parliament. This would infuse new life and spirit into the body politic, and a thousand pounds, given in this manner, would be worth a hundred thousand bestowed in charity. The first would. not degrade the peasant with the weight of charity, or the imputation of pauperism. It would be a sacrifice to time and circumstance; and though it might challenge the gratitude of the receiver, it would be in such a way, as not to create those ideas of abject dependence, which corrupt and debase out nature. But this project will never take extensively, unless forced upon them by the actual inability to pay; because, in the first place, it is not calculated to gain the eclat which follows charitable donations, and, in the second, it would be a great step towards restoring the people of the country to some degree of their former independence. This would not suit the adepts in political charity, who know full well, that in the present state of the country, there is no other alternative, than absolute depression and dependence, and absolute revolution in the system of government. They will, therefore, continue to prefer the old way of squeezing a great deal out of the people with one hand, and giving them a little with the other, that they may squeeze them again; like the familiars of the inquisition, who, when the unfortunate victim is at his last gasp, charitably administer a cordial to enable him to endure new tortures. There are, however, some honourable exceptions, which deserve to be mentioned; but they are not from among the presidents and patrons of charitable societies. Earl Fitzwilliam lately returned, I think, fifteen per cent. of his quarters' rents to his tenants, after receiving them; and Lord George Cavendish gave his a dinner, and returned them twenty per cent. after it was over. Cavendo Tutus, Lord George; it is better

to give a little than lose the whole. This is something like the thing; but yet it is not quite the thing. It is still too much like charity; it is giving as charity what ought to be claimed as a right. This twenty per cent. ought to have been relinquished for the year, and that, before it was paid. Then it would have been a mere favour; now it is a gift. I have not heard that any of the rich prelates of the established church have imitated these examples. When I do, I shall not fail to apprise you of this remarkable event.

With respect to those numerous charitable schools established of late years, they are, for the most part, intended for little else than mere means of strengthening particular sects, by bringing up the children, educated by them, in the tenets of the church, under whose patronage the school happens to be placed. Thus the church of England has its schools supported by what by courtesy is called charity, but at which no child is admitted, whose parents will not consent to its being educated in the tenets and forms. of this particular church. This is also the case with the dissenters, the methodists, and every other denomination, whose different charity schools are exclusively devoted to the education of religious proselytes, and, for the most part, beyond doubt, originated in the spirit of jealousy, rivalship, and esprit du corps. Within years past more than one plan of national education has been defeated by the jealousy of the established church, which saw, or fancied it saw, in them, the seeds of danger to its predominating influence; and it is now well understood, that Mr. Brougham has abandoned his great scheme for rendering education general in this country by national patronage, through the opposition of the dissenters, who, it seems, with all their horror of ignorance, had rather the people should remain ig

a few

norant, than give to the established church, and the government which is incorporated with it, the means of making proselytes through the medium of national schools. Thus you see, brother, what is really the honest truth, that charity here, as elsewhere, often covers a multitude of sins, and takes care to look sharp through religious spectacles, before she will contribute a penny. In one of my late excursions, I happened at a small town in the diocess of *******, where bigotry reigns in very considerable perfection, and the church of England is propped up by more than a usual quantity of privilege and prerogative. I found the place divided into parties, on the score of a little heretical dissenter about nine years old, who had unwittingly been admitted into an episcopal school, and expelled again, because his father would neither subscribe to the thirty-nine articles, nor allow his son to be educated in any other faith than his own. Parties ran high; some blamed the church, some the parent, and some the little boy, who, as the dissenters in his neighbourhood were not sufficiently rich and numerous to establish a charity school of their own in that town, was in danger of growing up in utter ignorance of every thing but bigotry; when a rich dissenter of the neighbourhood, hearing of the circumstance, took compassion on him, and undertook his education out of pure spite.

How different is this from OUR DEAR LITTLE NEW-ENGLAND; of which every man who drew his first breath there, feels the prouder, the more he sees of the rest of the world. There education is the general property of the whole people ; and the poorest child of the poorest man that breathes our air, receives his education without feeling it as a degradation, because he has paid his little portion for this purpose to the state, and is as

much entitled to the benefits of the establishment as the richest person in the country. Neither parent nor child is obliged to profess or abjure any particular creed, or to belie their consciences under the penalty of living in utter ignorance; nor does the meanest urchin ever feel the degrading consciousness, that he is beholden to the charity of strangers for the nurture of his mind. Well may our New-England people boast of this distinction, which is peculiar to themselves, and long may they resist any and every attempt to prop up a particular church, or strengthen a particular sect or party by the establishment of charity schools, where the test of admission is a religious creed, and its consequences but too often a confirmed and base-born habit of perpetual dependence on charity, for what every one ought to rest upon his own exertions to supply.

From what I have stated, I trust you will not think me either prejudiced or uncharitable, if I doubt the motives of these bloated profligates of the royal line, who ostentatiously bestow a small part of what they wring from the people, or of the pampered luxurious lords, spiritual and temporal, who head subscription lists for the benefit of idle paupers or worthless hypocrites, while racking their tenants or their parishioners with rents and tithes to support their vaunted benefactions. This country plumes itself upon its superiority over all others in charities, and urges its pretensions with an arrogance that cannot fail of provoking a scrutiny into the motives for these boasted establishments. Those who make the greatest ciaims upon our admiration, must expect to be tried by motives as well as actions; and people, who are ever boasting of their virtues, will certainly, sooner or later, be convicted of hypocrisy. I cannot easily

bring my mind to comprehend the purity of that, charity, which racks the industrious out of pounds, and gives away pennies to the idle and thriftless. I cannot believe in that benevolence or generosity, which gives a trifle in alms, for the purpose of reconciling the people to its insatiable monopoly of all the rest. In short, when I see hardened profligates, who live in the daily violation of social and moral duties; inexorable landlords, who are every day distressing their tenants for rent; and inflexible bishops, who will not forego a little of their tithes, contributing at public meetings to societies for propagating morality and religion, and relieving distress, it is impossible to help taking it for granted, that the first seek to cover their debaucheries, the latter their extortions, under the sacred mantles of piety and benevolence.

LETTER XVI.

London.

DEAR BROTHER,

******

You know the theatre was ever one of my favourite amusements, and I dare say have not forgot when you and I took French leave from to go and see Cooper the first time he came to Boston. To this day, in defiance of bigotry and fanaticism, which have attempted to throw a stain on this species of amusement, I am not ashamed to confess, that a good play, well performed, is to me the highest of all treats; nor can I conceive of