CHAPTER VIII.

The Coalition.-Explanatory Defence of it by Sheridan. -Justification of it by Dr. Parr.-Remarks.-Sheridan suspected of a Financial Job.-His Sentiments on a Reform in Parliameat.—His Vindication of the Tax on Receipts.-India Bill of Mr. Fox.-Change of Ministers.

ON the second of April, 1783, Mr. Sheridan came into office, as Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with Mr. Richard Burke, the Recorder of Bristol, the Duke of Portland being nominally the Prime Minister, though, in reality, that dignity, as to every effective purpose, rested in Lord North and Mr. Fox, who were joint secretaries of state. This coalition of persons, who had been for so many years at direct variance on every public question, and between whom it was scarcely to be credited that any uniformity of political opinion could subsist, occasioned a sensation of astonishment and indignation throughout the kingdom.

It required no ordinary skill to frame any thing like an apology for so unnatural a union; and Mr. Fox, whose abilities were of the first order, failed most miserably in his attempt to justify the alliance which he had made. There was, indeed,

something highly ludicrous in the sorrow which he expressed for the indecent violence of his former opposition to the noble lord with whom he was now associated. He then endeavoured to shelter himself and his colleague under the sanction of example, and adduced, among other instances, the junction that had been formed between the Duke of Richmond and Lord Thurlow, notwithstanding the acrimonious language which had passed between those noblemen. This, however, was a very lame defence of the right honourable secretary, who had invariably affected to oppose Lord North upon principle; and yet, at the very time that the coalition took place, the political doctrines of both these statesmen were unchanged. The war with America was indeed at an end, but the sentiments of the noble lord on that subject remained the same; and there were other radical principles of constitutional import, in which he differed toto cælo from his old antagonist and new ally."

་ ་

Mr. Sheridan's wit and eloquence proved more effectual in the defence of this measure than the apology of Mr. Fox; though even his ingenious statement and sophistical reasoning were far enough from giving general satisfaction. He confessed, that when the idea of a coalition with Lord North was first mentioned, he had advised his right honourable friend not to accept of it, and his reason for so dissuading him was this, that as he had ac

quired a great popularity in the country, it was to be dreaded that he would lose it by such a step. It was natural to suppose that a connexion so contrary to all former professions would disgust many respectable friends, and raise prejudices too strong to be combated. Similar objections, said Mr. Sheridan, would no doubt occur to the friends of the noble lord; and he had reason to believe that such arguments against the coalition were urged to him by the persons who were most in his confidence. Mutual diffidence between men, long in the habit of contending publicly, might naturally be expected. The prejudices of the people were also to be taken into the account, as operating powerfully to forbid the alliance. The middling classes of society, for whom Mr. Sheridan professed to entertain the greatest respect, and to whom, sooner than the more elevated ranks, the House of Commons must ever look for support in cases of emergency, were certainly not the best qualified to judge of nice and refined points of politics: accustomed to appretiate the value of measures by their opinion of men, he apprehended that they would not give themselves time to examine the principles, motives, and grounds of a coalition; but would condemn it on its first appearance, merely because it was composed of persons who had long been political enemies. On these grounds, therefore, and full of tender apprehension for the character

U

of his right honourable friend, he had most certainly given him his advice against the coalition. But having made this candid statement, he proceeded to say, that when the necessities of the times, at last, pointed the measure out as the only means of saving the country, and when, from the opportunities he had of seeing the noble lord and his friends, he was fully convinced of their honour and the liberality of their conduct, not only did he cease to condemn the coalition, but he rejoiced that it had taken place even in spite of his caution and advice. It was needless, therefore, after this, to assure the house that his confidence in his right honourable friend had not suffered the smallest diminution; for being thoroughly well acquainted with his exalted character, he knew that he looked down with perfect indifference, if not with absolute contempt, upon riches, places, and dignities, as things by no means conducive to happiness. It was the ambition of his right honourable friend to merit and preserve the esteem and confidence of his friends, and he was sure that he would sacrifice neither for all that power and emolument could bestow.

Such was the pleading of Mr. Sheridan in the behalf of a connexion that could only be justified upon the plea of public good, and accordingly that necessity he claimed as its legitimate ground, but, unfortunately for his cause, without producing a single proof to shew that the necessity existed.

It was easy, indeed, to say that the salvation of the country depended upon a combination of this nature, but it required a face of peculiar hardihood to advance so glaring a fallacy in a public assembly, where the assertion, instead of making a favourable impression, was sure to excite ridicule.

The strong and ardent mind of Dr. Parr was as much gravelled in devising an argument for this celebrated junction as the fertile imagination of his friend Sheridan. In his once celebrated preface to the republication of Bellendenus, he says, “Whatever has been objected to the coali tion, and however frequently this has been echoed by the tongues of unprincipled men, it will never make an impression either on Fox or North forcible enough to make them repent of having buried their former enmities in oblivion. If their senti ments have, in some instances, submitted to change, they still defy the imputation of inconstancy. When the state had in a manner expired, from the oppression of a calamitous and fatal war, they considered, with the cool deliberation of reason, not only what was expedient for the publie good, but what was most becoming and honourable for themselves. They were of opinion, the wounds of that war could then alone be healed, when a solid, consistent union of all the virtuous could be effected, even by violent means, from the various sentiments and prejudices of a divided and distracted nation. They exerted them