N. B. This letter was written by the Rev. Mr. John Ruffell, Rector of Wapping, London. And below, in a different hand, N. B. The above note was written by the Rev. Mr. John Ruffell himself. There are, in the letter itfelf, feveral inaccuracies of ftyle, fome grammatical faults, which as they do not much diffigure or mifreprefent the plain fenfe of the writer, the editor did not think himself at liberty to alter or correct. For the reft, the reader is referred to the hiftories of the times, and his own reflections upon them. An ENGLISHMAN. A LETTER to a Member of the first Parliament of Great Britain. Written in the year 1708. Concerning the East India Company, and the Bill that was then brought into the Houfe of Commons in their favour. SIR, I look upon the bufinefs which is now before your Houfe, relating to the Eaft India Houfe, of as great impor⚫ tance as any that ever was debated in Parliament, fince the very beginning of our conftitution: Since 'tis much more than the confideration of a million and two hundred thousand pounds on the one fide, or the intereft of a few feparate merchants on the other. 'Tis whether we shall establish a Monopoly by Law. And to fet this matter right, I fhall first take notice, that Anno 9 and 10 Gulielmi tertii, an act of Parliament was paled for fettling the trade to Eaft India, the fubftance of which (fo far as it relates to the matter before us) was briefly tis; That every perion that hould pay any certain fum towards the tailing of two millions to be lent to the Government, fhould receive 8 per cent. for the money to lent; and befides, should be entitled to a liberty to trade to Eaf India, for fo much as he advanced towards raifing the faid two millions, &c. Now, its manifeft, that the defign of the Parliament in palling that Act was not only to raife two millions for the fervice of the nation, but also to open a free trade to Eaft India, and to take away a MONOPOLY fo long complained of: Since the then Eaft India Company did give intimation to the House, that they would advance the two millions required, if the trade might by law be fecured to them, exclufive of all other. But the Parliament (who have always had a juft abhorrence of the evil of monopolies) rejected this offer. They were fenfible how the Company had formerly treated their fellow-fubjects, under the title of interlopers; what barbarities they had acted abroad, and what violences at home, by a power derived from a purchafed charter; and therefore they eftablifhed a freedom for all perfons in general to trade to the Eaft Indies, that would contribute to the raifing two millions for the service of the Government; only allowing liberty, to all that were willing, to enter into the joint ftock, to trade after that manner, and leaving all others to their own liberty. India Company advanced of the two On the paffing this act, the then Eaft millions three hundred and fifteen thoufand pounds, and, by virtue of the act, traded by themselves; and the greater number of the reft of the fubfcribis (being cajoled by defigning men, who intended to become directorsand managers of the trade) were drawn in, and perfuaded to fubfcribe to a joint stock, (many of them not confidering what they did), and fo became known by the name of the New-Company. But the reft of the fubfcribers (who made twenty three thousand pounds) were willing to trade by themfelves, concluding themselves as fit to manage their own affairs as directing mafters, who would do what they pleased with their money, and give them (at their own leifure) what profits they thought fit to bestow on them. But the New Company having obained a favourable claufe in the act, which entitled them to 5 per cent. from the reft of the traders, of all goods brought home and fold in grofs; which has been exactly paid them to their very great advantage; but not contented with this, confidering their proportion in ftock and title was much above the reft, they began to aim at a monopoly of the whole trade, and, the better to procure it, they did at length bring the Old Company to unite with them; and then they affumed the name of the United Company trading to the Eaft Indies. Having made this step, the more effectually to obtain the intended monopoly, they endeavoured to buy off the feparate traders, and thereby to engrofs the whole trade to themfelves; and accordingly did buy in a great part of the 23,000l. from the proprietors of the feparate trade. But fome of the feparate traders, being willing to prevent a monopoly of the trade, refufed to fell, and have accordingly ftill traded by themfelves. Being therefore by this means defeated of effecting their abfoJute ends, they now endeavour to obtain a law, whereby the feparate traders may be utterly excluded, and thereby eftablish and perfect the monopoly fo much defired. And accordingly a bill (for this very purpose) is now brought into your Houfe, by which (if it pats into a law, which God forbid !) the whole trade to Eaft India is monopolized, and brought into the power of a felect number of men, who may manage it as they pleafe; there being not a man left that dare bring in a mufiin neck-cloth, or a pound f pepper, but only themselves. Monopolies are fo deftructive and odious to the nation, that our Parliament have always been careful to fupprefs them. I need not, Sir, mention to you, how much the monopolifts have vexed and oppreffed their fellow fub jects in fome former reigns, nor yet fay how much they have fullied the lives of thofe needy, weak, and coveteus prin ces, who, for a little private profit, have given them eftablishment. I need not copy the noble fpeeches which have been pronounced within your walls, agaiuff thofe vipers. You have read them, and justly admired, and commended them; fo that it is ftrange that after all our struggles for liberty, this monfter, a monopoly, thould at this time a-day, lift up his horns, and shake his chains, to the terror of the honeft trading fabject. But it is much. ftranger, that any number of men (how powerful foever) fhould be fo hardy, as to propofe to the Parliament of Great Britain to honour and guard a monopoly with a law. pa If the ghofts of thofe generous triots, who fo justly inveighed againft monopolies in former reigns (when the monopolift crouched to the Crown for his fupport, but trembled at the very name of a Parliament), had any fenfe or feeling of the affrent that is offered to their memory, as well as to the Houfe of Commons, would they not rattle the House about the ears of thofe that fit in it? Yes, and pluck our the tongues of thofe wretches that profane that place, by ipeaking for so vile, fo accurfed an abomination as a mono poly. To fhew the zeal of former Farlia ments against monopolies, the laws that have been made against foreftallers, re grators, ingroffers, &c. do, in fome meafure, do it. And to fhew their mi chief to trade in general, as well as to every private fubject in particular, give me leave to propose one instance. If the Virginia-trade which deals in tobacco was confined to a company, and none could trade thither, or bring tobacco hither, but only themselves, might they not (when thus conftituted) fell tobacco at 4s. or 5s. or 6s. per pound, or indeed at what price they pleafed? Since where there is but one fhop to fell, he that comes to buy muft pay what the feller thinks fit to des mand, or go away without the commodity which he wants. It is in Huckfers hands, fays the old proverb, &c. And tho' if this Virginia-Company fhould advance the price of tobacco, 'tis very likely it would hinder its confumption; yet if the confumption were funk half in half, if they doubled the price, they would still be gainers, in regard half the navigation would ferve to fetch it, half the money would pay the customs, &c. As the Dutch East India Company, who have ingroffed all the Moluccas, and are reported to burn more fpices than they bring home; yet ftill felling the half that's faved, for as much as the whole, if preferved, would yield, they fave half of the charge of navigation, and half the cuftoms, &c. But whether fuch practices as thefe be for the bene fit of navigation, for encouraging the royal revenue, or for the cafe of him that buys, needs no long thought to determine. Thus when our Eaft India Company have gotten this law (which is now propofed), may they not felt muflins (and cateris paribus in refpect of other goods) at ros. or 125. yea or at 26s. per yard; yes, goods in the hand of a fingle perfon will be fold at what price the feller pleafes; as coffee now (not for want of it, but for being ingroffed) is fold for ros. per pound, which was formerly fold for 3 or 4s. And this is not the fingle mifchief of a monopoly, but, as before hinted, trade is difcouraged, navigation leffened, the public revenue impaired, and all to enrich the monopolizer. But perhaps fome may fay, I am warm against monopolies, and there is no defign in the Company to eftablish a monopoly fo much dreaded, but to trade fairly and fell goods cheap. But nobody can make this objection, but he that is really or willingly ignorant, fince a monopoly is nothing elfe than an engroffing of a trade into one principal, fo that none befides can fell or gain by it. And if the prefent Eaft India Company trading in joint stock, did not defign this, why did the two Companies unite; but because the one fhould not underfell the other, but bring the whole trade under one management, and fo make a monopoly? Why did they endeavour to buy in the flock of the separate traders (and that too at a very dear price) but to bring the whole into their power, and eftablish a monopoly? Why do they now use such strenuous endeavours (I will say no worje) to obtain a law, to cut off thofe few feparate traders which are left, but in order to engross the whole trade, which is a downright monopoly, a monopoly in its stricteft and trueft fenfe and meaning? Objection. But perhaps you may reply, that the feparate traders are fo few, and inconfiderable, that their trade does not at prefent prevent a monopoly. Anfwer. You know I am no mer chant, nor did ever trade for the value of 20l. in my whole life. I therefore give my opinion from fpeculation, rather than practice, and in short it is this; that had the managers of the first fubfcriptions made lefs ufe of artifice, and left more feparate traders, it would have been much more to the advantage of the nation; this is my opinion. But that thofe few separate traders that are left, do prevent a monopoly, the united intereft of the Company, &c. and all their friends (procured by what means foever) in the Houfe, to fupprefs the feparate trade, proves manifeftly. Why do they afe vigorous attempts but to gain a monopoly? Their own endea vours confute the objection. Objection. But the feparate trade is a difadvantage to the nation. Anfwer. This will be proved, when they can fhew, that a monopoly is for the advantage of the nations and that the feparate traders do prevent a monopoly is manifeft is fact. Objection. But the feparate traders do hurt the trade abroad, and make the Company buy dearer in India than other wife they would do. Anfwer.This is as falfe as the former, fince I am well informed, that the separate traders do endeavour to find out places for trade, where the Company never fat their feet, or caft their eyes, in regard they know they must come with difadvantage to any place where the Company have estab lished their factories. The feparare traders are the principal perfons that go upon difcoveries, and if for no other rcafon, yet for this, they deferve encouragement, and one would think this great, this very great, confideration thould find its weight in your House. If indeed the British East India Company fhould engrofs the whole trade of Eaft India, exclufive of all other European nations, there might be fome room for this objection; but when the French, the Dutch, the Danes, &c. buy goods as well as they, how can the feparate Englifb trader raife the price of goods? A cobweb is as thick as this objection.. Objection. But under the pretence of carrying out only 1000l. er 1,500l. ftack, they carry out two or three thousand pounds, and fo are guilty of a fraud. Anfwer.-If this were true, they long fince would have been punished by the accufation of those that enviously watch them with Argus's eyes; if this were true, they ought to be punished; but, if falfe, let falfe accufers be allo punished. Objection Butthe Government wants money, and the Company are not willing to advance 12,000,000l. unless they can exclude the feparate traders, and bave a monopoly of the whole trade. Anayer. I am forry to read fuch an objection as this in your letter. How fad is our condition, if we are brought into fuch a cafe, that a monopoly may be bought of the Parliament of GREAT BRITAIN! Alas! that our forefathers cannot rife out of their graves to hear this objection! Could it ever enter into the thought of an Englishman, a Scotchman, or (both in one) a Briton, that ever we could be brought to fuch a ftate, that money fhould buy the national fanction of a mifchief, that all our ancestors were careful to prevent! If things are brought to this pafs, that omnia cum precio, let us lie down and die; better that death clofe our eyes than have them kept open to live and fee fuch wretched bargains. But let us confider how much is got by the honourable bargain, (for I perceive by what you write, that fome are fond of this marketing, out of a principle of good husbandry to the nation). Why there is faved, fay you, the intereft of this 12,000,000l. for fix years, which at 51. per cent. comes to 360,000l. fo that then I perceive 360,000l. is the price of a monopoly. But will not the nation pay dear for this in the end? Will not the Company, as they know how to buy the know how to fell him? I hope another age will have virtue enough to be athamed of such a contract. But let me ask, whether the bargain may not be as well made (if the Houfe pleafe) by including the feparate traders, as to pafs it, by excluding them, and fo prevent a monopoly, notwithftanding the former objection, and fo ftill fave the 360,000l. to the nation, and alfo do justice to the separate traders; fince they are members of the general fociety, &c. equally with the Company trading in joint flock; and did pay their money at the firft fubfcription for the fervice of the nation, at a time when things looked with a cloudy afpect, on expectation of receiving equal advantage with thofe in joint flock. And therefore, I afk, Whether their exclufion now, may not look fomething like injuftice?-But if the House are refolved on the bill, I will ask your opinion, Whether you think thefe will be the methods of the Parliament of Great Britain? If fo, I fhall only requeft, in behalf of the feparate traders, that when more monopolies are to be fold, as well as annuities, that the Houfe will be pleafed to make fome amends to the India feparate traders, by allowing them to have the first offer, and also the refusal of the next monopoly. Let me afk one question more, and I have done, What will the Company do with the stock of the feparate traders when they have paid them off? You tell me that a great man in the Company fays, they will fell it, i. e. (as I understand it) fell every hundred pounds paid off, at the price of flockjobbing, which at prefent is 260l. per cent. India fock, and, upon paffing of this monopoly bill, muft certainly advance. And is not this bonourable, to compel men, even thofe very men, that ferved the nation in a time of diftrefs, to take 100l. for what the monopolizers will immediately fell (it is likely) for 300l? Pray confider it, I fay, pray confider, how happy, how profitable, how honourable, it is to be a monopolift now; how odious and dijagreeable foever it was formerly. Objection. But the Company, the Bank, &c. have fuch a power, fuch an intereft! Anfwer. This is indeed from bad to worse, poft vulnera mortem. If the cafe be fo, I hope that fome pious perfon will write upon your door, "Lord have mercy upon us." I have wrote you my thoughts, and could fay much more, but the fubject is fo melancholy, it makes my head ake; I therefore conclude only with a wifh (for I fear that's all I can do) that our pofterity may never read it hereafter in the annals of time, THAT THE FIRST BRITISH PARLIAMENT WERE THE FIRST PARLIAMENT THAT EVER ESTABLISHED A MONOPOLY BY LAW, That fuch black chara&ers may never gain occafion to be inferted in future hiftory, is the hearty prayer of Yours, &c. J. R. February 23, 1707-8. P. S. I beg you will tell me in your next, Why, when the bill was read the first time in the Houfe, it was not put into the printed votes? MS copies of his life, by W. Cavendith; the one in the Harleian collection, No. 428; the other in the Birch collection, No. 4233; and as I fuppofe the extracts I have made will prove acceptable to fome of your readers, I fhall not make any apology for communicating them thro' the channel of your valuable collection of the hifsory and antiquities of this country. Yours, &c. S. AYSCOUGH. BIRCH MSS. 4233. Dr. BIRCH has prefixed to this voJume the following account of the writer: The author of this life of Cardinal Wolfey was William Cavendifh, fon of Thomas Cavendish of Cavendish in Suffolk, Efq; Clerk of the Pipe in the Exchequer, in the reign of Henry VIII. by Alice, daughter and coheir of John Smith, of Padbrookhall in Cavendish, which Alice died the 12th of Nov. 1515, as her husband did in 1523, 15 Hen. VIII. William, his fon, was Gentleman Ufher of the Chamber to Cardinal Wolfey. In 1539 he was made one of the Auditors of the Court of Augmentation, and in 7547 was appointed Treasurer of the Chamber to Hen. VIII. by whom he was the fame year knighted; and afterwards admitted of the Privy Council. He continued Treafurer of the Chamber to King Edward VI. and Queen Mary. He had feveral grants from the Crown, but his greatest addition of fortune was by the marriage, 20th Auguft 1547, of his third wife Elizabeth, daughter of John Hardwicke of Hardwicke in Derbyshire, Efq; and widow of Robert Barley, Efq. began the manor houfe at Chatsworth, but did not live to finish it, dying 25th of Oct. 1557.. He Both the MSS. are copies. Harl. MS. No. 423, I fuppofe to have been written between 1590 and the end of Q. Elizabeth's reign, andthe Birch MS. 4233, about 30 or 40 years later. I will collate them with the 4to edit. of 1641. Birch MS. fays, written by George Cavendishe his Gentleman Uher; the Harlcian has no name to it. Printed, fol. 8, and the MSS. add the houfe at Bridewell, given him by the King, was formerly Sir Richard EmJon's. Ibid. For Star-chamber read Couneil-chamber. Printed, fol. 12, after the account of ale Cardinal's cap, adds, “Yet by way of communication you shall understand, that the Pope fent him this worthy hat of dignity as a jewel of his honour and authority, the which was conveyed in a varler's budget, who feemed to all men to be but a perfon of fmall eftimation. Whereupon York being adver tifed of the bafeness of this messenger and the people's opinion, thought it meet for his honour of fo high a mef fage, that this jewel fhould not be conveyed by fo fimple a perfon, wherefore he caufed him to be stopped by the way, immediately after his arrival in England, where he was newly fur nifhed with all manner of apparel made of all kinds of coftly filks which feemed decent for fuch an high Ambassador. This done, he was encountred upon Blackheath, and there received with a great affembly of prelates and luftie gallant gentlemen, and from thence conducted and conveyed thro' London with great triumph. Then was great and speedy provifion and preparation made in Weftminster-abbey for the confirmation and acceptance of this high order and dignity, the which was executed by all the Byfhops and Abbots about or near London, with their rich mytres and copes and other ornaments, which was done in fo folemn a manner as 1 have not feen the like, unless it had been at the coronation of a king." Printed, p. 14, fays, the number of the perfons in the cheyne of his houfhold were eight hundred. Both the MSS fay 180, which appears more likely. Printed, p. 28. The MSS contain a more full account of Anna Bullen, of her being maid of honour to the Queen of France, and after to Queen Katherine, and the young Lord of Northumberland paying his addreffes to her. Printed, between p. 80 and 81 is omitted the account of Mr. Norris meeting the Cardinal, after his landing at Putney, with a kind meffage from the King, with the King's private ring, which the Cardinal received very kindly, and kneeled down in the street to return thanks for, gave Mr. Norris a chain of gold with a crofs, in which was a part of the holy crofs, and for which he faid in his profperity he would not have taken rosol. After Mr. Norris's going from him he called him back, and fent to the King his fool, who, for a nobleman's pleasure, was worth 1000l, So Mr. Norris took the fool, |