Mr. Fox said he would take off the veil, and show the House its real meaning. It was this: "Give me the absolute uncontrolled power of India in my hands, and then you shall have as many checks as you please-a check upon absolute power a check upon uncontrolled dominion." This was exactly like the right hon. gentleman's conduct on another view of the present question, namely, when he first claimed the whole revenue of the EastIndia Company, and gave them the surplus -the surplus after the whole was taken! the remainder-a blank!" Mr. Fox declared that he should complain if he was charged with stating monstrous cases; for nothing was supposed too monstrous against his own Bill. Indeed, the fact was as he had stated it. The Board of Control might apply the whole of the revenue, under colour of paying for the protection of the territories. It had been asserted that the Board of Control had not the right of nominating officers. That was true; but had they not the disposal of the revenue, and would it not be absurd to suppose that they could not, in a mild, insinuating manner, recommend?-and was it difficult to believe that the recommendation of such persons would be noticed? We knew too well the difficulty, nay, the impossibility of obtaining any nomination whatever, without a connexion with, and the countenance of, men in power. It had been always so, and would continue for ever so: the very nature of all government admitted of no other mode of regulating its concerns. So much for their possessing no right of nomination. The Board of Control had the astonishing right of levying war in India without the consent of his Majesty: and, therefore, they could never want an excuse for applying the whole of the revenue towards the defence of the territories. They had the whole power and authority of governing India upon the very worst of all terms, as applicable to the interest of the Company, and of the state. They had the power without the reponsibility; for should any officer who held the command in India act in such a manner as to destroy at once the whole of our possessions in that extensive portion of the globe, the Board of Control were not responsible; for they had not formally, although they had in effect the nomination of such an officer; in short, it was scarcely possible to name a power more absolute, and of a tendency more destructive, He next took a view of the commercial point which the present question involved.. It had been asserted that the Board of Control did not interfere with the commercial interests of the Company. If he had been truly informed, this assertion was false in fact: for he had been told that no commercial dispatch could be sent to India without the signature of the Board of Control. He desired ministers to correct him if he did not state the fact truly. He paused for an answer; but no answer being given, he took the fact to be as he stated it-and said that there was an end then to the boasted liberty of the commerce of the East India Company. He came to the point of law arising on the present case, and insisted that a declaratory bill could not constitutionally pass to supply any omission; for it would be declaring on that which never existed. He must now touch upon the last and greatest charge that had ever been exhibited against him, in the warmth even of any speech delivered in that House. A right hon. gentleman had said, that he had by his India Bill endeavoured to pluck the crown from off the head of the Sovereign. Such language, if it could be applicable to any man or set of men in this kingdom, was more descriptive of the ambition of others on a different side of the House than of himself. When had he acted, or conducted himself, as if he might be supposed to have the seeds of disloyalty in his mind? When had he endeavoured to check the just prerogatives of the crown? He knew too well their value, and he had no occasion to wander out of his own disposition, by endeavouring to destroy the just prerogatives of the Crown. Ministers were determined to give him sufficient employment in watching their daring attempts to exercise prerogatives destructive of the interests and subversive of the rights of the people; and in preventing, if possible, their creating new prerogatives, There were, indeed, some prerogatives which derived their value from being rarely used, and while we heard pompous and declamatory speeches in defence of the prerogatives of the Crown, did not let us at once forget the privileges and the rights of the Commons. It was not by endeavouring to destroy the one, that we were to preserve the other: they ought to go on in harmony and unison; and when they clashed and were discordant, then, indeed, should we be in real danger. Those who had poisoned the royal ear, by insinuating that there was but one side of the House of Commons loyal to their Soverign, were themselves, in fact, enemies to the constitution. The minister, he said, had forfeited the confidence of the House; he had been detected in a fraud upon it; he had been detected in bringing in a bill under false pretences; he had been detected in endeavouring to pass, hastily, a bill to declare what never existed; but, when he found the House awake, and determined to stop his career, he then assumed an air of candour, and wished gentlemen to bring forward their objections. Much better would it be for the right hon. gentleman at once to confess his error, withdraw his Bill, and bring in a new one, adequate to all the purposes of saving India, and also the commercial interests of the Company. The question being put, That the said report be brought up, the House divided: Tellers. The Report was then brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be re-committed on Monday. March 10. The House having again resolved itself into a committée on the Bill, Mr. Pitt rose to state the object of the new clauses, of which he had given notice. He had drawn them up, he said, in conformity to the general ideas which he then threw out. But, in order to give every gentleman full time to consider them, he would propose, that after the clauses had been moved, and read a first and second time, they should be received directly, and the farther consideration of the report be postponed till Wednesday. He then recapitulated the objections which had been made against the exceptionable parts of the Bill, and which it was the object of the new clauses to remove. First, it had been argued, that if the commissioners for the affairs of India were empowered by the Act of 1784 to send out troops to India at the expense of the Company, they might, by an improper exercise of that power, establish an army in India without the consent of Parliament. To prevent any possibility of such abuse, it was his intention to propose a clause which would operate as an effectual check on the Board of Control. It was a clause enacting, not only that an account of the British forces in India should be annually presented to Parliament in the usual form of an estimate, but that no troops shall in future be sent to India without the authority of a solemn Act of Parliament. This, however, was not to be understood in all possible cases; because it was only meant as a general limitation of the powers of the Board; for, undoubtedly, it would be absurd to suppose, that in a case of emergency there should be any check on the executive government, to prevent them from sending troops to the East more than to the West-Indies, or to any other part of his Majesty's dominions. In either case, they certainly would be amenable to parliament for their conduct, which alone would determine on the necessity or inexpediency of any measure of that nature, according to the circumstances of the case.-The next objection which had been stated as dangerous to the constitution, was the possibility of the commissioners perverting the application of the revenues of India for the purposes of creating undue influence, by directing any increase of salaries, or perquisites of their servants abroad; or in the improper distribution of gratuities, to the prejudice of the true interest of the service. With respect to those, he was extremely desirous of providing every check, and for that purpose he had prepared two clauses. The first was, to prohibit any increase of salary to the Company's servants abroad, unless sufficient reasons were given, and submitted to the consideration of Parliament by the Board at least thirty days before their dispatches were to be sent out for such increase. The other clause declared, that it shall not be lawful for the Board to order and direct any gratuity to be paid to any servant of the Company, unless it shall originate in the Court of Directors, and afterwards gain the sanction of Parliament. This was also to be understood with some exceptions. These were the principal specific provisions which he intender to move the committee to agree to. But there was another clause which he would also bring forward, though indeed the conduct of those who now acted as commissioners for the affairs of India, seemed to render it in some measure unnecessary. He begged leave to remind the House, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Dundas) had in the last session, voluntarily brought a complete inves tigation of the state of the Company's affairs in India, and of the conduct of the Board of Control under there view of Parliament, and had then given notice of his intention of annually calling the attention of the House to the same object, by which means gentlemen would have an opportunity of inquiring into the administration of the Board, as trustees for the Company and the public. In pursuance of this plan, it was his intention to propose to make it a standing order of the House, that accounts of the revenues of India, and the application of the same, distinguishing them into classes, shall annually be laid before the House, within fourteen sitting days of the meeting of Parliament after the 1st of March. These were all the clauses which he had to propose to the committee, and he trusted they would obviate every objection which had been made to the Bill. After a short conversation the clauses were read a first and second time, and the Report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on the 12th. the remedy intended and expressly given by the law to the latter. He said, that he could not flatter himself with the hope of totally eradicating the abuses of which he complained. They prevailed too universally for an humble individual like himself to aspire to their correction; they pervaded the whole system and the process of the courts; they were protected and patronized by the judges and all the officers of justice, who felt an interest in their maintenance, which doubtless would be exerted in their defence. It was, however, his duty, as an honest man, and as one tolerably well informed upon the subject, to attempt the overthrow of the most notorious and hurtful of these abuses, which he now proposed to do, without courting approbation on one hand, and without dreading censure on the other. He did not wish to insinuate, that the evils of which he complained originated altogether from the law itself; that, in most respects, was good enough: it was the abuse of the law, originating from, and supported for, the interests of the judges presiding Debate in the Commons on the Debtors in our courts, and of the various practiand Creditors Bill.] March 11. Mr. tioners in them; these persons had for ages Burges said, he rose to perform the pro- struggled to extend their jurisdiction, and mise he had made to the public, of of course to increase their profits. Every bringing forward a proposal for a modifi- effort had been used, and every art had cation of the laws relating to debtors and been employed, to bring the practice of creditors. He proposed to do this by the courts to a pitch of oppression, which moving for leave to bring in a bill; for, as individuals had long felt, of which all ranks his own ideas were distinct and settled on and conditions of mankind complained, the subject, he wished to save the House but from which lawyers derived emoluthe trouble of going into a committee, for ments superior almost to credibility. The the purpose of proving propositions self-practice of arresting the person of a evident, and unfortunately too generally acknowledged, to be disputable even by those who profited by them. That the subject to which he wished to turn the thoughts of the House, was of the greatest importance to a commercial and flourish ing nation, he conceived would universally be admitted; it was equally true, that the abuses of which he complained were a scandal and disgrace to any country; they called aloud for the interposition of the legislature, and for an immediate correction. Palliatives had frequently been administered; but experience had taught us that partial remedies were insufficient. It was the duty of the House to inquire into the subject; to search the evil to the bottom; to meet it in its true colours, and to eradicate those grievances which bore equally hard on the debtor and creditor; which exposed the former to unnecessary vexation, and which defeated debtor had been the main engine of this extension and of these profits. Having very thoroughly considered the subject, he was satisfied that such arrests were, in many instances, contrary to the law of the land; though he would not go so far as to say that, in all instances, they were illegal; there being cases, where undoubtedly they had a legal sanction. It was however most indisputable, that the Court of King's Bench had no authority for using such a process in civil causes; that a positive act of Parliament had been made in the reign of Charles 2, for the avowed purpose of prohibiting that court from using such a process; that this Act had been, within a year after its being passed, most scandalously evaded, and that a process had been ever since persisted in, which had created a revenue so enormous, as almost to exceed belief. He had no doubt of being able to prove, were such proof Court of King's-bench. One Parrott, being desirous of getting rid of his wife, for the purpose of marrying another woman, employed one Sambridge, an attorney, to arrest her in her maiden name. When she was in the spunging-house, Sambridge endeavoured to prevail on her to sign a renunciation of her rights as a wife. Onher refusal, she was committed to Newgate, where she lay eleven days. A gentleman, accidentally hearing of her case, brought the matter before the Court of Common-pleas, where it was thoroughly canvassed. He held in his hand a copy of the record. A third instance was of a lieutenant Williams, who took out a writ to recover the sum of 45l. and put it into the hands of one Laver, a sheriff's officer, in Chancery-lane. A few days after, calling on the bailiff to know the event of the business, he found himself detained as a prisoner, at the suit of one Johnson, for upwards of 120. On his objecting that he knew no such person, and owed no such sum, he was waited upon by the same Sambridge, who offered to drop farther ceedings, if he would withdraw the writ he had entrusted to Laver. This Mr. Williams refused to do, and was in consequence committed to prison; where he lay 193 days before he could obtain a supersedeas. Sambridge is now practising attorney. The remedy which Mr. Burges proposed for this grievance, was the substitution of real securities in the place of Doe and Roe; to the amount of 100. if the demand exceeded that sum; to the amount of the sum indorsed on the writ, if it was less than 100/. This would cover the costs; and, in a great degree, put a stop to so iniquitous a practice, without throwing too great a difficulty in the way of an honest creditor. pro necessary, that the places in the Court of King's-bench, which owed their origin to this usurped and illegal process, produced an annual revenue of 20,000.; that, if they were now to be sold, (and they had often and very recently been sold) they would produce, at a very moderate estimation, at least 100,000l. He certainly did not attempt to engage with the whole of these abuses; but he confessed he meant, by his intended Bill, to restrain a part of these profits within more moderate bounds. He would, with the permission of the House, open the grievances of which he complained, and state the principles on which he proposed to found a reform. The particular regulations which would be the consequence of these would best appear from a perusal of the Bill itself, should he be permitted to introduce it. The first grievance which he would mention, was the unlimited permission now given to a creditor of arresting a debtor. The process was no more than a loose affidavit of the debt; on which a writ was immediately issued, by which a defendant was arrested, and on which he might be, and often was, imprisoned for a long time, without the existence of a cause of action. The law originally had provided, that no process should issue, unless the plaintiff found security for the due, speedy, and effectual prosecution of his demand. This had degenerated into a practice no less iniquitous than generally known. Two obliging gentlemen, John Doe and Richard Roe, were now constantly employed as the standing securities of all plaintiffs. These persons, ever ready to oppress, were more tardy when called upon for satisfaction. Like the god Baal, they were eating, or drinking, or sleeping, or somehow so much engaged, as never to be forthcoming when a defendant wants them. The con- Another grievance arose from the persequence of this abuse was the most enor-mission given to a creditor of detaining his mous oppression. A defendant, not owing a shilling, was often imprisoned for months before he could supersede an action; and as often imprisoned for more than a year and a half, before he could take the benefit of the Lords' Act. Of the existence of these abuses, Mr. Burges produced some remarkable instances. One of a Mr. Robson, who was arrested for an imaginary debt of 1100. The parties concerned in this transaction were afterwards convicted at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to five years 'hard labour on the Thames; but one of them, by name Roberts, was at this moment a practising attorney in the a debtor in prison, without assigning any cause, on the payment of a groat a day. From that part of his intended Bill which related to the regulations of gaols, it would appear necessary that a creditor should, on suing out a writ, agree to allow his debtor fourpence a day for his subsistence, from the commencement of his imprisonment; which payments the creditor should be allowed to add to his original debt, and which the debtor should be bound to discharge.-By the present system, a creditor having sued out a capias ad satisfaciendum, was precluded from suing out a writ to affect his debtor's property; though, having sued out a writ of the latter species, he might afterwards sue out a process against his person. The reason of such a distinction it was not easy to discover. The distinction itself was certainly a main cause of the iniquity practised by many debtors, who lived in a gaol, defying their creditors, and consuming their property; in which they undoubtedly were not discouraged by the gaolers, whose profits from such practices were enormous. Mr. Barges instanced the King's-bench prison; where the marshal made an annual profit of more than 3,000. To remedy this, and to give creditors the full means of inforcing payment which they ought to have, he proposed to allow a plaintiff to sue forth a capias, and an eligit, or capias and a fieri facias, at the same time. This would effect the purpose; and the preceding regulation of a sufficient security on suing out the writ, with the other regulations he meant to propose, would, in his opinion, prevent it from becoming an engine of oppression. To the Lords' Act Mr. Burges stated two principal objections. Its operation was confined to debtors in execution, and it extended no farther than to those creditors who actually held a defendant in execution. He expatiated on the mutual hardships arising from such a system both to debtors and creditors; he showed the various frauds and oppressions arising from it; and he proposed, that the Lords' Act should be extended to debtors owing more than 2004. who at present were its sole objects; that debtors in mesne process, as well as those in execution, should be allowed to avail themselves of a cession of their property; that such cession should operate upon all creditors, subject to such regulations as would be found in the Bill; the most material of which was, that a release from imprisonment should not operate as a discharge of the debt; but that the future effects of a debtor should continue to be liable, until the whole of the debt should be satisfied. The present practice of compelling a debtor to find bail, to double the amount of the demand, was another enormous grievance; and though it was the general practice of the courts, it certainly was decidedly against law. As the only avowed pretence for such a practice was, the necessity of finding a security for the costs, he proposed, that in future a defendant should be required to find bail in the amount of the sum indorsed on the writ, with the addition of 100l., which in most cases would be more than sufficient to indemnify the plaintiff for his expenses. A very general practice prevailed where a man found himself likely to fail, of summoning credi tors, and applying to them for a letter of licence. This was a feeble remedy, and in general inadequate to the purpose of relieving a debtor, and indeed it most frequently ended in his absolute ruin; some angry and dissatisfied creditor arresting him, or suing out an hostile commission of bankruptcy, Very fortunately the law of Scotland afforded a sufficient remedy; that was now adapted to the circumstances of this country, and would make part of the intended Bill. The remainder of the Bill, Mr. Burges said, consisted of regulations for the internal management of gaols, so far as relates to debtors. These would best appear from the Bill itself, and therefore he would merely say, that they went to an amendment in point of sobriety, order, and decency; to an abolition of fees, and a substitution of salaries to gaolers. Mr. Burges concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the relief of debtors, for the more speedy and effectual payment of creditors, and for the regulation of gaols. so far as relates to imprisoned debtors." Sir William Dolben seconded the motion. He said, that the evils stated by his hon. friend were notorious to all men, and required immediate redress. He believed that the Bill proposed would go a great way to redress those evils, as he knew his hon. friend had taken much pains with the Bill, and been assisted by some very eminent men of the law. Mr. Orde rose to ask the hon. gentleman whether he had received the sanction of any great lawyers to his Bill. Mr. Burges answered, that it would be vain in him to mention the names of those respectable characters who had favoured his Bill with their approbation. It had been honoured with the favour of several eminent men, and by one high character, whose name he did not think himself at liberty to mention: but if he did, he was sure it would meet with the greatest respect from the House. He had applied to another person of high rank in the law for the honour of his sanction; but this great luminary, so far from giving it, abruptly refused even to look at the paper. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. Debate in the Commons on the Bill to |