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

tional and more vigorous opposition to the Catholic Ques-
tion. Will the ,Nisble Lent deny, that in this country
there are many, nay, even a majority, of persons who,
most conscientiously entertain the greatest apprehensions of
the consequences, should the Roman Cathoiies be admitted
into Parliament, and to the enjoyment of other civil
.rights? And I should like also to ask the Noble Lord if
those laws which particularly exclude the Catholics—if the
oath against transubstantiation and of supremacy. were to
be repealed, so as to admit all their rights—whether in
this case it would opt be the desire of ,some of the Pro-
testant Diasenters,_ that at least the same guard should be
continued in dealing with the Catholics as had been setup
in their case ; vi 2,. that Government should still have the
power and check.sif the Bill of Indemnity? I do not say
that this is the manner in which I wish this question to
rest for ever; but I do think that if it be moved previous
to the introduction of the Catholic Question, the necessary
consequence must be, that it will raise new enemies and
new obstacles.—(Hear, hear.) Let Hon. Gentlemen re-
collect that the Tot Act had.been passed specially to guard
us against the Catholics; and, therefore, as long as the ex-
periment has not been fairly tried, we might naturally
feel desirous to guard ourselves against risks by that check :
which, it is to be observed, we are not obliged to make
use of, unless we apprehend that the object for which it is
to provide is in some danger of being realised. I there-
fore confess that I am not prepared to part with this secu-
rity at present, especially as I think that while at present
it can do no harm, the possibility may arise of its being
of service. I own that when I remember that four years
ago the Parliament passed an Act for the admission of
Roman Catholics into all the offices of the revenue, from
the very highest to the very lowest, I am still further in-
duced to come to the conclusion, that the present applica-
tion of the prineiple is likely to retard any further conces-
*ion. It is with these views that I am not prepared to
grant the Noble Lord the motion he has brought forward,
though at the same time I feel anxious to do justice to the
able manner in which he has brought his measure for-
ward ; and I am sure, that if the discussion of this mea-
sure shall lead to irritation out of doors, it will be from
the nature of the case, which it is impossible to avoid, and
not from the manner in which it has been brought for-
Ward.—(Hear, hear. )—I beg pardon for having detained
the House so Jong in the expression of my opinions ; but
I felt that I could not do otherwise, especially as I consi-
dered that the sentiments contained in Mr. Pitt'e letters
required to be noticed, and that it was a duty which I
could not avoid, saying as much as I have done on the
effects they are likely to produce.—(Hear, hear. )
Lord ALTHORP said, that if he understood the true
principle of a free Constitution, it was that the general
rule existed, that no one was to be excluded from any of
his civil rights on account of his religious principles.—
(Hear, hear.)—He, therefore, thought, that if this
princi-
ple was to be recognised in the present case, the onus pro-
' bandi was on the adversaries of the present measures-....
and not only on those who were de,irous of placing a re-
straint on men on account of their religious sentiments,
but also on those who were for supporting these restraints
which already existed.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Baronet
(Sir Robert Inglis) had said, that he was unwilling to ad-
mit that every person had an equal right to power ; but
though he (Lord Althorp) perhaps was. not prepared to
say that every person had an equal right to power, he
was at least quite sure that every one had a right to an
equal capability for power.—(Hear, hear.)—lle therefore
thought, that unless the Hon. Baronet was prepared to
show that such admission to power was likely to be dan-
gerous to,the State, it would be the duty of the House—
the duty of the Legislature, to put all classes of persons
on an equal footing--(Loud cries of Hear.)—The Ho-
nourable Baronet said that the existence of these laws was
necessary for the protection of the Established Church.
That the Established Church ought to be supported he
was quite ready to admit : indeed no one could reverence
that Establishment more than he did; and, therefore, that
its funds should be appropriated to one particular sect lee
should be the last to deny; but beyond this, he did not see
that it was necessary to the support of the Established
Church that all other sects should be disqualified from a
participation, in an equality of rights and privileges.—
(Hear.)—The Hon. Baronet had said, that he should be
the last man to interfere with the right of all men to ex-
ercise their religious worship, in whatever way seemed to
roam most proper; and had appeared
,to take merit to
himself that he admitted the principle of toleration. He
(Lord Althorp) had certainly never expected in the pre-
sent day—in the nineteenth century—when men's opini-
ons were expanding and developing—he had never ex-
pected to bear any Hon. Member pluming himself upon
his liberality in admitting the principle of toleration.—
(Cheers.)—But if the acknowledgment of this principle
was so great a thing, what would the refusal of it be ?
It would be the most unjustifiable tyranny !—it would
be imprisonseent—(hear, hear)—it would be confisca-
tion—(hear, hear)—it would be murder—(hear, hear. )
A Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), had stated,
that the evils of the present Act, were of a very trifling
nature ;—the Right Hon. Gentleman was for admitting
that the principle of the Act was merely conventional—
that the reasons for supporting the Bill were simply theo-
retical, as it was, in fart, virtually repealed every year;
but he would by no means admit that it embodied any
practical grievance.—(Hear.)—But be (Lord Althorp)
contended that what was kept to hang over the heads of so
large a body was, in fact, a practical grievance—( Hear) ;
and he contended too that it was a practical grievance to
the Church of England.—(Hear, hear.)—Was there any
one in that House who would pretend to say that the pro-
fanation of religion was not a practical evil.—(Hear,
hear ?)—Was there any one in that House who would say
that the holding out an inducement to men to take oaths,
in which they did not believe, was not a practical evil.—
(Hear, hear ?)—The Church of England proclaimed that
she was not at hostility with her neighbours, while the law
assured them that every one who took office was guilty of
a violation of its edicts.—(Hear, hear.)—Those who were
accustomed to look lightly at such matters might think
that these things were no evil, but be was slot one of those
who could regard such matters with levity, and it therefore
gave him much pain to see such points sanctioned by the
law, and laid open to the grossest abuses. Without tres-
passing further on the House, it was for these reasons that
he intended to support:the motion of the Noble Lord.
Lord NUGENT thought this question of the utmost im-
•portance; and it was not only felt to he so by bins, but
there were many in the country who, though they did not
express their opinions with turbulence, felt deeply on the
.subject, and looked with the utmost anxiety to the decision
of that night. He had no wish to mix the Catholic claims
with this question, but he had no hesitation in avowing
that he gave his public support to both measures on the
same great principle. (Hear, hear.) But though this
was the case with respect to himself, the two questions
were as independent of each other as any two that could
be started ; and therefore he could not see, though he had
attentively listened to the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech,
how, after the support that he had contended ought to be
given to the principle of the measure, he could reconcile it
to himself to vote against the measure itself. (Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to persuade
the House that this question stood in the way of the Ca-
tholic Claims, and had applied to him (Lord Nugent) for
confirmation of his statement. An answer to that applica•
ti oil he would give in one word. The Right Hen. Gen-
tleman had laid the question before him—lee had called
upon him to vote, aye or no, whether he thought the
Test and Corporation Acts were founded iu justice or in
injustice. That being the question submitted to him
for decision, how could he take into consideration what
stood in the way as extraneous matter ? He held those
Acta to be unjust and oppressive, and therefore, as he had
already said, one weld would convey his answer—(Cheers.)
—For his own part, he did not at all feel that he should be
retardhag the Catholic Question by giving his vote for -the
repeal of the. Test and Corporation Acts. So far from
doing injury to the Catholics, the conceding of the claims
of one party must necessarily lead to the conceding ,of
the claims of the other. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
also seemed to consider that the grievances of the Pro-
testant Dissenters were in some sort theoretical—he did
not, however, see how those grievances were any more
theoretical than the grievances of the Catholics: he did
not know that their being excluded from Parliament, and
Irons certain offices, presented any grievance to the great
body of the Catholics, except in this respect—that though
they might not individually feel that they were restrained
from those privileges, they must, nevertheless, always have
the recollection that the law marked, them as belonging to
a class which was ineligible to hold office;—(Hear)—and
be thought, that that man must know very little of reli-
gion who did not know that in a free country like this
such a restriction as that must have a very pernicious
effect;—(Hear, hear)—he thought that that man must
know very little of human nature who did not see what a
vast difference there was between holding a privilege as a
freehold right, to which lie, in common with all others,
was born, and as a precarious tenure enclosed from thee
vast waste of the Legislature.. Was, this restriction a
theoretical grievance, when it niacin a man feel that he
was sitting under an incapacitation front inheriting or be-
queathing property ?—(llear)—that he was sitting under
an incapacitation from acting as a guardian ?—(llear.)
Was that restriction theoretical which degraded the
parent in the eyes of his child—the master in the eyes of
his servant—the citizen in the eyes of his fellow-citizen.—
(Hear, hear.)—How was this theory? And yet all this

hanging over their heads by the thread of the Indemnity
Bill, of which Lord North, in PM, had said, that it en-
abledeany Dissenter to avail himself of the pretext of indi-
vidual guilt, or of mental fraud, i❑ abuse of the Act of Par-
liament. He thought that the Noble Lord (Lord J. lins-
sell) had clearly shown, not only what effects the measure
must have on the Dissenters themselves, but also the in-
convenience that must be felt on all sides by its continu-
ance.—(Hear, hear.)--It was not because the Dissenters
differed from the Established Church on doctrinal points
—it was not because'the Dissenters were likely to produce
dissension in that House, that they were thought to be dan-
gerous. If they were dangerous, it was in a very different
sense that they were so. If the Church was in danger it shoUld
employ itselfin reconciling those who now reminded it of the
difficulties in which they were placed. If the Church
thought it was likely to suffer by those difficulties, he
could tell it, that the most likely way to do away with
them was by reconciling the differences which now existed.
e.-(Hear, hear.) He did riot.wish to trouble the House
any further, after the very great display afforded it by the
Noble Lord who had brought forward the question. One
point, however, in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech he
would just mention, as he bad brought it forward as a
reason for refusing the motion. He had contended, that
because for thirty-eight years the Dissenters had remained
quiet, and suffered in silence, therefore it was not ne-
cessary now to do any thing for them.—(Hear, hear.)
These were not exactly the Right Hon. Gentleman's
words lie knew ; but the purport of what he had said, had
certainly been, that bemuse they had never complained it was
not necessary that their grievances should be remedied.
(Hear, hear.) What would be thought of such an argu-
ment as this by the seven millions of Catholics in Ireland,
anxiously waiting to know what would become of this
great question? Was this a sentiment to be sent abroad in
Ireland, and to be commented on there previous to the de-
cision of their own question? He trusted that such a posie
tion would not go forth unanswered, and that it would
never appear to the world as the opinion of that House.
With respect to the motion of the Noble Lord, he most cor-
dially supported it; first, because he considered that the
law, as it now:stood,wiee a profanation of religion ; secondly,
because he thought that the laws,as they now existed on this
question, were calculated to set up a religious party against
the State ; and thirdly, because he thought that these laws
would give to the proudest, if not to the beet, feelings of the
human heart, an additional cause for non-conformity.
Lord MILTON, during the progress of that night's
discussion, had entertained a great, and he trusted not an
impertinent, curiosity as to the ground on which any op-
position that might appear would be rested.--(Hear, bear. )
—With respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech (a
speech which, he begged leave:to say, had not seemed to him
to lee like some of those which lie has made in explanation
of the cosnmercial policy and regulation which he sup-
ported), the conclusion at which he (Mr. Huskisson) had
arrived appeared at complete variance with the arguments
which be had made use of in the course of it.—(Hear,
hear.)—ln the beginning of his speech, the ground on
which be seemed to proceed, was his great sorrow that the
Noble Lord had been induced to bring forward his motion
under the existing circumstances.—(Hear, hear.)—But
after the Right Hon. Gentleman had dwelt for some time
on these existing circumstances, the moaning of which he
(Lord Milton) had been quite unable to comprehend, he at
last found that what was meant by them was, that the
real reason why the Right Hon. Gentleman thought fit to
oppose the motion was, because, in granting these privi-
leges to the Dissenters, it would be standing in the way of
the Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)—This certainly had not
struck him with the same force as it appeared to have
struck the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he would embrace
that opportunity of congratulating the Roman Catholics—
of congratulating the Sister Kingdom upon—not the
accession of the Right Honourable Gentleman to their
cause, but upon the manlier in which he had that night
evinced his sincerity to their cause.—(Hear, hear.)—
He should be glad to know whether the arguments of the
Right Hon. Gentleman were the arguments of Govern-
ment---(hear) ?—or was the House to wait for the senti-
ments of some other Rt. Hon. Gentleman, from whom they
might pick up what was the course that Government in-
tended to pursue ? They had been favoured with the
opinions of the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies,
and he should be greatly rejoiced to hear from the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) who sat by his side, whether
the Government was likely to coincide with the sentiments
that had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Hus-
kisson). But if the Test and Corporation Acts were not
to be repealed, what was to be the nature of the Test ?
The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated in his speech,
that for the sake of morality—for the sake of religion—
for the sake of the Church of England—for the sake of
the country—he wished that all Tests should be erased
from the Statute Book ;—(cheers)—and then, after all
this, in spite of morality—in spite of the Church of Eng-
land—in spite of the country—and above all, in spite of re-
ligion—he announced that he should oppose the motion.
But, said the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Huskisson), I am
unable to vote for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation
Acts, because they form but the part of a great whole ; and
that whole, he says further, is religious liberty. If, how-
ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in saying that
he ought not to vote for the repeal of those Acts, because
they are but the part of the whole of a great question which
be wishes to carry in. Parliament, then he would say, that
for the very same reason the Right Mon. Gentleman ought
not to vote for the Catholic Question until the House was
prepared to concede the demands of the Dissenters---( Hear. )
The House had already heard the origin of these Acts
against the Dissenters. They were passed in the hey-day
of the joy of those times which succeeded the Restoration
of Charles the Second. But even then they were very
warmly debated in that House ; and they would not have
passed if the famous and ingenious Lord Chancellor of that
day (Lord Clarendon) had not come down with what
might be called a Green Bag—(a laugh)—that clever
Statesman came down with a Green Bag, containing
what he called a Plot of the Dissenters to overturn the
Monarchy, and under the rumour of that Plot the House
consented to pass the Corporation Act. The Dissenters
were not in this country of the highest rank in so.
ciety. He meant to say, not generally of the highest
rank. Those who dissented from the Established Church
were, for the most, of the middle classes, at least so
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) seemed
to consider them ; and because they were so, he attempted
to argue that they were not subjected to any great grievance
in being excluded from certain offices of importance by the
operation of these Acts. But he would ask, was it no
grievance in a country town for a man to be excluded from
the situation of an Alderman, merely because he dissented
from the Established Church ? The possession of the gown
of an Alderman was a matter of as much importance to the
grocer or the linen-draper of a country town as any of the
honours which were created or obtained by those in more
exalted stations—(Near, hear, and a laugh)—and he con-
tended that the Right Hon. Gentleman was reasoning on
very false premises, when he said that the Dissenters suf-
fered no practical grievance, It was no more unphiloso-
phical for some Mr. Tomkins or Thompson, to feel a desire
to become an Alderman.--(Loud laughter.)—(The unin-
tentional mention of the name of Thompson on this occa-
sion, excited a good deal of amusement, the Worthy Alder-
man of that name being seated immediately opposite to the
Noble Lord.)—He repeated the assertion, that it was no
more unphilosophical for a Dissenter of the middle classes
to desire to become an Alderman, and to rise to the enjoy-
ment of civic honours, than it was in any one of the Hon.
Members of that House to feel an ambition to fill one of
the highest offices of the State.—(Hear, hear, bear.)--The
Noble Lord then proceeded to show the grievances pro-
duced to the Dissenters in every class of life by the
operation of the Sacramental Test, and observed upon
the necessity of such persons as Excisemen being coin-
pelted to attend the Quarter Sessions in order to qualify
themselves to act in their office. /3.2 knew very well,
that in some counties there might be found Dissenters
who were Magistrates—nay, be could find Catholics too
who were Magistrates, and absolved from the consequences
of their situation by the Annual Indemnity 'Act. But
although Dissenters and Catholics were thus to be found in
the Commission in some counties under the protection of
the Indemnity Act, he knew a county, in which a Dissenting
Magistrate made some orders, and his brother Magistrates
having objected to his acting as a Magistrate, because they
knew him to be a Dissenter, the orders were abandoned.—
(Mr. Brougham, we believe, here observed, that the orders
were good.) Yes, contiuued the Noble Lord, I admit they
were good ; but as his brother Magistrates objected to the
execution of his authority, he did not press the admission of
the orders. This was what he considered a very great
practical grievance. He could even say there were men in
his own county (York), who refused to act as Magis-
trates, even with the protection of the Indemnity Act ; and,
therefore, under every circumstance, it must be admitted
that a state of law which prevented gentlemen of for-
tune and character, no matter upon what considera-
tions, from filling stations of importance to the adminis-
tration of the laws, and to the peace and welfare
of their neighbours, must be considered a great prac-
tical grievance. He saw, however, how matters stood
upon this question ; but, notwithstanding all the array
of the Household Troops, he hoped the House would go
along with his Noble Friend in considering the time to be
arrived when this grievance was to be abated. He said,
Household Troops, because he saw on the opposite Benches,
a number of new faces.-e-(Heer, bear, and a laugh.) Some

he bad not seen in that House 'for a long time before, and
some which he was very seldom in the habitofseeing in their
places. If he was not very much mistaken, he thought he
mightsay, that the. House presented very much the appear-
ance it generally assumed when there had been what is
commonly, called a "whip."—(Hear, and a laugh.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman. had assumed, in one part of' his
speech, that because the Dissenters had been silent fur the
last thirty years, therefore it must be supposed that they
did not consider. themselves labouring under any great
practical grievance. Now, it did seem a little bard to him,
that because the Dissenters, in times of trouble and national
difficulty, had abstained from harassing the Government,
or crippling the Executive, by pressing forward with their
complaints, the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues
were now to turn round and say, "you have been silent
for eight-and-twenty years under what you call your
grievances, and therefore you cannot have any grievances
at all."—(Hear, hear, hear.) (The Right Honourable
Gentleman had observed that there was nothing- in the
grievances of which the Dissenters complained, that
could he found worth the excitement and the dissension
which the agitation of the question must produce. He,
however, was prepared to contend that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had produced the dissension and excitement, by
the few words he had addressed to the House. That
speech had been the first signal for exciting dissension.
Not one syllable had fallen from the Noble Lord (Russell),
or any of .those Members who took a part in the debate,
until that period, which could in the slightest degree create
any dissensions, or excite any angry feelings. When, how-
ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman spoke, the dissension
arose. When men begin to talk in a tone of irritation,
then irritation comes. He however, thanked the Dissenters
for the silence they had observed, although it was one of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's objections. He wished, however,
while he praised their silence on this occasion, that be could
.give them praise for their silence upon some other topics.
After some observations upon the remarkable fact of the
absence. of all petitions from the Ministers of the Estab-
lished Church against the. Claims of the Dissenters, and
after drawing from that absence of any petition the con-
clusion that they at least felt no danger to 'the existing
order of things from the repeal of the Test Act, the Noble
I Lord concluded by expressing a hope that the House would
consent to that repeal...--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUSKISSON, in explanation, observed, that the
Noble Lord misrepresented the opinion he expressed upon
the condition of the Dissenters. He admitted, expressly,
that they contained in their body some of the most learned,
respectable, and exalted characters in this country.
Mr. Secretary PEEL then rose and addressed the House
to the following effect :—Sir, it was my intention, from
the commencement of this discussion, not to defer to a late
hour of the night those observations which I shall take the '
liberty to submit to the House, upon the motion of the I
Noble Lord. Ira the course of thevery able and very temperate
speech which was delivered by the Noble Lord, he did ap-
peal personally to me, Sir, not as an individual Member of
this House—not even as a Minister of the Crown, but as
a Representative in Parliament of the University of Ox-
ford. The Noble Lord so appealed to me, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining what were my opinions in the caps- '
city of Representative of that University. upon some of I
those important points which he entered into in the
course of his address to the House.—(Hear, hear.)-1 !
beg to state to the Noble Lord, that I am not instructed
and have not been required by the University to deliver
any opinions upon their behalf, on this subject. I have
not been called upon to submit any propositions upon the
matter, nor have, I repeat, any instructions been trans-
mitted to me which should fetter my own views, or
govern my own conduct on this occasion. I have no
right to infer from the measures they have pursued, that
they are actuated by any feeling but an entire confidence
hr the wisdom of this House. At the same time, Ihaveno
right to infer, in the slightest degree, the acquiescence of that
distinguished body in the motion of the Noble Lord, from
the silence which they have deemed it proper to observe.
I apprehend that there has existed no intention nor any
desire upon their part to fetter me in any way, or to bind
my judgment as to the course that I should adopt in the
present instance. It is, therefore, Sir, that I approach
the discussion of this subject, unshackled by any other
considerations than those which attach to its real merits;
and I think, indeed I am confident, that I have never
taken any course upon any question in which the feelings
or the interests of the Dissenters have been concerned,
which could be supposed to prejudice the opinion
which I should ultimately form. I believe no question
has been ever brought under the consideration of this
House affecting the peculiar notions and belief of Dissenters
to which I have not given the utmost attention, and oc-
casionally ray support ; and I would witness the Dissenters'
Marriage Bill of the last Session.—(Hear, hear.) But I
do trust, Sir, that, notwithstanding the explanations
which I have thus given, I may still be at perfect liberty
to discuss the various views which present themselves to
my mind on this occasion, without subjecting my-
self to the imputation of hostility or bigotry._
; And lore, Sir, I would entreat the Noble Lord to consider
a little the very material difference between the situations
in which we respectively stand. He enters upon this sub-
jest without any responsibility but that which he owes to
his own conscience and his constituents. But the Minister
of the Crown, Sir, is bound to look further, to take larger
views aod to be swayed by more extensive considerations.
Let me entreat the Noble Lord to bear in mind, that this
question, like many of the grounds upon which the Catholic
Question is frequently argued, has not so great a weight
of favourable support from the predominant portion of
those eminent and gifted men, who have at various times,
illuminated and adorned the councils of this country. Ac-
cording.to the admissions of the Noble Lord himself, this
question has been the subject of Parliamentary discussion
at various periods during the last eighty-five years.
cording to that Noble Lord, Lord Stanhope in the begin-
ning of the reign of George I. being Prime Minister, had
endeavoured to procure the repeal of these Acts, and had
failed. Sir Robert Walpole, after him, was favourable to
the same question upon principle; but he never could suc-
ceed in carrying it. Lord Chatham, who was Prime
Minister of this country, certainly took no pre-
judiced or unfavourable view of the claims of the
Dissenters; and yet, during his Administration, no-
thing material was done in their favour. Lord
North, who was also Prime Minister, was unquestionably
a mostzealous opponent of this question ; and although there
was much in the circumstances of those times which might
justify his extreme hostility, 1 am rather disposed merely
to say, that the failure of the question under his Govern-
ment strengthens the argument which I have been endea-
vouring to raise as to the public feeling in times past upon
this question. To these names I might add that of Mr.
Pitt, and, I presume, I might safely refer to his speeches
in 1789 and 1790, because they show what were the
opinions of that great man upon questions involving all
those 'great principles which enter into the discussion of
this night. Those opinions were distinctly pronounced,
both on the question of abstract right, and also of the re-
peal of tire Test and Corporation Acts. 'With respect to
Mr. Canning, Sir, the Noble Lord has said, that no de-
clareion has yet been made of the intentions of the present
Government; and that no possit.iiity exists of ascertaining
how they are disposed to this question. .I beg the. Noble
Lord to bear in mind, thet during the last Session of Par-
liament, Mr. Canning, without entering into any question
of abstract right. but merely from a view of the expe.
diency of concession to the Roman Catholics—Mr. Can-
ning, from this very place from which I now speak, de •
dared it to be his intention, and that of the Administra-
tion, of which he was the bead—(Several Members—
! " No, no," and other expressions of dissent)—well then,
I may be mistaken, but at a 11 events he declared in his
capacity of Prime Minister of the Crown—and on his per-
sonal authority I am entitled at least to say, that it was
his intention'to refuse, for the present, the acquiescence of
the Government. To the names of these Ministers I must
also add the name of Mr. Burke. Unquestionably, he
founded his objection on rather temporary views. (Cheers.)
I am sure I had no wish to over-state the matter, and
therefore I mention the fact precisely as it occurred. He
rigid that if he had been asked ten years before, be would
have voted for it ; but then, in 1790, he thought he saw
sufficient danger to the Established Church or the Consti-
tution to warrant him in refusing it his support. I say
again, therefore, that the authority to be cited in favour of
this proposed repeal is by no means so decisive or important
as that which is to be adduced on other subjects in which
parties as numerous at least as the Dissenters have been
equally interested. I say that a man may withhold his
concurrence without any feeling of disregard for, or disre-
spect to, a large class of his fellow-citizen,, with whom he
wishes to live on terms of friendship and respect. He may
desire to retain a particular system of laws of this kind
without any reasonable imputation upon his motives—he
may entertain his own views of such a subject. There are
many parts of that subject, the sacramental test for in-
stance, which certainly called for our earnest and most
serious attention. I should scorn myself, Sir, if for the
sake of gaining any advantage in the debate of this night, I
were to conceal from the House the real difficulties that
present themselves to my own apprehension. Much has
been said about this sacramental test. I think an Hon.
Friend of mine who spoke from this side of the House, al-
though his speech excited something like a little sneer, did
take quite a proper view of this point, I agree with him, that
when this test was originally required, nothing like dese7
oration or profanation was considered to be connected with it,
esies.s..eit, ti. . -0‘ • - •

either by these who imposed the test, or the Die tntere
who took it. In point of fact,- at that time of day it was
required of almost every man before he took office, that he
should have taken the Sacrament three times within a given
previous period—within a year. Up to that time I be-
lieve that so slight was the notion that this test involved a
horrible insult upon the religions feelings and profession@
of the Dissenters, that one of the greatest ornaments they
could ever boast (the celebrated Baxter) declared his opi-
nion that there was nothing in the service of the Church
the certificate of having taken
of England,. in the administration of the sacrament, which
should prevent Dissenters from communicating with her
members. In 1718, when Dean Sherlock invited them to
completely exhausted
at the instance of Mr. lileaufoy,
qualification
t
itself; and the controversy which was carried on between
theef
oo
rr n
taking m
sacrament u nc a
otffie
cawec
,ca os
although r dhißni
consideredegi
hsl
hyo, p i
could
owbtaneda
sibae
dey
aus
nuft:
ece
dide
noy
qualification
nothe
the
subject.
test
aalDnni all
ad; n7hs
ueBBb7as e qh'regirnuul ometenhekte2l ytf7i nrawdtlp7lBace9 and d 1790, Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt
and other of the ablest men in the country, exhausted
every thing which could be urged on this subject. I
am quite willing to admit, that if the state of this
country at the present time, in respect of the sa..erasnental test, was as it was when that test was
originally instituted, and considering for a moment how
much both the object and effect of that sacramental test
have since varied—l am quite willing to admit and do
think that to make the taking of it a qualification for minor
offices, as well' as more important ones, low as well as
high, would be.met by objections not to be surmounted.
But I beg again to remind the Noble Lord, that the pass-
ing of the Annual Indemnity Bill in these times saves us
from these objections, however strong they be; that now,
though the principle may still be bad and ill-founded, the
practical result is not a grievance of the character which
it has been attempted to represent to be; and my Right
Hon. Friend has demonstrated this position, for, in
speaking as to the practical part of the matter, he has
shown that in one considerable county only twenty-three
members of the Church of England, within a consider-
able period, have taken the sacrament, in order to qualify
for office.—(Hear, hear.) So much, Sir, has been said
on this subject, that, with a view to the information of
the House, and that it may not be misled, I shall beg
to state one or two facts well worthy of the attentive
consideration of Parliament. lam not prepared to go the
length of arguing that these Acts are essentially interwoven
with, and necessary to, the security of the Established
Church--(cheers)--as being so essential to them, in short,
that without them the Church must fall. Still, Sir, I can-
not close my eyes to the consequences which may ensue
from their repeal. The principles upon which I must con-
sider those Acts are the same, with the exception of their
bearing on the Roman Catholic question, which I shall
exclude from the present discussion altogether, as I should
apply to any general legal inquiries of this character. Now
I am bound to add, that I do take the same view as my
Right Hon. Friend of the principles on which the Noble
Lord's motion should be discussed. I think my Right
Hon. Friend has put this point on a correct footing. He
says, is there that great pervading grievance in the admi-
nistration of this test—that insult on the feelings of the
Dissenters which calls for this relief, and requires that we
should not let the existing usage continue? Or is there
any thing so absurd in these tests, as should induce us im-
mediately to repeal them, on the notion that if we do
effect such repeal, we shall be in a much better situa-

tion than we were before ? As to the practical griev-
ance to the Dissenters, I must be permitted to say that
there has been much exaggeration in the statement of it.
But if it could be supposed that the Dissenters might en-
joy the rights from which they are said to be excluded, wi'l
perfect security to the Church of England establishment, I
should be very strongly inclined to vote far the repeal. We
have been referred, Sir, to the number of petitions which
have been presented on this subject very recently, as evi-
dence of the state of the Dissenters' feelings throughout
the country. Now, if I were satisfied that these petitions
had proceeded quite spontanenusly from the parties, and
had not been called up by any external influence or agency,
I should attribute a great deal more of effect and im-
portance to them than I do. I complain not of the ope-
ration
of this external agency which has been put in mo-
tion by every possible means that could be devised ; but I
do complain of it in so far as it affects the question as to
their impression on the subject of insult and profana-
tion in the practical application of these Acts. If it be
a grievance, no doubt nothing can be more unfair or im-
proper than to allege the forbearance of the Dissenters as
a reason why we should refuse their prayer for relief. I
did not understand my Right Hon. Friend so to put the
point at all; he merely relied upon the silence of peti-
tioners to infer, that they have not felt these insults
and grievances so much and so acutely as has been
represented. Now, surely, Sir, if the present num-
ber of petitions is relied on as a proof of how general
and deep this idea of a grievance is—is not the absence
of such petitions in past periods a proof that no such
grievance was felt; if this year we are to have six hun-
dred petitions for the repeal, and if last year we had a
thousand, which numbers are said to be conclusive on the
subject—l am naturally induced to inquire what has been
the case in this respect in former years? I have had the
curiosity to inquire what has been the number of petitions
for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts during the
last ten years preceding the last year ; and, certainly, until
I beard the debate this night, I had no notion how little in
accordance with the impression which Hon. Gentlemen
have endeavoured to create is the state of these numbers.
The years in which the greatest number of petitions on
this head appear to have been presented, within• a period
of ten years last past, were these :—ln 1821, there were
four; in 1825, one; in 1820, one; in 1817, not one;
nor yet in 1818 ; nor yet in 1819 ; nor in 1821. 1822,
nor 1823—50 that the whole number of petitions presented
in favour of a repeal of these Acts during the last tea
years, preceding the last year, was but six, and no more.
In 1813, Mr. Grattan passed a Bill in this House, for the
removal of civil disabilities of Roman Catholic Dissenters ;
that Bill, Sir, which opened offices to Roman Catholics,
which professed to be a Bill for removing every civil
ability from them, and which recapitulates every kind of
grievance—that Bill, so brought in by Mr. Grattan, sub-
! jected them in this country to the operation of this very
Test Act, which is now described as an insult and a griev-
ance; and the very last Bill which was introduced in 1825,
in respect of the Roman Catholics, by the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Westminster ; that Bill also removed every
civil disability from the Roman Catholics, but it did not
remove the 'operation of the Test Act from such Dissenters,
and left the Roman Catholic liable to the same obligation
in respect of that Test as he was before ; and this appeared
from the preamble of the Bill itself. The preamble of the Bill
brought in for the relief of the Catholics by the Hon. Bart.
(Sir F. Burdett) in 1825, did not make any provision for
the repeal of these Acts; and yet the preamble declared,
that the object of the Bill was to cast into oblivion all
religious differences, and knit together all classes of Isis
Majesty's subjects. This was the preamble of the Hon.
Baronet's (Sir F. Burdett's) Bill, which was to " keit
together" all classes, of his Majesty's subjects, and yet there
was a total omission of this question ; and this very point
was put to the supporters of the Bill. It was put to Mr.
Canning, and his answer will convince the Noble Lord that
he is wrong in saying, that if Mr. Canning had lived to
see so many petitions, he would have changed his opinion.
Mr. Canning's opinion was not adopted hastily--it was not
taken up or delivered in the heat of debate—hut was the
result of mature reflection and experience of his own senti-
ments for many years. In 1825 these were the words of
Mr. Canning upon the Bill then before the House, and
they were acquiesced in by the Noble Lord (Lord 3.
Russell.) They were uttered upon the question being
raised in debate, when the Bill had net the tendency to
equalize all Dissenting Religions in the State. Mr. Can-
ning said :
" This Bill does not tend, as is imagined by the peti-
tioners, to equalize all religious in the state—but to equalize
all the dissentingsects of religion. I am, and this Bill is,
for a predominant Established Church ; and I would not,
even in appearance, meddle with the laws which secure
that predominance to the Church of England. I would
not sanction any measure which, even by inference, could
be shown to be hostile to the Establishment. But I
am for the removal of that practical grievance. And in
this view of the subject, what is the fact with respect to
the Tirotestant Dissenters? It is this : that they labour
under no practical grievance on account of their religi•
ens differences from us—that they sit with us in this
House, and share our Councils—that they are admissible
to the offices of the State, and have, in fact, in numerous
instances, been admitted to them : but they hold these
privileges, subject to an annual reward, by the annual
Act of Indemnity; so with the Roman Catholics., if this
Bill should pass. They will he admitted only to the
same privileges, and they will hold them liable to the
ame condition."
This must prove to the Noble Lord thet velien the Bill of
1825 was before the House Mr. Canning's opinion wa,
against so great a change as a total repeal. Now, Sin
with respect to the actual operation of these laws, an lion,
1 Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) has favoured us this night
with an eloquent, and certainly most affecting description
of its effect upon his own sect. I took down the wordy
because I thought diem a fair sample' of that tent
dency to inflame and exaggerate, of which I think I heal
had reason to complain in the conduct of this debate.t