folemn reflections of this Houfe; for, in this view of the bill, what is it that your Lordships have to fee, but a bill that has for its fubject-matter, propofitions as fatal to the just preroga tive of the Crown, by their adoption, as by their effects they will be found ruinous to, and fubverfive of, the rights, liberties, and properties of the fubject: propositions as unique in themselves, as they are unmatched in the annals of our history: propofitions, big with ambition; with ambition no lefs violent than that which filled the mind of Cromwell, and brought the head of Charles the First to the block. No lefs violent did I fay, my Lords? Ten times more violent, more daring, more enterprising! For, in the cafe of that Cromwell, he had fome ground to ftand upon, he had arguments to offer, he had reasons to affign, he had, at least, that plea of tyrants, the plea of neceffity, for what he did; for, in the words of Lord Bolingbroke, he had this to say, either that "Charles the First must lofe his head, or England lofe its liberties."

But in the cafe of the Cromwell of this bill, what has he to urge for that which he has done? What ground has he to ftand upon? What arguments to offer? What reasons to affign? What plea of neceffity to ftate? A plea of neceffity, it is true, he has; he stated to the House of Commons, that the Eaft-India Company was bankrupt; it was a false statement, it was falfe in proof: but I admit the truth of both; and yet, whence arose the neceffity of fubverting the conftitution of this country, by placing the executive power of government in the hands of a mountebank Secretary of State? A Secretary who does not fhrink back from declaring, that he is not the King's Minifter, but the Minifter of the People; who glories in the diftinction, who fortifies himself under it in the House in which he acts. And yet, my Lords, no more the Minifter of the People, than I the friend of his politics. The Minifter, it is true, of a corrupt majority of the House of Commons, where the people now are, as he fays; but not the

Minifter

Minifter of the people, as when mounted on his stages at Covent Garden and Westminster Hall.

But I fay, my Lords, whence arose the neceffity of this fubverfion of the Conftitution? Whence arofe the neceffity of erecting a new power in the State? A middle power between the King and People; on the one hand holding the King in chains, and on the other ruling the People through the medium of a corrupt majority in Parliament, with a rod of iron? And yet, my Lords, this is the propofition in totidem verbis; a propofition to wreft the reigns of government out of the hands of the executive power, and to place it in the hands of a felf-created demagogue, supported by a factious and desperate cabal; a propofition therefore no lefs injurious to the People, than at the fame time furnishing the most direct attack upon Majesty that the annals of our hiftory afford; a propofition, as I have faid, more daring even than that which brought the head of Charles I. to the block, because less founded; a propofition of ambition no less glaring, but, I truft, my Lords, Jefs hopeful, for it is ours to prevent it.

But, my Lords, it has been faid of this bill on the one fide, that it will increase the influence of the Crown, and it has been cunningly and craftily not denied on the other. But this is not the truth, my Lords; I deny the fact; the reverse is the truth. The bill is not to increase the influence of the Crown, it is to destroy it. It is, I admit, to obtain an influence; but an influence as poisonous to the juft influence and legal prerogative of the Crown, as it is deadly to the rights and liberties of the People.

And when I fay this, my Lords, let it not be thought that I speak rafhly and unadvisedly upon the subject, that I talk without book, that I reafon without my hoft, that I am unfupported in what I fay, I fpeak, my Lords, to the sense and knowledge of the Houfe; for, my Lords, to pull down the influence of the Crown has been the long unremitting endeavours of the Minifter of the People and his Whig connections, as they are

called, (for of the Tory Coalition I shall presently speak) the Houfe wants no information; the facts fpeak for themselves. We have feen bills of reform upon bills of reform to this end paffing into acts of the Legislature; bills taking away from the fplendor of the Crown, no less neceffary than the birthright of the Prince; bills meanly and ignominiously descending into the very kitchen and cellar of the King, there to retrench and deprive His Majesty of the very comforts and provifions of his table. Can it then, my Lords, even in fuppofition, be thought, that those who have done this, can now have any view or intention to throw the wealth of the East into the lap of the Throne? No, my Lords, the very fuppofition is abfurdity itself. Befides, the bill ftates the contrary; for four years certain the Crown has nothing to do with it; and give me a leafe for four years of fuch means of corruption as these are, and I must be, what the Minifter of the People is not, a very filly politician indeed, if I do not purchase a fee fimple in the premises for ever after.

But this is not all, my Lords; for let us look for demonftration upon this fubject, to the tenets and principles of this party of men, and in doing this, let us look to their creed, in a wellknown publication of theirs, called "Thoughts on the prefent Difcontent;" and then look to their practice upon that creed. Look to their creed, and there you will find, that whilst it pulls the influence of the Crown down to the ground, it sets up another influence ten times more dangerous, ten times more deftructive to the Conftitution. The influence of an Ariftocracy, or to express it in their own words, the influence of connection; and of which this creed speaking, fays, " in one of the moft fortunate periods of our hiftory, this country was governed by a Connection. I mean the great connection of Whigs in the reign of Queen Anne." Such is this influence, my Lords, the influence of an oligarchical junto in the two Houses of Parliament, holding, as I have faid, the King captive on the one hand, and with the other ruling the People,

not

1

not by the fundamental laws of the land, but after the manner of this bill, by laws "of mere political discretion only," and fubverfive of their rights, liberties, and properties.

But, my Lords, let us now look to their practice upon this creed-and here I am aware I am anticipated by the House, and that the day which stains, and will continue everlastingly to ftain, the Journals of Parliament, I mean the 17th of February laft, is uppermoft in the thoughts, and prefent to the minds of every one of your Lordships. A day of connection, my Lords; a day when, by an infamous and wicked connection of principles, not the connection of idem fentire de republica, which alone is, or can be the bafis of all well-intentioned political union, but of the most jarring factions; a connection which one might have thought no chemistry, either on earth or in heaven, could ever have brought together: I fay, my Lords, a day when His Majefty was befieged in his cabinet; when he was told the appointment of his own domeftic fervants did not lie in him; when His Majefty refifted; but when, after a fixweeks refiftance, with a fortitude of mind that will add luftre to his reign, he fell a victim to this connection.

And thus, my Lords, has the theory of these politics been now reduced to practice; for fuch have been the effects of this connection which is now fought by this bill. Not the influence of the King's Minifter for the King, but of the King's Minister against the King. Of the King's Minifter, who, if this bill paffes, may fay to the King, I am the Minister of this country; and let my conduct be what it will, let my infults to you be what they may, it is not in your power, it is what you dare not do, it is not for you to remove me.

My Lords, when Charles II. and James II. feized upon the charters, which they did for the purposes of the State, as they faid, although, fays Sir William Blackftone, the proceedings in most of them were fufficiently regular, it gave great and just offence: but it fee.ns Charles-James Fox can now of himfelf attempt what both thofe tyrants, Charles and James

Stuart, put together, dared not to do, feize upon charters by force and violence,

Earl of Abingdon, Dec. 15, 1783.

FROM the commencement of the Eaft-India bill, I have, by every exertion in my power, fummoned the attention of the House, and of the country in general, to the importance and dangerous confequences of the measure now proposed. I have pledged myself to the House, and to the world at large, to point out the dreadful tendency of this bill on every thing dear and facred to Englishmen; to prove its inimical influence on the conftitution and liberties of this country; and to establifh, by undeniable evidence, the falfe and pernicious principles on which it is founded. These particulars 'require time and deliberation, which the violent and indecent precipitancy of this business virtually profcribed. However, it is impoffible to regard the very face of the bill, without feeling ftrong repugnance at its fuccefs. I defire the Houfe to take notice, that the ground of neceffity, upon which the bill had been originally declared to have been introduced, is now changed; that neceffity no longer refts on the fimple, clear, and obvious propofition, the bankruptcy of the Eaft-India Company, but is this day placed on a still weaker foundation, but a foundation infinitely more fallacious, upon the temporary distress of the Company. Is that a fit plea to warrant the paffing of a bill, which openly profeffes a daring violation of the chartered rights of the Company, and proceeds to an immediate confifcation of all their property? Ought the House to be fatisfied with it, even if proved beyond the poffibility of question? I trust they will not; I truft the Houfe has too much regard for its own honour and dignity, too scrupulous an attention to juftice, and too confcientious an adherence to their duty to their conftituents, to fupport the Minifter in one of the boldest, most unprecedented, most desperate and alarming attempts at the exercife of tyranny, that ever difgraced the annals of this or

any