[H]e was indebted to his right honourable friend <nowiki>[</nowiki>Edmund Burke<nowiki>]</nowiki> for the greatest share of the political knowledge h… - Charles James Fox

Persecution always said, "I know the consequences of your opinion better than you know them yourselves." But the language of toleration was always amicable, liberal, and just; it confessed its doubts, and acknowledged its ignorance. It said, "Though I dislike your opinions, because I think them dangerous, yet, since you profess such opinions, I will not believe you can think such dangerous inferences flow from them, which strike my attention so forcibly." This was truly a just and legitimate mode of reasoning, always less liable to error, and more adapted to human affairs. When we argued à posteriori, judging from the fruit to the tree, from the effect to the cause, we were not so subject to deviate into error and falsehood, as when we pursued the contrary method of argument. Yet, persecution had always reasoned from cause to effect, from opinion to action, which proved generally erroneous; while toleration led us invariably to form just conclusions, by judging from actions and not from opinions.

His opinion, indeed, was well known to those, who had done him the honour to attend to him; it was, that at all times, in all countries, and upon all occasions, there should be no distinctions in political rights, on account of religious opinions. He thought that the prejudices of the people were, generally speaking, worthy of attention. But when prejudices bent against the general principles of toleration, he did not think them entitled to much respect.

It is intolerable that it should be in the power of one blockhead to do so much mischief.