The second remarkable circumstance is, that the Board of Trade in Calcutta (the proper administrator of all that relates to the Company’s investment) does not seem to have given its approbation to the project, or to have been at all consulted upon it.  The sale of opium had been adjudged to the Board of Trade for the express purpose of selling it in Bengal, not in China,—­and of employing the produce of such sale in the manufactures of the country in which the original commodity was produced.  On the whole, it appears a mere trading speculation of the Council, invading the department of others, without lights of its own, without authority or information from any other quarter.  In a commercial view, it straitened the Company’s investment to which it was destined; as a measure of finance, it is a contrivance by which a monopoly formed for the increase of revenue, instead of becoming one of its resources, involves the treasury, in the first instance, in a debt of two hundred thousand pounds.

If Mr. Hastings, on the expiration of Mr. Mackenzie’s contract, the advantages of which to the Company had been long doubtful, had put himself in a situation to do his duty, some immediate loss to the revenue would have been the worst consequence of the alleged depreciation; probably it would not have been considerable.  Mr. Mackenzie’s contract, which at first was for three years, had been only renewed for a year.  Had the same course been pursued with Mr. Sulivan, they would have had it in their power to adopt some plan which might have secured them from any loss at all.  But they pursued another plan:  they carefully put all remedy still longer out of their reach by giving their contract for four years.  To cover all these irregularities, they interest the settlement in their favor by holding out to them the most tempting of all baits in a chance of bills upon Europe.

In this manner the servants abroad have conducted themselves with regard to Mr. Sulivan’s contract for opium, and the disposal of the commodity.  In England the Court of Directors took it into consideration.  First, as to the contract, in a letter dated 12th July, 1782, they say, that, “having condemned the contract entered into with Mr. Mackenzie for the provision of opium, they cannot but be surprised at your having concluded a new contract for four years relative to that article with Mr. Stephen Sulivan, without leaving the decision of it to the Court of Directors.”

The sentiments of the Directors are proper, and worthy of persons in public trust.  Their surprise, indeed, at the disobedience to their orders is not perfectly natural in those who for many years have scarcely been obeyed in a single instance.  They probably asserted their authority at this time with as much vigor as their condition admitted.