vantages of the civil government by taking the oaths, &c. as appointed by law. Whence it follows, that it is not reasonable or just, that such of the members of the established church of North Britain as are resident in England, should be subject to the ungracious alternative, of acting inconsistently with their principles, or of incurring the penalty of disqualification for the service of their sovereign, in any office, civil or military.

6

9." In the year 1779, the 19th of his present majesty, an act was passed, in Ireland, For the relief of his majesty's faithful subjects, the protestant dissenters of that kingdom;' whereby it is enacted, That all and every person and persons, being protestants, shall and may have, hold, and enjoy, any office or place, civil or military, and receive any pay, salary, fee, or wages, belonging to, or by reason of, such office or place, notwithstanding he shall not receive or have received the sacrament of the Lord's supper, without incurring any penalties for or in respect of his neglect of receiving the same.' The protestant dissenters of England, therefore, humbly hope, from the moderation and equity of the legislature, for the same just restitution of their civil rights, to which alone their application is confined.

"For these reasons the dissenters are induced to make an application to parliament for relief, humbly apprehending that their request will appear to be founded in justice, and that a compliance with it will redound to the honour of religion, will tend to the security and strength of the protestant interest, be conducive to the welfare of the nation, honourable to the king as the common father of his people, and no way injurious to any one subject in his majesty's dominions. Arguments, so weighty and cogent as those which have been represented, cannot, they trust, fail, in conjunction with the enlarged and liberal spirit of the times, to procure from the legislature the repeal of statutes, which can in no degree be considered as grounded on public necessity or public advantage."

On the 28th of March, Mr. Beaufoy opened the business to the House in a long and able speech, and concluded, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of so much of the acts of the 13th and 25th of Charles the second, as requires persons, before they are admitted into any office or place in corporations, or having accepted any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the crown, to receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the rites of the church of England." Mr. Beaufoy was answered by Lord North, who had lately had the misfortune of losing his eyesight, and came down upon this occasion, for the first time in the session. Mr. Pitt followed Lord North, and took the same side of the question.

Mr. Fox, in a long and able speech, supported the motion for a committee. He observed, that however he might of late have been charged with the odium of coalition, that odium was not imputable to him that night; yet, if he had heard only one part of the argument of the right honourable the

chancellor of the exchequer, unexplained by the other parts of his argument, he should have found himself in a coalition with him upon the grounds of that argument, namely, that it was right to oppose the repeal of a test, which shut out dissenters who would not allow that any establishment was necessary; but the right honourable gentleman had afterwards carried his arguments against all those who had applied indiscriminately. Mr. Fox then asserted, that the general conduct of the dissenters was praise-worthy, and that in all former times they had been actuated by principles of liberty not inconsistent with the well-being of the state. He then adverted to the argument of the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer respecting the test, and endeavoured to shew, that religion was not a proper test for a political institution. With regard to the argument used by the right honourable gentleman to prove that those acts operated to exclude persons from corporations, though not from sitting in that House, he should contend that they had not that effect; that there were corporations which were entirely filled by dissenters, and that he knew of two such corporations. The mischiefs in Charles the second's reign arose not from the dissenters, but from the governing part of the church of England. He said, he was supported in this assertion by the authority of a great writer, Mr. Locke. The opinions of the heads of the church of England were not to be a rule for the political conduct of that House; for they were as decidedly against passing the bills which that House passed six or seven years ago in favour of the dissenters, as they were upon the present occasion. In deciding upon questions of that nature the electors of the representatives of the universities were likely to be warped more strongly than the electors of other representatives of that House: this was to be lamented; but he did not mean to cast any reflections upon the motives of their conduct. The church of Scotland had not found a test necessary there for the episcopalians. The right honourable gentleman had stated, that by this repeal the dissenters would not be obliged to contribute to the provision of the members of the church of England; it was absurd to argue that as a consequence; it did not follow: this motion went only to take off the seclusion of offices. Mr. Fox dwelt some time upon this point. He then asserted, that the argument that there must be one establishment was absurd; two establishments might exist in one government; they actually did exist, and he instanced the church of England and the kirk of Scotland. He confessed that the test-act did not operate directly as a stigma upon the dissenters; but at least it carried, and it was a fair argument to say, that the dissenters

would be glad to be excused paying to the maintenance of the church.

Mr. Fox then said, What are you doing to secure the establishment of this constitution? You are taking religion as religion for a test in politics. He then combated the propriety of such a measure. With respect to clergymen giving or refusing the sacrament, he observed, that if the clergyman of the parish refused, he subjected himself to an action; and supposing that he found means to get through the inconveniences of the litigation, what was the consequence? Why, that having refused the man the sacrament, he had disabled him from being qualified to hold the office; for the man could not take the sacrament from another clergyman, and thus there was vested in the minister of a parish a power superior to that of any ecclesiastical court.

Mr. Fox then spoke of the principles which had governed the dissenters in this kingdom, and said, they were persevering and active in their application for redress of their injuries in former times; and if they used the same perseverance now, they could not fail of success; that he would advise them to repeat their applications till the legislature gave them that specimen they desired. He had considered himself honoured in acting with them upon many occasions; and if he thought there was any time in which they had departed from those principles which were inconsistent with the constitution of this country, he should refer that period to a very recent date indeed: on recollection of what had been their conduct upon that occasion, the House would at least do him the justice to say, that in supporting them that day he was not influenced by any very obvious motives of private partiality or attachment. Yet he was determined to let them know, that though they could upon some occasions lose sight of their principles of liberty, he would not upon any occasion lose sight of his principles of toleration; he should therefore give his vote for the motion; but at the same time observe, that if there could be any modification of the penalties without repealing much of the act, it might be matter of instruction to the committee, and perhaps would prove more palatable to the House; yet, as the matter stood at present, the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer by opposing the motion might be said, though disclaiming persecution in words, to admit the whole extent of it in principle.

The House divided on Mr. Beaufoy's motion:

MR. Fox's MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE SHOP TAX.

April 24.

THE THE tax imposed upon retail shopkeepers in the year 1785, was strongly opposed at the time by the inhabitants of London and Westminster, as partial and unjust in its principle, and peculiarly oppressive in its operation upon those two cities. The following year their members were instructed to move for its repeal; and though the motion was rejected by a great majority, they continued, with unremitted perseverance, to take the most active and vigorous measures for securing success upon some future occasion. Meetings were held, associations formed, committees appointed, and a correspondence carried on with all the considerable towns and corporations of the kingdom; many of which, being proportionably sufferers, readily joined the capital in another application to parliament for relief. The business was this year committed to Mr. Fox. Accordingly, this day in pursuance of the notice he had given previous to the recess,

Mr. Fox rose, in order to make his motion for the repeal of the shop tax. He began a most ingenious and striking argument against the tax, by stating, that he had never been forward in opposing taxes, because he thought it the duty in general of members of parliament to support government in the arduous and invidious measures of finance; but at the same time that he entertained the opinion, he thought it equally impolitic to adhere to it in the extreme degree, and on no occasion whatever, even though a tax should appear, after experiment and fair trial, partial and oppressive, to consent to its repeal. Under this impression it was, and upon a full conviction that the shop tax was a personal tax, unjustly levied from a particular description of men, that he should move for its repeal. The shop tax he had ever heard stated by those who defended it, to be a tax not upon the shopkeeper, but the consumer of goods sold by the shopkeeper. That he had ever peremptorily denied, and experience had proved beyond all possibility of doubt, that he was right in the denial.

Mr. Fox proceeded to urge all the arguments which he had formerly brought forward, to prove that the tax was not in fact, what it was called, but an additional tax upon housekeepers whose houses had shops annexed to them. He manifested the particularly unjust way in which the tax pressed upon the metropolis and its environs, by stating, that the whole sum assessed for the shop tax amounted to 59,000l.

seventeen of which were assessed for the city of Westminster alone, twelve for the city of London, and twelve more for the villages adjacent; so that the county of Middlesex paid fortyone parts out of the fifty-nine of the produce of the tax. Mr. Fox reasoned upon this statement, and declared that he could scarcely have imagined, considering the superior opulence of the city of London, compared to the city of Westminster, that the latter should have paid seventeen parts of the produce of the tax, while the former only paid twelve parts; nor could he, at first, believe that the villages in Middlesex paid another twelve, till upon inquiry he found, that under the head of villages were comprehended Marybone, High Holborn, Wapping, the out-parishes, and those non-descript districts which, though accurately speaking, they were not parts of the three cities, if he might so denominate London, Westminster, and their environs, were generally considered as parts of the metropolis. He compared this with the proportion paid by the rest of the kingdom, and said, that though he could not be of opinion with those who thought that the representation of London, Westminster, and Middlesex should be exactly in the proportion of their payment of the taxes, yet that forty-one parts out of fifty-nine was so monstrous a disproportion, that every man who barely heard it stated, must be startled at it, and must feel conviction that the tax was most partial and unjust in its operation and pressure.

Mr. Fox declared, that upon an examination of the assessment throughout the kingdom it would be discovered, that an hundred pounds was all that was assessed for some whole counties, and not above fifty for others. The partiality of the tax, therefore, was so palpable, that he could not see how the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer could resist the application for its repeal with any colour of reason or of candour. He contended, that the favourite argument of the competition of shopkeepers, which had formerly been resorted to as a proof, that they would lay the tax on their customers, was of itself a proof that the consumer did not pay it, and consequently a confirmation of the argument, that it fell totally on the shopkeeper. He instanced, in a variety of ways, the hardship of thus singling out one description of persons to pay a tax that the rest of the subjects were exempted from, and forcibly argued the injustice of that House insisting upon continuing a tax, to which they did not contribute one single shilling. Unless the bankers were selected, members of parliament could not be said to pay any thing towards it; and if bankers were assessed, what became of the argument of the consumers paying the tax? For surely it would not be pretended that bankers could lay any part of the tax on their