Speech in the House of Commons (18 November 1783)

November 18, 1783.

Mr. Fox this day called the attention of the house to the important subject of a total revolution in the system of the government of India; and concluded his speech with moving for leave to bring in a bill, "for vesting the affairs of the East India Company in the hands of certain Commissioners, for the benefit of the proprietors and the public:" And also, a bill, "for the better government of the territorial possessions and dependencies in India.”

Mr. PITT then rose and said, that he could not refrain from noticing the singular manner in which the right honourable secretary(*), had deprecated the charge of indolence, a charge which had never been imputed to the right honourable gentleman, though it had ever been considered as a leading feature in that part of the present administration, of which the honourable gentleman had been once thought to be no great admirer; nor could he, at the same time, avoid remarking the claim that he had made, that parliament would never recur to a certain connexion of principle and patriotism, which had so much excited surprise and discussion in the last session, and that they would grant the coalition a perpetual amnesty. But how ready parliament might be to accede to the right honourable gentleman's desires, he would not pretend to determine. Indeed he knew not how far it might be adopted on the present occasion. For his own part, he could not avoid so far recurring to the present very extraordinary coincidence of sentiment and conduct of men, who were known to have acted and professed principles so diametrically opposite, as to testify his astonishment at it. He could not but observe, that the business which had been now laid before them, convinced him that there no longer subsisted a disagreement of sentiment. For could he have presumed to have anticipated the conduct of the right honourable secretary, from the principles he had always opposed in his noble colleague(↑) when in opposite situations, he should have said, that he would have been the first to reprobate, not to propose, the system he had just divulged.

Had this bill been brought forward at a former period, he should have expected to have heard it deprecated with all that warmth of sentiment and that astonishing eloquence for which he had been so justly admired. Although his noble colleague was indisposed, he did not conceive it a material interruption to public business for the house had now a demonstration that the right honourable secretary had industry and inclination sufficient to perform, not only his own share of administration, but that of the noble lord likewise.

With regard to the bill which had been now brought before them, he had nothing to say against its propriety, necessity, or principle, at this time. He would suspend his judgment until the whole came before them; when he would examine their provisions with the accuracy and care which they demanded. He was assured of what had been so eloquently observed by its right honourable mover, that very great and enormous abuses had been suffered in the management of our India affairs; and great indeed he thought they must be to admit of a measure, which he would be bold to declare was an entire abrogation of all the ancient charters and privileges by which the company had been first established, and had since existed. All that he wished to mention was, that, as such a bill was brought before their consideration, they would consider it with that minute attention and and serious investigation which it loudly demanded, before they suffered it to pass into a law. He the more particularly urged this, from the manner in which the bill had been introduced. He should have expected, that a bill of so extraordinary an exertion of administrative power could never have been brought forward, without being premised with reasons that would, in some sort, justify so alarming a measure. But he was sorry to say, that in all that had been urged by the right honourable gentleman to support this motion, he heard no arguments that afforded him satisfaction. It was true, the bill was said to be founded on necessity; but what was this? Was it not necessity, which had always been the plea of every illegal exertion of power, or exercise of oppression? Was not necessity the pretence of every usurpation? Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants: it was the creed of slaves. He had heard no particular reason offered in favour of this necessity, except that of destroying the corrupt influence which had been exerted by the company and their servants in both houses of parliament. But surely this was an argument against the principle of the bill; for if government possessed themselves of this source of influence and corruption, it would no longer be the influence of a company, but that of the executive government. He asked, was it not the principle and declared avowal of this bill, that the whole system of the India government should be placed in seven persons, and those under the immediate appointment of no other than the minister himself? He appealed to the sense and candour of the house, whether in saying this he was the least out of order. Could it be otherwise understood, or interpreted, than that these seven, who were to have the sole direction of that part of India affairs which related to the political government, were to be appointed solely. by the minister? The minister would then virtually be the governor of India: he would have all the power and patronage, for which this bill was principally recommended as tending to eradicate. Under this idea, he again most earnestly recommended, that the bill might remain on the table so long, as to enable every member of that house to form an adequate idea of the necessity of the measure, and the tendency of the principle.

The right honourable secretary, he observed, had his sincere. thanks and applause for the manner in which he had expressed his intentions of giving security, stability, and permanency, to the property of the inhabitants in our territories in India. He felt his sentiments with the same warmth of animation and pleasure, as was the general feeling of the whole house, and what would always characterize the liberality of an Englishman: but while he paid this deserved tribute to so generous and honourable a sentiment, he hoped never to see it adopted, if it must be attended with the absolute destruction of our rights and characters at home. The right honourable secretary was willing to secure to the Gentoos their natural rights; but let him take care that he did not destroy the liberties of Englishmen. He mentioned the influence of the crown; but had it ever been, in its zenith, equal to what it would be, when it should find itself strengthened by the whole patronage of the east, which the right honourable secretary was going to throw into the hands of the crown? For his part, he was ready to declare, that in his opinion the whole of the right honourable secretary's system was nothing more on one side than absolute despotism, and on the other the most gross corruption. He concluded with observing, that he wished this bill not to pass without a call of the house; for he was assured that not a member of parliament, when he heard of this bill, would consider himself uninterested in its discussion. He thought it one of the most bold and forward exertions of power that was ever adopted by ministers.

The motion was carried unanimously; as was also Mr. Pitt's, for a call of the house on the next day fortnight.

(*) Mr. Fox.

(↑) Lord North.