As to our manufactures it is not probable that more would be consumed than at present, for as we have already observed, the officers in the Company's service carry out goods of all descriptions, and enter into competition with each other, and that whatever can be sold they can and do take out[E]; however if this reasoning be not satisfactory, there is a very easy way of extending that species of traffic without any danger.
At present none of our manufacturers lose by bad debts with India; were the trade laid open, it would undoubtedly be worse than at Beunos Ayres, when one call from Sir Home Popham took out from three to four millions of British capital, (as a boatswain whistles his crew on deck,) to the great loss and disappointment of some, and the absolute ruin of many more. Now should the consumption of our goods not be increased; opening the trade would manifestly injure all embarking in it; for the freight and insurance could not be lower, but would be considerably higher than at present.
As to a few individual towns asserting a claim to participate in the commerce of India, it is a very singular and novel kind of claim: if I apprehend aright, the nature of things attaches particular advantages to particular places; I mean privileges which are naturally local.
The court, for example, is held at London, which brings a great influx of wealth to the metropolis. On this principle Edinburgh might put in a claim to have the court some part of the year, and such claim might be followed up by similar ones from the keel-men of Newcastle, the locksmiths of Walsal, and the tinmen of Cornwall. The thing is really too ridiculous to think seriously upon. Some advantages are not only local, but indivisible, and there is no injustice arising therefrom, though with a little sophistry in certain cases it may be made to appear injustice when it is really not so, which is the case in the present instance, for it is in the revenue that the nation is a gainer by the East India Company, and that must suffer considerably in the collection; besides, all the docks, warehouses, and other establishments made here, on the faith of the trade remaining as it is, must come into the question.
If trade must be dispersed equally over a country, like spreading manure on a field, it would be different; but there is an absurdity in the very idea of spreading it equally, and justice has absolutely nothing to do with the question; it is entirely a matter of policy and expediency.
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.
Making the dividends fixed, and independent of loss or gain, is wrong and absurd. No effort can increase the dividend, no extravagance or negligence can lessen it, and it cannot be concealed, that from such a state of things it necessarily arises that patronage is the only bonus on India stock. There is some connection either with ship-builders, sail-makers, or the furnishers of stores, officers, secretaries, clerks, or appointments abroad.
It is true the connection is circuitous, and the patronage difficult to trace, but the fact resolves itself to this, that however it may be divided amongst them, the whole of the patronage of places and profits, at home and abroad, civil and military, is vested in the Directors and Proprietors, and that patronage is of an amazing amount and extent.
In this enquiry I have endeavoured at impartiality, I write not to serve the East India Company, but the country itself—Ministers want the East India patronage, it was for this, Charles Fox made his celebrated struggle; it is this golden prize that makes the present ministers hazard every thing to obtain; it is not the flimsy net-work mask of freedom of[22] trade, the very worst pretext they could have found, it is the patronage of India they fight for, and to obtain which, would break down every barrier, destroy every establishment, and trample on every right.—Let those then who already think the influence of the Crown too great beware how they throw into the scale the patronage of India. Freedom of trade is like the Trojan horse, from it will issue what will destroy the freedom of the country.—There are many other errors in the arrangements of the Company, but they are minor ones and not worth detailing here. The grand question to be decided is, the opening of the trade, which I have already treated.
In conclusion then, Monopoly is not always injurious.—The East India Company does not possess a monopoly.—Great changes will be attended with great danger. The public has no reason to complain, nor the merchants any right to arrogate to themselves claims which do not exist. There would be great risk and no advantage in sharing the trade with the out-ports; and lastly, that the faults in the present system are entirely of a different nature, and may be easily and safely amended.