these pretensions, conferred at one and the same time (as has been already observed), both their corporate capacity and their exclusive privilege. The assertors of those _permanent sovereign rights_, not discriminating, by the principles of things, between the several powers conferred in those Charters, have confused the provisions; and have construed all the powers above enumerated, which by their nature could only appertain to them as _delegated Sovereigns_, to belong to their capacity of an _incorporated Company_. And, under this illusion, they have imagined, that those powers are annexed to that perpetuity of their corporate body which was first enacted in 1730, and confirmed in the 33d year of the present reign; and that they do not constitute a part of those powers of government, which have been conferred upon them, from time to time, by their exclusive Charters. As this construction is entirely arbitrary on the part of the Company, and as it is unsupported by the principles either of law or sound reason, it will be best refuted by the authority of Parliament. 3. _A right to exclude all British subjects from the Company's Indian ports, after their own exclusive privilege shall be expired._--This right has been claimed in the following words:--"Although their exclusive right to the trade, and their power of administering the government and revenues of India, were to be determined, they would still remain an incorporated Company _in perpetuity_, with the _exclusive_ property and _possession_ of Calcutta and Fort William, Madras and Fort St. George, Bombay, Bencoolen, and St. Helena, and various other estates and settlements in India. Whether, in the event of the sole trade being determined, individuals would be able to carry on a successful trade to India, _if the Company were to debar them the use of their ports and factories_, may require a serious consideration[18]." This is a claim, not only to a _practical_ exclusive trade, after the right to exclusive trade _expressly granted_ by Parliament shall cease and determine, but involves also claims of perpetual sovereignty. It is incomprehensible, how it could be alleged by a writer who, in the preceding page, had pointedly excepted from their powers, that of converting the trade into "a _mischievous_ monopoly[19];" for, what more _mischievous_ form could monopoly, or an hostile sovereignty, assume, than that of excluding all British individuals from the chief ports and seats of trade in India? By this alleged right, the grants of Charters and the provisions of Parliament would be reduced to an absurdity. But as this is a claim of _private right_ to cause a _public wrong_, it cannot fail particularly to engage the consideration of Parliament. The rights _alleged by the Company_ at the present day, are these:--