The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-17 00:00:00

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ELECTION.

WEDNESDAY, MAY •16, 1838
The following Correspondence has this day taken place :
" TO THE INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION.
_ _

" Wednesday, Half past Ten o'Clock.
O " rmrt.EmEN,—You must be well aware that nothing but strict
unanimity amongst the Liberals can secure the return of the individual
chosen by you as a fit Representative of that portion of the community.
During my canvass, I have ascertained that there arc many in the ranks
of the party, who will sacrifice all other considerations—who prefer to
swell the Tory numbers on the present occasion, unless I will pledge
myself to vote for the Immediate Abolition of the Apprenticeship of the
Negroes. This pledge lam not prepared to make. You called me for-
ward, and I leave the decision in your hands. But I will not consent to
trouble my friends, or disturb the tranquillity of the town, by an useless
contest. Nor will I ever consent to go to Parliament, a pledged and
fettered delegate.

" Your obliged and sincere friend.
" M. F. F. BERKELEY

To the above communication the fillowing answer was sent :
" The Independent Association beg to acknowledge the receipt of a
communication from you, in which you propose to decline the situation
of candidate for the representation of this city in Parliament, on the
ground that some portion of the constituency require that you should
pledge yourself to vote for the immediate emancipation of the appren.
ticed negroes in the West Indies.

" But the Independent Association regarding you as the staunch and
fervent supporter of many other and important political questions, canrn t
agree with nom who would consent to sacrifice their hopes of returning
you to Parliament, merely because you do not accede to the judgment of
a few on one specific point.

" The Independent Association most earnestly entreat that you will
enable them by your presence and sanciion still to persevere in their en-
deavours to secure your return, which they have much confidenca in
expecting to do from the present result of the canvas."
" To the Hon. Captain Berkeley."

Since the above, the following Address has been issued by Captain
BERKELEY

" To the Electors generally of the City of Gloucester.
" Gentlemen,—Since the letters of this morning that have passed
between myself and the Liberal Club, I have ascertained that there is a
wish on the part of some influential gentlemen of the Liberal party to
bring forward another Candidate.

" Convinced that want of unanimity in my favour must be ruin to
the Liberal cause, I must resign all pretension to the high honour of
being your Representative.

" I shall ever entertain a lively gratitude for the very many kind
feelings that have been expressed towards myself personally.
"No change has taken place in my politics. I have run a steady
straightforward course. If ever again I appear on the political stage,
I shall continue the same line to the end of my career.
" Your most obedient humble servant,
" Gloucester, May 16. " M. F. F. BERKELEY."

Last evening the Rev. Mr. HINTON commenced a Course of Lectures
on National Religious Establishments, at Devonshire-square Chapel,
Bishopsgate-street, avowedly in answer to the recent Lectures of Dr.
Chalmers on the same subject. There was a very full attendance of
most respectable persons. At seven o'clock,
The ItEV. GENTLEMAN acencleti the pulpit and said—lf I have teken
the occasion afforded by the recent lectures of Dr. Chalmers for deliver-
ing the present course, it is undoubtedly not through fear of the effect,
either of discussion in general, or of this discussion in particular. I an,
rather glad that the question of National Religious Establishments
should be discussed in any and every form—and this for two reasons :
partly because I have not the spirit of a partisan, but shall rejoice in
the progress of truth, whatever be the fate of the company with which I
am associated—and partly because i have the spirit of p partisan, and
entertain a conviction, that of the beneficial parts of such discussion, we
shall have (to use the words of a Right Rev. Prelate on a recent occas
eion) " the lion's share." We hail the agitation of this quest ion, there.
fore, in any quarter, and no where more than in those elevated re.
gions in which it has now for the first time been mooted. Our opponents
having thus spoken, and spoken so loud, it is of course both justifiable
and imperative on us to speak also. After the appeal already made to
the public ear, no complaint can be made against us, if we do what we
can to engsge still further attention to the subject; whatever wrong
may attach to the aggressive party in this case, it does not lie at our
door—we are only making our defence. Remark, at the outset, the
new position of the question—not now assumed as incontrovertible, or
asserted by high authorities merely : there is now an appeal to the popus
lar mind. The time was when the propriety of national establishments
was not questioned, and any one who disputed it was borne down by
authority ; but now the subject assumes a different character and the
question of national religious establishments is not to be settled by
dogmatical statements, but by an appeal to the judgment of the people.
There is something very instructive in this. There never would have
been an appeal tothe popular mind on this subject, if the popular mind
had not been wrought on to such an extent as to impede the exercise of
authority. The State carriage of the Church, like the car of Jugger-
naut, has stuck fast, and cannot venture further in opposition to the
public judgment, which is itself appealed to as the final umpire. So it
should be. We are glad that we have brought our adversaries to this
pass. The first effort they make is certainly a very determined one.
It must have required no little resolution, if it did not rather indicate
tome some huge perplexity. They have chosen for the advocate of the
religious Establishment in England a member of a Church in whose
nostrils prelacy is offensive, and by which the English Church Establish.
ment is especially abhorred; and a Divine, whom his admiring patrons
could not admit into their pulpits, from his want of apostolical ordina-
tion. Nor can it have been without sorrowful misgivings of their
wisdom, if without keen smarting for their folly, that they have
listened to a defence of religious Establishments founded on
principles which they reject, and forfeited by the renunciation of all
they revere. They have maintained the immeasurable superiority of
Episcopacy over every other form of ecclesiastical polity, and the divine
right of its territorial establishment. Dr. Chalmers assures them that
it is only one of half a score of sects, of such nearly equal value, that
any one of them might indifferently have been chosen for the State
Establishment. They have prided themselves in the fancied possession of
a mysterious power derived by an unbroken chain of succession from
the Apostles—dplea which their lauded champion cooly advises them to
abandon. They have spoken vehemently of the sin of schism, and in
terms which 1)r. Chalmers affirms fail alike of his sympathy and of
his comprehension. And these are the things which the friends of the
Church of England have caused to be sent forth in the name of her
champion—which her clergy and prelates, Reverends and Right Reve.
r nds, Nobles and Princes, have heard in the high places of her metro-
polis, and have applauded to the echo. But Dr. Chalmers holds the
principle of an Establishment, and this he has come to defend. It is
well it is acknowledged that the principle is attacked---is in peril—and
needs defence; and of this they may be assured, that should
the result of this discussion be to convince the people of Eng-
land of the impropriety or the unfitness of the Established
Church, there can be no question that it will not long stand.
And for my own part, I believe that there is no greater ob.
stack to the spread of religion than the existence of an Establishment,
and that there could be no greater means of promoting religion than by
the removal of such establishments. Clearly this matter requires energy.
It is of great importance to the friends of the Establishment, for the fate
of such institutions is suspended on the decision ; and of no less, for the
cause of true religion is at stake, on which Establishments are so power.
fully acting for good or evil. We do not say that they are too earnest,
and most assuredly we ought not to be less earnest than they. We shall
bear in mind, however, that this is a question of a sacred character—not
that we venture to assert that all who take part in it are pious, although
the piety of some is undoubted. To us it is not a question of partisan.
ship, of state craft, cupidity, or ambition ; but as a question between
Christian brethren ; for as such we recognise even those who are most
opposed to us upon this question. We shall neither repeat, nor
retaliate, nor retort, the harsh and unwarrantable epithets of our
Scottish antagonist; but shall endeavour to speak in the spirit
of love, through Jesus Christ, to all our brethren. As it is
Dr. Chalmers's avowed design to vindicate the principle of
establishments, and as we must suppose that he has put :the subject in
the newest and most approved light, it will be proper to pay some at-
tention to his mode of treating it, although we are not bound to confine
ourselves to his line of argument. He very singularly begins by re.
moving an objection which has no manner of relation to his theme.
He tells us of certain religionists who hold that the immediate interfer-
ence of the Spirit is constant and all sufficient, and that the use of human
means is not necessary. It is strange that Dr. Chalmers does not know
that the religionists by whom this preposterous notion is held constitute
a mere fraction of the Dissenting body, and that they are as numerous in
the Church itself as out of it. But if it were held by all—what then ?
It is an argument against exertion In general, but it is none against an
Establishment in particular. Nor has it ever been used as such, except
in the visions of this imaginative Divine. We are obliged tc him far
tearing the flimsy sophism to pieces. But at the same time we deny
that he has proved any thing so far in favour of Establishments. Nor
shall we admit the conclusiveness of his defence, unless he can show
that Establishments are the only means of exertion for the spirit of
religion. He then gives us Isis definition—a very important thing
in this, as in all other controversies; and concerning which
he shows a remarkable and characteristic weariness :—" We
should assure them," said he, "as the basis of our
definition for a religious establishment, or as the essential property by
which to specify and characterise it—a sure legal provision for the ex.
penes of its ministrations." There is surely a great deficiency in this
definition—a pecuniary provision is not the whele of a national esta-
blishment— there is another element, vital and essential—there is the
idea of national authority, or the authority of the State. Dr, Chalmers
evidently designs to keep himself clear of this, as a rook on which he
would have dreaded shipwreck; but we must maintain that it belongs
essentially to the idea of a religious establishment—we cite obvious
facts. Look at all such establishments in existence—State authority
forms an actual part of all. The Church of England is the nearest and
the most prominent example. In England the Sovereign is the head of
the Church in all matters ecclesiastical. Its articles and prayers
books are enacted by Parliament. Look at the Church of Eng-
land or any other. Wherever there is an established religion,
there is an exercise of authority in matters of religion. Dr.
Chalmers, indeed, in a very extraordinary passage, claims the Church
of Scotland as an exemption. He gives a long story of a divine
of Maryland, who had taken fire at the notion of Church and State, but
who failed in making the requisite distinction between the act ofaGovern-
inent in giving food and raiment to ministers, and the act of a Govern-
ment in assuming a lordship over the creed and the consciences of mi.
resters. And then he gives a passage from Sermon 13, vol. ii., in
which he proclaims the independence of the Church of Scotland. "There
is to each of its members an independent voice from ; and from
without there is no power or authority whatever in matters ecelesisasti-
cal :" and he quotes a celebrated saying of Lord Chatham, as true in all
parts of the Church to which he belongs:—." In England, every man's
house is his castle, not that it is surrounded with walls and battlements.
It may be a straw.built shed. Every wind of heaven may whistle round
it ; every element of heaven may cuter it ; but the King cannot, the
King dare not." Nothing can be more preposterous than this notion,
when not a General Assembly of the Church of Scotland can be held
without a member of the Royal Commission presiding over it. And
from without," says he, " there is no power or authority whatever in
matters ecclesiastical"—that is well said. The distribution of patronage
in Scotland is so mischievous, that the General Assembly passed an act
to render it somewhat more conducive to the spiritual good of the
parishes, and the Civil Court have decided that the General Assembly
had no power to regulate the patronage of their churches; and of the
thirteen judges,eight pronounced their opinion, that the Church of Scot-
tree:er
tis a o
the
c oxen.fac
t
land was nothing but the creature of the State, and that the Sovereign
was head of that Church as well as of the Church of England. I can
only suppose that Dr. Chalmers wrote this before the case of patronage in
:.I.i
e f
m it rarder
authority had
noccurred.ato,al Butasestliislin a ,
that state authority in religious matters is now asserted and clung to
al iirntths another
of proof
religion,that h
refer
by the advocates generally of religious establishments. The exceptions
a c few, but the reasons of these exceptions are very obvious. They
find that it thwarts them in some or other of their designs. Thus we
have conservative churchmen, who are ever angry and grieved that there
should het n any manner nationa. authorits in the Church, while there
is a liberal ministry in office, but who would hug their chains again if
the Tories should come into power. And there are others, very evan-
gelical men, who are thwarted in their religious endeavours, and they
feel that national authority in Church and State is nut in all respects
a very good thing. But generally the advocates of religious establish-
ments contend for, and cling to the doctrine of State authority in mat-
ters of religion. Pamphlets are es-en written enforcing the entire obe-
dience of the subjects of the realm to the established religion, on the
ground of the duty of obedience to civil rules. And on the same ground it
is that the Dissenters have so often been charged in a mass with disloy-
alty. We have had the broad principle laid down, that if a man is a
dissenter, he cannot be a good subject—that if he does not belong to the
Church he must be a traitor to the State—that the Church and State
are one, and that if he does not love the Church, he cannot love the
State. This is even the feeling of the advocates of the Church Estab-
lishment at this time. State authority, in matters of religion, there-
fore, is an element of rational Churches. Now Dr. Chalmers' defini.
tion of Na'i net establishments not including this element, is altogether
defective, and his argument is utterly void. It matters not what he
has said—he cannot have said a single word to the purpose, through
his entire failure of the definition of National Religious Establishments.
Dr. Chalmers has not omitted this element intentionally or inadver-
tently. " The theory we deprecate (he represents this American as
saying) is the authority of the civil magistrate: in matters of reli-
gion; but we should be thankful to him, or any one else, for giving us
what he termed on organised provisions for clergymen." " Now," (says
Dr. Chalmers) this organized provision is truly all that we contend for."
So that lie is keeping clear of the question of State authority in matters
of religion. It is not, then, national religious establishments that the
Doctor pleads for, but he wants a thing of this sort—a Utopian affair,
utterly unlike anything that ever did exist in the world, or that ever can
xist ; for there never can be a body of lucrative clergymen who are ex-
empt from the authority of the State which pays them. It is not, then,
a national religious establishment that he pleads fur—yet he professes to
vindicate national religious establishments. How strangely must his
claim of independency have sounded in the ears of such an audience!
Yet they applauded him! Were they then infatuated by his eloquence ?
Or are the senses of noblemen and princes so little exercised in the
judgment between good and evil, that they really did not see the nature
of his statement ? Or is there growing up in high quarters a wish for
the separation of Church and State ? And are the Bishops and nobles
aael Royal princes and uncles of the Sovereign forming a conspiracy to
eluck from the British Crown the jewel of Ecclesiastical supremacy ? Let
it be well understood that in this principle we agree with Dr. Chalmers.
Independent the Church of Scotland and every Church ought to be. This
le our principle ; but in holding it the Doctor abandons the entire cause
of national religious establishments. In this path other advocates of the
system will not follow him. We shall still hear of the claim, though hehas
renounced it, and it will be as well for us to grapple with those who
ccupy this ground before proceed further in considering the question of
expediency as argued by Dr. Chalmers. For this purpose we may take
he language of the present Chancellor of the diocese of Winchester,
Dr. Dealtry, arid I take it in the form of a track circulated oy the Society
f r Promoting Christian Knowledge, entitled " Religious Establish-
ments tried by the word of God, by Wm. Dealtry,-D.D. At
the ninth Page this tract we have these words :—" The legislature of
every country is assuredly bound to consult in all things the public wet.
fare. It may doubless fail in the proper discharge of its functions, but
the obligation itself is one which, as a government, it is not at liberty to
cast off. ls religion of importance to society ? No Christian will as-
sert the contrary. For what reason then is the line to be drawn so
broadly between matters of a purely civil and those of a religious rm.
Is tare, that oil the one side of the line the authorities of the State are
to expatiate in perfect liherty, but are on no account to do good by
passing over to the other ?—to be allowed the privilege of enacting
waolesome laws for the regulation of secular concerns, but to be prat'.
',sited from taking any measure for diffusing that sacred knowledge, and

-
orne surprise has been expressed that Sir flobeit
Fetl was so uncourt eons towards Sir Francis Burdett as to prevent the
old renegade from speaking on Tuesday night; but Sir Robert had his
own reasons. He had reason to know that Mr. Shell was lying by fordo
occasion to fall on Burdett, and would have followed him ; and that if
the Right Hon. Baronet wished to speak himself, it would be necessary
to tdjourn the debate. But then an adjourned debate would have in.
terfered with Sir Robert's grand dinner yesterday; and thus poor Sir
Francis was muzzled. That the old renegade might have damaged the
Tories by his twaddle may be true, but this was not the reason for shu'.
ting him out,

LITERAT URE.

TILE DUBLIN REVIEW. No. 1111.
Hooker and Dolman.
There is one thing about this Review which commands
our respect—it is intensely, thoroughly, and we had almost
said, exclusively, Irish., It appears in the character of a
semi-official organ of the " seven millions ;" end they have
just cause to be satisfied with the zeal and ability with
which it defends their faith, depicts their patriotism, pleads
their wrongs, and gives expression to their feelings.
Though personally detesting all theological controversy as
the bane of Christian charity—of that brotherly love
which should glow in the heart of every believer in the
leading doctrines of our holy religion--we do not blame
the Catholics for occasionally retorting with interest upon
their polemical traducers. Their's is a warfare of self-de
fence, and, therefore, in all respects, justifiable. They are
the aggrieved, not the aggressors. This, after all, is not
generally speaking, the result of any deliberate malice on
the part of their assailants. The truth is that they can-
not help it. This may sound oddly in the ears of some
persons ; but we will make the fact intelligible to their com-
mon sense in a moment. In what way can our young
Divines convince the world that they know anything about
dogmatic theology, and arc, therefore, fit and proper
objects for preferment in the Church ? Why by exposing
some lurking deformity—some latent or invented error in
the doctrines of the Church of Rome to be sure. The
reading of a school-boy would suffice for an attack on more
modern sectaries, and besides it would be difficult to find
room for the employment of the inventive faculty ; but to
write stories about the tricks of Monks and Nuns in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries—the very idea is irre-
sistible! Then suppose any number of mistakes—all, of
course, unintentional—relative to the doctrines and prac-
tices of the Church of Rome, excessive zeal for the triumph
of the Reformation in Ireland is always an ample and jus-
tificatory apology. The true test of that evangelical sanc-
tity which never fails to befriend a young aspirant for pre-
ferment in the State Church is less a love of God than a
hatred of the Pope. Then, as regards the converts from
the Church of Rome, who so foully abuse her, their slan-
ders are intended as a peace-offering, which they are ex•
pected to lay upon the altar of their new faith, in
proof alike of their sincerity, their good sense,
and their entire community of sentiment with the Church of
their adoption. We can readily imagine the existence of
converts of a far different stamp. We can suppose men of
a delicacy so refined as to shrink, with a feeling approach-
ing to horror, from an invitation to test the strength of
their convictions, however sincere, by defiling the shrine
before which they first bowed in homage to their Creator in
the innocent singleness of an infant heart. Lonely must
have been the hearth which fostered the growth of the
Irish convert to Protestantism, who can without reproach
designate as idolatry the simple piety which prompted the
nightly family recital of the Padreen Partaugh, notwith-
standing its inclusion of the widely-denounced invocation
of the prayers of the Virgin. For ourselves, we envy no
convert from any form of Christian worship—and much less
a convert from a religion so mixed up with venerable asso-
ciations as the Catholic—those feelings which manifest
themselves in a virulent attack upon that faith whose prin-
ciples formed the first lesson of maternal love. We can
distinguish, and we trust so can the bulk of our readers,
between simple conversion to any form of religious belief—
the result of long, deep, patient, and painful inquiry—and
that harlequin zeal which spurns the ashes and dishonours
the memory of the dead, in order to pass current for a
saitable atonement for " errors," the mere " accidents of
birth." These general remarks include the only notice
which we feel disposed to bestow upon the articles entitled,
Tracts for the Times," " Catholic Missions," " The
Bishop of Exeter and the Catholics," and the great bulk of
the review of Dr. Meyler's fictions about " Irish Tranquillity
under Mr. O'Connell, my Lord Mulgrave, and the Ro-
tmish Priesthood." They all display great ability, but we
rather lament that there should be any occasion for them,
than desire to inoculate our readers with their polemical
spirit. We except a passage in the last relative to the
Vice-regal government of Lord Mulgrave.
"The first head of the tergeminous monster which bars the access of
the Orange faction to their lost Elysium, is that which grows upon the
shoalders of ' My Lord Mulgrave ;' and his Excellency is consequently
the principal object of every attack from that quarter. He would be,
in truth, unworthy of the place he holds in the respect and affections of
all true Irishmen, if every currish scribbler that either volunteers or is
hired to vilify our country, did not rusts in the very first instance at him,
by the same instinct that makes a gypsy's or a poacher's dug bark at an
honest man. We hold it to be an impossibility honestly to carry out
the principles on which the Noble Earl undertook the government of
Ireland, and not be hated and abused by its ancient oppressors.. To ad-
minister impartial justice, and extend protection to all men alike ; to
love mercy and practice it ; to curb and chastise the insolence of petty
tyrants ; to proceed with honourable consistency in the course on which
he set out, by selecting for office, and distinguishing with his confidence,
men capable of executing, in good faith, the details of his enlarged and
comprehensive policy ; and to give effect, without paltering or equivoca-
tion, to the objects of the Reform Act, and the spirit of Catholic Eman-
cipation,—these arc ditties from which Lord Mulgrave has never
swerved, and which no man in his situation could perform without
drawing towards himself the implacable hostility of every thorough.
going Irish Tory. The acrimony with which he is regarded by that
ruthless faction, is the best possible test of the genuine excellence of his
government. For, if he were only such a Reformer as some of his prede-
cessors were, the opposition to the measures of his administration would
be tempered by a show of tenderness towards himself; and many a
staunch old Orangeman would be found dangling about his Court, pro.
fessing, in the words of Swift, to
" Do the most that friendship can,
To hate the Viceroy—love the man."
But they hate both, because they know that his heart is on the same
side with the politics of his party ; and they hate him the more, for the
virtues which adorn his private life, and add a lustre to his pubic con.
duct. His manly and intrepid character; his generous compliance
(which even many of themselves have advantageously experienced) with
every reasonable request;*• his unaffected courtesy of manner, such as
could only proceed from an ingenuous and kindly nature ; and the ele.
mercy of his rule, extending itself irrespectively and alike to all par-
ties ; arc qualities to which, in ordinary circumstances, the. Irish heart,
whether it beat under a green coat or a blue one, warms of its own ac-
cord; but the presence of these virtues in Lord Mulgrave serves but to
increase the ill-humour of his detractors, and to draw out their inutile
verjuice, just
" As Heaven's bless'd beams make vinegar more sour."
Lord Mulgrave has well merited the praise which the
Reviewer here bestows upon his administration. 1-lis
Lordship is perhaps the only member of the present Go-
vernment, no part of whose public conduct gave rise to even
momentary distrust on the part of the staunch Reformers of
Great Britain and Ireland.
" Mehemet Ali" is more a biographical sketch of the
far-famed Egyptian Viceroy than a review of Mr. LerP's
" Maniiers and Customs" of his Highness's subjects. It
is vividly and forcibly written. The description of the
wholesale slaughter of the Maineluke Beys is particularly
dramatic. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the Viceroy's
crimes, the Reviewer would rejoice to see him recognized
as the lawful Sovereign of the kingdom of the Pharoahs ;
and after witnessing all that his Highness has done to
ameliorate the physical, mere), and intellectual condition of
the victims of six centuries of grinding oppression, we have
ourselves arrived at t'se conclusion that the crown of
Egypt could not be better bestowed—now that all Eerope
has agreed that it can never be recovered by the Porte,
We understand that so anxious is Mehemet Ali to procure
the recognition of his claim to the dignity of an indepen-
dent Sovereign, that he would readily concede Candia to
England, as a boon for being the first royal State to acknow_
ledge him to be in fact what he is, and must continue to be
in name—King of Egypt. The " Miseries and Beauties of
Ireland" is an able and elaborate review of Mr. Lien's
very clever and very impartial book upon these fertile sub-
jects, to the merits of which we long since endeavoured to
do justice in the columns of The Sun. " Irish Novels and
Novelists" is a review of the leading national characteristics
of the novels of Maria Edgeworth, Lady Morgan, Banim,
Carleton, Griffin, and Lover. We select as interesting
specimens, the Reviewer's estimate of the nationality of the
writings of each :