The East India Company was granted a Royal charter to trade by queen Elizabeth I in December thirty first 1600.The company was a joint stock company and had royal privileges to trade in India. Although it was a private company there have been numerous debates on whether the company was controlled by the government. According to martin in1784 the government passed two important legislations that had direct implication on the control of the East India Company. The first legislation placed the control of East India Company largely under the government. The Act referred to as India Act Required the company's board decisions to be vetted by the Board of control which was comprised of government ministers. Therefore it seems like all the company's major decisions were to be eventually approved by the government through the Board of control. The second Act can be used to that demonstrated that the government had a hand on the control of the East India Company as the communication Act. This act also passed in 1784 was passed purposely to reduce the duty paid by the o East India Company n imported. The Act was meant to increase tea importation from China and had the effect of doubling the importation for the next three years (Wild 2000).
Martin also argues that the British government effort in colonializing Western India in the last part of the eighteenth century were aimed at increasing tradable goods to china and this largely benefited the East India Company. Therefore it seems that the East India Company largely to be a benefited from the government decision made during this period. As the government expanded its colonies so did the trade portfolio of the East India Company. Martin argues that India's trade importance to the East India Company had drastically dropped. The existence of this beneficial relationship by the company from Government decision can also be supported by the Convict transfer Scheme. The ships that were used by the government to transfer the convicts to the south Wales were on their return journey used by the Company to import goods (Wild 2000). This is a kind of a relationship that would be expected from business partners. Thus the Martin seems to be implying that the East India Company was not independent from the government.
The "Heads of a Plan" was a proposal by the British government to establish a colony in Australia in order to send convicts who had overcrowded the British jails .This proposal made in 1783 resulted in the first fleet of convicts landing at the Botany Bay in 1788 (Martin 2009).The Malaspina's 'Report' was a report to the Spanish government by Spanish naval officer Alexandro Malaspina on the settlement in the new colony Australia. Alexandro Malaspina was sent by his government on a fact finding mission in 1783.in his report noted the new colony's potential as a trading partner as well as the threat it would pose in times of conflict. Malaspina and his crew explored the established colony mingling and mapping every detail as well as sampling the regions products. The purpose of the "Heads of a Plan was to persuade the British government to establish a new colony in Australia in order to send their convicts there. Thus its first purpose was to create a new place for British government to send their undesirables thus easing their congested jails.
The proposal was also being made in order to cut the cost of transport the convicts by making them work for their voyage by providing cheap labor to the government. The proposal also had military importance since the British would establish a base strengthening the British military. In terms of commerce the new colony would be additional source of raw materials and minerals .This would strengthen the British economy and add to their variety of tradable goods with other countries. On the other hand the Malaspina's 'Report' was to update the Spanish government on the progress of their major military and trade rivals. The second purpose was to inform the Spanish government on the potential of the new colony .Thirdly was to explore new shipping route for the Spanish navy and merchants.
In the "Convict Origins" Woods quotes the views of both of Governor Macquarie and Governor Brisbane to support his arguments that the convicts were better Britons than the free settlers . He argues that their crimes were lesser than those committed by the aristocrats and other member of the British society who had no criminal records. According to woods the crimes committed by the convicts were crimes of circumstance. To support his arguments he quotes the first two governors of the new colony. While some of his arguments may be varied quotes by the two, Governor Macquarie and Governor Brisbane to validate his arguments may be problematic since the two governors seem to be biased against the free settlers. Quotes Woods attribute to the Governor Macquarie that seemed to suggest that he was openly biased against the aristocrats a class that most free settlers belonged to.
An example is the quote that "The greatest criminals are in England. The men who plunder their country in habitual political robbery, whom stole the common lands from the people in million of acres who spent their ill gained riches in pagan luxury and vices" (Wood 1993).Therefore to such quotes to validate his argument Wood would sound biased. In his introduction wood also notes that the two governors thought the convicts were better citizens than the free settlers .This is an admission that he was aware that the two were biased. Therefore even if the views of the two governors had merit providing their views as proof. , or quoting them as testimony to validate his argument that the convicts were better than the free settlers would raise issues of biasness. Wood also does not provide quotations or view points of those who thought otherwise. By failing to provide the contrary view therefore makes his exposes his 'Convict Origins' to accusations of biasness.