Bill. These were firft, in regard to the election of perfons to ferve in council; as the Bill of 1784 ftood, it confined it to the fervants of the Company in India, he meant that it should comprehend alfo the fervants who were at home as well as thofe in India. Another alteration was an addition to the principle of the Bill, and that was, inftead of leaving every thing to be decided by the voice of the majority of the Council at Calcutta, he meant to give the Governor General more power than he at prefent poffeffed, and to let him decide upon every measure whether his council agreed with him or not. A third alteration would be that of empowering the Governor General to nominate a fucceffor to fit in Council on the death of any one Member, inftead of the oldeft in service fucceeding as a matter of course. Mr. Dundas faid he meant to leave it in the power of the Directors to decide as they thought it moft for the benefit of their fervice, whether the Commander in Chief fhould have a feat at the Council or not. At prefent the Commander in Chief had a feat at the Coucil of courfe. A fourth alteration would be in refpect to the rife to promotion in India, according to the Bill of 1784, the Company's fervants were all to rife by regular gradation; now Gentlemen would fee in a moment, that as there were different heads of fervice, fo a regular rife muft in fome cafes prove inconvenient, and therefore he meant to divide the fervants into their respective heads or claffes, and enact that each clafs fhould rife regularly. In regard to the part of the Bill that obliged the fervants of the Company on their coming home to deliver in the amount of their fortunes on oath, and alfo an account how they had difpofed of any part of their fortunes in India, on oath, Mr. Dundas faid, he had taken confiderable pains to afcertain what it was that the Gentlemen ferving in India chiefly complained of in regard to that part of the Bill of 1784, and he found that what chiefly diftreffed them arofe from two operations of the difcovering claufes; the one was, the being obliged to give an account on oath of the precife manner in which they had difpofed of any part of their fortunes in India, and the other the publicity of fuch an account, by its being put upon record after it was made. There might, he admitted, be various ways of Gentlemen difpofing of confiderable fums in India, which no man would wish to have known. Particular fums might be given to particular perfons. Conpections both male and female might ab forb a large portion of a Gentleman's fortune, and it would undoubtedly be vexatious to have an authentic account of fuch a difpofal of money made matter of public record. He meant therefore to leave our of his Bill, the claufe that refpected the difpofal of every fervant of the Company's money in India, and alfo to let the account of the fortune they brought home be made fecre:ly and kept fecret unless in par ticular cafes, where it would not be right that it should remain fo. Thefe alterations, would, he believed, relieve the minds of Gentlemen in India in a great measure from the uneafinefs that part of the Bill might have occafioned, and at the fame time the great end and object of obtaining an account of the fortunes those who returned home had made, would be answer→ ed. Another alteration and that the laft was, in refpect to the mode of balloting for the petty jury to try perfons charged with having committed crimes and mifde meanours in India, on their coming home. As the Bill of 1784 ftood, two hundred Members were obliged to be present before the House could proceed to ballot. This was extremely inconvenient; he meant therefore to omit that part of the Bill that refpected the two hundred Members, and then the ballot might more easily be conducted, and in a way equally impartial by having balloting lifts prepared a fufficient time previous to the day of ballot, by which means a greater number of names would be before the Houfe for election. Having gone through the heads of his intended amendments, Mr. Dundas com cluded with moving "for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the India Bill." The Chancellor of the Exchequer feconded the Motion. Mr. Francis rofe immediately after the Motion was read from the Chair, and faid, he meant not to oppofe the Motion, for that the Bill of 1784 ftood in need of great alteration and amendment was a fact univerfally admitted. He rofe merely to give notice, that as foon as the Motion was difpofed of, which he prefumed it would be immediately, he fhould move a propofition, which related to the Bill juft moved for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded the Hon. Gentleman that his learned Friend had given three days notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and explain the India Bill, where as the Hon. Gentleman had not given any notice of his intention; he hoped, therefore, therefore, as other bufinefs was known to Band for that day, viz. the report on the bill to modify the Shop Tax, and as a Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite to him had fignified his wifh to fay fomething on that fubject, the Hon. Gentleman would not prefs his motion then, but would take another day for it. Mr. Francis in reply faid, his motion was fo immediately connected with the motion then before the Houfe, that he could not think of making it at any other time, but he did not conceive it could be objected to, or that it would occafion the Houfe a quarter of an hour's delay. Mr. Sheridan raised a laugh by obferving, with what extreme condefcenfion and good-nature a Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite to him had rifen to fupport his Right Hon. and Learned Friend's motion, after having heard him declare, that the purport and principle of his new bill went to cutting up by the roots the Right Hon, Gentleman's own India bill, which the Learned Gentleman had proved by his fpeech to have been a very foolish piece of bufinefs. Mr. Sheridan defired to warn the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman in time, that he ought to bring all the parts of the bill forward together, and not imitate the conduct of his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whofe India bill, when firft introduced, had been found to be fo imperfect, and fo improper, that it was obliged to be completely altered in all its parts, in the Committee, and four and twenty new clauses inferted. Mr. Sheridan remarked, that what Mr. Dundas has called "an addition to the principle of Mr. Pitt's bill of 1784," was, on the contrary, a direct reverfal of its principle, and the substitution of a new principle, as to the particular point in question; for by the bill of 1784, every thing in Council in India was to be carried by the majority of voices; where as in the new bill, every thing was to depend folely on the fingle opinion of the Governor General. Before he fat down, he reminded the Houfe, that on the first day of the feffion, they had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the reafon why no notice of India had been taken in the fpeech from the Throne, was because the government of India had been eftablished on a folid and permanent footing; a piece of information that ill accorded with what the House had that day heard, or with the motion then before them. Question put, and carried. Mr. Francis rofe, and faid, his motion was of fuch a nature, that he fcarcely thought it poffible for any gentleman to object to it; fince the doctrine it tended to lay down and establish, had been, at different times, profeffed by all of them, and had been recommended to their care and attention by the fift authority in the king. dom, viz. by his Majefty, in his fpeech from the Throne. It was an inftruction to the gentlemen appointed to prepare the bill just moved for, and ordered, highly neceffary to be attended to, and which would be a teft as to the principles of every gentleman in that House, and prove whe ther he was a friend to the conftitution or not. He would fay no more, but would read a motion, which was as follows: "That it be an inftruction to the gen "tlemen appointed to prepare and bring "in a bill to explain and amend an act "paffled in the 24th year of his Majefty's "reign, entitled, An Act for the better Regulation and Management of the Af'fairs of the East India Company, and of the British Poffeffions in India, and for ctablishing a Court of Judicature, for the more speedy and effectual Trial of • Perfons accused of Offences committed in the East Indies :" That, in prepa ❝ring the fame, they do never lofe fight "of the effect which any measure to be "adopted for the good government of our "poffeffions in India, may have on our 66 own conftitution, and our deareft inte"refts at home; and particularly that in "amending the faid act, they do take "care that no part thereof fhall be con firmed or re-enacted, by which the un"alienable right of every British fubject "to a trial by jury, as declared by Magna "Charta, fhall be taken away or im "paired." Mr. Sheridan feconded the motion, and the Houfe immediately divided on it without a word of debate :-Ayes 16; Noes 85, SHOP TAX. When the order of the day for bringing up the Shop Tax Committee Report was read, Mr. Fox rofe, and faid, he fhould give the Houfe lefs trouble upon the fubject than he had thought he should have had occafion to do, when he gave notice laft Monday of his intentions to offer his thoughts to them in regard to the modifications of the Shop Tax, propofed by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite to him. Since Monday, a large meeting of the mot Friday, March 17, 1786. SHOP TAX. moft refpectable Shopkeepers in London, HOUSE OF COMMON S. Weftminster, and Southwark, had been held, at which feveral refolutions had been agreed to. And he had fince been informed from that meeting, that it was their wifh he fhould ftate in his place, that they were by no means fatisfied with the intended modifications; but that fo far from confidering them as an alleviation of the tax with regard to them, they deemed them frivolous, delufive, and partial, fince they left the whole burden of the tax on their fhoulders. "Such, however," faid Mr. Fox, "is the rooted difguft against the tax, that the Shopkeepers, perfuaded that no modification of it could palliate its perfonal and oppreffive tendency, would rather wait till next feffions, in the hope that the Houfe would in candour and in justice, confent to repeal it altogether, than attempt to try now for any further modifications of it; and although they are perfectly conscious that it does not lie with them to fuggest taxes, but that it is the immediate province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Houfe, yet have they authorised me to declare, that objectionable as a general House Tax is on many accounts, and partial and fevere as its operation would be on them, yet they would gladly confent to pay a new general Houfe Tax, on condition of the repeal of the Shop Tax. Mr. Alderman Newnham declared, tho' he agreed in much of what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, yet there was one point that he muft beg leave to diffent from, and that was the propofition of a new House Tax in lieu of a Shop Tax. The Shop Tax, he admitted, was a bad tax, extremely partial, and every way unwarrantable, and therefore he should be glad to fee it repealed; and though the Right Hon. Gentleman might, and he dared to fay he had, ftated the fentiments of the Shopkeepers very fairly, yet he could not for a moment fit filent, while it was poffible for the Houfe to conceive that he would confent to take a thorn out of the fide of the Retail Shopkeepers, and lodge it in the fides of his conftituents in general. He thought it his duty in the moft publick manner to make this decla 'ration in the Houfe, and to add, that he would oppofe a new House Tax most strenuously, if ever it fhould be brought forward as a fubftitution for the Shop Tax. The report was after this brought up, and the amendments made in the Committee agreed to. POL. MAG. VOL. X. JUNE, 1786. On the Shop Tax Modification Bill being read a third time, Șir Watkin Lewes » moved a claufe, by way of rider, and was feconded by Mr. Thornton. Sir Watkin faid, that from the title of the Bill impo fing a duty upon perfons keeping retail fhops, he apprehended that victualiers were exempted from the tax; but as there were doubts, respecting the perions exempted, he propoled a claufe, inftead of fome being exempted, others charged, and the refult being, that the opinion of the Judges was defired on the queftion, he thought it right to explain the prefent and the former act by a claufe, that no perfon acting as a victualler, and whố had, or fhould take out a licence, and acting as fuch, should be fubject to the said tax.— This being made a matter of convertation, and the Attorney General being of opinion that victuallers were not fubject to the tax, which answering Sir Watkin's intention in moving the clause, he withdrew it. This will exempt about two thousand perfons in the cities of London, Westminster, and the Borough of Southwark, and the environs of the metropolis, befides the publicans throughout the kingdom. EAST INDIA PAPERS. As foon as the orders and bufinefs of the day, which were of various kinds, had been gone through, the Speaker called to Mr. Fox. That Gentleman rofe immediately, and previously to his troubling the Houfe on the fubject that he wished to bring under their confideration, defired that certain of the refolutions of the 28th of May, 1782, might be read. Mr. Hattell read thofe which Mr. Fox pointed out, and which immediately contained maxims and rules laid down by the Houfe for the British government in India, to guide and govern its conduct by, in regard to the country powers, exprefsly forbidding the entering into engagements of offenfive alliance with any of them. As foon as thefe were gone through, Mr. Fox role again, and began a very long and powerful speech with declaring, he well knew, that before endeavour was made for bringing forward a motion for papers, in effect and fubftance, though 3 N any net not exactly in point of form, the fame, with a motion that had been difcuffed and negatived on a former day, fome apology was due to the Houfe, whofe attention and time ought not to be taken up lightly, or called for on any trifling occafion; but if ever he had reafon to be diffatisfied with the decifion of that Houfe; if ever he thought a motion of the firft importance to the honour and dignity of the House, required a reconfideration, it was his motion for the Delhi Papers; and that, because the decifion the Houfe had come to when they negatived it, had been a decifion in the teeth of the refolutions that had been just read, and in defiance of every found and folid argument advanced in fupport of thofe refolutions, in contradiction and controverfy of which arguments no one rational idea or pofition had been ftated. It was, therefore, for no light or trivial purpose that he again begged the House, for the fake of its own dignity, for the fake of its own honour, for the fake of national justice and national character, to reconfider what they had decided upon, and before they confirmed a denial of the Delhi Papers, (which he confidered as exceedingly material to the folemn and ferious accufations brought into that Houfe against Warren Haftings, Efq.) which denial, it appeared to him, they could not confirm, without loading themselves with difgrace, and impeaching their own honour and dignity. He requested them to weigh well what they were about, to reflect a little on the frivolous point of view in which fuch an ill-judged confirmation would place their own refolutions, and the effect it must necessarily have upon the Company's fervants in India. He begged them alfo to recollect, that in paffing the refolutions of May 28, 1982, they had held out to the country powers of India, a code of wife, wholefome, and falutary laws, as the bafts of the conduct of the British government in India in future, and that the Houfe had in fact pledged itfelf to adhere to the letter and fpirit of their own refolutions. Thefe were furely great and important confiderations, that ought to have a deep effect on the minds of gentlemen before they gave a vote that involved in it fo many and fuch interesting confequen ces. It had been supposed by some perfons, ahat our government and conftitution was attended with certain difadvantages with refpect to its intercourfe with foreign ftates, arifing from the publick manner in which many important parts of our adminiftration must neceffarily be conducted; but from this evil, if an evil it was, a moft important good would be found to refult, when it was confidered how far this publis city tended to create a confidence in all other nations, and how ftrongly it contributed to bind us to certain defined and fpecifick modes of political conduct. From hence it arose, that we could lay down, as we had done in the prefent inftance, a particular fyftem of proceeding, for the due obfervation of which all thofe ftates might reasonably look to us, an advantage not in the power of any arbitrary government whatfoever; for if a King were to iffue an edict, fetting forth the principles by which he intended to conduct himself with refpect to foreign nations, it would be received only as a notification of the will of the Minifter of the day, who by death or difgrace might lose his fituation, and leave room for a fucceffor of different sentiments, who, of courfe, would purfue a different line of conduct; whereas with us, when the British Houfe of Commons published a fyftem of foreign administration, they not only committed the whole nation in the perfons of their reprefentatives, but abfolutely bound individually, as well all thofe that had already been Ministers, and that had a profpect of being fo for many years to come, as those who were fo for the prefent. In order ftill more to imprefs the House. with a proper idea of the magnitude of the duty they had engaged to perform, when they voted the refolutions of 1782, they were, he faid, measures of a strong nature, and afforded, he believed, the first instance of that Houfe's thinking it became them to depart fo far out of their immediate province, as to interfere with any part of the exercife of the executive government; a circumstance that they certainly would not have confented to, but from the extraor dinary complexion of the cafe, that seemed to call for peculiar notice and peculiar proceeding. Having premifed these obfervations, he entered into a discussion of the principles on which the House usually called for papers, declaring that they never did it lightly, and being confcious that they ought not to do it lightly, he never had, nor would attempt to move for any that he was not convinced were abfolutely necessary for fome great and useful publick purpofe. The Houfe, he was aware, ought not to grant any other; and, it was true, he was willing to admit, that papers necellary for fome great and useful pub lick purpose might be called for, the pro ducing of which might, nevertheless, be attended with mifchief to the ftare, of fuch a dangerous tendency, as would more than overbalance the good that might arife from the purpose being aufwered for which they were moved, and which therefore afforded his Majefty's Minifters found and cogent reasons for refusing them, and, under fuch circumstances, it was undoubtedby their duty to refufe them. But though he was ready to admit this, yet he held, that in all fuch cafes, the refusal ought not to reft folely on the bare ipfe dixit of a Minifter; that many questions of confidence might, it was true, be agitated, on which a Minifter's word ought to be taken; but then, fomething, at leaft, ought to be stated, in order to convince the Houfe that mischief might arife if the motion were complied with. In regard to the motion in queftion, the motion with which he fhould conclude what he had to fay for the Delhi Papers, it had been on a former day ftated by his Right Hon. Friend, the avowed accufer of Mr. Haftings, that those papers were material to the matter in charge, and therefore they had been called for; but, material as they were, if they were not granted, his Right Hon. Friend had declared, he already was in possession of sufficient materials to prove and make good every thing that he had faid at various times refpecting the delinquency of the late Governor General of India: his character therefore was fafe, and on hore. This, Mr. Fox faid, which he was fatisfied was perfectly true in refpect to his Right Hon. Friend, he wifhed was equally true in refpect to that Houfe. He wished that Houfe to be on Shore, and its character fafe: And therefore it was, that he should again call for the papers.~ But before he did fo, let the Houfe recollect upon what ground the papers had been once refused. It had been stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite to him, that the papers were not effential to the charge against Mr. Haftings-that they proved nothing, Mr. Haftings not having authorised Major Brown to enter into a treaty with the Shah-and, thirdly, that they involved in them fecrets refpecting the negociations that had during the war been carried on in India, the divulging of which would tend to disturb the tranquil lity of the refpective powers concerned in thofe treaties, and to induce confequences that might be attended with danger to the British ftate. On this head he confeffed he felt it most difficult to argue, the other fide of the Houfe having given him fo little to lay hold of, and not having faid enough to enable him to guefs even at what the danger could poffibly be that would arife, if the ftare fecrets they fo much dreaded to lay open fhould be divulged. Situated however as he was in thefe refpects, he had no fcruple to declare, that no ftate fecret of any kind could justify the with holding papers that were to enable the Houfe to fupport and fubftantiate the refolutions to which they stood folemnly pledged. For what was it but faying to the Princes of India, "We know our fervants have committed delinquencies, and we are convinced that they have broken faith with you, but we must not enquire into their conduct, because that would betray ftate fecrets! that would develope ftate myfteries that must be held facred"-Would not every man in India laugh at fo abfurd a reafon for refufing to do juftice? Would it nor plainly appear, that the Board of Controul and that House were following the exact fteps of the old Boards of Directors? That they were laying down complete fyftems of ethics in their orders and refolutions, but refusing to take the only means poffible to enforce their performance? The effect of fuch conduct was too manifeft to need illuftra tion; inftead of reformation in India, itwould encourage abufe, and encrease delinquency; the Board of Controul and the Houfe of Commons would be answerable for having fuffered the Company's fervants, employed in the government of India, to believe themselves fecure from enquiry, and fafe from punishment. What was it, but to put it in the power of a Minifter to interfere in every inves tigation, and by his fingle vero put a ftop to the process, and defeat the aim of that Houfe in the exercife of its first great conftitutional character, that of the grand inquest of the nation? Armed with fuch a power, to what lengths might not a Minifer proceed? Every criminal, however notorious his delinquency, however numerous his crimes, however injurious to the national honour, would only have to fecure the Minifter's protection, to be able to laugh at accufation, and fet conviction at defiance!-Having reasoned in this manner for fome time, Mr. Fox endea voured to prove, that there could be no fecret in queftion, and that it was not poffible the papers then called for could make any thing publick that was not already well known in India. If it were afked, why he, who was fo, ftrenuous for a Na |