Thus, since history renders it indisputable, that an import trade from India to the out-ports of the kingdom has been heretofore exercised under Acts of Parliament, and that it may be perfectly compatible with the highest prosperity of the East India Company; since the Executive Government can guard it against smuggling at the present day, as well as in the reigns of King William and Queen Anne; and since a great and urgent national interest reasonably demands it, both from Parliament and the Company; the present moment furnishes a most fit occasion for the Company to consider, Mr. Dundas's solemn call upon "their wisdom, policy, and liberality," made by him to them in the year 1800; and also, his weighty admonition, that "if any thing can endanger their monopoly, it isAN UNNECESSARY ADHERENCE TO POINTS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THEIR EXISTENCE."
It has been calledilliberal, to question the motives of the Directors, in refusing their consentto an import trade to the out-ports. But, with the facts of history, which have been here produced, staring us and them in the face, it would be impossible not to question those motives. No man can entertain a higher respect for the East India Company, as a body politic and corporate, or contemplate with higher admiration the distinguished career which it has run, than Gracchus; but, at the same time, no one is better persuaded of the operation ofpolicy, in a body circumstanced as they are. And it is more especially necessary to watch that policy, and to be free to interpretpolitical motives, at the present crisis, because, at the eve of the expiration of the Company'slastCharter, in 1793, certain rights were anxiously alleged on their behalf, in a work entitled, "A Short History of the East India Company, &c." rights absolutely unmaintainable, and utterly incompatible with the sovereignty of the Empire, and the freedom of the Constitution; and the allegations then made, appear now to assume the form ofa practical assertion. To those alleged rights, therefore, it will be advisable early to call the attention of Parliament and of the nation.
GRACCHUS.
FOOTNOTE:[4]A Short History of the East India Company.
[4]A Short History of the East India Company.
[4]A Short History of the East India Company.
Wednesday, Jan. 27, 1813.
There is an irritability manifested at the present moment, by those who are intimately united in interest with the East India Company, which appears strongly indicative of an unhealthy case. It is well known, that the revenues of the Company, far from being able to contribute to the revenues of the State that augmentation which was made the condition of the Company's present Charter, have, from causes which the Directors could not control, been so deficient, that they have been obliged, at different times, to apply to Parliament for pecuniary aid; that they are burdened with a debt of not less than forty-two millions; and that they arenowunable to discharge their engagements, without again coming to Parliament to obtain the means. Yet, "an Old Proprietor" feels no uneasiness from this state of the Company's affairs; and this, we must suppose, proceeds from an opinion, that the dividend he now receives issecured to him for the time to come.
But Parliament has never, directly nor indirectly, made itself acollateral securityto theProprietors, for the payment of a dividend of 10½ percent. The aids, at different times granted by Parliament, have proceeded from a mixed principle, ofequityand ofliberal support. Ofequity, in so far as the embarrassments of the Company have been occasioned by political events; ofliberal support, in so far as those embarrassments may have been caused by disappointment in trade. If the Proprietors should not discriminate between these two principles which have actuated Parliament, but claim the whole of the succours afforded, upon a ground ofpositive right, they might impose upon Parliament the necessity of requiring the East India Company to bring their affairs to a final settlement; in order that it may be accurately determined, how far the Public are equitably pledged to the Proprietors, and how far the Proprietors must be left to settle their own accounts with the Company alone. And it is possible, that the result might not afford that confidence of a well-secured dividend of ten and a half per cent., which anOld Proprietorconsiders it an attack upon private property even to question.
Such an issue, however, does not appear to be very likely to occur, unless the Managers of the East India Company's concerns, from any ill-advised determination in their counsels, should take some steps, by which their affairs should be abruptly brought to a settlement: in which event,any disappointment or loss sustained by the Proprietors will be chargeable upon those Managers, who thus desert their duty to their Constituents; and not on the Public, or the Government. The Managers of the East India Company, having so clear and responsible a duty binding upon them, ought to be most scrupulous of failing in that duty, through any capricious or speculative "adherence to points not essential to their existence;" for, if they should sacrifice the interest of the Proprietors by now attempting to convert theirtemporary grantsinto aperpetual right; although the disappointed Proprietors may arraign the Public, yet the Public at large will, with justice, impeach the Managers of the East India Company.
In order to open the eyes of the Proprietors to the simple fact of their actual position, their attention was called by Gracchus, on the 13th inst. to the consideration, whether the Company, loaded with a debt of 42,000,000l.and being unable to discharge the sum of four millions becoming due, could reasonably expect, that if Parliament should now come to their immediate relief, it would engage itself,in all future time, for the payment of a dividend of ten and a half per cent.; especially, if, upon any contingent winding up of the Company's affairs, called for by their own pertinacity, their remaining resources should be found inadequate to secure that dividend to theProprietors? And the possible case was suggested, of some guardian of the public purse deeming it equitable, that in the event of Parliament being disposed to come to the relief of the Proprietors, under such circumstances, the latter should be called upon, on their part, to submit to some condition of accommodation.
"AnOld Proprietor" discovers in this argument of caution, onlya direct menacefrom the Executive Government to the purses of the Proprietors;—a plain and intelligiblethreat, that payment of their just claims shall be withheld; and he "thanks God, that he lives in a country, where such language will be treated with merited scorn." ThisOld Proprietorshould have known, that Government has never declined to settle any accounts with the East India Company, which had been properly authenticated: under present circumstances, it is not to be expected, that Government should incur the responsibility of applying the public money to discharge claims which have not been sufficiently investigated. So far, however, is Government from having evinced any disposition to throw unnecessary difficulties in the way of the Company's pecuniary arrangements, that, in the midst of the present contest with the Directors, it has granted to the Company a suspension of the payment of between 8 and 900,000l.of tea duties, which the Company hadactually received from the buyers of the tea. It is perhaps not generally known, that the Company formerly paid the duties upon tea upon its being imported and landed; by which means the amount of duties was immediately drawn into the Exchequer. To accommodate the Company, a change of practice was allowed by Government, and the Company have been permitted to sell their teas, in the first instance, without the interference of the Officers of the Customs, upon condition of the Company afterwards remitting the gross amount of duties to the Board of Revenue. Thus they actually make their own profits upon the tea, and receive into their own hands the Government duties, before they are called upon to pay them. The duties actually so received by the Company, amount to the sum above stated; and theOld Proprietorwill probably deem it no slight proof of a wish on the part of Government to render an accommodation to the Company, that, during the pending discussion, it has made arrangements for allowing the Company an extended period, for transferring the very considerable sum of which they have actually received the beneficial use.
It should be always remembered, by the Company, and by the Public, as parties in a great compact, that the privilege of an exclusive tradeto India and China has never been granted to the Company without reserve; or, as if their possession of that exclusive benefit was,in itself, the most advantageous arrangement for the public interest. The grant has always proceeded upon a principle, of bargain and covenant; and on the consideration of a pecuniary, advance, to be made by the Company to the Public, as the condition for the renewal ofthe lease of the public rights in the India trade. Upon this principle alone, has the exclusive trade ever been conceded to the East India Company; either under its present form, or under any of its former denominations.
To shorten the discussion, however, let the Proprietors and the Company take the following compressed view, of the probable consequences which would severally result, from acompliance with, orrejection of, the proposition made by Government, as the basis of a new Charter; and let them consider, inwhich of the twothey foresee the greatest security for their own future interests.
If, upon maturely weighing the case before them, the Company should accede to the proposition of Government; and if an arrangement, founded upon that proposition, should receive the sanction of Parliament;
1. The Company will preservethe entire China trade; and this principal sphere of their commercial profit, will remain undisturbed.
2. They will possess advantages for continuing to carry on the India trade, so far superior to those of all private competitors, fromtheir territorial and commercial revenues, that, with a moderate exertion of their activity, they may preserve almost the whole of that trade.
3. They will possessthe regulation and control of the India trade, so far as depends upon the Indian Governments; and as those Governments will continue in the exercise of the executive power, all the private Merchants, who may repair to the ports and harbours within the extensive limits of their jurisdiction, will of coursebe subject to the authority of their Government.
4. They will retain the whole patronage and expenditure of a revenue of upwards ofFifteen Millionssterling per annum in India, together with very extensive establishments at home, depending upon that revenue.
5. The accounts between the Public and the Company, being brought to no sudden and violent crisis of settlement, may be amicably andleisurely adjusted, with a view to mutual convenience.
On the other hand, should the Company incautiously drop thesubstanceto pursue theshadow, and refuse the proposition of Government; and should Parliament, upon a full and deliberate consideration of the actual circumstances of the Company, deem it more advisable to bring their accounts with the Public to a thorough investigation and final settlement, than to admit the Company's new pretensions toa perpetual monopoly;
1. The Company will lose as much of the China trade as may fall into the hands of the private merchants, whothinkthey shall be able to sell tea 85 per cent. cheaper than the Company.
2. They will lose the control of the India commerce,and will carry on their traffic in India as subjects, in common with the private British merchants.
3. By that loss, voluntarily incurred, they may throw the greatest part of the trade into the hands of the private traders.
4. They willlose the patronage of India, and the establishments depending upon it; which they will thus compel Parliament, contrary to thedisposition of Government, to place under different arrangements.
5. The accounts between the Public and the Company must be referred for investigation to Commissioners of Inquiry, to be finally settled and adjusted.
It is now for the Proprietors, after well considering these two alternatives, to determine, underwhich of the twotheir dividend will bemost secure.
With regard to Constitutional objections against taking the Government of India out of the hands of the Company (upon which objection their confidence in their present pretensions chiefly reposes), it is difficult to conceive that the wisdom of Parliament, after the experience of so many years, is unequal to the task of devising a system as good as that of the Company, without incurring the evil which those Constitutional objections suppose. The Company's Government, it must be recollected, has been a production of chance, and has grown by the progress of accidental events. It has, indeed, answered far better in practice than could have been expected, if we consider its origin; and therefore, it is not desirable that it should be materially altered; neither is it likely that any such alteration of the system should becontemplated, unless the indiscretion of the Company should impose upon Parliament the necessity of resorting to that measure. But it certainly does not seem to be a measure insuperably difficult, to preserve whatever is really good in the present system, and even to remedy some of its defects, without departing from the path of experience, and resorting to improvements of theory and experiment.
There is one point of view, however, in which such a system would acquire an evident advantage over that which has hitherto obtained: viz. that it would, in every Session, be liable to the revision of Parliament, and to the immediate correction of every error which might be observed, and to such further continual improvements as experience might direct;not being embarrassed by the compact of a Charter.
GRACCHUS.
Wednesday, February 17, 1813.
It is very observable, that the objections which have been made by the East India Company to the admission of ships, returning from India, to import and dispose of their cargoes at any other place than the Port of London, are not founded so much upon any statement of the injury which the trade of the Company would sustain by admitting them, as upon a provident regard for the adventurers themselves, and a caution held out to them not to entertain an expectation of benefiting by any commercial speculation in India; since the long experience of the Company has enabled them to show, that it must be ultimately ruinous to the speculator. The sum of the experience, alleged by those who have come forward to defend this point, is, "That it is not practicable to extend the consumption of European manufactures generally in India;" and the facts which they have asserted in support of this experimental argument, and upon which they rest its strength, are these four following:
1. That the natives of India entertain a strong characteristic aversion, to engage in commercial transactions with foreigners.
2. That their religious prejudices, customs, habits, and tastes, render it impossible that they should ever become consumers of our manufactures, to any extent.
3. That their poverty opposes an insuperable bar to such consumption.
4. That these facts and their consequences are demonstrated in the examples of the Portuguese and the Dutch, who were not able to carry their export commerce with India to any considerable extent.
Let us take these several propositions in their order; and examine, how far they possess that force of truth, which the Company has supposed to belong to them.
1. In the infancy of the European intercourse with India, the sole object of those who engaged in its commerce was, to procure the produce and commodities of the East. In this pursuit, so far were the natives from opposing any obstacles to their endeavours, that they were found disposed to afford every facility to a traffic, which brought themspeciein exchange for their manufactures, and for the productions of their soil. This fact, which is established by every writer who treated upon the subject of the India commerce during that period, would of itself constitute a complete answer to those who advance the proposition, thatthe natives of India are averse, through an established prejudice, to engage in commercial transactions with foreigners.
When the ingenuity of the French and German artists enabled the speculators in this traffic to introduceworks of fancy, we learn from Tavernier, who made six several journeys, between the years 1645 and 1670, from France to India, by various routes, that the Rajahs of Hindostan and of the Deccan, as well as the Mahomedan princes of those countries, admitted him into their states; that the articles of manufacture which he introduced were received and purchased with an avidity which encouraged him to continue, for so many years, the pursuit of that commerce; that he found the natives of India, spread over the whole range of country from the Indus to the Caspian Sea, engaged in the active prosecution of foreign traffic; and that the number ofBanyans(the chief commercial cast of Hindoos) at that time established at Ispahan, were not less than ten thousand. Forster, who, in a more recent period, followed Tavernier in one of the routes which he had traversed, informs us, that, in the year 1783, he found Banyans established at Astrachan, within the Russian empire. And we further learn from Bruce, that the principal agents of commerce at Mocha and Jedda, in the Red Sea, were Banyans; and that they had even extended themselves intoAbyssinia. No stronger evidence, therefore, can be required to make it manifest, that foreign as well as internal trade has been in all ages, and still continues to be at the present day, a common practice, and a favourite pursuit of the Hindoos.
2. With regard to the restrictive operation of the religious prejudices and customs of the Hindoos, against the adoption of foreign articles of manufacture; Mr. Colebrooke, lately a Member of the Supreme Council, and an eminent Oriental scholar, has furnished us with information upon this subject, equally important and decisive. In an unpublished work, on the Agriculture and Commerce of Bengal, cited inThe Edinburgh Review, for November 1812, that gentleman observes, that, according to the sentiments of the Hindoos, "All things comeundefiledfromthe shop;" or, in the words of Menu, "The hands of an artist employed in his art are always pure; and so is every vendible commodity when exposed to sale: that woollens are purified by a single exposure to air, while water is necessary to purify other clothes." Proceeding with these principles, he further informs us, "That the rainy season and winter of India afford real occasion for the use of woollens; that the fabrics of Europe are always preferred; and, if the articles were adapted in the manufacture to the Indian use, and the price reduced, the consumption would descendfrom the middle even to the more numerous classes. That the natives of India do not want a taste for porcelaine, and other elegant wares; that they require vast quantities of metallic vessels, and of hardware; that, considering the greatness of the population, and the disposition of the natives to use European manufactures, it cannot be doubted, that a great vend might be found, and that the demand will increase with the restoration of wealth."
The authority of Mr. Colebrooke on this subject would be conclusive, even if it stood alone: but it may be supported by a reference to the opinion of many persons, who have been resident in the great cities of India. Those persons would be found to testify, that at Delhi, at Lucknow, at Hydrabad, Mysore, and Tanjore, in all the capitals, whether Hindoo or Mahomedan, a taste prevails amongst the natives for a variety of articles of European manufacture. The late Nabob of Oude, was known to have affected the European dress; as may be seen by the costume of his picture, in the possession of the Marquis Wellesley.
A large assortment of cut glass lustres has been provided by order, for the Soubahdar of the Deccan; and a person is now proceeding to India, with the license of the Company, for the expresspurpose of arranging them, when they shall have reached his palace of Hydrabad.
The Rajah of Mysore (and, in the same manner, many of the Serdars of that state), is frequently clothed in scarlet cloth; his servants are generally dressed in woollen of that colour; and he often travels in an English carriage, driven by postillions, who are habited in the English costume. The Rajah of Tanjore exhibits in his palace a colossal marble statue of himself, wrought by the hand of Flaxman; and the monument of his revered Mentor, the late celebrated missionary Swartz, sculptured by the same eminent artist, was executed and sent to Tanjore, at the express and urgent desire of that enlightened Prince.
We must further observe, that so far are the religious and civil habits of the Hindoos from obstructing the intercourse of trade, that their policy has connected trade with religion; and the great festivals of their worship, are at the same time the appointed periods and scenes of their most active commerce. Jaggernaut, Ramisseram, Tripetty, are the most celebrated places of Hindoo devotion within the British dominions; and every one who has resided in India must know, thatfairsare held at those places at the periods, when the greatest concourse of pilgrims is drawn to them by the celebration of their religious ritesand ceremonies. In further illustration of the disposition of the natives to traffic, in every way by which profit can be derived, the following fact may be stated; which can be attested by every officer who served with the army under Sir Arthur Wellesley (now Marquis of Wellington), against the Mahrattas, in 1803. The distant and severe service in which that army had been engaged, had exhausted the store of European necessaries with which it had advanced against the enemy; and the officers arrived at Poonah, almost destitute of those comforts and accommodations. But they found the native merchants of that capital provided with the most essential of those several articles, and they were soon supplied, through the agency of those merchants, with every thing for which they had occasion. Poonah is the capital of a Brahmin government; and, therefore, this single fact would serve to furnish a complete answer to every thing that has been asserted, against the practicability of introducing and extending the manufactures of Europe into every part of Hindostan.
3. That the poverty of a large majority of the native subjects of our Indian Empire is such, as to disable them from acquiring our manufactures, is certainly true; but it is no less true, that a very considerable portion of that population possess the means of indulging in every article of convenience and luxury, both native and European. It hasbeen very generally stated, that there are onlytwoclasses of people in India, the very rich and the very poor. But a minute investigation into the society of India, would discover the error of this statement, and would show, that there exists a third andmiddleclass, far removed from the condition of either of the others; greatly exceeding in number the former of these, and falling far short of the latter. This class, as they certainly possess the means, would, if proper steps were taken, materially contribute to the demand and consumption of many of our home manufactures.
4. With respect to the evidence, attempted to be drawn from the ill success of the Portuguese and Dutch traders, we are to observe, that the situation of the Portuguese and the Dutch, during the period when they were in possession of the European trade with India, was so exceedingly different from that of the British nation at the present moment, that it is scarcely possible to draw a sound comparison between them. The native Governments were at that time powerful; and the establishments of the Portuguese, and afterwards of the Dutch, extended but a short distance from the sea-coast; the manufactures of Europe were, in a manner, in their infancy; and neither Portugal nor Holland were manufacturing countries. Whereas, the British empire is now established over the richest and most populous regions ofIndia, and its influence is extended even further than its dominion; the manufactures of the United Kingdom have attained a degree of perfection, which never has been equalled; they can be fashioned to the tastes, the wants, and the caprices of every nation and climate; and certainly, the interests of the country call for the cultivation of every channel, which can be opened for the enlargement of our commerce.
We cannot better conclude these observations, than by applying the circumstantial evidence which they afford, to Mr. Dundas's letter of the 2d April 1800; in which that Minister admitted the fact, of aprogressively increasingconsumption; but, at the same time, conceived, that thecustoms of the nativeswould prescribelimitsto its extension. "I do not mean to say," says he, "that the exports from this country to India have not beenvery considerably increased of late years; and I make no doubt that, from recent circumstances,they may be still considerably increased. But the prospect,from the causes I have already referred to, must always be a limited one." What these causes are he thus explains:—"The export trade to India can never be extended to any degree, proportionate to the wealth and population of the Indian Empire; neither can the returns upon it be very profitable to individuals. Thosewho attend tothe manners,the manufactures,the food,the raiment,the moral and religious prejudices of that country, can be at no loss to tracethe causeswhy this proposition must bea true one."
The evidence which has been produced demonstrates, that neither the manners, raiments, nor prejudices of Hindostan, are of a nature to impede the introduction of articles of European manufacture; and it thus proves, thatthe causesassigned for the limitation of our export trade, are not calculated to impose any such limitation. What, then, it may be asked, are the causes, why the consumption of the manufactures of Europe in India has in no degree kept pace with the extension of our territories, and of their population? The examination of this branch of our subject would carry us to too great a length on the present occasion, and will therefore best be reserved for a separate communication.
GRACCHUS.
Saturday, March 20, 1813.
In searching for thecauses, which have prevented an extensive introduction of the British manufactures into the countries subject to the dominion or influence of the British Crown in India, it naturally occurs; that no measure appears ever to have been concerted, for the general purpose of alluring the attention of the natives of India to the articles of European importation. This neglect, has evidently arisen from the opinions which have been so erroneously entertained, concerning the civil and religious prejudices of the Hindoos.
The evidence of Mr. Colebrooke has been adduced, to prove that those opinions are wholly unfounded; the following extracts from the Travels of Forster, in the years 1782-3, will further evince, that the Hindoos, far from entertaining any indisposition to engage in commercial dealings with strangers, have widely extended themselves in different foreign countries for that express purpose.
Herat.—"At Herat, I found in two Karavanseras about one hundred Hindoo merchants, who, by the maintenance of a brisk commerce,and by extending a long chain of credit, have become valuable subjects to the Government. When the Hindoos cross the Attock, they usually put on the dress of a northern Asiatic, being seldom seen without a long cloth coat, and a high cap[5]."
Turshish.:—"About one hundred Hindoo families, from Moultan and Jessilmere, are established in this town, which is the extreme limit of their emigration on this side of Persia. They occupy a quarter in which no Mahomedan is permitted to reside; and I was not a little surprised to see those of the Bramin sect distinguished by the appellation ofPeerzadah, a title which the Mahomedans usually bestow on the descendants of their Prophet. Small companies of Hindoos are also settled at Meschid, Yezd, Kachin, Casbin, and some parts of the Caspian shore; and more extensive societies are established in the different parts of the Persian Gulf, where they maintain a navigable commerce with the western coast of India[6]."
Baku.—"A society of Moultan Hindoos, which has long been established at Baku, contributes largely to the circulation of its commerce; and, with the Armenians, they may beaccounted the principal merchants of Shirwan. The Hindoos of this quarter usually embark at Tatta, a large insular town in the lower tract of the Indus; whence they proceed to Bassorah, and thence accompany the caravans, which are frequently passing into Persia: some also travel inland to the Caspian Sea, by the road of Candahar and Herat. I must here mention, that we brought from Baku five Hindoos; two of them were merchants of Moultan, and three were mendicants, a father, his son, and a Sunyassee (the name of a religious sect of Hindoos, chiefly of the Brahmin tribe). The Hindoos had supplied the little wants of the latter, and recommended himto their agents in Russia, whence, he said, he should like to proceed with me to England. The Moultanee Hindoos were going to Astrachan, merely on a commercial adventure[7]."
Astrachan.—"The Hindoos also enjoy at Astrachan every fair indulgence. They are not stationary residents, nor do they keep any of their females in this city; but, after accumulating a certain property, they return to India, and are succeeded by other adventurers. Being a mercantile sect of their nation, and occupied in a desultory species of traffic, they haveneglected to preserve any record of their first settlement, and subsequent progress, in this quarter of Russia; nor is the fact ascertained, with any accuracy, by the natives of Astrachan[8]."
Having thus seen, that the natives of India are in no respect averse to engage in commercial dealings with strangers, and that no prejudices exist among them of a nature to prevent them from using our manufactures; we cannot but be forcibly struck with the reflection, that no systematic plan has ever been adopted by the East India Company, to attract the attention of the Hindoos to the various articles of our home manufacture, or to stimulate their speculation in the traffic of them. Whereas, in Europe, the Company have always found it necessary, for the disposal of their Indian Imports, to take active measures for drawing the attention of the nations of the European Continent to their sales in London.
The Directors, in their letter to Lord Buckinghamshire, under date of the 15th of April, 1812, (adverting to their sales in Europe,) observe, "That the Foreign Buyers repose confidence in the regularity and publicity with which the Company's sales are conducted; that the particulars of their cargoes are published immediatelyon the arrival of the ships, and distributed all over the Continent. That notices of the quantities to be sold, and periods of sale, are also published for general distribution; and that the sales of each description of goods are made at stated periods, twice in the year."
No measure of this nature has ever been projected for India; and yet, the predilection of the natives of India, both Hindoo and Mahomedan, for public shows, scenes of general resort, and exhibitions of every kind, is so well known, that we may confidently affirm, that nothing could have a surer tendency to draw them together, than a display, at periodical fairs, of our various manufactures. Fairs of this kind, for the sale of their home manufactures, have been held from time immemorial, in every part of India. The Company, therefore, needed only to engraft, upon an established usage of the Hindoos, a regular plan of periodical fairs; and, by thus adopting in India a course analogous to that which they have found it necessary to employ in Europe, they might generally have arrived at giving to Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, attractions of curiosity and mercantile interest, which would most probably have drawn to those settlements the wealthy natives from every part of the East; and have rendered the capital cities of British India, what Amsterdam, Frankfort, and Leipsic have long been in Europe, the resorts ofall descriptions of people, and the repositories of every European article of use and luxury. From these different centres of commerce, the markets of the interior of India, and especially those held at the scenes of religious assembly, might be furnished with supplies; and, under the fostering encouragement of a wise and provident Government, the intelligence and enterprise of the natives of India might be called into action, and be stimulated, by a powerful motive, to exert in their own country those commercial talents that have obtained for them the encouragements, which, upon the unimpeachable testimony of Mr. Forster, they have long received in Persia, and in parts of Russia.
The advantage of collecting together, at stated periods and in established points, the productions of human industry and ingenuity, has been so universally felt by all nations; that there is scarcely a country, advanced to any degree of civilization, in which the practice has not prevailed. To effect this object, with a view to the extension of our export trade in India,active encouragementis alone requisite; but, in order to give it stability,native agencymust be called forth into action. The supplies which (as was mentioned on a former occasion) were found at Poonah, were obtained from that source alone. The Parsee merchants at Bombay, are the principal agents of theCommanders and Officers of the Company's ships; such parts of their investments as are not disposed of among the European population, are purchased, and circulated in the interior, by the Parsees. The small supplies of European manufactures which find their way into the principal cities of the Deccan, proceed from this source: but there is reason to believe, that the articles which arrive at those places are too frequently of an inferior sort, or such as have sustained damage in the transit from Europe.
To give perfection to the great object here sketched out, it will be indispensably necessary that the local authorities in India should direct their most serious attention to this subject. Asour Indian empire is our only security for our Indian trade, so our Indian trade must be rendered an object of vigilant concern to those who administer the Government of that empire. From the multiplicity and importance of their other avocations, that trade has not hitherto received all the consideration to which its high value is entitled; but, whenever an adequate regard shall be paid to it, it will become a duty of the Governments to take active and effectual steps, fordrawing the attention of the natives to our exported commodities, and forpromoting the dispersion of those commodities, within the sphere of their influence or power.
We now discernone operative causeof the comparatively small demand for, and consumption of, our European articles, in the Indian empire; a cause, however, which it is within our capacity to control, or to remove. And, after what has been summarily exposed, in this and in the preceding communication, it can be no difficult point to determine, whetherthis cause, or the allegedprejudices of the Hindoos, have most contributed to limit the extent of our Export Trade to India.
GRACCHUS.
FOOTNOTES:[5]Forster's Travels, p. 135-6.[6]P. 166.[7]Forster's Travels, p. 228.[8]Forster's Travels, p. 259.
[5]Forster's Travels, p. 135-6.
[5]Forster's Travels, p. 135-6.
[6]P. 166.
[6]P. 166.
[7]Forster's Travels, p. 228.
[7]Forster's Travels, p. 228.
[8]Forster's Travels, p. 259.
[8]Forster's Travels, p. 259.
Monday, March 8, 1813.
It is now become a matter of the most solemn importance, that the public attention should be called to a clear and deliberate survey ofthe RightsandPretensionsof the East India Company; and that the judgment of Parliament should be directed to, and its sense declared upon, the subject of those pretensions, which have generateda new Constitutional Question, and are now carried to an height to affect the supreme Sovereignty of the State. To discuss those Rights andPretensions at large, would demand a far more extended space than the present occasion can supply; but it would be altogether unnecessary to enter into a more enlarged discussion; because, in order to obtain the end here proposed, of drawing and fixing the attention of Parliament and the Public upon the subject, little more is required, than to bring those several Rights and Pretensions into one compressed and distinct point of view; and to leave it to the legislative wisdom to determine finally upon their validity.
The rights of the East India Company, are usually distinguished into theirtemporaryrights, and theirperpetualorpermanentrights.
I. The temporary rights of the Company are:
1.A right to the exclusive trade with all the countries lying eastward from the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Magellan.This right isa leaseof all thepublic rightto the trade of those parts of the world; which lease has been renewed to the Company, from time to time, in consideration of a varying premium to be paid by them to the Public.
2.A right to administer the government and revenue of all the territories in India acquired bythem during their term in the exclusive trade.This is a right delegated from the Crown, with the assent of Parliament; and which can be possessed by the Company no longer, than the authority from which it emanates has, or shall prescribe.
Upon the expiration of these temporary rights, which determine, as the law at present stands, in the ensuing year, 1814, the East India Company will remain in possession of whateverpermanentrights shall be found to pertain to them.
II. Theperpetual, or more properly, thepermanentrights of the Company, must be considered under two distinct heads, viz.admittedandalleged.
§ 1. Theadmittedpermanent rights are,
1.To be a Body Politic and Corporate, with perpetual succession.—This right has been confirmed by various succeeding Charters and Statutes. But there are some observations, which it is important to make upon this subject. The first Charter, granted by Queen Elizabeth, in 1601, to the first or London East India Company, createdboth its corporate capacity and its exclusive privilege, to continue for a term of fifteen years; but it provided, that, in case it should not prove beneficial to the Public, thewhole of the grantmightat any time be determined, upon two years notice given to the Company. The succeeding Charters of James I. Charles II. James II. and William and Mary, conferred, in the same manner, both the corporate capacity and the exclusive privilege; and though they did not, like the former, fix a term for their duration, yet they rendered thewhole grantdeterminable upon three years notice. No provision is introduced into any of these Charters, to make the corporate capacity outlast the exclusive trade. When the principle of "a more national, general and extensive trade to India," declared in the Charter of the 5th of William and Mary, had been followed by the measure of creating a General Society of Merchants, and of erectinga New Company, the advocates for that measure took particular care to show, "That the Old Company, in reciting their Charters, hadforgotto mention theprovisostherein, viz. that the respective Kings of England, who granted them, reserved a discretionary power tomake them voidon three years warning[9]." This observation did not apply to their exclusive privilege only, but extended equally to their corporate capacity; both being determinable by the same warning, because both were derived from the same grant, the whole of which grant was made liable to that determination,notwithstanding their corporate capacity was to enjoy "perpetual succession." Hence it is manifest, that the perpetuity conferred by the Charter was not perpetuity of exclusive trade, or political power, but ofcorporate succession. But perpetual succession in a body corporate, does not imply perpetuity of duration, but merelyuninterruptedsuccession of the individuals who compose it; which every corporate body must possess, whatever may be the term of its duration, in order that it may become, and may be able to perform the acts of,a legal person.
The Statute of 9 and 10, and the Charter of 10 William III. which createdboth the corporate capacity and the exclusive privilegeof theNew, or English Company, followed the example of the former Charter, granted to theOldCompany, and rendered thewhole grantdeterminable by the same process. But, in the 10th year of Queen Anne, after the two Companies had becomeUnited, they represented the great hazard they should encounter, by engaging in any considerable expenses for securingthe Pepper Trade, under the limitation of that clause; in consequence of which representation the clause was repealed, and the limitation wasleft open. The Company from thence inferred, that they had acquired a perpetuity of duration, both for their corporate capacity and their exclusive privilege; the continuance ofbothof which had ever been subjected to the same rule of determination. They soon, however, became sensible that such could not be the true intention of the Act, and they "submitted themselves to Parliament[10]" on the subject; in consequence of which a limited term of exclusive trade was assigned them, without any limitation being imposed upon thenegativeperpetuity of duration, which they had acquired for their Corporation by the repeal of the determining clause. But it was not till the year 1730, the third year of the late King, that the Company obtained a true andpositiveperpetuity of duration for their Body Corporate; at which time an Act was passed, empowering them to continue to trade to the East Indies, as a Company of Merchants, although their exclusive right to the trade, and their power of administering the government and revenues of India, should be determined by Parliament. From that time only, the Incorporation and the Exclusive Privilege become distinguished. The distinctions here made will be found of material importance, in another part of this statement.
2.A right to acquire and possess lands, tenements, and property of every kind; and to dispose of the same, under a Common Seal.—This right was conferred by the Charter of the 10th of KingWilliam; but by Stat. 3 G. 2. c. 14. § 14. the Company's estatesin Great Britainwere limited to the value of 10,000l.per annum. In virtue of this right, the East India Company were empowered to settle "factories and plantations," within the limits of their exclusive trade. The Charter of William, indeed, adds also "forts," with the power of "ruling, ordering, and governing them;" but that this privilege cannot attach upon their corporate andpermanentcapacity, will presently be made to appear. Fortresses and fortifications cannot, from their nature and use, become absolute private property; being part of the public defences of the Empire, they are (to speak with Lord Hale) "affected with a public interest, and thereforecease to be juris privati only[11]." The building a fort is an act done, in its nature, by virtue of a sovereign authority, and is therefore the dereliction of the private right of property for a public and general purpose. In asserting for the Company aprivateright to forts and fortifications, the Company's advocates have therefore fallen into an extreme error, from not discriminating between the rights which necessarily belong to theirdelegated sovereignty, and those which can alone be annexed to theircommercial corporation. And this brings us to the consideration of
§ 2. Theallegedpermanent rights of the Company, which require to be considered undertwodescriptions, viz. rightsalleged for themat the expiration of their last exclusive Charter, and rightsalleged by themat the present moment, with a view to the renewal of their present Charter.Theseare the rights, or more properly the pretensions, which have been pronounced byGracchus, "absolutely unmaintainable, and incompatible with the freedom of British subjects;" and not their true legitimate rights, as the writer of a letter under the signature ofProbushas chosen to assume.
The rightsalleged for themwere these:—
1.A right to possess in perpetuity certain extensive territories and seaports in India, after their right to the exclusive trade with those places shall cease.In consequence of different ancient Charters, granting to the Company an exclusive trade, together with certain powers of Government, they have acquired, and actually possess, various islands, seaports, forts, factories, settlements, districts, and territories in India, together with the island of St. Helena; either by grants from the Crown, by conquest, purchase, or by grants from the native powers in India. The nature and extent of their property in these several possessions, is an important public question. By grants from the Crown to the original or London Company, and byconveyance from that Company, they possess St. Helena and Bombay. By purchase, conquest, or by Indian grants, they possess Calcutta and Fort William, Madras, and Fort St. George, and various other important seats of trade; of all of which, for a long course of time; they have enjoyed the exclusive benefit.
With respect to the first of these; it is evident, that the Old Company could only convey the places which they held of the Crown as they themselves held them, and subject to the same principles of policy and state under which they themselves had received them. The Grants of Charles II., which conceded Bombay and St. Helena to the first Company, refer to the Charter of the 13th of the same reign, which Charter refers to, and confirms the preceding Charters of Elizabeth and James I., making themthe groundof the Grants. The Charter of Elizabeth declares its principle to be, "the tendering the honour of the nation, the wealth of the people, the increase of navigation, the advancement of lawful traffic, and the benefit of the Commonwealth." The principle declared in the Charter of James I. is, "that it will be a very great honour, and in many respects profitable, tothe Crownandthe Commonwealth." By a reference to, and confirmation of, these several Charters, in the Charter of Charles II., and in the grants of St. Helena and Bombay, theseprinciples are virtually adopted; theend and purpose of the Grantsis declared; and their ground is proclaimed to be, the honour of the British Crown, and the welfare of the British Nation. It was those greatpublic interests, and not theseparate interestsof the Company, that the Crown had in view, in conceding the property of those distant dependencies.
By grants from the native powers, the Company are in actual possession of many extensive and valuable territories. The doctrine of the law of England, in regard to the operation of these Grants, was distinctly and officially declared in the Report of the Attorney-General Mr. Pratt, and Solicitor-General Mr. Charles Yorke, in the year 1757, viz. That the moment theright of propertyvested in the Company by the Indian Grants, theright of sovereigntyvested necessarily in the Crown of England. "The property of the soil (said those eminent lawyers) vested in the Company by the Indian Grants,subject onlyto Your Majesty's right of sovereignty over the settlements, and over the inhabitants as British subjects; who carry with them Your Majesty's laws, wherever they form colonies, and receive Your Majesty's protection by virtue of your Royal Charters[12]." In considering this head of right, the case ofthe five Northern Circars, to which the Company lay claim in their Petition, demands a particular attention; because, the advocates of the Company's pretensions are under a manifest error, with respect to their tenure of those territories. They maintain, that the Circars are held by the Company in perpetuity, undera military service, as tributaries to the Indian Power or Powers by which they were originally ceded; and that the Crown of England has no title to interfere, between them and their supposed Indian Chief. This pretension renders it absolutely necessary, to take a general view of the situation of the Company with respect to the Circars.
In the year 1753, the French were in the confirmed possession of the five Circars, together with the adjoining fort and dependencies of Masulipatam; of all of which they declared themselves to have obtained "the complete sovereignty for ever," by a grant from the Subah of the Deccan, a Prince nominally dependent on the Imperial Crown of the Mogul. "So that these territories (says Mr. Orme), rendered the French masters of the greatest dominion, both in extent and value, that had ever been possessed in Indostan by Europeans, not excepting the Portuguese when at the height of their prosperity[13]." Theestablishment of the French power in these important provinces, during the war between England and France, excited the most serious alarm in the Company, by threatening their settlements and possessions in Bengal; and called forth the vigorous and splendid exertions of Lord Clive, who, in the year 1759, sent a military force against Conflans, the French Commander, under the command of Colonel Forde. That gallant Officer succeeded in defeating the enemy in a pitched battle at Peddipore; and, pursuing him from one extremity of the Circars to the other, terminated the campaign by the capture of Masulipatam: and thus, by obliging the French to abandon the Circars, the right of conquest was made good against the French. For it is not necessary that every part of a conquered country should be acquired by a separate victory, if the enemy is compelled to evacuate his territory in consequence of any decisive operation; and the retention of Masulipatam, was the evidence of the triumph of the British arms over the French. That this wasthe objectof the campaign, is distinctly shown in the declaration made by Lord Clive before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in the year 1772. Lord Clive stated to the House, "That soon after his appointment of President of the Company's affairs in Bengal, in 1758, he took into his most serious consideration the situation of affairs upon the coast of Coromandel. Monsieur Lally was arrived withsuch a force, as threatened not only the destruction of all the settlements there, but of all the East India Company's possessions. That he thought it was his duty to contribute his mite towards the destruction of the French, and therefore projectedthe scheme of depriving the French of the Northern Circars, contrary to the inclination of his whole Council. Thatthis expedition succeeded completely, for the French were totally driven out byCol. Forde,with the Company's troops, whose conduct and gallantry upon that occasion was equal, if not superior, to any thing that had happened during the whole course of the war[14]." This evidence of Lord Clive proves, that the scheme wasentirely military, and that the success wasthe success of arms. By the Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris in 1763, (Art. 11,) "the Crown of France renounced all pretensions to those territories," which thus devolved, by an indisputable right of conquest, to the Crown of England. The Company, indeed, in the same year obtained a grant of Masulipatam from the Subah of the Deccan, which they now set forth in their Petition to Parliament: but yet, their most strenuous advocates admit, that Masulipatam belongs to the Crown of England,by right of conquest over the French[15]. And the same argument, that proves a right of conquest to Masulipatam,proves also a similar right to the Northern Circars.
In 1765, however, the Company being desirous of acquiringthe form of an Indian titleto the Circars, against the Subah, who might reclaim them, negotiated for a grant of those provinces at Delhi, over the head of the Subah; which grant they obtained. But the pretensions of the Subah, who was close at hand, might disturb them in their attempts to occupy the provinces; they therefore thought itexpedient, to temporize with the Subah, and to enter into a separate negotiation with him, to induce him to surrender them; and they agreed to hold the provinces of him also, under an engagement to supply him with a contingent aid ofmilitary force, when called upon; and moreover, to pay him annually a tribute in money. By thus confusing their titles (which, instead of confirming, mutually defeated each other), they fully demonstrated the inefficacy and impotency of the Mogul's grant, in the present fallen state of that Empire. But the Company could only engage themselves formilitary service, so far as they possessed the ability; and their ability, is limited by the extent of theirmilitary power; which, being a part of theirsovereign power, must necessarily determine with their sovereign capacity: as will be shown in the next article. Whenever that capacity ceases, they will be unable to furnish a single soldier,because they will be unable to raise a single soldier for the defence of the provinces. In that event, the Crown must of necessity interfere, to maintain and defend the territories; and then,the original causewhich led to the acquirement of the Circars, namely, the expulsion of the Frenchby force of arms, and their exclusion bythe influence of the same armsin the Treaty of 1763, will be the true ground on which to restthe question of right: a right inthe Crown of England, which had existence, prior tothe formof the Mogul's grant, and prior also tothe expedientof the grant from the Subah. And here we must keep in mind, that all territories possessed by the Company in India, by whatever means they have been acquired, are necessarily incorporated into the British Empire, and become subject to its Imperial Crown; conformably to the resolution of the House of Commons, in the year 1773: "That all acquisitions made under the influence of a military force, or by treaty with foreign Princes, do of right belong to the State." And as the whole fabric ofBritish Indiagrew out of a principle of advancingthe public welfare, and was not an edifice raised merely for the separate welfare ofthe Company, every private interest comprehended in that fabric is, by every acknowledged maxim of State, public right, and consistency, subordinate; and must be determined by the security of the public good.
2.A right to retain in perpetuity certain essential rights of sovereignty, after the present delegated sovereignty of the Company shall have reverted to the Crown.—Although this pretension is a contradiction in terms, yet the assertors of it entertained no doubts of its reality. They claimed for the Company, in their permanent capacity of a trading body corporate, a right "to appoint governors, to build and maintain forts, to muster forces by sea and land, to coin money, and to erect Courts of Judicature[16]," even after they shall have lost their power of administering the Government of India; and this claim is renewed for the Company at the present day[17]. There is in this pretension so radical an ignorance ofthe nature of sovereignty, that it is inconceivable how it could have been entertained by any one, who had ever given a thought to the subject of law or government. The powers here enumerated, are essential prerogatives of sovereignty; which may indeed be delegated for a time by authority of Parliament, but can never be granted in full property by the Crown. In order to appoint governors, it is first necessary to be invested with the power of government. The same power is manifestly necessary, in order to be ablelegally to raise or muster any force by sea or land, either fordefence, or for any other military service. And it is acknowledged, thatthe power of governmenthas never been granted to the East India Company,but with limitation. In the grants of Bombay and St. Helena, the Company is certainly empowered to erect forts, and to raise and employ forces; but by the same grants they are invested with the powers of Captain General in order to that end; virtually in the first, andexpresslyin the second. Will it be imagined, that they are to retain the authority ofCaptain General, after their powers ofgovernmentshall cease? And if not, it must be evident, that their authority over forts, and all their military power, must determine, whenever their delegated power of Captain General shall determine. It would be an insult to any reader, who has ever cast his eye even on the elementary Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone, to insist upon a truth so obvious and simple. With regard to theerecting of Courts, no such power is given in any of the Charters produced in evidence. The Crown erects the Court, and the power granted to the Company is, and necessarily must be, limited and subordinate. Thetrue causeof that extraordinary error, is plainly this: the Charters of King William and Queen Anne, upon which they rest these pretensions, conferred at one and the same time (as has been already observed), both their corporate capacity and their exclusive privilege. The assertors of thosepermanent sovereign rights,not discriminating, by the principles of things, between the several powers conferred in those Charters, have confused the provisions; and have construed all the powers above enumerated, which by their nature could only appertain to them asdelegated Sovereigns, to belong to their capacity of anincorporated Company. And, under this illusion, they have imagined, that those powers are annexed to that perpetuity of their corporate body which was first enacted in 1730, and confirmed in the 33d year of the present reign; and that they do not constitute a part of those powers of government, which have been conferred upon them, from time to time, by their exclusive Charters. As this construction is entirely arbitrary on the part of the Company, and as it is unsupported by the principles either of law or sound reason, it will be best refuted by the authority of Parliament.
3.A right to exclude all British subjects from the Company's Indian ports, after their own exclusive privilege shall be expired.—This right has been claimed in the following words:—"Although their exclusive right to the trade, and their power of administering the government and revenues of India, were to be determined, they would still remain an incorporated Companyin perpetuity, with theexclusiveproperty andpossessionof Calcutta and Fort William, Madras and Fort St. George, Bombay,Bencoolen, and St. Helena, and various other estates and settlements in India. Whether, in the event of the sole trade being determined, individuals would be able to carry on a successful trade to India,if the Company were to debar them the use of their ports and factories, may require a serious consideration[18]."
This is a claim, not only to apracticalexclusive trade, after the right to exclusive tradeexpressly grantedby Parliament shall cease and determine, but involves also claims of perpetual sovereignty. It is incomprehensible, how it could be alleged by a writer who, in the preceding page, had pointedly excepted from their powers, that of converting the trade into "amischievousmonopoly[19];" for, what moremischievousform could monopoly, or an hostile sovereignty, assume, than that of excluding all British individuals from the chief ports and seats of trade in India? By this alleged right, the grants of Charters and the provisions of Parliament would be reduced to an absurdity. But as this is a claim ofprivate rightto cause apublic wrong, it cannot fail particularly to engage the consideration of Parliament.
The rightsalleged by the Companyat the present day, are these:—
1.A right to all the ports and territories in India, possessed by the Company, of the same kind and extent as the right by which they hold their freeholds in London.—This right has been solemnly asserted for the Company, by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors, in these words:—"The Company areAS MUCHowners ofTHE CHIEF SEATSof European trade in the Indian Empire, as they are oftheir freeholds in London[20]." This is an open and unreserved declaration of the East India Company, renewing and asserting the preceding allegations made on their behalf at the expiration of their last exclusive Charter; and the same allegation is now repeated in their Petition to Parliament, though in terms somewhat more qualified than those which they addressed to the Government; viz. "thatno personcan have a right, except with the consent of the proprietors of India stock,to use the seats of tradewhich the stockholdershave acquired." But they must bring an oblivion over all the reasons of state and policy by whichthey exist at all, before they can carry in the face of the nation the proud assertion, that they stand equally circumstanced, in regard ofprivate right, with respect to "the chief seats of European commerce in the Indian Empire," and with respect to "their freeholds in London." They willassuredly be told by Parliament, that theymay notexercise the same arbitrary authority over the chief seats of Indian commerce, which they may over their freeholds in London. With regard to their freeholds in London, they may exclude all persons from entering them, they may desert them themselves, or they may let them fall to ruin. But it isNOT SOwith regard to the chief seats of Indian commerce; they will find, that they cannot arbitrarily exclude British subjects from those seats, beyond a limited time; that they cannotdebarthe nation the beneficial use of them; and that they will not be suffered to render them unavailable, or unprofitable. As soon as the India Trade shall be thrown open, the ports of India will necessarily become open; and, if the Company should then search fortheir private right to close them, they will find, that it is merged inthe public right to use them; or, to use the words of Lord Hale, that "theirjus privatumis clothed and superinduced with ajus publicum[21]."
2. The last rightalleged by the Companyat the present crisis, which forms theCLIMAXof their pretensions, and is thekeyto all their late proceedings, is that of aperpetual union and incorporation with the Supreme Government of the Indian Empire;so that the Indian trade and government must ever continue to be unitedin them, and cannot now be separated, without endangering "the British Empire in India, and the British Constitution at home." This pretension renders the question of atemporaryexclusive trade entirely nugatory, because it is the unqualified assertion of aperpetualone; not to be received any more asa grantfrom Parliament, as hitherto it has been, but to be extorted from Parliament through fear of the subversion of Parliament. This pretension is founded upon the Company's interpretation of an observation, made by a late eminent Minister to the Managers of the Company's affairs, in the year 1800; viz. that "the Government and the trade of India are now so interwoven together," as to establish an indissoluble "connexion of government and trade." Thisdictum, is assumed by the Company for an incontestable maxim of State,as applicable to their own Corporation; and for an eternal principle, connecting that Body Corporate with all future Indian Government. This they denominate, "THE SYSTEM,by which the relations between Great Britain and the East Indies are now regulated;" and, in their sanguine hopes of gainingperpetuityfor theirsystem, they already congratulate themselves upon their Incorporation into the Sovereignty, as aNEW, andFOURTH ESTATEof the Empire.
It is that maxim, evidently embraced for this construction at the present crisis, that has emboldened the conductors of the Company's concerns to assume so lofty a demeanour towards the King's servants; and to venture to represent the cautious proceedings of Government in a great political question (in which it appears only asa moderatorbetween two conflicting interests), to be an aggression against their indisputable rights. It has been asked in the Court of Proprietors, "whether the Ministers of the present day are become so far exalted above their predecessors, or the Company so newly fallen, that adequate communications should not be made to the latter, of the plans and intentions of the former?" It is neither the one nor the other; but it is, thatthe Companyare become so elated and intoxicated by the ambitious expectation of being incorporated as a perpetual Member of the Supreme Government, that they conceive they have no longer any measures to keep with the Ministers of the Crown.