in all its stages, by every constitutional means.

XV. That we reflect with high satisfaction on the liberal, enlightened, and religious declaration of our most Gracious Sovereign, on the commencement of his reign:'Born,' said his Majesty, in his first speech from the throne, and educated in this conntry, I glory in the name of Briton; and the peculiar happ ness of my life will ever consist in promoting the welfare of a people, whose loyalty and warm af fection to me I consider as the greatest and most permanent security of my throne; and I doubt not but their steadiness in those principles will equal the firmness of my invariable resolution to adhere to and strengthen this excellent Constitution in Church and State; and to maintain the Toleration inviolable. The civil and religious rights of my loving subjects are equally dear to me with the most valuable prerogatives of my Crown; and as the surest foundation of the whole, and the best means to draw down the Divine Favour on my reign, it is my fixed purpose, to countenance and encourage the practice of true religion and virtue.-This declaration of our beloved Sovereign has been religiously fulfilled during a long and benei.cent reign, and has been humbly met by our Societies with the affection it was calculated to inspire. We have built with confidence upon this gracious declaration; and our confidence has not been misplaced. His Majesty has been a shield to the religious of all persuasions, and he has respected the rights of conscience in all; and we cannot doubt that his Royal Highuess the Prince Regent, with those just sentiments of truth and sincerity which he has graciously declared shall be the guide of his character and every action of his lite, will feel it his happiness to recognize the high natural rights of Conscience; and should it please the wise poser of all events to restore his afflicted Father to the personal exe.cise of his Royal Functions, Lis Royal highness will feel it amongst the man, blessings of his benevolent and liberal administration,

1:

that he has, agreeably to the ardent wishes of a great portion of his Majesty's loyal subjects, preserved those sacred rights entire, and returned to his beloved father the Toleration invislate. We have too much confidence in the wisdom and justice of Parliament, to imagine that a measure will be adopted, so obnoxious to such a large proportion of the nation as our Societies and congregations constitute; but, if unhappily we should be disappointed, and, in the dernier resort, we should be driven to submit our case to his Royal Highness, we have already the gratification of his royal Assurance, that he will be ready to listen to the complaints of those who may think themselves aggrieved, and regulate his conduct upon the established principles of that ancient and excellent constitution, under which the people of this country have hitherto enjoyed a state of unrivalled prosperity and happiness.'

XVI. That a Sub-Committee be appointed to carry these Resolutions into effect.

XVII. That these Resolutions be printed, and with Circular Letters on the subject, be immediately transmitted to our Societies throughout the United Kingdom, if the Sub-Committee judge it to be necessary.

XVIII. That before any active measures be taken, a Deputation do wait upon the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Sidmouth, with a Copy of these Resolutions, and earnestly entreat his Lordship to withdraw his Bill.

Signed, by Order of the Committee,

J. BUTTERWORTH, Secretary.

ON Tuesday morning a Sub-Committee of the Meeting held at the London Tavern waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreeably to his request, to state their senti ments of the proposed act; when a very interesting conversation took place; which, we believe, was attended with salutary effects.

WE have now the pleasure of stating, from the public prints, the Substance of the Debate which took

Place in the House of Lords on Tuesday, May 21. We believe that the speeches, as thus reported, fall exceedingly short of what was actually deliver er, in which much strong and manly eloquence was displayed. The unprece dented altitude of petitions brought in by Noblemen, friendly to the Disseaters, astonished the whole house; and to them, under God, we believe that our deliverance from the projected restrictions may be chiefly ascribed.

Earl STANHOPE said, he held in his hand a Petition against the Bill relative to Dissenters, signed by upwards of two thousand persons; and, he had no doubt that if the Bill was persisted in, the Petitioners against it, instead of thousands, must be counted by millions.

The Petition was read; and on the question that it do lie on the table,

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he had not the slightest intention of opposing the motion. His object in rising was, that the time of the House might be saved. He was perfectly convinced that his Noble Friend (Sidmouth) had been actuated by the purest motives in bringing forward the Bill; 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 impoli tic 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 circumstances, he suggested to his Noble Friend the expediency of not proceeding any further, and of withdrawing the Bill.

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH felt very forcibly the importance which must be attached to what had been stated by his Noble Friend, particularly as he knew 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; but if the Bill

was allowed to go into a Committee, every thing that had given rise to misconception might be remedied. His Lordship was proceeding to explain the objects of the Bill, when

Earl GREY spoke 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 bad been actuated. It was, however, irregular 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.

The first Petition was then ordered to lie on the table. A great number of other petitions were presented, and the places they came from mentioned. Earl Stanhope presented several; Earl Grey seventy-eight. The Earl of Moira eighty. Lord Holland upwards of 100. The Earl of Rosslyn several.

The Earl of Lauderdsle a consider, able number.

Lord Erskine about 250.

The Marquis of Lansdowne 100.

After the Petitions had been presented, the Order of the Day was read for the second reading of the Bill, and

· Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH again rose. His Lordship expressed his regret at the misinterpretation and misconception, and, he was afraid, he must add misrepresentation of the objects and provisions of the Bill, which had gone abroad. His Lordship explained the Bill at length, pleaded for its going into a Committee, and concluded by moving, that the Bill be now read a second time.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, although he was satisfied that if it had not been conceived the Toleration Act was infringed on, the present Bill would not have been so much opposed, was convinced that no such infringement was in reality intended. But although no persecution was intended, and although some misconception might exist on the subject, the flood of Petitions which had come down upon that house, ought to convince their Lordships of the necessity of stopping short for the present. He therefore conceived that more injury than good would result from persisting in the measure; and he thought it would be better not to attempt to press the Bill against the opinions of the Dissenters.

Lord ERSKINE said, that the evi dence which they had had in the multi

plicity of Petitions which he had the honour to present to them against the Bill, left no doubt as to the opinion entertained by the Dissenters on the subject. But it was to be observed that a small part of the Petitions had yet arrived; and if longer time had been allowed, ten times the present number would have been presented. If his Noble Friend would attend but for a few moments, he was confident that he himself would be of opinion that he (Lord Erskine) was justified in thinking that the second reading of the Bill should be put off till that day six sanths. He said he had no doubt of the purity of the motives of the Noble Lord (Sidmouth). Their Lordships would have imagined, from the discourse of that Noble Lord, that his Bill was necessary, to relieve the Dissenters from errors and misconceptions in their construction of Statutes so justly called the Palladium of British Religious Liberty. But the Act of the Noble Lord was an infringement on the letter and spirit of the Toleration Act. He had formed this opinion before he knew that this Bill was to be opposed by the Dissenters, and that he should have to present 250 Petitions against it.

After a variety of other arguments, he concluded with moving, That_the second reading should be postponed to that day six months.

The LoaD CHANCELLOR said, the Bill was no infringement on the Toleration Act; but when the Toleration Laws had been made grounds of different judicial decisions in different counties, it became necessary to establish their meaning beyond a doubt. It had been said by his Noble Friend (Lord Erkine) if any difficulties should arise, they would at once be settled by a Mandanius; but if such difficulties were enly to be settled by a Mandamus, he would venture to say they would never be settled. Upon the whole, he thought it more advisable that the Bill should not be farther pressed at present.

Lord HOLLAND defended his principles against what had been thrown out by the Noble Lord(Sidmouth). He had been stated to express the most contradictory opinions on the subject. 1st, That he had delivered opimous extremely wide on religious subjects; which, it acted on, would subvert the Christian Religion and the Government of the Country; and zdly, That the Toleration Laws were abominably intoleraut. He maintained that every man had a right to preach as well as

print what he conceived was for thè good of his fellow-creatures; and that if he shonid injure the tranquillity of his country, he was liable to punishment, in the same manner as every man was entitled, without a licence, to carry. arms, though it did not follow that he was entitled to employ them to the injury of another. If any person thought he knew the meaning of the Scriptures, it was his duty to communicate his opinions. He agreed with Locke, that the Toleration Act was not a comple'e measure, but was the foot-step merely. There were two parts of the Toleration Act, the first part was a boon, and the second part was merely an admission of what the Dissenters were entitled to. He did not wouder that the Dissenters misconceived the Noble Viscount's Bill: no person could have imagined from the notices of that Noble Viscount, till they saw the present Bill, that is After terms would be what they are.

a variety of other arguments, his Lordship concluded with declaring his determination to support the motion of his Noble Friend (Erskine).

Earl STANHOPE said, he did not new rise to oppose the Bill, because it had already got its death-blow. He hoped, however, it would be followed up by a measure of a very different nature. Never since he had been a Member of Parliament had he received so much pleasure as this day, in observing the number of petitions so numerously signed which had been presented agamst this most wretched Bill. He had heard it said that such was the public feeling, that they would not, at the present moment, be affected by any thing which could possibly happen. The petitions now on their Lordships' table, however, completely gave the lie to this allegation. The event had shewn that there was still a public opinion in this country, and that, when called into action, it could manifest itself speedily, and with effect. He was hoppy this had occurred. He had never doubted that there was still such a thing as public opinion; and he hoped those Noble Lords who had hitherto doubted the fact, would now be conçinced of their error. It was not his object to quarrel with the Bill, because it was already dead and gone, and he did not wish any man to quarrel with its carcase. The Noble Lord had declared the Toleration Act to be abominable. He (Lord Staubope) was one of those who detested that Act which they called the Toleration Act, and for this reason, be Cause it did not go far enough. Ile believed he might say, that he was 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 natore 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 VI. who might fairly be said to be the first Protestant Prince who had ever reigned in this country, for King Henry the Eighth, that Defender of the Faith, could hardly be said to be a real Protestant, by which they were all shovell ed 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!) The Noble Lord 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 Connecticat, he was informed there was a law, That if any may 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 being the duty of the Clergyman to instruct his flock, and to make them good and honest men, and if he had succeeded in doing so, no such suit would have been necessary; and on the other hand, havving failed to perform his duty, he could have no 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 he 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 equi

table principle he had now alluded to.

Lord HOLLAND explained, by declaring it to be his opinion, that though every one of the numerous Subscribers 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.

Earl GREY said, though he perceived that his Noble Friend (Sidmouth) did not mean to press this Bill farther, yet, he could not allow the question to be put without declaring his unchangeable objection both to the details and to the principle of the Bill, to which no modifications could ever reconcile him. The principle of the Bill was restraint

restraint vexatious and uncalled for. That it was a Bill of restraint even his Noble Friend (Sidmouth) himself had not denied. He (Earl Grey) was against all restraint. For the last 40 years the number of persons licenced appeared to have been about 11,000. He should take, however, the last years.-Dividing it into two equal parts, it appeared that, in the six former years, the number licenced was 1,100, and, in the latter six years 900, so that the number had diminished, instead of encreasing; and the present measure, instead of being thereby more peculiarly called for, had become so much the less necessary.

Lord SIDMOUTH, ia reply, observed that he would not be deterred by auy thing that had fallen` from the Noble Lord who had just sat down, from bringing before their Lordships whatever his own sense of duty suggested as worthy their attention. He left it to their Lordships to decide, whether the law on this subject ought to be left iu its present state of uncertainty. The question for the second reading was then put, and negatived without a division. The Ball is therefore thrown out.