both principle and detail was on the report; and that the opposition of the report was the feeblest of all opposition, except to the third reading.

Mr. Samuel Smith begged leave to assure the honourable gentleman who spoke last, that he had totally misinterpreted his meaning.

Mr. Smith was told from the chair that he might speak in explanation, when the honourable gentleman sat down, but could not interrupt him unless he spoke to order.

Mr. Smith said, he spoke to order, and was proceeding to answer Mr. Sheridan when he was again called to order.

Mr. Sheridan continuing, remarked that he should be sorry to misinterpret any gentleman's arguments. He was not aware when the two honourable members had their instructions from Worcester; but they certainly would not have shown their zeal less if they had opposed the bill more in the committee. They, perhaps, confounded the principle of legislature and that of manufacturing tobacco, and thought it wrong to enter the house during the process of manufacturing the clauses and mixing the provisions, and measuring the ingredients in like manner as they would have the excise officer avoid entering the room when the process of the manufacture of tobacco or snuff, and the mixing of materials was going on. This was a very good rule in making tobacco, but not in making a law.

Mr. Smith declared that he had from the beginning opposed the bill; that he had troubled the house, perhaps, too often in every stage of it, and meant what he had said before as an apology for that conduct; that he had thought it more manly to do so, instead of waiting to feel the pulse of the house first upon the subject.

The house divided; ayes 70; noes 20.

FEBRUARY 9, 1790.

ARMY ESTIMATES.-FRENCH REVOLUTION.

The sessions was opened on the 21st of January, and on the 5th of February the army estimates were brought forward. They were nearly the same with those of the preceding year, and were not voted without some objections from the side of opposition. It was observed by Sir Grey Cooper, Mr. Marsham, and Mr. For, that eight years of peace had elapsed, and that the military estimates were not yet reduced even to the peace establishment of 1775, though the committee of finance, which sat in the year 1786, had presumed upon a still greater reduction. That there was nothing in the actual situation of affairs that had called for this extraordinary military force; but, on the contrary, that his Majesty had assured

them of the pacific disposition of all the foreign powers; that our ancient rival and enemy, France, in consequence of her internal disturbances, would probably be disabled from giving us any molestation for a long course of years; and, lastly, that the alliances we had made, and the subsidiary treaties we had entered into on the continent, inasmuch as they multiplied the chances of our being involved in war were proportionably mischievous if they did not enable us to reduce our expenses in time of peace. To these arguments it was answered in general by Mr. Grenville and Mr. Pitt, that though there was no reason at present to apprehend that we should be engaged in hostilities with any foreign power, yet the unsettled state of Europe, and the internal situation of several parts of it, made it necessary for us to keep ourselves in such a state as might enable us to act with vigour and effect if occasion should require. That it was a preposterous economy to tempt an attack by our weakness, and for a miserable present saving to hazard a great future expense. That our foreign alliances, which had been approved of by all parties as necessary for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe, upon which the permanence of its tranquillity depended, could only be rendered effectual for that purpose by our being able to support them with an adequate force. And, lastly, that it would be found upon an examination of the detail of all our military establishments, that they could not, with common prudence, be reduced to a narrower scale. In the course of the debate Mr. Fox remarked, that the conduct of the French soldiers during the late commotions tended greatly to remove one of the objections which he had always entertained against standing armies. That army, by refusing to obey the dictates of the court, had set a glorious example to all the military of Europe, and had shown that men, by becoming soldiers, did not cease to be citizens. This remark did not pass without animadversion at the time it was made. On the 9th of February, when the military estimates were reported from the committee, a further debate took place, in which Mr. Fox having again let fall some expressions of applause of the French revolution, Mr. Burke rose, and after a few observations upon the general state of Europe, as it affected the question of increasing or diminishing the military force of Great Britain, he adverted in a more particular manner to the situation of France, and opposed the principles laid down by Mr. Fox.

MR. SHERIDAN declared, that he rose with the greatest regret; but that the very reasons which his right honourable friend (Mr. Burke) had given for the sentiments which he had that day uttered, namely, an apprehension of being supposed to acquiesce in the opinions of those for whom he entertained the highest regard, and with whom he had uniformly acted, operated also on his mind, and made him feel it a duty to declare, that he differed decidedly from that right honourable gentleman in almost every word that he had uttered respecting the French Revolution. Mr. Sheridan added some warm compliments to Mr. Burke's general principles; but said that he could not conceive how it was possible for a person of such principles, or for

any man who valued our own constitution, and revered the Revolution that obtained it for us, to unite with such feelings an indignant and unqualified abhorrence of all the proceedings of the patriotic party in France.

He conceived their's to be as just a Revolution as our own, proceeding upon as sound a principle and a greater provocation. He vehemently defended the general views and conduct of the national assembly. He could not even understand what was meant by the charge against them of having overturned the laws, the justice, and the revenues of their country. What were their laws? The arbitrary mandates of capricious despotism. What their justice? The partial adjudications of venal magistrates. What their revenues? National bankruptcy. This he thought the fundamental error of the right honourable gentleman's argument, that he accused the national assembly of creating the evils which they had found existing in full deformity at the first hour of their meeting. The public creditor had been defrauded; the manufacturer was out of employ; trade was languishing; famine clang upon the poor; despair on all. In this situation, the wisdom and feelings of the nation were appealed to by the government; and was it to be wondered at by Englishmen, that a people, so circumstanced, should search for the cause and source of all their calamities; or that they should find them in the arbitrary constitution of their government, and in the prodigal and corrupt administration of their revenues? For such an evil, when proved, what remedy could be resorted to, but a radical amendment of the frame and fabric of the constitution itself? This change was not the object and wish of the national assembly only, it was the claim and cry of all France, united as one man for one purpose. He joined with Mr. Burke in abhorring the cruelties that had been committed; but what was the striking lesson, the awful moral that was to be gathered from the outrages of the populace? What, but a superior abhorrence of that accursed system of despotic government which had so deformed and corrupted human nature, as to make its subjects capable of such acts; a government that sets at naught the property, the liberty, and lives of the subjects; a government that deals in extortion, dungeons, and tortures; sets an example of depravity to the slaves it rules over; and, if a day of power comes to the wretched populace, it is not to be won

dered at, however it is to be regretted, that they act without those feelings of justice and humanity, which the principles and the practice of their governors have stripped them of. At the same time, if there were any persons who, for the purposes of their own private and personal ambition, had instigated those outrages, they, whatever their rank, birth, or fortune, deserved the execration of mankind. Justice, however, required that no credit should be given to mere rumours on such a subject.

But whatever these outrages were, or whoever caused them, was the national assembly, in any respect, responsible? The national assembly, who, in all cases, had interfered with zeal and alacrity for the maintenance of order and just information-what action of their's authorized the appellation of a bloody, ferocious, and tyrannical democracy? - Language like this had been too prevalent in some of the ministerial prints, and he had always seen it with regret; for, to traduce the national assembly was, in his mind, to libel the whole French nation: whatever was great or good in France, must be looked for there, or no where.

Mr. Sheridan next attacked Mr. Burke's declaration, that the French might have received a good constitution from their monarch. What! was it preparing for them in the camp of Marshal Broglio? or were they to search for it in the ruins of the Bastille? He avowed a most eager and sanguine hope that the despotism of France should never be restored. He avowed this, not only as a friend to the general rights of mankind, but as a politician, speaking only for the advantage of his country. He was convinced, that it was for the interest of Great Britain, that the despotism of France should be destroyed. Whoever looked into our history, would come at once to the opinion, that the greater part of the expense of blood and treasure of this nation had been owing to the circumstance of France being a despotic government; and, being a despotic government, being what all despotisms ever had been, a government of unprincipled ambition, and without faith or justice in its dealings with other nations. Let France amend her constitution, she may become more powerful in her permanent resources, but she certainly will be a juster, worthier, and more peaceable nation, and more likely to act towards us, as we do now towards her. The French were naturally a brave and generous people; their vice had been their government. In hoping, however, that that go

vernment might be radically amended, he could not be thought to approve of wanton persecution of the nobility, or any insult to royalty it was consistent with the spirit of the most perfect constitution, that the monarch should retain all the powers, dignities, and prerogatives becoming the first magistrate of so great a country.

Mr. Sheridan went into other parts of the discussion respecting the French revolution, and paid high compliments to the Marquis de la Fayette, Monsieur Bailey, and others of the French patriots; and concluded with expressing his regret that so many friends of the minister had held sentiments apparently contrary; and above all, that his right honourable friend should have suffered his humanity, however justly appealed to, to have biassed his judgment on so great a question.

Mr. Sheridan concluded, with expressing a further difference with Mr. Burke, with respect to our own revolution of 1688. He had never been accustomed to consider that transaction as merely the removal of one man and the substitution of another, but as the glorious æra that gave real and efficient freedom to this country, and established, on a permanent basis, those sacred principles of government and reverence for the rights of men which he, for one, could not value here, without wishing to see them diffused throughout the world.

Mr. Burke answered, that he most sincerely lamented over the inevitable necessity of now publicly declaring, that henceforth his honourable friend and he were separated in politics; yet, even in the moment of separation, he expected that his honourable friend, for so he had been in the habit of calling him, would have treated him with some degree of kindness; or at least, if he had not, for the sake of a long and amicable connection, heard him with some partiality, have done him the justice of representing his arguments fairly. On the contrary, he had, as cruelly as unexpectedly, misrepresented the nature of his remarks. The honourable gentleman had thought proper to charge him with being the advocate of despotism, though in the beginning of his former speech he had expressly reprobated every measure which carried with it even the slightest appearance of despotism. All who knew him could not avoid, with the most unmerited violation of natural justice, acknowledging that he was the professed enemy of despotism in every shape, whether, as he had before observed, it appeared as the splendid tyranny of Louis the Fourteenth, or the outrageous democracy of the present government of France, which levelled all distinctions in society. The honourable gentleman also had charged him with having libelled the national assembly, and stigmatised them as a bloody, cruel, and ferocious democracy. He appealed to the house whether he had uttered one single syllable concerning the national assembly which could warrant such a construction as the honourable gentleman had put upon his words,