Re-echoes ven's patriotic senti CHAP. IX. ment; and that, thus freed from the hazard of any new collision, time might be afforded for the friendly interposition of parliament. The committee concluded their report by re-echoing the sentiment of Lord BelLord Belha- haven: "Let us fondly hope," said they, "all the feelings of party-whether of triumph on the one side because of victory, or of humiliation on the other side because of defeat-shall be merged and forgotten. in the desire of a common patriotism; to the reassurance of all who are the friends of our establishment, to the utter confusion of those enemies who watch for our halting, and would rejoice in our overthrow." ment. Reason why been expect Bellaven's and the Committee's appeal would responded to. Surely there was nothing unreasonable or extravait might have gant in this appeal. The moderate party disapproved ed that Lord of the veto-law, it is true; but there was nothing in it which troubled their conscience. With them the have been adoption or rejection of it was simply a question of expediency. They had acted under it without any difficulty for five years already. Their only difficulty in continuing to do so arose out of the Auchterarder decision. But, on the supposition of that difficulty being taken away by the legislature, conscience at least could have nothing more to say upon the subject. And now, therefore, when government was expressing its willingness to introduce a bill into parliament for that very purpose, and signifying its determination to use meanwhile the patronage of the crown in such a manner as to preserve the peace of the church, it might well have been thought that no party within the church itself would incur the heavy responsibility of opposing this patriotic design. Even if the evangelical majority of the general assembly, under whose The deference his due rity to the majority. auspices the veto-law was adopted, had stood, in CHAP. IX. reference to the question of non-intrusion, on the same ground with the moderate minority,-had the question been to the majority as it was confessedly to the minority, a question of mere expediency,—it would still have been nothing more than what was due to a majority, that the minority should have given way. The mind of the church having again and again unequivocally declared itself on the side of the measure of 1834, it would not have been going farther than is the established usage of all public bodies, to expect that the minority should not persist in a factious. attempt to defeat the wishes of the church. But the two parties did not stand in reference to non-intrusion upon equal ground. With the minority it involved, by their own acknowledgment, considerations of expediency alone. With the majority, as not only their professions then, but their conduct since have amply proved, it was an affair of conscience. Let the legislature affirm the principle of the veto-law, and not Non-introne member of the moderate party would feel himself called upon to leave the establishment. Let the legislature, on the other hand, affirm the principle of the Auchterarder decision, nullifying non-intrusion, and making it the "statutory duty" of presbyteries to intrude ministers upon reclaiming congregations, and no honest man in the majority could remain in the establishment. The moderate party knew this well. Dr. Cook, on one occasion, openly proclaimed in the assembly that very view of the position of the two parties in the church in reference to non-intrusion which has now been described. If you succeed, sion a ques ton of con science with the majority, but of simple expediency with the mifor nority, who ought, that reason, the more readily to way. have given CHAP. IX. said he, speaking across the house, and addressing the Dr. Cook's majority, if you succeed in getting parliament to account of the position parties in the issue of the conflict. of the two confirm the veto-law, we stay in. If we succeed in reference to preventing the passing of such a measure, you go out. It is only when contemplated in this point of view that the attempt to obstruct the legislative settlement of the question appears in its true colours. Lord Belhaven, evidently, had not thought it possible that any party would seek to carry matters to the extreme of driving its opponents out of the establishment. And certainly Dr. Chalmers and the non-intrusion committee had no disposition to impute such criminal recklessness to Dr. Cook and his friends. It was not long, however, till indications tolerably explicit were given, that scarcely any hazard to others would be considered too formidable, or any cost too great, to deter the minority in the church from maintaining the hostile attitude they had assumed. Dr. Cook's unfriendly appeal of the com mittee. No sooner had Dr. Chalmers finished the reading thepoppet of his report than Dr. Cook rose, and in the most unqualified terms, accused the government of disregarding the law of the land. It was in this strain the leader of the moderate party responded to the appeal from Lord Belhaven and the committee in favour of peace. "It had been distinctly laid down, that the law of the land, as determined by the supreme judicatories, conferred certain rights upon patrons, and before those rights were done away, it was requisite to remodel the law of the land. Yet the house had here a communication from her majesty's government, stating that they were determined to carry on their patronage in direct opposition to that law." Dr. Charges the government ing the law with oppos of the land. 69 ness of this Cook might as well have said, that because the law of CHAP. IX. the land, as determined by the supreme judicatories, had conferred on him a right to so many hundreds a year as professor of moral philosophy in the university of St. Andrews, he would be proceeding in direct opposition to that law, if he should, notwithstanding, direct that professorial income, so long as his right to Groundlessit continued, to be paid back into the funds of the charge. university, or to be handed to the poor of the parish. Grant that, under the Auchterarder decision, the patronages of the crown might now be exercised without the least regard to the feelings and wishes of congregations; the crown was not bound to enforce this offensive and oppressive power. There was nothing whatever in the law of the land to hinder any patron from consulting the congregation, as to the acceptableness of the individual whom he proposed to nominate to the vacant charge. He had only to do this, and nothing more, in order to secure all which either Lord Belhaven or the committee had said concerning the intentions of government. Patronage so exercised would be found in perfect "accordance with the existing law of the church," and that without in the least interfering with any other law whatever. The rude attack of Dr. Cook therefore, is deserving of notice, not for any force of argument contained in it, but simply for the force and fierceness of that animus which it betrayed. The Rev. Mr. Cairns of Cupar expressed his "painful astonishment to hear from the Rev. Doctor (Cook) that he would look upon the conduct of government as a violation of the law of Neither the crown nor trons bound private pa to enforce all their civil rights. Rev. A. Cairns replies to Dr. Cook. CHAP. IX. the land. Lord Brougham attacks Melbourne in the House of Lords. He utterly abhorred and abjured the feeling which gave rise to such a declaration." It was not, however, in the commission alone that the "feeling" which gave rise to Dr. Cook's attack upon the government appeared. Scarcely had the report of what took place in the commission passed into the public prints, when Lord Brougham assailed Mcks Lord Lord Melbourne upon the subject in the house of lords. Evidently with a view to prejudice the peers against the church of Scotland, and to indispose them to legislate in its favour,—and in this way to deter Lord Melbourne's government from carrying its friendly intentions towards the church into execution, the ex-chancellor indulged himself first in a tirade against the proceedings of the general assembly, and next against the countenance which both Lord Belhaven and her majesty's government were alleged to have given to the rebellious church. Lord Belhaven, in his letter to the moderator of the assembly, had said, that he was commanded by her majesty "to convey to the moderator her royal approbation of the manner in which all the proceedings of the assembly had been conducted." Lord Melbourne declined to comment upon the conduct either of the queen or of her commissioner, Lord Belhaven. But as to what had passed between himself and the deputation from the church, he said it amounted to this-that the subject which the deputation had brought under his notice "deserved very serious consideration; that therefore the lord advocate would be directed to confer with the procurator of the church, to see whether the matter Lord Melbourne's reply. |