Notwithstanding the acknowledged neceffity of economy in every department of government, it is grievous to relate, that even before the sinking fund bill paffed into a law, a message from the KING to the house of commons was delivered by the minister, stating, " that it gave him great concern to inform them, that it had not been found POSSIBLE to confine the expences of the civil list within the annual fum of eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds, now applicable to that purpose. A farther debt had been NECESSARILY incurred, and the king relied on the ZEAL and AFFECTION of his PARLIAMENT to make provifion for its discharge."

In fupport of the motion grounded on this message, Mr. Pitt stated, " that under Mr. Burke's reform bill an annual reduction of fifty thousand pounds from the civil lift had been fet apart by parliament for the liquidation by instalments of the sum of three hundred thousand pounds, then issued in exchequer bills for the supply of former deficiencies. Of this debt one hundred and eighty thousand pounds yet remained unpaid, and a fresh debt of thirty thousand pounds had accrued: and he rested the neceffity of a grant equal to these united fums upon this perplexing dilemma: Either parliament had, at the period referred to, directed that, when the proposed liquidation should be effected, the civil list should be allowed fifty thousand pounds per ann. more than was necessary, or it was then put upon a footing of fifty thousand pounds per ann. less than was neceffary. Experience had proved the latter to be the cafe; and therefore it was reasonable to expect that the sum of two hundred and ten thousand pounds, now wanting to clear off the old and new incumbrances, would be voted without hesitation."

In reply to Mr. Pitt's courtly logic, it was obvious to observe, that the parliament which fixed the expenditure of the civil list at eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds, until the debt previously contracted should be liquidated, thought thought it at least POSSIBLE that the DIGNITY of the CROWN might be sufficiently sustained without passing the prescribed limits. It might even perhaps occur to fome of the members, however indecorous the mention of it in a parliamentary debate, that the executive government of the republic of America was supported without any apparent forfeiture of DIGNITY, at less than one FORTIETH part of the expence.

This demand was the more extraordinary, as the king in his fpeech from the throne at the opening of the session, December, 1782, had faid, "I have carried into strict execution the several reductions in my civil list expences, directed by an act of last session; I have introduced a farther reform in other departments, and fuppreffed feveral finecure places in them. I have by this means so regulated my establishments, that MY EXPENCES SHALL NOT IN FUTURE EXCEED MY INCOME."

A

No attempt being made to repeal that clause in Mr. Burke's reform bill, which regulated the expenditure of the civil lift, it was urged to be very extraordinary, while that bill remained in full force, to come down in the face of an act of parliament, and call upon the house to vote money for the debts of the crown. It is almost superfluous to say, that all the arguments offered on this head proved a mere waste of words, and that the money was ultimately voted.

Many petitions were presented during the session, for the repeal of the odious tax upon retail shops; and a motion was formally made by fir Watkins Lewis, member for the city of London, for that purpose, without effect, though it was somewhat mitigated by a reduction of the rates. In this business Mr. Pitt shewed a degree of perseverance bordering upon obftinacy, which it had been furely better to have reserved for a more important occafion.

Mr.

Mr. Fox acutely remarked on the subject of the proposed alterations, "that the greater part of Mr. Pitt's arguments had been intended to prove that the tax was not perfonal; and that it must find its level, and fall upon the consumer. If this were true, what was there to recommend his modifications? He had stated, that he would take off or diminish the portion of the tax paid by the poorer class of shopkeepers, which would confiderably exonerate that description of persons. Of what would it exonerate them? Of the burden borne by the consumer? Glaring indeed was the inconfistency of his actions, when compared with his arguments."

An attempt was also made by Mr. Pulteney, supported by many respectable members of the house, to explain and amend the act of the last session, relative to hawkers and pedlars; and particularly to repeal a most detestably oppressive clause, by which justices of the peace were empowered to imprison any person of this profession at their difcretion. This was rejected, at the second reading, by a majority of fifty voices.

About this period Mr. Pitt brought in a bill for transferring part of the duties on foreign wines from the cufoms to the excise. The revenue on this article, the consumption of which had certainly not diminished, Mr. Pitt stated to be inferior by the fum of two hundred and eighty thousand pounds to what it had been in the middle of the century. The terrible alarm excited by fir Robert Walpole's memorable attempt to extend the laws of excise fifty years before, had now completely subsided, and the bill paffed with general approbation.

In the house of peers lord Loughborough, who was now again metamorphised into a whig and a patriot, opposed the bill, as in the highest degree arbitrary and unconstitu. tional. He was answered by lord Camden, whose zeal for the constitution had been subject to no such remarkable variations. Lord Camden admitted " that the excise laws

taken collectively might in a certain fenfe be confidered

as

as a departure from the constitution; but the present state of the country rendered them neceffary. The present bill, in particular, was calculated to counteract the notorious impositions practised by the wine-merchants to delude the public, to cheat the revenue, and injure the health of the consumer. In these iniquities it was that a justification of this useful and falutary measure was to be found. The bill passed without a division.

Next to the establishment of the new finking fund the affairs of India occupied, during this feffion, the chief attention of parliament. A bill was brought in by Mr, Dundas, which with some opposition passed into a law, to explain and amend the act of 1784. This bill, among other regulations of inferior importance, bestowed upon the governor general of India the high prerogative of deciding in opposition to the sense of the majority of the council. The offices of commander in chief and governor general were in future united in the fame person; and earl Cornwallis, who had borne so confpicuous a part in the American war, and whose character stood deservedly high in the public estimation, was nominated to fill this important commission,

Soon after this Mr. Pitt, stating certain exigencies arifing from the peculiar fituation of the East India company, moved that they be impowered to raise the sum of two millions for the necessary increase of their capital. This was in itself a very problematic proof of the vaunted profperity of the company; but Mr. Pitt afferted the neceffity to be temporary, and that it arose chiefly from the beneficial operation of the commutation act, in consequence of which the company's sales of tea had increased from fix to fourteen millions of pounds, exclufive of other articles; and in proportion to an increase of trade, an increase of capital became indispensably requifite. And on this ground the bill passed with little difficulty. These measures were regarded with cold indifference; but the feelings

1

1

feelings of the nation were wrought up to an high pitch of folicitude and curiofity by the subsequent proceedings of parliament relative to India.

Mr. HASTINGS, late governor of Bengal, arrived in England in the month of June 1785, and the feason being then far advanced, Mr. Burke gave notice of his intention to move early in the next feffion for a parliamentary investigation into his conduct.

On the very first day of the meeting of parliament after the recess, major Scott, who had upon all occasions diftinguished himself as the friend and advocate of Mr. Hastings, reminded Mr. Burke of the pledge he had made, and challenged him in preffing and peremptory terms to come to an immediate decision. Mr. Burke calmly replied, " that he should imitate the conduct of the duke of Parma, who came from the low countries to relieve the city of Paris, then besieged by king Henry IV. The king, impatient and full of ardor, urged the duke to inftant battle; but that experienced and celebrated commander replied, that he had not travelled fo far to learn from his enemy the time when it was most proper to engage."

On the 17th of February 1786, however, Mr. Burke, in the spirit of ancient chivalry, threw down the gauntlet, and defiring that the resolutions of May 28, 1782, might be read (refolutions moved by Mr. Dundas, as chairman of the select committee, declaratory of the culpability of Mr. Hastings, and the confequent neceffity of his recall), declared his "deep regret, that the folemn and import. ant business of that day had not been brought forward in the plenitude of weight and efficiency, by the original mover of the resolutions now recited. Most feelingly did he lament, as the unwelcome consequence of a devolution caufed partly by the natural demise of fome, the political decease of others, and in particular cafes a death to vir - tue and to principle, that he should now remain alone engaged