Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

deny. No immediate influence is to be given, but the nomination of the feven Commiffioners; the patronage of the Eaft Indies has been in the hands of the Crown before; what great officer has been appointed, but by the advice and influence of Minifters? And ought they to have been otherwife? The only difference is, that before, the Court of Directors was a fcreen; and now they will themselves be refponfible. I do not wish the Commiffioners to be out of Parliament. I wish them to be like myself and my colleagues, conftantly under the eye and attack of the Houfe. Why order the new officers to give their reasons for what they have done? This regulation is questioned as being idle. It is not fo-it is the character of defpotic Governments to be dark-of popular Governments to have publicity-and I aver that it is their beauty and basisOur judicial tribunals are bound to give their reasons. I certainly object to the plan of Mr. Dundas, because I cannot agree to give to a man, at the distance of half the globe, uncontroled power-even here it is dangerous; but not so much fo, because it will be watched. The valuable jealoufies of the country will be awake, and Parliament will be ready to crush its irregular acts. Some measure is admitted on all hands to be neceffary; if the prefent is difapproved, those who difapprove of it are bound to propose a better. Perhaps it will be

argued, that the diftrefs of the Company is folely owing to the burdens and preffure of an expenfive war, and that what has arifen from a specific misfortune ought not to be attributed to general mifrule and mifmanagement. In proof that this is not true, I will read a letter from a perfon in a high and responsible fituation in India, in 1772,-It is an extract, which, in the language of conviction, attributes all the disasters in India to a want of vigour in the principle of the fyftem of its government, adopted and purfued by the Directors at home. The writer of the letter is not a favourite authority with me in all cafes; but his pofition carries wifdom in it, and his argument is founded on found policy. The other fide of the

House,

House, at least, I hope, will agree in this, when I inform them, that the writer of the letter is no other than Mr. Haftings himself. That the bill ought to pass, if it paffed at all, with the utmost dispatch, a variety of reasons concur to testify. The feeds of war are already sown in India; and a note left by Sir Eyre Coote, a man whose memory deserves every poffible praise on account of his gallant actions, afford alarming proof of it. The deceased leader of the troops in India wrote to the Governor of Madras, that the expence and the burdens incurred by the Company, in confequence of the late war, can only be recovered by a fresh war on Tippoo Saib. Let the House pause upon this; let them reflect on the last Gazette, the dispatches of which reached the India House, and filled the General Court with disappointment and difmay, in the very moment that an honourable gentleman, whose zealous ardour carries him generally too far, was loud in declaring that all was peace in India, and congratulating the Proprietors on the profperous fituation of their affairs. Let the House also learn from that Gazette, the preffing occafion for an immediate reform of the government of India. Let them fee the cause of the difafters recorded in those direful dispatches-a quarrel among the officers on the common theme of quarrels in India, the divifion of the spoil, the difpofal of the plunder taken from the natives! There are alfo additional causes to expect a war there, and to dread its communicating to the other quarters of the globe, if proper means to prevent it are not inftantly reforted to. Every man muft feel too for the alarining flate of the civil government in India, in confequence of the diffentions between the different prefidencies. I feel for Lord Macartney, for whom I have ever entertained the fincereft refpect. That noble Lord has proved himself the moft obedient to direction from home, the pureft in principle, and the moft zealous in conduct, for the national honour, of any Governor ever sent to India; but who can fay that Lord Macartney has not been fufpended? Nay, who can fay that he is not at this instant

a prifoner,

a prifoner, or that he has not fhared the fate of Lord Pigot? I confider fuffering the Company to borrow more money, as, in fact, lending them the fecurity of Government for what they borrow, and that before I proceed that length, I hold myfelf bound to take every poffible means to make the safety of the public, and the prosperity of the Company, go hand in hand together. I know that in doing fo I put my own fituation, as a Minifter, to the hazard; but where upon a great national ground I can establish a measure at once falutary and useful, likely to rescue the natives of India from oppreffion, and fave the country from difgrice, I little care how great the perfonal rifques are that I am to encounter. The India regulating bill, which, however deficient in point of policy it, may be found, will not, I believe, be thought to be wanting in regard to numerous clauses, or shew that Minifters have not very fully applied themselves to the present fituation of India. This bill, in almost every one of its claufes, reftrains and leffens the exercife of the power of those who are to act under the authority of the bill now before the House. The two bills ought therefore to be confidered as it were together, the regulations of the one tending to correct and temperate the other. To conclude, if I fhould fall in this, I fhall fall in a great and glorious caufe, firuggling not only for the Company, but for the British and India people; for many, many millions of souls! The feparation of the fovereignty from the commerce, is a point which I think effential, and it is partly provided for in the bill; but in that and many other provisions, I should be happy to be affifted by the wisdom of the Houfe in a Committee, to which I therefore hope they will go with me.

Mr. Fox, November 27, 1783.

THE noble and learned Lord has not yet given any folution to my difficulties. I afk the noble and learned Lord, [Lord Loughborough] if he can reconcile the principle of the prefent bill to the principles of the British conftitution, admitting

even, what we have as yet not the fmalleft caufe to admit, that the neceffity of an immediate interference by Parliament is apparent. The noble and learned Lord fills fo high an office in two of His Majesty's Courts, that I should naturally expect to fee him the champion of our glorious conftitution. It is not fitting that so great a character should muddle in the dirty pool of politics. The present Eaft India bill means evidently to create a power which is unknown to the conftitution, an imperium in imperio; but as I abhor tyranny in all its shapes, I fhall oppose most strenuously this ftrange attempt to deftroy the true balance of our conftitution. The prefent bill does not tend to increase the influence of the Crown; but it tends to fet up a power in the kingdom, which may be used in oppofition to the Crown, and to the deftruction of the liberties of the people. I wish to fee the Crown great and refpectable; but if the prefent bill fhould pafs, it will be no longer worthy of a man of honour to wear. The King will, in fact, take the diadem from his own head, and place it on the head of Mr. Fox. Your Lordships have heard much of the Ninth Report of the Select Committee. That extraordinary performance has been in every body's hands. The ingenious author ftates, that “The Eaft-India Company is in poffeffion of a vaft empire, with such a boundless patronage, civil, military, marine, commercial, and financial; in every department of which fuch fortunes have been made as could be made no where elfe." This, my Lords, is the true defcription of that vaft and boundlefs patronage, which this bill means to throw into the hands of the Minister of the present day. I fpeak the language of the late Marquis of Rockingham, for whom I had the highest respect and regard, and to whom I have been much obliged, when I fay, that every Minister of this country will naturally ftrengthen his party by increasing his friends, and difpofing of every office of honour or of emolument amongst thofe who will fupport his measures: with this explanation of the system on which the present Minifters act, and, indeed, in which all minifters must

act,

act, let me conjure your Lordships to weigh well the confe quences which will refult to the conftitution of this country, fhould the present bill pass into a law. By the fundamental principles of this conftitution, the executive power of the state is placed in the hands of the Crown. We have heard much, my Lords, of late years, of the alarming increase of the influence of the Crown; I will candidly confefs to your Lordships, that I have never feen the influence of the Crown too great. I wish to see the Crown great and respectable; and if the boundlefs patronage of the East must be taken from the Company; if regulations wifely adopted, and steadily enforced, will not be fufficient to remedy exifting evils, let the boundless patronage of the East be placed, where only with fafety to the conftitution of this country it can be placed, in the hands of the executive Government. In the last year, we passed an act to prevent contractors from fitting in Parliament; but by the prefent bill, Mr. Fox's contractors do not even vacate their feats. Such is the distinction between the Crown and a subject.

In the last year we paffed an act to prevent custom-house officers from voting for members of Parliament, fo cautious were we to preferve the purity of the House of Commons, and to diminish the influence of the Crown: but in defiance of every principle which was then professed, no jealousy is expreffed of the man who is to have in his poffeffion the boundlefs patronage of the Eaft. The doctrine advanced by the noble and learned Lord is indeed extraordinary. He tells you, that the act of 1773 was an infringement of the charter of the Eaft-India Company, but that his objection was, that it did not go far enough, and therefore he would totally destroy the charter. The noble and learned Lord will recollect the doctrine of the King's Attorney General, Sir Robert Sawyer, in the unconstitutional and infamous reign of Charles the Second, as detailed to us in that minifterial Gazette, that receptacle of all true intelligence, Mr. Woodfall's paper. Yet, my Lords, how was the doctrine of Sir Robert Sawyer reprobated by the

« AnteriorContinuar »