The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-05 00:00:00

EAST INDIA DOUSE.

A General Court of East India Proprietors was
yesterday held at the Company's House in Lead-
enhall-street. After some previous discussion,

Mr. JACKSON rose, and said, that notwithstanding the great
authority of the Act f Parliament which he held in his hand
derived from the name of a high gifted Nobleman, the Marquis
of hansdown, he could not but complain of the great license it
afforded in respect to trading in India. Some of the greatest
p?liticians had been most mistaken in their viewsof India affairs.
t.t . wished to ask, whether, by that Act all the King's subjects
might not only go from port to port in India, and carry away
the produce to any part of Europe, but also, whether they
might not carry back the produce of foreign countries to any
piece in India, anti there dispose of it without coming to the
parent state ?
The CHAIRMAN said they might go from port to port in
.

Mr. JACKSON said that was not his question, which he then
repeated.
Mr. SergeanitOSANQUF.T was referred to by the chairman,
who made a single observation which we understood to be an
answer in the affirmative.

Mr. JACKSON thought this was a most dangerous proposi-
tion, that vessels loading with the showy fabrics of France, or
the cheap fabrics of Germany, should be allowed to give the
go-by to the parent country. .How dangerous would it be to
allow such a doctrine to be applied to the West Indies : he knew
he was speaking a day too late ; but as the Bill was laid before the
Court for their approbation, he could not help observing upon
the great danger arising from assenting to this principle.
The Cum RMAN Sa'4, that the directors had interfered to pre-
vent thlmeasure ; but it having been represented to Ministers
on the part of the Shipping Interest, that it was an extremely
hard case that English shipping should be denied that privilege
which was afforded to American and other foreign vessels, their
interference was not successful. •
Mr. GEOGIIEGHAN thought the Directors might have ac-
quainted the Proprietors .with the intentions of Ministers upon
this subject. Some suggestions might have been made by this
House, which would have enabled Parliament to avoid the de-
fects which now appear in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that
if another act should be proposed to amend or repeal the
.pre-
sent, the Court of Directors would condescend to inform the
Proprietors of it.

`fiCe-&All7tArr said, that if the Honourable Proprietor
had attended the last Court, he would have found that the notice
of the want of. which he complained had been given.
Mr. Cr oGIIEGHAN was aware that a notice had been given
that an act relating to this subject was in contemplation ;- but no
notice had been given of the particulars of the measure.
Mr. D. KINNAIRD said,. that as an Englishman, he was
happy that Bill had passed. As an. India Proprietor Le was
indebted to the good sense of the Legislature that had exploded
the antiquated notion of a monopoly to London bettering the
Company's subjects in India. He was satisfied that all com-
mercial facilities were beneficial to the Indians; because, from
the very nature of commerce, no vessel could carry any com-
modities there, without, cariying. thence Indian produce in re-
turn. As an India Proprietor, it was the same thing to him.
whether an Englishman traded there from Liverpool, or a
Frenchman from Bourdeaux. As an English subject, perhaps
he might wish it to be confined to Englishmen. But as an
Indian it was all alike to him. He thought. upon the whole,
that the passing of this act was a subject of congratulation to
the Court.
\!r. Low.X'pEs thought it strange that foreign vessels should
be allowed a privilege from which English ships were to be
excluded.