APPENDIX, tion to the extent of £523,926, and made the estimated value of the Company's Commercial Property at that period, £19,211,983. No. 3 is an Account of the whole Net Return of the Company's Commercial Capital in each year from 1814-15 to 1828-29, by investment in merchandize or otherwise, and shows the following results: Total Commercial Profit realized by the Company from 1814-15 to 1828-29 £20,488,379 No. 2. Mr. Pennington's Of this sum of £20,488,379, the application is stated to have been as follows: £. Leaving an unappropriated Surplus of Commercial Profits £2,724,013 To which, if there be added the computed Value of the Company's Commercial 19,211,983 Should give the Value of the Commercial Property at the conclusion of the £21,935,966 But the computed value of the Company's Commercial property on the 1st May 1829, including the Dead Stock in India, was £21,668,510. The difference is accounted for in the Statement No. 4 (Commercial Series), by which it appears that the stock on hand is estimated at its market value; and that the anticipated profit of the 1st May 1814 exceeded the anticipated profit of the 1st May 1829 by the sum of £291,550. This sum being allowed for, throws a difference of £24,064 to be accounted for to the other side of the account; which difference is explained in a memorandum to the Statement No. 4 (Commercial Series) above referred to. Although this result of the Commercial operations of the Company is not established I ❤is mode of statement upon principles strictly and indisputably accurate, it may sunzoiv be presumed to be a close approximation to the truth. There can be no Jace that £12.035.346 have been paid within the period in dividends to the proprietors, aterest to the holders of East-India Bonds; none that £4,923,021 have been te service of the Territory; none that £805,999 of the Home Bond Debt gea scharged. The only point that can be questioned, then, is the remaining 2013: and of this surplus the Company acknowledge the existence at vich the account extends. ze perfect accuracy of the account of Profit and Loss, it shows the following Pet of the India Trade for the first five years of the period in question of the India Trade for the second five years was £116,678, and for C 43757. treat of the China Trade for the first five years of the period was ege second five years, £875,432, and for the third five years, £625,910. on the India and China Trade for the fifteen years was £1,009,047 all her sources of Profit £359,564 per annum. a.ronts of the Company from 1814-15 to 1828-29, £4,923,021 have o Territorial purposes, to the liquidation of Indian Debt, or in a to the prevention of its increase. tale the sum of £1,536,078, the amount of interest, at the rate of the ca avances from the Commercial to the Territorial branch. This sum sable upon the Indian Revenue, but hitherto it has not been introcal Accounts; until it is so introduced, it cannot be regarded al application to Territorial purposes of so much of the Surplus VANA2724.013 above-mentioned, A Kas me sæ determined that Interest upon the Surplus Profits remaining in 87 Sail be deducted from the £1,536,078. The reduction consequent en ancen das precisely the same effect as would have resulted from the speop to the Territory of so much Surplus Commercial Profits as is equal ween the Board's balance of Interest, and that resulting from the scea adopted by the Court. 、、 the scope and intention of the present Report to inquire into the relathe two branches of the Company's affairs antecedently to the comè present Charter. Aowever, be altogether useless to observe, that all the Statements which deen drawn out with a view to this inquiry differ materially from each nt of principle as in their details and results; and show the extreme er the impossibility, of arriving at any certain conclusion, upon a point vants from which the Statements are drawn do not afford either the son or the proof. how the insufficiency of those Statements for the objects which the framers irview, little more is necessary than to compare them with each other. that contained in the Third Report of 1811-12: APPENDIX, This, "by stating on the one side the advances made by India for the immediate account of England, and on the other side the disbursements made by England for the immediate account of India," shows a balance in favour of England, from 1792-3 to 1808-9, of £1,629,701. The next is Mr. Langton's Statement, p. 262* et seq., Rep. 1831: This proceeds upon a principle very different from that of the former. On one side of this Statement is placed the amount derived from Revenue, Loans, &c. ; on the other, the charges and other outgoings paid in India and in England, and the annual augmentation of cash and bills in the Indian treasuries. Whatever cannot be otherwise accounted for is supposed to have been paid to, or received from, the Commercial Department. But as in the early part of the seventeen years which his inquiries comprehend, the balance of supplies was greatly in favour of the Territory, he has drawn up an interest account at the Indian rates, between the two branches, the balance of which, on the 30th April 1809, is £5,175,490 against Commerce. The items of which Mr. Langton's Statement is composed, and those of the Third Report, are contrasted in the following Statement: No. 2. Mr. Pennington's Third Report, page 402, et seq. .. 1,966,611 APPENDIX, the lender for principal and interest, but having a claim upon Commerce pro tanto. Mr. Rickards and Mr. Wilkinson, on the contrary, regard Commerce as the only ostensible party. The distinction, at first sight, may appear unimportant: in reality, however, it is not so. According to Mr. Langton's principle, the loss of interest occasioned by the necessity of constantly keeping a very large sum of money in the Indian Treasuries is sustained by the Territory. Mr. Rickards and Mr. Wilkinson fix this loss upon Commerce. When it is necessary or expedient to advance a large sum of money in India on account of His Majesty's Government, Mr. Langton imposes the task of raising the necessary funds for that purpose upon the Territorial, Mr. Rickards and Mr. Wilkinson upon the Commercial Department. And whatever claims on this head are ultimately rejected by the King's Government, Mr. Langton allows, together with the consequent loss of interest, to remain as an outgoing and loss to the Territory; Mr. Rickards and Mr. Wilkinson as an outgoing and loss to the Commerce. In short, Mr. Langton makes Territory the banker to Commerce; Mr. Rickards and Mr. Wilkinson makes Commerce the banker to Territory. The latter, therefore, might, with perfect consistency, allow that Mr. Langton's account would be in the main correct, if he would charge to Commerce, and take credit to Territory, for the following sums, together with interest thereon, at the Indian rates, to the 30th April 1809, as having been paid on account of the Company's Trade. Advances for the capture and maintenance of Ceylon and the Eastern Islands, not in- £. cluded in the Indian charges Payments to the creditors of the Nabob of Arcot and the Rajah of Tanjore Losses at the several Presidencies Increase of Dead Stock in India, purchased by Indian funds 1,661,345 £873,403 461,428 200,000 Bonds paid in England to the creditors of the Nabob of Arcot and the Rajah of Stores exported to the Presidencies, Bencoolen and St. Helena Cash and Bills held by the Territorial on account of the Commercial Treasury Deduct: Sums received from Government in liquidation of Advances 1,534,831 232,124 6,033,165 6,282,205 16,866,737 £ 12,080,733 The difference between Mr. Langton and Mr. Wilkinson turns mainly upon the sums above-mentioned. The former treats the whole as a charge upon Territory, the latter regards the whole as a charge upon Commerce. This sum of £12,080,733, accumulating at compound interest at the Indian rates, would probably amount, in 1828, to £52,172,177, or thereabouts, with which, according to Mr. Wilkinson, the Territory has been improperly burthened. Mr. Wilkinson's Tables (A.) and (B.) are continued to the 30th April 1828. According to Table (B.), the Territorial Payments, including Interest, between 1808-9 and 1827-8, exceeded the Receipts by the sum of £16,576,570. By the same Table it appears that the increase of Debt within that period was £16,947,711.* Upon this showing it cannot be alleged that Commerce received any assistance from Territory during those 19 years. The mischief must have been done, therefore, and the wrong committed, between 1794 and 1809; and if it could be conceded to Mr. Wilkinson that the loss of interest occasioned • Mr. Wilkinson has fallen into the same mistake as Mr. Langton with regard to the arrears of allowances, &c. |