Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-02

manner throw aside the forms of law
and boldly assert, that these deeds, tho
not technically, were still substantially
made to them as hu6k;c trustees only? If
they possessed this property on diIfe-
rent ground, would they not also have
been entitled to the right of alienation
And yet this right was never claimed or
exercised by them. If then they were
rnS!eea only, for what purposes was this
trust committed to them? For two only
the support of the incumbents, and the
benefit OF the public. The first has been
already provided for: The law has hbe-
rally extended 10 them the hand of indul.
gencc. And for what hu6Ec benefit will
1t be said that this trust is conferred OH
the vestry 1t is for the public general
~ No. Is it for the benefit of harii-
c.1Iar sect. As the public benefit then is
not now to be promoted by this convey
ance; as even the interests of that parti.
cIllar sect to which the property was orr
ginaliy transferred, have expired with that
sect; how can it be contended. that This
trust has not also ceased, and that this pro-
perry should not consequently revert? If
prep "ty be conveyed for he payment of
DEBT, it always reycrts TO the original
owner, when that debt is paid, or when it
IS no longer due. This case is analogous
to the present. Itwoula appear then We.
ry lmmaterial, whether the deeds were
made to The llarsons or the Ueat,Tes. The
consequence would he the same. a re-
version of the globes would accompany
either suppositien.
Even if the globes 10 not belong to the
Ministers or the VeStrTcs, it has been con.
tended that the Legislature had noiight to
pass any law upon the subject. From The
act OF l748, which empowers the Ves,ry
to make hubHc levy Of money in the pa
rish Tor the use Of the established church,
it has been commended that the glebes be-
long 10 the PARISHES and that, therefore
the Legislature had no right 10 interfere
with them.-True the property was raj
sed in the Parish but it was not obtained
by the voluntary contribution of the indi-
Viduals. The acquisition was authorised
in every Parish by Legislative act: the
legislature also described The particular
process by which it was to be acquired,
and the destination which twas afterwards
TO receive. II must still be regarded by
them as public property, subieet 10 legis!a-
tive controul. Had any evidence Of this
truth been even wanting, the imhslftcli9a
OF the parish claim to this property, would
have been Sufficient to establish il. The
parishes did not possess the right of aliena-
H2n. NJ Intosh has said, this is one of,he
greattests ofproperty. Private owners nav
sell. But III this country, this privilege
has never been assumed by the parishes.
The consent ofthe legislature has always
been pe;iiioned Tor, when the parish wish.
ed to dispose Of It's glcbe. The petition
OF the parish Of Meherrin in Brunswick
County, and in Sussex (anno 1861 prove
the existence Of the general sentiment. &
even of the church itself, on this rich, of
alienation. The conclusion appears to be,
that the globes were not vested in the pa
Tishes.
If then it does not appear that this pro.
perry wasabsolutely vested in the ministers.
Vestries or PARISHES: il it appears that the
rights committed to their influence, were
merely tiduciary, and suhe9 to the Grand
condition Of public service; it will FOLLOW
that even the Legislature itself may exer-
I'SC oFCI lbtiii' PAT Nai and even absolute
conlroa!. This is a privilege which ALMA.
tons have possessed over their established
Church. Bla. /. l56, has mentioned
great vari ty oflavs.;o regulatethe church
and its property before the reyolmion.-
M'lntos'I has also quoted many instances
OF this experimenting power Of govern.
ment. In our own state, the Legislature
have exercised this power, and the Courts
have sanctioned us exercise over rigbts
which appear much more sacred than these
ecclesiastical rights, because they pariake
OF private nature. Mr.. II. mentioned
the act for destroying Entails. Irthen an
ordinary Legislature may properly exerci.4
the power Of abolshing an Office, unless
expressly forbid Ivy the constitution: If
they can in this manner resume allthe 6du-
ciary rights which were entrusted TO is
agents, may it no, be concluded }ortio,q,
that change in fbe form NJ government il.
self; RE Formation oC He1o Caasfi,,l,;9n
should annihiia,c those rights? MIR. ".
concluded that the right Of The church N
the glebc lands, was destroyed by our
revolution.
But even IL those rights had MT been
destroyed 5y the rcU2iwi5u, we shall find