The History of Persecution, from the Patriarchal Age, to the Reign of George II

by Samuel Chandler

In the spring of the year 1811, a bill was introduced into the House of Lords, (which had long been in contemplation) by the Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount Sidmouth, the object of which was said to be the “amending and explaining the Toleration Acts, as far as they applied to Protestant Dissenting Ministers;” but which in fact, had it passed into a law, would have been a violation of the laws of religious liberty, and subversive of the most valuable rights and privileges of the Methodists and Dissenters.

I give the Right Hon. mover of this bill full credit for the purity of its motives, nor do I think he was at all aware that it would eventually operate against the people whom he professed to serve; however, much real good to the cause of religious toleration, whether intended or not, has ultimately ensued from the introduction of this bill into the House of Lords. It excited considerable interest in the nation at large, especially among the dissenters of all denominations. Committees were formed, and various meetings were held by them, and also by the “Committee of Privileges” belonging to the societies founded by the late Rev. John Wesley; a detail of which I shall here beg leave to lay before the reader, by inserting an extract from a narrative of their proceedings respecting Lord Sidmouth’s bill, and the speeches delivered by several noble Lords when the second reading of that bill was moved.

“Lord Viscount Sidmouth, it is well known, had long had the present measure in contemplation, and as a foundation for the proceeding, he had made several motions in the House of Lords within the last two or three years, which had for their object the procuring of information relative to the number of licenced teachers, and places of worship, and the state of the Established Church. Returns of the Archbishops and Bishops on these subjects having been laid before the House of Lords; on the 9th of May, 1811, his Lordship rose to call the attention of the House to certain abuses of the act of William and Mary, and that of the 19th of the present reign, and to move for leave to bring in a bill for amending and explaining the same, as far as they applied to Protestant Dissenting Ministers.

“After what he had to say, their Lordships would see whether the correction of these abuses should not be a matter of anxious solicitude to all persons of all persuasions, and to every one who felt what was due to the dignity, the honour, and the sanctity of religion itself. It was to be regretted, that, up to the period of the Revolution, the history of religion was, in this country, a history of intolerance and persecution. Whatever party was uppermost, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Puritan, the same want of Toleration for diversity of opinion was displayed. The Revolution was the æra of religious liberty in this country, and William III. accomplished that which would ever remain a monument of his wisdom: he meant the Toleration Act. That act, while it removed the penalties to which Dissenters were subject, declared that all the Ministers in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, upon subscribing twenty-six of the thirty-nine articles, upon taking the oaths, and signing a declaration, may officiate in any chapel or meeting-house. By an act of the nineteenth of the King, their signing any of the thirty-nine articles was dispensed with, and they were only to express their belief in the Holy Scriptures. Within the last thirty or forty years, these acts had received a novel interpretation. At most of the Quarter-Sessions, where the oaths were taken and the declaration made, it was now understood, that any person whatever, however ignorant or profligate, whether he descended from the chimney or the pillory, was at liberty to put in his claim to take the oaths before the Justices, to make the declaration, and also at liberty to demand a certificate which authorised him to preach any doctrine he pleased; which exempted him besides from serving in the militia, and from many civil burdens to which his fellow-subjects were liable.

“Now, if religion be the best foundation of all the virtues, was it not a matter of the last importance that it should not be tainted at its very source, and that men who did not choose to follow the regular pursuits of honest industry, should not have it in their power to poison the minds of the people by their fanaticism and folly? He would appeal to any man who had officiated at the Quarter Sessions, whether he had not seen men totally illiterate, without education, without one qualification of fitness, demanding to take the oaths, and obtaining a licence to preach? He did not wish to state particular instances of gross deficiency as to intellectual qualification, and of gross abuses in other respects, which it was in his power to do. He did not mean to lay much stress on illiteracy; but it was the self-assumption of the office, without bringing any testimony of fitness, to which he particularly meant to object, as inconsistent with the Act of Toleration.

“He had seen the returns of Dissenting Preachers from two Archdeaconries; and many of them, he must say, ought not to have been allowed to constitute themselves the ministers of religion. Amongst the list there were men who had been blacksmiths, coblers, tailors, pedlars, chimney-sweepers, and what not. These men were totally out of their place: they were not, in fact, at liberty, by law, to take upon themselves the functions of teachers. There were counties in this kingdom where a different interpretation was put on the Toleration Act. In the county of Devon, and in Buckinghamshire, the Magistrates admitted no person to qualify, unless he shewed that he was in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, and the preacher and teacher of a congregation. This he conceived to be according to the real meaning of the Toleration Act; and it was in this way that the Bill he proposed to introduce would explain that Act. He should propose, that, in order to entitle any man to obtain a qualification as a Preacher, he should have the recommendation of at least six reputable householders of the congregation to which he belonged, and that he should actually have a congregation that was willing to listen to his instructions. With regard to preachers who were not stationary, but itinerant, he proposed that they should be required to bring a testimonial from six householders, stating them to be of sober life and character, together with their belief, that they were qualified to perform the functions of preachers.

“The noble Lord then noticed the great increase of dissenting preachers of late years. Those who would be affected by his Bill did not belong to any sect of dissenters; they were of the worst class of the Independants, and distinguished by their fanaticism and a certain mischievous volubility of tongue. In the first fourteen years of the present reign, the average annual increase of dissenting teachers was limited to eight, but now it amounted to twenty-four. The causes of this increase, he considered to be partly the increase of population, and the greater prevalence of religious feelings among the people; but there were other and powerful causes, in the numerous pluralities and non-residence of the clergy. Another great cause was the want of churches to accommodate a numerous population, and, therefore, his Lordship seriously called the attention of the House to consider how this deficiency could be remedied, and recommended the example of parliament in the reign of Queen Anne, who had ordered the erection of fifty-two new churches in London. He regarded the Church of England as the great preservative of the principles and the morals of the people. Unfortunately, at present, we were in danger of having an established church, and a sectarian people.

“On the question being put, Lord Holland said, that even what had fallen from his noble friend, impressed more strongly on his mind, that no necessity existed for the desired interference. The whole seemed to go upon a fundamental error, that it was only by the permission of government that individuals were to instruct others in their religious duties. He, on the contrary, held to be the right of every man who thinks he can instruct his fellow-creatures, so to instruct them. He was sorry that something slipped from his noble friend, as if he held it improper that persons of low origin, or particular trades, should attempt to teach the doctrines of Christianity. On this point he held a different opinion. Might not even they be inspired with the same conscientious feelings of duty which were required to be felt by those of the higher orders of clergy, to whom the state had given such large emoluments? It was his strong feeling, that it was neither wise nor prudent to meddle with the Act of Toleration. For the measure itself, he did not think a sufficient case was made out, as to the existence of any real practical evils or inconveniences, to require such an interposition on the part of the Legislature. His Lordship then referred to some calculations as to the increase of dissenting teachers of late years, which he did not seem to regard as a misfortune, or an alarming consideration. With respect to what was said of the established church, he agreed in the opinion, that a want of sufficient number of places of religious worship was injurious. This was a point in which the established religion was essentially concerned; it should take care that no insufficiency in this respect should exist. He had no objection that the public purse should, to a certain extent, contribute to the expences of the necessary erections; but he thought the immediate funds of the Church should also contribute. Such was the uniform custom of the Church of Rome, and the established Church in this country should shew itself no less mindful of its duty in so essential a point. With respect to his noble friend’s Bill, he repeated his opinion, there was not a sufficient ground laid for its adoption.

“Earl Stanhope acquiesced in every thing that had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Holland.) That noble Lord, on whatever question he spoke, whether wright or wrong, wise or unwise, always spoke from principle. But on the present occasion, he did not think that his noble friend, or the noble viscount had gone far enough. They did not, or would not, touch the real state of the question. They must know, or if they did not, he would tell them, that in most parts of England, where the parishes did not consist of more than a thousand souls, the places of worship, exclusive of private houses, barns, &c. were as three to four of those of the established church; and that if Scotland and Ireland were to be included, the proportion between the Dissenters and the established Church would be found as two to one. Lord Sidmouth had told the House, that hardly more than one half of the clergy were resident on their livings. It would be much better for his noble friend to bring in a Bill to correct this evil, than be dabbling with the Dissenters. The noble Lord had expressed his fears, lest there should be an established Church and a sectarian people—the truth was, that this was the case already, and he would advise his noble friend not to be meddling with that class of men, who had, according to him, the mischievous gift of the tongue, and who might be canvassing among the farmers at elections, and hinting to them that they had tithes to pay. It was better to let these people alone, and for the noble Lord to exert his magnificent abilities in correcting the abuses which existed in the Church. It was well known, that the tide of opinion was running strong a certain way, and it was as vain to think of stopping the current of opinion, as to stop the stars in their course.”

The Bill was then presented, and read a first time, a Copy of which which I here[which I here] here insert.