perty in men; and if he persists in maintaining that he has, there is no wonder when he falls a victim to his own iniquity and presumption. This ought to be a lesson to us. If the question was put to him, who were the real authors and abettors of these massacres, he should place certain despots in the front of his accusation.

It was impossible for anything to be more unjust than the view which the minister had thought fit to take of all the reformers to-night: he asked the public to look upon them all as so many masked traitors. He denied the justice of that description of them. That there might be among them some men of mischievous intentions, no man would dispute; and when was any great public measure proposed, in which some such characters would not mingle? but that they were considerable, either in number or talents, was what he did not believe. That he was no friend to such persons, but would, on the contrary, endeavour to detect them, he was entitled, by what he had said this day on another subject, to ask the house to believe. But when the minister took the whole complexion of a meeting from the intemperate speeches of a few intoxicated or superficial individuals who might casually attend a public meeting, it proved what he had already said of the minister, that he was ignorant of the nature of a popular assembly; how could he be otherwise? He never entered any assembly except the house of commons, and that was the reason why he could not make a distinction between the honest intentions of the mass of the people, and the absurdities of a few.

But the minister had endeavoured to make a great deal of the difference that subsisted between the reformers; and he had said, that all that had been urged upon reform, when he was a party to it, was harmony itself compared to the discordance of late meetings. He thought that there was no harm in every man. speaking openly what he thought upon the subject of parlia mentary reform; he wished every man's heart to be legible in these times of danger; ingenuous openness was always, and at all times, much better than concealment. He knew not why universal suffrage should have been brought into such contempt; he remembered at some meetings signing his name with the Duke of Richmond in favour of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He considered it as the right of every man to propose that, if he thought fit; the expediency of such a plan was

matter for discussion and deliberation; if any other plan was better, there was no reason why it should not be preferred; but it seemed now, he confessed he knew not why, to be treated as a species of treason; he was not at all ashamed of having signed it; there was no secrecy about the matter; it was published in all the newspapers: he thought this plan a better one; he thought also that the mass of the people would be satisfied with it; but that every man who thought universal suffrage the best plan, must necessarily wish for anarchy and confusion, was a thing which he would not admit. Some men claimed popularity, as well as other advantages, from their rank; but they were deceived if they thought they could prosecute others for following their opinions without being despised by the public.

It had been stated, that the number of those who wished for a reform in parliament was small. He did not believe it. He believed that the whole body of dissenters wished for a reform without pulling down the fabric of the constitution. He believed, also, that the mass of the people of Scotland had the same wish; for, at present, the whole forty-five were returned by men who had, some of them, not an inch of land in that part of the island.

He was not much of an egotist, nor was he, out of that house, an arrogant man. He was almost ashamed of the praise the minister had bestowed upon him to-day for merely doing his duty, when he spoke of the sailors. He hoped and he trusted, that much calamity as this country feels, we shall never bend our necks to an insolent foe; but will, if necessary, to a man, defend our rights with our lives. He must be allowed to say another word about himself, as it was now necessary. He had been accused of wishing to join with those who wish for anarchy. He would ask those who charged him with so foul a wish, what temptation he had to do so? What provocation had he to excite any opposition against the aristocracy of this land or against its monarchy? He had possessed, at one time, some confidence from the monarch, during the time he filled an office of considerable trust. He had been honoured with the confidence of an illustrious personage. He had been treated with civility by many of the first families in this country. He knew no occasion he had to regret the attention he had received from that house. He had no desire to break a lance with any orator in any other

place. He, therefore, expected credit for sincerity, when he declared that he supported this motion from his heart, because he thought in his conscience it tended to restore to the people some of the purity of their original excellent constitution, and to save the state from ruin.

The house divided; for the motion 93; against it 258.

MAY 30.

NEW BANK.

Sir William Pulteney moved for leave to bring in a bill for erecting a new bank, in the event of the Bank of England not resuming its payments on the 24th of June next.

MR. SHERIDAN said, he had always desired to see public credit re-established in the person of the bank; and, therefore, he had hitherto opposed the ideas of the worthy baronet upon that subject. But he did not find, by the arguments he had heard, that any idea was entertained that the bank was to resume its payments in cash. He differed from the worthy baronet as to the first duty of the bank. That hon. member looked upon the bank as having been instituted chiefly for the purpose of accommodating government. He wanted a public bank that would proceed on the narrow ground of looking to itself, and to itself only; and he was persuaded, that until that was the case, there would be no such thing in this country as a paper circulation founded upon real credit. If the bank did not open on the 24th of June, he saw no reason, from anything that had been said tonight, for hoping that they would open at all. It was a farce to call that a bank which was never to give for paper anything but paper. It was admitted that the bank had, with great facility, assisted government from time to time. Now, if the bank was to be considered as bound to continue that assistance, the distresses of the government must continue to be the distresses of the bank. But he maintained that this was a practice which was against the general principle on which the bank ought to act, and on which alone it ought to be supported. The bank should say this "We know nothing of the distresses of government, we look to the notes which we have issued, and we are determined to pay them when they become due." When we had an issue of paper, it was ridiculous to think of confidence in that paper upon any principle but that of its being paid when it

came due. If the bank was allowed to use any discretion in relieving the necessities of government, in preference to paying the demands of individuals upon themselves, such a bank could never have the confidence of the public, and fatal inconvenience would soon arise; whereas, by separating the bank from the government, this truth would soon appear-that it is owing to the war that all these difficulties have arisen. By taking it to be the duty of the bank to assist government in all its distress, the bank can never be reasonably expected to open its payments in specie to its creditors; it must give paper for paper for ever; so that the bank would have five per cent. for giving its opinion upon the solvency of government; and supposing them to owe ten millions upon their present paper, they would, in the course of fourteen years, by the operation of compound interest, realize to themselves the whole of that property: this was, in reality, giving nothing to the public creditor; and therefore, unless he heard that the bank was to open payments in cash at some given time, he should be for opening another bank. With regard to the notes of the bank, he did not expect them to be at a discount, even although the bank should not pay in specie; for now that we should require annually the sum of £26,000,000 in the collection of taxes, that would keep them at par while they were received in payment at the exchequer; for any man receiving a large sum in bank notes, might readily pass them to a distiller, or any other person, who had two or three hundred thousand pounds to pay to the revenue. Thus the load of our debt kept up the credit of our bank notes-where the system was to end it was not difficult to guess. He wished the bank to resume a character for punctuality, and he wished to support it under that character; but as no hope had been given that such was to be the case, he was under the necessity of supporting the motion. He spoke of the plan of Mr. Hartsink in terms of great approbation, and said that, in his mind, it promised to be very useful.

The house divided; for the motion 15; against it 50.

JUNE 1.

LOAN.

The report of the committee of ways and means being brought up, and the resolutions read, Sir John Sinclair said, he hoped the resolution for granting an additional bonus to the subscribers of the loyalty loan would not be carried into effect. He objected to it; first, because it was incompatible with the proceedings of parliament in the early part of the session; secondly, because it could not go beyond the resolution of a former committee; and thirdly, because he thought it ought to be grounded on a petition from the subscribers.

The Speaker informed him that, in regard to the first objection it was, the rule of the house, that no two resolutions, nor any two bills contradictory to each other could be passed in the same session. It remained for the house to decide whether this resolution was contradictory, or only explanatory, or supplementary, as, in the latter instance, the hon. baronet's objections would not apply. In regard to the second objection, the hon. baronet did not appear to have understood the practice of the house, since a committee of ways and means, or the house, might approve any resolution for extending the grants of a former committee, with this exception, that no additional burden could be imposed except in the land-tax. And, in regard to the third objection, a petition might with propriety have been presented, though not without a recommendation from the crown; but that did not preclude any other mode. This was a transaction between the public and an individual; and, if it was disadvantageous to the individual, it was not irregular to propose that he should not be held to the original bargain. Here he had to observe, as a strong proof of the power to make such a proposition, that in case a petition was moved to be presented, and the crown refused its recommendation, it was in the power of any member afterwards to bring forward a motion to the same effect. The only objection, therefore, which admitted of doubt, was the first ; and he left it to the decision of the house whether this resolution was contradictory, or explanatory, or supplemental?

MR. SHERIDAN said he listened with great deference to the opinion of the chair, and he assented to the statement given on two of the objections; he thought, however, that the resolution was contradictory to former resolutions in this session of parliament, as it went to alter an agreement and bargain already made, and to make terms contrary to that bargain sanctioned by an act of parliament. Had it been attempted to take part of the profit from the contributors, would there have been no objection on the point of form? He should be sorry, however, if the question was to be got rid of merely by a point of form; for never was there a case of more rank depravity, or one that more strongly deserved the name of an iniquitous job, than this transaction. He hoped, that from the impression made out of doors,