Eleve dans le respect de la loi, je ne puis vous en dire davantage, et je me bornerai a vous rappeler qu'il y a actuellement dans la loi francaise deux articles, l'un interdisant aux exiles d'ecrire dans les journaux, qui ne me permet pas de me presenter comme collaborateur de la 'Revue;' l'autre, punissant les journaux qui publient des articles sous des signatures autres que celle de l'auteur, qui ne me permet pas de vous en dire davantage. Je termine en vous priant de me croire toujours Votre bien affectionne, LOUIS-PHILIPPE D'ORLEANS. _From the Dean of St. Paul's_ Deanery, St. Paul's, June 19th. My Dear Reeve,--Your article [Footnote: 'The National Church,' which appeared in the _Edinburgh Review_ of July.] I think admirable. I have ventured to make one or two verbal suggestions, but on the main of your argument I am fully with you. There are only two points which I should propose for your reconsideration. I do not quite see the bearing of your argument about the Cardross case, and do not quite understand the decision of the Scotch judges. [Footnote: The Free Church minister of Cardross had been deposed by the Church Courts for drunkenness. He applied to the civil court for redress, and was thereupon summarily ejected from the Free Church. The Court of Session decided that the defenders--the Church Courts--'are invested with no jurisdiction whatever, ecclesiastical or civil.'] Surely every corporation, or, indeed, every club, has, and must have, the power of excluding--excommunicating is only the theologian's term for the same thing--any member who flagrantly violates its rules and first principles. If a member of the Athenaeum were to get roaring drunk and disturb the place, and endanger the character of the club, the committee or a general meeting might eject him, though he would have some plea in his vested right in the property of the club--the house, library, &c. If the 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.