Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

metropolis of England soon exceeded the two first cities of the North in religious zeal, and outrage. London was in flames, and Parliament invested by the mob, because some penalties against Roman Catholics, condemned by sober men of all parties, had lately been repealed. The insensate cry of No Popery' resounded in the streets, in the midst of plunder, and the torches of incendiaries.1

Petitions praying for the repeal of the recent Act were met by resolutions of the House of Commons, vindicating its provisions from misrepresentation.2 One unworthy concession, however, was made to the popular excitement. Sir George Savile, hitherto the foremost friend of toleration, consented to introduce a bill to restrain Papists from teaching the children of Protestants. It was speedily passed through the House of Commons.3 In the House of Lords, however, the lord chancellor inserted an amendment limiting the bill to boarding-schools; and this limitation being afterwards opposed by the bishops, led to the loss of the bill."

For several years, the grievances of Catholics were permitted to rest in oblivion: but the claims of Protestant dissenters to further toleration elicited ample discussion.

The grievances suffered by dissenters, under the

See supra, Vol. II. p. 273.

2 June 20th, 1780; Parl. Hist., xxi. 713.

3 Parl. Hist., xxi. 726.

Ibid., 754-766. In this year (1780) the Earl of Surrey, eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk, and Sir Thomas Gascoigne, abjured the Roman Catholic faith, and were immediately returned to Parliament. -Lord Mahon's Hist., vii. 111.

Corporation and Test Acts, had not been urged

Corporation and Test Acts, 1787.

Mr. Beau

March 28th,

1787.

upon Parliament since the days of Sir Robert Walpole: but in 1787, the time seemed favourable for obtaining redress. In Mr. Pitt's struggle with the coalition, the dissenters having sided with the minister, and contributed to his electoral triumphs, expected a recognition of their services, at his hands. Having distributed a printed case,3 in which the history and claims of nonconformists were ably stated, they entrusted their cause to Mr. Beaufoy, who moved foy's motion, for a bill to repeal the Corporation and Test Acts. He showed how the patriotism of a nonconformist soldier might be rewarded with penalties and proscription; and how a public-spirited merchant would be excluded from municipal offices, in the city which his enterprise had enriched, unless he became an apostate from his faith. The annual indemnity acts proved the inutility of penal laws, while they failed effectually to protect dissenters. Members were admitted to both Houses of Parliament without any religious test: then why insist upon the orthodoxy of an exciseman? No danger to the state could be apprehended from the admission of dissenters to office. Who, since the Revolution, had been more faithful to the constitution and monarchy than they? Was there danger to the church? The church was in no danger from dis

1 Parl. Hist., ix. 1046.

2 Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 254; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 337, &c.

3 Case of the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to the Test and Corporation Acts.-Parl. Hist., xxvi. 780, n.

senters before the Test Act: the church of Scotland was in no danger where no Test Act had ever existed: the church of Ireland was in no danger now, though dissenters had for the last seven years been admitted to office in that country.' But danger was to be apprehended from oppressive laws which united different bodies of dissenters, otherwise hostile, in a common resentment to the church. Howard, the philanthropist, in serving his country, had braved the penalties of an outlaw, which any informer might enforce. Even members of the church of Scotland were disqualified for office in England. Belonging to the state church, they were treated as dissenters. In conclusion, he condemned the profanation of the holy sacrament itself: that rite should be administered to none unworthy to receive it; yet it had become the common test of fitness for secular employments. Such was the case presented in favour of dissenters. Mr. Beaufoy was not in the first rank of debaters, yet from the force of truth and a good cause, his admirable speech puts to shame the arguments with which the first statesmen of the day then ventured to oppose him.

Lord North regarded the Test Act as the great bulwark of the constitution, to which we owed the inestimable blessings of freedom, which we now happily enjoyed.' He contended that the exclusion of dissenters from office was still as necessary as when it was first imposed by the legislature; and denied that it involved the least contradiction to the principles of toleration. The state had allowed all

Supra, Vol. III. p. 94.

persons to follow their own religion freely: but might decline to employ them unless they belonged to the established church.

Mr. Pitt was no friend to the penal laws: his statesmanship was superior to the narrow jealousies which favoured them. On this occasion he had been disposed to support the claims of the dissenters: but yielding to the opinion of the bishops,2 he was constrained to oppose the motion. His speech betrayed the embarrassment of his situation. His accustomed force and clearness forsook him. He drew distinctions between political and civil liberty; maintained the right of the state to distribute political power to whom it pleased; and dwelt upon the duty of upholding the established church. Mr. Fox supported the cause of the dissenters; and promised them success if they persevered in demanding the redress of their grievances. The motion was lost by a majority of seventy-eight.3

Corporation and Test Acts, May 8th, 1789.

In 1789, Mr. Beaufoy renewed his motion: and to a recapitulation of his previous arguments, added some striking illustrations of the operation of the law. The incapacity of dissenters extended not only to government employments, but to the direction of the Bank of England, the East India Company, and other chartered companies. When the Pretender had marched to the very centre of England, the dissenters had

[ocr errors]

To the mind of Pitt the whole system of penal laws was utterly abhorrent.'-Lord Stanhope's Life, ii. 276.

2 See Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 255; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 337; Life of Bishop Watson, written by himself, i. 261.

3 Ayes, 98; Noes, 176. Parl. Hist., xxvi. 780-832.

taken up arms in defence of the king's government: but instead of earning rewards for their loyalty, they were obliged to shelter themselves from penalties, under the Act of Grace,-intended for the protection of rebels.

Mr. Fox supported the motion with all his ability. Men were to be tried, he said, not by their opinions, but by their actions. Yet the dissenters were discountenanced by the state,-not for their actions, which were good and loyal, but for their religious opinions, of which the state disapproved. No one could impute to them opinions or conduct dangerous to the state; and Parliament had practically admitted the injustice of the disqualifying laws, by passing annual acts of indemnity. To one remarkable observation, later times have given unexpected significance. He said: 'It would perhaps be contended that the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts might enable the dissenters to obtain a majority. This he scarcely thought probable: but it appeared fully sufficient to answer, that if the majority of the people of England should ever be for the abolition of the established church, in such a case the abolition ought immediately to follow.'1

6

Mr. Pitt opposed the motion in a temperate speech. Allowing that there is no natural right to interfere with religious opinions,' he contended that when they are such as may produce a civil inconvenience, the government has a right to guard

[ocr errors]

If the dissenters from the establishment become a majority of the people, the establishment itself ought to be altered or qualified.' -Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, book vi. ch. x.

« AnteriorContinuar »