MR. BURKE'S SPEECH

ON THE 1ST OF DECEMBER, 1783, UPON THE QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER'S LEAVING THE CHAIR, IN ORDER FOR THE HOUSE TO RESOLVE ITSELF INTO A COMMITTEE, ON MR. FOX'S EAST-INDIA BILL.

EVEN more than any of his predecessors, Mr. Hastings' administration was distinguished by a spirit of daring enterprise, and intrepid adventure.

By wars sometimes rashly undertaken, but always wisely conducted, he increased, to an incredible extent, the limits of the British India possessions. But these conquests, important as they were to his country, were highly injurious to the separate and distinct interests of the company. They consumed its wealth, and incumbered it with a load of debt without any adequate compensation.

Though Mr. Hastings confessedly created a magnificent empire, it was too unwieldy and complicated to be preserved or regulated by any scheme of commercial policy, or corporate authority. The government of India, therefore, loudly called for amendment. The subject at length attracted the attention of statesmen, and became one of parliamentary inquiry. England had just come out of a disastrous war, decrepit in strength, and shorn of half her glory. The American colonies she had lost for ever. The culture and improvement of her India territories now held forth the surest indemnity for the loss she had sustained. At the commencement of the session of parliament, 1783, Mr. Fox, then secretary of state, introduced a bill for "investing the offairs of the East India com

pany in the hands of certain commissioners, for the benefit of the proprietors and of the publick." This memorable bill was framed on the supposition of the insolvency of the company by their mismanagement, and their total incompetency to govern the vast territories which they had acquired. The remedial plan, which it proposed, was bold and decisive. It took from the company the entire administration, not of their territorial merely, but of their commercial affairs, and vested the direction of them in seven commissioners named in the bill, and who were irremovable by the crown, except in consequence of an address from either house of parliament. The commissioners thus appointed, were all the particular friends of Mr. Fox. The bill, moreover, empowered these commissioners to enter into possession of all lands, tenements, books, records, vessels, goods, merchandise, and securities, in trust for the company.

The bill, in its progress through the house, was opposed, with great vigour and ability, by Mr. Pitt. He argued, that by the destruction of the company's charter, which was as strong and clear, and the right founded upon it as well ascertained as that of any charter could be, that not only a flagrant injustice was done, but that all chartered rights were endangered by the precedent.

"The principle of the bill once established, what security had the other publick companies of the kingdom? What security had the bank of England? What security had the national creditors, or the publick corporations? What assurance, indeed, could there be for the great charter itself, the foundation of all our liberties ?"

He contended, besides, that the bill would be dangerous to the constitution, by establishing an influence independent of the legislature, which must be under the control of its creator, Mr. Fox.. It gave to the minister all the authority, patronage, and treasure of India. With such advantages, he could not fail of commanding a majority of both houses of parliament.

Mr. Pitt did not hesitate, therefore, to impute to the mover of the bill the desire of making his power permanent, and of an intention to sacrifice, at the shrine of his criminal ambition, the king, the parliament, and the people. The author of this most unjust, unconstitutional, and flagitious plan, hopes, said he, to elevate, by it, his present connexions to a situation in which no political convulsions, and no variations of power, can destroy their importance, and put an end to their ascendency.

He further insisted, that the affairs of the company were, by no means, in the desperate state in which they had been represented, or, that they required the harsh remedy proposed by the bill.

"India, it was true, wants reform, but not such a reform as this. It wants a constitutional alteration, and not a tyrannical one, that breaks through every principle of equity and justice."

But neither the author of the bill, nor his coadjutors were dismayed by the violence with which it was assailed. Burke, among others, came forward and delivered the annexed masterly speech, in defence of his friend and the measure. Fox also replied with great success. His speech on the occasion, will be found here, following that of Mr. Burke. The speech of Mr. Pitt is not reported at sufficient length to deserve insertion. But even in its present mutilated shape, it has many proofs of surprising strength, and uncommon ingenuity.

The bill, however, was carried in the lower house by a considerable majority, and immediately afterwards Mr. Fox in triumph presented it at the bar of the lords. But there it encountered a still more formidable opposition. At the very threshold of its introduction, lord Temple arose, and said "that he was happy to embrace the first opportunity of entering his protest against so infamous a bill; against a stretch of power so truly alarming, and that went near to seize upon the most inestimable part of our constitution-our CHARTERED RIGHTS." He was

followed in the same course by several speakers. Lord Thurlow declared the bill to be "the most atrocious violation of private property, in justification of which, if the plea of political necessity were urged, that necessity must be proved by evidence at the bar of the house, and not by reports of a committee, to which he should pay as much attention as to the romance of Robinson Crusoe." "To divest the company," said earl Camden, "of the management of their own property, and commercial concerns was to treat them as idiots; and I regard the bill not so much in the light of a commission of bankruptcy, as of lunacy." He concluded by forcibly asserting "that from the immense influence which the bill gave to the minister, if it were adopted, the king of England and the king of Bengal would be seen contending for superiority in the British parliament."

The house of lords rejected the bill.

The royal indignation being excited by the supposed tendency of this measure, Mr. Fox and his friends were dismissed, who were succeeded by an administration, at the head of which was placed Mr. Pitt. The world now beheld the astonishing phenomenon of a stripling of twenty-five years, presiding over the destinies of a great empire, and directing its complex machinery with a skill, judgment, and success, perhaps, never before attained by the wisest and most experienced of her statesmen,

MR. SPEAKER,

SPEECH, &c.

I really

I THANK you for pointing to me. wished much to engage your attention in an early stage of the debate. I have been long very deeply, though perhaps ineffectually, engaged in the preliminary inquiries, which have continued without intermission for some years. Though I have felt, with some degree of sensibility, the natural and inevitable impressions of the several matters of fact, as they have been successively disclosed, I have not at any time attempted to trouble you on the merits of the subject,

and very little on any of the points which incidentally arose in the course of our proceedings. But I should be sorry to be found totally silent upon this day. Our inquiries are now come to their final issue. It is now to be determined whether the three years of laborious parliamentary research, whether the twenty years of patient Indian suffering, are to produce a substantial reform in our eastern administration; or whether our knowledge of the grievances has abated our zeal for the correction of them, and our very inquiry into the evil was only a pretext to elude the remedy which is demanded from us by humanity, by justice, and by every principle of true policy. Depend upon it, this business cannot be indifferent to our fame. It will turn out a matter of great disgrace or great glory to the whole British nation. We are on a conspicuous stage, and the world marks our demeanour.

I am therefore a little concerned to perceive the spirit and temper in which the debate has been all: along pursued upon one side of the house. The declamation of the gentlemen who oppose the bill has been abundant and vehement; but they have been reserved and even silent about the fitness or unfitness of the plan to attain the direct object it has in view. By some gentlemen it is taken up (by way of exercise I presume) as a point of law on a question of private property, and corporate franchise; by others it is regarded as the petty intrigue of a faction at court, and argued merely as it tends to set this man a little higher, or that a little lower in situation and power. All the void has been filled up with invectives against coalition; with allusions to the loss of America; with the activity and inactivity of ministers. The total silence of these gentlemen concerning the interest and well being of the people of India, and concerning the interest which this nation has in the commerce and revenues of that country, is a strong indication of the value which they set upon these objects.

It has been a little painful to me to observe the intrusion into this important debate of such company as