because he did not give evidence favourable to their caufe. The Managers in fifted that they had a right to force the truth from an unwilling witnefs. Both fides applying to the Court for opinion, their Lordships, at half paft fix, adjourned to their own Houfe; and referred the question to the Judges prefent for their opinion: They differed; the Lord Chief Baron fupported the objection of Mr Haftings' counfel; the other Judges were againft it. It was refolved at laft, that their Lordships fhould not decide upon it, until they could have the opinions of all the twelve Judges after their return from the circuit; they therefore adjourn ed the trial till Friday the 10th of April

next.

Feb. 26. A General Court of Proprie tors was held at the Eaft-India Houfe, for the purpose of balloting on the queftion relative to fending out the four regiments to India.

The glaffes were clofed exactly at fix, when they were delivered to the ferutineers, who, at half paft eight o'clock, made their report, that the queftion had pailed on the ballot in the following

manner:

For the queftion 371-Againft it 371, which being equal, the claufe in the act of Parliament was read, which ftates, that, in cases where there is an equality of votes on any queflion, the fame fhall be decided by a lot, to be drawn by the Treasurer.

The lot was prepared, the Treasurer took it out of the hat, and it was in the affirmative, for the queftion, by which the Court of Proprietors have negatived the minister's motion of fending the troops to India. This is the first question Mr Pitt has loft at the India Houfe.

The number of important queftions that have been decided by the majority of a fingle voice, is not a little extraor dinary. General Washington owes the feat he at prefent fills in America to that majority; Ireland preferved her Parliament by that majority; it is well known what the house of Brunswick owes to that majority; the fortifications in 1786 were overthrown by that majority.

In the House of Commons a motion was made, that there be laid before that Houfe, an account of the unexhaufted balance, which is fubject to the difpofition of Parliament, directed by an act of the 24th of his prefent Majefty, to be paid into the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, by the perfons to whom the forfeited cftates were granted. Alfo, an

account of all the engagements which the late Board of Trustees in Scotland came under, and which were confirmed by Royal warrant before paling the faid act of the 24th of his prefent Majefty. Both thefe accounts were ordered.

A dividend of the remains of the Havannah prize-money has been lately ad vertifed to be made to the claimants. It is nearly fix and twenty years fince the capture of the Havannah. Had this money been then diftributed to our gallant foldiers and feamen in the ufual proportions, it would have amounted to full two hundred pounds per man; but now, what with the expences of civil litigation, the fweatings of agents, &c. it is reduced to lefs than three-and-twenty pounds a fhare!

March 10. H. of C. Sir George Yonge faid, that conformable to the notice he gave when he laid the eftimates for the em ployment of troops and garrifons before the Houfe, he then came forward to state what had taken place with respect to the reduction of his Majefty's household troops. In the firft place, he flated, that his Majefty had thought proper to reduce two troops of horse-grenadiers, and to reduce two regiments of horse guards into a different establishment. He should move on the prefent estimate for the conti nuance of the pay of these troops another quarter, up to the 24th June next, when the new establishment would take place. It would be alfo neceflary for him to move for a compenfation to thofe officers and privates who were to be reduced. The reduction he ftated to be a confiderable faving to the public, but would for the prefent year occafion an increate on the estimate of 22,574. 35. It would next year occafion a faving to the public of 11,000l. or 12,000l. which would be in creafed to a faving of 24,000l. when the officers reduced were provided for, till which time colonels were to receive 1200l. compenfation per annum for their reduc tion, and the other officers in proportion. A late death (General Carpenter's, a colonel of dragoons) had occafioned a va cancy, which would be a faving to the nation of 1200l. per annum, as it was intended to give his poft to one of the reduced colonels: and the noble generofity of another, whofe ardour for the ferd vice was known, whose virtues and pa triotifm were known, and whofe confideration was not money (Duke of Nor thumberland,) had refufed his compen fation for reduction, and occafioned ano ther inving of 12col. per ann. to the public.

The

The Hon. Baronet then made a few obfervations on the reduction, which, he faid, went in direct contradiction to the affertions of fome gentlemen, that pa tronage was the intention of the Crown; had fuch been the intention, it is not likely that his Majesty would have reduced four regiments.

The Hon. Baronet then moved the feveral eftimates, and for compenfation to the reduced officers and privates, all which were unanimoufly agreed to, and the report ordered.

Mar. 11. H. of L. Counsel were called to the bar to be heard on the petitions of the Earl of Dumfries, Lord Cathcart, and a petition prefented by the Earl of Selkirk on Monday laft, relative to the late election for one of the Sixteen Peers for Scotland, on the 10th day of January laft. The counfel who appeared at the bar were, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, Mr Douglas, Mr Anfiruther, Mr Scott, Mr Grant, and Mr Campbell, when, after hearing Mr Grant and Mr Anftruther for the peti tion on behalf of Lord Dumfries, the further confideration was adjourned till the 13th.

A Mr Durie, a defcendant of David Durie, who formerly claimed the title of Lord Rutherford, proved that the perfon who voted as Lord Rutherford at the late election of a Peer in the room of the Earl of Dalhousie, was generally known by the name of John Anderson; that till the late election he never aflumed the honours and dignity of the Peerage; but that he has fince been generally cailed Lord Rutherford by the country people ironically. That John Anderfon and a relat on of the witnefs's were the executors of David Durie, whofe whole effects did not exceed in value 300l.; and that if Anderson had any claim to the title, it was in right of David Durie. The witnefs further ftated, that he himself had a better right to the title, as his mother's name was Durie.

juftly founded.-Experience proved the impoffibility of fhopkeepers being able to levy the tax on the confumers. Whatever difcontent the bill formerly occa fioned, it was not now leffened, but con fiderably increased; experience had confirmed every theory of its impropriety, and the warmth with which it had been oppofed when first brought in, was confiderably augmented at the present time. He had, on a former day, ftated the injuftice of the bill in a fuller manner than he had now done; it was fufficient bare ly to ftate, that the evils then complained of exifted in the moft oppreffive manner, and, without further troubling the Houfe, he would move for leave to repeal the act of his Majefty raising a duty from faops.

Mr Jervoife feconded the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer obfered, that it was particularly hurtful to his feelings to be under the neceflity of perfifting in any measure that might give unealinefs to any; but conceiving it his duty to protect the revenue, he could not agree with the motion of the Right Hon. gentleman. Confidering it his duty to establish the revenue upon the moft refpectable footing for the purpofe of defraying every exigence, he could not think of giving up any thing that was not likely to be attended with great mifchiefs. The finances of the country were, he thanked God, in a very flourishing fitua tion; but he could not agree to abanden any of the exifting taxes, at a time when the nation was under fuch a load of debt, much lefs did he think it at all proper for the Heufe to be employed in ipeculation which fhould be the firft tax given up when the happy hour should arrive that they might difcufs fuch a subject with effect.

Sir John Miller, Mr Whitbread, Mr Drake, Sir Edward Aftey, Sir George Howard, Mr Alderman le Mefurier, Sir Watkin Lewes, Mr Alderman Watfon, and Mr Martin, spoke ftrongly for the repeal.

13. H. of C. Mr Fox rofe to make his promifed motion for the repeal of the fhop tax; a tax that by experience proved, beyond the poffibility of a doubt, the complaints of the fhopkeepers to be

keepers are reimbursed, and know nothing about it-the Houfe muft believe that they, as the confumers, pay the tax out of their pockets, and know nothing of fuch payment-the Houfe muft believe that the parties complaining know

not

not whether they are injured or benefited by the tax; all thefe abfurdities mult the House fully believe to warrant them in rejecting the motion to repeal the act. The question having been loudly called for, the House divided,

Ayes 98-Noes 141. Majority against the repeal 43. March 3. The order of the day, for going into a committee on the declaratory Bill being moved, and a motion made for the Speaker to leave the chair, Sir Grey Cooper rofe to oppofe the motion. He contended, that the principle of the bill was objectionable in many important refpects, and that it led to the most dangerous confequences. Intending to keep clofe to the queftion, he would not ftep afide to confider what ought to be law, or whether the powers to which the Commiffioners of the Board of Controul lay claim might not be of advantage to our poffeffions in India: The fingle point he propofed to argue was, that it is not the law at prefent, that the Board has not thefe powers under the act 1784, which the bill profeffes to explain; and that the Houfe cannot declare that they have thefe powers, without an ufurpation of judicial, inftead of legislative authority. He regretted, that among the maxims of law, laid down by the learned counfel at the bar, they had omitted to mention fome which feemed to him very important in the confideration of this queftion. One of thefe was, that acts sviich give new powers and new remedies fhould not have a liberal conftruction, but be pursued frily. He then proceeded to fhew, that in the act 1784 there were fpecific provinces affigned to the Directors, and to the Board of Controul: that all dispatches to India, and all orders to the fervants of the Company relating to the civil or military government, or revenues of their territorial poffeffions there, were to originate with the Directors, only fubject to revifion and controul on the part of the Commiffion ers before they be actually fent off. He admitted, that by fubfequent claufes in the act 1784, the Board of Controul was empowered to originate difpatches to prefidencies in India, in matters requiing fecrecy, touching the levying of war or making peace, or negociating with the native princes of the country.

But this exception only tended to confirm the rule in all matters not excepted. If the fweeping claufe, at the end of the cleventh fection, on which fo much is founded, invefts the Board with the whole AFF.to Voc. VII. No 39.

fuperintendency and control, and if the Directors are bound to pay implicit obedience to them in all cafes, Why is it made lawful for them to fend orders and inftructions to the fervants of the Company in India only in certain fpecific cales, and under certain fpecific conditions?

Purfuing the fame line of argument with refpect to the ftrict interpretation of the act 1784, he next adverted to the act prolonging the charter of the Com pany in 1781. This, he contended, was a fubfifting law, unrepealed by the act 1784, excepting where fuch partial reptal is specifically declared. It was, befides, a lemn compact between the Company and Parliament for a valuable confideration, no part of which could be repealed or broken, but by exprefs words founded on previous confent. It was part of this compact, that the Company were to pay a ftipulated fum for regiments to be fent to India on their requifition: But how was this compatible with the declatory bill now propofed to be enacted? Nothing could be plainer, than that the condition of requifition would in this cafe be merged and extinguished.

Another and more ferious evil which he apprehended from this bill, was a breach of the conftitution, by giving the Crown a right of raising and keeping a ftanding army in the kingdom in time of peace. It had been maintained, indeed, that the declaration in the bill of rights that this is unlawful, did not extend to the railing and keeping an army out of the kingdom in any of the domninions of the Crown. But the wifdom of Parliament had extended, in former times, the fame maxim to Ireland; and a juft jealoufy on this head would always extend it to wherever there was a revenue at the difpofal of the King's minifters, for raiting and paying an army without confent of Parliament, which was notorioufly the cafe in India. The laft ground on which he condemned the bill was, as a pernicious precedent in legiflation, having no bafis for the doubt expreffed in the preamble but the clath ing opinion of lawyers, fuddenly given upon cafes imperfectly drawn. A Minifter who wanted an enlargement of power in any department where he has influence, would have nothing to do but to propofe and bring in fuch a bill.

Mr John Scott rofe after Sir Grey Cooper. He admitted, that the House, in paffing declaratory laws fuch as the prefent, did act in a judicial capacity. but contended, that the neceflity of the E

cats

honeft mind, need be afhamed to own. Of Mr Pitt's bill he faid, that it feizes nothing, but affumes the power of feizing every thing. He charged the Board of Controul with attempts to affume the patronage of the Eaft-India Company for the purposes of corruption and influence. He enumerated the heads of feveral of the facts to which he alluded, as famples of more that remained behind, and pledged himself to prove them at a fit opportunity. He concluded with an affecting appeal to the juftice and humanity of the Houfe in behalf of the re'duced Company's officers.

Mr Dundas, in a fpeech of three hours and a half, took up fingly all the charges laid against the Board of Controul by Colonel Barre and Mr Sheridan. He defied them to prove, that in any inftance their conduct collectively, or his own conduct individually, had deferved cenfure. He went into a variety of arguments to prove that the right of the Board of Controul to apply the revenues of the territorial poffeffions of India to their general fecurity had never been queftioned, from the firft paffing of the bill in 1784 to that hour. He alfo entered largely into the detail of the feve ral transactions with refpect to the four regiments propofed to be fent to India, and ftated many reafons, proving that it was a measure preferable to that of fuffering the Company to fill up the deficiencies of the regiments on their own eftablishment in India.

Mr Porvis, Sir James Johnston, Mr Pultney, and Mr Baftard, feverally declared their difapprobation of the bill.

This important and very interefting debate was concluded by Mr Fox, who began with accufing Mr Dundas of having fpoken three hours and an half without having faid any thing to the queftion. He expofed his mode of defend ing the proceedings of the Board of Controul, and declared, that what the Right Hon. Gentleman had faid rather proved the charges. He followed Mr Sheridan in drawing a parallel between his own bill and that of Mr Pitt; avowing that his defign had been openly ftated to be that of fufpending the rights, functions, privileges, and patronage of the Court of Directors for four years, and to lodge them in a Board of Commiflioners; thinking it more fafe experimentally to place the influence arifing from the exercife of thefe powers where there was no other influence, than to add it to the Crown, where fo much influ

E

ence was already placed. All the proceedings of this Board were to be open, that the publicity of their measures might ferve as a check to the influence they were neceffarily to poffefs. The grounds of his bill, as ftated in the preamble, were grofs abufe of power, and incapacity to retrieve the affairs of the Company. Both these were now fully admitted, The profeffed ground of Mr Pitt's bill was the confent of the Directors. That confent, originally obtained on falfe pretences, was now completely done away by the conduct and avowal of the Directors themselves. This day had wiped away much of the odium from his bill; and he trufted the period would foon arrive when the prejudice of the public would be cleared completely, and it would be regarded in its true light as a ftrong, but a juft and neceffary meafure. He reprobated the declaratory bill as an infidious attempt to aflume the fame powers that his bill would have given to his Board of Commiffioners, but in a manner lefs open, and much more dangerous to the conflitution, He would oppofe it in every ftage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, being indifposed, waved the privilege of a reply.

At SEVEN o'clock on Thurfday morn ing the Houfe divided:

Ayes, for the Speaker leaving the chair, 182-Noes, 125. Majority 57. At the third reading of the bill, March 14th, it was again oppofed and supported by much the fanie arguments as on the former days. In the end, it paffed without a divifion, and the Chancellor was ordered to carry it to the Houfe of Lords for their concurrence.

March 18. H. of C. Sir John Sinclair rofe to make his promifed motion relative to the election for reprefentatives to ferve for Scots counties. He ftated to the Houfe, that having confidered the bufinefs to be of the greatest national importance, and thinking himself inadequate to fuggeft any motion to do a way the mifchiefs then exifting, he had taken the advice of fome gentlemen, and had called a meeting of members of both Houfes, and other gentlemen of importance, to confider of the best mode to be adopted; a moft refpectable meeting at tended, whofe general opinion was, that Parliament fhould be applied to on the fubject. In confequence of such determination, and the numerous litigations occafioned by the prefent laws, which had occafioned various and contradictory decifions in the courts, Sir John faid,

2

he