54© A. D. 1773. 



nothing of the lupply fent lately to Madras. The country, being thus 

 exhaufted of the circulating money, which ufed to invigorate the in- 

 duftry of the inhabitants, niuft foon be rendered incapable of either 

 fupporting the natives or yielding any revenue. 



At this time the company were in arrears to government for ^^400,000, 

 being one year's tribute, or participation, of the territorial revenue, and 

 alfo for a large fum due on the tea indemnity, befides other large funis 

 owing to the cuftom-houfe for duties unpaid. They were moreover 

 deep in debt to the bank, for money borrowed. And amidft all thefe 

 difficulties they were under acceptances for bills drawn upon them from 

 India to the amount of ^('i, 2 00, 000. Thus circumftanced, they found 

 themfelves not only difabled from paying the large annual tribute of 

 ;f 400, 000, together with the indemnity, 8cc. but even from going on in 

 their bufmefs, unlefs they could obtain a large loan from government. 



The company afcribed the bad ftate of their affairs in India to their 

 not having lufficient power to punifti their fervants for difobedience or 

 malverfations in that country, where the diftance alone was too power- 

 ful a caufe of many enormities being committed, not only with impun- 

 ity, but even without ever coming to the knowlege of the company. 

 In order to redrefs thofe evils the deputy-chairman of the company 

 made a motion in the houfe of commons (30'" March 1772) for a bill 

 to regulate the company's fervants in India, to prohibit the governor 

 and council from having any concern in trade*, and to alter the mode of 

 adminiftering juftice in Bengal, where the mayor's court of Calcutta, ori- 

 ginally inftituted for the trial of mercantile caufes, had extended itsjurif- 

 didion, along with the extenfion of the company's dominion, from a fmall 

 territory to a great empire, to the magnitude of which it was by no means 

 competent. The bill was read a firfl and fecond time, and then dropt : 

 but parliament did not thereupon lofe fight of the company's affairs. 



The diffrefs and depopulation of the provinces fubjed to the company 

 in India, the oppreflion and defpotifm of their fervants, and the mis- 

 management of the revenues of Betigal and the other provinces, where- 

 by the company were now in more flraitened circumflances than ever 

 they were when they were merely merchants, were urged as motives for 

 appointing a committee of the houfe of commons to make a flrid 

 inquiry into the flate of the company's affairs at home and abroad : and 

 their invefligation gave birth to fuch arrangements as may be faid to 

 have thrown the company entirely into the hands of government. 

 On the 2'' of March 1773 the company petitioned parliament for a 



* When by the acquifition of territory th« go- cally oppofite to the duty of a fovereign. The in- 



vernors at the different prefidencies became the de- compatibih'ty of the charadters of fovereign and 



puted fovereign rulers over feveral millions of peo- merchant is well illuftrated by Dodloi Smith, 



pie, the purfuits of a merchant or faclor (for fuch \^lVcaUh of nation:, B. iv, c. 7.3 

 the governors formerly were) came to be diametri- 



