“Every man has an unequivocal right to enquire and judge for himself, – to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, – to vindicate his own principles, and to invite others to embrace them.”[1]
So noted by Baptist Thomas Williams in an essay titled ‘On Intolerance in Religion’ published in 1816. The mainstay of this essay was the importance of permitting religious liberty for the sake of conscience. On his mind was the, multiple times failed, effort to repeal the ‘Test and Corporation Acts’ which had long disadvantaged those outside of the Church of England – especially the Dissenters which typically included some Methodists, Quakers, Baptists, Unitarians and Congregationalists. These groups endured restrictions under these acts from the 1660s with measures designed to protect the sovereignty and influence of the Church of England. While the Act of Toleration passed in 1689, which permitted these Dissenters to legally practice their religion… the Test and Corporation Acts still stood.
The first to be instituted was the Corporation Act in 1661 – which intended to protect corporate offices from influence outside of the Church of England. This act ensured that anyone elected to the government of a corporation or city would not be permitted to take up their position, unless they had taken the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the past year with the Church of England. The Test Act was installed in 1673 which further excluded anyone who had not taken this sacrament in the Church of England from anyone employed in civil or military work. Notably, the intention of this act had been to exclude Catholic intrusion into these jobs, noted by the title ‘An act for preventing danger which may happen from Popish recusants’[2]
Indeed, the question of religious liberty was a salient one for both Catholics and Dissenters of this period. Although they were inextricably linked in this quest for liberty, Catholic Emancipation is typically known far more widely than the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Both groups were tremendously active in the late 18th century seeking their religious liberty – the Catholics reaped success in 1778 and 1791, while the Dissenters were disappointed in 1787, 1789 and 1790.[3] Interestingly, while Catholics progressed in the late 18th century – in some part due to sympathy afforded by the French Revolution, the hostility towards Dissenters increased; concern had arisen as to the political nature of their aims, given their strong connection to the Whigs whose ambition was strongly in favour of the ‘rights of the people’ – which sounded too similar to French Revolutionary sentiments for comfort.[4]
There were various objections to repeal which arose in the late 18th century, and continued until it was finally granted in 1828. One which received ample concern was the threat to the Established Church. Many anti-Repealers believed that permitting Protestants to hold powerful offices might allow them to challenge the strength and sovereignty of the Church of England. Afterall, if a myriad of Dissenters began to enter these powerful offices, they might intend to displace the national church with one of their own making; at the very least, they might influence the incumbent values and practices of the Church of England, bringing about undesirable changes. Indeed, such a change could jeopardise the Christian kingdom.[5] However, this is disputed by Dissenters who zealously sought Repeal. Williams (the Baptist quoted above) asserted there was no danger of the Dissenters changing ecclesiastical norms – even if they became the majority of the population. He suggested that because of the diversity of Dissenting denominations, who differ from one another as much as they do from the Established Church, there would be no possibility of them uniting to form a National Church which might displace the incumbent one.[6]
Another significant related concern was the effect Repeal would have on Catholic Emancipation. For many this was a serious deterrent to accepting Repeal. They believed it would, in effect, open the door and legitimate arguments made by Catholics. It would not automatically grant Catholics rights to political power, since other barriers still prevented them from crossing that threshold. However, if Repeal was granted it was suggested that emancipation – the removal of further barriers to Catholics – should follow shortly thereafter. A precedent would have been established, change would be unavoidable.[7] Pro-repeal advocates wholly denied these claims, arguing that Repeal would actually strengthen the anti-Catholicism in the political sphere, given the vast numbers of Dissenters who held anti-Catholic principles. In their minds, Repeal would definitely prevent Emancipation. On the other hand, those who were concerned about the connection between these two fights for liberty were not chimerical – as already noted, the original intention behind the Test Act was directed at Catholics (popish recusants). Thus, a formal repeal of said act might be interpreted as a significant gesture in their favour.[8]
Still others argued that Repeal was unnecessary – since Dissenters already technically had access to the political sphere that they sought. Indeed, this was true, there was a loophole through which Dissenters could avail themselves to the political sphere by practicing ‘occasional conformity’. If a Dissenter wished to be permitted in powerful offices, they only had to ‘occasionally’ take the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England to validate their participation.[9] However, this was not digestible to all members of Dissenting groups. The most conscientious Dissenters were unwilling to sacrifice their principles to engage in occasional conformity.[10] Most Quakers, for instance, rejected the practice of the Lord’s Supper altogether as an unnecessary ritual. Thus, ‘occasional conformity’ was not an option for most devout Quakers who would have undoubtedly seen this as compromising.[11] Likewise, such practice was seen as a compromise amongst some Baptists. Indeed, the Lord’s Supper was a hot topic of debate in this period for Baptists in England, as they disputed over whether churches should only permit Baptists to participate, or whether they might also allow Congregationalists for this sacred ordinance. The very notion of ‘occasionally conforming’ to the Lord’s Supper in the Established Church, for political gain, would have been unconscionable to many. Indeed, you will find some Baptist Church Minutes note that occasional conformity is a grounds for ejection from church membership.[12]
Interestingly, it was this very notion of the value and sacredness of the Lord’s Supper which persuaded many to support Repeal in 1828. Lord Russell presented the bill as an opportunity to prevent the Lord’s Supper from being profaned in the Established Church. It was well-known that Dissenters would occasionally participate in this ritual merely for political gain. This was undeniably profane to the most devout and pious Anglicans, and Repeal would remove the need for this caveat to be practiced. This was a thoroughly attractive argument for many in the Established Church, with its focus on the benefits it offered for themselves, rather than explicitly on the rights of the Dissenters, or the principle of religious liberty. To Robert Peel’s surprise, despite him advising the government to reject the motion, it was passed in Parliament. After ensuring an ‘oath to protect the Established Church’ replaced this sacramental test, this bill achieved royal assent in May 1828.[13] Notably, Catholic Emancipation was granted the next year.
By Angela Platt. Angela is a PhD researcher in the History Department at Royal Holloway and a Citizens Project intern.
[1] Thomas Williams, Religious Liberty Stated and Enforced on the Principles of Scripture and Common Sense (London: J. Haddon, 1816), p. 95.
[2] Robert Winter, Corporation and Test Acts. Statement of Legal Position of Dissenters, by the London Society of Deputies of the Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist Denominations (London: Fauntleroy and Burton, 1827), pp. 2–16; Committee for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts Minutes 1786-1790 and 1827-8, ed. by Thomas W. David (London: London Record Society, 1978), p. vii; Rowland Hunter, Statement of the Case of the Protestant Dissenters under the Corporation & Test Acts, 3rd edn (London: Howland Hunter, 1827), p. 2.
[3] G. M. Ditchfield, ‘The Parliamentary Struggle over the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, 1787-1790’, The English Historical Review, 89.352 (1974), 551–77 (p. 551).
[4] Ditchfield, pp. 562–69; David, pp. x–xvii; H.L. Short, ‘Presbyterians under a New Name’, in The English Presbyterians: From Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism, ed. by Jeremy Goring (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1968), pp. 219–86.
[5] G. I. T. Machin, ‘Resistance to Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, 1828’, The Historical Journal, 22.01 (1979), 115 (pp. 130, 138) <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00016708>.
[6] Williams, p. 115.
[7] Machin, pp. 127–29.
[8] Machin, pp. 119, 122; Richard A. Gaunt, ‘Peel’s Other Repeal: The Test and Corporation Acts, 1828: Peel’s Other Repeal’, Parliamentary History, 33.1 (2014), 243–62 (p. 247) <https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12096>.
[9] Machin, pp. 121–22.
[10] David, p. xxi; Gaunt, p. 246; Hunter, p. 9.
[11] Pink Dandelion, An Introduction to Quakerism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
[12] ‘Maze Pond Church Minutes’ (Oxford), Angus Library and Archive, Regent’s College Oxford, C/LONDON/MAZEPOND 1/6; Robert W. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771 – 1892: From John Gill to C. H. Spurgeon (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006); Hunter, p. 13.
[13] David, p. xxiv; Machin, pp. 120–21.
