sion of grounds of serious alarm, and if the present force of the country is insufficient to avert or to repel the danger, in the choice of difficulties I shall give my assent to the resolutions.

The resolution was put and carried.

NOVEMBER 1.

BILL FOR AUGMENTING THE MILITIA.

MR. SHERIDAN said he saw no reason why the bill should be continued not only during the whole of the war, but three months after its conclusion. It was probable that the war might still be protracted long after any alarm of invasion had ceased. This bill was only intended to secure the country from the dangers of invasion. He should therefore propose, that the bill should only continue in force two months after the meeting of the next session of parliament.

Mr. Pitt agreed that the space of three months was not absolutely necessary, and that a period of one month might be sufficient for every purpose of security. The amendment of one month was accordingly adopted.

On the clause allowing men with a certain number of children to act as substitutes,

Mr. Sheridan remarked, that in consequence of this clause, a man might be tempted to forsake the habits of sober honesty, to accept the bounty to serve as a substitute, and abandon his children to the care of the parish.

Mr. Sheridan asked, what was the operation of the bill? Were not the men liable to be called out and embodied in a state of imminent danger; and so long as the war continued, what security had they that they should not every moment be taken from their occupations, and separated from their families?

Mr. Pitt replied, and the clause passed.

Mr. Sheridan said, that he now came forward with a proposition, which he would state in as few words as possible. His object was to move an amendment in the bill, for the purpose of doing away with a distinction which he conceived to be odious and unjust. It was one of those distinctions, however, which he could wish to be done away with rather gradually and quietly than by any clamour of debate. The distinction to which he alluded was, excluding persons from a share in the defence of their country, in consequence of a difference of religious opinion. In the oath taken by those who served in the militia, they were

required to swear that they were Protestants. This, he remarked, was an exclusion of Roman Catholics, inconsistent with the liberality of the present age. It was more particularly inconsistent in a war carried on for the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in France, and in the prosecution of which we had been so intimitely connected with Roman Catholic allies. We ought to recollect how many individuals of that description there were in Ireland, whom it was the policy of ministers to conciliate. There could be no doubt that Roman Catholics would fight as bravely and zealously in defence of the present system as any other class of subjects. He remarked that the necessity of this oath would operate particularly hard on Roman Catholic gamekeepers; and concluded with moving as an amendment, that the words "I do swear that I am a Protestant should be struck out of the oath."

The Speaker informed Mr. Sheridan, that it was then too late to introduce an amendment, as all the amendments had previously been gone through, but that he would have an opportunity on the third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, if then engrossed.

NOVEMBER 2.

INVASION.-AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES.

The report of the cavalry bill was brought up, and the first part of it being read, General Tarleton and Mr. Fox entered into a review of the state of the country, and spoke with great warmth against the measures of the ministry. The hon. Dudley Ryder replied to Mr. Fox, whose speech, he stated, was such as might have composed a manifesto for a French general after invading Ireland.

MR. SHERIDAN reprobated the attack that had just been made on his right hon. friend. The hon. gentleman said, he has concluded the most extraordinary and most unprovoked libel I ever heard in this house, by protesting that he had felt himself invincibly called upon to utter every word that he had said. Whence or of what nature, whether political or fanatical, are the calls which so invincibly govern that hon. gentleman's conduct, I neither regard nor inquire; but this I am sure of, that no part of his speech, no part of his fury, no part of his pathos, no part of his invective was called for by any passage or sentiment in the speech of my right hon. friend. He says he has heard my right hon. friend's speech with surprise and regret. Sir, I have heard his with regret, but no surprise. I much regret at this crisis,

when we heard so much of the necessity of temper, moderation, and a spirit of unanimity, to find that there are men on whom all those qualities, when evinced by their oponents, are lost and thrown away. I much regret to find that there are such men and such tempers: that with them forbearance begets irritation, candour is repaid by cant, and moderation encourages insult. [ appeal to the house whether or not the hon. gentleman's speech justifies this observation. I appeal to them whether any part of my right hon. friend's speech can justify the manner in which it has been attacked. Mark the malice and the bitterness of the hon. gentleman's insinuations. He is graciously pleased to admit, that he does not believe that we wish this country to be actually conquered by France. As one of the party to whom he has addressed himself, I bow with all possible gratitude for this instance of his candour; "but," says he, "their avowed hatred of the present administration is such, that I believe they would not be displeased with that sort of invasion that might throw a degree of disgrace on the present ministers." Good God! Sir, what motive does he assign us, and what object does he allot us? In contradiction to all our professions, in contradiction to all the manifestations of our actions, he boldly presumes that we are a set of selfish temporising traitors, who, without meaning to destroy, would wish the safety of the country to be endangered for the gratification of disgracing the present ministers! of bringing, he says, a degree of disgrace upon them! Upon whom? Upon ministers? Begrimed and black with infamy, defeated by their enemies, and degraded in the eyes of Europe already! we, it seems, wish an attack on our country for the purpose of bringing a degree of disgrace on those men, as if it were possible to aggravate the shame and indignity of the situation which they have brought on themselves. On the question of the defence of the country, we have abstained from reproaching them, and they repay us with insult. I, for one, expect no credit or applause from the partisans of these ministers, for the line we have pursued since the first serious intimation of the danger of an invasion; but, desirous as we have shown ourselves, however distrustful of the minister, to strengthen the executive government in case of emergency-let them not mistake our present forbearance-let them not misconstrue it as the slightest indication of a departure from a solemn resolution, to look to a day of national

justice on the authors of our present calamities, as the only hope of national salvation. Our intermediate moderation they may treat as they please; but it is trying our patience high indeed to hear those ministers, or their advocates, arraigning us as factious traitors, if we dare to utter a sentiment that may bring a degree of disgrace on their characters. It is too much, sir, that we should be insultingly accused of a crafty plot to disgrace men whose want of vigour in every enterprise, and whose want of faith in every engagement, have made their administration at this moment the hope of their enemies, and the fear of their allies. It is too much that such men should arrogantly hold their heads up in this house, where I view them only as arraigned culprits, whose trial is put off. That they should presume that we are as insensible to the injuries they have inflicted, as their own hardened hearts are insensible of remorse; that they should come here with frontless inhumanity, confessing and boasting that even now, at last, they have expended blood and treasure sufficient to sooth their pride, and palliate the concession of their adopting the advice of my right hon. friend, which, if originally adopted, would have saved every one of those lives, and every guinea of that treasure. It is too much to see such men covered equally with crime and shame, besmeared at once with blood and mire, erect their crests, and boldly demand support from the country because they have endangered it, and attempt to proscribe as factious traitors, those who have fruitlessly endeavoured to save it.

But, sir, the hon. gentleman has accounted for the animated-I will not call it the rancorous-manner in which he has spoken, by asserting my right hon. friend's speech displayed, at a time when moderation is so desirable, the greatest degree of party animosity. On this charge I confidently appeal to all who sit near the hon. gentleman. A speech of more temperate counsel, both in matter and manner, was never heard in this house. Where was the party animosity?—Yet let me retract:-I guess the animosity which the hon. gentleman attributes to such counsel. My right hon. friend's advice was to change the whole system of the Irish government; to govern there as he would govern here, on the principle of equal justice, truth, and plain dealing. This is the counsel given by my right hon. friend; this is the aggression of his speech; the

hon. gentleman is right to resent it; as a friend to the present minister, he is right in considering any advice which is to take him from the profitable path in which he has trod, as the insidious counsel of party animosity. In corruption he has walked— in corruption he has thriven. However calamitous his career to his country and the people, nothing can have been more profitable to himself and his connections. The advice, therefore, that would tempt such a minister to return to the straight paths of truth and honour may, for ought I know, be plausibly imputed to party animosity. This is the only ground on which I can account for what would otherwise appear a spur of malice without a meaning. Mr. Sheridan adverted to Mr. Ryder's accusation of Mr. Fox for using inflammatory arguments with respect to Ireland, while he at the same time pleaded the danger of answering them. The hon. gentleman had represented the speech of his right hon. friend as containing matter for the manifesto of an invading general. This was at least a confession that the facts he alleged were true, since a general, on invading a country, would never enumerate to the inhabitants grievances which he knew did not exist, else he might be sure his manifesto would be treated with contempt. The best way of preventing a French general from putting inflammatory topics in his manifesto, would be to remove all cause of discontent. It could not be denied that those inflammatory topics, as they were called, were true. It would have been better to have shown Mr. Fox's assertions to be false, than to have traduced him for making them. Mr. Sheridan warned the minister of the dangerous conclusion he seemed inclined to countenance, that there was no discontent where there was no clamour. "There were those who felt and were silent, and those who felt so, were most to be feared." Mr. Sheridan concluded with a short review of the bill; and though he was thankful for amendments, which he understood were to be adopted from some suggestions of his, yet he still considered it, "if meant as a measure of force, weak and inefficient; if as a measure of revenue, partial and oppressive." He considered it as extremely objectionable, both in its principles and provisions; and he could not but remark, it had been carried through all its stages by the finance minister, in the presence of the war minister, to whose department it certainly belonged, but who had sat as dumb a spectator of its progress as if he had nothing to do with it.