The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-25 00:00:00

TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

Mr. FAVELL rose, pursuant to the notice given in
he requisition, to move that petitions be presented
:o Parliament for the repeal *f the Test and Corpo-
ration Acts. Before he proceeded, he was anxious
that the clerk should read the resolutions of the
Court agreed to on the 9th of May, as it was on
these he should found his present motion.
The resolutions were then read, as follows :
A Common Council, holden in the Chamber of
the Guildhall of the city of London, on Wednes-
day, the 9th day of May, 1827
Resolved—That this Court is deeply impressed
with the injustice and impolicy of the Corporation
and Test Acts, which were passed in times when
almost all parties were opposed to the rights of con-
science, and to. the principles of religious liberty.
That they inflict on persons who do not qualify
under them the most severe penalties. Besides the
fine of '5001., they are rendered incapable of prose-
cuting any action or suit in law or equity,--from
being guardian of any child, or acting as executor
or administrator of any person, or from receiving
any legacy or deed of gift, or bearing any office
within the realm of England ; and all these punish-
ments apply to persons who enter corporation or
chartered companies, or take certain offices or com-
missions appointed by the Crown, without first re-
ceiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ac-
cording to the rites of the Church of England.
That while they limit the prerogative of the
Crown in rewarding merit, they convey imputations
of disloyalty upon those classes of his Majesty's
subjects among nonconformists, who have been at
all times amongst the most zealous supporters of the
House of Brunswick, and of the principles of the
British Constitution.
That if these Acts had been enforced during the
late war, a very large proportion of the volunteer
officers would have been subjected to the most
ruinous penalties.
That all persons born and educated in Scotland,
under the Presbyterian religion, established by law,
are required to conform to these laws when they ac-
cept of offices in England, or enter into his Majesty's
army or navy.
That in Ireland, where the members of the Church
of England are in a minority, the Corporation Act
has never existed, and the Test Act has been long
since repealed.
That the disabilities under these Acts are so nu-
merous, that if enforced they would unsettle ques-
tions of property throughout the kingdom, whi.Th has
doubtless induced the Government to pass an act of
indemnity every year, allowing further time for qua-
lifying, exhibiting the most extraordinary anomaly in
the history of legislation, by which laws are retained
upon the Statute-book, and constantly nullified as
unfit to operate in Society.
That they are contrary to the interests and privi-
leges of this corporation, by enabling many persons,
in other respects duly qualified, to decline the high-
est offices of the magistracy in this city without being
liable to those fines which are levied upon their fel-
l° w-citizens.
That many of the members of the Church of Eng-
land, as well as Disstnters, consider these acts as a
violation of the sacred ordinance of the Lord's Sup-
per, when applied as a test for civil purposes, and as
totally contrary to the spirit of the institution, the
object of which our Saviour declared, by saying,
" Do this in remembrance of me."

That, anxious as this Court must ever feel to
evince its attachment to the political and religious
institutions of the country, it cannot better dis-
charge that duty than by recommending measures
of peace and liberality, that all parties may unite
in the service of their country ; and being, above
all, anxious, for the sake of religion and piety, to
promote the repeal of enactments which turn the
holiest ordinance of religion into a qualification and
passport for power, and impose restraints on the
Church itself, into the free administration of its re-
ligious service, and invite men to its communion
with far other feelings than such as tend to purify
the heart or amend the life.
That we agree with the excellent sentiments of
the late Lord Mansfield, which were delivered in
the House of Lords, upon the case of " the City
against Allen Evans," where he said, " What blood-
shed and confusion have been occasioned, from the
reign of Henry IV., when the first penal statutes were
enacted, down to the Revolution in this kingdom,
by laws made to force conscience !"
There is nothing certainly more unreasonable—
more inconsistent with the rights of human nature
—more contrary to the spirit and precepts of the
Christian religion—more iniquitous and unjust--
more impolitic, than persecution : it is against natural
religion, revealed religion, and sound- policy.

. .
Mr. FAvELL then proceeded. He had met the
concurrence of the Court in the resolutions submit-
ted in May, and he trusted he should have its sup-
port in those be now proposed to found on them.
The cause which he advocated had the advantage of
not being a question of party—it did not involve any
particular set of political opinions. It was the cause
of religious liberty in general—a cause which should
be dear to every man. Neither did he appear there
to plead the cause of the Protestant Dissenters alone. j

When he contended for the right of private jedg:
ment, hemaintained the cause on which all reformers
stood—that right on which the Church of England
was founded, when it separated itself from an alleged
infallible church. He knew it might be urged, in
answer to the severity of the Test Laws, that there
was an annual Indemnity Bill passed, which sus-
pended their worst effect; but he would contend,
that if it were unjust or unwise to put those laws in
execution, they ought to be repealed altogether.
Another point which might perhaps be urged was
this—Were the Dissenters fit to be trusted with
office ? The affirmative of this question was, be
contended, proved by the uniform loyalty of the
Dissenters; by the generous and disinterested con-
duct of those brave men, who, as volunteers against
the rebels in the reigns of Geo. I. and 11., risked
their lives in defence of their country, though pro-
scribed by its laws. It was said that those Acts were
some of the props and pillars of the Constitution. If
so, then some of those pillars had already given way,
foilhe found that under the Liverpool Administration,
a Bill was passed (June 17, 1824) to dispense with the
taking of certain oaths by persons employed in theol-
lection and management,)f the public revenue. Now
those oaths were some of the tests enjoined by those
acts, but it would not be supposed, he contended,
that Lord Liverpool would sanction a measure tend-
ing to undermine the pillars of the State. Neither
would Mr. Pitt ; and yet it was known that in 1801
he confidentially advised his Majesty George 111. to
give his consent to the repeal of the test and corpo-
ration acts though in 1790 he (Mr. Pitt) had
spoken for two hours against their repeal. In the
interim, he had seen his error. The worthy gentle-
man concluded by moving that petitions be pre- I
sented to both Houses of Parliament from that I
Court, founded on the resolutions of the 9th of