to ask gentlemen, whether a difference existed between the two Bills sufficient to cause a great revolution in the nation? Whether such a difference existed as was sufficient to convulse the state to its foundation, and make the King start from his throne? Would any man have believed, when the Bill was brought in at the end of 1783, taking from the Company their rights, and the whole nation was convulsed, that a deprivation bill would be afterwards brought in and carried, without an alarm either of the Directors or the nation? Could any man believe, that in the jubilee year of the rights of the Company, they would quietly have submitted to a bill, if they had conceived it likely to go to a deprivation of their rights? It was evident, therefore, that no such suspicion was entertained at the time. The present Bill could not be a true exposition of the Act of 1784. The right hon. gentleman who brought it in, had argued the question thus: "You have given the Board of Control power, you must give them responsibility, and they cannot exercise responsibility without the right to apply the revenues of India." Could any man doubt that power was the result of responsibility, and not responsibility the result of power? But he would maintain, that the Board of Control had not responsibility; and for this reason: because they were destitute of power. If the Bill had been an enacting, and not a declaratory bill, he should have opposed it; not from indisposition to the right hon. mover of it, but from a sense of justice. The subject of the declaration was a subject in which the nation was interested. The charter of the East India Company was in the nature of a lease; the legislature was the landlord; the Company were the tenants. It was therefore unbecoming the justice and dignity of that House, so circumstanced, to interfere judicially. Would they confess themselves a party, and come to a declaratory law on their own case? Nor was it at all necessary. If a dispute had arisen as to what was to pay the troops in India, that might be adjusted afterwards. The Company's ships, he understood, were ready to receive them: the troops, therefore, might be embarked, and the question in dispute tried at law; and, if it could not be brought to an issue before the end of the session, the minister might bring in a conditional bill to provide against the event. Mr. Flood spoke of the construction of the Act of the 24th of the King; an Act which, he said, did not repeal any charters. The minister, in the year 1784, had declared, that it did not, and the House had passed the Bill under that express declaration. Would any man then say, that the House ought to repeal chartered rights by construction? He denied that the Board of Control could have the power to originate and act in the first instance from the very nature of their institution. The Board was instituted to superintend, control, and amend. It was expressed in the Act, that if the Court of Directors did not send dispatches in due time, the Board of Control might, in that case, originate. The very exception proved that they could not generally originate; the power of originating must therefore have existed elsewhere; and where could it exist, but in the Court of Directors. If the Board of Control had not been convinced that it did not exist in the Court of Directors, how came they in October last, in a time of alarm and tumult, to make application to that court for their consent to the embarkation of the four regiments in dispute? if they had not been so convinced, why did they, at that moment, come to parliament for a declaratory law? Would any man say, that the Act of 1784 was considered by the public in any other light than as an act of control, and not as an act of deprivation? Would any man say, that it was not the meaning of the Act of the 24th to establish a board of control, instead of a board of power? Were the case otherwise, the Board would, in fact, not be a board of control, but a new East India Company. Was it not absurd to give a board of control to control themselves, and yet if they were a board of power, that was ́ taken from them over which they were to exercise control. The mischief in that case would be infinite. By blending power and control together, there would actually be no control at all, not even the ultimate control of all, the control of parliament ! It would be better to make the Company a board of control themselves, because they would be subject to the control of parliament, which a ministerial board of control would not, but would be more likely to control and over-awe parliament. The object of the legislature had been to have a board of control over the East India Company; but, the minister being made the East India Company, instead of having two controls as at present, and one East worth while, therefore, to consider what was the power of the Crown in Asia already? The Commander-in-chief and Governor-general were subject to the Crown and independent of the Company. The Supreme Court of Judicature was also subject to the Crown. At home, the Crown had the power of raising recruits, as well as the power of making the condition of renewing the Company's charter, and a variety of subordinate sources of influence. This naturally led him to a farther consideration. He wished to ask if gentlemen were prepared to pronounce it a wise mea. sure, at the expiration of the Company's charter, when it could be done without any violation of justice, to take the territories in India into their own hands, and to annex them to the Crown of Great Britain. He should conceive that such an idea would be not only an inexpedient, but an impolitic and unwise measure in every view of it. The territorial possessions of India had always been considered, and so they ought to remain, as a fortuitous acquisition of commerce, and they were by no means fit either to be made subject to imperial sovereignty, or annexed to the Crown of Great Britain. From the very moment of their being determined to be a part of the British empire, the dearest concerns of this country would be pledged to their preservation. Mr. Flood contended that the true meaning of the Act of 1784 was to institute a board of control and superintendance; with this distinction, that the political part of the Company's affairs ought to be controlled, but the commercial part not; yet, if the Board was admitted to be a board of power, the end of the Act of 1784 would be defeated; the control of parliament, as well as the control of the Court of Directors would be at an end, in the instance in question; and the Board of Control would not prove the best control in the world over themselves. India Company, they would have two East India Companies, and no control at all. The right hon. gentleman thought proper to maintain that the commercial rights of the Directors had been left uninjured. He denied that fact. Commerce could not be carried on without territory, without influence, without investment. If the Board of Control had the right of anticipating the revenues, they could anticipate the investment and they could thus destroy commerce. He entertained too high an opinion of the abilities, the integrity, the head, and the heart of Mr. Pitt, to believe him to be the author of the present Declaratory Bill. He was persuaded he was not; but he was sorry to find him prostitute his great name, and submit to stand forward as an apostate. With regard to the checks and guards against patronage provided in the present Bill, that patronage would, in spite of all guards, rest with the Board of Control. The Court of Directors could not hold it. The patronage of the slave was necessarily the patronage of the master. The Court of Directors must not only suffer the Board of Control to exercise their patronage, but offer it to them; nay, not only offer it, but dare not complain of its having been extorted from them. They could no more hold the patronage while the Board held the power, than a man on the ground with money in his pocket could say it was his own, while another man was standing over him and had a drawn sword at his breast. Patronage was not, according to the general idea, the mere power of appointment and dismission to and from office; but it was every thing that created influence. The power of applying and appropriating the revenues gave considerable influence, and, consequently, considerable patronage. Making contracts was patronage; and a variety of other exercises of power gave patronage. If, therefore, the Board of Control had all that power, what was to control them? No man had a greater respect for the power of parliament than he had; and therefore he did not wish to see the power of parliament sapped and undermined, as it would be, if the minister were suffered to annex all the enormous degree of influence deducible from the patronage of the East India Company to his Board of Control. Four years ago they were told, that the influence of the Company would make a small body superior in power to the Crown itself. Besides the power of the Board of Control, it was Mr. Hardinge said, that the subject naturally divided itself into three questions, and no more: first, whether the Bill in hand spoke the true construction of the Bill of 1784: secondly, whether it was expedient or necessary to speak it then, and in the form of the Bill; and thirdly, whether the checks contained in it were sufficient guards against the power of the Board of Control, so as to prevent any danger arising therefrom. Previous, however, to his entering on the discussion of those questions, he begged leave to ram it made a great cry; that as to the Bill of ble a little out of the subject immediately before the House. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) had, in the course of the late debates, taken up the comparative merits of his East India Bill, and set them against the merits of Mr. Pitt's Bill of 1784. To that right hon. gentleman, however he might differ with him respecting his India Bill, he confessed himself under the highest possible obligations, and he was ready to declare, that exerting all the efforts of his powers, he could not possibly do justice, in expression, to the degree of gratitude that he felt towards him, for having, by his manly perseverance, and unwearied endeavours, for a number of years together, at length extirpated the most weak, servile, and corrupt administration that ever disgraced the annals of British history. With regard to the right hon. gentleman's India Bill, he was willing to believe, that when he brought that measure forward he had not any intention to go the length which, if he had accomplished in an evil hour for the genius of the country, would have broken down the walls of the constitution, have reduced that House to the most servile situation, have created that monster, a fourth estate, paramount to all the rest, and sacrificed the first and dearest interests of every subject in the realm, the prince as well as the peasant, to the boundless ambition and liberality of the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Hardinge now proceeded to speak of the use which had been made of the pre-in the course of the recent debates, obsent Bill, through a gross misrepresentation of its constituent characteristics, to endeavour to mitigate and diminish the well-founded detestation and prejudice which were entertained against Mr. Fox's India Bill. On the present occasion, not only the right hon. gentleman, but every one of his friends had seized the opportunity to endeavour to lessen the odium under which they laboured. One hon. gentleman of acknowledged judgment, taste, and ability, had taken the lead on the occasion, and had publicly stood forth and described the general indignation expressed throughout the whole kingdom in 1784 by two strong and emphatical words, a 'senseless yell!' Mr. Hardinge reasoned on this expression, and then took notice of Mr. Pulteney, Mr. Bastard, colonel Barré, and Mr. Powys, whom, he said, Mr. Fox had, as it were, pressed into his triumph. One hon. gentleman had said, that he was ill at Bath when the Bill of 1783 was agitated, but he had heard that The served, with exultation, that he was better heard than he had been for some time past, in that House. He begged leave to ask if the hon. gentleman, to whom he had been alluding, could say the same? Was he as well heard as he used to be? His fortune is great; his character in private life is ami ble; and his understanding is a most enlightened one; but yet he is not heard with the attention which he once commanded. Whether it arose from spleen on one side of the House, or that he was bewitched by the other, remained as yet to be decided. The reason nevertheless was obvious, and he would inform the hon. gentleman, if he were favoured with his permission. The reason why the hon. gentleman stood degraded in the opinion of that House-[A vehement cry of Order! order!] Mr. Hardinge begged leave to assure the House, that he spoke merely of his public character; but the cry of order increasing, he was obliged to sit down. Sir Francis Basset remonstrated against the liberty which the hon. gentleman had taken with the character of an individual member of that House. Mr. Powys earnestly intreated the hon. baronet who spoke last to desist; and then added, how far liberal the hon. gentleman's conduct is, I leave to the House to determine; but disorderly I admit that he is not, and I beg he may be permitted to proceed and explain himself, as the House will, doubtless, do me the justice to permit me to answer him. Mr. Powys said, he did not feel himself degraded, because he never had abandoned any one principle he had ever professed; if he had, he called upon the learned gentleman to point it out. If he was less agreeable to any part of the House than he had formerly been, it was because he had adhered stedfastly to his principles, without being tainted by the example of those who had deserted theirs. He had appealed to his constituents at the last general election; before them he defended himself, and vindicated his conduct Mr. Hardinge protested, that if he had in the late political convulsion; the conse fallen into any error, it arose from inad-quence was, he did not stand degraded in vertency. He had conceived, that so long the eyes of his constituents; and he was as he confined himself to public character, ready to defend himself against any he should have been within order. The charge. reason why he thought the hon. gentletleman did not stand so high in the opinion of that House as he used to do was, because the House had found that the hon. gentleman had looked less to principles, and more to men, than he had been used to do formerly; that, in fact, he had abandoned the examination of measures, and by adhering to men, had become a partizan. The Speaker said, he felt it his duty to reprehend the hon. gentleman, and to inform him, that the rule of the House was, when the public conduct of members had been at all adverted to in debate, to mix the measure with the man, and thus form a fair and tenable ground for animadversion, but to take the character of a member in the abstract, and make that the subject of discussion, was in the highest degree disorderly. Mr. Hardinge said, that he was ready to apologize in any terms the House thought proper to impose, conscious from what had fallen from the chair, that he had been in the highest degree disorderly. He concluded by expressing the satisfaction he felt, in finding that Mr. Pitt was supported by a House of Commons, influenced not by corruption, but by admiration of his talents, and confidence in his integrity. The support of the present House was the more honourable to the minister, as its confidence in him was not a blind confidence; the minister found himself sometimes in a minority; and his defeat on such occasions, made his triumph the more honourable to him on others, as it must appear to the world that his measures must be good, or they would not find support from a majority under no other influence than that of reason, and the public good. Mr. Adam declared, that it was impossible for him to sit silent after the attack made on the noble lord in the blue ribbon, to whom he was proud to confess himself under singular obligations. If there was any part of that administration to which the terms servile and corrupt applied, let his learned friend look round on either side of him where he sat; let him look into the other House of Parliament. Among those whom he now called his friends in the highest offices of the state, were to be found the persons of that administration, to whom the epithets servile and corrupt might belong, if they belonged to any. Those who sat on his side of the House had shown, that their attachment to the noble lord was not founded in servility and corruption, and that they were incapable of being influenced by any such motives. Mr. Addington supported the Bill, and instanced the 14th clause, which gave the Court of Directors an appeal from the Board of Commissioners, the oath obliged to be taken by the Commissioners, and the petition of the Court of Directors and Proprietors to his Majesty after the Bill of 1784 had passed, as arguments in proof that the Directors must be aware that they gave the Board of Control no patronage, and at the same time afforded them, after a full knowledge of its contents, ample and complete satisfaction. Sir Francis Basset denied that the Act of 1784 went farther than to establish a Board of Superintendance and Control. If the mover of that Bill now felt that additional powers were wanting, why did he did not come forward and ask for them? Mr. John Scott observed, that Mr. Fox had, on the preceding Friday, charged him with having misrepresented his Bill, and that therefore he felt as if he had set his foot on a viper, such was his horror at hearing an imputation of the kind levelled at him. He admitted the two particulars in which he had erred, but contended, that he had been generally right in his argument against the right hon. gentle man's Bill. He read three extracts from the debates of December 1783, on the subject of the India Bill, to prove that he had been warranted in his assertions. The book he knew was not deemed the best authority, but it at least contained an account of the debates of the period in question extremely favourable to the right hon. gentleman. He then argued against Mr. Fox's Bill, in order to prove that it tended both to increase and decrease the influence of the Crown, and to confound the legislative and executive functions of government. Lord Mulgrave rose to state some facts in the memory of the House, which would serve to show what the true distinction was, between the Bill of Mr. Fox and that of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Sheridan was surprised, that the noble lord, though one of the Board of Control, had not said one word to the subject, which concerned that Board more immediately, but had confined himself merely to abusing his right hon. friend's Bill. The noble lord had turned a deaf ear to the earnest appeal of his colleague (Mr. Dundas), and though twice called to by the Speaker in the course of a former debate, had chosen to remain silent, till his right hon. friend had been called upon to say a few words in reply to an attack on his Bill founded in misrepresentation. The noble lord had then observed, as it were to himself, "this is the fit time for me to speak. Now I'll rise and take my share in the debate." The noble lord had accordingly risen, and after having advanced what he thought proper, by way of aggravating and inflaming the false colouring put upon his right hon. friend's Bill, had sat down, declaring there were other matters of which he meant to have taken notice, but that they were as well let alone, meaning undoubtedly the conduct of the Board of Control, the members of which collected themselves together in such a state of perfect harmony! No man had more personal respect for the noble lord than himself, but he could not help remarking so singular a circumstance as that which he had noticed. He would now proceed to say a word or two upon some matters that had dropped relative to the administration of lord North. A learned gentleman had thought proper to call lord North's a weak, servile, and corrupt administration, a charge which an hon. and learned friend of his had repelled with equal eloquence and ability. Whatever there had been of servility and corruptness in lord North's administration, the learned gentleman over the way might best learn by inquiring of those about him. Evident it must be that no part of those base passions was imputable to such of the friends of lord North, as sat on the side of the House on which he stood. They had been put to the severest test, and to their eternal honour they had evinced their steadiness and truth in the hour of severest trial. When it was least possible for the ends of servility and corruption to be answered, they had most manifested their affection to lord North's person. Mr. Sheridan replied to the remark of Mr. Hardinge, upon his having termed the clamour occasioned by the gross misrepre sentations of Mr. Fox's Bill, a senseless yell, and in answer to the insinuation that he had advised his right hon. friend against the measure, he begged leave to deny having ever given such advice. He had differed with him as to the mode of doing it, but as to the measure itself he had ever considered it as wise and manly. He declared that the Bill then before the House had sufficiently established the propriety of Mr. Fox's Bill, and proved the folly of the clamour that had been set up against it. Mr. Sheridan observed, that a learned gentleman (Mr. Scott) had produced some books, which he himself had stated to be bad authorities, to prove that Mr. Fox had said in 1783 what he had never uttered. Such books certainly were not to be relied on with implicit confidence, but there was to be found in those very books, a report of part of a speech of the learned gentle. man, in support of the veracity of which his recollection bore testimony, as he could declare upon his honour he well remembered it to have happened as it was there stated, namely, that when the idea of its being the design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dissolve the parliament had been in discussion in that House, the learned gentleman had stood up and assured the House that the right hon. gentleman had no such unconstitutional purpose (as he had termed it) in view, pledging himself to be the first man to |