For the POLITICAL REGISTER. A letter to the author of the frictures on the conduct of a-, with refpect to the civil and religious establishments in Canada, and the Granadines, in the Political Regifler, p. 257, vol. IV. SIR,

MY

Y particular thanks are due to you for the information you have given me with respect to the complexion of the times, and the measures purfued by an administration, whofe conduct has excited univerfal difcontent, and popular diffatisfaction. I take it for granted when I read of the difcouragement of the zealous advocates for the proteftant religion, which afforded the only fure protection for the liberties of mankind, that we cannot be far off from confirmed flavery. I hope however the timely alarm you have given will have its proper effect, and then even the prefent corrupt my will not prefume to grant any further indulgences which are incompatible with our conftitution. I really think there is the greatest injuftice imaginable in exerting the penal laws against popery with rigour at home, and in Ireland, while we are granting the full exercife of the romish religion, to the detriment of the proteftant caufe, to a handful of new fubjects, who had no right to expect any other conceffion than a free toleration of their religious worth p.

A gentleman, Sir, of my particular acquaintance is just arrived from Quebec who was prefent when Mr. Bryant, bishop of that place for the roman catholics landed there, and he affures me that he faw him very cordially received by the governor. He further informs me that he always appears abroad with great pomp and ceremony, and has the fuperintendency of the monafteries and nunneries, as well as of the clergy; that he exercises vaft power, and is held in far greater eftimatation than the governor himself, by whom however he is treated with great respect.

-66

This information engaged me to turn to a paragraph in the London Chronicle of the 20th of September, 1766, in order to compare it with my friend's intelligence. It runs thus: Quebec, on the 28th ult. at eleven at night arrived at this city, on board the Commerce, captain Johnfon, Mr. Briand, bishop of Quebec for the roman catholics. On the day following, at five o'clock in the morning, the bells of all their churches announced his arrival to the whole city, which general fatisfaction to all the Canadians. It was really affecting to fee them congratulate each other wherever they met, and to hear them inceffantly fay to each other, "it is then true that we have a bishop, God hath taken pity on us." And to fee them afterwards run in crouds to the parish church to fee this bifhop, whom they look upon as the fupport of Vol. V.

M

gave

their

their religion, and as a pledge of the king's paternal goodness to them. It is likely that this favour conferred on the Canadians will effectually attach them to the British government. It is also pleasing to them to have received upon this occafion the congratulations of feveral perfons of note of our nation, who seemed to partake of their joy.

"

This paragraph was evidently drawn up by fome roman catholic in the joy of his heart, who was willing to compliment the government on the happy effects of this mistaken. measure. I heartily with the friends of the protestant cause, had as much reafon to rejoice at the state of their religion, but it is a melancholy truth, that on the contrary they have the greatest reafon to weep over the neglect of it, which univerfally prevails at home and abroad. As a proof of this, I refer you to the fermon preached by Dr. Newton, bishop of Bristol, before the incorporated fociety for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts, at Bow-church, on Friday Feb. 17, 1769, and to the abftract of the proceedings of the faid fociety, annexed to the fermon. Two paffages however I fhall defire you to infert, and if it will not be attended with much inconvenience, I would entreat the favour of you to fend a copy of your useful register, on this occafion, to each of the a- ps and b --ps, you will find most of them in the purlieus of the court, or at the heels of the DG

of

"The church of

Extract from page 21 of the fermon Rome glories in the zeal and number of her miffionaries, who compafs fea and land to make profelytes, and fhall they be more diligent to propagate a falfe christianity than we the true? And if we totally neglect our colonies and plantations, will they not fink into barbarifm and brutality, or become an easy prey to fanaticifm, or popery, or infidelity, or atheism, or what

not ?"

And that the colonies and plantations are fo neglected, notwithstanding the immenfe fums collected for propagating the gospel according to the proteftant faith in foreign parts. And notwithstanding the rank, the known zeal, abilities and influence of my lords the bishops at court, we have a striking inftance in page 19 of the abstract of the proceedings of the fociety.

Canada, A letter from the reverend Mr. Chalraud Delifle, chaplain to the garrifon at Montreal, dated Sep. 30, 1767, brings the difagreeable account that the romifh priests avail themselves greatly of the neglected state of the church of England in thofe parts, perfuading the Canadians (who are most eafy to be perfuaded, being a moft ignorant bigotted people,

and

and entirely devoted to the priests, efpecially the jefuits) that we have not religion fo much at heart as they, being deftitute of a decent place for public worship he is forced to perform it in the hofpital chapel, &c.

You will be pleafed to obferve, that the popifh bishop got to Quebec in 1766, fo that our proteftant bifhops whofe concurrence must have been given to his going out at all, permitted him to settle in ftate and fplendor at Quebec, but have not yet been able to fpare out of their puny fortunes and falaries, or to prevail with the my to affift them with money to defray the expences of erecting a decent place for public worship for the proteftants at Montreal.

The truth of the matter, Sir, is this, that if the bishops could fucceed in the plan of extending the church hierarchy, by epifcopifing America, in that good old caufe, they would expend a round fum, but as to the real intent of pure religion, that muft propagate itself, in a barn, a stable, an hofpital, or what not. One word more, and then I will take my leave for this time.

I am told that Mr. Bryant actually applied to our government for a falary to be annexed to his bishoprick of Quebec. I fhould be glad if our bishops would inform us how that matter ended. It would have been too glaring an encouragement to popery, to have paid a romifh bifhop, even B-e himself, as much a friend as he is to the papifts, would not have ventured on fo bold a stroke, But how does this bishop maintain his pompous ftation? I hope no private allowance is remitted him from hence. If you can get any intelligence on this head, pray communicate it to the public and to Sir, Your humble Servant,

Norwich, July 18, 1769.

WATCH-WELL,

On the Expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, and the Admiffion of Colonel Luttrell as fitting Member for the County of Middlefex.

A

GREAT deal of ufelefs argument might have been faved, in the political conteft, which has arifen upon the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, and the fubfequent appointment of Mr. Luttrell, if the question had been once stated with precifion, to the fatisfaction of each party, and clearly understood by them both. But in this, as in almoft every other difpute, it ufually happens that much time is loft in referring to a multitude of cafes and precedents, which prove nothing to the purpose, or in maintaining propofitions, which are either not difputed, or, whether they be admitted or denied, are entirely indifferent as to the matter in debate; until at laft the mind, perplexed and confounded with the endless fubtleties

M 2

fubtleties of controverfy, lofes fight of the main queftion, and never arrives at truth. Both parties in the difpute are apt enough to practice thefe difhoneft artifices. The man, who is confcious of the weakness of his caufe, is interested in concealing it; and on the other fide it is not uncommon to fee a good caufe mangled by advocates, who do not know the real ftrength of it.

I fhould be glad to know, for inftance, to what purpose, in the prefent cafe, fo many precedents have been produced, to prove that the houfe of commons have a right to expel one of their own members;-that it belongs to them to judge of the validity of elections; or that the law of parliament is part of the law of the land. After all these propofitions are admitted, Mr. Luttrell's right to his feat will continue to be just as difputable as it was before. Not one of them is at prefent in agitation. Let it be admitted that the houfe of commons were authorised to expel Mr. Wilkes ;---that they are the proper court to judge of elections ;---and that the law of parliament is binding upon the people. Still it remains to be enquired, whether the houfe, by their refolution in favour of Mr. Luttrell, have or have not truly declared that law. To facilitate this enquiry, I would have the queftion cleared of all foreign or indifferent matter. The following ftate of it will probably be thought a fair one by both parties; and then I imagine there is no gentleman in this country, who will not be capable of forming a judicious and true opinion upon it. I take the queftion to be strictly this: Whether or not it be the known established law of parliament, that the expulfion of a member of the house of commons of itself creates in him fuch an incapacity to be re-elected, that, at a fubfequent election, any votes given to him are null and void, and that any other candidate, who, except the perfon expelled, has the greatest number of votes, ought to be the fitting member?

To prove that the affirmative is the law of parliament, I apprehend it is not fufficient for the prefent house of commons to declare it to be fo. We may fhut our eyes indeed to the dangerous confequences of fuffering one branch of the legiflature to declare new laws, without argument or example, and it may perhaps be prudent enough to submit to authority; but a mere affertion will never convince---much lefs will it be thought reasonable to prove the right by the fact itself. The miniftry have not yet pretended to fuch a tyranny over our minds. To fupport the affirmative fairly, it will either be neceffary to produce fome ftatute, in which that pofitive provifion fhall have been made, that fpecific difability clearly created, and the confequences of it declared;

ог

or if there be no fuch ftatute, the cuftom of parliament muft then be referred to, and fome cafe or cafes, ftrictly in point, must be produced, with the decifion of the court upon them; for I readily admit that the cuftom of parliament, once clearly proved, is equally binding with the common and statute law.

The confideration of what may be reasonable or unreafonable, makes no part of this question. We are enquiring what the law is, not what it ought to be. Reason may be applied to fhew the impropriety or expedience of a law, but we must have either statute or precedent to prove the existence of it. At the same time, I do not mean to admit that the late refolution of the house of commons is defenfible on general principles of reafon, any more than law. This is not the hinge on which the debate turns.

Suppofing therefore that I have laid down an accurate state of the queftion, I will venture to affirm, ift, That there is no ftatute exifting, by which that fpecific difability, which we fpeak of, is created. If there be, let it be produced. The argument will then be at an end.

2dly, That there is no precedent in all the proceedings of the house of commons, which comes entirely home to the prefent cafe, viz. Where an expelled member has been returned again, and another candidate, with an inferior number of votes, has been declared the fitting member. If there be fuch a precedent, let it be given to us plainly, and I am fure it will have more weight than all the cunning arguments, which have been drawn from inferences and probabilities.

The ministry, in that laborious pamphlet, which, I prefume, contains the whole ftrength of the party, have declared, "That Mr. Walpole's was the firft and only inftance, in which the electors of any county or borough had returned a person expelled to ferve in the fame parliament." It is not poffible to conceive a cafe more exactly in point. Mr. Walpole was expelled, and having a majority of votes at the next election, was returned again. The friends of Mr. Taylor, a candidate fet up by the miniftry, petitioned the house that he might be the fitting member. Thus far the circumftances tally exactly, except that our house of commons faved Mr. Luttrell the trouble of petitioning. The point of law however was the fame. It came regularly before the house, and it was their business to determine upon it. They did determine it, for they declared Mr. Taylor not duly elected. If it be faid that they meant this refolution as matter of favour and indulgence to the borough which had retorted

Mr.