whole fabric of BRITISH INDIA grew out of a principle of advancing _the public welfare_, and was not an edifice raised merely for the separate welfare of _the Company_, every private interest comprehended in that fabric is, by every acknowledged maxim of State, public right, and consistency, subordinate; and must be determined by the security of the public good. 2. _A right to retain in perpetuity certain essential rights of sovereignty, after the present delegated sovereignty of the Company shall have reverted to the Crown._--Although this pretension is a contradiction in terms, yet the assertors of it entertained no doubts of its reality. They claimed for the Company, in their permanent capacity of a trading body corporate, a right "_to appoint governors, to build and maintain forts, to muster forces by sea and land, to coin money, and to erect Courts of Judicature_[16]," even after they shall have lost their power of administering the Government of India; and this claim is renewed for the Company at the present day[17]. There is in this pretension so radical an ignorance of _the nature of sovereignty_, that it is inconceivable how it could have been entertained by any one, who had ever given a thought to the subject of law or government. The powers here enumerated, are essential prerogatives of sovereignty; which may indeed be delegated for a time by authority of Parliament, but can never be granted in full property by the Crown. In order to appoint governors, it is first necessary to be invested with the power of government. The same power is manifestly necessary, in order to be able _legally to raise or muster any force by sea or land_, either for defence, or for any other military service. And it is acknowledged, that _the power of government_ has never been granted to the East India Company, _but with limitation_. In the grants of Bombay and St. Helena, the Company is certainly empowered to erect forts, and to raise and employ forces; but by the same grants they are invested with the powers of Captain General in order to that end; virtually in the first, and _expressly_ in the second. Will it be imagined, that they are to retain the authority of _Captain General_, after their powers of _government_ shall cease? And if not, it must be evident, that their authority over forts, and all their military power, must determine, whenever their delegated power of Captain General shall determine. It would be an insult to any reader, who has ever cast his eye even on the elementary Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone, to insist upon a truth so obvious and simple. With regard to the _erecting of Courts_, no such power is given in any of the Charters produced in evidence. The Crown erects the Court, and the power granted to the Company is, and necessarily must be, limited and subordinate. The _true cause_ of that extraordinary error, is plainly this: the Charters of King William and Queen Anne, upon which they rest