The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

how have the clergy property ? Only as a mass or number of cor-
porate bodies, some aggregate, some sole. All chapters are core
rations aggregate; all bishops and all parsons are corporations sole.
Each of those 12,000 or 13,000 corporate bodies has a name and
existence in law, with perpetual succession, and every material inci-
dent of corporations. Each is capable of holding property, and does in
fact hold it. There is no other corporate body ; no church besides this;
and no clergy holeing, or capable of holding property, except in this
way. Then it would be quite competent for Mr. Stanley to argue that
this property, so held by those corporations, aggregate and sole--
that is, the bishops, chapters, and parsons—is inviolable ; and that
you have no right to touch it. -But this he is the last mail alive
to maintain ; for he contends, that you have a right to give fr":
oue chapter to another, from one bishop to another; from one
rector to another ;—nay, he has himself destroyed ten of those sr;
ritual corporations sole—namely, ten bishoprics—and transferred
all their revenues and all their property to others. Indeed no nail
living dreams of denying that, within-the church,' as it is called,
Parliament may transfer, and otherwise deal with the church pro-
perty; that is, may equalize it, by taking from one and giving to
another. But is this consistent with the nature of property? 1'1:
is it one whit less an encroachment upon property than if you too
a part from all those corporations, and gave it to the laity to prc"
vide for schools, or repair churches in ease of the rates ?
" Only see how absurd this distinction is, by trying it with 131
property ! Could you justly equalize that ? Could you main"
tain that the whole property of laymen may be fairly taken IT
the State, and parcelled out among the laity, provided you give
none to the clergy. If you seize on the Duke of Bedford's, or th
Duke of Buccleuch's estate, and parcel them out among the lay
peasants of Bedfordshire and Roxburghshire, you do no violence
to the rights of property ; it is only if you give an acre to a der'
gyman that you commit robbery and spoliation ! Now this, h°!'l
absurd soever, is precisely the argument of Mr. Stanley and Sir
James Graham : it is their argument converted and applied 0
the laity. They speak of the church, or the clergy, as a body,
and ascribe to it rights of property. Then it follows that the
laity is another body, capable of property, and the self-same
argument is applicable to it. We think we have said enough to
show on what widely different grounds church property and other.
property stand. No man thinks of equalizing the estates of
individual proprietors, nor even of corporate bodies, as the char'
tered companies in the towns. Yet no man thinks there is
harm at all in equalizing the revenues of spiritual persons, and
corporations ecclesiastical. In truth, the property of the clergy
is given to them as payment for performing public duties
pay ;—it is salary ;—it is not property in the ordinary sense o
the word."
With these observations we must lay down the Ede'
burgh for the present. Many articles we have not men-
tioned, which are well worthy of notice ; and two we have
studiously omitted, because falling short of the excellence
which we always expect to find, and are never disappointed'
in meeting, in this elegant periodical. Monypenny on
the Scottish Poor Laws, is a useful paper at the present
moment, though it would have been a great recommenda-
tion had the principle of providing for the poor, and under
what peculiar circumstances, obtained more of the writer's
attention.