And can the British peoplenowfail to open their eyes, and to discern the strait to which the ancient crown and realm of England would be reduced, by submitting to acknowledge thisnew estatein the Empire? Greatly as it would be to be lamented that any thing should disturb the present internal tranquillity of our political system, yet, ifsuch should be the necessary result of a resistance to the ambitious views of the East India Company, it ought to be manfully and cheerfully encountered; rather than admit, by a temporizing concession, a claim which shall bendParliamentto the will of, and degradethe Crownto an alliance with, a Company of its own subjects; which owes its recent existence to the charters of the Crown, and the enactments of Parliament, and yet aspires to seat itself for ever, side by side, by its own supreme Government.
The Company have carried too far their confidence in theconstitutional defenceby which they hoped to ride in triumph over the Executive Government. Their exorbitant pretensions have bred anew constitutional question, to which the public mind is now turning. In their solicitude to fortify themselves withconstitutional jealousies, they have constructed a formidable fortress, which threatens to embarrass the Citadel of the State, and must therefore of necessity awaken its jealousy. A change in the Administration of the Indian Government (should the Company finally provoke such a change),need not necessarilythrow the patronage of India into the hands of the Crown; means are to be found, by which that political and constitutional evil may be effectually guarded against. But if, through a precipitate assumption, that no such adequate substitute can beprovided for the present system, Parliament should, at this critical moment, unguardedly yield to the demands of the Company, and give its sanction to their claims to aperpetuityof those privileges which they have hitherto been contented to receivewith limitation, what difficulties would it not entail upon its own future proceedings? If thecorporate sovereigntyof the Company is once absolutelyengrafteduponthe Sovereignty of the State, it cannot be extracted without lacerating the ancient stock, and convulsing the general system.
The Company would have done wisely, if, instead of resting their case upon pretensions erroneous in fact, inadmissible in law, and derogatory of the authority addressed, they had rested it wholly upon their own endeavours to promote the original purpose of their incorporation: namely,the honour of the Crown, andthe advantage of the commonwealth. Upon that ground the Company might have stood strong; and all that would then have remained for the consideration of Parliament, would have been a question, how those great interests could, under existing circumstances, be best advanced; either by continuing the present arrangement without alteration, or by modifying it in such particulars, as Parliament in its wisdom might judge to be necessary. But instead of this, they have taken ground uponhigh pretensions ofRight, which must necessarily provoke investigation; and we have discovered, in the foregoing inquiry, how far those pretensions are supported.
The determination of this great question, however, is now reserved for Parliament; and, upon the wisdom of Parliament, the Country may with confidence rely, for a full consideration of all the public rights, commercial as well as political; and likewise, for the final adoption of such an arrangement for the government and trade of India, as shall appear to be the best calculated to advance the real interests, and to promote the general prosperity of the Empire, both in the East and West.
GRACCHUS.
THE END.
FOOTNOTES:[9]Anderson's Hist. of Commerce (1698), vol. ii. p. 221, fol.[10]A Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 6.[11]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 6. p. 77.[12]Short Hist. of East India Company, p. 11.[13]History of Indostan, vol. i. p. 335.[14]Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxxiii. p. 811.[15]Short Hist. of the East India Company.[16]Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 56.[17]Morning Post, Jan. 15, 1813, Letter, signed Probus.[18]Short History of the East India Company, p. 38.[19]Ibid. p. 37.[20]Letter to Lord Buckinghamshire, Dec. 30, 1812.[21]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 7. p. 84.
[9]Anderson's Hist. of Commerce (1698), vol. ii. p. 221, fol.
[9]Anderson's Hist. of Commerce (1698), vol. ii. p. 221, fol.
[10]A Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 6.
[10]A Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 6.
[11]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 6. p. 77.
[11]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 6. p. 77.
[12]Short Hist. of East India Company, p. 11.
[12]Short Hist. of East India Company, p. 11.
[13]History of Indostan, vol. i. p. 335.
[13]History of Indostan, vol. i. p. 335.
[14]Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxxiii. p. 811.
[14]Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxxiii. p. 811.
[15]Short Hist. of the East India Company.
[15]Short Hist. of the East India Company.
[16]Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 56.
[16]Short Hist. of the East India Company, p. 56.
[17]Morning Post, Jan. 15, 1813, Letter, signed Probus.
[17]Morning Post, Jan. 15, 1813, Letter, signed Probus.
[18]Short History of the East India Company, p. 38.
[18]Short History of the East India Company, p. 38.
[19]Ibid. p. 37.
[19]Ibid. p. 37.
[20]Letter to Lord Buckinghamshire, Dec. 30, 1812.
[20]Letter to Lord Buckinghamshire, Dec. 30, 1812.
[21]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 7. p. 84.
[21]De Portibus Maris, p. 2. c. 7. p. 84.
S. Gosnell, Printer, Little Queen Street, London.