such statement it behoved their Lordships blindly, and without examination, or the exercife of their own judgements, to pafs a bill of that nature. In the cafe of the Peerage bill, which originated with their Lordships, the Commons did not confider the fubject's immediate reference to that House, and that House only, as a bar to difcuffion. It was not a custom with him, his Lordfhip faid, to addrefs his arguments to any fpeech delivered at another time in any other affembly; but, as the noble Earl had been himself in the Houfe of Commons when the bill was introduced there, perhaps he could tell their Lordships that it was introduced with a speech attacking the argument urged under their Lordships' roof against the bill, and taking very great liberties with what had fallen from a noble and refpectable authority. The abfence of that noble and learned Lord was of itself a strong argument in his mind against proceeding any farther with the bill at present. The noble and learned Lord, their Lordships. would recollect, had, by the moft irrefragable arguments, convinced their Lordships that the bill ought not to pass without more confideration than there was, during the courfe of the laft feffion, time to allow for it. The fanie arguments would now apply. His Lordfhip declared that he was not in the habit of faying in a flippant way, and he hoped he never fhould accuftom himself so to speak, that this was abfurd, that was foolish, and that ftuff, and so on. It was eafy to apply a debafing epithet to any thing; but with men accustomed to examine before they determine, that mode of debating would have little or no weight. If the election Jaws were defective, let them be remedied; but then it behoved their Lordships to proceed with due caution and confideration. The utmost which the noble Earl had ftated the Houfe of Commons to amount to in the moft flourishing time of the bill, was one hundred and twenty, which furely was no very great proof of its having been well attended. If the bill paffed, he was fure it would be found neceflary to repeal it before two years were at an end; and, indeed, the obfervations even of the noble Earl would amply justify him in not relinquishing his motion.

Lord Oborne (Marquis of Carmarthen) faid, that he felt Lor! Of it as an inevitable duty to vote against the motion. It fure- borne. ly was the duty of their Lordships to pay due attention to every bill which came before them, without regard to the particular period of the feffion at which it was fubinitted to their confideration; and if the fubject was extremely important, the more neceffary was it undoubtedly that it should engage their Lordships' immediate attention. That the ob ject which the present bill profeffed to aim at obtaining was most important and moft defirable, was admitted on all

hands.

The Earl of

hands. Would their Lordships then refufe to go into a Committee, in order to examine how far the bill was likely to obtain its end and to answer its purpofe? With regard to the argument, that a bill's coming from the other Houfe, upon the privileges of which Houfe its claufes and its principles folely turned, was no reason why it fhould not be examined; undoubtedly it was not. It was clearly their Lordfhips' duty to examine and difcufs every bill on every subject which came before them; but then furely the authority of the Commons in refpect to a bill immediately concerning themselves, ought to have fome weight with their Lordships; and unless fome grofs and flagrant inconfiftency, error, or abfurdity, was difcoverable in a bill fo circumstanced, it would have at least the influence of entitling fuch a bill to their Lordships' difcuffion and confideration. With respect to the Peerage bill which had been alluded to by the noble Lord, he conceived that the Commons did not argue that their Lordships' had a right to pass what bills they pleased refpecting themselves and their privileges, without the Houfe of Commons being entitled to examine how far they, in their own judgements, thought the bill proper to pafs the united branches of the Legislature; but that they, in all probability, paid their Lordships' opinion fo much deference, as to confi der the bill before they rejected it.

The Earl of Hopetoun faid, that the arguments fo ably urHopetoun, ged by the noble Marquis would have fully fatisfied him that the bill ought to go to a Committee, if he had not before been of that opinion. The Earl contended, that the fentiments and arguments of a noble and learned Lord, now abfent, delivered last feffion, ought not to be remembered at that moment, or have any effect, because great and truly refpectable as the noble and learned Lord's arguments were, they did not apply now; for how could it be faid that it was wrong to do that in June, which it was last year thought not wrong to do in Auguft? It was their Lordhips duty to attend to public bufinefs at every feafon of the year. They were ftaying in town then on bufinefs perhaps lefs important than the fubject matter of the bill before them. As to the thin Houfes in which the bill had been difcuffed in the House of Commons, it was a proof that the majority of that Houfe felt no objection to the bill; and indeed the manner in which it had paffed the other House proved that the majority of the people were with it.

The queftion being put, the Houfe divided, Contents 4, Not contents II.

The bill was then committed for the enfuing Tuesday. (The four contents were Lord Sydney, and the Bishops of Bangor, Briftol, and Lincoln).

Wednesday,

Monday, 3d July.

The order of the day for going into a Committee on the EastIndia Company relief bill having been read, Lord Scarfdale took his feat at the table, and the title of the bill having been read, and the confideration of the preamble poftponed,

The Duke of Portland fignified his carnest wishes that ei- The Duke ther fome Member of Adminiftration, or fome noble Peer of Portland. with whom they were connected, would fatisfactorily explain the grounds upon which it was deemed neceffary to bring in a bill of that importance at fo late a period of the feffion. He intimated his furprife, if the relief the bill propofed to afford the Company were requifite, that it had not been applied for at a more early part of the feffion, when proper opportunity might have been taken to inquire into the ftate of the Company's affairs, and to fee not only whether the Company actually ftood in need of relief, but whether the fpecies of relief provided by the bill was that fort of relief beft adapted to the nature of the cafe. As guardians and truftees for the Public, it behoved their Lordships to take care that a proper fecurity was given to those who were to be induced to risk their money by fubfcribing to the propofed increase of capital, but he faw no fuch fecurity provided; and as there was not time for the House to inquire into these neceffary facts, he would fit down in the expectation of receiving the information for which he had asked, and without which he fhould find himself at a lofs in what manner to give his vote.

Lord Walfingham begged leave to remind the noble Duke, Lord Walthat there was no queftion before the Committee, and, with- fingham. out a queftion, it was not regular to debate; neither indeed was that a fit ftage of the bufinefs to difcufs the principle of the bill. In the courfe of going through the claufes, the whole fubject matter would come out, and he should be extremely ready to fatisfy any objection which might be made to the bill, and to give every noble Lord all the information in his power.

Viscount Stormont obferved, that the manner of introducing Viscount a bill of that magnitude and importance was not more fin- Stormont, gular than the mode in which he faw it was the intention of Minifters to defend it. If the noble Duke had not moved for the papers on the table, Minifters clearly intended to introduce the bill without accompanying it with a fingle document, or voucher of any kind whatfoever. The bill muft either reft on general grounds, or fome particular fact or peculiar exigence. Minifters ought at least to ftate upon what it rested, that the Houfe might be enabled to judge whether the bill ought to pafs or not, or whether it would not be more VOL. XX. adviseable

U

Earl Bathur.

The Duke

advifeable to reject it then, and to refume the confideration of the fubject after the commencement of another feffion, when there would be a much better opportunity of inquiring into the ftate of the Company's affairs, and afcertaining the proportion and preffure of the neceffity, which rendered such a bill proper to be paffed. The Houfe, as the noble Duke had well faid, were the guardians and trustees of the Public; they ought therefore to fee that a fit fecurity was provided for thofe who might be drawn in to fubfcribe to the loan. If Minifters preferved a perfect filence as to the grounds and reasons of the bill, the conclufions to be drawn from fuch f lence must reiolve themselves into one or other of these two propofitions; either that there was not a fufficient ground of neceffity for the Minifters to venture to ftate it as a juftification of the bill, or that the neceffity of the Company was fo obvious, that it was felf-evident. So many of the meafures of the prefent Adininiftration had been trufted to the idea of their being grounded on felf-evident propofitions, that he should not wonder if this was to be left to rest in like manner upon that ground alone.

Eari Bathurfi faid, that the fit time to difcufs the principle of the bill was either on the fecond or third reading. A noble Vscount (Stormont) had been pleafed to charge the Miniftry with an intention to have introduced the bill without accompanying it with a single paper to afford the fmalleft elucidation of the fubject to the Houfe, and even ventured to declare, that if the noble Duke had not moved for papers the Houfe would have been wholly in the dark on the bufnefs. This was a moft unfair charge, because Miniftry were not allowed in this refpect to be put to the test, the noble Duke having moved for the papers long before the bill came into the House.

The Duke of Portland obferved that it was his defign to of Portland have concluded with a motion, that the Chairman quit his feat, and that motion, as he conceived it to be the regular and orderly mode of proceeding, he fhould then make, meaning, when the Houfe was refumed, to move, "That "the bill be re-committed for that day fix weeks." Having premifed this, his Grace went into argument to fhew, that without farther inquiry and more information, the Houf could not, confiftent with their own credit and character, and confiftently with their duty as guardians and trustees for the Public, lend their countenance to the bill then under confideration. He ftated that the Board of Directors of the Eaft-India Company were by no means to be relied on, as the grounds of a parliamentary meafure of fo much importance; that every Report furnifhed the Parliament by the Board of Directors had been founded in error and in fallacy;

1

that the Report then before their Lordships fet out with con feffing the mistakes and falfe ftatements made by the Direcistors in their Report of the year 1784; that they themselves admitted that they had received no information from Bengal as to the ftate of the accounts of that government fince the first of January; that confequently a great part of the Report must be grounded folely on fpeculation, and must neceffarily be liable to great uncertainty; that from what had paffed in refpect to the former Reports fent to Parliament by the Court of Directors, the Houfe had every reason to doubt their statements, and to diftruft their validity. As a proof of the truth of this argument, his Grace mentioned the bills, drawn upon the Company from Bengal beyond their expectations, and contrary to their pofitive affertions. They amounted to more than two millions. He faid, it had always been customary when Parliament empowered any great trading company to make a loan, at the fame time to take care that a fecurity was provided for thofe who were likely to be the fubfcribers to that loan. That in the prefent bill no fuch fecurity was to be found, that it not only left the subfcribers to the new ftock without a fecurity, but that it put the old fubfcribers, the prefent proprietors of East-India stock, in a worse and more infecure fituation than they were in before; that it took away their preference to be paid off firft, and deprived them of the right common to firft mortges, and which right ought never to be infringed. As reafons against paffing the bill, he ftated the heavy debt of the Company, which in Bengal alone amounted to eleven millions, and quoted Mr. Haftings as an autho rity that the furplus of the Bengal revenue (the establishment being first paid out of it) amounted to no more than a million annually, out of which the wants of the other India governments were to be fupplied, befides what was fent to China. He fpoke of the effect of the commutation act, and faid, it had fo far increafed the tea trade of the Company, that a great quantity of bullion muft every year be fent out of the kingdom to China. This he defcribed as a mischief, the extent of which was already confiderable, and the degree of extent, to which it might be carried, it was impoffible to forefee. Upon all thefe confiderations, he declared that the House would only deceive themfelves, and mislead the Public, if they gave their fanction to the bill, without first examining into the ftate of the Company's affairs more minutely than they could poffibly do at prefent, and therefore he moved, "That the Chairman do leave his "feat at the table."

Lord Walfingham contended, that the bill was a good bill, Lord Waland fuch as no found argument could be adduced to prove ei- fingham.