^{pahe 84 note 1} Cambridge History of India, vol. v, p. 194.Google Scholar

^{pahe 85 note 1} The Directors had snubbed North over the question of India appointments. Home Misc., 173, p. 1, 27 May, 1783. North attempted without success to win over Sulivan, an important Director. Add. MSS. 29156. f. 450, 1 Sept., 1783. Sulivan to Hastings.Google Scholar

^{pahe 85 note 2} Parl. Hist., 23, col. 795, 25 April, 1783Google Scholar ; Mill, J., History of India, vol. 4, p. 470.Google Scholar

^{pahe 85 note 3} The other bill was a land bill, and it also aimed at the abolition of the custom of giving and receiving “ presents.” Parl. Hist., 23, cols. 1187–1213, 18 09, 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 86 note 1} North played a small part : after approving of the Bills he stayed away from Parliament on the day they were introduced. Wraxall, , Memoirs, vol. 3, pp. 146, 155.Google Scholar

^{pahe 86 note 2} Parl Hist., 23, col. 1315. This speech, together with the 9th and IIth Reports of the Select Committee, forms a survey of the justice, administration, and internal trade of Bengal.Google Scholar

^{pahe 87 note 1} It is not right to say that these men were “ better known at Brook's Club than at the India House.” Rose, Holland, Wm. Pitt and National Revival, p. 143.Google Scholar

^{pahe 87 note 2} Wraxall, , Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 159.Google Scholar

^{pahe 87 note 3} Parl. Hist., 24, cols. 1–10, 3 Dec, 1783. Second reading passed by 217 votes to 103.Google Scholar

^{pahe 87 note 4} Memorials of Fox, vol. 2, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{pahe 87 note 5} Ibid., Fox to Lord Ossory, 21 Nov., 1783, p. 215.

^{pahe 87 note 6} Parl. Hist., 24Google Scholar, cols. 10–62. Sheridan appealed to the same sources to refute Scott. The C.H. India, vol. v, p. 199, wrongly quotes the opposition votes as 108.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 1} Parl. Hist., 23, col. 1279, 27 Nov., 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 2} Buckingham, and Chandos, , Courts and Cabinets of George III, vol. 1, p. 288.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 3} Parl. Hist., 24, cols. 122–35, 9 Dec, 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 4} Public Advertiser, 24 Dec, 1783. Sulivan, Baber and Scott were “ Nabobs.” Sulivan was first elected a Director in 1755, and he served repeatedly as a Director, often as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Company, until his death in 1786. John Scott was Warren Hastings's agent in England.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 5} Annual Register, 1784, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 6} Wraxall, , Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 253.Google Scholar

^{pahe 88 note 7} General Court Minutes, vol. 6, f. 323. “ Thanks to such Corporations as by addresses to the Throne, or by instructing their members have shown themselves averse to the late violent proceedings in Parliament.“

^{pahe 89 note 1} Sayer was rewarded by Pitt by being made Marshal of the Court of Exchequer, receiver of the 6d. duties, and a cursitorship. Wright, , House of Hanover, p. 373. Another caricature that enjoyed wide circulation at the expense of the Company was one of Fox as Samson carrying off theruins of the India House.Google Scholar

^{pahe 89 note 2} Public Advertiser, 14 Jan., 1784.Google ScholarCf. Pulteney's, Effects of Fox's E.I. Bill, p. 23Google Scholar ; Examination of Fox's Bill, pp. 12, 22, 59, Proper Limits of Government's Interference, pp. 10, 24 : London, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 89 note 3} Add. MSS. 29160, f. 276. Scott to Hastings, , 9 Sept., 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 89 note 4} Public Advertiser, 2 Jan,, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 90 note 1} A sensation had already been caused when George III had refused to confer the Order of the Bath on Mr. Beilby Thompson, a friend of Fox. The latter had heard of the death of Eyre Coote and had awarded his friend the honour without explicit word from the King, who preferred to await official news of Coote's death. Wraxall, , Memoirs, vol. 3, pp. 149–50.Google Scholar

^{pahe 90 note 2} Buckingham, , Courts and Cabinets of George III, vol. 1, p. 283.Google Scholar

^{pahe 90 note 3} Add. MSS. 37835, f. 203, II Nov., 1783. Robinson's Minutes.

^{pahe 90 note 4} Wraxall, , Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 433. Atkinson was a rum contractor to the army, and an East Indian proprietor connected with Benfield. He was always linked with Jenkinson. Cf. “ Rolliad,” Of either Kinson, At or Jen. Jenkinson had married Amelia, the daughter of “ Nabob” William Watts.Google Scholar

^{pahe 91 note 1} H.M.C., Abergavenny MSS., Rep. 10, App. 6, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{pahe 91 note 2} Robinson Papers, ed. Laprade, , p. 105.Google Scholar

^{pahe 91 note 3} A virtual vote of censure on the King's act was passed in the Commonsby 153 votes to 80. Parl. Hist., 24, col. 196, 17 Dec, 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 91 note 4} The statement that “ until near the end of the century the Company was above the turmoil of party politics ” is manifestly wrong. Cambridge Modern History, vol. 6, p. 550.Google Scholar

^{pahe 91 note 5} General Court Minutes, vol. 6, f. 307, 20 12, 1783, I.O.Google Scholar

^{pahe 92 note 1} Annual Register, 1784, p. 177.Google Scholar

^{pahe 92 note 2} H.M.C., Abergavenny MSS., Rep. 10, App. 6, p. 64, 8 Dec, 1783.

^{pahe 92 note 3} Public Advertiser, 8 July, 1784. The statement that “ the Bills were bitterly opposed by the Company and all the Indian interest ” (C.H. India, vol. v, p. 195), is probably wrong.Google Scholar

^{pahe 92 note 4} Robinson's Parliamentary Papers, ed. Laprade, , p. 65.Google Scholar

^{pahe 92 note 5} Ibid., pp. 66-105.

^{pahe 93 note 1} According to the two or three relevant voting lists that exist, Robinson's estimates in his second list at any rate appear for the most part correct.

^{pahe 93 note 2} Robinson's Parliamentary Papers, ed. Laprade, , p. xiiiGoogle Scholar; Laprade's, article, E.H.R., vol. 31, p. 225, “ Public opinion and the 1784 election.“Google Scholar

^{pahe 93 note 3} Ibid., p. xiv.

^{pahe 93 note 4} Gleig, , Warren Hastings, vol. 3, pp. 102–11.Google Scholar

^{pahe 94 note 1} Chatham MSS. 353, P.R.O.

^{pahe 94 note 2} Ibid., 102, 169.

^{pahe 94 note 3} Parl. Hist., 24Google Scholar, col. 412. Cf. Fox's, plea that his “ Bill was not a child of choice but of necessity.” Parl. Hist., 23, col. 1262.Google Scholar

^{pahe 95 note 1} H. Walpole's Letters, ed. Toynbee, , to Sir H. Mann, vol. 13, p. 143,15 04, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 95 note 2} Add. MSS. 29162, f. 294. Sulivan to Hastings, 1 March; 1784.

^{pahe 95 note 3} Robinson was disappointed when only three Pittites, Baring, Boehm, and Mesurier, were returned against Fox's three, Inglis, Manship and Motteux. Home Misc., 764, f. 683, 14 April, 1784, I.O.Google Scholar

^{pahe 95 note 4} Sulivan was at this time about 70 years old.

^{pahe 96 note 1} H.M.C., Abergavenny MSS., Rep. 10, App. 6, pp. 67–71. Nath. Smith and Devaynes were the “ chairs.”Google Scholar

^{pahe 96 note 2} Robinson's Parliamentary Papers, ed. Laprade, , p. 106.Google Scholar

^{pahe 96 note 3} Ibid., pp. 126–9.

^{pahe 96 note 4} Letters of Wm. Wilberforce, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{pahe 96 note 5} Parl. Hist., 24, col. 842, 24 May, 1784Google Scholar; H. Walpole Letters, vol. 13, p. 139, to Sir H. Mann, 30 03, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 96 note 6} Parl. Hist., 25, col. 250, 28 Feb., 1785.Google Scholar

^{pahe 96 note 7} See Robinson's, Parliamentary Papers, pp. 107–9 and 128, for prices members of the East India interest were prepared to pay for seats.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 1} Public Advertiser, 21 and 28 June, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 2} Parl. Hist., 24, col. 1201, 26 July, 1784 ; Public Advertiser, 20 Sept., 1783.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 3} Public Advertiser, 8 June, 6 July, 7 Aug., 1784. Scott said no East Indian had returned two members. Benfield did not, and, with the exception of Barwell who is down for two seats (p. 126), there is no evidence to the contrary in Robinson's Papers.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 4} Town and Country Magazine, 1771, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 5} Public Advertiser, 27 May, 8 July, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 97 note 6} Public Advertiser, 27 May, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 1} Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser, 26 July, 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 2} “ Rolliad,” Political Eclogues. Jekyll, 11. 60–70. Probationary Ode by Scott, verse 5.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 3} Robinson's Parliamentary Papers, ed. Laprade, , pp. 126–9.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 4} Burke's Works, ed. Bohn, , vol. 3, p. 354.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 5} H.M.C., Rutland MSS., Rep. 14, App. 1, 8 Feb., 1787, pp. 368–9.Google Scholar

^{pahe 98 note 6} Ibid., Smith MSS., Rep. 12, App. 9, p. 373.

^{pahe 99 note 1} According to the two relevant voting lists, Robinson's estimates are mainly correct. Of the Directors and “ Nabobs,” Purling's and Farrer's votes alone provide conflicting evidence.

^{pahe 99 note 2} Pitt's concession to his East India friends annoyed the country gentlemen. H.M.C., Rutland MSS., Rep. 14, App. 1, 13 Aug., 1784, p. 131. D. Pultney to Rutland.

^{pahe 99 note 3} Scott, to Hastings, Gleig, vol. 3, p. 110. Sulivan echoed this, “ Whether we shall be a Company rests upon a Pitt or a Fox being Minister.“ Add. MSS. 29162, f. 131, 12 Feb., 1784.Google Scholar

^{pahe 99 note 4} General Court Minutes, vol. 6, f. 334.Google Scholar

^{pahe 99 note 5} Real Situation of the E.I. Co., Tierney, Geo., pp. 3–44. London, 1787.Google Scholar

^{pahe 100 note 1} Grant-Robertson, , Select Statutes, Cases and Documents, pp. 260–72.Google Scholar

^{pahe 100 note 2} Part. Hist., 24, col. 1215.Google Scholar