1830.] the Company's Charter. 505 



If this be not sufficient, let Mr. Oawfurd's statement be contrasted 

 with the language of the Heport of the Committee of Correspondence 

 to the Court of Directors, as quoted by himself at page 15 of his 

 pamphlet. 



{< We were told, in a tone of oracular {< There seems to be a general and de- 

 authority, and on the alleged expe- plorable delusion respecting the prac- 

 rience of two centuries, that the trade ticability of a vast extension of the sale 

 between Great Britain and India was of the manufactures of this country in 

 wholly incapable of extension" &c. &c. India and China, and of the produc- 

 Pamphlet, page 2. tions of those countries here/' &c. &c. 



Report. 



The Report of the Committee asserts that - <c a vast extension" of the 

 sale of British manufactures in India is impracticable, which Mr. 

 Crawfurd, by some strange obliquity of vision, reads as if it had been 

 maintained that the trade between the two countries " was wholly inca- 

 pable of extension." Such a statement of an opponent's opinions may, 

 for aught we know, be considered fair controversy by pamphleteers, but 

 to us it bears an appearance of very questionable morality. 



Mr. Rickards has pursued a course exactly parallel. The Report 

 above quoted had stated that " the earnings of the common labouring 

 classes, and consequently their expenses, may be estimated on an average 

 not to exceed 41. 10s. per annum." They are indolent by nature, frugal 

 by habit, under manifold religious restrictions. What demand of the 

 manufactures from Europe is to be expected from these? From whom ? 

 from " the common labouring classes," if we understand construction. 

 But Mr. Rickards paraphrases the question at page 74 of his work, as 

 if it had been asked, " what farther demand for the manufactures of 

 Europe is to be expected from such a people ?" implying, as the context 

 fully proves, the whole population, high and low, rich and poor, of the 

 Peninsula. 



Again he asserts that the Court of Directors maintained " that no in- 

 crease of demand for European commodities could be expected to arise 

 among a people of such simple habits * ;" and refers, like Mr. Crawfurd, 

 to the evidence of Sir Thomas Munro, to whom he condescends to give 

 some very qualified praise. Truly the manes of that great statesman 

 must rejoice in the testimony borne to his merits by Mr. Rickards. 



We have already shown what Sir Thomas Muiiro's sentiments really 

 were ; but Mr. Rickards is kind enough to contradict himself in the 

 course of a very few pages, by quoting the evidence of that officer to 

 the following purport. We cannot supply the Indian with commodities, 

 because, while he can get them ( ' not only better, but cheaper, at home, 

 it is impossible that we can enter into competition in the market." Does 

 Mr. Rickards suppose that the Hindoos would buy dearer and inferior 

 articles because they might be of European manufacture ? They have 

 bought goods nominally cheaper, until they discovered that their want 

 of durability rendered such bargains any thing but gainful ; and accord- 

 ingly no less than 3,063,9681bs. of cotton twist were imported into India 

 in 1827- Our machinery gives us great advantages in the preparation of 

 this material of manufacture ; but we cannot stop here to inquire how 

 many thousands of Hindoos have been thrown out of bread by this im- 

 portation. 



* Page 79. 

 M. M. New Series. VOL. IX. No. 53. 3 T 



