Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 4.djvu/607

Rh to peace with the colonies, the part of the scheme of the new ministry to which the king most warmly objected. It was carried out with greater moderation than had been foreshadowed in opposition. But at any rate Burke s own office was not spared. While Charles Fox s father was at the pay-office (1765-1778) he realized as the interest of the cash balances which he was allowed to retain in his hands, nearly a quarter of a million of money. When Burke came to this post the salary was settled at 4000 a year. He did not enjoy the income long. In July 1782 Lord Piock- ingham died ; Lord Shelburne took his place ; Fox, who inherited from his father a belief in Lord Shelburne s duplicity, which his own experience of him as a colleague during the last three months had made stronger, declined to serve under him. Burke, though he had not encouraged Fox to take this step, still with his usual loyalty followed him out of office. This may have been a proper thing to do if their distrust of Shelburne was incurable, but the next step, coalition with Lord North against him, was not only a political blunder, but a shock to party morality, which brought speedy retribution. Either they had been wrong, and violently wrong, fora dozen years, or else Lord North was the guiltiest political instrument since Stratford. Burke attempted to defend the alliance on the ground of the substantial agreement between Fox and North in public aims. The defence is wholly untenable. The llockingham Whigs were as substantially in agreement on public affairs with the Shelburne Whigs as they were with Lord North. The movement was one of the worst in the history of English party. It served its immediate purpose, however, for Lord Shelburne found himself (February 24, 1783) too weak to carry on the government, and was suc ceeded by the members of the coalition, with the duke of Portland for prime minister (April 2, 1783). Burke went back to his old post at the pay-office and was soon en gaged in framing and drawing the famous India Bill. This was long supposed to be the work of Fox, who was politi cally responsible for it. We may be sure that neither he nor Burke would have devised any government for India which they did not honestly believe to be for the advantage both of that country and of England. But it cannot be disguised that Burke had thoroughly persuaded himself that it was indispensable in the interests of English freedom to strengthen the party hostile to the court. As we have already said, dread of the peril to the constitution from the new aims of George III. was the main inspiration of Burke s political action in home affairs for the best part of his political life. The India Bill strengthened the anti- court party by transferring the government of India to seven persons named in the Bill, and neither appointed nor removable by the Crown. In other words, the Bill gave the government to a board chosen directly by the House of Commons ; and it had the incidental advantage of confer ring on the ministerial party patronage valued at 300,000 a year, which would remain for a fixed term of years out of reach of the king. In a word, judging the India Bill from a party point of view, we see that Burke was now completing the aim of his project of economic reform. That measure had weakened the influence of the Crown by limiting its patronage. The measure for India weakened the influence of the Crown by giving a mass of- patronage to the party which the king hated. But this was not to be. The India Bill was thrown out by means of a royal intrigue in the Lords, and the ministers were instantly dismissed (December 18, 1783). Young William Pitt, then only in his twenty-fifth year, had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Shelburne s short ministry, and had refused to enter the coalition Government from an honour able repugnance to join Lord North. He was now made prime minister. The country in the election of the next year ratified the king s judgment against the Portland combination ; and the hopes which Burke had cherished for a political life-time were irretrievably ruined. The six years that followed the great rout of the orthodox Whigs were years of repose for the country, but it was now that Burke engaged in the most laborious and forrnid able enterprize of his life, the impeachment of Warren Hast ings for high crimes and misdemeanours in his government of India. His interest in that country was of old date. It arose partly from the fact of William Burke s residence there, partly from his friendship with Philip Francis, but most of all, we suspect, from the effect which he observed Indian influence to have in demoralizing the House of Commons. &quot; Take my advice for once in your life,&quot; Francis wrote to Shee ; &quot; lay aside 40,000 rupees for a seat in Parliament : in this country that alone makes all the difference between somebody and nobody.&quot; The rela tions, moreover, between the East India Company and the Government were of the most important kind, and occupied Burke s closest attention from the beginning of the Ameri can war down to his own India Bill and that of Pitt and Dundas. In February 1785 he delivered one of the most famous of all his speeches, that on the nabob of Arcot s debts. The real point of this superb declamation was Burke s conviction that ministers supported the claims of the fratidulent creditors in order to secure the corrupt advantages of a sinister parliamentary interest. His pro ceedings against Hastings had a deeper spring. The story of Hastings s crimes, as Macaulay says, made the blood of Burke boil in his veins. He had a native abhorrence of cruelty, of injustice, of disorder, of oppression, of tyranny, and all these things in all their degrees marked Hastings s course in India. They were, moreover, concentrated in individual cases, which exercised Burke s passionate imagina tion to its profoundest depths, and raised it to such a glow of fiery intensity as has never been rivalled in our history. For it endured for fourteen years, and was just as burning and as terrible when Hastings was acquitted in 1795, as in the Select Committee of 1781 when Hastings s enormities were first revealed. &quot; If I were to call for a reward,&quot; wrote Burke, &quot; it would be for the services in which for fourteen years, without intermission, I showed the most industry and had the least success, I mean in the affairs of India ; they are those on which I value myself the most ; most for the importance ; most for the labour ; most for the judgment; most for constancy and perseverance in the pursuit.&quot; Sheridan s speech in the House of Commons upon the charge relative to the Begums of Oude probably excelled anything that Burke achieved, as a dazzling performance abounding in the most surprising literary and rhetorical effects. But neither Sheridan nor Fox was capable of that sustained and overflowing indignation at outraged justice and oppressed humanity, that consuming moral fire, which burst forth again and again from the chief manager of the impeachment, with such scorching might as drove even the cool and intrepid Hastings beyond all self-control, and made him cry out with protests and exclamations like a criminal w r rithing under the scourge. Burke, no doubt, in the course of that unparalleled trial showed some prejudice ; made some minor overstatements of his case ; used many intemperances ; and suffered himself to be provoked into expressions of heat and impatience by the cabals of the defendant and his party, and the intolerable incompetence of the tribunal. It is one of the inscrutable perplexities of human affairs, that in the logic of practical life, in order to reach conclusions that cover enough for truth, we are constantly driven to premises that cover too much, and that in order to secure their right weight to justice and reason, good men are forced to fling the two-edged sword of passion into the same scale But these excuses were 