become necessary, the last drop of his blood should be expended. Having recurred to the example of the conduct of France, during a time of peace, and contended that, as was the case in the reign of Lewis the Fourteenth, it had frequently proved more dangerous to this country than a state of open war, Mr. Burke, in conclusion, became again the warm panegyrist of Mr. Fox, and repeated and reinforced the doctrine which he had maintained upon the subject of the Revolution.

Mr. Sheridan said, that the very reasons which Mr. Burke had given for expressing the sentiment which he had that day uttered, namely, an apprehension of being supposed to acquiesce in the opinions of those for whom he entertained the highest regard, and with whom he had uniformly acted, operated also on his mind, and made him feel it a duty to declare, that he differed decidedly from that right honourable gentleman in almost every word that he had uttered respecting the French Revolution. Mr. Sheridan added some warm compliments to Mr. Burke's general principles; but said that he could not conceive how it was possible for a person of such principles, or for any man who valued our own constitution, and revered the Revolution that obtained it for us, to unite with such feelings an indignant and unqualified abhorrence of all the proceedings of the patriotic party in France. He conceived theirs to be as just a revolution as ours, proceeding upon as sound a principle and a greater provocation, and vehemently defended the general views and conduct of the National Assembly. He joined with Mr. Burke in abhorring the cruelties that had been committed; but what, he said, was the awful lesson that was to be gathered from the outrages of the populace? What, but an abhorrence of that accursed system of despotic government, which sets an example of depravity to the slaves it rules over; and if a day of power comes to the wretched populace, is it to be wondered at, however it is to be regretted, that they act without any of those feelings of justice or humanity which the principles and practice of their governors had stripped them of? Mr. Sheridan went into several other topics respecting the French Revolution, and charged Mr. Burke with being an advocate for despotism, and with having spoken of the National Assembly of France with an unwarrantable liberty of speech.

Mr. BURKE said, that he most sincerely lamented over the inevitable necessity of now publicly declaring, that henceforth, his honourable friend and he were separated in politics; yet, even in the very moment of separation, he expected that his honourable friend, for so he had been in the habit of calling him, would have treated him with some degree of kindness; or at least, if he had not, for the sake of a long and amicable connection, heard him with some partiality, that he would have done him the justice of representing his arguments fairly. On the contrary, he had, as cruelly as unexpectedly, misrepresented the nature of his remarks. The honourable gentleman had thought proper to charge him with being the advocate of despotism, though, in the beginning of his former speech, he had expressly reprobated every measure that carried with it even the slightest appearance of despotism. All who knew him could not, without the most unmerited violation of natural justice, but acknowledge that he was the professed enemy of despotism in every shape, whether, as he had before observed, it appeared as the splendid tyranny of Lewis the Fourteenth, or the outrageous democracy of the present government of France, which levelled all distinctions in society. The honourable gentleman also had charged him with having libelled the National Assembly, and stigmatised them as a bloody, cruel, and ferocious democracy. He appealed to the House, whether he had uttered one single syllable concerning the National Assembly, which could justify such a construction as the honourable gentleman had put upon his words. He felt himself warranted in positively repelling the imputation; because the whole tenor of his life, he hoped, had proved that he was a sincere and firm friend to freedom; and, under that description, he was concerned to find that there were persons in this country, who entertained theories of government, incompatible with the safety of the state, and who were, perhaps, ready to transfer a part, at least, of that anarchy which prevailed in France, to this kingdom, for the purpose of effectuating their designs. Yet, if the

472

honourable gentleman considered him as guilty, why did
he not attack him as the foe of his country? As to the
charge of abusing the National Assembly, it might seem
almost sufficient to answer, What is the National Assembly
to us? But, he declared that he had not libelled the
National Assembly of France, whom he considered very
little in the discussion of these matters; that he thought all
the substantial power resided in the republic of Paris,
whose authority guided, or whose example was followed by
all the republics of France. The republic of Paris had an
army under their orders, and not under those of the Na-
tional Assembly. The honourable gentleman had asked,
from whence the people of France were to expect a better
constitution? whether from Marshal Broglio, at the head
of his army; or were they to look for it amidst the dun-
geons of the Bastile? Was that a fair and candid mode
of treating his argument, or was it what he ought to have
expected in the moment of departed friendship? On the
contrary, was it not evident that the honourable gentleman
had made a sacrifice of his friendship, for the sake of
catching some momentary popularity? If the fact were
such, however, even greatly as he should continue to ad-
mire the honourable gentleman's talents, he must tell him
that his argument was chiefly an argument ad invidiam,
and that all the applause for which he could hope from
clubs, was scarcely worth the sacrifice which he had chosen
to make for so insignificant an acquisition.

REPEAL OF The Test and CORPORATION ACTS.

March 2.

THI
HIS day Mr. Fox moved, "That the House will imme-
diately resolve itself into a committee of the whole House,
to consider of so much of the acts of the 15th and 25th of

a

1

Charles the Second as requires persons, before their admission into any office, civil or military, or any place of trust, under the crown, to receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the rites of the church of England." After the motion had been supported by Sir H. Hoghton and Mr. Beaufoy, and opposed by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Powys, and Mr. Yorke,

Mr. BURKE rose. He observed, that at two preceding periods, when the question had been agitated, he had absented himself from the House, not having brought his mind to any decision on the subject, and even yet he had not been able to satisfy himself altogether, though certainly in a much greater degree than before, when he could not lay hold of any one straight-forward principle for the better guidance of his judgment. He was now, however, from information lately received, ready to say why he could not vote for his right honourable friend's motion. In every discussion relative to religion, he was sorry to see the appearance of any thing like party spirit, because he thought such subjects ought not to be mingled nor contaminated with party, but argued on their own grounds solely. Every individual member, whatever his political sentiments may be, and however they may differ from those of other gentlemen, ought never once to suffer them to prejudice his judgment; neither did it become him to allude to them in argument. It had given him concern, therefore, to observe that the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had directed a personal sneer at his right honourable friend, who made the present motion, by invidiously putting the case, that if a man of his right honourable friend's bold and enterprising character were to come into power as a minister, and countenanced the dissenters, they might obtain a footing in places of great trust, and thus become capable of endangering the safety of the civil constitution of the state. The manner in which his right honourable friend had opened the question, and the many very weighty and sound arguments he had brought forward, in a manner so open and clear, might, he should have ima

a sarcasm. He was, he owned, the more surprized, because there had been a minister who formerly enjoyed a seat in that House, and that very minister had held publicly in the House of Lords, and in the face of the bishops, a language respecting churchmen, and the doctrine and ritual of our established religion, ten times more broad and gross than any thing his right honourable friend had said of the high churchmen in former days. The minister to whom he alluded was a man of brilliant talents and acknowledged abilities; a minister who had directed the government of this country with great glory to its national character, and great safety to the constitution, both in church and state. The minister in question was the late Earl of Chatham. In the debate occasioned in the House of Lords by the second application, Dr. Drummond, the Archbishop of York, having called the dissenting ministers "men of close ambition," Lord Chatham said, "that this was judging uncharitably, and that whoever brought such a charge against them, defamed them." Here he paused, and then went on "The dissenting ministers are represented as men of close ambition. They are so, my Lords; and their ambition is to keep close to the college of fishermen, not of cardinals, to the doctrine of inspired apostles, not to the degrees of interested and aspiring bishops. They contend for a spiritual creed, and spiritual worship. We have a Calvinistic creed, a popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy."

Thus had the noble lord selected the worst names of other religions, and applied them to our church and liturgy. The Earl of Chatham was always regarded as the protector of the dissenters, and yet Mr. Burke said he had never heard that the safety of the church had been once thought in danger during his administration. At his death it was generally conceived that he had left the protection of the dissenters, with his mantle, to a noble earl in the other House. That noble earl (the Earl of Shelburne) had since been at the head of the government of this country, and the right honourable gentleman over the way had