was not originally intended to operate against Protestant
Dissenters, but to prevent the intrigues and influence of the popish
party; that the dissenters deserved well of the nation, and especially
of his majesty's family, of whom from the Revolution, they had been
the most zealous supporters; that every man having a right to judge for
himself in matters of religion, he ought not, on account of the exercise
of that right, to incur any punishment, or be branded with any marks of
infamy; and that the exclusion from military service and civil trusts
was both a punishment and an opprobrious distinction. The house,
however, was not disposed to take a liberal view of this great question.
Lord North and Pitt, who took the lead in opposing the motion, argued,
that the acts in question were meant to include both Papist and
Protestant dissenters, and that the Corporation Act in particular was
professedly made against dissenters, and not against Papists, though it
eventually included both. The preservation of the Corporation and Test
Acts, they further argued, was essential to the preservation of the
constitution. Yet, by a strange anomaly of sentiment, Pitt declared, in
flattering and explicit terms, the esteem and regard which he felt for
the Protestant dissenters, who had ever approved themselves genuine and
zealous friends of constitutional liberty, of which their conduct during
the late political conflicts had given a memorable proof. Pitt, however,
was resolved to preserve the union, of church and state inviolate, and
it was on this ground chiefly that he opposed the motion, which was lost
on a division, by one hundred and seventy-eight against one hundred. The
dissenters were much disappointed and chagrined at the conduct of Pitt
on this occasion, for it was generally supposed by them, that if he
did not support them, he at least would not have discountenanced their
efforts. It is probable, however, that Pitt himself was in reality in
their favour, but at court a conscientious, and therefore insuperable
hostility existed against such a measure, and a determination on his
part to force it through parliament, would doubtless have led to his
dismissal. Moreover, as there were many important interests involved in
his administration, he may have been led to conclude that the time was
not yet arrived for so bold an enactment.

AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

On the 20th of April, Alderman Newnham rose to ask the chancello