moment, until they have paid up their arrears with interest agreeably to the law. But, you will ask, "what do they say for themselves: what defence do they set up: what excuse do they make for not paying the stipulated sums to the "nation?" The excuse they make is this: that they have been engaged in expensive, unavoidable wars; and, they say, that the Act of Charter provides, that, in such a case, they shall be excused. Yes; but, only for a time; the sums are still to be due to the nation; and interest is to run on against the Company. In fact, the Jaw allows of a postponement only, and not that, except upon a report and recommendation of the Lords of the Treasury made to the parliament; and, no such report has ever been made. In short, there is no legal defence; no legal defence can be made; the Company owes the nation the 9 and a half millions sterling, and, in this situation it has the assurance to come forward and reproach the ministry with a design not to trust it again to the same extent as it was trusted before. What would any man think of a tenant, who, during a term of twenty years, should pay but one year's rent, and who should then becall his landlord for refusing a renewal of his lease? What you would think of such a man, you will readily think of this Company; but, you will not easily find terms to express your contempt of the landlord who should be fool enough to assent to such renewal. Let us, for argument's sake, take the word of these trading sovereigns; let us, however common sense forbids it, believe them for once. Let us suppose, that they, while they have been dividing their gains so largely, have spent the 9 and a half millions in wars. With whom have they been at war? With those who were attacking England? Oh, no! With the natives of a country at nine months' sail from our shores; with a people whom Mr. Robert Grant, in his late speech in favour of the Company,described as "the most pusil"lanimous, unresisting and weak in the world." This is the people, in wars against whom, they say they have spent so much as to be thereby rendered incapable of paying the sums due to the nation as a compensation for advantages given up to their exclusive possession. Could such wars be necessary? Could such wars be just? Could such wars be unavoidable? But, monstrous as is the supposition, lét us grant it even for argument's sake; and, then, I ask what better reason can there be for not renewing their charter; what better reason for not again putting any of the power of government in their hands; what better reason for wholly breaking up their corporation? If from their Charter such scenes of blood and devastation have arisen, shall we consent to a renewal of that charter? The very excuse for their defalcation furnishes the best possible reason for the adoption of some measure that shall for ever put an end to their power. I beg, most thinking people, once more to draw your attention to the nature of the argument contained in the Act of Charter, before referred to. The nation grants to the Company, the power of raising a revenue upon the millions of people in India; and, it further grants it a trade to India, while it stipulates to exclude from that trade, supposed to be very advantageous, all the rest of the King's subjects; and while it agrees to send out forces, by land and water, for the protection of the trade and the territory against foreign enemies. In return for all this the nation is to receive, in money paid into the exchequer, £500,000 a year, during the 20, years that the Charter is to last. This sum was, of course, to go in aid of the taxes; and, 10,000,000 of pounds would have been something worth having. But, only half a million of this has been paid: the rest, we are told, has been spent in wars; in "just and necessary wars;" and, we have advanced them five millions besides. A very pretty way this of executing the terms of the Charter! A decent way of fulfilling a bargain! What the nation now demands is, that another such a bargain shall not be made; and, the ministry propose, that the trade shall be open; that other English merz chants shall trade to India; that a country, the possession of which is, like Jamaica or any other Colony, held by the means of the national taxes, shall be open to all the King's subjects. And, what can be more just; what more reasonable; what more moderate than this proposition? Why should not all the people of the kingdom be free to profit from a territory, of which they all assist in maintaining the possession. Whether India ought to be held as a colony at all, is another question, to be hereafter considered; but, while it be so held, or whether it be so held or not, can any man devise a good reason for continuing the trade a monopoly in the hands of a Com pany, who, as experience proves, will pay the nation nothing for such monopoly? The opposition, which the City of Lon don is making to the measure, proposed to be adopted, arises from a motive of the same sort as that which actuates the East India Company: namely, a preference of their own interests to those of their fellowsubjects at large. But, before I enter up on this subject more minutely, let me notice certain passages, in the speeches of Mr. FAVELL and Mr. Alderman BIRCH, during the debate of the 25th instant. army and a revenue in India than in England; and I would a million to one rather trust them with an army and a revenue in England, than I would trust the same in the hands of the East India Company, who are a body of men, of the individuals forming which body no one knows any thing, It is a non-descript sort of sovereign, from whose sway every man of common sense must wish to be preserved. The taste of Mr. Birch must be very curious. He has always been on the side of every ministry. There has been no act of their's, that I have ever observed, which he has not sup ported. He has no objection to trust them with the distribution of the 70 or 80 millions a year, which they raise upon the people of this kingdom; but he is in terrible alarm at their getting possession of the "whole revenue of India Mr. FAVELL said, there was "great "danger of transferring the government of "India from the Company to the British "Ministry. Now, Lord Buckinghamshire "expressly threatened the Company with "a new Administration of India; and "therefore his worthy Friend, when he "saw Government on the point of laying I would ask these two gentlemen, whe "hold of the Indian army, would cer"tainly be disposed to stand forward and resist in time, what, if adopted, would "effectually put an end to every thing like resistance to the measures of the Execulive of this country." Mr. BiRCH said, "He had no doubt that this was the first "of a series of measures by which the whole of the revenue of India would be "taken by Government. They would thus "obtain by stratagem, what, in the be-paying the nation the 9 and a half mil "ginning, they durst not ask.". ther they seriously believe, that the ministry, that any ministry, that the present or any other, would, or could, make a worse use of power, than has been made of power by the East India Company? What could they do more than spend the revenues of India in wars? Has war ever ceased since the Company's Charter was granted? And, what could any ministry do worse than this? The excuse for not lions of money is, that it has been expend ed in necessary wars. Is it not time to take. the government of thirty millions of people out of such hands? Whether it is likely to fall into better hands I do not pretend to know; but, here I come to close quarters with Mr. Birch; for, I say, that those whom he thinks good enough to govern England, I think quite good enough to govern India. Mr. BIRCH even asserted, that the adop tion of the proposed measure would be a violation of the Company's Charter: "He " This is a sort of doctrine that I cannot comprehend; and, I wonder how Mr. Favell and Mr. Birch have arrived at the discovery, that there is danger in putting the government, and Mr. Birch in putting the revenue, of India into the hands of those who have in their hands the government and revenue of England. If they mean to say, that the present ministry are unfit to be intrusted with the government and revenue of England; or, that any ministry that can be chosen in the present state of the représentation in parliament are unfit to be intrusted with the government and revenue of England, that gives rise to a new question; but, to say, that the same men, who are fit to be intrusted with the ruling and the taxing of us at home, are unfit to be intrusted with the ruling and taxing of Hindostan, or, at now, when these had attained maturity, least, more unfit than a Company of mer- "the Company were to be turned out, that chants living and holding their Court in "others might enjoy the fruits of their London, is, to me, a proposition that re- " labours. Unless the safety of the State quires very good arguments indeed to main-" were concerned, Charters ought never tain it. For my part, my taste is the opposite of those of these Gentlemen. I would much rather trust the ministers with an considered the proposed innovation as a "violation of the East India Company's "Charter, and a daring confiscation of property. Their Charter had been re"newed from time to time; their property had been embarked in numerous "establishments on the faith of it; and "to be infringed." I do not know, for my part, where men find confidence sufficient to make assertions like these. The moment, until they have paid up their arrears with interest agreeably to the law. But, you will ask, "what do they say for themselves: what defence do they set up: what excuse do they make for not paying the stipulated sums to the nation?" The excuse they make is this: that they have been engaged in expensive, unavoidable wars; and, they say, that the Act of Charter provides, that, in such a case, they shall be excused. Yes; but, only for a time; the sums are still to be due to the nation; and interest is to run on against the Company. In fact, the law allows of a postponement only, and not that, except upon a report and recommendation of the Lords of the Treasury made to the parliament; and, no such report has ever been made. In short, there is no legal defence; no legal defence can be made; the Company owes the nation the 9 and a half millions sterling, and, in this situation it has the assurance to come forWard and reproach the ministry with a design not to trust it again to the same extent as it was trusted before. What would any man think of a tenant, who, during a term of twenty years, should pay but one year's rent, and who should then becall his landlord for refusing a renewal of his lease? What you would think of such a man, you will readily think of this Company; but, you will not easily find terms to express your contempt of the landlord who should be fool enough to assent to such renewal. Let us, for argument's sake, take the word of these trading sovereigns; let us, however common sense forbids it, believe them for once. Let us suppose, that they, while they have been dividing their gains so largely, have spent the 9 and a half millions in wars. With whom have they been at war? those who were attacking England? Oh, no! With the natives of a country at nine months' sail from our shores; with a people whom Mr. Robert Grant, in his late speech in favour of the Company,described as the most pusillanimous, unresisting and weak in the world." This is the people, in wars against whom, they say they have spent so much as to be thereby rendered incapable of paying the sums due to the nation as a compensation for advantages given up to their exclusive possession. Could such wars be necessary? Could such wars be just? Could such wars be unavoidable But, monstrous as is the supposition: us grant it even for argument's sake then, I ask what better reason can there be for not reaewing their charter; what better reason for not again putting any of the power of government in their hands; what better reason for wholly breaking up their corporation? If from their Charter such scenes of blood and devastation have arisen, shall we consent to a renewal of that charter? The very excuse for their defalcation furnishes the best possible reason for the adoption of some measure that shall for ever put an end to their power. I beg, most thinking people, once more to draw your attention to the nature of the argument contained in the Act of Charter, before referred to. The nation grants to the Company, the power of raising a revenue upon the millions of people in India; and, it further grants it a trade to India, while it stipulates to exclude from that trade, supposed to be very advantageous, all the rest of the King's subjects; and while it agrees to send out forces, by land and water, for the protection of the trade and the territory against foreign enemies. In return for all this the nation is to receive, in money paid into the exchequer, £500,000 a year, during the 20 years that the Charter is to last. This sum was, of course, to go in aid of the taxes; and, 10,000,000 of pounds would have been something worth having. But, only half a million of this has been paid: the rest, we are told, has been spent in wars; in "just and necessary wars;" and, we have advanced them five millions besides. A very pretty way this of executing the terms of the Charter! A decent way of fulfilling a bargain! What the nation now demands is, that another such a bargain shall not be made; and, the ministry propose, that the trade shall be open; that other English mer chants shall trade to India; that a country, the possession of which is, like Jamaica or any other Colony, held by the means of the national taxes, shall be open to all the King's subjects. And, what can be more just; what more reasonable; what more moderate than this proposi should not all the people free to profit from a they all assist in main Whether India ough at all, is pany, who, as experience proves, will pay | army and a revenue in Enix than tos the nation nothing for such monopoly? The opposition, which the City of Lon don is making to the measure, proposed to be adopted, arises from a motive of the same sort as that which actuates the East India Company: namely, a preference of their own interests to those of their fellowsubjects at large. But, before I enter upon this subject more minutely, let me notice certain passages, in the speeches of Mr. FAVELL and Mr. Alderman BIRCH, during the debate of the 25th instant. land; and I would a milion to o Mr. FAVELL said, there was "great This is a sort of doctrine that I cannot comprehend; and, I wonder how Mr. take a Favell and Mr. Birch have arrived at the discovery, that there is danger in putting in 1. the government, and Mr. Birch in putting the revenue, of India into the hands those who have in their hands the govern ment and revenue of England. If the mean to say, that the present ministry arr unfit to be intrusted with the goverman. and revenue of England; or, that an nistry that can be chosen in the prem state of the représentation in province are unfit to be intrusted with the ment and revenue of England, rise to a new question; but, the same ho are fit to with!! being PS to the pany. held on 12, the a Combeing re from the was read: consideranegociation for the re sive privirtant, that Directors, Forward for dia to the aid be unCommittee rt to pass a position in already set egnant with pany, inas › incapable of tted to them, in their poli Court cannot, h their duty to > end to them the He measure cannot be a violation of the Char- "endeavours to give the Hindoos a concepter. The term of the Charter will have" tion of the Rights of Man."A most expired. The nation has fulfilled its part alarming thought, to be sure! Sir William of the agreement. It was a grant for 20 Curtis is, then, for no rights of man. years, and, when the 20 years shall have is for keeping the poor slaves, slaves still. been completed, the nation has, surely, a His wishes, however, will not be accom→ right to resume its possession. What an plished, I believe; and, he may yet live impudent man should we think a tenant, long enough to see men claiming and assertwho, at the expiration of his lease, should ing their rights all over the world. But, accuse his landlord of a violation of it, be- what a sentiment is this from an Englishcause he refused to renew it? "A daring man! His objection to an unrestricted in"confiscation of property!" What tercourse with another part of the world, is, language applied to such a case! Mr. that it may lead to the teaching of enslaved Birch could see no confiscation of property men their rights! This is the objection in the selling of a part of an Englishman's which one of the Aldermen, who is also a estate under what is called the redemption member of parliament, for the great City, of the land tax; but, the refusing to grant has to the opening of the trade to India. a new Charter to the East India Company, Commerce has, by many writers, been ap he calls a daring confiscation of property! plauded for having produced an extension The Company have embarked, he says, in of knowledge and of freedom; but, this numerous establishments, on the faith of man objects to it on that account; he fears the Charter. What faith? The faith of that the opening of trade may tend to the its lasting 20 years. No other faith did enlarging of the mind of man; he is afraid the nation pledge; and that faith, notwith- that a free intercourse would break the standing all the defalcations of the Compa- chains of a people! Let us hope, that ny, the nation has kept. What reason, there are very few assemblages of men in then; what reason, in the name of com- the world where such a sentiment would mon sense, have the Company to com- not have been received with an unanimous plain? exclamation of horror. And yet, I dare say, that Sir William Curtis is one of those who talks well about the despotism of Buo naparte's government, and who is loud in his prayers for the deliverance of Europe. I dare say he is one of those who is for the deliverance of every body but those whom we may deliver at any hour that we please. Now, I am for beginning the work of deliverance that is within our own power; and, having closed that, then call upon Buonaparte to follow our example. 66 Now," says Mr. BIRCH," the Company are to be turned out, that others may enjoy the fruits of their labour." How are others to enjoy the fruits of the Company's labour? The Company have pocketed those fruits themselves. They have had their lease out, though they have paid but one year's rent out of twenty; and how, then, are others to get at the fruits of their labour. Besides, who are these "others" that Mr. Birch talks of so slightingly? They are nothing less than all the people of the kingdom, able to embark in the India trade. It is the nation, in short, who, at the expiration of a lease, re-enters its demised estate; and this is what Mr. Birch terms "others;" and this act of re-entry he calls a violation of the charter and a daring confiscation of property. The worthy Alderman has only to apply his doctrine to the affairs of private life, and he will go a great deal farther than even the abused sans-culottes of France ever dreamt of going. ŞIR WILLIAM CURTIS, during this debate, expressed his fears, that a free trade to India might cause the introduction of political freedom. "If a free trade to India "were once allowed, among other exports, "they would probably soon have a variety of politicians, who would use their best The arguments urged in favour of the opposition by the City of London I shall notice in my next, as well as the statements and reasoning in some of the speeches at the India House. In the mean while I shall insert below the copies of Lord Buckinghamsbire's letters, containing the statement of the intentions of the Ministers, together with a letter of remonstrance on the part of the Directors, which documents are neces→ sary to be attentively read, in order to enter with advantage on a further discussion of the subject. WM. COBBETT. Botley, 28th January, 1813. INDIA COMPANY. |