The trading towns, cities, and manufacturers do not pretend to have considered the subject minutely; therefore, for aught they know to the contrary, they are acting honestly and right; I will therefore address them with that open frankness which such conduct deserves, and which may lead to a conclusion very different from what was aimed at in the last Session of Parliament.
For the sake of perspicuity I shall consider the subject under different heads.
I. All monopolies are not wrong or injurious, as in some cases, we are the best and cheapest served by a monopoly; this proved, it follows that the India Company being possessed of a monopoly, does not of itself argue that it should be withdrawn.
II. That the trade with India is far from being carried on, on the principle of monopoly.
III. That any great change must be attended with great danger, consequently we must not follow theory too readily, but pay great respect to practice and experience.
IV. That the public at large have no reason to complain of the India Company, as the articles brought by it[9] have not increased in price in proportion either to rums or sugars from the West Indies, where there is no monopoly.
V. That the merchants of Liverpool, Hull, &c. and the manufacturers in their endeavours to share the trade with London, are seeking what would be injurious to them.
VI. That some errors were fallen into in the present Charter, which may be advantageously corrected in the next, and a few slight amendments may be attempted with safety, but no great change or innovation.
I. All monopolies are not wrong or injurious, as in some cases, we are the best and cheapest served by a monopoly, this once proved, it follows that the India Company being possessed of a monopoly, does not of itself argue that it should be withdrawn.