reafon and juftice. The Parliament which negatived the provifion for the exemption, were known to have gone upon the idea that it had been provided for in the articles as they ftood; and the fame opinion had been acted upon by the British Parliament. The question therefore turned again upon its original ground, namely, was it politic, or was it just to disfranchife, and difable from ferving in military and other offices, a race of men, merely because they were attached to the religion in which they had been bred, and which was fecured to them by law and by treaty? Sir Gilbert Elliot concluded with moving, "That the Houfe immediately refolve "itfelf into a Committee of the whole House, to confider "how far the provifions of the faid act, which require per"fons holding any office, civil or military, or any place of "truft under the Crown, to receive the Sacrament of the "Lord's Supper, according to the ufage of the church of "England, extend, or ought to extend to perfons born "in that part of Great Britain called Scotland."

Mr. Francis feconded the motion.

Mr. Mr. Pulteney was of opinion that the motion made by the Pulteney. honourable Baronet was of a very different nature from that.

for the repeal of the test act in England. He observed, by the treaty of union two national religions were establifhed; and he was perfuaded it never was the intention either of the people of Scotland or of England, that the members of the church of Scotland fhould take a test. The proceedings on that fubject about the time of the union, had been very fairly and very accurately stated by the honourable Baronet. If the test had been made a part of the treaty, the union could not have been effected, and therefore it was allowed to lie dormant. But the church of Scotland was one of the two eftablished religions in this country, and its members were entitled to all the privileges of the members of the church of England. It was impoffible, however, to reconcile that idea to the teft act. If it was a matter that was dangerous, and that ought not to be granted, in God's name, Mr. Pulteney faid, let the petition be rejected; but if it were a measure perfectly innocent, if no evil or mifchief whatever could arife from it, why fhould it not be granted? If the question had nothing to do with the teft act, but if it remained as it was, in that cafe he should think it right to go into a Committee on the petition, and confider how far the prayer of it could, with propriety, be granted. Mr. Pulteney said, the arguments again.ft the repeal of the teft act were chiefly two. The one was, that there was a hazard in admitting thofe perfons into offices and places of truft, who did not conform to the rites of the church of England; and the other

was,

was, the danger that might arife from the corporation act being enforced. These two acts were not taken separately, but together. Neither of thofe arguments, Mr. Pulteney contended, applied to the prefent cafe, for the members of the church of Scotland were not fectaries, but were members of a church, established by law as much as the church of England was, and confequently they were equally well qualified for offices and places of truft. Secondly, with regard to the corporation act, there was no propofition before the Houfe. It came then, Mr. Pulteney faid, to this very fhort propofition, namely, the church of Scotland and the church of England, being equally established by law, and both being equally the national religion, whether, under these circumstances, the members of both churches had not an equal right to the participation of every privilege and advantage? as to the Scotch Clergy, he joined with the honourable Baronet in bearing teftimony to their worth, learning, and abilities. They had always fhewn themfelves attached to the Government, the conftitution, and to general liberty. They were, in general, men of independent (pirit too, and not fubfervient, as was fometimes faid of the English Clergy, to those who were in power. He therefore thought they were entitled to the panegyric which the honourable Baronet had made on them, and that their petition fhould be treated with respect by the Houfe.

The Lord Advocate for Scotland faid, he thought it his duty Lord Adto rife, though he did it with reluctance, in order to deliver vocate for his fentiments on the fubject. He paid great refpect to thofe Scotland, who had gone before him, and certainly agreed moft heartily with them in all the praise they had beftowed upon the Scotch Clergy, whom, from his knowledge and experience, he believed fully merited all that had been faid of their learning, integrity, and abilities. The honourable Baronet had wished the Houfe to think that in bringing forward the motion of this day, he was not actuated by party motives; he, for one, from his knowledge of the honourable Baronet, would readily acquit him of any fuch intentions, and trufted that the Houfe would confider him, in whatever he might fay in oppofition to the motion, to be equally uninfluenced by motives of that nature. In arguing this fubject, which he would do as fhortly as poffible, he must begin by ftating, that fince the union, a period of eighty years, no application of this nature had ever been judged neceffary to be presented to Parliament, till the laft meeting of the General Affembly of the church of Scotland, although that Affembly had regularly met in the month of May every year during that period; this hafty manner of proceeding, in a matter of fo much importauce,

3 A 2

portance, and which had been fo long known to exift, with out even a supposed grievance, till for the first time it was ftated, last summer, was certainly one reafon, if there were no others, why he would oppofe going into the Committee now; because he thought the fubject required much more. ferious confideration and difcuffion, than it had yet received even in the General Affembly itself, before it became Parlia ment to determine upon the propriety or impropriety of the measure propofed. Much ftrefs, he faid, had been laid upon the unanimity which prevailed on this fubject, among the clergy of the church of Scotland; but he denied that it exifted; and he begged leave to reinind the honourable Baronet that, in the Committee, appointed by the general Affembly, which no doubt confifted of men, who, for integrity, learning, and genius, were the fitteft to be upon fuch a Committee, fo far were they from being unanimous, that there were nine for this application to parliament, and eight against it; he thought was another very strong reason why the House fhould not proceed rafhly. He muft likewife fay, that confidering how foon the enfuing Affembly were to meet, it would have been much more decent, had the Committee presented their report to them, and waited till the fubject had been more fully confidered, before this application was made to Parliament: which he confequently oppofed as premature, improper, and not even confiftent with the unanimous wishes of the clergy of Scotland, as had been stated. Had there been only the diverfity of opinion he had mentioned in the Committee, that was a fufficient caufe for referring the fubject again to the General Affembly, where its nature. was best understood, and having it properly inveftigated, the grievance, if any, clearly pointed out, the propofed redress diftinctly stated, and the whole fyftem completely ripened, before any application of this fort was carried to Parliament, without their confent; which he muft think to be the cafe, knowing that a variation of opinion does exift amongst the Clergy, and on this ground, the Lord Advocate faid the motion fhould have his decided oppofition.

With regard to the treaty of union, and what had been faid about our ancestors not wifhing to prefs these questions at that time, he muft beg that gentlemen would recollect the fituation in which the commifioners, who fettled that treaty, were placed; they had no discretionary power to interfere or not, in fettling the establishments of the two churches; on the contrary, they were on both fides totally excluded, the English commiffioners by an act of the English Parlia ment, and the Scotch commiffioners by an act of the Scotch Parliament, from entering at all upon the difcuffion of any difference,

differences with refpect to religious establishments in either kingdom; and for this very plain and wife reason; that many schemes had been thought of on this subject, previous to that period, which had proved abortive, and prevented the union that was fo much defired between the two kingdoms, which made all wife men think, at that time, that fuch attempts had been, and would be, the rock on which we fplit. Nothing, in either the 4th or 25th articles of the union, could, in his mind, apply to the reafoning which had been made ufe of that day; and the commiffioners for fettling the treaty of union having no power to interfere with the test act at that time, the wisdom of the two Parliaments having declared it dangerous to the object in view, they could not make any propofition to that effect, nor had it ever been thought neceffary to make any fince. As to an equal participation of civil rights and privileges of Scotchmen going to England, and Englishmen going to Scotland, he believed, no body would fay that it was not fully enjoyed, although nothing refpecting the teft act was comprehended in the treaty of union. He therefore never could agree to this application, unless fome neceffity for it was fhewn, or the exiftence of grievance fomehow proved. As to civil offices, he believed, few would fay that the Scotch were not admitted to their full fhare of them; indeed the reverse was much oftener infinuated, He would follow the example and the wisdom of his ancestors, by avoiding all difcuffion of differences on opinion that could produce no good effect; and owned he was fully content with the acquiefcence which the church of England gave to Scotchmen, enjoying offices, by not requiring tefts. He had only one more obfervation to make before he fat down, and that was, that the laity of the country had not been confulted, nor had they made any complaint of grievances; a circumftance which would weigh ftrongly with him, even if the Clergy were unanimous in their opinions concerning it. He difapproved of taking up this matter, after eighty years experience had taught any fuch interference unneceffary, and concluded by giving his hearty diffent.

Mr. Anftruther role to fay a few words in reply to what Mr. Anhad fallen from his honourable friend, who fpoke laft. With truther. regard to the opinion of the clergy being unanimous on this fubject, however the Committee might differ about the mode of application for redress, certainly the General Affembly was unanimous as to the grievance; which a reference to the petition on the table would clearly fhew, as it contained a copy of the refolution which the Affembly came to upon that queftion. The Committee themfelves had no difference

он

be

on this point, nor had they any power to give an opinion upon it, because the order of the General Affembly referred only to them the mode of obtaining redrefs, and a majority of them had thought the best way was by an application to Parliament, which they had adopted. The General Affembly had determined the question of grievance, which his honourable friend was anxious to avoid a difcuffion of; because, he faid, Scotchmen enjoyed their civil rights and privileges to any extent in England, by the filent acquiefcence of the church, and without interference; but that he thought was little to the purpose, for the fault was on the ftatute book. Why will you have laws which you are obliged to fufpend by an annual act of Parliament, or rather by fufpenfion from fix months to fix months? It is true that Scotchmen may in civil and military offices in England; but ftill this act hangs over them, and they only enjoy fuch, without the teft, by the indulgence of this uncertain act of fufpenfion. His honourable friend had rather miftated the act of the two Parliaments of England and Scotland, impowering commiffioners to fettle the articles of union; the act of the English Parliament only excluded them from entering into any difcuffion relative to alteration of the liturgy, rites, or ceremonies of the church of England, and certainly this could not include the test act, which concerned neither the liturgy, rites, nor ceremonies of any church. Before the union, Scotland had nothing to do with the teft act, while they did not go into civil or military fituations in England, and certainly in their own army or navy they had nothing to do with it.

He argued that no power of the commiflioners, nor any article of the treaty of union, had confirmed the test act as an unalterable immutable law, which his honourable friend had stated it to be. The act of the 13th Elifabeth, with regard to the church establishment, and the act of fucceffion in Charles the Second's reign, were certainly confirmed by the treaty of union, and was unalterable, and to continue for ever; but would his honourable friend fay the fame of the test act, which was altered every year, which was a direct contradiction to any fuch idea. The teft act, he said, never was made to protect the church of England against Prefbyterianifm, but against the Papifts. After fome obfervations upon toleration, Mr. Anftruther concluded, by ftating it to be the intention of the treaty of union, to give to the fubjects of both kingdoms a full and equal participation of all civil and military rights and privileges, and therefore he wished to go into the Committee as the most proper way of difcuffing the subject fully.

The