between these two motions. On the lat- touch shortly on the principal topics ter occasion all the artillery of Mr. Burke's which this discussion necessarily involved. eloquence was brought into the field. The

First, as to the history of these acts. example of the French revolution was held The Test act, it was clear, was levelled at out as a warning against innovation ; and the Roman Catholics alone. He admitted all the topics connected with that event that the Corporation act, the first in point were brought in aid, and enforced with all of time, was not sed with any reference the powers of oratory possessed by that to the Roman Catholics; nor was it inextraordinary man. It was certain that tended to guard so much against the Presthe overwhelming majority on that occa- byterian, as against the republican, secsion was obtained, not on the merits of the taries, who had overturned both church case, but on extrinsic circumstances, and monarchy, and had driven the Preswhich were attempted too successfully to byterians themselves out of the field. It be associated with it. But the hopes of was necessary, indeed, by the act, to take the Dissenters for the time were extin- the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, acguished. A period of alarm ensued; and cording to the usage of the Church of amidst the terror and dismay which spread England; but the Presbyterians did not itself over the land, and which it required at that time refuse to communicate with years to dispel, what chance was there of the Church of England. It was the act of redress for the Protestant Dissenters? It Uniformity which produced the final sepawould have been wholly useless for the Dis- ration between the two religions. The senters to have brought forward their Sacramental Test was not the only evidence claims at such a period. It would have of qualification which the Corporation act been, perhaps, worse than useless. It required. No declaration, indeed, was remight have embarrassed and weakened the quired against transubstantiation, as nogovernment at a time when its whole thing probably at that early period after strength was required to meet the exigen- the Restoration was feared from the Rocies of that troubled period. It might be mon Catholics; but political tests were said, that the Dissenters had prolonged required by the Corporation act. It was their silence far beyond that period; and required, that the person admitted should it was true, that for very many years, they testify by oath, that it was unlawful, under had not approached that House with their any pretence, to take up arms against the complaints; but were their just applica- king, and by declaration that the solemn tion to be refused for no other reason but league and covenant was unlawful and not because they had failed in importunity ? binding. In short, it would be found that The question was not, how long they had the provisions both of the Corporation and been passive under their sufferings. It Test acts, were intended as the probes by mattered not whether it was thirty-seven, means of which the political principles of or fifty, or a hundred years. The question the party were to be got at; partly, no was, whether they had grievances to com- doubt, and in the latter act principally, by plain of, not how long they had consented ascertaining his religious creed, which was to be silent under them. If they had real supposed to be the evidence or test of his cause of complaint, there was but one political principles. The Test act, which course to be taken by a just and wise go- was not passed till eleven years after the vernment, which was, to remove it. Corporation act, was evidently intended

This was the object of the motion of to meet the dangers of a political crisis the noble lord, who bore a name worthy which threatened the subversion of the to be associated with the consideration of constitutional liberties of England. It any question in which the liberties of the was levelled against the Catholics, not as people of England were concerned. He a religious, but a political, sect, at the had listened with unmixed satisfaction to head of which was the duke of York, and the speech of that noble lord, whose ta- even the king himself, who aimed at the lents enabled him to do so much justice to introduction of arbitrary rule, by assuming the cause of which he was the advocate. a power to dispense with the law, and He had left little or nothing to be said by who, although he had recalled his Declathose who were to follow him in the de- tion of Indulgence, was still prepared to bate. He (Mr. F.) would, therefore, carry into execution his plan for establish

ing arbitrary power through the means of * Parl. Hist., vol. xxviii, pp. 1, 387. an army commanded by popish officers,

>

stationed almost at the gates of London. flew to arms in defence of their sovereign Churchmen and Dissenters joined to avert and of their country; and by their courage the impending calamity, and the Test act and conduct in the field, contributed largewas passed, which compelled the duke of ly to the happy, but once doubtful, issue York and the popish officers to resign their of that great contest.—What was the result, employments, the Dissenters themselves as far as respected the fate of the parties submitting, for the public safety, to the who had been engaged in that struggle? disabilities to which they themselves be- -One might imagine such an inquiry to came subject by the operation of the law. have been made in foreign countries, where

Let the House judge how that body had it might have been asked, What became heen requited for this act of self-devotion. of the rebellious subjects of the king, who Although the parliament which passed the had thus failed in their attempt upon his Test act appeared to be sensible of the crown and life? A few were executed for merits of the Protestant Dissenters, and a the sake of example, and the rest were bill for their relief had actually passed both pardoned.—What became of those men, Houses, it was lost, by the prorogation of who so nobly and generously, and at so parliament, as some state, or by the clan- much hazard, had defended with their arms destine removal of it, as others say, from the person and authority of their king ? the table of the House of Lords, by, the They were pardoned too!-And how parorder or with the privity of the king. It doned? Pardoned for an act of loyalty, was admitted by all, that the Test act was but left subject for the future to the same not passed at the time to meet any danger penalties which the law denounced against that was apprehended from the Protestant a similar act of self-devotion. Dissenters; and yet it was argued, that it The hon. member said, he would now was now necessary to preserve its enact- turn more particularly to that portion of ments for the security both of church and Dissenters, who were so only because they state. As to the security of the state, when were members of their own national esta(Mr. Fergusson asked) had it been endan- blished church-the Church of Scotland. gered by the conduct of the Protestant They were equally with the English DisDissenters ? Who would venture to put senters excluded from office and employ, the question upon that issue—upon the ment. They could not by law hold comloyalty or disloyalty of that body? Had missions in the army or navy-not the army any class of his majesty's subjects ever and navy of England alone, but the army given more striking, more efficient, or more and navy of Scotland as much as of Enggenerous, proofs of their attachment to land--the army and navy of Great Britain their sovereign and to the constitution of the army and navy which formed the their country, than the Protestant Dis- defence of their common country, and to senters? No prince of the house of Bruns- the expense of which they contributed in wick could ever, he was assured, be in- common. By law they were excluded, sensible to the claims which the Protestant unless they renounced their faith, and Dissenters had to his protection and favour excluded under the severest penalties, - he would add, to his gratitude. It was That they served their country, at the risk matter of history, almost of recollection, of those penalties, and served it effectually, that when the crown and person of the was well known. Scotland had taken at all then reigning prince of that illustrious times her full share, if not more than her family were both in peril, when the armies share, of the danger and the glory which of the state had been defeated; when the attended the service of the country. In pretender to the throne was advancing the field of Waterloo, where the question with his victorious troops into the very of the independence, not of Britain only, centre of the kingdom, sweeping the west but of Europe and the world, was to be of England, and carrying in his train decided, who could tell what would have numerous and powerful adherents, of the been its fate, even under the immortal

1 first families of the land ; when the fidelity leader of that day, had no arms been upof too many of the members of the Church lifted in its defence, but those of the sons of England was shaken, what was the con- of the Church of England—had the 42nd duct of the Protestant Dissenters? Not regiment, and the Scotch Greys, and the one Dissenter was known to have joined numerous officers and soldiers, natives of the rebel force. Nay, in the face of those Scotland, who fought on that day—had dreadful penalties that awaited them, they the brave Irish too, the proscribed Catho.

lics, been withdrawn from that glorious but the same, each of those acts providing, deadly contest? If they had the assist that they should be inserted in any treaty ance of such men in the hour of peril, of Union to be concluded between the two ought they not to conciliate them in a countries ; and they were accordingly intime of security and peace? Did they serted in the articles of Union, and were believe, that the services of the members thereby declared to be essential and funof the Church of England were sufficient damental conditions of the said Union. for the defence of the country? If so, let | Yet the members of one of their national the Dissenters of all descriptions withdraw and established churches could not serve themselves from a service which was im- their common sovereign and their common puted to them as a crime; and let the country without incurring those dreadful government then see, whether it would be penalties. He did not, however, wish to in their power to wage another war? put the claims of the members of the

By the enactments complained of, the Church of Scotland on higher ground than majority of the population of the three the claims of other Protestant Dissenters kingdoms for such were the Dissenters from the Church of England. He wished of England, of Ireland, and of Scotland to rest the case of both on the same broad were excluded from the service of the ground of religious liberty. He would State, unless they renounced their faith, or ask-he had almost said, he would take became offenders against that law, and -nothing for his countrymen, which was criminals subject to the severest penalties. not communicated to others who were In respect of the exclusion of the members suffering for the same cause. of the Church of Scotland, it was the He could not for a moment think that proscription of a whole nation. It was the continuance of such a law as that the exclusion by law from the service of which was complained of could be necesthe State, of every member of the religion sary for the preservation of the Church of of the State. The Presbyterian religion England. It was not found necessary for was as much the established religion of the preservation of the Church of Scotland, the State, as the religion professed by the nor for the preservation of the Church of members of the Church of England. It Ireland. He (Mr. Fergusson) was was so declared by law, and secured by member of an established church. His solemn national compact, the Union be- opinion was favourable to a national tween the two kingdoms. Upon that oc- church establishment. He thought it was casion Scotland—an ancient kingdom-- best fitted to the state of society in which the more ancient of the two-treated with they lived. A liberal provision should be England upon an equal footing. Pre made for the maintenance of the clergy, viously to the Union, the parliament of who should not be obliged to look to conScotland passed an act "for securing the tribution for their support. They ought

". Protestant Religion and Presbyterian to live independent and respected ; and church government within the kingdom of they ought to have ample means for that Scotland.” By the act, after reciting that, purpose. They would, he feared, be reby a former act, it was provided that the duced to a miserable state if “they were commissioners for the treaty of Union be- compelled to trust to the contributions of tween the kingdoms should not treat of the faithful.” If every man were to pay or concerning any alteration of the Scotch his own clergy, according to the plan of discipline or government of the Church of the hon. member for Aberdeen, he did not Scotland, it was enacted that the Presby- know what was the clergy which that hon. terian church government and discipline, member would pay. He (Mr. Fergusson) should remain and continue unalterable, was for up-holding the Church of England and be the only government of the Church -indeed, he, as one of the members for within the kingdom of Scotland. The Scotland ,was bound to uphold the Church parliamentof England in like manner passed of England by the terms of the Union an act for securing the Church of England between his own country and this, whose as by law established, containing a similar members were in like manner bound to prohibition to the commissioners from uphold the Church of Scotland.—To adtreating of any alteration in the liturgy, mit the members of the Church of Scotrights, ceremonies, discipline or gover- land, and the general body of Dissenters, ment of the Church of England as by law to the same rights as the members of the established, and confirming and securing | Church of England, to free them from the

a

penalties to which they were now subject of his religion—and the not doing of for exercising those rights, could not in any which was the reason why he required an manner affect the stability of the Church indemnity or pardon. Yet the Dissenter, of England. The Church of England was unless he did that very thing, was never safe in her privileges and immunities. pardoned. The indemnity never did or She was safe in the enjoyment of her pro- could take effect, until the Dissenter reperty. She held it under the sanction of ceived the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the law—the same law under which the according to the usage of the Church of property of

every

member of that House England. Let it be observed too, that was holden and no other. Was it to be the indemnity, such as it was, was in its supposed, for one moment, that the Dis- turn an indemnity for the past and not senters entertained the insane project of for the future. It seemed to be confined possessing themselves of the property of to persons who at or before the passing the Church? On what ground could any of the act had or should have omitted to hope rest of disturbing that property? qualify, that is, persons who at the time If such fears were entertained of the Dis- of the passing of the act of Indemnity senters, why were they allowed by law to held offices which required them to quasit in that House ? The very idea of such a lify, and had omitted so to do. He did danger, if any such was ever apprehended, not see how the words or the spirit of the was preposterous; and he could not be act could properly be held to extend to lieve, that any who might affect to enter- persons who should be appointed to offices tain such apprehensions could be sincere. after the passing of the act, and should be Let the House remember, to whom the guilty of the omission. He would not spoils of the church had at all times fallen. pretend to say, whether, if a person were If the Church of England was ever to be appointed to an office immediately after the despoiled, it would not be by a religious passing of the act, and be allowed the six sect, but by the hand of power. He be- months to elapse without qualifying, an lieved, that that property was as safe as informer might not commence proceedany other, and that nothing could shake ings against him, and proceed to judgment its stability, that did not affect the se- before the next act might pass, in which curity of all other property in the state. case there was no indemnity; as it was

The hon. gentleman said, he would now expressly provided, that it should not proceed to another, and distinct part of the extend to persons against whom judgment case. The House had been told, and it had had been obtained. been relied upon as a complete answer to all There was another question of importthe arguments for the repeal of the Cor- ance. What was the sort of omission poration and Test acts, that the Dissenters which the act referred to ? The words suffered no practical grievance, for that were “should have omitted as aforesaid ;" by the acts of Indemnity, which were and, in referring to the preamble, they passed annually, they were saved and pro- would find that the persons who were to tected from all penalties and forfeitures be indemnified “as aforesaid,” were those for having omitted to do, what the acts, who, “through ignorance of the law, under those penalties enjoined that they absence, or some unavoidable accident, should do; namely, to take the oaths and shall have omitted" to qualify. make the declaration required by the. It was the plain meaning

of the act, acts, and also to receive the Sacrament that such persons, and such persons only, of the Lord's Supper, according to the should be indemnified; and it was clear, rites and usage of the Church of England. that if the intention of the act were to be He would take leave, with the permission complied with, and the words just cited of the House, to consider, in the first from the preamble were to be considered place, what was the nature and the extent as embodied into the enacting part, no of this indemnity. Honourable gentlemen Dissenter who held an office without havmight suppose that it was in the nature ing complied with the provisions of the of a free pardon or act of grace for the Test act, would be protected from its offence which had been committed. It penalties, if his default had been wilful, was no such thing. It was an indemnity and not occasioned by any of the causes upon a condition—and that condition was, enumerated in the preamble. The Disto do the very thing which the Dissenter senter, therefore, who year after year, could not do, according to the principles should have continued to hold an office without complying with the terms of the was known that a very few of the members statute of Charles 2nd, was not likely to of that House might delay considerably be able to plead any of the excuses men- the passing of any act. They were then tioned in the act of Indemnity; and if not, within twenty-eight days of the act of Inhe could not be saved by it, if its spirit demnity expiring. The act might expire and intention were to be followed. from any of the causes which he had enu

But, supposing as the law now stood, merated; and every Dissenter who either that the Dissenter was protected by the held or had held an office, might be subterms of the act of Indemnity, what answer jected to all the penalties which the law could be made to a member of either denounced against him. He might be House of Parliament, to one of the bench told, that such fears were chimerical; for of bishops for instance, who, by way of that which had been done for eighty years amendment, when the bill of Indemnity would continue to be done, and that there should be in its progress through the other was not and ought not to be any apprehenHouse, should, with a view to make the sion whatever that the Dissenter would be letter of the law conformable to its spirit, left without protection. If this were the propose that the words “through igno- case, what became of the terror which rance of the law, absence, or some un- was said to hang over the Dissenter lest avoidable accident,” should be embodied the day might come when he was not to be into the enacting part of the bill. The indemnified, which was considered by some proposition would not be an unreasonable as a sort of security for his good behaviour. one, if it were thought right to prevent But if a case could not be supposed, in the abuse of the law, which the wilful which the legislature would refuse to proomission to take the sacrament had always tect the Dissenter by an indemnity, was been considered to be, and had been so there common sense in allowing the penaladmitted by Mr. Fox in former debates ties to remain in the Statute-book for a on the Test acts, agreeing in that respect single moment? Either the Dissenters had with lord North, the most able defender, nothing whatever to fear from these penal as Mr. Fox was the most able opponent, enactments, and then they must cease to of the provisions of that law.

operate on their conduct altogether, or He begged to call the attention of the there was ground to apprehend that they House once more to the point, that the might, some time or other, be brought into Dissenter was never pardoned unless he operation against them, and then the act qualified; so that, if it should ever happen of Indemnity was to the Dissenter not a that the Indemnity act should not be re- protection but a snare. This was a dilemnewed, a Dissenter, who had ceased to ma, out of which he had never been able hold office for twenty years, would still to see how the enemies of the repeal of be subject to the penalties of the law. those penal acts could escape. It seemed Was it quite certain, that the Indemnity also to be forgotten altogether, that one of act would always be renewed ? Might those acts occasioned a real, substantial, not one conceive times of party heat and practical, grievance, to the Dissenter, from violence, in which the sanction of some which the act of Indemnity was not and part or other of the legislature might be could not be any protection to him whatreferred to the passing of this act? for, let ever-he meant the Corporation act. That it be remembered, that the Test and Cor- act required, that the person chosen into poration acts were existing laws, and, al- office should within twelve “ months before though it required the authority of king, that time, have received the Sacrament of lords, and commons, to suspend those the Lord's Supper according to the usage acts, or to mitigate their severity, it re- of the Church of England. It had been quired parliament only to be passive to decided in the court of King's-bench, that leave them to their full operation; or, if where there were two candidates for a coró the measure of relief should be attempted porate office, one qualified by having taken in parliament, it required only the author- the sacrament, the other not, and where the ity of one branch of the legislature to pre- qualified candidate had given notice to the vent that relief. Other causes could be electors that the other was not qualified, imagined that might prevent it. There and that the votes given to him would be might be an interregnum of the govern- thrown away, although the majority was ment, there had been lately, which in favour of the candidate who had not might stop the passing of the act. It qualified, the candidate who had qualified,