Commons' House of Parliament, and to force that great body to seek the remedy of legislation,-how much more easily may it have it in reference to the powers and privileges of those other bodies which occupy, if not less important, at least less conspicuous, stations in the ranks of the constitution, and whose functions fill perhaps as vital, though less obvious, parts in the great work of government? The Church of Scotland, my Lords, is one of those bodies, and to such as rightly estimate the mighty influence of well-taught, well-spread religion among the mass of the population, it will not appear to be the least important of them all.

Taking, then, the lowest ground,-resigning in the argument all those considerations which should really determine your Lordships' judgment in regard to the position of the Church of Scotland, and allowing,— what never can be allowed without violating constitutional principle, that the recent proceedings of the Court of Session are legitimate exertions of judicial power; it is evidently possible that they may be trampling upon privileges which, for the sake of public welfare, ought to be,-nay, which, by the spirit and scope of the constitution, already are. The duty, therefore, of the Legislature to interpose in a dispute, such as has now arisen between that Church and the Court of Session, rests upon a basis altogether independent of any particular reference to its merits, and the obligation can be in no way destroyed because the party of whom the Church complains is a tribunal for the interpretation of civil law.

But, my Lords, I must now bring this Letter to a close, as it has already reached a length which I did not at first anticipate. Withdrawing, then, your attention from the hypothetical case which has been just

considered, and directing it to that with which you really have to do, I would beg your Lordships to bear in mind the conclusion which appears to have been established from the arguments employed, and the facts referred to in the previous pages. The great object which I have had in view in thus addressing your Lordships has been to prove the necessity of legislative interposition in favour of the Church of Scotland at the present crisis. In order fully to support the truth of this conclusion, it has been necessary to review at considerable length the constitutional principles upon which the Establishment is founded, and which illustrate the real relationship between the powers of civil and ecclesiastical control, as fixed by the various enactments of the Scottish Legislature, and finally confirmed at the period of the Union. Upon such a review, and upon such a review alone,-can the question be fairly argued. The great strength of the Moderate party has lain in keeping it as much as possible out of sight; and substituting for solid argument, based authoritative documents, a system of general inference and assertion, or paltry attack upon the minor points of the subject, and upon the conduct and motives of the Church, which, though utterly unworthy of influencing public men, upon a question of great national importance, has yet received strange support from some who now stand high in the councils of the State. The charge of "disobedience against the law," which rests both upon an ignorance of facts, and a total disregard of constitutional principle, has been re-echoed from one end of the country to the other, with a frequency which shows that neither the employment of bugbears is confined to demagogues, nor their success to the populace. That such is the true character of this charge, is not a mere

upon

assertion, like those upon which the Moderates build their reasoning, but is one which I leave to be judged of by your Lordships according to what has been advanced.

I now wish, however, to remind your Lordships of what was said at the commencement of this Letter; viz., that the arguments to be adduced against those objections to Parliamentary interposition, which are founded upon this preposterous charge of rebellion, would be found to be not only sufficient to prove the non-existence of any such impediment, but to go far towards the establishment of the directly opposite conclusion, that the Legislature is in debt to the Church for an interference in her behalf. If these arguments are at all valid, the existence of this obligation upon the part of the Legislature must be now apparent; and the only question which remains is, how far does it extend? Will Parliament have sufficiently discharged its duty to the Church, by merely affording her protection from those unconstitutional attacks of the Court of Session, which proceed upon the assumption, that the civil "rights of Patrons" include both the benefice and the cure ;-or, is there nothing in her constitutional history and position, which requires the Legislature to advance a step farther, and by so altering the present law of Patronage as to bring it into harmony with the Church's principles, to preserve in full integrity and vigour, a great national institution ?

In answer to this question, my Lords, it is necessary to refer to a fact, which has not been previously mentioned, but of which most of your Lordships are probably aware. I allude, my Lords, to the fact, that for some time previous to the Union, (since 1690) Patronage, as regulated by the statute of 1592, had

ceased to be in existence. It was restored in 1711, by the act of Queen Anne, which declared that the judicatories of the Church were in future to lie under the same "obligation" to receive and admit all qualified presentees, as that to which they had been subjected by the Parliament of 1592.

Here, therefore, the question naturally occurs, what was the system, with regard to the nomination of ministers, in operation during the period which elapsed between the abolition of Patronage in 1690, and its revival in 1711?

The system of Patronage (if Patronage it can be called) which existed from the year 1690 to 1711, and which was in active operation, therefore, at the time the treaty of Union was concluded, was such that the tribunals of the Church were not, in any instance, liable even to that pecuniary check upon the freedom of their power, in the matter of ordination, to which, as your Lordships have seen, she was subjected under the former system. The right of nomination was vested in the elders and kirk-session, and the sustaining of their presentation, or the decisive rejection of their nominee, was left at the absolute disposal of the Church, it being declared that the "affair" was to be "cognosced upon" by her tribunals, "at whose judgment and by whose determination the calling and entry of a particular minister was to be ordered and concluded."

What, my Lords, is the inference I would draw from this fact? Is it that the restoration of the initiative to the "just and ancient Patrons," under the statute of 1711, was necessarily a violation of that treaty, which provided that no alteration should be made in the " discipline" or government" of the Church as it then was ordered? No, my Lords; allowing, as I

am willing to do, that a mere transfer of the initiative from the "heritors and kirk-session," to the "ancient Patrons," would not have involved any violation of the Church's rights, I beg your Lordships to remember that the act of Queen Anne, passed in 1711, effected far more than such a transfer, and that by it the councils of the Church were again placed under fetters, from which they were free at the period of the Union, and were again "obliged," under the former penalty of pecuniary loss, to keep within a certain limit in their rejection of presentees. It is impossible, therefore, to avoid the conclusion, that the act of 1711, in the increase it gave to the initiatory power, was a direct and unjustifiable inroad upon that " government" and "discipline" of the Church, which, according to the provisions of the treaty of Union, were to be preserved inviolate without any alteration.

It does, therefore, appear to me, and I now submit the opinion to your Lordships' judgment, that, since. the whole difficulties of the Church have sprung from a statute which places a restraint upon the freedom of her power, unknown at the period above referred to, and interferes with her giving effect to a principle which was then, and had been for many years before, in such active operation as her unrestricted authority designed it to be, the Legislature is placed in debt to the Church for the modification of that obnoxious statute.

Though, my Lords, the constitutional argument is now ended, and though it has not been my object, in this Letter, to dwell upon considerations of propriety and political advantage, yet, in thus addressing YOU, and urging upon the PEERS the propriety of an alteration in the existing law of Patronage, I should be unwilling to rest the arguments employed, solely