320

MR. FOX'S INDIA BILL.

after the meeting of Parliament, Mr. Fox brought in his far-famed India Bill. Originally, the East India Company was composed of two consolidated bodies, the first established in 1600, the second in 1698, and united in 1708. It carried on as a society of merchants, with certain privileges framed for the purpose, an important trade in those distant regions of the globe. But in process of time, an extraordinary series of unforeseen circumstances threw into their hands a vast extent of territory and an immense revenue, whereby they became invested with a political sovereignty over the dependent princes of the East, and that in connection with their commercial affairs. At length, as might be expected where the temptations were so strong, abuses arose which threatened at once the reputation of Great Britain, and the safe tenure of her Indian possessions. Various legislative enactments were passed to meet this mournful state of things, but were found insufficient to effect their objects; so that at length it appeared plain to all parties, that if some effectual remedy were not speedily applied, the East India Company must be ruined, and the British settlements in the East entirely lost to the nation.

It was on the 18th of November, that Mr. Fox opened to the House of Commons his proposals relative to India, commencing his speech with a statement of the strong necessity which existed for a thorough change in the entire management of our eastern territories. He then proposed to form a Board of seven commissioners in London, with eight assistants; and declared that the object of the first of his two bills, was to settle and secure all matters relating to their powers, agency, removal, and the mode in which they should submit their proceedings to Parliament. The second bill was to be for

OBJECTIONS OF MR. PITT.

321

preventing ambitious projects for the extension of our Indian possessions, for securing to landholders due enjoyment and inheritance of their property, and for the hindrance of various abuses well-known to all acquainted with the history of proceedings in the East Indies. As soon as Mr. Fox had developed these intended measures, the plea for which, with all their difficulties and dangers, he declared to be necessity, Mr. Pitt in a most able speech pointed out the objections he saw to them at a cursory glance, prayed for time to consider, and said that necessity was too often the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. He also shewed the immense power and patronage the minister would gain by nominating the commissioners-that in fact he would be governor of India, and obtain the very things for himself which his bills professed to eradicate.

The first bill was read a second time on November the 27th. Mr. Pitt requested further delay that there might be a call of the House, but Mr. Fox refused to agree to it, and leave was given to bring in both bills. The call of the House was, on the motion of Mr. Pitt,

fixed for December 3.

Sir Richard Hill spoke upon this occasion with much originality and humour. He began with saying that the appearance of all objects depended much upon the light in which they were viewed, and pointed out the wonderful difference in the Right Honourable Gentleman's vision, when he saw through the medium of the opposition instead of the Treasury benches. Had such a bill been brought in when he sat upon the former, it would have appeared to him in very different colours from those in which he had depicted it, as well as of different form and dimensions. The Right Honourable Gentleman would, if in opposition, have looked at it

Y

322

SPEECH OF SIR RICHARD HILL.

through two glasses he always carried about with him: he meant his magnifying glass and his multiplying glass. The magnifying glass would have exhibited to an alarming degree, the great danger of increasing the influence of the Crown, and the power of its ministers, which he used to describe as awful monsters to terrify his present cara sposa, before they were united by their present matrimonial ties. His multiplying glass would have shewn him innumerable evils arising out of the bill, which it now seemed to him calculated to prevent; and thousands more of rapine, injustice, cruelty, and violation of rights, charters, Parliamentary faith, &c., which would have danced before his astonished eyes like so many spectres, at one and the same time. But now he used his optical instruments on that illustrious bench, and saw things only in a North East light, it was wonderful how different their effects were. The magnifying glass shewed him his own aggrandizement, and the extension of his influence as a Minister of State, till his power and strength seemed so great, that he felt as if he could really carry the whole India House on his own shoulders.2 Then how charmingly did it expand his seven commissioners, and their eight assistant directors, into splendid supporters of himself and his friends, changing them from little Lilliputians into mighty sons of Brobdignag or Patagonia! How also did the other glass multiply friends and jobbers, who would follow him wheresoever he pleased to lead them; and how charmingly did it multiply all his own interests, his connections, his powers, not only at home in this country, but by sea and land all over the globe! And again,

'Lord North.

Sir Richard Hill made this remark in allusion to a caricature, which represented Mr. Fox with the India House on his back.

SPEECH OF SIR RICHARD HILL.

323

how did it multiply the choicest of all its effects-the rupees and the guineas, if not to the nation, yet to the lucky favourites who were to taste of the sweets of the Bill for five whole years to come!

Sir Richard Hill next proceeded to make a few general remarks on the Bill itself, leaving certain particular parts and clauses to be discussed by those who, he conceived, were more equal to such a task than himself. He declared, however, that he considered the principle and spirit of the measure to be decidedly opposed to the whole genius of the British constitution, and to those just and benign laws on which it is based. He said that the Directors of the Company were hardly allowed the privilege of felons, the seizure and confiscation of whose property never took place till after conviction. In this case the Directors were not even accused, much less convicted of any specific crime.

After these observations, he gave his opinion that the choice of executive officers in the way proposed, was clearly unconstitutional, and that the tendency of the whole measure was to give the minister patronage, while it relieved him from responsibility. He also adverted to certain charges of corrupt dealing on the part of those most concerned in the Bill, but which he did not dwell on as they were not yet proved. He laid great stress on the important resolution of the City of London, which had decided in Common Council to petition the House against the measure. Moreover, he deprecated the sudden manner in which Members had been summoned by the ministerial messengers, to give their votes on such an important question without any time for consideration; and thus, he said, was to be determined the annihilation of an ancient charter; thus did the Government trifle with the characters of individuals, and

324

OPINIONS OF MR. PITT AND MR. POWYS.

resolve upon the seizure of their goods and property1— in short, thus did they determine the very fate "of Cæsar and of Rome!"

Powerful as was the eloquence which was directed by the ablest debaters of the day, against this momentous proposition of Mr. Fox, none more clearly pointed out its dangerous tendency than this humorous yet argumentative speech of Sir Richard Hill. This bill was the rash attempt of a daring politician, enjoying at that time neither favour at Court nor popularity in the country, to acquire and maintain an enormous power in defiance both of the Sovereign and the people. It was denounced by Mr. Pitt as "one of the boldest, most unprecedented, most desperate, and most alarming attempts at the exercise of tyranny, which ever disgraced the annals of this or any other country." Mr. Powys expressed his high respect for the talents of Mr. Fox, but condemned his plan as rash, despotic, dangerous to the Constitution, and calculated to make him, what he never ought to be, the master instead of the servant of his King.

The third reading was proposed on Monday, Dec. 8, when Sir Richard Hill again entreated the indulgence of the House, while he once more briefly protested against it; for he should always remember with satisfaction that he had opposed it as long as he was able. He considered that the measure gave a vital stab to the Constitution, and when he recollected who gave the wound, he was ready to exclaim, et tu, Brute! His conduct brought to mind that of Joab to Amasa, when he took him by the beard with one hand, and with the other thrust a

1 It was during these debates that the Attorney General, Lee, used the unguarded expression, “A charter is nothing more than a piece of parchment with a bit of wax dangling to it." This observation produced upon the country the effect it well deserved.