Selected quad for the lemma: act_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A25581
|
An Answer to the case of the old East-India Company as represented by themselves to the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled.
|
|
1700
(1700)
|
Wing A3395; ESTC R18101
|
11,811
|
24
|
an Act of Parliament or by Losses at Sea or by what other Means soever it were happened to fail in their Expectation who are answerable for it but themselves If any Widows were drawn in it was but few and that not for much to be sure but that 's a state Cry and they and all others had Warning enough by the Transactions before the Council and by publick Prints in one of which Entituled Reasons proposed for the Encouragement of all People to underwrite to the New Subscriptions appointed to be made to the late East-India Companies Stock after an Account of their Affairs this Caution was given pag. 7. If People will put out their Eyes and always be thus bubbled out of their Money as well as their Senses they may go on till they are weary and perhaps this is done that the old pretence might still be urged for their Continuance viz. That a great many Widows Orphans and Innocent and Ignorant People might not be cheated and undone if they should be dissolved but let not the said Gentlemen deceive themselves and others doubtless the Parliament will not be thus affronted but will take notice of these Proceedings and assert the Right and Liberty of the Subject to the Freedom of this Trade c. If Persons will then adventure their Money after all this they must take their Fate and I think if such a Procedure escapes censure it is a happy Issue though they come to some Loss not to say any thing of the Violences and Irregularities of the Old Company For 10 Ed. 3. One John Peach was arraigned at the Parliament Bar for that he had obtained of the King a Monopoly for Sweet Wines The Pattent after great Advice and Dispute adjudged void and before his Face in open Parliament cancelled because he had exacted 3 s. 4 d. for every Tun of Wine himself adjudged to Prison until he had made Restitution of all that ever he had received and not delivered till after a Fine of 500 l. paid to the King which at that time was a great Summ of Money In Queen Elizabeth's time upon Complaint in Parliament of Pattents granted for Monopolies most of them were immediately revoked and the rest left to the Law In King James the 1st time an Act of Parliament passed to make void a Charter for the sole Trade to Spain and another against all Monopolies and though the Pattents for some Trades with joint-stocks whilst the Trades for which they were granted were in their Infancy have been permitted for the settling of a Trade and till the first Adventurers have reaped some reasonable compensation for their first Undertaking and Adventures yet afterwards when those Trades have encreased and become great the Wisdom of the Nation has always thought fit to open a Way for the Kingdom to receive a General Benefit thereby This as to Pattents in General and from the President in Ed. the 3d. Time I shall make no Inference but leave it to the Company themselves only I shall observe it was never esteemed a Breach of the Publick Faith and Credit of the Great Seal or a Derogation from the Honour of our Kings to have their Pattents annull'd by Parliament when the Grants were thought by that Grand Council of the Nation not to be profitable or to be against the Common Right of the Subject whatever the express Covenants in those Grants were and no King or Queen by any Grant or Pattent thought thhemselves bound in Honour or Conscience not to pass an Act of Parliament to make void such Pattent and the reason is plain the King being busied in the many arduous Affairs of the Kingdom cannot be supposed to know always what he may legally grant and is oftentimes deceived in his Grants and for that reason they are often annulled by the ordinary course of Law and so might this Companies Pattent have been without any Wrong or Injustice to the Company for all Persons having a Right by Law to trade to the East-Indies unless excluded by Parliament the King by his Charter could not grant to the Company any new Right to the Trade only the Priviledges of an Incorporated Body but the Parliament justly bearing a high Veneration to his present Majesty who has run so great Hazard and performed so Great and Glorious Atchievements for the Honour and Weal of the Nation have notwithstanding taken care in the late Act passed that nothing should interfere with his Majesties Pattent before which Time the Case stood thus The Company had a Pattent of Incorporation from his present Majesty with Power to trade to the East-Indies and other Priviledges without any express Clause to exclude others or any Covenant as was in the former Charters from the Crown that his Majesty would not grant License to others to trade thither during the continuance of the said Charter but with the express Proviso before-mentioned to have power to make void the said Charters upon three years notice if it shall appear to the King that the said Charters shall not be profitable to the King or this Realm During the continuance of these last Charters therefore even according to the Charters themselves all other the Subjects of England had a Right to Trade to the East-Indies as well as the Company and many used that Right and actually traded thither without Interruption not only as by Law but even as by those Charters they might and no doubt but the Persons so trading would have been contented if the Trade might have been continued to be carried on as it was before this last Session of Parliament they sought no Alteration the Law as it stood was their Protection and Security and the Charters the Company had and the Money their Joint-stock was enabled to scatter up and down was the Companies Security and the private Traders thought theirs as good as the Companies But though the Company in their Case talk so much of their Dependance on the Security of their Charters and the Right in Law which they had by them yet they themselves were convinced that their Right was not well founded and therefore as they had sought formerly to get an Act of Parliament without which they knew well enough they had no such Legal Right as they pretended so this Sessions they were for making another Attempt and in Order to succeed they first made an Offer to lend 700000 l. to the Government to have the Trade to themselves exclusive of all others The other Subjects of England being about to be excluded by such means from the Trade were soon alarm'd and that not without Reason and begin to think with themselves how to preserve their Right in the Trade and their honest Result was That if the Parliament thought fit to raise Money by that Trade they desired only to fare as the rest of their Fellow Subjects and they would be ready to lend to the Government as well as the Company and a much larger Summ. Hereupon the House of
ANSWER TO THE CASE OF THE Old East-India Company As Represented by Themselves TO The LORDS Spiritual and Temporal IN PARLIAMENT Assembled LONDON Printed by K. Astwood for the Author 1700. AN ANSWER TO THE CASE OF THE Old EAST-INDIA Company THE Companies Case shall be answer'd in the Method it is stated by themselves not that they have given a true State of it with respect to the Act lately passed for that is quite otherwise as shall afterwards be shown but to take of the Clamour which is made of invading their Property depriving them of their Possession and Right ruining many Families and the like and therefore having to deal with Persons who will not answer what is said or objected to them only continue to make Popular Outcries they must be followed in their own way till the Noise is abated and their Passions laid and then it is to be hoped they will listen to Reason and consider the Case as it truly stands and shall before I finish be faithfully represented The Company pag. 1 2. recite so much as they think for their purpose of the Charters granted by Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the 2d and King James the 2d wherein is suggested That the same was for the Honour of England for the Encrease of Navigation and the Advance of Trade and the like And I shall readily grant the Trade to the East-Indies to be such because I really think it so and not because of those Suggestions in the Charters for it is well enough known that those who draw the Charters do not think themselves obliged to the strictest Examinations of the Suggestions or to answer for the exact Truth of them But the said Charters say the Company pag. 2. contain a Grant of the Trade to the East Indies to the Company exclusive of all others and by some of them they are constituted the Lords Proprietors of Bombacy and that the perpetual Propriety of the Island of Sancta Helena is afterwards granted to them and that by these Grants they are induced to think they have a Right in Law to the Trade at least that they should have an Vncontroverted Title to the Lands Inheritance c. And that on this presumption and relying on the Publick Faith and Credit of the Great Seal of England the Company have expended above a Million on the Credit of these Charters in Fortifications c. And pag. 3. That in prospect of this Right they have acquired Revenues of 44000 l. per Annum and many Settlements and Priviledges In the Recital of these Charters the Company have omitted to give an Account of the Provisoes inserted therein viz. That the respective Kings granting the said Charters reserved Power upon three Years Notice to make them void But that being also a Condition in their last Charter will come into Consideration afterwards As to the Right they pretend to the Trade exclusive of others I do not find one Word said throughout their whole Case to prove or maintain any such Right and this might reasonably have been expected from them The saying They were induced to think they had a Right and that upon that Presumption they expended Money and purchased Territories c. When at the same time every Lawyer must tell them they had no such right and that the King by his Charter could not grant any such Right exclusive of others and that several Recoveries have been had against them as Law for prosecuting such pretended Right What would this be termed in other Affairs but downright Folly and Madness And as the Crown had not a Power to grant such Right so his present Majesty hath not in Fact granted any such Right exclusive therefore the New Subscribers to the Old Company had no Inducement to think they had any such Right but if the Company in their case mean that they had a Right to the Trade equal with all other the King's Subjects who had no Charter that is not denied and being granted does not serve their purpose as will afterwards appear The Company go on pag. 3. to give an Account of the Declaration of the House of Commons and House of Lords That the East-India Trade should be carried on in a Joint-Stock exclusive to all others but omit to mention their other Declaration That it was lawful for all Persons to Trade thither unless restrained by Act of Parliament and they take no Notice of the two Addresses made by the House of Commons of the 6th of Feb. 1691. and 25 Feb. 1692. to dissolve the Company They mention Message of his Majesty to the House of Commons of the 14th of Novemb. 1692. but very craftily to say no worse omit the most material Part of the said Message viz. That his Majesty required the East-India Company to answer directly whether they would submit to such Regulations as his Majesty should judge proper and most likely to advance the Trade and the Company having fully agreed to it and declared their Resolution in Writing his Majesty commanded a Committee of his Privy Council to prepare Regulations which they did and offered them to the Company but the Company notwithstanding their Declaration of Submission rejected almost all the material Particulars so that his Majesty finding that what possibly the House of Commons might have expected and indeed was necessary to preserve this Trade could not be perfected by his own Authority alone and that the Company could not be induced to consent to any such Regulations as might have answered the Intentions of the House of Commons and that the Concurrence of the Parliament is requisite to make a Compleat and Vseful Settlement of this Trade has directed all the Proceedings in this Matter to be laid before them and recommends to them the preparing such a Bill in Oder to pass into an Act of Parliament as may establish this Trade on such Foundations as are most likely to preserve and advance it The Company proceed to tell How it was suggested that their Charter was become void by their Non-payment of the Tax imposed upon them by Parliament and how they the 7th Octob. 1693. obtained a New Charter but say nothing of the Eighty Odd Thousand Pounds paid out of the Companies Stock that same Year for the special Service of the Company and great part of it for obtaining the said Charter as Sir T. C. gave an Account to the Committee of both Houses of Parliament Surely if the Company had a Right in Law as they pretended they were induced to believe there needed not such Chargeable and Strenuous Solicitations And now we are come to the Charter it self granted by his present Majesty which bears Date the 7th Octob. 1693. which was as they say contested before the Queen and Council by those they call Interlopers upon the Hearing whereof it plainly appeared and was unanswerably made out that the King had not by Law a Power to grant the Trade to some Persons exclusive of others and that the