Lords Sitting of 21 May 1811

PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTERS' BILL.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, it was his duty to present to their Lordships the great number of Petitions which he had received from various classes of Protestant Dissenters against this Bill. The first Petition he presented was one from Market Harborough, which the noble earl desired might be read. Which being done, he next moved that the said Petition do lie on the table.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he had not the slightest intention of opposing the motion. His object in rising was, that, if possible, the time of the House might be saved. He was perfectly convinced that his noble friend had been actuated by the purest and best motives in bringing forward the Bill which was now before the House, and he was satisfied that the object of the Bill had been by many persons much misconceived and mistaken. It was, however, a consideration of great importance, whether the object sought to be attained was equivalent to the inconvenience arising from the agitation and alarm that had prevailed since the measure had been before the House. If there was any one subject more than another in which he thought it impolitic for the legislature to interfere without a real and absolute necessity, it was on religious subjects. However laudable the object of his noble friend might be, still it ought to be considered that the good to be attained by the change proposed was trifling, and that the inconvenience sustained in consequence of the agitation and alarm that prevailed, was very great. Under these
234
circumstances, he suggested to his noble friend the expediency of not proceeding any further, and of withdrawing the Bill.
Viscount Sidmouthfelt very forcibly the importance which must be attached to what had been stated by his noble friend, particularly as he knew that his noble friend spoke the sentiments of government upon this subject. Still, however, he did not think that his noble friend had made out a case to call upon him to withdraw his Bill. His noble friend had spoken of misconception and mistake, and certainly there had been much misinterpretation and misconception, but if the Bill was allowed to go into a Committee, every thing that had given rise to misconception might be remedied. The noble viscount was proceeding to explain the objects of the Bill, and his reasons for proposing it, hoping the House would indulge him, by allowing him to do so, when
Earl Greyspoke to order, observing that no one could be more clearly convinced than himself, however he might differ with him in opinion upon this subject, of the purity of the motives by which his noble friend had been actuated. It was however irregular for his noble friend to enter into a discussion of the Bill at the present moment, when there were numerous Petitions against it to be presented, the regular course being to hear them first.
Viscount Sidmouthsaid, 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 Stanhopepresented several other petitions, from different dissenting congregations in various parts of England, which were severally ordered to lie on the table.
Lord Hollandrose and said, that 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 as 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 to appreciate its consequences on their civil-or their religious liberty. He was happy to

235
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 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 earlier opportunity, either last session or this, of stating his prudential objections to the adoption of this measure, instead of leaving it 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. The noble lord next staled, that he had a great number of other petitions.
The Earl of Mortonsaid, 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 Hollandsaid, that 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 should not be too inconvenient in respect of lime.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, 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 shewn of casting doubts or reflections on them, he should certainly move, that any one of those which he should present should be read.
The Petitions presented by lord Holland 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 was signed by above 4,000 persons.
The Earl of Moirarose, and after some observations on the respectability of the petitioners, declared his readiness to take 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, Cam-
236
bridgeshire, Essex, Berks and Sussex, Bucks, Wilts, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Hants, Herts, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, &c. amounting to about fifty; all which were ordered to lie on the table.
The Earl of Lauderdalethen rose, and presented numerous Petitions from Bath, the Isle of Wight, Kent, and various other places, with signatures to the amount of more than ten thousand names, all which were taken as read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Earl Greypresented a petition from a congregation at Bristol, which we understood his lordship to say, 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 Norfolkobserved, that persons not dissenters, but friends to the principle of toleration, had signed the petition.
Earl Greythen presented many other petitions from Lewes, Portsmouth, Daventry, Colnbrook, Gloucester, and other places, which were also ordered to lie on the table.
The Earl of Rosslynpresented several similar petitions from different places.
Lord Erskinestated, that he had nearly 200 petitions to present on the same important subject. He should make no oilier prefatory remark, but say that they contained the same opinions on that question, which he himself maintained on the subject of the toleration act.—These petitions were presented, and ordered to lie on the table. They were from all parts of England, and some of them had an immense number of signatures.
The Marquis of Lansdownethen stated, that he had above one hundred 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.

237
The number of all the petitions received was about five hundred.
The order of the day for the second reading of the Bill was then called for by several lords, when, after some pause had occurred,
Viscount Sidmouthrose, and said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, be should make no remarks on the number of 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, the Secretary of State 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 be 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 ignorant person 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, 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 be laws. He could state, but that he feared fatiguing their lordships, information from many magistrates of numerous applications at quarter sessions, evidently to obtain these exemptions. He had heard of what he confessed was credit-
238
able 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. Could it be supposed that they who so acted to evade the laws, would be deferred by fear of their brethren? 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, Buckinghamshire, 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 farther information, and even communications with various dissenters. From some of them he had received voluntary communications, and with others he had had conversation; and he could truly aver, that though many wished he should take no share in the business, few objected to the measure he proposed. They thought merely, that 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 dif-

239
ferent practice at different Quarter Sessions. The second point applied to such as had no separate congregations. He did not expect to meet with any difficulty on this subject from the quarter whence it arose. 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 beneficed 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 instruction, were it not for the services of these persons. Millions in this country were indebted to them for their religious instruction. We were 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. 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 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 necessary for the proof of the gifts requisite 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
240
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 in-formation 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 opinion 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 him-self 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 wrong, was a measure of condition. He never could agree to those broad principles. But in some respects, he thought those laws intolerant; where for instance they limited religious doctrines. 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

241
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 the present times, and as giving anthority to the persons he had alluded to, to lay their claims to divine influence, without any attestations of 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.—The noble viscount next adverted to the abuses which had existed. He stated a case before the magistrates of Stafford, where a man who could not read or write applied for a certificate. One of the magistrates inquired if he could sign his name, his reply was, he did not come there to write. The magistrate told him if he would read the act he would find what was required, and he asked him to read aloud. To this the applicant answered he did not come there to read. He was then interrogated if he could write? his reply was, No; he was not ashamed to own it. Could he read?—No. The magistrate observed how improper it was for him to claim this certificate, who could not read the Bible, the doctrines of which he was about to preach without being able to read the original. To this the other, with an unblushing countenance, remarked, that the magistrate knew nothing of inspiration. It was thus that such a man claimed and procured a certificate, by which he freed himself from every civil burden. Another case he detailed from a letter, wherein an account was given of a practice among a class of independents, in the metropolis, who delivered a sermon full of the grossest blasphemy, whereby the principles of atheism and deism were disseminated among the people. In neither of these instances was it his wish that the Bill should debar them from becoming preachers, but it only required they should have the sanction of persons of their own persuasion. In the whole of this proceeding he had done nothing which he would not have done if he had been a dissenter. If there were any objectionable clauses as they now stood, they could easily be amended in the Committee, and it was
242
his wish and desire their lordships would permit him to proceed to a Committee, and then they might see in what state the Bill would come before them for a third reading. With respect to the Resolutions which he had seen in the public papers, they were totally opposite to every part of the Bill now on their lordships' table. There was one Resolution which imputed a design against the Toleration Act; and he would not say one word with respect to the charity from whence this Resolution arose. However he perceived there was a disposition against the Bill, and probably it would not pass; but having stated hi" sentiments on the occasion, he would leave it entirely in their lordships' hands, and they might dispose of it as to their judgment seemed most proper. If any motion were made from others, he should throw no obstacle in its way. He should satisfy himself in the conscientious discharge of his duty; because he had throughout been actuated by a wish to render a benefit to the dissenters in general, by instituting a measure intended to promote the honour, the dignity, and the sanctity of religion. The noble viscount concluded by moving. That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, after the Bill had received the sanction of the leaders of the different sects, as stated by the noble viscount who brought it in, it was with extreme surprize that he saw the flood of petitions against it, which had that night been poured into their lordships' House. With respect to the difference of opinions on religious subjects in the Christian Church, he observed, that the basis of that religion was the Bible; and he held those to be the most orthodox Christians, who adhered the most strictly to the doctrines laid down in that sacred volume. To explain it was the duty of all mankind, and its interpretation was confined to no particular sect. To use coercion in compelling uniformity, was not only impolitic, but while man was constituted as man, it would be impracticable. The very basis of toleration depended on abstaining from the attempt. That basis would never be infringed by the Church of England, if that Church endured in its existing form. But were it overturned, history afforded them many melancholy examples of the direction which religious toleration might take. This was all he should suggest to their lordships on co delicate a point of his subject. As for the Bill under their view,

243
it appeared to him to embrace two very important considerations, of extreme interest to society and the religious establishments of the country. These objects were, 1st, To unite and give uniformity to the three acts already in existence; and, 2ndly, To render the dissenters more respectable, by precluding from their body those, who were unworthy to belong to any class of religious instructors. Of both of these objects he approved, as they must be of the utmost utility to the community, and highly beneficial to the country. But as the dissenters, who at first approved of the Bill, it now appeared, differed from it, he considered it to be unwise and impolitic to press it against their inclination or consent, who, it must be allowed, were the best judges of what they considered to be for their own interests.
Lord Erskineobserved, that the numerous petitions presented this evening against the Bill, were only a few of the immense number (to the amount of ten times as many) that would be received, were an opportunity afforded for their transmission from remote parts, by any postponement of the discussion on this subject. But no Such postponement was necessary; and he was in hopes he should be able in a few minutes to lay such grounds before their lordships, as would induce even the noble mover himself, to acknowledge that he was justified in proposing the Amendment, with which it was his intention to Conclude; namely, that the second reading of the Bill should stand for this day six months. From what had fallen from the noble mover, their lordships would suppose this Bill to be a bill of regulation to explain that, which had been justly called the palladium of religious liberty, the Toleration Act. Bat instead of that, he would shew that it was a declaratory act, directly repugnant to the spirit and letter of that in Valuable act. The preamble, he contended, was a direct repeal of the most important parts of the Toleration Act, which for 120 years had been administered without any difference of opinion or doubt in the breast of any justice or other individual. After the very recital of the Toleration Act, "that persons in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders," should be free from the penal enactments it contained; this Bill went to leave all those classes, except the first (those in holy orders) excluded from these exemptions, and to be provided for by future clauses, to be introduced by the
244
noble viscount; or put to other tests, narrowing those established by the Toleration Act, and granted by their fathers at the glorious are of the Revolution. Could their lordships, under these circumstances, even permit that Bill to go into a Committee, which in its preamble declared that to be law, which was not law? He most cordially agreed with the right rev. prelate who so liberally and excellently delivered sentiments well becoming the head of the English Church, that the Bible was the work of God, the foundation of the Christion Religion, and that he was the best Christian who best observed its precepts; and, above all, that it was the office of man to interpret that sacred volume. It was against this natural office that the tyrannical laws existing previous to the passing of the Toleration Act were directed, and religious liberty put down, till that act, of which a right exposition had not been made by the noble viscount.—He then noticed two acts against preachers and teachers in unlawful assemblies, subjecting them to heavy penalties, which he severely condemned. It was the intention of the Saviour of the World that his doctrines should be propagated, not by the high and learned, but by the humble and lowly. Not that they were to preach according to this or that liturgy, but as God enlightened their conscience for the purpose of enabling them to express their feelings to their fellow men. He then turned to the Toleration Act itself, and argued that the noble viscount had confounded several section" in it which were altogether independent of each other. The 8th section exempted four orders of the dissenters from certain penalties upon their qualifying themselves in a particular manner, but the preamble repealed this section, except with regard to teachers. Could their lordships do this, or suffer the Bill to go to a committee? It also went to to repeal the 10th and 11th sections, the former applying to Anabaptists and Quakers, and the latter exempting from parochial duties. Supposing the 9th of the King had never passed at all, this preamble could not be admitted, but since that act it was still more inadmissible, as it thrust three out of the four orders enumerated, out of the pale, and proceeded not to leave them the toleration they enjoyed, but to give them toleration on the noble viscount's own terms. They did not want a penalty, as proposed by the noble viscount, to keep a man from in-

245
culcating blasphemy. A Dissenter or a Churchman uttering such language, might be indicted and punished, as Mr. Winter-bottom had been, to whom he must say rather a hard measure had been dealt out. They wanted no aids of this new Bill, nor sureties of six householders to save them from this. The declaration of his Majesty on his accession to the throne, had filled the hearts of his subjects with delight, and the act of the 19th of his reign had in some measure fulfilled their expectations. It was to relieve those whose scruples of conscience precluded them from taking the benefit of the Toleration Act by subscribing to the tests; and it was impossible that this act, which had for its object the further relief of the Protestants, should be construed as it had been by the noble viscount, into any thing like a repeal of any part of the Toleration Act. That act stood where it was, and no repeal of any of its exemptions took place by the 19th of the King, although it granted further immunities to particular parties therein designated. Let their lordships, then, for-get that any petitions had been presented against this Bill, and only consider that it went to repeal these two acts—could they accede to it? The noble viscount was in error when he supposed that itinerant preachers or probationers, by subscribing the declaration, and taking out the license, were exempted from parochial offices. There could be no doubt in the minds of magistrates on this subject, and a single Mandamus in the court of King's Bench would decide the matter at once and for ever. The law was as clear as possible in the exemptions and immunities; and if the noble viscount thought these immunities went too far, in cases where the military necessities of the country might be Concerned, he might propose to alter that in a much better manner than by trenching on the Toleration Act. There were two millions of persons in the situation of the petitioners against this Bill, whom he recollected in the bosom of the Church, from which they were driven by religious persecution. They were driven to this secession from the jurisdiction of the Church, but not to a very great difference of doctrine. He called on them not to increase that persecution, but suffer all Christians to join in promoting the salvation of mankind, as recommended by the right reverend prelate opposite. He then paid a handsome tribute of approbation to the late lady Huntingdon, and to Mr. Westley, as
246
well as to his followers, for the rectitude of their lives, and abstinence from political affairs. Other strong reasons against the Bill were to be found in the united opposition of Dissenters of every description, as well as Methodists, and in the situation of his Majesty. The King, after his declaration, could be no party to any alteration of the laws, to render them less tolerant; and were he Regent, be would say, while the prerogative is suspended, I will never agree to this Bill. (A cry of order!) He apologized for any disorder, and concluded by moving, as an amendment," That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
The Lord Chancellorfelt convinced, that no man was more averse to breaking in upon the great principles of the Toleration Act, than his noble friend who pro-, posed the Bill. The different modes of interpreting that act, were, however, facts incapable of contradiction; and if a man was refused a licence in one county, it was much more easy for him to go to another where he might obtain it, than apply for a mandamus to the court of King's bench, which was necessarily accompanied with considerable expence. He also knew, that the late act explained the exemptions as to the Militia: but there were great doubts as to who were entitled to such exemptions. To shew the laxity of interpretation which prevailed at one time, he could recollect that in hi" younger years, and when he was liable to be drawn for the militia, it was proposed to him to get himself exempted by paying sixpence for a licence. He knew the law was so understood at that time; erroneously unquestionably. He had known of some instances that occurred among those persons who came to take the qualifications of the most total ignorance. There were some who could neither read nor write, and who absolutely, when the name of another was written down, carried it away as their own. He believed the Bill to be well intended, and capable of doing good, but under the present circumstances he thought that to press it on the House would not be advisable.
Lord Hollandsaid he would not have spoken, had it not been for some topics that had been urged in the course of the present discussion. The noble viscount had stated, that a misconception had gone forth with respect to this Bill, and that expectations had been held out to him by certain persons, calling themselves Dis-

247
senters, as to an approbation of this Bill, and the noble viscount had expressed his astonishment that they had not fulfilled these expectations; now he (lord Holland) hoped, that the noble viscount would not deem him guilty of an incivility, when he said that it was rather a misconception of the noble viscount himself, as to the effects and consequences of the act itself, which he now proposed. It was no light matter to tell that numerous class of persons, called Dissenters, that they were so stupid as not to understand acts of parliament that related to their own concerns, and it would have behoved those who so charged them, to have looked carefully to what would be the operation of this Bill were it to pass into a law, before stating that this deluge of petitions had been brought to the House upon a misconception of the nature of that Bill. There were two accusations of a very inconsistent nature also thrown out against himself; he had been supposed to hold out doctrines so devoid of religious liberty (he should not call it toleration) that if they were acted up to, they would tend to subvert religion itself, and to have explained the act of toleration in such extravagant terms, as to be called abominably intolerant. He hoped, that if in the sincere explanation of his own sentiments he had gone beyond the opinions of the House, they were such as he would not shrink from; but at the same time he did not desire their lordships to subscribe to those opinions before they expressed their abhorrence of this Bill. His opinion was, that all those who thought it their duty to interpret the Scriptures, should have the right to adopt their own mode of doing so, and that this Bill was therefore an infringement of their natural rights. He did not say, that if they preached any doctrines that were seditious or injurious to any class of the community, they were not properly liable to punishment. Every man might have a right to carry arms, bat it did not follow that every man was entitled to kill whomsoever he met; nor did it follow because the liberty of the press was encouraged, that every sort of libel was to be published with impunity. Every mail had a right to interpret the Scriptures according to his conscience and the best of his judgment; and however mean his capacity might be, if he thought he perceived what was the intention of the Great Author of the Scriptures, it was his duty and his right to ex-
248
press his sentiments. In the language of the right reverend prelate, the scriptures were a great largess to the world, a mighty and a free gift to all mankind; not re" strained to the disciples or discipline of a peculiar church, but given for the benefit of the world. 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 bare 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 inconveniencies 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 an hundred and twenty years, should be roused once more, he was ready to meet the whole discussion. When the noble viscount 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 viscount 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 viscount had established his opinion on some private letters, on which probably that noble viscount placed much reliance. But, were those things to be documents, authorizing the House to heap disabilities on the whole immense body of Dissenters? One of those letters was from a gentleman, who complained that one of the preachers in his neighbourhood, was an atheist and deist at once; that he denied a first cause, and preached a first cause. And it was upon the testimony of such correspondents that the present Bill was built. No mandamus had been applied

249
for in the King's Bench, and therefore the questions of immunities were to be actually agitated by the House of Lords. If two country justices were to disagree en any point, and the dispute was too trivial for the quarter sessions, it was to be brought before the House of Lords, The part of the Bill which went to force the dissenting ministers to be moral after the fashion of the noble viscount was new, offensive, and tyrannical. This was the distinct meaning of the noble viscount. 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 at measuring the morality of the dissenting minister by the noble viscount'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 housekeepers to vouch for their morality. And who were those that were to have the power of bringing forward six housekeepers to speak to character, or who was to deny to the dissenters the right of having humble men for their teachers? Suppose five hundred paupers chose to hear religion from the mouth of 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 where was this teacher to find his six housekeeping vouchers? or was the argument to be persisted in by those men who were so 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 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 relating to 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
250
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 licenses, 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, the whole important body of the itinerants would be exposed to peculiar hazard. The noble viscount 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 the entire Bill. It 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 also at variance with all that he had ever learnt to revere as the genuine principles of religious liberty.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he 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 him, it was at the immense heap of petitions that was then strewed upon their floor, and piled upon their table, and all against this 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. 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 that public 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. The Bill was declaratory as well as active, and it was illegal as well as either. He defied all the lawyers in and out of the House to prove that this wretched and unfortunate Bill was not illegal. He would not condescend to argue every point of it. 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, however, say something on the subject. 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 be loved liberty.

251
He believed he might say, that he wag one of those who had read as many statutes on the subject of religion, not as the lawyers only, but, he might say, as my lords the bishops. 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 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. An act, however, was passed in the 1st of Edward 6, who might fairly be said to be the first Protestant prince who had ever reigned in this country, for king Henry the 8th, that Defender of the Faith, could hardly be said to be a real Protestant, by which they were all shovelled away at once; and justly so; for what need had religion of acts of parliament? Was not religion capable of standing by itself? [hear, hear! from lord Sidmouth.] The noble viscount 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 was the duty of the clergyman to instruct his flock, and to make them good and honest men, and if be had succeeded in doing so, no such suit would have been necessary; and on the other hand, having failed to perform his duty, he could have on 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, ha was afraid, would go without any reward whatever. He gave notice, that he should, early in the next session, introduce a Bill, in place of that of which he trusted they had seen the last glimpse this night, founded on the equitable principle he had now alluded to. To toleration, as it now existed in this country, he was, as he already said, a decided enemy; but to religions liberty he was the most decided friend, convinced that no restraint should be put on religion, unless in so far as it might seem to endanger the state.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire, though he did not disapprove of the determination of his noble friend not to persevere in the
252
Bill, after the opposition that had been manifested towards it, was still convinced that, if the Bill had been suffered to go into a Committee, it would have come out free from many of the objections under which it now laboured, and in such a state of improved regulation, as would have reconciled to it many of those who now seemed hostile to its principle and enactments. He could not deny that the Petitions presented against this Bill were numerous, and that they contained a very great number of signatures. He could, however, by no means persuade himself, that those who had signed the Petitions were fully aware of that against which they petitioned; or that, if the matter were properly explained to them, they would not support, rather than oppose the present measure. This he knew, that his noble friend, while digesting the present Bill, had received such communications on the subject, as induced him to believe, that, in introducing the measure he conferred a boon on those to whom it related, and that there was seldom a mea'-sure introduced into that House which had given more general satisfaction. His noble friend on the second bench (lord Holland) had stated it to be his opinion, that it would be for the advantage of religion that every man who chose it should become a preacher or teacher. This was a doctrine in which he could not agree. He thought it would be extremely detrimental to the best interests of religion, and dangerous to the existence of any government, that this should be countenanced.
Lord Hollandexplained, by declaring it to be his opinion, that though every one of the numerous subscriber" to the petitions on the table might not be fully acquainted with every minute bearing of the measure against which the petitions were presented, yet, there was not one of them who was not aware of the general tendency of the measure, and that it was injuriously calculated to restrain them in the exercise of their religious doctrines. As to the statement attributed to him by his noble friend who spoke last, that in his opinion, every person who chose it, ought to be allowed to preach in the mode he thought best, he had not gone exactly that length, He had said, and he still maintained, that the cause of religion would be promoted by allowing all those who thought that they had a call to preach the gospel, to do so to those who liked their doctrine, without disability or restraint of any kind.
Earl Greysaid, that nothing he had heard in support of this Bill had at all shaken his opinion as to its impropriety. He could truly state, that after listening to the various arguments both for and against the measure, he was more and more convinced that it would be a gross infringement upon religious toleration. He was an enemy to the principle of this Bill, which, if carried into execution, would have the effect of increasing that evil, which it professedly was intended to remedy. Civil and religious liberty guaranteed the subject in the performance of those acts, which were not hurtful or disadvantageous to the state. But he would draw this line of distinction between them—that, when an alteration was about to be made in the latter, the proofs and facts which rendered it necessary, should be stated, if possible, more distinctly and clearly, than if the alteration referred to the former. His reason for this was, that where an interference was attempted in matters of religion, a system of persecution might be introduced. The noble viscount had stated that, under the present system the evils and inconveniences were very great: but he would be glad to learn what were those evils? He supposed they must be either both or one of these; namely, persons procuring certain immunities, under pretence of teaching the word of God, which they were incapable of doing, or the persons themselves suffering great inconveniencies from the uncertainty of the law. With respect to the first of these points, he must observe, that there was no opportunity of procuring exemptions improperly; as by the 42d of his Majesty, no person was entitled to them, unless he was the minister of a separate congregation. Nor was that alone sufficient. The party applying was restricted from following any trade, that of a school-master excepted. These regulations were most minutely adhered to, both in the general and local militia; and much as he objected to the Bill, he would be content to withdraw his objections, if the noble viscount could shew him a single instance, since the Act of 1802, where exemption had been obtained improperly by a dissenter. He did not believe the slightest necessity existed for enacting any declaratory law on the subject. They had been told that the persons applying for licences had increased; and he believed they had. But he would ask, did that increase during the last few years render it necessary to introduce the
254
present measure. He thought, by a recurrence to papers then on their lordships' table, the contrary would appear. According to those documents, the whole number of persons, who had been licensed for the last 48 years, amounted to 3,678; for the last 12 years the number was 1,173: for the six years, from 1802 to 1808, the number was 963. It had been asserted, in the course of the debate, that doubts were entertained as to the constructions put upon the Toleration Act. He had given all the attention to this subject which its great importance demanded, and he had then for the first time heard, that any other construction was attempted to be put on this act, but that persons, who were the ministers of separate congregations, had a right to exemptions; and that a declaration to that effect, signed by the party applying, was sufficient. But it was now said, that doubts had arisen, and that different decisions were given in different counties. He had not heard of any instances of this description; and he was assured, if they had extended so much as to render the present measure fit and proper, it was impossible but that he and other noble, lords must have been made acquainted with them. If a magistrate in county A. refused an exemption, which was afterwards granted by a magistrate in county B, the right which he assumed thus to act could very speedily be decided by an application to the court of King's bench for a Mandamus. The person, certainly, who had obtained the exemption, would not be likely to apply for the writ. But those who had thought themselves justified in refusing the application, would, in all probability, be inclined to bring the subject forward. If any inconveniences or evils resulted from doubts on the construction of the Toleration Act, he thought they would be most likely to injure the Dissenters themselves. Yet he had heard of no complaint on the subject proceeding from them; they did not seek the introduction of any new declaration or provision. Therefore he concluded, that the alledged evils, if they at all existed, could not have gone to any great length. And, if they were called on to act in every case where inconvenience was felt, there were innumerable instances in which it would be necessary for them to enact declaratory laws. In the game laws, he believed, as well as in those relating to other matters, it not unfrequently happened, that some dissimilarity was observable in the decision of magistrates

255
But would any person assert that they were, therefore, to prepare a variety of declaratory laws to remedy the difference of decision. He felt the strongest objection to the Bill. He thought it was most dangerous to interfere with these subjects.—It should never be done, except on grounds of the most grave and weighty description—grounds, which, in the present instance, were not advanced. The measure was inconsistent with religious liberty, and contrary to the provisions of the Toleration act.—It was net, in his opinion, recommended by any one argument; and, therefore, he thought it useless to send it to a Committee.
Viscount Sidmouthspoke shortly in reply. He would not be deterred by any thing which had passed, from pursuing that line of conduct which his duty dictated. He understood the exposition of the two acts of Toleration which had been laid down by several noble lords, was that, by the act of William and Mary, a person in holy orders, or pretending holy orders, or a preacher or teacher, was entitled to exemption. While, by the 19th of his majesty, which was intended as a further relief, the applicant must not merely be in holy orders, or pretending holy orders, or a preacher or teacher, but he must be the minister of a separate congregation. Thus, in complying with this act, which was intended for his benefit, he was obliged to assume a two fold character; whereas by the former act he was only called on in one capacity. This was a state of the law which, he conceived, required alteration, and should not be permitted to remain.
The question" That the Bill be now read a second time," was then put and negatived without a division. Lord Erskine's amendment," That the Bill be read a second time this day six mouths," was then put and carried. The Bill was consequently lost.