ns of her Majesty's
subjects, with a consummate organization and wealth which in its
aggregate is vast. Restricted and controlled by the State, so
powerful a corporation may be only fruitful of public advantage, but
it becomes a great question what might be the consequences of the
severance of the controlling tie between these two bodies. The State
would be enfeebled, but the Church would probably be strengthened.
Whether that is a result to be desired is a grave question for all
men. For my own part, I am bound to say that I doubt whether it
would be favorable to the cause of civil and religious liberty. I
know that there is a common idea that if the union between Church
and State was severed, the wealth of the Church would revert to the
State; but it would be well to remember that the great proportion of
ecclesiastical property is the property of individuals. Take, for
example, the fact that the great mass of Church patronage is
patronage in the hands of private persons. That you could not touch
without compensation to the patrons. You have established that
principle in your late Irish Bill, where there was very little
patronage. And in the present state of the public mind on the
subject, there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely a
patron in England--irrespective of other aid the Church would
receive--who would not dedicate his compensation to the spiritual
wants of his neighbors.

It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in this
manner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between
80,000,000 and 90,000,000 pounds, and since that period the amount
of private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has very
largely increased. I therefore trust that when the occasion offers
for the country to speak out it will speak out in an unmistakable
manner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services of
the Church, that it will call upon the government to maintain its
union with the State. Upon this subject there is one remark I would
make. Nothing is more surprising to me than the plea on which the
present outcry is made against the Church of England. I could not
believe that in the nineteenth century the charge against the Church
of England should be that churchmen, and especially the clergy, had
educated the people. If I were to fix upon one circumstance more than
another which redounded to the honor of churchmen, it is that they
should fulf