tented in the situations to which Providence has confined them;-to strengthen those principles on which all society must be founded, and consequently to facilitate the important business of legislation. It is, therefore, clearly the interest of the legislator that this religion be extensively inculcated, its sublime doctrines and elevated morality be universally believed and observed, and the character of its teachers respected and venerated by the nation. There seems no way in which this object can effectually` be obtained but by an establishment.-Yet it must be confessed, that there is a danger of going too far here, as there is in every thing else; of prescribing laws in circumstances in which no laws should exist; and of making that an instrument of evil which should be the source of the greatest good.

1

་ ་

It is a maxim in political economy, that every individual of the community should, in the prosecution of his interest, be left as perfectly unrestrained as the good of the whole society will admit; in other words, that the chief business of rulers, while they permit every man to seek his personal advantage in his own way, is to see, that in the competition which this universal pursuit of wealth and happiness will occasion, no injustice is done to any party, This maxim is violated in all ordinary cases,

when a company of merchants possess the exclusive privilege of trading to a particular country, or are allowed to monopolize the manufacture of any commodity. The superior advantages thus afforded to a few individuals occasion a positive injury to the nation to which they belong: since, in the one case, undue encouragement is given, and a considerable capital directed into a channel, into which, otherwise, it would neither naturally nor profitably go; and in the other, the community at large, in the exercise of its industry, is restrained, and prevented from freely employing its powers in the acquisition of wealth. The situation of rulers resembles somewhat that of a parent, who looks with equal affection on all his children, and who recollects that partiality to one of them, may involve a violation of his duty to the rest.

It is maintained by many that the civil magistrate should exercise the same impartial neutrality towards all religious sects;-that as, in commerce, monopoly is obviously injurious, so it is also in religion;-and as the supply of any commodity is in direct proportion to the demand, to afford a large premium for an article, of which otherwise there would be no scarcity, occasions an unnecessary expence to the state. Those who maintain this doctrine

are of course averse to an ecclesiastical establishment.

But it would be easy to prove, were this my object, and, indeed, it is already proved by the author of the Wealth of Nations, that there ought to be exceptions to this general rule in cases which affect the safety or the existence of the state*. The interests of religion and morality form one of those cases; these deeply affect the happiness and security of nations; and it is the duty of Rulers to provide for their support. The only question is, how this duty is to be exercised without infringing on the civil or religious rights of the people, or frustrating by intolerance the very design which the most benevolent intentions had in view to accomplish?-Now this can only be done, by permitting every man freely to follow the dictates of his own conscience, while a premiumt is afforded by the government to that religious party of which

it

approves. In this, there seems little calculated

* Wealth of Nations, v. 2. p. 252.

The money that is paid for the support of an ecclesiastical establishment, no true Christian, however much he may disapprove of the established church, can reasonably object to, since it is to be considered merely as a tax which the government of the country thinks fit to impose on the inhabitants

to foster the spirit of a proscribing corporation; since it is understood that all religious sects, while good subjects, are equally protected by the laws of their country, and that the premium is given to one of these sects solely for the purpose of ensuring to the whole population in the remotest corners of the land the blessings of moral instruction. Indeed, the more free all parties are in the exercise of their religion, not only are the interests of the established church more secure, but the community at large, by the emulation which is produced, is better served.

But if it be contrary to the natural rights of men, that they should in any case whatever be restrained in the exercise of religion, it is equally contrary to expediency and sound policy that the Roman Catholics should be punished by the loss of any of their civil rights for adhering to their own theological opinions. -I am aware that it is said, as has been already remarked, that the Catholics are not punished on account of their religious tenets, but as a political faction-as holding sentiments inimical to the welfare of the state. Now, without waiting to shew the inexpediency in many instances, if not in every instance, of punishing (for all proscriptive exclusion from offices of trust is in itself obviously a punish

ment) on account of opinions merely, unless they are evidently treasonable; and taking it for granted that the question of Catholic emancipation is entirely political, I shall proceed to make a very few observations on it in this light.

In the first place, then, Catholic emancipation, or a full and an eternal repeal of the penal code, is not inimical to the safety of the state whether civil or religious. This has been often proved; and it is really irksome to go over ground that of all others is the most common place. It is scarcely possible to entertain the hope of ever presenting the subject in a new light.

It would be almost enough to say in support of this position, that the repeal of the penal laws can occasion no injury to the state, since the ground on which they were originally framed no longer exists. While that unfortunate family who were most righteously de clared incapable of sitting on the British throne continued to urge their pretensions, a regard to the security of the constitution, and to the invaluable privileges which that constitution ensures, might render proper the adoption of measures towards their adherents which, in other circumstances, would be neither just nor expedient. And though it has never been proved

1