He was now returned for the University of Cambridge. In the ensuing session his attention was principally engaged by the Westminster scrutiny, the state of the revenue, and the affairs of India. In the first he took a part which widened the breach between Mr. Fox and himself; and he had the mortification of being exposed to the charge that he cherished personal animosity against his illustrious antagonist, and of being deserted by many of his usual adherents, and finally left in a minority, March 3, 1785, when the scrutiny was ended by a vote of the house. Lord Hood and Mr. Fox were then returned. In his financial measures Mr. Pitt had eminent success. By economy, by resolutely facing the difficulties of the question, and, no doubt, by the assistance of that general prosperity, agricultural as well as commercial, which was beginning to succeed the depression of the American war, the revenue, which at his accession to office was considerably below the expenditure, was improved so much as, by the spring of 1786, to afford the promise of a million surplus. This was devoted to the formation of an effective sinking-fund. Mr. Pitt prided himself on this more than any other of his measures, and resisted all temptation to encroach upon it even during the pressing difficulties of the latter years of his administration. The merit of having devised the scheme was claimed by Dr. Price: be this as it may, the principal merit, that of having rigidly carried it into execution, is Pitt’s. Later authorities have denied the advantage of the system altogether. The India Bill, the other leading measure of this session, differed from Mr. Fox’s chiefly in these important points, that the members of the Board of Control, like other members of administration, were removable at pleasure, and that nearly all the patronage of India was left in the hands of the Board of Directors. In 1785, for the last time, Mr. Pitt again brought forward the subject of parliamentary reform. His plan was to transfer the members of thirty-six decayed boroughs to the metropolis and to various counties, and as other boroughs decayed, to give their franchises to populous and increasing towns. But the boroughs being regarded, in the words of his biographer, as “a species of valuable property and private inheritance, the voluntary surrender of their rights was not to be expected without an adequate consideration.” This was not treated as a government measure, and was rejected by a large majority.