1,1 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 ^.<^i 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 Jig ^^ JIJUB 
 
 us 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 140 
 
 iL25 UH 1.4 
 
 
 1.6 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^A 
 
 
 
 Hiotograpliic 
 .Sciences 
 Corporalion 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WIBSTIR.N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) S72-4S03 
 
 
 «* 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 M 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ©1984 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Note* tachniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checlted below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculie 
 
 r~| Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured Ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas it6 filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lul a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vi^e bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 v 
 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculies 
 
 SPuges discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es. tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 r~7] Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^me.ttaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'erraia, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 T 
 t( 
 
 T 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 O 
 b 
 th 
 si 
 01 
 fi 
 si 
 01 
 
 Tl 
 si 
 
 Tl 
 w 
 
 N 
 di 
 ei 
 b( 
 
 rll 
 re 
 m 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est llimi au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of 2he Pubiic 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce A la 
 g6nArosit4 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condiikii and legibility 
 of the original copy and in kei^plng with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or Illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^-(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fiimA, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fiimage. 
 
 les exemplalres orlginaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est im^rim6e sont fiimts en commen^ant 
 par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par ia 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second 
 plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplalres 
 orlginaux sont filmfo en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 ia dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur ia 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion Ie 
 cas: ie symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". Ie 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. Ti;e following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre 
 fiimte d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, II est film6 d partir 
 de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant ie nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iilustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
^m 
 
 
 pm 
 
 iw 
 
 
 t 
 
 \' M, 
 
 '%: 
 
 M 
 
 V": 
 
 
 f 
 
 r 
 
!»'?* ■-'■«■- ■■>.«'f 
 
 0^ 
 
 ./ 
 
 THE 
 
 k:^':'^ 
 
 % 
 
 ^ - vv:^ 
 
 iy^ E S AT E 
 
 '^ 
 
 i 
 
 :4l 0,U S,.E>X)%. , G O ,M M O N S, vl 
 
 M- 
 
 
 O H 
 
 ;•*¥ 
 
 Mr^ is a U F Q Y ' 5 M p T I o iSr 
 
 ifi 
 
 :t*»^iS 
 
 iV '* 
 
 t ' 
 
 ■4- 
 
 
 
 f O R 
 
 T»fiI^iPEAL OP SUCH PARTS 
 
 TIE ST AND COIlPaR^TiqN ACTS^ 
 
 ■>'«' , if . ■ .-..■'■ 
 
 . Al^irFECT THE PROTESTANT DISSENTERS* 
 
 ♦* . - -.,-■. ■ . - ■ 
 
 ,*»- ■ ' j..j.i-' •■., ■ •■^- ■.-•-i;~ ■»■■■' ■■- "i '■■ ■,■/.. 
 
 f>8 F11I0AY THB BIGHTH OF MAY, tySj. . 
 
 
 ■;,l 
 
 
 ^4 
 
 "■4 . . 
 
 ■ "V- '. 
 
 :1 
 
 ■.■■■■'" ;s^-.' 
 
 « ,. -fc ,- - , 
 
 . .V'.''^/ -", ;. L o N p o N: :.' f 
 
 yHJNTBD FOR J. JOHNSON, N». 7», ST, PA»L*» CHURCH TARftl 
 
 * MDCCtXXXIZ. ... ,.'.•. -, 
 
 
 ■;r:' 
 
 r 
 
 ■I*; 
 
 
 l« 
 
 .»%. 
 
 "W 
 
 riw*"*'.- if^»% 
 
m 
 
 m^^mmm 
 
 Vt-'V 
 
 .f#-"r^ 
 
 «-t 
 
 \jg- h'i f'u ; 
 
 »*' 1 *" 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
»"^«'fWpi "!"il " I "W^'"]^ 
 
 
 ( 15J ) 
 
 
 ■":i' 
 
 ■■■' . f.' 
 
 .■ • 1 ■\Mf - 'K 
 
 P R E F A C K 
 
 ^, -.It 
 
 .'rf( 
 
 ■■■■■»• ' 
 
 < 
 
 - ( " <■ 
 
 A SUFFICIENT apology, at alltimes^ for the 
 
 following publication would be furnifhed by 
 
 the acknowledged importance of the fub- 
 
 je^, and by the diftinguiihed talents of the 
 
 principal fpeakers: but, at this particular 
 
 feriody when a general expectation prevails 
 
 that the difcuffion will foon be renewed, 
 
 a fair and candi4 apcoMnt' of the arguments 
 
 that were urged by the advocates for 
 
 Mr. Beaufoy*s motion^ on the one hand, and 
 
 of thofe that were offered by its opponents, 
 
 on the other, acquires a more than ordinary 
 
 valuej for it enables the friends of civil and 
 
 rclig 
 
 lOUS 
 
f 
 
 n 
 
 
 ( ■«» ) 
 
 religious freedom, to judge, with certainty and 
 preciiion, of the grounds on which the- rights 
 of a large proportion of his Majefty's faithful 
 and afFedtionate fubjedls are difputcd and with- 
 held; and to their adverfaries, it equally affords 
 the means of calmly and difpafHonately review- 
 ing the principles of their late oppofitionj— • 
 an oppofition which fuppofes, that national 
 happinefs is at variance with religious toler- 
 ation: that the fecurity of the Church of 
 England is beH: upheld by an infringement 
 of the civil rights of all who diffent frpm her 
 fyflem : and that the interefls of the Chriftian 
 faith, as eflabiifhed by law, require the profli- 
 tution of a religious facrament to ufes that are 
 merely political. 
 
 From the event of the laft difcuffion in 
 the Houfe of Commons, compared with that 
 which followed from the debate on the fame 
 fubjea in the year 1787, it is evident, that 
 the arguments which fupport the claim of 
 the Proteftant Diflcnters to a complete toler- 
 ation 
 
 x. 
 
( V ) 
 
 atipn^ have already produced an important 
 and e^tenfive tffc^; and there is reafon U» 
 believe that the final fupcefs of that claim is 
 neither dubious, nor remote: for where, oA 
 farther deliberation, the legiflature, in aU its 
 branches, (hall have obtained a more com- 
 petent knowledge, as well of the perfons who 
 folicit the relief, as of the nature and limited 
 extent of their prayer, it will appear, with a 
 fulnefs of evidence of which few fubjeds are 
 capable, that to grant to the DiiTenters the en- 
 joyment of their civil rights is not, in abftraft 
 confideration, more reafonable and jufl, than 
 it will, in pradlice, be produ6live of aug- 
 mented fecurity to the Church, and of addi- 
 tional ftrength, profperity, and happlnefs to 
 the State. 
 
 Should the Reader be defirous of knowing 
 from what materials the following publication 
 was prepared, he is informed, that the collec- 
 tive aid of different memories, afliftcd by that 
 account of the debate which was publifhed 
 « . . by 
 

 ( « ) 
 
 by Mr. Woodfall, has been induftrioufly cm- 
 ployed 5 but the beft proof that the Narrative 
 18 faithful to the fpirit, and, in a great degree, 
 to the words, of the different fpeakers, will be 
 found in the internal evidence of the fpeccbes 
 themfelves. 
 
 4 
 
 
 ■'4 
 
 HISTORY 
 
.■'S^ 
 
 H I S T O R 
 
 > "•■» 
 
 / 
 
 OP THE 
 
 D E B A t E, &c. 
 
 
 ■'■V?*; V; 
 
 MR. B JAUFOY opened his fpeech with an ac« 
 count of the reafons which had induced 
 the DifTenters to renew their application to Par-^ 
 liament, and with a few remarks on the tempe- 
 rate condud): which had diftinguifhed their pro-> 
 eeedings. He obferved that, notwithilanding their 
 former difappointment, their confidence in the ge« 
 neral difpofition of the Houfe to do juftice to the 
 injured, and to give relief to the opprefled, had fuf- 
 fered no diminution : that they were fenfible how 
 difficult it was, even for the bed and wifeft men, to 
 relinquish, on the evidence of a (ingle debate, the 
 prejudices which miiinformation had led them to 
 adopt: that they could not but recollect how 
 often the LegiilaUre had granted, as in the cafe 
 
 A of 
 
( I 
 , t 
 
 ! 
 
 ( ^ ) 
 
 of the DilTcnting Minifters, the very requefts 
 which caufelefs apprehenfions had hefore induced 
 them to rcfufe; and that they could not but 
 hope that, as their merit as citizens was acknow- 
 ledged, they might venture, without offence, a 
 fecond time to fohcit, from the natural Guardians 
 of all defcriptions of the people, a candid and im- 
 partial hearing. 
 
 He reminded the Houfe that, in their former 
 application, the DilTenters, far from wifliing by 
 a m .Ititude of petitions to difplay their numbers 
 and political conftqucnce in the State, had placed" 
 their reliance on a plea to which numbers give 
 no additional flrength : for they knew that, to the 
 ear of a Britilli Parliament, the voice of j jiftice 
 afccnds with as much effe6t from the few as 
 from the many, from the feeble as from the 
 flrong : that the fame temper had marKed their 
 fuhfequent condadl; for however fenfibly they 
 felt the hardlhip of continuing fubje(5^, though 
 guiltlefs of ofTcrKie, to fuch difabilities, and to fuch 
 diflionour, as few offences can deferve ; yet they 
 had not indulged the language of complaint, nor 
 had they fought the i^id of political alliances, or 
 endeavoured to avail themfelvps of party divilions: 
 much more elevated had been their line of con^ 
 
 dufl:: 
 
 I 
 
 \\ 
 
quefts 
 duccd 
 Dt but 
 know- 
 nce, a 
 ardians 
 nd im- 
 
 former 
 ling by 
 lumbers 
 [ placed' 
 ers give 
 ,t, to the 
 j;(lice 
 few as 
 m the 
 d their 
 ^ly they 
 [though 
 to fuch 
 ^et they 
 |nt, nor 
 :es, or 
 n lions: 
 )f con- 
 duct 5 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 du(^; for they had patiently waited the arrival 
 of a period in which the wifdom of a complete 
 toleration (hould be generally acknowledged, and 
 in which the experience of other nations (hould 
 have proved that fuch a toleration would ftrength- 
 cn the intereft of the Eftablifhed Church, and fo 
 entirely deftroy the bitternefs of religious variance 
 that the State would afterwards b j as little afFedl- 
 ed by that variance as by a difference of opinion 
 in natural philofophy or any other fpeculative 
 fcience. 
 ■ ■. . ' .' ' ■ " . ' . . '. ■» 
 
 Mr. Beaufoy then proceeded to obferve that, 
 while he defcribed with fatisfadion the temperate 
 condudl of the Diflenters, he was pcrfedly aware 
 that among them, as in all large focieties, intem- 
 perate individuals might be found ; but that to 
 impute to the Diffenters the unauthorized lan- 
 guage and unfandioned afperities of fuch men, 
 would be as abfurd as to expedl that in a large 
 multitude of people no man of a peculiar caft of 
 mind, who meafured his opinions by d ftandard 
 of his own, was ever to be found : that it would 
 be as unjuft as td charge on the Church of Eng- 
 land thofe principles of defpotifm, thofe maxims 
 of civil thraldom, which particular clergymen 
 have fometimes inculcated from the pulpit. 
 
 A 2 Who; 
 
 ..L^j'-..i.i^.i*. .*.•■»%._. 
 
"t^f" 
 
 I 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Who, faid he, does not know that the fettled 
 maxims and fundamental axioms of the Britifh 
 conftltution have been con^emnefl by a higher 
 authority in the Church of England than any 
 which the Diffenters own j yet what man is either 
 fo weak or fo wicked as therefore to declare that 
 the Church of England is hoilile to the laws and 
 conftitution of her country? It is not by the tenets 
 of any individual, however refpedablc, but by 
 the /pint of their general cotidu^, by the fettled 
 tenour of their aSiions, that public focieties ought 
 ever to be tried j and meafured by that (landard* 
 whether as faithful and afFe<a:ionate fupporters of 
 his Maje(ly's illuilrious houfe, as citizens, zealous 
 for the conftitution of their country, or as Pro- 
 tenants, who, in doubtful and difficult emergen- 
 cies, have proved thcmfelves friends to the Efta- 
 bliQied Church, the Dilfenters will be found on 
 a level with the mod diflinguiflied of their fellow- 
 fubjeds. 
 
 Such are the men who are anxious to throvy 
 themfelves once more on the juftice and libera- 
 lity of Parliament; perfuaded that the Houfe will 
 forMve the natural foiicitude of Enq[lifhmen to 
 be freed from undeferved degradation and unmerit- 
 ed dishonour ; from a difronour which leiTens the 
 
 ufe 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 ufe. In proportion as it diminiflies the iu/ire, of 
 virtue; from a degradation that not only deprives 
 them of the common privileges of /uiye^s, but 
 that affo bereaves them of a right which belongs 
 to them as ;wf« — the right of defending their 
 fortunes, their liberties, and their lives. 
 
 Upon entering on the important tafk which 
 his fcllow-fubjcdls had affigned him, Mr. Beau- 
 foy faid, he was happy to rcfleft that fame of 
 the points, on which in the former debate ho 
 thought it his duty to enlarge, would now require 
 but little difcuflion ; and that others might be 
 taken for granted, as known and admitted truths. 
 
 For he fliould think it fuperfluous to prove 
 that the grievance from which the DiiTentcrs 
 folicit relief is a civil and not an ecckfiajlical op- 
 prelTion j that they complain of being injured as 
 citizens, of being wronged as Englijhmeny and 
 that all they afk is a reftoratlon of their civil 
 rights,and permiflion to give proofs to the world, 
 that no men regard danger lefs, or value their 
 country more. He faid, he (hould think it 
 equally fuperfluous to fhevv that the exclufion of 
 the DifTenters from civil and military offices was 
 not the rfafon for which the T-ft A6t was origi- 
 
 A 3 nally 
 
I n 
 
 •I :! 
 
 h\ 
 
 i ; ii 
 
 I N 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 rally paffed i for that all who had confuited tho- 
 journals of Parliament, or even common hiftories, 
 on the fubjedl, muft know that the allemblbg of 
 an army under Catholic officers, for the purpofe 
 of overawing the proceedings of Parliament, and 
 the Rationing of that army within an hour's 
 march of the capital, were the circumftances which 
 gave rife to the flatute. 
 
 He obferved that the facramental clanje in the 
 Corporation Adl was intended, in liite manner, 
 againft the Catholics alone; for, as the other pro- 
 vifions of the ftatute, by difpoiTefling the enemies 
 of the Court, had edabliflied the influence of the 
 Crown in all the corporations of the kingdom, 
 the Parliament was naturally apprehenfive that in 
 the nexi reign, under a Catholic King, all corpo- 
 ration ofHces would be filled with Catholics. 
 That it was obvious that the claufe which enacted 
 the Sacramental Ted could not be intended againll 
 the Diflenters, there being at that time no iuch 
 defcription of people j for as the A6t of Uniformity, 
 which produced the feparaticn, was not paffed 
 till a fubfcquent period, thole who were auerv^ards 
 called Didenters were at that time within the en- 
 clofure of the Church, and confcquently parti- 
 
 cipatc^ 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 cipated in her facrartients: the facramenfal claup 
 muft therefore have been intended as a guard 
 againft the Catholics^ to whom it efFedtually 
 applied, and not as a guard againft thofe who 
 were afterwards called DtlJenterSy on whom at 
 that period it could not operate. 
 
 But though the exclufion of the Catholics from 
 civil and military employments was the object for 
 which the Teft and Corporation Adts were paiT- 
 ed, yet the continuance of thefe adls with that 
 view was altogether ufelefs; for, if the exclufion 
 of the Catholics from the offices of executive 
 government were ftill thought expedient for the 
 State, that exclufion might be efFe6lually obtained 
 by the fame oath cf fupremacy, and by the fame 
 declaration againft a leading article of their faith, 
 which debarred them from a feat in either houfe 
 of Parliament. 
 
 The laft point, which he mentioned, as too well 
 known to ftand in need of difcuffion, was the fuf- 
 ficiency of the oath of abjuration to exclude from 
 civil and military employments all perfons of a 
 different faith from the Chriftian j as every man 
 who takes that oath Avears, that he takes it on the 
 faith of a Chriftian. 
 
 A 4 After 
 
If!' I 
 
 \ 
 
 
 I I 
 
 11 
 
 I , > 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 After thefe preliminary fcmarks, Mr. Bean^-jy 
 proceeded to a fpccific flatement of the DifTen- 
 ters* cafe, which involved in it two different quef-» 
 tions, — I ft. Have the DilTenters a right, in common 
 with their fellow-fubjeds, to the ufual privileges 
 and general benefits of citizen(hip ?— 2dly. If they 
 have this right, what benefit does their exclufion 
 from the enjoyment of it produce to the Church 
 or State ? 
 
 If the firft of thefe queftlons were propofed to 
 the confideratiotiof a foreigner, he would naturally 
 afk" What are thefe Diffenters, that their right 
 «* to the common privileges of citizens ihould be 
 difputed ? Are they JIaves to the reft of the com- 
 munity, or are they offenders who have forfeits 
 <* ed their privileges by their crimes j or are they 
 ** perfons who, from their religious tenets, ar*' 
 ** unable^ or, from diiaffcdion to the State, are 
 <* unwilling^ to give the ufual and neceflfary pledges 
 ** of civil obedience ?"r— Not as Jlaves to the reft 
 of the community do we deny them the ufual pri-t 
 vileges of citizens j for, thanks to the fpirit of our 
 anceftors, there is in Great Britain no fuch de- 
 fcription of men ! —Not as criminals do we excludo 
 thtm from the enjoyment of their rights; for of 
 the millions of fubjedts who inhabjt the kingdom, 
 
 tjierq 
 
 <c 
 
 <c 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 there are none of more untainted integrity, or of 
 more unqueftionable honour,— -Not as perfons 
 who arc unable or unwilling to give a fufficient 
 pledge of their obedience to the State do we rejedt 
 them ; for fuch is the fatisfadion we feel in the 
 pledges they give of their attachment; fuch 
 is our reliance upon the oaths which they are at 
 all times willing to take, that, without heiitation 
 or referve, we admit them to the higheft of all 
 truds, that of LegiQative power; but the real 
 ground on which we refufe them the rights and 
 privileges, which their fellow-citizens enjoy, is, 
 their prefuming to think that in thofe concerns of 
 religion which relate not to aSlions, but opinions^ 
 it is every man's duty, as it is every man's right, 
 to follow the dictates of his own under/landing — - 
 To believe the evidence of another man's judg- 
 ment^ in oppofition to the conclufions of their own, 
 they conceive to be as impoflible, as to credit the 
 teftimony of another man's^^i6/, in oppofition to 
 the evidence of their own eyes. It is this adhe- 
 rence to a neccflary concluiion from felf-evid-nt 
 prcmifes; it is this attachment to an unavoid- 
 able inference from axioms which no man living 
 difputes: it is this uniforL. regard for the rights 
 of private judgment in matters of religion, which, 
 }n the contemplation of the law. outweighs all 
 
 fcnfe 
 

 
 ! i! 
 
 i 
 
 i:// 
 
 i!( \ 
 
 ! ■ 
 
 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 
 ./ / 
 
 fenfe of their virtues as men; all efleem fot 
 their patrlotifm as citizens ; all refped for their 
 loyalty as fubjeds : It is this, which expofcs 
 them to civil difabilitieiy without the commiffion 
 of any civil offence; it is this, which fubjeds 
 them to punijhmenty though unfufpe<fted of 
 guilt: it is this, which places them, as f^r as 
 the law can place them, in the fame Aate of 
 difability and diflionour with thofe who are 
 publickly convicted of wilful, corrupt, and deli-^ 
 berate perjury. Becaufe you refufe to be hypo- 
 fritesy therefore, fays the law, you fliall be 
 treated as if you were perjure^* No office under 
 the Crown, though your Sovereign may invite 
 you to his fervice ; no commiffion in the army, 
 though the enemy may be marching to the 
 capital ; no fhare in the management of any of 
 the commercial companies of the kingdom, 
 though your whole fortune may be vefled iii 
 their (locks, (hall be yours : from the diredion 
 of the Ba?ik of England, from that of the 
 'Ruffian, the Turkey, and South Sea Companies, 
 you arc entirely debarred ; for if you accept of 
 any (liaie in the management of thefe companies, 
 or of any office under the Crown, or of any 
 military employment, you are isjithin the penalties 
 of thcfiatute. — In the firll ^I^lqq you forfeit to the 
 jnformcr the fan of 500/.; if ycu cannot dif- 
 
 charge 
 
 'Stiv','- 
 
/charge that fum without delay, the penalty is 
 imprifonmenlj ifyou cannot difcharge it at all (as 
 may be the cafe with many a brave officer who- 
 has offended againft the law by fighting the 
 batdcs of his country) the penalty is imprifon-w . 
 mcnt for life. — In the next place, yeu are incapftble 
 offuln g for any debt, . Does any man owe yo^ 
 money? Have you entrufted him with your 
 whole fortune ? It is in his power to cancel the 
 debt, by annulling your means of recovering it 5 
 and, for this adt of dirtionefty, for this ad^ of con-r 
 fummate fraud, for this ad of treachery in the 
 extreme, the Parliament affigns him a reward of 
 500/., to be colleded from the wreck of your 
 fortune. — In the third phcc, you are condemned ta^ 
 the puni/hment of outlaws-^-iov wrongs, for in-' 
 fults, for injuries, however atrocious, you fliall 
 have no redrefs. To the complaints of others 
 againft you the ear of the magiftrate is open ; 
 but io your fupplications, to your prayers, to your 
 complajnts, it is, from this time forward, in • 
 exorably fliut. You are configned to wretched- 
 nefs and penury for life. — In the fourth place, you 
 are incapable of receiving any legacy \ the inhe- 
 ritance bequeathed to you by your parents you 
 cannot takej your rights as a fon are cancelled.— 
 In the lafl place, ^ou are incapable of being guardian 
 any child ^ even to )Our own, Tlie former 
 ; penalty 
 
 r 
 
rftv-^ ."H""' ■ 
 
 ii 
 
 h<. 
 
 I' 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ill 
 
 1 ! 
 
 fill 
 
 (f'l 
 
 !i 
 
 ! 1 ,81 I 
 
 •l I 
 
 ■I t 
 
 { « ) 
 
 penalty annihilated your rights as a /oft, fit's 
 
 abrogates your privileges as z parent Such are 
 
 the Arong coercions by which the DiiTenters are 
 excluded^ not only from their moil valuable pri- 
 vileges as citizens, but from rights which they 
 hold by a higher title, and claim by a fuperior 
 authority, than any which civil governments be- 
 Aow. How hard then is the fituation of a 
 DilTenter ! If he fhould lit/o^ey the law wh. .h 
 excludes him from civil and military employ* 
 nients, and (hould accept of any ofHce to which 
 the choice of his Sovereign, or the confidence of 
 his fellow-citizens, may invite him, he is robbed 
 of his fortune, ftripped of his inheritance, de- 
 prived of his perfonal fecurity, and bereaved of 
 the privileges which refult from the natural re- 
 lation of a father to his child. If, on the other 
 hand, he fhould phy the law, and (hould refrain 
 from employments in the army, in the State, or 
 jn the commercial companies of the kingdom. 
 he fuhmits to the fame difability, and acquiefces 
 in the fame degiadation which belongs to thole 
 who are con v idled of wilful, corrupt, and delr 
 berate perjury; he is loaded with the fame 
 punifhir.ents which are inflifted on thofe who 
 have trampled on the firH: principles of religion, 
 broken down the ftrongeft fences of civil go- 
 vernment, and violated the moft folemn obliga- 
 I tions 
 
"T"™*.^ 
 
 I 'W,<"lf '»''■) 
 
 -Such are 
 mters are 
 lable pri- 
 hich they 
 a fuperior 
 nents be- 
 311 of a 
 w wh .h 
 employ- 
 to which 
 idence of 
 is robbed 
 ince, de- 
 rcaved of 
 itural re- 
 the other 
 Id refrain 
 State, or 
 cingdomj 
 cquiefces 
 1 to thofe 
 «nd delr 
 he fame 
 lofe who 
 religion, 
 civil go- 
 t obliga- 
 tions 
 
 
 ■. 
 
 ( '3 ) 
 
 tions of human fociety. Such difabilitles, (b 
 impofedj are naked and undi^embled wrongs; 
 and wrongs inflided for religious opinions merely 
 conftitute perfecution. For what is perfecution, 
 but injuries infliSiedfor a religious beliej? it is its 
 genuine definition, itsjuft and accurate defcrip- 
 tion. What then are the confequences which 
 follow from thefe melancholy fadts ? Ungracious, 
 and, perhaps, unexpected as the conclufion is, we 
 are compelled, by the evidence of truths which 
 we cannot difpute, to acknowledge that the pre- 
 tended toleration of the Diffenters is a real perfe, 
 cution — a perfecution which deprives them of a 
 part of their civil rights, and which, with the 
 Jame jujiice^ and on the fame plea, might equally 
 deprive them of the refi — a perfecution which 
 denies them the management of their property, and 
 which, with the fame juflice^ and on the fame pleoy 
 might equally take from them the property itfelf-^ 
 a perfecution which deprives them of the right of 
 defending their libertiei andli'ves^ and which, with 
 the fame juftice, and on precifely the fame plea, 
 might equally deprive them both of liberty and 
 life. If one degree of perfecution may be jufli- 
 fied, another degree of it. under different circura- 
 ilances, may be juQified alfo. Let but the principle 
 be once admitted^ aod the inquifitions of Portugal 
 
 and 
 
■"tilU IHHUPi.'lllH.. 
 
 i 
 
 : 
 
 '"i. ! 
 
 if". 
 
 IH 
 
 m 
 
 m\ 
 
 I! i! i 
 
 III' 
 
 iti : ; 
 
 ( H ) 
 
 find Spain ccafc to be objcds ehhet of ridicule or 
 abhorrence. 
 
 Mr. Bcaufoy then proceeded to \\\cfecond of 
 the two quellions which he had dated, viz. 
 What advantage to the Church or State refults 
 from refufing to the Diflenters the common 
 privileges of citizens ? Thofc, he obferved, who 
 contend that the Tefl: and Corporation laws arc 
 eflential to the fufcty of the Church of England* 
 mud mean that thefe laws are a protection to 
 the tythes and other revenues which belong to 
 her edablillimcnt, and to the offices and honours 
 which conftitute her hierarchy. The quedion. 
 conf.quently is, would the Diflenters, if the Teft 
 and Corporation ads were repealed, have either 
 the difpoftion^ or ^^ power ^ to deprive the Church 
 of her revenues and dignities ? That they would 
 not have the difpcjition he proved from their con- 
 dadl in the reign of King James the Second; 
 when they chofe to (hare her hazards, rather than 
 defert her intereds -, and from their prefent con- 
 dadl in Ireland, where the Church acknowledges 
 that die owes her fafety lo their attachment. He 
 alfo fupported this part of his argument, by 
 (hewing that the good will of the Diflenters 
 towards the revenues of the Church is enfured 
 (and if the datutes in quedion were repealed 
 
 would 
 
( «5 ^ 
 
 would ftill be enfured) by the particular circuiii- 
 flances of their charadler and fituation. Thcfc 
 circumftances are, that the Diflenters, generally 
 fpeaking, (for undoubtedly there are many excep- 
 tions) belong not to the /^^^(f^intcreftof the king- 
 dom, which bears the principal burthen of the 
 tythes, but to the commercial intereft, on which the 
 weight is comparatively light — that the volun- 
 tary fubfcriptions of the Diflenters for the main- 
 tenance of their clergy arc too fmall in their 
 amount to be felt as a burthen', and in ih^iv deflina- 
 iion and ufe are conftantly regaided as ^privilege — 
 That the feveral denominations of the Difllnters 
 differ as much from each other, as from the 
 eflabliflied Church, and are fo far from being 
 hofiiile toits miniftcrs, that he believed the Clergy 
 themfelves would acknowledge that, of the volun^ 
 tiiry contributions which they received from their 
 parifhioners, thofe of the Diflenters, in proportion 
 to their numbers and their means, are, in general, 
 the highefl: and mod liberal. — From thefe remarks 
 en the difpofiion of the Difl^enters, he pafl!ed on to 
 the confldcration of the additional power that 
 would be given them by the Repeal, of the flatutes 
 in quefliion. He faid, that to fuch claflcs of the 
 DiflTenters as are not able to give a fufficient pledge 
 of their civil obedience \\. would be no acquifition. 
 That the Quakers, who undoubtedly are ene- 
 mies 
 
I 
 
 . ( 16 ) 
 
 mies from principle to the revenues of the Church, 
 would flill be excluded from the offices of execu- 
 tive government, by their refufal to take the Oath 
 of Allegiance; and that the Catholics alfo would 
 (liU be excluded, by their refufal to take the Oath 
 of Supremacy. — That he did not mention the 
 Methodifls i for, unlefs the utthoft ardour of de- 
 votion, joined to the (Irongeft attachment to the 
 dodtrines of the Church, can be called differing 
 from the Church, he knew not on what ground 
 they could be confidered as DiiTenters. That 
 the only pcrfons who would derive an advantage 
 from the propofed Repeal would be the Preiby- 
 terians, the Independents, and the Baptids ; and 
 that this advantage would confift of nothing 
 more than the liberty to ferve their Sovereign, 
 when he (hould call upon them for the aid of 
 their integrity and talents; the liberty to ferve 
 their fellow-fubjedls, when they Hiould eledt them 
 to offices of truft 3 the liberty of taking a part in 
 the management of their own commercial con- 
 cerns; and the liberty of hazarding their lives 
 jn the defence of their native land. — What pof- 
 iible injury, he afked, can refult to the Church 
 from an adt of fuch obvious jiiflice, as the 
 reftoration of rights, in thcmfelves fo clear and 
 undifputed ? 
 
 Th. 
 
The fccurity of the Church, he obfcrvcfi, de- 
 J)cnds on the legiflature alone — but what chango 
 in the legiflature could the repeal of the facra- 
 mental (latutes polTibly produce? already the 
 Peers, though appointablc without limits by the 
 Sovereign, are free from the obligation of the 
 Sacri\mental Tcft — already the members of thd 
 Houfe of Commons are exempted from this re- 
 ftraint — already the ele(Stors arc at liberty, with- 
 out that requilite, to give their votes in the ap« 
 pointmcnt of the Reprefentatives of the people- 
 Thus it is evident, that whether we fix our atten- 
 tion on the perfons who compofe the two houfes 
 of Parliament, or on thofe who nominate to its 
 cleiflive branch, the abolition of the Sacramental 
 Teft could produce no poflible Change in the 
 fituation of the Churchy for it would not affcdl 
 the only power that is able to bring, on her 
 revenues or honours, the flighteft detriment, or 
 to accomplifh, in any part of her eflabliiliment, 
 the moil trivial alteration* 
 
 What objedlion then, on the part of the Churchf 
 can. be ftated to the propofed Repeal? One 
 indeed, and but one^ has formerly been urg'^id^ 
 and that is, ** that if the DifTenters are gratified 
 ** in their prefent requeft, new requifitions, df 
 
 fi « lefs 
 
mi 
 m 
 
 1, 
 
 '1 
 
 ■ ■ f 
 
 i „, I 
 
 J I 
 
 :^ 
 
 ';:if 
 
 
 I'' A'. 
 
 wi. 
 
 lit; 'i 
 
 >/, 
 
 ;■ (. 
 
 ( i8 ) 
 *« Icfs juftlcc, will follow."— Indeed! And 
 fhall the Parliament of Great Britain be fo for- 
 ge^ul of its dignity as to fay, by its condudt, to 
 any pajt of the people, ** that which is unjujily 
 *' withheld from your po^efllon we are afraid to 
 *' reftore; left^ againft all juflice, and in defi- 
 " ance of all reafon, you fliould afterwards pro- 
 ** ceed to requifitions, to which you have not the 
 ** Jhadow of a claim. We dare not comply with 
 ** 2. fair and rational xtc\}it^y left an alfurd and 
 •* extravagant propofal fhould afterwards be 
 '^ made.**— What individual, in private life, of 
 common integrity and of common firmnefs, ever 
 urged, as a reafon for refufing to difcharge a juft 
 debt, that he might afterv/ards be aiked for 
 money which he does not owe? And fhall the 
 legiflators of the greateft empire in the world 
 permit themfelves to entertain that fort of diftruft 
 of their own fortitude, and of their own honour, 
 that would difcredit the meaneft of their fub- 
 jedls? — But what farther requifitions could the 
 Diflenters make? What oppreffion would re- 
 main ? What grievance would be kft ? 
 
 If any hazard can attend the abolition of the 
 Sacramental Laws, it is on the Dijfenters them^ 
 felves^ and not on the EJlabliJhed Church, that the 
 
 dans[er 
 
id! And 
 )c fo for- 
 ndudt, to 
 is unjujily 
 afraid to 
 in defi- 
 ^ards pro- 
 ive not the 
 nply with 
 \bfurd and 
 ■wards be 
 te life, of 
 inefs, ever 
 arge a juft 
 alkcd for 
 d (hall the 
 the world 
 of diftruft 
 'n honour, 
 their fub- 
 could the 
 would re« 
 
 don of the 
 
 "iters thern^ 
 
 h, that the 
 
 danger 
 
 ^ 
 
 { '9 ) 
 
 danger will be brought. To her the repeal is 
 increafe of attachment, acceftion of good-will, 
 and confirmation of fecurity. — To them it is 
 weaknefs of union, abatement of zeal, and dimi- 
 nution of ardour. As men who value their 
 rights, as citizens indignant of oppreflion, their 
 benefit from the Repeal will indeed be great; but 
 as Dijfenters, as perfons who form a feparate 
 clafs, and conflitute a diflindl: intered in the com- 
 munity, the Repeal is an irreparable lofs; for 
 the decline of their power will foon follow the 
 clofe of the perfecution to which it owes com- 
 padlnefs, energy, and ftrength. — How vifionary 
 then, how j irfedly ideal, are all apprehenfions of 
 the efFed: of this meafure on the interefts of the 
 Eftabliflied Ciiurch! 
 
 In every kingdom, and in every repub'lch. of 
 Europe, a national Church is eftabliflied; but no 
 one of thofe ftates, England and Ireland ex- 
 cepted, ever yet had recourfe to the impolitic, as 
 well as unjuft and unnatural, expedient of a Sacra- 
 mental Teft for civil and military' employments. 
 Ireland has (c^ti the folly of fuch#i condudlj 
 and, avowedly with a view oi Jlrengthening hef 
 EjlaMiJJjed Churchy has repealed her ^eft andCorpo* 
 ration Laws^ and reftored to the DifTenters the 
 
 poffeffion of their rights. 
 
 B 2 The 
 
i^^ 
 
 !> 
 
 *lr 
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 i iic world has learned to difcriminatc between 
 civil mzdiici^ ^for the fidelity of which, as belong- 
 ing to the jurifdidion of men, the State has a 
 right to demand a pledge) and religious ppittions^ 
 of which no earthly tribunal can have cogni- 
 zance. They feel the abfiirdity, as well as the 
 prefumption, of making the abftra(5l tenets of 
 religious belief a rcafon for depriving the fubjedt 
 of his civil privileges. They defpife the weak- 
 nefSi as much as they abhor the malignity, of the 
 dodrine which announces the temporal interefts 
 of the Church as a rule of higher obligation 
 than that which Hows from the eternal principles 
 of juflice. They defpife its weaknefs, becaufe 
 they know that a breach of the immutable laws 
 of juftice can never be permanently favourable 
 to any religious eftablilhmcnt ; and they abhor 
 its malignity, becaufe they equally know how 
 often it has ficcled the human heart againfl every 
 human feeling, polluting the earth with blood, 
 and converting the globe to a place of mifery 
 and torment. 
 
 Tt is not for the advantage, nor can it be for 
 the honour, of the Church to contend for the 
 continuance of ilatutes, the principles of which, 
 however checked in their operation by the lenient 
 ^ . ' temper 
 
( ai ) 
 
 'temper of the times, are (o adverfe to humanity, 
 and therefore fo hoftile to religion. 
 
 If then thefe perfecuting ftatutes are defenfible 
 at all, their defence muft be found in the inte- 
 refts of the /iafe alone. — What on this fubjed 
 were the fentiments of our great deliverer King 
 William the Third, what were the fentiments of 
 the firft of his Majefty's illuftrious houfe who 
 wore the crown of Great Britain, we fortunately 
 know; for the journals of Parliament have in- 
 formed us how much they lamented that fo many 
 of their loyal and afFc(5lionate fubjeds fliould be 
 excluded from their fervice. But the language 
 of things is ftill ftronger than that of thofe illuf- 
 trious men J for who, without aftonifliment, can 
 refledl that a large proportion of the commercial 
 part of the community is excluded, by law, 
 from all (hare in the management of its moll 
 important commercial concerns ? Or who, with- 
 out indignation, can hear that a confidcrable part 
 of his Majefty's molL faithful people cannot bear 
 arms, in the defence of his rights and of their 
 own, without being liable to penalties that ftrip 
 them at once of all that is important to the «"//- 
 zetj, or that is valuable to the man ? 
 
 B 3 Does 
 
!'<! 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 iu'.'f 
 
 ( 22 ) 
 Does the voice of the Sovereign, in a ffearfuj 
 and perilous feafon, call the Diflenters to his 
 fervice ? or does the generous impulfe of affec-. 
 tion for their native land, urge them tooppofe 
 tbeir ftrength to that of the invading enemy ? Do 
 they fhew him that his fword muft pafs through 
 tbeir breafts before it can reach that of their 
 country ? Prefumptuous men ! mark what 
 (hall be your fate. From this time forward you 
 fhall be treated as outcafts from the community; 
 the guards, which furround the fecurity of the 
 fubject, fliall be withdra\Yn from yours;, for the 
 3tate accounts you too worth lefs for prote(5lion: 
 even your natural rights of inheritance fliall he 
 forfeited.^ — Do you complain that, guiltlefs of 
 every offence, but that of having bled for your 
 country, you are fubjedled to penalties fo fevere ? 
 It is bqt the lightejl part of your puniftiment— 
 a heavier fcourge remains ; it is on your feelings 
 as parents that the law fliall inflid its deadliejl 
 wonnd. Tainted in the eyes of your of^^pring, 
 ?nd pointed out to them, by the leglllature itfelf, 
 as men unfit to be trufted with the diredion of 
 their morals, or the care of their perfons, your 
 natural affeftion fliall be made the inflrumcnt of 
 your fev.>ieft anguiiji, — ^O, incomparable fydem 
 
 of 
 
( »3 ) 
 
 6£ ingenious cruelty! A numerous part of the 
 bed citizens of Great Britain cannot indulge the 
 ftrong impulfe of attachment to their native land, 
 but at the expenfe of their attachment to their 
 offspring. Natural affeBion is oppofed \o facial 
 duty. The paflion of the father for hi3 child is 
 oppofed to the paffion of the patriot for his 
 country. The barbarian,* of whom we read in 
 the papers on your table, that African tyrant, 
 who has carried the fcience of defpotifm to a 
 perfedtion which Nero never knew; even he 
 afpires at nothing more than to dejiroy the family 
 attachment, and to annihilate the parental feeling. 
 He does not attempt to oppofe the affedion of the 
 father to the duty of the citizen \ but the Britifli 
 law is founded in deeper cruelty. Its objedt is to 
 create a war of attachments, and to eftablifli a 
 confliSl of paffions : it is to make virtue inconjijlent 
 with virtue, duty irreconcileable to duty, aiFecftion 
 incompatible with afFedlion. Can fuch a law be 
 produdive of advantage to the Stated 
 
 When the kingdom, a few years fince, was 
 affailed by the adherents of another claimant to 
 $be Crown ; when the faith of a large proportion 
 
 ♦ The king of Dahomc, 
 
 ?4 
 
 of 
 
f I 
 
 •■fi ■ 
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 of the people was dubious j when the loyalty of 
 many of thofc who were near the perfon of the 
 king was thought to be tainted, and terror had 
 palfied, even more than corruption had feduced; 
 what was the conoudt of the Proteftant Dif- 
 fenters in England ? To fay that of the multi- 
 tudes who compofed their various fociety, there 
 was not ofie man, not ^Ji'^gle individual, who joined 
 the enemies of his Majcfty's houfe, (unexam- 
 pLd as this proof of their loyalty was) is, however, 
 to fpcak but x}[\tfmaueft part of their praifc. For, 
 at the very time when the armies of the State had 
 been repeatedly difcomiitedj at the very time 
 when thofe, who reached at his Majefty's Crown, 
 were in poflefiion of the centre of the kingdom 5 
 at the very time when Britain, unable to rely on 
 her native flrength, and hourly trembling for 
 her fafC" ', had folicited /on'/]^;: aid; at that very 
 time the DillVnters, refrardlefs of the dreadful 
 penalties of the law, and, anxious for their coun- 
 try alonej eagerly tcok arms: and what was their 
 reward? As Toon as the danger was pafTed by, 
 they were compelled to folicit the protedion of 
 that general mercy which was extended to the 
 yery rebeh a^jjainll: whom they fought: they vi^erc 
 oblig'd to flieitcr themfelves under that act of 
 
 c which v.'iis gran led to the very traitors from 
 
 vvhofg 
 
 ^ 
 
( *s ) 
 
 whofe arms they had defended the Crown and 
 life of their Sovereign. It was thus only that 
 they efcaped thofe dreadful penalties of the facra- 
 mental laws which they had incurred by their 
 zeal, and which the irritated friends of the re- 
 bellion were impatient to bring down upon their 
 heads. Is it for the advantage of ihtjiaie that 
 the difference in the fituations of ilie loyal fubjedl 
 and of the rebel fhould be fo extremely fmali I 
 
 To the difgrace of our ftatuies, to the diflio- 
 nour of the Britifh name, to the reproach of 
 humanity, thefe periecutmg ilatutes are flill un- 
 repealed. Perhaps I riiall be cold, that however 
 opprcfllve in /■peculation their ivijuAice may be 
 thought, inftances of their aclive cppre£ion have 
 feldom been experienced; for h^nvever frequent 
 trefpaffes upon their enadments are, informations 
 againft the trefpalTers have leldorij been exhi- 
 bited. Shall fuch a defence be urged in behalf 
 of the ftatutes of a Britifh P.a iii;mcnt ? What is 
 it but to fay, that fo flagrant is the injuftice, fo 
 unqualified is the oppreffion, fo lioUile, to every 
 feeling of humanity, is the iauj^uage of tliofe 
 ilatutes, that the moft depraved in former, the 
 pioft inveterate pradifcr on the furtuncs and 
 lives of his fellov/-fubje(^s, will not take upon 
 
 himfclf 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 himfclf the odium of their execution ? Rather 
 than accept the monftrous bribe by which the 
 legijlature invites him to ruin the fortunes of inno- 
 cent and deferving citizens, rather than accept 
 the enormous wealth by which the legijlature 
 tempts him to bring on the heft men punifhmehts 
 due only to the worfl, rather than cancel that 
 great bond of nature which unites the parent to 
 his offspring, the ruffian, who is in want of 
 bread, refolves, at the hazard of his life, to feek 
 it on the highway; for the deed to which the 
 legiflature would urge him, exceeds the meafure of 
 his depravity. Shall we then confider theie 
 flatutes as harmlefs^ becaufe they are too wicked 
 for execution ? Is this to be our aiTurance that 
 they will not be made as oppreffive in their ufe as 
 they are ferocious in their intent? It is too frail a 
 reliance, it is too infirm a fecurity; If there be 
 perfons, and I know there are many, who have 
 borne commiffions in the army without the fa- 
 cramental qualification : If there be any who 
 have taken a part in the management of the Bank 
 of England, of the Eaft India Company, or of 
 any of the other Chartered Companies of the 
 kingdom, or who in the prefent, or in the 
 late, Adminiftration, have accepted of oflices of 
 truft without this legal requifite of the Lord'* 
 
 (upper, 
 
 , \. 
 
( »7 ) 
 
 firnper, let me entreat them to recolle^l to what 
 terrible penalties they are at this very hour cxpofed, 
 penalties from which, if the informer be diligent, 
 the Indemnity Ad, in many cafes, will be too flow 
 to fave them. Such may be their fituation even 
 though they fhould be willing to corre6l their 
 former omiflion, and receive the facrament. -r- 
 But if as DifTenters, or as members of the Church 
 of Scotland, or as men who, for other reafons, are 
 unwilling to mix the facred ordinances of religioa 
 with their temporal purfuits, they cannot bend 
 their confciences to the compulfive performance 
 of this folemn ad:, then let me entreat them to 
 confider that the Indemnity Bill will in no cafe 
 afford them the leaft protedion : it will be in the 
 power of every man, whom their virtue may have 
 made their enemy, to grapple with their peace : 
 jt will be in the power of every man whom avarice, 
 or animofity, or private revenge, may prompt to 
 deeds of ill; of every man who has an interefl to 
 ferve, or a paOion to gratify, at once to bring 
 down fqch ruin on their heads as will make them 
 pbjeds of compaflion to the pooreft and mcanefl: 
 pf their fellpw-fubjeds. 
 
 Hitherto I have fpoken as an advocate for a 
 numerous defcription of my fcllow-fubjeds whofe 
 
 4 moral 
 
■( 28 ) 
 
 - moral virtues I efteem, whofe patrlotifm I revere, 
 and whofe fituation, as much injured men, has 
 ftrongly attached me to their caule; but to whofe 
 religious perfuafion I myfelf do not belong. Per- 
 mit me now for a few moments, before I con- 
 clude, to fpeak of interefts in which I have a 
 more immediate and perfonal concern, the inte- 
 refts of the Church of England. From all 
 teftimonies, ancient and modern, I have ever un- 
 dcrftood, that ^^worft pradlice of which ^.Legif- 
 lature can be guilty is, that of employing the laws 
 of the country to degrade and make contemptible 
 the religion of the country. For what man is fo 
 little acquainted with the motives of the human 
 heart, or knows fo little of the hiftory of nations, 
 ' as not to be aware, that in proportion as he weak- 
 • ens in the people their refpe6l for religion^ he cor- 
 rupts their manners, and that in proportion as he 
 corrupts their manners he renders all laws ineffec- 
 tual. Now of all the folemn rites and facred 
 ordinances of our faith, there is not one fo 
 guarded round wit!i terrors, and over which the 
 avenging fword of the Almighty appears fo dif- 
 tindly to the vitw, as the ordinance of the holy 
 facrament ; *' for he who prefumes to eat of 
 ** that bread, and to drink of that cup un- 
 *' worthily, eateth and drinketh his own damna- 
 
 " tionj 
 
 
 i 
 
1 1 revere, 
 men, has 
 
 to whofe 
 ng. Per- 
 )re I con- 
 
 I have a 
 
 the inte- 
 From all 
 
 ever un- 
 1 ixLegif- 
 
 the laws 
 temptible 
 man is fo 
 le human 
 )f nations, 
 he weak- 
 », he cor- 
 tion as he 
 'i ineiFec- 
 [id facred 
 •t one fo 
 ^hich the 
 rs fo dif- 
 the holy 
 o eat of 
 cup un- 
 ti damna- 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ( ^9 ) 
 
 ** tion ; he i8 guilty of the body and blood of 
 ** Chrift, and provokes the Almighty to plague 
 ** him with divers difeafes and with fundry kinds 
 " of death." That thefe terrible denunciations 
 may not. be lightly and unthinkingly incurred, 
 the minifter is direded, when he ftands at the 
 holy altar, to prohibit the approach of all 
 perfons of abandoned morals, and of a profligate 
 life. Such are the injunctions of his religion; 
 but the law tells him that to thofe very per/ons, 
 abandoned and profligate as they are, if by any 
 means they have found their way to oflicc, he 
 tnujl adminifter the facrament — h he aware 
 that the revenue officer who demands the con- 
 fecrated bread, and urges with impatience his 
 claim to the holy wine, is a man of a tainted 
 reputation, and of a flagitious life j a fmuggler, 
 perhaps, (for fuch appointments have never beeri 
 unfrequent) who has obtained his etiiployment 
 as a reward for his having accufed his aflbciatcs, 
 and for having added private treachery to a long 
 courfe 0^ public fraud f Is there reafon to believe 
 that the oath of office v/hich he has lately taken 
 is already violated, and that Jiew as he is to his 
 employment, the weight of accumulated perjuries 
 is already oh his head. Still the minifter is 
 •compelled to comply with his demand, iox perjured 
 
 as 
 
 (C 
 
 tionj 
 
S! 
 
 I t 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 'A 
 .'I 
 
 'p. 
 
 ( 30 
 
 fes he is, the Teft Aft has given him a legal right 
 to the Sacrament of the holy cueharift. 
 
 It has been faid that ** if the minifter's con- 
 •• vi6lion of this profligacy of condudl is fup- 
 ** ported by all the circumftances which con-» 
 «* ftitutc legal proof, he may lawfully refufc the 
 •* facrament:" — the truth of this opinion is 
 doubtful*^ i but there cnn be no doubt, that if he 
 fhouldy^/V in that proof, his ruin \sinevitablc — and 
 if he i\\OM\i\ fucceedi it is little lefs ihan certain j 
 for the expenles of the fuit will devour his fcanty 
 means, and probably confign him to a prifon for 
 his life. Deprived by thefe ftrong coercions, as 
 daily experience fliews he is, of all choice as to 
 his condud;, the clergyman knows, however, on 
 what dreadful conditions the unworthy commu- 
 nicant receives the holy eucharift ; he knows that 
 a perfon fo circumftanced eats and drinks his own 
 damnation — Such is the talk which the Tcil Adt 
 has impofed on the very men whofe particular 
 duty it is to guard their fellow-creatures from 
 perdition, to inftrud them in the way of falva- 
 
 ♦ If the opinion be true the confequences dated by Mr* 
 Fox, however inconfiftent with juftice, and the fettled 
 maxims of the conftitution muft inevitably follow^ 
 
 tlon, 
 
( 3' ) 
 
 tion, and to lead them to cvcrlafting liappincfs.— 
 If in the records of human extravagance or of 
 human guilt, there can be found a law more com- 
 pletely deftrudive of all refpedt for the Church, 
 and of all reverence for Religion, I will give up 
 the caufe. 
 
 And to what purpofe is this debafement of 
 Religion ? to what end is this degradation of the 
 Church ? If it be thought requifite to break 
 through the eternal laws of juftice, by depriving 
 the DifTenters of their rights as citizens, why 
 muft the awful inftitution of the facrament be 
 made the inftrument of the wrong? why muft 
 the purity of the temple be polluted ? why muft 
 the fandity of the altar be defiled? why muft 
 t\iQ folemn ordinances of our faith be expofed to 
 fuch grofs^ fuch mnecefaryy proftitution ? 
 
 Thofe who are too little attached to the theory 
 of the Chriftian faith to be {hocked at the int' 
 pietyy muft ftill be aftoniftied at the fo/Iy, of fuch a 
 conduft; for who does not fee that, in propor- 
 tion as we degrade the fandlities of religion, we 
 diminifh our own power, and unnerve the arm 
 pf government ? 
 
 If 
 

 ( 32 ) 
 
 If thofc to whom I have the honour to addrcfs 
 myieli' have faith, as I truft and confidently be- 
 lieve they have, in the religion of their country, 
 (and if they have not, God knows that the word 
 calamity v/hich can befall Great Biitain would be 
 the revealing this fecret to the people) is it pofll- 
 ble that they c?.n permit an ordinance which is fb 
 cntliely cibi} a,fttd from all temporal purfuits to 
 be condemned to the drudgery of the meaneft 
 cf human interefts : to be fubjedted to the pol- 
 luted Aeps of the \o-"t9i avarice, and of the moft 
 defpicabb ambition 3 to be dragged into the fer- 
 vice of every infignilicant ftipend and cf every 
 contemptible office j and, as if with a view to its 
 utter debafement in the minds of the people, to 
 be made a qualification even for infpedting the 
 loathfome receptacles of whatever that is haccful 
 to be named, is caft forth from the city. 
 
 The Savio::r of the vjorld appointed the eu-i 
 charift in commemoration of his death — an event 
 fo tremendous, that narare, affrighted, hid herfelf 
 in darknefs ; but the BritiJJj legijlature has made 
 it a qualification iox gauging bcer-barrcls andfoap 
 boiliTi iubi, and for writing cujlom-houle cockets 
 and debentures, and for k'izingjmiigglcd tea. The 
 mind is opprefTed with ideas fo mifhapen and 
 
 prepoflerous 
 
 
 •i ' ^- ' 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 0repofl:erou8, Sacrilege, hateful as it always is, 
 never before aflumed an appearance fo hldeoui 
 and deformed. 
 
 Attempts have been, fometimcs, made to juf- 
 tify the legal cftablidiment of this impious pro- 
 fanation, by comparing it with thofe provifions of 
 our law which enjoin the fandion of an oath : 
 but the argument equally infults the integrity, ^nd 
 the undcrftanding of every man, to whom it n 
 addrelTed -, for, though it be indeed true that the 
 Legiflature, by compelling every petty officer of 
 the revenue, and every colledor of a turnpike toll, 
 to fwear deeply on his admiffion into office, has 
 made the crime of perjury more commoriy at this 
 time, in Rnglandy than it ever appears to have 
 been in any other age or country: yet how does 
 the frequent commiffior of this crime cgainjl 
 law, juftify the eftablifhmtnt of a religious pro- 
 fanation by law ? But, without any comment on 
 the folly of pleading for a legiQatlve debafement 
 of religion in one way, by (hewing that the legif- 
 lature has contributed to it: debafement in t7«ci'/6^r, 
 let me alk, what refemblance the facramer?? of 
 the Lord's fupper, which is merely a religious 
 inftitution, bears to the ceremony of an oath, 
 which is an inflitution fo entirely political^ that it 
 
 C anfwers 
 

 '',(1 
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 anfwcrs none of the purpofes of religion, pro- 
 motes none of her intdicfts, forms no part of her 
 eftablifhment, and belongs as much to the Jew, 
 the Mahometan, and the idolater, as it does to 
 the Chriftian? — Such are the arguments by 
 which the Teft and Corporation Ads have been 
 defended. 
 
 To the judgment of the Houfe I fhall now 
 kave thefe impious and perfecuting (latutes, per- 
 iedly perfuaded, that your determination will be 
 fuch as the principles of ju/iicey the didatea of 
 religio?j, and their infeparablc confequences, the 
 intereft and honour of the Church, and the per- 
 manent advantage of the State, confpire to re- 
 commend. 
 
 Sir Harry Hoghton rofe to fecond the motion; 
 which he did in a {hort fpeech, wherein he af- 
 fured the Houfe, that the Difienters had not re- 
 newed their application laft year, becaufe they 
 were unwilling to offend the Houfe, by a mode 
 of condu<ft that might look as if they wifhed to 
 carry their po-f^t by the importunity of an annual 
 motion, rather than by that convidion of its juf- 
 lice and reafr ablenefs, which he hoped would 
 be produced by a calm and deliberate con- 
 
 fidcration 
 
1, pro- 
 of her 
 »e Jew, 
 does to 
 nts by 
 'C been 
 
 11 now 
 ;s, per- 
 will be 
 latca of 
 es, the 
 he per- 
 to re- 
 
 liction 5 
 he af- 
 
 hot re- 
 they 
 mode 
 led to 
 
 annual 
 ts juf- 
 would 
 con- 
 
 tration 
 
 { 35 > 
 
 fideration of the fubjedt. He then proceeded 
 to point out the liberality that charadlerifed 
 other countries, in refped to religious opinions; 
 to refer to the conduct of France and Sweden. 
 In the formefj a Roman Catholic country, Pro- 
 teftants were admitted into the fleets and ar- 
 mies j and in Sweden, a Proteftant country. 
 Catholics found equal readinefs of admiflion 
 into the public fervice. — Sir Harry obferved 
 that no fuch (hackles were placed upon the 
 minds of men either in Ireland or Scotland^ 
 but that the moment an Irifli officer landed 
 in England he mi "* refign his commiffion, of 
 become liable lu aii the penalties of the fta- 
 tutes. He mentioned a bill brought in by his 
 friend, the late Sir George Saville, whofe name 
 and memory he (hould ever venerate, and hold 
 in the moft refpedful efteem, and ftated the 
 argument of Sir George upon the occafionj 
 but he fpoke in fo low a tone of voice, that 
 he was not diftindly heard in the gallery. 
 We are therefore forry * ;.i it is not in our 
 power to (late more fully • >^ icntiments on the 
 lubjed. 
 
 As foon as the queftion had been read from 
 
 the Chair, 
 
 C 2 Lord 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 Lord North rofe, and faid, the Queftion had 
 fo long employed the converfation of the peo- 
 ple of this country both within doors and 
 without! had been the fubjedl of fo many parlia- 
 mentary debates; and on which he had trou- 
 bled the Houfe fo often, that it certainly re- 
 quired fomc apology from him for troubling 
 the Houfe once more: but could he hear the 
 fame arguments again, and fit filent, without 
 being fuppofed to acquiefce in thofe opinions ? 
 He felt it neceffary, therefore, to beg the par- 
 don, and the patience of the Houfe whi '^ 
 went through the arguments, that day ofFere. 
 as briefly as poflible. As he had, in the courfe 
 of his life, (rather a long life) looked on thofe 
 laws, fo reprobated, as a material fupport, as 
 the main props, and the fturdy bulwark, of the 
 fabrick of the Church ; and as he had uniformly 
 conlidercd every attempt to fap the foundation 
 of that bulwark, as an attempt deftruftive to 
 theConftitutionofthe Church, which, he muft 
 have leave to fay, was intimately connected 
 with the conflitution of the country; be could 
 not think that he ought patiently to hear thofe 
 laws taxed with perfecution, with violence, and 
 injuftice. When he profefled an attachment 
 to the principles on which thofe laws refted, 
 
 be 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 he did not mean to throw any i'cfledion on the 
 opinions of thofe who confcientioufly ditfcred 
 from his fcntiments. Let him not, therefore, 
 be thought to treat the Diflentersas men, who 
 defcrved diflik- or punishment. He knew 
 their virtue, their morality, their learning. 
 He blamed not Parliament. It was true, thfc 
 Queftion had been in agitation two years ago, 
 H Gentlemen had been again called upon to 
 renew their application, there could be no 
 blame on their now renewing it. But if it 
 were renewed again and again, he fliould al- 
 ways hope to object to it again and again. 
 Having faid this, he declared he fliould go, as 
 much as his memory would lead him, to the 
 fubjed of the Hon. Gentleman's arguments. 
 He had faid, had they deferved this puniih- 
 ment — had they committed crimes? No, 
 they had not. But, if they poflefled merits 
 ten times more than they did polTefs, could 
 they demand a repeal of a political law, tend- 
 ing to preferve the Government of Church 
 and State ? He agreed with the Honourable 
 Gentleman, that it was a civil, and not a reli- 
 gious, queftion. The Adts in queftion were 
 Adts of felf-defence for the Church, and not 
 pieant as a puniftiment to any dcfcription of 
 
 C 3 perfons 
 
it 
 
 I ■.•0 
 
 *;) 
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 pcrfons whatever. The principles on which 
 both flood were thefe — firft, that it was effen- 
 tial to the happinefs of the country, that the 
 Legiflature fhould fupport the Conftitution of 
 the Church of England, and next, that it was 
 neceffary, for the fupport of the Conftitution 
 of the Church of England, that no perfon (hould 
 poflefs power under the Church that ftiould 
 refufe to give a tefl: of his not being ill afFe(^ed 
 to it. As the cftablifliment of the Church of 
 England was neceflary to the happinefs of 
 the people, and the fafety of the Conftitution, 
 the laws in fupport of it could not be deemed 
 Jaws cf perfecution, but an adt of felf-defence, 
 neceflary to the fupport of the Conftitution of 
 the Church of England. The next thing, the 
 Hon. Gentleman faid, was that the Corp- nation 
 ^nd Tcft A(5ls were intended not for excluding 
 the Diflenters, but aj^ainft the Roman Ca'-ho- 
 licjis. Wh^'^ver would read the Corporation Ad: 
 would fee that the adt was otherwife. It was 
 made foon after thofc unhappy times, when the 
 various Proteftant fedlaries had overturned the 
 Conftitution of the Church of England; and 
 the fame fpirit continuing, the Corporation 
 Ad was forced from the Legiflature to 
 pheck the dangerous fpirit of the fcdlaries. to 
 
 exclude 
 
{ 39 ) 
 
 exclude them from Corporations, and to pre- 
 vent them from ever refuming their former 
 powers again. His Lordfliip recollecfled a 
 requifition, at the time, that every Proteftant 
 Diflenter fhould difavow the folemn league 
 and covenant. Could it be fuppofed that the 
 Roman Catholicks would be made to difavow 
 the folemn league and covenant ? The Teft 
 Act was made to g» ird again Popery. But 
 both the Teft and Corporation Adls, though 
 one was made againft Papifts, and the other 
 againft Proteftants, could they be imagined to 
 be ignorant of the extent of either ? Parlia- 
 ment meant that they fhould go to the exclur 
 fion of all Sedaries. When the Hon. Gen- 
 tlcnan came down to the Revolution, every 
 body knew the opinion of King William, 
 There was a letter from the Prince of Orange 
 to Mr. Stuart, in which, the Prince faid, he 
 agreed to almoft every thing propofetj in fa- 
 vour of the DifTenters, but that he objected to 
 the repeal of the Teft and Corporation Ads, 
 becaufe he thought, that people in power 
 (hould be of the fame opinion with the efta- 
 bliihed religion of the country. What was 
 the opinion of King William? Take the 
 language of the King upon the Throne, 
 
 C 4 with 
 

 ( 40 ) 
 
 with the Houfe of Lords and Houfe of 
 Commons in full Parliament aflembled; a 
 Parliament containing, amo g its r4cmbers, 
 fomc of the beft fupportcr^ of th Ccnftitution, 
 and the wifeft men, /na ^ver fat in Parliament, 
 When the; confirmed what the King, when 
 Prince of Orange, had agreed to, what was the 
 toleration? Proteftant Diffenters were ex- 
 empted from Rccufancy, and all A6ls againfi: 
 Recufants were repealed; they retained thq 
 Teft and Corporation Adtsj thus only exclud- 
 ing the Proteflant Diffenters from that which 
 they could nor enjoy, without participating in 
 the power of the Church, What was perfe- 
 cution, was exploded, and what was deemed 
 neceffary, was maintained. Thus the line was 
 drawn between perfecution and neceffary de- 
 fence. The Hon. Gentleman, his Lordfliip 
 believed, had affumed, that an exclufion from 
 offices was a deprivation of natural rights, and 
 a degradation of honour. He faid it was not. 
 It was in the power of every Government tq 
 prefcribe the perfons to fill offices of power, 
 and to make what reftridions it thought pro- 
 per. When it took away any man's natural 
 rights, it exceeded it*s proper powers. It was 
 iureiy not depriving them of thofe rights if 
 
 they 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 they are excluded from places of power and 
 truft by the Legiflature, with a control over 
 the whole. It was confounding the confti- 
 tution of the country to contend othcrwife ; 
 and ^^hoeve^ fuppofcd that they exceeded their 
 right, muft fuppofe, that there was fome part 
 of the executive power not under the control 
 of the Legiflature. When the Legiflature 
 invefted the King with the fupreme power, 
 it limitted fuch power to be cxercil'ed on fuch 
 and fuch conditions, and applied what checks 
 and controls they thought proper. In arbi- 
 trary governments the cale was otherwife. 
 Where all the power was lodged in the hands 
 of one man, he might employ A. or E, or C. 
 or whom he pleafed. It was one of the tri- 
 vial advantages belonging to an ?.bfolute Go- 
 vernment; but it was trivial indeed, compared 
 to the eflential and important benefits afforded 
 Britifli fubjeds, under our form of Govern- 
 ment. In this free Conftitution, where the 
 Legiflature is the governing power, the cafe 
 was otherwife ; but they ought not to look to 
 the experience of other countries, and other 
 times, when they had the experience of their 
 own country and their own times. Let him, 
 his Lordfliip faid, be (hewn any thing in the 
 
 laws. 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 laws, which prevented any men from per- 
 forming their religious duties in their own 
 way, or that interfered with them in private 
 life, if the Diil'enters were not fatisfied with 
 the complete Toleration they already enjoyed, 
 but would claim another ftep, and afk for the 
 participation of power, then it would become 
 the Lcgiflature to paufe, and examine whether 
 it was fit to alter the fyftem that had proved 
 of fo much advantage to the Conftitution, both 
 of Church and State. The Hon. Gentleman 
 fuppofed, that the prefent A(fl of Parliament 
 fubjefted Minifters to clamour, and a profecu- 
 tion for refufing to adminiftcr the Sacrament 
 to a perfon, known by them to be a notorious 
 ill-liver, becaufe fuch perfon had been ap- 
 pointed to a place under Government. He 
 gave the fuppofition a direcSl denial. The 
 Kubrick, or Canons of the Church, forbad 
 Minifters to give the Sacrament to perfons of 
 that defcription, and they were to do their 
 duty. They acf^ed under the law, and the 
 law would prote(fl them. No perfon could 
 have a place unlefs he gives a Teft, that he is 
 a perffjn v/e!l afteded to the Church. The 
 Hon. Gentlemnn had faid, it was merely a 
 qnaliiic-itioft. He denied that; it was a Teft, 
 
 fuch 
 
 0, 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 fuch as he had defcribed. The Hon. Gentle- 
 man had objedled to the Tefl, confidering it 
 improper for a Teft of a religious nature, to be 
 ufed for civil offices. To that, he anfwered, 
 he was not fond of that Teft, if a better 
 could be found J but they ought to look for a 
 better, before they gave up that. Some Tefl: 
 'vas abfolutely neccflary. The Hon. Gentle- 
 man had done then, as he had done beforet 
 compared that, Teft with the other, the Oath. 
 Was he defirous to fay, what Teft? He would 
 anfwer, a religious one, an Oath? But the 
 Honourable Gentleman had faid, the Jews, 
 and Turks, and Pagans, took oaths ; They 
 might do fo. He did not know a more fo- 
 lemn adt, than an appeal to the Almighty, the 
 Governor of the world, who fearches all hearts. 
 The Hon. Gentleman faid, Oaths had been 
 abufed, and too much multiplied. The ex- 
 ample of all countries proved Oaths necefTary 
 for the good order of the State. An oath was 
 a religious appeal to the Almighty, necefTary 
 for promoting civil purpofes. The intention, 
 therefore, of a facramental Teft, was intro- 
 ducing a religious Teft for a civil purpofe. 
 The Hon. Gentleman faid it was not carried 
 into execution. lie apprehended it was; but 
 
 there 
 
( 44 ) 
 there were inftances in which perfons had 
 introduced themfelves into Corporations with- 
 out taking the Teft^ becaufe they relied on the 
 annual Indemnity Adl, which faved them. 
 This fort of mental fraud did not recommend 
 fuch perfons to the indulgence of the Legilla- 
 ture. It was an evafion, and an abufe of an 
 Adt of Parliameiit, which folemnly and fub- 
 ilantially required, that the Teft fhould be 
 given fairly and truly. The Hon. Gentleman, 
 his Lord(hip faid, addreffed himfelf, when 
 fpeaking on the penalties, more to the feelings 
 of the heart, than to the reafon on the under- 
 ftanding. The Hon. Gentleman faid, the 
 penalties could be confidered no otherwife 
 than as a perfecution: his LordQiip would 
 agree with the Hon. Gentleman, and reprO" 
 bate them, as abominably perfecuting, if they 
 were penalties for any perfons adting as a guar- 
 dian, or an executor, or the like, but they 
 were for no fuch purpofes : they went only to 
 exclude from offices under Government, and 
 if any man would take upon himfelf an office;^ 
 without properly qualifying, the penalty falling 
 upon him, could not be confidered as a perfe^ 
 cution, but as a juft punifhment for him, who 
 would prefume voluntarily to adt in defiance 
 
 of 
 
 m% 
 
3ns had 
 IS with- 
 1 on the 
 them, 
 mmend 
 Legifla- 
 b of an 
 id fub- 
 >uld be 
 tleman, 
 when 
 feelings 
 under- 
 d, the 
 lerwifc 
 would 
 epro- 
 they 
 guar- 
 they 
 ily to 
 and 
 )ffice;i 
 lling 
 erfe^ 
 who 
 "lance 
 of 
 
 
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 of the known laws of the land. The law 
 cnadting the penalties had not, however, been 
 put into execution — no man ever had been ex- 
 aniined and convi*5led thereof; but if it had 
 been enfcrccd, it could not have been juftly 
 called pedecution, unlcls it was perfecution 
 for the Legiflafjirt to mi'ntain its laws. If 
 the prefent Mjtion ilr uld be agreed to, it 
 would be going into a new fyftem. He vene- 
 rated the prefent fyftcm, as it bad ftood for 
 a ccntjry. If the Queftion ever be carried, 
 the ancient maxim, that the Conjiitution of 
 Engiand was to be fupported by the Co?tflitu^ 
 tion of the Church, would be queftioncd, and 
 fuppofed to be abandoned by that houfe. 
 He revered thofe laws, "^nd admired them, as 
 the bed fupport of conllitution. The 
 
 Teft A(5l was a wife caution to guard againfl: 
 Popery i great advantages bed refulted from 
 it J it had already faved the country from Po- 
 pery ; it had proved a ftumbling block to king 
 James, when almoft every member haJ been 
 clofetted, and it ought to be revered by every 
 Englifhman, as having preferved them from 
 Popery and arbitrary power. Both acf^s were 
 intended to fupport the Church ; any attempt 
 to fap the foundation of which, might prove 
 
 dangerous 
 
II 
 
 1 
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 dangerou?, not only to the Church, but to cut 
 freedom, and our country. His Lordiliip faid^ 
 he could not look back into hiftory, without 
 feeing fomething congenicil in the conftitution 
 of the Cliurch, and the free government of the 
 country. In the times of King James, and 
 previous to his reign, all attacks were firft 
 made on the Church, and almoft immediately 
 afterwards on the conftitution of the country 5 
 when the Church has been attacked, they had 
 been attacked ; when they have been fup- 
 prefTed, the Church had been fuppreffedj 
 when the Church flourifhcd, the;- flourifhedj 
 and it was evident, by hiftory, that the caufe of 
 the Church, was the caufe of t'^v. Stafe. The 
 Church of the prefent day had emerged from 
 Ler errors, and was purged and purified : her 
 conduct was now marked with moft tolerant 
 opinions to thofe who differed with her, and 
 /he breathed the pure fpirit of civil liberty, for 
 the prefervation of which, (he was as anxiou?, 
 as any other part of our conftitution ; ^he 
 Church, dear as flie had been to them, by their 
 common fufferings, and common dangers, 
 oughi to be ftill dear to them, when purged of 
 her errors, and when, to her loyalty, (he has 
 added a zeal for public freedom, and was at- 
 tached, 
 
It to cat 
 
 without 
 
 kllitution 
 
 :nt of the 
 
 nes, and 
 
 ere firft 
 
 lediately 
 
 country ; 
 
 they had 
 
 een fup- 
 
 ppreffed j 
 
 ►urilhedj 
 
 I caufe of 
 
 'e. The 
 
 ed from 
 
 ed : her 
 
 tolerant 
 
 ier, and 
 
 erty, for 
 
 anxioup, 
 
 ion ; the 
 
 by their 
 
 dangers, 
 
 urged of 
 
 P:ie has 
 
 was at- 
 
 tached^ 
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 tached, not only to her Sovereign, but to the 
 people. The DifTcnters having (^btajiied com- 
 plete toleration, afked for a participation in 
 offices. He again intreated the Hv)ure to paufc. 
 The DiiTentcrs' Prayer was not againft any ec- 
 clefiadical perfecutions or feveritiec, but had 
 been brought forward in confequence of the 
 moderation of the Church j let her not then, 
 faid his Lordfhip, after having furvived the at- 
 tempts of Popery, fufFer for hei- virtues and 
 moderation. Let Gentlemen remetiiber, that 
 the fecurity of the Church has been built upon 
 thofe Ads : let them remember, that the Dif- 
 fenters have a free toleration : let them paufc 
 then, and pafs not, atoneftep, from Toleration to 
 Participation. The Hon. Gentleman had faid, 
 there were Baptifts, and there were Anabaptifls, 
 who wiflied well to the interefts of the Church. 
 No matter who they were, if they changed the 
 fyftcm, in complaifance to any feds, they 
 changed the conftitncion of the Church for 
 ever. He was a little at a lofs to make out the 
 latter part of the Hon. Gentleman's ?rgu- 
 taent, towards the end of his fpeech. He had 
 faid, it was not only all the DilTenter.'! that 
 would be affeded by repealing the fyftem, it 
 would attach only upon the Prefbyterians, the 
 
 Independents, 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 Independents, and the Baptifts ; the QuakisrS 
 and Papifts would derive no benefit. Was 
 that an argument in favour of the liberality of 
 the Hon. Gentleman's plan ? would he relieve 
 feme Diflenters, and not all? The Hon. Gen- 
 tleman had faid, when he afked one thing, 
 was it reafonable to conclude that he would 
 neceffarily afk another ? Mod certainly, his 
 Lordfhip faid, that was a fair way of arguing, 
 but at the fame time, it muft be allowed, that 
 there were principles which ought to be facred, 
 and that the true argument here was, would 
 they attempt to alter the fyftem, when, if they 
 broke it, they knew riot how far they might 
 unfettle it I That was the beft place to make 
 their ftand in. If they removed one ftone of 
 the bulwark, and made the firft breach, no onb 
 could fay how foon the whole would tumble 
 to pieces, and the privileges and conftitution 
 of the Church be loft for ever. He faid, he 
 had to beg the pardon of the Houfe for having 
 troubled them fo long ; he had given them his 
 fentiments, which he might not have an op- 
 portunity of delivering, and which he fpoke 
 from his heart, without the leaft particle of a 
 perfecuting fpirit. He hoped he had given 
 offence to no one : he honoured a. refpeded 
 
 the 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 the DifTcnters; and was influenced only in 
 his oppofition, from a convidion, that if the 
 Houfe weakened the Church, they weakened 
 themfelves, and that if they abandoned the 
 wife precautions of their anceftors, they en- 
 dangered the conftitution of their country. ,^ 
 
 Sir 'James yohnjlone faid, he (hould vote for 
 the queftion, although he had before oppofed 
 it : thai he had, at that time, thought that all 
 the old women and children would cry out, 
 " The Church was in danger ;" but he found 
 there had been no fuch cry, and he was fully 
 perfuaded that there had not been any grounds 
 for fuch a cry at all. Sir James faid, he could 
 not conceive the higheft power and authority 
 that freemen could beftow on freemen would 
 be withheld from Diffenters, or that it fhould 
 be more abufed by them, than by perfons of 
 the Eftablirhed Church. The Noble Lord had 
 faid, that the conftitution of this country de- 
 pended on the prefervation of their civil and 
 religious liberties, and that if they began to 
 change the principles on which they were 
 eftablifhed, they would be in danger. If that 
 were to be admitted as a reafon for not repeal- 
 ing the Teft A<a, Sir James faid, it would ap- 
 
 D ply 
 
( so ) 
 
 ply unlverfally, and operate againft the repeal 
 of every ftatute, however abfurd, and fit to be 
 expunged from the Statute Book. Let the 
 Houfe remember that no longer ago than the 
 year 1727, an idea was entertained by the 
 Legiflature, that old women had more power 
 than young ones, and the flatutes againfl 
 witches remained in force. For his part he 
 wi(hed for univerfal toleration, and that in 
 every town throughout the kingdom there 
 fhould be different fedtaries. There were, he 
 underftood, two minifters of the Church of 
 England in that Houfe, why fhould there not 
 be two DLTenting miniflers likewife, two of 
 every other defcription. [We heard Sir James 
 'uery imperfe6ily.'\ 
 
 Mr. William Smithy (Member for Sudbury) 
 arofe, and began by faying, that, before he en- 
 tered on the general queftion, he could not but 
 obferve on the declaration of the Noble Lord, 
 that if a notorious ill-liver were to offer himfelf 
 to receive the facrament, as a qualification, a 
 minifter would be warranted by law in rcfuf- 
 ing to adminifter it to him — and therefore was 
 relieved from the difficulty under which the 
 Hon. Gentleman, who made the motion, had 
 
 dated 
 
ism 
 
 A 
 
 ( 51 ) 
 
 ftatcd him to labour. This part of thefubjed 
 had been Co amply difcuOed on a former occa- 
 iion» that he would not again dilate on it, but 
 only mention that his own opinion, which was 
 totally contrary to that of the Noble Lord, 
 had been fanAioned by the concurring judg- 
 ment of feme very able lawyers 5 and that he 
 did not believe a iingle Gentleman of the 
 learned profeffion would be found in the 
 Houfe, who would maintain the Law to be 
 as the Noble Lord had ftated itj if there 
 werej he fhould be very glad to hear him 
 avow and defend the dodrine. 
 
 The Noble Lord, he faid, had denied that 
 thefe Adts were of a perfecuting nature, and 
 had argued for their continuance, on the ground 
 ofaneceflary connexion between the ecclefiaf- 
 tical and civil conilitution $ attempting to deduce 
 from thence the propriety of excluding from 
 civil offices all who were not well afFeded to 
 the Church ; and afTuming, that fuch as refufed 
 to comply with the Teft prefcribed, muft of 
 courfe be averfe to its difcipline and doftrines. 
 Allowing all this for the fake of argument, the 
 laws in qucftion would even then be improper, 
 becaufe infufficient to the end propofed, viz. 
 
 D2 the 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 theexclufiottof all thofe whodidnotunfelgnedly 
 approve the Eilablilhmcnt in all Its partsj — for, 
 tieither did the nature of the Tcft imply fuch 
 approbation, nor did the law require any fuch 
 avowal : and it was evident, that perfons 
 might have no unwillingncfs to receive the 
 Sacrament according to the forms of the 
 Church, and yet not only difapprove of its 
 difcipline and dodrines in many points, but 
 feven be moft zealoufly bent on procuring alter- 
 ations in both : — nay morej the public declar- 
 ation of fuch opinions or idtentions would 
 neither authorife a clergyman to refufe them 
 the Sacrament, nor in any other way difqualify 
 them for the poiTeflion of the higheft offices or 
 dignities of the ftate. 
 
 As, however, he objected to the principle of 
 the Teft Lavvs, Mr. S. faid* that he fliould 
 certainly haVe been little difpofed to find fault 
 with their ineiffkacy^ had that defcdl been of 
 ^f«f/*<z/ operation — it was of its partiality that 
 he complained -, that while the Teit was in- 
 fufficient to the cjcclufion of many againft 
 whom it was fuppofed to be levelled, it did 
 adl againft others^ whofe ftridt regard to the 
 didtatcs of confcience certainly afforded every 
 
 fccurity 
 
f 
 
 nedly 
 
 —for, 
 
 fuch 
 
 T fuch 
 
 erfons 
 
 the 
 
 the 
 
 of its 
 
 :s, but 
 
 I alter- 
 
 ieclar- 
 
 would 
 
 them 
 
 'qualify 
 
 Hces or 
 
 wiple of 
 
 fhould 
 
 id fault 
 
 )cen of 
 
 ity that 
 
 was in- 
 
 againfl 
 
 it did 
 
 to the 
 
 d every 
 
 fccurity 
 
 ( 53 ) 
 
 lecurity for the pun<ftual difchafge of their 
 duty in any character or fituatlon of life. 
 
 The Diffenters, he faid, as well as many 
 other refpediable perfons, had two diftinft ob- 
 jedliohs to thefe Ads : — the one of a civil, and 
 a general nature, the other a particular diflike, 
 in a religious view, to the fpecific Teft impofed. 
 On the firft head, they held it to be highly 
 improper in itfelf, and injurious to fociety, 
 that religious opinions {hould be made the 
 Teft of fitnefs for the difcharge of civil offices, 
 or of admiffion into them. — They held, that 
 every fubjeft of the ftate, willing to give the 
 requifite proof of his fidelity to the civi/ Con- 
 ilitution and Government, and uneonvided of 
 any crime, was entitled to the participation of 
 every civil right, among which was to be rec- 
 koned, the Capacity of holding offices, though 
 not the aSiual poffeffion of them ; and there- 
 fore that to incapacitate a whole body of fuch 
 fubjefts was to inflidl on them an injury, of 
 which they had a right to complain, and to 
 fcekredrefs, as a matter, not of Favour, but of 
 
 Jujiice^ To the facramental Teft they oh- 
 
 jeded, becaufe fuch an application of an adl 
 of religious worfhip, and efpccially of one of 
 
 D 3 the 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 the diftinguifhing rites of Chriftianity, inftituted 
 with peculiar folemnity, by its great Authofi 
 appeared to them a proftitution and abuffc of 
 the ordinance — a profanation of an holy thing; 
 and on this ground the Diflcnters would 
 equally objedt to receiving it as a Hefi in their 
 own places of worfliip, though numbers of 
 them would not fcrnple to partake of it with 
 their brethren of the eftablifliment, and accord- 
 ing to their form, when confidered only in its 
 true light, as a religious duty, and an expref- 
 fion of Chriftian charity. The Noble Lord, 
 therefore, had fhewn himfelf unacquainted 
 with the principles of the DifTenters, and was 
 totally midaken in fuppoHng, that nothing but 
 a rooted averfion to the Church could render 
 it impoffible confcientioufly to comply with 
 thefe laws. — The difference between the Sa- 
 crament, ufed as aTeft for office, and an oath, 
 as a Teft of truth, was too obvious, he thought, 
 to efcape the iiioft carelefs obferver; An oath 
 was neither primaniyf nor at all, an adt of worr 
 Jhfpi nor, though it necefTarily fuppofed a 
 belief in a fupreme moral Governor, was it 
 even u/ed as a Teft of particular religious opi- 
 nions : the fole objcdl to which it was direded, 
 was the attainment of truth, (with refpeca 
 
 ; either 
 
( 5S ) 
 
 cither to the paft, or the future) where other 
 means were infufficient — an appeal to a Be- 
 ing who, by the fuppofition, mufl be ac- 
 quainted with all the circumftances, and mud 
 alfo be both able and inclined to puni(h falfe- 
 hood in fuch cafes, as an infult added to a 
 crime, was perfedlly well calculated to attain 
 the propofed end, and inapplicable to any other 
 purpofe. How far its natural efficacy had been 
 defeated by a too frequent and indifcriminate 
 ufe, was a totally different quefliouy into 
 which he would not enter. 
 
 / 
 
 On the nature of thefe laws Mr. S. faid 
 he alfo entirely differed from the Noble 
 Lord—" A reftraint greater than was neceffary 
 " to repel an evil," had been properly faid to be 
 punifhment: puni(hmentf without the pre- 
 vious proof of guilt, could not be denied to be 
 an injury ; and injuries inflicted on account 
 of Religion were undoubtedly perfecution. 
 But not to reft on fuch arguments, Mr. S. 
 faid he thought a clear and decifive proof of 
 the perfecuting fpirit of thefe Afts might be 
 drawn from the principle on which they were 
 defended, and the extent to which that principle 
 would lead. It was (hortly this ; that the 
 
 P4 maintenancQ 
 
( J6 ) 
 
 maintenance and lupport of the Ecclefiaftical 
 Eftablifliment now exifting, was neccflary to 
 the well-being of the ilatej and therefore, 
 in order that the Church might be fafe, that 
 all offices of power, truft, or emolument, 
 ihould be withheld from thofe who might ufe, 
 to its difadvantage, the influence thereby ac-* 
 quired. If then this point were allowed, that 
 the governing Church had a right to fecure 
 itfelf, or the Legiflature to fecure jt, by im- 
 pofing every fuch civil rejlraint as might be 
 thought neeeflary to that end, on all who dif- 
 fered in matte, j of religion y it would be incum- 
 bent on the Noble Lord to (hew on what 
 principle a line was to be drawn where fuch re- 
 ftraints ftiould ftop, or the moft horrid excefles 
 of perfecution might be completely juftified. 
 One Church or Government might deem ex- 
 clufion from office a reftraint fufficient for its 
 fccurity : another might imagine, perhaps 
 truly, that Legiflative Authority was far more 
 formidable, and might therefore think it ne- 
 eeflary to deny to Difl!enters, not merely the 
 capacity of being chofen, but the right of 
 eledion too, in all cafes. Others yet more 
 timid might extend their apprehenflons to the 
 fpecies of influence ariflng from the poflTefldott 
 
 of 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 of lk»ndcd, or even of perfonal, property, till a( 
 lafl, by the operation of the identical principle 
 on different degrees of timidity, or bigotry, the 
 unhappy objects of thefe rcftraints m^it be 
 deprived of every comfort of life, or even of 
 life itfelf. As to that intimate and beneficial 
 connexion between Church and State, on 
 which was grounded the fuppofed propriety 
 and neceflity of thefe Laws, Mr. S. faid, he 
 would firfl: quote an authority againft the doc- 
 trine, which would probably have more weight 
 with the Noble Lord than his own opinions 
 could pretend to. The learned and refpedtable 
 Mr. Archdeacon Paley had laid it down " that 
 ** the fingle end of Church Eflablifhments 
 ** ought to be, the prefervation and communi- 
 " cation of religious knowledge j that every 
 ** other idea, and every other end, :hat have 
 ** been mixed with this, as the making the 
 ** Church an engine, or even an ally, of the 
 " State, converting it into the means of 
 ** flrengthening or difFufing influence, or re- 
 *' garding it as a fupport of regal, in oppofition 
 <« to popular, forms of Government, have 
 *« ferved only to debafc the inftitution, and to 
 " introduce into it many corruptions and 
 {[ abufes."-— ---He thought alfo that the Noble 
 
 Lord's 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 Lord's argument from hiftory was unequal to 
 the fupport of his affcrtion; for, not only 
 had the civH government maintained itfelf in 
 former times when unconneSledmih theChUrch, 
 but it would not be difficult to fhew, that thofe 
 difturbances which terminated in the ruin of 
 both Church and State, (on which his Lord- 
 ihip hid fo much infifled) had originated in 
 the intolerant fpirit and arbitrary proceedings 
 of fome ecclefiaftics, who had themfelves er- 
 ercifed powers, and had inftigated their un- 
 bappy Sovereign to adlions and claims, at leaft 
 as contrary to, and fubvprfive of, the true 
 fpirit of the conftitution, as any cf thofe vio- 
 lences of the times immediately fucceeding, 
 which have been fo juftly reprobated. 
 
 Mr. S. faid, that he (hould alfo contend, in 
 oppofition to the Noble Lord, that the Teft 
 Ads were not neceflary to the fecurity of 
 cither the frame, or the faith of the eftablifh- 
 ment. So far as eit^'-r of them was liable to 
 be overthrown by force, it muft always be re- 
 membered, that the repeal of thefe laws, 
 though it would reftore the capacity , would 
 not a<Sually givef the poffeffion of office to one 
 fmgls DiHenter — That would depend then, 
 
 as 
 
in 
 
 ( 59 ) 
 
 as it does now, on the will of the executive 
 Power — • but were an adlual indifcriminate 
 admiffion fuppofed, the apprehenfion of danger 
 could, even then, fcarcely fail to appear abfurd 
 to any man who (hould ferioufly confider the 
 vad excefs of Churchmen over DifTenters, in 
 the mafs of the people; their f^ill greater 
 fuperiority in the higher ranks, among whom 
 were ufually found the candidates for office; 
 and farther, that prediledlon for the Church 
 which might fairly be imagined to prevail in 
 this majority from the influence of early 
 habits, and fubfequent education, probably, at 
 the feminaries of the eftablifhment — So long 
 as this attachment fhould continue, the Church 
 could have nothing to fear from the attacks 
 of DiiTenters, though all their civil rights were 
 reflored. Should this at any fime ceafe, (from 
 whatever caufe) (he could not aerive one hour s 
 fecurity from fuch laws as thofe under difcuffion « 
 — It had alfo been frequently obferved, that the 
 legiflative affembly of the nation, from which 
 Diflenters were not excluded, was the only 
 place where the moft trivial alteration could 
 even be attempted. — As for the dodlrines of 
 the Church, it would fcarcely be maintained 
 
 that 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 that the welfare of the ftate depended on thetr 
 remaining for ever precifely in their prefcnt 
 ftate — but were it foj as the Teft Laws left 
 them open to every attack, fo the repeal of 
 thofe laws would neither afford a new argu- 
 ment, or give any additional ftrength to thofe 
 who accufe them of being erroneous — He 
 could not entertain fo low an opinion of the 
 prcfent Right Rev. Bench, which, with rcafon, 
 boafted fo many eminent and refpedable 
 names, as to fuprofe, that either from want of 
 confidence in their own powers, or in the force 
 of truth, they would defice the afliftance of 
 the fecular arm, in the defence of what they 
 held to be genuine Chriftianity^ or which 
 would be much worfe, that they would wifh 
 that arm to be exerted in fupport of error : 
 nor could he imagine them difpofed to main- 
 tain, that the freedom ufed by fome DifTenters 
 in argument, was a fufiicient, or indeed any 
 reafon, for impof^ng reftraints and difabHities 
 oA the whole body. 
 
 Another argument v^f the Noble Lord for 
 preferving thefe laws, had been drawn from 
 their having exiftcd for fo many years, and 
 
r 
 
 lam 
 
 for 
 
 { 6i ) 
 
 as he faid, with, fo much advantage — It had 
 been already attempted to difprove the aJvan* 
 ■"age', and that they had been ever complained 
 of, as ufekfs and unjuftj was undeniable — the 
 argument from mere exigence was abfurd — 
 it would go to perpetuate every enormity, 
 which could but plead the fandion of age.— 
 But there was an inftance, perfectly in point ^^ 
 ths prefent cafe. In the year 1779, after two 
 unfiiccefsful attempts, relief was obtained^ for 
 Proteftant Diffenting Minifters and Teachers^ 
 from the prelTure of a then exifting law — in 
 behalf of which, this fame argument was rcr 
 peatedly pleaded — and yet he never heard of 
 any perfon's having propofed to re-enadt the 
 old law, or of any fingle inconvenience which 
 had been occafioned by its repeal — in fadt, 
 nothing could be more evident than that the 
 queftion, in all cafes of this kind, was, whether 
 good reafons for the exigence of the law could 
 be affigned, and if not, its having been already 
 in force too long, was but an additional argu- 
 ment for itsimmcdiate extindion. With refpedt 
 to the pradice of fome other countries, in 
 which, though Catholic, Proteftants had been 
 employed, without referve, in the moft impor- 
 tant pods I the noble Lord had acknowledged 
 
 7 it 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 It to be an advantage, attending an arbitfary 
 monarchy, that the King was at liberty to 
 feledt from among all his fubjeds, the man 
 who appeared to him fitted for the fervice re- 
 quired; but he called it a trivial advantage. 
 It was needlefs to difcufs ^he amount; if 
 it were any advantage at all, ( :vhich the noble 
 Lord allowed it was) either to the country, or 
 the individual, why fhould not a free nation 
 poiTefs it? It was certainly unwife to rejed, 
 even a fmall good, unlefs it could be fhewn 
 to be in fad out-weighed by fome attendant 
 evil: and hiftory was fo far from giving colour 
 to this idea, that, in the countries alluded to, 
 the employment of Diffenters from the efta- 
 bliflied Church was well known to have been 
 attended with fignal advantage to their civil 
 affairs ; while their ecclefiaftical concerns, for 
 which the advocates of Tefts would have been 
 alarmed, had remained perfectly undiilurbed. 
 Mr, S. thought the Noble Lord had been 
 uncandid in accufing the Diffenters of having 
 made an improper ufe of the Indemnity Ads. 
 His opinion was, that the conftant and invari- 
 able pradice of pafling fuch a bill annually, 
 was a tacit acknowledgment that the Teft 
 Ads were improper, or unnecefTary — that the 
 
 penalties 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 penalties, if incurred, ought not to be enforced ; 
 and, therefore, no man could be blamed for re- 
 fortlng to an indemnity, held out as a protedion 
 againft punifhments, inflidled by laws, which 
 the Legiflature itfelf continually treated with 
 a kind of difrefpedl, and which were already 
 almoft repealed in practice, though they were 
 flill preferved in the flatute book, by a fpecies 
 of fuperftitious regard. Mr. S. faid, there 
 were fome other points of the noble Lord's 
 fpeech on which he had intended to have re- 
 marked, but that he had taken notice of 
 what appeared to him mofl material. Many 
 things might have efcaped him, which he hop- 
 ed would be obferved on by fome other Gen- 
 tleman more capable, than himfelf, of doing 
 juftice to the fubjedl. He felt himfelf com- 
 pelled to fay, in concluding, that the Noble 
 Lord had appeared to him rather deficient 
 in liberality of fentiment, and to have dealt 
 more in fophiftry, than in folid argument : that 
 he had feemed rather to labour to impofe on 
 the Houfe, by uttering pompous nothings, with 
 conliderable folemnity, and to alarm their ap- 
 prehenlions by a cry, fomewhat fimilar to that 
 in the time of Sacheverel, " that the Church 
 ** was in danger,'* than by fair, ftrong, and 
 S conclufive 
 
( ^4 ) 
 
 conclufive rcafoning, to addrefs himfelf to 
 their underftanding, and to convince their 
 judgment. 
 
 '£>» 
 
 Lord North, in reply, faid, he had before oc- 
 cupied fo much of the time of the Houfcj that 
 he would confine himfelf ftridtly to explanation . 
 Some of the things the Hon. Gentleman had 
 ftated, muft have arifen, either from his not 
 having expreffed himfelf properly, or from the 
 Hon. Gentleman's having mifunderftood him. 
 What he faid about the operatipn of the Teft 
 A(5l, was, that it only excluded thbfe Diflenters 
 from power, who had fb perfeft an averfioo to 
 the dodrine of the Church of England, that 
 they refufed to communicate with that Church* 
 Another objeftion to what he had faid, was, 
 about the Law j he would reflate his argu- 
 ment — it was this : If any notorious evil-doer 
 offer himfelf to receive the Sacrament, he 
 might be rejedledj and his having, or not 
 having a place, did not at all make the cafe 
 different. The Minifler might rejedt him, 
 nor did fuch rejedion render the Minifter lia- 
 ble to any punifhment. If the Minifler had 
 good reafon to believe the perfon applying for 
 the Sacrament was an evil-doer, he might 
 
 refufe 
 
their 
 
 ( H ) 
 
 f'efufe it. Thai he apprehended to be the 
 Law, and he fhould continue to apprehend 
 fo, till he heard from good authority, that 
 It was not fo. What hurt him tnoft, his Lord- 
 (hip fa id, was the Hon. Gentlenian's having 
 charged hini with illiberality in faying that 
 fome of the DifTenters had abufed an Ad of 
 t'arliament. The fadt he underflood to ftand 
 thus : The Indemnity Adts came frequently, 
 and the perfons, who had taken Offices and 
 hot qualified, ihflead of availing themfelves of 
 the opportunity afforded by the Ad of Indem- 
 nity, did not conform;, but Waited till anotheir 
 Ad came forward ; and fo on, from time to 
 time, without taking the Teft at all. This, his 
 Lordfhip declared, he niuft fay was an abufe 
 of the indulgence of the Legiflature. He 
 hoped, however, the tton. Gentleman would 
 not from this conclude, that he had any per- 
 fonal ill-will againfl the Diffenters in general. 
 tie knew them to be a very refpedable and 
 ineritorious body of men, and that feveral of 
 them had diftinguifhed themfelves eminently 
 by theii" writings. A DifTenter might make 
 as good a Magiflrate as another, but he fpoke 
 againfl his ading contrary to law, and taking 
 advantage of its indulgence. He hoped his 
 
 £ arguments 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 arguments had not made the fame impreffion 
 on the Houfc, as they appeared to have done 
 on the Hon. Gentleman. As to their having 
 been pompous nothings, experience and rea- 
 fon were the grounds of his argument; and he 
 flattered himfelf there was more of fenfe and 
 folidity, than pomp and nothingnefs, in what 
 he had faid. With regard to the connedion 
 between the Church and State, he muft main- 
 Cain that aflfertion; and if the Houfe would 
 recur to Hiftory, they would find, that when 
 the Church tottered, the State had tottered 
 likewife ; and that the ruin of the former, had 
 regularly preceded the ruin of the Conftitution. 
 Would that be termed pompous ? At the fame 
 time, he had faid the principles of the Church 
 might be carried too far, and had inftanced, 
 when her condu(ft had been marked with 
 intolerance, and violence of fpirit. His Lord- 
 ihip faid, he could only impute the Hon. Gen- 
 tleman's difrefpedt of his argument, and his 
 terming it fophiftry, and a ferles of pompous 
 nothings, becaufc it happened to have been 
 uttered by one of the weakeft Members in 
 the Houfe ; the fame arguments, delivered by 
 any other Gendeman, he trufted, would be 
 thought to have fome weight j at the fame 
 
 time. 
 
lone" 
 
 ving 
 rea- 
 
 kdhe 
 and 
 
 what 
 
 laion 
 
 main- 
 
 ivould 
 
 wlien 
 
 )ttered 
 
 :r, had 
 
 tution. 
 
 le fame 
 
 :hurch 
 
 lanced, 
 with 
 Lord- 
 
 n.Gen- 
 and his 
 on\pou8 
 ve been 
 ibers in 
 vered by 
 vould be 
 he fame 
 time. 
 
 ( 67 ) 
 
 time, he did not blame the Hon. Gentleman 
 for having differed with him in opinion. 
 The Hon. Gentleman had a I'l'Ait. to fee the 
 matter in one point of view, as much as he 
 had to confider it in that, in which he 
 had for years been accuftomed to think upon 
 it. He complained not of the matter of the 
 Hon. Gentleman's objedion, though he had 
 not perhaps treated him with the fame candor, 
 that he had himfelf endeavoured to treat the 
 fubjedt with. 
 
 Mr. Smifb rofe again, and faid, the Noble 
 Lord had not anfwered what he had faid, but 
 had merely repeated his former affertions. 
 The Diffenters, as he had before dated, did not 
 objedt to the Sacramental Ted on a principle 
 of hoftility to a Rite of the Eftablifhed Church; 
 they objedled to it fimply as a religious Teft, 
 applied to a civil matter, and their obje(5lion 
 would be the fame, were they to take the Tell 
 in their own Meetings, as at the Table of the 
 Communion of the Church. The noble Lord 
 had alfo entirely miftaken him when he had 
 afked, fomewhat triumphantly, whether H^)1ory 
 and Experience were " pompous nothings^" — 
 that was not the queftion, but whether the expe- 
 
 E 2 rience 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 ricnce appealed to, would bear out the affer- 
 tions, and whether the hiflorical fads and de- 
 dudions fupported his argument, which, in 
 his opinion, was by no means the cafe. 
 
 As to that part of his fpeech which appeared 
 to have made a far more ferious impreilion on 
 the Noble Lord's mind, than he could either 
 have intended or expeded, he was very forry 
 for it, and was pcrfedlly ready to make any 
 apology, which might be fatisfadtory, for the 
 obnoxious cxpreflion j as, whatever he might 
 have thought of the Noble Lord's argument, 
 it was the fartheft from his intention to treat 
 him with any perfonat difrefped. 
 
 Mr. Fox began, by obferving that the fub- 
 jedt had undergone fo much difcuffion, both 
 in parliament, and out of it, that but little 
 could be added to the arguments on either 
 fide. He Ihould not therefore find it necef- 
 fary to detain the Houfe long. He differed 
 widely from the Honourable* Gentleman who 
 fpoke laft, with refped to the Noble Lord's 
 fpeech [Lord North] ; fo far from its being a 
 feries of pompous nothings, or of arguments 
 
 that 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 that deferved to be treated with any thing 
 like levity or contempt, he thought the Noble 
 Lord had fpoken ably, and, for the moft part, 
 reafoned clofely and well, in fupportof a caufe, 
 which yet, when brought to the teft of argu- 
 ment, even the Noble Lord's abilities could 
 neither defend nor fupport. He was, however, 
 fo much accuftomed to find the Houfe adopt 
 a contrary opinion to that which he en- 
 deavoured to maintain, that he was apprehen- 
 five the Noble Lord's arguments would have 
 more weight, with the majority of the Houfe, 
 than his. Whatever might be gentlemens* 
 fcntiments with refpedt to Religion, with 
 refpedt to an Eftabliflied Church, to Tolera- 
 tion, or the length to which it ought to ex- 
 tend, there could, in his opinion, be no 
 objedion to a motion which went only to a 
 Committee of Inquiry. If the Corporation 
 and Teft Adls (hould appear to be wrong in 
 their principle, they ought certainly to be re- 
 pealed J if they were right in their principle, 
 it might perhaps be found, that they were in- 
 adequate to the purpofe for which they were 
 enaded. In either cafe, examination and 
 inquiry might do much good, and could not 
 pofTibly do harm, 
 
 E 
 
 The 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 The firfl quefllon which naturally prefented 
 itfclf was, whether the Church and the Con- 
 fiitution were neceflarily connedcd, and de- 
 pendent on each other, and in what dtgree ? 
 and on this point the Houfe, he trufted, would 
 be careful how they aflented to the propofition 
 of the Noble Lord. Mr. Fox faid he he- 
 iitated not to Itate, in the broadcft mannefj 
 his opinion on the f^bjctft. He thought re- 
 ligion ought ever to be diftindt from civil go- 
 vernment, and that it was no otherwife con- 
 iiedled with it, than as it' tended to promote 
 morality among the people, and, by fo doing, 
 was conducive to good order in the ftate. No 
 human government had a right to inquire into 
 rnens' private opinions, to prcfume that it 
 knew them, or to a(5t on that preiumption. 
 Men were the befl: judges of the confequences 
 of their own opinions, and how far they were 
 likely to influence their adionsj and it was 
 nioft unnatural and tyrannical to fay, " be- 
 c^ufe you think fo, you muft a5i fo. I will 
 colledl the evidence of your future condu<ftt 
 from what I know to be your opinions." The 
 very reverfe of thi>, Mr. Fox faid, was the 
 rule of condacSt that ought to be purfued. 
 Men ought to be judged by their a(^ions, and 
 
 not 
 
 i ■■ 
 
( 7' ) 
 
 not by their thoughts. The one could be 
 fixed and afcertained, the other could only be 
 matter of guefs, and matter of fpeculation. 
 So far, Mr. Fox faid, was he of this opinion, 
 that If any man {hould publiih his political 
 fentiments, and fay in writing, that he difliked 
 the conftitution of this country, and give it as 
 his judgment, that principles in diredt contra- 
 didtion to the Conftitution and Government 
 were the principles that ought to be aflerted 
 and maintained, the author ought not, in his 
 judgment, on that account to be difabled from 
 filling any office, civil or military; but if he 
 carried his deteftable opinions into practice, 
 he law would then find a remedy, and punifli 
 him for his condudl grounded on his opinions, 
 as an example to deter others from adding in 
 the fame dangerous and abfurd manner. No 
 propofition could, he contended, be more con- 
 fonant to common fenfe, to reafon, and to 
 juftice, than that men were to be tried by 
 their attions, and not by their opinions; their 
 anions ought to be waited for, and not guefled 
 at, as the probable confequence of the fenti- 
 ments they were known to entertain and to 
 profefs. If the reverfe of this dodrine were 
 ever adopted as a maxim of government, if 
 
 E 4 the 
 
I 
 
 t\ 
 
 ( 7* ) 
 
 the aiflions of men were to ^)C prejudged froiH 
 
 their opinions, it would fow the feeds of jealoufy 
 
 and diftruft, it would give fcope to private 
 
 malice, it would (harpen mens' minds againfl: 
 
 one another, incite each man to divine thp 
 
 private opinions of his neighbour, to deduce 
 
 mifchievous confequences from them, an4 
 
 thence to prove that he ought to incur 
 
 difabilities, and be fettered with reftridions; 
 
 This, if true with refpesft to poliiica/, was 
 
 more peculiarly fo with regard to religious 
 
 opinions; and from the mifchievous principle 
 
 he had defcribed, had flowed every fpecics of 
 
 party zeal, every lyftem of political intolerance, 
 
 every extravagance of religious hatp. In this 
 
 pofition, that the adtions of men, and not 
 
 their opinions, were the proper objedts of 
 
 legilldtion, he was fupported by the general 
 
 tenour of the Jaws of the land. Hiftory, 
 
 however, aflForded one glaring exception, in 
 
 the cafe of the Roman Catholics. The 
 
 Roman Catholics, or, more properly fpeaking, 
 
 the Papirts, as the Noble }-,ord had very juftly 
 
 called them, (a diftindtion which, he trufted, 
 
 was perfedly underftood by all who heard 
 
 him, and would ever be maintained by the 
 
 E iglirti Roman Catholics in time to conie,) 
 
 * ' ha(^ 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 hzd been fuppofcd, by our ancedors, to cntertaia 
 opinions that might lead to mifchicf to th? 
 State. But was it their religious opinions that 
 were feared? No fuch thing. Their acknow- 
 ledging a foreign authority paramount to that 
 of the Legiilature, their acknowledging a. 
 title to the Crown fupcrior to that conferred 
 by the voice of the people, their political 
 opinions, which they were fuppofed to attach 
 to their religious creed, were dreaded, and 
 judly dreaded, as inimical to the Conditution. 
 I^aws therefore were enadled to guard againft 
 the pernicious tendency of their political, nof 
 of their religious, opinions; and the principle 
 thus adopted, if not founded onjuftice, was at 
 leaft followed up with confiftency. Their in- 
 fluence in the State was feared, and they were 
 not only rpflrided from holding offices of 
 power or truft, but rendered incapable of purr 
 chafing lands, or acquiring influence of any 
 kind. But if the Roman Catholics of thofc 
 times were Papifts in the ilrideft fenfe of the 
 word, and not the Roman Catholics of the 
 prefent day. Hill he would fay, that the Legif- 
 lature ought not to have aded againfl: them, 
 till they put in pradicp fome of the dangerous 
 ^oftrines which they were thought to ente^r 
 
 tain. 
 

 i 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
 { 74 ) 
 
 tain. Dlfability and j unifhrnent ought to have 
 followed, not to have anticipated, offence. 
 Thofe who attempted to juftit'y the difabilitics 
 irnpofcd on the D:flenters, muil contend, if 
 they argued fairly on their own ground* not 
 that their religious opinions were inimical to 
 the Eflabl'ihed Church, but that their political 
 opi.iions were inimical to the Conftitution. 
 If they failed to prove this, to deprive the 
 Difienters of any civil or political advantage, 
 was a manifeft injuflice; for it was not fuffi- 
 cient to {^y to any let of m*en, we apprehend 
 certain danger's from your opinions, we have 
 v/ifcly provided a remedy againft them, and 
 you, w ho feel your felves aggrieved, calumniated, 
 and profcnbed, by this remedy, mull prove 
 that cur appreheniions arc K\ founded. The 
 cnus probandi hy on the other fide; for who- 
 ever demanded that any other pcrlon fliould 
 be laid under a rcflridion, it was incumbent 
 CA him (irfl to prove that the reflridion was 
 nccefHiry to his fafcty, by Ibme overt a6l, and 
 that the daiiger he apprehended was not ima- 
 ginary, but reaL No iuch ^hing had been at- 
 tempted by the Nob'e Lord. He had fpoken 
 liberally and handft^mely of the Diflenters. 
 Why? bccaufe he felt the propriety and the 
 
 jufticc 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 juftice of it. He knew that they had been 
 f^eady in their attachment •'o Government j 
 that their religious opinions were favourable 
 to civil liberty, and that the true principles of 
 the ConlH^itution had been remembered, and 
 aflerted by them, at times when they were 
 forgotten, perhaps betrayed, by the Church. 
 Such had been the character of the DilTenters. 
 Were their political opinions now different 
 fiom what they had been formerly ? Were 
 they more formidable from their numbers, 
 more dangerous from their principles, more 
 confiderable in any refpecft, except, perhaps* 
 from the talents of fome of their members ? 
 No fuch thing was aiferted 3 and the Noble 
 Lord finding their exclufion from an eqi al 
 participation of power with their fellow-fub-. 
 jeds, a topic on which ii v/as impoiTible for 
 him to £cr\e his caufe, had entered on a more 
 pkafing theme — a panegyric on the Church of 
 England ; which he faid had fiiared the dan- 
 gers, and the fate of the State, had funk and 
 rifen with theCcnftitution, and therefore ought 
 to be peculiarly endeared to us. Mr. Fox faid, 
 he felt no difficulty to join in ihe panegyric, 
 but he could not confent to adopt the conclu- 
 fion— that the happinefs of the State was de« 
 3 pendant 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 pendant on the flourishing (late of the Church s 
 for who, that perufed the hiftory of thofe dan- 
 gers, which the Church had (hared, in common 
 with the State, but muft fee, that the Church 
 might have been triumphant, while the State 
 was in ru in ? Was it ferioufly to be contended, 
 that religion depends upon political opinions ; 
 that it can fubfift only under this, or that form 
 of government ? It was an irrevererd and 
 impious opinion to maintain, that the Church 
 mufl depend for fupport, as an engine, or ally, 
 of the State, and not on the evidence of its 
 dodrines, to be found by fearching the Scrip- 
 tures, and the moral efFcfts it produced on the 
 minds of tliofe whom it was its duty to inftrudt. 
 The Noble Lord bad praifed the moderation of 
 !he Church. To this, however, there v/ere 
 fome exceptions. In the reign of Charles If. 
 her fortitude had been greater than her 
 moderation j in that of James II, her fcrvi- 
 }ity had been greater than either; under King 
 V/illiam, and, llill more under Qneen Anne, 
 fo little had the clergy been diftinguifhcd for 
 moderation, that they had frequently dif- 
 turbcd the nation, by their affe(5^ed alarm for 
 the fafety of the Church ; and he never appre- 
 hended peifecution to be fo near, as when thofc 
 
 who 
 
s 
 
 n- 
 n 
 
 ch 
 ite 
 d, 
 s> 
 m 
 nd 
 ch 
 
 its 
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 who were adlually poiTcfTed of power cried oiif^ 
 «* that they we, in danger j" on the well 
 known maxim — 
 
 Omnia formidanti formidanturque tyrannL 
 
 Since the acccffion of the Houfc of Brunf- 
 wick, that aufpicious aera in the hiftory of the 
 conftitution, the Church Lad nierited every 
 praifc, becaufe it had not been indulged in its 
 whimi:, or imaginary fears. Since that time 
 it had flourifhcd, and improved: but how? 
 by toleration and moderate behaviour. And 
 how had thefe been produced ? by the mem- 
 bers of the Eftablifhed Church being forced 
 to hear iht a guments of tlie Diflenters; by 
 their being obliged to oppofe argument to ar- 
 gument, inftead of impoilng fiience by the 
 ftrong hand of power; by that mcdeft confi- 
 dence in the truth of their own tenets, and 
 charity for thofe of others, which the collifion 
 of opinions, in open and liberal diicutuon, 
 among men living under the fame government, 
 and equally piotedled by it, never fails to pro- 
 duce. Moderation, therefore, and indulgence 
 to other feds, were equally conducive to the 
 happinefs of ma»i!;ind, and the fafety of the 
 Church i and for that moderation and liberality 
 
 of 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 ofrcntifncnt, by which tho Church had floU- 
 rilhed during the two lail: reigns, and the prc- 
 fent, was (he indebted to thofe very DilTenters . 
 from whom (he thought herfelf in danger. 
 Having fpoken thus much on tefts in general, 
 Mr. Fox faid, he would fpeak of the Tcft Adl 
 in particular. With regard to the Tcft A(5t, 
 he thought, the heft argument that could be 
 ufed in its favour was, that if it had but little 
 good effedl, it had alfo little bad. In his opi- 
 nion it was altogether inadequate to the end it 
 had in view. The purport of it was, to protect 
 the Eftabliflied Church, by excluding from of- 
 fice every man who did not profefs himfelf 
 well afFeded to that Church, But a profeffed 
 cnem/ to the hierarchy might go to the com- 
 munioi: table, and afterwards fay, that in 
 complying with a form, enjoined by law, ht 
 had not changed his opinion, nor, as he 
 conceived^ incurred any religious obligation 
 whatever. There were many men, not of 
 the Eftablifhed Church, to whofe fervices their 
 country had a claim. Ought any fuch man to 
 be examined, before became into office, touch- 
 ing his private opinions ? Was it not fufficient 
 that he did his duty as a good citizen ? Might 
 he not fay, without incurring any difability. 
 
 «( 
 
 I am 
 
( y? ) 
 
 ** I amnot a friend to the Church of England^ 
 ** but I am a friend to the Conftitution, and 
 " on religious fubjeds muft be permitted to 
 " think and ad as I pleafe." Ought their 
 country to be deprived of the benefit (he might 
 derive from the talents of fuch men, and his 
 Majefty prevented from difpenfing the favours 
 of the Crown, except to one defcription of his 
 fubjedls? But whom did the Tefl: exclude, 
 the irreligious man, the man of profligate 
 principles, or the man of no principle at all ? 
 Quite the contrary; to fuch men the road to 
 power was open ; the Tefl excluded only the 
 man of tender confcience j the man who 
 thought religion fo diftind from all temporal 
 affairs, that he held it improper to profefs any 
 religious opinion whatever, for the fake of a 
 civil office. Was a tender confcience incon- 
 fiftent with the charader of an honeft man ? 
 or did a high fenfe of religion Ihew that he 
 was unfit to be trufted ? But the Noble Lord 
 fdid the Eftabliflied Church ought to be pro- 
 teded. Granting this, it was next to be in- 
 quired, what was the Eftablifhed Church* 
 Was the Church of England the Eftabliflied 
 Church of Great Britain? Certainly not} it 
 was only the Eflablillied Church of a part of 
 
 it; 
 
 9: 
 
 
( 8o J 
 
 it; for, in Scotland, the Kirk was as mucfa 
 eftablirtied by law as the Church was in Eiig-* 
 land. The religion of the Kirk was mklf 
 fccured, as the ellablifhed religion of Scotland^ 
 by the Articles of Union j and it was furely 
 abfurd to fay, that a menaber of the Kirk ot 
 Scotland, accepting an ofBcc under Govern- 
 fnent, not for the fervice of England exclii- 
 fively, but for the fervice of the united king- 
 doms, (hould be obliged to conform, hot to 
 the religious eftablifhment of Scotland, irt 
 which he had been bred, but to the religious 
 e{labli(hment of England. It v^as (ingular tO 
 contend for any principle of perfecution, when 
 the only principle on which it could ever have 
 been reconciled to a rational nlind was aban- 
 doned, not only in fpeculation, but in pradiice. 
 In antient times, perfecution originated in the 
 generous, thougii miftaken principle, that therft 
 could be but one true religion, but one faith^ 
 by which men could hope for falvation \ and 
 it was held to be not only lawful, but meri- 
 torious, to compel theth to embrace the tru« 
 faith, by whatever means. The reditude of 
 the intention might perhaps be fome excufe 
 for the barbarity of the pra6lice. But how 
 did we ad ? We acknowledged not one true 
 
 religion. 
 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 religion, but two true religions — a religion for 
 England, and a religion for Scotland ; and 
 having been originally liberal in the inftitution 
 of two Churches of equal right, we became 
 illiberal in our more enlightened days, and 
 granted to the Members of one Eftablifhed 
 Church, what we denied to thofe of another 
 equally eftabliQied. According to this doc- 
 trine of proteding the Church of England, 
 had the pradtice kept pace with the principle, 
 the country muft have been deprived of all 
 thofe gallant men, members of the Kirk of 
 Scotland, who had fo eminently diftinguiflied 
 themfelvcs in the army and the navy, who 
 had added learning and dignity to the Courts 
 of Juftice, and wifdom to his Majefty's Coun- 
 cils. If tefts were right, the prefcnt was 
 clearly a wrong one, becaufe it (hunned all the 
 purpofes for which tells were originally intro- 
 duced. The candour of the Noble Loid, and 
 the information he had doubtlefs colleiSled upon 
 inquiry fince, Mr. Fox faid, had enabled him 
 to fatisfy the Houfe in a point which had not 
 been anfwered two years ago, and that was, 
 in the cafe of a peiTon who was a notorious 
 evil doer, who applied for the Sacrament. 
 The manner of the Noble Lord's anfwer, Mr. 
 
 F • Fox 
 
' r 8* ) 
 
 Fox faid, was rational, ana from the good 
 feiife of it, he had no doubt it was the true 
 anfwerj but only then, let them fee the fifua- 
 tlon in which A or B, or the perfon who upon 
 application to a niinifter had been refufcd the 
 Sacrament, was placed : fpom that moment 
 he had incurred the penalties of the Adt, and 
 was punifhed in a manner perfe(5tly new, un- 
 exampled, and unauthorifed by the laws of 
 the land ; he was convided without a trial by 
 jury, and was difabled from enjoying an office 
 which his Majefty, in tho^ legal exercife of his 
 prerogative y had thought proper to confer on him;- 
 and a perfon was thereby abfolutely put into the 
 hands of the clergy, who were to be the great 
 arbitrators of qualification or difqualification for 
 offices, and places of power and emolument. 
 After commenting upon this new and uncon- 
 ftitutional mode of perfecution, Mr. Fox ob- 
 ferved, that the old argument of the length 
 of time that the Ttft and Corporation Adls 
 had fubfifted, had been introduced and relied 
 on ; it was true, he faid, that they had fo fub- 
 lifted for nearly a century ; but how had they 
 fubfifted ? By repeated fufpenfions ; for the 
 Indemnity Bills were, he believed, literally 
 fpeaking, annual Acts. And where then 
 
 would 
 
 5-jiij-i*-9^ •j-j.jiAv ja<'"ji.'.. 
 
i h ) 
 
 Would be the impropriety of fufpending thetn 
 for ever, by an ad: of perpetual operation ? 
 With regard to the Noble Lord's argument 
 relative to the evading of thefe Indemnity 
 Bills, he admitted, if any perfon negledled to 
 conform, merely for the fake of evading the 
 law, he certainly a(5led in direft oppofition to 
 an Ad of Parliament, and did not condudl him- 
 fclf as a good fubjed ought to do. While an 
 ad was deemed fit to remain in force, it was 
 the duty of every good fubjed not to evade 
 it. Indeed the only juftification of evading a 
 flatute, that could be for a moment maintained, 
 was, where that ftatutc notorioufly ought not 
 to remain in force ; and when to evade it, on 
 account of its nature and tendency^ was me- 
 ritorious. He trufted, however, that the 
 Houfe would confent to go into the Com- 
 mittee, becaufe, if they meant to refift the 
 repeal of the Teft Ad, they ought, at lead, 
 to go into the Committee, to inquire whether 
 it was fitting or necefi'ary to be repealed, or 
 not, and not deny the requifition, as if they 
 were a(haiiied even to look at the Statutes in 
 queftion j as if they were afliamed to ex- 
 amine, left they (hould be convinced. 
 
 F2 
 
 Mr. 
 
 '..i: ^j.;-L;.K . i.<.i,r„.^H.j:<*-<i'*>".-*^-i..C 
 
V 
 
 Mr. Fox entered into an hiftory of the 'f ert 
 A(5t, and (hewed that, in confequence of a vio-* 
 lent alarm from the Papifts, it had been intro- 
 duced with a view to exclude them, and them 
 only, from office ; that the Diffenters had cor- 
 dially joined it in, and confented to their own 
 exclulion, thinking that a lefs evil, than to leave 
 the door open to Papills : And ** will you 
 " then," faid he, " take advantage of their 
 ** patriotifm, and convjrt what they conftnted 
 ** to as neceflary for the general fafety at that 
 " time, into a perpei ual excluiion againfi: them- 
 ** felves ? Was it thus the Church would rc- 
 ** ward the fervice they had done her, in the 
 '•^ day of her diftrefs ?" After farther reafoning 
 to prefs, if not for an immediate repeal, at leaft 
 tor the appointment of a Committee to inquire, 
 whether a repeal of the Ad in qucftion were 
 neceflary ; Mr. Fox alluded to the occafional 
 Conformity A61, that had been repealed a few 
 years iince, and obferved, that they had that 
 day heard, that the Church of England was in 
 its glory 5 the Church of England, therefore, 
 (according to the arguments of the Noble 
 Lord, and the advocates for the continuance of 
 the flatuies, which he contended were equally 
 unneceflary and unjuft to remain in force any 
 
 _ . . longer. 
 
 y 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 longer, had not fufFcred, but gained by what 
 they had feared would have proved injurious and 
 detrimental to her interefts. The Diflcnters, he 
 remarked, had been ftated to be pious and 
 good men, but it had been faid, that they might, 
 neverthelefs, be no friends to the Church of 
 England. Surely, if they were dangerous any 
 where, it muft be as Members of Parliament, 
 and as Eledors of the reprefentatives of the 
 people; and yet they were fuffered to fit as 
 the one, and vote as the other, Mr. Fox de- 
 clared himfelf a friend to an eftablilhed . :ligion, 
 in every country, and wilhed that it might al- 
 ways be that, which coincided moft with the 
 ideas of the bulk of the State, and the general 
 fentimenis of the people. In the fouthern 
 parts of Great Britain, hierarchy was the efta- 
 blifhed Church, and in the northern, the Kirk; 
 and for the befl: poiTible reafon, bcoufe they 
 were each mofl agivcable to the majority of 
 the people, in their refpedive fituaticns. It 
 would, perhaps, be faid, that the repeal of tlie 
 Corporation and Ted Ads might enable the 
 DifTenters to obtain a majority. I'his he hardly 
 thought probable; but the anfwer was fliort, 
 vi^' If the majority of the people of England 
 
 
 F3 
 
 (hould 
 
^^^o. 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 % 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 i/u 
 
 I/.. 
 
 ill 1.0 
 
 2£ 12.5 
 
 K 
 
 ML 12.0 
 
 U 
 
 "^ HE 
 
 IL2I iu 11.6 
 
 6' 
 
 
 ^4 
 
 a; 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 fliDtographic 
 .Sciences 
 Corpordtion 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 
 
 (716) 872-4S03 
 
 
^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 J> 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 fhould ever be for the abolition of the Efta- 
 blifhed Church, then it ought to be aboJiflied. 
 
 With regard to what the Hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. Beaufoy) had faid, refpcding the muhi- 
 plying oaths, Mr. Fox declared that he agreed* 
 with him, that there were too many oaths 
 impofed by the Statutes in force. What, he 
 afked, could be a greater proof of the indecency 
 refulting from the practice of qualifying by 
 oaths, than if, when a man was feen going to take 
 the Sacrament, it fhould be alked, ** Is this 
 *' man going to make his peace with God, and 
 ** to repent him of his fins?" the anfwer fhould 
 be, *■ No; he is only going there, becaufe he 
 «' has lately received the appointment of Firft 
 ** Lord of the Trcafury." After a great m?ny 
 appofitc obfervations on the Teft Ad:, and the 
 various obje<5lions it was liable to, Mr. Fox 
 fpoke of the Corporation A(fl, which he re* 
 marked Lord North had declared to have been 
 forced from the Legiflature as an adl o^felf- 
 defence', this was, he faid, exadtly the defcrip- 
 tion of an Adt, which, after the lapfe of a cen- 
 tury, when the grounds and reafons for pafldng 
 it no longer exifted, ought to be repealed. 
 The Noble Lord had truly flated, that the 
 
 Corporatiou 
 
 ^^ 
 
 1. ... 
 
y 
 
 -(> 
 
 ■ ( 87 ) ' 
 
 Corporation Adl was forced from the legifla- 
 ture, in the reign of Charles II., by the vio- 
 lence of the fedaries, which had not only 
 overturned the Church, but the State, and that 
 fo lately} that threatening to do fo again, it 
 became neceffury to apply a prefent preventive, 
 to guard againfl: the impending danger. No 
 better argument, he repeated, need be urged 
 ajgainft it now, than that it had been extorted 
 from the Legiflature by refentment of pall in- 
 juries, and the dread of future, a century ago. 
 Fear and indignation had operated on the 
 Parliament of Charles II. — Did the fame mo- 
 tives operate on the Parliament of George III.? 
 certainly notj and could there be any reafon 
 for continuing an Adl, when the violence that 
 gave birth to it had, long fince, fubf;ded. 
 After defcanting upon this part of the fubjed:, 
 he laid it down as a pofitio.i ih^t party and 
 religion were feparate in their views and in 
 their nature; that it was for the reputation of 
 both that they ihould remain fo j he therefore 
 urged the injuftice of haraffing the Diffenters 
 with penalties, difabilities, and ftatutable re- 
 ftri(5tions; men whofe moials were not incon.* 
 fiftent with the religion of the Church of 
 England, and whofe fentiments were favourable 
 
 F4 to 
 
 i 
 
• 
 
 ( 88 ) 
 
 to the family on the throne. It had been faid, 
 that in France it was cuftomary for Pro- 
 teftants to be employed in the army, and 
 in civil offices, and that in Proteftant 
 countries abroad, Papifts were alfo employed. 
 In reply to this the noble Lord had given an 
 ingenious and able anfwer, but let it be exa- 
 mined. The noble Lord had faid, the mo- 
 narch of a free country was limited, while the 
 employing whom the Prince pleafed, was one 
 of the trivial advantages incidental to abfolute 
 power. But wifdom, is the offspring of free- 
 dom 3 and fliould a people who boatled of 
 their freedom, among whoqi, he firmly be- 
 lieved, men of enlightened underftandings 
 were more common than among thofe who 
 lived under a lefs happy form of government, 
 reje(5l thofe liberal principles of Toleration 
 which other nations had adopted? Let not 
 . then Great Britain be the lafl: to avail herfelf 
 of fuch an advantage. Indulgence to other 
 fe(5ts, a candid rrfped: for their opinions, a 
 defire to promote mutual charity and good- 
 will, were the heft proofs, that any rcIigioYi 
 could give, of its divine origin. To the Church 
 of England in, particular, he would fay. 
 
 Tuque prior, iu parte genus ^ui ducts Oiympo. 
 
 Mr. 
 
n 
 
 ( 89 ) 
 
 Mr. Martin made a (liort fpeech, in which 
 he declared his concurrence with the Motion," 
 wishing that, in matters of religious worfliip, 
 every man might bt permitted to follow that 
 form which was mod agreeable to himfelf, 
 although he certainly thought fome forms 
 were more rational than others. Mr, Martin 
 added a few more words, which we did not 
 diftindly hear. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer then rofe, 
 and began a mafterly reply to Mr. Fux, with 
 ftating, that as he had, two years ago gone, 
 much at length into the detail of his opinion 
 on the fubjedt, it would not be neceffary for 
 him to take up a great deal of the time of the 
 Houfe in anfwering the arguments of the 
 Hon. Gentleman, which he had ftated with 
 great eloquence and ingenuity. He perfe<5t!y 
 agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman in the 
 broad principle he had laid down as a general 
 principle, that the religious opinions of any 
 fet of men were not to be reftrained and li- 
 mited, unlefs they (hould be found likely to 
 prove the fource of civil inconvenience to the 
 State, nor ought the civil Magiftrate, in any 
 Other point of view, to interfere with them. 
 
 But 
 
( 90 ) 
 But there had always been admitted to be this 
 iblid diflin(flion, that although there is no na- 
 tural right to interfere with religious opinions, 
 yet when they are fuch as may produce a 
 civil inconvenience, the Government has a 
 right to guard againft the probability of the 
 civil inconvenience being produced ; nor ought 
 they to wait till, by being carried into adlion, 
 the inconvenience has adually arifen. It was, 
 therefore, an overftraining of the principle, 
 when the Right Hon. Gentleman declared, 
 that in no cafe was it warrantable for a Le- 
 giflature to interfere with men's religion. With 
 regard to Papiftsy (to ufc the Hon, Gentleman's 
 own words) as they flood a century ago, when 
 all their abominable doctrines that clung to 
 them, were thought fit objeds of the precau- 
 tion of the State, and it was the policy of the 
 Government to pafs the Tefi: Ad for that 
 purpofvi ; the Hon. Gentleman had faid, that 
 their prejudices were removed, and that they 
 were very difF;;rently aftedted at prefentji to 
 that he afcribed, but believed the alteration 
 for the better had not merely taken place here, 
 nor was by any means peculiar to Great Bri- 
 tain. It was, he believed, pretty generally fe|( 
 upon the Continent, and was owing to thi 
 univerfal improvement and intelligence that 
 
 had 
 
 tit 
 
• 
 
 ( 9' ) 
 
 had fpread itfelf through all ranks of people, 
 which had contributed to enlighten their 
 minds, foften their hearts, and enlarge their 
 underftandings. Mr: Pitt declared, he was 
 ready to do juftice to the DilTenters of former 
 times, as he was ready to do juftice to the 
 prefent. It was not on the ground that they 
 would do any thing to affi^dt the civil Govern- 
 ment of the country, that they had been ex- 
 cluded from holding civil offices, but that if 
 they had any additional degree of power in 
 their hands, they might. It would, he be- 
 lieved, be admitted by all men, that the efta- 
 blKhment of a fettled form of Church, and of 
 its Minlfters, was neceffary to the civil Govern- 
 ment of the country. Was it then proper to 
 prevent the emoluments and offices of the 
 Eftabliftied Church from being diftributed 
 among perfons, whofe charadlers, however 
 refpedable they might be, were not Mern- 
 bers of the fame Communion ? The Quef- 
 tion, therefore, had been, whether thcfe 
 offices, which might in one view be confidered 
 as a matter of favour, and in another as a- 
 matter of truft, {hould be given to perfons 
 well affcded to the Church, or to perfons of 
 a very different defcription. He faid, it was 
 matter of favour, becaufe it was confiftent 
 
 with 
 

 ( 92 ) 
 
 with the Government of this Country, that all ' 
 offices fliould be given at its difcretio!!; .and 
 here, from the delicate nature of the cafe, the 
 Legiflature had thought proper to intcrpofe, 
 and to reftrain the Supreme Magiftrate, the 
 head of the Executive Authority, and h'mit 
 him in his appointment to thefe offices : but 
 furely this differed effentially from any degra-.* 
 dation, difgmce, or puni(hment, of the Dif- 
 fenters. It was neceflary for the Houfe to 
 confider the danger; and here he declared he 
 meant not to impute views to men, which many 
 of them difclaiined, and who profcfTed to be 
 well-wifliers to the Eftabliflied Cliurch ; but 
 there were others among them, as the Dif- 
 fenters themfclves well knew, who had held a 
 very different condudl, and not only objedled 
 againft many of the dodrines of the Eftablifhed 
 Church, but went fo far as to contend againll 
 the propriety of there being any eflablifliment 
 at all. There would furely, therefore, be fome 
 little degree of raflinefs, and of danger, in plac- 
 ing offices in the hands of perfons of this de- 
 fcription. So far then for the purport of this 
 A^» which had mofl unjuf^ly been termed a 
 perfecution of the DifTenters in general. 'With 
 regard to one other argument urged by the 
 Right Hon. Gentleman, and tending to per- 
 plex 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 plex the fubje(fl, the Right Hon. Gentleman 
 mentioned the Kirk of Scotland ; the Kirk of 
 Scotland did not complain, and therefore there 
 was no ground of objeflion there. Befides, 
 the Hon. Gentleman had faid, that perfons 
 did come from Scotland, and took civil and 
 • military offices upon themlelves ; that being 
 the cafe, the Right Hon. Gendeman's argu- 
 ment in that refpedt failed him, becaufe he 
 could not have the benefit of the argument 
 both ways. He agreed with Lord North in 
 fcveral parts of his argument, particularly that 
 the law had exifted for above a century, and 
 that it had ever been looked upon as one of 
 the props and bulwark" of ihe Conftitution, 
 He denied that it tended to exclude Tome feti 
 of Proteftant Diflenters while it excluded others. 
 .After a good deal more reafoning, he declared 
 the repeal of the A(Sls in queftion would open 
 the door again to all the abufe and danger 
 it had been defigned to guard againft. He 
 fpoke of the quiet and regularity that obtained 
 at prefent in relation to religious differences, 
 and faid, if there were any thing, that could 
 interrupt the harmony and moderation be- 
 tween feds, once contending with great viru-* 
 lence and afperity, it was, that of awakening a 
 a competition, and rekindling the fparks of 
 5 ancient 
 
 ii 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 ancient animofity, which mutual forbearance 
 had ahnod Aifled and extinguifhed. On thefe 
 principles he mud deny his confent to the 
 motion, and contend for the principles he had 
 formerly flated. 
 
 Mr. Fox faid a word or two in explanation. 
 
 Mr. Wyndham faid, he would trouble the 
 Houfc with a few words only, which would 
 bring the queftion into a very narrow compafs. 
 The whole fcemed to turn on a queftion of 
 fadl. He feared he differed from his Right f Ion. 
 Friend, and from the Right Hon. Gentleman 
 over the way. He could not agree, with hif 
 Right Hon. Friend, that it would not be proper 
 to exclude any man from a participation of 
 power on account of his religious opinions ; 
 neither could he agree, with the Right Hon. 
 Gentleman, that fuch exclufion was little lefs 
 exceptionable, unlefs the fentiments affedted 
 the Civil Government of the country. He 
 thought that religious opinions became part 
 of the Conflitution of the Country. Having 
 faid this, he declared, he thought that this ex- 
 cluiion was not to be confidered as a punifh- 
 ment, but, as the Noble Lord had termed it, 
 an Adt of felf-defcnce. The Noble Lord had 
 
 well 
 
 1 
 
 y--iV.Va .; «&_'. 
 
^ 
 
 ( 95 ) 
 
 Well handled the difference of felf-defence 
 and perfecution, but he would recoiled that it 
 was a varying do6\rine necefl'arily, and when, 
 after a lapfe of time, fads, and premifes had 
 changed and fliifted, and the whole fyftem 
 was to be looked at alio intuitu, it might be 
 warrantable to give way. The Hon. Gentle- 
 man had faid, the repeal would open the door 
 to abufe ; it certainly would open the door, 
 but it would do it fo far only as to enable the 
 Diffenters to feel themfelvcs no longer pro- 
 fcribed, but that they were admiflible to power, 
 he fliould think it ought to be done. He did 
 not think they had any difpofition to affed the 
 Eftablifhed Church ; and if they had, the de^ 
 fired repeal did not give them the power, for 
 what power was it, compared to that of being 
 Eledors and Members of Parliament ? 
 
 Mr. Ifaac Hawkins Browne rofe to fay a few 
 words, but the Houfe was fo clamorous for the 
 Queftion, that little of what Mr. Browne faid 
 could be heard. He agreed with Mr. Wind- 
 ham in many of the principles he laid down, 
 but could not agree with him in the conclufion. 
 He agreed with him, that the Roman Catho- 
 licks were really deprived of many rights, to 
 which they had a juft claim. He agreed with 
 ■ '•■' him 
 
( 96 ) 
 him, that the Protcftant Diffenters were a rc(*- 
 pcdtable part of the community, but when i 
 claim of right was made upon principle, it 
 was the juftice of the claim, not the charader 
 of individuals, which ought to determine the 
 conduct of the Houfe. They ought not only 
 to confider what the Proteftant Diflenters now 
 were, with refpedl to their temper and affec- 
 tions, but what perfons of that denomination 
 might be in future times. Mr. Browne ob- 
 ferved, that a confiderable number of the 
 Diflenters, from the firfl: a6t of toleration to 
 the prefent time, had never thought it unlawful 
 to communicate with the Church of England, 
 but had taken every opportunity of (hewing 
 their moderation and Chriftian charity. They, 
 therefore, had not been excluded from any of 
 the favours of the Crown, nor deprived of any 
 power in the State, fince the repeal of the 
 A6t againft Occafional Conformity in the reign 
 of George the Firft. 
 
 Mr. Browne could not conceive it pofliblc 
 for any DiflTentcrs to refufe to communicate 
 with the Church of England, unlefs they really 
 thought the dodtrines of that Church to be 
 fo fundamentally erroneous, as to be highly 
 prejudicial to the members of it, or at leaft to 
 
 endanger 
 
m 
 
 ( 97 ) 
 
 endanger their own falvation, if they joined 
 Ail any folcmn adl of religious worfhip with it. 
 It ' was no reflfidlion upon DifTenters of this 
 defcription to fufpedt, that they would ufe any 
 power they might acquire to the injury of the 
 Edablifhed Church, for they were in con- 
 science bound to it, or rather they were ia 
 confcience bound not to accept thofe trui^s, 
 from which the law, which it is now propofed 
 to repeal, excludes themj for no man ought 
 to take upon himfelf the office of a magiftrate, 
 uniefs he approves the general principle of alt 
 thofe laws, which it is his duty to execute. 
 Mr. Browne urged, that the DifTenters of this 
 defcription were now in the adlual enjoyment 
 of every right to which they had a claim, upon 
 the mod liberai principles. They had now 
 the power of wor(hipping God according to 
 their own confciences, of chufing their own 
 teachers and fchoolmafters, of educating their 
 children in their own tenets, of eledting Mem- 
 i)ers of Parliament, of fitting themfelves in 
 cither Houfe of Parliament, and of propofing 
 there any laws for the reformation, or the de- 
 ftruaion, of the Eftablifhed Church. All thefc 
 privileges they now fully pofleffed. He 
 thought that thefe were all they could claim, 
 upon any principle of toleration, and all which 
 
 G could 
 
 ■■^f 
 
««!-;' '^f, .,'• ■ ■' f(«i«rf/f.^-- 
 
 I?^«« 
 
 ^1 
 
 ift' 
 
 fc? 
 
 Ip. 
 
 ^ iib<^ of 49B^^^^fm^^<^d might 
 
 «liiteiiii^,gn»f^,iij^ Ailed t^a:ri(itiQ& 
 ^«^[f^s|^ i^^fp^ ©f $ke 
 
 rCfbUJ^'df En^iid* who i^ad m^ct^ofi^ to 
 ,fecdt^ the SgerflQicat a^jcoFding ,tOj the ritca*^ 
 '<«^ ^»<Mtfi^ M ^^^lm^^iM§ they were 
 u-qillfeid^i^^^i^ ir w a ^pjili^tion % a 
 
 |iaf HiiSiyi 0|rcd a<a of our rcligicni. 
 
 i|i. iJi^Ti Bro#fie #a8 v«i^iiady to confisntto any 
 
 »^^ othcf 1?d^ bdng iUbttiltttedi ififtead of the 
 
 ^ ©fiqamcntal odc, far their j?id«f, if they would 
 
 ^Jrc^iefeaTeft chatty ftrOQg and effeaual. He 
 
 /^hougS^thifipr^xi^a would he highly de« 
 
 ^ Ibf Wng^the^^lt^libn of the Houfc, not only as 
 
 i gbing fciicf toifcrfcaM entitled to if, biit a* 
 
 rcni^Hngyijuftdattieoffcan^^ i [ ' 
 
 . V When fe^^^^ was put ife-n the 
 
 ^llair, the Moufe dividci 
 
 . tWe end. 
 
 102 
 122 
 
 I!:- ) 
 
 ft''**' ^ 
 
 I 
 
 ^ ~, 
 
 '•*( 
 
vf^;t^ 
 
 ;# 
 
 ^ Ir 
 
 « i 
 
 ii---''-;"-^^-"'' ■-''^--