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

the benefit of the nation which you represent—the repeal
of those most obnoxious laws. Surely I have a right to
expect that you will cleanse your statute book of that
influence which is pestilential in its quiescent state, and
which if called into action would distort the whole frame
of society. It is upon these grounds that I advocate a
cause, which, although it has been long a stranger to
your Lordships, bas been so often discussed out of doors.
I have pursued the plan which I have considered best
in thus addressing your Lordships, and I have avoided
touching on points that might irritate, because, although
I have read many able and learned writers, especially of
the Church of England on the one side, 1 consider their
arguments to have been answered by writers equally able
and learned on the other, and because I do not wish to re-
vive a spirit of animosity and recrimination on the part of
either. I will only say, that the objections which have
been urged against the repeal of the Test Act in England,
were urged with equal force and ability against the repeal
of the Test Act in Ireland. Dean Swift, in one of his
works—distinguished as all his works were by great wit
and acuteness, and none more so than the work to which
I refer—urges his objections against the tepeal. He says,
in a work printed in 1708, and reprinted in 1735, that he
considered the repeal of the Test Act would be an entire
alteration of religious opinion. " If," he continues, " Dis-
senters are admitted to offices of Justices of Peace, to offices
of Sheriffs, and to all other State offices, as well as to com-
mands in militias and the army, I do not see how it can
happen, considering their activity and our supineness (he
gave here, by-the-bye, a blow to his own cloth) they
can avoid growing into a majority in the House of
Commons, and then making some pretence for de-
manding a division of Church property for the main-
tenance of their teachers." This, my Lords, is the
way in which the case was put by Dean Swift ; yet,
in 1780, the Test Acts were repealed in Ireland, al-
though the same arguments were then used ; and there is a
protest entered on the Journals of the Irish Parliament,
signed by four Prelates, which shows that the apprehensions
that the Bill would make an alteration in the Constitution or
the kingdom were at that time entertained ; for that protest
stated that much was to be apprehended, although the
danger could not be seen to its full extent. It is now 48
years ago since this Act was repealed in Ireland, and what
has followed? Has any danger arisen to that country—
have those alarming apprehensions been proved to have
been in any degree well grounded? And surely, then,
Ireland is not so much stronger in the affections of her
people than England, that England need follow her ex-
ample, and try the experiment which the sister country
has already ti ied. With respect to some of the modern
objections which have been put forward against the repeal
of those Acts, it may be necessary for me to refer to the
statement of Dean Swift that 2 and 2 make 4, and to the
discovery of a recent author on political economy, that
the whole is better than the half. When I refer to the
objections that I have of late days seen advanced against
the Bill now before your Lordships—one objection is, that
it will promote the Roman Catholic cause, that cause which
has been so often under the consideration of Parliament; ano-
ther objection is, that it will retard the progress of this great
measure. These are the two great objections which have
been urged in modern times. My Lords, it will not re-
quire any great wisdom to discover that no inference what-
ever can be drawn from those arguments to affect the ques-
tion now before you in any way. For myself I consider I
should be acting disingenuously if I did not say that I hope
to live to see the great question of Catholic Emancipation
passed. It would be idle in me to say that I should not
rejoice if I found the question you are now considering
assisting in the passing of the other. But such are not the
grounds en which I advocate this. If your adopting this
Bill would prevent your adopting another for the emanci-
pation of the Catholics, it would give me great concern,
but it would not have the effect of preventing me from
advocating that which I have now advocated. But, my
Lords, I can never consent to be unjust to one set of men to
get at justice for another. lam convinced that the Roman
Catholics—without reference to their own cause—feel as I
feel upon this, and that they will be happy if you give to the
Dissenters those rights which they seek for themselves. I
have felt it my duty to-say so much upon a delicate question;
but I hope that nb individual will give his vote upon the
arguments to which I have referred, but that each will try the
cause according to its own merits, and give his vote according
to the dictates of his own conscience. There is one part of
this Bill to which I wish to allude. I mean that portion of it
which provides a declaration that no power with which
any officer shall be endowed " shall he employed to injure
or subvert the' interests of the Established Church." While
I am satisfied to give that part of the Bill my support, I
confess I would not have been the first to recommend its
insertion ; but if it will reconcile one honest mind to the
principle of the Bill—if it tend to make the work a work
of charity, and not one of triumph and victory, it must be
good, tnd as such lam willing to support it. There is,
however, one feeling I must press upon the House ; it is
this, that though I have nothing to object to this declara-
tion, which I consider to be a security full as good for the
Church, or I should say better for the Church than any
other, because it casts no stigma on the person who makes
it, and because it can inflict no unpleasant duty on any
Clergyman—l see no reason why any one should object
to make such a declaration ; and, for myself, I am not
likely to take office, but if I were, I would not hesitate to
conform to it; still I must be allowed to say, and to press
upon the House the importance of bearing in mind, that
if any future security binders, or security makers, should
think proper to put this declaration as a necessary admis-
sion to Parliament, to such a declaration I should totally
and thoroughly object. The supreme legislature of the
country must be left perfectly unfettered. God knows I
have no design to injure the Established Church. Ido not
for a moment hesitate to declare so ; but I will maintain
the necessity for keeping the three branches of the legisla-
ture altogether unfettered and free, to act at all times as
they consider best for the interests of the country. My
Lords, I have thought it my duty to enter thus at length
into this most important question. I fear I have been too
prolix ; but if I have, I hope you will attribute it to my
feelings of deep anxiety that the subject should be fully
understood.

The Archbishop of YORK.—My Lords, I cannot feel
satisfied to give a silent vote on the Bill now before your
Lordships ; and I feel it the more ,incumbent upon me to
state my sentiments now, because the most Reverend Pre-
late with whom upon this question I perfectly agree, is pre-
vented by severe indisposition from attending his duty at the
House. I have no hesitation in declaring that I feel bound
to give my vote for the repeal of an Act which has led, in
too man) instances, to the profanation of our holy religion.
I consider religious tests imposed for political objects as in
their nature calculated to endanger religion, and that
nothing but paramount necessity—a necessity nothing
short of danger to the State—could justify their imposi-
tion. At the same time I will confidently affirm, notwith-
standing what the Noble Lord has said, that those Acts
were originally designed expressly for the protection of the
Established Church. The Church has therefore, I think,
a right to expect and to claim that something shall be sub.
stituted for this test, avowedly and in reality, as far as pos-
sible, to retain the same object. Whether or not the pro-
visions of the present Bill will produce this effect, will be
best ascertained when the Bill goes into Committee. In
the earnest hope that such may be the case, I cordially give
my vote for its second reading.
The Earl of WINCHELSEA expressed himself fully
persuaded that, upon admission to any office, some security
in the shape of a declaration must be deemed necessary by
every sincere friend to the Established Church. His con-
viction was, that some provision requiring assent to the
fundamental doctrines of revelation was of the utmost im-
portance, and that some oath or declaration should in every
case be given. He approved of the Bill as far as regarded
the removal of the Sacramental Test ; and it was not,
therefore, his intention to oppose the second reading. But,
if the Bill went into Committee, it was his intention to
propose some alteration in the preamble, and he trusted
that, when he had the honour of proposing it, it would
meet with the support of every friend of the Established
Church and of constitutional liberty. He did not wish
to encourage a feeling of hostility, which he feared too
many already felt against the National Church; but he
was desirous of guarding against those who did not hesi-
tate to declare their opposition to the doctrines of revela-
tion. It was against such—against vendors of sedition,
of which there were many—that he was anxious for pro-
tection. It had been repeatedly used as an argument for
the total repeal of the Corporation and Test .Acts, that
they were passed at a period of anticipated danger to the
constitution in Church and State _that no such danger as
then existed was now to be apprehended, and that there-
fore there was no just ground for not repealing them. But
let their Lordships: inquire if danger of a different kind did
not exist in this their day, which called for the vigilant
attention of the Legislature. The danger which he feared,
arose from the active machinations of certain individuals for
the dissemination of blasphemous and infidel principles,
striking at the root of the doctrines, not only of the Este-
blished Church, but of Christianity itself. Among the nume-
rous instances of these demoralizing designs which might be
alleged, and of which tkeir Lordships were probably aware
he needed only to call their attention to the existence of
a society, which for tile last few years had absurdly
enough denominated itself " The Society of Freethinking
Christians." This Society had laid a petition npon their
Lordships' table, which they had made a vehicle for the
most bitter attacks, not only upon the Church of England,
but also upon Christianity itself. It was against such per-

sons as these that their Lordships were called upon to
guard the Constitution in Church and State. He would
say in the words of the immortal Burke, " that the must
horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to civil society is
through atheism and infidelity. An infidel is an outlaw of
the Constitution, not only of this country but of the human
race. He is never to be supported, never to be tolerated."
It was Lis opinion, if their Lordships did not crush the
efforts of such miscreants, they would soon see their opi-
nions propagated in every direction among the people, who
would be taught to scorn, as obsolete, every institution
which served as a prop to good government, every doctrine
which was essential to to the maintenance of genuine Chris-
tianity. In rejecting Christianity, as this Bill at present re-
' tected it—for he called on the Reverend Bench of Bishops
to point out to him any clause in it which would prevent in-
fidelity from legislating for the country—in rejecting Chris-
tianity, he said, which had hitherto formed an integral part
of the Constitution, they were endangering the existence of
their own liberty. In taking away the belief of a future
state of existence, and of reward and punishment after death,
they were striking at the sanctity of judicial oaths, they,
were undermining the validity of moral evidence, and
they were preparing for their country the greatest and
most irremediable calamities. Then 'people would soon
follow the disastrous course which flung France into
so mach bloodshed and misery, and which had hither-
to disabled her from enjoying that liberty for which
she had dared and • suffered so much. It was to
prevent such a catastrophe that he now called upon
the Bench of Bishops to stand forth manfully in defence
of those doctrines which they were pledged by their holy
profession to support, and to give to the country a secu-
rity that is future ages, as in the past, Christianity shall
in this country still be connected with the State. He would
remind them of another expression of the same great states-
man, whose noble sentiments he had before quoted to their
Lordships. That illustrious statesman had said, and had
truly said, that the cause of the Church of England was
included in that of Christianity, not that of Christianity in
the ,Church of England. There was notl lag but an empty
appellation of security in the present Bill. What security
could there be for the temporalities of the church, when
infidelity stalked through the land, and in insolent disdain
cast off the mask in which it had so long arrayed itself ?
No one would go further than he would to tolerate the
various sects into which Christianity was divided ; but to
the Atheist and Infidel he would afford no toleration. He
felt convinced that the word of God was not an empty
fable, and that Christianity was not an empty boast. A
Socinian, an Unitarian, and an Infidel, held no opinions
in common with those of the real Christian. He knew
that he might be ridiculed for asserting such a proposition,
but lie felt that it would meet the dissent of every class of
Protestant Dissenters, even of that highly respectable
body upon which a Noble Lord had on a former night
hosted a most unmerited insult. He trusted, however,
that that respectable body would treat it with disdain,
when they recollected that that Noble Lord was accus-
tomed to treat with scorn, contempt, and derision, every
institution that was connected, not only with the religion,
but also with the conotitntion of his country. He hoped
to see some clause inserted in this Bill which would give
the country a security that Christianity would still be
connected with the state within its dominions, and which
would prevent infidelity from being exalted to offices of
high trust and importance in the empire.
The Bishop of LINCOLN—My Lords, I feel myself
bound to declare, in the outset, that I concur in the opi-
nions so ably expressed by my Noble and Most Reverend
Brother, who has already addressed your Lordships on the
subject. Little beyond this did I intend to press on your
Lordships' attention ; but as the Noble Baron who has in-
troduced the Bill has, on urging the repeal of the Test Acts
insisted at considerable length on the circumstances under
which these laws were passed, I think it necessary to
make a few observations on that branch of the question. I
do not deny the correctness of the Noble Baron's statement
relative to the origin of the Corporation Act ; that Act
was passed at a time when the usurpation of political
power by the Presbyterians was fresh in the mind of the
nation. The Test Act was passed at a period of great
public excitement, whea the popular feeling was agitated
by apprehensions of plots and dangers ; and so great was
the public alarm that the Dissenters themselves consented
to a measure excluding them from office, under the impres-
sion that the measure was necessary to keep the Catholics
out of power. These laws were continued up to the Re-
volution, and after that period, and with the consent of
the Dissenters themselves ; and I consider that the conti-
nuation of them was founded on a maxim of sound policy,
namely, for the purpose of preventing the frequent recur-
rence of those religious disputes which distracted the coun-
try before the enactment of those Acts. Your Lordships
will remember that before the Reformation this country
was in religious matters subject to the domination of
the Church of Rome. After the Reformation, which
was established on liberty of conscience, every body
was allowed -to think for himself; yet it was cer-
tainly the intention of the original reformers, after they
had purified the religion of their day, to unite the whole
kingdom under that religion so reformed ; but in that ob-
ject, the effecting a unity of religious opinion, they were
disappointed. The same freedom of thinking which created
the Reformation produced also other opinions differing
from the doctrines of the Reformed Church. Then a large
portion of the people was hostile to the Reformation itself,
and the result of all was the formation of a party whose
object it was to make the Established Religion what they
wished it to be, or to subvert it and plant their own in
its place. This party commenced their operations in the
reign of Elizabeth, but made stronger efforts under her
weaker successor. The friends of the Protestant Esta-
blishment were averse from any division between the mem-
bers of the Reformed -Aeligiou ; but when they found that
the Puritans were determined to separate from the Esta-
blishment, they said to them—" If you cannot remain at-
tached to the Protestant Church, separate from it ; but
then separate quietly, and without injury to the Protestant
Establishment." The King himself (James I.) had an
anxious wish to establish unity between the sects of the
Reformed Church, and for that purpose assembled theheads
of the several Protestant denominations, at a conference at
Hampton Court; but that Monarch was, by his theologi-
cal learning, very well fitted to promote the object of their
assembling : he found, by the result, that in attempting
to reconcile the differences of religious opinions, lie had
undertaken a task quite above his power.. Having
failed in this laudable purpose, he subsequently tried
to accomplish his object by means that must be al-
lowed to be less justifiable. These objectionable measures
were followed up with more activity by his unfortunate
successor, the first Charles, and terminated in raising up a
storm of civil contention, in which Church and State were
swept away. Next came the Restoration, and soon after
were passed the laws excluding Dissenters from political
P• ower They were, however, left in the possession of the
privilege of professing their religious opinions, and the exer-
cise of their religious solemnities. This, my Lords, is, I
believe, rather a correct account of the various circum-
stances under which these laws were enacted. And now,
my Lords, for a few observations on the principle of them.
I hold it as a sound principle, that if the avowed principles
of any body of men in a State be such as shall indicate that
the admission into power of the persons avowing them be
calculated to bring danger to the State—l hold that that
body of men may be justly and reasonably excluded from
the possession of political power. But it bas been urged
against this by the Noble Baron, that no body of men can
be excluded from power on account of their religious opi-
nions, without positive injustice; and in support of this opi-
nion, the Noble Baron can, I am aware, quote the authority
of some high names. But lam equally assured that your Lord-
ships will agree with me, that such a proposition, taken in
the broad sense ascribed to it by the Noble Baron, is not
at all maintainable under the institutions of this country.—
And as to the Noble Baron's assertion, that the Test Laws
were enacted to serve as a punishment, I beg leave to say
on the contrary, that I conceive they were not intended
with any such view; and indeed in the case decided by
Lord Mansfield, as quoted by the Noble Baron, the decision
was founded on the principle, that these laws were intended
for a restraint and not as a punishment. And though I
cannot agree with those advocates of the Dissenters who
deny the justice of the Test Laws as instruments of restraint,
I cannot say I dissent from them; when they object to the
enactment of such laws as means of punishment, on account
of religious opinions. But it has been argued by some
friends of the pioposed repeal of these laws, that they were
calculated to exclude only the conscientious Dissenters.--
Now it is known to your Lordships from history, that
there have been many persons who considered themselves
bound by conscience to subvert the Established Re-
ligion, and who have even imagined they found pas-
sages in the Sacred Scriptures authorising their purpose
of subversion. These were, doubtless, conscientious persons
in their own opinion—in proportion then to the sincerity
of the religious belief of such a person, is the danger to be
apprehended from the influence of his religioua zeal ; and,
on this account, I conceive the religious test to he a
stronger security than any other against the conscientious
Dissenter; not that I mean to say that the taking of the
Sacrament ought to constitute that test ; on the contrary,
I hold that the participation of that solemn ordinance ought
not to be profaned to a pathway for secular advancement,
and that the Sacrament ought not to be taken at all miles:.
through a purely religious feeling. As to the Test Laws,
they ought not, in my opinion, to be adopted, but as a means
of defence—defence against near and real danger, but not
against mere general surmise ; nor can a remote probability