Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

validity and binding obligation of ecclesiastical legislation, or must be content to struggle, under manifest disadvantage, and with ever repeated failures, on behalf of what we deem the cause of God and truth.

We are not so ignorant of our times as to anticipate the speedy adoption of these views. We know them to be in advance of the day, and that they will be misunderstood and descried in many quarters, where better things might be expected. But we give them utterance, and wait patiently the issue. They will work their way, silently it may be, but still surely, till, the public mind being prepared for their reception, they will come forth with the majestic simplicity of truth, to point out, to a bewildered and agonized people, the secret of their strength, and the solemn requirement of their God. We find no fault with such of our brethren as refuse to adopt and act on our principles. With their views it would be wrong for them to do so. Let us co-operate so far as we are agreed, and where we differ, let us commend ourselves, and commend each other, to the guidance and controlling agency of the God of truth. May he by the inspiration of his Spirit correct every error into which either of us has fallen, and lead us to the faithful and diligent exhibition of the truth as it is ' in Jesus.'

We now recur to Lord John, whose reasoning was hailed with cheers from the Tory benches, which so stimulated his oratory as to induce his lordship to assure the house,' He would go fur'ther than that, and declare his belief that the Established Church 'of England was founded on just, wise, and fair principles.' Here,' says the Examiner, and with this simile we shall dismiss his lordship's marvellous faith, we have before us the crow, the 'cheese, and the fox. At the first note of the crow, reynard 'is in raptures. He claps his paws, he wags his bushy tail in an 'ecstacy, he cries 'Bravo, bravissimo! what a voice! what execution! "how he takes the C above the line!' Upon this, quoth the delighted crow, I can go farther than that, higher than that,' and he strains 'another harsh discord to the unbounded delight of reynard-but 'beware, oh Corby, lest you drop the cheese-it trembles in 'mouth while you are indulging in those half-note shakes which 'make all your party shake, ay, and your opponents shake too, in 'other fashions-your friends with fear, and your foes with 'laughter.'

[ocr errors]

Having thus pandered to his opponents, Lord John proceeded to discuss the merits of Mr. Duncombe's proposition, and his reasoning is worthy of being placed on record.

'He (Lord John Russell) must at once say that he could not approve of this plan. In the first place, there was the obvious temptation to fraud by holding out a pecuniary benefit arising out of the

avowal of conscientious dissent. He could very well understand the admission of a declaration, where the object of it was to admit the person making it to a participation in equal privileges to those enjoyed by other persons in the realm. Such, for instance, as the declaration required of certain Protestants, in order to entitle them to the enjoyment of privileges enjoyed by other Protestants, or the declaration required of Roman Catholics, in order to entitle them to certain immunities and privileges granted to them by act of parliament. But in those cases the object was to entitle them to an equal share in benefits already enjoyed by others. In the present case, however, the person making the declaration would by so doing entitle himself to a greater benefit. As a member of the Established Church he would be obliged to pay the church-rate-to pay certain sums for the repairs of the churches: but if he declared himself a conscientious dissenter from the Established Church, then, by making a declaration to that effect, he could free himself from the pecuniary obligation. So with regard to this sum of 5s. 6d., which every man of equal station to John Thorogood in his parish would be compelled to pay by law, Thorogood according to the plan of the honorable gentleman, would be able to evade the payment by declaring himself a conscientious Dissenter. Here was obviously a pecuniary snare. A man might be ostensibly a member of the Established Church; but he might be a lukewarm member, or indifferent, yet the temptation was held out to him to relieve himself from the payment of the 5s. 6d. church-rate, by simply making a declaration that he conscientiously dissented from the doctrines of the Church.'

The distinction which his lordship thus attempted to draw between former declarations and that proposed in Mr. Duncombe's bill is clearly fallacious, since no such inequality as he alleges, would follow from the latter. All that Dissenters ask for is to be placed on the same level as their neighbours. More than this they would not accept-whatever Church-zealots may allegeand with less they will never be satisfied. How stands the case at present? why just thus. The Churchman has his religion furnished to him, and paid for, by the state, the Dissenter has to support his own. The contributions of the latter to religion are manifold more than the former ;-in some cases ten times, in the most twenty times as much. And yet, while thus exerting himself on behalf of what he deems the most scriptural form of Christianity, he is called upon to contribute-yea is threatened with the seizure of his goods or the imprisonment of his person, if he does not contribute to the repair of the church edifice, the washing of the clergyman's surplice, and the furnishing of the sacramental elements for its worshippers. If there be inequality in the world that inequality exists at present; if there be injustice-gross, crying injustice-it is found in this miserable impost, which is now defended from one end of the kingdom to the other, not

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

own sake, but as 'an outward and visible sign,' of the subjection of this kingdom to the rule of an antichristian and soul-deluding system. And yet there would be inequality in relieving men, who say-and their word is entitled to credence that the assessment violates their conscience, and is repugnant to their sense of religious duty. So reasons his lordship now, for a marvellous change has come over the spirit of his philosophy.

But the noble member for Stroud is distrustful of his own followers, and Sir Robert Inglis shares his alarm. These zealots for the church have so little confidence in the attachment of the people, so slighting a view of the hold of their venerable mother on the affection of her numerous offspring, that they are apprehensive of a general defection; a forsaking of her altars; a base apostasy from her, if the paltry inducement of a few shillings be proffered. We thank Lord John and the member for the Oxford University for the admission, and shall not forget it in the future discussions of the voluntary controversy. But his lordship attempted to enliven the debate by something of joke and pleasantry. His wit, however, was pointless, for it was founded in misconception and ignorance, and betrayed the bad animus of the speaker without aiding his cause.

'He for one,' remarked Lord John, 'would say, that he would 'be sorry to see the time when those who preached the gospel in this country would be obliged to look for support to the voluntary 'contributions of their congregations. He could understand, with regard to the lighter arts, the principle embodied in those lines ' of Dr. Johnson :

[ocr errors]

• But

6

sorry

The drama's laws the drama's patrons give,

For those who live to please must please to live.'

would he be to hear that

The pulpit's laws the pulpit's patrons give,

And those who live to preach must preach to live.'

Sorry, indeed, would he be if those who filled the pulpits now filled by members of the Established Church, were to become claimants on the voluntary contributions of their congregations, on the score of their being taking, eloquent, pleasing preach'ers.'

[ocr errors]

If this miserable witticism was intended to describe our system, it was low-minded, and utterly unworthy even of a second-rate debater; but if it were designed for our ministers, it was a gratuitous insult, and a gross libel. They are not the men this language would represent them to be, and his lordship knows them not to

VOL. VII.

2 B

be so. Poor they may be, or rather of limited possessions, but if there be one class of our countrymen more distinguished than any other, by moral courage and independence of character, they constitute that class. There may, doubtless there are, exceptions, but we speak of them as a whole, and no man who knows them will deny the truth of our assertion.

His lordship, it appears from the close of his speech, is prepared either to introduce, or to support a bill, transferring the cognizance of church-rate cases from the ecclesiastical to the civil courts, and providing that the payment of such rates should be proceeded for, against the goods and not against the person,' of the defaulter. Does his lordship think he could carry such a proposition through the Upper House; nay, is it quite certain, that it would be supported in the Commons, by a larger majority than that which sealed the fate of the last church-rate bill? We have our doubts, but let these rest; we do not expect to see his lordship make the trial. Such a suggestion might very well befit the close of such a speech, and there, we apprehend, the matter will end. Nor are we much concerned about it. We should, doubtless, as patriots, rejoice in the subversion of an incompetent, anomalous,

We learn from the Patriot of February the 20th, that the Dissenting constituents of his lordship have conveyed to him, in respectful but strong language, their sense of the injustice he has done to their religious teachers. At a public meeting of the members of various Dissenting congregations in the borough of Stroud, held February 17th, it was resolved to transmit to Lord John Russell the following Memorial, which we transcribe for the information of our readers, and as a model of temperate, but firm and dignified remonstrance. We should like to see how his lordship will reply.

'That this Meeting has learned with deep regret that Lord John Russell has not only refused to support a Bill for the liberation of John Thorogood from prison, and for relieving Dissenters from liability to pay Church-rates, but has also uttered in the House of Commons gratuitous insinuations against the independent character of the whole body of Dissenting Ministers.

That these proceedings on the part of Lord John Russell are matter of much regret on many grounds:-First, because the insinuations in question are untrue; Dissenting Ministers, generally, being well known to be inferior to no class of Englishmen, either Lay or Clerical, in honesty or independence; and this Meeting feel assured that, had Lord John's connexions and prepossessions allowed him to become better acquainted with Dissenting Ministers, his opinion of them would have been widely different: Secondly, because Lord John Russell went altogether out of his way in instituting a comparison, on such an occasion, between the Ministers of different religious bodies; it being obvious, that if he deemed it expedient to avow his attachment to the State-Church, the avowal might have been made without any such invidious comparison: Thirdly, because this Meeting cannot but entertain the apprehension that the conduct and language of Lord John Russell, on the evening in question, will tend to alienate from him not merely numerous individuals in this Borough (which circumstance alone would be of small importance), but an immense body of Dissenters in every part of the island; whereby, it may be feared, the cause of civil and religious liberty will be damaged, and its enemies made to rejoice.'

and unconstitutional court, but the gravamen of our complaint would remain untouched.

On the whole we regret, as much on his lordship's account as on our own, the impression his speech has made. We would gladly rid ourselves of that impression, but we cannot do so. It abides upon us, and gathers depth and distinctness with every fresh perusal.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

On the case of Thorogood,' says the Examiner, and we cannot better describe our own feelings, Lord John Russell has ' delivered a speech of supreme bon ton, which, for the occasion ' at least, quite separates him from the low party, and wonderfully exalts him in the opinion of the high Church. The Times praises his Lordship's performance as smart and sensible;' but smart is not the word for it, it was dainty and disdainful. It was seasoned with contempt of weakness and poverty, ' and a lofty scorn of grievances. It was thus thoroughly aristo'cratic, and what in Tory coteries will be emphatically called 'gentlemanly. The speech indeed seems to have been made for 'recovery of the speaker's favor with his caste, and for his resto'ration to the bosom of the Church.'

Of the other speakers in this debate, honorable mention must be made of Mr. Hume, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Hawes. The first of these gentlemen told the ministerial leader some home truths, and specially contrasted the different treatment experienced by John Thorogood-a man poor, and therefore to be despised,-from that of the Scotch clergy, in their present struggle with the civil

power.

[ocr errors]

Why

'Was John Thorogood,' inquired Mr. Hume, the only man now doubting the laws and institutions of the country in regard to the church? What were one half of the clergy of Scotland doing at the present time? They laughed at the authority of the quarter sessions, and they defied the House of Lords. They claimed to act on conscientious scruples-they threw all other considerations on one side-and they were still determined to resist the intrusion of any person presented by the patrons of livings, and therefore as much entitled to those livings as the Church was to Church-rates. did not the noble lord grapple with those persons? Because John Thorogood was a poor shoemaker the noble lord had no sympathy for him, but he did entertain sympathy for the clergy in Scotland. He would tell the house the reason why. John Thorogood was a single and simple individual, but the Scottish clergy formed a powerful party, who were tearing the country up. Indeed proceedings were going on which were disgraceful to the country. He (Mr. Hume) maintained that those proceedings were doing as much hurt to the church as ever John Frost had done to the state. Their language was as violent, and their proceedings were in defiance of the law. What more had John Frost done, or any of the leaders of the Chartists ?

« ElőzőTovább »