We print to-day a letter from Mr. Mackenzie, strongly defending
the British East Africa Company, and have looked carefully at the arguments adduced on their behalf at the meeting on May 29th. It seems to us that they mistake their position, and confuse property-rights with rights of sovereignty. If they have expended capital in obedience to orders from the Government, or if the Government has broken faith with them, they may have a moral right to have such capital repaid, though even then they must prove that they were not speculating in hopes of a great profit. Their pretension, however, to treat Sovereign rights as assets—to sell Uganda, for instance, as if it were property— or to be compensated for a Free-trade decree, is nothing less than absurd. According to their theory, when the im- port duties on cotton were abolished, practically though not formally because Parliament wished it, India should have been compensated. We entirely acknowledge their claim, under the unusual circumstances, to lenient treatment; but her Majesty's Government cannot be asked to relinquish its right to dispose of, or tax, or free from taxation, her Majesty's dominions. One would think, to read some of their arguments, that the Company believed their territories to be their estates.
Previous page
