in the funds of Great Britain, the precedent may be attended! with the most fatal confequences, to PUBLIC CREDIT.) sit brobiv (wed_92791 521 Tothly, Because, if a Bill restraining the future Dividend of the Company were proper, as has been argued, upon any ideas of fixing and preventing a fluctuation in the price of their stock, that end ret quires only, that the Dividend fhould be fixed; without any regard to the quantum of it; and may be as well cattained by a Dividend of 12 as of 10 per cent. and confequently affords no argument for the retrospective part of this Bill, or for fixing the future Dividend below the value of the ftock. But this is in truth fo far from being the real object of any part of the prefent Bill, that the fhort period to which the restriction is confined, cannot but increafe, inftead of preventing that fluctuation, and encourage, inftead of checking, the infamous practices of the Alley: The paffions of men will be warmly agitated during the fummer, in fpeculating on the probability of this reftriction being fuffered to expire at the opening of the next feffions of part liament, or being continued further. The ignorant and unwary are fure to be the dupes of thofe who have the good luck to be in the fecret, and are wicked enough to employ it to their own advantage. But the proposal made by the Company, of fubmitting to a restriction of Dividend at the rate of 12 per cent. and extending that reftriction during the temporary agreement, would have obviated all thofe mifchiefs, and fecured every good end, which may have been propofed, but cannot be attained by this Bill and fuch restriction with their confents would have been liable to no objections of injuftice or violence, even dubaidi n madh, Because, if at the opening of the next feffiond of parliament, the restriction is permitted to expire, the whole effect of the Bill, except the mifchiefs it may produce, will be the keeping back for 19. 301 för four or five months, from the pockets of those to whom it belongs, a fummof 40,000lb the diffe rence between the Dividend the Company wishes, and that which it is allowed to make by the Bill. This fum is ridiculously difproportioned to any real pur pofe of paying off and reducing the Company's debts. But if, on the other hand, the reftriction is then to be continued, and the parliament henceforward to regulate the Dividend of the Company, and the whole of their affairs for that purpose is to be from time to time laid open to public examination, it is not difficult to foresee the ruinous confequences to the Company; and as the precedent will go to the fubjecting every other Company to the fame fort of controul, the fpeedy diffolution of them all will be perhaps the happieft event the public can wish, that, they may not become fo many engines of power and influence, the confe quences of which it is eafy to conceive, and un neceffary to defcribe. ba12th, Because, the argument in favour of this limitation drawn from a fuppofition, that the Com pany had exceeded their legal power of borrowing on their bonds, appears to us to be neither well founded nor conclufive; it appears on the plain and exprefs words of the engrafting act, that they Had a power thereby to borrow five millions; fo they have always understood; and fo parliament understood and declared in a fubfequent act. And we cannot comprehend the juftice, the policy, or the decorum, of cavilling at this particular time, Jat the exercife of a power publickly exerted, and which has come frequently within the cognizance, without incurring the cenfure of parliament; and as this doubt never was started before, the objection feems to arife, not from the Company's having exceeded their power of borrowing upon bond, but from the neceffity of fucha fuppofition, in aled ond a gaiqued on ad lhw soulorg ysin order order to find a pretence, however infufficient, for this limitation. 13th, Becaufe, the inability of the Company, to make the Dividends refcinded by this Bill, has been argued on a fuppofition, that the right to the territorial acquifitions of the Company, in the EastIndies, is not in that Company, but in the public; which method of arguing, if admitted as one of the grounds of the Bill, we conceive to be inconclufive as to the fubject matter, and highly dangerous as to the precedent; for the Company being in poffeffion, and no claim against them being fo much as made, much lefs eftablifhed, we hold it highly dangerous to the property of the fubject, and extremely unbecoming the juftice and dignity of this House, by extrajudicial opinions, to call into queftion the legality of fuch a poffeffion and to act, without hearing, as if the Houfe had decided against it. 14th, Because, the forms of proceeding upon this Bill have been contrary to precedent; inafmuch as it appears by our journals, that whenever a bill, judicial in its nature, 'as affecting legal rights and private property, has come up from the Commons, ftating no facts as a ground for that Bill, or stating facts, the evidence of which does not appear in the preamble, the invariable practice of this Houfe has been to defire a conference with the other, in order to be informed either of the facts, or the evidence to fupport fuch facts (if alledged) on which the Bill was originally framed; and the Commons have on like occafions done the fame by this Houle, inftances of this mutual application from one Houfe to the other, appear in the following cafes, viz. Mr. Duncomb's cafe, March 1697. Directors of the South Sea Company, Aiflabie and Craggs, July 1721. Sir Thomas Cooke's cafe 1595. Cafes of Kelly, Plunkert, and bishop of Rochefter, March 1722. Bambridge's cafe, April K 1729. Robinson and Thompson's cafe, March 1731. Sale of lord Derwentwater's eftates, &c. 1732. Cafe of Sir Robert Sutton, and others, March 1732. Cafe of Al. Wilson, and the city of Edinburgh, May 1737; ป 15th, Becaufe in the proceedings on this Bill, no Council was appointed in fupport of the Bill, to ftate the grounds, to examine the witneffes, and methodize the evidence; for want of which the lords themfelves were obliged to call and examine witneffes, and appear more like parties than judges. 16th, Becaufe alfo, in the proceedings on this Bill, when lords, who declared themselves patrons and friends to the Bill, had examined two witneffes, and faid, they were fatisfied with their examination, other lords were not permitted to call in any other witneffes, before the council for the EaftIndia Company, against this bill, were ordered to proceed. It was ever denied to lords, to bring again to the bar the two gentlemen who had been examined (Mr Rous and Mr. Saunders, the chairman, and deputy chairman of the Company) although by the arrival of the fhip Cruttenden from Bengal, after their examination, which brought a new and very particular account of the flourishing ftate of the Company's affairs in India, it was very poffible thofe gentlemen might have changed their opinion; their former evidence having been merely matter of opinion refulting from fuch information, as they were at that time poffeffed of. Witneffes were difmiffed unexamined, whom feveral lords wifhed to have been heard; and the Bill was paffed, without waiting for the return of an account, declared by Mr. Kous to be fuch, that without it no judgment of the prefent ftate of the affairs of the Company could be formed, and which had been ordered by the Houfe, and as the officers informed the Houfe might have been prepared in a few days. 1 C days. In this manner this Bill has paffed, which we are apprehenfive may be found in its confe quences very injurous to private property, and alarming to public credit.coupobo ni balord ni nist log, cat, bod vod: jadw Moghist Winchelsea and Nottingham, Fred. Exon, Scarborough, Temple, Trevor, Fortescue, Richmond, Dudley and Ward, King, Weymouth, Gower, sd bluow Portland,beid zids Sondes 1 of chDorset, vong of bubnet Rockingham, o Albemarle, s 10 тол Eglintoune,not answ ROM an Apprehenfion of Scarcity at the Beginning of this Seffion, Heads of a Bill paffed the House of Commons to pr vent the Exportation of Corn, under certain reftrictions, for a limited Time. Left, however, Great Britain fhould want Relief from this Country, or that there fhould appear to be no Scarcity, a Powers of fufpending the Prohibition was given by the Heads of a Bill, to the Chief Governor or Governors, and the Privy Council of Ireland. In this State the Heads of a Bill left the Commons, but were afterwards altered, and a fufpending Power given, by the, Alte ration, to his Majefty, in the Privy Council of Great-Britain Great Oppofition was given to the Bill, on its Return, and to this Alteration particularly, in both Houfes of Parliament, as A Motion being made, in the House of Lords, that the Bill fhould be rejected. T quo at 92677&q son blow It was carried in the Negative.org list son blow Diffentient' 1f, Because we conceive that a Law to prevent the Exporta-1 tion of Corn is become unneceffary, and therefore ineligible, in afmuch as any Restriction upon trade is unadviseable and inju, rious, where it is not abfolutely requifite; befides that upon Grain's becoming cheap, in Confequence of fuch a Prohibition, and |