XXI. 1783. BOOK rity had the other public companies of the kingdom? What security had the Bank of England? What security had the national creditors, or the public corporations? Or, indeed, what assurance could we have for the GREAT CHARTER itself, the foundation of all our liberties? It would be folly in the extreme to suppose, that the principle, once admitted, would operate only on the present occasion. Good principles might sleep, but bad ones never. It was the curse of society, that when a bad principle was once established, bad men would always be found to give it its full effect. The bill under consideration included a confiscation of the property, and a disfranchisement of the members, of the East-India Company-all the several articles of whose effects were transferred by violence to strangers. Imagi nation was at a loss to guess at the most insignificant trifle that had escaped the harpy jaws of a RAVENOUS COALITION. The power was pretended indeed to be given in trust for the benefit of the proprietors; but in case of the grossest abuse of trust, to whom was the appeal? To the proprietors? No to the majority of either house of parliament, which the most contemptible minister could not fail to secure, with the patronage of above two millions sterling given by this bill. The influence which would accrue from this bill-a new, enormous, and unexampled influence-was indeed in the highest XXI. 1783. degree alarming. Seven commissioners chosen BOOK ostensibly by parliament, but really by administration, were to involve in the vortex of their authority the patronage and treasures of India. The right honorable mover had acknowledged himself to be a man of ambition; and it now appeared that he was prepared to sacrifice the king, the parliament, and the people, at the shrine of his ambition. He desired to elevate his present connexions to a situation in which no political convulsions, and no variations of power, might be able to destroy their importance, and put an end to their ascendency." These and similar arguments against the present extraordinary measure of the minister were also ably and eloquently enforced by the lord advocate, Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Grenville, and others. On the other hand it was with equal eloquence and ability vindicated by Mr. Fox, who with warmth declared, "that he would risk upon the execution of this bill whatever was most dear to him-whatever men most valued: the character of integrity, "of talents, of honor, of present reputation and future fame ;these he would stake upon the constitutional safety, the enlarged policy, the equity and wisdom of this measure. Make the commissioners removable at will, and you set all the passions of human nature afloat. Invest them with power upon the same tenure as the British judges hold their station, re XXI. 1783. BOOK movable upon delinquency, punishable upon guilt, but fearless of danger if they discharge their trust, and they will be liable to no seducement, and will execute their functions with glory to themselves, and for the common good of the country and mankind. Every word in this bill breathes suspicion. It supposes that men are but men; it confides in no integrity, it trusts to no character; it annexes responsibility to every action, every exertion of the various powers which it creates and confers."While the bill was pending, a petition was presented from the Company, representing the measure as subversive of their charter, and operating as a confiscation of their property, without charging against them any specific delinquency, without trial, without conviction-a proceeding contrary to the most sacred privileges of British subjects—and praying to be heard by counsel against the bill. The city of London also presented a strong petition to Mr. Fox's the same effect. But it was carried with rapidity passes the through all its stages in the house of commons by India bill commons, ted by the lords. but is rejec decisive majorities, the division on the second reading being 217 to 103 voices. And on the 9th of December, Mr. Fox, attended by a numerous train of members, presented the bill at the bar of the house of lords. On this occasion, earl Temple declared, "that he was happy to embrace the first opportunity of entering his protest against so IN XXI. FAMOUS a bill-against a stretch of power so truly BOOK alarming, and that went near to seize upon the most inestimable part of our constitution-our CHARTERED RIGHTS." The duke of Richmond rose on the same side, and displayed in a striking manner the inconsistency of a part at least of the present administration, by a view of the protest entered by lord Rockingham and other noble lords, on the journals of that house, against the India bill of 1773. This famous WHIG protest concludes in the following remarkable words :: "If the provisions and precedent of this bill should render the public faith of Great Britain of no estimation, the franchises, rights, and properties of Englishmen precarious; if the boundless fund of corruption furnished by this bill to the servants of the crown should efface every idea of honor, public spirit, and independence, from every rank of people; after struggling vainly against these evils, we have nothing left but the satisfaction of recording our names to posterity, as those who resisted the whole of this iniquitous system, and as men who had no share in betraying to blind prejudices or sordid interest every thing that has hitherto been held sacred in this country." To this protest the signature of the duke of Portland, who held the highest post under the present administration, and that of lord Fitzwilliam, the future president of the new India board, were affixed. Lord Thurlow de 1783. XXI. 1783. BOOK clared the present bill "to be a most atrocious violation of private property, in justification of which if the plea of political necessity were urged, that necessity must be proved by evidence at the bar of the house, and not by reports from a committee, to which he should pay as much attention as to the romance of Robinson Crusoe. They were told, that the finances of the Company were much deranged; but could parliament in justice forget that the Company were restricted from employing that credit which resuited from its great and flourishing situation? and that, if those restrictions were taken off to-morrow, every demand to the state would be discharged? Could parliament forget that the politics of this country had involved the Company in an extensive and ruinous war? and that, while we encountered loss, misfortune, and disgrace, in every other quarter of the globe, this delinquent Company had surmounted the most astonishing difficulties in India? Would parliament forget, that, when peace was restored to this unfortunate country, the conquests of this delinquent Company were given up, to prevent further sacrifices of our more favorite possessions?" The second reading of the bill took place on the 15th of December*, when counsel was heard * During this interval, the regular business of the session was proceeding in the usual manner in the house of commons; and on the 12th of December, amongst the ordinary estimates |