Book I, Chapter 7: Raw Produce and Manufactures

CHAPTER VII

RAW PRODUCE AND MANUFACTURES

WHEN the East India Company’s Charter was renewed in 1833, it was provided that the Company should thenceforth “discontinue and abstain from all commercial business,” and should stand forth only as administrators and rulers of India. The beneficial results of this provision became manifest before many years had elapsed. The Company felt a greater interest in the trades and manufacturers of India when they were no longer rival traders. And on February 11, 1840, they presented a petition to Parliament for the removal of invidious duties which discouraged and repressed Indian industries.

A Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to report on the petition. Lord Seymour was in the chair; and among the Members of the Committee was Mr. Gladstone, then a young man of thirty, and a stern and unbending Tory. Mr. Brocklehurst, Member for Macclesfield, then a great centre of British silk manufacture, was also on the Committee, and represented the interests of the British manufacturer. Much valuable evidence on Indian produce and manufacture was recorded, and has been published in a folio volume of over six hundred pages. It is possible, within our limits, only to refer to such portions of this evidence as are specially relevant to the present work.

J. C. MELVILL.

Military Expenditure and Home Charges.—Melvill said, the amount defrayed by the Company for the Queen’s troops employed on the Indian establishment was £1,400,000, and the Company had also agreed to raise and maintain such further men as might be necessary to keep at all times an effective force of 20,000 in India. The portion of the Indian revenues spent in England was, on the average, £3,200,000 a year, and this included the dividends of shareholders, interest on debt, furlough allowances, pensions, the expenses of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, and their establishments.

Opium.—Opium was grown in British territory, Benares, and Patna, and in the Native State of Malwa. The Benares and Patna opium was the monopoly of the Company, and the Government of Bengal got a large revenue from this monopoly, selling the opium at a profit of more than 200 per cent. Malwa opium paid a heavy transit duty of £12, 10s. the chest on passing into British territory for exportation, and the Government of Bombay derived a substantial revenue from this transit duty. The two kinds of opium met in the market of Canton for sale in China.

Salt.—The Government realised a large revenue from salt manufactured in the Company’s territory, and a heavy duty on salt manufactured in Native States and coming into British territory. The Company had the monopoly in salt as in opium.

Sugar.—In 1836, Parliament passed an Act, allowing Indian sugar to be brought to England at the same duty as sugar from the West Indies, i.e. 24s. a cwt. The principle of the law was that the Indian sugar might come, if importation was prohibited at the place from which it came. The Governor-General had prohibited importation into Bengal; Bengal sugar therefore came to England on payment of 24s. per cwt.; and the quantity had increased from 101,000 cwt. in 1835 to 519,000 cwt. in 1839. The Governor-General had passed an Act in 1839 prohibiting importation into Madras, so that Madras also was about to enjoy the same privilege as Bengal. There was no chance of the same privilege being extended to Bombay for some time.

Rum.—There was a duty of 15s. a gallon on Indian rum imported into England, as against a duty of 9s. only on West Indian rum, although the latter was stronger.

Tobacco.—There was a duty of 3s. per pound on Indian tobacco imported into England, as against 2s. 9d. on West Indian tobacco. The difference caused much hardship; and it was believed that by equalising the duty the consumption of Indian tobacco could be greatly promoted.

Coffee.—In 1835 the duty upon Indian coffee was equalised with the West Indian duty of 6d. per pound; and the consumption of Indian coffee in England had largely increased in consequence.

Cotton, Silk, and Woollen Goods.—British cotton and silk goods, conveyed in British ships to India, paid a duty of 3½ per cent.; and British woollen goods a duty of 2 per cent. only. But Indian cotton goods, imported into England, paid a duty of 10 per cent.; Indian silk goods a duty of 20 per cent.; Indian woollen goods, a duty of 30 per cent.

As the import of cotton goods from India into England had died out, the import of raw cotton had increased. In the five years ending in 1813, the cotton-wool annually imported from India had been 9,368,000 lbs. on the average. The annual average of the five years ending in 1838 was 48,329,660 lbs.

“Native manufactures have been superseded by British?” Melvill was asked.

“Yes, in great measure,” was his reply.

“Since what period?”

“I think, principally since 1814.”

“The displacement of Indian manufactures by British is such that India is now dependent mainly for its supply of those articles on British manufacturers?”

“I think so.”

“Has the displacement of the labour of native manufacturers at all been compensated by any increase in the produce of articles of the first necessity, raw produce?”

“The export of raw produce from India has increased since she ceased largely to export manufactures; but I am not prepared to say in what proportion.”

“Have the natives of India, weavers, for instance, when thrown out of employment, the same facility in turning their attention to other matters as people in this country have, or are particular trades at all mixed up with the peculiarities of caste?”

“Particular trades are, I believe, mixed up with the peculiarities of caste. I have no doubt that great distress was the consequence in the first instance, of the interference of British manufactures with those of India.”¹

Tea.—It was known to the Court of Directors, as early as 1788, that the tea plant was a native of India; but no attempts were then made to encourage its cultivation. In 1835, Lord William Bentinck brought to the Court’s notice that the tea plant was indigenous in Assam, and could be grown elsewhere in India; and the Court gave its sanction to an experimental establishment in Assam for the cultivation and manufacture of tea. Ninety-five chests of Assam tea, about 4000 lbs., had recently arrived in London, and had been pronounced good; and applications from many persons, who had formed themselves into a company, had been referred by the Court of Directors to the Indian Government. The growing of tea in Assam by private enterprise and capital thus dates from about 1840.

ANDREW SYM.

This witness held grants of land from the East India Company in India, to the extent of about 60,000 English acres, and gave evidence mainly about the growing of sugar-cane and the manufacture of sugar. The cultivators grew the cane, expressed the juice, boiled it, and then sold it to the factory. There it was made into Shukkur by mechanical pressure, boiled into syrup, and then evaporated into sugar.

The witness had much to say about the displacement of Indian labour by the introduction of English manufactures—clothing, tools, implements, glassware, and brass articles. The people of India deprived of their occupations, turned “to agriculture chiefly.”

C. E. TREVELYAN.

A more important witness was Sir Charles Trevelyan who, after a distinguished service in India under Lord William Bentinck, had become Assistant Secretary to the Treasury in England.²

While in India, he had helped in abolishing vexatious transit duties which had impeded the internal trade. And in his evidence before the Select Committee he pleaded for the removal of those unequal and prohibitive import duties in England which kept out India’s manufactures.

Population of British India.—The population of Bengal was generally calculated at 30 millions; that of Northern India under British Rule at 30 millions; that of Madras about 14 millions; and of Bombay about 3 millions. Total for British India, 77 millions. The ordinary price of labour was 2 anas, or 3d. a day. Land in Bengal was tilled by cultivators who held it under landlords. “The theory of Indian agriculture is, that as long as the Ryot, who is the occupant of the soil, continues to pay the rates of rent fixed by usage in his district, he is not liable to be ousted; but this rule is constantly broken through.”³ All restrictions against Europeans holding land in India had been removed; and it had been expected that Europeans would purchase lands and settle in India. “But that has ended in disappointment. The climate does not suit them; they do not look to ending their days there.”⁴

Sugar and Rum.—The equalising of the duty on sugar was useless until the duty on rum was also equalised. “It is a mere mockery to give equality in one respect only; in order to establish equality you must equalise the duty on all the articles manufactured from the sugarcane.”⁵

The inequality in the duty on rum, besides being injurious to the manufacture of both sugar and rum, created a sore feeling, a feeling among the people of India that their interests were being sacrificed to those of more favoured countries.

Mr. Gladstone.—When you speak of dissatisfaction existing among the natives, are you to be understood that you do not allude to the body of cultivators, or the population, but to that which may be fairly called the commercial class?

Mr. Trevelyan.—I mean that those among them, particularly the commercial class, and the educated natives of Calcutta, who know something of the relations between India and the mother country, feel it as a grievance; that it goes to add to the sum of grievances which the natives feel; and that the feeling extends from the better informed class to the body of people, but without the body of the people well knowing the grounds.⁶

For the rest, the witness said that the Bengal sugar, grown in the valley of the Ganges, had a vast home consumption. The 30 millions of Bengal, the 30 millions of British Northern India, and some 40 millions beyond, consumed the Gangetic sugar. Witness understood that the people of Central Asia too derived their supply of sugar from the valley of the Ganges, until that sugar met the beet-root sugar of Russia.⁷

Cotton Goods.—Indian cotton manufactures had been to a great extent displaced by English manufactures. “The peculiar kind of silky cotton formerly grown in Bengal, from which the fine Dacca muslins used to be made, is hardly ever seen; the population of the town of Dacca has fallen from 150,000 to 30,000 or 40,000, and the jungle and malaria are fast encroaching upon the town. The only cotton manufactures which stand their ground in India are of the very coarse kinds, and the English cotton manufactures are generally consumed by all above the very poorest throughout India. . . . Dacca, which was the Manchester of India, has fallen off from a very flourishing town to a very poor and small one; the distress there has been very great indeed.”⁸

Tea.—Tea was grown in Assam, at first experimentally, by the Government, and since then by the new Assam Company. There was a dearth of local labour, and the Company engaged hill-coolies and took them from a distance to Assam to do work in the gardens. Witness believed that the contracts were for three years, but he had no precise information.

Indigo.—Hill-coolies went annually to the indigo planters of Bengal to find employment in the manufacture of indigo, “just as the Irish come over into this country to get in the harvest.” The coolies did not take their families with them, and they returned home after the indigo season was over.

River Steamers.—All the steam navigation was still in the hands of the East India Company. The steamers used were very small ones, and drew less than two feet water. There was a Steam Tug Company for drawing vessels up and down the Hughli River, which made a good dividend.

Roads.—Roads were seldom repaired at all, except along the main lines. But they seldom became entirely impassable for the country carts, which were stoutly made, except in the rains.

Raw produce.—Mr. Trevelyan recommended that the raw produce of India should be freed from all unequal duties in the English market. “We have swept away their manufactures; they have nothing to depend upon but the produce of their land, and I think it would be extremely unjust not to give equal privileges in the market of the mother country to that.”⁹

HENRY GOUGER.

Henry Gouger was a merchant who had lived in India many years, and was the proprietor of works near Calcutta for the manufacture of cotton-twist, the distilling of rum, the expressing of oil from seeds, a foundry and a paper mill. His evidence therefore was of great value.

Cotton-twist.—700,000 lbs. weight of yarn was annually spun, of numbers varying from 20 to 50. The cotton used was all grown in India and selected with great care, and the machinery was worked by Indian labourers under European superintendence. There were 100 power looms, but their use was discontinued in order to employ the whole of the power steam for the manufacture of yarns which was more profitable. The lower numbers sold rather better than English yarns, the higher numbers on a par with them. But on the whole the profits of the business were not proportionate to the enormous cost. “I am inclined to think,” said the witness, “there never will be another manufactory for spinning cotton yarns, in consequence of the great expense attending the building of the present one.”

Coal.—Witness used coal from his own mine at Burdwan. The coal was sold at 16s. per ton in Calcutta; it was not so good as English coal, but being cheaper was generally used in the steamers in India. The cost of the Burdwan coal at Calcutta was 12s. or 13s. the ton; the price of Newcastle coal at Calcutta was 25s.

Sugar.—The juice of the cane, boiled by the growers into Goor, was brought by them and sold at the manufactory to be made into sugar. Fine Benares sugar sold at 11 or 12 rupees (24s.) for 80 lbs. weight. The price was lower before the duties were equalised. Sugar was carried to England as dead weight and the freight was £4, 10s. the ton.

Rum.—West Indian rum paid a duty of 9s. per gallon on import into England, while Indian rum paid a duty of 15s. the gallon. Rum was distilled in India both from Goor, and from molasses, the refuse of Goor. From 80 lbs. of molasses 3½ gallons of rum, London proof, could be obtained; a much larger quantity could be made from 80 lbs. of Goor. A gallon of rum could be supplied at Calcutta at 10 annas, i.e. 1s. 3d.

It might be profitable to extract sugar from Goor and then to convert the refuse, the molasses, into rum; but that was not the general practice.

Silk.—Bengal raw silk, imported into England, sold at about 16s. the pound. Corahs, or silk piece goods made in India, sold at about 16s. or 17s. the pound. The export of raw silk from India was declining. In 1828–29 it was to the value of £920,000. In 1829–30 it was £800,000. In 1830–31 it was £720,000. In 1831–32 it was only £540,000. Probably an increase had taken place in the manufacture of silk goods in India, and the export of silk goods from India had also increased.¹⁰

G. G. DE H. LARPENT.

Larpent, Chairman of the East India and China Association, was then examined. The Association was formed in 1836 with the object of rendering assistance to all parties concerned in the East India and China trade. He gave his evidence at great length on the import of sugar and rum from different countries into England, and he spoke strongly on the decline of the cotton and silk manufactures of India.

Cotton goods.—Mr. Larpent supplied the Committee with the following figures relating to the import of Indian cotton goods into England, and the export of English cotton goods into India.

Cotton Piece Goods Imported into Great Britain from the East Indies.

British Cotton Manufactures Exported to India.

In spite of this decline in the Indian manufacture, and the increase of British manufacture, British cotton goods were still imported into India on payment of an ad valorem duty of 3 1/2 per cent., while Indian cotton goods imported into England were subjected to an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. Quoting from Mr. Shore, witness read: “This supersession of the native for British manufactures is often quoted as a splendid instance of the triumph of British skill. It is a much stronger instance of English tyranny, and how India has been impoverished by the most vexatious system of customs and duties imposed for the avowed object of favouring the mother country.” Mr. Larpent did not agree with Mr. Shore in these observations to the full extent; but they showed the feeling of a distinguished servant of the Company, a feeling which was likely to prevail among the people of India.¹¹

Silk goods.—British silk goods were admitted into Calcutta on payment of a duty of 3½ per cent., Indian silk goods were subjected to an import duty of 20 per cent. in England. Corahs or Indian silk piece goods in the grey (unprinted), were imported into England mainly for being printed in England and then exported to other European countries. The following figures were given for Corahs imported into England.

Bandannas or Indian printed pocket-handkerchiefs were imported into England in considerable quantities. Mr. Larpent pleaded strongly for the equalisation of duties between Great Britain and India with regard to silk goods. Mr. Brocklehurst, one of the members of the Select Committee, represented British silk manufactures, and necessarily desired the continuance of unequal duties to the advantage of England.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—You give your opinion without reference to the effect it would have on the British produce?

Mr. Larpent.—I have no doubt there would be, to a certain extent, a rivalry in competition with the silk manufactures of this country; but I submit on principle that India ought to be admitted as one of our own possessions. The argument has been used that while our manufactures are allowed to go into India at a very reduced duty, we ought to have admitted theirs on as low a duty.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Is there any colony of this country whose manufactures are admitted on so low a scale as those of India?

Mr. Larpent.—There is no colony of this country whose manufactures are of a magnitude calling for it. We have destroyed the manufactures of India. [And then the witness quoted the views of the Court of Directors, stated in Lord William Bentinck’s minute of May 30, 1829: —— “The sympathy of the Court is deeply excited by the report of the Board of Trade, exhibiting the gloomy picture of the effects of a commercial revolution productive of so much present suffering to numerous classes in India, and hardly to be paralleled in the history of commerce.”]¹²

But Mr. Brocklehurst was not convinced. The use of Indian silk handkerchiefs in England troubled his soul, and he returned again and again to the subject.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Are you aware that they have already so far displaced silk handkerchiefs made in this country, that attempts are now making to introduce a spurious article from waste silk as a substitute?

Mr. Larpent.—I have heard that an article is introduced made of waste silk; and that as I stated before, the ingenuity and science of the parties who are making those goods, will probably introduce into the home market a quantity of goods at a low price, which will be in very general use.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Driving the British manufacturer to make inferior articles to maintain his ground in competition?

Mr. Larpent.—The articles alluded to are those made here; the British manufacturers have made those inferior articles.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—It would be more desirable perhaps that India should produce the raw material, and this country show its skill in perfecting that raw material?

Mr. Larpent.—The course of things in India is decidedly leading to that; and it is in the main articles such as we have already alluded to, that we do think every assistance should be given to the agricultural produce of India; but I submit that as this is the last of the expiring manufactures of India, the only one where there is a chance of introducing the native manufactures, at least let it have a fair chance, and not be oppressed with the duty of 20 per cent., in favour of the British manufactures.¹³

MONTGOMERY MARTIN.

A still more sturdy champion for India was Montgomery Martin. He had travelled ten years in the colonies of the British Empire, mainly at his own expense; had gathered facts, figures and statistics; and had compiled the first complete History of the British Colonies in five large volumes. He had lived in India; studied Indian questions on the spot; and also edited the voluminous and valuable statistical account of Eastern India left by Dr. Francis Buchanan.

“I have examined at considerable length,” he said, “and for a series of years, the trade of India. I have taken the utmost pains to arrive at correct conclusions by examining various documents which the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India House, with their usual liberality, permitted me access to. And I have been impressed with the conviction that India has suffered most unjustly in her trade, not merely with England but with all other countries, by reason of the outcry for free trade on the part of England without permitting to India a free trade herself.” And he added that, “on all articles except those where we are supplanting the native manufacturers, and consequently impoverishing the country, there is a decreasing trade.”¹⁴

Cotton goods.—In 1815 the cotton goods exported from India were of the value of £1,300,000. In 1832 they were less than £100,000. In 1815 the cotton goods imported into India from England were of the value of £26,300. In 1832 they were upwards of £400,000. “We have during the period of a quarter of a century compelled the Indian territories to receive our manufactures; our woollens, duty free, our cottons at 2½ per cent., and other articles in proportion; while we have continued during that period to levy almost prohibitory duties, or duties varying from 10 to 20, 30, 50, 100, 500, and 1000 per cent. upon articles, the produce from our territories. Therefore, the cry that has taken place for free trade with India, has been a free trade from this country, not a free trade between India and this country. . . . The decay and destruction of Surat, of Dacca, of Murshedabad, and other places where native manufactures have been carried on, is too painful a fact to dwell upon. I do not consider that it has been in the fair course of trade; I think it has been the power of the stronger exercised over the weaker.”¹⁵

Evidence such as this brought about a keen controversy between the witness and Mr. Brocklehurst, the representative of the British manufacturer.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—The fact being that weavers, either in the one country or the other, must be sacrificed, and that sacrifice having already taken place in India, you wish to revive the population of India at the expense of this country?

Mr. Martin.—I do not wish to revive it, but I wish to prevent continued injury to India. But it does not necessarily follow that the weavers of England would be destroyed by admitting the natives of India to compete with them in this country, because the natives of India have no power looms, and no means of employing skill and capital to the extent that the manufacturers of Glasgow and Manchester have.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—The questions that have been asked refer entirely to fine fabrics which cannot be woven by power. The question is, whether we are to give up fine weaving in this country, or to retain it?

Mr. Martin.—If it is only to be retained at the expense of injustice to India, my answer is, that England ought to act with justice, no matter what the result may be. That she has no right to destroy the people of a country which she has conquered, for the benefit of herself, for the mere sake of upholding any isolated portion of the community at home.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—When the transfer of India to the Government of this country took place in 1833,¹⁶ the destruction of weaving in India had already taken place, and therefore it is not a question of destruction, for that is past; and we have it in evidence that India is an agricultural rather than a manufacturing country, and that the parties formerly employed in manufactures are now absorbed in agriculture. Does it occur to you that there is an opening in this country, if manufacturers are displaced, for the people to turn to agriculture?

Mr. Martin.—I do not agree that India is an agricultural country; India is as much a manufacturing country as an agricultural; and he who would seek to reduce her to the position of an agricultural country seeks to lower her in the scale of civilisation. I do not suppose that India is to become the agricultural farm of England; she is a manufacturing country, her manufactures of various descriptions have existed for ages, and have never been able to be competed with by any nation wherever fair play has been given to them. I speak not now of her Dacca muslins and her Cashmere shawls, but of various articles which she has manufactured in a manner superior to any part of the world. To reduce her now to an agricultural country would be an injustice to India.¹⁷

Woollen Manufactures.—For twenty-five years British woollen manufactures had been admitted almost duty free in India, but the manufactures of India made of goat’s wool paid a duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem. The result was that from 1828 to 1838 the total importation from India had not averaged more than £28,000 per annum. By stopping this trade British manufacturers were not benefited, as the shawls of England were mostly made on the continent.¹⁸

Shipbuilding.—There was a marked decrease in shipbuilding in India. In 1795-96 six ships were built in Calcutta, with a tonnage of 4105 tons, and five large vessels of 500 to 600 tons each were on the stocks. In 1797-98 several vessels were launched from the dockyards of Calcutta. But shipbuilding had now (1840) been entirely given up in Calcutta. A dockyard had been founded by the Parsees at Bombay, and for three generations the splendid dock establishment at Bombay had been under Parsee management. The fine vessel Asia was built by Naoroji Jamsetjee, and Parsee gentlemen were studying shipbuilding in the English dockyards. Nevertheless, English-built ships, manned by lascars, proceeding to ports with which England had reciprocity treaties, were not treated as British ships. This was a direct impediment thrown in the way of shipbuilding in India. The Charter of the East India Company of 1833 declared that the natives of India were British subjects, and it was a hardship and injustice to them that they were not considered such in the matter of merchant ships.¹⁹

Home Charges.—Witness submitted a table showing the Home Charges, or the amount of Indian revenues spent in England, during twenty years, from the renewal of the Company’s Charter in 1813 to the renewal of their Charter in 1833.²⁰ Figures showing the Home Charges for five subsequent years, 1834 to 1837, have been taken from another part of the report.²¹ Figures showing the revenues of India have been taken from a Parliamentary Return.²² The table, which we have thus compiled, shows the proportion of the Home Charges to the total revenue of India for the twenty-four years ending in the year of the accession of Queen Victoria.

A small portion of these Home Charges, about one-fifth, was for stores supplied to India from England. The remaining sums, said Montgomery Martin, “are absolute charges upon the revenues of India, and for which no return whatever is made to India. . . . It is a curious calculation to show, that estimating the sums of money drawn from British India for the last thirty years at three millions per annum, it amounts, at 12 per cent. (the Indian rate of interest), compound interest, to £723,997,971; or, if we calculate it at two millions per annum for fifty years, the abstraction of fructifying capital from Hindustan amounts to the incredible sum of £8,400,000,000.”²³

Silk Manufactures.—The silk manufactures of India should be freed from the unequal import duty placed upon it in England, and there was the greater reason for this because they really did not compete with the silk manufactures of England or any other country.²⁴

ALEXANDER ROGERS.

Flax and Hemp.—Alexander Rogers was a large proprietor of factories in India, and was introducing the culture of flax for the fibre, the natives of India having so long cultivated that plant for the seed. The first specimens of Indian flax were expected to arrive from India on June 10, 1840. “If we once succeed with flax, hemp and flax are so similar in their process of cultivation that there will be no difficulty whatever with hemp.”²⁵

Silk.—Witness also imported Indian silk into England extensively. The duty on British silk manufactures in India was 3½ per cent.; that on Indian silk manufactures in England was 20 per cent. and upwards. This difference paralysed the Indian silk industry. Reduction of duty on Indian silks would not affect British manufactures, as the reduction of duty on French silks had not affected it. The Indian silk piece goods which would be introduced in England were of the heavier kind, the Corahs, which were very little manufactured in England. On the other hand, “the advantage to England would be that of supplying the natives with the means to purchase twice or threefold the quantity of our goods in return.”²⁶

Sugar.—Witness built a sugar manufactory at a cost of £2700 at Sericole, in Jessore District, near his indigo factory. He expected a profitable return, hoping for an equalisation of the duties on sugar and rum, which were produce of the same cane. His profit was 11½ per cent., which was unsatisfactory, as money lent in India without risk would bring in 10 per cent., and at compound interest much more. If the duty on rum was equalised his profit would be more; if it was not equalised he would give up the sugar business.

J. M. HEATH.

Iron.—The Association with which witness was connected began operations at Porto Novo, 120 miles south of Madras, in 1833, built blast-furnaces, put up a forge for making malleable iron, and had greatly extended their ironworks. Steel could not be made from English iron; England was entirely dependent on Sweden and Russia for every bar of iron that was to be converted into steel; India could supplement the supply, for Indian iron could be made into steel. Witness imported Indian iron in the shape of pig iron in order to be converted into bars; but the duty on the import of iron ore into England was prohibitive. “The duty upon a ton of iron ore is 5s. Now it takes about two tons of iron ore to make a ton of bar iron; a ton of bar iron pays a duty of 2s. 6d., whereas the duty upon the ore required to make a ton of bar iron is 10s. English iron going to India paid no duty at all.”²⁷

HORACE HAYMAN WILSON.

Books.—The distinguished Sanscrit scholar and Orientalist had been out in India for twenty-four years, and on his retirement he was made Librarian to the East India Company and Professor of Sanscrit at the University of Oxford. He stated in his evidence that books printed in India paid a duty of £2, 10s. per cwt., and pleaded for the removal of the duty.

JOSEPH TUCKER.

Silk Manufactures.—Joseph Tucker, belonging to a London firm of silk printers and dealers in silk handkerchiefs, desired to maintain the duty of 20 per cent. on Indian silk manufactures in order to protect the British industry. He said that the British people still used British manufactures only; but Frenchmen preferred the Indian article; and the export of British silk goods into France was decreasing, and that of Indian Bandannas and other silk handkerchiefs into France was increasing. And he gave the following figures from a Parliamentary Return.—See table on opposite page.

Exported from the United Kingdom to France.

The witness further explained that “When British goods first went to France, Indian goods were prohibited, and consequently British goods had a preference with French buyers; hence perhaps the large quantity. As soon as the prohibition was taken off, and in fact previous to that, slightly, the trade had been affected. But immediately the prohibition was taken off, the British trade to France was entirely annihilated.”²⁸

The preference given by a single European nation to a single Indian manufacture had aroused the jealousy of English dealers and manufacturers. This jealousy is manifest in the evidence of the last four witnesses, all silk manufacturers, who were examined by the Select Committee, and to whose evidence we now turn.

THOMAS COPE.

Silk Manufactures.—No witness gave his evidence in a more plain, straightforward manner than Thomas Cope, silk-weaver of Macclesfield.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—What would be the effect upon this branch of your trade if the present duty on East Indian silk goods were reduced from 20 to 3½ per cent.?

Mr. Cope.—In my opinion, it would have the effect of destroying this branch of trade; and if so, it would rob of their employment, and consequently of the means of living honestly by their labour, all those parties which I have before named, and would make them destitute and reckless, and cause them to become a burden to the rest of society, whose burdens are already too heavy. It would throw out of employment a large amount of capital, and would give into the hands of foreigners that employment by which we ought to be supported.

Mr. Hogg.—You are of opinion that justice to the English operatives in silk requires that all foreign manufactured silk should be excluded from this market ?

Mr. Cope.—My opinion is that in justice to the English operative there should be a duty imposed upon the importation of these goods which would put them on a level with ourselves. Now, if the Hindustanee can live at 1½d. or 2d. a day, and if an Englishman cannot live at less than 2s. a day, we think it very hard that the weaver in India should send his goods here and compete with us upon such very unfair terms.

Mr. Elliott.—Do you think that a labourer in this country, who is able to obtain better food than that, has a right to say, we will keep the labourer in the East Indies in that position in which he shall be able to get nothing for his food but rice ?

Mr. Cope.—I certainly pity the East Indian labourer, but at the same time I have a greater feeling for my own family than for the East Indian labourer’s family; I think it is wrong to sacrifice the comforts of my family for the sake of the East Indian labourer because his condition happens to be worse than mine; and I think it is not good legislation to take away our labour and to give it to the East Indian because his condition is worse than ours.²⁹

It is needless to remark that manufacturers like Cope determined the policy of Great Britain towards India; the British Parliament and the Indian Government were merely the servants of the manufacturers and voters of Great Britain.

JOHN PROUT.

Silk Manufactures.—John Prout was another silk-weaver of Macclesfield, and represented the views of British silk manufacturers.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Do you conceive that the reduction of the duty upon East India silk manufactures and Bandannas would be an injury to your trade?

Mr. Prout.—I do conceive it to be a great injury, and it is the opinion of the trade of Macclesfield generally, because it is part of a system of policy which gives to the foreigner the home market, to the destruction of our own branch of industry.³⁰

JOHN FRANCIS.

Silk Manufactures.—John Francis, a silk manufacturer of Norwich, was equally strong against Indian silks because they were competing successfully with British manufactures. And he spoke bitterly of the East India Company which had petitioned for the equalisation of duties.

Mr. Elliott.—In leaving off the silk trade in which you were formerly engaged, were you induced solely by the state of the trade, or were there any other circumstances?

Mr. Francis.—Solely from the state of the trade; I can go to the India House, when their sales of Corahs are on, and buy a piece for a less price than I can now buy a pound of silk to make it.

Mr. Irving.—How do you account for that?

Mr. Francis.—Only from the cheapness with which the Indians can send their goods here.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Would you think the best remedy for this state of things would be to encourage India to send the raw material and let the British industry work upon it?

Mr. Francis.—To be sure.

And the witness added that forty years before (about 1800) the East India Company brought raw silk from India, and sold it in England to be manufactured in England. Now the Company were “indifferent to British industry,” and let the silk be manufactured in India to get rid of it better.³¹

Mr. Brocklehurst even tried to get out of the witness that Indian manufacturers were comfortable, growing raw material and earning 1½d. a day.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—You do not suppose that they are uncomfortable; they live according to what they have been accustomed to all their lives?

Mr. Francis.—Certainly not.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—It may be comfort if they have no better?

Mr. Francis.—Yes, it may be comfort to be starving, but I cannot think so.³²

JOHN POYTON.

The last witness examined by the Select Committee was John Poyton, a silk weaver of Spitalfields.

Silk Manufactures.—Very few Bandannas were manufactured at Spitalfields, and India did not compete with that place at all. But, nevertheless, the witness objected to the lowering of the duty on Indian silk manufactures, because “if the duty is lowered, there will be less made in the country, and those that are now employed in making Bandannas will turn their hands to something else, and of course they will become competitors with us upon the goods that we now make.”³³

We have not been able to find out if any specific recommendations were submitted by the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the evidence recorded by them. But we have before us the Report submitted by the Select Committee of the House of Lords. For the East India Company’s petition was presented to both Houses, and the Select Committee of the Lords had examined Melville and Larpent and Trevelyan, and some other witnesses whose evidence before the Commons’ Committee has been referred to in this chapter. Lord Ellenborough, afterwards Governor-General of India, was the Chairman of the Lords’ Committee, and his Report, professing the utmost concern for the people of India, nevertheless denied them the relief and justice which they sought. His lordship pointed out the peculiar claims of India upon the justice and the generosity of Parliament in his usual florid style.

“Possessed of a population four times greater than that of the United Kingdom, and of all the rest of the British Empire in all parts of the world, defraying from its own resources the whole charge of its civil government and of its military defence, subjected to the rule of British-born subjects in all the higher and more lucrative and honourable offices of the State, India is further required to transmit annually to this country, without any return except in the small value of military stores, a sum amounting to between two and three millions sterling.”³⁴

After these eloquent observations Lord Ellenborough recommended the equalising of duties on the import of West Indian and East Indian tobacco, but declined to make a similar recommendation with regard to rum. The cotton manufactures of India had already died out, and his lordship recommended that the inequality in duties between Great Britain and India should be removed. But the silk manufactures of India were still competing with those of England, and Lord Ellenborough would not recommend equalising the duties on this article—“the last of the expiring manufactures of India.”

Footnotes