The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-30
overfsers of the Poor of the faid County.

it' What was the itate or the Church be-
fore the Revolution I.
end. How was it affected by the Revolution,
and the ELL of Rights?
3rd. What effects have been produced upon
u by the acts which have been pafed iince the
Revolution.
/. No one will deny that the legiGature had
the power to PATS the law of 1913, whether he
conilders this queftion on abftra6t principles or
on the maxims which then prevailed. Before
the revolution, they were not bound by any
constitutional regulations. There was no Bill
of Rights to prevent the whole legislative au-
thority of the fate from being vefted in them.
Iney might dittribute property to rs many per
ions and IN as many ways as they pleaied.-
they might found colleges; they might pro-
mote the progreGS Of literature and the arts and
the only rule which they could have poGeGed
In the limitation of thoie powers, and in the
1~election of the proper means, was their own
Judgment, calmly celebrating upon the public
good. Tthey choie to favour a particular feel
CT religion, by allowing to it the enjoyment of
particular privileges and immunities, there
was no constitutional p~rovifion to fet bounds
10 their project: there was none which could
render void any fuch law, which eTnanated from
their VIII. If they determined that theie DIFF
Formations offavour to their ehabliihed religion,
mould conhit of q certain endowment OF pro-
perry, whether they already pofefed the pro-
p rty which they were thus giving away, or
whether they were TO rai(e it by a general or
partial aiiefiment /; their grand children cannot
properly object tQipS It's vain for tben to fay
that this law, pasS5in'4s, is contrary tothe con-
Tuition OF 70. Foron the fame principle may
they raiie objections to all our fave laws, which
every one mutt admit, are more e~epreLily con-
uary TO the Bill OF Rights. AS The iegiGature
had therefore a right to give away this proper
~ before the Revolution, there can be no doubt
tnat the mveftiture in the GoAee becomes rs Ia
CIea as any other property, however tmay
nave been acquired. The ~queftion is nor ther,
whether the legislature had the rie6t OF veRing
the property OF the Globes in any one? But
the only queition is, in 7r5oA2 was the proper
= ii tie Uieoes really veted? The Attorney
GeneTai has facilitated the invcftigation Of this
queition,W hen he appealed from the ilriGt forms
DRAW to the more liberal rules OF equity. In
this view MIR. w. was wiling TO conider it (:
ana ne would then so on to enquire, in whom
was the beneficial intereft ofthie property with
out regard TO legal eGate. 1Tiat the n;niaer
When III Po!teihon, had a freehold in the Glebss
Is admitted. That he had 4 right 70 take and
ENJOY the profits of thofe Globes, cloathed with
tne additional power of flung for 4 trsf.ats. is
alto true. But for whole benefit was he Tim,
lnveited with thele attributes of ownerfh;o
For has own benefit ?-cortainlv not. They
were only conferred on him AS the compeni,-
ton OF his religious feryices. Was it for the
BENEFIT ofthe people oftle parih No. Thsy
were gwen not toi the afe Of the whole pariil
generally but for the executive benefit OF all.
the enbe Of the Protetant Eoicor9,isr
Church, or the Church of England. Many OF
tltlaws which were made for the ORIGINAL eta
biiitrnent 0fthe church, expressly declare that
1t was for the benefit of this church, that fhe
property was beftowed. Hence the vefries
were required to be conforTnabie 20 the doc
trine and diicipline Of The Church of England
End hence the miniifers we're required 10 be or
dained by Tome ~EnghihBilhop, and TO iLblcribe
10 acoAiofinity to The orders and contributions
o. the Church Of England. Tie property tEue
made over to the church was protected by fxsd
laws; and their right to it. was r~ecognifd as
much as that OF any other propetg, which CT
VII poiIty has uniformly reflected. If wa, rnf
gwen and protected Tor a temporary pur31G,
only but the modes OF fuccefion wera c,rrr,y
idid down, by which the church might IN ali
Tines 10 come continue TO claim and en;oy the
benefits OF tins inyeltiture. The moe of f,c.
csliiph was o.tefent indeed from that by which
the etates otlndividu1ls we're REGULATED. pu,
TINS difference does not a.Te9 the valid;ty oil
the tenure, by which The ecctefaHlcal p~rop1,tyI
was he'd. No satisfactory reai0n can he r;ven
why ciFi poity may rot preCcribe riles, by
Whlca an eit2te may be transferred from one
clergyman to a%nothet:, or from one veary to
another, as well as from q Father 70 his fJn--
ol t't latter may ltiei be fdd
to be the creature OF civil poIitv. ANY 0thrr
deitnation might have b:en Aligned to the
property OF fathers, any OF her law Of Def,eYia
night have been infitutetl, which the rifiom
OF the legislature might have determined 20
ad"pt. IL will not follow thcn, that tbs D-o.
perry which was once vi led in The Prot.Hsa+
EPiicopal Church, does not continue 10 belo,,
TO Il, becaufe The mode Q f fuccehion is nc, the
fans asi IS in private ca ates. But it win fol-
low that the inveitture aiH continues i~nviolats
n fPite ofthis difference becaafs ever NODE Of
tucce'ion, even in priv ate enates, is itC.lf the
.Ie1l"Ie p, cIYlI govcf nent, and llb;c9 at all
tHne5 to!ts Var'onS vi ~nletions.
Iae attorney Ger. raj contends, however,
that II was moi the III lDcrfy of fhr Cbur,b h,'p
PHbhc pr perty arr the ra,fon wh;cb ne 49, en
= 30, that IL VIZ regulated by government.
put ~ ~ meant oy itsbelng 5v5hc property?
~ nc IL was 'P { property of all the inai-i-
ga ~ tnc natiof but chat il was the proper
e - lte SoVefIV ient and not Of every branch
o. dlat' out mo rely Of that branch In which
.ne properly 81 the fa.e was yefed, that is OF
tne crown . , that thcAfto1uey General DO
nt'oh may ~ thua expreftd /: 7ber lands were
the property Of the king, hecanie they were
Ie8niated o/ythe government. But the legif-
iatlre exc ndsi IT, gulatirr power TO ;r1ri-
Ilefdoie o1 jetts it made lGys for deter-niliry
Inc AAEr AH- E