The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-05 00:00:00

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DUKE OF ARGYLL AND
Slit ROBERT PEEL.
It is with the sincerest pleasure that we lay before our
readers and the Scottish public, the following correspondence
between his Grace the Duke of Argyll and Sir R. Peel, con-
cerning the gross mis-statements which Mr. A. Dunlop thought
proper to publish in several of our Whig contemporaries last
week, respecting the alleged sentiments which the Right Hon.
Baronet was said to have expressed to the deputation of Nou-
Intrusionists, who had an interview with him in London a short
time ago, on the subject of the Church question. Mr. Dunlop's
letter was given in our Paper of Friday last, appended
,o some remarks on the Renfreseshire election. The pri-
mary object of that document was to damage the cause of
Mr. Mure, the Conservative candidate; by propagating
false information, and to affect generally the Conservative
interests throughout Scotland. Mr. Dunlop explicitly
averred that Sir Robert Peel, at the interview with the depu-
tation, had expressly declared that no settlement of the Church
question could be allowed that did not embody provisions for
subjecting the Church to the Civil Courts generally, and in
particular for restoring.the deposed ministers of Strathhogie.
The use made of this statement was instantly to create a pre-
judice against Mr. Mure, and indirectly to have an adverse influ-
ence on the prospects of Conservative candidates elsewhere, by
denouncing them as supporters of Sir R. Peel and his danger-
ous Church policy. The electors were earnestly implored to vote
for the Liberal candidate, and thereby resist Sir Robert's threat-
ened attack on the spiritual independence of the Church ! Now,
AN e say nothing about the shameful breach of confidence of which
Mr. Dunlop was, clearly guilty, or the betraying of the un •
suspecting Baronet by pretending to consult him on the
Church question, while his object was political ; concealing
under the cloak of an ecclesiastical consultation, the stagger
with which he meant to strike a deadly blow at the interest
of the very person with whom he was holding friendly and
confidential intercourse. All this is bad enough—doubly
disgraceful when resorted to in a religious cause. But this is
noteven the worst feature in the case. It turns out that
Mr. Dunlop's statement is altogether incorrect, a scandalous
misrepresentation of what took place at the interview, and
giving a view of Sir R. Peel's sentiments, expressed on that
occasion, different from what he did say as light is from
darkness. We could easily have contradicted Mr. Dun-
lop's letter, merely on the knowledge which the public
possess of Sir Robert Peel's characteristic prudence and
moderation ; but our contradiction might have had but little
weight with the party in the Church opposed to us. This has
now been done, in the most direct and authoritative manner,
by both of the illustrious personages concerned. Sir Robert
Peel says of Mr. Dunlop's account that it contains " very gross
misrepresentations;" and the Duke of Argyll adds, that his
own recollection of it .(
his Grace was present at the interview ),
"perfectly coincides with Sir Robert Peel's statement of what
passed on the occasion." What will Mr. Dunlop and his
friends say to this? That gentleman is very ingenious in ex-
tricating himself from awkward dilemmas; but we suspect he
will find some difficulty in devising either an explanation or a
vindication of.his conduct on this occasion. We now subjoin
the letter of Sir Robert Peel, accompanied with a brief expla-
natory note from his Grace:—
NOTE BY THE DUKE Of ARGYLL.
In answer to a letter addressed by the Duke of Argyll to
Sir Robert Peel, Bart., requesting to know the purport of the
observations addressed by him to a deputation of the Church of
Scotland, at an interview with which he honoured therm, the
Duke has received the following reply, which, together with the
note, he would be obliged to the editor of the Edinburgh Ad-
vertiser to insert in his next paper ; and to add that Sir R.
Peel's statement •of what passed on the occasion perfectly
coincides with the Duke's recollection of it :
London, 3, Connaught-place West, June 28, 14141.
SIR ROBERT PEEL TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.

Drayton Manor, Fazely, June 23, 1841.
Dear Duke of Argyll—l have had the honour of receiving
your Grace's letter of yesterday. and I reply to it with the
greater alacrity,. because extracts from Scotch newspapers
have been sent me containing very gross misrepresentations
of sentiments which I expressed at the interview which I re-
cently had with your Grace and the gentlemen who accom-
panied
you,
on the subject of the affairs of the Church of
Scotland.
To the best of my recollection, the following is the purport
of the observations made by me on that occasion :--
That I would not enter into an engagement to support the
Bill, which has been submitted to the House of Lords by your
Grace, but that it was the loss necessary to discuss in detail the
provisions of that Bill, as it could make no progress during the
remainder of the session, which was then about to terminate;
and that the electing of the new Parliament in August would
not, probably, be of sufficient duration to admit of the ma-
ture consideration of the very important subject which the
Bill involved.
I observed that, even if I were to admit (which I cow'
not) that the provisions of that Bill
Were ;.- -
wholly unexcettionablei still, th..

themselves,
they were prospective

PRICE 5d

only, and that I did not think the House of Lords would con-
sent merely to legislate for the future if the General Assembly
should persist in its claims of authority to depose ministers of
the Church upon this ground, that those ministers had obeyed
the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Scotland, and
by the Ilouse of Lords on an appeal preferred to that tribunal
at the instance of the Church of Scotland.
That I presumed that the right to depose the Ministers in-
volved substantially the right to deprive them of the privileges
and emoluments attached by law to their parochial cures, and
that it appeared to me if such I,enalties could be inflicted for
the cause assigned, the authority of the Church over the Statute
Law and civil tribunals of the country would be paramount
even in matters of a civil an I temporal nature.
That I thought such a cl aim on the part of the Church would
greatly diminish, if not at together destroy any advantage that
might have been hoped fe ,r from merely prospective legislation,
and that new causes of difference and new conflicts of autho-
rity, not provided for by such legislation would very soon occur.
A remark was made. in the course of conversation, that if
the present state of things were to continue there might ulti-
mately he a separation of the Church from the State in
Scotland; for that %lie Church might feel it an imperative
duty to forego any temporal advantage she might derive
from an union with the State. To this I replied that I
thought it better r,at to discuss the extreme measures to
which 'it might be possible either for the Church or the
State, in certain contingencies, to resort. I said that there
were few persona out of the pale of the Church of Scotland
whe took a more. friendly interest in its concerns than I did, or
were more anxions that it should retain unimpaired all its
rightful authoitt y, and that I earnestly hoped that some solu.
tion of the press ent difficulties would be found, rather through
the influence o'i moderation and good sense, than in the resort
to extreme i neasures of any kind.
The abov e is, according to my recollection, the general pur-
port of the observations which I made on the occasion to which
your Grac e refers, audit will be very satisfactory to me tolearn
from your: Grace that your impressions on this point are in
conformity with have the honour to be,
Nly dear Lord Duke, your Grace's
Most faithful and obedient servant,
(Signed) ROBERT PEEL.
To his Grace the Duke of Argyll.

Let any one compare the above letter with the statements of
/qr. Dunlop, and he will see how false is the allegation that Sir
Robert Peel is an enemy to the Church of Scotland, or that he
meditates her enslavement to the Civil Courts, or the subver-
sion of her spiritual independence. It is unnecessary to add
another word of comment. This authoritative exposure will
not be without its effect on the undecided elections in this part
of the United Kingdom. It will show the country to what un-
scrupulous and unjustifiable means the leaders of the Non-In•
trusionists resort in order to effect the party objects for which
they are contending under the mask of a zeal for the spiritual
powers of the Church and the rights of the Christian people.—
Edinburgh Advertiser.