[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The terms of admission into the Hamburg Company are nowsaid to be quite easy, and the directors either have it not theirpower to subject the trade to any burdensome restraint orregulations, or, at least, have not of late exercised that power.Ithas not always been so.About the middle of the last century, thefine for admission was fifty, and at one time one hundred pounds,and the conduct of the company was said to be extremelyoppressive.In 1643, in 1645, and in 1661, the clothiers and freetraders of the West of England complained of them to Parliamentas of monopolists who confined the trade and oppressed themanufactures of the country.Though those complaints producedan Act of Parliament, they had probably intimidated the companyso far as to oblige them to reform their conduct.Since that time, atleast, there has been no complaints against them.By the 10th and11th of William III, c.6, the fine for admission into the RussiaCompany was reduced to five pounds; and by the 25th of CharlesII, c.7, that for admission into the Eastland Company to fortyshillings, while, at the same time, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway,all the countries on the north side of the Baltic, were exemptedfrom their exclusive charter.The conduct of those companies hadprobably given occasion to those two Acts of Parliament.Beforethat time, Sir Josiah Child had represented both these and theHamburg Company as extremely oppressive, and imputed to theirAdam Smith ElecBook Classics The Wealth of Nations: Book 5 981bad management the low state of the trade which we at that timecarried on to the countries comprehended within their respectivecharters.But though such companies may not, in the presenttimes, be very oppressive, they are certainly altogether useless.Tobe merely useless, indeed, is perhaps the highest eulogy which canever justly be bestowed upon a regulated company; and all thethree companies above mentioned seem, in their present state, todeserve this eulogy.The fine for admission into the Turkey Company was formerlytwenty-five pounds for all persons under twenty-six years of age,and fifty pounds for all persons above that age.Nobody but meremerchants could be admitted; a restriction which excluded allshopkeepers and retailers.By a bye-law, no British manufacturescould be exported to Turkey but in the general ships of thecompany; and as those ships sailed always from the port ofLondon, this restriction confined the trade to that expensive port,and the traders to those who lived in London and in itsneighbourhood.By another bye-law, no person living withintwenty miles of London, and not free of the city, could be admitteda member; another restriction which, joined to the foregoing,necessarily excluded all but the freemen of London.As the timefor the loading and sailing of those general ships dependedaltogether upon the directors, they could easily fill them with theirown goods and those of their particular friends, to the exclusion ofothers, who, they might pretend, had made their proposals toolate.In this state of things, therefore, this company was in everyrespect a strict and oppressive monopoly.Those abuses gaveoccasion to the act of the 26th of George II, c.18, reducing the finefor admission to twenty pounds for all persons, without anyAdam Smith ElecBook Classics The Wealth of Nations: Book 5 982distinction of ages, or any restriction, either to mere merchants, orto the freemen of London; and granting to all such persons theliberty of exporting, from all the ports of Great Britain to any portin Turkey, all British goods of which the exportation was notprohibited; and of importing from thence all Turkish goods ofwhich the importation was not prohibited, upon paying both thegeneral duties of customs, and the particular duties assessed fordefraying the necessary expenses of the company; and submitting,at the same time, to the lawful authority of the British ambassadorand consuls resident in Turkey, and to the bye-laws of thecompany duly enacted.To prevent any oppression by those bye-laws, it was by thesame act ordained, that if any seven members of the companyconceived themselves aggrieved by any bye-law which should beenacted after the passing of this act, they might appeal to theBoard of Trade and Plantations (to the authority of which acommittee of the Privy Council has now succeeded), providedsuch appeal was brought within twelve months after the bye-lawwas enacted; and that if any seven members conceived themselvesaggrieved by any bye-law which had been enacted before thepassing of this act, they might bring a like appeal, provided it waswithin twelve months after the day on which this act was to takeplace.The experience of one year, however, may not always besufficient to discover to all the members of a great company, thepernicious tendency of a particular bye-law; and if several of themshould afterwards discover it, neither the Board of Trade, nor thecommittee of council, can afford them any redress [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • funlifepok.htw.pl

    •