The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

a
e e esse-ire ot;
But the proposed alteration of the 116'fstily 47 p.
make Quakers capable of civil offices, without the' oblige- 't"'
~44,/:
tion to take the declaration contained in the Toleration
Act, but would admit even Jews to office. The result of
such a measure would be an attempt to separate the church
from the civil Government ; and be entreated then/ to re-
member the result of such an attempt at a former peniod.
Why should the Jews be introduced into this Bill? Vse
Jews were left out in the Marriage Act, because, thougit
they continued to be every where, they were not acknow-
ledged as a people any where. If the proposed alteration
should take place, their Lordships would in effect be re-
versing every thing done at the time of the Revolution, and
sanctioning the principle that one religion was as good as
another, in relation to qualification for civil office, and
that the state had no right to require of any man en-
tering office, what kis religious opinions were. If this
was true toleration, he was glad to recollect that he had op-
posed the proposed Bill in every step of its progress through
the House, and he would continue to oppose it to the last.—
But after it should be finally sanctioned by a majority of
their Lordships, he would then, and not till then, submit
in silence. By this Bill their Lordships reversed every
constitutional principle established in this country. The
proposed declaration might be taken by a Dissenter hostile
to the Church. In taking it he would reason thus—"
will not when in office use any power I may possess in
virtue of my office, to disturb. the Chutch Establish-
ment ; but I hold myself free, as a conscientious Dissenter,
to do that in office which I would have done out of office."
This would be the effect of the declaration on the conduct
of Dissenters entering office. Now he (Lord Eldon) should
ptopoee that to the declaration should be added the words
" and as I am a Protestant;" if they were not adopted,
all that had been done by former Parliaments to protect
the Constitution would be subverted. The Monarch was
obliged to be a Protestant, in order to support the Pro-
testant Constitution. 7he King eat on that throne (point-
ing to the throne) because he was a Protestant. He bad
reat respect for the opinion of his Noble and Learned
Friend on legal doctrines, and looked on him as high au-
thority. His Noble and Learned Friend had once said he
had doubts ttbether persons entering Corporations were
obliged to take the declaration against Transubstantiation.
But, in order to remove any doubts on the subject, he
kennthebedinegclaarda--
se of the Cor-
oGpodposAiolgmiixghobtyle,
i)otut
or dadg
toEa i.u)os
tffiwToc
offices
a nl di
napurcbo
soptarop
Corporations,
aat
tlt aootz si
on edosnte
take
that nothing
,no
fort ai
nnugdi Toamev'e.
but he bad a duty to perform, and in performing it he
must contend, that the Government ought to be
essen-
tt ioalbl yo
a goa Protestant,lifioati
oaon dfo
rt that the
admission
mss
oProtestantoffices.Re i Religion ought
t him
feltts greater.
the e
greatestdpeacilnar declared
respect eo et and affection ;
Several Peers having risen at the same time to speak,
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged leave to observe
that there was no question before their Lordships.
Lord HOLLAND, in explanation, stated that Quakers
were not now required to make the declaration con,
tained in the Act of Toleration, nor could he see what
that declaration, as quoted by the Noble and Learned
Lord, had to do with the question. His Noble and
Learned Friend had talked as if the amendment he (Lord
Holland) proposed would lead to all sorts of impiety and
irreligion. Surely no other person apprehended such re-
sults from it.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought the words " on
the true faith of a Christian," quite ludicrous as a security
for the church.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF spoke to order. The con -
sideration of these words was not the question before their
Lordships.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA continued—The words
"on the true faith of a Christian " mind be taken by a
person not a Christian, as a declaration containing the
words on the true faith of a Jew might be taken by a per-
son not a Jew. He should move that the words, "on the
true faith" be omitted, as he did not consider them any
security for the Church. He was willing to do something
to relieve the Dissenters, but not to a degree which would
sanction the principle that it was a matter of indifference
what religion should be professed by persons entering'
office. He deprecated the haste with which this Bill was
precipitated through the House. He was sure that the
support which, he regretted to see, the Rev. Bench had
given it, would not give satisfaction either to the Members
of the Church of England, or to many true Christians
even of other persuasions. For his own part, no rank nor
wealth, nor any such consideration, could induce him to
support such an injurious measure.
The Bishop of DURHAM felt considerable pain Irons
the circumstance that he was, in supporting this Bill,
obliged to differ from several Noble Lords for whom he en-
tertained great esteem and respect, and his pain was in-
creased in not being able to agree with the reasoning ad-
duced in support of it by its more active vramlnters. He
was sorry that the more reasonable Dissenters were not
consulted on it, as he was sure many of them were indif-
ferent about its fate. Its fine, he regretted that it had
come at all before their Lordships; but when he considered
the number of petitions presented to their Lordships in
support of the measure, and that it came before their
Lordships recommended by the authority of the other
House of Parliament, and the weight and influence of public
opinion, he begged their Lordships to remember that him-
self and his Rev. Brothers were placed in a new situation.
The public, in fact, expected the expression of seine deci-
sive opinion from the Rev. Bench—the main 'point they
had to consider was how they ought to act, looking on
themselves as guardians of the spiritual welfare of the
Church. But there was one great question in relation to
the conduct of the Rev. Bench on this subject, which
caused all these discussions, and which had not yet been
answered : how could they brine themselves to support the
sacramental test 2—(Cheers.)---He confessed he did not
know one reason that could induce him to support it—that
was his sole reason for supporting the repeal of the Test
Laws. If any other Test equally valid should be pro-
posed, be was ready to vote for it ; and if no declaration
had been in the Mill when it came into their Lordahipos
House, be would have been the first to propose one, not-
withstanding the odium to which lie should expose himself
by it.—The declaration proposed was cot quite satisfactory
to him—but how could he and his Rev. Brothers on that
account give their support to the continuance of a sacra-
mental test. This point the Noble and Learned Earl
(Eldon) had now settled to his satisfaction. It had been
iaaid that he and his Rev. Brothers were, in consenting to
the repeal of these Acts, lending their aid to the subversion
of the connection between the Church arid State ; but
these Acts had lain in abeyance many years ; they were al-
ready inoperative ; how then could the repeal of them bring
such danger to the Church ? His Rev. Brothers then were
not justly charged with supporting a measure calculated to
effect a separation of the Church from the State. The
question was not whether they should surrender the fortress
of the Church, but whether they should abandon a few
weak and untenable outworks, which had long ceased to he
of any use as a defence against the external enemy. How-
ever, he had not so much confidence in this Bill as some
Noble Lords had; yet, if he could bring himself to think
it conclusive, be should feel much satisfaction. The reason
why he had opposed the insertion of the amendment of " the
Saviour Jesus Christ," was, first, because he thought it un-
necessary ; and secondly, because he disliked the idea of
making frequent and familiar use of that sacred name. He
was, however, sorry that the words, " as I ant a Protes-
tant,"
that the dechsra-
were not inserted in the declaration.
The Earl of ELDON assured the Right Rev. Prelate
(the Bishop of Durham) that the
oesennppttaoilsemTdeesn
esteem that he had expressed towards him were a comfort
and consolation to him in the course he bad felt it his duty
but he could not avoid at the same
to pursue that he never could sufficiently acknowledge.
Right Rev. Prelate his extreme sur-
tttsi:eobf
Lylo respectbiueecaaanrssde;
It was a mistake, however, upon the part of that Right
bßoevuiasPoroelnatoteottoodsuwpilti
but he opposed it hechoas
ere effectual, he (Lord Eldon) should, under
tiois afforded in fact no test at an. He begged
to assure
the Right Rev. Prelate that he considered the highest re-
spect because
thatsblahae
considered
while in labouring to make that declaration
ptime
ic wasattah at
stating
et tot
tm
a Protestant Constitution, a Protestant Legislature, and a
Protestant King, have been opposed by the Right Rev.
in the Bill ea
Bench when he proposed that the words " I am a Pro-
testant " should be inserted in that declaration. He con-
tended that " upon the faith of a Christian" gave no se-
curity. The state of the case was simply this—they were
giving up the Sacramental Test without receiving any se-
curity instead ; for as to the declaration in the Bill he did
not consider nsider it worthy of consideration.
Duke of WELLINGTON thought it would be
much better if their Lordships would confine themselves to
discussing the question before the House; but as a good
deal had been already said, before they proceeded to do so
he wished to assure the Right Rev. Prelate, that if this
were only an incipient measure—if other persons had the
intention of bringing forward other measures of a similar
nature, or on the same subject—he was no party to it ; but
had supported the measure only upon the same grounds
with the Right Rev. Prelate. He had not supported it becaus •
it had a tendency to destroy any particular system of laws, but
he had supported it because it had a tendency to the preser-
vation 'of religious peace, and because he felt convinced
that they would not have the same advantage by doing the
same thing in a future year, as they would have by doing
it in the present Session. He would now come to the
question before the Honee. It was argued that in spite of