nue increases, the advantages of it decline, | Are your acquisitions a benefit or a burthen and this one is lost. Bengal not only does not furnish China, but has no specie left for her own circulation. They, who can Look with indifference at such a reverse in the result to this country of its connexion with India, who can shut their eyes to the consequence of such facts, are not likely to care for auy thing that can be said on the subject. The mischief is evidently in a state of progression; your difficulties grow with your means. It is now twenty years, since this House, by the advice, and at the special recommendation of the present Lord Melville, laid down a set of fundamental principles and general rules for the better government of India. One of them was understood to be of so much importance, that the authority of the House of Commons was not thought sufficient to enforce it: an act of parliament was brought in by Lord Melville, by which, among other provisions, it was declared, that "to pursue schemes of conquest, and "extension of dominion in India, were 66 measures repugnant to the wish, the ho66 nour, and the policy of this nation." This, and many other of the principles then professed, were mine long before they were his, and those of the India Company, before they were mine. The object of the Legislature was, to confine your territorial possessions within their limits at that time, when they were full as much as you could manage. On the wisdom and necessity of the prohibition I do not believe there was one dissentient voice in the nation. It was not merely to put a stop to wars in India, for conquest or plunder, but positively to restrict you from extending your possessions. Now, whether the war is made for the conquest, or the conquest comes by the war, the wise purpose of the Legislature is defeated. In the last ten years, the surface of your territory, and the nominal amount of your revenues, has been nearly doubled, whether by force or fraud, by victories over declared enemies, or by pretended treaties, dictated to tributary enslaved nabobs, who are called your allies, does not belong to the present question. If a positive pecuniary profit had resulted from these acts, I know how completely in vain it would be for me to measure them by the spirit and meaning of the legislature, or by any principles established by any autho, rity. The only question I ask is, Have you violated your principles with an adequate advantage? Ilave the wars paid you? Are you reimbursed by your conquests? to you? I speak to the I. Comp., and the public; for as to private persons, I do not mean to deny that new sources of fortune may have been discovered. Let the fate of the community be what it may, individuals, engaged in such great concerns, will always find means to take care of themselves. If the affirmative be maintained, the proof should exist in a result of facts, not, as it has done for many years, only in estimates and accounts. You should see it in the discharge of debt, in the abundance of specie, and in a growing surplus applicable to tribute through the medium of commerce. Does any one of these articles furnish evidence of a prosperous state of your governments in India? You have an annual revenue, as the noble lord states it, of thirteen millions: when you had not half that income, nor half your present territory, the Indian debt was a trife; you had a surplus of a million at least, sometimes much more, for the purchese of an investment, and Bengal assisted you with bullion for China. In a letter to the Court of Directors, written in June 1801, Lord Melville mentions his having stated to the House of Commons, that he was ready to meet the In dian debt, even at the large amount of fourteen millions. In another place he says, "After the most mature consideration I can give the subject in all its bearings and re"lations, I have a deep-rooted conviction, "that your Indian debt is the only formi"dable enemy your Indian prosperity has "to encounter. Subdue it, and you have "subdued every thing that ought rationally "to be dreaded." Since that time, I ask, have any savings been made on a revenue of 13 millions? Have they furnished a surplus for investment? Has a single rupee of the debt, as it then stood, been discharged? Just the contrary. There are no savings: your expenses absorb your revenue, and much more; you have no surplus. You are driven to send specie to India. The debt, which in June 1801, Lord Melville thought so formidable at 14 millions, was increased to near 20 millions on the 30th April 1802, exclusive of the portion of it, which has been transferred to never-failing experience, that its progress England; and it is fair to presume, from in the current year will not be much less than in each of the two preceding years. All the presidencies, in their estimates for 1802-3, reckon upon considerable loans for the service of that year. Sir, I have oftea in this House taken notice of the uncertain ty and fallacy, not the fraud, of Indian estimates, and how little they ought to be depended on, even by those who draw them up. The actual state of the debts and incumbrances of the I. Comp. is a demonstrative refutation, not of the figures, but of the practical result and implied promise of all their calculations for many years*. On this subject, however, there is at this moment special evidence before the House : I mean, such an instance of inaccuracy, as, I believe, if any thing can, will guard the House from giving implicit credit to Indian estimates hereafter. I am very far from thinking that it could have been intended. The fact is, that, on the 8th of March last, an estimate was laid before the House, by the Court of Directors, in which the supposed debt in India is stated as follows: The Committee of Directors, in their report of the 25th of March 1802, observe, "that the "right hon. gent. (Mr. Dundas), on retiring from "office, has represented India and the affairs of "the Company, in the most prosperous situa❝tion, &c.; that they have too much reason to "fear, that the exclusive trade, as regulated by "the act of 1793, is not only necessary but in"dispensable, as a resource to save the Company "from destruction, &c.; that the few months, which have intervened, have been more than "sufficient to convince the Court, that Mr. "Dundas was mistaken as to the real situation "of the Company's affairs; for the whole of his "estimates are completely destroyed, in conse"quence of the advices since received, &c. They ་་ trust-they have demonstrated the opinion they "entertain of the sanguine estimates formed by "Mr. D., &c. However discouraging this pro "spect may be, it is aggravated by circumstances "which never existed before. The establish"ments are increased, the political resources are "absorbed, &c. we find that the treasury (of "Bengal), for want of money, has been obliged "to issue notes payable nine months after date, "with an interest of twelve per cent. &c. "this situation, which Mr. D. represented as 66 prosperous, with more than double the amount "of political debts to discharge, and groaning "under the enormous increase of military ex"pense and establishments, he proposes to call "on the proprietors of East ludia Stock to raise "no less a sum than four millions sterling, for "what he calls commercial purposes; but which, in truth, is to discharge political "debts, &c.-The original capital (2,800,000l.) "was sufficient to enable the Comp. to carry on ❝ their trade, when it was truly exclusive, for ་་ near a century. The three last sums (4,980,cool.) "have been added during the administration "of Mr. Dundas, for commercial purpose, &c."It never can be denied, that the four millions "arc to be raised for the express purpose "of discharging political debts. “Abraham Robarts, Edward Parry, Charles Mills, -(Signed) "J. Roberts, F. Baring, Jacob Bosanquet, Hugh "Inglis, Joseph Cotton.”. A mistake, or miscalculation, of 2,350,000l in estimating the increase of debt in a single year is quite enough for the purpose, for which I mention it, and much more than expected. The Committee will observe once for all, that in stating these totals, I follow the usual form of the resolutions; without distinguishing what part of the debt bears interest or not. The sum, in the hands of commissioners of the sinking fund, may be deducted from the total of debts; but that does not alter the proportion of the increase. The addition made to the Indian debt, in the two years ending in April 1802, amounted to 5,325,3371. But are you sure that this is all? Is there no arrear left? Are all the demands on all the presidencies ascertained and stated? Be that as it may, this formidable debt is evidently in a course of rapid progression. The augmentation of establishments, and expenses of all sorts, keeps pace with the increase of your dominion, out runs that of your revenue, and at this distance can neither be restrained nor controlled, without an exertion of vigour as great as the difficulty, and a choice of instruments equal to the task. In a political sense, you have more than you can govern. In an economical sense, you have more than you can manage. That there should be no material fraud or embezzlement in the annual collection and expenditure of so many millions, may be true. On that subject, all you have to judge by, is speculation and experience.-I would now draw the attention of the Committee to the state of affairs at home. If they have prospered to the degree that has been stated; if the Company's commercial profits have answered their expectation; if the pompous appropriation of net proceeds, directed by the act of 1793, was not a mere delusion; the evidence of such prosperity ought to appear in the liquidation of the debt, and in the discharge of the principal engagements to the public and to the proprietors, on the faith and credit of which the charter was renewed. In a trial of ten years the specific benefits of the measure ought to have appeared, the effects ought to have been felt. The act of Parliament says that, after providing for bills of exchange, current payments, &c. the net proceeds and profits of the Comp. shall be applied, first, to the payment of a dividend of 10 per cent. on the present, or any future amount of the Company's capital stock*; second in payment of 500,000 1. a year into the receipt of the Exchequer, for the use of the public; third, to the purchase of stock in the public funds, to the amount of twelve millions sterl. as a guarantee fund for the better securing the Company's capital stock. Of these provisions of the act, I know of none that has been complied with, but the payment of the dividend, which, in my opinion, is a very moderate compensation to the proprie tors, and not at all adequate to what they are fairly entitled to, considering their interest (if not property) in every thing that has been acquired abroad, and the risk, to which their capital has been repeatedly,exposed, in making the acquisitions. The proprietors, in fact, divide little more than five per cent, on the price they have paid for their stock. Of the participation of 500,0001 allotted to the public for the renewal of the charter, only one year's payment, out of eleven, has been made; and as to the famous guarantee fund, by which the proprietors were taught to expect that their capital stock, or the value thereof, would at all events be secured, I suppose they know that, in these eleven years. not a single shilling has been applied to the formation of that fund. Were all these stipulations agreed to by the Company in 1793, and all these provisions, recommended to Parliament for mere appearance, and to serve a turn, without any serious thought of their ever being carried into execution?-or did they proceed *The appropriation of 500,cool, a year (out of the net proceeds) to the discharge of bills drawn in India, for the transfer or remittance of the debts of the Comp. from thence to Gt. Britain, makes no part of their engagements to the public, or to the proprictors. Whatever has been applied to that purpose, ought to be added to the total of debt contracted in Ind a. upon fair estimates, and well founded calculations of growing resources and probable profits? Presuming that they did so, you see the full value of all such estimates and calculations. In stating the Company's debt abroad, I take it for granted, that the total amount, as far as it could be ascertained, has been fairly brought into view. In the general circulation of their property, the title of which is, stock per computation of the East-India Company (exclusive of their capital stock) on the 1st of March, 1803, I do not think that the same course has been pursued. I adhere to my opinion, that this account, constructed as it is, creates a false balance, and leads to a false conclusion. On the debit side, I aver, and am ready to make it good, that two very important articles are omitted, which ought to have been inserted in the body of the account. A memorandum at the top or bottom of an account, and which does not even state the amount of the article omitted, may furnish an evasion; but it is no answer to my objection. In the first place, why is the capital omitted? It amounts to six millions of stock, for which the corporate body has received 7,780,0001. from the proprietors, and are accountable. Is this a proper article of debt in this account, or is it not? Is it true or is it false, that, in all partnerships, the original subscription exists, as a demand between the partnership in gross, and each proprietor, in proportion to the share he has in the common stock? If that proposition be false, and the debit be improper, why was it invariably included in the annual amount of the Company's debts, till the year 1794? Do you doubt the fact? I have a series of the printed accounts in my hands to prove it. But I do not believe, that, after the final admission of the worthy baronet on the other side*, this point will be any longer disputed. He allowed, that, on the whole, he was inclined to my opinion. From his knowledge and judgment I expected no less. Then, why is the article omitted? Of the intention I can say nothing; but I can very easily shew you, what purpose is answered by the omission. A debit of six millions, inserted in the body of the account, would reverse the balance. How very few are there, even among persons directly interested in the result, who ever think of locking into these voluminous accounts? Of the few who take that trouble, does any body, I speak generally, look at more than balances and totals? If, on the face of the Sir Theophilus Metcalfe. account, the balance appears to be on the right side, does any man examine the particular, or inquire how it arises? As far as my observation goes, very few indeed. But, at last, to justify the omission, an order of the House of Commons, given in 1794, has been pleaded. For what purpose was it obtained? On this point I can only offer you a conjecture, of the truth of which, I have not the smallest doubt; and with that I shall leave the inference to the internal judgment of the Committee. When the subject was before the House some time ago, I was not aware, or I should not have failed to take notice of it, that the House of Commons, in 1794, had ordered the Directors to deliver in the account of their stock by computation, and not to include the capital. Orders of this kind are moved for without notice, and pass without observation, upon trust, and es things of course. To account for the motion, I need only suppose that the President of the Board of Control, finding the balance of stock on the wrong side, should say to the Directors, "You must leave out the capital." -"No," say the Directors; "we cannot venture to alter the established form of our accounts,"" Then, what is to be done?""Give us an order of the House of Commons."-" If that be all, you shall have it." The order passes; the Directors are all obedeince; and thus the omission of a debit of six millions (which, in truth, ought to be 7,780,000 1.), never omitted before, is sheltered and justified -At the foot of the same account, another article of debt appears, though not inserted, as it should be, in the body of the account; namely, 960,843 1. for sums advanced by his Majesty's Paymaster General, on account of King's regiments serving in India. This debt the Company have, in fact, acknowledged; because they have paid 100,0001. in part of it. Then, why is not the remainder stated as a debit, in the account? Because it would add 860,8431. to the balance against the Company; and then we are told, that there can be no intention to suppress or to deceive, because one of the articles in question is alluded to, and the other stated in a note or memorandum, external to the account.-I now turn to the other side, of the computation of stock; and there I can assure the Committee, that, to the best of my knowledge and judgment, many of the credits taken are liable to question, and deserve to be specially examined before they are admitted. The only item, however, to which I would wish to draw your attention is, by what is due from government for stores and supplies to his Majesty's troops, &c. amount ing to no less than 3,573,3391. for which full credit is taken, without reserve, as if the debt made part of the Company's actual and effective property, as if it had ever been acknowledged by government, or could not be disputed. Now, I ask the noble lord, plainly and distinctly, does he acknowledge this debt on the part of government? Was it ever acknowledged by his predecessor in office? If my memory does not very much fail me, I have heard Mr. Dundas declare, in his place, that government did not acknowledge/ it. After so many years are clapsed, it is possible I may be mistaken, and therefore I do not positively insist on the fact; but I believe it. How the claim has grown to its present enormous size I know not*; but it is high time that it should be strictly examined, and admitted once for all by Parliament, as far as it can be proved, or finally dismissed from this account. Circumstanced as it is, the credit taken for the entire account tends only to make the India Company believe that the debt is good, and that they are richer than the supposed debtor admits by more than three millions and a half sterling. If it be only stated by the Company as a claim upon government, subject to adjustment;" I say, let the claim be examined, and the ad-, justment made by a Committee of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I should have been glad at this moment particularly to have seen in his place, has thought proper to recommend it to Parliament to pay the India Company one million sterling, on account of expenses incurred during the late war. This appears to me a very questionable act on his part, and certainly should not have passed unquestioned, if I had been able to attend my duty that day. Between government and the Company there is a long series of pecuniary transactions, with demands and counter-demands on both sides. Then, I ask, what parliamentary evidence did the Chancellor of the Exchequer produce? What proof did he lay on the table, to satisfy the House of Com mons that one million, or any other sum, was due to the India Company? Has government no claims on the Company since the renewal of the charter? And, without a líquidation of accounts, how is it possible to determine, which of the parties is finally in debt to the other? In these circumstances, the Chan In October, 1780, it was reported by a Committee of Proprietors, to amount to 422,0001. under three heads; viz. Subsistence of French prisoners, Expedition to Manilla, Hospital expenses of his Majesty's troops. cellor of the Exchequer pays the Company | conception of the manner, in which elements one million sterling on account, which implies that there is still a balance due to them. He may think so, or he may be told so; but his private opinion, or his personal knowledge, is no ground to this House for paying a million of the public money to any body. Nothing could justify such a payment, but a report of the Committee of this House, specially appointed to examine and settle the claims on both sides.-There is another subject, Sir, of very great consequence to the nation, as well as to the Company, which I wish to bring into view, not so much for immediate discussion, as in hopes that it will be taken up by Parliament hereafter on a great comprehensive scale of national deliberation. I mean the real state and result of the Company's trade to the continent of India. Is it a profitable or a losing trade? Or, if there be an ultimate profit, is it at all proportioned to the capital employed, the charges, and the risk? On these questions, it would ill become me to say any thing but with the greatest diffidence. In opening the subject, I look for information from gentlemeu, who understand it much better than I do. The arguments I have heard on both sides have not ended in giving me perfect conviction on either; but assuredly they justify a doubt and call for an inquiry, in the issue of which the essential interests, perhaps the existence, of the India Company are involved. As long as the cargoes provided in India were paid for out of the surplus of territorial revenue, it was natural enough that the commercial profit or loss on the prime cost should be but little regarded, because the whole investment was a gift or a tribute to the Company. But habits grow out of an abundance of means, and are apt to continue when the means are gone. A woful reverse has taken place in this branch of the Company's resources. Instead of providing their investment with the money of India, which was equivalent to getting it for nothing, they have for many years paid for it with money borrowed there at an exorbitant interest, and now with specie from England. On this footing is the trade profitable, and, without supposing any other disadvantages, can it be pursued? The reverse I allude to, does not end here. The hon. person, under whose administration of India the charter was renewed in 1793, declared that his plan was, to engraft an open trade on the exclu sive privilege of the Company, and that he had at last arranged it with the Company. This speculation is above me. The proposition seems to involve a paradox in the idea, and a contradiction in the terms. I have no and principles so opposite to one another, as an open trade and an exclusive privilege, can act or subsist together. All general reasoning and common experience lead to a suspicion that, sooner or later, the stock will starve the graft, or the graft must kill the stock. On this question, however, we have now no accasion to speculate. An experiment of ten years ought to furnish a practical solution to all such doubts. Without regarding theories, I ask only, whether, in fact, the plan has succeeded. Are the parties satisfied? Do the chartered Company and the private merchant find all the advantage they expected from their respective participation in the object? or has the plan served only to throw an apple of discord among them? Of the success of the private trade, under the present distribution, I can form no judgment. Whether any, and what compromise has taken place, I know not. shall be surprised, indeed, if in fact it should appear that a corporate body, acting by agency abroad, and loaded with expensive commercial establishments, is able to sup port a profitable competition with individuals, acting for themselves, alert and vigilant in the transaction of their business, who have nothing else to attend to, and who have no establishments to maintain. At all events, I can hardly state an object of inquiry more important to the Company than to know, what the real profit of their India trade (distinct from China) amounts to, on an account fairly made up, and charged, as it ought to be, with interest on the capital employed, loss on goods exported, &c. and not omitting any article of expense that ought to appear in such an account*. On the whole, Sir, I But I Extract of Mr. Henchman's speech, at a General Court of Proprietors, 8th April 1802, page 86.—“ la ́ the calculations made by the Directors, no interest of money is charged on the capital employed; yet a great part of the Company's Indian investment is made with money borrowed at Indian interest; and the course of the business is this: it is borrowed early in the year, to be advanced to the native manufacturers. The goods are delivered in the course of the year; they are shipped in the beginning of the next year; at the end of it, they are sold in England; and, in the beginning of the third year, British manufactures are shipped in return, which may be sold in the course of that season; so that it must be thirty or thirty-six months before the money is calized to pay off the bond that was given for the first loan to make the investment. To this we may add five per cent. confessed to be lost in the exports. So that it may fairly be said, thirty-five per cent, is, on this account, to be added to the Company's expenses in making up the account. I will not stop to notice many other charges not calculated on by the Directors. This alone is sufficient to raise very |