London and the Kingdom - Volume 2 / A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.

by Reginald R. Sharpe

Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.

The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.[1776] The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.[1777] A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578] three years' warning;[1778] but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.[1779] This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.

Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.

In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,[1780] an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.

The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.

Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,[1781] the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579] she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).[1782] They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"[1783] and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,[1784] and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.[1785]

The City's petition re debts to orphans, 1691.

Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580] difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.[1786] The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on the Quo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581] appears to have come of it.[1787] On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.[1788] What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.[1789]

The Orphans' Bill of 1693.

The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.[1790] In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.[1791]