one fingle individual in a hundred of his rights for the misconduct of the other ninety-nine that formed the fociety; and therefore hoped the Houfe would decide the queftion fairly upon general princi. ples. On this occafion, however, he could not help obferving, that the conduct of the Diffenters, as a body, had been highly meritorious; and when this country had been distracted with internal troubles, and with infurrections, which had taken place twice within the prefent century, they had ftood forward, with their lives and property, in its defence; and that by their exertions the rebellions in 1715 and 1745 had been defeated, the conftitution maintained, and the Brunfwick family established on the throne. He contended, that in thofe times the High Church were as inimical to the throne as the Diffenters were earneft in their fupport. This put him in mind, he faid, of an obfervation of Swift, that though he would not fay that every Infidel was a Whig, yet he would fly that every Whig was an Infidel: and, with equal truth, he would obferve, that in the times alluded to, though every Jacobite might not be a High Churchman, yet every High Churchman was a Jacobite. The generosity of the English Parliament, he said, was particularly worthy of notice, for it had paffed an act of indemnity for all who had then ferved in his Majefty's forces. The Irish Parliament, ftill more generous, came to a vote, declaring every man who profecuted a Diffenter for his fervices, an enemy to his country, and a Jacobite. The Houfe, he faid, if it fpoke the language of generofity, would relieve the defcendants of thofe men to whom they were moft obliged, from the degrading neceffity of receiving a pardon for their good fervices, and an indemnity for ferving his Majefty in places of trust. He argued, from a fpeech of King William to his Parliament, that it was the with of that Monarch, and the wish of every Prince of the Brunfwick line, to employ Diffenters in the fervice of their country; and this he thought the proper moment. Some popular objections had indeed been made from the present fituation of affairs in France; but fuch objections could have no weight, as the Diffenters had fubmitted their cafe to Parliament at a time when no man would have ventured to predict what has happened. Since the faft agitation of this question, an attempt has been made, and, he faid, too fuc

cefsfully, to raise a High-Church party. In fpeaking, however, of the Church, he wifhed his arguments to go no farther than he carried them himself. He confidered it in three points of view: 1. In regard to its difcipline and its abftract duties, in which it wifely avoided all that was fuperftitious, and retained what was effential; as fuch he revered and admired it, and declared himself its firm friend: 2. with regard to the individuals who compofed it, for fome of whom he had a moft fincere refpect; 3. but the third point in which it might be viewed, and to which his objections were strong, was, when it acted as a party; and fo acting, it was not only reprehenfible as dangerous, but as directly militating against the conftitution. The Church, he said, never interfered in politics but for mifchief: This he endeavoured to illustrate by examples from our Hiftory. The Church, he faid, as a body, was always dangerous and formidable; and they have formerly, as now, used a moft powerful engine of that real or pretended fear which was ever a fignal with tyrants for oppreffion. He ridiculed the idea of the Church being in danger, and afked, from whence the danger was to be expected? He noticed the writings of Dr Price against the Hierarchy; but infifted that there would be lefs danger from his being employed in offices of ftate, than in placing at the head of the Treafury a man who thought the reprefentation of the people in parliament incomplete.

It had been faid, that the Diffenters always argued for toleration when undermoft, but when uppermost themfelves were moft intolerant. This, he infifted, was not the fact. At the Union, two Churches were established; the Kirk in Scotland, and the Hierarchy in England. The Diffenters in the former kingdom were not deprived of the right of enjoying the fame offices with the members of the Kirk, provided they took the oaths of abjuration and of fidelity to the family on the throne. It could not, therefore, be faid that those who held a contrary doctrine with that of the Church of England were hoftile to toleration. In America, where the Dif fenters have the upper hand, the people enjoy toleration in the utmoft extent; it would not therefore be decent to continue the teft in force in this free country, when our neighbours every where were in the full enjoyment of religious liberty.

In Ireland, the teft has been repealed for eleven years; and yet the Church there has exifted without danger, though furrounded with Catholics on one hand, and Diffenters on the other. The Kirk of Scotland is the fame; and the only Church in his Majesty's dominions that apprehended itself in danger was the Church of England, in full poffeffion of power, patronage, emolument, and influence! It had been argued, that no innovation ought to be admitted. Without innovation it could not have been a Church. No limited monarchy could long fubfift without innovation. He entered fhortly on the origin of the Corporation and Teft Acts, and confidered them as militating ftrongly against the Chriftian religion. Confidered as pillars of the conftitution, he said, a conftitution that was fupported by them was not worth preferving. He contended at large against the difabilities thrown on Diffenters, and infifted that no Church was in danger from their removal. He inftanced the state of the French Church before the revocation of the edict of Nantz; and reprobated the conduct of a learned Bishop in fending a circular letter to his Clergy to discountenance all who fupported the motion for the repeal, as unconftitutional; and, remarking on the Sermon of Dr Price, on the centenary of the Revolu tion, wifhed rather that it had come from a member of that Houfe than from the pulpit. He urged many ftrong reafons for keeping religion and politics for ever feparate; and concluded with moving, "That the House do, immediately, refolve itfelf into a committee of the whole Houfe, to confider of so much of the faid acts as requires perfons, before they are admitted to any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the crown, to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup per according to the rites of the Church of England."

Sir Henry Hoghton feconded the motion; but forbore to enlarge upon it, after being fo ably treated by the Rt Hon. Gentleman who had opened the caufe. He did not doubt but the Established Church would, fooner or later, do themfelves the honour of joining cordially in the abolition of the acts

Mr Pitt rofe, and, after affigning his reafons for offering his fentiments thus early to the attention of the House, declared, that, whatever objections he had formerly maintained to the motion juft

read from the chair, they were now confirmed, if poffible, with double force. He should be forry, he said, to mistake the pofitions of the Rt Hon. mover, who, in the torrent of his observations, so ingeniously difplayed, feemed deficient in his ufual perfpicuity and precition. In the definition he had given of perfecution and toleration, there were many things exceptionable; for neither the country, nor the age, nor the place in which he was speaking, needed any arguments to make perfccution appear in any new light of deteftation. On that point, he trufted, there was but one opinion in that House.

The doctrine of toleration, as laid down by the Rt Hon. Gentleman, he did not perfectly comprehend. As he understood it, his toleration would admit of no teft to be taken of a man's religious opinions, by which his intereft or property could be affected; yet he admitted that there ought to be an eftablished church: in which admiffion, though he avoided faying it was neceffary, yet he certainly allowed that it was useful in a tree state.

The points, therefore, to be confider. ed were, whether the national religious eftablishment was useful? whether the Diffenters were, in juftice, intitled to the repeal they demanded? whether their principles did not oblige them to aim at the fubverfion of the establishment of the Church of England? and whether the measure propofed might not put them in a condition of finally effecting their purpofe?

The first of these points, refpecting the propriety of an established church, they had all been accustomed to hear from their infancy; it were needlefs, therefore, to enlarge upon it.

On the fecond point, respecting the merits of the prefent claim, he distinguished with great accuracy between a difcreet, liberal, and fair toleration, and the newfangled toleration which levelled ail diflinction. He would not, however, advance, that if they were intitled to all thefe, the extenfion of them should not be with-held. He would maintain, that, while these theories and opinions ferved as criterions for judging of men's, principles, they fhould be preferved on public occafions, as all prudent men always obferve in their private concerns. La cither. one or the other cafe, overt acts should not be waited for; the mischief would be then over; but the feeling of every int ble man, and of every wife governm.en, Q 2

would

would recur to the furer means of prevention.

He then confidered the queftion in a very different point of view, respecting the influence which the repeal might have on the conftitution. Power, he faid, was a truft delegated to the Crown, but undoubtedly for fuch purposes as would beft ferve the ends for which limitations and prefcriptions were fet upon the prerogatives of the monarch. At the prefent time, and indeed at no time, will it be maintained as unconstitutional,that watch fulness fhould be removed from the exercife of the royal authority. Thus, while his Majefty is intrufted with the choice of the perfons who are to adminifter the great concerns of the ftate, it was but prudent to with-hold places of truft from thofe whofe principles might lead them to undermine and deftroy what had hitherto been confidered as the great pillars of the conftitution.

He then took a very effectual method of refuting the arguments of Mr Fox, refpecting the circuitous method of im. poling a teft, which regarded religious opinions only, where political fubjects were concerned. To this doctrine he oppofed the refolutions of the Diffenters themselves; in which they recommend to the Proteftant electors, on all future occafions, to fhew a marked distinction to those whom they believed well-difpofed to the civil and religious liberties of their country, and particularly to thofe who, on former occafions, voted for the repeal of the test acts. He enforced this obfervation by several apposite examples.

It was not his wifh, he faid, and certainly not his intereft, to go out of his way, in charging a refpectable body of men with motives that were not fufficiently justified in tracing effects to their caufes. He was willing to agree with Sir H. Hoghton in the purity of his wishes. He knew there were many fuch men among the Diffenters; but it was no lefs true, that there were others who preach ed and wrote to a very different tendency; many who reprefented what they called the Hierarchy of this country as deteftable, and loaded it with epithets applicable only to the worst of conftitutions; yet, according to Mr Fox's pofition, no teft fhould be administered to exclude fuch perfons from offices of power and emolument.

With respect to Jacobites in former troubles, every one knew thofe were men

who confcientiously, from education and principle, thought they were only doing their duty in fupporting the rights of the defcendants of James II. to the throne; and if these men had been allowed to fortify themselves with all the advantages of official fituation, when the fate of the religion and liberties of the country hung upon the event of two or three battles, was there not more than a bare poffibility that the Houfe fhould not at this day have been deliberating on any queftion of liberty or toleration? The Diffenters did not then claim toleration as matter of right, nor much as a matter of expedien cy; for they confidered their exclufion from employments of truft to be amply compenfated by their exemption from of fices of burden. As to the affurance of their being fatisfied with the indulgence they now folicited, the legislature had no fecurity, not even the pledge of Mr Fox. And as to the credit of their affurances, he referred to the circumftance of their laft indulgence, when they wished for no farther favour than the full exercise of their religion, the erection of schools, and the education of their children. At that time Dr Kippis, one of the moft diftinguifhed of their members, wrote a treatife, stating, that by the then act of parliament they were put in complete pof feffion of their rights. Experience had fince fhewn how far they had been satisfied with this moderate declaration of their leader.

In fupport of his third pofition, that the Diffenters, when in power, must be expected to employ every engine for the fubvertion of the eftablished Church, he ftated, that, thinking it a duty to rejec Epifcopacy, and confidering it oppreffive and abominable, they muft think it a confcientious duty to attempt its demolition.

The inftances adduced by Mr Fox to obviate thefe objections, he said, were by no means to the point. In Ireland, it was true, thefe acts had been repealed; but the interval fince the repeal was too fhort to admit of any experimental argument in favour of its operation.

In Scotland, the obfervation was equally inapplicable, for they had no Epifcopal eftablishment to fupport.

France, and the edict of Nantz, were alfo foreign to the queftion. On the prefent state of that country he forbore to make any comment.

And with regard to the Diffenters in America, he knew not that any fuch ex

ifted. They had no religious establish

ment.

He next proceeded to show the dangers to be apprehended of the Diffenters being in a condition, fhould this motion fucceed, of effecting, at length, the ruin of the prefent establishment. He spoke of their activity, unanimity, and fervour. He was glad the Ri Hon. mover had expreffed himself fo clearly a member of the eftablished Church. If at any time it fhould happen (which was no very improbable event) that the Diffenters, who were now the minority, fhould be lifted into a majority; that they were led by a man of great influence and addrefs, poffeffing talents to take advantage of fuch a predilection in their favour; what, in that cafe, would become of the establishment of the Church? The answer was obvious, -It must quickly be annihilated.

With regard to the meritorious fervices of the Diffenters, they had not, he faid, gone unnoticed; for temporary acts had been annually paffed, to do away thofe reftrictions of which they complain.

He was defirous, he said, before he fat down, to say a word or two to what had been invidiously infinuated about the alFance between Church and State. He would not, however, enter into the difcuffions of Bishops or the fermons of Diffenters; but exprefs his concurrence in the opinion of Mr Fox, that it was the daty of perfons in that fituation to preach up morality, to inftil a reverence for, and obedience to, good laws, and to inculcate the ineftimable bleffings of a free and happy conftitution. He enlarged very forcibly on that head; and concluded with recommending acompetition between the Diffenters of every denomination and the eftablished Church, to outvie each other in the duties of their profeffion.

Mr Burke fpoke warmly against the repeal.

Mr Fox, in reply, spoke upwards of an hour, and advanced much novel argument, and very fuccefsfully oppofed it to thofe arguments which were ufed against kim. He concluded with obferving, that it was not the queftion of right he was contending for, but for public juftice for justice to a worthy and oppreffed fet of men, and for that justice which to us is granted, and which we ought to grant

to others.

The queftion being loudly called for, at three o'clock the Houfe divided, when there appeared for the motion 105, against it 294; majority 189.

NEW BOOK S.

Smellie's Philofophy of Natural History, continued. [P. 79.]

IN the Magazine for February we inferted the chapter on the Infancy of animals, and shall now lay before our readers that treating of the Characters of Animals.

"On this fubje&t it never was intended to paint the characters of every species even of the larger animals. In many parts of this work, much has already been faid with regard to the tempers, difpofitions, and manners, of a great number of animals. Thefe we fhall not repeat, but proceed to fome general remarks.

On every animal Nature has imprinted a certain character, which is indelibly fixed, and distinguishes the fpecies. This character we difcover by the actions, the air, the countenance, the movements, and the whole external appearance. The courage of the lion, the ferocity of the tiger, the voracioufnefs of the wolf, the pride of the courfer, the dullnefs and indolence of the afs, the cunning and addrefs of the fox, the affection and docility of the dog, the fubtlety and felfishnets of the cat, the mildness of the fheep, the timidity of the hare, the vivacity of the fquirrel, are proper examples. Thefe characters, when under the influence of domeftication, may be modified by education, of which rewards and punithments are the chief inftruments employed. But the original character, impreffed by the hand of Nature, is never fully obliterated. Those animals which feem to have been destined by Nature to live in perpetual Ravery under the dominion of man, have the mildest and most gentle difpofitions. It is pleafant, but, at the fame time, fomewhat contemptible, to fee a troop of oxen guided by the whip of a child.

In the human fpecies, the variety of tempers, affections, averfions, and ftudies, is indifpenfably neceffary for fupporting the focial ftate, and carrying on the general bufinefs of life. Some minds are formed for study and deep research, and others for action, courage, and the exertion of bodily powers. The fame variety in the difpofitions and manners of the different tribes of animals is equally neceffary for peopling the earth and for fupplying the reciprocal exigencies of its inhabitants.

Befide