stem ‘of economy and retrench- 
ment of useless and ostentatious ex- 
| pences. Mr. Alderman Prinsep took 
the same view withsir Arthur Wel- 
lesley’of the origin.of a great part 
| of the company’s debts, and after 
attacking, with.. great bittern¢ss, 
their monopoly, their bad manage- 
J ment of their own concerns, and 
| their jealousy of private traders, he 
| pronounced them to bein a state 
of insolvency, and deprecated any 
notion of assisting them from this 
) country, without a previous exami- 
| mation and thorough investigation 
, of their affairs. Mr. Huddlestone 
vindicated the company from the 
attacks of Mr. Alderman Prinsep, 
and atttibuted the present derange- 
ment of their finances, solely and 
, exclusively, to the system of ambi- 
| tion, false policy and profusion, in- 
| troduced and acted on by lord Wel- 
lesley Lord Castlereagh difiered 
from both parties in their explana- 
tions 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 [ndia which were 
still on hand. In this view 
of the company’s affairs, the cir- 
cumstance most to be lamented in 
| their situation, was the enormous 
interest, which they paid for their 
| debt in India ; and the only eilec- 
| 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 
| tothe company of 800,000/. a year. 
a HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
107 
» Theonly remaining subject con- 
nected 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 execntion ofau 
agreement, between the Fast India 
company and the private creditors of 
the nabobs of the Carnatic, the bet- 
ter to carry the same into effect. 
Much opposition was made to this 
bill, arising from a misconception of 
its nature and object. It waé sup- 
posed to beintended for the purpose 
of giving a parliamentary sanction to 
claims, some of which were certainly 
fraudulent and all justly liable to 
suspicion. It was not adverted to 
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 toreduce the amount of debts, 
for which the dominions and re. 
venues formerly Ais, but now thers 
were answerable. Nor was it con- 
sidered, that this bill created no 
new obligation to discharge the 
debts of the nabob, nor gave any 
additional security to his creditors 5 
but merely enabled the commissio- 
ners, 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 
hardship not to discharge. <A 
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 inthis act should be con- 
strued to confirm the articles of 
agreement between the company 
and creditors, or to render them 
nore 
