to consider, not merely whether it may be safe to prolong it, but whether it may be unsafe to abridge or abolish it. As far as relates to the trade with India, and several other countries included within the limits of the Company's Charter, the Court do not appear to have succeeded in establishing the proposition, that any detriment will arise to the public interest, either in this country or in India, or ultimately even to the interest of the Company themselves, from the introduction of private adventurers. If the Company carry on their trade more expensively and with less activity and industry than private individuals, it is unjust to the country as well as to the inhabitants of British India, that the exclusive monopoly should be continued; and in such a state of things, the trade is more likely to be advantageous to the country, and beneficial to the individuals in their hands, than in those of the Company: but if the latter shall conduct it with skill and enterprize, and with due and unremitting attention to economy, the extent of their capital, and the superior facilities which they must continue to possess, of providing their investment in India at the cheapest rate, will undoubtedly afford them the means of successful rivalship with all other competitors. In adverting, in your letter of the 4th instant, to the statement contained in mine of the 17th December, on the proposed transfer of the Company's army to the Crown, you do not appear to have understood accurately the purport of my suggestion. I entertain no doubt, as to the expediency of continuing to the Company's Government in India the supremacy of their military, as well as civil authority: but though various regulations may possibiy be necessary, with a view to promote the discipline and efficiency of the army in India, I am not aware, that any legislative enactments are requisite, except as to the amount of force which His Majesty may be empowered to maintain in India, at the expense of the Company, and perhaps also some provisions, in regard to the relative powers of the Board of Commissioners and the Court of Directors. In your letter of the 4th instant, you advert to the question as to how far it may be expedient to admit into the trade with this country, ships built in India and manned with Indian seamen. This is undoubtedly an important consideration, as it involves in it, to a certain extent, a de parture from the principles on which the navigation system of this country has hitherto been conducted. As far as the East India Company is concerned, it will probably be necessary to leave the matter on its present footing, during the continuance of the war; but if the trade with India is to be opened to all British ships, in the manner already pointed out, there seems to be no sufficient reason for breaking in upon the system of our navigation laws, by permitting any other than British ships, with a due proportion of British seamen, to import colonial produce into the United Kingdom. I have not thought it requisite, in this letter, to trouble you with any observations on several points adverted to in yours of the 4th instant, which are also noticed in the enclosed paper of Hints and of Replies to the several Propositions. I shall abstain also from any remarks on the calculations detailed in your letter, and which are introduced more with the view, as I conceive, to vindicate the Company in their past management of the exclusive trade to India and the government of their territorial possessions, than to any practical results to be derived from your statement, in relation to the matters at present in discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Court of Directors. The Committee of the House of Commons on East India Affairs have already submitted to the House detailed statements on that part of the subject, and in any further reports which they may present they will probably complete the investigation. I am, Gentlemen, &c. To the Chairman and De MELVILLE. puty Chairman of the East-India Company. OBSERVATIONS on the Hints suggested by the Deputation of the Court of Directors, 3d March 1812; adverted to in the foregoing Letter. 1st, 2d, and 3d. It is deemed advisable, with a view to the security of the revenue and to other objects connected with the trade to China, to leave it on its present footing, and to guard, by proper regulations, against any encroachment on that branch of the Company's exclusive privilege. 4th. This proposition ought to be acceded to; with the reservation, however, that the Governments in India ought to be restricted from imposing new duties, with out the previous sanction of the authorities in England, 14th. It is understood, that this proposition is founded on a principle of 5th. The Company are understood to guarding against the dangers to which have, in some degree, the power of regu- vessels of less burthen than four hundred lating the internal trade of saltpetre in tons would be exposed on a voyage to the India; it appears, therefore, to be scarce- East Indies, and also of providing for the ly necessary to impose any other restric-security of the revenue, which might be tions on the exportation of saltpetre from affected by permitting importations in India, than such as may be deemed expe- smaller vessels. These reasons, though dient for political objects, especially in entitled to due consideration, do not aptime of war. pear to be sufficiently strong to justify the proposed restriction, or the making a distinction, in that respect, between ships trading to the East Indies and to other countries. 6th. The adoption of the regulation suggested in this proposition, will probably tend to the security and advantage of the public revenue, in collecting the duties on all articles imported from the East Indies and China, as well as other countries to the eastward of the Cape of Good Hope. 7th. The Company ought at least to be indemnified from the charges incurred by this management. 8th. There does not appear to exist any sufficient reason for preventing ships from clearing out for the East Indies from other ports of the United Kingdom besides the port of London. 9th. It will be necessary, either by the regulations suggested in this proposition, or by others of a similar description, to guard against the evil therein described. 10th. It will probably be necessary to regulate the exportation of military stores to the East Indies, and also of naval stores in time of war. 11th. It is understood that the object of this proposition is to secure to the manufacturers of piece goods in India the continuance of regular and constant employment, under the same system of local management, for their benefit, which prevails at present. If that object is likely to be attained, without continuing the restrictions mentioned in this proposition, it certainly would be desirable that they should cease, except in so far as it may be necessary to regulate the importation of Indian piece goods, with a view to the protection of British manufactures. 12th. As no such restriction exists at present in the importation of silk by private merchants, and as the reasons which have hitherto been adduced, on the part of the Court of Directors, for establishing such a regulation, though entitled to much consideration, do not appear to be conclusive, it will scarcely be deemed expedient to agree to this proposal. 15th. This seems to be reasonable. 16th. It will be necessary to provide, by proper regulations, for the care and maintenance of these persons, and for their return to the East Indies. 17th. This proposal would be wholly inadmissible, unless it were limited to such unexpired engagements as do not extend beyond March 1814, when the Company's present term of exclusive privileges will expire; but the Public may fairly look to the Company to bear this burthen, as a compensation to a certain extent, for the continuance of the exclusive trade to China. 18th. It will be indispensably necessary, for the purpose of guarding against the inconvenience herein alluded to, that the existing restrictions shall be continued, with such alterations as may be requisite in the new system of trade. 19th. The number of His Majesty's forces to be maintained by the East India Company may, without inconvenience, be limited, as herein suggested. It will be necessary, however, in consequence of the increased extent of the British territories in India, since the passing of the Act by which the number is at present regulated, that a considerable addition should be made to it. 20th. It will be necessary, that the present system of accounting between the East India Company and the Paymaster General should be abolished, and new regulations enacted. 21st. These demands must necessarily be arranged on the principles suggested by the Committees of the House of Commons, who have reported upon the subject of the accounts herein referred to. If it were necessary or proper, in discussing the future regulations which it may be deemed advisable to establish, respect13th. This suggestion appears to being the affairs of the East India Company, perfectly reasonable. there would be no difficulty in demonstrating, that the amount of force main tained in India has not gone beyond what was requisite for the defence and security of the Company's possessions, and for other operations, intimately and inseparably connected with those objects. 22d. The Proprietors ought to be secured, as at present, in their dividend of ten and a half per cent. 23d. The whole of the surplus funds of the East India Company, at home and abroad, ought to be applied, in the first instance, to the reduction of debt, till it is reduced in India to the sum of ten millions, and the bond debt at home to the sum of three millions, after providing for a proportionate increase of the capital stock of the Company, if they shall think fit to avail themselves of the power now vested in them by law to that effect. affairs in India at the expiry of another period of the same duration. If they are prosperous, the same term as was granted in 1793 will be sufficient for the purposes described in your letter of the 18th; but if untoward events shall occur, and the Company shall be again engaged in expensive wars, it will be desirable that parliament should have the opportunity of reconsidering the subject, and of making such new provisions as the case may appear to require. Under those circumstances, I do not think it will be advisable to propose a longer term than what was granted by the Act of 1793, viz. twenty years from the expiry of the existing period, with three years previous notice. I have no hesitation in admitting that the suggestion in your letter of the 19th instant, relative to the continuance of the dividend of ten shillings per cent. on the existing capital of the East India Com 24th. It is intended to submit to Parliament a proposition to that effect, or si-pany, after the separate fund shall be exmilar in substance. India Board, 23d March, 1812. Gentlemen; I have had the honour to receive the two letters which the Deputation from the Court of Directors addressed to me, on the 18th and 19th instant. It is undoubtedly reasonable, that the further term now proposed to be granted to the East India Company of their privileges of exclusive trade and the government of the British territorial possessions in India, should be for such a period, as may be sufficient, if unforeseen contingencies do not arise, to produce a considerable reduction of the debt, both in India and at home. The experience, however, of the last twenty years, has sufficiently demonstrated, that it is impossible to calculate, with any degree of accuracy, on what may be the state of the Company's hausted, is reasonable, and that it will be proper to comply with it. Your proposition, in regard to the payment of the Property-tax, requires much more consideration, and I cannot, at present, bring myself to concur in the expediency of agreeing to submit it to Parliament. A confident expectation may be entertained, from the state of the Company's revenues in India, and from the taken place, or which may still be effect reduction of expence which has already ed, both at home and abroad, by means annual surplus will be available towards completely within your power, that a large the reduction of debt; but when it is recollected, that though the amount of the debt in India has recently been considerably diminished, it has been proportionably increased at home; and considering, also, that provision must be made, for the possible contingency of the Company having to pay, in this country, the interest, not only of their large debt at home, but also of the whole debt of India, I do not think that it would be wise or prudent, at least till after the experience of a few years, to make an addition to the permanent charges of the Company at home, to the amount of the Property-tax upon their dividends. I am, Gentlemen, &c, MELVILLE, The Chairman and De puty Chairman of the REPORT ON AMERICAN CLAIMANTS PETITION *.—Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed, 25 March 1812. The COMMITTEE to whom the Petition of the several Persons whose names are thereto subscribed, on behalf of themselves and others, whose Claims have been adjudged good by the Commissioners appointed by the Act of Parliament passed in the 43d year of His Majesty's reign, intituled, An ACT for appointing Commissioners for distributing the Money stipulated to be paid by The United States of America, under the Convention made between His Majesty and the said United States, among 'the Persons having Claims to Compensation out of such Money, was referred;Have, pursuant It appears to Your Committee, that an extensive Commerce, in British manufactures and other articles, was carried on between America and Great Britain before the war of 1776 with America: and in the course of such commerce a very large credit as given to America, so that at the time when hostilities commenced, a Debt, amounting to several millions, was due from the Citizens of America, to the British Merchants, and considerable sums to others His Majesty's subjects, and that during the continuance of the war, it was scarcely possible to recover any part of such debt. other laws which had been made prior to the Treaty of Peace, and during the war, and which ought to have been repealed still in existence; and by the instructions in conformity to the Treaty, remained tice of American Courts, the plea of given by Judges to Juries, and the prac "British Debt" was held in those Courts. to be a good plea, and decisive against the claimants. por That by these means the recovery of debts to a very great amount was prevented; and in consequence thereof many and British Creditors, to His Majesty's Gourgent representations were made by the vernment, complaining of the existence of preventing the recovery of debts in that legal impediments in America, which, by Country to British Subjects, rendered alto the Order of The House, examined the matter of the said Peti-ed in the 4th Article of the Treaty of together ineffectual the provision containtion; and have agreed upon the Peace. That the case of the British Cre following REPORT: ditors occupied a very considerable tion of the time and attention of Lord Grenville, after he became Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and his Lordship appears to have been convinced that such representations were perfectly well founded. And the redress of these grievances being an object of primary importance with the Government in negociating the Treaty of Amity, Com. merce, and Navigation concluded between His Majesty and the United States of America in the year 1794, it was by the 6th Article of that Treaty agreed, that in all cases where full compensation for the losses and damages sustained by British Subjects by the operation of lawful impediments to the recovery of their debts subsequent to the Peace could not be obtained by the Creditors in the ordinary course of justice, the United States would make full and complete compensation for the same to the said Creditors; and that for the purpose of ascertaining the amount thereof, five Commissioners should be appointed, of whom three were to constitute a Board, with full power; and all decisions were to be made by the majority of the Commissioners present, and their Award to be final and conclusive. And the United States undertook to cause the sums awarded to be paid in specie to the Creditors without deduction. That by the 4th Article of the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and the United States of America, signed at Paris 3d September, 1783, it was provided, "that Creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts theretofore contracted." That in breach of this Article of the Treaty, certain laws were made in the different States of America, immediately subsequent to the Peace, for the direct purpose, as it appeared to one of the Witnesses, of defeating that Article; and See the Petition in Vol. 21, p. 281. That another Article (the 7th) was in-side and the Fifth Commissioner should troduced into the said Treaty, in favour be present. The British Commissioners of the Citizens of the United States, where- and the Fifth Commissioner continued to by it was in like manner agreed, that in attend for more than a twelve-month after all cases where adequate compensation the withdrawing of the American Comfor the losses and damages sustained by missioners, who had given in a minute, American Citizens, by irregular or illegal implying, as stated by Mr. Macdonald, captures or condemnations of their vessels that they would not attend without certain and other property during the course of radical points were conceded, which, in the war in which his Majesty was then the opinion of the other Commissioners, engaged, could not be obtained in the being a majority of the Board, would have ordinary course of justice, the British defeated the object of the Treaty. That Government would make full and com. in the month of August 1800, Mr. Macplete compensation to such American Ci- donald, who was the First Commissioner tizens; and that for the purpose of ascer named on the part of his Majesty, returned taining the amount thereof, Commissioners to Great Britain; and the conduct of the should be appointed in like manner, and British Commissioners, in the whole of the with the like powers in all respects as the proceedings under the said Commission, Commissioners under the 6th Article. was most highly approved by his Majesty's Government. That this Treaty was negociated by Lord Grenville in person, and that a system of reciprocity was in his Lordship's view, and, as his Lordship believed, in that of the American Minister, meant to be established by the said 6th Article, containing stipulations in favour of his Majesty's subjects, and the 7th Article, containing stipulations in favour of the subjects of the United States. That a Board of Commissioners, duly appointed under the 6th Article of the said Treaty, met accordingly at Philadelphia in May 1797, and Claims were brought in before them to the amount of 5,638,6291. sterling. That, after certain progress had been made in deciding on principles necessary to regulate the decision of the Commissioners on the Claims made before them, and after a controversy which arose, and continued for a long time, the American Commissioners adopted the practice first (in the course of the year 1799) of withdrawing themselves from the Board, when they found the opinion of a majority of the Board against their opinions, the American Commissioners alleging, that the stipulation of the 6th Article did not require them to give effect, by their presence, to proceedings which they said they deemed injurious to the just rights of the United States, and which they also stated they believed it to be their duty to resist in such cases, by all the means to which the Treaty enabled them (as they stated) to resort. That they afterwards entirely absented themselves, and withheld their attendance; by reason of which no effectual proceedings could be had, it being necessary by the Treaty, that one Commissioner on each VÕL. XXII.—(Appendix.) That the execution of the said 7th Article was suspended by orders from the British Government in July 1799, immediately upon Government being apprized that the proceedings of the Commissioners at Philadelphia, under the 6th Article, had been interrupted; and that such suspension was continued until after the Convention of 8 January 1802, hereinafter mentioned. That previously to the signing of the Treaty of Amity in 1794, communications were made from Lord Grenville to Messrs. Nutt and Molleson, who acted as a Committee for the London Creditors, enclosing Questions, in order to collect information of the Claimants, whether they would prefer a fixed sum in lieu of all their claims, or the adoption of measures for opening the Courts of Law in America to British Creditors, with an appeal to some special Court or Commission.-These questions, however, were not put as a proposal to which their consent was required, but as a matter for consideration, and on which the King's Government wished to have their sentiments, it being the desire of Lord Grenville to inform himself of the wishes of the Claimants on the subject as fully as possible, before any step was taken.These questions also appear to have been transmitted to the Glasgow Creditors, and a correspondence in consequence took place; whereby it appears that the whole sum which, upon a scale of compromise therein mentioned, the Claimants wished to be negociated for, or to be provided by the British Government, would not probably amount to much more than 2,000,000. sterling. (N) |