fol. 91.  A printed letter by a Mr. William Maurice from Stockport, dated 23 February 1790 and published on 4 March; also a printed letter from Samuel Fletcher, dated 22 March 1790.

Maurice is responding to the previous letters and wishes to defend Mr. Fletcher as being misrepresented!  He says the Independents and the Baptists pulled out because the meeting was hijacked by the Presbyterians (Unitarians, which also included D. Evans, G. Wyche, J. Holland, W. Taylor, and J. Darbishire) who, he says, clearly expressed other designs in their desire for a repeal of the Test Acts, and these would be detrimental to the liturgy of the established church, and they did not want to do anything to impinge upon those beliefs or practices.  As a result, on 17 February 1790 the Independents and Baptists of Lancaster and Chester held their own meeting to send delegates to the National Meeting of Protestant Dissenters in London, and that they would only participate as under the banner of the Three Denominations, not just one.  They appointed Samuel Stennett of London, David Bradberry of Manchester, John Clayton of London, and Mr. [William] Lepard of London (a long-time deacon at the Baptist meeting at Carter Lane, Southwark) as their representatives.

Attached to this is a letter from Samuel Fletcher again, dated 22 March 1790, “To the Author of the Letter addressed ‘To the Right Honourable Edmund Burke,’ signed Thomas Cooper.” He says he was misrepresented by Cooper in his letter, describing this as “a fine Specimen of Socinian integrity!”  He accuses Burke of seeking the destruction of other peoples’s faith, which endangers his own!

March 4, 1790.

    The following short account of the meeting of Dissenters at Warrington, was drawn up previous to the appearance of Mr. Fletcher’s statement of what transpired at that meeting, with an intent of laying it before the public; but, for some private reasons, has been hitherto suppressed, and would, perhaps, have been buried in oblivion, had not a letter to T. Plumbe, Esq. with a postscript, signed ‘H. Toulmin,’ been put into the hands of the author of the following.  The above-mentioned letter, &c. appears to me to have been published with a design to represent Mr. Fletcher as a notorious liar, and to prevent his statement of the affair gaining credit in the world;  – But let the impartial public judge.

       As it is generally known that the Independents and Baptists withdrew from the Presbyterians, at the Provincial Meeting of the Dissenters of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, held at Warrington, the 4th of February, it may not be amiss, in order to prevent false representations and wrong ideas of that affair, to tell the public the genuine reasons of it – which were –

        I.  Because, at the above meeting, the idea of its being ‘a meeting of the three denominations’ was not admitted by the Presbyterians.

    II.  Because, when the Delegates for the Independent and Baptist denominations (having suspicions raised in their minds by ambiguous terms) desired to know whether the Presbyterians had any other thing in view besides the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, – the Chairman declared, that there was ‘the greatest necessity for hypocrisy in the business,’ and that it would ‘neither be wise nor prudent to tell fully what they had in view, or what steps they intended to take’!!! – none of the Presbyterians contradicting!!

    III.  Because, when the Independents and Baptists informed them, that their Instructions were limited and specific, and that if they had other things in view, the Independents and Baptists would not concur with them, – the Chairman said, that if the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts was the only thing in view, he ‘would not give the value of a Brass Pin’s Head for such Repeal.’!! – none of the Presbyterians avowing a contrary sentiment!!

    IV.  Because a Repeal of other Acts was talked of, by the Presbyterians, which, if obtained, must be detrimental to the Church of England, whose constitution the Independents and Baptists wish not in the least infringed; whose Doctrinal articles they highly approve (although they dissent from her ritual;) and with whose members, they are at present, and wish to be in future on good terms.

                                                                                                                                                W. Maurice

Stockport, Feb. 23, 1790.

P.S.  that the Independents and Baptists did withdraw from the Presbyterians, and did not give their approbation, to several things resolved at the meeting at Warrington, (notwithstanding the positive assertions of H. Toulmin, D. Evans, G. Wyche, J. Holland, W. Taylor, and J. Darbishire) the following Resolutions, passed at the meeting of Independents and Baptists at Manchester, are a convincing proof.

Manchester, February 17, 1790.

    At a general and respectable Meeting, of the independents and baptists of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, held this day at the Lower Swan, Manchester, for the purpose of appointing Delegates to the National Meetiing of Protestant Dissenters in London, –

It was resolved,

      I.  That, as at the Provincial Meeting lately held at Warrington, the Idea of its being a Meeting of the Three Denominations was not admitted by the Presbyterians; we hereby declare, that we mean to concur with them, in the present application to Parliament, only under the Idea of the Three denominations.

     II.  That we mean to concur with them in the present application to Parliament, for the purpose of obtaining the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts only.

    III.  That we consider the Gentlemen appointed Delegates at the Provincial Meeting, held at Warrington, on the fourth instant, as being chosen by the other Denomination, and therefore being only their Representatives.

    IV.  That we consider ourselves at liberty, and as having an undoubted right, to appoint Delegates to represent us at the National Meeting in London.

    V.  That the Rev. S. Stennett, D. D. London, the Rev. D. Bradberry, Manchester, the Rev. J. Clayton, London, and Mr.  – -Lepard, ditto, be appointed, and are hereby constituted our Delegates, to the National Meeting of Protestant Dissenters in London.

    VI.  That we think it prudent, as well as fair and honest, at this Time to declare, that we have no other Wish in our present application to Parliament besides the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts; and we conceive that General Terms admitting Ambiguity and Mental Reservation, have a forcible Tendency to excite Suspicion in the minds, not only of our Brethren in the established Church, but also of many of our Dissenting Brethren themselves.

    VII.  That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to the Chairman.

                        Signed by Order of the Meeting,

                                    Robert Simpson, Chairman.

To the Author of the Letter addressed “To the Right Honourable Edmund Burke,” signed “Thomas Cooper.”

Sir,

        I should have taken no notice of your letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, so far as it concerns me – (it being only the ebullitions of a mortified and disappointed spirit) – had you not fallen into several mistakes in the account you give of the transactions of the Provincial Meeting of Dissenters, lately held at Warrington.

        You endeavour, indeed, to depreciate my character, in order to invalidate my account of the matter, and represent me as standing forward with no higher end in view, than “to be taken notice of, under the strong suspicion of being the hired spy of a party, the servile instrument of intolerance and persecution – employing the power entrusted to me by my friends to betray them to their enemies,” &c. – I despise, Sir, your base insinuations, and defy you, with all your learning and ingenuity, to substantiate them.  They are, however, a striking evidence of Socinian candour!!!

        The passage in his published letter, relating to me,” say you, “is the following:” ‘After repeated attempts to know the steps they (i.e. the Deputies then met) meant to take,’ &c.  here, Sir, you represent the matter as if some private individual had applied to the Delegates at large, to know what steps they meant to take.  A fine Specimen of Socinian integrity! –  The truth of the matter, Sir, is – After repeated attempts, made by the Delegates of the Independent and Baptist congregation, to know the steps that they (viz. the Chairman* and the Delegates of the Presbyterian congregations meant to take) they were answered by the Chairman, that there was “the greatest necessity for Hypocrisy in the business”!

        You labour to exculpate Mr. Toulmin, by saying – that you cannot “have the slighted suspicion that he did declare – even in private conversation,” what my letter says he did. – It happens, Sir, somewhat unlucky, that Mr. T. has confessed, in his printed postscript to the letter he sent to Thomas Plumbe, Esq; that he did say what he is charged with in mine, with the alteration only of the word “remove,” and the substitution of the word “reformed.” Like you, he quibbles about its being only the opinion of an individual. – so much, Sir, for your misrepresentation and mistakes!

        Next, you have a lash at my Religion, and add, – ”So wild, so insane does this man’s christianity appear to me.” &c.  –  As you, Sir, have made the public acquainted with your opinion of mine, you cannot be offended with me for telling the world what I think of yours – and that is, That it has no more foundation in Divine Revelation, than Mahomet’s; and that persons of your sentiments have no more right to the name of Christian, than his disciples.

        In your own language, “One word more with,” you, “and I leave” you “for ever.” Had you and your fraternity but one eye, you would clearly see, that, by seeking the destruction of other people‘s faith, you are taking away the very liberty you are petitioning for.

                        I am,

                                Sir,

                                        Yours respectfully,

                                                            Samuel Fletcher.

Little-Lever,

March, 22d, 1790.

*As it stands in Mr. Maurice’s printed account of the affair.