This absurdity is too gross to pass current, but the clause (C) in cap. 48 of the said act, will shew that the parliament were not ignorant, that the dividends would become due on the 5th of July, but have proceeded on the consideration of it's being due on that day. In this clause, they say, that no _declaration_, &c. shall be after the 10th of July. Now when they had in contemplation the _making_ of a dividend, they mentioned the 24th of June, a time preceding the 5th of July, in order to prevent it; when they had in contemplation the _declaring_ of a dividend, they say the 10th of July subsequent to the 5th, to distinguish between the terms _making_ and _declaring_, which have been so often confounded. It must appear highly improbable to every impartial mind, that the legislature should enact a law, to regulate the making of dividends, without knowing the time, when they are made payable; or if they were ignorant, that they would not enquire, when the directors attended to answer all enquiries, and were actually examined from day to day, while the bill was framing; and very few will be hardy enough to affirm, that if the parliament were aware, that the dividends would be due the 5th of July, such a blunder could creep into the act of parliament. The most natural construction, upon reading the said act, is, that the 24th of June was not inserted by mistake, but by design, and that the legislature plainly intended, in the restraining clauses, that the India company should make no dividend at all from Christmas last, which was before the encrease of the dividend, to the beginning of the next session of parliament; in which time, all your homeward-bound ships would arrive, the Midsummer annual account would be made up, and the ministry would have an opportunity of learning from Lord Clive, what was the real situation of the affairs in India.