[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—I have no desire
that you should insert this letter in the Spectator ; I am merely writing to ask you to give a definite statement of your views as to the origin of Church property in connexion with the Welsh Disendowment Bill for the benefit of your readers. The question whether the property of the Church is national property or not is the question with the average voter. If he is convinced that the property of the Church belongs to her by good title, he will not see the Church robbed; if it is national property he will allow the nation to resume it. Our two greatest historians—Freeman and Stubbs —give us clearly to understand that the property of the Church was given by the Churchmen to the Church for Church purposes. What is the evidence to the contrary ? I find that the great majority of our huge mass of ignorant electors know nothing about the origin of the Church's property, and many think the clergy are paid by the State ! Why cannot the question be referred to the best legal opinion ?—I am, Sir, Sze.,
W. H. R. CURTLER.
Quarry House, Heading ton, Oxford.
[Our view is that the property was given for religious uses, and should remain dedicated to those uses. From the purely legal point of view, Parliament, as the wielder of the sovereign power, can confiscate that property or devote it to new and secular uses, just as it can in the narrow abstract sense legally confiscate every penny one possesses, take one's life by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, or even reduce one to slavery. The abstract legal right of Parliament to do a moral injustice is not really germane to the matter.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
