fpeaking of the English conftitution, fays, that the executive power ought to be in the hands of a Monarch: because this branch of government, which has always need of expedition, is better administered by one than by many; whereas whatever depends on the legislative power is oftentimes better regulated by many than by a fingle perfon.' Again; but if there was no Monarch, fays he, and the executive power was committed to a certain number of perfons felected from the legislative body, there would be an end of liberty by reason the two powers would be united, as the fame persons would actually fometimes have, and would moreover be always able to have, a fhare in both.' And as confirmed by the letter of the law, in as much as, by the ftatute of the 16th of Charles I. ch. 1. a power being lodged in the Chancellor (in cafe of the King's default) to call Parliaments; and if he failed, then in the Peers, or any twelve of them, and if they failed, then in the sheriffs; it was faid by the Judges of thofe days, that this was a direct breach of the original conftitution; for it introduced into the monarchy a kind of republic, by setting up a fupreme power, befides the regal power, and inconfiftent with it. Of the ftatute too of the 15th of Charles I. chap. 5. whereby it was enacted, that that Parliament then fitting, fhould not be diffolved, prorogued, or adjourned, but by act of Parliament; it was faid, that this was another breach of that conftitution, which had originally established the King's prerogative in that particular; and therefore these two acts were, early in the next reign, repealed. "The fecond query is, "Whether the immediate creative act of any charter of incorporation, is not vefted in the King by virtue of his royal prerogative? And if yes, whether, by the forfeiture or diffolution of fuch charter, its franchises are not revertable to the Crown, in order to be re-granted to the King, if neceffary? And if fo, whether the commiffion of Directors appointed by this bill, be not an encroachment upon the royal prorogative of the Crown? "Sir William Blackftone, fpeaking of the erecting of corporations by the King, as the fountain of privilege, fays, 'I now only mention them incidentally, in order to remark the King's prerogative in making them, which is grounded upon this foundation, that the King having the fole administration of the government in his hands, is the best and the only judge, in what capacities, with what privileges, and under what dif tinctions tinctions his people are the beft qualified to ferve, and to act under him.' "The third question is, "Whether, confiftent with the judicial capacity of this House, the disfanchifing of a corporation of fuch magnitude as that of the Eaft-India Company, the reasons of fuch diffranchisement ought not to be proved and fupported, at the bar of the House, by the ftrongest and most entire evidence? Or, whether confiftently with the duty of this House to the King, as counsellors of the Crown, a bill, creative of a new executive power, in violation of the royal prerogative, ought not to be rejected in limine upon its principle, and without entering into the merits of it? "My Lords, when Charles II. and James II. feized upon the charters which they did, for the purposes of the ftate, as they faid, although, fays Sir William Blackftone, the proceedings in moft of them were fufficiently regular, it gave great and juft offence: but it seems Charles James Fox can now of himself attempt what those tyrants, neither Charles or James Stuart put together, dared to do, feize upon charters by force and violence. When the Earl came to the mention of Charles James Fox, The Earl of Derby called him to order, declaring that The Earl of House knew nothing of Charles James Fox, and that it was Derby. extremely diforderly to mention an individual member of the other House of Parliament, in that manner by name. Earl Temple contended, that it was perfectly orderly for Earl Temany noble Lord to mention the Minifter by name, when he ple. intended to criminate him. The Earl of Derby admitted the force of the noble Earl's The Earl of argument, but faid, it by no means applied. The noble Earl Derby. whom he had called to order, talked of Charles James Fox, as having paffed the bill; this was a fort of language highly diforderly; the Houfe of Commons had paffed the bill, and their Lordships could not confider the bill in any other point of view than as the bill presented to that House from the Houfe of Commons. The Earl of Abingdon proceeded.-He said, "The fourth query is, "Whether, if this bill fhould pafs both Houfes of Parliament, encroaching as it does upon the prerogative of the Crown, it be not a right inherent in the King, as well as a G 2 duty The Earl of Abingdon, duty which he owes to the country, in prefervation of the conftitution, to put his negative upon fuch bill? 6 "Baron Montefquieu fays, the executive power ought to have a fhare in the Legiflature, by the power of rejecting, otherwise it would foon be ftripped of its prerogative. But fhould the legislative power ufurp a fhare of the executive, the latter would be equally undone.' Again, if the Prince,' fays he, were to have a fhare in the Legiflature by the power of refolving, liberty would be loft. But as it is neceffary he fhould have a fhare in the Legiflature for the support of his own prerogative, this fhare muft confift in the power of rejecting.' Sir William Blackftone, too, fays, the King is a conftituent part of the fupreme legiflative power; and as fuch, has the power of rejecting fuch provifions in Parliament, as he judges improper to be paffed.' He fays too, fpeaking of the encroachment of the legislative upon the executive power, Thus the Parliament of Charles the firft, while it acted in a conftitutional manner with the royal concurrence, redreffed many heavy grievances, and established many falutary laws; but when the two Houfes affumed the power of legiflation, in exclufion of the royal authority, they foon after affumed likewife the reigns of Adminiftration; and in confequence of thefe united powers, overturned both church and ftate, and established a worfe oppreffion than any they pretended to remedy. "And now, my Lords, thefe being the queries which it is my intention to fubmit to the opinion of the Judges, together with my reafons for the queries, I fhall now beg leave to add one reafon more for the motion itself, of calling for the advice of the Judges upon this occafion; and it is this, that, as if the opinion of the Judges had been taken of the American war before it was entered into, that is, whether the Parlia ment of England had a right to levy taxes internally on America, America not being reprefented in the Parliament of England, that country might not, at this time, have been a part of the British empire fo, upon the fame ground, am I perfuaded, that the putting of thefe queftions now, may be the means of faving the Eaft Indies to this country: for, my Lords, is it to be fuppofed, that the fervants of the Eaft-India Company in India, connected as they are in intereft with the Company here, together with Mr. Haftings, at the head of an hundred thousand men there, will quietly deliver up thofe poffeffions, when by that delivery they know that they are themfelves difplaced to make room for others; and if not difplaced, difplaced, they will have members of Parliament, and members of Parliament's fons, and kindred, riding upon them four and five deep, and quartered upon their emoluments, as much without number as without reafon. "And now, my Lords, I have done; asking pardon of the Houfe for this long trefpafs on their patience; and, whilft fitting down, not doubting but your Lordthips will think that a monopoly of power, fuch as this bill requires, is not only unfit, under any circumstances whatever, to be had, but if it were fit, to place it in the hands of him who feeks it, would be as unfafe for, as dangerous to, the conftitution of the country, I fhall hope that the motion which I fhall now have the honour to fubmit to the Houfe, will meet with the concurrence of your Lordships." A short converfation arofe upon Lord Abingdon's motion : The Earl of Sandwich faid, as the House were fummoned upon The Earl of other business, and that of great expectation and importance, Sandwich. he should give his negative to the putting of any fuch motion as the noble Lord had propofed. The Order of the Day was for hearing counfel on the petition of the Eaft-India Company, and the petition of the proprietors against the bill. The Duke of Manchefter enforced the fame idea. TheDukeof Manchester The Duke of Richmond rofe, and defired that he might firft TheDukeof prefent a petition from the city of London against the Bill. Richmond. The petition was received and read; it was very ingenioufly drawn in the exact words and phrase of the celebrated Proteft against the Eaft-India Regulating Bill of 1773, and is as follows: "To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament affembled. The humble Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons, of the City of London, in Common Council affembled, "Sheweth, "THAT a bill is now depending before your Lordships, entitled, An Act for establishing certain regulations for the better management of the territories, revenues, and commerce, of this kingdom in the Eaft Indies.' "That before paffing the faid bill in the House of Commons, no witneffes were called to afcertain the existence or quality 1 quality of any abuses in the Directors or Proprietors, or the Servants of the Company, nor was any ftate of the Company's commercial affairs enquired into by the faid Houfe. "That it is not only a high and dangerous violation of the Charters of the Company, but a total fubverfion of all the principles of the law and conftitution of this country. "That the election of executive officers in Parliament is plainly unconftitutional, productive of intrigue and faction, and calculated for extending a corrupt influence in the Crown, that it frees Minifters from refponfibility, while it leaves them all the effect of patronage. "That the claufe of this bill, which deprives of all share in the management of their own property, the Proprietors of Eaft-India ftock, and disfranchises them without the affignment of any delinquency or abufe, is an heinous act of injuftice, oppreffion, and abfurdity, and is a grofs perverfion of the high powers trufted to the Legiflature. "That the great principle on which the bill has been fupported, will not only in this, but in all cafes, juftify every infringement of the national faith, and render parliamentary fanction the worst of all fecurities: that this bill takes away rights which Parliament exprefsly convened to preferve; that the public received a valuable confideration for the franchises fo ftipulated; that grants of Parliament, under these circumftances, are not to be confidered as gratuitous, resumeable merely at the pleasure of the giver, but as matters of binding contract, forfeitable only on fuch delinquency or neceffity as is implied in the nature of every other bargain.. "Your petitioners therefore moft humbly pray that the faid bill may not pafs into a law, and your petitioners shall ever pray. (Signed by order of the Court) As foon as the reading clerk had finished the recital of it, The Duke of The Duke of Manchester rafe, and faid that he rose not ta Manchester object to the petition, but as far as the petition had caught his ear, from the curfory reading of it which he had just liftened to, it contained expreffions much stronger than ought to have been 1 |