is

latter question the right honourable gentleman dubious; his right honourable friend + thinks that a sum should be raised by a great exertion within the year.

There is one objection to the present plan not easy to comprehend, namely, that by this mode of exertion, I only relieve the stocks so far as to affect a few particular friends of ministers: for the old stockholders, who bought in before the war, it is said, cannot be hurt, inasmuch as they manifest an intention of retaining their capital and receive the same interest, and therefore no depreciation of the funds can injure them. This, however, is a very fallacious and defective view of the subject: for property, the nature of which is transferrable, must always depend on the value of that transfer. Is it nothing to prevent the depreciation of 200,000,000l. in capital, or can that be said only to affect a few particular friends of a minister? If further loans are to be made for the publick service, is it of no consequence whether the funds are at forty or forty-eight per cent.? Does it make no difference whether money is borrowed for the publick at four, five, or six per cent? Has the price of stocks no effect on commerce and agriculture, if they fall below a certain point? According to this plan it is not property that is directly taxed, but expenditure is made the criterion of income in its application.

I admit that some inequalities will be found; but so there must in every plan of raising a considerable sum within the year, and this only forms an objection to the plan, in case it can be shown that the same sum can be raised by means less partial and irregular. There have been instances of large sums raised within the year, but in no instance by means less liable to the objection of regularity.

On the whole, the house will decide whether they will, under the present circumstances of the country, make a great and unusual exertion to resist the ene

* Mr. Fox.

VOL. V.

#h

↑ Mr. Sheridan,

my; or whether, on the arguments they have heard, suspend all defensive precautions, and leave the country open to the ruinous projects of an insolent and overbearing enemy.

Notwithstanding the right honourable gentleman* has intimated his intention to persevere in his retirement, I leave this question to the house, in full con fidence that they will so decide on this, and every other occasion, as most effectually to support the independence and permanent interest of the country.

Mr. Fox.

THE SPEECH

OF THE HON. THOMAS ERSKINE,

ON THE TRIAL OF LORD GEORGE GORDON FOR HIGH TREASON. TRIED BEFORE LOKD MANSFIELD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENG LAND.

IN the tenth year of the reign of William and Mary, the parliament of England passed an act for the alleged purpose of preventing the ascendency of popery, which, being moulded in precise conformity to the sour, intolerant, and distrustful spirit of the times, contained provisions that stripped the catholicks of their dearest privileges, and bore them down with the heaviest oppression.

It is hardly to be credited that this statute, the loathsome feature of their legal code, and the hideous monument of the benighted wisdom of their legislature was permitted, "with all its enormities on its head" to survive, and even occasionally to be enforced during a century, by a nation the most wise, the most liberal, and the most enlightened in the world. At length, however, a just sense of the moral turpitude, the political inexpediency, and the national ignominy of the measure was awakened, and each house of parliament with one according voice voted its condem

nation. To sir George Saville, of whom it has eloquently been said "that when an act of great and signal humanity was to be done with all the weight and authority that belonged to it, the world could cast its eyes upon none but him," was assigned the grateful office of moving its repeal. On the 14th of May, 1778, he made the important motion.

Notwithstanding the extraordinary unanimity with which the repeal was carried in parliament, it was destined to encounter out of doors, as violent an opposition as ever was excited by popular phrensy and fanatick delusion.

Catching, with their usual discernment, the preposterous idea, that this salutary concession to their fellow subjects was dictated by an undue inclination to popery, the populace became every where exceedingly exasperated, and burned with a zeal more ardent than that which actuated the primitive protestants against Anti-Christ. But it was in Scotland that these discontents assumed first a serious aspect. Fomented by the machinations of religious enthusiasts, and turbulent demagogues they soon arose there, in many of the larger cities, to a series of riots and terrible outrages. Defying the civil power, mobs of incendiaries stalked abroad, and with relentless fury burnt or otherwise destroyed the chapels, the dwelling houses, or whatever property belonging to the catholicks that they met with in their fell career. To wage a still more determined hostility against the encroachments of popery, associations numerous and extensive, were organized. By these proceedings, parliament was induced to withhold for the present, any relief to the Scotch catholicks.

Encouraged by the successful resistance of the zealots of the north, the English fanaticks now thought that by pursuing the same vigorous course they might compel the entire repeal of the recent system of toleration. In exact imitation, therefore, of those of Scotland, societies were created, consisting chiefly of the mere dregs and feculence of city population, but embracing some designing leaders, and a few honest,

though bigotted characters who contemplated popery in the same disgusting light in which it existed, in the worst ages of ignorant credulity, and clerical usurpation.

For several months these humble associations were allowed to meet, and to deliberate undisturbed by any interference on the part of government, and it is highly probable that they would have vented their enthusiasm for the protestant interests in idle declamation, and vapouring resolves, had they not been joined by a nobleman who was every way calculated to rouse their prejudices and to bring them into active exertions.

"Lord George Gordon, younger brother of an illustrious family, was a youth of ingenuity, and volatile fancy, but little guided by prudence or sound judgment. Wild and chimerical in his notions, ungovernable in his passions, and excessive in dissipation, he was peculiarly marked by eccentricity of conduct. To such a character the extravagance of fanatical theology was no less adapted than any other fanciful hypothesis to dazzle his imagination, or impassioned enthusiasm to inflame his heart. He was, besides, fond of distinction. In the house of commons, his lively and desultory sarcasms afforded relief to serious debate, but he was by no means qualified for attaining eminence as a senator. Emulous, rather than ambitious, if he acquired notoriety he little regarded either the means or the objects. In Scotland, he had taken an active share in the violence of the former year, and had corresponded with the most noted of the fanatical demagogues. In England, he intimated to the protestant club his theological sympathy, and proud of a titled associate, these persons complimented him with the offer of the president's chair. The association from this moment put on quite a new character. Resolutions of the most inflammatory description were immediately adopted.

Before an immense concourse of people, which met on the 29th of May, 1780, the president concluded a speech that was received with the loudest bursts