building was to be occupied by that nobleman. Mr. Fox obferved, that, if there were really a propriety in building a new houfe for the first lord of he admiralty, he fhould never object to a vote for that pur. pofe; but he did not approve of coming to the house of commons, and ftating that there was a want of rooms for papers and clerks, and then producing the plan of a fuperb dwelling-house. He thought it was incumbent upon the board of admiralty to have first proved, either that new and fufficient rooms could not have been provided for by a fmaller fum than it would cost to build a new houfe for the first lord of the admiralty; or that a more economical plan could not be difcovered than the converting the prefent fpacious habitation of the firft lord into offices for clerks. Mr. Huffey remarked, that it was his conftant rule to object to the aplying the public money to useless or lavish purposes. At prefent two of the lords of the admiralty had no houfes provided for them. Why then could not two more vacate their houses, and let them be converted into offices? They could eafily be recompenfed for this facrifice by an allowance of two or three hundred pounds a year in lieu of their houfes, and that would be but a trifling expence compared to the expence of the 'new building,' the amount of which was not haftily to be concluded from the estimate before them. The houfe divided, ayes in favour of the ellimate 63, noes 36.

It had been propofed in the preceding feffion, to pafs an act for diminifhing the number, and aug menting the falaries of the Scotch judges. But the unpopularity and odium, which were univerfally ex eited against this measure in that

part of the kingdom, had its effect ite altering the intentions of ministers. The bill, which was this year introduced by Mr. Ilay Campbel, the lord advocate for Scotland, and Mr. Dundas, departed from the first of these objects, while it retained the fecond. The falary of the lord prefident of the court of feffion, was fixed at the clear annual amount of zcool., and that of the inferior lords at rocol. each.

Meffages were delivered from the fovereign towards the close of the feffion, recommending it to the houfe of commons, to enable him to grant a penfion of 500l. per annum to Mr. Brook Watson, alderman of London, and late commiffary-ge neral in North America, and a penfion of 1000l. per annum, to fir Guy Carleton, upon the joint lives of lady Maria Carleton, his wife, and of two of his fons; the former to be paid out of the civil lift, and the latter out of the aggres gate fund. An argument employed in favour of the penfion to Mr. Watfon, was adduced from the promife made to him by lord North, when he accepted the office of com miflary; and the promife of the sovereign given in 1776, was urged in behalf of the penfion to general Carleton, which the general had for fome time declined accepting from motives of delicacy. former of thefe motions was recommended by the eulogium of fir George Howard, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Brickdale and Mr. Huffey, and paffed unanimoufly. The latter produced an invective against the conduct of fir Guy Carleton from Mr. Courtenay, and a very spirited and eloquent eulogium from general Burgoyne. It was received without a diffentient voice.

The

A motion was brought forward in this feffion by Mr. Sheridan, for

the

the printing of tax bills. The practice of printing bills was of a modern date; but it was highly bene ficial to the purposes of free difcuffion, and there were certainly no bills more worthy of ferious inveftigation, than tax bills. Custom indeed had not yet extended the practice to bills of this defcription; but custom was no found reafon why a method, that had but lately been employed in any cafe, fhould not now be made to include every fubject that would be benefited by its application. Upon this quef tion, as applied to the bill upon perfumery, the houfe divided, ayes for printing the bill 24, noes 119.

Several petitions were prefented in the course of this feffion, for the repeal of the duties impofed upon retail fhops. The petitioners were permitted to be heard by themselves and their counfel; and on the fecond of March a motion was made by fir Watkin Lewes, in purfuance of the prayer of thefe petitions. The motion was fupported by the members of the city of London, by Mr. Hamet, Mr. Townsend, Mr. Thornton, fir Jofeph Mawby, and Mr. Francis. It was oppofed by fir Edward Aftley, Mr. Powys, Mr. Walter Stanhope, member for Hull, and Mr. Grigby, member for the county of Suffolk. Mr. Pitt upon this occafion ftated thofe mitigations of the tax, which were atter wards reduced into the form of a bill, and which were calculated in a confiderable degree to relieve traders, the rent of whofe houfes was below the fum of thirty pounds, as inducements to prevail upon the houfe to vote against the total re. peal. Perhaps," added he, "a perfeverance in the attempt to give ftability to the fhop-tax, will either prevent the flighteft acquifition of popularity, or leffen, if not anni

hilate, whatever fhare of it might at any preceding period have been acquired. Yet, although no circumftance can prove more flattering to my heart than the enjoyment of the approbation of my fellowfubjects, nor any endeavour become a ronger object to my mind than that which tends to the earning from their generous partiality a tribute of honourable praife, I fhall prefer what in my humble opinion I may deem their interefts to their gratifications, and their real fervice to the imaginary caufes of their contentment. The important duties of my ftation fhall never even for a moment lofe their first afcendancy in my recollection, and, amidst the principles which a becoming idea of thefe muft naturally infpire, I fhall regard all marks of popular applaufe as merely perfonal confiderations, and therefore not worthy to weigh a feather in the fcale, against my efforts to procure, upon grounds of unexceptionable juice, advantage to the revenue."

Mr. Fox took advantage of the mitigations, that were to be introduced by Mr. Pitt's propofed bill, to argue against the fhop-tax in general. His opinions upon the fubject of taxation were well known. Notwithstanding the numerous petitions on the table, and notwithftanding the inftructions he had received from thofe whom he immediately reprefented, he made no fcruple to declare, that he should have fupported the minifter in refifting the repeal of the flop-tax, had he not been convinced that the tax was radically bad, that it was founded in the groffeft partiality and injuftice, and that no modifica tion could cure its defects, or render it fit to be endured. The grea ter part of Mr. Pitt's arguments had been intended to prove that the H 2

tax

tax was not perfonal, and that it muft find its level, and fall upon the confumer. If this were true, what was there to recommend his modifications? He had ftated, that he would take off and diminish the portion of the tax to be paid by the poorer clafs, which would confiderably lighten and exonerate the fhopkeeper. Would it? of what would it exonerate him of the money paid by the confumer? Glaring was the inconfiftency of the actions of Mr. Pitt, when compared with his arguments.

Though the petitions of the oppofers of the fhop-tax were more numerous. the hawkers and pedlars, who had fuffered under the regula. tions of the preceding feffion, were not deititute of their advocates, and feveral petitions were prefented to parliament in their behalf. On the fixth of April a motion was made by Mr. William Pulteney, member for Shrewsbury, for leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend the act of the last feffion upon this fub ject. A claufe, which had been found particularly odious to the clafs of perfons in question, was that for gran ing to juftices of peace a difcret onary power of imprifoning any perfon of this profeffion, from which power the injured party might appeal to the quarter fellions. The claufe had been originally introduced by Mr. Marsham, a d was now defended by him, as calculated to favour the pedlars where they were useful, and to fupprefs them where they were found to be injurious. In counties of the former defeription, the magistrates inflead of forbidding their coming would naturally encourage it; and in counties where their prefence was deemed a nuifarce, the magiftrates were by his claufe authorised to prevent their appearing. It was

farther argued in favour of Mr. Pulteney's motion, that in only two or three counties had the magiftrates been found fevere enough to execute Mr. Pirt's bill, which was a ftrong proof that it was the sense of the kingdom, that it was full of hardflip and injustice. The cause of the pedlars was pleaded with much earnestnefs, as being the cause of equity and philanthropy, by Mr. Powys, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Windham, Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Hawkins Browne, the lord advocate of Scotland, fir Adam Fergufon, Mr. alderman Newnham, and fir Watkin Lewes. The bill was oppofed by fir Edward Aftley, Mr. alderman Hamet, Mr. Popham, and Mr. Thornton.

It was rejected

upon the fecond reading, ayes 99,

noes 49.

The improvement of the revenue in the article of the duty upon wines, which Mr. Pitt had fuggetted to the house of commons in explaining the business of the finking fund, was opened by the minitter on the fifth of May. The general idea of the meafure was to transfer a part of the duties on this commodity from the customs, to which they now belonged, to the excife, and it was built upon the acknowledged fact, that the revenue derived to government from the article of foreign wine, was at this time inferior by the fum of 280,000l. to what it had been in the middle of the century. Mr. Pitt affumed it as a principle, that the confumption of wine was at least not diminifhed, if not rather increased in that period. The frauds in queftion had been imputed to two caufes; and, though he should allow fomewhat for the operation of both, he was inclined to lay the principal refs on the latter. They were the

frau

fraudulent importation of a confiderable quantity of wine without paying the duty, and the fale of a fpurious and adulterated liquor, under the denomination of wine, but which in truth was not in any fort intitled to that appellation. The manufacture of home made wine, was of itself very little intitied to the indulgence of the legislature; and it was a part of his plan, to impofe duties upon this commodity equal to thofe to which foreign wines were at prefent liable. By fuppreffing this manufacture, a greater demand would arife for foreign wines, and a more extenfive market be opened for the productions of national industry. In return for a fraudulent trade, which could not conduce to the commercial welfare of the nation, and the only object of which was to increase the property of the individual by the impofition of a fpuri. ous article of confumption, that cheated at once both the consumer and the revenue, we fhould have an opportunity of circulating our various fabrics, in which the induftry, the capital and the navigation of the country were employed. The miferable fubftitute which was at present impofed upon us, he apprehended no member of that houfe would wish to fee continued, either from motives of a commercial or a convivial nature.

Mr. Pitt obferved, that a propofal, in fome degree fimilar to that which he was about to make, had been formerly in contemplation, and that it had then encountered fo violent an oppofition that it had been thought proper to abandon it. He apprehended however, that the principal reafon for that oppofition was, that it had been coupled with another object, which had always been regarded by Englishmen with an

eye of jealoufy. There was no intention in the prefent meafure of introducing a general excife, the defign being to confine it to thofe perfons only who dealt in wine;, and, fo far from giving power to the excifemen to enter all dwelling houfes, it would even fubject only the entered cellars and warehouses of the dealers themselves to be fearched. In fact, even of those upon whom the regulation was to operate, a very few only would have reafon to complain that their fituation was changed. For fuch as dealt in wine by retail, having in general licences for felling spiri tuous liquors, their houfes were already liable to be entered by the officers, in order to take an account of their stock in that commodity. As to the expence of the measure now in agitation, it would amount. to no more than 12,000l. or 13,000l. per annum; a fum by no means to be put in competition with the frauds it was intended to prevent; and the number of excifemen to be added, would not exceed according to his computation the amount of one hundred and fixty feven. So much were former prejudices against this mode diffipated, that Mr. Pitt really expected, when a cool and temperate view of the business had been taken, that he fhould have very few, if any diffentient voices against his propofl. He however particularly deprecated the objections of members in oppofition, and pointed out the inconfiftency of which they would be guilty, if they recollected their late conduct upon the bufinefs of the finking fund. They had entertained ideas, more defponding than he thought had any foundation respecting the state of our finances, and had even recommended the impofition of new taxes to make up a fuppofed defiH3

ciency.

ciency. It would be unpardonable in the extreme for perfons, who had ufed fuch language, not to fupport every meafure, which was at all confiftent with the conftitution and with good policy for the improvement of the revenue. He hoped, that no perfon would take advantage of unpopular names or wornout prepoff flions, to create an avernon to a meature, which afforded a prospect of fuch fignal advantage, and for which the fituation of the country fo powerfully called.

Mr. Dempfier recommended to the houte the utmost circumfpection in giving way to bills, which might materially affect the rights and li-, berties of the fubject. He remind ed them of the general excife, which had thrown the nation into a flame, in the time of fir Robert Walpole. That, if he recollected, was no other, than a propofition to transfer the collection of the duties upon wines and tobacco to the office of excife. Was not the intended regulation refpecting wines, fomewhat of the fame kind? And did it not go to the deftruction of the favourite idea of every Englishman, that his houfe was his cattle? The cyder-tax, impofed in the beginning of the preient reign, had been repealed, becaufe the fuffering excifemen to enter men's houfes was thought an odious and intolerable badge of flavery. In both thefe inftances the people had refifted; and the confequence was, that it was thought wife in government to relax, and abandon the rigour of the excife laws. Mr. Dempfter thought, that an alteration of conduct in the prefent inftance, could no otherwife be defended than from the altered fituation of the country; and he was by all means for our paying our debts like honeft men: but he was perfuaded, that the prefent meafure

would not answer its purpofe, or give an effectual check to the illicit trade.

Mr. Fox had heard nothing like an argument to prove, that wine was one of thofe articles to which the excite laws ought to be extended. He difliked experiments upon the liberty of the fubject, and he regarded the prefent experiment as peculiarly rath. The duties on malt and beer had been found admirably adapted to collection under the excife, and a better mode could not be adopted for that purpose. But did it follow, that all duties would be best collected under the excife-laws? Experience teftitied the reverfe to be the fact. The duties on tea, formerly a great and effential article of revenue, had been under the collection of the excife; and it was well known, how miferably that mode of collection had failed. It had fucceeded no better in its ap plication to the duties on fpirituous liquors. The practice of the excite, that of gauging, applied to the breweries, but was of all fubjects the most incompatible with the ar ticle of wine. With regard to the diftinction Mr. Pitt had made, refpecting the operation of the meafure, that its feveral claufes would fall only upon dealers in wine, and not upon private individuals; Mr. Fox confidered it as in a high degree idle and fallacious. That diftinction had been urged as a great argument, when the cyder tax was debated many years ago. But to what did it really amount, unless it were a provifion to favour the idle, and opprefs the industrious? Traders, as the most useful fet of men, were, in his opinion, the best entitled to legislative confideration. But fure he was, that no found reafon could be affigned, why they flrould be debarred of their fhare in

that