did not think it would be necessary for him to detain the House long on the motion he had precedently anounced, for an enquiry into the state of Lancaster Gaol; he conceived, at the same time, that no subject could be more important, for men influenced by principles of justice and liberty, or even by sentiments of humanity. The abuses complained of, affected men in the most helpless state imaginable—they were either people suffering the sentence of the law, which in no case could be exceeded; or men who, through misfortune, perhaps without any fault of their own, had been imprisoned for debt. In that defenceless situation, although under the immediate and special protection of the law, they were too often the victims of abuses and of oppression—with this aggravation, that their complaints could seldom be heard. In the situation in which they were placed towards gaolers, those last persons, at whose mercy they were placed, had a direct interest in depriving them even of the scanty comforts a gaol could afford, in order to derive emolument from the sale of indulgences—a practice he could not sufficiently reprobate; and the abuses likely to result, might be easily foreseen. In the peculiar situation in which he stood towards the House, respecting this motion, he could not enter at large into the general state of the gaols throughout the kingdom. This was, however, a subject highly interesting to the public, but he should reserve it for a future opportunity. As to Lancaster gaol, he stood pledged before the House, and as he had brought the subject forward, he thought himself bound in duty to lay before them the information he had subsequently received, instead of keeping it in his pocket. That information was, however, of such a nature, that he by no means wished to pledge himself for the truth of it; he would submit it to the House as he had received it, and if the accusations it contained were false, let the blame fall on the authors as it ought to do. On the other hand, he had heard such an excellent character given of the keeper of Lancaster Castle, from the most respectable quarters, that of all the gaols in the kingdom, he should have expected that of Lancaster to be the most free from abuses. The hon. baronet would observe, at the same time, that a character, however respectable, could not be admitted in evidence against positive facts, much less could it be pleaded as a bar to enquiry. He might divide the charges transmitted to him under three heads. Some affected the magistrates; others affected the gaoler; and some the coroner, a person whose office the hon. baronet was sorry to observe was too much neglected, without people ever considering that a due and skilful execution of the duties attached to it was one of the most powerful means to protect the life of the subject from insidious attacks. As to the first part, namely, the charges against the magistrates, he held in his hand the copy of a letter which had probably been addressed by them to most members of the House, and by which, on the first rumour of complaints being brought forward against Mr. Higgins, the keeper of Lancaster Castle, they had hastened to justify him. This haste the hon. baronet condemned: it looked like an attempt to supersede the necessity of an enquiry, and the magistrates might have rested satisfied with the general good character they had given to Mr. Higgins. [Here the hon. baronet read abstracts of that letter, commenting on it as he proceeded.] He disapproved in strong terms of solitary confinement, which he contended was in its nature exposed to abuse, and must be abused unless under the superintendance of such a man as Mr. Howard himself. It was a system calculated to give rise to the evil of foul oppression covered with rank hypocrisy, as he had found in the instance of the Cold-bath-fields. He recollected that the method of investigation adopted there was, that of calling upon Aris himself, and then upon the persons complaining to give evidence in the presence of him they feared. It was the same way in Lancaster Castle; and as Aris had made a sort of family compact of the business, so Mr. Higgins had one son acting as his deputy, another as an attorney, and a third as a sort of assistant surgeon to the prisoners. The magistrates who had examined into the circumstances of this case, came to the resolutions which he held in his hand, acquitting him of all the charges; and stigmatising the complaints as vexatious and unfounded. The resolutions proceded to state, that a disposition had of late manifested itself among the prisoners to resist the salutary authority of the governor; but this, he thought, rather improbable on the face of it. Great praise was also given to the voluntary and manly manner in which some of the prisoners had come forward in behalf of Mr. Higgins's character, but that was represented to him as proceeding from the circumstance of his having lent money to those persons. The charges against the jailor were, that the filth of the gaol was not cleared away for four days; that he did not allow small parcels of coals to be brought to the prisoners in cold weather, when he knew that they could not afford to buy large quantities; another imputed bribery to the turnkey, and the magistrates permitted the turnkey to defend himself by his own oath against the allega- tions. The prisoners who had complained represented, that the prison allowance was withheld from them by the magistrates—an assumption of power to which they had no right, and which they had exercised in a manner the most cruel. It had been stated to him, that a quantity of oak boughs were brought into the prison, and that a rejoicing took place on his acquittal, which was not a very orderly proceeding in a gaol. The sheriff, it should be observed, had referred their complaints to the committee of magistrates. He believed it was a general abuse in all gaols, that a great part of the space intended for the convenience of prisoners was applied to the convenience of the jailor himself, and he understood that one of the turnkeys of Lancaster castle was employed in a hot-house. Another charge alleged against Mr. Higgins was, that he did not visit the rooms of the prisoners for ten months. He then proceeded to read a letter which he had received from a person of the name of Jacob Wilson Wardel, on which he principally depended for convincing the House of the necessity of investigation. The letter stated, that on the 4th May, horrible screamings were heard in the prison proceeding from a person named John Rawling. Several of the debtors had heard him exclaim, as the turnkey was flogging him, "Murder! kill me, kill me!" On the Monday following he was dead. It was understood in the yard, that he was removed to a cell under ground, where his cries could not be heard; and on Tuesday morning it was given out that he had hanged himself with his stockings. This man was, he understood, a lunatic, and had been confined three years for murder. The inquest which sat upon the body consisted of six debtors, and these not the most respectable, and six stone masons employed in the gaol. The body was not stripped, and the only mark of violence on the face was one of the eyes being blackened. Two persons who had assisted in the washing of the body described it as a mass of congealed blood. He believed every one would agree with him, that a case of this nature ought to be enquired into. In corroboration of the minor points of accusation, he read a letter from a person of the name of John Spencer, who was formerly confined in Lancaster castle for debt, stating that he had broken his leg while in confinement by a fall, and that the door was shut against the admission of a surgeon for whom he had sent, on which account he was lame to this day. It stated further, that the county allowance was withheld from him, and his son prevented from seeing him, merely for having modestly remonstrated. He should not dwell upon the facts, or endeavour to excite any prepossession against the individual who was concerned, but should merely content himself with stating them, unless his motion should be opposed. This he did not expect, especially as there was a Petition from Mr. Higgins himself, demanding enquiry. He was proceeding to quote a pamphlet written by the rev. Mr. Bingham, who was confined in Horsham gaol, on an unfounded suspicion of having set fire to his house, in order to defraud the insurers, when

called the hon. baronet to order, as he was travelling into cases that had no application to the question.

said, he wished the House to be aware of the system of imprisonment which was going on in the country, but he should not persist. Now, for the first time since he sat in parliament, he saw a disposition in the government of the country to attend to complaints; and though he could not but feel a little jealous of commissions, after the commission of the Cold Bath fields prison, and the commission of Kilmainham gaol in Ireland, which, after detecting seven instances of gross misconduct, concluded with a panegyric on Mr. Dunne and Dr. Trevor, still he felt confident that the government would do what was right. He concluded with moving an Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, "praying that he would be graciously pleased to order a commission to be appointed for the purpose of enquiring into the charges made against the inspecting magistrates of Lancaster castle, and the general state of the gaol."

said he felt himself placed in a difficult situation, by the new matter which the hon. baronet had introduced, and entered into an explanation on the different points contained in the Petitions. The circumstance of one of Mr. Higgins's sons being an attorney, and the other an assistant surgeon, could not be imputed as a fault to him, and therefore could not affect the case. As to the prohibition of bringing small quantities of coals to the debtors, and the circumstance of rejoicing with oaken boughs, he did not believe them; and having often inspected the gaol himself, he could state, that he had never seen a hot-house attached to it. The jailor had been called a gardener, only because he had a small garden, not half the size of that House; and also described as a manufacturer, only because he employed, for the benefit of the county, those persons who had been condemned to hard labour. A spirit of discontent had sprung up a short time since among the prisoners, and he believed that the person from whom the hon. baronet had his information, was at the bottom of it. The gaol was at present unusually full, which, of course, must produce some inconvenience, and give some colour, though it could not justify complaint. He then read a letter from the high sheriff, stating that he had investigated all the prisons under his jurisdiction, and bearing testimony to their salutary regulations. It had been brought as a charge against the jailor, that the county allowance was withheld; but the jailor had no controul over it whatever, it was ordered by two of the county magistrates, desiring that it should be paid until further orders, which proved that it was revocable. Here he read several Petitions in favour of the conduct of Mr. Higgins, and various depositions on oath, contradicting the facts asserted in the complaints against him. With respect to the case of Rawling, he had been acquitted of murder on a special verdict of insanity. There were a number of unfortunate persons in the same condition in the gaol, and the gaoler had the care of all those unhappy individuals, without the conveniences that were found in other places. Nothing, he was sure, could appear more unlikely to the House, than that they would whip a person to death, under such circumstances of notoriety. A member of parliament was certainly bound to present all well-founded petitions; but he ought to enquire into the truth of the facts, or the table would be filled with frivolous petitions. The evidence was strong in the gaoler's favour, and he was himself most anxious for enquiring into his conduct. He did not mean to shut the door against complaints; but he thought it would be a great loss of time to pay attention to loose allegations. To the mode of enquiry by commission he had no objection; but it remained for the House to consider whether a case had been made out to call for any.

thought the nature of the motion by no means objectionable; but the hon. bart. had put the House in such a situation, that if they were to agree to the motion they would not come up to his view of the subject. If they called upon the executive government to issue a commission for the investigation of complaints laid before the House in petitions, a great part of the case, as stated by the hon. bart. was not in the petitions, and therefore would not be included in the operation of the commission. He allowed it was the duty of a member of parliament to present petitions to the House; but he agreed with his hon. friend, that before a member called on the House to act upon them, he ought to be able to state that he had general reasons for supposing that the alleged improprieties had taken places. The case, as made out by the hon. baronet, was an ex parte statement to which he could not pledge himself, and that case was rebutted on the other side by affidavits of other persons. If an enquiry were instituted under such circumstances, they must lay it down as a principle, that whenever a petition came before that House, however unsupported the allegations it contained, the subject must be sent to the executive to be investigated by a commission. He would recommend it to the hon. baronet to withdraw his motion, and then if he pleased he could charge himself with an enquiry into the subject, and if he should see it right, he would again bring it forward when he had acquired more real knowledge of the case. He would rather the hon. baronet should withdraw his motion than oblige him to give a negative to it.

said, that having on a former occasion borne his testimony in favour of Mr. Higgins, the gaoler's character, he had since, as he found this motion was persisted in, made further enquiries concerning it, and had received from several most respectable persons, his particular friends, accounts which in every respect confirmed the opinions he had before given, and shewed that Mr. Higgins was a man of great humanity and liberality. He thought, however, if the House should agree to the enquiry, that the noble lord was mistaken respecting the commission doing no service; for if it were granted, the commissioners might, in his opinion, take notice of all matters relating to or which had occurred in the gaol since Mr. Higgins was the keeper of it, though not specifically mentioned in the motion.

spoke against the motion, and vindicated the Sussex magistrates for adopting the prison dress, which he insisted was useful and proper.

spoke highly in favour of Mr. Higgins's character, whom he knew well; but said he should vote for the motion, because he thought the enquiry would be of advantage to him.

said, he wished an investigation, but he thought this would be an inconvenient time to bring it forward; he should, therefore, if the motion were now pressed, vote against it.

objected to the motion, as tending to introduce most mischievous precedents: the laws of the land gave an easy and ready remedy and redress. It must be known to all persons confined for debt, that they had ample remedies provided for any ill usage offered to them, without coming to that House for relief. Besides the common law, there was the 14th of George the 2d, and another statute passed in the 31st of his present Majesty, (called Powis's Act) appointing certain magistrates in each county to visit the prisons, and to do justice in a summary way in all cases where complaints were laid before them. It must also be known to all debtors, that by the 11th sect. of the act, called the Lords' Act, every debtor who has cause of complaint had nothing to do but to petition the court in which he was sued, or the judges on the assizes, and they were to take summary notice of it, and to give him redress. The House ought to act in conformity to right and justice, but not to give way to complaints brought forward on loose grounds.

objected to the motion.

, said, if government would engage to ease the hon. baronet of his business, and to bring it before the House at a future period, he thought they might be able to manage the matter more effectually than any other person; but if they would not do this, he thought the motion was highly important, and would certainly vote for it.

said, he thought some part of this charge absolutely demanded enquiry. It had been stated, that in the case of the man who was said to be murdered, the body had not been stript when under the inspection of the coroner's inquest. This was certainly very improper, for the law required positively, that if a person had been buried, and well founded suspicions arise afterwards that he came unfairly by his death, such persons should be dug up again, and why? that the body might be viewed by a jury; he thought in that instance there had been a culpable negligence, and should therefore support the motion.

replied, he thought it hardly fair that he should be called upon either to pledge himself for the truth of what he had advanced, or see his motion opposed as unworthy of attention. He had so far informed himself on the subject, that he knew the person writing to him was entitled to credit. Though he had a very favourable impression on his mind with respect to Mr. Higgins, and though he did not doubt but he was very sincere in desiring an enquiry, still it appeared to him very extraordinary that the enquiry should be forestalled, as it had been to night by the statement which they had heard. The conduct of the magistrates too, in taking away the prison allowance of bread and potatoes, which he was persuaded was illegal, to him appeared very extraordinary, and in his opinion made a strong prima facie case. The allegations brought before the House, and particularly those which set forth that a man had died in the prison of ill treatment, were not to be got over by general statements, however good the character of Mr. Higgins might be proved to be. These were circumstances which, in his opinion, very loudly called for an enquiry, He had heard no argument that could make him think it was not his duty to press this motion on the consideration of the House. He thought a parliamentary case had been made out. The enquiry, he contended, would not be inconvenient, and he should therefore feel it to be his duty, unless government undertook to make some enquiry into the business, to press the motion.

explained. He thought that the hon. baronet had not made out a case for a parliamentary enquiry, and that if the motion were acceded to, it would not answer his purpose. If the hon. baronet had any communication to make, that he might think ought to induce government to appoint a commission to investigate the business, he would be happy to receive it out of that House, and if it appeared in the same light to him as it might to the hon. baronet, he would use his endeavours to propose the appointment of a commission without the interference of parliament.

supported the motion.

objected to the proposed enquiry.

thought, if the hon. baronet could not state that he had seen the coroner's inquest on the man, who it was said had died through ill treatment, that a parliamentary case was not made out. With this feeling, if the hon. baronet founded his motion on the character of Mr. Higgins, he, from an anxious desire to do justice to the character of his friend, and he was proud to call Mr. Higgins by that name, would vote with him; but if it was founded on the Petitions on their table, he must vote against him.

, after a short conversation with lord Castlereagh, consented to withdraw his motion, with an understanding that some enquiry would be made by government.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

rose to move the order of the day for the House going into a committee on the East India Company's Loan Bill. He was sorry that he could not bring forward an Indian Budget, from the impracticability of getting the accounts made out sufficiently early to bring them forward in the course of the present session. He would, however, give a short and very general statement of the affairs of the Company:—

The right hon. gentleman proceeded to state and to explain various parts of the revenue and expenditure of the Company, through which, from the noise which prevailed in the gallery, we could not pretend to follow him.

The above Statement would shew the necessity the Company had been under, of coming to parliament. He proceeded to explain the situation of the Company, with respect to their bond debts; and he concluded a series of statements, of considerable length, by observing, that those, though not favourable, nor yet very unfavourable, to the concerns of the Company, were, perhaps, less unfavourable than gentlemen might have been led to expect. The revenue yielded to the country, had, in the last year, amounted to 400,000l.; in the present year it was estimated at 250,000l. He would not talk of the prosperity of the East India Company, till a different balance between their expenditure and their income could be shewn, than presented itself at present. He looked for an improvement from a reduction of their expences; and, under an impression that that might reasonably be expected, he trusted the House would agree to the Resolution. The first object of the Bill would be to carry into effect the Resolution of the House; but the most material part of it would be to guard the country against any loss, by making an effectual provision for securing the payment, both of the principal and interest of the loan.—With this view, it was proposed that a portion of it should be paid off before the proprietors of Bank Stock made any dividend whatever. The sinking fund for the liquidation of the debt, was on a plan similar to that of the sinking fund for the payment of the national debt, with this difference, that it was larger in proportion, and would, it was calculated, liquidate the whole in twenty years. The situation of the Company, he trusted, would be such as to enable them to extinguish a considerable portion of it in a short time, and the whole of it in a much shorter time than the hon. gentlemen opposite might anticipate.

rose and said, he objected to the motion. So far, he said, as the statement of the East India Company's affairs went, as just made by the right hon. gentleman, although it was quite unexpected by him, he had no fault to find, he believed it to be perfectly fair, and it was in strict conformity to what he (Mr. Creevey) had at all times said and predicted upon this subject: what, however, he did find fault with was, that this statement, so officially made, was not done in the usual parliamentary manner, viz. in the shape of written resolutions of facts to be recorded on the journals, instead of being thus delivered viva voce only and by surprize, and so to be no more heard of, or of any further use.

He must take, however, the right hon. gentleman and his statement for the present as he found them, and they were perfectly sufficient for his present purpose.—The leading facts mentioned by the right hon. gentleman were these, that in the year 1810–11, the net receipt of the whole territorial revenue of India, after the payment of every species of charge whatsoever, was 450,000l. and that the estimated net receipt of the same revenue for the years 1811–12, was 250,000l. These facts in themselves proved every thing that he (Mr. Creevey) had ever said upon the absurd calculations upon which the Act of 1793 had been constructed; that act was the lease under which the Company now held the territorial Indian revenue and their exclusive trade; it recites as a fact, that the gross amount of the Indian territorial revenue was then 7,000,000l. per annum, and it assumes that after the payment of every species of charge whatsoever, there will be an annual net surplus of 1,000,000l. sterling. This estimated annual surplus of 1,000,000l. sterling, is the sole foundation of the Act of 1793; it is to be laid out or invested in India and China in the purchase of the various commodities of those countries, and such commodities when brought home to the Company's warehouses and sold, are to constitute the only source from whence the Company's dividends or the remuneration provided for the public by the Act of 1793, are to proceed.

This night then (said Mr. Creevey) we learn from the right hon. gentleman himself, that in this 19th year of this lease and within two years of its termination, although this territorial Indian revenue has, by conquest and cession, been swelled from 7,000,000l. to 16,000,000l. yet the estimated net revenue for the present year, after payment of all charges, is only estimated at 250,000l. although a surplus of 1,000,000l. was calculated upon from a revenue of 7,000,000l. only, by the Act of 1793; this too, let it be remembered, is in the 6th or 7th year of general peace in India; for during the Mahratta wars, and some years after this revenue had been annually inadequate to meet the charges, by at least 2,000,000l.—This fact then, of the gross fallacy of the whole foundation of the Act of 1793, upon which the public have for 19 years been excluded from trading to the East Indies, should not only be admitted, as it now is by the right hon. gentleman, but it should be distinctly recorded in the shape of a resolution upon the Journals; it should be followed by other resolutions of facts, equally admitted to be true by the right hon. gentleman, viz. that at the commencement of the Company's lease in 1793, their debt in India was 8,000,000l., and was to be reduced to 2,000,000l., whereas it is increased to 28,000,000l.; that their bond debt at home was 3,000,000l., and was to be reduced to 1,500,000l. whereas it has been encreased to 7,000,000l.; that upon a general estimate of the debts and assets of the Company, in 1793·4, they had a surplus of 4,000,000l., whereas now, within two years of the expiration of their lease, they have upon the same estimate a deficit of 7,000,000l., exclusive of their capital stock; that of the 7,880,500l. subscribed at different periods by the proprietors, as capital stock, the whole is spent with the exception of 1,200,000l., and that this sum is mortgaged to the Bank for 7,700,000l. that the 500,000l., which by the Act of 1793, was to have been annually paid the public, as the price of the exclusive trade, has been, in 19 years, only once paid; and that in 1810 the Company borrowed from the state 1,500,000l., making with the sum of 2,500,000l., sought to be borrowed by the present Bill, 4,000,000l. of money.

These facts being established, (Mr. Creevey said) let us proceed to the demands now made by the Company in the Bill about to be committed:—It asks a loan from the state of 2,500,000l., and why? What are the pretences for this application? The history of the present immediate difficulty of the Company was this:—Some years past in India, when the different governments in India found infinite difficulty in procuring sufficient loans, from the civil and military servants of the Company, to meet the enormous expenditure of Indian wars, even at the high rate given of 12 per cent. for such loans, they advertised, as an additional bonus to lenders, that they should be repaid in a given time, and have an option of being paid in London or in India. This circumstance it was that gave rise to what were called optional loans, and their amount was as high as 17,000,000l.: the ground of the present application of the Company, is, that part of this optional loan has become due this year; that payment is demanded (according to the terms of the contract) in London, that the Company have no means to make such payment, and that therefore they hope we will be kind enough to pay it for them. And again, said Mr. Creevey, why? Were we any parties to those optional loans from your servants in India to your Indian government—not a bit; you have not a particle of sanction from parliament for any such transaction; it is in direct violation of the Act of 1793, which says, no more than 500,000l. Indian debt shall be remitted home in one year; all the contracting parties at the time of the transaction, the Company's servants, the Indian government, and the directors at home, knew very well these optional loans could never be paid at home out of the funds of the Company; they did the thing with their eyes open, and for one, the hon. member said, he begged to leave the parties to settle the thing amongst themselves. There was nothing, he said, to him so utterly incomprehensible as the language so generally in circulation: "Well, but the Company must be assisted," "it is a very hard case upon their creditors." To the justice or expediency of the first part of this proposition he never would assent, and as to cases of hardship, he would state it as an unparalleled hardship upon this country, that at a period when according to the opinions of the best critics on these subjects, the state of public credit would never again permit the nation to raise a further loan, that at such a period this very state of public credit was greatly owing to this addition of 2,500,000l. for the Company to the other part of the public loan; as to any claim upon our justice, it was really too much to be insulted by the mention of such a name, after nineteen years' exclusion of the commercial interests of this country from trading to the East Indies, and after the uniform violation of every condition or engagement in return for which such exclusive trade was granted. The hon. gentleman, the member for Colchester, the deputy chairman of the East-India Company, and representative in that House (as he might be said to be) of the Great Mogul, had urged on a former night as an argument in favour of the Company's claim, that they paid acnually 4,000,000l. to the state in duties, and that such a sum was not to be sneezed at. Mr. Creevey said that as to the sneezing, it was quite a new mode to him of being affected by Indian subjects, and he certainly felt no symptom, either then or formerly of any such agitation: if however the director meant to convey, by this novel illustration, that 4,000,000l. was a large sum of money, Mr. Creevey said he met such observation, by saying, that one of the great arguments for a free trade to the East Indies was, that the enterprize of individuals would secure a much greater revenue to the state, than what is now produced by the limited commerce of the Company. But (observed Mr. Creevey) another honourable director opposite (Mr. Grant) a gentleman, though not in either of the chairs of the Company, yet deservedly considered as the oracle of that corporation, he will say, according to his established custom on these occasions, "our case is really one of genuine compassion, our calamities proceed from causes over which we the Company have no controul. Indian wars entered into by our governors, not only without our concurrence, but in direct opposition to our positive instructions and commands: these are the true causes of our distresses, and surely you will not be too hard upon us, under such humiliating circumstances."

It is true, said Mr. Creevey, we all know that in the year 1805, a dispatch was projected and prepared by the hon. member Mr. Grant, and signed by 23 directors out of 24; this memorable performance was meant to be forwarded to lord Wellesley, at Calcutta, and it did most ingenuously and in the strongest manner charge him, the noble marquis, with being the author of the Company's disasters; in addition to the allegations it contained of the impolicy, the expence, and the injustice of the wars he had engaged in; it charged him specifically with having violated all the commands of his employers, all the positive laws of the land, and of having in short, according to the words of the dispatch, "reduced the government of India to a pure and simple despotism." Well—this dispatch, according to the provisions of the Act of 1793, had to go to the Board of Controul for its sanction, before it set off on its voyage to India; by the Act of 1793, the Board of Controul are to inspect all political dispatches from the India House to their governors abroad, and they have the power of alteration, addition, and even substitution, over these compositions from the India House. The noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh,) was President of the Board of Controul at the time referred to, and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him in such capacity, he put the projected dispatch behind the fire, and he substituted in its place a short, pithy, unqualified panegyric upon all lord Wellesley's Indian administration. But this was not all—the poor directors were bound by the Act of 1793, to put their names to the substituted dispatch, and off it went to India as their own act and deed. To be sure there never was a harder case than this upon the directors or the Company, but then the pinching question to put to the director (Mr. Grant) is this, why did not you come to parliament and tell your story at the time? Why did not you come and say to the House of Commons and the country, we are driven by our government abroad, sanctioned by the Board of Controul at home, into difficulties immediately fatal to us, and that ultimately must fling us upon the bounty and compassion of the nation; we implore you for your sakes, as well as for our own, to interfere between us and the Board of Controul, and determine which is in the right.—The directors, if they wish to have any claims upon the justice of the country, ought to have so acted; they had advanced in their own dispatch, that, which if it were true, was sufficient ground of impeachment against lord Wellesley; and if believing these charges to be true, the directors declined preferring them before the public, they not only forfeited all claims upon the public by such conduct, but they in their turn became just objects of impeachment. The fact however was, they contented themselves with a kind of inefficient bluster, at the India-House, by recording their protests, documents invisible to all but their own corporation, and so the matter ended.

That there was a sufficiently obvioussolution of this conduct on the part of the directors, he (Mr. Creevey) was quite ready to admit; a mighty little reflection was sufficient to convince the directors, that the last thing they ought to do, was to quarrel with the Board of Controul, that is to say, with the government; they not only have the renewal of their charter perpetually before their eyes, with all their anxieties for the friendly disposition of the government on this subject, but this very day shewed, as indeed every year of late had shewn, the value to the Company of such an ally as the government:—with what facility it can extort from the public millions after millions for the Company, as long as the two parties act cordially together; besides, (Mr. Creevey observed) as he had on a late occasion remarked, the directors had no real personal interest in the prosperity of the Company's affairs; and therefore, why (they might say) should they embroil themselves with the government; patronage over the great commercial, territorial, judicial, civil and military establishments of the Company, constituted the only interest of an Indian director in the concerns of the Company.—What was the 2,000l., India stock, the only qualification requisite for the hon. director opposite to him, what was this as an object, compared with all their contracts at home, in the outfit of their fleets, with their annual nominations of cadets and writerships to India, with their selection of particular lucrative voyages for their own connections, with their appointment of supra-cargoes at Canton, with their enormous influence arising from their great London establishment, and the means thus afforded them of filling the places they represent in parliament with ticket porters from their London warehouses?

Thus it was, Mr. Creevey said, from the circumstances he had mentioned, from the superior interest the directors had in cultivating the government, rather than the proprietors, they were quite certain at all times, however perilous the circumstance of their affairs might be, to fling themselves upon the government for carrying them through, rather than to deal fairly and ingenuously by the public; and for this reason it was, that he for one on the present occasion would not agree to advance them a single farthing.

Mr. Creevey said, he knew of one reason only for his agreeing to make the present advance, and that was because he knew he could not help it: the union of such powers as the government and the East-India Company, was a combination, that as long as the public took no interest in the subject, had the House of Commons absolutely at its feet; the experience of the last six years afforded ample proof of this; during which period, a sum of eight millions (including the present loan) had been raised from the public and individuals for the Company, as matter almost of course, without an atom of enquiry, and upon mere suggestion only of any servant of the crown.

As additional proof of the injurious effect upon the country of this union between the government and the Company, Mr. Creevey contrasted the present period with former ones, when these allies were separated.—He said, there were three distinct divisions of the Company's history; from the act of King William, which gave them birth to the year 1765, was the first division; during this period the Company were purely merchants, and unconnected altogether with the crown, and however unwise and impolitic the principle of granting an exclusive trade to a joint stock company might have originally been, it was not less true, that during this first part of the Company's history they did contribute very large sums to the state at different times, as the price of their monopoly, and they did in no instance prefer any application to parliament, for relief or assistance of any description whatsoever.—The second division of the Company's history, was from 1765 to 1784: from the first of these years was to be dated the new character of the East India Company as Indian sovereigns: it was in 1765 that lord Clive began the grand work of conquest for the Company in India, and the experience of the two or three first years from that date, sufficiently proved, how little suited these incongruous materials, sovereignty and commerce, were, when united, to produce any benefit to the Company. Gentlemen had only to look to the statute book for the proofs of the instantaneous and uniform fatal effects of the union of these two characters of sove- reigns and merchants, in the corporation of the East India Company; not a year passed without one or more laws being made to extricate them from those difficulties which had all at once overpowered them; but still they were unconnected with the government, they were completely under the controul of parliament, and the House of Commons did most seriously, in the year 1780; set about examining by two committees of its own, into the very bottom and origin of these new and complicated distresses of the Company. In this trying crisis of the Company's very existence, different nostrums were applied; the House well knew how deeply the political fortunes of Mr. Fox were affected by the experiment which he suggested to parliament on that occasion, and the House knew likewise how the struggle of the Company ended in 1784, by a compromise or union between the government and the Company, the latter being compelled to permit for ever after, its whole political councils to be dictated by a new created establishment in the state, called the Board of Controul over the affairs of India. It was the period from this junction in 1784, to the present time, that made the third and last division of the Company's history; and during this interval there had been an end of all parliamentary controul over the affairs of the Company whatsoever. During the novelty of the establishment, and indeed for many years after, the minister presiding over it had attempted to impose upon the House and the public, a belief that the corporation of sovereigns and merchants were going on more prosperously under the auspices of their new masters, than they had done formerly by themselves; but now by the ministers of the crown themselves even, a project so wild had for many years been abandoned; and so far from an annual panegyric upon the prosperity of the Company with which the establishment of the Board of Controul began, they now come, year after year, with demands for millions; and by the united strength in this House of the supplicants and their protectors, the government, there was nothing they asked for that they did not instantly obtain.—Mr. Creevey said there was one, and one only remedy for this monstrous national grievance, and that was the loud and general voice of the commercial interests of this country addressing itself to government and to parliament. He was most happy to have witnessed the strong feelings of that body, that he had done this spring upon this subject, and he trusted that upon the discussion of the renewal of the Company's Charter in the next spring, there would be no relaxation of the commercial and manufacturing interests of this country, upon an occasion of such infinite importance; of this he was quite sure, that they were the only body who could effectually interfere, in preventing the East India Company from any longer uniting an exclusive monopoly of commerce with their great Indian empire, and he was not less certain that the united representations of so important a part of the state would be imperative upon the government, in making them abandon any further support of the Company's monopoly.

Mr. Creevey said, he could not permit this occasion to pass by without adverting to the extraordinary reverse in the situation of the East India Company in its present state, as compared with the period of its creation, or indeed without noticing the reverse in the situation of the state during the same periods.—In the reign of king William, we began as a state to borrow for the first time, and the East India Company, a collection of mercantile adventurers only, lent us two millions at their first start, as the price of their monopoly; at the expiration of a century from that time, we, the state, have borrowed so many hundred millions, that we are on the very verge of breaking down. The critics in finance have predicted with confidence, that the loan for the present year is the last this country can ever raise. The East India Company at the expiration of the same century, have from common mercantile adventurers, become lords and sovereigns of a great portion of Asia, sovereigns over 50 millions of subjects, proprietors of sixteen millions sterling of revenue per annum; and yet do they, in this the season of their prosperity and our adversity, come to give us a last and farewell blow, by making us raise this loan of two millions and a half for them, in addition to our own.—Looking back (said Mr. Creevey) at what were the favorite subjects at the beginning of the last century, with the best friends of the constitution, as what were considered as the best securities of the Revolution, a reasonable man at this time of day might well be indulged in pausing, and even in doubting, whether those securities had not been too dearly purchased. He referred to the funding system, and to the formation of the two great establishments, the Bank of England and the East India Company, which took place at that time; the friends of the Revolution at that time said, it is good to borrow money; for those who lend will be attached to the present state of things, i.e. the revolution; so in the like manner it was good to encourage the adventurers in these two great concerns, the Bank and India Company, because the projectors must necessarily be attached to the present order of things, i.e. the Revolution. Now, said Mr. Creevey, "permit me, Mr. Speaker, to state, why with every degree, of regard and respect for the great men who brought about and conducted the Revolution, why I feel myself justified in doubting whether I do not pay too dearly for those great securities of the Revolution, viz. the Funding System, and those establishments, the Bank of England and the East India Company.—Suppose me, Sir, a person with a fixed income, an annuitant, or possessed only of money upon mortgage or in the funds, in short, without the means of increasing my income to meet any increase of expenditure. In this condition the first operation of the funding system upon me, is, it is so overloaded, that I am called upon to pay in the first instance 10l. in one hundred to the state, to prevent too much money being borrowed within the year. The next enemy I have to encounter is the Bank of England, which being protected by the government in defrauding its creditors, and in no longer issuing any coin, in conformity to its engagements, issues its own paper upon the country, without controul or mercy; the operation of this is, that the Bank divides millions upon millions of profits amongst its own corporation, by this act of perfidy in multiplying its paper, which it never redeems, whilst I, out of my hundred pounds, lose 25l. more in addition to my ten, from the depreciation made in paper, by the over issues of the Bank of England: after these operations I am again met by the funding system; wherever I turn myself, it calls upon me for a tax upon every article I consume, to pay the interest of the hundreds of millions that have been funded, and finally comes the great East India Company, the successors of the great Mogul himself, begging that I would not forget them in the midst of my liberality, but that I will be kind enough to add to my other outgoings, a slight contribution to them also; my mite towards raising 2,500,000l., which they assure me they cannot possibly do without.—These facts, Mr. Speaker, constitute my apology for speaking with any diffidence of the blessings of the Revolution, or at least of the value of those establishments, which have been always considered as its best securities; and with these sentiments I conclude—objecting to giving one farthing to this expensive favourite, and security of the Revolution, the East India Company."

The House then divided; For going into a Committee 38, Against it 9; Majority 29.—In the committee,

opposed the clause making the consolidated fund responsible for the loan to the Company. This was the first attempt which any Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet made to lend them the credit of the country.

contended, that the credit of the Company, at the prospect of the expiration of their Charter, would have been exceedingly depressed, if the assistance of the country was refused them. We ought not to decline assisting those who had been our best allies, even though the credit of the country was labouring.

conceived, that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to talk of the labouring credit of the country, was calculated to excite considerable alarm.

remarked, that the Company certainly resembled our allies in one respect,—that they were very glad to take our money, though with but a poor chance of re-payment. He could recollect, that when Mr. Pitt proposed the Austrian loan, the House were told there was not the least risk; re-payment was so carefully guarded, that the Bill authorised the Attorney and Solicitor-General to prosecute the Emperor in his own courts for the payment of the interest. But the country had been saddled with the whole of it: and he feared the same would be the case in the present instance, notwithstanding all the guards and securities of the Bill. There was something very ominous in the words and the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the credit of the country. He had told the committee, that its finance was labouring; and another experienced financier had predicted, that the present would probably be its last labour in the loan way. Was this, then, a proper moment to grant the Company a bonus, by applying the credit of the country to their relief?

said, in explanation, that by the expression "labouring credit" he only meant to state, that the terms of the last loan had been more unfavourable than in preceding years. He should soon have an opportunity of assigning his reasons for asserting that our credit was not essentially impaired, and of shewing not only to this country, but to Europe, that the resources of the nation were sufficient to enable it to maintain the contest for years, if necessary. Had the Company raised this loan on their own credit, the money market of London would have been equally affected.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared; For the clause 31, Against it 16; Majority 15. The Bill was then gone through, and ordered to be reported.