apply the whole of the revenues of India to that purpose, without leaving the Company a sixpence for their investments. With regard to the doubts which were suggested, it ought to be recollected, that several lawyers had given their opinions upon the subject, and that the names of Bearcroft, Erskine, and Mansfield, appeared subscribed to them; and, therefore, the best way to meet those doubts was by the authority of a special act of parliament. Would gentlemen have ge vernment proceed by an action at law upon such a question? If that was to be the course on occasions of that kind, India might be lost before the law-suit was determined. session of all the powers of directing the military and political concerns of India, and of collecting, managing, and applying of all the revenues of India, which the Court of Directors enjoyed previous to the passing of the Act of 1784. The right hon. gentleman's Bill, as it was now explained, vested the privileges of the East-India Company, with respect to the management of their own affairs, for ever in the immediate servants of the Crown, who were removable at pleasure. The right hon. gentleman had declared the authority of the Board of Control to extend to the application of every shilling of the Company's revenues, but it left the directors in possession of what? The management and direction of the commerce the direction of that which could not exist, but at the pleasure of the Board of Control! If the Board should think proper to apply the whole revenues of India to the maintenance of troops, or to any other purpose, what would remain for making an investment? Nothing. The directors were, therefore, left in possession of power to manage where there might be nothing to manage-to direct a commerce without the means of supporting it. this was not annihilating every right of the Company, he knew not what was annihilation. But such appeared to be the right hon. gentleman's regard and veneration for chartered rights at the time of passing the Bill, that the bare mention of violating or infringing them was not to be endured. He appealed to the recollection of every member present, whether in the present or the former parliament, such an explanation of the meaning and extent of the right hon. gentleman's Bill had ever been suggested by those who supported it, as he had now himself given? In conclusion, Mr. Fox recurred to his former position, that the motion ought to be negatived, because no fit ground of the necessity of a declaratory bill had been mentioned, even distantly, during the whole course of the debate. Colonel Barré said, that he saw patronage at the bottom of the business. He entered into a discussion of the modern mode of increasing the army, and condemned it as unwise and extravagant. He reminded the House that there were above 1800 officers living in a very distressed situation in India, who had been reduced at the peace. This country ought to feel for those gentlemen, since she owed them much. He admitted that If those officers who commanded the four regiments were deserving officers and entitled to preferment. One of them had served in America during two wars; but it was not merely because officers had great merit, that any measure of unnecessary expense to the country ought to be adopted. This was a reforming age, and our ministry professed to act upon economical principles. In some essential instances they had great economy. It would not, therefore, become them to adopt any measure that was not governed by economical principles. There appeared to him to have been a struggle for patronage between Leadenhall-street and the Board of Control. It was decided that Leadenhall-street was to have some of the patronage. Not quite a moiety. He feared the sending out the four regiments would lead to infinite jealousy and confusion in India. He understood that the junior officers were those who had been reduced at the end of the war. They would naturally be appointed to the four regiments, and having king's commissions, would necessarily rank above those who being in the India Company's troops, had formerly commanded them. He reasoned upon the inconvenience resulting from having the sword in two hands in India, and said, he knew not whether it would not Mr. Dundas said, that under the Bill of of 1784, the Board of Control were warranted in applying the revenues of the Company's territorial acquisitions, to the expense of transporting and maintaining the four regiments, which Government thought it necessary to send out to India. And so fully were they authorized to do this, that if it should appear to ministers necessary for the security of those territorial possessions, they had the power to be wise by degrees to embrace the whole of the Company's army, and make it royal. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. It was presented on the 27th, and read a first time. Feb. 29. A Petition from the East India Company was presented against the Bill, setting forth, "That the said Bill, if carried into a law, will be subversive of the Petitioners rights, and highly injurious to their interests: and therefore praying, that they may be heard by their counsel against the said Bill, and may be relieved in the premises as to the House shall seem meet." The petitioners were ordered to be heard by their counsel against the Bill. March 3. The Bill being read a second time, the counsel against the Bill were ordered to be called in. Mr. Erskine and Mr. Rous having come to the bar, Mr. Erskine was heard against the Bill. He began, by stating himself to be counsel for the East-India Company, and said, that though the question to be discussed by him, when well understood, and placed in a clear point of view, was easy to be comprehended, and capable of being soon decided as it ought to be, yet as it would require much reasoning and much argument to bring it to that point in which it undoubtedly must be placed, in order that its merits might appear obviously and explicitly, he should be under the necessity of calling for a considerable portion of the patience and attention of the House, since it would prove impossible for him to do justice to his clients, without going much at length into the nature and grounds of their case. He expatiated on the humility of his present situation, standing as a counsel at the bar of that House, of which he had formerly had the honour to be a member, and treated of the respect that was due from a man of his profession addressing an assembly of that elevated and important nature. He said, he was well aware that harangues from counsel at their bar were not the specimens of oratory in which that House took the greatest pleasure, but that they rather submitted to them, from the consideration, that it was their indispensable duty to receive them by way of physic, as it were, for the benefit of the constitution. He promised to make his dose as palatable as the nature of the patients' case would admit. After an exordium to this purport, he took notice of the different opinions annexed to the printed case, which had been submitted to counsel, and observed, that he had heard that his opinion had been referred to in that House particularly, and that it had been lamented, that he was not present to account for his opinion. It now happened that he was present, but under peculiar circumstances. He could defend an opinion that he was ready to maintain, but he should not have an opportunity to reply. He adverted to the opinion of an honourable and learned member, whom he highly respected, but whom it would be irregular in him to name; he could, however, by a side-wind describe him, as the opinion to which he adverted was signed "John Scott, Lincoln's-inn." He entered into a discussion of the grounds of that opinion, and observed that the counsel himself had showed in his answer to the case (as others had also before), that he had only had an opportunity of merely referring to the Act of Parliament. He had, Mr. Erskine said, done much more himself; he had been able to examine all the charters and records, and had other gentlemen of his profession enjoyed the power of doing the same, he was persuaded their opinions would have been of a different complexion from that which now characterized them.-After a good deal of close argument on the several opinions annexed to the printed papers, and a compliment passed upon Mr. Serjeant Adair, the Recorder of London, Mr. Erskine proceeded to animadvert on the authors and promoters of the two different East-India Bills of the session of 1783, 1784, observing that calumny had deemed the authors and promoters of the former the violaters of charters, the enemies to the rights, privileges, and property of the East-India Company, the ambitious lusters after despotic power, and the daring usurpers of a degree of patronage, influence, and greatness, wholly unknown to the constitution; while, on the other hand, the authors and promoters of the East-India Bill that passed into a law, had assumed the characters of saviours of the chartered rights of the Company, and of standing forward as their most zealous protectors and defenders. In that light, he considered them as fit to be regarded, and as such, in what he should have the honour to offer he meant to treat them. He knew that it would be remembered, that he had taken an active part in the 6 of the natives or other foreign princes, to the East-India Company, to be holden by them in what the lawyers term free soccage for ever. He referred to the various other charters granted by Charles 2, and his successors, tracing them down to the year 1765, and proving that the EastIndia Company had originally given a conduct of one of the India Bills of the session of 1783, 1784, through the House, and that it would be deemed inconsistent in him to stand up the avowed champion of the chartered rights of the Company, after having been the supporter of a former measure, the character of which had been stated to be a daring attempt to violate those chartered rights. Fortunately, how-valuable consideration to the Crown for ever, he was not exposed to that in consistency, and could easily reconcile the argument he should then think it his duty to urge, with the arguments which he had held on a former occasion. After more preliminary observation, he went into a discussion of the nature and tendency of the Declaratory Bill, which they were about to pass, found fault with the phrase, was, and now is,' as redundant and absurd, and proceeded to establish, that there was no necessity for any such declaratory bill, that the Bill of 1784 stood in need of no declaratory bill to explain it, and that if the power now contended for by the Board of Control, was a power necessary for state purposes for them to hold, it ought to be given openly and fairly by an enacting, and not by a declaratory bill. He explained the distinction between enacting and declaratory bills, and maintained that there were only two grounds on which the legislature ever passed declaratory bills, the one, where the wording of an act of Parliament was so ambiguous that it stood in need of explanation; the other, where by clashing judgments of courts upon an existing statute, its true sense and construction had become so obscure, that it became the legislature, by the authority of a declaratory bill, to pronounce and propound its own meaning; neither of which was, he asserted, the case at present. In order to show that the EastIndia Company were legally seized of rights which would be materially injured, and, in fact, destroyed, if the Declaratory Bill then before the House passed, Mr. Erskine stated the terms and tenure of the different charters granted by different kings, all of which had been recognized and confirmed by various acts of parliament. He began with mentioning the charter of queen Elizabeth, and that granted by James 2, the latter of which vested the island of Bombay, with all other territories in India then acquired, or that hereafter should be acquired by the EastIndia Company, either by force of arms, or by virtue of any cession or grant either their possessions and privileges in India. where they might have reason to expect an enemy was likely to land. Would it be contended, that Government had a right to maintain them and defray the expense of their march to Cornwall, out of the revenues of that man on whose estate they happened to be billetted? Most unquestionably not. The case was the same with respect to sending out troops to India, unless at the Company's requisition. After much reasoning, Mr. Erskine became suddenly indisposed, and obliged to ask the indulgence of the House to retire. Mr. Rous next addressed the Speaker, and observed that he flattered himself he should be able to induce the House either to confess that they had violated an engagement deliberately made by contract, or to abandon the Bill. He declared he was far from suspecting any man, much less the legislature, of being capable of so base an act. The imputation he considered as a foul calumny, and as such he should treat it. Mr. Rous then went over the ground of the various charters that had been granted, and of the cessions made by different Eastern princes. He stated the nature of the agreement between the Company and the Crown by the 21st of his Majesty, and said that Act was so clear and explicit, that it was impossible to overturn it. He urged as a strong proof, that the Board of Control themselves had never understood that the compact between the public and the Company, as settled and sanctioned by the Act of the 21st was at an end; that they had acted under it again and again, for two years and more, after the Bill of 1784, which appointed the board of commissioners and gave them their power, had passed. He dwelt on this with great energy, and in referring to a particular transaction that had taken place between the Board of Commissioners in 1786, and the Court of Directors, whilst commenting upon it, Mr. Dundas said, "read, read," Mr. Rous, in reply said, "do you read, I am to plead." Upon Mr. Dundas smiling at this, and seeming by his gesture not to admit the comment of Mr. Rous, the latter said, "I see, though the fact will not be denied me, it is to be cavilled at" Mr. Pitt immediately moved, "That the counsel be desired to withdraw." This having been complied with, he appealed to the House on the impropriety of such a liberty having been taken with a member of that House by a counsel at the bar. He said, the fact was, the counsel had been commenting on a printed paper which he held in his hand, and a right hon. friend of his, who, from his situation, might well be supposed to know the contents of the paper, had desired that instead of his comments, which might mislead the House, the counsel would read the paper to the House, on which the counsel had thought proper to refuse to read it, and upon his right hon. friend's not appearing to admit the counsel's comment, and the construction that he chose to put upon the paper, the counsel had thought proper to say, "He saw it would not be denied him, but it would be cavilled at." Such a procedure was so extremely irreguJar, that he thought it necessary to take notice of it, and having done so, he wished it to go no farther, but that the counsel might be called in again and told to go on. Mr. Fox said, he did not mean to defend the expression in question, it was certainly improper; but, the right hon. gentleman had not to learn, that perhaps no species of irregularity was sooner apt to produce reciprocal irregularity, chan irregular interruption. The counsel had been irregularly interrupted, for certainly the words read, read,' were what he ought not to have heard. One irregularity naturally led to another, and in the warmth of sudden speaking, a hasty expression might drop, which was not proper, and which, upon reflection, the counsel himself would not have used. Mr. Pitt observed, that although it was strictly speaking, irregular in his right hon. friend to say read, read,' yet it was a species of irregularity very frequently practised, and it often saved time. When any man was alluding to a written paper, in fairness he ought to read the paper, in order to enable the House to judge of the application and justice of his comments. He, however, had only risen to notice the improper reply of the counsel, and begged he might be called in again. Mr. Rous having been again called to the bar, began to apologize for any improper expression that might inadvertently have escaped him, but was desired from the chair to pursue his argument. He accordingly resumed it, and had argued some time upon the nature of a declaratory law, when he was called upon by the Speaker, who desired to know how, what he was then stating, would, in his opinion, bear upon the question then before the Mr. Fox showed the relation it bore to the subject, by its reference to the nature of a declaratory law. Mr. Pitt agreed, that the petitioners having been permitted to be heard by their counsel, ought to have the full advantage of every argument that their counsel thought applicable to their case. Mr. Rous again resumed his reasoning, and contended that what he was advancing was immediately applicable to the case in point. He maintained, that the sending out the four regiments would necessarily lead to the most mischievous consequences to the Company, as two of them were to go to Bombay. That measure must, he said, excite the jealousy of other nations. He stated the nature of the Bombay establishment, declaring it was a losing presidency to the amount of 300,000l. per annum. He asked, where was it to be supplied from, if the establishment were to be increased? If from Bengal, in a few years Bengal would be ruined. It could not be supplied from home. He assigned his reasons for thinking that it would lead to mischievous consequences, by reminding the House that Bombay was valuable only as a mart for our European goods, a dock and a port for our shipping, &c. But if it was attempted to gain acquisitions by conquest on the West side of India, the native princes would unite against us, as they had done before, and our successes would ultimately prove fatal. On the East side of India we had the province of Bengal, the northern Circars, the power of the sword in the Nabob of Arcot's dominions, and a degree of strength so formidable that all India could not either injure or weaken it. Why then endanger such powers? Having closed this argument, Mr. Rous returned to the discussion of the right of the Board of Control, to send out the regiments in the manner expressed by the Declaratory Bill. He said, it appeared to him to be a sort of legerdemain argument, a kind of juggle, or a game of hocus pocus, as it were, by which it was justified. They had by their own acts admitted, that they could not send them out as a Board of Control, but they could as his Majesty's ministers. Such a system of defence outraged all reason and common sense. After a variety of arguments against the Bill, Mr. Rous concluded with repeating, that the House would be compelled either to admit that t they had violated an engagement solemnly made and ratified by an Act of Parliament, then existing, and which was unrepealed and in full force, or they must abandon the Bill. Mr. Erskine came again to the bar, and having apologized for his illness, said, he returned like a wounded soldier to the charge. He then, with great adroitness, brought the House back to a recollection of the precise point when he had been under the necessity of retiring through sudden indisposition. He recapitulated, that he had gone through the history of the different charters; that he had explained the conditions of the bargain or compact made between the Company and the public; that he had stated, that if the Declaratory Bill passed, the public would be endangered, as well as the Company's dividend of 8 per cent., and had shown the true nature of a Declaratory Bill, which might be a bill containing the negative of the affirmative of the former bill it referred to, or vice versa, the affirmative of the negative of that bill. It could not be an affirmative bill, as there could not be a virtual repeal. Mr. Erskine contended, that if the Act of the 24th gave the Board of Control the great power now to be assumed, it would have stated thus much, and not have consisted of a miserable detail of petty powers, relative to the making up of dispatches. He added a great deal of animadversion and sarcasm on the EastIndia Bill of 1784, and mixed with it much warm eulogium upon that of Mr. Fox. He termed the one an imposture, as he had formerly stated it to be from his place, when a member of the House. [Occasionally the House expressed their disapprobation at Mr. Erskine's sarcasms, and the Speaker once interrupted him, when he had said, the House ought not, at that late hour, to enter upon the discussion of so important a subject. The Speaker told him, that it did not become a counsel at their bar to hint when they ought to adjourn; and that the House would govern its own proceedings as it thought proper. Mr. Erskine apologised, and quitted the topic.] Before he concluded, he took occasion to attack the Board of Control, as a Board that had assumed far greater powers than the legislature had originally intended to vest it with, and declared, if he had been guilty of any irregularity, it was owing to his not feeling all the respect which was due to the House, and which he was used to feel |