the dissenters: they had grasped too much; instead of an application for a total exemption from subscription, they ought to have requested a mitigation of the statutes now in force. Besides, he obr served, the strict meaning of the Acts now re unrepealed being either totally overlooked, with respect to the clergy, or at farthest TEP but very little insisted on by the executive body, the proposed regulations were rendered totally unnecessary; for it was no hardship, either on the ministers or schoolmasters of the dissenting body, to subscribe the articles, to qualify them for commencing teachers, since such subscription et by no means imposed an obligation to make them become teachers; that the proposed regulations would pave the way for the encrease of presbyterianism-in all ages the avowed and resolute foe of monarchical government; and that, for these reasons, though no man was a warmer friend of political and religious freedom, the must give his voice against it on the present occasion, for he saw and dreaded consequences.

the

tion

Mr. Montague observed, that he hoped to find a plea for the general principles of toleration unnecessary in the eighteenth century; that the argument adduced by the last gentleman for retaining subscripappeared to him absolute for taking it away, namely, the necessity that subjected government not to enforce the laws then anrepealed, for the severity of the penalties argued for their repeal; that the security of freemen was too sacred to be trusted to the discretion of judges; that however equitable this discretion might be found, still the dissenters were liable to prosecution through avariciousness or envy; that Dr. Doddridge, a learned and pious man, who kept an academy in a town, which he had once the honour to represent, was persecuted by an illiberal action of this nature; and that, if the prosecution had been successful, not only he, but the youth of his academy, would have been injured in a great degree. He added, that the charges brought against the presbyterians for their connection with the wars of the last centuries were not founded upon equity; that they had just reasons for arming themselves against a tyrannical king; and that, even supposing they had at that time been misled by prejudices, it was unfair to tax the children with the sins of the fathers.

Mr. George Onslow seconded these arguments. He said, that the present Act [VOL. XVII. ]

of Toleration did not merit that title; that the penalties enjoined in it were equally rigid with some punishments of the Inquisition; and that, were they put in force, they would be equal to church persecution, which always increased, instead of reducing the object of it. So well convinced was he of the propriety of granting relief in the matter of subscription, that, in a similar case, he would not hesitate to give his vote for extending of toleration even to Jews and Papists, were they not by principle the determined foes of our constitution and country. Convinced therefore as he was, that the present application of the dissenters was founded solely upon liberty and conscience, he was for the motion.

sup

Mr. Constantine Phipps urged, that a variety of opinions in religion was the port of the church, as the same in politics was the support of government; and that, as hardly any two persons were strictly of the same opinion in religious matters, he was for a free and universal toleration; that an obedience to the laws of the realm was a sufficient test of principles, for that the man, who was a dutiful subject, would never be an undutiful teacher; that the dissenters had always proved themselves a free, loyal, and dutiful body, and that, even when the second James had endeavoured to flatter them into an union with the Papists, they treated the monarch with the utmost contempt; and that such well-tried virtue merited a reward. This question, he said, was materially different from that introduced formerly by part of the clergy; that those, as members of the established church, were bound by every tie of ho nour and duty to obey its rules and laws; but that the dissenters were only praying to be disengaged from ties, which were foreign to their principles and institutions.

Lord Clare also replied to some of the arguments advanced by sir Roger Newdigate; in particular, he made a comparison of England with France, in that instance where the penalties enacted by the religious statutes are suffered to lie dormant. He said, that if you interrogate a Frenchman concerning the cruelty of their laws against heretics, i, e. dissenters; he will desire you to consider, whether your own laws are not equally cruel. If you reply, that they are never enforced; nor are ours enforced, he will rejoin: while a man is a good subject, what has government to do with his faith? But as these indul. [2 F]

gencies are merely discretionary, it is to be wished they were placed upon a more sure and determined footing.

Such were the arguments used in favour of this motion by the friends of it; and these were followed by speakers equally eloquent, and arguments equally powerful. But, as some of these had been used on a former occasion, and were now only repeated, we will pass them over. Mr. Edmund Burke said:

Sir; as I have the pleasure of seeing all parties inclined to an agreement in the proposition now before the House, I think I cannot better perform my duty, than by endeavouring to cement the union as speedily as possible. Sir, there have been two objections made against granting the dissenters the desired toleration, or exemption from Subscription. First, such a step is represented as dangerous to the state; and, secondly, it is held to be ruinous to the church. If, then, I show, that it is in neither of these points to be dreaded, I hope this measure will be unanimously embraced, and will come with infinitely more weight and authority into the world.

First, then, it is not dangerous to the state. If it were, who can persuade himself, that those wise and active ministers, whose business it is to watch over the interests of the community, and who have given this House such weighty reasons for believing, that they never slumber nor sleep, but constantly attend the helm; who, I say, can persuade himself, that, if the state were in the least danger, they would now be absent? The noble lord (North) who possesses, and deserves so much the attention of the House, would certainly not have deserted his station, nor left the political vessel to be tossed and buffeted without a rudder, without a pilot, were the least storm to be apprehended. His eagle eyes would have foreseen and prevented the evil. But why do I say, that he would have watched over the public weal? He has not forgot his duty; he has appointed a deputy (Mr. George Onslow, who worthily supplies his place, and long, very long, may he enjoy his office: he is worthy of his employer. He now sits in Moses's chair, and officially expounds the law and the prophets. I hope, therefore, that the hon. gentleman, who opposed the motion, will allow, that the state can be in no jeopardy, as those, who have been found

more infallible than the Pope and his cardinals, have not been in the least alarmed.

Sir, part the first being settled, I hope to the satisfaction of the House, proceed we now to part the second, in which we will shew, that the church is not endangered by the motion. And here let me observe, that, as the law now stands, the dissenters are not obliged to sign but thirty-five articles and a half, which are not peculiar to the church of England. The distinctive doctrines of the Anglican church are contained in the articles, which they are not to sign. Hence the present mode of subscription enjoins the observance of the principles of the church of Geneva, and leaves out entirely what is peculiar to the church of England. For what purpose, then, is this absurd mode of subscription continued, which contributes rather to the propagation of presbyterianism than to the establishment of the national religion? The hon. gentleman who opposed the motion, says, that the church was a respectable body, and that their satisfaction ought to be studied as much as that of the Presbyterians. I own it; and it is for that reason I would abolish a subscription, which does the church more harm than good, as it only binds men to the observance of the tenets of Geneva, and exempts them from paying the least attention to the distinctive doctrines of the English church.

Sir, the opposer of the question is willing to grant them a toleration to a certain extent, that is, as far as their tenets correspond with those of the church of England. But, surely this is not sound logic; for the very principle of toleration is that you will tolerate, not those who agree with you in opinion, but those whose religious notions are totally different. For what merit is there, I beseech you, in tolerating your own doctrines? None at all. Christian charity consists in allowing others a latitude of opinion, in putting a restraint upon your own mind, and in not suffering the zeal of the Lord's house absolutely to eat you up. The dissenters do not desire to partake of the emoluments of the church. Their sole aim is to procure liberty of conscience. If you do not grant this indulgence, you in effect say, Gentlemen, you shall say grace in our way, but you shall not taste a morsel of our meat. Can such an absurd, such a partial institution, be deemed a toleration ? It is impossible; and I therefore hope, that the House will be unanimous in

granting the request of the dissenters in its fullest extent,

These are the principal arguments of Mr. Burke's speech, of which sir George Savile testified his hearty approbation,

Sir William Dolben informed the House, that he could not conceive what the motion meant, unless it was to root out the Christian religion entirely from the nation; that the first of the articles taught us there was but one God, but he feared some of the supporters of this wicked motion said in their hearts there was no God. This speech was answered only by a smile round the House; and the question being put, all the House except sir Roger Newdigate and sir William Dolben, were unanimous for the motion. A Bill was accordingly ordered in for that purpose.

April 14. Sir H. Hoghton moved the second reading of the Bill.

Sir William Dolben said, that though he had the highest respect as he ought, and as they deserved, for the gentlemen who originally moved and seconded this affair, yet he could not but give it all the opposition in his power, as he thought the contents of the Bill did not answer its title; that the Bill professed to give relief to such as dissented from the church of England, according to the original meaning of these words when the 39 articles were framed, that is, to such as differed from it in their opinion of ceremonies and forms, but agreed with it in the grand articles of religion; that the first dissenters admitted the divinity of Christ; that he apprehended many of the present dissenters denied it; that therefore they were now going to relieve not the dissenters against whom the penal laws so much complained of were framed, but a new body of men whom they, or at least the law, knew not of; that such an unlimited toleration as was now contended for, would introduce confusion and distraction into the state; that he was as strongly as any man for a reasonable toleration, but that this was extravagant; that, like St. John, who left it as a precept, "little children love one another," he approved of charity; but that, like the same apostle who coming to bathe himself, and finding there a heretic who denied the divinity of Christ, returned upon his steps, he would have no communication with such a heretic; that the dissenters had complained of no grievance, or brought no petition; that they were going to re

dress grievances, of whose existence they had no proof; that they had not, as they ought, excepted against any particular articles; that the undefined and unlimited toleration now proposed would not exclude from among the dissenters, such heretics as he had mentioned, who acknowledged the Bible as the rule of their faith, and yet denied the divinity of Christ.

Sir H. Hoghton said, in answer to this, that the present Bill studiously avoided the mention of any doctrine, for fear of giving any offence, or of occasioning disputes.

Mr. Montague also said, that the story alluded to, of St. John's flying from the heretic so precipitately, was rather apocryphal.

Sir Roger Newdigate and sir William Bagot exerted themselves with great zeal on the contrary side; and were eloquent and plausible, but it appeared that sir Roger had not yet digested the insult with which his friend Dr. Nowell had lately been treated; for he introduced into his speech a very pathetic exclamation relative to a vote of thanks for his sermon being expunged from their Journals. Sir Roger also again laid hold of an opportunity of testifying his profound reverence for the memory of king Charles the 1st, whom he stiled the only canonized saint of the church of England ;' which occasioned an universal laughter throughout the House; and Mr. Dyson having read an extract from a letter of Mr. Locke's to Limborch, in support of what he had advanced of the present Bill, sir Roger endeavoured to weaken the authority of Locke, by hinting his suspicions, that that great philosopher was probably a Presbyterian, and that his doctrine of toleration appeared to be the work of a speculative man, who knew but little of the world. Here

Mr. Montague interposed, and said, that Locke's doctrine of toleration, mentioned by sir Roger Newdigate as the work of a speculative man, was such as he would much more readily subscribe than any set of articles that he had ever read; that he was glad the Dissenters did not except against any doctrine, but proceeded upon the large and comprehensive plan of Mr. Locke, of being exempted from acknow ledging any other rule of faith but the Scriptures.

Sir Roger Newdigate replied, that he entirely approved of Mr. Locke's letter on toleration, which he thought the most ex

cellent piece of reasoning he had ever read; but that he thought it too pure a system to suit the depravity of man; that the religion of every country bore the colour and complexion of its civil government; that in a monarchy it was monarchical, and in a republic republican, and that he was for preserving our present establishment, and for preventing the Dissenters from giving it any shock, by being indulged with privileges superior to those of the church, especially as they were already on a much better footing in several respects, particularly in being empowered to elect their own ministers.

Sir W. Meredith made several observations on what fell from sir R. Newdigate, and said, that the cruelty and inefficacy of the penal laws were alone a sufficient argument for passing the Bill; that they had on their table the case of Mrs. Fenning, who, in pursuance of these laws, was in danger of losing all her property; that this single case was a sufficient confutation of the assertion, that it was not in the heart of man to put these penal laws in execution; that he would never cease till he procured the same liberty of conscience to the church as was now to be granted to the Dissenters; that it was said it was not just to impose the same restrictions on the Dissenters as on the churchmen, because the former did not enjoy, nor mean to enjoy the emoluments of the church; that thus they thought themselves justified in fettering the consciences of men, because they allowed them emoluments; that such men, as they thus invited into the church, were the very thieves and robbers that were driven out of the temple; that he hoped the same liberal spirit which now influenced the House, would operate in another session to the advantage of the church.

Sir R. Newdigate observed, in answer to this that the present Bill made no mention of the penal statutes, to the abolition of which he was not very averse; that the case of Mrs. Fenning, which was very hard, was that of a Papist, and that none had yet ever proposed to repeal the penal laws against that sect of Christians.

Mr. Constantine Phipps spoke very forcibly in defence of the Bill; and urged, that it was in the highest degree dishonourable to the church of England, to suppose that its foundations were so weak, that it could not be supported without obliging even the Dissenters to subscribe the articles.

Sir H. Hoghton, at the end of hig speech, which closed the debate, read se veral extracts from bishop Warburton, in defence of toleration; and particularly the following: " If any good use can be made of what has been said, it will be chiefly promoted by those reverend men, who, in honour of the church which they serve, and in gratitude to the state by which they are protected, will make it their first care to support that most just of all public laws, the law of toleration: which, how long soever obstructed in its passage to us, and how late soever arrived among us, is certainly of divine original. Nor will such men ever venture to refine upon it (which will always be to weaken it) by idle distinctions between the letter and the spirit of the law. In a word, the church in which religious liberty is cordially enter tained, and zealously supported, may truly called Christian: for if the mark of the beast be persecution, as the sacred volumes decypher it, well may we put toleration as the seal of the living God."

Besides those gentlemen we have mentioned, sir George Savile, sir Joseph Maw bey, Mr. Burke, Mr. Cornwall, Mr. Saw. bridge, &c. were strenuous supporters of the Bill.

The House divided on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The Noes went forth.

So it was resolved in the affirmative. The Bill afterwards passed the Commons.

Debate in the Lords on the Bill for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters.] May 19. The Bill was read a second time.-The motion for committing the Bill was sup ported by lords Chatham and Lyttelton, the duke of Richmond, and earl of Shel burne; and opposed by lord Bruce, earl Gower, archbishop of York, and the bishops of Peterborough, Landaff, Oxford, and London.

The Earl of Chatham spoke very warmly and spiritedly in favour of the Bill, which he attempted to recommend and defend on the general principles of a liberal tole ration. His lordship shewed as much ora tory and fire as, perhaps, he ever did in his life. In replying to one of the bishops who had spoken a great deal of the dogmas