Mr. Fox said, that from what the right hon. gentleman had stated, the Board of Control, it was evident, had acted illegally; because, if they had not lent their authority in the case in question, the dispatches could not have been sent to India, through the unlawful medium of the Secret Committee. Mr. Fox took occasion to observe that the omission of the words, "no longer," really proved, upon inquiry, to have been a mere clerical error, as the words were in Mr. Sheridan's manuscript, which he was ready to produce. Mr. Sheridan denied that Mr. Dundas had given a true account of the transaction. The Board of Control had done more than the right hon. gentleman had described. They had not acted as blind instruments, but as beings perfectly possessed of sight. They had altered the dispatch by omitting a sentence. Mr. Sheridan added, that, as all hope of defeating the Bill was then over, he would not trouble the House any more than merely to take five minutes of their time in reading a statement of the different characters of the two India bills; a matter the more necessary, since in the whole course of the debates, the bill of his right hon. friend appeared to have been much misunderstood. Mr. Sheridan here proceeded to read the paper at length. When he had got about half through he was interrupted by Sir Robert Smyth, who desired to know the thority of the paper, and whether it was an extract from a pamphlet, or a more authentic document. If it were the latter it might be laid on the table, and printed for the use of the members. The Speaker said, that the hon. gentleman was perfectly in order to read the paper as a part of his speech. Mr. Sheridan said, that he had before stated, that the paper was a description and comparison of Mr. Fox's India Bill and Mr. Pitt's India Bill, drawn up carefully by himself, and extremely necessary for gentlemen to attend to, as it would give a perfect comprehension of each. After Mr. Sheridan had gone through the paper, the question was put, "That the Bill do pass," which was carried without a division. Debate in the Lords on the East India Declaratory Bill.] March 17. The East India Declaratory Bill having been read a first time, Lord Porchester rose to observe, that the Bill in its preamble stated, that doubts had been entertained as to the construetion of the Act of 1784. He denied the existence of the smallest doubt; he could not strain his mind to the reception of a single doubt. Besides, what were the doubts in question? Not a mere shade of difference, not a slight distinction, but doubts as broad as the difference between plain white and jet black. Was it possible for such doubts to have existed, and not for every man to feel them. The contrary was the reverse, as he would prove to their lordships. He then went into an investigation of the clauses of the Bill, and reasoned upon them, after which he concluded with moving the following question to the Judges: "Whether, according to the intent and meaning of the Act of the 24th of his present Majesty, for the better regulation of the East India Company, &c. the committee for the affairs of India are competent at any time to direct, that the expense of raising, transporting, and maintaining such forces as may be judged necessary for the security of the British territories and possessions in the East Indies, shall be defrayed out of the revenues arising out of the said territories and possessions, such troops not being sent at the express requisition of the East India Company; and particu larly, whether under the circumstances now existing, the said commissioners are not restrained by certain provisions contained in the said Act, from giving such directions?" Lord Hawkesbury denied the neces→ sity of putting any such question to the Judges, declaring that it neither affected the common law of England, nor any ancient statute, and that he saw lawyers enow present to solve any difficulty the House might entertain. He gave the House a detail of all the transactions be tween the Board of Control, and the Court of Directors hitherto, in order to prove that the latter entertained no doubts of the power of the Board to send out the regiments till lately. With regard to delay, which he conceived to be the sole end of the motion, there were very important and pressing reasons for using all possible dispatch, and these were the wel fare and interest of the East India Company, whose ships were lying upon demurrage, at an enormous expense, and would lose their voyage, unless they sailed speedily, a circumstance that would occasion the loss of the China trade for the present year, which would deprive the revenue of a very large receipt, and con sequently materially affect the finances of the country. Upon these and other political considerations, he should object to the motion. Viscount Stormont denied that a question of fact had any thing to do with political considerations. No expense, however great, ought to weigh in the consideration of the present question. The sole matter to be decided was, did the Declaratory Bill, or did it not, contain a true exposition of the Act of 1784. He thought that it did not. He ridiculed the idea of resorting to political considerations where the question was an abstract question of fact, and appealed to the Bench of Bishops, as men used to abstract reasoning, whether it was usual with them to call in aid political considerations and future consequences, as illustrative of a positive fact? He ascribed the delay that had occurred, entirely to the fault of Government, and asked why they had not embarked the four regiments, and reserved the question of who was to pay for their maintenance and support for a future discussion in a court of law. Lord Sydney rose to rescue administration from the charge of having themselves caused delay, and stated the dates of the different transactions between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors till the House of Commons was moved for leave to bring in the present Bill. With regard to sending the troops, the Company had refused to take them on board their ships, and it would have cost above 100,000l. to have sent them to India in transports. The Earl of Carlisle denied that the noble lord had answered the noble viscount satisfactorily. He said, he had heard that wine was the better for keeping, but never before that Judges were only fit to explain ancient statutes. He should have thought they might have explained a modern one. The only doubts entertained about the construction of the Act of 1784, had been, he understood, among the ministers themselves. Lord Hopetoun objected to the putting the question to the Judges, because he thought it unnecessary. Lord Loughborough supported the motion. He entered into a discussion on the nature of declaratory bills, observing, that they necessarily ought to be attended with more than ordinary deliberation. The case was different with an enacting law; there, if occasion required, precipitation might be used. He had heard, that so far from the three regiments being ready for embarkation, they had not been inspected on the day when the Bill passed the Commons, and were 1000 men deficient of their complement. The Lord Chancellor urged the House to consider, that the true meaning of the question was, not whether the Bill should he delayed a day or two, but whether it should be delayed to the 10th of April. He referred to a declaratory bill, that had passed as quick through the House as it was wished that the present should; and reminded their lordships that the Company's ships were laid in port upon demurrage, at the enormous expense of 3 or 400%. a day. Lord Loughborough said, the declaratory bill referred to by the learned lord, was that respecting the 6th of George 1, relative to Ireland; and there was, he recollected, another declaratory bill relative to America; but both of them referred solely to questions of state. The present Bill contained in it matter of private rights, and therefore the case was extremely different. Earl Fitzwilliam spoke in favour of the motion, and reminded the House, that the declaratory bill relating to Ireland had been a bill of repeal, and therefore it needed not to be delayed so much as other bills usually were; the fact nevertheless had been, that it was not precipitately passed, but a day or two had occurred between each stage of it. The question being put, the House divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 76. It being then moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time," the duke of Norfolk moved by way of amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time on Thursday." The question being put, that the word "now," stand part of the question, the House divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 32. Lord Walsingham then rose, and defended the Bill from the objections that had been suggested against it. He said, he was clearly of opinion that the construction put by it upon the Act of 1784, was the true construction. Had ministers introduced an enacting, instead of a declaratory bill, it would have been an ex post facto law. No doubt had been entertained of the powers of the Board of Control till lately, and therefore it was highly necessary to clear up those doubts. He stated, that it was intended to do something for the Company's officers immediately, but that it was a delicate matter for Government to manage. Viscount Stormont said, it was impossible for him to suffer a bill to pass of a tendency so extremely dangerous to the constitution, and of a nature perfectly fallacious. The Bill declared not only that which was not truth, but what was repugnant to the express stipulation of all former statutes, and avowed a doctrine which, on the passing of the Bill in 1784, the conduct of ministers unequivocally disclaimed. That it should have attained a stage so advanced, was as if a fever had obliterated every sense of its danger from the memory. The Bill of Mr. Fox, previously introduced to their lordships, had been with the greatest industry, most maliciously misrepresented, and basely and meanly traduced, because it openly and honestly confessed a design to transfer to others the management of the Company's affairs. Immediately on the declaration of it, the nation was alarmed; and the present ministry, by their bitter opposition to it at the time, increased to a violent degree the antipathy of the people, and declared the remedy proposed was too harsh and powerful for the disorder it aimed to cure. They then offered to administer milder, though equally efficacious applications; which prescription the Company were then happy to take, but now find that it contained all those destructive ingredients which so strongly offended them in Mr. Fox's Bill. His lordship defined those controlling and superintending powers with which Mr. Pitt's Bill invests the Board of Control, and defied those who had attended most to the letter and spirit of the Act, to point out any one instance, by which the Board of Control could claim an originating power, over the revenues of the Company. The reason why it was, on that point, so explicit, was owing to a casual omission in the Bill; but, could it for a moment be conceived, that the point contended was so very important, so materially necessary for both parties to have a clear understanding of, that it could not possibly be considered in that light. He read some extracts from the Bill of 1784, tending to show that the Board of Control had not the power over the territorial revenues, which they now claimed from the India Company, who were placed by the Declaratory Act in the situation of a corps of Jesuits, commanded by their general, the Board of Control. His lordship spoke of an absurd predicament the court must feel themselves in by having been deluded into an opinion of their having a right, which the Board, in spite of them, pretended legally to possess. His lordship next adverted to the shameful neglect and inattention of the naval department of the country, in leaving India, ever since the conclusion of the peace, so totally devoid of that protection which was so essential for its safety and defence, at the late period of alarm, when the country was threatened with hostilities. Had France acted otherwise than she did with regard to Holland, there were in India four Dutch ships of the line, and some French frigates, that might have materially annoyed the Company's commerce, before any British naval force could have reached the settlements of the India Company. His lordship proceeded to state the extraordinary latitude that would be given to the Board of Control, if the Bill passed; they would be empowered to carry into execution any scheme of fortification which the duke of Richmond, from his known partiality to such projects, might choose to recommend. The Earl of Carlisle said, that notwithstanding his noble friend's speech was replete with sound argument, ministers be saw meant to treat it with contemptuous silence; he therefore felt himself under the necessity of adding some farther arguments to those of his noble friend. He then went into a comparison of the two India Bills, declaring that the Bill of 1783 was a strong, manly, open measure, truly depicting the character, understanding, and heart of its author, while that of 1784 proved that the right hon. gentleman had a very different sort of understanding and heart. His lordship spoke of the checks and guards contained in the latter clauses of the Declaratory Bill, observing that they were all prospective and not retrospective, and therefore did not diminish the patronage already possessed by the Board of Control. He ridiculed the idea of a minister's calling out for obstacles and impediments to his own measures, and saying that he should consider those as his best friends who suggested the most effectual checks. Lord Carlisle declared, that it was the strangest demand upon friendship that he ever heard of. The checks offered by the minister's friends were more likely to be silken chains, and ligatures of lighter weight than hard manacles; fetters like those in the Beggar's Opera, which sat as easy as a glove, and were such as no gentleman need be ashamed to wear. The Earl of Tankerville entered into a panegyric on the political character of Mr. Fox, and next proceeded to his own vindication, for having voted for Mr. Pitt's Bill, as he had till now always understood that its object was only to control and superintend the government of the civil and military concerns of the Company. He was no friend to declaratory bills in general, but he was decidedly against the present, as it not only went beyond the true interpretation of the Act which it professed to render more explicit, but contained new enacting clauses, which ought never to be admitted in bills explanatory of former laws. not responsible, that he could find, either to Parliament or the Crown. He opposed the Bill in 1784, because it gave the power to another set of men appointed by the Crown, and which accordingly gave to the Crown an enormous addition of power. That the Bill of 1784 did give to the Board of Control complete authority, he was always of opinion-he opposed it because it did so-but being of that opinion, he must justify the present Bill, which, in his mind, was a true declaration of the fact. He could not plead the argument of some noble lords for changing the ground they had taken in 1784; but considering this a second part, or a confirmation of the Act of 1784, he must persevere in opposing that which he had originally thought wrong. But when it was argued that this Bill was equal in point of violence to that which was generally called by the name of a right hon. gentleman, his near relation, but whose name on that, or upon any measure, he would never use, it was certainly wrong. It would be equally true to say that the part was equal to the whole, and the attempt of that side to convince the Company that the Bills were equal was ridiculous. The Bill of 1784 was declared to be necessary, on account of the enormous abuses committed by the Directors, and under this specious pretext much obloquy was, in his mind, unjustly thrown upon them. But what was now the conduct of that party? They went to the Directors, and said, "Gentlemen, we have proved that you have notoriously abused your trust-we have treated you with the utmost disrespect, and have endeavoured to take from you every thing that you possessed; but we have failed, and now there are other persons nibbling at you they certainly will undo you, if The Duke of Richmond said, that he, you do not throw yourselves upon us for like a noble viscount who spoke early in protection." Such, he imagined, was the the debate, was peculiarly circumstanced sort of speech which persons of that kind on the present occasion, since he had must make in addressing the Company on never yet been pleased with any of the bills the present measure; and a noble viscount, for the government of India that had who was fond of speeches, and who, in been brought into parliament. He was speaking, chose to turn and direct himdispleased with all the schemes that had self to the bar, particularly when he talked been suggested, because he was ever about fortification, might indulge himself, of opinion that the management of the if he pleased in speeches of this sort. But affairs of India was in the best hands, he confessed, for his own part, he saw the when it rested with the Company them- present Bill in a much less formidable light selves. He had opposed the Bill in 1783, than the Bill of 1783. Patronage was cerbecause it violated the charter of the Com-tainly inseparable from power; but when pany, and vested the immense power aris- he saw such pains taken to guard the paing from India in the hands of a set of tronage, and to tie ministers down against gentlemen appointed by parliament, but the improper use of it-when he saw that [VOL. XXVII.] [Q] Lord Rawdon professed himself a determined opponent of a measure so hostile to every feeling which he possessed, when he concurred with ministers in the Act of 1784, which this Bill pretended to explain. He was a friend to the measure of 1784, because he conceived it left the power in the hands of the Company, and gave only a control in certain specified instances to the Board of Commissioners. He declared there was no difference between the system of 1783 and that now obtruded on the House, except in the manliness of the proceeding. The former Bill did that with openness and publicity, which the present struggled for obliquely and under cover. He was, therefore, a determined enemy to the measure, and must say, at the same time, as an officer, that the conduct with respect to the Indian army, and to the corps now going out, was unjustifiable. it was not to be used but for what it ought always to be used-the good of the service, he could not view the measure with the same jealousy that he looked on the other; and could not think lightly of the checks which the minister had imposed on his own conduct. Viscount Stormont retorted on his grace, who was, he said, the master-general of order as well as of ordnance, but who, with all his knowledge, had been mistaken, since his conduct had not been disorderly. His lordship resumed that part of his argument respecting the neglect of the defence of the East-Indies by sea, and declared that since sir Edward Hughes left that quarter of the globe, we had not any ships of war there, so that if an enemy thought proper, all the trade of India might be captured as it came out of the mouth of the Ganges. Viscount Howe said, that the protection of the distant settlements must be attended to in the distribution of our force, in proportion to their importance and the danger of an attack. The West-India islands consequently claimed a preference. With regard to the East Indies, if any noble lord would make a charge against him on that score, he would meet it fairly, since, he well knew he was responsible for such a distribution of our naval force as should cover all our valuable possessions. Bill in 1783 certainly contained matter which required its being sent to a committee; and Mr. Pitt's Bill in 1784 was supposed wisely to wave the question, on account of the heats of the time. In 1767, there was no proposal which did not go to indemnify and reward the Company, and place it as a separate body between this country and foreigners, both on commercial and political accounts. At the present moment, his lordship said, his astonishment was excited on various accounts. He was astonished to find a decision now hastily gone into by those not distinguished by their experience, however they might be in other respects. It was the first duty of a minister to look to the prosperity and happiness of Indian nations; next, to the territories and possessions, and their protection against European and country powers; thirdly, to the discharge of the debts due to those who had enabled us to support the struggle; and then, and not before, to the investments. Thus the old proverb became inverted, and, instead of being just before we were generous, we are first generous, secondly political, thirdly just, and lastly commercial.-His lordship said, he was astonished the more, as we might now proceed on facts and experience, and not as in 1767, upon speculation only. Accounts might be produced-the account of the last eight years, for example, proving 500,000%. paid by the commerce to support the territories, over and above their produce. If any abuses existed, it should be shown whether they were in the commercial part of the management; and whether or not they are now remedied, or will be so, by political management.-He was farther and still more astonished to find it insisted upon, that the principles The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that of the present Bill were contained in that independent of the questions respecting of 1784. This was to be refuted in vathe justice of the acquisitions in India as rious ways: first, upon negative grounds; they regarded the natives, and the rights for example, the Lords did not commit of the Company, left undecided by seven the Bill of 1783, because it was inexpeacts of parliament, but now virtually and dient in its principle; and yet the Bill of hastily decided by the present Bill, va- 1784 was now maintained, as holding one rious fundamental questions occurred: and the same principle. The particulars as, first, touching the real advantage of the of the two Bills were in favour of that of possessions; secondly, how they were to 1783, which proposed parliamentary combe administered; thirdly, the like respect-missioners for four years. It would now ing the commerce; and fourthly, how our own constitution might stand affected. When he was Secretary of State, in 1767 and 1768, these subjects were much discussed, but were deemed too important for persons of that time to decide. "Mr. Fox's The Earl of Sandwich said, that the noble viscount's answer had not gone far enough. It was no answer at all to say the West-India islands claimed a preference. Surely we had ships enough to spare some for India. This matter ought always to be attended to. It was of very great importance, as the country powers judged of our strength by our naval force. be expired; though had it been longer, even life employments were constitutional. As to the Crown's not appointing, or removing the commissioners at pleasure, this was not a serious objection to those who had complained so lately and so |