Mr. Johnstone, who was not only a man of family, but of uncommon resolution and considerable talent, was strongly supported by several large proprietors of stock. When the time approached that his answers were to be given in, his brother, Mr. William Johnstone, afterwards Sir William Pulteney, waited on the Chairman, Mr. Dudley, and delivered a copy of a motion intended to be made at the General Court to be held the next day, recommending to the Court of Directors to confirm the presents received by the Company's servants in Bengal, before the 9th of May, 1765, when the covenants were presented to them to be signed, and to countermand all prosecutions against them. The Chairman was at the same time informed, that, if this motion was rejected, the conduct of Lord Clive should be called in question. Mr. Dudley replied, that they were welcome to exhibit any charge against Lord Clive, but that the prosecutions could not be withdrawn. Next day, however, the opposition, probably finding that they had not strength enough to carry their motion, did not bring it forward; and Mr. Pulteney himself seconded a motion for adjournment. But the determined resistance of the Directors to any increase of dividend gave their enemies great advantages over them in the Court of Proprietors. The Directors had themselves caused a motion for an increase of 2 per cent. to be brought forward in June, 1766, when they succeeded in getting it negatived; and thus, in consequence of particular rules, which regulated the Court's proceedings, gained some time. But this delay did not check the determination of the party in opposition, which daily gained strength. Lord Holland, and several other great proprietors, joined it, and Mr. Johnstone and his friends threw all their weight into the scale. Only two days before the Quarterly Court, in September[135], the party split 125,000_l._ stock into shares, and, by their exertions, succeeded in carrying the dividend to 10 per cent., in opposition to the expressed wish and advice of the Court of Directors. But a consequence of this difference of opinion between the Courts was, that this declared increase of dividend had no influence in raising the price of their stock. At this period, party animosity ran very high, and produced its usual effects of mutual abuse and recrimination. The opposition started a paper, called the India Examiner, which the Directors answered in the India Observer. Although it was on occasion of the vote for this increase of dividend that the Government began to intermeddle in the affairs of the Company, it may be most convenient, before attending to the proceedings of the Ministry, to conclude the narrative of the contest of the Directors with the Court of Proprietors.[136]