Star.
London, England, 1828-02-27 00:00:00

had strength sufficient, if they were so inclined, to pro-
duce any mischief? And supposing, for argument,
merely for the sake of the argument, that such a disposi-
tion really did exiit, then would come that great ques.
lion, were the Test and Corporktion Acts adapted to
give security against their designs ? Now, he thought
it might be eery clearly shown that they were not.
Let hinvput the instance of the Bishops in the time of
Charles the 'Second. The whole of them, with the
'exception .of three, were opposed to the Bill of Exclu-
sion. In the next reign they were -Opposed to King
William and the Revolution. Had their opposition at
'both these periods been successful, was it not clear that
they would have overthrows the Constitution and the
*very Hierarchy of which they themselves were Mem-
'hers ? That they did not succeed was owing to those
'very Dissenters, whom afterwards they bad the mean-
ness to persecute—(Hear.) On this question they had
'the support 'gall the friends of religious liberty, and
the tacit assent eves of their opponents, for they
*supported the Annual Indemnity Act. Would they
do so if Ihey did not feel convinced of the utter
inutility ad worthlessness of the laws which it was,
lsow sought to repeal? The Test Law was not, is fact,
meant for the purposes to which it was now applied.
it was meant as a check upon the prerogative, at a
time and under circumstances when the King could

hot be trusted with the nomination of his own servants.
Was it not strange that it should be continued in force
now, and that those should refuse to assent to its re-
peal, who, In their own persons, derived so many
advantages from the free exercise of the prerogative ?
—(Hear, hear). He was unwilling to trespass so long
upon the attention of the House; but he should not enter
much further into the subject, feeling that it. would be
presumption on his part, after the able speech of the
Noble Lord, to attempt following in the same course.,
There were onlytwo points which he wished tobring under
their consideration. In the first place, it was pretended
that, by reason of the Annual Indemnity Bill, the evils
arising from these Acts were rather imaginary than
real. Was it not an eiil in itself that an Act of In-
___

demnity should at all be necessary? What was it but a
temporary concession ? It was an acknowledgment of
the very bad principle, that the strong had it in their
rower to exclude the weak from civil office on account
of their religious principles. Was it not telling English-
enen that they held their rig* only by yearly lease—
(lle ir)—and that by the Were caprice of any one
branch of. the Legislature they might be crushed by
the weight ,*of those laws? The' evil of such a sys•
tem did not arise so much from the privation of place
and emolument, as from the stigma and disgrace
it affixed,' and the • insolent superiority with which it
lathed their orthodox oppressors—(Cheers). It had
beep said that the Dissenters themselves were careless
about these Acts. The number of Petitions laid upon
their table was a sufficient answer to that ; bat even

though a single Petition bad not been presented, he
should not think it possible that Englishmen, even the
Lowest, sat down quietly under such grievous privations.
How much more strange if it were borne without re-
pining by men well educated, men who upon all occa-
sions, showed themselves friends to the liberties of their
country, and supported them at a time when they
would have been betrayed by the Dignitaries of the
Established Church. One argument against the repeal
of these laws was, that if it should be conceded, they
did not know how much further the Dissenters might
go. This was indeed a strange argument to refuse what
was just, from an apprehension that what was unjust
might afterwards be demanded. He was not connected
with any body of Dissenters, nor did he profess
their tenets; but were he a Dissenter he should never
cease to knock at the door of that House until it was
opened—until he was placed on a footing of perfect
equality with the rest of his fellow subjects--(Hear,
hear.) Let it not be supposed that he was inimical to a
Church Establishment. He allowed that an Establish-
ment was necessary for preserving the good order,
the morality, and decency .L. society. He wished to,
seethe Establishment preseived in a state of respect-
ability; and it was for that reason he wishei to see it
stand on other ground than that of exclusion, that
he did not wish to see it call in persecution to
s support. Let others show their zeal for the
Establishment by arguments founded on intolerance,
be should show his by endeavouring to wipe off
those blots which were alike derogatory to its
interests, and injurious to its teal strength-(Hear.)
He should not attempt to 871111 NI against those who were inimical to
all further concession. But he understood there were some who,
though friendly to Catholic Emandpation, refused. under the pre-
sent circumstances, any further concession to the Dissenters, from
an idea that It would injure the Catholics. He, too, was tflendly
to the great 'cause of Emancipation, but he had yet to learn how, by
liberating one body of men from their chains, they must necessarily
rivet more closely the chains of others.—(Hear.)—All they could
&Ado in the way of religious liberty, was so much gained to Ca-
tholic Emancipation itself. Let the bulwarks of bigotry and pre-
judice be once broken down, and the victory was their own.—
He came now to the second point which be wavdesirous to ad-
vert to. He believed it was not denied that there once existed
a religion of more purity, of more perfection in practice, than
any of those numerous branches which bad sprung from it in the
progress of time—a religion, the mother d those various Christian
denominations which new existed. He should wish to ask any
theological professor how that religion could be a perfectly pure one
which supported principles that seemed destructive of the very first
principle of Christianity itself, mutual benevolence. Was it con-
formable to religion to make that holy ceremony of the sacrament,
which.was intended for far other purposes, the stepping-stone to
ambition, and the picklock of place? It had been said that it was
wit more improper to make the sacrament the test of fitness for
once, than to make an oath the test of truth. He could see no
similitude between the two cases. An oath was a solemn cere-
mony, sanctioned by civil society as a test by which to judge of
the veracity of man; but would any one tell him, that the holy
sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted for a similar purpose?
Let anything else be made a test, but * that holy ceremony be
exempt from such csammination—(Hear). He should give his
cordial support to the motion ; aad be trusted that be should that
sight see the first blow given to that intolerant and persecuting
system of laws, which was the disgrace of this country and of civi-
lisation—(Hest)—taws which, while they professed to protect and
save, only created the very danger which they Acted to guard
against—(Cheers). •
Sir H. INtiLIS said, though he despaired of 'hewing
any thing approaching to the talent of the Hon.Oent.
who last addressed them, or the extent of infornsation
displayed by the Noble Lord who introduced the sub-
ject, he trusted the House would permit him shqrdy to
explain what his views of this subiect were. The ques-
tion was this—were these laws justified by the effects
produced, or was it necessary that some religious,
establishment should be kept up? He could not suppose
that he had sow to contend against any perms who
denied the necessity of sofas establishment. That,
he believed, was admitted on all sidcks. He was
quite ready to admit that the least degree of restrictioo,
•consistent with the preservation of that establishment,'
ought to be the measure of restrictive laws. Some
restriction, however, was nFessary. Their Church
Establishment was part of the Constitution, and how-
ever men may differ, if they were now to give a Consti-
tution to New Zealand, as to the propriety of uniting
the Church and State, that was not here the question.
They were not now called upon to form a new Consti-
tution; they bad one already, in which-Church and
State were united inseparably, aad in place of seething
, its overthrow, he should
Spites ammo% bane oral: