"acts, in its commercial concerns in China, as "an individual; it has an unity of council and "of operation. It is so far a match for the "Chinese Company, the Hong. Its imports are "not depreciated, as they would be if brought "in by various individuals, each going to mar"ket for himself; in this way one might continually offer lower than another, and the general standard of the selling price of im"ports be lowered. In the purchase of goods "for exportation directly the contrary might be "expected; competition would enhance their

prices; and thus the trade, both in imports "and exports, be turned against the British "merchant, by the number of dealers."-" The "Company, from public-spirited motives, have

long carried on a large trade in that article

(woollens) from England to Canton, at an "annual loss to themselves; that is to say, they "could carry bullion to Canton on better terms, "commercially speaking, than they carry wool"lens; but, from a desire to promote the manu"factures of this country, they submit to a cer"tain loss upon the article of woollens, taking

teas in barter for them, and being indemnified "in the result by the exclusive privilege of "selling tea in this country."-" We cannot get the Chinese to raise the price of the

66

"woollens beyond what they stood at a remote

period, when woollens were, from many causes, "much cheaper in this country than they are "now."

It is needless to insist that all the excellencies ascribed to the India Company must be possessed by the Chinese Company. The latter, doubtless, are careful that competition shall not enhance prices when they are buyers,-as of woollens from the English, and of tea from the Chinese producers; nor lower them when they are sellers,

-as of tea to the English, and of woollens to the Chinese consumers. They, also, frequently "submit to a certain loss," to conciliate men in authority; "being indemnified in the result by "their exclusive privileges." In every respect the one is " a match" for the other.

The quantity of tea annually consumed in Great Britain is less than 25,000,000 of pounds, and it has been calculated that, under a free trade, allowing two ounces per week to each adult, it ought to be upwards of 60,000,000. Suppose it should only be increased to 50,000,000, the profits of the wholesale and retail dealers, and on the augmented value of the export-cargoes of China, would amount to vast sums, the loss of which may be considered a tax without any kind of compensation. But say that the price of

tea has been enhanced only one shilling in the pound (whereof sixpence for duty) on £20,000,000, here is at once a tax of £1,000,000 per annum, not for the support of the public revenue, but of an exploded and wasteful system of monopoly.

If, then, it clearly appears expedient to throw open the tea-trade, the question of the abolition of the East-India Company is decided, unless it should be found that in their political capacity they perform functions which could not otherwise be provided for at less cost: for they profess their inability to continue and to trade in concurrence with private merchants; so that the mere opening of the trade would be equivalent to their expulsion from it, and deprivation of the only fund for paying their dividends. "It cannot be "unknown," said Mr. Grant to the Committee of 1821, "that the stability of the Company, and their "means of conducting the Indian administration, "at present entirely depend on the profits of the "China monopoly, because they derive no in

come whatever from the territory;"—" so that "if the China monopoly were now to fail, they "would not have wherewithal to pay the divi"dends to the proprietors; the Indian territory "not only yielding nothing to them, but being very largely in debt.”

66

The want of a monopoly of the trade of India renders the infringement of commercial principles in that branch of their affairs less extensive and injurious. Yet we shall find in the mode of effecting remittances for the payment of the territorial or political expenses defrayed in England, a disregard of such principles, even beyond what should necessarily result from the constitution of the Company. The expedients described in their letter to Bengal, of 6th September, 1813, have been neglected; and, to a very intelligent observer, they seemed to have imposed on themselves" a rule not to admit private bills of ex"change in any of their commercial transactions. "Hence, when a sudden necessity arises to trans"fer funds from one treasury to another, the re"mittance is uniformly made in bullion, what ever may happen to be the exchange on private

66

bills; and hence we see them sometimes exporting specie when individuals have ceased to "find an advantage in so doing."—"It is strange they should forego the resource of private exchange operations, contrary to the practice of "all European Governments, and of every other trading company that we know of."* In 1821

66

* Prinsep's Remarks on the external Commerce and Exchange of Bengal, p. 63.

22, there were imported into Calcutta, on the Company's account, from Canton, Bombay, Bencoolen, Singapore, and Penang, about 70 lacs of rupees, though "the amount of the drafts "on the Bengal Treasury, in the same year, from Bombay, China, and the Settlements in the "Archipelago, was very considerable." In 181314, when the exchange was 22 per cent. above par, a remittance of £300,000 was made from Madras, by H. M. ship Stirling Castle. "If we "erred on this occasion," say the Bengal Government, in their letter of 4th Feb. 1814, (and not with reference to the mode but to the amount of the remittance,) "we must repeat that the "error proceeded from an over-solicitude on our

part to fulfil the expectations and wishes of

your Honourable Court, and to promote a great "national object." This treasure had not been many months in England before the Court of Directors (in their letter of 16th August, 1814) announced their "intention to make an effort for

transmitting you, by the earliest opportunity, dollars, or other bullion, to an amount equal to "the remittance we lately received from you by H.M.

66

ship Stirling Castle." There is no tracing the further progress of the transaction, the investment of the re-transferred bullion in produce, and the proceeds of that produce in England, in 1815,