66 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805. 



future line of condu6l towards 

 them. 



The Chaiicsllor of the Exchequer 

 said, the motion w as such as, taken 

 in the abstra6t, nobody could object 

 to, as it v,as founded on natural 

 justice, and consistent with a former 

 resolution of that house, in 1782; 

 but it did not thence follow that, if 

 we were forced into a just and ne- 

 cessary war, we were not to con- 

 quer, and that, after conquest, we 

 were not to have the natural result 

 of superiority, in an extension of 

 territory. Our security might re- 

 quire it, or it might be taken by 

 way of indemnity. If it were not 

 so, we might, by pusillanimity, 

 unite all the world to attack us. 

 But the resolution, as now oHbrcd, 

 meant a censure on the whole of the 

 noble marquis's administration, or 

 it meant nothing but an unnecessary 

 repetition of an undisputed truth, 

 which was already in their journals. 

 He then took a view of the mar- 

 quis Wellesley's adminisfration, on 

 which he bestowed the highest en- 

 comiums, as eft'ectually keeping 

 clown the power of France in India, 

 dispelling, by his vigour and promp- 

 titude, the most formidable dangers, 

 and evincing and adopting the high- 

 est, most important, and fundamen- 

 ta) policy of the British interests in 

 India, by obtaining indemnity and 

 security, and joining a great extent 

 of valuable sea-coast — a matter of 

 great consideration in the better ena- 

 bling us to prevent the designs of 

 the enemy. 



Mr. Fox contended, that neither 



the present motion, nor the Reso, 

 lution of 1782, were meant as a de- 

 claration against unjustifiqhie wars, 

 like that, never afted upon, of the 

 French national convention, " That 

 the}' nould not make war for the 

 sake of conquest.'' A'^o, the mean- 

 ing of the motion before the house 

 was, and of that of 1782, that an 

 extension of territory in India was 

 not ihe policy of tliis country : that 

 is, that whatever the grounds if war 

 might bv>, a further addition to our 

 territory in that quarter would be a 

 mischief. The French, in 1782, were 

 as well inclined to oppose us as they 

 now could be. and yet that resolution 

 was then adopted, notwithstanding 

 which we had been going on, war 

 after war, ever since. After the 

 destruftion of 'I'ippoo, we proposed 

 a closer connetlion with the friendly 

 Mahratta powers, which seemed no 

 better than the " fraternal em- 

 braces" in which France clasped 

 Holland. If the fear of France, or 

 views to our own safety, was a siilVi- 

 cicnt, justification of the war against 

 the INIahrattas, the same pretext 

 would hold good, till we shoidd 

 gain possession of the whole penin. 

 sula, which would be a drain on our 

 military resources that the ]>opu< 

 lation of this country could not 

 support. Such a principle could 

 have no end but in universal domi- 

 nion, and no state could be at 

 peace till every nation capable of 

 attacking it should be destroj'ed. 

 On a division, there appeared for 

 Mr. Francis's motion 46, against it 

 105— Majority 59. 



CHAP. 



