signified his intention, pending the progress of Mr. Palmer's Claim Bill, to move for a Select Committee to take the circumstances of the case into consideration. To this proceeding, he hoped the hon. colonel opposite would have no objection.

observed, that the appointment of a select committee, to investigate those claims, could answer no other end, than to create delay. A Committee of that House had already decided in favour of the claimant's demands, and he did not believe that any additional evidence could be adduced on the subject. As, however, the character of Mr. Palmer was, in the eyes of his family, an object infinitely superior to every other consideration, he should be unwilling to object to the right hon. gentleman's proposition.

said, it was of very great importance, both with reference to the character of the House, and to that of the individual, that an ample enquiry should take place. It was the anxious desire of his Majesty's government to do every thing which was consistent with justice. And the hon. colonel himself must be aware that as the present was a new parliament, many persons were very imperfectly informed on the state of the transaction in which those claims originated. He then moved, "That a Committee be appointed to consider of the Agreement made with Mr. Palmer for the reform and improvement of the Post Office and its revenue, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

said, that every information which could be procured on this subject, had already been produced; it had, in fact, been adjudicated by the House. He recollected, when it was before entertained, he enquired of a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Long) whether he could point out any channel by which further information could be obtained; and he was strangely in error, if that right hon. gentleman did not answer in the negative.

said, that when the question alluded to by the hon. gentleman was put to him, he had not so complete an acquaintance with the subject as he had since attained; and therefore he answered in the way which had been stated. But if he were now asked, whether he believed more information could be obtained, he should say without hesitation, that he really thought there could. The hon. gentleman had observed, that the case was adjudicated by the House. Now, what was the fact? In the time of Mr. Pitt a committee decided against the claims of Mr. Palmer; since that period, however, another committee had come to a different conclusion. Under such circumstances, was it fair to say, that the case was finally adjudicated? Besides, he would put it to the House, whether at the commencement of a new parliament, a committee (comprising a sufficient number of the hon. gentleman's friends) should not be appointed to enquire into the claims and report thereon to the House?

On the question being put,

observed, that as the former committees, appointed to investigate these claims, were open, he thought the same principle should be pursued on this occasion. If, however, the right hon. gentleman was decidedly in favour of a select committee, he should not oppose it.

said, the appointment of an open committee would be extremely inconvenient.

thought it right to explain to the House, that technically speaking, every committee, except that of the whole House, was a select committee. If, therefore the motion for a select committee was negatived, it was repelling the proposition for a committee altogether. The motion for the committee being once carried, it remained to be decided what number of members it should consist of.

said, it was not his intention to divide the House on the question; but, if any other gentleman pressed the House to a division on the subject, he should vote against any committee what-ever; because parliament were already in possession of every information on the subject.

The motion was agreed to. On the names of the gentlemen who were to form the committee being put from the chair,

again rose. He observed, that the question had been decided over and over again. Two Bills had passed that House, and were in progress through the other, recognizing Mr. Palmer's right. It was most unjust to say, that no agreement had been entered into with Mr. Palmer. It was true there was no sign and seal; but there was, in his opinion, a better testimony to the fact. There had been a dividend of the assets of the Post office paid over to the claimant.

never asserted that there was no agreement. What he maintained was, that the agreement was not of such a nature as Mr. Palmer and his friends contended it to be. They now gave to it an interpretation which neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. Palmer himself, the parties to the agreement, had originally contemplated. When they were called on to grant the money of the public, to the amount of 90,000l. and 10,000l. per annum, to an individual, he thought enquiry was absolutely necessary. This sum was alleged to be due for the practical application of a certain discovery; but the official duties of Mr. Palmer were included in the agreement; and then came the question, In what way had he fulfilled those duties?

spoke in favour of the committee.

Moore moved, in addition to the gentlemen named by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "That all the members of that House, who, in the former parliament served in the committee for investigating Mr. Palmer's Claims, should be members of the present committee." He, however, abandoned this amendment, and substituted, "That all members who please to attend the said committee, shall have voices therein."

On this proposition the gallery was cleared for a division.—During our exclusion we understand, some farther conversation took place, and Mr. Moore consented to withdraw his amendment.—The Committee, of course, remain as they were proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

after presenting a Petition from certain insolvent debtors, called the attention of the House to a Bill for the relief of prisoners confined for debt, which was then pending. That Bill, he hoped, would undergo a mature consideration. It made a considerable alteration in the law of debtor and creditor, and was expected with trembling anxiety, by many persons throughout the country. The alterations to which he alluded, would, in his opinion, greatly improve the law of the country. They would, at the same time, support the prosperity of the country, and tend to ameliorate the manners of the great mass of the population. To this Bill, he understood, there would be powerful objections; and all he meant to impress on the House was, that members should pay that attention to it which its importance deserved, and not permit it to be thrown out, from ignorance of its provisions. The committee stood for Wednesday next; and as it would probably come on then, he hoped the attendance of members would be numerous.

said, that, in consequence of the little attention which had been paid to the Bill, he had, from time to time, postponed its consideration.

gave notice that he would, early in the next session of parliament, move for leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland.

said, that some time since he had taken the liberty of asking the noble lord opposite a question, respecting the situation of this country with regard to Sweden, and also with relation to Denmark; he now wished to know whether any sum of money had been advanced to the former power, in addition to that which had already been appropriated for the purpose, from the vote of credit? On the answer he should receive to this question, in the first instance, entirely depended the course he should finally pursue.

said, he had no difficulty in stating, that certain advances had been made to Sweden, beyond those appropriated from the vote of credit. He, however, rather hoped that he should shortly be enabled to make a communication on the subject to the House.

observed, that when the noble lord said he rather hoped he would be able to make a communication, he could not help wishing that the noble lord had stated the fact with more confidence. However proper it might be for government, when parliament was not sitting, to make use of a part of the vote of credit, still, he was of opinion, when the House was exercising its functions, the appropriation of the public money without any notification to parliament, could not be allowed. The noble lord had informed the House, that certain sums had been granted to Sweden, independent of those taken from the vote of credit: if he could express himself with a little more confidence, on the subject of the intended communication to the House, he should say nothing more on the business; but, if he could not state, that, immediately after the recess, he would be prepared to make the communication alluded to, he (Mr. Ponsonby) should consider it his duty to give notice of a motion on the subject.

was decidedly of opinion, that he should be enabled, very speedily, to make the communication. He was desirous of slating this originally, with no other reserve, than that he could not absolutely pledge himself to it. His reason for this was, the anxiety he felt that the question should be discussed with as much information as possible, that parliament might be perfectly capable of judging of it accurately.

said, as the noble lord had proceeded to a considerable greater degree of confidence than he evinced in the first instance, he should say nothing farther on the subject.

moved the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider further of the Affairs of the East India Company.

wished to know, whether the new and altered string of Resolutions, or those formerly proposed by the noble lord, were to be the subject of discussion in the Committee? With regard to the altered Resolutions, it was not many minutes since they had been put into his hand, and he had not even had time to read them.

thought it an extraordinary proceeding, that the House should go into a committee on a string of new Resolutions which no one had had time to read. The House should certainly be informed whether they were going into a committee on the old or new set of Resolutions.

said, it would be acknowledged on all hands, that the present question was of the last importance to the East India Company; and yet the court of directors had only that morning been apprised of the alterations which had been made in the Resolutions as originally proposed. He trusted, therefore, that the noble lord would not press their consideration in that precipitate manner, when the court of directors, whom they so nearly concerned, had had no opportunity of forming any opinion upon them, and when they had not been perused by one tenth of the members of that House.

felt the grounds advanced to-night not much more weighty than those which had been urged on a late occasion. He fairly owned that he could not understand the policy of postponement. It would have been perfectly competent for him to have moved in the committee those alterations without any previous notice, but he was desirous of giving all the previous information in his power, and then the tactics were to represent the whole of the Resolutions as having undergone a change. The alterations were chiefly in the third Resolution, and there was a great deal of preliminary matter to be discussed before they should come in contact with it. If the House felt that there was any new matter in point of principle, he should allow it to form a fair claim for the postponement of the question; but as the general discussion would take place before they came to the details, he thought there was no good ground for delay. He had it in contemplation to propose that they should begin by discussing the second Resolution first, as embracing one of the great branches of the question, after which would follow the trade to India, instead of beginning with the first Resolution, which was rather to be regarded in the light of the preamble to a Bill than as any particular proposition.

hoped the House would not plunge the court of directors into a debate on Resolutions, the bearings of which they could not possibly have considered. He trusted, that in a question of such immense importance, not only to the East India Company, but the empire at large, the House would proceed with all due caution and deliberation.

objected to going into a committee at present.

agreed with the hon. gentleman, that it was incumbent on the House to proceed with the utmost deliberation; but could not prevail on himself to think, that postponement of the question from day to day was any deliberation at all. Were the proceedings postponed now, he had not the smallest doubt, but it would be considered out of doors, that the question was adjourned, at least for the present session. It seemed to be the idea of the noble lord, that the consideration of the first Resolution should be postponed; and that the Committee should that night come to the discussion of the second proposition, which respected the trade to China; and on which he (Mr. Canning) had given notice of his intention, to move an amendment, as to the time, during which the Company's exclusive trade with China should continue: but neither did he suppose that the discussion on the China trade could be satisfactorily gone into, till the sense of the House was ascertained, whether any alterations at all should be made in the Company's charter? Until that question were decided one way or another, it would be in vain to consider the limitations or restrictions which it would be fit to impose on their exclusive privileges. The first question, he conceived, would naturally be, whether any alterations should take place; and when that was decided, the consideration of the details would as naturally follow.

agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that the country looked for the decision of the question, and the House had no option left but to proceed at once, or abandon the discussion altogether. Where further delay was spoken of, it looked too much like a wish to take advantage of the unavoidable absence of members at a later period of the session.

confessed, that he, for one, entertained considerable doubts as to the propriety of coming to the completion of the measure during the present session, for in a short time there would not be a sufficient attendance for a satisfactory and final decision. But he was far from thinking that it was not right to proceed at all now: on the contrary, he thought that much might be done though they might not have it in their power to go so far as to pass an act of parliament binding on all parties. There was one most material consideration which did not appear to have been sufficiently attended to, and that was, the proposition to allow the exclusive trade to the Company for twenty years more. Now, he confessed, that of all the propositions, none appeared to him so doubtful as that, for even though he might be disposed to think it right to renew the charter, yet he might object to the term of 20 years. This he merely mentioned in order to bring it under the minds of gentlemen, and not for the purpose of declaring any positive opinion. If the noble lord had resolved to proceed this session to the completion of the measure, the sooner he began the better for his own purpose.

said, that the further disposal of the question depended so much upon circumstances, that it would be presumptuous in him to say more than that he conceived the sooner they approached the subject the better. It would be no small progress if they did no more than understand each other, and sift the question to the bottom. He could assure the House and the Company, that if he resisted delay, it did not proceed from any uncandid wish on his part to decide hastily against the interests of the Company; but solely that they might make some progress in the discussion. The noble lord then repeated his opinion, that it was better to begin by discussing the second Resolution, leaving out the concluding words which had a reference to time; and after the opinion of the House had been ascertained on the two great branches of the question, the China and India trade, they could more conveniently apply themselves to the details. That was the course he had in contemplation, and as he believed that unless the House turned their backs on the measure, the sooner they were in the committee the better, he should persist in moving, That the Speaker do now leave the chair.

said, that his only reason for wishing a short delay was, that a most material alteration had taken place in the third Resolution. It went to establish a system of licences under the authority of the Board of Controul, and as that system, even in cases of necessity, was injurious, he trusted that it would hardly be adopted in making arrangements for India.

had no objection to say, that if the hon. directors did not wish a discussion on the third Resolution for the present, he was not disposed to press it.

said, that as the advocates of the Company sought a different ground of delay every day, the sooner the House proceeded the better.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee: Mr. Lushington in the chair.

proposed that the Committee should proceed to the consideration of the second Resolution, which respected the continuance of the China trade to the East India Company. He suggested this mode from a conviction that the Committee, when in possession of the particulars connected with that trade, and with the relative situation of the Company, would be better enabled to come to a full and mature discussion upon the general subject. If any other course were pursued, it appeared to him that the House would entertain the consideration of generalities without any essential or particular benefit. He should, therefore, move the second Resolution in the first instance, leaving out the words of reference as to the period of time during which the Company was to be in possession of the privilege. He had had an opportunity of stating his views of the subject in this respect, and should not, therefore, unnecessarily occupy the time of the Committee in recapitulating his arguments; for there would, both with regard to the second Resolution, and to others, be many occasions of considering them at length, of proposing such alterations as might seem expedient, and of suggesting amendments upon all of them respectively.

expressed his opinion, that the best plan for the noble lord to pursue, would be to adhere to the measure as it originally presented itself to the House. He thought that it seemed impossible to consider the trade of China separately from the trade of India. They were, in fact, so very intimately involved and connected, that to enter into a separate discussion, would but lead to intricacies and perplexities which it would be difficult to disentangle.

objected to the mode proposed by the noble lord, of beginning with the second Resolution. It would be, in reality, to prefer the consideration of a part to that of the whole—to neglect a greater for a minor point. The first Resolution was, in truth, that upon which depended all the arguments, all the evidence, whether for or against the East India Company's claims, which could be produced. The Committee were called upon, in the first instance, to decide whether there should or should not be a monopoly. Unless that most material point were settled, it would be altogether idle and absurd to proceed to minor considerations. Under this impression, he thought it impossible for the Committee to agree to the noble lord's suggestion; and he, therefore, begged leave to press the absolute necessity of considering the first Resolution. Were the Committee to act otherwise, he was persuaded their conduct would be attended with a very considerable loss of time; and that the question which most peculiarly called for decision, would be left in a precarious and doubtful state.

contended, that it would, in every point of view, be more suitable to the objects before the Committee to take the second Resolution into their consideration. As the second related to the continuance of the China trade to the Company, and the third Resolution to the extension of the trade to the out-ports, it was evident, that in these two were comprehended all the great ends which were to be gained by the proposed discussion.

without wishing to suggest any sentiment upon the general question, as it related to the interests of the empire at large, or to the interests of the East India Company, or as it might be supposed to involve and combine them both—thought it much better, as a guide to the Committee, that there should be a leading proposition, a grand principle laid down for the conduct of the House. It should, in fact, be understood plainly and unequivocally, that there did exist a Company with certain privileges, authorities, and immunities, whether of trade or government, before the particularities which might be classed under privileges, authorities and immunities, came to be discussed. Until such a principle was admitted and recognised, it was impossible that the House could make any way in the question which was submitted to their consideration. Without such a proposition, many minor points might be gone into, many subordinate topics might be started,—but still the want of a clear guide, a certain criterion, would be materially felt in the further progress and subsequent stages of the proceedings of the House. The second Resolution indeed stated, that the China trade was to be continued to the East India Company; but was it defined how that Company was to be constituted,—how it was to be gifted, either with commercial or political powers,—what its privileges and immunities, either of government or of trade, were to be? Not a single point of all these material considerations was settled,—no: not even suggested; and yet the Committee were called upon to agree to a resolution granting the continuance of the China trade to a Company of whom they knew nothing,—of whose powers and rights they had no fixed standard,—and which Company, when in the possession of the China trade, might be precluded from the beneficial and salutary exercise of it, by some subsequent regulation affecting their imperial government, or their independent commerce in another quarter. For his own part, he could never consent to grant the China trade to any Company not possessing the trade of India. He should not, however, take up and urge the grant of a term of 20 years to the Company, but he merely was desirous that the Committee should have, what appeared indispensably requisite, an affirmation or negation of the East India Company's existence. He could not for a moment imagine, that the House would enter into a variety of details and subordinate topics, which actually depended upon the affirmation or negation of that question. The Committee would not, he was convinced, forget, that the trade to China, or to India, was not the sole object for their consideration. They had to enter into a review of the Company's rights and claims in their political capacity. In that capacity many important topics strongly suggested themselves, and as none of these were alluded to, and as that great Company was not mentioned as possessing governing powers, and as being the governing instrument of India, it was undeniable that those who held such an opinion could have no means, no opportunity, in the course of discussing the second and third Resolutions only, of affirming that opinion, and supporting it by the arguments which they might be enabled to bring forward. He was therefore justified in expressing his opinion, that the Committee would act altogether more consistently by setting out with the consideration of the first Resolution, omitting, perhaps, a few things, and by deciding at once, as a necessary preliminary, whether the Company was to exist, with all its imperial rights and capacities? How was the trade to China to be continued according to the second Resolution, to which the noble lord wished, in the very first instance, to direct the attention of the Committee? It was left for the Committee to decide, indeed, that it was to be continued to the East India Company; but with respect to the peculiar constitution of that Company, to the nature of its powers and privileges, and to its commerce either with India, or with any other part of the world, the Committee could form no opinion, for they had no information, no guide, no distinct statement, no specific grounds. To entertain the second Resolution, would be to begin where the Committee ought to end; for while it granted to the East India Company the continuance of the privilege of trade to China, it left undefined the privileges and immunities of the Company, without a certain and precise knowledge of which the very trade so granted might nor only be prejudicial to the Company; but highly dangerous to the best interests of the empire. Were the noble lord's suggestion entertained, the Committee would be obliged to proceed to a subordinate topic, without any allusion to, or notice whatever, of the East India Company, as a great political, or a great commercial body. Yet these formed questions of a nature very distinct in their respective views. Although blended and interwoven, they could not, as a whole, be separately considered in their effect and operation upon the British empire in India, and the interests and prosperity of the state at home. Were the Company to be divested of their possessions in India, he would ask, to what use, to what purpose, would it tend, to grant them the exclusive trade to China? With this feeling, and these sentiments, he thought the first Resolution was that to which the attention of the Committee ought to be directed in the first instance, as the great ground-work of their subsequent proceedings, and the just and natural cause of all the effects that were to follow. So far he objected to the proposed mode of proceeding; and he considered that in bringing forward the first Resolution, the real objects for the consideration and decision of the Committee would be fairly attained.

thought, notwithstanding the observations made by the right hon. gentleman, that the Resolution was so very general as to define nothing, and that it might, if entertained, leave the whole question to be afterwards discussed. The general debate would in reality range under the second Resolution, and the words, 'for a farther period of time to be limited' might be substituted, instead of 20 years. He did not, however, wish to press his proposition upon the Committee.

replied, that the arguments he had employed had been strengthened by the noble lord's remarks.

observed, that although he was by no means a convert to the right hon. gentleman's arguments, he was ready to concur in adopting any course of proceeding which might meet the wishes of the House. He therefore, should move the first Resolution: namely,

"That it is expedient that all the privileges, authorities, and immunities granted to the United Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies by virtue of any act or acts of parliament now in force, and all rules, regulations, and clauses affecting the same, shall continue and be in force for a further period of time to be limited, except as far as the same may hereinafter be modified and repealed."

On the question being put,

objected to the Resolution as being too loosely worded, he thought the "privileges, authorities and immunities" therein mentioned, ought to be distinctly and clearly defined.

rose. He introduced his observations on the subject, by stating, that his object was to submit to the consideration of the committee, in the shortest practicable manner, the series of events, which had marked the progress and actual state of the East India Company's affairs; leav- ing it to the unbiassed judgment of members to draw, from facts only, such inferences as might enable them to form their opinions on this great national question.

If the arrangement of Indian affairs, at this crisis, led only to the abstract question, whether an open trade, or a regulated trade, would be most for the advantage of the kingdom, little more could occur, than arguments leading to conclusions, upon which a speculative system of Indian affairs might be devised; but if the question shall be allowed to assume its true character, whether British India, and the trade to the countries within the Company's limits, could be best preserved for the public advantage, by adhering to the system which now exists, with such modifications as could, in any way, consistently with the preservation of that system, meet the expectations of the numerous claimants for the open trade?—or, whether the existing system of Indian affairs shall be, at once, abandoned? it would require, indeed, very serious reasons to support such a measure, and will impose an awful responsibility on those, who may devise or bring about such a political and commercial innovation. The following subjects, Mr. Bruce observed, would necessarily require attention, before any decision, founded on fact, or on experience, could be effected:—

The successive Rights of the Company, in the exercise of which they have acquired and administered the Indian empire, and the commerce which has been inseparably connected with it.

The experience of more than 200 years, during which the commerce of Great Britain, with the East Indies, has been preserved to the realm, by means of exclusive privileges, notwithstanding a succession of attempts at partial, though not equally great changes with those which are projected.

An enumeration of the Losses and Dangers in India, and to the China trade, which, he apprehended, a deviation from the existing system of Indian affairs might produce.

A short examination of the Sources of the Applications for an Open Trade; of the proposed Resolutions; and of the Evidence subsequently laid before the House by the Company.

Before entering upon any of these subjects, Mr. Bruce observed, that it was not his intention to enter into any discussion respecting monopolies, or whether the East India system could be classed, by any man of sound sense, under that unpopular denomination; because, however acceptable this species of reasoning might be, to those who are accustomed to argue from hypothesis only, all that could be said on the subject, would, to men of experience and knowledge of Indian affairs, appear useless, and to those who were resolved to be the dupes of their own speculations, irrelevant.

He, therefore, proposed to limit the whole of the observations which he had to offer, to the subjects which he had enumerated.

In adverting to the Rights of the East India Company, in the exercise of which they had acquired and administered the Indian empire, and preserved a direct trade between England and the East Indies, he shortly detailed the following series of facts.

The Company were constituted by queen Elizabeth, a body politic and corporate, with succession, with power to acquire and dispose of property in England, and to acquire by purchase, or by treaties with the native princes, such stations, within their limits, as might become factories or seats of trade. In explanation, he remarked, that this charter, like a law, was perhaps better understood by referring to the events and circumstances under which it was granted, than by the mere letter of the charter itself.

The connection between England and the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands had existed for ages, and had been of commercial importance to both countries. When Charles 5 reduced the whole of the seventeen provinces to his obedience, he allowed the seven northern provinces to retain many of their civil rights; and as, at this period, the reformed religion, of which the queen was the avowed protector, had made considerable progress in those provinces, she secretly encouraged the Protestants in the Netherlands, at the time that Philip 2, was endeavouring to establish absolute power, and the inquisition, in his Flemish dominions. These circumstances produced the union of Utrecht, in 1579, and laid the foundation of the government of the states general of the United Provinces, which, under the direction of the first prince of Orange, asserted and maintained the independence of the Dutch.

The territory which the Dutch possessed was narrow, and, with the exception of its natural maritime strength, afforded resources that were unequal to raise and to maintain a force sufficient to oppose the armies and fleets of Spain. The States, therefore; armed and equipped ships, which they sent to the East Indies, partly with a view of making prizes from the Spanish Portuguese fleets (Spain and Portugal being then united under the same sovereign) and partly with a view of finding resources from trade, by which they might defend the independence of their country in Europe.

The success of the Dutch, in this enter-prize, was necessarily known to the English merchants, who formed, in London, an Association of Merchant Adventurers for trade to the East Indies, and applied to the queen for a charter of incorporation, that by their equipments and trade, they might open a direct intercourse between England and the East Indies.

With that cautious policy, which distinguished this wise sovereign, the queen, (though induced to listen to the application of the Merchant Adventurers, from their desire to enlarge that maritime power by which she had preserved the independence of her crown against the Armada of Spain, in 1588), required a report from them on the countries to which they proposed to trade, that she might not involve herself in contests with the maritime powers with which England was in alliance; and, after subjecting this report to the examination of the celebrated Fulke Greville, she granted the charter to the London East-India Company, the terms of which have been mentioned; leaving thus to her country an example, that the grant of the charter was founded on a previous and full examination of the facts and circumstances, which induced her to accede to the wishes of the Association which had solicited her protection.

The queen, also, anxious for the encouragement of the commerce and navigation of her subjects, and, at the same time, willing to confer her protection on that portion of them who had advanced their property, and were about to adventure their lives, in the undertaking, granted them exclusive privileges of trade for fifteen years, that she might have opportunities to ascertain, by experience, whether the plan would tend to the benefit or advantage of the realm. Hence the rise of the distinction between the Chartered Rights of the Company, and their Exclusive Privileges of trade; the one mak- ing the Company a corporation, with succession, the other conferring a temporary privilege, which the crown was to continue or not, after a limited term, according as the measure might be found advantageous, or not, to the kingdom.

The result of this wise policy was not known when queen Elizabeth died: and her successor, James 1, had scarcely assumed the reigns of government, when, his narrow resources induced him to grant licences to Michelbourn and others, to try experiments in the East India trade, in direct opposition to the existing privileges of the London Company, which he professed to support; but the experience of a few years convinced the king, that the innovation was dangerous, as (putting the losses and sufferings of the London Company out of view, either of the few factories which had as yet been formed, or of their ships and property) it threatened the very existence of the direct trade between England and the East-Indies; and therefore, in 1609, the king renewed the charter of queen Elizabeth, with more ample powers for acquiring new factories and possessions, and granted them the exclusive privileges of trade to the East-Indies "for ever;" with the same reservation, however, as in their first charter, "that should this trade not be found profitable to the kingdom, it was to cease and determine after three years notice."

The effect of this charter was to produce additional subscriptions from the adventurers, and larger equipments, which excited the jealousies of the Dutch, who, by this time, were subverting the Spanish-Portuguese power, and establishing their monopoly of the finer spices in the Banda and Molucca islands, and at Ceylon; which led to those massacres at Amboyna, &c. which had nearly overset all the rights that the London Company had either purchased or acquired; and it is memorable, that this charter of 1609 was granted in the same year that the truce of Antwerp was obtained by the Dutch, which indirectly recognised their independence; and that the massacre at Amboyna took place nearly at the expiration of this truce, when the independence of the States General was recognised and established.

It is painful to look at the difficulties which the London Company had to meet, during the reign of the unfortunate Charles 1; though it is only a simple reference to facts to mention, that, during this period, the Dutch power became predominant in the East-Indies, and that the king, from his want of resources, granted licences to his own subjects (Courten and others) to make encroachments on the Company's trade, and to form rival factories, at stations where it was supposed the Company had not established seats of trade. This association, from not being under any regular direction at home, had nearly overset the connection between England and the few seats of trade which the London Company had acquired; and, indeed, endangered their factories, from the then powerful empire of the Moguls, which embraced almost the whole of the coasts of the peninsula of India, while the consequences were, that these adventurers themselves experienced the calamities, which they had previously brought on the Company's trade and servants; and hence from temptations to return with some proportion of gain, they mingled their trade with piracy.

Amid the domestic calamities which overset the monarchy, the Usurper was fully aware of the importance of extending the navigation and commerce of the realm; but, having been raised to power by the prevailing disposition to innovation, he, at length, listened to the speculations for an open trade to the East-Indies; yet, after an experiment of three years, he and his council of state, after a full examination of the London Company's governor and committees, and of the merchant adventurers, decided, that the direct trade to the East Indies could only be preserved to the realm by restoring their lights and exclusive privileges to the London East-India Company.

After the Restoration, while advantage was taken of the experience acquired by the extension of the navigation and commerce of the kingdom, during the interregnum, the rights of the East India Company were fully restored to them, and the attempt of forming a government and trade at Bombay (to take possession of which, as a settlement of the crown, ceded by Portugal, as part of the dowry of the queen, the earl of Marlborough, and sir Abraham Shipman were sent out with a naval and military armament) terminated in the king transferring the island, such as it then was, to the London Company, to be held, not as a sovereignty, but as a freehold property, for a quit-rent payable to the crown.

The king also subsequently granted to the Company, by charter, in 1664, the island of St. Helena, in a similar manner: so that now the Company not only had two possessions equivalent to freeholds (Bombay and St. Helena) granted to them by the crown, but by five successive charters of Charles 2, a confirmation of their rights to those settlements which they had purchased and acquired in the peninsula of India; and a right to embody and govern by martial law, the guards of their factories;—and, by a charter of king James 2, in 1686, they were allowed to coin any species of money usually current in India.

The change of government, in 1688, produced two new events; one on the revenue of the kingdom, and the other on the trade to the East Indies. The revenues, which hitherto had been narrow, and not equal to maintain either the alliances, or the armies and fleets required to resist the general monarchy projected by Louis 14, called for loans, to meet the permanent interest of which, taxes were imposed; and thus was created what has, since that period, been termed the National Debt. The other change was, that as those loans could only be drawn from an enlargement of trade and navigation (for the plan of forming a bank by the landed interest failed), demands were made on the mercantile interest, in general, and on the East-India Company, in particular, for a proportion of those loans.

The Company offered 700,000l., at three per cent.; but this sum not being equal to the wants of the state, a new association of merchants offered two millions, at eight per cent., which was accepted. The General Society was accordingly formed, which was to proceed on the plan of each stockholder being entitled to trade, separately, according to the amount of his subscription. This project was only a cover to the scheme of subverting the London Company; and what is memorable is, that it was conducted by their old servants, many of whom had returned to Europe, under feelings of disappointed ambition. In two days, however, after its establishment, the General Society applied for, and obtained a charter, constituting them a new East India Company, distinguished from the London Company, by having their charter founded on an act of parliament, while the London Company had, hitherto, rested on grants from the crown only. Experience, however, and a knowledge of the natives, favoured the old, and obstructed the new Company; while a conviction, in the sovereign, and the result of experiments abroad, led the king to recommend an union of those rival Companies, the basis of which was settled, during his reign, and effected by the award of lord Godolphin, early in the reign of queen Anne, which formed the existing "United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies."

From the union of the two Companies in 1707–8, to the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, the chartered rights of the United Company were successively recognized and extended, by a series of acts of parliament during the reigns of queen Anne, George 1, and George 2; for by the Act 10th queen Anne (1713), it was enacted, that the exclusive privileges of trade to the East Indies should be continued to the Company, till three years after the 25th March 1733; and by an Act, 3rd George 2,(1730), it was declared, that the Company should continue a body corporate, with perpetual succession, with a right to trade to the East Indies, in their corporate capacity, notwithstanding the redemption of their capital stock, and the determination of their exclusive privileges; which exclusive privileges were, by this Act, farther renewed to the Company for thirty-three years, or till three years after the 25th March 1766.

This Act was farther confirmed by the 17th George 2, (1744), when the Company's exclusive privileges were extended for fourteen years longer, or to three years after 1780; they thus had their exclusive privileges uninterruptedly continued to them for fifty years, or from the 25th March 1733, to the 25th March 1783.

Several important events occurred, in the long period from the union of the two Companies, to the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, which gave a new character to the situation of the United Company's possessions and trade, both in England and in the East Indies.

The French power and trade, in India, were rapidly increasing on the Coromandel coast, while the events in the peninsula of India, from the fall of the Mogul and Mahratta empires, and from the death of the Nizam-ul-Muluk, led to the rise of lesser independent states, founded by military adventurers, who were considered, in England, as native princes. These events not only changed the relative situation of the Company with their foreign stations and trade, but began to hold out temptations to the rival European companies, particularly the French company, to acquire territory in India, and to expel the English from their factories and trade. Hence the maritime powers in Europe were forming stipulations, in treaties, suited to preserve the interests of their respective companies, at a time when the political anarchy in Hindostan was not understood in Europe:—the rights of the Company, therefore, were considered to be important subjects of public interest, and their exclusive privileges of trade, the necessary means of enabling them to hold out against the encroachments of their European rivals.

The rights which the Company had acquired, by their former charters, to their factories or possessions, were continued to them, from 1748 to 1763, and were extended and explained by successive grants, during this period, viz. to erect courts of judicature, to make distributions of prize-money, &c. The Company's factories, during this eventful period, which, hitherto, had been protected by small guards, were turned into military stations, and distinct armies formed, whose conquests on the Coromandel coast, under general Lawrence and colonel Ford, and, in Bengal, under the great lord Clive, acquired what has, since that period, been termed "British India." Though the Company were assisted in making these conquests, by a small proportion of the King's forces (Adlercron's and Draper's regiments), yet those regiments were disbanded in India at the peace, and many of the officers and men embodied with the Company's troops.

The situation of the East India Company's affairs, from 1763 to 1784, from the magnitude of their territorial acquisitions, soon after the peace of 1763, became subjects of parliamentary enquiry and report. Exclusive privileges of trade had been previously granted to them, by the Act 1744, up to March 25th 1783; but as an opinion prevailed, on the one hand, that the public were entitled to a proportion of the revenues of the conquered provinces, and the Company, on the other hand, considered them as acquisitions which their armies, aided by the King's fleets, had obtained, it was agreed by the Act, 7th George 3, (1767), that the Company should pay 400,000l. per annum, for two years, to the public, that they might be enabled to consolidate the government of the territories which their armies had acquired. In 1769, a similar agreement was made by the Act, 9th George 3, by which the territorial acquisitions were to remain with the Company, for a farther term of five years, on paying to the public the sum of 400,000l. per annum.

In 1773,^* however, the Company, being under considerable pecuniary difficulties, were obliged to apply to parliament for a loan of 1,400,000l.; and it was agreed, by the Act, 13th George 3, that the public should forego their claim to any participation in the territorial revenues till such time as this loan should be repaid and the bond debt of the Company reduced to a specified sum.

^*A full account of the several proceedings in parliament, in 1773, relating to the affairs of the East India Company, will be found in the 17th Volume of the new Parliamentary History of England.

The Company, in 1779, having fully repaid this loan, and reduced their bond debt to the specified sum, it was agreed, by the Act, 19th George 3, that the territorial acquisitions should be continued to them for one year longer, or till the 5th of April 1780, without paying any compensation to the public; and in this Act, the clause, "saving the rights of the crown, and of the Company," was first introduced. Previously to the expiration of this last Act, it was deemed expedient to continue the territorial acquisitions in the possession of the Company, for one year longer, or to the 5th April 1781, which was accordingly enacted by the Act, 20th George 3, (1780); but no compensation was paid by the Company to the public for the same.

The Company's exclusive privileges of trade, granted under the Act 1744, being, at this time, nearly expired, they petitioned parliament for a renewal thereof; and having agreed to pay to the public the sum of 400,000l. in discharge of all claims in respect of the territorial acquisitions, up to the 1st of March 1781, it was enacted, by the Act 21st George 3,(1781,) that the exclusive privileges of trade should be renewed to the Company, till March 1st 1794, and that the territorial acquisitions should remain with them during the same period, without making any additional payments to the public for them. In this Act, the clause is again introduced, "that nothing therein contained should extend to prejudice or affect the rights or claims of the public, or of the Company, respecting the said territorial acquisitions or revenues." An important change, however, was introduced in 1784, and which has been continued to the present time, in the administration of the Company's domestic and foreign affairs; or allowing the administration, as well as the trade, to continue with the courts of directors and proprietors, but constituting a board of commissioners for the affairs of India, with powers to superintend their political, financial, and military operations, and leaving the management of their commerce to the directors, as the representatives of that body, whose property, or stock, under its various amounts, had created, preserved, and brought the East India trade to its existing magnitude and importance.

The interests of the East India Company, domestic and foreign, from 1784 to the present time, as far as regarded the mixed administration of their affairs, at home, by the court of directors, and by the board of commissioners, remained nearly in the same situation, till the passing of the Act, 1793, which, like the preceding Act, waved the question of the respective rights or claims of the public, and of the Company, to the territorial acquisitions, and revenues, yet left them in possession of the Company. It is memorable, on this occasion, that the exclusive privileges of the Company, and the claims of those who wished to participate in the trade, were fully examined, before the resolutions were formed, on which the Act was to proceed:—the claims from the proprietors of mines in Cornwall, from Exeter, from Manchester, &c. were sent by the president of the board, to the chairman, and explanations received from the committee of correspondence:—the resolutions were then sent to the directors, and communicated to the court of proprietors, and then finally returned to ministers, and by them, brought forward, as the basis of the act of parliament.

Several events had occurred in India, which required that a considerable proportion of his Majesty's military forces should be stationed, permanently, in the East Indies.—The restoration of the French settlements, at the peace of 1783, had again given an opportunity to that restless government, to attempt, during the war which followed in Europe, to excite commotions among the native chiefs, that menaced the safety of the provinces which the Company had acquired, at the peace of 1763; and though it is unnecessary to describe events which live in every man's recollection, it is impossible not to refer to the able policy of the venerable Mr. Hastings, and of lord Cornwallis, and to the energy and wisdom of the marquis Wellesley, which tended to confirm the English provinces in their allegiance, to expel the French, and to establish the paramount power of Britain in the peninsula of India.

In the course of the wars, during this period, which were supported chiefly by the resources of the Company, conquests were made jointly by their armies, and by the King's troops. A political change, however, took place in the countries within the Company's limits; for the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, the French islands, and recently the Dutch islands, have been placed under the crown, while the trade to them has been, in a great measure conducted by the Company.

From the whole of these events and facts, regarding the charters granted to the London and to the English Company, and the charter to the United Company, extended and explained by a series of acts of parliament, it follows, that the "permanent rights of the Company are, to be a body corporate, with succession; to purchase and alienate lands in Britain; to form settlements, build forts, appoint governors, coin money in India, erect courts of judicature, and raise and maintain forces in India; and to trade to the East Indies on a joint stock, though their exclusive privileges of trade should cease and determine;" and their exclusive privileges of trade were, by the Act 1793, so far accommodated to the demands of the private merchants, as to afford them a proportion of tonnage for their imports and exports, in the Company's fleets, without incurring the risks of illicit trade to foreign countries, or of smuggling, by making the exports and imports subject to the regulations at the India House, and to the governments of the Company abroad.

The question, therefore, that is now to be decided is,—whether the Permanent Rights of the Company can be taken from them; and if this can be done, whether they have not a legal and equitable right to reimbursement for the immense sums which the acquisition of them has cost, for more than two centuries?

next requested the attention of the Committee to the experience of more than 200 years, during which the commerce of Great Britain with the East Indies, has been preserved to the realm, under exclusive privileges of trade, notwithstanding a succession of attempts at partial changes.

On this subject he observed, that it would be proper to advert to the circumstances, that the exclusive privileges were originally conferred on the Company, to enable the adventurers to obtain a fair return for the capital which they had embarked, for establishing a direct trade between England and the East Indies; next to enable the Company to enter into a competition with foreign companies, and to draw the balance of the East India trade in favour of Britain; and, lastly, to enable them, through their trade, to realize, for the public, the commercial advantages and revenues which were connected with the territorial possessions.

The first infringement made on the Company's exclusive privileges, was the licences granted to Michelbourn and others, by king James 1, and to the associations of Courten, &c. during the reign of Charles 1, which terminated in successive losses to the Company's trade and factories, in the exposure of many of their servants to imprisonment and death, in the ruin of the licensed individuals and associations, and in the introduction of piracy in the Indian seas.

A second infringement on the Company's exclusive privileges took place during the Usurpation, by the merchant adventurers, who were allowed to fit out large equipments. By the interferences of those merchants, they not only overstocked the Eastern markets with European commodities, and lowered the prices of them, but raised the prices of Indian produce, and brought goods of inferior quality into the European markets; and this, notwithstanding the strong hand with which the Protector over-ruled the Dutch, obliged him, and his council of state, to recognize the principle of preserving the trade of the East to the kingdom, by restoring to the East India Company their exclusive privileges.

An indirect attempt on the Company's exclusive privileges took place in 1679–80, by private English merchants fitting out ships at Cadiz, for trade to the East Indies. The crews of these interloping vessels, (as they were then denominated,) frequently became pirates, which exposed the Company's factories to heavy losses, and their servants to great danger, from their persons and property being seized to make good the losses of the natives: hence this project, also, was laid aside.

Another infringement on the Company's exclusive privileges, took place during the reign of king William, who, from being partial to the Dutch establishment of several companies, formed the English East India company, in the manner which has been described, with the object of creating a competition in trade, between the two Companies; but the experience of a very few years satisfied this wise sovereign, that by such competition, the East India trade and factories might be lost, and induced him to recommend an union, which (as has been observed) was effected in the reign of queen Anne.

The next infringement, in point of time, on the Company's exclusive privileges, was indirect, arising from foreigners, combined with the speculations of English and Dutch smugglers.

After the port of Ostend was declared a free port, in 1714, Dutch and English ships were cleared out, on Dutch and English capitals, and opened a trade, tinder the imperial flag, with the East Indies, to the detriment of the British trade and revenue; the evils from which, formed the subject of remonstrances to the court of Vienna, and of successive acts of parliament to prevent smuggling of Indian produce into England.

Another infringement on the Company's trade, arose from the circumstance of the Danes having factories in the peninsula of India; and so far their trade was not an infringement of the exclusive privileges of the Company; but this suggested the project of fitting out ships at Copenhagen, on British capital, and obtaining returns, not from the sales of the cargoes only, but by Respondentia Bonds, for money advanced by British subjects in India, bearing a high interest, and payable nine months after the arrival of the ships at Copenhagen; a project which diminished the British re-exports to the North, and produced a considerable smuggling of Indian goods into Britain.

The last infringement on the Company's exclusive privileges has arisen from the French Revolution, which has involved this country in war for more than twenty years, during which period, the Americans have interfered in the India and China trade, as neutrals, without being exposed to the charges of maintaining settlements, and have been allowed the advantages of this trade, in the vain hope that it might prevent their co-operation with France, in its revolutionary wars; and it is certainly a hard circumstance, that the policy of the state should allow such an indulgence to our now enemy, and harder still, that their success, as neutrals, under this indulgence, should be founded on by the petitioners against the Company, as a reason for divesting them of their privileges; though, in the exercise of those privileges, the Company have acquired the Indian empire, and preserved to the kingdom almost the exclusive trade to the East Indies.

, that his third object was, an enumeration of what appeared to him to be the losses and dangers in India, and to the China trade, which a deviation from the existing system of Indian affairs might produce.

The losses in India, he explained, might be considered, both as commercial and political.

The first commercial loss might be, that the regular annual demand of the Company would be diminished, and the provision of investments would no longer be an encouragement to the cultivators and manufacturers of Indian produce. This danger was best illustrated by a reference to former revolutions in India. After the fall of the court of Delhi, there remained no seat of luxury and magnificence for the consumption of the finer productions of the East; and it was the event of the establishment of the Company's power, that revived this demand for the produce and manufactures of India:—the encouragement given by the Company's governments and servants to the natives, has placed them in a state of safety and prosperity, unknown under the arbitrary governments to which they had been subjected; and, at the same time, prevented the irregular and dangerous interference of European adventurers with their superstitions and usages, who, without such controul as has been kept over them by the Company's servants, might have produced an anarchy leading to the loss of an empire, founded, as Mr. Hastings termed it, "on the breath of opinion."

A second commercial loss might be, the depriving the natives of that pecuniary assistance which they, at present, receive, by advances of money from the Company's governments.

It is this advance of money to the native cultivator, manufacturer, and merchant, that enables them to provide arti- cles to be ready at the season of export, and thus affords a regular supply for the British and European markets;—this no private merchant could attempt, because, whether his capital be equal to such an undertaking or not, is not the question; for the natives, from habit, have a confidence in the Company's servants, which they cannot be supposed to place in strangers, as the private merchants would be, notwithstanding any regulation which the wisdom of government might devise.

A third commercial loss might be, the interruption of the circuitous commerce of the Company in the countries within their limits, which consists of a country trade, under regulations by government, which are fully understood. This arrangement enables the Company, though with frequent losses, or inconsiderable profit on particular articles, not only to supply the several parts of the peninsula, but also to furnish to China, proportions of bullion and Indian articles, which have progressively lessened the demand for bullion from Europe, which that country, for many years, would alone take, and which foreigners, particularly the Americans, are obliged to pay.

The last commercial loss might be, the interruption, if not the total ruin of the China trade. The idea of opening the trade to India, but not to China, must have arisen with those only, who did not advert either to the existing relations between the Indian and the China markets, or to the peculiar and impracticable character of the Chinese government. If the trade should be opened to India, and the exclusive trade to China be proposed to be continued with the Company, the scheme would be found unwise, if not impracticable; both because the strictest regulations have been established by the directors, and the Company's foreign governments, to prevent irregularities in the country ships which proceed from India to China; and though these regulations have, in general, been effectual, yet the Company's supracargoes at Canton have been exposed to serious disputes with that singular government, in consequence of occasional irregularities. It will be recollected, that the Chinese have established a company, of what are termed Hong, or Security Merchants, who are responsible to the government, and that the least irregularity requires the person committing it to be seized and punished; or if he cannot be found, the punishment is inflicted on some other British subject. It is, therefore, the high character of the Company's servants, for regularity in their conduct and dealings, while they remain at Canton, that has alone preserved the trade, and no regulations that could be established in Britain, would be attended to by the Chinese government: hence this most valuable branch of the Company's trade would be endangered, if not lost. If the free traders should be allowed to pass the Straits of Malacca and Sunda, and to enter the Chinese seas, they not only would have opportunities of smuggling opium into China (which is prohibited by the Chinese government), but could obtain China produce, though of inferior quality, from the junks, and find places of deposit for them, both in the Spice Islands (the Moluccas and Bandas) and at the other Malay Islands, (Borneo, Celebes, &c.) where, as in former times, there might be a probability of piracy, which would break the connection established between the Company and the port of Canton, and bring disgrace on the British character.

If these commercial losses are probable, the political losses are equally to be apprehended.

In the first place, it would be impossible to preserve the allegiance of the natives, in the British Indian provinces, to any form of government, but that which they have been accustomed to consider as engrafted on the Mogul, or native establishments; and though the Company can act as feudatories of the native governments, it would be a difficult circumstance, indeed, to find any new body, subordinate to the crown, in England, in which this feudatory character could be vested, on the extinction of the East-India Company; and, therefore, though in theory, regulations might be framed for this purpose, the attempt to carry them into practice, by force, would produce that anarchy, which might terminate in the loss of the British possessions.

The introduction, in the next place, under any regulations, of adventurers not under controul, would necessarily produce colonization. If the plan be to allow an entrance to the European traders to the principal seats of government only, the impossibility of preventing the entrance of individuals into the interior is obvious, and the consequences have been fully established, by the evidence before the House and the Committee.

The greatest, and perhaps the most ob- vious political loss, in the third place, would be, that of dismembering the civil and commercial relations by which the British possessions are, at present, maintained, and of alienating the attachments and allegiance of the native military force, by which their territories have been acquired and are still preserved. The fullest evidence has been obtained of the character of the natives, the simplicity of their habits, and their attachment to their usages; and it has been an uniform instruction to the civil and military servants of the Company, on no occasion to offend against them. Whether the prejudices and the usages of the natives, or indeed of any other people, accord with European, or rather British, notions of propriety, is not the question; for among every people, and in every age, prejudices and usages have been found an over-match for reason, and frequently for morality.

The last political loss would be, what is obvious at home; the loss of an auxiliary marine, which, in the hour of danger, has, on so many occasions, been an important addition to our navy, and contributed to our national safety; the loss of establishments, formed at the expence of many millions, for creating and preserving this marine; and the loss of a revenue (amounting, at this time, to about 4,500,000l.) from the Company's trade, collected with facility, and with moderate charges: and it is yet to be ascertained, what compensation more than one hundred thousand people must receive, who are either directly employed under the Company, or indirectly supported by the exports they send to India and to China, and by the sale of the imports they bring from both countries; without saying any thing farther, than by a reference to the capital stock of the East-India Company, amounting to the sum of twelve millions sterling, and subscribed for, in the year 1793, on a reliance on the continuance of the Company's government and trade.

next requested the attention of the Committee, to a few remarks on the sources of the applications for an open trade; on the proposed Resolutions, printed by order of the House, on the 22d March 1813; and on the evidence subsequently laid before the House, by the Company.

The first source of these applications, as far as can be ascertained from facts, was a supposed increase of tonnage, exports, and imports. It has been assumed as a fact, but without either estimate or evidence to support it, that the open trade to India, and subsequently to China, would rapidly tend to increase the tonnage to an indefinite extent. It has not, however, been even attempted to be shewn, either by estimate or evidence, that the ships of the private merchants, of 350 tons, from the river Thames, and much less the ships from the out-ports, would equal the known tonnage of the Company. That they would do so, is mere assertion, and assertion by classes of petitioners, many of them inland, and none of them presuming on any thing, but that the free trade would extend their shipping to an immense amount. It has not, in the same manner, been attempted to be shewn, either by estimate or otherwise, what the amount of the exports would be; for not a single new article has been specified as intended to be exported. In like manner, it has been asserted, that there would be a great increase of the imports of Indian produce: but if Indian manufactures could be brought home, and sold in fair competition with our home manufactures, the free merchant and manufacturer would probably be soon as much at variance with each other, as they are now united against the East-India Company.

Another source of these applications is, the general right of all British subjects to trade to all countries, subject to the British power, or connected, by the relations of amity, with Britain.

Had the territorial possessions of the Company been, like our ancient North American colonies, formed and maintained for centuries, by the British government, and defended by the British arms, the general right of British subjects to trade to them would be undeniable; but the Indian possessions do not come under this description, for the ancient factories of the Company were purchased, or acquired, by cessions from the native powers, for valuable considerations. It is little more than half a century since the Indian possessions were conquered by the Company's arms, and administered on the basis of the native governments, of which they were the professed subordinates: and can an equal right be asserted by those, who have had no share in embarking either their property in acquiring such a territory, or risking their lives in preserving it, as by those who have actually acquired and preserved our Indian dominions?

On the proposed Resolutions, Mr. Bruce observed, that he must confine himself entirely to those which were laid before the House, on the 22d March, the alterations, or additions to which, he had only been possessed of for a few hours; and then stated, that though the first Resolution proposed to continue the Company's privileges, the exceptions to it, in the subsequent Resolution, so weakened those privileges, as to render the exercise of them impracticable. Is it to be understood by "the continuance of their existing privileges," that the Company's right of property to their ancient seats of trade, is to be admitted, and their claims to the territorial acquisitions waived, as in former Acts, and that the exceptions in the subsequent Resolutions, referred to the trade only?

2. That though the exclusive trade in tea is, by the second Resolution, to remain with the Company, the other China exports (nankeens, raw-silks, &c.) are not specified. If the open traders are to be allowed to pass the Straits of Malacca to the Spice Islands, &c. they might then interfere, as has been stated, with the China trade, and thus not only all kinds of China exports, but even tea, by illicit connections, between the eastern islands and the coasts of China, might become part of their homeward assortments, and thus most materially diminish the Company's sales, for home consumption, and the re-export of that valuable article: and it is remarkable, that no provision is made, in any of the Resolutions, for the same open sales and public competition at the out-ports, which have been carried on, with so much benefit to the public, by the East India Company; nor is it specified, whether the usual exports from England to China, and from India to China, are to be, as at this time, exclusively carried on by the Company, or not. Can any security be given, that the open traders, if they are allowed to enter the China seas, will not purchase Banca tin, at a cheaper rate than they can carry out the tin of Cornwall? Is it to be a provision, that they are to export Devonshire long ells, even at a loss; or is that export to be given up? and is there any security, that the open traders will return to Britain, and not go to North America, Spanish America, or even to ports in Europe, where they may sell both ship and cargo?

3. That the exception, in the third Resolution, which lays open the trade to India to such ports as have warehouses, wet-docks, or basins, or may volunteer the building of them, certainly renders the imports of the Company, from India, less, by the proportion or quantity which the open traders may import to the out-ports; and if the capital stock of the Company is proposed to be employed in this trade, it will make the returns inadequate to pay even the existing dividend on it.

4. That the Appropriations of the Territorial Revenues in India, by the fourth Resolution, (viz. to the payment of the civil and military establishments in India, and interest on the Indian debt) can leave but a small surplus, either for investment, or for remittances to China. Is it intended that the Company are to keep up their commercial establishments in India, when the commerce is to be divided between them and the open traders? If so, the proportion of trade which they are to carry on in India, and the China trade, would be liable to the same charges, as at this time; though the whole now yields to the proprietors little more than the legal interest of money in England.

5. That the Appropriations of the Commercial Profits in England, by the fifth and sixth Resolutions (viz. to the payment of bills of exchange, debts, interest, commercial charges, dividend often and a half per cent. on the capital stock, and reduction of the Indian debt, and Bond debt in England) seem to be utterly impracticable. It cannot be expected, that the Company can pay even their commercial charges in England, amounting to above 190,000l. per annum, (including 22,000l. per annum to the Commissioners for the Affairs of India) and the dividend of ten and a half per cent. on their stock, from the crippled trade to India, and from the profits on tea only, to say nothing of the other extensive appropriations; nor can government suppose, that the India proprietors will feel their stock to be safe, if it is to be employed in a commerce so narrowed and so burdened; for, if they do so, an ultimate, if not an immediate bankruptcy must be the result.

6. That by the eighth Resolution, the Company are to be farther limited from granting pensions and gratuities to meritorious and deserving officers, though this is the only mode they have left to them, of rewarding long and approved services. It need not be mentioned, that the Company have no honours to confer, but only such rewards as they may consider eminent services may merit; and if divested of this power, their servants would be left, in many instances, friendless, or perhaps, in distress. If a provision of this description had formerly existed the venerable Mr. Hastings, to whom may be ascribed the preservation of the conquests of lord Clive, and who gave so impressive a proof at the bar, of talents and services, could not, in his own elegant language, "have received that bounty from the Company, from which he now derived his subsistence."

7. By the Act of 1793, the appointment of governors and commanders-in-chief was left with the Company, as well as an express power of recall; but, by the ninth Resolution (March 22, 1813), though the appointment, nominally, is to remain with the Company, yet the King's approbation is to be given under the sign manual, countersigned by the president of the Board of Commissioners; and it is not specified, that any power of recall, in case of mismanagement, is to be left to the Company: so that, in fact, a congé d'elire is to be issued to the Company to appoint, provided the King and the president approve; but without leaving to the Company the selection of those persons who, from long and faithful services, might be presumed to be best qualified to fill those situations; or the power of recalling those, who, in fact, were to be appointed independently of their choice, and whom they might find inadequate to the discharge of the first and most important duties.

On the subject of the evidence laid before the House, Mr. Bruce observed, that though he had attended the examination of the witnesses, both in the House, and in the Committee, every day, he considered it to be impracticable to form a just opinion of the subject, till the whole of the evidence had been completed; nor did he conceive, that even the great lord chancellor Bacon would have undertaken to examine and decide on a body of evidence, consisting of nearly 600 folio pages, in a few hours: all, therefore, that an individual, like himself, could attempt, was to state the following general facts, which appeared to be established by this great body of evidence. That the administration of the British Indian provinces, had, hitherto, proceeded on a system engrafted on the ancient native governments; and from the fixed character of the natives, had preserved the allegiance of our Indian subjects, and yielded a large and permanent revenue.

That the regulations, which have hitherto been adopted, by the Company, had prevented the indiscriminate intercourse or interference of British subjects, or of Europeans, in general, with the prejudices of the natives, in favour of their ancient opinions, usages, and manners.

That, from the fixed character of the natives, particularly the Hindoos, the produce and manufactures of India have been found equal to their wants and their desires; and that the climate, and their habits, afforded no prospect of an increase of demand for British goods; particularly when it has appeared, that British artists have settled at the different presidencies, and employed native workmen, who can furnish the same articles at a cheaper rate than they can be imported from Britain; and, in fact, that British goods are chiefly, if not exclusively, purchased by the European inhabitants.

That the export trade from Great Britain had not only been equal to the demands in India, but in general, so far above them, that, in many cases, the Company, and their naval officers, who carried out their little investments, freight free, and the Indian agents, were often obliged to sell the goods at and below prime cost.

That the imports from India had, hitherto, notwithstanding all the heavy duties imposed on them, been equal, not only to the home consumption, but to the demands for re-exportation, though this branch of the trade, for reasons of state, had been materially injured by the neutrality allowed to the American traders.

That the smuggling of cargoes, by the Company, on the evidence of the first revenue officers, was impracticable, as there existed no temptation to make the attempt; that smuggling had been farther prevented, by the trade being carried on in large ships, with the safeguards of the East India docks and warehouses; and that, from the lists of seizures, the smuggling had been chiefly detected in smaller articles, seized from the crews and passengers.

That the vessels from the out-ports, of 350 tons, either in the outward or homeward voyages, would have greater facility in defrauding the revenue, by going to foreign ports to dispose of their cargoes, to the prejudice of the re-export trade, or by smuggling, in innumerable ways, into Great Britain and Ireland.

That, from the positive evidence of the revenue officers of customs and excise, the smuggling of Indian and China produce will increase, by dividing the trade between the river Thames and the out-ports, at which the revenue cannot be so efficiently collected, as at the sales of the East India Company.

concluded his observations, by asking, whether it would be wise, in the present convulsed state of Europe, and of the world, and in the actual state of the British resources and revenues, to interfere with such an old establishment as that of the East India Company; if so, it was surely contrary to the practice of a nation, distinguished for resting all its institutions on experience, leading to improvements, not on theories in politics, or speculations in trade. The last 20 years, he observed, had shewn enough of theory and speculation, by the events which had desolated Europe; and it would be a most cruel event, indeed, while the insidious interferences of foreigners have been unable to shake the foundations of our government, or of the institutions subordinate to it, if our own innovations should weaken the one, or destroy the other.

Supposing, however, that these evil forebodings should be realised, and that the Company should be dissolved, and their trade annihilated, the justice of the British government will surely grant a full indemnity to the East-India Company, whose enterprise, conquests, and administration, have acquired and preserved the Indian empire; and to the proprietors of the shipping and establishments which have been formed, at the expence of many millions, under the conviction of the stability of the Company, and of the navigation of its ships and trade being confined to the river Thames. It would, to himself, be a melancholy reflection indeed, to have lived to see one political and financial error lose to the country its American colonies, and to be convinced, that the proposed Resolutions, if passed into a law, in opposition to a most full and complete body of evidence, would, in a short time, probably lose its Indian empire to Great Britain.

jun. rose and said: Sir; in every discussion which relates to a change in our mode of governing India, the first enquiry that naturally suggests itself is, what is the condition of the people of that country under the existing system. On this point I conceive there will not be a dissentient voice. It is acknowledged on all sides that they are in a flourishing condition, not only as compared with their former situation under the despotism of their own princes, but as compared with any known standard in any quarter of the world. It is acknowledged too that they are not only happy, but in a progressive state of happiness. If, then, the prosperity of the people is to form the basis of every arrangement for the government of India, a practical statesman will surely pause before he consents to endanger a system which has so completely answered that object. It has however been maintained that this effect is to be attributed not to the East India Company, but to the influence of the British government. It is said that the year 1784, the period at which the government at home assumed the superintendence of India, is also the period from which the prosperity of India must be dated. That æra is established as forming a grand line of distinction as to the condition of our native subjects, previous and subsequent. Now, admitting that there was so radical a change in the year 1784; admitting that it is only since that time that the condition of the natives has been improved; still the conclusion deduced from this admission, that the system ought to be destroyed, does not follow. If certain results are produced by the operation of a complex system, does it necessarily follow that if any part of that system be removed, the same results will continue to be produced? Besides, the beneficial effect on an extensive scale of a whole system, is a strong presumption in favour of the harmlessness at least, if not of the efficacy of all its parts. If the state of India under the united management of the government and of the Company be so flourishing, it proves at least that there is nothing so radically vicious, so insuperably corrupt and pernicious in the East India Company as we are taught to believe; since its existence is consistent with the diffusion of so much happiness,—not only consistent, but since it is itself actually the instrument in communicating these blessings, from whatever quarter we may suppose them to originate.

But it is, in my humble judgment, erroneous to represent the year 1784 as forming so broad a line of demarcation; as if then an entire new order of things had arisen; as if the principles of government applied by the Act of 1784 to India, had never till that time entered into the administration of that country. Sir, I ven- ture to call this a fallacious representation. The Act of 1784, with all its advantages (and they were many) was not so much the commencement of a new order of things as the consummation of one which was already in progress. The two great measures which followed that Act, I mean the permanent settlement of the revenue, and the establishment of the judicial system, were not the discovery of the government at home—they did not spring out in full growth from the heads of the administration of this country—they were not invented on the spur of the occasion by the unassisted sagacity of the British legislature:—they originated in India. They were the fruit of a series of exertions carried on under the authority of the Court of Directors—they were the slow result of the wisdom and labour of the servants of the Company, and had long been advancing to maturity under their auspices. In the earlier periods of our intercourse indeed with India, no plans of this nature were proposed; no efforts were made to improve the condition of the people, and for this obvious reason, that we had no territory for which we were called to legislate. The English entered that country with no view of conquest; and it would have been absurd indeed to begin legislating for an empire which as yet did not exist even in hope. Even after we were compelled in self-defence to wage war against the native princes, the idea of acquiring political ascendancy was not immediately adopted; and when it was, in a manner, forced upon us, the circumstances of the times did not permit a deliberate application to the great question respecting the best mode of governing India. It was a period of struggle, of suspense and anarchy. But as soon as our dominion acquired some compactness, as soon as the cession of the dewanny in 1765 in addition to our military power gave us also the financial jurisdiction of the provinces, that question became a serious subject of attention. It is remarkable to observe in the records of the Company how steadily, though slowly, every thing tended to bring to light and to recommend those principles which afterwards formed the basis of the measures adopted subsequently to 1784. Even prior to the year 1773—the date of the Regulating Act, (which was the first interference on the part of the legislature in the affairs of India) this progress had commenced. It is especially to be traced since the year 1769, and still more particularly since the year 1771, when the Company stood forth as dewan. But many obstacles were thrown in the way by war, and above all by the severe famine. From 1772 the approaches to the present system were regular and unintermitted,—and the measures afterwards executed were sketched out in the various writings of the servants of the Company. In the written debates between Mr. Hastings and Mr. Francis, particularly, the plan of the settlement of the revenue from land (the main source of revenue in India) is clearly developed. It was fortunate indeed that it was not resolved at an earlier period to carry into effect any permanent arrangement; because such an arrangement could not have failed to be premature. The date upon which it should rest, the principles upon which it ought to proceed, could not in a shorter time have been collected and unfolded. In order to establish any system which might hope to be efficient, much was previously required: it was necessary to exercise laborious, enquiry, skilful combination, patience in unravelling, impartiality in concluding; the records of past ages were to be examined; the important questions relating to the property of the sovereign in the soil, the nature of the land tenures, the proportion of the produce allotted to the ryots, and other collateral topics, were to be sifted; the glosses of the natives were to be detected; and in the midst of contending accounts and contradictory representations, the true extent of the productive powers of the country, and the just claims of the various parties interested or professing to be interested, in the soil, were to be ascertained and adjusted. This was the task which devolved upon the East India Company, and never was task more ably accomplished—never were the powers of research, of discrimination, of industry more successfully called into action—never were the elements of legislation, the materials for national happiness, more amply furnished, than by the talents and assiduity of these calumniated servants of the Company. It was after all this had been done to their hands, that the legislature interfered. Let every praise be given, as it ought to be given, to the zealous exertions of the legislature; but the system of 1784 was in its prominent features the work of the East India Company. I believe I am correct in saying that the letter of instructions which accompanied lord Cornwallis to India, was the production of a gentleman who had long been in the service of the Company. They cannot, therefore, be deprived of the merit of having contributed to form that system under which India has now for a succession of years reposed: and they formed it not on narrow, selfish, and temporary principles, but on principles commercial, national, social, imperial; on principles comprehending the whole variety of reciprocal duties, and the whole train of interests remote and immediate—thus they implanted confidence where before all was distrust; fenced round with the guardianship of law, those in whose eyes till then law and arbitrary power had been syno-nimous terms; and laid the foundations of their dominion deep in the happiness of the low and the prosperity of the poor. It is impossible to advert to the wise measures which have been so favourable to India, without recollecting, and it is a duty not to recollect in silence, how much of their salutary effect they owed to the person who was chosen to carry them into execution. There was a felicity in the selection of lord Cornwallis for that purpose: never was any man more eminently gifted with all those qualities that contribute to form the practical legislator—a deep knowledge of the world, long experience, sound and masculine sense, a political character of unsullied purity, great perseverance, a warm philanthropy, loftiness of spirit united with mildness and simplicity of conduct, a calm and dignified sobriety of mind which under every circumstance of success or misfortune was true to itself, and exempted him from the difficulties that harass and check the march of ordinary men. To these were added a peculiar modesty, and devoted attachment to the duties of his station, and unwearied anxiety for the interests of the people whom he was called to govern.

Sir, I beg to repeat that in the remarks I offer, I do not mean to detract from the just applause due to the government and the legislature of this country,—I do not mean to say that those beneficial results would have been so soon or so effectually secured without the interference of the legislature. On the contrary I believe that such interference was not only expedient but even essential; and that some such superintending authority as that which was vested in the Board of Controul was required, to give consistency and efficiency to the new arrangement. But I contend against the injustice which would describe the Court of Directors as entirely unconcerned in the formation of this arrangement, which would refuse to them even the merit of cordial and useful co-operation in the execution of it, which in short would represent them very little awake to the prosperity of the millions over whom they preside. For my part, Sir, having been for some time an assiduous, though not indeed a disinterested witness of the conduct of some members of that body, I shall, I trust, be forgiven for venturing to express a decided opinion. Of other qualifications it does not become me to speak; but if the question be, respecting patient, laborious, unremitted attention to the interests of the people of India, then I say, and say boldly, that there are those in that court with whose claims no man need be ashamed to have his own compared; and I think it neither fair nor equitable in any man, however exalted may be his rank or character, and however profound may have been his meditations on the subject of India, to trample on the merits of those who have given to that subject hours, where he has given to it minutes.

With respect to the various plans that have been proposed in place of the present mode of conducting our government in the East, it is not necessary now to speak. I shall merely remark that nothing which I have heard or read has been found sufficient to meet one difficulty which startles the most sanguine speculator—I mean the difficulty of safely disposing of the patronage which is now vested in the Court of Directors. That to place it mediately or immediately in the hands of government would be fatal to the constitution, is universally agreed. By what means then can the vast variety of situations connected with the Indian service both at home and abroad be filled? Where can this patronage rest without danger to the constitution? I venture to assert, this problem has not yet been resolved. A plan indeed has recently been proposed by very high authority; but I trust I am not guilty of any unwarrantable freedom, if I take the liberty to say that this plan, however plausible, would, in my opinion, tend only to defeat its own purpose. I think, indeed, Sir, that even at first sight, and before we enter into any details, there is something inadmissible in the idea that there should be so much public patronage afloat in the country, and that no part of it should fall under the controul of government. I do not of course allude to this or to any particular administration, but surely it requires very little attention to the ordinary course of affairs, to see the utter hopelessness of securing these numberless places of trust and emolument from the influence of the administration for the time being, so long as the disposal of these places is not assigned to any definite jurisdiction, but is left at large to the operation only of general rules. But what is the plan itself? It is proposed that the civil offices in India shall be supplied from among the young men who have most distinguished themselves in our great public schools. Now it does seem to me that this proposal would be utterly inadequate to its end. Is the selection to be made only from those who have attained the head of their respective seminaries? This would be the fairest method, and indeed the only fair method. Here there would be a public criterion of merit, which would admit of no misapprehension, and would effectually exclude all improper influence. But it is obvious that this source, even if the principle were applied to all the public schools in the kingdom, would be totally insufficient to provide for all the civil offices in the service. Then the candidates must be sought among those of less distinguished merit, and that too in considerable numbers. By what test are these to be judged? If you once descend below that highest degree of qualification, which forces itself on universal notice, you must resort to other criteria, to the private judgment of the master, in short, to some private instead of a public test. Besides, what are to be the facilities of admission to these schools; by what rules are the vacant appointments to be distributed? Is it not clear that here there is abundant scope for patronage; and that by various methods which it is easy to imagine, this patronage would at length, in a great measure, be wielded by the servants of the crown? With regard to the military appointments in India, it is proposed that they shall be filled up by the sons of officers who have fallen in battle. There is something generous in this suggestion; but there is at least one objection to it, if no other—it would occasion a very great disproportion between the demand and the supply for such appointments. During peace, when the casualties are few, (and it is surprising to observe how few they are in the Indian army) the supply would far exceed the demand. In time of war the opposite inconvenience would be felt; and in the latter case, it would not only be natural for the administration to interfere, but it would be even their duty to fill up the vacancies by their own authority. Neither therefore could the military patronage be completely secured from abuse.

The influence of the crown, however, would not be confined merely to the first appointment to offices, military and civil, which is usually made at home; it would extend also to India, and make itself felt through all the gradations of service in that country. The nomination to those successive promotions rests with the governor general or the commander in chief; and they would not be unwilling to consult the wishes of the administration, on whom probably they depend for the enjoyment of their own dignities. Something of this kind may perhaps be even now observed to occur; but the evil would be infinitely aggravated, if the publicity which now prevails, ceased to exist, and if the checks arising from counteraction of different authorities were entirely removed.

And in what manner would such a state of things affect the natives? The efficacy, the very existence of the present system of the internal administration of India, depends, as I have already hinted, upon its publicity. Every part of it is open to the day. Every man who is engaged in it, acts on an elevated theatre. From the commencement till the close of his career, his qualifications, his merits, his claims to advancement, and the grounds upon which his advancement rests, are matters of general inspection. By the rules of the service a certain period of residence in India is indispensible to the enjoyment of the higher stations. Merit, therefore, is, generally speaking, the cause of success; and Europeans are rarely called to exercise public authority over the natives till they are in some measure fitted for that trust by a familiarity with their manners and prejudices, and by frequent opportunities of studying their character. Thus it is that the natives repose with confidence under the superintendance of men whom they feel to be selected for that duty on account of their capacity to discharge it. Thus too has a system of internal polity been formed, which for purity, for efficiency, for public spirit and virtue, is perhaps without a rival in modern his- tory. But if this system be changed, if the access to high offices depend upon the will of a minister, then all that light and order vanishes at once. The grounds of promotion are found no longer in laborious service, in local knowledge and experience, but in parliamentary influence, in intrigues at home, in court favoritism, or if in merit, at least in merit displayed in other parts of the world, and not very appropriately rewarded by a transfer to new duties in untried scenes of action, amongst a strange and unknown race of beings. The rights and interests of the natives are neglected or misapprehended; their confidence is lost; their happiness sacrificed.

It is true that under any alteration of system, the rules which regulate the service, and particularly those which annex certain rates of salary to certain periods of residence, are intended still to subsist; and may therefore be supposed still to secure the advantages which have been ascribed to them. They may indeed subsist; but how easy will it be to elude their force. We know that in one instance in order to promote an individual to a situation to the established salary of which he was not entitled by a sufficient residence, that salary was reduced, and the deficiency was made good by other means. In the instance alluded to, this was done from the most honourable motives, for it was done by lord Cornwallis; but the precedent may be followed to gratify motives of a very different description. It is easy to conceive various methods, by which a governor general and a minister of this country might contrive to evade the most positive regulations; retaining at the same time those regulations in their code of legislation, and professing to comply with their injunctions. Indeed, Sir, to say the truth, I am inclined to think that if the Company were destroyed, the laws to which I particularly allude would not be long allowed to retain even a nominal existence. But even if this were not the case, their vigour and efficacy might be entirely superseded—the system might be ostensibly preserved, after it had been deprived of its virtues, and crippled in its operations. The machinery might stand; but the spirit which gave it life and motion would be extinguished. The curious fretwork of the grotto mightremain, but the stream that filtered through its arches, and gave it freshness and beauty, would have ceased to flow.

There is yet another very serious objection to this plan, an objection which, applies intimately to the interests of the British empire; namely, that it cuts off a very large, I might say, much the larger, portion of the community from a wide and most honourable field of exertion. The access to employment in India is forbidden, except to those who have entered early enough in our public schools to rise to the highest class, or to those whose fathers have fallen in battle. But how unfair is this exclusion towards the numbers who do not happen to be placed under these circumstances; or who are unable to qualify themselves by admission into our principal public seminaries. As to the civil service, there are many parents who cannot afford the expence of a regular progress through those seminaries, many who are placed in extreme parts of the kingdom, and are thus prevented. In many instances the choice of this line is not made, and cannot be made till at too late a period to go through this process. In others it is adopted by youths of ability and spirit, after they perceive that in consequence of the superior interest of their competitors at home, or from other reasons, they are precluded from arriving in this country at the eminence to which they feel themselves adequate. Yet in all these cases, and in other similar instances, the qualifications of every kind, the knowledge, the talents, the virtues, may be such as not only to ensure the success of their possessors, but to promote the interests of the empire. As to the military service, we know that it is in a great measure filled by the sons of old families, more distinguished for respectability than wealth. In such circumstances, the Indian army is the most desirable resource that can be conceived. It has all the qualities that belong to the military profession, and therefore accords with the lofty spirit which these ancient families are still proud to cherish. It requires moderate expence; and leads to certain promotion and a handsome provision for life. Now, if this opening be closed to such persons, the military service of their country is closed, for the expence and the uncertainty of ultimate advancement in the King's army effectually preclude that alternative.

I say then, Sir, that the plan which we are now considering, while it professes to proceed upon hostility to all exclusion, involves in itself a system of exclusion the most cruel and unjust. It is itself a mo- nopoly—not indeed of trade,—but of honours, of means of success, of noble daring, of opportunities and inducements to patriotism and virtue. The effects of such a monopoly must be peculiarly injurious to the nation at large. It is the boast of our constitution that all its offices, all its honours are open to the efforts of honourable ambition. Every thing that widens the sphere of talent, every thing that multiplies the incentives to mental and intellectual enterprise, tends to exalt the national character and confirm the national security. And if this plan had been earlier adopted, how many able and distinguished men would have been excluded from those scenes which they have illustrated by their wisdom and their valour. The names of Lawrence, of Clive, and of Coote, and of many others in various departments, would have been unknown. Really, Sir, I hope that parliament will never lend its sanction to such a proposal; will never consent to raise an impassable fence round those lists of glory; nor pronounce so fatal an interdict against the aspirings of youthful genius.

The education of those who are destined to preside over our subjects in that remote territory, is indeed a point of vital importance. To this point accordingly the Company has given its most anxious attention; upon principles and with a success which have, I believe, secured general applause. I have been not a little surprised at an attack which has recently been made in another place upon the East India College at Hertford—an attack, however, which has had the effect of drawing a most satisfactory reply from one of the professors of that institution, Mr. Malthus. I will not now repeat what he has so successfully stated; but shall content myself with referring the House to that able and triumphant refutation.

It has been repeatedly urged that there is something monstrous in the union of the political and commercial functions,—this charge rests upon the authority of a great master in political learning. But it is a little curious to observe, how this charge has shifted its ground since it was first made. Dr. Smith objects to the union, because the political part of the character must suffer. The interests of the Company as merchants will supersede their duty as sovereigns.—His disciples, however, take precisely the reverse. The merit of the Company as sovereigns they admit, and indeed it is too obvious to be denied; but, driven from that post, they now discover that it is the mercantile character which must be injured by the imperial; these public-spirited traders, it seems, and it is a grievous accusation, sacrifice their interests as merchants to their duty as sovereigns. But after all, this charge consists very much in assumption, and perhaps the best answer to it would be, an appeal to the practical result of this anomalous union. It is indeed somewhat singular, that an argument of this kind, proceeding upon theory in opposition to experiment, should find acceptance in a quarter where it has been lately repeated. It is singular that it should be sanctioned by those, whose claims to the regard of their country and to the approbation of posterity, must mainly rest on this circumstance, that at a period of frantic speculation, they adhered to the plain practical excellence of the constitution, in spite of the defects with which it might in theory abound. This argument, however, or rather this assumption, is objectionable in another point of view, as it narrows the range of political science. It pronounces the junction of the sovereign and mercantile capacities to be ruinous. Now the only instance upon record of such a junction is that which is furnished by the East India Company. It seems, therefore, a little like begging the question, to begin with laying down a theory, and then to reason from this theory and pronounce á priori upon the only fact to which it can be referred. Such a mixture of functions must upon theory be bad; the system of the East India Company is an example of such a mixture; therefore it is a pernicious system. This is surely a premature conclusion—for this is the very point to be ascertained—political science depends upon an induction of facts. In no case, therefore, can it be allowed to close the series of experiments; and to declare definitively that for the future, no practical results whatever shall affect an established doctrine. Least of all is this allowable, when the doctrine can by possibility refer only to a single fact; and when that single fact is at war with that doctrine. It is for the House upon the present occasion not to try this question by previous rules, but to appreciate the quality of the rule by the merit of the example in its existing shape and relations.

With respect to the boundless increase of our commerce which might result, from a free intercourse with India, I am glad that the evidence heard at this bar and before the Committee has nearly dissipated the delusions upon that subject. It seems now to be generally agreed, that there is not much probability of an immediate consumption by the natives to any great extent of British produce and manufactures. Some men, it is true, whose judgment is entitled to respect, seem to maintain a different opinion. When, upon any subject, authorities of equal weight differ from each other, the only way of arriving at any thing like a satisfactory opinion, is to discover, if possible, some point at a higher stage of the question, in which these authorities agree, and, taking our departure from that point, to let reason and common sense draw the conclusion.—Now, Sir, in the present instance, there is such a common ground to be attained. Whatever other topics of difference may prevail, there is one point in which all parties coincide; and that is in the representation of the character and habits of the Hindoos. They are a people, it is universally acknowledged, whose manners and modes of life continue to a remarkable degree the same from age to age. Their wants are few; their diet, their clothing, their cottages, or rather their huts, all are on the same scale of frugality—their climate excites no extravagant desires—their soil demands little culture, all that they require they find among themselves. Every thing contributes to make them stationary; and all these tendencies are rivetted and rendered irresistible by the nature of their religion. Never was there a religion which so mixed itself with all the transactions of life, social, civil, and domestic: it entwines itself with every part of daily conduct; it regulates even the lowest and most trivial actions, and regulates them, not by the invisible energy of a pervading influence, but by arbitrary and specific enactments applicable to the minutest particulars. It perpetuates the existing system of manners and prejudices, by clothing it with the sanction of divine authority, and guards it from the effects of foreign example or persuasion. Like its own favourite emblem, the mysterious serpent, it lulls its votary to rest amidst its voluminous evils; while with fierce eye and lifted crest it forbids the approach of unhallowed intrusion. But there is mortality in the embrace of those folds, they paralize what they envelope, and the sleep which they protect is the sleep of death. It is the property of that religion, or rather of that superstition, to extinguish the powerful principle of sympathy, which makes man, what he has been called, an imitative animal. It allows its subjects to mingle with foreigners, but not to amalgamate with them. It allows them to bend to their wishes and become subservient to their passions; but forbids them to borrow their modes of thinking or acting, or to adopt in any respect the colour of their example. Thus have they been secured from the full effect of those impulses to which other nations have yielded. There is something magnificent in this recollection. Three thousand years have rolled away, and this people are nearly in the same situation as at the commencement of that period. During that time, how many fluctuations have occurred! what revolutions have taken place! How many great nations have been swept from the face of the earth. Their own country has been repeatedly desolated by invading armies. Their oppressors have triumphed and passed away. The lordly house of Timour has risen, and flourished, and decayed. Nature herself has suffered convulsions. The mountain has sunk,—the valley has been filled,—the Ganges has changed its course, while those who drink of its waters remain the same, bound up in the same customs, involved in the same prejudices, abandoned to the same superstitions.

It is not enough to say that they have recently submitted to many alterations, that they obey our laws and serve in our armies. I do not speak of their political or national condition.—in this respect they have undergone perpetual vicissitudes. I speak of their social and domestic manners and opinions; and the fact, that in the midst of so many political changes, their domestic and personal system, civil and; religious, should have continued unchanged, is itself only an additional confirmation of these general remarks: this fact, I venture to repeat, is unquestionable. The private life of the Hindoo, under whatever public circumstances, has been invariably the same. The private life of the Hindoo is at this moment precisely what it was at the time of Alexander's expedition; nor could a modern traveller describe it in terms more appropriate than those employed by the pen of Arrian.

If this be true, is there any prospect of a sudden or speedy change? or can the fiat of a British parliament at once and in a moment transform those millions into consumers of British manufactures? If any change take place, it must be gradual, and cannot be sensibly felt till after the lapse of many years. And yet it is for the purpose of immediate relief that the distressed manufacturers of this country have been incited to clamour for a free trade with India. Sir, I deeply feel for the condition of those unfortunate men; and I feel for them the more deeply at present, because with respect to this question, they have been made the victims of delusive misrepresentations, industriously circulated in some degree perhaps from ignorance, but in some degree also I fear from motives less excusable. It is singular enough, however, that even those who insist upon the existing pressure upon our commerce as an argument for opening the trade to the East, (as if the sub-version of the Company's monopoly would in an instant create a market for all the goods now on hand, and for as many more as can be furnished;) it is singular enough that some even of these allow the little hope of any immediate improvement of our commerce. I recollect that this is the case in some letters which were addressed a few years ago to the manufacturers of Glasgow. The author argues much upon the low state of trade.—In answer to the statement that the Hindoos feel no desire for British commodities, he observes, that it is true they do not feel any want of them at present; but he adds they will in course of time, and illustrates this position by the instance of the Attacotti, who, it appears, formerly inhabited the district about Glasgow and Paisley. The Attacotti, he remarks, had as little taste 18 centuries ago for the manufactures in which their descendants now excel, as the Hindoos can possibly be accused of betraying for British goods. Eighteen centuries! A consolation indeed to our afflicted countrymen! In the manner in which this question has been argued by some persons, there seems to have been a radical fallacy. It seems to have been thought that in order to prove that there would be in India 60 millions of customers for our goods, it is enough to prove that there are in India 60 millions of inhabitants. But if unlimited access be all that is required for the extension of trade, why are not the islands of the southern ocean covered with our manufactures? why do not our vessels swarm round the coast of Africa?—not indeed for the purposes for which these advocates for a free trade once visited that country, but for the purposes of an innocent and bloodless commerce? It has been said that though the extravagant hopes which have been too generally entertained might at the opening of the trade occasion the ruin of the first adventurers, yet commerce would soon find its level and proceed in its ordinary course. Now this may be good as consolation, but it is bad as argument; especially when addressed to those who are likely themselves to be the victims of this speculative spirit.

But let it be admitted, Sir, that the wildest expectations of the most sanguine will be realised; still the great question remains; How will this affect the people of India? For this, it should never be forgotten, is the enquiry upon which our decision must turn; and I am almost ashamed to have dwelt so long on any other branch of the subject. We are legislating for India, for the happiness of India; and I ask, what will be the influence in that point of view of a large and almost unlimited admission of Euro-ropean adventurers into that country? For let it be recollected, that this vast increase of British exports to India, this vast augmentation of commercial intercourse between the two countries, necessarily supposes an admission of Europeans into these territories far beyond the utmost number which are at present admitted. It is obvious indeed that the one could not take place without the other; and then I ask, is there no danger to the people of India? Is it reasonable to suppose that men rushing into that scene with the sole anxiety for wealth, would be always very scrupulous as to the means of attaining it? We have heard much of the honourable British trader, and certainly no man is more disposed than I am to do justice to that high character. From those distinguished men who by extending our commerce extend our prosperity and fame, and of whom it would be easy to name many both within and without these walls, I should expect not only every thing that is accurately just, but every thing that is enlarged and generous in honour or humanity. If these were the persons to whom the fortunes of India were to be trusted; if those hon. gentlemen whom I have now the honour to see in this House were themselves to be present in every vessel that sailed for the East, there might be less room for apprehension—though even then all fear would not be removed, unless they could preside in person over every separate transaction in their commercial dealings, or unless they could transfuse their own spirit into all their inferior agents. But does any man believe that a majority, or even a considerable part of those who would take advantage of a less restricted intercourse, would be composed of this class of merchants? Do we not know that far the greater number would be adventurers of desperate or needy circumstances, burning to try their fortunes on that distant and boundless stage, and ambitious only to enrich themselves in the shortest possible space of time,—is it likely that they should regard the welfare of the natives as their prime concern; that they should be alive to their feelings and sensibilities? Amidst so many temptations and so much impunity, would they be always tenderly awake to the claims and interests of that people? would they never be guilty of severity, injustice, and oppression? The apprehensions which I express are not chimerical; they are justified by our past experience.—Unwilling as I am to dwell upon the shame of my country, I am yet obliged to observe, that, with the exception of Asia, the establishment of the British dominion, in remote quarters of the globe, has proved to the inhabitants of those countries not a blessing, but a curse,—a heavy and protracted curse. Look at our intercourse with North America—a series of oppressions, cruelties and wars—the natives whom we visited under the auspices of unrestricted commerce exposed to every indignity; whole tribes extirpated; the rest driven from their possessions, chased from hill to hill and forest to forest, and the natural consequence of all this, an indelible hatred between the persecuted survivors and the descendants of the British settlers.—I fear, indeed, that there may be some, not assuredly within these walls, but I fear there may be some out of this House, who would think it almost worth while to have incurred so much guilt, and to have travelled through these enormities, for the sake of creating a new population which might annually dispose of 12 millions of our manufactures. If there be a heart which can harbour such a sentiment, I should be glad to unmask its wishes, to lay it open to the inspection of the House, that we might see how much of philanthropy, how much of generous regard for the natives, how much of happy promise for India is treasured up in its recesses. For here is the very principle of sacrificing every thing to our commercial greatness, not silently admitted, not indirectly encouraged, but avowed and recommended as the ground-work of action.

If the instance of North America be not sufficient, cast your eyes across the Atlantic, on the opposite coast of Africa—see there the effects of a free commerce; mark the wounds of that continent; and then tell me who were the authors of those miseries? whose were the hands that inflicted those wounds?—whose was the flag that waved over those enormities?—If, at the commencement of our intercourse with Africa, any one had dared to predict that the British name would be stained by acts of such damning atrocity, would not the prediction have been treated as an abandoned calumny?—Happy would it be, if we could now treat it as such; but unfortunately it is so verified as to leave no room for doubt to the most incredulous of our posterity. Sir, it is not I that make this charge against my country. The charge is made in the annals of parliament; it is embodied and immortalized in the Abolition Act of 1806; an Act which on the one side indeed is a monument, and a splendid one too, of national justice, but on the other side a memorial of national infamy and crime.—It is well known what unanimous efforts it required on the part of the legislature to put a stop to that traffic, and that attempts are even now made, in spite of law, to carry it on; and there is no doubt, that if, at this moment, the Abolition Act were repealed, there would not be wanting men, abusing the honorable title of British traders, to renew all those horrors.

With these events before our eyes, events which throw such a deep gloom over the face of the national history, we are required to give up India to the tender mercies of these philanthropists.

Among the petitions upon your table against the East India Company, there is one which particularly charges the Company with having excited wars in India, and with having thus made an exception to the general rule that "peace and tranquillity are the inseparable attendants of commerce." And who do you think, Sir, of all others, are the persons who bring this charge? Who are they that are so convinced of the truth of this sentiment, as to press it upon the conviction of the House? The people of Liverpool.—Admirable consistency indeed!

But there is no occasion to wander into other regions to shew the consequences that might result from the evil which I deprecate. India itself has within these few years unhappily furnished abundant confirmation of my fears. Among the papers printed by order of the House, is a letter from the governor general, written in the year 1810; which gives an account of the gross outrages that were recently committed by some indigo planters. The governor general, after referring to the details of these shocking transactions, states, as the result of his examinations, that these men had been guilty of various acts of oppression and cruelty, that they had actually levied war against each other, and forced the natives to follow them and commit depredations on each other; that they had subjected many of the natives to illegal confinement, and inflicted various cruel punishments which though they did not amount to murder in the legal acceptation of the term, had certainly often terminated in murder. Our government in India has discovered and repressed these practices; but will it be possible to repress them, when the number of adventurers is much increased, in the midst of increased temptations and multiplied chances of impunity?

I know that the sanguine visions entertained upon this subject have been compared to the prospect which greeted the eyes of the Spaniards when from the mountains of South America they first saw the Pacific ocean. I trust, Sir, I am not insensible to the magnificence of this comparison; but while I feel its grandeur, I cannot help recollecting the sequel of these sublime anticipations—I cannot help remembering what a withering look it was which was cast over that happy expanse, and how soon that smiling prospect was to be blasted by sorrow and desolation. I tremble therefore lest the parallel should in this respect also hold too closely; lest those visions should be prophetic of other scenes than those of joy and peace; lest the boundless field of our hopes should become the spacious theatre of our crimes.

If the natives of India were allowed to have an influence on our judgment to night, do you not think that they would above all things deprecate a change? They cannot indeed be present to offer their remonstrances at your bar; but I trust they will not want an advocate in every bosom in this assembly. On their behalf, in their name, I venture to intrude myself upon the House. Through me they give utterance to their prayers. It is not my voice which you hear, it is the voice of 60 millions of your fellow-creatures, abandoned to your disposal, and imploring your commiseration. They conjure you by every sacred consideration, to compassionate their condition, to pay due regard to their situation and your own, to remember what contingencies are suspended on the issue of your vote. They conjure you not to make them the subjects of perilous speculations, not to barter away their happiness for the sake of some insignificant local interests. It is a noble position in which this House is now placed. There is something irresistibly imposing in the idea, that, at so vast a distance and across a waste of ocean, we are assembled to decide upon the fate of so many millions of human beings; that we are to them as another Providence; that our sentence is to stamp the colour of their future years, and spread over the face of ages to come, either misery or happiness. This is indeed a glorious destiny for this country, but it is one of overwhelming responsibility. I trust that the question will be decided, not upon party principles, not upon trust, not upon vague theories; but upon sound practical policy, and with a view to the prosperity and preservation of our Indian empire. Let us remember that if we once embark on a system of speculation, it will not be easy to retrace our steps. If the experiment be once made, it is made once for all. If we once break down those ramparts within which we have intrenched the security, and the very existence of the Indian people, we can never rebuild the ruins—we can never restore the privileges which we first conferred, and the rights which we first taught them to appreciate, but with which we shall have so cruelly tampered—we can never reanimate the spirit which is now diffusing blessings over that continent. I do hope that an arrangement which secures such advantages will not be lightly put to the hazard. I think that no man ought to give a vote which may tend to endanger the present system, unless he is convinced upon personal examination, that it will be replaced by a system exempt from its inconveniencies, and likely to bestow at least equal benefits; and I venture to assert that such a vote unsupported by such a conviction will involve in it a dereliction of duty. In maintaining the system which has been the parent of so many blessings to India, we shall find our recompence in the gratitude of that people; and if that recompence should be denied us, yet when we look on the moral cultivation and progressive Felicity of those regions, and when we reflect that these are the fruits of our wise and disinterested policy, we shall enjoy a triumph still more glorious and elevated; a delight, infinitely surpassing the golden dreams of commercial profit, or the wildest Elysium ever struck out by the ravings of distempered avarice.

The first Resolution recognises the existing system; and it has therefore my warmest concurrence.

considered the opinions entertained on the subject of the East India Company's profits as a delusion—a gross delusion. One cause which contributed to produce this effect was the confusion in which the accounts of their civil and commercial establishments were kept. It was the interest of the directors to represent this intricacy as insuperable, but it was by no means so in fact. If these accounts were kept properly distinct, and once laid upon the table, the delusion of their profits would be so apparent, that it would make the proprietors themselves require the directors to retire from their situations. The conduct of the petitioners from the out-ports had been perfectly correct and liberal. They had, first and last, professed their readiness to submit to any regulations which might be thought necessary to the political security of our empire in India. He himself had never been of opinion that the increase of trade to India would be immediate, but it was better that it should be progressive and gradual. He denied that the Americans enjoyed the advantages they possessed as neutrals; our own merchants would have equal advantages, if not labouring under the restraints imposed by the East India charter. One important source of an extension of trade would be opened to us in the importation of raw materials from India, particularly of cotton, of which we at present imported seven-eighths of all that we consumed. The same might be said of hemp and rice. There was one of the Resolutions of which he disapproved, namely, that relating to the term given to the China charter; he should be ready to second any gentleman who should propose to have it limited to the period of the conclusion of a peace, or to the term of ten years. He was astonished to hear it as- serted, that smuggling must succeed better in the out-ports than in London, where the goods must be so much more easily secreted as well as sold; insomuch, that contraband articles were often brought from a distance, at a certain risk, for the sake of the greater advantages which the metropolis afforded to this kind of illicit traffic. There was one question which he wished to have answered, either by one of the directors, or by a gentleman who had given so much of his time and abilities to this subject, (Mr. Tierney.) It was said that the directors had agreed that the out-ports should carry out any goods to India that they pleased, on condition of their bringing back their imports from thence to the port of London. Now, would not the political danger be precisely the same on this supposition if they returned to any other port in the United Kingdom? Had they not, therefore, by making this concession, given up the only principle on which they could make any stand with the hope of success? He believed it would puzzle even the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman alluded to, to give a satisfactory answer to this question. A sarcasm had been thrown out, that the advocates for a free trade were persons who had been formerly concerned in the Slave Trade. He would only answer for his own constituents, that for a long time before this trade was abolished by law, not a single vessel had been fitted out from Bristol upon it. He would not retort the charge by saying (for he did not believe it,) that the East India directors were influenced more by their love of patronage than by their love either of Asiatics or Europeans. If the Company, in the character of sovereigns, aided the private trader, and seconded the intentions of government, he thought they might do the greatest good; but if, in their character of merchants, they interfered with his interest, the hon. member hoped the proposed regulations would give the government here sufficient authority to resist the abuse of a power which must, in that case, do the greatest mischief.

complained of the mode in which questions had been put by counsel to the witnesses examined at the bar. They were always asked generally whether danger might not be apprehended from the indiscriminate intercourse of Europeans with the natives of India? And the answer usually was, that it might. But when the details were inquired into, it was found that the circumstances and habits of the natives were such, and their advantages in carrying on the inland trade so great, as almost to restrict the intercourse of the coast. This was the opinion of colonel Monro; and lord Teignmouth had also distinctly declared, that he thought there was a police in India strong enough to restrain a much greater number of Europeans than were likely to resort there. It did seem a little strange, that, while 25,000 soldiers constantly resided there with impunity, so much alarm and apprehension should be conceived from the introduction of a few hundred private traders. Were the latter so remarkable for a total inaptitude to conform to the manners of the people with whom they had to deal? Was it supposed that they would exchange characters with the former? That the private trader would give up his characteristic discretion, his peaceable demeanour, his persevering industry, for the impatience of restraint, the dashing irregularity, the quickness in quarrel, of the soldier? He entertained a different opinion of the qualities of British merchants from the gentleman who spoke last but one, who seemed to think that they were only fit to be slave-merchants. He himself thought otherwise. Many-ridiculous stories had been detailed in evidence of the dangers and disturbances to follow from the admission of British merchants in India. There was one of a person who had gone out there with a bulldog that had attacked a cow, and another of somebody that had killed a monkey, to the great annoyance of the natives. But he considered all such stories and all such apprehensions as merely idle. The private adventurer could not be supposed to go to India with a design to overturn the government, and give offence to the inhabitants—a design which must be completely subversive of his own interest. As far as he had read or heard, he believed the colonization of India would be a good thing. He had the authority of Mr. Colborn for thinking so. That gentleman had well observed, that now all the fortunes made in India were brought home to this country; whereas if property was suffered to be acquired in the soil itself, these fortunes would often be left there. He would not follow the example of the counsel for the East India Company, who had inquired only what advantages a free trade was likely to give to our exports to India; but he would take the reverse of the medal, and contend, that our exports from India might be greatly increased. Indeed, that any two countries, so different in climate, productions, and circumstances, and not under the withering restraint of a monopoly, should so soon have arrived at the ultimate point of mutual advantage in their intercourse with each other, appeared to him extraordinary, and contrary to the reasoning of all political writers, as well as to all experience. He would chiefly confine himself to the consideration of that article of which he had most knowledge. It was said, that the quantity of cotton imported from India did not admit of increase, because superior cotton was grown in Georgia and South America. But he did not believe the fact: he had seen India cotton examined in the presence of the most experienced cotton-spinners, who had pronounced it equal if not superior to Georgia cotton. The superiority of the India muslins was the consequence of their preparing the cotton by hand labour. He did not wish to enter into details which could not be much to the taste of the House; but it was proper to state that the process of preparing it in this country, by a machine, tore the fibre of the cotton in a manner which no after process could restore. If cotton was prepared in India, and manufactured here, the spinners would be able to produce such yarn as had never been seen yet, and at a reduced rate of one-half the price. The hon. member here entered into some calculations respecting the price of labour and of cotton in India, and referred to the opinion of Mr. Lee on the subject, who, he said, was a practical man, and who had for many years conducted the largest cotton manufactory in this island. The differences of the circumstances of Georgia and India explained the deficiency of the results; Georgia had the advantages of a free trade, India was repressed by a monopoly. Not that he meant to throw any reflection on the servants of the East India Company; but it was only from the spirit of individual enterprize, and open competition, that we were to look for the beneficial effects which he had described. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to animadvert on the inaccuracy of the accounts presented by the East India Company. The profits of the India trade for the last 17 years were first stated at 2,700,000l. But afterwards there was a discovery of another account, which made it necessary to deduct 1,300,000l.; and then this reduction making the whole ridiculous, there was another discovery of 1,300,000l. which ought to be added, and so the account stood as before. What respect could be paid to such statements? Must not every person of common sense conclude that there was a loss upon the whole! But if there was a deficiency in the revenue, was a monopoly the best way to remedy it? Monopolies, as stated by Mr. Adam Smith, were always monopolies against the country granting them: the monopoly price being always the highest price that could be obtained; and the gains of a monopoly were always very small, in comparison with the money taken out of the pockets of the people. The cheapest way, if it were necessary to support the Company, would be to lay a direct tax to enable them to pay their dividends.—The hon. member then read some extracts from speeches^* made in the time of Elizabeth. He had no doubt the monopolists of that day were as averse as those of the present to open the out-ports to the trade of the world. Lord Grenville,—and he should like to know if he was to be reckoned an impracticable theorist, an unpractised statesman—in a speech which he had lately made on the subject, and in which speech there was great practical wisdom, had pointed out the inconsistency in the system, by excluding the merchant from the trade to China, and that it would give rise to jarring and conflicting interests. He had pointed out how dependent the commerce of one place was upon that of another; and that the want of the Chinese market would prevent the British merchant from being able to enter into a competition with either the foreign merchant or the Company.—The whole system of the noble lord opposite was composed of the most jarring elements. With respect to what he had heard rumoured, of an intention on the part of the Company to ruin the private traders by competition; if that was their object, the private traders would soon give them enough of it. He knew they would soon drive the Company out of the field by their superior economy, and more improved system of carrying on trade; and he thought it therefore likely that the Company would not resort to this. Still he was aware, that if, as a chartered Company and sovereigns of India, they were to make use of their revenues, and of what profits they might derive from being possessed of the China trade, they would soon drive all the private British merchants out of the Indian trade. He meant to throw no reflections on the Directors or on the Company in general, for he believed the Directors were most conscientiously desirous of having India well governed, but still they could not help shewing now and then their narrow views as commercial monopolists. One argument used against the free trade was rather singular, as coming from the Company, and that was, that it would raise the price of Indian produce. Good God! was that a result which, as sovereigns of that country, they ought not to be proud of? There was nothing but competition which could establish any thing like a fair price between buyers and sellers, and it was singular enough that they should deprecate such a beneficial circumstance from taking place among their own subjects.—Much had been said of the advantageous manner in which India had of late been governed; but it was because the Company had been under the influence of the Board of Controul, that this advantageous system of management had been derived. It was said the revenue would suffer, because the introduction of private traders would injure the trade; but British traders were not so besotted as to pursue a ruinous trade. With respect to the loss of revenue from smuggling, he had no apprehensions on that head. Let our commerce be extended as much as it could, and let us trust to that for a corresponding extension of our revenue. The evidence which had been produced on this subject was all derived from the Custom-house officers of the port of London. But these Custom-house officers might be influenced by opinions in favour of their own skill in the collection of revenue, and they might think, naturally enough, that other Custom-house officers were not so skilful as themselves. It was curious enough to see persons who were desirous of confining the returns from India to the port of London, coming forward with Petitions for the exclusion of American cotton, thus placing them under the necessity of procuring cotton from India in the most expensive manner.—There was another argument on which much stress had been laid by the Company, and that was, that large bodies of men in the port of London Would be thrown out of employ. All reforms were attended with some temporary evil, and so were all changes of any importance, whether from war to peace or from peace to war; but, he believed, it bad always been found, that the evils had been much less in reality than in apprehension. Some evils might, no doubt, be experienced from this change, but they would not be so great as had been often represented, and he had no doubt, that those concerned in the trade at present would soon find some other channel of employment. Unless some greater change was effected than what was meditated by the noble lord, the result, indeed, could be productive of no very great alteration. He believed, that the port of London itself would even be greatly benefitted by the opening of the China trade. But when they were deliberating respecting the welfare and the prosperity of this country in general, and of sixty millions of people in India—a whole quarter of the globe,—were they to be governed by the petty interests of the port of London, and to consider them as paramount to the interests of both England and India? If the trade were to be thrown still more open than was proposed by the noble lord, parliament ought not to be deterred by the consideration of the mere local consequences to the port of London. With respect to the duration of the charter, he would put it to the noble lord whether it might not be better that it should not be granted for a longer term than ten years.

^*From the Debate on a Bill against Monopolies, November 20, 1601. See the new Parliamentary History of England, vol. 1, p. 923.

sen. spoke in sub-stance to the following effect:

It had been the great misfortune of the East India Company that the real nature and state of their affairs were so little understood by the public. The prejudices and misrepresentations which had Jong operated against them, had hence been extremely injurious to their interests. Since the question of renewing the charter had been agitated, opinions had been advanced by men from system or interest adverse to the continuance of the Company's privileges, that the removal of their monopoly would open unbounded fields of commerce in the eastern world, to the industry and enterprise of this country. These sanguine ideas had been echoed from all quarters, and had very generally possessed the minds of mercantile men. To such, nothing more than free access to those regions seemed to be necessary, in order to repair all the disadvantages under which the commerce of this country laboured from continental restrictions, and the difficulties occasioned by a war which had subsisted twenty years. A full enquiry, however, into this important subject, had now gone far to undeceive the public. It had been most strongly confirmed by the vast body of able and enlightened evidence taken before the House, as well as by past experience, that the consumption of our manufactures could in no material degree be extended among the natives of India. The exports of the last twenty years had contained no new article of British production for the use of those natives. They were intended for European consumption, and limited by the extent of the European population there, which was supplied abundantly and to excess by the channels at present open, as the evidence already alluded to had irrefragably shewn. The wild and delusive expectations therefore before entertained on this subject had subsided. The practicability of an unlimited vent of British productions in the East was no longer maintained. It was something to have gained this point; and no doubt, if various other notions and opinions advanced in opposition to the system of the Company were examined with the same care, the result would be equally favourable.

Allusion had been made by the hon. gentleman who spoke last to doctrines maintained by a noble lord (lord Grenville). He wished to speak of that noble person with deference, but as he thought many of the opinions sanctioned by his lordship were both erroneous in themselves and unjust to the Company, it was his duty to avail himself of the liberty of free discussion in remarking upon some of them. That noble person had wholly opposed the claim of the Company to the territorial possessions, asserting, if he understood him right, that both the sovereignty and the soil were the right of the crown. This was an assertion which parliament had never made, and he hoped never would make. The Company's possessions had been acquired and extended under parliamentary sanction. They were acquired through a long course of dangers and vicissitudes, at the expence and the hazard of the Company themselves. In all the charters since passed, and par- ticularly the last charter of 1793 (a charter to which the noble lord was himself a party) the Company's claim of right was recognized and expressly reserved as well as the right of the crown, for future discussion. He was persuaded that if the question were tried fairly, the property of the soil would be awarded to the Company—if it were to be decided by a mere act of power, he could not tell what might be the issue, but be trusted the nation would be governed in this case by the principles of justice, which were in their nature immutable.

Another proposition advanced from the same quarter had surprized him, that the union of the commercial character with that of sovereign in the government of the Company was prejudicial to the trade and welfare of the country they ruled, and ought to be separated from it; for that the sovereign being also a manufacturer, the weavers were completely in the hands of the Company, and no private trader could enter into competion with a sovereign-merchant. This doctrine might have been advanced forty years ago, as, indeed, it was, with more appearance of reason; but the facts assumed were not warranted by the history of the last 25 years, nor the doctrine applicable to the state of things during that period. If the conduct of the Company's administration in that time, were examined, nothing would be more plain than that they had directed their political power to the true ends of political government, not used it as an instrument to sacrifice the public good for the benefiting their commerce. The code of public regulations which their government had enacted, and which bound the government itself, as well as the subject, would bear him out in this statement. Those regulations provided for the protection of the manufacturer, and the private trader in the enjoyment of their just liberties and the fruits of their industry. There were documents before the House, those very regulations he had mentioned, which were sufficient to demonstrate this to be the case.—In fact, the manufacturers engaged by the Company derived a great advantage from their employ in the permanency of it, while the demands of individuals were uncertain and fluctuating, and as to the practice of making advances to manufacturers it was ancient and universal in the country, and necessary to furnish them with materials for their work. In short, if the whole tenor of the Company's orders from home, and the spirit of their administration abroad for many past years were scrutinized, he had no fear but it would be found that to promote the welfare and happiness of their subjects had been their governing aim.

As a deduction from the same doctrine it had also been maintained that the Company did not carry on trade on true commercial principles, but for the purpose of conveying the surplus revenue to England, that therefore it was a subordinate consideration with them whether they gained or lost by the trade, their main object being remittance; and that hence fair competition was destroyed; for they spoiled the trade of individuals when they must carry on their own to a loss. But it was a fact well known that for fourteen or fifteen years past there had been no surplus revenue, consequently the remittance of such a revenue could not have been the object of trade, nor have supplied its capital, nor have occasioned or supported the alleged loss—Yes, but it was further said that the investment system gave the Company power to contract political debt for investment; and from other quarters it had been charged that the Company carried on their trade by capital furnished in this way, and that this was the cause of contracting much of the Indian debt. Mr. Grant said it was true that out of the general Indian treasury, into which all receipts from revenue and the sales of goods promiscuously went, advances might have been made for investment at a moment when the commercial funds of the Company on the spot might not have been equivalent to those advances, but on the other hand the Company had to defray in England out of their home funds, large expences which appertained to the territory, and there was no way of stating this account fairly but by placing on one side all that the Company had received from India and China, and placing on the other, all that it had supplied or paid at home for those countries. Such statements framed by the Company were now before the House; the committee of the House which had sat for several sessions had investigated the same subject, and the result appeared to be, that after crediting India and China for all the supplies sent from them (including goods lost on the way home) and debiting them with all the goods which they received (not including those lost on the way out) as also for bills drawn on the Company at home, and for political payments made in England, the commerce had for a series of years, indeed during the period of the last charter, supported itself, and was not indebted to the territory either for revenue or for loans.

Proceeding upon the idea that the object of the Company was to remit revenue, it was further said that they ought not to do this in goods on their own account, but should advance the money in India to private traders for their bills upon England. But however this might be calculated for the benefit of those merchants, it would, besides excluding the Company from the trade, be evidently insecure for them. They had large engagements to make good in England, both for their commerce and territory; their credit depended on their punctuality in performing those engagements; but what certainty could they have of the solvency or punctuality of those persons who should grant bills, or even that the Company's funds in India could be disposed of in this way with the required regularity? The discharge of their positive engagements could not safely be left to depend on circumstances and events not certain in themselves, nor within the Company's controul.

In the same train of reasoning it had been asserted that the Company had lost four millions on their Indian trade in the course of the last nineteen years. He was quite unable to comprehend upon what data such a conclusion could be formed. The Company's own statements, far more likely to be accurate, he would venture to say, than any opposed to them, as being formed on more authentic materials, shewed on the contrary a gain in that period, after all reasonable deductions, of two millions, certainly not a large gain, for the vast increase of the cotton manufactures in this country and other parts of Europe, and the war in which we had been involved since the commencement of the last charter, had materially reduced the profit of the Company's Indian trade. But had not individual British subjects who embarked in that trade experienced the same effects? Unquestionably; and he was persuaded that however the trade so adventured in by private merchants might answer to Indian ship owners, or others concerned in conducting it, it would on a fair comparison be found as to principals themselves that their rate of profit was not equal to the Company's (he spoke of the Indian trade only) and he should be glad to have an opportunity of making such a comparison.

No charge brought against the Company surprized him more than that of their taking payment of territorial revenue in kind, and this was also stated as resulting from their commercial character. In all the vast extent of countries under the Company's authority he knew of nothing that could give a pretence for such a charge, except the receipt in one of the Guzerat provinces, of some cotton in payment of revenue; and this had arisen not from any invented scheme on the part of the Company to serve their commerce, but had been the usage in the province under the pre-ceding government of the Mahrattas from whom the Company acquired that district, and the Bombay presidency finding the practice established continued it, allowing to the cultivators a fair price for their cotton. The province having been acquired only in the year 1803, this peculiarity had not till a recent period engaged the notice of the court of directors, who from the accounts of their servants, certainly apprehended nothing exceptionable in continuing in this instance an usage understood to have been in earlier times very general in Hindostan, and indeed the fundamental principle of the land revenue there, namely, a division of the produce between the sovereign and the cultivators. But the object was of small import to the Company, and were it otherwise, would not be followed at the expence of the real interest of the country or the parties concerned, should that be found to be injured by it. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had charged the Company with inconsistency, because, whilst they contended that the opening of the trade to India would be dangerous to that country from the influx of Europeans there, and on that ground opposed the importation of Indian commodities to the outports, they had agreed that ships might proceed to India from those ports, and it was from this, that the supposed danger must arise. But Mr. Grant said, if ships were not allowed to carry their return cargoes to the outports, the ships fitted out from those ports for India, would be comparatively few; whereas, if vessels of all descriptions were to issue from the ports of the United Kingdom, encouraged by the permission to return to those ports, the number would be much greater, and consequently the number of adventurers who would embark with a view of seeking their fortune in India. This danger therefore might fairly be pleaded as one argument against opening the outports to the returns from India. Of the reality of danger to the peace of that country from an unrestrained entrance of Europeans into it, the whole body of evidence delivered before the House was fall.

The authority of Mr. Colebrooke, an experienced servant of the Company, had been pleaded in support of the proposed enlargements of intercourse with India. But Mr. Colebrooke was not the author of that part of the book published in his name which relates to the trade of Bengal; he had so declared in an advertisement prefixed to an edition of that work published seven years ago. The part in question was furnished by a respectable free merchant now deceased, who was immediately interested in the subject. And it having besides been written eighteen years ago, it is not so applicable to the state of things at the present moment.

With respect to the importation of Indian cotton, on which the last speaker had dwelt, it was a subject of great importance, involving considerations to which the hon. gentleman had not adverted. The Company had both formerly and of late permitted the importation of that article, they were willing to do all in their power to promote it, but the establishment of such a trade on a large scale, did not depend on them, and was not to be effected merely by opening a free intercourse with India. The relative situation of India and of other countries that supplied us with cotton, and the comparative qualities of the article, were to be taken into view. An article produced at the distance of 12,000 miles could hardly enter into competition with one raised in our neighbourhood, unless favoured by protecting regulations. The cotton of Brazil was superior to that of India, and much nearer to us. The cotton of Georgia was more suited to many of our manufactures, and Georgia was at our door. The remote distance of India rendered the freight of cotton extremely high, and rendered that country incapable of taking advantage of every turn of our market, as countries closer to us could do: but this was not all, India could undoubtedly raise cotton to a very great extent, and would do so if there were a steady demand. But if during a suspension of cotton importations from other quarters, from the United States for instance, whilst we were in hostility with them, large demands should be made for that article from India, and upon the return of peace with America those demands should cease, the effect would be highly detrimental to India, where, after extensive cultivation had been encouraged, the adventurers in it would probably be left with the increased produce upon their hands. The cultivation of hemp, another article highly important to this country, might also be carried to a very great length in India, so as to render us independant of other countries for it. But if, during a war with Russia, that cultivation should be spread over the Indian territory, and upon a return of peace with that power the former commercial relations with it should be resumed, as would be entirely probable; what would be the situation of all those persons who should unhappily have embarked in hemp speculations in India? In our eagerness to render that country more conducive to the commerce of this, we ought to consider how our measures will apply to the local circumstances, and interests of India. If you wish to encourage the importation of cotton, and of hemp, from that country, do it upon some permanent principle, that shall operate in peace, as well as in war; and this, as will easily be seen, is a proposition which involves important and difficult questions respecting our foreign relations.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Phillips) has suggested another measure which he supposes would be an improvement, but the suggestion proceeds upon merely English ideas, quite inconversant with the state of things in India. He is for establishing machinery in that country to spin cotton, in order that the twist may be sent to England. Now there is a large class of people spread over the Indian continent, the numerous females, for instance, of decent families, many of them decayed, who, by the custom of the country, live secluded in their own houses. Very many of them and others to whom the means of subsistence are extremely limited, earn a scanty livelihood by spinning cotton thread; such persons could hardly turn themselves to any thing else, and must be reduced to want, if this branch of industry were taken from them. And what would be the certainty of the continuance of the export of cotton twist from India, even if the manufacture could be established?

Another novel suggestion of very important bearings, first advanced by the noble lord, before alluded to, was, the opening of a trade, not only between India and this United Kingdom, but between India and South America. At present the government of Old Spain regulates the trade of its American provinces upon the ancient colonial principles; a general trade is not allowed to them. The intercourse of British subjects with them was either by licences, occasionally obtained from the Spanish government, or by smuggling. And he did not understand that the trade carried on in this way, had on the whole yielded an encouraging profit. But supposing the present restrictions to be removed, would it be for the true interest of this country to establish what must, on such removal, follow, a direct trade between British India and Spanish America? This might indeed prove beneficial to India, and beneficial to the Spanish colonies, but Britain would be no longer the centre and medium of the trade: it would be shared out, its ships would in fact be excluded from that trade, and a policy adopted which would tend to accelerate the independence of India and its separation from this country. It was, if he mistook not, much in this way that the progressive enlargement of the direct intercourse of our former North American colonies with foreign parts, led them on to new pretensions, and enabled them at length to resist the authority of the mother country.

The Company have been represented, by the last honourable speaker, as acting inconsistently in their character of sovereign; because they make it an argument against opening the trade, that the price of Indian commodities would thereby be enhanced. But this is only one part of their argument, they said that the competition at first expected, on opening the trade, would raise the prices abroad, and sink them at home, to a degree that would prove ruinous to the parties concerned, and of course destroy the trade. The Company do not object simply to the increase of prices in India, but they object to unnatural and spasmodic rises in the trade, which would unsettle every thing, and end in weakness and decay.

With respect to the proposal of transferring so much of the Indian trade from the port of London to the outports (which will come into more direct consideration hereafter) it is a change that must prove highly injurious to the numerous establishments which, in the course of two centu- ries, the Indian trade has formed in the metropolis, and affect the employment, the subsistence, of many thousands. In this view only it was a very serious question; but, if the alteration could be proved to be for the benefit of the empire in general, and not to involve consequences dangerous to India, the mere consideration of the detriment occasioned to the port of London would be of less weight. There were, however, no advantages to be derived from an extension of the trade, which could render such a sacrifice necessary.

It was upon this ground the Company opposed the changes now projected in the intercourse with that country. It was doing the Company the highest injustice to represent them as actuated by the narrow views of commercial monopoly. He protested against this representation: it had been generally acknowledged that the Company had governed India well. Was it compatible with this conduct, that they could have been, or should now be led, by a contracted special attention only to the monopoly of trade? They were influenced by principles directly contrary. They contended against the enlargement of the trade, not so much because their monopoly would be affected, as because the Indian possessions would be exposed to hazard. They wished to consult the safety and welfare of those possessions, and as harmonizing therewith the real benefit of this country. Upon these principles parliament ought to act, and instead of entering into the little interests of particular ports, legislate for the security and happiness of sixty millions of people.

agreed, that of all the questions ever discussed in that House, the present was one, in which, perhaps, the greatest degree of exaggeration had prevailed, but this charge could not be confined to one side alone. The glowing visions of instant, and wide spreading prosperity, which the hopes of the petitioners for open trade had indulged in, and the realization of which they had so eagerly anticipated, had been fortunately met by those statements and that information, which had produced a sober and chastening view of the subject, and had brought expectation within a more reasonable compass. It would be one great duty of parliament, and a great public advantage, to lop off from this question, all barren and fruitless excrescences, and leave all that was sound and stable, in the arguments. It was a great advantage that parliament should come to the discussion free from all those topics which had no effect but that of perplexing and entangling the question. He should have thought the East India Company unsubverted and unimpaired, but for what he heard from the hon. director who spoke last, and from an hon. member, of whom the last speaker might be proud. It would be shewn, however, that parliament were not induced to any measure, by the complete adoption of all those views that were entertained by many petitioners. For his own part, he could not conceive any hostility against that valuable body, the East India Company. He could not conceive the idea of a corporate enmity. But he found them setting up a claim to the rightful sovereignty of India, a matter which they thought too delicate for that House to discuss,—one which it should avoid, lest claims should be pressed that must be vindicated by other authorities. He could not see the delicacy of the proposition, that whenever British subjects acquire dominion, it was not to be subject to the permanent dominion of the empire. It was a plain principle of legislation, that when parliament were legislating on the government and commerce of India, they were as clearly competent to do so, as to enact laws respecting their possessions, properly denominated colonies. He admitted the anomalous situation of the East India government, from the mode of its acquisitions, and from every other circumstance; but we had advanced little in this business, if it were now a doubt, whether we should be guided merely by expediency, or acknowledge a right to take away the hands of parliament from touching the East India territory. It seemed to be laid down, that because the anomaly was admitted, we were forbidden the application of any principles that were not anomalous in themselves. The union of powers as merchants and sovereigns might be necessary, but it did not follow that it was ex necessitate rei to be maintained as a specimen of legislation. He might admit the anomaly of a concurrent jurisdiction; but he was not bound to admit its necessity, if upon grave consideration, it should appear expedient to make the government of India resemble more than it did resemble, all the other governments in the world. Still he was for admitting the Company to retain their sovereign capacity; not as a right but as a concession: but if it should seem good to take it away, and to govern India by a direct mode, and not by a circuitous contrivance, it was the right of parliament so to legislate: and not in the right of the East India Company to plead their possession. It was necessary to distinguish between facts and principles, for the claims he had heard were claims, if just, on which an independent empire might be erected in perpetuity. If the Company however, were independent sovereigns, then he hoped they were in an amicable state with us, and were out allies. But their language was not that of allies, for it would be somewhat imperious of the autocrat of Russia, or the emperor of China, or any other potentate, to say, you shall have no trade with us, when our complaint was, that our trade was prohibited in other quarters; and to tell us, as these sovereigns of India did, "You are a pack of piratical raggamuffins who want to lay our villages in ruins and blood, and to carry away our children into captivity. We have heard of the horrible traffic you carried on for a century (the slave-trade), without shame, and would not abandon without a struggle." Hard from any government, but used by the sovereigns of Leadenhall, it was not precedented language; and the refusal might surely be given in gentler terms. Fortunately for the private trader, the right and power of interference did exist in parliament, who could consider the whole question in all its bearings without heeding the exaggerated pretensions of those territorial lords of Asia to dominions acquired by British enterprise, purchased by British sacrifices, and yet held by British arms. He could not see how the arguments from the slave trade could apply to the present question. It could not, however, be expected, that an attack upon any set of men on this point should pass over without notice. If it were not noticed in the House, it would certainly be noticed out of it. Who was there that could say, that the guilt of the slave trade attached to one set of men particularly, or to another set? Was not that trade, for a long time, sanctioned by parliament, and by all the great parties in the country? When the great question was, however, brought fairly before the view of parliament, the iniquity of the traffic became apparent, and parliament, to its immortal honour, reformed the evil. We were not, therefore, now at liberty to shift the guilt and disgrace of the trade (which had subsisted and been sanctioned for more than a century) from the nation to any particular set of men. It was not fair to impute the wickedness of this trade to a set of men who were comparatively innocent. As to the free trade with India, however, it was opposed principally on two grounds. In the first place, it was said that the expectations of gain by the merchants was so exaggerated, that there was every probability of its leading to their ruin; and secondly, it was stated that such was the immutability of the character and habits of the natives of India, that there was no probability of increasing the trade. It had been said, that for 3,000 years that nation had subsisted and witnessed all manner of convulsions of the earth, and rivers changing their course, while they themselves remained unchanged. What proof was there of this immutability of character? Had they not lately seen a change in the whole tenure of landed property without a murmur? Had they not seen an entire change in the judicature of the country, without a murmur? Had they not given 150,000 men to fight under Christian banners; and was it now to be said that this people could bear no changes? He could not see upon what principle we were to be told that in those territories of our allies, if not of our own empire, British merchants should not be allowed to trade on terms at least as favourable as others,—why the Americans should be admitted when the British were not admitted. All the arguments on the other side went to vituperate the character of the British merchants; but when the great danger of admitting them to the China trade was urged, it should be recollected that the Chinese themselves considered and called the Americans second-chop Englishmen. And was it now to be contended that British merchants ought not to be trusted to trade, not only with China, but even with our own territories? The question was not now about their trading without restrictions, but their trading subject to restrictions and regulations. It was now contended that this people, who had not changed for 3,000 years, would change their character all of a sudden, if a few pedlars were allowed to travel in the country with a pack of scissars or other hardware at their backs. He, however, neither believed in the alleged immutability of the Indian character, nor could he believe that they were so foolishly inflammable as some gentlemen seemed to apprehend. He thought that in the present state of trade, no man could say that India ought to be for ever hermetically sealed against this country; and as for jealousy, he thought the regulations to be adopted should be as jealous and scrupulous to protect the security of the British merchant in this friendly territory, as to preserve the monopoly of the Company. He conceived the general principle to be pretty well disposed of, except between those classes who went to the extreme length of contending, on the one side, that the East India Company should be abolished, and those who, on the other, maintained, that not a single feather should be taken from their sovereignty and prosperity. He thought that the decision of the House should be between those two extremes; and although he did not apprehend any insurmountable difficulty, in providing a government for India, independent of the Company; yet no man wished more than he did, to continue it in their hands. He was sure, that no system could be radically bad which had produced such able and enlightened statesmen as had been examined on the part of the Company. He was sure that such a system must be good, if it did not degenerate into a system of exclusion; and that under proper arrangements, it might best promote the happiness of India, and the true interests of this country.

would have wished not to be called upon now to give a vote upon the first Resolution, as he thought the House would be better prepared for the decision after the discussion of the other Resolutions. He, however, felt himself more inclined to the opinion of the noble lord (Castlereagh,) than to that of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. If he were called upon for an opinion upon the general question, he would say, that the inclination of his mind was, that the government of India ought not to be continued in the hands of the Company. When it was stated that the East India Company had introduced every reform that was practicable in India, he must say that this was not historically correct. It was not the East India Company who were the reformers. India as well as this country owed all the grand reforms which had taken place in that country, to that great and extraordinary man who now rested in the lap of earth, the late Mr. Burke. It was to his great genius, perseverance, and unexampled industry, that all these great reforms were owing. If, when his right hon. friend who sat near him (Mr. Grattan) should rest like Mr. Burke, the Catholic question should be more favourably received, it must at all times be acknowledged that it was to his labour that it was principally owing. In the same manner, it must be confessed that it was to Mr. Burke that the reforms in India were principally owing, and that it was the British parliament, and not the India Company, that introduced those reforms. He saw nothing in the nature of India that required those territories to be governed by the Company, although he would allow that unless proper regulations were made, there would be great danger in transferring so much patronage and influence to the crown. There were some persons, however, who held out the government of India by the Company as a thing in itself deserving the greatest admiration. He would ask those persons, however, if they had not found such a government accidentally established there, could they propose such a system of government for any other territories or colonies belonging to the empire? Could they, for example, propose that such a system of government should be adopted for the West Indies, or for Canada? It was, however, a very different thing to continue a system that we found established, from admiring it as a thing which was in itself most excellent. He should, however, have no objection to continue the government of India in the hands of the Company, for six or seven years, in its present state. He could not see on what grounds the British merchants were to be excluded from the trade to China, as the East India Company could not pretend that they were the sovereigns of China. They might say that the Indian trade was necessary to their Indian empire, but he could not see how they could assert that the monopoly of the China trade was also necessary to their Indian empire. He could not see how it could be fairly argued that the British merchants should be the only ones in the world that must be entirely excluded from all participation in the trade. He should not, however, object to the monopoly being continued a few years longer, but he could by no means agree to a proposition for extending it to 20 years.

in supporting the Resolution, took occasion to warn the advocates of the India Company how far they contributed to extend the discussion of the question, whether it would be wise and expedient to govern India altogether independent of that Company. He strongly supported the suggestion for opening the trade. The only objections which had been urged, and which resulted from all the evidence that had been adduced, was the probability of smuggling, and the injury likely to be sustained by the natives—and those he had not the slightest doubt could be fully and completely obviated.

said, he thought the India trade in general ought to be opened to the mercantile spirit of this country at large; but with respect to China, he should have no objection to let it remain in the hands of the Company for some short period of a year or so.

said, he thought the management of the trade of this country with India would be carried on much better under the controul of parliament, rather than by the monopoly of the Company. It was most evident, that in the course of every ten years since 1774, the Company had been under the necessity of applying to parliament for relief; and this application very forcibly evinced that this monopoly was not the most favourable mode of carrying on the East India trade. In almost every year during that period of time, they had been obliged to recur to parliament for assistance, and did not hesitate to own, that if that assistance were not granted, they must become bankrupt. In this way they had, during the whole of that long term of years, been supported by the public money, and yet had taken the advantage of their monopoly, so as to make the public pay whatever prices they chose to put upon the commodities they brought from India. If, therefore, they could not carry on their trade with all the advantages of their monopoly, without having through the medium of parliament recourse to the public purse, it was evident the country was the paymaster, and was fairly entitled to a participation in the profits of the trade.

The first Resolution was agreed to without a division.

said, the second Resolution would very probably lead to a considerable length of debate. An hon. gentleman opposite had a notice which in the regular course of the business of the House, was entitled to precedence, but he hoped on such an occasion the hon. gentleman would consent to wave his privilege.

immediately consented to wave the precedence of his motion, which stood for to-morrow.