The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-02 00:00:00

•

'grounds he should oppose the laying on the table of t
Petition.
, A division then took place: when there appeared—
For receiving the Petition, 51; against it, 26.—Majo.
rats, b.
FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.

Mr. DUMB rose for the purpose of presenting a pets-
thin which he considered of great importance. Define
he slid so, he bAgged to correct an error which bad roe:
abetted a-tierce+ big what he hid raid last night. He hal
been made to say in one publication, that he disapproved
of dissenters altozether, when, in fact, -he en!, express-
red his disapprobation of that Sect to which au iionottralilir
member belongelplr. Butterworth) His acquaintame
Eying very much among dissenters, many of whom he
knew to he most intelligent end virtuous men, he stiaott
lime belied his own expwrienre if lie ha,l said 'ay. lie
sins ofopinion, that general censures were always wroog,
and as fiis feelings bad been more excited on the.
Mon to which he alluded, by the intolerance ilisp'afei uy
!that sect of which stone bespoke, he tool: the opport -
ty of this cooler moment to explain what he had said.
Having done so, he wimirt unel. he regretted that any pea-
son should have presiimed to arraign his conduct, and to
bavr designated him. as the advocate of a person whose
opinions he was so far from advocating, that if that per-
son tied listened to his atlviee, he would lone ago limo
Anteing& from publishing them. He was *ell convinced
that to attack prejusliees lathe way Mr. Carlile had at-
tacked what he ettinsidorel prejudices was the hest means
of diffusing and strengthening them. He did hope thst
in Wore no person would take the liberty of endeavour-
ing to represent lain as the advocate of his opinions.—
Cbe to which he now called the attention of the
house was signed by 2,04,7 persons,mmuhers of
congregatiobs, of whom b were ministers, among thee
latter were names which the House would agree were en-
titled to considerable nspect, such as those of Dr. Evans,
Dr. Jones, Dr. Rees' Dr. Clarke, Mr. iliarislay, Mr.
Roscoe, and others, the whole a more important, more
sensible, or more Christiamlike petition, uas nev'r
rented to this Illonse.. He reconeitended its caref d peru-
sal to all those who still adhered t.i the notion, that the
stilling ef discussion was favourable to the eliciting of
truth. Every Christian must admit that the Christian
religion was not enhanced by holding it up as a syistein
of persecution. This was a more dangerous enemy, tb it
than the arguments of a man who openly opposed it by
argument; therefore he was of opinion that the course
which had been, adopted of late years was very unwise.—
, He meant in the setritrlto Move a Resolution to that eff '4 t.
In conclusion the Hun. Member declared that he hid
brought Ibis petition forward only from a sense of roue.,
native duty,auil not from any private motives. He in,r-
ed that the petition he brought np.
Mr. BOTTERWO:ITIll asked whether It was signed by
Dissenters of Mt classes, or confined to one partiteeler sect?,
Mr. HUM V. realied that theca were two' signatures of
Cleogymeo of the Church of England. He believed Mere
were 'some more from Liverpool ; and perhaps the Riglit
klion: Gentleman (Mr. Canning) would reeetnise some of cis
quondam conatltnents. He had been told that It was signed
by the DissentersOf all classes.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH said he had reason M know that
the subscribers to the petition were not confined to say •
Particular acct. There were attached to it the shrnetures•
of persons who entertained opposite seneinseete in religious
matters.

Air, IiCTTERWORTIE was understood to stk Wbeth:r
the mimes-of the Clergymen stood apart from the others? •
her. libiMElll4l the names of the Clergymen were placed
in a separate column.
The petittott was thta read, ant ordered to De !Ton thew

Me. IlUbild now rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had elven notice, respecting the free discussion of
religious opinions. His object was to obtain an admission,
that by law free discussion was the rivilege of ao Ertl/114s
subject op di controversial points of religion. 'l'M% at
least. was the reputed privilege of tke subject, desired to
him fro:n the English Constitutiot This was iteeo flat
Creed in which he (Mr. H.) had hems educated. From his
early residence in Edinbergh, be had been led to appreciate
the value of free discussion, for there no turn's opinions
were interfered with, provided he kept the public pence. Jr
was with regret that he saw a contrary practice arise in 'hit
country since t 917. Prosecutions were now 'become fre-
quent against individuals who indulged ii religious discus-
sion, either by original writings, or repiebthhittg certain
proscribed works. There certainly were proseeutioas for
what were called blasphemous works exterior to ISIS, hut
he had hoped that the enlargement of the Manisa mind..
and the propagation of knowledge, would have induced a
better system, and that the protecutions of last century
would not be •gain revived. Seeing the advanteaes then
which,were likely to result from free discussion. and the
lights which would be thrown upon relision by the able
men engaged in it, he thought it a greet injustice to the
community to throw any obstacle in the way of investig.4
Lion of truth. lt.ery thing which prevented discussion
was an obstacle to truth. The greatest biessin:zs dewed
front the free discussion of religions opinions. • The Re-
formation itself arose out of free discussion: Hy Orating
an extingui.lrer on inquiry, donuts were raised as to the
truth of religion iiselt. lie held that they, as Membeis
of the Church of England, should follow the dictates of
the Scripture, sod nut use force and p.o-seention against
those who may differ from us. No human power could
controul the thoughts of men, or induce them to take
up a persuasion which was not the result of conviction:
The Government of this country very wisely, and credit-
ably for itself, extended its indulgence to those who dill
fered from the established faith. Jews, who altogether
denied the revealed religion, and Quakers, es well as
every other sett, enjoyed toleration. He wished to are
tests bn4 qualifications of all descriptions removed, and
every subject placed in such a situation as that he could
fearlessly entertain whatever religious opinions inquiry
and discussions might lead bins to prefer. Religion was
so much a matter exclusively between man and his
CREATOR, that it was astonishing bow one man could
think of persecuting another. for his peculiar opinion.
'1 n the whole of the New Testament, there was not one
word which authorized the infection of punishment for
differences of religiose sentiment. On the contrary, the'
Author of Christianity, when some of his ignorant f 01.,.
lowers proposed punishment, rebuked those persons and
said, they knew not what they did. It was not by the'
area of power that the reign of the gospel was to if:. ex-
tended. It bad made its way by contrary means. It
was propagated by the applications of reasoning, and by
the influence of principle. Were they then to. revive the
scenes of persecution, which the primitive Christians tacit
derwent. Would they immure in dungeon*, and take
away the property of those who sought to introduce reli-
ghats opinions at variance with those sanctioned by the
conourresce of the bulk of the community. Rut it was
said individuals were permitted to declare their opinions
as well as investigate the grounds of religious Whet, se
long at they confined themselves within the bounds of
decency and moderation. For his part he thought it
quite amp' rest•ble in a matter of this kind to deaw the.lioe
where ribaldry and intemperance ceme.and raiht anti
dispassionate .reasoning begin. Whinier initance,
understand what was meant by blasphemy? Male time
of James I. an Act was passed describing it- to be blas-
phemy; to speak the name of GOD jestingly. • No men
would usow eoncuy in the principle of that ArL in like
manner the 9tb and 19th of William and May. ;aide it
blasphrmy to impugn the doctrine of the HulyTrisity,
SAW
or to say shit there was * (iota.
than one. • Yet after-
wards .nether passed, which completely coot radieted that
definitiossof bmsphenay. How wax it possible, then, for
a own tell before hand, whether he was coressittipg blas-
phemy or not in the eyes ofthe law. 'The nature of the
offeme was no where set teeth, it wan [Used' to inirg
different times as the epipioni of mankind chewed. 1;
Was said, thaf no man Aid right to promnig - senti-
ments eaireary.i4 those of the general mats'
of ifs. coin.-
,Aurrialr..ll..thisprinciple were spit ose, sad always acted

/ '