The trade partially opened.
Happily in 1814 the trade of the Company, for so many years jealously guarded as a strict monopoly, was thrown entirely open to private competition, in so far as respected the Indian continent, although the exclusive trade to China, deemed by far the most lucrative at the time, was still preserved, in spite of the efforts of Manchester, Glasgow, and Bristol to open it to the general competition of all classes. Several sensible men in the House of Commons urged upon the Company the policy of throwing open the whole trade to the enterprise of private shipowners and merchants, arguing that the affairs of the Company would be benefited, rather than prejudiced, by such an arrangement; but the interests of private individuals connected with the Company predominated both with the government and with Parliament.
Jealousy of free-traders.
The consideration of this Bill occupied the entire session of 1813, and in its conditions[375] may be traced the slow effects of the efforts of the free-traders to procure the total overthrow of the Company’s privileges in respect of shipping. Such was the jealousy with which these were viewed, that Mr. Baring moved an amendment to one of the resolutions confining the return of vessels from India to the port of London, though holding out the idea that this restriction was to be limited to five years. The mercantile men in the House of Commons supported the amendment, upon the ground that such a restriction would operate to the better security of the revenue, and would offer a more convenient market for foreigners. One speaker, Mr. Thornton, laughed at the pretensions of the out-ports to share in the trade, which in the same breath he pronounced delusive as regarded the profits to be made in it.[376]
Efforts of the free-traders at the out-ports.
But the people of the out-ports did not show any disposition to be deluded by these inconsistent arguments. They stood up stoutly for their own interests, and for the cause of free-trade. They considered themselves quite as well qualified as any of the East India directors to form a judgment how far a trade with the East could be carried on with profit by their own vessels.
Comparative cost of East India Company’s ships and other vessels.
Indeed the fact was beyond all dispute that the cost of the ships fitted out by the East India Company was thirty, forty, and even fifty per cent. greater than those of private shipowners. It was credibly stated that the Company paid for their vessels 40l. per ton, while more suitable vessels could be built and equipped for 25l. per ton. The Company’s ships were, it was admitted, fitted up very expensively for their passengers, but it was denied that this was necessary for the purpose of carrying goods and produce to or from India. On the other hand, the supporters of the East India Company’s monopoly inquired, and with considerable reason, whether any ship could be built and equipped for 25l. per ton which would be as capable of contending against an enemy as were the ships of the Company, or if such private ships would be fit for the service of the country during war.[377]
Opposition to the employment of the latter.
It is, however, interesting and amusing, if not instructive, to look back and reflect upon some of the arguments employed by the champions of monopoly in behalf of their own interests. They pretended that it was only out of regard to the shipowners of the out-ports, to protect them from the dangerous speculation into which they were about to precipitate themselves and their capital, that they desired all East India trading ships should by law be compelled to come to London. It was only to slip in between the rashness of adventurers and their ruin that they supported the measure; it was not to uphold monopoly; it was not to exclude the rest of the country from participating in the benefits of the Eastern trade; the opposition to the out-ports all sprang from pure benevolence, pure kindness and mercy! Such was the folly and blindness of the great merchants who supported the ultra claims of the Company. The shrewd men of the out-ports did not, however, appreciate such unexampled patriotism, and so struggled for their privileges, such as they were. But the difficulty with which they obtained these small concessions indicates how deeply rooted the principles of monopoly had become during a period of two hundred years; nor was it till many years afterwards that any material progress was made in the commerce of England with the East.