Newspaper Clippings about the Repeal Effort from February 1790

fol. 85.  Newspaper clippings from February 1790.

One is titled “Protest,” in which a defense of the repeal of the Test Acts is laid out against a statement of resolves issued by a meeting of some “friends to the present Establishment in Church and State” at Stowmarket in Suffolk on 23 February 1790.  The “Protest” is signed by Joshua Grigby, Capel Lofft, George Rogers, Samuel Henley, Thomas Kerrich, Robert Walpole, Joshua Grigby, jun., Charles Le Grice, and Orbell Ray, and John Kerrich.  It is followed by another response by Capel Lofft alone, dated 23 February 1790, from Stowmarket.  At a meeting at Stowmarket on that day, another supposedly “general” meeting organized by the Church and King crowd, resolutions were again passed at which no dissent was allowed, and Capell Lofft tried to speak and records his experience: “I ‘then’ declared, that I hoped the liberty was understood, which every person had at a public meeting, to oppose the Resolves by such reason as occurred to him; and that I should now endeavour to do this under the disadvantage of their all standing together for a single question; I was ‘preparing’ to speak; when some person on the floor, between the pews, said, there was no occasion to hear reasons; there would be no end of that; they came to pass the resolves.  I again attempted to speak, but was interrupted by an hiss, outcry, and tossing of hats, which gradually increased.  I then said, Mr. Chairman, I must appeal to you, and protest against this INFAMOUSLY IRREGULAR proceeding.  A Gentleman in the next pew said, ‘Sir, these are strong words, – infamous proceedings!’ – My reply was, Sir, they are strong; and I meant them so to be.  I again say, infamously irregular proceeding.  Is it not so, when Resolves are passed in the lump, without suffering any reasons to be heard against them, and with such clamour and confusion?  a vote of censure was moved; and I know not, in the uproar, whether seconded or not.  In order to have been regularly put to the question, it ought to have been first moved, that the words be taken down; and I would most readily have owned them. – However, the question was not put.  It it had, and had been passed, it would have been a very small circumstance, compared with the more important irregularities of the whole proceeding.”