same.

What were they owing to then? to the private views of a few individuals, who have enriched themselves at the expense of your influence, and of my country; for your servants have no trade in this country, neither do you pay them high wages, yet in a few years they return to England with many lacs of pagodas. How can you or I account for such immense fortunes, acquired in so short a time, without any visible means of getting them ?"

When he asked this question, which involves its answer, it is extraordinary that curiosity did not prompt the chancellor of the exchequer to that inquiry which might come in vain recommended to him by his own act of parliament. Does not the nabob of Arcot tell us in so many words, that there was no fair way of making the enormous sums sent by the company's servants to England? And do you imagine that there was or could be more honesty and good faith in the demand for what remained behind in India? Of what nature were the transactions with himself? If you follow the train of his information you must see, that if these great sums were at all lent, it was not property, but spoil that was lent; if not lent, the transac tion was not a contract, but a fraud. Either way, if light enough could not be furnished to authorise a full condemnation of these demands, they ought to have been left to the parties who best knew and understood each other's proceedings. It was not necessary that the authority of government should interpose in favour of claims, whose very foundation was a defiance of that authority, and whose object and end was its entire subversion.

It may be said that this letter was written by the nabob of Arcot in a moody humour, under the influence of some chagrin. Certainly it was, but it is in such humours that truth comes out. And when he tells you from his own knowledge, what every one must presume, from the extreme probability of the thing, whether he told it or not, one such testimony is worth a thousand that contradict that probability, when the parties have a better understanding with each other, and when they have a point to carry, that may unite them in a common deceit.

If this body of private claims of debt, real or devised, were a question as it is falsely pretended, between the nabob of Arcot, as debtor, and Paul Benfield and his associates as creditors, I am sure I should give myself but little trouble about it. If the hoards of oppression were the fund for satisfying the claims of bribery and peculation, who would wish to interfere between such litigants? If the demands were confined to what might be drawn from the treasures which the company's records uniformly assert that the nabob is in

possession of; or if he had mines of gold or silver, or diamonds (as we know that he has none) these gentlemen might break open his hoards, or dig in his mines without any disturbance from me. But the gentlemen on the other side of the house know as well as I do, and they dare not contradict me, that the nabob of Arcot and his creditors are not adversaries, but collusive parties, and that the whole transaction is under a false colour and false names. The litigation is not, nor ever has been, between their rapacity and his hoarded riches. No, it is between him and them combining and confederating on one side, and the public revenues, and the miserable inhabitants of the ruined country, on the other. These are the real plaintiffs and the real defendants in the suit. Refusing a shilling from his hoards for the satisfaction of any demand, the nabob of Arcot is always ready, nay, he earnestly, and with eagerness and passion, contends for delivering up to these pretended creditors his territory and his subjects. It is, therefore, not from treasuries and mines, but from the food of your unpaid armies, from the blood withheld from the veins, and whipt out of the backs of the most miserable of men, that we are to pamper extortion, usury, and peculation, under the false names of debtors and creditors of state.

The great patron of these creditors (to whose honour they ought to erect statues) the right honourable gentleman [Mr. Dundas] in stating the merits which recommended them to his favour, has ranked them under three grand divisions. The first, the creditors of 1767, then the creditors of the cavalry loan, and lastly, the creditors of the loan in 1777. Let us examine them, one by one, as they pass in review before us.

The first of these loans, that of 1767, he insists, has an indisputable claim upon the public justice. The creditors, he affirms, lent their money publicly, they advanced it with the express knowledge and approbation of the company, and it was contracted at the moderate interest of ten per cent. In this loan the demand is, according to him, not only just, but meritorious in a very high degree, and one would be inclined to believe he thought so, because he has put it last in the provision he has made for these claims.

I readily admit this debt to stand the fairest of the whole, for whatever may be my suspicions concerning a part of it, I can convict it of nothing worse than the most enormous usury. But I can convict upon the spot the right honourable gentleman, of the most daring misrepresentation in every one fact, without any exception, that he has alleged in defence of this loan, and of his own conduct with regard to it. I will shew you that this debt was never contracted

with the knowledge of the company, that it had not their approbation, that they received the first intelligence of it with the utmost possible surprise, indignation, and alarm.

So far from being previously apprised of the transaction from its origin, it was two years before the court of directors obtained any official intelligence of it. "The dealings of the servants with the nabob were concealed from the first, until they were found out," (says Mr. Sayer, the company's counsel) "by the report of the country." The presidency, however, at last thought proper to send an official account. On this the directors tell them, 66 to your great reproach it has been concealed from us. We cannot but suspect this debt to have had its weight in your proposed aggrandisement of Mahomed Ali [the nabob of Arcot]; but whether it has or not, certain it is, you are guilty of an high breach of duty in concealing it from us.

These expressions, concerning the ground of the transaction, its effect, and its clandestine nature, are in the letters bearing date March 17, 1769. After receiving a more full account on the 23rd of March, 1770, they state, that Messrs. John Pybus, John Call, and James Bourchier, as trustees for themselves and others of the nabob's private creditors, had proved a deed of assignment upon the nabob and his son of fifteen districts of the nabob's country, the revenues of which yielded in time of peace, eight lacs of pagodas [£320,000 sterling] annually, and likewise an assignment of the yearly tribute paid the nabob from the rajah of Tanjore, amounting to four lacs of rupees [£40,000]." The territorial revenue, at that time possessed by these gentlemen, without the knowledge or consent of their masters, amounted to three hundred and sixty thousand pounds sterling annually. They were making rapid strides to the entire possession of the country, when the directors, whom the right honourable gentleman states as having authorised these proceedings, were kept in such profound ignorance of this royal acquisition of territorial revenue by their servants, that in the same letter they say, "this assignment was obtained by three of the members of your board, in January 1767, yet we do not find the least trace of it upon your consultations, until August 1768, nor do any of your letters to us afford any information relative to such transactions, till the 1st of November, 1768. By your last letter of the 8th of May, 1769, you bring the whole proceedings to light in one view."

As to the previous knowledge of the company, and its sanction to the debts, you see that this assertion of that knowledge is utterly unfounded. But did the directors approve of it, and ratify the trans

we

action when it was known? The very reverse. On the same 3rd of March, the directors declare, upon an impartial examination of the whole conduct of our late governor and council of Fort George (Madras) and on the fullest consideration, that the said governor and council have, in notorious violation of the trust reposed in them, manifestly preferred the interest of private individuals to that of the company, in permitting the assignment of the revenues of certain valuable districts, to a very large amount, from the nabob to individuals”—and then highly aggravating their crimes, they add, 66 order and direct that you do examine, in the most impartial manner, all the above-mentioned transactions; and that you punish by suspension, degradation, dismission, or otherwise, as to you shall seem meet, all and every such servant or servants of the company, who may by you be found guilty of any of the above offences." "We had," say the directors, "the mortification to find that the servants of the company who had been raised, supported, and owed their present opulence to the advantages gained in such service, have in this instance most unfaithfully betrayed their trust, abandoned the company's interest, and prostituted its influence to accomplish the purposes of individuals, whilst the interest of the company is almost wholly neglected, and payment to us rendered extremely precarious." Here then is the rock of approbation of the court of directors, on which the right honourable gentlemen say this debt was founded. Any member, Mr. Speaker, who should come into the house, on my reading this sentence of condemnation of the court of directors against their unfaithful servants, might well imagine that he had heard an harsh, severe, unqualified invective against the present ministerial board of controul. So exactly do the proceedings of the patrons of this abuse tally with those of the actors in it, that the expressions, used in the condemnation of the one, may serve for the reprobation of the other, without the change of a word.

To read you all the expressions of wrath and indignation fulminated in this despatch against the meritorious creditors of the right honourable gentleman, who, according to him, have been so fully approved by the company, would be to read the whole.

The right honourable gentleman, with an address peculiar to himself, every now and then slides in the presidency of Madras, as synonymous to the company. That the presidency did approve the debt, is certain. But the right honourable gentleman, as prudent in suppressing, as skilful in bringing forward his matter, has not chosen to tell you that the presidency were the very persons guilty of contracting this loan; creditors themselves, and agents and trustees for all

the other creditors. For this the court of directors accuse them of breach of trust; and for this the right honourable gentleman considers them as perfectly good authority for those claims. It is pleasant to hear a gentleman of the law quote the approbation of creditors as an authority for their own debt.

How they came to contract the debt to themselves, how they came to act as agents for those whom they ought to have controlled, is for your inquiry. The policy of this debt was announced to the court of directors, by the very persons concerned in creating it. "Till very lately," (say the presidency) "the nabob placed his dependence on the company. Now he has been taught by ill-advisers, that an interest out of doors may stand him in good stead. He has been made to believe that his private creditors have power and interest to overrule the court of directors." The nabob was not misinformed. The private creditors instantly qualified a vast number of votes; and having made themselves masters of the court of proprietors, as well as extending a powerful cabal in other places as important, they so completely overturned the authority of the court of directors at home and abroad, that this poor baffled government was soon obliged to lower its tone. It was glad to be admitted into partnership with its own servants. The court of directors establishing the debt which they had reprobated as a breach of trust, and which was planned for the subversion of their authority, settled its payments on a par with those of the public; and even so, were not able to obtain peaceor even equality in their demands. All the consequences lay in a regular and irresistible train. By employing their influence for the recovery of this debt, their orders, issued in the same breath against creating new debts, only animated the strong desires of their servants to this prohibited prolific sport, and it soon produced a swarm of sons and daughters, not in the least degenerated from the virtue of their parents.

From that moment, the authority of the court of directors expired in the Carnatic, and everywhere else. "Every man," says the presidency, "who opposes the government and its measures finds an immediate countenance from the nabob; even our discarded officers, however unworthy, are received into the nabob's service." It was indeed a matter of no wonderful sagacity to determine whether the court of directors, with their miserable salaries to their servants, of four or five hundred pounds a year, or the distributor of millions, was most likely to be obeyed. It was an invention beyond the imagination of all the speculatists of our speculating age, to see a government quietly settled in one and the same town, composed of two