mon fame; that common fame, it was true, might set the enquiry on foot, but could never have sufficient ground for accusation; that it might be a very good breakfast, but at the end of the day would prove to be a very bad supper. He observed, that lord North had said, that he would not be answerable for the policy and wisdom of these proceedings, but for the necessity of them. He begged leave to inform the House, that he would not also; but that if any person was answerable, no doubt the noble lord must stand to the charge; he could not see throughout the whole of the Bill, that that grim tyrant necessity, had any share or concern in the disfranchisement of the proprietors of India stock in this Bill; that there was no delinquency that could be charged upon the 500l. proprietor, nor could he be guilty of splitting of votes; that by this Bill the House had punished the man who could not split stock, and rewarded the man who could; that the Bill cherished the guilty, and punished the innocent: he believed that mischiefs had happened by splitting of votes as stated in the preamble to the Bill; but in this instance the House laid hold of the bona fide proprietor by the throat, and strangled him because he was not guilty; that the House ought to answer for the loss of those proprietors, whose abilities had perhaps hitherto guided and conducted the affairs of the India Company, which he, in his opinion, deemed not improperly managed: not that the abuses complained of, either at home or abroad, were existing in the manner represented; and that the only proper check that would be found sufficient for the regulation of India af fairs were those democratic abilities from those proprietors, which by this Bill were going to be excluded; that the House had refused to appoint men of that great character for ability and knowledge, both civil and military, to conduct those affairs in India. A man who had rendered such evident services to this country, and who had received the thanks of the House, had, by a vote of it, been excluded from a reward which he ought to have had, and a preference which ought to have been given him, to have assisted in the conduct and direction of the affairs of India in the council abroad. By this vote they had rendered the memory of his services null and void; but the monument of general Wolfe would open its marble jaws, and give you here the lie. He said, that the House had created very few new powers, or new instructors or instructions, notwithstanding they had blackened in the preamble without cause, those who had litherto acted; for they had still continued Mr. Hastings, Mr. Barwell, and Mr. Monson; that he was glad to find that these men, though blackened in the preamble, fair again in the body of the Bill. He observed, that this Bill was not, nor could not be supported by fair and solid arguments from its promoters, but was like a foot-ball kept up between heaven and earth by the buffets it received; that they were endeavouring to regulate things by this Bill, which in a short time would regulate themselves by the same powers that had governed that country hitherto well, and were likely to govern it better; that if the House would but allow a short time, these disorders, few as they were, would be able to correct themselves; that the Company surely had done great things, and would still do greater, if they were suffered to go on. He observed, that the appointment of the chief justice and judges was lodged in the King, but that he could see no reason for that, unless metaphors in discourse were become the solid grounds of argument; and that the only reason the House had given for such appointment, was from the common phrase, that the king was the fountain of justice; he was sorry to say, that this Bill was forced in at the end of a fatiguing session, by the unfortunate words do something; that the principle of it was an infringement of national right, national faith, and national justice. Sir W. Meredith spoke next upon the principle of right which this country had to controul the mismanagement in India affairs; he said, that those who gave encouragement to the excesses of that country would be found to be the sure enemy of this. Mr. Charles For said he was glad to find that the only man who had opposed this Bill upon principle, was the hon. member (Mr. Burke), that he had indeed spoken with great art, and so long, that he had never once thought of mentioning the debt of the Company, or their bankruptcy; that he was the only one who had carried any degree of consistency in his opposition; for he thought that the directors at home had done nothing wrong or improper; that the council abroad had managed every thing well, and as it ought to be; and that there was no abuse of power, either at home or abroad; that upon these principles, if he believed them to be true, the hon. member was certainly consistent in his opposition to the Bill throughout, as being both improper and nugatory. Lord John Cavendish spoke a few words in answer to Mr. Fox against the Bill. Lord North said, that it was the almost unanimous concurrence of the House to pass the Bill: that he had been accused of not approving of it himself, by an hon. member who spoke lately in the debate; he did assure him, that he thoroughly approved of it; that he believed the Bill was necessary in every instance; that it carried with it animadversions on criminals, alterations of officers, regulations of various kinds; and that it was not a single regulation that would secure Bengal to this country that if this Bill passed, though it did not perhaps afford a complete reformation, yet it began a correction of those evils, which future information might complete. He observed, that he had taken a bird's-eye view, as the hon. member had expressed himself, over the whole and that indeed, when he first saw it, it was a wild, unpleasant prospect of violence, fraud, faction in general courts, collusive votes obtained, and other enormities, which required a controul and regulation to put this commercial Company in a rich and flourishing state; that he was convinced he was a friend to the Company, and that no personal abuse should deter him from pursuing the true interest of it; that the creditors of the Company should never be alarmed, for they should be secured, as a re-establishment of the Company's affairs was the chief object of his heart. The noble lord then shewed, that it had been customary for parliament to regulate and controul the chartered powers of other companies, such as those of Turkey, Russia, and others; that the controuling powers of regulating chartered rights alone belonged to the public; and that he never wished the House, or any person whatever, to take away the profitable part of charters, but only to regulate the executive power. If the measures proposed were not thoroughly the remedy of those evils that were now existing, the House might still go on to correct and amend by future regulations. Throughout the whole of his speech he shewed great abilities, and a strong desire to put the affairs of the East India Com Mr. Hussey 131 21 So it was resolved in the affirmative: and that the title be, " An Act for establishing certain regulations for the better management of the affairs of the East India Company, as well in India as in Europe." Proceedings in the Lords on the East India Company's Regulation Bill.] June 10. The Bill for establishing certain Regulations for the better Management of the Affairs of the East India Company being brought from the Commons, the Duke of Richmond moved, "That a Conference be desired with the Commons upon the subject matter of the said Bill." This was strongly opposed as an unneces sary application, and what might lead them into a tedious delay of the business. After this question had been debated for a considerable time, the House divided: Contents 12-Not Contents 39. Then the following motion was made by his grace, "That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to desire that they will communicate to this House the several Reports relative to the affairs of the East India Company, which have been made to the House of Commons by the several Committees appointed by that House, in this and in the last session of parliament, for the purpose of enquiring into the nature, state, and condition, of the East India Company, and of the Bri tish affairs in the East Indies; together with a list of the names of the witnesses that have been examined by the said House, or any of the said committees relative to the affairs of the said Company; and of all charters, petitions, accounts, letters, and other papers respecting the same, which have been produced to the said House, or any of the said committees; and also copies of all such Resolu tions as the said House may have come to in anywise concerning the said Company; and all other evidences, facts, or matters whatsoever upon which the said House has proceeded, as a ground for passing the said Bill," B Which being objected to: the question | was put thereupon. It was resolved in the negative. Then it was moved, "That a Message be sent to the House of Commons, to desire that they will communicate to this House the several Reports relative to the affairs of the East India Company, which have been made to the House of Commons by the several Committees appointed by that House in this and the last session of parliament, for the purpose of enquiring est into the nature, state, and condition of the East India Company, and of the British I affairs in the East Indies." Which being objected to, as contrary to order: it was moved, "To adjourn to Monday next." The same was agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Protest against the East India Regulaation Bill.] The following Protest was entered on the Journals: 66 "Dissentient' 1st, Because a Bill evidently taking away, without consent or compensation, several rights and privileges now enjoyed by a great corporate body, purchased for a valuable consideration, and confirmed by the most solemn sanctions of parliamentary faith, can be justified only by such delinquency as incurs a forfeiture of those rights, or by such evident and urgent necessity as admits of no method consistent with the charter of the Company, for the immediate preservation of those objects for which the corporation was formed. The evidence therefore of such delinquency, or such necessity, depending essentially on matters of fact and record, it is impossible for peers to proceed on this business in a proper manner, while they are unfurnished with that information, which it was our duty to demand, and which it was the disposition of the House to refuse. "2dly, Because the House of Commons had appointed committees to examine into the state and condition of the East India Company, and have from them received several Reports previous to the bringing in this Bill. A previous course of the same kind is equally necessary in this House; nor is it enough for lords to be informed from common conversation that other men have done their duty, as a reason for neglecting ours. This House, nevertheless, (in conformity to its late method of proceeding, but in direct contradiction to the uniform practice and principle of better times), has wholly declined to make any enquiry into this important and delicate subject; though such enquiry had been strongly recommended from the throne at the opening of this session. We conceive that those who advised that speech were obliged, as well from consistency as from respect to the crown, to have been early in moving a proper enquiry; and not to have opposed it even when a Bill from the other House had, in common decency, rendered it at length indispensable. Not content with this neglect of duty, and contempt of his Majesty's recommendation, a conference with the Commons was also refused; by which, however imperfectly, the inattention of the Peers might have been remedied by the diligence of the other House: and when a concession was made, that the Reports of the Committees of the House of Commons should be laid before us, on condition of their not being read by the clerk, this small concession of imperfect information was immediately withdrawn ; and the House resolved to proceed altogether in the dark. We cannot reflect, without the utmost humiliation, on the total revolution which has happened in the sentiments and conduct of this House, within so short a time as since the year 1720, when the Lords, in considering the affairs of the South Sea Company, exerted the greatest diligence through the whole of a very long session, in a strict parliamentary inquisition into facts, before they thought themselves authorized to resort to an extraordinary use of the legislative powers. "3dly, Because, we conceive that the reason of dispatch assigned for this refusal of all sorts of information to be unworthy the legislative and the judicial character of the House. We are persuaded that, invested as we are, with a public trust of the highest importance, we ought, in all cases, to postpone our amusements to our duties; and are bound to measure our consideration of the affairs before us, not by the season of the year, but by the nature of the business. In the year 1720, the Lords had a conference with the Commons, which began in July, and did not end till the 25th of that month. If we once admit the advanced period of the session as a reason of refusing to ourselves every information required by the case, the Commons have it in their power to preclude the House from the exercise of its deliberative capacity; they have no thing more to do, than to keep business of importance until the summer is advanced, and then the delay in that House is to be assigned as a sufficient ground for a precipitate acquiescence in this. Our predecessors in this House were so well aware of the use which, in future times, might be made of such a practice of the Commons, and such an argument drawn from it here, that they have expressly condemned both the practice and argument by our standing order, Die Martis, 5° Maii 1668; which standing order we insert in this protest, that it may appear, that in this obstinate refusal of such an enquiry as the subject called for, the House has trespassed as much against its own rules of proceeding, as against the general rights and privileges of the people. "Upon report, made by the Lord Chamberlain, from the committee of the whole House, concerning the Bill, for raising 310,000l. by an imposition on wines, and other liquors; that in regard the said Bill being very long, and consisting of many paragraphs, came from the House of Commons so near the time of adjournment, he was commanded to report it as the opinion of the committee, that it might be entered into the Journal book of this House, that there be no such argument hereafter used in this House, as was upon this Bill, (of shortness of time for the passing of Bills), to precipitate the passing thereof, but that due consideration may be had hereafter according to the course of parliaments. The Lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, agreed with the report made from the committee, and ordered that this order be added to the roll of standing orders of this House.' thods of redress.(Signed)—Richmond, Rockingham, Fitzwilliam, Portland, Milton, Devonshire, Ponsonby." Further Proceedings in the Lords on the East India Regulation Bill.] June 17. The East India Company having petitioned to be heard by counsel against the Bill, this day, Mr. Mansfield opened his pleadings in behalf of the Company, to the following purport: He said, that having the honour to be employed as counsel for the Com pany against the Bill depending, he should first beg leave to state the several charters granted to the Company, and to shew the conditions on which those charters were granted. He began with the Act passed in king William's reign; descanted upon those of succeeding monarchs; touched upon the respective charters of justice and of booty; and concluded by mentioning the Acts relative to the Company, which had passed during the present reign. When stating the conditions on which these several charters were granted to the Company, he laid before the House the several sums which had been advanced by the Company to the public, for which, he said, the public stood indebted to the Company, to a considerable amount; he therefore contended, that the several char ters were not granted, but conveyed to the Company in consequence of a purchase. He next proceeded to consider how far the legislative power was or was not authorized to infringe upon the charter rights, and violate those privileges grant. ed to the East India Company in conse quence of a purchase, and ratified to that Company by the most solemn acts of the "4thly, Because we think, that having legislature. Mr. Mansfield clearly shew rejected the ancient, reasonable, and par- ed, that the legislative power had no right liamentary mode of proceeding, the maxim to set aside charters and render invalid established in its place is dangerous and parliamentary acts, unless in cases of irrational. We do constantly deny that extraordinary emergency, or of extraor what is commonly called public notoriety dinary delinquency. That no such emer (which is in reality no better than com-gency existed at present as could justify mon rumour) is, or can be a ground for any act which may conclusively impair, much less wholly take away, any one of the rights of the subject; such supposed notoriety being frequently uncertain in its foundation, generally under the influence of violent passions, and entirely destitute of that accuracy, which is necessary for ascertaining the nature, extent, or tendency, of any grievance, or consequently for furnishing any wise or adequate me parliament in their proceedings towards the Company, Mr. Mansfield made plainly appear; and that no extraordinary delin quency had been proved upon the Company, this also the counsel contended for. He said, that no implication of delinquency was to be found, unless in the preamble to the Bill. Was that sufficient ground for a supreme court of judicature to proceed upon? No. Was the bare affirmation of the House of Commons sufficient evidence 10,000l. stock, were entitled to two, three, and more votes in proportion; as this was the case, the numbers of voters were little diminished, though the voters were confined to a fewer number. Was this a judicious measure? For the minister an admirable one, as a select body could certainly be managed with greater ease than a large multitude; but for the Company, it was depriving them of the power they derived by virtue of charters, and it was plundering hundreds of their privileges, without the shadow of an utility accruing to the body corporate of which they were members. In this manner did Mr. Mansfield combat every part of the Bill. analysed the different clauses relative to the appointment of the governor general and council. He dwelt much upon the vast increase of power to the crown, and inveighed against the establishment of officers with whom the Company had little connexion besides that of paying them their salaries. of delinquency in the Company? No. Where, then, was the proof of the Company's delinquency? Was it to be taken for granted, and the House of Lords to proceed as if the matter was proved? Was it to be taken from common fame, from rumour, from hearsay reports, from the public prints of the times? Such fame, such rumour, such hearsay report, such public prints, could not surely be read, heard, or admitted in evidence, as competent for the House to proceed to the deprivation of the Company of their rights. From the House of Lords the Company were taught to expect nothing but justice; it was the fountain of justice, and s should water the land with its copious char streams. If, then, no ground for delinequency appeared; if nothing like proof occurred whereon to fasten an imputation upon the Company of so invidious a nature, the Company had a right to expect to be treated as innocent by that House; they defied even the imputation of delinquency; they called for their accusers; wished them to stand forth; and were ready, by facts incontrovertible, and eviEdence not to be eluded, to disprove every scharge of delinquency that could be laid to their account. He With respect to the judges, Mr. Mansfield said, though the gentlemen at present pitched upon by parliament, were men of respectable characters, yet there might hereafter be some persons connected with a minister sufficient to procure this Having thus defended the Company judicial post, though destitute of every refrom every suggestion of criminality; hav-quisite to fill, with propriety, the imporing asserted, that if even individuals had been guilty, the Company, as a company, were innocent; having established this position, it followed that the main foundation upon which the Bill proceeded was false, was erroneous. The delinquency of the Company set forth in the preamble to the Bill, was a petitio principii, a mere begging the question, and taking that for granted, which remained to be proved; to what end then could this Bill serve? Many evils would attend its passing into a law; what one good purpose would it answer? To each of these questions Mr. Mansfield spoke with a great degree of precision. Amongst the catalogue of evils, he enumerated the deprivation of almost 1,600 proprietors of stock of the right of managing their own property. This, besides its being a stretch of despotism unequalled in the annals of our country, answered not the end for which the promoters of the Bill pretended it was projected: it was designed to lessen the number of voters, and prevent the splitting of stock; was it likely to effect this? Quite the reverse; for as persons possessing three, six, and tant station. In short, men of infamous characters, by powerful alliance, might be commissioned to embark for India, and the judicial determination of the Company's affairs might be vested in hands too polluted for even the waters between Eu rope and Asia to wash in innocency. This could not have been the case had the Company's plan, respecting the appointment of the judges, taken place. The Company were to have nominated; the chancellor, chief justice, and other judges, to have approved; and the crown to have ratified the appointment. The wisdom as well as utility of such a plan was evident; a mutual check was established, and scarcely was it possible that any person could have been chosen to the office who was not in every respect eligible. Mr. Mansfield then recapitulated the several arguments he had advanced; he laid a more than ordinary stress upon the violation of charters and breach of that parliamentary faith for which hitherto this nation had been renowned. If a breach of charters and parliamentary faith were allowable in one instance, why not in many? If in the case of the East India |