§ Mr. Paullrose, in pursuance of the notice which he had previously given to bring forward his First Charge against marquis Wellesley. The hon. gent. said that it was nut now, nor had it ever been, his intention to 852 trespass,. at any unnecessary length, on the time of the house, much less at an advanced hour of the evening, when its attention must have been, in some degree, exhausted by a discussion certainly of much local importance to the country. He should barely state the heads of the charges he meant to bring forward, and the manner in which he meant to proceed in following them up. It might possibly be asked of him, why he had volunteered in this business? or why he had not left it to the discretion of the India directors themselves, to have instituted proceedings, as being the parties to whom that duty most properly belonged? To this he would answer, that finding the India directors, to sonic of whom he had applied on the subject, averse to urge any proceeding, he certainly did volunteer, and more especially in the case of the Nabobs of Oude and Ferruckabad, because he was intimately acquainted, from his own knowledge, with the whole of the circumstances, and therefore felt it his duty to bring the matter forward. Before he had determined so to do, he had applied to that body, whose treasures the noble marquis hail so profusely squandered, whose orders he had so uniformly transgressed, and whose authority he had so totally disregarded; but they had declined the proceeding. It was not a task he had undertaken as one agreeable to himself, or which could yield him any personal satisfaction, but one which he had assumed upon public grounds alone, and under a sense of imperious duty as a member of parliament. The task had been to him extremely arduous. It was one which the court of directors were in duty bound to have undertaken; and by their refusal to do so, he had no hesitation in saving, they adopted the crimes of the marquis Wellesley. Still however, where there was shame, there might in tune be virtue, and the directors at last seem to be sensible of their former dereliction of duty:—some excuse for their conduct, might however be found, on the ignorance they were so long kept by the criminal withholding of the documents by the accused nobleman. Since he had given notice of his intention to bring forward the accusation, and evinced his determination to follow up his purpose, the court of directors were so sensible of the criminality of that noble lord, that they had drawn up an indictment against him, abounding with charges of the most criminal and flagitious nature, and in terms as 853 strong as ever were submitted to the decision of a court of criminal judicature. In bringing forward those charges at the present moment, he lamented, extremely the absence of a noble lord (lord Folkestone), who had done so much honour to himself and to the cause of justice, by his conduct on this occasion, and who, had he been present, would have given hint the most cordial support; and nothing but a state of illness, which rendered him unable to. attend, could have occasioned his absence, that night. For the manner, in which the. Charge was drawn up, he must beg leave to apologize, and to appeal to the indulgence of the house. its merit or demerit was exclusively his own. Scarcely, known, as he was to the house, and unaided. by any associated support or influence that could tend to facilitate his purpose, he felt touch difficulty to form his charges: for any professional aid on the occasion he had not applied. In the course he had adopted, he had endeavoured, to the best of his judgment, to found himself on precedent. He should read the statement containing those charges to the house, as part of his speech, awl should lay them upon the table, then it would be his object to move, that they be taken into consideration at some future day. The hon. gent. then proceeded to read, the several heads, of charge against marquis Wellesley. It was extremely difficult even to catch the substance with any degree of accuracy. The statement commenced with recapitulating the appointment of the noble marquis to the chief government of Bengal, about the middle of October 1797, as successor to lord Teignmouth, and that he reached the seat of his government in May 1798; in which he continued until he was superseded by the marquis Cornwallis's re-appointment to the government in August, 1805; and that the said marquis Wellesley, though be was solemnly sworn to obey the instructions of his employers, and do every thing in his power, and to the best of his judgment, to promote and support their just and lawful interests in India, yet instead of so doing, on his arrival in India, he disregarded their authority, disobeyed their instructions, assumed to himself a despots ewer, turned his back upon the true interests of the company, and did without their permission, and contrary to their instructions, for the gratification of his own caprice, with the most flagitious profusion, and for corrupt purposes, squander the money of the said 854 company to an enormous extent. It recited also the charter granted to, the company by parliament in the year 1793, upon the express condition that, in consideration thereof, the company should annually pay to the government, out of the surplus profits of their trade, after deducting the necessary expences of conducting their affairs, the sum of 500,000l. annually; the assets of the company in England to be. answerable for such payment, and subject to an interest of 15 per cent.: but that in ease of a war In India, or any other reasonable cause to prevent the regular payment of the said annual sum, upon representation from the company to his majesty's ministers, it should be lawful to defer the payment, and the debt so due to be funded by the company, as due to the government, charged with an interest of, 6 per cent. But that the company had: never paid any part, of that sum. In consequence, a debt to government of 6 millions had accrued; but the deficiency of surplus, and the consequent inability of the company to pay this sum, had riot arisen from any cause of war, but entirely front the misconduct of the said marquis Wellesley, who had roost profusely, lavishly, and shamefully squandered the property of the company, and neglected those interests which, by engagements the most solemn, he had sworn to promote with vigilance and economy; whereby the said, company were not only involved in a debt of several millions to the government, but debts also, to the amount of many millions, had been incurred in India, at an increasing interest of 6, 8, 10, and 12 per cent. The result of which was, that the debt of the company, which, on the accession of marquis Wellesley to the Indian government in 1798, stood at 11,033,648l. was, on his departure from that government, in 1805, increased to above 31,000,000l. That when marquis Wellesley first arrived in India, every part of the. company's affairs wore an aspect of prosperity: it had, therefore, only remained for him to have acted with an ordinary vigilance, and to have followed the example and the system of his predecessor. Instead of which, the said marquis Wellesley, by wantonly and profusely increasing the public expenditure, did not only squander all the ordinary means in his hand, but all the additional money he was able to raise by loans and additional taxes, supporting a wanton and p o use style of living, unparalleled in the case of 855 any former chief governor of that country, insomuch that he Was driven by his extravagance to attempt the selling of the imposts upon the lands of Bengal, and he so much embarrassed the finances and affairs of the company, as to endanger the loss of their territory. The statement next proceeded to recapitulate the contents of the letter received by the court of directors from the marquis Cornwallis, dated in August 1805, when sent out to India for the purpose of superseding marquis Wellesley, in which he gives a deplorable statement of the company's affairs, arising entirely front the profuseness of his predecessor in squandering the resources of the company, one branch of which was his keeping up unnecessarily an army of irregular troops at an enormous .expense, which the marquis Cornwallis found it absolutely necessary to disband, in order to avoid losing the means of defraying the charges indispensable for the maintenance of the regular army. The noble marquis, in disbanding those troops, stated, that lie adopted the measure unavoidably, as the lesser evil, at the risk, certainly, of their engaging in other service inimical to the company, but considering them much less formidable to meet in the field, than to retain them in pay, at an expence which must absorb the means of paying the regular army; that in order to clear the arrears of pay due to those irregulars, he had been under the absolute necessity of detaining the treasure of the company destined for the China trade, to the amount of 250,000l. Having gone through many other items on the letter of marquis Cornwallis, already before the public, the statement next alluded to the war which broke out in the month of March 1799, with Tippoo Sultan, which ended with the taking of Seringapatam and the death of that tyrant; that the consequence of that war was, that enormous sums of money were extorted by order of marquis Wellesley from the Nabobs of Oude, Arcot, Ferruckabad, and some others; after which commenced the Mahratta war in 1804, which was terminated in the course of the year; arid so far from the expences of those wars being the cause of those embarrassments of the company's affairs already stated, it appeared, from letters of lord Wellesley himself to the court of directors, that, by the treaty of Hyderabad, the annual revenues in the provinces that then became tributary increased their income above 544,000l. a year, and there 856 fore that any argument founded upon the pretence of warlike expenses could not, as would appear from marquis Wellesley's own letter, dated the 1st September, 1803, interfere with the causes of the inability of he company to pay their annual engagements to the state. That except the wars before mentioned, the said marquis Wellesley was engaged in on other war during he period of his government, except that with Holkar, if war it could be called, and except that with the Rajah of Bhurtpore, in which the only loss sustained was the loss of lives and of honour. That there fore, not wars, but the unexampled prodigality and wanton profusion of the marquis, were the true causes of the embarrassment of the company's affairs; a profusion and extravagance engaged in with the most sinister, vicious, and corrupt views, and in defiance of the authority, and in contempt of the orders of his employers. The embarrassment partly. arose from new-modelling the criminal courts of Bengal; from increasing, wantonly. and unnecessarily, the number of their officers, and giving large salaries to his friends acid favourites; in the expenditure of an enormous sum for the establishment of packets, and granting large salaries and sinecures to his followers, (amongst which was the grant of 1500l. a year to sir William Burroughs,) amounting altogether to the sum of 1,300,000l.; the erection of a college at Fort William, without the authority of the company, which cost 181,689l.; an necessary journey of the noble marquis, in 1801, to the upper provinces, in which the most extravagant expenditure took place, one item of which was for 1100 boats, and the whole charge 30,000l. There was a charge also of 220,000l. for the erecting and up a palace for the residence of the marquis, which was decorated in a style of splendour unparalleled even among Eastern princes. There was a charge for house and garden for the noble marquis at Bhurtpore, 15,000l. Besides all this, there was a charge for reviving a body guard of cavalry, which had been put down by sit John Shore, who, on a principle of economy, was satisfied to be attended on state occasions by a party of the garrisons commanded by a captain; but marquis Wellesley resolved to revive this body, and to increase his own splendour; and it wag maintained, for the first five years, at an annual expense of 40,800l.; and for the whole period, including for horses. accoutrements, 857 and outfit, the sum of 240,000l. There was also a large sum advanced by the marquis for building a town-house for the citizens of Calcutta, the cost of which was afterwards to be reimbursed by them in such subscriptions as could be obtained Within four years; statue of lord Cornwallis was designed to be erected in the town-house, instead of which, was thrown amongst the rubbish, in the vaults under the building, and an expensive statue of lord Wellesley erected in its place, and this at a time when an arrear of five months pay was due to the troops. The next Charge against him was, the appointment of his brother, the honourable Henry Wellesley, in 1801, to the government of Oude, with the title of governor and commander in chief, and at an expence, in thirteen months, of above 26,000l. which exceeded the annual allowance of the company to the governor-general. He arbitrarily retained in his own hands, to the exclusion of all authority or interference from the court, to the amount of 628,206l. per annum, and Under the influence which such a patronage enabled him to exert, he procured addresses from every part of the country, in approbation of his justice, conduct, and services; and further, although the trade laws of the country strictly forbade him to accept any money, from the people of the country, in consideration of his official authority, yet he received for the luxuries of the table, and other purposes of his own private gratification, no less a sum than 120,000l.; and While he was thus misapplying such enormous sums of the company's property to the most corrupt and profligate purposes, and for the maintenance of his household and establishment in the most gorgeous stye of splendour and profusion, he was supporting those extravagancies by loans borrowed in the name of the company, nominally at an interest of 12l. per cent. but, from the manner in which they were raised, at a real interest of 16l. per cent. Throughout he had set at nought the authority of his employers, and acted in direct opposition to his instructions. Mr. Paull concluded his statement by saying, he had read it as part of his speech, and should now move that it be ordered to lie on the table.
§ The Speakerobserved, that he apprehended that could be no question. From the journals of the house, d from other information that, he had received, he found that there had not been many instances of im- 858 peachment this form; that he did not find that there, had ever arisen a question on the right of a member to put in articles of charge, and have them read. Here, however, the right of an individual ended, and there had always been some motion made,on which the house had an opportunity of expressing their sense. Various modes had been adopted for this purpose. Sometimes by proposing to call witnesses to establish the charges; and in other, and latter cases, by proposing that the house should take them into consideration. On the whole, the house would judge of the importance of preserving to individual members, the right of presenting articles of this description, and of preserving to themselves as a body, the right of deciding whether or not they should be entertained.
§ Mr. Paull ,agreeably to this suggestion, moved, and the title of the charge was shortly read b the clerk. he then moved that the charge be taken into consideration,with a view to appoint a future day for that purpose.
§ The Speaker ,in addition to his former remarks, stated, that in modern times there was still another mode of procedure, which was to print the charges, and refer them to a committee of the whole house. It was Competent to the hon. gent. to move, that this charge be printed, and then taken into consideration.
§ Mr. Paull ,in compliance with this intimation, moved that the charge be printed, which was ordered; and also expressed his intention on some future day, probably in the course of the present week, to introduce other charges against marquis Wellesley; and when a sufficient time had been given to allow the members to understand them as well as he did himself, to proceed. He meant to follow the same course with the charge which related to lord Wellesley's conduct to the nabob of Furuckabad as in the present, namely, to print it, and on some future day to move, that it be taken into consideration.
§ The Speaker ,as the hon. gent. had submitted no question to the house, felt it his duty to call the attention of the house to the former proceedings on similar subjects, which prescribed some motion either of adoption or of rejection. If the hon. gent. was unwilling to propose any such motion, it was open to any other member to do so.
§ Mr. Paullsaid, that he had produced a charge, which he conceived would be amply supported by documents that could be 859 furnished by the court of directors. He did not pretend to such a knowledge of the journals of the house as to enable him exactly to say what was the preferable mode of proceeding. He should move, however, that the charge be taken into further consideration this day three weeks.
§ The Speakerenquired, who seconded the motion? After a considerable pause,
§ Mr. Paullobserved, that he could only say, if the noble lord to whom he had before alluded (lord Folkestone) had been in the house, he should not have wanted a seconder.—Another pause took,place, when sir W. Geary rose and seconded the motion.
Mr. SecretaryFar observed, that the hon. gent. had before the house a serious charge against the marquis Wellesley, but he had not told the house what were the documents to be adduced in support of that charge, nor when they were to be laid before the house; besides, he had given notice of his intention to bring forward two other charges He understood the hon. member really had no documents, though he had proposed a day for discussion; but if, when that day should come, the hon. member should not then be provided with any documents in support of his charges, he trusted the house would not allow of farther delay. He acknowledged that it was the right of every member to produce any charge in that house; but if the member producing it. should name a day to take it into consideration, and afterwards not be able to substantiate it by documents, he would find himself in a very unpleasant, and in a very awkward situation. The hon. gent. was to judge for himself. He would recollect that he proceeded at his peril, and if he had at present no documents to support his charge, he should lose no time in moving for them, as without them, he would stand in the place of a person bringing forward a charge without any documents to substantiate it.
§ Mr. Paullsaid, it did not remain with hom to enforce the production of the necessary documents: he had a list of them in his hand, and should move fo them this night; but if they should not be forthcoming on the day he had named, he should hope the house would indulge him by deferring the discussion until the papers should be produced.
§ Mr. Leethought the hon. gent. had not proceeded in this case, as he,had professed, by adopting the precedent laid down by Mr. Burke, in the case of Mr. Hastings; 860 for that gentleman had not brought forward his charges, until he had previously moved for the documents upon which they were to be supported, and those documents were actually laid upon the table. The precedents were precisely the same in the nineteen cases which had occurred since the Revolution; and if these charges were entertained, without the documents being laid on the table, the marquis Wellesley would have just ground to charge the house with having dispensed with its usual forms, in receiving articles of impeachment against him. Here was a charge of wasteful expenditure of the money of the. East-India Co. If the company felt that charge to be just, why did they not bring it forward They were in possession of all the evidence, and were best acquainted with the nature of the case. The house ought now to have as much evidence as Grand Jury should have before it found a bill.
Mr. Secretary Foxsaid, if he had conceived that naming a day was countenancing the charge, he would by no means have supported it, but he had thought this a mere matter of form. There certainly was much good sense in what had fallen from the hon. member who last spoke: but if he was inclined to suppose that the house would be put in possession of some documents on the subject, he should have no objection to adjourn the debate till this day week; and if they should not be then forthcoming, the house would decide what further proceedings it would then be right to take. He move accordingly.
§ The Speakercould see no objection in point of form to this motion.
Mr. Rose,though he thought the last motion less objectionable then the former, yet, as he really thought the charges had been brought forward without any evidence whatever to support them, and that the voluminous papers with which the hon. gent. had been day after day indulged, which covered the table, and had been printed at an expence of not less than 8 or 10,000l. to the public, had been merely sought by the hon. gent. with a view to search for evidence, but in vain, he was of opinion it would be taking too much notice of the charges, thus unsupported, to entertain them at all.
§ Sir W. Gearydeclared that his object in seconding the motion, was not because he was convinced of the guilt of the noble marquis. When, however, he saw charges 861 of so grave a natures brought forward, he thought it due to, the. dignity of the house that an opportunity proving such charges, if well founded, should .not be denied.
§ Mr. paullpledged himself to adduce documents t prove every tittle of the charges he had brought forward. He complained, that he met much difficulty and interruption in being able to procure the necessary documents; an he alluded to an hon. gent. (mr. Golding), who had said he would move for papers, that would refute every tittle of the charges he (Mr. P.) was to bring forward this day, though the particulars of these charges were not disclosed by him.
§ Mr. Goldingsaid, that he was convinced, from finding the charges so vague, futile, and indefinite, that the hon. gent. had only moved for the numerous documents already produced against the noble marquis.
Mr. RobertThornton said, the court to which he had the honour to belong having been so particularly alluded to, and seeming so much interested in the question, he might not seem to discharge his duty it he did not say a few words on the subject, while he, at the same time, expressed his own feelings. He felt regret act the situation into which the hon. gent. had brought himself, the house, and the court of directors. He lamented the hon. gent. had gone so far. He had not the honour of being acquainted with him till be had come forward in his present character, but he thought the spirit and manliness displayed by the lion. gent. throughout, did him the highest credit. Though he stopt short of the hon. gent., he thought he had well-grounded cause of complaint, and that there was much truth in the generality of his charges. He thought, however, that the hon. gentleman's was not a happy mode of proceeding, and that enquiry was the proper mode. If he had followed that mode, he (Mr. T.) should have voted with him. It was not for him to dictate to the hon. gent., but he only stated his opinion thus far, that the hon. gent. might not expect greater support from him than he was to receive. He thought justice to the hop. gent. required that he should be warned that there might be many others from whom he might have looked for support, who would pot be inch,Red to go the length he wished. He (Mr. T.) did. think that marquis Wellesley had been guilty of a wasteful ex- 862 penditure the company's money; that he had committed many errors, and violated the law in several instances; but he was apprehensive that the model of accusation resorted to by the hon. gent. would only have the effect of bringing the marquis off and holding him up to the world as a man that had been unjustly attacked. The hon. gent. had been accused of not having produced documents to support the charge. He certainly had been hasty, had not consulted his friends sufficiently, and had relied too, much on himself. This, however, he must say in, justice to him, that,if the house had given him the paper which was yesterday moved for, he would. have. been in no want of documents. He (Mr. T.) knew many of the statements of figures given by the hon. gent. in the charge presented by him. this night, to be correct, and to be contained in that document. Such document. he had, at that moment in his pocket, and such were taken from that official letter. This he said in vindication of the hon. gent. Up regretted the situation in which they were placed. He said so, both in justice to the hon. gent. and to himself. If he could withdraw his motion, he thought it would carry a stronger censure against the noble marquis, than any thing that could follow under his charge would import. Impeachment was a step much stronger than any thing which he was prepared to think the conduct of the marquis Wellesley, improper as he esteemed it, could warrant him in adopting.
Lord Templeagreed with the hon. director (Mr. Thornton), that the hon. mover had displayed considerable manliness in the perseverance he had shewn in this business, and he hoped that the same manliness would induce him to retract his accusations when he should perceive them to be ill founded. It appeared to him an extraordinary course, that the house should be first called upon to adopt the charge, and then to vote for the papers upon which that charge should be founded. From this embarrassment he felt relieved by the motion which had been made by his right hon. friend (Mr. Fox). As to this paper which was called a charge, he thought it was paying too high a compliment to it to entertain it at all. Although it was competent to every member, to bring a charge of this nature against whom he might think proper, yet, there was something in the manner of bringing forward the present charge, which appeared to him neither fair nor 863 candid. In the first place, no notice was given of it to the noble person who Was the object of it, and who felt much more for his character, than his life; nor was any previous notice given to his friends or near relations in that house. He was convinced however, that the hon. gent. himself could not be more anxious than they were, that since the charge was made, the subject should be fully and fairly investigated; he was convinced, that the character of the noble marquis could well stand the test of examination: he, therefore, instead of avoiding the discussion of the general question, wished that the time might come when the character and conduct of lord Wellesley should be fully before the house.
§ Sir Arthur Wellesley ,though he did not rise to object to the motion before the house, could not help saving a few words upon the manner in which the noble marquis, who was the object of the charge, had been frequently held up as a public delinquent. The house would recollect how often that noble marquis had been thanked by the house and the court of directors, for those measures, many of which were now brought forward as matters of charge. The hon. gent. had not laid any ground for his charge, much less had he produced any evidence to support it. The service, in which he had himself been employed, enabled him to speak to some of the facts contained in the charge. He could say, therefore, that there was no foundation for several of them. Some of the facts were misrepresented, and otherwise wholly destitute of any foundation. The hon. director had said, that he had in his pocket a paper which would prove many of them. If so, why did he not move for the production of that paper? If the hon. gent. had really any such paper in his pocket; and could produce it, he was ready to meet it. The hon. director had stated, that the letter which had been moved for last night, contained proofs of many of the hon. gent.'s statements, but this he begged to dispute. That letter contained no such proofs. It might contain references to documents relating to the allegations in the charge, but that would not amount to a proof. He confessed that he could easily conceive, the delicacy of the situation into which the house had been brought by the course that had been adopted by the hon. gent. He could conceive, that it might be a question with the house, whether in justice it could receive a charge 864 without any proof being offered in support of it He. felt it_also due to justice, that some enquiry should be made. On this ground it was, that he,supported the motion of the right hon. secretary, He did not wish to press the house to any precipitate judgment, but he hoped they would consider the feelings . of his noble relative, and come to such decision, as would lead to a speedy and full discussion of the whole case.
§ Mr. I. H. Brownethought, that it would be treating the charge with too much respect to adjourn the debate. It ought not to be entertained, nor the present debate adjourned, because no competent ground had been laid for such a proceeding, and no evidence whatever had been produced. He thought that an accusation of so serious a nature should not be countenanced on such grounds against such a great and glorious character, who had carried the renown of this country farther than any other individual alive. He was prepared to meet the motion with a direct negative. This would not preclude future enquiry. He should not say whether the result of that enquiry would be to criminate or exculpate the noble marquis.
Mr. Rosedesired to know whether it was a matter of course that the charge should he entered on the journals, if the present motion should be agreed to.
§ The Speakerreplied in the affirmative.
Mr. Rosethen suggested to the house, that it would be right to consider how far it would be fair, with respect to marquis Wellesley, to have a libel, without any evidence adduced in support of it, put on the journals of the house, which would be the case, if they were to give countenance to the charge by adjourning the present debate to a future day,
§ Mr. R. Thornton ,in explanation, said, that the paper which he had in his pocket, was, like the statement of figures in the charge, copied from the documents which were in the India house.
§ Mr. Garrow,in his maiden speech, said he felt no small degree of alarm for the situation the house was placed in, in point of precedent. He considered, that the proposal of adjourning the debate, proceeded only from the great candour of the right hon. secretary of state (Mr. Fox), but that it would be setting a dangerous and alarming precedent to agree to that course. Without meaning to make any imputation on the hon. gent. who brought 865 forward the present charge, he should consider it as an improper practice, if gent. should be permitted to come down to the house, with charges of the severest nature, and after stating that had consulted with nobody, and listened advice, to read as part of his speech ,a charge of the great length of the present, which must necessarily be printed, and which might produce a considerable impression before it would be possible to answer it. In the present case there was not a man in the house who could point out a single document on the table which contained one syllable of evidence in support of the charge. He knew it was competent to every member of that house to, bring forward charges in the nature of impeachment, but, as the right hon. secretary of state had well expressed it, Whoever brought forward such accusations, did it at his peril. The accuser certainly did come forward at considerable peril, and at the risk of his own character. When a man had long filled one of the most important offices in the state, he should not on light grounds be made the subject of a motion of impeachment: and yet the present charge was not only brought forward without evidence to support it, but even it was a considerable time before a member could be found to second the motion; and that member had expressly declared his disapprobation of the manner in which the charge had been brought forward. It appeared to him, that in seconding the motion, the hon. baronet (sir W. Geary) paid a higher compliment to his charity than to his discretion. He should have thought it quite as well, if that charge, which came into the house like a foundling, and which was so long before it found any body willing to adopt it, had been disowned by every body, and had been left with its real father, without the benefit of finding a parent by adoption. If the hon. baronet had not adopted it, the charge might have died for the present, but could have been brought forward again, when the hon. mover had found out documents to support it; he was more confirmed in his opinion, when he recollected what had fallen from an hon. director; but if the hon. gent. chose to be hasty, to consult nobody, and to bring forward his charge without evidence, it would be no hardship to require him to be better prepared. The hon. director (Mr. Thornton) had stated, that if the paper had been granted the preceding night, there would have been some evidence; but it should be recollected, that, although of those who wished for the production of that paper, no two agreed in the object for which they wished it, yet all had agreed in disclaiming the idea of its being produced as evidence on this charge. The hon., mover had excused himself from bringing forward the charge hastily and prematurely. [Mr. Paull rose to order, but, being asked by the Speaker to state what he complained of as disorderly, was silent]. Mr. Garrow then continued, and said, that he, could not exactly say, as the hon. gent. could, that he was not in the habits of speaking, yet pot being in the habits of speaking in that assembly, he was afraid he might be as little acquainted as he was with the points of order. He had, indeed, not intended to speak that night, and had made a sort of league and covenant with himself to remain silent. As to the paper that was spoken of, it could never be brought as a document against lord Wellesley. It was riot any order or instruction to him, but it was merely a written opinion given by the gentlemen sitting in Leadenhall-street, but which opinion never reached India. An ex post facto opinion of this sort, could never be brought to substantiate a criminal charge against the noble marquis. It might appear extraordinary, that, when the friends and relations ,of the noble marquis wished for the enquiry, he, who had not the honour of being acquainted with him, opposed the adjournment. It was for the sake of precedent that he opposed it; it was because he thought the house should not sutler the valuable privilege of impeachment to be in any case, or even for a short time, the instrument of calumny. Besides the danger of the precedent, he considered the adjourning the debate would take up the time of parliament unnecessarily.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleywas inclined to support the motion for adjourning the debate. As to the hon. mover, although, perhaps, he had not shewn sufficient discretion, he had certainly evinced a manliness of mind in the prosecution of this business; whereas, there was another body of men, whose conduct excited no other sentiment in his mind than disgust. The court of directors had been chosen by the proprietors in a manner somewhat similar to that in which the members of that house had been returned by their constituents. How had they performed their duty? An hon. director had asserted, that the figures were rightly stated by the hon. mover, and agreed 867 with him, that marquis Wellesley had wasted the public money, and violated the law. Why then, did not he, or some of his brother directors, come forward to impeach him? Was there ever such a dereliction of public duty? Since the hon. director had made that speech, he thought it was impossible to drop the question. It must be taken up either by the court of directors or by somebody else.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, he had given his best attention to every thing that had been said on the present question, and was ready to admit, that the house was involved in some embarrassment by the course of proceeding that had been pursued. But he did not think the difficulty of their situation so great as had been represented; or such, from which, with due attention, they might not extricate themselves. He could not, therefore, agree with his learned friend, who had that night, for the first time, delivered his sentiments to the house, and whom he hoped often to hear taking his part in the discussions in that house, as to the alarming consequences of the present proceeding. His learned friend had apprised them of the danger he apprehended, but had neglected to point out any means by which that danger might be avoided: and as his learned friend said, that he had at first made a league and covenant with himself not, to speak upon this question, he believed it would have been quite as well if he had kept to his league and covenant. An hon. director had said, that the paper moved for yesterday would have supported the allegations. If that paper could not be had, the documents to which it referred might easily be had. It appeared to him a very extraordinary circumstance respecting this paper, that being dated the 5th of April 1805 it should refer to the transactions of the years 1801-2-3, and censure almost every part of lord Wellesley's conduct in the administration of his government. It would have appeared, that what they disapproved of so violently, they might have censured sooner. Whoever brought forward a charge of this nature, certainly did so at infinite peril. He might even in some cases draw upon himself the reprobation of the house. if the house were to consider itself in the nature of a grand jury upon the present question, he should say, arguing from analogy, that it would be an extraordinary thing for a grand jury to find the hill in the first place, and ask for the evidence afterwards. And 868 yet it was in this way, that the house had been called upon to act in the present instance. They were desired first to adopt the charge, and then see whether any document could be brought forward in support of it. What he considered the greatest danger was, that if the charge should be so far hastily adopted, as to he ordered to be printed, it might injure the character of the noble lord materially, before any possibility was afforded of removing the impression that such publication might make. It was not so much from the entry on the journals, that he thought the noble lord likely to suffer, because, in a few months there might also be an entry of his lord-ship's exculpation from that charge, but, in the mean time, a great deal of mischief might be done by the charge being printed and published through the means of newspapers and other ways. [He the Speaker informed the right hon. member, that the charge must be entered in the votes, and printed for the use of the members]. The bon. gent. then concluded, by recommending both motions to be withdrawn. He wished that his right hon. friend (Mr. Fox) would withdraw his motion for adjourning the debate, and that the hon. mover would also withdraw his original motion.
Mr. Grantsaid, he felt it necessary to offer a few words in answer to an hon. baronet (sir J. Wrottesley), and to a right hon. gent. opposite (M r. Sheridan), who had censured the court of directors because. they had not come forward to impeach marquis Wellesley. He had spoken, he said, to this point on a former occasion. He trusted the court of directors, as well as every other class of his majesty's subjects, had a right to exercise their own judgment, and to take that course which duty and propriety appeared to them to point out. Those of the directors who were members of that house, discharged their duty individually as such, but had no right to bring the India company before parliament. That company, by their executive body the directors, had taken the way the law prescribed to them to deliver their opinion on the measures of lord Wellesley, which was, by stating those opinions in the draft of a letter, addressed to the Bengal government, and sent to the board of commissioners for their concurrence. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) was mistaken in supposing the only object of that letter, written in 1805, to have been, 869 a censure on lord Wellesley, for transactions which passed in 1802. That object also, when circumstances should be explained, would appear fully justified; but there was another and a general object of a prospective nature. The court of directors thought that the constitution, appointed by law for British, India, had been, in many respects, violated, under, the administration of lord Wellesley, and they deemed it necessary, when a change of the governor general was about to take place, to assert and recall the true principles of the constitution, so that no acts by which it had been infringed, should seem to have the sanction of tolerance or prescription. This was a general and strong reason for the framing of the letter which they had written; and in this view they held: the measure of writing that letter to be their indispensable duty, and of very great importance. But it did not follow, that because they disapproved of the, conduct of marquis Wellesley, or of any other governor, that therefore they must come forward to that house with an impeachment. If this was to be their course, even upon every occasion of grave disapprobation, they might, perhaps, occupy the attention of that house and their own, in a way incompatible with the due transaction, of the many other affairs in which they were necessarily engaged. This was, trot the way for the company usually to, take, and gentlemen who contended for it did not know enough of the subject. The court had other means of redress within their power; they might recall a governor, and impeachment was the last resort. He,therefore, deprecated these imputations against the company, or their executive body. He trusted that if their conduct were fairly examined, they would be found,to have done their duty. With respect to the measures now in progress, he thought it would be proper in him, as occasions arose, to state his,opinion. He certainly judged enquiry to be necessary, but did not, under all the circumstances he had before state, deem it adviseable to proceed to impeachment.
§ Mr. WellesleyPole rose for the purpose of expressing the joy he felt that the charge had been at length brought forward; he rejoiced that they had got the hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) in a tangible shape, after 10 months of shifting and turning. He had been accustomed always to look up to his noble relation as man, the whole of whose life was devoted to honour, and the greatest part of it spent in the service of 870 his country. It was, therefore, with surprise, and with acute sufferings, that he witnessed the hon. mover (Mr. Paull), on the second day that he set his foot in that house, declare,his,intention of coming for ward as the accuser of the marquis Wellesley. As ,his connection with that noble lord had been the pride and happiness of his life for the last 40 years, that declaration gave him considerable pain in the first instance; he, however, now, after nearly 12 months had been spent in moving for papers, and, speaking of the noble lord as a criminal, was glad to find that the charge was brought, and that they had got the hon. mover in a tangible shape. As the right hon. gent. (Mr., Fox) had said, a very heavy responsibility rested on the person who brought such charges. If there should turn out to be any thing in the conduct of his noble relation which would justify the charges, he was sure that right hon. gent. would be the last to screen him; but should the charge turn out, as, he trusted it would do, to, be altogether without foundation, then that right hon. gent. would be the first to reprobate it. He had himself been long in the habit of admiring the ingenuity of the court of directors, in their candour to the noble marquis One hon. director, who confessed that it was his opinion that marquis Wellesley had Wasted the public motley and violated the law, still said he did not wish to impeach him. And why? because if he were impeached and acquitted, his character would be freed from the imputation. The hon. directors, however, in their mercy, seemed to think that it was the better way to stigmatise his character, without giving him the chance of acquittal or explanation. What would be said if, instead of marquis Wellesley, it should be, said of the .meanest subject of this country, that the only reason for not bilging him to his trial was the fear that he should be acquitted by his peers? Although that letter was not granted the preceding day, he hoped the time would come when it would be laid before the house. In the mean time, he would observe, that, the manner it had got into circulation was somewhat remarkable. He was given to understand that four clerks had been employed in copying out this paper at Mr. Budd's, in Pall-Mall. The hon. mover had contrived to get a. copy from the East-India, directors, and had got it printed and circulated, exclusively among his own friends. The India directors shewed their ingenuity in calculation, 871 when they sent that opinion to the board of controul. They knew that as lord Wellesley was on the point of quitting India, he would never receive it, and consequently would have no opportunity of replying to it. in that opinion they found fault with almost every transaction of lord Wellesley's government, from the year 1798, to the year 1804. Among the things they disapproved of was the expence of the government-house; and yet the estimate of that shocking government-house was resolved upon not by lord Wellesley particularly, but by the governor-general in council, was transmitted to the court of directors so long ago as the. year 1798, and was not then disapproved of. After the long series of transactions so beginning in 1798, the board of directors sent to lord Wellesley, who wished to resign, and requested him to stay in India for another year. And yet the president of that body (Mr. Grant), in that grave and measured tone of voice that gave solemnity to every thing which fell from him, ventured to assert directly, that the horrible business of Oude was not known to the directors when they sent this letter. He should, however, spew, that it was known to them, and even approved of by them, in a letter written by themselves to marquis Wellesley. The hon. gent. then read an extract of a letter, dated September, 1803, from the court of directors, and signed by Messrs. Bosanquet, Robarts, Smith, Parry, R. Thornton, and thirteen directors. In this letter it was stated, "that they had perused with great satisfaction the account of the arrangement made with the nabob vizier of Oude, and that they were glad to find that the revenues of the district ceded were more by 21 lacks of star pagodas than had been estimated; that there was a reasonable expectation of a progressive improvement; and that they therefore approved of the suggestion in the letter, that the revenue should not be calculated for more than 5 years, in order no ascertain the amount at the end of that period," or, in other words, to try whether he could not squeeze something more out of them. The letter also expressed the gene. ral satisfaction with which the court of directors had heard of the commercial treaty to be established with the nabob vizier. After such a document under their own hands, it could not be said that they were not perfectly acquainted with the business of Oude, which two years afterwards they were pleased so Strongly to condemn. He, 872 with the feelings that he entertained for his noble relative, had no other wish than for a full, free, and fair discussion of the question that had been brought forward, and was glad to think that the time for shifting, turning, and evading the question, was now at an end. He thought the mode proposed by the right hon. gent. was the most likely to bring the question speedily to an issue, Mr. Grant explained. He said he could make great allowances for the hon. gent. in the situation in which he stood. He should avoid personalities, and confine himself to sonic of the principal charges of the hon. gent. That hon. gent. accused him of saying on ft former night, that the Court of Directors had known nothing of tile treaty respecting Oude till a short time before their proposed letter of April 1805 was written; whereas the hon. gent. quotes a letter of theirs of September 1803, in which that Treaty is distinctly recognized, and rather favourable opinions expressed of certain arrangements respecting the ceded territories. Now, the fact, Mr. Grant said, which he asserted, and which he still maintained, was, that the court of directors did not know till pretty late in the year 1804, any particulars of the negociations with the Nabob of Oude in 1801, which ended in that treaty. The treaty came home nakedly, without explanation or comment; afterwards public letters upon the revenue business of the districts which had been ceded by that treaty came home, and were answered in the usual routine of business; one of the answers of the court the hon. gent. had quoted; but all this time the court were ignorant of the means by which the districts had been acquired. The details of the negociations were sent, after long delay, by lord Wellesley to the Secret Committee; and in the recesses of the secret committee they were locked up till late in the year 1804. Then and then only the court of directors were allowed to see them; and from these details it already appeared, that the cession of the districts had been produced from the Nabob by mere coercion, by absolute compulsion. The court of directors could not sanction what they held to be flagrant injustice; they thought it their duty to remonstrate against it, and this is done in the letter to which the hon. gent. alluded, written early in 1805. The hon. gent., continued Mr. Grant, says concerning this letter, that it was written at a time when the directors were pretty Sure 873 it could not reach marquis Wellesley in India, and, therefore, when he could have no opportunity of answering it. But it has been already explained, that there is as continued chain of correspondence between the company and the governments in India: this chain is not broken upon the removal of a governor. The sentiments of the court of directors must still be transmitted upon all important events that pass there to the last moment of any governor's residence—sentiments however which it may be impossible for him to learn during his stay in India. Nay, answers to letters written by the Bengal government in lord Wellesley's time, have gone out since his arrival in England. This is unavoidable in the course of business, and has proceeded from no fear of meeting the discussions of lord Wellesley on any subject. The hon. gent. has further accused the court of Directors, of having written a letter in 1802 to lord Wellesley, desiring him to continue in the government of India, and then of brining forward, in 1805, censures for acts clone be- fore 1802. It is sufficient to say to an accusation otherwise so little conclusive, that by the influence of lord Wellesley's powerful friends in this country, the court were induced in 1802 to ask him to continue one year longer in the government, in order to carry on a plan of retrenchments in expenditure which he was understood to have begun, and soon after the arrival of that letter in India, instead of pursuing that plan of retrenchments, he launched out into those measures of foreign policy and war which have had such unfavourable effects upon the company's affairs. Mr. Grant concluded by saying, the directors were prepared and deter mined to maintain all they had advanced against marquis Wellesley, and were confident they should be able to substantiate every part of it.
§ Mr. Percevalhad no doubt that it was the wish Of the house as well as of the relations of marquis Wellesley, that the course they might take should not preclude investigation, but at the same time, he was of opinion with his learned friend (Mr. Garrow), 'that it would introduce a very improper precedent. He wished to have the question disposed of, but there was some difficulty in extricating the house from the present embarrassment. The best way for-this purpose was for the hon. gent. to withdraw his charge, if that could 874 be done consistently with parliamentary, forms, and in that case die charge would not appear on the journals till there appeared. some sufficient grounds to warrant it. If this could not be done, the only other alternative was for the right hon. secretary to withdraw his amendment, and to negative the original question, which would leave the subject open to the hon. member, at any period he should think himself prepared with sufficient grounds to make good his charges.
Mr. Secretary Foxsaid, he was not obstinately attached to the mode he had recommended, but it yet appeared to him to obviate all the difficulties in the case. It was very singular, that the hon. gent. had moved for volumes of papers, referring to charges he had not made, and yet had not to produce a single authenticated instrument applicable to his present motion.
§ Mr. Paullwas surprised at the extraordinary language of an hon. gent. (Mr. W. Pole), who had expressed so much pleasure, that he (Mr. P.) had now appeared in a tangible form. How be was to be disposed of, now he had been discovered in this tangible shape, had not been explained. It was represented that he had moved for papers with the design, not to support a valid charge, but to fish out materials to constitute such an accusation; and he was to he considered culpable for not substantiating his allegations by documents, when he had moved for papers as early as June in the last year, none of which were now produced on the table of the house. He did not come now to support the charge, he designed merely to present the general charge, and to move for the vouchers by which it would be justified ; and he was not convinced, that this mode of proceeding was either inefficient or irregular. His sentiments on the misconduct of the noble marquis, were neither new nor peculiar. A noble lord, of the highest reputation, entertained the same opinions; many others of sound discretion, saw matters in the same light; and 29, out of 30, of the East-India directors, had sanctioned his thoughts on the subject. The right hon. secretary of state himself had been at least nearly of the same opinion, as he had approved in the most unqualified manner of a speech of an hon. member below him (Mr. Francis) in 1805, which represented the conduct of lord Wellesley in the same light that he had done. Another right hon. gent. also on the bench below him 875 (Mr. Sheridan) had represented the transactions of the Carnatic, as of the foulest and most criminal kind, and had declared if government at that time should not adopt some proper proceeding thereon, he should think it his duty to take some steps to expose the criminality of those proceedings. He thought. he had a right to call upon those gentlemen to remain faithful to their assertions, and to give him their cordial support in conformity with their declared sentiments.
§ Mr. Francis .—Sir;It is with the utmost reluctance that I now or at any time meddle with this subject. But I am called upon in such terms, as force me, whether I will or no, to take part in the debate. I have not changed or relinquished my opinion on the subject of the Marhatta War, as I delivered it in this house on the 5th of April, 1805, and, since that, to the public. They, who will not consult the record, have no right to question my principles, or to judge of my conduct. I never undertook to impeach lord Wellesley. My purpose, in proceeding as I did, was to do a public service of another kind, which might have been accomplished without an Impeachment. At least I thought so. But it could not be accomplished without a strict examination of his conduct with respect to peace and war in India. In that speech, sir, there is not one word, which I do not believe to be true, and which I am not able to make good. All this was done and concluded too, before I ever saw the hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) or heard his voice, for in fact I heard him, before I saw him, or knew his name. If I understood my right hon. friend near me (Mr. Fox), I think he has mistaken me. I can assure him that I did never say that there was no ground for impeaching lord Wellesley, or that he ought not to be impeached for the Marhatta war. My right hon. friend, who has seen the speech in print, and read it attentively, will not find one word iii it to that effect.
Mr.Huddleston —I shall certainly detain the house but for a few seconds from the pleasure it must always receive in hearing the right hon. member (Mr. Sheridan). The speech of my hon. colleague (Mr. Grant) has made it quite unnecessary for me to enter into any defence of the Court of directors against the warm strictures of the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. W. Pole). I honour the feelings shewn by that hon. gent. in the cause of his near relation, and 876 am not surprised they should prevent his feeling at all for those whose duty it has been to animadvert on the conduct of that noble person: but there are two or three points in the speech of the hon. gent. to which I must advert distinctly, as an individual member of that body upon which he and other hon. gentlemen, from motives less apparent, have lavished such unqualified censure. First, with regard to the paragraphs of a letter from the court of directors in the revenue department, which the hon. member has read to the house, I declare upon my honour that to the best of my knowledge and recollection, I never heard of those paragraphs before, nor of any letter having been written by the court, that could be construed into a recognition of the propriety of our possessing ourselves of the territory and revenues in question; and I am persuaded that those directors who signed the letter of which those paragraphs from a part, would not, after reading them, have signed it, if they had known by what means that territory and revenue had been obtained: but, as I have already had occasion to state to the house, the court of directors were not made acquainted with the Oude transactions until two years after; and upon their being made acquainted with them, they lost no time in expressing their disapprobation of them.—Now, sir, with regard to the letter, or proposed letter, which has been so much alluded to, and for the production of which the hon. gent. has seemed to consider the directors as having shewn themselves particularly desirous, I beg to remind the hon. gent. or to inform him if he was not present at the debate here yesterday, that my argument went only to the production of so much of that letter as relates to the treaties with the Nabobs of Oude and Furruckabad, because of the subjects discussed, in the letter those only had been to that tune brought before the house, and the ground upon which I thought those parts of the letter ought to be laid before the house, was this, that as the house had ordered, without objection or discussion, the production of another document which expressed, under the signatures of the committee of the court of directors, the approbation of those transactions entertained by the board of cool, missioners; which document had of course made its own impression on the house there seemed an obvious principle which for bad the withholding another document. which expressed the disapprobation enter- 877 tained of the same transactions by the court of directors. But, sir respecting the whole of that letter, after what has been said of it, I desire to acknowledge my full share of any censure that may be thought due to it. They ability with which it is written, is far beyond any to which I have the least pretention, but I approved of every part of it, and never gave my assent to any measure, or put my name to any paper with a more perfect consciousness of doing what was right, and what my duty required of me. That it will be answered, and most ably answered, I have no doubt; and if the answer shall disprove or do away the facts, or any of them, which it states, or convince me, that my view of them has been erroneous, and the answer founded upon it unjust, I shall be most ready and happy to acknowledge it. But, sir, I believe there are facts, stubborn and afflicting facts, stated in that letter, which no eloquence can disprove. I have been at all times ready to Acknowledge the great merit, and splendid services Which distinguished the early part of the marquis Wellesley's career in India, and I felt proportionate regret at seeing the lustre of those services obscured by the system he afterwards pursued. Respecting the procedure before the house, and the dilemma in which we are placed, I always thought that the most proper course for the hon. gent. to pursue, would have been first to place his documents on the table, and then to move for their being referred to a committee for investigation; and, I should yet hope, that we may tread tack the steps taken this evening, and the dilemma be got rid of in the mode proposed by the learned gent. below (Mr. Perceval).—There is one point in the hon. gent.'s speech (Mr. W. Pole), which I think must have arisen from his misconception. He laid considerable stress on my hon. friend near me (Mr. It. Thornton) having Stated that the letter had been approved by 29 out of 30 directors, as if my hon. friend had included, as directors, those gentlemen who were out by rotation: but this is easily cleared up, by merely stating the fact that the letter was approved in court, and sent up to the board of commissioners in the beginning of April, and after the annual election was laid before the court of directors, again and again approved, so that 29 out of 30 directors had given it their approbation.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, he was not disposed to retract a single syllable of what he had 878 asserted on India affairs. His observations had been solely directed to the Carnatic, and he had not even mentioned the name of marquis Wellesley in the course of them. His charge was not against this foreign resident; it was against the board of control, against the government of Madras, but, above all, against the whole body of the court of directors, who appeared to him to be the principal delinquents. But, said the right hon. gent., I have been called upon in a way I do not approve, as if I were inconsistent in my conduct, and called upon by an hon. gent. (Mr. Francis) from whom I should not have expected it. It would seem as if his intentions were to promote differences among the members of administration at a time when their cordial union and hearty co-operation were necessary to the welfare, if not to the salvation of the country. However indifferent the hon. gent. may appear, if report speak truly, the hon. gent. was inclined to sustain on his own shoulders the whole weight of the concerns of India; or if a favourable pliant moment had been employed to persuade him, he would have gone out to Bengal in a high responsible office. I do not mean to say, that the hon. gent. has acted from pique or disappointment; all his motives, I presume, originate in public spirit, mingled, perhaps, with a little apprehension for my parliamentary consistency; he must, however, leave me to be the protector of my own character, and of my own honour.
§ Mr. Francis. —I am so well pleased to see my right hon, friend once more in his place, that it would be very difficult for him to say any thing to me or of me, that could give me one moment's concern. The facts, to which he alludes, have been much misrepresented to him. The only way to justify the resentment is to overstate the offence. The terms in which I spoke of his absence, were good-humoured and complimentary. No man repines much at a loss, which he does not feel to be important. Respect and value care usually included in regret. But my right hon. friend is mistaken about the fact. I never mentioned the transactions in the Carnatic. I never uttered a word, of provocation to him to make good his charge against lord Wellesley. You, sir, and the whole house will bear me witness, that the supposed debts of the Nabob of Arcot, in which lord Wellesley has no concern, was the subject on which I called for his assistance, and that 879 of my hon. friend, the representative of Norwich. With respect to the government of Bengal, and to my disappointment, and all the anecdotes he alludes to, and his own meritorious conduct, it is quite enough for me to say that he is mistaken in his premises; and that, as in fact I have expressed no resentment, he has no right to assert that I am influenced by disappointment. On the principle of his own insinuation, if the fact fails him, I am entitled to the opposite conclusion.
Sir T. Metealfetrusted the house would give him some credit for his silence in the discussions on the rejected draught of a letter, particularly as he had so repeatedly been pointed at for having differed in opinion with the majority of his friends in the direction. The paper in question was laid before Use court early in April 1805, and contained every act of lord Wellesley's government that could make against him, in the opinion of the writer of the letter, from the year 1798. He stated, that the house should understand the established rule for carrying on the correspondence between the executive part of the company and the governments in India, is by answering every letter, in the order of its arrival, paragraph by paragraph; and of course the former transactions of the Bengal government must have been decided on, by approval or censure, many years before the letter in question was produced: and as it appeared to him that the hon. member opposite ,(Mr. Grant) had undertaken an unprecedented task, in raking from the records every thing that could make against the government, without taking notice of any one meritorious act, he felt it his duty to object at the India-house to the directors entering into any contention with the commissioners on the alterations they had made, because it appeared to him they never had stronger grounds to stand on than in that instance: for in addition to the legal authority they possessed in altering a political dispatch, they had the argument in their favour, that no such procedure had been adopted upon the departure of any former governor-general. And what appeared at the same time extraordinary, they were suffered to make an alteration in a letter purely commercial, which by law they had no authority to do. The hon. baronet (sir J. Wrottesley) was under a mistake in supposing that what fell in the debates from individual directors was to be considered as the opinion of the body at large. The India Co. was not repre- 880 sented in that house, and each gent. spoke his own sentiments as a member of parliament. The hon. accuser of lord Wellesley, who had placed the house in so extraordinary a dilemma, not content with exhibiting a charge against the late governor-general, had introduced a very extraordinary charge against the India Co., by accusing them of violating the act of parliament, which was not nearer the fact than the other most extraordinary assertion, that the company were indebted to the public in the sum of 7 millions. Whereas, instead of the company being in debt to the public, the public are considerably in debt to the company for advances of money made by order of Ins majesty's government. Sir T. M. could not avoid observing, that the hon. gent. took unwarrantable liberties with the name of the court of directors, who could not in their collective capacity have any knowledge of the hon. gent. beyond having permitted him to go India; and the return he now made for that obligation was to join them in the accusation he had brought forward against the noble marquis. With respect to that nobleman, sir T. M. declared, he had never received, nor expected to receive, the smallest favour at his hands. He had officially examined every act of lord Wellesley's government, and could with truth declare, that having in that examination discovered great talents as a statesman, with unbounded zeal for the interests of the India Co., he felt it his paramount duty to give his feeble support to a much-injured character. With regard to the vote he was to give, he must be decided by the general feeling of the house, as he felt a difficulty in affording any countenance to what appeared to him a frivolous charge, unsupported by any kind of evidence.
Mr. Grantsaid, that the hon. baronet had no right to give him the credit of the letter in question, for that in fact five-sixths of it had been prepared by the officers of the India house from the materials they possessed; neither was the hon. baronet warranted in saying, that only seven or eight of the directors had much concerned themselves about the letter, because the whole court (the hon. baronet excepted) were much interested in it, and many had even called for a stronger measure.
§ Mr. H. Addingtonsuggested that the most regular course would be, for the hon. gent. to move that the motions be for the present withdrawn: and after there was 881 some further information before the hose upon the subject, it might be competent to him, or any other hon. member, to move the further consideration of the question on some day subsequent to the production of these documents.
§ Mr. Paullsaid, this was the very mode which he intended to have pursued, in consequence of what he had heard in the course of that night's debate.—The motions were then ordered to be withdrawn. after which, Mr. Sheridan gave notice that he would move the house to rescind the order for printing the first charge.
§ Mr. Paullthen moved for the production of certain accounts, with a view to shew the comparative amount of the public expenditure in India during the administrations of Mr. Hastings, lord Cornwallis, sir J. Shore, and marquis Wellesley.—The motions were carried unanimously, and the house adjourned.