sinister design, why not reserve the question of right to its proper time, and then to give it a proper discus.sion.

To this nothing was directly answered. But government took great pains to display its kindness to the Company, It was said, that, notwithstanding the great losses suffered by their misconduct, which rendered them incapable of paying the annual stipulation to the public, they now generously supplied them with a loan of near four times that sum to preserve them from ruin, and would still, from a tender consideration of the Company's affairs, sustain an additional loss in their favour; it was therefore proposed, and agreed to, that, as the Company had a stock of teas amounting to above 17,000,000 of pounds by them, and it would be greatly to their advantage to convert as much of it as they could into money, they should therefore be allowed to export any quantities of it they pleased, duty-free. April 30th.

The resolutions having been reported in the House, and agreed to, a petition was presented from the East-India Company, in which they were complained of in the strongest terms, as unjust and injurious.They complain that the most material articles of their propositions are rejected and represent, that when the loan which they have requested from the public is discharged, it must be unreasonable to require any further terms upon that account; that the limitation of the dividend to 7 per cent. after the discharge of the loan, and until the reduction of the bond debt, is néither founded on any just calculation of their affairs, nor neces

sary, either with respect to their credit, or that of the public, and that the small addition of one per cent. though of considerable consequence to them, was too trifling in the amount to cause any material delay in the reduction of that debt; that the hardship of this limitation is exceedingly aggravated, by a consideration of the great losses which they, as proprietors, have sustained, and the expences they have incurred, in acquiring and securing the territorial revenues in India, at the risk of their whole capital, from which the public had reaped such vast advantages, without any equivalent to themselves; and that they had only offered the proposals, which were now made the ground of these restrictive resolutions, upon the faith of those assurances which they had received, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer coincided with them in his intentions.

They farther represented, that the limitation for six years to their territorial possessions, was altogether arbitrary, as it may be construed into a conclusive decision against them, in regard to those possessions to which they have an undoubted right; a right against which no decision exists, nor any formal claim has ever been made. They refuse to acquiesce in the proposed allotment of their surplus profits; and insist that such a disposal of their property without their own consent, is not warrantable by any pretensions that have been formed against them; that when they offered a participation in a different proportion of the said surplus, it was in a full persuasion that they might freely enjoy the remainder; that the prescribed l1

mitation,

mitation, with respect to the application of the one fourth allotted to them in this participation, after the payment of their simple contract debts, and the reducing of their bond debt, to the point affixed by the House, is so subversive of all their rights and privileges, by denying them the disposal of their own property, though all their creditors shall be fully secured according to law, that rather than submit to such conditions, as proceeding from any consent expressed or implied by themselves, they declare their desire, that any claims against them, that can be supposed to give rise to such restrictions, may receive a legal decision, from which, whatever may be the event, they will at least have the satisfaction of knowing what they may call their own.

The House had now, May 3d. for about two months, been almost continually occupied by the affairs of the East-India Company, when at length resolutions to the following effect were moved for by the minister, and made the foundation of a Bill, "for establishing certain regulations for the better management of the affairs of the East-India Company, as well in India as in Europe." 1st. That the court of directors should, in future, be elected for four years; six members annually; but none to hold their seats longer than four years. 2d. That no person should vote at the election of the directors who had not possessed their stock twelve months. 3d. That the stock of qualification should, instead of 5001. be 10001. 4th. That the mayor's court of Calcutta should

for the future be confined to small mercantile causes, to which only its jurisdiction extended before the territorial acquisition. 5th. That, în lieu of this court, thus taken away, a new one be established, consisting of a chief justice and three puisne judges. 6th. That these judges be appointed by the crown. 7th. That a superiority be given to the presidency of Bengal, over the other presidencies in India.

Some of these propositions were supported upon the following principles. That in the present state of the Company, the gentlemen in the direction were so disconcerted by the shortness of their turn, and their time so much taken up by caballing for their re-election, that they had neither leizure to form, nor time to execute, any permanent system of general advantage. That the term of 6 months was too short for a qualification to vote, as it did not preclude temporary purchases of stock, merely for that purpose; and that the present qualification of 5001. capital stock, was not a sufficient interest in the Company, to entitle the holder to a vote. That the contraction of powers in the mayor's court at Calcutta, was only reducing its jurisdiction within that narrow circle, to which it had been originally confined: that it was a court composed of mere chants and traders, and therefore evidently improper and incompetent, to the trial of those many great, momentous, and complicated matters, which must now come before it; that for these reasons, the erection of a new judicature was absolutely necessary; and that the judges ought evidently to bę appointed by the crown, not only

as a matter of propriety, but to give a due weight and consequence to their decisions. That the granting a superiority to one presidency over the rest, was also absolutely necessary, as their being furnished with equal and separate powers, in matters that related to war, peace, and alliance, had frequently been productive of great disorder, confusion, and contradiction; and that the proposed superiority only related to general affairs, and did not at all interfere with internal regulation.

It was also thrown out, that other regulations would be necessary, particularly that the Company should immediately communicate their advices from Bengal to the treasury, or secretaries of State, and that the Company's servants should, under heavy penalties, bring all their fortunes home in the Company's ships. It was concluded, that, though these regulations would operate greatly towards a reformation, it was not to be expected, that the whole could be done at once, and require no farther attention; that, on the contrary, it was probable that Bengal would require their annual care; and that, as new information could be obtained, a fixed and constant attention in the controlling and legislative power would at all times be necessary.

As this bill excited a very general alarm, not only with respect to the Company, but those who considered it merely as dangerous in its tendency with regard to the constitution, it was vigorously combated in every part of its progress; every question, every clause, and every addition, was productive

of a warm debate, and of a division.

Every question was, however, carried by a great majority. In the mean time, the East-India Company, the City of London, and those proprietors those proprietors who possessed votes, by holding 5001. stock, but being under a thousand, were now to be deprived of their franchises, and who amounted to above 1200 in number, presented separate, and unusually strong petitions against the bill. Counsel were also heard in behalf of the Company, and of the 5001. stockholders.

Upon the first division on the qualification clause, whether it should be fixed at 10001. stock, the question was carried by 179 to 65. Upon the next question, which related to the establishment of a governor and council at Bengal, after long debates, and a variety of amendments being proposed and rejected, it was at length put, whether the right of nominating the governor and council, should be vested in the crown, or in the Company, and was carried by 161 in favour of the former, to 60 whe opposed. By this determination, the immediate appointment was vested in parliament, the officers being, however, removable at the will of the Crown. The right of appointing judges was carried in favour of the crown by a still greater majority, the numbers being 193 to 18 only. The salaries of the judges were fixed at 8000l. to the chief justice, and 60001. a year to each of the other three. The appointments of the governor general and council were fixed, the first at 25,000l. and the four others at 10,000l. each annually.

Other

Other questions were carried in the same manner as to numbers, though all were strenuously debated. Upon the presenting of the petition, and the hearing of counsel, in behalf of the 5001. stockholders, the following resolution was moved, "That it does not appear to this house, that the proprietors of 5001. capital stock, in the united company of merchants of England, trading to the EastIndies, have been guilty of any delinquency in the exercise of their charter rights, according to the several acts of parliament made in that behalf." This motion caused long and warm debates, in which the rights of the petitioners were ably pleaded, and the alledged injustice of the enacting clause, and the violent injury to their property, strongly represented. Upon a division, the motion was rejected by

123 to 43.

At length, after more than a month's continual agitation in the House of Commons, and finally concluded by long and eager debates in a late house, this bill, which had attracted the attention of all orders of people, June 10th. was passed by a majority of more than six to one, the numbers being 131 to 21 only. It was opposed in its progress (besides those we have already mentioned) by a petition in behalf of those who were possessed of property in the East Indies, who represented, that every kind of transaction, either by remittance or otherwise, with foreign companies, or foreigners settled at Bengal, being prohibited by the bill, their property would be virtually confiscated; and strongly claimed the exercise of that right, which every Bri

1

tish subject enjoyed, of remitting his fortune from any part of the world, in the manner he conceived most advantageous to himself.

This bill did not meet with a much less warm reception in the House of Lords, than the ordeal which it had already undergone in that of the Commons; it was however supported and carried through, by a power equally efficacious. Upon the bringing it up, the noble duke whom we have before observed to have conducted the opposition to the supervision bill, moved for a conference with the Commons, upon the subject-matter of the present bill.. This motion was strongly opposed, as an unnecessary application, and leading to a tedious and troublesome delay, at this unseasonable time of the year; the motion was accordingly rejected upon a division, by a majority of 39 to 12 lords who supported it.

The same nobleman made a motion, that a message should be sent, for a communication of the reports of the several committees that had been appointed to make an enquiry into the affairs of the East-India Company, together with a list of the witnesses that had been examined, and of all the papers that had been produced before the House of Commons, with Copies of their resolutions, and all the other evidences, facts, and matters, which they had proceeded upon, as a ground for passing the bill. This motion was opposed upon the same principle as the former, and upon a division rejected by nearly the same majority. This refusal of the means of information was not passed without much debate and animadversion, and was the foundation of a particular protest, in

which

which it is severely complained of, and their present conduct strongly contrasted with that practised upon former occasions, particularly in the year 1720, when the Lords had a conference with the Commons, which lasted the greater part of the month of July; but by this mode, it says, the Commons have it in their power to preclude that House from the exercise of its deliberative capacity; they have nothing more to do, than to keep business of importance until the summer is advanced, and then the delay in one house is to be assigned as a sufficient ground for a precipitate acquies cence in the other. It was indeed generally thought not very decent for the House of Lords to proceed without any regular parliamentary information whatever, upon mat ters which the House of Commons had examined so much in detail.

Upon the second reading of the bill, a petition was received from the East India-Company, and counsel heard against it; after which, and many debates, the question was put upon the first enacting clause, with respect to the alteration in the directorship, when upon a division it was carried, to stand part of the bill, by 51 to 16; and the qualification clause was 'carried on a following division, by nearly the same number. On the June 19th. third reading, the bill was carried through by 47 to 15; but including the proxies, the majority was much greater, the numbers then being 74 to 17 only. It was however productive of a protest, signed by 13 lords.

Many of the arguments opposed to this bill were necessarily upon the same ground with those which

we have stated upon other occasions; the charges of violation of public faith, private property, and chartered rights, have already been so often recited in the affairs of the Company, that a repetition of them, except where they vary in their circumstances from former cases, would be needless. The throwing of so immense a power and influence into the hands of the crown, was represented as totally subversive of the constitution, and made a cause of great and princi-/ pal objection. The disfranchising of 1246 freemen of the Company, without a charge or pretence of delinquency, was exclaimed against as an act of the most violent oppres sion, and crying injustice; it was observed that those proprietors of 5001. stock, were the only class of voters, known or qualified by the Company's charter; and that the very grievance of splitting stock, by which they had hitherto been injured by the great proprietors, was now assigned as the cause for stripping them of their franchises, while the former were furnished with new powers for the legal multiplying of that evil.

The whole management of the affairs of the Company in India, being vested in persons, who were neither appointed nor removeable by them, thereby cutting them off from all means of control, from the redressing of grievances, and the applying of a remedy to evils, in their own affairs, was represented as the most glaring absurdity, and unaccountable solecism in politics, that ever had entered the mind of man; that this usurpation of right, in the appointment of the Company's servants, being loaded with the compulsory payment of large

salaries,