object was to prevent the continuance of existing disasters. Viewing the motion as founded on the clearest grounds, it had his most cordial support. General MAITLAND thought the Honourable Member who spoke last had not fully under stood the force of the Noble Lord's observations. To him it appeared, that from the Noble Lord's statement the production of the paper in question would be attended with inconvenience, and this was a fair parliamentary ground for refusing its production. If the description of the state of Ceylon was such as the Honourable Mover described, he thought that the papers relative to this matter ought not to be produced. It could only have the effect of conveying dangerous information to the enemy. The first paper contained every thing now wanted; a time for the production of the others would arrive, he trusted not remote. Mr. G. JOHNSTONE was of opinion that any argument drawn from the impolicy of giving information to the enemy was quite inapplicable. If we looked to the situation of Ceylon, it was evident that before this time the war must have come to a crisis. Our troops must either have prevailed, or been expelled from the settlement, or destroyed. Under existing circumstances besides, it could not be conceived for a moment, that the French government would entertain the project of sending such a body of troops to India as would endanger our Indian possessions. He was de cidedly, therefore, for the in-quiry... The Noble Lord had said that government was in possession suf very scanty, information; this was the general complaint against the governors of all our foreign possessions. They gave such unsatisfactory details as to the most important events, that neither parliament nor the public were able to form correct opinions on the subject. The motion was calculated to procure more infornation, and the Honourable Member who introduced it deserved the thanks both of the house and the public. He was so entitled. for the motion, and the ability with which he had defended it. Lord CASTLEREAGH, in explanation, stated, that when he spoke of the scanty information of government, he alluded to the unfortunate massacre of the ganrison of Candy. Sir WM. GEARY strongly sup ported the motion. Mr. WALLACE against it. Mr. CALCRAFT was astonished at the argument of the Honourable General; he had asserted that if the garrison of Ceylon was in a weak state, it should not be disclosed, but denies that it was so. He was for the inquiry. Lord HENRY PETTY was as tonished at the sort of argument ministers set up against this notion. If would be curious if the officers of a ship going to sea were to reply, when a proposition was made to examine her timbers, or general state, that such an inquiry would come better when the vessel had arrived into purt. But this was precisely the argus ment of ministers. It was surely proper to inquire into the means of defence before a resolution was taken to protract so arduous a combat. He had heard the Governor-General of India had destined destined 10,000 men, to attempt the conquest of Candy. It behoved the house to know the grounds for the war, and proba bility of its success, before the lives of so many brave men were idly sacrificed. He was, therefore, decidedly in favour of the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the papers already ordered would give sufficient information to ground any ulterior decision upon, as to the point whether the war in Cey lon was undertaken on justifiable grounds. The object, causes, and circumstances of the war would be explained by these papers; and if the house should then think that the war was unjust, it would be competent for them to advise his majesty to prevent its further prosecution. His majesty's ministers had received no official information that 10,000 men were about to be sent from Madras to Ceylon. that in the motion which I pro pose to submit to the house, I am governed by that resolution, and aim at nothing but to inforce the execution of that law. In this purpose and on this ground, I hope for the support and concur rence of the house; because I do not believe it will be asserted by any man, that it is very right to pass laws for the better govern ment of a distant dominion, and very wrong to inquire whether such laws are obeyed or not. In my opinion it would be a wiser policy, and a safer practice, not to make any laws, than to suffer the to be slighted with impunity. Ha bits ofdisobedience are very catch. ing, and they are the more dan gerous in proportion to the dis tance of the offending parties, and to the facility which that distance gives them to conceal or disguise their transactions. I state these principles generally, as a rati onal ground of parliamentary suspicion and inquiry, whenever the government of India appears to be engaged in measures which the law prohibits; and not at all meaning to affirm, that such mea23 sures, when they are thoroughly examined, may not admit of a suffi cient justification. The business and duty of this day does not call upon me to accuse any man, or to affirm that any thing deserving the censure of parliament has been done. My object is to inquire, and then, according to the result of the inquiry, to desist or to proceed. All I contend for, in the first instance, is, that a British Governor who commences a war in India, is prima facie doing that which the law prohibits; that his own act of itself puts him on bis defence; that he is bound to justify on the case; and that until be The question was loudly called Majority against the motion, 47 70 MAHRATTA WAR. Mr. FRANCIS moved that the 35th clause of the 24th of his majesty should be read, viz. "Whereas to pursue schemes of conquest, and extension of dominion, are measures repugnant to the wish and policy of this nation, be it enacted," &c. and then spoke to the following effect. "Sir, in moving to have this clause now read, I have two objects, 1st, to remind the house of their own unanimous resolution, on which the subsequent acts of parliament was founded, and then to shew 2 0 bas so justified his conduct, the presumptions are against him. All the authorities of the country have united with one voice, to condemn and forbid the carrying on war in India for any purpose but defence, or on any ground but necessity. I need not tell the house that the practice in India has been almost uniform ly, or with short exceptions, directly opposed to the prohibition. While the directors of the India Company had any power, they certainly laid down very wise principles, and gave very proper orders on this subject. When their power over their own Governors was found to be insufficient, the Legislature interposed, but, as it appears by the facts, with no more success than the directors. Since the prohibitory act passed in 1783, I appeal to the house whether we have heard of any thing from India but war and conquest; many victories and great acquisitions, with only now and then a short interval of repose, to take breath and begin anew. There is another ground of presumption against the necessity and justice of these wars, which seems to me as strong and conclusive as any presumption can be, before the contrary is proved. I mean, Sir, that almost all these wars are supposed to originate in acts of provocation and aggression committed by the weak against the strong. The strength of any single Indian state at any time, and now, I believe, of all of them put together, is not to be compared with the military power and resources of the English. I do not say, that those nations have no means of defence, or that the Mahrattas, for example, can do us no mischief; but that considering the great disparity of VOL G. force, it requires very clear evidence to make it credible, that the disposition of the British power in India is always, if possible, to preserve the peace, and to be satisfied with what we possess; this excellent disposition is never suffered to prevail, because the Indian Princes are so restless and unruly, that we cannot in common justice to ourselves refrain from invading them. The fable says, the fierce rebellious lamb would never suffer the mild, gentle, moderate wolf to be quiet : if it was not you, it was your father. These propositions may be true, but they require some proof, and when it is produced, I shall desire it always to be observed and remembered, that the evidence that comes before us is ex parte. We hear little or nothing of what the opposite, and possibly the injured-party have to say for themselves. Ever since have known any thing of Indian affairs, I have found that the prevailing disease of our government there has been a rage for making war. The strong, the ineffectual remedies that have from time to time been applied to this disorder, are a sufficient proof of its existence. That individuals may find their account in the conduct of such wars, I do not mean to dispute; but I deny that they are, or can be for the benefit of the India Company, or the nation,-particularly in the present state of the Honourable Company's affairs. In these circumstances, and in actual possession of half the peninsula, you engage in a new war with the Mahrattas, the success of which can give you nothing but an addition of territory, which you cannot keep without an intolerat e increase of your military estaIX blishments, blishments, and a perpetual drain f your resources of men as well as money; and which you ought not to keep if you could. Whether the Mahrattas have united in defence of their country, or carry the war into the heart of our best provinces, as they have done in former times, or with what loss or expence our success against them may may have been purchased, are questions in which we are utterly in the dark. By public report alone, we are informed, that a war of great extent at least, and liable to many important consequences, is now carrying on in In dia, and no information of it has been communicated to parliament. Sir, I can safely assure this house that the Mahrattas, though not capable of meeting us in the field, or at all likely to encounter us in a pitched battle, are very able to do us a great deal of mischief. In the year 1778, the Presidency of Bombay received and gave their protection to a Mahratta fugitive called Ragoba, and mustered all the force they could collect, to march him back to Poona, and to make themselves masters of that place. If the expedition had succeeded, I do not doubt, that the persons engaged in it would have been very well paid for their trouble. The event was, that their army was surrounded, starved, and conpelled to capitulate. At some earlier periods of the history of India, the Mahrattas have crossed the rivers and made rapid incursions into the upper provinces of Bengal and Behar, carrying universal desolation with them wherever they went, ruining the country, and making it impossible to collect the revenues. I know no reason why they may not make the same attempts again, and with the same success. With such bodies of horse as they can collect at a very short warning, from 50 to 100,000 in different quarters, they may pour into our provinces, overrun and lay waste the country, and then make their retreat, with the same rapidity, without its being possible for us either to meet or overtake them. This is their mode of making war, and it has always succeeded with them; they are the Tartars of India. In these circumstances I ask is it proper or not, that parliament should know why this war was undertaken, for what purpose it has been pursued, and with what suc cess it has been attended: and finally, has it the sanction and ap probation of the Court of Directors, and of his Majesty's minis ters? Icannot believe it possible.--If it should be stated, as I have some reason to think it may, that the papers to which this motion alludes have not, in fact, been received by the Court of Directors, that answer must silence me for the present, but I cannot say that, in a certain point of view, it will be very satisfactory. The orders given by Lord Wellesley, in consequence of which the hostilities began on the Malabar coast, must have been dated some time in June or July last. I beg of the House to observe the dates; we are now in the middle of March, so that eight months and a half must have elapsed, since the orders were given, and no information received at home on this subject. This is a case which the act of parliament has seen and provided for-The words of the law are, in all cases where hostilities shall have been commenced, or treaty made, the Governor General and Coun cil shall, by the most expeditious means they can devise, communicate the same to the Court of Directors, together with a full state of the information and intelligence upon which they shall have commenced hostilities, or made such treaties, and their motives and reasons for the same at large," Until it shall appear in evidence, that this delay of information, directly from Lord Wellesley, is not owing to any neglect or omission on his part, I am bound to presume that there is a fault somewhere:-supposing the measures in question should appear, upon inquiry, to deserve censure, the cause of censure will be greatly aggravated by the neglect of sending home timely information on the whole subject. I am not able to foresee what sort of objection can be stated to the motion for papers with which I mean to conclude. I rather hope for the acquiescence of the noble Lord on the other side. At all events, I hope and expect that personal character, or the personal confidence due to any man, will not be alleged in bar to this inquiry. At present there is no charge, and there ought to be no defence. If I have laid sufficient ground for inquiry, we are bound to inquire. If crimination should follow, it must be answered, not by character, but by proof. When an inquiry was moved for, in this house, in the year 1791, into the causes of the first war with Tippoo Sultaun, no man's reputation stood higher in the estimation of the public than that of Lord Cornwailis. But I do not remember that any opposition to the inquiry was set upon the score of his personal character, though none was more generally respected. On the contrary, his majesty's ministers met the inquiry fairly, and thought they could not defend his conduct better than by giving us all the information they possessed. I hope and expect that the Noble Lord now at the head of the Indian department will follow that example. He professes to invite and encourage a free discussion of all Indian questions. If not, and if the motion with which Lam now about to conclude should be resisted, I think, the house will be reduced to one of these two conclusions--either that there is something in the personal merits of Lord Wellesley which entitles him to greater confidence than was thought due to Lord Cornwallis, or that there has been something in his conduct to which no other defence can be applied but a favourable opinion of his character. I move you, Sir, "that there be laid before this house copies or extracts of all dispatches received from the Governor General of Bengal, or from the presidencies of Fort St. George and Bombay, as far as such dispatches relate to and account for hostilities now or lately subsisting between the said Governments and any of the Mahratta princes or states, with the dates of the receipts of such dispatches." Copies, or extracts of all the correspondences between the said governments, and any of the Mahratta princes or states relative to the said hostilities." "Copies or extracts of all orde s or instructions sent to India by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, on the same subject." On the question being put from the chair, CASTLEREAGH Lord rose. He |