DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0136
120 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY.
They argued, and the reasoning was very plausible : " Quite
independently of our chartered rights, secured to us by the
grants of successive monarchs, whose right to confer monopolies
of trade, with countries outside their own authority, has never
been disputed, whatever may be said about monopolies of domestic
trade ; we have, at our own expense, built forts and factories,
entered into diplomatic relations with native sovereigns, and laid
out much of our capital, and not a little of our legitimate gains,
in founding the trade which we enjoy. There may be reason in
controlling the regulated companies, which have not incurred
such outlay, and therefore have nothing to show for the fines
which they levy on those whom they admit to their partnership.
But the case is quite difserent with the East India Company.
We are engaged, no doubt on business principles, in securing for
the English people a part of that trade which has been succes-
sively the monopoly of the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the
Dutch. No doubt the produce which we bring is dear. But we
have reduced the price. Had it not been for our esforts, English-
men would have had to pay whatever price the Dutchmen might
choose to exact. The expansion of our trade is, moreover, the
expansion of English enterprise. We train seamen by hundreds,
we have, it being necessary for our trade, an armed marine which
is part of the national forces, as it assuredly would be used, did
need arise, for the national defence. But it is impossible for us
to continue this system, from which we contend great public
advantage ensues, if any person at his pleasure can enter on the
fruit of our labour and expense, without contributing anything
whatever to either.'' Such was the reasoning employed. But, on
the other hand, the factories of the old company were few and
scattered. There were many parts of the Indian peninsula and
the islands which they had not pretended to occupy, and even do
business with, and it seemed to be a matter of very doubtful right
that they should not only exclude independent traders from visit-
ing their factories, but from any commercial intercourse whatever
with places and peoples where the company had no business
relations of any kind. And when they proceeded further to fine,
imprison, and even put to death persons whom they caught in
what they were pleased to call their monopoly, the defence of
They argued, and the reasoning was very plausible : " Quite
independently of our chartered rights, secured to us by the
grants of successive monarchs, whose right to confer monopolies
of trade, with countries outside their own authority, has never
been disputed, whatever may be said about monopolies of domestic
trade ; we have, at our own expense, built forts and factories,
entered into diplomatic relations with native sovereigns, and laid
out much of our capital, and not a little of our legitimate gains,
in founding the trade which we enjoy. There may be reason in
controlling the regulated companies, which have not incurred
such outlay, and therefore have nothing to show for the fines
which they levy on those whom they admit to their partnership.
But the case is quite difserent with the East India Company.
We are engaged, no doubt on business principles, in securing for
the English people a part of that trade which has been succes-
sively the monopoly of the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the
Dutch. No doubt the produce which we bring is dear. But we
have reduced the price. Had it not been for our esforts, English-
men would have had to pay whatever price the Dutchmen might
choose to exact. The expansion of our trade is, moreover, the
expansion of English enterprise. We train seamen by hundreds,
we have, it being necessary for our trade, an armed marine which
is part of the national forces, as it assuredly would be used, did
need arise, for the national defence. But it is impossible for us
to continue this system, from which we contend great public
advantage ensues, if any person at his pleasure can enter on the
fruit of our labour and expense, without contributing anything
whatever to either.'' Such was the reasoning employed. But, on
the other hand, the factories of the old company were few and
scattered. There were many parts of the Indian peninsula and
the islands which they had not pretended to occupy, and even do
business with, and it seemed to be a matter of very doubtful right
that they should not only exclude independent traders from visit-
ing their factories, but from any commercial intercourse whatever
with places and peoples where the company had no business
relations of any kind. And when they proceeded further to fine,
imprison, and even put to death persons whom they caught in
what they were pleased to call their monopoly, the defence of