Chapter XIV: Decline of Industries (1793-1813)

CHAPTER XIV

DECLINE OF INDUSTRIES (1793-1813)

It will appear from the facts stated in the last two chapters, that large portions of the Indian population were engaged in various industries down to the first decade of the nineteenth century. Weaving was still the national industry of the people; millions of women eked out the family income by their earnings from spinning; and dyeing, tanning, and working in metals also gave employment to millions.

It was not, however, the policy of the East India Company to foster Indian industries. It has been stated in a previous chapter that, as early as 1769, the Directors wished the manufacture of raw silk to be encouraged in Bengal, and that of silk fabrics discouraged. And they also directed that silk-winders should be made to work in the Company’s factories, and prohibited from working outside “under severe penalties, by the authority of the Government.“¹ This mandate had its desired effect. The manufacture of silk and cotton goods declined in India, and the people who had exported these goods to the markets of Europe and Asia in previous centuries began to import them in increasing quantities. The following figures² show the value of cotton goods alone sent out from England to ports east of the Cape of Good Hope, mainly to India, during twenty years.

The Company’s Charter was renewed in 1813. An inquiry was made, and witnesses were examined, previous to this renewal.

Very important witnesses, like Warren Hastings, Thomas Munro, and Sir John Malcolm were examined, and the House of Commons showed the utmost concern for the general welfare of the people of India. But in respect of Indian manufactures, they sought to discover how they could be replaced by British manufactures, and how British industries could be promoted at the expense of Indian industries.

India had suffered from repeated famines in the preceding half-century. A famine was desolating Bombay in the very year when the evidence was recorded. Industries and manufactures had declined in Bengal and in Madras. And yet we look in vain in this old volume of recorded evidence for any questions as to the means of reviving those sources of wealth which could insure the prosperity of a nation. We meet, on the contrary, with constant and never-ending inquiries how British goods could be forced on the people of India.

Warren Hastings was asked: “From your knowledge of the Indian character and habits, are you able to speak to the probability of a demand for European commodities by the population of India, for their own use?”

“The supplies of trade,” replied Warren Hastings, “are for the wants and luxuries of a people; the poor in India may be said to have no wants. Their wants are confined to their dwellings, to their food, and to a scanty portion of clothing, all of which they can have from the soil that they tread upon.” $^1$

Sir John Malcolm, who had lived a good deal among the people of India, and knew them as few Englishmen have known them since, bore high testimony to the many virtues of the nation. Speaking of Northern India, he said: “The Hindoo inhabitants are a race of men, generally speaking, not more distinguished by their lofty stature . . . than they are for some of the finest qualities of the mind; they are brave, generous, and humane, and their truth is as remarkable as their courage.” And replying to the question as to whether they were likely to be consumers of British goods, he replied: “They are not likely to become consumers of European articles, because they do not possess the means to purchase them, even if, from their simple habits of life and attire, they required them.” $^2$

Graeme Mercer, who had served the East India Company as a doctor, and also in the revenue and political departments, described the people of India as “mild in their dispositions, polished in their general manners, in their domestic relations kind and affectionate, submissive to authority, and peculiarly attached to their religious tenets, and to the observance of the rites and ceremonies prescribed by those tenets.” And in reference to the introduction of European goods in India he stated that Lord Wellesley had endeavoured to find markets for such goods by instituting fairs in Rohilkhand, exhibiting British woollens in those fairs, and by directing the British Resident to attend the great fair at Hardwar with the same object.¹

But the most important witness examined by the Committee of the House of Commons on this memorable occasion was Thomas Munro; and the whole of his evidence was inspired by that sympathy with the people of India and that appreciation of their virtues which had distinguished that gifted Scotchman during his twenty-seven years’ work in India, from 1780 to 1807.

Munro said that the average wages of agricultural labour in India was between 4s. and 6s. a month; that the cost of subsistence was between 18s. and 27s. a head per annum; that there was no probability of extending the sale of British woollen goods, because the people used coarse woollen of their own manufacture; and that they were excellent manufacturers, and were likely to imitate English goods. Asked if Hindu women were not slaves to their husbands, Munro replied, “They have as much influence in their families as, I imagine, the women have in this country” [England]. And asked if the civilisation of the Hindus could not be improved by the establishment of an open trade, he gave that memorable answer which has often been quoted and will bear repetition: “I do not understand what is meant by the civilisation of the Hindus; in the higher branches of science, in the knowledge of the theory and practice of good government, and in education which, by banishing prejudice and superstition, opens the mind to receive instruction of every kind from every quarter, they are much inferior to Europeans. But if a good system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a capacity to produce whatever can contribute to convenience or luxury; schools established in every village for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic; the general practice of hospitality and charity amongst each other; and above all, a treatment of the female sex full of confidence, respect, and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilized people, then the Hindus are not inferior to the nations of Europe; and if civilisation is to become an article of trade between the two countries, I am convinced that this country [England] will gain by the import cargo.“¹

Munro had a high idea of the excellence of the Indian manufactures of his time. Among the causes which precluded the extended sale of British goods in India he mentioned “the religious and civil habits of the natives, and more than anything else, I am afraid, the excellence of their own manufactures.” He had used an Indian shawl for seven years, and had found very little difference in it after that long use; while, with regard to imitation shawls produced in England, he said: “I have never seen an European shawl that I would use, even if it were given to me as a present.“²

The evidence of one other witness deserves mention, that of John Stracey. He had served the East India Company in the Judicial Department, and as Under-Secretary to Government on the Bengal Establishment, and he deposed that the Indian labourer earned from 3s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. a month. How could such a nation use European goods? “I do not know that they use anything in their ordinary use from Europe, except it is some small woollens and broad cloths which they may have accidentally got at a cheap rate.“³

Inquiries like these fairly disclosed the objects of the House of Commons Committee. It is not in human nature for any race of men to sacrifice their own interests for those of another; and the British statesmen in the early years of the nineteenth century did all they could to promote British industries at the sacrifice of Indian industries. British manufactures were forced into India through the agency of the Company’s Governor-General and Commercial Residents, while Indian manufactures were shut out from England by prohibitive tariffs. The evidence of John Ranking, a merchant, examined by the Commons Committee, will explain this.

“Can you state what is the ad valorem duty on piece-goods sold at the East India House?”

“The duty on the class called calicoes is £3, 6s. 8d. per cent. upon importation, and if they are used for home consumption there is a further duty of £68, 6s. 8d. per cent.

“There is another class called muslins, on which the duty on importation is 10 per cent., and if they are used for home consumption, of £27, 6s. 8d. per cent.

“There is a third class, coloured goods, which are prohibited being used in this country, upon which there is a duty upon importation of £3, 6s. 8d. per cent.; they are only for exportation.

“This session of Parliament there has been a new duty of 20 per cent. on the consolidated duties, which will make the duties on calicoes . . . used for home consumption, £78, 6s. 8d. per cent., upon the muslins for home consumption, £31, 6s. 8d.”

There was no thought of concealing the real object of these prohibitive duties. The same witness, John Ranking said, further on, “I look upon it as a protecting duty to encourage our own manufactures.“¹

What was the result of these duties on Indian manufactures? Henry St. George Tucker, whose name has been mentioned in a previous chapter in connection with land settlements in Northern India, retired to England ripe in Indian experience, and became a Director of the East India Company; and he did not conceal the scope and the effect of England’s commercial policy towards India. Writing in 1823, i.e. only ten years after the date of the Parliamentary inquiry referred to above, he condemned that policy in the strongest manner.

“What is the commercial policy which we have adopted in this country with relation to India? The silk manufactures and its piece-goods made of silk and cotton intermixed have long since been excluded altogether from our markets; and of late, partly in consequence of the operation of a duty of 67 per cent., but chiefly from the effect of superior machinery, the cotton fabrics, which hitherto constituted the staple of India, have not only been displaced in this country, but we actually export our cotton manufactures to supply a part of the consumption of our Asiatic possessions. India is thus reduced from the state of a manufacturing to that of an agricultural country.”¹

Still more emphatic is the impartial verdict of H. H. Wilson, historian of India.

“It is also a melancholy instance of the wrong done to India by the country on which she has become dependent. It was stated in evidence [in 1813] that the cotton and silk goods of India up to the period could be sold for a profit in the British market at a price from 50 to 60 per cent. lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70 and 80 per cent. on their value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could scarcely have been again set in motion, even by the power of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of the Indian manufacture. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated, would have imposed prohibitive duties upon British goods, and would thus have preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self-defense was not permitted her; she was at the mercy of the stranger. British goods were forced upon her without paying any duty, and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not have contended on equal terms.“¹

While such was the policy pursued in England to discourage Indian manufactures, the system pursued in India did not tend to improve them. The revenues of the country were spent on the Company’s Investments, i.e. on the purchase of Indian goods for exportation and sale in Europe without any commercial return. How much of the country’s revenues was applied in this manner will appear from the following list ²:

Table

The method pursued in supplying these Investments was this. On being informed of the amount required by the Directors, the Board of Trade in India forwarded a copy of the order to the several factories where the goods were produced. The Commercial Residents at the factories divided the order among the several subordinate factories, and required the weavers to attend on a specified day to receive advances. Each weaver was debited for the advance made to him, and credited for the deliveries he made. If the weavers objected to the rate, the Board of Trade decided the matter according to its own judgment.¹

How this system was frequently abused appears from the evidence of many witnesses examined by the Commons Committee in 1813. Thomas Munro deposed that in the Baramahal the Company’s servants assembled the principal weavers and placed a guard over them until they entered into engagements to supply the Company only.² When once a weaver accepted an advance he seldom got out of his liability. A peon was placed over him to quicken his deliveries if he delayed, and he was liable to be prosecuted in the courts of justice. The sending of a peon meant a fine of one anna (about 1½d.) a day on the weaver, and the peon was armed with a rattan, which was not unoften used to good purpose. Fine was sometimes imposed on the weavers, and their brass utensils were seized for its recovery.³ The whole weaving population of villages were thus held in subjection to the Company’s factories; and Mr. Cox deposed that 1500 weavers, not including their families and connections, were under his authority in the factory over which he presided.

The control under which the weaver population was held was not merely a matter of practice, but was legalised by Regulations. It was provided that a weaver who had received advances from the Company “shall on no account give to any other persons what-ever, European or Native, either the labour or the produce engaged to the Company;” that on his failing to deliver the stipulated cloths, “the Commercial Resident shall be at liberty to place peons upon him in order to quicken his deliveries;” that on his selling his cloths to others the weaver “shall be liable to be prosecuted in the Dewani Adalat;” that “weavers possessed of more than one loom, and entertaining one or more workmen, shall be subject to a penalty of 35 per cent.on the stipulated price of every piece of cloth that they may fail to deliver according to the written agreement;” that landlords and tenants “are enjoined not to hinder the Commercial Residents or their officers from access to weavers;” and that they “are strictly prohibited from behaving with disrespect to the Commercial Residents” of the Company.¹

Manufactures do not flourish when manufacturers are held under any sort of thraldom. But the worst result of this system was that, while the Company’s servants assumed such power and authority over the manufacturers of India, other Europeans often assumed larger powers and used them with less restraint.

“The Englishman,” said Warren Hastings, “is quite a different character in India; the name of an Englishman is both his protection and a sanction for offences which he would not dare to commit at home.”

“There is one general consequence,” said Lord Teignmouth, “which I should think likely to result from a general influx of Europeans into the interior of the country and their intercourse with the natives, that, without elevating the character of the natives, it would have a tendency to depreciate their estimate of the general European character.”

“I find no difference in traders,” said Thomas Munro, “whether their habits are quiet or not when they quit this country; they are very seldom quiet when they find themselves among an unresisting people over whom they can exercise their authority, for every trader going into India is considered as some person connected with the Government. I have heard that within these two or three years, I think in Bengal in 1810, private traders, indigo merchants, have put inhabitants of the country in the stocks, have assembled their followers and given battle to each other, and that many have been wounded.”

“I have always observed,” said Thomas Sydenham, “that Englishmen are more apt than those of any other nation to commit violences in foreign countries, and this I believe to be the case in India.“¹

So frequent were the acts of violence committed by European traders and indigo planters in the interior of the country in the early years of the nineteenth century, that the Government was compelled to issue circulars to magistrates on the subject. In a circular dated 13th July 1810 it was stated :

" The offences to which the following remarks refer, and which have been established, beyond all doubt or dispute, against individual indigo planters, may be reduced to the following heads :

" First, Acts of violence which, although they amount not in the legal sense of the word to murder, have occasioned the death of natives.

" Second, The illegal detention of the natives in confinement, specially in stocks, with a view to the recovery of balances alleged to be due from them, or for other causes.

“Third, Assembling in a tumultuary manner the people attached to their respective factories, and others, and engaging in violent affrays with other indigo planters.

“Fourth, Illicit infliction of punishment, by means of rattan or otherwise, on the cultivators or other natives.”

And the circular directed magistrates to cause the destruction of the stocks, to report cases of flogging and inflicting corporal punishment on the cultivators, and to prevent European planters residing in the interior unless they conformed with the spirit of the Government orders. A further circular, issued on the 20th July 1810, directed magistrates to report cases in which indigo planters compelled the cultivators to receive advances, and adopted illicit means to compel them to cultivate indigo.¹

The oppression of indigo planters in Bengal continued, however, for half a century, until the people of Bengal rose and resisted, and the cultivation of indigo by European planters terminated in most parts of Bengal after the Indigo disturbance of 1859.

Dina Bandhu Mitra, the greatest dramatist of Bengal, exposed the oppression of the planters in his memorable drama, entitled “The Mirror of Indigo.” The Rev. James Long was fined and imprisoned by the High Court of Calcutta for translating this work into English. And the name of Ashley Eden, afterwards Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, is gratefully remembered by the people for his endeavours to put a stop to this oppression.

A special law, which is called the “Slave Law” by the people of India, still exists for providing labourers for the cultivation of tea in Assam; ignorant men and women are bound down by penal clauses, upon their signing a contract, to work in tea gardens for a number of years; and the utmost endeavours of the Chief Commissioner of Assam during the present year (1901) have failed to secure for these poor labourers an adequate pay during their enforced stay in the gardens. But we must return to our narrative of 1813.

The parliamentary inquiries of 1813 brought no relief to Indian manufacturers. The prohibitive duties were not reduced. The Company’s Investments were not stopped. On the contrary, it was distinctly sanctioned by the Committee of the whole House.

“The whole or part of any surplus that may remain of the above described rents, revenues, and profits, after providing for the several appropriations, and defraying the several charges before mentioned, shall be applied to the provision of the Company’s Investments in India, in remittances to China for the provision of Investments there, or towards the liquidation of debts in India, or such other purposes as the Court of Directors, with the approbation of the Board of Commissioners, shall from time to time direct.” ¹

In the Parliamentary debates of 1813, says the historian, H. H. Wilson, “professions of a concern for the interests of India were, it is true, not unsparingly uttered, but it would be difficult to show that the majority of the party who engaged in the discussion were solely instigated by a disinterested regard for the welfare of the Indian subjects of the Crown. . . . The merchants and manufacturers of the United Kingdom avowedly looked only to their own profits.” ²

The real object of the Parliamentary inquiry of 1813 was to promote the interests of the manufacturers of England. Napoleon Bonaparte had excluded British manufactures from the Continental ports; the merchants and manufacturers of England were labouring under difficulties; the country was menaced with distress unless some new vent for the sale of its industrial products could be discovered. Under these circumstances the national demand against the monopoly of the East India Company increased in force, and the monopoly of the Company’s trade with India was abolished when their Charter was renewed in 1813. British traders thus obtained, for the first time, a free outlet into the great field of India; it was not in human nature that they should concern themselves much with the welfare of Indian manufacturers.

Footnotes

¹ General Letter dated 17th March 1769.

² Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated 4th May 1813.

$^1$ Minutes of Evidence, &c., on the Affairs of the East India Company

(1813), p. 3. The opinion of Warren Hastings about the general character of the people of India, expressed before the Lords’ Committee,

has been quoted in chapter iii. of this work.

$^2$ Ibid., pp. 54 and 57.

¹ Regulation xxxi. of 1793.