East India Company—Early struggles—Rival company—Private
traders—Coalition effected—Their trade, 1741-1748, and
continued difficulties up to 1773—Their form of charter—Rates
of freight—Gross earnings—Evidence of Sir Richard Hotham before
the Committee of Inquiry—The effect of his evidence—Reduction of
duties, August 1784—Extent of tea trade—Opposition of independent
shipowners—India-built ships admitted to the trade—Board of
Control established, 1784—Value of the trade, 1796—Charter
renewed, with important provisions, from 1796 to 1814—Restrictions
on private traders—East India Company’s shipping, 1808-1815—The
trade partially opened—Jealousy of free-traders—Efforts of
the free-traders at the out-ports—Comparative cost of East
India Company’s ships and of other vessels—Opposition to the
employment of the latter—_Earl of Balcarras_—Her crew—Actions
fought by the ships of the Company—Conditions of entering the
service—Uniforms—Discipline—Promotion—Pay and perquisites—Abuse
of privileges—Direct remuneration of commanders—Provisions and
extra allowances—Illicit trade denounced by the Court, and
means adopted to discover the delinquents—Connivance of the
officers of the Customs—Pensions, and their conditions—Internal
economy of the ships—Watches and duties—Amusements—Gun
exercise—Courts-martial—Change in the policy of the East India
Company—Results of free-trade with India, and of the Company’s
trading operations—China trade thrown open, 1832-1834—Company
abolished, 1858—Retiring allowances to commanders and
officers—Compensations and increased pensions granted—Remuneration
of the directors—Their patronage.
[Sidenote: Early struggles.]
We have already noticed the difficulties English navigators had to
encounter in their earliest endeavours to gain a share of the lucrative
trade which, after the discoveries of Vasco de Gama, the Portuguese
carried on with India, and their long struggles against them and the
Dutch East India Company, who shared it with them for more than a
century, thus maintaining a virtual monopoly of the commerce of the
East. Nor were the English any more successful when the Pope’s Bull
ceasing to have effect induced the government of England to grant
to the few merchants and shipowners we have named the charter of
incorporation,[359] for the purpose of encouraging the systematic
development of that valuable trade. Although the charter gave to the
association an exclusive monopoly of the commercial intercourse between
England and India, besides numerous special privileges, the directors
had considerable difficulty in obtaining the requisite capital to
equip their first expedition.[360] Indeed, their success, as a whole,
for many years afterwards, though occasionally considerable, was
not equivalent to the risk they encountered; and even when they had
secured factories or depôts at Surat and settlements in Bengal, their
prosperity was of so variable and unstable a character that their
charter had to be frequently renewed with increasing privileges.
But it is unnecessary to further trace the varying fortunes of the
East India Company[361] since the Revolution, or the origin of the
clamour against their monopoly. Suffice it to state that the charges of
delinquency and mismanagement which were brought against the directors
and employés induced the House of Commons, re-echoing the feeling out
of doors, to send up, in 1692, an address to the Crown requesting the
immediate dissolution of the Company, and praying for the incorporation
of a new association.
[Sidenote: Private traders.]
However, it was not until 1698 that the government, being in want of
money, resolved to throw the trade of India open to the highest bidder.
The existing Company was outbid by another association, whose tender to
supply two millions sterling was accepted, and an Act passed embodying
it under the name of “The English Company trading to the East Indies,”
with exclusive possession of the commerce of the East for ever;
subject only to the right of the Old Company to continue to trade for
three years longer. But the Old Company, having through its treasurer
subscribed for and obtained 315,000_l._ of the loan, became the largest
shareholders in the new and rival body. The greatest confusion of
conflicting interests consequently ensued. There was the Old Company,
trading with its vessels for three years, and at the expiration of that
period to be left in legal possession of all its forts and factories
in India, besides whatever privileges it had acquired in the East from
the native authorities, while, secondly, there was the New Company in
the field, but without any Indian possessions whatever, and opposed by
a rival body seeking its destruction, and wielding a controling power
over its operations. Thirdly, there were a few subscribers to the late
loan, who had declined to join the New Company, but who, by the terms
of the original contract with the government, were, nevertheless,
entitled to trade each for himself, so long as the two millions
remained unpaid; and, lastly, there were such private traders as had
cleared out from England previously to the 1st of July, 1698, who had a
right, in virtue of a clause in the Act, to carry on their trade till
they should think fit to return to England. No fewer than sixty ships
were employed by these rival traders; a number far in excess of the
requirements of the trade, so that the first effects of the competition
were ruinous to all parties concerned.
The 100_l._ shares of the Old Company fell to 37_l._; and their
rivals being in no better position tended further to exasperate the
two companies, whose animosities divided the whole kingdom into two
parties, the Old Company being supported by the Tories, and the New
by the Whigs. At the dissolution of Parliament in 1700, each party
spent enormous sums to procure the election of their friends, and the
nation was in a ferment about the contention between them. At length,
in July 1702, a tripartite indenture was executed, wherein Queen Anne,
with the Old Company and the New Company jointly concerned, became the
contracting parties.[362]
[Sidenote: Coalition effected.]
Satisfactory estimates were taken of the value of the possessions
in India of both companies, and adjusted accordingly. Various minor
arrangements were made, and after a period of seven years the new
association was inaugurated with the title “The United Company of
Merchants of England trading to the East Indies;” and thus, in 1708,
that powerful body was restored, or rather recreated, which became
ultimately possessors of a considerable portion of the vast continent
of India, and rulers over more than a hundred million people.
[Sidenote: Their trade, 1741-1748, and continued difficulties]
But this united Company was frequently opposed. In 1730 the merchants
of Bristol and Liverpool, with other capitalists resident in London,
made vigorous efforts to prevent the government from granting a renewal
of the Company’s charter, under an impression that its profits were
enormous. Such may have been the case in some branches of their trade,
or in special years; but it afterwards appeared that, on an average
of eight years, ending 1741, the value of British goods and products
of all sorts exported by the Company to India and China amounted to
only 157,944_l._ per annum, while the average annual value of imports
during the seven years ending 1748 was not more than 188,176_l._;[363]
so that their profits as merchants could not have been large, unless
the percentage of gain was excessive upon the amount of business
they transacted. Some of their servants, no doubt, realised immense
fortunes, especially when the Company secured possession of large
tracts of land. But the Company itself, not many years afterwards, was
involved in debt and difficulties; and, so far from being able to pay
government the stipulated sum of 400,000_l._ per annum, the directors
were compelled in 1772 to apply to the Treasury for a loan. Indeed,
had it not been for the greatly increased consumption of tea in Great
Britain, the Company at this period would have ceased to carry on any
branch of trade with the East, so that its commercial monopoly would
then have happily come to an end.
[Sidenote: up to 1773.]
[Sidenote: Their form of charter.]
[Sidenote: Rates of freight.]
A secret committee of Parliament[364] was, however, appointed to
inquire into the mode in which the business of the Company had been
managed, and from its proceedings some valuable information may be
obtained with regard to the trade of the East at this period, and
the mode in which shipping business of the highest class was then
conducted. As the chief object of the inquiry seems to have been
to ascertain if the Company could build and navigate ships at less
cost than they could be chartered, the rates of freight, size of
vessels, the conditions of charter, and other matters came under the
consideration of the committee. The charter-party was exceedingly
voluminous.[365] In it the Company covenanted with the shipowners
that no vessel was to carry less than four hundred and ninety-nine
tons at the rate therein specified, including eighty tons of iron
kentledge[366] for the purpose of ballast. It further provided that
notwithstanding “the ship is let to freight for four hundred and
ninety-nine tons, yet the Company may, if they think fit, lade what
more they please,” at certain rates. The rates of freight varied. For
instance, from China the freights on rough goods were 24_l._ per ton in
1753; 37_l._ in 1760; and 29_l._ in 1772. Fine goods in the same years
paid 27_l._, 40_l._, and 32_l._ respectively. The freights from Bombay
in these years were somewhat higher; and the rate of demurrage[367] per
day was 12_l._ 2_s._ in 1753, 20_l._ 3_s._ 4_d._ in 1760, and 18_l._
3_s._ in 1772.
[Sidenote: Gross earnings.]
Voluminous accounts were produced of the vessels employed, their
capacity and cost. Those engaged for India in 1772 will suffice to
furnish an illustration. In that year thirty-three ships were employed
by the Company, of twenty-three thousand one hundred and fifty-nine
tons, builder’s measurement, which brought home twenty-one thousand
one hundred and fifty-eight tons of merchandise, the cost of freight
amounting to 457,600_l._, besides an allowance for surplus freight
of 95,390_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._, and 57,733_l._ 11_s._ 4_d._ paid for
demurrage. From a return furnished of the China ships engaged during
the five years preceding 1773, the Company appears to have imported
fifty thousand three hundred and forty-three tons of produce, in
vessels registering forty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-five
tons, builder’s measurement.
[Sidenote: Evidence of Sir Richard Hotham before the Committee of
Inquiry.]
[Sidenote: The effect of his evidence.]
Among the witnesses who appeared before the committee, there was no
one more intelligent than Sir Richard Hotham, an eminent shipowner,
who declared that the existing mode of freighting ships by the Company
was absurd, and that their charter-party was one of the most useless
for the purpose that could possibly be conceived. Analysing the whole
system, and the clumsy and expensive mode in which they conducted their
business, he gave the following particulars of what they actually paid
for carriage on every ton of produce imported from the East:—
£ _s._ _d._
80 tons of kentledge, at the fixed
rate of 9_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ per ton 773 6 4
11 tons of China ware, at the chartered
rate of 29_l._ per ton 319 0 0
393 tons of tea and silk, at the chartered
rate of 32_l._ per ton 12,576 0 0
15 tons, private trade, at the chartered
rate of 32_l._ per ton 480 0 0
--- ------ - -
499 14,148 6 4
[Illustration: THE ‘THAMES’ EAST INDIAMAN, 1360 TONS REGISTER, 25 GUNS,
AND 130 MEN.
E. W. COOKE, R.A.]
Or equal to 32_l._ 10_s._ per ton, after the freight on kentledge had
been deducted; and he showed how a saving could be effected in the cost
of freightage on the vessels employed, from China alone, of upwards of
43,000_l._ annually.[368] Sir Richard offered to bring goods from any
part of the East at twenty guineas per ton, and this offer, combined
with other important facts which had been adduced in evidence,
produced at the time various changes in the mode of conducting the
chartering and loading of their vessels. The Company also resolved to
construct vessels of a larger class for their own use, vessels which
became famous in more modern times, of which we furnish an illustration
of one of the latest on the preceding page.
[Sidenote: Reduction of duties, August 1784.]
[Sidenote: Extent of tea trade.]
Though the operations of the Company as traders continued in full force
for ten years after this inquiry, its shipping business underwent
very considerable changes by reason of Mr. Pitt’s judicious reduction
of the duties on various Indian productions,[369] especially on tea;
the duty on which was then reduced from 120 to 12½ per cent. _ad
valorem_. High duties had been found to encourage smuggling,[370] and
divert the trade from England to continental nations. Although in
the nine years preceding 1780 the importation of tea from China to
Europe amounted to 118,783,811 lbs., only 50,759,451 lbs. out of that
quantity had been imported in vessels belonging to or chartered by the
Company. But the change in the duty effected a revolution, and the
sales and importations of tea by the Company were trebled. Their export
trade also increased, and in 1789 they began to ship tin to China for
the first time. Whilst the value of their exports in 1784 was only
418,747_l._, in twenty-seven ships, it rose in 1792 to 1,031,262_l._,
employing forty-three vessels. On the other hand, the quantity of
bullion despatched to the East materially declined. During the same
period the “private trade” carried on by the commanders and officers of
the Company’s ships, and by the merchants holding licences who resided
in India, rose from 144,176_l._ of imports in 1783, to 400,784_l._ in
1794,[371] and increased to no less than double that amount in the
following ten years.
[Sidenote: Opposition of independent shipowners.]
The Liverpool and Bristol shipowners now began to agitate still further
for a participation in the East India trade. The Company, however,
having obtained fresh capital, were thus enabled, combined with other
causes, to secure a renewed lease of exclusive commercial power, which
now virtually extended over Europe, and was not overthrown until many
years afterwards. The Dutch East India Company having incurred enormous
losses, and the other companies having either relinquished the business
or declined to such a point as to render their rivalry no longer
dangerous, left the trade of the East to a large extent in the hands of
the English. In 1789 the Portuguese, who once engrossed the whole of
the oriental trade, had but three ships at Canton, the Dutch five, the
French one, the Danes one, the United States of America fifteen, and
the English East India Company forty, while British subjects residing
in India had a similar number. Moreover, a very considerable portion of
the trade of the East was then conducted in Indian ships, owned by the
natives, by whom as many voyages were undertaken from India to China,
and from the coast of Malabar to the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, as
in the days before the passage to Europe by the Cape of Good Hope had
been discovered.
[Sidenote: India-built ships admitted to the trade.]
It was not, however, until 1795 that India-built vessels were permitted
to convey goods to London. In the course of that year a great number of
the Company’s ships having been employed in the service of the English
government, instructions were sent to the Presidencies to engage
vessels of India build at 16_l._ per ton for rice and other dead-weight
stowage, and 20_l._ for light goods to the Thames, with liberty to take
back on their own account whatever merchandise they pleased to the
territories of the Company, or to any place within the limits of its
charter.
Many of them having been constructed on speculation, under an
impression that they would be permanently employed, although warned by
Lord Cornwallis to the contrary, their owners were greatly disappointed
when they found that after the immediate wants of the government and
the Company had been satisfied their services were no longer required.
English shipowners in the service of the Company inflexibly maintained
their monopoly, and having secured stipulations for a number of voyages
during successive years, they successfully opposed for a time any
innovation of a permanent character upon their chartered rights. The
contest, however, which arose between the independent merchants of
England, who had combined with the owners of native shipping against
the Company on this point, induced the Directors to make various
concessions, which were the prelude to the opening of the trade at a
future period.
[Sidenote: Board of Control established, 1784.]
But, apart from this combination, the Act of Mr. Pitt, passed in
1784, constituting a Board of Control to superintend the affairs of
the Company, had paved the way for many changes. This board consisted
of six members of the Privy Council, who were to superintend, check,
and control all operations and concerns in any way relating to the
civil and military government or the revenues of the territory and
possessions of the Company; and the Act further provided that all
communications to or from India touching the above matters were to
be submitted to this Board of Control, the Directors reserving to
themselves power to amend their instructions. A secret committee of
three directors was formed, with which the Board of Control might
transact any business it did not choose to submit to the Court of
Directors, and to whom persons returning from India were required,
under severe penalties, to declare the amount of their fortunes; while
a tribunal was constituted which had for its sole object the trial
of any person accused of misconduct in India, consisting of a judge
of each of the three chief law-courts in England, of five peers and
seven members of the House of Commons, the last being chosen by lot at
the commencement of each session. Although the Directors were left to
superintend their shipping and commercial affairs, as they had hitherto
done, the Board of Control exercised an indirect influence over their
proceedings both at home and in India.
[Sidenote: Value of the trade, 1796.]
During the three years ending 1796, the value of the Company’s exports
of British produce and manufactures fluctuated from 928,783_l._ to
1,031,262_l._; but this increase may be attributed mainly, if not
wholly, to the great reductions which the Act of 1784 had effected in
the duties on tea, and the vast increase which consequently took place
in its consumption.
[Sidenote: Charter renewed, with important provisions, from 1796 to
1814.]
When, in 1796, the Company’s charter was again renewed, the important
provision was made that all his Majesty’s subjects, residing in any
part of his European dominions, were to be allowed to export to India
any article of the produce or manufacture of the country where they
resided, except military stores, ammunition, masts, spars, cordage,
pitch, tar, and copper, and the Company’s civil servants in India, as
well as the free merchants resident there, were permitted to ship,
on their own account and risk, all kinds of Indian goods, except
calicoes, dimities, muslins, and other piece goods. But so jealous
were the Directors of competition in their commercial operations, that
they prevailed on the government to insert various clauses in the
new charter whereby neither the merchants of India nor of England
generally, nor any of the Company’s servants, were allowed to export
or import except in ships belonging to or chartered by the Company;
appropriating, however, under various restrictions, three thousand tons
of space in their ships for the use of private traders, at the reduced
rate, in time of peace, of 5_l._ outwards, and 15_l._ homewards, for
every ton occupied by them in the Company’s ships, but stipulating
that this rate of freight might be increased in time of war by the
approbation of the Board of Control.
[Sidenote: Restrictions on private traders.]
“It might have been,” remarks Mr. M’Culloch,[372] “and indeed was most
probably foreseen, that very few British merchants or manufacturers
would be inclined to avail themselves of the privilege of sending out
goods in the Company’s ships, or of engaging in a trade fettered on all
sides by the jealousy of powerful monopolists, and where consequently
their superior judgment and economy would have availed almost nothing.
As far therefore as they (the English merchants) were concerned, the
relaxation was more apparent than real, and did not produce any useful
results.” Indeed Lord Melville quotes, from a letter written by the
Marquess of Hastings to the Company, dated 21st of March, 1812, the
following passage, “It will not be denied that the facilities granted
by that Act (the Act of 1796) have not been satisfactory, at least to
the merchants of this country or of India. They have been the source
of constant dispute, and they have even entailed a heavy expenditure
upon the Company without affording to the public any adequate benefit
for such a sacrifice.”[373] This privilege was, however, made use of
to a considerable extent by private merchants in India, and also by
the Company’s servants returning from India, many of whom invested a
portion or the whole of their fortunes in the produce of India suited
for the English markets.
Notwithstanding the privileges secured by the Act of 1796, and
the superintendence of the Board of Control, the finances of the
Company again fell into the same unprosperous state in which they
had previously been, although accounts of a large surplus revenue
to be immediately derived from India were issued from time to time
to the public, and various Acts of Parliament were passed for the
appropriation of surpluses which never had any existence except in the
imagination of the persons who framed them!
[Sidenote: East India Company’s shipping, 1808-1815.]
The wars in which they had been engaged with the Mahrattas, and other
powers in the East, although they had terminated in a vast accession
of territory, did not add to the pecuniary resources of the Company,
and were consequently disapproved of at home. During 1808 and 1809 they
were particularly unfortunate, having lost in those two years four
outward-bound and ten homeward-bound ships[374], the cargoes of these
vessels, with the advances made to the owners, including 60,729_l._,
the value of one of the ships which belonged to the Company amounting
to no less than 1,048,077_l._ The calamities of the French war had
also reached the Company, which suffered by the deficiency in the
amount of their sales at home, partly in consequence of a reduced
demand for Indian produce and manufactures, but chiefly on account
of the convulsed state of Europe, and the interdiction of commercial
intercourse with almost every country of the Continent to which
previously their goods were exported.
[Sidenote: The trade partially opened.]
Happily in 1814 the trade of the Company, for so many years jealously
guarded as a strict monopoly, was thrown entirely open to private
competition, in so far as respected the Indian continent, although the
exclusive trade to China, deemed by far the most lucrative at the time,
was still preserved, in spite of the efforts of Manchester, Glasgow,
and Bristol to open it to the general competition of all classes.
Several sensible men in the House of Commons urged upon the Company the
policy of throwing open the whole trade to the enterprise of private
shipowners and merchants, arguing that the affairs of the Company
would be benefited, rather than prejudiced, by such an arrangement;
but the interests of private individuals connected with the Company
predominated both with the government and with Parliament.
[Sidenote: Jealousy of free-traders.]
The consideration of this Bill occupied the entire session of 1813, and
in its conditions[375] may be traced the slow effects of the efforts
of the free-traders to procure the total overthrow of the Company’s
privileges in respect of shipping. Such was the jealousy with which
these were viewed, that Mr. Baring moved an amendment to one of the
resolutions confining the return of vessels from India to the port
of London, though holding out the idea that this restriction was to
be limited to five years. The mercantile men in the House of Commons
supported the amendment, upon the ground that such a restriction would
operate to the better security of the revenue, and would offer a more
convenient market for foreigners. One speaker, Mr. Thornton, laughed at
the pretensions of the out-ports to share in the trade, which in the
same breath he pronounced delusive as regarded the profits to be made
in it.[376]
[Sidenote: Efforts of the free-traders at the out-ports.]
But the people of the out-ports did not show any disposition to be
deluded by these inconsistent arguments. They stood up stoutly for
their own interests, and for the cause of free-trade. They considered
themselves quite as well qualified as any of the East India directors
to form a judgment how far a trade with the East could be carried on
with profit by their own vessels.
[Sidenote: Comparative cost of East India Company’s ships and other
vessels.]
Indeed the fact was beyond all dispute that the cost of the ships
fitted out by the East India Company was thirty, forty, and even fifty
per cent. greater than those of private shipowners. It was credibly
stated that the Company paid for their vessels 40_l._ per ton, while
more suitable vessels could be built and equipped for 25_l._ per ton.
The Company’s ships were, it was admitted, fitted up very expensively
for their passengers, but it was denied that this was necessary for the
purpose of carrying goods and produce to or from India. On the other
hand, the supporters of the East India Company’s monopoly inquired, and
with considerable reason, whether any ship could be built and equipped
for 25_l_. per ton which would be as capable of contending against an
enemy as were the ships of the Company, or if such private ships would
be fit for the service of the country during war.[377]
[Sidenote: Opposition to the employment of the latter.]
It is, however, interesting and amusing, if not instructive, to look
back and reflect upon some of the arguments employed by the champions
of monopoly in behalf of their own interests. They pretended that it
was only out of regard to the shipowners of the out-ports, to protect
them from the dangerous speculation into which they were about to
precipitate themselves and their capital, that they desired all East
India trading ships should by law be compelled to come to London. It
was only to slip in between the rashness of adventurers and their
ruin that they supported the measure; it was not to uphold monopoly;
it was not to exclude the rest of the country from participating in
the benefits of the Eastern trade; the opposition to the out-ports
all sprang from pure benevolence, pure kindness and mercy! Such was
the folly and blindness of the great merchants who supported the
ultra claims of the Company. The shrewd men of the out-ports did not,
however, appreciate such unexampled patriotism, and so struggled for
their privileges, such as they were. But the difficulty with which
they obtained these small concessions indicates how deeply rooted the
principles of monopoly had become during a period of two hundred
years; nor was it till many years afterwards that any material progress
was made in the commerce of England with the East.
The number of ships employed by the Company varied now quite as much
as in former years. In the “season” of 1809-10 they despatched to
their different stations in Bengal, Madras, Bombay, China, Ceylon, and
Penang forty-seven ships, measuring thirty-two thousand five hundred
tons; and in the season of 1819-20 twenty-three vessels, measuring
twenty-six thousand two hundred tons, besides twenty-one vessels which
they had chartered, of ten thousand nine hundred and forty-eight
tons; whereas, in 1829-30 they only despatched twenty ships belonging
to or permanently engaged by the Company, and twelve which they had
chartered.[378]
[Sidenote: _Earl of Balcarras._]
[Sidenote: Her crew.]
[Sidenote: Actions fought by the ships of the Company.]
On the following page we furnish an illustration of another of the
largest and finest vessels belonging to the Company. This ship, the
_Earl of Balcarras_, built in 1815, registered one thousand four
hundred and seventeen tons, and was manned by a crew of one hundred
and thirty men, consisting of the commander, six mates, a surgeon and
his assistant, six midshipmen, purser, boatswain, gunner, carpenter,
master-at-arms, armourer, butcher, baker, poulterer, caulker, cooper,
two stewards, two cooks, eight boatswains, gunner’s, carpenter’s,
caulker’s, and cooper’s mates, six quartermasters, one sail-maker,
seven servants appropriated to the commander and leading officers,
and seventy-eight seamen. The crews of ships of from eight hundred
to thirteen hundred tons register varied from one hundred and two to
one hundred and thirty men, or nearly four times the number required
for merchant sailing-vessels of similar size of the present day. But
the vessels of the East India Company combined many of the requisites
of ships of war, and gained numberless laurels in many a gallant and
hard-fought action.[379]
[Illustration: EAST INDIA COMPANY’S SHIP ‘EARL OF BALCARRAS.’]
[Sidenote: Conditions of entering the service.]
[Sidenote: Uniforms.]
Five supernumeraries beyond the crew were allowed to each ship, two of
whom had the privilege of appearing on the quarter-deck. Penalties were
inflicted for taking on board persons without the permission in writing
of the Company’s agents, varying from 20_l._ for a black servant, up
to 500_l._ for a European; and bonds had to be given by all passengers
bringing native servants from India to bear their expense while in
England, and the cost of their return to that country. Every commander
in the Company’s service was required to be at least twenty-five years
of age, and to have performed, before receiving his appointment as
such, one voyage in the regular service of the Company as chief or
second officer, or to have commanded a ship in the extra service. Chief
mates were required to be twenty-three years of age or upwards, and to
have made a voyage as second or third mate in the service to and from
India or China; second mates must also have performed a similar voyage,
and were not eligible unless they were twenty-two years of age. Third
mates were required to be twenty-one, and to have made two voyages as
midshipmen or otherwise in the Company’s service, whilst the fourth
mate must have reached the age of twenty years, and been a voyage to
or from India and China in a Company’s ship, or in that of any other
service, of which he had to produce satisfactory certificates. Their
uniform, in the case of a commander, consisted, when in full dress, of
a blue coat, black velvet lappels, cuffs and collar, with a bright gold
embroidery “as little expensive as may be;” waistcoat and breeches of
deep buff; the buttons were of yellow-gilt metal, with the Company’s
crest; cocked-hats, side-arms, “to be worn under the coat,” and black
stocks or neckcloths; while the undress consisted of blue coat with
lappels, black collar and cuffs, waistcoat and breeches deep-buff, and
buttons similar to the full-dress suit.
[Sidenote: Discipline.]
Somewhat similar uniforms, though of a less ornamental character, and
without swords, were worn by the chief, second, third, and fourth
officers, but with the distinguishing mark of one, two, three or four
small buttons, respectively, on each cuff of their coats. To preserve
the “utmost uniformity” in the dress, so far as regarded the buff coat
and the gilt buttons, patterns of these were kept for view at the
shipping offices, and at the Jerusalem Coffee House, for the guidance
of the masters and mates of the extra ships engaged by the Company. All
officers in both divisions of the service were strictly enjoined[380]
“not, on any account, to appear in boots, or black breeches and
stockings;” and to be in full-dress uniform when attending the Court
of Directors “on any occasion whatever.” Commanders were especially
required[381] “to keep up the worship of Almighty God” on board their
ships every Sunday when circumstances admitted, and to see that the
log-book contained the reasons for any omission, under a penalty of
two guineas for every omission of mentioning the performance of divine
service or of assigning satisfactory reasons for the non-performance
thereof.
[Sidenote: Promotion.]
With regard to promotions, the Company in their own ships adhered
to the strict rule of seniority, always supposing good character,
conduct, and abilities; and their promotions were made from one ship
to another as vacancies occurred.[382] Commanders were appointed to
ships before they were launched, so that they might superintend their
equipment and outfit for sea. The first appointments of midshipmen
to the ships of the Company were made by the members of the Court of
Directors in succession, according to seniority, so that every member
might have one nomination before any other member had a second; and
no youth was eligible as a midshipman under thirteen or over eighteen
years of age, unless he had been one or two years at sea, when the
admission in the latter case might be extended to the age of twenty.
Assistant surgeons were also nominated by the members of the Court, the
chairman having the first nomination, rising by seniority to surgeons,
if their abilities and conduct were in all respects satisfactory.
The appointment of pursers was left to the commander, subject to the
approval of the Committee of Shipping. When vacancies of any kind
amongst the superior grades of officers occurred abroad, they were
filled up temporarily by the Indian government, the Select Committee
at Canton, or by the commander of the ship in which they occurred. But
the command of a ship was not allowed to be given to an officer who was
not competent, by the rules of the service, for the charge, unless the
vacancy could not be otherwise filled, in accordance with these rules,
at the place where the vacancy happened.[383]
[Sidenote: Pay and perquisites.]
In the Appendix, No. 12, will be found the scale of wages paid in
money to the officers and crew of a ship of eight hundred tons in the
service of the Company, towards the close of the last and during the
early part of this century; but 10_l._ per month to the commander, and
5_l._ per month to the chief mate, very imperfectly represent their
remuneration. So many were their privileges, and so numerous their
perquisites, that during five India or China voyages a captain of
one of the Company’s ships ought to have realised sufficient capital
to be independent for the remainder of his life. Under the head of
“Indulgences,” the Court of Directors, “desiring to give all due and
fitting encouragement to the commanders and officers of ships employed
in their service,”[384] allowed them to participate in the Company’s
exclusive trade by granting to them a certain amount of tonnage space
outwards and homewards in their ships, wherein they might embark, on
their own account, free of freight, any goods or manufactures they
pleased, except “woollens, camlets, and warlike stores,” which goods
the Company thought proper to reserve for their exclusive trade. They
had likewise, in proportion to their rank, the privilege of exporting
bullion to a specified extent. Homewards they could import any articles
they pleased, except tea, China-ware, raw silk, or nankeen cloth from
India; nor were they allowed to import from China raw silk, musk,
camphor, arrack, arsenic, or other poisonous drugs. The quantity of tea
allowed to be imported from China and Bencoolen was limited to 9,336
lbs. for the commander, 1,228 lbs. for the first mate, and 4,668 lbs.
for the other mates, and the boatswain, gunner, and carpenter.
[Sidenote: Abuse of privileges.]
In each ship ninety-seven tons of space was also appropriated to
the commander and officers, including those of a subordinate class,
such as the quartermasters, stewards, cooks, carpenter, boatswain,
gunner, caulker, armourer, and sail-maker; but the commander had the
lion’s share, as his proportion of the whole amounted to no less than
fifty-six and a half tons. They had besides the privilege of importing
in similar proportions China-ware on their own account, provided it
was brought as a flooring to the teas, and did not exceed from twenty
to forty tons, according to the size of the ship. The commanders
likewise received the passage-money of all passengers, except troops,
less the cost of their provisions and wine. They, with the officers,
were further allowed to bring home as much surplus tonnage as their
ships could stow with safety and convenience, not exceeding thirty
tons in each vessel, provided such goods were stowed in places not
allotted to the Company’s cargo, or had not been tendered to them
by the Company’s agents in India or China, or in the event of the
ship not bringing home her expected quantity of goods, provided they
produced satisfactory proof to the Committee of Private Trade that such
deficiency was not occasioned by any default or neglect on their part.
The importation of dunnage[385] appears also to have been a perquisite
or privilege allowed to the commanders and officers; but this seems
to have been abused, as no doubt many other privileges were, for we
find that the Court resolved, “that as large quantities of rattans,
shanghees, canes, bamboos, sapan, or other articles have been brought
home in the Company’s ships, under the denomination of dunnage, far
beyond what is necessary for the protection of the cargo and stores,
occupying tonnage to the exclusion of goods, or cumbering the ship, the
Court have resolved that unless what is brought home of those articles
appears absolutely and _bonâ fide_ necessary for and used as dunnage,
any exceedings of such requisite quantity shall be charged against the
tonnage of the commanders and officers.”[386]
[Sidenote: Direct remuneration of commanders.]
When we take these various privileges and perquisites into
consideration, the _direct_ remuneration to the commander of one of
the Company’s ships, inclusive of his monthly pay must have averaged
from 3,000_l._ to 5,000_l._ each voyage;[387] but considering the
various other privileges and “indulgences” granted to him, and the
opportunities he had for trading on his own account in the export and
import of goods and produce at a time when the fabulously valuable
commerce of India was an exclusive monopoly in the hands of the
Company, we need have no hesitation in estimating the value in many
instances on each voyage of a commander’s appointment at from 8,000_l._
to 10,000_l._, or perhaps a great deal more if he was a shrewd man of
business, and had sufficient capital to fill the space allotted to
him as well as the “dunnage” corners, and “places not allotted to the
Company’s cargo,” or not appropriated by their agents, with goods and
produce of their own.
[Sidenote: Provisions and extra allowances.]
Besides an ample supply of provisions to each ship, the commander
had almost every luxury he could desire provided at the expense of
the Company.[388] He was also allowed to import two pipes of Madeira
wine,[389] which were not reckoned as part of his allowance. The
first mate, besides his proportions of freight and provisions, had as
“indulgences” on each voyage twenty-four dozen of wine or beer, two
firkins of butter, one hundredweight of cheese, one hundredweight of
grocery, and four quarter cases of pickles. The second the same as the
chief, except that his allowance of wine or beer was limited to twenty
dozen; and the other officers in somewhat similar proportions. So that
their appointments, if not so lucrative as that of the commanders, must
have been very desirable and comfortable.
If such were the advantages of the officers in the maritime service
of the Company, what must have been the gains of its civil servants
in India, who appear not to have been limited or controlled to the
same extent in their perquisites or trading privileges. No wonder that
the Company, even with its vast monopoly, found itself frequently in
difficulties, and obliged to seek, especially in the earlier portion of
its career, the assistance of government. Indeed instances sometimes
occurred when the commanders and officers, not having filled their
allotted space with produce of their own, received for it from China
not less than 50_l._ per ton as freight to London; and in one instance
within our own knowledge, the commander of one of the ships employed
on the “double voyage”—that is, from London to India, thence to
China,[390] and thence back to London, where he had a large interest
in the freight on cotton or other produce conveyed from India to
China—realised no less than 30,000_l._
[Sidenote: Illicit trade denounced by the Court,]
But notwithstanding these numerous privileges, the Court of Directors
having frequently received information of an illicit trade carried on
by too many of the officers and commanders of their ships, at last
resolved, with the view of putting an end to practices “so detrimental
to the revenue, the Company, and the fair trader,” to invariably
dismiss from their service any one found guilty of such practices.
Indeed, in the hope of detecting the delinquents, they went so far as
to publish advertisements, wherein they state that “having received
information that great quantities of woollens, camblets, and warlike
stores have been illicitly imported; also great quantities of tea,
muslins, China-ware, diamonds, and other merchandise have been imported
in their ships and smuggled on shore,” they “offer a reward to any
person who shall make a discovery of such offence of one-half of what
the Company shall recover and receive over and above all other rewards
the parties are entitled to by law.”[391]
[Sidenote: and measures adopted to discover the delinquents.]
But these illicit practices appear at one time to have been carried on
not merely in London and at the ports to which the ships of the Company
traded in India and China, but at places in England, Scotland, and
Ireland their ships had no business to be; for the Court of Directors
passed a standing order wherein it was declared that within six weeks
of the clearance of the cargoes of the homeward-bound ships, the
commander and officers were required to attend a joint committee of
private trade and shipping, to whom it was referred to make strict
inquiry into the reasons of any deviations made on the passage to
London, or during any portion of the voyage, and the committee were
enjoined with all convenient speed to report their opinion to the
Court. The Directors further “resolved unanimously” that, as these
illicit practices were shown to have occurred, and were “frequently
carried on” at foreign ports, as well as at out-ports in England,
Ireland, and Scotland, to which the ships proceeded “contrary to the
orders and instructions given to the commanders,” or by “means of
vessels which meet the Company’s ships at sea, and there deliver goods
to, and receive goods from them,” stringent measures should be adopted
to detect the delinquents.[392] It was consequently further ordered
that the clerk to the Committee of Private Trade should within four
weeks of the arrival of each ship collect from her journals, and from
letters and other means of information brought before him, an account
of all the ship’s proceedings “to or towards any port or place, both
outward and homeward, without or contrary to the Company’s orders or
instructions, and of all the ship’s deviations from, or loitering in,
the course of her voyage in the English Channel or elsewhere,” and
report the same in writing to the chairman or deputy chairman, and
also to the Committees of Private Trade and Shipping. If satisfactory
accounts were not given for these deviations, the solicitor to the
Court was instructed to file a bill in the Court of Exchequer against
the commander of the ship or other persons implicated.
[Sidenote: Connivance of the officers of Customs.]
But though deviations for any such purposes must have been difficult
to trace, as so many excuses could be brought forward in the shape
of contrary winds, stress of weather, sickness, loss of spars and
sails, or the necessity of a fresh supply of water and provisions for
the crew and passengers, the Court of Directors appear to have done
everything in their power to discover the delinquents by still further
resolving, that on the arrival of the Company’s ships in the River
Thames the clerk of the Committee of Private Trade was forthwith to
give notice thereof to the Master Attendant or his assistant, or if
they were otherwise previously employed, to the Surveyor of Shipping
or his assistant, to proceed at once on board of the ship, and before
any goods were delivered to carefully examine the state and condition
of her hold, and of every part of the lower decks, and report to the
Committee of Private Trade what vacant space, if any, remained therein
which was fit and proper for the stowage of goods, and also whether
any packages appeared to have been removed or displaced during the
homeward-bound passage. When any vacant space was discovered which
could not be satisfactorily accounted for, the commander was fined in
the sum of 100_l._ for every sixty cubical feet of such vacant space.
But these apparently stringent regulations were somehow or other too
frequently of no avail, especially in cases where the illicit practices
were effected by the connivance of the officers of Customs, or in
various other ways, more easily understood than explained, so that
convictions were too often rendered impossible or impracticable. And
whenever these were made and actions were raised, the “compositions
of such suits, very much to the prejudice of the Company,” were so
frequent that the Court had to request the Commissioners of his
Majesty’s Customs “to be pleased to give an account to its solicitor of
all suits which were pending,” and from time to time “of all suits that
shall hereafter be brought against any of the commanders and officers
of the Company’s ships for practices of smuggling.”[393]
Considering the very high remuneration of the Company’s commanders
and officers, and the very liberal manner in which they were treated,
we should have thought that no one among them would have been guilty
of illegal practices, especially when they were found to be highly
prejudicial to the interests of employers at whose hands they were so
handsomely treated. But such, we fear, must have been the case, towards
the close of the last century, and that to a large extent, or the Court
would not have deemed it necessary to issue such stringent regulations
for their suppression. Happily the class of men, and the high character
of the families to which, as a rule, they belonged, who entered the
service in later years, combined with the rigorous enforcement of the
Company’s regulations, brought about a different state of things, and
put an end to a system which ought never to have prevailed in the best
paid maritime service in the world: and did we not feel bound to record
such instances of wrong and ingratitude, as these official documents
too clearly reveal, we would gladly omit altogether the notice of acts
which reflect great discredit on a class of men otherwise deserving our
respect and our gratitude for the invaluable services they, on more
than one occasion, rendered to their country.
[Sidenote: Pensions, and their conditions.]
But the liberality of the Company was not confined to the most ample
remuneration to their commanders and officers while in active service.
It extended to them in their retirement, and provided for those of
their widows and children who required its aid. In 1800 the Court of
Directors[394] resolved that every commander, officer, seaman, or other
person who had served in any of the Company’s ships, or any of its
freighted vessels, for eight years, and who had regularly contributed
to what was known as the “Poplar Fund,”[395] should be entitled to a
pension, subject to the following conditions: that is to say, where a
commander was not worth 3,000_l._, or did not possess a fixed income of
at least 150_l._ per annum, he became entitled to a pension of 100_l._;
and in cases where the chief or second mate had not 2,000_l._, nor a
clear income of 100_l._, he received a pension of 60_l._ per annum. The
other officers, down to the midshipmen, were also allowed pensions of
from 30_l._ to 18_l._ per annum if they did not possess a certain fixed
income, or were not worth 600_l._ Commanders’ widows who stood in need
of aid received 80_l._ per annum, and 16_l._ for each child under five
years of age; and their orphans were each allowed 33_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._
per annum. In these allowances were included the widows, children, and
orphans of all mates, pursers, surgeons, and midshipmen who had served
in the Company’s own or chartered ships, for the period of eight years;
or who had been killed, or maimed, or wounded in the service, so as to
be rendered incapable of further service at sea.
[Sidenote: Internal economy of the ships.]
[Sidenote: Watches and Duties.]
The internal economy and discipline on board of the Company’s ships
were much more perfect than in any other merchant vessels of the
period. The crew or seamen of each were divided into two watches,
starboard and larboard; the officers into three watches. Each watch
of the former had, during the night, four hours’ rest below, and
four hours’ duty on deck. At half-past six A.M. the watch on deck
commenced to wash and clean decks; at half-past seven the hammocks
were piped up, and stowed in the hammock nettings round the waist
by the quartermasters. At eight o’clock all hands breakfasted, after
which they commenced the ordinary duties of the day. These consisted,
when the men were not required to set, shorten, or trim sails, of work
of the most multifarious description, such as setting up rigging,
shifting or repairing sails, splicing ropes, making spun yarn, weaving
mats, painting, tarring, greasing masts, and so forth. Twice every
week, Wednesdays and Saturdays, they cleaned and holy-stoned[396] the
’tween-decks, in the fore part of which they slept and had their food,
the whole crew being divided into messes of eight men each, who had a
space allotted to them between the guns, where their mess utensils were
arranged. When these cleaning and scouring operations were finished,
the ’tween-decks were carefully inspected by the commander and surgeon,
to see that everything was clean and in order, and that all mess
kids, brass pots, and kettles, tin pannikins, and other utensils were
properly scoured and polished.
On Sunday no work was allowed to be performed except what was urgent
and necessary; and on the morning of that day the crew were mustered
and inspected before assembling at prayers, which every person on
board was expected to attend in his best attire. Dinner was served at
noon; after that the men, on week-days, resumed their work until the
“_dog_ watches,” which commenced at four P.M. These, no doubt, derived
their name from the fact that they were (according to Theodore Hook)
_cur-tailed_, that is, lasted for only two, instead of four hours each
watch, viz., from four to six, and from six to eight, when the crew,
instead of going below to rest, usually employed themselves in sorting
the contents of their sea-chests, or in making or repairing their
clothes, and frequently in games or other amusements, which every good
commander encouraged. On Saturdays, during these hours, if the weather
permitted, they had their dance or songs and music, drinking health
and wealth, long life and happiness to their “wives and sweethearts.”
In harbour the crews of the Company’s ships performed, without the
assistance, as now, of the natives, all the work on board, such as
discharging, loading, and stowing cargo, as well as stripping and
refitting the rigging of their ships, and keeping the boats in order.
In China they rowed guard, on Sundays, among the ships in harbour. One
day every week was allotted to washing their clothes; and once every
month they scrubbed their hammocks. These were known as “washing” days.
[Sidenote: Courts-martial.]
Nor did their duties end here. The Company’s ships were ships of war,
as will be seen by the many gallant actions they fought, as well as
merchantmen. Each of them mounted from twelve to twenty-six guns,
chiefly eighteen-pounders, and the men were drilled to gun-exercise
with almost as much care as the gunners of the royal navy. They had
likewise to go through a regular course of musket, cutlass, and
other small-arms drill, in which they were expected to be thoroughly
efficient, as also in the art of handling the boarding-pike, more
especially for the purpose of defence. Courts-martial were held on
board, as in ships of war, the members of which were composed of the
commander and the four senior or sworn officers, the fourth or junior
mate giving his opinion of what the verdict ought to be before any of
the other members. And when punishments were inflicted, which was too
frequently the case for the most trifling offences, the lash from the
brawny arm of a boatswain’s mate over the bare back and shoulders of
the delinquent was much more severely felt than would have been the
lash of a drummer’s mate. Three dozen of such lashes was no uncommon
punishment.
[Sidenote: Change in the policy of the East India Company.]
The renewal of the Company’s charter in 1814, until 1831, though
granted by Parliament, was, as we have seen, so stoutly opposed by
the representatives in Parliament of the out-ports and the great
manufacturing districts, that various concessions were offered to the
growing intelligence of the people and to their increasing wants. But
the granting of licences and the extension of conditional privileges
did not satisfy the demands of a people who were beginning to ask
their rulers the unanswerable question why they should not be allowed
to purchase what they required in the cheapest markets; and who saw
that though the territory of the Company had increased to an enormous
extent, its commerce, considering the extent of the land and the
richness of the soil now in the Company’s possession, was altogether
insignificant; in a word, that territorial aggrandisement had now
become the _Alpha_ and _Omega_ of the Company’s policy.
[Sidenote: Results of free trade with India,]
Events thoroughly demonstrated the force and truth of these
impressions. In the face of many difficulties, private traders,
whenever they obtained a footing in the trade of the East, were certain
immediately afterwards to secure an ascendancy over the Company in
its trading operations, and in a very short time trebled the trade
of England with the East. Such in this case, as in numerous other
instances, are the effects of individual energy, even when curtailed
and contracted as in the present instance, over monopoly, however
influential and powerful. How indelibly marked are now the footprints
of free-trade in the pages of the commercial history of the East
Indies! In 1814, when the close monopoly of the Company was brought
to an end, the value of exports from the United Kingdom to British
India amounted to 1,870,690_l._; in 1820, after the trade had been
partially opened to individual energy, it reached 3,037,911_l._; in
1830, when still somewhat fettered, it was 4,087,311_l._ In 1840 the
exports amounted to 5,212,839_l._; and in 1850 to 7,242,194_l._ In
1854 the value of the exports and imports was 20,293,572_l._; in 1860
it had reached 32,791,195_l._; and in 1870 it amounted to no less than
45,183,912_l._[397]
[Sidenote: and of the Company’s trading operations.]
It is very questionable if the East India Company, even at the period
of its closest monopoly, or, indeed, during any portion of its career,
ever realised much profit by its _commercial_ operations. Many of
their employés were enabled to amass very considerable fortunes, but
the shareholders were paid their dividends from other sources of gain
than commerce: sources it is not our province to explore; and perhaps,
for the credit of England, it would be better if a veil could be drawn
over many of the acts of the Company and its servants. Nor were the
Directors, whatever they may have been as individuals, competent, as a
body, to conduct a lucrative commerce at distances so remote. “It was
not in the nature of things,” remarks Mr. McCulloch,[398] “that the
Company’s purchases could be fairly made; the natives could not deal
with their servants as they would have dealt with private individuals,
and it would be absurd to suppose that agents authorized to buy on
account of government, and to draw on the public treasury for the
means of payment, should generally evince the prudence and discretion
of individuals directly responsible in their own private fortunes for
their transactions. The interference of such persons would, under
any circumstances, have rendered the East Indian trade peculiarly
hazardous. But their influence in this respect was materially
aggravated by the irregularity of their appearances. No individual not
belonging to the Court of Directors could foresee whether the Company’s
agents would be in the market at all, or, if there, to what extent they
would either purchase or sell. So capricious were their proceedings,
that in some years they laid out 700,000_l._ on indigo, while in others
they did not lay out a single shilling, and so with other things. A
fluctuating demand of this sort necessarily occasioned great and sudden
variations of price, and was injurious alike to the producers and the
private merchants.”
[Sidenote: China trade thrown open, 1832-1834.]
Indeed when, in 1832, the renewal of the Company’s charter came to be
again discussed in Parliament, the Directors had no valid reasons to
offer against the entire opening of their trade, and had evidently no
longer any desire, especially in face of the increased power of the
free-traders, to resist the demands which were made to allow private
shipowners to trade to all parts of the East, including China, on
the same conditions, in all respects, as the vessels belonging to or
chartered by the Company: the owners, therefore, finding it impossible
to compete, with any prospect of success, against individual energy,
unless protected, sold their ships, and from that time the Company
ceased to be traders.
[Sidenote: Company abolished, 1858.]
In the Appendix[399] will be found an account of how the vessels
belonging to the Company were disposed of, the names of their
purchasers, and the prices realised, which are small indeed compared
with what they must have cost.[400] From April 1834, when the Company’s
trade with China ceased, its functions have been wholly political,
and the Directors, though retaining their patronage in the civil
and military services, became little more than a council to advise
and assist the president of the Board of Control. In 1858 they were
deprived by Parliament of all their power and privileges, and ceased to
exist as a governing body, the whole of the British dominion in India
being then placed under a Secretary of State in Council for India, and
its military and civil services merged with those of the United Kingdom.
[Sidenote: Retiring allowance to commanders and officers.]
When the Company’s commercial operations were brought to a close the
commanders and officers of their “maritime service”[401] memorialised
the Court for compensation for loss of employment, and requested to
be placed on a footing somewhat equivalent to what the officers and
servants on their own ships would have been entitled to claim by law or
usage, had they been discharged or otherwise deprived of employment.
This memorial, which will be found in the Appendix, contains a good
deal of information connected with the service worthy of perusal.
Though drawn up in the form of a petition, it reads more like a demand,
the memorialists resting their claims upon certain words in their
agreements for servitude, and upon one of the sections of an Act of
Parliament.[402]
[Sidenote: Compensations and increased pensions granted.]
Although opposed to the demand, and furnishing very valid reasons for
their opposition, the Directors,[403] nevertheless, after reference to
a meeting of shareholders, and to Parliament, “being anxious to extend
the measure of relief as widely as possible,” granted compensation
to all commanders and officers who had been actually employed in the
“maritime service” within the period of five years antecedent to the
22nd of April, 1834, upon their declaration that it had been their
intention to continue to follow their profession in the maritime
service of the Company. This compensation amounted to a money payment
of 1,500_l._ to each commander, 1,000_l._ to a master, and sums
ranging from 600_l._ to 150_l._ to the chief mate, down to the fourth
mate and purser. Besides these payments, they gave by way of further
compensation to each commander, upon their declaration as to the number
of voyages which they would have performed had the service continued,
the sum of 4,000_l._ for three unexpired voyages, 3,000_l._ for two
voyages, and for one voyage of which they had been deprived, 2,000_l._
Pensions[404] were likewise granted by the Company on a graduated scale
to commanders and officers who had served ten years in the service,
not for sickness or incapacity, but simply on the ground, for which
their own attestation was sufficient, that they were unable to obtain
employment, and that any income they possessed should go in abatement
of such pension.
The commanders of the ships belonging to the Company (their number
was small compared with those on the hired or “maritime service”) who
had five voyages to perform were each paid, by way of compensation, a
sum of 5,000_l._; four voyages, 4,500_l._; three voyages, 4,000_l._;
two voyages, 3,000_l._, and one voyage, 2,000_l._; while the officers
of these ships received compensation according to the situations they
filled.[405] Nor were they less liberally dealt with in the way of
pensions when the commercial affairs of the Company were brought to a
close. Each commodore then received 400_l._ per annum; each commander
300_l._; and each officer, from the chief down to the warrant officer,
was granted a pension for life, ranging from 200_l._ to 30_l._ per
annum. Widows were allowed two-thirds of their husbands’ pensions
during their widowhood. Nor were the children overlooked, for they too
received pensions according to their wants.
We should have been at a loss to understand the cause of the very
liberal conduct of the East India Company to its servants, had the
Directors themselves not derived emoluments far beyond what they were
entitled to receive by the conditions on which they had agreed to
serve, and our readers also might have been puzzled to understand why
they displayed such extraordinary liberality. No doubt some qualms of
conscience led them to feel that they ought to pluck the beams from
their own eyes before scrutinising too narrowly the motes in those of
their servants.
[Sidenote: Remuneration of the Directors.]
The fixed and acknowledged remuneration to the Directors was 300_l._
per annum; but the general opinion of the day seems to have been
(and this opinion was frequently expressed) that the worth of each
directorship amounted to no less than 10,000_l._ per annum, in one form
or another; and certainly the avidity with which these directorships
were sought after, when a vacancy occurred, and the large sums of money
expended in obtaining the appointment, too clearly show that there were
valid reasons for the popular rumour. Candidates, who were nearly all
men otherwise in the enjoyment of lucrative employment as bankers or
merchants, or who had filled high appointments in the civil or military
service of the Company, would not have sent “carriages and four” to
remote parts of the kingdom for voters, each of whom was limited to
four votes, to secure an appointment to which they were expected to
devote some portion at least of their time, and this, too, for the
paltry remuneration of 300_l._ per annum. Indeed it was not in the
nature of things that they should do so.
[Sidenote: Their patronage.]
The reason, however, may be explained by the fact that, associated
with the position of a Director, there was a large amount of patronage
under his own immediate control, which he claimed by rotation. That
this must have been of very considerable value, may be suspected
from the fact that the successful candidate sometimes gave the whole
of his first year’s patronage to the chairman of his election
committee. The estimated value of these nominations we have no means
of knowing, nor would it be possible to ascertain what other sources
of gain were within the reach of those Directors who felt disposed to
avail themselves of them. Among, however, the more common and direct
appointments, all the cadetships were at their disposal, as were
also assistant-surgeons, chaplains, solicitors, and pilots, who were
constantly required to fill up vacancies, or meet the ever-increasing
demands of the service. Governors and members of the Indian Council had
likewise to be supplied, and their places filled as vacancies occurred.
Then there were writerships, worth from 4,000_l._ to 6,000_l._ per
annum, at the disposal of the Court; while there was a grand plum in
the appointment of young gentlemen to the civil service of the Company
in China, each of whom, if he lived, was certain to reach the office of
“Tyepan,” known to be worth 20,000_l._ per annum. But the appointments
to this special and highly-favoured service were exclusively in the
gift of the chairman, who seems almost invariably to have bestowed
them upon some member of his own family, or near relative, or upon the
son of a Director who, no doubt, reciprocated so great a favour when
he had the opportunity. These nominations, however, were considered
so valuable, that, though the chairman had double patronage, he was
expected not to exercise any portion of it during the remainder of the
year when the nomination to the Tyepanship fell to his lot.
FOOTNOTES:
[359] The first Charter of Incorporation was dated 31st December, 1660.
[360] Macpherson’s ‘Commerce of India,’ p. 81.
[361] Captain Meadows Taylor, in his ‘Manual of the History of India,’
Lond., 1871, has devoted his 5th book to a very clear, full, and
condensed account of the East India Company and its doings from 1613 to
1784 (pp. 387-501).
[362]
£
By this important instrument the Old Company, in
addition to their subscription of 315,000
Agreed to purchase stock at par from the New Company to
the amount of 673,500
-------
Making their joint-stock 998,500
Being equivalent to the remaining New Company’s stock 998,500
Which, with the stock of the separate traders 23,000
---------
Constituted the total united capital of 2,000,000
=========
See further details in ‘Charters of East India Company from 1601,’ etc.
Lon., 4to., 1774.
[363] McCulloch’s ‘Commercial Dictionary,’ p. 567.
[364] ‘Report on the East India Company,’ vol. iv.; Reports of
Committees, House of Commons.
[365] It will be found at p. 264 of these reports, and occupies
fourteen folio pages of closely-printed double columns. Those extracts
from it which required “the attention of the commanders and officers
in the maritime service” of the Company are given in Appendix No. 8 of
this volume.
[366] Pigs of iron cast for permanent ballast.
[367] Compensation due to the shipowner from the freighter for
unduly delaying his vessel in port beyond the time specified in the
charter-party or bill of lading.
[368] At a later period no less than 50_l._ per ton freight was on
more than one occasion paid for the voyage, beyond an allowance for
contingencies. From Hardy’s ‘Registry,’ pp. 18, 20, and 22, at a court
of Directors held on the 23rd September, 1796, the ship _Admiral
Gardner_, of eight hundred and thirteen tons, commanded by “John
Woolmore, Esq.,” appears by the minutes to have been chartered on the
following conditions:—
“Peace freight to China, or circuitously and to all £ _s._ _d._
parts of India alike, for six voyages certain. 21 0 0 per ton.
“Surplus, peace and war 10 10 0 per ton.
“For a variety of expenses arising from war,
including the additional charges of insurance,
beyond 8 guineas per cent., and the expenses
of bounty and manning to be paid, at all events
either on the ship’s arrival or in 18 months,
whichever shall first happen. The difference
of seamen’s wages beyond 26_s._ per month, and
the charges of replacing seamen impressed
into her Majesty’s service, maintenance and
returning of Lascars, to be at the risk of the
Company.” 18 10 0 per ton.
---------------------
Total freight and charges paid to the shipowner £50 0 0
[369] Act of 24 Geo. III., s. 2, c. 29.
[370] Mr. Travers, the wholesale grocer in St. Swithin’s Lane, told
Mr. Pitt that he found a bag of smuggled tea in his area every night:
how it came there he could not tell; but he was sure he should find it
there whilst the duty was so high. Mr. Pitt wisely took the hint, and
reduced the duty.
[371] The rules and regulations established for the shipping of goods
by the private trade will be found in Hardy’s ‘East India Registry,’
Appendix, pp. 58, 59.
[372] ‘Commercial Dictionary,’ p. 570.
[373] Papers published by the East India Company in 1813, Hardy, p. 84.
[374] In the Appendix, No. 9, there will be found a list of the East
India Company’s ships lost, burnt, taken, or otherwise destroyed, from
1700 to 1819, from Hardy’s ‘Registry.’
[375] The conditions respecting merchant shipping will be found
specified in the clauses relating to goods (from 6 to 16, both
inclusive) of the Bill.
[376] Parl. Debates, 16 June, 1813, Hansard, p. 685.
[377] Speech of Sir William Curtis, Hansard, p. 691.
[378] A list of the ships of the Company in 1820, with their tonnage,
number of guns, men, and where built, will be found in the Appendix,
No. 10.
[379] See Appendix, No. 11, for a condensed account of many of these
actions.
[380] Company’s instructions, Hardy, p. 91.
[381] Company’s instructions, Hardy, p. 97.
[382] The strict rule of promotion by seniority only applied to the
eight ships belonging to the East India Company. In the ships belonging
to private individuals, which were chartered by the Company for a
specific number of voyages, the promotion of the officers depended very
much upon their ability and good conduct, or the influence which could
be brought to bear in their favour with the owners, by whom all such
appointments and promotions were made; but the command of these ships
was almost invariably sold to the highest bidder, competent to fill the
situation, the price averaging about 3000_l._
[383] Hardy, pp. 114-118.
[384] Ibid. p. 76.
[385] “Dunnage” is loose wood, horns, rattan, coir, etc., stowed among
casks to prevent their moving, or under dry cargo to prevent the bilge
water getting to it and spoiling it.
[386] Hardy, p. 80.
[387] In 1834, after the Company had been deprived of its trading
privileges, and no longer required to maintain its maritime service,
Captain Innes, of the chartered ship _Abercrombie Robinson_,
memorialised the Company, in his own name and in that of other
commanders, for “compensation for the loss of employment in consequence
of the discontinuance of the Company’s trade.” He therein estimates his
“emoluments and income accruing from his appointment as commander, upon
an average of his last three voyages,” as follows:—
£ s. d.
Eighteen months’ pay, at 10_l._ per month 180 0 0
Fifty-six tons privilege, outward, at 4_1._ £ s. d.
per ton 224 0 0
From port to port, at 30 rupees per candy 336 0 0
Homeward, at 33_l._ per ton 1,848 0 0
------------ 2,408 0 0
Primage 100 0 0
Two-fifths tonnage, from port to port, 478
tons, at 30 rupees per candy 2,868 0 0
Less, charged by the Hon. Co., 2_l._ per ton 956 0 0
------------ 1,912 0 0
Passage-money, after allowing for the provisions and
stores provided for the passengers 1,500 0 0
------------
6,100 0 0
------------
Making 6,100_l._ per voyage for the last three voyages, “exclusive of
the profits on investments.”
[388] See Victualling Bill, Appendix, No. 13; Hardy, p. 81.
[389] Hardy’s “Registry,” p. 51.
[390] In the passage from Bombay to China, where the ships were chiefly
laden with cotton, the commanders and officers, by a resolution of
the Court of the 6th March, 1805, were allowed nearly two-fifths of
the whole tonnage space of the ship’s capacity for their especial use
and benefit, and free of all charge, on the very reasonable condition
that “the Company shall not be subjected to any expense whatever for
securing the Company’s cotton or otherwise.” In the event of the
Company not requiring to ship any cotton or other goods on their own
account on this intermediate voyage, the remaining three-fifths’ space
in the ship’s hold, usually appropriated for their own use, was to
be disposed of to the highest bidder, but the commander and officers
were in all cases to have the preference, with the very prudent and no
doubt necessary precaution, that “they were to deliver their proposal
at the same time with the other tenders, and were not to be allowed to
amend their tenders after their proposals have been opened.” Similar
privileges were granted to the commanders and officers employed in the
intermediate trade between Bengal or Madras and China.—Regulations,
East India Company. Hardy, pp. 132, 133.
[391] Hardy, pp. 119, 120.
[392] Ibid. pp. 121, 122.
[393] Standing orders of the East India Company, Hardy, p. 23.
[394] Minutes of Court of Directors of the East India Company, 8th
April, 1800, Hardy, p. 126.
[395] As every officer in the service, and the greater portion of the
crews, did contribute monthly towards this fund, these pensions were
consequently not altogether gratuitous on the part of the Company.
[396] “Holy-stone” is the sandstone used for cleaning the decks.
The name is originally derived either from tombstones taken from
churchyards for the purpose, or from the fact that the sailors have to
go on their knees to perform this labour (Admiral W. H. Smyth, p. 387).
[397] Returns furnished by the Board of Trade.
[398] ‘Commercial Dictionary,’ p. 571, edition of 1869.
[399] List of large ships belonging to or in the service of the East
India Company in 1831, and how they were disposed of, Appendix, No. 14.
[400] The rates of freight paid to the last vessels chartered by the
Company in 1832-1833 ranged from 12_l._ 15_s._ to 14_l._ per ton to
and from China, and only 7_l._ 12_s._ to 9_l._ 15_s._ to and from
Bombay (Hardy, pp. 20-22); and although these rates were double what
can now be obtained, they were unremunerative, considering the cost of
construction of these vessels, their small capacity in proportion to
their registered tonnage, and their large current expenses.
[401] Although the Company frequently engaged vessels for a single
voyage, those employed in the regular service were invariably chartered
for six consecutive voyages, the custom being for tenders to be
issued, specifying the number of vessels required, their tonnage and
equipment, and inviting their owners to make offers at so much per ton
for six voyages certain (sufficient time being allowed for construction
and outfit), so that nearly all the ships in the regular service of
the Company were specially built for the purpose, shipowners, as a
rule, naturally hesitating to invest a large capital on a particular
description of vessel, unless her employment was secured by contract
for a length of time sufficient to justify the expenditure.
[402] Memorial of Captain Probyn, etc., July 1834, Appendix No. 15, p.
548.
[403] Minutes of Court of Directors, 5th August, 1834. Hardy, p. 29.
[404] The pensions voted by the Proprietors of the East India Company,
and approved by the Directors, were as follows: Commander, 250_l._ per
annum; chief to fourth mate, inclusive, from 160_l._ to 70_l._; fifth,
and sixth mates, 59_l._; surgeons, 160_l._; their assistants, 70_l._;
pursers, 100_l._; midshipmen, 30_l._, and boatswains, carpenters, and
gunners, each 25_l._ per annum. Widows, one-half of their husbands’
pensions during their widowhood; children, the usual allowance. But
these were reduced one-fifth by an order from the President of the
India Board, 12th Nov., 1834.
[405] The two officers who stood first for promotion received each
2,400_l._; the two second officers in a similar position were each
paid 2,200_l._; the third officers, 2,100_l._; and the remaining two
officers received 2,000_l._ each. The other mates were remunerated in
sums of from 1,600_l._ to 150_l._, whilst midshipmen who had made four
voyages were paid 100_l._, and those who had served two voyages, 75_l._
each. Carpenters, gunners, and boatswains who had served five years in
the service received each from 100_l._ to 150_l._