HC Deb 17 June 1808 vol 11 cc921-47
Sir T. Turton

, in rising pursuant to his notice, felt it necessary to premise that, whatever might be his individual impression, it was not his intention, in consequence of his deference to the decision of the house, to submit any Resolution directly tending to criminate the character of the noble person, whose measures gave rise to the Resolutions he had to propose. But he considered it necessary, in vindication of the justice of this country, that that house should come to some Resolution respecting the nature and circumstances of the transactions in the Carnatic, and also declaratory of its intention to discountenance such proceedings hereafter. The hon. baronet therefore, reserving himself for that opportunity which would be afforded him by the indulgence of the house in reply, should then content himself with moving his two remaining Resolutions, as follows:

That it appears to this house, that the person of the prince Ally Hussein, the rightful nabob of Arcot, was committed to the custody of the said Azeem ul Dowlah, who had, through the undue exercise of the power of the company, usurped his dominions; and that the said prince Ally Hussein, notwithstanding the frequent remonstrances and representations made to the British government; by himself and others, of the humiliating and degrading state to which he and his family were reduced by such confinement; notwithstanding his representations of the imminent danger to his life, which he anticipated from being placed in the power of his enemy and the usurper of his throne; was suffered to continue in such custody, until the 6th of April, 1802, when he died."—"That policy, as well as justice, loudly demands the vindication of the character of Great Britain in India, from the reproach of the above transactions; and that the interests, if not the preservation, of our empire there, call for some public act, which will convince the native princes, that a religious adherence to its engagements will, in future, characterize the British government. Consistently with these sentiments, and at a time when our implacable enemy attempts to justify his atrocities and despotism in Europe by the example of our conduct in India, it is peculiarly incumbent on the house, in the name of the people of England, to declare openly to the world, that the British parliament never did or will countenance any act of oppression and injustice in its Indian government. And, as evidence of its sincerity, this house resolves forthwith to appoint a committee to inquire into the before mentioned act of the assumption of the Carnatic, the alleged motives thereof, and the particulars of the treatment of the family of our late ally, the nabob Mahomed Ally, and of the prince Ally Hussein, the lawful successor to the musnud of the Carnatic; and that it be an instruction to the said committee, to inquire into, and to report, whether any and what reparation can or ought to be made to the said family, for the injuries they have sustained by the usurpation of the said Azeem ul Dowlah; and that they; may further report their opinion by what means the British character can be most effectually rescued from the obloquy and odium incurred from the above conduct of its servants, and how the British interests in India may be best secured from injury thereby."

The first Resolution being read, the gallery was cleared, and a division took place: Ayes 11; Noes 34. Majority 23.—On re-entering the gallery, we found

Sir Samuel Romilly

on his legs, stating that although convinced of the culpability of marquis Wellesley, he did not impute to him corrupt motives or personal feelings. He had acted in a manner which he conceived to be for the advantage of the East India company and the country: much was he mistaken in so conceiving! But the question was not upon the motives by which the noble marquis was actuated, but whether what he did was not prompted by a false ambition for the aggrandizement of his country; and whether that ambition was not gratified by the vio- lation of every principle of justice. What effect would such conduct have on the British character? It was said the good of the country was promoted. It was for the house to decide on this; the materials were before them; every paper was produced; they were masters of the subject, and it was for them to determine whether they should or should not make these actions their own, and sanction a policy, as it appeared to him, so remote from wisdom or justice. This was a serious and important question; and for the honour of: the British character, he was grieved to witness such a division as had just taken place. Of late years many wicked and designing men had, by their writings and actions, endeavoured to bring the parliament of the country into contempt. They had maliciously attempted to bring disgrace on the legislative of the empire; but he would seriously ask, whether all such persons could do, or any species of malice or abuse, had one-thousandth part of the effect of such a circumstance as this going out on a question which involved the national character in the nearest degree for policy, justice, and humanity, with only four or five members more than was absolutely requisite to decide on the most unimportant business. This was not a sound for the moment, it was not a transaction to be speedily forgotten. The papers now before them would be read and considered by future ages. It was not the character of the governor-general of India alone, it was the character of the British nation which would be recorded and commented on by the historian.—From his pen it would appear to future times, that after a lapse of years, the affairs of the Carnatic were brought before the British parliament; that every paper and species of information was in their view; that the subject had been frequently and amply discussed; and that even such was the notoriety of the circumstances, that not a single member could be excused for not being perfectly conversant with them. It would then be seen that they had not the manliness to adopt and applaud those measures, but that they endeavoured to get rid of a decision upon them by miserable previous questions, and other unworthy expedients. It would be seen that the very confidential ministers of the crown had never delivered their opinions on these vast objects of policy and justice, and those who read the story would wonder what subject could possibly be of suf- ficient importance for them to speak upon. They would be in amaze, and utterly at a loss to divine how they came repeatedly to vote with willing majorities on so grand a question, without ever having the condescension to express their sentiments, or offer their reasons for so determining. When he entered the house he had no design of being the first to bring on this discussion, and was astonished to see that such a task fell on him by the mode in which the question (on sir Thomas Turton's last Resolution) was on the point of being disposed of. Thus situated he might, perhaps, be guilty of some repetitions. He would not, however, repeat the subsisting treaties between the nabob of the Carnatic and the East India company, or debate the question whether he was a sovereign prince or a vassal of the company. In one respect, at least, he was independent: he was put in the situation of a sovereign prince by the treaty negotiated with him by the company. Even after the pretended records of his treachery were discovered, he was not used as a rebel who had thrown off his allegiance, but, as an independant prince, required to enter into a new treaty.—The learned gent, then went into a detail of the papers found at Seringapatam, and read extracts from the Letter from marquis Wellesley to lord Clive, on the occasion of appointing an inquiry thereupon, to shew that a resolution was formed, whatever might be the result of that inquiry, to seize the civil and military government of the Carnatic. These letters were not considered as sufficient evidence against the nabob, or it would have been unnecessary to examine witnesses on the occasion; neither did the evidence of Ally Rhezzi prove that the nabob was hostile to the British; on the contrary, it shewed that the most decided enmity subsisted between him and Tippoo. It was, therefore, monstrous to say that there was any thing in these proofs, as they were called, to affect the nabob.—He then commented at length on the instructions given to the commissioners appointed to examine the witnesses, and asserted, from the parts he read, that they were intended to intimidate them to give such evidence as would be agreeable to the company, upon whom they were entirely dependant. Such witnesses would not have been received in this country, and he was glad to see his learned friend (the solicitor general) taking notes of what he said, as, being accustomed to the justice of Britain, he would doubtless be pre- pared to shew that equal justice had been distributed in India. This examination must have been either judicial, in which case the accused person ought to have been heard in his defence, or it must have been for the purpose of publishing to the world a justification of the future measures adopted in consequence of it. If the latter, it w as more than ever incumbent on the commissioners to be careful that no grounds of doubt should be left. But what was the case r The examinations, though taken in the Persic language, were put down in English, and the reason assigned for this was, that from the first question put to Ally Rhezzi, the examination, it was found, would not take the turn expected. Thus, when every thing turned on the construction of an ambiguous sentence, and whether certain words were meant as compliments, or had some concealed meaning, instead of writing down these words, the commissioners exercised their discretion, and translated them into another language. Both the witnesses examined fully exculpated the nabob. The evidence of Ally Rhezzi went to prove nothing, and that of Gholaum Ally Khan was reported by the commissioners to be full of contradictions. But what was the construction put on these examinations by lord Wellesley? he would not give up his favourite hypothesis against the nabob of the Carnatic, but he said, 'because these witnesses will give no material evidence, they must, have a knowledge of some atrocious fact, which not even our assurances of personal forgiveness, and even reward, will induce them to disclose. He would venture to say, that such a construction as this was unrivalled in the annals of injustice. The collection of the judicial atrocities of the darkest times, compiled by Voltaire, did not contain such a fact. Although it was known to the witnesses that the more atrocious their discoveries were, the more agreeable it would be to those on whom they depended, yet, with all the promises and threats held out in the Instructions before their eyes, they did not confirm a single suspicion entertained of the connection between Omdut ul Omrah and Tippoo Sultan. There were other witnesses examined, but because their testimony did not establish any fact consonant to the wishes of the governor-general, no notice was taken of the facts they communicated.—The learned gent, now turned his attention to the Cypher, and commented on the very great improbability of any such mode of correspondence being adopted in a communication on indifferent subjects, if even it had been intended as the vehicle for secret matters. It was monstrous and ridiculous to say, that there was any thing mysterious in this, where all the mystery consisted in calling Tippoo 'the pillar of the faithful,' the English, 'the new comers,' and Wallajah, 'the well-wisher of mankind.' By the same rule Gibbon's History might be called a cypher, when the attributes of persons were assigned to them as names, as Virgil's being called 'the poet,' and Claudius 'the emperor.' If such serious and melancholy consequences had not followed from such proceedings, they would have been more worthy of ridicule than serious discussion, and might, instead of having resembled a tragedy of Racine, have had the appearance of a foolish tale. When the enquiry was first instituted, the object was said to be, to guard against the power and treachery of Omdut ul Omrah; but from his death happening in the interim, the same design was executed against a child who could have no power, nor be supposed disaffected towards the British. Before these measures could be justified, it ought to be proved, that the son was a party with the father (if he was guilty), instead of having recourse to that monstrous proposition, which was laid down to the unfortunate Ally Hussein, namely, that Omdut ul Omrah having acted in such a manner as to become a public enemy, he, his child, by inheritance, entered into the condition of his father. But this curious and unfounded principle of national law did not enter into the conception of the parties, till occasion called on them for some such apology. If Ally Hussein would have consented to become the 'proper instrument' of the governor general, it would never have been heard of, nor would those delicate hints of his not being the son of Omdut ul Omrah have been circulated. Azeem ul Dowlah, now said to be the legal heir, would have been left to the poverty and obscurity from which he was elevated to the musnud. Twenty four hours were given for the unfortunate prince to determine on the acceptance of the terms offered him by the Company. This was called a treaty, but it was not so: it might be a cession, or a surrender, but could not be called a treaty, where one of the contracting parties gave up independance, and indeed every thing he possessed. The prince, young as he was, determined not to disgrace the memory of his father; he rejected the proposal: and if there was a heart in the house, not entirely devoid of humanity, they must feel in the most acute manner, when he read the narrative, giving an account of his noble behaviour. Here the learned gent, read the description of the conduct of prince Ally Hussein, as transmitted by lord Clive. It had been often observed, that there was but a short interval between the deposition from the throne, and the grave; it was verified in this case. He did not mean to say that violence was used, only that so it happened. The defenders of the measure said it was good for humanity and for the inhabitants of the Carnatic, to have an European substituted for a native government. If this were true, it ought to have been done openly, and by force, and not by having recourse to base arts, false pretences, and a mockery of justice. He hoped some of the ministers would now break silence, and give a satisfactory statement of an affair which seemed so horrible to those who agreed with him. He could wish the statesmen among them to defend its policy, and his learned friend (the solicitor general) to shew that it was not a perversion of justice. How could they reconcile it to their consciences, to give silent votes on what so deeply concerned the character of that empire of which they were chosen the directors? For this was not a vote upon the conduct of marquis Wellesley, but upon the honour of the British nation. It was to declare, whether the acts of government in India were consistent with British justice, and to give an example to all future governors in India. It was either to tell them that we were determined to be just, or that the house would sanction and approve of seizing the dominions of our allies, and of violating every principle of justice and humanity.

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that from the manner in which this question was discussed, it might be supposed that it was only in its commencement; but he would ask gentlemen whether they could so soon forget that the house had already come to a grave decision upon it? The house had resolved, by a great, majority, that there was no ground whatever for the most material part of the charges relative to the Carnatic question, and negatived the motions containing such charges. The house was then in the singular situation of being called on to give redress in a transaction, of which it had already by its vote expressed its approbation. No question had ever met with a more marked decision on the part of parliament than the present, if he was to take the sense of parliament from numbers. The learned gent, who spoke last observed, that ministers had taken no part in this discussion. That was not precisely the fact; but if they took so small a part, it did not arise from any want of conviction as to the opinion they entertained on the subject. For his own part, he entertained great doubts whether the speech of the learned gent, would produce any good. Did he think any public utility could arise from the house of commons reversing the decision it had come to? and if he did, ought he not to blush at the idea of his friends not having brought the question forward before this time? Did he think that the house could so far forget its character as to reverse a decision it had so lately made? If this was the opinion of the hon. bart. he ought to more than blush that no effort had been made before this time to call the attention of parliament to a transaction which had occurred so many years ago. If his object was to blacken the character of the British parliament throughout Europe, and to shake the faith of the country by this posthumous effort of his faculties, never were faculties less usefully directed. He could not see any reason of practical utility that could have induced him to pursue this course; unless it was to establish a maxim, which had already been held forth in that house, that every man who went out to India discarded all ideas of public virtue from his mind. He could not suppose a greater injustice than to hold forth a notion that individuals of high situations, would so far forget every thing due to themselves and their country, as to abandon the principles by which they had acted all their lives before. The house was now examining a transaction which took place in 1801. Five years ago a charge was made against the individuals concerned in that transaction. Their character was not to be trifled with, their innocence was to be presumed until the contrary was proved. For years the question remained asleep, until the hon. bart. took it up; and would he now contend or suppose that persons were not to be found in that house who would have pressed this subject long before, if it was of that quality which some gentlemen supposed? Would the right hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Sheridan) have suffered this sub- ject to be at rest for four years if he thought he could have made out a case? That right hon. gent, had said, on a former day, that he did not wish to interrupt the harmony which prevailed in the government which he supported. Did he mean, then, to impute to that government such gross negligence, and such an abandonment of all the principles of justice, as to suppose they would have passed over without notice this transaction, were it so nefarious a one as it was described to he? Would the right hon. gent, have sacrificed such, a question as this to the convenience of a party? Was it likely that he, who had taken so distinguished a part in almost all other questions where there were imputations of gross injustice against individuals, would have committed such an abandonment of his public duty as not to come forward and vindicate the national character? He was not disposed to rest this question on any thing like personal authority, but he was justified in supposing, that had it been such as was lately described, it would have been brought forward by others long before this time. He had, however, much better evidence, namely, that which was contained in the papers themselves. To go into a detail of these papers would extend the discussion far beyond the limits of a single debate. He would merely state his view of the outline of the business, without pressing on the patience of the house. The question could only be argued on the ground of a treaty. He did not mean to contend that the sovereigns in India were not possessed of rights which the British government could not shake, without committing acts of injustice. But the question now to be considered was a mere question of treaty, and he was prepared to argue, that in the treaty made with the Arcot government, there were stipulations which prohibited the nabob of Arcot from holding any correspondence whatever with any native power, unless the consent of the British government was previously obtained. He suspected that the learned gent, was not able to make a connected defence for the princes of the Carnatic, in consequence of his having taken up the question in this manner, and of his having, at the end of his speech, entered into a dramatic declamation on the interval between the imprisonment and the death of princes. This allusion could not have applied to the question; and therefore in making it, the learned gent, could only have been wasting his strength. He contended that it was not the duty of marquis Wellesley to rest the safety of the British dominions in India, on any rule of proceeding which might be laid down in parliament, but on the general principles of policy and jurisprudence. The learned hart, had argued that the grounds on which the removal of the family of Arcot had taken place, were contrary to the rules of evidence; but he did not consider that it was not a question between one subject and another, or between a sovereign and a subject, but that we were trying a question with a sovereign prince, with a co-estate. Lord Wellesley, therefore, could only act on the principles of the laws of nations; on those principles, according to which a declaration of war would be justified. When the public safety required any particular mode of proceeding, it was not necessary to have such evidence as would be required in a court of justice. When during a period of profound peace, Sebastiani had been sent by Buonaparte to Egypt to shake the foundation of all our political and commercial relations in that part of the world, did the house of commons, at the time the question of war came to be discussed, require any more evidence of that fact than public rumour? They merely went on the question of fair presumption, in judging as to what were the views of the enemy. When a treasonable correspondence was carried on between certain persons in Ireland, and other persons at Paris, it did not require the strict rules of evidence to detect it. Now, what were the circumstances that came out in evidence at Madras? Would the learned gent, say, that no documents but those on the table had been found at Seringapatam? The princes of the Carnatic did acknowledge, that they carried on a correspondence with the government of Mysore, and he wished gentlemen to see what was the nature of this correspondence, and how far it was a breach of the treaty that existed between the British government and the nabob. The first period at which the correspondence took place, was in the year 1793. Whatever the nature of the correspondence might be, it must, however, be allowed, that the same having been carried on at the time of the treaty made by lord Cornwallis, it was amply sufficient to justify the jealousy of our government; and marquis Wellesley would have acted a strange confiding part, highly detrimental to our interests, if, after the discovery of such correspondence, he had left the government of the Carnatic where he found it. Here the noble lord referred to the several letters written by the nabob to the prince of Mysore; and said he should prove that the nabob of the Carnatic knew these letters were in direct violation of the treaty. They were not letters of mere compliment, but they were communications of political importance, which he knew he could not openly convey without breaking the treaty. But they were made privately; and if the nabob only wanted to convey expressions of mere civility, as were stated, that might be easily done upon giving a proper intimation to the government. It was said, that the correspondence was for the purpose of bringing about a marriage between the two families. If that was the case, what occasion was there for making use of a private cypher, which had no reference whatever to a marriage? It was a cypher by which hatred had generally been expressed by the native powers to the British government, and that was a curious sign to make use of in negotiating a treaty of marriage. Although, when he first read these papers, it was impossible for him to think that they were an innocent correspondence, yet, from his intimate habits of intercourse with lord Corn-wallis, he inquired particularly of that noble person what was his private opinion as to this supposed treaty of marriage, and what his knowledge was of that transaction. He expressly stated he had never heard of any such treaty of marriage, although he was said to have been privy to the treaty. It had been asked what good or what object could Mahomed Ally have attained, by conspiring with the Mysore government against the interests of Great Britain; particularly so, when he was a man of good understanding, and must have known how fruitless his attempts might be? It was no difficult thing to suppose, that the family of Arcot could have taken such a view of their right to empire in that country, as might make them indulge a feeling that the effective dominion of that country ought to belong to them, and not to the India company. They might, partly from a feeling of ambition or mortified pride, and religious prejudices, imagine that they might have a more extended sovereignty over the country, and shake the power of the British government. These views might induce them to correspond with the Mysore government. Mahomed Ally, in a letter to Hyder, spoke of arms; here there was nothing about a marriage, the letter talked of their long enjoying the prospect of the sea from an eminence. What could that mean but a secret wish that the English gentlemen (to use their own expression) should be expelled from the country, so that they might have an uninterrupted possession of the whole? But this was not the only political correspondence that took place between the Arcot family and the family that was hostile to the English interests in India. A rooted jealousy and ' hostility of the British power could plainly be collected from the whole correspondence. It was a wise jealousy of lord Wellesley to take alarm at this correspondence. He was persuaded there was most evident proof of hostility; yet it did not rest on lord Wellesley's judgment alone, but was the favourite opinion of very governor in that country, that the family of Arcot, as well as the Mysore, were plotting the overthrow of the British power. When lord Macartney took the government of Madras upon him, no man could act with more deliberate and disinterested justice, nor with a greater desire to conciliate the native powers. Yet he afterwards declared that the family of Arcot was hostile to us, and nothing but its deposition could produce tranquillity for us in India. Such was likewise the opinion of lord Clive; and at last lord Wellesley was so convinced of it, by the evidence he had before him in India, that he proposed in council to do the act which was done. He saw that this family denied us all succour; that they were acting with hostility in every instance; and therefore his decision did not rest on the opinion of those governors who went before him, but on his own immediate observation. The very arrangement now so much reprobated as injurious to the British character, was the same which lord Cornwallis had recommended before that time as necessary to be acted upon, and as beneficial to both the parties. If it should be contended, that the punishment went beyond the measure of fair security, there might be an argument as to the question of the punishment. But he would examine whether it went much beyond the treaty of 1792. In the treaty, lord Cornwallis incorporated a condition, that the whole administration of the Carnatic should, in case of war, be taken into the hands of the British. The whole military and civil power of the state was to be in our hands. At length, when the treason between father and son came to light, did lord Wellesley push the right he possessed to an extent that could be called severity? The only difference was, that he did that in time of peace which by treaty he was entitled to do in time of war. The defective stipulations of the treaty perfectly justified them in their departing from it. The next question was, whether it could be considered as harsh to extend the severity exercised towards the father to the sons of the nabob. The learned gentleman who argued so much on criminal law, knew very well that in cases of treason, under which principle this question must be decided, the innocent must be involved in the consequences of the guilt of others. When the house of Stuart was driven from the throne of this country, the whole of the descendants were excluded also. It cannot be supposed, that such descendants would hold different sentiments from their ancestors. Was it to be supposed, that the son of Mahomed Ally would not entertain the same hostility against us which his father had done? and could lord Wellesley suffer him, consistently with the British interests in India, to remain on the throne from which his father had been removed? He might have had a disposition favourable to the British, but he was surrounded by a tribe of harpies, who had claims and expectations upon him; who altered his disposition, and persuaded him to think that justice would be done him in England. How was it possible, under such circumstances, to expect friendly sentiments from a person so beset, and with interested defendants, so perverted in his station? He was sure, that if the right hon. gent, had a just view of this question, nothing would have induced him to let it sleep for the space of four years. After the practical decision of parliament was twice had on this subject, he greatly lamented it was again brought forward. It had the effect of lowering the character of the country and of the parliament, in the eyes of foreign countries; because foreigners were repeatedly told the British government were giving sanction to those principles that characterized the conduct of the ruler of France. It would be a fatal moral to hold out to the world, and was besides a gross injustice, to attempt to run down the character of such men as lord Wellesley, after they had performed a most difficult public duty, in high situ- ations, without giving them an opportunity of vindicating themselves; and thus to represent the British governors as having committed, and the government as giving sanction to, enormities similar to those practised by our enemies. For a considerable time, the attention of parliament had been occupied in hearing charges of this kind, accompanied with strong allegations, which it was difficult to refute. Fortunately, however, lord Wellesley had now completely vindicated his character, and he was now so completely in possession of the public opinion, that every possible degree, of confidence might be reposed in him; and his character stood higher than ever it had done before.

Mr. Sheridan

felt, that after the personal allusions so frequently made to him, he should not act respectfully towards the noble lord, if he continued silent on the present occasion. The noble lord concluded a speech, filled with the strangest and most monstrous doctrines he had ever heard, with a solemn appeal to the justice of the house, calling upon it not to establish so bad a moral as that of exposing the delinquency of public servants, for fear their conduct should be compared with the enormities of our enemies. It was with reluctance be entered on any of the enormities committed in India. In making such a declaration, the noble lord was not aware of the libel which he pronounced on an hon. friend of his, who was lately chief justice in India. Here Mr. Sheridan quoted a speech delivered at the time of Mr. Hastings's impeachment, by Mr. (now sir John) Anstruther, in which that gent. dwelt on the enormities practised in India, and insisted on the necessity of investigation and punishment. But now the house was to understand, from the speech of the noble lord, that no governor in India, let his crimes be ever so great, was to have his conduct at all inquired into. He maintained, that the best way to hold out to the world that we practised no enormities, was to punish those who committed any. The noble marquis, whose conduct was now the subject of discussion, had lately made an observation, that the attack upon Copenhagen, and the seizure of the Danish fleet, was an event at which Englishmen ought to rejoice, because it would grieve Buonaparte. It was unwise in the noble marquis to make such a declaration; because he believed it to be entirely the reverse of what was the fact. He sincerely believed, tha Buonaparte never felt more joy at any event than what this act of ours gave h m. In that act he saw our character blended with his own. He found in it an indemnity for the past, and security for the future. The noble lord's code of political morality was the worst he had ever heard broached in that house. His desultory term 'Will o' the Wisp speech' had not put down a single argument advanced by his learned friend, to whom he felt grateful for the sentiments he had delivered. He did not feel a wish to say any thing uncivil towards the noble lord, particularly so, after the very handsome manner in which the noble lord spoke of him the evening before last. But he should have supposed, had he not known his assiduity, the noble lord had never read the papers relative to this subject. He had said that Ally Hussein had forfeited his right to the throne, inasmuch as he inherited the treason of his father. He could never have been a party to a treason which had not been communicated to him, and with which the father had not been charged in his life-time, He never knew a more monstrous attempt than this to impose on the credulity of the public. There was no analogy in this case to that of the house of the Stuarts, in which a country chose its own magistrates, which every people had a right to do; but here was an independent prince, who was an ally; and what right had any man to say, that we should dismiss from the throne of his ancestors the lawful heir to that throne, against whom no charge whatever could be made? But what became of all this argument, when the fact was, that Azeem ul Dowlah was put on the musnud over the son of a person who was actually proved to be an enemy to the British interests? The noble lord shewed the grossest ignorance of the papers; for the very correspondence he referred to was carried on with the consent of the government of Madras. As to the cypher, he appealed to the hon. baronet who had been chief justice in India, and would ask, if he would suffer a man to be convicted on such evidence [sir John Anstruther signified that he would not], he was happy to hear his hon. friend say he would not. Yet it was on such evidence, that an innocent young prince was deprived of his throne, and placed in a situation in which he lost his life. Mr. Sheridan then read some correspondence, in order to shew that the British government in India considered it as likely to be favourable to their interests, to have an intimate correspondence and connection carried on between the house of Arcot and the Mysore. It was attempted to justify this transaction, on the ground of state necessity. But this act of injustice and robbery could not be an act resulting from state necessity, because there existed no necessity for it, or at least none had been shewn, to influence their decision. The right hon. gent. next read some papers, to shew the steady attachment of the nabob to the English; and he defied any governor to say, that there existed the slightest proof of the hostility of the father or the son, except what was extracted from the trash found at Seringapatam. The arguments that had been used to prove that the nabob was considered as a vassal to the India company, were as unjust as they were unfounded. The important documents on the table put that question out of all doubt, for it would appear by an address actually signed by his majesty, countersigned by lord Cornwallis, and addressed to the nabob, dated the 13th of May, 1790, that he was considered not only as an independent sovereign, but actually called the faithful ally and friend' of the British government in India. Here the right hon. gent, read a long extract from the address alluded to, from which it likewise appeared that the very first acre of ground the English became possessed of round Madras, was acquired through the friendship of the nabob of Arcot; yet he argued, after such an unqualified declaration under his majesty's own hand, of the independency of this prince, such degrading language was to be held out! Was it to be endured for one single moment, that the rights and laws of nations were to be thus trampled upon with impunity, merely upon the alleged policy of the measure? From a very patient perusal of the very important documents on the table, they established this proposition in his mind, that there was no ground whatever for any suspicion of the faithfulness of the nabob of Arcot and his son towards the British government. There was one part of this question which he could not but consider as a great dereliction of principle in the noble marquis. It was said that he took every possible care for the protection of Ally Hussein, the deposed nabob. Could it be thought for a moment, that the deposed nabob would be safe in the hands of a man who threatened him with instant death if he ever attempted to regain the throne of his father? From these circumstances he concluded, that the young nabob was not safe in those hands. He did not feel disposed even to enter into all the motives that might have actuated the noble marquis in his conduct, and he was less disposed to argue the accusation urged against him of his being actuated by pecuniary interests in his administration; but looking at his general conduct as a governor of India, he must say there was no parallel in the history of that country which presented so unbridled an instance of insatiable ambition. The sum total of what the country knew of his conduct as governor was, that he succeeded to the government after lord Cornwallis. He found India in a great and increasing state of prosperity. He found a system of equity and economy in the public expenditure, admirably calculated for the solidity of our establishment in that country. But when he left it, he left behind him an example of the most pernicious prodigality and profuseness. When he landed, he found a disposition in the Company's servants to revere the laws, and to abide by the decrees of his majesty; but when he left it, the utmost contempt prevailed of the laws and regulations of the Company. When he went there, the native powers of India placed the utmost confidence in the faith of the British government; but he left them entertaining in their minds the most irreconcilable sentiments of disgust and enmity, on account of its treachery and oppression. In short, the result, of the noble lord's administration was this, that when he went to India, he found Great Britain without a foe, and when he departed, he left Great Britain without a friend. Upon these grounds he felt himself called upon to say thus much, not from any personal enmity to the noble marquis, but from a principle of preserving his own consistency. He took this opportunity of defending himself from the insinuation thrown out by the noble lord in the commencement of his speech, that he had departed from principle in seeming; to neglect the cause he had so strenuously undertaken to advocate on former occasions, by stating that his sentiments upon this subject had never been in the least altered from the first intimation he received of the oppression and tyrannous dethronement of the young nabob, and the subsequent information that arrived in this country of his murder. On that occasion his mind was so horrified by the atrocity of the act, that he resolved immediately to institute an inquiry into the causes of so gross a violation of the laws of civilization and humanity. Circumstances, however, had prevented him from carrying the desired object completely into effect personally. He saw no prospect then of pursuing the investigation in that administration, and from these considerations he did not press it. He had, however, moved from time to time for a great number of documents, which must remove at once every suspicion of his having cooled in the cause. He concluded by declaring his fixed determination at all times never to shrink from the task he had imposed upon himself, of representing the noble marquis's conduct in the plain and unvarnished manner in which he fully persuaded himself the various documents on the table exhibited the circumstances of his admistration to the country.

Mr. Fuller

contended, that this was a most extraordinary discussion, and made on the opposite side a question of party rather than of principle.

Dr. Laurence

supported the Resolution. The proposition of the noble lord, that this was held to be a grave question by the house, might well be doubted, if they were to judge from the manner in which they had decided upon the evidence adduced in support of the charges against the noble marquis. Upon what principle it was that the house intended to act in its decision upon this subject, he was at some, loss to conjecture. Although it might be argued in favour of the noble marquis, that he was not actuated by motives of pecuniary aggrandizement, yet there were a thousand other bad passions which might actuate a minister, equally as mischievous and destructive to the interests of a nation, as those connected with the most sordid motives. Inordinate ambition must on all hands be admitted, in a moral point of view, to be the most pernicious of all the passions that actuated the human mind. That such was the motive of the noble marquis in his administration, must depend upon what degree of credit the house would attach to the evidence of the papers on the table. In his opinion, formed upon the consideration he had given to those documents, the accusations were unanswerable. Here the learned gent, combated the arguments used to justify the policy adopted by this country towards the native powers of India. Nothing was more unjust and unprincipled, nothing was more opposite, not only to the law of nations but those of nature, than the system of oppression practised upon the unfortunate nabob of Arcot; whose rights and privileges were violated upon the most unwarranted and unjust pretence of having broken a treaty, when, in fact, the most barefaced act of tyrannical policy obtruded itself throughout the whole transaction. He related the history of the first transactions of the British government with the nabob of Arcot, until the period of his contracting his debt with them, and detailed the various pretences urged by them for increasing that debt, which he considered as the over-reaching principle which universally characterized the conduct of the India company's servants, and brought the narrative down to the period of their interposition in the affairs of the Carnatic, under die pretence of the discovery of the secret correspondence with the neighbouring potentates, for the purpose of forming a confederacy against the British interest. In considering the evidence in support of the allegation, that a violation of treaty was the ground of their interference, he contended that there was a previous determination of the government of India to adopt that measure long before any knowledge of such pretended correspondence was received, He knew of no law of nations that could warrant so unjust an interference on our part upon presumed evidence of danger. He did not deny the principle of self-preservation, as the first law of nature; but the fact of real danger must be clearly justified and substantiated, before we could presume to violate every law both human and divine. With respect to the stress laid so strongly tipon the mysterious information contained in the cypher, he argued, that there was nothing in it, if the context was considered, that could justify such a construction as that put, upon it by the advocates of the noble lord. This cypher was to be used as a breach of treaty, and consequently was not a sufficient justification for the acts of tyranny practised upon the nabob. The treaty stipulated that the nabob was not to go to war without the consent of the British government. Now, supposing even that, this correspondence did contain sentiments of a political nature, was it just or reasonable to infer that any breach of treaty with the British government was meant? He was persuaded that out of twenty letters which had passed from the nabob to the other powers, his allies, not a single phrase had been used which could attach to the nabob any violation of treaty. Taking the whole of the evidence, and the arguments upon this question urged by the gentlemen on the same, side of the house, he was decidedly of opinion that this act was not founded injustice or sound policy, which were inseparable from humanity and benevolence.

Mr. Windham

said, he was not disposed to enter into a discussion upon the merits of this question. He was restrained in doing so, not merely from the lateness of the hour, but really from a sort of despondence he entertained that any arguments which could be offered could have any weight with a majority of the house, who seemed, in opposition to reason and evidence, disposed to pass a vote rather of approbation than censure. He could not suffer the subject to pass by without making a few observations upon some of the arguments urged by the noble lord. The principle contended for by the noble lord in support of the policy of the East India company in India, reminded him of the last line of a song, written by Dr. Swift for a highwayman, 'Every man round may rob if he pleases.' In the annals of injustice, and in the annals of romance, what could be more preposterous than this principle? In alluding to the manner in which the evidence upon this subject was forced from Ally Rhezzi, it was impossible to come at the truth by such a mode of examination as that adopted on that occasion. The effect of torture was not to produce truth, but to produce only that which the person inflicting torture wished to be told. The construction put upon this evidence reminded him of a passage in the works of lord Shaftesbury, in reference to torture, that he would produce, out of the words, 'My son Tommy has got the piles,' a very good plot against the house of Hanover. He regretted extremely that the house had not the aid of his learned friend (the solicitor-general) on this side of the motion, who made so great a figure on the trial of Mr. Hastings; but, it would seem, the principle by which we were to be guided, was that the natives of India had no rights, that we had no duties, and that all was to depend upon the decision of our majorities. He firmly believed, that for the enormities committed by the British power in India, in all the enormities under all the successive variations of the French Revolution, and by no means recently under Buonaparte, no parallel was to be found. If, then, they could not find a parallel in Europe for the enormities committed in India, how could it be supposed that the votes of the house of commons were to effect any reformation? He would wish he could separate the man from the conduct, but, unfortunately, both must be taken together. As to the motives of the noble, marquis, what was the use of any enquiry about them? A man might have a motive to get money for his family, a laudable one to be sure; but, then, if the motive were carried into effect by a violation of all justice, were we to excuse him for his motives? The right hon. gent, concluded by lamenting most sincerely what had happened; lamenting that men in the situation he saw could be found to defend it; and lamenting more than all, that a British parliament should sanction it. They were not to look at this affair with the eyes of others; the papers were before them, and from the decision they gave thereon, the world would pronounce sentence upon them.

Sir Thomas Turton

, in reply, answered the charges of mismanagement of the cause, that had been brought against him. It was said, that in opening the question, he had made use of violent language and personal invective. He referred to the annals of parliament, and defied any member to produce an instance where such a cause had ever been introduced with less of either. He had never said, as had been asserted, that no man ever returned from India either honourable or honest. It was only in illustrating the position he laid down, when expressing his surprise that Europeans, who acted with the strictest regard to justice in all their transactions in their own quarter of the globe, should act so differently in India, that he quoted the authority of Mr. Burke, who said, that Europeans were unbaptized in crossing the equinoctial. He had the utmost personal respect for the noble marquis; but what he had ever expressed in that house, and out of it, was a decided disapprobation of the measures he pursued during his administration in India. He could not agree with the noble lord, that such discussions as the present were calculated to produce ill effects; if they were so, however, it could only be from the decision they called forth. The hon. baronet then went at some length into the state of Indian affairs, and contended that there was no truth in what had been said, that the nabobs of the Carnatic had been raised by us from the dust; on the contrary, when we assisted them, it was not for their sake, but for our own, and in order to expel the French from their extensive territories. What had been the defence offered for this atrocious act? atrocious he should always consider it, and so must every one who read the papers divested of party feelings. A trumpery pretence of evidence, and not even a state necessity shewn. As for the cypher, it was too ridiculous to merit mention. He cordially agreed with the noble lord, that British justice and policy ought ever to be the same, and if this could not be defended on the ground of justice, it ought to meet with condemnation. He then put it to the breasts of gentlemen opposite, to the breast of the house and of the country, if they could read these papers, and conscientiously say there was any justice in this case, or rather if there had not been most atrocious injustice. He had never known before that it was the custom of Britons to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children; but here they had gone much further, for the ancestors of Ally Hussein had not even been convicted; yet the grandson was condemned to pay the forfeiture. As to the treatment received by the prince, all he asked was, that it might be investigated. He pledged himself to prove much more than what he had stated to the house, and to bring forward witnesses who would far exceed in description of these melancholy circumstances all that had been imputed to his warmth in narrating. He had been blamed for speaking harshly of the commissioners, without deserving any such censure. All that he had said was, that they cold-bloodedly dragged the prince from the death-bed of his parent, to answer the interrogatories they had to put to him. In applying this epithet, he had spoken of their office, and not of themselves personally; and if they were, as he had no doubt from the representation of the hon. colonel opposite (Allan), honourable and upright men, he gave them his hearty commiseration for the painful duty imposed upon them, which, in executing it to the satisfaction of their employers, must have filled them with horror and disgust.—He now came to the policy of the measures. What had we gained at the grand expence of loss of honour and breach of national faith? Our tributaries had been made slaves and our allies foes. We had placed Azeera ul Dowlah on the throne, in utter disregard to the Mahometan laws, and in disregard to the just and prior claims of the two nearest heirs. We had stolen from one, borrowed from another, and stripped a third, till we had augmented our territory, and increased the number of our subjects by 20 millions, but our debt had increased 20 millions during the same time, and for seven millions of annual acquired revenue, we had involved ourselves in 16 millions annual expence. We had made every man in India our enemy, and if an adverse army found its way to the East, such was our situation there, he was afraid our dominion would be overthrown. To whom could we apply? Not to the Mahrattas, or any of the native powers who maintained their independence. We might truly say, "Timeo Danaos, et dona fercntes.'—After we had made them as miserable as we could; after we had dethroned their princes, expatriated their nobles, hanged their chiefs at the doors of their castles; and when we had no further evil in our power, we turned to attack their institutions and prejudices. Those venerable errors, which, if we believed Pliny and others, subsisted 2,000 years ago, could not be suffered to remain; and the conquerors of Seringapatam and Laswarry were found to be dangerous from the cut of their whiskers, or the dangling of their ear-rings. He knew not how it would be received by the country, that such a weighty and important enquiry as this, involving all that was dear or desirable to Britons, had been met by previous questions instead of broad and ample discussion. He sincerely wished ministers had delivered their opinions, and not thrown their broad shield over such a subject. The people would not suffer it to be done, and he was sure, whatever the majority might be within doors, there would be a very great majority in the country in favour of his opinion. As for the personal motives, he never imputed any to the noble marquis. He did not suppose that even avarice would have tempted him to such a course. But there was an avarice of ambition as well as of wealth, and the conduct of an individual, pursuing what he conceived to be for the glory of his country, might be as dangerous and unjust as if he was actuated by worse motives. Did gentlemen know the state of the press in India? No one could know what was doing at his own door, without the permission of government, If, therefore, the state of Indian affairs; could not be made known in India, let them see that it could be openly declared in England. Let the people of that country see the freedom and impartiality of a British parliament, and let us not turn them away from our doors disappointed. He called on the house to pause before it came to a vote, and consider well the greatness of the stake depending on their determination. He expressed his regret that, possessing neither the weight of ministers nor of the opposite party, nor, more than all, of talents, he had been so weak an advocate in the cause. He had not, however, come unprepared before them, but had made these matters the subject of his most unremitting study, and cams forward actuated by a strong sense of justice, and an ardent desire to procure atonement to suffering India.

The gallery wad now cleared, and the house divided:

For the Resolution. 19
Against it. 97
Majority. —78

Mr. Wallace

then rose, and said, that after what had passed on this and former discussions, it was unnecessary for him to introduce the Resolution which he was now-going to move, with any preface; he should content himself simply with moving the following Resolution: Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this house, that the marquis Wellesley and the earl Powis, in their conduct relative to the Carnatic, appear to have been influenced solely by motives of anxious zeal and solicitude for the permanent security, welfare, and prosperity of the British possessions in India."

Sir James Hall

said, that he only differed from the right hon. gent, who had made this motion in thinking that it did not go far enough; it was high time that parliament should do that justice to this illustrious character, which the meanest, the most degraded subject of our laws had a right to demand. After submitting the conduct of the noble marquis to the severest scrutiny, during a long course of years, and after deciding, by very great majorities, that he had done nothing wrong, the house was bound to grant him a deliverance, not only to free him from the present charge, but to protect him from ail future attempts on similar grounds. It would become the justice, the honour, the gentleman like feeling of the house to do a great deal more; not only to clear the character of the noble marquis from blame, but also to declare their high opinion of the services he had rendered his country, in such a manner as to revive the recollection of those services, which seemed to be in a measure forgotten. If the consequence of such a declaration were to be what a right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) had deprecated, were the noble marquis raised to a high station in the ministry, he should rejoice in the experiment, by which there was reason to expect, that our councils at home might be animated by that astonishing efficiency which had shone so conspicuously in his Indian administration.

Sir Thomas Turton

said he had a trifling-amendment to propose, which was to leave out the words after the word 'influenced,' and to insert the following words: 'By a desire to extend the British territories in India, in contempt of all treaties, and in violation of the national character.'

Mr. S. Lushington

supported the motion.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald

felt extreme uneasiness in giving a vote on so personal a subject, but with all his esteem for the private character of marquis Wellesley, and looking only to his politics as a public officer in India, he must give his vote against the Resolution.

The house then divided: for the Amendment 19; against it 98.—Majority 79.

Mr. Wallace then moved the original question of the Vote of Approbation. Upon which,

Mr. Howorth

addressed the Speaker thus: Sir; the house is called upon to determine on the noble lord's motives: there is no human tribunal competent to decide on them. The merits of the noble lord must be tried by his actions: if you try him by the fundamental Resolutions of this house, or by the laws of his country, shew me the resolution or the law which he has not violated. If you try him by the opinions of the Directors, there is scarcely an act of his government which they have not condemned, and given such reasons for their opinions, as were unanswerable, and therefore they were suppressed: if you try the noble lord by the effects of his government, let us look at the results: at home, irretrievable ruin; look to India, you find there a territorial revenue of fifteen millions, falling short of the expences of its establishments upwards of two millions annually, loaded with a debt of thirty-two millions, encreasing daily; the native powers of India disaffected; their minds alarmed with jealous apprehensions of our ambitious encroachments; disgusted with our humiliating control; disgusted with the disgraceful subor- dination in which they have been placed; and, in this last instance, of our perfidious policy to the miserable victim of our rapacity, the unfortunate Hussein Ali; disgusted with the baseness of our ingratitude, the mass of Mahomedans in the Carnatic are seeking only for a period to their sufferings, in the subversion of the British government; and even your Sepoy establishment, the last native resource you had to trust to, ready to take up arms against you: every financial resource exhausted; not a rupee in your treasuries: this, sir, is the state into which lord Wellesley's mal-administration brought India: this is the state in which he left it, and this is the state in which lord Cornwallis found it. The noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh), has repeatedly introduced the name of lord Cornwallis into the debate of this night. I would ask the noble lord, I would ask any member of the house, for what reason, for what purpose, was such a man as lord Cornwallis, at his advanced period of life, not merely cabled upon, but solicited, entreated, as one of the greatest services he could render to his country, to again undertake the government of India? Was such a man wanted to pursue the system, and tread in the steps of lord Wellesley? No, sir, he was sent out for very different purposes. Does the house know how that lamented nobleman was employed from the first moment of his arrival at Calcutta, to the latest period of his existence? He was employed, sir, in reversing every measure, in cutting down every political act of his predecessor, in endeavouring to repair, or at least to put a stop to, the universal mischiefs produced by the measures of lord Wellesley. This house voted a monument to lord Cornwallis. If you approve of the conduct of lord Wellesley, be consistent, at least, and begin where, on this principle, you ought to begin, by ordering lord Cornwallis's monument to be pulled down, and then on its ruins you may erect a statue to lord Wellesley: but, at last, we are told, that the noble lord's motives were always good, that his zeal to serve the Company was always ardent: I have already said, there is no human tribunal can take cognizance of his conscience or penetrate into his motives, abstractedly from his conduct. In my mind, sir, the noble lord has done all with his eyes open, caring, as it seems, but little for the consequences; secure of protection here; and so he has found it; but before this house proceeds to pass a vote which as an hon. director (Mr. Grant) has told you, will be attended with incalculable mischief in India, I trust it will reflect, and I call upon his majesty's ministers, before they lend their aid to a measure so pregnant with disgrace to the British name and character, to reflect on those duties which they owe to their sovereign, to their country, and, in truth, to their own characters. I thank the house for the indulgence it has shewn me, I shall trespass no longer, but shall give my decided negative to the present question.— The house then divided,

For the Vote of Application. 98
Against it. 19
Majority. —79
List of Members who voted in the Minorities.
Astell, W. Martin, H.
Creevey, T. Moore, P.
Fitzgerald, M. Ossulston, lord
Folkestone, lord Romilly, sir S.
Grant, C. Sheridan, R. B.
Hamilton, lord A. Smith, W.
Horner, F. Smith, G.
Howorth, H. Turton, sir T.
Johnstone, G. Western, C. C.
Lushington, S. Whitbread, S.
Laurence, F. Windham, W.