The Sun. — London, England, 1828-04-18 00:00:00

it was as introduced, fur the purpose of excluding from j Corporations persons already Members of them, with the irtention of giving strength to the Monarchy ; it was the produce of servility and violence. Great part of itehas it since been explained away ; all of it indeed repealed, save and except this vets Sacramental Test. I shall now state to your Lordships the provisions of the Corporation Act ; they are three in number. The first object of its enact ment was to clear the Corporations of the Presbyterians and others actually in possession of them. For that pur pose two oaths were devised—one disclaiming the solemn league wad covenant ; the other that it .was unlawful to take up arms against the Sovereign ; and the Act further declared that all who should refuse to take those oaths should be expelled from the Corporations. The Act was to last only two years. In that shape had the Bill been originally introduced, and after several discussions in this and the other House of P a rliament, a solemn compact was made by the two Houses, and then, for the first time, the sacramental test was introduced into the Act. What was then its state? Your Lordships will be surprised to hear it—for, in the first place, two years were to elapse before the clause was to take any effect at ea What was then the state of the Church ? Its livings were, in numerous instances, in the hands of the Presbyterians. The Act of Uniformity had not long passed, when strong hopes, and stronger expectations, were held ont to the Presbyterians that their religion should become a part of the rites and usages of the Church of England. It never could have beeu believed to have been for the exclusion of-the Protest. ant Dissenters. Ido not believe such to have been any Fait of the intention of the Bill—it is too much involved in obscurity; but this I can state as the result of my best consideration, that whatever the intention for inserting that clause in the Corporation Act may have been, it never aves intended for the purpose of excluding the Protesthut Dissenters from the Corporations. I shall now state the grounds for this belief, and I shall do it in the words of a roan who, although one of the founders of the Corporation and Test Acts, I cannot mention without admitting that lie was one of the most patristic men in the country—l mean Lord Southampton—and one of the most active too inthose busy times—Lord Clarendon only excepted.. That which I am about to state, is a fact so corroborated as to place it beyond doubt. The Duke of Ormond while living in Hol land with Charles IL, had discovered a circumstancewhich Is came a subject of great regret to him—namely, that Charles 11. was a confirmed Homan Catholic—and that discovery was, if it required confirmation, further confirmed by the testimony of Sir H. Bennett, afterwards Lord Ar lington. The Duke kept it a profound secret, even from _Lord Southampton, until lie came to En eland, and then, when the Duke of York solicited in marriage the daughter of Lord Clarendon, the Duke of Orwell, for the first time, communicated it to the two Lords. I blush to say what their conduct was. They met to considerwhat it. thosecircumstances was best to be done. They agreed that to divulge the fact would in all probability produce the most fatal conse quences, by throwing upon the character of Charles 11. doubts, and excite fears which at that period It was of the utmost importance should not be created. They consi dered that in the minds of the people of this country, ap prehensions might be engendered that from the connexion of Charles with the Courts of France and other Catholic countries, dangers to the independence Of Great Britain might arise. What did those Lords do ? What did they determine on? That they should bring in a Bill making it a premunire and a forfeiture of goods for any man to call the King a Papist. (Hear, hear.) It might not be plea sant to some Noble Lords to have their litttle secrets ex posed at sonic future day, but it is of use to bring before your Lordships those little peccadilloes of our ancestors.— ( A laugh.)—Such was the conduct of those Lords. lam willing to think that these two great men, especially Lord Southampton, meant well—that they were always anxious to do something for their country—and therefore am I convinced that their sole reason for introducing the Act eve!! for the purpose of excluding the Catholics. "We are now (said they) under this Act, driving many persons from the Corporations, and we now also discover that he King is favourable to the Papists." This is only conjecture certainly--hut there is no ground for believe rig that the Act was never intended to apply to the Protestant Dissenters. The fact is, that it is no test at ell. What is a test against particular persons, but ex acting from them that which they would not do with out it ? (Here, and very often previously, from the in tolerable pressure of the crowd, we were rendered unable for some moments to take a single note—many sentences of the Noble Lord were, in consequence, lost. His Lordship, ive undereerd to contend, that the Presbyterians had been induced to concur in the passing of those Acts under the conviction that they could not be made to operate against themselves. 'The Noble Lord, proceeded.) The Rever end Bench will hear me out in saying,. that--that was the state of the case through a great part of Charles the Se cond's time, and continued down to the Uniformity Bill itself. It is necessary to bear this in mind when talking of the wisdom of our ancestors, that these Acts were never enforced against the Protestant Dissenters of this country during 150 years, except far three years. I mean the er:od when the Uniformity Act passed, in the reign of p ueen k‘. and in 1718. Such I believe to be the his tory of the t.7.grPoration Act. The effect of it has been in time respects Rfl eeter than that of the Test Act. (Fur the ,Cason above stated, some sentences of his Lordship were here also lost.) The Corporation Act does not require that a man, on entering upon office, should take the Sa ceamental Test, bat diet within two years before such ac cepting of office, lie shoald have taken the Sacramental T e ets _(Bear, from Lord Eldon.)—ls not that so ? Earl of ELDON—One year. Lord I lOLLAND.—WeII, one year. Now, may Lords, .jf that Act had not been passed, what would have been 4 - be case with respect to the Corporation Act ? That every minus would have been obliged to take it. The officiating Priest would have been obliged to administer the 'sacrament. I shall now, however, leave it. The Test Act, my Lords, was a complete contract. Delighted with the return of hi= whom they deemed a Protestant King, the House of Conatnons, with a certain degree of servility, vassed the Test Act, which was an Act of suspicion—an - eet excluding the objects of it . from the Crown. Every e l ieterfuge was put in practice, ta order to ensure its pass ing ; even the Money Bill was held wank for that purpose. It was e e length carried, and was an Act founded on dis tnist fee.h ded on suspicion ; is,' and always has been, a fetter upon the' tree and lawful prerogatives of the Crown. gut who appeal .to history ? Bead the Bill itself—read its preamble. Do e s lti say that it is intended to operate against the Protestatit li;..?senters? Dues it say that it was to enforce conformity of the Clergy? That it was a Bull d the Established Church? No; but that it was to prevent danger from Popish recusants, and 'Jr e e quieting the minds of his Majesty's people. Not for the purpose of strengthen- Mg the Goyerenient, or defending the Charclt, but for the purpose of allaying the suspicious which exiateel for the safety of both. That such were the facts, can be pieeeed by reference to the debates that took place on the subject; but to enter upon the recapitulation of which, would lead ; me to a length to which it is not necessary I shoals go.- shall, however, state a few additional circumstances. hVlieu the Act was about to pass, all the Dissenters in the :ether House of Parli a ment voted for it. Some, it is t rue , at that time riitTered with Mr. Maxwell, and entertained conforming to what were deemed the rites eNeat scruples lea C;ef the •Church of V s ogland. There was, however, a m en them --eenan distinguished during the reign of Charles H. mean Mts. Love. He said ;n the House of Common., that for that Bill, in th e h o p e ;,;e and the DiaGenter s would vote eliat the Protestant Dissenters would ssech .. eive some furth er indulgence, At the Came moment, a 3)41 was brought in for relieving the Protestant Dissenters by a ehle wind from the operation of t he Act, forinto the was btoughtnto the purpose of y e , commending it to that chase. Bill That the House of Commons, was pushed foewerd, and proceeded nit when the Tot Act pnri passu with the Test Act ; I . ng, had p asse d, the other not having received its thin reading, Ciovernment prorogued the Parliatrient, and thus defeated . the Bill. M a ny wise men, opposed to its Principle,look ed upon it nevertheless as a substitute for the other, in con sequence of their suspicions of the religion a ilia King , and of their knowledge of that of the Duke of York. They were too deeply solicitous for the welfare of Englend, they had too much consideration, not to know that it would be better to exclude a Prince from the succession than 1 . 0 limit the just prerogative of the Crown. The principle and object of the Test Act were to protect the country from the possible intrigues of a - Popish Sovereign and his suc cessor. They were founded upon the distrust entertained by the Parliament of a Prince popish'!" inclined—founded in a word, upon their distrust of Charles thcSecond and hie brother James. What has now become of t'hat case? The principles of the Act are gone—an object for it no longer exists—they are buried with the Catholics-ee.they are gone to the tomb of the Capulet e.— ( Hear, hear.) . I shall show that the principle of this Act is, at the present day, ap plied to an object the direct contrary of the one intended. As it now stands, the Act excludes Protestant Dissenters, and it excludes Roman Catholics also; but there are other laws against the Catholics ; therefore as far as respects them, it is unnecessary. The Act establishes, consequently, as far as it can, far different principles from those which mi. ginally operated—namely, that it is better to limit the pre rogative of the Crown, it is injurious to the interest of the Church, and dangerous to the Constitution and the State. With respect to the prerogatives of the Crown—preroga tives which are given not only for the advantage of the Crows, hilt also for the benefit of the people; and which, while they increase the power of the ''';nve-• reign, may be truly said to form part of the privileges of the subject (and in saying this it is not to be thought that I am departing from any opinion that I have ever before expressed with regard to these prerogatives, for I never considered them, when properly exercised, as in consistent with those privileges)—l say then that this Act • is hostile to both, and that this House, and the other, and the people at large, have rights and privileges which are protected and supported by that prerogative, the exercise of which t!wy may sometimes advise, but which they can seldom trench on without equal injury to the Throne and I the People. That prerogative to which lam now allud my Lords—what is it ? It is the most grateful, the most just, the most righteous that a Prince can exercise, in order to afford to a meritorious subject that reward which his services deserve, when those services have either been beneficial to his Prince, or have conferred a benefit on the country at large. Every Prince of a generous mind, and especially every Prince of the House of Bruns wick, must most love the exercise of such a prerogative, and must dislike that which tends to deprive him of the enjoyment such a Mind, must feel in rewarding merit. Reward, properly bestowed, is like mercy, which the Poet has described as " Enthroned in the hearts of Kings, It is an attribute of God himself;" While Punishment, like cruelty, is often only the attribute of the Devil. But by this law—this impious, profane, ini quitous and unnecessary law, the Prince is deprived of this god-like attribute, and is reduced to the exercise of his prerogative only to inflict that punishment which has been said to make him who inflicts it resemble the Devil. But it is not merely on this principle that I contend the Act is contrary to common justice, feeling, and humanity; it is, that a man who unfortunately does not happen to think as the constituted authorities of the State do, should be excluded from all the benefits of the institutions of his country. It is an Act which says to a man, that although he may have applied his time—his mind—all his capabi lities, with zeal and energy, to the services of the State, he must never hope to reap the fruits of his labours (Hear, hear, hear.)—Let not, therefore, any man step 'forward and say that a refusal of political rights is not persecution.—(Cheers.)—The Constitution of this country is the grandest fabric ever erected by human wisdom—and shall the King of England, the key-stone of that arch, be controlled in the exercise of his proudest privileges and attributes—shall he be debarred frora the power of re warding the zeal, the talents, and the fidelity of his people, and is that not to be called peesecution?—(Cheering.)— I have generally observed that those persons who are most ready to refuse relief such as this Bill before your Lord ships is calculated to afford, namely, eligibility to partici pate in benefits, are peculiarly the persons who enjoy the greatest share themselves.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) —Another principle of this law is, that it is just and lawful for a State to make the rites of religion sub servient to State purposes. I declare to God, it has always appeared to me a matter for standing wonder how a person, impressed with the extreme importance, the awful solemnity of religion, and its rites, can use them as means of persecution. I declare to God, that to my sense, it in volves one of the most extraordinary contradictions which it is possible, to conceive. —(Hear, hear.) Another ex traordinary fact connected with this part of . the subject is, that those who entertain respect for no established or de clared religion, but equally neglect all, are eligible to office, because they, not being influenced by religious scru ples, would take any qualifying test required of thern.--- The Act in question lets in all these, but does it not ex clude, and in excluding, does it not embitter, the happi ness of those who attached to the Constitution, and re specting the Established Church, are nevertheless swayed by the dictates of their consciences. —(Cheers.) Then with respect to the Sacramental Test—what is the doctrine of the Church of England on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ? That if any man shall take that holy Sacrament unprepared (that is, in a state of unfitness to take it), he "eats and drinks his own damnation." What does this Act say? That be you ever so unprepared, be you ever so unfit to take that Floly Sacrament, if you take it not, you lose all chance of worldly advantages.—(Cheers.) Such is the choice offered by this Bill. Either you relinquish all hopes of Heaven hereafter, by taking the Sacrament in a state of unfitness, or you sacrifice all worldly advan tages by listening to the dictates of your conscience.— (Cheers.) It is impossible that the mind of man can conceive or suggest any thing more cruel than this—cruel to the in dividuals who are the objects of it—cruel also to the clergy who are bound to administer to all who present them selves to take it—the qualifying Sacrament.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord went on to say, that he had always un derstood, that, according to the law of England, it was at least an inference from the Corporation and Test Acts, if not' a ruled Point; that an action would lie at common law against the clergyman who' should refuse to admit to the Sacrament the parshioner who applied for it as a qua lification for civil office. If that were so, was not there a direct interference of the common with the ecclesiastical law—a secular controul not recognised by the canons of the church ? No clergyman ought to violate the canons which he was spiritually hound to maintain. And in these canons every minister, having the cure of souls, was en joined to refuse the Sacrament to any parishioner of impure life, who lived in disorder or quarrel with his neighbours. See then the situation in which the clergy were placed, if his view of the law were correct. Suppose a Lord Chan cellor, who was not so moral and courteous as Lord Shaftesbury, or a Secretary of State who was no so pure and unblemished in his life as Lord Liverpool, and a bar rister, not so much distinguished far his habits and temper, as 'for his pertinacity and law—auppose three snob persons were toi approach their clergyman to receive the Sacra ment before they entered their respective offices, and that lie said to the two Peers, " You, my Lord Chan cellor, have not lived as you ought to receive this rite. 'you, the Noble Secretary, are not iu a fit condition to receive; - for the present then depart and begone."— The Peers would perhaps retire in courtesy, and try to soften down the clergyman's scruples ; hut when it came to the lawyer's turn to be re fused, when the clergyman said to the lawyer, " You won't do, my friend, you are bringing actions after actions against all your neighbours, begone, and learn humi lity." Would the lawyer retire? faith no, he'd do no such thing; he would at once rejoin upon the parson, " You won't give me the Sacrament, won't you, then I'll have my action at law. I'll let fly my per quods at you, my reve rend gentleman, and we shall soon see who will have to smart for the costs."—(A laugh.) How was the clergy man to act under such unfavourable circumstances'? Was he to submit the exercise of his spiritual functions to secular jurisdiction ? lie thotight not, for he had always under stood the church was extremely jealous of any interference of the courts of common law. When he spoke of the church, he did not mean the ordinary men belonging to it, but the highest and the most sanctified of the early Re formers—for instance, such a personage as Luther himself. Luther, when speaking of the danger of making spirituals dash with seculars, used these remarkable words—" would wish lases well made. I acknowledge jus is a fair spouse so lon g as she remains in her own bed, but when she goes out of that to role the church, then I say she is a great strumpet ;" and something else, added the Noble Lord, which I will not quote before your Lordships.— (Laughter.) Luther goes on—" I never knew a lawyer who did not want to meddle in other men's matters, and who did not in this way far surpass Turks, Jews, and Gentiles; in other words, lawyers are the next door neigh ' boors to the devil—nay, they are the devil himself. In fine, my heart begins to quake when I even think of therm"— (Laughter.) Such was the opinion of Luther as to any con nexion between canon and secular law. But, my Lords, it may be said that such is not the case; that under such cir critriatayees an action would not lie, although I believe there may be rapid the authority of some of the ablest Statesmen who have ewer lived in support of a contrary , opinion. Lord Stanhope, in fa :rearing to the very clause to which I have alluded, commenced thus—" The ' effect of this clause seems to me to exempt the Dissenters from the Sacramental Test, because it states, that whereas complaints baye been made, that the Clergy have been ' threatened with actions at law, and with annoyances of various kinds, for refusing to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to persons seeking amoission to offices and places of trust, who, by law,' were obliged to receive the same as a raecessary qulification for such offices." But m y Lords, suppose en action will not lie —suppose that, although the Dissenters think it will, such in reality is not : 1. 1 0 11 4 1 j‘uvri u i Q notn c o t to then interfere have the fact—what, 4 my Lord s, will you then say to the pro priety of admi r t i t t i i n ia g the i d with placed in the spiritual the hands of the p a r so n of a parish , or, at all events, in the Ecclesiastical Court, a power which, whe ther or not it were employed, most be dangerous and un. constitutional to the highest degree. Can any man say that either the parson of a parish, or even the Ecclesias tical Court,' ought to be the judges under such circum stances? Can any man think, that by so constituting them, a great and manifest injustice woul d not be created ? But if I wish to prove the absurdity, the cruelty, and the in justice of this law, in no way can I do it so effectually as by the supposition, that what might take place had ac tually taken place. My Lords, let me put the case to you as the case might be. Consider then the consequences of enforcing this law—consider then what a scene of iniquity, of cruelty, and of oppression, would take place, if two thirds, or three-fourths of those persona who are DOW em ployed in the civil or the military offices of the kingdom, lout who had not complied with this ohnoxicu , teat, woes to be at once deprived of the advantages they enjoyed, and thrust from the situations which they held. If this In demnity Bill were suffered to expire, what would be the consequence? You would see the Magistrates, by whom the laws had been long and equitably administered, placed in the light of criminals, and so to be treated—you would. see those who had bravely and honourably fought and bled in the cause of their country, placed as outcasts from society, and so to be considered—they might be pointed out as absolute slaves in the very land which they had saved. Imagine then, my Lords, for a moment, and look at the picture in its true colours, what would be the effect of this law, upon your army, upon your navy, and upon the Civil Officers of the State. Oh ! but it may be answered this is mere rhetoric—mere sporting of the ima gination—because such a fatal scene never has occurred, and never can. My Lords, if I am so apostrophised, I will ask, what then is the necessity of security—and what benefit can a system of exclusion by any possibility confer? But, my Lords, it may be possible that the imaginary se curity, though not an imaginary grievance—certainly not so great a grievance as if the threat it conveys were put in execution—may produce consequences very different to those which many reflecting minds may contemplate —con sequences, the result of that badge of disgrace, that stigma which it leaves, and of that burthen which it places, upon all those who are made liable to bear it. My Lords, the Law of Indemnity is a misnomer—it pardons no one. It places the magistrates, whose authority ought to be res pected by all those towards whom it is his duty to admi nister justice, in a situation the most degrading—the sword is hanging over him from year to year—his colleague, who sits beside him in the official chair, may be justified in calling him a disgraced person, one who is marked nut to be so by Act of Parliament. My Lords, where is the wisdom, to say nothing of the justice, of such treatment? If danger is to be apprehended from persons who will not confotrn to the doctrines or. the discipline of the Established Church, of what use is the law when it admits to power and place all such persons? If no danger is to be appre hended, then, a fortiori, of what use is a law which ex cludes a single individual upon such grounds? lf, then, there be no danger, can it be imagined that, in admitting persons who hold such opinions to power, in admitting them to places of trust, and to offices of influence and im portance, while you grant them these advantages, and give them this ability to inflict injury or to do good, to the cause you profess to advocate, you will do well, at the same time, to retain those disadvantagei—nominal or real, be it as it may—by which you inflame them to resentment, and incite them to enmity? Is it likely, that under this degrading system they will be better citizens, and more effective officers, than if no such system existed. Can you conceive, that by placing them in a situation less respecta ble, and less free than the rest of their fellow -conntry.nen, you will receive more active, more disinterested services from them, than you would receive if no such difference were is existence ? But I contend, that the grievance, great and oppressive as it is, does not affect merely the Pro testant Dissenters, but that it places every individual, who, frosts some scruple of conscience or other, assents to, or dis sents from, a particular point in doctrine or usage, in a si tuation of inferiority. Can Englishman say, that so to place Englishmen is inflicting no grievance ? Can this House maintain, that a sense of inequality is no degrada tion? Can we, who are Peers of this kingdom, and who are therefore especially bound to see that equal justice be the birthright of every subject—a birthright, the enjoy ment of which is to be his privilege to his death—can we, I ask, contend, that if one man is by the law respited as a felon, that man is not placed in a situation different to, or more degrading than that of others ? Away with such an idea. So far, then, my Lords, fur the mental—the ideal grievance. But ideal though it be, we, who are Peers and Englishmen, cannot think that suck a grievance, which touches so nearly, is to be lightly cared for, or that it is to be passed ever unnoticed, operating as it does upon the best feelings of men, who may Le the best men. My Lords, I con tend that even in this point of view, the grievance is a gross and intolerable grievance, and one which ought not to be tamely submitted to by any Englishman by whom the Constitution of England has been fought for, or is sup ported. There ate many other ways in which this grievance operates; it is difficult exactly to ascertain them; but even in my own circle I have known many persons who, from some over-scrupulous feelings, or from some principle of pride, at feeling themselves excluded from the full enjoyment of the blessings of the 13ritish Con stitution, have refused or objected to hold offices un der it. The point may be over-strained, but surely it is not wise in the Legislature to expose itself to a situation by which it excludes from the service of the State men who have ability and inclination effectually and faithfully to serve it. But it happens that one of the most considerable grievances is created by a device of the Annual Indemnity Bill—a device as disen genuous as ever was any—it goes upon false pretences ; for, in truth, it does net even postpone the punishment. [The Noble Lord was here interrupted by an observation, in an under-tone of voice, from a Peer on the Bench beneath him.] The Noble Lord continued :—I was about to state a little of the law upon this matter. The Annual Indemnity Bill, by strict reasoning, does not exempt per sons from the operation of the law who refuse to take the test from conscientious motives. It does say that all persons, who from illness or any accidental cause, are unable to take it, shall have six or eight months so to do. It is true the lawyers, acute as they are, cannot determine pre cisely those who from conscience, and those who- from any other accident do not take it: But I hold that the interpreta tion I give the law is that which properly belongs to it, and in this construction I am borne out by the highest Authorities. Now it happens whimsically enough that the real sufferers were the Church of England men ; for there is another point which y , ur Lordships have to consider, and to that I now beg to direct you. It was within the last half century, that it was found necessary to impose upon the Dissenters a portion of that burthen which previously the Church of England men had borne. Your Lordships well know that there are certain offices, not of emolument, but of honour, to which every subject is liable. lam glad to see that within these few weeks a petition from the Corporation of the City of London, praying for the repeal of the Corpora tion and Test Acts, has been laid upon your Lordships' table ; but it cannot be forgotten that, during the last cen tury, the Corporation of the City of London fell upon a device as immoral as it was unjust. They looked out for Dissenters, and nominated them to the offices of Sheriffs, knowing that as they could not qualify themselves for those offices they must pay the fines which they would of necessity incur; and it is known that the Mansion-house, that splendid and beautiful ornament of the city, was raised' by the fines so levied and so paid. It was against this sort of legal plunder that a character, distinguished by the same spirit by which Hampden was actuated (Mr. Evans), hunted the matter through all the Courts of Law, and at length brought it before this House. Your Lordships will remember the memorable speech of Lord Mansfield—one of the roost accomplished Peers who ever did honour to his country. I advise every man to read the immutable judg ment of that Noble Lord, a speech which, whatever political delinquencies were charged against him (and there were some, although I am one who put no faith in the just ness of their foundation), have been all atoned for by that great, that grand, that beneficial work, to the ex ecution of which he led—the work of human, civil, and religious liberty. By the Toleration Act, this liberty was in some degree established; it was impossible after the passing of that Act to turn round and fine men for follow ing that system which, in their conscience, they believed to be right. It was a judgment upon those by whom those fines had been previously inflicted, that they could then neither punish nor obtain the service of the Dissenters.— But what was the consequence that followed? Every Dis senter naturally said " I do not and cannot conform to the rules and discipline laid down by the Church of England, and I will not, therefore, qualify myself for office." It followed, as a matter of course, that the burthen upon the Church of England men became much heavier ; and I know many leading people of that Church who are well aware of this, but who, in admitting the fact, add to the admission, that they would rather suffer the burthen by which the Church of England men are !tussled than share it with their dissenting brethren ; because, by so sharing the labours, they Insist participate in • the advantages. My Lords, I think I have now shown that the original inten tion and purpose of these laws may he completely answered by other laws, for their original object has long ceased to exist. I think I have shown that in principle and in theory they now • stand, at best, uselessly upon the Statute Books, and opposed in spirit and in practice to that for which they were originally intended. I think also I have shown that they are opposed to the principles of policy and good govern ment—to the temper of the times—to the feeling of the country—to the good sense of the reflecting—to the wishes of all parties—and to the dictates of religion herself. I think I have shown that those laws, if actually executed, would lead to a scene of confusion—to a scene of misery— in this country, such as no free society could endure—such as no mind could bear to contemplate—such as no tongue could venture to describe. I think I have shewn, that though in consequence of a subterfuge, a mean and disin genuous subterfuge—this dangeris averted, strong griev ances have remained, and strong grievances continue to exist—grievances by which the clergy and the laity of this kingdom are exposed to vexations, to insults, and to in juries. Surely, then, I have made out a case which en titles me to demand from your Lordships—from respect to your own characters—for the sake of public justice—for the benefit of the nation which you represent—the repeal of those most obnoxious laws. Surely I have a right to expect that you will cleanse your statute book of that influence which is pestilential in its quiescent state, and which if called into action would distort the whole frame of society. It is upon these grounds that I advocate a cause, which, although it has been long a stranger to your Lordships, bas been so often discussed out of doors. I have pursued the plan which I have considered best in thus addressing your Lordships, and I have avoided touching on points that might irritate, because, although I have read many able and learned writers, especially of the Church of England on the one side, 1 consider their arguments to have been answered by writers equally able and learned on the other, and because I do not wish to re vive a spirit of animosity and recrimination on the part of either. I will only say, that the objections which have been urged against the repeal of the Test Act in England, were urged with equal force and ability against the repeal of the Test Act in Ireland. Dean Swift, in one of his works—distinguished as all his works were by great wit and acuteness, and none more so than the work to which I refer—urges his objections against the tepeal. He says, in a work printed in 1708, and reprinted in 1735, that he considered the repeal of the Test Act would be an entire alteration of religious opinion. " If," he continues, " Dis senters are admitted to offices of Justices of Peace, to offices of Sheriffs, and to all other State offices, as well as to com mands in militias and the army, I do not see how it can happen, considering their activity and our supineness (he gave here, by-the-bye, a blow to his own cloth) they can avoid growing into a majority in the House of Commons, and then making some pretence for de manding a division of Church property for the main tenance of their teachers." This, my Lords, is the way in which the case was put by Dean Swift ; yet, in 1780, the Test Acts were repealed in Ireland, al though the same arguments were then used ; and there is a protest entered on the Journals of the Irish Parliament, signed by four Prelates, which shows that the apprehensions that the Bill would make an alteration in the Constitution or the kingdom were at that time entertained ; for that protest stated that much was to be apprehended, although the danger could not be seen to its full extent. It is now 48 years ago since this Act was repealed in Ireland, and what has followed? Has any danger arisen to that country— have those alarming apprehensions been proved to have been in any degree well grounded? And surely, then, Ireland is not so much stronger in the affections of her people than England, that England need follow her ex ample, and try the experiment which the sister country has already ti ied. With respect to some of the modern objections which have been put forward against the repeal of those Acts, it may be necessary for me to refer to the statement of Dean Swift that 2 and 2 make 4, and to the discovery of a recent author on political economy, that the whole is better than the half. When I refer to the objections that I have of late days seen advanced against the Bill now before your Lordships—one objection is, that it will promote the Roman Catholic cause, that cause which has been so often under the consideration of Parliament; ano ther objection is, that it will retard the progress of this great measure. These are the two great objections which have been urged in modern times. My Lords, it will not re quire any great wisdom to discover that no inference what ever can be drawn from those arguments to affect the ques tion now before you in any way. For myself I consider I should be acting disingenuously if I did not say that I hope to live to see the great question of Catholic Emancipation passed. It would be idle in me to say that I should not rejoice if I found the question you are now considering assisting in the passing of the other. But such are not the grounds en which I advocate this. If your adopting this Bill would prevent your adopting another for the emanci pation of the Catholics, it would give me great concern, but it would not have the effect of preventing me from advocating that which I have now advocated. But, my Lords, I can never consent to be unjust to one set of men to get at justice for another. lam convinced that the Roman Catholics—without reference to their own cause—feel as I feel upon this, and that they will be happy if you give to the Dissenters those rights which they seek for themselves. I have felt it my duty to - say so much upon a delicate question; but I hope that nb individual will give his vote upon the arguments to which I have referred, but that each will try the cause according to its own merits, and give his vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. There is one part of this Bill to which I wish to allude. I mean that portion of it which provides a declaration that no power with which any officer shall be endowed " shall he employed to injure or subvert the' interests of the Established Church." While I am satisfied to give that part of the Bill my support, I confess I would not have been the first to recommend its insertion ; but if it will reconcile one honest mind to the principle of the Bill—if it tend to make the work a work of charity, and not one of triumph and victory, it must be good, tnd as such lam willing to support it. There is, however, one feeling I must press upon the House ; it is this, that though I have nothing to object to this declara tion, which I consider to be a security full as good for the Church, or I should say better for the Church than any other, because it casts no stigma on the person who makes it, and because it can inflict no unpleasant duty on any Clergyman—l see no reason why any one should object to make such a declaration ; and, for myself, I am not likely to take office, but if I were, I would not hesitate to conform to it; still I must be allowed to say, and to press upon the House the importance of bearing in mind, that if any future security binders, or security makers, should think proper to put this declaration as a necessary admis sion to Parliament, to such a declaration I should totally and thoroughly object. The supreme legislature of the country must be left perfectly unfettered. God knows I have no design to injure the Established Church. Ido not for a moment hesitate to declare so ; but I will maintain the necessity for keeping the three branches of the legisla ture altogether unfettered and free, to act at all times as they consider best for the interests of the country. My Lords, I have thought it my duty to enter thus at length into this most important question. I fear I have been too prolix ; but if I have, I hope you will attribute it to my feelings of deep anxiety that the subject should be fully understood. The Archbishop of YORK.—My Lords, I cannot feel satisfied to give a silent vote on the Bill now before your Lordships ; and I feel it the more ,incumbent upon me to state my sentiments now, because the most Reverend Pre late with whom upon this question I perfectly agree, is pre vented by severe indisposition from attending his duty at the House. I have no hesitation in declaring that I feel bound to give my vote for the repeal of an Act which has led, in too man) instances, to the profanation of our holy religion. I consider religious tests imposed for political objects as in their nature calculated to endanger religion, and that nothing but paramount necessity—a necessity nothing short of danger to the State—could justify their imposi tion. At the same time I will confidently affirm, notwith standing what the Noble Lord has said, that those Acts were originally designed expressly for the protection of the Established Church. The Church has therefore, I think, a right to expect and to claim that something shall be sub. stituted for this test, avowedly and in reality, as far as pos sible, to retain the same object. Whether or not the pro visions of the present Bill will produce this effect, will be best ascertained when the Bill goes into Committee. In the earnest hope that such may be the case, I cordially give my vote for its second reading. The Earl of WINCHELSEA expressed himself fully persuaded that, upon admission to any office, some security in the shape of a declaration must be deemed necessary by every sincere friend to the Established Church. His con viction was, that some provision requiring assent to the fundamental doctrines of revelation was of the utmost im portance, and that some oath or declaration should in every case be given. He approved of the Bill as far as regarded the removal of the Sacramental Test ; and it was not, therefore, his intention to oppose the second reading. But, if the Bill went into Committee, it was his intention to propose some alteration in the preamble, and he trusted that, when he had the honour of proposing it, it would meet with the support of every friend of the Established Church and of constitutional liberty. He did not wish to encourage a feeling of hostility, which he feared too many already felt against the National Church; but he was desirous of guarding against those who did not hesi tate to declare their opposition to the doctrines of revela tion. It was against such—against vendors of sedition, of which there were many—that he was anxious for pro tection. It had been repeatedly used as an argument for the total repeal of the Corporation and Test .Acts, that they were passed at a period of anticipated danger to the constitution in Church and State _that no such danger as then existed was now to be apprehended, and that there fore there was no just ground for not repealing them. But let their Lordships: inquire if danger of a different kind did not exist in this their day, which called for the vigilant attention of the Legislature. The danger which he feared, arose from the active machinations of certain individuals for the dissemination of blasphemous and infidel principles, striking at the root of the doctrines, not only of the Este blished Church, but of Christianity itself. Among the nume rous instances of these demoralizing designs which might be alleged, and of which tkeir Lordships were probably aware he needed only to call their attention to the existence of a society, which for tile last few years had absurdly enough denominated itself " The Society of Freethinking Christians." This Society had laid a petition npon their Lordships' table, which they had made a vehicle for the most bitter attacks, not only upon the Church of England, but also upon Christianity itself. It was against such per sons as these that their Lordships were called upon to guard the Constitution in Church and State. He would say in the words of the immortal Burke, " that the must horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to civil society is through atheism and infidelity. An infidel is an outlaw of the Constitution, not only of this country but of the human race. He is never to be supported, never to be tolerated." It was Lis opinion, if their Lordships did not crush the efforts of such miscreants, they would soon see their opi nions propagated in every direction among the people, who would be taught to scorn, as obsolete, every institution which served as a prop to good government, every doctrine which was essential to to the maintenance of genuine Chris tianity. In rejecting Christianity, as this Bill at pr e s en t re ' tected it—for he called on the Reverend Bench of Bishops to point out to him any clause in it which would prevent in fidelity from legislating for the country—in rejecting Chris tianity, he said, which had hitherto formed an integral part of the Constitution, they were endangering the existence of their own liberty. In taking away the belief of a future state of existence, and of reward and punishment after death, they were striking at the sanctity of judicial oaths, they, were undermining the validity of moral evidence, and they were preparing for their country the greatest and most irremediable calamities. Then 'people would soon follow the disastrous course which flung France into so mach bloodshed and misery, and which had hither to disabled her from enjoying that liberty for which she had dared and • suffered so much. It was to prevent such a catastrophe that he now called upon the Bench of Bishops to stand forth manfully in defence of those doctrines which they were pledged by their holy profession to support, and to give to the country a secu rity that is future ages, as in the past, Christianity shall in this country still be connected with the State. He would remind them of another expression of the same great states man, whose noble sentiments he had before quoted to their Lordships. That illustrious statesman had said, and had truly said, that the cause of the Church of England was included in that of Christianity, not that of Christianity in the ,Church of England. There was notl lag but an empty appellation of security in the present Bill. What security could there be for the temporalities of the church, when infidelity stalked through the land, and in insolent disdain cast off the mask in which it had so long arrayed itself ? No one would go further than he would to tolerate the various sects into which Christianity was divided ; but to the Atheist and Infidel he would afford no toleration. He felt convinced that the word of God was not an empty fable, and that Christianity was not an empty boast. A Socinian, an Unitarian, and an Infidel, held no opinions in common with those of the real Christian. He knew that he might be ridiculed for asserting such a proposition, but lie felt that it would meet the dissent of every class of Protestant Dissenters, even of that highly respectable body upon which a Noble Lord had on a former night hosted a most unmerited insult. He trusted, however, that that respectable body would treat it with disdain, when they recollected that that Noble Lord was accus tomed to treat with scorn, contempt, and derision, every institution that was connected, not only with the religion, but also with the conotitntion of his country. He hoped to see some clause inserted in this Bill which would give the country a security that Christianity would still be connected with the state within its dominions, and which would prevent infidelity from being exalted to offices of high trust and importance in the empire. The Bishop of LINCOLN—My Lords, I feel myself bound to declare, in the outset, that I concur in the opi nions so ably expressed by my Noble and Most Reverend Brother, who has already addressed your Lordships on the subject. Little beyond this did I intend to press on your Lordships' attention ; but as the Noble Baron who has in troduced the Bill has, on urging the repeal of the Test Acts insisted at considerable length on the circumstances under which these laws were passed, I think it necessary to make a few observations on that branch of the question. I do not deny the correctness of the Noble Baron's statement relative to the origin of the Corporation Act ; that Act was passed at a time when the usurpation of political power by the Presbyterians was fresh in the mind of the nation. The Test Act was passed at a period of great public excitement, whea the popular feeling was agitated by apprehensions of plots and dangers ; and so great was the public alarm that the Dissenters themselves consented to a measure excluding them from office, under the impres sion that the measure was necessary to keep the Catholics out of power. These laws were continued up to the Re volution, and after that period, and with the consent of the Dissenters themselves ; and I consider that the conti nuation of them was founded on a maxim of sound policy, namely, for the purpose of preventing the frequent recur rence of those religious disputes which distracted the coun try before the enactment of those Acts. Your Lordships will remember that before the Reformation this country was in religious matters subject to the domination of the Church of Rome. After the Reformation, which was established on liberty of conscience, every body was allowed -to think for himself; yet it was cer tainly the intention of the original reformers, after they had purified the religion of their day, to unite the whole kingdom under that religion so reformed ; but in that ob ject, the effecting a unity of religious opinion, they were disappointed. The same freedom of thinking which created the Reformation produced also other opinions differing from the doctrines of the Reformed Church. Then a large portion of the people was hostile to the Reformation itself, and the result of all was the formation of a party whose object it was to make the Established Religion what they wished it to be, or to subvert it and plant their own in its place. This party commenced their operations in the reign of Elizabeth, but made stronger efforts under her weaker successor. The friends of the Protestant Esta blishment were averse from any division between the mem bers of the Reformed - Aeligiou ; but when they found that the Puritans were determined to separate from the Esta blishment, they said to them—" If you cannot remain at tached to the Protestant Church, separate from it ; but then separate quietly, and without injury to the Protestant Establishment." The King himself (James I.) had an anxious wish to establish unity between the sects of the Reformed Church, and for that purpose assembled theheads of the several Protestant denominations, at a conference at Hampton Court; but that Monarch was, by his theologi cal learning, very well fitted to promote the object of their assembling : he found, by the result, that in attempting to reconcile the differences of religious opinions, lie had undertaken a task quite above his power.. Having failed in this laudable purpose, he subsequently tried to accomplish his object by means that must be al lowed to be less justifiable. These objectionable measures were followed up with more activity by his unfortunate successor, the first Charles, and terminated in raising up a storm of civil contention, in which Church and State were swept away. Next came the Restoration, and soon after were passed the laws excluding Dissenters from political P • ower They were, however, left in the possession of the privilege of professing their religious opinions, and the exer cise of their religious solemnities. This, my Lords, is, I believe, rather a correct account of the v arious circum stances under which these laws were enacted. And now, my Lords, for a few observations on the principle of them. I hold it as a sound principle, that if the avowed principles of any body of men in a State be such as shall indicate that the admission into power of the persons avowing them be calculated to bring danger to the State—l hold that that body of men may be justly and reasonably excluded from the possession of political power. But it bas been urged against this by the Noble Baron, that no body of men can be excluded from power on account of their r e li g i ous opi nions, without positive injustice ; and in support of this opi nion, the Noble Baron can, I am aware, quote the authority of some high names. But lam equally assured that your Lord ships will agree with me, that such a proposition, taken in the broad sense ascribed to it by the Noble Baron, is not at all maintainable under the institutions of this country.— And as to the Noble Baron's assertion, that the Test Laws were enacted to serve as a punishment, I beg leave to say on the contrary, that I conceive they were not intended with any such view; and indeed in the case decided by Lord Mansfield, as quoted by the Noble Baron, the decision was founded on the principle, that these laws were intended for a restraint and not as a punishment. And though I cannot agree with those advocates of the Dissenters who deny the justice of the Test Laws as instruments of restraint, I cannot say I dissent from them ; when they object to the enactment of such laws as means of punishment, on account of religious opinions. But it has been argued by some friends of the pioposed repeal of these laws, that they were calculated to exclude only the conscientious Dissenters.-- Now it is known to your Lordships from history, that there have been many persons who considered themselves bound by conscience to subvert the Established Re ligion, and who have even imagined they found pas sages in the Sacred Scriptures authorising their purpose of subversion. These were, doubtless, conscientious persons in their own opinion—in proportion then to the sincerity of the religious belief of such a person, is the danger to be apprehended from the influence of his religioua zeal ; an d, on this account, I conceive the religious test to he a stronger security than any other against th e conscientious Dissenter; not that I mean to say th at th e taking of the Sacrament ought to constitute that test ; on the contrary, I hold that the participation of that solemn ordinance ought not to be profaned to a pathway for secular advancement, and that the Sacrament ought not to be tak en at a ll mi l es: . through a purely religious feeling. As to th e T est L aws , they ought not, in my opinion, to be adopted, but as a means of defence—defence against near and real danger, but not against mere general surmise ; nor can a remote probability of danger justify political restraints on account of meat religious opinions. If this real danger existed at the tju l of the enactment of the Test Laws, that was suffiejen t ground for the passi ng o f th ese laws ; and . I conceive sack : danger did ex i s t at t h e t i me; b ut I must acknowledge._ tlll' I am not p re p are d to say t h at the same ground. for their continuation remains to the present day ; for, however strong may have been the hostility felt by the ancient. Du' senters against the Church, I do not think that any Dissev ter of our times considers himself bound by conscience ' endanger the Establish e d Church of this country. C if , the contrary, I am convinced that there are many orthod°' Dissenters who wish the continued existence of the P et blished Church as their strongest bulwark against tly aggressions of the Church of Rome. As to the opi; nion, that if the Test Acts be repeided, the Church Wl' be thereby exposed to danger from its enemies, and tho l its safety will be left to the the mercy of the Z.' senters. I hare only to remark that as these Acts cso i into existence, when danger was apprehended t o tlaf Church, we may reasonably conclude that they would 1, instantly revived at th e re - a pp earance o f d ange r surely it will he quite time enough to have recourse 0 them when the necessity for them arises. I must say the" , my Lords, that in my opinion, these laws, as Acts of e%" elusion, cannot be any longer maintained.—(Cheering.)! And though I think the declaration, proposed as a substi', tute for them, affords no defence against real dangers have no objection to accept it, as 1 consider it as good ° l ' laws which were never executed. However, though It i s the abstract, attach no importance whatsoever to thaide' claration as a security, I hope that when the Bill procse a ' to a Committee, some endeavour will he made to ricer' tain the description of offices, the holders of which shill be required to make this declaration. Having said thu s ,. much of these Acts, I think it necessa ry t o a dd, that it " my thorough conviction that the cause of religion is infr parably connected with the Church of England. I .10 aware that in making this assertion I am liable to be I °' cused of being biassed into the opinion by a regard to ) 11 Y personal interest ; but 'I do, notwithstanding, solemnly de dare, that I should be one of the first to resist the repo' of these laws, if I considered the repeul injurious to tb e interests of the Church hf England. The Church of FA* land wants no such defence, my Lords, as these laws cool; give her. The best defence of the Church of Englan d consists in the respect and affections of the people.-' (Loud cheering.)—l admit, my Lords, that th e Chord; may derive much benefit from legislative measures ; then, it is not by restrictive laws against the privileges °f the subject, but by amending the practical dis c iplin e of for Church, and by rendering less indirect and circuitous th i administration of her ordinances. The Bishop of DURHAM, after a few moments of ingto' dible speaking, was understood to proceed to this effect :-=" My Lords, I have made great efforts to bring my mind to think, that the measure proposed by the Noble Baron, i 4 not dangerous to the Church ; hut I regret to state, that coming to this conclusion, I have found great difficulty from the circumstance, of the advocates for the Dissenter' founding their claim to the repeal of the Test Laws on al? stract principles. They have asserted, for instance, that no matter what religious tenets they may hold, they have' right to the enjoyment of political power. Now this, Irri f Lords, is an opinion which ca nno t ex i s t i n suc h a s t a te r' society as ours. It may, indeed; be adopted in a new sr; ciety, in which there are no existing interests to be injured' no established opinions to be subverted, but certainly not in this country, where, for centuries, the contrary opinio n has been acted on. I shall not, at present, go farther io° the abstract principle, but I must declare th e pl e asure , feel in seeing that the Bill brought in stands on the principl e that the Church of England is firmly established by 1 0 , and inviolable, and that, if the measure be adopted, it rne turn on that principle. It is impossible to conside t this question without some qualification for the secnriti of the Established religion—it is an invariable prineild' of the Constitution that th e Ch urc h i s a n i ntegral part 0' the State. Even from the earliest periods of our hisiori, we can trace restrictiv e law s i n d e f ence o f t h e N a tioto' Your Lordships remember the laWs enacted t o put down heresies, laws certainly much more severe that! the Corporation and Test Acts—true we have g o t _rid o f those severe laws; but, my Lords, we have not, therefore, got rid of religion altogether, nor of an Established Churck . When our ancestors established a national religion, they in' tended it to be permanent, church and state united, unde r one supremacy; that of the Throne..—(Having given un inaudible detail of the Reformation, the Rev. Lord P i " ceeded.)—l shall not go into the history of the Test Lao''' as they have been so fully detailed by my Rev. Brother sch a has just sat down, but pass to the Revolution. The V"' Laws were continued after the Revolution, as an insult' went of state necessity, on the principle that there could be ne security for the Established Church , is Dissenters Wer e admitted to political power. I confess "that I am not partial to a sacramental test ; but when I remember the dangerous men against whose machinations it was enacted , aad the great good men who advocated the adoption of if' I must say that I am inclined to pause before I join in the obloquy so liberally heaped on these great and good meta' Nor can I concur i n th e o pi n i on th a t our ances t ors intended these laws as a punishment against Dissenters. I thirli' rather that they used them as a means of ascertaining the religious opinion of persons taking office, and by consequence their inclinations for or against the Est:l' blished Church.—(Here the Reverend Lord turned tIO direction of his voice towards those Peers who were sitting in the neighbourhood of the Throne, and was for mail minutes quite inaudible below the bar of the House. )-1 I wish, however, that the Members "of the Established Church—that great body whose power it is th e i n t ere st or , the Dissenters to conciliate—should receive as an equive lent for these Acts, some declaration of attachment to the Church and the King. Some security is necessary. 1 wish to get something, though, at the pr esen t m ome nt, , , r am not prepared to say that the declaration contained ie the proposed Bill is quite the something I should wish. However, though I am not prepared on that point, I shall not on that account vote against the Bill going into a Conn' mittee. I must here impress on your Lordships the great importance, the necessity of upholding in the public esti' mation the ascendancy of the Church of England ; and I speak advisedly wben I declare, that it has been proved hi the experience of centuries that the Church of England best harmonizes with those institutions of the country , with which it has grown up, and under which it has floe' n dt o sh s ea v ni t dm h e pp r ru e orv a ee r h e meea i n n rL an o y f a D tnh i d s.s e e la n ri te ts,a r na s n , nodt p rished. lam sure the Dissenters themselves will see that it is their interest to uphold the Established Church. In' morals, religion, and literature—many men who have done deed c m l e u a c r h: i e k n a that such men are so much under the influence of men unlike themselves, as not to be convinced it is their into' rankingm sciences—maul u a d mysel figh 10 rest to uphold the Church and State. They cannot be unread in hi s tory as no t t o k now , th a t it is amid the cell' dicta of sects that intolerance is the strongest ; and for tbie plain reason, that the party who has obtained the ascend' ancy makes it a matter of triumph to inflict on their de. feated opponents the persecutions lately suffered by thew' selves. My Lords, I place my confidence in the preamble of the Bill, and in the declaration—particularly in the dr claration—as I conceive that no honest man can take that declaration in any other sense than in a promise to support the interest of the Established Church. My Lords, thin declaration, by setting forth the inviolability of the Church' does more public good to the Establishment than any other enactment. I repeat, then, that I shall give nil support to the Bill, on the ground of its preamble and de claration. I Lord ELDON, after a few moments, was heard to sap that be did not think it consistent with his sense of the importance of the question before their Lordships, to g ive a silent vote on it—that is, to confine himself to merely saying not content. To him it nay most grievous, and occasioned much pain, to witness what labour had been used by some persons in insisting on the principle that the Established Church was inseparable from the State_that it formed part of the Constitution—and that no body could destroy the c onnection between the Church and State with out destroying the Constitution. The Roman Catholics were in the habit of saying, that they were unj u stly de priced of the benefits of the Constitution. Now if the}' would say that their object was to secure the benefits of the Constitution, and not to alter the Constitution, he would come to issue with them at once on that point. It gave hint particular satisfaction to think, that in opposing the repeal of the Test Acts, lie was supporting the origii nal intention of their enactment. Their Lordships hall learned that though this measure was at first manfully o r posed in the other House, yet these who opposed it ti lt!' mately acquiesced in it. To be sure there was a strong majority in its favour; but then, though there may some elsewhere who thought it consistent with their o ven interests to give up the interests of the State, acid thitt against their own opinions and in compliance with the, opinions o f a ma j or ity, th a t was no reason w hy h e (Loll' Eldon) or their Lordships, should yield up their opinion to. the majority of the other House of Parliament; on th e contrary, he felt it to he his duty, or that of any other Peer, to art on their own conscientious conviction, sY e : even though they had a majority of their Lordship s House against them. lie bad heard much of th e march of mind and the progress of information, and of per' sons changing opinions which they had held for years b e- a , fore; but he did not think it p oss ibl e th e marc h o f min could have been so speedy as to induce some of the change ° of opinions which he had witnessed in some NobloLort o within the last year—least of all did he expect that such