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

to be at once deprived of the advantages they enjoyed, and
thrust from the situations which they held. If this In-
demnity Bill were suffered to expire, what would be the
consequence? You would see the Magistrates, by whom
the laws had been long and equitably administered, placed
in the light of criminals, and so to be treated—you would.
see those who had bravely and honourably fought and
bled in the cause of their country, placed as outcasts
from society, and so to be considered—they might be
pointed out as absolute slaves in the very land which they
had saved. Imagine then, my Lords, for a moment, and
look at the picture in its true colours, what would be the
effect of this law, upon your army, upon your navy, and
upon the Civil Officers of the State. Oh ! but it may be
answered this is mere rhetoric—mere sporting of the ima-
gination—because such a fatal scene never has occurred,
and never can. My Lords, if I am so apostrophised, I
will ask, what then is the necessity of security—and what
benefit can a system of exclusion by any possibility confer?
But, my Lords, it may be possible that the imaginary se-
curity, though not an imaginary grievance—certainly not
so great a grievance as if the threat it conveys were put in
execution—may produce consequences very different to
those which many reflecting minds may contemplate—con-
sequences, the result of that badge of disgrace, that stigma
which it leaves, and of that burthen which it places, upon
all those who are made liable to bear it. My Lords, the
Law of Indemnity is a misnomer—it pardons no one. It
places the magistrates, whose authority ought to be res-
pected by all those towards whom it is his duty to admi-
nister justice, in a situation the most degrading—the sword
is hanging over him from year to year—his colleague, who
sits beside him in the official chair, may be justified in
calling him a disgraced person, one who is marked nut to
be so by Act of Parliament. My Lords, where is the
wisdom, to say nothing of the justice, of such treatment?
If danger is to be apprehended from persons who will not
confotrn to the doctrines or. the discipline of the Established
Church, of what use is the law when it admits to power
and place all such persons? If no danger is to be appre-
hended, then, a fortiori, of what use is a law which ex-
cludes a single individual upon such grounds? lf, then,
there be no danger, can it be imagined that, in admitting
persons who hold such opinions to power, in admitting
them to places of trust, and to offices of influence and im
portance, while you grant them these advantages, and give
them this ability to inflict injury or to do good, to the cause
you profess to advocate, you will do well, at the same time,
to retain those disadvantagei—nominal or real, be it
as it may—by which you inflame them to resentment,
and incite them to enmity? Is it likely, that under this
degrading system they will be better citizens, and more
effective officers, than if no such system existed. Can you
conceive, that by placing them in a situation less respecta-
ble, and less free than the rest of their fellow -conntry.nen,
you will receive more active, more disinterested services
from them, than you would receive if no such difference
were is existence ? But I contend, that the grievance,
great and oppressive as it is, does not affect merely the Pro-
testant Dissenters, but that it places every individual, who,
frosts some scruple of conscience or other, assents to, or dis-
sents from, a particular point in doctrine or usage, in a si-
tuation of inferiority. Can Englishman say, that so to
place Englishmen is inflicting no grievance ? Can this
House maintain, that a sense of inequality is no degrada-
tion? Can we, who are Peers of this kingdom, and who
are therefore especially bound to see that equal justice be
the birthright of every subject—a birthright, the enjoy-
ment of which is to be his privilege to his death—can we,
I ask, contend, that if one man is by the law respited as a
felon, that man is not placed in a situation different to, or
more degrading than that of others ? Away with such an
idea. So far, then, my Lords, fur the mental—the ideal
grievance. But ideal though it be, we, who are Peers and
Englishmen, cannot think that suck a grievance, which
touches so nearly, is to be lightly cared for, or that it is to
be passed ever unnoticed, operating as it does upon the best
feelings of men, who may Le the best men. My Lords, I con-
tend that even in this point of view, the grievance is a gross
and intolerable grievance, and one which ought not to be
tamely submitted to by any Englishman by whom the
Constitution of England has been fought for, or is sup-
ported. There ate many other ways in which this grievance
operates; it is difficult exactly to ascertain them;
but even in my own circle I have known many persons
who, from some over-scrupulous feelings, or from some
principle of pride, at feeling themselves excluded from the
full enjoyment of the blessings of the 13ritish Con-
stitution, have refused or objected to hold offices un-
der it. The point may be over-strained, but surely
it is not wise in the Legislature to expose itself
to a situation by which it excludes from the service
of the State men who have ability and inclination
effectually and faithfully to serve it. But it happens that
one of the most considerable grievances is created by a
device of the Annual Indemnity Bill—a device as disen-
genuous as ever was any—it goes upon false pretences ;
for, in truth, it does net even postpone the punishment.
[The Noble Lord was here interrupted by an observation,
in an under-tone of voice, from a Peer on the Bench
beneath him.] The Noble Lord continued :—I was about
to state a little of the law upon this matter. The Annual
Indemnity Bill, by strict reasoning, does not exempt per-
sons from the operation of the law who refuse to
take the test from conscientious motives. It does say that
all persons, who from illness or any accidental cause, are
unable to take it, shall have six or eight months so to do. It
is true the lawyers, acute as they are, cannot determine pre-
cisely those who from conscience, and those who- from any
other accident do not take it: But I hold that the interpreta-
tion I give the law is that which properly belongs to it, and in
this construction I am borne out by the highest Authorities.
Now it happens whimsically enough that the real sufferers
were the Church of England men ; for there is another point
which y,ur Lordships have to consider, and to that I now
beg to direct you. It was within the last half century,
that it was found necessary to impose upon the Dissenters
a portion of that burthen which previously the Church of
England men had borne. Your Lordships well know that
there are certain offices, not of emolument, but of honour,
to which every subject is liable. lam glad to see that
within these few weeks a petition from the Corporation of
the City of London, praying for the repeal of the Corpora-
tion and Test Acts, has been laid upon your Lordships'
table ; but it cannot be forgotten that, during the last cen-
tury, the Corporation of the City of London fell upon a
device as immoral as it was unjust. They looked out for
Dissenters, and nominated them to the offices of Sheriffs,
knowing that as they could not qualify themselves for
those offices they must pay the fines which they would of
necessity incur; and it is known that the Mansion-house,
that splendid and beautiful ornament of the city, was raised'
by the fines so levied and so paid. It was against this
sort of legal plunder that a character, distinguished by the
same spirit by which Hampden was actuated (Mr. Evans),
hunted the matter through all the Courts of Law, and at
length brought it before this House. Your Lordships will
remember the memorable speech of Lord Mansfield—one of
the roost accomplished Peers who ever did honour to his
country. I advise every man to read the immutable judg-
ment of that Noble Lord, a speech which, whatever political
delinquencies were charged against him (and there were
some, although I am one who put no faith in the just-
ness of their foundation), have been all atoned for by
that great, that grand, that beneficial work, to the ex-
ecution of which he led—the work of human, civil, and
religious liberty. By the Toleration Act, this liberty was
in some degree established; it was impossible after the
passing of that Act to turn round and fine men for follow-
ing that system which, in their conscience, they believed
to be right. It was a judgment upon those by whom those
fines had been previously inflicted, that they could then
neither punish nor obtain the service of the Dissenters.—
But what was the consequence that followed? Every Dis-
senter naturally said " I do not and cannot conform to the
rules and discipline laid down by the Church of England,
and I will not, therefore, qualify myself for office." It
followed, as a matter of course, that the burthen upon the
Church of England men became much heavier ; and I
know many leading people of that Church who are well
aware of this, but who, in admitting the fact, add to the
admission, that they would rather suffer the burthen by
which the Church of England men are !tussled than share it
with their dissenting brethren ; because, by so sharing the
labours, they Insist participate in • the advantages. My
Lords, I think I have now shown that the original inten-
tion and purpose of these laws may he completely answered
by other laws, for their original object has long ceased to
exist. I think I have shown that in principle and in
theory they now • stand, at best, uselessly upon
the Statute Books, and opposed in spirit and in
practice to that for which they were originally
intended. I think also I have shown that they
are opposed to the principles of policy and good govern-
ment—to the temper of the times—to the feeling of the
country—to the good sense of the reflecting—to the wishes
of all parties—and to the dictates of religion herself. I
think I have shown that those laws, if actually executed,
would lead to a scene of confusion—to a scene of misery—
in this country, such as no free society could endure—such
as no mind could bear to contemplate—such as no tongue
could venture to describe. I think I have shewn, that
though in consequence of a subterfuge, a mean and disin-
genuous subterfuge—this dangeris averted, strong griev-
ances have remained, and strong grievances continue to
exist—grievances by which the clergy and the laity of this
kingdom are exposed to vexations, to insults, and to in-
juries. Surely, then, I have made out a case which en-
titles me to demand from your Lordships—from respect to
your own characters—for the sake of public justice—for