chief would necessarily be more permanent and extensive than the good; the maxim of political aconomy is wise and beneficial, which forbids governments to interfere in matters of trade. With respect to the particular case before us, there can be little doubt that, whenever the trade to India is actually opened, there will be much ignorant, rash, and ruinous speculation, and many individuals will suffer eventu ally: but, provided the trade will ultimately open a regular and extensive market for our goods, this evil being temporary, and having a necessary tendency to cure itself, is comparatively of little moment; and the apprehension, or even the certainty of it, ought not to be esteemed sufficient reasons for continuing the East India monopoly.

But it is further contended, that a trade from this country to the East Indies, even when conducted with adequate information, and with the most comprehensive and calculating prudence, cannot prove nearly so advantageous as is anticipated and expected. This grand point the East India company, in the evidence they brought before the house of commons, seemed most anxious to establish: the substance of this evidence was, that the feelings and habits and manners of the native inhabitants of India are total ly different from these of all other people; that they have no desire to possess any of our commodities, at least to any considerable extent; that even the more wealthy classes display no wish for those things with which we could supply them; and that the wants as well as the means of the lower classes are so confined, that they are not either disposed or able to purchase the most trifling and cheap of our com

modities. Many of the witnesses, who had been captains of East India ships, stated, that the commodities which by their privilege they were allowed to carry out were almost entirely bought by the Europeans settled in India; and that they had in vain endeavoured to find an extensive, ready, or regular market for them among the natives. On this evidence much weight was laid, as it was argued, if those who united in themselves the characters of merchant and mariner, and who consequently traded with every advantage, could not succeed in sell. ing their commodities among the natives, it was not to be expected that our merchants would succeed if the trade were thrown open. To this it was replied, in the first place, that many of the East India captains had realized large fortunes by their private trade: this however, in all probability, proceeded from the sales which they effected among the resident Europeans. But, in the second place, the very circumstance of their combining the two characters of merchant and mariner, would rather be disadvantageous than favourable to their success in the former character, on the general ground that they could not give such undivided attention to their interests in the latter character as if they had been merchants only. But to consider this branch of the subject on more enlarged principles: it cannot be denied, that at present the natives of India are neither disposed nor able to purchase many of our commodities: there is there no middle class, that class for which our staple manufactures are more particularly adapted; while the lower and more numerous classes are too poor to buy them; and the wealth of the

rich is laid out on different articles: it must also be admitted that the character of the natives of India, more particularly of the Hindoos, has been nearly the same for upwards of two thousand years. But the admission of both these circumstances, though they prove that any change in their manners and habits, and consequently in their wants, must be slowly and with great difficulty brought about, by no means proves that such a change is impossible. The Hindoos are constituted like other men; and their character is formed as the character of all other men is formed; less by what nature impresses upon them, than by the situation and circumstances in which they are placed: they are the same or nearly the same now, as they were upwards of two thousand years age, simply and entirely because their situation and circumstances are nearly the same; they have had little intercourse with nations of very different habits and characters from their own: but it may be presumed, if this intercourse were general, and had continued for a length of time, and were not attended with any violent attempts to change their opinions and habits, that those would gradually undergo a change of themselves. Whereever Europeans have established themselves and mixed with the nations in any part of the world, there the natives have in some degree conformed to the habits and felt the wants of Europeans; and the same consequences would result in India, though more slowly and gradually, because the opinions and habits and wants of the Hindoos have been more strongly confirmed by their longer duration. To suppose otherwise, would be to Suppose that they are fashioned by

nature different from other men; and if they are not, then their natural character as men will ultimately prevail over their artificial character as Hindoos, if circumstances are favourable to the change: indeed we have already evidence of the truth of this position; for the sepoys in our service have changed their native dress, and the Hindoo servants of Europeans are clad in a variety of liveries. If therefore one consequence of a free trade would be, that the intercourse between Europeans and the natives would become more general and intimate, another consequence would be, that by this intercourse the natives would change their habits, and feel those wants which could alone be supplied by our manufactures. The other part of the objection, that they have not the means of purchasing our commodities, would in this case soon be removed; for where desire exists strongly, it will lead to the means of its gratification. The Indians have few means now, because they feel few wants: increase their wants, and you will increase their means; render the intercourse between them and Europeans more general and intimate, and you will increase their wants; lay open the trade, and (what would be much more effectual) permit the country to be colonised, and you would soon render the intimacy more general and close. We have dwelt thus long and minutely on this objection, because it has been urged repeatedly, and with great force and confidence; and because it wears a most plausible aspect.-But there are other answers to it of a less important nature which must not be entirely overlooked: the profit of any trade must depend partly upon the

extent of the trade and partly upon the terms on which it is carried on: it is contended that a free trade to India would not be advantageous to the British merchant, because the demand there for his commodities is very limited, and because even with that limited demand, even when the supply has been exactly proportioned to it by the East India company, their profit has been very small: hence it is inferred that, if the trade were in the hands of merchants who would not proportion the supply to the demand, it would be a losing trade. This argument consists of three parts that the British merchants would speculate rashly and ignorantly; that the market in India cannot be extended; and that the profit, even when the supply is proportioned to the demand, is very trifling. The first two parts we have already examined at sufficient length; it is only necessary there fore, in this place, to examine the third branch of this argument. The company, it is said, though always regulating their exports by the demand for them, do not gain by the trade but it should be recollected that monopolies always trade with disadvantage; and that, besides this general cause of unprofitable trade, there are particular causes, which came out in evidence before the house of commons; the most material of which we shall specify.

In the first place, the rate of freight which the company pay in time of war, averages between 50 and 601. a ton; this must eat up a great share of the profits: indi viduals would procure ships at a much cheaper rate.

In the second place, not more than seven or eight voyages are per formed in seventeen or eighteen

years; the ships are fitted out in the most expensive manner; and the company, instead of trading, load them in many instances with naval and military stores: none of these things would occur with individuals: in fact, the union of the two characters of merchants and sovereigns must have a tendency to render the company's trade unprofitable.

In the third place, when the produce of India is imported into Lon. don, it is lodged in the company's warehouses; and instead of advantage being taken of good markets, a period is fixed on for the sale of the whole by public auction, whether there be a demand for the goods or not.

In the last place, the charter of the company obliged them to im port saltpetre and to export cloth, whether there was a demand for these articles or not; of course these must often have caused a loss.

That these are causes of an unprofitable trade is sufficiently obvious; and that they would be removed if the trade were open, is evident from the example of America: voyages are performed from that country and back again sometimes in seven months, and seldom in more than nine and ten; and from their more œconomical mode of conducting the traffic in other respects, they have been enabled to supply not only their own wants, but the wants of a great part of the continent of Europe.

The case of America however was brought forward by the di rectors and proprietors of the East India company as a further proof of the impractic ability of extending the consumption of British produce and manufactures in India; because, they contend, the Americans would not have been in the constant

habit

habit of taking with them nothing but dollars, if any thing else would have answered their purpose as well. But, in the first place, it is not correct that the Americans carry dollars only; since their ships are generally, if not always, laden with full cargoes of small cost indeed, but of great bulk; and the dollars are taken merely to pay the balance, since the value of their cargoes would not be equivalent to the value of the commodities which they require. In the second place, the great object of the Americans is the homeward investment, not the outward cargo; consequently by taking dollars they save time, not being obliged first to sell and then to buy, and besides enter the market on better terms. Lastly, the case of America does not apply to us: she is not a manufacturing Country: we are. If she took out manufactures to India, they must have been previously purchased by us, and consequently could not meet ours in the market. But the most material reply to the argument drawn from the case of the Americans is, that under other circumstances, the nature as well as the extent of the Indian market would be essentially changed when ever, as we have stated above, our intercourse with the Indians changed their habits and wants.

In the third place, it is contended by the opponents of a free trade, that it would not only be injurious to the company, and the merchants and manufacturers, but to the nation at large this objection, however, is so essentially involved in the last which we have considered, that it is scarcely necessary to dwell upon it any further; for it would not be easy to prove how a trade, that would give life to our

manufactures, employment to our superfluous population and capital, and extension to our commerce, could be hurtful to the nation: if we have rendered it probable that such would be the ultimate and permanent effects of a free trade to India, we have in fact proved that the nation must be benefited. It is asserted however that the revenue would suffer materially, as there would be great room for smuggling in case of a free trade: let us allow that smuggling would be increased, still it may be doubted whether the revenue would be diminished; indeed, if the East India trade flourished and extended, it is probable that this extension would bring more into the revenue than would be taken out of it by smuggling. But assuredly means might be fallen upon to prevent an increase of smuggling; and even if no such means can be suggested, is the extension of trade to be prevented because smuggling will thereby be increased? would this mode of argument be adopted or listened to, if applied to any plan for extending our commerce in any other branch where duties are paid? would not that man be laughed at, who should object to a plan for procuring cotton in larger quantities-because thus the facilities of evading the duty on it might be increased? But this objection is too paltry to be seriously considered, when the object is one of such infinite importance as the regulation of our East Indian trade.

Lastly, it was contended that by opening the trade the inhabitants of our Indian empire would be injured. This certainly is paying ourselves no compliment; for what is it but asserting, that an intercourse with us will injure and not

benefit