When this bill passed, it appeared from
the preamble to be decidedly the opinion
of Parliament, of Government, as well as
of the court of directors, whose orders had
for some time breathed the same spirit,
that "to pursue schemes of conquest and
extension of dominion in India were meas
ures repugnant to the wish, the honor and
the policy of England." It had previously
been resolved by the House, "that the
maintenance of an inviolable character for
moderation, good faith and scrupulous re
gard to treaty, ought to have been the sim
ple grounds on which the British govern
ment should have endeavored to establish
an influence superior to other Europeans,
over the minds of the native powers in In
dia; and that the danger and discredit
arising from the forfeiture of this preem
inence, could not be compensated by the
temporary success of any plan of violence
and injustice."
Such was the tenor of the resolutions of
the House of Commons in 1782, recognized
as the principle of the bill of 1784, and far
ther confirmedby an act passed in 1793.
In all we perceive an evident allusion to
those malpractices of the Company's ser
vants, which will forever remain on record
to tarnish the lustre of the first victories and
territorial acquisitions in India, and to
detract from the reputation of persons
whose names might otherwise have justly
stood high on the list of those from whose
predminent talents and abilities the Bst
ish nation has derived by wholesale plun
der and most dreadful confiscation both
glory and advantage, and has built up her
colossal Empire of India.
