the question, are ignorant of, or wilfully misrepresent, the matter of fact; for, Sir, the subscription required of youth at their matriculation implies nothing about their assent to the 39 Articles; they barely subscribe their names in token of their being members of a church which maintains such and such doctrines. When they take, Sir, a degree, the form runs thus: I do profess to believe, that the Articles, &c. contain nothing but what is agreeable to the word of God.' Now this, Sir, is very different from a simple subscription of their name, which, in the sense the University receives it, is far from meaning that the subscriber thereby declares his assent to every proposition contained in each Article. But, Sir, were there any grievance in the case, who are the parties that complain? Not the members of the university; not the young men whose cause is pleaded with such persuasive eloquence. Who, then, are they? It is easy to guess, Sir, whence this motion originates; it is no difficult matter to conjecture the restless spirits who are at the bottom of it. But, Sir, shall we be prevailed upon to grant now what we wisely resisted in its first stage? Shall we permit in one form what we chose to reject in another? I should hope not; I should hope we are better friends to that religious discipline and establishment which have stood the test of ages. We are told, Sir, of reformation. The reforming notions of this age are dangerous in their tendency; something more than reformation is intended; something that deserves an harsher appellation; and to which if we give way, adieu to religion, adieu to every thing dear to us as men and as Christians! On the whole, Sir, I am against the motion, because subscription enjoins no hardship on the parties who subscribe; because they do not complain of it as an hardship; because the sense in which they subscribe by no means implies their assent to the propositions; and because the times are such, that relaxation in matters of this kind, instead of reforming, would increase that dissoluteness of religious principle which so much prevails, and is the characteristic of this sceptical age. Sir W. Meredith: I find, Sir, that there are honest men, whose consciences can dexterously distinguish between subscribing and ver bally assenting to the truth of a thing. I envy not the gentlemen their talents; I have, thank God, through life been unac customed to all such subtleties. An ingenuous mind scorns pitiful evasions; it has no need of salvos, and detests them. I should have thought a youth, by subscribing, declared his unfeigned assent to the contents of the propositions he subscribed. I was mistaken, Sir; ministers explain it otherwise; he, it seems, only thereby subscribes himself a member of the established church! I thank the noble lord for his distinction; it may be of service to the cause of casuistry. As to the petition last year moved for, the petitioners pleaded, as well as some other gentlemen over the way, in behalf not only of themselves, but of those who might have children; and, for the sake of our infant posterity, they were anxious to have what the noble lord thinks no grievance, but what I call an oppressive one, rectified. The noble lord is pleased to say, that the youth make no complaints. To whom are they to apply for relief? Are they to present themselves at the bar of this House? Their superiors have refused to abate one tittle of their severe exaction: who, then, but some member, a stranger to the jargon of the schools, can take up their cause? Such an one has made this motion; and, content to be the servant of these little ones, he has solicited the inter position of that power which alone can save them from the oppressive hand of spiritual tyranny. As to what an hon. gentleman let fall concerning Dr. Tottie, surely, the hon. gentleman has not perused the doctor's performance; but, lest the House should depart with a wrong impression of that reverend archdeacon, I will inform you, Sir, that, in a charge to his clergy, designed as a defence of the Articles, there is the following passage; "taken in a literal sense, the 39 Articles are horror and blasphemy." Speaker do now leave the chair; the The question being put, That Mr. House divided. YEAS The Noes went forth. Tellers. NOES } 159 Sir William Dolben So it passed in the negative. Debates in the Commons on the Bill for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters.] Feb. 17. Sir Henry Hoghton. I rise, Sir, to speak to a Bill, which I propose, by the leave of the House, to bring in: it is a Bill for the relief of Protestant Dissenting Clergymen, Schoolmasters, and others, in the affair of Subscription. There are, Sir, several amendments in this Bill which occasion it to differ essentially from that moved for some time since; but before I request leave to bring it in, I should deem it a favour, if any hon. gentleman present would inform me, whether he intends to oppose it, in order that, apprized of such opposition, I may be prepared to obviate the objections made. Mr. Page. Agreeably to the hon. gentleman's request, I rise, Sir, to announce my intended opposition to the Bill in question. But as the hon. gentleman is pleased to tell us, that it contains several amendments which render it materially different from a former one, it would be absurd in me to oppose those amendments without knowing what they really are. It is true, Sir, I think myself able to guess at them, and am of opinion that when they, as well as the Bill itself, come under the consideration of this House, I shall find no reason to change my sentiments; I believe I shall be as strenuous in my opposition then as I was last year, when a similar matter came before us. However, Sir, let the hon. gentleman be gratified; let the Bill be brought in with his amendments; let it undergo a fair discussion, and though from the tendency of it, I may still continue to oppose, yet to object to the contents of a Bill is one thing, to object to its being brought in is quite another; the latter meets with my concurrence; with respect to the former I have sufficiently declared my sentiments. A Member. I also, Sir, rise professedly to oppose the Bill in question. I could offer many reasons which to me appear conclusive against the Bill the hon. gentleman proposes to bring in. At the door of this House, a printed paper was put into my hand, containing several striking objections to the Bill. These objections, Sir, are set forth to have been drawn up by a number of dissenters. Now, Sir, if this be the case, it is manifest, that the dissenters themselves are not unanimous in this application to parliament. It is evident that numbers of that body do not think themselves aggrieved in the matter of Subscription; by passing therefore the Bill proposed, who, Sir, can tell whether we oblige the majority of the dissenters ? since, should those objections be drawn up as set forth, it is plain, that the very persons intended to be benefited by this Bill, are the very persons who think they labour under no grievance, and consequently would reap no benefit; nay, the dissenters whom we design to serve, are the dissenters, who, by these objections, declare that such Bill would not serve them. Here is a glaring, a palpable absurdity. And how, Sir, shall we discriminate? How shall we determine on which side the majority lies? This, then, appears to me a very material and substantial objection against the Bill: within doors relief by Bill is intended to be prayed for Protestant dissenters; without, a multitude of Protestant dissenters object to the measures, declaring the Subscription required no burden but what their consciences can easily dispense with, and praying withal, that no such Bill may be brought in. The Bill entitled, "for their relief," according to these objectors, will afford them no relief; they are not aggrieved, consequently want none. Here is then an obstacle with a witness!-But, Sir, my opposition is not merely confined to this head, there are other objections which weigh still more powerfully with me. The established church, as well as state, ought not to be tampered with; it is and it should be deemed sacred, we should be careful of admitting alterations; lest, by injuring the superstructure, we endanger the foundation. Not that I would hereby be understood as expressing myself disinclined to toleration; I sincerely hope there is not a man in this House more a friend to toleration of every kind, religious toleration in particular, than myself; on which account, if any thing more than has been, can be granted, consistent with the safety of our religious establishment; let it, in God's name, be allowed; but let us be mindful of the tendency of the measure prayed for; let us be mindful of our ecclesiastical as well as civil constitution. With this precaution the hon. gentleman has my free leave to bring in his Bill; for should I oppose it, when brought in, never shall it be said that I object to the bringing in a Bill which, as we are told, breathes the spirit of toleration, and tends to the promotion of religious liberty. constitution of Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Com doctrine, as received by the church of England. mittee of the whole House, to consider of the motion, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill for the further relief of his Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England." Feb. 22. The House having resolved itself into the said Committee, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the further relief of his Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England: and Mr. Harris, sir H. Hoghton, sir G. Savile, Mr. Dyson, Sir W. Meredith, Mr. F. Montagu, and sir Harbord Harbord, do prepare and bringin the same. March 2. Sir Henry Hoghton presented the Bill for the further relief of his Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England. Sir Roger Newdigate rose and informed the House, that although he intended to oppose the Bill in every future stage, as well as every other attempt of the same tendency, he would not for the present interrupt or prevent the first reading of it, though he would be well warranted in so doing, first on the general ground of its impropriety, secondly on the resolutions he had already formed concerning it; however, as there were fresh reasons from those on which that of last year was framed, pretended in support of the present application, he was far from not indulging the promoters of the measure with every degree of candour they could possibly wish for. He added, that as he was up and on such an occasion, he could not avoid mentioning a matter which fell from an hon. gentleman over the way (sir W. Meredith) relative to a quotation from a pamphlet written by an eminent and worthy divine, Dr. Tottie, in which, according to his conceptions, the words of his learned and reverend friend were wrested to a meaning directly contrary to the intention of the author, or indeed to their natural and obvious construction. The hon. gentleman having asserted in his speech on the debate of Tuesday, that Dr. Tottie charged some of the doctrines contained in the 39 Articles with horror and blasphemy. Here sir Roger opened the pamphlet, and read the passage referred to, which charged the doctrine of predestination, contended for on rigid Calvinistical principles, with horror and blasphemy, as contradistinguished from the more sober and liberal acceptation, both in practice and speculation, of that Sir W. Meredith replied, that it was indeed very true, that he had quoted the doctor, to prove what his sentiments were, relative to the doctrine contained in one of the articles of that church, of which he is so zealous a member and powerful an advocate; and that he appealed to the candour of such as heard him, whether he was not justified in so doing. He was not, he added, enquiring into the practical doctrines of the church, nor of the private opinions of particular persons; neither was he giving any opinion on the different feasible and current explanations of those exceptionable tenets; all he meant by the quotation being only to prove, that predestination, as literally set forth in the Articles, was a doctrine by no means proper to be subscribed to by young persons, as strictly importing what was intended to be hereafter explained away, either to make it consonant to the word of God, or common sense. Sir Roger Newdigate answered, that he was perfectly satisfied with what the hon. gentleman had said, having troubled the House purely with an intention of removing any notion that might prevail abroad, that those were really the doctor's sentiments. Here the Bill being read a first time, and being ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday, occasioned a warm debate. Sir William Bagot having, after stating his general reasons against the Bill, contended that the time fixed on for reading it a second time was by much too short, first, on account of its importance, and secondly, as he understood that many persons, who were comprised within the description of those who were intended to be relieved by the Bill, were resolved to pe tition to be heard by counsel against it; that the gentlemen whom the petitioners intended to employ upon that business would on Tuesday next, and much longer probably, be absent on the circuit; and that, in his opinion, therefore, three weeks would be the least time that could be reasonably allowed for that purpose. Mr. Dyson strongly opposed sir Walter. He said, that agreeing to any proposition of this nature would totally defeat the future progress of the Bill; that granting counsel to be heard on such a matter as the present, was unprecedented; that though it had been proper, there was ne one fact stated to the House which could | sider them as the basis of their hope, and induce them to defer the second reading the most powerful incentive to a sincere, of the Bill; and that, therefore, they stedfast and cheerful obedience, and are could not break through the regular forms contained in the holy Scriptures: and that, established in such cases to wait for a re- by altering the law, it would set aside those petition of grievances neither as yet com- essential doctrines contained in the Artiplained of, nor, perhaps, as much as in cles of the church of England, on the faith embryo or thought of. of which the Reformation was founded, as Sir Roger Newdigate replied, that if the well as it would become the occasion of intentions of the promoters of the Bill dissention and animosity amongst brethren, were as candid as they pretended, he with whom we wish a continuance of the could perceive no possible disadvantage most cordial harmony; and of weakenthat would accrue from permitting counsel ing, if not dissolving, that pleasing union, to be heard, and granting a reasonable which happily subsists between the estatime for the return of such from the circuitblished church and those who dissent from as were likely to answer the desire of the petitioners; and after adverting to some of the transactions of last year relative to the Bill, concluded by prophesying, that the House, who were composed of the representatives of the people of Great Britain, would never refuse to hear counsel in behalf of a cause in which the interests of the established church were so highly and eminently concerned. Mr. T. Townshend then rose, and spoke in support of Mr. Dyson, and took up pretty much the same ground; but having dropped some expressions relative to an enthusiastic spirit, and want of common sense. Sir Roger Newdigate replied, with great warmth, that he flattered himself he was as far from being prompted by a spirit of enthusiasm, as the hon. gentleman who spoke last; and that he doubted not but that on the several questions which came to be discussed in that House, he was as often found on the side of common sense. The second reading of the Bill was carried for Tuesday next. it: and therefore praying, that the petitioners may be heard, by their counsel, against the said Bill passing into a law; and that they may have such other relief in the premises as the House shall think fit." Ordered to lie upon the table, until the Bill for the further relief of Protestant dissenters be read a second time; and that the petitioners be then heard, by their Counsel, against the said Bill, upon their petition, if they think fit. March 10. On the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill, sir Wil liam Bagot informed the House that Mr. Perrin, the counsel employed on the occasion, finding the time allotted for his preparation too short, had returned his brief; and that the House might be satisfied as to the cause of his thus acting, he had sent a solicitor to give the House every necessary information. Sir William, in order further to shew the impossibility of any counsel preparing himself in the time, declared that he had seen the brief, which, he said, consisted of a prodigious March 3. A Petition of a great num-number of folio sheets. Sir William thereber of his Majesty's subjects, the Protestant dissenting ministers, and likewise others of his Majesty's subjects dissenting from the church of England, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners being informed, application is making to the House for a Bill for the relief of Protestant dissenting ministers, in the matter of subscription, and for the obtaining relief for tutors and schoolmasters; and that the petitioners are well satisfied with the present mode of qualification, prescribed in the Act of Toleration, from a full conviction, in their own consciences, that the Articles of the church of England, as now by law established, are true and important; and con fore moved that the hearing of counsel might be postponed for a few days longer, and the second reading of the Bill put off, until the time the counsel could be prepared to plead. On this motion being made, a debate ensued, and two points were strenuously argued for by the contending parties, the first was whether the second reading of the Bill should be postponed until counsel could be heard;' the second, whether counsel ought to be heard at all.' Roger Newdigate, though warmly against the Bill, was yet for hearing counsel. Sir Mr. Edmund Burke thought there was a ridiculous impropriety in hearing counsel, because nothing, he said, could be concurred. Mr. George Onslow next rose, and put an end to the debate, by saying, that though counsel was not heard at the second, they might at the third reading, or when the report was made; but many urged that the second reading was the proper stage for the Bill to meet with every opposition intended, this being perfectly agreeable to precedent, and the forms of the House. urged in favour of those who petitioned against the Bill. Here are, said he, a multitude of persons who call themselves Protestant dissenters, whom we do not know, praying to be heard by a counsel, whom we also know not, against others professing their dislike to the mode of Subscription to the Articles; that is, here are a set of men, many of whom cannot write, and they beg leave at your bar to shew cause why others ought to be compelled to subscribe their names. The brief contains a multitude of folio sheets, whether to prolong time, or puzzle the cause, I leave the House to determine; however, I see no cause why the Bill should be postponed. Mr. Dyson was also against postponing the Bill, and he made several pertinent remarks on the petition itself, the persons who signed it, and the mode of procuring it to be signed. Mr. William Burke was for postponing the Bill for a few days, in order that counsel might be heard. Another member who spoke on the same side, said, he remembered a case wherein the House postponed an affair which concerned itself, because one day the counsel engaged was seized with a pain in his toe; this pain continued, the disorder was day after day communicated to every joint in his body, till at length the patience of several members being wearied out, the counsel on a sudden recovered from his indisposition, and pleaded to the entire satisfaction of his clients. Yet now, when the establishment of the church is at stake, we are not, continued the member, to wait three or four days until the counsel is qualified to plead the cause of the reformation of truth and christianity. The House was then cleared, and on the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, the House divided. The Noes went forth. I rise, Sir, consistent with the prin ciples I have hitherto professed, to enter my protest against the Bill now before us. I shall not, Sir, commence a war with particles; nor shall I contend with any gen tleman about the propriety of this or that expression; as whether this House might, should, or ought, to agree to the passing of the Bill. I shall not take up the time of this House about such frivolous trifles, though I have been, and do again expect to be, attacked on this head by an inge nious gentleman, (Mr. Edmund Burke) whose critical sagacity well qualifies him for the task of adjusting sentences, and Sir William Bagot having said that the rectifying the violations of grammatical petitioners thought perhaps counsel neces-niceties. I shall request the attention of sary to shew many parts of the Bill to be contrary to law, Mr. Gray, sir W. Meredith, and others, replied that they hoped no counsel would be suffered to teach the Commons of England from their own bar, the laws of their country. We, said they, who are the legislators and guardians of the laws, to be instructed by counsel, whether a Bill we are about to pass into a law, be, or be not contrary or agreeable to the laws and liberties of our country! This, said they, would indeed be a censure upon the representatives of the people, too gross not to incur the contempt of the public, too shameful to be permitted. With this opinion the Speaker heartily the House to matters of infinitely greater importance; and whilst I relate the reasons which induce me to oppose the Bill, I shall hope my deficiency in point of elocution may be in some degree atoned for by that sincerity and sense of duty, which, conspiring together, thus prompt me to submit my sentiments to the candour of this House. To proceed, Sir, with as much regularity as possible, I shall arrange my argu ments under a few general heads; I shall trace this Bill, step by step, to the stage at which it is now arrived; I shall shew, that the very thing these dissenters pray for is the very thing they now enjoy; that the |