6

and modified by another-what is used directly, and what only as an argument ad hominem,'- what is temporary, and what of perpetual obligation-what appropriated to one state, and to one set of men, and what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not get some security for this, we not only permit, but we actually pay for all, the dangerous fanaticism, which can be produced to corrupt our people, and to derange the public worship of the country. We owe the best we can (not infallibility, but prudence,) to the subject, first sound doctrine, then ability to use it.

On the question, That the said petition be brought up, the House divided: Yeas 71: Noes 217. So it passed in the negative.

CHURCH NULLUM TEMPUS BILL,

February 17.

MR. HENRY Seymour moved this day for leave to bring in a Bill" for quieting the subjects of this realm against the Dormant Claims of the Church." Upon this occasion,

Mr. BURKE said:

Sir; if I considered this Bill as an attack upon the church, brought in for the purpose of impoverishing and weakening the clergy, I should be one of the foremost in an early and vigorous opposition to it.

I admit the same reasons do not press for limiting the claims of the church, that existed for limiting the crown by that wisest of all laws, which has secured the property, the peace, and the freedom of this country from the most dangerous mode of attack, which could be made upon them all.

land, he must know that he bought land tithed. Prescription could not aid him, for prescription can only attach on a supposed bona fide possession.

But the fact is, that the principle has been broken in upon. Here it is necessary to distinguish two sorts of property.-1. Land carries no mark on it to distinguish it as ecclesiastical, as tithes do, which are a charge on land; therefore, though it had been made inalienable, it ought perhaps to be subject to limitation. It might bona fide be held.

But first it was not originally inalienable: no, not by the canon law, until the restraining act of the 11th of Elizabeth. But the great revolution of the dissolution of monasteries by the 31st Hen. 8. ch. 13., has so mixed and confounded ecclesiastical with lay property, that a man may by every rule of good faith be possessed of it.

The statute of Queen Elizabeth, ann. 1. ch. 1., gave away the bishop's lands.

So far as to lands.

As to tithes, they are not things in their own nature subject to be barred by prescription, upon the general principle. But tithes and church lands by the statutes of Hen. 8. and the 11th Eliz. have become objects in commercio; for by coming to the crown they became grantable in that way to the subject, and a great part of the church lands passed through the crown to the people.

By passing to the king, tithes became property to a mixt party; by passing from the king, they became absolutely lay property; the partition-wall was broken down, and tithes and church-possession became no longer synonymous terms. No man therefore might become a fair purchaser of tithes, and of exemption from tithes.

By the statute of Elizabeth, the lands took the same course, (I will not enquire by what justice, good policy and decency,) but they passed into lay lands, became the object of purchases for valuable consideration, and of marriage-settlements.

Now, if tithes might come to a layman, land in the hands

i aynan might be also tithe-free. So that there was eut sich a layman might become seized of equise ani v te; there was something on which a presmpov myk aach, the end of which is to secure the murm well-meaning ignorance of men, and to secure properrr zy de best of all principles, continuance.

I have therefore shown that a layman may be equitably seed of church lands.-2. Of tithes.-3. Of exemption rom thes; and you will not contend that there should be ne prescription. Will you say that the alienations made before the 11th of Elizabeth shall not stand good?

I do not mean any thing against the church, her dignites her honours, her privileges, or her possessions. I should wish even to enlarge them all; not that the church of England is incompetently endowed. This is to take nothing from her but the power of making herself odious. It she be secure herself, she can have no objection to the scurity of others. For I hope she is secure from laybigotry and anti-priestcraft, for certainly such things there ar. I heartily wish to see the church secure in such possessions as will not only enable her ministers to preach the gospel with ease, but of such a kind as will enable them to preach it with its full effect-so that the pastor shall not have the inauspicious appearance of a tax-gatherer ; — such a maintenance as is compatible with the civil prosperity and improvement of their country.

The House divided: Yeas 117: Noes 141. So it passed in the negative.

BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERs.

April 3.

S& Henry Hoghton moved, "That leave be given to bring

Bil for the further relief of his majesty's Protestant

subjects dissenting from the Church of England." Sir Henry accompanied his motion with a short speech, the purport of which was, that a divine and exclusive right belonged to man, as a free agent, to judge for himself in religious matters. After Sir Roger Newdigate had opposed the motion, and Mr. Montague and Mr. Constantine Phipps had spoken in support of it,

Mr. BURKE said:

Sir; as I have the pleasure of seeing all parties inclined to an agreement in the proposition now before the House, I think I cannot better perform my duty, than by endeavouring to cement the union as speedily as possible. Sir, there have been two objections made against granting the dissenters the desired toleration, or exemption from subscription. First, such a step is represented as dangerous to the state; and, secondly, it is held to be ruinous to the church. If, then, I show, that it is in neither of these points to be dreaded, I hope this measure will be unanimously embraced, and will come with infinitely more weight and authority into the world.

If it were,

First, then, it is not dangerous to the state. who can persuade himself, that those wise and active ministers, whose business it is to watch over the interests of the community, and who have given this House such weighty reasons for believing, that they never slumber nor sleep, but constantly attend the helm; who, I say, can persuade himself, that, if the state were in the least danger, they would be absent? The noble lord (North) who possesses, and deserves so much the attention of the House, would certainly not have deserted his station, nor left the political vessel to be tossed and buffeted, without a rudder, without a pilot, were the least storm to be apprehended. His eagle eyes would have foreseen and prevented the evil. But why do I say, that he would have watched over the public weal? He has not forgot his duty; he has appointed a deputy (Mr. George Onslow), who worthily supplies his place, and long, very long, may he enjoy his office! he is worthy of his employer. He now sits in Moses's