Sitting of 21 May 1811

MR. PALMER'S CLAIMS.
Colonel Palmerrose and said, that he should not think it necessary to go at any length into a statement of those claims, which had already been very folly discussed. In the year 1808, after a very ample discussion, the House had recognized the claims of Mr. Palmer (his father), to the per centage originally granted him on the improve-
256
ement of the revenues of the Post-office. A resolution had been actually passed in the Committee, for a grant to him of 54,702 l. on account of this claim. But at the close of the session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer prevailed upon the House to withdraw that grant from the Appropriation Act. In the following session an Address was voted to the crown, praying that the claim might be tried, as a question of law, on its own merits. This was a course with which Mr. Palmer would have been perfectly contented; but he was informed by his counsel, that there were difficulties in the case, and that the Address of the House was not binding on the court of law so as to have the claim tried entirely on its merits. Under these circumstances he was obliged again to appeal to the House, to carry its own Resolutions into effect. The course that he should now take would be to move for an humble Address to the Prince Regent, praying him to grant the said sum of 54,702 l. pursuant to the resolution of the Committee, and assuring him that the House would make, good the same He was aware that there might be some objection to this in point of form. It was usual in applications for money to present a petition, which required the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the part of the Crown. The present case was, however, differently circumstanced. This was not a first application, but it was an appeal to the House to carry their own resolution into effect. When the House resolved on paying the debts of Mr. Pitt this was the course taken by them. They addressed his Majesty to grant the money, and promised to make it good. If the House judged that a proper course, in order to get the debts of another individual paid, he thought they could have no objection to taking the same course, in order to pay a debt recognized by themselves to be due from the country to Mr. Palmer. He concluded by moving," That an humble Ad-dress be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly to beseech his royal highness to advance to John Palmer, esq. the sum of £. 54,702. 0s. 7d. being the balance due to him on the net revenue of the Post Office, from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1808, and to assure his royal highness that this House will make good the same."
Mr. Rosesaid, that before he entered-into the subject, he must free himself from the imputation of having been always disinclined to the claims of Mr. Palmer. In

257
the year 1784, he thought it his duty to give every assistance to the plan, and was at that time in the habits of friendship with Mr. Palmer. Mr. Pitt was so far from wishing to deal harshly with Mr. Palmer, that when the dispute first broke out between the Postmaster-general, and him, the Postmaster-general (lord Walsingham) actually conceived for three days, that he himself was removed from office. It was perfectly understood at the time, that the 2½ per cent. was given to Mr. Palmer, not merely as a reward for his invention, but as a retainer for future services. Mr. Pitt was never disinclined to Mr. Palmer, until it was fully disclosed to him, that instead of checking, and controlling the accounts, as it was his duty to have done, he not only neglected that duty, but instructed the officers under him to violate their duties also, for the purpose of counteracting the Postmaster-General. Instead of accelerating the delivery of letters, it appeared in evidence, that he had purposely retarded the delivery. All this appeared in letters in Mt. Palmer's own hand-writing, directed to Mr. Bonner, and by other incontestible evidence. It was clearly proved, that instead of doing his duty of controlling the accounts he had been instrumental in the passing of fabricated accounts. Under such circumstances, he believed that there was not a lawyer in the House who would not say, that if his situation of comptroller to the Post-office had been a patent place and for life, the patent might have been set aside on a scire facias, when such instances of gross misconduct in his office had been fully proved. The evidence of Mr. Pitt was clear upon the point of the reward being given, as well for the control and super intendance that was expected from Mr. Palmer, as from the merit of the invention. In this part of what was expected of him, Mr. Palmer had completely failed in his duty. It was on those grounds principally that he fell it his duty to oppose the address.
Mr. P. Mooreobserved, that, if it were necessary to follow the right hon. gent. into his different objections to the motion, it would be easy to refute them; but there would be no use in dwelling upon such objections, as they had been already disposed of by the resolution of that House. Mr. Palmer, was, in his opinion, very hardly dealt with; and, as the House had solemnly recognized his claims, he called upon them to fulfil the public faith pledged by parliament. He could
258
not on this occasion but call to mind the flourishing representation of the revenne of the Post-office, made last night by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had taken down his words, and if he should have mistaken him, he should be happy to be corrected. All this improvement in the Post-office re-venue was owing to Mr. Palmer's plan. Before that plan was put in execution, the communication between London and the out-ports, by letter, took place but twice or three times a week, and by a way circuitous, precarious, and perilous. Without the benefit of this plan even the telegraph in time of war might be sometimes useless. It would be disgraceful to the House to dishonour its own resolution, Mr. Pitt estimated the improvement of the revenue of the post-office under the plan at 200,000 l.; it had actually produced, according to the statement of the right hon. gent. last night, 1,276,000 l. He knew he might be told that part of the increase arose from other causes; but he would answer, that they must have been all abortive, had not Mr. Palmer communicated his original plan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed giving relief to Scotland, from a part of the encreased revenues of the Post-office, and yet he refused to remunerate the man who supplied him with the means! Besides the obvious ad-vantages attending the present mode of conveying letters, there were many in-direct ones, which raised the revenue to a height which could not be calculated. In short, when he considered the time, labour, and fortune which Mr. Palmer had expended in bringing his scheme to maturity, and the benefits which arose from it, he was surprized to see one member refuse him an equivalent pecuniary, compensation which he had been originally promised, and which was confirmed by that House. He should certainly support it in every stage.
Mr. W. Dundasstated, that be had been Chairman of the Committee appointed to investigate this claim, and his opinion clearly was, that Mr. Palmer had no right to any compensation beyond what he had received. Gentlemen were disposed, to rate higher than it deserved the improvement introduced into the Post-office by Mr. Palmer, although he was ready to admit that Mr. Palmer's plan much good. The increase in the Post-office revenue, however, was not to be ascribed solely to this. The improvement of the

259
country was also to be taken into account. But the question was, what had Mr. Palmer contracted for? The claim had been brought forward in 1797, and a decision given against it. It had afterwards been brought forward ten years after, when Mr. Pitt was no more. From the evidence of Mr. Pitt, however, it clearly appeared that the situation in the Post-office had been given to Mr. Palmer in lieu of his claim; that he was to have a salary, and a certain percentage if he did his duty in the office. Upon these terms the bargain had been concluded. Mr. palmer had not done his duty, and had been removed; and under these circumstances he did not think he had any claim to remuneration. He had engaged to accelerate the delivery of the letters, and instead of doing that, he had conspired to retard their delivery. It might be said that Mr. Palmer had been unfortunate in a deputy; but however that might be, it was impossible for him (Mr. Dundas) to refuse credit to the evidence contained in Mr. Palmer's own letters.
Mr. C. W. Wynn,in addition to the grounds of objection stated by the right hon. gent. opposite, felt an objection of an earlier date to this motion. If the resolution of 1808 decided this question, he would allow that they ought not now to be discussing it. But though an act blight have passed that House: yet, if thrown out by the Lords, it would be a fair subject of discussion, on being in another session brought in again. The objection he felt was as to the legality of the original contract under which Mr. Palmer claimed. He doubted whether any minister of the crown had the power to mortgage any part of the public revenue in such a way during the life of the person to whom he might think proper to grant it. The minister, no doubt, had the command of the public purse, but he should have the sanction of parliament for such a grant in reward even of merit. He denied that all the increase of the revenue of the post-office was to be attributed to Mr. Palmer's plan. If the House would but look to the number of canals and docks, and other public works, which had taken place all over the kingdom, they would perceive the necessary increase of that revenue from the correspondence that grew out of them. If even the agreement had been valid in the first Instance, which he denied: the conduct of Mr. Palmer had been such as to set it aside, though his
260
claim had been derived from a patent Such was his notion of the conduct of Mr. Palmer that he thought he might have been indicted for a conspiracy; when he looked around the House, he was sure that many members were absent, who, in the expectation of a future stage of the business, intended to deliver their opinions; he therefore recommended that the consideration of the subject should be adjourned to another period.
Sir Thomas Turtonstated most decidedly, that new facts, leading to new inferences, had come out before the Committee in 1807. But the hon. and learned member who had just sat down had, he confessed, given quite a new view of the case. That hon. and learned member objected to the legality of the original agreement: but if a minister should dare to disavow such an agreement, that House, while the public was deriving the benefit of it, would not fail to give the individual compensation. The hon. and learned gent., too, had said that Mr. Palmer might have been indicted for a conspiracy for his conduct. Indicted? yes, upon garbled extracts; and yet he would defy the ingenuity of that hon. and learned gent., or any of the learned gentlemen opposite, to frame an indictment for a conspiracy that would apply to this case. A misdemeanor it might be construed to be, but no conspiracy. The question was, whether the Resolution of the House was not binding upon it to satisfy this claim. He contended it was, whilst it remained on the Journal"; though he was ready to admit that it might be discussed. It appeared throughout the whole of the correspondence, that Mr. Palmer's great complaint was, that he was constantly thwarted in carrying his plan into execution. He had undertaken to cleanse the Augean stable—that Herculean task, which, if he could have effected, would have put a stop to the practice" which prevailed in the department, and left the persons employed in it to be content with their bare salaries. It was they, then, who had combined against him. It was they who had been guilty of a conspiracy against him. Was it, then, for the House of Commons to refuse a just claim, because the viper who had been taken to Mr. Palmer's bosom had stung his benefactor? It was to be recollected that this viper had got his place. If Mr. Palmer had been guilty of indiscretion, he had been punished: he had been dismissed from his office: but

261
his contract could not be got rid of. He trusted when it was considered that the public enjoyed the great benefits of the plan, that that House would give effect to its former Resolution by agreeing to the motion.
Mr. Longsaid, that whenever the subject came before the House, he considered himself called on to state all the circum-stances with which he was acquainted. He did not think that the merits of the case were completely decided. In 1799, the House was of opinion that Mr. Palmer had not fulfilled his part of the contract. There was nothing more said of it till 1807, when Mr. Pitt was no more; it then appeared from the documents, that no contract had been made which did not include on the part of Mr. Palmer a fulfillment of official duties. These duties were not faithfully discharged. Mr. Palmer was suspended for disobeying the commands of the Post Master General. Did the hon. bart. call that a trifling misconduct, which went to retard the delivery of letters, and to throw the blame of it on the Post Master General? He defied the hon. bart. to prove from the evidence, that the 1,500 l. per annum, and the two and half percent, did not stand on the same footing. Every body knew, that when Mr. Palmer first introduced the plan, he was much thwarted; but at the same time, he was cordially supported by Mr. Pitt, who felt a great partiality for him, and with the utmost reluctance was obliged to adopt the line of conduct he did, when the letters were put into his hands. The House of Lords had already decided against the application. Did, therefore, the hon. gent. think that this House should address the Prince Regent to deprive the House of Lords of their power of judgment. This was a most objectionable mode of proceeding. He must therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. Whitbreadwished to state shortly his opinion upon Mr. Palmer's claim, which opinion remained precisely the same as when he last addressed the House upon the subject. He was confident that the arguments of the right hon. gent. opposite were not such as to persuade the House to depart from the decision which it had, come to three years ago, and which it had-been attempted to carry into effect last year. This decision had been founded, not upon compassion but upon the justice, of the case. He besought the House to consider what had been the merits of Mr.
262
Palmer, when it was owing to his plan that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to make so triumphant a statement of the flourishing condition of the Post-office revenue without any addition to the duties on postage. Without the benefit of that plan it was impossible to obtain such a revenue. He agreed with his learned friend, that the exemption of the mail coaches from toll, was a fraud upon the turnpike trusts; and he was glad to find the right hon. gent., whatever might have induced him to alter his opinion, admit, that some relief might be given to the petitioners whose petition the noble lord (Binning) had presented, provided the report of the Committee should recommend that measure. It had been at first intended that Mr. Palmer should have had a patent; but then it was found that an act of parliament stood in the way, and no patent was issued. But if he had a patent, it was the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, of lord Erskine, of his Majesty's Attorney-general, and of his hon. and learned friend Mr. Adam, that the patent could not have been disturbed. This was the opinion of those learned persons; and he should abide by their opinion, rather than by the legal opinion of the right hon. George Rose. Gentlemen talked of an indictment for a conspiracy, but be would not take upon him to decide whether it would or would not lie. Some learned gentlemen were of one opinion, and some of another. One thing, however, he would mention, that a Mr. Wilson had given in a voluntary affidavit, stating that he had been instructed by Mr. Palmer to insert false items in his accounts. Upon his cross-examination, however, he said, that he had received the directions from Mr. Bonner, and that he considered Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bonner as one and the same in that respect. He was ready to stand, and to stand only, on the justice of Mr. Palmer's claims, who called upon the House of Commons that night to make good their repeated decisions. There was no man in that House who would venture to say that Mr. Palmer had been sufficiently remunerated. Was there any man on any side who could say so? If, however, there were those who thought that the sum proposed was too large, let them propose a smaller one; but let this claim not go from the House of Commons without that justice which it demanded.
Mr. Giddyconceived that the pension

263
of 3,000 l. a year, which Mr. Palmer had accepted, was a fall discharge of all his claims. It would be inconsistent and improper to take away from the House of Lords the check which they possessed over the grants made by that House. For this reason he was decidedly against the mode of the question, with this qualification however, namely, that whenever Mr. Palmer should come forward, and laying aside his claim of right, throw himself on the liberality of the House, he would not be hostile to the application.
Mr. Fullerwas disposed to think that the claims of Mr. Palmer were founded on the strictest justice. He had, by the simplest proposition, contributed to the benefit of the stale; nevertheless, those who professed the most foolish and idle friendship for Mr. Pitt, because he was against those claims, forsooth, were afraid to give him his due. Why, Mr. Pitt was a man who always acted for the public good, poor man! and he died poor! The government had given Mr. Palmer a salary for life; but he had a family of children dependent on him for support, and for being set out in life, who expected when he died, property, or else they would not go off! and yet, when he died, he could not (having lived like a gentleman), leave them any thing when he was therefore gone, like the snuff of a candle, and nothing left, why then his family were to be deprived of support if the House refused them justice the best way would be to refer the claims to the decision of three masters in chancery, who would decide equitably and fairly. The government were pledged to Mr. Palmer, and the pledges of former ministers were as binding on the country as if sanctioned by Lords and Commons; besides, the policy was a narrow and a foolish one. By narrow views of policy we were plunged into the present war; for if the proposition made some years ago for employing light artillery had been attended to by ministers, we should not have been now engaged; and Dumourier would have been deprived of the means of annoying us, which means were afforded him in consequence of our refusal to employ light artillery. He condemned the refusal. Perhaps a friend of his, who had invented shells for annoying the enemy, and by which the late battles had been gained, (for they had dispersed the French armies in such line style,) might, if he asked for it, be refused remuneration. It was a niggardly policy
264
which did no good, but much harm. It was losing a hog for a halfpenny worth of tar! He should, therefore, support Mr. Palmer's claims.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was obliged to risk even the good opinion of the hon. bart. opposite (Sir T. Turton), in defence of what he considered right. If he had to reproach himself with any thing, it would be with having allowed this question to come on as he had done; a concession, however, which he had made after the example of his predecessor. The conduct of Mr. Palmer, when in office, was such, that even had he held his place under a patent, he ought to have been deprived of it. When he first made his claims, in Mr. Pitt's life-time, and near the period of his bargain, they were rejected; and after that rejection, he lay quiet till after Mr. Pitt's death, a period of eight or nine years. With what face, then, could he now appear before the House, at a distance of time in which they must be much less competent to decide the justice of his demand, than they were at a time when they judged it ought to be rejected after full investigation and living evidence? He saw some gentlemen opposite very ardently supporting this claim, which, convinced in his conscience he was, had it been brought forward by government, they would without hesitation have pronounced to be one of the most flagrant and abominable jobs that ever originated with a minister. The case was this: Mr. Palmer had for his invention received an office, connected with the faithful discharge of which he was to have a pecuniary remuneration. He had by gross misconduct proved himself unworthy of his office, and of course his emolument ceased. Yet on his dismissal he had received 3,000 l. a year; and with this, in his opinion, he ought to be content and grateful. The right hon. gent. here read the correspondence of Mr. Palmer to prove his misconduct when in office; and from a review of this, he had no hesitation in pronouncing him guilty of a conspiracy with those beneath him, for the purpose of frustrating the object for which he was appointed; namely, the acceleration of the distribution of letters. Having gone through the matter of the claim, be must now refer to the manner in which it was attempted to be carried; and this he must call most unconstitutional. They were to address the Prince Regent to advance the money, and to promise that parliament

265
would make it good. From what was he to advance it, or what right had they to promise that parliament would make it good? Why should they promise for the House of Lords, and that in a matter in which they were doing all they could to frustrate their decision? In his opinion, neither the merits nor mode of this claim could be justly supported.
Mr. Sheridansaid, he was particularly desirous to make a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, for a more unconstitutional doctrine he had never heard delivered in that House. He believed the right hon. gent. was the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who had ever thought it necessary to appeal to the House of Lords in a case which related to the disposal of the public money. If his doctrine were true, how came it that the land and malt tax was always voted, and the money advanced upon it, long before a Bill was brought in to that House; and where had been the instance in which the Lords had signified any opposition to it: If such a thing could be supposed, the Bank would act very idly in advancing the money before the Bill had passed both Houses. With respect to the argument of not renewing the application after the year 1797, during the life time of Mr. Pitt, he thought there was a very good reason to be given; Mr. Pitt was as persevering a man as Mr. Palmer, with rather more power at his command; but though Mr. Palmer did not actually bring forward his case before parliament, he never ceased to keep up his claim in the memory of his friends, and to apply to them for advice how to act; and they were all of opinion that to bring it forward again during Mr. Pitt's administration, would be at least fruitless. Mr. Sheridan said, he had it in his power to speak very decidedly on this subject, because the plan had first been shewn to him when Secretary to the Treasury during the administration of the duke of Portland; and when that administration went out, he told Mr. Pitt what had been the intention of that noble duke and lord John Cavendish; which was to give a salary of a certain sum for life, and a percentage. He knew before this the numerous cabals and plots that were hatched against Mr. Palmer by those who; were interested in opposing this reform; and he was convinced in his own mind, that Mr. Palmer would stand but a poor chance if he were not permitted to clear
266
the office of all those private opposers of what they called innovation. This was what Mr. Palmer wished to effect, and this was the cause of his acting as he then did. To suppose that he had the most distant intention to diminish the revenue of the office was evidently ridiculous. His own per centage was a sufficient security against that, for he could not lessen the one without in an equal degree injuring the other. If Mr. Palmer had been guilty of the foul and abominable conspiracy with which the right hon. gent. charged him, how came Mr. Pitt to give him three thousand pounds a year? Had he been a conspirator, this would have been an act of great injustice to the public in Mr. Pitt. He thought Mr. Palmer was right in accepting this 3,000 l. a year while he could get it, though to his knowledge, Mr. Pitt had always protested against if, as a breach of the original contract. He hoped the honourable officer, the relative of Mr. Palmer, who brought forward the present motion, would not take the advice given to him to withdraw it; but that he would depend on the honour and justice of the House, rather than its charity which the giver of the advice had promised to procure in his favour. He thought Mr. Palmer a most injured man. He now offered to give up 50,000 l. a year, which his percentage would have amounted to, and only asked for 50,000 l. in the whole. This was an act of justice which he hoped the House would this night render him.
Mr. Crokeradmitted that Mr. Palmer had a right to the percentage, but condemned the mode in which it was proposed to allow his claim.
Mr. Secretary Ryderconcurred with his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and complained of the misrepresentation given to his argument respecting the offence that the proceeding would give to the Lords. The land and malt tax was understood as a matter of course, and was a subject on which no heat or difference of opinion had ever existed between the two Houses. He argued, that instances could be adduced in which the House had adopted a similar proceeding. They were calling, if this motion was carried, on the Prince Regent, to do that which he must know would not be agreeable to the other House.
Mr. Jekyllapologised for trespassing on the House at that late hour of the discussion, but from what had fallen from the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, he

267
felt himself compelled to tack another Ryder to the debate (a laugh.) He vindicated the conduct of Mr. Palmer, and pointed out the advantage the public had derived from the arrangement that had been adopted with respect to the Post-office, pursuant to his suggestion. It was unjust that such services should go unrewarded. They had only to recollect what had bean promised, and the present remuneration would appear but small. The whole country, he had no doubt, would approve of this vote, who had found their correspondence in all parts of the empire so much more safe and expeditious. He was surprised that an hon. lawyer opposite, who had been consulted on the subject, (the Solicitor General) should remain silent on the present occasion. He complained of the obloquy that had been thrown out against Mr. Palmer in the course of this debate, and referred to the conduct of Mr. Pitt on the subject, though equally hostile to the claimant, as very different. In referring to the nature of the evidence, he inveighed against the low means that had been employed in the Committee against the claimant. The gaols had been searched to find out accusers against him, and the principal one was a fellow that had been taken from the King's Bench, who had been fed by Mr. Palmer's bounty, and, like a viper, had turned against him. In a former discussion on this subject, he and an hon. friend of his had called him a viper, and a man of the worst description. These speeches had been published by a morning paper, he believed the Morning Herald, the proprietors of which were prosecuted for a libel by this same person, for the expression made use of respecting him. He and his friend had acknowledged that they had used the expression, and were ready to come forward in evidence, but first consulted the Speaker, who was of opinion that they could not appear in any court, on questions that had originated in that House, without first obtaining permission from the House. But though they did not appear in evidence, yet to shew the weight of the character of this man, when the question came to the jury, they found a verdict of only sixpence. In the heat of his feelings, there might have been some irregularities on the part of Mr. Palmer, but he did not believe that there now existed a more aggrieved man, or one to whom the public generally was more indebted.
The Solicitor Generalhaving been so pointedly referred to, justified his conduct and the opinion he had uniformly given on the question. It was necessary that an agreement should be fulfilled on both, sides; and Mr. Palmer, he contended, had violated his engagement by the conduct of which he had been guilty. He thought this must be obvious to any man who had read the evidence. Both the two and a half percent, and the 1,500 l. a year, he contended, were granted for services only which required the fulfilment of certain duties; and if these were unperformed" the stipulations on the other side might be withdrawn, without any injustice. He contended that upon the evidence of Mr. Palmer's letters that gentleman had no such claim; and that if a scire facias had been brought, the letters patent would have been cancelled. The question, however, on the whole, he conceived, was not whether Mr. Palmer had been properly and fairly dismissed, but what the House ought now to do with these letters of Mr. Palmer's before them.
A division then took place:

For the Address

107

Against it

42

Majority in favour of Mr. Palmer's Claims

65

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.