for yo

th

But the pretensions of the Subah, who was close at hand, disturb them in their attempts to occupy the provinces; therefore thought it expedient, to temporise with the Subah, at to enter into a separate negociation with him, to induce hi to surrender them; and they agreed to hold the provinces of h also, under an engagement to supply him with a contingent a of military force, when called upon; and moreover, to pay lin annually a tribute in money. (which, instead of confirming, mutually defeated each other By thus confusing their tits they fully demonstrated the inefficacy and impotency of the Mo gul's grant, in the present fallen state of that empire. B the Company could only engage themselves for military se vice, so far as they possessed the ability; and their ability a limited by the extent of their military power; which, being a part of their sovereign power, must necessarily determine with their sovereign capacity: as will be shown in the next article. Whenever that capacity ceases, they will be unable to furnish a single soldier, because they will be unable to raise a single soldier for the defence of the provinces. In that event, the Crown must of necessity interfere, to maintain and defend the territories; then, the original cause which led to the acquirement of the Cir cars, namely, the expulsion of the French by force of arms, and their exclusion by the influence of the same arms in the Treaty of 1763, will be the true ground on which to rest the question of right: a right in the Crown of England, which had existence, prior to the form of the Mogul's grant, and prior also to the expedient of the grant from the Subah. And here we must keep in mind, that all territories possessed by the Company in India, by whatever means they have been acquired, are necessarily incorporated into the British Empire, and become subject to its Imperial Crown; conformably to the resolution of the House of Commons, in the year 1773: "That all acquisitions made under the influence of a military force, or by treaty with foreign Princes, do of right belong to the State." And as the whole fabric of BRITISH INDIA grew out of a principle of advancing the public welfare, and was not an edifice raised merely for the separate welfare of the Company, every private interest comprehended in that fabric is, by every acknowledged maxim of State, public

and

L

ht, and consistency, subordinate; and must be determined by e security of the public good,

** 2. A right to retain in perpetuity certain essential rights of sove ignty, after the present delegated sovereignty of the Company Frall have reverted to the Crown.---Although this pretension is contradiction in terms, yet the assertors of it entertained no loubts of its reality. They claimed for the Company, in their Sermanent capacity of a trading body corporate, a right " to ap oint governors, to build and maintain forts, to muster forces by sea and land, to coin money, and to erect Courts of Judicature," even after they shall have lost their power of administering the government of India; and this claim is renewed for the Company at the present day. There is in this pretension so radical an ignorance of the nature of sovereignty, that it is inconceivable how it could have been entertained by any one, who had ever given a thought to the subject of law or government. The powers here enumerated, are essential prerogatives of sovereignty; which may indeed be delegated for a time by authority of Parliament, but can never be granted in full property by the Crown. In order to appoint governors, it is first necessary to be invested with the power of government. The same power is manifestly necessary, in order to be able legally to raise or muster any force by sea or land, either for defence, or for any other military service. And it is acknowledged, that the power of government has never been granted to the East India Company, but with limitation. In the grants of Bombay and St. Helena, the Company is certainly empowered to erect forts, and to raise and employ forces; but by the same grants they are invested with the powers of Captain General in order to that end; virtually in the first, and expressly in the second. Will it be imagined, that they are to retain the authority of Captain General, after their powers of government shall cease? And if not, it must be evident, that their authority over forts, and all their military power, must determine, whenever their delegated power of Captain General shall determine. It would be an insult to any reader, who has ever cast his eye even on the elementary Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone, to insist

'Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 56.

2 Morning Post, Jan. 15, 1813, Letter, signed Probus.

upon a truth so obvious and simple. With regard to the erecting of Courts, no such power is given in any of the Charters produced in evidence. The Crown erects the Court, and the power granted to the Company is, and necessarily must be, limited and subordinate. The true cause of that extraordinary error, is plainly this: the Charters of King William and Queen Anne, upon which they rest these pretensions, conferred at one and the same time (as has been already observed), both their corporate capacity and their exclusive privilege. The assertors of those permanent sovereign rights, not discriminating, by the principles of things, between the several powers conferred in those Charters, have confused the provisions; and have construed all the powers above enumerated, which by their nature could only appertain to them as delegated Sovereigns, to belong to their capacity of an incorporated Company. And, under this illusion, they have imagined, that those powers are annexed to that perpetuity of their corporate body which was first enacted in 1730, and confirmed in the 33d year of the present reign; and that they do not constitute a part of those powers of government, which have been conferred upon them, from time to time, by their exclusive Charters. As this construction is entirely arbitrary on the part of the Company, and as it is unsupported by the principles either of law or sound reason, it will be best refuted by the authority of Parliament.

3. A right to exclude all British subjects from the Company's Indian ports, after their own exclusive privilege shall be expired. This right has been claimed in the following words :"Although their exclusive right to the trade, and their power of administering the government and revenues of India, were to be determined, they would still remain an incorporated Company in perpetuity, with the exclusive property and possession of Calcutta and Fort William, Madras and Fort St. George, Bombay, Bencoolen, and St. Helena, and various other estates and settlements in India. Whether, in the event of the sole trade being determined, individuals would be able to carry on a successful trade to India, if the Company were to debar them the use of their ports and factories, may require a serious consideration."

This is a claim, not only to a practical exclusive trade, after the

Short History of the East India Company, p. 38.

right to exclusive trade expressly granted by Parliament shall cease and determine, but involves also claims of perpetual sovereignty. It is incomprehensible, how it could be alleged by a writer who, in the preceding page, had pointedly excepted from their powers, that of converting the trade into "a mischievous monopoly ;"' for, what more mischievous form could monopoly, or an hostile sovereignty, assume, than that of excluding all British individuals from the chief ports and seats of trade in India? By this alleged right, the grants of Charters and the provisions of Parliament would be reduced to an absurdity. But as this is a claim of private right to cause a public wrong, it cannot fail particularly to engage the consideration of Parliament.

The rights alleged by the Company at the present day, are these :

1. A right to all the ports and territories in India, possessed by the Company, of the same kind and extent as the right by which they hold their freeholds in London.-This right has been solemnly asserted for the Company, by the chairman and deputy chairman of the Court of Directors, in these words:" The Company are as much owners of the chief seats of European trade in the Indian Empire, as they are of their freeholds in London." This is an open and unreserved declaration of the East India Company, renew ing and asserting the preceding allegations made on their behalf at the expiration of their last exclusive charter: and the same allegation is now repeated in their petition to Parliament, though in terms somewhat more qualified than those which they addressed to the Government; viz. "that no person can have a right, except with the consent of the proprietors of India stock, to use the seats of trade which the stockholders have acquired." But they must bring an oblivion over all the reasons of state and policy by which they exist at all, before they can carry in the face of the nation the proud assertion, that they stand equally circumstanced, in regard of private right, with respect to "the chief seats of European commerce in the Indian Empire," and with respect to "their freeholds in London." They will assuredly.be told by Parliament, that they may not exercise the same arbitrary authority over the chief seats of Indian

Short History of the East India Company, p. 37.

2 Letter to Lord Buckinghamshire, Dec, 30, 1812.

commerce, which they may over their freeholds in London. With regard to their freeholds in London, they may exclude all persons from entering them, they may desert them themselves, or they may let them fall to ruin. But it is NOT so with regard to the chief seats of Indian commerce; they will find, that they cannot arbitrarily exclude British subjects from those seats, beyond a limited time; that they cannot debar the nation the beneficial use of them; and that they will not be suffered to render them unavailable or unprofitable. As soon as the India Trade shall be thrown open, the ports of India will necessarily become open; and if the Company should then search for their private right to close them, they will find, that it is merged in the public right to use them ; or, to use the words of Lord Hale, that "their jus privatum is clothed and superinduced with a jus publicum," 1

2. The last right alleged by the Company at the present crisis, which forms the CLIMAX of their pretensions, and is the key to all their late proceedings, is that of a perpetual union and incorporation with the Supreme Government of the Indian Empire; so that the Indian trade and government must ever continue to be united in them, and cannot now be separated without endangering "the British Empire in India, and the British constitution at home." This pretension renders the question of a temporary exclusive trade entirely nugatory, because it is the unqualified assertion of a perpetual one; not to be received any more as a grant from Parliament, as hitherto it has been, but to be extorted from Parliament through fear of the subversion of Parliament. This pretension is founded upon the Company's interpretation of an observation, made by a late eminent Minister to the managers of the Company's affairs, in the year 1800; viz. that" the Government and the trade of India are now so interwoven together," as to establish an indissoluble “connexion of government and trade." This dictum is assumed by the Company for an incontestable maxim of state, as applicable to their own Corporation; and for an eternal principle, connecting that body corporate with all future Indian Government. This they denominate, "THE SYSTEM, by which the relations between Great Britain and the East Indies are now regulated ;" and, in their sanguine hopes of gaining perpetuity for their system, they already congratulate them

De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 7. p. 84.