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

of laces which had so long been absent, that tie Is whip"
had been used, he should vote for the motion.
Mr. HUSICTSIO,I and Lord Mitaex mutually explained.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was anxious not to defer to a
later hour the few observations which he had to make
on the motion before the House. In the course of the
Noble Lord's able speech, he appealed personally to
him (Mr. Peel), not as a Member of the Houser-nut as
a Minister of the Crown ; but as a Member of the Uni•
versity of Oxford he was asked to declare the opinions
of that body. In answer he begged to say, that lie re-
ceived no insttuctions from the University—lns judg-
ment was unfettered—he had no petition to present
in favour of or against the motion—he was free to ex •
ercise his opinion as he thought most calculate 1 to meet
the merits of the case.—lle did not construe the silence
of the University into any acquiescence—nettlierdid
lie, on the other hand, into any determined hostility
to the motion. He could appeal to the Honour-
able Member opposite (Mr. W. Smith), to say, if
he (Mr. Peel) had not on all occasions proved himseit
any thing rather than the higotted opponent of the Dis-
senters, whenever the interests of that body were
brought under the consideration of the House, and he
trusted he should be at liberty so discuss this measure
like every other Member in the Huse. The Noble
Lord entered upon the discussion of the question with
a different degtee of responsibility from that which a
Minister of the Crown must be prepared to meet it, for
he (Mr. Purl) was bonnd to take H larger view of the
subject and look farther into it, coonected as he was
with so many other important interests of the State. It
should be recollec ed that the question of the Test
Laws had long been under the consideration of Parlia
anent, and that the Indemnity Act had ben regularly
passed for the last 85 years. The question of the Te t
Laws was tried in the time of George I. and failed—
Mr. Walpoie was favourable to the measure, but he
could nut succeed—Lord Chatham could effect no
alteration—Lord North was decidedly opposed to any
change, and for reasons which m ere then very obvious
—and next came Mr. Pitt. In looking over the speeches
of that period, he was distinctly prepared to show that
Mr. I'itt's opinions were founded, fist, upon the ques-
tion of the abstract right of their repeal. and secondly,
as to the expedience of such repeal. With respect to
Mr. Canning, he stated, in the course of last Session,
that with a view of securing concession to the Catholics;
he would oppose the repeal of the Test I aw.„—(Cries
of No, no, from the Opposition Benches). Well then,
No Canning ceitainly declared that, as a Minister of
the Crown, he must refuse for the present to acquiesce
in the proposed repeal. Mr. Bat ke was also opposed
to the measure in the year 1790, although under di&
feresit circumstances, ten years before, he was friendly
to such a measure. Ile (Mr. Peel) merely mentioned
these matters to show, 'has a man might lis e in frie:.(l-
- might exercise all the rights of good citizenship
with his fellow men of different persuasions, without in-
curring the charge of intolerance for not yielding to a
axe use which he befit veil to be nut only unnecessary,
but contrary to the best and soundest interests of the
State. The question he admitted to have its difficulties,
and hence the greater the caution that should be excl.
cised in dealing with it. The Sacramental Test was
undoubtedly open to many set ious considerations, and
he by no means intended to conceal the difficulties
e Inch at tsnded the general question. Ile thought the
Hon.-Baronet (Sir 11. InAliltook a ve y just and correct
view ot'the origin and nature tit the Sacramental Test.
It was to be taken three times a year when first origi-
nated; and one of the most distinguished ornaments of
the Dissenters (Mr. Bate') did not think that any ob-
j ction could be raised aga no the per ofinaitce of a
duty which the law, for wise and salutary purpt sea, had
disco ed to be obsei ord. In 1718 it wes held that the
rite and certificate were col jointly the proof of qualifi-
cation, though not intend d by the law to be tallied to
such an extent. Bishops Iloadley avid Sherlock had
written much upon the subject : in 1787 and in 1790,
when Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and Mr. I: ix debated is, they
might be said to have really exhausted the subject. He
thotight there might be some ground for admitting that
the Sacramental Test o as not the same now as wnen it
originally passel and he would also admit that there
might be some practical objection in making it the
qualification for office. But then the Indemnity Act
roved it from the profanation to which allusit had been
mode—(Cries of " NO, no"). N y, it was even admitted,
that, in the last ten years, only 23 1 arsons had taken
the Sacrament a • the cnialificatiou to office. How then
could such a Test be considered as an insult, of a
great practical and general grievance ? There was
no hardship is ttbe laws as they sto .d—f ono pe-
nalty followed onsthe want of confromity to them. They
were necessary sa a wield and check—they were of
high and ancient origin—and, generally speaking,
quite as necessary for our security now as they were at
any former period. The subject, however, was a ell wor-
thy of consideration and the full discussion of Parlia-
Ment. lie was not prepared to argue that these laws
wete absolutely essential to the security of the Esta.
blished Chutch—(Hear, from the Opposition Benches).
But still, he could not forget what the consequences of
their repeal might be—nor could he in a moment de•
tide how far such ancient securities could be safely dis-
pensed with. Whit effect their continuance or repeal
might have on the Catholic question, he should alto-
gether exclude from his consideration; but he must
say, he thought the views taken of the matter
by his Right Honourable Ftierd (Mr. liu,kisson)
were perfectly correct. He asked, did that great
practical insult and grievance exist, which called
on the Legislature to repeal the Test Laws ? Or
would their repeal make the cond:tion of the country
cne whit better than it was? If he considered any teal
insult was offered to the Dissenters, or that they suf•
feted any practical grievance, he would be amongst
the first to consider of a proper remedy for their re-
lief; but he did not believe that tither was the case.—
The House had been referred to the number of Peti-
Cols presented on this subject; and if he could bring
himself to believe they were all sent to this Hs use as
speaking the genuine feelings of the Dissenters, rather
than as the effort of some other external influence,
he would attach to them a greater degree of im-
portance than he was inclined to bestow upon them
at {:resent. But he did not believe the Petitions to
result entirely from that body—he believed a very
considerable external agency had been practised to
get up the Petitions; and he was the more inclined
to come to this conclusion, Irons the paucity of Pea-
lions which had been presented ere the same subject
within the ten years preceding the last year. They had
been silent for thirty-eight years, and his impression
from that silence was, that they did not feel their
grievances as acutely then as they seemed to do at epr -
sent. In short, if he were to take their Petitioni now
as evidence of the grievances under which they la-
boured, he must also take their silence before as proofs
that they did not feel them. If a thousand Petitions
were presented last year, and six hundred in the present
year, he would be tempted to ask what number was
presented in the last ten years? In 1824 there were

liiMilimem......__