would give him the most convincing proof of the necessity of deciding on the doctrine. This was, that His Majesty was praised and exalted, for not having acted, in that hour of terror and confusion, like the King of Sweden, in directing his arms against the liberties of the country. This was an expression so alarming in its nature; so threatening and so formidable, that he could not help thinking it incumbent on the house to rescue the country from a suspicion so dreadful. What! was it in His Majesty's power, at that moment to have trampled on the liberties of the country, and to have introduced military government in the place of the present constitution? Was that the crisis when this might have been established, when the minds of the people were lost in terror and confusion? No, that was not the moment of danger; the crisis was, when, after the interference of the military power, the chief justice of England said that it was legal; and asserted, that the military acted not as soldiers, but as citizens; and when this declaration was not objected to by a specific resolution of parliament, but bore the testimony of general acquiescence. That was the moment when the liberties of the people were in danger; and if it did give the opportunity to the crown, the opportunity still existed. It had been asserted, in some instances at least, without a cause, the danger was confined to the metropolis; then why was the order extended to every part of the kingdom? On granting that it was necesary to extend it, why continue it for four months? If this doctrine was to be laid down, that the crown could give orders to the military to interfere, when, where, and for what length of time it pleases, then we might bid farewell to freedom. If this was the law, we should then be reduced to a military gouernment of the very worst species, in which we should have all the evils of a despotic state, without the discipline or the security. But we were given to understand that we had the best protection against this evil in the virtue, the moderation, and the constitutional principles of the sovereign. No man upon earth thought with more reverence than himself of the virtues and moderation of the sovereign; but this was a species of liberty which he trusted would never disgrace an English soil. The liberty that rested on the virtuous inclinations of any one man, was but suspended despotism; the sword was not indeed upon their necks, but it hung by the small and brittle thread of human will. He adverted to His Majesty's speech from the throne after the riots,

which had been peculiarly called His Majesty's own speech; he desired it to be read from the table.

The clerk then read the first part of His Majesty's speech on the 19th of June last, viz.

"The outrages committed by bands of desperate and abandoned men in various parts of this metropolis, broke forth with such violence into acts of felony and treason,—had so far overborne all civil authority—and threatened so directly the immediate subversion of all legal power, the destruction of all property, and the confusion of every order in the state; that I found myself obliged, by every tie of duty and affection to my people, to suppress, in every part, those rebellious insurrections; and to provide for the public safety, by the most effectual and immediate application of the force intrusted to me by parliament."

Here, said Mr. Sheridan, His Majesty takes the whole upon himself and rests the issuing of the order on its true groundthe necessity of the case. If His Majesty's ministers had followed the example of the Sovereign, and come down to parliament desiring a bill of indemnity, the house would have added panegyric to their consent; and would have praised their moderation in the second instance, while they extolled their exertion in the first. He entreated the house to forgive him for having dwelt so long on these excesses, which were all that could be urged in favour of ministers for acting as they did on that occasion. Either they must believe that the whole of the outrages was the result of a deliberate plot and machination, contrived by the enemies of this country, and aiming at the overthrow of the empire; or that the substitution of the military was a safe, easy, and proper remedy, in all cases of riot and tumult. These were the only arguments which could justify ministers in the orders they had given. He would trouble them no farther than by offering to them the propositions which he held in his hand, as the ground of a remedy for the evil of which he had complained. He carried his ideas much farther than he had brought them forward to the house, but he had been restrained by the opinions of men for whom he entertained much respect. He now read his motions, the purport of which were as follows:

1. "That the military force intrusted to His Majesty by parliament, cannot justifiably be applied to the dispersing illegal and tumultuous assemblies of the people, without waiting for

directions from the civil magistrates, but where the outrages have broke forth with such violence that all civil authority is overborne, and the immediate subversion of all legal government directly threatened."

2. "That the necessity of issuing that unpredecented order to the military, on the 7th of June last, to act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrates, affords a strong presumption of the defective state of the magistracy of Westminster, where the riots began.”

3. "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the magistracy and civil power of the city of Westminster, with respect to the riots in June last; and to examine and report to the house, the present state of the magistracy and government of the said city."

He concluded with moving the first of those propositions, which, he said, as it was altogether declaratory, he trusted would not be opposed. At the same time it was not essential to the subsequent motions, which were specific, and went to the purpose for which he had presumed to call the attention of the house.

The Honourable General, then Mr. Fitzpatrick, seconded the motion. The Earl of Surrey objected to the latter part of it “as making the purport of the whole vague and indeterminate. Overthrowing the civil power was a matter,” he observed, "which would admit of various acceptations; and if a discretion was given to government to interpret that charge, it might be applied to every riotous act whatever.'

To this MR. SHERIDAN replied, the noble lord had not accurately attended to the words of his motion; for he had himself adverted to the latitude which might be taken in interpreting the exception; and therefore, instead of stating the order for the military even in such cases to be legal, had only called it justifiable; leaving the specific justification, as now, open to the review of parliament in every particular case. He had, however, no objection, he said, to leave out that clause, and advised it to be done; but was informed by the speaker, that as the motion had been made and seconded, it could now only be altered by another motion for an amendment.

Mr. Sheridan withdrew the first motion; and the house divided on the second proposition.

For the motion 94; against it 171. The third motion was negatived without a division.

MARCH 12.

MR. BYNG'S MOTION ON THE LOAN OF THIS YEAR, 1781.

The object of Mr. Byng's motion was to convict the minister of having made a worse bargain for the public than he might have made, to shew that he might have borrowed money at 5 per cent. That he was offered the immense sum of £38,000,000, and consequently was under no necessity of hurrying on a bad bargain. That these offers were made by wealthy and responsible men, who were fully equal to the support of their propositions. That their proposals were rejected with contempt; and that it was evident the new loan could have been made with no other view than that of corrupt influence. The minister admitted that he had no objection to the first motion, which was for a list of all the subscribers to the new loan specifying the sums subscribed by each: the second (for a list of those whose offers to become subscribers to the new loan had been rejected) he considered as useless; and the third (for copies of all letters and papers sent to the minister or his secretary respecting the loan) he regarded as unfair and improper. The first motion being then agreed to, the second was rejected upon a division, and the third negatived without. In the course of the debate Lord North observed that with regard to the idea of extending the influence of the crown by means of a loan, if that argument was to be tried by the test of the present loan, it would be found he had made more enemies than friends by the list sent to the bank; upon which

MR. SHERIDAN said, that an expression had dropped from the noble lord, which, to his surprise, had not been taken up by any gentleman. The noble lord had said, "he believed it would be found that he had made more enemies than friends by the list he had sent to the Bank," as it served to make him believe that the noble lord was coming over to the opinion of an honourable friend of his, who had brought in a bill lately to regulate the civil establishment; and had contended that taking away from the minister the power of bestowing great pecuniary emoluments by loans, &c. and of appointing to places, would strengthen the true and proper influence of the crown; remove a very heavy clog from the heel of government; and assist the progress of its operations. By the noble lord's complaining that the present loan had made him enemies, if his lordship was sincere in his present declaration, it would not be at all surprising, if, in a few days, the noble lord should bring in a bill for abolishing all those places; lest, by keeping them up, and making enemies to government by them, he should destroy the influence of the crown.

MAY 15.

FARTHER DEBATE ON THE BILL FOR PREVENTING ABUSES AND

PROFANATIONS ON THE SABBATH DAY.

MR. SHERIDAN said, that whenever the vice of gaming was to be suppressed, he hoped that most pernicious species of it, the adventuring in lotteries, would be the first object of attention. This, it was true, was patronised by the legislature, and yet nothing could be more detrimental to the morals of the people; for it not only promoted the spirit of gambling among the lower orders of society, but by suspending all industrious pursuits, tended to introduce every kind of depravity. While the evil was permitted to reign in its late extent, it was in a fair way of curing itself; for every second tradesman being a lottery-office keeper, and very few possessing any capital, the smallest loss made them abscond, and the public credulity was thereby gradually diminished ;—but now the practise had been regulated by the wisdom of parliament, for the better security of adventurers, it would no doubt perpetually increase, with all its train of mischievous consequences; for government had entered into a sort of partnership with the office-keepers; and as they were to derive a benefit from the success of the delusions, they would no doubt do everything in their power to extend their dealings.

As the learned gentleman (the solicitor general) who brought in the bill, had already on one occasion stood forward, not only as the censor morum, but as the arbiter elegantiarum, at once the Cato and the Petronius of the age, he hoped he would be active in his new character, and join in putting a stop to lottery gaming, by bringing in a bill to abolish all the present lottery offices, and preventing the opening of any new ones in future.

MAY 17.

ON THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR PREVENTING DESERTION IN THE NAVY.

MR. SHERIDAN said, that the honourable gentleman (Mr. Penton) had omitted to take notice of one objection adduced by Mr. Dunning, which was, that when sailors, suspected to be deserters, were brought before a justice of the peace by virtue of this act, though the suspicion turned out to be groundless, they