Religious freedom, continues Peter, is the strongest safeguard of states.  France has it, and is victorious over Europe; England lacks it, and is in imminent peril.  “How sincerely and fervently have I often wished that the Emperor of the French had thought as Mr. Spencer Perceval does upon the subject of government; that he had entertained doubts and scruples upon the propriety of admitting the Protestants to an equality of rights with the Catholics, and that he had left in the middle of his empire these vigorous seeds of hatred and disaffection.  But the world was never yet conquered by a blockhead.  One of the very first measures we saw him recurring to was the complete establishment of religious liberty.  If his subjects fought and paid as he pleased, he allowed them to believe as they pleased.  The moment I saw this, my best hopes were lost.  I perceived in a moment the kind of man we had to do with.  I was well aware of the miserable ignorance and folly of the country upon the subject of Toleration; and every year has been adding to the success of that game which it was clear he had the will and the ability to play against us.”

Abraham has suggested that the Emperor is not a religious man, and that his tolerance is the fruit of indifference.  But, says Peter, “if Bonaparte is liberal in subjects of religion because he has no religion, is this a reason why we should be illiberal because we are Christians?  If he owes this excellent quality to a vice, is that any reason why we may not owe it to a virtue?  Toleration is a great good, and a good to be imitated, let it come from whom it will.”

And now Peter turns upon Lord Sidmouth,[55] who has been prophesying woe and destruction from the emancipation of the Roman Catholics.  Such prophecies, he says, will, in the process of time, become matter of pleasantry even to “the sedulous housewife and the Rural Dean.”  There is always a copious supply of Lord Sidmouths in the world, and they have always uttered the most dismal predictions about every improvement in the lot of mankind.—­

“Turnpike roads, navigable canals, inoculation, hops, tobacco, the Reformation, the Revolution—­there are always a set of worthy and moderately-gifted men who bawl out death and ruin upon every valuable change which the varying aspect of human affairs absolutely and imperiously requires.”

The only contention of poor Abraham which Peter will in the slightest degree accept, is that the emancipation of the Roman Catholics will alienate the Orangemen.  But, even if this be the result of a just act, it is far less formidable than the result of continued injustice.  Brother Abraham, “skilled in the arithmetic of Tithe,” must perceive that it is better to have four friends and one enemy, than four enemies and one friend; and, the more violent the hatred of the Orangemen, the more certain the reconciliation of the Catholics.  Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Orangemen carry their disaffection to the point of resistance, and brave the discipline of the law, the prospect has no terrors for Peter Plymley.—­