[22] A brief report of the debate is given from Lord Hardwicke’s Notes in the “Parliamentary History,” vol. xvi. p. 350, by which it appears that Lord Mansfield’s opposition was most decided and effective. He treated it as an unprecedented exertion of absolute power to set aside a legal act of private men legally empowered to dispose of their own property--they having neither violated the general principles of justice nor the bye-laws of the Company; their circumstances being amply adequate to the payment of the dividend: and he also insisted that stock-jobbing would be promoted by the bill, and left no doubt of his own impression that such was its sole object. These arguments are reproduced with great ability in the Protest, and have never been satisfactorily refuted. The insolvency of the Company--a ground afterwards abandoned by the Government--seems to be the only legitimate defence that could have been alleged for such an arbitrary act.--E. [23] Many, if not all of these, are to be found in the third volume of Lord Chatham’s Correspondence.--E. [24] Lord Holland had long vented this maxim, though he himself and Lord Chatham had proved the futility of it in the last reign, when they had successfully attacked the Duke of Newcastle’s Administration, on his setting Sir Thomas Robinson to lead the House of Commons. Lord Bute at the same instigation had erected himself into Minister, with Sir Francis Dashwood for his substitute, and though it is true the nation bore it for one session, it was so ridiculous an Administration, that the Earl took fright, resigned himself, and deposed his deputy. The King not having courage to repeat the system, though he liked it, had recourse to an artful expedient, which answered his purpose--which was to set up an ostensible Minister, but govern by his secret junto. Lord Rockingham had really been Minister for one year, but found he could not gain the King’s confidence without submitting to the junto, and he was removed for Lord Chatham, another real Minister, whose madness or mad conduct left the King at liberty to revert to his own system, and then the Duke of Grafton and Lord North submitted to be ostensible Ministers. [25] This was not exactly the purport of the message: see infra pp. 87, 88, _note_. The Duke of Bedford’s construction of it may be seen from the following passage in his Journal:--“Mr. Rigby informed us of the good temper of mind in which he found Mr. Grenville with regard to any Administration which could be formed to defeat the secret influence of Lord Bute, and whose measures should be pursued conformable to his sentiments about America, &c.”--(Duke of Bedford’s Journal, 11th of July.)--E. [26] George Lord Townshend. [27] Lady Caroline Campbell, wife of General Conway. [28] Lady Caroline Campbell, wife of Charles Townshend. These two ladies were daughters of two Johns Dukes of Argyll, and were widows of the Earls of Ailesbury and Dalkeith.