Star.
London, England, 1828-04-26 00:00:00

by what Act corporatnrs, as such, we-F• car•d
ro take the declaration againq Transu ,-tan Car
He would answer him—by the Test Act. By thr:
Act, a person accepting office, civ I or roilit.o%,
was required to have taken the Sacramental
He had at first thought that the obligation was confirmd
to persons taking offices under the Crown ; but. in re,,
(erring to the Act, he found that the weds *ere nor,t
general and comprehensive. But if he had entertained
any doubt on reading the enacting part of the Act. th,rt
doubt would have been removed when he found in
subsequent part of the Act, excepting a great many
at
the interior officers, both under the Crown and under
Corporations, from this test. So that it was plate
the intention of the enacting part of the statute was to
apply equally to all persons holding office. But fur-
ther than this, filling the situation he did, and knowing
that where there was a doubt as to the law, ancient
and uniform practice might assist in resolving it, he
applied to the Recorder of London, who informed him
that in this the first Corporation of the kingdom, thsf
declaration against Transubstantiation was always take*
not only by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, but by the
members of the Court of Common Council. He thought
after this, no doubt could remain either as to what the
law really was, or as to what it was generally suppo4
to be. He would repeat, then, that they had the seta.
city, first, of the oath of supremacy; next of the decla.
ration against Transubstantiation, and these, he wit
convinced, were a sufficient pro.ection againrt
sion of Catholics into our Corporations. He bad enter.
rained the hope, that after the Learned Prelates of the
Church, with a magnanimity and liberality which did
them so much honour, had given their approbation to
this measure, it would have experienced no resistance
from any quarter ; that they would have been enabled
Ito send the Bill forth to the world as a measure coleus
kited to give satisfaction to all; and he deeply lamented
'that his Noble and Lamed Friend should have pursued
a course which he could not but consider, notwith-
'standing the high respect he felt for him, as. most
"chievous—(Hear.)
• The Bishop of LICHFIELD said, that the opinion
'had been entertained by high authorities in the Catholic
Church, that the oath of supremacy might be safely
taken by its members; and with respect to the declaras
lion against Transubstantiation, which was undoubtedly
sufficient to exclude Catholics, as there appeared to be
some doubt whether it was legally required of coo,
porators as such, he did not think- it would be dis.
creet wholly to depend upon it as a security. In some
of the greater Corporations the practice of taking it
prevailed, but this pracice he knew was not universal;
and when it was recollected that Corporations had the
presentation to many benefices in the Church, were'
the trustees of marry charitable endowments, and
bad the controul and guardianship of numetoos public
schools, the greatest caution with respect to the admis-
sion of their members would seem to be necessary. Hr
was the more disposed to vote in favour of this meta
menr, as it was not pre:ended that the Catto.lics cool
feel it to be any injury to them, and as there mete 1
class of Protestants to whom it could be in any deo.
objectionable. He believed the Bill would be more
satisfactory to the Church and the country in conse-
quence of this amendment, if it should be successful.
He had assented to the principle of the Bill; because he
had the greatest coofideace in the moderation of the
Dissenters; but he had always It oked forward to its
receiving amendments in its progress.
The Earl of CARLISLE denied that the Petitions
presented from the Dissenters contained sentiments
hostile to the Church Establishment.
The Earl of GUILFORD declared his intention to
oppose the Bill, which be thought inimical to the
Church, and to the Constitution. He held this feeling
in common with many of the most respectable arid
learned persons in the Church. When he considered the
alternative of the occa,ional profanation of 3 holy tit-,
'the crime resting upon those who profane it, or that the
Church, the depository of that holy rite, should be
trampled under toot by infidelity, he dectsiedly pre-
ferred the former.
The Eatl of RODEN would trespass for a few
minutes upon their Lordships' time, to state his grounds
of ollection to the Bill as it now stood. It appeared :o
him to contain protection to the endowments and tem•
poi alines of the Church, but no protection whatever to
'religion. He lamented that the clause proposed by his
'Noble Friend, recognising the Christian religion, had
been rejected. He believed that the measure would
not meet with the approbation of the Christian people
of England. So far from promoting religious peace.
the Bill was calculated to excite alarm in the minds of
Protestants, both of the Church of England and Dii•
:enters. But if even this peace were obtained, it would
in his opinion be purchased dearly.
The Bishop of LINCOLN—The Noble Lord (Rodeo)
bad said, or intended to say, that the Reverend Bench,
in assenting to the declaration, had shown greater re-
gard for temporal benefits than for the spiritual wel-
fare of the Church. Now, if the objector the Bill had
been to expunge from the Liturgy any fundamental
doctrine of the Church, and if he (the Bishop of Lin'
coin) and his Reverend Brethren had shrunk from sop
porting an amendment of it, the Noble Lord would
have some ground for asserting that they were negli•
gent of the spiritual interests of the Church. But what
was the question before the House? The Bill for the
Repeal of two Acts of Parliament, which exclude the
Dissenters from offices in the State. Now, what cos.
nection was there between the object of that Bill and
the spiritualities of the Church ?—(Cheering). The as-
jsertion of the Noble Earl could only have arisen front
confounding the two characters of the Church, namellr
the poliical and spiritual. But, in its spiritual charac-
ter, the Church could not be affected by any Act of the
Legislature; it may be separated from the State; its
benefices may be transferred to the Clergy of another
persuasion. The Church, in its spiritual character,
would still continue to exist as a religious community—
would survive as the primitive Church of Christianity
did in its decent forms, in its simple rites, and in the
spiritual purity and sublimity of its doctrisies.—(Loud
cheering tram all sides.)
The Bishop of CHESTER—The Noble Earl (Roden)
comidered these Acts a religious security. Heil he BiAtop
of Chester) would contend they wet e a political security,
and had nothing whatever to do in to:tint:4oin.; use
religious part of the Church. It the Bill contaii.ed
provisions only relative to the tempo' alities of the Church,
the reason was that no new measure was considered
necessary for the protection of the spieitualities of the
Church. The only thing the Church required of the
Legislature for the maintenance of its spiritual character,
was subsistence for its clergy; and that having been
abundantly supplied by former Acts of Parliament, A
further measure on the subject was quite unnecessary.
the purely .spiritual pa, t ot the Church requited no
•utibet'aidloom human institutions—it would standby
aSeif. It was very uncharitable in the Noble Eail, whet
as remarkable for his zeal in defence of the Church,
o intimate that he and his Reverend Brothers were ta-