The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1885-08-18 00:00:00

IN•rehester. lam cure the same feeling pervades the
inhabitant', aa when the chow Isat Came, but they obi
feel there i. a greater elidicinty in getting the neetey
.:11.tranteed than on 1572. I repudiate the eviiremion
iwele about the town n..t nnioting them.
\ ltreNger I inove that the. l.etu be
oiirned f0r.,,,,. it,., in th.•
the lkorehe.ter Agricultural Society Le aekeit to
.o—entain the amount oof .oilecriiitioti- likely to be
obtained from the landowner,' and agriculturist* in
the county : also that the ayor and a COMlllir ter
itr elire M'hat tttt may loroleiloly be forth.
v01311114' from the inhabit int• of the town towanbo
defraying the es I alp., .of the g..thering.
Thiv having h.,' loy Mr, SrMoNi.,
awl =Tied, a c. tee Sr.,. ert.1111...(1, with power
t.. a,ld to their bey as : —Major
A• l'"Pe. R. I anti
The meeting then terminated.

better apply the pr"perty, then I)iseetabliehent at and
ar, at hind, and Clitirainien anti
Niintianfonuiata alike h.ul laiter iiiatt”r
ealiiily wail wiai-Ir all I with 1111 l tiiii! •••tiagti and
tvgaril. I am 4.laUat. tip art iu tin. andit, and
tnait that within.: I mat write or V will
Clairrlinali t list I al.l nt I. T.iaethwili
the moat laitii twirl. thous rod
their Church.

,—.. ..............
THOMAS Nit.tri.
Game! Ferry, Argyle.hire, .tugust 11th. 18ta.

111 E VI IV ,or rlg 11.1r1 41r0 WS.?.

7.• th. Maw..

Sir. ,1 .ol retrain giving public expression to
nay 4isopproval (in which I Joined lay tunny
other.l :0 the Ole\ Mi.-oil. !SW' •.1 action taken loy
Major Hodges a•el Mr. at the meeting on
Saturday. Surely, sir, there estimable gentlemen
have no right to go to a meeting and throw
a damper on a matter of such importance. If they
disapproved of the movement, they might absent
themselves, and decline to subscribe towards the
fund ; but till they are asked they need not make such
efforts to prevent others doing 01. I firmly believe
the next meeting will be a larger and more repre-
sentative one, and that the decision will be unanimous
in favour of the mociety's visit.
A I)malyricn TRADIMIAN.

CANON SMISAHatIintrTNES LIBERAL
To the Editor.
Mr. Editor,—.tt this remote distance from Doe'
cheater I have had the opportunity of reading Canon
Smith's letter addressed to "Liberal; whether Nem'
, ixinfonnists or Churchmen," which appeared in your
contemporary, the Chronicle, a few weeks ago. No
one who knows the Canon but will readily admit that
he is a fair-minded men, and one of the most courteous
and honourable of opponents. I Am sorry even to
&p lea, to be in conflict with so estimable A Min, but
I feel that some notice of his letter is desirable, not
that I deem the letter at all likely to injure the
Thosetim,' and suhotanc. 'if the letter will beiiiinaje..•,ryftluati.lheo
canoe which it seek, lii priuniti'.
to guidi..r.vlicat. public opinion
oppment. The public tribunal it, on the whole. just
d'i:e'r;;;efiei:-;:ntPihnseitiir'svitfa.:yirr
and fair, and whoever endeaveura unfairly to
' prejudice his opponent's cause will entail hi.o epin his
own. Now, as regards the birdlime' id "sir Liberal
owelidate, I will freely inset that it never I,nce sug-
' wined keel( to me (and I sumsm the atme is true of
...her Liberals as well. of myself) to doubt the English
origin and character of Mr. Sturgis, and if Mr.
Smith
hha..sis
oar
wprlii.tteingk %ow: iusilioreiouiri,it thethen matter,
and I think
the public will hold him responsible for attempting
unfairly to damage the candidature of Mr. Sturgis.
If 'sir Smith know, the facts of the cow, and can
furnish .tisfactory evidence that Mr. Sturgis is nit
an Englishman, then he ought candidly and openly to
ha ve stated the f act. If on the contrary he is not sosismased
of wick information, then lie is guilty of an act which
so honourable and high-minded a man as Mr.
Smith ought to be incapable of ; but as I have
gr Is for believing Mr. Sturgis can clam to
be an Englishman, having been educated at one
of our public schools and national universities,
I believe, and am sure, that this effort to depreciate
him will win him increased favour and support
aiming the electors. As to the character of
Mr. Stuntiis's candidature, the representation which
Mr. Smith gives of iii. quite inaccurate. He speaks
of Mr. Sturgis as an "extreme Radical." Now I do
not know what Mr. Smith's idea of an extreme Radical
is; but on no great political question and legat of all
on the question of 1/isestablislunent, will Mr. Sturgis
be regarded by any one who has carefully read his
utterances a. an extreme Radical, on the contrary he
win more likely be regarded as a cautiiets and moderate
Liberal. On the quiestiim if Ineeetablishment the
jiaition which Mr. Sturgis has taken up is essentially
prudent anil cautious, and such as would not milist
the support of an extreme Radical, but which will be
deemed satisfactory by men who have no hostility to
the Church of England as such, but who yet feel that
the establishment cannot in tiers..' days of 1/einocratic
movement remain as she is. Mr. Sturgis iiays in
effect--I will sinned any Liberal Government which
may feel itself strong eniitigh to deal with the quest on
as a practical question of politics : but Mr. Sturgis has
also said that he is not prepares-I to VOW for any
in it.. which may be mired on the question by a
priv.ite iiiisubor. Now any man who knows the
coarse of political life in this country must see that
the position which nr. Sturgis has taken up sin this
que.tion of Dis,atablishment is the eafeat that could
well be aeiunied, and is the moat favourable to the
Est slilisi,nirnt a, far as the Liberal view of isilitise is
concorned. For Nit.. Smith may depend upon it that
whenanyLiberalt ("remanent feels itself stn ong enough
to deal with this question, this reason will be because
the English people as such, and not "estreine Libem-
tionista," have deter"' l i 111 l that the question shall In
solved. Anil when the English people as ouch make
up their n,in,ls 1.1 deal with it, that will involve not
aiformisteand Li beret. inists alone, or chiefly, but
t great body of Churchmen theinselves. Mr.
Smith speaks and writes as if this great question
iambi be settled by any one section of the people. He
must know that ni. I 'sly of nsen holding extreme
Liberationist opiniona could ever isissibly effect mu
Vast A change As this. I should be sorry if they
email. I hold that this question must be settled by
the great body of the English people, members of the
Church of Eggland, as well as of the Nimoonfortnist
Iselies, and I farther believe that nO *ett 'meta of this ,
question is desirable either for England or Scotland I
which is not arrived at by the calm and .tistied
judgment of the people, who will believe that by such
a settlement the best interests of the Church hereon
and of religion will be served. I repeat my own
leasonal and calm conviction that any other settle-
ment will be a disaster anil a mistake, which even the
great body id Nunemformista would, [feel satisfied,
lend no aid to accomplish. I ant nit ignorant of the
feelings of English Nonconformists on the question,
and I venture to affirm, on the ground of large
knowletlgeof the fact*, that the motive which inqwls
the action of the Nonconformist.' is nit hostility ti the
Church, but desire for the coinmon good of religion.
We have no wish to impair the usefulness of the
Church. We believe most firmly that her influence
for good will be immeaeurablY increased by such a
change, and that • English -Nonconformity as a
denominational power will he I enUenSelY impaired.
Personally I have learned to value the work which the
Church of England is doing. I sun free to admit that
her clergy are men of gnat eerie:sineses and useful-
ness, and whilst my sympathies may lel more strongly
with one school of thought and belief within her pale
than with others, still, I am free to admit that there
is no school of thought within her broad and ample
fill which is ma contributing much to the moral
and the naigious life of the nation This much I
must say, because I strongly and increasingly feel
it : nevertheless, that dies not prevent my
u'u-nest feeling that the Church of F.nglev: tct.l4 be
immensely strengthen. fos good by her•separation
front State alliance, which of course can only be
effected by inchiling di...endowment. As to what
'sir.Smith affirms respecting the endowments of the
Church, he may rest assured that the nation will deal
with them as national property, and as in no sense
property belonging to any religions corporation. The
property of the Church has I.in dealt with by the
legislature as notional prolarty in ethyl, the whole
nation bas ail ititslrese and rigl.t. • Anil' if this
question 'should ever 11641101 e a practical bine in the I
Parliament of the country, the property of the
Church will be dealt v.itli by the legislature a.
national, and not 111 l inatiohal or sectarian trusts.
Moreover Mx. iliiiith -it remember that when the '
nation so determines hi act, if at any time it should
si determine, it will be not at the instigation of the
extreme Liberationists, who are 'itch iihjects alarm
to Mr. Smith —quite unnecessary alarm in inv
humble judgment —the action will be determined
upon as the call of the- vast majority id the Leer.le,
CLurehwen tii.tit.u, moderate omen
as well as extreme inen. Merely Mr. Smith must Nee
that lae is raising a phantom when lie wto up the
extreme Liberationista—thus ascribing an influence
and • power to such men in no sense belongs to
them; and Mr. Smith may ealni his mind and Is.
restful, because if the matte, ts to.. IN no
further than dieextreme Liberationist, the Church if
England in perfectly swim. both in her State
alliance, and also in her endowments. As to. the die-
tinction which Mr. Smith makes respscting the
endowments which belong to the Dissenters, I confess
that I am surpteed that lie should select such battle-
ground. Then: is little analogy between the two
thing,. It has usually been the boist of Churchmen
that the Church has weight to serve the hatii4h, and
not a Mete section id the l*Ohlti, and it dohs went
unwise to me for a Churchman to argue respecting the
endowment* id the Church an if they were the endow-
ments of a *set The endowment* -belonging to Dis.
deniers have been bequeathed hy actual deed and
settlement to the religions sect with which the donor
has been asesciated, and for specific denominational
purposes. Mr. Smith must know that lc, such deods
or gifts belong to the Church' of Pnglaisd tank., ia
u.oderti date, aud that the eralowincints of the Church
of early origin cannot lei cleinstal as levet:wised
legal trust. If such trusts are in exiatence let the
Church produce them, and no legislature will attempt
to alienate these endowments. It is becaus, the
property Is national in thr widest sense that any
Parliament would be jestilled approtrlatlng the
muniia tsi putisafa in which thii nation can lArti.
Clialte. I have no wish to outer meantime into
the queetion of the pious ancestor theery. I believe
it can be shown to be without foundation. and that
the property by which the Church is sustained oi far
As tithes go is secured by l'arlianient arid will he
elain.ed as snlipat to Perla:intent. Cloirchmen will
, do well to place the iinestaim then., and to argue, nit
for the rights of a denomination, hut fa the elaiihs id
dos nation. This anemia of expediency is. I believe,
thinly ground on which the question can be fairly
argued from a Churchman's point of view. He may
fairly. reason the Chinch is rendering g.sal service for
the aid which the State renders. Will the State make
• bettat iisc ti,, postai). That is u leirly
eripiablis question. fapirclithen %ill do well in
bold the nation to that point. Mr. Smith tuakee
serious mistake when lie shifts lie grvuud to the legal
right of the Church to the property for the
Fanwood Church. His pious ancestors knew nothing
of ti Ifl ts isiaadail Climate That °loath is the UrifistUtfl
Of timer long alibioviont to the sinipetecl original
bestowal id time Church's property. lama dr. Smith
suppler that he Is making • strong case for his Church
when he argues that the property id the Church 4elll
originally litiquoittharl to the Elasommil Church t hut
the Smith makes a con tession, which, from les point
of view, is exceedingly damaging, and virtually con-
cedes the whole question to his iippment. He Nays
that if the $O,OOll clergymen had failed to use the
property viola dear n.ight bait boot postilicaiiim lot
the revolutionary confiscation. !Sow 'sir. Smith
must know that the Mere fact that ono set if
original
tl;:iintlesatealciit:liiisel.;l7dtewytrini have
t—dcritirthwlentrvi iiii°clughilatu:nfrve...uiihtltlaw:aTr:gri:,aln4nurtgt7t:ighaent, fr,,ni their
benefit to be deriVlS.l {IMO, through the &limier,: oaten,
giveh to ttat bhurcli fur her purjaises feature in TRZ WZYLSYSAWNAITLIZAEGOIB.IAL vitt/RCN
thi;et4h7B.ta4sttehafutriothtig:rripuYrp,"l4l4.ll W.
" Brinit"thiellre4"alurint:esi4tin.: 1, The ce'rellmi hiNin4yosoinilagyilbg°uNtlim"TlTuNiidatar'luir s• tones ii
is, not whether theproperty is Church property twitted° the New Wealeysa Chaperat Swanage took place on
i.roirerty; th,. :eel jesuitical question which English. Friday afternoon. There was a large amount of
men win consider us, whether the nation can better bunting dying, and being beautiful day a large
Use the property than the use to which it is meantime number were attracted. Amaingst those prui- ent were
appropnatol, U the nation feels that it could wit —Sir William alcazum. Kr., yr. u,