ONE:The Archbishop of Canterbury moved the rejection of the Bill; and was supported by the Archbishops of York and Armagh, the Bishops of London, Durham, and Salisbury; Lords Winchilsea, Berkeley, Tenterden, and Eldon. The chief defenders of the measure were Lords Grey, Lansdowne, Plunket, Goderich, and Lyndhurst. On a division, the second reading was carried by 217 against 112. On the 10th of April the Bill was read a third time, by a majority of 104; the numbers being 213 for it, and 109 against it. The sweeping majorities in the Lords were still more astounding than those in the Commons; and they spread the utmost consternation through the ranks of the Conservatives, who felt as if the very foundations of society were giving way, and the pillars of the Constitution were falling. The Lords had hitherto thrown out the Emancipation Bills as fast as they came to them, by majorities varying from forty to fifty. Lord Eldon was their prophet, and the old Conservative peers had followed his guidance implicitly for a quarter of a century; but during that time a generation of hereditary legislators had grown up, who had as thorough a contempt for the ex-Chancellor's antiquated prejudices as he had for their youth and[298] inexperience. Lord Eldon had, however, some compensation for being thus deserted in the House of Peers by many of his followers, and having his authority as a statesman disregarded, as well as for the marked neglect of him by the Ministry, in the sympathy and confidence of the distressed king, who was shocked beyond measure at the conduct of the House of Lords. When a reluctant consent was wrung from his Majesty to have the measure brought forward by the Cabinet, he felt, after all, that he was doing nothing very rash; he had the strongest assurance that the Bill would never pass the Lords. He told Lord Eldon that, after the Ministers had fatigued him by many hours' conversation on the painful subject, he simply said, "Go on." But he also produced copies of letters which he had written, in which he assented to their proceeding with the Bill, adding, certainly, very strong expressions of the pain and misery the consent cost him. In his perplexity he evidently wished to avail himself of Eldon's casuistry to get out of the difficulty by retracting; but the latter was constrained to tell him "it was impossible to maintain that his assent had not been expressed, or to cure the evils which were consequential."But we have far overshot the contemporary history of Bengal. The Presidency thought it had greatly benefited by the reforms of Clive; yet it had since been called upon to furnish large supplies of men and money to support the unprincipled transactions at Madras, which we have briefly detailed, and the India House, instead of paying the usual dividends, was compelled to reduce them. Further, a terrible famine devastated Bengal, and more than half the population are said to have been swept away. This state of things compelled Parliament to turn its attention to India. General Burgoyne, now active in the Opposition, moved and carried, on the 13th of April, 1772, a resolution for the appointment of a select Committee of thirteen members to inquire into Indian affairs; and Burgoyne, who was extremely hostile to Clive, was appointed chairman. The committee went actively to work, and presented two reports during the Session. After Parliament met again in November, Lord North, who had conversed with Clive during the recess, called for and carried a resolution for another and this time a secret committee. As the Company was in still deeper difficulties, and came to Lord North to borrow a million and a half, he lent them one million four hundred thousand pounds, on condition that they should keep their dividends at six per cent. until this debt was repaid, and afterwards at eight per cent. He at the same time relieved them from the payment of the four hundred thousand pounds per annum, imposed by Lord Chatham, for the same period. This was done in February, 1773, and in April he brought in a Bill at the suggestion of Clive, who represented the Court of Proprietors at the India House as a regular bear-garden, on account of men of small capital and smaller intelligence being enabled to vote. By North's Bill it was provided that the Court of Directors should, in future, instead of being annually elected, remain in office four years; instead of five hundred pounds stock qualifying for a vote in the Court of Proprietors, one thousand pounds should alone give a vote; three thousand pounds, two votes; and six thousand pounds, three votes. The Mayor's Court in Calcutta was restricted to petty cases of trade; and a Supreme Court was established, to consist of a Chief Justice and three puisne judges, appointed by the Crown. The Governor-General of Bengal was made Governor-General of India. These nominations were to continue for five years, and then to return to the Directors, but subject to the approval of the Crown. Whilst the Bill was in progress, the members of the new Council were named. Warren Hastings was appointed the first Governor-General; and in his Council were Richard Barwell, who was already out there, General Clavering, the Honourable Colonel Monson, and Philip Francis.[323] Another clause of Lord North's Bill remitted the drawback on the Company's teas for export to America, an act little thought of at the time, but pregnant with the loss of the Transatlantic colonies. By these "regulating acts," too, as they were called, the Governor-General, members of Council, and judges, were prohibited from trading, and no person in the service of the king or Company was to be allowed to receive presents from native princes, nabobs, or their ministers or agents. Violent and rude, even, was the opposition raised by the India House and all its partisans to these two Bills.
