Viewing page 56 of 285

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

100 Annual Register

mies to monarchy, and of being dangerous to the state, are equally futile and unjust; however unjustifiable some of its latter consequences might have been, which it was not then possible to foresee, their original opposition to the tyranny of Charles the first, was not only defensible, but highly praise-worthy; and notwithstanding the powerful operation both of religious and despotic prejudices, has received the sanction of the wisest and most learned men, in all those nations, where they can in any degree venture to think for themselves; but that waving all defense, the absurdity 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 so obvious as not to deserve a serious consideration. That on the contrary, the English history abounds with instances, which shew them to have been excellent citizens, and to have been as loyal and dutiful under good princes, as they were firm in their opposition to those tyrants who wanted to overthrow the constitution.

It was said that the apprehension of danger to the church was equally ill founded; that the Dissenters were already relieved by the act of toleration, from subscribing to those distinctive articles of the church of England, which are peculiar to her; and that the articles which they are enjoined to sign by the present mode of subscription, contain only those doctrines, which the church of Geneva holds in common with her; so that this absurd mode of subscription, in reality, is observed, would contribute much more propagation of Calvinism than to the establishment of the national religion; upon what principle then of civil or ecclesiastical policy, is a subscription supported and enforced, which is not less prejudicial to the established church, than it is odious to those on whom the present laws would compel it? That the case of the Dissenters was very different from those 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 Dissenters were only praying leave to be disengaged from ties, which were foreign to their principles and institutions; and that the refusal would seem to imply a supposition, equally injurious and unjust to the church of England, as if her foundations were so weakly laid, that she was obliged to press the assistance of those who did not belong to her to support them.

That the proposal of granting a partial toleration, could be considered only as an act of pleasantry; that is, we will tolerate people so far as they agree with us; but where we differ, there we shall persecute; surely there can be no merit, in tolerating our own doctrines; for the very principle of toleration is, that you will tolerate, not those who agree with you in opinion, but those whose religious notions are totally different: christian charity conflicts in allowing others a latitude of opinion, and in putting such a restraint upon our own mind, as will prevent the bitterness of zeal from becoming paramount in it; and that the idea of christianity being endangered by toleration, is contrary to truth and history, which shew that the christian religion never flourished so much

101. For the Year 1772.

as in times of the freest toleration, and never fell from itself till it departed from those principles.

That the arguments brought for retaining subscription, because the cruelty and iniquity of the penal laws, rendered them inefficacious and impotent, were the strongest that could be made use of for the removing it totally. That the security of freemen was too sacred, to be entrusted to the discretion of judges, the caprice of a court, or the malice or avarice of individuals; and that though in general, those laws had continued dormant for a considerable amount of time, instances had been laid before them, of illiberal persecutions carried on under their sanction, and that they had now before them the case of a lady, who was in danger of losing her whole fortune in consequence of them; that the boasted lenience of government, and the good temper of the times, was the strongest reason that could be brought for seizing so happy an opportunity of procuring a remedy, and that it would be fruitless to ask for relief or security, when through a change of principles in the one, and of temper in the other, a persecution might perhaps be actually begun. But it is said, that because the Dissenters enjoy liberty by connivance, this application for relief and security, is not only unnecessary, but an act of mere wantonness; it comes then to be asked, under what unheard of definition of liberty, a freeman is supposed to hold his rights by connivance; connivance is but a temporary relaxation of slavery; and is the liberty of Englishmen to depend upon such a tenure? Some eminent writers, place liberty in an exemption from fear; but can those who enjoy it by connivance, be exempt from fear, or free from apprehension. You hang a sword, suspended by a thread, and assure them that you will not break the thread; if that is your real intention, is it not as easy, and much better, to remove the sword, and relieve them from their terrors.

However sanguine the hopes that were formed, from the great majority that carried this bill through the house of commons might have been, in which its fortune deserted it. Upon a second reading in the house of lords, on the 19th of May, it was thrown out by a vast majority, there being, including the proxies, 102 lords who opposed it, to 29, only, who supported the bill.

Notwithstanding the implied recommendation that had been so early given, for an enquiry into the affairs of the East India company, and the establishment of some regulation for their future government, the house had now sat near three months, without the smallest notice being taken of that business. It seems pretty evident, that administration had no serious intention of entering deeply into that matter for the present, and that the subsequent movements during the remainder of the session, were only intended to keep it alive, and to make or find some openings, for that great revolution which it has since accomplished in the affairs of the company. It was also, perhaps, necessary, that this business should be so far entered into, as that the company should continue entangled in