s not deny that there are some
instances of abuse of power. "But I ask," says he, "what _authority_ can
guard against the conduct of individuals? but that a _single_ instance
cannot be brought of a general depravity." Your Committee have reason to
believe these coercive measures to have been very general, though
employed according to the degree of resistance opposed to the monopoly;
for we find at one time the whole trade of the Dutch involved in the
general servitude. But it appears very extraordinary that nothing but
the actual proof of a _general_ abuse could affect a practice the very
principle of which tends to make the coercion as general as the trade.
Mr. Hurst's reflection concerning the abuse of _authority_ is just, but
in this case it is altogether inapplicable; because the complaint was
not of the abuse, but of the use of authority in matters of trade, which
ought to have been free. He throws out a variety of invidious
reflections against the Council, as if they wanted zeal for the
Company's service; his justification of his practices, and his
declaration of his resolution to persevere in them, are firm and
determined,--asserting the right and policy of such restraints, and
laying down a rule for his conduct at the factory, which, he says, will
give no cause of just complaint to private traders. He adds, "I have no
doubt but that they have hitherto provided investments, and it cannot
turn to my interest to preclude them _now_, though I must ever think it
my duty to combat the private views of individuals who _set themselves
up as competitors_ under that very body under whose license and
indulgence only they can derive their privilege of trade: all I contend
for is the _same influence_ my employers have ever had." He ends by
declining any reply to any of their future references of this nature.

The whole of this extraordinary letter is inserted in the Appendix, No.
51,--and Mr. Rouse's minute of observations upon it in Appendix, No. 52,
fully refuting the few pretexts alleged in that extraordinary
performance in support of the trade by influence and authority. Mr.
Hollond, one of the Council, joined Mr. Rouse in opinion that a letter
to the purport of that minute should be written; but they were overruled
by Messrs. Purling, Hogarth, and Shakespeare, who passed a resolution to
defer sending any reply to Mr. Hurst: and none was ever sent. Thus they
gave countenance to the doctrine contained in that letter, as we