272. Whether the objection from monopolies and an overgrowth of power, which are made against private banks, can possibly hold against a national one? *273. Whether banks raised by private subscription would be as advantageous to the public as to the subscribers? and whether risks and frauds might not be more justly apprehended from them? 274. Whether the evil effects, which of late years have attended paper-money and credit in Europe, did not spring from subscriptions, shares, dividends, and stock-jobbing. 275. Whether the great evils attending paper-money in the British plantations of America have not sprung from the overrating their lands, and issuing paper without discretion, and from the legislators breaking their own rules in favour of themselves, thus sacrificing the public to their private benefit? And whether a little sense and honesty might not easily prevent all such inconveniences? See Qu. 212. *276. Whether an argument from the abuse of things, against the use of them, be conclusive? *277. Whether he who is bred to a part be fitted to judge of the whole? *278. Whether interest be not apt to bias judgment? and whether traders only are to be consulted about trade, or bankers about money? 279. Whether the subject of free thinking in religion be not exhausted? And whether it be not high time for our free thinkers to turn their thoughts to the improvement of their country? *280. Whether any man hath a right to judge, that will not be at the pains to distinguish? *281. Whether there be not a wide difference between the profits going to augment the national stock, and being divided among private sharers? And whether, in the former case, there can possibly be any gaming or stock-jobbing? 282. Whether it must not be ruinous for a nation to sit down to game, be it with silver or with paper? 283. Whether, therefore, the circulating paper, in the late ruinous schemes of France and England, was the true evil, and not rather the circulating thereof, without industry? And whether the bank of Amsterdam, where industry had been for so many years substituted and circulated by transfers on paper, doth not clearly decide this point? 284. Whether there are not to be seen in America fair towns, wherein the people are well lodged, fed, and clothed, without a beggar in their streets, although there be not one grain of gold or silver current among them? 285. Whether these people do not exercise all arts and trades, build ships and navigate them to all parts of the world, purchase lands, till and reap the fruits of them, buy and sell, educate and provide for their children? Whether they do not even indulge themselves in foreign vanities? 286. Whether, whatever inconveniencies those people may have incurred from not observing either rules or bounds in their paper-money, yet it be not certain that they are in a more flourishing condition, have larger and better built towns, more plenty, more industry, more arts and civility, and a more extensive commerce, than when they had gold and silver current among them? 287. Whether a view of the ruinous effects of absurd schemes and credit mismanaged, so as to produce gaming and madness instead of industry, can be any just objection against a national bank calculated purely to promote industry? 288. Whether a scheme for the welfare of this nation should not take in the whole inhabitants? And whether it be not a vain attempt to project the flourishing of our Protestant gentry, exclusive of the bulk of the natives? *289. Whether, therefore, it doth not greatly concern the State, that our Irish natives should be converted, and the whole nation united in the same religion, the same allegiance, and the same interest? and how this may most probably be effected? 290. Whether an oath, testifying allegiance to the king and disclaiming the Pope's authority in temporals, may not be justly required of the Roman Catholics? And whether, in common prudence or policy, any priest should be tolerated who refuseth to take it? *291. Whether there have not been Popish recusants? and, if so, whether it would be right to object against the foregoing oath, that 'all would take it, and none think themselves bound by it? *292. Whether those of the Church of Rome, in converting the Moors of Spain or the Protestants of France, have not set us an example which might justify a similar treatment of themselves, if the laws of Christianity allowed thereof? *293. Whether compelling men to a profession of faith is not the worst thing in Popery; and, consequently, whether to copy after the Church of Rome therein, were not to become Papists ourselves in the worst sense? *294. Whether, nevertheless, we may not imitate the Church of Rome, in certain places, where Jews are tolerated, by obliging our Irish Papists, at stated times, to hear Protestant sermons? and whether this would not make missionaries in the Irish tongue useful? *295. Whether the mere act of hearing, without making any profession of faith, or joining in any part of worship, be a religious act; and, consequently, whether their being obliged to hear, may not consist with the toleration of Roman Catholics? *296. Whether, if penal laws should be thought oppressive, we may not at least be allowed to give premiums? And whether it would be wrong, if the public encouraged Popish families to become hearers, by paying their hearth-money for them? *297. Whether in granting toleration, we ought not to distinguish between doctrines purely religious, and such as affect the State? *298. Whether the case be not very different in regard to a man who only eats fish on Fridays, says his prayers in Latin, or believes transubstantiation, and one who professeth in temporals a subjection to foreign powers, who holdeth himself absolved from all obedience to his natural prince and the laws of his country? who is even persuaded, it may be meritorious to destroy the powers that are? *299. Whether, therefore, a distinction should not be made between mere Papists and recusants? And whether the latter can expect the same protection from the Government as the former? *300. Whether our Papists in this kingdom can complain, if they are allowed to be as much Papists as the subjects of France or of the Empire? 301. Whether there is any such thing as a body of inhabitants in any Roman catholic country under the sun, that profess an absolute submission to the Pope's orders in matters of an indifferent nature, or that in such points do not think it their duty to obey the civil government? 302. Whether, since the peace of Utrecht, mass was not celebrated, and the sacraments administered in divers dioceses of Sicily, notwithstanding the Pope's interdict? *303. Whether every plea of conscience is to be regarded? Whether, for instance, the German Anabaptists, Levellers, or Fifth Monarchy men would be tolerated on that pretence? *304. Whether Popish children bred in charity schools, when bound out in apprenticeship to Protestant masters, do generally continue Protestants? 305. Whether a sum, which would go but a little way towards erecting hospitals for maintaining and educating the children of the native Irish, might not go far in binding them out apprentices to Protestant masters, for husbandry, useful trades, and the service of families? *306. Whether if the parents are overlooked, there can be any great hopes of success in converting the children? 307. Whether there be any instance of a people's being converted in a Christian sense, otherwise than by preaching to them and instructing them in their own language? 308. Whether catechists in the Irish tongue may not easily be procured and subsisted? And whether this would not be the most practicable means for converting the natives? 309. Whether it be not of great advantage to the church of Rome that she hath clergy suited to all ranks of men, in gradual subordination, from cardinals down to mendicants? 310. Whether her numerous poor clergy are not very useful in missions, and of much influence with the people? 311. Whether, in defect of able missionaries, persons conversant in low life, and speaking the Irish tongue, if well instructed in the first principles of religion and in the Popish controversy, though for the rest on a level with the parish clerks, or the schoolmasters of charity-schools, may not be fit to mix with, and bring over our poor illiterate natives to the Established Church? Whether it is not to be wished that some parts of our liturgy and homilies were publicly read in the Irish language? And whether, in these views, it may not be right to breed up some of the better sort of children in the charityschools, and qualify them for missionaries, catechists, and readers ? *312. Whether there be any nation of men governed by reason? And yet, if there was not, whether this would be a good argument against the use of reason in public affairs? 313. Whether, as others have supposed an Atlantis or Utopia, we also may not suppose an hyperborean island inhabited by reasonable creatures? 314. Whether an indifferent person, who looks into all hands, may not be a better judge of the game than a party who sees only his own? *315. Whether one, whose end is to make his countrymen think, may not gain his end, even though they should not think as he doth ? *316. Whether he, who only asks, asserts? and whether any man can fairly confute the querist ? *317. Whether the interest of a part will not always be preferred to that of the whole? |