The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-29 00:00:00

ihe leading speaker in this interlude was Sir

ROBERT PEEL.

The Right Hon. Baronet ani-

madverted in a strain of well-deserved sever.ty on the
extravagant proceedings of the Non-Intrusion men,
holding them up to the country in the just light of
rebels against the laws, while, as ministers of the
Gospel, it is their duty to teach, both by precept
and example, obedience to the civil authorit►es.
He stated his conviction that Lord ABERDEEN'S
Bill was founded on just principles, and that the
Kirk would never obtain more favourable terms
than it offered.
But that which it most concerns the Non•lntru-
sionists to lay to heart is the declaration of the Pre-
mier in futuro, that had the Bill come down to the
House of Commons he would have given it all the
support in his power. Thus have they made a
somewhat narrow escape, for there is not a doubt
that if Lord ABERDEEN had not withdrawn the
Bill, which they so fiercely denounced as binding
the judicatories of the Kirk hand and foot, it would
by this time have been the law of the land. Let
them, we repeat, ponder well on this announcement
of the Tory leader, and consider what the next Ses-
sion of Parliament may bring forth, if they proceed
i❑ their present course of setting at defiance all
legal authority—a course, be it remembered, equally
condemned and reprobated by both parties in the
State.

Sir ROBERT could not understand how the Kirk
could claim an ecclesiastical jurisdiction independ-
ent of the law of the land, when the Kirk itself
was established by law. This is what no one can
understand. This is the very thing that puzzles
every person who tries to comprehend the conduct
of the Non-Intrusion clergy. The Church of
Scotland was called into existence by the State, and
exists only by the State, and yet it presumes to lift
up its heel against its creator ! It arrogates to
itself, forsooth, a co-ordinate and independent juris-
diction I It must not be commanded—not it—by
the legislative power of the State " to do this, and
not to do that," as if it were inferior in authority I
Now, a moment's reflection, were they capable
of it, must show the " wild men," as they are pro-
perly termed in the North, that such pretensions
are not only urtenable, but perfectly ridiculous, in
a State-created and State-supported Establishment.
It is only under the operation of the voluntary prin-
ciple, in its utmost latitude, that men can throw off
all the trammels of civil authority in matters of reli-
gion; and it is because the Non-Intrusionists do not,
or will not, see the distinction, that they fall into
such mischievous absurdities. If they will dis-
connect themselves from the State—which, if they
were honest, they would have done long ago
—they may bring their Non-Intrusion principle
into action, without the least interference on the
part of the State; but, as long as they choose to
mix up their religious with their civil rights, for the
sake of certain temporal advantages, they must sub-
mit to the judgment of the civil tribunals on ques-
tions arising out of this mixed state of affairs. It
is, moreover, wisdom to submit with a good grace.
Resistance can only demonstrate weakness, and
must end in defeat and discredit.
Mr. Fox MAULE attempted to vindicate the
conduct of the wild party in the Kirk. We were
sorry to see a man of his good sense make such an
at• emnpt, but the result only proves how defenceless
the party are, for even Mr. MAULE, with all his
ability, could not make out a decent case for them.
Of what use is it to assert that the Non-Intrusion
clergy have declared that they " bowed implicitly"
to the decision of the laws, as far as civil rights are
concerned, when the fact is that they have openly
set at defiance the solemn decision of the Court
of Session, and of the House of Lords, on
points which these high courts have pronounced
to be matters of civil right ? Does not this
fact show that they claim to themselves the addi-
tional jurisdiction of deciding what is, and what
is not, a matter of civil right? That is a question
which must be for ever recurring in the complica-
tion of temporal and spiritual rights created by the
connection of Church and State, and is it to be
left to the decision of the clergy ? Are they to be
allowed to put an estoppel upon the proceedings of
the Courts of Justice whenever they please, by
merely saying this is a spiritual, not a civil master
Surely no man in his senses will advance such a
. .

doctrine as this ? yet this is actually the doctrine
which must be maintained by those who defend the
wild ministers in their resistance to the laws as in-
terpreted by the tribunals. There cannot be a
greater absurdity than to suppose that two supreme
and independent powers can exist together, nor a
greater proof of i: than that it would be impossible,
on such a supposition, to determine what rights of
jurisdiction belonged to the one, and what to the
other. Each power would claim the right of decid-
ing that previous question, and interminable anta-
gonism would be the consequence. The conclusion,
therefore, to which all rational persons must come
is this, that not only does the civil power possess
the right of deciding, through its organs, the Courts
of Justice, all civil questions, but also the right—
without which the other would be a nonentity—of
deciding what questions are civil, and what not.

The idea of the existence of a Secret Convention
agreed to by four of the five Great Powers, to the
exclusion of France, appears to have roused the
jealousy of the French press and people to an ex-
tent hardly credible. Our Gallic Contemporaries
have fallen into the error of Mr. HUME ; but they
have not; like the Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
waited for any official confirmation of an anonymous
rumour, before bringing a charge of bad faith against
the Government of this country. We now repeat
what we stated on Friday last, in answer to the
" distinguished" old Whig who communicates diplo-
matic gossip to the Post, that no Convention
was signed, or proposed to be signed, by the
Four Powers of which France was not as fully
aware as she is of the existence of the Quadruple
Treaty. There neither exists, nor has there existed
any Convention among the Great Powers for the settle-
ment of the Eastern question, of which France is, or
was at any time, ignorant. It has been known to all
the world fox many months that an ultimatum was
drawn up in London, which it was supposed the
Great Powers would agree to, which defined the
course proposed to be taken for bringing the ques-
tion to an immediate Issue. After this paper was
discussed in the several Cabinets, the representatives
of Russia, Austria, and Prussia agreed to sign it ;
but France held back, on the plea that she oh-
jected to the employment of
she
coerciveh e f
felt
t convincedmeasures
0
arrangement
the VICEROY,
an
yd
mid that
ht be effected between the Porte
and I)
the
DACHA without the ostensible in
interference
of the Great Powers. Lord PALDIERSTON, who
was ALMERSTON)
was understood to have drawn up the ultimatum of
which the three Great Northern Powers approved,
did all that lay in his power to convince France
that to leave the SULTAN and AT --EHEMET ALI to
settle the question themselves, would be virtually