DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0137
HISTORY OF CHARTERED TRADE COMPANIES. 121
their action and monopoly were alike untenable. They were, in
short, doing what no civilized community ever dreams of per-
mitting, establishing a paper blockade, which they could not, or
would not, make effectual.
It was for reasons like this that Cromwell, who was in many
particulars of his administration greatly in advance of his age,
annulled the charter of the Company in 1654, and made the trade
to the Indies free. Of course this action of his did not confiscate
their factories, or give any Englishman, and, for the matter of that,
Scot or Irishman, the right to use the Company's property. You
will remember that Cromwell bestowed all the advantages of
English trade on the Scotch and Irish, a privilege which did not
last longer than his life ; but was very fully remembered when
the Scottish Union was negotiated. The short interval, however,
during which the Eastern trade was thrown open, gave occasion
to that remarkable constitutional struggle between the two
Houses, which is known in constitutional history as Skinner's
case. Skinner had taken advantage of the new situation, had
traded to India, had purchased, as he said, an island from a native
prince, and had set up trade on his own account. The Company,
during the period in which their charter was suspended, had
despoiled and imprisoned him. Skinner, as you probably know,
appealed to the Lords, who at that time claimed original as well
as appellate jurisdiction, and a very pretty quarrel ensued between
the two Houses. The problem was an insoluble one. Skinner
was unquestionably wronged, but the Lords did not possess the
function of rightincr him. On the other hand, the Commons were
wrong in disputing his claim to compensation, and in the right in
asfirming that he had applied to the wrong tribunal.
Charles, however, had recognized and restored the Company's
charter, no doubt holding that Cromwell's action was a usurpation.
He did more ; he gave them that part of the dowry os Catherine
of Braganza which consisted of Goa, and what afterwards became
Bombay. Her other possession, Tangier, he held till he was tired
of it. In consideration of these white elephants, the Parliament
gave her a very handsome annuity, which she lived long to enjoy.
But the settlement on the western coast of India was of consider-
able advantage to the Company, and during the reign of Charles
their action and monopoly were alike untenable. They were, in
short, doing what no civilized community ever dreams of per-
mitting, establishing a paper blockade, which they could not, or
would not, make effectual.
It was for reasons like this that Cromwell, who was in many
particulars of his administration greatly in advance of his age,
annulled the charter of the Company in 1654, and made the trade
to the Indies free. Of course this action of his did not confiscate
their factories, or give any Englishman, and, for the matter of that,
Scot or Irishman, the right to use the Company's property. You
will remember that Cromwell bestowed all the advantages of
English trade on the Scotch and Irish, a privilege which did not
last longer than his life ; but was very fully remembered when
the Scottish Union was negotiated. The short interval, however,
during which the Eastern trade was thrown open, gave occasion
to that remarkable constitutional struggle between the two
Houses, which is known in constitutional history as Skinner's
case. Skinner had taken advantage of the new situation, had
traded to India, had purchased, as he said, an island from a native
prince, and had set up trade on his own account. The Company,
during the period in which their charter was suspended, had
despoiled and imprisoned him. Skinner, as you probably know,
appealed to the Lords, who at that time claimed original as well
as appellate jurisdiction, and a very pretty quarrel ensued between
the two Houses. The problem was an insoluble one. Skinner
was unquestionably wronged, but the Lords did not possess the
function of rightincr him. On the other hand, the Commons were
wrong in disputing his claim to compensation, and in the right in
asfirming that he had applied to the wrong tribunal.
Charles, however, had recognized and restored the Company's
charter, no doubt holding that Cromwell's action was a usurpation.
He did more ; he gave them that part of the dowry os Catherine
of Braganza which consisted of Goa, and what afterwards became
Bombay. Her other possession, Tangier, he held till he was tired
of it. In consideration of these white elephants, the Parliament
gave her a very handsome annuity, which she lived long to enjoy.
But the settlement on the western coast of India was of consider-
able advantage to the Company, and during the reign of Charles