HAS hOR¥ 7 OF c EV ROPE. 
tation of the perfons moft interefted 
in the fuccefs of the motion he was 
about to make: that it was a fubje 
of fome triumph and exultation to 
him, to fee thofe men, who on 
former occafions had acted with the 
- moft violent hoftility towards him, 
’ defirous, notwithftanding, ofentrult- 
’ ing their deareft interefts to him. 
~ ‘The argument which Mr. Fox 
chiefly laboured to eftablifh was of 
this kind: that religious tefts were 
juftifable only upon a fuppofition, 
that men who entertained certain 
fpeculative opinions, would be led 
by thofe opinions to commit actions 
_ that were in themfelves immoral and 
hurtful tofociety. Now it was un- 
_ warrantable, he contended, to infer 
 @ priori, and contrary to the profef- 
fions and declarations of the perfons 
holding fuch opinions, that their 
_ opinions would produce acts injuri- 
ous to the commonweal. ‘To pre- 
fume to judge of other men’s opi- 
 nions, and to know the confequences 
_ of them better than themfelves, was 
the conftant pra@tice, and was of the 
very effence, of perfecution. How 
little {peculative opinions were, in 
_ fact, to be confidered as difqualifi- 
cations for being admitted into civil 
_ employments, was evident from va- 
_ rious inftances. Thofe who were 
% the moft ftrongly attached to the 
 Pprefent conftitution of the houfe ot 
commons, would not contend, that 
ar 
: “ait of Richmond ought to, be 
ualified from being matter-genc- 
_ ral of the ordnance, or Mr. Pitt from 
being firftlord of thetreafury, becaufe 
__ they were of opinion that the pre- 
~ fent mode of reprefentation was de- 
eCtive and called for amendment. 
why the church fhould be fuppofed 
0 be in danger, though Dr. Prieftley 
felf were at the head of it. The 
object of the teft laws, at firft, had 
or the fame reafon, he did not fee’ 
[73 
been to exclude anti-monarchical 
men from civil offices; but he would 
ever reprobate fuch a procedure ; it 
was acting under falfe pretences ; 
its tendency led to hypocrify, and 
ferved as a reftraint upon the good 
and confcientious only. Inftead of 
a formal and direét oath of allegi- 
ance, there was an indirect, politi- 
cal teft reforted to, by means of a 
religious teft; although the obliga- 
tion of all direét political tefts had 
been juftly exploded by the practice 
ofthe country. Why not have pro- 
pofed a monarchical teft at once ? 
It would have anfwered the end by 
far more effectually than the prefent 
teft; for the teft now given went 
only to guefs. at a man’s opinion > 
it might admit thofe whofe political 
fentiments might be inimical to the 
conftitution, while it operated di- 
recily again{ft others who were a- 
mongft its ftauncheft friends. With 
re{pect to the church, the ridiculed 
the opinion, that it might be endan- 
gered by the repeal of the atts, as 
of all others the moft unfounded and 
abfurd. The only danger that the 
church had to apprehend, was from 
the fupine indolence of the clergy, 
and the fuperior activity and zeal of 
the diflenters in the difcharge of the 
duties of their facred funétions. 
Mr. Fox then argued from they 
merits of the diffenters, firft hiftori- 
cally; and thencontended generally, 
that the political principles they were 
fuppofed to entertain were lefs ini- 
mical to the Britith conflitution, 
than thofe of the high churchmen. 
With refpe& to French politics, 
he did not fee what the prefent quef- 
tion had to do with them. He re- 
probated the injuftice of imputing 
to any body*of men the exception- 
able conduct of a few individuals 
amongft them, and contended, that 
his motion ought to be decided upon 
- general 
