The Letters of Gracchus on the East India Question 4

The Letters of Gracchus on the East India Question 4

LETTER IV.

 

 

_Saturday, Jan. 16, 1813._

 

Having hitherto taken a view of those parts of the India Question, which

more immediately relate, to the commercial interests of this country,

and to the Proprietors of East India Stock; let us now advert to the

deportment of the Directors towards the Ministers of the Crown, in their

last communication made to the Court of Proprietors.

 

It appears, from the printed papers, that as long back as the month of

April, the President of the Board of Control put the Court of Directors

in full possession of the _final opinion_ of His Majesty's Ministers;

concerning the privileges of trade which, they conceived, it would be

their duty to submit to Parliament, as the basis of a Charter. Early in

the month of December, a deputation from the Court of Directors appears

to have been admitted, by special appointment, to a conference; in which

it is known to every clerk and messenger about the offices, as well as

to every member of that deputation, that the three Secretaries of State,

the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer

attended. And it is equally notorious, that two subsequent meetings were

held, between the same parties. We are warranted to infer, from the

letter of Lord Buckinghamshire, that the discussions which took place at

those several conferences, were declared to be open and unreserved; with

a view that the Members of Government, and the Members of the

Deputation, might freely, and without restraint of form, deliver their

reasons for the opinions which they respectively held.

 

The impression which the Court of Directors received, from the conduct

of the Ministers of the Crown, in those conferences, is manifested in

the Letter from the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to the President of the

Board of Control, of the 30th December, in which "they return sincere

acknowledgments for the attention with which their representations had

been listened to, in the various interviews with which they had been

honoured by his Lordship, and His Majesty's Ministers, who attended."

 

In conferences of this nature, and between parties thus relatively

circumstanced, all that was to be expected from the Ministers of the

Crown was, that they should listen with attention to the representations

made to them, and should reply to those representations, so as to

command the acknowledgment of the inferior party. If, in the issue, (to

use the words of Mr. Dundas to the same authorities in 1801,) "after

having reviewed their opinions with the most jealous attention, and

after having weighed, with the most anxious care, the arguments brought

forward, it was still their misfortune to view the subject in an

opposite light" to that which presented itself to the judgment of the

Directors; it was not to be expected, that they should surrender their

own judgment to that of the Directors, who stood in the anomalous

character of defendants and judges in their own cause.

 

At the time that these conferences were terminated, the Ministers appear

to have entertained an expectation, that the subject would not be

further agitated, until an official communication should be made upon it

from Government. The Court of Directors, however, met on the 18th

December, and entered something very like a protest, by anticipation,

against the measure, which they knew, (from what appears to have passed

at the conferences,) would be the subject of that official

communication; and they transmitted it to the India Board. By the

irregularity of this proceeding; which bore upon the face of it the

appearance of a design, either of intimidating Government from coming to

the final decision which they had signified, or of creating a bar

against future discussion; they precluded Government from going into any

detail of argument, and consequently, the reply of the President of the

Board of Control appears to have been principally intended, to convey

officially to the Court of Directors that result, which the Members of

the Deputation were already in possession of; namely, "those conditions,

upon which alone, consistently with their public duty, the King's

Servants could submit a proposition to Parliament for the renewal of the

Charter."

 

To this official communication, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the

East India Company sent a reply, wherein they offer some explanation of

the irregularity; but, in their opposition to the ultimate determination

of Government, they call upon the King's confidential servants, to

impart to them all the reasons which had determined them to think, that

"the privilege of Eastern commerce should be extended to British

merchants;" and also, the specific regulations which they may propose to

adopt, for giving additional security to the revenue against smuggling.

 

The President of the Board of Control, thus called upon to step out of

his sphere, or to admit the Court of Directors to _Cabinet discussions_,

was constrained to acquaint them, that "the duty of Ministers had been

performed, by communicating to the Company the conditions on which they

were disposed to submit the business to Parliament;" at the same time

informing them, that they would find most of the reasons, which had

determined the judgment of Ministers to yield to the representations of

the out-port merchants, stated "in the petitions presented by those

merchants to the Houses of Parliament." And he finally referred them,

with confidence, to the "justice and wisdom of Parliament, for obtaining

a due regard to their interests."

 

If the Court of Directors did not entertain feelings and views very

different from those of the community at large, in consequence of that

peculiar position which renders them _defendants, and judges, in their

own cause_, they could not fail to contemplate with applause, the

temper, patience, and regard to public engagements, which mark the whole

proceedings of Government on this arduous occasion. But, being at one

and the same moment, petitioners and arbitrators, and having their

judgments biassed under those clashing characters, they have not always

kept themselves within the capacity, in which alone they can

consistently treat with the Government of the country. In their

communications with the Servants of the Crown, respecting the renewal of

their Charter, all that they are authorized to pretend to, is to have a

distinct knowledge of the conditions, on which the Government think they

shall be justified in the sight of the country, in proposing to

Parliament the renewal of their Charter; and, in the course of obtaining

this information, they have experienced the utmost consideration, and

have received the most ample and unreserved communications from His

Majesty's confidential servants; who have given their attention to every

argument urged by those who appeared as representatives of the Court of

Directors, and have put them in possession of all the grounds upon which

they differ from them in opinion. After having done this, they have

discharged their highly responsible duty to the Public; and if "_they

have the misfortune to view the subject in an opposite light_," the

Company's records will show them, that this is not the first time a

radical difference of opinion had subsisted, concerning their

pretensions, between the King's Ministers and the Court of Directors.

 

Such being the true state of the case, it becomes a subject of grave

inquiry, why the Directors, in the Court of Proprietors held at the

India House on the 5th instant, took no step whatever for moderating the

spirit which was then shown; or for rectifying the false impressions

which were there testified, respecting the deportment of His Majesty's

Ministers. It does not appear, that any one of the Directors who were

parties in those various conferences, in which they acknowledge to the

President of the Board of Control that they experienced so much

attention, took any forward step to set right the misrepresentations

which were delivered; or to repel the charges, implied or declared, of

contempt, neglect, encroachment, &c. which were so freely imputed to the

Servants of the Crown. But they left the spirit which had improperly

been excited, to act by the impulse of an erroneous impression; omitting

to render to the Government that justice, which the frankness of their

proceedings strongly called for.

 

A review of the debate at the India House,--with the Directors, either

silently withholding what they were enabled to impart in justification

of the Government, or by the rhetoric of some of them tending to blow

wider the flames of discord,--would almost authorize a suspicion, that

the Directors were not displeased at the fever which their silence

nourished. It is therefore earnestly to be hoped, for the honour of the

East India Company, and more especially for the interest of the

Proprietors, that some Director, or other individual, may, at the next

General Court, strive to efface the memory of the last; who may call

upon the Deputation, to render to the Ministers of the Crown whatever

justice is due to them, for their conduct in the late discussions; and

who may recommend a revision of the statement, in which they represent

to those Ministers, that the terms on which Government have offered to

the Company a Charter, are such as may "_leave their dividend unprovided

for_," and "_create a necessity for their going to Parliament_!" For,

unless they have brought themselves to a state to suppose, that

Ministers and the Public have lost all intelligence, they must know,

that both Ministers and the Public are well aware, that they are

actually under _a necessity of going to Parliament_ for aid, as soon as

Parliament shall be assembled; and that, at the present moment, _their

dividend_ may, in strictness, be considered as _unprovided for_.

 

GRACCHUS.

 

 

 

 

LETTER V.

 

 

_Tuesday, January 19, 1813._

 

The writers, who have recently undertaken to defend and justify the

opposition of the Court of Directors to any extension of the Import

Trade from India to the out-ports of the kingdom, have laid a peculiar

stress upon an opinion conveyed in that part of Mr. Dundas's Letter of

the 2d of April 1800, in which that Minister was considering "the

_agents_ to be employed at home; to manage the private trade of

individuals from India, and to take care of their interests in the

cargoes of the returning ships." He states his opinion, that "there is

no use of any interference by the Company; that the great interest to be

attended to on _the part of the Company_, is, that no goods come from

India that are not deposited in the Company's warehouses; and that the

goods, so imported, be exposed at the Company's sales, agreeably to the

rules prescribed for that purpose."

 

In taking ground upon any principle, it is necessary to ascertain

whether it applies to the case in point. That it was a great interest to

the East India Company to watch and control the trade carrying on under

their own licenses, is obvious; and this the Company could not

effectually do, unless that Trade, on its return from India, was brought

under their own eye, and collected within the sphere of their own

cont