Sitting of 6 May 1808

AFFAIRS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Mr. Creeveyrose, agreeably to notice, to move for certain papers to elucidate the real state of the Affairs of the East India Company. He said, he should shortly state his reasons for making the motions with which it was his intention to conclude. Last year a petition had been presented for leave to borrow two millions on bonds, and about a fortnight ago a petition was presented asking a loan of the public money to the extent of 1,200,000 l. It was with the statement contained in that petition, of the ability of the Company to pay this loan, that he now rose to find fault. It contained a ma-
129
nifest deception; whether meant by the Company or not, it was not his intention to say. The house and the public, however, were entitled to be set right on this head. The petition stated, that there was a deficiency for the year of 2,400,000 l.; although, in fact, as appeared from a paper laid on the table of the house, the deficiency was 3,000,000 l. As an inducement to the country to grant this loan of 1,200,000 l., the petition stated that the Company would have a surplus, after paying all their debts, to the amount of 8,000,000 l. Supposing this to be correct, it was only the home account which was alluded to, whereas the foreign also should have been taken into consideration; when, in fact, instead of a surplus, there would have been a deficit of 12,000,000 l. When he said this, he said it as a member of the committee, and he spoke from a document laid before the committee. It was for the Company to explain why, in these circumstances, and with such a deficiency, they laid before that house a statement which went to show a surplus of 8 millions. The petition stated, that the Indian debt must fall upon the Indian territory. How far this was a doctrine which would be relished by the creditors of the Company abroad, to the amount of 32 millions, it was not for him to say. He should move in two ways: 1st, for the document which the Company had laid before the committee: and, 2dly, for the satisfaction of the Indian creditor and of the public, he should move for an account of the amount of all loans made by the company in India, and of the terms and conditions on which the same were made.—The petition also alledged the state of Europe, as one of the leading causes of the embarrassment in their affairs. To prove the fallacy of this, he should also move for a document to shew the nature of the Indian trade on the continent, from which it would be seen, that the Indian trade was becoming worse and worse year after year, long before any change in our relations on the continent had taken place. The hon. gent. knew there was no probability of the Committee making any report on this business, at the present advanced period of the session; and the Company, by their own statement, had forced him to bring forward the present motions. If he should be told, that he was a member of the committee, and that he should go to them and make them parties to the motion, his reason for not doing so was this; he made his charge against the directors

130
Was he to go to the committee and to appeal to them; or to the two directors who were members of the committee, and whose votes he must expect on such a subject to be against him? He said, that the formation of that committee was radically bad. The question was, were the Company bankrupts? And these two directors were the persons who were to say so or not, and to advise the country whether or not it should make a loan to their own Compapany! Without imputing any thing to these hon. gentlemen, he must be allowed to say, that they were not the persons who should have been appointed members of such a committee. He said, moreover, that the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Dundas), should not have been a member of the committee. His father had been the author of the system. He had committed himself year after year, as to prognostics and prophecies of its stability and greatness; and his son should not have been, put on a committee which was to decide on the life or death of a Company, to the death of which he could not naturally be expected to be a willing witness. He said the same of the person (lord Castlereagh) who succeeded the noble lord alluded to; and there were others on the Committee, whom, without being understood as saying any thing invidious against them, he could not forbear also from referring to, as receiving pensions out of the East India Company's funds. Could any principle, he asked, be more absurd, than that they should be persons fixed on as a committee on such a subject? He said it was a great defect, that the honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas) should have 7000 l., another person near him not quite so much, and that a third, who had been a judge in India, should have a pension from the Indian revenue, and yet be members of a committee to whom such matters were referred. Without imputing any personal motives to any of these gentlemen, he must think them unfit to judge on such a business; and so he thought it better to apply to parliament. He concluded by moving, That there be laid before the house an Account of the East India stock by computation, on the 1st of March, 1808.
Mr. R. Dundasdeclared, that in suggesting the persons who formed the committee on Indian affairs, he had nothing in view but to propose those who, from their knowledge of the subject, were most likely to give satisfactory information to the committee. He was sorry the hon. gent. had
not objected to them at the time they were appointed. He confessed he did not see what progress could have been made in the inquiry without the assistance of the very persons alluded to. He was certain the hon. gent. would admit that no information in the power of the directors to procure had been withheld. The paper, however, which the hon. member first moved for, was one which must, in the course of a few days, come before the house, under the act of parliament. The committee was in the course of preparing a report, which would be submitted to the house along with every document necessary. There was no ground for supposing that the report would not be made, or that the house would be called on to grant any loan without having the requisite evidence before them in the first place. The motion was therefore premature, if not altogether unnecessary. He thought it was not perfectly candid of the hon. gent. to insinuate that any of the members of the committee would be induced from interested motives to make a report they would not otherwise have made. To shew that they were above all suspicion, he read the names of the committee, and concluded by moving the previous question.
Dr. Laurencevindicated the position of his hon. friend relative to the constitution of the committee, and contended, that without meaning any personality or disrespect to any individual of which it was composed, it was perfectly competent to him to state any legal disqualification for their serving on such a committee.
Sir J. Anstruthervindicated, at some length, the conduct of the committee; he said as to himself, the situation which he held did by no means incapacitate him from judging and deciding fairly any question concerning the solvency or insolvency of the East India Company: his situation did not depend upon them, and his income was solely derived from the India revenue.
Lord Folkestonewas glad that his hon. friend had brought this question before the house, and should give his support to the motion.
Mr.F W. Smiththought that his hon. friend had been harshly treated. Without meaning any personality, and disclaiming any intention of disrespect to any member of the committee, his hon. friend had alluded to the general unfitness, which arose from his immediate interest. But, certainly the imputation ought not to have been met by

reading the list of the committee, but by enumerating the offices held by the members composing it.
Mr. Wallaceconsidered that the papers wanted would necessarily come under consideration when the committee should have made its report, and therefore, that the motion was premature.
Mr. Grantdefended the character of the committee for impartiality, and had no objection to the production of the accounts, because he was convinced that they would convey a very favourable impression of the state of the company's affairs. He deprecated, however, all discussion upon the subject before the committee made their report, not only as premature, but uncandid. As far as regarded his own conduct, he expressed a hope, that as a member of that committee, as well as in every other situation, his conduct would be guided by a principle of integrity and uprightness.
Mr. Pattesonhad seen no reason to complain of a disposition on the part of those connected with the Company, to withhold any information that was necessary to guide the inquiries and decision of the committee.
Mr. Creeveyforetold that the East India Company would again apply next year to parliament for a loan, that the year after a similar application would be made, and that there was no probability of any loan that was granted ever being repaid. Upon this ground, he contended that it was highly expedient that the public should be made thoroughly acquainted with the real state of their affairs. He should not, however, press the question to a division, if the sense of the house appeared to be against him.—After some farther conversation, the motions were withdrawn, as was likewise the previous question.