ticle of indigo, which had not been cultivated many years, an addition of no less than 1,000,000l. sterling was made to annual produce. Hence the house would be able to form some estimate of what might be done, if due facilities were afforded to enterprise. All that he contended for, all that he required of the company and of the house, was, that the same privileges should be accorded to the free trade of this country which were allowed to foreigners. But fair and equitable as this demand must appear to every candid and impartial judge, it was peremptorily refused by the directors. Nay, they even granted privileges to foreigners which they denied in toto to their own countrymen. Foreigners were allowed to deal, not only in certain articles, but in the company's goods in general. The effects of such a system could not fail to prove ruinous to the interests of this country, by enabling foreigners to undersell us in the European markets. In the year 1793, the sale of East India goods at L'Orient amounted to no less a sum than 1,300,000l. sterling. This was the produce of the trade with France alone. But it should be remembered, that Denmark, America, and Lisbon, had likewise einbarked in this concern. It was not his wish to exclude foreigners from the East Indies; but not to sacrifice the interests of our country to theirs not to cramp and fetter the British trader in compliment to foreign dealers. Perhaps some gentlemen might feel inclined to attach considerable weight to the declared and unanimous suffrage of the court of directors, in opposition to the encouragement of the free trade. But as a counterpoise, a more than

equivalent to their authority, he had the opinion of a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Henry Dundas), who had devoted particular attention to this important subject, and who was decidedly in favour of the free trade. He had the authority of all the governors who had managed the company's affairs in India, and who surely must be allowed to possess the means of judging of the subject. Further, in order to show on what ground the directors stood, it might be proper to offer a few remarks on the mode of their election. The original qualification for a director was 5007. This had consequently been raised to 10007. Another change was effected by limiting the election, which was originally annual, to every four years. This he considered as the grand and ge nerating cause of most of the evils which had ensued. The directors were now no longer the representatives of the proprietors, but a selfappointed, self-elected body. Six went out annually by rotation, and came again as regularly into office, when their period of rotation returned. Only one instance did he know of a director being chosen, whose name was not on the house list. By this means the constitution of the company was totally changed and subverted. The direction of the company was a complete aristocracy. And the experience of ages emboldened him to affirm, that of all possible governments, not excepting even the horrors of a wild democracy, aristocracy was the most tyrannical and dangerous. It was, indeed, no wonder that the directors should succeed in establishing this system of aristocratical dominion, when it was considered what im

mense

mense patronage they enjoyed. The whole list of appointments abroad; the purchase of goods for the foreign market; the choice of merchants; the appointment of ships; all these opportunities of influence centred among themselves. This was, in truth, the real cause and motive of the objection started by the directors to a more beneficial improvement of the trade. They were unwilling to weaken their own power and influence by admitting a competitorship. This appeared to be the case by their own confession. The honourable baronet then entered into a comprehensive analysis of a publication by one of the directors on the momentous subject, the chief and leading points of which he argued with great perspicuity; and after again pressing on the consideration of the house the vast magnitude of the discussion, and the necessity there was of granting facilities to our country, in preference to foreigners, concluded his speech with moving for the appointment of a committee, to take into consideration the papers laid before the house last sessions, relative to the proceedings of the East India company with respect to the trade with India; and to report the same to the house.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by admitting the great importance of the present question. It was, in fact, he observed, of so much importance, that it should not have been brought into agitation, unless under circumstances of extreme necessity. He should not, however, enter into the circumstances of the case previous to the arrangement of 1793, between the public and the East India company. The act of that date had wisely provided, that a certain quantity of tonnage should

be allowed to the private trade, as conducing equally to the encouragement of British manufactures, and to the consumption of our East India produce. If the directors had not given to private trade all the facilities required by that act, and of course expected by its framers, he should not have looked upon the present motion as a new measure, but rather as a supplement to that act. There was, however, no immediate issue before the house, on which it was called upon peremptorily to decide. The governor and the directors, the marquis Wellesley, and the late president of the board of control, had all agreed that something was necessary to be done in this case. They had wisely viewed the contending parties as looking to extreme points, and they had properly adopted a medium between these two extremes. It would be of infinite mischief, in his opinion, if the private trade were to be encouraged beyond a certain extent. It would be still more mischievous if a rivalry were to be established between the English and the India shipping, and if the latter were, on all occasions, to be sent home fall freighted with the private trade. A most material difference, Mr. Addington said, had taken place since this question was first brought forward. It was first produced in time of war; it was now happily to be discussed in a time of peace. The complexion of the case was therefore so far different that no disadvantage could arise from delay. There were now nearly three years left for the experiment agreed upon between the marquis of Wellesley and the board of control, by which every possible advantage was to be given to private trade, remaining,

as in his opinion it should be, under the direction of the East India company. It was the aim of his predecessors, and, without any prejudice as to their intentions, it must ever be his wish, that London should be not only the emporium of India trade, but the sole and exclusive mart of India produce. He should not enter into any comparison between Lascars and British seamen, as the latter would ever maintain their ascendancy, and the former were to be considered as merely supplementary. Neither was it his wish to enter into the question of colonization, though there was doubt less some danger from what had hap pened in another quarter. The cases of America and India were, in his opinion, widely different. The capitalists of the latter had no other wish than to settle in their mother country. There was therefore merely a ground of caution, with which it was not necessary, in his judgment, at the present season, to occupy the house. He was of opinion, that the act of 1793, with the recent arrangements, was fully sufficient for every purpose. There was no pressing exigency for the interference of the house. He, therefore, though approving of the motion in many points of view, must meet it in an indirect way, which he did by moving the previous question.

Mr. Johnston (the nephew of sir W. Pulteney) followed up and maintained the arguments of his honourable relative. He alluded to the arrangements which had been made for the term of three years. [Mr. Addington said across the table," for two seasons, amounting nearly to three years."] Mr. Johnston continued. The plans, he

said, which had been made abroad and at home, by no means met with his approbation. The receipts from India by private channels did not consist wholly of the remittances of individuals. There was to be included the loans of the company, of which two millions out of ten only were taken by the natives. The balance in favour of India, he contended, was now nearly five millions sterling. Surely some proper mode should be devised for the remittance of these large sums. If India-built ships were not admitted into the port of London, they would find their way to Antwerp and L'Orient, to the immense benefit of foreigners, and their trade would be carried on even more advantageously than under British colours. He desired to know what was to be done to prevent this mischief after these two years of experiment had expired?

Mr.Addington begged leave to answer, that what was to be done at the end of two years must rest with the discretion of the government and of the East India directors, who must, of course, feel it necessary to come to some permanent arrangement. With respect to the indul gences granted by the latter, he must say, that they appeared to him to be very ample indeed. They had agreed to extend the import tounage from three to five thousand tons, provided that this was done under their immediate direction. This had for its obvious tendency both the public and private advantage. It was stated in the paper which he held in his hand, that these ships thus employed should not be detained for any political purpose, unless they were laden with piece goods or with saltpetre-that the company was inclined to make up

Mr. Johnston said, that this explanation, if previously given, would have cut short much of the debate. The single question now was, whether the East India company should have the sole superintendence for the purpose of trammelling and hampering the private trade. He said, that if this were the case, the India-built ships must be forced to trade under neutral or foreign flags. He was most decidedly for the motion of inquiry.

Mr. Wallace took a very wide view of the case. He thought there was no ground for the proposed inquiry. It was for the company to regulate both their public and private trade; and this they had a right to do, not on political, but on commercial grounds. The question, as it now stood, was between public faith and political expediency. The plan which was now to be adopted for two years, would redound, in his opinion, to the credit and advantage of the Company. Those who opposed it seemed to him to have some ulterior advantages in view, which, perhaps, would be better decided upon when they were brought fairly before the public. The exclusive monopoly of the company he could not consider in any present point of view, but as highly advantageous to the country at large.

Sir Francis Baring said, that the question appeared to him to be, whether India or Great Britain was to be the mother country? The contest was formerly, whether the merchants of England and Ireland

were not to be entitled to a free and full share of this commerce. The warfare was now of a different sort. A set of men, who had made their fortunes under the auspices of the East India company, now came forward to say, that if the trade was not in some degree opened to them, they would remove their capitals elsewhere. He made no doubt that it might in some places be carried on more cheap; but this, in his judgment, was a reason the more for keeping the monopoly as strict as possible. He was of opinion, that the marquis of Wellesley had exceeded his powers from the moment that he lent an ear to the advocates for private trade. He was much against the trade carried on by single ships, which frequently forestalled the fair commerce of the company, and occasioned the home produce to be returned, which would otherwise have been laid out in profitable investments. He had no objection whatever to private trade, if properly conducted under the protection and superintendance of the company. But if these claims were acceded to, it would be similar to the conflict of the two companies under the reign of queen Anne, which was found to be ruinous to both. Under all the circumstances, he did not look on this as the proper moment for such an inquiry.

Mr. Metcalf very ably followed on the same side. He remarked, that there had been, during the late war, no less a tonnage than 50,000 tons, all destined for foreign settlements, on some of which it was known that we at that very moment meditated a descent. The parties who made this application were, in his opinion, never to be

satisfied

satisfied: they would in all appearance be discontented with any thing short of the measure of opening the trade altogether. It was surely fair in policy and in prudence, to give to the company the fuil and exclusive benefit of its charter. If this were to be violated, and if from eny motive of policy, however sound it might appear, the company were to be deprived of their territorial rights; then, in his opinion, the sun of India was set for ever! On the measure now before the house, and its consequences, he should only observe, that the hon. baronet who brought it forward, was so alarmed at the slight probability of its success, that he actually sold out 20,000l. East India stock on the very day before he brought forward his motion.

Mr. W. Dundas did not see any thing in the present motion hostile to the real interests of the company. He did not think it wrong that free merchants should be allowed to trade, when that trade did not actually interfere with that of the company. If the capital of the latter was limited, there was no reason whatever why an extension of it should not be allowed, where it was offered with good will. It by no means followed, from the exclusive charter of the company, that the public was to suffer either from their want of means, or from their supineness.

Mr. Tierney, on the other hand, contended warmly for the exclusive rights granted to the company by the charter of 1793. The present attack originated with men educated and raised under the company. They wished for more, and therefore were refractory. They augured every evil to the company, · VOL. XLIV.

merely because they hoped that these evils would turn to their benefit. If a concession was made in this instance, there would be no end to their claims. They said that their aim was merely to exclude foreigners. This would sanction every claim that might be made on the part of Liverpool, Ireland, &c. It was the duty of parliament to make a decided stand behind the charter of the company. If a concession was to be made to 500 gentlemen, why not to 1500 or 2000? The claimants in this case appeared to him to have but a slender title to the attention of the house. They came forward with a claim in the one hand, and a menace in the other. "If," said they, "you do not grant what we demand, we can have five per centum better at Ostend, and ten per centum better at Antwerp." They were subjects of this country, but they had a distinct interest as capitalists.

Mr. Tierney then proceeded to show the fallacy of the argument that we could have ships built in India on cheaper terms than at home. But admitting this, for the sake of argument, to be the case, were we, for the sake of 150,000: loss to the company, to disband our army of shipwrights, and to leave our marine at the mercy of the enemy? He trusted that ro such policy could take place, and that the faithful servants of the country would not be discarded on such narrow and impolitic grounds.

Lord Glenbervic spoke at some length on the legal merits of the case. He observed that, with a proper register, India built ships were now admitted as British vessels. He was, however, more an advocate for admitting the importation

F