ENGLAND, 
One of the moft diftiiiguiftied meafures of Mr. Fox and 
J'iis new colleague, was the introduction of their India bill. 
This famous bill propofed no lefs than to take from the 
directors and proprietors the entire adminiltration, not of 
their territorial merely, but of their commercial affairs, 
and to ve(t the management and direction of them in the 
hands of feven commiflioners named in the bill, and irre¬ 
movable by tlte crown, except in confequence of an ad- 
drefs of either houfe of parliament. Thefe commiflioners 
and directors were immediately to enter into pofleilion of 
all lands, tenements, books, records, veffels, goods, mer¬ 
chandize, and fecurities, in truft for the company. This 
aCt, by which the charter of the company was entirely 
fuperfeded, was to continue in force four years, that is, 
till the year after the next general election ; and it was 
accompanied by 'a fecond bill, enaCting very wife and 
equitable regulations for the future government of the 
Britifh territories in Hindooftan. The aftonifliment ex¬ 
cited by the difclofure of this plan was very great; and 
while it was on one-fide of the houfe extolled as a mafter- 
piece of genius, virtue, and ability, it was on the other 
reprobated as a deep and dangerous defign, fraught with 
mifehief and ruin. A petition was alfo prefented from 
the company, reprefenting the meafure as fubverfive of 
their charier, and operating as a confifcation of their pro¬ 
perty, without charging againft them any fpecific delin¬ 
quency, without trial, without conviction ; a proceeding 
contrary to the molt facred privileges of Britifh fubjefts, 
and praying t< be heard by counfel againft tlte bill. The 
'bill, however, was carried with rapidity through all its 
ftages in the houfe of commons; and on the 9th of De¬ 
cember, 1783, Mr. Fox, attended by a numerous train of 
members, prefented the bill at the bar of the houfe of 
lords. On this occafion, earl Temple declared, “ that he 
was happy to embrace the firft opportunity of entering 
his proteft againft f'o -infamous a bill ; againft a ftretch of 
power fo truly alarming, and that went near to feize upon 
the molt ineftimable part of our conftituiion, our chartered 
rights.” On.the 17th of the fame month it was moved, 
that the bill be rejected ; and after a vehement debate, the 
motion of rejection was carried by 95 againft 76 voices. 
At midnight,,on the 18th of December, a royal mefl'ige 
was fent to the coalition fecretaries of ftate, demanding 
the feals of their feveral departments; and early the next 
morning letters of difmiflion, figned Temple, were fent 
to the other members of the cabinet. In a few days after, 
Mr. Pitt was declared firft lord of the treafur, and chan¬ 
cellor of the exchequer ; which terminated the very ftiort 
adminiftration of MelTfs. Fox and North. The marquis 
of Carmarthen, and Mr. Thomas Tovvnfhend, now created 
lord Sydney, were nominated fecretaries of ftate ; .lord 
Thurlow was reinftajed as lord chancellor; earl Gower, 
afterwards created marquis of Stafford, as prefident of the 
council; the duke of Rutland was conftituted lord privy 
feal ; lord Howe placed at the head of the admiralty, and 
the duke of Richmond of the ordnance. The earl of 
Northinglon was recalled from his government of Ireland, 
to which lord Temple, who had retained the feals of ie- 
cretary only three days, was again deftined to fucceed. 
On the difmiflion of the coalition. adminiftration, 
Mr. Pitt, who now took the lead, recommended the ar¬ 
rangement of a plan for the future government of India. 
For this purpefe, Mr. Pitt, on the lixth of July, 1784, 
brought in a bill founded on the general principles of 
one that had been rejected by the former parliament, and 
to which the company had now given their flow and re¬ 
luctant affent. By this bill the Britifh territories in Hin¬ 
dooftan are now governed and regulated ; the particulars 
of which may be feen under East-india Company, 
vol. iv. p. 875—883. 
In the interval between the prorogation of the parlia¬ 
ment, A. D. 1784, and its re-affembling in the courfe of 
the enfuing winter, the nation enjoyed a flattering and 
delightful repofej under the bieffmgs of peace. Highly 
771 
gratified with the recent change which had taken place in 
the adminiftration, the people viewed with u bounded 
complacency and confidence the minifternow at the head 
of affairs ; and indulged the moft fond and fangu'ne hopes, 
that'under his aufpices Britain would be foon reftored to 
her former enviable ftate of profperity and greatnefs. 
The affairs of India during the feffion of 1786, occu¬ 
pied the chief attention of Parliament. A bill was 
brought in by Mr. Dundas, which with fome oppdfition 
palled into a law, to explain and amend the aft of 1784. 
This bill, among other regulations of inferior importance, 
bellowed upon the governor general of India the high 
prerogative of deciding in oppofition to the fenfe of the 
majority of the council. The offices of commander in 
chief and governor general, were in future to be united 
in the fame perfon ; and earl Cornwallis, who had borne 
fo confpicuous a part in the American war, and vvhofe 
character ftood defervedly high in the public eftimation, 
was nominated to fill this important commifiion. 
Mr. Haftings, the late governor-general of Bengal, ar¬ 
rived in England in the month of June 1785 ; and the 
feafon being then far advanced, Mr. Burke gave notice 
of his intention to move early in the next (efiion for a 
parliamentary inveftigation into hisconduft. According¬ 
ly, on the 17th of February 1786, Mr. Burke threw 
down the gauntlett, and defiring that the refolutions of 
May 28, 1782, might be read (refolutions moved by Mr. 
Dundas, as chairman of the feleft committee, declaratory 
of the culpability of Mr. Haftings, and the confequent 
neceftity of his recall), declared his “ deep regret, that 
the lolemn and important bufinefs of that day had not 
been brought forward by the original mover of the refo. 
lutions now recited. Moft feelingly did he lament, as 
the unwelcome confequence of a devolution caufed partly 
by the natural demif'e of fome, the political deceafe of 
others, and in particular cafes a death to virtue and to 
principle, that he fliould now remain alone engaged in 
tlte attempt to prelerve unfullied the honour and the 
confiftency of that houfe, which had fixed upon Mr. 
Haftings as an objeft of their particular and formal accu- 
fation, by impeachment : preparatory to which, he con¬ 
cluded witli moving for the papers neceffary to corro¬ 
borate the charge againft the late governor-general of 
India. And on the 4th of April, 1786, Mr. Burke fo- 
lemnly rofe to impeach Warren Haftings, efq. of high 
crimes and mifdemeanorS in the execution of his office, 
exhibiting at the fame time nine diflinft articles of accu- 
fation, which in a few weeks were increafed to the num¬ 
ber of twenty-two. 
On the iff of May, Mr. Haftings, at his own defire, 
and by the indulgence of the houfe, was heard at the bar 
of the houfe, in this early period of the bufinefs, in his 
own defence : and at the farther requeft of the accufed, 
the minutes of his defence were ordered to lie on the 
table. But the general opinion, faintly controverted 
even by the friends of Mr. Haftings, was, that the de¬ 
fence, thus prematurely delivered, was of no fervice to 
his caufe, and contributed in a very inadequate'degree to 
the vindication of his cliarafter. The houfe now pro¬ 
ceeded in the examination of evidence : and the firft ar¬ 
ticle of impeachment relpefting the Rohilla war was 
brought forward on the ift of June. After a very long 
debate, the qtieftion was decided in favour of Mr. Haft- 
itigs, ayes for the impeachment 67, noes 119. Mr. Pitt 
gave a filent vote againft the motion ; but the ground on 
which he vot.ed was afeertained by a declaration he bad 
previoufly made, when the fubjeft of the Rohilla war 
was in a more general way difeuffed, “ that lie conlidered 
that tranfaftion in a horrible alarming point of view ; and 
as being fo repugnant to every fentinient of human na¬ 
ture, that nothing could juftify it but the ftrongeft mo¬ 
tives of political expediency, and the invincible princi¬ 
ples of retributive juftice ; adding, nevertlielefs, that if 
would be highly inconfilteul and abfurd to- confider Mr. 
t Haftings- 
