of fome length, in which the fame arguments were urged which had been used in the preceding tag of this fubject. We fhall therefore ftate them as fhort as poffible. Mr. Pitt spoke in favour of the claufe for an annual militia. Mr. Rolle thought, that calling out the militia every year might be deftructive in many refpects to the manners and principles of the people. It would deprefs the fpirit of industry, and promote that of indolence. Amongst the lower claffes of people, it was well known that those who had been long accustomed to a military life, feel much reluctance to return to labour. Capt. Berkley thought that the measure propofed, of calling the militia out yearly would be of great national utility. He hoped that only two-thirds would be called out in time of peace, and that the evil of the fame fubititute ferving in different regiments would be prevented. Sir John Miller contended very zealously in favour of the militia. He had been in Germany in 1761; he had feen the German Jines at that time, which were reckoned the finest in Europe; he had feen the militia of England during the late war; and from his own military obfervation he was of opinion, that the latter looked as well as the former. He went into a minute detail of the hiftory of the militia from the reign of King Alfred. From this hiftorical deduction he endeavoured to illuftrate the importance of the militia. He concluded with giving his affent to the amendment propofed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Ed. Aftley was of opinion, that the difcipline of the militia in time of peace was by no means adequate to their being properly formed, as to their object in time of State neceffity. He was however of opinion, that they should be called out once in three years, and exercifed for a confiderable length of time. Mr. Powney applauded the fermon on morality that had been preached by the Hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Relle). He differed, however, from the Hon. Member, as he conceived the profligacy of the militia was exceedingly useful in the view of general population. Meffrs. Drake, Yonge, and others fpoke; when the amendmem was put, and carried without a divifion.-The Houfe was then refumed, after which it was adjourned. fubjected to trial by Court Martial;" which was agreed to. Mr. Francis obferved, that matters of the greatest importance were likely to engage the attention of the House about the fame period. These were the objects of finance, the explanation and amendment of the India act, and the impeachment of Warren Haftings, Efq. He confidered each of thefe points as meriting the attention of the Houfe. He thought they therefore juftified a motion for a call of it, and moved, that the House be called over that day fortnight. He The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not help remarking fome fort of inconfiftency in the Hon. Member who had made the motion. When he had moved himself for a repeal of the India bill, he had not confidered a call of the Houfe to be necessary; but now, when this act was only agreeable to the ratification given to be explained and amended, he conceived a call of the Houfe to be most indifpenfably requifite. could not eafily account for this variety of conduct in the Right Hon. Gentleman. The matter to which Mr. Burke had directed the attention of the Houfe, feemed to him to be of great importance, and to juftify, in fome refpe&ts, the motion under contemplation. If he should have matters in fuch forwardnefs, as to be able to fubmit them to the difcuffion of the Houfe about the time the call was intended, he would not oppose the motion. At the fame time he would referve the right to himself of bringing forward in the mean time any matter of finance, as a public concern, notwithstanding his concur rence in the motion for the call. Major Scott had only four papers to call for relative to Mr. Haflings, which would occafion no delay. He hoped fome affurance would be given by Mr. Burke of bringing forward his impeachment about the period of the propofed call. Mr. Burke declared, that the going thro' a period of 13 years, collecting the facts relative to the tubje&t during that time, and arranging them in form of a charge, was no matter of eafy accomplishment. He would, however, fix the period for this business for this day three weeks. On that day he would move the Houfe to refolve itfelf into a committee on the charges against Mr. Haftings. The names of the witneffes to be adduced on the trial, he would ftate to-mor row. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, conceiving this to be fufficient realon for delaying a call of the Houfe, propofed an amendment, that, instead of "this day fortnight," the words "to-morrow three weeks" be inferted; which was agreed to. MARCH 14. The Houfe were to have balloted for a committee to try the merits of a petition, complaining complaining of an undue election for the city of Bristol, but there not being a sufficient number of Members present, the Speaker adjourned till to-morrow. MARCH 15 The Houfe made a fecond attempt to get a ballot for the Bristol election petition, but at the hour appointed for locking the House door, upon counting heads feventy only appeared within the walls; the House then adjourned itfelf of course. MARCH 16. Balloted for a committee to try the merits of the petition of George Daubeney, Efq. complaining of an undue election for Bristol. Mr. Neville brought up the report of the Mutiny Bill. When the additional claufe, which relates to brevet officers, and thofe who hold rank without pay, was read, Col. Fuzpatrick got up, and defired to know on what ground this new claufe was introduced. This occafioned a converfation of fome length. Sir George Yonge, the Secretary at War, immediately stated the particulars which he had laid before the Committee, at the introduction of the claufe, viz. that officers by brevet, and thofe on half pay, might, as the laws now ftand, take the command, and not being included in the Mutiny Bill, they were not liable to be tried by a Court Martial, whatever might be their conduct, even if they thould incite the troops to a revolt. The recent cafe of General Rofs, in which the Judges had determined, that, under the above circumftances, that officer was not liable to military law, had rendered the claufe abfolutely necessary. Colonel Fitzpatrick again rofe, and declared, that the principle of the clause was altogether novel; it was an extent of the military code of law, which ought to be looked upon by that Houfe with a very fufpicious eye. The Hon. Gentleman did by no means allow that the House thould interfere, as it was entirely in the power of Government to remedy the evil complained of, without a needlefs extenfion of the powers of the Mutiny Bill. Sir George Yonge faid, he had given the Houfe very fufficient notice; that the bill had been postponed a confiderable time, in order to propofe the claufe. Mr. Francis wished to have a clear and diftin&t reason for the introduction of the claufe. He knew but of one fituation in which the circumftance alluded to could happen, and that was in the army in the Eat-Indies. Tht Hon. Gentleman cautioned the House to be exceedingly careful how they fuffered any new and extraordinary innova tion tending to extend military laws. For his own part, he must have very convincing reafons, before he gave his affent. Mr. Sheridan wished to fee a precedent. The Hon. Gentleman contended, that if there was a neceflity for the claule, it origi nated in the neglect of Government; there certainly was a remedy to be applied, without introducing a dangerous claufe, at prefent unknown to the constitution. The great and leading principle laid down by that Houfe, was, that the legislative branch of Government always retained the power of controuling the army; and for that purpofe the fupplies were voted annually; tho it might happen, the Hon. Gendeman contended, that troops might be raifed in this country, which were not paid by that House, yet nevertheless, under the prefent clause, fuch troops would be under military law, which would be throwing the power out of the hands of the legislative, and placing it in the executive branch of the conttitution. General Burgoyne afferted, that the circumftance ftated by the Secretary at War, was new and improbable. In the course of his experience he had never known an inftance of the kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed, that the claufe was entirely new, but the cause which gave it birth was alfo new. He then inftanced the cafe of General Rofs, which was referred to the three Chiefs of the Courts below, one of whom gave his opinion that the General was amenable, a fecond that he was not, and a third, after a confiderable time fpent in deliberation, finally determined, that the General was not liable to be tried by a Court Martial. Under this determination, that officers by brevet, thofe on half-pay, and those who held rank without pay, were not fubject to the fame regulations as the rest of the army, although they were intitled to fuperfede inferior officers, the claufe had been brought up. The Right Hon. Gentleman declared, that if there had been the leaft idea of introducing a wanton extenfion of Military Law, he should be to the full as jealous as any Hon. Member of that Houfe; but the prefent claufe did not bear the least appearance of that kind. Mr. Fox defired to know if the power contained in the claufe was abfolutely necellary. It by no means ftruck him that it was. Before the Houle gave way to any new and extraordinary power being vetted in the military, they would do well to recollect, "that the military laws, nay the army itself, was not a part of the constitution, but an exception to it." The honourable Gentleman could by no means be brought to accede to a claufe, the extent and effect of which he could not forefee. If, indeed, any ftrong circumitance fhould happen that could juttify the proceeding, then, and not till then, he fhould give his affent. Mr. Pitt obferved, that it was not a circumftance that might happen, but that had actually happened, which induced him to fupport The first and fecond related to the regulation of the Council-Board in India. The third which required a confideration was, whether the Governor-General of Bengal ought to be one of the Council. He fhould at prefent leave this open. By the fourth, a very extenfive power was intended to be vested in the Governor Gene sal, by which he was to controul and fuperfede, upon occafion, the determination of the Council. The fifth head of his intended bill went to ellablifh a fyflem of rotation in the appointment of officers, fo that perfons fent from this country fhould not be placed over the heads of thofe deferving officers who were already in India, and who had ferved with punctuality and fidelity. The fixth was intended to. make a very material alteration in the claufe of the pretent bill, by which gentlemen upon their return from India were obliged to make a difelofure of their effects, and to point out the manner in which their property was appropriated. The principle would be retained, but the publicity with which it was accompanied would be utterly extinguished. Seventhly, and leftly, the ballot for the Supreme Court of Controul, within thirty days after mect ng of Parliament by two bundred members, was to be altered, he hoped much to the eafe and fatisfaction of the Houfe. He meant to retain the number of members, and the time of closing the ballot; but the balloting-box was to be opened a confiderable number of days previous to the final clofe on the thirtieth day. By this means the difficulty of obtaining a Houfe confifting of two hundred members of the Commons, and fifty members of the House of Peers, would be obviated. The right honourable Member would not trouble the Houle any further, than to ask leave to bring in his bill. Mr. Sheridan was exceedingly pleafant upon he grace and eafe with which the honourable Gentlemen upon the Treasury-Bench overcame every difficulty, and corrected their blunders fuch a thing was wrong, luch a circumftance was necellary to be "explained, and fuch a part of a bill muft "be amended." In fhort, the honourable Gentlemen had fuch happy talents of explaining and reconciling their former conduct, and accounting for their inconfiftencies, that he must defire the right honourable Gentleman would give him the whole of his intended meatures at once, otherwife the fame methods would most likely be used in a fhort time to explain away and amend the very principles they were now adopting. The honourable Gentleman now plainly difcovered why his Majetty did not touch upon India affairs in his laft fpeech, because the fyftem was confidered as permanent. Indeed the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had, upon a former occafion, declared himself to that effect; but now, in lefs than two months, this permanent syitem, that was to reduce all India to order and regularity, and reftrain every species of abufe, was to be utterly explained and done away!!! No reply being made, the question was put, and leave was given to bring in the bill. Mr. Francis then made the following motion: That it be an inftruction to the gentlemen who are appointed to bring in the faid bill, that in preparing the fame, they do never lofe fight of the effect which any measure to be adopted for the good govern ment of our poffeilions in India may have on our conftitution, and dearest interests at home; particularly that in amending the faid A&t they do take care that no part thereof shall be confirmed or re-enacted by which the unalienable birthright of every British fubject to a trial by jury, as de clared in Magna Charta, fhall be taken away or impaired." The queftion was immediately put without any debate, when the House divided, A yes, Noes, 16 85 Majority against the motion, 69 The report of the Committee on the Shoptax being brought up, Mr. Fox addreffed the House, pursuant to the inftructions he received from a refpe&able meeting of the shopkeepers of the metropolis. Thele people have taken into confidciation the modifications propofed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These modfications were fo nugatory and inadequate to the defires of the fhopkeepers, that they afforded no relief for the grievances of which they complained. The abaten ents proposed did not in any degree remove the complaints against the partiality of the tax, which was in it felt iniquitous and unjuft The petitioners againit it had fupported their allega tions, that it muft fall perfonally on the retailer, who could not inden.atly himfelf by laying it on the conlumer. The p.oo's and arguments which were offered tothe Houle had had demonftrated its partiality to the utmoft extent of conviction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised its total repeal, if it could be proved that the tax was perfonal; but, after fo clear a proof of its perfonality, a modification, which was not worth accepting, was offered. The refult is, that as this aggrieved body of people were unsuccessful in procuring a total repeal this feffion, they referved themselves for a more fortunate endeavour to that purpose in the enfuing period. He was inftructed to fay, that many of the moft refpectable perfons who were affembled to deliberate on the fubject, were defirous of preferring a general houfe-tax (though very exceptionable in itfelf) to this very partial one, as it would be more juft, from the general extent of its operation. But as that measure, which had faults fufficient for its own, appeared more impracticable, the Public mutt fuffer for the hardship arifing from the prefent grievance, till a more favourable portunity offered itself. op Alderman Newnham reprobated the principle of the tax as partial and iniquitous; but the commutation for a general houfetax, mentioned by the right honourable Gentieman below him, was by no means the general opinion of his conflituents. It was true, that a refpectable meeting was held in the city, at which the idea was fuggefted; but from all that he could learn in different converfations with the most refpectable of those whom he had the honour to reprefent, who were a very numerous body, no fuch idea had the leaft foundation; and he requefted the Houfe would entertain no other opinion, than that any thing fhort of a total repeal could give them the fatisfaction they required. MARCH 17. Mr. Fox defired that a part of the reports of the Secret Committee on India affairs, in May 1782, fhould be read. It confifted in an encomium on the mandate of the Directors, that no offenfive war fhould in future be profecuted in India, nor any alliance of fuch tendency contracted; and alfo reprobated in trong language the conduct of any perfon who by any inter erence in the concerns of the native Princes, thould embarrafs the future government of India. Mr. Fox then rofe; -he apologized to the Houfe for calling their attention to a business which had fo recently been agitatedthe negociation at the Court of Delhi between Major Browne and the Mogul, under the authority of Mr. Haftings. But ne faw fo many reafons to be diffatisfied with the decanon that had taken place, he thought the papers on this fubject could with fo little propriety be retufed, that he found himself under the neceflity of bringing on the difcuffion in another form. The authority which declared that fuch a tranfaction had ES ROP. MAG. exifted, could not poffibly be refuted by the refolution which had been read; the House had pledged itfelf to punish fuch conduct, and the idea of punishment certainly included that of previous enquiry, which was all that was now demanded. He was the more particularly anxious for the present papers, as they related to a separate and independent tranfaction, militating exprefsly against the refolution of the House, and containing in itfelt an epitome of the conduct, and an abftract of every enormity which had been attributed to the late Governor-General. In the review of this bufinefs it was neceffary to confider of three circumftances: First, whether fuch a tranfaction had taken place between Major Browne and the Mogul, under the fanction of Mr. Haftings? Secondly, whether fufficient documents for the enquiry were to be found in Europe? and thirdly, what mifchieis could poffibly refult from the full discovery of the circumstances? With refpect to the first of these points, he begged leave to remind the Houfe, that the refolutions read had paffed at a period when unanimity of opinion was uncom mon. When political differences generally prevailed, this code of refolutions was approved. Refolutions of this nature were fingular things. It was, perhaps, the first inftance in which the Houfe had laid down a rule for the conduct of executive government. They contained a prohibitorycondemnatio n of all schemes of conqueft and enlargement of dominion. They forbade eve ry interference as a party in the national or domeftic quarrels of the country powers. They recommended an inviolable character for moderation, and a fcrupulous regard to treaty. Such were the objects of the refolutions. They were to lie on the table as a monument of the juftice of the Houfe, that it mig t be known abroad, that whatever acts of oppreffion might have exifted in the extremities of this extended empire, there was till a principle of equity inherent in Parliament to vindicate the rights of mankind, and to ref cue them from the encroachments of tyranny, wherever it exifted in the British dominions. The charges against Mr. Haftings were, dilobedience to orders, and breaches of cngagement. These were the objects of the refolutions. There was not fo great danger in producing any papers with regard to India, as there could be in that Houfe, of not carrying its own refolutions into effe&t; and of not calling to account those in that country, who had contemned its orders. I they were to be screened by the mere pfe dixit; of a minifter, there was an end of all opm on of public juftice. In fuch a cafe a Governor of an outlying Province might commit the highcft act of depredation with impunity, D d and and even vindicated in fo doing by a minifter afferting that there was danger in producing the evidences of his criminality. He confidered a proper check on executive government as the fource of our freedom, and that the publicity of our meafures was not only a ground of our credit, but the fupport alfo of our character amongst nations. Having enlarged on thefe and other points at length, he moved, "that an extract from the confultations at Bengal, in January 1784, as far as they related to any letters from Major Browne, be laid before the Houfe." Mr. Francis feconded the motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, that it was difagreeable to him to differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman upon a point of producing any papers, and that he always wifhed to avoid it; but the prefent papers contained nothing that could be the grounds of any criminal accufation; and fecondly, they were fo defective, that no evidence could be drawn from them; that the tranfaction of Major Browne was entirely with the Government General of Bengal, and not with the Governor-General, and that the opinion of the majority of the Council, although contrary to Mr. Haftings's own opinion, was followed. He argued that Major Browne was fent to Delhi not to form an offenfive league with the Mogul, but only to exprefs that regard which we had always thought it necellary and right to exprefs to that Prince, from whom we derived our title to India. He had alfo to produce a letter of Major Browne's to Mr. Macpherlon, the prefent Governor, in which he particularly referred to two memorandums he had fent to the Government, of the whole of this tranfaction, which memorandums were not fent to this country, and are moit effential to the elucidation of this matter. Without thefe, he faid, it was impoffible the Houfe could form any judgment of the business. It was faid by the Rt. Hon. Gentleman that there was no danger in the French, or any other European power being in the fecret of this tranfaction The right honourable Gentleman must furely have forgot that it is exprefsly mentioned in Major Browne's communications, that the French, through M. Bouffi, had made offers to the Prince of Delhi at the time he was at his Court. The French furely might take advantage from this, although he was happy in laying, that from the difpofition of that Court we had nothing hoftile to fear from them. Mr. Sheridan obferved, that those who now contended for the fuppreffion of the papers wanted, had fifted their ground, and deferted the principle on which they had argued on a former day. It had been faid, that the fupprcition of the evider ce refulted from matters of fafety and expediency to the State. This argument had been im preffed upon the minds of gentlemen as an a The times, however, were altered, and the that the letter was no fecret, it had been publifhed by Major Scott, Mr. Heltins's agent. We now lee Mr. Hattings at the court of the Vizier, and he approved of Major Browne's fyliem of policy, and advifed according to the emergency of the occation. Mr. Hailings afterwards received a |