« 上一頁繼續 »
ney, was then a tolerably fair equiva. chester, than by the whole criminal lent for the property taken away. But courts of Scoilaud put together in a now that the Non-intrusion party in- year. Now, however, the case is sist that the Act of Queen Anne totally changed; and, between the should be repealed, and the rights of Reform transports of the one party, the patrons abolished, what do they and the non-intrusion bellowings of do? Do they propose to provide a the other, the number of criminals for fund by voluntary subscription or as serious offences has risen to 3,600, sessment, under an act of Parliament, exhibiting a rapidity in the progress to indemnify the dispossessed patron of crime-baving multiplied forty-fold according to the present value of mo- in thirty-four years—a ratio unparal. ney, in the same proportion as the Act leled, it is believed, in any other coun. of 1690 did in the merks of the old try in Europe. Scottish realm? Is every parish pre. In 1833, however, during the parpared to assess itself, at the rate of oxysms of the Reform mania, the three or four thousand pounds, for the Whigs raised the clamour in England, indemnification of the patron ? Are that the rights of patrons must be they even prepared to make good the abridged, and the Edinburgh Whigs indemnity provided by the old act of got the famous Veto Act passed by the 1690 ? They are not. We hear no General Assembly in 1834, which thing of indemnity, subscription, or vested, for the first time, a power of assessment from the Non-intrusion putting a veto upon the presentee of gentlemen. Their method of solving the patron, in the majority of the heads the difficulty is much easier, much of families in communion with the more summary, and, above all, much church of the parish. It is the exercheaper. It savours of the true revo- cise of this assumed power, which is lutionary character. Its authors have wholly illegal, and in direct violation taken a leaf ont of the chapter of the of the legal rights of the patron, as Jacobins in 1793. It is this :
established by the act of Queen Amne, The patrons had been in possession and declared by the Court of Session of the right of patronage, with the ex and the House of Peers in the Auchiception of four parishes, where the terarder case, that has given rise to people had bought up the right under the present painful dissensions in the the act 1690. Under this system, al- church and community of Scotland. though the people in many places, Now, however, the church revoluespecially in the western counties, tionists throw the Veto Act overboard where the old principles of the cove altogether. Dr Chalmers declared, nant were not yet extinguished, still in the last General Assembly, that hankered after the appointment of their it was not worth the having ; that it owu pastors, the Scottish Kirk conti. did more harm than good; and that nued to be administered for a hundred the only way to settle the question and thirty years with exemplary fide- was to emancipate the church from lity and usefulness. The proof of this the shackles of the civil power altogeis to be found in the character of the ther. Upon this point all the sections Scottish peasantry, which, for above of the Non-intrusion party are now an hundred years, and until the fatal agreed. Total abolition of patronage inroad of manufacturing industry is the universal cry; and the ulterior changed their character in the manu- question of, who are to be the parties facturing districts, and opened with- that are to nominate to the vacant livout restriction the floodgates of sin ings, is carefully kept out of view, lest continued to be amongst the most mo. it should sow dissension among the ral and educated in Europe. Of this, ranks of those who are unanimously no more decisive proof can be required agreed upon the abolition of patronthan is to be found in the fact, that age. the whole criminals convicted by juries Now observe the difference, again, in 1806, amounted only to eighty-nine between the old Whigs of the Revoout of a population of, at that time, lution, and the modern revolutionnearly 2,000,000 of souls; and that in ary Whigs. The object of both is 1804, the Lord Advocate (Hope) stat- identical; viz., the abolition of patroned, with perfect truth, in the House of age, and the vesting it in some classes Commons, that more criminals were of the people. But bow did the Whigs convicted in one single quarter ses of 1690 proceed in this great work of sions by the justices of peace at Man. ecclesiastical regeneration? Why,
they provided indemnification, and as declared by the Court of Queen's what was then ample indemnification, Bench, in sending the Sheriff of Midat the hands of the heritors and pa. dlesex to prison, in defence of what rishioners, who were to obtain the the House of Commons deemed the right of patronage in lieu of the patron. Constitution, in regard to the privi. This indemnity, however, cooled the leges of Parliament. ardour of the Scottish covenant. Only But, setting aside the obvious confour parishes took advantage of the sideration, that there is some small power of purchasing up the patronage difference between the House of Comthus conferred upon them. But what mons--a branch of the supreme ledo the revolutionary Whigs now pro- gislature-and a body of two or three pose? Why, they propose to spoliate hundred thousand Scotch non-intru. the patrons, not even by act of Par- sionists, who have no political capaliament, but simply by an universal city in the State whatever, is it not passive and obstinate resistance to the astonishing that so acute and welllaw. The way that they effect this, informed a gentleman as the learned is by getting the General Assembly, member for Kilmarnock should not or its Commission, when not sitting, have seen to what perilous, indeed which wields its powers in this parti. awful consequences, his doctrine natu. cular, to refuse to induct any clergy. rally leads. Mr Colquhoun says:man presented to the living by the "I am entitled to resist the law, bepatron, against whom a veto has been cause I hold that it is contrary to the passed by a majority of the communi. Constitution; and I hold the Consti. cants in the parish. Thus they propose tution to be what is to be found in the to effect their revolutionary object of statute-book, minus the Act of Queen spoliating the patrons of their property Anne, which established the right of by an illegal resistance to the induction patronage.” On the same principle, of the presentee of the patron, and by the Chartist says :-" I resist the law, calling upon the people to exercise an because I hold it to be contrary to the illegal and pretended right, which the constitution; and I hold the constichurch courts, without authority, have tution to be the Reform Bill, minus conferred upon them, of interposing all the clauses limiting the francbise a veto where they have no legal title to a particular class of electors; in whatever to interfere. In what respect other words, universal suffrage." The does this differ from the Chartists, Socialist says :-" I resist the law, who break out in rebellion, and refuse because I hold it to be contrary to to pay taxes until their charter is the constitution ; and I hold the granted; or the French revolutionists, constitution to be the laws of the who confiscated the property of the country, minus that monstrous griechurch on the false pretence that the vance they call Christianity.” In this nation would provide adequately for way the rebels of Newport, and the the ministers of religion ?
infidels of Birmingham, will find themThe abler and more respectable selves supported, in all their illegal leaders of the Non-intrusionists, are and irreligious excesses, by the ex. aware that they are violating the law, ample of the House of Commons, and in the conflict which they are at pre the authority of the learned Member sent so obstinately maintaining with for Kilmarnock. Can there be a the supreme civil courts, who support stronger proof of the impolicy of the the rights of the patrons ; and they course on which the majority of the justify it by the example of the House House of Commons unhappily adven. of Commons in the last session of Par- tured last session, than the fact that liament. Mr Colquhoun said, in his it is thus made a precedent for resisspeech at Kilmarnock, that he was tance to the law, by whole sections of driven by necessity to violate either the community? And can we be sur. the law or the constitution ; that he prised that rebellion should break out held the constitution to be defined by among the Chartists in England, and the act 1690, which vested the nomi law be almost powerless among the nation of ministers in the heritors and Papists in Ireland, when men of such kirk-session ; and that the Non-intru ability, weight, and eloquence as the sionists were justified in resisting the Member for Kilmarnock openly advo. law, in support of what they deemed cate spoliation of private property, by the constitution, in the same way as resistance to the law, and ground their Parliament was in resisting the law resistance upon the allegation that acts of Parliament, which have been but Jesus Christ; that no civil courts for nearly a century and a-half in ope. can interfere in the appointment to ration, are, in their opinion, “con spiritual functions ; that he disclaims, trary to the constitution ?"
in the name of his party, all intention The Non-intrusionists say, that of interfering with the jurisdiction of in their opinion the act of Queen the civil courts touching temporal Anne, re-establishing the right of pa. emoluments; but that the co-equal trons, is contrary to the constitution, and independent jurisdiction of the and that the oply way to remedy the ecclesiastical judicatories in spiritual existing evil is, to deprive the patrons matters must also be maintained, and of their usurped rights, and to vest the that there he nails his colours to the right of patronage either in the whole mast. Concede, for argument's sake, parishioners, or some considerable sec. the principle, and let us see whether tion of them. Be it so. Let it be that argument, when carried to its conceded, for argument's sake, that legitimate conclusions, is consistent their views in this respect are wholly with the active resistance which he is well-founded, and that they possess a maintaining to the law. He says that case in this particular so strong, that the civil and ecclesiastical courts are the legislature must, in the end, con- independent and equally supreme, and cede their demands. What is the that neither must interfere with, nor proper course which all orderly sub- trench upon, the prerogatives of the jects should adopt in such a case ? other. Granted. According to this Ought they not to address themselves principle, the presentee of the patron to the understanding of the public, supported by the civil courts, is not and convince their reason by argu- entitled to interfere with the spiritual ment, and thus strive, in the usual way, duties of the parish, and the presentee to effect an influence on the legisla- of the Non-intrusionists, supported by ture? If reason fails, or argument the ecclesiastical courts, is not entitled is found unequal to the conflict with to interfere with the civil emoluments power, let them even agitate in sup- of his temporal rival. So far all is port of the change for which they clear and consistent, and both courts contend, and endeavour to extort, by are maintained in their respective supopular outcry, from an unwilling preme temporal and spiritual spheres. legislature, the objects which they T o carry out the principle to its have at heart.
proper consequences, and preserve These are all the methods of work. this mutual independence quite entire, ing constitutional changes, which a the obvious course plainly is, for the constitutional monarchy allows; and temporal presentee to be inducted, although the third is an ultimum reme. and draw the temporal fruits, and imdium, to which wise men will have re- mediately to be interdicted by the spicourse as seldom as possible, yet ex ritual court from discharging any of perience proves that it is sometimes the sacred functions; and for the spi. indispensable, in order to effect legis. ritual nominee of the people to be imlative improvement in opposition to mediately interdicted by the civil interested power. But the Non-intru- court from drawing any of the temsionists do none of these things. Dis. poral emoluments. In this way, the carding all constitutional weapons, co-ordinate supremacy of each court they at once unfurl the red flag of re- would be maintained in violate in its bellion. They resist the execution of respective spheres. The civil presenthe law by means of an arbitrary tee would draw all the emoluments stretch, which they get the Church and do nothing, and the spiritual precourts to make, without any legal au- sentee would discharge all the duty thority. And when this illegality is and draw nothing. Such a state of declared by the highest judicatory in things would be the direct consethe kingdom, they still continue the quences of the doctrines of the nonconflict, and distract the minds of the intrusionists, pushed to their legitipeople, and shake the foundations of mate results; and however much it government, by supporting with the might be regretted by all friends to weight of rank, talent, learning, and religion and to the poor, as tending to piety, an undisguised resistance to the divorce the connexion between Church law.
and State, destroy the efficiency of Dr Chalmers says, that the Church the Establishment, and blast the reli. of Scotland acknowledges no head gious instruction of the poor, it could
not be objected to on the score of con blishment in spiritnal matters ? There sistency.
can be no doubt that this argument But this is not what the Non-intru. would be well-founded, at least it sionists do. They do not allow the would be in perfect consistency with civil presentee to be inducted, and the separate sphere of civil and ecclethen interdict him from discharging siastical judicatories for which they the spiritual functions. They refuse contend. But in what respect does to induct him at all, and thereby pre such a case differ on principle from clude him even from drawing the civil that which has now occurred, when emoluments ; induction being, by law, the church courts, by preventing inan indispensable preliminary to the duction, debar the civil presentee from patron's presentee acquiring right to drawing the civil emoluments? It is the manse òr glebe. They threaten evident that the latter is just as much with deprivation, and are now actually an overstepping of the line of demarproceeding to deprive of their livings, cation between the two jurisdictions the clergy of the presbyteries who in as the forner could have been, and duct contrary to the injunctions of the that the Non-intrusion party are not spiritual courts. By so doing, by in now contending for an immunity of terposing their negative at this early spiritual from civil power, but for an stage of the proceedings, they not only encroachment, by the spiritual courts, are acting in opposition to the civil over the civil rights and patrimouial law, but in direct violation of the very interests of the clergy of the kingdom. distinction between the jurisdictions of And what sort of establishment the church and civil courts for which would it be, that for which Dr Chalthey themselves so strenuously con. mers and the Non-intrusionists thus tend. While they disclaim all inten- vociferously clamour, and to gain tion of interfering with the temporal which they thus thrust forward the emoluments, they contrive to inter- church courts into an invasion of the pose their negative at such a time and civil judicatory, and distractihe country in such a way as effectually deprives by the frightful spectacle of a large the civil presentee of all the temporal portion of the Church and a consi. emoluments of the living. While con derable body of the people being tinually roaring out about spiritual openly and avowedly arrayed in reindependence, they are in truth sweep- bellion against the law: Is it not a ing off from their opponents the whole church establishment on the most civil emoluments connected with the absurd and impracticable of all founliving. And while professing to con dations—that of the landed proprietors tend only for having Christ as the payi:g for the clergyman, and the head of the Church, they are in effect people by universal suffrage, or some keeping a sharp eye upon the tempo. committee of their number, electing ralities of the benefices.
the clergyman? Was such a system To test the matter, suppose the ever heard of upon earth ? Is it pos. case reversed. Suppose the presentee sible it could exist for five years ? of the people, supported by the spiri. Would it not necessarily end in pertual courts, to be inducted by the sous of property leaving a church, Presbytery, and that immediately upon and shaking themselves loose of an doing so the Court of Session were to establishment in which they had no proceed to interdict him, not for draw- longer any influence in the appointing the stipend, living in the manse, ment of the clergy, and betaking themor making use of the church, all which selves either to the Voluntary system, are the temporalities of benefices, and or to a general resistance to the paywithin the proper jurisdiction of the ment of tithes? With what counte. civil courts, but also from preaching, nance could the Non-intrusion clergy or discharging any spiritual function intrude themselves into the manse or inany part of the parish, would not the the stipends? How could they call in Non-intrusion party immediately ex. the aid of the law to enforce their claim that this was a flagrant violation civil rights, or recover their titbesof the independence of the church they who had openly set the law at courts; that the civil judicatories had defiance, and who had intruded them. overstepped the frontier, and trenched selves into their respective parishes by deep on the spiritual territory, and trampling on its provisions? Do the that no decree of the civil courts could clergy not see that the passive resisinterfere with the ecclesiastical esta- tance to the law is a two-edged wea'
pon, and that the heritors, at present will have the satisfaction of thinking
danger to be brought upon both parts And let not the people, or the clergy of the empire ? Is it to improve the of the people of Eugland, imagine that Church-to elevate the character of these topics are foreign to their inter- its doctrine—to extend the blessings ests, or that revolutionary and rebel- of its instruction? Is it not, on the lious doctrines, such as these now pro contrary, to establish, without any exmulgated and acted upon by the Non- ception, the most deplorable and in. intrusion party in the Church of Scot- workable establishment that ever exland, can be permitted to run riot in isted? Who ever heard of the clergy one part of the empire without en of a national establishment being apdangering the whole. The example pointed by the universal suffrage of of the rapid way in which the anar
the members of the respective congrechical doctrines of the Scottish cove gations? Does not such a system nenant spread to and convulsed England, cessarily let into the establishment until they terminated in the Fifth-mo. the whole evils, the well-known evils narchy men of Cromwell, should be of the Voluntary system, and which sufficient to convince them that such Dr Chalmers, in particular, has with principles are not to be dallied with so much truth and eloquence illuswith impunity either in Church or trated ? Must it not necessarily inState. It is always agreeable to the duce the intriguing to procure elecpeople to be vested with power; it is tions, the dependence of clergy on a very captivating doctrine with the their flocks, the timnidity at denouncing masses to be told that they alone are the vices or withstanding the corcompetent to judge who are fit to be rupt tendency of the tyrant majorities their spiritual instructors. It is still in their respective parishes, so well more captivating for the multitude known to the reflecting in Europe, so to find themselves invested with the woefully experienced by the irreflect. agreeable privilege of appointing the ing in America ? Is it possible to imaminister, while the persons of property gine, for human wit to devise, a are saddled with the painful operation worse mode of election to any office of paying him.
of importance than that of vesting it No mortal will suppose that the in some hundreds or a thousand of the movement will stop short as the Mem multitude, for the most part in the ber for Kilmarnock wishes; he may humblest and most unenlightened propose to stop at Hounslow, but the walks of life? Would such a mode of movement will undoubtedly go on to election be deemed sale for the apWindsor. Down to the masses, the pointment of a parish clerk, a road stone will roll when it is once loosened surveyor, or police officer, or any of from its resting-place on the summit the humblest offices in society which of the hill. Such principles are well require the meanest capacity ? Does calculated to rouse the revolutionists, not the universal practice of mankind, to the south as well as to the north of when assembled in large bodies, in the Tweed. They, too, can see the naming a small committee, to whom expedience of dividing the Church, by the executive department is entrusted, throwing the torch of dissension among prove the impossibility of getting its members; they, as well as the business properly conducted, or proScotch Whigs, can make a pretence per appointments effected, by such puof supporting the Non-intrusionists in merous, changeable, and uninformed the Church, in order to keep out the bodies ? Is such a mode of election, as decided Tory intrusionists in the Ca experience has every where discarded binet. The flame of church revolu- from the ordinary occupations of comtion, if it succeeds in consuming the mon life, to be selected as the fit mode Scotch church establishment, will in- of appointing those who are to watch fallibly spread to and destroy that of over our spiritual instruction and England, and thus the leaders of the eternal interests; and are we not abviolent ecclesiastical party in Scotland solutely insane if, when we would not