cellors of dioceses were already laid down in one of the canons of the church, and an improper appointment by the bishop would, he conceived, be voidable in a court of law.

The Bishop of London also objected to the clause.

The Lord Chancellor expressed a wish that his noble and learned friend would prepare a clause instead of that now in the Bill. The clause was struck out.

The House resumed, and the Committee was appointed to sit again to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 1.

and Manuscripts of Francis Hargrave, esq. one of his Majesty's counsel in the law, for the public use; and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will make good the same."

Mr. Rose expressed his hearty approbation of the motion, and his persuasion that every one who knew Mr. Hargrave would concur in it.

The motion was then unanimously agreed to.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER BILL.] Lord Castlereagh, in moving that the order of the day be read for the House to resume the Committee on the East India Bill, begged to call the attention of the House to the stage of that measure. trusted that the Bill would be suffered to

He

previous discussion on the general principle. Such a discussion at the present moment would surely be thought unnecessary, when it was considered that there were two subsequent stages, the report and the third reading, on either or on both of which it might take place, and when to this consideration was added the reflection, how extremely material it was that no avoidable delay should take place in the progress of the Bill. He repeated therefore his hope that gentlemen would, when in the Committee, confine themselves to the discussion of the particular clauses of the Bill, and not travel into a more enlarged consideration. of the subject,

MR. HARGRAVE'S BOOKS AND MANUSCRIPTS.] Mr. Whitbread rose to state to the House, that the Committee appoint-proceed to the Committee without any ed by them had met, and examined witnesses respecting the nature and value of the books and manuscripts of Mr. Hargrave. Many of his books were enriched with notes, which were extremely valuable, in the opinion of those who were the most competent judges; and it was conceived that the books and manuscripts would be a great acquisition to the public, if deposited in the library of Lincoln's Inn. It was unnecessary for him to say any thing respecting Mr. Hargrave's learning and character. There was not a lawyer in England who would not be ready to bear testimony to his great erudition, abilities, and industry. The hon. gentleman concluded his speech, by quoting from a recent learned publication, Mr. Tierney thought the request of the (Maddock's Life of Lord Somers, p. 142) noble lord rather extraordinary. When a passage concerning Mr. Hargrave, which the Bill was read a second time the House was quite congenial with his own senti- were told that it was desirable not to disments. "See what Mr. Hargrave says cuss it, as the debate on the general prinin his interesting and learned preface to ciple might be taken on the question for sir Matthew Hale's work on Judicature in the Speaker's leaving the chair. Now Parliament, p. 14. I quote that preface they were asked not to discuss it, as the with additional pleasure, since it affords debate might be taken on the bringing me an opportunity of expressing my ad-up of the report. At least this was not miration of Mr. Hargrave. When I reflect upon his profound learning, his useful, his infinite labours, his gentle manners, his pure, disinterested, and patriotic mind, he seems to me to rank amongst the greatest benefactors of his country." He should content himself with moving, "That an bumble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that the sum of 8,000l. be issued out of his Majesty's Civil List revenues, to be applied towards the purchase of the Books

decorous. It was not parliamentary. For himself, he had no intention of saying a word on the question, but he protested against such a mode of treating the House.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that the remarks of the right hon. gentleman would induce any one who did not know the fact, to suppose that there had not 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. members who he

knew wished to declare their sentiments | persuasion that government had no meato the House on this important subject.

Mr. Rickards also announced his intention of speaking at large on the third read-measure on the subject at the present ing.

that he would avail himself of a future
opportunity to communicate to the House
his sentiments on the measure.
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 re-
spect to the limitation of time. The sub-
ject had been so much dwelt and dilated
upon, that he would not occupy the atten-
tion of the Committee, at any length, in
stating the grounds which, in his opinion,
ought to induce them to except the clause
from the general role, in point of duration,
that pervaded the rest of the Bill. It ap-
peared to him, that all the arguments
which had been urged in favour of conti-
nuing the Company's monopoly of trade
to India, were not only wholly uncon-
nected with the support of a similar pro-
position respecting the trade to China, but
were in a great measure at war with that
proposition. It had always been contended
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 disclaimed any
narrow views of commercial advantage in
that opposition, maintaining that the un-
restrained introduction of British adven-
turers 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 con-
structed for the government of India.
Now, these arguments were utterly inap-
plicable to the China part of the question.
By opening the trade to China, the Com-
pany would suffer no diminution of poli-
tical power. Neither by the irruption 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 consi-
dered as the revenues by which the so-
vereignty of the Company in India was
maintained. He willingly admitted that
the existing political character of the Com-
pany in India ought to be supported; but
he contended that if at the expiration of
the period to which he should propose to
limit the monopoly 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
(VOL. XXVI. )

at home, to retain their political authority in India. It was contended also by the advocates of the Company, that indepen dently of the preservation of the political power in India, by the profits arising from the China trade, that that trade must be carried on exclusively by a company. If he could admit this, he would have no hesitation in also allowing that the East India Company might be the most proper body to enjoy that privilege. But the two propositions were totally distinct. The attempt to connect the argument arising out of the expediency of maintaining the political power of the Company in India, and the argument arising out of the im possibility of the trade to China being carried on but by the Company, must naturally be unsuccessful. The question of revenue was the only one that could fairly be disputed, and this he met with a fair avowal of his opinion, that if the revenue should be found not adequate to the maintenance of the Company in the government of India, the means of making 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 repeated, that if the revenue of the East India Company 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 Company, 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 reason why the merchants of this country should be allowed 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 Company 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 America, would it not be highly advantageous to exclude the Americans from the trade to China, and to fill up the chasm which would thereby be created with British traders? It might be that the American character had some, thing in it better suited to communication

3 T)

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 imprudent 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; for it was well known how cheap commerce and fo

with the Chinese-something more honest, more straight forward, more polished, than the British. But on those who opposed the opening of the China trade to the British merchants lay the onus probandi of shewing the motive that induced the East India Company to consider the Americans as preferable co-partners. If it were objected to him that his arguments tended to shew the expediency not of abolishing the monopoly of the China trade at the expiration 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 com-reigners were held by the Chinese governpromise opposite interests, and to reconcile conflicting principles. On this sub ject, as on others, he was an enemy to sudden innovation, even when it tended only to shake existing prejudices. He should therefore propose the term of ten years, not as satisfying the principle for which he had contended, but as that period which, making allowance for interest, prejudices, and situation, it appeared to him not to be too much to concede evening at the question in a financial point of to arguments that had not convinced him. On these grounds he moved the insertion in the clause of an amendment, stating that the exclusive trade to China should be continued to the East India Company during the further period of ten years, from the 10th of April, 1814.

ment. 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 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. Look

view, he contended, that the public would benefit more by the continuance of the monopoly than by the opening of the trade. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, that it would be better to increase the revenue of the Company by direct taxation, than to permit them to Lord Castlereagh said, he would shortly keep that revenue up by the preservation state to the committee why he could not of the China trade. Undoubtedly, the accede to the proposition of the right hon. Company could not administer the gogentleman. He used the word "shortly,' vernment of India unless secured in some because on a former occasion he had way or other. There was a large debt spoken at length on the subject; and he for which the Company and the country had heard nothing since to shake his opi- were jointly responsible; and the best nion upon it. His conviction was, that way to secure the payment of it would be the duration of the exclusive trade to to give to the privilege of an exclusive China ought to be co-extensive with that trade to China the same duration as to the of the Company's charter. Although he Company's charter. On the fullest rewould not contend that, if necessity reflection that he had been able to bestow quired the change, the danger arising on the subject, he was persuaded that this from it would be of such magnitude as was the soundest policy; and he should should deter parliament from opening the therefore oppose the motion of the right China trade; yet, he contended, that in hon. gentleman. wisdom and policy, nothing short of an over-ruling 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 impossible to devise another system under which the trade

Mr. Phillips said, he should support the amendment. The arguments generally urged for an exclusive Company being better adapted than private merchants for carrying on the China trade, were ridiculous in the extreme. The private merchant would look as carefully into the quality of the tea he procured in China, as any public company could possibly

'do. He must therefore support the amend

ment.

Mr. Baring was convinced the trade to China could be better managed by a monopoly than in any other way; and that those who did carry it on by means of private trade-as America-did it to a great disadvantage. Of late years the Americans had attempted to introduce the China trade into Europe, and they had found it a most disadvantageous one. To his knowledge there were cargoes of teas, &c. imported by Americans, now lying in different northern European ports, which the importers would be happy to sell at 50 per cent. loss. If there was any reason for supposing that the China trade might be opened in ten years, why not do it now? Another reason, however, for continuing the exclusive trade to China for twenty years, was, that the charter as to India was to be renewed for that period, and the profits on the China trade were deemed necessary to enable the Company to carry on their government in India.

Mr. Preston' was in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Thompson said, that as CochinChina was not under the dominion of the emperor of China, he supposed that place was not included amongst those with which the Company were to be guaranteed in an exclusive trade. The private merchant would, he hoped, be allowed to carry on a trade with that fine healthy country, where it was understood, gold was to be found very near the surface of the earth. But the private trader having procured his bullion, he thought he should be permitted to dispose of it at Canton, as the East India Company did. He could not discover any commanding necessity for this monopoly. Why should not the Chinese have the benefit of missionaries, as well as the natives of India? Yet however anxious individuals might be to proceed to China, for religious purposes, they were precluded by the provisions of the Bill. Even if the Chinese emperor were anxious to have a few ingenious Englishmen in bis dominions, the Company could Mr. Finlay said, the object of the right prevent them from proceeding to China. hon. gentleman's amendment was, to pre- Now, as the people of this country, and vent the hands of parliament from being not the East India Company, paid those tied up for so long a period as twenty immense sums into the revenue, which years; but to give them an opportunity, had been so repeatedly spoken of, he at the expiration of ten years, to act with thought it was a very great hardship that regard to the Company as they might then this monopoly should be suffered to exist; consider wise and proper. He had heard and he hoped government would, at least, no sufficient reason given to induce par- keep in their own hands the power of liament to place the Company beyond opening it. Circumstances might occur, their power for twenty years. It was which would render it necessary to throw said, that if a general intercourse with the trade to China completely open. The China were admitted, the government of proposed extension of the India trade that country might take offence, and not might produce such alterations, even to only drive from Canton those who occa- the Company themselves, as would impersioned the difference, but refuse to permit atively call for the extinction of the mothe Company again to trade with them, nopoly. Viewing the subject in this even if that branch of commerce were re-light, he should vote for the Amendment. stored exclusively to them. But he would ask the committee, might not exactly the same thing occur, while the Company were in possession of the monopoly? Now, even if Canton were shut against us, he thought a very advantageous commerce in tea might be carried on with the Eastern Islands. The advocates of the Company stated, that the 2,500,000l. which, he believed, was the amount of the tea trade, was necessary to the revenue. This might be very true; but he was sure, as it must ultimately come out of the pockets of the people, that it would be much better to procure it by a free trade than by a monopoly.

Mr. Marryat was decidedly adverse to the granting so valuable a monopoly for so long a term as twenty years.

Mr. C. Grant, sen. asked, where was the opening to the China trade, but through the East India Company? If the question was, how the country could best secure a great influx of trade, and a great revenue to this country from China, he should say, it was impossible to devise so good an introduction as through the East India Company. It was only through the China trade that the Company had been enabled to defray the expences of the Indian wars in which they had been involved on account of this country; and to limit the