the Brandywine, the taking of Philadelphia, the deftruction of the rebel-fhipping, the reduction of Mud ifland and Red-bank, were attended with none of thofe advantages which accompany fucceffes in war; that no perfon of great confequence, and few of any confequence at all, fubmitted after thofe events; that when a refolution was formed to evacuate Philadelphia, fuch as had fubmitted were advised to make their peace (1) with the congrefs; that fome unfortunate perfons, who followed that advice, fell a facrifice to the relentlefs violence and unforgiving tyranny of the rebels; that, in fhort, the want of protection on the one fide, and the certainty of punishment for defection on the other, eradicated every hope from the minds of the loyal, and forced them to fwear allegiance to an ufurpation which they defpifed and abhorred.

If the great lines of the conduct of Oppofition, during the laft feffion of parliament, have been fairly traced in the preceding difquifition, no terms can be too fevere, no indignation too violent, in expofing the principles and plans of the party. If the account which has been given of their affertions and actions has been exaggerated, the public will judge of both with more candour. But, unfortunately for G. Britain, the ftamp of truth has been affixed to the reprefentation contained in this effay, by the moft uncontrovertible of all arguments, the events of the times; events unparallelled in the history of any other age or country.

Let the confequences of an oppofite conduct in the party be confidered for a moment. Let it be fuppofed, that, intead of abetting rebellion, and encoutaging foreign war, they had declared, that when the American congress avowid independence, and efpecially when hey leagued with France, the grounds of the original question were entirely

(1) Mr Schumaker mentioned to me what he had told me a few days before, that Sir William Howe advised him to go over to Washington, and make his peace." Mr Galloway's Evidence, June 16. p. 70."He Sir William] gave me the fame advice." Ibid. p. 71. "Sir Henry Clinton faid, that the game was not up, that the War was not over, but would fill be carried on vigorously, and defired that we would not entertain a thought of going over to the enemy." Iid. p. 74

changed; that, as friends of their coun try, they had refolved to ftrengthen her hands, to restore her authority, to protect her interefts, and to recover her hohour; that the object of their pursuit had been, to render minifters refponfible for remiffnes in carrying on the war, or for obftinacy in refufing adequate and honourable conditions of peace; that they had been the first to enquire into the failure of measures in the execution; not to affert, without examination, that the error lay in the cabinet and not in the field; that they had taken measures to afcertain, by what mifmanagement or mifconduct, in commanders, an army had been loft to a contemptible enemy, and a fuperior fleet had returned from action without victory; that, instead of receiving into the bofom of their partý a general who had quitted his command in the midst of war, they had enquired, why the advantages he either poffeffed or obtained had not been more decifively improved.

To render ftill more finished the picture of the reverfe of their actual proceedings, let it be fuppofed, that, inftead of announcing to all Europe the weakness of Great Britain, they had, in their fpeeches and their actions, exhibited a fpirited and difinterested love for their country; an unanimity to arm her exertions, not to clog her measures; a manly boldnefs to meet, to break, to difconcert the combinations of her domeftic and foreign enemies: what would have been, in fuch a cafe, the prefent fituation of public affairs? what the ftate of public opinion relative to themfelves? The refiftance of America must have ceafed; France might have given up the conteft; and the junction of Spain would have been prevented. [To be continued.]

Bon Mot of the King of Pruffia.

When the King of Pruffia had a perfonal

meeting fome years ago with the Emperor, they always dined together, a certain number of their principal officers being with them. One day Gen. Laudohn, his powerful enemy, was going to place himself at the foot of the table, when the King, who was at the head, called to him, "Venez, je vous en prie, Monfieur Laudohn, placez vous ici; j'aime infiniment mieux vous avoir de mon cote que vis-.-vis."-"Come, I pray you, Montieur Landohu, place yourfell here; L would much rache, have you 's my fe, that eguin! me."

3 N 2

On the penal laws against PAPISTS.
Affembly-fpeeches, continued. [415.]

Mr John Dickfen, Advocate, obferved, in reply to the Principal, That no fuch punishment, as perpetual imprisonment for religious opinion, was known in the law of Scotland; adding, with fome degree of warmth, that he hoped the people of this country would, at no after period, be loft to a fenfe of their valuable privileges, fo much as to view Popery in any other light than that which they do at prefent; it was, indeed, impoffible they could. Popery, being always the fame, would never prefent itself but in its own vile and deteftable colours.

Mr Nisbet at Montrofe began his fpeech with declaring, That he was not one of thofe who had formed their ideas of Popery merely from the accounts given of it by Proteftant divines: That he had ftudied the controverfy with great impartiality, having, in the courfe of his ftudies, read as many Popish as Proteftant writers: That he was far from confidering Popery as fuch an abfurd and foolish fuperftition, as that there was no danger of its gaining ground: on the contrary, he regarded it as a moft artful and deeplaid fyftem, and moft wonderfully accommodated to the affections and paffions of the human mind. It had been faid, that Popery was much mended, and that the spirit of the Roman-Catholic religion was much more humane and tolerant than formerly. As to this he would obferve, that even in the darkest and most fuperftitious ages, there had been many Popith writers diftinguifhed, not only for piety and devotion, but likewife for genilenefs and humanity; and any defects they laboured under, was to be imputed to their religion, and not to the badnefs of their hearts. Here he told a number of very entertaining stories of Roman-Catholics and Popish writers.]

As to Popery itfelf, fays he, being mended; I confefs, 1 fee no figns of it: for as many effects of Romith bigotry and superstition can be collected in this age as in any preceding one. Thofe, therefore, who contend, that Popery is changed, really maintain a kind of trans fubflantiation: for they maintain the fubflame is changed, whilst the accidents remain. No wonder, then, that their opponents reprefent them as favourers of Popery.

As to there being no danger of a re

peal of our penal ftatutes against Popery (continued he) after the ftrong affurances we have received on that head; I confefs, I am one of those who ftill entertain a jealousy; and it is chiefly grounded on the petition prefented to the House of Commons by the Roman-Catholics who had been fufferers by the riots at Edinburgh and Glafgow. In that peti tion, they exprefsly crave parliamentary protection. What may be the import of that expreffion, I do not pretend precifely to know; but I was forry to obferve, from the votes of the Houfe of Com mons, [which he here read to the affembly, that a motion of an Honourable Mem ber, Lord George Gordon, to throw this petition over the table, was not fo much as feconded by any member.

Mr Duff at Tippermuir. Moderator, I had defigned to give my fentiments at fome length on this important fubject; but I have been, in part, prevented by others; and I now fee it to be unneceffary, as it is agreed, on all fides, that this affembly fhall exprefs their disappro bation of repealing prefently thofe laws which are meant to prevent the increase of Popery in this country.

Dr Macfarlane, fome time ago, read a declaration, which he propofed this af fembly should adopt. Principal Robertfon has now read another, which tel wishes to get preferred. I fhall confines what I have to say to a few observations that have occurred to me, and led me to difapprove of the declaration propofed by the Rev. Principal. I have heard him, with pleasure, speak on the general argument, and, with patience, fay a great deal about himself, the moft difagreeable subject a man can be obliged to speak upon; but I have the following objec tions against the paper he has read. It begins with a refolution to difmifs these overtures which have brought on this de bate. I confider that as not only unnecef fary, but as altogether unworthy. The overtures, with the best intention, have come to give us friendly counsel: they have put us on our guard: by their fuggeftion, we are determined to do what is proper for our fafety: And shall ther recompence be, to be thruft out, and have the doors thrown after them? Such violence ought not to have entered into any man's head. Let the overtures a lone, and let us avail ourfelves of the hints they have given us.

Another difficulty I have againft adopting

7

opting the Rev. Principal's declaration is, That it fays, we have already got full fecurity by the promises which have been made to us, that all defign of repealing the laws againft the Roman-Catholics is laid afide. I cannot think our fecurity, in this point, is fo great as he reprefents it. The fecretary of state's letter, fo far as I can recollect it, only faid, that the defign of altering the law was dropped for the then prefent time; but, in confiftency therewith, that defign might be refumed, either now, or at any future day. The affurances that were given by his Majefty's High Commiflioner at the opening of this affembly, feem to be more decifive; and yet I fufpect it is neceffary, that we fhould not fo truft to them as to forget our own defence. I am not skilled in the language of compliment; but I fpeak what I feel, when I affirm, that no perfon has a higher opinion of the honour and worth of that Noble perfon who represents our fovereign among us, than I have. I hold his Grace's word, for every thing that refpects himself, and comes within the compafs of his power, to be complete fecurity. Unfortunately, in this matter, we can found no more on what his Grace hath told us, than a firm belief that he hath faithfully reported what his Majefty's minifters have given him in charge on this fubject; and no man doubts of that: but when I lock to minifters of ftate for the fulfilment of thefe promifes, I find them in a moft hampered and difagreeable fituation. The Roman-Catholics, we have been told, alledge, that adminiftration is bound by promife to them, that the penal laws against them fhall be repealed. In their petition to parliament, lately published, if I have hot miftaken them, they, in effect tell us, that they would have infifted to be included in the law already paffed for England, if they had not got a promife, that a fimilar law fhould be patled in their favour next feffion of parliament: And they fay farther, that they have relaxed the miniftry from this promise till fome other time, when their Proteftant brethren fhall be reconciled to them, and lay afide their groundlefs prejudices [131.]. When an exprefs was fent to Sir Laurence Dundas by the city of Edinburgh, to afk of him, whether the repeal of thefe laws was really intended; and when Sir Laurence went to the Hon. Lord North, as the fittest man to anfwer that question,

all the fatisfaction he could get on that head was, That he did not know; his Lordship had no liberty to settle that extreme fear and ferment which then prevailed through Scotland. The moft natural account we have got for his not giving up the point then, (for it was full time to do it then), was this very promife, by which the Roman-Catholics alledge, that he had bound himself to give them relief. When the Lord Advocate of Scotland was called on in the Houfe of Commons to fulfil the promise he had made, by bringing in a bill to repeal thefe penal laws, his anfwer was, That he had got the confent of the Papifts in Scotland, not to move it in the present state of mens minds refpecting that matter. From the Roman-Catholics he took his counfel and his purposes, and acted in concert with them. But what feems altogether decifive on this point is, that the Papifts have difcovered a full conviction, that they would foon get relief from the restraints of law, and that their numbers would greatly increase; for in Edinburgh, and other places, they were bufily employed in building ample chapels, reckoning on it, that they should not only have liberty to use, but also ability to fill them. By fuch facts as these, the people in this country were generally led to believe, that his Majefty's ministers had early bound themselves by promife to the Roman-Catholics, that thefe ftatutes which they reprefented as fo oppreffive, fhould be repealed. In what fort of fituation then are we put by the promifes that are made to us? The Papifts alledge a first and pofitive promise, that the law fhall be altered; and we have got a promife, that it shall remain as it is. In oppofite promifes, I am afraid the firft would be found the best. If a woman had married two hufbands, the man he had firft given herself to would be intitled to have her. This would be the decifion of law, I firmly believe. Perhaps the lady would find out another rule for deciding the matter. She would do it by her affections. If miniftry fhall do with these promises as inclination fhall dictate, the promise to us is good for nothing. The unanimity of parliament, in repealing thefe laws both in England and Ireland, and the fhameful abuse of Scotland, said to be filled with fanaticifm and bigotry, because we oppofe their being repealed in this country, do clearly fhow, that the inclina

of this country, that all Popish countries have felt in a greater or leffer degree, and that are effentially connected with the tendency, views, and fpirit of fuch an enormous mafs of abfurdity, idolatry, cruelty, and treachery, as Popery forms.

All the arguments that I have ever heard adduced, for either a total or partial repeal of the laws for preventing the growth of Popery, lead, Sir, in my humble opinion, to the directly oppofite conclufion; or, at leaft, do not lead to the conclufion that they are brought to afcertain. To be generous, liberal, and moderate, at the expence of felf-prefervation, is to be thoughtless, imprudent, and mad. No argument can be juftly drawn in favour of the toleration of Popery, even from all the mildnefs, forbearance, and mercy of the gofpel difpenfation. After all that enthufiafm has advanced on the one hand, and infidelity on the other, it is evident, that the gofpel of Jefus does not, cannot forbid neceffary felf-defence and war. For if it fhould do fo but in one fingle text, it would be felo de fe; it would dictate what tended directly to the deftruction of all its own votaries and ends; and every judicious man would, inftead of embracing fuch a doctrine as coming from God, reject the whole plan that adopted it, as unworthy of him. Nothing can be more groundless than to affert, that the fulleft toleration of the RomanCatholic fuperftition could not, the numbers and influence of its profeffors being fo very inconfiderable, expofe us to the Imallest danger; and that there is, therefore, no reafon for pleading the rights of felf-defence against the repeal in quetion. For it is very remarkable, that our Proteftant brethren of the highlands and islands, who are beft acquainted with the dangerous fpirit and exertions of Popery, entertain the directly oppofite fentiment. The very position itself implies danger from greater numbers and influence, and bids us be aware of taking any ftep that tends to an event fo very hazardous. In the ages in which no Papifts exifted, it could have been reafoned with more plaufibility, that none could ever exift, than it can be now reafoned, that there is no caufe for apprehending an increase of their numbers and influence. It is from fmall numbers, it is from no numbers at all, that immenfe multitudes of Papifts have

arifen. The mode of fuperftition that has fo lavishly used and applauded the fecret poifon and dagger, does not always need the aid of numbers to enable it to spread death, maffacre, and deftruction as widely as it chufes; for it has often found a fingle affaffin fufficient for the execution of fuch hellish purposes. It is true, that the landed property, and other riches of the Roman-Catholics, are at prefent very inconsiderable, when compared with thofe of the Proteftants of this country. But who knows what fums the Jefuits, now no longer tolerated by the chief Popish powers, or even by the Pope himself, have brought with them into thefe kingdoms? Who knows what treasures the fociety De propaganda fide at Rome may chufe to lay out in thefe kingdoms, in order to fulfil, with their ufual ardor and activity, the end of their institution?

There is no juft reafon for afferting, that Roman-Catholics are now become fo enlightened and refined, are now become fo moderare and tolerating, that we have little or nothing to fear from them. Popery effentially profeffing its implicit dependence upon an infallible earthly head, every the fmalleft change is incompatible with its very nature and existence; and if it is altered, even but in the fmalleft degree, it is no longer Popery. In fact, the Popish fuperftition remains, both effentially and formally, the fame. It has never been altered by either Popes or General Councils; and its indulgences, pardons, purgatory, and difpenfing powers, ftill breathe, and, where they can, ftill exert the fame hoftile influences against all religious, moral, and political obligations, that, in any measure, thwart its views. I was not a little furprised, Sir, to hear a Very Reverend member, on your right hand, whofe abilities and literature I have long efteemed, affert, that it does not appear evident to him, that Roman-Catholics hold it as their doctrine, "That faith fhould not be kept with heretics;" or words to that purpose. He has, I know, read more books relating to this argument than I have had occafion to do; yet I muft beg leave to fay, that such an affertion, with regard to the church of Rome and her votaries, or even the denial of their having generally practifed fuch a doctrine when they could do it with advantage or fafety, contradicts what I have read; contradicts Popes and

General