that freedom, which the conftitution held out as commou to all.

The Earl of Surrey and Mr. Baftard recommended to Mr. Pitt, to withdraw the principal part of his regulation, and to introduce as a fubftitute, perfectly adequate, a heavy duty upon fweets or wines of our own growth. The measure was farther oppofed by Mr. alderman Sawbridge, Mr. alderman Newnham, Mr. alderman Hamet, Mr. alderman Watson, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Sheridan. It was fupported by Mr. Huffey, Mr. Martin, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pye, and Mr. Gafcoyne. A petition was prefented against the bill by the wine-merchants of London, and they were heard in evidence at the bar of the house.

knowledged to be, in many inftances, convenient to the parties; and he concluded, that it would be highly unreasonable to give them an option of diffenting from that mode, folely in cafes where it was actual. ly neceffary to the revenue. The amendment of Mr. Beaufoy was opposed by fir Grey Cooper, and fupported by Mr. Fox. The latter condemned the mode of reafoning that had been employed against it in the strongest manner. The fummary proceedings adopted by the excife laws, were exceptions to the conftitution, warranted only by very extraordinary cafes; the catalogue of thofe exceptions therefore ought not to be fwelled without a cogent and fufficient reafon. A right to trial by jury was what the conflitution authorifed; and, wherever it could be given with perfect fafety to the revenue, there it ought to be allowed. But what was the nature of the offences cognizable under the prefent bill? Offences, which might be fraudulent in their defign, or might arife from inadvertency: offences, the guilt of which ought to be cftimated from the intention, and upon which therefore a jury alone was competent to decide. The claufe of Mr. Beaufoy was rejected, and the houfe having divided upon the third reading of the bill, the numbers appeared, ayes 71, noes 33:

Mr. Beaufoy had in the last feffion introduced a bill into the houfe of commons, to amend the excifelaws, the principal object of which was, to give to thofe, who were accufed as defaulters against this code, an optional right of being tried by their peers. What upon that occafion he had attempted with refpect to the fubject in general, he now conceived himself bound to bring forward in part, when an extenfion of the excife laws was the topic under difcuffion. Mr. Pitt obferved, that it could not be without concern, that he should meet Mr. Beaufoy's claufe with a negative. He paid a very high compliment to the great ability, and uniform integrity of his friend. He obferved, that, if Mr. Beaufoy had manifefied any fuch diftinction between the winetrade and the other fubjects of the revenue laws, as could make out fufficient ground for an exception, he fhould have been extremely willing to comply with his motion. He added, that the fummary mode of proceeding now employed, was ac

In the houfe of lords, the bill for transferring the duties upon wines was fupported by Lord Townnend, and encountered the oppofition of the Earl of Carlifle. Lord Carlisle affirmed, that, when any man of common fenfe came to examine the contents of the bill, he would find that it had no other motive, than the multiplication of the patronage of the crown, by an enormous and fudden increase of excife officers.

It was not, as had been fated in another house, an increafe of one hundred and fixty officers, but of nearly two thousand. This was eafily calculated. There were a bout feven hundred wholefale dealers, and ten thousand retailers, who would be affected by the bill. To each of the principal merchants there must be one excifeman. Thefe would make feven hundred; and a moderate average among the reit, would raise the whole to the amount he had stated.

Lord Loughborough entered in to the history of the meatures, which had been adopted for the extenfion of the excife. Sir Robert Walpole, in the clofe of his ministerial reign, propofed a fyftem of that kind. The patriots of thofe days oppofed him. The meafure was confidered by all the principal country gentlemen as odious, and fir Robert barely escaped from the house with his life. The meafure was again thought of in Mr. Pelham's time, and upon the very plan of exciting wine. But Mr. Pelham, as able a Hatefman, and as good a finan.ier as any who fucceeded him, rejected the propofal. It had not then fuggetted itfelf till the administration of Mr. Grenville, who was as excellent a statesman as had ever fat upon the treasury bench, and he had declared the measure to be totally inadmisible under any minifter, who had a value for the interefts of Great Britain, and a refpect for the ineûimable bleffings of liberty. Lord Loughborough took much pains in developing the history of the duties upon wine for the laft fifty years, and he inferred from the whole, that, in proportion as the duties, on fweets were taken off, fo had the revenue from foreign wines decreased; and that, of confe

quence, the restoration of thofe duties was a remedy perfectly ade quate to the evil complained of. Lord Loughborough was remarkably fevere in his animadvertions upon a claufe, which had not originally conftituted a part of the bill, but which had been introduced as an amendment in the committee of the houfe of commons. By this claufe a jury were exprefsly prohi bited, in case of any fuit com menced against an excifeman for improper feizure, and the excifeman being able to fhew a probable caufe for that feizure, to grant the plaintiff a verdict, exclusively of the value of things feized, of more than two pence damages or of any colts of fuit, or to inflict a fine that fhould exceed one filling. With regard to the exception of a probable caufe, falfe information was a probable caufe, and that might in every inftance be aligned. Lord Loughborough conceived, that this was one of the most arbitrary meafures with refpect to the excife, that by any miniftry had ever been attempted. It was an abolition of all appeal to the laws of the land for redrefs, and made cyphers of the authority of courts and juries. It made an excifeman of more confequence than any lord in the realm, by placing him above the jurifdiction of his peers. It fet him out of the reach of conftitutional justice and furnished him with authority to laugh at the courts in Weliminfterhall. There were lords in that houfe, added Lord Loughborough, who, in times paft, had defended the trial by jury, as the most facred right which a Briton could enjoy, He trulied, that, when any of thofe came forward to favour the present measure, he would affign fuch caufes for the alteration of his opi

aion, as fhould coincide with juftice, and make mankind credit his fincerity, and admire his wifdom. Lord Camden replied to Lord Loughborough. No circumftance could give him greater pleasure, than to find his fentiments perfectly coincide with thofe of that nobleman on fo patriotic a principle, as that of defending the conftitution. The extension of the excife laws was a dangerous fyftem, and was fraught with multifarious evils. It unhinged the conftitutional rights of juries, and overturned the popular principle, that every man's houfe was his caftle. Lord Camden had long imbibed thefe principles, and he could not easily get rid of his early prejudices. They were the fentiments of his youth, inculcated by precept, improved by experience, and warranted by example. Strange however as it might appear, the neceffity of the cafe obliged him to give his affent to the prefent bill. Lord Camden expatiated on the various impofitions practifed by the wine-merchants, to delude the public, to cheat the revenue, and to injure the health of the fubject. It was to their iniquities that the prefent departure from the conftitution was to be afcribed. They were guilty of all, that could offend the laws of their country in refpect to its revenue, and were therefore properly marked out by the bill upon the table. With refpect to the clause of fine and damages, upon which lord Loughborough had animadverted, lord Camden acknowledged, that it did not meet either his ideas of equity, or his principles of juftice; but, as the bill had proceeded fo far, and this alteration would deftroy it for the prefent feifion, he muft give way to the claufe. If, at period lefs advanced, he had dif.

2

covered its enomity, any well fuggefted alteration fhould moft certainly have received his fupport. The bill was carried without a divifion.

In the month of June a meffago was delivered from the king to both houfes of parliament, fignifying, that the king was delirous that an enquiry fhould be made into the condition of the woods, forests, and land revenues belonging to the crown, in order that they might be rendered as productive as poffible; and calling upon parliament for their concurrence in fuch provifions refpecting the fubject, as they fhould judge moft conducive to the public benefit. A bill was accordingly introduced, which, as it was conceived to contain fome extraordinary claufes, encountered a fmall degree of oppofition in the houfe of commons, and a still greater in the houfe of lords. Mr. Jolliffe cenfured the very fingular manner in which the bill had been introduced, and its strange contents. It had been brought in in filence, without any notice of its real defign. It had been read a fecond time and not printed, at a period when perfons of the largest property had left London. The commiffioners named in the bill were to continue during the term of three years, and were not removeable either by the king or by the address of either houfe of parliament. What an exclamation had been excited against the bill of Mr. Fox for the regulation of India, because it was fuppofed to contain a fimilar provi fion, though Mr. Fox's commiffioners were removable by addrefs of parliament, and though his bill had no concern with the immediate interefts of the crown. Mr. Jolliffe farther animadverted upon certain claufes of the bill, by which a power