The means alluded to by Mr. Pitt as likely to make the decision doubtful, were the personal wishes and interference of the King.[1] On the 11th of December, Lord Temple obtained leave to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill, was not only not a friend, but would be considered an enemy by the King. The effect of this unconstitutional commission soon appeared. On the 15th a motion for adjournment was carried against the Ministry by eight votes. It was observed that Shelburne was absent from the division, and the general opinion was that he would in consequence not be included in any new arrangement.[2] The following day Orde met Jenkinson. "The event of yesterday in the House of Lords," he wrote to Shelburne, "of course presented itself immediately, and the first observation made by him, was of surprise and concern at your Lordship's absence, which had indeed, he said, appeared extraordinary to many others. He took it for granted that you had received constant and full communication of every material circumstance which had happened, and of the plan, which was thought of, for opposing the dangerous progress of the present Administration. He had heard (upon my seeming to express a doubt of this matter) that Lord Mahon had written to your Lordship, and explained the situation of affairs, which he conceived to have been done at the desire of Mr. Pitt. He went on however to remark, that he should have supposed this communication to have been also made, and especially upon very delicate points, by Mr. Pitt himself, as he had
- ↑ Pitt's latest biographer considers that he was not cognizant of the manoeuvres by which the India Bill was thrown out in the House of Lords through the instrumentality of Temple; and that the refusal of the honours which Temple expected, when Pitt became Prime Minister, was caused by his discovery and disapproval of those manoeuvres. The whole subject is very obscure, owing to the loss of Temple's letters written in these important weeks. See Rose, Pitt and the National Revival, 152-153.
- ↑ Lord Cornwallis to Lieut.-Col. Ross, December 16th, 1783, printed in the Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 152.
Wycombe, also took an active part against the Bill, and voted against it. The numbers voting were comparatively small, viz.: for Government, 229; against, 120. On the third reading, December 8th, 1783, the numbers were: for Government, 208; against, 102. There were 209 absentees in the first of the above divisions.
