Chapter XXIII: Conclusion (4)

VIII. That it does not appear to us, that the present toleration laws are either so ineffectual, or the interpretation of them so uncertain, as to render any Bill necessary to explain them, much less to curtail the benefits intended to be conveyed by them; but on the other hand we are satisfied, that if the present Bill should pass, the whole law of religious toleration will become more obscure, and its meaning more uncertain; and thus a fruitful source of litigation and oppression will be opened.

IX. That the returns of the archbishops and bishops, of the number of places for divine worship, &c. in their respective dioceses, upon which the present measure appears to be founded, are far from furnishing evidence of the necessity of restricting the operations of religious societies; but on the contrary, they contain the most decisive proofs (from the inadequacy of the parish churches to contain the inhabitants of the kingdom) that the increasing population calls for all the means of religious instruction, which well-disposed persons of all denominations of christians, have in their power to afford.

X. That from the manifest effect which the diffusion of religion has had for the last fifty years, in raising the standard of public morals, and in promoting loyalty in the middle ranks, as well as subordination and industry in the lower orders of society, which so powerfully operate upon the national prosperity and public spirit, we dread the adoption of any measure which can in the least weaken these great sinews of the nation, or restrain the patriotic efforts of any of the religious communities of the country.

XI. That as we deprecate the consequences of the Bill as it now stands, so we cannot see that any modification of it can meet the views of its Right Honourable and noble proposer, (whose character we highly respect) without essentially deteriorating, the indefeasible rights and privileges of those who are the objects of the toleration laws.

XII. That inasmuch as this Act will most deeply affect our societies, whose moral character and loyalty are unimpeachable, we feel it our duty to declare, that we do not believe there exists among them any practice or disposition, to warrant a legislative measure, which would abridge our rights and privileges.

XIII. That the introduction of the present measure is as unseasonable, as it is needless and oppressive. At any time, religious rights form a most delicate subject for legislative interference, but at such a time as this, when not only unanimity, but affection for the government and laws of our country are more than ever essential, for the patient endurance of the pressure of the times, and the repulsion of the bitterest enemy with which this country had to contend, the discussion of these rights is most feelingly to be deprecated. Much irritation,—even worse than political irritation, would be produced, and the ardent affection of many a conscientious and loyal subject would be involuntarily diminished. We are impressed with these sentiments the more deeply, as not a shadow of a charge is brought against our very numerous body, and we can challenge the most rigid enquiry into the moral and political character of our preachers and our people.

XIV. That, abstaining from all observations on the abstract rights of conscience, but with the views and feelings thus expressed, we are most decidedly of opinion that the present measure is radically objectionable, and does not admit of any modification; and we cannot but feel it our duty to oppose the Bill in all its stages by every constitutional means.

XV. That we reflect with high satisfaction on the liberal, enlightened, and religious declaration of our most gracious Sovereign, on the commencement of his Reign. “Born,” said his Majesty, in his first speech from the throne, “and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton, and the peculiar happiness of my life will ever consist in promoting the welfare of a people, whose loyalty and warm affection to me I consider as the greatest and most permanent security of my throne; and I doubt not, but their steadiness in those principles will equal the firmness of my invariable resolution to adhere to, and strengthen this excellent constitution in church and state; AND TO MAINTAIN THE TOLERATION INVIOLABLE. The civil and RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF MY LOVING SUBJECTS ARE EQUALLY DEAR TO ME WITH THE MOST VALUABLE PREROGATIVES OF MY CROWN; and as the surest foundation of the whole, and the best means to draw down the divine favour on my reign, IT IS MY FIXED PURPOSE TO COUNTENANCE AND ENCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF TRUE RELIGION AND VIRTUE.” This declaration of our beloved Sovereign has been religiously fulfilled during a long and benificent reign, and has been humbly met by our societies with the affection it was calculated to inspire. We have built with confidence upon this gracious declaration, and our confidence has not been misplaced. His Majesty has been a shield to the religious of all persuasions, and he has respected the rights of conscience in all. And we cannot doubt that His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, with those just sentiments of truth and sincerity, which he has graciously declared shall be the guide of his character and every action of his life, will feel it is happiness to recognize the high natural rights of conscience; and should it please the wise disposer of all events to restore his afflicted Father to the personal exercise of his royal functions, His Royal Highness will feel it amongst the many blessings of his benevolent and liberal administration, that he has, agreeably to the ardent wishes of a great portion of His Majesty’s loyal subjects, preserved those sacred rights entire, and returned to his beloved Father the Toleration inviolate. We have too much confidence in the wisdom and justice of Parliament, to imagine that a measure will be adopted so obnoxious to such a large proportion of the nation, as our societies and congregations constitute: but if unhappily we should be disappointed, and in the dernier resort, we should be driven to submit our case to His Royal Highness, we have already the gratification of his royal assurance, that he will “be ready to listen to the complaints of those who may think themselves aggrieved, and regulate his conduct upon the established principles of that ancient and excellent constitution, under which the people of this country have hitherto enjoyed a state of unrivalled prosperity and happiness.”

========

The following were some of the reasons which induced the committee to adopt the foregoing resolutions:—

I. At present every man may choose his own mode of religious instruction, and every man who is impressed with the belief that it is his duty to preach or teach, has the liberty to do so, on making oath and subscribing certain declarations. These are points fully recognized by the Toleration Laws, and if they were not, religious toleration would, indeed, be confined within narrow bounds. But the proposed Bill is quite a measure of condition and restraint, and would so operate to a very extensive decree.

II. The magistrate now acts ministerially; he will then, we contend, act judicially. This is a point of the very highest consequence to all ranks of christians. At present, the magistrate has no discretion as to the administering the oaths &c.: he is required to administer them to those that offer, &c. But, if the present Bill should pass, he will, of course become the judge of the qualities of the householder who certifies, _i. e._ how far he is substantial and reputable. It appears to us also, that he might probably be the judge of the truth of the certificate: and, therefore, how far the persons certifying were dissenting Protestants, and were of the same sect or persuasion. This would be a most fruitful source of difference of opinion, and, consequently, the hardship would fall upon the applicant for a qualification, who would be exposed to infinate vexation. The very terms are open to difference of opinion in magistrates, as must every other subject upon which they are to decide judicially. This would be the subversion of a principle which has been acknowledged since the first statute on the subject of toleration. Would the power thus given to the magistrate, be any thing less than that which he has in licensing public houses? and can we suppose this to be fitting in religious matters?

III. At present, the Court of King’s Bench will grant a mandamus to admit a dissenting teacher where the chapel is endowed, as in the case of Rex, _v._ Barker, 3 Burr. 1264.... But if this Bill passes, it will, it is presumed, deprive the first class of persons, named in the Bill, of the benefit of this writ. At present, a person must shew that he is legally qualified, according to law, to act as a dissenting teacher, before he can have the benefit of the mandamus; but under the present Bill, a person must first be admitted to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the place of minister of a congregation before he can qualify. Now, if there be a contest between two persons, as was the case above-mentioned, and one of them, who, according to the terms of the deed of endowment, is entitled to the possession of the chapel, has occasion to apply to the court for a mandamus to be admitted, how is it possible that the court can grant it, unless he can shew that he is a legal minister, qualified according to the existing laws? This he could not do for want of a qualification under the Act, and this qualification he could not get, for want of the peaceable possession of the very situation which formed the subject of contest. It is obvious, then, what a situation the congregations of endowed chapels would be placed in. The trustees being in possession of the property, might, in most cases, appoint whom they might think proper, and the congregation, and their chosen minister, would have no redress.

IV. There is a phraseology used in the second section, which we have never yet seen adopted, and the mode of wording adds another trait of character before unknown in the law of toleration. It speaks of the appointment of a person, not only being a Protestant, dissenting from the Church of England, and being in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders; but the applicant must have an additional character to be entitled to the immunities of William and Mary, and of 19th Geo. III, that is, he must be the minister of a separate congregation. This word separate, whatever be its meaning, as applied to this subject, was never used till the 43d of Geo. III.

V. With respect to the exemptions, the first class are entitled to all the existing immunities contained in the exemption from militia services and offices. The second class, who are intended, it is presumed, to compromise the itinerant preachers of the Methodist societies, are only exempted by the proposed Bill from pains and penalties, whereas, at present, they are, we contend, entitled to all the privileges of the most regular dissenting minister, presiding over one congregation only. The third class are intended, we presume, to comprise the young student, who is preparing for his office, and preaching to a congregation on trial. These are also only exempted from pains and penalties, whereas, at present, they also are entitled to the privileges of the most regular minister.

VI. At present, the cost of the certificate is but sixpence, besides the journey to the sessions to take the oaths; but by the proposed law, the applicant must be at the expence of taking a witness with him to verify the certificate. This, when the sessions are at a distance, will sometimes be of importance to a poor candidate for the ministry; but when it is coupled with the circumstance, that this Bill proposes to give the magistrate a judicial power, which will leave him at liberty, more or less, to reject the certificate, on account of the want, as he may suppose, of substance or reputation in the certifier, the disappointment, vexation, and expence may be endless. If the Magistrate have power thus to determine and to reject on the first application, so he may on the second, and ultimately, the applicant may never be considered as properly qualified; and he at length may be obliged to make an application to the superior courts, the determination of which, as it would be a question of fact, might be very expensive. The consequence of this clause, we apprehend, will be very serious.

These being their conclusions, they looked at the proposed Bill with dread and dismay, as being calculated to make the most alarming inroads upon the rights and privileges they had enjoyed since the foundation of their societies in the year 1739.

========

I shall here also record some of the very judicious and laudable proceedings of the committees of Protestant dissenters on this business.

The Ministers of the three denominations of Protestant dissenters (Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists,) resident in and about London, have, for nearly a century, regularly associated, and have assembled, at least, annually, for the management of their affairs. A committee was appointed by them, about two years ago, to attend to the progress of the Bill which the noble lord had signified his intention to introduce. As soon as the provisions of this Bill were made known, the committee called a general meeting of the whole body, on Thursday, May 16. The meeting was uncommonly numerous; and the discussions which took place were conducted with candour and harmony.

_Library, Red-Cross-Street, May 16, 1811._—At a numerous meeting of the general body of Protestant dissenting ministers, of the three denominations, residing in and about the cities of London and Westminster, regularly summoned to deliberate on the means of opposing the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by Viscount Sidmouth, which has a tendency to narrow the provisions of the Toleration Act, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:—

1. That the right of peaceably assembling, for the purposes of religious worship and public instruction, according to the dictates of our own consciences, belongs to us as men, as christians, and as members of civil society; that this right ought not to be abridged or controled, by any secular authority; and that we cannot consent to the alienation or surrender of it, without criminality on our own parts, disrespect to the memory of those from whom we have, under providence, received it, and injury to the best interests of our descendants and successors; to whom it is our duty, as far as we are able, to transmit it inviolable.

2. That this right has been recognized and maintained, from the Revolution to the present day, partly by a liberal construction of the Toleration Act, and partly by the protection of the illustrious Princes of the House of Brunswick; and that it would betray a want of confidence in the favour of our Sovereign, in the justice of the legislature, and in the spirit of the times, to submit to any proposed restrictions of this right, in passive silence.

3. That as faithful and loyal subjects, attached to the civil constitution of our country, and desirous of contributing to that tranquility and union on which its permanence and prosperity very much depend, we cannot forbear expressing our regret that any measures should be proposed which have a tendency, by abridging our liberty as Protestant dissenters, and restraining the exercise of social worship among those with whom we have connected, to excite dissatisfaction and discontent at the present interesting crisis; and, more especially at a time when we had reason to hope that our liberty would have been enlarged instead of being restrained; though we are peaceably waiting for that period in which this happy event shall take place, and penal laws no longer have any operation in the province of religion.

4. That the Bill now introduced into the House of Lords appears to us inconsistent with the unmolested liberty which we have long thankfully enjoyed; repugnant to our principles and profession as Protestant dissenters, who disavow the authority of the civil magistrate in the province of religion, and imposing restrictions which will be in various respects, injurious and oppressive.

5. That it is our duty, on our own behalf, and on behalf of our brethren, as well as with a view to the cause of religions liberty in general, to make every constitutional effort in our power for preventing this Bill from passing into a law; and that for this purpose a petition be presented by this body to the House of Peers.

DAN. TAYLOR, Chairman.

========

At a Meeting of the Deputies appointed for supporting the Civil Rights
of Protestant dissenters, held at the King’s Head Tavern, in the
Poultry, London, May 15, 1811, WILLIAM SMITH, Esq. M. P. in the Chair:

_Resolved_, That liberty of conscience, comprehending the freedom of public assemblies for religious worship and instruction, in such forms and under such teachers as men shall for themselves approve, is the unalienable right of all; in the peaceable exercise of which they are not justly controlable by the civil magistrate.

_Resolved_, That this liberty has been generally recognized in the practice of the British Government since the æra of the Revolution, under the construction of the statute commonly called the Toleration Act; whatever may have been the letter of the law, the spirit of toleration has been extended, and a large portion of religious liberty actually enjoyed.

_Resolved_, That we have beheld, with great concern, a Bill lately brought into Parliament, designed, as appears to us, to abridge such religious liberty, and having a tendency to deprive the lower classes of the community of those opportunities which they have so long enjoyed, to attend public worship and religious instruction under teachers of their own choice.

_Resolved_, That, as deputies appointed by large and respectable bodies of Protestant dissenters to attend to their civil rights, it becomes our bounden duty immediately to protest against the principle of such measure, and to point out the unjust and vexatious operation of the aforesaid Bill, as now brought into Parliament.

_Resolved_, That a Petition against the said Bill, grounded on the principles of the foregoing resolutions, be signed by the members of this meeting, and presented to the legislature.

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be signed by the chairman, and inserted in all the public papers.

W. SMITH, Chairman.

========

At a Numerous and Respectable Meeting of Protestant Dissenters of
various Denominations, and other Friends to Religious Liberty,
residing in different parts of the United Empire, held at the London
Tavern, Bishopsgate Street, May the 15th, 1811, SAMUEL MILLS, Esq. in
the Chair.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED,

I. THAT this meeting believe that there are at least two millions of Protestant dissenters in the kingdom of England and Wales, including persons of opulent fortunes, high literary attainments, and active benevolence: that their exertions have contributed to promote industry, knowledge, good morals, social order, and public prosperity. That they are not inferior to any of their fellow-subjects in fervent love to their country, nor in ardent loyalty to their venerable sovereign, whose early promise, ‘TO PRESERVE THE TOLERATION INVIOLATE,’ has made an indelible impression on their hearts;—and that any measures which might excite their discontent and enfeeble their attachment, would, therefore, at any time, and especially at this period, be inconsistent with the national interest, and with wise and liberal policy.

II. That although this meeting consider the right to worship God according to individual judgment as an inalienable right superior to all social regulations; and, although they have long anticipated a period when all penal laws for worshipping God according to their consciences would be abolished, they have been unwilling to agitate the public mind for the attainment of their hopes; and presuming that no persons would, in this age, venture to assail the Act of Toleration, after the ever-memorable declaration of the King, they have been content to regard it with grateful emotions, and to esteem it as an effectual protection against the recurrence of former persecutions.

III. That the persons assembled at this meeting have received, with great anxiety, the communications frequently made by the Right Hon. Viscount Sidmouth, of his intention to propose legislative enactments, interfering with the laws relating to Protestant dissenters; that they did hope the applications he has received, and the information communicated, would have prevented his perseverance. But they have learned the disappointment of their hopes, and have ascertained the provisions of the Bill which he has at length introduced into parliament with extreme regret, and with painful apprehension.

IV. That this Bill declares that all the provisions relating to dissenting ministers, contained in the Toleration Act, and in the subsequent Act for their further relief, were intended to be limited only to ministers of separate congregations; and enacts, 1. That such ministers upon being admitted to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the place of minister of a separate congregation, may, on a certificate in writing, under the hands of substantial and reputable householders belonging to such congregation, signed in the presence of some credible witness, who is to make proof of their signatures upon oath at a general Sessions of the Peace, be permitted to take the oaths, and to sign the declaration previously required; and shall then, and then only, during their continuance to be ministers of such separate congregation, be intitled to all the privileges and exemptions which the former acts had conferred. 2. That any other person who may desire to qualify himself to preach as a dissenting minister, must procure several substantial and reputable householders, being dissenters of the same sect, and of the same congregation, to certify on their consciences, in writing, to his being a Protestant dissenting minister of their sect, and of the same congregation, and to their individual and long knowledge of his sobriety of conversation, and of his ability and fitness to preach; and that such certificate must be proved, as before stated, before he be exempt from the pains, penalties, and punishments to which he would otherwise be liable as a dissenting minister. And, 3. That any person of a sober life and conversation, admitted to preach on probation to any separate congregation, must produce a certificate from several dissenting ministers (who have taken the oaths, to be also proved on oath at a general Session) of his life and conversation, and to their long previous knowledge, before he can be permitted to take the oaths and subscribe the declaration; and that he may then, during a limited period, to be specified in the certificate, officiate as a probationer to any dissenting congregation, and be during a limited period, exempt from prosecution and punishment. But neither of the two last mentioned classes of persons, will be entitled to any privileges, or to the exemptions from offices conferred on dissenting ministers by the Toleration Act.

V. That the principle assumed as the foundation of the Bill is incorrect:—That the Toleration Act authorised any persons to become dissenting ministers who conceived themselves to be called and qualified to preach, upon giving security to the State for their loyalty and christian principles, by taking certain oaths and subscribing certain declarations; and not only prevented their persecution under laws made in times less favourable to civil and religious liberty, but conceiving their labours to be of public utility, granted to them exemptions from all parochial offices and other duties which might interfere with their more important exertions:—That such construction of the Act of Toleration has been sanctioned by the general practice of a century, and has never been impugned by any decision in a superior court of law; and that even if such construction be incorrect, and legislative exposition be required, such declaratory Bill ought to follow the intention of the Act which has subsequently passed; and should extend and not contract,—protect and not impair, the relief afforded by the former ancient and venerable statute.

VI. That the Bill introduced into parliament is not justified by any necessity, and will be highly injurious; that it is unnecessary, because the evils presumed to result from the abuses of the existing laws, by a few persons who may have improperly taken the oaths required from dissenting preachers and teachers, do not exist but to a most inconsiderable extent; and because the extension of all such abuses has been anxiously, and would be effectually discountenanced by every class of Protestant dissenters—and that it must be injurious, because it will introduce forms unprecedented, inconvenient, or impracticable; will render itinerant preachers, students of divinity, ministers on probation, and many persons to whose ardent piety and disinterested labours multitudes are indebted for religious instruction, liable to serve all civil offices, ... and will expose all ministers, or the witnesses to their certificates, to be harrassed by repeated attendances at different sessions, and to capricious examinations, and unlimited expence,—because, by limiting the right of persons to become dissenting ministers, it will impose new restrictions on toleration; and because it will create a precedent for future attempts at even more dangerous or fatal experiments against religious liberty.

VII. That, although most reluctant to interference with political affairs, they cannot but regard the present attempt with peculiar sensations of alarm; and that veneration for their ancestors, regard to their posterity, respect for rights which they can never abandon, and the sacred obligations which they feel, will therefore compel them to disregard all doctrinal and ritual distinctions, and to unite by every legitimate effort to prevent the pending Bill from passing into a law, and to oppose the smallest diminution of the privileges secured by the Act of Toleration.

VIII. That from the noble declaration of the liberal-minded and illustrious Prince Regent of the Empire, that he will deliver up the constitution unaltered to his Royal Father, this meeting are encouraged to indulge confident hope that a measure so innovating and injurious can never obtain the sanction of his high authority; and they also rejoice that it has not been introduced by his Majesty’s government; that respectful application be therefore made to them for their wise and continued protection; that a petition to the House of Lords against the Bill be signed by all the persons present at this meeting, and that all congregations of Protestant dissenters, and other friends of religious liberty throughout the empire, be recommended to present similar petitions, and that a committee consisting of persons resident in London, be appointed to effectuate these proceedings, and to adopt any measures they may deem expedient to prevent the successful prosecution of this Bill; and that dissenting ministers of every denomination resident in the country, be also members of this committee: and that such committee may increase their number, and that any three members be competent to act.

S. MILLS, Chairman.

========

I now return to the proceedings of the general committee of the societies of the late Rev. John Wesley.

On Thursday they were closely engaged all day in carrying the aforesaid measure into effect, and sending a copy of the resolutions into every circuit throughout the kingdom, that their friends might know the opinion of the committee on the subject, and be prepared to co-operate with it, in every future measure which might be deemed necessary to the preservation of our religious rights.

As Lord Sidmouth had fixed on Friday the 17th for the second reading of the Bill, there was but little time for obtaining signatures to a petition; however, this little time was improved, and on Friday morning, before eleven o’clock, upwards of two thousand signatures were obtained to petitions from their different societies and congregations in the two London circuits.

Application was made to Lord Erskine, who paid the utmost attention to their case; at the same time he most readily engaged to present their petitions to the House, and to oppose the Bill; as did also Lords Grey and Holland.

In the evening, Lord Stanhope moved, that the second reading of the Bill should be deferred till some future day, which motion was seconded by Earl Grey, and acceded to by Lord Sidmouth; who in a short speech informed the House, that on Tuesday the 21st he should bring the subject forwards for discussion.

This delay was considered a favourable interposition of Providence, as it afforded the Committee opportunity for procuring parchments, and preparing a copy of a petition, to be sent into those circuits from whence they could be returned before Tuesday noon. Special messengers were sent to Bristol, Birmingham, and into some parts of Kent and Sussex; and these were provided with directions and parcels, to be left in every circuit through which they passed, that the urgency of the business might be understood, and every energy exerted to accomplish their purpose.

To evince the zeal and activity which prevailed on this occasion, I here give an extract from a letter written by a gentleman of high respectability, who was actively engaged in this business.

“_May 23, 1811._

“Since last Thursday I have been fully occupied, by the “Committee of Privileges,” on the business of Lord Sidmouth’s Bill. On Saturday night at eight o’clock two post chaises and four, set off on this important business, one to Birmingham, and the other to Bristol. At half past eleven the same night, I was sent to seek another, but after going all over the city, was obliged to return to the committee room without one. At half past twelve o’clock, I procured a coach in Aldersgate-street, and, with a friend, drove all over the town in search of a conveyance. A little before three o’clock in the morning while we were knocking up the people at the _fifteenth_ Inn, a respectable looking man came up with a lanthorn and enquired, “what was the matter?” we answered ‘we wanted a post chaise and four, and must have it, it being on parliamentary business.’ He replied “he could have supplied us had we come at a more seasonable hour, but now he had only one post boy in the house, and he was gone to bed.” We begged of him to do what he could for us, and at length persuaded him to drive us _himself_. The horses were put to in a trice, and we set off full speed for Bromley, which we reached in an hour and a quarter. Here we again knocked up the people at the Inn, but lost half an hour before they were ready. Having left our petitions, with solemn orders to deliver them as soon as it was light, we set off for Sevenoaks, which we reached before seven o’clock. Here, while we were explaining the nature of the business we came on, to Mr. ______ we partook of a hasty breakfast. We then jumped into the chaise and started for Tunbridge; having delivered our parcels and given suitable directions, we drove on to the Wells; after delivering our message there, with steady course we pursued our way to Rye, and drove up to the chapel. The morning service was concluded and the people were just coming out; we instantly desired them to stop, telling them, we had come express from London on very important business. Having ascended the pulpit stairs, with every eye fixed upon us, we laid before them the purport of our mission, by informing them of the Bill, and explaining its nature. We then informed them of the Committee appointed for guarding their privileges, and read their resolutions: we told them also of whom the Committee consisted, and that we had travelled the whole night to reach them at that time. We then requested those to stay who wished to sign the petition; not a dozen went away till they had signed. One man indeed, when he heard none was permitted to sign who was under sixteen, whispered to another, and said, “he should not sign, for he thought it was a scheme to take them by surprise to get them drawn for the Militia.”

“We dispatched messengers to the places adjacent, to be ready for the evening service: one went out thirteen miles, and did not return until midnight. I left my friend Mr. _______ at Rye, while I went to Winchelsea, about three miles off. The minister had just concluded his sermon when I arrived; having informed him of my design, he requested the whole congregation to stop when the service was ended. I then stated the case, and most of the people signed the petition: one man came and said, “pray Sir, let somebody sign for me.” “My good man,” said I, “it will not be allowed, you must assist us by your prayers.” “Really Sir,” said another, “I could wish to sign, but l never wrote my name in my life, but do give me the pen and I will try!”

“At twelve o’clock on Monday we bent our course homeward, and on Tuesday about the same hour, we reached town. We sat close till five o’clock in the afternoon, sending off petitions, in alphabetical order, by coaches, till a message came down express from the House of Lords to inform us, that the business was about to begin. Every one therefore took his arms full and conveyed them to the coach, which instantly drove off with all speed to the House. I and two other friends had three good loads of those remaining ones which were taken from us at the door of the anti-chamber of the House.

“We had at that time above a thousand petitions on the road. The operations of the Bill were not known beyond the environs of the Metropolis, and yet a mighty flood of petitions poured in. Lord Erskine undertook the cause of our societies.

“After bringing into the House many bags full, the petitions were still so numerous, that his Lordship was obliged to fetch the rest from the anti-chamber in his arms, and he came down to the House several times in this manner loaded like a porter.”

I was myself at Leeds at the time when this Bill was pending in the House: the petitions for that Town and neighbourhood arrived on Wednesday morning May 22nd. The Committee which had been previously formed was sitting at the time, and they immediately dispatched messengers into different parts of the town, and the adjacent villages, to obtain signatures. In the course of that afternoon and the forenoon of the following day some thousands had signed the petitions, and had not the business been stopped on the Thursday afternoon by the arrival of the pleasing tidings that the Bill was lost, many thousands more signatures would have been obtained in a few days.

The different denominations of Dissenters in that large and populous Town, formed a Committee of respectable gentlemen, who also manifested great zeal and activity in this noble cause; they deputed several persons to go to their respective congregations in the country, to obtain signatures to their petitions, which they likewise obtained in abundance. Indeed, such unity of sentiment I never witnessed on any subject before; the pious and candid members of the established Church, cordially united with the Methodists and Dissenters to shew their decided disapprobation of the obnoxious Bill, and all, as with one heart and voice, avowed their determination to oppose, to the uttermost, all restrictions on Religious Liberty.

The same activity was manifested, and similar exertions made, in every part of the kingdom where the nature of the Bill was thoroughly understood, its effects were deeply deplored and deprecated by all classes of people in the land.

“In every place the Messengers met with the most zealous co-operation of the people, who dreading the loss of their religious privileges, came forwards to sign the petitions with an eagerness which was highly honourable to their feelings. At Bristol, the Mayor granted the use of the Town-Hall, and although the notice was so short, yet between twelve and five o’clock on Monday, the petition received upwards of 1900 signatures, and this was in addition to separate petitions from all the dissenting congregations in the city, which were numerously signed. By these means the committee had procured before Tuesday noon upwards of 250 petitions, bearing 30,000 Signatures. The Committee was incessantly employed in examining and taking an account of them. And that every thing might be conducted with the utmost regularity, almost every petition was separately rolled up, tied with red tape, and the place from whence it came, together with the number of signatures it contained, legibly written on one end of the roll, so that when it was presented, the noble Lord had no difficulty in announcing these particulars to the House. It required the utmost exertions of the committee to prepare all things in readiness before the House met; however, this was accomplished, and the petitions were delivered to Lord Erskine in one of the anti-chambers. His Lordship was pleased to express his satisfaction with what had been done, and whilst he was carrying his burthens into the House, appeared to feel a noble pride in the office he had undertaken to perform.”

EARL STANHOPE said, he held in his hand a petition against the Bill, signed by upwards of 2000 persons; and he had no doubt that if the Bill was persisted in, the petitioners against it, instead of thousands, must be counted by millions.

The petition having been received, and ordered to lie on the table,

The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose, and after bearing his testimony to the good intentions of his noble friend who had introduced the Bill, and who, he was confident, had nothing in view dangerous to the wholesome and wise system of toleration in this country, expressed his doubts respecting the prudence of his farther pressing the measure. If it were pressed, the good that would result, would be comparatively much less than was expected in any view of the subject. But if it were pressed under the present misconceptions of its object, and the alarm and apprehension thereby created, the evils produced by it might far preponderate. The Toleration Laws, he was ready to say, were matters on which he thought the Legislature should not touch, unless it were from causes of great paramount necessity. Under all these circumstances, he trusted that his noble friend would see the propriety of not farther pressing his Bill.

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH said he was placed in a situation of considerable difficulty, as he must consider the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl as the sentiments of the Government of which he was a principal part. Yet, if his noble friend confessed that misconceptions had gone abroad on the object of his measure, that could not be a reason sufficient for him to withdraw his Bill in the present stage of it. The greatest misconceptions, misapprehensions, and he might add, misrepresentations of the Bill had been made without doors; so that although it was not regular in that stage to enter into particulars, he should for convenience, if not regular, take that opportunity of stating what the Bill was and what it was not.

Earl GREY spoke to order. He would be the last person to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it was certainly quite out of order to enter into the details of the question on the presentation of the petitions, when the opportunity of addressing the House would so soon occur on the second reading. He was convinced of the purity of intention by which his noble friend was actuated, and that he entertained no design of infringing on the just and liberal toleration of every man’s opinion and worship; but he thought that the present was not the time for discussing the question when they were receiving petitions, unless the reception of them was to be objected to.

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH said he should not farther trouble the House at that time. It had not been his intention to take up their time long; but he should reserve himself till the second reading, then more fully to explain himself.

Earl STANHOPE presented fifteen other petitions from different dissenting congregations in various parts of England, (Castlecary, Market Harborough, &c.) which were severally ordered to lie on the table.

Lord HOLLAND rose, and said he had numerous petitions to present to the House against the present Bill, the first of which he should move to be read. It was the joint petition of the three denominations of the dissenters in, and in the vicinity of, the metropolis, namely, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, and the Independent. He should say little by way of preface, except that he believed that that, as well other petitions, would shew that the people of this country were not so ignorant of the nature and character of a Bill brought into Parliament as not to see and appreciate its consequences on their civil or their religious liberty. He was happy to hear from the noble Secretary of State what he had heard from him that night on the impolicy of such a measure. But, he must say, that the noble Viscount had very fairly shaped his course in the proceedings both last session and this. He (Lord Holland) had last June stated his intention to look with much care and great jealousy at any attempt to meddle with or impair the provisions of the Toleration Act, and he thanked the noble Viscount for having so fully explained his views this session. He could not, however, avoid expressing his surprise and regret that the noble Secretary of State had not taken an opportunity, either last session or this, of stating his prudential objection to the adoption of this measure, instead of leaving that to the present occasion, when the petitions against it were crowding in from all parts of England. He then presented the petition, which was received, and ordered to lie on the table.

Lord HOLLAND then stated that he had a great number of other petitions.

The Earl of MORTON said it was desirable to know whether any of those petitions contained matter which reflected upon, or was irregular to be presented to that House.

Lord HOLLAND said he had been unable to read them all. Several he had read, which contained no such matter. But he should feel pleasure in having them all read to the House, if it would not be too inconvenient in respect of time.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE said that he also had many petitions to present. Such was, however, the opinion he entertained of the respectability of character of the persons who had framed them, that, if there was any intention shown of casting doubt or reflections on them, he certainly should move that every one of those which he should present should be read.

The Earl of MORTON was satisfied with the explanation of the noble Baron (Lord Holland.)

The petitions presented by Lord Holland, 65 in number, were then received, the preambles read, and ordered to lie on the table. They were from congregations in a number of places in Wiltshire, Essex, Dorset, Berks, Middlesex, &c.; one petition we believe, was signed by above 4000 persons.

The EARL of MOIRA rose, and after some observations on the respectability of the petitioners, declared his readiness to stake his responsibility for the propriety of the sentiments they contained. His Lordship then presented a great number of petitions from different places in London, Westminster, Surrey, Middlesex, Kent, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Berks, Sussex, Bucks, Wilts, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Hants, Herts, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, &c. amounting to about seventy, all which were ordered to lie on the table.

The EARL of LAUDERDALE then rose, and presented twenty petitions from Bath, the Isle of Wight, Kent, and various other places, with signatures to the amount of more than 10,000 names, all which were taken as read, and ordered to lie on the table.

EARL GREY presented a petition from a Meeting at Bristol, which his Lordship said was intended to have been presented by the High Steward of that city (Lord Grenville.) His noble friend could not attend in the House that night, but he was confident, from what he knew of his opinions respecting the important subject of Toleration, that he was favourable to the prayer of the petition. Ordered to lie on the table.

The Duke of NORFOLK observed, that persons not dissenters, but friends to the principle of Toleration, had signed the petition.

Earl GREY then presented seventy-seven other petitions from Lewes, Portsmouth, Daventry, Colnbrook, Gloucester, and other places, which were also ordered to lie on the table.

The Earl of ROSSLYN presented twenty-five similar petitions from different places. Ordered to lie on the table.

Lord ERSKINE stated, that he had two hundred and fifty-five petitions to present on the same important subject. He should make no other prefatory remark, but to say, that they contained the same opinions on that question which he himself maintained on the subject of the Toleration Act. After having read one of the petitions, his Lordship proceeded to present them to the House, when it was a little amusing to see him engaged for more than half an hour, in lifting up his bags full of rolls one after another, and laying them on the table, then drawing them out and announcing the place from whence each came, and the number of signatures affixed. They were from many parts of the south of England, and some of them had an immense number of signatures.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then stated, that he had above 100 different petitions to present to their Lordships on the same subject, and of the same tenor. The first petition he presented, his Lordship stated, was signed by many persons not Protestant dissenters; several of them beneficed clergymen of the established church, who, equally with the Protestant dissenters, deprecated any interference with the Toleration Laws; and was signed by 896 persons. All these petitions were also received, and ordered to lie on the table.

The number of all the petitions received was about 629.

The order of the day was then called for by several Lords, when

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH rose, and said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, he should make no remarks on the number of the petitions which had been presented against it, as he readily supposed that the petitioners sincerely believed what they had expressed with respect to the operation of it. His noble friend (Lord Liverpool) had truly stated, that great misconception and misapprehension had gone forth respecting the Bill, and he must add, great misrepresentation. The various public resolutions were, for the greater part, inapplicable to the real objects of his Bill. When the intelligent mind of his noble friend was not quite free from misconception, he could not wonder at seeing the misapprehensions of others. It seemed to be thought that some change was intended in our Toleration Laws. What was it? The object of the Bill, the clauses of which might be amended in the Committee, was merely to give uniformity to the two Acts on which our system of toleration was founded; its object was not to exclude any class of dissenters, but to comprehend all, according to the spirit and meaning of those Acts. This was the sole purpose of the Bill. He was led to propose it, from information, he had a considerable time since received, of what was and is the prevalent mode of executing those Acts. He lamented to think that the effect of those Bills was, that any persons of depraved morals should be able by taking the oath of allegiance, by making the declaration against popery, and subscribing to certain articles of the church, or declaring himself, under the 19th of the present King, a christian and protestant, and a believer that the Old and New Testaments contained the revealed will of God, to claim his licence, and that his certificate should enable him to preach any where any doctrines he pleased; and that this did, in fact, till 1802, exempt him from many civil and from all military services. At first he could hardly credit that interpretation of the laws. He could state, but that he feared fatiguing their Lordships, informations from many magistrates, of numerous applications at Quarter Sessions, evidently to obtain these exemptions. He had heard of what he confessed was creditable to a sect of Dissenters, wherein they acknowledged these abuses, and expressed their desire to correct them by the expulsion from among them of such unworthy persons; (the Wesleyan connexion was here alluded to.) He had learned with satisfaction, that though the prevalent interpretation of the law was as he had stated, yet with many well-informed and respectable persons it was not so. In Devon, Norfolk, Bucks, and in Suffolk too, he learned that that interpretation was not admitted. Feeling the abuses that were committed, learning the opinions of enlightened men, and the practice of many respectable magistrates on this subject, he had felt it necessary to bring the consideration of it before parliament. He had been encouraged to do so by the opinions of respectable persons, of magistrates, and judges; and he had stated, in June, 1809, that he intended to do nothing but what was with a view to secure the toleration of Protestant dissenters, as well as the support of the church of England, of which he gloried in being a member. By this fair standard he had proceeded, and in his Bill there was nothing to be found inconsistent with it.—He had not contented himself with the authorities he had mentioned, but had sought further information, and even communications with various dissenters. From some of them he had received voluntary communications, and with others he had had conversation; and though many wished he should take no steps in the business, few objected to the measure he proposed. They thought merely, though the measure was innocent, yet that it might excite in other quarters a disposition to introduce into it objectionable clauses. They did not seem, on the whole, to think there was any thing in it materially objectionable. Every class of dissenting preachers, in fact, who had separate congregations, were left by this Bill in the same state as before, with the removal of all sorts of impediments, and the magistrate would know better what was his duty on such subjects. What better mode of attestation could there be than that of several persons of the congregation for those who sought for licences? As to the question of substantial and reputable householders, or householders merely, that was a consideration for the Committee. There was no other regulation but to relieve them from different practices at different Quarter Sessions.