fol. 78.  A printed announcement for a meeting of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers and Lay Deputies from congregations in the West-Riding, held at Wakefield on 30 December 1789, Pemberton Milnes, Esq., as Chair.

Also included here is a printed resolution of 15 January 1790 by the clergy of Leeds in opposition to the resolution of the West Riding Committee of Dissenting Ministers which had at Wakefield on 30 December “respectfully invite[d] them to co-operate with us, in our Attempt to remove this common Evil.” They wanted no part of that, and were offended by it and made it out to be purely political, coming as it did on the eve of the general election.   To these clergy, the Dissenters already enjoyed a complete toleration, and they should be happy and keep quiet.  They believed the repeal would be prejudicial to the established church and Constitution.  Attached to this is a printed letter by the West Riding Committee of the Dissenters which met at Leeds on 29 January 1790, signed by William Wood, Thomas Langdon, Edward Parsons, Joseph Bowden, and William Price, responding to the Leeds’s clergymen. The latter is a very complete resolution involving considerable history of the repeal process to that point and arguing against the points raised by the clergy’s letter [this is what Martin is referring to in his letter, f. 70].  Wood and his colleagues point out that the fears of the clergy are unfounded, for the Dissenters seek only a “civil” redress, not ecclesiastical.  He argues that the Church and the State will remain just as they are.  How can the state be under attack by a group who have been its most loyal supporters since the Glorious Revolution?  He also notes the inconsistency in their criticism.  After the last rejection by the House, it was noted that the Dissenters were not “united.” Now that they are uniting, it is seen by the establishment as “an alarming confederacy.” The repeal of the Acts will not give the Dissenters power, but it will give them the opportunity to enjoy power.  Above all, Wood is convinced that the “full restoration of the rights of the Dissenters will not interfere with the rights of any other individual.”