CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.

HC Deb 11 February 1828 vol 18 cc305-7

Mr. Sheriff Stable

presented, at the bar, a Petition from the Corporation of London praying for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, that in a very large assembly of the Common Council, the majority of whom were members of the established church, he was happy to say the petition had passed with only two or three dissenting voices.

Mr. Alderman Wood

said, the petition had been carried by a very considerable majority in the common council, a body consisting of two hundred and sixty persons, two hundred and forty of whom were annually elected. The petition, therefore, spoke the sentiments of that body, and, through them, of the citizens of London. Nothing could more clearly show the "march of the mind," as it was called, than that, in 1790, a similar measure when put forward in the common council, had scarcely a hand held up in favour of it: on the contrary strong resolutions were passed, thanking those members who had voted against the repeal of those obnoxious acts; but now, after the lapse of thirty-seven years, only three or four hands were held up against the petition. He trusted that the illustrious individual at the head of the ministry, and who had been so long at the head of the army, would take a liberal view of this question. He must be well acquainted with the inconvenience which resulted to officers who were compelled, on their arrival in this country, to take the oaths under these acts; and who, if they did not, were liable to be informed against, by any common informer.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

hoped, that the prayer of the petition would be complied with. It was a folly to be passing, from year to year, an Indemnity act. The law as it now stood occasioned great inconvenience to members of the established church. The Dissenters could not, from conscientious scruples, fill certain offices. The consequence was, that they must be filled by members of the established church, to the exclusion of extremely competent individuals. Whatever reasons might have existed for these enactments in the time of Charles 2nd, there were none now. The citizens of London suffered considerable inconvenience from them. It often happened, that persons, in every way competent to fill the offices of sheriffs; and magistrates, shielded themselves under the plea of their being Dissenters, from taking upon them these expensive and important duties. As a member of the church of England, he conscientiously believed that these acts might be repealed without the slightest danger.

Mr. Fergusson

concurred entirely in the liberal sentiments which had fallen from the hon. member. For himself, he was prepared to say, that no religious creed ought to disable men from filling any situation, military or civil. At the same time, it was right to guard against alarming the prejudices of those who thought that the Dissenters could not be relieved unless the Catholics were relieved also. He had shown by the vote he had given, that he was favourable to granting the claims of the Catholics, but at the same time he was glad to see the two questions separated. He thought that the questions ought to be perfectly distinct. He was himself a Dissenter from the church of England, but only because he professed the established religion of Scotland, the land in which he was born. He thought it a monstrous thing, while there were no tests imposed upon persons of the church of England in Scotland, that he, a Scotchman, should be required to undergo any tests in England. If he had an opportunity, when the question came before the House, he would state his reasons why he did not think this brand of ignominy ought to be continued on him, merely because he happened to be born in a different faith from others.

Mr. John Martin

complained, that the Corporation of London, while they thus prayed for relief to a certain portion of their citizens, were themselves guilty of intolerance and oppression. He then alluded to some proceedings towards certain butchers in Whitechapel, who had been refused their freedom, on the authority of a bye-law, because they professed the Jewish religion.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, there certainly did exist such a law. It was an old bye-law, not of the corporation, but of the court of Aldermen. The Corporation had set their faces entirely against it, and begged of the court of Aldermen to repeal it.

Mr. Hume

said, there were two classes of persons in the city of London, the one remarkable for just and liberal conduct, the other for conduct directly the reverse. The gaols bore testimony to the illiberality of courts of Aldermen, who had set on foot prosecutions which government, greatly to its credit, had generally discountenanced. He verily believed, that if the law allowed them to revert to the fire and the faggot, the court of Aldermen would take advantage of it.

Ordered to lie on the table.