It was some time before that the vote of the Court of Proprietors raising the dividend to 12-1/2 per cent. had been passed[147]; on which occasion a message from the Ministry had been read to the General Court, recommending that no augmentation should take place till their affairs, then under the view of Parliament, were considered. The Court having proceeded nevertheless, a bill was introduced, by which this order was rescinded, and the Company prevented from dividing more than 10 per cent. before the next meeting of Parliament.
While these various proceedings were in progress, a measure was proposed that much more immediately concerned Lord Clive's interests. During the discussions that had recently taken place in Parliament, however much the public mind had been excited and disgusted by the reported behaviour of the Company's servants in Bengal, all parties had concurred in loudly praising his conduct and services. When the news of his distinguished success in restoring the Company's affairs reached England, and when the negotiations between the Directors and the Government had begun, many of his friends considered that the proper time had arrived for proposing that some suitable reward should be conferred upon him for his extraordinary services; and accordingly, to prevent his interests from being injured by any subsequent agreement that might be made in the negotiation then depending, a motion was made at a General Court of Proprietors[148], "That it is the opinion of this Court, that the important services rendered to the Company by Lord Clive merit a grateful acknowledgment and return; and that a grant to his Lordship, and his personal representatives, of an additional term in the jaghire of ten years, commencing from the determination of his Lordship's present right therein, would be a proper acknowledgment and return for such important services: and that it be recommended to the Court of Directors, that, upon any future propositions being made, either to Parliament, or to His Majesty's Ministers, this resolution of the General Court be humbly represented."
On this motion being made, Mr. George Dempster, who was one of the leaders of the opposition to the Directors, moved an adjournment, which was negatived by 243 to 170. The main question was then put; when a ballot was demanded by Sir George Colebrooke in favour of it, and by Mr. Dempster in opposition; when Sir George Colebrooke's question was carried by 456 to 264.