1821.] Remarks on Mr. Brou< 
But, challenged as above, I present you 
with what I had prepared in opposition 
to the principle, so far as it concerns 
the Dissenters ; and 1 shall rejoice, it 
so it may be, in having contributed to¬ 
wards its obsequies. 
The general body of Protestant Dis¬ 
senting Ministers of the three denomi¬ 
nations, in London and its vicinity, 
having, in the journals of Feb. 28th, 
publicly expressed their decided disap¬ 
probation of Mr. Brougham’s Educa¬ 
tion Bill, the reasons of a layman for 
also desiring its rejection are respect¬ 
fully submitted to public notice. The 
subject is of the most momentous de¬ 
scription. It involves this very im¬ 
portant question, Whether it is, or is 
not, proper to give way to expediency 
at the expense of right ? Suffering se¬ 
verely for a period of nearly an hundred 
and tifty years, through their well in- 
tenlibned compliance on the occasion 
of passing the Test Act, the Dissenters 
cannot again consent to surrender their 
rights on the presumed good faith of 
> statesmen. They are thankful, never¬ 
theless, for the privileges they have en¬ 
joyed under the mild sway of four suc¬ 
cessive monarchs, whose solemn vows 
and declarations at the council-board 
and in parliament 44 that they will de¬ 
fend the civil and religious rights of all 
their subjects” afford, from experience, 
the best protection against future en¬ 
croachments. 
It is dueply to be regretted, that he. 
who was chiefly instrumental on a re¬ 
cent occasion for affecting the destruc¬ 
tion of an unconstitutional bill, should 
himself be the projector of a measure 
inadequate to its professed end, and 
comprising injustice and oppression. 
Properly did his fears alarm him when, 
in his speech on the 29th of June, 1820, 
on this Education Bill, Mr. Brougham 
declared, that 44 he dreaded the oppo- 
sitionof the sectaries ,” that is, of those 
who are opposed to usurpation over 
conscience, and approvers of the rights 
’ of all, without distinction, according 
to their capabilities, to enjoy the im¬ 
munities and exercise the prerogatives 
of their country. When will the happy 
time arrive in which the dominant sect 
shall duly regard the just claims of all ? 
-“ Strange is it that our bloods, 
Whose colour, weight, and heat, pour’d 
out together, 
Would quite confound distinction, yet stand 
off 
In differences so mighty !” 
44 On a former occasion,” said Mr. 
■ ham's Education Bill. 20] 
Brougham, 44 he did not go quite so far 
as he now did : he had abstained from 
going so far, because.” as we have 
seen, 44 he dreaded fchte opposition of the 
sectaries.” Here, then, is an undis¬ 
guised declaration from Mr. B. that he 
had purposely endeavoured to cajole 
the very people to whom the country 
primarily owes the extension of the 
blessing which it is his professed object 
to perpetuate ami make general. Thus, 
44 bad begins,” and who can say that 
44 worse” does not 44 remain behind ?” 
Our fears are, therefore, strongly ex¬ 
cited ; for the bill may be suspected to 
be another and sinister effort to accom¬ 
plish the design of those injudicious 
statesmen who projected and carried 
(but, thanks to an overruling Provi¬ 
dence, and to the House of Hanover, 
were never allowed to put in execution) 
the infamous statute called the Schism 
Act. In that statute it was enacted, 
that 44 If any school-master or tutor 
should willingly be present at any con¬ 
venticle, &c. of Dissenters, for religious 
worship, or should teach any catechism 
than that set forth in the book of com¬ 
mon prayer, he was liable to suffer 
three months imprisonment, and be 
from thenceforth incapable cf keeping 
school, unless, after having been con¬ 
victed, he requalified himself by con¬ 
forming to the church ol England for 
one year, without having been present 
at any conventicle, &c. and after hav¬ 
ing received the sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper, according to the rites and 
usage of the church of England at least 
three times in that year, and making 
oath of the same!” Well might Mr. 
Hampden, Mr. Robt. Walpole, and 
others who exerted their eloquence 
against the bill, in the House of Com¬ 
mons, represent 44 That it looked more 
like a decree of Julian the apostate, 
than a law enacted by a protestant par¬ 
liament, since it tended to raise as great 
a persecution against our protestant 
brethren as either the primitive Chris¬ 
tians ever suffered from the heathen 
emperors, or the Protestants from 
Popery and the inquisition.” 
In the debate on the Schism Bill, in 
the House of Lords, (June 5, 17 J A) the 
End of Anglesea said, 44 The Dissen¬ 
ters had endeavoured to engross the 
education of youth, for which purpose 
they had set up schools and academies 
in most cities and towns in the king¬ 
dom, to the great detriment of the 
universities, and danger of the estab¬ 
lished church.” It is well known that 
similar 
