No subject discussed in parlia

ment during the session excited greater interest, than the progress of a bill for repealing the Test and Corporation Acts, which excluded Dissenters from offices of trust and power, and shut the doors of all corporations against them, unless they consented to take the sacrament according to the ritual of the church of England-a necessity from which they were relieved only by the passing of the Annual Indemnity bill. On the 26th of February, lord John Russell moved, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of so much of the Acts of the 13th and 25th of Charles 2nd, as requires persons, before they are admitted into any office or place in Corporations, or having accepted any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the Crown, to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the Rites of the Church of England." To these he subsequently added, the 16th of Geo. 2nd, for indemnifying from penalties individuals who had not qualified according to law for certain offices. His lordship prefaced the motion by a review of the history of the statutes in question, from which he

inferred that they had been originally enacted for reasons which no longer existed; and he maintained its justice and expediency on the ground, that, while these tests were an infliction on the Dissenters, which only the most imperative necessity could justify, they did in truth afford the church of England no protection, but exposed her, on the contrary, to dangers to which she otherwise would not be obnoxious. Without serving any good purpose, they made the Dissenters irritated enemies, smarting under the continual sense of injustice, instead of converting them into peaceable and amicable companions, if not into cordial friends. It was notorious, he said, that the Presbyterians and Independents formed the main force of that party which carried through the struggle against Charles 1st. It was natural, therefore, when his son recovered his regal rights, that one of the first steps, which he took, should be, to endeavour to apply a check to the power of those who had contributed to the dethronement and death of his father. In the preamble of the Corporation Act it is stated, that, "notwithstanding all his majesty's endeavours and unparalleled indulgence in pardoning all

ing the corporations, and imposed a test to exclude members who might be elected by a Dissenting majority; but they did not exclude them from offices under the crown, because they did not suspect the crown of any partiality towards Protestant Dissenters: but when they wished to guard against the Catholics, they put up their bar against the entrance to office, and closed the road to the royal palace, because the king was suspected to be a Papist. Now, with the security of a king attached to the church of England, by law, by affection, and by principle, what need had we of keeping up the barrier that was erected, not to defend the throne from the people, but to defend the people from the throne? At the Revolution, king William came down to parliament and openly expressed his wish, that all Dissenters, who were " willing and able to serve," should be admitted to offices and places of trust; but those who had to conduct the government, considering that the Revolution had changed the dynasty, and that the church was greatly offended by the introduction of the Toleration Act, did not think it safe, if it was meant that the establishment should last, to grant any further liberty to the Dissenters at that time. Affairs continued in the same situation during all the changes of parties, till the time of George the first, when earl Stanhope, a zealous Whig, proposed to introduce a clause for repealing certain parts of the Test and Corporation Acts into a bill brought into the House of Lords. The clause met with serious opposition in the House of Lords, and failed, but, at the same time, it was supported by some of the men most eminent for loyalty

and public spirit, and likewise by some of the most learned among the bishops, by the bishops of Gloucester and Lincoln, but more especially by Hoadley, bishop of Bangor, and Kennet, bishop of Peterborough. Parliament thought and continued to think, that the House of Hanover would not receive the support of the church, if they gave further relief to the Dissenters; and the Dissenters, who, in the reign of Charles 2nd, had subjected themselves to a severe law rather than endanger the public liberty, remained contented to endure their privations for the sake of the inestimable blessings which they found to flow from the expulsion of the Stewart dynasty, and the establishment of the family of Brunswick. The feeling of the government, however, and its wish to favour the Dissenters, though not to remove all their disabilities at once, had introduced an anomalous state of things. In the reigns of George 1st and 2nd four Indemnity acts had been passed, to protect Dissenters against the consequences of having violated the Test and Corporation Acts-a proceeding indefensible in principle; for, if the Dissenters were dangerous, they ought to have been excluded altogether, and if they were not dangerous, they ought to have been fully admitted. The practical absurdities that followed were monstrous. During the Rebellion in 1745, many non-conformists took arms in defence of the crown, fought gallantly by the side of the royal troops, and bore a large share in triumphantly quelling the enterprise. But did the crown shower honours upon these men? Did parliament vote them thanks? Did the people express to them their

gratitude? No: the sovereign gave them no honours, parliament no thanks, the people no gratitude. For their useful and glorious services, they received from the munificence of king, parliament, and people a full and free pardon. Yet this act of 1747 was not singular: since that period it had been the principle of our legislation on this subject. The annual Indemnity Act was a pardon of the same kind, but not so complete and unconditional, by which good men were forgiven for having done good service to their country.

From the history of these acts, therefore, his lordship said, it clearly appeared, that they had been enacted to guard against a particular danger; and the true question was, does that danger still exist? Now, who was so extravagant as to suspect the Dissenters of disloyalty? It was possible to conceive why things might have gone on upon the footing of the Indemnity Act for a few years; government might have said, "wait a little; we are not yet assured of the loyalty of these persons: do not give them freedom all at once, but see first how they will act." But that parliament should go on with acts of indemnity for eightyfive years that they should not, at this time of day be satisfied of the loyalty of the Dissenters, was a thing against all rules of justice, of policy, and of prudence. Another mighty objection arose from the nature of the test, which made it a shameless abuse of the most solemn of all religious rites. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was held by the church to be most sacred; and yet it was prostituted by law to be a mere qualification for civil office. It was stated in historical works that it was

the custom for persons to be waiting in taverns and houses near the church, not going in until service was over. The ceremony used to be called " qualifying for office;" and an appointed person called out, "Those who want to be qualified will please to step up this way." Persons then took the communion for the purpose of receiving office, and with no other intent. Such were the consequences of mixing politics with religion. You embitter and aggravate political dissensions by the venom of theological disputes; you profane religion with the vices of political ambition, making it both hateful to man and offensive to God. Who would say, that legislation of this kind was calculated to induce men to entertain a greater respect for religion, or to induce Dissenters to believe that the church, from which they differed, was pure and blameless.

The only answers, which could be made to these objections, were, that the Dissenters, in consequence of the Indemnity Act, suffered no real hardship, and that the law in its present state was useful or necessary to the security of the church. Neither of these positions was true. The practical grievance suffered by the Dissenters was much heavier than the legal grievances appearing on the face of the statutes. Even the indemnity was given on the ground that the omission to qualify had proceeded from ignorance, absence, or unavoidable accident, and thus refused all relief to those in whom the omission flowed from conscientious scruples. The fact was, that many Dissenters refused to take office on these degrading terms; they refused to attain by a fraud upon the statute

honours and emoluments which the law declared they should not be able to attain in any other way. Besides, it was always in the power of any corporation, actuated by bigotry, by personal animosity, or by party spirit, to carry the Corporation Act into effect against obnoxious Dissenters. The records of the courts of law furnished many instances of persons who had the smaller number of votes, having been declared duly elected to corporation offices in consequence of notice having been given, that the persons voted for by the majority were Dissenters; and in how many more cases must the dread of this have prevented Dissenters from coming forward as candidates? The result was, that not one tenth of the Dissenters, who in proportion to their numbers ought to hold office, did at present hold it.

Equally unfounded was the position, that these laws were useful or necessary to the security of the church, which must always find its true protection, not in exclusion, but in its moderation, its fair temper, and its decent worship, conformable to the sentiments and consciences of the majority of the people. The Dissenters could have no views against church property; for they did not hold that great wealth was a recommendation of a church, and therefore they would not seek to aggrandize themselves. So long as they were excluded by law from their civil rights, on account of the established church, it was impossible that they could regard that church with feelings of good will; but when it laid down the character of a persecutor, it would cease to be an object of jealousy. The question as to the safety of the church was not one of mere

theory; it had been practically decided in the other parts of the kingdom. If the security of the English church was founded solely on the Test and Corporation Acts, what was the security for the church of Scotland? By the articles of Union, the Presbyterian was declared the established church of that country, and yet no Test or Corporation Acts existed there. Nay, in order to diminish still further the security of the northern church, persons of the church of Scotland could not come to this country and take office, without being liable to the penalties of these acts, although they were members of the church established by law in another part of the kingdom. If these laws were necessary for the security of the church of England, they ought likewise to be enacted for the security of the church of Scotland. Then, as to Ireland: if the Corporation and Test Acts were necessary to the security of the church in England, it would be supposed that they must necessarily exist in Ireland. That, however, was not the fact. The Corporation Act never existed in Ireland. The Test Act was introduced there in the reign of Anne; it had been abolished some forty-eight or forty-nine years ago, since which time it had not existed in that country.

In conclusion, said his lordship, I have shewn that history will not justify you in maintaining these acts. The first of them was raised as a barrier to the throne against a party who had recently overturned it; but whatever the Dissenters of that day might feel towards the House of Stuart, the Dissenters of the present time feel nothing but loyalty towards the House of Hanover. The Test Act, again, was