Star.
London, England, 1808-04-27 00:00:00

opening 'the Budget, delusive statements had been
made of the flourishing resources of the Company,
with a view to induce assistance from the public, and
that they had a large surplus, &c. Not one of these
statements was true—he, therefore, could not consent.
to give away the public money.
Mr. CREEVEY, as one of the 'Members of the
Committee on the Affairs of India, was ready to give
his opinion, that from all he knew upon the subject,
the Company would not be enabled to repay the loan
now asked for. He coincided with his Honourable
Friend, that if the money was granted, it must be con-
sidered as a gift, and not a loan. Some means, in his
opinion, ought to be devised, to stop the progress of
the American trade from the East, either by a revi-
sion of the Act of 1793, which granted them too
much, or by some other mode, so as to take it out of
the hands of the Americans, and transfer it to British
individuals. When the subject came fully before
the House he should be prepared to contend that as
the Company's resources were so uncertain, it would
be desirous that the dividends on the capital should be
decreased. It was evident that the Company were
carrying on a trade from Indiawith no surplus revenue.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT laid in his claim for a
reconsideration of the Act which admitted the Com-
pany to monopolise the trade from India, allowing
Ireland only to export, but notbring home goods from
that quarter. The Honourable Baronet agreed with
his Honourable Friends, that if the money asked for
was granted, it must be considered as a gift.
Mr. GRANT had no wish to take the House by
surprise. At the same timete must be allowed to
observe, that the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, par-
ticularly one (Mr. Creevey ), had been rather prema-
ture in giving their opinions before the Committee
had made their Report. The effect of those opinions
(though certainly not intended) would be to prejudice
the House and the public mind. With respect to
the American trade, that was owing to their being a
neutral nation which gave them, in the present state of
Europe, a preference over British subjects. The Ho-
nourable Gentleman, therefore, ought not to accuse
the Comyany of monopoly. How far it might be
right to give opinions upon a subject before the docu-
ments
were on the table, he could not say, but he
must protest against such a practice. As to decreas-
ing the dividends, the House would require more evi-
dence betbre they consented to suck a measure. The
public had a right to expect their dividends. If such
a measure was to be resorted to, the stockholder would
be deprived of his just right. He denied that the loan
asked for was to be considered as a gift. Upon an
examination, the House would be satisfied that the
Company's affairs were not so unprosperous as some
Honourable Gentlemen described them to be.
Mr. PONSONBY had no objection to referring the
Petition to the Committee, bet could not approve of
the object of it. It was clear to his mind, that the aid
prayed for was, if granted, no other than a gift, for,
by the admission of the Honourable Director, the'
money so advanced was to pay the dividends due to
the stockholders. If the Company were left to their
own resources, it was also clear that they would fail;
for they could neither pay their dividends, nor up-
hold their credit. The loan was, to all intents, a
tax upon the public. It might be advisable for the
House, when the documents were before them, and
the report of the Committee made, to consider wile.
slier it would be proper to continue the charter, in the
present situation of the Company's affairs. In his
opinion, it was high time to do away all delusions—
all concealment, and to bring forward a clear and cor-
rect statement of the Company's finances.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUR de-
nied that surprise had been attempted. When their
affairs were properly before the House, it would be
seen that the Company are creditors to the Public—
Was it, therefore, either proper or desirable to refuse
assistance under such circumstances?
Mr. TIERNEY contended, that the Company were
entitled to the Loan which they required (1,(200,0001.)
—He considered his Hon. Friends had dealt hardly
with them, in stating opinions and refusing assistance
before the documents on which to form their judgment
were on the table. In giving his opinion as to the
propriety of granting the money, he grounded it on
his knowledge, as a Committee-man, of the state of
their finances ; which knowledge satisfied his mind
that the money might be safely advanced to the ex-
tent required. The Honourable Gentleman declared
he was no advocate for the general system upon
stlich the East India Company had acted for many
years ; perhaps that system might be a bad one.—
Thus much he would say, however, that they had
always shewn every disposition to lay a fair statement
of their affairs before Parliament. He was anxious
that the public should not run away with the impres-
sion that the affairs of that great Commercial Com-
Ipany were in a ruinous or deplorable state, and he
conceived such Language to be highly improper.
Mr. PONSONBY explained.
Sir JOHN ANSTRUTHER denied that the East
India Company came there to ask any gratuitous
grant. They only asked for what was always given
to commercial men, namely, a loan to enable them
to get over some embarrassments created perhaps by
the measures of that Government from whom they
asked relief, and which was thereby bound to sup-
port their credit. The Honourable Baronet then enu-
merated the various loans which had been granted to
the East India Company for these thirty years past,
all of which had been punctually repaid, and he saw
no reason to hinder them from repaying the present
advances also. He denied that ever any attempt had
been made by the East India Company to conceal the
state of their affairs, or to delude the public by false
statements. As to what had been said about throw-
ing open the trade of India, he doubted much if it
was in the pswler of this country to extend its export
trade by such a measure ; upon this question he
would not say much at presentzbut if ever it came be-
fore the House it a regular shaPe,-he would insist on
its being argued on purely commercial grounds.
Mr. HOWARTH complained of the want of do-
cuments and accounts from tho East India Company,
on which to found their claims for the relief of Par-
liament.
Mr. DUNDAS said, that every necessary account
and document was before the Committee on India
Affairs. He justified one of the Noble Lords who
was charged by a Right Honourable Gentlethas
opposite with a backwardness to exhibit the true state
of India Affairs. On the contrary, the Noble Lord
in question (we believe Lord Melville was here alluded
to) had' continued repeatedly, day alter day, aid