SCOTLAND.

The Edinburgh election did not terminate without a contest. Sir Cal- ling Eardley Smith accepted the invitation of the Free Church people and some of the more Anti-Catholic Dissenters, and allowed himself to be put in nomination against Mr. Macaulay. The rnalecontents placed the claims of Sir Culling on the ground of his opposition to all ecclesiastical endow- ments, and of his piety being more conspicuous than Macaulay's. Sir Culling, however, failed to reach the standard of the Complete Suffragists. At a preliminary meeting on Thursday, in the Waterloo Rooms, the Reverend Dr. John Ritchie asked him whether he approved of a monetary qualification for an elector. In reply, Sir Culling acknowledged that the tendency of the Bible was in favour of universal suffrage; but he was not prepared to say that either this year or the next year the suffrage ought to be extended.

The nomination took place on Friday. Mr. Macaulay was attended on the hustings by Mr. Black the Lord Provost, Sir James Gibson Craig, and other leading Whigs. Sir Culling Eardley Smith was accompanied by Sir James Forrest, Dr. R. K. Greville, and some prominent members of the Free Church.

The Lord Provost nominated Mr. Macaulay— He had served the constituency of Edinburgh for seven years: it was an honour to them that they had a representative in Parliament whose speeches and whose

writings had delighted and instructed not only our own country but all wherever the English language was spoken. If the electors refused to return Mr. Macau- layit would be a disgrace to the city, an injury to Parliament, and more particu- larly so to the country, seeing that it would operate unfavourably on a Cabinet which was prepared to promote the welfare not only of Britain but of all other nations. A better type of the literary and scholastic character of their city than Mr. Macaulay could not be found. There was only one point on which fault could be Sound with him—his vote for the Maynooth grant. But, admitting that vote to have been wrong, was it fair that the electors should discard him for one vote, when there were so many other subjects of greater importance to be dealt with in Parliament? Mr. Black would not, however, admit that Mr. Macaulay did wrong in giving that vote: nothing ecclesiastical was bound up in it—it was altogether an educational question.

Mr. James Moncrieff, advocate, seconded the nomination—

He was himself a member of the Free Church, but would not join with those of that communion who opposed Mr. Macaulay. He considered the Maynooth ques- tion to be one merely of regulation; and as to the endowment of the Roman Catholic priests, Mr. Macaulay had declared himself opposed to it.

Sir James Forrest then proposed Sir Culling Eardley Smith—

He had no personal objection to Mr. Macaulay, and no hostile feeling to the Government: but he thought it to be his duty and the duty of his friends there and elsewhere, to look out for men to represent them, of high religious principle, Christian men, men of sound views on all great and important mat- ters, who would carry their Christianity along with them into the Commons House of Parliament, and who would there consider and vote and act as with the fear of God before their eyes, and with a single desire to promote the best interests of this country and of the civilized world. He did not pretend to say that Mr. Macaulay was not such a man; yet if he could find one of the same political opinions, but who in addition was a man whose character for Christian principle had been proved by the tenour of his life, by his actions at all times, by his long standing in society and in the world, it was his duty to give him the preference. Such a man he considered Sir Culling Eardley Smith to be. Sir James proceeded to animadvert upon Mr. Macaulay's vote in favour of the grant to Maynooth; an institution which he considered to be an outrage upon Protestant feeling from its very origin, since its object was to promote the spread of a soul- destroying heresy. Mr. Beilby seconded the nomination of Sir Culling Eardley Smith.

Mr. Macaulay addressed the electors, and applied himself particularly to Sir James Forrest's objections— Sr James had shown himself shamefully ignorant of the history of Maynooth. He says that the origin of that institution is an outrage on the Protestant feeling of this country: why, he does not know that that institution was set up by the Irish Parliament when England and Scotland had nothing to do with it. Over and over again it has happened to England to conquer colonies whose inhabitants were Roman Catholics: Canada is an instance. " But did we, when we took these countries, necessarily take away from the Roman Catholic priests we found there all their tithes and livings? Not at all. Our practice was to make treaties by which we engaged to maintain the institutions we found there. And the same thing was done with regard to Ireland. The Irish Parliament made a treaty with the English Parliament, by which the United Parliament was formed, and by which this institution, together with crowds of other Irish institutions, became parts of a general Imperial system. It is therefore utterly untrue, and shows a profound ignorance in any man, to say that the origin of this institution was an out- rage upon the Protestant feeling of England and Scotland." " Is there any violation of principle, then, in this,—not extending the institution for any purpose which you can call evil, but in simply making the walls look decent, the building convenient, the lecture-rooms suitable, and the supply of food plentiful. Is this, can this be a lineation of principle? (A Voice," 1 es I") Why, do consider what a question of principle is. lime honourable Baronet undertook to meet this Part of the ques- tion: he said,' I will show that this endowment is a question of principle'; and what was his argument P—Why, the one which I have just exposed, that the very foundation of the institution was an outrage upon the Protestant feeling of the nation. But, if I have shown that it did not originate with this country, that cannot be the answer. There must be found some other."

Sir James Forrest—" May I explain?" (Uproar.) Mr. Macaulay—" I wish that any person would (perhaps Sir Culling Eardley Smith will,) explain this—how it can be more a violation of principle to have a neat house for Roman Catholic education than a house in ruins? (A Voice," Perhaps you will explain.") I explain! I must acknowledge my own utter incapacity. (Cheers and laughter.) 1 deny that the vote of last year was a question of prin- ciple at all. If you say it is a question of principle giving anything to Maynooth, then I ask Sir James Forrest this: why did lie, knowing that Maynooth existed, and that every year Parliament bestowed funds for its support—knowing, too, that I constantly voted for it—why did he propose me on the hustings? I defy any human being to say that the question is one of principle. I do not call it one; and if you wish for a representative who will call a quibble like this a prin- ciple, and who will for such a quibble sacrifice the union, the peace, the prosperity, the glory of this great empire, that representative I will not be." [In subsequent pasta of his address, Mr. Macaulay took credit to the Whigs for the hearty support they had rendered to Sir Robert Peel in carrying his liberal measures; remarking, that as long as the history of England shall be read, the conduct of that party

will be cited as a model of constitutional opposition. It was his belief, that if ever in the course of ages nations were found adjusting their differences by arbi- tration instead of appealing to the sword, it would be through the benign influ- ence of commercial freedom.] Sir Culling Eardley Smith made a short speech—

He threw himself upon the " hospitality " of the citizens of Edinburgh. He undertook to show, as God should enable him, that a question of principle was involved in the endowment of Maynooth; first, because there was no compact obliging the Legislature to pass the act of last year; in support of which he quoted an extract from a speech of Lord John Russell's; secondly, because the act of last year had placed Maynooth on a constitutional footing entirely different from that on which it had previously been placed; and thirdly, because it involved the payment and parochial endowment of the Catholic clergy of Ireland. He was unfavourable to all endowments of religion, but was not prepared to join a crusade against all existing establishments.

The show of hands was so equal that the Sheriff declined to say who had the majority. A poll was therefore demanded on the part of both can- didates, and fixed for Tuesday.

Mr. William Gibson Craig was reelected on Monday, without opposition; although he as well as Mr. Macaulay had voted for the Maynooth grant. In reference to this electioneering anomaly, a correspondent of the Times, writing on Monday evening, says-

" The real ground of opposition was believed to be a feeling of personal hostility to Mr. 'Macaulay. Whether, as some allege, this personal hostility is owing to the somewhat haughty and ungracious manner of the right honourable gentleman in Ids letters and addresses to the electors, I cannot say; but there is no denying that a strong feeling does exist against him amongst a large body of the constitu- ency, and that his reelection stands in considerable jeordy."

The Radicals, for reasons connected with the suffrage, and other extreme points, had invited Mr. John Dunlop of Brocklooh to come forward as a eandidate; but he declined.

Mr. William Gibson Craig was accompanied to the hustings by a numere

ono body of his friends and political allies; including his father Sir James Gibson Craig, the Lord Provost, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Fox Maule, Mr. Rutherfurd the Lord Advocate, Sir Alexander Maitland Gibson, Mr. Mait- land the Solicitor-General, &c. Having been nominated by Dr. Maclaggan, seconded by Mr. Lothian, and declared duly elected, Mr. Craig, returning thanks, defended his Maynooth vote, and Mr. Macaulay— The objection to that vote resolved itself into a mere point of casuistry. If it was anything else, how did it happen that he, who hadgiven the same vote as his right honourable colleague, had been thus unanimously returned to Parliament without one man appearing on those hustings to object to him? But, besides that, what was the difference between the two candidate; Sr Culling Eardley Smith and Mr. Macaulay? The honourable Baronet had declared that he would not rescind the vote to Maynooth, because he held that Maynooth was now one of the establishments of the country.

Mr. Macaulay, on being called for, made a short speech, and turned the same topic to good accouut-

Most readily would he admit that upon every ground of local knowledge and con- nexions; every ground but one his honourable friend's claims were superior to his; but on the particular ground upon which he was opposed, they stood exactly on the same footing. He would not have made this statement before his honourable friend was elected; he would not have said this while, by bringing this argument forward, he might seem to be endangering his return. But all that was passed; all danger was over: and now observe what was the relation between him who had been unanimously elected, and him for whom a poll was to be taken tomorrow. Both voted for the Maynooth grant, both had voted for it through every stage. The paper of which so much had been said, containing the resolution of certain electors of Edinburgh never again to return a man who had voted for that grant, had been sent to his honourable friend as well as to himself. Both answered in the same manner; both declared that they could not change their opinion—that they thought they were right, and that the memorialists were wrong. He asked, then, upon what principle it was that his honourable friend had been in animously returned, and how it was that any person who had acquiesced in returning his honourable friend could consistently oppose himself? He begged them particularly to observe how absurd this was from the nature of the opposition; for if it bad been put upon the ground of mere expediency, everybody could understand the principle of say- ing, " We will drive the nail that will go; we will keep out the weakest candi- date ": but it was put upon the ground of Christian duty. Now, was it a part of Christian duty to reject a candidate who voted for the Maynooth grant? If it was not, then it was no part of Christian duty to reject him; but it' it was, then those who had suffered his honourable friend to be returned without opposition were paltering with their Christian duty.

Mr. Fox Maule lent a helping hand—

The Maynooth question had only been made a stalking-horse on the present oc- casion; and the true secret of the opposition was a paltry, miserable, mean feeling of a personal nature against his right honourable friend. He hoped, however, that the electors of Edinburgh would tomorrow put his right honourable friend at the top of the poll by a large majority. The honour of the city was involved in this election. The honour of Scotland was involved in it. He stood there speaking in the character of one who belonged to the Free Church, and he would say that the honour of the Free Church of Scotland was involved in that election; for in all matters concerning that body, in which Mr. Maule had been engaged, and with a little prominence in Parliament, upon each and every occasion his right honour- able fnend had given him his cordial support. He would not, therefore, believe until he saw it recorded, that the Free Church would be guilty of such ingrati- tude, as for private considerations and personal views alone they would desert him at the moment of his trial.

The impression which prevailed in Edinburgh up to the evening of Mon- day, that Mr. Macaulay would be severely pressed at the poll by the op- posing Baronet, proved to be ill-founded. There was no want of exertion on both sides; all the appliances usual at contested elections were actively at work: but the hopes upon which Sir Eardley's supporters built the chances of success, or at the least of a " hard run," gradually evaporated. The Tories, contrary to expectation, stood aloof; and the Free Churchmen and Voluntaries did not hang together firmly. Mr. Macaulay's interest was greatly promoted by Mr. Fox Manle's speech and exertions among the Free Churchmen; one effect being the issuing of a declaration signed by thirty-three influential members, disclaiming on the part of the Free Church all connexion with the opposition, and disapproving of it per- sonally. The Roman Catholics, too, gave a ready and efficient support to Mr. Macaulay; and a renewal of iris declaration against the endowment of the Catholic priests did him good service, not only with Protestants but even with Catholics. Moreover, many of Sir Eardley's declarations tended to damp the ardour of his friends: he would only vote for the abolition of Church Establishments under certain circumstances, and would not con- sent to abrogate the grant to Maynooth now that it was an " existing in- stitution." The following " squib " derived its point from these pecu- liarities.

"THE INVOLUNTARY 'VOLUNTARY'S PLEDGES.

'1. I am for the abolition of Estabhahments--if it can be done without touching Vie Churches of England and Ireland, or any other " existing Institutions." ' 2. I am in favour of the Voluntary principle, and shall support it in practice—when- ever the Bishops and patrons of rich livings are on the same side. ' 3. I am for abolishing the Annuity-tax—but I know nothing about it, and would rather not give my opinion of it till I know what it Is.

• 4. I think the Maynooth College, a detestable and abominable Anti-Christian, Anti- Protestant, Anti-Exeter Hall affair—but that it should be kept up, as It is an established institution of the country.

' 5. I am for the abolition of all endowments in theory—but don't you wish you may get it in practice ? 'I am your candid candidate, ' CUNNING EELET SMITH.'" To the Electors of Bammburgli.' " On Tuesday morning the polling-booths were opened; and the voting went on as follows, at the hours named—

Nine. Ten. Eleven. Twelve. One. Two. Three. Four.

Macaulay 473 805 1,095 1,305 1,465 1,549 1,667 1,735 - Smith 195 357 507 616 695 726 780 832 Absolute majority for Mr. Macaulay 903 •

The polling-booths and committee-rooms were surrounded all day by large crowds eagerly watching the progress of the poll, and warmly die- cussing the merits of the candidates. Nor was the interest confined tt) Edinburgh: such was the anxiety in Glasgow to know how the contest was going, that intelligence of the state of the poll at the end of every hour was transmitted thither by means of the electric telegraph. At four o'clock, Mr. Macaulay appeared at his committee-rooms, in Hurt- ter Square, accompanied by the Lord Provost, Sir James Gibson Craig, Mr. William Gibson Craig, M.P., &c.; and was received with great applause by the multitude who had assembled both within and without. After a short address, he proceeded to the hustings, and poured out his acknow- ledgments as follows-

' I cannot express to you, gentlemen, the joy with which I have listened to these acclamations ; a joy of no selfish kind. They prove to me that the feeling which the poll of this day indicates is confined to no particular class. They prove to me that the whole population of Edinburgh is penetrated with respect for then

great principles for which we have contended, and in the cause of which we have triumphed. Most painful, most humiliating indeed, would it have been, and of evil omen for this great country, if we could have believed the contrary. When we consider the place which Scotland occupies among the nations—when we consider the place which Edinburgh occupies among the cities of Scotland, for- merly the seat of legislation and government, still intellectually and morally the capital of a great and enlightened people—it would have been strange indeed if in such a place an appeal to reason against prejudice, and to the great principles of religions liberty, to which no good Protestant ought to be unfaithful, should not have been successful I shall carry back with me to London—to my place in Parliament—to my place in her Majesty's councils—a mind strongly impressed with the important truth, that the people of this great city are attached with equal firmness, and on grounds equally conscientious, to the Protestant religion and to the principles of religious freedom. I trust that no part of my future con- dad will appear to you inconsistent with either the one or the other of these great principles, which have done so much to raise your country to what it is."

On Wednesday the poll was declared, in the presence of the candidates, and of an immense and somewhat excited crowd. Mr. Macaulay admitted the fairness with which the opposition to his return had been conducted, but lectured the people of Edinburgh on the intolerance to which Protes- tant feeling had driven its votaries in times past—somewhat too much of a similar feeling still surviving. He was at much pains, however, to disclaim any intentional discourtesy towards the electors when replying to their address relative to the Maynooth grant. Sir Culling Eardley Smith, in- sisted that Mr. Macaulay had used language disrespectful to the electors; and declared that he should oppose him again at the next election. Sir Eardley did not seem to be very successful in setting the crowd against the Member; for at times he could scarcely make his voice heard through the angry and derisive interruptions.

Mr. Fox Maule had been reelected for Perth on Saturday.