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

. .
I
/ ,
/ --- . _
N-2.__:?::-rr.
x...0,-st____,/
....„-------
7/
U N.
. _
". : v,.
" tr ,1..,,,.„, .4. t .
~,.: -1,- ", . -
..., Kt 4, 1, ) . CHURCH OF SCOTLAN'D.
.
, •• • • • !: ~,z4 .._. • Ri•••4
_,..-- 1et2,1 .
• , , 1
-. . ~.,,,e .0.-ur•Jii• ;7-,-,-,.---
e• 41
-1-
-6, ~..
• • •it---.
. .
NO' '
, 7----- :0141--Wfl :4; ''.'i ''''; 46.'
C 3—
- - .441k17- -
P 1:1-. 11 N:A • ' '
, 47,....,, • • , .t.____ ....
+
j
,- .ait'ii. 4 ''•
•_7z.,''',,:. tv -
IT „.z,
•,--....,1,2,„,, -
~,,,,--o.o"viv-4 - „ DIE. ' .-t. 0'i11yf,,,,,, r.417—v,1\7,1 -,, .„„.4.,7• OIT V

The following letterl' been addressed to ..
Peel, by Alexander Dimlop.':sq.,
epAnurgc:3eltaio,,zitnhsetiiiile.e,tigtetuorebsetroiotfni
oSoyifroicfßotnohbinrrtt
on-Intrusion.
!Peelnnp.tots
Advocate,,,,J;;Tti
Ntt\ohreeconresrliatef"
te
Mr. Dunlop and his party Church.intlEwdiburg
Edinburgh,h July
newspapers 5 , 8
41.
Sir,—l have seen in the
Friday last, a letter addressed by you to the Duke of:
Arg.,--11, with reference to an interview recently had.
wit you on the subject of his Grace's Bill, in which:
yet4sallude to certain extracts from Scottish newspapers.
that 1i94 been sent to you, as containing " very gross
misrepresentations -of • sentiments " expressed by you at
that meeting.
Whether these extracts contained a letter of mine to
a private individual, which appeared in the newspapers;,
I of coarse cannot k.low ; but as my letter undoubtedly
formed .the groundwork of - the ,remarks in the yariom
journals on the subject, I think it necessary for me tor,
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-
lowed 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 Strathbogio" to,
office and benefice.
Your statement of the sentiments then expressed by-
you it, as to these essential points, " that you did not
think the House of Lords would consent merely to
legislate for the future, if the General Assembly
should persist in its claim of authority to de,nos.-
ministers of the Church upon this ground, that tcey
had obeyed the law," as interpreted by -the civil tri-
bunals ; that as civil consequences, you • presumed.
would follow from such deposition, " the authority
the Church over the statute law and civil tribuns'
the country would - be .paramount, even in Matters of a
civil and teinpUral nature," if such claim were enforced ;
and that this claim " woUld greatly diminisia if not altoi-
gather destroy, any advantage that might. have been
hoped forfiom merely praspective legislation, and that
.n
~.ea causes of difference;• and new conflicts of authority,
not provided for by 'such- legislation, would very asoolot
occur."
I remark, in
.passing, that I have no recollection of
your singling out the "House of Lords," as into-posing
any special obstacle to legislation ; and I f,iet- certain
that you referrati to -,the "Legislature ",e-enerallya but
what I chieily wish to notice in regard to your statentrat
are these points :-
1. It is obvious, from your own account of the senti-
ments expressed by yon, 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. ,
?..Any measure which was. piso retrospective, ,trust
necessarily have had for its object the settlement of the
past cases, and .especially those of the. Strathbogie rni
misters., Then, looking to the terms in which you ex-
press yourself as to the deposition of , ministers, for
what you call " obeying the law,", no one, I think, tan
doubt that the only settlement of these cases that would
be in accordance with your sentiments must be their re-
storation

......
3. It is further evident that you deem some -1 egis—
lative provision necessary for securing agriinst " nevc
causes of difference, 'and new conflicts of authorit

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 owu
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
by yourself of the sentiments expressed by you at the
interview, so far from my account being a "'very gross
misrepresentation" of these, the substance -PT it
seems to me to be contained—though very much
diluted—in your own statement. And I the mere
readily, therefore, assume that these 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 conviction of the occaracy of my own impressions,
however, I feel myself confirmed by a reconsideratior,
so far as I can recal thew 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 Graee arranged the Meeting'.
and Dr. Keith, who happened to he then in toWn, was
invited to accompany us, which lie did. The Confer-
ence commenced by Dr. Buchanan pressing en 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 ; nit, however,: qualifying,
your statement by the considerations mentioned in
.your
letter as to the period of the session, &c. ; for, although
remarks were made as to this rin,:ttcr, they were made
at the conclusion of the interview, and with reference to
an observation of the Duke's as to his intention ewith-
drawile.; his Bill, and the proper time for reintroducing it.
Your olfvetions were, that „ the Bill, on the is
hand, did not provide for time settlethent of paste ii,.
particularly those of the Strathbogie miniSterS-;,7 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 diarent causes
of collision, which you seamed, to appruht_l:l, ;11e4ough
we failed in our attempts .to ascertain from you!what
you deemed most likely to be.
A good deal of conversation ensaed 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 Strathbogio 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 Strathhogie
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
Dr. Keith, and again resumed by Dr. 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
being to the effect that legislation must proceed on
necessarily confirmed their impression,
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 calamitouL
to
result
contemplated, as apprehended " if the present
totally
of things were to continue," and so givesstrengthened
different 'tone to the whole, is irresistibly
or could be
anticipated from things remaining
- by the consideration that no such
irnesnth letiris;resent state,
•
been What you imagine.
ended by the repetition of your ex-
and consequently that -the observation not have
The conference
or
the Church of Scotland men-
tioned in
t your sentiments were' those
and the deputation left you
under. the impression, I"
I,•rioeil to yon. On my return to
which I haveas Dr. Buchanan was still in' Bug-
Scotland, though,.imuilicating with him, I imparted my
land, without Go
1 7 to various parties, not certainly with
your letter,
impressions
17
political partivinship
objects •of • , mg
a view to any
ny disregard of considerations of secular
always carried z
I felt L
rather excess, but because,
politics ra
not hav
justified, especially under existing circum-
stances, in withholding
the knowledge of the sentiments
of a rtatesman, in all apparent probability, soon tcf be at
the iiecd of the Government, given th a deputation of a
public body,pu on a great public measure then depending
in Parliament, of sue!s 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' sntistictory-
settlement of our question for its own sakt and not
in order to promote the interests of a party: can-
not but think, however, that the sentiments Pakribed
to you are still involved in your recent statement, Which
does not repudiate the sentiments theniselVes but only
the having made a frank and explicit av-oWal of tli.")a-
Still, I would fain hope that it statesMan'of :N'our in-
telligence will, on a more thorough rousiaeratietief our
question, come to be satisfied that-the ChorAVylaims
are neither of dangerous tendencY to the eaminnnwealth,
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 _
communicated to 1)r. Buchanan thnt part of my. pre-
sent statement which relates to •whet passed, at our
interview with you, he contours generally in the ac-
curacy of my impressions regarding-it. iln distance
of 1)r. Keith's residence prevents me submitting the
same statement to him, without-greater th•lay than I inn
willing to incur.
I hare the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
• A. DUNLOP.
To the Right lion. Sir R. Beel, Bart., M.P., &c. &c.

We regret to state that Mr. West, the Conser-
vative candidate, has been confined tee .his bed for the,
last three days, 'Under the care. of Mr. Kirby, having
caught a severe cold' at the hustings and in the booths,
accompanier) by very serious inflammation of the throat
and chest. 'Tine answer -to inquiries this day; hettever,
was that he had'--4 'good right and was% roPsiderably
exit Artii4 • . _ -• • •