(α) "That it appears by the Charter, Acts, &c., that the East India Company was instituted for the purposes of trade.
(β) "That the acquisitions and cessions of territories and revenues obtained in India from the time of the retaking Calcutta from the country powers by the Company, were made in consequence of actual and extensive operations of war, and succours stipulated."[1]
Thus clearly were the views of Shelburne and Chatham marked off from those of Charles Townshend. It was not, however, on Indian affairs alone that a difference of opinion existed. It was equally distinct on those of the American Colonies.
The Declaratory Act had spread an "unfortunate jealousy and distrust of the English Government throughout the Colonies."[2] Though the Stamp Act was repealed, there were questions still pending which might at any moment make that distrust a source of present danger. The Mutiny Bill in 1765 had been extended to America, and was not to expire for two years. It required the colonists to furnish the troops at their own expense, with "fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, utensils for cooking, beer or cider, and rum." This statute was difficult to justify by those who condemned the Stamp Act as an infringement of colonial rights. Again, the repeal of the latter Act had been accompanied by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, that it was their opinion that the colonial assemblies should compensate the sufferers by the riots of the preceding year. The sufferers were in England regarded as martyrs, in America as public enemies. Either of these questions might become dangerous, nor were there wanting violent men in America ready to fan the sparks of latent discontent, or bitter partisans in England ready to
- ↑ Seven years afterwards Chatham summed up his views on the Indian situation in a letter to Shelburne as follows: "I always conceived that there is in substantial justice a mixed right to the territorial revenues between the State and the Company as joint captors; the State equitably entitled to the larger share, as largest contributor in the acquisition by fleets and men. Nor can the Company's share when ascertained be considered as private property, but in trust for the public purposes of India and the extension of trade; never in any case to be portioned out in dividends to the extinction of the spirit of trade."—May 24th, 1773, Chatham Correspondence, iv. 264.
- ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, February 6th, 1767.
