foreign origin and shipped on foreign bottoms were charged with. But nothing can extenuate the sacrifice imposed upon the Indian industries by letting in British goods at lower rates than what the Indian goods had to pay under the internal customs; and this was done when, be it remembered, England was prohibiting by high tariff the entry of India-made goods and India-built ships! But while the import tariff made it easy for the foreigners to compete successfully with Indian manufactures burdened as they heavily were by the weight of the internal customs, Indian goods found it considerably difficult to compete in foreign markets under the incubus of export duties which formed one of the most lamentable features of the Indian tariff and which endured long into the nineteenth century.[1] Thus the customs laws internal and external blockaded trade and smothered industry. The comparatively paltry revenues derived from them is the best proof of their ruinous effects.[2]
- ↑ It is difficult to cite references to every statement made above. The tariff history of India is yet unwritten, but ample evidence bearing on the point will be found in the Parliamentary Committee on Trade in 1821 and the Evidence submitted to the Committees appointed by Parliament to investigate into the affairs of the East India Company in 1813 and 1853. Particular attention is invited to the Report and Evidence of the Committee on East India Produce, 1846.
- ↑ The following table gives the ratio of the Customs Revenue to tho total revenue:—
Hendricks, op. cit., p. 286.Year. Ratio. Year. Ratio. Year. Ratio. 1792–3 1817–18 to 2·38 to 8·32 842–3 1796–7 1821–2 to 6·02 1797–8 1822–3 1846–7 to 3·10 to 7·58 1847–8 1801–2 1826–7 to 5·40 1802-3 1827–8 1851–2 to 4·16 to 8·12 1852–3 1806–7 1831–2 to 5·52 1807–8 1832–3 1855–6 to 5·04 to 7·19 Average for 64 years 1811–12 1836–7 6·22 1812–13 1837–8 to 6·68 to 6·76 1816–17 1841–2
