The history of this bill is very curious, and is fully given in the letters of Mr. Walsh and others to Clive. It was brought forward in 1764, and read twice; but owing to some informality in its wording, was thrown out that session. This was imputed by Mr. Sulivan to the measures of his opponents, many of whom would have been disqualified, from not having had the stock for the prescribed period: they, on the other hand, accused Mr. Sulivan of having so timed the bill, as to establish his own votes and destroy those of his opponents. Footnote 172: Mr. Walsh, in a letter to Lord Clive, of the 14th of February, 1765, after telling him of Mr. Sulivan's having split a number of votes, and of Mr. Divon (a partner of Child's house) having split 30,000_l._ to support him, informs Clive that he means to do the same with some of his money. He adds, "I am splitting mine to the amount of 20,000_l._ It is a troublesome and dangerous business, but the act of parliament will put an end to it." Footnote 173: 19th March, 1763. Footnote 174: Clive here alludes to a quarterly meeting of the Court of Proprietors. Footnote 175: 28th February, 1762. Footnote 176: The extract here quoted is part of a larger paper in defence of Lord Clive's conduct, and believed to be written by the late Sir Henry Strachey. Footnote 177: The contents of this private letter to the President of the Council at Bengal were as follows:—"That all cordiality being at an end with Lord Clive, the Court of Directors had stopped payment of his jaghire; a measure which would have taken place years ago, had it not been for him (Mr. Sulivan); and that, on this head, the said President was to obey every order which he might receive from the Court of Directors; and that more was not, nor must be expected of him." Footnote 178: