as a proof of power in some persons, and a wish to shew the confidence of the House in the gentlemen on the other side. If so, it was a call upon the confidence of the House, which was by no means justifiable; and when confidence degenerated into such an arbitrary use of it, it became an abuse. Mr. Fox declared that he should consider himself as exceedingly unfortunate, were he to be considered as having said any thing which might be thought disrespectful or uncivil to the honourable gentleman. He had heard much in his praise, and he believed it to be true; he only observed, that Sir Gilbert Elliot was a gentleman, whose talents and qualifications were known to the House, and in that case they could speak from a wellgrounded confidence; in the other, only from the most favourable suppositions.

After the appointment of Mr. Addington to the Chair had been supported by Mr Pitt, and that of Sir Gilbert Elliot by Mr. Burke, the House divided on the question, "That Henry Addington do take the Chair of this House as Speaker."

Teller.

Teller.

YEAS, Mr. Robert Smith, 215.-NOES. Mr. Grey, 142. So it was resolved in the affirmative.

MR. SHERIDAN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF THE PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDIture.

THI

July 10.

HIS day Mr. Sheridan moved, "That a committee be appointed to enquire into the state of the public income and expenditure, the progress actually made in the reduction of the national debt since the year 1786, and into the grounds on which a reduction of the same may be expected in future, and to report the same, with their observations thereon, to the House; and that the said committee do consist of Henry Bankes, Esq. Daniel Parker Coke, Esq. George Dempster, Esq. William Drake, jun. Esq. William Hussey, Esq. Sir William Lemon, Baronet, James Lowther, Esq. James Martin, Esq. Mr. Alderman Newnman, Edward Phelips, Esq. Charles Anderson Pelham, Esq. Thomas Stanley, Esq. Sir George Augustus William Shuckburgh, Baronet, Mr. Alderman Watson, and the Earl of Wycombe." In the course of a long and able speech, Mr. Sheridan undertook to prove the four following propositions: 1. "That the report of the committee, appointed in 1786, to examine and state the several accounts relating to the public income and expenditure, and to report the probable amount of the income and expenditure in future, does not appear to

to come.

have been founded in fact, nor verified by experiment. 2. That, for the three last years, the expenditure has exceeded the income two millions, and may be expected to do so for three years 3. That no progress has hitherto been made in the reduction of the public debt. 4. That there is no ground for rational expectation, that any progress can be made without a considerable increase of the annual income, or reduction of the expences." The report of the committee of 1786 was defended by Mr. Secretary Grenville, who had been the chairman thereof.

Mr. Fox remarked, that under the conviction of his inability to afford the same instruction and entertainment as the two last honourable gentlemen, he should have remained silent had not the business struck him in a different point of view from any in which it had hitherto been examined. The right honourable secretary had argued in a manner that appeared to him to be rather extraordinary. He had said, “I know I am right, therefore let me deprecate a committee, where alone it can be proved whether I am right or not, and I beg you to rely on my assertions." Mr. Fox said, that where there was the opposition of assertions from different gentlemen it was extremely difficult how to act, but he could not help being inclined to rely on the statement of his honourable friend. He perceived that there were two grounds of difference between the statement of his honourable friend and that of the right honourable gentleman; the first of these was, that his honourable friend had rested his calculations on the average of three years, and the right honourable secretary had rested his arguments on an average of two years only. Of these two he liked an average of three years best, because all averages were the better the greater the number of years they included; but it was a curious reason that the right honourable gentleman had assigned for omitting the year 1786, it was because trade had been in a state of stagnation during that year, on account of the commercial treaty then pending with France. That was the very reason why the year 1786 should have been included, for it was admitted that the imports in the year 1787 had risen very considerably. Those imports clearly were what belonged to the year 1786, and would have been then made but for the commercial treaty. So that the year 1787 might be said to have in its pocket a considerable sum, the property of the year 1786. The right honourable secretary had thought proper to observe that he suspected that the 100,000l. for the army would be a permanent establishment. If so, it made a difference of 200,000l. in addition; because if the House had voted 100,000!, expenditure, the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer ought to have provided an adequate aid of 100,000l. income, and not having done so

it was an addition to the national debt of 200,000l. in time of peace.

Mr. Fox took notice that the right honourable secretary had said, that the day was not yet come when the estimate of expenditure was to be looked for as the level of the peace establishment, nor would it arrive before the year 1791; and therefore the addition of 100,000l. for the army was not to be found fault with. Was it meant, then, that the national debt was to be loaded as much as gentlemen on the other side pleased in the interim? The definitive treaty of peace, he believed, was signed in 1783, and in the interim, between the conclusion of the peace and four years following it, were we to borrow what we pleased? He desired to know if that was so understood? There was a great difficulty in proving these expences to be only temporary, and he shrewdly suspected that they would prove permanent.

The argument of the right honourable secretary, relative to the cause of the encrease of the army, had been fallacious. He had asked, if we entered into foreign alliances ought they not to be enabled to keep faith with their allies? Most undoubtedly they ought; but the 100,000l. was not wanted on account of the Hessian treaty; it was for the sending additional troops to India and the West India islands. Besides, that was, he believed, the first time that ever it was deemed necessary to increase the army on account of foreign alliances. A contrary doctrine had ever prevailed; the stronger your strength by alliance, the less the necessity for a large army. Every man knew that alliances were less likely to increase the army than the navy. But he chiefly disliked the fallacy of ministers in affecting that they had a surplus over and above their establishments. Had they come down to that House in 1786, and said, to use a vulgar phrase, "We can barely make both ends meet, and have not enough for surplus, therefore we cannot yet proceed to provide for paying off the national debt," he should have applauded their conduct, and have answered, that they thought too lowly of the resources of the country, and could and might, by imposing additional burthens on the people, which it was their duty to do, furnish a surplus. Then their conduct would have been manly and honest.

The right honourable secretary had observed that his honourable friend had ridiculed the extraordinary resources of the preceding session. Now, his honourable friend, he believed, had only ridiculed such of them as were extravagantly disproportioned to the object which they were proposed to meet. He certainly had not ridiculed them all. He did not, for instance, ridicule lotteries, and had never disputed the fact, that four lotteries at 150,000l. profit to government,

would yield 600,000l. in four years. He had, indeed, arraigned lotteries as a source of revenue, unless in cases of great exigency, and condemned them as destructive to the morals and integrity of the people. Mr. Fox observed that this was one of the very few points in which he differed from his honourable friend. He was not yet prepared wholly to object to lotteries as a means of revenue, and an object of taxation. He repeated, that it was the fallacy of the arguments of gentlemen on the other side that he complained of, since, in respect to the miscellaneous services, every act of administration shewed that they were likely to be increased rather than reduced.

Mr. Fox spoke again of the amazing increase of the navy debt, and remarked that the right honourable secretary had said, "We have a fine navy, and no man can speak of the expence with regret and sorrow." No man doubted it, but it went not in the least to the argument. What they had all heard, he hoped, would make that House a little more cautious and doubtful how they relied too implicitly on the statements of ministers in future. Without meaning to dilate on what had fallen from his honourable friend, he declared that of all the admirable things which he had heard him say in that House, none had excited his admiration more than some of his observations upon the operation of the national debt on the constitution. He asked, was the right honourable secretary ready to answer his honourable friend's question on the subject of the omission of new taxes? The minister who did not consider unforeseen expences as a great part of his expenditure would be much deceived. Mr. Fox spoke of the debts, and particularly of that due to the American loyalists, who had every claim to their generosity and their justice. They held national bonds upon the good faith of parliament, and must be satisfied. With regard to the million borrowed, that was an additional annuity, and so far an addition to the debt, for, in fact, we owed no capital but only annuities.

But

Mr. Fox pressed the House to go to a committee with the accounts, in order to decide what was the income, what the expenditure, and what the state of the debt. It had been said to him, "Do you compare the situation of this country with that of France." Heaven forbid that he should! we might take warning by the situation of France, not to delude the people of this country as to the state of their finances. It might be true, that with regard to the finances of France the people were deluded as to millions, when this country could only be deluded as to thousands. A committee would remove all doubts, and put an end to error. He believed that there were some who heard him who would rather have

the constitution of this country joined to the finances of France, than the constitution of France joined to the finances of this country. Let us take warning by what was to happen there! The ruined finances of France might produce the freedom of France! Let us take care that the abuses of our public credit did not produce the ruin of our constitution, and entail slavery upon us! Their financial deceit was engrafted on arbitrary power; our public credit on our free constitution. In France it was the deformed son of an accursed parent who would restore freedom by committing parricide.

The motion was negatived without a division.

ON

TOBACCO EXCISE BILL.

July 15.

N the 16th of June, Mr. Pitt, pursuant to a notice he had given upon the opening of the budget, submitted to the House his plan for transferring the duties on tobacco from the customs to the excise. Tobacco being a commodity of general consumption, might, he said, be rendered a productive source of revenue, but under the present regulations and duties was an article of smuggling, and indeed the principal subject of contraband trade, since the late regulations concerning tea, wines, and spirits. It appeared on inquiry, that one half of the tobacco consumed in the kingdom was smuggled, and that the revenue was defrauded by this means to the amount of nearly 300,000l. To remedy this evil the most effectual means would be to subject the greater part of the duty on tobacco to the survey of excise: the peculiar benefit of this change in the mode of collection, had been very clearly exemplified in the article of wine: the manufacturers would no doubt make objections to the present proposition, as the dealers in wine had done respecting the change in the duties upon their merchandize: but though they were to be heard with candour, assertions affecting their own interests were to be scrutinized with strictness, and to be no farther admitted than they were supported with collateral proof. Mr. Pitt obtained leave to bring in the bill. The plan, however, occasioned a general alarm amongst the manufacturers of tobacco, and petitions were presented against it from various quarters. On the report of the bill being brought up, on the 15th of July, a clause was offered to be added to the bill, by Sir Watkin Lewes, declaring, "that persons aggrieved by a determination of the commissioners of excise, or justices of the peace, may bring an action of trespass against such commissioners or justices, in which action the condemnation or