Page:History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce (Volume 2).djvu/480

 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.

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