rulers, but maintaining a religion for themselves independently of their rulers; and not only so, but maintaining it for centuries in spite of all the efforts of government to put it down. How far their manners are the better for their religion, is another question. For my own part, I am persuaded, that in these so-called Christian countries there is in any one year more of fraud, in various forms, more of perjury, murder, adultery, and every crime most hostile to the well-being of society, than occurred in the course of a century in the ancient republic of heathen Rome. And I believe that more than 99 in a 100 of those who expiate their crimes on the gallows, die unworthy members of the churches either of England or of Rome. However this be, our governors need not apprehend that the people will be without Religion, unless the state supply them.

It is not uncommon for the zealous advocates of our religious establishments, to speak of all who dissent from them as necessarily ill-affected to the State.-"The Church and State," say they, "form one Constitution in these realms and to that constitution those who dislike the church must be hostile." If this be so, nothing can more clearly show the impolicy and absurdity of the connexion. If this be so, the British constitution has indeed a host of irreconcilable foes, not only in IRELAND, but in ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, and WALES; and that host yearly increasing; for I believe it will not be denied, that the number of Dissenters from the Establishment is decisively on the increase. If this be so, it was most pernicious to introduce the Reformation into these countries: for the appeal then made to the Scriptures must necessarily produce dissenters from any political establishment of religion which could be adopted: whereas the continued domination of Popery, keeping down the spirit of inquiry, might have united the people in blind submission to the dictates of their priests.

But I must add, Sir, that—if this be so—then the Lord Chancellor himself, and all our Most Reverend Archbishops, and Right Reverend Bishops, and Very Reverend Deans, and Venerable Archdeacons, are disaffected subjects on the northern side of the TWEED: and all the sincere members of the Established Church of Scotland are disaffected subjects on the southern side of that stream. The Orthodox Hierarchy of the English Church deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and look down upon the people of that communion as destitute of the so-called Sacraments. But let me tell them, that the stiff Presbyterian looks down upon them, and all the Episcopalian system, as but a relic of Papal corruption.

But his MAJESTY himself-God bless him!—what should we say of him, upon the supposition against which I argue? He has in his dominions at least two ecclesiastical systems, of which he is the common head. For though our northern neighbours do not like to hear of him as the head of the Scottish Church, I believe he undoubtedly is, and accordingly presides by his representative in their general synod. Now, those who maintain that a man cannot be well affected to the State, unless he be attached to the Church, would do well to say, which of his churches the King himself must be attached to? They would do well to pause, and consider the disloyal impu

tation which they cast upon his Majesty, if he be considered as cordially attached to either.

I have pointed, sir, at some of the absurd and mischievous consequences, which would flow from the admission of the charge brought by some against the loyalty of dissenters. But the ground of their assertion is utterly untenable. Our civil constitution might subsist in full vigour, though the so-called church were sent adrift: and to that constitution, as consisting in the well-balanced powers of King, Lords, and Commons, a man may be cordially attached, who yet thinks that the Church is a dead incumbrance on the State,-a morbid tumour, which it would be desirable to eradicate, if it might be done without danger from hæmorrhage.

Whatever opinion may be formed on the latter question, I think it demonstrable that, if there were no Ecclesiastical Establishment, the utmost demands of our Popish countrymen might be conceded with perfect safety; and that it would then be politically indifferent, whether the King himself were a Papist or a Protestant. On the other hand, I think it as demonstrable that, while there is a Protestant Establishment in Ireland, that island must remain a distracted country, and a most vulnerable part of the British empire,-whether you concede, or whether you withhold what is now included under the name of Catholic Emancipation.

Let me be allowed, sir, before I sit down, to meet another objection, to which I am aware I shall be exposed from the mere mention of the abolition of all religious Establishments, though I have not ventured to recommend the measure. The very suggestion of the idea is likely to excite that common outcry about the sacrilegious invasion of CHURCH-PROPERTY. And then will be vociferated in various forms that contemptible sophism, which infers-because such property was violently invaded in France during the wildness of democratic anarchy-that therefore the man who suggests any legislative interference with it must be a wild anarchist at bottom. How utterly unfounded such an imputation is with respect to myself, those who are best acquainted with my views, and principles, and conduct, best can testify.

But waving this; I would remark that, in this current phrase of CHURCH-PROPERTY, the church is represented as a body corporate, endowed with certain civil privileges and rights: while the various orders of clergy, from the archbishop to the curate, are considered as the members of the corporation. What an abuse this is of the term CHURCH, it would be easy to demonstrate; and what an utter departure from its primitive and scriptural meaning, as importing in general an assembly of persons convened for any purpose, and peculiarly a congregation of Christians coming together into one place for Christian purposes. I briefly notice this, because the perception of it will relieve any man from the dread of SACRILEGE in touching the soi-disant CHURCH.

And as to the alleged injustice of diverting church-property from the present purposes for which it is employed, I must say that, if these purposes were found inconsistent with the peace and welfare of the nation, it would be more unjust to sacrifice the peace and welfare of

the nation to the abstract conception of the clergy as a body corporate, however countenanced that abstract conception may be by the technicalities of legal language. The interest in this church property, which any existing individuals actually possess, ought assuredly to be preserved inviolate: for I have no idea of promoting even public benefit by private wrong. But I deny that any principles of justice bind the legislature to continue a system for providing a continued succession of claimants to that property.

Let me suppose a case, which will at once illustrate my meaning, and establish the truth of my opinion. Let me suppose, that by the common law of England, for time immemorial, the tenth part of the produce of the soil had been allotted to the maintenance of a favourite corps of military officers; each of whom should have but a life interest in his portion of these military tithes ; but, on his death or promotion, should be succeeded by one educated for the profession, and appointed by some public functionary to hold the vacant commission. Supposing this, we may easily imagine that, in a course of years, other corps of officers would feel a strong desire to participate in those pecuniary advantages, as well as much jealousy and irritation at being precluded from them. We may easily imagine, also, that the military tithe-proctors would become very obnoxious to the people; and that the land-owners and land-holders would at length murmur loudly at this disposal of the tenth part of the produce of the soil. Yet I am ready to admit, that it might fairly be replied against such murmurs, that the land-owners held their lands for time immemorial subject to this defalcation, or, in other words, were legally owners of but nine-tenths of the produce; and that, if the military tenth were abolished, it would benefit not the tenants of the land, but the proprietors, as they would certainly demand and receive a proportionally greater rent.

But let us suppose that the public should at length become convinced, that this old allotment of the tenth of the soil, and the tenth of the labour and expense of its cultivation, had been exceedingly absurd and impolitic; that its effects were to the highest degree injurious to the community, and endangered the peace and well-being of the nation. In such a case, shall I be told that the legislature would act unjustly, if they dissolved that corps of officers, set up to auction these military tithes, and applied the public fund thus formed to purposes beneficial to the state? In such a case, if the officers raised a loud clamour, and held a high language about their being a corporate body, whose property could no more be legally invaded than the property of an individual, should we not laugh at the sophism? Should we be at any loss to say

"Gentlemen, whom do we injure? You have but a personal and life interest in these military tithes, which some foolish monarch of old allotted to the maintenance of your corps. Your vested interests we shall not invade. We shall take care that you shall not be losers; that you shall have an income fully equivalent to what you have received. But we think it for the good of the State, that your corps, as a favoured military body, should become extinct. And whom, again we ask, do we injure? Your successors? And who are they?

Non-entities at present; and we think it expedient that they should remain so, that you should have no successors. That there are

many, who would be very glad of the appointment to succeed to your commissions, we have no doubt. But is there an individual who can say that he has a legal right to the appointment? And no man can reasonably complain that he is deprived of what he has never had, either in possession or in right. That many may have had it in prospect and expectation, that many may have indulged the hope of being appointed to your commissions, we do not deny. Such may be disappointed, but will not be injured. And perhaps even they will ultimately have no cause to regret, that they are obliged to turn their exertions into another channel?"

Common sense, I think, would dictate such a reply in such a case: and, for my part, I can see no essential difference between this imaginary case, and that which I brought it to illustrate.

I am aware, sir, that the clerical system has struck its roots most deeply, and spread its ramifications most widely, throughout Christendom. I am aware, that even in this country it overlays the State, which it professes to support. I am aware, that it is employed as an engine of every administration; because no ministers yet dare to risk their political existence by dissolving their alliance with the church. But, sir, there is a train of causes in progressive operation, which will yet make every state sick of that alliance, and convince all that the views which I have proposed to your attention are just and important. Perhaps no force of reasoning can anticipate the operation of those causes. My object in addressing you on the present occasion has been to mark the real alternative, which offers itself to our selection. We have to choose between two courses on the one hand-the military maintenance of a Protestant religious establishment in Ireland, accompanied with the continuance and increase of all the distractions of that unhappy country, and issuing probably in its ultimate separation from GREAT BRITAIN :— on the other hand, the discontinuance of our legislative interference with the religion of the people, followed by the tranquillity and increasing prosperity of IRELAND, as an attached, vigorous, and progressively useful member of the British empire. There is no third or middle course between these two, which can rationally be adopted.

Persuaded, sir, that this is the only light in which the subject can be rightly viewed, but apprehending that the House is not yet able to bear the steady contemplation of it in this light; I shall vote against the motion for our going into a Committee on the state of IRELAND.

WHETHER AND HOW FAR THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE AND THAT of polite literature ASSIST OR OBSTRUCT EACH OTHER ?”

Etenim omnes artes, quæ ad humanitatem pertinent, habent quoddam commune vinculum, et quasi cognatione quadam inter se continentur.-Cic. pro Arch.

[First Published, 1812.]

TO HIS EXCELLENCY

CHARLES, DUKE OF RICHMOND,

LORD LIEUTENANT GENERAL AND GENERAL GOVERNOR OF IRELAND, KNIGHT OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER, &c. &c. &c.

MY LORD,-Deterred, by the consciousness of my obscurity as an individual, from soliciting permission to inscribe the following pages to your EXCELLENCY, I have yet been induced to risk the charge of presumption by doing so without permission.

Your EXCELLENCY's known condescension encourages me to hope for pardon; and to conceive that the subject of this short Essay may perhaps appear not uninteresting to a nobleman of cultivated mind. Happy should I be, if it proved so fortunate as to engage your Ex. CELLENCY's attention to the state of Classical Literature in Ireland, and to the easy means suggested for its advancement.

While so many Dissenters from the religious Establishment of this country are evidencing, by their conduct as political agitators, that their religion is not that of genuine Christianity, I would entreat permission, as a conscientious Dissenter from all religious establishments, to express my deep thankfulness for the blessings which I