Chapter XXIV: Conclusion (5)

The second point applied to such as had not separate congregations. He did not expect to meet with any difficulty on this subject from the quarter whence it rose. It would be a farce to talk of toleration, he confessed, and at the same time to exclude this class of persons from the rights allowed to other Protestant dissenters, though he must say, that he knew they had often given great pain and vexation to many most excellent and meritorious beneficial clergymen. Yet he must in candour admit, that hundreds and thousands of people would, through our own unpardonable and abominable neglect, be deprived of all moral and religious instructions, were it not for the services of these persons. Millions in this country were indebted to them for their religious instruction. (_Hear!_) We are not at liberty to withhold the only means of moral and religious knowledge. He had not, therefore, excluded such persons, which would have been contrary to indispensible and eternal justice. The third point of his Bill related to probationers. He had on that point, proposed that six persons should sign their belief of the sober and exemplary life, of the capacity, &c.; of the individual. What test could be more moderate? His object was to follow up the principles of the toleration laws, which never meant that any person should assume to himself the privilege of a preacher and teacher, and exercise such important functions, without some attestations.—(_Hear!_) Any person under the Bill might then be chosen, nay, he might be said even to choose himself, if he procured such attestations. He confessed he did, confidently, but, as he had found, vainly, expect, that he should have had the consent of all the sects and descriptions, who felt what was due to the purity, sanctity, and dignity of religion. All he was apprehensive of was, that some friends to the established church might think the Bill would be inefficient for what was requisite; but he never thought that any Protestant dissenter would consider it inconsistent with the wise and just enactments of the toleration laws. He learned that in the customs of dissenters, probation was requisite for the proof of the gifts necessary for the ministerial office; therefore, he had merely proposed that three dissenting preachers should sign a testimony in the probationer’s favour. In our own church, by our ecclesiastical laws, there were certain probations and attestations to be made. A Deacon must have the testimonials of three clergymen to his life, gifts, &c. His name must also be read three times in church. He did not mean to say that this always prevented improper introductions, but that such were the precautions that were observed by law. Though he had received much information on the subject, no man should be placed by him in an unpleasant situation by his stating his name, though there were noble Lords present who knew what information he had received. From the itinerant Methodists, of whom he did not wish to speak disrespectfully, he had grounds on which he expected their approbation. He had formed his opinions from those of magistrates and respectable gentlemen of various descriptions. Objections had been started at first by his noble friend, for whom he had much respect, (Lord Holland) who seemed to think that any man had a right to take on himself the office of teacher, on making the declarations, &c. and that it was not a question for the Legislature to take up. He would say, that this opinion was utterly inconsistent with the meaning of the Toleration Act. That Act, right or wrong, was a measure of condition. (_Hear, hear!_ from the opposition side.) He never could agree to those broad principles. But in some respects, he thought these laws intolerant; where, for instance, they limited religious doctrines. (_Hear, hear!_) His noble friend had called the Toleration Act the palladium of religious liberty. What did he admire in it? Its beneficent effects, he had said, in its providing freedom of worship. Could he deny, that it was differently acted upon in different counties? In proportion to his admiration of it, his wish should be to render its operation universal. It was not so at present. There was no case, wherein when the licence had been refused, the party had, at least for many years, resorted to the Court of King’s Bench. He went to another county. Thus, there was a different interpretation in counties bordering upon each other. Let the benefit, therefore, be made universal. If this measure were improper, come at once to the assertion of the broad principle, and try to alter the laws in that way. That broad principle had never existed in any age or in any country.

History, both sacred and profane, shewed the importance that had been always attached to the priesthood, which had never been assumed, but conferred. He was not so read in the sacred writings as he ought to be, and he could touch on them only with great deference. But he had read, “Lay hands suddenly on no man;” and also that persons chosen for such situations should be “of good report.” He could not think of the argument taken from the low condition of those who, in earlier days, received their divine missions, as applicable to present times, and as giving authority to the persons he had alluded to, to lay their claims to divine influence, without any attestation to their character and qualifications. The early ages of the church shewed that purity of character was held indispensible to him who attempted to enter into the solemn offices of the priesthood. His noble friend had said, that no case had been made out. He appealed to their Lordships on that point. He then stated a circumstance that recently happened at Stafford, when the magistrate, certainly not regularly, required the applicant to write his name, but who answered, that he came there not to write, but to make the declaration. He was convinced he had now made out sufficient grounds for the second reading, and for going into a committee. The noble Lord proceeded to state, from a paper he held in his hand, in which the writer mentioned as an instance of the laxity with which licenses to preach were granted, that he had heard a person in the neighbourhood of London, who seemed well versed in all the atheistical and deistical arguments on the subject of religion, lecturing to a crowded audience for two hours and an half, and broaching the most irreligious and even blasphemous doctrines. The Bill which he had introduced would naturally check the existence or spreading of such abuses, which could not fail to be lamented by every man who was a friend to the morals or the happiness of all classes of society; and he feared that the broad principle stated on a former night by his noble friend, (Lord Holland) tended to let loose this class of men, whose labours must be so destructive of civilized society. Their Lordships did not do their duty if they thought themselves absolved from attending to the prevention of such abuses. It was their duty to protect the ignorant and unwary from being led astray, and to put them on their guard against such mischievous practices. The noble Lord then alluded to various resolutions that had been published in the newspapers. It had surprised him much to observe one set of these resolutions subscribed by a very respectable gentleman, who was a member of the other House of Parliament, (Mr. W. Smith,) in which the Bill was represented as being designed to abridge religious liberty. He saw with astonishment that such an object was ascribed to the measure, than which nothing could be farther from his thoughts. Upon the whole, he could not help expressing an ardent wish that the Bill should be read a second time, in order that it might go into a committee, were it might undergo a variety of amendments. He himself should propose several alterations in the committee; but if he perceived a strong unwillingness on the part of their Lordships to entertain the Bill, however much he should regret it, he should respectfully acquiesce in their decision. He concluded with moving, that the Bill be now read a second time.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY declared his utter abhorrence of every species of religious persecution. Whilst he lamented the errors, as he thought them, of the Protestant dissenters from the church of England, he admitted that they had a full right to the sober and conscientious profession of their own religious opinions. The sacred writings were allowed by all Protestants to be the great standard of religious doctrine, but the interpretation of them was liable to error. Uniformity of religious belief was not to be expected, so variously constituted were the minds of men, and consequently religious coercion was not only absurd and impolitic, but for all good purposes impracticable. As to the present Bill, he should deliver his opinion very shortly. It appeared to him that there were only two objects which it had in view; the first was, to produce uniformity in explaining the Act of Toleration, and the second was to render the class of dissenting ministers more respectable, by the exclusion of those who were unfit for the office. These objects seemed laudable in themselves, and calculated to increase the respectability of the dissenting interest. At the same time the dissenters themselves were the best judges of their own concerns: and as it appeared, from the great number of petitions which loaded the table of the House, that they were hostile to the measure, he thought it would be both unwise and impolitic to press this Bill against their consent. He therefore wished that the noble Lord would withdraw it, and put an end to the alarm which had been excited, even though it might be groundless.

Lord ERSKINE said, that the evidence which they had had in the multiplicity of petitions which he had the honour to present to them against the present Bill, left no doubt as to the opinion entertained by the Dissenters and Methodists on the subject. But it was to be observed that a small part of the petitions had yet arrived, and that if longer time had been allowed, ten times the present number, which already encumbered their Lordships’ table, and loaded the floor of the House, would have been presented; such was the opinion which the dissenters at large entertained of the measure, and such the anxiety they felt at the appearance of encroachment on any of the privileges which they enjoyed.

The Bill professed to be of a declaratory nature, and only explanatory of the Act of Toleration; but he would contend, that it was repugnant both to the letter and the spirit of the Toleration Act. As to the case of a man teaching blasphemous doctrines, a circumstance to which the noble Lord had adverted as having actually taken place, was not such a person, he would ask, liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour? If a man inculcated sedition or blasphemy from the pulpit, was he not liable to be punished for it? and was not this the case with Winterbotham? There was no occasion for any new law against blasphemy; and therefore, so far there was no occasion for the noble Lord to refer to such an abuse as a ground for the present Bill. His Lordship here made a distinction which is not commonly attended to, and indeed seldom noticed, between the Methodists and other classes of dissenters, by observing that it had ever been their wish to continue members of the established Church, had they not been driven by the Conventicle Act to qualify as dissenters, to avoid the penalties which would have otherwise been levied upon them. That some of them, to this day, have chosen to run the risk of such penalties, rather than qualify as dissenters in opposition to their principles, for they do not dissent from the established Church. And was it wise or just policy to subject this people to the vexatious, and to them, ruinous, operation of a Bill, the principle of which was subversive of the Toleration Act? The noble Lord then spoke in terms of high commendation of the zeal and usefulness of this people, and thought them worthy of encouragement and support, rather than restriction and opposition. He knew that some descriptions of preachers among them asked no exemption from serving in civil offices. If they refused to serve, their certificate would not protect them. The law on this subject was quite clear, and required no explanation. If a man was a religious teacher, and had no other avocation, in that case he had “a local habitation and a name,” he was a pastor and had a flock, from which it was not the meaning of the Toleration Act that he should be abstracted, in order to serve in civil or military offices. But if all this was not the case, then he could claim no such exemption. If the pressure of the times, and the demand for military service, required that such exemption should be narrowed, then do it by a special Act to that effect, and not by narrowing the Act of Toleration. He had formed this opinion after he had been asked by his noble friend to examine these statutes, before he knew that this Bill was to be opposed by the dissenters, and that he should have to present 250 petitions against it, from the societies in and near London, and the neighbouring counties, of the late Rev. John Wesley. But in a few days there would be an immense number from distant parts of the kingdom. He stated that the person just named, the founder of the sect, or numerous body of christians, whose petitions he with pleasure presented to that House, was a man who he had had the honour to be acquainted with; and had heard expound the word of God; whose labours had not been equalled since the days of the Apostles, for general usefulness to his fellow subjects. A man more pious and devoted, more loyal to his King, or more sincerely attached to his country, had never lived. He also spoke in feeling terms of the eminent character of his own sister (the late Lady Ann Erskine.) The Act was a direct repeal of the most important parts of the Toleration Acts, as they had been uniformly explained for one hundred and twenty years; and he believed that no court and no judges in the country would agree in the construction put on them by the noble Lord. Would they suffer a Bill to pass declaring that to be a law which was not law? It was not only necessary to look into the Toleration Act, but into the intolerant Acts that preceded it, and beat down religious liberty. The noble Lord then went into some of these Acts, and concluded with wishing to God that all of them could be buried in oblivion.

After a variety of other arguments against the Bill, he concluded a long but most eloquent and impressive speech, with moving that the second reading should be postponed to that day six months.

Lord HOLLAND, in allusion to the assertion, that the majority of the petitioners probably did not understand the measure against which they petitioned, observed, that the holding such language was singularly unbecoming and offensive. Looking at the immense number who signed the petitions on the table, it was no light libel to stigmatize them with want of understanding on a question that so closely touched their immediate interests. A Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had said, that the deluge of petitions which overflowed their table, was produced by misapprehension. To follow up the metaphor, it might be said that this deluge was brought down by the flagrant sin of the Bill. Two charges had been casually thrown out against him (Lord Holland:) one, that he pushed the idea of religious liberty to an extent which struck at the Christian religion itself: this he must utterly deny. The other was, that he gave absurd and extravagant praise to the Toleration Act, an Act which had been characterised as abominably intolerant. He would not go into those considerations, but come directly to the Bill. He had before declared his principles, and he saw now no reason to shrink from them. He was an enemy, a most decided, principled, and resolved enemy, to restraints on religious freedom. He was convinced that every man had a natural right to choose his mode of religious teaching, and that no authority had a right to interfere with the choice. A man had as good a right to preach a peculiar doctrine as he had to print it.

In the language of the Right Reverend Prelate, (the Archbishop of Canterbury) the scriptures were a great largess to the world, a mighty and free gift to all mankind; not restrained to the disciples or the discipline of a peculiar church, but given for the benefit of the world. (_Hear!_) he considered the Toleration Act as the great religious charter; and religious liberty could not subsist unless it was perfect and secure, in the language of Locke, it was equal and impartial, and entire liberty, of which religion and religious men stood in need. The Toleration Act had two parts. One of them was a most generous and liberal concession to the people, and the other was nothing beyond a base and scanty admission of an undoubted right. In one of those parts a crowd of laws were merely done away, which were a shame to the statute book; laws that ought never to have existed. In the other, it was enacted, that on signing certain articles, an immunity from specified inconveniences should be given to dissenting ministers. He was always unwilling that questions of this nature should be stirred. He would not go into the question, but if it pleased the House that the Toleration Act, which had slept for a hundred and fifty years, should be roused once more, he was ready to meet the whole discussion. When the noble Lord (Sidmouth) had given notice of his measures, the House could scarcely have the aspect in which it was afterwards to look upon them. But at every repetition of the notice, something was added. The evil complained of by the noble Lord was more and more seen to be visionary, but the remedy was seen to be more and more violent. One diminished as the other increased. As to the evils which the Bill was to remedy, there was no document before the House to prove that there was any loss of militia service by the privileges of the dissenters. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had established his opinion on some private letters, on which probably that noble Lord placed much reliance. But were those things to be documents, authorising the House to heap disabilities on the whole immense body of dissenters? The part of the Bill which went to force the dissenting ministers to be moral, after the fashion of the noble Lord, was new, and offensive, and tyrannical. This was the distinct meaning of the noble Lord. He would manufacture the dissenting ministers into precisely such men as he would wish to have preaching to himself; but this was not the species of preacher that the dissenters chose. This attempt of measuring the morality of the dissenting minister by the noble Lord’s private conceptions, was totally opposed to the principles of the Toleration Act, and was calculated to be eminently offensive and vexatious. What was the mode of qualification? They must find six substantial and reputable housekeepers to vouch for their morality. And who were those that were to have the power of bringing forward six such housekeepers to speak to character; or who was to deny the dissenters the right of having humble men for their teachers? Suppose five hundred paupers choose to hear religion from a man of their own choosing and of their own class; was it to be said, that the desire was beyond what might be permitted? and yet where was this teacher to find his six substantial and reputable housekeeping vouchers? Or was the argument to be persisted in by those men who were ready to boast of their attachment to religion, and to acknowledge, as one of its glories, that it had risen by the labours of humble men, not merely without dependence on, but in opposition to the wealth, and influence, and power, of the great of this world? Yet it was not enough for the Bill that the dissenting minister should be devout and learned, but that he should be proved so to his congregation. How? by the signature of six substantial and reputable housekeepers? Was his ordeal to end here? No; the judgment of the six housekeepers was to be revised by a country justice, before the dissenting congregation could be secure of the teacher whom they had originally chosen for his fitness. The article on probationers was unjust and absurd. When a vacancy occurred in the dissenting pulpit, a number of candidates usually appeared, who were to give evidence of their qualities, by preaching, before they had or could have obtained an appointment. By the operation of the article now alluded to, those young men would be subjected to the horrid penalties of the Conventicle Act. If this Bill were to pass, they would find 50,000 Methodist teachers applying immediately for licences, for fear of persecution. But though the regular Methodist teachers might not have any thing to fear from a prosecution of that nature, since the wise statute of Anne, yet if this Bill passed, the whole important body of the itinerants would be exposed to peculiar hazards. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had spoken of having had the approbation of many respectable dissenters on the Bill; but he (Lord Holland) had conversed with many on the subject, and he had not found one who did not decidedly disapprove of it entire. The Bill was completely at variance with the original idea thrown out to the House, as he understood it; and he could not doubt that it was at variance with all that he had ever learned to revere as the genuine principles of religious liberty. (_Hear! Hear!_)

Lord STANHOPE said, he did not now rise to oppose the Bill, because it had already got its death blow. He hoped, however, it would be followed up by a measure of a very different nature, (alluding to the repeal of the Conventicle Act). He had never felt more pleasure in his whole parliamentary life, than he had done on this very day; and if any one asked him the reason, he would tell them, it was at the immense heap of petitions that was then strewed upon their floor, and piled upon their table, and all against this most wretched Bill. He liked this, because a kind of silly talk had been going abroad that there was no public. He had always thought otherwise. He had heard it said, that such was the public feeling, that they would not, at the present moment, be affected by any thing which could possibly happen. The petitions now on their Lordship’s table, however, completely gave the lie to this allegation. The event had shewn that there was still a public opinion in this country, and that, when called into action, it could manifest itself speedily, and with effect. He was happy this had occurred. He had never doubted that there was still such a thing as public opinion; and hoped those noble Lords who had hitherto doubted the fact, would now be convinced of their error. And he saw to-day that there was a public, and a public opinion, and a public spirit. He saw it in the multitude of petitions sent up on so short a notice; and he was rejoiced to find it alive, active, and energetic. He would not talk of the Bill; that was dead and gone; and it would be beneath a man of sense to quarrel with the carcase. (_A laugh!_) The Bill was declaratory as well as active, and it was illegal as well as either. He defied all the Lawyers in the House, and out of the House to prove that this wretched and unfortunate Bill was not illegal. _(Hear!)_ He would not condescend to argue every point. It was unnecessary to argue upon what was beyond human help. It was all over with the Bill; its hour was come; the Bill was dead and gone, but he must say something on the subject, however. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had declared the Conventicle Act to be abominable. He (Lord Stanhope) was one of those who detested that Act which they called the Toleration Act, and for this reason, because it did not go far enough. He hated the name of the Toleration Act. He hated the word Toleration. It was a beggarly, narrow, worthless word; it did not go far enough. He hated toleration, because he loved liberty. (_Hear!_) There was not a man in that House—not one among the law Lords—not one, perhaps, among the Bishops themselves, that had read so many of our religious statutes as he had; and disgusting, and foolish, and wicked, the most of them were. He had gone through them with a professional man by his side, and with his pen had abstracted and marked off 300 laws about religion from the Statute Book; and he ventured to assert, that they were of such a nature as would make their Lordships disgusted with the Statute Book, and ashamed of their ancestors, who could have enacted them. There was but one good statute that he saw, and that was a model for statutes: it was the wisest on religion that he had ever seen. It was a statute of Edward VI. who might fairly be said to be the first protestant Prince who had ever reigned in this country, for King Henry the eighth, that defender of the faith, could hardly be said to be a real protestant. This statute of Edward VI. abolished the whole set of religious statutes before it. Yes, shoveled them away all at once; it was the best of statutes. (_laughing!_) For what need had religion of Acts of Parliament? Was not religion capable of standing by itself? (_Hear! hear!_ from Lord Sidmouth.) The noble Lord might say, _hear! hear!_ but was it not true? If the noble Lord did not believe it, he (Lord Stanhope) at least did. Was not America religious? Yet there, there was no established religion—there, there were no tythes. In one particular state, that of Connecticut, he was informed there was a law, that if any man voluntarily gave a bond to a clergyman, no suit upon it could be entertained in a court of justice. And for a good reason, because it being the duty of the clergyman to instruct his flock, and to make them good and honest men, if he succeeded in doing so, no such suit would have been necessary: on the other hand, having failed to perform his duty, he could have no right to be rewarded. Oh! if the establishment in this country were never to be paid till they made the people honest, many of them, he was afraid, would go without any reward whatever. All, then, must have a right to choose for themselves in matters of religion and this was not the first time he thought so.

To toleration, as it now existed in this country, he was, as he already said, a decided enemy; but to religious liberty he was a most decided friend, convinced that no restraint should be put on religion, unless in so far as it might seem to endanger the state.

Earl GREY said, though he perceived that his noble friend (Sidmouth) did not mean to press this Bill farther, yet, he could not allow the question to be put without declaring his unchangeable objection both to the details and to the principle of the Bill, to which no modifications could ever reconcile him. The principle of the Bill was restraint—restraint vexatious and uncalled for. That it was a Bill of restraint, even his noble friend (Sidmouth) himself had not denied, or attempted to disguise. He (Earl Grey) was against all restraint. He went along with his noble friend (Lord Holland) in thinking that every man who was impressed with a belief that he had a call to preach, ought to have every liberty allowed him to do so. One inconvenience stated to result from this unlimited liberty had been said to be of a purely civil nature, inasmuch as it afforded facilities to men not actually preachers, but who pretended to be so, to avail themselves of that character, to escape certain obligations imposed on the other subjects of the country, such as serving in the militia, &c. Judging from the papers on the table, he could not see the force or justice of this observation. For the last forty years the number of persons licensed appeared to have been about 11,000. He should take, however, the last twelve years. Dividing them into two equal parts, it appeared that, in the six former years, the number licensed was 1,100, and, in the latter six years, 900, so that the number had diminished, instead of increasing, and the present measure, instead of being thereby more peculiarly called for, had become so much the less necessary.

Lord SIDMOUTH briefly replied. He took some objection to the legal reasoning on his Bill, and professed himself not dismayed, by the opposition which it met, from bringing forward any future measures on the subject, which he thought suggested by his duty.

The question was then put by the Lord Chancellor, “that the Bill be read a second time this day six months,” and carried without a division: it was therefore entirely lost.

========

Lord SIDMOUTH’S Bill being thus lost, and the subject of Toleration having been so fully discussed, and so ably defended in the House of Lords, it was rational to hope that the cause of religious liberty would now be triumphant; that persecutors would be ashamed and hide their heads; that the pious people of the land would enjoy their privileges unmolested; that every man would be permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and “sit under his vine and fig-tree, none daring to make him afraid.” But alas! this hope was fallacious; the spirit of persecution revived, a new construction was put upon the Toleration Act, and “the enemies of religious liberty exerted themselves to effect that without law, which they failed to accomplish by it.” Several magistrates in different parts of the kingdom, at the Quarter Sessions of the peace, refused to administer the oaths as formerly, to the ministers who applied, and in some cases they were treated with rudeness and contempt!

The Conventicle Act was again brought into use, and several persons were fined, or imprisoned, for preaching without licences, or in unlicenced houses, and in one instance, for _praying_ with a few poor people: this religious exercise, by a certain Nobleman, who was chairman of the Quarter Sessions, was construed in _teaching_, and the man was fined accordingly! This extraordinary decision, however, was overruled by an application to the Court of King’s Bench, and the fine returned.

Dreadful outrages were committed in various parts of the country, and the lives and liberties of his Majesty’s peaceable and loyal subjects were threatened and endangered.

These circumstances greatly alarmed the nation, and more especially as several cases had been brought before the Court of King’s Bench, and the decisions of the Judges appeared to be contrary to former interpretations of the Toleration Act. Matters now began to wear a very alarming aspect, and it was apprehended that the persecuting spirit of former ages was about to be revived. The Toleration Act, under which the Methodists and Dissenters had been so long protected, it was now discovered, could no longer afford them protection. This state of things excited universal interest; the minds of the pious people in the land, both in and out of the established Church, were greatly agitated; and it was deemed highly expedient, yea absolutely necessary, that some decisive steps should be immediately taken, for the better security of the invaluable rights of Conscience and Religion.

The Committees of the different denominations of Dissenters, of the friends of Religious Liberty, and of Mr. Wesley’s Societies, as mentioned before, were again convened; and after the most mature deliberation, it was unanimously determined respectfully to submit their grievances to his Majesty’s Ministers, and to pray for redress. This they did, first to the late Right Honourable Spencer Perceval, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who approved of the plan proposed for their relief, and promised them support; as will appear from the following authentic copy of a letter, dated Downing-street, April 10th, 1812, and addressed to Joseph Butterworth, Esq. Fleet-street.

_Downing-street, April 10, 1812._

SIR,—Having had an opportunity, in the course of the late recess, to consider, with my colleagues, the subject of your communication, on the part of the dissenters, I proceed to acquaint you as I promised, with our opinion upon it.

It appears to us, that the interpretations recently given, at different Quarter Sessions, to those statutes under which magistrates are authorized to grant certificates to persons wishing to act as Dissenting Ministers, (and which interpretations, as far as they have hitherto undergone judicial decision, appear to be more correct constructions of these laws, than those which heretofore prevailed in practice,) place the persons, who wish to obtain certificates as Dissenting Ministers, in a situation so different from that in which the previous practice had placed them, as to require parliamentary interference and relief, to the extent, at least, of rendering legal the former practice; and I shall, therefore, be willing, either to bring forward, or to support, an application to parliament for the purpose of affording such relief.

Understanding, however, that a case is now pending in judgment, before the King’s Bench, upon the construction of some part of these Acts, it appears to me, that it will be desirable to postpone any direct application to the Legislature till that decision shall explain the exact state of the law upon the point in dispute in that case. By postponing the application to parliament till after the decision in that case, no such delay will be incurred as will prevent the application to parliament in this session, since the decision will, I believe, be pronounced upon it in the ensuing term.

The precise mode of giving this relief, whether by the repeal of any existing laws, or by making the Act of the magistrate purely ministerial, in administering the oaths, and granting the certificates, to such persons as may apply, is a matter which I wish to be understood as reserved for future consideration; but I think it material to state, distinctly, that I understand the desire of the persons, whom you represent, to be this—that the exemptions to be conferred by such certificates, from the penalties, to which such persons might otherwise be exposed for preaching, &c. should be universal to all who so qualify themselves; while the exemption from civil and military burdens or duties should be confined to those only who are ministers of congregations, and who make the ministry so completely their profession, as to carry on no other business, excepting that of a schoolmaster.

As to the question respecting the liability of dissenting chapels to the poor rates, I am convinced that the dissenters must consider it as a subject of very inferior importance, both in effect and in principle.—On principle, I conceive, all that could be required would be, that the chapels of dissenters should be put precisely on the same footing as chapels belonging to the establishment; if they stand on any other footing, in point of legal liability at the present moment, (which, however, I do not understand to be the case,) I should be very ready to propose, that the law in that respect should be altered.

If you wish for any further communication with me on this subject, I shall be happy to appoint a time for seeing you.

I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
(_Signed_) SP. PERCEVAL.

========

This letter reflects great honour upon Mr. Perceval, but his lamented death which happened on the 11th of May following, put a stop to the proceedings of the Committees for some time.

In the month of June they made application to the Right Hon. the Earl of Liverpool, who very politely received the deputation from the committees, and engaged to bring forward and support a Bill which would effectually relieve them, and secure to them all their religious privileges. A Bill was accordingly, in the month of July, introduced into the House, which speedily passed through both the Lords and Commons, almost without opposition, and received the Royal Assent on the 23d of July. This auspicious Act is entitled “an Act to repeal certain Acts, and amend other Acts, relating to religious worships and assemblies, and persons teaching and preaching therein.”[Ab]

[Footnote Ab: 52 George the Third, Chap. 155.]

I consider the obtaining the new Toleration Act as a glorious epoch in the annals of British history: it reflects great honour upon the nation, upon his Majesty’s government, upon the Legislative authorities of the land, and upon _all_ who used their exertions to obtain it; I could not therefore deny myself the high gratification, at the close of this work, to record the most interesting circumstances which have come to my knowledge, of this important event.

It has excited sentiments of gratitude and joy in the hearts of every liberal-minded person in the country, and will more than ever endear to them our happy constitution and the lenient Government under which, Divine Providence hath placed us.

I record these circumstances the more willingly, because they form a happy contrast between the present enlightened and meliorated state of society and that recorded, by Dr. Chandler, in the preceding pages.

The following document may be deemed authentic, and though containing but a small part of the interesting account which might be given, will nevertheless gratify thousands of the present generation, and will be read with grateful emotions by those who are yet to be born. Our children, who may rise up after us, when we are “gathered to our fathers,” will pronounce the framers and promoters of this Act blessed; and our children’s children will joy fully exclaim, O GOD WE HAVE HEARD WITH OUR EARS, AND OUR FATHERS HAVE DECLARED UNTO US THE NOBLE WORKS THAT THOU DIDST IN THEIR DAYS, AND IN THE OLD TIME BEFORE THEM.

========

The following is a detail of the steps taken by the Committee of Privileges, belonging to the Societies founded by the late Rev. John Wesley. The letter was addressed, by the Committee, to the Superintendants of Circuits in the Methodist connection.

_London, July 31st, 1812._

In May last the General Committee of Privileges addressed a circular letter to the Superintendants of Circuits, with a view to allay the apprehensions of the people, under the circumstances in which they were then placed from the new construction of the Toleration Act; and to assure them, that no time would be lost in taking such measures as were likely to promote the success of an application to the Legislature for relief; and they, at the same time, inclosed the copy of a letter from the late Mr. Perceval (published with his permission) in which he promised to bring forward or to support such an application to Parliament:—but the melancholy death of that lamented statesman, put an end for some time, to the correspondence with Government upon the subject.

The Committee, being of opinion that a measure of this nature and magnitude, ought to _originate_ with his Majesty’s Government, (whoever might be in office for the time being) solicited no individual member of the Legislature on the subject, but waited till an administration was appointed; when this was done the Committee lost no time in addressing the Right Honourable the _Earl of Liverpool_: and after the necessary communications, a Bill was introduced into Parliament under his Lordship’s auspices, which, to our inexpressible satisfaction has now passed into a law.

In order to understand the bearings and effect of this important and salutary Act of Parliament, and before we make any general remarks, it may be necessary to advert to the situation in which our Societies were placed, and to some of the proceedings of the Committee for the purpose of accomplishing the object they had in view.

By the CONVENTICLE ACT, (22 Charles II. c. 1) it was enacted, that if any person of sixteen years of age and upwards, should be _present_ at any Conventicle or meeting for religion, other than according to the Liturgy, and practice of the Church of England, at which should be present above five persons besides those of the same household, he _should pay a fine of five shillings_ for the first offence, and _ten shillings for every subsequent offence_; which penalties might, in case of the _poverty_ of an offender, be levied on the goods and chattles of _any person present_. _Every person_ who should _teach_ or _preach_ at such Conventicle or meeting, should forfeit _twenty pounds_ for the _first offence_; and _forty pounds, for every subsequent offence_. Every person who should suffer any such Conventicle or meeting in his house or premises, should _forfeit twenty pounds_, which, in case of his poverty, might be levied upon the goods of _any person present_. The _justices_ and the _military_ were impowered to enter Conventicles, and disperse religious meetings. And the Act declares the principle (most severe and intolerant) upon which it is to be interpreted, namely:—“_That it shall be construed most largely and beneficially for the suppressing of Conventicles, and for the justification and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution thereof_;” and that no _record_, _warrant_, or _mittimus_ to be made by virtue of that Act, or any proceedings thereupon should be _reversed_, _avoided_, or _any way impeached_, by reason of any _default_ in _form_! It was also declared, that the goods and chattles of the _husband_ should be liable for the penalties incurred by the _wife_ for _attending a meeting for religious worship_.

As to the FIVE MILE ACT, (17 Charles II. c. 2) it is thereby declared, that persons therein mentioned who should _preach in any Conventicle, should not come within five miles of any corporate town sending burgesses to Parliament_, unless in passing upon the road, before such person shall have taken the oath therein-mentioned at the Quarter Sessions, under a penalty of _forty pounds_.

Besides these two Acts of Parliament, there were several other Acts which rendered nonconformity, or a deviation from the established religion of the country, unlawful, and highly penal.

Thus stood the law relative to religious assemblies on the accession of _King_ WILLIAM and _Queen_ MARY, when, or soon afterwards, an Act of Parliament was passed for the relief of conscientious persons, suffering under or exposed to those intolerant and oppressive laws. By that Act (1 William and Mary, c. 18) usually called the TOLERATION ACT, it was in substance declared, that with regard to _private individuals_, the former Acts should not extend to _any person dissenting from_ the Church of England, who should at the Sessions take the Oaths, and subscribe the Declaration therein mentioned; and with regard to the _ministers of religion_, it was enacted that no _person dissenting_ from the Church of England, in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of _dissenting_ Protestants, who should at the Sessions make the _Declaration_ and take the Oaths therein expressed, should be liable to the penalties of the Acts of Parliament therein mentioned. Provided that such person should not at any time preach in any place _with the doors locked, barred, or bolted_. By this Act also, a justice was empowered at any time to require _any person_ that went to any meeting for the exercise of religious worship, to subscribe the _Declaration_ and take the _Oaths_ therein mentioned; and in case of refusal, to _commit such person to prison_. And the ministers of religion having taken the Oaths under the Act, were exempt from certain offices. It was declared, that no assembly for religious worship should be allowed till _registered_. And disturbers of religious worship coming _into_ a registered place, were subjected to the penalty of twenty pounds. There are other provisions in the Act, which it may be unnecessary to mention; nor need we particularize the STATUTE of the 10th of _Queen_ ANNE, c. 2, which extends the liberty of a person having taken the Oaths in one county, to preach in another county; nor the STATUTE of the 19th of George III. which regulates the _Oaths_ and _Declaration_ to be made, and extends the exemptions.

You will perceive, that it was only by the operation of these last Acts, that any _Protestant_ not resorting to the established church, could be protected from the antecedent penal statutes; and in proportion as the construction of these Tolerating Acts was limited, would be the destructive operation of those penal statutes. However, these Acts of Toleration were considered by the various classes of Dissenters as the Palladium of their religious liberty; and their efficacy for the protection of the various classes of _Dissenters_ was never questioned till very lately; and all who believed it their duty to preach the religious doctrines which they held, and were inclined to protect themselves from the penalties of former Acts, found little difficulty in getting the magistrates at the Sessions to administer the oaths; &c. as it was the generally received doctrine, that the magistrates acted merely _ministerially_—that they had no authority to enquire into the _fitness_ or _character_ of the applicant—and could not refuse the oaths, &c. to any man who represented himself in _Holy Orders_, or _pretended Holy Orders_, or as _pretending to Holy Orders_; or as being a _teacher_ or _preacher_ of a congregation _dissenting_ from the church of England; and it was thought, that there could scarcely be any _dissenting_ teacher of religion who could not properly consider himself as falling within one of the above descriptions. But latterly there has been a manifest alteration in the conduct of many magistrates, who, by narrowing the construction of the Toleration Act, have, on many alleged reasons, refused the oaths, &c. to several applicants. The _new construction_ of the magistrates, has in some points of very great importance to the religious nonconformists, or occasional conformists, been sanctioned by the Court of King’s Bench, which held, that a man to entitle himself to take the oaths, &c. as required by the Act of Toleration, ought to shew himself to be the acknowledged teacher or preacher of some _particular congregation_, and that it was not enough for a man to state himself a Protestant Dissenter, who preaches to several congregations of Protestant Dissenters. And with regard to persons pretending to Holy Orders, the decision of the Court left us in great uncertainty.

In this state of perplexity, with regard to what was to be the construction of the Toleration Act, or rather of probability that it would afford but a very insufficient protection for the _Methodists, even if they could denominate themselves Dissenters_, the Committee were under the necessity of deeply considering the situation of the whole body. But when they were constantly receiving intelligence from various parts of the country, of the appearance of a new spirit of hostility to the _preachers_, and of persecution against the _harmless members_ of their Societies, by enforcing the penalties of the most odious of obsolete laws upon the persons of the poor and defenceless, the Committee were exceedingly alarmed. For although they admired, and have experienced the benefit of the pure and impartial administration of justice, for which this country is so celebrated, yet they could not but consider the state of the Societies with apprehension, when they saw the press teeming with the grossest slander and falsehood against them; their religious practices traduced and vilified; and they themselves represented as “_vermin fit only to be destroyed_,” had such representations been casual, they would have been disregarded; but when they were reiterated in certain popular _Publications month after month_, and one _quarter_ of a year after another—when the legislature were loudly and repeatedly called upon to adopt measures of coercion against them, under the pretence that evangelical religion was inimical to public security and morals; and, as they saw, that in unison with this spirit, there seemed a growing disposition in many to enforce the penalties of the _Conventicle Act_ upon those who either _had not_ taken the oaths, or _could not_ take them, or _were not permitted_ to take them, &c. under the Toleration Act, the Committee were under the greatest apprehension that the Societies were about to be deprived of that liberty to worship God, which, either under the law, or by the courtesy of the country, they had enjoyed from their first rise nearly a century ago. And their fears were far from being allayed by the intelligence which thickened upon them, and they became furnished with a mass of incontrovertible evidence from different parts of the country, which shewed that, even if the members of our Societies were to be considered as _Dissenters_, it would be utterly impossible to get protection under the Toleration Acts for our Preachers and Teachers, especially for the Local Preachers, Class Leaders, &c. &c.

These various Teachers were absolutely necessary for our economy, and without them we knew that our Societies and religious customs could not be carried on. They had, it is true, been _tolerated_ by the general _consent_ of the country, rather than _protected_ by the _law_; but this had with almost equal efficacy secured the free exercise of their religious privileges.

However, as a bitter spirit of intolerance was thus manifesting itself, the Committee thought it in vain to contend for protection under acts of parliament which were of _uncertain interpretation as to Dissenters_, but of no value to those who _considered themselves as belonging to the Church of England_, of which the great bulk of our Societies is composed, the Committee therefore determined to submit their case to the Government, and to Parliament; and to solicit the adoption of such a measure as would secure to the _Methodist Societies_, and to _other denominations of Christians suffering with them_, the free exercise of their religious rights and privileges.

It now became necessary for the Committee deeply and critically to consider the situation and principles of the Societies, in order to adopt a measure for their relief, which they might submit to his Majesty’s ministers for their support in parliament. In doing this, the Committee could not forget that the Societies are mere associations of christians, united for general improvement and edification; and as the great majority of them were, from religious principle, attached to the Church of England, they could not conscientiously take the oaths as _Dissenters_,—to whom, alone, the _Act of Toleration_ applied. Therefore no amendment of that Act appeared likely to answer the purpose. But as Dissenters of various denominations were also to be contemplated by the projected measure, it became necessary to proceed upon some principle common to all. A principle which should recognize _the rights of conscience_, and at the same time afford that security for peaceable and loyal conduct, which the government of any State has a right to expect. It appeared also material to avoid all phraseology which would be exclusively applicable to _any one sect_ of religious people.

As to the principle, the Committee, at an early stage of their deliberations, came to the resolution, that although all well-regulated societies, and denominations of Christians, will exercise their own rules for the admission of public or private teachers among themselves, yet _it is the unalienable right of every man to worship God agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience_; and that he has a right to HEAR and to TEACH those Christian truths which he conscientiously believes, without any _restraint_ or _judicial_ interference from the _civil magistrate_, provided he do not thereby disturb the peace of the community, and that on no account whatever would the Committee concede this fundamental principle.