Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

every measure not agreeable to the Treasury bench, that the very month it was rejected (April, 1736) he made the following motion at a general meeting of the body: That the receiving money from persons in power by Dissenting ministers, and distributing privately in charities, without account, is disapproved by this assembly. That the names of those ministers might be mentioned who received the money from the gentlemen in power." This is no surmise or speculation. It is a fact, or it is not. If true, it settles the question, as far as Dr. Chandler's testimony is concerned, that the money was corruptly received and corruptly employed; if not true, it is capable of absolute disproof. This, however, the author of the Sketch does not consider, in his judgment, to be of any weight.

The writer further alleges that Lord Bute displaced the former administrators and conferred the office on Dr. Chandler, who made great changes both in the publicity and responsibleness of the distributors, especially by taking in a number of lay gentlemen as associates, and laying down rules for the distribution;-that these changes were distasteful both to the old distributors and succeeding Rockingham administration (they in short destroyed the ministerial value of the grant), and that Dr. Chandler was displaced, the old body of distributors restored to power, and all lay gentlemen removed from the distribution. Dr. Rees does not deny a word of this; insinuates a discredit simply by the assertion that "the Marquis of Rockingham came into power in 1765, and that Dr. Chandler held his appointment for nearly a year afterwards, till March 1766, when he was disabled by age and infirmities from discharging its duties. He died in May of that year, after a long and painful illness; and Dr. Stennett received his appointment as his successor a few weeks previously, when Dr. Chandler was on his death-bed." Without stopping to separate the wheat from the chaff in this passage, it is no contradiction to the writer of the pamphlets at all. If Dr. Rees really meant to disprove the statements, he ought to have shewn that Dr. Chandler's predecessor was not removed by Lord Bute, and Dr. Chandler appointed in his stead; and that Dr. Chandler was not removed by the Marquis of Rockingham, and his predecessor re-appointed in his stead-neither of which he attempts to establish: he rests the little he does say on some official document to which he gives no further key.

Dr. Rees further omits to quote the resolutions of the gentlemen of Oxon and Bucks, Lord Barrington in the chair, 1732, to this effect: "There can be no proper equivalent given us instead of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Laws; and the accepting any thing which may carry the appearance of such equivalent, either in the opinion of the giver or receiver, must be of the most pernicious consequence to the interest and reputation of Protestant Dissenters." This, too, is the resolution of a public body on the very question at issue; and yet Dr. Rees alleges that, in his judgment, it is not entitled to "a moment's consideration." It is a question of judgment; that, both of us must leave to the public. Such are the grounds on which I accused, and still accuse, the author of the Sketch of unfairness in quotations.

I now proceed to the second part of the question. A grand point in the Sketch was to shew that all the objections urged against the Regium Donum were in fact mere novel inventions, founded upon the authority of an anonymous pamphleteer, who, with malice prepense, wrote an article on the subject in the London Magazine of 1774. In reference to this article, Dr. Rees writes as follows: "No attempt seems to have been made to attack it" (the Regium Donum) "through the medium of the press during the long term of fifty years. At last, in the year 1774, an anonymous writer, with lofty pretensions to independence of spirit, to purity of political principles, and to superiority of knowledge as to the sentiments and conduct of the Dissenters, volunteered to dispel the mystery in which he alleged the Regium Donum had been so long purposely enveloped, and to drag forth the obnoxious grant itself, and its profligate distributors, to the indignation of an injured and insulted pub

lic." In this magniloquent strain he hurls the vengeance of his injured and insulted public (?) at the head of the unfortunate author of the article in the Magazine. Happy for the man that he has been gathered to his fathers before the days of vengeance! for he would have been annihilated under the weight of this load of denunciation, being thus held up himself to the indignation of an injured and insulted public. What a pity it is that all this is mere "sound and fury, signifying nothing"! The author was, after all, no inventor, but had gained his materials from the contemporary and well-informed authorities cognizant of and conversant with the events. In the present vindication of the Vindication, all this denunciation has disappeared, and we who are opponents in the present day are thankful for the change. The author now, for the first time, comes out with the tardy and extorted confession that in this he was altogether wrong. "I must admit that my statement was incorrect”—“ the baseless fabric of a vision." No longer able to doubt the fact, he however has again recourse to the test of vraisemblance. When admitted, the allegations still bring no evidence; but "for his justification he will examine a few of the statements."

The first part of his examination consists in availing himself of the Narrative and other pamphlets to give a much clearer and more intelligible account of the agitation connected with the attempts to obtain the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, than the obscure one which is given in the Sketch, where the select committee, aided and supported by the almoners, appear mixed up with, and treated as if they had been, deputies of congregations; which they not only were not, but the latter, when appointed against their will, repudiated their labours and denounced their conduct, and in this repudiation they were joined by a great majority of the ministers of the Three Denominations. The almoners did every thing in their power to prevent the body of ministers from recommending the choice of any deputies whatever. "Oct. 16, 1733-The yearly meeting of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers of the Three Denominations was held; and it being recommended to them by their committee to inquire whether it was not advisable to have a new choice of deputies for the ensuing year, it met with great and violent opposition from the almoners and their adherents; but after a long debate the body came to this resolution-That it is the opinion of this meeting, that it be recommended by the ministers of the Three Denominations to their respective congregations to choose two deputies for the year ensuing, for the management of the civil affairs relating to the Protestant Dissenters.' Upon a division, there appeared to be 36 for it and 16 against it. One of the minority, in the course of the debate, declared, that if it was carried by ever so great a majority, he would pay no regard to it; and after it was voted, another of them declared that they would have no deputies." Was such a resolution carried, or was it not? So it was then, and so it is now! The almoners and their adherents stood against the opinion of the great majority of their brethren of all denominations. They alone were the men of "official purity and honour," of perfect political wisdom, and earnest for civil and religious liberty. My belief is that now, as then, there are only two parties favourable to this grant, viz. the distributors and the recipients; and that on various grounds, either of principle or mode, nine-tenths of all the ministers of all denominations are utterly opposed to the grant, and regard it as injurious or discreditable. This select committee was under the presidency (of Mr. Holden) and guidance of men who were paid for their services on the occasion, by being returned to Parliament for Government boroughs. Sir Robert knew everybody's price; and Mr. Holden and those who adhered to him, "contrary to the tenor of their trust, contrary to the sentiments so freely declared in the body of ministers at their annual meeting, contrary to the sentiments of most of the Dissenters in general, and to so considerable a number of the committee (even the select com

[blocks in formation]

mittee), still pushed their pretensions . . . . and acted as the most determined persons in the whole course of this affair." They were not bribed with money, but they had their reward.

Having thus amended the Sketch, Dr. Rees proceeds to quote a passage from the Narrative as containing the distinctive views of the writer-again omits the chief reasons assigned for their validity-and then proceeds to the ultima ratio of the respectability of the parties, and the total incredibility of any Dissenting ministers being influenced in any way by pecuniary considerations. The reason is very curious which is assigned for leaving unnoticed the passage to which I have referred in my previous letters. "As this passage,” says Dr. Rees, "is introduced near the end of the tract, as a kind of corollary from his assumed demonstration in the preceding pages, I shall here substitute for examination another in an earlier part, in which his charges are more formally enunciated." Now for the passage in which the charges are less formally enunciated, not as a kind of corollary, but as the writer's conclusions, drawn from his facts and arguments. Here it is:

"On reading this short narrative, every one may see that this committee have all along ruled all the meetings both of the generality and the Dissenters in Silver Street and at Salters' Hall, with the concurring help of our L-d Als (Lord Almoners); and that, by joining in a strict union together, they had gone a great way towards enslaving the body of Dissenters, first to themselves, and afterwards to whomsoever they pleased.

"By this it will appear, that the opposition which has been carried on against them has not arisen from a design to disturb the measures of the M- -y (Ministry), but purely from a sense of that slavery and destruction which was seen to be progressing by their tyrannic measures, for us and for our interest, and a desire of preventing it.

66

By this it will appear, that this committee and our almoners are of all men most unfit to manage our civil affairs for us, not only as they have already grossly misconducted, not to say betrayed them, but as they lie under such obligations to those with whom they treat about the recovery of our rights, as will render the desire of them more weak from their mouths than any others whatsoever.

"By this it will appear, that the money our ministers receive from those whom they own never grant their favours without their views, has been a great means of disconcerting our measures in the pursuit of the Repeals, and of disappointing our hopes of obtaining them; and that we never can be safe in our liberties and interests while we remain subject to the influence of that which has already bought almost all the liberties of mankind, and while we are governed by those who, generally speaking, have been the instruments of selling them."

All this Dr. Rees does not regard as worth "a moment's consideration." Is it not surprising that, his attention having been called to this above ten years ago, he should still have withheld any acknowledgment of his error, seeing that all the denunciations at least, which he employs, rest upon the supposition of the non-existence of such writers, and the wilful or ignorant distortion of the little that was known? On these grounds he thought himself justified in calling the allegations of 1774, and of every thing said by those who took the article in the Magazine as an authority, "as gross and exploded calumnies, entailing disgrace upon none besides their deceived, their prejudiced, or their malignant authors." Now at length Dr. Rees states in reference to the "historical" argument, "it may be conceded to the adversaries of the grant, that there have been from the first persons who viewed it with disapprobation, as being, in their estimation, a bribe to silence the clamours of the Dissenters for their rights." For this concession, the adversaries of the grant owe the author of the Sketch but little thanks; and it is a very small reparation made for, to

[blocks in formation]

say the least, the harsh and unjust measure dealt out by calling all who spake and wrote what they believed, to be "deceived, prejudiced or malignant authors."

Having disposed of what Dr. Rees professes to be a reply to my specific allegations, and having, I hope, strengthened instead of weakening their force, I must trespass with a word or two on the general drift of the Vindications, past and present. It resolves itself into two points-the authority of Dr. Calamy and the personal character of the distributors.

The nature and value of Dr. Calamy's authority has been so well stated by the Eclectic Review, that I borrow the reviewer's language:-"It must be remembered that in his narrative, on which so much reliance is placed, he does not appear in the simple character of a historian, but in that of a party standing on his defence, and furnishing by way of anticipation an answer to charges which might be preferred. His account was drawn up when the matter was but little known, and that too with a specific design, the effect of which even on the most honourable minds, in colouring the statements made, is too notorious to admit of implicit trust." Let me add, that what Dr. Calamy anticipated, one may say knew was near at hand, did actually take place. Dr. Calamy died in 1732. His Memoirs close in 1731. The questions at issue were not agitated till 1732, and between that time and the year 1736, many pamphlets were written and published, and great excitement took place. He and his colleagues were severely censured, as having injured, if not betrayed, the cause of civil and religious liberty by effectually obstructing the Dissenters in their attempts to procure the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Dr. Calamy's Memoirs, therefore, neither do nor can furnish any evidence bearing on the question of the opinions entertained on this subject when the grant came to be known, even to the most limited extent, among the Dissenting public.

In addition to the shield of Dr. Calamy, the ultima ratio is always the impregnable buckler of what Dr. Rees calls the "official purity and honour" of the distributors. Make what objections you please; quote what history you can find; detail whose opinions you think fit; strengthen your own conclusions by the judgment of such men as Dr. Williams, Dr. Chandler and Dr. Price, that I may take a historical sequence, the answer to one and all is, the "official purity and honour" of the distributors. Such an ultimatum is either absurd or frivolous. Gentlemen who have administered, or do administer, a secret fund-who give no names-publish no accounts-repudiate all responsibility to the public, challenge that public to make out a case of corruption against them to tell them whom they have bribed-to tell them what moneys they have misapplied, &c.; or, in short, specifically to establish some case of dereliction of duty. Just let us imagine such a claim set up by the Bishops on the Ecclesiastical Commission as to the expenditure on their palaces-or, what is still more in point, by the distributors of Queen Anne's Bounty to the poor clergy of the Established Church-what a storm of Dissenting indignation would it not raise! How would it be scouted by a Parliamentary Commission! In such a case, therefore, it is worse than absurd to say, "The uprightness and fidelity of the successive trustees must be held to be established until their official purity and honour shall have been impugned and sullied by some more cogent and convincing evidence than the uncharitable surmises and the vague and random imputations by which alone they have hitherto been assailed." This is not the question at issue.

It is frivolous, where there is no occasion, constantly to obtrude upon such

One of the most prominent, Dr. Harris, is alleged, on the unquestioned authority of Mr. Ricards, to have said, "that if the Test Act, &c., were repealed and the Dissenters got into places, it might make them remiss in their way of living, more wavering in their principles, and thereby weaken the Dissenting interest." Was Dr. Harris therefore zealous for the liberties of the Dissenters?

a question personal character. The public ask for what they think themselves entitled to have-an account of the persons to whom, and the manner in which, this public money, voted by Parliament, is disbursed and distributed -and the answer is, "official purity and honour." The answer, in short, to every requisition, reasonable or unreasonable, is, "official purity and honour." This is really altogether beside the point—at least in the present stage of the inquiry--and it is painful to have it forced upon public attention. The question has historical, political and religious merits, wholly apart from individuals; it will no doubt be further examined before a Parliamentary Committee or otherwise-and the circumstances demand as full and true an account of the matter as can be obtained. To this I have endeavoured to add my humble contribution, and must leave others to judge of its value, reserving to myself the right to consider the question under any new phase that may present itself, or with the assistance of any new facts which may be elicited.

D. DAVISON.

MR. EDWARD TAYLOR ON CHANTING.

SIR, Gresham College, Dec. 8, 1848. I HAVE no intention to enter upon an examination of the letter signed P. P. C. on the subject of Chanting in Dissenting Chapels, or to correct the mistakes into which the writer has fallen. By all writers of note who have discussed this subject, the Chant has been regarded as essentially antiphonal; and it seems to have been reserved for the present day, in opposition to their opinions, to endeavour to invest it with a new and (as I think, with them) wholly inappropriate character. I have been unfortunate enough to witness some such attempts at what is called Chanting, all of which I endured with difficulty; at some I could not suppress a laugh; and one drove me fairly out of the chapel.

I merely wish to give your readers the opinion of one who writes with a thorough knowledge of his subject, musically and historically-I mean Mr. Jebb, who, in his work on "The Choral Service of the Church of England," thus speaks of the Chant:

"The Psalms can never be properly chanted except by alternate choirs. This is their essential character; and where this cannot be commanded, it is much better to read them parochially. Not only is the effect of the simultaneous chorus monotonous and wearying, but despite is done to the character of the divine poems themselves which the Chant accompanies.

"Much has been said of congregational chanting. If by this be meant that the congregation is to form the choir; that every one, however unskilled, ought audibly to join; and that the Choral Chant is to be a confused buzz or crash, and all expression, discrimination and proportion of harmony (the proper attribute of Choral Chanting), are to be sacrificed, I can only say that our musicians ought to give themselves no further trouble about harmony; that it ought to be suppressed altogether. Indeed, the congregational Chant can be but a pretence. Every musician knows that in order to give the proper effect to harmony, the parts must be nicely balanced, in order that the due proportion of voices may be scientifically mixed. And if this is necessary in all music, it is specially so in the Chant. Besides, to those who have had any experience in the matter, it is notorious (and the conviction increases with more intimate knowledge) that, while nothing is so easy as to chant badly, no part of choral music is so difficult to do, I will not say well, but even tolerably. It is unlike the metrical Psalm tune, where every syllable is determinately fixed; whereas in the Choral Chant the nicest discrimination (to be attained only by constant daily practice) is necessary, not only to fix the words to the melody of the Chant, but to give the recitation properly."

« PoprzedniaDalej »