Page images


MARCH, 1847.



“ The Church of Rome may flourish in the country that it ruins."

Much has recently been said, and more will be said, on the subject of national judgments. We would not be of those who rush in “where angels fear to tread,” nor of those described by the Psalmist, who have either said in their hearts, There is no God, or deny his interference in the affairs of men or nations.

In our February number we pointed out the clear distinction between national and individual sins, and, on the authority of Archbishop Tillotson, endeavoured to show that however individuals may prosper, or be afflicted in this world, not exactly in the degree we might suppose merited by them, because hereafter each will receive a full amount of happiness or suffering, yet that, with regard to nations, it is not so, inasmuch as nations and public bodies of men will not exist as such in a future state, and that, therefore, national sins will ever draw down national judgments. There are many who think it rash and uncharitable to speak of judgments as visitations from the Lord in punishment of sin, and others who do not like to hear it said, that for any distinct sin a judgment has been sent.

Now, it is clearly laid down in Holy Writ, that the Almighty does and will inflict severe punishment on nations; and one very special cause for them is, we are told, Idolatry. May we not, then, say, with reference to the support recently given to the Church of Rome, “Is there not a cause ?” a cause for the judgment? should we not strive and pray for the removal of the cause, as well as for the removal of the punishment?

Such are our own convictions. Whilst, however, we assert this, we believe that even if there were no such thing as Popery amongst us, there are still national sins enough justly to draw down punishment upon us. Sir W. Lington's petition and address have been adopted to Her Most Gracious Majesty and each House of Parliament, praying for a day to be appointed for a national fast and humiliation, as a means of averting the evils too justly to be apprehended. Such, too, is the light in which very large portions of the community view the question. It is highly gratifying to witness movements similar to those originated Vol. IX. - March, 1847. f

New Series, No. 15.

by Mr. Hoare and his associates with reference to the late election for Middlesex.. This may be the means of effecting permanent good by at once eliciting and expressing the Protestant feelings of this Christian country, and of arousing electors to adequate exertions to wrest off the grasp of Popery, and avert the evils which now darkly lower upon our political horizon.

Taking the written Word of Divine truth for our guide, and fully believing that national sins draw down national punishments; that we as a Protestant nation cannot fall into a greater national sin than that of allying ourselves with the antiscriptural Church of Rome; that by partaking of her sins, and promoting her idolatries, we shall be made partakers of her plagues, and bring down Divine judgment on the nation; we cannot disassociate the calamitous state of the Papal portions of Ireland in particular, from Popery as the main cause, nor regard the movement of those who would confer scriptural instruction with the food that perisheth, but as emanating from true Christian charity, and likely to be productive of consequences the most beneficial.

Rome is preparing for fresh aggressions upon us, and our theologians and statesmen are, we fear, prepared to concede to the apostasy the precious blessing which, in his mercy, the Lord has showered on our country.

Against these further concessions it is our duty to petition, and we give in a subsequent place * the petitions recently adopted by the Committee of the Protestant Association, praying that no further concessions may be made, and that the Act for permanently endowing Maynooth College be repealed.

PROCEEDINGS AT MADEIRA.—DR. KALLEY'S CASE. SECTION I.-In January, 1843, Dr. Kalley was commanded, by the Civil Governor of Madeira, to abstain from a course of conduct of a religious nature which he believed to be LEGAL, and had pursued for years.

The Portuguese Charter declares, that “no one shall be compelled to do or abstain from doing anything, except in accordance with preexisting law.” Dr. Kalley, therefore, in reply, begged to know what LAW forbade his procedure, and as none was pointed out, he did not see reason to change. He was therefore prosecuted.

The Portuguese Government having prejudged the case, while legal investigations were going on, tried to compel him to obey their despotic order, by planting police at his gates, and forbidding his friends, patients, and even his servants, to enter his house, and actually imprisoning some of them for entering, though the legal authorities decided that such Government proceedings were illegal.

After this, the supreme Judge in Madeira, on 31st March, 1843, declared that there was NO LAW against Dr. Kalley's conduct.

Notwithstanding this sentence, the local authorities continued their illegal measures against him.

* See post, pp. 83–85.

• Against the Judge's sentence, the public Prosecutor appealed to the Court of Relaçao, in Lisbon ; this appeal, instead of being sent to that Court, was laid before the Governor's brother-in-law in Madeira ; he had no legal authority whatever to interfere in any such case, yet on 5th July, 1843, he declared that HE ANNULLED. THE SENTENCE OF THE JUDGE!

On the 11th of July, the same utterly incompetent person INDICTED DR. KALLEY, AND ORDERED HIS IMPRISONMENT WITH DENIAL OF BAIL. • In virtue of THIS SENTENCE, Dr. Kalley was IMPRISONED on the 26th of July, and DENIED BAIL.

Against this he appealed; the British Government promised " to obtain for him ample compensation and redress,” if his imprisonment and denial of bail should be proved illegal.

The Court of Appeal in Lisbon decided, on 12th December, 1843, that the denial of bail WAS ILLEGAL ; and on the 22d of the same month, that the indictment (and consequently the imprisonment) WAS ALSO ILLEGAL.

Dr. Kalley requested the British Government to obtain for him the promised redress; the justice of his claim for more than five months' illegal imprisonment was admitted ; but fourteen months after the imprisonment was proved illegal, no compensation had been obtained.

On 24th February, 1844, the process being carried before the British Judge Conservator ; he also decided that there was NO LAW AGAINST DR. KALLEY'S PROCEDURE. · The Public Prosecutor appealed anew to the Court of Relaçao against this sentence. Dr. Kalley quietly pursued his course, conyinced of its PERFECT LEGALITY.

Meantime the Portuguese Judges were rendered, by the Legislature, dependent on the pleasure of the Government, which expressed its wish that Dr. Kalley should be condemned.

· The Court of Appeal then ordered, the Conservatorial Judge to indict Dr. Kalley in virtue of a law of the Inquisition, dated 1603, and directly opposed both to the spirit and letter of the existing Constitutional Charter.

Dr. Kalley appealed to the British Government, against being left under that law, but no protest was made against its application to him : wishing, therefore, to remain in Madeira at peace, –

On the suggestion of the British Minister at Lisbon, he, in February 1845, withdrew his claim for compensation, on condition that all proceedings against him for the past should be entirely withdrawn, and that if they should ever be renewed, his claim should thereby be revived. The Portuguese Government consented to these terms.

From the day on which Dr. Kalley heard of the FIRST and ONLY decision against him in ANY COURT OF LAW, though fully assured that it was opposed both to the Charter and the Treaty, HE EVER AFTER CAREFULLY ABSTAINED FROM THAT COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH IT CENSURED.

Within a month after the agreement was made with the Portuguese Government (through the British Minister at Lisbon, and with the approbation of Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) IT WAS VIOLATED BY THE PORTUGUESE. A warrant was issued for Dr. Kalley's apprehension, in virtue of the decision already mentioned. He was allowed bail.

SECTION II.- Seventeen months after the last-mentioned event, the residence of three blameless and honourable British ladies in Funchal was, on the 2d of August, 1846, besieged for ten hours by a Portuguese mob, which the authorities did not attempt to disperse.

It was assaulted about midnight, and entered by fifty or sixty armed ruffians, two of whom were arrested WITHIN THE HOUSE, and committed to prison. The British Consul was urged to insist on the punishment of the rioters, but REFUSED. The Portuguese authorities RELEASED THE PRISONERS NEXT DAY WITHOUT EXAMINATION.

Thus encouraged, the rioters paraded the streets with music, threatening other British residences with still greater outrage, and no attempt was made to suppress, or even restrain them.

Dr. Kalley, though unconnected with the outrages of the 2d, was especially threatened, and on the 3d, by the advice of Her Majesty's Consul, he appealed to the Portuguese authorities for protection ; but no restraint being put upon the rioters, and threats becoming more alarming, he on the 7th, urgently appealed for protection to the REPRESENTATIVE OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ; and


The protection guaranteed by Article I., of the Treaty of 1842,* was PROMISED : a guard of soldiers was placed at Dr, Kalley's door: after midnight he, and other witnesses, saw them in familiar intercourse with masked ruffians, and heard them conversing about murdering him. He and his family withdrew from the house unobserved.

On the 9th of August, the day appointed, the mob was allowed to meet in the place, at the hour, on the signal, and to attack Dr. Kalley's house in the manner mentioned in the programme, THEN IN THE BRITISH CONSUL'S HANDS : the Consul was at his country seat.

The civil authorities were present at the assault, and they stood quietly by, while the mob threw Dr. Kalley's property from his windows, and burned it on the public road. They had the power to DISPERSE THE RIOTERS, but REFUSED to do so, though urged by the British Consul, who had been sent for, and arrived while the work of devastation was going on.

The civil Governor rejected aid offered by the Military Comman: dant, saying, it was NOT NECESSARY.

He declared to the British Consul that nothing but Dr Kalley's expulsion would PACIFY that mob, which he had REFUSED TO DISPERSE.

The Consul URGED DR. KALLEY'S IMMEDIATE DEPARTURE, who reluctantly complied. -- The mob threatened to burn the British Consulate, the representative of British Majesty, came off to the ship with the ringleaders, and asked Dr. Kalley to exhibit himself to the mob.

(To be continued.) * “ The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall in the dominions of the other, enjoy all the privileges, immunities, and protection enjoyed by the subjects of the most favoured nation."

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1688. ' The crisis of the Constitution, at the memorable epoch of 1688, is best described by the declarations of the only legislative bodies then extant in the State, and the only organs, through which the people could then express their will. The two Houses of Parliament in England came to the following Resolution :-*

“ That King James the Second having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of this kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people; and by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant.” .

The Convention in Scotland | subsequently drew the same conclusion, viz., the vacancy of the throne, from premises and in language more bold and intelligible.

The Estates of the kingdom of Scotland find and declare, that King James the Seventh being a professed Papist, did assume the royal power and acted as king, without ever taking the oath required by law; and hath, by the advice of evil and wicked councillors, invaded the fundamental Constitution of this kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power; and hath exercised the same to the subversion of the Protestant religion, and the violation of the laws and liberties of the nation, inverting all the ends of government; whereby he hath forefaulted f the crown, and the throne is become vạcant."

The vacancy having been filled up by the offer of the crown to William, Prince of Orange, who had married Mary, King James's eldest daughter, and his acceptance of the same, the Parliament (including the king) proceeded to enact laws for guarding the throne from the danger and degradation to which it had been exposed.

The first Act passed with that view was the 1 W. & M., statute i. c. 6, “An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath,” by which it is enacted (section 3), that part of the Oath to be “administered to every King or Queen who shall succeed to the Imperial crown of this realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations,” shall be as follows:

. " ARCHBISHOP OR BISHOP. 6. Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant religion established by law ? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge,

• Commons' Journals, 28th January and 7th February, 1688, O. S. 1 Bl. Comm. p. 211. of Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 4th April, 1689 : and see Tyndal's Continuation of Rapin, vol. iii, p. 71, fol. ed.

# Forefaulting was an old obsolete word, used for a bird's forsaking her nest.-Ibid. p. 70, note (1.)

« PreviousContinue »