The Letters of Gracchus on the East India Question 5

The Letters of Gracchus on the East India Question 5

At an early period of the present discussion, Ministers appear to have

entertained the same maxim, of confining the import trade from India to

the Port of London. They were afterwards led, by a full exposition of

all the various interests which remonstrated against that close

restriction, to deem it just and expedient to propose (and wise and

politic for the East India Company to consent), that _such of the

principal out-ports as possessed the means whereby smuggling could best

be guarded against_, should participate with London in the import trade

from India; reserving exclusively to London, the whole of the trade

from China. This alteration of their original plan was suggested by

them to the Court of Directors, not as a relaxation of the _existing

privileges_ of the Company (which was the nature of Mr. Dundas's

proposition in 1800), but as a qualification to take place under _a new

Charter_.

 

When Mr. Dundas suggested to the Directors the new principle, of

admitting Indian-built ships as the vehicle for carrying on the private

trade, he was not treating with them concerning _the renewal_ of their

Charter; for they had then an _unexpired term of fourteen years_, in the

privileges conferred upon them by the Act of 1793. His proposition, as

has been just observed, went to _a relaxation_ of an important part of

those _subsisting privileges_; for which he sought to gain their

acquiescence; and as his opinion was decided and avowed, "that the

ostensible form of Government for India, with all its consequent detail

of patronage, must remain as it now is, and that the monopoly of that

trade ought properly to continue in the hands of the East India

Company;" it was prudent and seasonable in him to dwell upon that point.

 

Have not the Ministers of the present day evinced the same opinion? Have

they not proposed, to leave the patronage of India, and the exclusive

profits of the China Trade, with the Company? Does not the China Trade

ensure the employment of all the large ships in the service of the

Company; together with the continued engagement, in that line of

service, of the Commanders and Officers of those ships; and also, of

every other description of person now connected with that (_the

largest_) branch of the Company's concerns? Have not Ministers proposed

to confine the private trade with India to ships of four hundred tons

and upwards; thereby leaving to the owners of such of the smaller ships

now in the service of the Company, as by possibility may not be required

for their commerce, the advantage (which establishment in any line of

business must always give) of finding employment from those who, under

the proposed extension, may engage in that trade? Have not Ministers, in

proposing that the _Government_ of India should continue to be

administered through the organ of the Company, proposed to them the

continuance of the peculiar and great benefit, of carrying on their

_commerce_ by means of _the revenue_ of that Government? Whereas, the

private adventurers must trade upon their own capitals, or at an heavy

charge of interest.

 

How is it, then, that we hear so much of the loss which our Navy must

sustain, from the large ships of the Company being withdrawn from the

Eastern Trade; of the distress to which the Commanders and Officers, and

the numerous classes of artificers and others connected with those

ships, are to be exposed? Why are we told, that the East India Docks

will be left empty, and the Proprietors be reduced to apply to

Parliament for an indemnification? Can it possibly happen, that all

these calamities, so heavily denounced, should arise out of a permission

to be granted to private ships, returning from India, to proceed to

_certain ports to be designated_; more advantageously situated for their

trade than the Port of London? A permission, which the Directors

themselves are of opinion will not long be made use of to any great

extent; for they have told us, that the adventurers in those private

ships will be disappointed in their speculations; and they have adverted

to the mass of individual loss, which must ensue from the delusion, as

furnishing a strong argument, why Government ought not to yield to the

importunity of the Merchants of the out-ports.

 

From all that has been stated, it would appear, that instead of the

exaggerated picture of distress, which the advocates for a close

monopoly to the Port of London have represented as the necessary

consequence of relieving commerce from its present restrictions, we

ought to entertain a well-founded expectation; that _every class and

description of persons_, who now find employment in the Indian Trade,

will continue to have their industry called into action in the same line

of employment, and even to a greater extent, in some instances, than is

now experienced. For, unless the _union of interests_, which has so

recently taken place between the City of London and the East India

Company, should have the effect of preventing all competition between

the Merchants of London (formerly so eager to participate in the trade

with India), and the Merchants of the out-ports; it cannot fail to

happen, from the spirit of enterprise which has uniformly distinguished

the Metropolis, that the Port of London, _to which the whole India Trade

would be generally open_, will furnish its full proportion of the new

adventurers; and thus amply fill up that void, which the East India

Company affirm would be created in the Port of London, by diverting so

much of the Indian Trade to the out-ports: more especially, as all the

houses of Indian agency, which have been formed since the Act of 1793,

are established within the Metropolis.

 

Since this is the just prospect, which the adoption of the conditions

proposed by Government as the terms for the renewal of the Company's

Charter, opens to our view; since the share which the London Merchants

may take in the enlargement of the trade, would not fail to supply

employment for all that industry, which the Court of Directors assert

will be interrupted and suspended; while, at the same time, the

extension of that advantage will create new sources of industry in

various parts of the kingdom, without impairing or diminishing that of

London; whose will be the awful responsibility, if, by an obstinate

rejection of terms capable of yielding consequences so extensively

beneficial to the community, the Charter of the Company should not be

renewed; and if the disastrous effect should in consequence be produced,

in London and its vicinity, of "a suspended industry, interrupted

employment," and all the train of sufferings and calamities which has

been drawn out? Who will be chargeable, before the country, with "the

loss and waste of establishments which have cost upwards of a million

sterling--of shipping, to the amount of many millions--of a numerous and

respectable class of warehouse-keepers, clerks, and superior servants,

joined to three thousand labourers, and their families--of tradesmen of

various descriptions, who have incurred a very great expense for the

conduct of their business?" Who will be chargeable, in fact, with all

this destruction? Will it be the Government, who desire the East India

Company _to keep their Indian Empire, and their exclusive China trade_?

Or will it be the Conductors of the East India Company, who shall suffer

this great machine suddenly to stop its action, _because their limited

exclusive privileges are not made perpetual_?

 

GRACCHUS.

 

 

 

 

LETTER VI.

 

 

_Friday, January 22, 1813._

 

Gracchus is charged, by some of the champions of the East India Company,

with error and a want of candour, because he has represented the

Directors to have maintained, that opening the import trade from India

to the out-ports of the kingdom, involves a question of the last

importance to the British Empire in India, and to the British

Constitution at home; and those writers affirm, that the Directors do

not deduce the danger of those great interests from the question of the

out-port trade, but from the question of disturbing the present system

of administering the Government of India.

 

Yet he can discover, neither error nor want of candour in his statement.

If those advocates will take the pains to follow the whole argument of

the Directors, on the present occasion, throughout, they must be

sensible, that his statement cannot be controverted. The Directors,

indeed, avoid expressing their proposition in the fair and distinct form

in which it is here drawn out; yet such is the proposition in effect.

For, if the whole of it be reduced into a form of syllogism, it is no

other than this:--

 

 

"Whatever shall cause the subversion of the present system of

Indian Government, will cause danger to the Empire and

Constitution.

 

"But, pressing the extension of _an import trade from India to the

out-ports_, will cause the subversion of the present system of

Indian Government.

 

"Therefore, _pressing the extension of an import trade to the

out-ports, will cause danger to the Empire and Constitution_."

 

 

If we question the _minor_ proposition, and ask, Why, pressing an import

trade for the out-ports, should necessarily cause the subversion of the

existing system of Indian Government? the answer of the Directors is

already given:--Because they _will not_ continue to carry on that

Government, if an import trade from India should be granted to the

out-ports. Thus, the original statement is demonstrably established; and

all the logic of the City cannot overturn it.

 

The Directors must permit the words "_will not_;" for, with the record

of the East India Company's history before us, it is impossible to say

they _cannot_. In proof of this assertion, let us take a review of that

history, and let us examine, what evil resulted to the Company, _during

the period that the import trade from India_ WAS ACTUALLY _extended to

the out-ports of Great Britain_.

 

When the first, or London East India Company, had incurred the

forfeiture of their Charter in 1693, by the non-payment of a stipulated

sum of money, their privileges were immediately restored to them, and

confirmed by letters patent, granted by King William III. upon this

express ground:--"Considering how highly it imports the honour and

welfare of this our kingdom, and our subjects thereof, that a trade and

traffic to the East Indies should be continued; and being well satisfied

that the same may be of great and public advantage; and being also

desirous to render the same, as much as in us lies, _more national,

general, and extensive, than hitherto it hath been_," &c.

 

This principle, of promoting a more national, general, and extensive

trade to India than had subsisted under the then existing Company's

exclusive Charter, gave rise to _a new measure_ in the year 1698, in an