CHAPTER XIII.

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.

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.

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 315,000l. 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 100l. shares of the Old Company fell to 37l.; 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]

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.

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 157,944l. per annum, while the average annual value of imports during the seven years ending 1748 was not more than 188,176l.;[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 400,000l. 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.

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 24l. per ton in 1753; 37l. in 1760; and 29l. in 1772. Fine goods in the same years paid 27l., 40l., and 32l. respectively. The freights from Bombay in these years were somewhat higher; and the rate of demurrage[367] per day was 12l. 2s. in 1753, 20l. 3s. 4d. in 1760, and 18l. 3s. in 1772.

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 457,600l., besides an allowance for surplus freight of 95,390l. 16s. 8d., and 57,733l. 11s. 4d. 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.

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:—

THE ‘THAMES’ EAST INDIAMAN, 1360 TONS REGISTER, 25 GUNS, AND 130 MEN. E. W. Cooke, R.A.

Or equal to 32l. 10s. 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 43,000l. 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.

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 418,747l., in twenty-seven ships, it rose in 1792 to 1,031,262l., 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 144,176l. of imports in 1783, to 400,784l. in 1794,[371] and increased to no less than double that amount in the following ten years.

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.

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 16l. per ton for rice and other dead-weight stowage, and 20l. 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.

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.

During the three years ending 1796, the value of the Company’s exports of British produce and manufactures fluctuated from 928,783l. to 1,031,262l.; 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.

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 5l. outwards, and 15l. 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.

“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!

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 60,729l., the value of one of the ships which belonged to the Company amounting to no less than 1,048,077l. 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.

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.

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]

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.

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 40l. per ton, while more suitable vessels could be built and equipped for 25l. 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 25l. 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]

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]

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]

EAST INDIA COMPANY’S SHIP ‘EARL OF BALCARRAS.’

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 20l. for a black servant, up to 500l. 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.

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.

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]

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 10l. per month to the commander, and 5l. 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.

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]

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 3,000l. to 5,000l. 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 8,000l. to 10,000l., 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.