AFFAIRS OF INDIA.While we are seeking for justice on that person, who has, for so many years been deceiving us at home, it is not unnecessary to look towards that immense country, over which he exercised, during the same time, a sway almost undivided. A correspondent, at the close of the foregoing sheet (p. 639) made a reference to the statements of Mr. Francis, upon the subject of the debts and revenues of India, and upon which I think it necessary to offer a few remarks.--On the subject of the India Company's debts, Mr. Francis, it will be remembered, has never stated any thing by conjecture. He is strict in his dates, and has invariably taken the amount in every year from the accounts laid before Parlia ment by the Court of Directors. Now, by these accounts, it appears that the debt in India amounted to twenty millions, within a trifle, on the 30th of March, 1803; he made no computation of what it might probably amount to now. But, if the heavy pressure, as Lord Castlereagh calls it, of the Mahratta war, in the two last years, be taken into the calculation, it is not at all improbable that, at this time, even the acknowledged debt may have swelled to thirty millions, or much more. As to the nett territorial revenue, Mr. Francis only made use of Lord Castlereagh's own words, two years ago, in stating it at thirteen millions. By this time it ought to be much more. Supplies raised by other means, as my correspondent properly observes, make part of the annual receipts, but not of the annual revenue. He says, that "if there be an actual revenue in India of "thirteen millions, a debt of twenty-one, "or even of thirty millions, may be paid off, "in a very few years." True; provided your expenses are reduced within your income so far as to leave a nett effective surplus applicable to the reduction of the debt; provided it be considerable; and provided it be so applied. The English nation has been so long gulled, absolutely gulled, with Mr. Dundas's estimates and promises, that it is not hkely they should be gulled again by the same audacity, in the same form.-My correspondent is of opinion, that the Indian establishments ought to be reduced to the amount, at which they stood, when Lord Cornwallis quitted the government of Bengal. (To b Continued.)

pur

The investigation of Lord Melville's delinquency has naturally drawn back the attention of the public to the period when that measure was adopted by the legislature, the " gross violation" of which has for the moment compelled his Lordship to retire. from the ostensible management of public affairs, and from the official distribution of the favours of the Crown. According to some reports, indeed, Lord Melville does but bend only till the storm has passed over him, and will soon erect his branching honours to the sky. It may be so, indeed, unless the people of England are true to their representatives, and their representatives are consistent with themselves. In revising the proceed. ings of those years in which inquiry and reform of abuses were the universal cry both in and out of Parliament, it is curious to compare the convicted delinquents of 1805, and their patrons, with the patriots of 1784 and 1785. Twenty years have now afforded men time to reflect upon the pompous promises, the exaggerated professions, the stern Spartan virtue of the Pitts and the Melvilles suing every delinquent, denouncing every abuse, and menacing every offender. Men of sense look back with sorrow and bitterness of heart to those times in which unfledged patriots and hacknied drudges of power assumed the garb of reformers-when some were consecrated from their youth to the sense of the State, and hardened sinners were converted-when young men saw visions, and old men dreamed dreams. The people of England looked upon this universal effusion of the spirit of patriotism as the commencement of a new æra. The Pitts and Dundasses preached a Milennium to the political and religious Saints. An auction of popularity was opened, and the swindlers, the imposters, and the bankrupts, who neither had the means nor the intention to pay, were the purchasers. The miserable deluded people of England became the victims of mountebanks and cheats. If any man doubts the accuracy of this description, let him compare Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas in their whole conduct with their professions, but especially let them compare Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas, the authors of the Act for Regulating the Office of Treasurer of the Navy, with the Lord Melville of the Tenth Report, guilty of a gross violation of the law," and high breach of duty, and Mr. Pitt conducting his defence. There was some

thing, indeed, singularly ridiculous in seeing Lord Melville before the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, refusing to answer for fear of exposing himself to pains or peraltiesthat same man who had moved so many bills of pains and penalties, bills for restraining peculators, for tying up their property.This is a revolution which ought not to have been expected even in the vicissitudes of human affairs, though in 1785 it might have been predicted of Mr. Dundas.

It

is wonderful to trace the progress of Lord Melville in his political career. When first appointed Treasurer of the Navy, he was absolutely ashamed of his greatness. Mark the maiden modesty of Grimbald. It is a fact that Lord Melville did really profess in the House of Commons this bashful diffidence; and, as even then some might have been ready to sneer, he got Mr. Rigby to bear testimony in his favour. Mr. Dundas protested that the place was not fit for him, and Mr. Rigby added, "he could vouch for him that he had told him many months ago, that he was ashamed that a Lord Advocate, who was at the head of the Bar in Setland, should bold so lucrative an employment, and one so little connected with his profession, as was that of Treasurer of the Navy." Here is as good a scene of hypocrisy as Richard III. Dr. Shaw, and the Lord Mayor of London. This same modest gentleman we soon find Treasurer of the Navy, President of the Board of Control, and War Secretary, not to speak of lucrative sinecures! But, indeed, allowing Lord Melville every aptitude for improvement, it must have required no small discipline to make him the perfect character he now appears.--Lord Melville, however, now stands before his country a man guilty of a "gross violation of law and a high breach of duty." He has, in consequence of the Vote of the House of Commons, resigned.-But is resignation of an active, responsible station, and a seat in the Cabinet, sufficient atonement to the violated law of the land? Some years ago a person of the name of Cawthorne had been guilty of some trivial malversations as a military offi cer. That offence was deemed so great, that Colonel Cawthorne was not allowed to resign his seat in the House of Commons. Mr. Pitt would not give him any of the customary offices that vacate a seat. He was expelled the House. We beg the attention of the country to that incident.-Yet, will Can ning, or any other man, (and if Canning won't nobody will) pretend that Cawthorne's offence was more heinous in itself,, more dangerous in its example, more repughant to law, more inconsistent with the ho

nour and dignity of Parliament, than Lord Melville's? Shail any man tell us that a peds dling malversation in coals and candles was a bigher delinquency than the gross violation of a law, than the application of public money to the purposes of private emolument? If Col. Cawthorne was unanimouslyexpelled the House of Commons, and was not suffered to resign his seat, shall Lord Melville simply resign loaded with places and sinecures? Does not equal justice and sound principle, and wise precaution, demand that Lord Melville should be removed from all " places of trust or emolument which he holds during the pleasure of the Crown, and from his Majesty's presence and councils for ever?" If nothing farther is done to mark the deep sense of Parliament, and the whole country, of Lord Melville's delinquency, the public will soon find that nothing has been effected.. It will be found that Lord Melville will continue to exercise all the patronage of Scotland; it will be found that he will interpose his pernicious counsels in every department. We have no security that he will not still pollute the Admiralty. We hope, indeed, that inquiry will be made in Parliament, whether Lord Melville has not made a good many appointments since the 8th current. It may be proper to call for the dates of some commissions. It is a mockery to say with some persons, whose motives are perfectly well known, enough has been done by voting Lord Melville's conduct a gross violation of law. Is it the course of criminal justice, in this or any other country, to declare simply that the law has been violated? What is the natural consequence of such a declaration ? Is it impunity or the application of the pe nalty?In the name of common sense, why declare the violation, and then resolve to do nothing? In logical consequence, and in common sense, it were more consistent to deny the violation, than to affirm it and stop short, The resignation of Lord Melville is not in the parliamentary course of proceed ing the consequence of the vote. Melville upon that vote chose to resign; but to the House of Commons that is not satisfaction that was Lord Melville's act, not the aet of the House of Commons. It remains for the House of Commons to per fect the proceedings they have commenced. They could not help Lord Melville's resign ing to anticipate his being turned out, as Mr. Pitt prevented Colonel Cawthorne resigning to prevent his being expelled. Lord Mel ville resigned forsooth! Why 'tis but Jack Falstaff's trick after all! Because he is afraid to stand the battle, he squats him

that

Lord

down till the hurley burley's over. Lord Melville saw his political life in danger, and finds it time to-counterfeit. Counterfeit !

lie, I am no connterfeit. To die is to be a counterfeit, for he is but the counterfeit of a man who hath not the life of a man; but to counterfeit dying when a man thereby liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true and perfect image of life indeed."-Sblood it was time to counterfeit when the House of Commons would have paid him scot and lot too!-To tell us, therefore, that Lord Melville's resignation of one place (which there were so many reasons for his never holding at all), and for resigning after he had the boldness to take it, is a mockery of the good sense and honest feeling of the people of England. It is a language fabricated by knaves, and made current among fools. Let those who hold it keep and answer for it to their consciences; and, if they are parliament men, to their constituents. Most people of plain sense will discover the folly or the knavery of those who pompously declare the law violated, and yet do nothing to assert its justice, and to apply the penalty.-But is Lord Melville's a case that calls for so strange, anomalous a proceeding, for such an abdication of the living active powers of law? Was it a thoughtless, a negligent violation of the law? was it by one not understanding it, with avocations to divert him from it? Was Lord Melville asleep, or upon a journey? Was not Lord Melville a framer of the bill? Is not Lord Melville the very Mr. Dundas of whom Mr. Pitt, in his speech in a Committee of the whole House, on the Reports of the Commissioners of Accounts, Feb. 17, 1785, in moving the first steps of that act which Lord Melville has violated, speaks thus: "He had the happiness to say that his Right Hon. Friend, the present Treasurer of the Navy (Mr. Dundas) had, in consequence of the Report of the Commissioners on his particular office, taken the whole of the practice, and of their suggestions, into his most able consideration; and he had, after much inquiry and deliberate consultation, formed a plan which promised to be effectual ?-What, then, were the suggestions of the Commissioners of Accounts? In their Third Report, they say that the Treasurer should be a mere accountant." Jn their Eighth Report they say"The Legislature have, in the last Session "of Parliament, introduced into the office "of the Paymaster General of the Forces a regulation, which, as it seems to us, may be applied as beneficially to the office of "the Treasurer of the Navy. The custody

"

of the cash applicable to the Navy ser

"

"vices may be transferred from the Treasurer to the Bank of England, and the ac "count only of the receipts and payments "be kept in his office; all the sums now, "received by him may be received by the

Bank; sums from the Exchequer may be "imprested to the Bank; sus directed by "the letters of the different boards to be paid to him, may be directed to be paid into the Bank; all bills assigned upon him for, payment may be paid, and all extrą payments may be made by his drafts upon "the Bank; the payment of the seamen, "the artificers and labourers in the yards, "and the persons in the hospital ships, and "on the half-pay lists, must be carried on in "the same manner, it is now: these mea "cannot be paid by drafts; they must have "cash, and with that cash the pay clerks must be entrusted as they are at present; "and the Treasurer must continue to be "i responsible for them, as for officers of his "appointment, and under his control; but "this will be, no obstruction to the regula "tion. The money may be all issued to "the Pay Clerks by the Drafts of the Trea

"

"

surer upon the Bank, according to the re"quisitions of the Navy Board, in like manner as many of these sums are issued at "this day; and, upon the death or resigna"tion of a Treasurer, the balances of his "cash in the Bank, and in the hands of his "Pay Clerks, may be struck immediately, "and carried over to the account of his suc

cessor. In this situation, the Treasurer, "neither receiving nor paying public money himself, can be neither debtor to, nor "creditor of the public, except as far as he

may be responsible for his Clerks."- Now all these suggestions Mr. Dundas took into his most able consideration; and he framed an act upon them, in the very words of those suggestions, and to the express end of them was the act drawn. And yet was the law obeyed? Was the act thus framed to reform all abuses, carried into effect? Did this Treasurer of the Navy, outstripping the glory of all his predecessors, and sweeping away all their errors, even do justice to his own measure? No, no.- Hardly was the ceremony consummated when the infidelity was committed.

object of his tenderness and duty. -In truth, the Act was no sconer passed than it was violated. Mr. Trotter in his examination, Tenth Report, page 201, admits that so early as the year 1786, money was drawn out and lodged in a private Banker's," with "the knowledge and approbation of the "Treasurer of the Navy."--This practice, so manifestly against law, and declared by the House of Commons to be so, was pursued all the time of Lord Melville's Treasurership.--Now will it be pretended this was a venial offence?—If there are circumstances that tend to aggravate the guilt of criminals, are not all those circumstances combined in the case of Lord Melville 1Did not Lord Melville, courting popularity, a member of an administration whose mountebank tricks, whose shameless misrepresentations, whose bold professions, whose pretensions to immaculate purity, had cajoled all the republicans, all the seditious tribe, all the giddy multitude, and many of the sober minded too, over to their party, bring in this very Act-Did he not claim particular merit for a measure, excellent for its purpose indeed, but stolen from Mr. Burke's Paymaster's Bill, and from the Reports of the Commissioners ?-Could Lord Melville be ignorant of the object it had in view-If the Act was calculated to answer the end why not enforce it ?--If it was defective, why not, in imitation of Mr. Burke, in regard to the Pay Office Act, bring in a Bill to correct what was wrong? And is the open violation of an Act of Parliament, attended with such aggravated circumstances, to be merely noticed in a declaratory resolution? After this will it be equal justice to punish culprits for violating laws made by others, when Lord Melville escapes with impunity, though guilty of violating from corrupt motives a law made by himself? After this will Judges or Juries have the courage to punish twelve penny-halfpenny rogues-Messrs. Thorntons and Bankes and Wilberforce, what say ye to this ?-Is resignation of the Admiralty punishment for the violation of a specific law?-Does your code of law and morals tell you so ?--Will you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?

We have said that Lord Melville has been guilty of the violation of the law, from corrupt motives. That indeed is an aggravation, but the simple violation of the law, is sufficient to infer punishment, and we assert, that in the legal or even ordinary acceptation of the word, Lord Melville's resignation of an office from which, in all probability, he would on no other grounds. have been removed in a week or two, is not

*

punishment. If it is considered how many motives of honour, duty, attachment to his own law, Mr. Dundas had to cause the 25th of the King, c. 31, to be obeyed, it will appear in the highest degree suspicious, that without any reasonable object of convenience, which will bear the slightest exami nation, he allowed it to be totally disre garded, on the bare suggestion of his paymaster. Is it credible that Mr. Dundas would have done so without some strong reason; he who had studied, he who had seen, he who tried to correct the abuses which he instantly replaced and restored, though condemned by the House of Commons, as he has been, though he hopes, no doubt, in the same manner, to be replaced and restored? Will it be credited that Lord Melville, who, from his habit of attending to the subject, could, with a single glance, see what was doing in an office he had just regulated from top to bottom, should be ignorant of Trotter's views and proceed. ings? It is impossible. Could he, by law "the accountant," nothing more than responsible accountant of the office, not see that Trotter had balances applied to profit and advantage? If he did not see these things, he took 5,000l. a year for do ng nothing, and neglected the public business.

-That he shared with Trotter, and very largely too, we have no manner of doubt, It is proved as to 10 or 20,000. by Trot ter's admission, and more by his silent or his reluctant answers. As to the confusion of accounts, instead of mending Lord Mel ville's case, really makes it more criminal. What, the "Accountant" (see the Third Report of the Commissioners of Accounts) of, perhaps, 14 or 16 millions a year, suf fers his deputy, and agent, for sixteen years, to mix accounts in such a manner, that he cannot tell whether he barrows Trotter's money, or the public money? To borrow during the subsistence of an illegal proceeding permitted by Lord M. and which he could not but know was illegal without asking any questions, is in itself so scandalous, so indecent, that it looks like a receiver of stolen goods, buying all wares without asking any questions. This is really no better than Jonathan Wild's shop. An honest man would have asked questions. A man of nice feeling and honour would not have first allowed Trotter to violate the law, then have employed him as private agent,

Even Mr. Trotter, on quifting the of fice, suggested a plan which made it unnecessary, on any pretext, to do what he pleaded convenience for doing.