mistake in the Cardross case was that the culprit was ejected without
trial, that, I think, should be distinctly stated. If the flaw is that it
was done by the Church officers, without the general consent or sanction of
the Kirk, this also should be made clear. I rather demur to the division
of the ecclesiastical property now held by the Irish Church, according
strictly to the proportion of its members to the rest of the population.
Possession, and possession for three centuries, ought, I think, to be taken
into account. But this is a question rather of detail than of principle.
But the real difficulty you have stated fairly and clearly: On what terms,
and under what character, is the Protestant Church, when disestablished,
to hold the property--the churches, parsonages, &c.--which is to remain to
her? The Church must have a constitution--I do not see why not ratified by
Act of Parliament--by which the trustees which represent her will legally
hold that property. She must not be exposed in a few years to a Lady
Hewley's charity case. [Footnote: Sarah, Lady Hewley, at her death, in
1710, left landed property in trust for the support of 'poor and godly
preachers of Christ's holy Gospel.' The original trustees were all
Presbyterians; but in the course of a hundred years the trust had got into
the hands of Unitarians, and the case was brought to the notice of the
Charity Commissioners. After a prolonged litigation, it was finally decided
by the House of Lords (August 5th, 1842) that, by the terms of the bequest,
Unitarians were excluded from participating in the charity.] I suggested
to the Archbishop of Armagh--a good-natured, but not a very powerful,
man--that the Irish Church, when in one sense free, should yet retain, of
its own will, the advantages of the supremacy of the Crown and of the law.
She should take, as the fundamental tenet of her constitution, conformity
to the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England, which the
majority of the English hold, in their meaning and interpretation. On
this principle she might retain a jurisdiction, amenable to law, over her
members; her members be protected against episcopal tyranny, against that
which is now the great danger, parsonocracy, which I rejoice to find that
you repudiate as strongly as I or Stanley. Ever very truly yours,
H. H. MILMAN.
_From Lord Cairns_
_July 23rd_.--Many thanks for the copy of your article on the National
Church. I had begun to read it with great interest in the 'Edinburgh
Review,' not knowing that it was directly from your pen, and I shall now
continue the perusal with increased pleasure.... I will enclose with this,
in exchange for your paper, a copy of my speech on the Irish Church--a
Diomedean exchange; the value of ten oxen for a hundred.
During all this spring Reeve had suffered a great deal from gout, so, by
the advice of Sir Henry Holland, who spoke strongly of the necessity of
change of air and of rest from all work and effort, he and his wife started
for the Continent on July 24th. Passing through Paris, and staying a few
days at Fontainebleau, they went on to Clermont-Ferrand in Auvergne, and
to Royat, then newly come into vogue as a health resort. After about three
weeks of the baths and the mountain air, Reeve was so far recovered as to
be able to walk a little; and on August 18th they passed on to Geneva,
where they were joined by their friends the Watneys, with whom they went
on to Evian, and thence by the Valais to the Bel Alp, an hotel 7,000 feet
above the sea-level, commanding magnificent views. 'Christine,' wrote Reeve
in his Journal, 'went up the Sparrenhorn with Binet,' whilst, according
to Mrs. Reeve, 'Henry and Mrs. Watney, not being moveable bodies, sat at
windows and pooh-poohed the energetic use of legs.' From the Bel Alp,
Reeve, still very much of a cripple, 'was carried'--the expression is his