John Prebble Read online

  Some said, also, that complaints against the Company were "only from the teeth outwards, to serve other ends", a plot to embarrass Government and Throne. Some said that the Company was a mongrel with many fathers, one of them the East India Company, since there were proprietors in the Scots Company who were also committee-men in the India Company, and conversely.

  Some say, that we have other fish to fry than to trouble our heads with any of these Companies or their fiddle faddle Indian goods, the retailers of them being generally no other than decoy ducks for alluring our nieces and daughters to the fluttering beaus of the Town, who have got such a trick of raffling that they commonly end with ruffling and rifting etc., and that when we are busy getting estates, our wives too may be under an Indian Umbrealla purchasing Indian babies to inherit them.

  But among the trading companies there was no laughter. A war prolonged beyond the limit of a fair mercantile gamble became less profitable than peace. The King's demand for more Horse, Foot and Ordnance, the theatrical re-enactments in Hyde Park of his wasteful battles, the Days of Fast and Prayer that were the prelude to yet another of his campaigns, were no encouragement when it was clear that though his regiments might win more laurels his merchants would certainly lose more ships. Before the Lords lay petitions from the Honourable East India Company, the Hamburg Company, the Royal African Company and the Levant Company, from the Associations of Merchants Trading with Jamaica, with Pennsylvania and New England, with Barbadoes and the Leeward Isles. Each was a piteous threnody against the vulgar paean for victory.

  In one year the nine principal companies had lost 103 ships by storm, hurricane and shipwreck, to French warships and French privateers. The total loss was £2,262,550 in ships and cargoes, of which one million and a half had been borne by the East India Company alone. The French had taken six of its great vessels, fully laden and homeward bound from Bengal and Surat, all of them between the Scilly Isles and Ireland. The Barbadoes merchants were almost bankrupt, having lost forty small ships between September 1694 and September 1695, three-quarters of them to French privateers, and the losses to the other companies had been proportionally hard. In their petitions they gave the names, burden, crew and armament of the fine ships now gone— Prosperity, Adventure and Providence.... Sarah, John and Joan.

  ... Swan, Pelican and Phoenix______ Antelope, Wolf and Loyal

  Steed....

  Though they asked for cruisers to protect their merchantmen, though they said that they could not defend their forts and factories without guns, their principal complaint was against the Scots. "This Scotch Act," said the Royal African Company, "is nationally so pernicious to us that when once they have colonised themselves our commerce will be utterly lost." English merchants and seamen, said the East India Company, "will remove themselves, their families and estates into the kingdom of Scotland, and thereby carry away a considerable part of the stock and hands that support the trade of this nation." The Hamburg Company said that all Englishmen, and all men resident in England, should be prohibited from association with the Scots. Some of the other companies saw that here might be an opportunity of curbing the power of the East India Company, and acquiring some of its monopolies. The Jamaica merchants said that the best way of stopping the mischievous Scots would be to make trade easier for all. And the Leeward merchants told a small parable by way of illustration. One of their association, recently in India, had bought a chicken for a halfpenny and had told the Hindu from whom he bought it that he was grateful to the man's religion, since it forbade the eating of the bird and thus made it cheap to buy. "You are mistaken, Sir, he was told, for, did we eat chickens, everybody would breed them, and they would become much cheaper."

  On Monday, December 9, seven of the Directors named in the Scots Act appeared before the bar of the Lords, together with others of their Court who were called to give evidence. The day was dank, chill with mists from the river, and the House sat late beyond candle-time. Since their last meeting on Friday, the Directors had been immobilised by shock, and over the weekend many of the two hundred English subscribers to the Company had withdrawn their names in panic. Only Robert Blackwood had been alert to the probable dangers ahead. He collected the Subscription Book from Mackenzie, and sent it to Scotland by his man-servant.

  Two principal questions were put to the Directors: why had they incorporated themselves into a company likely to be prejudicial to England, and who were that company's subscribers? They answered uniformly, and with innocent wonder that it should be thought they had meant any ill. They did not think it prejudicial for them to be so incorporated in Scotland, and as for the subscribers, the Book was closed. Where it was, they did not know. They were asked if they had solicited this Act before the Parliament of Scotland, or had been asked to solicit it, and James Chiesly's answer was the model for all.

  "I know not anybody in England that was applied to directly or indirectly. The people in Scotland knew us, and that is the reason they put in our names. At Mr. Paterson's request it was that this Jew and another was put in it. I have heard five or six years since that Scotland had a design for such an Act."

  And where was Mr. Paterson? The Lords called for him late in the afternoon, and although the Serjeant-at-Arms shouted his name down the corridors of Westminster Hall, above the heads of their lordships' footmen, and out into the courtyard where there were more footmen and coachmen, there was no answer. He had not been seen all day, and had sent no message why he would not or could not come. James Smith, his friend and fellow-director, was asked where the man lived, and replied that it was in Denmark Street by Soho. Testily, the Lords sent a messenger to summon Paterson forthwith.

  Past dusk, the House was told that Mr. Paterson was at the door, and he was brought in and sworn. When he was asked the same questions he answered boldly, and with a note of truculent bitterness, a memory of hard work and ill rewards. "I have been conversant in foreign trade. I solicited abroad for a Company. In 1691 I returned to England and I had a proposal to the Bank of England, but I was not rewarded. In May I was solicited by a Scotch gentleman that if I would give my opinion as to the Scotch Act I should be rewarded. From my opinion the Act was drawn. As to the passing of it, I know nothing."

  And what of the Subscription Book? It was in Scotland, he believed. And shares promised as rewards to supporters of the Company? "I know of none, but what was promised me." He was dismissed, but told to hold himself ready for further attendance.

  The examinations went on through the week, the Lords looking down upon every Director and every witness above a mounting pile of papers, the depositions of witness, the petitions heavy with the black and scarlet seals of the trading companies. Had Mr. Blackwood got the Subscription Book? No, he had not. When did he last see it? "It was Friday last, and I gave it to my man to send it away. I know not whether he went on Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't know where it is, but my man is gone to Scotland." Mackenzie was asked the same question, and he agreed that the Book had left London, but when or where he could not say. But he admitted, under pressure, that he did have a list of the subscribers' names. And Balfour, when he was called, offered the Lords a copy of the Preamble to the Subscription Book.

  When they were finished with the Directors, the Lords listened to the reading of a paper from the Commissioners of Customs who declared that there was no doubt that the Scots Act would have a grave effect on the trade, revenue, and navigation of England. If it could not be repealed, encouragement of a similar nature should be given to English merchants. In any case, severe penalties should be imposed upon those Englishmen, and residents of England, who persisted in an association with the Scots Company.

  It was Saturday. The Lords had spent six days on this examination, longer than many of them thought it was worth. They appointed a committee to draw up an Address to the King, and they sent word to the Commons (at that moment considering the Army Estimates and voting William £2,700,000 for his next campaign) inviting the Lower House to join them in presenting it.
The whole business had pushed other matters aside. One cancelled motion had been a ray of light from a not too distant future wherein the principals and the enemies of the Scots Company would be bitterly involved. "Moved, that a day may be appointed to receive what may be proposed in order to have a Union between England and Scotland." Nothing came of it, the Lords had had their fill of the Scots for the moment.

  Until this moment the Commons had taken no formal notice of the Scots Company, but were ready to join in the pursuit of it. They elected twenty-eight of their number, led by the Attorney- General and the Solicitor-General, to meet with the Lords' committee in the Painted Chamber, and there agree upon the terms of the Address. That it was done quickly, that the written Address was before the Commons on Saturday evening, argues earlier knowledge and previous discussions. It was twice read and approved unanimously. It gave a brief but precise account of the passing of the Scots Act and the trading advantages it granted to Scotland.

  "When once that nation shall have settled themselves in plantations in America, our commerce in tobacco, sugar, cottonwool, skins, masts, etc., will be utterly lost. The Kingdom must be the magazine for all those commodities, and the English Plantations, and the traffic thereof, lost to us, and the exportation of our own manufactures yearly decrease."

  It warned William that the Act obliged him to secure restitution and reparation for any injury done to the Scots Company, to employ English men- of-war in its defence and at the public cost, which could only be to the great detriment of England. The wording sometimes slavishly copied the phrasing of the petitions presented to the Lords, and although no remedy was suggested it was none the less implicit. The Act should be repealed, and the Company crushed.

  Between three and four in the afternoon of Tuesday, December 17, in fair weather for the time of the year, there was a great gathering of carriages outside Westminster Hall, a mob of shouting footmen and swearing coachmen, all waiting for the Members of both Houses to take the Bath Road to Kensington. The Commons had been sitting since nine. They had begun by giving leave to a Bill to prevent theft and rapine on the borders of England and Scotland, and they were now coming to the end of a debate on a petition from the Governor and Members of the East India Company. This reported that the Company had nineteen ships outward bound, all laden with English manufactures valued at more than a quarter of a million pounds, the trading profits of which were in danger of being lost "by reason of the great privileges granted to joint stocks of neighbouring nations". Four more Indiamen lay in the Downs awaiting a favourable wind, another four were fitting-out downriver from London Bridge, and fifteen now loading off Surat and Bengal would be home within a year. All this was in jeopardy. The Company asked "that leave may be given to bring in a Bill for establishing the Company with such privileges and immunities as the House shall think fit, and as may preserve the joint stock, and enable them to carry on the trade to the honour and advantage of the nation". Properly impressed, the Commons appointed a committee to enquire into the Scots Act, with powers to send for and examine all papers and persons connected with it. And the persons concerned were those Scots and English gentlemen who had recently spent a worrying week at the bar of the Lords.

  The Commons then voted themselves into a committee of the whole House, left the Hall and joined their lordships in an undignified struggle to find their coaches in the uproar of the courtyard.

  The long procession of horsemen, coaches, outriders, running footmen and clattering troopers went by way of Petty France to the frosted fields of Pimlico, and on to the Kensington Road through Hyde Park, followed by a cheering crowd. The meeting with the King was brief. The audience chamber of the Palace was airless and suffocating, a crush of silk and brocade, ringlet wigs and powder, silver buckles and scarlet heels, body sweat and pomander. Lords and Commons craned their necks to see the lonely figure at the end of the chamber, its heavy cheeks and great eagle nose, the star of the Garter on a black coat, and a mourning band on one arm. William listened politely to a reading of the Address, punctuating it with his dry, asthmatic cough, and when it was over he nodded to the bowing Speaker and said

  "I have been ill-served in Scotland, but I hope some remedies may be found to prevent the inconveniences which may arise from this Act."

  He rose and left.

  Both Houses were satisfied. They had expected no passionate emotion from this reserved and grieving man, and they sensed the anger behind the shutter of his words. Though he had given no promises, though what he had said had been ambiguous enough not to offend his Scots Parliament too deeply, his impatience with it and the northern kingdom was none the less plain. By giving the Royal Assent to the Act, Tweeddale had exceeded any warrant granted him by his commission, and the arrogant assumption of rights and privileges denied his English subjects was an impudent impertinence. He had also, perhaps, more than this in mind when he spoke of being ill-served in Scotland. Five months ago, in his camp before Namur, he had received the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Massacre of Glencoe, and an Address from the Scots Parliament upon the same matter. Though the Report had naturally exonerated him, it blamed his favoured Secretary of State, the Master of Stair. The Address, more indignant in tone, had also accused Stair of being "the original cause of this unhappy business", implying that he should be punished, and bluntly demanding that the King send home for trial those officers and soldiers of Argyll's Regiment who had carried out the slaughter. Moreover, many outraged people in Scotland and England were encouraged by Jacobite hacks to believe that the King was in fact primarily responsible for the killing of the MacDonalds. Had he not subscribed and superscribed the original order sent by Stair?

  For five months William had acknowledged neither the Report nor the Address, and had taken no action beyond regretfully accepting the resignation of Stair. But two weeks ago, in this same chamber, he had called before him all those Scots Privy Councillors then in London. He astonished them by saying that he had known nothing of the matter until eighteen months after the massacre. This shameful, and probably dishonest confession, made to the empty faces of cynical men, betrayed William's anger, his choking impatience with ministers who could not keep his honour and reputation clean. And now, here was more insufferable incompetence, bringing both Houses of the English Parliament clamouring to his throne.

  He had given no promise that the Act would be repealed, even if that were possible he relied too much upon the Scots Parliament for recruits and supplies to so antagonise it, but his evident displeasure made it possible for England to crush the mushroom Company in London. Three days later the Lords, sitting as a committee of the whole House, agreed to a Bill by which all Englishmen, and all traders in England, would be prohibited from joining the Company. They agreed that all English and Irish seamen and shipwrights should be discouraged, under severe penalties, from serving in, building or repairing the ships of the Company. They agreed "to establish an East India trade in England by Act of Parliament, with such powers, privileges and immunities as may obviate the inconveniences that may arise by the late Act passed in Scotland." There was, of course, an immediate outcry from the lesser trading companies, who had not asked for the young behemoth of Scotland to be destroyed so that the East India Company might grow into a greater leviathan. The Lords grew tired of the wrangling, forgot their Bill, and passed on to other matters.

  But the Commons did not forget. When Christmas was past, and January two-thirds gone, they set aside their debates on the case for reform in the sale of spices, the erection of unlawful weirs on the River Wye, the eternal need to restore a clipped coinage, and listened to a report from Colonel Granville, chairman of the Committee which had been examining the Secretary and some of the Directors of what the House called the Scotch East India Company.

  Young Mackenzie had appeared first, and had been as bland, polite, and as fundamentally unhelpful as he had been before the Lords. He knew nothing of the Company's accounts, he kept the minutes only. He knew nothing about the p
assing of the Act, though he had heard, only heard, that the fees for it amounted to £150. Where was the Subscription Book? He did not know, he had given it to Mr. Blackwood on December 6, since all the Directors had agreed that gentleman should have it. True it was carried into Scotland, but here was a list of the subscribers' names. As for the oath, De fideli administratione, here was a copy of that too.

  Paterson again told his story. He had been approached by Mr. Chiesly, and had given Mr. Chiesly a scheme for a company in Scotland. He had been granted a considerable royalty, "which I have since, out of my mere generosity, released." He had not solicited the Act and knew not how it was passed. He agreed that there were 200 subscribers to the Company, and that its proposed capital was £300,000 Sterling. There had been, yes, a proposal to fit out a ship of four hundred tons and send it to the Indies as an interloper, but he did not know where the vessel was to be chartered or its cargo bought. He was questioned closely about the oath, and asked if he thought it prevented him from answering questions here. By some peculiar rationalisation that may have quietened his own doubts, he said "I do not reckon myself obliged to conceal anything from this Committee." And he was dismissed, with a warning to remain in London and be answerable to the Committee.

  The English Directors, and those subscribers who were called, answered all questions with an embarrassing candour that revealed their fears. Robert Lancashire said that he was a member of the East India Company as well as a Director of the Scots. He had subscribed £3,000 to the latter, because he had been told that if he did not there were many others who would. He had always thought that the royalties granted Paterson were excessive. A subscriber called Glover honestly said that he had supported the Company because "he thought it better that an Englishman should have the benefit of it than a foreigner." And another, Bateman, admitted that he had subscribed £2,000, but had loyally withdrawn from the Company when "he heard that Parliament had taken it into examination."