§ Mr. Hobhousemoved the second reading of the nabobs of Arcot's creditors bill. On the question that the bill be now read a second time,
§ Mr. Whitshed Keene roseto call the attention of the house to this subject, to which it had hitherto paid little attention, though it had drawn millions out of the exchequer of England. By the statute for renewing the Company's charter, the public became a partner in this firm, and was to participate to a certain amount in the profits. Every gentleman, at that time, did expect, and the public had a right to expect, that the time of participating would have arrived before this. This charter was a sort of deed of partnership between the country and the company; but, although the country had hithero acted the part of a sleeping partner, [...]et it most clearly possessed the right of examining into the affairs of the concern, and of investigating the causes which had prevented it from receiving that participation to which it naturally appeared to be entitled. When an object of that nature came before the house, it was necessary to look very narrowly into the causes which prevented this participation. In this point of view, he hoped the [...]chanellor of the exchequer would bestow his attention to this subject, as, in the present difficulties of the country, it was a serious loss, in a financial point of view, be kept from that participation in the evenues of India, to which the country appeared entitled. All those who had [...]tuned their attention to India accounts, must know, that for these thirty or forty year past, claims had been continually rising [...]P, and sometimes suddenly bursting on upon the revenues of these princes. These claims, after deliberate enquiry, had been rejected by the India government abroad, but, nevertheless, did not cese to be pressed upon the court of [...]dirtors here. That 285 court consequently gave orders that security should be given for the payment of five lacks of pagodas due to the company in 1794, but the board of controul afterwards postponed that claim, and gave a preference to the other creditors. It had, since, however, been explained, that these last debts arose out of the violation of public orders, and had increased from small to very large sums, from the extravagant interest that was charged upon them. From the illegal manner in which these creditors acted, they could not be said to have any just title to recover. In proof of this, he read an extract from the publications, forbidding any of the company's servants to lend money to the native princes, at a higher interest than 12l. per cent. and making void all obligations bearing a higher rate of interest. In confirmation of this statement, he was fortified by the opinion of an hon. gent. (Mr. Francis) who had paid great and laudable attention to all India subjects; who had passed, encompassed with the greatest difficulties, many years of his life in India; and, after having made a moderate fortune by the most irreproachable means, returned to this country with a character unsullied and uncontaminated by the vices and abuses which he left behind him.—He then dwelt upon the various obligations and letters of attorney granted by the princes of Arcot, to Germans, English, Greeks, Armenians, &c. which, after being rejected by the government in India, stood, for a time, at a discount of 99l. per cent. After all, however, by these proceedings, upwards of five millions were actually taken out of the pockets of the several nabobs, He believed, that of the debts now claimed, amounting to 5,600,000l. there was not more than 500.000l. honestly contracted That being the case, he trusted the house would not think their time misemployed in attending to this subject. He did not impute any improper motives or conduct to the commissioners. The gentleman (Mr, Hobhouse), who had brought the measure forward, had for a series of years, on the opposition side of the house, manifested a laudable jealousy of all the measures of government, particularly on subjects of finance, and he was sure he would apply the same jealousy to the present case. Another of the commissioners had passed 25 years in India, and done considerable service to his country without bringing forward any claim on the native powers. The third was a gentleman, who was capable [...]o 286 contributing very essentially to the public service, as he had on other occasions, by his powerful talents, though his application of them in the share that gentleman (Mr. Fordyce) had in this business, did not appear to him in the same favourable light Letters of attorney had been executed to him by eleven different persons of different nations, Armenians, Persians, Germans, from which considerable advantages would be derived. It was proposed to appropriate 136,000l. a year to satisfy their claims, upon which there would be a profit to the individual and his heirs, of 6,800l. per annum, until the whole should be liquidated. He came next to the most painful part of his duty. There appeared in the list of the Nabob's creditors the names of several persons who had held high official stations in the company's service. Mr. Benfield had received 500,000l., and appeared a creditor now to the same amount. Another, sir John M'Pherson, he was sorry to find in the same list a creditor to the amount of 102,000l. (The hon. member here proposed to have a report made by a select committee in 1785, on the transactions of the Carnatic read, with a view to shew the grounds upon which such claims rested.) The clerk had proceeded a considerable way in reading the report, which commented with some severity on certain transactions relative to the Carnatic, in which the gentleman referred to was concerned, when
§ Mr. W. Dundassubmitted, whether it would be desirable to have the time of the house occupied with hearing long reports read on every individual creditor on the list?
§ Mr. W. Keeneapologized for occupying the attention of the house to so long a statement, but he thought it necessary to state the probable origin of the great debt which sir John M'Pherson now claimed. The above, he said, was the first report that threw any great light on all the transactions in India; and he read himself a few pages more, in which it was stated, that sir John M'Pherson undertook to get an act of parliament passed, to accommodate the interests of the nabob; and for that purpose came over to England, and offered a present of great value to the duke of Grafton, the then prime minister. This present having been rejected by the duke, sir John M'Pherson thought it might be more effectually bestowed on the sub-ordinate ministers; and stated to them, that what he had then to offer, made only a part of a much larger sum, which would 287 be subsequently given. In fact, bribery was so much the custom of the East, that he could not persuade t[...]e Nabob that the great men in England were favourable to his cause, if they refused his presents. He then offered to bribe the government, or the public itself, for he offered, in the name of the Nabob, a loan of 700,000l either to the treasury or to the nation, at an interest of 2l. per cent., where there was nothing to prevent him from receiving what was then the current interest. It was fortunate for the country, that the revolution of 1688 took place; for had such offers been made in the time of Charles II., the Nabob of Arcot could not only have bought the Carnatic, but Bengal too. It was services like this, which probably entitled sir John M'Pherson to be a creditor for more than 100,000l. The hon. member then proceeded to state several instances which appeared to him to prove conclusively that these debts were all of them contracted in pursuing measures which were hostile to the interests of the company. He concluded by dwelling strongly upon the case of sir Richard Sullivan appearing as a creditor for a large amount, who was confidential secretary to the government at Madras, and who, being also in correspondence with the Nabob, revealed to him all the secrets which he had heard in his public capacity, in the course of half an hour after he had them. He hoped all these debts would undergo a rigorous examination.
§ Mr. Johnstonesaid, that he had not originally intended to speak upon the question, but could not sit silent when he heard the character of a most respectable friend of his, and to whom he owed many obligations, aspersed in this manner. He thought it was extraordinary that the hon. gent. should have chosen to go nearly 40, years back for transactions, with which to charge sir John Macpherson. As to the reports on which he grounded his accusation, there were some reports, and that which had been read was one, which deserved no more credit than the reveries of Robinson Crusoe. The sense that was entertained by the country, of the conduct and services of that gentleman, was directly opposite to the statement in that report. Long subsequent to those transactions, he had been made governor of Bengal, and had introduced savings, or reductions, to the amount of 1,200,000l. He wished all other governors of Bengal had done as much good. His majesty had 288 shown his sense of his services, by creating him a baronet. As to what had been done 40 years ago, it was a little hard to go so; far back. If, at that time, he was perfectly unemployed by the company, he had a right to accept employment from the nabob. There was another gent., however, who was attacked, he could not say in a disorderly manner, for the Speaker would have stopped any thing that had been disorderly. He must say, however, that it appeared contrary to the usual courtesy between man and man, to attack the character of a member of that house so violently, in his absence, as the hon. gent. had done, with respect to sir R. Sullivan. How could the hon. member presume to say, that sir R. Sullivan had betrayed the trust that was reposed in him by the British government? How could he presume to say that, while in the service of the company, he had betrayed their secrets to a foreign prince? He was not particularly acquainted with sir R Sullivan, but he could not bear to hear the characters of hon men treated in such a manner. As to Mr. Fordyce, whose name had also been mentioned by the hon. member, he must say, that he had no concern in the, original arrangement for the payment of these debts.
§ Mr. W. Keene ,in explanation, said, he had made no attack on any man, but only read transactions from the records of the house, which threw a light on the present question.
§ Mr. Johnstonesaid, this was a letter from lord Macartney, who had been prejudiced against sir R. Sullivan.
§ Dr. Laurenceexpressed his surprise and regret, that any gent. should suppose this subject had become obsolete, or ever would become so. It was necessary that that enormous mass of corruption that had been carried on in India, should be sifted and exposed. As to the distance of time, it was nothing; the present debts were modest remains of claims, which those who made them now, dared not bring forward at the period alluded to. He thought therefore, the house and the country were much indebted to the hon. gent. (Mr. Keene) for what he had done; and though sir John M Pherson had since that period been made governor-general of India, he thought it necessary the house should enquire, why a bond for 100,000l., dated in 1796, and given to him by the nabob of Arcot, should not have been brought forward sooner? If it should turn out to be 289 for presents, contrary to law, it would become a question, whether it ought to be allowed. What had been the history of all those debts? It was, he said, utterly impossible that any man could read the proceedings of that period, and recollect he was an Englishman, without feeling the mixed emotions of disgust, contempt, indignation, and horror, that such proceedings should be allowed, and that 140,000l. a year should be set apart to liquidate debts, contracted under such shameful and profligate circumstances. He wished a parliamentary commission to be appointed for the purpose of enquiry into those debts, and thought that the house should not be called upon to sanction a measure that would permit the introduction of many fraudulent and unjust claims.
Lord Castlereaghwas of opinion, that a good deal of extraneous matter had been introduced into the discussion of the present question. The house were not now called upon to sanction the agreement entered into between the East-India company and the creditors of the nabob. That agreement had already been concluded, and commissioners had been appointed under it, who were employed in carrying it into execution This agreement had also been entered into by the parties who were competent to form it; by the creditors of the nabob on the one side, and by the East-India company, under the sanction of the board of controul, on the other. He could not see, therefore, how it was competent for parliament to interfere with this agreement. The only question before the house was, whether they should lend their authority to the better execution of the agreement, by enabling the commissioners to administer oaths, for the purpose of rendering their enquiries more complete and satisfactory? He admitted that there was a very considerable mixture of fraudulent claims with others that were well founded. But the commissioners were appointed for the very purpose of separating the fraudulent from those that were just; and the present bill was intended to enable them more effectually to accomplish this purpose. He admitted that the public were interested in the claims made on the East-India company, and might indeed be considered as parties in the agreement. But he could not think that they had the sole right of appointing a commission for adjudicating the claims of the creditors, without the express consent and appro 290 bation of the company, and the creditors themselves. He considered also, that the interests of the public were protected by the board of controul, whose sanction was necessary to the appointment of the present commissioners. It was certainly just in itself, that some fund should be appropriated for liquidating the debts of the nabob, since the East-India company, by acquiring his revenues and possessions, were placed in his room, and became liable for his public debts. Accordingly, a sum of 260,000l. per annum, had been set apart for this purpose; and, as the nabob was indebted to the East-India company, in 1798, in the sum of 2,800,000l., a division of the original sum had been made, and only 136,000l. a year had been appropriated to the payment of the private creditors. It had appeared, that the company were possessed of assets derived from the nabob, fully sufficient to provide for this annual sum of 136,000l. The simple question, therefore, before the house was, whether the original agreement should be carried into full effect, and the commissioners be enabled to carry on their investigations, on the oaths of the parties. Thinking this to be the proper state of the question; and believing also, that the commissioners were possessed of every qualification necessary to conduct their enquiries to an honourable and successful termination, he felt it his duty to support the bill.
§ Mr. Francissaid, that the noble lord appeared to him to have delivered some very new and extraordinary doctrines, to which he wished to call the attention of the house. But he thought, from the present thinness of the house, that the discussion could not now take place in a very satisfactory manner, and he therefore wished the debate to be adjourned to some future day. He therefore moved, that the farther consideration of the bill be deferred to this day fortnight.
§ Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that if the ground of the hon. get's motion was the thinness of the house, he feared that this ground would not be removed by a fuller attendance on a future occasion. But, if it was the general wish of the house, that the discussion should be postponed, he should not object to the motion, though he could see no reason for so long a delay as a fortnight.
§ Dr. Laurencesaid, that there were several subjects of great importance demanding the attention of the house, be 291 sides the interval of the recess. He therefore thought that Friday se'nnight was the earliest day on which this subject could again come before the house.—The debate was therefore adjourned to Friday se'nnight.