A. D. 1730. 151 



ture (though plaufible) uncertainty, was not judged fafe nor prudent. 

 The oppofition, however, drew from the prefent company very con- 

 fiderable advantages to the pubUc, by occafioning them to give up 

 one per cent of the intereft payable on their capital of L3, 200, 000, and 

 moreover to pay for the benetit of the public £,200,000 for the fervice 

 of the current year, over and above the abatement of their intereft from 

 5 to 4 per cent, or from Li6o,ooo to Li 28,000 pes annum, whereby 

 L32,ooo per annum would be immediately added to the finking fund, 

 which the company neverthelefs were legally entitled to for fix years 

 longer. While the bill was depending in parliament, abundance of ano- 

 nymous letters and eflays were publiflied in pamphlets and newfpapers, 

 againft exclufive companies in general, and more efpecially againft this 

 company's exclufive trade, in particular : all the arguments which had 

 been advanced for above 1 00 years paft, (of which we have largely treat- 

 ed in this work) againft monopoHes in this and other mercantile com- 

 panies, being on this occafion republiftied, with fome few new improve- 

 ments. ' They were for having the government to take the fupport of 

 the forts, factories, embafties, &c. in India, into their own hands, out 

 of the large cuftoms on the India trade, which ihould thenceforth re- 

 main free and open to all Britifh fubjeds. For' (fay they) ' the more 

 free and open that trade is, the more profitable it will be to the na- 

 tion. And though it may be true, that laying the Eaft-India trade 

 open, would leflen the profit of individuals in that trade, by their 

 ftriving to outdo 'and underfell one another; yet the gain to the na- 

 tion would' (in their opinion) ' be vaftly greater, as the emulous pri- 

 vate adventurers, by thrufting themfelves into new ports and coun- 

 tries, in Arabia, Perfia, India, China, &c. would undoubtedly occafion 

 the exportation of much more of our manufadiures and produdt than 

 the company can do. And on the other hand, a joint-ftock company 

 can never trade fo frugally and advantageoufly, either for themfelves. 

 or for the nation, being in fad; but one buyer and one feller ; who, 

 moreover, manage their trade with a pride and e.xpenfe more becoming, 

 the ftate of kings than of merchants ; and their govcrni/rs and agents 

 in India live like princes *. They alfo exped to be followed by the 

 markets, and therefor do not ftir from their warehoufes. Whereas,, 

 on the contrary, private traders would follow the markets, would pufli 

 into every creek and corner, and would narrowly look into the con- 

 duct of their agents in India. That the abolition of the prefent com- 

 pany would, moreover, deftroy the pernicious practice of ftock-jobl^ing, 

 k) fital to perfons and families. That when almoft all the mariiime 

 nations oi Europe are now running into this trade, which will doubtlels 

 diminifti our own commerce thither, it feems themoft cffedual means 



• And fo they would clouhtlefs do under a regulated ioiii|iar,y, or if tlicv vcie under the king's, 

 immediate aulhoiity, being at fo great a ditlancc from Europe. >•/, 



