observed, that after what had passed in the House on this subject he was afraid he was addressing an unwilling audience, but he must do his duty. The Bill went to destroy those offices in Scotland which were guaranteed by the Act of Union. He asked, was it prudent to give cause of irritation in Scotland, and disturb the Union for the sake of what—of twice 2,500l. a year? The pensions proposed to be substituted were more expensive. It was said that sinecures were blown upon by the public, and were exceedingly odious, and ought therefore no longer to exist: but were pensions at all more popular? Sinecures were offices connected with royalty, and were things that a man might be proud to hold. Pensions were things to which a man's poverty, but not his will, would consent. He begged the House to consider, whether it was consistent with their dignity to destroy these offices, which even Mr. Burke had spared.

did not mean in this stage to oppose the principle of the Bill, but thought it was not likely to be beneficial in point of economy. The hon. mover would, of course, be willing that his Bill should have as few imperfections as possible. He would point out one error. The constable of Limerick, which was mentioned in the Bill, was, he believed, an office with merely a nominal salary, and therefore not reconcilable with the purposes of the proposed enactment. As to the several offices in the Permit office, steps were already taken to regulate them, and the proper remedies had been applied. He thought the last clause of the Bill objectionable, as it went to sweep away the act of parliament made at the Union, which allowed the limited grant of 80,000l. per annum in pensions; he thought it unwise, and a breach of faith to legislate now in despite and violation of that act.

, though he disapproved of the Bill, did not intend to take the sense of the House upon it. The hon. mover had justly allowed, that no great pecuniary relief to the country could be expected from it; but it was on constitutional ground that he (lord C.) chiefly founded his disapprobation of the Bill: it went, in his opinion, to abridge and controul too much the power of the King to confer favours and reward services. In a Bill of such magnitude there must be a number of technical errors, which, if it passed this session, might lead to difficulties to be amended by subsequent acts of parliament; difficulties which could be avoided by postponing the Bill till next session. Notwithstanding this, and his strong objection to the principle of the measure, he would not divide the House upon it.

concurred with the right hon. gentleman who spoke last but one in his objection to the last clause of this Bill, and he had stated to the hon. mover, that he could not give his support to it. In the year 1793, a settlement had been agreed upon between the Irish government and certain individuals, at that time termed the opposition, by which it was provided, that the crown should be confined in granting pensions until they amounted only to 80,000l.and that when they were thus reduced, they should there after be limited to that sum, and the crown was consequently deprived of the civil list it had possessed since the Revolution. As a party to this agreement, he held himself bound by it, since he was of opinion, that nothing could be more injurious to the public honour than the abandonment of a settlement which, when it was made, was considered most beneficial, because it appeared that subsequently a still more advantageous arrangement might be made. The spirit of this agreement, he conceived, was still binding during the life of his Majesty, and he therefore must oppose that clause; for though it had been charged on Roman Catholics, that they kept no faith with heretics; he did not wish that it should also be said, that no faith was to be kept with oppositionists.

opposed the Bill on the same ground, with this addition, that the fund appropriated to the purpose of providing for widows and orphans, 1,200l. per annum, was found wholly inadequate to the just claims upon it, and it would be the height of cruelty and injustice to deprive the unfortunate widows and children of deserving officers who had fallen in their country's service, of this scanty allowance. At this moment it was a most heart-rending task for the Irish government to deny further aid to those who so much required it.

, in reply to the last observation, said, he was afraid that the right hon. gentleman confounded the Compassionate List with the Pension List; for out of the 1,200l. a year, an annuity was granted to sir John Shore, who had no claims, that he knew of, on the score of charity. As to the compact spoken of, it was right that one part of it should be adhered to as well as the other. Now, the 10,000l. which were appropriated to the buildings of the Castle in Dublin, were, contrary to the stipulations of that act put into the privy purse, and the public was called upon to supply the money. The public, he thought, had as much right to complain as the crown. As to the principle of the Bill, he thought remuneration should accompany service, and only service. A right hon. gentleman had called pensions invidious; but they were only so when granted to persons without desert; when given for public service, they were subjects of respect, not of odium.

opposed the Bill.

approved of it, as evincing a desire on the part of the House to economise the resources of the country. The hon. member was then proceeding to object to an office mentioned in the schedule, relating to the King's advocate in the West India Islands, but was informed that it was omitted.

said, that in the present disposition of the House, he should confine himself to one point, on which he had been much misconceived by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning). He had on a former occasion stated, that it was contrary to parliamentary usage, to interfere with the detail of the civil list, or with the hereditary revenue, without the consent of the crown, previously signified. This objection had been misrepresented as if it were intended to apply to all the places abolished by the Bill, whereas, it only applied to a few. It had, however, been answered by the hon. mover, who referred to the proceedings respecting the duchy of Lancaster in 1780. Mr. C. had again referred to the Journals, and found his former statement correct. The motion for bringing in a Bill affecting that office, had been postponed, until the consent of the crown could be obtained. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he would not support the omission of the clause respecting the Pension list of Ireland, because it took nothing away from the civil list, but simply regulated its details. Now this Bill did, with respect to the civil list of England, and the crown revenues in Scotland, actually take away the amount of the salaries of the offices named, which amount was henceforward to be added to the consolidated fund. He should give way to the impatience of the House, by abstaining from any general comment upon the Bill, only protesting against it as an unconstitutional and delusive measure.

, while he applauded the industry of the hon. framer, disapproved of the principle and detail of the Bill. The preamble, he said, which professed that public men should be pensioned for public services, went to badge them, as much as the poor of any parish were badged.

said, that no doubt could exist as to the propriety of abolishing all unnecessary offices, during the present state of the country. He was persuaded that sinecures were the bond of union which held together parties in that House, and that, if such things did not exist, much more attention would be paid to the public expenditure. He did not so much object, to the expence which necessarily devolved upon the people, as he did to the influence which the power of bestowing such rewards gave to the ministers for the time being. There were some trifling alterations, however, which he was desirous of suggesting, and which he would take the liberty of mentioning. The one was the omission of the words "from and after the expiration of existing interests," and the substitution of the words, "from and after the passing of the Bill." He was also anxious that the amount of pensions should not be confined from 2 to 3,000l. but might commence at 1,500l. The noble lord then moved, That the Bill should be recommitted, in order that he might move the amendment to which he alluded.

observed, that the Bill had been read a third time and engrossed, after which, according to the usual forms of the House, it could not be recommitted.

had a strong objection to one of the clauses of the Bill, as unconstitutional; and he was surprised that the Bill had gone so far in its progress, without any notice having been taken of it. The clause which he objected to, was that which provided "that upon the falling in of certain places in the courts of justice, the crown should be enabled to distribute the amount of the fees belonging to them, among the judges as it should think proper." This appeared to him to be unconstitutional, as striking directly at the independence of judges on the executive power. The amendment which he should propose was, by adding the words, "in the proportion of their respective salaries." This would appear to him much better than the allowing the crown to make distribution as it thought fit.

was of opinion, that the perpetual consolidation of the Scotch places, in the manner proposed by the Bill, would be a violation of the understanding which existed at the time of the Union, although he would not go so far as the Lord Advocate, in supposing that all Scotland would come forward to petition for the continuance of those sinecures as their undoubted right.

rose to reply to the objections which had been made. As to the objection of his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) with respect to the augmentation of the judges' salaries, it had before struck him, but he did not see any easy way of remedying it. If, however, other gentlemen felt it in the same light as it had appeared to the hon. gentleman, he would not object to the amendment proposed. The difficulty which appeared to him was this, that if a very valuable part of the patronage of the chief justices was taken away, it would be the same as a considerable diminution of their salaries. Now, the apportionment of the fees of the places which at present were under the patronage of the chief justices only, and giving part of them to the other judges, would be a diminution of the profits of the situation of chief justice. It appeared to him, that that high situation was rather under paid than overpaid. There was no description of services that he thought ought to be better paid; and it appeared to him, that in the present times it would be impossible to preserve the high character and dignity of the situation without annexing adequate emolument to it. As to the objection made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin), he thought that it was sufficiently answered by the preamble of the Bill. That preamble, which stated, "whereas it is no disparagement to persons who have served in the country in high situations, to receive, if they should need it, honorary rewards and pensions in consideration of their services," was copied from that of Mr. Burke's Bill. It, therefore, had appeared to others, as well as himself, that this could be no degradation. At the same, time, he thought that persons in affluence, who had filled high situations, should be satisfied with the emoluments of them, and ought not to be farther chargeable to the country for pensions on account of those services. With respect to the Scotch sinecure places, it had been put to him by an hon. gentleman, whether, if there was any doubt or balance on his mind whether it was not a violation of the Act of Union, would he persist in recommending it? To this he must answer, that there was no doubt or balance of his mind upon the subject, and therefore he could not consent to take away from his Bill those great and glaring sinecures. As to the Irish sinecures and pension list, and the bargain that was stated to have taken place in 1793, he must say that he could see nothing like a bargain in the Irish act of parliament regulating the pension list. He had moved for an account merely on hearing it stated, that there was a bargain; but by that account he found that one class of payments, which the act of parliament had expressly required to be made out of the Irish pension list, was never, in fact, made out of it. He would then put to the House generally, whether a pension list of 80,000l. per annum was not much too great for Ireland to bear, when it was considered that a revenue could not be raised in Ireland at all equal to the annual expenditure? A right hon. friend had asked him whether he did not know that pensions were not as obnoxious as sinecures? He knew they were at present, when it was generally supposed that pensions were not the reward of merits or services, but given through mere favouritism; but when the time should come, that pensions were strictly and exclusively confined to persons who had rendered meritorious services, and who stood in need of the assistance, he had no doubt but that they would completely escape that obloquy which now attached to pensions as well as to sinecures.

On the question being called for,

said, that he conceived it his duty to state, in consequence of an objection having been taken to the third reading of this Bill, from its not having received the consent of the crown, that this appeared to him not to be an insuperable objection to the third reading. After the third reading, the Bill was open to amendments; and if, in the amended form, it went to take away any part of the revenues of the crown, it would be contrary to the usage of parliament to pass such a Bill without the consent of the crown.

The Bill was then read a third time, without a division.

then moved as a clause "Provided always, that nothing in this Bill should be prejudicial to the rights and interests of those who are now chief justices."—This clause was brought up, and agreed to.

brought up a clause, exempting the mayoralty and other courts of the city of London, from the operation of this act; which, after an observation from Mr. Wrottesley, who thought that the exemption should extend to other cor- potations as well as London, was agreed to.

then proposed the Amendment to which he referred in his speech, which was negatived without a division.

, next rose to submit his Amendment. He observed, that the conduct of the hon. author of the Bill called to his mind the predicament of a lover, who had so long admired his mistress, that he had made her faults his own. So was it with the hon. gentleman, he had so long dwelt upon his Bill, that whatever might be its imperfections, he was totally blind to them. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more absurd, than to confine the provisions of the Bill to such as needed assistance. He would ask the hon. gentleman if, by chance in the course of his political career, he should rise to the situation of Chancellor of the Exchequer, would he think it proper, on account of his affluent circumstances, to be debarred from accepting the pension intended as the reward of his honourable services? Was he to be put in the situation of the Apothecary, in Romeo and Juliet—"was his poverty and not his will" to be the actuating principle by which he was to be guided? He still thought the hon. gentleman would after all lose his mistress. He would find this Bill another Eurydice, and lose it at the moment he was sure of it—like another ill-fated Orpheus. 'Te dulcis conjux'— He would ultimately lose her—he might depend upon it—'Te veniente die, to decedente canebat'—(A laugh.)

The Amendment was then put, and the House divided,

Amendment was then put, and negatived.

felt it his duty to take the sense of the House on the Bill, ash affected the corporation of Cursitors of the court of Chancery. He thought that body was equally entitled to exemption from its operation, as some of those to whom it had been extended. He should, therefore, propose a clause to that effect.

reminded the hon. gentleman, that the present was not the proper time for receiving his clause, as the body of the Bill was now under the consideration of the House.

moved, by way of amendment, the omission of the last clause in the Bill, which provided that the pension list of Ireland should be reduced to 40,000l. a year, and that sum not to be afterwards exceeded.

really thought that the sum specified in the Bill bore a fair proportion to the present revenue of Ireland. The House, perhaps, were hardly aware, that Ireland had not a single-shilling of disposable revenue; that the whole of it was exhausted in the payment of the interest of her debt; and that she had not the means of paying, otherwise but by loan, any part of her joint contribution. Under such circumstances, the pension list now proposed, surely bore full proportion to her income.

declared, that not only was the revenue of Ireland inadequate to the payment of her debt, but it was so by at least half a million of money.

The House then divided, when there appeared for the motion,—Ayes 59; Noes 60.

The clause therefore stood: and the further consideration of the Bill was postponed till Wednesday.

rose to observe, that as the notice of a motion on this appointment stood for an early day, he thought it right to acquaint the House, that his royal highness the Prince Regent had been graciously pleased to direct, that the salary of colonel M'Mahon should be paid out of his privy purse. (Hear! hear!) The hon. and learned gentleman who had given the notice would, therefore, probably think his motion unnecessary.

, in the absence of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner) could have little hesitation in saying, that the notice would of course be dropped.

rose to give notice of his intention to bring forward a motion on Wednesday next. He was sure there was no person in the House who felt more deeply than himself how desirable it was to stand well in the public opinion; but he was also sure that no person deserved the good opinion of the public who did not also desire to protect his personal honour when called in question. He therefore took the earliest opportunity of expressing his purpose to bring forward a motion on Wednesday next, desiring farther official information respecting the negociations which had been lately carried on for a change of administration; and he now applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow him to take an early hour on that day. He should merely make a brief statement of facts, which would lead to no discussion, and which he was sure would admit of no contradiction. After the statement which he should make, there would not be a living being, he believed, in the character of a gentleman, who would countenance any reflection on his honour or character.

was aware how unparliamentary a proceeding it was to refer to any thing that had taken place on a former debate. He hoped, however, the House would permit him to say, that when he made a statement to them on a former night respecting the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, he certainly did fancy he saw him sitting in his place. As, however, that was not the case, and as what he had said had been misrepresented, he would now restate to him what he had then expressed.—[Cries of No! by a few, and a more general cry of Go on!] When the right hon. gentleman alluded to the public, he meant him (lord Yarmouth) in the public—he was not more than one in the public; and there might be persons out of doors capable of putting an unfavourable construction on his silence. He felt sure the right hon. gentleman was convinced tie had not mis-stated what had passed between them; though what he had stated had certainly been misrepresented out of doors.—(Cry of go on with statement!) He could not but express his gratitude to the House for their good humour in allowing him to proceed. He should do so without more surplusage than what was unavoidable in a man not in the habit of public speaking. He should now proceed to the statement, observing, however, that he had no thought of contradicting his right hon. friend. He did state to the House the other night, and he was happy now to restate it, because it was not heard by all, an intention on the part of a portion of the houshold to resign their situations. He stated, that they had determined to resign—at least that a large number of them had determined to resign on such a change of ministers taking place as would necessarily induce a change of measures. He further stated, that they had made this determination known to the highest quarter with all possible respect, and that three great officers in particular had stated within twenty-four hours of each other this determination to those persons who might then be considered as at the head of the government; in other words, that they made their intention to quit their situations known to the political chiefs of their party. Their intention to do so was certain, though it was combated in a certain quarter of the highest respectability. With regard to what passed between his right honourable friend and himself, he would now re-state it to the House. My right honourable friend and myself, continued the noble lord, happened to meet one evening in a well known place, where we were accustomed to spend our evenings. 'I hear,' said he, 'you are all going to resign.' I said we were. 'Let me desire of you, said he, as an old friend, not to do so—take my advice and think better of it—we will talk of it, if you please, to-morrow.' I then observed 'what you say will always have more weight with me than any man in this kingdom.' Accordingly we appointed an hour next day to talk further on the subject, but as the right hon. gentleman did not come at his hour, I went out without seeing him that day. His lordship was about to proceed with his statement, when

rose. He did not wish to stop any member while addressing the House; but as he had already given notice of a motion, when every person would have an opportunity of making what observations he thought proper, he submitted it to the discretion of the noble lord whether or not he ought to proceed farther with his statement at this time. If, however, the noble lord was so inclined, and the House thought fit he should now proceed, he hoped they would also allow him and any other member an opportunity of afterwards making such observations as might occur to them.

was sure there could be no possible difference between himself and his right hon. friend as to what really passed. He would, however, say no more on the subject at present.

rose to move the sum of 2,500,000l. by way of loan to the East India Company. He said he should not enter into minute financial statements; but, as it was intended to include the vote to the East India Company in the loan for the year, he thought it necessary to assure the House of the security which existed for the repayment of the sum prayed for by the Petition. He was aware that various applications had been made by the Company during the last two years; but it should be remembered, that the loans which had been granted were the means, not only of the extension, but of the security of the territory in India. The debt under which they now laboured had arisen from no mismanagement on the part of the Company. He must also observe, that if the papers in possession of the House were looked into, it would appear that there was a material difference between the deficit and the sum now asked. The deficit was 3,500,000l. while the sum prayed for by the Petition was only 2,500,000l.; but he should be doing great injustice to the trust reposed in him, and also, to the East India Company, if he did not state that in reality, the loan actually advanced by the public had been three fourths anticipated by payments made in India for the public service. The hon. member then read, from the printed documents, various items of sums so advanced. The gross amount he stated to be upwards of four millions, which left a balance in favour of the East India Company amounting altogether to 1,600,000l.; so that the whole sum truly borrowed from the public, in the loan, was only 900,000l.; and he trusted, that in whatever state the affairs of the East India Company might be, their security was at least good for that sum. The loan, he contended, was not to burden the country, but merely to enable the Company to carry on their affairs till a complete investigation of them should take place, which must soon be done in that House. He then concluded by moving the sum of 2,500,000l. to be voted in the committee.

said, he objected altogether to the sum being voted, and that he should oppose it in every stage. The history of the Petition was curious. It was presented on Tuesday last at a very late hour, by a member of the East India Company; it was ordered to be referred to a committee above stairs. The hon. gentleman carried it there, and was himself a member of the said committee; they assembled about seven in number, and after having profoundly deliberated for five minutes upon the innumerable questions connected with the Company's affairs, they reported upon the Petition, and said that nothing could be so proper or so safe, as to lend the sum required. He hoped, however, the House would not come to a vote in the absence of all information. The Company's debt, he contended, arose as much from commercial blunders, as from wars, though the hon. gentleman wished to insinuate that the latter were the all sufficient source of that debt. The nonsensical fooleries of Petitions to parliament had been going on since 1806, and during that time, eight millions of money had been advanced to them; that was, four millions by way of loan, and four more they would be able to raise by bonds. He believed, however, that by lending such sums we were doing much more injury to the East India Company than to the state. The experiment had been tried for thirty years, and what was the result? Why, that they were by their own statements, fifteen millions worse than nothing at the present moment; and that, notwithstanding they put the best value upon all their forts, &c. making them all assets of course. It was, to be sure, an excellent thing for the East India Company to have such a comfortable ally in the government, that they could come down year after year for loans, and never be refused. It was a comfortable thing too, to be an East India director. He did not care how things went; he had his 2,000l. East India stock, his patronage, in the way of writer ships, cadets, &c. and all was very well. Then the proprietors, also, the ladies and gentlemen composing the United Company trading to the East Indies, received their dividends, and all went on very well; and the said ladies and gentlemen assembled once a year to decide which six among them were most fit to regulate the destinies of 50,000 persons. Thus their affairs went on, and thus they would have gone on, if there had not been such a thing in this country as commercial interest, which commercial interest feeling itself a little pinched, perhaps by the Orders in Council—began to think some little relief might be found if they could send a ship or two to India. In behalf of that commercial interest alone, he thought it would be imprudent to let the money go without a further investigation of the affairs of the Company. He concluded by observing, that he should feel it his duty to resist granting one farthing of money till something more should be known than what could be learned from the sheet of paper which the hon. gentleman had used as his document.

observed, that the hon. gentleman must have been unintentionally misinformed respecting the Company being fifteen millions worse than nothing at the present moment. At the same time, he could not but compliment him upon the good humour he had displayed; a good humour not very usual with him, when speaking of the East India Company's affairs. Year after year he had been using a warning voice on the subject. He was a sort of memento mori; but though he (Mr. Thornton) had no doubt that the East India Company, like every thing mortal, would have its end, he would give it rather the Spanish benediction, "May you live a thousand years!" He admitted they had often been relieved, but they had shewn themselves honest debtors, and had paid what they owed. The truth was, it was wonderful they had struggled as they had, for the whole period of their charter had been one of continued war. It was no less true, however, that they had now conquered every thing in India that was to be conquered; and at a very great expence they had acquired the quiet possession of a country which produced 16,000,000l. of revenue. It should be remembered also, that they, the East India Company, paid four millions yearly to the revenue of the country, and that was a sum not to be sneezed at. The directors, he contended, had not been to blame in any thing they had done. The present estimate was complained of on the ground of its not having been referred to the Committee of Supply. It was not, however, from any commercial blunders that the present demand proceeded. The Company had long been pouring in large contributions to the Exchequer, and he joined in the wish that the time might not be far distant when the affairs might be thoroughly examined.

said, that when so large a sum as that of 2,500,000l. was required by the East India Company, he expected that some reason would be given to shew the House that justice had been done to the public by stating the grounds for this advance. But they said this sum was not asked as a loan, for that all above 900,000l. was owing to them. He thought the Company ought to shew their debtor and creditor account, and prove how that fact really stood. The territory of the Com- pany he considered as no security: the conquests they had made were not those of the Company, but of the country; and he prophesied, that whether they were wrested from us in the arbitrary way we had seized them, or whether it remained as they were now, we should never receive any benefit from them. The Company were coming to the House for one loan after another, and he thought it was the duty of the House to make a stand, and to consider the interests of the public as well as those of the Company; for which reason he could not agree to the vote.

denied that the Company owed one farthing to the government; on the contrary, they were creditors, and that to a very large amount. The ground of the present application was this; ever since the institution of the Board of Controul, the Indian government had been the joint concern of the Company and the British government. Since that period, more than 20 millions of debt had been contracted in support of various wars. This was altogether a territorial debt, and had no connection with the Company's commerce. About 10 years ago, a principle entirely new was introduced into the system of borrowing in India. About 15 millions was raised upon bonds, stipulating the repayment of the principal within a limited period in England. It had been stated by a noble lord at the head of the Board of Controul, in 1803, that at the period when these bonds should become due, means would be requited to enable the Company to discharge them; and no objection was then made to the principle. A great part of the debt had, however, been made payable in India, and a portion of it was to be liquidated at home. Compared to this country, India was certainly in a state of comparative prosperity, as her whole debt did not exceed two year's rent. As to the accounts not being more full, the papers had not yet arrived from abroad; but he had heard the hon. gentleman complain, on former occasions, of the documents being too voluminous. He was sorry that nothing would please him. He again denied that the Company were in debt to government. They had only, in the last nine years, borrowed one million and a half, and this they had already paid off. With respect to the notion of the Company being lessees, this was to his judgment an entirely new idea.

submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it would not be desirable to make a sinking fund of 1 per cent. or some other sum that should be adequate to redeem the present loan, in the course of the new term to be granted to the Company by the renewal of their charter, which he saw no reason to suppose would not be made next session.

agreed as to the propriety of a sinking fund being provided; and said, that it must also be considered, that there was always a running account between the Company and government, which being chiefly for war expences, it was highly desirable should be brought into the regular accounts of the army and navy. This was the intent of government, but it was impossible to effect it at present.

said, that he was well aware that the present embarrassments of the East India Company did not arise out of their ordinary commercial concerns, but were occasioned by demands of India debt made upon their treasury here, by creditors holding securities, which gave them the option of being repaid in England. He said, that the funds of the government in India were derived from their territorial revenue, supplies from Europe in exports and bullion, and from bills drawn on England; these funds were applied to defray all the expenditure incident to the combined operations of government and commerce, and to disburse all political charges, and provide investments for Europe. Whenever the funds were insufficient for their purposes, the governments in India did what all governments do, raise money on loans: about the year 1798, they borrowed money for 10 years, giving the lender the option of being repaid in India or in England at the expiration of that period; and it is this description of debt which now presses upon the home treasury, and for which they have no means of providing but by aid from the public purse, and it is very extraordinary, that with debts actively accumulating, trade annually diminishing, with this description of debt hanging over them, and a certainty that it would of necessity be brought to the home treasury, unless otherwise provided for, that those entrusted with the superintendance of the affairs of India, should have brought forward no one measure, should have had recourse to no one expedient whatever, to avert these difficulties, knowing too, that the near approach of the expiration of the charter would necessarily weaken the credit of the Company: Why has there been no attempt to fund this Indian debt? Why has not the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Huskisson) who spoke early in this debate been adopted? My present object however is, to ask the right hon. member of the Board of Controul, whether the two millions and half now required, will be sufficient to enable the East India Company to meet all the demands which may be made upon them, on account of these optional loans, or whether there will be any further claims brought forward which may require another application to parliament?

said, he had no doubt but the country would always meet the Company with liberality, but the House ought to be on their guard, and not to give 2,500,000l. at this moment before the terms of the renewal of the charter were settled. If they did so, it was clear the Company would want 3,500,000l. more, and if the House should object to it, the Company would perhaps, say that they must be ruined. If the country owed any thing to the Company, let them come with their debt and receive remuneration; but while the Company paid themselves a dividend of 10 per cent., they ought in justice to pay the public the interest of this loan.

said, that all he desired was, to give the Company the power of going on till the Charter should be settled.

observed, that it would have been much more fair and candid to have brought forward at once a full and complete statement of the whole of this probable demand outstanding, instead of resorting to those temporizing expedients session after session, to eke out as it were the lingering existence of an expiring charter.

said, the truth was, the Company had advanced money to government; they had had one loan which they had repaid: they had at this moment in their warehouses, goods to the amount of 4,700,000l. and if their ships of this year came home all safe, they should have goods amounting in value to 11 million.

The House then divided; For the Loan 74; Against it S. Majority 66.