with afterwards; stating, besides the defects I have mentioned, one general defect in the principle of the Bill, that of not distinguishing between the trade and revenue; which was practicable, because they are in their nature separate, and certainly were so in the Mogul Government. The Duke of Richmond and Lord Rockingham would fain have made it out that I meant the patronage a boon to the Crown, but I flatter myself that I left that matter as your Lordship would approve.
"I do not recollect much more that is material to trouble your Lordship with at present. There are, however, two passages your Lordship should know. I took occasion upon the judges' clause to press their being appointed for life, and expressed my wishes that the same policy might be extended to America. The subject of America being renewed the last day, Lord Dartmouth, in terms of very great personal civility, declared his determination to support such a proposition for America, and, as I understood him, to place his existence in the Ministry upon it. I told him afterwards, in conversation, that I would acquaint your Lordship of it, knowing that it would give you real pleasure. The other was a declaration of Lord Rockingham's, who avowed himself the protector of the India Company, happen what will here or there, to a renewal even of their charter, upon the same terms of exclusive right."
The speech of Shelburne contributed largely to the success of the Bill. "He never spoke better in his life," said Mr. William Lyttleton, who was present. "It was universally said that Lord Shelburne showed more knowledge of the affairs of India than all the Ministers in either House."[1] The anger of the Rockingham Whigs was great in proportion. The Duke of Richmond, who spoke nearly twenty times during the debate, finished by complimenting Shelburne ironically on the course he pursued, insinuating that he had acted from interested motives, "in order," as Walpole adds, "to forward his schemes of reconciliation with the Court, or else because he apprehended
- ↑ Chatham Correspondence, iv. 284. Walpole, Journals, i. 250.
