DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57079#0048
32 THE EARLY HISTORY OF
to the council to protest against limiting the
membership of the Company. The petitions
seem to regard the merchants as a kind of
clique against whose monopoly they are
opposed. One petition12 even asserts that
it can be proved that those who first sought
the privilege of the Turkish trade were not
the first to discover it, and furthermore,
that fifty years ago more English merchants
participated in the trade than in that day.
The same petition affirms that those who
seek to exclude all others from the freedom
are such as least need the freedom themselves,
being also free of the Dantzig and Muscovy
Companies, very rich and few in number.
Company.” This is an error, and quite unnecessary.
The Levant Company is of course meant, and indeed,
is mentioned.
In No. 80 there is an endorsement, “objections
against the Tripoli merchants.” This is obviously a
slip os the pen, and it may have led the calendarer
astray in her note to No. 43. That it is nothing but
a slip is clear from the preamble of the document:
“ Whereas it hath pleased her majesty to grant
two patents for uniting the Company of Tripoli
and the traders of Venice for establishing a society
for the continuing of trade into Turkey, and to all
the Venetian dominions,” etc.
12 S. P. D. Pliz. vol. 239, No. 41.
to the council to protest against limiting the
membership of the Company. The petitions
seem to regard the merchants as a kind of
clique against whose monopoly they are
opposed. One petition12 even asserts that
it can be proved that those who first sought
the privilege of the Turkish trade were not
the first to discover it, and furthermore,
that fifty years ago more English merchants
participated in the trade than in that day.
The same petition affirms that those who
seek to exclude all others from the freedom
are such as least need the freedom themselves,
being also free of the Dantzig and Muscovy
Companies, very rich and few in number.
Company.” This is an error, and quite unnecessary.
The Levant Company is of course meant, and indeed,
is mentioned.
In No. 80 there is an endorsement, “objections
against the Tripoli merchants.” This is obviously a
slip os the pen, and it may have led the calendarer
astray in her note to No. 43. That it is nothing but
a slip is clear from the preamble of the document:
“ Whereas it hath pleased her majesty to grant
two patents for uniting the Company of Tripoli
and the traders of Venice for establishing a society
for the continuing of trade into Turkey, and to all
the Venetian dominions,” etc.
12 S. P. D. Pliz. vol. 239, No. 41.