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

it was as introduced, fur the purpose of excluding from j
Corporations persons already Members of them, with the
irtention of giving strength to the Monarchy ; it was
the produce of servility and violence. Great part of itehas it
since been explained away ; all of it indeed repealed, save
and except this vets Sacramental Test. I shall now state
to your Lordships the provisions of the Corporation Act ;
they are three in number. The first object of its enact-
ment was to clear the Corporations of the Presbyterians
and others actually in possession of them. For that pur-
pose two oaths were devised—one disclaiming the solemn
league wad covenant ; the other that it .was unlawful to
take up arms against the Sovereign ; and the Act further
declared that all who should refuse to take those oaths
should be expelled from the Corporations. The Act was
to last only two years. In that shape had the Bill been
originally introduced, and after several discussions in this and
the other House of Parliament, a solemn compact was made
by the two Houses, and then, for the first time, the
sacramental test was introduced into the Act. What was
then its state? Your Lordships will be surprised to hear
it—for, in the first place, two years were to elapse before
the clause was to take any effect at ea What was then
the state of the Church ? Its livings were, in numerous
instances, in the hands of the Presbyterians. The Act of
Uniformity had not long passed, when strong hopes, and
stronger expectations, were held ont to the Presbyterians
that their religion should become a part of the rites and
usages of the Church of England. It never could have
beeu believed to have been for the exclusion of-the Protest.
ant Dissenters. Ido not believe such to have been any
Fait of the intention of the Bill—it is too much involved
in obscurity; but this I can state as the result of my best
consideration, that whatever the intention for inserting
that clause in the Corporation Act may have been, it never
aves intended for the purpose of excluding the Protesthut
Dissenters from the Corporations. I shall now state the
grounds for this belief, and I shall do it in the words of a
roan who, although one of the founders of the Corporation
and Test Acts, I cannot mention without admitting that lie
was one of the most patristic men in the country—l mean
Lord Southampton—and one of the most active too inthose
busy times—Lord Clarendon only excepted.. That which I
am about to state, is a fact so corroborated as to place it
beyond doubt. The Duke of Ormond while living in Hol-
land with Charles IL, had discovered a circumstancewhich
Is came a subject of great regret to him—namely, that
Charles 11. was a confirmed Homan Catholic—and that
discovery was, if it required confirmation, further confirmed
by the testimony of Sir H. Bennett, afterwards Lord Ar-
lington. The Duke kept it a profound secret, even from
_Lord Southampton, until lie came to En eland, and then,
when the Duke of York solicited in marriage the daughter
of Lord Clarendon, the Duke of Orwell, for the first time,
communicated it to the two Lords. I blush to say what their
conduct was. They met to considerwhat it. thosecircumstances
was best to be done. They agreed that to divulge the fact
would in all probability produce the most fatal conse-
quences, by throwing upon the character of Charles 11.
doubts, and excite fears which at that period It was of the
utmost importance should not be created. They consi-
dered that in the minds of the people of this country, ap-
prehensions might be engendered that from the connexion
of Charles with the Courts of France and other Catholic
countries, dangers to the independence Of Great Britain
might arise. What did those Lords do ? What did they
determine on? That they should bring in a Bill making it
a premunire and a forfeiture of goods for any man to call
the King a Papist. (Hear, hear.) It might not be plea-
sant to some Noble Lords to have their litttle secrets ex-
posed at sonic future day, but it is of use to bring before
your Lordships those little peccadilloes of our ancestors.—
( A laugh.)—Such was the conduct of those Lords. lam
willing to think that these two great men, especially Lord
Southampton, meant well—that they were always anxious
to do something for their country—and therefore am I
convinced that their sole reason for introducing the Act
eve!! for the purpose of excluding the Catholics. "We
are now (said they) under this Act, driving many persons
from the Corporations, and we now also discover that
he King is favourable to the Papists." This is only
conjecture certainly--hut there is no ground for believe
rig that the Act was never intended to apply to the
Protestant Dissenters. The fact is, that it is no test at
ell. What is a test against particular persons, but ex-
acting from them that which they would not do with-
out it ? (Here, and very often previously, from the in-
tolerable pressure of the crowd, we were rendered unable
for some moments to take a single note—many sentences of
the Noble Lord were, in consequence, lost. His Lordship,
ive undereerd to contend, that the Presbyterians had been
induced to concur in the passing of those Acts under the
conviction that they could not be made to operate against
themselves. 'The Noble Lord, proceeded.) The Rever-
end Bench will hear me out in saying,. that--that was the
state of the case through a great part of Charles the Se-
cond's time, and continued down to the Uniformity Bill
itself. It is necessary to bear this in mind when talking
of the wisdom of our ancestors, that these Acts were never
enforced against the Protestant Dissenters of this country
during 150 years, except far three years. I mean the
er:od when the Uniformity Act passed, in the reign of
p
ueen k‘.
and in 1718. Such I believe to be the his-
tory of the t.7.grPoration Act. The effect of it has been in
time respects Rfleeter than that of the Test Act. (Fur the
,Cason above stated, some sentences of his Lordship were
here also lost.) The Corporation Act does not require
that a man, on entering upon office, should take the Sa-
ceamental Test, bat diet within two years before such ac-
cepting of office, lie shoald have taken the Sacramental
Teets _(Bear, from Lord Eldon.)—ls not that so ?
Earl of ELDON—One year.
Lord I lOLLAND.—WeII, one year. Now, may Lords,
.jf that Act had not been passed, what would have been
4-be case with respect to the Corporation Act ? That every
minus would have been obliged to take it. The officiating
Priest would have been obliged to administer the
'sacrament. I shall now, however, leave it. The Test
Act, my Lords, was a complete contract. Delighted with
the return of hi= whom they deemed a Protestant King,
the House of Conatnons, with a certain degree of servility,
vassed the Test Act, which was an Act of suspicion—an
-eet excluding the objects of it. from the Crown. Every
elieterfuge was put in practice, ta order to ensure its pass-
ing ; even the Money Bill was held wank for that purpose.
It was ee length carried, and was an Act founded on dis-
tnist fee.hded on suspicion ; is,' and always has been, a
fetter upon the' tree and lawful prerogatives of the Crown.
gut who appeal .to history ? Bead the Bill itself—read its
preamble. Does lti say that it is intended to operate
against the Protestatit li;..?senters? Dues it say that it was
to enforce conformity of the Clergy? That it was a Bull
d the Established Church? No; but that it was to prevent
danger from Popish recusants, and 'Jree quieting the minds
of his Majesty's people. Not for the purpose of strengthen-
Mg the Goyerenient, or defending the Charclt, but for the
purpose of allaying the suspicious which exiateel for the
safety of both. That such were the facts, can be pieeeed
by reference to the debates that took place on the subject;
but to enter upon the recapitulation of which, would lead
;me to a length to which it is not necessary I shoals go.-
shall, however, state a few additional circumstances.
hVlieu the Act was about to pass, all the Dissenters in the
:ether House of Parliament voted for it. Some, it is true,
at that time riitTered with Mr. Maxwell, and entertained
conforming to what were deemed the rites
eNeat scruples lea
C;ef the •Church of Vsogland. There was, however, amen
them --eenan distinguished during the reign of Charles H.
mean Mts. Love. He said ;n the House of Common., that
for that Bill, in the hope
;,;e and the DiaGenters would vote
eliat the Protestant Dissenters would ssech..eive some further
indulgence, At the Came moment, a 3)41 was brought
in for relieving the Protestant Dissenters by a ehle wind
from the operation of the Act, forinto
the was btoughtnto the purpose of ye,
commending it to that chase. Bill
That
the House of Commons, was pushed foewerd, and proceeded
nit when the Tot Act
pnri passu with the Test Act ; I .
ng,
had passed, the other not having
received its thin reading,
Ciovernment prorogued the Parliatrient, and thus defeated.
the Bill. Many wise men, opposed to its Principle,look-
ed upon it nevertheless as a substitute for the other, in con-
sequence of their suspicions of the religion a ilia King,
and of their knowledge of that of the Duke of York. They
were too deeply solicitous for the welfare of Englend, they
had too much consideration, not to know that it would be
better to exclude a Prince from the succession than 1.0
limit the just prerogative of the Crown. The principle
and object of the Test Act were to protect the country from
the possible intrigues of a-Popish Sovereign and his suc-
cessor.
They were founded upon the distrust entertained
by the Parliament of a Prince popish'!" inclined—founded
in a word, upon their distrust of Charles thcSecond and hie
brother James. What has now become of t'hat case? The
principles of the Act are gone—an object for it no longer
exists—they are buried with the Catholics-ee.they are gone
to the tomb of the Capulete.—(Hear, hear.) . I shall show
that the principle of this Act is, at the present day, ap-
plied to an object the direct contrary of the one intended.
As it now stands, the Act excludes Protestant Dissenters,
and it excludes Roman Catholics also; but there are other
laws against the Catholics ; therefore as far as respects
them, it is unnecessary. The Act establishes, consequently,
as far as it can, far different principles from those which mi.
ginally operated—namely, that it is better to limit the pre-
rogative of the Crown, it is injurious to the interest of the
Church, and dangerous to the Constitution and the State.
With respect to the prerogatives of the Crown—preroga-
tives which are given not only for the advantage of the
Crows, hilt also for the benefit of the people; and
which, while they increase the power of the ''';nve-•