A man, whose pretensions to virtue were as equivocal as Whitfield’s to sanctity, took upon him about this time to lay straiter obligations on members of Parliament. The plan, like that of hypocrites of all denominations, was, by coining new occasions of guilt. Sir John Philipps brought a Bill into the House of Commons to oblige the members to give in particulars of their qualifications, _and to swear to the truth of them_. A known Jacobite, who and whose friends had taken the oaths to King George, ought to have been sensible that perjury was _not_ the crime at which most men stuck in that age: nor could it be hoped that they who made a seat in Parliament the foundation of their fortune would not overleap any obstacle to obtain one. Pitt, James Grenville, and Beckford promoted the Bill. Lord Egmont opposed it with great ability, and pointed out how much it would subject all estates to the inspection, and, consequently, to the iniquitous practices of attorneys: and he showed that western estates in particular were so circumstanced, that, without double the qualification required, they would not be sufficient to answer it. Much spirit against the Bill appeared in others. The Duke of Newcastle was very averse to it, but forced to swallow it a little curtailed, as Pitt insisted that something must be done to gratify the Tories. Lord Strange ridiculed it, particularly one notorious blunder: the Bill directed that no man should take his seat till he had produced his qualification, and sworn to it in a full House, the Speaker in the chair. This, at the opening of a new Parliament, was an impossibility--by whom was the Speaker to be chosen? Young Thomas Townshend spoke warmly against it, and traced its origin to the four last disgraceful years of Queen Anne, when a like Bill had been attempted by the Tories. The Bill, however, passed both Houses. In the Lords, the Duke of Richmond and the Earls of Gower and Hilsborough opposed it. Lord Temple supported it insolently, threatening disunion if it were not allowed to pass. Lord Hardwicke seemed but cool towards it; yet he treated the Commons arrogantly, and said he had winked at many things for the sake of union. Lord Gower put it home to the Bishops, whether the Bill would not multiply perjuries; yet it was carried by _fifty_ to _sixteen_, as it had been in the other House by fourscore to forty.