By clause A, it appears that no dividend can be made, after the 24th of June, without the vote of a general court, (and by clause C, that must be a quarterly court) called for the purpose of declaring the intended dividend, with seven days previous notice thereof, in writing fixed upon the Royal Exchange--by the resolution, of your court of directors, of the 22d of May last, as well as by your uniform practice in making dividends, the half year's dividend of 5l. _per cent._ declared in September last, and now in course of payment, was due the 5th of July last, and that day, and not the 24th of June, is the day on which this dividend must be understood to be made, in consequence of the September declaration. Now as this dividend declared to be made on the 5th of July, is made for and in respect of time subsequent to the 24th of June, and is made not in pursuance of a vote, carried by ballot, in a general quarterly court, summoned for the purpose of declaring a dividend, with seven days notice of such a meeting, given in writing and fixed upon the Royal Exchange, it is not warranted by the act, but is, according to the plain and obvious construction of the act, _illegal_. I have heard two objections, and two only, made to this construction; one, that the legislature was mistaken as to the time, in which the dividends are always made by this company, supposing them payable the 24th of June, instead of the 5th of July, and that they did not intend to prevent your dividing 5l. _per cent._ at Midsummer. The other, that if they were not mistaken, and if they did intend to prevent your dividing the 5l. _per cent._ at Midsummer, the act itself fails in this intention, since it only prevents your dividing for eleven days, being the interval between the 24th of June and the 5th of July, and you are, on this account, left at liberty to pay the 5l. _per cent._ after deducting the proportional part for those eleven days. As to the first, I think nothing can be more absurd, than to suppose that the wisdom of the legislature, should be capable of such a blunder. In order to this, we must suppose, that they who, in the same session, made a law with respect to the publick funds, in which the dividends are fixed for payment on the 5th of July, and the 5th of January, could take it for granted that the India dividends were fixed for the 24th of June and the 24th of December; and we must suppose too that they could take this for granted, which is so contrary to the general practice in other funds, without making any enquiry of the directors, who daily attended, and were examined while the bill was passing: for if they did make enquiry, they must have heard that this company observed the same days of payment with the government, and have done so invariably from the original institution; and in such a case, the blunder can hardly be called the effect of oversight, but a wilful blindness.