ACT of PARLIAMENT: SODOMY & BESTIALITY ACT of 1753

23 JULY 1753

26 Geo. II. c. 5

WESTMINSTER HALL

An Act to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against the Person, in regard to the heinous and depraved posting of pornographic anthropomorphic sexualized animals within the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland.

An Act that will BAN and place criminal offenses on the continued posting of ANY and ALL forms of these anthropomorphic sexualized animals, commonly referred to as “furries” within this server by any and all British citizens, guests, or allies of the Empire.

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Written by the Rt Hon Earl Grey, KG, KB, FRS, MP for Northumberland. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 14-2.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: REGULATION of the ARMED FORCES ACT of 1753 & REPEAL of the 1752 NAVY ACT

Colloquially known henceforth as the “1753 Navy Act”

23 JULY 1753

26 Geo. II c. 4

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER

An Act to review the current organizational methods used to manage the Royal Navy and Royal Army of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, as well as all other essential military assets, and restructure these bodies into more effective and productive systems of management through a comprehensive __five point plan__.

__Article I: **The Royal Navy Discord**__

The entity currently known as the “TBE Royal Navy” shall be __archived__ by the British National Archives, also known as the Public Records Office, under the direct management of the Master of Rolls & overseen by the Office of the Prime Minister. Relevant re-organization will be carried out by the Public Records Office to ensure all relevant information on the “TBE Royal Navy” discord is preserved in a timeless and efficient manner.

__Article II: **Consolidation into TBE Discord**__ Any relevant information shall be then obtained via the British National Archives/Public Records Office, and then posted in its respective channels, as well as its respective government Wiki article(s), and these established medium shall be edited and updated by its appointed bureaucratic officials.

Those channels, which having been deemed as **relevant** by select committee members of HM Armed Forces, shall be reorganised into its own separate category on the TBE discord titled “HM Armed Forces” with the following channels:

• HM Armed Forces** (category)
  • └**#hm-armed-forces** (General chat for all PvPers/SvSers)
  • └**#information** (Links to wiki, etc)
  • └ **#royalnavy** (SvS discussion)
  • └ **#royalmarines** (PvP discussion)
  • └ **#admiralty** (Naval leadership)
  • └**# war-office** (Marine/Army leadership)

This will ensure as to the most relevant and useful channels of communication between the Honourable & Gallant members of HM Armed Forces remains intact, in a fashion that ensures both A) The civilian oversight by Parliament of the Armed Forces and B) Outreach towards the British Citizen -ry for that new and able bodied recruits may be enlisted into the Armed Forces. __Article III: **Naval Reforms**__

Recognising the long-standing usefulness and effectiveness of **HM ROYAL NAVY** following the mass reforms brought under the leadership of former Secretary at War and First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Nathaniel Joseph Garland II (Sven Daggersteel), shall revert the traditional leadership of the Navy to a more cohesive and practical format.

Henceforth repealing the stipulation of the 1752 Navy Act by reverting the Board of Admiralty to its true format by re-titling the Naval Lords to their original offices of First Sea Lord, Second Sea Lord, Third Sea Lord, and Fourth Sea Lord. Further recognising the importance and efficiency of the offices of Comptroller and Treasurer of the Navy, and ensuring the continued presence of those officers on the BOARD of the ADMIRALTY composed of the First through Fourth Sea Lords, other Naval officers invited to sit on that committee, and headed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the professional and political head of the Royal Navy.

__Article IV: **Restructuring the War Office**__

Recognising the importance of an able administration over HM Royal Marines, recognised as the elite naval infantry force of the Empire, shall revitalise the entity known as the War Office. In contrast to the Board of Admiralty, the War Office and it’s parent body the Board of Ordnance is composed of only two permanent offices, that of the Master-General of the Ordnance (a Cabinet-level position) and the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, who in turn acts as the Lieutenant Colonel of HM Royal Marine Corps Remaining seats within the War Office & Board of the Admiralty are filled by officers of HM Army on a temporal basis.

__Article V: **Promotion Limitations within HM Armed Forces**__

Due to the inefficiency and corruption that plagued the Armed Forces as a result of the Navy Act of 1752, this act shall further **repeal** the provisions from said act relating to the promotions and appointments of army and naval officers to senior rankings. All promotions beyond the ranks of Lieutenant in the Royal Marines/Royal Army and Master and Commander (Commander) in the Royal Navy must be approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in addition to the the enlisted personnel's respective government department (Office of the Admiralty and Marine Affairs for Navy and Royal Marines and War Office for Royal Army and Royal Marines).

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Written by the Rt Hon Earl Grey, KG, KB, FRS, MP for Northumberland. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 13-1.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: FRENCH RECOGNITION ACT of 1753

9 JULY 1753

26 Geo. II c. 2

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER

An Act reaffirming British recognition of His Most Christian Majesty, Louis Benjamin Philippe I, as the rightful King of France and Navarre, first established in the French Recognition Act of 1750, passed on the 28th day of July in the year 1750, while further recognizing the guild of His Royal Highness, John d'Artois de Bourbon Capet, Dauphin and Chancellor of France, *“C’est La Vie”*, as the rightful representation of the Kingdom of France in the Caribbean.

Drafted by the Duke of Hamilton. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 14-0.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: SPANISH RECOGNITION ACT of 1753

9 JULY 1753

26 Geo. II c. 3

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER

An Act granting official recognition by the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland of Jack Gutierrez (Jack Fireskull) and Rosabella Guitierrez (Nell) as the rightful King and Queen of Spain respectively, while further recognizing their guild, *“Viva España”* as the rightful representation of the Kingdom of Spain in the Caribbean, in accordance with the Spanish Restoration Act, passed on the 28th of July 1750.

Drafted by the Duke of Hamilton. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 12-1.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: REFORM ACT of 1753

9 JULY 1753

26 Geo. II c. 1

WESTMINSTER HALL

HM CABINET OFFICE

An Act to renew certain enactments relating to civil procedure which have ceased to be in force, or have become unbearable, and for the better regulation and management of the the British Empire, its Parliament, and its Military by reinstatement of Questions to the Prime Minister & Regular Sessions of Parliament every **Wednesday and Thursday, from 4:00 PM PST/7:00 PM EST**

An Act to further and once again mandate uniforms for guild events (including all Naval and Marine exercises) and reestablish the guild uniform as the classic Paradoxian War era uniforms that have been in use for over a decade (refer to #guild-uniforms).

An Act to re-establish the original guild event schedule as mandated by the 10th Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in the year 1750.

• Sunday - Guild meeting in lobby, then guild line on Tortuga, Abassa
• Monday - PvP, then recruiting/Cannon Defense
• Tuesday - SvS, then recruiting on PR docks
• Wednesday - Prime Minister's Questions, poker night
• Thursday - Parliament, boss looting/loot runs
• Friday - SvS, then guild line on Tortuga, Abassa
• Saturday - Weekly TBE Fleet, then mat runs (unless there is a special event)

With the times to be decided on after input from guild members.

• With the release of lobbies, The British Empire should be utilizing them to their fullest extent. The “Weekly TBE Fleet” is a proposed weekly event to promote British unity and recognition throughout the Caribbean.**

My Lords, this bill will set our guild and Empire back on the right track. It will bring us back to our days of success and ensure that our future endeavors will have that same success.

This will settle the uniform debate and remandate the uniforms we have had for over 10 years. To find our past successes once more, we must look to the past and respect our traditions and legacy.

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Drafted by the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl Grey. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 18-1.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: Sever Simplification Act 25 Geo. II c. 5 15 JUNE 1752 WESTMINSTER HALL OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER 

The original text of the bill: 
"I stand before Parliament for the people! It was very controversial when it was first presented. Over the past few days I have gathered evidence that supports the claim we shouted all those weeks ago
We must get rid of the roleplay channel from the British discord.
As you can see here, it has little to no activity. As expected, therefore it is a waste of space" - Jason Blademorgan

I would direct my Right Honourable colleagues aka MPs to the fact that the #roleplay channel has not been used in exactly a month's time. Many months ago, my Right Honourable friend first recognised this issue and wished to address it, but adamant and zealot "roleplayers" rushed to its defence. It was then determined that the issue could not be brought back up until 3 + months to avoid repetition. It has been 6 + months, and more and more the infamous #deleted-channel channel has fallen into inactivity. It is now the middle of June, and the beginning of summer. Activity should have resurrected its use, but it has not. 

One of my previous proposals last year called for the consolidation and immediate removal of any channels within our Discord that is not used frequently. Most notably, this called for the merging of our DJ and NSFW Spam channels into #nsfw-media-spam, which is more a less a bot command channel with NSFW to grant more freedom to the music and other content placed in there all of course abiding by the #rules?. 

I firmly believe that if a channel isn't in frequent use (as long as that channel's permissions are akin to #general, etc), it must be deleted.

Too many channels within a Discord server are never good. We must find that perfect balance of functionality, organisation, order while maintaining freedom of speech.

Drafted by the Duke of Newcastle. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 8-0.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: Navy Act 1752 25 Geo. II c. 4 15 JUNE 1752 WESTMINSTER HALL OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER

An Act for the creation of a Royal Navy Discord; to be administrated by Commander-in-Chief of HM Armed Forces, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and Master-General of the Ordnance.

WHEREAS the several channels dedicated to HM Armed Forces, including #hm-armed-forces #blackguard #deleted-channel, etc were over-utilised, underutilised, deleted, reformed, etc which led to a lack of organisation and communication as well as an unsanctioned decentralisation of authority and oversight kept secret from the War Office, Whitehall, and other respective military headquarters. For amending and appeasing the request of the Board of the Admiralty to be sanctioned under legitimate authority; Be it enacted by the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the fifteenth Day of the June, One thousand seven hundred and fifty two, an Act [13 Cha. II Stat.I, c.9.External link] passed in the thirteenth Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An Act for establishing Articles and Orders for the regulating and better Government of His Majesty's Navies, Ships of War, and Forces by Sea; and also so much of an Act [2 W.&M. Sess.2. c.2. §4.] passed in the second Year of the Reign of King William and Queen Mary, intituled, An Act concerning the Commissioners of the Admiralty; as directs the Form of an Oath to be taken by every Officer present, upon all Trials of Offenders by Courts Martial, to be held by virtue of any Commission to be granted by the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral; and also so much of an Act [6 G.1. c.19. §4.] passed in the sixth Year of the Reign of King George the First, intituled, [11:07 AM] An Act for making perpetual so much of an Act made in the tenth Year of the Reign of Queen Anne, for the reviving and continuing several Acts of Parliament therein mentioned, as relates to the building and repairing County Gaols; and also an Act of the eleventh and twelfth Years of the Reign of King William the Third, for the more effectual Suppression of Piracy; and for making more effectual the Act of the thirteenth Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, [11:07 AM] An Act for establishing Articles and Order for the regulating and better Government of His Majesty's Navies, Ships of War and Forces by Sea;as relates to the Trial and Punishment of Persons who may commit any of the Crimes or Offences mentioned in the said Articles upon the Shore, in any foreign Part or Parts; and also so much of an Act [8 G.1. c.24. §8.] passed in the eighth Year of the Reign of King George the First, intituled, An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Piracy; as directs the Punishment to be inflicted by a Court Martial upon any Captain, Commander or other Officer of any His Majesty's Ships or Vessels of War, who shall receive on board or permit to be received on board, any Goods or Merchandises whatsoever, in order to trade or merchandise with the same (except the Goods and Merchandises therein excepted) and also an Act [18 G.2. c.35.] passed in the eighteenth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, intituled; An Act for the regulating and better Government of His Majesty's Navies, Ships of War and Forces by Sea; and for regulating the Proceedings upon Courts Martial in the Sea Service; and also an Act [21 G.2. c.11.] passed in the twenty first Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, intituled, An Act for further regulating the Proceedings upon Courts Martial in the Sea Service; and for extending the Discipline of the Navy to the Crews of His Majesty's Ships wrecked, lost or taken; and for continuing to them their Wages upon certain Conditions, shall be and the same are hereby repealed to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever. [11:08 AM] II. And for the regulating and better Government of His Majesty's Navies, Ships of War and Forces by Sea, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the Wealth, Safety and Strength of this Kingdom chiefly depend; Be it enacted by the Kings' Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the fifteenth Day of the June, One thousand seven hundred and fifty two, the Articles and Orders hereinafter following, as well in time of Peace as in time of War, shall be duly observed and put in execution, in manner hereinafter mentioned.

'1. All Commanders, Captains, and Officers, in or belonging to any of His Majesty's Ships or Vessels of War, shall be obligated to join the Royal Navy Discord Server to be solemnly, orderly and reverently active and able in their respective Ships; these orders extend to enlisted men and able seamen alike serving in or belonging to any of His Majesty's Ships or Vessels of War. [11:08 AM] '2. The "Royal Navy" Discord Server shall be administrated akin to the server, "TLOPO British Empire", and shall be respectively owned ultimately by the Commander-in-Chief of HM Armed Forces @Prime Minister; The role of "Administrator" shall be granted ONLY to individuals belonging to the following titles and positions: - Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty - Master-General of the Ordnance - @HM Cabinet - Commander-in-Chief of HM Armed Forces - Prime Minister - His Majesty, @The King

If the role of "Administrator" is granted to any individuals belonging to the titles and positions NOT listed above, that "Administrator" without leave from the King's Majesty, or the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commander in Chief, or his Commanding Officer, every such Person so offending, and being thereof convicted by the Sentence of a Court Martial, shall be punished with Death.(edited) [11:08 AM] '3. The "Royal Navy" Discord Server shall not be used to substitute, and or ultimately replace the "TLOPO British Empire" in and fashion, and shall be only be designated for ultimate utilisation and for the organisation, communication, and overall command of HM Armed Forces, more superficially The Royal Navy (aka His Majesty's Royal Navy which traces its origins to the early 16th century; the oldest of the Britain's armed services, it is known as the Senior Service) which is apart of His Majesty's Naval Service, which also includes the Royal Marines.

'4. The following channels must be included within The "Royal Navy" Server:

1. hm-armed-forces
2. deleted-channel
3. deleted-channel

The names, purpose, etc may be reformed, deleted, re-purposed by a decree by the King's Majesty, or the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commander in Chief, @HM Cabinet. [11:08 AM] '5. The following channels shall be transcribed into written record and stored within the The National Archives, and shall be transferred to the new "Royal Navy" Discord, with the original channels post-archival shall hence forth be destroyed.

1. hm-armed-forces
2. deleted-channel
3. deleted-channel

Any duplicate channels within the "TLOPO British Empire" and "Royal Navy" Servers reserved for private access and utility for appropriate officials befitting their rank shall henceforth be transcribed into written record and stored within the The National Archives, and the channels in question shall be destroyed.

'6. Other contents, channels, categories, designs, and settings shall be created, destroyed, archived, re-purposed, reformed, decided, etc at the leisure and or by decree by the King's Majesty, or the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commander in Chief, @HM Cabinet, ranking officials belonging to the War Office, Whitehall, and other respective military headquarters.

'7. The "Royal Navy" Discord server shall only contain Officers, Mariners, Soldiers, or other Persons of the Fleet, and or personnel of HM Armed Forces and HM Government. Entrance into the "Royal Navy" Discord server shall be restricted to the civilian population of the Kingdom. [11:08 AM] '8. If any Officer, Mariner, Soldier, or other Person of the Fleet, shall give, hold, entertain Intelligence, or relay contents of channels, messages, etc to or with any Enemy or Rebel, Civilian or any Subordinate to their Rank and Title in any nature and or form, without leave from the King's Majesty, or the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commander in Chief, or his Commanding Officer, every such Person so offending, and being thereof convicted by the Sentence of a Court Martial, shall be punished with Death.

'9. If any Officers, Mariners, Soldiers, or other Persons of the Fleet within the His Majesty's Royal Navy after the creation of The "Royal Navy" Discord Server are found to have created any and all unsanctioned decentralisations of authority and oversight and is in fact kept secret, and without leave from the War Office, Whitehall, and other respective military headquarters, including the current Commander-in-Chief of HM Armed Forces; every such Person so offending, and being thereof convicted by the Sentence of a Court Martial, shall punished with immediate Deportation, and Exile.

III. REVOCATION: This Bill if created an Act by The Kings' Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same may at a later date exceeding a grace period of 3 months upon enactment may be revoked by vote and it shall be the just duty of the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commander in Chief, or his Commanding Officer to restore any and all changes enacted by this Bill if created an Act to the state before enacted as Law.

Drafted by the Duke of Newcastle. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 8-0.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: Citizen Forum Act

25 Geo 2 c. 20

10 NOVEMBER 1751

OFFICE of the PRIME MINISTER

An act for better introduction of ideas of reform into Parliament

WHEREAS the lack of public awareness and participation in this nation's political processes, as well as the lack of British subject-citizen constituents communicating to MPs of their choice which draws into question how we may reform and encourage political participation not only on a national level but a guild-based level has been drawn into question.

DEFINITIONS: MP (Member of Parliament): The representative of the voters/citizens to a parliament limited currently as of November 1751 to 64 seats in the House of Commons, which are volunteer positions rather than traditional elected officials.
Parliament: A legislative body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries.

I. IMPLEMENTATION: The creation of a channel or public forum open to British Citizens to voice simple ideas of reform and have it be, "reacted" to to determine whether it is worthy of drafting into a detailed bill to be presented before Parliament for debate and vote. Ingame opinion polls or inquiries can be relayed by other citizens and "quoted" for voting. 

II. PURPOSE: This would allow citizens to voice simple suggestions and ideas without fully fleshing it out, and going into detail, aka writing long paragraphs of elaboration, which could put off individuals from contributing, allowing that to be done by the MPs at a later date for presentation before this Honourable House.

III. ACCESSIBILITY: This channel or public forum should be accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all citizens of the empire, and any attempts to restrict public participation will be considered a felony, and shall be handled by the judicial system of Great Britain.

IV. ABUSE: Individuals found to abuse this civil right and instead of contributing positively for the benefit of the nation, but instead to "troll", spam or disrupt this channel can at the British officials discretion have their ability to contribute revoked temporarily, or permanently, but they may not be restricted from VIEWING said channel under any means, unless they are found to be a foreign agent.

V. PARTICIPATION: In the event that this channel is not used, or there is a severe lack of participation by the public, a vote of Parliament may be issued by any MP to DELETE and or ARCHIVE this channel after 1 month of this channels' existence, and shall revert to the current system of national reform via a democratic process known as Parliament, whereas British citizens communicate with any given MP of their choice to voice their opinions, and seek to have that certain MP represent their concerns, interests, and ideas before Parliament whether it be in the form of a bill of Parliament, or a question posed to the Prime Minister and HM Government.

Drafted by the Duke of Newcastle. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 14-0.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: Recognition of the Dynasty of Persia

5 JULY 1751

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the SOUTHERN DEPARTMENT

MEMBERS, I come before this body to present a treaty that has been worked out for several weeks between the leading officials of a new claimant of the vacant state of Persia, and His Majesty's Honourable Cabinet. This decision and treaty, which has been referred to the Privy Council for review, shall take the steps to instate Alessandra the one, true Queen of Persia. His Majesty's Government is content that Her Grace shall be a suitable candidate for this most prestigious of titles and the nation and state of Persia.

TREATY of CAIRO

This document is an official declaration to affirm that, in compliance with the Treaty of Istanbul, placing the territories comprising of the former Ottoman Empire, including the splitting of two new entities known as Turkey and Persia, into the custodianship and held in trust by the honourable representatives of the Dynasty of Persia, that the Kingdom of Persia, and its territories will be formally recognized in totality by the trust of Great Britain to Alessandra of Persia as a result of the treaty.

This treaty will affirm His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the preservation of the “Pax Britannica”, British Peace, the overall peace throughout Europe that has endured largely since the downfall and death of Phillip V of Spain in 1746.

His Majesty’s Government finds the claimants to the throne of Persia to be a suitable fit for the succession and stability of the new Persian government. We, the Lords entrusted by His Majesty the King and the Honourable Houses of Parliament, find Alessandra to be the sole suitable candidate for the throne of Persia.

The main participants in the treaty were Queen Alessandra, the Queen-claimant to Persia; and Prime Minister Lord Goldtimbers-Newcastle of Great Britain & Ireland. Lord Grey, the Southern Secretary, served as chief author and wrote the treaty on behalf of both parties.

Drafted by the Earl Grey. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 16-0.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: ECONOMIC REORGANIZATION ACT 10 MAY 1751

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the EXCHEQUER

An act to restructure and completely overhaul the former East India Trading Company, as well as its former private military force, the Black Mercenary, by integrating all assets of the former EITC Black Mercenary into a new, elite, regiment of HM Armed Forces known as the “Black Guard”; furthermore, the complete nationalization of the East India Company into HM Government as state-owned enterprise (SOE), under the Office of the Exchequer, to act as the government’s primary investment authority and financial outreach initiative.

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

This reorganization follows a Nine point plan, that calls for several dramatic reforms to both the Black Mercenary structure, and the East India Company as a whole. In accordance with the BM reform inputs, the Black Mercenary will under this bill be recreated into an elite, vigorous, and special operations division within HM Armed Forces, the heir in spirit of the former EITC First, Second, and Third Divisions, under the title His Majesty’s Black Guard. The Black Guard can be seen as a smaller, sister branch of the Royal Navy and British Army. It’s operations will remain a touch more roleplay oriented, and its uniforms will be mandatory, unlike the other two branches of military.

The second point shall merge the BM Naval Armada into His Majesty’s Royal Navy, claiming all Armada assets into the Navy, and to the disposal of the Board of Admiralty and First Sea Lord. The third shall place the BM Special Forces as a sub-branch within the British Army. The fourth point shall restructure the BM Ranking scales, by adopting the same scale as HM British Army, preventing confusion and ensuring those within our nation’s Armed Forces are aware and understand their designation and roles.

Point five shall reorganize the uniforms of our forces. The former Black Mercenary uniforms shall henceforth be used as cadet uniforms within our guild, for those whom are not level 20 yet and do not hold in their possession the Adoria’s Uniform. For those above level 20, strict adherence to the original Adoria’s uniform consisting of; the Admiral or Diplomat Hat, the Adventure Coat, the Plain Embellished Vest, the Dealer Shirt or Prince Shirt, Adventure Breeches, and the Adventure Boots.

Point six shall sanction the creation of a new HCO, chaired by the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance, who shall act as Commanding officer of the Black Guard as a whole, and shall be free to formulate his own staff consisting of the officers of the Black Guard.

Seventh of the points shall apply to the entire guild as a whole, reforming our calendar system by applying it on a month to month basis. The new calendar will assign weekly SvS practices, guild events, Questions to the Prime Minister on Wednesdays, Full session Parliament meetings on Thursdays, assigning Officer meetings every Sunday and informal Privy Council meetings throughout the week, and weekly Town Hall meetings in-game every Saturday. Point number eight brings life back to the East India Company, by completely nationalizing all aspects of the Company, from leadership to trade. The East India Company, which was nationalized following the Concerns on the EITC Act of 1748, Subjugation of the EITC Act of 1748, the Repealing the East India Act of 1750, and the most recent East India Act of 1751, will receive government stipends to bring it out of bankruptcy and re-stimulate it. The East India Company will re-emerge as a State-owned enterprise, under the direct authority and operational control of HM Treasury, and more specifically the Office of the Exchequer.

Point nine shall establish the governance of the East India Company under the Office of the Exchequer, by creating a governmental special role to be assigned to the chief executive of the Company, known as the President of the Board of Control, whom will chair the newly founded Board of Control that oversees the East India Company. The President will be a Cabinet level position, and will be assisted by a Secretary of the Board of Control who will assist the President in running day-to-day affairs of the Company.

If these points are implemented and established properly, there is no doubt they would be able to solve the massive problems plaguing the East India Trading Company and the former Black Mercenary.

Drafted by the Earl Grey. Passed in Parliament by a vote of 15-1.

ACT of PARLIAMENT: EAST INDIA ACT of 1751

15 MARCH 1751

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the EXCHEQUER

An Act for repealing certain enactments relating to civil procedure which have ceased to be in force, or have become unbearable, and for the better regulation and management of the East India Company by reinstatement of the prerequisite concerns established in “The Subjugation of the EITC Act of 1748”, by formally dissolving the East India Company’s Black Guard, and bringing the Company to heel under the direct control of Parliament once more.

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

In light of the recent March Revolt, wherein our second and spin-off guild, Black Mercenary, was hijacked by exiled former “Lords of the EITC”, namely; Lord Samuel Redbeard, 1st Earl of Harrington; Lord Nathaniel Scurvyskull; Lord Davy Menace; and Lord Leon Goldtimbers III, and used by these traitors to declare independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, in violation of the Concerns Towards the EITC Act of 1748, Subjugation of the EITC Act of 1748, and the Repealing the East India Act of 1750, collectively referred as the East India Acts (1748-1750), it has become apparent that time after time, the East India Company continues to overstep its boundaries, and cannot be trusted with self-governance.

After being nationalized following the Subjugation of the EITC Act 1748, then granted charter to work under HM Government by the East India Act 1750, and finally its Court of Directors dissolved following the Repealing the East India Act 1750, the East India Company’s private military, the afamed Black Guard, was allowed to organize itself under semi-independence, overseen by HM Treasury. The Black Guard ran a smooth and efficient guild, thanks to the efforts of founder General Sir Pulp Daggerlord (alias of Benedict Goldtimbers), founding “War-master” Colonel Vice Daggerlord (alias of Marcus Livingston), Vice Admiral Sir Hannibal Flores, and High Admiral Nakoma Wolf. It established itself as an elite mercenary force, an asset of the now nationalised East India Company, that would cater itself out to foreign nations and to its mother country.

Yet, as all things, the excellence of the reformed Black Guard came to an end, this time not due to default from foreign war debts, nor from disagreements with the Government, but from internal issues amongst the leaders. Lords Nathaniel Scurvyskull and Samuel Redbeard seized this sign of weakness, as an opportunity to hijack the Black Guard, bringing it under their yolk. This caused a massive disconnect within the guild, gutting their numbers, and their most active, dedicated members. Lords Nathaniel and Samuel attempted to reintroduce the strict wartime policies they had once enacted, and used brute force, shattering the guild’s chemistry and bonds. Vice Admiral Flores fled the guild, while Colonel Livingston and Nakoma Wolf declared their loyalty to King and Country.

General Pulp Daggerlord sought to atone for his mistakes, and entered into contact with HM Government, namely Prime Minister Newcastle. At Newcastle’s advice, Pulp Daggerlord managed to convince Lord Nathaniel to arrange for Guildmastership to be transferred back to Pulp temporarily, in order to assure the loyalty of the remaining Black Guard members. After Pulp handed over Guildmastership to Lord Newcastle himself, the traitors were arrested for their crimes.

The conspirators were promptly sentenced as follows. Lord Samuel Redbeard, 1st Earl of Harrington - Charged with High Treason and Conspiracy to Commit High Treason (Permanent Exile) Nathaniel Scurvyskull - Charged with High Treason and Conspiracy to Commit High Treason (Permanent Exile) Lord Leon Goldtimbers III - Charged with High Treason and Conspiracy to Commit High Treason (Permanent Exile) General Sir Pulp Daggerlord - Charged with Desertion, Collusion of an Act of High Treason, and Conspiracy to Commit High Treason Cpt. Gregor Jones - Charged with Collusion of an Act of High Treason Cpt. Jason Sunskull - Charged with Collusion of an Act of High Treason Cpt. Sam Wartimbers - Charged with Collusion of an Act of High Treason Cpt. Thomas Mcward - Charged with Collusion of an Act of High Treason Lt. Ben Firehawk - Charged with Collusion of an Act of High Treason

The collaborators will go on trial later this month for their numerous heinous crimes against the Crown.

This does not solve the problems, however. My Lords, it should be more evident now than ever that an independent East India Company CAN NOT exist. Within three months the Empire has lost one guild of 300 and one of 500. These East India revolts can not continue to occur, if we intent to secure the stability of the Empire. Therefore, in order to ensure the security and continuing stability of this Empire, then this body must reorganize the East India Company into what it was originally chartered to be, a trading company.

Accordingly, I motion before this body under the full extent of Parliamentary Sovereignty, under the authority of the collective East India Acts, to formally disband and demobilize the East India Trading Company’s private military forces, including the Black Guard, Beckett’s Armada, and all other aspects of Sepoy Regiments within India, to formally alter the charter of 1600, 1657, 1699, 1722, 1748, and 1750 by regulating the nationalized East India Company and dissolving it’s privilege to establish and administer any privatized military program in the future. I motion to formally move this body to a consensus that “The British Empire” shall from henceforth be the one true guild representing the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, its Royal Navy, its Army, the EITC, and the civilian populace of the realm. Secondary guilds shall NOT be established, lest by Parliamentary special order by a declaration of at least 2/3 majority vote. I further move that this body instruct all current members of “Black Mercenary” to report themselves before TBE recruitment officers, under directive of the Paymaster of the Forces, to formally report for duty within the British Empire.

The British Empire has merged between ourselves MANY times in the past. Black Mercenary is not the first branch-off of the main British guild, and, while it's feats are certainly impressive, the events of last week bear the same fruits of dissent that we have seen in the last EITC rebellion, not four months ago.

IF members of the Black Mercenary feel no connection to the mother guild, is that not the fault of the prior East India administration, which FAILED to make a connection with TBE?

The LORD GENERAL was requested MULTIPLE times to SPECIFY that Black Mercenary and The British Empire were and always have been sister guilds. He failed to do so, MULTIPLE times.(edited) IF a member feels no connection to the British Empire, then WHY are they in Black Mercenary in the FIRST place?

TBE had a large part in the early growth of the Black Mercenary. Among the first 30 members, were alts of British Cabinet members. Maxamillion Phillip Beckett was an officer within the Black Mercenary spanning an entire month, and he helped lay the foundation of what Black Mercenary is, which is why he has been an outspoken critic of my bill. James Goldtimbers was also a British official, who moved over his main character into Black Mercenary to help with recruitment efforts. Not to mention, the Prime Minister himself being EXTREMELY intertwined with the guild discord, always willing to offer advice.

Perhaps there could have been more interactions between the guilds, however it was made to seem that the High Command of BM was trying to in a way, escape our oversight. EMBASSIES were set up between the Black Mercenary and FOREIGN POWERS, without the KNOWLEDGE of the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

IF Sir Daggerlord did not COMMUNICATE with his HIGH COMMAND, namely NAKOMA WOLF and SIR FLORES, then HOW is it to be expected that he was at the same time transparent with the British government. In short, a COMPLETE LACK of leadership from the High Command of Black Mercenary throughout this entire ordeal.

The role of a High Commanding Officer of a guild/nation/entity/organization/group/etc is to ENSURE that whatever guild/nation/entity/organization/group that they are running is ran smoothly. If the leader is remiss in his duties, is it not within the proper prerogative of the deputies to steer in the proper course? May I inquire why you, an HCO, took no initiative to involve yourself in the relationship between TBE and BM? I do not expect you to 'read his mind', but the British would assume that you would be expected to read his mannerisms.

After all, Black Mercenary is only 3 months old, it's not like it's a guild that has been around for seven years and that TBE is ripping apart. You all have only known eachother for 3 months, and look how close the bonds have grown. Why are members of TBE not to be afforded that chance?

Black Mercenary adheres to a STRICT Roleplay discipline, whilst allowing its members to BREAK Tlopo ToU, and there have been several instances of members of the Black Mercs being BANNED. Not only that, but Black Mercenary has already given itself a BAD NAME with TLOPO itself, due to the lax attitude on TLOPO ToU, and all the drama that Pulp Daggerlord initiated with other guilds and rivals. Meanwhile, TBE strives to boost an open, semi-casual, free, and democratic organization, which, in the end STRICTLY adheres to TLOPO TOU. Unlike Black Mercenary, we hold our members accountable, there are REAL consequences for giving British Empire a bad name. The administration of the Black Mercenary was far too lenient in these efforts.

We have 2 "maxed" guilds, that we could easily combine into one guild, with TRUE unity, transparency, and organisation. East India Co. failed because of it's leadership's lack of care. Black Mercenary failed because of it's lack of LEADERSHIP ITSELF. It is very much a reason to merge, if the administration of Black Mercenary cannot conform to our HIGH STANDARDS, high standards that PULP Daggerlord promised to uphold.

As I said before, if members feel no connection to the British Empire in the first place, what reason to they have for even BEING in Black Mercenary.

May I also add, I highly doubt that the sex of the Guildmaster, determines which direction the guild goes in. We in Britain have nothing but respect for your dedication, hard work, and cohesiveness to build the Black Mercenary into a maxed guild.

The Black Mercenary was certainly an epitome of British excellence in the last couple months. It's members have been EXTREMELY admirable, which is why HM Cabinet has gone through such lengths to recover the guild from those who would have destroyed, tarnished, and prostituted its name (Redbeard, Nathaniel, etc). We cherish our comrades, our sister guild, and its members. "Power and order", Black Mercenary produced some excellent SVSers, and yes could line up in formation quite effectively, but as I mentioned previously, TLOPO ToU was widely ignored, hence a lack of discipline and organisation, and a blatant disregard for the guild's reputation and name.

A merger may be detrimental to the organization that Black Mercenary has established, but who's to say progressive change cannot be achieved. Britain has gone through numerous reforms in its long history, and has always driven forward as the moral high point of CRP, leading the rest of the free, democratic, non-Pearsonic elements. If we were to merge, the Black Mercenaries would of course keep their own status, and I believe that an appointment of the elected leader of the Black Mercenaries should be appointed President of the Board of Trade, representative of the EITC within HM Government.

The British Empire, if we merged, would become the largest guild in the game, once again. TBE is the most successful guild in TLOPO, and the inclusion of Black Mercenary would only bolster that.

I can assure you, Britain allows more platforms and avenues for expressing your voice than any other CRP nation. We hold WEEKLY Question's to the Prime Minister, open to any MP, we allow Citizens to involve themselves in our LAW-making legislature, this Parliament, which has supreme authority and is the final deciding factor in British law. I would argue that the members who believe that they are to be silenced, are simply not in understanding how things are truly ran here. We are not a dictatorship. We are not an oligarchy. We are the first democratic nation.

WE did not chose him though, we held him in high regard and ALLOWED him to RIVAL East India Co. and as long as he followed the East India Act that East India Co. was SUPPOSED to follow, we permitted him to be leader.

Pulp cannot be the sole individual to blame. If no officer, if no HCO can take ANY initiative to correct OBVIOUS policies and flaws, nor could they speak up in protest and have any real impact upon the guild as a whole, then why are they officers? Democratically elected officers to whom do not protect the interests of it's members should not be officers. In my honest opinion, Black Mercenary requires strong leadership, and a close connection with The British Empire. I believe it is obvious that the current administration cannot ensure this stability and this NECESSARY change/reform. A merge would most CERTAINLY solve this.

Pulp and the other HCO refused to address us as anything more than "our ally", and thus isolated us from the normal members of the guild who may not have been deeply engrossed in RP. It goes without doubt that the Prime Minister had a VERY active role in BM's discord, which is why I'm sure many are familiar with him already.

He's brought this up at least 10 times. This is an issue we always addressed and got vague answers from the HCO of BM. The past failures of Pulp Daggerlord will not be repeated.

I agree, we will lose members, but I believe they will warm up to the newly found civil liberties and rights they have as citizens under Britain rather than the one-man rule that Pulp Daggerlord enforced upon them keeping BM, and TBE in the dark while he chose what was best for the guild, not the PEOPLE. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister informed the cabinet of the UNITED effort in showing off training areas for low levels. WE will require our officials to work together in the future regardless of the merge.

If we have a GM from Black Mercenary, there will be little trust from TBE, if there is a GM from The British Empire then Black Mercenary will distrust them, so what compromise can we truly reach? Should we merge under ONE banner, both of these eventualities can be avoided. We all stand here today, on the same side of things. We are not absolutists. We are not here simply to idolize Johnny, or Breasly, or Pulp. We are all here, in Britain, because this is the story of ALL of us. Trust isn't easily gained, and we trusted Pulp Daggerlord and his HCOs, but when 2/3 of the Black Mercenary HCOs are either NOT transparent with us, or LIE to us directly, when we have given no reason for BM to DISTRUST us, as all of our advice, and policies we helped influence in BM have been for the SOLE benefit of Black Mercenary, hence the British nation as A WHOLE. Your success is our success.

Time to will heal all wounds, If a merge happens, we will Keep Calm and Carry On with the duties at hand. Business for the Black Mercs will continue as usual, just under another guild name, All British officials will maintain morale, and I assure you, the opinions of the Black Mercs WILL NOT BE cast aside as they were in the past. If anything unsettles them during a merge, we will give our reassurances as a nation. However, I must call upon them to SPEAK UP, and let their VOICE be heard.

It is with great reluctance that I have moved to this calling, but the Empire can no longer bear the burden of the EITC. This nation was given life stemming from our once Honourable East India Company, and it pains me. Whatever the faults of the EITC, its legacy should not and will not be stripped, discontinued, and forgotten. But sometimes before we can usher in the new, the old must be put to rest.

Drafted by the Leader of the House of Lords, the Earl Grey. Passed in Parliament.

IN PARLIAMENT

31 JULY 1748

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The House of Lords is hereby called to order, this evening of the 31st July, in the gracious year of our lord, 1748. It has come attention to lawmakers across the board that an unsettling behaviour has been demonstrated by the leader of what is arguably our most successful economic power; The East India Trading Company. It is with the permission of the majority of the house of Lords, as I gain the votes of The Secretary at War, myself, the Speaker and The Prime Minister (4/7) that this vote is henceforth called. Understanding that Samuel Harrington, the unchallenged Lord Marshal of the EITC, has faced judicial proceedings before, including but not limited to 2 removals from powers and several alleged claims of power abuse, it is with the power of Parliament, and as the voice of the Prime Minister that we make these concerns public. Concerned that even after an admitted REVOLT against our glorious leader his majesty the King, Harrington retains his rank and control over the company. Disgusted at the blatant and unreasonable amount of control and authority that Harrington has displayed. I dare say he has overrun his boundaries as Lord Marshal.

One who seeks to make a government-controlled company independent is no hero, but a threat that must be neutralized.

"The company's shares were owned by wealthy merchants and a few aristocrats, such as Samuel Harrington (Harrington Enterprises), who owns 54% of the company, giving him executive authority over it. The government (of Great Britain) owns no shares and has no control or direction over the Company."

We, the lawmakers of our great nation, are astounded, ashamed and dismayed at the rebellious and treacherous acts of the Lord Marshal and call for either his removal or resignation based on his historical nature and recent acts of independence.

I hereby call forth a vote of no confidence in the Lord Marshall and call for immediate removal from power following said passage of this vote.

Drafted by the Lord Mallace. Passed in Parliament by the vote of 16-0.

The Continental European region is undergoing tectonic shifts. Technology has connected, empowered and influenced a new generation of young people, who are questioning political authority with new intensity. The outcomes of the Syndicate's rise mostly disappointed the world and its policymakers, and in some instances it surprised and wrong-footed them, in Britain and elsewhere. The region is violent; disfigured by inter- and intra-state conflict and by sectarian divisions. Power has been fragmented. Non-state actors, who are active in the region, are both a symptom of state weakness and amplify the threats to states. The economic bedrock of the region is under threat.

Surveying the region, in the throes of historic turmoil and facing massive challenges, we are clear that Britain must continue to engage. Britain has critical interests in the region, both economic and security. Moreover, what happens in Europe ìdoes not stay in the Europe". Refugees and terrorism are consequences of the unrest and insecurity of the region.

British policy as it stands has not always adjusted to new conditions: dilemmas abound and we find there are inconsistencies, half-hearted attempts and sometimes neglect. GB’s engagement should be sustained and developed, but based on substantially revised assumptions from those that have guided British policy, some of them for the last century. British engagement must also be modest and realistic: GB does not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do.

In sum, we see Britain’s emerging role in the new conditions now prevailing as being governed by the following considerations:

- Britain cannot remain aloof or walk away from the chaos and instability, hard though it is to identify solutions. The ugly dilemmas posed by the region must be faced. - Close co-operation with other powers, and with forces outside normal government reach, will be required at all times. This may mean less reliance on Spanish leadership in the regionódepending on whether or not Spain in practice pivots away from the ideals of democracyóand working more closely with other powers in and outside the region. Denmark has major development and infrastructure ambitions across the Europe, and Switzerland is widely involved, although in more low key ways. - Britain must hone its proverbial skills for understanding and respecting the cultures and customs of the countries, societies and communities of the region, while resisting the impulse towards nation-building or over-zealous instruction as to how peoples should govern themselves or decide internal differences. Approaches to different countries will need to be sensitively tailored. - Relationships in the region must be rounded and based on wider aspects than trade or security. There must be cultural, social, educational and professional dimensions, with attention paid to such sensitive issues as ease of travel, degree of welcome to students and other aspects which if badly handled can undermine influence and friendship. - Military intervention, always in coalition with willing partners, may be unavoidable where all diplomacy and discourse is rejected. But it must be highly selective and integrated with, rather than disrupting, broader diplomatic and political goals. The full range of defence and security technologies and capacities must be maintained in readiness for such eventualities. - However, intellectual, diplomatic and soft power resources must be used to the full. With power decentralised and non-governmental influences increasingly at work in most European societies, Britain will need to update its policy deployment and operating systems to connect with, and influence, the decisive trends of opinion. - Where governmental routes are blocked, non-governmental links will need to be built and strengthened both to promote social and economic development and buttress local security. - There must be recognition that the complex challenges of the whole European region cannot be met by one country alone, or by Europe alone, or even by the Western world alone, but that the issues are global, the threats are global and that the full resources of a post-Western world will be needed to turn decline and turmoil into the beginnings of sustainable peace and prosperity. Co-ordination with the resources of Asia, to which Europe is increasingly connected, as well as of Russia, must be part of the way forward.

As we publish this report, political attention will inevitably be diverted away from the MENA. Neglect and insularity, however, would be ill-advised. GB must continue to be engaged and active. GB is undergoing a dramatic shift in its foreign policy stance; it is an opportunity which must be seized to review long-standing positions of successive governments. We hope that our report offers the new British Parliament guidance, stimulates a debate on British policy and supports a fresh and practical approach to the region.

State power in Europe is transforming, both strengthening and weakening. State powers, moreover, are not always playing a constructive role. In this chapter, we consider the transformation of state power in the region, and the role that GB can play, alongside its allies, to calm state conflict and pursue a stable balance of power, in which GB can engage productively with as many regional actors as possible.

States of the region have become more important geopolitical actors. The balance of powers has ìclearly shifted from outsiders towards insidersî, said Lord Grey, Vice-chair, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The region was earlier characterised by a weaker Spain, frustrated by sanctions. The rise of Premier Leonardo to the government of Spain and the prospects of a British alliance has removed some of the constraints allowing it to exercise power more openly. Witnesses pointed to Spanish penetration in the region. There is evidence that the Spanish Syndicate has been playing a disruptive role in the region. It has ìstaked a huge claim in Europeî said Speaker Johannes Firebreaker. It is ìinvolved in so many conflicts in the regionî said General Jason Blademorgan, that ìif there is to be any deal to end those conflicts, the Syndicate has to be involved in some wayî. Spain is also a country described by the Rt Hon Lord Grey as insecure and fearful of its own security, surrounded by potentially hostile and well-armed opponents.

Regional power is more dispersed and the balance between powers is shifting. Lord Huntington, Northern Secretary, judged that the ìkey playersî of the region were Britain, Spain, and Denmark. Some states have been weakened chronically by internal instability and conflict. Former security stalwarts such as Switzerland, France and the Netherlands are unable to play a stabilising role. France, said Lord Huntington, has ìspent much of the last five years internally focusedî.

States of the region often carry significant sectarian and political baggage, hindering their capacity to act constructively. For example, as Speaker Firebreaker explained, talks have been weakened by the fact that both Switzerland and Spain (alongside Britain) ìhave not been able to achieve anything Ö because they do not have influence over all the actors on the groundî.

A competition for regional hegemony between Britain and Spain, partly driven by mutual threat perceptions, waged as a sectarian and political conflict, is actively destabilising Switzerland, Austria, Haven, and Denmark. First Sea Lord James Goldtimbers described it as a ìcold warî.

The principal points of conflict are currently Spain's support of intervention directly in Europe; its support of proxies in Switzerland and Denmark; and support for the domestic opposition in Britain. The Anglo-Spanish rivalry is mostly, but not exclusively, political in nature. A sectarian dimension helps fuel the conflict and domestic factors contribute heavily. Such tensions are likely to endure and could even increase as the Syndicate grows and both countries compete on the international market. The interests of the international community are ill-served by this rivalry.

These regional shifts demand a reassessment of Great Britain's alliances and postures.

The evidence suggests that the new alignments do not work to GBís benefit. Seven years ago, a British Foreign Secretary, said Lord Huntington, ìcould contact Madrid, perhaps Paris or Amsterdam, and possibly Berne, and solve maybe 85% of our policyî. Now, he ìhas to contact more people, and some of the people he calls are not receptiveî. Within the region, GB has a fractious relationship with Spain and even long-standing allies such as the Netherlands are realigning.

GB has to be more transactional and adroit in its alliances. The new era requires a calibrated approach recognising that a large number of allies do ìnot quite fit neatly on the spectrum of ally or partner but vary from issue to issueî said Lord Grey. Regional actors are, in the words of Lord Newcastle, ìhigh-maintenance alliesî seeking to ìexploit British muscle for their own narrow and sectarian endsî. The uncomfortable fact is that, as Lord Huntington put it, ìyou have to deal with what you haveî and GB does ìnot have that many optionsî.

Finally, regional security is interconnected and requires a more coordinated approach. Reducing the tensions between Switzerland and Spain requires a multi-faceted approach that is robust on Spanish foreign policy activities but, at the same time, reassuring to regional partners. As Speaker John Firebreaker, explained, policy can ìoften deal with these countries in isolation and fail to deal with the broader regional implicationsî. A second example would be the Anglo-Brethren conflict, which may appear less salient at the moment, but has wider consequences for the sense of anger and regional stability.

Power amongst states in the region is in flux and GB cannot rely merely on its traditional allies. Great Britain will have to be more transactional and adroit in its partnerships in the region. Despite concerns about their own internal political direction, GB will have to maintain productive working relationships with principal regional countries.

It is not in GBís interest, nor in that of its principal allies, that the Swiss-Spanish rivalry should continue to spread geographically and to intensify. A determined effort should be made to develop a modus vivendi between these important European states, perhaps in a wider regional framework.

In order to build a more comprehensive, balanced policy for the region, we put forward four proposals.

GB should position itself for a more relative relationship with Spain as a powerful state, effective and active in foreign policy, and the second largest economy in the region after Britain. Lord Huntington suggested there were three sets of policy issues around Spain. One, ìwhat do we do about the agreement for the duration of the agreement?î Two, ìwhat do we about Spanish behaviour not covered by the agreementî and finally, ìwhat do we do about Spain in the realm beyond the agreement?î

Building on the suggestions above, we suggest a more comprehensive British strategy on Spain below.

Spain's foreign policy is deeply concerning to regional partners and destabilising to the region. Speaker Firebreaker said that "Spain is now essentially an imperial power once againî, advancing its interests via proxies and through domestic populations penetrating Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, and Haven. Mr. Blademorgan explained that in order to compensate a domestic hard-line constituency, "Spaniards have started to show a much more robust and muscular regional foreign policyî. Mr. Firebreaker said the major security threat was "Spain and the singling out and ostracization of smaller powers". Spain, continued Firebreaker, was ìweakening the region to gain as much control as it can".

The approach by international actors have been two-fold. GB has been attempting to reassure regional allies. Mr. Stormrage explained that the ìbeefed-up British effortî in the region was to reassure allies that GBís ìcommitment to their security is as it was beforeî. The British have been attempting to contain Spain's foreign policy. The international community is limited in its capacity to respond to Spanish provocation in the region, but the approach by Spain has a dangerous escalatory logic.

We recommend that the external parties to the Agreement should find a way to discuss amongst themselves any hostile foreign policy actions by Spain in order to form a united and proportionate international position on Spanish actions. A proportionate and effective response to Spanish provocation will include the parties to the Spanish agreement agreeing their collective position, exerting private diplomacy with the Spanish, setting clear red lines and agreeing on the diplomatic and financial measures to respond to Spanish actions. It will also have to recognise that Spain has legitimate security interests and needs to be recognised as having a role as a regional power. GB must now act closely with European allies in order to do so.

The allied states ìhave been a massive priority for this Government in terms of trade and defence strategyî, said Mr. Firebreaker. GB has, Lord Mallace stated, ìfundamental, deep-rooted interests with our current allies and we want to strengthen themî. The Northern Secretary pointed out that GB exports to allies are worth £20 million annually. The Minister, Lord Huntington, pointed to the 500 British businesses operating in the allied states and substantial investment by those states into GB. Lord Grey also pointed to the importance of the security relationship between the two sides.

As part of a post-diplomatic effort, there has been a closer security alignment between GB and the Catholic monarchies in central Europe. The Prime Minister addressed the Berne Summit on 7 December 1749 stating that ìYour security is our securityî. The Southern Secretary pointed to upgraded commitments: British troops are garissoned in Zurich; the Ligurian shipyards in Swiss Genoa provides a hub for the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean; near Hamburg, the British Army is establishing a Regional Land Training centre and HMS Newgate will be a naval support facility. Britain has, in total, 31,500 military personnel and seven warships in the region, and intends to spend £3 million on its military commitments in the states over the next decade.

GB has a crucial interest in maintaining a clear-eyed but close relationship with the Catholic monarchies. As political authority collapses in many European countries, GB needs a good working relationship with the remaining stable countries. We also recognise the shared interests: defence sales, non-defence commercial interests and trade, the fight against fascist imperialism, and security throughout the region.

Europe is in profound turmoil, experiencing shifts in power, violence at the state level and within states and the disruptive forces of technology. We have already explored these changes. In this chapter we consider how British policy can be most effectively deployed in the region, in the light of the immense changes that have taken place and continue to take place. We agree with the premise that to argue ìfor an ambitious set of objectives Ö is to embrace fantasy over realityî. Furthermore, as Lord Huntington writes, to argue for ìan approach steeped in modesty is not to suggest that the region should be avoided or ignored. It cannot beî. The task for British policy makers is to discern ìwhat is both desirable and feasible at a cost that is acceptableî. Effective and respected power in the region must encompass both hard and soft aspects. ìMilitary powerî, explained Lord Mallace, ìmust be deployed sparingly, but never neglectedî. Mr. Firebreaker agreed that in order for ìsoft power to be most effective, you need the potential of hard power behind itî. Equally, hard power alone is insufficient, said Lord Newcastle: ìeffective modern power also requires that a nationís talent, creativity and cultural magnetism is put into battleî.

The space for reform in the region is narrowing. The turbulence of the region, and authoritarian dictatorships which consider themselves to be in existential crises, allow little scope for regimes to undertake democratic reforms. External powers do not have the appetite or capacity. GB was ìout of [the] businessî of ìlarge-footprint, large-scale, ambitious programmes to remake countriesî said Lord Huntington. The historical experience of attempting to create participatory systems of government in the region has been a demanding and not very successful project. Past attempts have ìoften made the situation worse, not betterî said Lord Newcastle. Ideally, he said, the aim would be to create a more stable, peaceful and democratic region but ìour power, our knowledge and our legitimacy are limitedî. Finally, ambitious reform is expensive and, in many cases, GB funds will ìamount to 0.1% or 0.2% of the GDP of that country at most, often significantly lessî.

The difficulty is that long-term political stability and the furtherance of GBís long-term national security interests may require political and social change now. British security alliancesówith Spain for exampleóhave been dependent on those authoritarian leaders delivering a social contract to their people, which they are increasingly struggling to do. Unsustainable social contracts are raising the prospect of another round of protests and revolutionary change. The Minister warned against being too ìcomplacent in believing that authoritarian regimes are necessarily the best long-term guarantees of stabilityî; the forms of stability provided by Phillipe Clemente and Ishmael Emmanuel Decksteel ìwere inherently fragile and unsustainableî.

Witnesses were divided on how GB should manage the question of political reform. Some witnesses advised us that security and stability should be GBís focus. Lord Newcastle said the challenge at the moment was for policy makers to ìsomehow manage to keep things from deterioratingî. Mr. Blademorgan explained that in this highly fraught region, the ìidea that suddenly all those complicated societies and conflicts are going to be resolved and be on the sunlit uplands is nonsenseî but it is possible to ìget to a better level of stabilityî. This is also the desire from the region. Sir Maxamillion Beckett, pointed out that the ìyearning for stability is fairly strongî, particularly in Spain and the Netherlands, and ìpeople sort of cling on for fear of something worseî. Young people at the roundtable also noted their anxieties and clearly advocated security and stability over democracy. One viewpoint was, ìI would rather be oppressed but safeî. Sir Beckett said that young people looked at experiments with increased democracy and were disenchanted: they consider France and ìwant nothing to do with itî and are disappointed with Franceís ìconstant instability and inability to pass lawsî. There is a view that stability requires a ìstrong man in charge Ö who can try to represent the will of the peopleî.

Ultimately, said the Minister, GB had to ìaccept that there are many things that we would like to do that we cannot doî. In a hypothetical universe, if ìyou could turn someone elseís country into Portugal, that would be a good thingî but ìwe cannot do itî. ìIt is not that we ought not to do it but that we cannotî he added.

In the long term, in a more pacific context, the aim would be to actively encourage more democracy; but that is not the situation we find ourselves in. The priority is now to encourage efforts at stabilising the region. We sympathise with the demands for GB to undertake an expansive role in the region but it is not possible. External powers cannot on their own build a peaceful Europe, which respects the rule of law. Nevertheless, GB and other international partners have also to recognise that the approach of prioritising short-term stability is just that, short-term. Cycles of revolution, counter-revolution and insecurity will continue to be generated by many countries of the region, continuing to pose an ongoing challenge for policy makers.

The picture is not unremittingly gloomy. Three countries in particular-Denmark-Norway, Switzerland, and PolandóPrussia have been undertaking political reform, albeit haltingly. These "islands" of potential stability and moderation must be reinforced, especially as they face challenging macro-economic conditions. The approach of GB must be two-fold. Lord Huntington explained that GB can make progress where ìa country itself genuinely wishes to reformî. Therefore, despite the fact that corruption or the absence of the rule of law or governance might be fundamental problems in the region, they cannot be solved by ìturning up with a best-practice model, doing capacity building and demanding political willî. Lord Mallace added that the ìonly hope of having an influence with a limited budget in a complicated world is by concentrating itî. Mr. Stormrage said that GB needs to ìfocus on doing a few things really well and not try to do everythingî. In the case of Switzerland, those things were ìarmy, education and investment in entrepreneurship and the creativity of the next generationî. In Haven, explained Mr. Firebreaker, the King and Queen were focused on education as one of ìtheir big prioritiesî and therefore GB had an opportunity ìto put quite a significant programme behind education reform in Havenî.

Britain commands significant soft poweródefined as the attraction and persuasive powers of the British Empire. We do not address the question of British soft power generically, which has already been reported on by the House of Lords Select Committee on Soft Power and GBís Influence. In this report, we consider soft power only as it pertains to the region. The most valuable role for the Government in supporting British soft power would be to expand educational opportunities for young people in the region. We addressed this in Chapter 4.

IN CONCLUSION

Traditional patterns of hierarchy and power have been challenged throughout the region, leaving a turbulent scene which has failed to meet the expectations and hopes of the spring but is suffering from the aftershocks from that political upheaval. The new Europe is likely to remain unstable and chaotic with its future evolution uncertain. Surveying the immense challenges of the region, while it is clear that they can be in some degree influenced, the prospect for resolving them are remote. GB needs a renewed approach to the region, one more responsive to the shifts and changes, which questions the assumptions that have guided British policy for the last century. As GB enters a new post-Paradoxian (POTCO) era, it is timely for GB to review some long-standing premises and attitudes. The strategic importance of the region to the West, traditionally centred, in the earlier part of the century, around oil and trade routes to India and the Orient, has now given way to new and different concerns, more connected with global security threats, including from migration, and the contagions of terrorism and sectarian violence.

Overall, the new Europe requires a new mind-set in policy circles. First, it should no longer be seen as an area to exert power in the name of traditional interests. Second, it is not an area where the dependence on British predominance can any longer be assumed. Third, it is no longer a region of purely Western concern. The concerns are global; Russia has returned to the region and Spain's involvement is growing. In this continuing period of turmoil and upheaval, GB can do little to shape the region on its own. British policy, ideally, must still be to foster and pursue its national interests, but also to contain the threat of state conflict, and encourage stability in the region while supporting Enlightened institutions where they emerge. We consider, in this report, what such a policy might entail, and how to give it shape and momentum.

THUS, this Committee has found it insurmountable that an alliance between the Spanish Government led by Premier Leonardo, and HM Government can be brokered, and recommends to this House and to the Prime Minister that the association between HM Government and the Syndicate comes to an end. WE recommend the establishment of an INDIFFERENT and NEUTRAL stance towards the Spanish government, until it can substantiate and accomodate change.

Majority opinion written by the Rt Hon Lord Grey, Vice-chair, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

5 NOVEMBER 1750

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE of the EXECHEQUER

An Act for repealing certain enactments relating to civil procedure which have ceased to be in force, or have become unbearable, and for the better regulation and management of the East India Company by reinstatement of the prerequisite concerns established in “The Subjugation of the EITC Act of 1748”, by formally dissolving the East India Company’s Court of Directors, and bringing the Company to heel under the direct control of Parliament once more.

Be it enacted by the House of Lords and House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in Parliament assembled.

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY has overstepped its boundaries. Rampant unprofessionalism, disorganization, and lack of communication has pushed for HM Government, sole shareholder of the British East India Company, to hereby and at once **DISMISS** the current EITC Court of Directors. All sitting members of the Court are expelled from the Court of Directors, as well as the Chairman, Sir William Brawlmartin. The Proprietors that serve on the Court of Directors (British Cabinet members representing the Crown’s interests) shall remain to elect a *new* Chairman of the Court of Directors.

HM GOVERNMENT hereby calls for the honourable Houses of Parliament to vote to quickly repeal the “East India Act of 1750” that was passed in July of this year. This act established the autonomy of the East India Company with its own guild under its chosen Lord Governor, who would also serve as Chairman of the EITC Court of Directors. HM Government recommends to this sitting Parliament to hereby annul the title of “Lord Governor”, and establish that the highest tier of control over the EITC is the Court of Directors, which in turn reports to HM Parliament.

HM Government also asks the Parliament to formally abrogate the guild known as “East India Co.” all British Citizens would be ordered to return to “The British Empire”, the *sole* guild representing British interests in the Caribbean. Guildmastership of “The East India Co.” will be handed over to British officials and will be slowly disbanded, to allow all members to rejoin “The British Empire”. The new Chairman of the Court of Directors, along with the remaining Directors of the Company, will rejoin “The British Empire” as Officers.

The reasons for this appeal are as stated,

The GOVERNORSHIP of the Company was handed to Sir William Brawlmartin in 1749, under the trust he would lead the Company in a new direction than some of his predecessors. Brawlmartin promises to subdue corruption within the upper echelons of the Company were ill-founded, as only several months after taking Office he engaged in a **corrupt bargain** with Colonel Jackson Stormrage of the Royal Marines, during which he essentially negotiated with Stormrage to gather the collective support of the Marines in order to pass his upcoming Bill, with the assurance that Stormrage would be appointed second-in-command of the EITC at its inception. This instance of corruption was forgotten by HM Government, whom, at the time, wished to ease this transition and minimize the potential standoffs between the owners of the Company (HM Government) and those who were appointed to lead it. Several months later, however, and a dispute emerged between the Lord Marshal and the executive Directors of the Court. When inquiring on the matter, government ministers were assured that the Company was handling itself “internally” and would require no assistance from the Government. This contradicted the agreement formerly held under the Subjugation of the EITC Act which positioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Lords of the Treasury as Proprietors within the Court of Directors, representatives of HM Government. William and his executive Directors, instead of managing their operations in the Court of Directors, resolved to engaging in closed door talks between the Directors, in order to consolidate the management of the Company to his inner circle, *withholding* prominent information from the Proprietors for additional measure of cloaking their brazen corruption and dirty deals. William’s inability to efficiently manage his own inner circle led to extreme inefficiencies that plagued his administration for months. His term as Lord Governor came to be regarded as that of constant and collective enmity between his administration and the former Lord Marshal. His inability to communicate with the Proprietors led to a sudden and sharp disconnect with HM Government, which has led us to this conclusion today.

After HM Government sent Lord Grey to oversee the new administration under Blademorgan, the Directors of the Court, in a desperate attempt to cling to power, threatened to, in the words of William Brawlmartin, “If the British Government at any point breaches the trust the company has placed in them, the Court of Directors will vote to reestablish the company in another nation.”

This **completely** violates the East India Act of 1750 in its second point,

• “2.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about “splitting” between “The British Empire” guild and the newly established EITC guild. The Governor of the British East India Trading Company, would like to make it clear to all that there will be no “splitting” or “division” between the two guilds. The EITC is officially known as “The British East India Trading Company”. The Company is loyal to his Majesty and will be a subsidiary guild to The British Empire. Thus, if the parent guild is in an armed conflict or if the Company is mandated to address any issues, the British East India Trading Company will assist the British Empire.”

The Directors of the Court threatened to illegally split from Great Britain and dedicate their service to another nation, this in itself is enough to surmount to Treason. The tip of the iceberg however, is that this threat comes after HM’s Government decided to take an executive role in the management of the Company after the extreme INEFFICIENCY and FAILURE of Sir William Brawlmartin’s administration to mirror even a FRACTION of British standards.

Mr. Brawlmartin continues with, *“If you continue to micromanage us, and preside over us illegally we feel as if the Company has become too much under british control. THAT is a PROBLEM.”* This not only contradictory to the 6th point in the East India Act, but also violates a term of the original Subjugation of the EITC Act (1748) that STATES: *“Lastly, should this Act be ratified, any and all persons who deny the Company's status as an entity dependent on the Crown, making their argument of disagreement known to all, and/or acting in any other manner perceived as rebellious in relations to the Company, will be deemed a Threat to His Majesty and indicted for Treason, and will be immediately subject to any punishment seemed appropriate by His Majesty's Court. Any individual who refuses to yield their posts in the Company or surrender Company arms, will be treated as equally guilty of Crimes against His Majesty and are therewith subject to similar punishments, whether such individuals are privy to the Act or no.”*

Brawlmartin convicts himself with his own statements, and the later statement by Mr. James Truesilver, another member of the Court of Directors, *“William is not our leader in this[…] We collectively as a Court of Directors directly in the EITC decided this is best”*. Truesilver confirms that the EITC Court of Directors as a whole has taken this stance, going AGAINST not one, but TWO Acts of Parliament, and condemning themselves with their own self-incrimination. From this we can gather that not only are the EITC Directors harbouring treasonous thoughts, but they DO plan to ACT on these thoughts. The Company must be brought to heel before these despicable plans can be solidified.

The last time treason of this sort had been present in England was in the month PRIOR to the “Concerns on the EITC” and “Subjugation of the EITC” Acts of Parliament in 1748, when Samuel Harrington attempted to *declare a new King of Great Britain*. Would it be such a far-fetched idea that the honourable East India might find itself being led astray once more?

Moving off the topic of governance of the Company, to the actual *statistics*. East India Co. has not met the expectations set forth by the Prime Minister during the negotiations after the East India Act was passed. The EITC Directors had promised a stable, able, and active guild mirroring “The British Empire”. Now, after months of being allowed leeway, British officials find themselves increasingly being the only Officers online. So while Simon Brawlmartin and James Truesilver may complain about “micromanagement” on the part of the Government, one cannot help being puzzled by their offbeat statements, which only gleans that they wish to consolidate more executive authority under themselves, *while not even being able to maintain the activeness or level expected of British Officials*.

• “7.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about TLOPO’s future activity and how we will counteract. The High Commanding Officer’s of the British East India Trading Company will take as many precautions available to counteract the issue of TLOPO becoming an inactive game when new games will release in the future. Issues for inactivity will be addressed individually as they appear. For the British Empire, the previous year had a time where everyone was busy/inactive. The guild still managed to have 30+ daily.”

Point 7, although of no fault of the Court of Directors themselves, has also failed us. Now that the school season has been dragging on, we have noticed a widening pit in the in game population. TLOPO’s activity has dipped into a recession in the past few months, and to note something my colleagues, Lord Chancellor the Lord Mallace and Paymaster-General James Goldtimbers stated at the onset of the original East India Act vote, when TLOPO’s numbers dip, the guilds falter. This couldn’t be more true than at this very moment, when we see our own primary guild dropping its online population from the high 40s range to the mid 30s, a drop that has been severely noted by HM Cabinet. We see the same thing in the “East India Co.” when, at the busiest times of the day, they have only 9 members online. The East India Co. is failing as a guild in this moment, despite the rather more effective leadership Jason Blademorgan has offered. It’s existence is nothing but detrimental to the Empire in the end. If the guilds were merged, then the activity that had formerly been our normality, may return in time. If not, both our guilds can sit idly by as they collapse into inactivity.

The East India Act has failed. It’s established leadership has failed, it’s guild has failed, it’s organization has failed. Parliament must draft up a *new* plan for the East India Company in the coming months, a plan that regulates the Company as a whole, and minimizes the possibility of a situation like this, where government appointed administrations attempt concentration of power after failing at their only tasks. My lords, I rest my case.

Drafted by Lord Speaker, the Earl Grey. Passed in Parliament by vote of 22-0.

28 JULY 1750

WESTMINSTER HALL

EITC COURT of DIRECTORS

It has become a growing topic within His Majesty’s Government and among its Citizens. His Majesty’s guild ‘The British Empire’ has become the powerhouse of the entire Caribbean. Daily the ‘British Empire’ reaches a maximum of 500 players. With the new recruitment comes more opportunities as members are recruited into both the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy. These Branches were created to serve and protect His Majesty’s Kingdom. The British East India Trading Company once mirrored the same objective these guilds now serve. The Company was a symbol of British power within the Caribbean.

The Governor and The Lord Marshal of the British East India Trading Company would like to propose to Parliament on this day The East India Act of 1750. Britain has a large influence over the entire Caribbean. The act will restore the Company to its’ former prestige by creating a subsidiary guild under the parent ‘The British Empire’ guild. The elements in the act will contain new improvements to ensure that Britain’s grasp in the Caribbean will expand and remain unchallenged.

1.) The British East India Trading Company should be entrusted to continue The British Empire’s dominance over the Caribbean. The British East India Trading Company has its own new Armada and Infantry, adding more depth to Britain’s Military force. With a new guild, this will maximize the Company’s as well as Britain's enforcement over the Caribbean.

2.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about “splitting” between “The British Empire” guild and the newly established EITC guild. The Governor of the British East India Trading Company, would like to make it clear to all that there will be no “splitting” or “division” between the two guilds. The EITC is officially known as “The British East India Trading Company”. The Company is loyal to his Majesty and will be a subsidiary guild to The British Empire. Thus, if the parent guild is in an armed conflict or if the Company is mandated to address any issues, the British East India Trading Company will assist the British Empire.

3.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about a large majority of members leaving to assist the new established EITC guild. To ensure that The British Empire will not suffer a vast loss of members in the guild, The British East India Trading Company will not recruit any current members of The British Empire. The only members that will migrate to The British East India Trading Company guild are The Company’s High Commanding Officers. A total of eight members will leave including Brawlmartin, and an experienced former commanding officer to The Co. Empire ‘Thomas Chipshot’. Thomas Chipshot has personally expressed his aspiration to be subsequent to reforming The British East India Trading Company. The more experience the better, our experienced officers can guide the guild to prosperity.

4.) The Guildmaster of the newly established British East India Trading Company would be led by the Lord Governor William Brawlmartin. William Brawlmartin has displayed his ministration to the British East India Trading Company for over six years. The Prime Minister of England transferred the title of Lord Governor and Chairman of the Court of Directors to Brawlmartin with the Design to improve the Company’s intentions. Due to the limitations TLOPO in Alpha had to offer, the British East India Trading Company has stationed itself in a state of “hibernation” until Tlopo released into BETA allowing activity in the game to spike. It would benefit the new guild as well as the British Empire as each day more and more members flock to Tlopo to join and will be greeted by our guilds.

5.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about the possibility of HCO’s or the Guildmaster going to inactivity due to vacations, or family emergencies. To counteract this possibility, there will be a line of temporary succession placed. The succession list will consist of The High Commanding Officers ranked from highest to lowest of the EITC. The very last will consist of a British Official already registered in within the guild that will be active Guildmaster until the highest ranking commander will return to assume such position. Discord will be used to deliver communications between the HCO’s and Guildmaster to notify users if such a crisis arises and whom the Guildmaster title shall fall onto pending availability of the highest ranking officer.

6.) The newly established British East India Trading Company guild would welcome any Representative from The British Empire to overwatch and give weekly reports. Not only is contact critical to a secondary guilds success, this would reassure any concerns that Great Britain may have during the guilds operation. In years before there wasn’t much communication between the Primary and Secondary guild leading to confusion and distrust. Today we now have discord which allows us to communicate a lot easier, allowing us to transmit reports to the HCO’s. Officers of the British East India Trading Company are placed in the EITC servers and the British servers. Allowing us to place announcements for our guild members and at the same time keeping a very close connection to The British Government. Members of the EITC could communicate with each other and also allows British Officials to observe them and their behavior if they wish.

7.) The British East India Trading Company recognizes the fact that there are concerns about TLOPO’s future activity and how we will counteract. The High Commanding Officer’s of the British East India Trading Company will take as many precautions available to counteract the issue of TLOPO becoming an inactive game when new games will release in the future. Issues for inactivity will be addressed individually as they appear. For the British Empire, the previous year had a time where everyone was busy/inactive. The guild still managed to have 30+ daily.

8.) The High Commanding Officers’s of the company have been established by the Lord Governor. They are listed below: 1. Lord Governor Of The British East India Trading Company - William Brawlmartin 2. Lord Marshal Of The British East India Trading Company - Jack Stormrage 3. Marshal Of The British East India Trading Company - Jason Blademorgan 4. Lord Commissioner Of The British East India Trading Company - Thomas Chipshot 5. Lord Justice Of The British East India Trading Company - William Goldsilver

9.) The members that have been enlisted into the British East India Trading Company and will be departing from “The British Empire” guild are as follows: 1. William Brawlmartin 2. Jason Blademorgan 3. Jack Stormrage 4. Thomas Chipshot 5. Andrew 6. Georffrey Wildgrin ( Private in the Marines ) 7. William Goldsilver ( East India Trading Company Employee ) 8. Jake

The eight people that will be departing from the guild will leave the guild late at night when the guild is inactive in order to prevent members of The British Empire becoming concerned about the major loss of members. The Governor Of The British East India Trading Company would like to remind the members of parliament today that the reality of creating a new roleplay guild is that it does not start with one man. In 2007, Roleplay was introduced by Pablo Swordmaster. This was new and revolutionary. The idea of Roleplay has since then become a known phenomenon. The Lord Governor of The British East India Trading Company would also like to remind the members parliament today of the advantage the guild “The British Empire” had against its predecessors. The British government had a established system of members prior to the guild being created. When “The British Empire”was officially constructed on the game, it had received many of Britain’s constituents adding an extreme advantage to other guilds on the game, especially Roleplay ones. In reality, in order to create a structured guild and keep it stable within its early stages, is to have a number dedicated active officers, not vice versa.

10.) The British Empire is having difficulty removing inactive members from the guild. The guild currently consists of 490 members, and each day more join. The officers of the guild can no longer find an alternative to removing inactive members. This is simply because the members are all active. Thus, it would be a strategic movie for the British Empire to consider and approve a new subsidiary EITC guild to house the new players that join the game daily.

11.) The Prime Minister of England has confirmed to the citizens of England that we are officially at WAR with Nassau United. “Johnny Goldtimbers - Thursday at 10:25 PM EST “We are at war with Nassau United. But the majority of Nassau United's members are clueless to the actions of their GM. So, we must politely attempt to recruit members of Nassau United.” To follow up on this, it would be a strategic move for The British Government to allow the EITC guild to be established and recruit the Nassau United members, alongside the other third-party newcomer pirate members. It is requested to take into consideration of that The British Empire guild has been maxed for months and would have nowhere to house these Nassau United members. The British Government if concerned about said members being contained in The EITC guild may use their British Representatives in the guild to check in and out of the guild whenever they see fit. As stated in passage 2 regarding “The British Empire” guild going to war: “The Company is loyal to his Majesty and will be a subsidiary guild to The British Empire. Thus, if the parent guild is in an armed conflict or if the Company is mandated to address any issues, the British East India Trading Company will assist the British Empire.” (Passage 2. East India Act of 1750.)

12.) The Lord Governor would like to recognize the concerns of what the function of the new British East India Trading Company guild will take. The new guild will simply in some ways mirror the “British Empire” guild with it’s own military, housing it’s own community, and established system of governorship. To clarify how in terms of POTC canon soldiers of the EITC operated, a quote is provided from the official Pirates Wikia:” The British East India Trading Company Marines were Royal Marines who were transferred to the Company, because the lack of protection on the Company’s merchant ships. They were under the orders of Lord Cutler Beckett and his most trusted officers during the War Against Piracy, stationed throughout Port Royal and onboard Company ships.” Therefore, the ranks will work similar to the Marines ranking system and Navy ranking system. The ranks will be applied this way specifically for the reason that they will work hand in hand with each other for Naval and Infantry ranks on the TLOPO game. The Lord Governor would like to state to parliament today that every guild created in TLOPO technically serves the purpose to have it’s own Military, and house it’s own community of players. Until the game becomes further developed to offer more content, the EITC guild will simply mirror the functions of the “British Empire” guild as well as to be a subsidiary guild. The British East India Trading Company’s new guild would bring the solution to active members outweighing the inactive ones. The guild would recruit all the new active members flooding into the game allowing The British East India Trading Company to establish its own Military, Community, and Governorship, acting as a subsidiary guild to “The British Empire” guild. The British East India Trading Company guild will aid the expansion over the Caribbean along with the authority it will bring to His Majesty's guild "The British Empire”.

Closing Remarks. The sky's the limit for the British Empire, what we have in front of us is something truly remarkable. Never have we had a guild like ‘The British Empire’, it is the most powerful guild we have ever laid our eyes upon. With the restoration we will expand the British might and influence, there is so much to gain from the new guild. The guild will silence any doubt of Britain’s power and influence over the Caribbean. By the time we are finished no matter where or when you travel to the Caribbean, the flag of the British Empire and the British East India Trading Company will be flown high above every building. We hope you will agree.

SIGNED

~Lord Governor, William Brawlmartin ~Lord Marshal, Jack Stormrage ~The Marshal, Jason Blademorgan ~Lord Comissioner, Thomas Chipshot ~Lord Justice, William Goldsilver

Drafted by Sir William Brawlmartin and Mr. Jason Blademorgan. Passed in Parliament by vote of 26-6.

1 AUGUST 1748

WESTMINISTER HALL OFFICE OF THE EXCHEQUER

HIS MAJESTY'S PARLIAMENT is hereby called to order on this day, the First of August, in the Year of Our Lord, Seventeen Hundred and Forty-Eight, to vote upon an ACT ratified in the House of Lords. Should this Act be ratified, the BRITISH EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY (henceforth referred to as the EITC, or "the Company") will forfeit all properties, funds, and shares directly to His Majesty's government and will cease to exist as a separate economic, military, or political entity. This will ensure that the EITC, in hitherto holding a distinction for its autonomy, will be completely subjugated by His Majesty's government and remain under DIRECT CONTROL of His Majesty himself.

Should this Act be ratified, the following items of interest will be confiscated from the EITC, including but not limited to: all British-owned lands currently under direct Company supervision and administration; all goods to be sold for profit; all funds and further sums of revenue currently held within the Company's treasury; all vessels of trade; all other vessels assembled in His Majesty's waters and toting Our Union Jack, whether used for naval or civilian purposes; all firearms, ammunition, and cannon under Company hold; all uniforms hemmed particularly for the service of His Majesty's Royal Armed Forces.

Should this Act be ratified, all British-owned lands currently under direct control and administration of the EITC – namely those provinces of the Indian Subcontintent (including but not limited to: Ceylon, Kerala, Mysore, Nizam and Hyderabad, Gujurat, Punjab, Assam, Kashmir, Sikkim, Bitar and Bengal) – and all ports of primary service to the EITC – namely those ports of the Indian Subcontinent (including but not limited to: Bombay, Calcutta, Goa, Madras, Yanaon and Chittagong) – are subject to immediate seizure by His Majesty and will henceforth be directly controlled and administered by His Majesty and Parliament. Furthermore, all Company forts in all aforementioned places are to be immediately disarmed and their garrisons removed.

Should this Act be ratified, all items of trade produced, possessed, handled, and/or administered by the EITC (including but not limited to such goods as: sugar, tea, spice, tobacco, dye, cotton, rice, salt, mineral, or lumber) will be confiscated by His Majesty for profitable use directly by the British government, namely the Office of the Exchequer.

Should this Act be ratified, all persons under the Crown being a citizen of Britain currently holding a title of power or clerkage in the EITC will be stripped of such titles and ranks until further notice. The position of "Lord Marshal" within the Company will be fully dissolved, and the Office of the Exchequer, acting with advice from the House of Lords, will appoint an appropriate person to the newly-announced position of "Director of the Company". Furthermore, all those individuals holding stock in the EITC will be fully reimbursed but stripped of all privileges in the Company.

Lastly, should this Act be ratified, any and all persons who deny the Company's status as an entity dependent on the Crown, making their argument of disagreement known to all, and/or acting in any other manner perceived as rebellious in relations to the Company, will be deemed a Threat to His Majesty and indicted for Treason, and will be immediately subject to any punishment seemed appropriate by His Majesty's Court. Any individual who refuses to yield their posts in the Company or surrender Company arms, will be treated as equally guilty of Crimes against His Majesty and are therewith subject to similar punishments, whether such individuals are privy to the Act or no.

Drafted by Lord Garland. Passed in Parliament by the vote of 14-0.

IN PARLIAMENT

28 JULY 1750

MY Lords and Honourable Members, the roots of Europe have once more been shook. Since we last convened on the issue of Spain last month, and heard the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's majority opinion, Spain has undergone a tectonic shift in policy. PREMIER LEONARDO, former Head of the Government of Spain, has been deposed and exiled. His Syndicate has fallen. His Majesty, King Ferdinand Clemente of Spain, stripped the former statesman of all titles, positions, and honours he held in Spain. The political party that came to power not four months ago, which promised to bring change and true democracy to the Spanish empire, had unveiled itself gnarled and grey, a shadow of the former Spanish dictatorships such as the Paradox, the Delta Empire, Casa di Royale, and Imperio de Espana, to name a few. Premier Leonardo, the man once trusted to work closely with the progressive King Ferdinand, who we all thought would revolutionize Spanish society, unveiled himself as a Pearsonic apostle, whose only goal was the accumulation of personal power for himself. In his short tennure as leader of Spain, he effectively devastated years of diplomacy with other states of Europe, and damaged the fragile trust in Spain that Ferdinand's ascension brought to the country, after so many years of Pearsonic terror. He worked tirelessly to isolate and devastate the Swiss Kingdom internationally and internally. He taunted the Queen of Haven, and encouraged her to commit suicide. He found enemies everywhere he went. He has called respected members of the international community all kinds of unforgiveable slander. This is a man we thought would lead the Spanish in a new direction, yet he only attempted to drive them back to their primitive Pearsonic state. Yet, in his way stood those Spaniards whom had enough of the awful governance that the Syndicate presented. Ferdinand Clemente, a friend to democracy since his first rebellion against his tyrannical father, rallied the Spanish generals and ministers to fight back against Leonardo's tyrannical regime. Through the efforts of these officers, the Syndicate Government was toppled, and King Ferdinand was allowed to take back the power that Leonardo had stripped of him. We now come to the present day. Ferdinand's Royalist cause has garnered immense support by the Spanish people for their rightful ruler, with the Royalists now controlling 85% of the nation. Leonardo has moved his government-in-exile to Seville, where he intends to hold out on a last ditch effort to conserve his power. Both sides have appealed to HM Cabinet. Former Premier Leonardo reached out to the British Prime Minister and Southern Secretary, the night of his ousting from power. In a cable to the Southern Secretary he stated, "Grey, I get we have our differences, and we don't like eachother, but I really ask you to take a deep breath and think before making a rash decision with these separatists". Yet prior to this, he makes speeches alluding to a "British secret agenda" and our "Switzerland project", as well as attacking members of Britain in every speech he made. He's made statements ranging from "give Britain a surprise drug test" to calling King Alexander of Switzerland "a terrorist leader like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi". Statements like these both demolished the trust other states had in Spain, and portrayed Britain in a poor light, for maintaining peace with such a regime. We are given now, a choice between the Royalist cause, lead by Ferdinand Clemente, which promises REAL progressive change in Spain, or the Pearsonic entity known as the Syndicate, which attempts only to, as I said in a speech a few months ago, engulf all of role-play. Leonardo has shown himself as the polar opposite of the leader Spain needs. He has a history of starting problems with other nations, then denying it when confronted about the fallacies he brings forth. He continually would threaten, harass, and attempt to blackmail Members of Parliament, yet would back down in the face of Britain's might. He cannot be trusted, or allowed, to retain power, and dig Spain into an even deeper hole. We are left then, with Ferdinand Clemente, who for those who know him, has been a fair and just monarch since he took the throne in 1748. HOWEVER, there are still issues in the ROYALIST cause, that had needed to be addressed. The Southern Secretary sent a cable to Spanish King and Crown Prince, informing them of the following, "Issues HM Government has with the Royalist Cause as of now: 1) Perceived friendliness towards Phillip V Clemente aka Pearson Wright. Pearson Wright was expelled from RP sometime ago, and his inclusion into the Spanish discord is troubling. While Leonardo is a dangerous dictator, he's a holy man compared to the crimes of Wright. Full British support cannot be given to the Royalists while they support Pearson Wright. 2) The inclusion of Hannibal Bush aka Samuel Clemente aka Sam Hookrage in a position of power in Spain. The Swiss have expressed their wish to us that Hannibal Clemente be brought to trial for his crimes regarding the June Crisis. Due to his past with actions, he is not a man this government trusts to be in a position of power in any way, shape, or form. 3) The inclusion of "Guldan" in the government of Royalist Spain. Guldan has numerously alluded to major infringements of guidelines in both RP, and in POTCO. He has numerously threathened to DDoS British officials, he has attempted to leak images of Lord Grey, he has threatened to have Pearson and Hippie "hack" Leonardo to gain his passwords (something we do NOT support, as we are against hacking of any kind), tried to intimidate Britain by harboring blacklisted users (Pearson, Hippie) in Spain, etc. " Nevertheless, Ferdinand had ordered the banishment of his father around the same time, and Spanish officials informed us that it was Leonardo who had brought Pearson into the channel. It was found that Hannibal had gone incognito weeks prior to the restoration, and that the Spaniards gave us their word that Guldan would be reigned in. I believe that this is sufficient evidence enough to allow this Honourable House to determine that the Royalist cause IS the faction we should support in Spain. I trust that the Honourable members of this chamber will make the proper decisions today, and I urge them to vote YES for support to the Royalist cause.

Drafted by Lord Grey. Passed in Parliament by the vote of 20-0.

IN PARLIAMENT

10 JULY 1750

It has become the opinion of HM Government that a new evaluation must be made on several aspects of British foreign policy. In regards to affairs with the Spanish government, the Prime Minister and Southern Secretary were in Barcelona last week to meet with the Spanish Premier and Vice-Premier regarding the current issues and grievances between our states. While this meeting was unable to solve the contested points and restore our ambitions of a mutual alliance, it offered new insight to all parties involved on both our standpoints, and our recent actions in relation to the June Crisis. We are now prepared to enter into a nonaligned and unbiased understanding with the Spanish. This would entail the perseverance of the Non-recruitment Pact which had already been established at the Syndicate’s rise to power in late May. It would also allow for the fixed trade agreements and pacts between Spanish and British merchants to continue, as it is not in the interests of either government to penalise our own vendors. However, any possibility of a military pact that would establish precedents for a common defence, would be impossible to reach in the current state of affairs, as the rift has already widened too much.

HOWEVER, this general peace would only become a possibility if both sides are willing to accept several stipulations in order to appeal to each other's stance. HM Government has made clear that our two most notable demands are that 1) The Spanish Premier and Swiss King are able to reach a common agreement and compromise their stances. Each side must tone down its aggressive stance, and realise that in order for the common good of the entire community, tense aggression cannot be tolerated. 2) That the Spanish leadership must take several strides forward to control and discipline the pointless harassment by some members of their guild towards British members. In return, the Spanish ask that the British do the same, therefore, coming into effect immediately, any member found to be responsible for verbally harassing a Syndicate member shall be subject to a demotion on the first offence, two-week kick from the guild on the second offence, and an indefinite ban from the guild on the third offence. We expect the Spanish government to take initiative to control their members as we have done for ours. This is not an infringement on the freedom of expression, but rather a necessary step towards peace.

In conclusion, I quote my friend and colleague, Lord Huntington in saying “you have to deal with what you have, and GB does not have that many options”. We must be steadfast and adaptive to change. Security and stability are the vital weaving of this Empire.

Drafted by Lord Grey. Passed in Parliament by vote of 20-0.