Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Political Hiftory of Europe. (Con- bufinefs, and to prepare a bill for the

cluded from p. 147.)

Bill for the Relief of the Diffenters with Refpect to Subfcription; Debates thereupon; paffed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords. Eaft-India Company Bill for regulating their Servants in India. Select Committee on Eaft-India Affairs. Committee of Enquiry into the Behaviour of the Lords to the Commons. Corn Bill King's Speech. Par liament rifes.

[ocr errors]

N the courfe of the debates upon the late petition from fome of the clergy, for relief in the matter of fubfcription, feveral favourable fentiments were thrown out with regard to the diffenting minifters, and fome concern was expreffed for the hardships they fuffered, in being obliged, under heavy penalties, to fubfcribe the articles of a church to which they did not belong, and from which they fought neither promotion nor emolument; and fome gentlemen declared their readiness to consent to a bill for their relief.

This favourable difpofition in one part of the legislature, naturally occafioned a meeting of fome of the minifters in London, to confider of a petition to parliament for that purpofe; but they found that the feflion was fo far advanced, that the time limited for the receiving of petitions would be elapfed, before they could receive that affiftance from their brethren in the country which they deemed neceffary to give it due weight, and to fhew it to be a matter of general concern; upon this account it was concluded to defer the application until the enfuing feffion. Some promifes of fupport which they afterwards met with, and an offer to introduce a bill in their favour by way of motion, which might be done in any part of the feffion, made them depart from this refolution, and a committee of the body was accordingly appointed at a general meeting, to conduct the

purpose.

It may be neceffary to premife, that, by the act of toleration of the firft of William and Mary, the diffenters gained a legal right to the exercife of the divine worship in their own manner; but this right was conditional, with refpect to their minifters, their school-mafters, and private tutors, who were obliged to fubfcribe to the doctrinal parts of the 39 articles, which are by much the greater part of the whole, and were only excused from fomething more than two, which related moftly to difcipline. Without fuch fubfcription, those we have mentioned were fubject to the heavy penalties, which have been so often and fo much complained of, in fome of our laws relative to religion, and which ftill continue unrepealed. As the dif fenters of that time were as ftrongly attached to the doctrinal parts of thofe articles as even the members of the eftablished church, and that discipline conftituted the great line of diftinction between them, this fubfcription was not then confidered as a matter of hardship, or, if it had, would probably have been remitted, upon the general principles of religious liberty and toleration, which operated in the bringing in and paffing of the law.

It appears that a great change has fince taken place in the religious opinions of many of the Diffenters, and that the Calvinism which then prevailed has in a great degree declined; and if we might prefume to form any judgment from the small number of their divines who for many years have fubfcribed to the articles, it might be concluded that this change has been very general. By this means they became liable to the heavy penalties of thofe laws we have mentioned; and it is perhaps as much owing to the general indifference of the times, in regard to religious matters, as to the lenity of government, that they have not been more frequently enforced against them.

The

their prejudices, fome regard was alfo due to the members of the established church, who were much more numerous, and fhould not be held lefs refpectable; that they would undoubtedly take the alarm upon this occafion, and, as a fuperior body, claim a prior regard from the legislature. That this bill, inftead of being entitled, An Act for relief, &c. fhould have borne its true name, and fhould have been entitled, An A&t for the encouragement of Prefbyterianism, and for weakening and deftroying the church of England; that thus it became dangerous to the ftate in a double degree; by reviving animofities, which were almoft worn out, between the body of the people and the Diffenters, and by the establishment of a republican religion, which had been at all times the fworn foe to monarchy.

The bringing in of this bill Apr. 3. gave a great alarm to the high-church gentlemen, who, feeing the former petition, and the attempt upon the church Nullum Tempus claim, immediately fucceeded by another attack upon the 39 articles, began to imagine that fome fettled defign was formed, fubverfive of the eftablished religion. They accordingly opposed it with great warmth; but found the general fenfe of the house trongly against them; and were furprized to fee a confiderable part of adminiftration and almost the whole of oppofition for once join in opinion, and, both appear equally fanguine in the caufe of religious liberty, and for extending the benefits of toleration. The motion was accordingly carried with out a divifion, and the numbers that appeared against it, upon the fecond and third reading, were fo fmall, as fcarcely to merit obfervation. It was however productive of very confiderable debates, as well in this part of its progrefs; as when it was afterwards carried up to the house of lords.

Many of the arguments, made ufe of in thefe debates, were of courfe upon the fame principles, with thofe which had been already repeated upon the former affair of the petition. Many others, however, were diftin&t, and upon new ground. It was faid in oppofition to the bill, that a total exemption from fubfcription would open the way for fuch an inundation of enthusiasm, abfurdity, and extravagance into the Chriftian church, as would equally deface and deform it; that Arians, Socinians, Deifts, and profane fcoffers of all denominations, would take that opportunity to mount the pulpit, and therefrom to undermine, ridicule, or directly attack the principles of the Chriftian religion, and perhaps to deny the divinity of

its Author.

That though the Diffenters were a refpectable body, and that a proper regard should be paid to the tender. nefs of their confciences, and even to

It was faid befides, that the penal laws were only held in terrorem, and were rarely enforced; and that this lenity in the executive powers made the propofed regulations totally unneceffary; why then is an application of this nature made, and peoples thoughts directed to matters that were buried in oblivion, when there is no grievance exifting on which to found a complaint? They admit themfelves, that very few of them have fubfcribed to the articles, yet they live in all eafe and fecurity: it is well known, that, moderate as they are, very few of them comply, with the other terms of the act of toleration, or will give themselves the trouble of attending the quarter-feffions, to take the oaths, and make the declaration against Popery; why then, in this time of general relaxation of the laws, and of undifturbed poffeffion to every man in his opinions, let them be what they may, why, in the eafe and wantonnefs of their hearts, do they interrupt this harmony that was growing up between the Church and the Diffenters? why not reft contented in the general connivance, without troubling the legislature to justify their neglects A a 2

and

and omiffions, and to authorize their breach of one law by the paffing of another? They first break the law, and then, not content with impunity, muft have a difpenfation for fo doing. It was faid, that the Diffenters had complained of no grievance, nor brought no petition; that they were going to redress grievances, of whofe existence they had no proof; that they had not, as they ought, excepted against any particular articles; that it was not intended by government, in the act of toleration, to grant relief to all Diffenters, or to all unbelivers, without exception; but that it was intended for the benefit of thofe only who agreed with the Church, in 35 articles and a half, which contained the effentials of her faith; and that those who now apply for relief do not at all come within the denomination of Diffenters, as the term was then understood; but are a new body of men, holding principles totally different, and who are not known to the law. Some gentlemen on that fide were difpofed to grant them relief, by a mitigation of fome of the penalties, or by repealing one or two of the ftatutes that bore the heaviest upon them; while others feemed of opinion, that the house should not at all engage in religious difquifitions.

It was faid on the other fide, that, after having experienced the happy benefits of toleration for more than fourfcore years, it was little to be expected in this enlightened age, that any plea for its utility would now become neceffary. That as to the mifchiefs reprefented from the preaching of enthusiasts or infidels, the free toleration both in Scotland and Ireland, whereno fubfcriptions are required, and none of thofe confequences enfue, are living evidences to the contrary;that no fubfcriptions can keep vicious men or infidels out of any church, and that, as they are not reftrained by any principles, they will naturally go where the greatest emoluments are to be gained; it is to them a matter of indifference how many articles are made,

they will fign them all; and fuch reftraints can only operate upon those who feel themselves fenfibly bound by principles. That there are laws fufficiently fevere in being to curb and punish all other attacks upon the great fundamentals of Chriftianity, whether from the pulpit or elsewhere; that the declaration propofed in the bill, and the teftimonial to qualify a preacher will prevent the intrufion of improper perfons into that function that even this restraint has not operated for thefe 40 or 50 years past upon the Diffenters, during which time they have not entered into any fubfcription, and yet none of thofe confequences fo fatal to religion and morality, and which have been fo frightfully defcribed, have in any degree appeared; and that the Quakers who fubfcribe to no articles, are as inoffenfive a people, and have fewer fingula rities, than they had in the days of perfecution.

That with respect to the charge made upon the prefent Diffenters, of their having deviated in fome matters from the religious opinions of their ancestors, it is probably well founded; and if the enquiry could be accurately made, it would perhaps appear, that the charge would equally lie against every order and community of mankind, among whom civili zation and learning have taken place: opinions are at all times fluctuating things, and the variations are more or lefs in particular periods; but they will in general be fonnd to encrease upon fpeculative fubjects, in proportion to the learning of the times, and the leifure which the people have to beftow upon them. Another charge of a harsher nature is made upon them, of their holding principles fubverfive of Chriftianity: if this charge be restricted to fome particular individuals, it may hold as well against them, as against any other body of equal number; but, if it be general, it is cruel and unjuft; the names of many gentlemen of the diffenting clergy, who never fubfcribed to articles,

will long be remembered with veneration by Chriftians of all denominations, for their able defence of Chriftianity against some of its most dangerous affailants; among many other names that might be mentioned with equal authority, are a Lardner, or a Leland, to be fufpected of irreligion or deifm? yet the overthrower of Bolingbroke, and the expofer and detector of his dangerous fallacies, would if he had lived in England, have been liable to fine and imprifonment, for explaining that gofpel to his congregation which he had fo ably defended against its enemies.

That the charge against the Diffenters, of being natural enemies to monarchy, and of being dangerous to the ftate, are equally futile and unjuft; however unjustifiable fome of its latter confequences might have been, which it was not then poflible to foresee, their original oppofition to the tyranny of Charles I. was not only defenfible, but highly praife-worthy; and notwithstanding the powerful operation both of religious and defpotic prejudices, has received the fanction of the wifest and most learned men, in all thofe nations, where they can in any degree venture to think for themselves; but that waving all defence, the abfurdity of imputing to men now living, the crimes or errors of another race, who have lain in their graves for more than a century, is fo obvious as not to deferve a ferious confideration. That on the contrary, the English biftory abounds with inftances, which fhew them to have been excellent citizens, and to have been as loyal and dutiful under good princes, as they were firm in their oppofition to thofe tyrants who wanted to overthrow the

conftitution

It was faid that the apprehenfion of danger to the church was equally ill founded; that the Diffenters were already relieved by the act of tolera tion, froa fubfcribing to thofe diftinctive articles of the church of England which are peculiar to her; and

that the articles which they are enjoined to fign by the prefent mode of fubfcription, contain only those doctrines, which the church of Geneva holds in common with her; so that this abfurd mode of fubfcription, in reality, if obferved, would contribute much more to the propagation of Calvinifin than to the establishment of the national religion; upon what principles then of civil or ecclefiaftical policy, is a fubfcription fupported and enforced, which is not lefs prejudicial to the established church, than it is odious to those on whom the prefent laws would compel it? That the cafe of the Diffenters was very different from thofe who had made the late application for relief; that the latter, by being members of the established church, were bound by many ties to obey its rules and laws; but that the Diffenters were only praying leave to be difengaged from ties, which were foreign to their principles and inftitutions; and that the refufal would feem to imply a fuppofition, equally injurious and unjuft to the church of England, as if her foundations were fo weakly laid, that he was obliged to prefs the affiftance of those who did not belong to her to fupport them.

That the propofal of granting a partial toleration could be confidered only as an act of pleasantry, that is, we will tolerate people as far as they agree with us; but where we differ, there we shall perfecute; furely there can be no merit, in tolerating our own doctrines; for the very principle of toleration is, that you will tolerate, not thofe who agree with you in opinion, but thofe whofe religious notions are totally different: Chriftian charity confifts in allowing others a latitude of opinion, and in putting fuch a reftraint upon our own mind, as will prevent the bitternefs of zeal from becoming piramount in it; and that the idea of chriftianity being endangered by toleration, is contrary to truth and hiftory, which fhew that the chriftian re

ligion

ligion never flourished fo much as in times of the freest tòleration, and never fell from itfelf till it departed from thofe principles.

That the arguments brought for retaining fubfcription, becaufe the cruelty and iniquity of the penal laws rendered them inefficacious and impotent, were the strongest that could be made ufe of for removing it totally. That the fecurity of freemen was too facred, to be entrusted to the difcretion of judges, the caprice of a court, or the ma lice or avarice of individuals; and that though in general, thofe laws had continued dormant for a confiderable time, inftances had been lain before them of illiberal profecutions carried on under their fanction, and that they had now before them the cafe of a lady, who was in danger of lofing her whole fortune in confequence of them, that the boasted lenience of government, and the good temper of the times, was the ftrongeft reason that could be brought for feizing fo happy an opportunity of procuring a remedy, and that it would be fruitlefs to afk for relief or - fecurity, when through a change of principles in the one, and of temper in the other, a profecution might perhaps be actually begun. But it is faid that becaufe the Diffenters enjoy liberty of connivance, this application for relief and fecurity, is not one ly unneceffary, but an act of mere wantonness; it comes then to be afked, under what unheard of definition of liberty, a freeman is fuppofed to hold his rights by connivance; connivance is but a temporary relaxation of flavery; and is the liberty of Englishmen to depend upon fuch a tenure: Some eminent writers place liberty in an exemption from fear, but can thofe who enjoy it by connivance be exempt from fear, or free from apprehenfion. You hang a fword. tufpended by a thread, over the heads of the Diffenters, and affure them that you will not break the thread; if that Your real intention, is it not eafy,

and much better, to remove the fword, and relieve them from their terrors.

However fanguine the hopes that were formed, from the great majority that carried this bill through the houfe of commons might have been, it had ftill a feverer ordeal to undergo, in which its fortune deferted it. Upon a fecond reading in the houfe of lords, on the 19th of May, it was thrown out by a vaft majority, there being, including the proxies, 102 lords who oppofed it, to 29, only, who fupported the bill.

Notwithstanding the implied recommendation that had been fo early given, for an enquiry into the affairs of the Eaft India company, and the establishment of fome regulations for their future government, the house had now fat near three months, with out the fmalleft notice being taken of that bufinefs. It feems pretty evident, that adminißration had no ferious intention of entering deeply into that matter for the prefent, and that the fubfequent movements during the remainder of the feffion, were only intended to keep it alive, and to make or find fome openings, for that great revolution which it has fince accomplifhed in the affairs of the company. It was alfo, perhaps, neceffary, that this bufinefs fhould be fo far entered into, as that the company fhould continue entangled in the hands of the parliament during the recefs. However this might be, it is more than probable, that no part of this plan was understood, by the gentlemen who were the immediate actors in bringing the affairs of the company under confideration, and that they were actuated by very different motives.

The first notice that was taken of this bufinefs, was in consequence of

a motion made by the de Masch 30.

puty chairman of the Eaft India company, for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the company's fervants and concerns in

« PreviousContinue »