FOX’S INDIA BILL.
Although in office, Fox was still unreconciled to the monarch. He felt, moreover, that by his ill-fated coalition he had forfeited the confidence of the people. Under these circumstances, he resolved to seek the restoration of his popularity, and to consolidate his power, by producing some great measure, which should at once charm and profit the nation. India afforded him a fine field for legislating, and with the assistance of Burke he concocted a bill for its government. He gave notice on the day when parliament reassembled, that he would produce this bill on the 18th of November, and when that day arrived he was in his place for that purpose. He moved for leave to bring in a bill for vesting the affairs of the East India Company in the hands of certain commissioners, for the benefit of the proprietary and the public. This memorable bill proposed to take the entire administration both of their territorial and commercial affairs from the directors and proprietors, and to vest it in the hands of seven commissioners, named in the bill, who were to be irremovable by the crown, except in consequence of an address of either house of parliament. These commissioners were to be assisted by a subordinate board of nine directors, to be chosen in the first instance by parliament, and afterwards by the proprietors. The bill empowered these commissioners and directors to enter immediately into possession of all lands, tenements, books, records, vessels, goods, merchandize, and securities in trust for the company. They were required to decide on every question within a certain time, or to assign sufficient reason for delay. They were never to vote by ballot, and were generally required to enter on their journals the reasons of their vote. Every six months they were to submit an exact schedule of accounts to the court of proprietors; and at the commencement of every session were to present a statement of their affairs to both houses of parliament. This act was to continue in force four years: that is, till the year after the next general election. It was accompanied by another bill, enacting regulations for the future government of the British territories in India. This second bill took from the governor-general all power of acting independently of his council; declared every existing British power in India incompetent to the acquisition or exchange of any territory in behalf of the company; to the acceding to any treaty of partition; to let out the company’s troops; to the appointment of any person removed for misdemeanour to office; and to the hiring out any property to any civil servant of the company. It also prohibited all monopolies; declared every illegal present recoverable by any person for his own benefit; and employed effectual means to secure the zemindars, or native landholders, in the possession of their inheritances, aiming particularly at the abolition of all vexatious or usurious claims that might be made upon them, by prohibiting mortgages, and subjecting every doubtful claim to the examination of the commissioners.
The disclosure of this scheme excited the greatest sensation in the house. By the friends of Fox it was espoused with zeal and enthusiasm, while it was attacked by his opponents with vehement indignation and energetic invective. On the one hand it was extolled as a masterpiece of genius, virtue, and ability; on the other, it was denounced as a dangerous design, fraught with mischief and ruin. Pitt had promised his support in settling the affairs of India; but though he acknowledged that reform was wanted, it was, he said, not such a reform as this. He remarked:—“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. Imagination 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 abuses 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 degree alarming. Seven commissioners, chosen ostensibly by parliament, but really by administration, were to involve in the vortex of their authority the patronage and treasures of India. The right honourable 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 terminate their ascendency.” Other members resisted the bill with similar arguments, and Fox was compelled to call all his powers into action for its defence. After defending himself from the charge of violating the company’s charters, and observing that the arguments of his opponents might have been adopted with great propriety by King James the Second, he remarked:—“I am also charged with increasing the influence, and giving an immense accession of power to the crown. Certainly this bill as little augments the influence of the crown, as any measure that can be devised for the government of India, with the slightest promise of success. The very genius of influence consists in hope or fear—fear of losing what we have, or hope of gaining more. Make the commissioners removable at will, and you set all the little passions of human nature afloat. Invest them with power upon the same tenure as the British judges hold their station, removable 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. This bill presumes the possibility of mal-administration; for every word in it breathes suspicion. It supposes that men are but men; it confides in no integrity; it trusts to no character. It annexes responsibility, not only to every action, but even to the inaction of the powers it has created. I will risk my all upon the excellence of this bill. I will risk upon it whatever is most dear to me—whatever men most value—the character of integrity, of present reputation, and future fame; these will I stake upon the constitutional safety, the enlarged policy, the equity and wisdom of the measure. Whatever, therefore, may be the fate of its authors, I have no fear that it will produce to this country every blessing of commerce and revenue; and by extending a generous and humane government over those millions whom the inscrutable dispensations of Providence have placed under us, in the remotest regions of the earth, it will consecrate the name of England among the noblest of the nations.” While this bill was pending in the commons, the East India Company and the city of London presented strong petitions against it; but it was carried rapidly through all its stages with large majorities, and Fox presented it at the bar of the lords on the 9th of December.
Fox had recommended his majesty to create several new Whig peers, in order to ensure the success of his measure in the house of lords. The king, however, declared, that he would not create any British peers on the recommendation of the present cabinet, and therefore he was obliged to commit his bill to that house as it now existed. It appears that he had still hopes of the concurrence of the lords; and although it was, on the first reading, reprobated by the Duke of Richmond, Lord Thurlow, and Lord Temple, yet still a division was favourable to its progress. It also passed on the second reading, which took place on the 15th; but on the following day counsel was heard on behalf of the company, and on the 17th it was moved that the bill be rejected. On this occasion Lord Camden spoke with great vehemence against the bill; declaring, that if it passed into a law, we should soon see the King of England and the King of Bengal contending for superiority in the British parliament. Ministers had been defeated by a majority of eight on the evening of the second reading, when the opposition moved for an adjournment till the next day, in order to give an opportunity of hearing counsel; but they were now doomed to suffer a more signal defeat. The bill was rejected by ninety-five against seventy-six.
There was a cause for this change of sentiment in the lords. On the 11th of December Earl Temple had a conference with the king, in which, having explained his ideas on the nature and tendency of the bill, his majesty became a convert to the views of opposition. By his explanation the royal indignation was greatly excited; the monarch considering himself as having been deceived by his ministers. Accordingly, a card was written, stating that “his majesty allowed Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as his enemy; and that, if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use still stronger language.” The rumour of this soon spread, and on the evening of the 15th a conversation concerning it took place in the house of lords, in which Earl Temple declared, that he was not ashamed to avow the advice which he had given to his majesty, and would publish what he was empowered to communicate, when he should be properly called upon to do so. It was evident, therefore, to ministers and to all men, that the rumour was substantially correct, and on the 17th the subject was brought prominently before the members of the house of commons. Mr. Baker moved these two resolutions:—“1. That it is now necessary to declare that, to report any opinion, or pretended opinion of his majesty, upon any bill, or other proceeding, depending in either house of parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanor, derogatory to the honour of the crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of parliament, and subversive of the constitution of this country. 2. That this house will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider the state of the nation.” After an animated debate, these resolutions were carried by a majority of nearly two to one, the numbers being one hundred and fifty-three against eighty. A dissolution of parliament being now apprehended, Mr. Erskine moved, that whoever should prevent that house from discharging their duty in remedying the abuses which prevailed in the government of the British dominions in the East Indies, should be considered by them as an enemy to his country. This resolution was attacked as an invasion of the king’s prerogative, but it was nevertheless carried, by one hundred and forty-seven against seventy-three.