Treaty between the English and Dutch East India Companies, soon broken.
So prosperous had their affairs now become, that in 1617, when the stock of the Company had reached a premium of two hundred and three per cent., the Dutch East India Company were induced to suggest an amalgamation of the two companies, with a view to crush their common enemy, the Portuguese, and to exclude all other shipping from obtaining a footing in India. Though this scheme was never carried into effect, the two companies concluded, in 1619, a treaty of trade and friendship, whereby they should cease from rivalry, and apportion the profits of the different branches of commerce between them.[157] But the treaty, like most others of a similar character, was made only to be broken, and in the course of the following year the Dutch governor-general really, though erroneously, under the impression that the English had gained undue advantages, attacked their possessions of Lantore and Pulo-Penang. A long series of hostile acts ensued, including the massacre of various Englishmen by the Dutch in Amboyna, and numerous conflicts between the merchant vessels of both countries, resulting in the exclusion of the English from the valuable trade of the Archipelago, and in losses most disastrous to the Company.
Losses of the East India Company.
Thus, in a few years after the conclusion of a treaty which professed so much and performed so little for the benefit of either party, the Dutch had gained so complete an ascendency over the English traders, that, notwithstanding their valuable acquisition of the island of Ormuz in the Persian Gulf, and the prospect of still being able to conduct a lucrative trade with the East, the Directors seriously meditated relinquishing all they had gained, and liquidating the affairs of the Company. They had already abandoned their scheme of the Greenland[158] fishery, which had been incongruously intermingled with their East Indian adventures, and had withdrawn from Japan, notwithstanding the great encouragement they had received for the prosecution of its valuable trade. With an increased capital of more than one million and a half, their stock had decreased one half in value, and so powerful had the Dutch now become, that the Company for the time seems to have lost all hope of being able to compete against them and the Portuguese, who still maintained an important position in India. This great rivalry for maritime supremacy, which commenced during the reign of Elizabeth, formed one of the most important subjects for discussion during the whole lifetime of her successor.[159]
Sir Waiter Raleigh’s views on maritime commerce, 1603.
Sir Walter Raleigh gives a graphic account[160] of the state of things then existing, and of the condition of the English mercantile marine shortly before the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. In this remarkable paper, which contains many commercial principles far in advance of the age in which the author lived, Sir Walter states that the merchant ships of England were not to be compared with those of the Dutch, and that while an English ship of one hundred tons required a crew of thirty men, the Dutch would sail such a vessel with one third that number. Illustrative of the wise and progressive policy of the Dutch, he enumerates various instances where that country had an immense advantage over England, and where, following the example of ancient Tyre and of more modern Venice, Holland became the depôt of numerous articles “not one hundredth part of which were consumed” by the Dutch, while she gave “free custom inwards and outwards for the better maintenance of navigation and encouragement of the people to that business.”
Directing attention to the liberal policy of some other of the nations of his time, Sir Walter mentions the fact that France offered to the vessels of all nations free custom twice and sometimes three times each year, when she laid in her annual stock of provisions, and also in such raw materials as were not possessed by herself in equal abundance, adding that La Rochelle was an entirely free port, a small toll levied for the repair of the harbour alone excepted. Denmark also granted free custom throughout the year, with the exception of one month between Bartholomew-tide and Michaelmas. The merchandise of France, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, and England were then transported chiefly by the Dutch into the east and north-east kingdoms of Pomerania, as well as into Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia, and some other countries of the south. Sir Walter, with great force, adds, “and yet the situation of England lieth far better for a store-house to serve the south-east and the north-east kingdoms than theirs do, and we have far the better means to do it if we apply ourselves to do it.”
Sir Walter says with equal truth that, although the greatest fishery in the world is on the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Holland despatches annually to the four great towns on the Baltic, Königsburg, Elbing, Stettin, and Dantzig, herrings worth 620,000l., while England does not send a boatload; nor even a single herring up the Rhine to Germany, whose people purchase annually from the Dutch fish to the value of 400,000l. “We send,” remarks this enlightened statesman, “into the east kingdoms yearly only one hundred ships, and our trade chiefly depends on Elbing, Königsburg, and Dantzig,” while “the shipowners of the low country send thither about three thousand ships, trading with every city and port and town, making their purchases at better rates than we do on account of the difference of coin.” “The Hollanders,” he continues, “send into France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, from the east kingdoms, passing through the Sound yearly, with Baltic produce, about two thousand merchant ships, and we have none in that course. They traffick into every city and port around about this land with five or six hundred ships yearly, and we, chiefly, to three towns in their country and with forty ships; the Dutch trade to every port and town in France, and we only to five or six.” Sir Walter estimated, that the Low Countries at the time he wrote (1603-4) possessed as many vessels of all sorts as eleven kingdoms of Christendom, including England; that they built one thousand ships annually, and “yet have not a tree in their whole country;” and that all their home products might be carried in a hundred ships. Nor does his complaint end here. He alleges that “our Russian trade was going to ruin,” and that, though for seventy years the English had carried on a very considerable commercial intercourse with Moscow, they had only four vessels engaged in that trade in the year 1600, and only “two or three” in 1602, whereas the Hollanders, who, about twenty years previously, had only two ships in the trade, had now increased the number of their vessels to thirty or forty, and were still increasing.
His views confirmed by other writers opposed to his opinions.
The views of Tobias, 1614.