quoted the authorities of lord Clive, general Lawrence, general Carnac, general Caillaud, fir John Clavering, and fir Eyre Coote, who all of them agreed in fupport of thefe affertions. He alluded to a tranfiction in the year 1785, when the court of directors had propofed an higher establishment, and the board of control had at first rejected the propofal, deeming the existing army amply fufficient for our defence But for what purpofe had the neceffity of the meafure been alledged? If it proved any thing, the argument muft ftand thus: it is neceffary to day to fend four regiments to India at the company's expence; ergo, it was lawful yefterday. The very word neceffity ought to put parliament upon their guard. It was not only unconnected, but incompatible with legality. He, who knew that he had the law on his fide, had nothing to answer for but the proper fe and application of a legal power. Their own argument convicted them; it was falfhood in diftrefs, that took refuge in abfurdity. Suppofe the meafure to be perfectly proper and expedient, what then? If the feafon preffed, let it be done without a law: if not, let them propofe an enacting bill, and take the power they wanted. By that courfe the end would be fully anfwered, without reducing parliament to the fhame and dishonour of afferting a notorious falihood in the face of mankind. But, it seemed, that expedient would not be accepted. The minifter for India must have a law with a retrospect of four years. His cafe, Mr. Francis took it for granted, required it. He muft provide himfelf with a fhelter for offences committed in that period; he muft fecure a fraudulent indemnity for crimes and mifdem anours yet un-i difcovered. Let then be brought

to light when they might, this declaratory bill would ferve for his protection. Mr. Francis defied Mr. Dundas to ftate a rational motive except this, for his preferring a declaratory to an enacting bill upon the prefent occafion. He added, that he was of opinion, that patronage was not the principal object in the propofed measure; the increase of military power was at the bottom. of it. Looking forward to the expiration of the company's charter, and the queftions that would arise out of that event, it was intended to ftraiten and confine the freedom of that great parliamentary deliberation, to anticipate the question, and to fetter the legislature by executive meatures, which at a future period could not fafely be retracted.

Mr. Baring exerted himself to fhow, that the meaning, now endea◄ voured to be fixed upon the act of 1784, had very lately been conceived by its prefent patrons. He produced a minute of the court of directors, remarking upon a particular power, which, if granted to the board of control, they declared would amount to an invafion of their rights. In confequence of a remonftrance from them, the claufe had been left out of the act. He alluded to another paper dated in the year 1786, in which, as he faid, the board had exprefsly declared, that they had no power to fend out any of the king's troops to India, without the confent of the court of directors. The arguments of Mr. Baring were feconded and inforced with farther inftances by Mr. Nathaniel' Smith, late chairman of the East India company,

The bill was vindicated upon general principles by major Scott, Mr.. Rolle, Mr. Young, Mr. Hardinge, and Mr. Grenville. Mr. Sheridan movedaclaufeupon the third reading, to limit the duration of the board of

control

control to the period of the prefent tharter. He obferved, that the Eaft India company would then be in poffeffion of a confiderable private eftate, over which government could pretend to no fuperintendence. The iland of Bombay was their property, by virtue of a grant from the crown. Various lands in the neighbourhood of Calcutta they derived from fimilar grants of the native princes of India. The annual revenue of their Madras estate was computed at 90,000l. per annum. Mr. Pitt objected to the claufe. He alledged, that it would be highly improper for the houfe prematurely and unneceffarily to enter upon the difcuffion of a queftion, which muft come regularly before them when the company's charter expired; unlefs it fliould be thought advifable, which was at prefent extremely un certain, to grant them a new char

ter.

The bill was carried up to the houfe of lords on the fourteenth of March, read a first time on the following day, which was Saturday, and proposed for a fecond reading on the ensuing Monday. This precipitation was made the fubject of a petition, offered by certain proprietors, and prefented to the houf by the duke of Norfolk, in which they, requested a delay of three days, till a general meeting could be held of the proprietors of the Eaft India company. To this fuggeftion it was obiected by lord Thurlow and lord Hawkesbury, that the fhips of the East India company were now detained in port at the enormous expence of three or four hundred pounds per diem. By lord Stormont and ford Loughborough it was replied, that no expence, however "great, ought to weigh in the confideration of the prefent queftion. The bill decided upon á matter of private

right, and parliament could not juftly refufe to hear the petitioners. The houfe divided upon the queftion, contents 32, not contents -5. A motion of lord Porchefter was rejected by a fimilar majority, for refering a queftion to the twelve judges, refpting the true meaning and intent of the act of 1784.

The duke of Richmond faid, that he was peculiarly circumftans ced on the prefent occafion, fince he had never been pleafed with any of the bills for the government of India, that had yet been brought into parliament. He had ever been of opinion, that the concerns of the Eaft were trufted in the beft hands, when they were vested in the company itflf. He had oppofed the bill of 1783, because it fagrantly violated the charter of the company, and placed an immenfe power in the hands of a commillion, that was not refponfible, fo far as he could find, either to the king or the parliament. He had oppofed the act of 1784, because it gave to the crown an enormous ad-. dition of power. But he could not admit, that that act was in any degree fo violent and defpotical, as the bill which preceded it. The declaratory meature now under confider-" ation muft neceffarily have his complete approbation. It confifted of two diffint parts; its expofition of the act of 74, and certain enacting claufes, containing checks and reftraints upon the extenfive patronage, that the government of the Eat naturally gave. To the tofmer part he muft inevitably agree. That the act of 184 gave to the board of control". complete authority, had always been his opinion. For that reafon he had oppofed it: but, entertaining that opinion, he muft juftify the present bill, which in his mind was a true declaration of the fact. He could

not

not but equally approve of the reftraints that were propofed upon the exercife of patronage. Patronage was infeparable from power. But, when he faw the induftry, with which it was limited, and minifters were tied down from the abuse of it; when he saw, that it was not to be ufed otherwife than for the good of the fervice, he could not view the prefent measure with the fame jealoufy, with which he was accustomed to regard propofitions for extending the power of the crown.

Lord Stormont argued at large against the bill, and, among other circumftances, remarked, that, at the time of the late alarm refpecting Holland, there were in India four Dutch hips of the line and fome French frigates, while we had not a fhip of war in that country; fo that, if an enemy had thought proper, all the trade of India might have been captured as it came out of the mouth of the Ganges. Lord Sandwich inforced the remark of lord Stor

mont.

Lord Loughborough argued ftrongly against the prefent being a true interpretation of the act of 1784. He obferved, that that act had been fubmitted, according to the prevailing principles of the times, to the court of directors for their approbation, before it paffed into a law. The bill then contained a claufe, impowering the board of control to originate dispatches whenever they thought proper. The directors took alarm at this; and, confidering it as a total affumption of their rights, protefted against it. The clause was accordingly given up, and was withdrawn in the committee. He remarked upon an argument of lord Camden, who had faid, that the control of the civil and military government would be nothing, unless it were accompanied with the difpofal

of the revenues. This was plaufible doctrine, and might be well understood in France and other defpotic countries; but in Great Britain the conftitution had ordered it otherwise, and the executive power was not fuffered to direct the public purfe. Lord Loughborough enlarged upon the diftinction between declaratory laws, paffed with a view to afcertain advantages to the fubject, and fuch as were made with a view to authorife their fubjection and reftraint. The latter were always odious, and were regarded as the instruments of tyranny; the former were considered with reverence, with gratitude and admiration. Of this defcription was the bill of rights; a bill recognising the legal claims of the fubject, in oppofition to the extenfion of prerogative and the incroachments of arbitrary power.

Lord Loughborough adverted to a fact which had been stated by lord Sydney. It appeared to be intended, that three of the regiments only fhould be fent out for the prefent, and that the fourth fhould remain in England to recruit. Could that house hear without emotion, that it was intended to maintain at home in this country a regiment, not voted by parliament, and not paid from our parliamentary revenues, but from the revenues of India? Would minifters dare to keep up a corps not mentioned in the mutiny bill? Would they dare to billet upon Bri tifh fubjects, foldiers, that were not ameniable to martial law? If all the valuable principles of the conftitution were not meant to be destroyed at once, if the maxims of the revolution were not antiquated and obfolete, he advised minifters to bring in a bill of indemnity without delay; or, if they chose rather to follow their own precedent, to pass another declaratory bill, explanatory of the fta

tutes

utes, which had hitherto been regarded as the palladium of our liberties. The marquis of Lanfdown appeared upon the fame fide of the queftion. He was fatisfied, that the bill now under difcuffion did not contain the genuine sense of the act of 1784. He rested, as a negative proof, upon the records of the company; he refted upon the evidence of Mr. Pulteney, a lawyer, a man of property, a member of parliament, who was a witnefs, as might be feen in his celebrated pamphlet of that period, of the difagreement between the present measure, and the act it pretended to explain. It was impoffible, that the word revenue, according to the opinion that had been given by Mr. Scot, could have been omitted in the contefted clause from a mere overfight. The prefent bill was a bad one, on whatever fide he regarded it. It had a bad military principle: the policy of having many officers and few men was exploded throughout Europe. It was bad, if it were confidered in an economical point of view. It was unjuft to the company's military officers, and the worst confequence upon that account was to be apprehended from it. Lord Lanfdown ridiculed the diftribution, that had been made by Mr. Pitt, of the duties of the board of control. By that diftribution, we were first to be generous, providing for the happiness of the natives: fecondly, to be political, looking to the defence of the territories. Juftice, the payment of the debts of the company, came behind thefe: commerce, the main concern of the body, whofe interefts we conducted, was last of all. Upon the whole he could regard the bill in no other light, than a base violation of the rights and privileges of the Eaft India company.

The marquis entered into a comparison of Mr. Fox's bill, and the act

of 1784, as it was now explained. That houfe did not fuffer the former to go into a committee, because it was inexpedient in its principle; and yet Mr. Pitt's at was now maintained to have the fame principle. The bill of 1783 was a bill of experiment, was limited to a term of four years, and would by this time have expired; the act of Mr. Pitt was unlimited and perpetual. As to the king's not appointing or removing the commiffioners at pleasure, this could not be a ferious objection to Mr. Fox's bill with those, who had complained fo lately and fo loudly of the influence of the crown. If the patronage of India were capable of creating a fourth eftate and overturning the constitution, how much more danger was to be apprehended from it, when it was vefted in that branch of the legislature which had fo great power already? Mr. Fox's bill was better than Mr. Pitt's, becaufe it extended the fuperintendence, not only to the civil and military government and to the revenues, but to the commerce, which was capable of fo great improvement.

Lord Lanfdown condemned the prefent measure, because it haftily decided fundamental queftions, which in feven preceding acts of parliament had purposely been left vague and indetermined. When he was fecretary of state in 1767, these subjects had been much difcuffed, but were deemed too important to be rapidly and fuddenly decided. At that time there was no proposal, that did not include a compenfation and reward to the company, and place it as a middle body between this country and foreigners, both in a commercial and political view. It was a pleasing reflection to him, that, at the conclufion of the late peace, he and his colleagues in office had laid down their plan for the conduct of Indian

affairs.

affairs It had been defigned to fuffer the patronage to remain in the hands of the company; but to control them fo far, as to divert their attention, from idle fchemes of conqueft and extenfion of territory, to the more folid and beneficial purfuits of commerce; and he did not think it too much to affert, that the trade might in a few years have been increafed to ten times its prefent extent. Lord Lanfdown faid, that Any conjectures had been formed refpecting the caufe of the American war; but he was old enough to remember, that it had been the policy of the crown to keep the colonifts out of the hands of parliament, till it had become unable to cope with the fpirit of liberty that prevailed among them. Then was introduced the unfortunate idea of a parliamentary participation, and in the attempt the legiflature changed its nature, acting upon principles monarchical, not democratic; executive, not originating. Happily for the conftitution at leaft we had left America, as parliament could not have adminiftered it, and it muft have destroyed all balance in the government. India was precifely in the fituation, in which America would have been, had he been reduced to unconditional fubmiffion; and the futility of parliamentary checks could not be more clearly expofed, than in what had paffed in the laft feflion but two, when the papers had been refufed that related to the debts to the nabob of Arcot.

The bill was farther oppofed by lord Rawdon and lord Grantley, and a proteft was entered, figned by fixteen peers, all of them in the connetion in the duke of Portland. In this paper among other objections it was remarked, that the declaratory bill was friendly to corrupt in trigue and cabal, hoftile to all good

5

government, and particularly abhorrent to the principles of our popular conftitution. The patronage of the company was enjoyed by the commiffioners in the worst of all posfible forms, and without that refponfibility which was the natural fecurity againft malverfation and abuse. They could not immediately appoint, but they had that weight of recommendation and influence, which muft ever attend upon fubftantial power, and which in the prefent cafe had not been attempted to be denied.

The debate occafioned by Mr. Dundas's annual exhibition of the revenues of India, which took place on the twenty-third of May, was in feveral particulars a repetition of what had paffed upon the fubject in the preceding feffion. He stated the furplus of the revenues of Bengal at 2,250,000l.; the furplus of the revenues of Madras at 3,0cl.; and the deficiency of the revenues of Bombay at 300,000l. He was fatisfied, that this mode of eftimating was not too fanguine, because it fell fhort of the atual amount of the revenues in 1782-3,178 3-4 and 1781-5, being the three last years of which the effective amounts had been tranfmitted home. He accounted for the favourable fituation of Madras by obferving, that a new treaty had been made with the nabob of Arcot, by which he had agreed to increase his fubfidy. The debt in India had been stated last year at nine millions; it ought to be taken at a million more. That the debt of Bengal appeared larger, was owing to the mode in which it fupplied the other prefidencies, by the tranfmiffion of paper, fo that the debts of Madras and Bombay were converted into demands upon Calcutta. Mr. Dundas entered into an eulogium of the method that was adopted, of removing the debts into this coun

try,