The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-26

vi W tuS OF inc
individuals. The acquiiition was authorif-
ed IN every Parish by a Legislative act.
the legiilatufe alto defcribed the particular
procefs by Which it twas TO be acquired,
and the destination whichit wasafterwards
TO receive. It NUT fill be regarded by
them as public property, fubief to legilla-
tive controul. Had any evidence of this
truth been even wanting, the nperf9ion
of the Parish-claim to this property, would
have been fuificient to eitablifh it. The
Pariihes did not poflefs the right of alisna-
tion. M'Intofh has faid, this is one of the
great teitsof property. Private ozvners may
fell. But in this country, this privilege
has never been affirmed by the Parifhes.
The consent of the Legislature has always
been petitioned for, when the Parifh with
ed to difpofe of its Glebe. The petition
OF the Parish of Meherrin in Brunswick
County, and in Sufex (anno l769) prove
the exiitence of the general fentiment, and
even of the Church itfelf, On this right of
alienation. The conclufon appears to be,
that the Globes were not vefted in the Pa.
rifhes.
Ifthen it does not appear that this pro-
| perty was abiolptely vetted in the minifters,
veftries or Parifhes if it appears that the
| rights committed to their influence, were
| merely fduciary, and fubjeet to the grand
condition of public fervice it will follow
that even the LegiRafure itielf, may exer-
ciie over them, partial and even abfolute
| controul. This is a privilege which alma
tons have pofieGed over their eftabli!hed
! Church. Bla. 1.-l56, has mentioned
! great variety oflaws, toregulate the Church
and its property before the revolution
| MIntoih has alto quoted many inftances
OF this experimenting power of govern
| ment. In our own State, the Legislature
have exercifed this power, and the courts
have ianStioned its exercife over rights
which aPpearmuch more facred than thefe
ecclehaitical rights, becaufe they partake
| or private nature. MIR. N. mentioned
the act for deftroying Entails. IF then an
ordinary Legislature n ay properly exercife
the power OF abclifhing an office, unlefs
expressly forbid by the Constitution if
they can IN this manner refume all the fidu-
| CARY rights which were entrufted to its
agents, NAV t not be concluded forttori,
that a etnage in The farm, Of goUernment
iticit the formation Of a nezv Constitute
or should annihilate thofe rights Mr..
N. concluded that the right of the Church
to the Glebe lands, was deftroyed by our
revoiutioa.
But even if thofe rights had not been
def!royed by the revolution, we fhall
find in the Bill Of Rights the moft ex-
prefs reafons for their refumption. They
| are incompatible withthe 18th article ofthe
Bill OF Rights. That article requires that
no " executive or feparate emoluments or
privileges from the community" be given,
"but in confederation of public feryices.''
| &c. What public fervices (NIr. N. afked)
does the Proteftant Epifcopal Church rem
der Vas it not inftitutcd, and is if not
maintained for the benefit OF particular
feet, and the determination of particular
doctrines ? And is not this feet in poffeiIion
! OF separate emoiumentJ ? 1t is not neceffarv
that an emolument fhould coniift of mo-
ney only. 1t may be in the form of houfes,
of lands. But MIR. Call denies that thefe
| Globes are any emolument ; becaufe they
are not nozv conferred by government
| theyare z,eRsd in the Church, and isas much
the property of the Church as any tract of
land, which exclulively belongs to an indi-
| vidual. But this (faid Mr.. NJ is taking
| for granted the mott important Fact in quef-
| ton. He denied that it was vefted right
| on thecontrary, he had attempted to prove
that the greateJt felT6e right which they
could have pofeffed. was founded on
| Judiciary tenure. MIR. Call too, hasEmited
the application Of this article to the officers
| of government. He has fupported this
contribution by the laft claufe in it, which
declares that the Offices of Magiftrate, Le-
giilator or Judge, oughtnot to be heredita
! ry. if this be the contribution, many other
officers are omitted, who may coniequent-
| iy be hereditary. If for inftance, the term
! MagiRrate be confined according to its DO
pular definition to JufticeS of Peace ONLY,
then the Executive would be defcendibe.
If 1t be taken in a more general fenfc,
fei1e in which Backbone feems to have
employed it, when he divided nation
into two clafes only, that of the people and
that OF the magistrates; why may not this
term, and confequently this claufe and the
whole article, be fuppofed to comprehend
the Clergy But, fays Mr.. Call, even adj
mitting that this article does apply to the
miniiters of religion, it can only forbid any
emoluments being afterwards given; but
it cannot reach thofe rights, which have
been aiready vcfed. This argument hill
aiiumes the exiftence of vefted property.
But 4 conceffion OF this fact, modified as II
has already been, would not be of much a.
vail. The Contribution would be as much
in ringed by continuing as by .graaii1g emo
luments.-Theie rights are incompatible
slfo with the 10th article in the BIZ of
Rights. Ii requires that religion fhould be
directed only by reaion and conviction,
moi by force and violence" To continue
an evil IS as improper and unconstitutional,
as It ggaJ TO give il All exitenc. The reli-
gion which is here attempted to be fup-
ported, was not propagated by "reafon
and COnvi6tion."f This property was .,,-i-