Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

1

It is necessary to add, that the balance on the annual account at the India house, instead of amounting to 12,020/. in favour of the company, as stated in that account. would have amounted to 1,155,505 against them, had not the company, in making up their account for that year, credited themselves with 100,000l. borrrowed of the bank, with 500,000, borrowed of government out of the tea duties, and with bonds issued for 567,5251. more than were paid off, amount ing in all to the sum of 1,167,525/. This defalcation in the company's annual account was owing, partly, to a dimunition in the produce of their sales, and, partly, to a greater expenditure on account of India and China than first intended.

It is also proper to add, that, in the course of the debate, it was generally admitted, that the debts in India ́might, at that time, be fairly estimated at 30,000,000; of which seventeen millions were pay able in England, at the option of the holders of the securities.

After lord Morpeth had concluded his very clear and candid exposition of the company's situation, a long debate arose, which was adjourned to the 15th and afterwards to the 18th instant, concerning the present state of their affairs and their future prospects, as well as on the causes, that had led to the rapid and alarming increase of their debts since 1793, when their charter was last renewed. Sir Arthur Wellesley, without controverting any of lord Morpeth's statements or deductions, endeavoured to shew, that with the return of peace the distresses of the company would be at an end; and that, instead of the present deficit, there would then be a surplus re venue of at least 740,000l. a year.

He next endeavoured to prove, that the augmentation of the company's debts was, in a great measure, ow. ing to the practice. that had been pursued, of making up investments for Europe by means of loans contracted in India; and, in proof of this position he read part of a minute put on record by lord Wellesley in June 1798, wherein this cause of the increase of the company's debts is distinctly pointed out, and a remedy suggested for it, which, however, the court of directors did not think proper to apply. In answer to this charge against the court of directors, Mr. Grant produced a number of statements and calculations to prove, that, instead of a balance of 54 millions, in which the hon. general made the commerce of the company indebted to the territorial revenue and Indian debt, there was a balance, in the last seven years, of half a million due to the commerce. With respect to the share of lord Wellesley in contributing to the present alarming state of the company's finances, the honourable member stated, that during that nobleman's administration of India, 21 millions had been added to the company's debt; and with regard to the influence of the late wars in India on the general prosperity of the company's affairs, "he thought it right to observe, that those wars had enormously increased the expences and debt of the company, without adding anysecurity necessary to us; without even adding much to our permanent revenue; and at the expence of our reputation for justice and moderation in India." Mr. Grant had no reliance on the im. provement of revenue, to which the hon. general looked forward on the return of peace, and thought our only secure dependance was on a

system

The only remaining subject connected with India, of which we shall take notice at present, is a bill brought into parliament by Mr. Hobhouse, for enabling the com missioners acting in execution of an agreement between the East India company and the private creditors of the nabobs of the Carnatic, the better to carry the same into effect. Much opposition was made to this bill, arising from a misconception of its nature and object. It was supposed to be intended for the purpose of giving a parliamentary sanction to claims, some of which were certainly fraudulent and all justly liable to It was not adverted to suspicion. by the opposers of the bill, that, since the occupation of the nabob of Arcot's territories by the company, it had become the interest of that body to reduce the amount of debts, for which the dominions and revenues formerly his, but now theirs were answerable. sidered, that this bill created no new obligation to discharge the debts of the nabob, nor gave any additional security to his creditors; but merely enabled the commissioners, appointed for determining the amount of the debts, to examine the parties upon oath, and thereby more effectually separate false and unfounded claims from those, which it would be an equal injustice and discharge. hardship not to

system of economy and retrenchment of useless and ostentatious expences. Mr. Alderman Prinsep took the same view with sir Arthur Wellesley of the origin of a great part of the company's debts, and after attacking, with great bitterness, their monopoly, their bad manage ment of their own concerns, and their jealousy of private traders, he pronounced them to be in a state of insolvency, and deprecated any notion of assisting them from this country, without a previous exami. nation and thorough investigation of their affairs. Mr. Huddlestone vindicated the company from the attacks of Mr. Alderman Prinsep, and attributed the present derangement of their finances, solely and exclusively, to the system of ambi. tion, false policy and profusion, introduced and acted on by lord Wellesley. Lord Castlereagh differed from both parties in their explanations of the origin of the company's debts, which, he attempted to prove, had been occasioned, neither by wars and profusion, nor by losses in trade, but partly, by advances to government which would of course be repaid. and. partly, by an encrease of their assets both at home and in India which were still on hand. In this view of the company's affairs, the circumstance most to be lamented in their situation, was the enormous interest, which they paid for their debt in India; and the only effec-, tual remedy for this evil was the transference of their India debt to England, by means of loans under the guarantee of government. If twenty millions of their debt were in this manner transferred to England, there would be an immediate saving to the company of 800,000l. a year,

Nor was it con

Α clause was annexed to the bill, di recting the commissioners to make an annual report to parliament, of the progress they should make in the discharge of their trust; and a proviso was added to declare, that nothing in this act should be construed to confirm the articles of agreement between the company and creditors, or to render them

more

more binding than if the act had not an account of lord Melville's trial, a been passed.

After a busy session of six months duration, parliament was prorogued on the 23 rdof July by commission. The speech from the throne, for which see State Papers, page 825, was read by the lord chancellor.

We shall next proceed to give

subject of such interest in itself, such expectations before it came on, such attention while it lasted, and such disappointment when it closed, that we are persuaded our readers will excuse us for entering into a full statement of the facts and cir. cumstances attending it.

CHAP.

CHAP. VI.

Trial of Henry Viscount Melville.-Managers ordered to proceed in the Impeachment. Answer of Lord Melville to the Articles of Impeachment.— Additional Article.-Trotter.-Answer to the Additional Article.-Replication of the Commons.-Commons resolve to attend the Trial as a Committee of the whole House. -Measures taken by the Lords to prevent Unnecessary Delay in the Trial.-Order to prohibit any Publication of the Proceedings during the pendency of the Trial.-Summary of the Proceedings on the Trial.-Analysis of the Articles of Impeachment.-Charges reducible in Substance to three.-Analysis of the Evidence on the first, second, and third.-Legal Defence on the first Charge.-Answer to it-Legal Defence on the second Charge.-Answer to it.-Defence on the third Charge.Lords adjourn for some Days the Consideration of the Charges.-Vote of Thanks to the Managers by the Commons.-Discussions in the Lords on the Form of Proceeding.-On dividing the first Article.-On the first Article.-Questions to the Judges, and their Answers.-Discussion of the remaining Articles. Further Question to the Judges, and their Answer-Proceedings, during the last Day of the Trial, in Westminster Hall.-Viscount Melville declared not guilty by a Majority of Lords.-Numbers for and against him on each Article.

ON the day after the meeting of chester, lord Arch. Hamilton, Mr.

parliament, the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Whitbread ordered the committee of impeachment against Lord Melville to resume their functions, and proceed without delay in the business referred to them. Lord Robert Spencer was, at the same time, added to the committee, in place of Mr. Kinnaird become lord Kinnaird by the death of his father. The managers then consisted of Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, afterwards lord Howick, Mr. Sheridan, lord Henry Petty, lord Marsham, Mr. Giles, lord Folkstone, Mr. Raine, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Creevy, Mr. Holland, Mr. Calcraft, lord Por

Williams Wynne, Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Morris, lord Temple, serjeant Best, and iord Robert Spencer; to whom were afterwards added sir Arthur Piggott (attorney-general), and sir Samuel Romilly (solicitor-general).

On the same day lord Melville presented at the table of the house of lords his answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the commons. The averment stated in substance," that he was not guilty of all or any of the arti. cles of impeachment exhibited against him, and that he was ready to prove the same, on a proper opportunity being afforded him by their lordships." A copy of this

reply

reply was communicated to the commons, and by them referred to the managers.

presented to the house of lords on the 24th of March, and the replica tion of the commons having been presented next day at the bar of the house, their lordships were pleased, on the motion of earl Fitzwilliam, to fix the 29th of April for the trial of lord Melville, and to send a message to the commons, to acquaint them therewith, and to require them to appoint a committee to manage the impeachment.

The next proceeding in this busi ness was a report of the managers, presented to the house of commons, on the 4th of March, containing further matters of a criminal nature against lord Melville, which was ordered to be printed and taken into consideration on a future day. Upon the facts disclosed in this report an additional article of im- On the following day Mr. Whit peachment was moved on the 7th bread moved, in the house of comof March, and, after some convermons," that the house should be sation, agreed to without opposi- present at the trial of lord viscount tion. When this additional article Melville, as a committee of the whole was communicated to the lords, it house." was referred to a committee, to search for precedents of the proceedings of the house in such cases, and the report of the committee being favourable to the admission of the additional article, it was ordered to be communicated to lord Mel. ville, that he might put in his answer to it within a limited time.

In the mean time Trotter, one of the principal witnesses in this cause, having refused to answer the questions put to him by the managers, on the ground that his answer might subject him to a civil suit, was ordered by the house of commons to be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms; but, having next day (March 6,) presented a humble petition to the house, expressive of his contrition for having offended them, and having given the mana. gers satisfaction as to the questions which he had refused to answer, he was set at liberty, after a proper admonition from the speaker.

Lord Melville's answer to the ad-ditional article, which was a general plea of not guilty, like his answer to the preceding ones, having been

It was objected to this motion by the friends of lord Melville, that the adoption of it would necessarily lead to the trial being carried on in Westminster Hall, which would be the cause of great delay, and of much additional expence to the defendant; and it was contended, that justice would be more speedily and more cheaply, and not less effectually ob tained, by a trial at the bar of the house of lords; in proof of which, the trial of lord Macclesfield at the bar of that house, which lasted only twenty one days, was contrasted with the trial of Mr. Hastings in Westminster Hall, which lasted during eight sessions of parliament.

It was answered, that it ill became the friends of lord Melville, who had prevailed in having a trial by impeachment preferred to the trial by indictment, on which the commons had originally determined, to object to the impeachment being conducted according to the old and established usage of parliament; that all their former arguments for preferring trial by impeachment to trial by indictment, derived from the

rank

« EdellinenJatka »