cases, and those which were partly of a political nature, such as the question of private trade, there had undoubt edly been an interference. The military, financial, and political concerns had certainly been managed by the commissioners. With regard to the payment of the debt to this country, so much had been said by the noble lord near him (Castlereagh), that he would touch but slightlyon that point. There never had been such a surplus as had been in the contemplation of the law and consequently no debt had, in fact, as yet accrued. He was certainly willing to agree to all sober inquiries that could be made to ascertain whether the money of the company had been properly applied; but what the hon. gentleman had said on that subject was totally unfounded. As to the debt of the comit had arisen chiefly from the 'wars which had broke out in Europe and India. What was its exact amount he did not know at present. Probably it was above twentyseven millions; it might be thirty, as had been stated; and he allowed, that if it was to go on accumulating in this imanner, company e consequences might be serious to the and to the country at large. But no blame attached to the company or to the administration. The enormous increase had arisen from events which they could not controul. He had heard of a motion for a committee to inquire into the rise and progress of the debt. But this was not necessary, as the whole might be clearly perceived from the accounts. Such a measure would spread alarm among our friends, and might give confidence to our enemies. This, he thought, was to be avoided when there was no pressing necessity for

pany, it had

Mr. Francis, in explanation, observed that he had never given his opinion prospectively, as if he meant to say that the mode of conducting the government of India ought now to be altered.

Mr. Secretary Fox observed, that the few words of explanation which had just fallen from his hon. friend, rendered it less necessary for him to enter particularly upon this subject. He had understood him precisely as his explanation imported. He agreed that we were not now to revert to original theories; but when we were examining into the causes of important events which were extremely complicated in their nature, it was somewhat difficult to do so without, in some measure, adverting to such original theorics. He, however, did not mean to say that any altera

tion ought at present to take place in the general system of Indian government as now by law established. He had occasion to state, at a former time, that there was a wide difference between disapproving of measures at their com mencement, and afterwards rescinding them when they had been some time in practice. This he had said with regard to the union with Ireland. He had strongly disapproved of that measure when it was proposed, because he was then convinced it was a bad one, and was still convinced that it would have been much better for the country if it had never taken place. He had also disapproved of the plan for the government of India; but what he had said with regard to the union with Ireland, he now said respecting this plan of Indian government. It was, in his opinion, a bad one from the beginning, but as it had been adopted and acted upon, it was not now to be lightly rescinded. In ninetynine cases of this nature out of a hundred, it was better to put up with many inconveniences arising from the first adoption of a measure, than hazard worse evils by premature and ill-considered alterations and innovations. This was his opinion. Now the honourable gentleman had said something about a committee to investigate the rise and progress of the debt. This was the first time he had heard of any such committee. But when he said this, he begged leave to be considered as not pledging himself in any way upon the subject. If, however, upon examining into the state of the finances of the company, there should be any thing which, though clear to the honourable gentleman, - might not be so clear to the House in general, he did not say but what in such a case he might think a committee extremely, adviseable. If, on the other hand, the accounts should place the matter in a plain and clear light, the appointment of a committee would be an useless trouble. Now with respect to the details of this debate, he, speaking on the part of the public, would certainly say, that it was a most monstrous proposition to assert, that in the year 1803 the state of the company was highly affluent and prosperous. To be sure the act of 1793 only applied to the surplus of the produce. But then it supposed that such a surplus was likely to exist, otherwise it would have been perfectly nugatory from the beginning. We were surely to conclude that there might be a surplus in such case. This certainly was not too much. But when we find that from 1793 to 1803, a period of ten years, no surplus had in fact existed, and that

Bb 2

nothing

1

nothing had been done on the provisions of the act of parliament, such a long experience might be sufficient to convince us that the affairs of the company had not been in the very flourishing state in which they had been asserted to be, but we must say, after the passing of this act, and the long time that had elapsed, during which nothing had been done upon it, that the fair conclusion was, either that the surplus had been misapplied, or that the country had been most grossly deluded; and that instead of being in a flourishing condition as had been pretended, the affairs of the company had in fact been in a most alarming situation; a situation which ought to have been explained and laid open to the public, instead of being carefully concealed from the public view. In his opinion, the unprosperous condition of the company's concerns had never been sufficiently accounted for. He did not say that he had not heard a great deal on the subject, but what he had heard, in general, proceeded on false facts and false principles. We ought to have the accounts of the company before us, with a view to a full and complete examination, not for the pur pose of retrospective inquiry into the conduct of the managers of the affairs of India, with the intention of throwing blame upon any body, but for the purpose of warning us (the present administration) against the errors which others had committed. In one thing the present administration would certainly not follow the example of others, and that was in holding out false and delusive hopes to the country, The hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) had said, and justly too, that it would be mischievous to spread alarm among our friends, and inspire confidence into our enemies, when no necessity for it existed. But without pretending to underrate the value of the observation, he must say, that this had been a common-place argument on one side of the question. It might be improper to excite alarm when there was no necessity for it, but it was much worse to conceal danger when it actually existed, and thus lead people on blindfold to their destruction. It was worse in any department of government, but more particularly so in the case of the East-India company. But he would put it to him, whether of late, the error had not been committed much oftener in the way of delusion than the way of alarm, at least as far as regarded this subject? Now, experience would teach the wise to avoid those faults into which they had found others most apt to fall. Certain it was that much less was to be apprehended

apprehended from too much jealousy than from too much negligence. No objection had been made to the motion of his hon. friend near him (Mr. Francis). He had only been requested to postpone it upon a point of convenience; to which he had properly agreed. Before he sat down he could not avoid paying that tribute of praise to the industry, perseverance, and clear-sighted policy of his hon. friend, on questions relative to India, which they so much de served. No merit belonging to any other who had turned his attention to these subjects, however high it might be, could possibly be put in competition with that which his hon. friend might fairly and justly claim.

Mr. Grant explained.

Lord Morpeth observed, that there appeared to be no objection to the principles of these motions. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the half-million which the company had engaged to pay to the public had only been paid in one instance. This was a matter of complete notoriety. He would be sorry to withhold any information; but he submitted to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paull) whether it was necessary for him to press his motions, as they related only to points which were universally known.

Sir T. Metcalfe contended that the payment to the public was only to be made provisionally. While the debt was increasing there could be no surplus, and of course no payment due. Lut his chief object in rising was to shew, that though the half-million had not been regularly paid, the country had derived other advantages from the company more than equal to it. The duties then on tea had been raised from 12 per cent. to 95 per cent. The result from this was, that if the duty had continued at 124 per cent. the sum paid into the exchequer, supposing the halfmillion to have been regularly paid, would have been five millions. Now, however, in the increased duty on tea, the sum actually paid into the exchequer was seventeen millions.

Mr. Alderman Prinsep had listened to the debate on this subject with peculiar interest. His opinion always had been, that it was improper to spread any alarm with regard to the company's affairs, if it could be avoided. The House would do him the justice to acknowledge that he had never keenly urged the appointment of a committee, but he knew that great responsibility attached to the government. It

ought

ought to examine whether the affairs of the company had been properly conducted; whether the debt arose from unnecessary expenditure, or from money borrowed for military schemes, of which no communication had been made to the House. They had to reconcile many contradictory statements, such as the great property of the company and the immense accumulation of their debt, while the commerce of India was open to other nations and shut against his Majesty's subjects. He expressed his willingness to give government every assistance in his power in carrying on their inquiries.

Mr. Johnstone would not trouble the House with many remarks on this business; first, because the question was premature, since it would have come forward much better. after the accounts had been laid on the table; and next,,: because the attention of ministers ought not at present to be turned away from affairs that required their more imme diate labours. But he would say, however, that no blame. whatever attached to the company; as it was clear from the accounts that their failure to pay the sum agreed upon to the public, arose from the wars in which they had been engaged. No committee, he contended, was necessary, as every thing was detailed in the accounts in the clearest and minutest manner. And when differences arose between his hon. friend (Mr. Francis) and himself on the one side, and the noble lord (Castlereagh) near him on the other, the cause was, that the noble lord always proceeded upon the estimates, while they constantly attended to the results. There was no difference as to facts.

Sir Hugh Inglis, alluding to an observation that had fallen from Mr. Alderman Prinsep, observed, that it was impossible for the East India Company to engross the whole trade of Asia, and that other nations had long been in the habit of trading to it. He adverted to the prospects that the company had had in 1793, and contended that their, disappointments had arisen from the wars in which they had been involved. Government had had the use of their ships and troops for nothing in some expeditions. The accounts would prove that the dividends rose from the profits of trade, and not from money borrowed in India. He objected to a committee for investigating the rise and progress of the debt.

Mr. Alderman Prinsep explained.

Mr. Paull again urged the propriety of looking into the