in that order of things may be considered as a ground for discontinuing negotiation begun, or even for abandoning a treaty concluded.

“Wherefore, your Majesty's faithful commons, duly reflecting on the calamitous waste of treasure and blood, to which it is now manifest the acting on this principle has so unfortunately and so largely contributed; and greatly apprehensive of the grievous and ruinous consequences to which the persevering to act on such a principle must inevitably tend, do humbly and earnestly implore your Majesty, that it may be altogether abandoned and disclaimed, and that the form of government or internal order of things in France, whatever they may be, or shall become, may be no bar to a negotiation for restoring to your Majesty's subjects the blessings of peace, whenever it can be effected on just and suitable terms for your Majesty and your

allies.

"And as the principal bar to a negotiation for peace appears to have been your Majesty's having been hitherto advised to consider the order of things in France, as precluding your Majesty from meeting a disposition to negotiation on the part of the enemy, your faithful commons now humbly beseech your Majesty to give distinct directions that an immediate negotiation be entered on for the above salutary object."

At the close of the debate

Mr. Sheridan explained part of his speech which had been misrepresented by the chancellor of the exchequer. The object of his amendment was to prevent ministers, of whose sincerity he had many doubts, from making any possible change in the internal situation of France an excuse for breaking off a negotiation. In answer to the invidious reflection of Mr. Pitt, addressed to his hon. friend (Mr. Grey), "That the son had appeared to forget the services of his father" (Sir C. Grey), he remarked that ministers had completely forgotten them, as that meritorious officer was literally the only one entrusted with an important command, who had received no mark of favour from his Majesty's government.

Mr. Sheridan's amendment was negatived without a division. The original address was then carried.

DECEMBER 10.

TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.

The order of the day for the third reading was read. Mr. Western said the bill would deprive the people of mutual confidence and general freedom, whilst it would render the crime of high treason vague and indefinite, and the person of his Majesty unsafe. He would use a stronger argument in support of this observation than any of his own, by reading an extract from an author of great weight, which as forcibly applied to the present time as if it had been written for it. The extract was from Swift's "Political Creed."

Mr. I. H. Browne thought the authority of Swift in politics, was one that the house would not be inclined to allow, as that author was distinguished as a factious and illiberal writer on politics.

MR. SHERIDAN rose, and animadverted very warmly on the reflections thrown out by an honourable gentleman (Mr. I. H. Browne) on Dean Swift, and said that gentleman had confined his whole argument to reviling the character and memory of that great man. The house, he was sure, would feel an hereditary respect for that illustrious divine and philosopher. But it was not merely from that motive, but from respect to truth, he now took up that point; for surely, every one would agree with him, that there never was a man who, with a more firm and manly spirit of attachment to the rights of mankind, maintained the cause of freedom, or in a greater degree merited the tribute of gratitude; and he declared he never heard a passage more applicable to the present times than that quoted by his honourable friend (Mr. Western). That the dean was no flatterer of great men, that he had sown the seeds of reform in the state, and that the whole body of court corruption had been the object of his attack, was much to his honour. He was not surprised that those who considered improvident loans and corrupt courts were useful to the constitution should revile the memory of Swift with abhorrence. He recollected some lines of a poem, called the "Libel on the Rev. Dr. Delaney, and his excellency Lord John Carteret," where Dean Swift supposes in Ireland (for no such thing could happen here), that a minister comes with a budget full of rewards for those who support him, which, though of course, not applicable now, might show what the corruption of loans and budgets were in Dean Swift's time.

He says, after supposing a gentleman who pays his court to a minister must perform actions contrary to his disposition, like

the avenging angel in Mr. Addison's admired simile, where he repeats,

"I'll lend you an allusion fitter,

Though flatt'ring knaves may call it bitter;
Which, if you durst but give it place,
Would show you many a statesman's face.”

"So to effect his monarch's ends,

From hell a viceroy devil ascends;
His budget with corruptions cramm'd,
The contributions of the damn'd;
Which, with unsparing hand, he throws
Through courts and senates as he goes;
And then at Beelzebub's black hall,
Complains his budget was too small.”

That a man who had so expressed his abhorrence of corruption should be detested by the abettors of that corruption, was, he repeated, not at all astonishing.

Mr. Sheridan suspected there had been a similar strewing of favours here, and the hon. gentleman opposite had come in for his share, though he certainly would not presume to say,

"From budgets with corruptions cramm'd,

The contributions of the damn'd."

He did not wish to enter much into the subject of the bill then before the house, because it did not warrant much comment. The attempt upon his Majesty was simply the pretext and stalkinghorse for the introduction of it, as there were certainly provisions enow for the protection of his person before; and excepting the clause which constitutes the overawing of parliament treason, there was no new treason. If this law had been enacted some time ago, he observed, the leading part of administration would have been transported; and, indeed, he was sorry for the country's sake that it had not. To state this more clearly, would any one deny this proposition, that when Mr. Pitt, in conjunction with the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Horne Tooke, signed the resolutions at the Thatched House for a plan of parliamentary reform, wherein he represented the house of commons to be corrupt, and not the real representatives of the people, that such a proceeding might have a tendency to stir up the people to the hatred and contempt of the government? He would ask the hon. gentleman whether the principles of Mr. Reeves's book were

not calculated to stir up hatred and contempt against the constitution, and whether the punishment pronounced in this bill would be too severe upon him? But any attempt to unmask the corruptions of government and defects of our constitution, was the evil which ministers wished to guard against; and the real object of the bill went to say, the question of a reform in parliament and existing abuses must no longer be discussed As to any gentleman's suggesting to advise his Majesty to give a negative to the bill, from an apprehension that the passing of it would excite the resistance of the country, and lead to actual convulsion, and excite a doubt whether he might not thereby violate the conditions of his swaying the British sceptre, for his own part, he considered this would be a laudable interference on the part of some great hereditary councillor, and would entitle him to immortal honour. Were his Majesty but to say in the house of lords, "I will consider," (Le Roi advisera) he might dismiss his guards, and return with the gratitude of thousands of his subjects. Mr. Sheridan said he wished to move an amendment to the clause (p. 3) which says, "If any person within that part of Great Britain called England shall, &c." by leaving out the words, "that part of Great Britain called England;" when the right hon. secretary stated that he never stood so high with his countrymen (and he wished him an opportunity of standing still higher), and they were loyal, and not tainted with the same seditious spirit as in England; and also, not one hundredth part of the danger existed now which did in 1792; he would ask whether parliament ought not to extend the merciful operation of this law to his countrymen in the north, and whether he could oppose any such amendment? In the Scotch courts the sentence for sedition was unlimited (fourteen years had been pronounced); this bill made it seven years for the second offence.

Mr. Sheridan proposed a clause, applying the enactment of the present bill to Scotland, in order to remove from the judges that arbitrary and discretionary power which they had formerly exercised.

The house divided-for the clause 27; against it 184. The bill was read a third time and passed.

DECEMBER 11.

REPORT OF THE HIGH PRICE OF CORN.

The report of the select committee appointed to take into consideration the present high price of corn was brought up, and a motion made, "That the house do agree to the resolution proposed by the committee respecting an association of the members of the house, to diminish the consumption of the bread made of wheat flour," &c.

MR. SHERIDAN said there was one point which would give him much satisfaction to hear, viz., that the proposed substitutes for the bread now in use would prove equally nutritive; but he was afraid that was not the case. He had been informed that in man cases, in which they had attempted to make bread of different mixtures, it had been found not only unpalatable, but unwholesome. This appeared to him a most material object, because, from the very high price of all the other articles of life, many of the labouring poor were forced to live chiefly on bread. The only remedy he saw for it was to adopt the bill which had been brought in to increase the wages of labourers. Persons who were in a more affluent situation would be enabled to use other articles, which would diminish the unwholesome effects of this bread; but men in that low situation to which he had alluded, would not have it in their power to have recourse to any such means, unless the bill was passed for increasing their wages. With respect to the association proposed, he should object to it in its present form; not that he did not wish the object for which it was proposed to be obtained, but because he was afraid it would set a bad precedent. If members were once called upon in that kind of way, to subscribe to a particular association, it might be extended to others of a different nature. He had no objection to the house coming to a resolution to recommend such an association, and every member in his individual capacity should recommend and enforce it by example in the place where he lived; and he certainly would do it in the parish where he lived; but he could not for one moment consent to sign the association, as at present proposed.

The resolution was put and carried.

LIBEL ON THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Sheridan brought up the second report from the committee appointed to inquire who was the author of a pamphlet, entitled, Thoughts on the English Government." It was ordered to be printed.