The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-13 00:00:00

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

The following letter has been addressed to Sir Robert
Peel, by Alexander Dunlop. Esq., Advocate, in refer-
ence to the letter of Sir Robert Peel to the Duke of
Argyll; on the question of Non-Intrusion. We wish the
Duke and Sir Robert joy of their attempts to conciliate
Mr. Dunlop and his party in the Church.
Edinburgh July 5, 1841.
Sir,—l have seen in the Edinburgh newspapers of
Friday last, a letter addressed by you to the Duke of
Argyll, with reference to an interview recently had
with you on the subject of his Grace's Bill,
in which
you allude to certain extracts from Scottish newspapers
that had been sent to you, as containing " very gross
misrepresentations of sentiments " expressed by you at
that meeting.
Whether these extracts contained a letter of *nine to
a private individual, which appeared in the newspapers,
I of course cannot know ; but as my letter undoubtedly
formed the groundwork of the remarks in the various
journals on the subject, I think it necessary for me to
advert to your statement. •
My account of the sentiments expressed by you, as
given in that letter, was, that these " were in substance,
to the effect that no such Bill as the Duke's could be al.

itWed to pass, and that any settlement must employ pro-
visions for securing the submission of the Church to
the Civil Courts generally, and in particular for the re-
storation of the deposed ministers of Strathbogie " to
office and benefice.

Your statement of the sentiments then expressed by
you is, as to these essential points, " that you (lid not
think the House mf Lords would consent merely to
legiSlate for the. future, if the General Assembly
should persist •in its claim of authority to depose
ministers of the Church upon this ground, that the?),
had
.obeyed the law," as interpreted by the civil tri-
bunals ; that as civil consequences, you presumed,
would from such deposition, " the authority of
the Church over' the statute law and civil tribunals of
the country- would be paramount, even in matters of a
civil and temporal Datum" if such claim were enforced ;
and that this claim " would greatly diminish, if not alto-
gether destroy,- any advantage that might have been
hoped for:from merely prospective legislation, and that
new causes of difference, and new conflicts of authority,
not provided, for. by such legislation, would very soon
occur."
I remark, in passing, that I have no recollection of
your singling out the " House of Lords," as interposing
any special obstacle to legislation ; and I feel certain
that you referred to the " Legislature " generally ; but
what I chiefly wish to notice in regard to your statement
are these points
1. It is obvious from your own account of the senti-
ments expressed by you, that, in your opinion, no mea-
sure that was'" merely prospective" (which the Duke's
Bill was) ought to be allowed to pass, or could pass.
2. Any measure which was also retrospective, must
necessarily have had for' its object the Settlement of the
past cases, and especially those of the Strathbogie mi-
nisters. Then, looking to the terms in which you ex-
press vburself as to the deposition of ministers, for
what you call "obeying the law, no one, I think, can
doubt that the only settlement of these cases that would
bo in accordance with your sentiments must be their re-
storation.
3. It is further evident that you deem some legis-
lative provision necessary for securing against " new
causes of difference, and new conflicts of authority."
The Duke's Bill proceeded on the assumption, that,
by withdrawing the existing cause of collision,
all conflict in future would be avoided. You require
some different security. But what different provision
for effecting this object in accordance with your own
views, you can..contemplate, other than securing sub-
- , mission by the Church to the Civil Courts, I cannot

imagine.
Even, therefore, according to the exposition given
a gross
ot .the bi
nyt
eyno.
iuerv,s,e, lsfoo
far
trhfarosme n tmi my e
anct sc euxnpt r
be sesi
ne dg bay yvoell;
misrepresentation" of these, the substance of it
seems to me to be contained—though very much
diluted—in your own statement. And I the mere,
readily, therefore, assume that those terms were not ap-
plied to that account, but to comments that may have
been made upon it.
Neither my account, however, nor that given by
you, though more extended than mine, give more than
the general result of what took place ; nor in
-any
statement within such confined limits can there be- re-
lated the full conversation, and the terms employed. In
.
my-con*tiori-of-t,fre accuracy of my ori.linpra,sisai4.

however, I feel myself confirmed by a reconsideration,
so.far as I can recal them to my mind, of the particulars
of the interview, some of which I shall now endeavour
to recapitulate.

The occasion of the interview was a request by the
Duke of Argyll to Dr. Buchanan of Glasgow and my-
self; who were in London as a deputation from the
General Assembly's Non-Intrusion Committee, that
we should" have a conference with you on the subject
of his Grace's Bill. His Grace arranged the meeting'
and Dr. Keith, who happened to be then in town, was
invited to accompany us, which he did. The Confer-
ence commenced by Dr. Buchanan pressing on you
the importance of the Duke's Bill being passed into a
law. You stated that the Legislature could not be
expected to pass such a Bill, for reasons which you at
once proceeded to mention ; not, however, qualifying,
your statement by the considerations mentioned in your
letter as to the periodsOf the session, &c. for, although
remarks were made as to this matter, they were made
at the conclusion of the interview, and with reference to
an observation of the Duke's as to his intention of with-
drawing his Bill, and the proper time for reintroducing it.

Your objections were, that the Bill, on the one
hand, did not provide for the settlement of past cases,
particularly those of the Strathbogie ministers ; and,
on the other hand, that it did not secure against the
recurrence of similar cases in future, or against other
conflicts that might arise from new and different causes
of collision, which you seemed to apprehend, although
we failed in our attempts to ascertain from you what
you deemed most likely to be.
A good deal of conversation ensued on these
points, the whole tenour of which tended to impress the
deputation with the conviction that it was your opinion
that no measure could pass. or ought to pass, which did
not, on the other hand, settle the Strathbogie cases by
the restoration of the deposed ministers, and did not
provide against the recurrence of similar cases of new
conflicts in future, by securing the submission of The
Church to the Civil Courts.

Of this impression on our part you were made aware
at the time, but you gave us no hint that we had misap-
prehended yon.
With reference to the restoration of the Strathbogie
ministers, I stated that if it were confined to the bene-
fices, very little objection comparatively would be made
to this in Scotland, the Church being always most ready
to submit implicitly to the disposal of her temporalities
by the civic authorities ; but that the attempted en-
forcement of a recognition of these parties as ministers
of the gospel, would be treated by her with utter and
absolute disregard. You did not, however, on this ex-
plain that I had misunderstood you, but left me under
the impression which I then had, and which I carried
with me.

Again, Dr. Keith and Dr. Buchanan evinced their

understanding of your views as to the provisions re-
quired in any measure. to be passed, by pressing on
you, not in a mere remark " made in the course of
conversation," but in an earnest and anxious repre-
sentation, commenced by Dr. Buchanan, continued by
1)r. Keith, and again resumed by 1)r. Buchanan ; the
consideration that these views, if acted upon, would
lead to a separation of the Church from the State, or
at least would drive a large body of the clergy out of
it, and this not as a result that " might ultimately,"
but as one that, in their opinion, would certainly happen ;
and your reply necessarily confirmed their impression,
being to the effect that legislation must proceed on
general principles, . and not with a view to conjectural
possible contingencies:

My conviction of the accuracy of my own recollec-
tion of this part of the conversation, as contrasted
with yours, which represents the calamitous result
contemplated, as apprehended " if the present state
of things were to continue," and so gives a totally
different tone to the whole, is irresistibly strengthened
by the consideration that no such result is, or could be
anticipated from thing 3 remaining in their present state,
and consequently that the observation could not have
been what you imagine.
. _

The conference ended by the repetition of your ex-
pression of regard for the Church of Scotland men-
tioned in your letter, and the deputation left you
under the impression that your sentiments were those
which I have ascribed to you. On my return to
Scotland, though, as Dr. Buchanan was still in Eng-
land, without communicating with him, I imparted my-
impressions freely to various parties, not certainly pith
a view to any objects of political partisanship, liaving
always carried my disregard of considerations of secular
polities rather to excess, but because I felt that I would
not have been justified, especially under existing circum-
stances, in withholding the knowledge of the sentiments
of a statesman, in all apparent probability, soon to be at
the head of the Government, given to a deputation of a
public body, on a great public measure then depending
in Parliament,. of such vital importance to the interests
of the Church.

Should our impressions have been erroneous, and
should you not truly hold the sentiments we had sup-
posed that you entertained, no one will rejoice more
sincerely than I, as I have ever sought a satisfactory
settlement of our question for its own sake and not
in order to promote the interests of. a party. I can-
not but think, however, that the sentiments I ascribed
to you are still involved in your recent statement, which
does not repudiate the sentiments themselves, but only
the having made a frank and explicit avowal of them.
Still, I would fain hope that a statesman of your in-
. _

telligence will, on a more thorough consideration of our
question, come to be satisfied that the Church's claims
are neither of dangerous tendency to the commonwealth,
unjust or unreasonable in themselves, nor without the
clearest and most explicit recognition in the statutes and
constitution of the country.' -
I have only, in conclusion, to add, that having
communicated to Dr. Buchanan that part of my pre-
sent statement which relates to what passed at our.
interview with you, he concurs generally in the ac-
curacy of my impressions regarding it. The distance
of Dr. Keith's residence prevent. me submitting the
same statement to him, without greater delay than I am
willing to incur.
I hare the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
A. DUNLOP.
To the Right Hon. Sir R. Peel, Bart., 111. P., &c. &e.

SHOCKING ACCIDENT.—A shocking and fatal
accident occurred yesterday, at the corner of Rupert-
street, Haymarket, by which a girl of about fourteen was
killed in an instant. The poor child, whose name did
not transpire, had been down with two of her relatives
to Cranbourne-alley, to make purchase of a bonnq, and
on returning towards Regent-street, was knocked down
by a dust-cart, and killed on the spot. The wheel of
the cart, which was nearly full, passed over her head,
and produced such an extensive fracture of the skull that
on subsequent examination by Mr. French, the surgeon
of St. James's parish, a portion of the brain was found
to have been forced out through the right ear. Strange
as it may appear, the instant the wheel had passed over
her she got up upon her legs, the blood streaming from
her eyes, nose, and ears, but the next moment fell dead
to the ground. The body was taken to St. James's work-
house in Poland-street, where it awaits a Coroner's in-

quest.

AUCHTERARDER CASE.—The Perth Courier
states that the Presbytery of Auchterarder have all and
severally been summoned in this case. In the summons
the minority who formerly moved that the presentee be
taken on trials, are now ordered to go on with his trials
with a view to his ordination. The majority in their
summons prohibited from giving the minority any mo-
lestation or obstruction in their duty, under the penalty
of 1,0001. The Presbytery took no step in the matter
when they met on Wednesday.

LORD STANLEY ON THE CORN-LAWS.—In
order to give his arguments two faces—one to frighten
the manufacturers, and the other the agriculturists—he
assumes that the reduction in price compared to the last
ten years, will not be more than 3s. per quarter, and yet
this is to " sacrifice the agricultural interest of the
country." Although he disclaims being the author of
these calculations, he has adopted them, reasoned from
them, and clearly wished his hearers to believe that they
were true. It is here as explicit as words can express.
" The advantage to be derived to the consumer of corn,
from removing this protection, and adopting the princi-
pies and the plan of Government, whileyou throw the agri-
cultural labourers out of employment, while you ruin the
farmers, while you injure the landlords and diminish the
employment they are able to afford—the advantages to the
consumer is somewhere about 3s. a quarter, as compared
with the average price of corn in this country for the,
last few years. And that is the advantage which the con-
sumer is toobtain from.the sacrifices of the agricultural
interests of this country." I boldly ask, is this an example
of ingenuous, honest argument? Either he believes that
the-reduction will be more than 3s. per quarter, or he
cannot be 4inecre in his alarm for the destruction of the
agricultural interest. If this be not " thimble rigging" in
argument, I.know not where to look for it.—Letter in the
Preston Chronicle.

Miss Delcy has been offered very tempting
terms to proceed to New York, but is not disposed to
quit England at her early age, before she has the oppor-
tunity of further developing her powers in some new
operas. Mr. ➢lacready, we hear, has also made her very
liberal proposals to be the Prima Donna of Drury-lane
next season, but it seems the negotiation has not ended
favourably, from the manager not pledging himself to
produce musical pieces of a strictly operatic character.
TILE NEW PARLIAMENT—There are two
rumours afloat upon this subject. One is, that Peel will,
upon getting into office, proceed at once to prorogue the
new Parliament to an early day in January, without
bringing forward any specific measures upon corn, cur-
rency, limber, or sugar ; the other is, that he will not,
after all the money that has been expended in the cor-
ruption of voters, have a working majority ; and, in
consequence, that another dissolution of Parliament will
be the result in the early part of next year. Nous
verrons. In the mean time, let every one pay his rates
and taxes, and Register. That is now the duty of every
Liberal.—British Queen.

REFUGEES.--It appears from a return printed
by order of the late House of Commons, that the total
amount of money issued towards the relief of Spanish
refugees from the year 1827 to 1840 was 131,498/., and
that the total amount issued towards the relief of Polish
refugees from the year 1834 to 1840, inclusive, was
7,1,7421.
We understand that Sir Frederick Smith, the
Inspector-General of Railways has inspected the Brighton
.Railway, and made a most satisfactory report to the
Board of Trade on the construction of the line and the
state of the works generally, and gave his entire appro-
bation to its being opened yesterday, which, of course,
took place, and the train from Brighton started at seven
o'clock in the morning with about 100 passengers, and
arrived at the station at London-bridge at eleven, having
performed their first journey with great ease, safety, and
rylnrcti,s,;no doubt that the whole of the line
;he opened by the mfdile of August...