A

In respect to the project of Mr. Rous, I would be understood to difapprove, not of the principle itself, but of the extent in which he would apply it; and the prefent condition of France confirms me in that difapprobation. By an undiftinguishing and intemperate eagerness for the attainment of that perfection, which metaphyfical writers have holden up to the admiration of a lively and a gallant people, the government of France has been ftripped of many folid fupports, and decorated with fome ornaments, which to me appear cumbersome and fantaftic. When the inteftine and external dangers which threaten France fhall be happily removed, I flatter myself, that the government will gradually retire from thofe extremities to which it has been pushed by the ardour of experiment, by the violence of the prevailing party, by the neceffity of fpreading before the people the allurements of novelty, and by the yet stronger neceffity of leaving no power in the hands of those, who were bigotted in their attachment to the old and established principles of monarchy. But the jealoufy now fubfifting between the members of the National Affembly and the minifters of the Crown, the embarraffments which thofe minifters must ever meet in conducting the business of an extenfive empire, under the reftraints of an immediate and moft irkfome refponfibility; the tried, and, it fhould feem, the acknowledged impropriety of public difcuffion upon many fubjects of political detail; the neceffity of referring thofe fubjects to committees, which, after the fervor of novelty has cooled, will always be expofed to fecret management and indirect corruption; the difficulty of obtaining official information, and the yet greater difficulty of enforcing speedy, vigorous, and faithful execution-all thefe circumftances confpire in convincing me, that the attempt has been made in France without fuccefs, and that the theory of a total feparation between the legislative and the executive bodies is false; because, it is either incapable of being reduced to real practice, or, if prac

tifed, is injurious to good government. As to refearches into the truth of that theory, merely ex bypothefi, I fhould read with pleasure the arguments by which ingenious men might fupport it, if they would fairly warn their readers, that they are writing like Plato in his Republic, or like More in his Utopia. In the investigation of phyfical caufes, we depend much upon accident; the process of experiments themfelves is flow, and the general conclufions to which they lead, long remain doubtful. But, the force of moral caufes lies more nearly within our reach, and there can be little hope of moral improvement, unless that force in all its various directions, and all its intricate combinations, be calculated again and again, and prefented to the views of those who can bring it into action. Unhappily the greater part of fuch men as govern the affairs of the world, are feldom trained to habits of investigation; and for this reafon it is, that I maintain the neceffity of high intellectual attainments in those who are to execute, as well as in those who are to controul, the councils of nations. For, amidst the fluctuating tempers, and the varying interefts, of large communities, greater or lefs opportunities for practical application will arife, when the most accomplified ftatefman will find himself enlightened by confulting the forehouse of abftract fpeculation. Conducted as theory fometimes is, by men of ability and virtue, by a Locke, a Sidney, and even a Harrington, it is of general ufe, because it incidentally throws fome portion of light upon the real conduct of men, and the real interefts of ftates. Thus, I grant that Mr. Rous has unfolded a moft falutary principle, and fure I am, that he will not be offended with me for endeavouring to give it a more fure and permanent effect, by falutary reftrictions.

Now, whether my opinion about the governments of France and England be well or ill-founded, I certainly had no concern with thofe meetings for commemoration, which have been the objects of fo much acrimonious

acrimonious invective, and the fource, in my neighbourhood, of fo many fhocking depredations. I did not believe them to be illegal, but I thought them indifereet; and, therefore, without the smallest hesitation, and in the strongest terms, I more than declined two indirect forts of invitation which had been fent to me from two different quarters, It is not for me either to juftify, or to condemn, other men who acted from other motives,-But, for my part, I was unwilling by any public overt-act to encourage rash and inconfiderate perfons in confounding the events in France with the condition of England. I difdained to debase my character as a citizen and as a clergyman, by the flightest appearance of indecorum.-I fhrunk from the thought of irritating those paffions, which it is my duty alike to affuage by precept and by example. While, however, I accede to the obfervation of Mr. Hume, that in the conflict of public opinions the most moderate † are generally the most wise, I know,

by

Upon the fame principles of moderation I have acted with fome effect fince the riots. A very zealous and well-meaning churchman lately put into my hands a political dialogue, which had been publifhed at Birmingham, and was to be followed by other dialogues of the fame kind. After reading it, I told this gentleman that I highly disapproved of its contents, and that, at this crifis efpecially, I was very much afraid of its confequences. At the fame time I took an opportunity of communicating, by letter, the fame opinion to a gentleman of great political moderation, who is acquainted with fome perfons in the oppofite party, and I defired him to employ his advice, and the whole authority of his character, in checking, if he could, a publication of which I knew it was impoffible for him to approve. He complied with my request, and I hear that no more dialogues have fince appeared. I probably fhould not have feen the book if my friend, the loyalift, had not fhewn it to me. I have not heard the name of the author, and, indeed, I have no defire to know it. Be his abilities what they may, I must condemn him for employing thera in fuch a manner at fuch a time.

I know perfons, who having neither tafte to feel, nor judgment to diftinguifh, the beauties of Mr. Burke's book, affect to be called his difciples, and have alfo verified one of Mr. Burke's very important obfervations. "If any [perfon] should happen to propose a scheme

H

"of

3

by my own melancholy experience, that they are not always the most fafe.

When "pity," as Antony fays, "is choked with custom of foul deeds," in vain would an honeft man plead, "I am not Cinna the confpirator." "It is no matter," would the bigot and the rioter exclaim, "His name is Cinna, tear him, tear him; come, brands, ho! fire-brands."

Sorry I am, that this complaint is thus extorted from me, by the impertinent and malignant difcuffions which are too likely to arife from the republication of Mr. C.'s ftatement.

Though I do not think myfelf bound to tilt with every doughty champion who may fummon me into the lifts of controverfy for the choice of my private friends; yet, I am not without fome local and weigh

ty

reafons for blunting by anticipation the edge of those mifchievous weapons, which malevolence is ever ready to forge, and prejudice to wield. Be it known then to Mr. C., and to all others whom it may concern equally with Mr. C., that my perfonal acquaintance with Dr. Priestley did not commence till the fpring of 1790, and that my first interview with him was at the houfe of a very fenfible and moft excellent man, at whofe table, I, in the courfe of the fame spring, sat down with Mr. C., and paffed an afternoon without hearing the master of the family or his friends, directly or indirectly, called rafcals * for their political tenets.

Some years before I had fpoken to Dr. Prieftley, I had occafion, in one of my publications †, to cenfure

"of liberty foberly limited, and defined with proper qualification, "fufpicion will be raised of his fidelity to his caufe, moderation "will be ftigmatifed as the virtue of cowards, and compromife as the "prudence of traytors." Such is the language of certain wretches in this country about those who differ from them.

* I allude to a fact in which the public are not concerned, but which is very well remembered by thofe, whom alone I wish to understand the allufion.

In a note upon my laft fermon preached for the Charity Schools at Norwich.

him; and when he had replied with equal firmness, and equal politenefs, I was fo graceless as neither to defpife, nor to hate him.

In October 1789, when I preached for the charityfchools at Birmingham, I earneftly recommended to the audience two admirable fermons which Dr. Prieftley had written upon a topic very fimilar to my own. In the courfe of my obfervations I in one place glanced at the "marked pecularities of Dr. Priestley upon "controverfial topics," and in another I ftated confidently, what I fhall now ftate again, that the views of the writer" are co-extenfive with the magnitude and dignity of his fubject, and, therefore, they are not fettered by any limitation from particular modes of theological doctrine, or particular forms of ecclefiaftical difcipline."-Thus much I faid to inform the congregation, that the perufal of Dr. Priestley's fermons would not be attended with any danger to their faith; and I did not fay more, because neither the time nor the place required theological difputation.

Early in 1790, I refifted Dr. Priestley and his friends in their endeavours to procure the repeal of the Teft A&; and on this occafion I not only faw the venerable person, and heard the orthodox tongue, of Mr. C., but had the pleasure of acting with two or three worthy laymen of Birmingham, and with one clergyman for whom I have a great efteem.

About a month or two after, Dr. Priestley and I met; and here begins a black catalogue of crimes, which have been long enveloped in darknefs, but which I am now audacious enough to plant before legions of fenfelefs and merciless calumniators in open. day.

I knew that Dr. John Leland of Ireland lived upon terms of intimacy with many English prelates-that Archbishop Secker preferved his acquaintance with Dr. Samuel Chandler-that Dr, Johnfon admitted the vifits of Dr. Fordyce, and did not decline the company of Dr. Mayo. When I myself too lived at Nor

H 2

wich,