But this feeling was confined to a minority.  The public was, indeed, inclined rather to overrate than to underrate the benefits which might be derived by England from the Indian trade.  What was the most effectual mode of extending that trade was a question which excited general interest, and which was answered in very different ways.

A small party, consisting chiefly of merchants resident at Bristol and other provincial seaports, maintained that the best way to extend trade was to leave it free.  They urged the well known arguments which prove that monopoly is injurious to commerce; and, having fully established the general law, they asked why the commerce between England and India was to be considered as an exception to that law.  Any trader ought, they said, to be permitted to send from any port a cargo to Surat or Canton as freely as he now sent a cargo to Hamburg or Lisbon.174 In our time these doctrines may probably be considered, not only as sound, but as trite and obvious.  In the seventeenth century, however, they were thought paradoxical.  It was then generally held to be a certain, and indeed an almost selfevident truth, that our trade with the countries lying beyond the Cape of Good Hope could be advantageously carried on only by means of a great Joint Stock Company.  There was no analogy, it was said, between our European trade and our Indian trade.  Our government had diplomatic relations with the European States.  If necessary, a maritime force could easily be sent from hence to the mouth of the Elbe or of the Tagus.  But the English Kings had no envoy at the Court of Agra or Pekin.  There was seldom a single English man of war within ten thousand miles of the Bay of Bengal or of the Gulf of Siam.  As our merchants could not, in those remote seas, be protected by their Sovereign, they must protect themselves, and must, for that end, exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.  They must have forts, garrisons and armed ships.  They must have power to send and receive embassies, to make a treaty of alliance with one Asiatic prince, to wage war on another.  It was evidently impossible that every merchant should have this power independently of the rest.  The merchants trading to India must therefore be joined together in a corporation which could act as one man.  In support of these arguments the example of the Dutch was cited, and was generally considered as decisive.  For in that age the immense prosperity of Holland was every where regarded with admiration, not the less earnest because it was largely mingled with envy and hatred.  In all that related to trade, her statesmen were considered as oracles, and her institutions as models.