tion of sovereignty I do not remember to have seen. True, the state may never have by any formal act, as Mr. Freeman alleges, endowed the church as by law established; but surely Mr. Freeman will not deny that there was a time when the church and the people were co-extensive, and in theory they are still one and indivisible. In practice the so-called state church is merely a monopolizing sect which has fraudulently appropriated the shares of all the other sects. These latter, when they are strong enough to bring sovereign authority to bear, will eject the dispossessor, and compel him to disgorge his ill-gotten gains. He would be a bold churchman, indeed, who should propose to deal similarly with the revenues of Nonconformist communions. More recently, however, the attitude of the state church towards the struggling Christian populations of Turkey has satisfied Mr. Freeman, that, having ceased to act as the conscience of the nation, its moral justification is at an end. It is to be hoped Mr. Gladstone and other zealous churchmen will likewise discern how faithfully the Nonconformists of England have done what the established sect has so conspicuously left undone.
In the autumn of 1869 Mr. Freeman pricked the national conscience in a memorable manner regarding the "morality of field-sports." He held up the barbarities of the battue to the shame and scorn of mankind. The withers of "quality" were mercilessly wrung, from those of the Prince of Wales downwards. There were numberless attempted defences, but not one that Mr. Freeman was not able to break down with the greatest ease. The contemptible hypocrisy of persons like his Royal Highness who act as patrons of societies
