n parliament reassembled in November, Fox brought in two
bills, which were largely prepared by Burke, one affecting the
constitution of the company, the other its administration in India. The
first vested the management of the territories, revenue, and commerce
of the company in seven commissioners, named in the bill, for four
years, with power to appoint and remove all officers of the company.
After that term Fox suggested that the crown should nominate the
commissioners, and meanwhile was to appoint to vacancies. Commercial
transactions were to be managed by a subordinate board chosen by
parliament from among the larger proprietors. The second bill abolished
all monopolies in India, prohibited the acceptance of presents, and gave
native landlords an hereditary estate. The objections urged against the
first bill by the opposition, and chiefly by Pitt, Grenville, and
Dundas, were grounded on its violation of the company's charter, and its
tendency to vest the patronage of India in the existing ministry. Fox
ably defended the bill, and Burke, in an eloquent speech, depicted, with
much exaggeration, the injustice which, he maintained, the millions of
India had suffered during Hastings's administration, and argued that the
delinquencies of the company justified the violation of its charter.

It was, however, the political side of the bill which chiefly roused
opposition. All seven commissioners belonged to Fox's party. For four
years it vested in his nominees "all the patronage of the East". Pitt
declared that it created "a new and enormous influence"; Grenville that
"the treasures of India like a flood would sweep away our liberties".
Fox was accused of making himself "King of Bengal," and a caricature
represents him as Carlo Khan entering Leadenhall street on an elephant
which has the face of North and is led by Burke. All this was party
exaggeration; the bill was a genuine attempt to benefit the natives of
India, and would not probably have had any really serious consequences
in England, though the control of the Indian patronage for four years
would have strengthened Fox's party, and, if it had afterwards been
vested in the crown, would have given some opportunity for the exercise
of corrupt influence by ministers. The king was waiting for an
opportunity to get rid of the coalition ministry, and Thurlow and Temple
easily excited his jealousy for the prerogative by telling him that the
bill would deprive him of half his