fol. 38.  The printed resolutions from a meeting of the West Riding committee of York at Wakefield, 11 November 1789, Thomas Grove, chairman, with Turner, Fawcett, Deane, Parsons, Langdon, and Wood present.  Also a copy of the printed letter to Wilberforce, undated [but apparently written on the 14th, from the committee and signed by William Wood, now acting as secretary [this letter is printed in Extracts, no. 2, pp. 19-26].

At a Meeting of the Committee of the Dissenting Ministers of the West Riding of the County of York, held at Wakefield, November 11, 1789,

Present,

    The Rev. Messrs. Grove, Turner, Fawcett, Deane, Parsons, Langdon, and Wood.

    The Rev. Mr. Grove was appointed Chairman, and the Rev. Mr. Wood, Secretary to the Committee.

    Letters were read from the Rev. Mr. Moorhouse and the Rev. Mr.  Crabtree, the absent Members, assigning illness as the Reason of their Absence.

    Letters were also read from Henry Duncombe, Esq; Sir Henry Hoghton, Bart. and Henry Beaufoy, Esq; in answer to Letters from the Chairman of the last general Meeting, communicating to them the Thanks of that Meeting for their Support of the late Application for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts: a Letter was also read from William Wilberforce, Esq; assigning the Reasons of his voting against the Motion on the first Application and absenting himself from the House on the last.

    The Draught of a Letter in Answer to that from Mr. Wilberforce being read and afterwards debated Paragraph by Paragraph, it was

    Resolved unanimously,

         That the Letter now read be transmitted to Mr. Wilberforce and signed by the Secretary in the Name of the Committee.

      That 200 Copies be printed for the Use of the Congregations in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and of the Chairmen of the Committees in other Parts of the Kingdom.

        That when there shall appear a Probability that this Business will be agitated in the Upper House, Letters be sent in the Name of this Committee to such of the Members of that House as are resident in this District, requesting their Attendance and Support.

        Signed,

                    Thomas Grove, Chairman.

Copy of the Letter to Mr. Wilberforce.

Sir,

        We think ourselves obliged by the open communication with which you have favoured us of your peculiar Reasons for opposing the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts; and by the Wish you express to reconsider the subject impartially, if it should again come before the House.  As it must ever be supposed that education, connections, and a variety of other circumstances occasion a correspondent difference in the opinion which different persons entertain upon any subject that is interesting to them both, we trust you will receive with candour, an explanation of the views which we, as Dissenters, take of this, so far as you have chosen to enter upon it respecting us; for farther we would not now intrude upon you; and thus far appeared proper for us to go, lest you might suppose we esteemed your letter satisfactory and unanswerable.

        We are glad to find that you coincide with us in thinking “our application deserving of the most serious attention of the Legislature;” and likewise in considering “the grievances of which the Dissenters complain, as by no means ideal evils.” We are also happy to learn that you do not charge us with having merited by our misconduct as members of civil society, the continuance of evils which you thus ingenuously acknowledge to be real ones.  This we infer from the reluctance with which you assure us you opposed our application, and the respect which you profess for the Dissenters, the proper ground of which can be only their general character and behaviour.  When you say, then, “nor could any thing justify a continuance of the evils under which they labour but a conviction of their absolute necessity,” we were naturally led to look for some cogent reason indeed, to justify the continuance of real evils on an acknowledged “large and respectable body of fellow subjects,” not on account of their actions, but merely of their religious sentiments; and were not a little surprised to perceive that “the grand and determining motive in your mind” was founded on a supposed departure in “the generality of the established Clergy from the tenets of their predecessors in primitive times;” and that it arose from an anxiety to “preserve to the people the forms of worship and articles of faith which were settled at the first establishment of the national church, conceiving,” as you inform us, “that in such a state of things, it is the bounden duty of every one who thinks it essential to retain these tenets, carefully to guard those articles of faith and forms of worship by which alone they were assured of the enjoyment of them.”

        If to “guard” you mean the use of reason and scriptural argument in their defence, and that employment of a man’s fortune and influence which does not infringe upon the rights of others, in this sense of the word, we coincide with you, that it is the bounden duty of every one to guard what he thinks essential to true religion.  But this does not apply to the point in debate. Because the repeal of the laws in question would not deprive you or any other person of these instruments of defence.  But we are apprehensive that you mean another kind of guard, the use of civil weapons in support of religious tenets.  We understand that you think it your duty to lay civil restrictions, and impose civil grievances on others who examine the scriptures with sincerity, because the result of their examination does not coincide with what you esteem to be the true interpretation of scripture.

        These guards have been proved by the experience of ages to be vain and ineffectual for the promotion of truth and real religion.  The infliction of civil evils can never convince a man that any thing is true, or agreeable to scripture.  They may, indeed, tempt some hypocritically to profess what they do not believe, but they cannot produce inward belief itself in any human being.

        And their effects in promoting even the outward profession of any tenets would be only local and temporary.  They would enforce only a regard to the sentiments of the supreme power for the time being; and though they now favour the present articles of the Church of England, yet they would equally favour them, if they should at any time be altered by the supreme power, and might then subserve a purpose which Mr Wilberforce would not wish.

        But we do not object to them merely as ineffectual, we protest against them as unjust.  The not acquiescing in established articles of religious faith is quite consistent with being good subjects and firm friends to the reigning family, as appears from existing facts; and therefore can be no reason for depriving any men of their natural rights or for continuing evils upon them. When no civil duty is violated, no civil evil can be justly inflicted.  A zeal in the legislature for the sentiments of one part of its subjects cannot be a just ground of witholding protection or confidence from the other part.  The great end of all good government is to protect its subjects from being injured themselves and to prevent them from invading the rights of others.  It must therefore be designed to protect every subject in the exercise of the rights of conscience, because these rights never are, nor ever can be given up by a truly good and religious man.  Every individual has a natural and equal claim to these rights, and unless they be freely allowed to all, they will be retained by some to injure and oppress others.  The principle which leads a man to impose evils and restrictions upon others to defend his own peculiar religious opinions, or to deter others from exercising the rights of conscience, is the essence of intolerance, and, if carried to its full extent, it is unnecessary to say to what it would lead.

        The church of England at the time of the reformation, convinced of the injustice and feeling the ill effects of this guard which Mr. Wilberforce proposes, thought the guard “by which alone she might be assured of the enjoyment of her peculiar tenets,” was the undisturbed possession of the natural and unalienable rights of conscience.  She professed to vindicate her dissent from the church of Rome upon the only principle on which genuine christianity and pure protestantism can be consistently supported, by asserting that the bible only, contained the religion of christians, and that she had a right to interpret this bible for herself, and to make her own interpretation the rule of her conduct without being subject to any grievances on this account.  The present Dissenters from the church of England on the same ground claim the free and unrestrained exercise of the same privilege.  Whoever then maintains their claim to be ill founded, if he be consistent with himself must also maintain that of the church of England to be so too.  And the argument which concludes in favour of the church of England, equally concludes in favour of the dissenters from that church, and against the laws in question as laying civil restrictions and inflicting civil evils on them for their religious opinions.

        And if it be allowed that the infliction of civil evils on modern dissenters is the guard by which alone the church of England might be assured of the enjoyment of her peculiar tenets, it must also be allowed that the church of England can be defended only by infringing upon the rights of those who cannot believe all that she believes.  Do not Mr. Wilberforce’s peculiar reasons then, supposing them well founded, carry with them the strongest argument against the very church in support of which he adduces them?

        The great founder of our holy religion maintained a pointed distinction between the things that are due to Caesar, and the things that are due to God, and gave a particular precept that they should not be confounded together.  The purpose for which he instituted the Lord’s supper was the commemoration of himself.  The purpose to which the acts in question apply it is a qualification for civil offices.  When the christians at Corinth partook of it as a common meal without regarding the peculiar use for which it was appointed, the Apostle Paul assures them that he who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning or discriminating the Lord’s body.  Whoever therefore partakes of the Lord’s supper for any civil purpose, misapplies the ordinance, offers an indignity to the institutor, and opposes his positive command.  And for the enjoining this peculiar and profane appropriation of the ordinance, the framers and supporters of the Corporation and Test Acts are surely accountable.  We say nothing of the character of those to whom the clergy are directed by these acts to administer this rite, nor of the avowed disbelief which some of them maintain of the divine authority of the christian religion.  But were we in opposition to Mr. Wilberforce’s conjectures on the probable consequences of the repeal of the statutes in question, to hazard a conjecture on the probable consequences of their continuance, we should think that true religion was more likely to be injured than benefited by laws which tempt many persons to commit an irreligious act, and which absolutely exclude from office only those who are influenced by a truly conscientious principle, while they admit the vicious and profane of every opinion.

        To these unanswerable objections the train of reasoning which furnished “your grand and determining motive” is liable.  Nor can we perceive that “its application” to the particular circumstances of the present case “is sufficiently obvious.”

        In support of this application, you say, “what was then asked,” alluding to the first application of the dissenters for the repeal, “tho’ certainly a considerable accession of influence was likely to result from it, did not I confess appear to me so objectionable in itself as in the consequences with which it might probably be followed.”

        The first consequence you apprehend is, “that an easy victory on their first onset might rouse into action the great body of Dissenters, and inspiring them with the hopes of further conquests, might encourage them to make an attack upon the power and wealth of the Hierarchy.”

        No apprehension can be more unjust or injurious.  No part of the Dissenters conduct from the first opening of this business, has had even the appearance of an attack upon the established church.  And the history of the Test Act will shew, that Protestant Dissenters voluntarily consented to the suspension of their relief from the grievances which they then experienced, and exposed themselves to the additional evils which this act inflicts, in order to support the cause of Protestantism and the church of England against the power of the Pope.

        They have to this day peaceably endured these hardships, though they were promised a speedy relief from them at the time when the act was passed.  And the very period which they have recently chosen for applying for relief, is an evidence that they were not instigated by any factious motives, as they applied during an administration to which they were generally favourable, and while the nation at large was free from foreign and domestic broils.  A conjecture then which is so ill founded can never furnish any just reasons for continuing real evils on a large and respectable body of men.  But upon this conjecture you do not insist so much because, you add, “it is easy to see that the whole body of the established clergy would unite in repelling it.”

        It is upon your second conjecture that you lay the greatest stress.  You say, “but if their operations should be directed against the Articles and the Liturgy, this was a post which I feared would not be so obstinately defended, so many of those who were enlisted in their support being alienated from them in sentiment and affection; when a party within the citadel is disposed to surrender the outworks to the besiegers, those outworks must be watched with double circumspection.” This language is figurative; but the plain purport of the sentence appears to us to be this.  Because many of the established Clergy do not believe the articles of the church of England, and would easily part with them, therefore Dissenters must have civil grievances continued upon them, to prevent them from joining the supposed disaffected part of the establishment, in attempting to abolish or to alter the Articles and the Liturgy, and to weaken their efforts if they should use any for this purpose.  But even on the supposition that Mr Wilberforce’s opinion of the Clergy is founded on truth, yet why Dissenters should on this account have grievances continued upon them is inexplicable upon any principles of reason or equity.  This is punishing Dissenters for the fault of the established Clergy, in which they have no concern.  And the apology offered in excuse for it is, the absolute necessity of this unjust persecution, in order to prevent Dissenters from attacking the Liturgy and Articles.  But the only weapons, Sir, with which Dissenters can, upon their own principles, attack any religious tenets, are the weapons of reason and argument: and these weapons, we trust, not any member of the British Legislature will ever quietly suffer his fellow subjects to be deprived of. With these weapons Dissenters zealously combat the different opinions that prevail among themselves, and as an evidence that they can have no intention of using any other against the articles of the Church of England, we can assure you that the same unbiassed examination which has led some of us to interpret the scriptures differently from them, has led others to adopt most of its peculiar doctrines into their own creed.  And they who maintain sentiments consonant to those of the established church, join such as are of a different persuasion with equal zeal in using peaceable and constitutional methods to obtain a removal of this common burden.  Our united object is only to gain an exemption from the civil disadvantages under which we labour, solely on account of our exercising the right of interpreting the Bible for ourselves: and upon the same principles on which we claim this right, we are forbidden to disturb any other man or body in the enjoyment of the same privilege.

        And if you, sir, dread the conjectural effects that may follow from the repeal of these acts, have not Dissenters much more reason to dread the natural effects of the principle upon which you support them?  Mere conjectures concerning the future conduct of an acknowledged great and respectable body of fellow subjects are the only plea you urge for the continuance of real evils upon them.  This is punishing them for crimes of which it is only supposed they may in future be guilty: tho’, in the present case, they themselves disavow the intention of committing them, tho’ their principles have no tendency to produce them, and their conduct lays no reasonable ground for the suspicion.  What despotism can be greater than this?  What persecution more iniquitous in its principle?

        Upon the maturest consideration, then, of your peculiar reasons, we cannot perceive that ground of absolute necessity which you allow to be the only proper ground for opposing our application.  On the contrary, we think we have fully shewn the principles on which you act to be adverse to the cause of truth, justice, conscience, protestantism, and genuine christianity.   It is for the advancement of these causes that we have taken the liberty of troubling you with the present letter.  And if you think our arguments fail of proving the point to which they are directed, we shall esteem it a favour to be informed where they are deficient. But firmly persuaded as we now are, that the ground upon which we assert our claim is the ground of equity and true religion, we think it our duty to persevere in the use of peaceable and constitutional measures, to gain a removal of the evils which we are conscious we do not deserve, and which your respect for us seems tacitly to allow that we do not.

        Upon the principles however on which we act ourselves, we could not request any gentleman to favour our application contrary “to the conviction of his own conscience, and at the expence of his integrity.”  But as it must be of importance to us to know the sentiments of our own representative in parliament, we request the favour of you to acquaint us as early as suits your convenience with the receipt of our letter, and to give us your final opinion upon the subject of it.

Signed by order and in the name of the Committee of Dissenting Ministers

of the West-Riding of the County of York,

                                                                                            William Wood

[Copy also can be found in the William Smith Papers, University of Kansas, MS Q11:10:2.]