25. Mr. Thomas Grenville's Motion for an Address, advising His Majesty to decline any Inter- ference in the War between Russia and the 2. Mr. Grey's Motion for an Address, imploring His Majesty not to prorogue the Parliament without communicating some distinct Infor- 15. Mr. Fox's Motion for sending a Minister to Paris, to treat with the Provisional Govern- SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES JAMES FOX, &c. &c. MR. BEAUFOY'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS. May 8. 1789. ON this day, Mr. Beaufoy moved the House for a committee to take into consideration so much of the test and corporation acts as related to protestant dissenters. The motion was opposed by Lord North and Mr. Pitt, and supported by Sir Harry Hoghton, Sir James Johnstone, Mr. Fox, Mr. Martin, and Mr. William Smith. Mr. Fox said, that on the present occasion, he did not feel himself under the necessity of trespassing, for any length of time upon the indulgence of the House; because the nature of the subject now under their investigation had been so thoroughly examined, and so amply and variously reasoned upon, not merely within the walls of parliament, but in every corner of the kingdom, that it was not in his power to give the force of novelty to arguments, the frequency of the repetition of which must still live within the general remembrance. He could not avoid declaring at the outset, that he experienced an insurmountable difficulty in submitting to that opinion of the honourable gentleman who spoke last, (Mr. W. Smith,) which had led him to describe the reasonings of the noble lord in the blue ribband as weak, fallacious, and pompous nothings. Although even the solid and brilliant abilities of the noble lord could not impart an irresistible weight to that side of the question which he had chosen to espouse, yet their exertions were too formidably respectable to be laid open to the lash of either levity or contempt. He was, however, so much accustomed to find the House adopt a contrary opinion to that which he endeavoured to maintain, that he was apprehensive the noble lord's arguments would have more weight with the majority of the House than his own. Whatever sentiments gentlemen might have formed with respect to religion, with respect to an established church, to toleration, or to the length to which it ought to extend, there could, in his opinion, be no objection to a motion which went only to a committee of enquiry. If the corporation and test acts should appear to be wrong in their principle, they certainly ought to be repealed; if they were right in their principle, it might, perhaps, be found that they were inadequate to the purpose for which they were enacted. In either case, examination and enquiry might do much good, and could not possibly prove injurious. The first question which naturally presented itself was, whether the church and the constitution were necessarily connected and dependant on each other, and in what degree? And on this point the House, he trusted, would be careful how they assented to the proposition of the noble lord. For his own part, he should not scruple most unequivocally to declare, that he conceived that religion should always be distinct from civil government, and that it was no otherwise connected with it, than as it tended to promote morality among the people, and thus conduced to good order in the state. No human government had a right to enquire into private opinions, to presume that it knew them, or to act on that presumption. Men were the best judges of the consequences of their own opinions, and how far they were likely to influence their actions; and it was most unnatural and tyrannical to say, "As you think, so must you act. I will collect the evidence of your future conduct from what I know to be your opinions." The very reverse of this was the rule of conduct which ought to be pursued. Men ought to be judged by their actions, and not by their thoughts. The one could be fixed and ascertained, the other could only be matter of speculation. So far was he of this opinion, that if any man should publish his political sentiments, and say in writing, that he disliked the constitution of this country, and give it as his judgment, that principles in direct contradiction to the constitution and government were the principles which ought to be asserted and maintained, such an author ought not, in his judgment, on that account, to be disabled from filling any office, civil or military; but if he carried his detestable opinions into practice, the law would then find a remedy, and punish him for his conduct, grounded on his |