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 of
_Peerzadah_, 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 be accounted 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 him _to 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
have neglected 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 immediately on 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 of all 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 encouragement_ is alone requisite;
but, in order to give it stability, _native agency_ must 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 the Commanders 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. As _our 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, for _drawing the
attention of the natives to our exported commodities_, and for
_promoting the dispersion of those commodities_, within the sphere of
their influence or power.
We now discern _one operative cause_ of 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,
whether _this cause_, or the alleged _prejudices 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.
LETTER X.
THE RIGHTS AND PRETENSIONS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
_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 of THE
RIGHTS and PRETENSIONS of 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 generated A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION, and are now carried to an height to affect the supreme
Sovereignty of the State. To discuss those Rights and Pretensions 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
their _temporary_ rights, and their _perpetual_ or _permanent_ rights.
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 is _a
lease_ of all the _public right_ to 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 by them 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 whatever _permanent_ rights shall be found
to pertain to them.
II. The _perpetual_, or more properly, the _permanent_ rights of the
Company, must be considered under two distinct heads, viz. _admitted_
and _alleged_.
§ 1. The _admitted_ permanent 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, created
_both 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, the _whole of the grant_ might at
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 the _whole grant_
determinable 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 erecting _a New Company_, the advocates for
that measure took particular care to show, "That the Old Company, in
reciting their Charters, had _forgot_ to mention the _provisos_ therein,
viz. that the respective Kings of England, who granted them, reserved a
discretionary power to _make them void_ on 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
of _corporate succession_. But perpetual succession in a body corporate,
does not imply perpetuity of duration, but merely _uninterrupted_
succession 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
created _both the corporate capacity and the exclusive privilege_ of the
_New_, or English Company, followed the example of the former Charter,
granted to the _Old_ Company, and rendered the _whole grant_
determinable by the same process. But, in the 10th year of Queen Anne,
after the two Companies had become _United_, they represented the great
hazard they should encounter, by engaging in any considerable expenses
for securing _the Pepper Trade_, under the limitation of that clause; in
consequence of which representation the clause was repealed, and the
limitation was _left 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 of _both_ of 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 the _negative_
perpetuity 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 and
_positive_ perpetuity 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 King William; but by
Stat. 3 G. 2. c. 14. § 14. the Company's estates _in Great Britain_ were
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 and _permanent_ capacity, 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 therefore _cease 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
a _private_ right 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 their _delegated
sovereignty_, and those which can alone be annexed to their _commercial
corporation_. And this brings us to the consideration of
§ 2. The _alleged_ permanent rights of the Company, which require to be
considered under _two_ descriptions, viz. rights _alleged for them_ at
the expiration of their last exclusive Charter, and rights _alleged by
them_ at the present moment, with a view to the renewal of their present
Charter. _These_ are the rights, or more properly the pretensions, which
have been pronounced by GRACCHUS, "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 of
PROBUS has chosen to assume.
The rights _alleged for them_ were 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 by conveyance 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 them _the ground_ of 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, to THE CROWN and THE
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, these principles are virtually adopted; the _end and
purpose of the Grants_ is declared; and their ground is proclaimed to
be, the honour of the British Crown, and the welfare of the British
Nation. It was those great _public interests_, and not the _separate
interests_ of 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 the _right of property_ vested in the Company by the Indian
Grants, the _right of sovereignty_ vested necessarily in the Crown of
England. "The property of the soil (said those eminent lawyers) vested
in the Company by the Indian Grants, _subject only_ to 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 of
_the 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, under _a 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]." The establishment 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 was _the object_ of 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 with such 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 projected _the
scheme of depriving the French of the Northern Circars_, contrary to the
inclination of his whole Council. That _this expedition succeeded
completely, for the French were totally driven out by_ Col. 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 was _entirely military_, and that the success was _the
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.