government, ought to be repressed equally with the errors of Rome;" whereas my opinion is, and ever was, that the state has nothing at all to do with errors in religion, nor the least right so much as to attempt to repress them. Mischiefs, indeed, I said should be repressed; but by this I meant civil mischiefs arising from religious quarrels, when two churches in a tolerating country are pretty nearly equal in power (as I suppose they would soon be without a test law), and are for repressing one another's errors. The occasion of my saying this arose from my observing, that the test law was made to provide for the safety of the national church; a provision not for the sake of religion, but of civil peace. For if one church is to be established, and all the rest tolerated, it is for the peace, as well as honour of the state, that the tolerated should be debarred the power of disturbing the established, in the enjoyment of the legal rights of an establishment.

And with regard to differences in religious opinions, the rage of dissenting quarrels has generally been observed to rise highest where the difference has been the least; as between the two sects of Omar and Ali amongst the Mahometans, of Molinists and Jansenists amongst the Papists, of Calvinists and Arminians amongst the foreign Protestants, and of Puritans and Episcopalians at home; just as we see the nearest relatives of the same house: when they fall out, though it be about trifles, the quarrel is generally prosecuted with more acrimony and determined resentment, than

It was

disputes of moment between strangers. the sense of this which made me say, that the civil mischiefs which might arise from Puritanism were to be watched with equal vigilance, and repelled with equal vigour, as those from Popery; but, with regard to the nature of the religious errors of each, the difference was immense.

For the rest, I have always regarded Popery rather as an impious and impudent combination against the sense and the rights of mankind, than a species of religion; while the differences which divide us and the Dissenters are of so trifling a nature, that their making a schism rather than conform, and our hazarding one rather than to indulge them in their scruples, will be the eternal opprobrium of both the churches.

As to the other point, concerning the liberty of the press, your superior knowledge of courts, and indeed of all orders in society, makes you so perfect a judge of the consequences in restraining the abuses of the press, that my absurdity would not deserve so mitigated a name as vanity, did I not distrust my own opinion, or did I not entirely trust to yours. I shall therefore strike out that whole passage. (') I have the honour and the passage.(') happiness to be, honoured Sir,

Your most obliged and

most devoted servant,
W. GLOUCEster.

(1) In the second edition of the Discourse, which appeared in the following year, the passage relating to the liberty of the press objected to by Mr. Pitt is omitted.

EARL TEMPLE TO LADY CHATHAM.

October 10, 1762.

You have no doubt, heard of the duel. Lord Talbot insisted by letter, or rather by many letters, upon knowing whether Mr. Wilkes owned or disowned being author of the North Briton of the 21st of August. Mr. Wilkes never would admit his right of catechising him, and told him from the first, if that did not satisfy his lordship, he was ready at all times to give him any other satisfaction becoming a gentleman. At last they met by appointment at Bagshot. Colonel Berkeley (') Lord Talbot's second, and Wilkes's adjutant his : they fired one pistol each; upon which Wilkes says, he ran up to him and told him he was the author of every word of that paper. His lordship said, he had had his satisfaction and was contented; and the whole concluded with drinking a bottle of claret together. (2)

There are many other curious particulars; but

(1) Afterwards Lord Botetourt. He was at this time member for Gloucestershire, and groom of the bedchamber.

(2) In an account of this duel, drawn up by Wilkes, as soon as it was over, and dated from the Red Lion at Bagshot, he says, "We left the inn, and walked to a garden at some distance from the house. It was near seven, and the moon shone very bright; both our fires were in very exact time, but neither took effect. I walked up immediately to Lord Talbot, and told him that I now avowed the papers. His lordship desired that we might now be good friends, and retire to the inn to drink a bottle of claret together; which we did with great good humour, and much laugh."

now no more. I hope, at the same time, it is universally known how much Mr. Pitt and I disapprove of this paper war, and the daily abominations which are published; though, because Wilkes professes himself a friend of mine, I am for ever represented infamously as a patron of what I disapprove, and wish I could have put an end to; but, non mene curo. (1) Ever yours,

TEMPLE.

EARL TEMPLE TO LADY CHATHAM.

MY DEAR LADY CHATHAM,

November -, 1762

GASCOYNE has been here: much dealing with Fox; but I think he is firm. The Duke of Devonshire tells me I may depend upon Lord Hardwicke, and his son in the House of Commons, taking their part against the vote of approbation. Gascoyne thinks if Mr. Pitt comes many of the Tories will be staggered. Shelley tells me the whole of the party will go against the vote of approbation. Some of the sanguine ones talk pretty high as to numbers. The Duke of Devon

(1) This passage is satisfactory, as containing Lord Temple's undisguised opinion of the demagogue's writings, which opinion has been industriously misrepresented; especially by Almon, in his Memoirs of Wilkes, "than which," says Mr. Southey, in his Life of Cowper, "a more catch-penny work has seldom issued from the press."

VOL. II.

ი

shire says, he thinks Charles Townshend will resign. May the good genius of England protect Mr. Pitt, and bring him tolerably well (I dare not hope more) to town! Ever most affectionately yours, TEMPLE. (1)

(1) The preliminaries of peace were signed and interchanged on the 3rd of November, and the parliament assembled on the 25th. As no traces of the debates which took place on the first day of the session have been preserved, the following account of what passed, and of the state of public feeling out of doors, contained in a letter from Mr. Symmers to Mr. Mitchell, will be acceptable: :- "Yesterday I was carried to the House of Lords by Lord Hillsborough; who, with some difficulty, got me introduced, and placed me near the throne. There I had the pleasure of hearing a very proper speech, delivered in a noble and pathetic manner, by one of the most graceful princes of the age. The speech was followed by the motion for the address by Lord Egmont (who spoke like - the master of the post-office), and was seconded by Lord Weymouth, who spoke with grace and dignity, though with the timidity of a young man. It passed unanimously. What passed in the House of Commons was similar to this. Lord Carysfort moved, and Lord Charles Spencer seconded. The house was unanimous; but Mr. Beckford, now lord mayor, had his vagaries as usual, and gave the house a little prelude of what they were to expect more at large when the masters mount the stage. Lord Temple was not in the House of Lords, and neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. Fox in the House of Commons. The opposition will open upon the preliminaries laid before parliament, and is likely to be more formidable than was at first imagined. Several great personages have of late declared themselves in it; the Duke of Cumberland, and the whole house of Yorke (I mean the Hardwicke family): but it is thought that all who will are now declared; so that the first division in each house will show the powers of the parties. If the whole opposition lay within doors, it would still be more tolerable, as it is not unconstitutional; but, alas! there is reason to apprehend it extends without doors. Such a mob was perhaps never seen, in our time, between Charing-cross and Westminster-hall.