Mr. Grenville confirmed what the noble lord had said. He certainly considered himself as acting in a less elevated situation at that Board than his right hon. friend, but he held himself equally responsible for every act of the Board, and equally a sharer in the criminality of their proceed come forward and move an impeachment | been no difference of opinion between Mr. if the right hon. gentleman should take Dundas and himself. He had, agreeably such a step. The step they all knew had to the act of parliament, sworn to give his been taken, and it was equally well known advice and assistance. In conformity to that the learned gentleman had not moved that oath he had delivered his opinion, the impeachment.-Mr. Sheridan added and whenever he thought differently upon that as the learned gentleman and others any question that came before the Board, had spoken in terms of severity of his right and it had happened that after deliberating hon. friend's Bill, he had a right to contend upon matters, he had entertained different that they well knew it did not deserve sentiments respecting them when he en→ what they had said of it; or that if they tered the Board room, the superior assithought it did deserve what they said of it, duity and abilities of his right hon. friend, they had by their actions and their conduct enabled him to state such reasons as had contradicted their sentiments. He exmore than once convinced him of his plained this by asking whether, if the ma- having formed an erroneous opinion. jority of that House really thought his Their decision, therefore, had been unaniright hon. friend, himself, and all their mous, but he never had voted upon any friends, men of such principles as they other ground than conviction. ascribed to the authors and supporters of Mr. Fox's East India Bill, it was likely that they would since have entrusted them with the conduct and management of a cause, in which the glory of the nation, the honour of his Majesty, and the lustre of his Crown, the dignity of both Houses of Parliament, and the justice of the legis-ings, if any should appear. lature, were deeply interested? Would the House have honoured them with so extraordinary, so delicate, and so distinguished a mark of their confidence, if they had been enemies to the constitution, violaters of the law, and persons who held the private rights of individuals in indifference. The reverse must be the fact, and to assert otherwise would be to libel the House of Commons in the grossest manner. In that trust, his right hon. friend, and all who shared the trust with them, possessed the highest power, and the most dignified patronage; they had the power of retrieving the national character, and establishing, beyond all question, its title to be considered as the impartial dispenser of justice: they held the patronage of protecting the innocent, of punishing the guilty. An office of the highest honour had thus been bestowed on his right hon. friend, an office of a far different nature, and more congenial to his feelings, than that which had been bestowed on the right hon. gentleman opposite to him. To use influence and prostitute power was suitable to the temper of the one, as to do justice and avenge the injured, was suitable to the sentiments of the other. Long, therefore, might his right hon. friend continue so employed, a stranger to courts and all their vicious delusions! Lord Mulgrave declared, that there had $ Mr. Pitt said, that having, when called upon, attended with minuteness to the subjects before the Board, and given the best of his advice, he thought it necessary to declare, that if any censure was imputable to the commissioners, he was entitled to an equal share of it with the other members of the Board. Having said this, he declared there were two reasons that would induce him to give his negative to the amendment proposed. The one was, that the doubts, as expressed in the Bill, were grounded upon what he held to be the true construction of the Act of 1784, and against which many gentlemen had given their opinion; the other, that the amendment, declaring that the commissioners for the affairs of India were vested with all and singular the powers possessed by the Court of Directors, when the Bill of 1784 passed, did far exceed the construction of that Bill. The question on the Amendment was then put, and negatived. After which the House divided on the motion, "That the Bill be engrossed:" YEAS { Tellers. Mr. Rose Lord Maitland NOES {Mr. Grey } 210 } 122 So it was resolved in the affirmative. March 14 On the motion, That the struck out of the Bill in the Committee, Bill be now read a third time, and said, that if the power of appointing a commander in chief were given to the crown, they gave the King, circuitously, all the patronage of the army in India, which was a construction contrary to the intention of the House in passing the Act. The clause about sending out an establishment was both imperative and enabling. He read it to illustrate this point; and observed, that offices civil and military were constantly coupled together; and, he asked, if all measures respecting civil and military patronage must originate from the Court of Directors, how was it possible for the Board of Control to send out officers in either department? And yet they boasted of having sent out three major-generals. If the Board could send out military officers independant of the Court of Directors, they had it equally in their power to send out officers in the civil department, and the intention of parliament was to limit the establishment in India. If the Board of Directors could get rid of the civil and military revenues as they thought proper, the Bill gave the lie to its intention. It was fair in him to say, that in passing the Act of 1784, the legislature meant not to pass a dangerous act, and, therefore, he should agree to that construction which was not dangerous. By introducing clauses into the Declaratory Bill, to check and limit the exercise of the powers of the Board of Control, the right hon. gentleman had admitted that it was a dangerous construction which the Bill put upon the Act of 1784. The greatest establishment which had at any time been preserved in India, and which was justified by the best military opinions, did not exceed 10,000 European troops; but by this clause of limitation, it was provided that the Board of Control may send out any force not exceeding 20,000 Europeans; and this at a time when administration had always held out the idea that the forces in India were to be reduced, and when a clause had since the peace been inserted in the Mutiny Bill providing for the return of the regiments at present in India. But was that House, or was the public aware to what lengths they were carried by this concession? Did they know to what a drain they were subjected, when they acceded to such an establishment? Were they acquainted, that to keep up an European force of 20,000 men in the East Indies, would require an annual supply of not less than Mr. Anstruther said, that he had hitherto refrained from troubling the House with his sentiments on the Bill in question, because he wished to hear it through, and know the whole of it; but as it was now arrived at that stage, in which it might be reasonably conceived, that it was as perfect, as the mover of it meant to make it, he would deliver his opinion respecting its principle and its tendency. The Bill purported to be a bill declaratory of the construction of the Act of 1784. The construction of that Act must be taken from the Act itself. He therefore should endeavour to state it, from a fair examination of its obvious spirit and meaning, coupled with the clauses. He then proceeded to discuss the several clauses of the Bill of 1784. He began with clause 12, which was an imperative clause on the Court of Directors, obliging them to pay due obedience to such orders as the Board of Control should legally give. The Board derived from that clause no power of originating dispatches. That power they possessed in two cases only, as where the Directors should neglect to transmit their dispatches to the Board of Commissioners within fourteen days of the requisition made, and where, upon the representation of the Court of Directors, the Board should think proper to make any alteration. These powers were given under certain restrictions, stated in the originating clause; the only clause which enabled the Board of Control to originate and amend. If a set of men had power given them under certain circumstances, the clear and undeniable inference was, that they had not a power under other circumstances; for, what could be the use of limitations and restrictions, if that power was to be general? If it had been the intention, that the power of originating and amending should be general, it would not have been said that it was to be with limitations. The only possible way of setting up any thing like proof, that parliament had done it generally, would be, that it was done by a circuitous mode, which could not have been the meaning of the legislature when it passed the Bill. What they meant to do, they did directly. With regard to patronage, what he gathered from the Act was, that the patronage, civil and military, was to be exercised abroad, and not at home. He mentioned the clauses which had been 4000 men? and had they any reason for believing that the population of this country was enabled to support a drain of 4000 men annually, who were never to return, or, who, if they did revisit Europe, would come in a useless number, and with exhausted constitutions.-After dwelling some time on the distressed situation of the officers of the Company, when subjected to those under the King's commission, he entered into an historical discussion of the merits of the Board of Control. Their first merit, he observed, was their disobedience to the Act of Parliament, and the wish of the Company, by ordering the promiscuous payment of all the debts of the nabob of Arcot. The second was, the savings which they claimed to have made, but which, in fact, had been arranged by sir John Macpherson, long before their orders were arrived; and their last, great, and undisputed merit, was in the polemic disputations which they had maintained with the Court of Directors! He concluded with mentioning it as his opinion, that the present Bill should have been originated in the other House, where the opinions of the twelve Judges might have been had on the question, Whether the purview of the Bill of 1784 was consistent with the intent of the Declaratory Act, which was now before the House; and with declaring his dissent to the third reading of the Bill. Mr. Martin said, that he also had refrained from taking any part in the debate before; because he had wished to lay aside all the extraneous matter which had been mixed with the discussion of the Bill, and to make up his mind upon the real merits of the question, as it stood alone and unconnected with other matters. He had as yet given but one vote upon the subject, and the reason why he had not voted oftener was, the unconscionable length of time which the House had continued sitting. He heartily wished a standing order were made, that the House should not continue sitting beyond a certain hour. Such a rule would, in his opinion, be a common benefit to the House. If, by staying there and depriving himself of his natural rest, he could do his country an essential service, he would readily relinquish sleep; but, hereafter, unless he could be certain that such would prove the consequence of his remaining there, whenever the House should continue sitting long after midnight, he would not risk the endangering his health, [VOL. XXVII.] but should make it a rule to retire. On the present occasion, he should give his negative to the Bill, as, to the best of his judgment, it was not a measure of sound wisdom. He was an enemy to all decla ratory bills, but, most of all, to what was called a declaratory law upon the case. What chiefly decided his opinion had been part of a speech delivereed in that House, on the preceding Wednesday, by a right hon. gentleman from the other side of the channel (Mr. Flood). His argument appeared to him perfectly convincing. Much had been urged respecting responsibility in the course of the several debates, and the House had been desired to trust to that security for the due exercise of the powers and authorities which the Bill would give the Board of Control. He knew not, for one, how to trust to that security after what he had witnessed. He had seen a minister persevere in bad measures, and by his perverseness continue a wicked and ruinous war, till he had lost America; and that minister having joined that party which had most ill used him, and found shelter under their protection, had not been called to any account for his conduct, although he had repeatedly challenged inquiry. With regard to the unfortunate situation of the noble lord, to whom he alluded, no one of his friends could sympathize with him more sincerely on that account than he did. He lamented his absence, but more especially the cause of it, as much as the right hon. gentleman, who had with so much eloquence reprobated a learned gentleman on Wednesday last, for having attacked the noble lord in his absence, and under his present circumstances. He felt for his indisposition as one man ought to feel for the indisposition of another; but no false humanity should ever make him forbear from such animadversions on public characters as he should think it his duty to make in that House. Sir Grey Cooper said, that with the leave of the House, he would delay his examination of the question until he should have taken the liberty of animadverting upon a part of an extraordinary and eccentric ramble which a learned gentle. man (Mr. Hardinge) had made from the matter in debate, when this Bill came last before the consideration of the House. He acknowledged the power of his abilities, and he had really conceived that he had too much generosity of sentiment, and too many of those fine feelings which [0] Major Scott said :-Sir; at the time the India Bill passed, I did then understand, that when the Board of Control and the Court of Directors should differ in any point relative to the civil or military government in India, the Directors would be compelled by law, to abide by the decision of the Board of Control; and I find that other gentlemen, though connected with me in friendship, yet of different political principles, entertain the same opinion of the intent of the Act; but, in making this concession, I contend that the right of petition or appeal lies in the court of Directors or proprietors, either to his Majesty or to this House. The question now is, according to my idea, not whether the Board of Control have the power, but whether they mean to exercise that power for the advantage of the public service, in sending four regiments to India. generally accompany fine parts, to make | now admitted, by all the learned gentlea premeditated attack against the admi- men, however they differed in other imnistration and the character of a noble portant points, that they were acting in lord in his absence, and in an absence their judicial function and capacity. He accounted for by such peculiar and affect- had always considered it as one of the ing circumstances. He admitted that the soundest maxims of the law, that judicis conduct of all men who have been mi- est officium dicere, non facere legem. The nisters, was liable to be arraigned and maxim was grossly violated in the present censured in parliament, when any act or exercise of the judicial authority of that measure of their administration was di- House. He insisted that what he had rectly or incidentally under consideration, stated was an unanswerable objection to or connected with the matter in debate; the whole of the Bill; but it must pass, and that no particular circumstances or and it would remain a striking example to situation ought to shelter them from such future times how dangerous it was for animadversion. The attack in the late Parliament to step out of its limits, and instance was unprovoked, and unjustified to usurp judicial authority. by any matter respecting the noble lord's conduct, or the measures of his administration, alluded to in any previous debate on this Bill. He had, therefore, a right to say that the animadversion of the learned gentleman was thrown out in a manner highly irregular, and that it was irrelevant to any point or question in debate. After this opening, sir Grey proceeded to state his objections to the question, that the Bill be read a third time. He contended that the Bill, since it came out of the committee, was encumbered with additional difficulties; no precedent had been adduced, though many had been promised by the right hon. gentleman, of enacting clauses being added and annexed to declaratory bills. He ventured to assert, that it was incongruous with the ground and principle of declaratory laws, to superadd to the declaration of what was and is law, explanatory clauses, qualifications, and restraints. To what did the present annexed clauses amount, unless to an assertion, that the power declared to be in the commissioners was first vested in them by law, provided certain things be done, and certain conditions performed by them which were not law before? The clauses proposed by the right hon. gentleman to cover his retreat, were incongruous and preposterous in the correct sense of the word: they were in their nature and formation antecedent to the Declaratory Bill: they ought to have constituted part of the Act of the 24th of George 3. If it was ever the intention of that Act (which he flatly denied) to give the formidable powers to the Board of Control which this declaration assumed, they could not, on any ground, either of principle or precedent, be engrafted on the Bill, as clauses and provisions subsequent to its declaratory operation. It was A learned gentleman (Mr. Anstruther) has said a great deal, in which I perfectly concur with him, and particularly as to the reductions of expense which the Board of Control have accomplished. When I heard a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt) state these reductions at one million and a half sterling annually, I own I was struck with astonishment, and I had recourse to the accounts before this House, which, strictly speaking, must be my authority, in order to prove the truth of the assertion: but, by those accounts I find that the expenses in India have been gradually increasing, and that in fact they are higher now, by 700,000l. than they were three years ago. These accounts I know are fallacious, and they only prove, that if we argue from accounts before the House, we must be in an error. I have, however, had recourse to the best possible information, and I am very happy to state the following particulars to the House. I find that, in January 1785, immediately before Mr. Hastings left Bengal, reductions were made to the amount of 680,000l., or in other words, that peace being less expensive than war, several corps were at that time reduced, armies that had served in Guzzerat, and in the Carnatic, were drawn into cantonments, contingent bills were retrenched, and great reforms were made in the civil expenditure. His successor, sir J. Macpherson, went farther; he made additional reforms. The same subject of reform was taken up at home, and though I am very willing to give the Board of Control every praise that is due to them, yet I affirm, that the great credit is due to my hon. friend (Mr. N. Smith) then the chairman, for the laborious attention he paid to that important subject. The consequence was, that when these reforms shall completely operate, for, as yet, they have not completely operated, 480,000l. more will be cut off from the expenditure in Bengal, making in the whole, 1,160,000, which is not the difference between the extravagance of the governments in India, and the economical arrangements of the Board of Control, but the difference between peace and war. I do not mean in the least to detract from the merit of the Board of Control, by explaining a matter which has been so much misunderstood. The learned gentleman has expressed his surprise at the idea of keeping up so large an establishment in India as 20,000 Europeans, including officers, which are above 1,800, I can only say that from the time of lord Clive to the present day, every Governor and every Commander-in-chief, has expressed the strongest desire to receive from Europe as many Europeans as could be sent to them, and upon this good ground, that in war you cannot recruit your European force, whereas you may increase your battalions of Sepoys without any difficulty. I would, therefore, now add as much as possible to our European force, and the strength of the sepoy battalions may be proportionably lessened. Supposing the whole military establishment of Bengal completed upon the proposed plan, it will not exceed 5,000 European infantry, 1200 artillery, and 56 battalions of sepoys. Do gentlemen consider the extent of country which that force is to protect? We are not now confined to the Carumnassa, our frontier line is Rohilcund, the Douab and Corah. We cover from foreign invasion the whole of the dominions of the Nabob of Oude; we are bound by treaty to keep in his dominions one battalion of artillery, two battalions of European infantry, and twelve battalions of sepoys, and he pays us the full expense of these troops. Our own dominions are extensive and valuable, and added to those of the Nabob, the Bengal government is to protect countries 1250 miles in length, and from 450 to 500 miles in breadth, including Rohilcund, Oude, part of the Douab, Corah, Cuvah, and Allahabad, Benares, Ghazepore, Bahar, Bengal, and a part of Orissa. Will any gentleman then say, that the military establishment of Bengal is in any respect too large for an empire of such extent, value, and importance to Great Britain? As to Madras and Bombay, I do certainly differ with the Board of Control with respect to the force to be stationed under those governments. Let the European force be as considerable as that now proposed, but then let there be a proportionate diminution in the sepoy force, or the revenues of Bengal will be swallowed up in establishments; for gentlemen ought to know that our expenses at Madras and Bombay, so far from being diminished, are in an alarming degree increased. The learned gentleman has said, that Great Britain cannot keep up a proper establishment in India, that she cannot spare so great a drain of her people. If that is so, it is a very good argument for giving up the country altogether; but I deny the fact; and I utterly deny that every soldier who goes to India either dies there or returns an invalid to Great Britain. I can deny it upon the surest grounds: for I was, many years ago, adjutant to one of our regiments in Bengal, and each season before the time arrived for the departure of the ships, the men who had served their five years, and did not chuse to re-inlist, were sent to England, their passage paid; nor was the faith of our government ever broken, in this respect, even when we were in the greatest distress for men. I have met with many of these men in villages in England; many have returned again to India; and it is a fact of universal notoriety, that there is not a service in the world equal to the Company's service for soldiers. A decent man, who writes a tolerable hand, will generally return at the end of his five years with two, three, and four hundred pounds. Very many have done so in my time.-As to the point of increasing our European force, I am perfectly convinced of the propriety of it. The most eligible way |