vX\l-l!RRARY(9xC A LETTER ADDRESSED TO SAMUEL WHITBREAD, ESQ. M. P. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNQUALIFIED APPROBATION EXPRESSED BY HIM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, OF MR. LANCASTER'S SYSTEM OF EDUCATION, S Gos.ir.i.i., Printer, Little Qi:ecn Street, Holborn. LETTER ADDRESSED TO SAMUEL imiTBREAD, ESQ. M. P. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNQUALIFIED APPROBATION EXPRESSED BY HIM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, OF MR. LANCASTER'S SYSTEM OF EDUCATION; THE RELIGIOUS PART OF WHICH IS HERE SHEWN TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SAFETY OF THE established CJwrcft, AND, IN ITS TENDENCY, SUBVERSIVE OF CHRISTIANITY ITSELF. INCLUDING ALSO SOME CURSORY OBSERVATIONS ON THE CLAIMS OF THE IRISH ROMANISTS, AS THEY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. BY JOHN BOWLES, ESQ. LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. HATCHARD, PICCADILLY; RIVINGTONS, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD; RICHARDSON'S* CORNHILL ; W. WALKER, OPPOSITE ST. CLEMENT'S, STRAKD f AND W. MEYLERj BATH. J807, Stack Annex LETTER, SIR, As the grand design of education is to qualify youth for the stations which they are re- spectively to occupy in after-lire, it may, I trust, be considered as a most auspicious circumstance for this country, that it is a prominent feature of the plan which you lately presented to the House of Commons for the regulation of the Poor Laws, to make the education of the children of the lower classes a national and a legislative object. I hope, Sir, that in the pursuit of this object you will have the true design of education, as above described, constantly in view, and make it your endeavour to furnish the inferior orders with such instruction, both in kind and degree, and no other, as will be calculated to render them useful members of so- ciety, in the humble rank in which it has pleased Providence to place them. But in the speech by which you introduced your proposed measure to the notice' of Parliament, I saw something which I cannot but consider as affording just cause for alarm. In that speech you are reported to have bestowed unqualified praise on Mr. Lancaster's system of education, and even to have expressed a hope that this system will gradwlly be introduced into general practice. The excellence of the me- chanical part of this system, in affording most ex- traordinary facilities for instruction, no one is more disposed than myself to admit ; though I must here be allowed to observe, that Mr. Lancaster strangely neglects to acknowledge the obligations which he is under to the Rev. Dr. Bell, who is certainly the parent of the system ; and also that the very excellence of the system, in affording such iucilities for instruction, seems to impose the uecessity of great caution, lest it should operate as a disqualiftcatioji, rather than a qualification , for the duties of the industrious poor. But the reli- gious part of the system, which is almost the only part that Mr. Lancaster has not borrowed from Dr. Bell, I have long considered as liable to the must serious and weighty objections ; and it is well known that persons of distinguished emi- nence for their talents and usefulness view it in the same light. It is true, you did not specifi- cally advert to Mr. Lancaster's system of eduoa-. tion, as it regards religion ; but as you applied the term L'igotry to those persons by whom it had been opposed, it must be presumed that you had in contemplation that part of it which relates tore- ligious instruction, when you bestowed unqualified approbation upon the whole. I shall rejoice to find myself mistaken ; but as the subject is indisputably of the highest importance, it cannot be too seri- ously or deliberately considered ; and I should pay you but a very indifferent compliment if I thought any apology necessary for endeavouring by this address to fix. it upon your attention, and that of the public, before you proceed farther in the great measure in which you are engaged. In the dis- cussion upon which I am about to enter, I have only to request of those who may differ with me, that any reasonings may not be encountered by mere terms of reproach, as bigotry, prejudice, fanaticism, and the like, but only by proof, either that my principles and premises are erro- neous, or that they do not authorize the conclu- sions which I may deduce from them. The avowed object of Mr. Lancaster's plan, as k respects religion, is " the formation of a society under whose patronage ALL the youth in these KING- DOMS may be instructed to read their BIBLES ; and to impress on their memories the knowledge of ' those most essential parts which relate to the his- tory and theory of Christianity *." The society which he proposes to establish is to include all de- nominations of professing Christians. " Let the i! . '.V Ufl^^l * Page J87. B3 friends of youth," he says, . * Page 25. 6 although each sect, acting separately, may properly inculcate its own peculiar tenets, yet when all sects unite in a society for the purpose of education, they must acton what he calls '' general Christian principles," and propagate no opinions which are peculiar to any sect, but only those which are common to all. In page I J of his Introduction, Mr. Lancaster further says, " I long to see men who profess Christianity, contend, not for creeds of faith, or names, but in the practice of every heavenly virtue." With Mr. Lancaster's religious opinions, or " creeds of faith," I have no right to meddle ; but I consider myself not only entitled, but bound to say, that the system of religious instruction pro- posed by him is highly objectionable in a religious, a moral, and a political view. It leads to conse- quences of which, I should hope, Mr. Lancaster is not aware, and which, if he were aware of them, he would most earnestly deprecate. One of those consequences is, that his system, if universally adopted, would tend to the subversion of Christi- anity itself. Strong as this assertion may appear, I pledge myself to prove that it is well founded. It will appear upon examination that all systems which in their nature and tendency are injurious to society, are founded in error. This is the case with that of Mr. Lancaster, which is evidently 7- built upon the supposition that the different deno- minations of Christians differ only in the non-essen- tials, but agree in the essentials of Christianity. This supposition is the basis of all his reasoning on the subject now under consideration. It is clearly implied in his general proposition that " the grand basis of Christianity alone is broad enough for the whole bulk of mankind to stand on ;" and it ap- pears more distinctly when he proposes it as one of the objects of his society to impress on the memo- ries of youth the knowledge of those most essen- tial parts which relate to the history and theory of Christianity *. Indeed, one would not will- ingly suppose that Mr. Lancaster would inten- tionally leave youth uninstructed in what he deems to be the essentials of Christianity. It must therefore be presumed that he considers the various denominations of Christians as agreeing in essen- tials and differing only in non-essentials But in truth the very reverse of this is the case. The subjects upon which the various denominations of Christians differ, involve the very essentials of Christianity. They relate to matter of such high importance, that if all belief, and, consequently, all instruction, respecting them were excluded from a system of faith, that system could not in any sense of the word be denominated Christianity. A single example will suffice to prove the truth of this as- * Page 187, sertion. It is well known that one of the principal differences which have agitated the Christian world relates to the blessed Founder of our religion, re- specting whose person, character, and office, the most contradictory opinions have been strenuously maintained. Will Mr. Lancaster say that a person can be denominated a Christian who has no belief whatever respecting the points in dispute between the sects who hold different opinions on the above subject ? But as Mr. Lancaster's proposed society is to consist of all denominations of Christians, and as it cannot be reasonably expected that " con- scientious men should promote a religious opinion directly contrary to their own," it necessarily follows, according to such a scheme, that the Tri- nitarian doctrine upon the subject in question i not to be inculcated because it is itv to form some belief on the subject of those tenets ; and unless they were of opinion that salvation is confined to those of their own persuasion, they would rather see youth edu- cated in a faith from which they differ, than in no faith at all ; or which, with regard to Christian belief is the same thing, a faith in which all Chris- tians agree. Thus it appears that the effect of Mr. Lancaster's system would be to make youth Deists rather than Christians ; and that what he conceives to be the Iroad basis of Christianity, is, in reality, so narrow, that no Christian, of any sect or persuasion, can stand upon it. If the mischievous effects of such a system were confined to the season of youth, the ob- jections to it on the grounds above stated, would be insurmountable. For with regard to great numbers, youth is the only period of existence in this world, and it is impossible to say that it will not bo. so in any particular case. And who that is a Christian can reconcile himself to the thought, that^this period should pass without any knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of ti "the Gospel without any belief in those doctrines'? But the influence of such a system upon those who are educated in it, must, in after-life, be of the most pernicious kind. The best that can be expected of such persons is, that they will not " hold fast" any form of doctrine that they will never be firm, or steady, or long consistent, in any system of faith ; and that through life they will be wavering and inconstant, and " blown about by every wind of doctrine." But the danger, nay, the probability is, that, after many fluctua- tions, they will become sceptics, and, perhaps, complete infidels. That one error is generally the parent of another, is a truth which is remarkably verified in Mr. Lan- caster's system. The fundamental error of that system, which consists in supposing that the va- rious sects of professing Christians agree in essen- tials, and differ only in non-essentials, has led to a conclusion no less erroneous, that the plan of religious education which Air. Lancaster proposes to adopt, will tend to produce the moral effects of Christianity. This is a position which he as- sumes, and on which he reasons with as much confidence as he could do if it were fully esta- blished. Thus, after laying down his grand prin- ciple, that " above all things education ought not to be subservient to the propagation of the pecu- liar tenets of any sect," he says, " Yet a reverence C 2 11 for the sacred name of God, and the Scriptures of truth ; a detestation of vice ; a love of veracity ; a due attention to duties to parents, relations!, and to society ; carefulness to avoid bad company ; civility without flattery; and a peaceable demean- our ; may be inculcated in every seminary for youth, without violating the sanctuary of private religious opinion in any mind *." He proceeds, " When obedience to the divine precepts keeps pace with knowledge in the mind of any man, that man is a Christian ; and when the fruits of Christianity are produced, that man is evidently a disciple of our blessed Lord, let his profession of religion be what it may. The propagation of this knowledge, and the production of those fruits, increase the number of true Christians, which is far better than the in- crease of party to any extent ; and at the same time proves beneficial to society, in the improved prin- ciple and conduct of its members ; and in private life, by the steadiness and amiable disposition of parents, masters, and children, who are influenced by its mild and benignant precepts -}-." All this is undoubtedly very specious, and its specio'usness has, I dare say, contributed much to the patronage which Mr. Lancaster has received from the friends of good morals. But it is alto- gether built upon fallacy. It is founded on the fupposition that an effect may be produced with- out iti appropriate cause. Mr. Lancaster says, * Introduction, p. p. f Ib. 13 '' When the fruits of Christianity are produced, that man is evidently a disciple of our blessed Lord." But how are the fruits of Christianity to be produced, when the tree, of which those fruits are the natural product, is not planted ? It is true, according to Mr. Lancaster's system, a knowledge of the divine precepts is to be inculcated ; for he says, " When obedience to those precepts keeps, pace with knowledge in the mind of any man, that man is a Christian :" but he most unphilosophi- callv, as ,well as most untheologically, expects " obedience" without the principle by which alone obedience can, in any case, be produced. That principle is faith. Lest the truth of this position should not be obvious to those who have paid but little attention to the subject, some illustration of it may not be amiss. The obligation of all laws arises out of the rela- tive situation of the legislators and those on whom the laws are obligatory. It does not consist merely in the right to impose penalties on dis- obedience, nor does it operate merely by the dread of those penalties. The conscientious mind will discover something which requires obedience to lawful authority, independently of all penalties, and even on the supposition that they may be evaded ; it will discover that a right to command involves a corresponding duty to obey. But before the mind can be sensible of the obligation to obedi- ence, it must believe two things : first, that there M exists in the legislator, a right to command ; and secondly, that this right has been exercised by the promulgation of certain commands, which thereby assume the force of laws. Such belief is but another term for faith. Thus it appears that faith is the vital principle of obedience, even in a state of human society. In such a state, however, the relation subsisting between those who have a right to command and those who are under an obligation to obey, though very exten- sive, is limited within certain bounds, and conse- quently the authority of the former and the duty of the latter arc limited also ; for with the relation the authority on the one side, and the obligation on the other, must be commensurate. But the re- lation which subsists between theSupremeBeingand His creatures is unlimited, and therefore involves in it an unlimited right to command, and an unlimit- ed obligation to obey. That inexpressibly great and glorious Being is the universal Creator. He made all things by his almighty Fiat. He gave them whatever form, nature, and qualities, he thought proper to bestow. They au all, collec- tively and individually, absolutely dcpendeut upon Him in every moment of their existence. His will is, therefore, in all respects, their law. To that law, as far as relates to ihclr physical existence, they are compelled to conform ; a circumstance to which is owing the undcviating order, the harmony and regularity which reign throughout that im- mense and complicated machine, the physical J5 world. In the moral world the obligation to obe- dience is not less absolute, although the free agency, which is an essential attribute of moral be- ings, is necessarily accompanied with a power to disobey. Still, however, uniform and invariable obedience to the will of the Supreme Being is their indispensable duty incapable, like the relation from which it flows, of any limitation ; a duty from which no possible situation or circumstances can absolve them, and the performance of which con- stitutes the very essence of virtue. In this case, as in every other, the principle of obedience is faith ; that is, according to the explanation already given, a belief that there exists an absolute universal right to command, which implies an unlimited obligation to obey, and also that this right has been exercised. A knowledge of every law, however, is an indis- pensable preliminary to obedience ; the obligation to the latter, therefore, necessarily implies the duty of endeavouring to obtain the former ; and thus we are bound to attend to every communica- tion of the Divine will, our universal law, and to avail ourselves of every opportunity of making our- selves acquainted with it. The law which is writ- ten in our hearts, even if we had no other, should be carefully studied by us, for the band which wrote it is Divine. But when an express revela- tion of the Divine Will has been made, our first duty, and that which is the basis of every other, is to endeavour, as far as our limited faculties will ex- ifl tend, to obtain a thorough acquaintance with it- not merely with the moral precepts by which we are commanded to regulate our practice, but with every thing which the Deity has been pleased to reveal to us respecting his own nature and attributes. Nothing that is thus revealed can be unimportant, and it would be the height of impiety so to consider any communication from God. In this view, faith or belief, independently of its being the only spring of obedience, is itself a moral duty, and the want of it is of the very es- sence, as well as the main source, of vice : and this observation applies no less to the doctrinal parts of Scripture, than to its moral precepts, for both are equally revealed by God. Indeed there is no sub- ject Yipon which more stress is laid in the Scrip- tures, than the importance of faith. Nor is there any upon which the inspired writers display more solicitude, than the preservation of it from error and heresy. It is even represented by those writers, when at once pure and productive of obedience, as the operative means of salvation. It is made the express condition on which alone those to whom the revelation has been made, can hope to be saved. And surely it ought not to be forgotten that the Christian dispensation, as its fundamental doctrines are explained by our Church, and as they arc be- lieved by all Christians who are known under the denomination of orthodox, presents to the mind and to the heart the most powerful and captivating 17 motives to love as well as to obedience ; that it operates upon our affections and our gratitude by the display of a scheme of Divine goodness and mercy, so marvellous, that, had it not been ac- tually realized, and proved to be so, by indubitable evidence, it would far exceed all credibility ; and that it thus binds us with the cords of love to a most conscientious performance of our duty, in all its parts. But the doctrinal parts of Scripture, and espe- cially those which are generally considered as most essential, have given rise to differences of opinion, and to controversy : they must therefore be ex- cluded from Mr. Lancaster's plan of religious in- struction, the object of which is to instruct youth only in " the uncontr over ted principles of Christi- anity." And thus it appears that the system in question is not only philosophically false, inasmuch, as it leads to an expectation of Christian obedience without Christian faith, but also essentially immo- ral, since it would have the effect of bringing up youth as unbelievers, and consequently in habitual "** disobedience to the Divine will, which is of the very essence of immorality or sin *," * See tf An Historical View of the Rise and "Progress of INFI- DELITY, with a Refutation of its Principles and Reasonings, in a Series of Sermons, by the Refr. W. Van Mildert, M. A. Rector of St, Mary-le-Bow, London," yol. ii. p. 192. I cannot IB Against a proposal to educate the youth of the country, or any part of it, in such a manner, every serious and considerate person must surely be ready to enter his most formal and solemn protest. The true principle of education is to " train up a child in the way that he should go/' The youth, there- fore, who are to be trained up according to Mr. Lancaster's system, must be in tended to persevere in the way which that system points out. And as Mr. Lancaster expressly says, that the object which he recommends is " the formation, of a so- ciety under whose immediate patronage all the youth in these kingdoms may be instructed, " his plan, if its execution were to be commensurate with its design, would lead to the extirpation of Cliristianity from these kingdoms, in the place of which would be introduced an anomalous general- izing system of religion, which no existing sect could, consent to denominate Christianity. It is offer myself to advert to these Sermons without expressing", however feebly, the acknowledgments which', in common with the whole Christian world, 1 owe to the reverend author, for one of the ablest, most luminous, a ad most convincing refura- tionsofthe principles and reasonings of Infidelity that ever issued from the press. In thus expressing myself I beg leave to be understood, as uttering not merely rny own opinion, but what I know to be the opinion of men who are best qualified to judge upwn the subjrct. Earnestly do I v. '.ih that every infidel, nay, that every person v.ho entertains any doubt about the great truifcg of Christaiiity, iH|ld diligently peruse this valuabla- werlt* 19 true, Mr. Lancaster further proposes " to instruct youth to read their Bibles, and to impress on their memories those most essential parts which relate to the history and theory of Christianity." But he will hardly venture to deny that they stand in much need of assistance to enable them properly to " read their Bibles ;" in which, we are told, by high authority, there are " many things hard to be understood :" and we have seen that his plan is of such a nature as to exclude the most essential parts of the " theory of Christianity," and conse- quently to suppress the true and only efficient mo- tives to the practice of its duties. In a word, he might most aptly have applied to his religious sys- tem, by way of motto, that most false and perni- cious sentiment, For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight, His can't be wrong whose life is in the right. The reason assigned by Mr. Lancaster for the recommendation of such a plan (of the effects of which I should hope he could not be aware) is the supposed necessity of excluding from a system of religious instruction the " peculiar tenets" of every sect of Christians, in order to unite all sects in a society for the instruction, under their joint pa- tronage, of " all the youth in these kingdoms." The ground of that supposed necessity is, accord- ing to Mr. Lancaster, that *' it cannot be reason- D 2 '20 ably expected that conscientious men should pro- mote a religious opinion contrary to their own." That ground, however, like all the grounds on which Mr. Lancaster's system is built, is falla- cious ; for in certain situations, conscientious men may most reasonably be expected to promote reli- gious opinions directly contrary to their owfi, and particularly in the case where, unless they do so, no religious opinions whatever would be pro- moted. Mr. Lancaster will scarcely deny that any religion is better than none ; and if it depended on him, whether in a Mahometan country, the youth should be brought up as Mussulmans or as Atheists, I cannot doubt that he would prefer the former, in order to preserve them from the greatest possible evil, that of being educated without any religion at all. In the case before us we find that if the youth to be brought up under the patronage of the proposed society be not instructed in the reli- gious opinions of some one of the denominations of Christians, of which the society is to be composed, they will, in no sense of the word, be taught Chris- tianity. There is therefore no other alternative than either to instruct youth in the religious tenets of some one of those denominations, or to edu- cate them in total ignorance of most of the essen- tials of the Christian faith : which part of this al- ternative the society may reasonably be expected to prefer, is a question which I trust may safely * be referred even to Mr. Lancaster himself". But another difficulty here presents itself: How shall a society consisting of all sects of Christians determine which of those sects ought to have the preference, in the adoption of its religious tenets as a system of education ? How is such a selection to be made ? for it must he made if the youth to be instructed are to be educated as Christians. It certainly cannot be expected of any one sect of Christians to admit that the faith of another sect is preferable to its own. The converse of such an admission is, or ought to be, the supposed basis upon which every sect distinctively stands. The difficulty, I own, appears to be insurmountable, if the case be considered as Mr. Lancaster states it. He says, " Mankind are divided into sects ;" but this is an illogical distribution, and the whole difficulty arises from its being so. It is of more importance than most people are aware, to ar- range and classify our ideas of genera and species in such a manner as to correspond with the real nature of things. If Mr. Lancaster had pursued this course, he might have saved himself and his readers a great deal of trouble. He would then have found that mankind considered as Christians in this country, which, with regard to the subject in discussion, is the highest genus, are in the first place divisible into those who belong to, and those who dissent from the established Church ; and that the latter are subdivisible into the various sects of separatists or dissenters from that esfea- 22 But Mr. Lancaster considers every class or denomination of Christians as" a sect, and he most inaccurately applies that appellation to the establishment itself. According to his mode of classification, it is impossible to discover any prin- ciple by which the proposed society could be brought to concur in any one system of Christian faith, with a view to the religious instruction of the youth patronized by them. For, considered as sects, the various denominations of Christians stand precisely on the same footing with regard to each other ; and it cannot be reasonably expected that they should recognize in any one of them the least title to pre-eminence. But considered as consisting of the established Church, and the va T rious denominations of dissenters, properly called 'sects, there are very obvious reasons, to which I conceive Mr. Lancaster, unless he avows himself hostile to the Church, must readily subscribe, for assigning to the former such a pre-emi- nence. It might, indeed, be regarded as a self- evident proposition, that when education is made " a national concern," which Mr. Lancaster says, in the present instance," it ought to become," the youth who partake of its benefits ought to be edu- cated in the national Church. Instead, however, of relying on this proposition as a maxim which can not be controverted, I shall consider it as a prin- ciple which ought to be established. 28 You, Sir, I am persuaded will admit that Mr. Lancaster's system, and indeed any general system of education, ought to be so framed and conducted as to be compatible with the safety of the established Church. Now it is obvious that the strength, and consequently the safety of every establishment must depend upon the numbers that are, upon principle, attached to it. But it would be absurd to expect that youth should, upon principle, be attached to the Church, or, indeed, that they should have any attachment whatever to it, unless they are brought up in it. And as Mr. Lancaster's plan is of the greatest magnitude, extending in ks design to the " formation of a society under whose patronage all the youth in these kingdoms may be instructed ;" it is undeniable, that, unless it be conducted upon the above principle, it must be fraught with the utmost danger to the Church by bringing up ther great mass of the population of this country, with- out any attachment (to say the least) to that esta- blishment. Mr. Lancaster seems to be aware of the in- fluence which any general plan of education, fa^ vouring a particular system of religion, is calcu- lated, on that account, to possess in the state. For he says, " It has been generally conceived, that if any particular sect obtained the principal care in a national system of education, that part would soon be likely to possess the greatest power 24 and influence in the state. Fear that the clergy should aggrandize themselves too much, has pro- duced opposition from Dissenters to any pro- posal of the kind ; on the other hand, the clergy have opposed any thing of this nature which might operate with Dissenters, locally or generally, fear- ing an increase of the dissenting influence might prove likely to prejudice the interests of the esta- blishment*." This is a full recognition, on the part of Mr. Lancaster, of the alternative, that a system of national education, within the scope of which religious instruction is comprised, must tend either to the security or the destruction of the national church. Mr. Lancaster alludes, in- deed, to the former part of the alternative, by the illiberal expression, te Fear that the clergy should aggrandize themselves." The question, however, is not, whether our clergy shall aggrandize them- selves of that event, in the present state of so- ciety, Heaven knows, there is little danger but whether the security of the Church shall be con- sulted. My position is, that, by Mr. Lancaster's system, the Church would be exposed to the most imminent danger ; for unless it be an essential and indispensable part of that system to bring up the youth instructed by it in the Church, there can be no certainty that the case which he describes will not happen, and that a particular sect will not ob- * * Page 18*. 25 tain the principal care in the proposed tc national system of education," in which case he admits that such sect " will be likely to possess the greatest power and influence in the state," an event neces- sarily leading to the subversion of the Church. But if no sect should thus predominate, yet, as the system is now constructed, it would have the effect of bringing up youth without any attachment to the Church ; and then, although they might be totally indifferent with regard to " sects," and even to religion itself, still the Church would be deprived of that support which is essential to her safety. On these grounds I feel myself authorized to con- clude, that whatever degree of " power and influ- ence in the state" belongs to a system of national education, ought to be thrown into the scale of the national Church, and that this establishment is entitled to all the support which it is capable of deriving from such a system ; not, indeed, with a view to aggrandize the clergy, but to secure the Church against the danger to which it would otherwise inevitably fce exposed, from the opera- tion of the system. If the youth of the country be not brought up in the Ghurch, it cannot be ex- pected that they will ever find their way into it. And if some of them should do so, their connexion with it will not be cemented by the strongest of all ties early attachment. But even of such ad- ventitious adherents, the number would probably be very small. And thus the national Church 26 wonld be subjected to the danger which must at- tend it in that state of society, in which a majo- rity of the population is brought up in separation from it. If, therefore, Mr. Lancaster's system be really intended to be compatible with the safety of the national Church, it must be made subvervient to the propagation of the faith of that Church : and indeed it must be founded on the principle, that the youth who partake of its benefits must be brought up as members of the establishment. In Scotland this system is invariably acted upon, and no one ever thinks of deviating from it. In that country the education of the lower classes is a national con- cern, provided for by legislative authority ; and you, Sir, seem fully sensible of the great national benefits which a due attention to it has produced. But all the children so educated are brought up in the national church, which, there, \sPresbyterian. It cannot be justly pretended that the adoption of such a principle would in the least encroach upon parental rights. For the object is to supply the lamentable defects of parental education among the lower classes, the children of which are, as Mr. Lancaster observes, " left destitute of a suitable education." The parents of such children are as unqualified to give them a religious, as any other kind of education ; and by far the greater part of them are, as Mr. Lancaster's experience must have convinced him, totally indifferent re- specting the religious education of their offspring. With regard even to the very few who feel any concern upon this subject, and who wish their children to be brought up in a particular persuasion, if they would obtain for them the advantage of charitable instruction, they cannot reasonably ex- pect any deviation, on their account, from the system of religious education which is adopted in the school where that advantage is bestowed. A conformity to such system is a necessary condition, on which alone they can hope to partake of the benefit of a charitable institution for the education of youth. Upon this principle all charity-schools are necessarily conducted, whenever religious in- struction is one of their objects. But the above principle is, in the most striking manner, reason- able and necessary with regard to institutions of a national kind ; in which, as has been shewn, no faith but that of the national Church can be taught, without danger to that Church, and con- sequently to the state. Surely when the important object of supplying the deficiency of " a suitable education" among the lower orders is made a na- tional concern, that object ought to be pursued in such a manner, as to be consistent with the ge- neral interests of the country, and the safety of its establishments. E 2 IS And it should not be forgotten, that besides the necessity of adopting, in such a concern, the principle upon which I am insisting, its adoption is necessary, as I trust has been sufficiently shewn, to render a national system of education subservient to the propagation, in any form, of the essential doctrines of Christianity, and consequently of Christianity itself: since, as it cannot reasonably be expected that the peculiar tenets of any sect should be inculcated by a society composed of persons of all religious persuasions, unless such a society consent to inculcate the faith of the esta- blished Church, the youth educated under its aus- pices will not be instructed in any faith at all, and consequently they will not receive a Christian edu- cation. If, however, under all these circum- stances, an objection should still be made to the principle in question, because it would promote the faith of the established Church, I feel myself authorized to say, that such an objcotion can only be attributed to that " sect-making spirit" which Mr. Lancaster so severely and so justly censures. I most cordially agree with Mr. Lancaster, that the professors of Christianity should cultivate " a spirit of brotherly love and peace ;" but where a national religion is inseparably interwoven with the constitution itself, and particularly when it breathes, as is the case in this country, a most mild and pure spirit of universal toleration, the friends of such an establishment are surely not chargeable with any want of Christian charity, if, while they secure, by all the means in their power, a full enjoyment of the rights of conscience to all who differ with them, they take the necessary means of securing also their own establishment. On the contrary, if those who dissent from such an establishment, while they enjoy such ines- timable privileges, will not cordially assent to whatever is essential to its safety, they only subject themselves to the censure so justly and so forcibly applied by Mr. Lancaster to the " sect-making spirit of party ;" and they would do well to im- bibe the wish expressed by him, " That the pro fessors.of Christianity would cultivate a spirit of unity, brotherly love, and peace ; bearing one with another in love ; avoiding all differences from party spirit ; and, when they cannot unite in reli- gious opinions, their dissent would / dc- 41 rived from numbers is accompanied with the pos- session of power, the temptation to use that power tor the advancement of those who possess it, may fairly be presumed to be irresistible ; and it would denote the grossest ignorance of human nature to doubt that they will employ it, in its fullest extent, for that purpose: if they neglected to do so, they would cease to be men, But when, as is now the case in Ireland, a vast majority of the inhabitants of a country are in a state of separation from the established Church, and when, moreover, they are firmly united in a sect, be it what it may ; to assert that such a majority may, with safety to that Church, be admitted to a full and complete participation of power, in common with its mem- bers, is to advance one of the most extravagant propositions that can possibly be presented to the notice of the human understanding. I confidently defy the most expert reasoner now alive, to reconcile such a proposition with common sense. Such, however, is the absurdity in which the ad- vocates for the claims of the Irish Romanists involve themselves. It is not, therefore, because- those formidable claimants are of a particular religion, but because they are not of the esta- blished religion, that their claims are inadmissible. And I beg it may be remembered, that the question is found to be susceptible of a most satisfactory so- lution on the ground of admission, that Popery has really undergone the change which is attributed ta 42 it. But who that remembers what Popery once was, can, in investing it with power, be free from alarm, lest its metamorphosis may not be quite so complete as has been supposed lest it should hereafter resume somewhat of its former cha- racter? In one respect it still retains, even in the country where its pretensions are so high, a quality, which is well calculated to excite the apprehensions of every friend of social order. The essential nature of the religion bestows on its priests an ascendency over the minds of the igno- rant and countless multitude, which is subversive of the legitimate authority of government. That ascendency constitutes what may most properly be termed imperiwn in imperio. It produces a state of vassalage and dependence, no less hostile to civil freedom, than destructive of the ties which unite subjects to government. It is in- compatible with the safety of the state, collec- tively, and of the individuals who profess the Protestant faith. It even carries with it a power of life and death for it is supported by the right of excommunication, a sentence which ex- poses the unhappy victim to perish for want of subsistence, which, in such a case, not a single Romanist can safely, or even conscientiously, bestow. It is also a most important circumstance, in the case of the Irish Romanists, and should never be lost sight of in a discussion of ttair claims, that they 43 ' %^ ' ' ^L. < consider themselves entitled to a very large portion of the landed property of Ireland, of which they have at different times heen deprived by forfeiture, and the right to which, though lawfully vested in other proprietors, they consider as descending in their families from generation to generation, in the hope that the time will arrive when it may success- fully be asserted. It having been shewn that the claims of the Irish Romanists are incompatible with the safety of the established Church, and, consequently, with that of the constitution itself, of which that Church is an essential and an inseparable part, it follows that they are not only inadmissible, but also, in the highest degree, unreasonable ; for as their object is nothing else than to relieve the persons in whose favour they are urged, from certain disabilities and restrictions which are im- posed upon them for the general good, to insist upon them amounts to nothing less than a de- mand that partial interests shall be preferred to the welfare of the community, and, indeed, that the latter shall be sacrificed to the former. If such a sacrifice were even solicited as a boon, the request would clearly be most unreasonable but the claim is advanced as an indefeasible right ; and it is even urged with such pertinacity, that some persons are induced to favour the grant, lest a refusal should lead to another rebellion. G 2 But, independently of every other consideration, would jt not b ' madness to arm with power that disposition, which, it is feared, may be prompted to rebel by the refusal of concessions, that cannot be. made consistently with the public safety ? Other persons, abstaining from the argument in terrorem, content themselves with urging the expediency of conceding what is thus demanded, for the purpose of quieting the minds of the Irish Romanists, and with a view to conciliation. But the ill success which has attended past attempts at conciliation, by means of conccfssion, far from en- aging a repetition of the experiment, autho- rizes the conclusion that the concession of what remains to be granted, instead of producing a conciliatory effect, would serve only to encourage the hope of attaining \\hile it would furnish the 1 means of pursuing what then will alone remain to be obtained the establishment of the Roman Church in Ireland. And with regard to the . quieting of the minds of the Romanists, I should conceive that, in point both of justice and sound policy, it is at least as desirable to quiet the minds of the members of the established Church, who have certainly much cause for disquietude and alarm, and who, on the most solid grounds, ap- prehend the utmost danger to their establishment, from a removal of those barriers which their c-in- ccsturs established for its protection. And it ought not to be forgotten, that all which such persons desire is, that the law should continue- 45 as it is, while the others ask, not only for an al- teration of the law, but for a fundamental change in the constitution itself. It is sometimes urged in favour of the claims in question, that, in consequence of the extent of past concessions, what remains to be conceded is com* paratively little. What is this but to urge, that, because the fortifications of a city have been aban- doned, the citadel should also be given up ? I am ready to admit that the extent of past concessions renders it more difficult to defend what remains, and that a considerable degree of embarrassment in our situation is hereby produced. But this embar- rassment serves only to confirm a truth, of which history furnishes ?o many lamentable proofs, that it is never safe to deviate from principles for the sake of expediency. For though, abstractedly, no incon- venience be produced by such deviation, the sacred- ness of the principle is violated: and the mischief is the greater, because no immediate evil ensues, or is likely to ensue ; for thereby mankind arc induced to think that the principle may be violated with impunity* An occasional relaxation of principle is further mischievous, because it tends to unsettle the minds of men. Those who are really inte- rested in maintaining the principle, know not how to. think, or how to act ; . they have no settled rule to enable them to judge how far they may go ; while those who wish to subvert it are emboldened b.v every deviation, however minute, to hope ulti- 46 mat civ to triumph over the principle itself. Every refusal to give it up then seems to them unreason- ably harsh and rigid, because they have heen taught that it is not inviolable. It is, therefore, much better, as well for those upon whom it operates as a restriction, as for others, that it should be considered as a barrier that can never be passed. They then the more readily acquiesce in the re- striction, and, instead of being encouraged to wish for what the safety of the state requires to be put beyond their reach, they set themselves quietly to enjoy the advantages which they possess, and the security of which, in the case before us, is, enhanced by the restrictions to which they arc subjected. Thus it appears that the true cause of the em- barrassment under which we now labour, with regard to the claims of the Irish Romanists, and of the danger which we apprehend from their dis- position to persist so pertinaciously in those claims, is to be found in the concessions which have been made to them from time to time. If tbe Legisla- ture had contented itself with relieving them from all penalties on account of religion, and, securing to them full toleration, had firmly stood on the constitutional ground of the test laws, our situa- tion would, there is abundant reason to conclude, have been most enviable in comparison with what it now is. In that case the Romanists themselves, knowing that they had no chance of obtaining jm 47 admission to power, would naturally have endea- voured to reconcile themselves to an exclusion Tom it ; and instead of insisting, as they now do, to be put upon an eqnal footing in all respects with the members of the establishment, they would have discovered and prized the inestimable privileges which they actually enjoy, and which are secured to them by the very disabilities of which they complain. But the embarrassment which we experience in consequence of having conceded so much, should enhance, in our estimation, the value of what still remains ; as, with the destruction of some of the Sibyl's books, the price of the remainder was in- creased. It is high time, at length, to make a stand, and to convince the Irish Romanists, that, while their religious and civil rights are securely protected, the sacred barriers of the constitution must no further be encroached upon. Instead of inflaming their hopes, as has lately been done, by attempts at further concession, the wise statesman will endeavour, by all fair and honourable means, to strengthen the Protestant establishment. For that purpose he will labour to ascertain the causes which have impeded the progress of the principles of the Reformation in Ireland, and to remove the obstacles which are still in their way ; and, instead of depriving the national Church of any of its remaining bulwarks, he will thus provide for its more romplete security, by an extension of it* .worship, I a diffusion of" its mild and tolerant spirit. Such a svstein of conduct will be found much better calculated to civilize the lower classes of our Irish fello\v-subjects, to ameliorate their condition, and to produce general harmony and strength, a the rash and empirical experiment of con- ceding what is far less likely to afford satisfaction, than to enlarge expectation, and to invite demands, which, unless we sacrifice the very existence of our Church, as an establishment, must be re- jected, and the rejection of which will excite dis- contents, far more formidable, as they will be ac- companied with power, than any which now exist. Such, I trust, Sir, is the system which our states* men, impelled by principle, and taught by experi- ence, will hereafter pursue, with regard to Ireland. I^ay, I do not hesitate to say, that an inflexible de- termination to pursue that system, and to oppose claims which are incompatible with the safety of tile Church, ought to be considered as an indispen- sable qualification for a British Minister. A differ- en e between the King and his Ministers, on a su^joct of this major importance, is an anomaly in government, which should never be permitted to recur. The Sovereign should never again be re- duced to the painful necessity of appealing to his Coronation oath, against a measure brought for- ward in Parliament by his own Ministers. His piternal heart, which rvould rejoice to diffuse sa- tisfaction through every part of his empire, hould 49 never again be reduced to the distressing necessity of resisting the wishes of a part of his people, for the sake of the whole for the maintenance of those establishments, in Church and State, which it is his first duty to protect. He should never again be obliged to stand alone, until the sense of the country can be declared as it now unques- tionably is, and as, I hope, it soon will be in a more solemn manner, by the warmest assurances of gra- titude and support as a guardian of our national religion ; as a defender of that Church, which", by an express, original, and fundamental com- pact, enforced by the sanctions of religion, as well as by implied obligation, inseparably at- tached to the royal character, he is pledged to maintain. It cannot be supposed that a Sove- reign of these realms will ever be unmindful of these accumulated obligations ; it ought, nevertheless, to fill our hearts with gratitude to Divine Providence, to reflect, that, at the critical period which we have recently witnessed, so conscientious, so enlightened, and so firm a defender of the Church, was seated on the Throne. I a"m, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, JOHN BOWLES. Bath, March 23 , 1807. H POSTSCRIPT. MUCH uncertainty exists respecting the actual po- pulation of Ireland, and the relative numbers of the Protestants and Romanists in that country. All persons, however, agree that the latter consti- tute an immense majority of that population ; a fact which, whether the majority be greater or less, affords, I conceive, a solid foundation for the reasoning which is built upon it in the fore- going pages. It may not be amiss, however, to subjoin to this Tract the result of a communica- tion which I have received from an intelligent friend, resident in Ireland, respecting the state of the population, and the increase of Popery in that country ; together with his opinion as to the causes which have led to such increase, and the means by which so great an evil may mo'fct effec- tually be checked. The calculations of my friend are, I understand, founded in a great measure on the publication entitled, " A Statistical and His- torical Inquiry into the Progress and Magnitude of the Population of Ireland, by Thomas Newen- ham, Esq." . 52 Population of Ireland in 1731 - - 2,010,2$! Ditto in 1805 5,395,456 Number of Romanists in 1731, ac- cording to a return made to the House of Lords l,30p,76s Number of Protestants at the same period, as per return - - . . 700,452 Number of Romanists in 1805 - - 4,300,000 Number of Protestants at the same period -------- 1,080,000 Increase of Romanists from 1731 to 1805 - -- 2,990,240 Ditto of Protestants during the same interval --....- 379,548 Thus it appears, that in 1731 the Romanists were to the Protestants not quite in the propor- tion of two to one; and that in 1805 the former were to the latter in the proportion of more than four to one. Secondly, That from J731 to 1805; the population had more than doubled ; that its positive increase during that interval was 3,385,235 ; and that the increase of the Roman- ists in comparison with that of the Protestants, has been in the proportion of more than seven to one. This truly alarming decline of Protestantism is owing to the great exertions of the Popish 53 priests and their agents in making proselytes, and the gross ignorance of the lower orders, which exposes them to be easily perverted ; to the zeal with which Popery is encouraged and promoted by all its adherents , who possess any power or in- fluencewhile, comparatively, little or no exer- tion is made on the other side ; to the great in- crease of Popish places of worship in counties and towns, where splendid Chapels are erected, while the Protestant Churches are suffered to fall to decay ; and to the want of Protestant school- masters, and the abundance of those of the Po~ pish persuasion, who are perpetually perverting the Protestant children. It is obvious that the proper remedies for the evil would be the building and maintaining of Protestant Churches, together with means to se- cure the residence of the clergy ; the establish- ment of Protestant seminaries; and the circulation of Bibles, Testaments, and tracts against Popery. The people are extremely eager to obtain Bibles and Testaments, while the priests, adhering, to their ancient arts of delusion, are as vigilant and active in preventing them from acquiring such means of information. Accordingly, in the South, there is scarcely a Bible in five hundred Popish families. 5. 1 If such means were adequately resorted to, there is reason to hope that the Protestant reli- gion, which is the strength and security of a Pro- testant government, would gradually obtain an increasing influence, without affording any just Cause of complaint to the Romanists, and without the least symptom of intolerance. IT Was foreign from the design of the foregoing Letter to enter into any examination of the mea- sure which has led to a dismission of the late Ministers from His Majesty's executive councils. Some observations, however, upon that measure, will not, I trust, be deemed irrelevant, even with regard to my principal subject, as both are closely connected with so important an interest in this country, as the safety of its established Church. The real object of the proposed measure, when it assumed the form of a Bill, was to conciliate the Irish Romanists, by relieving them from every remaining restriction of a military nature, and rendering them admissible to the highest ranks in the army and navy. I say this was its real object ; for though it contained an extension of the Act of J7Q3 to Great Britain, that extension 55 having been actually promised (whether wisely or not, it is not my present business to in- quire), it could not have met with any considerable difficulty, had it been brought forward as a dis- tinct, rather than a subordinate measure. It is true the measure also extended to an admission of the Dissenters of this country, of every descrip- tion, to the same privileges which it was proposed to confer on the Irish Romanists ; but it is obvious that those Dissenters would not have been thought of, on their own account, and that their interests were attended to merely to facilitate the passing of the Bill. With regard to the provision for securing to the soldiers and sailors who dissent from the established worship, the free exercise of their re- ligious opinions, t/iat right is already fully en- joyed, and therefore a legislative provision for it was quite unnecessary. Considering, therefore, the measure as having for its real object the opening of the highest mili- tary ranks to the Irish Romanists, it cannot be viewed in any other light than as a direct conces- sion of the most objectionable of what are called the Catholic claims, and as an implied concession of the whole of those claims, by a dereliction of the principle upon which atone they ean be resisted. Those claims amount to a demand of atlmissibility to all situations of power and trust, civil and milj- tary, in the British empire. In both respects they 3re incompatible with the safety of our ecclesias- tical establishment, because, on the principles al- ready laid down, the possession of power, whe- ther civil or military, by so numerous a body of eparatists from the established Church, must, in the nature of things, be fraught with danger to that establishment. But it is obvious that greater danger would be produced by the grant of military, than of civil power, to such a body. For the exer- cise of the latter may be checked and counter- acted, though not without much difficulty and in- cessant vigilance, by a Parliament composed chiefly of Protestants ; but it requires no great exertion of fancy to suppose a case in which a General of the Romish persuasion, possessing the command of an army in Ireland, might have, not only the Pro- testant Church, but the Protestant government it- self, in his power. Would the Protestants in such a case think any of their establishments safe, even on the supposition, which I am ready to admit, that at present the Romanists intend nothing hostile to those establishments ? Nor should it be forgotten, that when, for the purpose of conciliation, the Ro- manists are put on the same footing as the Pro- testants with regard to military rank, that purpose will be defeated if they should be, or even con- ceive themselves to be (which they will be very apt to do), objects of jealousy or apprehension. 57 The most solid proofs must be given that they are thought deserving of unlimited trust and confi- dence ; and the slightest doubt upon this subject, however unfounded, may produce a flame which it will not be easy to stifle. But besides the strong and insurmountable ob- jection to which, in the case supposed, the grant of military power, distinctly considered, is liable, it should be remembered that such a grant would have led to the necessity of conceding those claims which it was proposed for the present to withhold; and that, therefore, the measure in question really involved an acquiescence in all the demands of the Irish Romanists, in their utmost extent. For it is well known that those claimants would not have been satisfied with the concessions contained in the Bill lately before the House of Commons, and that they demand to be placed on the same footing, in all respects, with the members of the established Church a demand, the principle of which could not be fully satisfied, unless their Bishops shared, \vith the Protestant Bishops, a right to sit in the House of Lords. Without, however, attributing to them, at present, so extensive a view, it is evi- dent, from the indisputable extent of their claims, that the object of conciliation, even if the late Bill had passed, would have failed in 1 inline ; and thnt the persons for whose satisfaction it was intended, would only have been encouraged, by such partial' l 58 success, to require a full compliance with their wishes. But in making this requisition . they would have appeared in a new, and a most formi-: dable character. They would have been in posses- sion of military power. They would have taken their stand on their acknowledged right of admis- sibility to the highest ranks in the army and navy. They would, in short, as has been most justly ob- served *, have been in possession of the sward. Whether it would then have been safe to refuse them any thing which would have been necessary to quiet their minds, or whether such refusal would not rather have been attended with more danger than ever, are considerations well deserving the attention of those persons who are desirous of granting them the word, for the purpose of conci- liation . Thus is that weak and temporizing pq- licy, which, in order to get rid of present diffi- culties, makes a sacrifice of permanent principles, Mire to defeat its own object, and to produce an increase, rather than a diminution, of difficulty and danger. To justify a concession of so alarming a nature, it has been urged, that the state of Ireland ren- dered it a necessary defence against invasion ; anc| a Noble Lord -j- is reported to have argued in its favour, that its object was not to invade, but to secure the establishments of the empire ; and that if Ireland were rendered insecure, the establishments of * By Lord Hawkesbury. f Lord Viscount Howick. 59 Englaiid would be exposed to greater danger than any whrch could possibly result from suck a boon to the Catholics * . Another Noble Lord -J- is reported to have contended, that, in the prospect of a peace between France and the Continent, and a continua- ftnce of the war with England, the boon would be necessary, iii order to conciliate and engage the po- pulation of Ireland in the defence tif the empire. That is to say, it cannot be denied that the boon Vvould be productive of danger to our ecclesiastical establishment, but this danger must be incur- red for the security of the state against perils from without. Indeed, the mere resorting, in such a case, to an argument founded on general * It is remarkable, that in the discussions which have taken place on the subject under consideration, the term Catholics should have been so generally applied to the description of per- sons whose claims have produced those discussions. The ap- plication of that term to the Romanists amounts to nothing less than an admission that they constitute, exclusively, the universal Church of Christ, and that the Protestants form no part of that Church. That, by the assumption of the term, the former should endeavour to inculcate such a doctrine, proves only that there are no bounds to the exorbitancy of their claims ; but that the latter should recognise a claim of this description, which they do whenever they denominate the members of the Romish Church Catholics, is a proof of inconsideration, or rather of folly, which scarcely admits of an adequate description. These reasons have induced me to use the term Romanists throughout this publication. A, correct use of terms of denomination is of more importance to the cause of truth than is generally supposed. f Lord Grenville. I 2 policy, is a clear though tacit admission, that the Church has something to apprehend from the pro- posed concession . I fit could be ?hc\vn that such aeon- cession is compatible with the safety of the Church, all difficulty would vanish, and it would be quite unnecessary to argue the question on the grounds of general security. For while, on the one hand, no individuals have a right to complain of any re- strictions to which it is necessary they should be subject for the general good ; so, on the other, no restrictions ought to exist in a state unless they are conducive to that object. If, therefore, it could be shewn that the restrictions in question are not necessary for the safety of the Church, which is the true reason of their being created, it would follow of course that they ought to be removed ; and men of the first-rate talents, with so conclu- sive an argument for the removal in their power, would not reason on the ground of general po- licy. It behoves those persons, however, who contend that the Church must be exposed to danger, for the sake of the State, seriously to con- sider what would become of the State without the Church. At all events, I conceive it will not be denied, that, in order to justify an exposure of the Church for the safety of the State, both the urgency and the efficiency of the measure which, is proposed for that purpose, should be most evi- dent, and that its adoption ought to appear to be a matter of paramount necessity, admitting, in aH human probability, of no other alternative than that of partial or total ruin : as in the case of a man who has no other means of saving his own life, than by pushing his fellow-creature into the water from a plank which is unable to save both. Thus, before we resolve to push the Church into the water, we should be fully convinced that the State, such as it will remain when dissociated from the Church, has no other means of preservation than b}' resorting to such an extremity. It hap- pens, however, that no such necessity exists. We have repelled the dangers of invasion, when they were much more formidable than they are now, or than, I trust, they will ever be again, without conciliating the Romanists at the expense of the Church. Experience, therefore, tends to prove that there is no urgency for so desperate a measure as that which is now proposed for our adoption. But in what a light does the proposal exhibit those in whose favour it is made ? For it is founded upon the supposition that four millions of His Majesty's subjects, who arc already admis- sible to all ranks in the army below- that of stafT officers, a rank which very few individuals among them can ever hope to attain, and from which they are excluded for the sake of the public welfare, cannot be prevailed on to stand forward in the de- fence of their King and country, unless .such a re- striction be removed. If this be not a libel on the Irish Romanists, I think it furnishes a coriclu- 62 argument against the recognition of theif da"im to A full participation of power with their Protestant fellow-subjects. It is not a little calculated to excite surprise, that the question before us, as it relates to the Cororw- tion oath, should have been argued so much on, the ground of that respectful and loyal deference to the scruples of the King's conscience, which is undoubtedly due from all his subjects, and of a laudable desire to consult His Majesty's personal rase and Comfort ; as if it were really one of those nice questions of casuistry, on tthich conscientious men may think and feel differently. But the re- verse of this, unless the principles which I have- endeavoured to establish can be overthrown, is Sb rlearly the case, that it seems impossible for any mind that is not enslaved by prejudice, to eiiter- tain a doubt upon the subject. So confident, in- deed, do I feel of the impregnable strength of those principles, that I defy the most Strenuous advocate for the claims of the Irish Romanists to controvert the proposition that a compliance with those claims would be incompatible with the safety of the established Church ; and unless this proposition can be successfully controverted, it leads unavoidably to' the conclusion that the King's assent to those claims would be a violation of the Coronation oath. If, therefore, any measure in- volving a recognition of those claims, either in 63 part or the whole, and especially in so important a part of them as the grant of military power, had been brought forward in Parliament by a member not holding an official situation, it would, I con- ceive, have been the indispensable duty of the servants of the Crown, besides opposing such a measure for the sake of the Church, to state, as 3 conclusive reason for its rejection, that it was at variance with the oath which their Royal Master had taken at his coronation ; and if such a represent- ation had failed to produce its proper effect (a supposition not compatible with the respect due to Parliament), they should then have approached the Throne with tfyeir dutiful advice, to excrcis^ its undoubted prerogative, by refusing its assent to a Bill which contained so flagrant an Attack on jthe conscience of their Sovereign. As my object in taking up my pen was by no means of a personal or party nature, I refrain from animadverting more directly on the conduct of the late Ministers, on the occasion which has properly excited so deep and universal an interest. But I must be allowed the liberty of observing, that the reserve which those Ministers claimed, and which has more im- mediately led to their dismission, appears to me in no other light than the reservation of a right to. advise His Majesty, at any future time, to dispense with the sacred obligations which are imposed upon him by his Coronation oath. 64 Let us hope, Sir, that this important question will not be again argued on grounds which imply any dor.bt of the propriety of those scruples by which the Royal Mind has been actuated on a late occasion. That those scruples arc entitled to the n'most respect, r.nd that the firmness of His Ma- \ in acting up to them deserves the highest : an* truths which no one ventures to ite ; but it is no less indisputable, that the ju : f i -nt of our beloved Sovereign on this occa- sion, was as correct, as his conduct was firm, or his mind conscientious ; and that, in resisting the* claims which have been so unwarrantably pressed upon him, he has afforded a most seasonal-it sup- port to the established Church, and, thereby, has nobly sustained the exalted character of DJE^ FENDER of the PROTESTANT FAITH. ! March 31, J80/. THE SN'D. CORRECTIONS. Page 41, Ith line from bottom, between " therefore," and" because," insert " so much." Next line but one dele " but," and substitute " M." Pie 4:, line ii, for " ascendancy," read " ascendiney." 41'.! line afteiwards, the same alteration. Page 48, 6th ! nc from bottom, for " reduced to the painful duty," subjected to the painful necessity." *. Gotnelt, Printrr. SUBSTANCE Of THE SPEECH GT THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR WILLIAM SCOTT, & c. &V. JUNI5B9 s KCBKFJ n n 1 '4- ^> C5 ft? o 3 = =