Brought forward 19,031,934 Amount on 30th of April, 1805, ge nerally Deduct sinking fund as above Net amount of debts bearing Increase Amount of interest payable on the debt owing on 30 April, 1804, by No. 16 Deduct interest on securities in the bands of the commissioners of the sinking fund Net amount of interest pay able on debt owing on 30th 24,221,700 2,616,739 21,604,967 2,573,033 1,754,843 166,454 1,588,389 Amount payable on debt in April, 1805 2,017,358 Deduct sinking fund as above 195,788 His Lordship, on the whole, did not think he went too far, when he said, that, in his opinion, the deficiency or excess charge could not be taken at less than 3,000,0002. The debts bearing interest in India, he was aware there might be danger of having called in, though the directors had the power of protracting the payment for some time. Should this be the case, some extraordinary means might be necessary to be resorted to; but of this there was no immediate appearance. It might be expected that he should be able to give some account of the measures proposed to be adopted for reducing the expenditure in India. it was well known that government had lately been pretty much employed in devising measures of reform in the public expenditure, but it was deemed more expedient to wait till it was was seen how far any schemes of the kind were practicable, before they should be gone into as to India. It would be the duty of the commissioners for Indian affairs, to call the attention of Parliament to this subject, at as early a period as possible. It was not his intention to trouble the committee on the subject of the treaties with Scindia or Holkar, nor did he think himself even called on to give any opinion on that subject. He knew it was the opinion of others, that these treaties were honourable to the British character, and calculated to preserve pacific dispositions in India. On the whole, though he admitted that the financial de-. partment in India, did not wear the most cheerful aspect, and although he would be the last person in the world to raise sanguine hopes which were not likely to be realised, still he thought it would be wrong to give any sanction to unmanly despondency. Our resources in the East were great, and by proper management and economy, might still be brought to answer our highest expectations. He did not speak of that economy which would teach us to withhold a reward from merit, or to retrench in the becom-. ing grandeur of the executive government-economy which only tended to defeat the objects which it had in view-but that economy which would teach us to act on principles of moderation, justice and equity. His Lordship concluded by moving his first resolution, shewing the revenue of the Company for the years 1802-S-4. On the question being put, Mr. Johnstone expressed the high satisfaction which he felt at the fair and candid manner in which the noble lord had made his statement, He heartily concurred with the noble lord in the importance of the subject, which, notwithstanding the House had uniformly treated with so much indifference, the attendance that night furnished an additional proof. He could not, however, help thinking that the noble lord was himself somewhat to blame, in having so long delayed bringing forward the subject, the papers necessary to make the statements having been in this country for nearly twelve months, and it having been promised, in the mouth of February last, that the attention of the House should be speedily called to them. In looking at the accounts, which were as full and distinct as could well be expected, he could not help remarking, that though the period to which they applied was a period of war, a great part of the increase was for civil charges. 5 In In the first year there was an increase of 65,0007. in the civil department above the year preceding. In the second year an increase of 96,000l.; and, in the 3d year, an increase of 123,000l. and he thought, without withholding any due reward from meritorious services to the Company, the expences in the civil establishment might be greatly reduced. He hoped, with the noble lord, that we should always observe moderation and good faith in our con duct with the neighbouring states, but what concern that could have in diminishing our expences, he could not conceive, and as to splendour in the representation of the executive government being necessary in India, that he denied. It might be necessary in Europe, but in India, so far from contributing to the stability of our government, it would rather tend to degrade it into a copy of the native governments of the country. As to the treaties being subject to be differently regarded by different persons, surely the noble lord did not mean this as a censure. He, for one, at least, and he knew the East India Company, regarded them in a very different light. If they renounced territory which we held, they renounced what it was not proper we should possess. The honourable person who concluded those treaties was, unquestionably, the most proper hand to have carried his own plans into execution. Under that feeling, the honourable member could not help remarking on the circumstances under which he had been recalled, to which he begged leave to call the attention of the committee and of the country. Immediately after the news of Lord Cornwallis's death reached this country, on the 26th of February, ministers recommended to the court of directors to confirm Sir G. Barlow as 'governor-general of India. In 12 days thereafter, however, namely on the 8th of March, they tell them, that it is necessary he should be recalled. The directors are then de sired to appoint a certain nobleman in his room, which on the 24th of May, they refuse to do by a majority of twelve to four; and on the 28th ministers proceed to vacate the office by the intervention of the sign manual. What had since occurred it was not necessary for him to state; but it had been seen that yesterday another lord had been sworn into the office. He admitted that by the letter of the law, ministers were warranted in recommending to his Majesty such an exercise of the prerogative, but contended it was a discretion which was meant to be exercised only in ex treme treme cases, and could be only compared to that extraor dinary prerogative by which his Majesty might dismiss a military officer. As a proof of this, it had never been exercised, except on the present occasion, for the 24 years it had existed. He contended there never was an exercise of a prerogative more unjust and more wanton. Ile proceeded to consider the different reasons which had been assigned for this step, for which he argued that not only no necessity had been shewn, but that it was unwise and impo-. litic. Holkar had territories to be restored to him at the distance of eighteen months, and it must have been infi nitely more satisfactory to the other contracting party, if the same person who concluded the treaty with him. had been allowed to carry it into complete effect. Lord Henry Petty replied to the observations of the honourable gentleman, who had not, he presumed to say, read the act of 1784 with attention, or he would have seen that the interpretation which he and others attempted to put upon it was unfounded. For in the same clause in which the power of recalling a governor was vested in the directors, it was also vested in his Majesty and council; but this seemed to have been overlooked by the honourable member, who condemned the excrcise of a power which was necessary, to maintain the pre-eminence of the present state. That honourable member would have a dependant state governed without being subject to controul, and yet his brain was unwilling to admit paradoxes. was asserted by the honourable member that this power of recall was quite new and extraordinary, and that it never had been exercised before, since 1784; but it seemed to be forgotten, that the same power had been before exercised by the directors. Yet it excited no complaint. But when his Majesty ventured to use his undoubted prerogative, some gentlemen appeared to be anxious to raise a clamour against it, and truly because ministers thought proper to appoint a man of their own choice. But was any thing more natural than that the administration of the Sovereign's government should choose a governor for any of the dependancies in whom they could confide? Were they not by the statute of 1784 armed with that power? and did not their duty call upon them for the exercise of it? They were as responsible for the government of India, as for that of Ireland; and it would be as just to interfere VOL. III. 1805-6. 4 C with with their appointment of a viceroy for the one as with that of a governor for the other. The governor whose appointment had just taken place for India would, he was persuaded, afford general satisfaction, and this persuasion rested upon the belief that that noble lord would carry out with him to India those principles of moderation, economy, and a strict adherence to treaties, which the House had heard so distinctly laid down by his noble friend who opened the debate, and which formed the firmest basis of every good government. Under the administration of such principles, the noble lord, no doubt, however lamentable the deficiency at present might be; however much the hopes of the country, excited by the promises of the noble lord on the opposite bench (Castlereagh), had been disappointed; might still be able to restore the resources of India, and place its affairs on a regular, solid, and durable footing. Lord Castlereagh maintained, that the tendency of the revenues of India was to augment in the manner and proportion which he had described to the House, and that his predictions were falsified by events upon which it was impossible for any man to calculate, namely, by wars which he had not in his contemplation when he made the statement to which the noble lord on the treasury-bench referred. The noble lord vindicated the grounds upon which the late war in India was commenced, the manner in which it was conducted by Marquis Wellesley, and also the terms upon which it was concluded by Sir G. Barlow. The removal of this deserving individual from the government of India, the noble lord condemned in the most unqualified terms. That Sir G. Barlow's character was the subject of universal praise, was quite notorious, but he could adduce a testimony to his merits of the very highest order; for he could state that it was the express wish of Lord Cornwallis, before he went to India, that when he should have completed the object of his mission, Sir G. Barlow should be appointed to succeed him in the government. What could be the object of ministers in discharging Sir G. Barlow, so soon after his appointment, he felt it impossible, upon any rational ground to estimate. As to the debt of the India company in India, his wish was that it should travel home, and be was sure that their circumstances and credit here would be quite sufficient soon to discharge it Mr. |