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.[1]
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 ship-owners 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
- ↑ Speech of Sir William Curtis, Hansard, p. 691.
