also on the grounds that, as ecclesiastical bodies occasionally used
their power, "length of possession, which fortified and strengthened
legal right and just title in every other case, did in this alone render
them more weak and uncertain," from the difficulty which often occurred
in finding documentary proof of very ancient titles; and that this was
not an imaginary danger, since a member of the House then present had
recently lost £120,000 by a bishop reviving a claim to an estate after
the gentleman's family had been in undisturbed possession of it above a
hundred years. The defence of the Church, however, was taken up by Mr.
Skinner, Attorney-general for the Duchy of Lancaster, who argued that
though, in the case of the crown, the _nullum tempus_ which it had
formerly claimed, and which had been put an end to in 1769, was "an
engine in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, the _nullum
tempus_ of the Church was a defence to the weak against the strong," as
its best if not its sole security "against the encroachment of the
laity." The "Parliamentary History" records that in the course of a long
debate Lord North opposed the bringing in of the bill, as did "the
Lord-advocate of Scotland, who gave as a reason in favor of the bill,
though he voted against it, that a law of similar nature had passed in
Scotland, and that the whole kingdom, clergy as well as laity, found the
very best effects from it."[24] Burke argued in favor of the bill with
great force, declaring that in so doing "he did not mean anything
against the Church, her dignities, her honor, her privileges, or her
possessions; he should wish even to enlarge them all; but this bill was
to take nothing from her but the power of making herself odious." But
the ministerial majority was too well disciplined to be broken, and Mr.
Seymour could not even obtain leave to bring in the bill.

The year 1772 was marked by the discussion of a measure which the King
seems to have regarded as one of private interest only, affecting his