Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

which it appears, that some difference existed between my Lord Clive, and the Marquis Wellesley, involving matters which are not, in any degree, explained. The third set of papers regard the Polygar war, in 1801. It appears, from the treaty of 1792, that the company's government had a right deputed to them, to collect the peishcush, or tribute, from the Polygars; and to enforce the payment, if necessary, on the requisition of the nabob. But every act to be performed, was to be done in the nabob's name, and by his authority. Now, this war, which was a very extraordinary one, both in its alleged cause and consequences, must, at first sight, appear to be sanctioned at least by the nabob. It will, therefore, be necessary to ascertain whether, in point of fact, it was so or not; in order to shew that the nabob's government was either the cause of the war, or to free it from the consequences, and the blame which might attach to that measure. But, Sir, before I sub mit this motion to the house, it may be asked of me, whether I do not think I owe some apology to the house, as to the time which will be taken up by bringing this subject forward; and I think it is perfectly correct to ask me that question. Sir, if this motion be agreed to, 1 take upon me to say, that within one month after the papers are printed, I shall be further prepared to move those resolutions on the papers, which I shall judge requisite. I am of opinion, it could be done in much less time, if necessary; but the subject is important, and demands a full enquiry. I hesitate not to say, that I bring this subject forward as an independent member of parliament, anxious to rescue the coun

try from the imputation of miscon duct; and I beg leave to observe, that I have no connection whatever with those who were first concerned in bringing this subject forward. With regard to Mr. Paull, I have no difficulty in stating that he deserves well of his country for the part he has taken in these transactions. I never saw him in my life. My reason for promoting this enquiry arises from an anxiety I feel, that this country should suffer in its character from imputations which it does not deserve. I shall conclude with moving, "That the papers which were presented to this house upon the 21st and 23d days of June, 1809, relative to the Carnatic, be re-printed for the members of the house."

Mr. Sheridan thanked the hon. baronet for his liberality and candour, and acknowledged the pledge which he had given to proceed with the enquiry. He had stated the reasons which induced him to give it up, when the hon. baronet was not a member of the house. He would again state them at the proper time, and then the hon. baronet would be satisfied that he did him no more than justice, for giving him credit for the purity of his motives. The question, as he thought, was confined to the conduct of the Madras government, but from volumes of papers afterwards moved for, it appeared that the Bengal government, the directors, and the board of control were also implicated. This was, however, not the ground of his abandoning the case. He thought the hon. baronet ought to confine himself to the re-printing of the papers before produced. If he moved for new ones, and was retorted upon in the manner he had been, he would subject himself to be called over the coals, and

the

the business might be delayed longer than he could at present have any idea of. When he brought forward the charge, however, he would experience every support that he could give him.

Sir John Anstruther hoped that the hon, baronet would declare what was his object, and against whom his motion was to be directed. Did he mean to attack Lord Wellesley, or Lord Powis, or the court of directors, or the board of control, or the late ministers ? He wished to know what he was driving at, if he knew himself, for he seemed to have some doubts about the matter. In the mean time, he hoped that the house would not allow the characters of the executive officers to be complimented away by the praises which the right hon. gent. and the hon. baronet had thought proper to bestow on each other. He contended, that the conduct of the executive officers had been approved by the directors, and the board of control, the cabinet, and this house. They had only executed the orders they had received, and the responsibility did not, therefore, rest with them, though he did not admit that they had, by any means, even lent themselves as instruments to any improper act. He then adverted to the injustice done to persons accused, by allowing the charge to hang over. He also said, that from his own knowledge, be could affirm that the revival of old charges was attended with great mischief to our Indian government. It shook the confidence of the natives in its stability, and nourished a desire of change, which prevailed in a particular degree in these people, and was generally the case in arbitrary governments. He wished to know, specifically, what was the design of

the hon. baronet before he gave his assent to the motion.

Mr. Grant said, though he did not flatter himself much benefit would result from the discussion, yet, as a friend to discussion in general, and considering the House of Commons as the only protection the inhabitants of British India had for protection and redress, and the only place in which an investigation into the affairs of India could be instituted, it was necessary that he should take notice of some assertions which had been made in the course of the debate. It was asserted that they had recommended, if not ordered, the revolution which took place in India, by the assumption of the territories of the Carnatic ; to which it must first be answered, that they disclaimed all interference in the nature of compulsion, and he read an extract from their minutes, by which such an interference was expressly disclaimed, and then asked how such a proceeding should be tortured into approbation, much less an authority, for the revolution which took place? He could state, that the court of directors never did approve of that measure; for the sake, therefore, of having the conduct of the court of directors investigated, he was friendly to the present motion. He was very glad that the friends of Lord Wellesley were so desirous of entering into this investigation. He declined, however, to enter into the merits of the revolution in 1801; and he could speak with the greater freedom, as he had not, at that period, any share in the direction. It was to be observed, however, that the board of control took that affair into their own hands, and superseded altogether the court of directors. And the hon. baronet,

(Sir J. Anstruther) opposite to him, was completely mistaken in supposing the secret committee, and the court of directors, as being connected; it was, in point of fact, a complete mistake, in form as well as in substance. The secret committee was the express, direct, and immediate organ of the board of control. Their proceedings were utterly unknown to the court of directors. The secret committee. was subject, in no way or respect whatsoever, to the court of directors, who were, indeed, ignorant of the proceedings of the secret committee. This act, therefore, of the secret committee, which the hon baronet treated as the act of the court of directors, was an act in which they had no share, of which they had no knowledge;-an act, with which they had not the slightest concern; and it was an act on which the board of control had exercised its authority; and as that board was superior in India concerns, it became extremely difficult for the court of directors even to express an opinion, much less exercise a judgment on a decision of the board of control, without incurring the imputation of resisting superior authority. It was liable to great objection of leading to great derangement in their affairs. Another reason which prevented the interference was, the assumption of the Carnatic had become the subject of parliamentary enquiry, which superceded both the board of control, and the court of direc

tors.

Sir John Anstruther denied that he wished to oppose enquiry. He only said, that it ought not to be allowed to drag on for years. The court of directors had instructed their officers to pay the same defe rence to the orders of the secret

committee as to those of the direc tors themselves, and as the secret committee had approved of the con duct of Lord Wellesley, he was fully warranted in saying, that the directors through them had expressed their approbation of it.

Mr. Grant denied that the court of directors submitted themselves entirely to the guidance of the secret committee.

Sir A. Wellesley said he was fully disposed to pursue the same line he had adopted last session, and was, therefore, willing to accede to every motion for papers, that could enable the house to decide upon the whole case. Neither could any friend of his noble relation give any opposition to the production of such information. But it was his opinion, that all the papers should be re-printed, and with that view he should feel it his duty to move, as well as for those omitted by the hon. baronet, as well as any others that might be necessary to the elucidation of the transaction. He wished the house to consider the situation of his noble relation, with this charge hanging six years over him. It appeared by the papers, that the court of directors had sent out instructions to take possession of the Carnatic, at the commencement of the war with Tippoo Sultan, and not to restore it to the nabob. It was rather extraordinary, therefore, that a charge should be brought for a transaction commanded and approved by the court of directors, and sanctioned by his Majesty, and by act of parliament.

Mr. R. Thornton complained of the accusations thrown out against the directors, without documents on the table to warrant them. He regretted the delay which had taken place, but maintained that no blame rested with the directors. The rea

[ocr errors][merged small]

sons given by the right hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Sheridan) for his abandoning the case, did not appear to him satisfactory. When he had brought forward the question, he thought he was going hand in hand with him, but he soon found that he himself was to be accused. There were some points with respect to the government in India, that required the interference of the house, which was the dernier resort in such cases. But the court of directors were not the proper persons to become accusers. If they put themselves for ward in this way, they might do a great deal of mischief to the interests of India; from the nature of their situation it was not expedient in any view, that they should come prominently forwards, unless assured of effectual support. The hon. baronet (Sir J. Anstruther) had himself before gone a considerable way back in the enquiry into India transactions. It was but reasonable that he should allow the same privilege to others. He was glad that the subject had come under investigation, and was not much alarmed as to the result. He denied that the directors had given any instructions to sanction the revolution in the Carnatic. The court of directors were quite distinct from the secret committee, which was not responsible even for such papers as had its own signature.

Mr. Tierney would not object to the re-printing of the papers which had been before produced, and agreed that that house was the dernier resort in such cases; but lamented that the subject had been new brought forward, as he could see no good that could result from it. It had before been properly brought forward, and he lamented that it had not been then proceeded in. He begged of the house to con

sider the consequences. The subject was one of the deepest impor tance, particularly with a view to transfer property, which had taken place since the transaction which had been adverted to. But at the same time he admitted, that even the inconvenience that might result from the disturbance of property, ought not to deter the house, if it was called upon, from investigating the case, and applying its censures where censure was due. He was sorry that the hon. baronet had not mentioned more distinctly whom he intended to accuse. He admitted that the board of control was responsible for the secret committee, but he denied that this committee was such a nullity as some might suppose from the description of it, which had that night been given, and he cautioned gentlemen against speaking of it in these terms, as they might, by these means, propagate an opinion that it was useless. He gave no opinion respecting the merits of the transactions. He agreed to the motion respecting the former papers; but it was doubtful whether the others could be granted, till the hon, baronet should state what they were, and till he had an opportunity of examining whether they could be produced without detriment to the public service.

Lord Folkestone contended that, with respect to the assumption of the Carnatic, blame lay somewhere, and it was a matter of serious investigation where all the censure of that most extraordinary revolution should devolve. The hon. baronet had been pressed to state distinctly his object in calling for those papers; it might be impossible for the hon. baronet distinctly to state his object, until he had been previously furnished with the necessary evidence by those papers; but before that evi

dence

dence should be furnished, he thought it a subject of too great magnitude to warrant any member in distinctly pledging himself to a specific charge.

Mr. Hiley Addington begged gentlemen to recollect, that there had been more papers relative to India called for, and produced in the last session of the late parliament, than for six sessions before; he was entirely of opinion, that in calling for papers upon any subject, the object should be distinctly stated; he acquitted the hon. baronet of being actuated by any sinister motives of party or vanity in bringing forward his present motion, and praised the manly and ingenious conduct of the gallant general (Wellesley) in every question relating to Indian enquiry.

Mr. S. Stanhope thought it a most extraordinary mode of opposing the hon. baronet's motion, by refusing to assent to the papers called for, until the object had been distinctly stated, which object the papers in question were alone to ascertain. He complained of a radical defect in the present state of the government in India, and knew not whether more governments had been subverted by it in the East, or by Buonaparte in the West.

Sir Thomas Turton, in reply, said, that when it appeared by the arguments upon both sides, that it was a question whether the court of directors approved or disapproved of the conduct of their servants in India, he did not think that a stronger argument than this very doubt could possibly be admitted in favour of the motion he had submitted to the house; his object was substantial justice, and in the pursuit of that, however deficient in other respects, he should not be found defective in zeal, diligence,

and perseverance. As to the voluminous papers with which he had been threatened from the other side, if such papers contributed in the least degree to the defence of the accused, he, himself, should gladly second the motion for their production. He had been urged to state distinctly the object of his motion; it was impossible to state, in a case of such magnitude, on whom the evidence found in these papers should especially bear; and it was, therefore, in the present stage of the business, impossible for him distinctly to pledge himself, farther than avowing it as his intention to submit a motion, committing the house to a censure of the East India company, or its servants, in the assumption of the government of the Carnatic. The hon. baronet concluded with an appeal to the feelings of the house, in which he alluded to the melancholy fate of the deposed prince, who, he could prove, had perished in a dungeon.

Sir A. Wellesley explicitly denied that the prince, as stated by the hon. baronet, was imprisoned in a dungeon, or died by any other than natural causes. He thought it became a gentleman of the hon. baronet's profession, to be more cautious in making such charges.

Sir T. Turton maintained that the papers bore him out in his assertion, though he did not in the least implicate Lord Wellesley in that dark transaction.

Mr. Fuller thought the enquiry should be fully gone into.

Mr. Sheridan acquitted in the fullest manner the noble lord (Wellesley) but had not a doubt upon his mind, that the young prince came to his death by foul and extraordinary means.-The motion was then put and carried.

Monday,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »