Feb. 27th. Agreement with the East India Company 341
Feb. 28th. Message on the King’s Debts 343
March 16th. Third Election and Expulsion of Wilkes 347
Lutterell appears as Candidate for Middlesex 353
May 24th. Petition of the Freeholders presented to the King 365
Quarrel between the French and Russian Ambassadors 368
Agitation after the Rising of Parliament 372
Lord Chatham appears at the King’s Levee 373
Russian Project of attacking Constantinople 385
Disturbance at the Execution of two Rioters 394
Story of the Duke of Gloucester and Maria Walpole 403
MEMOIRS OF THE REIGN OF KING GEORGE THE THIRD.
Debates on East Indian Affairs.--Wilkes and the Duke of Grafton.--Expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain.--Parliamentary Discussions.--Attempts to construct a new Administration in Prospective.--The Court of Proprietors vote themselves a Dividend in spite of the Ministry.--Extraordinary Conduct of Townshend in the House of Commons.
I have said that the Opposition, perceiving how much the tide ran against them, determined to attempt putting an end to the East Indian business the moment the examination was closed; a weak and silly plan, that betrayed a jealousy of their own cause. Sir William Meredith fixed on the 14th for making that attempt. Lord Bute had been seriously alarmed, and he and the Duke of Grafton exerted themselves to defeat the Opposition. Beckford observed that the evidence had proved all he had asserted, and said he intended to make some motions in consequence, but the examination had been so voluminous, he had not had time to digest his matter. Sir William Meredith said, he doubted whether it was fit to proceed at all further or not: that it had been Beckford’s own fault if the examination had been voluminous. His questions to the evidences had been unjust, and would not have been admitted in a court of justice. It were better to stop, if violence alone was to be the consequence. The Ministers in the Treasury ought to make the motions, if any were proper; but _they_ did not seem to be trusted in this question. The Company would not make proposals while a doubt subsisted of their having any property in the territorial acquisitions. He did not know what motion to make; he thought that the Speaker should leave the chair. Townshend and Conway spoke for allowing more time; Grenville for going into the Committee to see if any one had any proposal to make. Beckford declared he would never propose any question of forfeiture. Norton, in a very indefinite speech, said, if the Company had exceeded their charter, the Crown could call them to account. That the acquisitions were not conquest, because the King was not at war with the Mogul: they seemed to be only plunder. It seemed to be difficult to know judicially what to do with those acquisitions. They ought to be restored, but nobody wished to see that. The Attorney-General desired Norton to give his opinion how to try the case. He refused, saying, “It will be alleged that a prerogative lawyer has pointed out to the Crown a way of getting possession.” The Attorney-General showed that, by the nature of a process in the courts of law, it was impossible for the King to recover his right by law, supposing the territory were his by his prerogative, or by the forfeiture of the Company. There must be an information of intrusion: a jury must be chosen where the lands lie, and yet where there is no sheriff. The sheriff must deliver the profits; must appoint a receiver for the three provinces, who must give security for two years in a court of law to examine the necessary witnesses. The court would not order possession to be delivered. Then there must be a sequestration of the Company’s effects. Having thus exposed with much humour the fruitlessness of a legal suit, he said if nobody else would, he would move for a bill to prevent the Company from making a dividend beyond such a sum without consent of Parliament. It was necessary to frighten them: he would not violate their charter, but as he thought they had no right to their territorial revenues, _he would take the half of them_. Wedderburn replied, that an action might lie against the Company as a corporation: all he desired was to ascertain the right; the Legislature would settle the rest. Grenville declaimed against any violence, and said with passion, _the view was not to vest money in the public, but in the Crown_; and a profuse Minister had been found who wanted to give four millions to the King, a year before the general election. He should advise to take this money by taxation. Conway said boldly, he should insist on _security_ that this money, if taken, should be vested in the public, not in the Crown. Taxation was like Mr.