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

The question was, were the restrictions on Dissenters
greater in degree than was necessary, or was required
by the circumstances of• the time? If the evil arising
from these restrictions Were se great, hoW clid'it happen
that, during thirty-eight years since this question was
last discussed, they had heard so little abuot it? He

saw by a publication which lately fell into his hands,l
that it was lost only by a tisajprity of twenty. But I
then, at a subsequent Period, the majority against it was
290 to 105, and that in the year' following, when Mr.l
Pitt and Mr. Burke opposed the motion. He had no
hesitation in admitting that the mode in which the Esta-
blished Church was at present supported by tests, was
not the most desirable ene,and ought not to be persevered
in, if any equally good security could be obtained. It
belonged to those who opposed that mode to suggest
one which could be equally successful. He did not see
how it was possible to answer the argument of Bishop
Sherlock, in reference to tests. He did not think that

it was felt generally as a heavy grievance. In the county
with which he was connected, not more than 2$ had

qualified within the last eight years. He could not say
how many more might have sacrificed their religious
scruples to their worldly interests; but he believed the
number, if any, was not great. It never was intended
that the provisions of the Act of Indemnity should be
fully carried into effect, unlesssuch circumstances should
arise as occurred about two centuries back, when both
Church and State were completely overturned, unless
no other way remained for preserving their Establish-
ment.both in Church arid State.* He was as unwilling
as any man, that persons should be prevented by penal
statutes fspm worshipping GOD as they pleased; but
then he was equally unwiHing that the existence of the
Constitution in Church and State should be endangered
through want of due attention to their interests. The
Hon. Gentleman who spoke in the course of the debate
(Mr. J. Smith) seemed to allude sneeringly to tests as a
specimen of the wisdom of our ancestors, and that sneer
was received with a cheer. He was not one of those
who were prepared to depreciate the wisdom of those
who went before them. No doubt, in latter times, many
useful and important discoveries had been made in phy-
sical science which were unknown to their ancestors, but
he must deny that the moderns showed more practical
wisdom in reference either to Church orState. than those
who were the founders, as he might say, of both, and by
whose measures they bad been supported through so
many difficulties and dangers up to the present time.—
The reason for the continuance of these laws which it
was now sought to repeal, was not to be found in any
overt acts of the present generation. He was in habits
of intimacy with many Dissenters—he entertained for
them the greatest respect, nor did he apprehend any
danger from them either to Church or State. • He con-
sidered it, however, wise at the same time, that they
shoold retain in their bands the means of opposing any
future danger, and meeting any exigency that might
arise. As some differences must always continue to
exist between the body of Dissenters and these of the
Established Church, it was rnuch better that the contest
should continue to be carried on in the outworks of the
Constitution, than permit a' ooting is he gained within.
Mr. H. FERGUSON said, when the question was
last discussed, the artillery of Mr, Burke was brought
into the field against the measure, mixing up the dan-
gers of the French revolution with the repeal of those
laws. But if these Acts were not now in existence, could
any Minister propose them ?—He was confident no Mi-
nister could carry them—(Hear, hear).—lt was natural
that, at the time of the Restoration, a fear of those sec;
tanks who had overturned the Church and the Throne
shoed be regarded with suspicion; but did any person
suppose that there was now_ any sectary in this country
plotting to overturn the Constitution and the Throne?—
(Hear.) The Hon. Member asked' if.the Dissenters had
done any thing to merit exclusicie? The Test Acts wet e
framed wHen a Catholieliting feigned, for-the purpose
of securing the independence 'of Parliament, and to
prevent the introduction of. tyrarnift "Artiris time the
Duke of York had declared himsel A Catholic, and at
that time, had ,he (the Hon.- Meiniier)- been alive, he
would have voted for the measure; -but if it was right
then, was it right now? Have the Dissenters failed in
1 their allegiance to the King on any occasion ? Time
was, when the Pretender was running through the
Kingdom, the Dissenters rose as one man, and tended
essentially to restore the then tottering throne.
When foreigners asked what had been done with
the rebels, it was said they had been pardoned,l
and that the Dissenters had been pardoned too.
He admitted that he belonged to the national Church
of Scotland—are you afraid of them ? Have not the
people of that Church contributed more than their share?
If the Government wanted only Church men,tbey should
-say so. He would ask if the glorious victory of Water-
loo would have been gained, if none but sons of Church-
men had been engaged in it ?—(Cheers). The same re-
mark might be applied to the Catholics of Ireland—
(Hear, hear.) Scotland Was a more ancient Kingdom
than England (a laugh)—it was true.—(Great laughter).
In the Union of Scotland, it was made a stipulation,
that their forms should be preserved entire. As a mem-
ber of that religion, he could not hold a civil or military
service, because it was held that you must support the
Church of England. He did not put the claims of his
countrymen higher than those of the Dissenters;
but what he wished to see was an universal toleration.
As it was, however, Scotland was now entirely pro-
scribed.--The Honourable Member agreed in the
propriety of a Church Establishment; so far he differed
from the Honourable Member for Aberdeen, who
thought every man should pay his own clergyman.
He did not know what that Honourable Member
(Mr. Home) would pay (great laughter) ; but for
himself he would not vote for the repeal of these
Acts, if he thought that it would endanger the
Church of England—the ministers of which he
held to be a most worthy and useful class of men.
At the same time that he held up the right of the
Church of England, he would uphold the Church
of Scotland. The property of the Church ought
to be as sacred as that of any landed property,
.sad was as secure; and so it should be. Was
it to be presumed that the Dissenters would run
away with the property of the Church? No such pia
jest was entertained—it was ridiculous. It bad been
said that we were indemnified by an annual Act, but
`the Honourable Member contended that this Act would
'not, if not taken within six months, secure any Dissenter
from the penalty imposed by the Act. He hoped there
never would be a fresh revolution, but that his Majesty's
Ministers would keep us in a/state of peace. In twenty-
eight days thellodesnity Act would expire, but an ac-
cident might arise to prevent its renewal ; it might be'
poi by the Lords into the hands of a Bishop, and thus
In alight be defeated ; so that the Dissenters might la.
,boor under the denunciation of the law. W4s not this
disgraceful to a set of men posseising comnion sense?;
The Honourable Member concluded by saying, he
b
ould like to know how those Members of 'his Ma-
rjesty's Government, who supported the claims of the
Catholics, could refuse those of the Dissenters ? He
was, however, sorry to learn that great efforts had
been made on the opposite (the Ministerial) side of the,