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

~~ it of went at the time s sufficien t tecive suc h trledge thi t td for their however Eleient DIP my Dissen' nseienee tr ntry. y orthodo the Eats tgainst th, :o the op'; church s, and 6 6 ' f the Di.' Acts cams Led to the would nger-,a ol recourse 0 it say tbet• Acts of ex' leering )' is a s ubstr danger, 1 as gook' °- bough I, is to that de' ill proccd e to ascet' which shall said thto I, that it 0 on is base ad. lAD e to be Bard to 3 0, lenanly the ire ions to the ch of F 1:" laws coal' Englan d people! he Chore sures ; bu t i rivileges aline of t 1 mitous ti° its of i s effect ay mind to e Barod ate, that Ja t difficutti Disseittet i aws on Rh' :ance, that they have'' w this, 1 11, ; a state (" a new gr, be injure , iinly not in ry opinio n lirther iut y pleasure ie principl e ed by 1 0 ed, it m ust o COneidet. 'e ,'ecnrity pri n cipl e ( ral part e, our history c N d tione l enacted t° z.evere tbat'. got rid et , therefore , ed Church' ,n, they is* ited, unde r g given uo Lord pre" rest Lag''' rother schs e The rre't an in,tr ti " re could nters Wet? I am not ember the as enacted, )tion of it' o f the nd of fir' years t.)e of told le change ° able Loris that such a Bill as that proposed should be ever received into their Lordships' House, even under the ids a of making amend ments on it. The Bill was said in stand on the principle set forth in its preamble. But what was that principle? Why, that it was expedient—expedient !—a word used by men when they had nothing else to say. But their Lord shiPs ought not to be satisfied with the bare assertion that such a measure wag expedient, but look, a n d t a k e c a re that the Provisions of the Bill proved the expediency of it. Then; looking at the provisions, they contained no such proof; for as to the declaration, it would be more con sistent with the dignity of the House to bring in a Bill at °nee for the unqualified repeal of the Test Laws, than this Bill, every clause of which militated against the Constitu tion; but what was it expedient to do? To repeal the Sa cramental Test. Now, if it could be shown to him that th e intended substitute for that Test was a sufficient defenc e of the Church,, it would be all right, and he would require nothing more ; but while he was on this part of th e subject, he must say that he had never heard more mis " Presentations on any subject than on the Sacramental T est. But to go on to the other clauses of the Bill, the next ran thus :._,, Whereas, the Protestant Church of thes e realms, is established and inviolate." How ? By the existing laws. If thus the existing laws constitute the defence, and contribute to the inviola el% of the Church, surely the repealing of those laws could not be the way to keep that Church established by l aws —nor was the removal of her defences the way to pre serve her inviolate. Then, as to the proof that the decla ration was a sufficient defence in place of the Test Laws, he eelisved it was sequind by the existing law, of persons ta king offices in the Universities of Scotland, to snake a scat of confession of faith ; but he was sure some of those l' e arned and Rev. Persons must have found considerable "' f aculty in making that confession of faith, when he re )4e-inhered the opinions they acknowledged in their petitions ~," this question. But what was the substitute for the Sa cramental Test ? A simple declaration. Instead of /tu titing the taker of office describe himself as belonging to le tne sort of religion—whether a Unitarian or Catholic, or it 'cree Thinker, it did not require him even to say—he bad °III Y to answer that he was of the Christian faith ; neither did it call on him to observe the declaration by such phrases 4 " lam a Christian," or " as I stand in the presence of 'Y,., God." The confidence to be reposed in the proposed de 'tar, ation did not rest upon the faith of the Christian, or on t ne confirmation of any faith whatever. He had never been tuore surprised than when he heard the Noble Lord Who opened the present discussion with such great ability, inform their Lordships that while the decla ration was to he extended, not merely to Corporate 'lees, but to all offices of trust and emolument under t he Crown, the Bill left it entirely to the King to say, w ith respect to these latter functionaries, whether his Ma •F'ty would require such a declaration or not. He could not but object to the provisions Of such a Bill, the object of Which was to take away the sacramental test, as would el l? Pear from the preamble, merely on the ground of expe s„leaeh and to substitute in its place a declaration, which, - s ome instances, might or might not be taken, according to the will of the Sovereign. The principle of the pro 'esed law was to destroy the Sacramental Test for the ot:Poae of substituting this declaration, a n d except their ~ niship s a pp ro v e d of that substitution they ought not to e ' °4l ent even to the second reading of the Bill. H e diff ere d Pro priety from all he had read a nd heard res p ec ti ng th e irapriety of omitting to maintain that great principle of the „l eu stitution, namely, that the Church of England was not o g ' 2 stablishment erected for mere p p urposes of convenience, essentially and inseparably a art of the State. He nt ended that the Sacramental Test was well calculated to effect th a t o bj ec t, an d it s i gn ifi e d not w h at t h ey su b st i tute d , It so l ong as w h a t w as su b s ti tu t e d was o f i n f er i or effi .,.e - Y. Further, he maintained that, in compli an ce with " a r existing Constitution, the Church of England must be 4 511 i PPOrted, and could best be supported by the admission its Members alone to offices of trust and emolument.— n eh had been the principle of the Constitution of this t h~, trY for ages. Their Lordships should take good care i n ,` t hey did not disunite those whom the Constitutioli . ad -Re d ingether ; and if they did anything towards oin 4fg them, they should be equally careful to use some sort tr'neeement, and enable the Church and State Establish- Port,M to protect each other by mutual service and snp a„,,The ground of expediency set forth in the pre a-71e to that Bill he could not help thinking afforded the principle on which to legislate. He objeCted to L" P repeal of laws hitherto preserved with so much Tiety and ca re as the Corporation and Test Acts.— e Corporation was an Act that did not require any Man to take the sacrament. He meant, it did not impose 4 Pon him that duty against his inclination ; it only said, Nshall not be elected a member of a corporation except , /% 4 the twelve months antecedent to your application fur 4 , 'e you shall have received the sacrament. The fact e i a l s, its provisions were directed towards members of the i ip t _lrch of England, and to them originally was the Act the to apply. The Test Act required the taking of wil. alerament on the acceptance of office. The inference h„ . ' , that if such provisions for the security of the Church a": not been necessary they would not hare been made.— s lot lll PPostal no Noble Lord would maintain that it was pre desirable to have an Established Church; and he was s s , d ll red to oontend that the necessary effect of the propo s s ee aettnent must be to weaken its foundation, and con ,,Nl:ently to milit a t e against its permanency. He would sea ' d t ure to say, if Noble Lords would take the trouble to the the petitions presented to Parliament on the subject of si t , - .,_'orporation and Test Acts, they would hardly find a , 4 ,,,,e sentence in one of them which their Lordships pad be willing to 'affirm in the preamble of an Act of tit meat like the present. The tendency of those peti the evinced hostility towards the Established Church, at 44 'ante time that they denounced all religious tests as evil sm Pernicious. On referring to one of them, be found it R ° l ined that th e Ch urc h o f England had its foundation i n th tn ,e--that it derived the sources of its origin from Hea sseettlarn and P o p er y—and th a t it wielded the sword of per satutitetn ; together with other statements of a similar Ist o t. ,,rd LANSDOWNE said the petition r e f erre d t o b y th e Loy le and Learned Lord h a d b een presente d not to their 4 1 , 4 ,hips, but to the Douse of C ommons . Ar ar ut Earl of ELDON, in continuation, said, the Noble p ni e . was probably correct in his statement ; but as the of t h e In question had been not merely laid on the table to hi e e ther House, but printed, he considered it competent p et i,: e to advert to it. However, the sentiments of the the hen were so extravagant and exaggerated, that perhaps L aru l d ir' were not deserving of attention.—(Hear, from Lord vols„,: 4v ne).—Rut he looked to the sober principle in osigi'si in the present measure. The Corporation Act was ag a h li i‘ all directed against the: Sectaries--the Test Act tend s the Papists.—The Test Act had never been in thatltn operate against the Dissenters ; yet it did happen Ch ar ' e th Acts operated against them. In the reign of Wh n " IL, the Act was relative to the Dissenters ; but that - „ t heY Caine to the Toleration Act, there was no doubt b oth . le Test and Corporation Act was directed against li st ,• l Be alluded to the law passed in the reign of Wil fe, ' l Lwhich it was evident that the Acts re pa4Led to had been directed both against Dissenters and t i, P'qs4 They went on in silent operation till some time in Th e _reig n o f G eo . 11., w h en the Aet:of Indemnity was passed. tili jLegislature passed A c t a ft er Act to enlarge the:tiine for „ tui lag the Test. It was evident that Parliament was anxi oti.tu have it taken ; and with a vi ew of accomplishing its osfi't, it extended the time within whi c h persons holding i t ‘e 4 could comply with the law. It h a d b een %aid, that a s t i aa an extraordinary thing to go on passi ng I n d emn i ty sh ey Year aft er year , i nstea d o f a t once abolishi ng t h e law which 11,,,tvere intended for the time to supersede. However,by yea'se,sintained th a t th ose I n d e mnity Acts, Passed year r e , were neither more nor less than acknowledgments and sat-illutions on the part of the Legislature, that the Corpo desism4 a nd Test Acts ought not to be dispensed with.. _ He Year to kn ow w h et h er the passing of these Acts from i' t° Yea was arli._ r not rather confirmatory of the opinion of it Ought 00t that the law should not be repealed, than that ( ie s : e ' to be abolished ? Forty years ago he, tio el his firm propriety--a convic n saiie , • . rin conviction of their proprie . in conse repeqoi n still rested on his mind—had voted against the at a ti n , th ese Acts. Ile had th e pleasure of thus voting "at"a, e When a great many Noble Lords whom, he then '''"n, 1 ,..... '4 ' ll him, and taking a part in the present discuf same ~t . "e not born ; and he believed he might say the Measis:", e of the Rev. Prelates who now supported the existes 'Wore their Lordships, but who then, if they titled th e all,, were in a state of infancy, which hardly en the qu tni 10 for m a judgment on the subject. In 1787 l'arlian4 4 was brought forward in the other House of ohs/,' ,and was rejected by a majority of that -e m aioris - ' 78 9 the question was again discussed, when `Me m ere Y a gainst it was 20 ; but in 1790, on its being 1 , 10 1 te st , b l int toduced, its opents out-numbered its sup- ' e rWard 87 . the question had not since been brought it w as re; 4 ti l the present occasion. The majority by which eonsisersleted in 1790 was net extraordinary when it was s i sp pork su re a tpat its opponents, who then constituted the for laid our happy Establishment, found mines had '_(,), th e under mat ch to explode them. If any joy could be felt at about th `2S i mate events that occurred in other countries these ve!!efieriod, it arose from the consideration that tem pts ~`_lt,e rendered Englishmen more alive to the at ingly th `" a 4g , to struction disjoin the Church and State, and accord e_arliarnent of that day voted to prevent the de twet, our f the alliance which had hitherto subsisted he eatahlishmente. What we, to prevent Corpo rations from being made up entirely of members of the Church of Rome, if nothing more than the declarations now suggested was required ? His sentiments re mained the same as they had been formerly on that subject; if lie had changed his ;opinions—and he al most wished he could, so much did he respect many of the advocates of the present Bill—he should have felt it due to himself, to his country, and to his God, to confess his error. But he had examined the matter deliberately, and in detail, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had been wrong or not ; the result of his in vestigation was, that he had been right; and he could not then consent to give up the Constitution of the country and to sacrifice it, as well as the Church Establishment, to the extent that the present Bill proposed. He could not do this ; it must be the work of others. Be these within or without the Church it mattered not to him. His prayer to God was, that the individuals who promoted that mea sure might have afterwards the satisfaction of thinking, that as they intended 110 mischief to the Church, no mischief had ensued. Sure he was, that they meant no mischief to our establishment in the Chuach or State at that moment, and for his own part, he should feel that he acted mast un pardonably, were he to say that they were actuated by any such motive. But at the same time, that he gave them credit for sincerity, lie also claimed a similar allowance, and he intended those Noble and Reverend supporters of the Bill no disrespect when he solemnly said, as he then did from his heart and soul, Not-Content to the pre sent Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON—I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with my opinions on the present measure in this stage of the proceedings, and it is probable I might have reserved what I intended to offer for a future opportunity, had it not been for the statements of the Noble and Learned Lord who has just sat down, relative to the line of conduct originally adopted by Government, when the present Bill was first brought forward in the other House of Parliament. , It is certainly true, as the Noble and Learned Lord bas stated, that my Right Hon. Friends in that House did oppose the Bill when it was first intro • duced to their notice. The principle on which they op posed the measure was, that although they did not approve entirely of the existing law on the subject in question, yet they had found it to conduce so much to the advantage of Church and State for many years, without impairing the religious peace of the country—a peace which I may ven ture to say-has been enjoyed by this country in a greater degree than by any other similarly circumstanced with which we are acquainted—that they conceived we might risk the loss of our present advantages if that system under which those advantages had been attained and preserved should be inconsiderately abrogated. That principle it was on which they opposed the Bill in the first instance. Afterwards, however, on finding that a large majority of the House of Commons agreed to the Bill, and that many who opposed it, opposed it on grounds not applicable to the measure now before your Lordships, my Right Non. Friends adopted the measure with an amendment, which in their opinion afforded ample security to the Church, at the same time that the Bill itself, as modified, appeared to them to be calculated, so far from impairing, to improve and continue the religious peace which this country has so long enjoyed. On that principle it was, my Lords, that the measure, which had been originally opposed by my Right Hon. Friends connected with Go vernment in the other House, afterwards received their concurrence and support. I fully agree with my Noble Friend that the security of the Church of England, and the union existing between it and the State, depend nei ther on the law about to be repealed by the present Bill nor upon the provisions of this measure itself. That union and security, which we must all desire to see continued, depend upon the oath taken by his Majesty, to which we are all, in our respective stations, parties—and not only on that oath, but on the Act of Settlement, and the different Acts of union from time to time agreed to ; all of which provide for the intimate and inseparable union of Church and State, and for the security of both. The question is, what security does the existing system of laws, as they now stand, afford the Church Establishment? My Lords, I am very dubious as to the amount of security afforded through the means of a system of exclusion from office, to be carried into effect by a law which it is necessary to suspend by an annual Act, that admits every .man into office whom it was the intention of the original framers of that law to exclude.—(Hear, hear.) It was perfectly true, it was not the intention of those who brought in that suspension law originally, that Dissenters from the Church of England should be per mitted to enter into Corporations under its provisions. The law was intended to relieve those whom time or circum stances had rendered unable to qualify themselves according to the system Government devised. It has also been said, that the Dissenters availed themselves of the relaxation of the law, for the purpose of getting into Corporatisns, and this the law allowed. What security then, I ask, my Lords, is to be found in the existing system? So far from Dissenters being excluded by the Corporation and Test Acts from all Corporations—so far is this from being the fact—that it must be well known to some of your Lord ships some Corporations are absolutely and entirely in the possession of Dissenters. Can you suppose, my Lords, that the repeal of laws so inoperative as these can afford any serious obstacle to the perfect security of the Church, and the permanent union of that establishment with the State? The fact is, that the existing laws have not only failed completely, in answering their intended purpose, but are anomalous and absurd—anomalous in their origin, absurd in their operation. If a man were asked the question at his election to any corporate office, whether be had received the Sacrament of the Church of England, and if he said " No," then he lost every vote that had been tendered on his behalf, and there was an end of his election ; but if, on the contrary, by accident or design, he got in without the question rela tive to the sacrament being put to him, then the votes ten dered for him were held good, and his election valid—so that no power could remove him from the office which he held. I ask the Noble and Learned Lord is there aov se curity in that ? My Noble Friend says that the original intention of the framers of these Acts was that the sacra ment should not be taken by Dissenters ; but the law re quires that a man on entering into any Cerporation shall receive the sacrament without regard to Isis religious belief. Thus, my Lords, an individual whose object it is to get into a particular office, may feel disposed, naturally enough, to take the sacrament before his election, merely as a mat ter of form, and thus a sacred rite of our Church is pros tituted to a shameful and scandalous purpose. I confess, my Lords, I should have opposed this Bill if I thought it calculated to weaken the securities at present enjoyed by the Church. I consider the opposition offered in the first instance by my Right Hon. Friends in the other House of Parliament as arising out of a desire to preserve the religi ous peace of the country, at the same time that they se cured the integrity of the establishment. My Right Hon. Friends at first contemplated the existing system as hav ing given religious peace to this country for forty years.— I repeat that during forty years that peace has never been disturbed, nor the question which is now before your Lordships agitated. But, my Lords, the subject of security and of religious peace was fully discussed in the other House, through which the Bill now before your Lordship was carried by a large majority, and it now comes before your Lordships and is opposed by a small minority here. Under those cir cumstances, I conceive that the present measure comes be fore your Lordships with no trifling recommendations. You have had petitions from .many parishes in this king dom, anti from various societies of professing Christians, all tending to show that religious rancour and animosity alone can be generated by a perseverance in the present system, and that their contraries may be expected to arise out of a wise departure from it. Such are the sentiments contained in the petitions presented, not only to your Lord ships, but to the Other House of Parliament, and to these sentiments I think it is our duty to consent, taking the chance for religious peace which the majority of the House of Commons consider as likely to arise, and to be continued, out of the present measure, conjoined with some degree of securit, (perh a p s a ll t h e secur i ty necessary ) o ff ere d to t h e Church. I think .it advisable to entertain the proposition submitted to y ou by the Noble Lord opposite. By agree ingtia to it, y ou w i ll attain the advantages to which I have alluded—at eqldetui—avatiethnet to same. he time, security,securitytitftsweciullne.tynsulremaaycal call fully it, which your Lordships are about to repeal, b yag reeing to the Bill now before you. I have nothing farther to Id, except t o crave your Lordships' pardon for having ad dressed to you these few words, which appeared to me ne cessary, in consequence of what fell from my Noble and Learned Friend. Lord GODERICH said, after the able and perfectly satisfactory speech of the Noble Lord who had moved the seco n d reading of the Bill, and after the sentiments which their Lordships bad heard from several Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates--sentiments which, in his judgment, did no less honour to themselves than to the assembly to which they were addressed, and the Church to which these Reverend * Prelates belonged, it would ill become him to trespass at any length on their Lordships' time, or to go at large into the general arguments which might be ad duced in favour of the second reading of the Bill. He felt great satisfaction at the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, and the commencement of his intention to support the measure which it might have been the original purpose of Govern ment to oppose. Little was he who was strongly favour able to the Bill then before their Lortiship—little was he disposed, and still less would he be justified in quarrelling with the present determination of Government on the sub ject. Of one thing he felt confident, that if Ministers considered the repeal of the existing Acts calculated to endanger the Church, or put in hazard its union with the State, they never would, and they never ought, to sup port it. If he participated in the fears cf the Noble and Learned Lord—if he could bring himself to think that the proposed measure would in any degree shake the foun dation on which the Church of England stood—he would be ready to fight side by side with that Noble and Learned Lord, and to support him to the uttermost. For he fully concurred with him, and with other Noble Lords, in con sidering that the union subsisting between Church and State could never be violated with impunity, and he trusted in God it would always prove inviolable. He thought the present measure supported by many and urgent motives, and the least of which was, that it would have the effect of removing much religious difference and animosity which at present existed ; at the saute time, that, so far from weakening the Church, it might be expected to conciliate a great number of individuals in her favour. These, in his mind, were sufficient reasons for passing the present Bill. He acknowledged that he was in the situation of those described by the Learned Lord (Eldon), as being not far enough removed from infancy, to be competent to form a correct judgment upon this question at the time when that Learned Lord had been last called upon to ex press his opinion upon it. It so happened, that when he (Lord G.) had been a Member of the other House of Par liament, the question was never agitated, consequently, l►e bad never voted on it, and was not now bound by any lurking feeling of consistency to oppose it. He, therefore, looked upon the measure solely with a view to its principle and expected operation, and on both the grounds considered it entitled to his support. He was a little surprised at one of tle objections put forward by the Noble and Learned Lard and could not bring himself to think with that Noble Lord, because in the preamble of the Bill, nothing was set forth but its expediency, that it ought not to pass. He admitted that it had been customary in former years to as sign the grounds for the adoption of a particular mea sure, in the preamble of the Bill, which was to carry it into effect, and perhaps that was not an unwise practice. —lt afforded some historical information, at the same time that it assigned the reason fur the adoption of the particus lir measure. However, the custom had of late years fallen into disuse, and now more frequently a general expression of the necessity and expediency of the ►measure was resorted to. He could never concede that any individual was pre vented from voting on a law, because the grounds of its enactment were not distinctly stated in the preamble, pro vided he was convinced that the law was a wise one, and ought to be passed ; neither was any one allowed to go on the arguments of the supporters of a particular measure, or to refuse his assent to it because those arguments might not be the most convincing, so long as he was satisfied of the benefit likely to be derived from it. The reason why he thought it expedient to abrogate the present law was, because he felt that it was frequently conducive to a profanation of religion, by imposing the neces-' sity of taking a Sacramental Test for temporal purposes, He could not believe the present Acts to be consistent with a right Christian feeling of the nature and object of the Sacrament. One thing might be said in its favour, that the existing system was not very frequently called into operation, but that was no argument for its continuance, for, if inoperative, it was idle to maintain it. Though many Noble Lords in that Nouse had, doubtless, held vari ous public offices, he was satisfied few had ever been called on to qualify themselves for office, by complying with the Sacramental Test. He himself had never heels so called on to qualify except when he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why then be could not tell, except, perhaps, that the Chancellorship of the Exchequer was a very dan gerous office. Soon after being nominated he was told that it was absolutely necessary that he should, upon a cer tain Sunday, in a certain Church, qualify himself for re taining office by taking the Sacrament. God knows he had not the smallest objection to do that ; but it happened that he had received it shortly before his appointident, though not with a view to qualify for the enjoyment of any temporal office. And he naturally said to his informant, " Won't that dot" But the answer was, " Oh! no, not at all, by no means." Well, he complied, and to the Church on the day intimated he proceeded, for the purpose of receiving the Sacrament ; and he would say it was one of the most painful duties he had ever been called upon to perform, considering its object, and combining, as it did, two duties, of the combination of which he could not ap prove. Suppose he had refused—suppose he could not have made up his mind to mix together temporal and reli gious duties—or suppose he had been a rigid Presbyterian— putting any of these cases, he should be curious to know what the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon) would have said to him when he went before him to take the oaths neces sary to be taken previous to acting as Chancellor of the Ex chequer. The law required, before taking" such oaths in the Court of Chancery or at the Quarter Sessions, that a certificate should be produced that the officiary had taken the Sacrament. If he had said to his Noble Friend that he had before taken the Sacrament, though not for the pre sent purpose, and that he should take the chance of a Bill of Indemnity, it was possible that the Noble and Learned Lord might have refused to swear him in, and he would not have occupied the office of Chancellor of the Exche quer, which circumstance, after all, perhaps, would have been no great loss to the country. As matters then stood even a Member of the Church of England might be placed in a situation not only painful to himself, but totally unne cessary as far as the safety of the State, or the security of the Church was concerned. If the Bill passed, which he trusted it would, amendments might be made, provided Noble Lords conceived it might be necessary, and he should not feel much disposed to oppose them, though he might happen to think them less requisite than other No ble Lords did. If the measure passed into a law, the Church of England would present one of the most magni ficent spectacles that could be imagined to the admiring eyes of men. It would appear, in the purity of its own doctrines, strong in the affection and faith of the majority of the people—strong in its connection with the State—as was evinced by the presence of those Noble and Right Reverend Prelates who occupied seats and represented it in that House—strong in those endowments which it pos sessed by the same right as their Lordships possessed their property—strong without the evil and unstable support of an exclusive system. Such would be the situation of the Church readily consenting to the proposed measure, and he repeated, he could not conceive a snore noble spectacle than it would thus afford. He had only to add, long might it flourish, dispensing blessings among those who believed in its doctrines, admired its ministry, and prayed heartily and forcibly for its permanence. (Cheers.) The Bishop of CHESTER did not mean to trespass on their Lordships much at that late hour ; but he felt it his duty, as a Member of the Legislature, to assign his rea sons for the course he meant to take. He must first state, that he cordially and unequivocally concurred in the mea sure then before their Lordships ; but he could slot give his consent to the measure, without protesting against the doctrine, that the laws which this measure was intended to repeal, and the persons who procured them, were ac tuated by a spirit of intolerance. With respect to the character of these measures, it was unjust to cast on them the reproach of intolerance. He did not wish to enter into general principles ; but if be assumed that the good of the country required an Established Church, he must also assume that the Legislature was bound to extend to that Church the protection that wee necessary for its safety and security. If there were in the State any de scription of persons who considered themselves bound by their consciences or their principles to take measures for the destruction of that Church„, then the State was bound to extend its protection to that Church, by prevent ing aoy of those persons from holding an office by which they might be enabled to carry their designs into effect. In much of what had been said on this subject there was great disingenuousness, not to say unjust, to speak of an enactment made on this principle as a systein of intole rance on the Church. As to the opinion of the persons who had conscientiously procured those laws, if they were of opinion that they were necessary to the safety of the State and the interests of religion, he saw no reason why a moral or intellectual disqualification might not be made a Bill for excluding men from office, as well as a physical disability. If the experience of thirty years in the middle of last century had been sufficient to snake the advantages of conformity apparent, was not the Parliament justified in taking some steps to secure it? Ile trusted the senti ments of Parliament at that time—and it was worthy of notice, that in the conference which took place between the Lords and Commons, syheo the Act for preventing occa sional conformity was discussed, that the Lords took the liberal side. They defended toleration against the Com mons. His Lordship then quoted a brief passage from the statement of the Managers of the Lords, to show that the Test Act was not passed to secure a Church as a Church. " They say," the Lords' Managers said, " that it cannot be disputed but that the 'rest Act extends to all the considerable offices and employments in which the security of the Goverment may be concerned. That law was made when the kingdom was under a great apprehension of danger to that Church, and the ex pedient agreed upon as most likely to secure her was the placing all the considerable offices in the hands of her mem bers." He was certainly of opinion that protection web to be given to the Church ; but lie was also of opinion that that protection should be given with the smallest restraint possible on the exercise of the civil and religious rights of the people. In fact, however, the Test and Corporation Acts did not answer their purpose. He did not like them , because they alienated the conscientious Dissenter from the i Church, and did not keep the not conscientious one out of office. Some of the Dissenters had been asked to shew by single acts, their conformity to the Church, and they had occasionally done this; but when it was made a matter of duty, they had refused. The less scrupulous among the Dissenters did not object to conform. He wished, therefore, that the Bill might pass, because the pre sent laws did not answer their purpose. If it were indis pensible to the safety of the Church to retain a Test, he cordially concurred in all that had been said by all the speakers against employing the Sacrament for this purpose. It might, indeed, be said that the State did not compel any man to serve it, and, therefore, did not compel any man to take the Sacrament when he was unworthy of receiving it; but he thought it was a very great hardship on the Ministry of the Church of England, that they were compelled to ad minister the Sacrament to persons whom they might think unworthy. He considered the Test Act as imposing on the Ministers of the Church of England a necessity of ad- witting to the sacrament persons whom they might be otherwise not disposed to admit. No person spoke more strongly in favour of a Test than Bishop Warburton. In his great work, " The Alliance bet Ween the Church and State," he had mentioned his own opinion in a note, and he had referred for a confirmation of it to a work of Bishop Sherlock. In 1765, however, Warburton wrote some remarks on " Neale's lastory of the Puritans, which he communicated to Bishop Hurd, and these were his ex pressions—" I think a test necessary for the security of the Church, but I think the sacramental test the worst that could be chosen, for it is evaded while it is profaned." With respect to the Declaration contained in the Bill, the Church, he believed, *you'd be satisfied with it, as affording quite as much security as the laws they were about to give up. In giving his assent to the gill, he would not, however, be understood as precluding himself from assent ing to any amendments which might be hereafter pro posed, with a view of rendering the Bill more coin plete. Much had been said about bulwarks, and when the people had got the idea of bulwarks into their heads, they imagined that to take away the bulwarks must be to wea ' ken or destroy the edifice. But what sort of bulwarks, he would ask, were these, which required to be continually propped imp and secured by an Annual fill of Indemnity? The Test Act was originally passed to protect the careless Churchman, who had neglected to qualify, not to lay a restraint on Dissenters. If ever it had been a bulwark, it was no longer required ; for there were plenty of means of defence within the citadel; and if their Lordships would only summon the engineers to the walls, they would be able to defend it against the sapping and mining now car rying on against its foundations. It was itself a strong hold of defence ; and if its defenders took their places on the ramparts, it would defy the attacks of its enemies over and over again ; and by its own majesty it would, in the course of time, seduce those within its walls to seek for protection and succour, who were now eager to destroy it. Some persons contended that particular classes or sects ought to be excluted ; but the principle on which he went was, that security should be required from all. He was not prepared to say what principles should not be ad mitted to all civil rights; but certainly those who could not give security should not be admitted, and those who could give security should be admitted.— He was not prepared to exclude any sect whatever,—Hear, hear.)—lf all sects could give security, all should be ad mitted.—(Hear.)—It was true that they accepted different pledges from different sects of religion ; but at the same time they were bound to receive all who offered sufficient security. What a Noble Lord (Winchelsea) had said about the Act as it now stood, being a test of their Chris tian principles, and that by doing away with that they would consequently be deteriorating from their character as a Christian country, and be affording assistance to Atheism, which was already too ripe and active in the country, all he had to say in answer was, that he did not wish to make the Test Acts now what they had never yet been intended to be.—(Hear, hear.)--They never yet had been a test between Christians and Infidels, but only be tween one sect of Christians and another, and even then rather as to their political-opinions, as far as politics could be connected with religion. But in this country it was said that such a step would be snore dangerons than in any other. Surely this was not the case ; for while the kingdom hail the Protestant Established Church in one portion of the dominions, and the Presbyterian Church in the other—while they were able to show the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement--had they any reason to dread that this country would suffer in its Christian character? He trusted not—be trusted that they had in the Church of England itself too much truth and dignity—he trusted that they had in her gover nors too much care and affection—he trusted that they had from the faithfulness and activity of her Ministers too much suppbrt—and in all too good a security for there to trr any fear as to its continuance ; and he believed, indeed, that he might add, that they had too much good feeling in the Dissenters themselves, for there to be any reason to apprehend such a result. If he might be allowed to point out the quarter from which he apprehended such an effect, he would take leave to direct the attent;on of their Lord ships, not to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which excluded Dissenters from office, but to the counte nance and support which had been given to an exclusive measure of another kind. When he saw that there was about to be established a place of instruction in the metro polis, the pretensions of which, as to education, were of the highest order, :and which had been undertaken under very effective auspices; and when he found that it was es tablished so as to exclude religious education of whatever denomination from its plan of instruction, he must confess, that he was under some alarm. When he saw a place opened for the reception and instruction of Christian youths, the doors of which were shut against all forms of Chris.. tiau worship ; when he saw the principles of religion excluded from places where they had hitherto always been admitted and supported ; when lie saw that it was the purpose of their institution to obliterate the very name of religion from the instruction of these Disciples of Chris tian knowledge, he did confess that he saw some danger which was likely to result to this country, in its character as a Christian country; and yet he did not see that there was so much reason to dread this line of conduct after all, for he felt confident, that no sooner should the first fruit of these steps to education be evinced, than tjie whole Christian world would arise in condemnation of such a measure—not only would the Established Church feel out raged, but the whole Catholic Church of Christ as exist ing in this country. This, however, was the quarter from which he apprehended danger ; and so far from thinking that it was likely to arise from the adoption of the present measure, he had always thought it expedient for the Esta blished Church to pursue such measures as were best calcu lated to make her as little edious as possible; and be at- tributed (as was indeed, he believed, generally the case) the present state of religious quiet to the operation of the Acts of Toleration which had been adopted ; and he made bold to say, that the Church of England had not been the last in acting on that principle.--(Hear, hear.) He begged to apologize to their Lordships for the length of time which he had occupied, but as it was now proposed to re peal Acts which it had long been supposed were the great prop and support of the Established Church, he had deemed himself called upon to enter into the subject at a greater length than he should otherwise have done, — (Hear, hear.) Lord MANSFIELD said, that he had a great reluctance to intrude himself on the Hause at that late hour, but as he thought that the present Bill was a direct attack upon th e great bulwarks of the Church, he could not refrain from laying before their Lordships such arguments as struck him to be most forcible on the question. He was willing to admit that the Test and Corporation Acts were oppres sive in some degree to the Dissenters, and even disagreeable to some persons who belonged to the Established Church : but he, nevertheless, did not see that that was sufficient ground for their repeal. Looking at the history of the present Bill, and at the manner in which it had been pressed upon the notice of Parliament through time means of petitions, he thought that the circumstances which were attached to it were extraordinary. It was true that the present Bill was not for the abolition of all test, but at the same time it should be remembered, that after a consider able majority in the other House had decided that no best at all was necessary, they expressed themselves' eatistied with the declaration which had been proposed, though it was in their power to pa*: the Bill through the Lower House without any qualification whatever. The objection that the Dissenters made to the Sacramental test was, that it was a profanation of the Lord's Supper; but after the Restoration, it was found necessary to exclude certain persons froth office, as the Dissenters were particularly offensive, this test • bad very naturally and properly been adopted by Government; so that the test after all w as not one of religions, but of political principle —the Esta blished Religion being supposed to be inseparable from the nature of our Government. By the repeal, therefore, of the present Act, in what a state were Ministerss placing themselves ! They would either be obliged to admit the Dissenters into office, or to expose themselves to a painful persecution ; and at the same time it should be observe.l, that Ministers in this ease weee under the same responsi bility as they wire itt any other. He had no great objec tion to the suppression of the present test, as circumstances had so much changed since its first institution ; but in that ease he must always insist on some most efficient substitute, and not one like time declaration proposed ; on which he could not look without suspicion. Had the present motion been for a Committee, merely for the purpose of examining into what declaration would be substituted for the Sacra mental Test, he should not have opposed the motion ; but as he was not satisfied with the present declaration that was proposed, he certainly should vote against the second read ing of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time without a division. Lord HOLLAND moved, that the House be summoned for Monday next, and that the Bill be committed on that day. The Earl of WINCHELSEA moved as an Amend. unent, that the following Clause be substituted for the 1 kelaration s : and wh ereas expe rience And whereas, many religious and co nsc i ent i ous p ersons having objected to the necessity of taki ng th e sacrament o f g t h to e a L o or i d r ' r s e v S e u r p e p n e t r o f: e r o t f lt et the e urposes afor esa id, as t en d- same for many years past having proved, that many Pro testant Dissenters from the Church of England and Ire- Lind may be admitted to offices in Corporations, and to dices of trust under the Crown, without injury t o t h e Constitntion in Church and State, it is expedient that , ome other provision be substituted in lieu of the said S a _ cramental Test : " And whereas, by the Laws of the Realm, constituting and confirming for ever the Treaties of Union between England and Ireland, it is solemnly enacted and declared that the Churches of England and Ireland, as by law esta blished, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, and that'the doctrine, worship, and government of the said. United Church shall be, and shall remain, in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church f England ; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as' the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the said Union ; and that, in like manner, the doctrine, worship, and government of the Church of Scotland shall remain, and be preserved as the same are now by law established, and by the Acts for the Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. " And whereas, it is just and fitting that all persons now required by law to take the Sacramental Test aforesaid, should, on being excused therefrom, be required to give some other sufficient assurance of their beingwell-disposed to the continunace and preservation of the said United Church. " Be it therefore enacted, that so muchand such parts of the said several Acts, passed in the 13th and 25th years of the reign of King George the Second, and of the said Acts passed in the 16th of the reign of King George the Second as require, &c. be repealed. And be it further enacted, that in lieu of being required to take or receive the said Sa crament, as aforesaid, all persons who are at present by law required to take the said Sacrament, &c., either as a qua lification for being admissible to any Corporation, or to any office of trust, or as a condition subsequent to being ad mitted to any such Corporation, &c., shall, except as here after excepted, immediately before their admission to such Corporation, &c. make and subscribe the Declaration fol lowing : " I, A. 8., being about :to be admitted to (as the case may be), do solemnly declare, in the presence of Almighty God, and of his Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that I do firmly hold and believe, that the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testameur, as they are set forth by authority within this realm, are true, and do contain the true re vealed word of Almighty God ; and I do promise and swear, that I will do nothing to injure or weaken the United Church of England and Ireland, as by law esta blished, or to bring into contempt the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof—So help me God." " And whereas, there are several offices of trust under the Crown, of too little power or influence to make it necessary to require the said Declaration from persons ad mitted to the same, be it therefore enacted, that his Ma jesty in Council shall be enabled to enumerate and publish, by order of Council, a list of such inferior offices as his said Majesty in Council sh&ll deem not to require the said Declaration to be made, as a qualification for admission to the same. Provided always, and be it further enacted, ' that nothing heroin contained shall be construed, as to empower his Majesty, as aforesaid, to excuse, from taking the said Declaration, any person about .to be admitted to be a member of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or any person appointed, and named,. to bejudge in any of his Majesty's Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, or Judge of any Court of Record within this realm, or to be Justice of 'the Peace in any county of the sante ? or to hold any office of State under his Majesty, his heirs and successors. " And whereas, there is an ancient and laudable custom that the Judges of Assize, on their several circuits in England and Wales, do solemnly attend Divine Service, according to the Rites of the Church of England, in the Cathedral or other principal Church of the city or town, wherein the said Assize is holden. " Be it hereby enacted and declared, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or taken to derogate from the said laudable custom. " And be it further declared, that it shall be part of the duty of the said Ju,lges of Assize to attend Divine Service aceordin , * to the rites of the Church of England, as afore said, unless prevented by illness or other unavoidable im pediment." After reading the Clause at length, the Noble Lord pro posed it should be printed. Lord HOLLAND said the Noble Earl was quite irregular in moving the insertion of a clause (that, by the way, looking more like a speech,) at that stage of the Bill. When the Bill was committed the Noble Earl might bring his motion forward in the usual way. As to the Noble Earl's motion for having the clause printed, it could, not be entertained for a moment by their Lordships ; for although each individual Lord might feel obliged to the Noble Earl fur reading the clause to them, yet there was no possible reason why they should agree to have what was in fact a part of the Noble Earl's speech printed. If the Noble Earl, however, was particularly anxious upon the subject, he might succeed by following either of two courses. The first was to bring forward his clause in the shape of a Bill, and move that it be printed as such—the second, to pay for having it inserted in the public prints, a plan which he understocd was not unfrequently adopted in Ireland. The motion of the Noble Lord was then agreed to, and it was ordered that the Bill be committed on Monday next. 'f he House adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 17. Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, Mr. MI.Eon, and an other Member, took the oaths and their seats. Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented an ac count of the Life Annuities granted by the Com missioners for the reduction of the National Debt. Mr. Wilson presented the accounts of the Tees Navigation Company, which were laid on the table. On the motion of Mr. BELL the Shields Navi gation Bill ws read a second time. LIVERPOOL DOCKS. General GASCOYNE presented a petition from certain persons having an interest in lands in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, requesting to be heard by Counsel at the bar of the House against parts of the Bill for the erection of the Liverpool Docks.— Referred to the Committee on the Bill. Lord W. PAULETT presented a petition from the Union Friendly Society of Darlington, against the Bill for the regulation of Friendly Societies. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from tb::. cl‘olnavosrsioannds to the Roman Corporationof ch an edast,aogt t The further ee Hon. Member expressed his etttiv: concurrence in Ile prayer of the petition_ Ordered to be pribted. Mr. LLOYD presented petitions from several parishes in the county of Limerick, praying for the repeal of the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics suffer. Mr. DAWSON brought up the Bill for the amendment anti consolidation of the Acts imposing stamp duti,es op Cards and Dice.—Read a first time, acid oxdcied to be read a second time to-morrow. Mr. DAWON brought up a Dili to empower barristors to act as solicitors for • the Revenue in any Court of law in the kingdom.—Read a first time and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. Mr. DAWSLOti obtained leave to bring in a Bill to rectify . iniatahes in the names of the Land Tax Commiss.toners, and to appoint others. ' pai lY is i h r' es S i H n IR th L e El' countyp presented Catholic Cl a im s . Mr. SPRING RICE presen ted several petitions from the c oun t y of. Mayo, praying for Catholi c Emancipation, t f eti mo tl n t a re g e hz, eti a t g io a n in s st fr t o h m e Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the Brotherly Union Friendly Society of St. Ann's, Mayo, again s t th e Bill now before the House for th e Regulation of Friendly Societies. Mr. W. SMITH also presented petitions from Stoney, in Staffordshire; Stockwell, in Surrey ; Newton, in Montgomery ; and Uxbridge, in Middle sex ; for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Sir CHARLES HASTINGS presented a peti- ' per rem ___ --- - k, - _- ,;,.. ; 1 , . fa - ( i,-;:-,.... .., '-.:„ -v ;, ‘ -'. - ,- i!, 1 :.•,..1 g t:4l ` 1 ) ' v---,t 4.. . . - P... v•-• z - , 0_ i . q -- : -' 2lifikr , %).,' 4 S`` Q \~ k 4 • 4k t t et tion from the Vicar and Parishioners of St. Mar garet's, Leicester, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics.—Laid on the table. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from the maltsters of Preston, against the Malt Act. Col. HARRIS presented similar petitions from Kidderminster. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from a Friendly Society in Preston, called the Constitu tional Society, against the Bill now before the Howe for the regulation of Friendly Societies. Mr. BARING presented a petition from the Elders of the Friendly Benefit Society of Gosport, :&gainst the Friendly Societies' Bill. Also, a similar petition from the Ebenezer Society of Gosport. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from the Agriculturists and Landholders of Bradford, in Somersetshire,praying that some protection should be extended to the growth of wool in this country. This subject he deemed to be of the utmost import ance, for the agriculturists had suffered serious and severe losses in consequence of the importation of foreign wool, upon which the duties had been re pealed. As the present Administration seemed to agree in the necessity of extending protection to the Agricultural Interest, he hoped they would extend to wool th a t protect i on wh i ch they deemed proper to afford to corn. Some Hon. Member had said, that he would bring the subject before the House ; but he had yet seen no notice given. He hoped, however, that the Hon. - Amber for Sussex would bring the subject before the House ; and as the Ses sion was wearing fast away and a great deal ofbusiness remained to be done, he trusted that it would be brought forward soon, in order that i t m i g h t rece i ve the fullest as well as the earliest consideration of the House. Mr. HUM 2 said, that when he looked at the present _state of the manufacturing interest, and saw them possessing such a monopoly as they did in grain, be felt surprised that they should seek to extend that monopoly also to other artielei. He did not blame them for attempting to dO so, but if the House consented to it, the commerce of thf• country must be crippled, and the country itself' rendered unable to maintain her present high station. Et could not fail to prove injurious to the commit nity, anti ultitnately to the agriculturists themselves, and was therefore very short-sighted policy. Again he repeated that he attributed blame to the agr:eu:. turists for bringing this matter forward ; hut upon the part of those who could not be benefitted by any measure such as was contemplated by the petitions, he thought it necessary to restate his opinions upon the subject; Sir CHARLES BURRELL said that the landed interest had no desire to have any thing like a monopoly; they only sought to be placed in such a position as would enable them to compete with the foreign grower. It should be recollected that in the year 1819, when it became necessary to stitaitt the Sinking Fund, amongst other taxes there had been one laid upon foreign wool, and in order to reconcile •the Agricultural Interest to the taxe , . which were laid upon them, it was intimated that this tax should remain as a protecting duty to them. Subsequently, however, this tax had been Jemoved, and this faith was broken with the landholders. The supply of Foreign Wool, since these duties had been repealed, had been beyond all doubt enormous ; and if continued, must prove as injurious to the manufac turer as to the-agrieulturist, for such quantities of eloth would be manufactured that the market would be drugged far beyond - the consumption, and the operatives• Would then' be :throWn altogether out of employment. He did not wish to take up more of Hon. MeMbers! time than ,was necessary; but, ill order to show the considerable increase of the quan tity imported since the reduction in the duty, he was anxious to state that, in one year, the receipts amounted to 15,000,9961b5. The next year they amounted to 30,000,3451b5., nearly double that quantity; and the receipts for the last year were 65,000,0001b5. - The lion. Baronet concluded 1w expressing his satisfaction that the subject was likely to be brought forward, and hoped the House would afford to the subject the fullest consideration. Mr. MABERLY said this question struck him. in a different light from that of the Hon. Baronet, for if Wool came into this country it must be paid for by British. labour, and when manufactured, would be exported, and thus give additional- employment to British capital and British labour, He could assure . the Hon. Baronet, that the more he ap proximated those restrictions, the more evil he did to the agricultural interests, which he was so anxious to protect. He was very sorry that the agricultural interest did not appear to hint to have read those publications which were issuing daily from the press, and which proved that the system of restrictions which they advocated was as injurious to their own interests, as to the manu facturing. When the Honourable Baronet spoke of the manufacturing interest, he ought to recollect thi.t if the manufacturing interests were not supported, it would be idle to expect a Sinking Fund for the relief of the national debt. Mr.HEATHCOTE. begged to add his testimony to that already brought forward as to the extreme anxiety which pervaded the landed interest on this subject. The landed interest was no doubt anxiow about the Corn Laws,but he could assure the House the grievancv felt by that interest from the existing state of the law with respect to.the importation of Wool, was greater than any other under which they laboured. tie begged to suggest to the lion. Bart., that as so many interests were involved in this question, it would 3it-- better to discuss it before a Committee than in any other shape. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT--He felt very strongly upon this subject, as well as upon the others which interested the country; and as it wa , , his intention to endeavour to convince the House at some future period that a free corn trade ought to exist, and that all those duties which were adopted, as , measures of protection, were in fact, no protf 4 ,.. non at all, but were highly detrimental •.o"the agricultural i n t erest itself; he should discuss the question, but merely not now nion that a jealousy betwee , - . the manufacturing and agricultural interests - ' I h i m t o be the 6eemet to most irrational and i;- eoundless imaginable. It was generally suppow i experience le people wise, ,e( ma( but he wa. - were some p ee _ sorry to say that t h e re e °".. whom experience was thrown away—who, in tact, thought themselves so wise already, as not to stand in need of exper i eneef —and that there were others, who did i t worth while to read the . No man, however able or intelligent, not think express his opi publications which thre‘t , light on the subject of Free Trade, and without reading which, it would be impossible to - u nderstand the iinnortance of could l subjec t. expect to gain as much i n f ormat i on from lii, own' experience as front the publications of the pre sent d ay , .. w hich brou g h t forth all the learning of and ability the country, on t h ose i nterest i ng . topics. .He trusted th at H onoura bl e M em b ers w ould study these p u bli cat i ons, and not scorn them b e cause the writ ers were what were called political eco nomists. If t h ey were to read those publications t he conseque nce would be that their minds woul d keep pace with t h e improved information of the (by , instead o f b eing swayed by old, antiquated, and lie might s ay, expl o d e d pr i nc i p l es, w hi c h ma d e t h em act contrary t o t h e i r own pr i nc i ples. He agree d w i th those H on. M embers who were designated the agri cultural portion of thatHouse,that the agricultur e way the basis of all the other interests of the country, and taking his stand upon that, he hoped he should Ira able to show those Gentlemen that their opinions were erroneous. He spoke to the country gentle men with no unfriendly, voice; but with a degree of interest and a community of feeling incidental to the circumstances of his belongirg to the same class. II e knew of no course so wise as the leaving all matters of this kind to adjust themselves ; hut, as to what had been said about "gluts," his answer would be shortly this—let those who created gluts suffer by their consequences. He himself meant to bring on he question of the corn trade—of a free trade in that .ommodity—and was decidedly of opinion that the