The Sun. — London, England, 1802-05-13 00:00:00

of , e,oriosity, by asking why it was eXi'edietit anctoe present moment to avoid references to ofp le nt Treaties in the present Definitive Treaty tie L e ' , `ce• It was a subject upon which he did not it necessary to dwell at present, it was suf thient for him to saV, that there was no diminution ever in our power in India, no foundation what for sot-any other to dispute our sovereignty there,. any thing which entitled others to contest with its the rights' upon which that sovereignty was i , a In ded ; nor was that all, lie Would go further, and to Yi he mistook gratly .if any doubt was now en s rt a j i , ed, that with regard to Great Britain, her b (w , re ignty in India stood at that moment upon a r e eer f ° o ting than if the forther Treaties had ,been which was newed by it. By the Treaty of 1783, ever entered the very worst Treaty this Country entered into on the subject of Indian affairs, toe w as the b us i ness o f Hi s M a j esty ' s G overn _ v nt, and a very laborious one it was, i n t h e C on _ , P lt ion of 17 8 7 to d o away t h e ev il create d by t h e L i r d e i a a t Y of 1783. By that of 1783,0ur sovereignty in . was rend ere d di sputa bl e ; by t h e Convention of ; 78 7 our sovereignty was re-established. Having ,)11Patiated at considerable length upon the merits of TeConvention of 1787, and the demerits of the T r eat y r of 1783, he proceeded to say, that had the e.. "LY now upon the Table renewed any former t h r :, 4 tY, it would have been impossible to refer to to ` Convention of 1787, without also renewing the geldwhich were brought forward in 1783. It 0 , 4111 have been impossible to have introduced the othe r, without also calling for an explanation of the le r, and therefore the affairs of that Country , r er e much better, considering all the circurn -oinces of the rel a tive situation of this C ountr y a nd ed D'rance. To suffer all Treaties whatever to be pass °l, erin silence, we might, perhaps, by rcnew_ . 11 -sotn e of the declarations and admissions of our 000tvereignty in India as settled by the Convention 1787, have employed some antidote against the bl evil of which we had too much reason . to complain, I t it was manifest to him we could not have such a n _ IlLote without having also a certain portion of the l ' o °4 ° l l by the renewa l o f any di scuss i on w h atever P " the subj e a o f T reat i es , and therefbte he had UodifEcult whatever in saying, that upon a review rei t h , wh o l e con di t i on o f our a ff a i rs, cons i dered with i!,, lti ° ll l.o those of Francc; we were infinitely better Imrssing the subjed over in silence, than we should been in endeavouring to renew any of them. eonfessed, he said, that when the rumour t f ael led him that the provisions of the Convention 411 1 787 were left out of the present T r eaty, he n i p under a n a pp re h ens i on t h at our power i n 41 'a would be destroyed, and he was the more ° 4h 4lll ed wh en h e h ear d it sa i d, that t hi s was brought t i, 4 in consequence of the views of France to un .ioTline, and finally to overturn, our Sovereignty . sslr l dia- This led him to turn the subjed very d cl usly in hi s mi n d, an d, to l oo k at a ll t h e anc i ent j o ' cu tntnts, to cons id er t h e w h o l e mat t er deliberate . tor'.l.and th e result was, , that it was it finitely better grit os to h ave no re f erence w h atever to any T reaty, 1 4 - ; le listis-already stated. But the Learned c°ul Gentle.we asked,•-if.the. House could-..really , think that , v;•cl he secure in India against the ambitious ‘ t i l: c r' S of France, as they h a d appea r ed i n 17 8 3 , thi‘ i _ w hich were done . away in ? Did We really We were safe now, Without havin g renewed, Y th Present Treaty, the provisions of the Co n _ ti,: e tiO n of 1787 ? This h e would answer, by put ty to the L earne d G ent l em a n t hi s question—Did ;, re ," ll Y thi n k, t ha t if the French should be -dis to rene w t he preten s ions of £783, or any o t h er 1 3 1.1 'd, that they would be prevented from so doing Isf Y . t . few scraps of papers being laid on the Table li t ' n 't House, a species of artillery that would not k l e c t loal'to the operation of a single field-piece for .1 1a a .. minute ?—But the Lea•nel Gentleman would that the Treaty of i 783 would establish the oosPosition of the French at that time to dispute b i ! Sovereignty in India. It would indeed esta bh that w hi c h t h ere was no nee d o f esta bli s hi ng, N eaus e the thing was well k n own ; the French did tthst occasion, as they would .do on every occa hrn, provid e d t h ey t h ought t h ey cou ld succee d in th ' t temnt of it, nam e ly, en d ea vour to dimini s h o: greatness of this Country, and enlarge its e but in proportion as they were disposed to n,nostile to our interest, or . querulous, while we s ;4 l , ° .Yed our advantages, he had no difficulty in %a , s ng, it was the wisdom of this Country, in the 1,1;7 proportion, to wait until these claims were p t : i i e which Gentlemen spoke of with so much ap ti)ension, and in the mean time to stand upon our to6ol't---our paramount right of Sovereignty. -What fie the French would take to enlarge their ccitn patee.ial interest in India was not for us to antici vols. It was enough - for us, that if they.iendea -00;er(d to d o so by the exertions of individuals, or liab le thew could never d o s o w i t h ou t b e i ng th e to be interrupted by this Country. If ties were to try to exert Commercial Fa610,0012,0r ,0 01 2,or to do any thing th a t i nter f ere d w i t h s, ot u° vereig nty i n I n di a, we s h ould b e fully war. of e d, and what -was better, we were in possession n lea nle "ns to resist such an attempt. But those Ingn,s, w ould not be increased by a few. Pipers be -1,4 he before the House, such documents would r ead - P Us to any arguments which we had not al_ than k, for the p ropr i ety o f res i st i ng such attempts ; ,God we h a d never wanted arguments to re tei„tne encroachme nts of the French on our sove. fo r rb L. Power in India, nor had we wanted strength cleapurpose; From all this it was perfeetly ward that before the French could exercise any rq-terC Inlndia, they must come to us in the cha of suppli ants ; for nothing they had yet ob- L,di:' W ould enabl e t h em to carry on Trade in fer e , w ithout ou r l eave. H e had stated the dif ven,icoenbetween the Treaty of 1783 and the Con \'‘'e c t 1 787, al rea d y . H e h a d to o b serve, t h at Whi eh re n ot now in a si tuat i on s i m il ar to t h at i n e .` v e stood in 17 8 7. Th ere was now no Treaty r egui x a te nee betw een us an d F rance, nor any sillgiet'On on the zuhjed of India, except the T a n ie of l ause in the' C onvent i on now upon t h e tr„ de -th- H ouse. • And with regard to the "r Franc e in India, if any they were to have, t!ltiiiCi.-7::11.1 'Mire it only through the indulgence of 11l er in India; and, therefore, he said gri n w r e r d es aent the ,' we were t Treaty'etter off as the case stood upon of Peace, than if we had re_ and of the former Treaties, Whatever mat ter of complaint wos td‘ be urged, or, rather, of lamentation, upon this subjeel, it could only hr, that His Majesty's Government did not settle ,the whole of the provisions of al; ,former Treaties, by taking notice of them all, and finally adjusting them all. This, however in the abstrad it might appear desirable, ought not to have been attempted in the present case, because it would have been im possible to accomplish it, without protrading the Negotiation to !a length that Would have been -in consistent with the interests of the States of En rope. The articles in all these Treaties must have been all gone over, if any of them 'were no ticed ; in the course of which a thousand e)o= planations would become necessary, and which might have made the Negotiation in , many . respeas . appear to some idle and ridiculous. —But there were other considerations which, 'he hoped, would operate - on the conduct of thoSe who may- have the futore cooduCt of the affairs of India ; and, they related to other Powers - as well as to the French and ourselves in India—we were not to con. sider merely our own concerns and those of France in India. He stated it as a •solid ground of . consideration for the East India Company, to regu late, not only the Trade of the French, but to look to the,regulation of other subjeds, to have an eye upon - other Commercial connexions. But it might be said, Why not stipulate these things in Negotiation, and finally determine them by "frea -ty ? To Which he would answer, It is much better -as it is, for' at present we have the so vereignty of India; and 'he would ask,". if it ap peared to any Member of that House, to be a wise course to exclude the Government of this Country from all discretionary poWer to re gulate the Trade of India ? If the French, or any other Power, should claim the right of carrying their goods up the Ganges, or to do any other aCt,- , was it not sufficient that we had the power to pre . vent them ? The French Trade in India, the Dutch Trade in India, ,and the Trade of other . Powers in India, might go hand in hand, so that it was not detrimental to us ; . but if detrimental -to us ; we had the power to stop it,. and that was enough for our present purpose at least. He wanted this subjed to be considered upon a large and coniprehensive scale, and not confined merely -to ourselves and France. He did not mean -to pretend, or to insinuate, that he ova; in possession of the reasons which aduated His Ma jesty's Servants upon this occasion, when they came to the' conclusion which was now before the Public; but he felt himself entitled to state, - that if they had chine that which some Gentlemen blamed them for not doing, they would have put it out of their own power to do their Country much service, which they will now be enabled to render. by consulting those who are best . qualified to advise them, and that more especially on the affairs of India.—BUt, when he heatd it said, that France was hostile in its disposition towards the Trade of this Coun try, and was endeavouring to, prevail on Hol land, Spain, and other Countries to • do ail they can to discourage' our trade, and to prohibit some of it in their dominions, he would ask are they so ? And if they be, is this the -precise period which you would make them a voluntary gift of commerce to India, when you are doubtful in what relation they chose to stand with you with regard to other com mercial connedions ? " I own," said he, " this is a subject on which' I. feel deeply ; I have it much:at heart, and when I say that T am sure there is not one man in this House who would feel more sorrow than I should, if' I conceived it possible for you to surrender any one of the rights of 'which I have ,bcen speaking ; at the sane time I feel these reasons I love been stating, I desire not to be misrepresent ed ; I am one of thelast men in the world, my Con don, I think, proves it, wh6 would wish to plead for the system of this Country narrowing the Trade of Foreigners in India ; ever since I thought I under stood any thing of the affairs of India, my - maxim has been to enlarge that trade, and that we might as well attempt to prohibit any Foreigners from buying our Manufactures of Yorkshire or of Birmingham, or any other Manufacture of this Country, as prohibit Foreigners from trading with our Territories in India. But I should guard' against misconception of this opinion of mine. When I say we should not prevent the French, or any other Nation, from trading with our territorial provinces in India, I mean to say, that I am not afraid of them as Merchants—l am not unwilling to give them, a boon as Merchants, with a chance of reciprocity, and I ask no more ; but I think I ani not going too far when I desire this Country to guard against that . which I know the French have en deavoured to make, and will, endeavour to make, ;if they see any probability of its success, I mean an incroachment on your sovereignty in India. —This they have • done, and if an opportunity offers, this they will -do under the pretence of pur suing Trade.—They will ask you civilly; for in no other way can they ask it, to allow them to do a number of - things for the purpose of carrying on Trade, when their object will be to incroach upon your Sovereignty.—lt was in this way they for merly endeavoured to incroach upon your Sove reignty in 1787, when they told us they could not 'recover their debts without certain enlargement of power in India ; we resisted that diredly ; and I hope this will be the conduct of this Coun_ try in future. The very first article insisted upon by Lord AUCKLAND, in 1787, was, that nothing in the most 'distant degree touching our sovereignty in India would, on any terms or con, ditions whatever, be assented to on the part of thiS Country. I hope it is not presumptuous in me to say, I trust His Majesty's Government will adopt the same principle, and stand . upon the same ground as we did then, and if we do so, I will venture . to say there will be no danger ; depart from that principle, and your sovereignty will be first undermined, then attacked, and perhaps finally overthrown. 'As to What may be attempted by France, even with all your caution, I cannot say you will have no diffi cUlty, for I am not going to be guarantee for the moderation of the French; but what I contend for is, that you have now better means than you would have 'had by the renewal of . any Treaty, better means than you ever had, of preventing incroachment upon your sovereignty in India. But we have not before us any prOof, nor is it insinuated; that the French Nation themselvei are bringing forward any such claim as We hear stated on their behalf : will it ,)or be time enough, When-they do biing forward the 3e claims, for Governnient to resist them ?---'-But, surely; when we.agree, that their claims are dan gerous and cannot be admitted, ,it is singular to pursue this as a subjet of declarnatiOn in the Holises of Parliament. I say, this ought not to be done; for we all know, that What p'asSes in this House; or in the other House of Parlianient, transpires to the people of this country ; and I cannot concur with those, who wish to make the people of this country think the Peace a bad one. lam certainly one of those, who cannot give an appobation Of all the Articles of Peace ; but is it doing good- to this country to keep this question tie, and to :endea vour to' make the pepple dislike it ? Gentle men complain of the pride and arrogance of France : Is - this the wa:.• to make her less proud or ,arrogant ? Certainly notand, therefdre, I cannot see • the wisdom of stating these claims, which we all know and feel cannot be admitted, and which nobody. asserts, to have been Made." He then refuted the observations of Dr. LAWRENCE, on the subjed of the danger to us in , the Eastern Seas, and on the apprehension. he expressed con cerning the claims of the DOtch, and then con eluded--e, I have stated what appeared to me to be the true substantial rights and in terests of this Coun try on • the subject of Indian . afftirs, upon these rights ano principleS I desire ,to stand, and I have stated what course I think this Country ought to pursue to preserve . those rights entire. lam aware that by so stating them, and by so recommending the course to be pursued, that • I impose on the shoulders of His Majesty's Government an awful and tremendous responsibility ; for if you depart an iota from your sovereignty in India, and allow others to incroach on you, -or 'any way, to diminish the force of that paramount sovereignty, you will lay the foundation of the overthrow of Your power in India. If, being possessed' of that mighty Empire, and - "of the means to assert and' vindicate your right, you allow others to injure it by any at of executive government, I shall not receive any apology for the, Ministers, who shall suffer that to be done under any pretence that the French had claim ed these things before, or under any other pretence whatsoever, because you are now more than ever possessed of means to prevent it. I apprehend the Learned Gentleman whO brought this subjeCt for. ward is of the same opinion, and I hope he will concur with me in saying, Ministers, if they allow our sovereignty in India to be touched will be without an apology, and that therefore he will now be so good as put his motions in his pocket. It is. my solemn conviCtion, that 'if we were now to give way to these hypothetiCat cases which are stated,- and entertain these Motions, instead of strengthen ing we should weaken the rights - of the British Empire. • Mr. T. GREN VILLE said, there must have been a broad line of misconception between the view of the subjed taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. - Du.NbAs) and his, before the Right Hon. Gentleman could have stated it in the manner he had done. . The Right lion". Gentleman had stated doubts as to the propriety of this 'Motion,' because whether our claims were to he decided by negotia tion or by the sword, surely, said the Right Hon.:Geo tlemaneit was not wise to bring' forward doubts rela„ rive to our own claims, which were perfedlyclear. He agreed with the Right Hon Gentleman in this point ; but how did the argument apply to France ? • The Right Hon. Gentleman had asserted, that this Country possessed a clear right of sovereignty in the East Indies ;' but having stated, this, what did the latter part of his Speech refer to, that the claim which England has asserted, has been and is dis puted ; how, therefore ? did the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman apply ? He did not state doubts but that at all period; France had disputed our claims in India, Of what consequence' to the question - were the victories and conquests of Lord Clive, or the sovereignty we obtained in India ? that sovereignty,, as well as whatever rights we.' claimed, were still disputed by France. He di4 not mean to say . that 'this Country and France were in a continual state of War, but the latter never abandoned her claims, and this state of things pro duced the Convention of 1787, which was a com promise of claims. His Right. Hon. Friend (Mr. DUN As) had stated, that the non.renewal of the Treaty of 1783, and the ConventiOn of 1787, was more advantageous to this Country than the re newal Of them would have- been'•: this was the first time, he believed, that his Right Hon. Friend had sat in judgment on the Treaty of 1783. He de sired co know, however, whether in many situa tions it was not more adviseable to possess a limited right by Convention, than to rest upon a general, but unacknowledged right, because, by obtaining a limited right, by Convention, we obtained at the same time a recognition of•this original right ? His Right Hon. Friend had asked, what advantage was to be derived from laying a few scraps of paper. on the Table ? This put him in mind of a question formerly asked.. on a subjeCt relative to the East- India Company : What was a charter ? a piece of parchment with a seal at the end of it. This mode of argument, however, could . not do away that con sideration to which important documents were en titled. - The objed of his Hon. Friend (Dr. LAW-. RENCE) was to shew what France might elaiirt against this Country; With resped to the naviga_ tion,of the Eas-tern Seas, his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. DuNDAs). had, treated this subjed with consi derable levity ; he could not consider it as a matter which ought to betreated with levity ; it wasnot the claims of the' Dutch Republic, as settled by Treaty, that formed the objed of .consideration ; but his Hon. Friend (Dr. LAWRENCE) had. stated the dangers which might result from the .claims of the Dutch Republic, in its present state. of servi tude, when it could only be considered as a Mem ber of the French Republic, and as identified With France. He expelled that some objedion.would have been made to the production of the Papers moved for by his Hon. Friend ; but instead of this, he could hear nothing but a laugh against it, and an advice to his Hon. Friend to put the Motion into his pocket. To such a sweeping kind of argument it was scarcely possible to give any answers The House would recoiled that no doubt was thrown upon the claims upon this Country : he admitted that they were clear, hut 'were they dear and un disputed ? this was be point, The Right Hon. 51011. Gentleman had, spoken as tp the prodenc-e.ors'ititi;;l the claims which France !night make relative to ctia - i poSSessions in the East Indies ; but as tO the cession' of the Cape and Cochin, his Right Hon: Friend had not said a single, word. Was it a light matter, that the Cape and Cochin should be 'put into the hands of France, before we: kneW the disposition of the Enemy with resped to India, and that Prance shotild assert her claims with the Cape and Cochin in her possession ? if this was elionght a chatter fit to he discussed, riOw was the moment 'for lisetissiun, These observatiOns Were not triad'e for the piirpo , e-: of querulously objeaing to the Treaty Of Peace 'no such thing: he wished to call the attention of the Hotise to the danger hanging OVer the Country; 'how was it to be relieved, and by what suggestion of huniati prudence ? Was it wished to ask the Enenw, if he agreed to C), right of sovereignty in India, and would they give hiM the Cape and Cochin to know whether he agreed w it or not; and if lie did not, were they in as'good a situation as before ? When all former obligations were, ddne away, was it not ne,: cessair to resort to new Conventions ? None were • now offered in the place of those abrogated; and did the .HOuse feel secure in this situation ? \Vas it not necessary to know the intentions of France with espea to India ? It was not likely that twelve mouths would pass, before either France would make claims in that Country which we could not agree to, or this Country would exercise rights there which France would resist : was it then pru dent in this Country, before sheAenew the disposi tion of France with resped to this subject, to'give out of her hands the Cape and Cochin ? No argu. ment whatever had been adduced against the Mo tion, which he should certainly support. Lori erIeHrICESBURY said; the Right Hon, Gentleman had wholly mistaken the argument of hiLl Right Hon. Friend (Mr. DUNDAS), as well as- the - state of the question. His Right Hon. Friend hadl . stated the clear rights of Sovereignty which this Country. possessed in India, but the Right Hen, ' Gentleman, whilst he admitted this, observed that France had doubts upon the subject. ,There was no ground. to suppose that the French themselves en tertained any doubt upon the sUbjed ;, it was per.:. .fealy true that they had made claims; but upon what ground ? On the ,ground of ancient firmans, and on the Treaties of 1?83 and 1787: if all these were done away they had no ground whatever.-2 This Country had acquired the Sovereignty- of. Bengal, .Bahar, and Orissa: this Sovereignty had beenacknOwledged de plc* by the Governments of Europe, and more especially by France. Let them look at all the proceedings and transadiores relative to the different Negotiations which had taken plaee upon the subjed, and they would find that France had always calle'd the British Government in' India " The Government," and had relied upon thit Government . for the decision of, the claims which they had made. This Country came into posses:. • sian of the Sovereignty of India at a time of Peace with France, when we had to fulfil those en. gagements or firnems made by the Great Mogul to France, 'from whom we derived the Sovereignty.— The firmans at that period were to'he considered as in existence, and the question was, what privileges they Conferred ? He believed the fad was, that they merely gave certain indulgences with resped to trade. These firmans were engagements of the Great Mogul, which became as our oven engage ments when we entered on the Sovereignty; and if they were to be considered as Treaties, they were clearly put an .end to by the War which ensued. between this Country and France. If they looked to the Peace of 1783, they would find that it did not renew those firmans, but it offered additional evidence of an acknowledg ment de fade of our Sovereignty in India.— France had brought forward Clainis for the este. blishment ofa free and independent Trade in India, but upon what authority ? On the i 3th Artidle of the Peace. of 1783, she said, she had a right to bring forward" those claims, founded upon the ar cient firnians, and this was in conseitience of the loose wording . of that Article of the Treaty. This gave rise to 'the Convention of 1787, which was again an acknowledgment de fad° of our sovereignty in India, and which was explanatory and re striaive of the 13th Article of the Peace 0f'1783. -France had completely acknowledged our sovereign ty, and was' as completely subject to it as any. Power in India, and certainly by the non-renewal of former Treaties, those Treaties being abrogated, France was placed on .the same footing as other ,Powers in India. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. GRENVILLE) 'had asked if France might not bring forward those claims which she had formerly urged ; she might bring them forward, but he would state that if there was any period in which France was lesS likely to bring forward such a claim, this was the Moment ; and he stated this amongst other considerations in consequence of several points whiclepassed in the course of the Negotiation- With respell to the navigation of the Eastern Seas, which had been alluded to, the Dutch had engaged not to interrupt our navigation in those Seas, which it was true was of little use, but as the Article was origi nally worded, they were not to interrupt our trade there ; the word Trade; however, was struck Out in the course of the .Negotiation, and the Aiticle was in- consequence confined to our Navi_ gation, which was of little advantage. He thought it unnecessary to enter more at large into a discussion of these points.---With resped to the papers moved for, there were some to which there might be an objedioni others had been presented before to the House; but after .what had passed, he thought it was sufficient to say that there was no ground of inquiry, ireorder to negative the Motion. Mr. JONES Opposed the Motion. Lord TEMPLE supported the Motion, and con. tended, that this Country would have derived ma terial advantage from the renewal of the former Treaties; The Motion was then put, and negatived without a division. Dr. LAWRENCE then proceeded to make l a great number of Motions relative to the Indian Trade, all Of which were negatived without a - divi, Dr. LAWRENCE then moved for a Statement of the Claims of the Dutch to obstrud the free Nicri. garion of British Subjects in the Eastern Seas. Mr. NICHOLS opposed the Motion, which wag negatived without a division.