The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-30

was not the property of the Church becaufe
they did not pollefs the great and Indispensable
right of alienation. The fact is true, but The
concluiion is incorrect. II the right of alicna-
ton be the great teft Of property If no one
pofieiies 4 right il any property, 20 whom the
right OF telling it does not attach, it viii follow
that many fpecies OF property will be annihi-
lated bythis rigid rule. Have not infants GER
tain rights in property, although they cannot
diipoie Oft ? What {hail he faid ofeftates held
in mortnlin! It will not be denied that the
ttreets of Richmond belong to its inhabitants 1;
and yet have the trutecs OF the town the privi-
ledge of telling them? a charitable fociety
may be irvctted with property, without the
right of alternating. it. Mr. Nicholas, to eta
blifh the validity OF this teR, fhould have ihown
that all who own, could fell and thete facts
would have contradiGted that principle. This
right or alienation Git has been iaid) belonged to
the legislative body, and hence it is concluded,
that the Globes belonged TO the public. Mr..
Wickham obierved, that the onnipotence OF
Parliament could extend TO innumerable privi-
lodges. Mary laws had been pafied TO fell the
property even of individuals. But this priv
ledge, or any abuft of it, could never iufly
make this private property the property OF the
fate. Even when the Legislature had exercifed
this power of alienation, It had always ipoken in
the language OF permieion, not of command.
1t had empowered the yefrieS, not obliged them
to difpofe OF the Globes.
The greet argument which the Attorney Sc
neral has brought forward in favor OF bis poiiti-
ON, that this is public property, is founded on
tire 1nppoiition, that theie Glcbes have been pur-
chafed for the genera good by a general aief-
ment. Neither Of thefe proportions is true.
The A4S6nsnt was not general, (under the or
binary acceptation of the word) !; nor were the
p"rP9es of this aHefment. II WAS not a general
law, which operated upon every tithabie indivi-
dtlal III this tate, Qv;ttoGf the diifinction OF pa
niles; but It was i general law, which opera
ted upon them zvitb this diftin6tion. It was 4
general law, not becauGe it corprehended all
the mdiU'6anls in the p%ari!hes, but becaufe ii
coinprehended all The bgrjEsS in the fate. The
produce Of This a,lehment then, was not the
property OF all the individuals, confdered in
then coReHirs corarify, under the naturalization
OF the law, but the produce OF each parochjal
allotment was tte property of each paritl. The
| petition Vi the Attorney General turns out then
TO DC, that the Glehes Were purchaied for the
uic OF fGfb paiifh by s5ariR levy. But even
thus i6not "A cOmpleat approximation of tie fs6t.
he Pn'P9If5 20 which this levy was to be appli-
ca were not extended to every individual in the
PARTIES; but as il has been already faid, to the
beneht OF the members OF the Proteftant EDif-
copai church. This argument then, which the
Att 2tney Geieral has 70 triurnphantlv introdu-
ceo concludes, at lait, in favour OF the Church.
ne may be permitted then TO conclude that ibis
property was vef d in The church before the re-
v%olution.
9. To develope TIE effects which the revolu-
ton has produced upon the rights ofthe church,
the Attorney general has aierted that # this
property was veited in the church ii was a ma
sIonal e~ita6liiliment, that it was connected with
the bntlih government, and that II experienced
me lame tate with our political initituticrs.
Nj. Wickham denied that the church IN This
country confntuted any part % TIE go ern-
ineht. Even in England. the church and the
Rate may be iaid 10 be diGipGt. The BTiti{h
contribution might be perfect il would en-
brace all the n~ecefaTy features ola government,
without the church. Under the RoyaI Govern
ment OF New York, which was formed on the
mode. OF the Dritiih contribution, there was no
ecclehaitical eltabiiihment. the converfe OF
this propoftion is alfo true. The confitution
OF the church might have exiRed without the
gcTe7hHent ; It might nave grown up under any
other form OF civil fociety. Il rannct be faid
then that 1t was any integral part CT the Britifh
government. The NOT that can be Eid is, the
Proficient Apdcopal church was a .ErUon~ed
tect go the May government, then Certainly
belonged the right OF denying any new ~favours.
ihey might have repealed alto all tlole laws,
which related to its d;fcipline and conformity
with the Church Of E%n&lan'. But they could
~ - N'N A"O-NAi 5iLS u piSPSily, WiliCD
they already poftGtd.
Araore particular argument as been fJgecn-
ed by toe Attorney General, for the diHciGtion
o. the nights OF ths church with the change CT
the government. 1t was fated thai the right
OF induttion belonged to the Governor, and lat
rs every means for perpetuating the llccef1-
GA OF mjndters, have been dong away Nv the
revolution, the church nu!t be confider d to be
at an end. Dir. w. denied this doctrine. &c
lad, that The relative right of the Governor and
the vef1y in this relpect, had never been adult
ed. Certain cafes might have cxifed, in which
The veitly affirmed 10 the,nielves this privilege
Ut induction. They lad the right ofprefcnta-
ion, an the Governor was bon9d to indua. In
England, Inc owner o. an advowfol ha the
n BIT OF Prefenting and the BihIop is bound TO
mdatt. So that the Governors privilege in this
Gale iecns o be a mere form. The revolution
might have pGt an end 10 this orm but it
would be ilrange, indeed, il II fhould afo def
troy uoie iubfEantial rights, which the laws had
created and lsu6tioned.
IT LAS been atked ALTO by the Attorney Ge-
neral, why Ia not the church demanded thu an
n"al fipend OF Tobacco, which the act of '48
allowed TO IL minifer5 and he has concluded
fhat ii Il has II oright 20 the one, it has none to
the othe'. MIR. w. obferycd that fotre very en-
igntened men fill couteuded for TINS riaht.
For his own part, he thought that the right OF
the church to the land * 70 the fipenG did no
HHAyN HF-YM. g. e. 49, E