Star.
London, England, 1810-01-08 00:00:00

TO THE PROPRIETORS OF EAST INDIA STOCK.
Lanus AND GENTLEMEN,
AS the Election at. the India-House is fixed for
Tuesday, the 16th instant, I take the liberty of earnestly
requesting the honour of your attendance and support on that day.
My reliance is, and always has been, upon your knowledge of
my conduct, as a Proprietor. That conduct has, in no instance,
proceeded from a wish to serve myself, but from a desire to main-
tain the just rights, and to promote the permanent interests of the
Company ; and if, by your favour, I should be placed in the
Direction' I never will depart from hose principles.
It has been my wish to wait personally upon the Proprietors,
as much as I possibly could. When, in any instance, I have not
done se, I trust that the omission will not be attributed to want
of Respect, but to the extensive nature of the Canvass, when
compared with the Time in which I had to accomplish it.
I am, Ladies and Gentlemen,very respectfully,
• Your most obedient and very humble servant,
Strand, Jan. 8, 1810. RICHARD TWINING.
The Friends, in general, of Mr. Tei;hling are earnestly reques-
ted to attend a General Meeting, at the King's Head, on Wed-
nesday, a: One o'Clock precisely.

To the PROPRIETORS of EeIJT-INDI4 STOCK.

LADIES AND •ENTLIMLN,
Though I am seldom inclined to take notice of anonymous let-
ters, which are much oftener written to answer some private
purpose, than to lead to the discovery of truth, yet, upon the
present occasion' it seems necessary for me, not only in justifi-
cation of myself, but also for the sake of those Directors and
those Proprietors who have honoured me with their support, to
repel that misrepresentation which is contained in a letter, signed
‘` An Old Proprietor." For, if lam myself doing the very thing
which I have condemned in another person, so far from deserv-
ing that flattering support which has voluntarily been bestowed
upon me, I shall unquestionably merit censure ; and some degree
of Harm: may attach to those who recommend and support me.
Theimpression intended to be made by the " Old Proprietor"
apon those Proprietors to whom he addresses his letter, is mani-
festly this, that having opposed, and successfully opposed that
4,•,1it, which was at one time claimed by some Gentlemen in the
Direction, of trading with India in their private capacities, and
Laving also maintained, that it made no difference as to the im-
propriety of such a trade, whether it was carried on by the Di-
ctor in his own name, or through Trustees in the name of his
son, such son being a minor and at school, I now offer myself as
a Candidate for the East India Direction, notwithstanding I am
concerned either in my own person or in the persons of my sons,
in the business of a Tea-dealer.
It will save time if I admit, at once, that it makes no differ-
ence, as to the propriety or impropriety of my being placed in
the Direction, whether this business is carried on by me or by
my sons. If the business of a Tea-dealer bears any resemblance
to that business, which I maintained, in the former instance,
was incompatible with the duties of a Director, those duties
certainty ought not to be entrusted to me. A fair statement,
1 I wever, of the nature of that business to which I objected,
and of that which has been carried on by me and my sons, will
I am confident, convince every candid Proprietor, and every per-
son who is not indisposed to admit the truth, that the two trades
which I am considering, differ most completely from each other :
that the see was a rival trade ; a trade injurious to the company's
interests, and consequently not fit to be carried on by the same
persons who were entrusted with the Direction of the Company's
trade ; and that the other trade, viz. that of a Tea-dealer, is not
only not a rival trade to that of the Ccnoipany, or a trade injurious
to the Company,but is, absolutely and indisputably,a trade highly
beneficial to it. in the trade to which I objected, the Director
would have been concerned as an Agent (and whether as Agent
or principal made no difference ; for an Agent must endeavour
to promote the interest of his Principal), In imparts from India,
and in exports to it. He would have met the Company, as its
rival,both in the Indian and in the English market, and when
under the new charter, a charter now growing very old ! great
ludulgencies were granted to private traders, it never was meant
that the business of those private traders should be conducted, in
any way, by the very same persons who were to conduct the Com-
pany's business. An appeal, and it was an appeal which I made
to the good sense of the Proprietors, decided this point, and con-
firmed the resolution, which I then brought forward. Such is
the concise, but true, history of the business to which I objected.
Let us now examine the business which " An Old Proprietor"
compares with this. I zni willing to hope, in candour, that he
would not have made the comparison if he had understood the
subject upon which he was writing. As a tea-dealer, I can neither
import tea from China, nor export any article to that country.--
The only connection that I can possibly have with the Company, is
that of buyizg tea at their public sale. Every buyer of goods at the
Company's public sale, promotesthe Company'sinterest. Theby-
kws expressly secure this benefit to the Company. !believe' might
safely affirm that from the time of my first knowing any thing of
the East India Company, the direction has never been without
some Gentleman in it, who did thus purchase goods at the Com-
pany's sale ; and why the purchase of tea should be peculiarly dis-
qualifying, I ant unable to discover. I can, indeed, assign a rea-
son why it is more removed from all possibility of objection than
the purchase of any Indian commodity. The exclusive right which
the East India Company has to the China trade prevents the pos-
sibility of any clashing of interest between the Company and any
private trader. I must just observe, that whoever is acquainted
with the publicit y of the Company's sales, and particularly of their
tea sales, must be convinced of the utter impossibilty of any
collusion or of any conduct which can prove injurious to any per-
son whatever. Almost every dealer who purchases tea as the
Company's sale employs occasionally every broker in the room.—
Every Broker buys, occasionally, for almost every tea-dealer.—
Every purchase, every reference for decision to the Director, who
happens to attend the sale, is made in the presence of several
clerks in the India House, of Officers both of the Custom and
Excise, and of a great number of Tea-dealers. So that if any Di-,
rector shooki be so unprincipled as to wish to decide any question
vnfahly and partially, could he possibly dare to do so ? Has such
a suspicion, I can scarcely refrain from saying so mean a suspicion,
been applied to any Director, who purchased at the Company's
public sale articles imported by the Company ? As far as I
know, the '• OW Proprietor" has made the first discovery
of the ineligibility of a Tea-dealer for that situation, in which
any other dealer in articles of the Company's importation
might be placed. And here I request permission to adduce
a reason which, with submission to the " Old Proprietor,"
might, as it seems to me, be alledged with considerable propriety
in favour of having in the direction some person who is ac-
quainted with, and who has an interest in the China Trade. I
have before now maintained that if that trade be considered in
its true light, and with resptct to its permanent effects, the Tea
dealer:, the Earl-India Company, and the Public at large, have a
common interest in its being carried on, exclusively, by the East
India Company. He must be a very adventurous, or a very un-
suceesstul ka-deahr who would wish to resort to the precarious
supply of individual importation. 'Do the Company, if, as a pro-
prietor, I may presume to know any thing of the subject, the
China trade has proved, by far, the most beneficial branch of the
Company's commerce And the Faille has surely ample cause
for leaving the China trade in its present channel,when it is con-
sidered, that exclusive of the many collateral advantages which
the Pt.blic derives from the single article of tea, under the Com-
pany's exclusive right of importation, that stick affords to the
Public a revenue of upwards of three minions a year, which sum
is paid to the Public without any expence of collecting. 1 will
:mention one circumstance more which, probably, escaped the sa-
gacity of the " Old Proprietor," or he would scarcely, I think,
have imagined, or have endeavoured to make other peewee
imagine, that there was a similarity between two tWes whit's
are so utterly dissimilar. 1 have the honour, as 1 deem it„,
being recommended to the Proprietors by twenty out of an.
and twenty Directors ; and ot that recommendatim :hall
presently take leave to say a few words. They are the twenty
Directors who have been longest in the direction, and in the
number are all those Gentlemen, in the present direction, who
were in the direction when the Charter was last renewed. The
arable Baronet who was in the Chair at that time, and the
=lt:arable Director who seconded my motion for preventing
any Director from trading with India, are amonpt the Direc-
tors who have been pleased to afford me their support. tiow can
is be bstagined that if the trade in which I am latecomogi was
&may to that which was dtdared incompatible with a seat in the
direction, those Gentlemen, those twenty Din non. would re-
commend mo to tha Proprietors in the way in which they have
been pleased to 4 so ? Before I conclude this address to the Pro.
weimses, I solo& to make • few remarks upon the Resolutions
whisk passed it the City oitiondon Tavern on the gd instant,
Of des respectability of the flall= who confirmed those Re..
aalathsas t do not entertain any • and I trod that, In no
wow" will either Colonel Taylor or be treated by

me otherwise than with respect. As, however,
to which I allude are likely to affect, and were ,
to affect me, there cannot be any impropriety
public notice of them. Their perfect civility
knowledge. I shall notice briefly each of the first
of the Committee.
The first Resolution considers the public region —.onion by
the Court of Directors as" an attempt on the part of the Execu-
tive Body to interfere with and overawe the free choice of the
Proprietors at the approaching election." To that remark I reply,
first, that the recommendation alluded to, is not the recommen-
dation of the Court of Directors; it is the recommendation of 20
Directors in their private capacities. Secondly, these Directors,
so far from attempting to overawe any Proprietor, or from using
any language which can justify such a charge against them, merely,
" take the liberty earnestly to recommend" a particular Candidate
" to the favour and support" of the Proprietors ; and this, as the
Directors are pleased to say," from a sense of duty." Surely-melt
language, addressed to persons who are to vote by ham, has not
even the semblance of language which was intended to overawe,
or which could overawe any human being. Besides it is well
known that two Directors, of the three who did not join in recom-
mending me, have exerted their influence in favour of another
Candidate. But if two Directors have a right to cement* ono
Candidate (and I do not call that right in question), why should
not 20 Directors have an equal right to recommend another? The
publicity of the recommendation may make it, and was I con-
ceive intended to snake it, more effectual, but it cannot make it
improper; as the publicity may be considered as proceeding from
a conviction of its propriety.
The second Resolution says—" That it is not the duty of the
Court of Directors to interfere in the election of persons to fill
vacancies in their own body."—lt certainly is not the duty of Di-
rectors to interfere, when they think their interference Would be
useless or do no harm. But if at any time the Directors should
have reason to think that an avowal of their opinion would prove
beneficial to the Company, it is surely their duty to make such
avowal. That information " undermines" se prejudices the" Tree
choice" of any man, is a most un doctrine. After
ispeildeal
all, I might perhaps, without any .y, ask whether the
framers and supportereof than would not have been
very glad of the avowed telemilisdoelee el 20 Directors, if they
could have obtained it t
Of the motive which is attolionted in the third resolution, to the
three Directors, who withheld their demure from the recom-
mendation in question, I know seddeg ; and I should be very
uncandid indeed, if I were to csndemn, or to suspect their mo-
tives, because I am unacquainted with them. The Gentlemen
who drew up and confirmed this resolution, were doubtless more
enlightened upon this point than I am; for itis not prudent to assign
motives for tbeconduct of another personovithout being expressly
informed by him what his motives were. I must just add, re-
specting one of the three Gentlenlen alluded to, that though be
declined adding his signature to the public recommendation of the
twenty Directors, I have never had reason to think that he would
not concur with them by honouring me with IV support. The
Fourth Resolution is, in a great degree, replied to by my obeer.
rations on the First and Second. The "Court of Directors" has
not interfered. But individual Directors, at least, have not only
u a right" to interfere, but their duty absolutely requires them to
in so whenever they may feel a conviction that their interference
Irsuld be likely to prove materially beaeficlal to the Company.-
1 must deny, however, that the interference of the Directors was
" particularly unnecessary upon the present occasion ; because
the reason assigned by themselves (the Directors) is what every
Proprietor has had equal opportunity to judge of." There are
many Proprietors who, unless the Directors had thought fit to
make an open avowal of their opinion, and of the reason upon
which it was founded, would have known neither the one nor the
other.
The Fifth Resolution informs us, that in the opinion of the
Meeting, Colonel Taylor " is, on account of his local and mili-
tary knowledge and abilities, at this particular juncture, pecu-
liarly fit to tucceed to the present vacant seat in the Direction."
I am most ready to give credit to any praise which the friends of
Colonel Taylor may bestow upon his " local and military know-
ledge," or upon his conduct as an Officer in India. But I will
not acknowledge, that "at this particular juncture," " military
knowledge" is the species of knowledge most wanted in the Di-
rection. I esteem such knowledge highly; and the Direction
ought never to be without Gentlemen who possess ft. But, if I
mistake not, there are already more military Gentlemen in the
Direction than have usually been there at any one time. And,
what is the actual situation of the Company "at this particular
juncture ?" Ibis well known, that many important points, not
particularly cennected with military knowledge, are, or must
soon be brought under the Court's consideration; and in particu-
lar, that most important subject, a subject upon which our exis-
tence, in asy thing like our present form, may depend—the rot
newel 1 the Company's charter.
If those Directors wi o have honoured me with their public
recommendation had thought military information was the sort
of information most wanted in the Direction, " at this particular
juncture," they would not, I am sure, have made me the object
of their recommendation. Upon this point then, and it is a very
important point—two opinions, widely diffeting from each other,
are entertained. And they are recommended to the Proprietors,
under circumstances which are also widely different. One opi-
nion comes front Gentlemen whose numbers and whose names
we know not. The other opinion comes from Gentlemen who
have signed their names in support of it, and who have unques-
tionably, as Directors, the best means of judging what the situa-
tion of the Company "at this particular juncture;' actually is;
and consequently, what qualifications in a Candidate, would
likely to render him most useful.
Thus such as reply, I hope as inoffensive reply, to the roans
dons of the meeting of the 2d instant.
It now only remains for me to assure the Proprietors, that I
have not hastily obtruded myself upon their notice. I came for-
ward under an assurance that my doing so would be acceptable
to a great majority of the Directors. Those Gentlemen have
given me, of their own accord, their support in the way which
they have deemed right ; and though I am ready to confess that
the commendation which they have bestowed upon me farexceeds
my deserts, yet is true that, for many years, I have endeavoured
zealously and disinterestedly, to render the Company servile ;
and if 1 should obtain a seat in the Direction, those endeavours
shall be at least equally zealous and equally disinterested.
I had also, and still have, good reason to think, that my offering
myself as a Candidate for the Direction would not be unacceptable
to the Proprietors, of whom many had witnessed, and as far as I
could judge, approved my conduct. It is upon their approbation,
concurring with the very honourable support, as 1 feel it, of a great
majority of the Directors, that I rely for success.
I remain, Ladies and Gentlemen, with much respect,
Your must obedient, and very humble servant,
Strand, Jan. 5, 1810. RICHARD TWINING.

DOCUMENTS,
ACCOMPANYING THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF

THZ UNITED STATES-(CONCLUDED.)

MR. SMITH TO MR. PINKNEY.

Department of State, November 25.
Sir—My letters, in the correspondence with Mr.
Jackson, already transmitted to you, sufficiently
evince the disappointment that was felt, on finding
that he had not been charged to make to this govern.
meat either the frank explanations or the liberal pro-
positions which the occasion manifestly required. In-
stead of this obvious course of proceeding, it was in
...the outset perceived, that his object was to bring us
to resume the subjects of the arrangement of April,
in a way that would imply that we were aware that
the arrangement was not binding on his Government,
because made with a knowledge on our part that Mr.
Erskipe had no authority to make it, and thus to con-
vert the responsibility of his Government for the dis-
avowal, into a reproach on this for its conduct in the
transaction disavowed. In the first instance it was
deemed best, rather to repel his .observations argu-
mentatively, than to meet them as en offensive insi-
nuation. This forbearance had not the expected ef.
feet of restraining him from a rdpetition of the ofr
fence ; and even on his farther insinuations, nothing
I snore was done than to premonish him of the inad-
missibility of so indecorous a course of proceeding.—:
This also being without effect, nothing remained but
the step finally taken ; and there was the less besitiv
tion in shutting the door to further opportunities fur

, precision __
cession ; nor on the manner or the time of his de.
that he bad given any room at all for a state-
ment, which, In order to guard against the miscon.
ceptions incident to verbal conferences, rhad placed
before him in writing, with a request that he would
poise out any inaccuracies, and to which he did not
then object otherwise than by intimating, that he
could not have made the statement with the partku.
kr view ingirk mind t k Armond. Nor dwell
on the various instances in Which partial of inconsis-
tent views of the subject have taken place of its real
merits. But it may not be amiss to make some ob-
servations on the correspondence, as it relates to the
jerfOcatim of his government is having disavowed the
act of his predecessor.
With respect)to the Orders in Council, the ground
of the disavowal is the difference between the ar-
rangement and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning
to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January. According to
this dispatch then, the arrangement-failed in three
points.
Ist. In not relinquishing the trade of the United
States with enemies colonies.
With respect to this point, it is not necessary at
this time to discuss the right of that trade. It irsull-
`cient to remark, Ist, that as the trade is admitted to
have become, in the view of Great Britain, of little
practical importance,' why has it been made a ground
of the disavowal, and, especially, as important consi-
derations only could, upon principles of public law,
have justified a measure of so serious a character ?..-
2d. That as the colonial trade is a subject no wise
connected either with the Orders in Council, or with
the affair of the Chesapeake, why has it been permit-
ted to frustrate an arrangement relating to those sub-
jects, and to those only ? 3d. That as this condition
is allowed to have originated in a supposition, that it
would be agreeable to the American Government,
why has it Leen persisted in after the error was made
known by the repeesentation of Mr. Erskine to his
Government, that neither this nor the other condi.
tions of the dipsatch of the 23d January, were attain-.
able here ?
2d. Another point in the dispatch, and not in the i
arrangement, is, that the British navy might capture
our trade to ports prohibited by the United States.
This condition too appears to have had its origin
in a mistake of your meaning in a conversation with
Mr. Canning, as noted by yourself, and in an infe-
rence thence deduced as to the dispositionsof this Go-
vernment. But this double mistake must have been
brought to light in time to have been corrected in the

new mission.
In urging it, Mr. Canning has taken a ground,
forbidden by those principles of decorum, which re-
gulate and mark the proceedings of governments to-
wards each other. In his dispatch the condition is
stated to be for the purpose of securingthe bond fide in-
tendon of America to prevent ker citizens from trad-
ing with France and certain other powers ; in other
words, to secure a pledge to th,at effect against the,
sada fide intention of the United States. And this
dispatch, too, was authorized to be communicated in
esitsisto, to the Government of which such language
was used. Might it not have been reasonably expec-
ted that such a condition and such observations would
at least, on such an occasion, have been given up by
a Government willing to smooth the way to an ami-
cable settlement of existing differences ?
In his zeal to vindicate his government, Mr. Jack-
son too has attempted a gloss on this most extraordi-
nary idea of calling on a foreign sovereignty, not
indeed to make laws for us, but, what is equivalent
in principle, to supply a supposed inability to execute
them. He calls such an interposition of his govern-
ment, not an execution of the law of Congress, but of
a compact binding as a public law on both parties,
and which both would have a common interest in
seeing duly executed. On his own principles there
ought to be a reciprocity, not only in the execution
of the compact, but in the obligation and interest re-
suiting from it. Besides, where there is a reciprocity
in compacts between nations touching attributes of
sovereignty, there is always as much of sovereignty
gained as is parted with, so that there be no loss nor
indignity on either side.
3. The remaining point in the dispatch, not secur-
ed by the arrangement, is that which required, that
whilst our prohibitory laws should be repealed as to
Great Britain, they should be left in force as to
France and the Powers adopting or acting under her
decrees.
This is the condition which alone properly belongs
to the subject ; and it is to be remarked, in the first
place, that the British project, of which this condi-
' tion makes a part, contemplated two things in their
nature incompatible; one, a repeal of the pruhibitory,
acts as to Great Britain, without waiting for the con-
elusion- of a regular treaty ; the other a pledge, or
engagement for their continuance as to the other 1
powers. Now, from the nature of our constitution,l
which, in this particular, ought to have been at
I tended to by the British Government, it is manifest
shat the Executive authority could have given no
such pledge ; that the continuance of the prohibitory
Acts, being a subject of Legislative considerationtl
could not have been provided for until the meeting of
the Legislature ; and that the condition could not,
therefore, but have failed, either in the immediate
renewal of commerce with Great Britain, or in the
immediate engagement that it should not renewed
with France. British Government ought to
have acquiesced in, and, indeed, ought to have been
satisfied with the attainment of the important object
of an immediate repeal of our prohibitory laws; and
with the consideration, that the other object, not ism.
mediately attainable, was unnecessary at the time,l
because the prohibition as to France was then in force,
and because there was every reason to infer not only
from this fact, but from the spirit of the conunnnica-
dons made from title to time, and from the overtures
before submitted to the British Government, that,
without a repeal of the French decrees, tor prphibi-1
pry laws would be continued in force against France,
and especially in the case of a repeal of the British
Orders, which would necessarily renckr a (patina-
once of the French decrees doubly obnoxious,
But if on this brad doubts cos4d have boost enter-
tained, into of re Ling the a ought
the the Repealing Actin' our gant=rt.san

gimminnomi , . .
• . . ... .
- * 7t, • . .
sr, the ItssiWas
irdm.sitsittncietussi he hat/mho
evidentil I'm" tit,- 4 Ass' dfasepsksts, Ind so entirely shut
. ,
r in my, tallies**. k awaiadi
..:-...7,... dwellair
loi:rhi. sfil7raeloctbalteic re
egt:igt i vfrom
enp his
to met readily *fi-
rst five Resolutions 11111.10101.
e"mmen4adais by uncertainties of verbal for the precision of written dis-
_