The defeat of Fox’s India Bill in the House of Lords is invoked in The Federalist as an example of an upper chamber rejecting a bill passed by the House of Commons, a result said to have satisfied the public. Its significance in the text lies in this compact illustration of legislative checks and public judgment; the reference supplies no fuller account of the bill or the debate surrounding it.

The Historical Example

The Federalist’s note identifies the immediate sequence: Fox’s India Bill was carried in the House of Commons and rejected in the House of Lords. It then adds that the result was said to have been entirely satisfactory to the people. The note presents that public response as a reported assessment, rather than developing it into a description of public action or opinion across different groups.

Place in the Argument

The example appears in a footnote to a discussion of political institutions and the consequences of legislative decisions. Its emphasis falls on the contrast between the two chambers: passage in the Commons did not make the bill law, because the Lords rejected it. The reported public satisfaction makes the outcome an illustration of a decision that could check legislative action while still being regarded as acceptable by the public.

Limits of the Reference

The allusion is brief. It does not specify the bill’s provisions, explain why the Lords rejected it, identify the people whose satisfaction was reported, or describe what followed. Its evidentiary force in The Federalist is therefore illustrative rather than historical in detail: it points to one instance of bicameral disagreement and its reportedly welcome reception without claiming to establish a general rule about public opinion or the merits of the bill.