e repeal of the
corporation and test acts, had done so with temper and moderation; but
now, in opposing the motion, he spoke of their conduct with the utmost
indignation. At the very moment, he said, when they were reprobating the
test laws, they discovered their intention of forming associations to
impose a test on members of the house of commons. Pitt also vindicated
the necessity of a church establishment for the good of the state;
and endeavoured to show that such an institution could not exist if
toleration were extended to equality of privileges. Burke was more
emphatic in his opposition to the motion than Pitt. A wild spirit of
innovation was abroad, he said, which required not indulgence, but
restraint; and he asserted that the avowed leaders of the dissenters
had, in their speeches, resolutions, writings, and sermons, given
countenance to the revolutionary spirit which everywhere prevailed.
Burke read some extracts from dissenting divines in proof of his
assertions; and he adjured the house to let the events which had taken
place in France, and the sudden downfall of the church in that kingdom,
awaken their zeal for the preservation of our own establishment. Fox
rejoined, and urged the injustice of deciding a general question of
right upon the conduct of a few individuals; but the motion was rejected
by a majority of two hundred and ninety-four against one hundred and
five. This decided hostility to the measure chiefly arose from the time
at which it was brought forward, and the means which had been employed
to ensure success. Many members, and among them the amiable Wilberforce,
who had before voted for the repeal of these laws, now voted against it,
from a conviction that it would give an impetus to the innovating spirit
which so universally prevailed.
FLOOD'S MOTION FOR REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
On the 4th of March, Mr. Flood, a celebrated Irish orator, moved for
leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in
parliament. This bill proposed to add one hundred members to the present
house of commons, in a proportionate ratio to the population of each
county, to be elected by resident householders. In his speech Mr. Flood
boldly asserted that the members who sat in the house were not the
adequate representatives of the people. He would not deny that they were
the legal representatives, and he acknowledged that they were a useful
and honourable council; but, to the honour of the Briti
|