Star.
London, England, 1828-04-18 00:00:00

land, while he looked upon freetbinking aid infidelity
as the very reverse.
The Bishop of LINCOLN concurred fully in what
bad falleii from his Right Reverend Brother the Arch-
Whop of York; inn is the Noble Baron (Lord Holland).
had thought proper to revert to the period when these
laws were enacted, as well as to the causes of their
enactment, he hoped their Lordships would pardon
him if he went shortly over the same topics. The
Right Rev. Prelate then went over the history of the
times when these laws were enacted, as well as the'
circumstances which gave rise to them, from the'
reign of Elizabeth through that of James the First,l
atc. &c. up to the latest period at which any re•
laxation took place. He admitted that the Acts had.
been pastei at a period of great. public excitement,,
and that there was more of prejudice than of judg-
ment in their enactment. So great, indeed, was
the alarm created at the time, that even Protestants;
Dissenters consented to their enactment, in order to'
avoid the danger apprehended from theltomantatholics.
It was true that all had a right to worship according to.
their conscience, and if any wished to separate from the
Established Church, they ought to have been told to do
so—but to do it quietly and without disorder. This
was the language which ought to have been used to
Dissenters in the reign of James I. He was anxious to
have an outward conformity; but great as were his
talents, he found that it was a task beyond his power.
The Rev. Prelate, after a few additional remarks, con
chided by saying, that he was not opposed to the second
reading of the Bill ; when it went into a Committee
they would have a better opportunity of considering
its derails.
The Bishop of DURHAM thought it but fair, that'
if the Test and Corporation Acts were done away, the'
Dissenters should be subjected to some equivalent, as a!
substitute for it, not to any test, which they might not
conscientiously take, but something which might bind'
them, when they took office, not to do anything that'
might have a tendency to destroy the Church or
England, or, in other words, to answer that purpose
which was the original object of these tests. He did
not think the declaration proposed in this Bill would
answer that purpose in so full, complete, and satis-
factory a manner as he wished. But he would not,
on that account, oppose the Bill in the present stage,
in the hope that the proper amendments would be'
made in the Committee. They had, at least, a right
to demand, that whatever they did in this matter, a
proper security should be provided for the safety of the
Church. Long experience might have taught all ranks
in this country that the Church of England was the
best that could be established here, and was that which
best corresponded with all the institutions of the State.
All therefore ought to unite in preserving that Church,
for if that were overthrown, the cliff rent sects would
assail each other, and, instead of more. there would be
less toleration than More. He trusted that every ho-
nest man, taking that Declaration alone, or with what-
ever additions their Lordships might make to it, would
feel himself bound not to do anything against the secu-
rity and interests of the Church. This was the view
which he took of the matter ; and, in the hope that the
Chinch would be properly secured, he would say con-
tent to the question. In the Committee their Lordship,'
would have an opportunity of more particularly consi-
dering the Declaration itself, and the best mode of car-
rying it into effect.
Lord ELDON was opposed to the repeal of those
laws, because he considered the Church and the Consti-
tution of the country to be inseparably connected, and
the unity of the Church could not be destroyed without
injuring also the Constitution. The Dissenters should
fairly tell them what it was they asked—they should
say that they required a change in the constitution of
the country, and then they might fairly go to issue upon
the question. When the question was first brought
forward in the other House, a bold and manly oppo.i.
don was made to it—but when the majority appeared
to be in its favour, all opposition was abandoned, upon
the mere agreement to a declaration which was to be ade-
quate as a substitute; so that he felt it to be his duty to,
oppose the Bill altogether. Noble Lords spoke of the
principle of the Bill, but the Bill contained no principle
whatever. In the preamble it only says, 44 whereas it
Is expedient:* There had been a vast deal of misre-
presentation as to the Sacramental Test ; but he would
ask, if you take away the laws imposing it, of what use
mill be a declaration, which is unsupported by any law
to enforce it? He differed from all that he had heard
and read, es to the profaning of the Sacrament by
using it as a Test, and he implored the House that it
would riot disjoint those whom the Constitution bad
joined togvther, without doe consideration. If those
laws were inexpedient. how came they to be pre.
served for so long a period with so much care?—
Thee Annual Indemnity Act, so far from showing the
necessity for the abolition, rather showed the necessity
of keeping them to be enforced should occasion
call for their exercise. .He had as long as forty years
ago voted against the repeal of those laws, and for
similar conscientious mains he should ales vote simi-
larly sow; for he could not consent to destroy the se-
curity which the Church and State each derived from
the other under their operation. As he could not,
tkesefore, sacrifice the Constitution to the extent con-
templated by that Bill, he felt bound to oppose it, as
calculated to produce the most serious and injurious
consequences, sincerely hoping that those who now
advocate the repeal, may find no reason, at some future
day. to regret their present success.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the oboe-
votion of the Noble Lord (Eldon) was very correct,
than his Bight Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel) had opposed
this Bill upon its first reading; and his reason for doing
so was, that although he did not approve of the Test
and
.Corporation Acts, yet as be believed they had for
a lengthened period conduced to the religious peace of
the kingdom, he felt loath to disturb that peace by
such a measure. Subsequently finding the majority
of the House of Commons against the view be took
of the subject, and knowing also, that after so large a
majority many of the minority would find their reasons
for voting with him at an end. having given their votes
with a view to another question, he thought it advisable
to adopt the course to which the Noble Lord had ad-
verted. It was absurd to object to the repeal en the
itound that the Corporation Act was a security. in
the fete of the fact that souse Corporations were entirely
i 4 Plossion of the Dissipaters. He eessidered it his
*sty, therefore, to support the Bill, as it esiestlire of re•
ligiont pease.
Lord GODERICH mid, if he thought the Bill could
be preclustive of the slightest danoer, ha would stand
aide by Ode with the Noble Lord (Elden) in opposing
it ; but he thought it wield bo intended with sto eon
of risk, sod therefore he would vets for it I and be
thought if the Bill passed, ds month of Liaised would
present e most ,inagaifitertt apsetacle to the w0r1d...•
strong in its own purity— strong in theaffeetions of the
people, MAIL in its own tadovrntent, is solossed the um.
stable security of restriethiss—(Cheers).
The Bishop of CHESTER said, that if it was to be