mies to monarchy, and of being dangerous to the ftate, are equally futile and unjuft; however unjufuífiable fome of its latter confequences might have been, which it was not then poffible to forefee,, their original oppofition to the tyranny of Charles the First, was not only defenfible, but highly praifeworthy; and notwithstanding the powerful operation both of religious and defpotic prejudices, has received the fanction of the wifeft and most learned men, in all thofe nations, where they can in any degree venture to think for themfelves; but that, waving all defence, the abfurdity of imputing to men now living, the crimes or errors of another race, who have lain in their graves for more than a century, is fo obvious as not to deferve a ferious confideration. That, on the contrary, the English hif tory abounds with inftances, which fhew them to have been excellent citizens, and to have been as loyal and dutiful under good princes, as they were firm in their oppofition to thofe tyrants who wanted to overthrow the conftitution. It was faid that the apprehenfion of danger to the church was equally ill-founded; that the Diffenters were already relieved by the act of toleration, from fubfcribing to thofe diftinctive articles of the church of England, which are peculiar to her; and that the articles which they are enjoined to fign by the prefent mode of fubfcription, contain only thofe doctrines which the church of Geneva holds in common with. her; fo that this abfurd mode of fubfcription, in reality, if obfervcd, would contribute much more to the propagation of Calvinifm, than to the establishment of the na tional religion; upon what prin ciple then of civil or ecclefiaftical policy, is a fubfcription fupported and enforced, which is not lefs prejudicial to the established church, than it is odious to thofe on whom the prefent laws would compel it? That the cafe of the Diffenters was very different from those who had made the late application for relief; that the latter, by being members of the established church, were bound by many ties to obey its rules and laws; but that the Dif fenters were only praying leave to be difengaged from ties, which were foreign to their principles and inftitutions; and that the refufal would feem to imply a fuppofition, equally injurious and unjust to the church of England, as if her foundations were to weakly laid, that fhe was obliged to prefs the affiftance of those who did not belong to her to fupport them. That the propofal of granting a partial toleration could be confidered only as an act of pleafantry; that is, we will tolerate people fo far as they agree with us; but where we differ, there we shall perfecute; furely there can be no merit in tolerating our own doctrines; for the very principle of toleration is, that you will tolerate, not thofe who agree with you in opinion, but thofe whofe religious notions are totally different: chriftian charity confifts in allowing others a latitude of opinion, and in putting fuch a restraint upon our own mind, as will prevent the bit, terness of zeal from becoming paramount in it; and that the idea of chriftianity being endangered by toleration, is contrary to truth and hiftory, which fhew that the chriftian religion never flourished fo much hiuch as in times of the freeft toleration, and never fell from itfelf till it departed from those principles. That the arguments brought for retaining fubfcription, because the cruelty and iniquity of the penal laws rendered them inefficacious and impotent, were the ftrongest that could be made ufe of for the removing it totally. That the fecurity of freedom was too facred to be entrusted to the discretion of judges the caprice of a court, or the malice or avarice of individuals; and that though in general thofe laws had continued dormant for a confiderable time, inftances had been laid before them of illiberal perfecutions carried on under their fanction; and that they had now before them the cafe of a lady, who was in danger of lofing her whole fortune in confequence of them that the boafted lenience of government, and the good temper of the times, was the strongest reafon that could be brought for feizing fo happy an opportunity of procuring a remedy, and that it would be fruitless to ask for relief or fecurity, when, through a change of principles in the one, and of temper in the other, a perfecution might perhaps be actually begun. But it is faid, that because the Dif. fenters enjoy liberty by connivance, this application for relief and fecurity is not only unneceflary, but an act of mere wantonnefs; it comes then to be asked, under what unheard-of definition of liberty, a freeman is fuppofed to hold his rights by connivance; connivance is but a temporary relaxation of flavery; and is the liberty of Englifhmen to depend upon fuch a teaure? Some eminent writers place liberty in an exemption from fear; but can thofe who enjoy it by connivance be exempt from fear, or free from apprehenfion? You hang a fword, fufpended by a thread, over the heads of the Diffenters, and affure them that you will not break the thread; if that is your real intention, is it not as eafy, and much better, to remove the fword, and relieve them from their terrors? However fanguine the hopes that were formed, from the great majority that carried this bill through the House of Commons, might have been, it had still a feverer ordeal to undergo, in which its fortune deferted it. Upon a fecond reading in the Houfe of Lords, on the 19th of May, it was thrown out by a vaft majority, there being, includ ing the proxies, 102 lords who op pofed it, to 29 only, who fupported the bill. Notwithstanding the implied recommendation that had been fo early given, for an enquiry into the affairs of the Eaft-India company, and the establishment of fome regulations for their future government, the house had now fat near three mouths, without the smallest notice being taken of that business. It seems pretty evident, that adminiftration had no ferious intention of entering deeply into that matter for the prefent, and that the fubfequent movements, during the remainder of the fellion, were only intended to keep it alive, and to make or find fome openings for that great revolution which it has fince accomplished in the affairs of the company. It was alfo perhaps neceffary that this business should be fo far entered into, as that the company should continue entangled [*F] 3 in in the hands of the parliament during the recefs. However this might be, it is more than probable, that no part of this plan was understood by the gentlemen who were the immediate actors in bringing the affairs of the company under confideration, and that they were actuated by very different motives. The first notice that was taken of this business, was in confequence March 30th. of a motion made by the deputy chairman of the Eaft-India company, for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the company's fervants and concerns in India. This bill had no fmaller objects in view than the restraining of the governor and council from all manner of trade, and the making of a total alteration in the court of judicature, and in the mode of adminif tering juftice in Bengal; befides greatly enlarging the company's powers with relpect to its fervants, and the laying of many other new reftrictions upon them. The reafons urged in fupport of the motion were, that the bad ftate of our affairs in India was owing to the little power the court of directors had to punith their fervants, either for difobedience to their orders, or for malpractices in their feveral departments; that nothing could contribute more to thofe enormities, than that folecifm in reafon and policy, of allowing the governors of diftant countries to become traders and merchants; and that the judicature at Bengal was eftablithed when we had only a finall territory, and was totally unequal to the adminiftration of juftice in fo vaft a dominion as we now poffefs in that part of the world. It was faid on the other fide, that it was unparliamentary to bring in a bill to redrefs a grievance, with out fome prior proof that the grievance exifted; that the house ought first to enter into an enquiry concerning our prefent fiuation in India, and the causes that led to it; that it was to be feared the enquiry would fhew, that the evils lay too deep to be remedied by the propofed bill; that it would be almost impoffible to prevent the company's fervants from trading, directly or indirectly; that the fending out a few perfons learned in the laws of England, as judges, was very inadequate to the purposes of executing the laws in fo vaft a tract of country; and that the measure would be premature, as we had not yet determined by what laws the inhabitants should be governed. The motion was however carried, and a bill was fome time after brought in accordingly. As this bill was totally laid by after the second reading, we only take notice of it to fhew in what manner it led to the enquiry that was immediately begun into the affairs of the company, and probably in fome measure to the great revolution which has fince taken place in them. It could fcarcely indeed be expected, that a bill of fuch importance, brought in fo late in the feafon, could have paffed, as the train of inveftigation which muft neceflarily arife from it would have been fufficient to have taken up much of the time, if not the whole, of a long feffion. In the debates upon this occafion much altercation,arofe, and many long charges and defences were made between fome gentlemen who were leaders of parties, or or had confiderable influence in the India courts, and fome others, that had acquired vaft fortunes in the company's fervice abroad. These matters would have been of little confequence to the public, if, through the heat that attended them, and perhaps the animofity from whence they proceeded, the conduct and affairs of the company and the tranfactions of her fervants, had not been laid open in fuch a manner, as evidently fhewed that they merited a strict enquiry, and wanted much regulation. It alfo afforded an handle to its enemies, which was not neglected, of attempting to fhew the infufficiency of the company for the government of fuch great dominions, and the neceffity that government hould take the whole under its immediate jurifdiction. Apr. 13th. On the day of bring ing in the bill, a motion was accordingly made for a felect committee of 31 members, to enquire into the nature and state of the Eaft-India company, and of the affairs in the Eaft Indies. The ne ceffity of fuch an enquiry was ftrongly urged from a variety of confiderations, among which were the following: the prefent precarious fituation of affairs in India; the late diftreffes of the natives, and the depopulation of the country; the oppreffive and arbitrary conduct of the company's fervants; the great decrease of the nett revenues in Bengal, from various mifianagements, as well as enormous and unneceffary expences; the immenfe confequence to this nation of preferving and well governing thofe countries; and that this could only be done, by making a full enquiry into their nature and ftate, and then establishing a regular and permanent form of justice and government. Though the neceffity of fome enquiry and regulation was evident, many objected to the beginning of fuch an enquiry fo late in the feffion; fummer was already appearing, and its magnitude was fuch, and the difficulties attending it were fo great, that it was evident the twentieth part of it could not be gone through during the fitting of parliament. Many objected to the mode of enquiry by a felect committee; and though the gentleman who made the motion was unconnected with adminiftration, it was known that the minister would have the virtual nomination of the members who compofed the committee. It was befides urged, that the select committee was not accountable for its conduct; that an enquiry, therefore, by the board of trade or privycouncil would be preferable, as they are amenable to juftice; and that as the proceedings of fuch committees often are fecret, and never entirely published, they are in nc fear of public cenfure, and are thereby free from that controul, to which the whole houfe is liable, all its tranfactions being quickly known. to the world. Befides it was urged, that no plan had been mentioned; fo that the houfe, which was about to vote this very delicate enquiry, could not judge to what objects it was directed, or what ends it propofed to compafs. Notwithstanding thefe objections, the motion for a felect committee was carried without a divifion, and 31 members were accordingly chofen by ballot. The fubject of their inquifition was fo various, and of fo great an extent, that that they were obliged to apply for leave to continue their fittings during the fummer. The refult of thefe, and of the other enquiries that were made into the state of Eaft-India affairs, will appear in their proper place, in the hiftorical article for the enfuing year. The ill-temper which had fo unaccountably taken place between the two houfes in the preceding feffion, was continued during the whole course of the present, and, except in the tranfinitting of bills from one to the other, there was no more communication between them, than if they had been the jealous councils of two rival states. In this ftate of things, Apr. 30th. the lords having, contrary to custom, fent a bill to the commons by a matter in chancery, and a clerk affiftant, the whole houfe feemed to take fire at the indignity, and would not accept the meffage until they had examined the journals, to know if there were any precedents for fending bills in fuch a manner. In the course of a hafty and paffionate debate which enfued upon this occafion, feveral gentlemen mentioned, that on the first day of the feffion, they had been rudely turned out of the house of Lords, even before the fpeaker got out of the door. A motion was accordingly made for a committee to fearch for precedents, of the manner of bills being fent from the lords, and alfo of the improper behaviour of the lords to the commons. Exceptions were however taken to the word improper, as if it carried an appearance of prejudging the cafe, and after a warm debate, the word was left out upon a divifion. Upon the report of the commit tee being given in, which contained refolutions of improper behaviour and a want of refpect, which ought to be refented, a motion was made to fend back the bill to the lords, affigning as a reason, that it had been fent by improper meffengers. This was oppofed by adminiftration, as it was faid it might lay a foundation for a quarrel, which might not be eaffly accommodated; and after a confiderable debate, the motion was over-ruled upon a division, by 107, against 53. A motion was then made for a conference with the lords, which was over-ruled in the fame manner, and, after long debates, and feveral propofed amendments, the matter ended in a meflage to the lords, in which the impropriety of the meffengers was the only complaint stated, which it was hoped would not be drawn into precedent; this produced an answer, that the bill had been ordered in the usual manner, and that the matter of complaint was occafioned by the illness of one of the perfons who should have pre fented it; that a good correfpon dence was wished for, and that it was not meant to introduce any precedent contrary to established ufage. Thus the fore was covered, if not fkinned, for the present. The inefficacy of the temporary corn bills, which had been pailed in every fethion for fome years back, had occafioned the forming of a committee in. the last feffion, for examining into, and confidering the whole ftate of the corn trade, and of the corn laws, and for framing fuch refolutions thereon, as might be the bafis of a compre henfive and permanent law, which fhould take in all poffible cafes, with |