Star. — London, England, 1828-02-27 00:00:00

• opinion of the City of London chanfal Rine that period, that the Common Council had now thought it right to . , pass resolutions declaring the Atts hostile to religions I liberty, and praying few theft repeal. Another import ant fact was, that Mr. Pitt, who opposed the motion of Mr. Fox, within a few years after declared his wish that these laws were repealed. He saw, as every enlarged and enlightened mind must see, that the time was past when the necessity for such laws existed ; that there was no longer a contest going on as to what religion should have an ascendancy in the State ; that the conflict of principles then existing was purely.of a political nature, and that it was wise and necessary- to bring together the well disposed of all religions to support the Constitution against its p4oi r. cal enemies. It would be asked whet her he mes s tip propose any test in lieu of that which he desired to abs. lith ? His answer was, that he objected to all religiOns tests whatever; he wished to see the whole of bur laws resemble the Act of the sth Geo. IV. telatins. to„,the - Customs and Excise, in which no oath was required from those taking offices in such departments, except the oath of allegiance. This he wished to make the only condition of holding seats in Parliament, or offices under the Crown. With this opinion it was manifest that he should propose no test in lieu of the one he desired to remove. He now cline to the great principle upon which he should found hit motion. He had stated that the greater number of the Petitions went upon the principle that every man ought to be at liberty to fol. low his religious duties according to the dictates of his own mind. By this it was meant, that every man should be at liberty to entertain his own religious opinion, to teach, propagate, and maintain it, to worship GOD in his own manner without any restraint whatever; and every penalty imposed upon him for so doing was in the nature of a persecution, and therefore equally an offence to GOD as an injury to the man. He admitted that these were certain exceptions to the rule, which he illustrated by the exception to that rule which pre vented one nation from interfering with the internal affairs of another. If the internal affairs of one nation operated injuriously upon the constitution of another nation, then interference was justifiable. The same might be said of religious opinions. If any religion con tained within it principles hostile to the political con stitution of the State, and to the allegiance of the sub ject, then the Legislature had a right to impose restric tions upon the persons who professed such doctrines, because they were political and not religious. The course he should take in laying the question before the House was, first to look at the history of these Acts, to show whether they were founded upon any thing hostile to the Constitution of the country ; and secondly, he should contend for the necessity of their repeal upon the general principle. The Noble Lord then described the origin of the Corporation Act, stating that it was imposed by Charles the Second, with a view to %Rove from. Corporations all such persons as were net well affected to the Government, the Puritans having been the cause of the death of his father. This Act contained a clause, by which all persons to be in future admitted into Corporations, were obliged to take the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The Test Act, he contended, arose entirely of t of - the troubles relating to-the Roman Catholics, to prevent their at. tempts to overturn the Constitution, and not with a view to impose penalties on the Dissenters. There was this difference between the two Acts; the Corporation Act was ietended to exclude the disaffected Dissenters at a particular period—the Test Act was directed against the Roman Catholics alone. At the Revolution it might have been expected that these laws would have been repealed. But strong reasons existed at the time, which rendered such a course u.expedient. When King William wished to admit Dissenters to hold offices, those who had brought about the Revolution knew that the Church was disaffected towards the Dew dynasty, and that if the Dissenters weteadsnitted to office, the Church Establishment might be its danger. He had the autho rity of Bishop Burnett for saying, that the Church then wished for a repeal of the Toleration Act, and the re storation of the Stuarts. Of course no relaxation of the laws took place while the high Tory party were in power, and nothing was done down to the time of George the First, when Lord Stanhope brought in his Bill in the other House. He was nut so successful as to attain his object; but the measure was at that time strongly supporrel Amongst its friends were some of the Bishops, whose speeches showedthat since that day, atledat in religious matters, liberality had made so very great ptogreu is those quarters. One Learned Prelate had devised the soundness of the priopiple which went to deprive men of their flannel tights fn conse quence of their religious opinions, and objected alto gether to depriving men of their civil rights upon any such ground. Upon that occasion also it was that Bishop Kennet had said, that the Church re quired no such security as that which the obnoxious Acts' afforded. He said that from the observations he had been able to make through history, he was con s/lined that the Church was most secure and most flourishing when it possessed only that power and that influence which fairly belonged to it—(Hear, hear) The Learned Prelate might have added, that the words " security of the Church" were oftener used for sinister purposes than for the furtherance of true religion and the real interest of the Establishment—(Heat). That security of the Church" was a cry which might be fit to impose upon the credulity of women and children— (Hear ). And, really, he (Lerdsl. Russell) should not have ventured to use such expressions upon his own authority; bur, said Bishop Kennet, by those who understood the real merits and valued the real welfare of the Church, that cry would be treated with contempt. The Church of England was founded epos a rock, and while on the one hand it was not to be shaken by infidelity, outhe other, firm in its own purity and excellence, it required not support from the operation of penal statutes (Hear). Such were some of the sentiments of the enlightened Prelates of one hundred and ten years ago. Still, how ever, Lord Stanhope failed in his attempt; and Sir Robert Walpole, his successor, a solo who never gave up any practical and present good fee .tie adoption of any views, however admirable or important in them selves, opposed the repeal of the Test and Owpotaties Acts, simply on the ground that the time net fitting for their repeal. That Minister acknowledged the jos. tice of the claims of the Dissenters; he said that he was favourable to granting the concessions they asked for; but that the security of the reigning dynasty would sot allow hies to pursue his own wishes, so strong was then the feeling that the Halls! of Hanover would no longer be supported by the Established Church than the Cor poration and Test Acts were onrepealed; that it was thought better that the Dissenter:Assad still suffer the oppiessioo those Acts imposed upon them. than to run t h e risk which would be incurred by their abolitios .— Nay. many of the Dissenters themselves, aware of the opinions and the feeling of the Church, appear to have been of the same minds and as a fresh proof of their loyalty, they sere. as in the time of Charles IL still willing to suffer patiently rather than give rise to any new difficulties. But that course of conduct led to a 'very anomalous proceeding. During the reigns of George I. and ii. certain Acts were passed not less than four times for the purpose of relieving such "persons as had not complied with the Test ancl COrporation Acts.i They were protected from the penalties; and that was surely a most extraordinary state of things. If the Dissenters were dangerous the Acts ought to have been enforced ; and if the Dissenters were not dangerous, the Acts ought to have been abolished. He had thus shown the state of affairs with respect to the Dissenters up to the period of which he had spoken, the beginning of the system of indemnity. Then what had happened afterwards? Why, in 1745 the number of the Dissenters was greatly increased, and a large body of Non-conformists came to assist in the suppression of the rebellion, which was then entered ittto - for the purpose of restoring the Stuart family to the throne of these realms. They acted most loyally, 'most gallantly, apd most successfully; and it was thought and felt that they were fairly entitled to some .Honourable reward. They had maintained the reign log dynasty, they had secured the liberties of the country, and they had supported the authority of Par 4isment ;and what was the reward they received for such such important services? Doubtless the House,the edpuptry would imagine that their sovereign had show ered honoursifavours, and confidence upon them ; that Parliament tad hastened to record, by some striking act, its. liestly merited gratitude; and that the nation bad followed in the same train of congratulatory ac knowledgment for the benefits it had received. But no such thing. What the Parliament did was this— 'Because the Dissenters bad maintained the present dynasty, supported •the authority of Parliament, and secured the liberties of the people, the Parliament voted them—a free and . full pardon— (Hear, hear, hear). Sod} was the anomalous state of affairs in 1745, and which had been persevered in ever since. For eighty-five years Parliament bad, year after year, renewed the Acts of Indemnity, and not re pealed those Acts which rendered such an anomalous proceeding necessary.—(Hear.)—He then came to the, reasoning part of the question; and the very first point be had to consider was the propriety of persevering in passing the Act of Indemnity in preference to any other course. It might have been very sound and good I policy to have passed such an Act for ten or fifteen years, in preference to repealing the Test and Corpora. tion Acts at once, because by so doing any dangeri which Might have been apprehended from a sudden re- movalof the disabilities ',paid have been avoided. It cer taisly was very natural for the parties in power to say— " No, we will not give all at once, but effect the change in a safe and gradual manner." Such a plan would have been wise ; but that the Indemnity Act should be persevered in for 85 years, and that after all, there should be any who were not satisfied with the loyalty of the Dissenters, wai to him a most extraordinary and most preposterous circumstance—(Hear.) The next argument he came to was as to the nature of the test proposed. It was one of a most serious and solemn nature. The Sacrament of the Lotto's supper was held by the Church of England to be an ordinance of tho last importance, and the terms in which the Church' spoke of those who partook unworthily of it— dor it declared 44 they sealed their own damnation"— claimed unbounded consideration. And yet, after that overwhelming declaration, the taking of the Sacrament was adopted as a test to try whether a per son was fit to hold a civil office? He knew it had been said that candidates for offices were not compelled to take the Sacrament, that it was merely tendered to them as a trial of their faith; but that was nothing more than an evasion, —(Hear.) They tempted men to make light of GOD'S ordinance to acquire office.—(Hear.) They put emolument and official importance in opposi lion to one of GOD'S most sacred ordinances—(Heat). — But let the House go a little further, and see fully how that test operated. It was very possible that persons might be refused the Sacrament from a malicious feel ing existing against them; and if they were refused it, Ishey suffered a civil injury. Bat not only might the Sacrament be refused, and a person thereby suffer a 'civil injury; but the fact was that such cases had oc curred, and were to be found recorded. The refusal from malice had been proved in a Court of Law, and the ac tion Or civil injury held good. Stich, then, was the position of those who had to undergo the test;. and the next point to consider was the situation of those who had to administer the test. A Clergyman might be called upon to admiairter the Sacrament to one who was living in such a way, that the Clergyman was bound by his oaths and his conscience: not to admi nister it to him. And if theClergyman,in the fulfilment of his solemn vows and most sacred duties, did refuse, what was the consequence? Why, he was subject to be dragged into a Court of Law, and to be sued for in flicting a civil injury, although in doing so he had well and properly discharged his religious duties—(Hear t) Such had actually been the state of things, and Clergy men had found themselves compelled to administer the Sacrament, without regard to the characters of those who presented themselves to receive it. That such was the fact wasytot to be doubted, and it was to be found recorded, that in London a Church had been known by the name of the 44 Qualifying Rothe:— Those who wished to take the Sacrament in way of qualification remained at some neighbouring tavern tilt the time for administering it arrived; they then went into the Church, and upon the clerk calling upon those who wished to qualify to come forward, those who did so were up to the communion table and took the Se ceansent, merely that they might be capable of holding office—(Hear)—Such was the consequence of mingling religion with civil matters—(Hear). And he could net help asking the Right Honourable Member for the University of Oxford 4Mr. Peel), whether that Learned Body were prepared to express through hien .their wish chat such a Test should be kept in force with a view of preserving the purity of religion?—(Hear, hear.) —But then it was said ia reply to the arguments he had urged, that the grievance was merely theoretical after all ; that the Test was no longer put into prac tice, and that persons were no longer forced either to tabs or to lose office. Well then, if such were thefacts, what could justify the continuing of the Acts? When k was once allowed that they were no longer necessary, 'they were then left in all their naked deformity, and could be looked upon only as measures for religious ; ersecutioa. But he maintainej that the practical grievance was greater than even the legal penalties of the Statute were severe. For although by the Act of Indemnity all those were mated from not having taken the SAcreasaut who had been prevented by illness or by accident, yet there was no security against molestation granted'se those who had abstained from taking the Sa crament on account of their religious scruples. The very persons who ought to be protected had no protection. And what had been the language of Lord North, in the ablest speech which bad ever been made in that House Pagainst the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, with reference to dime Dissenters who took advantage of the indemnity granted upon the terms ea *filch It stood ? That Noble Lord had said, that itmres a mental deceit and equivocation on the part of thaw Dissenters who so acted, unless they were really prevented from taking the Test by sickness or accidesst. Then he would ask if the grievance were merely theoretical ? Could it be expected that those men, who entertained deep and sincere religious scruples as to the propriety 'of taking the Test, would subject themselves to such a stigma, to such an imputation, for the purpose of gaining office? The great body of the Dissenters would not consent to• bring upon themselves any such degradation. If they could - hot obtain office without violating their religious feelings or their honour, they would go without office altogether—(Hear, hear). And what was the consequence of their upright determination? Why, the State was deprived• of the services of men of the noblest and the greatest talents—were not that injurious Test in existence, the Dissenters might have contributed to their country illustrious Cap tains to lead her armies on to victory, and to enhance her glory. But it was not only that con scientious feeling NI the part of the Dissenters that excluded them from office ; for if they were to forego their own sense of honour, and by ptactising a mental deceit to enter into office, they would be at the mercy of every interested hireling or malignant bigot that might choose to denounce them. That such was the fact experience had amply proved. He had then a list of the diffetent cases which had been made public .doting the last few years, and he would quote one to the House. I allude to an Election for a Corporate Office, where the person having a minority of votes, was declared duly elected, because be who had a majority was a Di‘senter. and was not qualified under the Act. The Law is not, therefore, a dead letter, nor are all cases of grievance removed by Indemnity Bills. But if such.cases were to be foul d on record, how many mote would there have been, had Dissenters come forwa. d generally to take advantage of the pretended non-enforcement of the test? The test might be enforced, and it was clearly a practical evil of serious magnitude. But that was not the only way in which the test was a grievance. If a Dissenter chose to.come forward to fill an office on the sup position that the test would not be enforced, he might be asked for his certificate, and that was a de mand to which a Dissenter did not choose to expose himself. Such, then, were a part of the actuel and prac tical grievances suffered by Dissenters. •But he was aware, that when he stated and proved that those Acts did operate as barbers against the Dissenters' ac cession to of he only confirmed some who were already opposed to their repeal, and wit() argued that the fewer the Dissenters admitted into office, the greater was the security of the Established Church. to such reasoners he would reply in the language of Bishop Kennet—the Established Church of England was founded upon a rock, and requited not the support of persecution or of intolerance.—(Hear, hear.)—Buistiß it was said, and the arguments had been adopted by a Learned Prelate of the present time. that if the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, the property of the Church mutt of consequence be attacked. He thought that argument, in the first place, most impolitic. If they said that they could not admit millions of their fellow-subjects to their civil rights, lest the property of the Church should be attacked, what feeling was suck an assertion calculate) to raise in the minds of the Dis senters? It certainly would not be likely to induce them to continue suffering with patience, or to reconcile them to the hardships they endured. But the argument Was most unfounded. He was convinced that thegreat body of the Dissenters had no desire whatever to possess the Church property; and he knew also that they did not consider that a rich Church, like that of England, was the best possible means for supporting or extending Christianity. But if the argument were good, and such an Act as the Test Act were necessary, whatwould be. come of the Church of Scotland? In that country there was no such Act—in that country no such means had been adopted for the preservation of its Established Church, and yet that Church was not indanger—(Hear, oar).—Again, let the House look to Ireland. lihete the Established Church was not protected by such Acts. The Corponkion Act bad never existed in that country at all; and the Test Act had been introduced during the reign of Queen Anne, and was repealed about 45 or '46 years ago. The House would, perhaps, recollect, that a Right Hon. Fr lend of his had observed, about 20 years ago, that the Test Act could not be repealed in England with safety to the Established Church ; and he had men tioned that circumstance in order to show that much of the fear, with respect to the security of the Established Church being weakened by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, was purely fanciful. Such, then, Was the case with respect to the to.intries nearest England ; and when he turned his view to mote distant arts, he found only a confirmation of his opinions.— Let the House look at the state of 'Austrian Italy, and it would find even there no Test or Corporation Acts. In Austria, which was, too, a Catholic country, no such barriers existed to prevent the entrance of l'rotestant Dissenters into office. A Protestant Dissenter could become a member of the Corporation of Vienna, or of any other town in Austria, without undergoing any peculiar ordeal, but he could not become a member of the Corporation of Bristol, or of any other Corporation in England. without doing so.— The minions who were then patiently waiting at the throes of that House to obtain the relief to which justice gadded them, were the Protestant - Diesentees, who alone, of all Europe, lore subjected to degrading and offensive restrictions in eonsenuence of their religions opinioos.—(lllear,hear.)—After, having urged those arguments, he would call upon the HMSO to remember the times in which the Acta were passigd, and to look upon the times in which be sought (Sr their repeal. la the time of Charles the First, *s Protestant Dissenters had contributed to the overthrow of the Government. In the time of Charles the Second there was an ample reason for dm Test Act without the Protestant Dissenters being taken into con sideration. Those causes bad long since ceased, and ihe experience of eighty-five years had proved that the Acts were not necessary, and did not require to he acted upon. He had thus gone through the history of those Acts, anl be thought that he bad proved, that however necessary they aright have been when they were passed, they were now no longer requited.--(Hear, hear.)—That he had proved that they did inflict great practical evils, and that they were at variance with the policy of all enlightened Europe.— (Hear.) —Having said thus much, be bad little more to add, than that the repeal of the obnoxious laws would tend to allay all feeling of discontent. that it would unite the Protestant Dissenters heartily with the rest of their fellow subjects, and induce them to bear cheerfully the burtheus under which the country laboured; and also that such an alteration would be suitable to the spirit of the times. He had heard with great astonishment that the Right Hop. Secretary for the Home Department not only intended to oppetee the motion for their repeal himself, but that the opposition to k was to be a Government measure-rand that the whole strength of the Ministry was to be arrayed on the occasion. He was sorry to hear that such a determination had teed come to, not only in con sideration of the fate of the motion he should subfhit to the Hots but also in consideration of the Ministry itself. If the conduct ot the Gavarornent on that occasion was to pc : talus at.an wanted the plan upon which they intended generally.to act, Pc coultkioult augur most unfavourably for their future . popsdatitt. - At Yor'tbd question itself, he repeated that he did not regret the count* lakii heard Government would pursue miely.upon its account, Melt was one the progress of which might be checked, btit could not be pad dpwn.—(Hrar, hear.)—The times whop Ouch a plan could have , been carried into execution had passed away, and it was no longer possible for the Government to say; Millions shin be denied a just participation in the blessings of the Conetkotion. If he wanted proof' in support of his assertion, he should find it by looking et the wan ner in which the late Government had been cunducted. If Lord LiverEool bad governed the country, the etsinitry* had at least as much governed hire as he had 'governed 16.-s(lteit 0 .) 47R Mr. Canning's Geeernatert,lt arastbe attowet , that ebatever influence or coondeuce it plesessed, it derived (sum acting hi accordance with the spirit oldie times.—(Hear Arid of that inistrioos and Mot man who was at present at the bead of his Majesty's Government, he most take leave to say, that although he must be for ever re. girded as the deliverer of Portugal, as the saviour of Spin, as the conqueror of Waterloo, and as one of the greatest Chiefs that have ever enhanced the glory of their own country and given security to others —although he stood in a position singular and unezampled in the history of his country..although he enjoyed the whole patronage of the State, the patronage of the Church, of the Treasury, of the Army, and commanded, by the glorious-victories be had ocidevod, the affections of 110,000 men at arms—although be peoperied beside, all these, the perfect confidence of his Sovereign--still be said, that although the Duke of Wellington possessed all that immense power, he must modify bid opinions to those of the age in whkisbe Heed, However much be might be inclined to support other feelings, it was impossible he should succeed in doing so. The millions vibe sought for justice at the bands of the House might be for the moment defeated, but their requests could net be sileneed—(HaC) Their voice—the voice of three millions, would still be heard, an he entreated the House to weigh well the consequence of with holding from diem justice—(Hear!) The Noble Lard then read the part of the Act to which Ise had before called the attention of the House, and concluded by moving—" That the House do v, e '" itself into a Committee o the whole Hesse, to take Intl sslu.rr a Lion so much of the Act of Charles 11. as required persons to receive the Sacrament of the Louis Supper recording to the rites of tbd Chinch of ffiegland, before they entered upon any civil office." Mr. JOHN SMITH seconded the motion. He said the public were unacquainted with the extent of the oppression inflicted by the Test and Corporation Acts.. The Test Art applied to all persons holding office un cle' the Croivn, of any kind ; ore* the sergeants and corporals of the army were subject to its penaities; and these penalties were oppressive and tyrannical in the highest degree. The person who had not complied with the Act, not only fotfeited the office he held. but was rendered incapable of holding any other. He was also incapable of being executor to a will, of being guardian to a child. or even of receiving a legacy—(Hear, bear, hear). He had heard the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) abjure persecution • but was net this persecution ?—(Hear.)— He knew ;he Right Hon. Gentleman could feel for the injuries of others, and he hoped he would give fair play to his good feelings on the present occasion. All those penal laws proceeded from one unfortunate error. that belief Was an act of the will, and that not to believe what was required was the effect of obstinacy. The Acts were so little known in their extent, that he be lieved very few persons now conformed to them.— He lately asked a Bank Director whether I.e had qua lified acc,,rding to law, by obtaining a certificate from the Minister and two witnesses that he had received the Sacrament? The Bank Director via, surprised to hear that such a proceeding was re quited by law. He also lately conversed on the sub ject with a General Officer, who declared to him :hat he never knew that such an Act was in existence. He oas himself Colonel of a Regiment of Volunteers in London, four and twenty years ago, and he could say, I that if he could make a distinction between the members of his regiment, he should give the pre ference to Dissenters. There were at that time two hundred thousand Dissenters in arms in England. Did any man doubt their loyalty ? And was it to be repaid by allowing statutes to remain that offered them a gross insult ? To such men the country owed former glory and present safety.—Tt e Scotch Presby terian who conformed to the Test Act, was con sidered by his own Church as having abandoned Would the Scotch of f icers in the Army and Navy con. sent to such a conformity ? If those Acts were pease. vered in, a party of zealots might enter the House when the Speaker was at his devotions, and say to him, " Go seek the Lotto elsewhere." The Test Act could never be put in force. The opposers of the repeal would say, they did not mean to put it in force, but merely to hold it over Dissenters. Should the loyalty of Dissenters be treated oith such distrust? It was said that the Go vernment had a right to require such tests. He thought no man or government could have a right which was a wrong to others. And, trying the question by the test of utility, which was the greatest happiness of the greatest number, he thought the tight to oppress could not be supported. One person had said, that the greatest crimes were committed by persons of light complexion • another said they were committed by persons of dark complexions? but would it be just, on either of those opinions, to exact penalties against persons for their complexions? He respected Christians of all denominations who made the law of GOD, as they understood it, the rule of their conduct; and in stead of being punished• for being conscientious, he thought they proved themselves trustworthy, and should be held in all honour. In no instance where penal laws were enacted, had they failed to he productive of human misery. Discontent, discord, and bloodshed were their offspring. If the country would now grant equality of freedom to all Dissenters, Protestants and Catholics. its wealth would soon be quadrupled. The common sense of the country must soon sweep away film the Statute Book those penal laws by which the country WAS now disgraced, and then would Great Brifain assume her proper station amongst the nations of the earth.—(Hear, hears) The question being put from the Chair, Mr. WILBIt A II A M, in a maiden speech, apologized to the House tot venturing to intrude himself on its at tebtion at so early a period of the debate ; but he had long thought most seriously upon the subject, and he trusted that that reason would excuse him with the House. That such a state of things should have existed at any time which rendered such enactments necessary, must be a matter for regret; but• when the lapse of time and a chaoge of circumstances had swept away all the causes which had called for their adoption. to per severe in maintaining them ceuld deserve no other name than an act of oppression against religiossopioione. If he found it necessary to look for any reason for an opposition to the motion before the House, beyond that Afforded by the ruling pas.lon—the right of the strong to keep the less powerful down—he thought be might I find it in tl e growth of a system, or rather of an abuse. which had propagated the necessity of an alliance be tween the Church and State. By that system people were taught to believe that the Church was of necessity most intimately connected with the State, and that the one could not exist without the other. He however did not believe that such was the fact. He thought that they should be separated from each other, and that their ancestors had been in error when tbey adopted a different principle. He did not mean to say that their ancestors had been invariably wrong in instituting Penal Statutes with respect to religious differences; bvt when they. were tight,. the distinction• had been made, not because one man was a Unitarian and another Presbyterian, but because to certain religious sect* par ticular political opinions did or were supposed so belong Hear.)—la the present time no such distinctiencould Ile made. Particular politics were not attached to pun • cular religious opinions, and therefore the precautions of their ancestors were no longer required. If indeed it costal be shown that the Catholics were knit together with a view of overthrowing the Protestant dynasty and piaci% another on the throne; or if it could be proved tb a be Protestant Dissenters were aiming as they did is Weer times, at the subversion of the State, then, indeed, be should admit that the Penal Statutes might be justified. But even before that could bo allowed, there was ano ther point to be considered ; whicipmetta t . whether they lad drength sufficient,. if . dace 1,7 sAischief? . Al .tnerely fee the sake if the Lion really did exidt, Then don, were the Telt and give security 'against their it might be . sfery clear!: Ler Marina the instance Charles the Second. T! 'exception of three, were opposed sino...ln the next reign 'William and the Revolui 'both 'these periods been si 'they would hare overthi every Hierarchy of which f liers ? That they did not • Very Dissenters, whom after , ism to persecute—(Hear.) the support 4 all the friends the tacit assent even ' imppotted the Annual Ind, 'do so if ihey did not - inutility dltd worthlessness 'now sought to repeal? The }meant for the purposes let was meant as a chec: time and under circumstances not be trusted with the nominal Was it not strange that it _ now, and that those should peal, who, In their. owr advantages from the free —(Hear, bear). He was upon the attention of the ' much further into the sebjeci presumption on his part, Noble Lord, to attempt folio There were onlytwo points r• - • their consideration. In the that, by reason of the Anr , arising from these Acts real. Was it not an eai .I s demnity should at all be temporary concession ? the very bad principle, . power to exclude the weak of their religious principles. men that they held their (He sr)_and that by branch of. the Legislature she weight =of those law! tem did not arise so nut and- emolument, as fro' it affixed; and ;he - insolent anted their orthodox been said that the Dissenters about these Acts. The their table was a sufficient though a single Petition should not think it possible lowest, sat down quietly How much more strange pining by men well educr sions, showed themselves country, and supported would have been betray( Established Chinch. Oi of these laws was, that it did not know how much go. This was indeed a strange , was just, from an apprehension might afterwards be demanded. with 'any body of Di their tenets; but were cease to knock at the door opened—until he was equality with the rest hear.) Let it not be sup) Church Establishment. inept was necessary for t the morality, and decency .e seethe Establishment preserved in a ability; and it was for that reason he stand on other ground than that of be did not wish to see it call in Es support. Let others show stabfishment by arguments ' he should show his by those blots which were alike interests, and injurious to its real He should not attempt to argue aU further concession. But be vu. though friendly to Catholic Emancipation, . sent circumstances. any further concession to an idea that It would injure the Catholics. to the teat cause of Emancipation, but he . liberating one body of men from their chains rivet more closely the chains of oth obtain in the way of religious liberty, thoUc Emancipation itself. Let the t iudice be once broken down, and the lie came now to the second point which vett to. He believed it was not denied ti a religion of more purity, of more perfec any of those numerous branches which bad progress of time—a religion, the mother •' denominations which now existed. He theological professor how that religion. which supported principles that seemed principle of Chtistianity itself, mutual formable to religion to make that holy . which-was intended for far other purposes, ambition, and the picklock of place? it ha not more improper to make the sacrament office, than to make an oath the test of tr similitude between the two cues. .An • many, sanctioned by civil society as a test the veracity of man; but would any one sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted Let anything else be made a test, hut let exempt (tom such coetamination—( cordial support to the motion ; and he night see the first blow given to that system of laws, which was the disgrace lization—(Hear)—laws which, while they save, only created the very danger which against—(Cheers). Sir H. INGLIS said, though he _ any thing approaching to the talent who last addressed them, or the displayed by the Noble Lord who ject, he trusted the House . explain what his views of this lion was this—were these laws produced, or was it establishment should be that he had now to denied the necessity of some he believed, was admitted on quite ready to admit that the least consistent with the preservation of ought. to be the measure of restriction, Establishment was part of ever til t!: N e ell w Zealand, ay y however, differ, alnd, as s- to the e r e lotionh e the Chutch and State, that was They Were not now called upon , union; they had one already, in State were united inseparably, and il its overthrow, he should say— Spades retain, bang a MinimllNl.lrn. if they were so Ind supposing le argument, th n would come Corporition designs ? ly shown tha. e of the Bish. Che whole of opposed to they were '• ition. Had successful, was nrown - the Con h they thous tot succeed w afterwards the r.) On this q lends of religi of their opp Indemnity A - feel convinc :is of the la Ile Test Law to which it :k upon the . istances when nomination of it should be e loold refuse to wn persons, . e exercise of as unwilling t House; but h abject, feeling a, after the a following in s which he wi the first place, nnual Indemn s were rather it in itself tha :necessary It was an ack that the stron eak from civil plea. Wasit no ✓ rights only the mere cap ure they migh ws? The' evil uch from the p om the stigm olent superiori oppressors--( Enters themselv number of Pe eat answer to bad not - ible that Eagl under such gra Se if it were .. cated, men wb s friends to the I them at a fed by the D lne argument a if it should be la further the I ti.ange argume rehension that mended. He w issenters, nor he a Dissenter oor of that H. placed on a 1. of his fellow pposed that he He allowed t 1r preserving Icy society. reserved in a hat reason he I than that of see it call in hers show th meats founded by endeavouri rere alike de s to its real ewe against those be understood the Emandpation, ref ther concession to t the Catholics. H :linden, but he had Itons their chains, •s of others.—(He us liberty, was so Let the bulwark in, and the victor tad point which h was not denied tba of more perfec tches which bad sp 1, the mother of th existed. He sb sat religion could . that seemed dews 'elf, mutual benev e that holy cerem. other purposes, t of place? It had e the sacrament is the test of tru to cues. An oat aciety as a test b would any one tel was instituted f a test, but lot t ination—(Hear). on ; and he trust - Fen to that hack the disgrace of chi Lich, while they pr danger which th I, though he des g to the talent em, or the este le Lord who in. rause would per • s of this subiect these laws ju E neeeseary se kept up? He contend of some este Imitted on all hat the least • reservation of easure of resui. Was nfcessary art of the Coost if they were no id, as to the . :, that was not called upon to f ne already. in '1