and if this measure is to be persevered in, there is no saying to what we shall be driven. The tax may be put under the management of the military. It cannot be collected. What comes next? They may distrain; and when they have seized on our beds and chairs, they may take our persons-Conire opes, primum, et post in corpora seviri. Is such a measure to be hurried through the house? I am guilty of no exaggeration. I am sure that if time be given, you will have from all the great towns, from Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere, remonstrances as strong as those you have seen from the city of London, from my constituents, and from the borough of Southwark. I shudder at the consequences if you persist. They may be dreadful. It is only by a quick return to the genuine principles of our ancestors that we can be safe. If we do not, I can only say, that "the days of these kingdoms are numbered, and that their ruin is not distant." The honourable gentleman* has said, that "if there were men who could give peace to the country, without throwing things into confusion, the present ministers would be the basest of mankind if they did not yield and make way for them." If there are men who feel themselves capable of restoring peace to those kingdoms, without a change of system, or restoring the constitution to its vigour, I can only say they are more sanguine than I am. I can speak without any personal motive on the subject, for I publickly declare, that I never will have a seat, high or low, in any administration, until publick opinion shall have decided for a thorough and perfect reform of all our abuses, and for a direct return to the genuine principles of the British constitution. If there are men bold and sanguine enough to think that they can not only procure peace but tranquilize the country without this, let him try it; but I will make no part in any such administra

THE SPEECH OF RICHARD B. SHERIDAN,

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR THE NEW ASSESSED TAXES.

MR. FOX was followed in this debate by Mr. Percival, the present chancellor of the exchequer, who, it is said, particularly signalized his talents. We have been able to procure only a very brief and arid sketch of his speech; too imperfect to be inserted, but sufficient to vindicate its claims to the applause it certainly received when pronounced. The task of replying to this masterly production was allotted to Mr. Sheridan. To his speech we cannot refuse a place though not elegantly reported. It is one of the few of his parliamentary effusions which have been even tolerably preserved. This speech pretends not to enter deeply into the subject of discussion, nor to display much argument or pertinent information. But it boasts of being richly tinged with that playfulness of fancy, felicity of allusion, vivacity of remark, and brilliancy of wit which the energy of Mr. Sheridan's genius produces with such impromptick readiness, and inexhaustible fertility that his eloquence, if not always instructive never fails to enli ven and to fascinate.

SPEECH, &c.

MR. SPEAKER,

*

I AM induced principally to rise in consequence of the speech of the learned gentleman who has just preceded me, which, it must be confessed, was an extraordinary exhibition of eloquence. But I have, sir, another reason to offer myself thus early to the notice of the house in the intimation given me by my kind friend, † that if the discussion proceeded to a late hour he might grow weary of the subject, and perhaps hint to me to sit down. There is, however, one circumstance, which may probably abate, in some degree, the impatience of my friend, and afford him a little consolation. He must have observed, that besides the great ability displayed in the speech of the learned gentleman, that it was in perfect union and harmony with the sentiments of those with whom he usually acts, and might, therefore, tend to shorten the speeches at least from that side of the house. In the effusions of his eloquence it could not escape notice, that he had preserved a steady determination to abstain from all topicks connected with the bill. I will not dispute, that in parliamentary practice all this extraneous matter was fair and proper to be introduced in aid of other arguments, or by way of illustration; but while he abstained from all observations on the merits of the subject in discussion, it was not unreasonable to expect that he might have also abstained, or to use a modern and fashionable phrase, have modified his attack upon my honourable friend. Another point of abstinence that showed the prudence and discretion of the learned gentleman was, that in the midst of his animadversions on my

* Mr. Percival, now chancellor of the exchequer.

honourable friend, he carefully avoided any contrast with the merits of his rival. He did not attempt to say that the present minister was the fittest person to restore the credit of the country, or to procure a peace; on the contrary, the only merit he ascribed to him was that of barring up the avenue to the advancement of his opponent. Against the latter gentleman were brought three heads of accusation, represented to be pregnant with the most alarming dangers to the country. First, He was accused of considering persons innocent of the crime of treason after having been acquitted by the verdict of a jury. Secondly, That on another occasion, where the liberty of the subject was violated, he said that "Resistance would be no longer a question of justice, but of prudence." Thirdly, That he lately declared: "He should never take a part in any administration, without stipulating for a radical, total, and fundamental reform of parliament, and change in the present system of government. The addition of total and fundamental has furnished the learned gentleman with a pretty play of words to represent that my honourable friend had no intention ever to fulfil his promise; that the total change would go no further than its parts, the fundamental one would only skim the surface, and the radical be no more than playing about the branches. These additional words were necessary to introduce and complete the epigram which the learned gentleman had, no doubt, previously composed. My honourable friend, sir, did really say, that he would decline any share in an administration without a radical change in the representation of the people, and in the present system and order of government. But he did not use the words total and fundamental. I am certain, however, sir, that as the learned gentleman has been so industrious in collecting the other parts of the sentence, my honourable friend will not have the least objection to throw the other two epithets into the bargain. But these

* Mr. Fox.