of these demands? The ministers never authorized any person to enter
into his exchequer and to search his records. Why, then, this shameful
and insulting mockery of a pretended contest? Already contests for a
preference have arisen among these rival bond-creditors. Has not the
Company itself struggled for a preference for years, without any attempt
at detection of the nature of those debts with which they contended?
Well is the Nabob of Arcot attended to in the only specific complaint he
has ever made. He complained of unfair dealing in the Cavalry Loan. It
is fixed upon him with interest on interest; and this loan is excepted
from all power of litigation.

This day, and not before, the right honorable gentleman thinks that the
general establishment of all claims is the surest way of laying open the
fraud of some of them. In India this is a reach of deep policy. But what
would be thought of this mode of acting on a demand upon the Treasury in
England? Instead of all this cunning, is there not one plain way
open,--that is, to put the burden of the proof on those who make the
demand? Ought not ministry to have said to the creditors, "The person
who admits your debt stands excepted to as evidence; he stands charged
as a collusive party, to hand over the public revenues to you for
sinister purposes. You say, you have a demand of some millions on the
Indian Treasury; prove that you have acted by lawful authority; prove,
at least, that your money has been _bonâ fide_ advanced; entitle
yourself to my protection by the fairness and fulness of the
communications you make"? Did an honest creditor ever refuse that
reasonable and honest test?

There is little doubt that several individuals have been seduced by the
purveyors to the Nabob of Arcot to put their money (perhaps the whole of
honest and laborious earnings) into their hands, and that at such high