tiality, 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 honorable 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 Lewis the Fourteenth, or the outrageous democracy of the present government of France, which levelled all distinctions in society. The honorable 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 honorable gentleman had put upon his words. He felt himself warranted in positively repelling the imputation; because, the whole tenor of his life, he hoped, at least, had proved that he was a sincere and firm friend to freedom; and, under that description, he was concerned to find that there were persons in this country, who entertained theories of government, not thoroughly consistent with the safety of the state; and were, perhaps, ready to transfer a part, at least, of that anarchy which prevailed in France, to this kingdom, for the purpose of effectuating their own designs. Yet, if the honorable gentleman considered him as guilty, why did he not attack him as the foe of his country? As to the charge of abusing the national assembly, it might seem almost sufficient to answer, "What is the national assembly to us!" But, he declared, that he did not libel the national assembly of France, whom he considered very little in the discussion of these matters; that he thought all the substantial power resided in the republic of Paris, whose authority guided, or whose example was followed by all the republics of France. The republic of Paris had an army under their orders, and not under those of the national assembly. The honorable gentleman had asked from whence the people of France were to expect a better constitution?—whether from Marshal Broglio, at the head of his army; or were they to look for it amidst the dungeons of the Bastile? Was that a fair and candid mode of treating his argument, or was it what he ought to have expected in the moment of departed friendship? On the contrary, was it not evident that the honorable gentleman had made a sacrifice of his friendship, for the sake of catching some momentary popularity? If the fact was such, however, even greatly as he should continue to admire the honorable gentleman's talents, he must tell him that his argument was chiefly an argument ad invidiam, and that all the applause for which he could hope from clubs, was scarcely worth the sacrifice which he had chosen to make for so insignificant an acquisition.

The resolutions were then agreed to, and the house adjourned.

MARCH 8.

EXCISE DUTIES ON TOBACCO.

Mr. SHERIDAN observed, that having some reason to conclude that neither the minister, nor any of those gentlemen who were connected with him in office, would oppose the motion which he should beg leave to submit to the consideration of the house, it might appear improper to enter, for the present, into a detail of the subject. He should not, therefore, trouble the house with any long series of remarks concerning the necessity of repealing the act of the last session, subjecting the manufacturers of tobacco and snuff to the Excise Laws; but he would chiefly employ the few words he should use, in most earnestly entreating gentlemen to pay attention to the subject, assuring them that it was of infinite importance, and the more it was enquired into, the more would its extent and magnitude display themselves, and it would be found that a matter more interesting to the first and dearest principles of the constitution, had scarcely ever called for the investigation of a British house of commons. Every member must wish, that in a question where the revenue was materially concerned, the utmost candour might be preserved, and nothing which bore the smallest appearance of party spirit be suffered to prevail. In all cases of revenue, two or three instances excepted, it must be admitted that the whole house, to a man, had joined cordially and earnestly in supporting the measures in agitation, and in endeavouring, as effectually as possible, to sustain and keep up the credit of the country. In the only cases in which opposition had been maintained, more good had been done than harm, as had been evident in the case of the fustian tax, and the shop tax, and he trusted that the same consequence would follow the repeal of the tobacco act; for repealed it must be, if the house would fairly and closely examine into

its operation and effects. It was unnecessary for him either to dwell much upon the general inattention of that house to questions of revenue, and the absolute necessity of introducing bills of considerable importance, early in the session, so that there might be time for their full and complete discussion; or to point out the folly of reposing a blind confidence in ministers' experience respecting matters of revenue. Had the tobacco bill been introduced early in a session, it was utterly impossible that it should ever have passed at all; but protracted as it had been, purposely, to the end of the session, gentlemen had not that opportunity of examining and considering a bill of such length, and complicated variety, which ought to have been given, and which alone could prevent the disgrace which the house ultimately sustained, in being obliged, the very next session after it had passed, to revise, reconsider, and amend their own act. No man (Mr. Sheridan said) could pronounce him wrong in this observation, or declare that he hazarded an opinion which was doubtful; since, in passing the tobacco act, the house had passed an act, that, in the judgment of the greatest law authority of the kingdom, had been called a mass of contradictions and absurdities. He did not mean to refer to the place where this declaration had been made, because he knew that the forms and customs of that house would not admit of it, and he wished not to be irregular, but he had the sanction of the first legal authority in the kingdom to declare, that the bill was so ill drawn, that it was impossible to be understood; that it was full of clauses of an opposite and contradictory nature; that many of them were absolutely irreconcileable; and that the whole bill had been framed and put together by a man, who could write, but who could not read. The principle of the bill led to the introduction of a general excise; and, therefore, on that ground alone, it ought to be repealed. He wished also, that if it were possible, it could be viewed so

as to be regarded solely as a matter of revenue, disconnected as it were from the constitution. He knew that it was impossible in that house absolutely to disconnect the constitution and the revenue in all matters regarding the revenue; but still he wished that it might be looked on with a trading eye, and solely with a view to the revenue. The excise laws would then be found likely to cut up our resources by the roots, and to be the most fatal mode of collection in its effect, to which it was possible to resort. In the case of tobacco they were wholly inapplicable; and, in fact, he would lay it down as a principle in the broadest and most unequivocal manner, that the extension of the excise system would be just as applicable to the cloth which we wore on our backs, the buckles in our shoes, and any and every other article of our manufacture as tobacco and snuff. In conclusion, Mr. Sheridan moved.

"That the several petitions which have been presented to this house, in this session of parliament, praying for a repeal or alteration of the act passed in the last session of parliament, for laying excise duties on tobacco, be referred to a committee of the whole house, and that such of the said petitioners as desired to be heard by their counsel in support of their said petitions."

Mr. Pitt answered, but did not oppose the motion.

Mr. Sheridan replied, that he should not go into any general arguments in answer to the tartness and asperity manifested by the right honorable gentleman, whom he was sorry to perceive so sore upon the subject, but however the right honorable gentleman might lose his temper, he was determined to keep his own, and adhere to the moderation with which he began. As to the general observation that he had made, respecting the consequence of bringing in great and important bills at the end of the session, and passing them in a hurry, it was a justifiable one, surely, since the first law authority in

the kingdom had said that the bill was unintelligible, and pronounced it a mass of contradictions, absurdity and oppression. Had he wished to speak of bringing in the bill with any sort of severity, he might have charged the right honorable gentleman with having, in the course of the preceding session, informed the house that the bill was nearly ready; and then having the next year, premeditatedly and designedly, protracted it till the end of the session, when a sufficient number of gentlemen were not in town, or did not attend to give it the necessary examination. Adverting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observation respecting the want of analogy between broad cloth and tobacco, Mr. Sheridan declared, that he had never dreamt of any, but merely talked of the applicability of the excise laws to two opposite articles of manufacture. The right honorable gentleman had asserted, that he had sought the best information in his power, and that the manufacturers had engaged to send him an account of their grievances, but they had failed to make good their word. Mr. Sheridan contradicted the assertion, and said, that luckily the matter did not rest on his evidence, but a third party, the manufacturers themselves. He confessed he was not present at the meeting, but he spoke upon their authority. It was true, the right honorable gentleman saw them, and asked them to state their grievances specifically in writing; they told him that was a matter of information they could not afford to give him, but wished to give all the information in their power to the representatives of the people. There was nothing extraordinary in this; and yet, because they would not privately communicate their case to the right honorable gentleman, he had charged them with having declined the performance of a promise, which the manufacturers not only never made, but to which they expressly refused to accede. For his own part, he could positively affirm that the petitioners had not had recourse to the ex