Star.
London, England, 1813-07-02 00:00:00

EAST-INDIA BILL.

Lord CASTLEREAGH, in moving that the Or.
er of the Day be read for the Base to resume the
ommittee On the East India Bill, begged to call the
ttention of the House to the stage of that measure.
e trusted that the Bill would be suffered to proceed to
Committee without any previous discussion on the
eneral principle.. Such a discussion at the present
omens would surely be thought unnecessary, when
twas considered that there were two subsequent
, Cages, the report and the the third reading, on either
r on both of which it mtilt take place, and when to
[
his consideration was added the reflection, how ex-
! emely mate: ial it was that no avoidable delay should
t ake place in the progress of the Bill. He repeated
r
itherefore his hope that Gentlemen would postponeany
;general reason, and when in theComnottee, that they
iwou:d confine themselves to the discussion of thepar.
molar clauses of the Bill, and not travel into a more
enlarged consideration of the subject.
Mr. TIERNEY thought the request of the Noble
Lord rather extraordinary. When the Bell was read a
second time the House were told that it was desirable
not to discuss it, as the debate on the general princi.
'ple might be taken on the question for the Speaker's
:leaving the Chair. Now they were asked not to dis-
cuss it, as the debate might be taken on the bringing
up of the report. At least this was not decorous. It
iwas not parliamentary. For himself he had no inten-
ion of saying a word on the question, but he pro-
ested against such a mode of treating the House.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that the re-

marks of the Hon. Gentleman would induce any one
Alto did not know the fact to suppose that there had
clot already. been any discussion on the original motion
for the Speaker's leaving the Chair.
Mr. TIERNEY replied, that on that occasion there
had not been an opportunity afforded to several Hon.
embeis whip he anew wished to declare their send-
eats io the House on this important subject.
Mr. Alderman ATK.INS, adverting to the Corn-
rhittee oa the 4.3 d of the King, which was fixed for
at night, suggested the propriety of allowing that
Committee to precede the Committee on the India Bill.
Mr. P. IrIOORE. declared his intention on the 3d
treading of the Lill of delivering his sentiments at
sitigtls cn the East India question. He should on that

respecting the Committee on the 43d of thriLing. It
was for the sake of the manufacturing inteiest, now
so materially affected by the introduction of Ameri-
can cotton, that he was solicitous.
A pause ensuing,
Mr. CANNING observed, that it would be conve-
nient that the House should come to some under-
standing with respect to the period at .which they
would resolve themselves into the Committee adverted
to by the worthy Alderman.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that conceiving
the East India question to be one of paramount im-
portance, he cottld not consent to wave the Committee
upon it for the purpose of giving precedence to the
Committee proposed by the Worthy Alderman.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS expressed himself ready
to abandon the proposition, which he had given notice
he would make in the Committee, on the 43d of the
King, if Ministers would agree to some measure that
should affect the object which they had in hand.—
Would they repeal that Act Would they lay a duty
on American cotton ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
repeated his statement on a recent evening, that he
did not think any measure ou the subject was advis-
able at this late period of the Session. Unquestionably
as his proposition early in the Session evinced, his opi-
nion was, that a duty on,the importation of American
cotton, if any measure were resorted to, would be the
best that could be adopted ; but, considering that so
large a proportion of Members had left town, and
that the commercial parties interested in the question
were impressed with the persuasion that Government
had no measure at present in contemplation, he could
not consent to introduce any.
Mr. PHILLIPS observed, that if his Majesty's
Ministers could render the blockade of the American
ports effectual, the British manufacturers would be
satisfied. Their objection was to the superjor facility
with which the nations of the Continent procured
American cotton.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS declared that he would
abandon his own proposition if Government would
agree to the introduction of a short Bill to repeal the
Act of the 43d of the King. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
once more declared, that lie would not introduce, or
consent to the introduction of any measure on the sub-
ject at the present period of the Session. If at the
commencement of the next Sission it should appear
that the blockade was inefficient some subsidiary mea-
sure might then be resorted to.
Mr. MA R RYKri rose, and was speaking on the
subject of the importation of American cotton, when
The SPEAKER called the Hon. Gentleman to
order, observing, that that was a topic which had not
much bearing on the question before the House ; that
'the Order of the Day fur going into a Committee on
the India Bill be read.

Mr. CANNING again pressed the necessity of de-
ciding on the time at which the American cotton ques-
tion should he brought forward.
Mr. DAVENPORT was making some remarks
on the effect which the prevention of the importation
of American cotton might have on our manufactures,
when he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER in nearly the following words •••
44 The House, Sir, seems to be of opinion, that the
Cotton question has nothing to do with that befote it."
The Question was then carried, and the House re.
solved itselt into a Committee.

On the first clause being read by the Cliairmin,
Lord A. HAMILTON (alio had just entered the
House) was proceeding to make some observations
on the general principle of the Bill, when
Lord CASTLEREAGH informed the Noble
Lord, that it seemed to be understood by the House,
before they resolved into the Committee, that the
discussion should be confined to the particular
clauses.

Lord A. HAMILTON apologised and said, that
he would avail himself of a future opportunity to
communicate to the House his sentiments on the mea-
sure.—The clause was then agreed to.
On the second clause, which related to the trade
to China, being read,
Mr. CANNING rose, in pursuance of his notice,
to move an amendment with respect to the limitation
of time. The subject had been so much dwelt and
dilated upon, that he would not occupy the attention
of the Committee, at any length, stating the grounds
which in his opinion ought to induce them to except
the clause from the general rule, in point of duration,
that per►aded the rest of the Biil. It appeared to
him, that all the arguments which had been urged
iu favour of continuing the Company's monopoly of
trade to India, were not only wholly unconnected
with the support of a similar proposition respecting
the trade to Chino, but were in a great measure at
war with that proposition. It bad always been con-
tended by the advocates of the Company, that they
opposed opening the trade to India, because it would
affect the political power of the Company. They dis-
claimed any narrow views of commercial advantage
in that opposition, maintaining that the unrestrained
introduction of British adventurers into India would
sap the foundation of their political power. The
Company described themselves not as a commercial
body, but rather as an instrument which the country
had permitted to be constructed for the government
of India. Now these arguments were utterly inappli-
cable to the China part of the question. By opening
the trade to China, the Company would suffer no di-
minution of political power. Neither by the irrup-
tion of adventurers, nor in any other way, could the
fabric of that power be shaken by the opening of the
trade to China, except as the profits of that trade
might be considered as the revenues by which the so-
vereignty of the Company in India was maintained.
He willingly admitted that the existing political cha-
racter of the Company in India ought to be support.
ed ; but Le contended that if at the expiration of the
perjod to which he should propose to limit the mono-
poly of the China Trade, it should be found that the
profits of that trade were necessary to the maintenance
of the sovereign authority of the Company in India,
it would be wise, rather than continue the monopoly,
to afford the means to the Company out of our own
resources at home, to retain their political authority
in India. It was contended also by the advocates of
the Company, that independently of the preservation
of the p.;litical power in India, by the profits arising '
from the China trade, that that trade must be carried
on exclusively by a Company. It he could admit
this, lie would have no hesitation in also allowing that
the Eatt India Company might be the most proper

-
-

•
body
re
that 'privilege. lent the two propos,-
twos totally distinct. The attempt to connect
the argument arising out of the expediency of main-
raining the political power of the Company in India,
and the argument arising out of the impossibility of
the trade to China being carried on but by the Com-
pany, must naturally be unsuccessful. The question
of revenue was the only one that could fairly be dis-
puted, and this he met with a fair avowal of his opi-
nion, that if the revenue should be found not ade-
quate to the maintenance of the Company in the Go-
vernment of India, the means of mating it so should
be furnished by this country. That it was likely those
means would be required, he must, however, deny.
India would, in his opinion, afford the Company an
ample revenue for the desired purpose. But he le-
peated, that if the revenue of the East India Com-
pany should be found insufficient for that purpose
without the profits arising from the China trade, he
should be ready at the proper time to consider of the
means by which the deficiency might be supplied.—
The question was thus reduced to very narrow
grounds, and must be determined by a reference to
experience and facts. It had been stated by the Com-
pany, that the trade to China was carried on with
great profit to themselves, and with great advantage
to the country at large. This was a prima facie rea-
son why the merchants of tlis country should be al-
lowed to participate in the benefit. In contradiction
to the general declaration that it was desirable the
trade of China should be in the hands of the Com-
pany alone, was the fact that other nations partook of
that trade. The Americans for instance; and in the
present relative situation of Great Britain and Ame-
rica, would it not be highly advantageous to exclude
the Americans from the trade to China, and to fill
up the chasht which would thereby be created with
British traders ? It might be that the American cha-
racter had something in it better suited to communi-
cation with the Chinese—something more honest,
more straight forward, more polished, ihan the Bti-
tish. But on those who opposed the opening of the
China trade to the British merchants lay the onus pro-
Gandi of spewing the motive that induced the Last
India Company to consider the Americans as prefe-
rable co-partners. If it were objected to him that his
arguments tended to shew the expediency not of abo.
lisiting the monopoly of the China trade at the ex-
piration of ten years, but of abolishing it at once, his
answer would be, that he was not disposed, in the
prosecution of any abstract system, to endanger any
practical good that might exist. What he wished
was, if possible, to compromise opposite interests,
and to reconcile conflicting principles. On Ibis sub-
ject, as on whets, he was an enemy to sudden inno-
vation, even when it tended only to shake existing
prejudices. He should therefore propose the term of
ten 'Tarsi not as satisfying the principle for which
he had contended, but as that period which, making
allowance for interest, prejudices, and situation, it ap-
peared to him not to be too much to concede even to
arguments that had not convinced him. On these
grounds he moved the insertion in the clause of a
Member stating that the exclusive trade to China
should be continued to the East India Company
during the further period of ten years, frt.m the loth
of April, 1814.

. -
C Lord ASTLEREAGH said, he would shortly
state to the Committee why he could not accede to
the proposition of the Right Hon Gentleman. He
used the word shortly, because on a former occasion
he had spoken at length on the subject ; and he had
heard nothing since to shake his opinion upon it.—
His conviction was, that the duration of the exclusive
trade to China ought to be coextensive with that of
the Company's Charter. Although he would not
contend that, if necessity required the change, the
danger arising from it would be of such magni-
tude as should deter Parliament from opening the .
China trade ; yet, he contended, "that in wisdom and '
policy, nothing short of an overruling necessity
should induce Parliament to disturb the existing'
mode of commercial intercourse with that Empire—
a mode by which an amicable understanding had
been preserved with a country jealous and prejudiced.
Though he would not maintain that it was impossi.,
ble to devise another system under which the trade
might go on, he contended, that, without some very
strong motive, the existing system ought not to be
broken in upon. The mode of communication adopted
by the East-India Company had secured the confidence
of the Chinese, and it would be most unwise and im-
prudent lightly to risk the loss of such an advantage.
The argument adduced from the participation of the'
Americans in the trade, was without foundation.
They, no doubt, derived protection and security from
the establishment of the Company, the abolition of
which might probably lead to the most disastrous
consequences; fur it was well known how cheap
commerce and foreigners were held by the Chinese
Government. if this country had no other resource,
then the hazard of a change ought to be run, and he
confessed that he should not despair of seeing a mode I
devised by which the benefits of the trade to China
might be preserved ; but the existing system was so'
valuable, that he could not consent to its alteration,
unless on a specific necessity, and not on the general
ground of commercial advantage.—Looking at the
question in a financial point of view, he contended,
that the public would benefit more by the continu-
ance of the monopoly than by the opening of the
trade. He could not agree with the Right Honour-
able Gentleman, that it would be better to increase'
the revenue of the Company by direct taxation, than
to permit them to keep that revenue up by the pre- I
servation of the, China trade. Undoubtedly, the'
Company could not administer the government of
India unless secured in some wav or other. There
was a large debt for which the -Company and the
country were jointly responsible ; and the best way to
secure the payment of'it would be to give to the pri-
vilege of an exclusive trade to China the same dura-
tion as to the Company's Charter. On the fullest
reflection that he had been able to bestow on the sub:.
ject, he was persuaded that this was the soundest po-
licy ; and he should therefore oppose the motion of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. •
Mr. PHILLIPS supported the Amendment.
Mr. PRESTON said a few words iu favour of the
Amendment.

Mr. FINLAY could not see any farce in an argu-
ment which bad been used in the course of the dis-
cussion, namely, that if the trade with China were to
be opened, a quarrel with that country would be
likely to be the result. What virtue there was in a
monopoly, by which a quarrel with a people engaged

In trade with us could be prevented, remained for
explanation.
Mr. BARING stated, that to his certain know-
ledge the trade which the Americans carried on with
China was a losing trade: it might, were it to conti-.
nue, become otherwise ; but he could assure the
House, that at present Americans who had brought.
cargoes to the North of Europe. would be happy to.
dispose of them at a considerable loss.
Mr. THOMSON hoped that the trade with Co-
chin China was nut within the prohibition by which
the private merchant was to be affected. He wider..
stood that it was a healthy country, and produced
many articles of commerce, from the carrying of
which to China I considerable profit might be deri.
ved. It appeared, from arguments that bad been
urged in the House, as if the advocates of the Com-
pany were now disposed to assert the immutability-
of the Emperor of China, as they did that of the Hin-
dons ; for his part, he did not conceive that this ar-
gument was of any weight in either case, and he was
quite sure that the private merchant could carry oa
trade both with China and Hindostan at half the er-
pense of the trade carried oa by the Company. He
hoped, therefore, that his Majesty's Ministers would
keep in their own bands the power of opening the
China trade, whenever it might appear to be expe-
dient that it should be opened.
Mr. MARRYAT was decidedly adverse to the
granting so valuable a monopoly for so long a term
as twenty years.

Mr. OIkANI' said, that the mannply of the
China trade was absolutely necesiary to enable the
Company to carry oti the business of the government
in Hindostan.

Mr. PRESTON said, that the state of our woollen
manufactures, and that of some others, was such as
rendered it imperative on us to consider rather the
improvement of the condition of the lower classes of
our own population than that of the Indian Peninsula.
Mr. ASTELL defended the conduct of the East-
India Company ; with respect to our manufactures,
they had been, he said, extremely useful to the ma-
nufactories of the West of England in particular.
After a few observations from Mr. Foarnts, Mr.
PHILLIPS, and Mr. CANNING, the House divided,
when there appeared—For the Amendment, 24; for
the Clause in its original state, 61•—Majority, :V.
On discussing the Second Clause,
Mr. PHILLIPS observed, that it would be of
great advantage to our territories in India if the Com.
pany were to be divested of their commercial character
altogether. He conceived that the Charter about to
be granted, was to be of much too great duration,
whether as to the trade with India or China. and
moved that the Charter be limited to ten years.
Mr. P. CAREW tvisheil the limitation to ten years
to be applied to the Company's trade generally.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
objected to the Amendment • and some observations
were made by Mr. Fousts, Mr. GRANT, and Mr. W.
SMITH; after which a division took place, when the
numbers were—For the original Clause, 59; for the
Amendment, 18—Majority, 41.
Mr. ASTELL expressed his intention of proposing
a clause on the bringing up of the Bill, by way of
making provision for the Lasears.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that any pro-
vision to that effect would be rendered unnecessary by
the regulations which were under consideration.
Some observations were made on the clause vesting
the power of licences in the Board of Control, as also
on the clause respecting the tonnage of ships. Lord.
,-,
i..,asroeneeou could not consent to allow the tonnage
to go below S 5) tons. A conversation took place on
another clause respecting the production of the log-
. hooks of the private ships. These clauses were passed
' with some amendments. The clause respecting the
. importation of saltpetre being confined to the Com-
' pany's vessels was lett out, Lord CesTesexaou wishing
to introduce a proposition on this subject on the rs-•
' port. This chose had not. originated in a suggesting
of the Company, but of the Board of Ordnance. Its
would be unfair to impose a responsibility on the Com-
pany, by which they were to provide saltpetre at a
low rate, if we interfered with their monopoly.
On the clause respecting India-built shipping, Lord
CASTLEREAGH intimated his intention to bring
in a Bill on that subject, leaving the present system
to continue for one year. The clause concerning the
Whale Fishery was also deferred.
I Alter some other clauses were disposed of,
1 1 Upon the clause being read which respected the
propagation of Christianity in India,
I Lord CASTLEREAGH expressed a strong wish
that this clause might be allowed for the present to
i pass without discussion. It was very imiantant to
get through the Bill in the Committee as expedi-
tiously as could be done, and other stages would
loccur for discussing (if any farther discussion was
necessary) this point as well as others.
Sir T. SUTTON disapproved of this clause. He
thought the natives of India might say, if too open
and avowed efforts were made to propagate Christi-
anity, 66 you have taken from us our territories, you
have seized upon our revenues; and not content with
taking our country from us, you wish to deprive us
of our religion. But our religion you shall not take
from us !" Might they not reasGn thus, if he were
to judge from the feelings that generally operated ou
the human mind ?—(llcar, hear.)—His dislike to the
clause was, to its open avowal, to its unqualified
terms. With the view of removing these objections,
amongst other alterations he should propose, after
having declared that it was expedient to send persons
to India for eke above purposes (namely, to propagate
Christianity), that those words be ;eft out, and that
it be declared, it is therefore expedient to send per.
tons to India 44 for lawful purposes,"
Lord CASTLEREAGH could not consent to
give up the preaml K. ' He 'll4 endeavoured as much
as possible to introduce the enactment in the manner
the least likely to traduce discussion or irritation.—
.1t must be recollected, however, that besides the feel-
ings of the natives of India, with respect to their reli-
gion, the House could not avoid paying some respect
to the religious feelings of this country. 11 hen it was
recollected, that near 900 petitions had been laid ou
the table of the Ilouse upon this subjt cr, and that
almost every body was agreed, that no hindrunia,
should be given to persons submitting themselves to
the propce controul from going to India for the pur-
pose of preaching the Christian religion, he thought
that it was necessary that the preamble should stanti,
in order to tranquillize the religious mind of this coin. ,
try, and let it be understood what it was intended to

pccasion particularly advert to the conduct of the
11...14,t of Controul, who had taken the East India
C,lnpany up in great prosperity, and had brought
to a state of embarrassment and poverty.
!qr. RICKARD 6 also announced his intention of
raking at large on the 3d reading.
Mr. alderman Al KINS repealed his suzgestion
_ _ .

a. L7w j.—