Sitting of 11 March 1806

MINUTES.
Mr. Irwininspector-general of imports and exports, presented an account of all the duties on, customs,charged and outstanding, on the 5th of Jan. 1805 and 1806 respectively distinguishing the permanent and temporary duties.—The Irish Clergy Residence bill was read a second time.—Mr. Tierney presented a petition from the debtors confined in the Marshalsea. —Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the American treaty act, and obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue, for a time to be limited, the act of the 37th of his majesty, for carrying into effect the treaty of amity, navigation, and commerce with the united states of America.—Sir Charles Bunbury presented a petition from the maltsters of the county of Suffolk; as did Mr. Mordaunt one from those of the county of Warwick, and of the county of the city of Coventry, praying relief from the restrictions imposed by the 42d of his majesty.—Mr. Rose presented a petition from the trustees of the British Museum, praying the annual parliamentary grant. Mr. Rose then moved, that there be laid before the house an account of the expenditure of the British Museum for the last year. Ordered. —The secretary at war brought up the Mutiny bill, which was read a first time.—Mr. H. Parnell was, on the motion of lord H. Petty, added to the committee for investigating the joint accounts of Great Britain and Ireland.

IRISH CATHOLICS.
Mr. Dillonrose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Fox), with a view to learn the future intentions of that right hon, gent. with respect to the claims of a large portion of his majesty's subjects in Ireland. In doing this, he was not actuated by any wish to embarrass his majesty's ministers, or by motives of idle curiosity. Rumours had gone abroad of a very extraordinary change of sentiments having taken place in certain quarters, on the subject of the claims of the catholics of Ireland. It was also rumoured, that the great body of the catholics had acquiesced in this change of opi-

405
nion. It was of the utmost importance to the tranquillity of Ireland that this subject should be set at rest one way or the other, and he trusted the right hon. gent. would relieve him front his suspense on the subject.
Mr. Secretary Foxspoke to the following effect: Really the question of the hon. gent. is so extremely vague that I cannot pretend to answer it, for I confess that I do not distinctly understand it. The hon. gent. has talked of some rumours afloat as to an alteration of opinion respecting the catholics, among those who formerly supported them; but as I do not know to whom he alludes, I cannot give him a precise answer. But with regard to the rumour that the catholic body have acquiesced in the reported alteration respecting their claims, I should rather ask the hon. gent. himself upon that point. So far as I am concerned in this question, whenever it conies under discussion, I shall he perfectly ready to state my opinion, and all I think it necessary to say as to my future conduct is to refer to a consideration of my past. I cannot, however, hesitate to state, that if any gentleman were to ask my advice as to the propriety of bringing forward the catholic claims at present, I should recommend him to take into consideration the prospect of success, and the greater probability of succeeding this year or the next; at the same time to bear in mind the issue of last year's discussion. In the part which I took upon that occasion, I was actuated by the strongest sense of duty—but at present I do not feel myself obliged to say any thing more upon the subject.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
Lord Ossulstonrose to make his promised motion with respect to the Debt of the East-India company. After some preliminary observations, his lordship stated, that in the year 1793, it appeared that the debt of the East-India company bearing interest, was about 7 million, which it was proposed to reduce to 2 million; that in order to do this, a power was given, by the act of 1793, to the different presidencies in India to grant bills in favour of the creditors of the company on the court of directors to the amount of 500,000 l. annually, and no more, for the purpose of transferring or, in other words, liquidating this debt; that is to say, it being determined to be a matter of policy and expedience, that the debt should be reduced, in order to carry this into effect in the manner the most beneficial to the company, instead of applying to this pur-
406
pose so much of the surplus revenue in the first instance, the whole of that surplus was allowed to be laid out in an investment, out of the profits arising from the sale of which, the court of directors were to set apart the sum of 500,000 l. annually to answer such bills as should be drawn by the government in India to the amount and for the purpose specified in the act.—That since this year 1793, it appeared that bills had been-drawn to the amount of not less than 8 millions. Whether they had been granted to the creditors of the company, and had therefore gone in liquidation of the debt, he could not say; if so, the only difference would be that, in that case, the amount of debt contracted would be by so much the larger than would otherwise appear to be the fact; but so it was, that so far from the debt having been actually reduced, it had swollen from 7 to nearly 30 millions; and of this 30 millions he was further informed, (to ascertain which, was the object of his motion,) that a considerable part, he was afraid to say how much, had been contracted upon terms which entitled the holder of the loan to go to the treasury at Calcutta,and receive,on demand, bills upon the court of directors payable 12 months after date according to the mode in which bills are usually drawn from India. —That this was the case, his lordship said he had no manner of doubt. He had heard it front authority which he could not question, and it had been admitted by every one with whom he had conversed on the subject. He was moreover confirmed by a publication which he held in his hand, the Calcutta Monthly Journal for the month of May, 1805, in which, as well as many others of different dates, he found a regular Government Notification of a loan in which this condition is distinctly stated. After saying that "the public are hereby informed that the sub-treasurer at the presidency, &c. have been authorized to receive any sums of money," &c. it goes on to say, "the principal of the promissory notes shall be payable either in Bengal under the rules established for the payment of the register debt now existing, or by bills to be drawn by the governor-general in council, on the hon. court of directors; which bills shall be granted at any time on the application of the proprietor of the notes, either when the principal shall have become payable in Bengal, or at any earlier period."—Taking for granted, then, that this has seen the mode of proceeding, the next question

407
was, whether it has been with or without the authority of the court of directors?—If without their authority, it was as far as he could understand, though it was not the question of law, but the matter of fact which he wished to establish, directly in the face of the 110th clause of the act of 1793, which provides, "that nothing in this act shall extend to authorize any of the governments in India to grant bills for the purpose of transferring or remitting the said debts from India to Great Britain, to become due and payable within any one year, exceeding in amount the sum of 500,000 l. unless by the special order and authority of the court of directors of the said company, for that purpose first had and Obtained."—To issue, therefore, promissory notes exchangeable at the pleasure of the holder for bills on the court of directors, provided the amount of such promissory notes exceeded the sum of 500,000 l. in any one year, he contended to be against the express provisions and meaning of this act. Without, therefore, the authority of the court of directors, this proceeding was illegal; if it was with their authority, which it was impossible to believe, he should be at loss how to reconcile it with the duty they owed to their constituents the court of proprietors, and to the faithful discharge of the important trusts committed to their hands.—In what manner this accumulation of debt had taken place, formed no part of his present purpose. Whether it had arisen from war, which could hardly be the case, because since the year 1793, with the exception of the Marhatta war, there had been but one war in India, that against Tippoo, which lasted a few .months and which paid its own expences; or whether, which was more credible, it had arisen from the expence of civil and military establishments constantly exceeding the revenue derived from that accession of territory which had rendered these additional establishments necessary, however this might be, as to the origin of the debt, if the amount and nature of it was such as he had described, if only a small portion of the amount stated to him, had been contracted upon the terms he imagined, and that the East-India company were liable to be drawn upon any day to an amount infinitely beyond all imagination of their means to pay, it was unnecessary to put to the house what was the situation of the East-India company, and what was the extent of mischief which might possibly arise.—It was with a view
408
to ascertain this fact, as well as to afford an opportunity for interposing timely measures of prevention, if any such could be found, that he should move, "that there be laid before this house, a return of the debts of the East-India company in India from January 1794, up to the latest period; specifying the terms and dates of the several loans, together with the rate of interest, and when and where the principal and interest of the said loans are payable."
Lord Morpethexpressed a wish that his noble friend would withdraw his motion, assuring him that it was the intention of ministers to lay before the house the fullest possible information with respect to the affairs of India. In conformity with this intention the noble lord stated, that he would, in a very few days, submit a motion for a return of all the debts of the India company, the loans contracted by the several presidencies, and the terms upon which they were made, distinguishing such loans as bore interest, from those which did not, with the terms of interest, when and where payable, &c. up to the latest period. Such an account he believed, would answer better than that moved for, the object his noble friend professed to have in view. There was an additional reason for acceding to a short delay, and it was this, that it would enable those concerned in the immediate superintendance of Indian affairs to collect more accurate information which they would be most probably enabled to do by farther arrivals.
Lord Ossulstonassented to the request of his noble friend.
Mr. Francisnot to take any part in the discussion of this subject, but merely to say, that there was one question connected with the finances of India, to which, notwithstanding his general resolution, as the house had heard, he felt himself bound, and that was the loan made by the government of Bombay to Gwicowar. Upon this loan, however, he should reserve his sentiments, until all the promised documents should be laid before the house, and until the India budget should be brought forward for discussion.
Lord Folkestonewas glad that the attention of the house had been called to the important interests of India, and thought many good effects would be likely to arise from this circumstance. He hoped that the documents promised by the noble member of the board of controul, would be speedily brought forward,and prove fully satisfactory.
Lord Templereferring to the notice which had been postponed by Mr. Paull, took occasion to state, that the hon. member was now called upon in candour and fairness to lord Wellesley, to state the nature of the charge, which it was his intention to bring forward on Friday, pursuant to his notice.—Mr. Paull said he should decline giving the noble lord any answer on the subject. Lord Ossulston's motion was then, with the leave of the house, withdrawn.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
Mr. Paullrose and spoke as follows;—Though irregular to allude to what passed on any former occasion in this house, still, sir, the occurrences of last night, will render it necessary for me to obtrude on the present occasion, at infinitely greater length than I had any intention of doing. The;house must have observed, that I have had two distinct objects in introducing the affairs of India to its notice. One, sir, an earnest anxiety to bring the whole system of our Indian empire once more under the consideration of parliament,. system which threatens the national prosperity; and the other to prosecute to conviction, if possible, the person to whom I impute all the dangers that now threaten our existence abroad and in this country.—For the first, I could have incurred no obloquy, might have earned some applause from the display of my knowledge, and have made few enemies; but, in the second I was fully aware of the dangers. I had a beacon in the example afforded me in the managers of Mr. Hastings's impeachment calling out to me to beware! I knew I should have to contend, a new, unconnected individual, with obstacles of the most formidable nature. I knew, sir, I should. not be able to sail with wind and tide, but:that I should have to encounter every thing that power, rank, wealth, prejudice, and talent, could throw in my way. These, though no slight obstacles, I was prepared to meet; but I have met with others that I did not reckon on; and as I hold the character and motives of an accuser as his fairest claims to confidence or reprobation, I must, sir, on the present occasion claim the attention of the house on my own account a few moments, whilst I state my motives and conduct; this task once performed, I shall proceed in the way I have imposed upon myself, undismayed by numbers; and hereafter the shafts of malice and slander shall pass by me like the idle wind that I regard not.
410
—Conscious of the rectitude of my own motives, I believed no man could dare to question them; but I favour reckoned too favourably of human nature, and it was not without a mixture of honest indignation and surprise, that I found within the walls of this house, not only surmises as to the motives that stimulated me to stand forth as the accuser of lord Wellesley, not only have these motives been misrepresented, but others assigned, as ungenerous and despicable as they are unjust and untrue. No sooner did I repel the insinuation that I was in any manner or form connected with the nabob of Oude or with any potentate on the peninsula of India, and appealed to the noble lord (Wellesley) himself for the truth of the fact, than it was asserted I must have been injured by that noble lord, who must have thwarted some scheme of my ambition or interposed between me and the attainment of some favourite object. Now, sir, for the last time, I repeat in this house, that to lord Wellesley I have not nor never had, any sentiment of animosity personally, except that proceeding from the detestation of his conduct and principles, and it so happens from an extraordinary circumstance, that my character and the independence of my principles are better known to lord Wellesley and his private secretary, than to any other men in existence; and if I felt a necessity of bringing any man to this bar to vouch for them, it would be that noble lord himself. On this subject I beg the noble lord under me (lord Temple) not to force me to be more explicit, for if that noble lord does not already know it,
I could to him even (prejudiced as he is) 'unfold a tale,' and to the house that would insure me the support and approbation of every liberal mind- in the kingdom, but with the declaration I have made, I shall rest satisfied for the present, disclaiming as I again do, any motives but those of a public nature for my conduct to lord Wellesley.—Last night an hon. gent. opposite to me (Mr. Johnstone) whom I am happy to see in his place, made a declaration that certainly excited my utmost astonishment, The annals of parliament and the voice of the country fully establish the fact, that that gentleman was the original accuser of my lord Wellesley, and although I certainly impute no improper motives to this seeming dereliction of sentiment on the part of the hon. gent. still I must certainly state this as one of the many unaccountable circum-

411
stances that have attended the investigation of the conduct of lord Wellesley.—The hon. gent. with whom spent many of the happiest years of my life, certainly never stimulated me to accuse my lord Wellesley, but as to the opinion of his guilty conduct there never was a difference of sentiment between us. It is true, the hon. gent. and myself are not on those terms of intimacy and friendship we once felt for each other. We have differed however on no political sentiment, or on account of any thing connected with lord Wellesley; still I think it would have been but candid and fair in the hon. gent, to have stated to me explicitly that he meant to lay on his oars and to take the safe course he has adopted. The papers however he moved for last night, bring before the public "cause and effect," and having established by his reprobation of eight treaties, the pernicious system of lord Wellesley, he has done more service to the cause of justice and to me than any support he could have bestowed in bringing to conviction this ambitious and misguided nobleman.—But a declaration made by a right hon. gent. (Mr. secretary Fox) is of an importance that cannot escape without some most serious observation. My respect, my esteem, my veneration for that revered, enlightened, and highly. respected character, make me the more deeply deplore his declaration of last night—he has stated all idea of retrospect to be out of the question. Where then, are we to look for a change of system, where is our fast hold on sir George Barlow, or any other Indian governor, if a solemn enquiry is not instituted? I presume to say that the declaration of that truly great character has damped the spirit of every friend of freedom, and every friend of justice. What, said the hon, gent. was the pale, emaciated, worn-out frame of Mr. Hastings dragged to the bar for vengeance by political opponents or for example! Now the right hon. gent. has said—(here Mr. Paull was reminded by the speaker that he was not quite in order in noticing to the house what passed on a former debate) the hon. gent. bowed and proceeded to the statement of the charge he had given notice of.—I shall proceed, said he, to lay the grounds for the charge I mean to bring against lord Wellesley, and if I abstain from any terms on this stage of the business that can be considered as objectionable by any man, it will not be out of compliment to the delicate
412
ears and fine feelings of a right hon. gent, (Mr. H. Addington) who on another occasion volunteered a good deal of advice; not, sir, out of any dread of the reprehension of the noble lord (Temple) under me, who is so ready on every occasion to throw the broad shield of his protection and that of his family over the late governor-general of India.—To the southward of Mulrah and Agrah on the peninsula of Hindostan is a native prince called the Rajah of Bhurtpore, and though his fortress of that name has not yet found its way into the map, both his own name and that of his citadel will be remembered in the annals of India, of the British power, and in the annals of the English army when the battle of Placey, of Delhi, and Laswarie shall fail to excite interest in the page of history.—His first character and connection with the English nation I shall give in the words of lord Wellesley, and which I read to the house last night, and his fatal renown from the records of his gallant but unsuccessful opponent lord Lake. Previous to the commencement of hostilities against Dowlat Rai Scindia and the Rajah of Berar, as appears from the notes of lord Wellesley to lord Lake in the Marhatta papers, the friendship and alliance of this chieftain were appreciated as of the highest importance, and lord Lake was instructed to gain them at any price.—But the Carnatic, Oude, Furruskarbad, Surat, Bundlechand, Hyderabad, Pomah, and Rohillehund, all exemplified, that short is the span between a treaty and the seizure of a province; and the prince of Bhurtpore before the commencement of hostilities refused on any terms or on any account to have any connection with the East-India company.—On the 4th of Sept. 1803, lord Lake carried the Fort of Alle Ghur by assault, and the faithless, unprincipled surrender of Perron the French general of Scindia, in the Douaub and the battle of Delhi, brought the victorious general and his gallant army into the country of Bhurtpore. Promises and threats were alternately held out, and in an evil hour this hitherto happy, highly respected, and fortunate prince signed the treaty I shall read to the house. A fortunate succession of events subdued for a time the spirit of Scindia, and the other confederated chieftains who purchased a peace, by the surrender of their most valuable provinces. In a very short time however, Holkar appeared in the field with an army of upwards of

413
50,000 men, and in his approach to invade the British dominions, he reached Bhurtpore, to which it is now said he was invited by the once respectable, and highly esteemed, but now the treacherous and contemptible character the Rajah of that country. I trust the gentlemen of this house have I not one set of principles and morality for England, and one for India, which however, I very much suspect they have; therefore admitting, which however is not yet proved, that the moment this prince became connected with England, he, belying his former character, tarnished all the acts of his past life, that he became the most profligate, perjured, abandoned, treacherous wretch that he is represented to have become, will even that conduct excuse in India, a war of vengeance and an ignominious peace! I answer, sir, no; but, be the Rajah's character what it may, be his former character true or false, he his treachery real or fictitious, that Holkar obtained supplies and assistance in the Bhurtpore country I readily admit, and the noble lord (Temple) may make the most of the admission.—In a short space, however, Holkar was defeated and his forces dispersed, and it was then that lord Wellesley determined on an act of singular and most sanguinary vengeance, and without example in ancient or modern times, unless in the recent instance of Buonaparte to the ill-fated king of Naples; who, too, is accused by the French emperor of treachery and foul play! Now, sir, the conduct of Naples is exactly in point. The king made a treaty, broke it, and invited the English and Russians to come into his dominions, and to aid him against France; so did the prince of Bhurtpore to Holkar, it is alleged: but will any Englishman say that the conduct of either merited extermination and ruin? It is said too, that the Rajah's troops turned upon our own forces and joined the enemy. Let the noble lord (Temple) avail himself of this further admission, and it will only prove, that lord Wellesley's system has, revolutionized the nature of the mild Hindoo and excited a thirst for blood, unknown before. I admit the fact, I believe it, and that Hindoo and Mussulman, that all ranks of the natives, all casts, all conditions, are ripe for revolt acid vengeance, against their oppressors. Lord Cornwallis confesses the fact, though in milder terms, and to recover what however is lost for ever, he was willing to surrender all but our honour. Instead of endeavouring to reclaim
414
this guilty and, infatuated prince, as he is represented, whose alliance lord Wellesley had courted, and whose character and example on other powers a few fleeting months before he rated and stated so highly, instead of manifesting to the minds of irritated India, that mercy, forbearance, magnanimity and justice, were the characteristics of a Christian governor, lord Wellesley determined on extermination and vengeance, and lord Lake was ordered to advance for the easy annihilation, as it was supposed, of his seemingly unequal opponent! No terms short of unconditional surrender being proposed, this prince determined to repel the assailants or to bury himself and his family and friends in one common ruin.—The account of the different assaults made by lord Lake and the different overtures made by the Rajah it is unnecessary to state, but the particulars of the sanguinary assault on the 22d of February after the British army had been 61 days before Bhurtpore, I shall read to the house. (here the hon. gent. read lord Lake's accounts of the 4 assaults)—On the 108th day after the commencement of the siege on the 9th of April 1805, six weeks after the last assault, lord Lake after a loss of 4000 of our best troops, and 116 of our best and most gallant officers, concluded a shameful and disgraceful peace, with, as he is represented, this abandoned, faithless and profligate prince, under the walls of that fort, where had withered the laurels of our brave troops, and when the reputation of our gallant army was completely and unnecessarily sacrificed. For having thus tarnished the. British name and character, for the waste of blood and reputation occasioned by this sanguinary war of vengeance, I accuse lord Wellesley, and to lay the grounds for a charge of high crimes and misdemeanours, I shall conclude, sir, with moving, "1. That there be laid before this house, a Copy of a Treaty concluded by general Lake (now lord Lake) commander in chief of the forces, and afterwards ratified by marquis Wellesley, late governor general of India, and a prince of Hindostan, called the Rajah of Bhurtpore, dated the 29th Sept. 1803. 2. Copies of all applications from the Bengal govt., or those acting under its authority, demanding, explanation and satisfaction previous to the commencement of hostilities, and the answers to such applications. 3. A Copy of the declaration of war against that prince, 4. A Copy all letters from lord Lake,

415
or those acting under his authority, to lord Wellesley, or the Bengal govt.; and from lord Wellesley, or the govt., to the British Commander in chief, relating to the Rajah of Bhurtpore, previous to the signing of the treaty of 1803, and from that period to the commencement of the war against that chieftain. 5. Copies of any terms or conditions offered by the British govt. to prevent the war; and as indemnification for any imputed injury sustained by the British interests in India from the Bhurtpore Rajah. 6. Copies of all overtures made from time to time by the Bhurtpore Rajah to the British commander in chief, for terminating the war, and the answers to such overtures. 7. Copies of the returns of the killed, wounded, and missing, in the various assaults made to storm the fortress of Bhurtpore, together with the casualties of the army during the siege; and the communications made publicly and privately by lord Lake on these occasions to the Bengal govt. 8. Copy of the treaty of peace between the Bengal govt. and the prince of Bhurtpore, with the communications made on that event to the court of directors, or select committee, on that occasion."
Lord Templeobserved, that the narrow ground on which the hon. gent. had proceeded, had made it an easy thing to answer him; but when he had brought forward charges as they were called, against so considerable, and so meritorious a character, as that of the marquis Wellesley, he should have stated the grounds on which they were to be founded; and he should also have taken the trouble of perusing those papers, which he said, would substantiate them, before he made those charges; if he had, the noble lord said he would venture to assert, it would have convinced the hon. member of the impropriety of his conduct. That he had not taken this course, was to be lamented, on account of what was due to the house, as well as to the noble marquis; for he would venture to assert, without the least fear of contradiction, that when all the papers which had been called for should appear upon the table, and came to tell their own story, there would be found not the least pretence for charging the noble marquis with any misconduct; on the contrary he would deserve praise. He hoped, therefore, that all the papers would be granted, and that there was no formal objection to their production. and he was not aware of any. By
416
them it would appear, that the marquis Wellesley was so far from waging with the Rajah of Bhurtpore a war of extermination, or having a thirst of blood, that he conducted himself with a forbearance and moderation to which that prince was by no means entitled. It was said that the treaty of peace, a copy of which was now called for, was presented to the Rajah at the point of the bayonet. This assertion again would be completely refuted when the papers appeared upon the table; for they would prove that at the breaking out of the war with Holkar, in 1803, the Rajah expressed a desire to unite with the British interest, and a treaty was entered upon with him early in the year 1803, and concluded and ratified in the following September. The hon. member had alluded to three of the articles of that treaty: he would tell him there was a fourth, which was that the contracting parties should afford to each other the aid of troops in the event of the invasion of their territories. This treaty was agreed upon between lord Wellesley and the Rajah of Bhurtpore, and he was to furnish a considerable force of cavalry to act in conjunction with the British; upon which the British government thought themselves justified in making a cession of territory to the Rajah, giving him a revenue equal to one third of all his own. Whether this looked like a treaty forced upon the Rajah at the point of the bayonet, the house might judge when the papers came before it. When the war with Holkar broke out in the month of March, a correspondence was detected between the Rajah of Bhurtpore and Holkar, which had for its object the overthrow of the British power, and driving the British entirely from India; in which plan the Rajah was to have a considerable concern. A copy of this correspondence was sent to lord Wellesley in July, and yet this noble lord, who was said to be a person seeking blood and waging a war of extermination, would be found to have observed a moderation and humanity, the most remarkable, for by some of the correspondence now called for, it would appear, that the noble marquis, even after this detection of the treachery of the Rajah, did not allow him to be punished, considering that he was in the hands of others; but ordered that those who advised him to this act of perfidy, whenever discovered, should be punished in an exemplary manlier; but as to the Rajah, the noble marquis considered that he might have been

417
misguided and deceived by wicked councils, and therefore ordered that no punishment should fall on him; consequently he directed lord Lake to endeavour to discover who the advisers of the Rajah were, but not to punish him in any respect; to warn him, however, of what he was about; to tell him it was not the wish of the East-India company to interfere with his territory or his concerns; but to call on him to dismiss the agents who had so misguided him. This was another of the proofs of the war of extermination, which the hon. gent. imputed to marquis Wellesley. My lord Lake acted on his instructions and left directions with gen. Frazer to abide by the same line of conduct, not to attack the Rajah of Bhurtpore, or bring on a war with him, but if attacked, to resist; but the Rajah cut the matter short, for, not content with his correspondence with the enemy, he himself began the war, and commenced an attack upon us. The first direct act of hostility was committed on the part of the Rajah, whose fortress of Deeg afforded a protection to the remains of Holkar's army, and fired upon the British troops, which enabled Holkar to carry off a great part of his army, and place his artillery in that fortress. After the fort of Deeg was taken, and, notwithstanding the several unsuccessful attacks on Bhurtpore, the Rajah at last came to his senses, and was glad to conclude a peace, by which he agreed to pay to the company 20 lacks of rupees in 4 years, and the company guaranteed him his territories. He was also bound to keep no Frenchmen or Europeans in his army. On these conditions, the conquered countries, and even the fort of Deeg itself, had been since restored to him. In all these transactions, he could perceive nothing of that implacable vengeance which was imputed by the hon. member to the noble marquis. His lordship said, it was not then the time for him to go further into this subject; he wished to wait till the papers in question should be laid upon the table, as they would not only support the statement he had made, but display the conduct of the noble marquis to have been moderate and forbearing in the highest degree.
Mr. Paullsaid, he had quoted the treaty such as he found it in the Mahratta papers, and sent home by lord Wellesley, and could not be accused of a want of fairness in not reading what really had never been given to the house.
Mr. Johnstonesaid, he was sorry that it had been thought worth while to advert to any thing that had passed between himself and the hon, mover; and he would have said nothing about the matter, had it not been that his silence might lead the house to imagine that he really had encouraged the hon. gent. in his proceedings in this business. In fact, he had dissuaded him from becoming a candidate for that, of which he (Mr. J.) was set down as the representative, and afterwards from following up these charges. He did not say, however, that these were fundamentally wrong, but he thought this proceeding, under all the circumstances, inexpedient. both as far as regarded the hon. gent. and himself. His own reasons for not coming forward with any such charges were, first, the impossibility which he foresaw of procuring redress for the wrongs of a prince of India (the nabob of Oude), to whom he was much attached, which attachment, perhaps, rendered him incapable of conducting the affair with impartiality; 2dly, the suspicions that might arise, that he could not judge fairly and candidly in the case of lord Wellesley; and 3dly, the treachery of which the Rajah of Bhurtpore had been guilty, almost to an unparalleled extent. He did not deny this, but he asked, where, was the wisdom or policy of making a treaty,with this very person on whom no dependence whatever could be placed? How came the ceded fortresses and the money to be returned? It was because lord Cornwallis saw the futility of such treaties, and was resolved to abandon them, if possible. He gave up their lands, he gave up their money, he would give op any thing to such persons, provided they would agree not to burthen us with their friendship.
Mr. Hiley Addingtonsaid, that as the hon. mover, in anticipating the contents of the papers for which he moved, had made his assertions pretty sturdily, he was not sorry to hear from his noble friend (lord Temple) assertions of a contrary nature as sturdily and at least as roundly delivered. He must allow that the hon. mover had had the candour to distribute among the members of the board of controul, a number of papers respecting which he moved; but from the great mass of them, they had not had time to profit by this candour. He should, however, individually, as an humble member of the board of controul, say, that he saw no objections to granting the

419
papers; his private feelings would rather induce him to second the motion than to oppose it, for he felt convinced, that when the papers were produced, they would exhibit a great many amiable qualities in the character of lord Wellesley, which many gentlemen were then unwilling to give him credit for. They would shew, that to this very rajah he had exercised an extraordinary forbearance, and an unexampled moderation. Without meaning to oppose the motion, he should just observe, that he doubted whether a sufficient parliamentary ground had been assigned for it. It did not appear to him proper, that any member should move for a vast mass of papers merely to fish out some cause of complaint which they did not know of before. As for the declaration of hostilities against the rajah, no such paper did exist: there never was a declaration of hostilities, but the war began by the cannon of the Fort of Deeg firing upon the British army, and protecting the retreat of Holkar. It was at a time when the rajah was writing the most friendly letters to lord Wellesley, and saying in the oriental cant, "make me happy by your letters," that he was conspiring with the enemies of the company, to expel the British from India. Nothing would be more demonstrable and unequivocal than the perfidy of this rajah,whom the hon. mover now extolled so highly. As soon as we had met a disaster under col. Monson, this faithless prince chose that moment not only to violate his treaties, but to conspire the utter destruction of that power for which he professed so much friendship, and to winch he owed so much obligation. The manner in which the governor-general gained information of his treachery, was most unquestionable. A confidential agent of his at Maturah first informed the British resident of it and about a week afterwards a vakeel was taken, with the correspondence, which went to the whole extent that had been stated. Notwithstanding this certain information of the treachery of this prince, lord Wellesley was still inclined to impute it to intriguers and evil advisers, and did not give directions to go to war with him for above eight months afterwards, and not until actual hostilities had been committed on the part of that prince against our. troops, who were pursuing Holkar in the neighbourhood of the Fort of Deeg. He concluded, by declaring that, in his opinion, no blame could attach to lord Wellesley for the fai-
420
lure of the treaty which he had made, and to which, doubtless, he wished to adhere.
Mr. Paulldecidedly affirmed, that he had once experienced an act of justice from lord Wellesley, but never an act of favour; that in India, his situation had been such, that the smiles of lord Wellesley could not benefit him, that his frowns could be of no detriment.
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid, he did not wish to take any share in the discussion of this subject; he had only to say, that the noble marquis, and all those who were connected with him, had but one wish, and that was that the whole of his conduct should be examined as closely as possible, and the whole system of the government in India under his direction canvassed with care; for which reasons he trusted there would be no objections to granting these papers, and others which he intended to move for, provided their production would not be inconvenient to the board. Anxious as he was, however, for the production of these papers, for the purpose of preparing for a discussion which he wished to promote, he had so much regard for the regularity of the proceedings of parliament, that he should not persist in asking for them, if irregular to grant them. He was confident that the more the conduct of the noble marquis was examined, the more it would be approved; but should the house, upon enquiry, be of another opinion, of which he had not the most distant idea, neither he nor any other person would attempt to screen him; but what he asked for the noble marquis was this;. that the nature of the charge to be exhibited against him should be stated. The hon. member had this day given notice of laying ground before the house in Friday, of some fresh charge against the marquis Wellesley. The noble lord near him had asked what that charge was? to which the hon. gent. had given no answer. He begged leave to request that the hon. member would now declare what the charge was he meant to make on Friday; for if he did not state that, how could the members who took the most immediate interest in. the discussion, know what they were come to meet? He could not conceive how any difficulty could occur in giving this information. What was to be the situation of those who were most directly interested in the character of the noble marquis, it they were to come down to the house, day after day, to hear an attack, without being prepared to meet it? He trusted the house

421
would feel that he was not asking any thing unreasonable. It would have been impossible for the house to have been prepared for the exhibition the hon. gent. had been pleased to make that night, if they had not had some previous intimation of what it was he intended to bring forward. It was, therefore, equally impossible that they should be prepared for Friday, unless the hon. gent. would let them know what charge it was that he was to bring forward on that day. As for the case of his noble relation, he committed it with confidence to the house, and to the country.
Mr. Paullsaid, the house would do him the justice to acknowledge that on every occasion he was ready to answer any question, that was civilly put to him; that he refused to answer the noble lord (Temple), as he should always do, when his manner and mode of putting a question was rude and improper. To the relation of the noble lord (Wellesley) he was ready to say, that the next charge he should bring forward, Was for the assumption of the rights and revenues of the nabob of Surat. The question was then put, and the several papers were granted.

WITNESSES' LIABILITY BILL.
The house resolved itself into a committee on the bill for Declaring, the Law with respect to Witnesses being liable to answer.
The Lord Chancellorin order that there might be no doubt as to the security of witnesses against being compelled to answer any question, the answering of which might subject them to penalty or forfeiture, proposed to insert the words "any penalty or forfeiture of what nature soever," instead of the mere words "penalty or forfeiture."
Earl Stanhoperose, and expressed his disapprobation of the bill before the committee, as a declaratory act. He expressed his hope, that, by subsequent legislative provisions, should the present bill be passed, his noble friend would guard against the mischiefs which might arise from such a measure. On this ground, however, he could not avoid coming forward and objecting to the bill as it then stood, and endeavouring to induce their lordships to divest it of its declaratory character. He was hostile to the principle of bills of that description; which, he thought, should never be passed by the legislature, except in very extreme cases. The occasion which he alluded to was, for instance, a violation of a principle of the constitution, such a case as was referred to in the preamble of the bill of rights, &c.; and such was the case of the excellent bill declaratory of the law respecting libels, proposed by a right hon. member of the other house of parliament. On that occasion, his noble and learned friend near him, (the chancellor), deserved the thanks of the country; he did not mean for his conduct with respect to the bill alluded to, but for what he had so nobly done to assert and to uphold the constitutional powers of juries. Except on Some great occasion of the kind, he never
402
approved of a declaratory bill. It was an engine by which a great deal of mischief might be done; through it the law of the land might be overturned, by its declaring that to be law, which was not law. The noble earl, in adverting, as an hypothetical case, to the return of members of parliament, through the influence of wealthy or powerful individuals, recited the anecdote of a late noble lord, who obtained the place he wished for, from the then prime minister, by threatening him, in case of a refusal, with the defection of his own support in one house, and that of his friends in the other. His brief and pithy answers to the arguments and representations of the minister, were, "There are seven of us! There are seven of us! Remember, there are seven of us!" Continuing his observations against a declaratory bill, he stated, that an actual majority of the great lawyers of the country were of such an opinion as to explode the necessity of such a bill as the present. He adverted to some opinions given by the late lord Mansfield, and among these, the case which gave rise to that recorded observation of his lordship, to the then Mr. Dunning: "if that be law, I'll burn my books."He adverted to the established compellability of pawnbrokers to give evidence, and adduced some reasons why horse-dealers should be considered in the same light. He liked not the idea of the present bill passing, to the imminent risk of that which he proposed; but, with a view of so far obviating the inconvenience to be apprehended, it would be better to pass his bill in the first instance. He adverted to some further cases, which, he conceived, tended to shew the probable inconveniences of passing such a bill as the present. He was, he observed, very stout in his opinions upon those points; he had read more acts of parliament than perhaps most lawyers, having perused all those from Magna Charta down to about fifteen years back. His lordship, towards the conclusion of his address, adverted to some farther cases; by one of which, stating it hypothetically, from the contingency of technical incorrectness in his answer, an individual might be destituted of his means support. He repeated his hope, that the inconveniences which might arise from such a construction in the law, would be guarded against by adequate legislative provisions.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, it would be better, had his noble friend postponed

403
the discussion of his own bill, until it came regularly before the house; as to that he conceived the greater part of his observations to have applied. He did not altogether approve, on such an occasion as the present, of his noble friend referring to the authorities of dead judges, as well as the living; as, in all cases of the kind, the law must be decided by the actual judges of the time. There were cases in forensic practice, in which a counsel might, allowably, fortify his opinions by a reference to those of former judges; but, on such an occasion, a poll of defunct, as well as living luminaries of the law, so as to outnumber those of the living, who might be of a contrary opinion, was a doctrine to which he could not submit. Such proceedings would tend eventually to interfere with the judicial functions of that house. A proposition, that the law was so taken from the very beginning of the British constitution, to the present moment, was what he had never heard of. The law was to be taken, from the mouths of those appointed to deliver it; but a poll in the way his noble friend appeared inclined to adopt, would be as objectionable as a poll of departed peers, with respect to decisions in that house. Adverting to the objections against the bill itself, he observed, that in such a case as it applied to, a declaratory act was more peculiarly necessary, that is, where doubts existed; as, if such did not exist, there would be no necessity of declaring what the law was.
Earl Stanhopeshortly spoke in explanation. He then adverted to the language of the bill, with respect to the term "lords spiritual and temporal." These descriptions, his lordship seemed to think, ought to be reversed, not only in the present, but in future bills, inasmuch as lords temporal, meaning princes of the blood, members of that house, had precedency of the very foremost of the spiritual peers, namely, the archbishop of Canterbury.
Lord Aucklanddeprecated an alteration of the kind, without the fullest and most mature consideration; deeming it far preferable to abide by the uniform practice of parliament, and to follow the example of their ancestors in such cases.—The question was then put, on an amendment as proposed by earl Stanhope, tending to do away the effect of the declaratory part of the bill, but which was negatived by the committee. Their lordships then agreed to the amendments proposed by the lord
404
chancellor; after which the house resumed, and ordered the report to be received tomorrow.
Earl Stanhopemoved, that the bill for the more effectual Discovery of Truth, be read a second time to-morrow, which was ordered accordingly.