would not admit that our provinces in India were more flourishing than any others; though, if they had been fo, it would not have been wonderful, fince they were the finest and most fertile parts of the country, while many of the neigh bouring districts, Berar for inftance, were covered with immenfe mountains and uncultivated fore ts. But let it not be the boatt of the minifter for India, that the British provinces were more flourishing than the kingdom of Berar; let it be his triumph to fay, that the natives lived as happy, that the foil was as productive, and the revenues as ample, under the British govern ment, as under the native princes, whom we had fucceeded. The refolutions were carried without a divifion. On the twenty-fixth of April Mr. Pitt prefented to the houfe of commons a bill, lating, that notorious frauds had been committed in full value. He had heard it objected, that there was fomething in the principle of fuch an establishment, repugnant, to our conftitu. tion, and to the general fyftem of our revenue; but he could fee no well founded reafon for fuch an idea. Such a principle indeed prevailed in fome countries, where the government was arbitrary and def potic; but the oppreffions, which there at ended it, were not to be attributed to the fyftem of farming the revenues, but to the form of government. As the duty at prefent ftood, there were certain powers given for the collection of it; and the powers he proposed to give to the farmer, were no greater, than thofe which already existed in the established hands. The meafure in contemplation was not an innovation; and to prove this Mr. Pitt referred to the turnpike duty, which was ufully conducted by the mode of farm, and to the crois pofts, which had for many years been leafed out to the gentleman, who firit fuggefted them. Mr Pitt added, that there was no reason to apprehend, that the propofal might he extended farther, and other branches of the revenue fubjected to a fimilar regulation, as there was fomething in this tax, which rendered it peculiarly proper to be put under that fyftem, and which hardly exifted in any other cafe. the collection of the tax on poft horfes, and providing that the tax fhould be farmed, as a remedy to the evil. He obferved, that every individual, who by law was liable to the tax, did in fact py it; and that of course a very great fum was levied on the public, though there was a large proportion of that fum, which, from the collufion between the collectors and the inn keepers, never found its way into the exchequer. To the remedy he had to fuggeft there could in point of revenue be no poffible objection, fince the feveral districts were to be put up to public auction, and that at the prefent amount received in each, at the highest rate it had ever produced; and, as doubtlefs there would be many candidates, they would rife one upon the other, till they brought in nearly as much, as might be expected to be their duce exceeded the produce of the fame quarter in the former year by the fum of 9,001. He afked, had the board of revenue, in whofe hands the management of the tax was vefted, prefented any memorial to the treafury, ftating, that the produce of the tax was declining, and that fuch a regulation, as the bill enacted, appeared to them to be neceflary? Mr. Marfham admitted, that it did not appear, that the fuffering the poft horfe tax to be farmed would prove the fource of much abufe or oppreffion; but it established the mode of farming the public revenue, and in future times might juftify a wicked minif ter in the groffeft violation of the conflitution. All bad practices had been grounded upon precedents, moft of them introduced upon plaufible reafons, and where the ground of objection was weak in almoft every other instance, but that of the propriety of guarding against the incroachment of mifchief. Mr. Baftard conceived, that fome proof ought to have been laid before the houfe, that the frauds charged by the minifter did actually exift, before fuch a bill as the prefent had been introduced, and that an authentic return fhould have been made of the number of horfes kept by the various innkeepers in the kingdom, with a computation of the number of miles they might be fuppofed to travel. Mr. Pitt had faid, that the public paid the tax individually, but, when paid, it did not find its way into the exchequer. If the fact were fo, it only proved, that the board, to whofe management the collection of the tax was intrufted, was not fufficiently alert, and that they ought to find means for remedying a neglect, which lay wholly with themselves. He obferved upon the late increafe of the tax, and asked whether on that account it would not be better to postpone the meafure, and to fuffer the public, rather than the farmer, to benefit by the progrefs of that increate? By a claufe in the bill he faw, that thefe contractors were not to be deprived of their votes. This was the tree, whofe fruit the miniftry defired to pluck; but he hoped the house would blait that fruit in its bud. Mr. Baftard added, that, in adopting this measure, the execu tive government was giving up its refponfibility, and that, which was the last thing they fhould part with, the power of redrefs. Provided the fubject were aggrieved, and complained to that houfe, what was the anfwer they would be obliged to return? They muft fay we have tied our hands; we have given away for three years the power of watching for your welfare; we can do nothing till the contract is expired. Still farther, the qualifications of the contractors made no part of the bill. No matter how bad their characters, provided they gave fufficient bail. He recollected an oriental obfervation, which camè home to this point. It was com plained, that the character of one of the Indian contractors was no torioufly infamous; and what was the anfwer? Why the lefs humane was the collector, the fitter he was for his office; and who knew, but that Gunga Govind Sing might hereafter farm the impofts of Englifhmen? Mr. Fox was determined to op pofe the bill, on the ground of its being certain, if carried, very confiderably to increafe the influence of the crown. The number of the collectors must be confiderably enlarged, and the appointment of fo many new officers would give the crown town additional influence. Every man, who had lived through the eitence of a war, knew what a contractor was; and did not every man know, how improper the infuence was that was circulated through them? The farmers of the revenue would be contractors under another name. Shameful was the idea of there being a middle man between the fubject who paid the tax, and the exchequer that received it, a man, created for the purpofe of growing rich out of the diftreffes, and at the expence of the public. The precedent was in the highest degree alarming, and required to be warmly refifted in the outlet. Mr. Jolliffe remarked, that the produce of the post-horfe tax increased annually, and for the last year had amounted to 114,0001; fo that 456,000 1. had been expended in that mode of travelling only, The bill was oppofed by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Windham, lord Maitland, Mr. Wilbraham, fir Gregory Page Turner, Mr. Sloper, Mr. alderman Townfend, and Mr. Dempster. Its principle was vindicated by Mr. Grenville, Mr. Arden, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Drake, Mr. Rolle, Mr. Addington, fir William Molefworth, fir Richard Hill, fir James Johnstone, fir Benjamin Hamet, fir John Miller, Mr. Powys and Mr. Martin. The houfe divided upon the second reading, ayes 162, noes 95; and upon the question for going into a committee, ayes 147, noes 100. The principle of the bill was alío de bated in the houfe of lords on the twenty-firft of May, when the fpeakers against the meafure were the duke of Norfolk, lord Portchefier, lord Carlifle and lord Stormont; and its defenders lord Hopetoun, lord Townshend and lord Hawkefbury. It paffed through the ufual ftages without a divifion. As it is one of the principal objects of fuch a narrative as ours, to record thofe features and characteriftic circumftances, which diftinguifh one year and one feffion of parliament from another, it would be improper that we should omit to obferve, that the feffion of which we are treating had the honour to bring forward to public notice two young men, Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. William Lambton, of the most diftinguished abilities and the moft promiling genius. The fentiments of Mr. Grey upon the commercial treaty we have already recorded; and we fhall have occafion to be flow upon him a farther notice in the courte of the prefent volume. Mr. Lambton was among the oppofers of the bill for farming the revenue of the post-horse tax. the fubject, upon which he had first offered himself to the attention of the house of commons, and upon which he fpoke with greater compafs and strength, was the motion. of Mr. Fox on the twenty-fourth of April, for the repeal of the tax upon retail fhops. But Upon this occafion Mr. Fox stated, among other arguments, an account of the proportions in which the hop tax was affefied. The whole revenue produced was 59,000; 17,000l. of which were paid by the city of Westminster, 12,000 i. by the city of London, and 12,000l. by the adjacent villages, fuch as Mary bone, High Holborn, and Wapping; and he asked, whether forty-three fhares for the metropolis out of fitty-nine, were not fo monftrous a difproportion, that every man who heard it must be ftartled, and feel a conviction, that the tax was most partial and unjust in its operation? Mr. Lambton, tion. Mr. Lambton concluded with intreating the minifter, not to remain thus oblinately wedded to his own opinions, but to give this one inftance of condefcenfion. Such an act would only be stooping, if it could be called ftooping, to rife the higher; and he might be affured, that, by adopting it, far from forfeiting any reputation, he would confiderably add to his character and popularity. The houfe divided upon Mr. Fox's motion, ayes 147, noes 183. On the feventh of May Mr. Pitt moved a refolution in the committee of ways and means, for impofing the additional duty, which he had formerly fuggefted to the house, upon the licences of the retailers in fpirituous liquors. The rates he propofed were from two pounds per annum to five pounds four fhillings, in proportion to the different rents of the houses. The produce of this additional tax he estimated at 80,000 1. A bill was introduced by adminiftration, fo early as the fecond of February, for amending and rendering more effectual the laws for fupprefling unlawful lotteries; and the object of the bill was ftated by Mr. Rofe, to be the removal of the jurifdiction at prefent lodged in the juftices of the peace, and the vesting it in the judges of the courts of Weftminster. The reafon of this change, he stated, to be the general evafion of the penalties, which was now practifed. The procefs generally iffued, directed the goods of the offender to be diftrained upon his premifes, and the offender had nothing to do, but to remove from. Wettminster into the city, or from the city into Weftminler, in order to defy the power of the magiftrate. There was alfo a clause in the bill, by by which the infurance of whole tickets was permitted to their immediate proprietors, while all other kinds of infurance upon lotteries were forbidden. This claufe was warmly oppofed by Mr. alderman Newnham, Mr. alderman Town end, Mr. Dempster, Mr. Francis, fir Grey Cooper, and Mr. Fox. By the latter it was remarked, that, while it was the profeffed object of the bill to difcourage gaming, it did that which no other act of parliament had ever done, and by legalizing one fpecies of infurance, opened a door to a thousand evafions. He must also obferve, that the paffing fuch a bill as the prefent, juft upon the eve of drawing the lottery, had a very unfeemly appearance, and gave rife to a good deal of fufpicion. In the mean time the public would reap no advantage from the confequent in creafe of the price of tickets, fince they had long ago made their bargain, and received all they could gain. The houfe divided upon the clau e, ayes, in favour of its making part of the bill, 126, noes 97. The fame kind of debate was repeated upon this bill in the house of lords, when the contested claufe was oppofed by lord Derby and lord Carlile, and defended by the earl of Hopetoun. Lord Sydney in reply to the imputation of a collufion, which had been infinuated against minifters, faid, that he was acquainted with no gamblers, and thanked his God that he never affociated with that defcription of men, let their rank or fituation in life be ever fo high. Lord Stormont congratulated lord Sydney upon the virtuous circle of his acquaintance, but obferved that it must be very confined, if it excluded every man who made a bett above ten pounds; and exempted that nobleman from the fociety of fome of the first, and most of the greatest characters in Europe. Lord Thurlow remarked, that a plain ftate of the question would show, that the provifion was built upon the primary notions of justice. It was fimply, whether a perfon, who had embarked a part of his fortune in any particular contingence, was to be admitted to the liberty of infuring it against the hazards arifing from fuch a fituation. He could not conceive any reafon, why a toleration or a legal authority fhould be given to one fet of individuals in certain inftances of contingency, and refufed to others in fimilar intances. He entered into the hiftory of lotteries, remarking upon the different degrees of caprice with which they had been treated at different periods; and obferved, that the tranfaction of infurance had not been declared illegal till the year 1782. Lord Loughborough replied to lord Thurlow. He contended, that there was no refemblance between the infurance of merchandize and that which was authorized by the prefent bill. In the former every precaution was exerted by the law, that the infurer fhould be paid in exact proportion to the lofs he had luftained. But was there any provifion in the prefent bill for that purpofe? On the contrary, gaming was legalized in the utmost extent. Every perfon holding a ticket might open a policy upon it, and by infuring it over and over again, might derive the moft multiplied and difproportioned advantages. The debate concluded with an amendment moved by lord I hurlow, that every infured ticket fhould be depofited in fome place, to be appointed by the commiffioners of the lottery for that purpose. The bill was returned to |