The Sun. — London, England, 1828-02-27 00:00:00

.( Intare no Scatcbman could serve in the army or nary o: es... the country? I can assure my Hon. Friend, unties, his information is quite positive to the contrary, that his Majesty's Government .are not in the least degree dispo sed to exclude 'the natives of Scotland from military or naval service. At this moment I have been thirty-two veers a Member of this House, and I now hear, for the . first time, the repeal of these Acts called for. It is, in {lced, nearly forty years since this question was agitated in Parliament. That fact alone is sufficient proof that the evil cannot be very severe. But it is said this is a good ' • - rearm for the petitioners. They were in total silence durin g these forty years, because they were years of alarm • au:el:danger, when we were threatened with foreign invasion. . During the progress of the war, we are told, the Diesen tire had no disposition to trouble Parliament with a di.s, as _ •- • idea adds sort. Is this really a correct statement? Does my lion- Friend, know•o little of the history of the last forty •. •yeare—of the last thirty years, at least—that he is ignorant :during that period another question precisely analogous to • this, relative to the principle of civil disqualification on ac count of religious dissent, has occupied more of the time ' of 'Parliament, created more excitement, and produced • - longer and more violent debates, than any. question that '44i. ever was discussed; that it has led to more bitter dissen sions in public life, and more strongly divided in opinion . all the great men who have lived during" that period, and even set the two Houses of Parliament in opposition to each other, and that once, if not more than once, it has • deposed the country of the most powerful Administra tion that ever guided the councils of the Crown.—(Hear, Lear, hear.)—l, say, that if my Hon. Friend thinks that the danger of discussing .thie question has led the Protestant Dissenters for forty years to he silent, he has not taken a well-founded view of the history of the cowl , try. lam quite certain, on she other hand, that the per . eons to whom I allude, the 'very respectable petitioners whose cause is now before the House, and with whose acute, intelligent, and elevated minds I am well acquainted, • are remarkable for their steady pursuit of any object which they endeavour to attain. Is it to be believed, then, that . they who are so well disposed, and so fairly entitled, .. to stand honourably in the eyes of the public, would have rernairled for forty years perfectly quiescent, if they had been suffering grievances of an intolerable character : On the Contrary, ought we not to believe that they were •-• under the actual practice of the law, and impartially en. ....keyed all the -benefits of the British Constitution ? I • •well ,recollect the debate in 1791, though I was not thou a Member of the House. During the long pe riod that has followed, what hare we seen ? The decision of the question at that time has been attended with the best possible results. All those peculiar distinctions which for merly existed have gradually abated. All the relations of society have been brought closer. together, and all its moyelnents rendered more accordant and harmonious.— (Cheers.) lam bound to say, that in comparing the efforts, of the different classes who have contributed to this happy result, none merit a larger share of praise than the Members and Minister's of the Established Church. None, I say, have been so forward in contributing to this happy result ; and as they were the first to promote it, so I trust and believe they will he the last to interrupt it.—(Cheers.) I will now tell the Noble Lord. why I regret that he has brought forward4is motion. . It has, at least, a tendency to interrupt that spirit of concord and harmony which now happily prevails. It is attended by the danger of retracing that line of demarkation which was . almost obliterated by time. Mutual forbearance and reciprocal good-will had Pearly worn out those lines, which could no longer be dis . tingniehed as separating the different members of the Pro . testant Communion .of this country. On this ground I 3 4114 „and lam ready to state again, that I do feel great regret that this motion:has on. this occasion, without any urgent or peculiar necessity, been brought forward.— No Hon. Gentleman who Las observed the course of my • public life, or done me the honour to attend to what I have at differente.iines said on subjects of this nature, can sup -pose that I am a friend to the principles of religious teats, with reference to the enjoyment of, civil rights. I am no : ' • friend to that principle—(Cheers from both sides of the. • " No use .) It is equally ag a i ns t th e i nterests o f mora li ty, s the interests of pure religion, and theainterests of the Eats • 'dished Church and the country. should be glad to see all tents and qualifications removed ; but when I have laid this down as a general principle, I must add, that when ' We com e to the consideration of so momentous a subject,. With a view to.Pratical legislation, we are bound to look at all the interests involved, and at the time during which ~ th e existing system has .continued;. and when I look at this question as a whole, I am not prepared to deal with it as the Noble Lord advisee me, for after all I have heard, I mutt consider this, not indeed as an imaginary grievance, but certainly as a very secondary evil, and not to be put in comparison by the side of that great question which in flicts so many real hardships on numerous classes of our '• fellow-subjects, and is intimately connected with the best interests of the State, to their great.disativantage and de •• triment.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Look at that question :as a whole, and in that point of, view it cannot be, severed from considerations of vast magnitude, as to the prosperity of the United Kingdom, and especially as to the strength and security of the Enepire.--(Cheere.)—l teel that in the view lam-mow stating, I do not stand with the authority of ettch.great names as the Noble Lord quoted on opening the debate ; but I say that this is the view which was ' taken of this subject by the greatest Minister this country ever had, and,the most enlightened Statesman of the age, e--(hear, hear,)-e.whose views and counsels on this, as on all other occasions, I shall, as far as I can trace them, be proud and happy to follow—l mean Mr. Pitt.— (Cbeers.)—ln proof of what I assert, I request the Hon. Gentleman to look at the Correspondence recently pub - lished, which took place in 1801 between Mr. Pitt, then --Prime Minister, and the late King. They will then see • how anxious he was to modify the laws called the Test ' — aed, Corporation Acts ; but anxious as he was to modify those laws, he was still more anxious to deal with that greater subject, the Catholic Question. Mn Pitt" thought that when that question *as settled, the fit opportunity. • would have arrived to consider all these minor and subor dinate questions ; and then, and not till then, would he 'have merged all existing religious tests into some propevly devised civil teats and securities for the protection and de fence of the Con.stitution.—(lleax, hear.)—Haying re ferred to this correspondence, I Cannot refrain from re turning my thanks to those who .have given it to the world,—( Hear, henr.)—with this impression, Sir, I thank them, not only on behalf of myself, but also of the cause which that correspondenc e is calculated to support ; but I not only look at it as. a public record, but as a tesei mony of the sincerity of the Statesman—(Cheers)—and now that the letters have been published, I trust that we shall never again hear, eithe r in this House, or in any other place, that this was an evanescent scin tillation, which suddenly flashed across the mind ,of - ; ll that great man.—(Loud cheers. )--I trust we .shall no longer hear that he was unwilling to give . the subject a fixed shape, or to follow it up by a definite refer • once to principle.---(Cheers.)—Sir, it is because I feel anxious for the success of that principle, and because I think the present discussion is not likely to advance it, that 1 express my dissent to the motion of the Noble Lord—and I tell him that I honestly regret it has taken place. I con-. eider that t h e consequenc e of this measure, with reference • to the principle of which 1 have just been speaking, must be that it will rather retrograde than advance by it. The great object in leaving these laws untouched, appears ,to have been that the supremacy of the Established Church might be recognised. But if we vote for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, what become s of this general rule? It will stand as nothing; for the moment ,that we • consent to that Repeal, we shall create an exception, • and the Catholics alone will be the sufferers.— (Hear, hear.)--The general rule that has been made will . cease to exist, and its application will be le velled and directed against the Catholics alone. We shall create in th etn a di s ti ngu i s hing and invidious excepti on ,. • wher e th ey now on l y f orm a par t ; and I, therefore, a p _ • peal to th ose w h o, lik e myse lf, are anxious for the success of the C a th o li c Cl a i ms, w h et h er , by making this cha nge ,in favour of the Protestant Dissenters, we shall not be, i n • impresNion at least, giving our countenance and support to those who seem desirous of contending: that the Catholics are not excluded as non--conformists, but as upholders and • dieeiples of the See of Rome, and thereby introduce the 'principle of a divided allegiance.—(Hear, hear.) —I must eonfeats that i for one, am n o t p repare d t o make that tn preesion with respect to that important question, • more • especially u as I am f ully satisfied that such an i mpress ion t be, u nfavourable to the class with whom it will have most weight. butLenrd JOHN RUSSELL said something across the table so low a voice as not to reach the Gallery. Mr. . HUSK ISSON continued —Whatever 'may be the opinion of, the N o bl e• Lord, I think I know a little about the state of feelin g as well 1 • and I can tell him that there is something a ; revolting to to one's feelings, in c ontinuing the law by which the first Peer and the first Doke of the Realm is required to forfeit his privileges and his rights, at the very tim e that we are displaying our . liberality, by attempting to relieve excisemen from the disadvantages under which they labour ; and, for the obtaining of which, I subscribe one day' s pay. do not b e li ev e they would can tell the Noble Lord A. that. I feel satisfied if this question should be carried, •he will find—•l do not mean to say among the , well-educated part of the Protestant Dissenters, but among the .greatest proportion of that body--an addi . tional and more vigorous opposition to the Catholic Ques tion. Will the ,Nisble Lent deny, that in this country there are many, nay, even a majority, of persons who, most conscientiously entertain the greatest apprehensions of the consequences, should the Roman Cathoiies be admitted into Parliament, and to the enjoyment of other civil .rights? And I should like also to ask the Noble Lord if those laws which particularly exclude the Catholics—if the oath against transubstantiation and of supremacy. were to be repealed, so as to admit all their rights—whether in this case it would opt be the desire of ,some of the Pro testant Diasenters,_ that at least the same guard should be continued in dealing with the Catholics as had been setup in their case ; vi 2 ,. that Government should still have the power and check.sif the Bill of Indemnity? I do not say that this is the manner in which I wish this question to rest for ever; but I do think that if it be moved previous to the introduction of the Catholic Question, the necessary consequence must be, that it will raise new enemies and new obstacles.—(Hear, hear.) Let Hon. Gentlemen re collect that the Tot Act had.been passed specially to guard us against the Catholics; and, therefore, as long as the ex periment has not been fairly tried, we might naturally feel desirous to guard ourselves against risks by that check : which, it is to be observed, we are not obliged to make use of, unless we apprehend that the object for which it is to provide is in some danger of being realised. I there fore confess that I am not prepared to part with this secu rity at present, especially as I think that while at present it can do no harm, the possibility may arise of its being of service. I own that when I remember that four years ago the Parliament passed an Act for the admission of Roman Catholics into all the offices of the revenue, from the very highest to the very lowest, I am still further in duced to come to the conclusion, that the present applica tion of the prineiple is likely to retard any further conces *ion. It is with these views that I am not prepared to grant the Noble Lord the motion he has brought forward, though at the same time I feel anxious to do justice to the able manner in which he has brought his measure for ward ; and I am sure, that if the discussion of this mea sure shall lead to irritation out of doors, it will be from the nature of the case, which it is impossible to avoid, and not from the manner in which it has been brought for- Ward.—(Hear, hear. )—I beg pardon for having detained the House so Jong in the expression of my opinions ; but I felt that I could not do otherwise, especially as I consi dered that the sentiments contained in Mr. Pitt'e letters required to be noticed, and that it was a duty which I could not avoid, saying as much as I have done on the effects they are likely to produce.—(Hear, hear. ) Lord ALTHORP said, that if he understood the true principle of a free Constitution, it was that the general rule existed, that no one was to be excluded from any of his civil rights on account of his religious principles.— (Hear, hear.)—He, therefore, thought, that if this princi ple was to be recognised in the present case, the onus pro ' bandi was on the adversaries of the present measures-.... and not only on those who were de,irous of placing a re straint on men on account of their religious sentiments, but also on those who were for supporting these restraints which already existed.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) had said, that he was unwilli ng t o ad mit that every person had an equal right to power ; but though he (Lord Althorp) perhaps was . not prepared t o say that every person had an equal right to power, he was at least quite sure that every one had a right to an equal capability for power.—(Hear, hear.)—lle therefore thought, that unless the Hon. Baronet was prepared to show that such admission to power was likely to be dan gerous to,the State, it would be the duty of the House— the duty of the Legislature, to put all classes of persons on an equal footing--(Loud cries of Hear.)—The Ho nourable Baronet said that the existence of these laws was necessary for the protection of the Established Church. That the Established Church ought to be supported he was quite ready to admit : indeed no one could reverence that Establishment more than he did; and, therefore, that its funds should be appropriated to one particular sect lee should be the last to deny; but beyond this, he did not see that it was necessary to the support of the Established Church that all other sects should be disqualified from a participation, in an equality of rights and privileges.— (Hear.)—The Hon. Baronet had said, that he should be the last man to interfere with the right of all men to ex ercise their religious worship, in whatever way seemed to ro am most proper; and had appeared ,to take merit to himself that he admitted the principle of toleration. He (Lord Althorp) had certainly never expected in the pre sent day—in the nineteenth century—when men's opini ons were expanding and developing—he had never ex pected to bear any Hon. Member pluming himself upon his liberality in admitting the principle of toleration.— (Cheers.) —But if the acknowledgment of this principle was so great a thing, what would the refusal of it be ? It would be the most unjustifiable tyranny !—it would be imprisonseent—(hear, hear)—it would be confisca tion—(hear, hear)—it would be murder—(hear, hear. ) A Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), had stated, that the evils of the present Act, were of a very trifling nature ;—the Right Hon. Gentleman was for admitting that the principle of the Act was merely conventional— that the reasons for supporting the Bill were simply theo retical, as it was, in fart, virtually repealed every year; but he would by no means admit that it embodied any practical grievance.—(Hear.)—But be (Lord Althorp) contended that what was kept to hang over the heads of so large a body was, in fact, a practical grievance—( Hear) ; and he contended too that it was a practical grievance to the Church of England.—(Hear, hear.)—Was there any one in that House who would pretend to say that the pro fanation of religion was not a practical evil.—(Hear, hear ?)—Was there any one in that House who would say that the holding out an inducement to men to take oaths, in which they did not believe, was not a practical evil.— (Hear, hear ?)—The Church of England proclaimed that she was not at hostility with her neighbours, while the law assured them that every one who took office was guilty of a violation of its edicts.—(Hear, hear.)—Those who were accustomed to look lightly at such matters might think that these things were no evil, but be was slot one of those who could regard such matters with levity, and it therefore gave him much pain to see such points sanctioned by the law , and laid open to the grossest abuses. Without tres passing further on the House, it was for these reasons that he intended to support : the motion of the Noble Lord. Lord NUGENT thought this question of the utmost im •portance; and it was not only felt to he so by bins, but there were many in the country who, though they did not express their opinions with turbulence, felt deeply on the .subject, and looked with the utmost anxiety to the decision of that night. He had no wish to mix the Catholic claims with this question, but he had no hesitation in avowing that he gave his public support to both measures on the same great principle. (Hear, hear.) But though this was the case with respect to himself, the two questions were as independent of each other as any two that could be started ; and therefore he could not see, though he had attentively listened to the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, how, after the support that he had contended ought to be given to the principle of the measure, he could reconcile it to himself to vote against the measure itself. (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to persuade the House that this question stood in the way of the Ca tholic Claims, and had applied to him (Lord Nugent) for confirmation of his statement. An answer to that applica• ti oil he would give in one word. The Right Hen. Gen tleman had laid the question before him—lee had called upon him to vote, aye or no, whether he thought the Test and Corporation Acts were founded iu justice or in injustice. That being the question submitted to him for decision, how could he take into consideration what stood in the way as extraneous matter ? He held those Acta to be unjust and oppressive, and therefore, as he had already said, one weld would convey his answer—(Cheers.) —For his own part, he did not at all feel that he should be retardhag the Catholic Question by giving his vote for -the repeal of the. Test and Corporation Acts. So far from doing injury to the Catholics, the conceding of the claims of one party must necessarily lead to the conceding ,of the claims of the other. But the Right Hon. Gentleman also seemed to consider that the grievances of the Pro testant Dissenters were in some sort theoretical—he did not, however, see how those grievances were any more theoretical than the grievances of the Catholics : he did not know that their being excluded from Parliament, and Irons certain offices, presented any grievance to the great body of the C a th o li cs , excep t i n thi s res p ec t— t h at t h oug h they might not individually feel that they were restrained from those privileges, they must, nevertheless, always have the recollection that the law marked, them as belonging to a class which was ineligible to hold office;—(Hear)—and be thought, that that man must know very little of reli gion who did not kno w th at i n a f re e country like thi s such a restriction as that must have a very pernicious effect;—(Hear, hear)—he thought that that man must know very little of human nature who did not see what a vast difference there was bet ween h o ldi ng a pr i v il ege as a freehold right , t o which lie, in common with all others, was born, and as a precariou s t enure enc l ose d f rom thee vast waste of the Legislature.. Was, this restriction a theoretical grievance, when it niacin a man f ee l that he was sitting under an incapacitation front inheriting or be queathing property ?—(llear)—that h e was s i tt i ng un d er an incap ac it a ti on from acting as a guardi an ?—(llear.) Was th a t res t r i c ti o n theoretical which degraded the parent in the eyes of his child—the master in the eyes of his servant—the citizen in the eyes of his fellow -citizen.— (Hear, hear.)—How was this theory? And yet all this hanging over their heads by the thread of the Indemnity Bill, of which Lord North, in PM, had said, that it en abledeany Dissenter to avail himself of the pretext of indi vidual guilt, or of mental fraud, i❑ abuse of the Act of Par liament. He thought that the Noble Lord (Lord J. lins sell) had clearly shown, not only what effects the measure must have on the Dissenters themselves, but also the in convenience that must be felt on all sides by its continu ance.—(Hear, hear.)--It was not because the Dissenters differed from the Established Church on doctrinal points —it was not because'the Dissenters were likely to produce dissension in that House, that they were thought to be dan gerous. If they were dangerous, it was in a very different sense that they were so. If the Church was in danger it shoUld employ itselfin reconciling those who now reminded it of the difficulties in which they were placed. If the Church thought it was likely to suffer by those difficulties, he could tell it, that the most likely way to do away with them was by reconciling the differences which now existed. e.-(Hear, hear.) He did riot.wish to trouble the House any further, after the very great display afforded it by the Noble Lord who had brought forward the question. One point, however, in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech he would just mention, as he bad brought it forward as a reason for refusing the motion. He had contended, that because for thirty-eight years the Dissenters had remained quiet, and suffered in silence, therefore it was not ne cessary now to do any thing for them.—(Hear, hear.) These were not exactly the Right Hon. Gentleman's words lie knew ; but the purport of what he had said, had certainly been, that bemuse they had never complained it was not necessary that their grievances should be remedied. (Hear, hear.) What would be thought of such an argu ment as this by the seven millions of Catholics in Ireland, anxiously waiting to know what would become of this great question? Was this a sentiment to be sent abroad in Ireland, and to be commented on there previous to the de cision of their own question? He trusted that such a posie tion would not go forth unanswered, and that it would never appear to the world as the opinion of that House. With respect to the motion of the Noble Lord, he most cor dially supported it; first, because he considered that the law, as it now:stood,wiee a profanation of religion ; secondly, because he thought that the laws,as they now existed on this question, were calculated to set up a religious party against the State ; and thirdly, because he thought that these laws would give to the proudest, if not to the beet, feelings of the human heart, an additional cause for non-conformity. Lord MILTON, during the progress of that night's discussion, had entertained a great, and he trusted not an impertinent, curiosity as to the ground on which any op position that might appear would be rested.--(Hear, bear. ) —With respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech (a speech which, he begged leave:to say, had not seemed to him to lee like some of those which lie has made in explanation of the cosnmercial policy and regulation which he sup ported), the conclusion at which he (Mr. Huskisson) had arrived appeared at complete variance with the arguments which be had made use of in the course of it.—(Hear, hear.)—ln the beginning of his speech, the ground on which be seemed to proceed, was his great sorrow that the Noble Lord had been induced to bring forward his motion under the existing circumstances.—(Hear, hear.)—But after the Right Hon. Gentleman had dwelt for some time on these existing circumstances, the moaning of which he (Lord Milton) had been quite unable to comprehend, he at last found that what was meant by them was, that the real reason why the Right Hon. Gentleman thought fit to oppose the motion was, because, in granting these privi leges to the Dissenters, it would be standing in the way of the Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)—This certainly had not struck him with the same force as it appeared to have struck the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he would embrace that opportunity of congratulating the Roman Catholics— of congratulating the Sister Kingdom upon—not the accession of the Right Honourable Gentleman to their cause, but upon the manlier in which he had that night evinced his sincerity to their cause.—(Hear, hear.) — He should be glad to know whether the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were the arguments of Govern ment---(hear) ?—or was the House to wait for the senti ments of some other Rt. Hon. Gentleman, from whom they might pick up what was the course that Government in tended to pursue ? They had been favoured with the opinions of the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies, and he should be greatly rejoiced to hear from the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) who sat by his side, whether the Government was likely to coincide with the sentiments that had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Hus kisson). But if the Test and Corporation Acts were not to be repealed, what was to be the nature of the Test ? The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated in his speech, that for the sake of morality—for the sake of religion— for the sake of the Church of England—for the sake of the country—he wished that all Tests should be erased from the Statute Book ;—(cheers)—and then, after all this, in spite of morality—in spite of the Church of Eng land—in spite of the country—and above all, in spite of re ligion—he announced that he should oppose the motion. But, said the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Huskisson), I am unable to vote for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, because they form but the part of a great whole ; and that whole, he says further, is religious liberty. If, how ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in saying that he ought not to vote for the repeal of those Acts, because they are but the part of the whole of a great question which be wishes to carry in. Parliament, then he would say, that for the very same reason the Right Mon. Gentleman ought not to vote for the Catholic Question until the House was prepared to concede the demands of the Dissenters---( Hear. ) The House had already heard the origin of these Acts against the Dissenters. They were passed in the hey-day of the joy of those times which succeeded the Restoration of Charles the Second. But even then they were very warmly debated in that House ; and they would not have passed if the famous and ingenious Lord Chancellor of that day (Lord Clarendon) had not come down with what might be called a Green Bag—(a laugh)—that clever Statesman came down with a Green Bag, containing what he called a Plot of the Dissenters to overturn the Monarchy, and under the rumour of that Plot the House consented to pass the Corporation Act. The Dissenters were not in this country of the highest rank in so. ciety. He meant to say, not generally of the highest rank. Those who dissented from the Established Church were, for the most, of the middle classes, at least so the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) seemed to consider them ; and because they were so, he attempted to argue that they were not subjected to any great grievance in being excluded from certain offices of importance by the operation of these Acts. But he would ask, was it no grievance in a country town for a man to be excluded from the situation of an Alderman, merely because he dissented from the Established Church ? The possession of the gown of an Alderman was a matter of as much importance to the grocer or the linen-draper of a country town as any of the honours which were created or obtained by those in more exalted stations—(Near, hear, and a laugh)—and he con tended that the Right Hon. Gentleman was reasoning on very false premises, when he said that the Dissenters suf fered no practical grievance, It was no more unphiloso phical for some Mr. Tomkins or Thompson, to feel a desire to become an Alderman.--(Loud laughter.)—(The unin tentional mention of the name of Thompson on this occa sion, excited a good deal of amusement, the Worthy Alder man of that name being seated immediately opposite to the Noble Lord.)—He repeated the assertion, that it was no more unphilosophical for a Dissenter of the middle classes to desire to become an Alderman, and to rise to the enjoy ment of civic honours, than it was in any one of the Hon. Members of that House to feel an ambition to fill one of the highest offices of the State.—(Hear, hear, bear.)--The Noble Lord then proceeded to show the grievances pro duced to the Dissenters in every class of life by the operation of the Sacramental Test, and observed upon the necessity of such persons as Excisemen being coin pelted to attend the Quarter Sessions in order to qualify themselves to act in their office. /3.2 knew very well, that in some counties there might be found Dissenters who were Magistrates —nay, be could find Catholics too who were Magistrates, and absolved from the consequences of their situation by the Annual Indemnity 'Act. But although Dissenters and Catholics were thus to be found in the Commission in some counties under the protection of the Indemnity Act, he knew a county, in which a Dissenting Magistrate made some orders, and his brother Magistrates having objected to his acting as a Magistrate, because they knew him to be a Dissenter, the orders were abandoned.— (Mr. Brougham, we believe, here observed, that the orders were good.) Yes, contiuued the Noble Lord, I admit they were good ; but as his brother Magistrates objected to the execution of his authority, he did not press the admission of the orders. This was what he considered a very great practical grievance. He could even say there were men in his own county (York), who refused to act as Magis trates, even with the protection of the Indemnity Act ; and, therefore, under every circumstance, it must be admitted that a state of law which prevented gentlemen of for tune and character, no matter upon what considera tions, from filling stations of importance to the adminis tration of the laws, and to the peace and welfare of their neighbours, must be considered a great prac tical grievance. He saw, however, how matters stood upon this question ; but, notwithstanding all the array of the Household Troops, he hoped the House would go along with his Noble Friend in considering the time to be arrived when this grievance was to be abated. He said, Household Troops, because he saw on the opposite Benches, a number of new faces.-e-(Heer, bear, and a laugh.) Some he bad not seen in that House 'for a long time before, and some which he was very seldom in the habitofseeing in their places. If he was not very much mistaken, he thought h e mightsay, that the. House presented very much the appear- ance it generally assumed when there had been what is commonly, called a "whip."—(Hear, and a laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman. had assumed, in one part of' his speech, that because the Dissenters had been silent fur the last thirty years, therefore it must be supposed that they did not consider. themselves labouring under any great practical grievance. Now, it did seem a little bard to him, that because the Dissenters, in times of trouble and national difficulty, had abstained from harassing the Government, or crippling the Executive, by pressing forward with their complaints, the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were now to turn round and say, "you have been silent for eight-and-twenty years under what you call your grievances, and therefore you cannot have any grievances at all."—(Hear, hear, hear.) (The Right Honourable Gentleman had observed that there was nothing- in the grievances of which the Dissenters complained, that could he found worth the excitement and the dissension which the agitation of the question must produce. He, however, was prepared to contend that the Right Hon. Gentleman had produced the dissension and excitement, by the few words he had addressed to the House. That speech had been the first signal for exciting dissension. Not one syllable had fallen from the Noble Lord (Russell), or any of .those Members who took a part in the debate, until that period, which could in the slightest degree create any dissensions, or excite any angry feelings. When, how ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman spoke, the dissension arose. When men begin to talk in a tone of irritation, then irritation comes. He however, thanked the Dissenters for the silence they had observed, although it was one of the Right Hon. Gentleman's objections. He wished, however, while he praised their silence on this occasion, that be could .give them praise for their silence upon some other topics. After some observations upon the remarkable fact of the absence. of all petitions from the Ministers of the Estab lished Church against the. Claims of the Dissenters, and after drawing from that absence of any petition the con clusion that they at least felt no danger to 'the existing order of things from the repeal of the Test Act, the Noble I Lord concluded by expressing a hope that the House would consent to that repeal...--(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUSKISSON, in explanation, observed, that the Noble Lord misrepresented the opinion he expressed upon the condition of the Dissenters. He admitted, expressly, that they contained in their body some of the most learned, respectable, and exalted characters in this country. Mr. Secretary PEEL then rose and addressed the House to the following effect :—Sir, it was my intention, from the commencement of this discussion, not to defer to a late hour of the night those observations which I shall take the ' liberty to submit to the House, upon the motion of the I Noble Lord. Ira the course of thevery able and very temperate speech which was delivered by the Noble Lord, he did ap peal personally to me, Sir, not as an individual Member of this House—not even as a Minister of the Crown, but as a Representative in Parliament of the University of Ox ford. The Noble Lord so appealed to me, for the pur pose of ascertaining what were my opinions in the caps- ' city of Representative of that University. upon some of I those important points which he entered into in the course of his address to the House.—(Hear, hear.)-1 ! beg to state to the Noble Lord, that I am not instructed and have not been required by the University to deliver any opinions upon their behalf, on this subject. I have not been called upon to submit any propositions upon the matter, nor have, I repeat, any instructions been trans mitted to me which should fetter my own views, or govern my own conduct on this occasion. I have no right to infer from the measures they have pursued, that they are actuated by any feeling but an entire confidence hr the wisdom of this House. At the same time, Ihaveno right to infer, in the slightest degree, the acquiescence of that distinguished body in the motion of the Noble Lord, from the silence which they have deemed it proper to observe. I apprehend that there has existed no intention nor any desire upon their part to fetter me in any way, or to bind my judgment as to the course that I should adopt in the present instance. It is, therefore, Sir, that I approach the discussion of this subject, unshackled by any other considerations than those which attach to its real merits; and I think, indeed I am confident, that I have never taken any course upon any question in which the feelings or the interests of the Dissenters have been concerned, which could be supposed to prejudice the opinion which I should ultimately form. I believe no question has been ever brought under the consideration of this House affecting the peculiar notions and belief of Dissenters to which I have not given the utmost attention, and oc casionally ray support ; and I would witness the Dissenters' Marriage Bill of the last Session.—(Hear, hear.) But I do trust, Sir, that, notwithstanding the explanations which I have thus given, I may still be at perfect liberty to discuss the various views which present themselves to my mind on this occasion, without subjecting my self to the imputation of hostility or bigotry._ ; And lore, Sir, I would entreat the Noble Lord to consider a little the very material difference between the situations in which we respectively stand. He enters upon this sub jest without any responsibility but that which he owes to his own conscience and his constituents. But the Minister of the Crown, Sir, is bound to look further, to take larger views aod to be swayed by more extensive considerations. Let me entreat the Noble Lord to bear in mind, that this question, like many of the grounds upon which the Catholic Question is frequently argued, has not so great a weight of favourable support from the predominant portion of those eminent and gifted men, who have at various times, illuminated and adorned the councils of this country. Ac cording.to the admissions of the Noble Lord himself, this question has been the subject of Parliamentary discussion at various periods during the last eighty-five years. cording to that Noble Lord, Lord Stanhope in the begin ning of the reign of George I. being Prime Minister, had endeavoured to procure the repeal of these Acts, and had failed. Sir Robert Walpole, after him, was favourable to the same question upon principle; but he never could suc ceed in carrying it. Lord Chatham, who was Prime Minister of this country, certainly took no pre judiced or unfavourable view of the claims of the Dissenters; and yet, during his Administration, no thing material was done in their favour. Lord North, who was also Prime Minister, was unquestionably a mostzealous opponent of this question ; and although there was much in the circumstances of those times which might justify his extreme hostility, 1 am rather disposed merely to say, that the failure of the question under his Govern ment strengthens the argument which I have been endea vouring to raise as to the public feeling in times past upon this question. To these names I might add that of Mr. Pitt, and, I presume, I might safely refer to his speeches in 1789 and 1790, because they show what were the opinions of that great man upon questions involving all those 'great principles which enter into the discussion of this night. Those opinions were distinctly pronounced, both on the question of abstract right, and also of the re peal of tire Test and Corporation Acts. 'With respect to Mr. Canning, Sir, the Noble Lord has said, that no de clareion has yet been made of the intentions of the present Government; and that no possit.iiity exists of ascertaining how they are disposed to this question. .I beg the. Noble Lord to bear in mind, thet during the last Session of Par liament, Mr. Canning, without entering into any question of abstract right. but merely from a view of the expe. diency of concession to the Roman Catholics—Mr. Can ning, from this very place from which I now speak, de • dared it to be his intention, and that of the Administra tion, of which he was the bead—(Several Members— ! " No, no," and other expressions of dissent)—well then, I may be mistaken, but at a 11 events he declared in his capacity of Prime Minister of the Crown—and on his per sonal authority I am entitled at least to say, that it was his intention'to refuse, for the present, the acquiescence of the Government. To the names of these Ministers I must also add the name of Mr. Burke. Unquestionably, he founded his objection on rather temporary views. (Cheers.) I am sure I had no wish to over-state the matter, and therefore I mention the fact precisely as it occurred. He rigid that if he had been asked ten years before, be would h ave voted for it ; but then, in 1790, he thought he saw sufficient danger to the Established Church or the Consti tution to warrant him in refusing it his support. I say again, therefore, that the authority to be cited in favour of this proposed repeal is by no means so decisive or important as that which is to be adduced on other subjects in which parties as numerous at least as the Dissenters have been equally interested. I say that a man may withhold his concurrence without any feeling of disregard for, or disre spect to, a large class of his fellow-citizen,, with whom he w i s hes to live on terms of friendship and respect. He may desire to retain a particular system of laws of this kind without any reasonable imputation upon his motives—he may entertain his own views of such a subject. There are many parts of that subject, the sacramental test for in stance, which certainly called for our earnest and most serious attention. I should scorn myself, Sir, if for the sake of gainin g any advantage in the debate of this night, I were to conceal from the House the real difficulties that present themselves to my own apprehension. Much has been said about this sacramental test. I think an Hon. Friend of mine who spoke from this side of the House, al though his speech excited something like a little sneer, did take quite a proper view of this point, I agree with him, that when this test was originally required, nothing like dese 7 oration or profanation was considered to be connected with it, esies.s..eit, ti. . -0‘ • - • either by these who imposed the test, or th e Die tntere who took it. In point of fact,- at that time of day it was required of almost every man before he took office, that he should have taken the Sacrament three times within a giv en previous period—within a year. Up to that time I be lieve that so slight was the notion that this test involved a horrible insult upon the religions feelings and profession@ of the Dissenters, that one of the greatest ornaments they could ever boast (the celebrated Baxter) declared his opi nion that there was nothing in the service of the Church the certificate o f h av i ng taken of England,. in the admi n i s t rat i on o f t h e sacrament, which should prevent Dissenters from communicati ng w i t h her members. In 1718, when D ean Sh er l oc k invited them to completely ex h auste d at the in s t ance of Mr. lileaufoy, qualification t itself; and the controversy which was carried o n b e t ween theef o o r r n taking m sacrament u nc a o t ffi e c a we c , c a os although r dhißni consideredegi hs l h y o , p i could owbtaneda sibae dey aus nuft: ece dide noy qualification not he the subject. test aalDnni all a d ; n7h s u eBB b 7a s e q h'regirnu u l om e te n hek t e2 l y tf7 i n rawdt l p 7 l B ace 9 and d 1790, Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt and other of the ablest men in the country, exhausted every thing which could be urged on this subject. I am quite willing to admit, that if the state of this country at the present time, in respect of the sa.. erasnental test, was as it was when that t est was originally instituted, and considering for a moment how much both the object and effect of that sacramental test have since varied—l am quite willing to admit and do think that to make the taking of it a qualification for minor offices, as well' as more important ones, low as well as high, would be . met by objections not to be surmounted. But I beg again to remind the Noble Lord, that the pass ing of the Annual Indemnity Bill in these times saves us from these objections, however strong they be; that now, though the principle may still be bad and ill-founded, the practical result is not a grievance of the character which it has been attempted to represent to be; and my Right Hon. Friend has demonstrated this position, for, in speaking as to the practical part of the matter, he has shown that in one considerable county only twenty-three members of the Church of England, within a consider able period, have taken the sacrament, in order to qualify for office.—(Hear, hear.) So much, Sir, has been said on this subject, that, with a view to the information of the House, and that it may not be misled, I shall beg to state one or two facts well worthy of the attentive consideration of Parliament. lam not prepared to go the length of arguing that these Acts are essentially interwoven with, and necessary to, the security of the Established Church--(cheers)--as being so essential to them, in short, that without them the Church must fall. Still, Sir, I can not close my eyes to the consequences which may ensue from their repeal. The principles upon which I must con sider those Acts are the same, with the exception of their bearing on the Roman Catholic question, which I shall exclude from the present discussion altogether, as I should apply to any general legal inquiries of this character. Now I am bound to add, that I do take the same view as my Right Hon. Friend of the principles on which the Noble Lord's motion should be discussed. I think my Right Hon. Friend has put this point on a correct footing. He says, is there that great pervading grievance in the admi nistration of this test—that insult on the feelings of the Dissenters which calls for this relief, and requires that we should not let the existing usage continue? Or is there any thing so absurd in these tests, as should induce us im mediately to repeal them, on the notion that if we do effect such repeal, we shall be in a much better situa- tion than we were before ? As to the practical griev ance to the Dissenters, I must be permitted to say that there has been much exaggeration in the statement of it. But if it could be supposed that the Dissenters might en joy the rights from which they are said to be excluded, wi'l perfect security to the Church of England establishment, I should be very strongly inclined to vote far the repeal. We have been referred, Sir, to the number of petitions which have been presented on this subject very recently, as evi dence of the state of the Dissenters' feelings throughout the country. Now, if I were satisfied that these petitions had proceeded quite spontanenusly from the parties, and had not been called up by any external influence or agency, I should attribute a great deal more of effect and im portance to them than I do. I complain not of the ope ration of this external agency which has been put in mo tion by every possible means that could be devised ; but I do complain of it in so far as it affects the question as to their impression on the subject of insult and profana tion in the practical application of these Acts. If it be a grievance, no doubt nothing can be more unfair or im proper than to allege the forbearance of the Dissenters as a reason why we should refuse their prayer for relief. I did not understand my Right Hon. Friend so to put the point at all; he merely relied upon the silence of peti tioners to infer, that they have not felt these insults and grievances so much and so acutely as has been represented. Now, surely, Sir, if the present num ber of petitions is relied on as a proof of how general and deep this idea of a grievance is—is not the absence of such petitions in past periods a proof that no such grievance was felt; if this year we are to have six hun dred petitions for the repeal, and if last year we had a thousand, which numbers are said to be conclusive on the subject—l am naturally induced to inquire what has been the case in this respect in former years? I have had the curiosity to inquire what has been the number of petitions for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts during the last ten years preceding the last year ; and, certainly, until I beard the debate this night, I had no notion how little in accordance with the impression which Hon. Gentlemen have endeavoured to create is the state of these numbers. The years in which the greatest number of petitions on this head appear to have been presented, within• a period of ten years last past, were these :—ln 1821, there were four; in 1825, one; in 1820, one; in 1817, not one; nor yet in 1818 ; nor yet in 1819 ; nor in 1821. 1822, nor 1823—50 that the whole number of petitions presented in favour of a repeal of these Acts during the last tea years, preceding the last year, was but six, and no more. In 1813, Mr. Grattan passed a Bill in this House, for the removal of civil disabilities of Roman Catholic Dissenters ; that Bill, Sir, which opened offices to Roman Catholics, which professed to be a Bill for removing every civil ability from them, and which recapitulates every kind of grievance—that Bill, so brought in by Mr. Grattan, sub ! jected them in this country to the operation of this very Test Act, which is now described as an insult and a griev ance; and the very last Bill which was introduced in 1825, in respect of the Roman Catholics, by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster ; that Bill also removed every civil disability from the Roman Catholics, but it did not remove the 'operation of the Test Act from such Dissenters, and left the Roman Catholic liable to the same obligation in respect of that Test as he was before ; and this appeared from the preamble of the Bill itself. The preamble of the Bill brought in for the relief of the Catholics by the Hon. Bart. (Sir F. Burdett) in 1825, did not make any provision for the repeal of these Acts; and yet the preamble declared, that the object of the Bill was to cast into oblivion all religious differences, and knit together all classes of Isis Majesty's subjects. This was the preamble of the Hon. Baronet's (Sir F. Burdett's) Bill, which was to " keit together" all classes, of his Majesty's subjects, and yet there was a total omission of this question ; and this very point was put to the supporters of the Bill. It was put to Mr. Canning, and his answer will convince the Noble Lord that he is wrong in saying, that if Mr. Canning had lived to see so many petitions, he would have changed his opinion. Mr. Canning's opinion was not adopted hastily--it was not taken up or delivered in the heat of debate—hut was the result of mature reflection and experience of his own senti ments for many years. In 1825 these were the words of Mr. Canning upon the Bill then before the House, and they were acquiesced in by the Noble Lord (Lord 3. Russell.) They were uttered upon the question being raised in debate, when the Bill had net the tendency to equalize all Dissenting Religions in the State. Mr. Can ning said : " This Bill does not tend, as is imagined by the peti tioners, to equalize all religious in the state—but to equalize all the dissentingsects of religion. I am, and this Bill is, for a predominant Established Church ; and I would not, even in appearance, meddle with the laws which secure that predominance to the Church of England. I would not sanction any measure which, even by inference, could be shown to be hostile to the Establishment. But I am for the removal of that practical grievance. And in this view of the subject, what is the fact with respect to the Tirotestant Dissenters? It is this : that they labour under no practical grievance on account of their religi• ens differences from us—that they sit with us in this House, and share our Councils—that they are admissible to the offices of the State, and have, in fact, in numerous instances, been admitted to them : but they hold these privileges, subject to an annual reward, by the annual Act of Indemnity; so with the Roman Catholics., if this Bill should pass. They will he admitted only to the same privileges, and they will hold them liable to the ame condition." This must prove to the Noble Lord thet velien the Bill of 1825 was before the House Mr. Canning's opinion w a , against so great a change as a total repeal. Now, Sin with respect to the actual operation of these laws, an lion, 1 Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) has favoured us this night with an eloquent, and certainly most affecting description of its effect upon his own sect. I took down the wordy because I thought diem a fair sample' of that tent dency to inflame and exaggerate, of which I think I heal had reason to complain in the conduct of this debate.t '-* Speaking of the state oa - Scotland, with reference to eirsi offices, his ardent - sedlerced hint to use this expression, which does appear to me so much to exaggerate the fact— . " The natives of Scotland are subject in tile country to the most horrid penalties, and the state of that country can only be compared to that of a whole nation under proscrip tion. '—(Hear, and laughter.)—Now, y , I appeal t o m Hon.' Friend near me if the d escr i pt i on as to the state of his country, even with regard t o c i v il offices, as that of horrid penalties, ie a just one. In 1787, 1789, and 1790, Scotland endeavoured to snake out a pe culiar case for herself, with regard to those Acts.. In 1791, Sir Gilbert Elliot brought forward this case upon petitissn from the General Assembly. H e stated. that whatever we did with England, Scotland must be con sidered upon different grounds; she had a peculiar case of her own, and must have a debate entirely to herself; an d Sir, amongst the strongest opponents of his motion were two men, who, I am sure, would not have been found it. the opposition on that occasion,-if Scotland had really been in a state of proscription, and subject to horrid penalties-.- I mean the Lord Advocate of the day, and the late Lord. Melville. I ask the Honourable Gentleman how many petitions be has had from Scotland in support of these allege.a. grievances? I believe, Sir, not out, But if he had, should `have had a good practical answer ; and w hen he asked what we should have done but for the Scots G r ey's and the 42d shedding their best blood at Waterloo, I s a y, good God Sir, has the question of this night, whichev er way it be decided, any tendency to deprive us of such services ' (Hear, hear, hear.)—But 1 am quite sure the Honour able Gentleman did not allude to offices of th at kind, Ie looked to the higher offices of the state—and here Sir, mistaken if, e i m f, o to ut g o n f es f ti o o u n rte t e h n e lam willin g to meet him. I look at the Cabi n et, and 1 not three good Presbyterians, sustaining all the horrid m tr e u u tl ' i be o r ;th t i h s erer penalties of that painful station. __(A laugh.) —A s some state ment, I need only mention the names of Lord Melville,. Lord Aberdeen, and the Right Hon. the President of the 'Board of Trade. Ido not state this, Sir, as against that Hon. tm m ueh Gentlemenn: country—for I state, sincerely, that there is not one of the sons of that happy and favoured country—happv and favoured by their own exertions and integrity -1 sa y, Sir, that she has not a native son more anxious to promote her prosperity or advance her happiness, than the humble in dividual who now addressee you. The Noble Lord (Rus sell) speaks of the higher offices as objects of ambition. with the middling orders, just as elevation to the Peerage is to the higher. I entirely concur with him in that sen timent, and should be the last man in existence t r debar any class in the British community from the attainment of the highest honours in the State. But are the Protestant Dissenters labouring under any such exclusion ? I should like to ask the Hon. Alderman how it is in the City of London ? I am reminded, Sir, that only last year the highest dignity in that Corporation--the Mayoralty—was held by a most respectable Protestant Dissenter. Then, Sir, what are the advantages enjoyed tinder the present system ? I believe that there has been for forty years past as little religious differences as ever here were in any nation, or under any circumstances. An lion. Alderman stated yesterday, that thirty-nine years ago there were only seven persons in favour of the repeal of these Acts, but that now there were not more than two against the repeal. Now this is a strong proof that the. laws do not create discord between fellow citizens ; and i !oust say, that I should he sorry to purchase a nomiaa,. advantage in the repeal of these laws at the risk of disturb itig that harmony which at present subsists between the Church and the Dissenters. I wish to give the Establish ed Church continued possession of their nominal sopa tiority ; but if we are to have such laws, I wish the': seeration to he as slight as possible.—(Cheers.) —.And I du aesore the .loble Lord, if my side of the question shah triumph on the present occasion, the exultation that I mar feel in the momentary feeling of victory will be completele absorbed in the sorrow with which 1 shall be oppressed at the thoughts of any uneasiness that such a result may Ge t asion to a body of men for whom 1 eutertain the greatest respect, and whose conduct, on all occasions, 1 feel to be tenitled to my sincere admiration. Mr. Brougham, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. D. W. Har vey, and Sir T. D. Arland, rose at the vane time. There, were loud calls for Mr. Brougham continued for amuse time, so as to prevent any other Member from being heard. Sir T. ACLAND at length addressed the House. He said he would not have trespassed on the House bad e not been convinced that ho would have:no chance of W ag heard after his Hon. and Learned Friend. He was nrixioue to make what suggestions he had to advance, now that the House was in temper to hear them, after the conciliators' , one of his Right Hon. Friend's speech. There was one reflection growing out of all that had passed ; it was this— that there was far less difference between the parties than was imagined. His Right Hon. Friend, whom he was, he supposed, to regard as the chief opponent of the Dissene tens, had frequently pressed it upon their attention, that 'here was no practical grievance for the Dissenters to com plain of on the one hand, and that the Church had ao practical benefit to boast of on the other. Then the ques tion was, on which side should the indulgence be granted If the Church had not a substantial benefit, it was not worth keeping—certainly not when it excited the jealousy rod discontent of others. (Cheers.) But did thi s a pply to the other side ? Was it the same with a grievance that was not substantial 1 such was the constitution of our nature, that he believed it must be admitted a grie-e -ance was not the less a grievance because it was nee a substantial one--(Loud cheers)---and he should adduce 13 Hon. Friend near him (Mr. Fergusson) as a proof to Iris Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) of the troth of that inaxim.—(Hear.) His opinion on the Catholic Questifare had always been the same, and it had heck sonvewhat different from that of the friends of religious liberty ix general—his opinion had always been to give to all reli gious sects such liberty as was practical and consistent with safety. Farther than that he world not go. And as he then had caught the eye of his Right lion. Friend. the Secretary for the Colonies, he would tell biro that the struces.e of this motion to-night would tend greatly to strengthen the ground upon which the Catholics stood. — (Loud cheers.) His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) bad made it an argument against the Dissenters, that for the last ten years they had not pressed their claims. Bot he needed not tell his Right Hon. Friend that it was the praes rice of wise men to press their suit at such time& as they might have reasonable hopes of being listened to..—(Heser e hear.) So the Dissenters had been silent for the time lice had mentioned, but having remained quiet for ten ye ars , end now, upon their own views of their own isitereete, having marshalled themselves, and come. !Simard in strength to .demand their rights, what, did Iris Right Honourable Friend expect would he their feelings for the next ten yeas if they were rejected this night (Loud cheering.)—He could assure his Right Hon: Friend, and he spoke from a foreknowledge of the workintre of the human character, and from that only, that if it was peti tions alone that he wanted to convince him that the Dis senters were alive to their interests, he should not lack that proof.—(Continued cheers.)—Let him meet the forth coming claims of this body by anticipation. He hailed as the dawn of better days, the very temperate speech which his Right lion. Friend lied made on this subject. Ile (Sit T. D. Acland) never had to qualify for office but once, and then it was for the office of Magistrate, and he con fessed that his feelings on approaching the table at whist ; he was to hold spiritual communion as a creature with his Creator, for earthly and secular purposes, had retained a mastery over his mind ever since, an d given a decided stamp to his objections to such tyrannical and undue exercise of authority, His Right Honourable Friend ha t told them that these were Dissenters in the Cabinet, any, that a late Lord Mayor of L a ndon had been a respectable , Dissenter. All that he saw in these facts was, a new instance of the unnecessary degradation to which these it,.,. dividuals had been subjected on account of their religious sentiments, and the only atonement that can be made to them is, to re li eve their successors from such a nec.esaity. He had a proposition to make to his Right Hon, Friend, with a view to the settlement of the whole question before an d if he would the Houma Agree to it, he promised hiro he should have no cause to complain. His proposal was, that instead of renewing the Indemnity Act next monee, for the usual term of one year, his Right Hon. Frivol. should w ant the Di ssenters a suspension from the opera don of 'these laws for the same period. If he would make this experiment pro futuro, he might then, at the end of the year, renew it for a longer period if be thought proper. for he was sure he would have no cause to regret it,— (Clwera.) His anxiety to go into the Committee was, the eonfident expectation that they would, in the present star of public opinion, be able to come to some ultimate er rangernent of the whole question.—(hear, bear.) Mr. BROUG HAM—Sir, I am now glad that I gave way to my Hon. Friend (Sir T. - ecland), especially as he has addressed the House on several points to which, but for Iris speech, I should have been obliged to refer, and which I feel I should have urged far less effectiv e ly th an he h us done. 1 am, however, desirous that this oppor tunity should not pass without offering some observatiore in reply to the speeches of the two Right Hon. Secretaries (Messrs. Huskisson and Peel,) who opposed the motion of my Noble Friend. One of these Right Hon. Gentle ellen, indeed (itlr. Huskisson), so slightly opposed the mo tion, as to leave little, if any, grounds fir offering a reply to what fell from. him. The first objection which pre gents itself to my mind, is ripen a point of Constitutional doctrine laid dowo by the Right Hon, Gentleman, the ~, .h, .. • A