Sir W. Elliot refers to the Aśoka inscription (Edict II.) as bearing Palaya or Paraya, named with Choḍa (or Chola), Kerala, &c., as a country or people "in the very centre of the Dravidian group ... a reading which, if it holds good, supplies a satisfactory explanation of the origin of the Paria name and nation" (in J. Ethnol. Soc. N.S., 1869, p. 103). But apparently the reading has not held good, for M. Senart reads the name Pām̃dya (see Ind. Ant. ix. 287). [Mr. V. A. Smith writes: "The Girnar text is very defective in this important passage, which is not in the Dhauli text; that text gives only 11 out of the 14 edicts. The capital of the Pām̃diyan Kingdom was Madura. The history of the kingdom is very imperfectly known. For a discussion of it see Sewell, Lists of Antiquities, Madras, vol. ii. Of course it has nothing to do with Parias.">[
"... great diversion is found ... in firing balls at birds, particularly the albitross, a large species of the swan, commonly seen within two or three hundred miles round the Cape of Good Hope, and which the French call Montons (Moutons) du Cap."—Munro's Narrative, 13. The confusion of genera here equals that mentioned in our article above.
It is an easy assumption that this export trade from India was killed by the development of machinery in England. We can hardly doubt that this cause would have killed it in time. But it was not left to any such lingering and natural death. Much time would be required to trace the whole of this episode of "ancient history." But it is certain that this Indian trade was not killed by natural causes: it was killed by prohibitory duties. These duties were so high in 1783 that they were declared to operate as a premium on smuggling, and they were reduced to 18 per cent. ad valorem. In the year 1796-97 the value of piece-goods from India imported into England was £2,776,682, or one-third of the whole value of the imports from India, which was £8,252,309. And in the sixteen years between 1793-4 and 1809-10 (inclusive) the imports of Indian piece-goods amounted in value to £26,171,125.
In 1799 the duties were raised. I need not give details, but will come down to 1814, just before the close of the war, when they were, I believe, at a maximum. The duties then, on "plain white calicoes," were:—
| £ | s. | d. | |||
| Warehouse duty | 4 | 0 | 0 | per cent. | |
| War enhancement | 1 | 0 | 0 | " | |
| Customs duty | 50 | 0 | 0 | " | |
| War enhancement | 12 | 10 | 0 | " | |
| Total | 67 | 10 | 0 | per cent. | on value. |
There was an Excise duty upon British manufactured and printed goods of 3½d. per square yard, and of twice that amount on foreign (Indian) calico and muslin printed in Great Britain, and the whole of both duty and excise upon such goods was recoverable as drawback upon re-exportation. But on the exportation of Indian white goods there was no drawback recoverable; and stuffs printed in India were at this time, so far as we can discern, not admitted through the English Custom-house at all until 1826, when they were admitted on a duty of 3½d. per square yard. (See in the Statutes, 43 Geo. III. capp. 68, 69, 70; 54 Geo. III. cap. 36; 6 Geo. IV. cap. 3; also Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, iv. 426).
In Sir A. Arbuthnot's publication of Sir T. Munro's Minutes (Memoir, p. cxxix.) he quotes a letter of Munro's to a friend in Scotland, written about 1825, which shows him surprisingly before his age in the matter of Free Trade, speaking with reference to certain measures of Mr. Huskisson's. The passage ends thus: "India is the country that has been worst used in the new arrangements. All her products ought undoubtedly to be imported freely into England, upon paying the same duties, and no more, which English duties [? manufactures] pay in India. When I see what is done in Parliament against India, I think that I am reading about Edward III. and the Flemings."