"of political questions, purely and properly "Indian, &c." he will forfeit the high character, which the impartial public has hitherto entertained of his principles and parliamentary conduct; that he will deface the favourable impressions created by his long active and meritorious life; and he will confirm, what his late murmurings have led us to suspect, (which an observation of Mr. Sheridan's has lately strengthened) that his Folitical principles and labours, have been wholly directed to the objects of ambition and power; and that he has resolved to abandon the one, because he despairs of obtaining the other.-Mr. HUDDLESTONE is a member of parliament; an East India Director; and from a residence in India, has had the advantage of much local experience. His opinions as a legislator, respecting the Mahratta wars, have been delivered in the House, and have been committed to the press. He has pronounced, that the system. of Lord Wellesley, "was fraught with se"rious evils, teemed with dreadful hazard, "without any commensurate cbject; that "it set our life upon a cast; that it staked "our existence in India on the issue of pro'jects and pursuits directly foreign to our "truest policy, and to the policy enjoined by the legislature; on splendid schemes "and enterprises of which the failure would "be destruction, and even the success ruinous; of which nothing was certain, "but the enormous expense of blood and " and treasure which it created, and the ha"tred which it inspires."- "That there appeared to have been engrafted on our military successes in India, a scale of expenditure to which no exhaustible revenue was adequate;" and " that Lord "Wellesley's system in all its branches "should be abrogated." Such are the sentiments which Mr. Huddlestone has delivered in parliament; and in the dispatch, which the Court of Directors intended to have sent to India, (and which I shall particularly consider in a future letter) this gentleman, as a Director, has censured and condemned the conduct of Lord Wellesley, on many points connected with the details of his administration. In common with the other 22 directors, Mr. H. has accused Lord Wellesley, of wilful and positive disobedience of the orders of the directors, in several instances; which we all know is a misdemeanour. His lordship is also charged in the dispatch with a lavish and profuse expenditure of public money, at a period when he had drained the company's treasury in pursuing schemes of conquest; an expenditure

Yet,

as unlawful as it was unnecessary. Mr. Cobbett, we have not seen Mr. Huddlestone take any step to promote inquiry or censure against Lord Wellesley, whom he has blamed as a director, and condemned as a legislator, for persisting in a system, which was contrary to the policy enjoined by law; a system which placed in jeopardy the existence of our Indian empire. I forbear to observe particularly, on what has recently hap pened in parliament, respecting the dispatch, of which I have slightly spoken. We have yet to learn, what reason Mr. Huddlestone can give for suddenly changing his opinion of the propriety or necessity of producing this paper. We have, however, strong grounds to suspect the influence that occa sioned this sudden change, and lament that Mr. H. could be so influenced.--The next person I shall notice on the score of consistency is MR. GEORGE JOHNSTONE, who has also acquired a considerable share of local knowledge in India; who has hitherto been sufficiently forward in all discussions connected with our Eastern governments; and who, if I am rightly informed, from the result of practical experience, can explain some of the transactions at Onde, so as to justify an assertion made by him in parlia ment, to which I shall presently refer.-In your Register of April the 12th, you have given to Mr. Johnstone, what Mr. Francis has never received, a refresher; and I shall rejoice if the recollection of it, shall serve as a flapper to his senses, when he shall be present at any future discussion of Indian subjects; and to assist his memory, I shall remind him, that in March, 1803, when the Indian Budget was brought before parlia ment, he declared, that no man could be found to say, that our increased dominion added to the security of our possessions or the stability of our empire; that no man would be hardy enough to deny that these acquisitions were made in defiance of the positive enactments of the legislature, and of the deliberate and recorded opinion of

every eminent person, who had consider ed the nature of our empire in the East "As to the manner in which these acquisi "tions had been made, upon a deliberate judgment, he did not scruple to say, that they were obtained by violations of na"tional faith, and by deviations from jus"tice, as flagrant as any of those, with

which we are accustomed to reproach the "French government." To reconcile the subsequent conduct of this gentleman, with the previous declaration,. proceeding from his deliberate judgment, will be, I believe,

a more deliberate task, than even Mr. J. can perform.-MR. SHERIDAN's consistency has been strongly pointed out in the extracts you have lately given to the public, in your Register of April 26th, from two speeches in parliament; the one made by Mr. Sheridan while he was in opposition; the other since he became a member of the present ministry. The contrast is most palpable; and I shall merely say, that any man capable of blushing, could never countenance such incongruous declarations; declarations which shew to France and to the world, that the national justice must wink at the perpetration of "acts, however flagrant and atro

cious," rather than hazard the division of a ministry, composed of discordant but pliant principles-I shall hereafter address you at length on the subject of Mr. Sheridan, and his connexion with the Carnatic question. I must now hasten to conclude this long letter with a few observations on Mr. Secretary Fox. It will be in your recollection, that on the 5th of April, 1805, a long discussion took place in parliament, respecting the policy of the system which had been pursued in India by Lord Wellesley; and many of the observations made that day, by Mr. Fox, Mr. Francis, and Mr. Huddlestone, deserve to be recorded in letters of gold "As soon as we had destroyed Tippoo," said MR. Fox, "it was then stated to be very desira"ble to form a close connexion with the "Mahratta powers. This connexion we

soon formed with them, and we gave them something like, what the French * used to term the "fraternal hug." We "embraced the Mahrattas, just as the "French embraced Holland. We, in fact, "seemed in India to be like Macbeth; "so

steeped in blood," that we thought it vain "to go back. "Sed revocare gradum, hic " labor, hoc opus est." "But, it is said, "that you waged war against the Mahrattas "merely from a fear of the French; and a "similar plea may be allowed with equal "justice, against any state in India, until "the work of destruction, the English "force may make its way to the wall of " of China. The pretence upon which the "advocates for conquests in India rested, "was precisely the pretence of all conquer"ors and marauders in all ages. Accord"ing to Livy, whenever the Romans made "war upon any state, it was only to secure

their own safety. Such was the plea ad"vanced by Lewis the XIVth. and others "entertaining similar views. In the name ❝ of common sense, he would ask where "such a plea was likely to stop? Where

"was this resort for safety to end; for, ac"cording as it was applied, no man was

likely to be at peace, for he could not cal"culate upon any safety, while there was another man alive who had strength

enough to knock him down." Mr. Fox concluded a long and eloquent speech, expressing a hope that "something declara"tory of the proposed system with respect "to India, would be adopted by the House "as a guide to our governors in India, as a "rule by which our views might be judged "of by the natives." Such, Mr. Cobbett, were the sentiments delivered by Mr. Fox of Lord Wellesley's wars in India. Such was the opinion of Mr Fox, as to the necessity of declaring a system for the guidance of fu ture governors, and for the satisfaction of the natives in India. Mr. Fox was, however, then in the list of opposition. Since Mr. Fox has become a minister, on two occasions he has been pressed to declare, what system of policy was likely to be followed by him and his colleagues, respecting the administration of India. He answered on one occasion, "that he did not feel the pro

priety of calling upon ministers for any "distinct pledge, as to the course of policy "which they meant to follow with regard

to India." This declaration will, no doubt, enable the natives of India to judge of our views; and, it doubtless prescribes a most admirable rule for the guidance of our Eastern governors!-In about a month after Mr. Fox's speech, from which I have first quoted, Mr. Whitbread moved in parliament for the dismissal of Lord Melville from his Majesty's councils; and on that occasion, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a feeling for that Noble Lord, of which he was not ashamed, and which nothing but the conviction of the opinion of parliament, and a sense of his public duty could possibly have overcome, endeavoured to prevail on Mr. Whitbread to withdraw his motion; stating, tha "many gentlemen whó con

re

curred in the resolutious, (which had been "previously passed) thought that the wound " which had been inflicted should not be "aggravated by any unnecessary circumstances of severity; and, that when the justice of the public was satisfied, the feelings of the individual ought not to be outraged." What said Mr. Fox to this humane doctrine? Did he then think, when out of place, as he has since declared, with respect to Lord Wellesley, that, when a

bad system has prevailed, the best mode of remedying it, is not by impeaching an "individual, but by remoring the person

through any new act we may pass, in the ર same way in which they have done the "resolutions of the House in 1782, and the "act of the 25th of the King founded on "them. I hope and trust, Sir, that a large "and virtuous majority of the House will "be found to put the seal and stamp of "their reprobation upon such monstrous "and unblushing delinquency."

Now,

Mr. Cobbett, if a large and virtuous majority of the ministers and of the House of Commons, does not promote an inquiry into the measures of Lord Wellesley's administration in India, and the reasons for pursuing a system, which has been declared ruinous and unjust, and which has left us" steeped in "blood;" and, if " proper punishment is not inflicted where it has been deserved," what security have we, that some future goVernor general will not break through any new act that may pass? And, if Mr. Fox does not avow and practice now the principles, so declared, when the criminality of Lord' Melville was in question, I hope and trust, that a large and virtuous majority of the nation will be found to put the seal and stamp of their reprobation upon such monstrous and unblushing inconsistency.-One word more to Mr. Fox and Lord Henry Petty. In the debate, to which I have last alluded, Mr. Fox took occasion to call the attention of every man in the House capable

of appreciating virtue and genius, to the brilliant efforts, made that night by Lord Henry Petty. I recollect," said Mr. Fox, "when Mr. Pitt made his first essay in this "house. I recollect the just pride which we all felt to see him, much at the same age then that the Noble Lord now is, distinguishing himself in hunting down corruption; in unmasking abuses in the public expenditure; in proposing and enforcing reforms of various kinds. What a contrast does his conduct on this night "afford! Under what sort of figure does he

66

appear?" Heu! quantum mutatus ab illo! Now, if Mr.Fox is capable of feeling the force of the reproach which he exultingly directed against Mr. Pitt, on that occasion, let him reflect on the contrast which his own political conduct has afforded, and, I doubt whether he is yet so callous, but a sting may find its way to his bosom. Let Lord Henry Petty also recollect, that the praise of Mr. Fox, if undeserved, will ill become his present character, and to pursue the figure of his friend, the game of corruption is not yet up, nor is the hunting season over.—A. I.— May 7, 1806.

COLONIAL SERVICE

(Continued from p. 672.)

IV. That the officers should be gentlemen who had already served the King, or East-India Company in India; others who had resided in that country.

-V. That they should be embarked in ships commanded by masters and officers acquainted, in some degree, with their language, customs, and prejudices, from having traded from port to port in India; and manned with crews of Lascars.-VI. That the transports should not be allowed to carry any thing but stores and provisions for the voyage. All merchandize should be confscated on the discovery of it, and the captain subjected to heavy penalties, on proof that he had taken or permitted any to be taken on board. Possibly, however, an exception to this rule might be allowed with respect to rice, and some other articles of provision, and lumber useful to the islands, and which cannot be supplied from the mcther country, and can be sent from Bengal, I believe, at a cheaper rate than even from America.-VII. That in addition to the Seapoy infantry establishment proposed, it would be highly desirable and advantageous to have several companies of that truly use. ful class of people denominated Artillery Lascars and Golandaze.-The transports for