The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-28 00:00:00

light, will the disposition to remedy the evil be im-
paired ? 0 what drivelling! And this is the price
paid for being allowed to serve the country under
his Grace the Duke of Wellington.—lbid. -
We do not know that it is necessary to enter at
large into the question of the Corporation and Test
Acts, but there are one or two points which it may
not be unnecessary to notice. In the first place, we
deny that the relief, which it is the object of Lord
J. Russell to give, is desired by the majority of the
Dissenters.. It was indeed said by Sir T. Acland,
in answer to this argument, that he could procure
plenty of petitions—but why have they not been
procured ? The motion of Tuesday night was no
unexpected motion. It was in course of Irvin,
made, though not actually made, last Session, and
almost every night since the present Parliament lias
met the subject has been talked over. Where, then,
is that sense of degradation, that impatience under
injury, which it is argued the Dissenters must feel
from the operation of these Acts ? Has one peti-
tion come from Scotland ? The Presbyterians
are unquestionably the most respectable in all points
of view ; they are also the most numerous denomi-
nation of Dissenters from Episcopacy. The Scotch
have at no period shewn themselves lukewarm or
indifferent to any thing that affected their interests
whether spiritual or temporal. They bear an ancient
grudge against the Church of England, in conse-
quence of the atrocities perpetrated during the latter
part of the reign of Charles 11., which they attribute
to that Church; and if any set of men should be
disposed to stickle for the removal of the smallest
relict of their former bondage, they should naturally
be the men----yet they move not. Is not their qui-
escence the strongest possible proof that the griev-
ances which figure in the speeches of Lord John
Russell and Mr. J. Smith, have no practical in-
fluence in the realities of life ? Not only do the
Presbyterians not move, but we are assured, that
sooner than submit 'to what they would deem the
contamination of yoking themselves with Unita-
rians, there is not a Presbyterian north of the
Tweed who would not join the Roman Catholics.
In fact, the doctrines of the latter are much -less ob-
noxious, because it is conceded that they err only by
excess; that they have all that is requisite and more;
while the doctrines of the Unitarians not only fall
grievously short, but some of their short comings
are in particulars which a Presbyterian deems es-
sential, not to church discipline, but to Christianity
itself. We affirm, then, in the first place, that there
is no sufficient proof before Parliament or the coun-
try, that the Dissenters desire the repeal of the
Corporation and Test Acts, in so much as the most
numerous, the most respectable, the most influen-
tial of all the dissenting bodies in the kingdom, has
not made the slightest attempt to procure it. But
it is said, why should the Church struggle to retain
what is confessedly of no use ? Why should she
keep up ramparts which afford no protection ? We
answer, because of the evil example that yielding up
such ramparts would set. Why did the Scots
struggle for the debatable land? Was it be-
cause of its value ? No—but they knew that
while they had an enemy the struggle must
be maintained somewhere, and they wished to
keep it as far from the heart of the country
as possible. They well knew that if they gave
ap the border they must soon give up the king-
dom. Such is the - case with the friends of the
Church. If they make not a stand now, they must
soon make one, and every step that they resile, every
foot of ground which they yield, is so much vantage-
ground occupied for the fresh attack and a farther
inroad. If they give way they will soon find them-
selves in the condition of the Scots. The enemy
will first seize their borders—he will next press for-
ward to the heart of their possessions—he will turn
first one point, then another, until he has driven
them to the wilderness, and will only then leave
them because they have nothing more of which to
lie plundered. This brings us to the only other
point which we mean to notice. It is said that the
repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts will
strengthen the ,Church Establishment against the
Catholics. It will do the very contrary. There is
not one who prays for the repeal, who does not in
his heart, however he may gloss it over, hate the
Church Establishment even more intensely than the
Catholics do. Were it come to such an alternative,
that one party must be admitted to keep the other
out, the most prudent plan, and that which
would most likely be successful, would be to
let in the Catholics, in order to keep out
the Independents and Unitarians. What said
Mr. J. Smith, the other day, in respect to the sen-
timents of the Dissenters towards the Catholics ?
That though they would not combine with them in
petitioning for joint Emancipation, they were anxious
to have it understood that they were most friendly
to their claims. What language does this conduct
s;,eak to plain men ? Is it not tantamount to telling
the Catholics—" Help us to push in at the door,
and we will let you in by the window ?" Oa this
point we request our readers to peruse Mr. Peel's
speech carefully, for they will find it well repay
their labour. That Right Hon. Gentleman saw
clearly that the concession sought by Lord John
Russell's motion must strengthen the Catholic
Cause, and voted with perfect consistency against
it. Others, we know, voted against the measure on
the ground that it would weaken the Catholic
Cause. But is it possible that the more the lines
of demarcation between the Established Chnrch and
Sectarians are trampled upon, the more zealous the
Church should wax for the preservation—and the
more her privileges are shared with others, the
more anxious should she be to contend for them ?
New Times.

Lord John Russell brought forward in the
House of Commons last night his motion for a Com-
mittee of the whole House to examine into the pro-
priety of repealing the Corporation and Test Acts.
The motion was seconded by Mr. John Smith, and
curried by a majority of 44 ; the }lumbers for going
into a Committee being 237, and against it, 193.
It has seldom happened that so many Members have
divided without any previous call of the House. We
have not space to-day to analyse the long and impor-
tant debate of which the above was the result. The
arguments for the repeal of the Corporation and
Test Acts possess little novelty; and were we to
seek for the refutation, we need not go further than
Lord .Tohn Russell's speech. For why shotild we
proceed to legislate on-what, in truth, is. not and
cannot be a grievance, since the annual indemnity
bill removes the possibility of its infliction ?-• The
grievance of the Corporation and Test Acti lies, if
any, in their penal clauses. If there were no penal-
ties annexed to a breach of them, would any man
in his senses say that they could be looked on by
the Dissenters as grievous ? And is not the relief
from. these penalties equivalent to the absolute
repeal of the only part of the law which
can be complained of ? The description of the
hardships that were endured previous to .the annual
Indemnity Bill being introduced, and of the sin-
gular scenes exhibited when persons went '
to qualify under those Acts, may be quite
true ; but, unfortunately, it is nothing to the
purpose. The question is, not what were the ef-
fects of these Acts, but what are their effects. The
argument plainly stated is neither more nor less than
this :—The Corporation and Test Acts inflict no
penalties on Protestant Dissenters that are not re-
lieved by an Indemnity Act ; but some hundred
years ago they did inflict penalties which were not
relieved - by an Indemnity Act—ergo, they ought to
be repealed. Whenever a Member proposes a cure,
he ought first to show some disease that renders its
application necessary. It is no argument to offer to
a man in perfect health, who refuses to swallow a
potion, that he will be as well after he has taken it
as before. His reply will naturally be, " then why
take it ?" Such is precisely the argument for the
repeal of the Acts in question. The Dissenters
suffer nothing from them ;. therefore, says Lord
John, why oppose their repeal ? If the Dissenters
suffer nothing from them, we answer, why do they
ask it ? We cannot, however, enter into the ques-
tion at such length as is necessary to de it justice,
and therefore we must abstain for the present. The