connections with other powers, unless it had a monarch at its head. Ministers might congratulate themselves upon the successes of their artifices; the outrage upon the sovereign, if it was not merely accidental, was to them a pledge of their security. They had interposed the throne as a shield between themselves and the effect of popular fury; they employed the sceptre as a conductor, in order to draw off from their own heads the lightning of the resentment of an injured nation. Mr. Sheridan then adverted to what Mr. Hardinge had stated respecting the license of the theatres, the history of which he explained. He complimented Lord Chesterfield's speech against the bill for licensing the stage, which he thought by far the best production his lordship ever wrote or delivered. He should not, however, have noticed this trivial incident in Mr. Hardinge's argument, had it not been for the personal application it had to him. The principle of that regulation was moral and not political; in the latter view he could not conceive who was to be answerable, the author, actor, or manager. Was Mr. Bensley to be accountable for the sentiments put into the mouth of Pierre, in Venice Preserved? No man, indeed, could say that he did not speak them deliberately. The origin of the restriction was in order to repress indecencies and abuses-such as a man must want common decorum to introduce. As a proof that the power of the licenser was sometimes abused, Mr. Sheridan alluded to an anecdote respecting himself: on the night before the first appearance of the School for Scandal, he was informed that it could not be performed, as a license was refused. It happened at this time there was the famous city contest for the office of chamberlain, between Wilkes and Hopkins. The latter had been charged with some practices similar to those of Moses, the Jew, in lending money to young men under age; and it was supposed that the character of the play was levelled at him, in order to injure him in his contest, in which he was supported by the ministerial interest. In the warmth of a contested election, the piece was represented as a factious and seditious opposition to a court candidate. He, however, went to Lord Hertford, then lord chamberlain, who laughed at the affair, and gave the license. For his own part, he deemed a theatre no fit place for politics, nor would he think much of the principles or taste of the man who should wish to introduce them into stage representation. With respect to the London

stage, the fact however was, that the players were considered as the king's servants, and the theatre the king's theatre; and there was nothing so natural as that no pieces should be permitted that were not agreeable to his Majesty. Covent Garden and Drury Lane were the only licensed theatres in the kingdom; none others were subject to license at all; so that point of the hon. gentleman's argument fell to the ground. Mr. Sheridan concluded with solemnly and seriously declaring, that if the bill passed into a law, he believed, that it would either be the final doom of liberty in this country, or that it must lead to those dreadful scenes of distraction and commotion which every man must deprecate, and which he would almost rather die than be compelled to witness. A division took place upon the question for the third reading of the bill— ayes 266; noes 51.

DECEMBER 4.

ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES.

The report of the resolutions of the committee of supply on the extraordinaries of the army was brought up and read a first time; and on the second reading, Mr. Whitbread moved an amendment, “That the sum charged for building of barracks should be left out of the resolution."

MR. SHERIDAN rose to second the amendment of his hon. friend. He considered it as a part of the system of ministers to erect military fortresses all over the kingdom, in order to establish a military government; and therefore this article, of all others, had no pretence to a place among the extraordinaries of the army. The extraordinaries of the army were supposed to consist of nothing but such expenses as could not be foreseen. The erection of barracks did not come under that description, and was an expense which must have been foreseen. He was convinced, that if their plan had been stated at the begining, to its utmost extent, it would have found but a feeble support in the house; and therefore he was desirous, that even now it should be developed and submitted to them as a subject of open and separate discussion. Besides being unconstitutional in its object, it was become a mere government job; for he had heard of barrack-masters being appointed, with large salaries, where there were no barracks, and no intention of erecting them. With respect to the West India expedition, he wished for nothing so much as a fair inquiry into the subject. He hoped that it was

the intention of administration to institute an inquiry into the whole conduct of the war, and then he would have an opportunity of showing the inhuman neglect of this expedition, in which there was not only an extravagant waste of treasure and national honour, but also of the lives of their countrymen.

The house divided-for the amendment 28; against it 74.

Mr. Sheridan asked whether the sum, which they were now called upon to vote, would cover the whole expense of the barracks? From his own observation, and from the report of others, he understood that a great part of the barracks were by no means completed; they were at present in a state of preparation, and it might cost the country as much more before they were finished. Now he wished to put to the house, suppose that the sum total of these barracks should amount to two millions (and it was not probable that it would fall short of one million), if the estimate had in the first instance been laid before the house, would they have consented to incur so enormous an expense for such an object? Now, however, they were called upon to vote it away in scraps and parcels, without any account being given of the application, or having any means to judge how far they were applying the money of their constituents for a proper purpose.

DECEMBER 7.
LOAN.

The loan was raised for 1796 without the usual mode of competition. Mr. Pitt assigned as a reason for this conduct, that the persons concerned in procuring the last loan had not yet received the latter instalments due to them upon it. He had, however, so far consulted the good of the public, that the interest to them would not prove more than £4 48. 3d. per cent. This assertion gave birth to a long and tedious discussion.

MR. SHERIDAN said he rose to make one observation; the right hon. gentleman admitted that he had been in an error with respect to what passed with Mr. Boyd; that when he came to carry his project of competition into execution, he had, for the first time, discovered that he was entangled in an engagement, of which he was not before aware; and that, had it not been for this, he would have proceeded to a loan by competion. He thought it extraordinary that, in transacting this loan, he should have forgotten the circumstances that passed in conversa

tion with Mr. Boyd. He said that, in a former conversation with Mr. Morgan, the right hon. gentleman was chargeable with the same forgetfulness as to the circumstances of the Austrian loan; that Mr. Morgan and his friends had taken fire at this, and had posted up a paper in the Stock Exchange. He thought it somewhat extraordinary, that after the rebuke which the right hon. gentleman had received, he should omit being explicit, whether or not there was to be another Austrian loan? He asserted, that the effect of this negligence would be a total loss of character as to punctuality of business, a great pecuniary loss to Mr. Morgan and his friends, and a loss to the public of nearly £400,000 sterling. How far such a loss was criminal, he should leave to the committee. The question he wished to ask was, whether the right hon. gentleman considered himself bound to contract no new loan till the last payment on the former one was made good?

DECEMBER 8.

WAYS AND MEANS.

MR. SHERIDAN said, that though it would be more proper to come in detail to the taxes, he wished merely to observe at large on one or two points. When the bills should be brought in on the several taxes, there would be ample scope for particular observation and discussion. With regard to the tax on horses, he thought it should not extend to the agricultural part of the country. When a tax was before laid on the carts, to which his hon. friend (Mr. Curwen) alluded, the law was repealed, because the house thought that part of the community ought to be held sacred. Besides, the tax on husbandry then was not so heavy as now; and the farmer was then more able to bear taxation. He thought the right hon. gentleman also wrong in his calculation of this tax; he doubted the amount produced by the tax on horses of pleasure, without allowing any diminution in consequence of the duty; for certainly gentlemen would be induced to keep fewer horses on account of the tax. The plea of laying a duty on the farmer's horses, namely, the dearness of provisions, was a bad one; for if the farmer already, from a principle of rapacity, stood out for an extravagant price for his provisions, would the house, he asked, increase that rapacity? Would they furnish him an excuse for asking more? Again, the horse-dealer

was thrown into a disagreeable predicament by doubling his license. The imposing a duty of £20 on him, injured him in the exercise of his business. Again, how would the tax be extended to all horses? Did the right hon. gentleman mean to employ officers to ascertain the number of horses, and the age when the duty was to attach? How could he ascertain all the horses in New Forest and elsewhere? In fact, if the right hon. gentleman followed up his own principle, he would find that the operation of the tax would defeat its own purpose; for in New Forest, and such places, there were horses that were not employed for any service. On the other hand, if he confined the tax to horses of pleasure, he would find that it would be unproductive. Upon the whole, then, he wished him to reconsider it, and substitute some more equitable and productive tax. The next thing to which he wished to call the attention of the house, was the tax on collateral successions. He was free to say, that this had so many difficulties as to render it, to all intents and purposes, impracticable. There would appear so many difficulties in preparing the provisions, and enforcing the regulations of the bills on this head, that, on the first blush of it, he thought it ought to be abandoned. With regard to personal property, did the right hon. gentleman mean to ascertain the real value of estates, to find the amount of debts? Could an officer be able to ascertain all this, and afterwards, on a division, strike a balance? He would put a case: how could the commercial stock in trade of a merchant be ascertained, and his debts, with a thousand other complicated circumstances, be regulated? With regard to real property, how could it be made to attach to life estate? In the cases of mortgage, it would be difficult to ascertain the real value above incumbrance. He thought Mr. Pitt was beyond the mark, in stating the property of the nation in this way at twenty-eight years purchase. In this estimate the right hon. gentleman could not be regular. Was he to institute assessors to ascertain the amount of personal property? and on the whole, would he constitute an inquisitorial power? He said thus much, merely to induce the right hon. gentleman to consider the business maturely; and if he did so, he thought he would find his plan impracticable.