succeeded in shutting out. The fact
was," he continued, "the existing law gave merely a nominal predominance
to the established church; and he heartily wished, therefore, that this
question had been allowed to remain quiescent, especially as it was
practically offensive to no one." In answer to the views taken by
ministers, on the subject, Mr. Brougham maintained that the acts were
daily and positively felt to be a most decided grievance. AVas it no
grievance, he asked, to bear the mark of the chain remaining, after
the fetter had been knocked away? Was it no grievance for a dissenter,
wherever he went, to look like, and to be treated like a different
being? It was said that temporal interests were not concerned: this
he denied. A dissenter could not stand for a corporation. It had been
stated that the late lord mayor of London was a dissenter, and that he
had taken the sacrament: that statement was in favour of the argument.
With respect to Scotland he knew that not one Presbyterian in a thousand
would take the sacrament, would not even go to a place of worship where
there was an organ, would consider it idolatry to kneel at an altar;
if they conscientiously thought so, was it to be wondered at that they
evinced a repugnance at what they considered a mixture of idolatry with
Christian worship? If in the recent contest at Vintry ward, one of the
candidates had differed from the other as to trans-substantiation or
anything of that sort, there would be an end to this legal controversy:
the court of king's bench would never have heard of it, and the
churchman would have been elected. Was not this a grievance? The
knowledge of this act operated so, that, though the dissenter might
walk on in his course, when not opposed, yet even if he aspired to
a corporation, and no individual opposed him; if he was unanimously
elected, and actually filled the place, a single individual might upset
his election, he must retire. The consequence was that the dissenter
would not seek such places: he retired to his library, to retirement, to
private pursuits, with what feelings he might towards the government
and the constitution. He was condemned to privacy, because he was of a
different religion from the state, and because he would not sacrifice
his religion for his place. Lord Palmerston said that he thought it
would be an act of injustice to the Catholics to repeal this minor
grievance while they suffered under much severer enactments. Sir