report: "That they fought to obtain, from all the fources of information within their reach, a comprehenfive knowledge of facts and opinions relating to this fubject, that they might be affifted in forming intelligent and juft conclufions." As this was confonant both to reafon and the expreffed fentiments of the court of directors, he could fcarcely believe it would meet with oppofition; he could fcarcely believe any proprie. tor would perfuade the court to give a final opinion on this question, which was admitted to involve the deareft interefts of the British empire, before they were affifted with the advice of thofe great men, to whom we owed our poffeffions in the East, who were beft acquainted with their actual ftate, and muft feel most anxious for their profpe. rity. He could not think the di. rectors would wish for a blind concurrence in their measures, but would rather defire all poffible lights might be thrown on them, that, if they should prove to be erroneous, they might be retracted. It was matter of regret to the proprietors when any wide difference of opinion prevailed between thofe who had the chief direction of the affairs of the Eaft-India Company; but on fuch occafions, it became particularly their duty, as well as intereft, to be circumfpect, and feek for every poffible information and advice before they decided between the contending parties. In this cafe the di rectors stood on one fide, Mr. Dundas and the governor-general on the other; as he was bound to admit that the court of directors endeavoured to purfue the interefts of the Company and the Public to the best of their judgment, they were bound to make the fame admiflion on their part to Mr. Dundas and Lord Wellefley; he confidered it as an error

in judgment on one fide or the other, and wished the opinions of both to be fully investigated before. thofe of either were adopted. He faid he fhould refrain from faying any thing on the main queftion at prefent, hoping the motion would not be oppofed.

Mr. TWINING rofe next, and began with making fome obfervations on the names fubfcribed to the letter requiring the chairman and deputy chairman to call the court; and faid, that it was impoffible not to take notice, that, among thofe names, there were many gentlemen, however refpectable or high in character, who were known to be con. cerned in the private trade to and from India. The confideration of that circumftance was of itself fufficient to convince gentlemen that the general court had not been called at the inftance of proprietors perfectly difinterefted, and who had no object in view but the general interefts of the Eaft-India Company

Mr. Twining was called to order by Mr. DURANT, who main. tained that it was diforderly, and contrary to all ufage, in public af. fembly, to call the motives of any man, or any fet of men, in queftion; in a much higher affembly than that court (the Houfe of Commons), let a man bring forward what mo. tion he pleafed, it was highly irre. gular to impute improper motives to him.

The CHAIRMAN faid, he con. ceived the hon. proprietor to have been strictly in order. He had an undoubted right to obferve, that the fubfcribers to the letter were many of them concerned in the pri vate trade, and to confider whether the defire to push their interefts might not clash with the general interefts of the Company?

Mr. TWINING refuined his fpeech,

and

and faid, he intended no difrefpect to any of the gentlemen who figned the letter defiring that the general court might be called; he knew them to be men of great character, and entitled to refpect; but they would, he hoped, allow him to fay, that they were not, of all others, the best entitled to be confidered as impartial and independent proprietors, who fought no other object than the promotion of the beft interefts of the Eaft-India Company. With regard to what he had to offer that day, he thought it neceffary to premife, that the general court muft not look to him for pro. found research or abftrufe philofophy; he should merely endeavour to convey a few fimple ideas, in plain reafoning, limited by common fenfe. Those who might be fuppofed to feel themfelves interested in the fubject of the prefent mo. tion, appeared to him to refolve themfelves into claffes: Thofe who were concerned in the private trade, and were not proprietors; thofe who were proprietors, and were en gaged in the private trade; and thofe proprietors who had no private interest, but think it would conduce to the advantage of the Company. Had nine gentlemen of the latter clafs come forward with a letter, requefting a general court to be called on the fubject of the private trade, he was free to confefs he fhould have thought the manner of convening the court more refpectable, and lefs liable to fufpicion, and the matter, for the dif cuffion of which it was brought forward, better entitled to fair and candid confideration. He owned he had, with fome furprife, obferved the name of the hon. gentleman who made the motion among the fortythree fubfcribers to the letter. The report, to which the hon. proprietor had raised fo many objections,

VOL. 3,

was the refult of a long and delibe. rate inveftigation of the fubject, by a fpecial committee of their executive body, who were neceffarily led to take advantage of all the informa. tion that could be derived from a mafs of materials beyond the reach of common proprietors, and whofe duty, as directors, plainly pointed out to them that they were bound to fupport the general interefts of the Eaft-India Company, as the paramount object of their attention; they could have no private motive to prejudice their judgment, or bias their opinions; and is was due to them to admit, that, in deciding on a fubject fo extremely important, they had exercifed their beft wif dom, and acted moft confcientioufly. Their decifion was obviously calculated to fupport and ensure the ftability of the Company, and to preferve its valuable interefts entire. What on the other hand, was the complexion and character of the objections urged against the report, and the motion which the hon. proprie tor had concluded with? Neither more por less than an avowed charge against the directors for neglect of duty, a palpable innovation on the conftitution of the Company, and an attempt to introduce a new and hitherto unheard-of fuperintending power, to awe and influence their executive body, in whofe hands, by the law of England, the direction and management of the commercial concerns of the Company were vefted. Is it the intereft of the proprietors to abandon the trade of the Company? The general court would do well to pause, before they confented to a motion that would lead ultimately to a furrender of the most valuable rights of the proprietors. He could not allow that the hon. gentleman (who had fo politely interrupted him when he first rofe), or the hon. mover of the + L

refolution

refolution before the court, had dealt in fair argument; the latter had certainly difplayed much ingenuity, but he had faid nothing that brought conviction to his mind, that they might fafely continue to confide in their executive body, and leave to them, as the law of the country had done, the free, full, and unembarraffed management and direction of their commercial concerns. Mr. Twining faid, he fhould conclude with moving an amendment, the purport of which was, "That this court do confirm "the unanimous refolutions of the "court of directors on the 4th of "February laft; and that the court "of directors do, without delay, "act upon the principles detailed

in thofe refolutions." - Mr. Twining called upon the court of directors, and all others who were proprietors, to come forward on this occafion, and vote for the amendment, as the only effectual means of maintaining the authority of the executive body, and preferving the rights and privileges of the proprietary.

Mr. CHISHOLME feconded the amendment, which having been read,

Mr. CHISHOLME rofe again, and faid, he had feconded the amend ment, becaufe, though he had often acted with his honourable friend in fupporting motions calculated, in his judgment, to promote the inte. refts of the East-India Company, he could not bring his mind to concur in a motion which appeared to him to trench upon the beft rights of the Company, through the medium of a direct and unqualified attack on their executive body, whofe conftitutional functions it aimed at fuperfeding, and invefting in other hands. report, which had been in fo many inftances objected to by his honourable friend, he had gone through

The

with every poffible degree of attention, and he muft declare, that of all the papers he had ever read, (and, confidering his time of life, they could not be fuppofed to be few in number,) he had never met with one more clear and perfpicuous in arrangement, more plain and unanfwerable in reafoning, or more fatisfactory in its deductions and conclufions, than the report in queftion. He was ready at all times to give his honourable friend full credit for his great abilities; but he had that day difplayed a degree of ingenuity, that, with all deference to his talents, he had not expected from him. He had difcovered, what no other honourable proprietor dreamt of, that the late prefident of the India board, Mr. Dundas, had yet to learn the diftinction between that part of the Company's affairs which was political, and that which was commercial, and that he was ready to teach him. To a man of his plain and fimple understanding, Mr. Dundas, in his letter of the gift of March, appeared to be perfectly mafter of that diftinction; for he fays, (fpeaking of the private trade,) "It is a fubject over which the commiffioners for the affairs of India have no control;" and he ends that letter with recommending the avoidance of further delay in coming to a decifion upon it. Mr. Chisholme reafoned upon this as an irrefragable proof, that the late prefident of the India board entertained a clear and decifive opinion, that the private trade of the Company was purely commercial, and that he earnestly recommended to the directors to ufe all poflible difpatch in acting upon the principles detailed in their refolutions of the 4th of February. He obferved, that, in fpeaking of the danger of colonization in India, his honourable friend had introduced a com

parifon

trade to and from India, to fet up their opinions against the judgment of the directors, their executive body, established as fuch by repeated acts of the legislature. Let the proprietors recollect the weight of the word unanimity. The four-andtwenty directors were unanimous. Not only fo, but the fix new ones, who came in but laft month, had carefully examined all the papers on which the twenty-four old directors grounded their opinions, and they fully concurred with them; fo that thirty directors, the majority of whom had patiently inveftigated the fubject, confidered it again and again in every poffible point of view, for many months, (he might fay years, as it originated foon after 1793,) were clearly of one opinion, forty-three interested individuals of another. What was it that the refolution that had been moved aimed at, but the fetting up of a new board of control to inftruct and direct the directors? The exifting board of control, when first inftituted, had not been fo highly relished as to make the proprietors very eager to have a fecond inftituted. Instead of this covert means of attacking the directors, it would have been far more manly to have come forward at once with a motion to difmifs the prefent directors, as unworthy of further truft, and of the appoint. ment of those in their room, who ftood forward on the prefent occafion, and who, if they once found their way behind that bar, would no doubt introduce a new fyftem of management of the Company's affairs, fince the prefent motion ma nifefted their utter difregard of the rights of the Eaft-India Company. Sir Stephen faid, he was not a little amazed to fce among the fortythree proprietors who figned the letter requefting the court to be called, the names of many gentle.

men who owed every fhilling of their fortunes to the Eaft-India Company. Among them, with equal furprife and regret, he perceived the name of a fon of an honourable proprietor, now no more, who had made it one of the chief objects of his life to prove himself the ftrenuous advocate of the rights and pri vileges of the Company; a gentleman whofe merits as a proprietor, and whofe zeal in maintaining their true interefts were fo univerfally acknowledged, that he fhould not think too high a compliment had been paid to his memory if his buft had been the ornament of a niche among thofe of the honourable men whofe ftatues were placed above their heads. [Lord Clive, General Lawrence, Sir George Pocock, and Sir Eyre Coote.] What then muft his regret be to fee the fon of that honourable proprietor, who had faid, on a former occafion, that "he owed every thing he poffeffed to the Company," joining in and lending countenance to a motion calculated to fubvert the rights and constitu tion of the Company? That honourable proprietor might be confidered as the immediate child of the Company; and was his conduct in the inftance alluded to a natural return for paft favours, or rather for parental kindnefs? But would that court be led away by an argument, however ingenious, and induced to lofe fight of the great national importance of the Eaft-India Company ? Would they forget that the wifdom of ages had uniformly fhewn that it was the policy of the state to have the trade to the Eaft-Indies carried on by an exclufive monopoly in the hands of the Company? Did gentlemen recollect what a vaft engine of revenue the Company was to the government of the empire? Had they forgot the large fums paid in duties of excife and customs; and

would