was only a preparatory
measure for the interference of government in the administration of
India, and therefore it excited the warmest opposition of many members.
Several of the directors, sitting in parliament, declared that the
report was hurried, irregular, and unconstitutional; and Burke, who was
a holder of East India stock, maintained that the proposed bill would
be a violation of the company's charter, and the law of the land. "If,"
said he, "we suffer this bill to pass we shall become the East India
Company; the treasury bench will be the buyers, and on this side we
shall be the sellers. The senate will become an auction-room, and the
speaker an auctioneer." The recommendation of the secret committee was,
notwithstanding, adopted, and the bill was introduced.

During the progress of this bill, the East India directors petitioned
against it, representing it as subversive of those rights and privileges
which they held under their charter, which were purchased by their
predecessors for a valuable consideration, and were confirmed to them
by acts of parliament. The petition also complained of an erroneous
calculation of expenses made by the committee, and stated that those
of the commission would be defrayed by savings meditated, to the great
benefit of the creditors. The petitioners, moreover, suggested that
injurious consequences would arise from their being prohibited to
transact their own affairs, in the want of means to fulfil their
engagements with the public; claimed the benefit of the law; appealed
to the faith of the nation for their chartered rights; and prayed to be
heard by counsel. This latter prayer was granted, and it appeared from
evidence that government had received nearly L2,000,000 annually from
the company, while the company had received little more than six per
cent, on their capital. The evidence given at the bar also served to
establish the great delinquency of the company's servants, and the need
that existed of their being subject to supervision. At the same time it
did not show that the company of itself was competent to redress these
abuses, and the question was, whether the incompetency of the company
warranted the interposition of parliament. Ministers acknowledged it to
be a stretch of authority, but they justified it on the plea of cogent
necessity--a necessity which took precedence of all other law. The
company's battle was fought in the commons by Burke, whose speech on
this occasio