He was followed by Governor Johnstone, who opposed the bill on the reasonable ground that an examination of facts should precede legislation, and that it was necessary to hear evidence before forming any conclusion on subjects so important. He entered into an examination of the defence which Lord Clive had just made of his conduct. In regard to the two first charges, he acknowledged that they originated in the clumsy manner in which business was done at the India House; that the first was meant to be confined to particular members of the Council; and that the second was not meant as a charge, but as illustrating another point. He contended, however, in vehement terms, that in regard to the fourth charge, that of the Salt Company, his Lordship had violated his duty, and disobeyed the strong and repeated orders of the Court of Directors, and that the monopoly had been attended with the most injurious consequences to the country; that as to the proportion of the profits which came to him as Governor, it was no excuse for receiving them to allege, that they had been distributed among his friends and dependants. In regard to the gold coinage, he urged that it was not enough that Lord Clive had derived no benefit from it (though indeed, as Governor, he had received a per centage on the coinage); that it was a duty of his station to become acquainted with principles so important to the prosperity of those he governed; that his receipt of the per centage of one and an eighth on the revenues, in lieu of the advantages resulting from his share in the Society of Trade, however sanctioned by the Directors, was illegal. He next attacked the legacy of Meer Jaffier, the basis of the celebrated bounty, and declared his opinion that the foundation of the large establishments and increased expenditure which, since Lord Clive left India, had brought the Company's affairs to the verge of ruin, had been laid during his government, and under his advice. Nearly the whole of the speech was an attack on Lord Clive, on the same subjects, and conveyed in the same violent language to which he had already so often given vent during the contests in the Court of Proprietors.[178] Leave was given to introduce the bill. Nearly three months had elapsed since the allusion to India in the Royal Speech, and Ministers, during that time, had shown no disposition to take the matter into their own hands, as such a reference seemed to promise. They were not prepared for a measure of such importance, embarrassed, as they were, with other nearer business. By the allusions in the speech, they, perhaps, wished to show that they had not lost sight of a subject which occupied so much of the public attention; but, with nothing to propose, were willing to let it lie over till it received its first impulse from some other quarter. This impulse it very soon did receive.