1807. Lord Gren to Dr. Gas kyn. intended for the benefit of the people; but merely to secure a majority in favor of the new ministry. However glossed over, the measure was rash and hazardous it strongly spoke the fears and weakness of the new men, who, like losing gamblers, were determined to risk all on one desperate cast of the dice. The adventurous step was generally attributed to the influence of Mr. G. Canning, who in this and some other points of difference triumphed over Lord Sidmouth, whom he disliked and contemned, and drove into open opposition. It was also understood at the time, that Lord Melville, lately and awkwardly as he had emerged from the black cloud of impeachment, vauntingly declared, he would not sit in the same cabinet with Lord Sidmouth. This noble Viscount, after having once tasted the sweets of office, and indulged in the flattering exercise of directing the secret movements of the royal mind, became as accommodating as his colleague Lord Viscount Castlereagh to every man of every principle, that would condescend to sit with him in the cabinet. Whether he marred or forwarded the plans of his colleagues, he clung to his special pledge and tenure, by which he commanded royal favor, as long as he resisted the emancipation of Ireland. It would be difficult to give a more impressive ville's letter idea of the bigotted and self-interested views of the system, and their indefatigable industry in fanning the flame of religious rancour and animosity for party purposes, than the admirable letter of Lord Grenville to the Rev. Dr. Gaskyn, the Se cretary of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, is calculated to produce. It was written, upon that reverend gentleman's having published in various newspapers on the eve of a general election an advertisement, in which it is explicitly asserted, that the late bill for the relief of Catholic officers was an innovation hostile to the Established Church: Lord Grenville was a member of the Society." SIR, Downing-street, May 2, 1807. The Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, of which I am a member, has thought fit to publish, during a general election, a resolution declaratory of its opinion respecting a political measure recently submitted to Parliament. That measure brought forward for purposes of peace, union, and public security by men, who yield to none of their fellow-subjects in loyalty to their Sovereign, and attachment to the civil and religious constitution of their country, is there stigmatized as hostile to the Established Church and ecclesiastical constitution of the realm, and as subversive of those principles, which placed his Majesty's family on the British throne. It is natural for those, whose characters are thus aspersed, to enquire by what right any persons have taken upon themselves, in the name of such a Society, to give countenance and currency to an injurious and groundless calumny, fabricated 1807. 1807. for the watchword of a party, and calculated only to excite and to uphold popular clamor. The Society was instituted, as its annual publications declare, for the encrease of the knowledge and practice of our holy religion, by the support of charity schools, and by the distribution of bibles, prayer books, and religious tracts. Those, who have directed the present proceeding, can best explain in what manner Christian knowledge, or Christian practice will be encreased by promoting religious animosities and civil discord, by stirring up the blind prejudices and ungovernable passions of the ignorant, and by circulating amongst our fellow-subjects, instead of the words of truth and charity, the libellous and inflammatery calúmnies of electioneering contests and party violence. As a member of the Society, solicitous for the promotion of its genuine objects, I desire to enter my dissent to a resolution purporting to express its unanimous opinion. I object to the propriety of its taking part at all in the political divisions of the country. I object to its labouring to extend and prolong those divisions, with respect to a measure publicly withdrawn, and of which there is consequently no longer any question. But most of all I object to the truth, and may I not add, to the decency of a censure, which, if it were founded either in justice or in reason, would apply equally to almost every description of public men, and would even implicate all those authorities, which are the most entitled to our respect and re verence. If to permit the King's subjects of all persua- 1907. sions to serve him in his army be an unconstitutional innovation, with whom, and when, did it originate? It was first made the law in Ireland fourteen years ago, at the express recommendation of the crown, delivered from the throne by one of his Majesty's present ministers (Lord Westmoreland) then Lord Lieutenant of that kingdom. If the adoption of a similar law in Great Britain would be an act of hostility to the established church, to whom shall that hostility be ascribed? To those who have now proposed, or to those, who long ago engaged for that concession? To the framers of Lord Howick's bill, or to those members and supporters of the present government, who, in the year 1793, gave and authorized that promise to the Catholics of Ireland? If the employment of Catholic officers and Catholic soldiers in the general service of the empire; if the permitting them to hold and exercise, at his Majesty's discretion, all military commissions, the rank and station of a General not excepted, if the relieving them in this respect from all penalties and disabilities on account of their religious persuasion, if these things be matter of just alarm to the ecclesiastical constitution of this country, when was the moment for that alarm? In the year 1804, all this, and more than this was done in an act proposed by Mr. Pitt, with the concurrence of his colleagues, now in administration, passed by the British parlia ment, and sanctioned by his Majesty's royal asThat act legalized a long list of military sent. 1807 commissions, antecedently granted by his Majesty, with the advice of the same ministers; aud it enabled his Majesty prospectively to grant at his discretion all military commissions whatever to Catholics, not indeed to British or Irish Catholics, but to foreign Catholis; to men, who owe his Majesty no allegiance, and who are not even required to disclaim those tenets, which all our fellow-subjects of that persuasion have solemnly abjured. What ground of difference will then remain to justify those outrageous calumnies against the late proposal? Is it, that men were permitted to aspire to the rewards and honors of a profession, to the toils and dangers of which the legislature of their country had long since invited them? Is it, that the same indulgences, which had been promised and granted to Catholics by others, were not withheld by us from Protestant Dissenters? Or is it, lastly, that we judged our own countrymen and fellow-subjects entitled under his Majesty's discretion, to the same confidence and favour, which parliament had so recently extended to foreigners of all nations and all descriptions? And let me further ask, if these concessions, all or any of them, are subversive of the principles, which placed his Majesty's illustrious house upon the throne, what is to be said of the far more extensive indulgences, proposed in 1801 by that great minister now no more, whose name I have already mentioned? Were his principles also subversive of the established church, and of the civil constitution of the mo * t |