fol. 90.  A printed letter from Harry Toulmin, Chowbent, to Thomas Plumbe, 1 March 1790, concerning the previous letter above; also a printed postscript to Toulmin’s letter.  

[Toulmin is vindicating himself from some of the charges made against him, for he says they are a “perfect misrepresentation” of his words. Attached is another printed “postscript” to Toulmin’s letter to Mr. Plumbe, unsigned, which defends Toulmin and criticizes Plumbe for allowing the first letter to be printed at all, for it misrepresents Mr. Cooper, the chair at the Warrington meeting, as well as Toulmin.]

Sir,

        A paper has just fallen into my hands, which you, I apprehend, have ushered into the world, and which I consider myself as under some necessity of noticing.  My object in addressing you, is not to correct the mistaken ideas which that paper must convey respecting the meeting of Dissenters at Warrington, but to vindicate myself* from the charge which it brings against me, of having said that our intentions were to remove the liturgy from the church and abolish the tithes.

        This, Sir, is a perfect misrepresentation of what I said.  I do not mean that your correspondent wilfully gave this false account.  If I had made the above assertion, I could neither have been a true Dissenter, nor possessed of common sense.  I could not have been a Dissenter, for it is a fundamental principle of Dissenters, that every man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

       Let every Churchman have his Book of Common-prayer – let every Catholic have his Mass-book: but let neither the Mass-book, nor the Book of Common-prayer, be forced upon those who consider them as unscriptural.

        I must have been destitute of common sense to have made the declaration imputed to me: for how is it possible for so small a body as the Dissenters to remove the liturgy from the Church, or to abolish the tithes?

        What I did say, was not in reply to any question whatsoever.  A clause in the declaration having been read, importing (as I understood it) that our views extended no farther than the repeal of the test laws; I remarked by way of objection to it, that I apprehended it must appear very desirable to us, to see the repeal of all penal laws respecting religious opinions – a revision of our public forms of worship – and the abolition of tithes.

        And can you, Sir, wish to see a man fined, imprisoned, and deprived of his dearest rights, for preaching or writing against the doctrine of the Trinity?  Can you wish to have the understandings of men insulted, and their feelings wounded fourteen times a year, by the repetition of the Creed of Athanasius?  Do you not think it desirable that the clergy should be supported, without adopting a method of doing it, which is perpetually disturbing the peace of parishes, and preventing the usefulness of their ministers?  Or do you think it consistent with the principles of christianity, that we should be obliged to contribute to the support of teachers, from whom we derive no benefit?  As to a revisal of the articles, liturgy, &c. you know, Sir, that it has been ardently wished for by many clergymen of the church of England, and that among those who associated for this purpose, were the Bishops Porteus, Yorke, Ross, and Percy.§  Though I cannot but look upon such a step, as (on some accounts) highly desirable; yet far am I, and far I hope is every dissenter, from wishing, that any kind of liturgy, or any mode of worship, should be imposed upon the clergy, to the exclusion of any priviledge, for worshipping God in his own way.

        But what has it to do, Sir, with the question concerning the repeal of the Test Laws, what the dissenters may desire?  Are the Test Laws right or wrong?  If they be wrong, let them be repealed; and should the dissenters after this ask anything unreasonable, let the dissenters be refused.

        I make no apology for this address.  As you have been the means of circulating reports to my prejudice, I have that confidence in your love of Justice, as to request that you will take a similar method of vindicating me.  Permit me to say, that a regard to your own character demands this.

                I am, Sir,

                            Your very humble servant,

                                                    H. Toulmin.

Chowbent, March 1st. 1790.

N.B.  Mr. Plumbe has refused to print the above.  See the postscript.

We whose names are underwritten, are persuaded that the above letter contains a faithful representation of facts.

G. Wiche, J. Holland, James Darbishire

D. Evans, William Taylor

*I know of no other neighbouring minister who was at Warrington, whose name begins with T and ends with n.

§ They were not bishops indeed at that time.

Tuesday, March, 1st. 1790.

“A Postscript to a Letter, from Mr. Toulmin, to Mr. Plumbe.

The Letter to Mr. Plumbe (without the Testimonial) was delivered to him yesterday, with a hint, that if he would do himself the credit of publishing it under his name and with his authority, the expence would not be expected to fall upon him.  The Writer of it (in company with a friend) has waited upon Mr. Plumbe this morning, and upon requesting to know if he intended to let it go any farther than himself; he was answered by Mr. P. that he did not.  Unwilling that Mr. Plumbe should hastily make a resolution which might prejudice the public against him, the Writer observed that if a man took any pains to spread a calumny, it was his duty to take the same pains to contradict it, when apprized of his error.  Mr. Plumbe replied, that what he had done had been with the advice of the friends of the Established Church at Bolton.

        Learning the intentions of Mr. Plumbe, the writer of the letter thinks it adviseable to print it himself, especially as he finds that a Manchester Committee have done themselves the honor to issue forth the same, as bespeaking in part the views of the Dissenters in their present application to parliament.  To him he confesses it appears a redounding highly to the credit of the Dissenters’ cause, that its enemies feel themselves under the necessity of having recourse to such paltry expedients, in order to throw an odium upon the body, and to render the nation indisposed to attend to their righteous claims.  It might have been expected that the enlightened inhabitants of such a town as Manchester, would have been better acquainted with the nature of public meetings, than to impute to a whole body the sentiments and expressions of one or two individuals.

        Would it be doing justice to the Church of England, to impute to all the members of that Church, the extravagances of a Laud, or a Sacheveral?  And why should the extravagances of one or two Dissenters (if such extravagances there be) be imputed to the whole dissenting body?

        The person whose letter the Manchester Committee have thought it so highly honorable to circulate, says, that as an individual, he declares against the proceedings of the meeting at Warrington, on the 4th of February.  It is trusted, that he is the only individual who has not discernment enough to distinguish between the acts of an assembly and the private opinions of a member of it.  The proceedings of the meeting are to be found in their public resolutions,  – resolutions of which the Independents and the Baptists (I will not give them the insulting appellation of Anabaptists) expressed their approbation.

        There are, I know, certain Churchmen at Manchester, who consider Mr. Cooper, (the chairman of the meeting at Warrington) as a learned man, as a man of stirling abilities.+ Was it really very shrewd, was there a mark of very great ability, in the silly answer which the Committee have had the discretion to report as being made by him to the question, what steps the Dissenters meant to take?  Had they discovered but a common degree of penetration, it would have been unnecessary to inform them, that if such a question were ever put to Mr. Cooper, he never made the reply which is imputed to him.  It is true he did quote the text referred to, but it was in a very different manner, and in answer to no question whatsoever.

         It is impossible to conclude, without congratulating the Church of England upon the prospect she has of forming a new alliance.  Hitherto she has contented herself with taking the State by her hand, as her one, only, solitary ally.  But now it seems there is a prospect of her forming an alliance with the Independent Body.  The Church of England seems to have the happy art of subduing her enemies by taking them into her bosom.   Since the days of Elizabeth, she has feigned an attachment for that State, which just before had delighted in dragging her to the Stake: And now she is embracing those very men whose forefathers, she says, were the authors of the sorrows and the sufferings of her holy Martyrs, Charles the Good.  God forbid that she may not abuse the confidence of her new ally, as she has trampled upon the rights of her old one!

The following Resolution was passed at a Meeting of Dissenting Ministers of the Three Denominations, at Manchester, May 16, 1789.

That we shall ever consider the Repeal of penal laws respecting religion, as an absolute right: And as a Matter of Grace and Favour – only to the Reputation of our Country.

Tuesday Evening.

It has been said it seems, that the statement contained in the first letter to Mr. Plumbe, differs nothing from that of the vindication.   But the former says, that their intentions were to remove the Liturgy and abolish tithes.  The latter says, that the minister referred to spake not in the name of the association, but in his own name, – that he did not speak of what was intended to be done, – but what he apprehended was desirable, – that he did not wish to see the Liturgy removed, but reformed, in which he agrees with the original compilers of it, and with many of the worthiest and most respectable members of the Established Church in the present day. 

+ See a Dialogue between A Gentleman and a Farmer [see fol. 75].