this account is made up. A charge is made on government of 260,687/. for the subsistance of prisoners in the war which concluded in 1763. To this article I did not mean to object, as a debt desperate, and to be altogether struck out: but, in their present emergency, is it to be considered as an article of available property? This claim was made on France immediately on the conclusion of the war in 1763, and for fifteen years in succession, that is, until the commencement of the last war. The payment of the sum was constantly sought for, and as stedfastly denied. Now, though I for my own part would promise and pledge myself to the company, that I would exert every effort of my mind and power to accomplish this payment, though there is a negociation at this instant going on at Paris for the payment of it, and though I would pledge myself also for the exertion and activity of the noble duke now at Paris on the subject, still I ask if a sum which had been contended for in vain. for so long a time, is to be assumed in such an account as available property?

The next article of 139,8771. for expenses on the Manilla expedition, and of 21,447. for hospital expenses, bear the same complexion. They are all suma which have been in contention for so long a time, that, though they may be fairly due, they cannot be estimated as property at hand, in fund, or come-atable; they have been dissallowed by every succeeding treasury, including even that of the earl of Shelburne. I therefore beg to ask the house, whether these three sums, making 422,0117., ought to have been brought forward in the present statement as property applicable to the discharge of their debts?

The next article is under the head of cash, which is stated in money, in bonds paid in at the sales, and again to be issued, and in debentures and custom notes, to amount to 609,95 11. Now to this I have an objection. The bonds are here stated as cash; and no notice is taken of a very material article, which is the discount on their being issued again. They bear a very considerable discount; and an allowance should have been made for this discount, which they must suffer, on their being again issued. They cannot take any advantage of them but by issuing them anew, and they must be issued at a

discount: instead, therefore, of stating them on this side of the account as cash, and charging them on the other side as debts against themselves, they ought to have stated merely the amount of the discount as an item against themselves on the debtor side of the account.

The next sum is stated to be due for goods sold, but not delivered, 553,2587. To this I have no objection. The next article is the value of the goods in the ware. houses, of which the freights and duties are paid, 2,500,000l. This I did not consider as proper to be taken in the way which they have taken it. It is to be enquired, whether they can dispose of this property, and then whether they can make it productive, and to the amount at which they have taken it:-though I do not believe that they can, yet I do not object to this article. At the same time it might have been proper for them to have stated the amount, without the customs. They charge themselves with the customs on the other side, indeed; but, to have made the account regular, the sum should have been regularly stated here without the double entry.

The next is the merchandise exported to India, but not included in the property here, as not being yet arrived, 1,219,0917. When a man is making out a state of accounts, to prove that he has in hand a sufficient quantity of goods, which he could immediately, or in a reasonable time, convert into money, one might be a little surprised to find him enumerating articles which, in their nature, could not be converted into money; and yet the company have acted precisely in this manner; for they state, that merchandise to the amount of 1,219,0917. has been exported to India, but not included in the accounts of property there, not being arrived when they were made up. Now, in this account are included military stores, to the amount of about half that sum, which were not to be used for any mercantile purpose, but were to be, if they had not already been consumed by the army. To the sum, therefore, of at least 600,000/. in this article, I would certainly except: it forms no part of the means of the company to pay their present debts, and therefore ought not to have been included in an account of ways and means. They could not bring them to any market, and they were not to be

taken as available property. On this article, therefore, I take 600,000. The next sum is for silver remaining in the treasury, 1,090. The only notice which I mean to take of this article is, to declare my astonishment, or rather indeed not my astonishment, but to point it out as a fact which proves my statement of their finances to be right. After enumerating their millions afloat, their millions in the warehouse, they come to the calculation of their specie, and it amounts to the sum of 1000%. This reminds me of an article in one of our great bard's best plays, where, speaking of one of his best characters, it is said--so much for sack; so much for sugar; so much for burnt hock; so much for this, aud so much for that: but for the solid-the substantial-the staff of life-bread, one halfpenny. So it is with this flourishing company: they have millions of bonds, of debts; but of silver they have one solitary thousand pounds.

The next article is for the advance of freight, to be deducted on the arrival of the ships, 172,334. To this article I have very great and solid objections: it is a piece of complete and most unpardonable fallacy. They state, in their favour, the advanced freight which they have paid; but they have not taken against them, on the other side, the sum of freight and demurrage which they will have to pay. To shew the fallacy of this article, I would suppose that I had 1000l. to pay on my note next. Monday, of which, however, I had already advanced 1007. in estimating this account I took to my favour the 100l. which I had paid, but took no notice, nor made any provision for the 900/. which I had to pay. The company have advanced the freight on fifty-three ships of these, fourteen have come home, and there are still thirty-nine ships behind; but of these, two have been burnt and blown up: so that there remain thirtyseven ships in India, and coming home, on which the remaining freight and demurrage is to be paid; and this. is to be estimated at 50,000l. a ship. So that, instead ́ of this sum which they have taken to their credit, they are to be charged in this account with 1,850,000%, for which they are bound, and which they must pay. This I call a very unpardonable fallacy. I desire to know what parliament would think of any responsible minister, paymaster, or servant, who should act in this manner.

"

Or is it possible, that any man appointed under the pre sent bill, and accountable to this house, could present an account so miserably deficient as this is.

The next sum is a small charge for their shipping in England; it is only 12,300l.; and I might say, de minimis non curat prætor: but still I must say a few words on the subject, as it shews to what shift the company thought themselves driven, when they would suffer such an article to be brought into an account; it could be merely for the purpose of swelling, at all events, the total. This sum is estimated to be the value of ships and vessels employed by the company in England. The meaning of this is, that the sale of these vessels would produce that sum: but as such a sale could be thought of only in case the company were going to sell off all their stock, and give up business, I would object to the article; because as nothing could be farther from my intention than to dissolve the company, so no such sale can take place while they exist. The article of 253,6164 is exceptionable on the same ground: the company's houses and buildings in London are estimated at that sum; but, as they are not to be sold, I would object to the carrying of that sum to the account of ways and means of the company. If brought forward, it is to be brought forward on the presumption of their bankruptcy; a presumption which I never made, and which could not be taken.

To the article of 703,824., taken at the prime cost of four cargoes on their passage from Bengal, I object in part. It ought to have been stated, what was very well known, that the company suffered a considerable loss by Bengal goods; and this loss ought to have been deducted from the prime cost of the four cargoes.

LIII. Mr. Fox, in support of his East-India bill.

PART I.

THE honourable gentleman who opened the debate (Mr. Powys) first demands my attention; not indeed for the wisdom of the observations which fell from him this might, (though he is acute and judicious upon most oc

casions,) but from the natural weight of all such characters in this country, the aggregate of whom should, in my opinion, always decide upon public measures: but his ingenuity was never, I think, more effectually exerted, upon more mistaken principles, and more inconsistent with the common tenor of his conduct, than in this debate.

He charges me with abandoning that cause, which, he says, in terms of flattery, I had once so successfully asserted; I tell him, in reply, that if he were to search the history of my life, he would find that the period of it, in which I struggled most for the real substantial cause of liberty, is this very moment that I am addressing you. Freedom, according to my conception of it, consists in the safe and sacred possession of a man's property, governed by laws defined and certain; with many personal privileges, natural, civil, and religious, which he cannot surrender without ruin to himself; and of which to be deprived by any other power, is despotism. This bill, instead of subverting, is destined to stabilitate these prin.-ciples; instead of narrowing the basis of freedom, it tends to enlarge it;-instead of suppressing, its object is to infuse and circulate the spirit of liberty.

What is the most odious species of tyranny? PreciseJy that which this bill is meant to annihilate.---That a handful of men, free themselves, should execute the most base and abominable despotism over millions of their fellow-creatures; that innocence should be the victim of oppression; that industry should toil for rapine; that the harmless labourer should sweat, not for his own benefit, but for the luxury and rapacity of tyrannic depredation; in a word, that thirty millions of men, gifted by providence with the ordinary endowments of humanity, should groan under a system of despotism, unmatched in all the histories of the world.

What is the end of all government? Certainly the happiness of the governed. Others may hold other opinions; but this is mine, and I proclaim it.-What are we to think of a government, whose good fortune is supposed to spring from the calamities of its subjects, whose aggrandizement grows out of the miscries of mankind! This is the kind of government exercised under the East-India company upon the natives of Indostan ;