that was dear to him in his social privileges, and distinguishing in the national character. Now, the word speaks nothing but treason against legitimacy, contempt of Divine right, Jacobinism and impiety. The phrenzied explosion of evil passions in a half civilized populace, the effect of breaking the fetters of a maniac, although the iron had contributed to his madness,-the disastrous issue of the attempt to convert into freemen a nation of slaves wholly unprepared by any moral process for the change, -this catastrophe in a neighbouring nation, has been sufficient to obliterate the remembrance of one of the brightest pages in our own history, and to render men ashamed of the phraseology of liberty and right, which was once the very idiom of a Briton's feelings. But the French Revolution would never have had this disastrous influence upon popular sentiment in our own country, had there not been causes within ourselves predisposing the public to the change. The dereliction of principle on the part of the Whigs threw the nation into the arms of Toryism.

It must not be forgotten, that to the turbulent barons in the time of King John, we are indebted for the foundation of our popular liberties. Whatever were the public conduct and private character of the Whig Aristocracy, in the present and the preceding reigns, they formed a constitutional check upon the necessary tendency of the Prerogative to become absolute, which now exists but in hypothesis. The extinction of the party excites but little commiseration; it was the deserved consequence of their own want of union and patriotism; but they have involved in their disgrace principles which they inherited from men better than themselves, and which it behoved them to transmit unsullied to posterity. It will require many, many years, to disconnect in men's minds the irreligion, and scepticism, and political inconsistency of some of these individuals, from the cause of civil and religious freedom.

The Dissenters who, in the question of American war, took part with the Opposition, have in some measure, there can be no doubt, participated in the loss of favour which has befallen the Whig principles. The Dissenters were well known to be, as a body, the staunch friends of the House of Brunswick, being firmly attached to the Constitution, and to the Protestant succession. The King, who has maintained throughout his reign an inflexible adherence to his promise of preserving the Toleration inviolate, was disposed, it is believed, to look favourably upon this portion of his subjects: the American war first occasioned an interruption of this gracious feeling, and gave an advantage to their enemies to cast suspicion on their loyalty; whereas that loyalty was founded on the very principles which excited their indignant deprecation of that ill advised system of policy, and would, apart from those principles, have been a servile, irrational feeling. The Whigs have always been the friends of the Dis

senters, that is to say, of the interests of religious liberty, and have on this account commanded their gratitude. The repeated attempts to obtain the repeal of the Test Act, which, whether wo style them injudicious or unfortunate, only served to strengthen a party feeling against the persons intended to be relieved, have all proceeded from this party, and these have served still further to identify the Dissenters with this defeated interest: for this they cannot be considered as obnoxious to blame, but the result has been so far unfortunate. Here, again, the known leaning of some of the leading members of the Whig party to Arian and Socinian tenets, and the prominence which circumstances gave to some distinguished ministers among the Dissenters, who were also known to be of these sentiments, added to the fact of the larger portion of the petitioning clergy in 1772 who were supposed to favour the application of the Dissenters, being of suspicious orthodoxy, all contributed to fasten upon the general body the odium attaching to religious sentiments which have at no period extended beyond a very inconsiderable proportion of their number; so much so, that Mr. Pitt is said to have exclaimed on a particular occasion, probably at finding them cont nue to act together as a body, though composed of denomin tiens so differing on some points, What, What, are they all Socinians? This might shew the Minister's ignorance, if the exclamation was unaffected, but there is no doubt that the circumstances alluded to, have operated very much to the prejudice of the cause of Dissent.

Bishop Watson furnishes us with the following anecdotes relative to the debates on the subject of the repeal of the Test Act.

On the 10th of February, (1787) a meeting of the Bishops was convened at the Bounty office, on a summons from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the instance, as we were given to understand, of Mr. Pitt, who wanted to know the sentiments of thej Bench relative to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The question proposed at the meeting was put thus:-"Ought the Test and Corporation "Acts to be maintained?" I was the Junior Bishop, and as such, was called upon to deliver my opinion first, which I did in the negative, The only bishop who voted with me was Bishop Shipley. The then Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Worcester, Lincoln, Ely, Peterborough, Norwich, Exeter, Bangor, Bath and Wells, Rochester, and Lichfield, voted that the Acts ought to be maintained. When the question was thus decided, that my brethren night see I was not sorry to be known to have voted as I had done, I moved, that not only the result of the meeting, but that the names of those who had voted for and against the maintenance of the Acts, sl ould be sent to Mr. Pitt, and the motion was passed unanimously.

The question for the Repeal of the Acts was then lost in the Commons, by a majority of 78-178: 100. It was again brought for

ward in 1789, and was again lost by a majority of 20-122: 102. This small majority encouraged the Dissenters to bring it forward again in 1790; but the cry of the Church's danger began to be raised, and meetings were held by some alarmed clergymen, principally in the dioceses of York and Chester, and the question was lost by a majority of 191-299: 105. In a conversation I then had with Lord Camden, President of the Council, I plainly asked him if he foresaw any danger likely to result to the Church-establishment, from the repeal of the Test Act: he answered at once, none whatever. On my urging the policy of conciliating the Dissenters by granting their petition, his answer made a great impression on my mind, as it showed the principle on which great statesmen sometimes condescend to act. It was thus: Pitt was wrong in refusing the former application of the Dissenters, but he must be now supported!

In the beginning of 1792, the Bishop published a Charge which he had delivered to his clergy in the June preceding, and respecting which, calumnious misrepresentations had been most industriously circulated, copies of the misrepresentations having been handed about at the tables of bishops and judges. In this charge, the Bishop had ventured to touch upon very unpopular subjects, the advantages which would probably result to human society from the French Revolution; which was not at " that time dishonoured by the events which soon followedand the injustice and impolicy of our Test and Corporation • Acts.'

I will just state to the reader,' remarks his Lordship, how I argued myself into the adoption of the opinion advanced in this Charge relative to the Dissenters. Had I consulted my interest, I should certainly have been silent on this point; for who knows not how little a bishop's interest is connected with his opposition to the avowed sentiments of a Minister? and Mr. Pitt had repeatedly avowed his-that the Test Act ought not to be repealed. Whether this avowal was made by Mr. Pitt in conformity to his own opinion, or in subservience to the opinion of another, was then and has still been with me a matter of doubt.

There appear to me but two reasons for excluding any honest men from eligibility to public office,-want of capacity to serve the office, and want of attachment to the civil constitution of their country. That the Dissenters want capacity will not be asserted; that they want attachment to the civil constitution of the country, is asserted by many, but proved by none. On this point the whole question turns. If the Dissenters have secret views of undermining the civil constitution, of introducing a republican form of government in the place of that which, notwithstanding its defects, we at present so happily enjoy, the Test-Act ought not to be repealed; and if they have no such views, its continuance is an oppression. Whether they have or have not such views cannot be known from the affirmation of their enemies on the one hand, or from the denial of their friends on the other: on both sides it may be said, Quiescat lingua, interroga

vitam. Now the history of the conduct of the Dissenters since the Revolution, proves (to me at least it proves) that they have no such views.

The Dissenters are neither Tories nor Republicans, but friends to the principles of the Revolution. Notwithstanding the virulence of Mr. Burke's invective against him, I give entire credit to what Dr. Price has said of himself and of the Dissenters.'

Here the Bishop inserts an extract from Dr. Price's sermon preached before the supporters of a new Academical Institution, in April 1787, which we need not transcribe.

But it may be said,' proceeds the Bishop, that I have not stated the whole question, inasmuch as the Dissenters are enemies to the Church-establishment, and that the state is so allied to the Church, that he who is unfriendly to the one must wish the subversion of both. I think this reasoning is not just: a man may certainly wish for a change in an ecclesiastical establishment, without wishing for a change in the civil constitution of a country. An Episcopalian, for instance, may wish to see bishops established in all Scotland, without wishing Scotland to become a republic; and he may wish that episcopacy may be established in all the American States, without wishing that monarchy may be established in any of them. The protection of life, liberty, and property is not inseparably connected with a particular form of church-government. The blessings of civil society depend upon the proper execution of good laws, and upon the good morals of the people; but no one will attempt to prove, that the laws and morals of the people may not be as good in Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, under a Presbyterian, as in England or France under an Episcopal form of church-government.

But it is thought that, were the Test and Corporation Acts repealed, the Dissenters would get a footing in some of the boroughs returning members to parliament. The Dissenters have, at present, a considerable influence in many boroughs; but there is little probability that, were all legal obstacles to their eligibility to public offices removed, they would ever be able to overcome the influence of Government, the influence of the aristocracy, and the influence of the Church, in the majority of the boroughs in this kingdom. But, admitting so very improbable an occurrence to take place, what then? Why then a majority of boroughs would return Dissenters to sit in Parliament. Dissenters are allowed to sit in Parliament at present: the danger then, such as it is, arises not from Dissenters having seats in Parliament, but from the number of Dissenting members being increased. But that the number of Dissenting members should ever be so far increased as to constitute a majority in the House of Commons, is to me quite an improbable circumstance; I think it a far more likely event that, all restraint being removed, the Dissenters will insensibly become Churchmen. I suppose, however, even that improbable circumstance to take place, and that a majority of the House of Commons has ceased to be Churchmen-What then? Why then the House of Commons may present to the House of Lords a Bill for changing the constitution of the Church of England into that of

the Church of Scotland. Be it so-What then? Why then the House of Commons will compel the House of Lords to agree to such a Bill; this does not follow; I know not any legal or probable means of affecting such a compulsion; but for the sake of coming to a conclusion, let it be admitted that, at some distant period, of which no man can form a reasonable conjecture, the House of Lords would by compulsion or choice, agree with the House of Commons, and that the king would agree with them both, in establishing Pres bytery in the room of Episcopacy-What then? Why then the present form of the Church of England would be changed into another! And is this all?-this the catastrophe of so many tragical forebodings --this the issue of so many improbable contingencies--this the result of so much unchristian contention-this a cause for continuing distinctions by which the persons and properties of peaceful citizens are exposed to the fiery zeal of a senseless rabble ?-A great Protestant nation does not return to Popery-a great Christian nation does not apostatise to Paganism or Mahometanism; it simply adopts an ecclesiastical constitution different from what it had before. What is there in this to alarm any man who liberally thinks with the late Dr. Powell, that there is nothing in the regimen of the Church of England, or in that of the Church of Scotland, repugnant either to the natural rights of man, or to the word of God.'

We perceive we must draw this extended article to a close. There are various other passages of considerable interest which we had marked for quotation, but the whole volume is so highly deserving of attentive perusal, that the task of selection becomes embarrassing. There is a letter to Mr. Wilberforce on a subject to which we shall have occasion to advert in a future article, and which has been recently brought before the public, as the subject of a recommendation from the Throne: we allude to the expediency of building an additional number of new churches, a measure which the Bishop of Landaff strongly urges upon the attention of that gentleman, as a friend of the then Premier. It is due to the Bishop to remark on the interest which he always manifested in any ccclesiastical matters of public utility. In the same letter, he calls Mr. Wilberforce's attention to an evil which has increased < very much, if it has not entirely sprung up in many places within the last thirty years-the travelling of waggons and stage coaches on Sundays.'

6

‹ There are laws, I believe, to prevent this being done, during the hours of divine service, but the difficulty of putting them in execution renders them, in a manner, useless. This evil might be remedied by an act of parliament of ten lines, enacting the pay. ment of a great additional toll at each turnpike-gate which should be passed by such carriages, between the hours of six and six on every Sabbath Day.'

Bishop Horsley, (Watson's great rival and opposite,) has