which must, in every point of view, be considered the most important. I have been led to consider the commercial concerns of the Company, as connected with this country in the abstract; but, my Lord, I shall now look at the question in the light in which it must be viewed when brought before Parliament, viz. that of a great Political question, involving the interests and happiness of thousands in this country, as connected with its commerce, but affecting the whole population of Great Britain, as connected with the preservation of our Constitution:-and when considered as relating to India, involving the happiness, indeed the very existence, of fifty millions of our fellow creatures! I confess the magnitude of the subject alarms me;' because I see it possible that an ill-judged policy may be the cause of demolishing a magnificent structure which has existed for upwards of two centuries, supported by an honorable body, who have at all times waived personal considerations for the benefit of their country.

You, my Lord, in conjunction with His Majesty's Ministers, inform the Court of Directors, that you are willing to bring before Parliament a proposition for the renewal of the Company's Charter, provided the Company will give up their exclusive privileges of trade; or in other words, permit the trade to and from India to be opened. The Court agrees that the trade shall be opened, but that the same should be confined to the Port of London. This stipulation the Court has supported by arguments most conclusive.

These arguments appear, in your Lordship's opinion, to have been successfully rebutted by those more cogent ones urged by the Petitioners from the out-ports, and upon these arguments your Lordship relies for the support of Parliament, in depriving the East India Company of a privilege which they refuse to surrender in the unconditional manner demanded of them; because they con sider that by so doing, they shall place themselves in that situation which will render it utterly impossible for them to fulfil the duties Commercial and Political, devolving upon them, in a manner satisfactory to themselves and beneficial to the country.

The sum total necessary to carry on the concern of the Company, is £51,182,127. Vide Printed Papers, No. 1. p. 59.

See pages 561 and 565.

The conduct of the Court of Directors in the negociation, as far as an individual is capable of judging from the papers before the public, must be considered highly honorable. It is such as must retort upon those persons who hope to support the cause of the Petitioners, by imputing to the Directors interested motives for the line of conduct they have pursued, (viz. the preservation of their patronage,) the calumnious and unfounded assertion.

The Court of Directors frankly declares the well-grounded fears it entertains, that the affairs of India cannot be conducted with benefit to this country, if an open trade from the out-ports be permitted; as the same must lead to an unfettered intercourse with India, and not all the regulations which may be devised will prevent colonization, and the alienation of British India from this country will close the fatal project.

:

To strengthen the well grounded fears which are entertained respecting Colonization, I shall refer to the arguments of the favorite author of the open traders, Adam Smith, already alluded to in this letter in following up his opinions on the baneful effects of Monopolies, he says, "That the spirit of exclusive companies is unfavorable to the growth of new colonies, and has probably been the cause of the little progress which has been made in colonization in India." Is there any man, my Lord, when adverting to America, can say that colonization is not to be dreaded? This doctrine practically followed, has lost you America! This doctrine rejected by the Directors of the East India Company, has preserved India to Great Britain!

It is on this broad principle that the Court of Directors and the Company stand forward, for the preservation of their exclusive privileges, which can alone enable them to avert such disas trous consequences. Does this conduct bear the mark of interested motives, my Lord? The Court of Directors, by acquiescing in the proposition of His Majesty's Ministers, would secure to themselves the patronage so much talked of, but the Court will not accept it in exchange for the interests of their Constituents and their Country.

The Country is told that it is ridiculous to fancy that the constitution of England can be affected by any change which may be made in the political or commercial situation of the East India

Company. My Lord, the constitution will be affected; into whose hands will the Government of India, and the Patronage appertaining thereto devolve, if the Company be deprived of it? Why, into the hands of the Minister of the day; and that patronage, when engrossed by an individual, would fortify the Minister who could persuade the Parliament of this country to accede to such a measure, with a phalanx which will place him in a situation to bid defiance to his Prince and to the people of England.

The occurrences of 1783 bear ample proof that the country then felt that the Constitution would have been endangered had the minister succeeded in getting possession of the government of India and the patronage attached thereto. Is there less danger to be apprehended from such an attempt at the present moment?

Mr. Pitt, on the 14th January, 1784, in proposing his Bill to Parliament, said, "That in the Bill which he proposed to move for, he had governed himself by the ideas of the proprietors of India Stock, and by THE SENSE OF THOSE MEN WHO WERE MOST HABITUATED то THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT."

وو

On the 6th July, 1784, Mr. PITT said, "government and commerce were the two great objects to be looked to. THE COMMERCE OF THE COMPANY BELONGED EXCLUSIVELY TO THEM. THE COMMERCE, THEREFORE, TO AND FROM INDIA, HE MEANT TO LEAVE WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. It had, he remarked, been held, that commercial companies could not govern empires; but that was a matter of speculation which general experience proved to be not true in practice, however universally admitted in theory. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY HAD CON

DUCTED ITS COMMERCE AND GOVERNED VAST EMPIRES FOR MANY YEARS, AND IT WAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE EAST INDIA COMPANY WAS NO NEW ESTA BLISHMENT, IT RESTED ON CHARTERS AND ACTS OF PARLIAMENT; THOSE CHARTERS OUGHT UNDOUBTEDLY то BE REGARDED, AND AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE RIGHTS EXERCISED AND ENJOYED UNDER THEM, OUGHT TO BE HELD SACRED."

Mr. Pitt, on the 11th March, 1793, expressed himself in the

following words:" I have no hesitation in saying, that when all the circumstances are fully before the House, I am confident that a Renewal of the Company's Charter will appear to be much for the interest of the country.—It has been said that since the publication of the speech of my Right Honorable friend (Mr. Dundas) every body believes that the Charter will be renewed; and I am glad to hear that such is the case, because it can only arise from a public conviction, that the renewal of the Charter, upon the terms and upon the regulations on which the East India Company have agreed to accept it, will be much for the interest of this country in every point of view."

Mr. Pitt, on the 24th May, 1793, proceeded to examine the observations made by Mr. Fox upon the commercial and political arrangements in the bill. He (Mr. F.) had had recourse to the common place topic, that a free trade was preferable to a monopoly, insisting that the House ought not to forget this principle, unless very good reasons should be given for adopting a contrary one. This speculation, Mr. Pitt said, had been repeated a thousand times by much less ingenious men than the Right Hon. member, and scarcely could have been expected to have been resorted to, as the force of it had been done away by his Right Hon. friend (Mr. Dundas) when he first opened the subject, bottoming his argument, not on vague speculation, but on inferences drawn from history and from authenticated accounts. Here Mr. Pitt asked whether the claims of the manufacturers had not been listened to and provided for, and whether the exclusive privilege of the Company had not been rendered subservient to the resources of the Empire?

Lord Grenville in the House of Lords on the 3d June, 1793, said that if it were necessary for him to enter at large into any general detail on the subject of our possessions in India, or any speculative discussion with respect to the mode in which India ought to be governed, and in which the trade of that country ought to be carried on, it would open a very wide and extensive field indeed; but, in the present case, it did not appear to him that this was in any shape necessary, because he felt that the ground he had to go on was very much narrowed, by having a just and well-founded experience as a guide; a guide which was at all

times perhaps the best, but more particularly so under such circumstances as existed at present. Nine years' experience had· proved the benefit of the present system and there appeared therefore no just reason why it should be altered. The present bill, of course, assumed for its principle the continuance of that system; but as ideas had been entertained by some, that in the hands of the East India Company, the, trade to India was confined within narrower limits than would be the case were it open to be engaged in by the whole capital and the whole spirit of enterprise of this country; provisions were now, for the first time, introduced into the present bill, which would give an opportunity for trying the experiment, by allowing merchants and traders to adventure on their own bottom under certain NECESSARY regulations.

Sir Philip Francis, in April, 1793, said in the House of Commons: "With respect to the renewal of the Company's exclusive Charter to trade to India; I have already said, that I do not object to it...................... I very much question the possibility of increasing our exports to India to any material amount, I mean with a rational security of finding a profitable vent for them. Except military stores, ammunition, and other implements of war, with which it is not your true policy to furnish the Indian princes, the manufactures of England can hardly be said to be saleable in India beyond the trifling amount necessary for the consumption of Europeans."

LORD MELVILLE, in the House of Commons, in April, 1793, stated, as his full conviction after mature consideration, that if the Indian Patronage should be vested and concentrated immediately in the Crown, the weight of it would be too great in the balance of our Government, and might prove dangerous to the Consti

tution.

Lord Melville, in his Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company, dated the 2d of April, 1800, says "That the ostensible extent and detail of

form of Government with all its consequent patronage, must remain as it is, I am persuaded will never be called in question by any but those who may be disposed to sacrifice the

3. In this opinion Mr. Pitt perfectly agreed. See Debate 24th May, 1793.