The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-27 00:00:00

REPORT OF SUPPLY.

On the motion of Mr. PEEL, the Order of the Day for
bringing up the report of Supply was read.
Sir A. GRANT brought up the Report, and the reso-
lutions of grants on the Navy Estimates were read and
agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought forward his motion,
and spoke to the following effect :—Sir, I rise fur the
purpose of bringing forward a motion which, although
it has not been made for many years, I am still sure will
not, on that account, be considered less worthy of the due
estimation of the House, nor do I conceive that it ought
to be deemed less worthy of their consideration, from the
acknowledged weakness of its advocate. I am persuaded
that the voice of the numbers who have laid their petitions
on the table of the House, on the ground of religious
liberty, are, at the least, worthy of its deepest consider-
ation, and that their claims will not be rejected without
the fullest and fairest investigation. In bringing this
motion forward, the .only doubt—the only embarrassment
I feel—is not to be attributed to any feelings personal to
myself; for, on the contrary, I am sure that if I brought
it before a House which had so prepossessions, no precon-
ceived opinions on the subject, that tke strength of my
ease would be sure to meet with their unqualified ap-
probation. Neither should I have any difficulty on ac-
count of the conduct of the petitioners whose case I am to
advocate—quite the reverse; for there is no one in the
House who can, in the slightest degree, impugn or ac-
cuse the conduct of the Protestant Dissenters. There is,
however, another circiunstance, which I confess induces
me to broach the consideration of this subject with awe,
and which, but for the vast difference in other matters,
would almost cause me to despair, namely, that the last
time this question was brought forward it was introduced
by the eloquence and the argument of Mr. Fox, than
whom no other individual ever skewed more eloquence or
chewed more strength in argument ; and yet, notwith-
standing which, his proposition was rejected by the
House. I confess that such a consideration would af-
fect me with utter hopelessness, and, instead of entering
upon, would ahnost influence me to give up the case,
weresit not for the reflection, that although I possess
not the weapons of Fox, yet have I not also the same
enemies to encounter, I am satisfied that in the thirty-
eight years which have elapsed since the question was brought
forward by him, that public opinion has :mule such
progress, and such an improvement has takes place in the
public mind, more particularly in the middle orders of so-
ciety, that many who were then strong opposers of this
measure are now amongst its warmest supporters. To
countenance this impression I need only refer to the change
which has taken place in the Common Council in London,
which, together with the Court of Aldermen, in the year
1790, passed resolutions against the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, and thanked their Metobers for having
voted against it. At the present day, however, see the
change that has taken place, for the same body has not
only passed resolutions contrary to the suppression cf the
principles of religious liberty, but has petitioned the House
in favour of this measure. So much for the change which has
taken place in the public mind ; but beside that, I have another
great authority to produce, one of the most formidable an-
tagonists of Fox—l mean Mr. Pitt ; and I am now enabled
to state, that it was his wish to see the Test and Corpora-
tion Acts repealed, when he saw, as every enlightened mind
now sees, that the state of the world has altogether changed,
that the contest is no longer one of rival religions ; and
that when it originated it was not only one of religious,
but against political opinions which tended to the overturns
ing of the Constitution. I shall now say no more in
the way of preface than this, that if I am asked whether I
have any test to propose in lieu of that which is to be taken
away, that my answer is, I am against all religious tests.
And that the principle I advocate is, that there should be no
restriction, save that which is directed by the sth Geo. IV.,
which declares, that all officers in the Customs and Excise
should not be liable to any other test or declaration than the
oath of Allegiance.—(Hear.)—This is the state in which
I wish the whole of our establishments to be; and that no
man shall be obliged to undergo any further test than that
of " swearing faith and true allegiance to our Sovereign
Lord King George the Fourth," Holding these views, I
would therefore deem it improper to propose any other test
as a substitute for that which I seek to remove ; and shall
now, therefore, proceed to the great principle on which I
ground my motion. That principle is the same which is
expressed in the greater number of petitions laid upon the
table of the House, which has been adopted by the Roman
Catholics, and by those members of the Church of England
who have joined is the prayer for relieving their dissenting
brethren, namely, " that every man should be at liberty
to form his religious principles from the impressions of
his own mind, and that having so formed them, he should
have free liberty to put them in practice without any re-
striction, on the ground that every penalty, restriction, or
disqualification whataoever, for religious opinions, was of
the nature of persecution, and insomuch was an offence to
God, and an injury to man."—(Hear.)—This is the prin-
ciple upon which the Dissenters claim their rights, and
upon which they are entitled to them ; at the same time
that I fairly admit that there are certain exceptions to it,
which I think may be illustrated by the general rule of
the non-interference of nations with the internal affairs of
each other: The rule in itself is strict, but if nations are
so constituted within themselves that from their princi-
ples they become dangerous to others, then those
other States Lave a right to interfere with thou,
and if they complain, to say, the fault is not ours, but
yours, for it is from your conduct that we are compel-
led, for our own sakes to interfere with y q. In the same
way, if any religios contains any political principles hostile to
t tpis hostiletiele tci
political be religious
opinions tests, est
entertained
er and are
ed
y only
the Constittitioo of the State, or if it be inimical to civil
liberty, then there is full right to impose restrictions,
obwhlyi;hl restraints
satilnch e
i a to.aie as
professors. Haying said thus much I strait now
go into the history of those acts, and the causes from
which they sprung, in order to see whether there be any
thing which can Justify their continuance at present, and I
shall then consider the general principles of them. It 1h
perfectly well known to every one who has studied. the
history of those times, that after th
instance,
!very
struggle which was entered, into was riot purely religious,
but a combination of rehgions and politics. For
in that great contest which took place in the Netherlands,.
Philip IL acted with the 'nixed view of nsaintainiic rah_
mg his
rights as a Sovereign, and establishing the Cath!n
gion, by which he thought it most likely . that his powerwould be upheld. James I. also acted in the same way
in giving all his countenance to the Church of England,the principles of which he deemed most conducive to the
maintenance of his authority. That produced those
struggles with the Puritans,
in regard to whom Mr•
Hume observes, that it was owing to their struggles that
we are indebted for all that we now possess of religious li-
berty. The Presbyterians and the Independents were the
persons who carried on the war against Charles the First,

and when his son Wu tutored, one of his first, steps Was to
restrain those who had contributed to the deposal and
death of his father.' With this view the Corporation Act
was introduced. The preamble of that Act recited, that
as the power of Corporations ought not to fall into the
hands of persons hostile to his Majesty's Government, and
that it was well known there still were many: of these evil
spirits in existence, therefore, ha order to counteract the
workings of these evil spirits waS the bill passed. It
empowered the King to appoint Commissioners for the
regulation of Corporations, who were to remove all dan-
gerous persons, and obliged every one taking office in
Corporations to renounce the solemn league and cove-
nant, and also the legality of in any cave taking wars
against the Government. During the discussion of this
Bill there was a difference of opinion between the Lords
and Commons, the Lords wishing that the Crown should
have the power of keeping the Corporations always under
its controul, but the Commons succeeded in preventing
this, adopting, as a kind of-set-off, a clause, that persons
taking office should receive the sacrament according to the
forms of the Church of England. It seems pretty remark-
able that Hume thought this of so little importance, that
although he gave a long abstract of the provisions of the
Act, he never thought it worth his while to allude to the
last clause I have mentioned. So far from there being at
that time any wish to shut out the Dissenters, there were
then actually fifty Presbyterian Members in the House of
Commons. If the Dissenters afterwards left thy:, pale of
the Church, they of course incurred the
Peu sties which
the law had provided for such a departure from the Estab-
,:a
fished religion. I merely mention the,e circumstances tck
show that the Act in question had the effect- of excluding
Presbyterians though assuredly such was not its original
intention. such, then, Sir, was tile Corporation Act,
and I have thus adverted to it that the House might have
its spiriteind scope full in view, before I entered upon the
next subject, to which I would direct attention, That
subject is the Test Act. That is the next Statute which .1
shall propose to refer to a Committee. The object of that
Statute was to preseat the dangers which at the time of its
passing were apprehended from Popish recusants. That
Statute, as its preamble states, was passed for the pur-
pose of quieting the minds of all good subjects of
his Majesty. In no point of view can that Act
be regarded as having reference to Protestant -
senters, for while it was under deliberation, several well.
known Dissenters were in the full enjoyment of all the
rights which could appertain to a British suk.,3Kt. I shall
now, Sir, beg leave to point out more par'Llcularly the dif.
ferenca between the two Acts of whick, 1 have been speak-
ing. The Corporation Act WAS Pfrassed most unquestion-
ibly for the purpose of excludin!.‘ Dissenters from any such
station in the country as to`,'ght confer on them influence
which could be turned account, either in disturbing the
dynasty then seated the throne, to which, certainly, the,:
were all offeeteit, or in altering the Constitution of the
country as tl,en established. The aim of the Test Act was
to keep 't.:atholics from offices of trust and profit, precise])
for ,sesame reason, lest they should disturb existing insti-
tutions, not that the Legislature feared they would take the
...time steps for that purpose as the Dissenters ; but though
the mode of proceeding likely to be adopted by each parts
?night be different, yet as the same result was appro
bolded from both, namely, a change in the existiaz
Government, the measures directed against either war:
,evere and coercive, though dissimilar in other respects.
—(Hear, hear, hear.)—As the objects were different, ,:so
were the enactments most unlike, and it is to the distinc-
lion between those to which I should desire to call the at

tention of the House. We have always been hearing rood,
of the wisdom of our ancestors—and though I am per.
iectly free to admit that, on many occasions, they eviner,t
the highest degree of wisdom, yet they, too, had their fol
.:es. Their impression, upon which they acted most d.:
eidedly, was, that if the Protestant Dissenters, by mea3,
of their influence throughout the country, were eligible to
corporate offices, they might acquire much power in the
State, which could not but fail ultimately to endanger
the security of any Government which their principles
,end their interests might induce them to oppose. There
was little danger, as must be well known to all acquainted
with the history of that period, that the Catholics should
gain atkuision into the Corporations—No ; the danger
then was from the Dissenters, and accordingly from them
it was the object of the Legislature to exclude them. Th 2
policy of that period was, to exclude Catholics from court
offices, and, as I have already stated, Dissenters from Cor-
porate offices, for the one had influence with the people,
and the others were favourites with the King. The Test
Act was introduced to render ineligible those whom the
King should appoint ; the Corporation Act to render inch
gible those whom his subjects should choose. In this view,
both enactments were rendered as general and comprehen-
sive as possible, but subsequent experience has incontestab4
proved, that a religious test is amongst the most efficacious
means of excluding from offices of trust and profit, those
who are, or are supposed to be, dangerous to the State.--
During the time that the Spanish Armada threatened this
country, the sagacity of Queen Elizabeth did not permit
her to limit her selection of officers to any religious corn -
Intmity. She knew those on whom she could depend ; she
selected them without reference to creed, and the result
proved the wisdom of her choice. The Irish Rebellion of
1798 afforded innumerable instances of the total inefficacy
~f a religious test. Theobald Wolfe Tune, for example.
would have taken any religious test that any theologies,,
could have devised, and yet what could be more impre;:i
bi policy
l eusul''3h which
.lent than to entrust such a man in any confidentisi.
he L:giitsul: --
1 t W3B in that
tt ioorne ?p r 0 Be
euedt
edy e tins
s utchhe
reign contrary to the wish of the
wreasignthoefpcol
I.ing that the Catholics
should be persecuted, etl)llricuted they were, most ener-:-
getically, by the House •
of Commons ; it was contrary
to the wish of the C,
:Ann:ions that the Dissenters should
be persecuted, Yet; the King was most active in thwartir
the wishes in. this respect of his Parliament. Both wera
strong for the purposes ofpersecution—both were weak for
the purposes of relief. I come now, Sir, to the period of the
Uevoltttion, and it will naturally be inquired why at that time
no measures of relief were extended to the Dissenters? But
I presume it will not be forgotten that the change of the
dynasty, which then took place, and the vast alterations at
that time made in the political institutions of this country,
could not but indispose prudent legislators from pushing
change much further. It is, therefore, no matter of sur-
prise, that amidst the many salutary alterations thus ef-
fected, some that now appear highly important should
then have been overlooked. such being the co:-,e, I
,hall, with your permission, Sir, avail myself of the
authority of Bishop Burnet, to show that tfre Church
party, at that time, wished for a repeal of the Tolera-
tion Act, and yet wished for the restoration of the Stuarts.
In the reign of Geo. 11., Lord Stanhope thought that a
Bill might be safely introduced, containing a clause to re-
peal the Test and Corporation Acts ; and accordingly his
Lordship did propose such a measure to the other House
of Parliament, where it met with such an opposition as led
to its abandonment. But, Sir, notwithstanding this, senti
nients were expressed on that occasion, evincing 'a degree
of public spirit not very common any where, at the period
to which I refer, and at the present day even unusual in the
quarters whence they proceeded. I mean the Right Rev.
Bench of aishops. We have, Sir, the authority of most
learned men to support the views which the advocates ui
this repeal would press on the attention of Parliament ; %%se
have it from a %tarter where liberality is rare, and a tol,erant
spirit matter of stuTaise—we have it from the 13i!.ilops of
York and Lincoln of that day.—(The Noble Lord here read
extracts from the speeches of Bishops nadir! and Kennet,
in which the former strongly censured the• principle of per-
secution as one, apart from other Ole's:dons, that if prac-
tised by Protestants against Protest-anta, might be pleaded
ill iustifioation of the persecution of Christianity itself ;
and in which the latter contended against the irnpolicy ca
raising an outcry that ,b, Church Was iu danger--
m outcry which mulct have uo weight with any body
but silly woolen and childron,)—(Hear, hear, heat.)
These, sir (pursued his Lordship) are the opinions,, not
of laymen, but of the Clergy—not of Clergy of an inferioi
rank, but of Itish°P" of Prelates, of the heads of
1 the Church. They felt, as all membc,rs of the
Church of 1,,,,g1and should feel, that the doctrines and
le, of the Church of England were founded on a
orincip
;•o' ck, and were, as the?-,
should be, toverior to any protec-
tion that could be derived from st'al outworks as the Test
and Corporation Acts, or to ';‘ny defence that a spirit of
persecution could imart, Yet, Sir, notwithstanding the
qupport of those eX.P,),ted and enlightened Prelates, Lord
Stanhope failed in Ifobject. S. R Walpole,when
is
Priu'. Minister behalt
.. of this country, was applied to on
f the Dissenters, I believe every Hon. Member who
hears in liiilni the history of that remarkable man will go
long With me in the assertion that he
never sacrificed .t,
In'actical good for the sake of establishing any general
1 Principle, for the sake of carrying into effect any large or
extensive scheme of policy or legislation. He thought, and
probably the circumstances of the times warranted such au
.Ipinion, or, if not, palliated it, that the safety of the family
then recently placed on the throne demanded the conti-
nuance of those Statutes. Be that as it may, that
Minister, in communicating with the Dissenters, admitted
to the fullest extent the fairness of their claims. •‘ I ac-
iinowledge," said he, " that there cannot he greater in-
;ustice, nor in the abstract more unwise policy, than to
exclude you or any portion of his Majesty' ; Majesty's subjects from
.situations of confidence and emolument, but yet I will
never support your claims.—(lleac, hear.)—l think the
;maintenance of the House of Hanover on the Throne cf
those realms a matter of the last importance, and I will

sanction no measure calculated to endanger it." This
argument was not altogether without its weight in the
pinds. qf tbe -Piaserktem*etuselYes, severely
their, felt the t inflictions_ of the Test and. Gorporatiop Acts,
7 yet the restoragort of, the Stuart dynasty. svould have been
in their estimation an .evil Anfinitely formidahle.
Hence they, were . induced,. if not to ,acquiesee; at least to
• be less zealous in their demands of a measure, !which they
were assured wouldendanger a sibs whicir they more
than any other class
,d his ,Pdajesty!tvisubjects felt an in-
tere't ;n supporting... However inconSistent this 'kind of
reacmilMg may appear, they,ne:tertheless allowed it to in.
finence.,_ their conduct. . while the :Dissenters
were in :th;:gr4nge". and anomalous condition; that th._,.
rebellion of lsZW,„took :place. It was then, .Siri 'that the
nonconformiatszallantly
.utsited themsilvei with!the Eng-.
fish forces; it tpas..;hen that they devoted their lives .t 0.3
Maintain an iut6nrity, that oppressed them, and 'to Vit-
. siic4 a front which they were excluded. And
what was their
_reward ? Were honours heaped Upon
•them ,by a grateful Monarch ? Where offices. `con-
' Arran Op them by_ a liberal Administration? . Did the
thanks of Parliament, and the gratitude ,Of the people,-
reitiard their valourous awl 'SuCcessfol exertions ?‘ ' No
sUch thing. Their 'reward was a free 'and full 'pardon
for presuming to be the saviours of an ungrateful Monarch
and an ungrateful Government. For a pet iod of eighty.
five years they had been eichided from any office in Which
the disaffected or :disloyal could by
.their.,acts endanger the
security of the Government or the stability of the reigning
dynasty.. I now come, Sir, to notice' Some of the general
reasonings upon this subject, and
.the first thatrl shall
notice is tile justificationof these acts, which their advo-
cates derive. from the circumstance of the Annual Wein,
laity Act. Now, Sir, if there he any danger to be appre-
handed from the Disg.anters, how can any cautious or pru-
dent Statesman reconcile it to his judgment to consent.
every year to suspend the only safeguard which the Church
and the Government possess againSt those di loyal and dan-
gerous Members of the State ? When these -Acts were
rew, , there. might ;be' some shell! of • reason in :saying,
?Wait* little ;" there might be something of plausibility,'
some fair slew" of caution and discretion, in calling on the
Legislature to wait, five, ten, or fifteen years. But shall
we look at them for a period Of eighty-five years—shall
we see them fpr nearly a century, as amongst the most
zealous and efficient supporters of law and Government, and
yet -shall we not be satisfied .of their loyalty? lam unable
to' conceive how anyone making the slightest pretension to
sincerity, and to commonsense, can 'bring himself to af-
firm that the Dissenters are unworthy to be trusted ?
Having, id the early part of the. observations which' I have
submitted to the House, adverted tofthe ineficacy of are-
digit:ins test, I shall now 'consider the nature of the test
which this Act impos':ks upon the Dissentees. It require 9
of them that they shall partake of the Sacrament Of the
Lord's Supper—the Moat sofmn ordinance of our Church
a thus used for a. party purpose-..an' ordinance, of ;cilia'
we are told that he' who unworthily partakes rr sate and
drinks to his own dathnation.7 Yet, their partaking
of this ordinance is still held to be a test of` !.-heir fitness
for discharging the duties of a civil office. .I am
aware that it will be immediately retorted upon me, that
at present we do not use such a test; that it was only in-
troduced by our ancestors to serve a purpose, then of the
Pry highest importance,' and that they used that but as a
means ofdiscovering the religious faith of the party with
whom they had to deal., But I ask, why retain 'that,
which, if it ever had a Use, that use has ever since passed'
away? Why put temptation in any man's way? Why
place his religions principles in contradistinction to MS tem-
poral interests? his sacred duties• in contradistinction to his
official salary? Why tempt any man to use our holiest ordi-
nances as' a means of gratifying a paltry ambition ? Let
us trace the history of these persecutions a little fiirther
back,—let us see their operation before the introduction of
the Indemnity Act. Previous to that period it was necessary,
before any man could enter as a civil officer, that he iinust
actually take the sacramental test. It was in the power of
' the clergyman to whom he applied to refuse him admission
tri the Lord's Supper. True it was, the party ao exettuied
was entitled to. complain of a civil injury, and that lie
!night go into a Court of Law, and seek his remedy liv an
action. It was held by the Courts, that the defendant, in
such a case, must prove that the• plaintiff had been guilty
of some flagrant and well-known sin:, before the clergyman
could he warranted in inflicting upon him such a disability
as exclusion from the sacramental test necessarily involved.
Now, observe the situation in which the clergyman was
placed.. Either he must admit many to the sacrament.
'who, according to his oath, he thought wholly unworthy of
that privilege, or else submit to he dragged into Court, anal
subjected to heavy penalties unless he could prOve them
gUilty of some flagrant and well-knoWn sin. The :nevi-
-table consequence of this was, that all persons, without dis-
.tinction, were admitted to that solemn ordinance from which
all the unworthy should be excluded. 'The scandals which
eleaueil thereupon are amongst' the most disgraceful that
The history of our Church furnishes, In those days, ''On a
• Siinday, the taverns in the l';ieinify_of a Church Oere
crOwded with .people, waiting • to qulify--people Who
never 'attended any other part of the church ceremo-
:nies-:-they waited until the. early portion of the ser-,
'vcre. was over, and then repaired to the altar to undergo
the most extraordinary preparation for office that the per- 1
vetted ingenuity of man had ever devised. One of, the
-4fireis of the Church, pn,these occasions, called out
•in a
fond Those gentlemen who come to be qualified
will please to step up." Such Sir,' Were the eooselpiencep
of connecting politics and. religion—the profanation of re-
ligion, the degradation of ita 'ordinances, and the perversion
..,of,those political principles which it was the object to sus-
tain. Seeing opposite the Right Hon. Member -for the
University of Oxford in his place, and having, heard that
he intends to oppose the Motto!) with which it is my pur-
pose to conclude, I put it to him--does he-himself Wish,
or, does he think that the University wishes, that a system
Should be perpetuated that may at any time be used to
corrupt the purity of religion, to serve the spirit of perse-
cution, and to. pervert the principles of justice and sound
policy ?. But it is eaid.that, after all, these evils arc merely
theoretical, that there is no legal, no practical penalty at-
tached to them—that invariably the Dissenters lose nothing
by their continuance. -.Now, Sir, supposing this to be
actually founded in fact, I conceive it is by no means suf.-.
ficient to support the continuance of such Statutes. No-
thing, but an absolute and overwhelming sec ssity could for
a single moment" warrant their existence. The very
nature and_ prineiple •of these Acts are altogether in-
alefensible, for the principle is neither more nor !kg than
religious persecution. But in whatever quarter that ar-
gument may be urged, we are met .with the reply, that'
there isnO real, no practical, no legal grievance. lam un-
able to Comprehend
,the consistency of those who contend
on the one hand, that there is no grievance, and, on the
other, pass an Act of Indemnity every year of their lives:.;
If there be no grievance why pass an • Act of Indemnity ? "

Lord North, CO one of:the ablest speeches ever delivered
en the subject in this House, so far from asserting that
there was na hardship, most candidly admitted the exis-"
tence of a grievance to a very great extent, but he denied
that the annual indemnity removed that grievance ; nay,
on the Contrary, his argument was, and very just was the ob- 1
servation, that the Dissenter who availed himself of such an
evasion did not feel. the just indignation at the ontrage of-
feed to his leeline, Which a Man so circumstanced aught
to feel, and ought to make the Governnientand the Legis-
lature sensible that he does feel. Thus, by continuing a
test of tuts nature, the State is deprived of the services, in
a military capacity, of men who might have raised the fame
.of our arms far beyond any thing that our past history dis-
plays. We may too have lost by it the most illustrious
savants, and yet we gain nothing, unless it tan-be called a
gain that we place the MOO unexceptionable subject, of the
State • at the mercy of every Corporation.--(ril9 Noble
Lord bere called th attention of the House, where Candi-
datese
for Corporate offices, who had no more than a Mitio-
rity of votes; were returned, ,to the .exclusion' of those who
.had the majority? the latter being Dissenters. )---Isis ,Lord-
07.4Plzeiceeded thus think it. is one of the greatest er-
reW intowhili those who reason upon this subject can fall,
to supTese that all the Dissenters avail themselves of the be-
nefits of the Indemnity Act. On
_the contrary, I know it
to be the ,',*act that the greater part: would relinqUish the
advantage of official appointments rather than accept them
upon so degradi.ng terms as that Statute offers, and sure I
am that the more worthy members of. the Established Church disdain theaptejes of support which it supposed
to derive" from thedegranoion of other members of the
'great Protestant community. For my own pert, .1 most
cordially subscribe.° 'tihe opinion of Bishop Kennel:, that
'the Established Religion of England exists, `not in
• consequence of 3416 protections as the Test and Cor
poration Acts; but because it is realty, scriptural;
lie-
cause, by its general moderation, its fair and • temperate
character, its decent and • impressive
of the ordinaeces, it is
suited to the feelings and wants majovlty of the
people. Were it not so, it would be in vain we should
seek to sustain, it by any Test or by any law. H. we tire
told that the admission of Catholic and Pra.,tant Dis-
senters is dangerous, because it may prove
is jorer s ;to
Church property. , I reply, that it is moat i: port ant to
permit such individuals to associate the enjoym, of their
civil rights with the destruction of our Eccles; ecal esta.
blislurrent. As respects the Catholic it is most npolitie ;
as respects the ,Protestant it is not only irnri but ab-
surd. Can we conceive any thing more wise!. ';'opts than
to suggest to-the minds of a greet and baguet .1 Pert"
of our population, that thee-overthrow of a wea;,!.y church
the shortest and sured,road to th y, Attitipaux, of their

civil rights? Those who contend that the security ofilt
the Church of England is solely found in these statutes
would do well to cast their eyes npontlther Itstablisbroents.
Is the Established Church of Scotland sustained by a Test
and Corporation Act? There. is no such, thing in:Scot-:
land.: And surely if it were necessary in the one country
it must be necessary. in the other. Ireland-also; is without
a Test or Corporation Act, ln the reign of Queen Anne
it:was enacted, htit:for forty-eight-or forty-nine years that
country has .been entirely free irput such a grievance:.
(The Noblejeord here read, in support of his line of argil--
client, a.paasage of a letter from King William, in which
_thesentimetata,nf, that .Monarch were strongly expressed-
a-gab-Tit the continuance of those statutes, which it was the
'.'litiectiof the Noble Lord to repeal. I He then resumed=--
If we look, Sir, to the Legislation ef Italy, of Austria, and-
'other.Cotitieental States. we find atoeuch strange. and in-
' tArahle-,anonialy. In Austria, which is a Catholic State,
/although the protestant Dissenters profess a religion n-pug-
naiit to the Established:.Religion of the country, no oppo-
Shinn is on that- account made to their adthissiOn to civil.
offices; unfortunately, a contrary policy is pursued in Eng.:
land, and the Protestant -Dissenters have- been
patiently, hut in vain Waiting--during a space of eighty,
five years, for .tardy justice.. Sir, I call on the House to
consider that the laws complained :of cannot now he justi-
fied by a reference-. to the circumstances which existed at
-the time when they were passed. These circumstances no
longer exist ;. consequently, the • measures• to which they
give rise ought now to he abandoned. They were passed
in troublesome. times, and-in reference to peculiar circum-
stances. The Dissenters . had succeeded in overturning
the GOverninentof Charles I. To guard against the pos-
sibility of a similar occurrence under the sway of other
Sovereigns, these. laws were enacted. Bit though the
Dissenters bad overturned the Monarchy under Charles I.
no apprfehension 0.41,1• be entertained that they would be
able to effect a similar object under George IV., supposing
that they, entertained a desire to accomplish it. Thus it
was' that the..Usaenters had been excluded from the en-
joyment of civic privileges in the reign of Charles IL, be-
cause, in addition to the fears entertained of their con-
duct, the Monarch , under whom the exclusion took place
*as a concealed Papist. These causes and circumstances
did not at all, apply to the present state of things. No
apprehensions were entertained as.to the loyalty of the Dia-
! Seeters—no feara existed on the subject of the orthodoxy
of the Monarch: The Dissenters continued to be excluded
• • •
n the beginning . of the Hanoverian succession, because the
established Church was at that
.time imagined to .be disaf-
fectet.to the State, and it was endeavoured .to conciliate
her and keep them, from throwing- themselves ,
Into the arms of the Pretender, by continuing the ex
elusive system as .it regarded, their, dissenting brethren.
That fear has now passed away--there is no disaffection in
the thitrCh•no Pretender whose name can he set up as an
excuse for injustice. Yet these laws are, still continued—.
`they remain on the Statute hook—when allpretext for their
continuance has long since ceased to operate. Sir, I have
gone through the causes which occasioned the enactmen

of these itatUteS; I have enumerated the reasons that now
exist for iheir.ahandonment ; I have endeavoured to show
that they are founded on principles of persecution—that
they inflict very serious grievanees on a large proportion of
our population—that in their spirit and operation they are
totally at variance with the improved state of our own le-

gis/stion, in relation to these matters, both in Scotland and
Ireland ; and that they are diametrically opposed to the le-
gislation of all liberal and enlightened Christian countries.
Sir, I think an alteration in these laws most loudly called
for—most imperatively demanded at our hands—the rather
as their repeal will tend to render the Disisenters more at-
tached to the Constitution, and more willing to bear, with
cheerfulness, their proportion of the burdens imposed for
the maintenance of the Church and State, great as these
are. I advocate the repeal of these laws, because lam
convinced their abolition will materially tend to allay the
bitterness of party and religious feeling, and contribute to
the promotion of harmony and good will among the dif-
ferent classes of his Majesty's subjects. But, Sir, above
all, I urge the repeal of these enactments, because I am
satisfied that their repeal will suit the tone and spirit of the
present time, awl is loudly called for by the progressofeients.
It is with considerable pain I have heard it insinuated; that

is the intention of tl;e Members of the new Admini‘tra-

tion, to make the present a Government question, and to
array the whole weight of their power and inlinenceagainst it.
'Sir, lam sorry to hear such an insinuation, not so much
for the sake of the fate which may thereby attend
the motion of this night—which I shall again have the
honour 'to bring under the serious consideration of the
Ifonse-,--as for the sake of his Majesty's Ministers them-
selvea, and the country over which it is now their lot to pre..
side. With respect to the cause involved in this notion, I am
sure that though its opponents may for a time retard its
completion, they never will he able to prevent its final ac.
complishrnent. Of this I am fully convinced, that any
attempt which may be made to thwart the spirit of libe-
rality and intelligence, which is• daily increasing in this
country, will be perfectly fruitless.. The existing Govern-
Ment will not be able to do it—neither will any other Go-
vernment disposed to hazard the experiment succeed in the
attempt. Of the existing Government no matter what
may be said. in their praise, or to their disparagement—it
may he averred, that if they govern the country, the coun-
try governs them. The hope and confidence reposed in
the measures of, the late lamented Mr. Canning arose out
Of the circumstance of that able Statesman going along
with the spirit of the time, and making his poliCy, ac-
cord with the feelings which generally prevailed in regard
to our foreign and domestic relations. Of the illustrious
person now at the head of the councils of the country, it
is irrippasible to speak in terms of commendation be-
yond his deserta. He is the preserver of Portugal—
the deliverer of Spainthe conqueror of Waterloo—
in a word, one of the greatest chiefs this country has
ever produced. All will be ready to admit he has entitled
himself the gratitude—to the admiration—to the re-

spectperhffs I might almost add, to the veneration of
his country. All this, Sir, I concede ; no man can have
a higher opinion of the Noble Duke than myself. He is
now placed in a situation of unexampled poker and influ-
ence ; he holds the patronage of the Church and State in
one hand, while with the other he holds the patronage
and controul of an-army of 110,000 fighting men attached
to his person—devote.d to his glory—by the remembrance
of many past victories. Besides . all' this, he enjoys the
confidence—l had almost said he possesses the authority—
of his Sovereign, in es great 41 degree as he partakes of
the gratitude. and admiration (.4. his .country. Snob is the
5011;160n of the Noble Duke now at the. head of the
Cabinet; , yet,, with all these advantages, he 'must mo-
dify.his meez,nres, and take care to make his opinions agree
with the spirit and temper of the age in which he lives.—
Great and Unconquered as he is, to' public opinion must he
him if he desires to remain in the situation he .now oc-

copies, Sir, I trust 'I
have been misinformed as. to the in-
tention of his Majesty's ,Ministers, and that the confession'
we require may be made to-night. I trust' Government-
will look to the sips of the times, and yield, not a tardy
and reluctant, but a reaeiYAOsent to the proposition I shall
presently submit to the House, pet not the Dissenters be
brought, year after year, to. the door of this House, asking
for that to which they are manifestly and once entitled.
I regret, Sir, that I have been obliged to detain the House
so long ; but the .urgency and importance of the subject
will plead my excuse. X trust the consent of the House
may he obtained to my proposed-motion--I hope no Minis-'
terial arrangement has been made to defeat it--hut that,'
on the contrary, Government may be faun& ready to do
justice to three millions of our fellow countrymen. I have
now only to.roove, that this Home do resolve itself into a
Conunittee of the whole House, in-order' to consider ao
much of the Act. as requires persons, before they accept
offices under the Crown, or after they have accepted
such offices, to receive the sacrament of the Church of
England according to the rite.; of that Church.
Mr. )..SMITIL rose for the purpcee of seconding the
motion of the Noble Lord. lat communications which he
had had, as well with Members of Parliament-as with in-
dividuals out of the House, he had been surprised to find
great ignorance generally subsisting. among various mem-
bers of the community in relation to the nature of the
grievances of which the Dissenters complained. He in-
tended to take the liberty of explaining what those griev-
ances really were. The application -of the Test Act was
wide and extensive—it affected not only Protestant Dis-
senterrebut almost the whole population of the kingdom.
It applied to all who held any office under the King, or
derived any species of authority from his Majesty ; so that,
in fact, not only the racers Of the Royal household—,offi-•
cers holding commissions in the army and, navy, and
others of a similar rank, but also a number of insignificant
individuals, were included in the. Act. He repeated, all
persons deriving apy species of authority from the Crown
were included in the, Statute. , lie wished now to point
out that which it was 'probable many persons might not he
acquainted with—the penalties imposed by that Act on
such as refused compliance with it. They were to the last
degree
takingbtest, rrihltehaensade
sacramental
An individual, who de-
clinedin' the first place,, for-
feited whatever place he might bold under the Cronin. He
was declared incapable of instituting proceedings at law in
any snit either of law or equity—he "could not act in the.
capacity of a guardian or adminiitratOr—he was incapable
of inheriting a legacy. • Then, after depriving the urifor=
tunate individual of all means of securing, obtaining
' Possession of, . or. retaining his property, the Act pro•
eeeded in another clause to impose upon him a penalty, of
• '51301. I. fact the Statute imposed a penetrator having

ipped a man of the means s paying it. It would be
id that the law was so cruel that it was not attempted
to carry it into effect. Now, HOD..Gentleinen were las-
, taken if they thought the law had'never been enforced-_--
it had been enforced, though certainly not in modern days:
He had been given to understand that the Right Hon.
Member for Oxford (Mr. Peel) intended oppose the
present motion. Whether such was the 'Course which the
Right Hon. Gentleman intended to adopt inn: relation to
this question, he (Mr. S:) knew not; hot of this he was
certain, that he had. heard the Right -Hon. Member,
on
more than one occasion, abjure every thing in the shape of
persecution on account of religious opinions. The effect
Of the Test Act (if enforced) might oblige_\ ineltitudes to
seele.rin another land- that toleration which- they Were re
fused at_ home: if the Right Hon. Secrttary wished to
• .
be thought consistent, he must join in deprecating punish-
runts so-alien-to the Constitution of the country, so coo..
trary to the laws of -God and man. The' whole of the
penal statutes had originated -in one unfortunate miitr&e-
made by our ancestors. - He was not one who was dis-
posedto attach undue importance to what was denotiainated
"the wisdom of our ancestors."'Certain it was that our
ancestors.had committed a grievous error•i n supposing that
assent and belief were matters of "rule and volition, and
not; as they really were, irresistible acts of the under-
standing. No man could look at the subject in an un-
prejudiced_ manner. without pereeiving the absurdity
of enacting a statute to compel belief. He 'had lately
a 'Conversation with a respectable friend of his, who
had been for many years a Bank Director, and he
(Mr. Smith) took the opportunity of inquiring whether
his friend had qualified under this Act. He was
given to understand- that he. had ; hut he then asked,
" have.yongot.a.e.ertific.ate of the fact, under the hands of
the Minister of the-parish, the Churchwarden, and two
credible.witnesses - The Bank Director replied he had
not; and. was neither ,aware of the necessity that existe T
forpomplying_ with such a regulation, nor of the situation
in which his neglect to comply with it had placed him. The
same ignorance existed among other, members of the com-
munity. A large proportion of the officers of the army
not know of the-existence of the law. He had recently
conversed with a Field Officer, who had served his country
in the most distinguished manner, in the four quarters of
the World. This gentleman was an accomplished scholar;
and yet he knew nothing about the Corporation or Test
Acts, or of the Annual indemnity )3ill, - Now, to have a
law which it was impossible ever to put in force, was
clearly an absurdity. With regard to"the Dissenters, the
immediate objects of this law, he wished to address a few
observations to the House; and he would say, without the
fear of contradiction, that they were as' intelligent, as
tolerant, as respectable, as industrious, and as prosperous a
body of people, as any other class* of the community. It
was ridiculous to exclude such individuals from a partici-
pation in the full benefits of the ConstitutiOn. It was now
twenty-three or twenty four years ago, since, as theliouse

must recollect, they had all volunteered their services for
the purpose of defending their country. He was one
of the volunteers on the occasion in question, and
had had the command of a regiment of infantry in the
City. The House would recollect that at that period
there were two hundred thousand Dissenters who bore
arms, out of the eight }Mildred thOusand that volun-
teered throughout the country. Could it be said, after
this, that the Dissenters should- not be trusted with
arms, or that they were not as loyal as any of their felloW-
subjects ? If it could not, then on what pretext were they
deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by the rest of the
community? It was impossible to name the dissenting
clergy, to whom all bodies of Christians ought to' be ready
to acknowledge their obligations, withok the highest praise.
When he considered the nature of the Test Act as it affec-
ted the army, he could not avoid perceiVing that, if &br-
eed, it would he. the greatest grievance to that body. The,
body of men of whom the non‘commissioned officers
were composed were generally Scotch. Of the Scotch,
he would say what had been said of them by a high au-
thority—that the Scotch Presbyterian was not a very
docile animal=--on the contrary he was disposeuf ad-
here firmly to his religion, and it was the opinion of
one of the most eminent men in the Scotch Church,
that a Presbyterian complying with the regulations of
the Test Act, 'abandoned his own faith and folloWed that
of the Church of England. They had ScOichrnen amongst
them' who held situations of high importance ; a circum-
stance not to be wondered at, when it was considered
that their talent, industry, and moral character, were of
a description to give them a preference over the, natives
of most other countries. Ile asked were inch individuals
to be exposed to the annoyance of an enactment like that
now in question? He held it to be impossible. The
House needed net to he informed of the effects prodn-
ced at former 'periods by religious zeal ; but he held that,
under existing circumstances, the Test Act could 'never:
be put in force. In looking back at the debates on
this -Subject, he haul observed an argument put
forward under the sanction of some of the
greatest names ever known in this country. It was
this effect That Dissenters were troublesome and im-
pertinent persons to complain of the exercise of that right
which every Government enjoyed, to regulate as it pleased
the conduct and profession of all persons who should take
office under it, either civil or military." This right, it
was contended, was an abstract right, which every Go_
vernment might enforce, it being for those who sought
office to consider whether or not they would comply with
the regulations imposed upon them: He was ready to
meet the assertion of this principle With a good deal of dis-
dain. He denied it altogether, and took the liberty, as a
plain man, to employ his common sense in kinking at it.
He held that no man could claim to exercise a right to the
wrong or injury of another. If this were true in the case
of a single individual, it was true as it regarded a country.
He submitted the assumption which was made to fix cer-
tain regulations• upon taking office to the criterion of public
utility.' He meant by the phrase public utility, that course
which gave the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
Referring to thiS principle, he could not discover ho* the
right claimed contributed to the happiness of any, but he
clearly perceived, that it impaired, or might impair, the
happiness of all. He would refer to a publication by a
gentleman whom it was impossible to name without re-
spect, one who had always exerted his talents, and they
were both various and considerable, on the side of libe-
rality—he alluded to the Rev. Sydney Smith—who, in
one of his publications said, in reference to the exclusive
principle unhappily adopted in our domestic policy, that it
was not more rational to persevere in it, than to make a
'regulation that we should employ no individuals with red
hair. !The Dissenters felt no objection to the sacramental
rite, but in so far as it was considered holy ; but they
did 'not wish That a rite ordained by the author of
our religion, for sacred pfirprises, should be profaned
by applying, it to the 'attainment of civil offices. Rather
than do so they 'are content to remain in poverty and
obscnrity—and surely their objection was conscientious,
The parties making objections of this kind took for their
rule the law'of the Almighty,' as they understood it, and
by that endeavoured to regulate their actions. (Hear.)
Hypocrites there might be, and perhaps penal laws were
calculated to create them, but the Dissenters were not men
of this description. On the contrary, he thought them
worthy of all acceptation, and, as far as he was individually
concerned, would be ready to employ them, par preference,
above all others. If any one held cheap the qualities he
had attempted to describe,' lie exceedingly regretted it, be-
eanse he was aware that they were developed in none, more
than in the Dissenters, and because be considered such
principles worthy of respect and regard. To him there ap-
peared no greater calamity which could happen to a country
than the enactment of such Penal Laws, the establishment
of which had never prevented the shedding of blood, or the
spread of discord. The House was now called upon to do
an art of justice towards three-eighths of the whole popu-
lation of the country—to relieve from a deep and galling
insult so great a portion of the inhabitants of these realms
—to get rid of laws equally absurd, cruel, and unjust. In
another part of the Empire what effect had such laws pro-
duced ?—laws by which seven millions of people we're, ins
juted and oppressed, and placed in a state by which ihey.
became degraded themselves, and injurious to this country.
Until those laws were repealed, We could never give tran-
quillity or prosperity to Ireland—by the repeal of those
laws, we should bind the people of that country to the in-
terests of this ;' and by the repeal of similar laws, we
should giVe to the Dissenters a power which they never pos-
sessed betore, of materially serving the interests of Great
Britain, and of increasing its vigour and its capabilities.
Great Britain would then become the arbitrator and the
benefactress of mankind—a character which she Was now
only prevented from assuming by these odious and oppres-
' sive Acts. He regretted that he had occupied so much of
the attention Of the'House, but he felt it is duty to state
hisfull conviction, that now, when great evils were hang-
ing over this country, those evils might be averted by a
course which would at once conduce to the honour, the
prosperity, and the happiness of Oreattritain. He cor-
dially seconded the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. MARSHALL addressed the House in support of
the mot,ion, big the HOn. Meinber spoke in so low a tone
of voice as to be perfectly inaudible in the ;gallery.
Mr. WILBRAHAM, When such a question as the pre-,
sent was under discussion by the British flow of Com-
mons, and -when' it involved those principles of civil and
religious liberty which he had been taught from childhood
to revere, although-he was ready to acknowledge his own
incapacity to do it justice, felt himself strongly called upon
to offer acme observations to the 119 tint That any WWI-

try—that this country it particular—should ever have
been in such a situation as to he obliged to remove from
its service tk. great number of its people, must be a mat-
ter of very deep regret, but when the reasons whirl)
caused sich a removal had been changed by circumstances,
or bad been borne down by the lapse of time, to rout-intl.•
such a system was little less than tyranny, and an arbi-
trary interference with the rights of mankind. Were it
necessary to look upon it in another light, that of the
principle by which the strong universally oppressed the
weak, he could account for the system as one which had
grown out of a great and long continued abuse—the- al-
liance of Church and State. To his mind no twe things
were more distinct.or more dissimilar than religion and
government ; yet we had been.taught to blend them loge-
ther, to clothe the Government in. the sacred garb of
religion, 'and to address religion with attributes which
'were not hers,, and to which she would lay no
,claim._:.:
We had been taught to look upon religion as -a constituent
-part of the Constitution of this realm, and cause.;
quently as the stepping stone of individual , ambition.
If it were now proved that the Roman Catholics were
aiming to subvert the Constitution, and ta introduce iato
our kingdom a new race of Kings—for upon such preten;
sions, upon such shadowy grounds alone, could the penal
laws which affected them be defended—then indeed it
would be just and fair to look upon them as objects of
suspicion. If, on the other band, it were proved that the
Protestant Dissenters were aiming to subvert the union of
Church and State, it might' not be unjust or Unfair to keep
from them places Of trust; but even' then a question
would arise as to whether they had the means or the power,
admitting that they had the 'will, to carry their de:igns
into effect. Were he to say that this evil disposition on
the part of the Dissenters did exist, and that they were
furnished with the means of effecting their object saying
so much merely for the sake of argument, because he be-
lieved a more loyal body of men lived not in this country--
were he to admit all this to its fullest extent, then, and
then only, could the laws which operated against them be
defended as expedient or-necessary. But, where no danger
existed there was no necessity for security. Then came the
great question whether the Test and Corporation Acts were
adapted to give that security which was expected, or to
ward off that clanger which was apprehended. Now, it
could be clearly shown that of all laws these were the least
likely to produce such effects. In the first place, a man
might beau excellent communicant, might. be a regular
Churchman,, yet might hold opinions directly contrary, to
the Constitution and to the Governinent of this country;
such was the case, for example, with respect to the. Bishiips
who, under Charles 11., all of them with the exception of
three, opposed the Bill of exclusion, and in the succead-

ing
reign set themselves in opposition to the revolution and
to the election of William 111, to be their King ; so that not
only did they seek to overthrow and defeat their own interests
and objects, but they deserted their own hierarchy, and ulti-
mately owed all their advantages and all their honour, to
those very Dissenters, whom they afterwards had the mean-
ness to pursue. Another , argument was this:—We bad
the tacit consent of the opponents of these Acts themselves
that they were unnecessary, for how else could we reconcile
the fact,ef their giving, their annual vote in favour of that.
Rill of Indemnity, by
.which those Acts were virtually re-
' pealed? They contended that such laws were necessary,
yet why would they vote for their virtual repeal unless con-
vinced of their utter worthlessness?—Were it necessary to
enter on the historical part of this question, it would be
easy to show that the test laws were meant as a check upon
the Prerogative of the Crown—that they were enacted
when the King was considered as unfit to exercise the pre-
rogative of choosing his own servants; yet they were de-
fended by Hon. Gentlemen who, from the exercise of such
prerogative, had derived so much honour and advantage.
Such, however, was the original object of the Bill, for the
very immediate consequence of, it was to exclude the Lord
Treasurer Clifford, and James ,Bake of York (afterwards
James IL) from the office of Lord High Admiral of Eng-
land. But be (Mr. W.) would confine his observations to
some of, the, leading points •against ~which objections
were usually Made. In alluding to the argument by
which- it was urged that the annual Indemnity Bill
took away the sting from those laws, anti that, in
fact, the oppression of those laws was more imaginary
than real, he would observe that such was a singular
mode to adopt for their defence—to state that they
were merely made tolerable by their being systematically
overlooked and that however esseptial they might be,
the great body of Dissenters were protected against their
penal effects by the Act of Indemnity. Now _the Act of
-.lndemnity was but temporary—it a licence granted,
not a liberty Liven ; far from it; it was indeed an annual
recognition, of that act of Government by which the
stronger excluded the weaker part of. the community from
a participation in constitutional privilegee,,, merely because
of 'religious differences. .Bus; he depied.that, the evil_ was
merely imaginary. Was it nothing for an Englishman to
hold his rights by an annual lease only—and to he forced
to have that lease renewed from year to year ? Was it no
grievance to depend for freeoom upon the caprice of any
individual branch of the!Legislature, and to look merely
to forbearance, for not being crushed by the .weight of
penal laws? And here he would observe, that it, was not
so much the weight as the stigma and the degradation un-
der which they laboured, that the., Protestant Dissenters
complained—they felt, and felt deeply the effects of those
laws ,by which, as if lo insolent superiority, their orthodox
opponents had heen armed. _lt could not be said that the
Protestant Disseuters were indifferent upon this great ques-
tion. Nor; the 'Petitions which had been laid upon the
tittle of the House—the number of which had been rarely
if ever surpassed—were sufficient to contradict such an
asaertion. But if there had not,been upon.that table one
single petition froM any one man, or from any one body, he
would argue that no Englishman, suffering under the ef-
fect of those laws, could look upon them with indifference.
IF such were the fact of the Englis4 generally—how
Much more true must it be—how much more force
would the argument possess with reference to large bodies
at all events not the least educated portion of the corn-
nutnity, who felt what liberty was, and who knew how
to value it—who were the foremost, friends of the Consti-
tution and of the freedom of their country—and who
had proved themselves such when its liberties bad been
forgotten or betrayed by Churchmen ? There were
some gentlemen
_unwilling to grant the repeal of those
laws because, forsooth, they knew not what would be the
next step, taken--they. would deny, to, men that -which it
was right and proper to grant them, because they might
afterwards ask for that which, was unreasonable.---they
would refuse to pay a, debt which they justly owed, be-
cause their creditor might subsequently
,rob them. He
(Mr. W.) knew nething of the Dissenters, except 7from
the 'casual intercourse of society; but.were be a Dissenter
he would never cease to knock at the door of the Con-
stitution until that
_door was opened to -him, and until he
was adMitted through it on the same footing, as other
men. ,` Let him not be thought indifferent to the interests
of the Established. Church; he, had no hesitation in saying
that a Church Establishment, was necessary for the main-
tenance of order and for the support of religion, But he
wished to see the Established Church respectable—respec-
table by its situation, and respectable by its conduct ; he
wished to see it stand upon any ground but the narrow,
grou,pd of exclusion—to rely upon , any cause but that of
persecution. Such were the feelings which had induced
him to give his support, to the motion of the Noble
Lord ; such were the argunaente by which he had been
induced to give his aid, however weak it might be, to
the object which the Noble Lord had in view. He 'had
been, informed that there were some who expressed them-
selves favourahle to the claims of the Roman Catholics, but
who were unwilling to grant the prayer of their Protestant
Brethren. Upon what principle of liberality or of tolera- .
tion they, could reconcile those conflicting sentiments,
he was at a loss to guess. How the liberation of one body
of mess could be effected by rivetting the chains of another,
it was impossible for him to say. Ilia feeling was far dif-
ferent., Ile considered that every step taken to advance
the cause of religious liberty was so much gained for the
great cause of Catholic Emancipation. He would now
call the attention of the House to another branch of the.
subject—and it was one which he desired to approach deli-
catelY, one Indeed to which he felt himself bound to re-
vert—but with regret. If it were true that religion were
the. source, the mother ofall denominations, of the Christian
world—was it not something to be forced to look for her
amid discord, amid sects, and amid systems ? He wished
to ask the candid professor of our holy religion, whose ideas
would carry us somewhat too far in the intimate union of
Church and State, how we could reverence and Inve the
parent, and not reverence and love the offspring? How it
could be useful to the Church of England, how desirable
to Christianity itself, or how conformable to the prin-
cilipolweetohat H
of
our,
Ritual,
Sa"edCre4
ought to be the bond of union, the symbol of defiance?
subsisted to make that ceremony which
betweenmanw.ahndichhwieascrtenyittnicar,linoifghtthebteiemtedhaet
the stepping stone 'of avarice and ambition.? He would
ask, in the language of one of our poets, whether it was
right— •

Toe
Al make
office symboltkhee
yapic o k
lo
cf atoning otno i na ggc r a
place?"
(Hear, hev.)--Considering this motion as designed to give
freedom to a large body of our countrymen-,-and deeply in-
teresting to all ,denominations of Christians,'considering it
also as the great step towards the accomplishment of reli-
gious liberty, he would, give it his most cordial support.
The laws he had adverted to were impotent for any good
Puirse—were powerful only to barns, and uppiebui,ancl

bad a direct tendency to produce the very evils, and to
create the very dangers which they affected to avert.
Sir IL INGLIS was one of those who would be ashamed
to resist any claims founded upon justice, and it was tardy
because he found it a question of mere expediency that he
should resist the motion of the Noble Lord. He held and
was fixed in the belief, and all the authorities, all experience
ancient-and modern, with but one single exception, con-
firmed him in it, that some 'establishment was necessary to
religion. He was willing to admit, however, that the
smallest restriction possible that could be devited- for the
maintenance of the established religion was that, only which
ought to be applied. But every Hon. Gentleman ivho
beard him must confess that restriction of some kind was
necessary—.(No, no)—in this couutry in particular, whire
the Church establishment formed part of the` Constitution.
We.had got a Church establishment which by the Consti-
tution-we Were•bound to maintain.
Spartan' nactus es bane orna." •• -
He was 'quite 'aware -that the restrictions now under cori.
sideration Were greater, and. More Vexatious in their opera.
tion, than.was now necessary fur .the attainment Of their
object—but still he' was warranted in" believing, froni the
silence of those whom they affected, that they were not
found to press heavily or grievously. If the evils cOrn.
plained of by the Dissenters in their petitions were' so"
oppressive as represented, was it to be Credited that eight
and thirty years would have been suffered by them 'to elapse
between the last discussion on the queStion in Parliament;
and the present time. —(Hear, hear.)-:-.[The 'Right flori
Member here alluded to a publication on the subject,which
stated, that at the period referred to, the measure of relief
bad been then lost by 'a majority of 20 only.)—He,"for one,
could not conceive how a question so circumstanced could
have been suffered to remain ever since in abeyance. - But
the fact was,that it had been brought:forward subsequently
to the-occasion alluded to in the work he had justquoted,
when it was rejectedhy 'a majority -of 290 to 105,' and in
that majority 'Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke had voted. He
was not so partial to the Acts sought to be repealed, as to'
desire their maintenance, if any other, capable of ensuring
the same object, could be devised—and it was for those who'
recommended a change to suggest some less exceptionable,
but adequate, measure in its stead., The. Noble Lord had
quoted from Bishop Sherlock, 'but he could not see, how
Bishop Sherlock could, be answered. The strong objection
of the Noble Lord was this, that the Chore-11'9f England
required from each Of 'its members that he should three
times in the year 'receive the Holy Communion-but, in
doing ,so, it was not required of a man to give Mere than
legal evidence that he had 'qualified inthe manner which by '
law he.was bound to do--thus giving proofofhis undiiided
allegiance to the 'Constitution in Church' and State:
He thought' the grievanees Complained' of we're much
exaterated, ' and that was eiident, from- the small
number of persons affected by. the Act.
.In An entire
county, one welt known to the Noble Lord, the whole
number of persons, who, since the 'accession of his Ma-
jesty, (a period of eight years) had qualified, was only
twenty-three.—(Hear, hear,) Moreover, the Act 'of M
In-
demnity, relieved all who should haie neglected so qUit.
lily. The Act merely gave the power, of which' the' Church
of England and the COnstitution never intended "to make
use, unless such circumstances should occur as those by
which, two centuries since, the Altar and the Throne Wire
overthrown. He; 'for one, could 'never approve of any
penal statute which would go to prevent a man from wor-
shipping God in any way he deemed most pleaaing,to the
Deity ; (hear, hear, hear)but he never could believe; that
the union of two bodies—the Church and State—coUld
constitute a grievance. , The wisdoni of our ancestOrehad
been alluded to by the Noble Lord, and-the Hon. Gentle-
men by whom he had been followed; but lie . thought it
had been too frequently referred to by persons whOserecal-
lections ought to have taught them to avoid
hear.) Much stress had been laid uponit ;. but he wasior
opinion, that there was, more practiCal -Wiadom inlhe pre-
sent day than in the most splendid days:: of Greece and
Rome. He believed that .no dangeroni overt acts could be
-charged upon theDissenteis 'of the 'presetifdiy, America'
had been quoted; as an example in which the affairs of a
country were tonducted without a 'religions establishment
a country in which-every man paid his own Minister; but
(as we understood the Hon-- Member, whose voice heire
fell) as this country had gone on sO'well- for such a length
of time with its present establishment, he thought it would
•
be dangerous to introduce into it any innovation. I
Mr. FERGUSSON rose to giye his'warmest support Ito
the motion of the Noble Lord, and &pressed his surpr&e
at the assertion of the Hon. Member who had just sat
down, that the main point for consideration was the exact
degree of restriction that should be laid upon our felloui.
subjects to ensure the safety of the Constitution in Church
and State. Now he (Mr. F.) was prepared to, prove
that the Act then under consideration was more •thd
enough, for the purpose, but he • shOuld first. take . leave
,reply to an early observation of the Hon. Member. ""

. ,
lion. Gentleman had said, that if we were to look to tile
Parliamentary Debates of 1787, we should find that there
was an increasing majority against the, measures of relief..;..
but why had that majority increased? Because the whole'
artillery of Mr. Bankes's eloquence was brought into the
field to oppose it—who, in his argument, added the ori-,
ginal objections to, its repeals—a speculation that it would
bring down upon this country all the horrors of •thle
French Revolution, then in its commencement. It ought
not to be objected to the. Dissenters, that they had not
brought forward their claims during the, period of the
war—at a time when the Government of the counttlr
was 'embarrassed by foreign and domestic dangeri.--t-
During twenty years of these thirty-eight referred to biy
the Honourable Member—a period which he (Mr. Fer:-
/gusson) well remembered—it would have been not only'
without any prospect of success, hut absolute' madness;
Were the Dissenters, or any other body of men wishing do
advance the liberty of the subject to bring forward ;4
measure with such an object.—(Hear.)—The motives Of
the Dissenters, therefore, for refraining from pressing their
claims, ou&ht not to be misrepresented. The House Of
Commons would decide upoa them ; not on the ground
that they had slept for 100 ) ears, but upon the principles
011 which they were founded.—(Hear.)—The manner in
which the question had been brought forward by the Noble
Lord had given the utmost satisfaction, to all who bad heard-
him. That great question was worthy of being Antral=
duced and advocated by a person of his distinguished tk
lents and name.—(Cheers.)--With every' question ih
which civil and .religious liberty were invoked, the Noble
Lord's family were identified. He (Lord John Russell).
had said every thing that could be said upon the 'subject;
the misfortune was, consequently, that he had left little
or nothing.'lo- be added by those ivho were to come
after him. The Hon. Member (Sir R. Inglis), had said
that it was necessary to continue 'those penal acts widch
still remain upon' the Statute Book; hut salt
that the country was now in the same state as at the
period when they were enacted? If any one of those,Acti,
the Test Act for example, were to be now brought forward,
he would put it to any Hon. Gentle Man to say, could there',
be found a single man to support it ? He.knew at least that
no number of men could carry it.—(Cheers. )--It was
true, that the Corporation Act had been levelled, not against
the Dissenters atlarge, , but against the 'Presbyterians, who
had contrived to secure to themselves, during the time of
the. Commonwealth, the. Corporations ; ,and it--was only
natural, that, after the Restoration, those who were' frie
to Church and State, should prevent such monopoly of the
'Corporations by Sectaries who had destroyed the' Church

. .
andthe Throne. (The Hon. Gentleman here describeit
the Corporation Act as it had originally passed, pointing
out the amendments since made in it, by the omission of the
most objectionable portion 'of thevath.) Such were the

eircurnstinces in which that Acthad originated ;' but would
any Honourable Gentle Man say, that those circumstances'
continued to• exist.:—that there was now a Party in the
plotting the overthrow of the Government? Not
a single overt act of that nature could be proved ;' why they
should this Act remain in forge. The Corporation Act,
compared with the Test Act, was the 'greater grievance of
the two. By it every man was disqualified' to hold office,'
who should refuse or neglect to take the oath,prescribed,-
but,the Test Act said, the disqualificatiOn oaths must be
takin before a party could become a candidate—so that
even had he a majority (without having qualified), a Man
with a leiser number of voteS would become the elected

Mayor or officer, as the case ' might be. He (Mr.--":)
might be reminded of the Act If Indemnity—but the Act
of Indemnity could not relieve persons so suffering--they
had incurred no penalty—laboured under no grievance but
the disability to hold office. What had the Dissenters
done to deserve all that harsh treatment? The Test Act

was levelled not against them but against the Catholics--
by the Parliament and the King_. against the King him-
self, and against his brother, who had deClared himself a
Papist. Its enactment at that period had, therefore, beon
very proper—it had become necessary in order to give "0
the country a perfect assurance against the intrigues and
the power of the Catholics, who, from the reign of Eliza-*
beth down to that of Charles 11., had allied themselvgs
with the" French Government for the overthrow of the
. Constitution and the country. The objection was not $o
Catholics, but to the establishment of arbitrary principlis
anti arbitrary power. The then Duke Of York had de-
clared himself a Papist—a Popish army was 'at the very
gates of London—and it was to avert the consequences ap-
prehended from those circumstances that the Test Act had
passed—aud So convinced was he of the necessity fOr that
measure, that, had he been then alive, 4nd qualifiedto give
a vote upon it, he would have supported Lord Somers. Buf
the circtuototu whjchcalled fin tint onctu4eat 1J ion

i

ceased to exist. At the rebellion, when the Member! ,cl 4
Church of Engtad when, the has
vancedinto the roast England,. and met PI
e 0,11
itself, the Dissenters roseas one man, and, Aotwi etas4'
their disqualification for. the office, engaged in the se',
of the King, and continued most materially, to deferula`
Government of their Sovereign. The inhabitants of ;
reign -countries subsequently inquired respecting the f).„
the rebels. "o'SOme of them were executed—some
Pardoned,
.was the answer.,-.-"And thole who put tl°o
-
down ?” ",They, too, were, pardoned.rsrr(Cheertf
laughter.) sltch was theif,reward.. ,(Theilora. Ceir;j
man here referred to sevv;af.other proof, of: the loyal
the Dissenters o n'ifferent oCeasiOns) , hisnaelf belosr •
to one' class of 'Dissenters. He had the Isononr to t°
member 011ie National Church of
4hiliovittsconntrr
Could the of Scotch Oissep,447,m4yterigh
be queetioned ? If we were .f
o,he t914-Aatit 1940 were,
-nftW Church of England orditbat the.Kieg,and: cous"
were to be defended, let us be told so. lion the day of Wst'
rionelnit members of the Church of England were to
borne arms—none but, the sons of the Chuechiof Eng
were to taii fOught—that the diiqualification was toe
tend itself tti* the Scotch regiments then present--the
the Scotch' prep,' and other gallant regiments; and
V 7
-tante men whe commanded them--swbat would have
the consequence?-(Cheers.)—But that was, not alb'
what Would have happened were the Penton, Catbolies.!
have been exelnded?—(Continued cheeriug.),--What s'
to become of our fleets and armies if no Dissenters were
he allovved to Serve in them ?—(Hear,
fire, in war, the services of thoae people were desirable, 1
ought to soothe them in peace.--(Hear. )._ooe word svi:
respect to the Church ofScetland..4Here the Hon. MO
ber referred to the Articles of Union, by which, the in,Y
pendence of the Scotch Presbyterian Church was secure'
and asked, were the members of that Church to be pfi
eluded from serving their King, without incurring all 11
penalties of the statute, unless indeed, they ..were to
nounee that 'religion, for which they naturally felt a 1
tion?) • But, in point of fact,, the natives, of :,Scotland
this country were exposed to the-moat hOrrid penalties, 11)
the state of Scotland 'could he.eompared to nothing but
that of a whOle nation itnder pro,seription. Upon that pei"l
he would not further ~preSs the maintainers,ok,she Aces
but there wereionie others to Which, he would yet *lllO,
He perfectly concurred in what the.Zleble Lord ,had ssi"
respecting the profanation 'of 'the';SitCrainent,.,which tl'e„
Test Act necessarily involved. It ia, one of be
speeches,. had mentioned an inettnacre Ivitich be culled jade;
cent;- he 'Stated that a person going into It church, IP
seeing a person'. thing the Sacrament, eaked„wbether
was going `to make his peace _With ..God ?,. 014
no," another answered, ‘! he is qualifying himself to be
First Lord of the Treasury.."-..-(A laugh. )---.An Hon. Mein'
ber had said that the' Clatiech establishment ought to V
abolished, and that every Man ought to be left to pay hi"
own priest in what manner he best pleased.. ,He (M!
Ferguson) did not knotv what' the Hon. Member laimse",
would pay;—(A. laugh)—but he feared, that in el'
countries, if the Clergy were left to maintain: themsalvel
upon the contributions of the 'faithful, they would be but
badly off. But it was his opinion that the clergy ought 50
Ise respected; 'and ought to have a liberal provision made
for thern; and if he thought_ the repealing, the :Test AO
'Would in the least tend to endanger the provision nos(
made for the Established Church, be should .not • vote for
it; but it would riot endanger the church establishment'
He paid this tribute of praise to the Ministers hotb of do
Church of Scotland and of Eogland, and he considered
as much his duty to uphold the rights, ..privilegeo,,.,aod
munities of • the Church of England, as he had no doubt anf.
Member returned „froth this part o€ ,the
heisland would those
of the Church of S'Cotlatid, were they to be attacked.
he was sure,. that admitting the petitioners to CorporaW!
sights, would nit in.theilightest degree affect the privilege
of the Church of England. Beside', what interest had the
DiSsenters in the 'overthrow of the 'Church Establishment'
They would be no gainers ; it was not to the poor that the
spoils of the Church went; it war to the rich.--(Hour,
hear. )—He now came to another part of the question. It
was said that the Dissenters were not affected by the Te 4
Act, as they were screened from its operation by the Bill Of
Indemnity. ' Note it' id appear to him that the Disienter,
even with the Bill in his pocket, might be injured to
some extent. The preamble set forth, that, in cons&
,Ouence of ignorance of the law, or of unavoidable absence:
the Dissenters had not been able to take the Sacrament, and
he was inclined to think that if an action were brought by
'a Dissenter, and the other party were to prove that it was
from -neither of these causes that he had not taken the
' Sacrament, that the Dissenters would have the worst of it ;
indeed, he knew of nothing to prevent informations being
filed against Dissenters to any amount, and the worst seas
that they were never absolutely pardoned, the Act only
indemnifying•them: fair six months. It resulted from this
that, if by any chanee the Act of Indemnity Was not passed
in proper, time; the IDissenters- would be out of the} pale
of the law. In twenty-eight days front the present time,
if any accident were to prevent the passing.olthe Act,
they Would actually be in that condition.' The House of
Lords, in a time of excitement, might refuse their con.
sent ; for the King, if we had-a bigottett oqe, which,
thank God ! was not the case' now, might, if be please,
prevent the passing of the Bill. It was argued by those
who supported the continuance of the Test Act that it 'did
not effect the Dissenters—that it did not bear upon them ;
and yet, forsooth, it was, to -be held over them in terrorem•
.--(Heir, and liughter.)—What would be said of those
who thus argued but that they were dolts and idiots?
hear.)--Ile- trusted that many Hon. Members
•who bad voted against Catholic Eniancipation would
yet be able conscientiously to vote for this relief to
their fellow Protestants. -He hid Understood that
the Right Honourable Gentleman had summoned to muster
the array of force that opposed this motion-..(Hear,-hear)
—but he trusted that, in spite of that muster, many
of those who had voted against Catholic Kmancipation
would vote fin. the repeal .of the Test Act. With respect
to those few who had voted for Catholic Emancipation,
and opposed this motion, he could .only say, that he could
not imagine upon what principle it was they acted.—
,(14,00...../t was an insult to the petitioners to tell them
their •• wrongs • and grievances,' 'la'otild not be redressed,
although in the power of the Route to do so, because
they could -not redress the grievanees of others which
it was not in their power to redre'ss. It had been
said on more' than one occasion' by Honourable Mem-
bers opposite, by way of apology' for the view they
took of the question, that a late illustrious person had enter-
tained the same opinions'aS themselves. But he was con.
fident, that had that illuStrious' person lived, he'would have
altered his opinions.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—Yes, he said
that individual, who, although be did not sacrifice to it,
made popuiarity his God; would,' had he seen the whole
country; expressing its feelings in the petitions poured
into that House; have given way, and granted to those of
his own rdigiOn' what he was so ready to allow to those cf
another.—:(Hear.)—The Hon. Memliet conclirded by ea-
treating those who heretofore had shown theMielves favour-
able to Catholic Emancipation, now to support a cause
similar in its principle; viz. that of religious
sliberty, but
different in degree.--(Cheers.) •

.liftilnyliwexcePte:lers, .,
Mr. R. PALMER thought this question ought to be
judged upon its own merits, and not with relation to any
other question. It was the duty of those iidni suPporte a
-this Aet to prove the. necessity of its,existenee.--4llear. )
—Helied-come to the conclusion that there was no nem-
iity:fOr its existence. He Was fortified in that- by
the fact of its being annually repealed. From the• enor-
mous number of petitions presented frnin.the Dissenters,
•he wall bound to.conclude that 'they felt it a serious griev-
ance; whilst from the fact of the total absence of 'petitions
on the other' side—(Cheers)—frotn.:those who• were ready
and willing to protect. the interests of the Church, he was
equally bound to conclude, that no, . danger was appre-
hended by them from the repeal of this Act...=(Hear.)
Mr. Secretary.HUSlclSSON—On'yisitig to deliver my
sentiments on this Motion by the Noble Lord, for the repeal
of those Laws commonly' kisown as the Test and Corpora-
tion Acts, I must begin by
.declaring, that I certainly do
the Noble Lord has thought fit to bring
regret that'
'lie has deemed it expedient to mate these
Acts the subjects of a debate in this Nouse ; and I do
istimAelotion.--(This sentence was follourefl by a
present time,
of the feelings Of the House, manifests('
equally regret that, under present Circumstances, and at
laughter, and. murmurs,) :T say Ido
.regret
under present cireumstances, .
brought forward this Motion for abolishing those ,Acts
the Noble Lord should
form part of the' established law of the country.
treason why I am `sorry is, that after all I have heats', it
does not_ appear to me that the motion Of the Noble
is direCted to the removal of an evil of an urgent or
nature ; and if this Motion do not Cure the evil,
ger it may be, I am much mistaken if the agitation
op‘itTWLrvihefroh.hhaaltrleiasthedics,tyieisnyquestion do not produce one.—(Hearidiear.) My
'Hon. Friend who spoke last but out, is under a great alarm
as to the consequences that will result from these grievanCes,
if suffered to remain unredressed. If any Hon. Member bad
heard tnyOon. Friend's speech, and knew' nothing of the
practice of the Constitution as to this question, could he
have supposed that my Hon. Friend hid just come from the
country to *Mil he does so' much honour ? Would he
not have supposed that my Hon.• Friend had discovered
that his gallant countrymen were no longer at liberty to
gather those 'laurels which they gained at Waterloo and
Aboukir, where they, raised the glory 'of their cOubtryi by
l'adding their own to 'it . Witild he not have supposed
that PI litm. Fri6lkl had just made the ditivoytry., that ill,

Ma
r_.

:tat-t4i nal

T yei

firs

d~

Pal
evil
3. • -

Au
,
- tyri
•
410
' dut

talis
COLI
of
- lon,
I'VE"

slot
. all I
SVC
eac'

dep
tioi
.141 S Lea
tha

'Pr(
' not
try,

*On
4/ 'aril
-aeu
' - are
the:

the,

. tO f

beep

the
• and

• wel
not
riot
of t

Pea

test
..star
grez.

any
No
pal
at
-POO
fri,
k" nal
YR the
blia
all

this
—w,
IV It
u, at a
the
this
aa t
I m
but

flict
fell(
jots
• trio

bom
-1-044 d

tills

Jonj

E
•'‘ ene
all 3

to
pid4
in
be
gre
bay

.'con

pea

in 1
tiro
are
disc

con
pre
.esp
cuu
ino

but

opi
the

the

coy
flu

big
Übi
dui
the

sta
io tha
3. he
%vel
'" am,
941 -11.