Samuel Fletcher, Little-lever, to the writer of a printed letter addressed to Edmund Burke, 22 March 1790.

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.           

Text: Test Acts Papers, no. 91, Unitarian Collection, UCC 3/6/6, John Rylands University Library of Manchester.