The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-22 00:00:00

• - • •
.sinee the Union which incorporated: kingdorna juts'
one, to the enjoyment of every office, without being called
upon to abandon their religion. Any thing short of that
was a stigma, and to that degree a nuisance. So far from
the people of Scotland not being aggrieved by those acts,
they were even more aggrieved than the Dissentsrs in Eng-
land, -inasmuch as they formed part of an established
church. His Lordship would no longer trespass upon the
attention of the House, any further than by declaring his
intention of supporting the Bill before their Lordships.
The Earl of ELDON thought the question with re-
spect to Scotland was an extremely delicate question. If
their Lordships looked to the Act of Union, they would
find that the Scotch were extremely anxious to take pre-
cautions, which were mentioned in the Act of William and
Mary, that no one should have any thing with them, un-
less he subscribed to their confession of faith. On the other
hand, the English bad been extremely anxious to take pre--
cautions on their part, which had not, however, bi,"
effectual. If their Lordships looked to the Acts of Union
of 1787, 1789, and 1790, they would find what thoiss
Acts would or would not permit to be done. All he wialisd
to say on the subject was, that their Lordships would find.
if they took the trouble to look into that Act, that it *was
extremely and most cautiously provided, that with respets
to Scotland no alteration should be made with respect to
persons holding offices in that country, unless they pleased
to confonn to the confession of faith, and a. test existed
with respect to taking office in that as well as in this
country. He saw with abhorrence that there -were to ho
in this country academies and universities without reli-
gion being taught in them, because it was stated no one
could tell what Christianity was ; and when he sass-
that persons holding offices in Scotch universities wens
connected with these new aca.deinies-, he could not help es:-
peessing his astonishment that they should ever have had
the honour of holding those offices. It was stated with
extreme caution, in the act of unions that the church of
England was to be inviolably preserved. - But how? It
was not merelv a simple declaration, it was a declaration
that it should be preserved by the laws and statutes there
mentioned ; and with respect to the laws there mentioned,
it was not confined to them, but there was an express de-

aeration that every law and statute passed in this country
for the purpose of the preservation of the establishment of
the church of England,—not merely for the purpose of the
preservation of its worship„ discipline, and government,
but for the preservation of the church itself,—should re--
main inviolate for ever. He was perfectly ready to admit, •
that no legislator could legislate inviolably for posterity;
but, on the other hand, the use of that word was a caution -
to posterity, not, without very sufficient reasons, to inno-
vate against laws understood to be the fundamental laws of
the country; and if there were those who could find out
that the Corporation and Test Acts were not Acts fur the
preservation of the est:ibliehment of the church of England,
he could only say, that those persons had gone much fur-
ther forward in the march of intellect than the humble
individual who bad now the honour to address their Lord-
ships. That march had certainly been both very rapid and
very slow. Their Lordships would recollect that from 1669
to 1828, being pretty nearly a period of two centuries-, it had
never been fouud out, by those who were charged to take
care of the established church of England, except by one
or two individuals, and it had never been fouud out by
those who were charged with the interest of the church of
Scotland, that the Test 'and Corporation Acta u ere a de-
secration of the sacrament ; but within one week their
opinion had been entirely changed. , The march of intellect
in the latter case bad certainly been exceedingly rapid,
however slow it might have been in the first instance.—
lt was very true, that his Majesty,. un his accession to the
throne, solemnly declared to preserve the Presbyterian
church ; but let it be remembered that it was equally true,
that his Majesty undertook to keep inviolate the establish-
ment of the church of England ; and when their Lordships
had on their table a thousand petitions—he knew, though
he should not state, how they were obtained—stating
that it was a degradation to any man, and against all prin-
ciple with respect to Government, to have such testo.
their Lordships, he hoped, Ivould be so good as to let
him remind them, that hie Majesty was obliged to
take the sacrament, and before he began to exercise
the Royal functions was obliged to submit to that
which those petitions stated to be a degradation.—
Why did their Lordships impose it upon the King, if
they considered it improper to subject persons to it who
tilled inferior offices? He • contended ..that it bad
become part of the constitution of this- -country,
as established at the revolution. Now, with respect to
King William, it was very true that be objected to the
test after he came to the throne ; but while'. he was
Prince of Orange he never made any such objection, and
when he did object, after becoming King, the Legislature
would not hear of his objection. With regard to his (Loy;
Eldon's) friends, the Scotch, who, having been his neigh-
bours, be knew something of them, he thought they had no
right to complain, for they had certainly always had a tole-
rably fair share of offices amongst them, notwithstanding
this test, so much complained of. The question, however,
was this—whether, under the effect of our Acts of Parlia-
ment, passed for the security of our Constitution, we had os
hail not more security than we ought? Now his opinion
was, that the Church of England, combined with the State,
formed together the Constitution of Great Britain, and that
the Test and Corporation Acts were necessary to the pre-
servation of that Constitution. His Noble Friend; said it
was time enough when any danger to the Constitution arose
to legislate for that danger; but he (Lord. Eldou) could
never agree - to that doctrine ; he would rather rest the
safety of the Constitution on those securities with which it.
was at present surrounded than run any risks on she chance
of future legislation. He therefore entreated those who
were the guardians of the Church to pause before they al-
lowed her to be stripped of those safeguards by which she
had been su long protected, lest those miseries, from which
we had once so happily been rescued, return, in which case
they would have to look again to the restoration of the
Constitution, such as it was established in the time ot
Charles 11., and look, perhaps, in vain.
Lord HOLLAND said, that what had fallen trent the
Noble and Learned Earl required that he should trouble
tilde Lordships with a few words in explanation ; and first
he wished the clerk to turn to an entry on the journals of
the 16th of March, 1689. The Noble Earl argued, that:
one of the great objects of the revolution was to support
these particular laws. Now, when King William came-
down to the House to give the Royal Assent to the Bat
for annulling the attainder of Lord Russell, he took that
opportunity of addressing them in these memorable words
I am, with all the expedition I can, filling up the va-
cancies that are in offices and places of trust by this revo-
lution. I know you arc sensible there is a necessity for
some law to settle the oaths to be taken by all person* to
be admitted to such places. I recommend it to your ear"
to make a speedy provision 'for it; and as I doubt not but.
you will sufficiently provide against Papists, so I hope you
will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are
willing mid able to serve." The Noble Earl had said that
the present objections to this test were the consequence of
time " march of intellect ;" but let him look to the protests
entered on the journals of this House, and he would find
if
the word " desecration" meant the same as "profanation.'
that no five successive years had elapsed since the revolu-
tion, in which the term was not applied to this test,
Noble and Learned Earl, in referriug to the cirOunt-
either in protests, motions, or in petition`.The
stances of the Union, left out one most , importeert
fact, which was, that on the clause being read, in which
were introduced the Act of the 2d of Elisabeth and another
Act, it was moved in the House of Commons that the Cone
poration and Test Acts should also be named in it; but
which motion was rejected by the House. A similar um-
tion was subsequently made in thin House, and was attended
with a similar result. But, said the Noble Earl, Parlia -
went was precluded by the Union, from repealing these
laws. Now the words of the Act of Union were, " until
Parliament shall otherwise direct."
Constitution, And then his Noble
‘°oir because oan u
Friend said, that the Constitution of this country was con-
tained in those statutes. Now he (Lord Holland) IRA
e sing, Lords, and Commons possessed the power
making
laws and statutes; not that the statutes when
tior
would
itish Constitution,
leadsnchduiesTaNes and
Noble
iesActsr
Friendthe
Edward Constitution
Coke-
slido f thistro
tcountrylive
under We
thel
British
v
sot hof
mama e srere the Constitution. Were, then, this Corpora-
tion
had lived sure theseintin:grtheaetn,andthalteariSnierd Jul.nmen
before these laws were made, and if they were the
we had no Constitution before their enact-
ment:
If they were not the Constitution, then the repeal
of them could not he said, as contended, by his Noble and
Learned Friend, to be a repeal of the Constitution,
He thought their Lordships would find that the same
objections which his Noble Friend had attributed, with a
sneer, " to the march of intellect," existed two centuries
ago. They would find that intellect had marched as far as
that at the very time when the Test Act was passed, and
still niece so at the period of William 111. Whv, if their
Lordships were to bear what e4I the Great Whigs of that
day, who were objects of so much admiration with his
Noble Friend, said on the subject, they would find that
their language was much stronger than any to be found in
the numerous petitions which lay upon the table. They
would find that they designated it as " a profanation, '
not " a desecration," perhaps for that term he believed be-
longed to the march of intellect—(a laugh)—but the same
arguments were used then as now. He was surprised,
therefore, to hear his Noble Friend treat the objections to it
now as something new. As he before said, King William