SPEECH OF SIR RICHARD HILL.

325

dagger into his heart, while Amasa was not aware of the weapon in Joab's hand. He hoped he should be pardoned for the allusion to the Scriptures, and only wished the House might become better acquainted with them both in theory and practice. It was not his pleasure to bring severe accusations, but he appealed to every Member who heard him, whether if such a Bill had been brought in by any administration to which the Right Honourable Secretary was opposed, he would not long before this time have been calling out for impeachments, axes, and halters, and whether he would not have made Westminster Hall, Covent Garden, the Shakspeare Tavern, and above all, the walls of that House, ring and echo with the dangers of that power wherewith he was now about to invest himself and his colleagues? He would offer him a motto, if he might venture to do so to one who by this Bill would have the whole patronage of the East at his command, and be greater than all the Oriental Nabobs put together. It was this: Non sum qualis eram; he was Ajax and Ulysses united.

Since nature could no further go,

To make a third, she joined the other two.

"Should the Right Honourable Gentleman now lose the name of the Man of the People, he might be consoled with the reflection that his Directors and their subs might be called The People of the Man." After this sally, he went on to remark that the Bill professed to be framed for the benefit" of the public. This was part of its title, but between that and the Bill itself, there had been abundantly shewn to exist an irreconcileable variance, so that they could never coalesce; though as great contrarieties in nature had certainly, as Honourable Gentlemen knew, formed a coalition. In order to shew

326

HIS TITLE" OF THE BILL.

his opinion of the Bill he should propose, if it passed, that it be printed with the following amended title:— "A Bill for most unjustly, violently, and forcibly wresting the affairs of the East India Company out of the hands of the present twenty-four Directors, and for placing them in the hands of certain new Directors and their subs. Also for strengthening the influence of his Majesty's present Ministers, and for clearing the way for the total abolition of several useless charters yet existing in this kingdom; and for affording a speedy provision for several respectable friends, jobbers, and adherents of his Majesty's present Ministers, which friends, jobbers, and adherents are now labouring under most necessitous circumstances, and are very importunate to be relieved."

Thus wittily did Sir Richard Hill describe the tendency of Mr. Fox's measure, which, notwithstanding all the exposure made of its consequences, passed the Lower House of Parliament by a majority of 208 to 102. The circumstances which brought about this division, were the large parties which adhered to Mr. Fox and Lord North respectively, with an attachment not only political but personal, and the conviction that if the plan were adopted, the present Ministers, possessed of the patronage of India, would stand their ground against any force which could be applied to remove them. Such also was the popular opinion of the liberal author of the measure, that the mass of society was slow to believe that he would use his influence as " champion of the British constitution, and guardian of the people's rights," to create a novel tyranny for the sake of aggrandizing his own power and that of his fellow ministers. The unusual character also of the Bill, and the rapidity with which, in spite of every remonstrance, it was hurried

THE BILL IN THE LORDS. LORD THURLOW.

327

through its stages in the House of Commons, left little time for the public to give an opinion, or indeed to form any, before it came up to the Lords. It is evident that this was the case, from the fact that while the Bill was in progress through the Commons, only two petitions, 1 besides those of the proprietors and directors of the East India Company, were presented against it, though it subsequently became so unpopular.

1

On the 9th of December, Mr. Fox carried his Bill up to the House of Lords with an air of great triumph. He was surrounded by a large concourse of his supporters, who tried to give all possible eclat to their recent victory. The Upper House, however, so often the preserver of the constitution and the best rights of the people, proved on this, as on many other occasions, how much it is entitled to the highest regards of the State. As will shortly appear, it saw through the Bill, and rejected it. Scarcely had it crossed the threshold of the House of Lords, before Lord Thurlow, with bent and clouded brow, and fiery eye, denounced it in his hoarsest tones, as "a most atrocious violation of private property, a daring invasion of chartered rights, and a direct subversion of the first principles of the British government, for the purpose of establishing upon groundless pretences, an enormous and unconstitutional influence in the hands of the present Minister." And again he observed, "I wish to see the crown great and respectable; but if the present Bill should pass, it will no longer be worthy of a man of honour to wear." As he pronounced these last words, he looked full upon the

1 One from the City of London, and the other from High Wycombe, the latter of which was not presented till the Bill, brought in on Nov. 8, and read a third time on Dec. 3, had actually passed the House of Commons.

328

PETITIONS.

ADJOURNMENT. LORD TEMPLE.

Prince of Wales,' who was present, and then added, "The King will, in fact, take the diadem from his own head, and place it on the head of Mr. Fox." At length numerous bodies enjoying charters, conceiving them to be endangered by this attempt to destroy the charter of the East India Company, were aroused, and began to petition. The City of London petition was presented on the 15th of December, the day fixed for hearing counsel and the second reading. An objection was made to some parts of it by the Duke of Manchester, when the Duke of Richmond observed, that they were worded after a protest against an India Bill of 1773, signed by the Duke of Portland and other peers, now supporters of Mr. Fox's measure, which silenced all further objections. A similar allusion to this celebrated protest had, also been made by Sir Richard Hill in the House of Commons.

The ministry made the same attempt to hurry the bill through the upper, that they had done through the lower House, opposing every request that was made for more time, even for a day; but on the 15th of December the Lords having heard counsel, decided on adjourning to the next day, by a majority of 87 to 79. During the debate on the question of this short adjournment, moved by the Duke of Chandos, a curious scene took place. The Duke of Portland mentioned a rumour that Lord Temple had been admitted to an audience with the King, and that his majesty had authorized him to state his royal displeasure at the plans of Mr. Fox. This the duke asserted, if true, was an unconstitutional attempt

1 The Prince was favourable to the Bill.

2 This audience was afterwards, as is well known, made matter of debate in the House of Commons.

BILL REJECTED. MINISTERS DISMISSED.

329

to influence votes. Lord Temple in reply made no secret of his reported audience, but contended that in offering his Majesty what advice he thought right, he had only exercised the unquestionable privilege of a peer of the realm. That advice he had given; he did not choose to say what it was until his Majesty, in whose breast it was lodged, was graciously pleased to allow him to divulge it. Yet he would frankly tell their Lordships, that the advice he had offered to his Sovereign was not friendly to the bill. This led to a warm altercation; but in carrying the adjournment, the opposition Lords gave the first check to the impetuosity of the Government. The Prince of Wales voted on this occasion with the friends of Mr. Fox, but on the final rejection of the measure his Royal Highness did not vote at all. It was refused to be committed on the 17th after a long debate, and subsequently negatived without any division. On the evening of the 18th, the King dismissed his ministers, desiring them to send in their seals of office by the under-secretaries of state. Mr. Pitt now became first minister of Great Britain. Lord Temple had taken office, and wrote the letters of dismissal to the members of the late cabinet; but on account of the clamour raised against him respecting the audience just alluded to, and the use of the King's name, he was obliged immediately to resign, that he might not have the shield of place as a protection against any charge he might be called upon to answer. This affair so affected Mr. Pitt, that it deprived him of the sleep which nothing else, while he was in health, was ever known to disturb. When he entered upon this arduous career, he was only in the twenty-fifth year of his age, yet he was found after many a struggle, to have strength at once to defeat the powerful and experienced talent which opposed him,