shopkeepers themselves was a strong and a convincing argument against the tax. Had they been able to raise the price of goods to the full amount of what they paid, they would not have stopped there. They would have added something more; and having thus converted into a means of profit what they at first exclaimed against as a burden, their complaints would have been at an end: they would have acquiesced in the tax as a thing which was not merely a burden, but an instrument in their hands of considerable advantage. Had this been the case? Had their complaints against the tax ceased? Were they not now as loud and as earnest in their remonstrances against it as they had been at the first moment of its being proposed? The present application, the petitions on the table, and the motion which he was now instructed by his constituents, the inhabitants of Westminster, to make, shewed that they were. And, would any person maintain such an absurdity as that they desired the repeal of a tax from which they derived a profit?

Such were the general grounds on which the impolicy and oppressive tendency of the tax had been formerly argued. There were now some which might be considered as new grounds. In the first place, there was a petition from the commissioners appointed to collect the tax, stating that they found from experience that it was a personal rather than a general tax, and that they were unable to levy it, according to the tenor of the act, without oppression to individuals. The case of the bankers was a striking proof of this. Had they any means of levying the tax on their customers? Or were their profits greater now than they were before? Another reason was its total inequality, and that it fell heavier on the lower class of shopkeepers than on the more opulent, and that a man who had less business and a less capital, being assessed according to the rent of his shop, paid more than a man whose capital was larger, and his trade more extensive. It frequently happened that a person, for the sake of a shop to carry on his business, was obliged to take a large house, for no part of which he had any occasion but the shop. This person was assessed, not according to the rent of the shop, which was necessary to his business, but the rent of the house, which was not necessary. In answer to this objection it had been said, that such person might levy part of the tax upon his lodgers. But how was this to be done? The shop in the first instance was no recommendation to lodgers, but the contrary; and if he attempted to raise the price of his lodgings, his neighbour, who had no shop, and consequently did not pay the tax, would effectually prevent him by a competition. In this point of view he challenged any man to shew that it

was not partial and unequal, and that, contrary to the operation of every wise and judicious tax, it did not fall heaviest on those who were the least able to bear it.

Mr. Fox said he was in possession of some particular instances which he would state; and in what he was going to mention he desired to be understood as not meaning to say that the grievance was not felt in as great a degree in other places; for, undoubtedly, the unequal and oppressive tendency of the tax was not local. In the city of Bath, a poulterer paid 19s.; in the same street, and but a few doors disstant, another poulterer, whose capital was not near so large, nor his business near so extensive, paid 51. 4s. If this man were to attempt to reimburse himself by raising the price on his small trade, what would be the consequence? His customers would leave him, and go to his neighbour, who, with a large trade, and paying a tax comparatively next to nothing, would be under no such necessity of raising his prices. In the same city, and in the same street, one silversmith paid 41. another 81. and a third 81. 5s. The reason of this inequality was, that the tax was not, what it professed to be, a shop tax, but a tax on houses.

Upon the whole, as the discontents on account of the tax had not decreased, but had gradually increased as the operation of it had been more generally felt, and as it was absurd to suppose that any description of men would persist in their complaints against a measure which they did not feel to be a burden, he was convinced it ought to be repealed, and some other less partial and less oppressive tax substituted in its stead. For although he admitted that it was not a general rule for repealing a tax that there were complaints against it, yet, in such a case as the present, where the complaints were evidently well founded, as experience had shewn them to be, it would much better become the wisdom and the justice of the legislature to listen to them, than to disregard them. A report had lately prevailed, that it was the intention of the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer to propose either a repeal, or such a modification of the tax as would obviate the objections which had been urged against it. This report he had never believed, and had always discountenanced, because, if it had, been true, the right honourable gentleman, either when he gave notice of his motion or since that time, would have signified such his intention. If that had been done, he would have delayed his motion till he had heard what that modification was to be, or if it were done now, he would consent to withdraw it. Mr. Fox concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the shop tax.

CONDUCT OF THE ADMIRALTY RELATIVE TO THE PROMOTION OF ADMIRALS.

April 18.

BY an order of council, dated in the year 1718, and addressed

to the lords commissioners of the board of admiralty, they are directed to proceed, in the promotion of officers to the rank of admirals in the navy, according to the seniority of such officers upon the list of captains, regard only had to their being duly qualified for the rank to which they should be promoted. By a subsequent order of 1747, the lords of the admiralty are authorized to superannuate such captains of long and meritorious service as shall be disabled from serving as admirals, by age or infirmity, under the title of admirals upon the superannuated list, or, as it is commonly called, the list of yellow admirals. In the promotion made by the board of admiralty on the 15th of September 1787, in which sixteen captains were promoted to the flag, upwards of forty captains had been passed over, the greatest part of whom had the offer made them of being put upon the superannuated list; but, conceiving themselves entitled, from their past, and their capacity for future service, to the rank of acting admirals, they refused the retreat that was offered them, and had endeavoured, but without success, to obtain their re-establishment from the board of admiralty. This partial promotion had occasioned a great and general disgust, and especially amongst the officers of the navy, who were alarmed to find that the expectations of reward for the longest and most meritorious service were to be dependent upon the caprice of the first lord of the admiralty; and it was therefore thought a proper subject for parliamentary animadversion. Accordingly, on the 18th of April, Mr. Bastard moved, "That it be referred to a committee to enquire into the conduct of the admiralty in the late promotion of admirals." As this motion went to a direct charge of ministerial misconduct against Viscount Howe, the first lord of the admiralty, and was free from the objection of interfering improperly in the functions of the executive government, it was necessary to meet it upon the distinct merits of the case. In support of the presumption of misconduct, Mr. Bastard stated the cases of Captains Balfour, Thompson, Uvedale, Shirley, Bray, and Laforey; and several others were mentioned in the course of the debate. In order to obviate the unfavourable conclusion which

these cases seemed strongly to support, it was argued by Mr. Pitt, in defence of the admiralty, that none of the circumstances alleged amounted to more than a negative proof, that the officers in question were not disqualified for the rank for which they contended; but that, where a selection was to be made (and that a selection was expedient would appear, not only from the uniform practice of the navy, but from the great expence and sundry in conveniences which would unavoidably result from an overloaded list of flag officers,) it was necessary that a discretionary power of making that selection should be lodged in the commissioners of the board of admiralty. He admitted that they were responsible to parliament for the use of that discretion, and that whenever a case was made out strong enough to warrant a suspicion of such abuses as deserved censure or punishment, it was the indispensable duty of the House to proceed to inquire. But he denied that such a case had been made out. It had not been alleged that there was any officer of incompetent merit amongst those who were promoted, on which a charge of partiality or corruption could be founded. It had not been asserted that the first lord was actuated by any malice or other sinister motive towards those who had been passed over, upon which he could be charged with injustice or oppression. The point to be decided by the House was, whether they could infer, from the statement of cases they had heard, that the judgment of the noble viscount, upon professional merits, was not to be truted, but ought to be corrected by theirs? Such a case might undoubtedly occur; but he warned the House of the mischiefs that would inevitably arise from opening their doors, without the most palpable and urgent necessity, to the discussion of professional qualifications, and the arrangement of military promotions.

Mr. Fox said he perfectly concurred with the right honourable gentleman in the greatest part of his argument. No one held more sacred the power of the prerogative, with regard to the distribution of military honours and rewards, than he did; nor was any one more aware that the House of Commons was by no means a proper place for canvassing military promotions. So firmly had he ever been of this opinion, that had the honourable gentleman who made the present motion moved an address to the crown, he could not have voted for it; but the motion being a motion for a committee, he should vote for it; because it was the constitutional province, and the undoubted duty of that House, to watch over the executive departments, and, where they had cause to suspect abuse, to institute an inquiry, with a view either to censure or to punishment. At present, a striking case indeed had been made out, and he saw very strong grounds of suspicion that, in the late promotion to the flag, the first lord of the admiralty had acted, as it was truly said, with partiality and oppression; but to express it in the mildest term that could be applied to it, with caprice.

The right honourable gentleman had distinguished the sort of facts, on the truth of which the jut of the business lay, into two questions: the distinction was just, being whether Captains Uvedale, Thompson, and Balfour ought to have been promoted to flags, and whether Captain Laforey, holding a civil employ, could have been so promoted? For the sake of illustration, the right honourable gentleman had taken Captain Balfour to argue upon, because his merit was grounded on an 'action of the most brilliant kind, and he had put the question, whether at his time of life, and in his state of health, he was fit to be an admiral? Captain Balfour was stated by the right honourable gentleman to be an officer who had the good fortune to be able to shew that bravery which he possessed in common with others. Did the right honourable gentleman mean to stigmatize other officers by so putting the case? To Captain Balfour's merit, however, with that felicity of expres sion which always, in an eminent degree, distinguished the right honourable gentleman, he had done ample justice, and spoke of an action, one of the most to be admired and the fullest of lustre that ever distinguished any officer, in terms of due respect, and with a just energy of description.

The whole of the first part of his argument was constitutional, manly, just, and such as, Mr. Fox said, he could subscribe to fully; but, in the progress of it, aware that pursuing the same fair line of reasoning would never answer the purpose of defending an opposition to a motion so undeniably proper, the right honourable gentleman had made a sudden turn, shifted his ground, and argued in a manner directly the reverse of that with which he began. If the bare question was put thus, Do you think Captain Balfour fit to be made an admiral, because he performed so glorious an exploit in the harbour of Louisburgh? Mr. Fox said, he should have no hesitation to answer directly in the affirmative, and say yes. But, if the other question was put, and he was asked, whether every captain who had merely negative merit as an officer ought to be made an admiral, he should answer no, with as little hesitation as he had before said yes; because the latter position was as clearly false as the first was true. The reason

why he would make Captain Balfour an admiral was on account of the very description given of him by the right honourable gentleman; it was, because he had the singular good fortune to have given a successful proof of his extraordinary bravery, and his extraordinary skill in Louisburgh harbour; and the reason he would assign to the other captains for not making them admirals was, because they had not had the good fortune to distinguish themselves. If the present motion were not carried, the late promotion to the flag would operate as a