On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Mdllg £ kces *~ C 6 tpwai \ oh and TesiJei ' * . 41 $
Untitled Article
fdre unnfc to be retained on the statute books * He concluded by moving the -Resolutions which are inserted below . Mr . Peacock seconded the motion . Even Churchmen , he observed , com * plained that the law compelled them to take the sacrament to qualify them for a seat in that Court . To the Dis *
senters the grievance was of course much greater . He referred to the Nonconformists as being , at the time of passing these Acts , the true friends of the Constitution , and the defenders of the liberties of the country . They had made many sacrifices to serve the
public . They had not forfeited their for * , mer character , and were , therefore , entitled to relief as their right . He fully agreed in the resolutions , and concurred in the propriety of not presenting a petition at this particular juncture .
Mr . Dixon spoke against the resolutions . He complained that the mover had not treated the Court fairly in departing from the terms of the requisition , which announced the intention to peti * tion . He thought he ought to have acted on his own judgment and brought the whole measure forward at once * rather than comply with the wishes of certain members of Parliament who had
agreed , for particular party reasons , to postpone this and other important ques * tious . He could see no ground for seek * ing the repeal of these Acts . Such had been the practical course pursued by the Church of England , that no obstacle had been placed in any man ' s way to prevent his rising in his condition . The Acts had , in his opinion , produced no practical evil . He wished to know who
suffered from them ? As they occasioned no real inconvenience , he was for letting well alone . He knew there existed a disposition to innovation , and he could not but consider this as an experiment to entrap the Court into declaratory resolutions , when the gentleman would not hazard his cause in Parliament . He concluded by moving , as an amendment , the previous question . Mr . Savage seconded the amendment .
He viewed the original resolutions , not only as contemplating the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts , but also as a step designed to promote the great question of Catholic Emancipation , which he hoped no Englishman would support . Mr . Alderman Wood regretted that the mover ( Mr . Favell ) had not acted on his original intentions of petitioning Parliament . He wished to go all lengths with him , and he should there-
Untitled Article
fore certainly vote for the resolutions . He adverted in strong terms to the op * pressive Operation of the Acts in ques * tion on foreigners , who , on their settlement in this country , were compelled to qualify under them . He knew an instance of a respectable gentleman who had been kept in a state of the utmost terror for a month because he could not
bend his conscience to conform to the Sacramental Test . He was not one who would pledge himself to support any minister by postponing great questions in which the interests of the public were concerned . He thought the ministry ought to have the opinion of thi 3 Court on the question under discussion . He did not blame Mr . Canning for the declaration he had made , though , perhaps , he had been goaded to it . That gentle-Inan had never been the advocate or
friend of the measure to which he had then announced his hostility . He was for going at once to Parliament . The question related to many besides the Dissenters , and was of deep interest to every member of the Church of England who was compelled to take the sacra * nrent as a qualification for office .
Mr . Alderman Waithman admitted , with his honourable colleague , that it was the duty of every member of the Legislature to act on his own independent opinion ; yet he felt that he ought to support that party in Parliament which was disposed to carry on liberal
measures . He also thought that the people were bound to support the prerogative of the crown in the choice of its ministers . As there was nothing perfect in human institutions , he considered it right to get all the good he could when we failed to obtain all that
we wished . On this account he would avoid pressing any measure which should tend to embarrass the new administration . Mr . Dixon had said , that no person had opposed obstacles to the admission of members to that Court from the Acts under consideration . He ( Mr . W . ) knew that a disposition had existed to put them in force against himself . But
supposing this had not been the case * why should the Court sanction a law which put this in any man's power ? He deprecated the idea that we were to be bound in all things by the wisdom of our ancestors , who might have had par * ticular reasons for their proceedings which had long ceased to operate . If we acted on this principle there would be an end of all improvements . Were we to abstain from our efforts in this case , merely because the laws < rf- which
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1827, page 453, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1797/page/61/
-