England. They were very properly put upon equal terms. Was it confiftent with this equality, that a member of the church of Scotland, as a qualification for a poft as an Englifh officer, not for an officer in the English church, or an English corporation, but a British officer, an officer in the British army or navy, fhould make a folemn profeffion of attachment, not to the establishment of the church of Scotland, but to that of the church of England? It never could be the intention, as a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas) had explained it, that members of the two establishments fhould communicate with either. It was never understood that a member of the church of Scotland, in order to enjoy the advantages of the union, fhould communicate with the church of England. He was told, that the members of the church of Scotland had no objection to communicate with the church of England. This he could neither admit nor deny, on any knowledge of his own; but he well knew that the other part of the pofition, were this motion ever to come before the House of Lords, where the heads of the church of England were, would be formally denied them. Now how was the line of diftinction to be drawn? By a natural or geographical limit? If a man to the north of the Tweed accepted of an imperial office, he was not to communicate with the church by law established there; but if he accepted of the office on the other fide of the Tweed, he was required to do fo, under heavy pains and penalties. There was no law to prevent the King from refiding in Scotland. Suppose he were to do fo, he might appoint all his officers of ftate, without any one of them being obliged to qualify according to the test act, and let in all the imaginary dangers to church and ftate, against which he was held up as the impregnable barrier. A perfon receiving His Majefty's orders to raise a regiment in Scotland, might there appoint all his officers without any teft; but the moment they came into England they must take the teft within a time limited, or incur the penalty of outlawry. But it had been faid, as the law was never enforced, these inconveniencies were mer● theories. If it were not enforced, why fuffer it to remain? for a law not executed is, if poffible, more theoretic than theory itself. The penalties, however, were not theoretic, because not enforced. Their execution depended neither on the church, nor on the government, but on the will of any malicious perfon who might choose to turn informer, if, indeed, it was fair to call any man malicious, for doing what the law directed him to do, and held out a reward for doing. Of all the penal ftatutes, the conftant defence was, that they were not executed; a very irrational defence to be fure; and this was ftrengthened by a demand of "thew me the prac tice." Thank God, Mr. Fox faid, he could not fhew the practice. The wisdom of the legislature had taken care, from time to time, that the practice fhould not appear; but there could not be a ftronger argument that they were not fit to remain as laws than the general concurrence of mankind, that they were not fit to be acted upon. But they were retained for the fafety of the church. It was an ill compliment to the church of England to say, that she could not fupport herself by the purity of her doctrines, and the good example of her members, without a provifion by law; that not only all thofe educated in her bofom, but thofe educated in the bofom of another church, fhould make a profeffion of attachment to her, as a qualification for civil offices; while the church of Scotland, her neighbour, not only required no fuch protection, but apprehended no danger from her fons being obliged to profefs attachment to another, in order to enjoy the common rights of fubjects. A right honourable gentleman had faid, that the church of Scotland was fecure in her poverty, which dreaded no attack. Had he any reafon to believe, trom the hiftory of his country, that poverty was an adequate protection? Was no attack made upon her by the epifcopal bigotry of Charles I.? Was none to be apprehended from the Roman Catholic bigotry of James II.? Was not the fear of fome fuch future danger as rational a fear, as that kept up by the clamour of faction for the fafety of the church of England, at the time of the Union, a clamour to which, fortunately, Parliament did not liften? Both were now equally imaginary; what reasonable objection could then remain to difcufs how the law flood in confequence of the Union. As a friend to an established church, he was an enemy to the diftinction which the test set up between the two established religions of the country; for what was the confequence? If a man born in one part of the kingdom conformed to the law and religion of the country, accepted a public office, he was called on not to profefs his attachment to that religion, but to examine the doctrine and difcipline of another, and to make a folemn profeffion of attachment to it, which, in the opinion of many, amounted to a disapprobation of that in which he had been educated.-Was not this a mockery of eftablishments? It was, indeed, faid, that this was no dereliction; but, in difcuffing the general repeal of the test act, was it not generally faid to be a profeffion, that he who took it was of the religion of the ftate? Was not this the argument at all the public meetings called for the purpose of oppofing the repeal? Was it not the answer to the alledged profanation of a Sacrament, that it was not taken on account of an office, but as an act of religion, which he who took it was bound to perform, with out out any regard to public office? What was the religion of the ftate as thus explained ?-The religion of the church of England Muft not then the church of Scotland feel that she was not confid red in the fame light with the church of England, that he was not in the fituation to which, as part of the cablished religion of the country, fhe was entitled? The very name of the teft ought alone to fuperfede all these arguments. If they were to fay with a right honourable gentleman, to whofe argument he had before alluded, that the teft meant nothing but a profeffion, that he who took it entertained no hoftile ideas against the establishment; that he was ready to communicate with either church; that he who was of the church of Scotland when out of office, might communicate with the church of England when in; let that explanation be given, by which neither religion-nor politics would be much benefited. Notwithstanding what a learned gentleman had faid, with refpect to the origin of the prefent motion, he was fatisfied from what he had heard, that it had originated, as ftated by the honourable Baronet who moved it, on the unanimous opinion of the General Affembly, that the test act, as appeared to members of the church of Scotland, was a grievance, and their vote unanimous to apply for redrefs. It might, for any thing he knew, he confidered in Scotland as a folecifm to apply to Parliament, when they had reason to believe that His Majesty's Ministers were not inclined to favour their application; but it was not, and he trusted never would be, confidered as improper or unfeasonab'e in this country, for any subject or class of subjects, to apply to Parliament for relief from a grievance, whatever might be the difpofition of those in power. It had been farther obferved, that the application came from the clergy of Scotland only; and it was afked, why the fense of the people had not been taken. After all they had lately heard, of alarms in the minds of the people, (vain alarms, in his opinion) was it wife, was it politic, was it like statesmen, when a propofition came before them from a respectable body, founded on fenfe and reafon, to fet it afloat among the people, and defire them to hold public meetings, and difcufs its merits for the inftruction of the Legiflature? The hiftory of the Union afforded no rule on the fubject, both parties were afraid to come fairly to the question. The great men of that period were obliged to yield to the prejudices of the times. The Houfe would recollect how far fhort of their own opinions they had been obliged to fet up in relieving Roman Catholics. Was it then to be wondered at, that eighty years ago Lord Cooper, and the statesmen with whom he acted, fhould have yielded to the fame fort of neceffity? With regard to religion, there were few acts on the statute books books which ought not to be completely expunged. Inftead of that, they bufied themselves in explaining, mitigating, or fufpending; and whenever the only proper remedy was mentioned, the answer was, "They are not executed;" the very worft character that could be given of them. This had been the answer to all the propofitions that had been lately made. Ought not the House at laft to fee that laws, unfit to be executed, that were fometimes the inftrument of partial oppreffion, but never of public benefit, were not fit to remain? They were well defcribed by a learned and orthodox Prelate as "dangerous weapons laid in the way, which no good man "would use, and which ought not to lie there as a tempta"tion to the bad." Mr. Fox faid, that he was a complete friend to religious establishments, on the fame ground that he was a friend to toleration. He thought it highly proper that a fyftem of inftruction for the improvement of morals fhould be provided for in every country; but highly proper also that those who diffented from that fyftem fhould incur no penalties, fhould fuffer no difabilities on account of their diffent, because, to admit of religious inftruction, whatever character it affumed, as far as it contributed to inculcate morals, was to enlarge the fphere of religion. Many eminent divines of the church of England were of this opinion. The reverend Mr. Paley, a moft orthodox author on toleration, after difcuffing all the branches of the subject, concluded with approving of a church establishment joined to a complete toleration. To get rid of a charge that was frequently put on those who argued as he did, he fhould wish to know precisely, whether the teft was a political or a religious act. When he called it a political act, he was told that it was an act for the fecurity of religion, and, as fuch, by the union was made perpetual. When he called it a religious and perfecuting act, he was told that it was a mere regulation of civil government, and had nothing to do with religion. It had, indeed, nothing to do with religion in its origin. It was intended merely to keep out Papifts-an unwife expedient, in his opinion, to attain an unwife end; and now that the object of it exifted no longer, it could be confidered only as an inftrument of religious perfecution. The church of England could never be in danger but from building her fafety on intolerant principles, and making that a pretext for oppofing the extenfion of religious freedom. This, however, was gaining ground in other countries, and would continue to do fo. This country, he hoped, would not be the laft to adopt it. The queftion of toleration he fhould always be ready to meet, whenever it was fairly and properly brought forward, and the oftener, he thought, the better; for there was no Mr. Pier. yet no queftion that gained more by difcuffion-no question, the Mr. Chancellor Pitt rofe to make a few obfervations on what had fallen from Mr. Fox. He faid he could not hope the right honourable gentleman would think better of him than of all the former friends of the teft act, whom, without knowing them, he had pronounced the enemies of all that was great and good; for he muft ftill continue to be a friend to it, till he heard better arguments against it than any he had yet heard. He had never been a violent friend to it, but he profeffed himself a firm and fteady friend, because he thought it effential to the security of the church, and as connected with that, to the civil eftablishment of the country. He confidered the prefent motion as nearly connected with the general repeal of the teft act; and unless a clearer diftinction could be made out, than any yet ftated, he must look upon the one as a preliminary to the other. The manner in which it had been argued, was extremely indiftinct. The Houfe was fometimes told "Go into a Committee, "because, as applied to Scotland, it is not law." At other times they were told, "Go into a Committee, because, if it be law, it is fo great a grievance, that it ought to be redreffed." If gentlemen thought that it was not law, they ought to come forward with a diftinct propofition on that particular point; but they propofed going into a Committee, to difcufs |