India Negro Emancipation, on the spot where he so lately vowed perpetual opposition to both.* * The extraordinary step taken by Sir Robert Peel, at the close of the last Session, is without a parallel in the history of rashness and indiscretion. But so it is with a weak government; they must always be trying to gain the favour, in order to have a chance of the support, of some strong party or interest; and, accordingly, Sir Robert Peel thought it a good game to play at the West Indians. He, therefore, not content with opposing a resolution which merely pledged the House to consider West India Slavery next session, avowed himself the uncompromising enemy of emancipation to an extent very far outstripping even Lord Melville (then Mr Dundas's) opposition; for he, the leader of the West India interest, contemplated emancipation, like Mr Pitt, as the end of all the labours of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel cannot even hear of a resolution, merely because that odious word is in it! We trust the anti-slavery meetings everywhere will be quickened in their exertions by this frank avowal of ministerial hostility. THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. JANUARY, 1831. No. CIV. ART. I.-Reports from, and Minutes of Evidence taken before, the Select Committees of the Houses of Lords and Commons, on the Affairs of the East India Company. London: 1830. WHEN the charter of the East India Company was renewed in 1813, British subjects, in general, were allowed to participate in the trade to Hindostan, and some other parts of the East, from which they had been previously excluded; but they were, at the same time, strictly prohibited from carrying on any sort of intercourse with the Chinese empire. The monopoly of the trade with this vast country, the only one whence supplies of tea can be obtained, was continued to the East India Company; who, by this means, secured, in effect, a monopoly of the trade to Siam, Cochin-China, Tonquin, the Corea, East Tartary, the Japan and Philippine Islands, &c., to the successful prosecution of which a participation in the China trade is indispensable. The countries, the commerce of which is thus either actually or virtually monopolized by the Company, to the exclusion of other British subjects, abound in an endless variety of the most valuable productions, their population amounts to about a third part of the whole human race, and they possess an almost incalculable extent of sea-coast. Few, if any, trading associations ever succeeded in getting their countrymen excluded from so vast and so profitable a field for carrying on commercial pursuits. We do not, however, say, that there may not be reasons to justify this exclusion ;-to justify granting to the 2,500 partners of the East India Company, and refusing to the other 25 millions of British subjects, a right to trade with the Chinese world. But these reasons, if they really exist, cannot be difficult to discover. They must be clear, convincing, and decisive. Commercium,' says the greatest of English lawyers, 'jure gentium, commune esse debet, ET NON IN MONOPOLIUM, et 6 PRIVATUM PAULOLORUM QUESTUM CONVErtendum.' To justify their monopoly, the Company must not merely show that they have conducted the trade to China on fair and liberal principles, but that it is not one that could be carried on to the same extent, or the same advantage to the public, by other adventurers. they fail to establish both these points, the policy of throwing the trade open, will be no longer doubtful. It would be the extreme of tyranny to deprive the public of the rights and privileges to which they are naturally entitled, unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that very serious injury and inconvenience would result from their exercise. If This, therefore, is really a question of fact and experiment. How have the East India Company conducted the trade to China, and the other countries to the east of Malacca? Have the tea, and other commodities they import, been sold at the same prices they would be sold for were the trade open? Is there any thing in the character or institutions of the Chinese to render it impracticable to carry on the same free intercourse with them that is maintained with every other people? Have the Company prosecuted the trade to the same extent, and with the same advantage, that it would be prosecuted by individuals? We shall endeavour, as briefly as possible, practically to enquire into the answers that ought to be made to these questions. I. With respect to the question as to the prices charged by the Company for the products they import from China, we may remark, at the outset, that nothing but the most conclusive evidence to the contrary will serve to convince any reasonable person that they are not far higher than they would be were the trade open. All individuals and associations naturally exert themselves to obtain the highest possible price for whatever they have to sell. And it is found that those who are protected from the competition of others, or who have obtained a monopoly any market, invariably raise the price of their commodities to a very high pitch. Their object has not been to make a moderate profit upon a large adventure, but to make an enormous profit on a small adventure; and they have resorted to every device, even to the burning of a portion of their goods, to ac of complish this their darling object. Now, as the East India Company have obtained, in virtue of their monopoly of the China trade, the exclusive supply of the British markets with tea, the fair presumption is, that they have raised its price to an unnatural level. In supposing that they have done this, we do not suppose that they are either better or worse than others. We merely suppose that they have acted as all associations have done when placed under nearly similar circumstances; or that they have availed themselves of their privileges to promote their own peculiar interests. So reasonable an inference is not to be defeated, except by direct and unimpeachable evidence. But, as was to be expected, the Company neither have brought, nor can bring forward any such evidence. Facts and principles are equally against them. Not only is it reasonable to suppose that they have sold their teas, &c. at a much higher price than they would have been sold for had there been no monopoly, but this conclusion is confirmed by the strongest testimony,-by facts which it is quite impossible to controvert, or even question. The means of deciding as to the use which the Company have made of their monopoly, are accessible to every one. Though they have succeeded in getting their countrymen excluded from the trade to China, they have not, fortunately, been able to extend this exclusion to foreigners. The merchants of Liverpool and Glasgow dare not send a single ship to Canton, or import a single pound of tea; but the merchants of New York and Hamburgh labour under no such prohibition. They engage in the trade to China, as they engage in that to France, Brazil, or any other country, and conduct it on the principle of free and unfettered competition. Here, then, we have an unerring standard by which to try the proceedings of the Company. If they be really as self-denying as their apologists would have us to believe, the prices at which they sell teas will not be higher than those at which they are sold in the great trading cities not subjected to any monopoly; for no one has ever ventured to contend that there either is or can be any reason, other than the difference between a free and a monopoly system, why the price of tea should materially differ in London from its price in Hamburgh, New York, &c. Accounts of the quantities of the different sorts of tea sold at the East India Company's sales, and the prices at which they were sold, from 1814-15 to 1828-29, have been printed by order of the House of Commons. (Parliamentary Papers, No. 22, Session 1830.) Now, to determine whether the prices charged by the Company be excessive or not, we have only to compare |