he had no doubt if it was carried out it would be followed by blessed results.-Agreed to, and Committee named to arrange.

THE MEIGLE CASE.

An appeal and reference from the Presbytery of Meigle, in the process against the Rev. Alex. M'Pherson, was taken up. The reference was read, from which it appeared that Mr M'Pherson having appealed to the Assembly against the relevancy of the libel, and having also requested to be tried by a Special Commission, on the twofold ground that the position occupied by the Presbytery as prosecutors and judges is anomalous, and that a Special Commission would most probably have fewer local prejudices; the Presbytery, considering the short time that they had for ripening the case for the General Assembly, had agreed to refer the whole case to the Assembly for advice, and at the same time, whilst disclaiming any unwillingness, and especially any unfitness on the ground of local prejudices, to proceed to the probation of the libel in the usual way, they had no objection to the appointment of a Special Commission if the Assembly should see cause to appoint such.

Mr M'PHERSON appeared for himself, and urged the following reasons against the relevancy :

66

22

The appellant maintains that the libel is irrelevant, because in the first charge the place where he is said to have been under the influence of intoxicating drink has not been sufficiently specified. It is described as "your own study," but it is not said where this study is. The second charge is also open to the objection that the locus of the offence is not specified. It is merely described as 66 your own house," It is further irrelevant when it states that the appellant was unable to conduct family worship on the evening of that day," because what is meant by "that day can only be inferred by referring to the commencement of the charge, where the time is specified. The third charge, like the second, is indistinct and obscure as to time. The fourth charge, although sufficiently specific as to the locus, is as indistinct and obscure as to time as the second and third. Moreover, this charge is irrelevant, because it does not describe with sufficient precision in what way or manner the appellant committed the offence. It says he was under the influence of intoxicating drink, but so is every one who swallows even the smallest quantity of ale or porter; yet surely it never can be contended that to drink a glass of porter is to commit the offence of drunkenness; and the matter is not mended by the after part of the charge, which says that the appellant, by the drink he had taken, was incapacitated from conducting the usual services "in a proper manner." If it is meant by this to indicate the degree of influence which drink had acquired over the appellant, the indication amounts to nothing. What is the meaning of conducting public worship "in a proper manner?" Why, there are as many different opinions as to what is a proper manner in the pulpit as there are celebrators of public worship. The fifth and last charge is irrelevant for the same reason that the first is so, viz., that the locus is not specified. But this charge is further open to the objection to which the fourth is liable, viz., that the way and manner of the offence is not set forth. It is only said that the appellant indulged to excess. What is excess? According to the views of many, to taste even the smallest quantity of wine or spirits is excess; and yet there is no law of the Church requiring total abstinence,

especially in a time of distress. The marks of drunkenness are well known, and not easily concealed; and if from their precognition the accusers had really any information at all that the appellant exhibited those marks, they could have no difficulty in stating them.

Mr BAIN addressed the Assembly for the libellers.

Mr WILSON, Dundee, said that the first objection, which alleged that the specification of Mr M'Pherson's own study was not sufficiently explicit, was one which he did not think could be sustained, because surely Mr M'Pherson must be perfectly aware where his study was. In regard to the second objection, which referred to the two things, the want of the proper specification of locality, and the want of the proper specification of time, he was not so sure. It was not set forth where Mr M'Pherson was unable to conduct family worship; but it would be inferred that it was within his own house. The charge was also somewhat vague; but unless the Presbytery had been able to charge Mr M'Pherson with being unable to conduct family worship at all, he (Mr Wilson) did not see that it could have been made more distinct. It was objected that the simple statement that Mr M'Pherson was under the influence of intoxicating drink was too vague; but he thought the general charge was sufficient, although it might be more difficult to make out the charge that Mr M'Pherson had indulged to excess.

Sheriff CLEGHORN very much concurred in the remarks that had been made by Mr Wilson. It was proper to see that, in the construction of a libel, the defender was not put to any disadvantage in conducting his defence, by the indefiniteness of the libel. The first objection he did not think well founded. Some confusion appeared regarding the third and fourth charges; but if they took it as one narrative, they would find it distinct enough.

Mr DALZIEL thought the first charge sufficiently specific, as the defender must know where his own study was; and in another charge, when it specified "his own house," he also thought that distinct enough. If they were to give heed to such objections as these, there was hardly any libel to which objections might not be raised. Looking at the whole libel, he thought the charges were sufficiently intelligible and specific, and he begged to move that the Assembly sustain the relevancy of the libel.

Professor GIBSON seconded the motion, which was unanimously agreed to. The Assembly then took up consideration of the reference.

Mr BAIN, on behalf of the Presbytery, stated that Mr M'Pherson had requested that the case should be tried by a Special Commission. There were two reasons which Mr M'Pherson assigned for wishing to get the case tried by commission. The first was, the anomaly that the Presbytery were both prosecutors and judges; but the anomaly had existed from time immemorial, and seemed to be in accordance with the form of Presbyterian Church government. The second was, that a commission would be freer from local prejudices than the Presbytery. Now, he denied that he or the other members of Presbytery had any prejudices which would prevent them from doing the most perfect justice to Mr M'Pherson; and no commission could exercise more forbearance toward him than they had done. The Presbytery had no desire to have a commission themselves, but at the same time they would not stand in the way of the Assembly's granting Mr M Pherson's request.

Mr WILSON read a clause from an Act of Assembly to the effect, that it was only when the Presbytery made a request for a commission that the Assembly could appoint one. There was no request from the Presbytery, and he therefore did not see that they could grant one in this case. He therefore moved as follows:-" The Assembly find that the reference is not such a reference as the Act of Assembly in 1854 allows, inasmuch as the Presbytery have not made the reference on the ground of its not appearing expedient in the circumstances for the Presbytery to act both as prosecutors and judges, and that the Assembly could competently refer the case of Mr M'Pherson to a Special Commission in hoc statu only in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Therefore, the General Assembly dismiss the reference, and farther remit to the Presbytery of Meigle to proceed with the libel according to the laws of the Church. The Assembly at the same time empower the Commission, at any of its stated diets, to dispose finally of the case, if brought up to them by any protest and appeal, or dissent and complaint, or reference, if they shall

see cause."

Mr DALZIEL Seconded the motion. There never was a case which had been conducted with greater leniency, and he thought it would be a reflection upon the Presbytery of Meigle if they took it out of their hands. In regard to the anomaly of the Presbytery acting both as prosecutors and judges, it had always existed in Presbyterian Churches, and had never been amended. If they were to grant a commission in this case, there was not a case in which a special commission might not, and ought not, to be granted.

The motion was unanimously agreed to.

RAFFORD CASE.

The Assembly then took up a dissent and complaint by the Rev. D. Macdonald of Edinkillie anent a resolution of the Presbytery of Forres to sustain a call from Rafford to the Rev. David Norris Mackay of Castleton, Jedburgh, to be colleague and successor to his father, the Rev. Dr George Mackay. Mr Macdonald appeared for himself; Mr T. M'Ara and Mr Robertson for the Presbytery of Forres; Mr James Laing, elder, Mr Alexander Watson, deacon, and Mr William Clark, member, for the congregation.

Mr MACDONALD was heard for himself. His argument, in substance, was, that the minister now called to Rafford had, when he was a member of the Presbytery of Elgin, been suspended for six months from all ministerial functions, by an unanimous sentence of that Presbytery, because of acknowledged intemperance; and further, that eighteen months thereafter he suddenly left his flock and native country, and remained concealed in Dublin for about four months, and that on his return he preferred resigning his charge at Lossiemouth, rather than that the Presbytery should proceed with an inquiry as to his absence. Admitting that these facts were of old date, yet these events in Mr Mackay's ministerial history are 80 widely known in the district, as to prevent the hope of the nominee exercising a respected and successful ministry there, however it might be in another quarter of the Church.

Mr ROBERTSON was then heard for the Presbytery. About ten or eleven years ago, Mr Mackay had been called to answer the charge of intemperance; and Mr Mackay acknowledged with sorrow and shame that, find,

ing it necessary to use stimulants on account of his health, he used them to excess. He was therefore suspended for six months from the functions of the ministry, but at the end of the six months he was restored to his office; and was this charge to be now brought forward as a reason why he should not be settled in a neighbouring locality? (Hear, hear.) The second reason which had been urged against the settlement of Mr Mackay was, that eighteen months afterwards, he fled from his charge in certain peculiar circumstances, Mr Mackay was not in Dublin during the whole of the four months referred to. Part of that period he was in the house of his brother on account of the state of his health. They had been told that after Mr Mackay had returned from Dublin, he resigned his charge rather than submit to an investigation. That was not the case; and it was not borne out by the records of the Presbytery of Elgin. Mr Mackay stated to the Presbytery that there were certain circumstances, some of them known to the Presbytery, and some of them not known, which so pressed upon his mind as to create a temporary disease of the mind; and that under a feeling of morbid depression he abandoned his charge. These reasons were not regarded by the Presbytery as sufficient for his taking the strange step which he did; but when his resignation was accepted it was upon the footing that meanwhile it would not be for edification if he were to labour longer in the parish of Lossiemouth. Mr Mackay's antecedents would not unfit him for the charge of Rafford, because these antecedents were well known there, and this call had been presented to him with a full knowledge of them. If it was the case that his antecedents unfitted him for Rafford, they must equally unfit him for Castleton, his present charge, where he was highly respected and esteemed, or for any charge. Were they prepared to blight the character of a brother, and to send him forth to the world a branded man, for an offence committed ten long years ago,—for an offence sorrowed over, and mourned over,-and for an offence from which he had been solemnly absolved by his own Presbytery, that of Elgin,-inasmuch as the Presbytery received his resignation simpliciter? (Applause.)

Mr CLARK of Blervie Castle was heard for the congregation. Mr MACDONALD replied, and after some questions put by members of Assembly, parties were removed.

Mr NIXON said it was manifest that Mr Mackay was a minister in full standing, and known to be a zealous, laborious, faithful, and successful minister of this Church. He was known very well to be a popular and acceptable minister of this Church, not only in the congregation in which he now laboured, but in the congregations around-in congregations in the heart of the country, and in congregations in the north; and at this moment there was not a man in the Church more loved than he was by the very people of whom he had charge when he was a minister at Lossiemouth. He would further take leave to say that Mr Mackay was a person whom everybody loved that knew him; and he should like to know who knew him and did not love him-(hear)-love him for his kindness of disposition, for his frankness, and for his confiding nature. He was a man who was respected as a loving minister of the gospel by all. Then, again, Mr Mackay was a man whom his own Presbytery had honoured by sending him as their representative to the Assembly, and the Synod by electing him to be their Moderator. He (Mr Nixon) was one of a deputation who had been sent to the north

to do some work connected with the Church, and when there he had occasion to be at Rafford. He was much struck with the intelligence of the Free Church people in the north, both ministers and congregations, and came home with the decided conviction that they were a credit to the Church. (Applause.) He saw a number of the congregations; and he took the liberty of stating that he did not meet in the whole of his visit with any congregation that awakened more respect in his mind than that of Rafford. It was a large congregation for a country congregation; and was besides a most intelligent one. He was told, on good authority, that there were more godly members to be found in that congregation than there were ministers in the Synod of Moray. (A laugh.) He was now speaking of their number. He was told that nobody could look upon that congregation without being struck with the great number of men, and especially of young men, of as great vigour and intelligence as was to be seen in any congregation in the Lowlands. This was the congregation that had called Mr Mackay; and he thought it was a great honour to the minister of that congrega tion to find that, after labouring for half a century, it was, up to the present hour, in vigour and efficiency. There was no man on earth who had so much interest in having a right settlement effected in that congregation. It was a yet unbroken congregation, but he questioned very much, if the Assembly did not summarily dispose of this case, if it would continue an unbroken congregation long. He should augur,

from what he had seen of the vigour, the Christian vigour and determination of that people, that they would not put up with what they felt to be anything like a tyrannical exercise of power, by refusing to grant them the minister of their choice. That was no reason why the Church should not maintain its discipline and laws; but it was a reason why, when granting the call was in unison with their laws, the Assembly should cordially grant it. The congregation of Rafford knew Mr Mackay from his infancy, and were well acquainted with all his past history. He (Mr Nixon) had heard a great number of old stories raked up against him. They had insinuations made by men who would quietly stab a minister's character, when they would shrink from making open charges which could be met and rejected; and amid things fitted, if not designed, to divide and split up the congregation, they yet remained united to this hour. To refuse to them the minister whom they unanimously called, would be to his mind-he did not wish to say anything too strong-but he could not help saying that it would be an act of tyranny which he should not imagine this Assembly would be capable of committing. He thought the objections which had been taken had exceedingly little force. They referred to what happened ten years ago -to a case of alleged or of actual intemperance, which the minister himself had been forward to acknowledge, and for which he expressed regret. The Presbytery of Elgin subjected him to the discipline which Christ required, and he meekly submitted to it; and that same Presbytery had restored him as Christ required, and therefore from that moment the charge ought to have been forgotten, and no minister ought to have raked it up again. (Applause.) In the pleadings from the bar, they had heard allusion to what he must call a perfect trifle— the want of a certificate. It was not said that Mr Mackay had ever asked for a certificate. If all the facts which had been stated in regard