had a good deal of free talk. His own family, he says, which is generally divided in politics, is united on this point. He contemplates a very respectable division in the House of Commons. He approves of our petitions, and is for our going on heartily. He evidently hopes to see a Whig Administration. The Whigs he thinks are committed to us. 'I should like to see how Spring Rice,' he remarked, 'would look one in the face if he were not to support the motion.' Appealing to Mr. W. Smith and me, he said there was a strong prejudice against the Unitarians which he could not understand. On Christmas-day, the clergyman whom he attended had, on consulting with him, omitted the Athanasian Creed, which he (J. S.) declared he abhorred."

66

January 7.-We called this morning by appointment on Lord Holland, at 10, Berkeley Square. He was, as usual, very courteous, frank and warm in our cause. He readily undertook the question in the House of Lords; approved of our petitioning both Houses, but recommended not to more in the Lords unless we should go through the Commons. He anticipates a strong majority against us in his own House. I read to him part of Bishop of Peterborough's (Marsh's) Charge, just published, in which the Bishop predicts that if Dissenters are put on a level with the Church, they will soon cast an eye upon her good things. He laughed heartily and said that was the question, particularly in Ireland.

"I consulted with him about the petition of General Body of Dissenting Ministers, which I am to send to him, with a note explanatory of the party from whom it comes. He will present it the same night that Lord John Russell presen ts it in the Commons."

On Sunday, January 27, 1828, Mr. Aspland addressed the GravelPit congregation in these terms :*

"It is not my design, nor can it be necessary, to go fully into the history, or to examine minutely the provisions, of the Corporation and Test Acts. Publications are daily issuing from the press which give full information concerning these oppressive laws; and the Petition prepared for your signature, which will be read at the close of the service, states fully, and I believe correctly, our principal objections to them. The stress of the grievance is this: that, under heavy and ruinous penalties, they forbid any one to hold any office in any corporation, or any place of trust and emolument under his Majesty, who shall not, in one case within one year before, and in the other within three months after entering upon such place or office, have taken the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the Church of England.

"The clause in the Corporation Act requiring the Sacramental Test, was not an original part of the Bill, but was introduced in its passage through Parliament. It could scarcely have been designed against the Presbyterians, then the principal body of Dissenters, since it is well known that the majority of them, agreeing in the propriety of a National Church, if it were but the true Church, and holding the same doctrines as are taught in the Church of England, did not scruple occasional conformity.

"The Test Act was passed in an agitated period to exclude Roman Catholics from places under a Government which was justly suspected of a leaning to Popery. It was strangely approved and helped forward by the Nonconformists, who were willing to exclude some of their own body from honour and influence, if by so doing they could keep out the Papists, as the Roman Catholics were then termed. They relied upon a secret understanding that after a time they should have relief in this and other matters. The engagement was not kept, and the result was, like that of many other compromises of principle,

The petition from the Hackney congregation was presented to the House, Feb. 4, by Mr. John Smith, who observed that the statement of their case did the petitioners great credit. The petition itself was printed in Christian Reformer (12mo), XIV. 52–57.

that the fetters forged for another class of persons, were suffered to press heavily upon those that helped to make them.

"With regard to Roman Catholics, the Test Act was most absurd; for the reason assigned for shutting them out was their dangerous principles, such as that oaths may be dispensed with by the priest, and that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and yet the Test was of no avail whatever except as the Catholics were men of honour and conscience.

"In truth, all tests of opinions and all religious tests of civil merit or demerit, are bad both in principle and effect; they suppose infallibility in the imposers, and they are a temptation to hypocrisy on the part of those on whom they are imposed. They let in men of no principle, and shut out only the conscientious.

"The Test Act has become a greater grievance to Dissenters than its framers could ever have contemplated; the weight of it being in proportion to the greatness of the country and the extent of its revenue.

"Acts of Indemnity are yearly passed which are vulgarly supposed to protect Dissenters; but in truth they do not touch the case of conscientious Dissenters, they merely prolong the time in which conformity will be available. There are many exclusions by the Test Act which these Acts cannot possibly reach. And what a situation is the Dissenter placed in, that he must plead his indemnity for not having done what he considers a sinful deed, that is, prostituted the Lord's Supper to worldly ends!

"The oppressive operation of the Test Laws is incalculable. Dissenters in a certain rank of life meet it every where. But the insult is still greater than the injury. And the indirect influence of these laws of exclusion is diffused through our Universities, our legal and mercantile associations, and our still more private circles.

"England is almost the only civilized country in which a very large proportion of her population lies under disabilities with regard to the public service, and this without any colourable pretence from the character of the excluded party. There was a time when the services of the Dissenters were generally acknowledged in bringing about the Revolution of 1688, in contributing to the settlement of the present reigning family on the throne, and in defending the crown of the Brunswick dynasty against two well-nigh successful rebellions. And the present generation of Dissenters cannot yield to any of their countrymen in any of the talents, qualities and habits, that constitute useful, honourable and virtuous citizenship.

"We ask not for power or place. All we seek is, not to be pronounced unworthy of power or place; not to be disqualified for serving our country as if we were criminals. As we are the occasion, under Providence, of our children being Nonconformists, we are bound to take every constitutional step to prevent their suffering in their civil relation by the performance of their religious duty. This is no political struggle. We act under religious motives and with Christian views. We wish to remove from our common faith the opprobrium of countenancing persecution, and of using one of its own most solemn ordinances for the purposes of oppression. We are not actuated on this occasion by hostility to the Established Church, for the Test Laws are of no advantage to her; but, on the contrary, impose a painful burthen on her pious ministers, and make her a party to her own degradation in the abuse of the Lord's Supper. We entertain no factious schemes, no sectarian wishes; what we seek for ourselves, we ask and are ready to give to all; we claim not indemnity, not indulgence, but liberty. Liberty of conscience is every man's birthright, and in proportion as our beloved country extends and guards this sacred right, the grant of God to man in his creation, will she unite her children in the bonds of peace, secure all her righteous laws and strengthen all her just institutions, increase her wealth and extend her influence, and thus draw down the blessing of Almighty God, the rule of whose all-perfect government it is to bless nations by means of their own wisdom, justice and charity." On the 26th of February, the long-anticipated discussion took place

He

in the House of Commons. In a speech worthy of himself and the occasion, Lord John Russell moved for a Committee of the whole House, "to consider so much of the Test and Corporation Acts as disqualified Protestant Dissenters from holding corporate and other offices." He said that he approached the question with a kind of awe which, were it not for circumstances of an alleviating nature, would amount to absolute despair, from the remembrance that the last time it was pressed upon the notice of the House it was introduced by the eloquence and argument of Mr. Fox. But he rejoiced to know that during the thirty-eight years which had elapsed since Mr. Fox's unsuccessful attempt, public opinion had been gradually advancing. then proceeded to state the principle on which he founded his motion. It was that broad principle which had been asserted in the greater part of the petitions presented on this subject to the House" that every man ought to have the liberty of forming his religious opinion from the impressions made on his own mind; that having formed that opinion, he ought to be at liberty to entertain it freely, to maintain it without interference, and to worship his God in his own manner, without any restriction or reservation whatever; and that any penalty or disqualification imposed upon him, is of the nature of persecution, and is an offence to God and an injury to man.' He gave a very lucid history of the two Acts, and shewed that the circumstances under which they had been passed had ceased to exist. He exposed the hardship which the Acts inflicted on a class of loyal and deserving citizens. He shewed that they were at variance not only with the practice existing in Scotland and Ireland, but also with the course pursued in every civilized nation of Europe. He concluded with an eloquent description (almost prophetic) of what the Duke of Wellington might do to attach the Protestant Dissenters to the Constitution of their country, to render them contented and happy, and to make them willing to bear their just proportions of the burthens of the State. "The illustrious person now at the head of his Majesty's councils,-he, the preserver of Portugal, the deliverer of Spain, the conqueror at Waterloo, that great personage, entitled as he is to the thanks and gratitude of the country, standing in the singular position that he does, commanding the patronage of the Church and the patronage of the State, having an army of 110,000 men attached to him from long service and command,-I had almost said, having at his command the power of the Sovereign,-even he, Sir, great as is his power, and extensive as is his patronage, must modify his opinions and fashion his actions to the age in which he lives. Great as have been his conquests and his services, to the spirit of the age in which he lives he must bow. He must look to the signs of the times; and if so, he must perceive the necessity of granting those rights which the Protestant Dissenters have demanded year after yearrights which may be retarded, but cannot be long withheld."-The motion was seconded by Mr. John Smith, who remarked, in the course of a long and able speech, that so far from censuring, he could not help respecting and applauding, the conduct of those Dissenters, whether Baptists or Unitarians, who preferred poverty and obscurity to burthening their consciences by complying with a form to which their opinions were averse. Hypocrites in religion might dispense with the form as well as the substance, when it suited their convenience to do so; and

it was the curse of a country which enacted such laws to make hypocrites by Acts of Parliament. But the men who, in defiance of such laws and the penalties they threatened, and the poverty they entailed, stood firm to their conscientious opinions, instead of being objectionable, were "worthy of all acceptation," and were much more worthy of employment than those who were capable of courting it by the surrender of their principles.-Mr. Marshall and Mr. George Wilbraham followed on the same side. Amongst many admirable speeches spoken that night, there was not one closer in argument or finer in spirit than that of Mr. Wilbraham. After describing very beautifully the Lord's Supper, he said, "I would ask whether it is consistent with the principles of our holy religion to make that ceremony, which ought to be the bond of human charity, the symbol of religious difference and defiance? Whether it is pious to make the most holy rite which can take place between man and his Creator, a mere scaffold by which he is to climb to high situations in this world, a mere stepping-stone to the fulfilment of projects of avarice and ambition? I would ask, in the language of one of our poets, whether it is right

"To make the symbol of atoning grace
An office key, a picklock to a place?" "

Sir Robert Inglis opposed the motion, arguing that tests were necessary to the existence of an Establishment; that this implied preference, and preference implied exclusion. He was answered by Mr. Fergusson. The motion was also supported in speeches of great power by Lord Althorp, Lord Milton and Mr. Brougham. On behalf of the Government it was resisted by Mr. Huskisson, who, however, said not one word to vindicate civil exclusion by a religious test, and by Mr. Peel, whose chief defence of the law as it stood was, that it was inoperative, and that the grievance of which Dissenters complained was rather theoretical than practical. An eight hours' debate was closed by a feeble speech from Lord Palmerston, who said he could not consent to remove from Dissenters an imaginary grievance, while the real inflictions which pressed upon the Roman Catholics remained unrepealed.

In this important debate, the argument and the earnestness were entirely on one side; and, to the surprise and joy of the Dissenters, the vote confirmed the argument. At one o'clock in the morning the House divided, when there appeared-Ayes, 237; Noes, 193;-thus shewing a majority of 44 votes for going into Committee.*

The full extent of the victory gained was made manifest by the proceedings of the House of Commons when it went into Committee, on Thursday, February 28. Mr. Peel admitted, with a slight reservation, that "the vote of the other night was perfectly decisive;" but asked for delay, to consider the subject in all its bearings and consult with his colleagues. Lord John Russell declined to postpone his resolution,

Mr. Aspland was a deeply interested auditor of this debate, being seated under the gallery, where he had the privilege of conversing from time to time with Sir James Mackintosh and other distinguished friends of religious liberty. He often spoke of the enthusiastic joy with which the result of the division was hailed. On leaving the House, his arm was seized by Mr. Spring Rice (Lord Monteagle), who, with his hat off, continued to cheer until he had reached the other side of Palace Yard. The cheering was heard at Charing Cross.

The pro

which was for a repeal of so much of the Act of the 13th and 25th Car. II. and 16th of George II. as "called upon all Protestant Dissenters to subscribe to certain formulæ and take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." The resolution was carried without a division. Mr. Christopher Richmond was immediately instructed by the United Committee to prepare a Bill founded on this resolution of the House of Commons, which was with the least delay introduced by Lord John Russell and read a first time. The second reading was fixed for Friday, March 14. Acting on a suggestion previously offered by Sir Thomas Acland, Mr. Sturges Bourne on this occasion proposed that, in lieu of the Sacramental Test, Dissenters should, on entering office, make a Declaration to the effect that they would not use the power or influence of their office to the injury of the Established Church. posed Declaration was at once resisted by some of the supporters of the Bill as unnecessary and nugatory, but it soon appeared that its adoption was necessary to secure the support of the Government and consequent safety of the Bill. The United Committee agreed to a series of resolutions, proposed by Mr. Aspland, protesting against the Declaration as unnecessary and unreasonable, but intimating that they were prepared to acquiesce in it rather than peril the loss of the Bill. At the same time, the Committee resolved, and took measures for their feeling being understood in Parliament, that they regarded the Declaration as not intended to bind the declarant, being a Protestant, to abstain from that free expression of his opinions, as an individual, and from those measures for the maintenance and support of his own faith and worship, in the use of which he was already protected by the law. The Bill passed the House of Commons without further obstruction, and was immediately read a first time in the House of Lords. The second reading was, on the 17th of April, moved by Lord Holland, in a speech which Mr. Aspland characterized as "irresistible in argument, ingenious in illustration, and abounding in humorous quotation and anecdote." The Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham and Chester, declared their approbation of the measure, subject to revision in the Committee. Lord Winchelsea called for an addition to the Declaration, to test the orthodoxy of the declarant and to ensure the rejection of Unitarians, whom he denounced as infidels. Lord Eldon from his heart and soul said “Not Content" to the Bill, because he could not consent to give up the Constitution of the country, and to sacrifice it as well as the Established Church. The Duke of Wellington declared that the Bill now received the support and concurrence of his Government, on the ground that it secured the religious peace of the country, and that the amendments introduced in it afforded ample security to the Church. Under the quieting influence of the Duke's declaration, the second reading passed without a division. In the Committee, Lord Eldon moved that an Oath should be substituted for the Declaration. Thirty-two Peers voted for, and one hundred against, the amendment. Various other injurious alterations of the Bill were proposed by Lord Eldon and his friends; but the

"April 17. Second reading of Corporation and Test Act Bill in H. of Lords. I was admitted on an order from Lord Eldon. Lord Holland's speech great. The Bishops' pretty good. Duke of Wellington for peace! No division."-Diary.