions, of which we so earnestly desire to witness the
speedy termination. Should any considerations of wisdom or
generosity enable and induce the General Assembly to receive
us, once more, as attached and obedient children,, within the
pale of the Church, such a consummation would be hailed by
each and all of us, with a satisfaction which no words could de
scribe or exaggerate, and a gratitude which no time could ob
literate or impair.
I have carefully collated the above with the original, and
find that it is a true copy.
James Walker.
Manse of Huntly,
19th Jan. 1842.

149
The answer, dated October 7, was as follows :
Sir, Manse of Huntly, 7th Oct. 1841.
I had the honour to receive your favour of the 3d current,
with its inclosures, in due course. I met with my brethren
yesterday, with the exception of Mr Cruickshank, Glass, whose
infirmities prevent him from attending our meetings, when we
made your communications the subject of our most grave and
serious consideration ; and I am directed by them to intimate
to you, that while we entertain the strongest possible desire to
see an end put to the unhappy dissensions that are now dis
tracting the Church, and to do any thing within the compass
of our power, that could contribute towards such a consumma
tion, we have to lament that we are under the necessity of de
clining to adopt the document which you have transmitted, and
for these reasons, because an admission of errors in our pro
ceedings is made in that document, of which errors we are not
conscious ; and because we cannot do any thing in this matter
without the knowledge and concurrence of our brethren, who
have acted, in their respective places in the Church, on the
same principles as those by which we have been guided and
governed. But though thus constrained, from regard to our principles,
respectfully to decline what we feel was proposed in the way
of most friendly mediation, we do hope and pray, that God, in
his wise and overruling providence, may so order matters,- as
soon to restore peace and harmony to our beloved Zion.
I have the honour to be, with much respect and esteem, Sir,
your most obedient and very humble servant, James Walker.
This proposal having been peremptorily rejected, and the
negociations as to the general question having assumed an unfa
vourable aspect, I did not for some time direct any particular
attention to the Strathbogie case. But, as I had been informed
by the Dean, about the 4th of October, that he had recom
mended the ministers to consult the Solicitor- General, when
he himself ceased to have it in his power to be their adviser, I
wrote to the former, who said to me in reply,
* * * * " You are mistaken in supposing that I am the
depository of any document from the seven ministers. I de
clined to be their active adviser ; but I gave them an interview,
and heard their sentiments, which appeared to me to be rea
sonable. They were to draw up and transmit such a document
as they were disposed to give, and they did make a draft of
such a document ; but as the negociation for settlement went

150
off, the matter dropt, and I am not possessed of any documents
from them."
I then applied to Mr Whigham, (28th November,) who, as
I was informed, had become their counsel, and requested that
he would be so kind as to return the draft to me, (if in his
possession,) after having taken a copy ; and that he would also
point out what were the parts of the letter to which they ob
jected, and how far they were prepared to go. Mr Whigham
stated in reply,
" I have not a copy of the document you refer to; but I have
seen it, and think that the seven brethren of Strathbogie were
right in not agreeing to subscribe it. There are parts of it,
which, as men of conscience, and good and sound intentions, I
think they could not subscribe.
" But this I know, that there are no seven men in the king
dom more anxious for a settlement of the questions which dis
tract the Church and country than they are ; and there is no
step which they, as honest men, can take, that they are not
ready and anxious to take, for their own peace, and the peace
of the Church."
In my answer to Mr Whigham, I assured him that I saw no
prospect of the ministers being restored, unless they made the
first step in advance, although I was equally aware that no
arrangement of the general question would be adopted by Par
liament, which did not involve their restoration ; and I besought
him to call in the aid of some pious and experienced Moderate
ministers, in framing such a letter as his clients could conscien
tiously adopt. Finding also that Mr Walter Cook could not
furnish me with either the original, or a copy of the draft, I
resolved to apply to Mr Walker himself; and the following
correspondence passed between us :
Reverend Sir, Leamington, 3d Jan. 1842.
I am neither entitled, nor desirous to complain, that you
and your brethren declined to sign the letter, whicb, with the
kind aid of the Lord Justice-Clerk, I had drawn up, in order
to effect a reconciliation between the Church and you ; but I
should esteem it as a favour, if you would return to me the
original, after taking a copy, as the sketch which is in my pos
session is defective. I should feel still more obliged, if you
would gratify me by pointing out the parts which you deem
objectionable, and suggesting such alterations as would render
it consistent with your conscientious convictions.
I am well aware, that no Government or Legislature would

151
agree to any arrangement of the general question, which did
not involve your restoration, and that of your brethren, to your
status in the Church ; and you will do me the justice to bear
in mind, that I never approved of the steps taken against you,
and was, and still am, desirous to co-operate in effecting such
a reconciliation as shall be quite consistent with your honour
and conscience, and those of the parties in the Church, by
whom you have been either supported or opposed. I re
main, &c.
Sir, Manse of Huntly, 8th Jan. 1842.
In reply to yours of the 3d current, I have to state, that had
you made a direct application to me, a short time ago, to re
turn your draft letter, I would have felt myself bound to have
complied with your request ; but an application having reached
me, to that effect, in a very roundabout way, I thought it ne
cessary to lay the matter before the brethren, at our adjourned
meeting of Presbytery, on Wednesday last, when the Moderator
was instructed to communicate our resolution to Dr Bryce,
who had written to us on the subject. I cannot now, therefore,
take upon me to give it up without first receiving the sanction
of my brethren. We meet, however, in a few days, when they
may authorise me to do so, and also to point out what parts
of it they " deem objectionable." I never doubted, that, in
any arrangements with the Government or the Legislature for
settling the Church question — a question, be it observed, not
between us and the Church, but between the Church and the
State, — our restoration to our status in the Church courts
would be made a condition ; for 1 did not believe, that, in a
free country like this, it would be permitted that men should
be punished for simply obeying the law, which, I take leave to
say, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, and
the serious crimes that have been most unjustly and unfeel
ingly laid to our charge, is the head and front of our offending.
I am well aware, that you did not approve of the steps taken
against us ; and I do most sincerely believe, had the dominant
party in the Commission, in December 1839, adopted the scripT
tural rule laid down by our blessed Saviour, and recorded in
Matthew, xviii. 15, and desired a conference before proceeding
to punish us, these steps, harsh and illegal as they certainly
were, would have been deemed unnecessary, and the many
difficulties and evils that have followed would have been pre
vented. But I shall not trouble you farther by recalling past
errors and grievances. And have the honour to be, with much
respect, Sir, your most obedient and very humble servant,
James Walker.

152

Reverend Sir, Leamington, 13th Jan. 1842.
I was last night favoured with your reply to my request,
that, after taking a copy of my letter, you would do me the
kindness to return the original. I must confess, that I anti
cipated compliance with a wish so reasonable and so natural ;
expecting, as I had drawn it up with great care, and some ob
loquy, for the express purpose of endeavouring to facilitate
your own readmission, and that of your brethren, within the
pale of the Church, I ventured to expect, that you would re
gard me as a Christian and a gentleman, and would have trans
mitted the document in question as a matter of course. As it
has been asserted, in certain prints, that I had endeavoured
to extract humiliating concessions from you, I was certainly
anxious to reperuse the letter, which had given currency to
such a charge ; and if I applied, in the first instance, to your
counsel, or to Mr W. Cook, it was because I thought they
would be more likely to receive from you a statement of the
grounds on which you declined to accede to it, as a basis of
pacification. As it is, I must content myself with the imper
fect copy, still in my possession ; and should any opportunity
occur, for employing my mediation between yourself and your
brethren, and the Church, I shall still deem it a pleasure, and
a duty, to labour as zealously for effecting your restoration, as
I did to prevent your deposition. I hope you will, on your
part, do what you can to promote the good work of reconcilia
tion. Neither Government nor Parliament will ever sanction
any arrangement in which your honour and interests are not
provided for ; but, on the other hand, I am equally persuaded,
that the General Assembly will not accept any measure, unless
the first step towards your readmission should emanate from
yourself and your brethren. I remain, &c.
Sir, Manse of Huntly, 20th Jan. 1842.
In the few lines that I had the honour to address to you, ac
knowledging your letter of the 3d current, I intimated, that, in
consequence of a conversation that had taken place on the
subject of it, at a meeting of the brethren, the day before it
reached me, I had felt that I could not do as you had requested,
without consulting them, and that, as there would be a meet
ing on an early day, I would then lay your letter before them.
We all met last Friday, when it was resolved to send you an
authenticated copy of the draft letter, which you had transmitted
for our adoption. Such copy I now send by their direction,
and I regret, that circumstances over which I had no con
trol, occasioning delay in obtaining the copy, have prevented
me from sending it sooner. I beg, however, to state for my-

153
self and for one of my brethren, Mr Allardyce of Rhynie, that
the sending of a copy is the act of the others. It was our desire
and entreaty that the original should be sent. I do not wonder
that you have expressed yourself as you have done, in your
letter of the 1 3th current, which I have had the honour to re
ceive, in relation to the difficulty that you have had in getting
possession of the document in question ; but I hope that, after
what I have communicated, you will do me the justice to ac
quit me of the blame of having withheld it.
I am also desired by the brethren to make known to you,
that application has been repeatedly made to them by the Com
mittee, representing the constitutional party in the Church, for
such information as they had to give, relative to the late ne
gociations for the adjusting of our differences, and respectfully
to request your permission to them to furnish the Committee
with a copy of the draft letter, and of your letter to me of the
3d of October, which accompanied the other. The brethren
would desire the like permission, in respect of the letter recei
ved by me, at the same time with the others, from the present
Lord Justice- Clerk, if it could be obtained.
With regard to your request, that we would point out where
in we deemed the draft letter objectionable, I am authorised
to state, that, satisfied as we are, that in none of our actings
for which the majority in the~Church have thought fit to subject
us to censure, and to so much suffering, did we violate any
laws, civil or ecclesiastical. We find it impossible to suggest
how that document could be altered, or any other framed, so
as to secure the end which you so kindly aimed at.
Nothing, however, is impossible with God. And we most
earnestly pray, that He would, and humbly trust that He will,
yet, and ere long, restore peace and unity to our now troubled
and distracted Church.
I have the honour to be, with much respect and esteem, Sir,
your most faithful and obedient servant,
James Walker.

Reverend Sir, Leamington, 24th Jan. 1842.
I was this morning favoured with your letter, and am much
obliged to you and to your brethren for having complied with
my request. You are at perfect liberty to make what use you
please of any letters or papers transmitted by me. They were
intended to facilitate the attainment of a very important public
object ;  and although I have failed, I derive consolation from
reflecting upon the purity of the motives which actuated me,

154
and the loving kindness of Him, who knows what is in my
heart, and who looks with complacency upon the services of
his creatures, not in proportion to their success, but to their
sincerity. I am, no doubt, much disheartened, and, I may add,
dissatisfied, with much that has passed between myself and
others ; but I now say more than ever, " it is time for Thee,
O Lord, to work," and I submissively resign the matter into
His hands. It will give me sincere pleasure to learn, that some
other arrangement has been devised, which may bring you and
your brethren within the pale of the Church, and extricate a\%.
parties out of the pale of the civil courts.
I some time ago suggested, that all pending suits should be
referred to arbitration, — a suggestion borne out, I think, by
1 Cor. vi. 1.7; but I was not (indeed I never am) listened to
by the other party, — and must leave both to eat the fruits of
their own doings. This much is quite certain, that no Go
vernment or Legislature will consent to any scheme of adjusts
ment, which does not involve your restoration ; — and I myself
think, that, unless you originate an application to that effect,
it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the General As
sembly to acquiesce.
I remain, &c.

The correspondence between the Earl of Aberdeen and my
self, at the commencement of these negociations, having been
omitted in its proper place, I crave his Lordship's pardon for
taking the liberty to insert here, and thus lay before the coun
try, a letter, the whole tenor of which so clearly evinces his
Lordship's attachment to the Church of Scotland, and his
anxiety to secure the independence, and restore the peace, of
so important a national institution. Edinburgh, 21st August 1841.
My Dear Lord Aberdeen,
I have no doubt, that our excellent friend, the Dean, has
fully detailed the most important particulars of what has passed
between us on the subject of the Church question. We had
a three hours' discussion of a most frank and friendly tenor
with Mr Candlish, and since then I have been much engaged in
correspondence and oral negociations, (much more than is good
for my delicate health.) If I understood the Dean aright, your
Lordship's bill was not intended to prohibit the Presbytery
from setting aside a presentee, even if they did not admit the
validity of the objections urged by the people, provided they
conscientiously thought, that these objections had taken such a

155
deep hold upon the minds of the parishioners, (or at least of a
considerable proportion of them,) that the settlement of the
presentee would not be conducive to the edification of the pa
rish. Now, if this power were expressly vested in the Presby
tery, and its exercise left optional, (not, of course, imperative,
as under the veto law,) I have reason to believe, or rather to
feel assured, that the introduction of words to that effect into
your Lordship's bill would remove at once every objection to
its adoption. I may convey my meaning better, by suggesting,
that, in the second clause of the bill, after the words, " in
respect," &c. and before the words, " the individual presented,"
the following amendment should be inserted ; " or in respect
that the said objections or reasons, [though not in themselves
conclusive in the judgment of the Presbytery,] are entertained
by such a proportion of the parishioners as, in the opinion of
the Presbytery, precludes the prospect of his ministrations
proving useful to that particular congregation." (The words in
closed in brackets might, as was suggested by a gentleman, to
whom I showed the amendment, perhaps be omitted ; but I
think they contribute to bring out the full import of the mean
ing intended to be conveyed.) Such a concession, (if it be one,)
would, I am convinced, cause the other provisions of the bill
to be at once acquiesced in, and the veto, of course, to be re
pealed. The Dean has kindly undertaken to prepare two bills
for consideration, one founded on the principle of the amend
ment here suggested, and the other regulating the call, (rather,
I fear, a difficult task) ; but the plan which I have presumed to
recommend would be the easiest, and might be at once carried
into effect ; — and really no time must be lost, if any thing is to
be done, — for each party seems to me to be doing every thing
they can to widen the breach, and render a settlement more
hopeless. If your Lordship intended all along, that your bill should
bear the construction, which I understand the Dean to put
upon its provisions, or should be willing now to act upon it,
your answer might reach me on Wednesday morning, in time
to give a pacific and most satisfactory turn to the meeting of
the Commission ; and I am sanguine enough to believe, that a
very large proportion of its members would at once sign a de
claration in favour of your bill, as proposed to be modified.
Permit me, respectfully, to add, that it would be of the greatest
importance, in the event of your Lordship favouring me with
such an answer as I earnestly wish for, to say nothing as to the
Strathbogie case, — either the one way or the other, — as any
annexation of a condition, hinging upon that matter, would
inevitably spoil all ; — and I have a plan in contemplation, which,

156
I fondly hope, might lead to an amicable adjustment of that
question also.
Excuse the confusion and tautology of a letter, written at
intervals by an invalid, lying on a sofa.
I have the honour, &c.

Argyll House, August 26. 1841.
My Dear Sir George,
It gave me much pleasure to learn from you that a favourable
impression had been produced by the full and frank communica
tion which had taken place between the Dean and Mr Cand
lish. Great as the difficulties in the way of a settlement un
doubtedly are, I still entertain a hope, that they may be re
moved ; and should there be a sincere desire on both sides to
arrive at this result, it will in all probability be attained.
I did not precisely collect from your letter what interpreta
tion may have been given to the provisions of my bill by the
Dean, in the course of the discussion to which you refer ; but
he is so fully informed of all my views and feelings on the sub
ject, that I take for granted it must have been correct. I he
sitate, however, to accept the amendment you have proposed ;
because, if adopted, it seems to me that it would render any
repeal of the veto act quite illusory.
You will understand that I have no objection, by all neces
sary alterations or modifications of the' measure, to carry its
principle and object more clearly into effect. These, I can
truly affirm, have always been, in my view, to recognise and
establish the spiritual independence of the Church, and to se
cure the rights of the people. I believe the bill to be sufficient
for this purpose ; and, at all events, I know that it was my in
tention to make it so. It may have been misunderstood by
some, but it has certainly been misrepresented by others. Due
explanations might indeed avail with many ; at the same time,
from what I have seen, it is to be feared that they would not
be permitted to produce their natural effect.
In truth, I have no desire to return to the subject at present ;
nor is there any great reason why I should. I am quite con
tented to let the matter rest, so far as I am concerned ; to
trust to time and reflection, and to allow the public to pronounce
their judgment.
The Church will continue to be governed by those laws un
der which, and by which, it was established. These will be
administered by just and impartial tribunals ; and whatever
may be the present difficulties and embarrassments, we have

157
every thing ultimately to hope for from the good sense of the
people, and from the wisdom of the Legislature.
Believe me, my dear Sir George, very sincerely yours,
Aberdeen.

Edin. 28th Aug. 1841.
My Dear Lord Aberdeen,
I was this morning honoured with your Lordship's letter,
for which I beg to offer my grateful acknowledgments. I
grieve, however, to learn, that you have no desire to return to
the subject " at present," for I am quite convinced, that, what
ever is to be done, must be done quickly, or it will be too late.
I am very sorry that I did not succeed in making the ob
ject of my amendment quite clear. It amounted rather to the
liberum arbitrium, than to the veto, — the latter compelling, the
former enabling, the Church courts to give effect to the reasons
and objections urged by parishioners against a presentee, in
case the said Church courts are conscientiously persuaded, that
the reasons and objections, though not in their opinion conclu
sive, prevail to such an extent in the parish, that the presen
tee could not labour amongst them with usefulness and accep
tance ; whilst, on the other hand, they retain the power, if
they think it right, to overrule the reasons and objections, when
they either deem them altogether frivolous, or think, that they
are likely to subside, under the influence of reflection and ex
perience. I own, that it would, to myself, prove a source of most cor
dial gratification, if an auspicious measure for promoting the
stability of our beloved and venerated Church, should bear the
respected name of the nobleman, who first bad the patriotic
manliness to come forward and make a most kind and honest
effort to restore harmony and peace. This is the light in
which I, for one, have uniformly viewed your Lordship's con
duct in this matter. At the same time, I must freely own,
that I do not see how the Church can now accept this measure,
without some conciliatory modification ; and I neither perceive
how less can be granted, or why more should be insisted on,
than I have ventured to suggest. Might I presume to solicit
most earnestly, (I have certainly no right to do so,) that your
Lordship would take this matter once more into your consider
ation ? And if you cannot sanction my proposal, excogitate
something more advisable. I was yesterday for an hour mourn
ing over our prospects with my worthy friend, Mr Hunter of
the Tron Church, and he fully concurred as to the necessity

158
of something being done immediately. Why should not your
Lordship's bill, as amended, pass even during the present ses
sion, or at least be laid on the table, and lie over till next
year ? You will, I hope, forgive my importunity ; but the tears
are really glistening in my eyes, when I think, that in the
Presbytery of Edinburgh alone, the Church may ere long be
abandoned by Dr Chalmers, Dr Gordon, and his colleague,
Mr Buchanan, Dr Dickson, Mr Guthrie, Mr Bruce, Mr
Candlish, Mr Cunningham, and others, whose names do not
occur to me. The Voluntary newspapers are already rejoicing
at this prospect of schism and separation. The question is
more than ever complicated by the recent decision as to the
quoad sacra parishes. Is there any hope that the Legislature
will in this matter come to the relief of the Church ? The
Scotsman justly and complacently observes this morning, that
this is the greatest blow which the Church has yet received.
Alas ! I fear, that the tide is setting in for the subversion of
the Establishment principle, and that I and many other most
ardent and devoted friends of that principle may be ere long dri
ven into Voluntaryism* ; but as long as I can, I will hope better
things, pray for happier results, and repose unshaken and cor
dial confidence in your Lordship's wisdom, discretion, and
known attachment to that Church, of whose communion you
are so bright an ornament, and to whose rights you are so sin
cere a friend. I beg to apologise for the length and freedom
of this letter. I have exhausted the subject, so far as I myself
am concerned, and may therefore safely give a pledge not again
to weary your Lordship with my well-meant but very ill-ex
pressed and desultory lucubrations. I have the honour, &c.

The following letter from the Duke of Argyll will shew how
groundless the apprehensions were, which some of my Non-in
trusion friends expressed, that his Grace would be displeased,
if, (from a conviction that his own plan could not be carried
tbrough Parliament,) I proposed, or they assented to, any other
basis of adjustment. Inverary, November 15. 1841.
Dear Sir George,
I can assure you, that I had no terror of your taking the

* I have already stated, that a rumour was then prevalent, that a bill was to be
introduced immediately for declaring the minority to constitute the Church, an
event which the Church could not long have survived.

159
business of the Church question out of my hands, but I could
not understand how such a complicated concern could be set
tled by any human means, during the short meeting of the Par
liament that lately took place. I shall be very happy to have
the assistance of your abilities and superior information, in con
ducting any plan that may be adopted by the Church for the
ultimate settlement of this most difficult discussion ; and if you
have any plans to propose that are likely to be of use in bring
ing it to an amicable termination, I shall be very happy to give
them my most serious attention, and to communicate my opi
nions and views upon the subject to you, whenever you may
wish for it.
I am, very sincerely, yours,
Argyll.

Leamington, 7th Jan. 1842.
My Dear Lord Duke,
I ought long ere now to have acknowledged the receipt of
the very kind answer which your Grace returned to my former
communication. My attempt to settle the Church question is
now at an end. I regard my plan as virtually, but finally, re
pudiated, by the tenor of the Committee's last statement. I
meant well, — I laboured hard, — I hoped long, — and have
achieved nothing. ' I shall rejoice, if your Grace should be more
successful ; but my unwavering conviction is, that your bill will
be as distasteful to the State, as my suggestion has been to the
Church. If I might presume to offer two hints to your Grace, I should
say ; (1.) bring on your measure as soon as possible after Par
liament meets ; (2.) be sure, under any circumstances, to divide
the House upon the second reading. By adopting that course,
you will, in the event of your bill being thrown out, (1.) leave
ample time to try and settle the question upon some other basis ;
(2.) shew to the Church, by actual comparison of numbers,
how strong, or (I rather think) how weak, their party is in an
assembly which cannot, like the House of Commons, be got
rid of by a dissolution.
The Church has not, in my opinion, acted wisely, by insist
ing, that the Government shall unreservedly affirm or deny the
Non-intrusion principle, in the sense in which it is held by the
majority. I was most anxious to devise and carry through some
practical measure, under which all parties might conscientiously
act, without any controversy as to matters of abstract meaning,
and doubtful disputation. My own failure does not render me

160
one whit less solicitous for the adjustment of these most intricate
and unseemly dissensions, and I shall rejoice to see this great ob
ject attained under your Grace's auspices, who possess so many
personal as well as hereditary claims upon the respect of the
country, and the gratitude of the Church,
Parliament, I am persuaded, will sanction no measure, which
does not leave it incumbent on the Church courts to record,
consider, and express some opinion upon the reasons and ob
jections of the people. I have the honour, &c.

To a letter, of which I have not retained a copy, I received
the following very kind answer from my Noble Friend, the
Marquis of Breadalbane.
My Dear Sir George, Taymouth, Nov. 8. 1841.
Pray excuse my delay in answering your letter of the 29th.
Owing to my absence from home, I only received it within the
last few days. I most entirely agree with you in opinion, that
the Scotch Church question should never be made one of mere
party and political feeling. I trust I have always endeavoured
to free it from such influences ; and I sincerely hope it may
never be prejudiced by them. You ask me to answer several
important questions regarding the affairs of the Church, but I
really am not in a condition to do so. You will render an im
portant service to the Church and to our country if you can
open the eyes of the present Premier, and of the other mem
bers of the Government, to see the very great importance of
bringing the Church question to a satisfactory adjustment with
as little delay as possible, by making a wise and just concession
to the Presbyterians of Scotland. What they ask is not only
strictly in accordance with sound Presbyterian principle, but
consistent also with reason and justice, and is most expedient
in every way. If our Established Cburch be uprooted, the
State will have lost one of its most conservative establish
ments, — the Monarchy, one of its strongest supports.
I remain, dear Sir George, very faithfully yours,
Breadalbane.
My Noble Friend is justly respected throughout Scotland as
a zealous and able champion of the Church. I would entreat
him, however, to recollect, that, many years ago, (when he did
me the honour to consult me on the appointment of a minister
to Killin,) he used to expostulate with me in the most earnest
and courteous terms, on the impolicy of contending, in con-

161
junction with my revered friend, the late Dr Andrew Thom
son, for the total abolition of patronage, an object which he re
garded as both unattainable and unadvisable. My opinion, on
the other hand, was, and still is, that such a measure would be
" a wise and just concession to the Presbyterians of Scotland ;"
and " not only strictly in accordance with sound Presbyterian
principle, but consistent also with reason and justice, and most
expedient in everyway." I therefore, (1.) took part in the
formation and proceedings of a society for purchasing such ad-
vowsons as might come into the market, and bestowing in each
case the right of appointment upon the communicants. But
we were pre-eminently unsuccessful in our endeavours, and the
directors were at last compelled to collect a large sum amongst
themselves, (one gentleman munificently contributing several
hundred pounds,) in order that, in our state of helpless and hope
less insolvency, we might not have the mortification of bringing
to the hammer one of the very few patronages which we had ac
quired. I then moved, in 1833, for leave to bring in a bill for
the abolition of patronage, but found insuperable difficulties in
the way, even of its introduction ; and in the following year,
was chairman of a committee for inquiring fully into the merits of
the case. But when I found, after having given the matter a
fair trial, that success was out of the question, I was too much a
friend to the peace of the country, and too anxious for the sta
bility of the Church, to prosecute an object, which I saw no pro
spect of accomplishing ; and I am not a little surprised and con
cerned, that many lay and clerical friends of mine are so de
termined not to follow, with regard to the veto, the sage and
seasonable advice with which they favoured me, in reference
to the abolition of patronage. In vain do I reiterate the argu
ments by which they so powerfully urged and influenced me ;
in vain do I assure them, that " Non-intrusion," (in their sense
of the term,) is a principle for which the people care far less,
and which statesmen dislike much more, than the more compre
hensive plan, which they complained of me for bringing forward.
I think I have accomplished what my Noble Friend recom
mends, and had persuaded the Premier to do as much as the,
Legislature will sanction, or the Church need require.

I feel peculiar satisfaction in being permitted to give fresh
interest, and shed additional lustre upon this publication, by
enriching it with the letters, which I had the honour and grati
fication to receive from a nobleman, of whom, all political par
ties concur in admiring the talent, revering the integrity, and
L

162
listening to the opinions, on all subjects, with the utmost defe
rence and attention. Letter to Lord Cottenham.
Leamington, 27th Oct. 1841.
My Dear Lord,
I hope that the very high respect, which I cherish for your
Lordship's character and judgment, may be regarded as a suf
ficient apology for obtruding upon your attention, a few re
marks upon a subject to which I know that your Lordship at
taches great, and I perhaps still greater, importance.
My friend and pastor, Mr Candlish, had the honour of an
interview with your Lordship during his last visit to London,
and (I have no doubt) informed you, that I have, for some
months, been actively and anxiously employed, (tbough only
as amicus cur ice,) in endeavouring to effect an amicable adjust
ment of the dissensions which have so long disturbed the peace
and impaired the usefulness of the Church of Scotland. It ap
peared to me, that only four methods had ever been suggested
for that purpose ; (1.) the abolition of patronage, which all par
ties admit to be impracticable ; (2.) a measure for defining and
legalising the call, but for which I have never seen any specific
plan, and which, I think, is beset with formidable difficulties ;
(3.) the veto, as embodied in the Duke of Argyll's bill, which
I consider to be, for many reasons, extremely obnoxious to po
liticians of all parties in England, especially, since its illegality
was finally pronounced by the supreme civil courts ; and, (4.)
the liberum arbitrium, as it has been termed by Dr Chalmers,
and to which I endeavoured to obtain the sanction of the
Church and Government, by proposing the introduction into
Lord Aberdeen's bill, of a provision enabling the Church courts
to give effect to the reasons and objections of the people, (even
when they did not consider them to be conclusive,) on account
of their conscientious prevalence amongst such a portion of the
parishioners, as would render it improbable, in the opinion of
the Presbytery, that the ministrations of the presentee would
be useful in that particular district. After some exertion, and
chiefly through the powerful and kind co-operation of the pre
sent Lord Justice-Clerk, the Government became favourable
to this suggestion, and with still greater difficulty, I obtained
the assent of the Church Committee to its adoption, but on
condition that the bill for carrying it into effect should pass be
fore the close of the session, a course which I had, from mis
apprehension, been led to suppose was practicable, but which,
when I hurried to London for the purpose of seeing it arranged,
I found could not possibly be accomplished. Both parties are

163
now exonerated from adhering to this agreement, and, to my
great regret, the work of agitation is renewing on a great scale
in Scotland, with a view to obtaining better terms, — and at
tempts are made to form, all over the country, committees and
associations for the defence of the Church.
Now, my dear Lord, I at once admit, that the settlement,
for which I contended, was the minimum that the Church could
accept ; but then, I also believe, (as I told my illustrious friend,
Dr Chalmers,) that it is the maximum which she can obtain.
My Non-intrusion friends, however, think very differently, —
and their hopes have been not a little revived by the intima
tion given by Mr Candlish, that your Lordship is friendly to
the introduction of a bill, allowing the absolute veto to two-thirds
of the communicants, and enacting, that, when the number of
dissentients is smaller, their objections sball be dealt with as I
proposed. It is, I know, the greatest temerity on my part, to
place my opinion upon any subject in competition with that of
your Lordship, but I cannot help entertaining, and therefore
presuming to express the strongest conviction, that Parliament
would never sanction the veto under any modification, or exon
erate the Church courts from their judicial responsibility, what
ever may be the latitude conceded to their discretion. By my
plan it would, in every case, be perfectly competent for the
Church courts to set aside the presentee, on the ground of the
dissent of the people, without homologating the conclusiveness
of the objections ; but the main difference between this scheme
and the veto is, that, in the former case, they would act judi
cially, and be bound to record and consider the objections, re
taining the alternative right of overruling them whenever they
thought fit to do so.
Believing that the present state of the Church is fraught with
peril to its existence as an establishment, I feel emboldened,
though with the greatest deference, to consult your Lordship
on a few points ; and though I shall be greatly obliged by your
kindly replying to my queries, I shall neither be entitled nor
willing to complain, if you should think fit to decline to answer
them. I presume to ask, (1.) Whether your Lordship agrees
with me in thinking, that the present differences can only be
settled, (and that it is most advisable and necessary to settle
them,) by legislative enactment? (2.) Whether you are of opi
nion, that the present Government will ever sanction, or that
the late Government could have introduced, with any prospect
of success, a bill for, in any shape, conferring the absolute veto
upon any proportion of the communicants ? (3.) Whether your
Lordship believes that the "House of Lords, and especially the
Hierarchy, would concur in such a measure, even if a Ministry
were to bring it forward ? (4.) Whether, in the event of such a
l 2

164
contingency being highly improbable, (to say the least of it,)
your Lordship would advise the Church cheerfully to acquiesce
in the plan which I proposed ? And, (5.) Whether you agree
with me in the very decided opinion, which I have formed and
expressed, that agitation, public meetings, and rash speeches
are much more likely to retard than promote the adjustment of
the question, and must render the Government, the Legislature,
and statesmen of all parties, not more but less inclined to favour
and befriend the Church in her present perplexing and perilous
condition ?
Nothing but a strong sense of the duty which I owe to my
National Church, and my anxious wish to restore its peace, and
promote its stability, could have prompted me to take so great
a liberty as that of addressing so long a letter, and on such a
subject, to your Lordship ; and nothing but the courtesy and
indulgence, for which your Lordship has ever been distinguished,
could enable me to cherish the hope, that you will, at all events,
pardon this intrusion.
I have the honour, &c.

Letter from Lord Cottenham.

Copse Hill, Wimbledon,
Dear Sir, 9th Nov. 1841.
My absence from home must be my apology for not having
sooner answered your letter of the 27th ultimo. In what I
stated to Mr Candlish, and in what I am now about to state, I
must not be understood as expressing any opinion as to the
rights of the contending parties, or as to what ought, in the ab
stract, to be the rule for the future ; but as suggesting means
by which the unfortunate contest which is destroying the Church
of Scotland, and, through the Church, greatly injuring the peo
ple, may possibly be brought to a termination, and which can
only be effected by mutual concession. I stated to Mr Cand
lish, and I shall at all times be ready to repeat, that I wholly
disapprove of the course which has been adopted, of disputing
and resisting the authority of the law, and, above all, of inflict
ing injury upon others for obeying it. The idea of any power
within the State, not subject to the authority of the State, is
contrary to every principle of good government, and is not the
law of Scotland ; but much as I disapprove and lament these
proceedings, if the wants and wishes of the people require an
alteration of the law as to patronage, the errors or faults of
the governing majority of the Church ought not to indispose

165
Parliament to a sober consideration of what the people require.
What the people and the Church farther require, under the
name of Non-intrusion, if admitted without restriction, would
be in effect election, and the abolition of patronage. What Lord
Aberdeen's bill proposed to substitute for this would, in my opi
nion, also in the end destroy patronage, and instead of giving it
to the people, would in effect give it to the Church, which, for
many reasons, I think highly objectionable. There is no pro
bability of this scheme being acceptable to the people ; and, to
the credit of the Church, it was rejected by them. I say to
their credit, because their rejection proved that ecclesiastical
aggrandisement was not their object, which some provision in
their veto act had led many to suspect was the case. But al
though the principle of the bill appeared to me objectionable,
from its giving too much to the Church, and the principle of the
naked veto appeared inadmissible, from its amounting to elec
tion, it occurred to me, that a plan compounded of the two
might possibly be acceptable to the people, and deprive each
scheme of its most obnoxious qualities. The veto by a mere
majority must lead to canvassing ; and probably to those cor
rupt practices which appear to be inseparable from certain
other elections, and subjects the minority, though possibly all
but half the parish, to a state of things of which their disappro
bation has been expressed; but a veto by a considerable majo
rity, assumes a state of feeling, which would protect the parish
against these evils, and which could hardly exist without some
adequate cause. I therefore suggested that a veto by two-thirds
or three-fourths should be effective per se ; the event of the
majority being less remained to be disposed of. To treat such a
majority as of no effect, could not, I presume, satisfy the people,
on the assumed principle of non-intrusion. I therefore, for this
purpose, suggested the adoption of Lord Aberdeen's bill, so far
as, in that case, to give to the Church courts the power of consi
dering the objections made by this small majority, and of either
settling or rejecting the presentee, as they might upon the
whole think fit, taking the fact of there being a majority against
him as one of the grounds of their judgment. I also suggested,
that in the event of the presentee's being rejected, the presen
tation should devolve to the Crown. To give it to the Church
was one of the great errors in the veto act, and would be offer
ing a premium for the rejection ; and to give it back to the pa
tron, would have the effect of inducing him to be less cautious
in the original presentation than he probably would be, if for
feiture were to be the consequence of a choice, objected to by
a majority of the people, and disapproved by the Presbytery.
If a plan founded upon this compound principle should prove
acceptable to the Church and people, and should not be opposed

166
by the patrons, I cannot conceive that there would be much
doubt of its being sanctioned by Parliament, if proposed by the
Government. In saying this, I must not be understood as ex
pressing the opinion of any other person ; but to myself, the
object of settling the question in a manner satisfactory to all
parties, appears to be so important, that I should be ready to
concede much of what, upon abstract principle, I could not ap
prove. This concession, however, can only be made in the
event of the settlement appearing to be completely satisfactory
and final. The course, therefore, which I may think it right
to adopt in Parliament, must depend upon a great variety of
circumstances. As to whether it be advisable and necessary to introduce a
measure into Parliament for the purpose of settling this ques
tion, I remain of the opinion I have always entertained, that to
make such a proceeding, advisable, there must exist strong
grounds for believing that the proposed measure will be adopted
by Parliament, and that, if adopted, it will answer the purpose
of finally settling the matter in contest. It did not appear to
me that there was, during the administration of the late Govern
ment, any period at which a concurrence of these two objects
could be reckoned upon, and the production and fate of Lord
Aberdeen's bill must have satisfied all impartial minds that
such was the case.
From my conversation with Mr Candlish, I was led to hope
that there was some prospect of a settlement ; but I have not
heard any thing from any quarter, to induce me to suppose that
the principle of taking patronage from individuals, for the pur
pose of giving it to the Church, would be acceptable to the
Church or to the people. I have not, therefore, had presented
to me a state of things which could induce me to support, or
to advise others to adopt, a scheme which I think objectionable
in principle, and probably injurious in its consequences.
I beg to assure you, that no apology was necessary for your
writing to me upon this subject. I believe it to be one of great
public importance ; and I should be most happy, if by any sug
gestion of mine, the settlement of this difficult question should
be advanced. With this feeling, I have never avoided com
municating with others upon it, and am happy in the opportu
nity you have afforded of discussing it with you. To make such
discussion useful, it should be wholly free ; I have therefore en
deavoured to put you in possession of my present views of this
question, reserving to myself perfect freedom of thought and
action for the future, which must be regulated by the nature of
any proposition which may be made, and the benefit likely to
arise from its adoption.

167

I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, your very
faithful and obedient servant,

Cottenham.

Letter to Lord Cottenham.
My Dear Lord, Leamington, l\th Nov. 1841.
I am most cordially grateful for the expressions of personal
kindness, with which your Lordship has been pleased to honour
me, in your most frank and friendly communication, as well as
for your condescension in entering so fully into the considera
tion of a subject, upon which I had so ardent a wish to obtain,
and so slender a right to ask, the benefit of your Lordship's ad
vice. In venturing to intrude a few further remarks, suggested
by the perusal of your letter, I shall take it for granted, that I
am permitted to do so, without the least ceremony or reserve.
It may be necessary very briefly to premise, that, in 1833,
I moved for leave to introduce a bill for the abolition of pa
tronage ; that, in the following year, I proposed, obtained, and
presided over a committee, in which the whole matter was
thoroughly investigated ; that, although I retained my own opi
nions as to the advisableness of repealing the act of Anne, I re
solved to relinquish the prosecution of that object, because I saw,
that an overwhelming majority of the public men on both sides,
with whom I heartily concurred in regarding a Church Esta
blishment as the first of national exigencies, and the greatest of
national blessings, were hostile to my views on the question
of patronage, which they regarded as an essential link for ce
menting the Church with the State, and that I ceased to take
any prominent part in the Church politics of Scotland, until
about three months ago, when the crisis appeared to me to be
so alarming, and the necessity for legislative interference so
imperative, that I resolved (in spite of the delicate state of
my health) to devote all my energies, and exert all my influ
ence, with both parties in the Church, in endeavouring to bring
about an adjustment. I ought to have premised, that, in Feb
ruary, I had proposed to Lord Melbourne the appointment of
a committee, to consider on what basis the question might best
be settled, (without at all touching the act of Anne) ; but his
Lordship declined to comply with my suggestion, as he thought
that no change in the existing law would be either necessary or
expedient. I was fully aware that the Church, by a very decided ma
jority of its most zealous, able and respected members, had

168
affirmed the principle involved in the Duke of Argyll's bill, and
I should most gladly have endeavoured to negociate for the
attainment of that object. But from the period of the Church
Patronage Committee in 1834, down to the present time, I
have had abundant opportunities to convince myself, that, in
many, and perhaps in most cases, the veto is at least as unpo
pular with patrons and statesmen, as the repeal of the act 1712;
and that it would be deemed more desirable to confer upon the
people, an uncontrolled right to choose, than an uncontrolled
power to reject. It is contended, (1.) That the veto divests
the Church courts pro tanto of their \uA\cia\ functions, or exoner
ates them, (if you will,) from their judicial responsibilities, —
compelling them to give effect to a dissent, however captious,
or however capricious. It is held that a presentee has, on
two grounds, a kind of inchoate right, otjus qumsitum, in the
benefice ; first, as having passed his trials before the Presby
tery, and been declared a probationer of the Church ; and next,
as having been selected from amongst these probationers, for
the particular charge, by the patron, in whom the delectus per
sona is unquestionably vested by law. Now, it seems to many
persons unjust, that the interest thus accruing to the presen
tee should be set aside, without solemn and dispassionate judi
cial investigation ; and that, therefore, the objectors ought,
(so to speak,) to take a rule to shew cause before some compe
tent tribunal, which shall have full power to give effect to their
reasons of dissent, but also the same-power to overrule them.
(2.) It is believed, that, under the veto law, the practice of
canvassing would prevail as much, for the purpose of obtaining
a sufficient number of votes to exclude a presentee, as, under
a no patronage system, to secure enough of suffrages to ensure
his election. (3.) The absolute veto has been declared by the
supreme civil courts to be altogether repugnant to the law of
the land, and, until 1834, was never so much as attempted to
be introduced. It was equally objected to before the Parlia
mentary Committee of that same year by Dr M'Crie and Dr
Cook, — the former a strenuous opponent, the latter as strong an
advocate, of the law of patronage. (4.) The perseverance of
the Church in maintaining and enforcing the veto law, after it
had been finally adjudged to be illegal, has caused it to be
viewed with increasing jealousy and suspicion by a very great
majority of the English politicians ; who think, that, if it were
now to be sanctioned by act of Parliament, an undue triumph
would be given to a party, which has set the law at defiance ;
and a palpable encouragement held out to others, who are pur
suing different and dangerous objects, to pursue a similar course
of agitation and resistance, in the hope of at length attaining
thereby the accomplishment of their own ends. I have not

169
health to pursue any further the examination of the objections,
which, in the course of my inquiries, I have heard urged against
the veto law. These are some of the most prominent, and I
fear that they would, to a very limited extent, (if at all,) be ob
viated by the plan suggested by your Lordship. In fact, if
the principle be admitted at all, I freely confess, that I think
the power which it conveys ought to be vested in a majority,
and that no very plain or palpable ground can be assigned for
confining it to an arbitrary proportion of two-thirds or three-
fourths, which could not be exactly ascertained, when the com
municants amounted to such numbers as do not admit of being
so divided ; and I think, that one parish, where a bare majority
dissented from the appointment, would think themselves hardly
treated, if their objections were overruled, when perhaps, in an
immediately contiguous parish, a majority of two-thirds pre
vailed, without any judicial investigation of the reasons and '
objections brought forward. I remember putting the case
separately in the month of August, to my two much esteemed
friends, Dr Gordon and Mr Candlish, of a parish, in which,
out of ninety-nine communicants, forty-nine (including all or
most of the elders, and most influential persons) were favour
able to the presentee, and fifty persons of inferior piety and
character dissented ; and they both unhesitatingly declared,
that, as in the Legislature, so in this instance, the majority of
one should in all cases, and under all circumstances, prevail.
It is not without the greatest diffidence, that I presume to
express my dissent from your Lordship's opinion, that patronage
would be " destroyed" by enlarging the powers of the Church
courts, in dealing with the objections of the people. The
patron would still continue to possess the initiative ; none but
his nominee could be brought forward to supply a vacancy,
and his interests, as well as those of the presentee, would,
I humbly conceive, be safer in the hands of a judicial tribunal,
acting under a sense of moral responsibility, and the control
of public opinion, than if the nomination could be set aside
upon the mere sic veto, sicjubeo, of the communicants, — a tribu
nal not recognised by statute, and apt to be often swayed by
erroneous or capricious considerations. I would, for one, in
finitely rather trust to their discretion in the free choice of a
pastor, than confer on them an unfettered power of rejection,
which might often be exercised from dislike to the patron,
rather than from an aversion to the presentee. As to increas
ing the power of the Church courts, I apprehend that they
would only become entitled to deal more favourably with the
reasons and objections urged by the people, and would have
no additional authority to set aside a presentee, on any grounds
not involved in these reasons and objections. I think, too,

170
that cases of great hardship and injustice both to patrons and
presentees might often occur, if it were enacted, that, in the
event of a rejection, the presentation should, pro hac vice, be
transferred from the patron to the Crown ; first, because the
people might, on inadequate grounds, repudiate the ministra
tions of a good man, and one well qualified for that cure ;
secondly, because the presentee, though, on special and unfore
seen grounds, not adapted for the particular benefice, might
be so excellent in other respects, as to render it at least ex
cusable in the patron to have selected him ; and, thirdly, be
cause a great temptation would be held out to the people to
reject an unexceptionable presentee, either for the purpose of
showing their aversion to the patron, or in the hopes that the
Crown might be induced to give the appointment to a favourite
of their own.
*" The plan, to which, through the kind aid of the present
Justice -Clerk, I had induced the Government to consent, and
which the Non-intrusion Committee had, though very reluc
tantly, agreed, by a formal minute, to adopt, if it could have
been carried through the Legislature during the last session,
did not, as your Lordship seems to think, involve the transfer
of patronage to the Church, — a plan which I should, on many
grounds, deem most objectionable. In the first place, it left
the initiative exclusively with the patron ; secondly, it did not
confer any additional powers whatever upon the Church courts
to set aside a presentee on grounds distinct from the validity,
or the prevalence of the reasons and objections of the people ;
thirdly, (which indeed necessarily follows,) it only placed them,
so to speak, in the situation of arbitrating between the con
flicting claims of the patron and presentee on the one hand,
and the dissent of the people on the other, — leaving to them
full latitude to give effect to the latter, even when they did not
hold the reasons or objections to be conclusive, on the sole
ground of their conscientious prevalence, and, of course, also
allowing them, in the exercise of their judicial functions, to
overrule the dissent, when they deemed it to be altogether fri
volous and vexatious.
It seems to me that the questions to be considered in re
ference to this most important, and, I admit, most difficult and
complicated matter, are these :
(1 .) Is it indispensable for restoring the peace of the Church,
and averting the national calamities, which must arise from in
ternal schism, or entire separation from the State, that a le
gislative settlement of the question should be effected as soon
as possible ?
(2.) Supposing your Lordship's plan to be the most ad
visable, and the best calculated to work beneficially as a- heal-

171
ing measure, what prospect is there of its obtaining the sanc
tion of Parliament ? It certainly involves the principle of the
veto, though in a modified shape ; and I request, that, in con
sidering this branch of the inquiry, your Lordship will be so
good as to peruse the two documents herewith inclosed, and
to return them when convenient.
(3.) Is it prudent, on the part of the Church, to repudiate
a measure, which the, Government is willing to grant, (and
which, however defective in the estimation of the majority,
would, by their own admission, enable all of them to remain in
the Church, and regulate its procedure according to the provi
sions of the act,) and. to continue for some years, a system of
protracted warfare and agitation, in the hope (after all, as I
conceive, a most fruitless one) of in the end obtaining what
they would undoubtedly deem a more satisfactory adjustment ?
(4.) Is it, or is it not, advantageous to the people them
selves, rather to renounce the hopeless pursuit of the privilege
of an arbitrary veto, and rest satisfied with the power vested in
the Church courts, to give effect in every case to their reasons
and objections, even when not in themselves conclusive, than to
run the risk of seeing their Church separated from the State,
and many of their best ministers reduced to penury and de
pendence, besides being themselves burdened for the future
with the maintenance of their pastors, and the erection of
manses and places of worship ?
I trust, or rather 1 am sure, from the very flattering and
encouraging reception which your Lordship was pleased to
give to my former communication, that I may, in this instance,
rely upon a similar indulgence. So much weight is due to every
suggestion, which is stamped with the authority of your Lord
ship's name, that, in justice to the Church, I shall esteem it to
be a duty and an honour to bring your plan under considera
tion, (in strict confidence,) where its merits may be maturely
and respectfully canvassed. Of course, there is nothing bind
ing and nothing official in this correspondence, which merely
originated in the anxiety of one, who loves the Church of Scot
land, and is most anxious for its welfare and stability, to se
cure for all parties the benefit of your advice, — advice which,
as it emanates from one, whose character is as much admired,
and whose wisdom and integrity are as cheerfully acknow
ledged by those who are opposed to him in politics, as by those
who support him, may, indeed, be discussed with frankness, but
cannot fail to be considered with deference.
I have the honour to remain, with best wishes, my dear
Lord, most respectfully and most gratefully yours.

172

Letter from Lord Cottenham. Copse Hill, Wimbledon,
My Dear Sir, Nov. 18. 1841.
I am most anxious that it should be clearly understood that
I am not an advocate for altering the present system of ap
pointing ministers for the Church of Scotland, if it can, con
sistently with the welfare of the Church, and the interest of
the country, be maintained. Of the four modes of making such
appointments, the Crown, the Church, the people, and private
patronage, the experience of this country proves, I think, that
the latter, though difficult to defend upon principle, is the best ;
but I fear, and in what I have said I have assumed, that private
patronage, as it now exists, cannot be maintained in Scotland.
Those who have attempted alterations, and above all, those
who censured the late Government for not bringing into Par
liament some measure for altering the law, must entertain the
same opinion. If, then, some alteration be necessary, the ques
tion is, whether what is taken from the private patron should
be given to the Church or to the people. Lord Aberdeen's
bill preferred the former ; I prefer the latter ; but in what I
said to Mr Candlish, I suggested the union of the two, in the
hopes of meeting the views of both. You think that Parlia
ment would not sanction even this concession to the Church
and people ; if so, I see no chance of peace ; but I do not en
tertain that opinion myself, for I feel confident, that if a mea
sure for that purpose were consented to by the Church, as I
believe it would be, and proposed by the Government, there
would be no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of Parliament
to it. I see no chance of peace in an attempt to give effect to
the principle of Lord Aberdeen's bill, because the Church and
people have declared against it, and because I do not see how,
consistently with their principle of non-intrusion, they could
have done otherwise. As I understood their principle of non
intrusion, it is as essential to protect it against the act of the
Presbytery, as against that of the patron ; but the bill proposed
to give to the Presbytery the power of settling the presentee,
notwithstanding the dissent of a majority, which is intrusion.
But although it would be adverse to the principle of the Non-
intrusionists, it would probably prove to be as fatal to the right
of patronage, as the veto itself. In the early days of this con
test, I mean at the time of the Book of Discipline, it was truly
said that patronage and non-intrusion could not exist together.
How would the principle of the bill, with the alteration you
proposed, operate ? The dissent of a majority must be assumed.
By the veto act, the presentee is by that alone rejected. Under

173
the proposed law, the presentee, with their dissent, goes to the
Presbytery. By the doctrine of the Church, this dissent ought,
per se, to be a decisive objection, and they, for that reason, re
ject the presentee. How, then, is the patron or the presentee
benefited by the ceremony of going to the Presbytery? That the
Presbytery would so act in the present temper of the Church
courts cannot be doubted, but that temper may alter. If so,
the veto would only be transferred from the people to the Pres
bytery ; for no longer confined to objections to " manners, life
and doctrine," they would have a free discretion to admit or reject
the presentee. In either case, the right of patronage would be
met with a veto ; and if that were to be exercised by the Church
courts, it would not only tend to destroy the connection between
Church and State, but be open to all the other objections which
exist, — to the union of the patronage and jurisdiction of the
Church in the same bodies. These are some of the reasons
which have led me to think that the plan proposed would prove
as ineffectual for its professed object, as it is objectionable in
principle ; that it would greatly impair, if not destroy, the be
nefits of patronage, without conciliating the Church, or satis
fying the people ; and, in the attempt to reconcile patronage
with non-intrusion, would tend greatly to unsettle both, and
transfer the power now in contest between the two to a third
party, who does not desire to possess it, and whose exercise
of it would be more objectionable than that of either of the other
two. I see by the public papers, that another plan has been sug
gested, but how far it is supported in any quarter, I am not
informed, and that is, that the patron should present a certain
number of persons, and the parish select one of them. This
also amounts to a sacrifice of patronage, without the prospect
of any countervailing advantage. If the patron jointly exercise
his right, he would lose the benefit of patronage, or he would
not secure the benefice to the person he wished to possess it ;
and yet it would be obnoxious to the principle of non-intiu-
sion, as the parish would be compelled to accept some one,
although they might not approve any of the number. But the
great objection is, that it would, in effect, leave matters nearly
as they now stand ; for the patron would, in many cases, carry
his object by a fraud upon the law, and upon the parish. By
presenting, all but one, persons wholly inadmissible, he could
secure the selection of his friend. This is, I suspect, largely
practised in the country, in the appointment of sheriffs. The
under-sheriff, from whom the Judge of the preceding circuit
takes the list of three names, often, 1 believe, adopts this scheme.
In Scotland it would be particularly easy, because, as the ordi
nation and institution are not separate, as they are in this

174
country, the patron might make up the number out of almost
any description of persons.
Notwithstanding my objections to all these plans, I am not
disposed to declare war against any, in which the Church, the
patrons, and the people of Scotland may concur ; for important
as I believe to be the future power of appointing ministers, I do
not put it in competition with the evil which I believe to be in pro
gress, namely, that of the great body of the Church and people
becoming dissenters from the Church. If I did not think this
in progress, I should leave patronage where it is ; but if this
danger be impending, then all friends of the country ought to
co-operate to avert it. How much of concession will answer
their purpose, is the real question. What I require is, that
so much as is necessary should be made in favour of the peo
ple, and not of the Church ; and that none should be made,
without a reasonable hope that it will secure the object of
conciliation and peace. I am aware that the plan of offering
several names to the parish has sometimes been adopted in
vacancies in Crown livings ; but in those cases, there is not,
in general, any private purpose to answer. The effect in cases
of private patronage would be very different, as would the
practice when it was a matter of right, and not of grace and
favour. In suggesting an amalgamation of the principles of the veto
act and of Lord Aberdeen's bill, I had in view the taking from
both their most objectionable parts. I believe the Church
and people would accept such a compound measure ; and I
have no doubt but that Parliament would enact it, if proposed
by Government. I have not had suggested to me any other
scheme more likely to effect the object with less sacrifice ; but
as I have no other feeling in its favour, I shall be ready to sup
port any which may be suggested, and which shall appear to
possess, in a greater degree, these essential qualities.
Believe me, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
Cottenham.

Letter- to Lord Cottenham.
My Dear Lord, Leamington, Nov. 19. 1841.
Every communication which I receive, from any of the friends
and supporters of the Non-intrusion party, including the very
kind letter from your Lordship, with which I was honoured
this morning, convinces me, that there is scarcely any hope of
the Church question being adjusted. Mr Candlish stated your

175
Lordship's project to the Lord Justice- Clerk, and I took the
liberty to bring it under the consideration of an influential
member of the Cabinet, but there is not the slightest hope,
that in any shape, or under any modification, the principle of
the veto will be recognised, either by the Hierarchy, or by the j
Administration. The state of the case seems to be this, your
Lordship's scheme would be accepted by the Church, but is
rejected by the Government : my plan is agreed to by the
Government, but will, I fear, be repudiated by the Church.
I do not, I confess, perceive how the liberum arbitrium de
stroys patronage. The essence of that principle is, that the
initiative should be exclusively vested in a certain quarter ; and
although I am a decided enemy to patronage, and would be
glad to see it abolished, I never could concur in any attempt
to get rid of it by a side wind ; and therefore, whenever the pre
sentee is rejected, whether in deference to the popular dissent,
or otherwise, I have always thought, that the right of nomina
tion should, toties quoties, revert to the patron, and not be trans
ferred to the people, to the Church, or to the Crown. Every
one seems now to admit, that some checks should exist against
the capricious or injudicious exercise of the right of nomi
nation, and that the feelings and wishes of the congregation
should meet with the utmost sympathy and attention. But
the people also are liable to be influenced by prejudice, by
passion, or by mistake ; they may insist on setting aside the
patron's man, however excellent or unexceptionable, because
the patron has declined to name their own ; they may be mis
led by artful misrepresentation ; they may be led astray by tem
porary excitement, and therefore, it appears to a great majo
rity of the most sensible, pious, and sober-minded persons, with
whom I have conversed in England, that the Church courts
should exercise in each case their judicial functions, with a
power to give effect to the reasons and objections, and conse
quently to the dissent founded thereon, whether the reasons
and objections be in themselves conclusive or not, as often as
they think, that, by adopting that course, they promote the
glory of God, and the spiritual welfare of the parish.
Your Lordship will be pleased to bear in mind, that I pro
posed to enlarge the powers of the Church courts only quoad
non-intrusion ; i. e. only so far as to confer on them a greater
latitude than they now possess, in setting the presentee aside,
for if the law remains on its present footing, your Lordship's
memorable decision prevents the Presbytery, (as far as I re
collect,) from giving effect to any objections arising merely
from the opinions or wishes of the people ; so that whatever
may be the amount of change which I effect, it operates ex-

176
ciusively, though many may think inadequately, in favour of
the popular voice.
j It does, I own, surprise me that the Church should refuse to
accept the measure which I suggested, when I can prove to a
demonstration that more cannot be got, and when they have
more than once stated, that they would, though reluctantly, as
sent, if necessary, to an adjustment upon that basis. The bill
would undoubtedly leave to the Church courts the power in
each case to overrule the dissent, as well as to give effect to
it ; and it comes' to be a question, what degree of confidence
we are inclined to repose in the wisdom and integrity of these
tribunals. I, for one, am disposed to think that they are both en
titled and competent to arbitrate between the conflicting claims
of the patron and the people. I regret to see that they are in
so many quarters regarded, so far as the exercise of their judi
cial functions is concerned, with so much jealousy and suspi
cion, as I trust that they would discharge the enlarged duties
of their jurisdiction with the fear of God before their eyes, and
a sense of justice in their hearts. The truth is, that power
must ultimately be lodged in some hands by which it may be
abused ; and the question is, where it is most likely to be fairly
and conscientiously administered. I think in the Church
courts, — in men who preach, or at least profess to preach, the
Gospel, " with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven," and
who have characters to maintain, and cannot be indifferent to
public opinion. My proposal is, that they should have full au
thority to act as umpires in each disputed case, and my be
lief is, that they would not force an unacceptable presentee
upon a reluctant congregation, unless the reasons were super
latively frivolous and unjust. They would, however, be enabled
even to adopt that course, and perhaps some Presbyteries might
say, " the weaker and the more indefensible the objections are,
the more clearly do we evince, by giving effect to them, our
consistent adherence to the great principle of Non-intrusion."
But, on the other hand, I do contend, that the patron and the
presentee should have tbe benefit of having it left to the option,
and within the power of the Presbytery, to repel a dissent
which is founded on grounds altogether inconsistent with rea
son, with equity, and with law. Even if your Lordship's plan
were adopted, an unpopular minister might be " intruded " upon
a majority, and therefore, to that extent, the principle is set
aside. My clause does not " assume the assent of a majority " as
your Lordship supposes, but entitles the Presbytery, either to
consider favourably the objections of a minority, or, if they see
adequate cause for doing so, to overrule those of a majority.
If, indeed, " going to the Presbytery" is to become a mere
" ceremony," and they are not to act at all under a sense of

177
their judicial responsibility, then I admit that this power should
not be confided to them ; but then I must add, that men who
would act without any regard to principle or justice, either in
settling a presentee or in setting him aside, are very unfit and
unworthy to administer the more sacred duties of their calling.
I entirely concur in the very cogent and powerful arguments
which your Lordship has adduced against the system of leets,
— a plan which, I believe, has not been seriously entertained in
any influential quarter. It has afforded to me most sincere sa
tisfaction, my dear Lord, to find that, although we may differ
as to the means, I have the honour and good fortune to be co
operating with one, towards whom I have always cherished
such unfeigned respect, for the attainment of the same end, viz.
to restore the peace, and maintain the stability of one of our
most valuable institutions. It is singular that, in one point of
view, we set out from the most opposite principles, I, if I could,
would abolish patronage, and indemnify the patrons, — your
Lordship would be glad, if possible, to maintain the present
system without any change ; but we both perceive, that the
interposition of the Government and the Legislature is become
indispensable, and each of us is disposed to make sacrifices
for the practical attainment of this common object. Your Lord
ship, who would not give the people a free choice, is disposed
to concede to them a veto on the nomination of the patron ;
whilst I, who think that the power of selection might be en
trusted to them, feel much less inclined to concede an arbitrary
veto on the choice of that party, to whom the law assigns the
privilege of appointing. But my plan has one advantage over
your Lordship's, viz. that the Government has agreed to sanc
tion it, and that the Church, in October, had consented to its
adoption, if the bill could have been passed before the proroga
tion ; whereas, although the Church is quite favourable to your
Lordship's scbeme, I have ascertained, that her Majesty's
Ministers are not disposed to concur in its introduction. In the
meanwhile fresh obstacles are constantly starting up, and new
causes of reciprocal jealousy and alienation are presenting
themselves. The ministers whom I have always most valued
and esteemed as the ornaments of my National Church, are be
coming on this side of the Tweed more and more exposed, on
the part both of pious and of irreligious men, to unmitigated
vituperation. I hear them frequently described not as martyrs
but as mutineers, — not as vindicators of the Gospel, but as vio
lators of the law,- — not as enlightening the minds of the ignorant,
but as enlisting the passions of the turbulent, and as desecra
ting a cause, which they proclaim to be holy, by the employment
of weapons which they know to be carnal. I long to see such
men extricated from the cruel position in which they are at
M

178
present placed, and again enabled, by an honourable settle
ment, to quit the arena of strife and dissension, and shine as
lights in the world. I have the honour to remain, my dear
Lord, your Lordship's obliged and obedient servant, &c.

Letter from. Lord Cottenham.

My Dear Sir, 23d Nov. 1841.
I should not have given you the trouble of another letter
from me, were it not that I am apprehensive that part of my last
letter had been misunderstood, and that I may, from that cause,
be supposed to have expressed a want of respect for the mem
bers of the Church of Scotland, which is very far indeed from
my feeling. In saying that, under Lord Aberdeen's bill, with
the alteration you propose, going to the Presbytery would, in
the present temper of the Church, be a mere ceremony, I did
not mean that they would not exercise their power conscien
tiously, but on the contrary, that, adhering to the principle of
their Church, they could not do otherwise than reject the pre
sentee, simply because a majority of the parish dissented ;
and that their settling him in that parish would therefore be an
act of intrusion ; and that it would therefore be quite imma
terial to all parties concerned whether the dissent of the majo
rity were to operate per se, as a veto, or to have that effect gi
ven to it by the Presbytery. The observation, therefore, was
founded upon a supposed adherence of the Presbytery to the
principles of the Church, and not upon any supposed want of
a due sense of their judicial responsibility.
Under Lord Aberdeen's bill, without your proposed alter
ation, the Presbytery must, before they could reject a presentee,
have been satisfied that there was some valid objection to him
independently of the fact of his not being acceptable to the
majority. This, though a guard against the intrusion of an im
proper person, is hostile to the principle of non-intrusion. Your
proposed amendment would practically give effect to the prin
ciple of non-intrusion, but so long only as the Church think
the dissent of a majority a proper ground for rejecting a pre
sentee. Believe me, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
Cottenham.

170

Conclusion.

I have thus endeavoured to lay before the public, a candid
and complete statement, in reference to the scope, the origin,
the progress, and the termination of the proceedings, which I
adopted, with a view to the adjustment of the unhappy dissen
sions, by which the stability of the Church of Scotland has been
so long endangered, and the tranquillity of the country so lament
ably impaired. I have thought it right, that the objections to
my plan should be stated in the impressive and emphatic lan
guage of the high authorities, by whom they were urged, — and
I only regret, that its defence has been conducted almost, (if
not altogether,) exclusively in my own.
The unsuccessful close of these negociations excites in my
mind, on two grounds, no ordinary feelings ol disappointment
and of regret. I cannot, in the first place, help lamenting,
that I have not had the honour and the happiness of being in
strumental in procuring for my native land a boon of such
paramount importance. I may have set out on a wrong prin
ciple, or I may have been rash or unwise in the means, to
which I had recourse, in striving to carry it out. But I can
at least assert, with perfect sincerity, that my zeal has been
as unwearied, as my motives were honest. How often, whilst
residing in Edinburgh, have I risen from a sick-bed at three or
four o'clock in the morning, for the purpose of committing to
paper some expression calculated to soothe, or some argument
intended to convince ! How often, during my valetudinarian
Vambles at this place, have I endeavoured to cheer my droop
ing spirits, by indulging in the fond expectation, that the
labours, to which I was so unequal, but which no consideration
ever induced me to intermit, would be blest in their result, as
the means, under Providence, of restoring the peace, and in
creasing the usefulness of an institution, which, from my earliest
infancy, I had learned both to love and to revere !
But these considerations are of little moment, in comparison
with the alarm, as well as sorrow, which I experience, on
grounds connected with the public interest. I not only mourn
over the failure of my own efforts, but am myself unable to dis
cover how any future negociator can succeed, or what plan it is
possible to devise, which will not be deemed either excessive^
by the State, or inadequate by the General Assembly.
I cannot exempt from blame, (though I wish to speak of both
with cordial respect,) either of the two great parties, which are
unhappily arrayed against each other, within the pale of the
Church of Scotland. The Moderates have not pointed out
any specific conciliatory plan, which they are willing, for the
m 2

180
sake of peace, to tender or to acquiesce in, — nor have they
shewn any readiness to adopt that minimum of concession,
which even the Government, in which most of them repose
political confidence, had thought it right and advisable to
sanction. They have naturally, and laudably declared, that
they would not assent to any arrangement, in which the resto
ration of the seven ministers did not constitute an essential
element ; but they do not seem to allow, what has been ad
mitted in quarters of great influence and impartiality, that the
first step towards that consummation should emanate from the
ministers themselves, and still less do they agree with me, that,
although the sentence of deposition was harsh and unwarrant
able, yet, that having been pronounced by competent autho
rity, it should have been obeyed, so far as the performance of
spiritual functions was concerned, until finally adjudged to be
illegal. On the other hand, I have been equally unsuccessful in carry
ing home conviction to the minds of my Non-intrusion friends,
upon any of the three points which I was so anxious to en
force ; (1 .) That the veto would never be conceded by the Legis
lature, or the Church courts exonerated from their judicial re
sponsibility in dealing with the reasons and objections of the
people ; (2.) That my amendment was both intended, and cal
culated, to confer upon them the most ample latitude in dispo
sing of the reasons and objections, so as to give them full effect,
in despite of their inconclusiveness, on account of their conscien
tious prevalence, without any necessity (but quite the reverse)
of homologating their validity ; (3.) That by convening tumul
tuous meetings, and organising numerous confederacies, and
inflaming (which some call enlightening) the minds of the
people, by eloquent but intemperate harangues, they were de
feating instead of furthering their own object, — affording fresh
arguments to their enemies, — discouraging the zeal, and impair
ing the influence of their friends to such an extent, that even
many very staunch supporters of the Church have been drifted,
by the current of events, towards the startling and painful con
clusion, that there must be some element in the Presbyterian
system of Church polity, not a little at variance with the dic
tates of sober-mindedness and subordination. Their motives
are generous, — their efforts are disinterested ; but I find a ge
neral persuasion every where gaining ground, that the means
which they have adopted for achieving the triumph of their
cause have only tended to remove it to a greater distance from
their grasp.
Without attempting to define what constitutes " the Church"
in a spiritual sense, I apprehend that the term, in its civil
import, denotes a certain portion of the citizens of the common
wealth, professing certain doctrines, adopting a certain form

181
th e°c^e^astical pohty, and to whose ecclesiastical office-bearers
the Legislature, by statute, imparts the exclusive enjoyment of
certain rights and advantages, which might, at the pleasure of
the State, have been bestowed upon other parties, whose tenets
and discipline were entirely different, and, in return for which,
the Church undertakes certain duties, and incurs certain respon
sibilities. If the Church should, at any time, think proper to
renounce all the temporalities conferred by the State, she is, of
course, exonerated from the duties and responsibilities annexed
to the possession of them. But, until then, it seems very clear,
that, when her claims come into collision with the rights of
other parties, (as, for instance, in the case of the patrons,) it
must be the province of the supreme civil courts to determine
what is the true import of the statutes, upon which both parties
found their conflicting pretensions.
In the present case, there is no disposition, on the part of
the State, to pass any more stringent enactment, which shall
militate against the acknowledged prerogatives of the Church,
as defined by recent decisions. The Government is willing,
either to leave the law on its present footing, and only require
the Church to yield obedience to it — or they offer a certain
modification of the law, which is calculated to render it more
consonant with the Church's principles and wishes ; and I, for
one, do not see what course the Church can honestly pursue,
but to give effect to the award of the civil courts, and accept
the terms proffered by the Government, or to renounce her
connection with the State, and relinquish the benefits which
she enjoys in virtue of that connection.
Let us, however, calmly consider, what, practically speaking,
remains to be contended for ; and I may, in limine, observe,
that nothing can be more gratuitous, or more unwise, than to
call upon the Government or the Legislature to affirm or deny an
abstractprinciple, (for instance, that of Non-intrusion,) especially
one, the meaning of which is of doubtful interpretation ; a
course which, in the case of the Appropriation clause, was so
strenuously resisted by Sir Robert Peel. The point to be de
termined, is, to what extent, and in what manner, effect shall
be given to the dissent of the people, in reference to the settle
ment of a presentee, selected by the patron, (in whom the
power of choice is legally vested,) from amongst the proba
tioners, who, having undergone a careful and solemn examination
by the ecclesiastical courts, have been declared competent to
conduct the public ministrations of any Church, at which the
incumbent may invite them to officiate. The majority are strug
gling for the attainment of this object, through the medium of the
veto, as embodied in the bill of the Duke of Argyll. I myself
would prefer the abolition of patronage to any such enactment.

182
But seeing the hopelessness of the contest, I have (as has
more than once been stated) been constrained to retire from
the field. The veto is at least as unattainable ; and the ma
jority must either follow my example, and abandon the prose
cution of their demand, or consent to the awful alternative of
schism or separation. Some of them will, however, observe in
reply, that, if better terms cannot be got, they will accept A
liberum arbitrium, — only it must be theirs and not mine. Let us
therefore endeavour to ascertain the exact amount of difference
between the two.
There appears to be a disposition to concede, on the part of
the Church, that the objections of the people may, at all events,
with impunity be stated and recorded — and that if their reasons
are heretical, or their motives factious, the dissent need not — or
rather must not — be given effect to. Surely, then, the point,
that the reasons and objections must be considered, as well as
stated, is at least virtually given up. The Government, on
the otber hand, allows, that if the Church courts, in their ju
dicial capacity, take cognisance of the reasons and objections,
they may, witb a sense of their moral responsibility before their
eyes, give effect to them, whether they are held, by the Pres
bytery themselves, to be conclusive or not, — in the former case,
on account of their validity, and in the latter, on account Of their
prevalence. This is the object which I had in view, and which,
I contend, that my amendment effectually carries out. I can
not propound my meaning more clearly, than in the ipsissima
verba of the Church, (see Proceedings, p. 10,) " it being the
understanding of the Committee, as it is that of Sir George
Sinclair himself, that the measure is intended to recognise the right
of the Church courts, in their judicial capacity, to give effect
to the objections of the people, if found to be insuperable,
in every case in which they may think it their duty to do so, —
leaving them, at the same time, at liberty to disregard them."
What remains, then, for the Church to claim ? We shall elu
cidate this point in the language of the venerated Moderator,
Dr Gordon, who states, (Proceedings, p. 24, J that " if reasons
were stated, and that, after dealing with the people, these rea
sons were abandoned and removed, but that the aversion to the
presentee remained, that, in that case, the Presbytery would
have power to refuse to settle the presentee in respect of
THE CONTINUED AVERSION."
This, then, is the object, on account of which, the struggle
is to be prolonged, — the people of Scotland harassed by con
tinued agitation, — the banner of Non-intrusion to be trans
ported across the Border, and unfurled at York and Canterbury,
— the middling classes to make enormous sacrifices at the ex
pense of their own comfort and that of their families, and con-

183
tributions to be withdrawn from the present inadequate resources
of charitable and religious institutions, in order to erect and
endow new churches for the use of those hearers, who may be
induced to abandon the old ones. I find it difficult, if not impos
sible, to understand the value and importance of the object so
vehemently contended for. I always thought, that, in this
case, reasons and objections constituted the chief elements, or
rather the very essence of dissent ; and that, when these were
" abandoned or removed," there remained, at most, magni no-
minis umbra ; but dissent seems, in the present instance, to re
semble transubstantiation ; so that, when the substance, (i. e.
the reasons and objections,) cease to exist, the accidents still
remain, and the dissent continues to be, at least to all appear
ance, precisely as important as it was before.
It may indeed be urged, that the Church courts may act un
justly and partially, and refuse to give effect, in many instances,
to the reasons and objections of the people, however conclusive,
or however prevalent ; but this argument applies as powerfully,
to the liberum arbitrium, as insisted on by the Committee, as
to mine ; and as there lies, in each case, an appeal to the Ge
neral Assembly, we surely may take it for granted, that, if
the principle of Non-intrusion be a fundamental one, as regards
the polity of the Church of Scotland, it will be fairly and judi
ciously exercised and applied by its supreme ecclesiastical tri
bunal. The truth is, that power must be vested somewhere,
in reference to the dissent of the people ; in the people them
selves, under the veto law, — in the Church courts under the li
berum arbitrium ; and, in the opinion both of the Government
and of the Legislature, the safer alternative is, to intrust it
to the ecclesiastical tribunals, as being more under the influence
of public opinion, and more fully alive to their moral responsi
bility. Public men are not so devoid of Christian — I had al
most said of common — charity, as to form their opinion of the
one party in the Church from the testimony given by the other.
They will not — they cannot believe — that the Moderates will
always insist upon forcing unacceptable presentees upon the
people ; or that, when the reasons and objections are utterly
groundless and unjust, the Non-intrusionists will, on each oc
casion, exclude a minister of unblemished character and ardent
piety. When I consider how exactly the words of my amended
clause carry out the very principle laid down by the Com
mittee, in the words which I have lately quoted, I am at a loss
to discover, why they have evinced such a determination, first,
to question the import, and then to repudiate the adoption, of
the basis of adjustment, which was assented to in October. I
cannot help sometimes surmising, (at the risk of being regarded

184
as censorious or suspicious,) that their resistance arises partly
from a feeling of personal jealousy and dislike, too manifestly
entertained in many quarters, towards the distinguished noble
man, whose name the bill in question has the honour to bear,
and whom I esteem it a great happiness to be permitted to
number amongst my friends. Lord Aberdeen may be said to
come forward on this occasion, not, indeed, as a presentee, but
as a pacificator. The Committee interpose their veto, and
state their reasons and objections to the bill. These reasons
and objections are de facto removed — the utmost latitude is im
parted to the Church courts, in dealing with the reasons and
objections ; but to borrow Dr Gordon's emphatic phrase, the
" continued aversion" to its author Still remains, and must be
given effect to; and the Church seems resolved to say, as Abra
ham did to the king of Sodom, " / will not take from a thread
even to a shoe-latchet, and I will not take any thing that is
THINE, LEST THOU SHOULDEST SAY, I HAVE MADE ABRAM RICH,"
( Gen. xiv. 23.) Many persons will, perhaps, be of opinion, that
this is not an inapposite illustration of the mode, in which the
veto would practically be found to work.
And here I take leave to observe, that, so far as I can un
derstand Lord Aberdeen's bill, the objection, which Dr Gor
don states, (Proceedings, p. 26,) on behalf of the people, " that
it would not be for the spiritual good of themselves, or of their
families, or of the congregation, that the presentee should be
inducted," is included under the very comprehensive, unambi
guous terms of Lord Aberdeen's bill, which provides, that
" any objections of any kind," or " any reason against the presen
tee's gifts and qualities for the said cure or parish," may be re
corded and considered, and given effect to, by the Church courts,
in their judicial capacity. I humbly apprehend, that the Pres
bytery could not themselves originate any such objection to the
presentee, but that, if it were urged by the people, they would
have a right to sustain it, either if they were conscientiously
convinced, that the people were right, or (without homologating
the conclusiveness of the objection, so far as their own opinion
was concerned,) because it prevailed so strongly and so exten
sively as to preclude the prospect of the presentee's usefulness
in that particular district.
I may even add, that, if my amendment did not allow the
Presbytery to receive, and record, and give effect to such an
objection as is stated by Dr Gordon, I should at once repu
diate it, as inadequate or nugatory. All I ask is, that the
Presbytery should have the power to overrule that objection,
in every case in which they think that it is not honestly enter
tained ; and that, in giving effect to it, they should do so with
a sense of their moral responsibility as judges before their eyes.

185
But I repeat, that, under this limitation, I hold, that they would
be" entitled to set aside a presentee, on the ground of such an
objection. They deprecate any augmentation of their own
power ; but the only right which the Government wishes to
confer upon them, or rather not to deprive them of, is the op
tion of resisting popular caprice and injustice, when they shall
deem it right and fitting to do so.
In fact, it seems to me to be evident, that the number of
reasons and objections likely to be urged by the people is very
limited. The general qualifications connected with knowledge
and literature, as well as the moral character of the presentee,
are carefully investigated by the Presbytery themselves ; and
the parishioners are more immediately concerned in regard
to his fitness for the particular locality, in which it is proposed
to place him. An objection, that he had accepted a presenta
tion from a patron, would not of course be entertained by
the Presbytery, or, being altogether at variance with law and
common sense, (whilst the act of Anne subsists,) would be
overruled by the courts of law ; but it is evident, that if the
objection urged against his appointment was, that his preach
ing was not calculated to edify themselves, their families, or
the congregation, it would be one, which the Presbytery would
not only be entitled, but bound, to receive and consider with
all solemnity ; and, if they were of opinion, that the objectors
were honest and conscientious in asserting it, they might un
doubtedly give effect to it, on the ground either of its conclu
siveness, or of its prevalence.
This is a point of such paramount importance, that I shall
take the liberty to quote verbatim an extract of a letter from
Lord Aberdeen himself, dated 22d November 1841 ; and I would
then ask any man, who is not warped by prejudice, and blinded
by suspicion, whether it is possible for an enlightened friend to
the independence of the Church, or the spiritual welfare of the
people, to express himself in a manner more friendly, more
candid, or more unambiguous ?
" I think you have scarcely dwelt sufficiently on the impor
tance of the people being allowed to state objections to a pre
sentee of any kind, and without reference to numbers, of which
the Presbytery may finally judge. This, surely, is more
valuable to the people than the veto itself. The statement of
reasons and objections in every case against a presentee was
really our only security, admitting, that the Presbytery
SHOULD HAVE FULL POWER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THEM, IN ANY
MANNER THEY THOUGHT FIT, WHETHER THE REASONS WERE GOOD
or bad. The words of your amendment are perfectly clear,
and cannot be really misunderstood."
How little do many zealous and revered advocates of the

186
Non-intrusion principle appear to consider to what an extent they
defeat their own object, by protracted and harassing agitation,
and by glaring, from time to time, as erratic meteors in eccen
tric orbits, instead of pursuing a noiseless, but useful course .
in those more defined and narrow orbits, in which it was their/
Master's will and wish that they shoula shine as lights in the
world. They have alienated from their cause, and from their
party, at least, 49-50ths of the patrons, by whom they, and all
their adherents, are regarded as systematic violators of the civil
law, and pragmatical disturbers of the national peace. These
patrons, therefore, regard it as a matter of conscience and of
duty, not to nominate probationers who hold these principles ;
and thus the Committee themselves are paving the way for the
renewed triumph of that very Moderatism, which they represent
as so baneful to the Church, and so hateful to the people.
I have now done for ever with the subject. I have exhausted
every appeal, which friendship and sympathy could address to
their hearts. I have reiterated every argument, which pru
dence or justice could urge upon their understandings. I may
perhaps be accounted their enemy, (Gal. iv. 16,) because I
tell them the truth ; but I have thought, it my paramount,
though painful duty, on some points to withstand them to the
face, (Gal. ii. 11,) because they were to be blamed; and I
tell both parties plainly, though respectfully, that, by a pro
tracted display of the fiercest ecclesiastical gladiatorship, and
by the almost daily exhibition of mutual estrangement, jealousy,
and exasperation, they have hardened thousands in their " con
tinued aversion" to the Gospel, and kindled a flame in the
country which exposes the Church to odium, and the State to
jeopardy. The one party says, if you concede any thing, you
give too much, whilst the other as loudly proclaims, that unless
you concede every thing, you give too little. May the great
Head of the Church raise up some other labourer, who may
commence his efforts with equal earnestness, and close them
with complete success.

Printed by James Walker,
6. James's Court, Lawnmarket,
Edinburgh,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04077 3690