- ettek. I hope to the satisfaction rum, we now 22 put the second, in which is not endangered by the

ne aserra, that as the law now at at sou ged to sign but thirtyvich, 128 zot peculiar to the church stnere doctrines of the Anglican n the articies, which they are not to teen nove of subscription enjoins the pas of the church of Geneva, and peal to the church of Eng

en, is this absurd mode of which contributes rather to the sm than to the establishment The honourable gentleman who a meva sal, that the church was a respectable staction ought to be studied as

1 Toyterians. I own it; and it is for meu sociish a subscription, which does the at good, as it only binds men to the WEMA PRO of Geneva, and exempts them from att hon to the distinctive doctrines of the

se sf the question is willing to grant them atan extent, that is, as far as their tenets se of the church of England. But 25 x na sud legic; for the very principle of that you will tolerate, not those who agree with * pay du dose whose religious notions are totally Sexta erit is there, I beseech you, in toour own doctrines? None at all. Christian slowing others a latitude of opinion, in

putting a restraint upon your own mind, and in not suffering the zeal of the Lord's house absolutely to eat you up. The dissenters do not desire to partake of the emoluments of the church. Their sole aim is to procure liberty of conscience. If you do not grant this indulgence, you in effect say, "Gentlemen, you shall say grace in our way, but you shall not taste a morsel of our meat." Can such an absurd, such a partial institution, be deemed a toleration? It is impossible; and I therefore hope, that the House will be unanimous in granting the request of the dissenters in its fullest extent.

The motion for leave to bring in the Bill was agreed to without a division, and the numbers that appeared against it, upon the second and third reading, were so small, as scarcely to merit observation. It was however productive of very considerable debates, as well in this part of its progress, as when it was afterwards carried up to the House of Lords, where it was finally rejected.

COLONEL BURGOYNE'S MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

April 13.

THIS day Colonel Burgoyne moved, “That a committee of thirty-one members be appointed to enquire into the nature, state, and condition of the East India Company, and of the British affairs in India." The necessity of such an enquiry was strongly urged from a variety of considerations, among which were the following: the present precarious situation of affairs in India; the late distresses of the natives, and the depopulation of the country; the oppressive and arbitrary conduct of the Company's servants; the great decrease of the net revenues in Bengal, from various mismanagements, as well as enormous and unnecessary expences; the immense consequence to this nation of preserving and well-governing those countries;

J

and that this could only be done, by making a full enquiry into their nature and state, and then establishing a regular and permanent form of justice and government. Mr. Thomas Townshend, Lord Irnham, Colonel Luttrell, Mr. Dowdeswell, and Mr. Cornwall, objected to the enquiry being made by a select committee, saying, that they might as well have no enquiry at all; for that the select committee never came in their enquiries to any thing; and, therefore, that the appointment of one tended only to deceive the people, and would be ineffectual. Colonel Barré said, that an enquiry ought to be inade, as more cruelties had been practised in that country than even in Mexico.

Mr. BURKE spoke warmly against making any enquiry. When discretionary power (said he) is lodged in the hands of any man, or class of men, experience proves, that it will always be abused. This has been the case with the East India Company. That charter, which was well enough calculated for the purposes of a factory, becomes totally insufficient upon the acquisition of extensive territories. Hence unlimited authority fell necessarily into the hands of their governors. The directors, attentive to the extension of their trade, had not time, nor perhaps capacity, to make general regulations sufficient for the good government of so great an empire: and, had they been possessed of both these requisites, yet they wanted the power to exert them. Else why have they now applied for a new charter? The thing speaks for itself. They could only act within their charter, and send to their governors directions, and directions, too, that were not binding in law; no competent authority having been delegated to them by the legislature. Does it not follow from this, that they were obliged to leave their governors a discretionary power? But how was the governor to keep in awe the Company's servants, who knew that he did not derive his authority from law, and that they could not be punished for disobedience beyond the ditch of Calcutta? In order to preserve some kind of subordination, he was forced occasionally to act the

despot, and to terrify the refractory by the arm of power or violence.

This, Sir, I believe, you will find to be the genuine source of that arbitrary conduct charged upon the late governors in Bengal. Where no laws exist, men must be arbitrary; and very necessary acts of government will often be, in such case, represented by the interested and malevolent as instances of wanton oppression. Suppose some examples of real tyranny to have occurred, does it thence follow, that the governors were culpable? Is it not possible, that they were misinformed? In such a multiplicity of affairs, and in a government without laws, some enormities must have been committed. But who are the blameable persons? not the Company, nor the Company's servants, who have not done what experience tells us is above the reach of humanity, and what they had not legal right to do; but those who did not, upon the acquisition of such vast territories, compose for their use a comprehensive and well-digested code of laws, for the rule of every man's conduct. Had the ministry, upon a former occasion, adopted this plan, as they were advised, we should not now be debating this point, nor should we have heard that the net revenues of Bengal are sunk to less than 200,000l.

In fact, Sir, administration is, in this case, the only culprit. The East India Company is not punishable for not performing what no body of men in their circumstances ever did or will perform. It is the men who are at the helm of affairs, and who neglected, or wanted capacity and inclination to make the proper arrangements, that ought to be the objects of public and parliamentary vengeance. They would, as all former ministers have done on the like occasions, make the Company and its servants their scapegoats; but it is to be hoped that we have more sagacity than to suffer them to sacrifice a Byng or two to their own security. Through the mismanagement of those who sit at the helm of affairs, the evil has spread too widely to be probed to the bottom. A general amnesty or act of

of proceeding; as in a civil war, where a whole nation is engaged on either side, I would have mutual forgiveness take place. Exact retribution for every irregularity would be the height of folly: it would only make the public wounds fester and rankle to an extreme.

Let us, Sir, consider, that if the Company is not without demerit, it has also merit to plead. To whom do we owe the million and a half which the East India trade annually brings into the exchequer, but to the men who are now accused? Let us weigh their virtues and their vices in opposite scales, and we shall find that their affairs only deserve regulation, and not themselves punishment. The authority of the Company I would not have diminished in India by any severe animadversion. Let not the people of Bengal be taught to despise them, by finding their authothority limited and circumscribed. It is enough that we provide for the good government of that country for the future. When they have so widely extended our empire and commerce-when they have so greatly augmented our naval power, as to have a fleet of merchantmen equal to the royal navy of Great Britain-let us not check their growth by sinking them in the estimation of foreigners, but cherish and foster them as our own children, or rather ourselves; for upon our union our safety depends. Hindostan should not know, that the legislature and the Company differ in opinion; but rather, that such harmony subsists between them as to render them in effect the same.

The motion for a select committee was carried without a division.