1,82 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Charles River Editors
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 183
Ähnliche
MEMOIR OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY
Anonymous
WAXKEEP PUBLISHING
Thank you for reading. In the event that you appreciate this book, please show the author some love.
This book is a work of nonfiction and is intended to be factually accurate.
All rights reserved. Aside from brief quotations for media coverage and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form without the author’s permission. Thank you for supporting authors and a diverse, creative culture by purchasing this book and complying with copyright laws.
Copyright © 2015 by Anonymous
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1830
PART I. HOME ADMINISTRATION FIRST PERIOD
SECOND PERIOD
FOURTH PERIOD
FIFTH PERIOD
PART II.FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS
Memoir of the Affairs of the East-India Company
By Anonymous
1830
ITISMATTERMOREFOR regret than of surprise, that so little should e generally known regarding the East-India Company, and the character in which they stand with relation to the vast interests committed (under certain restrictions) to their management and control.
The means of acquiring information are more ample, and more readily to be obtained than upon almost any other public question, whether such information be sought for in the records of Parliament, in those of the Company which have been from time to time printed for and laid before the Proprietors of East-India Stock, or in the standard histories of the day.
When the mercantile interests of the country are suffering through the alleged want of wider fields for commercial enterprise, the abolition of the Company’s remaining exclusive privileges of trade is declared to be the panacea.
When the case of an individual seeking redress at the hands of the Court of Directors for some alleged grievance inflicted by the Governments abroad has been rejected, and an appeal made, either to Parliament or to the Public, the occasion is seized upon to condemn the system under which the government of India is carried on, and to denounce it as pregnant with the most serious evils.
In the absence of either of these causes for public discussion, little is comparatively heard of the East-India Company. The Proprietors receive their dividend, the State its revenue, and the best proof of the adaptation of the parts to the whole is, that the vast machine works quietly, but effectually, the purpose for which it has been framed and established.
It must not, however, be supposed, that the existing India system is the production of a day, or (as has been stated by an authority entitled to much respect) that “our Indian legislation has advanced by springs and jerks,” and that in each renewal of the charter “consideration and enquiry were out of the question.’ The system has grown out of the trade commenced by the Company at the close of the sixteenth century, and prosecuted amidst the most extraordinary difficulties and political vicissitudes, to the present day, comprising an unbroken period of two hundred and thirty years, during which the British empire in India has been established.
The laws under which the system is administered have been passed from time to time, as circumstances have called for their enactment. Whenever evils have been found to exist, remedies have been applied; and it cannot fail to be remembered, that the most important parliamentary measure, a measure which may be considered as the foundation of the present system, was brought forward, and ultimately passed into a law, not more for the purpose of securing the rights and interests of the Company, than for the preservation of the constitution of this country.
It is proposed, in the present paper, to notice the leading facts connected with the Home Administration of the East-India Company, and the financial results of the system. This paper is divided into two parts.
Part I. Treats of the Home Administration, embracing the commercial and political privileges, with the territorial possessions which have been conferred upon the Company, from time to time, since its union in 1708.
Part II. Contains Facts and Observations, explanatory of the accounts laid before Parliament respecting the East-India and China Trade, and of the Financial Affairs of the East –India Company.
It may probably be said, with reference to the first part, that a more limited retrospect would have sufficed. Had that been the case, much time and labor would have been saved; but then it would have been impossible to have arrived at the ground-work of the present system, or to have given that connected view which is essential to a correct understanding of it.
The government of the British territories in India is confided to the East-India Company and to the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, subject to the control of Parliament.
The affairs abroad are administered by the Supreme Government of Fort William in Bengal, and by the two subordinate governments of Fort St. George and Bombay, under orders and instructions received from the authorities in England.
The Governments of Fort St. George and Bombay, were established by distinct legislative enactments, which will be noticed as the events which gave rise to them occurred.
The East-India Company, under the title of the “London Company” was incorporated by charter granted by Queen Elizabeth on the 30th December 1600. In 1693, that Company having failed in the payment of a duty of five percent, on their capital stock, imposed by the 4th and 5th of William and Mary, doubts arose whether, in strictness of law, the charters which had been granted them were not rendered void. A new one, however, was granted, on condition that it should be determinable on three years’ notice.
In 1698 the necessities of the state led to a loan from the Public of £2,000,000 at eight percent, and the subscribers were incorporated by charter into a society, called the “English Company”’ with the exclusive right of trade to all countries and places beyond the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Magellan.
The Act reserved a power to determine the exclusive trade September 1711, on three years’ notice and repayment of the loan.
In 1708 the London and English Companies were united, since which their title has been “The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East-Indies.”
The East-India Company consists of the Proprietors of the capital stock, who, when assembled under the charter of King William, which is the basis of their present privileges, are designated “A General Court.”
All Proprietors of $500 stock, whether possessing such stock in their own right or otherwise, or having held it only for an hour, were entitled to vote, and to take part in the discussions and proceedings in the General Court. They likewise elected twenty-four proprietors annually, each possessing , £2,000 stock, to be Directors of the Company. These provisions were subsequently altered by the Acts passed in 1767, and the Regulating Act of 1773.
A Court of Directors, the designation prescribed by the charter, must consist of not less than thirteen members. They form the executive body, and carry on the concerns of the Company, their duties being partly of a political, and partly of a commercial character.
The personal interests of the Proprietors consist in the security of their capital stock, of the quick and dead stock at home and abroad, and of those immunities which they have from time to time acquired, as a corporate body, in England and in India. These several interests are confided to the care and protection of the Court of Directors, who, as the executive body, must be considered responsible to the Proprietors for their preservation.
PART I. HOME ADMINISTRATION FIRST PERIOD
THEFIRSTEXTENSIONOFTHE period for which the United Company were to enjoy the exclusive privileges of trade took place in 1703. It was for fifteen years, viz. until 1723, in consideration of which the Company advanced to the public 1,200,000, by way of loan, without interest, the same being added to the two millions lent at eight per cent., under the 9th and 10th William III, making a total of £3,200,000 due to the Company.
In May 1712 the Company presented a petition to Parliament, representing that they had acquired several forts and settlements, and privileges in India, which were absolutely necessary for the carrying on their trade, and were a great security to the British interests in that quarter, and cost the Company very great sums of money that in order to compete with the Dutch and to secure the interests of the Company, the period then remaining, viz. eleven years, was too short to incur a further outlay, and they therefore prayed for an additional term.
The Act of the 10th Anne, cap. 28, was accordingly passed; and in order “that the United Company might be the better encouraged to proceed in their trade, and to make such lasting
“settlements for the support and maintenance thereof for the benefit of the British nation,” the exclusive trade was continued to them until three years’ notice after the 25th March 1733.
The Company, at this early period of their union, had to contend with a clandestine trade which had been carried on by British merchants under foreign colors. In order to check its continuance, the Court of Directors presented two petitions to His Majesty, King George the First, at Kensington, in December 1718, when His Majesty was pleased to give the following answer: “You may depend upon the continuance of my protection wherever it may be necessary.”
An Act was accordingly passed, prohibiting, under severe penalties, the prosecution of such clandestine trade.
In the year 1729 various attacks were made upon the Company. On the 26th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by several merchants and traders of Great Britain, offering to advance ,§£3,200,000, to redeem the fund and trade of the East-India Company, at five several payments, on or before the 25th March 1733, at an interest of four per cent, from the times of payment until the 25th March 1735, and two percent, afterwards; provided the lenders might be incorporated and vested with the whole trade to the East-Indies and elsewhere, in the same extensive degree as was granted to the East-India Company, yet so as not to trade with their joint stock in a corporate capacity, but the trade to be open to all His Majesty’s subjects, upon license from such proposed new company to be granted to all His Majesty’s subjects desiring the same, on proper terms and conditions; and provided the trade be exercised to and from the port of London only, and be subject to redemption at any time, upon three years’ notice, after thirty-one years and the repayment of the principal.
The petition was rejected by 223 to 138.
The Ministers at that time were convinced that the trade could be most beneficially carried on through the Company, the opposition to the Company was therefore ineffectual but the business was again brought forward, the time intervening between the rejection of the first petition and the presentation of a second, being employed in the publication of anonymous letters, essays, periodical papers, and pamphlets against exclusive companies in general; and all the arguments which had been ever advanced against monopolies were retailed on the occasion, and then, as now, all the benefits which were supposed to result from a free trade magnified with great art and ability. On the 9th April 1730, a petition from the merchants, traders, and others, against confining the East-India trade to the East-India Company only, and for obliging the Company to grant licenses on proper terms and conditions, was offered to be presented to the House; and on the question for its being brought, the same was negative by 177 to 778. The same course was followed, but without a division, on petitions to the same purport from Bristol and
Liverpool.
In the month of March the following propositions, which had been made in the Committee of Ways and Means, relating to the funds and trade of the Company, were received by the Directors.
It may here be important to observe, with reference to the last proposition, that although the Directors were unanimously of opinion, that by the Act of the 10th Anne the Company had a right of perpetuity to the trade, notwithstanding the fund should be redeemed, opinions were divided, both in and out of Parliament, concerning this material point ; and as it was conceived that the putting it to a trial might be attended with great hazard and inconvenience, the Directors submitted that it would be more for the Company’s interest and benefit to accept of the proposals before the Court.
The Act of the 3rd Geo. II., cap. 14, was accordingly passed, by which the Company gave to the Public the sum of 200,000, and reduced the interest on the £3,200,000 due from the Public from five to four per cent. viz. £128,000, per annum, instead of £160,000 per annum. The Company, notwithstanding the redemption by the Public of the said debt of 200,000 was declared to be a body Politic and Corporate in deed and in name, by the title of “the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East-Indies,” and by that name should have perpetual succession and a common seal.
In January 1744 it was intimated to the Court of Directors, that if the Company would advance and lend to His Majesty, for the service of the Government, the sum of one million at three percent, it might be the means of procuring the prolongation of the Company’s term in the exclusive trade to the year 1780, their present term expiring at Lady Day 1766; the Company to be empowered to borrow the said million on their bonds. The proposition was agreed to the three years’ notice to be given from 1780.
The 17th George II cap. 17, was accordingly passed.
It was at the same time declared, that the Company were to have the benefit of all Charters and Acts which had been made in their favor.
This measure secured to the Company the exclusive trade for the prospective term of thirty-six years from 1744. The several periods for which, and the terms upon which such exclusive trade has been extended, will be seen by the following summary.
SECOND PERIOD
ITWILLBEPERCEIVEDTHAT the events within the abovementioned period related principally to the affairs of the Company abroad.
France having joined Spain in the war against Great Britain, the effects were soon felt in India. The French succeeded in reducing Madras, by which a loss of a£ 180,000 was entailed upon the Company. This settlement was restored to the Company in 1 749 by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. These events were followed by the inhuman incarceration of one hundred and forty- six Europeans in the Black Hole at Calcutta; the loss of Fort William; its recapture by the King’s and Company’s forces under Admiral Watson and Colonel Clive, together with the restoration of the Company’s factories in Bengal ; the deposition of Sujeh Dowlah, and the elevation of Meer Jaffier to the musnud, succeeded by the victories of Colonel Clive, which led to the extension of the Company’s possessions; the deposition of Meer Jaffier and succession of Cossim Ali Khan, and the re-elevation of Meer Jaffier.
The hostile proceedings of M. Dupleix on the Coast of Coromandel, whose views went to the annihilation of the Company’s authority in that quarter of India, and the acquisition of the Dewannee obtained by Lord Clive in Bengal, were the prominent occurrences.
The limits of this paper will not admit of any lengthened review of the principles by which the Court of Directors (then the only Home authority) were governed, in the instructions which at that early period they sent to India. The materials for such purpose are abundant, the matter most interesting, and the whole tenor of the Court’s dispatches calculated to remove the generally received, but nevertheless erroneous opinion, that the Directors were comparatively indifferent to the events in progress, and that they withheld the exercise of that control which was essential to good government, and to the proper conduct of their servants abroad.
The following extracts will be sufficient to shew the general character of the Court’s proceedings.
In 1744, the Committee of Shipping, who at that time superintended the measures connected with the repair of fortifications, were instructed to frame regulations for that purpose, and the Court informed the government in Bengal that “they grudged” no expense necessary for the just defense of the Company’s “settlements.” An engineer officer who had been employed in the fortifications in Flanders, was sent by the Directors with the rank of Major.
The Court of Directors, in their petitions to the Lords Justices of the 18th July 1750, 19th August 1752, and in their letters to the Earl of Holdernesse of the 10th January and 14th September 1753, had represented the Company’s situation with regard to the French on the Coromandel coast, at those several periods.
In 1754, the Court stated, that notwithstanding all their endeavors at home, and those of their servants abroad, they found by the several advices which they had from time to time laid before Administration, that the French were daily growing in power that at a meeting at Sadras, the French commissaries insisted that M. Dupleix should be Governor of the whole country from Cape Comorin to the River Kishna, to which adding the Rajahmundry and Chicacole countries, lately granted to him, the whole coast would be his to very near Point Palmiras, an extent of near fourteen degrees; and that should M. Dupleix succeed in that object, the Company’s settlements and trade upon the Coast of Coromandel must be in the power of the French, and the British authorities entirely subject to their pleasure.
The Court pointed out, that since the commencement of those troubles, they had from time to time sent very large supplies of men and military stores, and intended to send a further force, and to exert themselves to the utmost of their power as far as a trading company could do; but they thought it a duty they owed to the Public and to the Company, to lay before Administration the circumstances and situation they were placed in abroad, not doubting but that Ministers would represent the same to His Majesty in such a manner, that proper and effectual measures might be taken to secure to this nation “so great and valuable a branch of their trade as that to the East-Indies.”
In March 1758, after a general review of the investment, shipping, &c, the Court laid down instructions as to the conduct of servants, the collection of revenues and customs, and the extent of the military establishment.
The junior servants were ordered to be sent from Calcutta, where they acquired habits of idleness and extravagance, to the aurungs, where they might learn the languages and gain a knowledge of the various qualities of goods, &c. To encourage the cultivation of raw-silk, the Court sent out a Mr. Wilder, who was well qualified to introduce and promote improvement in the manufacture of that article.
The Court complained in strong terms of the profuse and extravagant grant of allowances called hatta to the troops at Madras, and apprehended that some such allowance had been introduced into Bengal, where living was so much cheaper, and ordered that it should never be allowed but when in the field.
The injunctions of the Court, at the same time, as to the necessity of economy in all branches of the Company’s affairs abroad, shew the sound principles which governed their instructions:
“There never surely was a time when the situation of the Company’s affairs, or that of their servants of all ranks, as well as of those who are resident in India under the Company’s protection, so loudly called for a general reformation, if that regard (which we really look upon to be due) is to be paid to the truth of your representation of the distressed situation of our once flourishing settlement of Fort William. No attempts should be neglected for restoring it to something like its former luster, and the necessity must now enforce what prudence would always have suggested to those who attend her dictates. Should the economy we recommend our servants of all ranks be as general as their situation requires, it must banish that false shame which is too often the attendant of those weak minds, whose ill-judged desires in an inferior situation, in regard to rank or fortune, put them upon following the examples of their superiors, either in their vicious or luxurious indulgences. We will only add, that we doubt not that our servants, who are disposed to reflect, will be very sensible that we are not acting upon arbitrary or parsimonious principles, but on such which have equally for their object the true and lasting interest of the Company, and that of every individual servant acting under them.”
On the appointment by orders from home of servants to particular stations in India, the Court wrote on the 11th April 1758:
“As these nominations, in your present critical situation, may put you under difficulties, and we may possibly confine our servants to one place when they may be more properly employed for our service, we, relying upon your integrity and experience, do revoke all our former nominations to chiefships and the posts at the Presidency, and commit the whole to your direction.”
This was the foundation of the subsequent enactments.
