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

reign, may be truly said to form part of the privileges
of the subject (and in saying this it is not to be
thought that I am departing from any opinion that I have
ever before expressed with regard to these prerogatives,
for I never considered them, when properly exercised, as in-
consistent with those privileges)—l say then that this Act
• is hostile to both, and that this House, and the other, and
the people at large, have rights and privileges which are
protected and supported by that prerogative, the exercise of
which t!wy may sometimes advise, but which they can
seldom trench on without equal injury to the Throne and
I the People. That prerogative to which lam now allud-
my Lords—what is it ? It is the most grateful, the
most just, the most righteous that a Prince can exercise,
in order to afford to a meritorious subject that reward
which his services deserve, when those services have either
been beneficial to his Prince, or have conferred a benefit
on the country at large. Every Prince of a generous
mind, and especially every Prince of the House of Bruns-
wick, must most love the exercise of such a prerogative,
and must dislike that which tends to deprive him of the
enjoyment such a Mind, must feel in rewarding merit.
Reward, properly bestowed, is like mercy, which the Poet
has described as

" Enthroned in the hearts of Kings,
It is an attribute of God himself;"

While Punishment, like cruelty, is often only the attribute
of the Devil. But by this law—this impious, profane, ini-
quitous and unnecessary law, the Prince is deprived of this
god-like attribute, and is reduced to the exercise of his
prerogative only to inflict that punishment which has
been said to make him who inflicts it resemble the Devil.
But it is not merely on this principle that I contend the
Act is contrary to common justice, feeling, and humanity;
it is, that a man who unfortunately does not happen to
think as the constituted authorities of the State do, should
be excluded from all the benefits of the institutions of his
country. It is an Act which says to a man, that although
he may have applied his time—his mind—all his capabi-
lities, with zeal and energy, to the services of the State,
he must never hope to reap the fruits of his labours
(Hear, hear, hear.)—Let not, therefore, any man step
'forward and say that a refusal of political rights is not
persecution.—(Cheers.)—The Constitution of this country
is the grandest fabric ever erected by human wisdom—and
shall the King of England, the key-stone of that arch, be
controlled in the exercise of his proudest privileges and
attributes—shall he be debarred frora the power of re-
warding the zeal, the talents, and the fidelity of his people,
and is that not to be called peesecution?—(Cheering.)—
I have generally observed that those persons who are most
ready to refuse relief such as this Bill before your Lord-
ships is calculated to afford, namely, eligibility to partici-
pate in benefits, are peculiarly the persons who enjoy the
greatest share themselves.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
—Another principle of this law is, that it is just and
lawful for a State to make the rites of religion sub-
servient to State purposes. I declare to God, it has
always appeared to me a matter for standing wonder how
a person, impressed with the extreme importance, the awful
solemnity of religion, and its rites, can use them as means
of persecution. I declare to God, that to my sense, it in-
volves one of the most extraordinary contradictions which
it is possible, to conceive.—(Hear, hear.) Another ex-
traordinary fact connected with this part of .the subject is,
that those who entertain respect for no established or de-
clared religion, but equally neglect all, are eligible to
office, because they, not being influenced by religious scru-
ples, would take any qualifying test required of thern.---
The Act in question lets in all these, but does it not ex-
clude, and in excluding, does it not embitter, the happi-
ness of those who attached to the Constitution, and re-
specting the Established Church, are nevertheless swayed
by the dictates of their consciences.—(Cheers.) Then
with respect to the Sacramental Test—what is the doctrine
of the Church of England on the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper ? That if any man shall take that holy Sacrament
unprepared (that is, in a state of unfitness to take it), he
"eats and drinks his own damnation." What does this Act
say? That be you ever so unprepared, be you ever so
unfit to take that Floly Sacrament, if you take it not, you
lose all chance of worldly advantages.—(Cheers.) Such
is the choice offered by this Bill. Either you relinquish
all hopes of Heaven hereafter, by taking the Sacrament
in a state of unfitness, or you sacrifice all worldly advan-
tages by listening to the dictates of your conscience.—
(Cheers.) It is impossible that the mind of man can conceive
or suggest any thing more cruel than this—cruel to the in-
dividuals who are the objects of it—cruel also to the
clergy who are bound to administer to all who present them-
selves to take it—the qualifying Sacrament.—( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord went on to say, that he had always un-
derstood, that, according to the law of England, it was
at least an inference from the Corporation and Test Acts,
if not' a ruled Point; that an action would lie at common
law against the clergyman who' should refuse to admit to
the Sacrament the parshioner who applied for it as a qua-
lification for civil office. If that were so, was not there a
direct interference of the common with the ecclesiastical
law—a secular controul not recognised by the canons of
the church ? No clergyman ought to violate the canons
which he was spiritually hound to maintain. And in these
canons every minister, having the cure of souls, was en-
joined to refuse the Sacrament to any parishioner of impure
life, who lived in disorder or quarrel with his neighbours.
See then the situation in which the clergy were placed, if
his view of the law were correct. Suppose a Lord Chan-
cellor, who was not so moral and courteous as Lord
Shaftesbury, or a Secretary of State who was no so pure
and unblemished in his life as Lord Liverpool, and a bar-
rister, not so much distinguished far his habits and temper,
as 'for his pertinacity and law—auppose three snob persons
were toi approach their clergyman to receive the Sacra-
ment before they entered their respective offices, and
that lie said to the two Peers, " You, my Lord Chan-
cellor, have not lived as you ought to receive this rite.
'you, the Noble Secretary, are not iu a fit condition
to receive; - for the present then depart and begone."—
The Peers would perhaps retire in courtesy, and
try to soften down the clergyman's scruples ;
hut when it came to the lawyer's turn to be re-
fused, when the clergyman said to the lawyer,
" You won't do, my friend, you are bringing actions after
actions against all your neighbours, begone, and learn humi-
lity." Would the lawyer retire? faith no, he'd do no such
thing; he would at once rejoin upon the parson, " You
won't give me the Sacrament, won't you, then I'll have my
action at law. I'll let fly my per quods at you, my reve-
rend gentleman, and we shall soon see who will have to
smart for the costs."—(A laugh.) How was the clergy-
man to act under such unfavourable circumstances'? Was
he to submit the exercise of his spiritual functions to secular
jurisdiction ? lie thotight not, for he had always under-
stood the church was extremely jealous of any interference
of the courts of common law. When he spoke of the
church, he did not mean the ordinary men belonging to it,
but the highest and the most sanctified of the early Re-
formers—for instance, such a personage as Luther himself.
Luther, when speaking of the danger of making spirituals
dash with seculars, used these remarkable words—"
would wish lases well made. I acknowledge jus is a fair
spouse so long as she remains in her own bed, but when she
goes out of that to role the church, then I say she is a
great strumpet ;" and something else, added the Noble
Lord, which I will not quote before your Lordships.—
(Laughter.) Luther goes on—" I never knew a lawyer
who did not want to meddle in other men's matters, and
who did not in this way far surpass Turks, Jews, and
Gentiles; in other words, lawyers are the next door neigh-
' boors to the devil—nay, they are the devil himself. In fine,
my heart begins to quake when I even think of therm"—
(Laughter.) Such was the opinion of Luther as to any con-
nexion between canon and secular law. But, my Lords, it
may be said that such is not the case; that under such cir-
critriatayees an action would not lie, although I believe
there may be rapid the authority of some of the ablest
Statesmen who have ewer lived in support of a contrary,
opinion. Lord Stanhope, in fa :rearing to the very
clause to which I have alluded, commenced thus—" The '
effect of this clause seems to me to exempt the Dissenters
from the Sacramental Test, because it states, that whereas
complaints baye been made, that the Clergy have been '
threatened with actions at law, and with annoyances of
various kinds, for refusing to administer the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper to persons seeking amoission to offices
and places of trust, who, by law,' were obliged to receive
the same as a raecessary qulification for such offices." But
my Lords, suppose en action will not lie—suppose that,
although the Dissenters think it will, such in reality is not
:1.101141 j‘uvri
u i Q
notn
co
t to
then interfere
have
the fact—what, 4my Lords, will you then say to the pro-
priety of admirtittiiniag the i
d
with
placed
in
the spiritual
the hands of the parson of a parish, or, at all
events, in the Ecclesiastical Court, a power which, whe-
ther or not it were employed, most be dangerous and un.
constitutional to the highest degree. Can any man say
that either the parson of a parish, or even the Ecclesias-
tical Court,' ought to be the judges under such circum-
stances? Can any man think, that by so constituting them,
a great and manifest injustice would not be created ? But
if I wish to prove the absurdity, the cruelty, and the in-
justice of this law, in no way can I do it so effectually as
by the supposition, that what might take place had ac-
tually taken place. My Lords, let me put the case to you
as the case might be. Consider then the consequences of
enforcing this law—consider then what a scene of iniquity,
of cruelty, and of oppression, would take place, if two-
thirds, or three-fourths of those persona who are DOW em-
ployed in the civil or the military offices of the kingdom,
lout who had not complied with this ohnoxicu, teat, woes