CONSIDERATIONS Relating to the African BILL.  
Humbly Submitted to the Honourable House of Commons.  
THE Preamble of the Bill asserts Four Things: 

First, That the African Trade is beneficial to this Kingdom and the Plantations.  
Secondly, That Forts and Castles are necessary for support of that Trade.  
Thirdly, That those Forts and Castles have hitherto been maintained by the present African Company.  
Fourthly, That it is most reasonable all the King's Subjects trading to Africa, should contribute towards maintaining those necessary Forts and Castles.    
This Preamble being by the Committee postponed; the First Clause of the Bill comes to be considered.— And by this Clause,  
First, It is enacted, That the Royal African Company shall maintain the Forts and Castles they now have, or hereafter shall purchase or erect for the general Benefit of that Trade. And by the  
Second Clause, It is farther enacted, That all his Majesty's Subjects trading to Africa, shall pay the Company per Cent. towards support of that necessary Charge, etc.  
Object. It hath been objected out of the House (and it's probable in the Committee may be said), That this Clause by a side-wind doth confirm the Company's Charter, wherein are several Privileges granted (said to be) against Law.  
Answ. With submission, this Clause can only confirm the Incorporation-Part of the Charter, which constitutes them a Company: And though some other parts of that Charter may not be justifiable, yet I presume scarce any Lawyer will say that the King could not make them a Company.— But a Proviso at the last may salve that Objection, if it hath any force: For therein it may be provided, That nothing in this Bill shall be construed to confirm any part of that Charter which is against Law; but as to those they shall remain as tho' this Act had never been made, etc.  
In this first Clause it will be considered, Whether Forts and Castles are necessary, etc.  
In the Opinion of a former Sessions, Forts and Castles were thought necessary; and that they are in Fact so, appears upon several Accounts.  
First, Because those Parts are divided into several Petty-Kingdoms, generally at War amongst themselves, and with whom no security can be had, but what Force maintains: And should we not have Forts and Castles to defend our Effects that lie there for a Market, and such as we buy, and lie ready for our Ships, they would be seized by the very Natives themselves, or by some Europeans with whom we may have War, and who have Forts and Castles upon those Coasts.  
Secondly, They are necessary for the Defence of those Kings that are our Allies there, whom from time to time we supply with all things necessary for their Wars, and so preserve them from their Enemies, and secure them our Friends.— And it is observable, that all Nations, trading to those Parts, do maintain Forts and Castles and the African Company have been at no less than 450000 l. in the Purchase and Defence of those Forts and Castles, and other Europeans at a proportional Charge in theirs: Now nothing less than Distraction must possess us and our Neighbours, to be at such vast Expense to maintain what was not necessary to be done.  
If Forts and Castles are necessary, than the next thing that seems to be considered, is, Whether a Regulated Company with a Joint Stock (as the African Company will be, if this Bill passes,) with a Liberty to all others to Trade upon as easy Terms as the Company itself, or a Regulated Company without a Joint Stock, will carry on this Trade to the best Advantage of England and the Plantations.  
That a Regulated Company with a Stock, and Liberty to all others to Trade upon equal Charge, will best secure and carry on the Trade, seems plain for several Reasons.  

First, The Company being obliged to employ their Stock in Trade will be consequently bound in War as well as Peace, to maintain those Forts and Castles for security of their Effects— whereas in time of War a Company without a Stock might decline their Trade, and so those Forts and Castles would become a Prey, either to the Natives themselves, or (which is most probable) to our Enemies, who now have, and will still maintain their Forts and Castles; and then the Trade, with our Forts and Castles, will be either lost to us, or carried on as Tributaries to those Europeans into whose hands those Defences shall fall— This most plainly appears by that instance between the Dutch and Porteguese— for when Portugal had those Forts and Castles there the Dutch now have, Holland paid the other Tribute for Liberty to Trade: but as soon as the Dutch became Masters of the Forts and Castles, the Tables were turned, and Portugal paid that Tribute to the Dutch, which they before received from them.—  
Secondly, The Plantations will be certainly served with Negroes in War as well as Peace, and can't be imposed upon in Price, whilst themselves as well as others may fetch them if they shall think it proper to Trade.  
Thirdly, Gentlemen, Widows, Orphans, or others, not bred to Trade, may in this Stock employ their moneys, both to their own and Nations advantage, whereas in a Company without a Stock this can t be done.  
Fourthly, The African Company by this Bill may be obliged to make Entries of all their Exports, and to keep a true account of all their Charge in relation to those ●orts and Castles, and allow incidents necessary for the general support of this Trade, and as often as shall be thought necessary to give this Account upon Oath; so that if too high a Duty be imposed, in the next Sessions it may be lessened, or if too little, then raised in a due proportion, so that the Company may lose if less than is necessary be laid, but they can be no Gainers whilst they are thus accountable and subject to the Regulations of the very next Sessions of Parliament, etc. Other Reasons may be given, but I do humbly conceive these sufficient.   
Obj. Whereas it is objected by some, That a Joint-stock is prejudicial to Trade, and therefore this Company with a Joint-stock deserves no Encouragement.  
Answ. There is nothing can be said against a Joint-stock in a Regulated Company, with a liberty to all others to Trade upon equal Terms with the Company (as this will be, if the Bill pass) but what holds as strong against a large Copartnership: And it's reasonably believed, that some of the chief Merchants that now oppose this Bill, would (in case this Bill be rejected) enter in that Copartnership, and then will endeavour to impose that Egyptian Bondage (upon Trade) which they pretend to fear from the Company upon passing this Bill: And there would be some danger from such a Copartnership, but there can be none from the Company under this Bill: For should the Company after this Bill, oppress their Fellow-Subjects (than in Conscience as well as Law entitled to an equal liberty in the Trade,) they would deservedly incur the just Indignation of the next Parliament, who would not only deprive them of any Power to repeat the same, but in probability, of their very Being, and dissolve their Charter: So that nothing less than Self-preservation (the greatest Obligation possible) binds them to a civil Treatment towards their Fellow Subjects. As for the former Carriage of the Company, whilst they thought the Powers of their Charter Legal, that can't reasonably be feared under this Bill, when they know that others as well as themselves, are legally entitled to that Trade. But a large Copartnership will receive no such Prejudice from being dissolved, as a Dissolution would prove to the Company: And therefore though the Trade may be damnified by such a Copartnership, there can be no danger from the Company, for the Reason .  
As for the Cambia Trade, which by the Bill is proposed to be secured to the Company; if this Honourable House shall think fit to open that to all others, it's hoped such a separate Duty shall be laid, as may be proportionable to the Charge of the Building the Forts and Castles, and the Annual support of the Trade— The Fort will cost the Company 20000 l. and the Annual Expense not less than 6000 l. and the Trade thither was never for above 10000 l. per Annum  
Ever since the Parliament Voted that it was the undoubted Right of all the Subjects of England to Trade to Foreign Parts— none of those Free Traders have ever brought to the Parliament a Bill to settle this Trade, but still opposed what was offered by the Company for settling the same.  
The reason whereof is plain, because those Free Traders (as they truly call themselves, having never contributed to what was necessary for the general support of the Trade) had just cause to believe that under such a Regulation, whatsoever it should be, they must Pay towards what by the Parliament should be thought necessary for the general Interest of that Trade— whereas if they could continue that heavy load upon the African Company only by opposing this Bill, they should then enjoy their Trade without that Expense— So that these Free Traders have for about Nine years' last passed since they have had a Liberty to Trade, continued no less burden upon the Company than 25000 l. per Ann. communibus Annis, during this War, but would never touch this weight with one of their Fingers, though themselves received great Profit thereby, and be equally protected in their Factories and Effects, with what belongs to the Company itself.  
But it's now humbly hoped, this Honourable house will put those Free Traders and the Company, for the future, upon a just Balance, by giving countenance to this Bill, which (with all submission) can give no advantage to the Company above other Traders, whilst their own Effects will be liable to the same charge with other men's— And a general good aught to be supported by all that have benefit thereby, (viz.) Those Forts and Castles, so necessary for the common Advantage of this Trade, the support whereof hath lain too heavy upon the present Company, who do therefore by this Bill humbly apply themselves to this Honourable House for their Relief in the Premises   

CONSIDERATIONS Relating to the AFRICAN BILL.