EAST INDIA COMPANY.

A Special General Court of the Proprietors of East India Stock was held on Monday, pursuant to adjournment, for the purpose of con- sidering the correspondence between Ministers and the Court of Di- rectors on the subject of the renewal of the Company's Charter.

Mr. Campbell Marjoribanks, the Chairman, having briefly stated the object of the meeting, Mr. Weeding said, it was reported that a paper, in the nature of a dissent to the Ministerial propositions, had been placed in the hands of the Directors ; and he thought it ought to be read to the Proprietors. The Chairman said there would be no ob- jection to reading the paper ; and it was accordingly read by the Clerk. It embodied the reasons for the dissent of Mr. Tucker, one of the Di- rectors.

Sir John Malcolm expressed much satisfaction with the contents of Mr. Tucker's minute ; which was entitled to great respect, as it was drawn up by an officer who bad served the Company many years in India, in various financial, fiscal, and political situations. He dwelt at great length on the immense extent and population of our Indian empire, and upon the risk which the projected change in the management of its concerns would certainly create. He did not believe that the trade to China could be carried on as advantageously by individuals as by the Company. He thought that there ought to be some better security for the payment of the annuities than the Indian revenues, which were still deficient. There were symptoms of a desire on the part of Go- vernment to seize a power which they hardly dared to grasp. The Court of Directors had done every thing in their power to advance the interests of the Company and the good government of India. He concluded by moving resolutions,—to the effect, that the Proprietors highly approved of the conduct of the Directors in this business : that the Company would continue to administer the territorial Government of India, provided the guarantee fund for the payment of the annuity should be extended so as to be equal, with accumulations,.to the dis- charge of the principal at the end of forty years, and that the annuity, in ease of a deficiency in the receipts from India, should be paid out of that fund, any sum so taken to be made good by subsequent remittances from India : that sufficient powers be reserved by the Company to check, by a system of publicity to both Houses of Parliament, any acts of the Board of Control which the Directors should deem unconstitu- tional : that a sufficient sum be retained out of the commercial assets to enable the Company to make provision for outstanding debts, and for such officers as may be affected by the proposed arrangements. Sir Charles Forbes protested against these resolutions.

The'great object seemed to be. to pay a certain dividend to the Proprietors, which was to go out of the pockets of the people of India. But how was this to be paid? Was it fr2m the commercial assets of the Company or its territorial revenues ? ThW commercial assets were, he contended, applicable to the payment of the dividends; but if there were any surplus of territorial revenue, tt should be applied to the payment of the loan contracted on the credit

of the territorial revenues. In his opinion, the Company ought not to come to any .compromise on this matter. They should not make themselves patties to their own downfall. Let them stand to their rights, and not give up f!, •hich fairly belonged to them. The plan proposed was not a link to c,m: •t. the Can't:luny with the people of India; on the contrary, it was to d.,..1g the people ot India for forty years to come. It was as a millstone round tlieir

which he was sure they would not submit to. They would ask, and very na- turally, why they should be taxed to pay the dividends of the Proprietors. The people of England would object, and very justly, to be taxed to carry on the government of India. Why, then, should the people of India be taxed to pay the dividends of English Proprietors? He did hope, then that this measure would not be forced on the people of India, and that they would not submit to it.

He thought also the China trade would become a ruinous one in pri- vate hands.

Mr. Molony and Mr. Lowndes opposed the plan of Government : Mr. Lowndes said that he had predicted what was now occurring in his letter to Sir John 1-lobliouse. He was the most fortunate man alive, for he had predicted every thing that had occurred for thirty years,— among other things, the fall of Bonaparte, fifteen years before it took place. This was because be had studied human nature, among the lowest classes—that was the way to study human nature ! (Laughter.) Dr. Borthwick Gilchrist agreed with much that had fallen from Sir John Malcolm. He thought, however, that the interests of the poor ought to be consulted ; the high price of tea had driven the poor to the gin. shop. He thought that Sir John Malcolm's resolution ought to be carefully considered, and plenty of time allowed the Proprietors for that purpose. Mr. Randle Jackson said, there was one important question for their consideration, which was, whether this sum of 630,000/. a year should be paid by the people of India, or whether the Proprietors should stand fast and decline the arrangement and wait for some other. The ques- tion was whether, with a capital of 21,000,0001., they should invest 18000,063/. of it for an annuity, and deprive themselves of the power of carrying on the trade with China. After some further conversation, the debate was adjourned to the next day. The Proprietors reassembled oil Tuesday, and proceeded to the further consideration of Sir John Malcolm's resolutions.

Sir Harford Jones Brydges said, that the best way to treat the im- portant question before the Court was carefully to study the correspond- ence between Mr. Grant and the Directors. The situation of the Company and the Government was analogous to that between landlord and tenant at the expiration of a lease : they should not separate from one another unless there was just cause of complaint. This, on the part of the Crown, did not exist against the Company. The Com- pany had faithfully fulfilled their part of the contract, and had re- peatedly been of the greatest service to the Government. He was decidedly opposed to Mr. Grant's proposition, and thought that Mr.' Tucker's minute ought to guide the decision of the Court.

"Mr. Mackinnon condemned, in strong terms, the attempt to deprive the Company of the China trade ; which was most essential to the Government of India, as it afforded the means of making remittances at the most favourable rate of exchange. He was convinced it was a great mistake to suppose, that because, subsequently to the opening of the India trade in 1813, the exports had increased, a similar increase would result from opening of the China trade. He read a long letter from a resident at Macao, and the petition of the Canton merchants presented to the House of Commons in 1830; in confirmation of his views on this subject. The petition contained many statements with reference to the arbitrary conduct and jealous feeling of the Chinese Government.

Mr. Weedon said, that the commerce of the Company at Canton amounted to eleven millions of dollars—that of the private merchants to thirty millions. These latter had very properly petitioned for sup- port from Government, when the Company's agents at Canton had told them that they could not afford them protection, and they must take care of themselves. He thought, on the whole, it would be best to agree to Sir John Malcolm's resolutions. The Govennnent evidently had made up their mind. It was therefore best to come to some com- promise. He went into a statement to prove that the Company, after paying all demands, possessed a surplus of twenty millions. to supply an Interest of 10- per cent. on their Stock. Under these circumstances, ought they tolae satisfied with a guarantee fund of only 1.200,000, and an annuity chargeable upon India revenues ? It was wild to suppose that any persons alive to their interest should concur in such a scheme.

• General D'Albiac said, that the tenure upon which we held our In- dian empire was extremely delicate. We held it not by force—it was absurd to suppose it—but by the faith of the nations in our national integrity, and by a strict adherence to our word of promise, expressed or implied. He was convinced, that if any new arrangements were made, which would lessen the confidence of the natives in the govern- ment of the Company, ruin would inevitably follow.

Mr. Randle Jackson regretted that none of his Majesty's Ministers were present to hear the arguments of the Proprietors. He was certain, that were they to hear them they could not persist in their project. To one thing he at least had made up his mind—they should not stir one step till their full political power was recognized. If the natives of India (who were not the ignorant creatures now that they were in 1784 and 1794, but had newspapers in their own language) • should -discover that the powers of the Company were diminished, the consequences would be most ruinous. The policy, of this country should be to conciliate the natives: to exact 630,000/. per annum for the payment of the an- nuity, was not the way to do it. But suppose they declined these ruinous propositions of Government, what would be the result? Must they cease to exist as a Company? Not at all. If they only availed themselves of the power which, they possessed under the statute of William. the Third, they might continue their trade with all places—from the Cape of 'Good Hope to the Straits of Magellan. They need fear no competition from' any_pri- vate individuals. They might carry on the trade with great advantage. They had ships and men, and could in a few hours raise any additional capital they might require. They had, by the act of William, the right to trade in perpe- tuity with all the ports, havens, creeks, bays, &c., in Asia, Africa, or America, from the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Magellan. Let them avail them- selves of that power, for which they had now greater advantages than ever. What risk did they run? They might divide a greater interest than at present ; but even supposing that their dividends were reduced from l0 to 8 or 7 per cent. that would be better than risk the whol., as they would by the plan pro- posed by Government.

He concluded by moving the following resolution-

" That this Court declares its opinion, that to deny to the Proprietors wrmission to invest their own undoubted property in the public Funds. with a view to securing the payment of their dividends, and ultimately of their capital Stock in this country, in preference to drawing 630,060/. per annum from the revenues of India,were there even a rational hope of realizing so large a sum from a source liable to such contingencies as are stated by tIme Directors,—is a violation of the first principles of justice, and such as cannot be submitted to without dishonour to the Company, and a desertion of the rights on which depends the property of every British subject."

Sir H. J. Brydges seconded the resolution.

On the motion of Captain Gowan, seconded by Dr. Gilchrist, the Court adjourned to Thursday.

On Thursday the debate was resumed. Captain Gowan was glad the time had arrived when a reform in the government of India must take place. It was very properly proposed by Government that the China monopoly should cease : the whole country demanded its abolition, and it was nonsense to attempt to maintain it. He ridiculed the idea of there being any reluctance on the part of the Chinese to deal with private traders, or that the repre- sentative of the King would not be treated with as much deference as the Company's Committee. He did not like to tell disagreeable truths to the Court, but he had been in India, and be could say that in many respects the country was badly governed. The Judges and Magistrates were too often young and passionate—not to say corrupt. He had

heard of stripes being inflicted on Zemindars, one of whom could not bear the disgrace, and killed himself on account of it. He considered the proposal of Government to pay them 630,000/. per annum as a very advantageous offer for the Company. He did not see that the Company had an amount of property which should justify them in refusing such an equitable proposal. He considered the revenues of India as ample security. The expenditure, according to the estimate of one who had been their best financier, Mr. Holt Mackenzie, might easily be reduced by 730,000/. per annum. Rammohun Roy was also of opinion, that, under proper management, the Indian revenue might be much improved. He objected to the pro- fuse expenditure of the Directors. Their number ought to be reduced to ten at the most. . The India House with its establishment cost the Company 40,000/. per annum. Every thing was on an extravagant scale. In every part of London he met the messengers of the Com- pany carrying game hams, and carpet-bags. All such things should be done away with. He objected to the breakfasts, luncheons, and feast- ings of the Directors : why could they not meet, like the Cabinet Mi- nisters, for the despatch of business, without eating and drinking?

Mr. David Salmons proposed an amendment ; which, at the sugges- tion of the Chairman, he subsequently withdrew.

Mr. Twining dwelt at considerable length on the injury which the Company, and the country at large, would sustain by the throwing open of the China trade. The quantity of tea now consumed was 32,000,000 of pounds annually—an amount of business not to be carelessly meddled with. Much distress would flow from the opening of the trade : two thousand men, and upwards, would at once be thrown out of em- ploy in the Metropolis. He maintained that the great majority of the country were in favour of a renewal of the Charter.

Mr. Carruthers thought that the Government had acted wisely in throwing open the China trade. He did not anticipate from it the evil consequences with which they had been threatened. He thought that the guarantee for the payment of the annuity was too small. It should not be less than two millions and a half. He was perfectly satisfied to leave the settlement of the question to the Directors.

Colonel Leicester Stanhope thought the interest of the people of India would be best consulted by allowing the Court of Directors to govern them, rather than the Ministry. He approved of the opening of the China trade. He recommended that the writerships and other patronage of the Company should be annually sold. The produce would be 600,000/. per annum—nearly enough to pay their dividends. He entered into several details to prove that the trade with India had much increased since the restrictions upon it ivere removed ; and con- cluded by proposing a string of resolutions,—to the effect that the Court approved of the abolition of the China Monopoly; that as their assets were more than equal to secure due payment of their dividends, they were entitled to receive such compensation from Government as would insure their payment under the new arrangement ; that the annuity of 630,000/. was insecure, on account of wars and disturbances that might arise in India ; and that the Court, reposing full confidence in the Directors, left the settlement of the question in their hands.

Captain Sheppard moved an amendment,—to the effect that part of the assets of the Company should be set aside to continue the China trade, in common with the public at large. Mr. Rigby then moved an adjournment ; which was agreed to. On Friday, the Proprietors reassembled. Mr. Randle Jackson gave notice of his intention to withdraw his amendment, and substitute another, which Would press upon Govern- ment the claims of the Company for a full indemnity for the loss.of their trade, and an ample guarantee for the payment of the dividends. Mr. Rigby spoke at great length against the proposals of Govern- ment. He called upon the Court to make a stand, and have no delu- sion upon the subject. Mr. Goldsmid opposed the proposal of Government. The people would never be parties to robbing the Company of five millions sterling. Mr. Fielder said, the Government proposals ought to be termed Algerine proposals: they ought to be rejected at Once. Mr. Charles Buller, M. P. thought the Company would do well to close at once with the offer Of Government. He would vote for Sir J. Malcolm's resolution.

On the motion of Mr. Warden, the Court adjourned to Monday.