finifter defign, why not referve the queftion of right to its proper time, and then to give it a proper difcuffion.

To this nothing was directly aníwered. But government took great pa'ns to difplay its kindness to the Company. It was faid, that notwithstanding the great loffes fuffered by their mifconduct, which rendered them incapable of paying the annual flipulation to the public, they now generously fupplied them with a loan of near four times that fum to preferve them from ruin, and would ftill, from a tender confideration of the Company's affairs, fuftain an additional lofs in their favour; it was therefore propofed, and agreed to, that as the Company had a flock 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 pleafed, duty-free.

The refolutions havApril 30th. ing been reported in

the House and agreed to, a petition was prefented from the Eaft-India Company, in which they were complained of in the ftrongest terms, as unjuft and injurious. They complain, that the most material articles of their propofitions. are rejected: and reprefent, that when the loan which they have requefted from the public is difcharged, it must be unreasonable to require any further terms upon that account; that the limitation of the dividend to 7 per cent, after the difcharge of the loan, and until the reduction of the bond debt, is neither founded on any juft calculation of their affairs, nor necef

fary, either with refpect to their credit, or that of the public, and that the fmall addition of one per cent. though of confiderable confequence to them, was too trifling in the amount, to caufe any material delay in the reduction of that debt; that the hardship of this limitation is exceedingly aggravated, by a confideration of the great loffes which they, as proprietors have fuftained, and the expences, they have incurred, in acquiring and fecuring the territorial revenues in India, at the rifque of their whole capital, from which the public had reaped fuch vaft advantages, without any equivalent to themfelves; and that they had only offered the propofals, which were now made the ground of these reftrictive refolutions, upon the faith of thofe affurances which they had received, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer coincided with them in his intentions,

They farther reprefented, that the limitation for fix years to their territorial poffeffions, was altoge ther arbitrary, as it may be conftrued into a conclufive decifion against them, in regard to those poffeffions, to which they have an undoubted right; a right against which no decifion exifts, nor any formal claim has ever been made. They refuse to acquiefce in the propofed allotment of their furplus profits; and infift, that such a difpofal of their property without their own confent, is not warrantable by any pretenfions that have been formed against them; that when they offered a participation in a different proportion of the faid furplus, it was in a full perfuafion that they might freely enjoy the remainder; that the prefcribed li

mitation, with refpect to the application of the one fourth allotted to them in this participation, after the payment of their fimple contract debts, and the reducing of their bond debt, to the point affixed by the House, is fo fubversive of all their rights and privileges, by denying them the difpofal of their own property, though all their creditors fhall be fully fecured according to law, that rather than fubmit to fuch conditions, as proceeding from any confent expreffed or implied by themfelves, they declare their defire, that any claims against them, that can be fuppofed to give rife to fuch restrictions, may receive a legal decifion, from which, whatever may be the event, they will at least have the fatisfaction of knowing what they may call their own.

The Houfe had now May 3d. for about two months, been almoft continually occupied by the affairs of the East-India Company, when at length refolutions to the following effect were moved for by the minifter, and made the foundation of a Bill, "For eftablishing certain regulations for the better management of the affairs of the East-India Company, as well in India as in Europe." ft. That the court of directors fhould, in future, be elected for four years; fix members annually; but none to hold their feats longer than four years. zd. That no perfon fhould vote at the election of the directors who had not poffeffed their stock twelve months. 3d. That the stock of qualification, fhould, instead of fool. be 1000l. 4th. That the mayor's court of Calcutta, fhould

for the future be confined to fmall mercantile caufes, to which only its jurifdiction extended before the territorial acquifition. 5th. That in lieu of this court, thus taken away, a new one be eftablished, confifting of a chief justice and three puifne judges. 6th. That thefe judges be appointed by the crown. 7th. That a fuperiority be given to the prefidency of Bengal, over the other prefidencies in India.

Some of thefe propofitions were fupported upon the following principles, That in the prefent ftate of the Company, the gentlemen in the direction were fo difconcerted by the fhortness of their turn, and their time fo much taken up by caballing for their re-election, that they had neither leifure to form, nor time to execute, any permanent fyftem of general advantage. That the term of 6 months was too fhort

vote.

for a qualification to vote, as it did not preclude temporary purchafes of ftock, merely for that purpose; and that the prefent qualification of 500l. capital ftock, was not a fufficient intereft in the Company, to entitle the holder to a That the contraction of powers in the mayor's court at Calcutta, was only reducing its jurifdiétion within that narrow circle, to which it had been originally confined; that it was a court compofed of merchants and traders, and therefore evidently improper and incompetent, to the trial of thofe many great, momentous, and complicated matters, which must now come before it; that for thefe reasons, the erection of a new judicature was abfolutely neceffary; and that the judges ought evidently to be appointed by the crown, not only

as

as a matter of propriety, but to give a due weight and confequence to their decifions. That the granting a fuperiority to one prefidency over the reft, was alfo abfolutely neceffary, as their being furnished with equal and feparate powers, in matters that related to war, peace, and alliance, had frequently been productive of great diforder, confufion, and contradiction; and that the propofed fuperiority, only related to general affairs, and did not at all interfere with internal regulation.

It was alfo thrown out, that other regulations would be neceffary, particularly that the Company should immediately communicate their advices from Bengal, to the treasury, or fecretaries of itate; and that the Company's fervants fhould under heavy penalties, bring all their fortunes home in the Company's fhips. 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 conftant attention in the controuling and legislative power, would at all times be neceffary.

As this bill excited a very general alarm, not only with respect to the Company, but thofe who confidered it merely, as dangerous in its tendency with regard to the conftitution, it was vigorously combated in every part of its progrefs; every queftion, every claufe, and every addition, was productive

of a warm debate, and of a divifion.

Every queftion was, however, carried by a great majority. In the mean time, the Eaft-India Company, the City of London, and thofe proprietors who poffeffed votes, by holding 5001. ftock, but being under a thousand, were now to be deprived of their franchises, and who amounted to above 1200 in number, prefented feparate, and unufually ftrong petitions against the bill. Counfel were alfo heard in behalf of the Company, and of the 500l. ftockholders.

Upon the first divifion on the qualification claufe, whether it fhould be fixed at 1000l. ftock, the queftion 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 propofed and rejected, it was at length put, whether the right of nominating the governor and council, fhould be vested in the crown, or in the Company, and was carried by 161 in favour of the former, to 60 who oppofed. By this determination, the immediate appointment was vefted 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 ftill greater majority, the numbers being 103 to 18 only. The falaries of the judges were fixed, at 8000 1. to the chief juftice, and 6000l. 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.

5

Other

Other queflions were carried in the fame manner as to numbers, though all were ftrenuously debated. Upon the prefenting of the petition, and the hearing of counfel, in behalf of the 500l. ftockholders, the following refolution was moved, "That it does not appear to this Houfe, that the proprietors of 500l. capital ftock, in the united company of merchants of England, trading to the EaftIndies, have been guilty of any delinquency in the exercife of their charter rights, according to the feveral acts of parliament made in that behalf." This motion caufed long and warm debates, in which the rights of the petitioners were ably pleaded, and the alleged injuftice of the enacting clause, and the violent injury to their property, ftrongly reprefented. Upon a divifion, the motion was rejected, by 123 to 43.

At length, after more than a month's continual agitation in the Houfe of Commons, and finally concluded by long and eager debates in a late houfe, this bill, which had attracted the attention of all orders of people, June 10th. was paffed by a majority of more than fix to one, the numbers being 131 to 21 only. It was oppofed in its progrefs (befides those we have already mentioned) by a petition in behalf of thofe, who were poffeffed of property in the Eaft-Indies, who reprefented, that every kind of transaction, either by remittance or otherwife, with foreign companies, or foreigners fettled at Bengal, being prohibited by the bill, their property would be virtually confiicat ed; and ftrongly claimed the exercife of that right, which every Bri

tifh fubject 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 lefs warm reception in the Houfe of Lords, than the ordeal which it had already undergone in that of the Commons; it was however fupported and carried through, by a power equally efficacious. Upon the bringing it up, the noble duke whom we have before obferved to have conducted the oppofition to the fupervision bill, moved for a conference with the Commons, upon the fubject-matter of the prefent bill. This motion was ftrongly oppofed, as an unneceffary application, and leading to a tedious and troublefome delay, at this unfeasonable time of the year; the motion was accordingly rejected upon a divifion, by a majority of 39 to 12 lords who fupported it.

The fame nobleman made a motion, that a meffage should be fent, for a communication of the reports of the feveral committees, that had been appointed to make an enquiry into the affairs of the Eaft-India Company, together with a list of the witneffes that had been examined, and of all the papers that had been produced before the House of Commons, with copies of their refolutions, and all the other evidences, facts, and matters, which they had proceeded upon, as a ground for paffing the bill. This motion was oppofed upon the fame principle as the former, and upon a divifion rejected by nearly the fame majority. This refufal of the means of information, was not paffed without much debate and animadverfion, and was the foun. dation of a particular proteft, in

which it is feverely complained of, and their prefent conduct ftrongly contrafted with that practifed upon former occafions, particularly in the year 1720, when the Lords had a conference with the Commons, which lafted the greater part of the month of July; but by this mode, it fays, the Commons have it in their power to preclude that Houfe from the exercife of its deliberative capacity; they have nothing more to do, than to keep bufinefs of importance until the fummer is advanced, and then the delay in one houfe is to be affigned as a fufficient ground for a precipitate acquief cence in the other. It was indeed, generally thought, not very decent for the Houfe of Lords to proceed without any regular parliamentary information whatever, upon matters which the Houfe of Commons had examined fo much in detail.

Upon the fecond reading of the bill, a petition was received from the Eaft-India Company, and counfel heard against it; after which, and many debates, the queftion was put upon the firft enacting claufe, with refpect to the alteration in the directorship, when upon a divifion it was carried, to ftand part of the bill,'by 51 to 16; and the qualification claufe was carried on a following divifion, by nearly the fame number. On the third reading, the bill June 19th. 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 proteft, figned by 13 lords.

Many of the arguments oppofed to this bill, were neceffarily upon the fame ground, with thofe which

we have ftated upon other occafions; the charges of violation of public faith, private property, and chartered rights, have already been fo often recited in the affairs of the Company, that a repetition of them, except where they vary in their circumftances from former cafes, would be needlefs. The throwing of fo immense a power and influence into the hands of the crown, was reprefented as totally fubverfive of the conftitution, and made a caufe of great and principal objection. The disfranchifing of 1246 freemen of the Company, without a charge or pretence of delinquency, was exclaimed against as an act of the most violent oppreffion, and crying injuftice; it was obferved that thofe proprietors of 500l. ftock, 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 affigned as the caufe for ftripping 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 vefted in perfons, who were neither appointed nor removable by them, thereby cutting them off from all means of controul, from the redreffing of grievances, and the applying of a remedy to evils, in their own affairs, was represented as the moft glaring abfurdity, and unaccountable folecifm in politics, that ever had entered the mind of man; that this ufurpation of right in the appointment of the Company's fervants, being loaded with the compulsory payment of large

falaries,