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

House, for the purpose of defeating the motion of
the Noble Lord.

Mr. It. PALMER supported the repeal of these Acts,
on the ground that a great variety of Petition's had been
presented in favour of the repeal, but none against it.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that if he looked, in the ab'
stract, at the motion of the Noble Lord for the repeal of ,
the enactments of these laws, he could have no hesita-
tion in saying that he regretted their continuance on
the Statute Book. But he equally regretted that, under
existing circumstances, the Noble Lord should have
chosen the present time for bringing forward his motion
—(A laugh, and hear ! from the Opposition). He
trusted he should be permitted to state his reasons
for not being able to come to the same conclusion
as the Noble Lord. He did regret that the motion
was brought forward at present. The reason was
this, that after all he had heard from the Noble
Lord, it did not appear to him that the motion was
directed to the removal of any considerable or imme
diate pressure, of any urgent evil. He was greatly-mis-
taken however if the agitation of the question would not
lead to much inconvenience. He should have thought,
from the speech of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferguson),
that he had only lately returned to the country after
a long absence, and had heard nothing of the laurels
gathered by his countrymen at Waterloo and Aboukir,
but supposed them to be never called upon to serve
either in the army or the navy. He believed no one
Gentleman inficotland had, in consequence of these laws.
felt any objection or difficulty in encasing into the naval
or military service. A full proportion of the emoluments
of the State were shared among the natives of the
country the Hon. Gentleman came from, and there was
no danger that they would be interrupted in their
career. He had been 32 years a Member of that
House, and he was now called upon for the first time
to discuss this question. It was nearly forty years since
it was last agitated. This was a proof that these laws
were not of a nature to occasion atiy very great or
practical oppression. But, said the Honourable Gent.

(Mr. Ferguson), there was, during that time, a good
reason for the silence of the Dissenters, for these were
years of danger and alarm, when the country would be
little desirous to listen to such a subject. Did he know
so little of the history of *these fo:ty years as not to be'
aware, that a similar question had, within that period,
been often agitated; a question which led to the most
important results, which divided the opinions of both
Houses of Parliament, and more than once was the occa-
sion of depriving the country of the set vices of a powerful
Administration ? To say, therefore, that danger had been
the cause of this silence was not a well founded view of the
question. He knew that the Petitioners were, many of
them, men of acute, intelligent, elevated minds, enjoy-
ing high consideration in the country, and deserving of
it. Was it to be believed that such men would have
remained for forty /ears quiescent under what they felt
as a serious evil. Though not a Member of the House
in 1791, he well recollected the nature and .effect of the
debates, and they then seemed attended with the happiest
results. Feuds and distinctions. had gradually abated.
Men met in their social and other capacities like citizens;
and he was proud to say that no petitions were then.
brought forward against the respectable parties whose
case was under cousideration. No class of men had more
contributed to produce so happy an order of things as
the Clergymen of the Church of England—and as
they were the first to promote so desirable a state of
things, so he now hoped they would be the last to
interrupt it—(Hear, hear.) He would now state to t.e
House why it was that he regretted the present motion
*as brought for ward, because it tended to interrupt the
concord which had existed between Churchmen and
Dissenters, and created the danger of doing away
that mutual forbearance which each exhibited to the
other; and lastly, that peace and good will which it
was so desirable to see cultivated between them. On such
grounds alone he felt regret that the motion was brought
forward —and his regret was now increased, because he
saw no immediate necessity for it. Those who knew his
public life, must be aware that he could not advocate
the principle of the necessity of Religious Tests to the
attainment of civil rights. On the contrary, as the
friend and well-wisher of Morality, of Religion, of
the Church of England, and the Country at large,
he would be glad to see such Tests very differently
arranged; but while stating this, he was also bound to
'add, that in looking at so great a subject, he was bound
to look at it as a system—and as a whole, and not to
take up any particular portion of it, as was involved in
the motion before the House. He regarded the evils
complained of, as very secondary in their nature—
for as to real hardships, he thought they were almost
exclusively thrown upon others—to the great disadvan•
cage of the sufferers, as well as to the best interests

of State. But looking at the subject as a whole,
he could not dissever from it what he considered to be
the interests of the kingdom at large; and in saying.so,
he need not more particularly reter to that question,
where the system unfortunately neutralized what was
good, and stimulated too much what was bad in the par-
ticular community. His view of the question under
discussion was similar to that taken by Mr. Pitt, that
eminent and profound statesman, whom he was so proud
to follow ; and he requested Hon. Members opposite
and around him to look at the correspondence (lately
published) which had taken place in the year 1801,
.between his late Majesty and his late Right Honourable
Friend Mir. Pitt). It would there appear that Mr.
Pitt was anxious to modify the Test Laws ; but yet
he considered that question was to be so dealt with, as
not to endanger the Catholic Question—(Hear, hear).
In referring to that correspondence, he begged leave to
return his best thanks to those persons 'who gave it to
the world—(Cries of Hear, flint the Opposition Benches).
—He thanked them not only on the part of the public,
but on the part of Mr. Pitt, and of his sincerity in the
cause of religionse freedom. And he (Mr. Huakisson)
•
trusted that he would never again hear iisaid, either in
that House or any other place, that he only felt an
evanescent scintillation on the subject—without having
any clear notion of his views—or without a wish that
his opinions should at some happier period be followed
up by those who might succeed him—(Hear). He was
anxious to support those principles of Mr. Pitt—and fear.
jug that the present discussion would lead to dissenticn
and irritation, he must again express his regiet at its hav-
ing taken place. The princiPle now involved in discussion
was this—that up to the present hour the rule' of the'.
country was, that conformity to the Church was the ne-
cessary source of admission to civil office. If the rule in
this case were repealed, what would become of the gene-
ral rule to which •be had just adverted ? Why, from that
very moment, from the hour of such a partial repeal,the
general rule would be altered{ and the excepted party
would alone beds Roman Catholics. He would appeal,
then, if that were so, to those who, like himself, advocated
the Catholic Claims, whether, in making the conces-
sion now called for, they would not be giving some
countenance to an impression that the Catholics were
to be excluded from civil rights in the State, solely
because they acknowledged the spiritual authority of
the See of Rome?-,-(Hear, hear, hear.)—There was no
!,necessity for arguing that question now; but be was