TEST. ACT. 



V»as at lealt followed up with conliltcucy. Tlioir influence 

 in the ftate was feared, and they were not only reftriAcd 

 From liolding offices of power or truft, but rendered inca- 

 pable of purchafing lands, or acquiring influence of any 

 kind. But if the Roman Catholics of thofe times were 

 Papifts in the ilrie^ell fenfe of the word, and not the Roman 

 Catholics of the prefent day, iUU he would fay, that the 

 legiflature ought not to have afted againil them, till they 

 put in praftice iome of the dangerous doftrines which they 

 were thought to entertain. Difability and punifliment 

 ought to have followed, not to have anticipated, offence. 

 Thofe who attempted to juftify the diiabilities impofed on 

 the difTenters, muft contend, if they ai-gued fairly on their 

 own ground, not that their religious opinions were inimical 

 to the eftablifhed church, but that their political opinions 

 were inimical to the conllitution. If they failed to prove 

 this, to deprive the difTenters of any civil or political ad- 

 vantage, waa a manifett injuftice ; for it was not fufficient to 

 fay to any fet of men, we apprehend certain dangers from 

 your opinions, we have wifely provided a remedy againfl 

 them, and you, who feel yourfelves aggrieved, calumniated, 

 and profcribed, by this remedy, muft prove that our appre- 

 henllons are ill-founded. The onus probandi lay on the other 

 fide ; for whoever demanded that any other perion fliould be 

 laid under a reftriftion, it was incumbent on him tirll to 

 prove that the reftriction was neceffary to his fafety, by 

 fome overt acl, and that the danger he apprehended was not 

 imaginary but real. Was it ferioufly to be contended, that 

 religion depends upon political opinions ; that it can fubiill 

 only under tliis or that form of government ? It was an 

 irreverend and impious opinion to maintain, that the church 

 muff depend for fupport, on its being an engine, or ally, of 

 the flate, and not on the evidence of its doftrines, to be 

 found by fearching the fcriptures, and the moral elfefts it 

 produced on the minds of thofe whom it was its duty to 

 inftrutt. See Toleration. 



Mr. Pitt agreed with Mr. Fox in admitting, as a general 

 principle, that the religious opinions of any fet of men were not 

 to be reflrained or limited, unlefs they fhould be found likely 

 to prove the fource of inconvenience to the ftate : nor ought 

 the civil magillrate, in any other point of view, to interfere 

 v/ith them ; but he maintained, that when religious opinions 

 are fuch as may produce a civil inconvenience, the govern- 

 ment has a right to guard againfl the probability of the civil 

 inconvenience being produced ; nor ought they to wait till, 

 by being carried into afticn, the inconvenience has aftually 

 arifen. It was not therefore on the ground that the dif- 

 fenters would do any thing to affeft the civil government of 

 the country , that they had been excluded from civil offices, but 

 that if they had any additional degree of power in tlieir hands, 

 they might. On the other hand it has been pleaded, that to 

 reftrain men's civil rights from the fuppofed tendency of their 

 opinions, is a very dangerous principle, as it muft render 

 their condition precarious and wholly dependent on the pre- 

 judices and will of the magiftrate, and warranted unlimited 

 reftraint, and almofl every f'pecies of perfecution. 



Mr. Pitt, prcmifing that the eilablilhment of a fettled 

 form of church and of its minifters is neceffary to the civil 

 government of the country, fuggefts the impropriety of dif- 

 tributing the emolumenfs and offices of the eflablifhed 

 church among perfons who, however refpettable their cha- 

 ra6f;ers might be, were not members of the fame com- 

 munion ; but others fay, that the emoluments and offices of 

 the eflablifhed church are not the objetls contended for, but 

 thofe of the ftate, unlefs the church and ftate be abfolutely 

 identified. He alfo fays, that thefe offices may be con- 

 lidered as matter of favour, becaufe it is confillent with the 

 govermiient of this country, that all oflices lliould be given at 



its difcretion ; and here, he fays, from the dehcatc nature of 

 the cafe, the legiflature had thought proper to mtcrpofe, and 

 to reftrain the fupreme magiftrate, the head of the executive 

 authority, and limit him in his appointment to thefc offices ; 

 but furely, as ho contends, this differed eflentially from any de- 

 gradation, difgrace, or punifliment of the diffentcrs. Others, 

 however, have confidered this kind of reafoning as fallacious, 

 both in its principle, and in the inference deduced from it. 



Mr. Fox concurred with lord North, who, though an 

 .advocate for the continuance of thefe difqualifying laws, 

 bore teftimony to the principles and charafler of the dif- 

 fentcrs, in his avowal of their fteady attachment to govern- 

 ment ; and he added, that their religious opinions were 

 favourable to civil liberty, and that the true principles of the 

 conllitution had been remembered and affirmed by them, at 

 times when they were forgotten, perhaps betrayed, by the 

 church. See Dissenters. 



Mr. Fox maintained, that the Teft aft was altoge- 

 ther inadequate to the end it had in view. The purport 

 of it was, to proteft the eflablifhed church, by exclud- 

 ing from office every man who did not profefs himfelf well 

 affefted to that church. But a profeffed enemy to the 

 hierarchy might go to the communion table, and afterwards 

 fay, that in complying with a form, enjoined by law, he had 

 not changed his opinion, nor, as he conceived, incurred any 

 religious obligation whatever. There were many men, not 

 of the eflablifhed church, to whofe ferviccs their country had 

 a claim. Ought any fuch man to be examined, before he 

 came into office, touching his private opinions ? Was it not 

 fufficient that he did his duty as a good citizen ? Might he 

 not fay, without incurring any difablility, " I am not a friend 

 to the church of England, but I am a friend to the con- 

 llitution, and on religious fubjefts muft be permitted to 

 tiiink and aft as I pleafe." Ought their country to be de- 

 prived of the benefit fhe might derive from the talents of 

 fuch men, and his majefty prevented from difpenfmg the 

 tavoura of the crown, except to one defcription of his fub- 

 jetts ? But whom did the tefl exclude, the irreligious man, 

 the man of profligate principles, or the man of no principle 

 at all ? Quite the contrary ; to fuch men the road to power 

 was open ; the teft excluded only the man of tender con- 

 fcience ; the man who thought religion fo diftinft from all 

 temporal affairs, that he held it improper to profefs any re- 

 ligious opinion whatever, for the fake of a civil office. Was 

 a tender confcience inconfitlent with the charafter of an 

 honeft man ? or did a high fenfe of religion fhew that he was 

 unfit to be trufted ? Allowing that the elf abliftied rhurch 

 ought to be protected, it was natural to inquire what was 

 the eflablifhed church ? Was the church of England the 

 eftabhfhed church of Great Britain ? Certainly not : it was 

 only the eftablifhed church of a part of it ; for, in Scotland, 

 the kirk was as much eftablifhed by law as the church was 

 in England. The religion of the kirk was wifely fecured, 

 as the eftabliftied religion of Scotland, by the articles of 

 Union ; and it was furely abfurd to fay, that a member of 

 the kirk of Scotland, accepting an office under government, 

 not for the fervice of England excluiivtly, but for the fer- 

 vice of the united kingdom, ihould be obliged to conform, 

 not to the religious eftablifhment of Scotland, in which 

 he had been bred, but to the religious eftablifhment of 

 England. 



To the argument urged in favour of the Corporation and 

 Teft afts, founded on the apprehenfion that if they were re- 

 pealed, the difTenters might become a majority of the peo- 

 ple, Mr. Fox gives a brief reply, 'ci%. that if the majority 

 of the people of England lliould ever be for the abohtion of 

 the sftablifhcd church, then it ought to be abohllied. It 

 has been faid, that by manifcfliiig indulgence to other fcfts, 



a candid 



