to a state of bankruptcy, and were already fo deeply involved, that the relief now propofed was a mere tampering with the diforder, and could never work an adequate and effectual cure.

Mr. Dundas replied to thefe obfervations. He denied that the remittance to China had ever been ftated as having been made entirely in fpecie; and he endeavoured to prove, that the fum that was given was accurate, including in his account the export of opium to that country, and the export of the raw material of the cotton manufacture. Mr. Dundas faid, that he had no objection to confefs that Mr. Haftings was with him a favourite authority, because he was, generally fpeaking, an authority to be relied on. But, in the prefent inftance, Mr. Haftings's eftimate was founded on the actual expence of the Bengal establishment at the time; and the reduction fince ordered from home had been fo important and effectual, as to have totally altered the nature of the cafe. Mr. Dundas undertook to evince the found policy of the permiffion, which was granted by the prefent bill of relief to the company's fervants in India, to tranfmit their fortunes to England through the medium of the company's inve@ments, exchanging the money which was thus advanced for bills payable in Leadenhallftreet. He stated, that the practice had been for the fhips of other Eu ropean powers, our rivals in the commerce of India, to fail for the Ganges, and to truft for the money to purchase an investment, folely to the tranfmiffion to Europe through their hands, of the fortunes of the fervants of the company. In lieu of the twelve millions of debt predicted by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Dundas remarked, that a new capital,

to the amount of twelve millions, was at the fame time forming. As fast as it accrued, fo much in proportion flowed into the company's treafury at home, and the means of difcharging the debt uniformly accompanied its accumulation. This was the fyftem which found policy directed us to purfue; nor could he ever confent, that the company fhould call itself a wealthy and flourifhing company at home, and a poor and diftreffed company in India. Mr. Dundas pronounced a panegyric upon the present ftate of this part of the empire. It was true, that, greatly exhaufted by the late ruinous Wai, it required, as Britain herfelf did, to be managed with every poffible care and attention. But then India had in proportion fewer difficulties to encounter. He hoped fpeedily to fee our oriental poffeffions with a powerful army, upon which their existence depended, and a reduced and œconomical civil government, with their revenues increased, their expences moderate, their investments large, and their commerce flourishing.

Mr. Francis followed Mr. Dundas. He alluded to what was now acknowledged to have been the state of affairs in Bengal in 1784, when there appeared to be a deficiency of 1,650,oool. This deficiency, it feemed, was now converted, by a glorious reduction, into a furplus of 1,800,000l. fo that between the one period and the other there was a difference of three millions. If Mr. Dundas was founded in bis effertion, what must have been the eftablifhment which could have admitted of fuch a reduction, and what fort of argument did this circumftance

furnish respecting the conduct of the late governor-general? Mr. Francis expatiated upon the contrast between

the

the prefent report and the report of 1784. He recited the different balances of cash in the treafury of Bengal, for the four enfuing years, as they had been flated in the former, and fet against them the balances to the difadvantage of the treafury in thefe years, as they were admitted in the latter. He obferved, that the amount of the bills to be drawn upon London were now admitted nearly to double the amount at which they had been flated to parliament in 1784; and he endeavoured to prove from authentic papers, that the company's debt in India at this day muft exceed the fum of twelve millions. Mr. Francis animadvered upon a paffage in the report, where it was faid, that, whether the mode proposed for paying the bond debt took place or not; in other words, whether bills to the amount of fix millions more fhould be drawn upon them or not; "it would not make any important variation in the state of the company's affairs, with refpect to the fum wanted in India for the ordinary currency." They obferved, that if the creditors preferred being paid in India, it would leffen the funds allotted to the investment; bur, if they confented to be paid in England, the amount would be brought home in investments, and out of them the bills would be paid. If this ftate of the cafe were true, it would be bad enough, tince then the investment would be brought home folely for the creditors, not for the company. Then however the money applicable to the difcharge of the bonded-debt would exift fomewhere. But the fact was, that, fo far from there being a fingle rupee of furplus in Bengal, they had not fufficient to pay their current expences, and were obliged to

borrow money, to provide for the annual intereft of the exifting debt. Mr. Francis defcribed the company's credit in India as being in a ruinous condition, while their bonds were negotiated at thirty per cent. difcount. In this fituation, the fupreme council had refolved, that the whole civil fervice, exclufively of the finaller falaries, fhould be paid by a further iffue of paper; and thus of course they were increafing the difcount, and finking the value of the bonds to nothing.

Mr. Grenville remarked, in terms of great feverity, upon what he denominated, the egregious attempt to deceive the members of that houfe, on the part of Mr. Francis. The fact was, that in the 1,650,000l. the unfunded debt of Bengal was included; and therefore it would have been just as fair for any perfon, in comparing the annual income of Great Britain with its annual expenditure at the end of the war, to have included the thirtyfix millions of unfunded debt, as a part of the deficiency of the year's income. Nor was Mr. Francis, in the opinion of Mr. Grenville, leis wanting in refpect, both to the house and to himself, when he glanced in terms of fuch ungovernable feverity at the conduct of Mr. Haftings. In the courfe of the debates upon the relief bill, the question was revived, of how far government rendered itfelf refponfible by acts of this nature, for the debts of the company. The affirmative fide of the question was efpoufed by fir Grey Cooper, Mr. Huffey, and Mr. Sheridan, and their reafonings upon the fubject were answered by Mr. Dundas. A petition was alfo prefented from the court of directors, ftating, that the bill for the relief of the company then before

the

the house, was defective in many particulars. But this proceeding does not feem to have effected any material alteration in the meafure. In the house of lords the progrefs of the bill was attended with fome debate. Its principle was attacked by lord Loughborough, lord Stormont, and the duke of Portland; and the ministerial fide of the quel

HE remaining fubject that belongs to the history of this feffion, is the impeachment of Mr. Warren Haftings, late governorgeneral of Bengal. It is the wifh of every true friend to his country, that the financial operations of the year 1986, may be productive of alleviation and benefit to our latest pofterity. But unquestionably the tranfaction, during the existence of the prefent adminiftration, the recollection of which will always moft strongly arreft the feelings, and intereft the paffions of the human mind, is this great profecution.

The acquifition of territories, fo vaft in their dimenfions, and ftill more extenfive in their influence, as we poffefs in India, by a mercantile company, is a circumftance unparalleled in the hiftory of the world. The extreme difproportion between the power that governs and the object to be governed, is fuch as to trike the most careless obferver, and might naturally be expected to be productive of calamities of various defcriptions, and of the alternate evils of anarchy and defpotilinn. Different ftatefmen

of the highest abilities have turned their attention to the improprie y of this fituation, and have fought to introduce an adequate remedy. The first project of this fort was that of the carl of Chatham in 1766, and which was understood to include the total diffolution of the territorial power of the EaftIndia company, and the affumption of the provinces in the name, and by the immediate authority of the legiflature of Great Britain. This was a strong meafure, and it is poffible, that, if the proceedings of that nobleman had not been counteracted, either by a series of the most oblinate ill health, or by the operations of ministerial intrigue, all the abilities of this illuftrious character might have failed in the introduction of fo decifive arevolution: The next project for an effectual remedy did not occur till the year 1783, and it is underfood to have been the joint production of Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke. The scheme of 1783 fell fhort in the extent of its operation of the scheme of 1766; but it feemed likely to be productive in the fequel of effects not

lefs

lefs important. It was the intention of Mr. Fox to leave not only the commercial advantages, but the territorial revenues in the hands of the company, and to fuffer them to continue, as far as any pecuniary intercit was concerned, the fovereigns of the country; but at the fame time to take from them irrevocably the adminiftration of that fovereignty, the appointment of its fervants, the deliberations of peace and war, and all thofe circumftances of which it is conftituted. The measures relative to India, which took place in the interval between the adminiftration of lord Chatham and Mr. Fox, and those which have followed upon the difmillion of the latter, are to be confidered comparatively speaking as palliatives. Thofe of lord North are now generally acknowledged to have mifcarried. Upon the merits of thofe of Mr. Pitt it is imagined, that there has not yet been a fufficient lapfe of time to enable us to decide.

Two methods naturally occurred to the minds of all men for the remedy of the mifgovernment, which was generally acknowledged to exift in India, one of them of the nature we have defcribed, and the other an inveftigation of the conduct, and an exemplary punih ment of the delinquencies, of fome of thofe, who have fucceffively been intrufted in this great adminiftration. It has been a question among our practical statefimen, whether thefe two remedies ought to go hand in hand, or whether that of punishment is to be confidered as only fit to be adopted, if we fail in our attempts to introduce the other. It appears to have been moft commonly fuppofed, that the mode of retrofpect and punishment ought on no account to be omitted, and this 1786

idea must at least have strongly impreffed itfelf on the minds of those, who condemned and derided as nugatory the Eatt India regulations of Mr. Pitt from their first introduction. It is certainly of little confequence to say that the errors of our oriental governors ought not to be punifhed, because the fyftem of government there is radically defective. This may be an excufe for leffer faults; it may be pleaded in extenuation of, and excite our pity for confiderable crimes; but, if admitted in its utmost extent, it would put an end to all ideas of criminal juftice and fevere retribution.

The profecution of Mr. Haftings is, on many accounts, a fubject of no common importance. If it failed, it was not unlikely that it' would prove the last attempt of the kind that this country would ever witnefs. Whatever encomiums, have been paffed upon the judicial provifions of the British conftitution, certain it is, that they have notorioufly failed in the attempt to apply them to perfons returning from India. The parliamentary profecution of lord Clive by general Burgoyne was carly defeated. The verdict of the court of king's bench against the perfons, who had imprisoned and occafioned the death of lord Pigot, was fuch, as to be confidered by the perfons condemned rather as an object of merriment than a fource of calamity. The bill of pains and penalties against fir Thomas Rumbold, which was introduced into parliament by Mr. Dundas in the year 1782, was found to be unfit for the purposes it had in view, and was given up by its author. It is not neceffary for us to decide upon the criminality of any one of the perfons thus felected for profecu