"Dalrymple's Magazine," said to be written by Dr Ritchie, which stated that a certain silvery doctor-meaning Dr Heugh-had stated the thing which was not. This, taken in connexion with the circumstances mentioned in

once

Mr MARSHALL, in support of his pro- | considering within himself whether he test, read a paper of very great length, ought not to remonstrate with him in stating that he had the satisfaction of private, he fell in with an article in knowing and feeling that whatever step he might now take in regard to this matter had been forced upon him, and that he was only vindicating himself for having done what his own conscience and the word of God told him was an incumbent duty. He knew that he stood his letter of 31st March, at there with much prejudice against him, settled him on the point that it was inasmuch as he had had occasion to ap- his duty to communicate with him pear lately as the opponent of many of on the subject. Mr Marshall then narthe members of that court, in a matter rated the various things which had caused which had given rise to much acrimo- him to be dissatisfied with Dr Heugh's nious feeling on both sides. After allud-reply to his first letter. He found fault, ing to his want of experience, he went in the first place, with the haughty tone on to say that the party to whom he was opposed had the best of him in this respect; for he was a minister of long standing, of great influence, and possessing advantages which could further a man's case independently of its own inherent merit. Having complained of the irregular manner in which the case was taken up by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, he proceeded to state in the first place, the circumstance which had led him to form an unfavourable opinion of Dr Heugh, and to write him the letter of the 31st March. In doing this he began by observing, that when a person who has once occupied a high place in your estimation happens to have fallen from it, you must ascribe it, if the change has been gradual, to certain little circumstances, rather than to any particular event; and he must say that there had been occasions which convinced him that Dr Heugh had been chargeable with heinous guilt in the eyes of the Most High. In proof of this he referred to the Doctor's conduct at the Synod in Glasgow in 1844, in giving judgment on Mr Balfour's remonstrance, which led him to regard his doctrine with suspicion. His good opinion of Dr Heugh was farther shaken by his consummate audacity in charging his father, Dr Marshall, with sin, as well as by the part which Dr Heugh subsequently took in the matter against Dr Marshall connected with the suppression of the appendix. After commenting with much severity on several other circumstances in the proceedings of the Synod with Dr HARPER, in reply for the presbytery, which Dr Heugh was connected, Mr objected in limine to Mr Marshall's claim Marshall said the cup of his astonish- to be regarded as a brother receiving an ment was nearly full, and his confidence offence, and therefore entitled to satisin Dr Heugh was nearly gone. Still he faction, seeing that the charges brought chid himself for the rising feelings of dis-forward had not the semblance of progust and suspicion with which he viewed bability, but the reverse; that in any Dr Heugh's conduct; and when he was casc of the kind, the previous character

of that reply; and, in the next place, he considered that the Doctor had overlooked the chief points to which he had directed his attention; for Dr Heugh's denial, he maintained, extended only to the charge affecting his veracity—all the other imputations being left unexplained, He next referred to the circumstances which, in his opinion, rendered it imperative on the Synod to reverse the decision of the presbytery. These were to the effect that the Presbytery of Edinburgh were wrong in coming to such a decision without having ascertained whether the reflections against Dr Heugh's character were true or false; consequently, for aught the presbytery could tell, they had condemned him (Mr Marshall) for speaking the truth. They had also decided the case when only one of the parties was present. No doubt, Drs Beattie, King, Robson, and Eadie, were present to represent Dr Heugh, but they could not carry his conscience with them. He then justified his conduct for coming forward at the time he did in this matter. He no doubt was aware that Dr Heugh had been ill, but he did not proceed until he had observed that the Doctor had again come before the public, especially at the induction of his colleague. He concluded by saying, that if the Synod did not inquire into this matter, they would be partakers in the sins of Dr Heugh. The public would impute these sins to them, and he had every reason to fear that the great God would do the same.

of the person assailed was to be taken | offended brother told them to the church, into view, together with the character or they became grave charges; and, by some the accuser, and such circumstances strange process, the private slanderer of time and place as might tend to accredit or discredit the injurious allegations; that applying this test, he, on the one hand, saw Dr Heugh, a man whose eminence in point of intellect and attainment, and usefulness, was graced by a long life of unswerving integrity and untainted honour; on the other, he saw anonymous assailants, appealed to by Mr M., men who were capable of attacking moral character under a vizor, and bringing charges the most incredible in the circumstances under which they were made; that, on these grounds, Dr Heugh was entitled to fling from him the calumnious reproach with a feeling of indignancy; that, nevertheless, his letter to Mr M. was calm and dignified; that Mr Marshall, far from having any standing as a brother entitled to satisfaction, had himself committed an offence, in "taking up a reproach against his neighbour," and owed reparation; that after the exhibition he had that day made, it was no longer matter of doubt, that in Mr M.'s view, Dr Heugh's offence consisted in condemning the conduct of Dr Marshall in late proceedings, and, therefore, that the whole affair was one of personal animosity against Dr Heugh. Messrs Robertson and Elliot also supported the decision of the presbytery. Mr Joseph Hay moved, and Dr David Young seconded, that the sentence of the presbytery be affirmed. The Synod then proceeded to give judgment in this cause, and was occupied with it till the adjournment on Wednesday afternoon. Various brethren took part in the discussion. We insert the speeches of the Rev. W. SMART, and Dr JAMES TAYLOR, as they have appeared in an authentic form, and touch minutely on some of the leading points of the case.

*

Rev. W. SMART, Linlithgow, thought that the only way in which this court could deal with the case was by the adoption of the motion proposed by Mr Hay. None of the other courses would meet the case. As to the procedure proposed by Dr Marshall, that of sending the case back to Glasgow, it was altogether out of the question. If he (Mr Smart) was surprised at the proposal, he was more at the argument by which it was supported. According to Dr Marshall, as long as the matters contained in Mr Marshall's letter remained private, they were rumours, but whenever the

was converted into the public accuserthe honoured vindicator of the law of Christ. Was there ever anything more monstrous ? To such a proposal he hoped the court would not for one moment listen. Much had been said as to the manner in which the case had been conducted by Dr Heugh. It had been said that Mr Marshall's letter should have been burned. Now, whatever might be the opinions of individuals, much might be said in defence of the course followed by Dr Heugh. Were he (Mr Smart) to seek an argument in defence of that course, he would find it in the statements of Mr Marshall and Dr Marshall. Why, they told the court that this was not the first, the second, and even insinuated that, were all known, it might be proved that this was not even the third time that Dr Heugh had been dealt with in private. Taking, however, the three cases to which they referred, they all knew that these all bore upon the same charges, and was it not time for Dr Heugh, thus assailed, to take measures to drag the secret slanderer to the light of day, and put an end for ever to the attacks made on his integrity and veracity? As to the view of the question which Mr Marshall wished the Synod to receive-that Dr Heugh was a party, it could not for one moment be entertained. No brother could be impeached on vague, unexamined, incredible rumours; and he, for one, would resist to the utmost of his power any attempt to adopt a course which would make a brother a party on a ground so iniquitous. Mr Marshall had said much about Dr Heugh not having followed the law of Christ in the matter. Now, how had Mr Marshall himself acted? Take the rumour of Dr Heugh having told a lie, and having taught a servant to lie. The unknown brother, on whose_authority the statement rested, wrote to Dr Heugh. Was he satisfied with the answer, or did he, not being satisfied with the reply, take with him brethren, and after that tell it to the church? No; the correspondence was bandied about from parlour to parlour, and, unknown to Dr Heugh, was made the subject of remark. This Mr Marshall approved, and yet set himself forth as a vindicator of the law of Christ. Take the charge of having told the thing that was not, resting on the authority, as they were informed, of Dr Ritchie (though this he (Mr S.) would

not believe till Dr Ritchie himself said made against Dr Heugh on this ground. so), how did this anonymous assailant of Were there not other members who sat Dr Heugh act? Did he tell it to Dr on that committee of which Dr Heugh Heugh, and, not being satisfied, did he was chairman, who had expressed opitake with him brethren, and then tell it nions the opposite of Dr Heugh's, in to the church? No; the calumny ap-regard to the appendix to Dr Marshall's peared for the first time in the pages of volume ? The very fact of any matter à magazine. This also Mr Marshall being sent to a committee, implied preadopted, and yet he called himself a vin- vious discussion, expression of opinion, dicator of the law of Christ. Take the and reasons found for the appointment of other charge of having said there was the committee. Why, if every man who sin upon Dr Marshall. How did Dr expressed an opinion in regard to any Marshall act? He wrote to Dr Heugh, subject brought before this court, was but though not satisfied, did he take unfit to act on a committee subsequently farther steps? He handed over the appointed to consider it, they would discorrespondence to his son, who adopted qualify every member of Synod. He the charge, and yet sets himself forth as considered Mr Marshall's conduct in his a vindicator of the law of Christ. Of all defence a serious aggravation of the orithe men in that Synod, Mr Marshall was ginal injury. According to Mr Marshall's the very last man who should assume the own admission, Dr Heugh's denial exposition he sought to occupy yesterday, tended to every matter affecting his as zealous for the observance of Christ's veracity. Mr Marshall ought to have law. As to the style of Mr Marshall's given Dr Heugh credit for this; more letter, he (Mr S.) was deeply grieved to especially as the charges denied rested hear Dr Marshall, related as he was to on unexamined rumour. But how did Mr Marshall, attempt to defend it; and he act? He still clung to all the charges certainly he (Mr S.) must say that it was as credible, and plainly told them, by his a singular enough mode of defence he conduct, such was his opinion of Dr followed. It was strange, indeed, what Heugh's veracity, that be his denial as a variety of aspects this letter had as- plain and as solemn as denial could be, sumed in the pleadings of the father and he would not believe him. This was a son. At first, Mr Marshall said it con- very grave matter. He regretted to tained no charge, direct or indirect, hear last night several brethren speak as against Dr Heugh. Driven from this, though the matter were light. Light! when the matter became public, it was how did it affect religion? How did it now said to contain charges-then, to affect the character of their church? cover the severity of the language, it What were their people or the public to was called a remonstrance; and, lastly, think of the integrity of any of their Dr Marshall said it contained a re-number, if one of the most eminent of proof. A reproof! Why, reproof implied their ministers was to be pilloried on charges proved, and in many cases mere vague report as a liar and perjured charges admitted. [Dr Marshall-person? He would refer to private life, "Yes."] But where was the proof here? and who was safe? Had any brother None. Where the admission? In place of that they had a solemn denial. The style of Mr Marshall's letter was the most offensive he (Mr S.) had ever met with in any publication acknowledged or anonymous. It was clear that the first of the charges against Dr Heugh was his having said that there was sin upon Dr Marshall. Now, it was curious to remark how prejudice blinded the judgment. When Dr Heugh, in the course of remarks on a part of Dr Marshall's public conduct, said in a christian spirit that there was sin upon Dr Marshall, it was, they were told, "plunging a poisoned dart in Dr Marshall's side." When Mr Marshall, on the ground of mere rumour, or in reference to a part of Dr Heugh's public conduct, used the same language, it became "stern conscientiousness." No charge could be

ever been in the dwelling whose peace had been invaded by the envenomed breath of slander, or sat by its victim, and marked a noble spirit sinking under the weight of undeserved reproach ? Had any brother been in the chamber where the females of that house had been weeping in silent anguish over the havoc which calumny had made of their happiness? He (Mr S.) had, and let no man tell him that that matter was a light one. He would ever resist, to the utmost of his power, any attempt, come from what quarter it might, to invade thus the sanctities of domestic life. Entertaining these opinions, he held that the only motion which they could adopt to mark their indignant disapproval of Mr Mar shall's conduct, was that of Mr Hay. He was happy that in the proposal of a com

mittee, a locus penitentia was left for Mr it originally stood, but in his defence Marshall. Should that committee bring him to a better state of mind, no one would rejoice more than himself. If not, he cared not that Mr Marshall and his father sought to break over that court the thunderbolts of heaven. The court would have done its duty; and he trusted that, by marking such conduct by the Synod's indignant seal of disapprobation, they should never have its time squandered away by the idle gossip wherewith envy and malice were seeking to destroy the reputation of the good and the great.

Mr Marshall had presented the charge in a more definite form, and had read partial extracts from the correspondence between Dr Heugh and the person referred to, whom Mr Marshall had characterised as "a worthy brother in the ministry," having "a high cha racter for integrity and acuteness." On the ground of that correspondenee, Mr Marshall had charged Dr Heugh with indulging in “wicked passion,” and imitating "the haughty scorner who dealeth in proud wrath." Now, in forming an opinion respecting Dr Heugh's Dr TAYLOR, Glasgow, said, that but letter to that individual, it was necessary for the line of defence adopted by Mr to keep in mind to whom and in what Marshall and his father, he would pro- circumstances it was written. The court bably have taken no part in the discus- would doubtless remember Mr Marshall's sion. He begged to call the attention answers to the questions which he (Dr of the court, first of all, to the origin of Taylor) had put to him last night on the whole case. He wished to meddle as this part of the case. Mr Marshall little as possible with motives, but it was answered one of these questions that no breach of charity to impute to any he did not advise this brother to write man motives which he openly avowed. Dr Heugh; but he declined to answer Mr Marshall declared again and again, the question whether he knew of that that it was in consequence of Dr Heugh's brother's intention to write Dr Heugh. public conduct, the part he had taken He refused to answer this question, on in connexion with the atonement contro- the ground that his answer might crimiversy in general, and towards Dr Mar-nate the person referred to. Now, if shall in particular, that he had formed the question had been answered in the the most unfavourable opinion respecting negative, so far from criminating him, his christian character. Nobody could the answer would have removed a most for a moment doubt that this was the painful suspicion which now hung over origin of the whole affair. Mr Marshall his character and conduct. The infehaving on these grounds taken up a pre-rence was, therefore, unavoidable, that judice of the strongest kind against Dr the question could only be answered with Heugh, turned a greedy ear to every truth in the affirmative. What, then, evil report or surmise against him, and would the Synod say if it should turn raked up from the filth of oblivion every out that the individual referred to was idle rumour, no matter how improbable, in Dr Heugh's house partaking of his and every slanderous charge which he hospitality, for the purpose of soliciting thought likely to injure Dr Heugh's re- his aid in a matter of great importance putation or to wound his feelings. Mr to himself and his congregation, at the Marshall had declared that, with the ex- time when he supposed he heard Dr ception of one case, he did not intend to Heugh commit the grave offence with bring any charge, direct or indirect, which he afterwards charged him? against Dr Heugh; but he (Dr Taylor) | What if it should appear that he obtained thought with Dr Young, that if the form Dr Heugh's assistance, and thankfully of charges had been avoided, the reality acknowledged it? What if it should had not, and in Mr Marshall's defence appear that shortly after he asked Dr he had brought direct charges against Heugh to confer on him the additional Dr Heugh of the most serious kind, and favour of travelling to his residence, a couched in the most offensive language. great distance from Glasgow, and adIn order to show how baseless these dressing his people, and that his request charges were, it was only necessary to was granted? What if it should turn examine them a little in detail. With out that for eighteen months, and amid regard to the first charge, that on a cer- all these opportunities of mentioning the tain occasion, not specified, Dr Heugh supposed offence to Dr Heugh, he was had been guilty of grossly unchristian conduct towards a worthy brother in the ministry, not named; nothing could be more vague than the statement as

silent as the grave regarding it? What if it should appear that he communicated this evil report to Mr Marshall before mentioning it to Dr Heugh; and that

Mr Marshall, he would not say advised man of the committee of Synod aphim to write to Dr Heugh, but knew of pointed to consider the appendix to Dr his intention to do so before that step Marshall's book, after he had pronounced was taken? What if it should appear an unfavourable opinion upon it; that that when at length his tardy conscience, his conduct in doing so was "utterly unwhether with or without instigation, principled," and had "no parallel except constrained him to address Dr Heugh on in the case of one or two infamous the subject, he did so not by way of wretches, who, about the end of last inquiry, or as if he might have been century, disgraced our public tribunals, mistaken, but by a direct affirmation and whom history has since held up to that the charge was true? What if all universal and deserved execration." these things were so, would any man of With regard to this charge, he would conscious integrity have hesitated to say first of all that two years had elapsed repel with indignant scorn such a charge since the alleged offence was committed, brought by such a man in such circum- and during all that time no steps had stances? What, then, would the Synod | been taken in regard to it. Why, then, think of the man who, with all these had it now been revived after the lapse facts fully known to him, should make of so long a period?

Dr Heugh's denial of this foul calumny Dr MARSHALL-I did take steps. I the ground of charging him with "gross- communicated to Dr Heugh that I was ly unchristian conduct," "unchristian not satisfied with his reasons. rudeness," of indulging in "wicked pas- Dr TAYLOR said he was just about to sion," and of imitating the "haughty notice that fact, if Dr Marshall would scorner who dealeth in proud wrath ?" only have a little patience. Dr Marshall And what would the Synod think of the had, according to his own account, reman who had acted in the way described, ceived no satisfaction from Dr Heugh, and had either directly, or through a and yet he allowed the matter to rest third party, furnished Mr Marshall with there without making any attempt to the materials for this charge? No follow out the law of Christ regarding wonder that Mr Marshall dreaded a offences. And, by the way, the reason kindred fate for this kindred spirit. Dr which he gave for not telling it to the Taylor proceeded to say, that Dr Mar- church was not over complimentary. It shall, in defending his son, had alleged was because he felt persuaded that the that he was not the first to remonstrate great majority of the members of this privately with Dr Heugh. True, Dr court were not prepared to do him jusMarshall himself was the first. He was tice. But Dr Marshall was not Mr W. not the second, says Dr Marshall. True, Marshall. It was the conduct of the the worthy brother-the pattern of inte- latter that was now called in question, grity and acuteness he was the second; and he had taken no steps whatever in and Mr William Marshall appears to have regard to this alleged offence, till nearly been the third. Now, he would not say two years after it was committed. Se that there had been a combination among condly, Dr Heugh, as it had been justly these three worthies to ruin the charac- remarked, in acting upon this committee, ter and wound the feelings of Dr Heugh, had acted in obedience to the appointbut looking simply at the facts as they ment of Synod, and had merely dischargstood, it was evident that all three were ed a duty which that court had assigned intimately acquainted with one another's him. Thirdly, it seemed to have been opinions and movements in this matter; forgotten that Dr Marshall's appendix that they had a sort of common property was not the only document remitted to in certain calumnies and evil reports, the committee. The professor's statewhich seemed to be known to no one else; and that they had apparently acted in concert for a common object. After making a few remarks upon the fourth charge--which was the revival of a foul slander buried ten or twelve years ago, and of the revival of which nobody seemed to have heard but Mr Marshall Dr Taylor proceeded to comment on the fifth charge, which both Mr Marshall and his father had all along admitted to be a direct accusation. In this charge it was affirmed that Dr Heugh had sat as chair

ments were also handed over to them for consideration. Now, it would probably have been impossible to have found a single member of Synod who had not, to a greater or less extent, made up his mind, and more or less openly expressed his opinion on this subject, and it should be borne in mind that the committee was appointed after a lengthened discussion in the Synod, and in consequence of that discussion. The court, in these circumstances, did the only thing it could fairly do-nominated a committee composed of