then his Lordship belongs to the same sect. It must be admitted that, for whatever reason, the Churchmen of Madeira and their chaplain have not, to use a common phrase, 'Christians of all ' denominations,' on their side. This may however be boasted by the complainants. For one of those who came before the Bishop of London to complain of practices, which though innocent in themselves, yet shocked their weak nerves, especially in these critical times, by their frightful proximity to the practices of the Roman Church-one of these pure and zealous Protestants, who has pursued Mr. Lowe through every meeting of the Church Committee, and every appeal to the Foreign Office and the press-belonged (will our readers believe it?) to the Church of Rome. It hardly seems to have been an idle vaunt of the Irish Reformation Society orator, who declared he would go to Rome, and make the Pope himself cry 'No Popery.' From such a body it is not wonderful that the theology of the English Church obtains small favour. But the clerical members of the party at least should learn prudence from the unhappy fate of poor Mr. Salwey-we beg his pardon, 'The Rev. T. Salwey, of Oswestry, Salop;' this gentleman, it seems, heard doctrines in Mr. Lowe's preaching so shocking, that he felt it his duty to write to the foreign secretary requesting that his name might be withdrawn from the protest sent to him against the proceedings of the assailants. For the same reason it seems that he supplied to the Presbyterian consul, a copy of a private letter addressed to him by a brother clergyman to dissuade him from that step, and which expressed a low estimate of the theological qualifications of the malcontent party. The letter thus supplied to the consul was soon published by the malcontents, and this led to a pamphlet, named at the head of our article, Correspondence between the Rev. T. Salwey, &c.,' in which the consul, who is most anxious to appear neuter, certainly does not shine. But our present affair is with Mr. Salwey, he seems to have been impelled to these somewhat unusual steps by the horror with which he regarded Mr. Lowe's doctrines, which was so strong as to lead him even to write to Lord Aberdeen that he differed conscientiously from the chaplain in his religious views.' When these expressions were published, Mr. Lowe requested an explanation, and was assured that they referred not to any vague reports, but only to the statements which he had himself heard him make from the pulpit. The reply is too good not to be laid before our readers: 'Madeira, June 14, 1847. Dear Sir, I am much obliged for the kind explanation you have sent me of your meaning in attributing to me 'peculiar views' at variance with your own; for you appear to have intended no reproach by this expression. At the same time, considering that such difference seems not only to have those two very sermons being actually Bishop Beveridge's! influenced you in desiring to erase your signature from a paper to which you had affixed it, but to have possessed sufficient consequence to be brought forward publicly before the Earl of Aberdeen in his official capacity, in justification of requesting the withdrawal of your signature, I am afraid that any third person will still expect some more complete explanation of the real state or merits of the case than you have afforded, or had it in your power to afford. 'I would not be supposed to seek to draw the bonds of agreement in matters of opinion closer than the Church has drawn them; but it is a question which may still, I fear, be thought not fully settled by your letter. Are not your expressions, coupled with actions so remarkable, calculated to convey to most minds an idea of peculiarity of views in points of doctrine beyond such allowed or authorized limits ? It is therefore most satisfactory to have your declaration that 'what you meant by my peculiar views is simply what you heard me preach; and, again, that 'you only know my views by my preaching;' for this enables me to satisfy yourself and all men, not only that such peculiarity is really, as your letter intimates, and so far as I am concerned, irrespective of all points of established faith or doctrine, but also that it exists, after all, rather on your side than on mine. 'Before your letter reached me I feared you had been led into misapprehension by some false report or exag exaggeration, which it might have been as unpleasant to trace to its originators as difficult to refute. I am the more thankful, therefore, to find that the matter rests on ground so narrow, clear, and easy to approach. Previous to your arrival, impressed by local circumstances strongly with the importance of avoiding all pretext for agitation or excitement in this place, I resolved for a season to have recourse to the works of some popular and well-known standard writer in our Church, of an age and stamp at once removed from all suspicion of connexion with the controversies of the present day, and of authority above cavil or impeachment. Such an author and divine was Bishop Beveridge, who had the further recommendation of being also a well-known powerful opponent of all Romanizing views and doctrines, and of being held in special favour by the extreme Puritan, or so-called Evangelical party, in our Church. 'In proof of the reasonableness, or, indeed, the necessity, of my seeking some such safeguard against ignorance and prejudice, you will doubtless smile to hear that I was gravely charged, the very winter you were in Madeira, by a clergyman considered to be of that party, with preaching, in two sermons1 'I cannot, therefore, but rejoice again to claim the shelter of a name so venerable, for any supposed peculiarity of views attributed to me more generally by yourself. For it is certain that for every one of the sermons preached by me during your stay in Madeira, and on which your charge against me rests, Bishop Beveridge is entirely responsible. All the sermons which you heard me preach were not mine, but his. What you dissented from were his views, his words, and not peculiarly mine. 'Instead, therefore, of fixing upon me any personal peculiarity of views, your allegation resolves itself into a statement of a difference of views between yourself and Bishop Beveridge, upon which I need not enter; for 1 Mr. Lowe has omitted a passage here, as it was taken from a private letter of this clergyman; but, as the story is current in Madeira, we may as well state that the charge was, that the two sermons contained 'views' different from those of the venerable Beveridge. - Lord Campden, р. 24. I heartily respond to your apparent inclination to avoid all unnecessary extension of this correspondence. The Rev. T. Salwey. ' I remain therefore, R. T. LOWE.' It would seem that the course taken by the majority has as little support in the law of England as in the eternal principles of truth, and justice, and charity; the consul, indeed, and the secretary of state have hitherto supported their line against chaplain, bishop, and law. But common sense reclaims against these proceedings, and the law it seems speaks the same language: ' A legal opinion was subsequently obtained as to the illegality of these resolutions, the opinion of an eminent counsel being that the meeting was constituted for the purpose of carrying into execution the objects of the Act regulating the affairs of British Churches abroad, and therefore not justified in withholding the chaplain's salary, such an act being in direct contravention of the law which provides for-1. The proper support of the chaplain-2. The due and proper maintenance of Divine Service-3. The expenses of the burial-ground-4. The interment of British subjects. Now, if the meeting have power to render null one portion of the Act, they have power to render null any other portion, for instance, to forbid the interment of British subjects-which is manifestly absurd. The meeting have therefore no right to act as they do, in opposition to the Act of Parliament; and Lords Aberdeen and Palmerston are open to the charge of acting illegally in sanctioning the resolutions of the meeting.'-Lord Campden, p. 13. The question seems exactly similar to that lately decided in England, by which it was settled that vestries cannot refuse to make necessary rates for the repair of the parish church; the vestry being a body legally constituted to carry the law into effect, not to defeat its provisions. So clearly does this case come under the principle of that decision, that the meeting itself could not exist if there was no chaplain. It is only in ports and places where there is a chaplain supported, &c., that the Act can be put in force at all. It would seem then that if the minority had not continued to contribute to the support of Mr. Lowe, the majority would have lost their right to meet and vote under the Act. But if Mr. Lowe is still chaplain, and is supported, as we have seen, by voluntary subscriptions, then there is no pretence for the wrong which the Foreign Office has committed in refusing the usual assistance towards his maintenance. Still more evidently illegal was the other decision of the consul and the secretary of state, that the treasurer was justified in refusing subscriptions offered for the support of the chaplain, because the meeting had decided against allowing him any salary. Our readers will find in page 15 of Lord Campden's pamphlet, that eminent legal opinions have been given upon this point. But indeed no opinion was needed: for when the Act expressly allows subscriptions for the purposes mentioned, or any of them, nothing but the extreme of prejudice could lead to the opinion that the treasurer could refuse to receive them for one of these purposes, because it chanced to be distasteful to the majority of the last 'general meeting.' To hasten over this part of the subject, if the majority of a meeting be allowed to act as the Madeira meeting has hitherto acted, it is no longer true that the chaplain holds his office during her Majesty's pleasure. The majority of a general meeting may prevent his receiving the allowance given by her Majesty herself, even although the whole body of the communicants and of the congregation highly prize his services, and although nine-tenths of the subscribers are of the same opinion. A very small proportion only of the subscribers can have votes in the general meeting, and none of the poorer classes, so that the bounty of the Crown, the wishes of the congregation, and the intention of the subscribers, may alike be frustrated by the perverseness of two or three subscribers who may be members of the general meeting, on a mere money qualification, without being members of the English Church at all. It is vain to say that no spiritual authority is entrusted to this general meeting, if its members are allowed, as in the present instance, on grounds purely spiritual, not only to withhold from the chaplain their own subscriptions, but to prevent his receiving the allowance given by the Crown, and thus, perhaps, (in many instances, if not in this,) to enforce his resignation. We have shown, we think, that the Act of Parliament itself is radically unjust and indefensible, because it entrust the management of Church affairs to a body, all of whom may be, and many actually are, aliens from the Church; and because it fails to secure to the foreign chaplains that independence which it is the character of our Church to give to every incumbent, and in a great degree to every curate. It leaves them removable by the Crown, although still holding the unrevoked licence of the diocesan. This is so contrary to all Church principles as to be incapable of defence even for a moment; and thus far the law clearly needs amendment. Next, we have seen, that as it has been actually administered by the Foreign Office, it has been stretched against its evident meaning, so as to give to a tyrant majority power, even in matters spiritual, over chaplain, bishop, and Crown itself, even though that majority be altogether composed of Dissenters. It seems to follow, clearly, that some alteration of the law is immediately necessary, which shall prevent any persons, not bonâ fide Churchmen, from interfering with the affairs of the Church; shall secure to the chaplains, once appointed, the independence of their office by making them irremovable except by the revocation of their licence, and which shall declare for all future time the illegality of any vote on the part of the general meeting, by which the salary of the chaplain shall be stopped, or the offerings of any Churchman for his support refused. Let it be observed, we allow every one free liberty to subscribe or not as he pleases, we only refuse him (what we are sure the existing laws already refuse) the power of subscribing to the fund raised for the support of the chaplain, in order that he may be qualified to divert from his support both his own subscription and that of others. But Churchmen in England must be alert in defence of their brethren in Madeira; ' If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it;'--- the independence of the Church at home is compromised, if outrages such as those which it has been our duty to detail, are permitted to pass unchecked abroad. It is to the Church at home that the Churchmen of Madeira are looking for sympathy, nay, for common justice. From the Foreign Office, they have but too clearly learned, they must expect neither one or the other. This may be clear to our readers from the facts we have already stated, but we have not yet mentioned the worst and meanest. Mr. Lowe's salary for the year 1845 was voted by the general meeting, and paid by the treasurer; yet (if we are not misinformed) the half due to him from the Treasury for that year has been stopped, as well as for those years in which the meeting has refused their contribution. If this is, as we fear, correct, it is indeed deeply disgraceful to the administration of the Foreign Office. But the Churchmen of Madeira will not call in vain upon their brethren at home. If they are unrepresented in the British Parliament, we are not, and we cannot for shame leave the government of England to perpetrate wrongs like these. If, any where in the wide circle of the globe, there be a portion of the Anglican Church which justly claims our sympathy and regard, 1 This cannot be any infringement of those rights of the Crown of which the modern Whigs are so laudably jealous; for at this moment every holder of a Crown living, of a bishopric or a deanery, is in the same predicament; appointed by the Crown, but holding his office, not during pleasure, but during good behaviour. It was the boast of the reign of George III. that the judges were then put upon this footing; let the rendering the same justice to the foreign Chaplains be an ornament of the reign of his grand-daughter. Eminently does justice demand this when the Foreign Secretary may be, nay, so lately has been, a member of a hostile sect, and when, for all we know, he may soon be a Jew. It is plainly monstrous, that clergymen holding the licence of the Bishop, should be removable by such an authority. Meanwhile, if the Foreign Office makes a point of retaining the power of stopping at any time the government allowance, let it be so; we will not contend about money, but let not the spiritual office-the pastoral relation-depend on the will of secular authorities who may often not even be Churchmen. |