een the first and second reading, Earl
Temple had a conference with the King, in the course of which he fully
explained to His Majesty the nature and tendency of a measure which His
Majesty had up to that time approved; that he showed His Majesty that he
had been "duped" and "deceived," and that His Majesty's indignation at
this discovery was excited to such a height as to induce him to
authorise the Earl Temple to oppose the Bills in his name. In order to
leave no doubt on this point, and to give it all possible force and
authenticity, a card was written, setting forth, "That His Majesty
allowed Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill was
not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and
if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever
words he might deem stronger and more to the purpose."

This unusual and rather undignified proceeding admits of no other
justification than the urgency and exigency of the occasion; and the
best thing that can be said of it is, that it answered the end for which
it was designed, although the notoriety which was given to it (and
without which it would have been of no avail) produced a fierce
resolution in the Commons, carried by an immense majority, declaring
that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to report any opinion or
pretended opinion of the King upon any proceeding depending in either
House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of members. It
did influence the votes of members very extensively, nevertheless,
several proxies which had been entrusted to Ministers having been
withdrawn in consequence of the royal interference.

It would appear from this statement, that up to the 11th of December,
His Majesty had approved of the India Bills; and that on that day, for
the first time, Lord Temple drew His Majesty's attention to the tendency
of the measure. Upon the face of the proceedings themselves, such a
version of the transaction is so incredible as to excite surprise at its
adoption by contemporary historians. A very little reflection must have
discovered the impossibility of His Majesty remaining in ignorance of
the spirit, aim, and purport of a scheme which had been under discussion
for three weeks in the Commons, and had been sifted, explored, and
denounced by Pitt, Jenkinson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Grenville, and
others. Nor is it to be believed that, with so strong a motive operating
in the minds of H