XX. 1794. barbarians. No; he would not do the minister BOOK the injustice to suppose that he was induced to become a party in this great warfare by any personal or petty provocation; he was, doubtless, actuated chiefly and primarily by the nobler motive of defending the cause of humanity itself against the common enemy of human kind. Which party first said the words “We are at war" was, therefore, a trivial consideration. Every fact proved it to be a war of choice on the part of the government of Great Britain, and from that responsibility the minister neither CAN nor SHALL disengage himself. Mr. Sheridan then adverted to the probability of ultimate success in the war, as held out in his majesty's speech, and re-echoed by the noble lord. Our first expectations (said he) were founded upon the great body of French royalists, who were now destroyed and annihilated. Our second hope was derived from the conflict of the opposite factions: but what has happened? that conflict has been decided, and the conquering party, supposed the weaker, has exercised the powers of government with still more energy and success than their predecessors. After a succession of bloody and obstinate battles, the invaders of France have been driven back by armies composed chiefly of raw and unpractised BOOK recruits. Where now is the scientific confidence XX. with which we were taught to regard the efforts 1754. of discipline and experience? The jargon of professional pedantry is mute.-Are our allies in better spirits to act, or fuller of resource to act effectually, now than at the commencement of the last campaign? Is it nothing that the great and momentous experiment has been made, and that a single nation, roused by a new and animating energy, and defending what they conceive to be their liberty, has proved itself to be a match for the enmity and arms of the world? Are we to hold as a matter of slight consideration, the daring and enthusiastic spirit, solicitous of danger and fearless of death, which has spread with electrical rapidity throughout all the descriptions of men constituting that great and gallant nation? or is the pride with which success in such a conflict has swelled the heart of every individual who has shared in it to be estimated as nothing? Who that has reflected on these circumstances, and can boast a mind neither clouded by passion, nor corrupted by interest, shall dare to affirm that the allies are nearer at this moment to the attainment of their professed object than at any former period of the war? As to one of the nominal powers of the alliance, the empress of Russia, it may be asked, XX. has she shewn the slightest disposition to con- BOOK tribute any thing to the common cause but her praises and her prayers? The noble lord, said Mr. Sheridan, overlooking the imperious necessity of circumstances, thinks it fair and candid to contrast the proceedings of the French Convention, relative to matters of supply and finance, with the proceedings of the British minister and the British parliament on the same subject ;-certainly the contrast is obvious, and long may it continue so. But the noble lord pursues his triumph rather too far, when he endeavours to impress it more forcibly on our minds by making a regular speech for our chancellor of the Exchequer, and exultingly demanding what we should say if his right honourable friend were to come down and propose to this house such ways and means as the minister of finance in France is compelled to resort to? What should we think if he were to rise and propose that all persons who had money or property in an unproductive state should lend it without interest to the public;-that all who had accumulated fortunes out of the bounty of the state should refund what they had received; ---or, finally, that all persons possessing great estates should relinquish the produce of them during the war, reserving to themselves only a bare and moderate subsistence? Sir, I agree 1794. BOOK with the noble lord, that if his right honorable XX. friend were to come down to us with any such 1794. propositions, he would not long retain his present situation. There is, therefore, no great danger that the experiment will be made. No, sir; from the modesty and prudence of our present minister, I should augur a very different speech from that which the noble lord has provided for him.-Comparing himself and his own measures with the character and conduct of his rival, he might, without too great an assumption of merit, say, 'Do I demand of you, wealthy citizens, to lend your hoards to government without interest? On the contrary, when I come to propose a loan, there is not a man of you to whom I shall not hold out an usurious profit upon every pound you devote to the necessities of your country.-Do I demand of you, my fellow-placemen and brother-pensioners, that you should appropriate any part of your stipends to the public exigencies? On the contrary, am I not daily increasing your numbers and your emoluments? Do I require of you, my latest and most zealous proselytes, that you should make any temporary sacrifices in support of a war, on the success of which you profess to believe that the salvation of Britain and of Europe, and of civilized society itself, depends? No, gentlemen, I scorn to BOOK XX. take advantage of your eagerness and your zeal; and, to prove that I do not suspect them to want such a test, I will make your interest to 1794. coincide with your principle. Instead of calling upon you to contribute to the public revenue, I will quarter some of you upon it; and however deeply absorbed in patriotic apprehensions, I will force upon others the favorite objects of their personal vanity and ambition." The wit and spirit of this brilliant reply excited the involuntary admiration of the house, which, nevertheless, unhappily remained unimpressed by the force and weight of its arguments. The debate was long protracted, and the house, at a very late hour, divided; for the question 279, against it 61 voices. tion of the Lansdown. In the upper house, the customary address Pacific mopassed with little opposition; but, on the 17th of marquis of February, the marquis of Lansdown, in a speech replete with sound reasoning, information, and eloquence, moved an address of another description, "to represent to his majesty the extreme improbability of conquering France; that the dismemberment of France, if attainable, would augment the strength of the powers most to be dreaded; that opinions cannot be controlled by arms; that experience has demonstrated the futility of every attempt to interfere in the internal government of France, even if the justice |