but that the army could not be so restrained, on account of the want of troops. Nothing brought James so speedily to the crisis of his fate as the test act, which restrained him, and rendered it impossible for him to fill all offices, civil and military, with those of his own sect; which he hoped to be enabled to do, by gaining the repeal of the test act; and then there would have been an end to all liberty. Tyranny would have stolen silently on, until it had been so deeply rooted, as to render all endeavours against it vain.

I conceive it to be the duty of every member of this house, to prevent that which may, in a future period, subject the nation to the same dangers which it has be fore experienced. If the Scots had any hardships, if they had any grievances, they would have been ready enough to have laid complaints before the house; and there are many gentlemen of that country, in the house, who would be ready enough to state those complaints to the house, if any existed. The union with Scotland I look upon as a most sacred compact, and which ought not to be touched with a rash hand. The church is established on a sacred basis, and those who wish for no innovation on the union, should guard against any attacks on the church. With respect to the clergy of the church being forced to give the sacrament to all who de sire it; that so far from its being the wish of the clergy of England to gain a repeal of the test act, they are all álarmed at the intention of proposing the repeal, and are determined to resist it with their greatest strength. Every minister is bound, by his holy office, to refuse the communion to any unworthy person. If he refuses according to law, by law he will be justified: the fear of an action should not prevent a man from doing his duty: if he is right, where can be the fear of an action? He will gain honour, and the person bringing the action will have a considerable expense and dishonour. The clergy are situated now in the same manner that they were before the test act; they could then, and they may now, upon proof, refuse the administering the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper to an unworthy or bad character. sacrament is administered, as a test of being well affected to the church. Some test is necessary, and must be taken. If the sacrament, in many instances, is taken unworthily,

The

I fear that many false oaths are taken; and can that ope. rate as a reason for the abolition of oaths, which in many cases, are absolutely necessary? The legislature is not to be answerable for the consequences of the sacrament being taken unworthily, or for false oaths; and, if any other test could be devised, to answer the same purposes, I would willingly adopt it. If the plea of birth-right is argued, on that ground may catholics also claim admis. sion. It hath been contended, that times have changed: that then a papist was on the throne. Yes, thanks to heaven! they are changed: but may not they be changed again? It may be said, that there is now no danger of jacobitism-the family is reduced to two brothers, one of whom, being in priest's orders, can have no legitimate offspring, and the other is very old. But there may be danger in breaking down the barrier which has hitherto guarded the constitution. We all know the perilous nature of a cry, "The church is in danger!" and, an incendiary watching his opportunity, may cause as great a tumult, and as much mischief by that cry, as by the cry of No popery!" Though we owe much to the Brunswick line, for the blessings of that liberty which we enjoy, much is also owing to the church for its promotion of harmony, by its submission to the government, and its liberal principles, principles which have encouraged bringing forward the present motion. We find no complaint of ecclesiastical tyranny, no church persecution; let us not then confound toleration of religious principles, with civil and military appointments. ----Universal toleration is already established :-let us be upon our guard against any innovation in the church :the constitution is always in danger, when the church deprived of its rights.

LI. Lord Thurlow, on the East-India bill.

MY LORDS,

THE noble and learned lord has not yet given any solution to my difficulties. I ask the noble and learned lord (lord Loughborough), if he can reconcile the principle of the present bill to the principles of

the British constitution, admitting even, what we have not as yet the smallest cause to admit, that the necessity of an immediate interference by parliament is apparent., The noble and learned lord fills so high an office in two of his majesty's courts, that I should naturally expect to see him the champion of our glorious constitution. It is not fitting that so great a character should muddle in the dirty pool of politics. The present East-India bill means evidently to create a power which is unknown to the constitution, an imperium in imperio;-but, as I abhor tyranny in all its shapes, I shall oppose most strenuously this strange attempt to destroy the true balance of our constitution. The present bill does not tend to increase the influence of the crown; but it tends to set up a power in the kingdom, which may be used in opposition to the crown, and to the destruction of the liberties of the people. I wish to see the crown great and respectable; but, if the present bill should pass, it will be no longer worthy of a man of honour to wear. The king will, in fact, take the diadem from his own head, and place it on the head of Mr. Fox. Your Lordships have heard much of the ninth report of the select committee. That extraordinary performance has been in every body's hands. The ingenious author states, that "The East-India company is in possession of a vast empire, with such a boundless patronage, civil, military, marine, commercial, and financial; in every department of which such fortunes have been made, as could be made no where else."-This, my lords, is the true de scription of that vast and boundless patronage, which this bill means to throw into the hands of the minister of the present day. I speak the language of the late marquis of Rockingham, for whom I had the highest respect and regard, and to whom I have been much obliged, when I say, that every minister of this country will naturally strengthen his party, by increasing his friends, and disposing of every office of honour or of emolument amongst those who will support his measures: with this explanation of the system on which the present ministers act, and, indeed, on which all ministers must act, let me conjure your lordships to weigh well the consequences which will result to the constitution of this country, should the present bill pass into a law. By the funda

mental principles of this constitution, the executive power of the state is placed in the hands of the crown. We have heard much, my lords, of late years, of the alarming increase of the influence of the crown: I will candidly confess to your lordships, that I have never seen the influence of the crown too great. I wish to see the crown great and respectable; and, if the boundless patronage of the east must be taken from the company, if regulations wisely adopted and steadily enforced, will not be sufficient to remedy existing evils, let the bound. less patronage of the cast be placed where only with safety to the constitution of this country it can be placed in the hand of the executive government. In the last year, we passed an act to prevent contractors from sitting in parliament; but, by the present bill, Mr. Fox's contractors do not even vacate their seats. is the distinction between the crown and a subject.

Such

In the last year, we passed an act to prevent customhouse officers from voting for members of parliament, so cautious were we to preserve the purity of the house of commons, and to diminish the influence of the crown; but, in defiance of every principle which was then professed, no jealousy is expressed of the man who is to have in his possession the boundless patronage of the east. The doctrine advanced by the noble and learned lord is indeed extraordinary. He tells you that the act of 1773 was an infringement of the charter of the East-India company, but that his objection was, that it did not go far enough, and therefore he would totally destroy the char ter. The noble and learned lord will recollect the doctrine of the king's attorney-general, sir Robert Sawyer, in the unconstitutional and infamous reign of Charles II, as detailed to us in that ministerial gazette, that receptacle of all true intelligence, Mr. Woodfall's paper; yet, my lords, how was the doctrine of sir Robert Sawyer reprobated by the chief justice of that day! The charter of the city of London was taken away, not because, according to sir Robert Sawyer's opinion, it was for their good, but because the court was induced to declare it had been forfeited. At the revolution, however, it was restored, and the strongest marks of abhorrence were expressed at so atrocious a deed, perpetrated under the semblance of justice. But before the house can consider

this very important bill on that ground (to which every Englishman must naturally object to it, that it is directly subversive of our venerable constitution, and on that ground I challenge the noble and learned lord to meet my argument fully and fairly), it will be necessary to consider the real state of the East-India company. Let us not be misled by reports from committees of another house, to which, I again repeat, I pay as much attention as I would to the history of Robinson Crusoe. Let the conduct of the East-India company be fairly and fully enquired into; let it be acquitted or condemned by evi.. dence brought to the bar of the house. Without entering very deep into the subject, let me reply in a few words, to an observation which fell from a noble and learned lord, that the company's finances are distressed, and that they owe, at this moment, a million sterling te the nation. When such a charge is brought, will par liament, in its justice, forget that the company is restricted from employing that credit which its great and flourishing situation gives to it? Will parliament, in its justice, forget that all the bill-holders of the company are willing to extend the period of payment? Will parliament, it its justice, forget that so high is the credit of this company, that if the restrictions were taken off tomorrow morning, every demand due to the state would be discharged? Will parliament, in its justice, forget, that not all the wisdom of his majesty's councils, nor the united wisdom of this country, has prevented us from being involved in a long, a dangerous, and an expensive war? Will parliament, in its justice, forget, that though we have met with loss, misfortune, and disgrace, in every other quarter of the globe, this delinquent East-India company has surmounted the most astonishing difficulties in India?

Will the justice of parliament forget, that when peace was at last restored to this unfortunate country, the conquests of this delinquent company were given up, to prevent farther sacrifices in the west? Will parliament, in its justice, forget that this delinquent company, by the additional expense of freight, or captures at sea, has sustained a loss of two millions seven hundred thousand pounds, in consequence of our national war? Will par.. liament, in its justice, forget, that when this country

K