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

sanction no measure calculated to endanger it." This argument was not altogether without its weight in the pinds. qf tbe -Piaserktem*etuselYes , severely their, felt the t inflictions_ of the Test and. Gorporatiop Acts, 7 yet the restoragort of, the Stuart dynasty. svould have been in their estimation an .evil Anfinitely formidahle. Hence they, were . induced,. if not to ,acquiesee; at least to • be less zealous in their demands of a measure, !which they were assured wouldendanger a sibs whicir they more than any other class ,d his ,Pdajesty!tvisubjects felt an in tere't ;n supporting ... However i nconSistent this 'kind of reacmilMg may appear, they,ne:tertheless allowed it to in. finence.,_ their conduct. . while the :Dissenters were in :th;:gr4nge". and anomalous condition; that th._,. rebellion of l s ZW,„took :place. It was then, .Siri 'that the nonconformiatszallantly . utsited themsilvei with!the En g - . fish forces; it tpas . .;hen tha t they devoted their lives .t 0.3 Maintain an iut6nrity, that oppressed them, and 'to Vit . s iic4 a front which they were excluded. And what was their _reward ? Were honours heaped Upon •them ,by a grateful Monarch ? Where offices. `con ' Arran Op them by_ a liberal Administration? . Did the thanks of Parliament, and the gratitude , Of the people,- reitiard their valourous awl 'SuCcessfol exertions ?‘ ' No sUch thing. Their 'reward was a free 'and full 'pardon for presuming to be the saviours of an ungrateful Monarch and an ungrateful Government. For a pet iod of eighty. five years they had been eichided from any office in Which the disaffected or :disloyal could by . their.,acts endanger the security of the Government or the stability of the reigning dynasty.. I now come, Sir, to notice' Some of the general reasonings upon this subject, and . the first thatrl shall notice is tile justificationof these acts, which their advo cates derive. from the circumstance of the Annual Wein, laity Act. Now, Sir, if there he any danger to be appre handed from the Disg.anters, how can any cautious or pru dent Statesman reconcile it to his judgment to consen t. every year to suspend the only safeguard which the Church and the Government possess againSt those di l oyal and dan gerous Members of th e State ? When these -Acts were rew, , there. might ;be' some shell! of • reason in :saying, ?Wait* little ;" there might be something of plausibility,' some fair slew " of caution and discretion, in calling on the Legislature to wait, five, ten, or fifteen years. But shall we look at them for a period Of eighty-five years—shall we see them fpr nearly a century, as amongst the most zealous and efficient supporters of law and Government, and yet -shall we not be satisfied . of their loyalty? lam unable to' conceive how anyone making the slightest pretension to sincerity, and to commonsense, can 'bring himself to af firm that the Dissenters are unworthy to be trusted ? Having, id the early part of the. observations which' I have submitted to the House, adverted tofthe ineficacy of are digit:ins test, I shall now 'consider the nature of the test which this Act impos':ks upon the Dissentees. It require 9 of them that they shall partake of the Sacrament Of the Lord's Supper—the Moat sofmn ordinance of our Church a thus used for a. party purpose-..an' ordinance, of ;cilia' we are told that he' who unworthily partakes rr sate and drinks to his own dathnation.7 Yet, their partaking of this ordinance is still held to be a test of` !. - heir fitnes s for discharging the duties of a civil office. .I am aware that it will be immediately retorted upon me, that at present we do not use such a test; that it was only in troduced by our ancestors to serve a purpose, then of the Pry highest importance,' and that they used th a t b u t as a means ofdiscovering the religious faith of the party with whom they had to deal., But I ask, why retain 'that, which, if it ever had a Use, that use has ever since passed' away? Why put temptation in any man's way? Why place his religions principles in contradistinction to MS tem poral interests? his sacred duties• in contradistinction to his official salary? Why tempt any man to use our holiest ordi nances as' a means of gratifying a paltry ambition ? Let us trace the history of these persecutions a little fiirther back,—let us see their operation before the introduction of the Indemnity Act. Previous to that period it was necessary, before any man could enter as a civil officer, that he iinust actually take the sacramental test. It was in the power of ' the clergyman to whom he applied to refuse him admission tri the Lord's Supper. True it was, the party ao exettuied was entitled to . complain of a civil injury, and that lie !night go into a Court of Law, and seek his remedy liv an action. It was held by the Courts, that the defendant, in such a case, must prove that the• plaintiff had been guilty of some flagrant and well-known sin:, before the clergyman could he warranted in inflicting upon him such a disability as exclusion from the sacramental test necessarily involved. Now, observe the situation in which the clergyman was placed.. Either he must admit many to the sacrament. 'who, according to his oath, he thought wholly unworthy of that privilege, or else submit to he dragged into Court, anal subjected to heavy penalties unless he could prOve them gUilty of some flagrant and well-knoWn sin. The :nevi -table consequence of this was, that all persons, without dis .tinction, were admitted to that solemn ordinance from which all the unworthy should be excluded. 'The scandals which eleaueil thereupon are amongst' the most disgraceful that The history of our Church furnishes, In those days, ''On a • Siinday, the taverns in the l';ieinify_of a Church Oere crOwded with .people, waiting • to qulify--people Who never 'attended any other part of the church ceremo :nies-:-they waited until the . early portion of the ser-, 'vcre . was over, and then repaired to the altar to undergo the most extraordinary preparation for office that the per- 1 vetted ingenuity of man had ever devised. One of , the - 4fireis of the Church, pn,these occasions, called out • in a fond Those gentlemen who come to be qualified will please to step up." Such Sir,' Were the eooselpiencep of connecting politics and . religion—the profanation of re ligion, the degradation of ita 'ordinances, and the perversion ..,of,those political principles which it was the object to sus tain. Seeing opposite the Right Hon. Member -for the University of Oxford in his place, and having, heard that he intends to oppose the Motto!) with which it is my pur pose to conclude, I put it to him--does he - himself Wish, or, does he think that the University wishes, that a system Should be perpetuated that may at any time be used to corrupt the purity of religion, to serve the spirit of perse cution, and to. pervert the principles of justice and sound policy ?. But it is eaid.that, after all, these evils arc merely theoretical, that there is no legal, no practical penalty at tached to them—that invariably the Dissenters lose nothing by their continuance. -.Now, Sir, supposing this to be actually founded in fact, I conceive it is by no means suf . -. ficient to support the continuance of such Statutes. No thing, but an absolute and overwhelming sec ssity could for a single moment" warrant their existence. The very nature and_ prineiple •of these Acts are altogether in alefensible, for the principle is neither more nor !kg than religious persecution. But in whatever quarter that ar gument may be urged, we are met .with the reply, that' there isnO real, no practical, no legal grievance. lam un able to Comprehend ,the consistency of those who contend on the one hand, that there is no grievance, and, on the other, pass an Act of Indemnity every year of their lives:. ; If there be no grievance why pass an • Act of Indemnity ? " Lord North, CO one of:the ablest speeches ever delivered en the subject in this House, so far from asserting that there was na hardship, most candidly admitted the exis-" tence of a grievance to a very great extent, but he denied that the annual indemnity removed that grievance ; nay, on the Contrary, his argument was, and very just was the ob- 1 servation, that the Dissenter who availed himself of such an evasion did not feel . the just indignation at the ontrage of feed to his leeline, Which a Man so circumstanced aught to feel, and ought to make the Governnientand the Legis lature sensible that he does feel. Thus, by continuing a test of tuts nature, the State is deprived of the services, in a m ili tary capacity, of men who might have raised the fame .of our arms far beyond any thing that our past history dis plays. We ma y too have lost by it th e most illustrious savants, and yet we gain nothing, unless it tan - be called a gain that we place the MOO unexceptionable subject, o f th e State • at the mercy of every Corporation.--(ril9 Noble Lord bere called th attention of the House, where Candi datese for Corporate offices, who had no more than a Mitio rity of votes; were returned, ,to the .exclusion' of those who .had the majority ? the latter being Dissenters. )---Isis ,Lord 07.4Plzeiceeded thus think it. is one of the greatest er reW intowhili those who reason upon this subject can fall, to supTese that all the Dissenters avail themselves of the be nefits of the Indemnity Act. On _the contrary, I know it to be the ,',*act that the greater part: would relinqUish the advantage of official appointments rather than accept them upon so degradi.ng terms as that Statute offers, and sure I a m that the more worthy members of. the Establ ished Church disdain theaptejes of support which it supposed to derive" from thedegranoion of other members of the 'great Protestant community. For my own pert, .1 most cor dially subscribe . ° 'tihe opinion of Bishop Kennel:, that 'the Established Religion of England exists, `not in • consequence of 341 6 protection s as the Test and Cor poration Acts; but because it is realty, scriptural; lie cause, by its general moderation, its fair and • temperate character, its decent and • impressive of the ordin aeces , it is suited to the feelings and wants majovlty of the people. Were it not so , it would be in vain we s h ou ld seek to sustain, it by any Test or by any law. H . we tire told that the admission of Catholic and Pra. , tant Dis senters is dangerous, because it may prove is jorer s ;to Church property. , I reply, that it is moat i: port ant to permit such individuals to associate the enjoym , of their civil rights with the destruction of our Eccles; ecal esta. blislurrent. As respects the Catholic it i s most npolitie ; as respects the ,Protestant it is not only irnri but ab surd. Can we conceive any thing more wise!. ';'opts than to suggest to-the minds of a greet and baguet . 1 Pert" of our population, that thee - overthrow of a wea;,!.y church the shortest and sured,road to th y, Attitipaux, of their civil rights? Those who contend that the security ofilt the Church of England is solely found in these statutes would do well to cast their eyes npontlther Itstablisbroents. Is the Established Church of Scotland sustained by a Test and Corporation Act? There. is no such, thing in:Scot-: land.: And surely if it were necessary in the one country it must be necessary. in the other. Ireland-also; is without a Test or Corporation Act, ln the reign of Queen Anne it:was enacted, htit:for forty-eight - or forty-nine years that country has .been entirely free irput such a grievance:. (The Noblej e ord here read, in support of his line of argil-- client, a.paasage of a letter from King William, in which _thesentimetata,nf, that .Monarch were strongly expressed a-gab-Tit the continuance of those statutes, which it was the '.'litiectiof the Noble Lord to repeal. I He then resumed=-- If we look, Sir, to the Legislation ef Italy, of Austria, and 'other.Cotitieental States. we find atoeuch strange. and in ' tArahle - ,anonialy. In Austria, which is a Catholic State, /although the protestant Dissenters profess a religion n-pug naiit to the Established:.Religion of the country, no oppo- Shinn is on that- account made to their adthissiOn to civil . offices; unfortunately, a contrary policy is pursued in Eng.: land, and the Protestant -Dissenters have- been patiently, hut in vain Waiting--during a space of eighty, five years, for .tardy justice.. Sir, I call on the House to consider that the laws complained :of cannot now he justi fied by a reference-. to the circumstances which existed at - the time when they were passed. These circumstances no longer exist ;. consequently, the • measures• to which they give rise ought now to he abandoned. They were pa sse d in troublesome. times, and-in reference to peculiar circum stances. The Dissenters . had succeeded in overt urn i ng the GOverninentof Charles I. To guard against the pos sibility of a similar occurrence under the sway of other Sovereigns, these. laws were enacted. Bit though the Dissenters bad overturned the Monarchy under Charles I. no apprfehension 0.41,1• be entertained that they would be able to effect a similar object under George IV., supposing that they, entertained a desire to accomplish it. Thus it was' that the..Usaenters had been excluded from th e en joyment of civic privileges in the reign of Charles IL, be cause, in addition to the fears entertained of their con duct, the Monarch , under whom the exclusion took place *as a concealed Papist. These causes and circumstances did not at all, apply to the present state of things. No apprehensions were entertained as.to the loyalty of the Dia ! Seeters—no feara existed on the subject of the orthodoxy of the Mona rch: The Dissenters continued to be excluded • • • n the beginning . of the Hanoverian succession, because the established Church was at that .time imagined to .be disaf fectet.to the State, and it was endeavoured .to conciliate her and keep them, from throwing- themselves , Into the arms of the Pretender, by continuing the ex elusive system as .it regarded, their, dissenting brethren. That fear has now passed away--there is no disaffection in the thitrCh•no Pretender whose name can he set up as an excuse for injustice. Yet these laws are, still continued—. `they remain on the Statute hook—when allpretext for their continuance has long since ceased to operate. Sir, I have gone through the causes which occasioned the enactmen of these itatUteS; I have enumerated the reasons that now exist for iheir . ahandonment ; I have endeavoured to show that they are founded on principles of persecution—that they inflict very serious grievanees on a large proportion of our population—that in their spirit and operation they are totally at variance with the improved state of o ur own le- gis/stion, in relation to these matters, both in Scotland and Ireland ; and that they are diametrically opposed to the le gislation of all liberal and enlightened Christian countries. Sir, I think an alteration in these laws most loudly called for—most imperatively demanded at our hands—the rather as their repeal will tend to render the Disisenters more at tached to the Constitution, and more willing to bear, with cheerfulness, their proportion of the burdens imposed for the maintenance of the Church and State, great as these are. I advocate the repeal of these laws, because lam convinced their abolition will materially tend to allay the bitterness of party and religious feeling, and contribute to the promotion of harmony and good will among the dif ferent classes of his Majesty's subjects. But, Sir, above all, I urge the repeal of these enactments, because I am satisfied that their repeal will suit the tone and spirit of the present time, awl is loudly called for by the progressofeients. It is with considerable pain I have heard it insinuated; that is the intention of tl;e Members of the new Admini‘tra- tion, to make the present a Government question, and to array the whole weight of their power and inlinenceagainst it. 'Sir, lam sorry to hear such an insinuation, not so much for the sake of the fate which may thereby attend the motion of this night—which I shall again have the honour 'to bring under the serious consideration of the Ifonse- , --as for the sake of his Majesty's Ministers them selvea, and the country over which it is now their lot to pre.. side. With respect to the cause involved in this notion, I am sure that though its opponents may for a time retard its completion, they never will he able to prevent its final ac. complishrnent. Of this I am fully convinced, that any attempt which may be made to thwart the spirit of libe rality and intelligence, which is• daily increasing in this country, will be perfectly fruitless. . The existing Govern- Ment will not be able to do it—neither will any other Go vernment disposed to hazard the experiment succeed in the attempt. Of the existing Government no matter what may be said. in their praise, or to their disparagement—it may he averred, that if they govern the country, the coun try governs them. The hope and confidence reposed in the measures of , the late lamented Mr. Canning arose out Of the circumstance of that able Statesman going along with the spirit of the time, and making his poliCy, ac cord with the feelings which generally prevailed in regard to our foreign and domestic relations. Of the illustrious person now at the head of the councils of the country, it is irrippasible to speak in terms of commendation be yond his deserta. He is the preserver of Portugal— the deliverer of Spainthe conqueror of Waterloo— in a word, one of the greatest chiefs this country has ever produced. All will be ready to admit he has entitled himself the gratitude—to the admiration—to the re- spectperhffs I might almost add, to the veneration of his country. All this, Sir, I concede ; no man can have a higher opinion of the Noble Duke than myself. He is now placed in a situation of unexampled poker and influ ence ; he holds the patronage of the Church and State in one hand, while with the other he holds the patronage and controul of an-army of 110,000 fighting men attached to his person—devote.d to his glory—by the remembrance of many past victories. Besides . all' this, he enjoys the confidence—l had almost said he possesses the authority— of his Sovereign, in es great 41 degree as he partakes of the gratitude . and admiration (.4 . his .country. Snob is the 5011;160n of the Noble Duke now at the. head of the Cabinet; , yet,, with all these advantages, he 'must mo dify.his meez,nres, and take care to make his opinions agree with the spirit and temper of the age in which he lives.— Great and Unconquered as he is, to' public opinion must he him if he desires to remain in the situation he .now oc- copies, Sir, I trust ' I have been misinformed as. to the in tention of his Majesty's ,Ministers, and that the confession' we require may be made to-night. I trust' Government will look to the sips of the times, and yield, not a tardy and reluctant, but a reaeiYAOsent to the proposition I shall presently submit to the House, pet not the Dissenters be brought, year after year, to. the door of this House, asking for that to which they are manifestly and once entitled. I regret, Sir, that I have been obliged to detain the House so long ; but the .urgency and importance of the subject will plead my excuse. X trust the consent of the House may he obtained to my proposed-motion--I hope no Minis-' terial arrangement has been made to defeat it--hut that,' on the contrary, Government may be faun& ready to do justice to three millions of our fellow countrymen. I have now only to.roove, that this Home do resolve itself into a Conunittee of the whole House, in-order' to consider ao much of the Act. as requires persons, before they accept offices under the Crown, or after they have accepted such offices, to receive the sacrament of the Church of England according to the rite.; of that Church. Mr. )..SMITIL rose for the purpcee of seconding the motion of the Noble Lord. lat communications which he had had, as well with Members of Parliament-as with in dividuals out of the House, he had been surprised to find great ignorance generally subsisting. among various mem bers of the community in relation to the nature of the grievances of which the Dissenters complained. He in tended to take the liberty of explaining what those griev ances really were. The application -of the Test Act was wide and extensive—it affected not only Protestant Dis senterrebut almost the whole population of the kingdom. It applied to all who held any office under the King, or derived any species of authority from his Majesty ; so that, in fact, not only the racers Of the Royal household— , offi-• cers holding commissions in the army and, navy, and others of a similar rank, but also a number of insignificant individuals, were included in the. Act. He repeated, all persons deriving apy species of authority from the Crown were included in the, Statute. , lie wished now to point out that which it was 'probable many persons might not he acquainted with—the penalties imposed by that Act on su ch as refused compliance with i t . They were to the last degree takingbtest, rrihltehaensade sacramental An individual, wh o de clinedin' the first pl ace ,, for feited whatever place he might bold under the Cronin. H e was declared incapable of instituting proceedings at law in any snit either of law or equity—he "could not act in the. capacity of a guardian or adminiitratOr—he was incapable of inheriting a legacy. • Then, after depriving the urifor= tunate individual of all means of securing, obtaining ' Possession of, . or. retaining his property, the Act pro• eeeded in another clause to impose upon him a penalty, of • ' 51301 . I. fact the Statute imposed a penetrator having ipped a man of the means s paying it. It would be id that the law was so cruel that it was not attempted to carry it into effect. Now, HOD..Gentleinen were las , taken if they thought the law had'never been enforced-_ - - it had been enforced, though certainly not in modern days: He had been given to understand that the Right Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Peel) intended oppose the present motion. Whether such was the 'Course which the Right Hon. Gentleman intended to adopt inn : relation to this question, he (Mr. S:) knew not; hot of this he was certain, that he had. heard the Right - Hon. Member, on more than one occasion, abjure every thing in the shape of persecution on account of religious opinions. The effect Of the Test Act (if enforced) might oblige_ \ ineltitudes to seele.rin another land - that toleration which- they Were re fused at_ home: if the Right Hon. Secrttary wished to • . be thought consistent, he must jo in in d eprecatin g punish runts so-alien-to the Constitution of the country, so coo .. trary to the laws of - God and man. The' whole of the penal statutes had originated -in one unfortunate miitr&e made by our ancestors. - He was not one who was dis posedto attach undue importance to what was denotiainated "the wisdom of our ancestors."'Certain it w a s that our ancestors.had committed a grievous error • i n supposing that assent and belief were matters of "rule and volition, and not; as they really were, irresistible acts of the under standing. No man could look at the subject in an un prejudiced_ manner. without pereeiving the absurdity of enacting a statute to compel belief. He 'had lately a 'Conversation with a respectable friend of his, who had been for many years a Bank Director, and he (Mr. Smith) took the opportunity of inquiring whether his friend had qualified under this Act. He w as given to understand- that he. had ; hut he then asked, " have.yongot.a.e.ertific.ate of the fact, under the hands of the Minister of the-parish, the Churchwarden, and two credible.witnesses - The Bank Director replied he had not; and. was neither , aware of the necessity that existe T forpomplying_ with such a regulation, nor of the situation in which his neglect to comply with it had placed him. The same ignorance existed among other, members of the com munity. A large proportion of the officers of the army not know of the-existence of the law. He had recently conversed with a Field Officer, who had served his country in the most distinguished manner, in the four quarters of the World. This gentleman was an accomplished scholar; and yet he knew nothing about the Corporation or Test Acts, or of the Annual indemnity )3ill, - Now, to have a law which it was impossible ever to put in force, was clearly an absurdity. With regard to"the Dissenters, the immediate objects of this law, he wished to address a few observations to the House; and he would say, without the fear of contradiction, that they were as' intelligent, as tolerant, as respectable, as industrious, and as prosperous a body of people, as any other class* of the community. It was ridiculous to exclude such individuals from a partici pation in the full benefits of the ConstitutiOn. It was now twenty-three or twenty four years ago, since, as theliouse must recollect, they had all volunteered their services for the purpose of defending their country. He was one of the volunteers on the occasion in question, and had had the command of a regiment of infantry in the City. The House would recollect that at that period there were two hundred thousand Dissenters who bore arms, out of the eight }Mildred thOusand that volun teered throughout the country. Could it be said, after this, that the Dissenters should - not be trusted with arms, or that they were not as loyal as any of their felloW subjects ? If it could not, then on what pretext were they deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by the rest of the community? It was impossible to name the dissenting clergy, to whom all bodies of Christians ought to' be ready to acknowledge their obligations, withok the highest praise. When he considered the nature of the Test Act as it affec ted the army, he could not avoid perceiVing that, if &br eed, it would he . the greatest grievance to that body. The, body of men of whom the non‘commissioned officers were composed were generally Scotch. Of the Scotch, he would say what had been said of them by a high au thority—that the Scotch Presbyterian was not a very docile animal=--on the contrary he was disposeuf ad here firmly to his religion, and it was the opinion of one of the most eminent men in the Scotch Church, that a Presbyterian complying with the regulations of the Test Act, 'abandoned his own faith and folloWed that of the Church of England. They had ScOichrnen amongst them' who held situations of high importance ; a circum stance not to be wondered at, when it was considered that their talent, industry, and moral character, were of a description to give them a preference over the , natives of most other countries. Ile asked were inch individuals to be exposed to the annoyance of an enactment like that now in question? He held it to be impossible. The House needed net to he informed of the effects prodn ced at former 'periods by religious zeal ; but he held that, under existing circumstances, the Test Act could 'never: be put in force. In looking back at the debates on this -Subject, he haul observed an argument put forward under the sanction of some of the greatest names ever known in this country. It was this effect That Dissenters were troublesome and im pertinent persons to complain of the exercise of that right which every Government enjoyed, to regulate as it pleased the conduct and profession of all persons who should take office under it, either civil or military." This right, it was contended, was an abstract right, which every G o _ vernment might enforce, it being for those who sought office to consider whether or not they would comply with the regulations imposed upon them: He was ready to meet the assertion of this principle With a good deal of dis dain. He denied it altogether, and took the liberty, as a plain man, to employ his common sense in kinking at it. He held that no man could claim to exercise a right to the wrong or injury of another. If this were true in the case of a single individual, it was true as it regarded a country. He submitted the assumption which was made to fix cer tain regulations• upon taking office to the criterion of public utility.' He meant by the phrase public utility, that course which gave the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Referring to thiS principle, he could not discover ho* the right claimed contributed to the happiness of any, but he clearly perceived, that it impaired, or might impair, the happiness of all. He would refer to a publication by a gentleman whom it was impossible to name without re spect, one who had always exerted his talents, and they were both various and considerable, on the side of libe rality—he alluded to the Rev. Sydney Smith—who, in one of his publications said, in reference to the exclusive principle unhappily adopted in our domestic policy, that it was not more rational to persevere in it, than to make a 'regulation that we should employ no individuals with red hair. !The Dissenters felt no objection to the sacramental rite, but in so far as it was considered holy ; but they did 'not wish That a rite ordained by the author of our religion, for sacred pfirprises, should be profaned by applying, it to the 'attainment of civil offices. Rather than do so they 'are content to remain in poverty and obscnrity—and surely their objection was conscientious, The parties making objections of this kind took for their rule the law'of the Almighty,' as they understood it, and by that endeavoured to regulate their actions. (Hear.) Hypocrites there might be, and perhaps penal laws were calculated to create them, but the Dissenters were not men of this description. On the contrary, he thought them worthy of all acceptation, and, as far as he was individually concerned, would be ready to employ them, par preference, above all others. If any one held cheap the qualities he had attempted to describe,' lie exceedingly regretted it, be eanse he was aware that they were developed in none, more than in the Dissenters, and because be considered such principles worthy of respect and regard. To him there ap peared no greater calamity which could happen to a country than the enactment of such Penal Laws, the establishment of which had never prevented the shedding of blood, or the spread of discord. The House was now called upon to do an art of justice towards three-eighths of the whole popu lation of the country—to relieve from a deep and galling insult so great a portion of the inhabitants of these realms —to get rid of laws equally absurd, cruel, and unjust. In another part of the Empire what effect had such laws pro duced ?—laws by which seven millions of people we're, in s juted and oppressed, and placed i n a s t a t e b y w hi c h ihey . became degraded themselves, and i n j ur i ous to t hi s coun t r y. Until those laws were repealed, We could never give tran quillity or prosperity to Ireland—by the repeal of those laws, we should bind the people of that country to the in terests of this ;' and by the repeal of similar laws, we should giVe to the Dissenters a power which they never pos sessed betore, of materially serving the interests of Great Britain, and of increasing its vigour and its capabilities. Great Britain would then become the arbitrator and the benefactress of mankind—a character which she Was now only prevented from assuming by these odious and oppres ' sive Acts. He regretted that he had occupied so much of the attention Of the'House, but he felt it is duty to state hisfull conviction, that now, when great evils were hang ing over this country, those evils might be averted by a course which would at once conduce to the honour, the prosperity, and the happiness of Oreattritain. He cor dially seconded the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. MARSHALL addressed the House in support of the mot,ion, big the HOn. Meinber spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be perfectly inaudible in the ; gallery. Mr. WILBRAHAM, When such a question as the pre- , sent was under discussion by the British flow of Com mons, and - when' it involved those principles of civil and religious liberty which he had been taught from childhood to revere, although - he was ready to acknowledge his own incapacity to do it justice, felt himself strongly called upon to offer acme observations to the 119 ti nt That any WWI try—that this country it particular—should ever have been in such a situation as to he obliged to remove from its service tk. great number of its people, must be a mat ter of very deep regret, but when the reasons whirl) caused sich a removal had been changed by circumstances, or bad been borne down by the lapse of time, to rout - intl.• such a system was little less than tyranny, and an arbi trary interference with the rights of mankind. Were it necessary to look upon it in another light, that of the principle by which the strong universally oppressed the weak, he could account for the system as one which had grown out of a great and long continued abuse—the- al liance of Church and State. To his mind no twe things were more distinct.or more dissimilar than religion and government ; yet we had been.taught to blend them loge ther, to clothe the Government in. the sacred garb of religion, 'and to address religion with attributes w hi c h 'were not her s,, and to which she would lay no ,claim._:.: We had been taught to look upon religion as - a constituent - part of the Constitution of this realm, and cause.; quently as the stepping stone of individual , ambition. If it were now proved that the Roman Catholics were aiming to subvert the Constitution, and ta introduce iato our kingdom a new race of Kings—for upon such preten; sions, upon such shadowy grounds alone, could the penal laws which affected them be defended—then indeed it would be just and fair to look upon them as objects of suspicion. If, on the other band, it were proved that the Protestant Dissenters were aiming to subvert the union of Church and State, it might' not be unjust or Unfair to keep from them places Of trust; but even' then a question would arise as to whether they had the means or the power, admitting that they had the 'will, to carry their de:igns into effect. Were he to say that this evil disposition on the part of the Dissenters did exist, and that they were furnished with the means of effecting their object saying so much merely for the sake of argument, because he be lieved a more loyal body of men lived not in this country-- were he to admit all this to its fullest extent, then, and then only, could the laws which operated against them be defended as expedient or-necessary. But, where no danger existed there was no necessity for security. Then came the great question whether the Test and Corporation Acts were adapted to give that security which was expected, or to ward off that clanger which was apprehended. Now, it could be clearly shown that of all laws these were the least likely to produce such effects. In the first place, a man might beau excellent communicant, might. be a regular Churchman,, yet might hold opinions directly contrary , to the Constitution and to the Governinent of this country; such was the case, for example, with respect to the. Bishiips who, under Charles 11., all of them with the exception of three, opposed the Bill of exclusion, and in the succead- ing reign set themselves in opposition to the revolution and to the election of William 111, to be their King ; so that not only did they seek to overthrow and defeat their own interests and objects, but they deserted their own hierarchy, and ulti mately owed all their advantages and all their honour, to those very Dissenters, whom they afterwards had the mean ness to pursue. Another , argument was this:—We bad the tacit consent of the opponents of these Acts themselves that they were unnecessary, for how else could we reconcile the fact,ef their giving, their annual vote in favour of that . Rill of Indemnity, by . which those Acts were virtually re ' pealed? They contended that such laws were necessary, yet why would they vote for their virtual repeal unless con vinced of their utter worthlessness?—Were it necessary to enter on the historical part of this question, it would be easy to show that the test laws were meant as a check upon the Prerogative of the Crown—that they were enacted when the King was considered as unfit to exercise the pre rogative of choosing his own servants; yet they were de fended by Hon. Gentlemen who, from the exercise of such prerogative, had derived so much honour and advantage. Such, however, was the original object of the Bill, for the very immediate consequence of, it was to exclude the Lord Treasurer Clifford, and James ,Bake of York (afterwards James IL) from the office of Lord Hi g h Adm iral of Eng land. But be (Mr. W.) would confine his observations to some of , the , leading points •against ~which objections were usually Made. In alluding to the argument by which - it was urged that the annual Indemnity Bill took away the sting from those laws, anti that, in fact, the oppression of those laws was more imaginary than real, he would observe that such was a singular mode to adopt for th e ir defence—to state that they were merely made tolerable by their being systematically overlooked and that however esseptial they might be, the great body of Dissenters were protected against their penal effects by the Act of Indemnity. Now _the Act of - . lndemnity was but temporary—it a licence granted, not a liberty Liven ; far from it; it was indeed an annual recognition, of that act of Government by which the stronger excluded th e weaker part of. the community from a participation in constitutional privilegee,,, merely because of 'religious differences. .Bus ; he depied.that, the evil_ was merely imaginary. Was it nothing for an Englishman to hold his rights by an annual lease only—and to he forced to have that lease renewed from year to year ? Was it no grievance to depend for freeoom upon the caprice of any individual branch of the ! Legislature, and to look merely to forbearance, for not being crushed by the .weight of penal laws? And here he would observe, that it , was not so much the weight as the stigma and the degradation un der which they laboured, that the., Protestant Dissenters complained—they felt, and felt deeply the effects of those laws ,by which, as if lo insolent superiority, their orthodox opponents had heen armed. _lt could not be said that the Protestant Disseuters were indifferent upon this great ques tion. No r ; the 'Petitions which had been laid upon the tittle of the House—the number of which had been rarely if ever surpassed—were sufficient to contradict such an asaertion. But if there had not,been upon.that table one single petition froM any one man, or from any one body, he would argue that no Englishman, suffering under the ef fect of those laws, could look upon them with indifference. IF such were the fact of the Englis4 generally—how Much more true must it be—how much more force would the argument possess with reference to large bodies at all events not the least educated portion of the corn nutnity, who felt what liberty was, and who knew how to value it—who were the foremost, friends of the Consti tution and of the freedom of their country—and who had proved themselves such when its liberties bad been forgotten or betrayed by Churchmen ? There were some gentlemen _unwilling to grant the repeal of those laws because, forsooth, they knew not what would be the next step, taken--they. would deny, to, men that -which it was right and proper to grant them, because they might afterwards ask for that which, was unreasonable.---they would refuse to pay a, debt which they justly owed, be cause their creditor might subsequently ,rob them. He (Mr. W.) knew nething of the Dissenters, except 7from the 'casual intercourse of society; but.were be a Dissenter he would never cease to knock at the door of the Con stitution until that _door was opened to -him, and until he was adMitted through it on the same footing , as other men. ,` Let him not be thought indifferent to the interests of the Established. Church; he, had no h es it a ti on i n say i ng that a Church Establishment, was necessary for the main tenance of order and for the support of religion, But he wished to see the Established Church respectable —respec table by its situation, and respectable by its conduct ; he wished to see it stand upon any ground but the narrow, grou,pd of exclusion—to rely upon , any cause but that of persecution. Such were the feelings which had induced him to give his support , to the motion of the Noble Lord ; such were the argunaente by which he had been induced to give his aid, however weak it might be, to the object which the Noble Lord had in view. He 'had been, informed that there were some who expressed them selves favourahle to the claims of the Roman Catholics, but who were unwilling to grant the prayer of their Protestant Brethren. Upon what principle of liberality or of tolera- . tion they, could reconcile those conflicting sentiments, he was at a loss to guess. How the liberation of one body of mess could be effected by rivetting the chains of another, it was impossible for him to say. Ilia feeling was far dif ferent., Ile considered that every step taken to advance the cause of religious liberty was so much gained for the great cause of Catholic Emancipation. He would now call the attention of the House to another branch of the. subject—and it was one which he desired to approach deli catelY, one Indeed to which he felt himself bound to re vert—but with regret. If it were true that religion were the . source, the mother ofall denominations, of the Christian world—was it not something to be forced to look for her amid discord, amid sects, and amid systems ? He wished to ask the candid professor of our holy religion, whose ideas would carry us somewhat too far in the intimate union of Church and State, how we could reverence and Inve the parent, and not reverence and love the offspring? How it could be useful to the Church of England, how desirable to Christianity itself, or how conformable to the prin cilipolweetohat H of our, Ritual, Sa"edCre4 ought to be the bond of union, the symbol of defiance? subsisted to make that ceremony w hi c h betweenman w .a h nd ich h w ie as cr t en yi t t n ica r, l in o i f gh t t he b t e ie m t ed ha e t the stepping stone 'of avarice and ambition.? He would ask, in the language of one of our poets, whether it was right— • Toe Al make office symboltkhee yapic o k lo c f atoning o t n o i n a ggc r a place?" (Hear, hev.)--Considering this motion as designed to give freedom to a large body of our countrymen-,-and deeply in teresting to all ,denominations of Christians,'considering it also as the great step towards the accomplishment of reli gious liberty, he would , give it his most cordial support. The laws he had adverted to were impotent for any good Puirse—were powerful only to barns, and uppiebui,ancl bad a direct tendency to produce the very evils, and to create the very dangers which they affected to avert. Sir IL INGLIS was one of those who would be ashamed to resist any claims founded upon justice, and it was tardy because he found it a question of mere expediency that he should resist the motion of the Noble Lord. He held and was fixed in the belief, and all the authorities, all experience ancient-and modern, with but one single exception, con firmed him in it, that some 'establishment was necessary to religion. He was willing to admit, however, that the smallest restriction possible that could be devited - for the maintenance of the established religion was that , only which ought to be applied. But every Hon. Gentleman ivho beard him must confess that restriction of some kind was necessary—.(No, no)—in this couutry in particular, whire the Church establishment formed part of the` Constitution. We.had got a Church establishment which by the Consti tution-we Were•bound to maintain. Spartan' nactus es bane orna." •• - He was 'quite 'aware - that the restrictions now under cori. sideration Were greater, and. More Vexatious in their opera. tion, than.was now necessary fur .the attainment Of their object—but still he' was warranted in" believing, froni the silence of those whom they affected, that they were not found to press heavily or grievously. If the evils cOrn. plained of by the Dissenters in their petitions were' so" oppressive as represented, was it to be Credited that eight and thirty years would have been suffered by them 'to elapse between the last discussion on the queStion in Parliament; and the present time. —(Hear, hear.)-:-.[The 'Right flori Member here alluded to a publication on the subject,which stated, that at the period referred to, the measure of relief bad been then lost by 'a majority of 20 only.)—He,"for one, could not conceive how a question so circumstanced could have been suffered to remain ever since in abeyance. - But the fact was,that it had been brought:forward subsequently to the - occasion alluded to in the work he had justquoted, when it was rejectedhy 'a majority - of 290 t o 105, ' and in that majority 'Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke had voted. He was not so partial to the Acts sought to be repealed, as to ' desire their maintenance, if any other, capable of ensuring the same object, could be devised—and it was for those who' recommended a change to suggest some less exceptionable, but adequate, measure in its stead., The. Noble Lord had quoted from Bishop Sherlock, 'but he could not see, how Bishop Sherlock could, be answered. The strong objection of the Noble Lord was this, that the Chore-11'9f England required from each Of 'its members that he should three times in the year 'receive the Holy Communion-but, in doing ,so, it was not required of a man to give Mere than legal evidence that he had 'qualified inthe manner which by ' law he.was bound to do--thus giving proofofhis undiiided allegiance to the 'Constitution in Church' and State: He thought' the grievanees Complained' of we're much exaterated, ' and that was eiident, from - the small number of persons affected by . the Act. .In An entire county, one welt known to the Noble Lord, the whole number of persons, who, since the 'accession of his Ma jesty, (a period of eight years) had qualified, was only twenty-three.—(Hear, hear,) Moreover, the Act 'of M In demnity, relieved all who should h a i e ne gle c t e d so qUit. lily. The Act merely gave the power, of which' the' Church of England and the COnstitution never intended "to make use, unless such circumstances should occur as those by which, two centuries since, the Altar and the Throne Wire overthrown. He; 'for one, could 'never approve of any penal statute which would go to prevent a man from wor shipping God in any way he deemed most pleaaing,to the Deity ; (hear, hear, hear)but he never could believe ; that the union of two bodies—the Church and State—coUld constitute a grievance. , The wisdoni of our ancestOrehad been alluded to by the Noble Lord, and - the Hon. Gentle men by whom he had been followed; but lie . thought it had been too frequently referred to by p ersons whOserecal lections ought to have taught them to avoid hear.) Much stress had been laid uponit ;. but he wasior opinion, that there was , more practiCal - Wiadom inlhe pre sent day than in the most splendid days:: of Greece and Rome. He believed that .no dangeroni overt acts could be -charged upon theDissenteis 'of the 'presetifdiy, America' had been quoted; as an example in which the affairs of a country were tonducted without a 'religions establishment a country in which-every man paid his own Minister; but (as we understood the Hon-- Member, whose voice heire fell) as this country had gone on sO'well- for such a length of time with its present establishment, he thought it would • be dangerous to introduce into it any inno va ti o n. I Mr. FERGUSSON rose to giye his'warmest support Ito the motion of the Noble Lord, and &pressed his surpr&e at the assertion of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, that the main point for consideration was the exact degree of restriction that should be laid upon our felloui. subjects to ensure the safety of the Constitution in Church and State. Now he (Mr. F.) was prepared to , prove that the Act then under consideration was more •thd enough, for the purpose, but he • shOuld first. take . leave ,reply to an early observation of the Hon. Member. "" . , lion. Gentleman had said, that if we were to look to tile Parliamentary Debates of 1787, we should find that there was an increasing majority against the, measures of relief..;.. but why had that majority increased? Because the whole' artillery of Mr. Bankes's eloquence was brought into the field to oppose it—who, in his argument, add e d th e or i-, ginal objections to, its repeal s —a speculation that it would bring down upon this country all the horrors of •thle French Revolution, then in its commencement. It ought not to be objected to the. Dissenters, that they had not brought forward their claims during the, period of the war—at a time when the Government of the counttlr was 'embarrassed by foreign and domestic dangeri.--t- During twenty years of these thirty-eight referred to biy the Honourable Member—a period which he (Mr. Fer:- / gusson) well remembered—it would have been not only' without any prospect of success, hut absolute' madness; Were the Dissenters, or any other body of men wishing do advance the liberty of the subject to bring forward ;4 measure with such an object.—(Hear.)—The motives Of the Dissenters, therefore, for refraining from pressing their claims, ou&ht not to be misrepresented. The House Of Commons would decide upoa them ; not on the ground that they had slept for 100 ) ears, but upon the principles 011 which they were founded.—(Hear.)—The manner in which the question had been brought forward by the Noble Lord had given the utmost satisfaction, to all who bad heard him. That great question was worthy of being Antral= duced and advocated by a person of his distinguished tk lents and name.—(Cheers.)--With every' question ih which civil and .religious liberty were invoked, the Noble Lord's family were identified. He (Lord John Russell) . had said every thing that could be said upon the 'subject; the misfortune was, consequently, that he had left little or nothing.'lo- be added by those ivho were to come after him. The Hon. Member (Sir R. Inglis), had said that it was necessary to continue 'those penal acts widch still remain upon' the Statute Book; hut salt that the country was now in the same state as at the period when they were enacted? If any one of those,Acti, the Test Act for example, were to be now brought forward, he would put it to any Hon. Gentle Man to say, could there', be found a single man to support it ? He . knew at least that no number of men could carry it.—(Cheers. )--It was true, that the Corporation Act had been levelled, not against the Dissenters atlarge, , but against the 'Presbyterians, who had contrived to secure to themselves, during the time of the. Commonwealth, the. Corporations ; , and it--was only natural, that, after the Restoration, those who were' frie to Church and State, should prevent such monopoly of the 'Corporations by Sectaries who had destroyed the' Church . . andthe Throne. (The Hon. Gentleman here describeit the Corporation Act as it had originally passed, pointing out the amendments since made in it, by the omission of the most objectionable portion 'of thevath.) Such were the eircurnstinces in which that Acthad originated ;' but would any Honourable Gentle Man say, that those circumstances' continued to• exist.:—that there was now a Party in the plotting the overthrow of the Government? Not a single overt act of that nature could be proved ;' why they should this Act remain in forge. The Corporation Act, compared with the Test Act, was the 'greater grievance of the two. By it every man was disqualified' to hold office,' who should refuse or neglect to take the oath , prescribed, - but,the Test Act said, the disqualificatiOn oaths must be takin before a party could become a candidate—so that even had he a majority (without having qualified), a Man with a leiser number of voteS would become the elected Mayor or officer, as the case ' might be. He (Mr. --" :) might be reminded of the Act If Indemnity—but the Act of Indemnity could not relieve persons so suffering--they had incurred no penalty—laboured under no grievance but the disability to hold office. What had the Dissenters done to deserve all that harsh treatment? The Test Act was levelled not against them but against the Catholics-- by the Parliament and the King_. against the King him self, and against his brother, who had deClared himself a Papist. Its enactment at that period had, therefore, beon very proper—it had become necessary in order to give "0 the country a perfect assurance against the intrigues and the power of the Catholics, who, from the reign of Eliza-* beth down to that of Charles 11., had allied themselvgs with the" French Government for the overthrow of the . Constitution and the country. The objection was not $o Catholics, but to the establishment of arbitrary principlis anti arbitrary power. The then Duke Of York had de clared himself a Papist—a Popish army was 'at the very gates of London—and it was to avert the consequences ap prehended from those circumstances that the Test Act had passed—aud So convinced was he of the necessity fOr that measure, that, had he been then alive, 4nd qualifiedto give a vote upon it, he would have supported Lord Somers. Buf the circtuototu whjchcalled fin tint onctu4eat 1J ion i ceased to exist. At the rebellion, when the Member! , cl 4 Church of E ng t a d when, the has vancedinto the roast England,. and met P I e 0, 11 itself, the Dissenters roseas one man, and, Aotwi etas 4 ' their disqualification for. the office, engaged in the se', of the King, and continued most materially, to d e ferul a ` Government of thei r Sovereign. The inhabitant s of ; reign -countries subsequently inquired respecti ng the f).„ the rebels. "o'SO m e of them were executed—some Pardoned, .was the a nsw er.,-.-" And thole wh o p u t tl ° o - down ?” ",They, too, were, pardoned.rs rr (Cheertf laughter.) sltch was theif,reward.. ,(Theilora. Ceir ; j man here referred to sevv;af.other proof, of : th e loyal the Dissenters o n'ifferent oCeasiOn s ) , hisnaelf belosr • to one' class of 'Dissenters. He had the Isononr to t ° member 011ie National Church of 4 hiliovittsconntrr Could the of Scotch Oi ssep ,447, m4yter igh be queetioned ? If we were . f o,he t914-Aatit 1940 were, - nftW Church of England orditbat the.Kieg,and : c ous" were to be defended, let us be told so. lion the day of Wst' rionelnit members of the Church of England wer e to borne arms—none but, the sons of the Chuech i of Eng were to taii fOught—that the diiqualification wa s toe tend itself tti* the Scotch regiments then present--the the Scotch' prep,' and other gallant regiments; and V 7 - tante men whe comm a nd e d them-- s wbat would ha v e the consequence?-(Cheers.)—But that was, not alb' what Would have happened were the Penton, Catbolies . ! have been exelnded?—(Continued cheeriug.),--What s' to become of our fleets and armies if no Dissenters were he allovved to Serve in them ?—(Hear, fire, in war, the services of thoae people were desirable, 1 ought to soothe th em i n peace.--(Hear. )._ooe word svi: respect to the Church ofScetland..4Here the Hon. MO ber referred to the Articles of Union, by which, the in , Y pendence of the Scotch Presbyterian Church was s ecure' and asked, were the members of that Church to be pfi eluded from serving their King, without incurring all 11 penalties of the statute, unless indeed, they ..were to nounee that 'religion, for which they naturally felt a 1 tion?) • But, in point of fact,, the natives, of :,Scotland this country were exposed to the - moat hOrrid penalties, 11) the state of Scotland 'could he.eompared to nothing but that of a whOle nation itnder pro,seription. Upon that pei" l he would not further ~preSs the maintainers,ok , sh e Aces but there wereionie others to Which, he would yet *lllO, He perfectly concurred in what the.Zleble Lord ,had ssi" respecting the profanation 'of 'the';SitCrainent,.,which tl' e „ Test Act necessarily involved. It ia, on e o f be speeches,. had mentioned an inettnac r e Ivitich be culled jade ; cent; - he 'Stated that a p ers o n going into It church, IP s ee i ng a person'. thing the Sacrament, eaked„wbether was going `to make his peace _With ..G o d ?,. 0 14 no," another answered, ‘! he is qualifying himself to be First Lord of the Treasury.."-..-(A laugh. )---.An Hon. Mein' ber had said that the' Clatiech establishment ought to V abolished, and that every Man ought to be left to pay hi" own priest in what manner he best pleased.. ,He (M! Ferguson) did not knotv what' the Hon. Member laimse", would pay;—(A . laugh)—but he feared, that in el' countries, if the Clergy were left to maintain : themsalvel upon the contributions of the 'faithful, they would be but badly off. But it was his opinion that the clergy ought 50 Ise respected; 'and ought to have a liberal provision made for thern; and if he thought _ the repealing , the :Test AO 'Would in the least tend to endanger the provision nos ( made for the Established Church, be should .not • vote for it; but it would riot endanger the church establishment' He paid this tribute of praise to the Ministers hotb of do Church of Scotland and of Eogland, and he considered as much his duty to uphold the rights, ..privilegeo,,.,aod munities of • the Church of England, as he had no doubt anf. Member returned „fro th thi s pa r t o € ,the heisland would those of the Church of S'Cotlatid, were they to be attacked. he was sure,. that admitting the petition ers t o C or p or aW! sights, would nit in.theilightest degree affect the privilege of the Church of England. Beside', what interest had the DiSsenters in the 'overthrow of the 'Church Establishment' They would be no gainers ; it was not to the poor that the spoils of the Church went; it war to the rich.--(Hour , hear. )—He now came to another part of the question. I t was said that the Dissenters were not affected by the Te 4 Act, as they were scre ene d f rom i ts operat i on b y t h e B i l l O f Indemnity. ' Note it' id appear to him that the Disienter , even with the Bill in his pocket, might be injured to some extent. The preamble set forth, that, in cons& ,Ouence of ignorance of the law, or of unavoidable absence: the Dissenters had not been able to take the Sacrament, and he was inclined to think that if an action were brought by 'a Dissenter, and the other party were to prove that it was from -neither of these causes that he had not taken the ' Sacrament, that the Dissenters would have the worst of it ; indeed, he knew of nothing to prevent informations being filed against Dissenters to any amount, and the worst seas that they were never absolutely pardoned, the Act only indemnifying•them: fair six months. It resulted from this that, if by any chanee the Act of Indemnity Was not passed in proper , time; the IDissenters- would be out of the} pale of the law. In twenty-eight days front the present time , if any accident were to prevent the passing.olthe Act, they Would actually be in that condition.' The House of Lords, in a time of excitement, might refuse their con. sent ; for the King, if we had-a bigottett oqe, which, thank God ! was not the case' now, might, if be please, prevent the passing of the Bill. It was argued by those who supported the continuance of the Test Act that it 'did not effect the Dissenters—that it did not bear upon them ; and yet, forsooth, it was, to -be held over them in terrorem• . - -(Heir, and liughter.)—What would be said of those who thus argued but that they were dolts and idiots? hear.)--Ile- trusted that many Hon. Members •who bad voted against Catholic Eniancipation would yet be able conscientiously to vote for this relief to their fellow Protestants. -He hid Understood that the Right Honourable Gentleman had summoned to muster the array of force that opposed this motion-..(Hear,-hear) —but he trusted that, in spite of that muster, many of those who had voted against Catholic Kmancipation would vote fin. the repeal . of the Test Act. With respect to those few who had voted for Catholic Emancipation, and opposed this motion, he could .only say, that he could not imagine upon what principle it was they acted.— ,(14, 0 0...../t was an insult to the petitioners to tell them their •• wrongs • and grievances , ' 'la'otild not be redressed, although in the power of the Route to do so, because they could -not redress the grievanees of others which it was not in their power to redre'ss. It had been said on more' than one occasion' by Honourable Mem bers opposite, by way of apology' for the view they took of the question, that a late illustrious person had enter tained the same opinions'aS themselves. But he was con. fident, that had that illuStrious' person lived, he'would have altered his opinions. —(Hear, and a laugh.)—Yes, he said that individual, who, although be did not sacrifice to it, made popuiarity his God; would,' had he seen the whole country; expressing its feelings in the petitions poured into that House; have given way, and granted to those of his own rdigiOn' what he was so ready to allow to those cf another.—:(Hear.)—The Hon. Memliet conclirded by ea treating those who heretofore had shown theMielves favour able to Catholic Emancipation, now to support a cause similar in its principle; viz. that of religious s liberty, but different in degree. --(Cheers.) • .liftilnyliwexcePte:lers, ., Mr. R. PALMER thought this question ought to be judged upon its own merits, and not with relation to any other question. It was the duty of those iidni suPporte a -this Aet to prove the . necessity of its,existenee.--4llear. ) —Helied - come to the conclusion that there was no nem iity:fOr its existence. He Was fortified in that - by the fact of its being annually repealed. From the • enor mous number of petitions presented frnin.the Dissenters, •he wall bound to . conclude that 'they felt it a serious griev ance; whilst from the fact of the total absence of 'petitions on the other' side—(Cheers)—frotn . :those who • were ready and willing to protect . the interests of the Church, he was equally bound to conclude, that no, . danger was appre hended by them from the repeal of this Act...=(Hear.) Mr. Secretary.HUSlclSSON—On'yisitig to deliver my sentiments on this Motion by the Noble Lord, for the repeal of those Laws commonly' kisown as the Test and Corpora tion Acts, I must begin by .declaring, that I certainly do the Noble Lord has thought fit to bring regret that ' 'lie has deemed it expedient to mate these Acts the subjects of a debate in this Nouse ; and I do is tim A e lotion.--(This sentence was follourefl by a present time, of th e feelings Of the House, manifests(' equally regret that, under present Circumstances, and at laughter, and . murmurs,) :T say Ido .regret under present cireumstances, . brought forward this Motion for abolishing those ,Acts the Noble Lord should form part of the' established law of the country. t reason why I am `sorry is, that after all I have heats', it does not_ appear to me that the motion Of the Noble is direCted to the removal of an evil of an urgent or nature ; and if this Motion do not Cure the evil, g er it may be, I am much mistaken if the agitation o p‘itTWLrvihe f roh.hhaal t rleiast h edics,ty i ei s ny question do not produce one.—(Hearidiear.) My 'Hon. Fri en d who spoke last but out, is under a great alarm as to the consequences that will result from these grievanCes, if suffered to remain unredressed. If any Hon. Member bad heard tnyOon. Friend's speech, and knew' nothing of the practice of the Constitution as to this q uestion , could he have supposed that my Hon. Friend hid just come from the country to *Mil he does so' much honour ? Would he not have supposed that my Hon.• Friend had discovered that his gallant countrymen were no longer at liberty to gather those 'laurels which they gained at Waterloo and Aboukir, where they, raised the glory 'of their cOubtryi by l'adding their own to 'it . Witild he not have supposed that PI litm. Fri6lkl had just made the ditivoy t ry . , that ill, Ma r_. :tat - t 4i nal T yei firs d~ Pal evil 3 . • - Au , - tyri • 410 ' dut talis COLI of - lon, I'VE" slot . all I SVC eac' dep tioi . 141 S Lea tha 'Pr( ' not try, *On 4/ 'aril -aeu ' - are the: the, . tO f beep the • and • wel not riot of t Pea test ..star grez. any No pal at - POO fri, k" nal YR th e blia all thi s — w, IV It u, at a the this aa t I m but flict fell( jots • trio bom -1-044 d tills Jonj E •'‘ ene all 3 to pid4 in be gre bay .'con pea in 1 tiro are disc con pre .esp cuu ino but opi the the coy flu big Übi dui the sta io tha 3. he %vel '" am, 941 -11.