1 always had great balances in his hands? | Further investigation, however, convinced Mr. Addington, that the complaint was well founded, not only with respect to the particular bill at first specified by Mr. Robson, but with respect to many, and a great many, other bills. But, there is something so interesting in this transaction, and bearing so strongly upon the present point, that i must take the liberty to refer to it a litle more in detail. On the 4th of March, 1802, it was that Mr. Robson first broached the subject, in the conclusion of a speech upon the army estimates, where he made use of the following words: "The finances of the disorderly." Mr. Alexander advised Mr. Robson to retract so injurious an assertion as "that which he had just made." Mr. Robson wished the matter to drop; bat no, Mr. Addington and Mr. Yorke, were not for letting him off so easy. The former "if he did called upon him to retract, or, "not, the next step would be for the House "to proceed to censure him for bis expres ment was insolvent. Mr. Martin took his part in his absence, and the affair seemed to be quietly dying away. But, the warm words of the 4th had excited public attention; and, on the oth, Mr. Robson came down, backed by Mr. Jones, to repeat his first assertion, to add that he was now ready to prove it and to show various instances of the abuse he had complained of, and in order to enable him to do this to the full satisfaction of the House, he moved, "that there "be laid before this House an account of "all the bills drawn u, on the sick and hurt "offie, with their several dates, and when "due and when paid, since the 1st of Deember, 1501 It was strange enough to see this motion opposed by Mr. Addington Mr. B.agge, Mr. Hiley Addington, Mr. Alexander, and by all those who had before dared him to the proof, who had proposed the taking down his words, and who had talked of a censure of the House on his head! Mr. Robson now triumphed in his turn. He made a very good speech, as it is recorded in Debrett's Debates. He reminded the House of the promised inquiry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I repeat," said he all my former assertions. The "Chancellor tells you he can find but one "instance, whereas I contend, that the papers for which I mean to move, will how "instances to the amount of several theu"sands of pounds. I have received several « letters from respectable merchants in the city, from which I find that government acceptances are not so good as private ones......1t the House wish the letters to be read, and the writers of them to be "named, I am ready this moment to satisfy "that wish. I state confidently, that, in consequence of the practice of which I complain, that government bills are drawn "at a disadvantage, and that the nation "has to pay an unnecessary accumulation of "interest. -Without the account I have "moved for, I am not able to show the fall 66 46 66 46 sion." Yes, yes! said Mr. Yorke, as "far as relates to the hon. gent. himself, I "believe the less that is said the better, but " that will not now do for the House." Mr. Dent proposed to have the words taken down. Mr. Robson seemed very much frightened; but, being pressed so hard, he finally named the particular office where the extent of the mischief; give me but that, bill hid been dishonoured. The words were " and I will prove it immediately, and to a not actually taken down, bu: the Chancellor very great amount." His motion was of the Exchequer pledged himself that an negatived, 79 against 2!It will be obinquiry should be instituted forthwith. On seived, that this took place in 1802, after the 8th of March the subject was revived. Lord Melvile had quitted the Treasurership; The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained but, Mr. Trotter still remained; and, though th: matter to the House, in his way; but he Lord Harrowby bal disapproved of Mr. quite forgot to urge the "censure" on Mr. Trotter's practices, he had, by illness, been Robson, whose words, though they had been prevented from poting a stop to them be-almost taken down, were not now thought fore he also quitted the office; and, it will worth repeating. The attack upon Mr. Rob- be seen by the TENTH REPORT, that Mir. - son now assumed a different ground Bragge did not put a stop to those practices, was accused of having spoken of bills and of till the summer of 1802, that is, after the publie offices in the plural number, and of leav-complaint of Mr. Robson was made, and it ing an inference to be drawn, that the govern is by no means improbable, that the inquiry. He to which that complaint gave rise, was the cause of this great reformation, and that it principally led to the present discovery, though, at one stage of the dispute Mr. Robson was actually so terrified as to beg pardon for what he had said!!! It was not in the sick-and hurt office alone, that this postponement of payment took place. I myself received from abroad a bill upon another of the offices under the Treasurer of the Navy. It was treated in the manner described by Mr. Rob-on. I got my money after some days of postponement; but, I took care to write to my correspondent never to send me another bill upon a public office. Would not others do the same? And is not the effect obvious? You were sure that the bills would be finally paid; but you never knew when. The answer you received was, we have no money." You could not tell when you would have your money; and what, let me ask, could possibly be more injurious? My bill was upon the Victualling Office, and I am ready to prove the truth of my statement. What, then, becomes of Mr. Trotter's defence, "that every claimant was "not only paid without hesitation or inter"ruption but in the way most convenient to "himself!" In the debate upon which Mr. Robson's motion was negatived, Mr. Vansittart acknowledged, that he had now found out that the practice had existed for years; bat, that no such bills hal ever been protested, ror had any steps ever been taken by the holders to recover their amount No; but, all persons purchasing such bills took good care to make an allowance for the delays in payment; and, I leave any one to guess at the amazing loss which this must have occasioned to the public, in the course of the expenditure of those 134 millions of money that passed through the hands of Mr. Trotter! Now, mark what Mr. Addington said in the debate of March 8, 1802. "It has, of late, been the policy of government, and I think it a wise policy, to prevent the public offices from becoming banking shops, "and to prevent them from accumulating 66 large sums of money at any one time!!!" Mr. Wilberforce, in the debate of the 9th, said: "if the public offices are not allowed to keep large sums of money in hand, it "must sometimes happen that they will "want money; and I think it better that "this should take place, than that large sums of money should be kept in those offices"!!! But, the Commissioners have now proved to us, that large sums of money always were in the hands of some of these people; that the Exchequer, that is to say, the public, always was greatly in advance to them; and, notwithstanding this, we know that the claimants upon the offices were not promptly paid; and, of course, we know, that, on this account, all government work in the depart ments of the navy was charged higher. Was not here a loss to the public? An actual loss of money, Mr. Trotter? And, ought not the persons who have gained in proportion to this loss be made to refund? -As to Mr. Addington, he was completely deceived: so was Mr. Bragge; so was Mr. Yorke; and all the members of that ministry. They did not regard such a monstrous abuse, or father such a multiplicity of monstrous abuses, as possible; and, therefore, the ridicule which the " young friends" threw upon them, on the occasion above referred to, was perfectly unmerited. Their error was the error of honesty, or, at least, of inexperience: whether time and good company have, or have not, enlightened their minds and enlarged their understandings, a few weeks will, in all probability, clearly discover.- By the time that Mr. Trotter has read thus far, he will perceive, that we are able to discover that we have really lost something by the contravention of the act of the 25th of the King. But, was there no other loss to the public from Mr. Trotter's drawing the money away from the Bank before it was wanted for actual payments for navy services? Did the commerce of the country suffer nothing by his thus diminishing the power of the Bank to discount merchants' bills? 1 am sure he will not say so; he, who knows so well how glad people were to get discounts from him out of that same money! Again; did the public suffer nothing from his keeping a hundred or two of thousand pounds, ready at a moment's warning, to go into the stock market with? Especially if we suppose (and the supposition is not perfectly romantic) that he might have some friend capable of giving him a hin', when to buy and when to sell! We find him handling one particular draft for a million of money: a million of money placed, in one day, to his private account! Where did he get it? Where must he have got it? Is it possible that it could have been any thing but the public money? I leave it, then, to any man, at all acquainted with the nature of the funds, to guess at the loss which must, from a single person having the power of employing such sums for his private account, though it were only for a few days at a time; I leave any man to guess at the loss which this must have occasioned to the public; but, as to the number of individuals that it must bave ruined, that is beyond even the compass of a guess. There was, indeed, one possible, and even probable, advantage to the public, to balance against all those losses; namely, that Mr. Trotter might, -XJ the overflowings of his patriotism, now and then lend the nation, a little money! We find that Mr. Dundas was good enough to afford" occasional accommodations" to other departments of the state; and, in all those " advantageous loans," those "cellent bargains" for the public, that have been annually made during the last twenty - years, who shall say how much (ungrateful wretches that we are!) we may owe to the generosity of Mr. Trotter and his pincipal! Gracious God! What a complication and confusion of ab urdities and of mischiefs has this systen of paper-money, this all degrading and corrupting curse engendered! What a pleasing reflection, how well calculated to inspire a man with enthusiasm in the cause of his county, is it, that the ne ney which he has last week paid in taxes, he can this week borrow from a person like Mr. Trotter! How base and ungrateful must that man be, who would not " sp nd his "last shiling and shed his last drop of "blood" in the defence of the per on and property of those generous gentlemen, who, with good security, are ready to lend him his own money at compound interest! Who, that has one spark of patriotism in his bo som, can repress his swelling pride at reflecting that he has the honour, not only of supporting with his parse, but of defending at the risk of his life; yea, that he is entitled to the glorious privilege of shedding his blood in defence of those domains, which Mr. Trotter and others like him have acquired These, these are the things that grate men's souls. The most stupid cannot but perceive them the most : ailovs cannot but feel them the most cold and indifferent cannot but be moved by the.. These are the great and lasting causes of discontent, and that, too, of the most dangerous na They disgust the people, not only with the ministry, but with the government altogether. They make them induferent as to men, as well as to principles. Having no hope that they shall ever see abo es checked, and hardly daring to open their mouths to complain of them, they have no course lef, but that of endeavouring to become partakers in the spoil. Thus is the whole community let loose to prey upon one another; thus are the public virtues eradicated; thus, if men become not traitors, they retain little that is worthy of the name of loyalty and patriotism; and thus is a nation prepared to fall an easy prey to whomsoever chooses to attack it. Let us hope, however, that there are left, as yet, the means of rescuing us from this fatal catastrophe. There are men, great men, in this country, with whose names corruption ture. : was never associated we have a Sovereign well known to be the enemy of peculators, we have a parliament composed chiefly of men who, from their rank and their education, must be supposed to hold such porsons in abhorrence: and, why, then, should we not hope that the political plague will be stayed ere we perish? -The partisans of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter have appealed to the parliament, and have not scrupied, before hand, to accuse of narrowmindedness and unjust severity all those who shall agree in opinion with the Naval Commissioners; whose report, be it remembered, were by a well-known" young friend," lately denominated libels; and, that upon the same principle, I suppose, that I was recently derominated " a jacobin," because I quoted from a pamphlet, an account of the pensions, paid to Mr. Canning's sisters from the public exchequer !-- Impudent and irritating as such language and sentiments are in themselves considered, they are modest and inoffensive, comparatively speaking, till we consider from whom they procerd; till we consider, that they proceed from that set of politicians, who rose into power by professions of superior, and even exclusive, puri y; whose cry against abuses and in favour of economy was as incessant and monionous as the song of the cuckoo; and who e pretensions to these virtues have continued to be arged, and are still arged, in the teeth of that insulted people, who have the accounts of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter before their eyes!- "Narrow"mindedness and unjust severity !" And, this from the Pittites! this, from the set of politicians who introduced, and passed into a law, the Cffice-Abuse Commission act of 1785! Reader, look back at my motto. Read it I beseech you; and then recollect, that the words of it were uttered in a debate upon a bill for appointing a Board of Commissioners to inquire into the abuse of money that had taken place in, the public offices; recollect, that this bill was passed in 1785, the very year in which was passed the act for regulating the offices of Lord Meiville and Mr. Trotter; and. I beg you to recollect, that the Pitri es, who now complain of the "unjust severity" of a mode of proceeding which has afforded such ample shelter to the accused; I beg you to remember, that they, when the conduct of their opponents was the object of inquiry, refa-ed to afford such shelter, and issisted upon, and passed, a law compelling persons to answer all questions put to them, whe br they might thereby criminate themselves or not! The act I allude to is the 25th of the King, c. 19. Mr. Sheri lan opposed it whea in the shape of a bill, upon the ground of its having no great and worthy object in view; of its arming the Commissioners with powers too great, and of its being a deception upon the public, a thing intended to obtain unmerited popularity. From the answer of Mr. Pitt my motto is taken. Mr. Burke contended for a clause to exempt persons from giving evidence that might criminate themselves and expose them to pains or penalties. This was opposed by Mr. Pitt and his friends; the act passed, and was not amended in the House of Lords! Yet, these are the very persons; these enemies of peculators; these lovers of reform; these political puritans; these are the persons, who are now crying out against the "unjust severity" of an act, in which good care was taken to insert a clause for the express purpose of exempting persons from giving answers that might criminate themselves; an exemption, of which Lord Melville and Mr Trotter have so amply availed themselves! No one blames the introduction of this clause. The Lord Chancellor contended for it by exactly the same arguments that Mr. Burke contended for a similar clause in the act of 1785, and which arguments excited shouts of laughter from Mr. Pitt and his adherents! Upon the introduction of the clause into this last bill, however, the Lord Chief Justice made a very proper remark, and one that is now worthy of particular attention. "I agree," said his lordship, "in the principle laid "down by the learned lord. I hope, how ever, that it is not intended to be estab"lished, that, if this bill do not answer "the purposes, for which it was framed, "the legislature cannot adopt other means "to attain that object. If abuses cannot be removed by mild measures, it will "be the duty of the legislature to have recourse to such as will wring from the guilty "the larking secrets, which are, to the great injury of the country, conceale!" (Debrett's Debates, 22d Dec. 1802.) I trust so too. It is what the people expect: it is what they have reason, and what they have a right to expect.--It was no harm, no "unjust severity," to force the secrets from those who had been in office under Lords North, Rockingham, the Duke of Portland, and Lord Shelburne; that was perfectly just; but, to deal the same measure to those who had been in office under Mr. Pitt; under the "Heaven-born minister;" that was quite another thing! There are certain exemptions and privileges, to which creatures of celestial mould are entitled ! "In the present bill" (said Mr. Burke, in the speech before referred to)" there The promise of parliamentary reform. The promise of a solid system of finance. peace, by which the complete restoration of the The promise of indemnity for the past and security for the future. The promise to the Irish Catholics. I could continue the list to the length of my arm. But, the great, the standing, the never ceasing promises, for twenty long years, have been, to encourage commerce, arts, manufactures, and agiiculture; to husband the national resources, and to sus tain public credit; to reform and prevent abuses: in three words, pro perity, economy, and purity; PROSPERITY, which, while it has, indeed, seen scores rise to their chariots who ought still to be trudgi g on foot, has, on the other hand, beheld the number of paupers augmented from six to twelve hundred thousand; ECONOMY, which has swelled the annual interest of the national debt from nine to trventy nine milhons sterling, and which has compelled the promiser himself to confess, that, since he became minister, money has deprecated at least sixty per centum; and PURITY, now so clearly and so strongly exemplified in that elaborate and able Report, towards which I have here made an humble effort to direct the attention of my readers. nied by Cox and Baylis, No 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow Street, Covent Garden, where former Numbers may be had; sold also by J. Bod-1, Crown and Mitre, Pall Mall.. VOL. VII. No. 14.] 46 LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1805. [PRICE 100. "I hope there never will be room for any one to entertain an idea, that ministers are too big for punishment, and out of the reach of parliament. This house has drawn the line, and I make no doubt but "those who shall transgress it, will find that parliament does not want power to bring them to punishment, "let their rank be what it may. It is not, therefore, because the house cannot punish ministers who may "disobey it, that we extend responsibility to those who may obey the unlawful commands of ministers; but, "solely because there should not exist a possibility of ministers first being guilty of disobedience themselves, " and then shifting the blame on the shoulders of their inferiors."--MR. PITT's Speech in the House of Coinmons, 4th March, 1782. 513] AFFAIRS OF INDIA. SIR,- -I have attentively read your remarks on the present state of India. In many of your observations I fully agree I will take the liberty to mention certain points, on which I differ from you, and I will endeavour to explain the causes to which our present embarrassments in India, ought fairly to be imputed.I am afraid, Mr. Cobbett, that the actual debts of India, instead of being twenty millions as you state them, are at this moment thirty millions sterling at the least. In this country we have unhappily been able to borrow money to such an extent, that a debt of thirty millions appears a mere trifle; especially, when it is considered that the revenues of India are ten millions a year. But no reasoning can be more dangerous, or more fallacious. The debt of India bears an interest of 12 per cent. or at least, a part of it does, and the remaining part an interest of 10 per cent., which is a deduction of three millions a year, from the Indian revenues, leaving seven millious a year, for the civil, judicial, and military expenses of India, which at present far exceed seven millions sterling a year.--If the present system is continued, therefore, so far from India being the brightest gem in the British crown, it will be a severe clog upon Great Britain.You are in an erior, Mr. Cobbett, when you impute to the Court of Directors, or to the East India Company any blame, for the measures which have occasioned the present debt From the year 1784, when Mr. Pitt's bill passed, to this day, the political affairs of India have been under the management of a board of commissioners appointed by his Majesty. That board fixed the civil and military establishments, and appointed the governors of India. Mr. Dundas invariably, avowed in Parlia ment, that as president of the board, he was alone responsible for the good and economical government of India. The merit or demerit therefore, of each important transac tion belongs to him to 1801, and from that time to his successor in office, Lord Castlereagh.Allow me as shortly as it is pos [514 sible to do it, to contrast the past with the present state of India.-Prior to our territoial acquisitions, the trade from India was carried on by the exportation of bullion from Great Britain.-Since 1765, when we acquired the sovereignty of Bengal, no bullion. was sent to India until 1802. The investments of each year were made by the surplus revenues of Bengal, by the very small drafts which the directors permitted their governments to draw upon their treasury in England, and by the sale of exports, whichr were not very considerable, with two excep tions. In 1770 bills were drawn upon the directors to the amount of one million; and, in 1781, when we were engaged in an arduous contest with France, the Mahrattas, and Hyder Ally Cawny Mr. Hastings was compelled to purchase the investment of that year with borrowed money, and to draw upon the Company for the amount of that investment.--Lord Clive had calculated in 1765, that after paying every expense, there would be a surplus of one million sterling each year in Bengal.--In 1772, Mr. Hastings succeeded to that government, The debt of Bengal was then a million sterling, contracted chiefly by the remittances sent by the Bengal government to Madras, and Bombay, in the three preceding years. This debt he not only paid off, but in 1777, there was a surplus of above a million sterling in the Bengal treasury; and very valuable cargoes were sent every season from Bengal to Great Britain. India at that period, was indeed, the brightest jewel in the British crown.--In 1778, the war with France commenced. It was the great object of France to recover her lost consequence in India. To effect this she sent secret agents to Poona, and to Hyder Ally, prior to the commencement of the war, an official information that she had done so, was transmitted to Mr. Hastings, by Lord Stormont, then the British ambassador at Paris. The Mahratta war was solely occasioned by the anxious endeavour of Mr. Hastings to counteract the schemes of France, and not with a view or a wish to |