86

IIISTORT OF ENGLAND.

c ?v *p. presentation had been thus systematically attacked, he knew1685. not how to call the throng of gentlemen which he saw aroundhim by the honourable name of a House of Commons. Yetnever was there a time when it more concerned the public wealthat the character of the Parliament should stand high.Great dangers impended over the ecclesiastical and civilconstitution of the realm. It was matter of vulgar notoriety,it was matter which required no proof, that the Test Act, therampart of religion, and the Habeas Corpus Act, the rampartof liberty, were marked out for destruction. “Before weproceed to legislate on questions so momentous, let us at leastascertain whether we really are a legislature. Let our firstproceeding be to inquire into the manner in which theelections have been conducted. And let us look to it that theinquiry be impartial. For, if the nation shall find that noredress is to be obtained by peaceful methods, we may per-haps ere long suffer the justice which we refuse to do.” Heconcluded by moving that, before any supply was granted,•the House would take into consideration petitions againstreturns, and that no member whose right to sit was disputedshould be allowed to vote.

Not a cheer was heard. Not a member ventured to secondthe motion. Indeed, Seymour had said much that no otherman could have said with impunity. The proposition fell tothe ground, and was not even entered on the journals. But amighty effect had been produced. Barillon informed hismaster that many who had not dared to applaud that remark-able speech had cordially approved of it, that it was the uni-versal subject of conversation throughout London, and thatthe impression made on the public mind seemed likely to bedurable.*

* Burnet, i. 639.; Evelyn’s Diary, May 22.1685; Barillon, and

im™TT 1B85 ' ^he s 'i° nce °f the journals perplexed Mr. Fox: but it isexplained by the circumstance that Seymour’s motion was not seconded.