and elders. He professes repentance, casts the money he had received on the floor of the temple, and utters in tones of agony, “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." Surely the world never afforded a more striking proof of the power of conscience;-never before declared so forcibly its own inability to impart happiness, or heard so decisive a testimony to the innocence of Christ's life! If Jesus had really been an impostor, Judas would have felt no remorse of conscience for having been the means of bringing him to justice; and every honest man would have applauded the deed. And had there been any deception practised on the part of Jesus, this Judas who had known him so well, had every possible inducement to disclose it. But when even he is compelled under such circumstances to declare him innocent, we may confidently rejoice in his character, and place unlimited confidence in his mission!'

Art. XIV. The Necessity of the Corporation and Test Acts maintained. In a Brief Review of the "Statement of the Case of the Protestant Dissenters." 8vo. pp. 62. Murray. 1828.

WE congratulate our countrymen upon the honourable and

animating result of the first debate that has for thirty-eight years taken place in the House of Commons upon a motion for a repeal of these Acts. We congratulate them less upon the triumphant numerical majority in favour of Lord John Russell's motion, than upon the manly, patriotic, and Christian spirit in which it was brought forward and supported, and upon the contemptible appearance assumed by its opponents. Bitterly, indeed, do we regret, as we are persuaded every enlightened member of the community must do,-that one talented individual, the foremost champion of a liberal commercial policy, the soundest thinker and ablest writer in the present Cabinet, a man who, with the people on his side, might have maintained the proud port of independence as a leader,-should, in the teeth of his own declaration, have proved a recreant to the cause of civil liberty, and have excited by his servile, trimming conduct, a laugh of surprise that will, we fear, haunt him to his death-bed.

Curious to know what ground would be taken by the opponents of the motion, we had sent for the pamphlet before us, which appears to have been put forth as a feeler. It is evidently the production of some clever underling, who has had his cue given to him, and who has prepared this specious view of the case as a brief for abler counsel and a directory for voters. Accordingly, it will be found in striking unison with the tenor of the speeches attributed by the newspapers to the unfortunate Mr. Huskisson and the less inconsistent Mr. Robert Peel. The Writer would deserve the praise of courtesy, if he were not

the smooth but determined advocate of injustice; and had he not falsified history to suit the purpose of his argument, we could almost have given him credit for honest sincerity. It may be only prejudice, that has led him to mistake the matter so grossly.

The pamphlet opens with the usual caveat against newfangled opinions and projects of innovation, which always forms a preface to the defence of old injustice and obsolete error. The country had almost hoped, we are told, from the long silence of Dissenters on the subject of the Corporation and Test Acts, that the system had been found to work conveniently 'for both parties,' and that the Dissenters were perfectly satisfied. Their present uneasiness is consequently attributed to the instigation of modern political teachers, and a few interested agitators.

Dissenters would have deserved this sneer, this cool insult, had they been quite as indifferent upon the subject as appears on the face of things. We cannot altogether defend their supineness; but they have been too confiding, and have been constantly misled. Their forefathers suffered themselves to be grievously humbugged by Sir Robert Walpole; and from that time to the present, with the exception of the abortive and illtimed attempt made in 1789 and 1790, they have been always taught to believe that it was their interest and policy to wait. Those to whom the guardianship of their civil rights were entrusted, whether cajoled by sinister advice, or indisposed to make themselves obnoxious to the minister by stirring the question, quietly went to sleep at their posts. At the time of Lord Sidmouth's memorable attack upon our religious liberties, they did wake and stretch themselves,-but not until a stentorian voice had called fire in their ears, and the whole country was up before them. Still, pleas have not been wanting to deter Dissenters from making any application to Parliament for the full repeal of the penal statutes affecting them. The perpetual agitation of the Catholic Question has, no doubt, formed the principal hindrance to their claiming and obtaining a new hearing. On the one hand they have been told-' Yours, gen'tlemen, is the inferior grievance, and it would be injustice to the Catholics, to relieve you first.' On the opposite side it has been said: We should have no objection to open the 'doors to you, the Dissenters; but then, the Catholics will get • in.' You must not grant the Catholics what they ask for,' said Lord Liverpool, because we must then in decency relieve the Dissenters.' You must not attend to the prayer of the Dissenters,' says Mr. Huskisson, because it would injure the 'cause of the Irish Catholics.' If the administration has been VOL. XXIX. N.S. BB

favourable to the Dissenters, they have been told, that the agitation of the question of the Test Act would weaken the hands of their friends by alarming the Church. If unfavourable, they have been told to wait for better times. And now, they are taunted with not having applied sooner,—with having sent up only six petitions to Parliament in ten years. Their silence is construed into an assent and consent to the wisdom, justice, and convenience of the system. Is this fair? Is this decent?

The present Writer goes, however, much further than this. He cannot perceive what restraint upon conscience these laws involve; nor is it possible, he says, to be discovered; a pretty strong indication of the flexibility of his own conscience. Mr. Burke thought otherwise; and although he may not rank so high as an authority with this gentleman, as Dean Swift, some respect is due to his declaration, that the enforcement of this test, by wounding a man's conscience, annihilated the God within him.' But the passage which the Writer cites with approbation from the worthy and witty Dean,'-that model of purity, patriotism, and orthodoxy,-deserves to be extracted; not only as shewing what absurdity could once pass current under the sanction of a name, but as displaying the consummate ignorance of the present Writer,-well-informed as he appears on other topics,-on the subject he has undertaken to discuss.

"The word conscience," he says, "properly signifies that knowledge which a man hath within himself of his own thoughts and actions." And, again : "Liberty of conscience is, properly speaking, no more than a liberty of knowing our own thoughts, which liberty no one can take from us."

Liberty of conscience, according to this exquisite definition, is enjoyed as perfectly in the Church of Rome as in the Church of England, or under any other ecclesiastical system. It cannot be invaded by priestcraft nor assailed by despotism. It is not lessened by persecution; for, even in prison or at the stake, a man has still the liberty of-knowing his own thoughts! It is clear, therefore, that the Test Act cannot infringe upon liberty of conscience.

Does this Writer know his own thoughts? We suspect that he cannot; and if so, his own liberty of conscience seems in jeopardy, according to this 'proper' signification of the phrase. The Dean goes on, however, to complain that the words had latterly obtained quite different meanings.

<

"Liberty of conscience is, now-a-days, not only understood to be the liberty of believing what men please, but also of endeavouring to propagate that belief as much as they can, and to overthrow the faith

which the laws have already established, and to be rewarded by the public for those declared endeavours; and this is the liberty of con science which the fanatics are now openly in the face of the world endeavouring at with their utmost application."

This Writer tells us, that he is willing to go much further than the Dean; a somewhat alarming intimation, but he does not mean what he says. He means just the reverse of going further, not going quite so far; for he adds, that he is willing

to admit, that it is requisite to liberty of conscience, " properly speaking", that a man may worship God after the form and fashion which seems to him most fit, so as he do not thereby shock the feelings or outrage the decency of Christian society. This is complete toleration, and this the Dissenters already most fully enjoy.'

If the Writer is really willing to admit this, it is unaccountable for what purpose the citation from the Dean as an accurate observer of words and things', is introduced; unless it be to give currency to a sentiment which he secretly applauds, but is ashamed to avow. Dean Swift was a determined foe to toleration; and had he been alive at the time of our Lord's advent, he would have joined in the taunt-Have any of the 'rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? but this people who know not the law, are cursed.' Dean Swift would have supported the enforcement of the Five Mile Act and all the penal statutes against Nonconformists; and he belonged to a party who would gladly have repealed the Toleration Act itself. That such a man should be cited by the present Writer with approbation, speaks louder than all his willing admissions.

If, however, a man may worship God after the form and fashion which seems to him most fit', it is strange that he should be punished for so doing. This Writer, however, denies that penal laws are punitive, or that political restrictions operate as restraints upon the conscience. Were the Test Act enforced, he seriously affirms, no penalty would be incurred, • unless they (the Dissenters) continued in open violation of the law, which of course no man of common prudence would think of doing. Dissenters would merely have, in such case, to give up all their employments under the Crown', and that would be no penalty. It is no penalty, to be deprived of either honour or emolument, no penalty, to be debarred from them; no penalty, to be stigmatised as unfit to be employed in any office of trust; because penalty means a fine! Such is the despicable quibbling to which this Writer has recourse in defending a bad cause.

The Author's main argument against the repeal of the Test Act is, that the invention of the annual Indemnity Acts, while

it gives us (the Church) security, practically affords indulgence to the Dissenters.' The penal statutes are certainly ⚫ unrepealed, but they lie dormant; and the only probability of their being had recourse to, depends upon such a state of cir'cumstances arising, as the Dissenters themselves have the means of preventing.' In a tone of half intimidation, half advice, he counsels the Dissenters not to awaken a suspicion which they do not deserve.' And in another place he explains himself more fully.

The Corporation and Test Acts have been prepared as a shield ready to be caught up for our defence, whenever it may appear necessary; and it would be very weak and incautious policy, to give it into the keeping of those who would naturally be the least willing to restore it to us in the time of need.'

That is to say, if we understand the Writer, it would be very weak and incautious policy in the Church, to surrender the keeping of this shield to the British Parliament. The Legislature is not to be trusted with the guardianship of the Establishment! We like persons to speak out. If we give up this power to pinch the Dissenters when it may appear to us necessary, we shall never get it again'-such is the spirit of this declaration. Who can say ', asks the Writer, that the facility with which the acts always might have been brought into 'force, may not have been the reason that it never was necessary to do so?" After this, we could hardly have expected that he would have had the modest assurance to say:

6

'Let them (the Dissenters) ask themselves soberly, whether there be any real, substantial benefit they do not now enjoy, and which they would enjoy if the Corporation and Test Acts were obliterated from the statute-book. I can see none, except so far as the repeal of these acts might aid in the general destruction of the Church Establishment, in which case they might expect to regain some of the livings of which the Act of Uniformity deprived them; and of this desire I willingly exonerate them.'

The Writer's amiable candour and charity are signally conspicuous in thus hinting and disavowing a calumny in the same breath. Some of his simple readers may be ready to inquire, how, if the Church Establishment were to be involved in general destruction, the Dissenters could get hold of the livings? Waiving this, however, we must tender our thanks to the Writer for enabling us more clearly to see, what he affects to be unable to see, the substantial benefit of obliterating the unrepealed penal statutes. He has unwittingly furnished us with the most striking illustration of the inefficiency of the security provided by the invention of Indemnity Acts. He has himself