bill as a very unscrupulous attempt to curtail his legitimate authority and influence.  He became most anxious to prevent the bill from being presented to him for his royal assent.  And it was presently represented to him that the knowledge of his desire would probably induce the Lords to reject it.  Among the peers who had attacked the bill on its first introduction into their House was Earl Temple, whose father had taken so prominent a part in the negotiations for the formation of a new ministry in 1765, and who had himself been Lord-lieutenant of Ireland under Lord Shelburne’s administration.  But he had not thought it prudent to divide the House against its first reading, and felt great doubts as to his success in a division on the second, unless he could fortify his opposition by some arguments as yet untried.  He had no difficulty in finding a willing and effective coadjutor.  Since the retirement of Lord Bute from court, no peer had made himself so personally acceptable to the King as Lord Thurlow, who had been Lord Chancellor during the last four years of Lord North’s administration, and, in consequence, as it was generally understood, of the earnest request of George III., had been allowed to retain the seals by Lord Rockingham, and afterward by Lord Shelburne.  What special attraction drew the King toward him, unless it were some idea of his honesty and attachment to the King himself—­on both of which points subsequent events proved his Majesty to be wholly mistaken—­it is not very easy to divine; but his interest with the King at this time was notorious, and equally notorious was the deep resentment which he cherished against Fox and Lord North, of whom, as he alleged, the former had proscribed and the latter had betrayed him.  To him, therefore, Lord Temple now applied for advice as to the best mode of working on the King’s mind, and, with his assistance, drew up a memorial on the character of the India Bill, on its inevitable fruits if it should pass (which it described as an extinction of “more than half of the royal power, and a consequent disabling of his Majesty for the rest of his reign"), and on the most effectual plan for defeating it; for which end it was suggested that his Majesty should authorize some one to make some of the Lords “acquainted with his wishes” that the bill should be rejected.[85]

George III. eagerly adopted the suggestion, and drew up a brief note, which he intrusted to Lord Temple himself, and which stated 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 his enemy.  And, if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might whatever words he might deem stronger and more to the purpose."[86]