year of Queen Anne, after the two Companies had become United, they represented the great hazard they should encounter, by en gaging in any considerable expenses for securing the Pepper Trade, under the limitation of that clause; in consequence of which representation the clause was repealed, and the limitation was left open. The Company from thence inferred, that they had acquired a perpetuity of duration, both for their corporate capacity and their exclusive privilege; the continuance of both of which had ever been subjected to the same rule of determination. They soon, however, became sensible that such could not be the true intention of the Act, and they" submitted themselves to Parliament” on the subject; in consequence of which a limited term of exclusive trade was assigned them, without any limitation being imposed upon the negative perpetuity of duration, which they had acquired for their Corporation by the repeal of the determining clause. But it was not till the year 1730, the third year of the late King, that the Company obtained a true and positive perpetuity of duration for their Body Corporate; at which time an Act was passed, empowering them to continue to trade to the East Indies, as a Company of Merchants, although their exclusive right to the trade, and their power of administering the government and revenues of India, should be determined by Parliament. From that time only, the incorporation and the exclusive privilege become distinguished. The distinctions here made will be found of material importance, in another part of this statement.

2. A right to acquire and possess lands, tenements, and property of every kind; and to dispose of the same under a common seal. This right was conferred by the charter of the 10th of King William; but by Stat. 3 G. 2. c. 14. § 14. the Company's estates in Great Britain were limited to the value of 10,000l. per annum. In virtue of this right, the East India Company were empowered to settle "factories and plantations," within the limits of their exclusive trade. The charter of William, indeed, adds also "forts," with the power of " ruling, ordering, and governing them;" but that this privilege cannot attach upon their corporate and permanent capacity, will presently be made to appear. Fortresses

! A Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 6.

The

and fortifications cannot, from their nature and use, become abso-
lute private property; being part of the public defences of the
empire, they are (to speak with Lord Hale)" affected with a public
interest, and therefore cease to be juris privati only."
building a fort is an act done, in its nature, by virtue of a sove-
reign authority, and is therefore the dereliction of the private right
of property for a public and general purpose. In asserting for the
Company a private right to forts and fortifications, the Company's
advocates have therefore fallen into an extreme error, from not
discriminating between the rights which necessarily belong to their
delegated sovereignty, and those which can alone be annexed to
their commercial corporation. And this brings us to the consider-
ation of

§ 2. The alleged permanent rights of the Company, which require to be considered under two descriptions, viz. rights alleged for them at the expiration of their last exclusive charter, and rights alleged by them at the present moment, with a view to the renewal of their present charter. These are the rights, or more properly the pretensions, which have been pronounced by GRACCHUS, “absolutely unmaintainable, and incompatible with the freedom of British subjects;" and not their true legitimate rights, as the writer of a letter under the signature of PROBUS has chosen to assume.

The rights alleged for them were these :—

1. A right to possess in perpetuity certain extensive territories and seaports in India, after their right to the exclusive trade with those places shall cease. In consequence of different ancient charters, granting to the Company an exclusive trade, together with certain powers of government, they have acquired and actually possess various islands, seaports, forts, factories, settlements, districts, and territories in India, together with the island of St. Helena ; either by grants from the crown, by conquest, purchase, or by grants from the native powers in India. The nature and extent of their property in these several possessions, is an important public question. By grants from the Crown to the original or London Company, and by conveyance from that Company, they possess St. Helena and Bombay. By purchase, conquest, or by Indian grants,

! De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 6. p. 77.

L

they possess Calcutta and Fort William, Madras, and Fort St. George, and various other important seats of trade; of all of which, for a long course of time, they have enjoyed the exclusive benefit.

With respect to the first of these; it is evident, that the old Company could only convey the places which they held of the Crown as they themselves held them, and subject to the same principles of policy and state under which they themselves had received them. The grants of Charles II., which conceded Bombay and St. Helena to the first Company, refer to the charter of the 13th of the same reign, which charter refers to, and confirms the preceding charters of Elizabeth and James I., making them the ground of the grants. The charter of Elizabeth declares its principle to be," the tendering the honor of the nation, the wealth of the people, the increase of navigation, the advancement of lawful traffic, and the benefit of the commonwealth." The principle declared in the charter of James I. is, " that it will be a very great honor, and in many respects profitable, to THE CROWN and THE COMMONWEALTH." By a reference to, and confirmation of; these several charters, in the charter of Charles II., and in the grants of St. Helena and Bombay, these principles are virtually adopted; the end and purpose of the Grants is declared; and their ground is proclaimed to be, the honor of the British Crown, and the welfare of the British Nation. It was those great public interests, and not the separate interests of the Company, that the Crown had in view, in conceding the property of those distant dependencies.

By grants from the native powers, the Company are in actual possession of many extensive and valuable territories. The doctrine of the law of England, in regard to the operation of these Grants, was distinctly and officially declared in the Report of the Attorney General Mr. Pratt, and Solicitor General Mr. Charles Yorke, in the year 1757, viz. That the moment the right of property vested in the Company by the Indian Grants, the right of sovereignty vested necessarily in the Crown of England. "The property of the soil (said those eminent lawyers) vested in the Com pany by the Indian Grants, subject only to your Majesty's right of sovereignty over the settlements, and over the inhabitants as British subjects; who carry with them your Majesty's laws, wherever they

form colonies, and receive your Majesty's protection by virtue of your Royal Charters." In considering this head of right, the case of the five Northern Circars, to which the Company lay claim in their Petition, demands a particular attention; because, the advocates of the Company's pretensions are under a manifest error, with respect to their tenure of those territories. They maintain, that the Circars are held by the Company in perpetuity, under a military service, as tributaries to the Indian power or powers by which they were originally ceded; and that the Crown of England has no title to interfere, between them and their supposed Indian Chief. This pretension renders it absolutely necessary, to take a general view of the situation of the Company with respect to the Circars.

2

In the year 1753, the French were in the confirmed possession of the five Circars, together with the adjoining fort and dependencies of Masulipatam; of all of which they declared themselves to have obtained. "the complete sovereignty for ever," by a grant from the Subah of the Deccan, a Prince nominally dependent on the Imperial Crown of the Mogul. "So that these territories (says Mr. Orme,) rendered the French masters of the greatest dominion, both in extent and value, that had ever been possessed in Indostan by Europeans, not excepting the Portuguese when at the height of their prosperity." The establishment of the French power in these important provinces, during the war between England and France, excited the most serious alarm in the Company, by threatening their settlements and possessions in Bengal; and called forth the vigorous and splendid exertions of Lord Clive, who, in the year 1759, sent a military force against Conflans, the French commander, under the command of Colonel Forde. That gallant officer succeeded in defeating the enemy in a pitched battle at Peddipore; and, pursuing him from one extremity of the Circars to the other, terminated the campaign by the capture of Masulipatam: and thus, by obliging the French to abandon the Circars, the right of conquest was made good against the French. For it is not necessary that every part of a conquered country should be acquired by a separate victory, if

Short Hist. of East India Company, p. 11.

? History of Indostan, vol, i. p. 335.

the enemy is compelled to evacuate his territory in consequence of any decisive operation; and the retention of Masulipatam, was the evidence of the triumph of the British arms over the French. That this was the object of the campaign, is distinctly shown in the declaration made by Lord Clive before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in the year 1772. Lord Clive stated to the House, "That soon after his appointment of President of the Company's affairs in Bengal, in 1758, he took into his most serious consideration the situation of affairs upon the coast of Coromandel. Monsieur Lally was arrived with such a force, as threatened not only the destruction of all the settlements there, but of all the East India Company's possessions. That he thought it was his duty to contribute his mite towards the destruction of the French, and therefore projected the scheme of depriving the French of the Northern Circars, contrary to the inclination of his whole council. That this expedition succeeded completely, for the French were totally driven out by Colonel Forde, with the Company's troops, whose conduct and gallantry upon that occasion was equal, if not superior, to any thing that had happened during the whole course of the war. This evidence' of Lord Clive proves, that the scheme was entirely military, and that the success was the success of arms. By the Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris in 1763, (Art. 11,) "the Crown of France renounced all pretensions to those territories," which thus devolved, by an indisputable right of conquest, to the Crown of England. The Company, indeed, in the same year obtained a grant of Masulipatam from the Subah of the Deccan, which they now set forth in their Petition to Parliament: but yet, their most strenuous advocates admit, that Masulipatam belongs to the Crown of England, by right of conquest over the French. And the same argument, that proves a right of conquest to Masulipatam, proves also a similar right to the Northern Circars.

In 1765, however, the Company being desirous of acquiring the form of an Indian title to the Circars, against the Subah, who might reclaim them, negociated for a grant of those provinces at Delhi, over the head of the Subah; which grant they obtained.

Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxxiii. p. 811.
2 Short Hist. of the East India Company.