The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-25 00:00:00

LEASEHOLD HOUSES,
By Order of the DIRECTORS of the BRITISH
ANNUITY COMPANY.
MR. BOOTH will SELL by AUCTION,
at the Mart, on WEDNESDAY, June 19, at Twelve,
FORTY-FIVE HOUSES, situate and being the whole oi
Beauvoir-terrace, Hoxton, producing a rent of 188/. per an-
num ; held for 79 years unexpired. Also the whole of Moor-
terrace, New Peckham, and three in Park-road, producing,
3791. 18s. Bd. per annum ; held for 72 years unexpired. Six
in George-street, and six in Robert. street, opposite the Li-
censed 'Victuallers' Asylum, producing 1521. per annum ; held
for 70 years unexpired. Also Business Premises- and Dwel-
ling-house, 157, Blackfriars-read, producing a net income of
501. per annum ; held under a lease from the City for thirty-
five years unexpired. The whole of the above property pro-
duces a rent of 819/. 18s. Bd. per annum, and let to good
tenants.
•• May be viewed by leave of the tenants. Particulars at the
Mart; of Messrs. Bourdillon and Son, Great Winchester-
street ; and at Mr. Booth's offices, 24, Queen-street, Cheapside.

THE lIIIYDDINGS, NEAR SWANSEA.
ATESSRS. MURRAY and TATTERSALL
I_ll will SELL BY AUCTION at the Mackworth Arms,
Swansea, on SATURDAY, the 6th day of July, 1839, unless pre-
viously disposed of by Private Contract,
The LEASE of this beautiful .MARINE RESIDENCE,
situate l miles from Swansea, and commanding an extensive
view of the Bay. This eligible property is held for an unex-
pired Term of 28 Years from 'Michaelmas next, at the yearly
Rent of 1501., and consists of i commodious and substantially
built Dwelling-house, containiv Drawing-room and Dining-
room, 7 Bed-rooms, Kitchens. Dairy, and Butler's Pantry,
Coach-house and Stables, and convenient Sheds for Cattle, &c.
There is a large Garden, well stocked with choice Fruit Trees.
The Pleasure Grounds are tastefully laid out and contain about
3 roods ; the land attached is of a very superior quality, and
the whole premises contain 29 ackn and 30 perches.
Printed particulars may be had It the place of Sale ; the
Ship and Castle, Neath ; the Bush, Bristol; the Angel, Car-
diff; and of Messrs. Murrfy and tattersall, Surveyors, and
Land Agents, 47, Parliament' street.
MR

BULLOCK will _SELL, by AUC-
TION, at the Auction ISiartn_t_trznziEsnAy, June
5, at Twelve, a _LEA MIXQO ES Fesr-rr, 441,4trw#11,
eligible for investAierif,--being well-built property, in a highly
respectable neighbourhood, consisting of THREE HOUSES,
with garden ground, Nos. 1,5, and 6,' in Eastern-place, West-
moreland-place, Camberwell :
No. I, is a Baker's Shop, with large oven, &c.,
and two entrances, let on lease to Mr. Young,
for 21 years, from 1836, at a net rent of £25 0 0
No. 5, is a Private House, worth £2O per annum,
but let on lease for 21 years, from 1835, at
No. 6, a House and Shop, let at

(Abridged from the Edinburgh Courant.)
THE AUCHTERARDER CASE.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22.—After a prayer from one of
the Members of Assembly,
The Clerk read a written statement by the Procu-
rator of the steps that had been taken in the Auch.
terardcr case, with the decision.
Dr. Coox—l need not say one word upon the im-
portance of this case, on the consideration of which we
have now met. We have shown our sense of that im-
portance by calling upon my reverend friend to implore
the blessing of the Almighty on our deliberations con-
cerning this highly impressive subject. In former years
we were called upon to consider whether the veto act
was in conformity with the civil law or not ; and a great '
part ofour reasoning turned upon that point—some at-
tempting to show that it was competent for us, consistent
with the civil law, to pass such an act, and others main-
taining a different opinion. All that is now put an end to.
So far as the civil question is concerned, it has been de-
cided by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the coun-
try, and affirmed by the House of Peers ; and therefore that
there has been an Interference with the civil authority,
there can be no doubt. I presume there can be as
little doubt that the statutes of the Church and the
Book of Discipline draw a clear and marked distinction
between the ecclesiastical and the civil jurisdiction, and
enjoin the Church not to enter into the civil jurisdic-
tion, as being matters incompetent to us, and altogether 11
beyond our control. The Second Book of Discipline
was the deliberate production of men who are univer-
sally admitted to be free from all taint of Erastianism ;
and they required that " Diligence should be tane,
chieflie be the Moderator, that only ecclesiasticall
thingis be handlit in the Assemblie, and na melting with
ony thingis pertening to the civil jurisdictioun." The
Confession of Faith declared that the Church ought
not to intermeddle with civil affairs, unless by humble
petition to the Legislature. But I need not quote fur-
then The idea isimece.4,94lglifrout, and is here au .1
ciently apparent, that the Scottish Church is not compe-
tent to infringe upon civil or patrimonial rights. We have
also, in the last Assembly, declared that we are bound
not to interfere with whatever relates to civil rights,
and the line of conduct which ought to result from
this proposition is abundantly clear. I know no way
of escaping from it but by reverting to the plea—a
plea well known in the days of other years, and which
has been recently revived—that we are not indeed en-
titled to interfere with civil matters ; but that we are
to determine what is civil and what is not—that we are
a co-ordinate power, competent to decide upon what is
a civil matter and what is not ; and that not until the
imprimitur of our resolution and decision is given
that the matter is civil, we cannot interfere. I do not
conceive that much ought to be rested upon this plea ;
though I am afraid it is to be found involved in the
motion of the Rev. Doctor over the way. How can
this Church have such jurisdiction ? We cannot have
it. We are constituted a National Church by the law
of the land. We are taken from the ordinary class of
Christians, and by peculiar statute we have conferred
upon us certain civil privileges, and all the civil powers
that we possess. I ask is there any statute that gives
the Ecclesiastical Couits any such power as this ? Is
there an Act of Parliament which invests them with
such a power ? I have never seen it ; and I believe no
other man ever did. It appears to me clear, in this point
of view, that we have no such authority. But the very
idea is a contradiction in itself. We not only have not,
but we could not have such a power, consistent with the
purposes and intentions of the Civil Government. There
cannot be two independent Legislatures in the same
country. It is impossible that society can exist if one
Legislature be not supreme. If we admit an
imperium in imperio, we tear up the foundations
not only of Government, but we tear up the foun-
dations on which the whole system of social union
rests. I hold that there is no warrant whatever for
this doctrine. We all know from historical proof
in what the former assertion of this doctrine terminated.
The Popish Church professed the utmost reverence
for the authority of the civil magistrate and the civil
power—and if one had asked—in the earlier period of
Popery at least—the Pope himself, if he intended to
invade the rights of Sovereigns, he would have said
that he bad no such intention. But the priesthood
applied to the subject their wonderful faculties of dis-
cerning minute and far drawn analogies, and meta-
physical subtleties ; and they endeavoured to drag what
in the ordinary judgment of mankind was a civil mat-
ter, into the spiritual Courts—they endeavoured to show
that what the civil lawyers said belonged to them—
by some remote and indirect connection with the
moral and spiritual state of men—and what question
could not be so connected ?—assumed a spiritual cha-
racter, and they applied to it the general doctrine,
this matter being spiritual comes within our power, and
we alone are to legislate upon it. What has given rise
to all the abuses of Popery, but the doctrine which I
am now endeavouring to exposer What had been the
consequence of these corruptions which Christianity
deplored, until at last they exhausted the patience and
irritated the passions of mankind, and issued in that
glorious Reformation, by which, in Protestant countries
at least, all these corruptions had been swept away ?
This doctrine is not peculiar to Popery—it belonged to
human nature ; and might be traced in other, and far
different, and far purer Churches. I allude to one very
striking case which occurred in our own Church, at an
early period of her history ; and I quote from the Book
of the Universal Kirk.—[The Rev. Doctor here read
the case, which he in substance afterwards stated.]
What was this but the general principle that ecclesias-
tics should not be brought before the cognizance of the
civil tribunals—what was it but a declaration that a
Judge of the Court of Session, in the exercise of his
duty, sitting upon the bench—administering justice, as
we Were bound to suppose he was doing—that ho should
be dragged from the Bench, and brought before the tri-
bunal of the Church to answer for the manner in which
he had discharged his duty, by applying an appellation
to a minister which they thought ought not to be ap-
plied to him ? This was done by men who would tell
them, as they were told now, that they would yield all obe-
dience to the civil authorities ; but if a door was
to be opened by which they could escape from
their obedience in this way, the civil authority
would be reduced to nothing more than a name. I be-
lieve this doctrine was not in the mind of my Rev. and
excellent friend over the way ; I believe he was not
aware of the application of this principle to his motion ;
but whether he was or not, it follows from it as naturally
as if, like their fathers of old, he had determined to bring
before their bar the Judges of the Court of Session.
Look at the terms of his motion. Nothing could be
more deferential than the first part to the civil powers.
If his Reverend and excellent friend had stopped there,
he would have been considered as strenuous an advo-
cate for the authority of the civil powers in matters tem-
poral and patrimonial as I am. But let us go to the
next paragraph (which he read.) Here it is resolved
that the principle of non-intrusion shall not be aban-
doned. I beg to ask what is the meaning of that
principle? It must be that he intends to confirm and
adhere to the veto act. What on the other hand has
been found by the Court of Session and the House of
Peers ? They found that the Presbytery in proceed-
ing upon that principle acted illegally, contrary to their
duty, and in violation of the statute law of the land.—
What does my Reverend friend say to this, after his
warm declaration of obedience to the civil powers ?
Why, he says that this thing which the Civil Court
has declared as illegal, the Presbytery shall do.--(Hear.)
That is his meaning. Nothing can be clearer than
that we have had again the old principle—the admis-
sion of the general theory of obedience to the civil
powers, and the explaining it away to be a
thing of no value whenever we may think pro-
per to do so. I may just observe when on
this part of the subject, that the doctrine for which
this is contended is totally and completely erroneous.
It is not true that the principle of non-intrusion, in the
only sense in which it can be taken in this motion, was
embodied in our standards, or ever formed an integral
part of the constitution of our Church till the year
1834. It is said in our standards, indeed, that no per-
son shall be intruded upon a congregation ; and we
all know something of the power of words, that when
we have once attached a meaning to certain terms, that
meaning adheres and clings to our minds, and we con-
tinue to use the expression, even though there be evi-
dence that another and very different meaning is to be
ascribed to it. I will not rest thi▪ s case upon assertion.
I shall go over the different periods of the Church's
history, to show that it was altogether a mistaken asser-
tion on the part of my Reverend fri▪
end. Dr. Cook here
went over the different Acts passed in various periods of
the Church's history, and contended that it did not
appear from them that, even in the time of the Rebel-
lion, the people were entitled to dissent from the settle-
ment of a minister without cause shown, and that the
i
meaning of non-intrusion, as used n their old standards,
was that no man should be settled in a parish against
the judgment of the Presbytery, not of the people. He
continued—lf you preserve ithe authority of the civil
power, I am most willing to do all I can for the good of
the people of Scotland. Let no one imagine from the
words of the motion of my Reverend friend, that
the authority of the Civil Courts is to be respected
when it is clear that rebellion is contained within
it.—(No, no.) What I say is this, that Dr. Chal-
mers gives authority by his motion to the Church
to do what the Supreme Court of Judicature in the
country declares to be illegal and contrary to their duty,
and in violation of the statute law of the land. I
don't suppose that my Reverend and excellent friend
is to lead a band of rebels against the civil authority._
(Laughter.) It appears to me, therefore, clear, that