網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

ain't the best tomb here, after all;" and, as his companion replied by an acquiescent grunt, my opinion on the matter must not be implicitly relied on. It is a square massive piece of workmanship, garnished with a begging dog, in bronze, on either side the entrance, with Egyptian columns, sphinges, urns, and flowerpots, all of the same hue; and some angels with wreaths, and some horses with wings in relievo; the last-mentioned animals being (the wings always excepted) the only ornament for which I could perceive any reason. The only present occupant of the interior is the late Mrs Ducrow, whose worth is commemorated in an ungrammatical and particularly ill-written inscription. For the "horse-taming Andrew" himself, long may it be ere the ring at Astley's knows him no more; for most assuredly, till the end of time,

"Within that circle none shall ride as he."

There is a tomb, not far removed from this, which few will pass without a sigh. It bears no laboured eulogy; but, to the great majority of those whose sorrows and sympathies are worth the waking, it tells an ample tale. Its simple inscription is

ANNE SCOTT,
Daughter of Sir Walter Scott,

of Abbotsford, Baronet,
Died June the 25th, 1833,
In her 31st year.

Somewhere here, too, stands, above the grave of one untimely cut off, a handsome broken column, (of which, by the way, there are several in the cemetery,) but it wastes its poetry sadly. I heard a respectable-looking man and woman gravely deploring its maimed condition, and innocently speculating whether the misfortune arose from mischief or high winds.

I noticed but one tomb in the place of which one would say, at a glance,

"That grave must be a Frenchman's."
It is that of poor Pelissié the comedian.
It is, of course, much decorated, and
overgrown with flowers and shrubs,
or three
and has, moreover, two
wreaths of those common, small, dried,
yellow flowers, whose name I forget,
in a little glass case, such as is usually
dedicated to a stuffed canary-bird,
affixed to the headstone. The first
part of the inscription is neat :-" He
was among the first who endeavoured
to naturalize Molière in the country
of Shakspeare." The last sentence
sounds, in English ears, somewhat
strangely :-" This stone would be
soon worn away (usée), if every one
whom he has delighted were to visit
this spot, to kneel on it (s'agenouiller),
and to pray for him."

It is by no means the least striking
feature of this cemetery, that it is
closely neighboured on either side by
one of those gigantic achievements of
modern science-a railway. Singular
enough it is, to stand on the terrace
of the little chapel, and contrast an
approaching funeral procession" the
steps of the mourners heavy and
slow" the laboured progress of the
plumed hearse, with the momentary
meteor-like glimpse of a passing train;
the oppressive stillness and silence of
death, with the noise, and the hurry,
and the whirl of life; and to think
that the most impatient traveller of all
those who shot by not a moment ago,
must erelong be content to journey
at the snail-like pace of the melan-
If the Ken-
choly pageant before us.
sall Green cemetery sends us home
pondering well on these things, it will
have preached a homily on mortality
beyond the pulpit-a homily, more-
over, of which we happily cannot lose
the spirit, by setting ourselves to work
after the most approved modern fa-
shion to criticise the language.

THE NON-INTRUSION QUESTION.

THE Church Question in Scotland has never yet been put upon its right footing before the people of England. It has been enveloped in a cloud of local details, or foreign law; and our Southern readers, horrified at the sight of presbyteries, synods, non-intrusion meetings, Acts of the General Assembly and its Commission, decisions of the Court of Session, Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and judgments of the House of Peers, have almost universally turned away in despair from all attempts on the part of their Scottish brethren to enlighten them as to what was going on on the other side of the Tweed. We are not surprised at this indifference, any more than we are at the intense interest in which it is regarded by all classes of the Scottish people. The English disregard it, because they cannot perceive the bearings of the question at issue through the mist of technicalities, localities, and foreign interests in which it is enveloped. The Scotch watch it with anxiety, because they are well aware, that beneath this uninviting crust the fires of the revolutionary volcano are burning. We propose, in the present article, shortly, and in intelligible language, to explain the bearings of this important question to our Southern readers; to show with what perilous consequences, alike to Church and State, and the ultimate interests of the neglected poor, it is in reality fraught; and what serious consequences will, in all likelihood, ensue, both to the civil and ecclesiastical establishments of all parts of the empire, if the good sense and weight of England does not come to assist the intelligence and property of Scotland in the contest with revolutionary violence and religious fanaticism in which they are now engaged.

The contest between the fanatical or Non-intrusion party of the Scottish Church, as they style themselves, is the same at bottom with that in which Henry II. was so long engaged with the Church of Rome, and for which Thomas à-Becket was slain on the steps of the high altar of Canterbury cathedral. It is an effort on the part of this section of the Church, and their impassioned adherents among

the people, to wrest the right of pa tronage from all the patrons in the kingdom who at present enjoy it. The Church revolutionists are at variance as to the parties in whom the right of nomination should be vested when the present patrons are dispossessed. The more moderate among them, of whom Mr Colquhoun of Killermont may be reckoned as the leader, are inclined to vest the nomination in the heritors and kirk-sessions; that is, as the English would say, in the landed proprietors and churchwardens of the parish. Others are inclined to go a step further, and propose to vest it in all those communicating with the Kirk; that is to say, in all the parishioners who are in the habit of attending the sacrament. Others, again, who go the whole hog, are clear that nothing will do but vesting it at once in the universal suffrage of the whole males in the parish above twenty-one years of age. Thus, though the revolutionary band are by no means at one as to their ulterior proceedings, and the evident seeds of future discord are sown among them, yet they are perfectly agreed on one point; viz. spoliation of the patrons. They are split into many divisions about the division of the spoil, but perfectly at one as to the act of robbery.

We are well aware that these are hard words; more especially when applied to a body of men who embrace among their ranks many worthy of the highest admiration for their piety, their virtue, and their achievements in the cause of humanity. But when we come to political questions, and to the conduct of men in public life, we must judge of them by their actions, and by the tendency which the sures they advocate, have upon the rights and interests of the social body. Judging by this standard, we can see no difference whatever between the measures advocated by the Scotch Non-intrusionists, and those which were supported by the French Jacobins, and which are now contended for by the Chartists of England.

mea

Our reasons for this strong opinion are twofold; first, that the church Non-intrusionists propose to spoliate the patrons of their property without any indemnification; and secondly,

that they propose to effect this, not by act of parliament, but by a general and obstinate resistance to the law.

During the troubled and agitated times which succeeded to the restoration of Charles II., when the government was indefatigable in its efforts to re-establish episcopacy in the northern end of the island, and they were resisted by the firm spirit and patriotic self-denial of the Scottish Covenanters, the attention of all parties in the kingdom was forcibly drawn to the extreme inconvenience of maintaining, in opposition to the wishes of the people throughout a considerable portion of the kingdom, the rights of the patrons to present the clergy, as then by law established. On the other hand, it forcibly struck even the patriot lead ers of those days, that it would be altogether unjust to deprive the patrons of the rights which they had in great part purchased for full value, and on the strength of which debt had been contracted, and marriages and other onerous contracts formed, without some adequate compensation. These opposite and conflicting considerations led, after the Revolution in 1688, to the act of the Scottish Parliament of 1690, chap. 23, which provided a remedy for all the parishes that chose to avail themselves of it, while, at the same time, it secured adequate compensation to the patrons who were to be dispossessed. We here, for the sake of brevity, transcribe the abstract of this act, from the Scotch acts, and recommend the study of the passage to our readers, as drawing the distinction between the ancient Whigs of the Revolution, and the modern revolutionary Whigs.

"Our sovereign lord and lady, the King and Queen's Majesties, considering that the power of presenting ministers to vacant churches, of late exercised by patrons, hath been greatly abused, and is inconvenient to be continued in this realm; do, therefore, with the advice and consent of the estates of Parliament, hereby discharge, cass, annul, and make void, the foresaid power heretofore exercised by any patron of presenting ministers to any kirk now vacant, or that shall hereafter happen to be vaick within this kingdom, with all exercise of the said power." By the act it is declared, "in lieu and recompense of

the said right of presentation hereby taken away, their Majesties, with advice and consent foresaid, hereby statute and ordain the heretors and liferenters of each paroch, and the towncouncils for the burgh, to pay to the said patrons betwixt and Martinmas next, the sum of six hundred merks, proportionally, effeiring to their valued rents in the said paroch; viz. two parts by the heretors, and a third part by the liferenters, deducting always the patron's own part, effeiring to his proportion as an heritor: and that upon the said patron, his granting a sufficient and formal renunciation of the said right of presentation in favour of the said heritors, town-councils for the burghs, and kirk-session. And it is hereby declared, that as to the paroches to which their Majesties have right to present, upon payment of the six hundred merks to the clerks of the thesaury, their Majesties shall be fully denuded of their right of presentation to that paroch." It is further declared, "That the right of the teinds of the said paroches which are not heretably disponed, shall, by vertue of this present act, belong to the said patrons, with the burden always of the ministers' stipends, tack, and prorogations already granted of the said teinds, and of such augmentations of stipend, future prorogations and erections of new kirks as shall be found just and expedient, providing the saids patrons getting right to the teinds by vertue of this present act, and who had no right thereto before shall be, likeas they are hereby obliged to sell to each heretor, the tiends of his own lands, at the rate of six years' purchase, as the same shall be valued by a commission for valuation of tiends."

It is only necessary to add, that the right of patronage was re-established by the 10th of Queen Anne, chap. 11., and we have done with the whole technicalities of the Scotch law.

Now, observe the difference between the Whigs of the Revolution and the revolutionary Whigs. The former, in consequence of the then disagreement between the patrons and the people, took away from the patrons their right of patronage; but then they gave them in return, at the expense of the heritors of the parish taking the benefit of the Act, an indemnification, which, although now inconsiderable from the change in the value of mo

ney, was then a tolerably fair equiva lent for the property taken away. But now that the Non-intrusion party insist that the Act of Queen Anne should be repealed, and the rights of the patrons abolished, what do they do? Do they propose to provide a fund by voluntary subscription or assessment, under an act of Parliament, to indemnify the dispossessed patron according to the present value of money, in the same proportion as the Act of 1690 did in the merks of the old Scottish realm? Is every parish prepared to assess itself, at the rate of three or four thousand pounds, for the indemnification of the patron? Are they even prepared to make good the indemnity provided by the old act of 1690? They are not. We hear nothing of indemnity, subscription, or assessment from the Non-intrusion gentlemen. Their method of solving the difficulty is much easier, much more summary, and, above all, much cheaper. It savours of the true revolutionary character. Its authors have taken a leaf out of the chapter of the Jacobins in 1793. It is this:

The patrons had been in possession of the right of patronage, with the exception of four parishes, where the people had bought up the right under the act 1690. Under this system, although the people in many places, especially in the western counties, where the old principles of the covenant were not yet extinguished, still hankered after the appointment of their own pastors, the Scottish Kirk continued to be administered for a hundred and thirty years with exemplary fidelity and usefulness. The proof of this is to be found in the character of the Scottish peasantry, which, for above an hundred years, and until the fatal inroad of manufacturing industry changed their character in the manufacturing districts, and opened without restriction the floodgates of sin continued to be amongst the most moral and educated in Europe. Of this, no more decisive proof can be required than is to be found in the fact, that the whole criminals convicted by juries in 1806, amounted only to eighty-nine out of a population of, at that time, nearly 2,000,000 of souls; and that in 1804, the Lord Advocate (Hope) stated, with perfect truth, in the House of Commons, that more criminals were convicted in one single quarter sessions by the justices of peace at Man

chester, than by the whole criminal courts of Scotland put together in a year. Now, however, the case is totally changed; and, between the Reform transports of the one party, and the non-intrusion bellowings of the other, the number of criminals for serious offences has risen to 3,600, exhibiting a rapidity in the progress of crime-having multiplied forty-fold in thirty-four years-a ratio unparal leled, it is believed, in any other country in Europe.

In 1833, however, during the paroxysms of the Reform mania, the Whigs raised the clamour in England, that the rights of patrons must be abridged, and the Edinburgh Whigs got the famous Veto Act passed by the General Assembly in 1834, which vested, for the first time, a power of putting a veto upon the presentee of the patron, in the majority of the heads of families in communion with the church of the parish. It is the exercise of this assumed power, which is wholly illegal, and in direct violation of the legal rights of the patron, as established by the act of Queen Anne, and declared by the Court of Session and the House of Peers in the Auchterarder case, that has given rise to the present painful dissensions in the church and community of Scotland.

Now, however, the church revolutionists throw the Veto Act overboard altogether. Dr Chalmers declared, in the last General Assembly, that it was not worth the having; that it did more harm than good; and that the only way to settle the question was to emancipate the church from the shackles of the civil power altogether. Upon this point all the sections of the Non-intrusion party are now agreed. Total abolition of patronage is the universal cry; and the ulterior question of, who are to be the parties that are to nominate to the vacant livings, is carefully kept out of view, lest it should sow dissension among the ranks of those who are unanimously agreed upon the abolition of patronage.

Now observe the difference, again, between the old Whigs of the Revolution, and the modern revolutionary Whigs. The object of both is identical; viz., the abolition of patronage, and the vesting it in some classes of the people. But how did the Whigs of 1690 proceed in this great work of ecclesiastical regeneration?

Why,

they provided indemnification, and what was then ample indemnification, at the hands of the heritors and parishioners, who were to obtain the right of patronage in lieu of the patron. This indemnity, however, cooled the ardour of the Scottish covenant. Only four parishes took advantage of the power of purchasing up the patronage thus conferred upon them. But what do the revolutionary Whigs now propose? Why, they propose to spoliate the patrons, not even by act of Parliament, but simply by an universal passive and obstinate resistance to the law. The way that they effect this, is by getting the General Assembly, or its Commission, when not sitting, which wields its powers in this particular, to refuse to induct any clergyman presented to the living by the patron, against whom a veto has been passed by a majority of the communicants in the parish. Thus they propose to effect their revolutionary object of spoliating the patrons of their property by an illegal resistance to the induction of the presentee of the patron, and by calling upon the people to exercise an illegal and pretended right, which the church courts, without authority, have conferred upon them, of interposing a veto where they have no legal title whatever to interfere. In what respect does this differ from the Chartists, who break out in rebellion, and refuse to pay taxes until their charter is granted; or the French revolutionists, who confiscated the property of the church on the false pretence that the nation would provide adequately for the ministers of religion?

The abler and more respectable leaders of the Non-intrusionists, are aware that they are violating the law, in the conflict which they are at present so obstinately maintaining with the supreme civil courts, who support the rights of the patrons; and they justify it by the example of the House of Commons in the last session of Parliament. Mr Colquhoun said, in his speech at Kilmarnock, that he was driven by necessity to violate either the law or the constitution; that he held the constitution to be defined by the act 1690, which vested the nomination of ministers in the heritors and kirk-session; and that the Non-intrusionists were justified in resisting the law, in support of what they deemed the constitution, in the same way as Parliament was in resisting the law

as declared by the Court of Queen's Bench, in sending the Sheriff of Middlesex to prison, in defence of what the House of Commons deemed the Constitution, in regard to the privileges of Parliament.

But, setting aside the obvious consideration, that there is some small difference between the House of Commons-a branch of the supreme legislature—and a body of two or three hundred thousand Scotch non-intru. sionists, who have no political capacity in the State whatever, is it not astonishing that so acute and wellinformed a gentleman as the learned member for Kilmarnock should not have seen to what perilous, indeed awful consequences, his doctrine naturally leads. Mr Colquhoun says:"I am entitled to resist the law, because I hold that it is contrary to the Constitution; and I hold the Constitution to be what is to be found in the statute-book, minus the Act of Queen Anne, which established the right of patronage." On the same principle, the Chartist says:-" I resist the law, because I hold it to be contrary to the constitution; and I hold the constitution to be the Reform Bill, minus all the clauses limiting the franchise to a particular class of electors; in other words, universal suffrage." The Socialist says:-" I resist the law, because I hold it to be contrary to the constitution; and I hold the constitution to be the laws of the country, minus that monstrous grievance they call Christianity." In this way the rebels of Newport, and the infidels of Birmingham, will find themselves supported, in all their illegal and irreligious excesses, by the example of the House of Commons, and the authority of the learned Member for Kilmarnock. Can there be a stronger proof of the impolicy of the course on which the majority of the House of Commons unhappily adventured last session, than the fact that it is thus made a precedent for resistance to the law, by whole sections of the community? And can we be surprised that rebellion should break out among the Chartists in England, and law be almost powerless among the Papists in Ireland, when men of such ability, weight, and eloquence as the Member for Kilmarnock openly advocate spoliation of private property, by resistance to the law, and ground their resistance upon the allegation that

« 上一頁繼續 »