prudence, amid all the chances and changes of this political, minifterial life. It was artful to keep back, all the resources of the Company, and enlarge only on their prefent difficulties, which were brought on by the late war, and the restraints laid by Parliament on their power of extricating themfelves by extending their credit in the circulation of bonds to a moderate amount. The unfairness of the whole proceeding must strike every man. A noble Lord (Lord Mahon) near me, with an honeft zeal, has called the bill an infamous bill. No epithet can, in my opinion, reach the enormity of its guilt, and, therefore, I fhall content myself with calling it a fwindling bill, drawn and presented by the right honourable Secretary to obtain money on false pretences.

,,,

१

A lawyer (Mr. Nichols) on the floor, who spoke last, has told us, that the Company are actually bankrupts, because they have not paid their debts, nor can they at prefent. Is then, every man, who does not, or can not, pay every legal demand, a bankrupt? Has the worthy member no more delicacy for the characters of fo many illuftrious perfons all around him? I refpect the honour of the majority here too highly to fuffer them to be called bankrupts.; Such an affertion fhall not go forth to the world uncontradicted. Is the learned gentleman yet to be taught the difference between bankruptcy and infolvency? The right honourable Secretary was more cautious: he did not pronounce the Company bankrupt. He only endeavoured to make them out infolvent at prefent, to the amount of five millions, with little chance of a future day of payment, without his generous affistance. The fame lawyer affures us, that the prefent bill is neither a bill of confifcation nor disfranchisement. He will excufe me for ftating to the House my reasons for believing it both.What is the idea of confifcation? Is it not the feizing by violence the property of one individual, and transferring it to an◄ other? It is impoffible for this to take effect in a fuller and clearer manner than is directed by the Eaft-India bill. I defy

H 2

any

any lawyer to fhew me an act of confifcation more forcibly drawn. The words of the fourth claufe of this bill are, "The Directors of the faid United Company, and all other officers and ministers, and fervants thereof, are hereby enjoined, immediately upon the requifition of the faid Commiffioners, fignified under their hands and feals, to deliver up to them, (the new Commiffioners) or to fuch perfon or perfons as they shall for that purpose appoint, all fuch lands, tenements, houses, warehouses, buildings, books, records, documents, charters, acts, inftruments, papers, fhips, veffels, goods, wares, and merchandises, money, fecurities for money, and all other effects whatsoever." Imagination is at a lofs even to guess at the most infignificant trifle, which has here escaped the harpy claws of a ravenous coalition. One idea, indeed, generally precedes the word confifcation, and that is guilt. inftance, no crime whatever has been alledged. of the right honourable Secretary for the bill, poverty of the Company; the real motive we all know is the certainty of the present spoils, with future accruing wealth, and immenfe patronage, to enrich an Indian heptarchy of his creation, and, through his tame viceroys, the Trincalo viceroy of Afia.

In the present The argument was the actual

In the bill, Sir, as drawn and prefented to the House by the right honourable Secretary, there is no clause inferted of any truft created for the benefit of the Proprietors. In the Committee, indeed, the words have been added, "in truft for, and for the benefit of, the Proprietors;" but in cafe of the groffeft abuse of truft, to whom is the appeal? To the Proprietors? No, Sir, they are to have no farther concern with their own property. Is it not, then, confifcated? The appeal is to a majority in either Houfe of Parliament, which the moft driveling Minifter could not fail to fecure with a patronage of above two millions fterling given by this bill.

Sir, the bill is faid not to be a bill of disfranchisement, because it does not take from the Proprietors their right to an

exclufive

exclufive trade or monopoly. Was this monopoly the only franchise of the Proprietors? There is property in this kingdom to which a franchise is annexed. The franchise may be taken away, yet the property remain. To a freedom, for instance, is annexed a right of voting for members of Parliament. We have feen that franchife taken away, and yet the freehold remained untouched; but furely the freeholder loudly and justly complained of the disfranchisement. The cafe is parallel as to Eaft-India ftock. Perfons poffeffed of ftock to a certain amount, are entitled to vote for the appointment of their fervants, both at home and abroad, to manage their property, in which they are always clear fighted, to direct and fuperintend all their concerns, with a general power of control. This, furely, is a moft valuable franchise; it was understood to be purchased with the ftock. The purchase money was more confiderable from this intrinfic value, which it was supposed to poffefs. The franchife is to be taken away by the bill, and yet one gentleman amongst us can affert, that the Eaft-India Proprietors will not be disfranchifed. God for-bid the people of England should have many such defenders of their franchises and liberties in a House of Commons !

If the House, Sir, will attend to what has paffed fince the introduction of this bill among us, they will fee, that if we mean to preferve our ancient parliamentary forms of proceeding, we cannot fuffer the farther progrefs of this bill. When leave was moved for its introduction, the right honourable Secretary, as the fole motive of his conduct, gave an alarming account of the defperate ftate of the finances of the Company. He painted in the darkest colours the state of their debts and incumbrances, which he made amount to feveral millions. A worthy member of this House, (Mr. Samuel Smith) a Director of the Eaft-India Company, flatly contradicted the affertions of the Secretary, and pledged himself to prove the unfairness of all his calculations. The Company have fince given to the public a very different ftate of their affairs. It comes authenticated by every proper authority, Nathaniel Smith,

H 3

255436B

Smith, Efq. Chairman of the Eaft-India Company, John Annis, Auditor of Indian Accounts, and Samuel Nicholl, Accountant. These accounts we may examine at our leisure, and fcrutinife with the most minute exactnefs. We have a clear "statement of the debts, credits, and effects of the Eaft-India Company," carried up to December 1, 1783. But where is the account of the right honourable Secretary to be found? That does not admit of fuch a scrutiny: that is authenticated by no fignature, nor proved by any paper on our table. No two perfons in this House agree to-day in the particulars of the long, Faboured harrangue of yesterday. There is a precifion in what is thrown on paper, but then it is liable to detection, and even feems to invite an acute examination. Here then, Sir, the honour and juftice of this House are deeply concerned. One member brings forward a bold affertion of various facts, on the truth of which he asks leave to bring in a very harsh and severe bill, to use no more violent expreffion. Another member, more immediately concerned, having the proofs daily under his eye, denies the truth of every propofition advanced by the member who moved for the bill, and dares him to the proof at your bar. Here can be no deception. The challenge is perfectly fair. No demonftration can be fuperior to that drawn from figures. The challenge, however, is declined. No proof whatever is offered in fupport of the bill. The cafe then is at iffue, and every principle of juftice forbids us to proceed till the facts are afcertained, till we know whether a real neceffity exifts, or whether it is made the pretence to colour a deep-laid plan of ambition, wealth, and power.The forms of Parliament are first to be facrificed, and then its independency,

This bill, Sir, appears to me to violate the national faith in a high degree, for it annihilates the charter of the Eaft-India Company, purchased of the public, and fecured by the fanction of Parliament. The violation of the American

charters, which has been followed by the lofs of our empire

in the Weft, would have deterred any Minifters less rafh, less impetuous, from this dangerous experiment of tampering with charters. Not a corporation in the kingdom, not a charter, not the Great Charter of our liberties, not a deed, not a contract, not a document, not a fecurity, no fpecies of property, can be fafe against unprincipled men, acting thus in the plenitude and wantonnefs of power. This charter did not owe its birth to the foolish prepoffeffions or mad prodigality of any of the Plantagenets, Tudors, or Stuarts, in favour of their fervile courtiers or interested dependents. It was a fair purchase made of the public, an equal compact for reciprocal advantages between the nation at large and the body of the Proprietors. The purchase money has been actually received by the public, and, consequently, the Proprietors have a juft claim to what was ftipulated in their favour. I agree, Sir, that there is no charters which may not be forfeited from delinquency, but the charter of the city of London, for they are excepted by an exprefs act of our glorious Deliverer, from the neceffity of preferving the peace of the capital; but no delinquency of any kind is now made a charge against the Eaft-India Directors, Proprietors, or any of their fervants. The diftress of their circumstances alone was alledged as warranting fuch a bill. I am very ready to admit, that the servants of the Company have been guilty of the most enormous crimes in the Eaft. Is that a reason for punishing the Directors and Proprietors in Leadenhall Street? Has the leaft degree of guilt been imputed to them? I wish rather to add to their powers over their own fervants, and then I am fatisfied that guilt of the deepest dye would speedily be followed with the most exemplary punishment. I fee no objection to giving the Directors moft of the powers of this bill. It would be highly politic. Let me ftate to the recollection of the House a recent tranfaction, in which the intereft of the Company and the national honour were deeply wounded. When, after every poffible delay, the authors of the late revolution at Madras, and the fubfequent