Shall we, as the honorable gentleman tells us we may with perfect security, trust to the manners of the age?  I am well pleased with the general manners of the times; but the desultory execution of penal laws, the thing I condemn, does not depend on the manners of the times.  I would, however, have the laws tuned in unison with the manners.  Very dissonant are a gentle country and cruel laws; very dissonant, that your reason is furious, but your passions moderate, and that you are always equitable except in your courts of justice.

I will beg leave to state to the House one argument which has been much relied upon:  that the Dissenters are not unanimous upon this business; that many persons are alarmed; that it will create a disunion among the Dissenters.

When any Dissenters, or any body of people, come here with a petition, it is not the number of people, but the reasonableness of the request, that should weigh with the House.  A body of Dissenters come to this House, and say, “Tolerate us:  we desire neither the parochial advantage of tithes, nor dignities, nor the stalls of your cathedrals:  no! let the venerable orders of the hierarchy exist with all their advantages.”  And shall I tell them, “I reject your just and reasonable petition, not because it shakes the Church, but because there are others, while you lie grovelling upon the earth, that will kick and bite you”?  Judge which of these descriptions of men comes with a fair request:  that which says, “Sir, I desire liberty for my own, because I trespass on no man’s conscience,”—­or the other, which says, “I desire that these men should not be suffered to act according to their consciences, though I am tolerated to act according to mine.  But I sign a body of Articles, which is my title to toleration; I sign no more, because more are against my conscience.  But I desire that you will not tolerate these men, because they will not go so far as I, though I desire to be tolerated, who will not go as far as you.  No, imprison them, if they come within five miles of a corporate town, because they do not believe what I do in point of doctrines.”  Shall I not say to these men, Arrangez-vous, canaille? You, who are not the predominant power, will not give to others the relaxation under which you are yourself suffered to live.  I have as high an opinion of the doctrines of the Church as you.  I receive them implicitly, or I put my own explanation on them, or take that which seems to me to come best recommended by authority.  There are those of the Dissenters who think more rigidly of the doctrine of the Articles relative to Predestination than others do.  They sign the Article relative to it ex animo, and literally.  Others allow a latitude of construction.  These two parties are in the Church, as well as among the Dissenters; yet in the Church we live quietly under the same roof.  I do not see why, as long as Providence gives us no further light into this great mystery, we should not leave things as the Divine Wisdom has left them.  But suppose all these things to me to be clear, (which Providence, however, seems to have left obscure,) yet, whilst Dissenters claim a toleration in things which, seeming clear to me, are obscure to them, without entering into the merit of the Articles, with what face can these men say, “Tolerate us, but do not tolerate them”?  Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.