an infallible passport to eternity. What a happiness it is to the Houfe that there is no fuch frothy orator in it!

Mr. Courtenay, Dec. 12, 1783.

The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) who began the debate, has faid a great deal about the late Administration's having been turned out by the fecret influence of the Crown. I defire to know what the Administration preceding the last has been turned out for, but for having made a peace, which the right honourable gentleman had declared must be made at any rate, though he could not make it himself? The right honourable gentleman has of late praised majorities very highly; this has not however been his practice formerly. The right honourable gentleman muft either be right or wrong in his newly-adopted opinion of the virtue and merit of majorities. If he is wrong, why so much boafting of glorious majorities? If he is right, he will please to remember that majorities, by the fingle monofyllable yes, have condemned his conduct for many years together. But this is not the only point in which the right honourable gentleman has changed his opinion. He maft give me leave to remind him, that on the division upon Sir John Rous's motion, three feffions fince, he clapped his back to the Lobby door, and exclaimed, “No Coalition!" yet he foon afterwards found that "no Coalition, no Treafury Bench," and he accommodated himself to the maxim, which he found beft fuited his advancement. I will beg leave to conclude my fpeech with the following story:

"There were two neighbouring farmers, who for many years had borne the most cordial enmity to each other. So "great was their antipathy, that each declared they durft not "trust themselves in a room with the other. At last, however, "farmer Whighoufe fays to farmer Toryman,-Farmer, what ' are you and I about? We are neither of us likely to thrive "in the world by all this jangling and fnarling? I have a "propofal to make to you, by which we may both get money apace,

66

"apace, and provide for our numerous and clamorous fami"lies. We have both of us a great deal of dirty work to do, "and if you will lend me your horfes to draw me through the “mire, I will lend you mine; fo let us e'en join our teams to"gether. Why, neighbour Whighouse, I like your proposal "very well, fays farmer Toryman, but I fear our horfes won't "draw well together. I an apt to fear they will find the "chains rather galling, and that they will kick, and wince, and "fart, and run reftive.

"Never fear that, Mr. Toryman, fays Mr. Whighoufe, "we muft pat 'em and coax 'em, and feed 'em with good hay "and corn, and give fome of them fine trappings, and then "never fear but we fhall make them fo tractable, that we may "ride 'em ourfelves with ease, though to be fure we are neither "of us very light weights.

"Now all former animofities were to be forgotten, and upon every occafion they called one another my good friend "Mr. Whighoufe, and my worthy neighbour Mr. Toryman, "This to be fure made the neighbours laugh. But matters "foon took a ferious turn, for these two overgrown farmers "began to encroach upon their neighbours, to break down "their fences, and were proceeding to feize their very deeds "and leafes, when a worthy gentleman in the neighbourhood, "finding how matters were going on, went and informed their "worthy landlord of their proceedings, who difmiffed them "from their farms, in order to make room for better tenants.” Sir Richard Hill, Jan. 20, 1784.

This tax, which the honourable gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) has acted fo violent a part againft, is not to be confidered as a tax on women by the name of women, as the honourable gentleman has ftated it to be, but a tax on the property of the

master, and, in my opinion, a very fair one.

In fhort, I con

ceive this maid's tragedy, which the honourable gentleman has given us, and acted on the present occasion, to be rather a per

formance

formance calculated to expofe my right honourable friend, (Mr. Pitt) than a serious matter of fair complaint against the tax, which is impofed with fo light a hand, that no master, or maid, can have real caufe to ftate it as a grievance and a hardship.

Mr. Jenkinson, May 10, 1785.

Undoubtedly the return muft, by every unprejudiced man, be confidered as an inadequate compenfation for what we give up in the Irish propofitions; it is the furplus of an hereditary revenue that never will produce á furplus, or if it does, that can at the highest pitch of expectation be rated at more than the enabling us, at fome time or other within the course of the prefent century, to victual a few frigates with pickled pork and bifcuit! This reminds me of Voltaire's account of an unfortunate man, who had lost a leg and an arm in one place, had his nose cut off and his eyes put out in another, had been hung up and cut down in a third, had been imprisoned by the inquifition and condemned to be burnt, and at laft found himself chained to the oar as a galley flave, and who nevertheless confoled himself with faying, "Thank God for all I have fuffered! I'fhould not otherwife have known the luxury of eating orange chips and pistachio nuts, in the harbour of Conftantinople."

Lord North, May 30, 1785,

All the idea of the neceffity of a parliamentary reform, I am perfuaded, is the mere vapour of a dream, the shadow of a fhade, empty whim and fanciful nothing, from which the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) endeavours to conjure up fomething; but I rely on the good fenfe and found reason of the majority, trufting that they will break the spell, and prevent the magicians from practifing on a fubject that ought to be held facred. Even admitting, for the fake of argument, and I shall not wish to be thought ferious in admitting for a moment, that any alteration is actually neceffary; yet I fhall contend,

contend, that the alteration propofed is not adapted to the feigned evil. I beg to know, where there exifts in Europe, or on the face of the globe, a people so happy as those under the British Conftitution? Where is there a people fo fully in poffeffion of their rights and liberties? The fact is undeniable; what matter it then, whether persons who fit in this House, the guardians of the public freedom, fit by virtue of having been elected for a burgage tenure, a borough, or county? While the People's rights are fecure, and their liberties fafe, why is it neceffary to go into a minute inquiry how they come to be secure and fafe? The means were provided by our ancestors, and have been fanctioned by experience, the teft of truth. The right honourable gentleman, like a quack, however, is defirous of having the dose swallowed, whether the patient has any difeafe or not; and, like a true empiric, will infift upon it that his pill is fpecific, and will cure patients in all cases, and under all circumstances. The fubject is too ferious to be ludicrous upon; but I will just state, that the right honourable gentleman reminds me of the Mock Doctor in Moliere's farce. I fuppofe the Speaker has either feen or read the book, and will recollect, that a man's daughter is fuppofed to be dumb, and he fends for a phyfician to cure her. The Doctor comes, and foon reftores the girl to the use of her tongue, which she exercifes fo fluently, that the father offers him another fee to make her dumb again; when the Doctor replies, " he can't do that, but if he pleases, he'll undertake to make him deaf."

LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT.

My Lords, the liberty of the prefs is what, I think, ought

to be facred to every Englishman, and I dare anfwer for it, will ever be to your Lordships. But, my Lords, though the liberty of the prefs is in every body's mouth, yet I am afraid there is nothing lefs understood than the nature of that liberty. My Lords, I have often defired an opportunity of delivering to your Lordships my fentiments, with regard to the liberty of the prefs; and as that expreffion has been mentioned in this debate, I think I cannot have a fairer opportunity of doing it than the prefent; but I hope your Lordships, beforehand, will acquit me of any affectation to appear fingular upon this occafion. I do affure you, my Lords, I fhall speak iny fentiments, and what occurs to me from the moft mature reflection I am able to make upon the nature of our Conftitution and Govern

ment.

The liberty of the prefs, my Lords, is by most people, I know, taken for a liberty to publish every indecency of any kind against the most respectable perfons and the highest characters; and fo ftrongly does this notion prevail, that a libeller is no fooner profecuted, than a cry is immediately fet up, that the liberty of the press is endangered. But, my Lords, give me leave to say, that if the liberty of the prefs confifts in defamation, it were much better we were without any fuch liberty. My notion, my Lords, is, that the words, The Liberty of the Prefs, are improperly used to exprefs a right, which is peculiar to the prefs, of publishing to the world any defamatory mat❤ ter to the prejudice of a fuperior, inferior, or equal. My Lords, the laws and constitution of England know of no fuch liberty; for that would be a liberty destructive of all laws and all conAitutions. How these words came to prevail was, my Lords,

in