HC Deb 13 June 1808 vol 11 cc859-61

Mr. R. Dundas moved, that the house do go into a Committee of Supply, to whom should be referred the Petition of the East India Company, and the Report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the affairs of the said Company. Upon the motion being put from the chair,

Lord Folkestone

rose, and objected to the Speaker leaving the chair, as he thought the report alluded to was perfectly unsatisfactory, and contained so little information, that it would be quite improper for the house to go into its consideration. On a former occasion an objection had been stated as to the manner in which that committee had been formed, and he still looked upon that objection as being justified by the report now upon the table. There were, in his opinion, various facts, of which the house ought to be in possession, before they proceeded to vote any great sum of money to the East India Company.

Mr. R. Dundas

observed that the objections of the noble lord would be better reserved for the committee.

Mr. Creevey

was of the same opinion as the noble lord; but would not object to the house going into the committee.—The house having gone into a Committee of Supply,

Mr. R. Dundas

then stated, that it would be unnecessary for him to say much, as the Report contained most of the facts that were necessary to be detailed. Some misunderstanding had arisen between the Accountants of the Company and the public, which were referred to the committee appointed upon East India affairs, who had thought it necessary to adhere to the principles laid down by the former committee. The first article charged by the Company was the expence of prisoners of war conveyed by his majesty's ships to India, immediately upon capture, which necessarily became chargeable upon the public; and the next was the expence of remitting to India such sums of money as had been paid by the Company to the public in liquidation of the balance owing to them. A question had been stated, as to whether the public should be bound to pay in India the money so borrowed, or to the Company in this country, and disputes had arisen as to the rate of interest to be allowed. It had been, however, settled, by the Report, that not only the expence of the remittance of bullion to India, but the usual interest of that place, where it was originally borrowed, should be paid. Upon these grounds he did not feel himself justified in calling upon parliament to make any advance to the Company farther than that which had been formerly stated to be actually ascertained to be due. He concluded with moving, "That a sum not exceeding 1,500,000l. be granted to his majesty, to enable him to pay the same to the East India Company on account of expences incurred by them in the public service."

Lord Folkestone

repeated the objections he had urged before the house had gone into a committee, and then moved as an amendment, That instead of 1,500,000l. the sum of five pounds be inserted.

Mr. Creevey

said, that he was rather disposed to agree to the Resolution, with the exception of one item, amounting to 100,000l. which he could not consent to vote.

Mr. Tierney

supported the Resolution. Although the committee were not vested with the authority of arbitrators, yet they had been appointed to ascertain the amount of the debt due upon either side. The result of their inquiry was, that 2,300,000l. were found due by the public to the Company, part of which having already been paid, this vote was only for an acknowledged balance, joined to some further subsequent claims. The point at issue, therefore, was relative to the rate of interest and the mode of transmitting payment of the debt due by the public to India. As to this, he had no doubt of the charge made by the Company being perfectly fair and reasonable, and that if their accounts had been submitted to a master in chancery, the amount of their claim upon the public would have been nearly four millions, instead of the sum at which it had been charged in the Report. He could not really see any just grounds for objecting to the liquidation of the debt as now-charged, as it was strictly due by the public. If the noble lord was determined to persist in objecting to any part of that debt, he should at least allow, even in his amendment, that which he might look upon as unobjectionable.

Lord Folkestone

stated, that the principle upon which he had proposed a grant of five pounds, was merely for form sake, as he objected to the voting of any sum whatever upon the Report in its present imperfect state. He did not object to the paying of Indian interest so much as he did to the expence which was charged for carrying out bullion to India.

Sir John Anstruther

said, he most heartily concurred in the Resolution, as it appeared to him it was fair and reasonable the Company should receive payment of the money in the same place, and in the same manner, in which it had been borrowed. The public must be paying interest for that money, until such time as it was sent out to India, and therefore he thought there could be no question as to who should bear the loss.

Mr. Wilberforce and lord Morpeth severally stated their sentiments in favour of the original resolution, and lord Folkestone's amendment was negatived without a division. The original resolution was then put and agreed to.