BISSET’S REIGN OF GEORGE It. 
the dissenters now maintained doctrines to- 
tally different from those. of former times, 
and were inimical to the church of England, 
to the protestant religion, and to true chris- 
tianity: to encourage such men, therefore, 
would be equally contradictory to sound 
olicy, and to the interests of the established 
aith. The supporters of the bill contended, 
that subscriptions, while they operate against 
the pious and conscientious, are no restraints 
on the impious and wicked. The sectarians 
were charged with having deviated from the 
theological opinions of their predecessors; 
but in all ranks of a community advancing 
in knowledge and civilization, the more un- 
derstandings were exercised, the greater 
would be the diversity in the result of dif- 
ferent efforts. That some individual dis- 
senters held principles inimicalto christianity, 
might be true; but the charge against them 
as a body, was totally false: they had been 
uniformly the friends of civil and religious 
liberty, had supported the British consti- 
tution, the establishment of the house of 
Brunswic, and all those principles and mea- 
sures kc which’ our constitutional rights 
were upheld: they had moreover supported 
the christian faith against its most ardent 
impugners; and such men certainly deserved 
_ to enjoy something more than mere impu- 
nity by connivance. By tolera‘ion, chris- 
tianity had flourished; by intolerance, the 
_ number of believers had been lessened: let 
“ rotestants be united, that we may be the 
etter able to make head against infidels. 
_ These considerations induced a great majority 
in the house of commons to vote for the 
bill; but in the house of lords the bishops 
erted theinselves so strenuously against an 
indulgence which they conceived and re- 
presented to be dangerous to the church, 
; “that the bill was rejected by no less than a 
hundred and two to twenty-nine.” 
A far more desirable measure than 
those which have hitherto been agitated, 
would be the repeal of the act of uni- 
formity. It would at once admit the 
catholics of freland, and the unitarians 
of England, to that participation in the 
establishment to which the diffusion of 
their apinions and the weight of their 
241 
property has long entitled ther. A 
division of the clergy into distinct sects 
would somewhat lessen the mischievous 
cohesion of that body corporate, now 
so subservient, not merely to the man- 
dates of government, but to the per- 
sonal caprice of the crown, But tlris 
cohesion might be further diminished by 
vesting in the clergy of the diocese the 
nomination of their own bishop; and 
by converting the prebendal stalls, which 
are wholly useless in the hierarchy, into 
lay preferments, distributable among the 
decayed authors and artists, to whom 
national gratitude owes some provision. 
There is a short passage in this vo- 
lume which, with its connected nete, we 
shall also present to our readers, as it 
obscurely touches a constitutional dis- 
ease of long standing and felt peril. 
«< Ever since the debate on the address, 
great indecision had appeared in the conduct 
of the minister. He studiously avoided any 
farther discussion on American politics, and 
frequently absented himself from the house. 
From these circumstances it was conjectured, 
that he did not fully concur in the coercive 
system; and this hypothesis was by no 
means inconsistent with cither his known 
disposition or abilities. It was presumed, 
that a man of such a conciliating temper, 
and whose first ministerial act had been con- 
cession to appease the colonists, could really 
be no friend to violent and irritating mea- 
sures ; and that a statesman of his undoubted 
talents could not, from the dictates of his 
own understanding, devise or recommend 
such acts. Lord North, it was imagined, 
could not: long be so completely deceived as 
to fact, and erroneous in argument, a3 the 
proposers of the. ministerial measures ap- 
peared. Besides, it was supposed that his 
intellect was too enlightened, and his mind 
too liberal, to possess that contemptible ob- 
stinacy of character which is incident to 
men at the sanie time weak and vain, who 
adhere to a plan, not because it is proved to 
be right, but because they had once fayoured 
its adoption*. 
«© * Tt has been very often asserted, and by many believed, that lord North originally 
was, and always continued in his private sentiments, inimical to the American war ; although 
_ he, as prime minister, in every measure of carrying it on, incurred the chief responsibility. 
\ This opinion, as an historian, I have not documents either to confirm or refute with un- 
doubted certainty. 
To those who would confine themselves to comparison of the plans 
and conduct of government during that awful period, with the talents often displayed by 
his lordship, the conjecture may appear probable. But persoos who take a candid view of 
the respectable and estimable moral qualities of the prime minister, will hesitate in justify- 
ing his wisdom at the expence of his integrity; they will sooner admit that a man of 
genius, literature, and political knowledge, reasoned falsely and acted unwisely, than that 
a man of moral rectitude acted in deliberate and lasting opposition to his conscience, thereby 
involving his country in misfortune. At the same time, I am fully aware that there is a 
third hypothesis possible, and by many believed, if not by some knowa to be true. 
The, 
epinion in question rather changes the situation than degrades the character of lord North, 
Ann. Rev. Vox. II, 
