4thly. Because if any fuch limitations and reftraints be indeed neceffary, the provifions of this bill, we are perfuaded, must prove nugatory and inefficient.

5thly. Becaufe coupling the act of the 24th of his Majefty with all its accumulated explanations and amendments, and understanding the powers there conferred on the Commiffioners to the extent implied in the preamble and limiting claufes of the prefent bill, the fyftem established by that act, in truth realizes all the dangers which were ever attributed to another measure then recently rejected by this Houfe, and is certainly fruitful of formidable mifchiefs proper to itfelf, friendly to corrupt intrigue and cabal, hoftile to all good-government, and especially abhorrent from the principles of our popular conftitution.

The patronage of the Company (and this feems to be the most serious terror to the people of England) the Commiffioners en. joy in the worst mode, without that refponfibility, which is the natural fecurity against malverfation and abufe. They cannot immediately appoint, but they have that weight of recommendation and influence, which muft ever inseparably attend on fubftantial power, and which in the prefent cafe has not any where been attempted to be denied.

Should this fail them in the first inftance, they can intimidate and encourage; they can fupprefs the approbation and the cenfure of the Directors on their own fervants; they can fubftitute blame for praife, and praife for blame, or they may inftantly recall whomfoever the Directors may appoint against their will; and this they may repeat, till they ultimately compel the Directors, harraffed and over-awed, to nominate the man whom the Commiffioners may wish to favour, Nor is this difpofal of patronage without refponfibility, the only evil that characterizes the fyftem; all the high powers and prerogatives with which the Commiffioners are vefted, they may exercife invifibly, and thus for a period at least invade, perhaps in a great meature finally baffle all political refponfibility; for they have a power of adminiftring to their Clerks and other Officers an oath of fecrecy framed for the occafion by themfelves; and they poffefs in the India Houfe the fufpicious inftrument of a Secret Committee, confifting only of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and one other Director, all bound to them by an oath.Thro' thefe they have fent an arrangement for paying the debts of the Nahub of Arcot, beneficial to individuals, injurious to the Company, and fundamentally contradicting the Flam principle of an exprefs claufe in that very Act by which their own Board was in

ftituted; and through these they have concurred to tranfmit a difpatch, altered too by themfelves, on a subject of mere trade, over which they profefs to difclaim all right of management. After fuch examples we must confefs, that our imaginations cannot figure to us any defcription of business, which may not be sheltered behind the thick veil of the Secret Committee; and from our past experience relative to the first of these transactions, we are so justly fenfible of the great advantages with which the fervants of the Crown mult argue on fuch topics before an affembly conftitutionally difpofed to a general confidence in them, that we should be fanguine indeed, did we but expect any confiderable check to be given to the poffible misconduct of the Board of Controul, by the fears of a Parliamentary enquiry.

6thly. Because the operation of this bill, and of the act, the meaning of which it was to declare, ought to have been limited to the duration of the exifting charter. Whatever may be the right of the Legislature to subject the trade and the general revenues of the Company to the infpection and controul of a Board of Commiffioners, nominated by the Crown, fo long as the Company continue in the enjoyment of an exclufive trade, and in the management of great territorial revenues; we muft, however, maintain, that to perpetuate fuch infpection, and to render the fignatures of that Board neceffary to all the Company's difpatches of every kind, when they may carry on their trade merely as a commercial corporation, without any monopoly, and when they may remain in the management only of their own proper eftates, is a measure of injustice whol ly unprecedented, and an example liable to much reasonable jealousy in a commercial country like Great Britain.

On all thefe grounds of objection to the file and form of the Bill, as a Declaratory Bill; to the incongruities, abfurdities, and deficioncies of the Bill itfelf; to much of the principle, and to all the diftinguishing characters of the fyftem which it is meant to declare, as well as to the perpetual operation which it gives to that fyftem, we think it incumbent upon us, here folemnly on the Journals of Parliament, to record our hearty diffent for the fatisfaction of our confciences, and for our juftification to our fellow-citizens, and to pofterity. Portland, Carlife, Went. Fitzwilliam, Ciaven, Sandwich, Portchester, Derby, Devonshire,

Cholmondeley, Powis,

Cardiff,

Bedford,

Loughborough,

Buckingham,

Hay (Earl of Kinnoul).

HOUSE

HOUSE

FEBRUARY 25.

OF

MR. PITT faid he had a motion to make

upon a fubject of fome importance, to which he begged gentlemen would give their attention.-It had been the unanimous opinion both of the Board of Controul and of the Court of Directors in October laft, that the fituation of affairs in India was fuch that a reinforcement of troops from Europe was abfolutely neceffary for the Company's fervice. Accordingly, with the full approbation of both fides, four regiments were raifed for that fervice; but now when they were ready to embark, the Court of Directors, under the pretence that the troops were no longer neceffary, refused to receive them on board their fhips.-Upon this point it might be asked, if the Crown had a right to fend troops to the British poffeffions in India neceffary for their protection, without the confent of the Company: but the right was fo obvious, that he would not attempt to prove it. Another queftion might be afked upon a point much more doubtful-Had the Crown a right to fend troops to India, and make the Company pay the expences of fending them over?-By an act paffed in 1781, the Company might refufe to pay any troops that were not employed in India at their own requifition; but it did not prevent the Crown from fending troops at its own expence. By the act of 1784, the authority and power of the Court of Directors in great political matters, and in the management of the Company's revenues, was transferred to the Board of Controul, which might, in his opinion, direct the appropriation of these revenues in the manner that to them fhould appear moft for the public advantage. upon this it feemed there were different legal opinions. To remove thefe doubts, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to afcertain what right the Board of Controul had acquired by the act of 1784 over the revenue of the British territories in India.

But

Mr. Baring oppofed the motion. He faid that if the bill paffed, it would effectually annihilate the Company, as not a veftige of power would be left with them. An alteration on the face of public affairs had fuperfeded the neceffity of fending out the new regiments; and if they went out, they would, like the other royal regiments in India, dwindle into skeletons.

The Secretary at War denied that the King's regiments in India were skeletons; by the laft returns, the deficiencies in them and not exceed 220 men.

Mr. Baring contended that the deficiencies amounted to 2400.

Mr. Fox accounted for this difference of opinion, by faying, that Government de

ducted from the actual deficiencies the number of troops on their way to India, without making any allowance for the probable diminutions that the climate would occafion.

Mr. Dundas maintained that the Board of Controul had a right to manage the Company's revenues; but at the fame time had the refponfibility for fo doing.

Colonel Barre confidered the whole as a mere question of patronage, viz. who should have the nomination of the officers in thefe regiments, the Crown or the Company.

Mr. Pitt's motion was then carried without a divifion.

The hearing of evidence on the charges was put off till Wednesday, and the Houfe adjourned.

FEB. 27.

This day witneffes were to have been examined in a Committee of the whole House on the illicit exportation of wool, but Mr. Pitt obferved that the time of the Houfe was now fo very precious, that it would be expedient not to have it confumed in doing that which could be as well done by a private Committee above stairs. In confequence of this obfervation, the order of the day was difcharged, and another order made for referring the bufinefs to a Select Committee.

The Houfe then went into a Committee on the charges against Sir Elijah Impey——— when

Mr. Francis obferved, that as Sir Elijah Impey, in the courfe of his defence, had thought proper to bring a charge against him, he hoped the Committee would indulge him with a hearing to refute that charge. It had been his determination, he said, not to have taken any part in the profecution of Sir Elijah, as he could not fay any thing that was good of him; but that gentleman had driven him to the ftep he was going to take, by turning part of his defence into an accufation against him. The drift of his charge was this, that Sir Elijah was now accufed of having ftretched the law, for the purpose of taking away the life of Nunducomar; but that when a fimilar charge was made by Nunducomar himself, in a petition to General Clavering, two days before his execution, fuch charge was deemed by Mr. Francis and the Council to be fo fcandalous a libel upon the Judges who had fat in judgment upon Nunducomar, that he (Mr. Francis) moved

Eez

moved that the petition which contained it, fhould be burnt by the hands of the common hangman. Mr. Francis obferved, that before he fhould proceed to comment upon this recrimination brought by Sir Elijah, he would take notice by the way, that the Council had ordered the petition, the tray flation, and all the records to be burnt, fo that no trace of it might remain; yet it now feemed from the paper produced by Sir Elijah, that a copy of it had been preserved and corrected by Mr. Haftings, in contempt of the orders and intention of the Supreme Council.

Another obfervation he should make was, that Sir Elijah had faid he was ignorant of the charges brought againft him by Nunducomar: this would appear to the Committee to be a downright falfhood, as Mr. Haftings had not only communicated to him the contents of the petition, but had actually furnifhed him with a copy, contrary to the facred obligation of his oath; for every member of the Council, and the clerks attending, were obliged to take an oath, not to divulge the proceedings of the Council. Now Sir Elijah could not have known, that any petition from Nunducomar, containing charges against the Judges, had been laid before the Council, if the oath had been kept facred; but he received fufficient information of what was going forward at the Board, for he caufed a requifition to be delivered to it, defiring that a copy of the charges might be delivered to the Judges. It was clear then, that when Sir Elijah afferted that he was ignorant of the charges brought against him by Nunducomar, he had afferted what was not founded in truth.

Having premifed thus much, Mr. Francis proceeded to defend himfelf from inconfiftency in now making that a matter of criminal charge against Sir Elijah Impey, which when he was in Bengal he had prenounced to be fo grofs a libel, that he caufed the papers which contained the charge to be burnt. The truth was, that he conceived the charge to have been a libel, for it was made against all the Judges, though Sir Elijah alone was fufpected. Mr. Le Maitre indeed was known to be entirely under the influence of Sir Elijah; but the other two Judges, Hyde and Chambers, stood high in the opinion of the public for integrity, however they might have been drawn in through an error in jedrmen'.

Mr. Francis then procceded to read paffages from the Minutes of the Council, now before Parliament, to fhew that the opinion he entertained and stated now, were the fan e he had delivered in Bengal.

He confeffed alfo, that when he moved that Nunducomar's petition fhould be burnt, he acted with a view to the perfonal fafety of General Clavering, who having delivered the petition to the Council after he had got it tranflated, might have been deemed to have published it.

.

Mr. Francis having fat down,

Sir Gilbert Elliot gave notice, that as what had fallen from Mr. Francis was material, he would on a future day fubftantiate it by evi dence.

The Committee then proceeded to examine witnelles on the charges against Sir Elijah Impey, after which they adjourned. MARCH 3.

The order of the day was read for the fecond reading of the bill introduced by the Minifter for explaining the power of the Board of Controul, relative to the appropri ation of India revenue in the defence of that territory. The bill was accordingly read, and Counfel called to the bar in behalf of the India Company against the faid bill.

Mr. Erskine, as leading Counfel, then entered upon a ípeech of as great exertion and happy execution as we have ever wineffed. After the proemium, in which he claimed the attention of the Houfe, from the magnitude of the fubject, and deprecated his own deficiencies, he entered into an historical narrative of the different charters granted at different times to the India Company, from its first institution in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, down to the present year.

Through this feries of years, and progref fion of charters, he traced the gradual growth, and repeated confirmation, not of royalty, but of territorial poffeffions, and whichthey claimed in common with other subjects of the empire. Having purfued the chain of charters down to the year 1781, he then took a fummary view of the rights of the Company, as they then flood abrogated or confirmed by the act of that year. He next examined the act of 1784, how far in the eftablishment of a power before unknown it isfringed on the powers and rights of the Company, and how far it left them in the partia! poflerion of their former franchifes. thefe franchifes, be contended they were in the full poffeffion of all that were not specifically deprived by that act; and in that act he maintained there was not a fyllable which went to deprive them of the free and unlimited difpofition of the revenues as regulated under former acts. From the facts laid down, and by an infinite variety of ingenious arguments, Mr. Erikine laid it down, that neither by the jarring opinions of Judges, nor by the

Of

ambi

ambiguous wording of the act itself, (upon which two grounds alone, he afferted, a declaratory act could be introduced) the propriety of terming the prefent a Declaratory Bill could be maintained. Many different grounds and much political difquifition fell from the honourable Speaker. After Mr. Erskine had been about three hours fpeaking, he was taken ill and obliged to withdraw, when his fellow-labourer, Mr. Roufe, took up the fubject, and nearly followed in the fteps of his predeceffor.

Mr. Erfkine, however, finding himself fufficiently recovered, again refumed his charge, and went through what he defigned in defence of the India Company, though fo much exhaufted, as to be hardly audible during the latter part of his speech.

Mr. Erskine having finally concluded, the Speaker called on the Counfel to explain what evidence they meant to produce in fupport of their allegations; and upon Mr. Roufe ftating they meant to produce certain papers containing an account of the tranfactions which had taken place between the Board of Controul and the Court of Directors, relative to the payment of the King's troops in India, a debate, perfectly uninteresting in the detail, arose merely upon the queftion Whether it was more proper that thofe papers thould be moved for by fome member in his place, or that they he admitted as evidence against a Declaratory Law contrary to form? This question produced a divifion; when there appeared against their being adduced in evidence, Noes 242; Ayes 118.

Mr. Fox argued againtt further proceed. ings in the bill before an explanation had taken place on the part of his Majesty's Minifters in refpect to the principles and particulars of the bill. This was in fome refpect agreed to by Mr. Pitt, who moved the commitment of the bill for Wednesday next, which, after fome oppofition, was agreed to. This important bußine's being thus difpofed of for the prefent, a converfation took place between Lord Mulgrave, Sir Matthew Ridley, and others, about the further bearing in the coalheavers bil, which alfo produced a divifion upon deferring it from this day Monday, or for fix weeks, till the Judges were returned from their circuits. For deferring it, Ayes 28-Noes 20.

Adjourned.

MARCH 4.

to

he contended was not a fubftantive one, but belonged to the one immediately before it which was its preamble, and admitted of the rights of the Copany over their own affairs. He argued, that when the Act of the 24th of his Majefty was fift brought forward, Minifters had not thought proper to put that construction upon it which then they did. The Bill of his Hon Friend (Mr. Fox) had been rejected as going to the destruction of the India Company, but the prefen: Bit went to the fame purpose; and should the powers contended for by the Board of Controul be carried, the power of the Company and their compact would be totally annihigated. It was a dangerous principle, he contended, for Declaratory Bills to be admitted on fuch conditions, and improper for the Legature to acquiefce in them.

Mr. Countellor Scott faid, the only queftions for the Houfe to decide upon were, whether the Bill before them contained the found expofition of the 24th of his Majefty; and, fecondly, whether the Houfe was not under the prefent circumstances bound in duty, and juftified in paffing fuch Declaratory Law. He agreed with thofe Gentlemen, who not agreeing to the expofition, meant to vote against the Bill; but he would fay to them, that unless they bring in a Declaratory Bill according to their judgment of the Act, or come forward to repeal the Act, they neglect their duty.-If the expofition contained the true principles of the Bill, the expofition ought to be paffed, however the Act might be obtained. He begged the

House

Houfe to confider him, not as meddling with the policy of the Act of the 21ft or 24th of his Majefty's reign, but contending for the public to be acquainted with the actual meaning of the Act. He quoted feveral law books to prove, that it was fit for Declaratory Laws to be made whenever any law caufed a clashing of judicial opinions.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid he rofe not to detain the Houfe long on a question which he conceived to lie within very narrow bounds, and which had been explained by his honourable and learned friend. There was no neceflity, he faid, for him to have flood fo forward in the debate, nor fhould he, had he not been called on at the clofe of a debate of a former day, to state the reasons of bringing forward the prefent bill. He flood forward to throw every light that could poffibly be thrown, for the purpose of obLaining the fulleft, the most ample difcuf fion. He fully agreed with his learned friend, that the two principal questions before the Houfe were, firft, Whether a neceffity exifted for an expounding of the Act of the 24th of his Majefty? and, fecondly, Whether the bill then before the Houfe did truly expound the Act? The arguments of his honourable and learned friend were, on thofe queftions, in his opin, true and conclufive. With refpect to the power of the Board of Controul to fend the regiments to India, would any Gentlemen contend that that power thould remain undecided, until perhaps, the moft material mifchiefs might be occafioned thereby? He was confident no one would but fhould fuch contention be held forth, it would be too palpable to need refutation. Mr. Pitt then entered into a long difcuffion of the nature and tendency of the bill, with a comparison between it and that of Mr. Fox. Mr. Pitt concluded by obferving, that had a majority of the Directors made a requifition for any number of troops, and had fuch requifition been acquiefced with, nothing of danger to the conftitution would have been hinted, though it must have exifted as formidably as if thofe troops were fent without their requifition.The troops being propofed to be fent, had caufed a clamour to be raised, had caufed infinuations to be spread abroad that the conftitution was likely to be thocked; and thofe times, not long fince paft, were brought back to remembrance. It had been faid, that by the late measure, men grown old in the Company's fervice had been moft fhamefully ill-treated, and that they had been fuperfeded by junior officers. There was no man more difpofed than himself, and mea

fures would be taken to relieve those officers from the hardships they laboured under.

Colonel Barre reprefented Mr. Pitt's India bill as equally violent with that of Mr. Fox. But with regard to the former act, it was, perhaps, fuppofed from the temper of the administration, that the execution of it would be milder. He then reprobated the Declaratory Bill, as contributing to the annihilation of the chartered rights of the Company He spoke at fome length on this topic, and concluded with expreffing his diffent to the queftion.

Colonel Fullarton oppofed the bill, on grounds fimilar to thofe adopted by Colonel Barre.

Mr. Dundas was on his legs above three hours.

Mr. Baftard and Mr. Pulteney both deelared they would vote against the Minister, and lamented that he had been fo mifgu.ded as to bring in a bill utterly fubverfive of the principles on which he had come into adminiftration.

Mr. Fox made a very fine fpeech, in which he compared his exploded bill and that now before the Houfe, with great effect.

Mr. Pitt complained, that bodily pain prevented his anfwering the arguments, but he would take a future opportunity of replying to them.

The Houfe then divided on the question of commitment, Ayes,-182-Noes,-125Majority-57.

It being then a quarter paft feven in the morning, the Houfe adjourned. MARCH 7.

Sir Gilbert Elliot moved, that the Committee on the Charges against Sir Elijah Impey be poftponed till Wednesday the 16th of April, which was agreed to.

In a Committee of the whole Houfe on the Declaratory Bill,