leading nobility of Scotland. Yet why? The case lies in the narrowest
compass. The Duke of Sutherland, and other great landholders, had refused
sites for their new churches. Upon this occurred a strong fact, and strong
in both directions; first, for the Seceders; secondly, upon better
information, _against_ them. The _Record_ newspaper, a religious journal,
ably and conscientiously conducted, took part with the Secession, and very
energetically; for they denounced the noble duke's refusal of land as an
act of "persecution;" and upon this principle--that, in a county where his
grace was pretty nearly the sole landed proprietor, to refuse land
(assuming that a fair price had been tendered for it) was in effect to
show such intolerance as might easily tend to the suppression of truth.
Intolerance, however, is not persecution; and, if it were, the casuistry
of the question is open still to much discussion. But this is not
necessary; for the ground is altogether shifted when the duke's reason for
refusing the land comes to be stated: he had refused it, not
unconditionally, not in the spirit of Non-intrusion courts' "_without
reason shown_," but on this unanswerable argument--that the whole efforts
of the new church were pointed (and professedly pointed) to the one object
of destroying the establishment, and "sweeping it from the land." Could
any guardian of public interests, under so wicked a threat, hesitate as to
the line of his duty? By granting the land to parties uttering such
menaces, the Duke of Sutherland would have made himself an accomplice in
the unchristian conspiracy. Meantime, next after this fact, it is the
strongest defence which we can offer for the duke--that in a day or two
after this charge of "persecution," the _Record_ was forced to attack the
Seceders in terms which indirectly defended the duke. And this, not in any
spirit of levity, but under mere conscientious constraint. For no journal
has entered so powerfully or so eloquently into the defence of the general
principle involved in the Secession, (although questioning its expediency,)
as this particular _Record_. Consequently any word of condemnation from so
earnest a friend, comes against the Seceders with triple emphasis. And
this is shown in the tone of the expostulations addressed to the _Record_
by some of the Secession leaders. It spares us, indeed, all necessity of
quoting the vile language uttered by members of the Free Church Assembly,
if we s