Page:A Comprehensive History of India Vol 1.djvu/392

 '^'^^ HISTORY OF INDIA. [Book II.

AD. 1695. stances, had undergone a lengthened discussion in the Court of King's B«inch. In the year 1683, when the crown was stretching its pren^gative to the utmost, the East India Company, deeming the time favouraVjle for obtaining an authori- tative decision in favour of the validity of their charter, determined to tiy the question, and with that view brought an action against Thomas Sandys for attempting to trade witliin the limits to which they had, by their chaiter, an exclusive right. Sandys argued that the Company was a monopoly, and being Great case of consequently struck at by the statute against monopolies, had usurped jjowers which, however sanctioned by the crown, could not be legally maintained. The case, of which a full report is given in the state trials, under the title of the "Great Case of Monopolies," attracted much attention; and having been fully argued by the ablest counsel at the bar, was not finally decided till 1685, when James II. had mounted the throne, and Jeffreys was lord chief -justice. The decision, as might have been expected in the circumstances, was in favour of the royal prerogative, and found that " the grant to the plaintiffs of the sole trade to the Indies, exclusive of others, is a good grant." The victory which the Company thus gained was more apparent than real. The decision was in their favour, but the argument was clearly against thtm; and the maintenance of their monopoly became in consequence identified, in the public mind, with that of despotism. Hence, when the Kevolution had made way for the establish- ment of constitutional freedom, their position became insecui-e, and every new discussion of their privileges seemed only to bring them nearer to the brink of destruction. The resolution of the House of Commons was indeed a virtual repeal of their monopoly, because it declared that nothing but an act of parlia- ment could make it valid. Endeavours There was stiU, however, good gi'ound to hope that such an act of parliament to obtain might yet be obtained. The king, by the charters which he had granted, had paruament. gone as far as he could safely do in their favour ; and it was well understood, that while many of the members of the legislature were sincerely attached to their interests, because convinced that the trade to the East Indies could be best carried on by the present Company, there were others on whom, after argiiment had failed, another kind of influence might be brought to bear. "What this influence was, and how unscrupulously the managers of the Company had employed it, soon became apparent. Extensive Several instances of bribery and corruption in the administration of public

corruption, officcs having been detected, rumours began to prevail that the whole body politic was corrupt. Suspicion fell especiaUy upon the city of London and the East India Company; and on the 7th of March, 1695, the House of Commons appointed a committee to inspect the books of these two bodies. The guilt of the former was easily established, as the chamberlain's books contained an entry bearing that 1000 guineas had been paid to Sir John Trevor, speaker of the House of Commons, on the 22d of June, 1 694. as a douceur for his pains about