§ Mr. Paullmoved that an order of the house, of the 27th of Jan. last, for the production of certain papers relative to the management of Affairs in India, be read; which being done, the hon. member stated, that upwards of 9 months ago, he had moved for certain papers, which he intended to make the foundation of charges against the marquis Wellesley; on the 27th of Jan. last, he had moved for other papers of a similar nature; and on the 1st Feb. an hon. member (Mr. Wallace) had moved for certain other papers, with a view of vindicating the noble marquis from the charges which he (Mr. Paull) intended to bring against him. Without imputing it as any blame to the present ministers, he had to state it as a matter of complaint, that though the papers which he had moved for had been ordered so long previous to the others, yet that those papers which formed the noble marquis's defence, were in the bands of the members of the house, while those which he had moved for, and which formed the ground of charge against the noble marquis were, in a great measure, not yet on the table of time house. He therefore moved, "that returns of the papers contained in the order of the 27th Jan. be made forthwith."
§ Mr. Wallacesaid, he had repeatedly stated to the hon. gent. the reason why these papers had not been before produced. At the time the changes in administration were likely to take place, and that, of course, 471 there was to be a great alteration in the board of controul, the gentlemen who composed that board thought it better to leave the papers, collected as they were, for the inspection of those who were to succeed them in office, and to allow them to exercise their discretion on them. With respect to the papers for the defence, which were produced before the others, he had only to state that they were collected, and ready for printing, at the time they were moved for, and were, of course, instantly laid before the house.
§ Mr. Foxthought, that if the papers for the defence were produced, and the others kept back, the matter should be explained.
§ Mr. Hiley Addingtonsaid, that the papers with respect to Oude, were so voluminous, amounting to 5 or 6 folio volumes, that though they were left ready by the former Board of Controul, yet a considerable time was necessarily consumed by the present board in examining into them, to ascertain whether they could with propriety be laid before the house.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that towards the close of the last session, when these papers were moved for, there was no backwardness, on the part of the board, to bring them forward; but they were so voluminous, that it was impossible it could be done in the course of that session. When, at the commencement of this session, affairs took a different turn, he was not ashamed to say, that, in consequence of the changes which were about to take place in the administration, be, and those who then acted with him, left it to their successors to examine into these papers, and consider of the propriety of granting them or not.
§ Mr. Creeveysaid, the papers would be made out as soon as they possibly could.
Mr. Kerrreprobated the idea of gentlemen moving for papers of such magnitude, which were useless, inasmuch as few gentlemen read them. He reprobated the practice of publishing papers relative to the affairs of India, under pretence of criminating the marquis Wellesley, as it disclosed to the enemy much information which might hereafter prove mischievous to our India possessions.—The question was then put, and the return ordered to be made forthwith.
§ Mr. Paullthen rose and said:—Sir; I shall trespass very shortly on the patience of the house, and I shall abstain, as much as possible, from any mention of the noble marquis, who is the object of my accusation: but, 472 sir, if I abstain, from applying the terms I think the conduct of that noble lord towards the nabob of Surat merits, it will proceed from no dread of the violence and asperity of a noble lord under me (Temple), who is so ready on every occasion, to extend the broad shield of his protection, and that of his connections, to the character of the late governor-general of India.—Before I proceed to lay the grounds for the charge I have given notice of, I must detain the house one moment, and call their attention to the grounds of charge already on your table, which will show, that the papers I am this night to move for are most essential, not only to establish the oppression and injustice towards the nabob of Surat, but to prove a leading feature in the system which lord Wellesley acted upon from the hour of his arrival, until, by his removal, he was prevented from further mischief, from further acts of injustice and oppression.— There are now, sir, the grounds of four charges against that noble lord before the house; the dethroning of the nabob of the Carnatic, the seizure of Oude, the illegal appointment of Mr. Wellesley, and that relating to the war and peace with the rajah of Bhurtpore. The first was brought forward by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) who is not now in the house, but who stands pledged to the house and the country to proceed in the enquiry. His character is so high, his acquaintance with this subject so extensive, and the part he has taken in the investigation of Indian offences so well known, so honourable and so conspicuous, that it would he presumptuous in me to bring them to the recollection of the house. I shall not anticipate the contents of the Oude papers, or say any thing more as to the appointment of the hon. Mr. Wellesley, than that the declared, decided opinion of the Directors is on my side, both as to the illegality and the expediency of the appointment; nor would I now revert to the conduct of the war against the rajah of Bhurtpore and the peace with that prince, but to say, that, let his conduct be proved to have been ever so treacherous, ever so abandoned, ever so perjured, I retract not a tittle of my accusation against lord Wellesley, for that war and for that peace. —By the papers that are before the house, the dethronement of the heir of the house of the ancient and illustrious princes of the Carnatic is defended, on the score of the treasons committed by their allies of 473 the English nation; the seizure of Oude and the appointment of Mr. Wellesley in consequence of the expediency of the measures, and the war in Bhurtpore by its justice, and the peace, as a boon from the humanity of the late governor-general.—If the papers are granted this night that I shall move for, they will contain the proofs of the unjust assumption of the rights and revenues of a high and respectable prince, the representative of many sovereigns, the faithful unsuspected ally of the English nation, against whom treason nor rebellion, nor treachery, nor the stale plea of expediency, can be urged in vindication of the acts.—I shall allude, sir, to nothing that has fallen from any hon. or right hon. gent. in this house, on any former occasions; but, sir, I must say and state to this house, that declarations are abroad, and in this house, that have excited serious alarms, dismay, sorrow, and I would almost say despair, in the minds of every true friend to liberty, of every friend to justice. It is said, sir, that his majesty's ministers are to set their faces against retrospects of every kind as to India; this, sir, I never can credit: but should even that be the case, whilst I must deeply regret the circumstance as being fatal to the ends of justice, yet still I shall proceed, in a cause which has lost me many powerful friends, made me many powerful enemies; a cause in fact in which I have lost every thing except my consistency and my integrity. My object is retrospect, and again to show to bleeding irritated India and to Europe, whose eyes are fixed on our decision, that if offences have been committed in India, that they will not pass unpunished. For what, sir, I ask, was the emaciated worn out Mr. Hastings brought to the bar of the house of lords? Was it, sir, to inflict a punishment on that gent. worn out by a 33 years residence in a tropical climate? That certainly, sir, was one object, but trifling and contemptible, compared to the other grand objects that the illustrious characters had in view who managed that impeachment. They, sir, proclaimed aloud that their object was example; that their object was, to warn all future Indian governors from injustice, from oppression, from aggrandizement at the expence of British faith and honour; they were to hold out to the latest posterity an example, that no talents however great, no character however amiable in some respects, would shelter the oppressors of the weak and the 474 invaders of the defenceless. In consequence of such principles, was Mr. Hastings brought to a trial.—Exclusive of the acts in your statute books, the impeachment of Mr. Hastings formed a new system for Indian government; that impeachment, sir, was a solemn declaration of the opinions of the representatives of this nation; and on that system, the ever-to-be-lamented lord Cornwallis acted; he scorned to enrich himself or his employers, at the expence of British faith and honour; and whilst be lay expiring at Ghauziepore, he could say with truth, that the prince or the peasant of Hindostan, from him never received injustice; for his acts, no Indian had ever cause to put on mourning. His worthy and hon. successor, lord Teignmouth, followed the same system: but, sir, with these noblemen your system ended; and what system was adopted by a nobleman who was a member of this house when the impeachment was voted, I shall not attempt at present to describe; suffice it to say, the Carnatic has been seized, Oude divided, Furruskabad usurped, Surat invaded; Bundichund, Rohillehund have exchanged their masters; the half of the Marhatta empire was added to the English possessions; in short, from Cape Comorin across to the Bay of Cambay, from the Bay of Cambay to Balasore roads, from Balasore roads to the frontiers of Tartary, hardly a spot is to be seen on the map of India, that does not bear the bloody characteristic mark of the East-India company; and still no retrospect, it is said, is to be had, as to the causes of the fatal events which we so much deplore.—If such, sir, is to be the decision of this house, it is only for me to how with deference and respect to that decision; but if hope is to be conveyed to India, and if a chance of prosperity can be entertained, I hope the house will grant the papers I have this night moved for; and if they constitute crime, that this house will show to India and Europe, that the same principles that induced the decision in the case of Mr. Hastings, still survive in the British house of commons. I shall conclude, sir, with moving, "That there be laid before this house; 1. Copies of all letters and enclosures between the late gov. gen. marquis. Wellesley and the Bombay govt., relative to the privileges of the East-India company in the city of Surat, previous to the assumption of the rights and revenues of a prince called the nabob of Surat, from 1798 to the conclu- 475 sion of a treaty with that prince in 1800.—2. Copies of the original draft or drafts of treaties forwarded from Bengal to the hon. J. Duncan, governor of Bombay, to be entered into by the nabob of Surat; with the instructions for carrying the same into effect.—3. Copy of the Treaty between the company of the nabob of Surat in 1800.—4. Copy of the correspondence between the governor of Bombay and the chief or resident at Surat, relating to the assumption of Surat.—5. Copy of the minutes of conference between the governor of Bombay and the nabob of Surat, his buckshee (a minister of state) or other of his highness's officers or relations during the negotiation.—6. A Return of the Troops doing duty in the castle of Surat, with the distribution of the several guards in Jan. 1800.—7. Copies of orders for the embarkation of troops from Bombay to Surat, from Jan. 1800, until the conclusion of the treaty; and of all orders from the commanding officers at Bombay to the officers commanding at Surat during the same period.—8. Return of the Troops doing duty in the castle and town of Surat, with their distribution of the several guards, &c. during, the, negotiation of the treaty."
Lord Temple,while he protested against such voluminous productions without any specific reason being assigned, declared, that on the part of his noble friend the marquis Wellesley, he courted the enquiry. In the present instance, the papers were moved for, merely for the purpose of fishing out a charge against his noble friend. He was, however, anxious that the papers should be brought forward, and that the marquis Wellesley's conduct should be investigated; indeed, he conceived, that it would now be doing no more than justice to that noble lord. With regard to Surat, he would state how that place was particularly circumstanced. Previous to 1753, the nabobship of Surat had been, for many years, in the possession of one family. In 1759, a treaty was made with the then nabob, by which the castle and fleet of Surat were put into the possession of the English; and in 1800, the marquis Wellesley entered into a treaty with the nabob, by which the latter was allowed greater privileges, and a greater extent of territory, than he had had for a considerable time before, together with a yearly stipend of a lac of rupees. The conduct of the marquis with respect to Surat would be found irreproachable.—His lordship then read as part of his speech, a reso- 476 lution of thanks by the Court of directors to marquis Wellesley for the very service which was the subject of the present motion. He concluded by saying, that if the hon. mover had any regard for, and wished to serve and oblige, marquis Wellesley, he would advise him to pursue his enquiry; and, if he had any regard for himself, he would advise him to put his motions in his pocket.
§ Mr. Hiley Addingtonobserved, that when it was said by him or his noble friend, that they did not mean to oppose the production of the papers, it was not to be understood that they meant more than such papers as were proper to be laid before the house. He then adverted to the transactions concerning Surat, and concluded by informing the house, that when these papers were produced, it would be necessary to bring forward a great many more, the printing of which would take up much time.
Lord Folkestonethought there was sufficient ground laid for the motion. It0 appeared from the statement of the noble lord, that the noble marquis had given something to this prince. If he had done so gratuitously, what right had he to assume such a power to himself? If lie gave this to the prince of Surat, he must have taken it from some person else.
§ Sir Theophilus Metcalfe rose,and said:— As the noble lord and my right hon. friend have correctly stated the relative situation between the company and the nabob of Surat, it will not be necessary to go over the same ground: I will therefore confine myself to pointing out how far the subject of the hon. gent's charge against the noble marquis is connected with Guickwar. And here it may be necessary to state, for the information of those gentlemen who have neither time nor inclination to look into Indian subjects, that the Guickwar is one of the Mahratta chiefs who hold a part of Guzzerat as a tributary to the Peishwa. In 1780, general Goddard, who commanded a Bengal detachment on the western side of India, conquered a part of Guzzerat; and placed Futty Sing, the head of the Guickwar family, in possession of the country, declaring him independent of the Poonah Durbar. Mr. Anderson was sent, in 1781, to conclude a peace with the Maharattas, and experienced some difficulty with the Madajee Scindia, about the proposed independency of Futty Sing; but it was at last settled, and the country ceded to him by gen. Goddard was guaranteed by the 8th article of the treaty of Sulbey, subject only to the peishcush, or 477 quit-rent. On the death of Futty Sing, two brothers started as competitors; and on that occasion, Sir John Shore contended that the company had a right to interfere, and were bound to support the Guickwar, in consequence of the treaty of Sulbey. Gov.Duncan in 1800, having obtained from the nabob of Surat the sovereignty of that city for the India company, applied to the Guickwar to relinquish his claim of choute or tribute, and grant to the company 10 or 12 miles of territory round the city of Surat (to prevent the disputes winch had frequently occurred from contending parties); and which Crovindkow readily consented to, with warm professions for the English, and made no other terms for the cession than to request he might have a hundred Bombay sepoys as au honorary body guard. When this cession was made, it was thought prudent not to take possession of the country, as it might start a difficulty in the negociation then carrying on at Poonah by the governor-general. Govindkow dying, the eldest son took possession of the musnud. He was soon dethroned by his brother; who in a short time was displaced by the officers of the father, and the eldest son again appointed to the succession, with a minister to manage the affairs of the Guzzerat. At this period both parties courted the British power, and a voluntary offer was made to the Bombay government, to confirm the cession of territory and the relinquishment of choute which had been formerly made by the father. The consequence of these proceedings is, that the city of Surat, which contains upwards of 800,000 inhabitants, and had for many years been in a state of constant broils and disturbance, from the city being under the government of four parties, the Nabob, the English, the Peishwa, and the Guichwar, is now placed entirely under the servants of the India company, who preserve internal tranquillity, and the city is increasing fast in riches and population.—Now, sir, I beg leave to ask the house, whether in these transactions the slightest blame can be cast on the governor-general, who had little more to do than to approve or disapprove the measures of the Bombay government? What has been stated by the noble lord is perfectly true, that for upwards of 50 years the company have invariably interfered in the appointments of all the nabobs of Surat; and tile nabob set up in 1790, sat on the musnud for 10 years, without any approval from the mo- 478 gul, and held his power entirely under the authority of the Bombay government; and, I can venture to assure the house, that if they peruse all the records of the India house, that they will not find any matter that can throw more light upon the subject of Surat, than the members present are now in possession of. The hon. gent. who stands forward-as the accuser of lord Wellesley, has now laid two charges upon the table, namely the business of Bhurtpore and of Surat; the house will judge how far they deserve the name of charges. What I complain of is, the extraordinary mode of proceeding in this attack. The hon. gent. was no sooner seated, than he gave notice of his intention to accuse the late governor-general of certain offences, and moved for papers respecting Oude; but, passing them by, he calls for papers of finance, to prove the company had violated an act of parliament. Finding this ground not tenable, he returns again to the marquis, in the manner the house has lately witnessed. The greatest enemy of lord Wellesley will admit his government was marked by many instances of zeal, energy, talent, and ability, which never were excelled in that part of the world, and I fear never will be equalled. To this I must add, that the breath of scandal never tainted his character with the slightest suspicion against the most in-corrupt honour and integrity. It is a fact known to all India, that he quitted the government with as clean hands as he took possession of it. Hard, very hard, is it upon such a character, after having for 6 or 7 years executed the arduous duties of the most consequential office a subject can be placed in, to the best of his judgement, with no other object in view than what he conceived would eventually turn out to the benefit of his employers, to the advantage of his country, and finally lead to the permanent peace and tranquillity of India; to find himself assailed on his arrival with such charges as have this day been dwelt on by the hon. member! Let not the house conclude, from what they have heard; that no enquiry has been made into the conduct of the late governor-general. The board of commissioners, and the court of directors, have not been neglectful of this part of their duty. Every transaction of the government-general has been minutely scrutinized and investigated. If the noble lord who was lately at the head of the board, was in his place, I should with confidence appeal to him, whether in the course of the 479 voluminous dispatches sent to India, there appeared any favour, partiality, or affection? The executive body of the India company, where the law has placed the power and right to censure or approve, have with firmness expressed their sentiments on every measure that did not meet their approbation; now, sir, under these circumstances, I cannot bring myself to believe, that if there were any grounds for further enquiry, either with a view to a civil suit or criminal prosecution, the king's ministers, or the court of directors, would have left so important a business to the honourable gentleman who has undertaken the task. But, supposing the late administration had felt a desire to screen lord Wellesley; is it likely that the new administration will follow their example, if, when they have time to look over the records, they see cause for further proceedings? And in that case, an enquiry will come forward with that weight of character which belongs to them, and under the influence of official situation: and in such an event there will not be a dissenting voice to any investigation they may think proper to propose to parliament. With respect to the production of the papers moved for, I shall only say, that they ought to be carefully examined before they are produced to the public eye.
§ Mr. Hiley Addingtonstated in explanation, that a considerable portion of the contents of the papers, if the motion should be carried, ought to be withheld, and suggested the propriety of giving the board of controul a discretionary power to that effect.
§ Dr. Laurencesaid, he felt disposed to give every credit to marquis Wellesley for the energy with which he had conducted his Indian administration; but he could not help feeling also, and the impression was augmented by the grounds upon which the production of papers was opposed, that there was such a presumption of delinquency made out, as would justify him in voting for the motion.
Mr. Secretary Foxthought himself called on to notice in a few words what had fallen from the noble baronet. If the hon. baronet meant that he had come into office without any improper desire to serve either one or other party, he was correct. If he were called on to state, taking the system pursued by the two noble marquisses, Wellesley and Cornwallis, as general principles, which of the two he liked best? he should say, the latter, as being most agreeable to the principles laid down by this house, and 480 most to the credit and benefit of the East India company. If again he were asked as to his opinion of the delinquency of marquis Wellesley, he should say he had none. He had not vet formed it, and if he had, this was not the time to declare it. When the time came, he should act as the case seemed to require. The right hon. secretary defied any one to prove, that he had either in or out of parliament, either directly or indirectly, given encouragement to the hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) to proceed in his present endeavours to obtain a parliamentary enquiry: he took some share of blame to himself for having, of late years, paid too little attention to India affairs. With regard to enquiries, tending to crimination, he thought it, generally speaking, better for the ministry to abstain from interfering, and to leave the task to other members of the house. He thought such questions were best discussed when no weight was lent to the accusation, except what it derived from the individual who preferred it, and from the cause of truth.
Mr. Huddlestone,after what had fallen from an hon. baronet in the course of this debate, thought it proper to state, that the court of directors of the East-India company had no objection to the production of any papers that might be thought necessary to an enquiry into the late proceedings in India, and that they did not apprehend any ill consequences from the publication of the papers moved for. He was induced to say this, lest it should be supposed, that what had been so strongly expressed by the hon. baronet, respecting marquis Wellesley, were the sentiments of the directors, with respect to the administration of that nobleman.
§ Sir T. Metcalfesaid, he had not been delivering his opinion in the house as a director of the East-India company, but exercising his judgment as a private member of parliament.
§ Mr. Robert Thorntonsaid, that from the manner in which the hon. baronet had expressed himself, he might well be construed to be delivering a more extended opinion than his own. He had, however, stood alone in the court of directors, as the panegyrist of marquis Wellesley, whose conduct the directors disapproved, and considered extremely detrimental to the interests of the company. The circumstance of the court having been obliged to send out another noble marquis, to remedy the inju- 481 rious measures of his predecessor, was a sufficient circumstance to prove the necessity of an enquiry. There were several papers connected with the late Indian administration, which ought to he before the house, and which the East-India company would be very happy to see investigated; particularly one, to which he could not at present give a proper title, but it was expressive of the opinion of the court of directors on the government of India. It was intended to have sent out this paper to which he alluded, but its transmission had been prevented by high authority. After the suspicions which were abroad, the house was bound to look the thing in the face, and the country required it.
§ Mr. Paullreplied at considerable length to the different speakers, and called loudly on the house to notice the protection extended to save lord Wellesley by a part of the administration, (he alluded principally to lord Temple and Mr. H. Addington). He hoped, he said, the house would notice it, the public he was sure would, and the manner he had been deserted by those, who had taken a part formerly to bring this nobleman to justice. But his principal reply was directed to the hon. bart. (sir T. Metcalfe) who had advised him (Mr. Paull) to abandon the prosecution. He stated that not only would he proceed, but that it was known to the right hon. secretary (Mr. Fox) that he had still two charges to prefer, of a most serious nature, against lord Wellesley for the seizure of Furrukabad, and for profuse, wasteful, unauthorized expenditure of the revenues committed to his charge, and for applying to his own use large sums of the public money, contrary to the act of parliament limiting the allowances of the governor-general to 25,000l. per annum, and to the use of the houses of the company abroad. That the single article of "Durbar charges" in the time of extreme distress for money, and all the departments of the service in arrear, exceeded by 100,000l. per annum, the most profuse expenditure of any of his predecessors. That the sum squandered away unnecessarily would he found on investigation to exceed two millions of pounds sterling. The hon. gent. concluded by saying, that he had hoped many generous minds would have been found, to have shared with him the toils of bringing to justice this nobleman, so highly protected, and that he did not yet despair, after seeing what two directors had stated this evening. However, 482 if left with but one voice more in the house, he would record on the journals of parliament his sense of the conduct of marquis Wellesley; and posterity would see the charges, and enquire into the causes that had prevented his being brought to punishment.
§ Mr. Wellesley Pole.Does the hon. gent. mean to say, that the noble marquis has misapplied the public money for his own advantage?
§ Mr. Paull .I mean to say that be expended large sums of money, contrary to the act of parliament, for his own convenience, his own show, and splendour.
§ Mr. W. Polefelt it necessary to ask the hon. gent. again, whether he meant to state that the noble marquis had diverted the public money to his own private purposes and advantage?
§ Mr. W. Paullrepeated, that his charge was, that the public money was expended for purposes of convenience, splendour, and show.
§ Mr. W. Pole .Does the hon. gent. mean to bring forward a charge of peculation? He has stated his intention of making a new charge, and I expect a distinct explanation. This is the first time that the breath of calumny has dared so to accuse marquis Wellesley.
§ Mr. Paulldid not mean to accuse the noble marquis of peculation, but repeated his charge, that he had applied the public money for his own convenience, splendour, and show.
§ Mr. W. Pole .I must understand, then, that the hon. gent. means to say, that the noble marquis has misapplied the public money for public purposes. I can easily conceive that he may mean to say, that too much money has been expended on the palace of Calcutta, or that the guard had beets unnecessarily increased; but I still wish to know, whether he means to say that marquis Wellesley has used the public money for his. own private advantage? The house will feel the justice of my request of a distinct answer to this question.
§ Mr. Paull .I mean distinctly to charge marquis Wellesley with wasteful, profuse, unauthorized, extravagant expenditure of the public money, and with misapplication of the same to purposes contrary to law.
§ The Speakerthen put the question on the several motions, for the production of papers, as made by the hon. mover in the early stage of the debate; when
§ Mr. H. Addingtonproposed as an amendment, that the words, "so far as these va- 483 rious documents may be disclosed, without prejudice to the public service," might be added to the original motion.
§ Mr. Paullthought the object of this amendment, by withholding what the right hon. gent. might chose to consider state secrets, would be a great impediment to obtaining necessary information.
§ Mr. Wilberforcesaid, he felt jealous of the system of secrecy which was creeping into practice; he hoped this amendment would not be considered as a precedent, as there was no calculating upon the extent of the mischief that might arise from the practice of adding amendments oft his kind.
§ Mr. H. Addingtonreplied, that what it was wished to withhold, merely related to certain papers respecting the Indian coast, not relevant to the point intended to be elucidated.—The question as amended was then put and carried.