The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, ISIO.

stead of immuring him in prison. He would give
vitality to the infliction, by ordering a civil tribu-
nal, which is yet respected, to carry it into execu-
tion. The Dissenters want the abolition of Church-
rates, not a sharper mode of enforcing the collec-
tion of them. The Ministers worked mischief
enough by their votes, and the speech of their
leader, on Mr. DUNCOMBE'S motion ; the Mini-
sterial press has crowned their wont, by joining in
the attack on THOROGOOD. It will, we are afraid,
convince the Dissenters that the inclination to
throw them off is not transient, and is to be sup-
ported and justified.

The House of Commons was counted out last
nOrt, when Mr. BAINES'S 'notion was before it
relative to First Fruits and Tenths. We will not
blame the House for not liking such dry motions.
We are Socialists enough to believe that men are
not responsible for their likings. Who can help
loving venison and wine, or disliking a prosing
speech, which keeps him away from the dinner.
table ? Who can help prefering a game of whist
at his Club to hearing the multiplication
table and a few sums of subtraction re-
peated in the House of Commons ? To
retire, therefore, from the House to the dinner
or time card table, must be extremely agreeable, par-
ticularly as the Members know very well that time
whole question of tithes and First fruits is already
settled, and that all the orators' of all the Radical
Members will have no effect in disturbing that con-
clusion. They know very well, too, that their votes
cannot serve the, country, and that they have no means
of redressing the manifold grievances of the people,
or no inclination. They know, therefore, that it is
no use resisting their liking for wine or gaining, in
order to serve the country, and they run from the
benches of the House of Commons to the Club-house.
Neither can they help liking a party debate, for that
stirs their passions and touches their interests. They
expect to get in, or they fear to go out, and
on such occasions the House of Commons is pre-
ferred to the dinner or the card table. Some of
the Members, which they cannot help, like to hear
Mr. O•CoNNELL. pummel the Tories ; and
'others like to hear Lord STANLEY, or Sir RO-
BERT PICEL, lashing the Whigs. The Members
of the House, therefore, attend in shoals when a
party debate going on, and when the matter
only concerns the country then the House is
counted out. We repeat we do not blame the
Members, for they are not responsible for their
likings; we only presume to think that the public
are rather foolish, after so many years' experience—
after such long practice has confirmed such a wel-
founded theory—for expecting that the Members of
the House of Commons will ever prefer the pub •
lie good to their own gratification. We are sure
that the Members will study their own advantage
in future, as in past times, and will whenever it suits
them forsake the House of Commons for their pri-
vate amusement.

Lord Chief Justice DENMAN in summing up
the cause of Lord BERESPORD against the Morn-
ing Chronicle on Saturday, made a number of re-
marks on the advantages of facts being published
which must satisfy every person that it is from no
wish to stop the communication of information, that
he has taken such a decided part on the side of law
against privilege. The Noble Lord said—
" Then the only question remaining was that of damages.
On that subject there was no question made at the bar, and
there could nut now be in any place whatever, that it was
desirable that free discussion should be encouraged, and
that facts in which all were interested should be fully
made known to the world ; but at the same time no party
must attack the character of another by reports which
could not be substantially proved to be true, unless such
reports appeared under peculiar circumstances. For
instance, the publication of the proceedings of this day
would probably be held in all the Courts to be pprotected,if the report was fairly given as a report of a judicial pro-
ceeding, with which it was of importance that all men
should be acquainted."
Now if the Houses of Parliament and the Judges
would conspire together, and their conspiracy would
be followed by much approbation, not punishment,
to pass a law settling the privilege of publishing,
whether by the newspapers, or b) the House of
Commons, on the principles laid down by the Judge,
the present contemptible dispute between privilege
and law, might at once be put an end to, much to the
public advantage. When Lord J. RUSSELL could
quote the Judge's law with great approbation as con-
firmatory of the privileges claimed by the Commons,
we cannot see what separates the two Noble Lords,
or what all this doughty quarrel between privilege
and law is about. The difference between Twcedle•
dum and Tweedle-dee seems to have been equally
as important, though in its results less noxious to
the public.

The Court of Session has had another brush
with the Court Ecclesiastical in Scotland. Our
readers are aware that the majority of the Presby-
tery of Strathbogie, in Aberdeenshire,
were sus-
pended from their functions by the Commission of
the General Assembly, because they had obeyed
the order of the Court of Session, commanding
them to take on his trials a Reverend Gentleman
duly,presented to a vacant living by the patron,
but objected to, without reasons assigned, by some
of the parishioners.
The Commission accompanied the sentence of
suspension with an order to the minority of the
Presbytery to supply ministerial services in the
parishes of their suspended brethren. An inter-
dict or injunction was obtained from the Court
cf Session forbidding any one, in the exe-
cution of the sentence of the Commission
to enter the church, churchyard, schoolhouse
or manse. Nevertheless, the minority, and the
clergymen prevailed upon to assist diem
supplyingin
whomie
lneatc'hirngs, prayings, baptisms, &c.,
in the parishes whose ministers were under the ban
of the Commission, found means to create, by their
intrusion into these parishes, considerable annoy-
ance and molestation to the rightful pastors. The
latter have therefore followed up—most consistently
and properly followed up—their former application
to the Supreme Civil Court by another, praying
for an injunction to suspend th s resolutions, sen-
tence, and proceedings of the Commission, and
to interdict, prohibit, and discharge the minority
from meeting, or carrying into effect the said reso-
lutions, &c., and from molesting the complainants
in any manner or way.
The parties complained against did not choose
to appear, not being willing, we presume, to ac-
knowledge the jurisdiction of the Court, and the
interdict was granted to the full extent prayed for.
It is not, indeed, easy to see how the Court could
have come to any other decision in the case, for
the act of the majority of the Presbytery, which
brought down upon their heads the vengeance of
this Commission, namely, taking the Rev. Mr.
EDWARDS on his trials, was done in obedience to
the express order of the Court. In yielding this
obedience to the civil authority, the ministers arc
held by the Commission to have been guilty of
" deliberate contumacy, and gross malversation in
the exercise of their duty." The Commission,
moreover, pronounced that the ministers were
bound to maintain inviolate the supreme jurisdiction
of the Spiritual Courts, to which every minister at
the time of his ordination vowed submission.
Such arc the extravagant, the monstrous pre-
tensions put forth by the Kirk, or rather by the
herd of fanatics and self-seekers who have got the
upper hand for the time in the Kirk. We have no
fear that they will gain their point. They will
find the law too strong for them ; and the best
thing t;iat they can do is to retrace their steps
without delay, and repeal the fatal Act which has
been the root of all the evil ;which has of late
fallen upon the Church, and which will produce
nothing but evil as long as it remains unrepealed.
The Judges entered at considerable length into
the general question of civil and ecclesiastical juris-
diction, and none of them seemed to have any doubt
as to the power of the Court of Session to interfere
in cases like that before it, except Lord FuL-
LA RTON, who was for not carrying the inter-
dict to the full extent asked, but neither the
LORD PRESIDENT, Lord MACKENZIE, nor Lord
G twEs had the least misgiving on the subject.

The LORD PRESIDENT made some very striking
remarks on several points of the case. On the un-
controllable authority claimed by the Assembly, he
observed

"The qlestion came withinthis shorcompass —was there,
or could there be, in this country, any man or body of men
not only entitled to disobey the law, but, to the extent of
their power, to punish those who did obey the law ? That
was the simple question. They were told that the Church
Courts had an independent jurisdiction. Who gave it
them ? The law gave it them, and nothing else ; and
th y had not an inch of authority beyond what the law gave
them. The Presbyterian form of Government was not
innate ; it was not created by itself. On the contrary,
they all knew that the Reformation was estaUslied thirty
years before Pres'oytery was heard of. The Reformation
was accomplished in 1560; the Pi esbyterian form of Go-
vernment did not exist till the Act of 1592 cre-
ated it. And how did it create it, and with
what powers ? Did it give the powers a:sumed in
the First and Second Books of Discipline, or did it
give the powers which it afterwards assumed ?—No. Thee
gave it on certain terms—which were, that they were bound
and astricted to take on trials, and, if qualified, to admit to
the ministry, the presentees of the lawful patrons. That
was the charter of the Presbyterian Church. It existed
only by law, and by virtue of an Act of Parliament. And
yet they were told that it was to disregard i!s own
charter—to go beyond the power which was given to it by
Statute—to usurp whatever powers and privileges they
might think ircessery for their Ecclesiastical functions !
Tue Court had pronounced a decree ; and they would put
the ministers in prison if they disobeyed it. On the other
hand, if they disobeyed the sentence of the Assembly,
they would tea susdended or deposed. Was it possible that
both these sentences could stand together I and that there
was no power in the Supreme Court of the country to say
which of them had exceeded their powers ?"

The stupid attempt, on the part of the Vetoistv,
to shield their proceedings from the cognizance of
the law, by denying that they interfered with any
civil rights, is very summarily disposed of :
___. _ _

_ .
" They had been told," said the Lord President,
" that the suspension or deposition of the minister did not
involve a civil right. No civil right! If they were legally
su;pens!ed, he took it, that their right to the stipend
ceased during the suspension ; if he was deposed, it
ceased altogether. Was that no civil right ?—and had the
parties here no interest in saying we hare been illegally
suspended for obeying the law—for doing that which wo
were bound by our oaths to do? Surely they had an inte-
rest—a direct patrimonial interest; aye, and an interest in
regard to their character. To be suspended, implied that
they had done something wrong. But th• Church not
only disobeyed the law—it punished the men who did
obey it. They made themselves independent of the Le-
gislature, as well as of the law.. They passed the Veto
Law, and they said that the Courts of Law had no right
to declare it illegal. What was the Court of Law but
the organ of the Legislature? For, by the Constitution
of this country, the Legislature has no power to judge—
the Executive was committed to the Courts of Law."

The following observations on the unprincipled
conduct of the General Assembly, coming from
such high authority as that of the LORD PRESI-
DENT of the Court of Session, cannot fail to have
great weight with the country, however unpalatable
they may be to the CHALMERSES, the CAND-
LISIIES, the CUNNING HAMS, et hoc genus