Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:09:59.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“A Politie of Civill & Military Power”: Political Thought and the Late Seventeenth-Century Foundations of the East India Company-State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2012

Philip J. Stern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 253 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Samuel Annesley to Louis de Keiser, 21 February 1695/6, India Office Records (IOR) G/36/95 fol. 21, Oriental and India Office Collections (OIOC), British Library (BL).

2 Ibid.

3 Cavallar, Georg, The Rights of Strangers: Theories of International Hospitality, the Global Community, and Political Justice since Vitoria (Aldershot, 2002), 150Google Scholar.

4 Surat to John Gayer, 30 October 1695, IOR G/3/22 fol. 13. Literally an “army-holder,” a faujdar was an individual or corporate Mughal tributary charged with both the administration and execution of justice. The precise nature and jurisdiction of a faujdari varied in different places and situations, sometimes combining functions of a diwan (revenue collector) or even subadar (provincial governor). Faujdars also held a great deal of local power, and their status was typically determined by some negotiation between their own local political power and the designs of the Mughal imperial center. The term was often translated by the seventeenth-century English in India as “sheriff,” though in its context—given the local, independent power exercised by an early modern English sheriff—the comparison is not entirely without merit. See Singh, Chetan, “Centre and Periphery in the Mughal State: The Case of Seventeenth-Century Panjab,” Modern Asian Studies 22, no. 2 (1988): 299–318, esp. 308–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Annesley's immediate model for his plan was the Siddi, the head of a corporate tributary polity in coastal Gujarat and Mahrashtra that served as the Mughal empire's “navy” in the western Indian littoral. Surat to Bombay, 30 October 1695, IOR E/3/51 fols. 242–43; Surat to Bombay, 8 August 1694, IOR G/36/94 fol. 59.

6 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, “Lord Clive” (1840), in his Critical and Historical Essays contributed to ‘The Edinburgh Review’ (London, 1884), 526Google Scholar. For a recent tour de force corrective, arguing for a serious approach to Company ideology in the immediate wake of Plassey and diwani, see Travers, Robert, Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India: The British in Bengal (Cambridge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For example, Bohun, James, “Protecting Prerogative: William III and the East India Trade Debate, 1689–1698,” Past Imperfect 2 (1993): 63–86Google Scholar; Bowen, H. V., “‘No Longer Mere Traders’: Continuities and Change in the Metropolitan Development of the East India Company, 1600–1834,” in The Worlds of the East India Company, ed. Bowen, H. V., Margarette Lincoln, and Nigel Rigby (Woodbridge, 2002), 19–32Google Scholar; Braddick, Michael, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), 43–44Google Scholar; Brenner, Robert, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London's Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Princeton, NJ, 1993)Google Scholar; Brewer, John, Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State (New York, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carruthers, Bruce G., City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial Revolution (Princeton, NJ, 1996), 137–59Google Scholar; Coleman, D. C., Sir John Banks, Baronet and Businessman: A Study of Business, Politics, and Society in Later Stuart England (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar; Dickson, P. G. M., The Financial Revolution in England: A Study in the Development of Public Credit, 1688–1756 (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Havlik, Margaret Bauer, “Power and Politics in the East India Company, 1681–1709” (PhD diss., University of Akron, 1998)Google Scholar; Horwitz, Henry, “The East India Trade, the Politicians, and the Constitution: 1689–1702,” Journal of British Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 1–18Google Scholar; Klein, P. W., “The Origins of Trading Companies,” in Companies and Trade, ed. Blussé, Leonard and Gaastra, Femme (The Hague, 1981), 17–28, 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sherman, Arnold A., “Pressure from Leadenhall: The East India Company Lobby, 1660–1678,” Business History Review 50, no. 3 (Autumn 1976): 329–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steensgaard, Niels, The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade (Chicago, 1973)Google Scholar, and “The Companies as a Specific Institution in the History of European Expansion,” in Blussé and Gaastra, Companies and Trade, 245–64; Sutherland, Lucy, The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar; Walcott, Robert, “The East India Interest in the General Election of 1700–1701,” English Historical Review 71, no. 279 (April 1956): 223–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 On the “politics of trade” and the “trading world of Asia,” see Chaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760 (Cambridge, 1978), chap. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on “eirinic mission,” see Lawson, Philip, The East India Company: A History (London, 1993), 56Google Scholar; on “armed trading,” see Chaudhuri, K. N. and Israel, Jonathan, “The English and Dutch East India Companies and the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689,” in The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact, ed. Israel, Jonathan (Cambridge, 1991), 407–38, 438Google Scholar.

9 On the “state within a state,” see Braddick, Michael J., State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), 400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on “semi-sovereign status,” see Chaudhuri, Trading World of Asia, 20; on “delegated sovereignty,” see Sen, Sudipta, Empire of Free Trade: The East India Company and the Making of the Colonial Marketplace (Philadelphia, 1998), 80Google Scholar; on “department of state” and “quasi-governmental powers,” see Lenman, Bruce, England's Colonial Wars: 1550–1688; Conflicts, Empire, and National Identity (Harlow, 2001), 207Google Scholar; on “fledgling version” and “metropolitan sire,” see Bayly, C. A., “The British Military-Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance: India 1750–1820,” in An Imperial State at War: Britain from 1689 to 1815, ed. Stone, Lawrence (London, 1994), 322–54, 326Google Scholar.

10 Sen, Sudipta, Distant Sovereignty: National Imperialism and the Origins of British India (New York, 2002), 6Google Scholar.

11 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, “Warren Hastings” (1841), in Critical and Historical Essays, 606Google Scholar. On the Company, and Child more specifically, in relation to late seventeenth-century economic thought in England, see, among others, Appleby, Joyce, Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Princeton, NJ, 1978)Google Scholar; Barber, William, British Economic Thought and India, 1600–1858: A Study in the History of Development Economics (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar; Ekelund, Robert B. Jr. and Tollison, Robert D., Politicized Economies: Monarchy, Monopoly, and Mercantilism (College Station, TX, 1997)Google Scholar; Finkelstein, Andrea, Harmony and the Balance: An Intellectual History of Seventeenth-Century English Economic Thought (Ann Arbor, MI, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See, in particular, Fitzmaurice, Andrew, Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colonisation, 1500–1625 (Cambridge, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kupperman, Karen, Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Dutch, see, e.g., Andrade, Tonio, “Political Spectacle and Colonial Rule: The Landdag on Dutch Taiwan, 1629–1648,” Itinerario 21, no. 3 (1997): 57–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arasaratnam, Sinnappah, “Mare Clausum: The Dutch and Regional Trade in the Indian Ocean, 1650–1740,” Journal of Indian History 61, nos. 1–3 (1983): 73–91Google Scholar; Borschberg, Peter, “The Seizure of the Sta. Catarina Revisited: The Portuguese Empire in Asia, VOC Politics and the Origins of the Dutch-Jahor Alliance (1602–c. 1616),” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33, no. 1 (February 2002): 31–62Google Scholar; van Goor, J., “Seapower, Trade, and State Formation: Pontianak and the Dutch,” in Trading Companies in Asia, 1600–1830, ed. van Goor, J. (Utrecht, 1986), 9–18Google Scholar. On the historiographical divisions between the northern Europeans and the Portuguese, see Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500–1700: A Political and Economic History (London, 1993), 270–77Google Scholar; McPherson, Kenneth, “Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Relations in the Eastern Indian Ocean from the Seventeenth to the Eighteenth Centuries,” South Asia 19, no. 1 (1996): 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ames, Glenn, “The Carreira da India, 1668–1682: Maritime Enterprise and the Quest for Stability in Portugal's Asian Empire,” Journal of European Economic History 20, no. 1 (1991): 7–28Google Scholar.

13 For some gestures in the direction of a political and more continuous approach to the early company's history, see Bayly, “Military-Fiscal State,” 322–54; Furber, Holden, “The Growth of British Power in India, 1708–1748” (1969), in Private Fortunes and Company Profits in the India Trade in the 18th Century, ed. Rocher, Rosane (Aldershot, 1997), 1–16Google Scholar, 16, and Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600–1800 (Minneapolis, 1976), 198; G. Z. Refai, “Sir George Oxinden and Bombay, 1662–1669,” English Historical Review 92, no. 364 (July 1977): 573–81; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Frank Submissions: The Company and the Mughals between Sir Thomas Roe and Sir William Norris,” in The Worlds of the East India Company, ed. Bowen, H. V., Margarette Lincoln, and Nigel Rigby (Woodbridge, 2002), 69–96, 70Google Scholar; Watson, I. Bruce, “Fortifications and the ‘Idea’ of Force in Early English East India Company Relations with India,” Past and Present, no. 88 (August 1980): 70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodruff, Philip, The Men Who Ruled India: The Founders (London, 1953), 74Google Scholar.

14 Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For a useful historiographical and theoretical survey, see Gustafsson, Harald, “The Conglomerate State: A Perspective on State Formation in Early Modern Europe,” Scandinavian Journal of History 23, no. 3 (September 1998): 189–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Tilly, Charles, “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, 169–91Google Scholar, and “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. Charles Tilly (Princeton, NJ, 1975), 3–83, 27.

16 Braddick, Michael and Walter, John, “Introduction: Grids of Power; Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Early Modern Society,” in Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland, ed. Braddick, Michael and Walter, John (Cambridge, 2001), 1–42, 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hindle, Steve, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1640 (New York, 2000), 23Google Scholar; Tilly, “War Making and State Making,” 173; Braddick, Michael, “The Early Modern English State and the Question of Differentiation, from 1550 to 1700,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 1 (January 1996): 92–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Civility and Authority,” in The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800, ed. David Armitage and Michael J. Braddick (Houndmills, 2002), 93–112.

17 Elliott, J. H., “A Europe of Composite Monarchies,” Past and Present, no. 137 (November 1992): 48–71Google Scholar. See also, among others, Braddick, State Formation, 9; Glaisyer, Natasha, “Networking: Trade and Exchange in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire,” Historical Journal 47, no. 2 (June 2004): 451–76, 474CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gustafsson, “The Conglomerate State,” 189, 193–97, 211; Halliday, Paul D., Dismembering the Body Politic: Partisan Politics in England's Towns, 1650–1730 (Cambridge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koenigsberger, H. G., “Dominium Regale or Dominium Politicum et Regale: Monarchies and Parliaments in Early Modern Europe,” in his Politicians and Virtuosi: Essays in Early Modern History (London, 1986), 1–26Google Scholar, 12; Shepard, Alexandra and Withington, Phil, eds., Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric (Manchester, 2000)Google Scholar; Withington, Phil, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Public Discourse, Corporate Citizenship, and State Formation in Early Modern England,” American Historical Review 112, no. 4 (October 2007): 1016–38.

18 Collinson, Patrick, “De Republica Anglorum: Or, History with the Politics Put Back,” in his Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), 1–30, 9.Google Scholar

19 Morrill, John, “Thinking about the New British History,” in British Political Thought in History, Literature and Theory, 1500–1800, ed. Armitage, David (Cambridge, 2006), 23–46, 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Lee Malcolm, Joyce, “Introduction,” in The Struggle for Sovereignty: Seventeenth-Century English Political Tracts, ed. Lee Malcolm, Joyce (Indianapolis, 1999), xixGoogle Scholar. See also Gelderen, Martin van, “The State and Its Rivals in Early-Modern Europe,” in States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects, ed. Stråth, Bo and Skinner, Quentin (Cambridge, 2003), 79–96Google Scholar; Gill, Graeme, The Nature and Development of the Modern State (Houndmills, 2003), 73–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See, among others, Alexandrowicz, C. H., An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries) (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; Armitage, David, “Introduction,” in Hugo Grotius, The Free Sea, or a Disputation concerning the Right which the Hollanders Ought to Have to the Indian Merchandise for Trading, trans. Hakluyt, Richard and ed. Armitage, David (Indianapolis, 2004), xi–xxGoogle Scholar; Fulton, Thomas Wemyss, The Sovereignty of the Sea: An Historical Account of the Claims of England to the Dominion of the British Seas, and of the Evolution of the Territorial Waters, with special reference to the Rights of Fishing and the Naval Salute (Edinburgh, 1911)Google Scholar; Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar.

22 Elizabeth Mancke, “Early Modern Expansion and the Politicization of Oceanic Space,” Geographical Review 89, no. 2 (April 1999): 225–36, and “State and Empire,” in Armitage and Braddick, The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800, 175–95. See also Lauren Benton, “The Legal Regime of the South Atlantic World, 1400–1750: Jurisdictional Complexity as Institutional Order,” Journal of World History 11, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 27–56; Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston, 2000). See also Hendrik Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton, NJ, 1994); Janice Thomson, Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe (Princeton, NJ, 1994).

23 Elliott, J. H., Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (New Haven, CT, 2006), 118Google Scholar. See also Benton, Lauren, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (Cambridge, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bilder, Mary Sarah, The Transatlantic Constitution: Colonial Legal Culture and the Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2004)Google Scholar.

24 Melleuish, Gregory, “The State in World History: Perspectives and Problems,” Australian Journal of Politics and History 48, no. 3 (September 2002): 322–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Kolff, D. H. A., Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450–1850 (Cambridge, 1990), 19Google Scholar. See also Barkey, Karen, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization (Ithaca, NY, 1997)Google Scholar.

26 Bose, Sugata, A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2006), 55, 291 n. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Stein, Burton, “State Formation and Economy Reconsidered: Part One,” Modern Asian Studies 19, no. 3 (1985): 387–413, 388CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (Delhi, 1980). See also Bayly, C. A., Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870 (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; Perlin, Frank, “State Formation Reconsidered,” Modern Asian Studies 19, no. 3 (1985): 415–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Iranians Abroad: Intra-Asian Elite Migration and Early Modern State Formation,” Journal of Asian Studies 51, no. 3 (July–September 1992): 291–321Google Scholar, and “The Mughal State—Structure or Process? Reflections on Recent Western Historiography,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 29 (1992): 291–322; Wink, Andre, Land and Sovereignty in India: Agrarian Society and Politics under the Eighteenth-Century Maratha Svarajya (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar.

28 Bose, A Hundred Horizons, 70. See, among others, Alam, Muzaffar, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India, Awadh, and the Punjab, 1707–1748 (Delhi, 1986)Google Scholar; Barnett, Richard, North India between Empires: Awadh, the Mughals, and the British, 1720–1801 (Berkeley, CA, 1980)Google Scholar; Brittlebank, Kate, Tipu Sultan's Search for Legitimacy: Islam and Kingship in a Hindu Domain (Delhi, 1997)Google Scholar; Chatterjee, Kumkum, Merchants, Politics and Society in Early Modern India: Bihar; 1733–1820 (Leiden, 1996)Google Scholar; Gordon, Stewart, “Legitimacy and Loyalty in Some Successor States of the Eighteenth Century,” in Kingship and Authority in South Asia, ed. Richards, John (Delhi, 1998), 327–45Google Scholar; Peabody, Norbert, Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar; Rai, Mridu, Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (Princeton, NJ, 2004)Google Scholar.

29 See among others, Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia,” Modern Asian Studies 31, no. 3 (July 1997): 735–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Bayly, C. A., The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global Connections and Comparisons (Oxford, 2004), chaps. 1–3Google Scholar; Bentley, Jerry H., “Hemispheric Integration, 500–1500 C.E.,” Journal of World History 9, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 237–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ng, On-cho, “The Epochal Concept of 'Early Modernity’ and the Intellectual History of Late Imperial China,” Journal of World History 14, no. 1 (March 2003): 37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Holding the World in Balance: The Connected Histories of the Iberian Overseas Empires, 1500–1640,” American Historical Review 112, no. 5 (December 2007): 1329–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Collinson, , “De Republica Anglorum,” 9; Antoinette Burton, “Who Needs the Nation? Interrogating 'British' History,” in Cultures of Empire: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, ed. Hall, Catherine (Manchester, 2000), 137–53Google Scholar. On the “crisis of the nation state,” see, e.g., and among many others, Brenner, Neil, “Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality, and Geographical Scale in Globalization Studies,” Theory and Society 28, no. 1 (February 1999): 39–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dicken, Peter, “Transnational Corporations and Nation-States,” International Social Science Journal 49, no. 1 (1997): 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, John, ed., Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State? (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar; Glassman, Jim, “State Power beyond the ‘Territorial Trap’: The Internationalization of the State,” Political Geography 18, no. 6 (August 1999): 669–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruggie, John Gerard, “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations,” International Organization 47, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 139–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sassen, Saskia, Losing Control: Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization (New York, 1996)Google Scholar; Schmidt, Vivien A., “The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of Business and the Decline of the Nation-State,” Daedalus 124, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 75–106Google Scholar; Taylor, Peter J., “Beyond Containers: Internationality, Interstateness, Interterritoriality,” Progress in Human Geography 19, no. 2 (1995): 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The State as Container: Territoriality in the Modern World-System,” Progress in Human Geography 18 (1994): 151–62.

31 Biersteker, Thomas and Weber, Cynthia, “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty,” in State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. Biersteker, Thomas and Weber, Cynthia (Cambridge, 1996), 1–21, 1–3, 19 n. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Van Goor, “Seapower, Trade, and State Formation,” 85.

33 See Withington, Phil, “Citizens, Community and Political Culture in Restoration England,” in Shepard and Withington, Communities in Early Modern England, 134–55, 138Google Scholar; Halliday, , Dismembering the Body Politic, 29–55Google Scholar; Hill, Jacqueline, “Corporatist Ideology and Practice in Ireland, 1660–1800,” in Political Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Ireland, ed. Connolly, S. J. (Dublin, 2000), 65–82Google Scholar.

34 Guy, John, “The Rhetoric of Counsel in Early Modern England,” in Tudor Political Culture, ed. Hoak, Dale (Cambridge, 1995), 292–310Google Scholar, esp. 310; Peck, Linda Levy, “Kingship, Counsel and Law in Early Stuart Britain,” in The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500–1800, ed. Pocock, J. G. A. (Cambridge, 1993), 80–118, 98–102Google Scholar.

35 Kemal, R., “The Evolution of British Sovereignty in India,” Indian Year Book of International Affairs 6 (1957): 144Google Scholar.

36 “Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth to the East India Company, Dated 31 December in the 43rd Year of her Reign, Anno Domini 1601 [sic],” in Charters granted to the East-India Company, From 1601; also the treaties and grants, made with, or obtained, from the Princes and Powers in India, from the year 1756 to 1772 (London, 1773), 12.

37 Chaudhuri, K. N., “The English East India Company in the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Pre-modern Multinational Organization,” in Blussé and Gaastra, Companies and Trade, 31Google Scholar, and “From the Barbarian and the Civilised to the Dialectics of Colour: An Archaeology of Self-Identities,” in Society and Ideology: Essays in South Asian History, Presented to Professor K. A. Ballhatchet, ed. Peter Robb (Delhi, 1993), 22–48.

38 Charles II, warrant to Attorney General, 24 March 1661/2, Sloane MSS 856 fol. 10, BL; Letters Patents Granted to the Governor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the East-Indies, 3 April 1661, 5 October 1677, and 9 August 1683, in Charters Granted to the East-India Company From 1601, 54–79, 108–24.

39 Quoted by Carr, Cecil T., ed., Select Charters of Trading Companies (New York, 1913), xviiGoogle Scholar. See Marshall, P. J., “The English in Asia to 1700,” in Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume I: The Origins of Empire, ed. Canny, Nicholas (Oxford, 1998), 264–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 266. For contemporary examples, see An Answer to Two Letters, Concerning the East-India Company (London, 1676); The East-India-Trade A Most Profitable Trade to the Kingdom And Best Secured and Improved in a Company and a Joint-Stock (London, 1677), 15–18; and Josia Child to Thomas Papillon, 22 October 1698, reprinted in Papillon, A. F. W., Memoirs of Thomas Papillon of London, Merchant (1623–1702) (Reading, 1887), 89Google Scholar.

40 Charter, 43 Eliz I, 31 December [1600], in Charters Granted to the East-India Company From 1601, 12.

41 See, e.g., Madras Council, License to Thomas Bowrey, et al., 7 February 1686/7, Gen MSS MISC Group 2317 Item F-4, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

42 Mancke, Elizabeth, “Sites of Sovereignty: The Body of the Subject and the Making of the British Empire,” in Global Rivals, ed. Edward Farmer and Elizabeth Mancke (Minneapolis, forthcoming). Many thanks to Elizabeth Mancke for allowing me to consult and cite a draft of this paperGoogle Scholar.

43 Tracy, James D., “Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as seen from the Dutch East India Company Factory in Surat,” Journal of Early Modern History 3, no. 3 (August 1999): 267–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Sen, Empire of Free Trade, 77.

45 Bombay to Surat, 8 November 1695, IOR E/3/51 fol. 245; Gayer to Aurangzeb, 16 September 1695, IOR E/3/51 fol. 252.

46 Mahalingam, T. V., “The Grant of Madraspatam to the English East India Company,” Indian Year Book of International Affairs 2 (1953): 160–65, 165Google Scholar.

47 Court of Committees to Bombay, 18 February 1688/9, IOR E/3/92 fol. 11.

48 Court of Committees to Bombay, 3 August 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 161.

49 Commission and Instruction from Bombay to Captain John Shaxton and Captain Richard Clifton, 30 November 1687, IOR E/3/47 fol. 152. See Goldsborough to Court of Committees, 26 June 1693, IOR E/3/50 fol. 111; Goldsborough to the Queen of Attinga, 25 July 1693, IOR E/3/50 fol. 114; Goldsborough to Daniel Acworth, 26 July 1693, IOR E/3/50 fols. 114–14; Goldsborough to Queen of Attinga, 26 July 1693, IOR E/3/50 fol. 117; Commission to John Brabourn and Daniel Acworth, 29 July 1693, IOR E/3/50 fols. 118–21.

50 “Translate of an Ola given by her Highness ye Queen of Attinga to ye Rt Honoble English East India Company,” 29 July 1694, IOR E/3/50 fol. 223.

51 Fort St. George (FSG) to Court of Committees, 25 May 1691, IOR E/3/49 fol. 22.

52 Court of Committees to Hughli, 17 June 1685, IOR E/3/90 fol. 289.

53 Court of Committees to FSG, 9 June 1686, IOR E/3/91 fol. 72.

54 “The Govr and Compa of Merchants of London Trading into ye East Indies To ye Most Noble & Illustrious Prince ye Nabob of Decca,” 20 January 1685/6, IOR E/3/91 fol. 42.

55 Court of Committees to FSG, 6 February 1687/8, IOR E/3/91 fol. 251.

56 “The Govr and Compa of Merchts of London trading into the East Indies to ye most famous, Glorious, and Renouned King of RACAN,” 20 January 1685/6, IOR E/3/91 fol. 42.

57 Job Charnock, et al., to Surat, 24 November 1686, IOR E/3/46 fols. 95–97; “Translate of Nabob Shaesta Caun's Perwanna to ye Rt Worpll Agent, reced from Dacca ye 4th September 1687,” IOR E/3/47 fol. 95; Bruce, John, Annals of the Honorable East-India Company from their Establishment by the Charter of Queen Elizabeth, 1600, to the Union of the London and English East-India Companies, 1707–8, 3 vols. (London, 1810), 2:557–59Google Scholar; Keay, John, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company (London, 1991), 150–58Google Scholar.

58 Secret Committee to FSG, 19 October 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 117; Court of Committees to FSG, 2 July 1684, IOR E/3/90 fol. 192.

59 Court of Committees to Bencoolen, 9 May 1690, IOR E/3/92 fol. 94.

60 Secret Committee to FSG, 19 October 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 120; Court of Committees to FSG, 24 February 1685/6, IOR E/3/91 fol. 54; Gombroone to Isfahan, 20 March 1694/5, IOR E/3/50 fol. 377 (postscript); Isfahan to Court of Committees, 30 September 1695, IOR E/3/51 fol. 200.

61 Surat (Old Company) to Nicholas Waite, 25 January 1699/1700, IOR E/3/56 no. 6848.

62 Edward Littleton to the Duke of Shrewsbury, 1 January 1699/1700, IOR E/3/56 no. 6814.

63 “Draught of some Phirmaunds, &c.” [11 January 1698/9], IOR H/36 fols. 410–11. See also Petition to the House of Commons [1698?] and “Responses to the Company's Petition,” Bodleian Library (Bodl.), MS Rawl, A. 303 fols. 147–48, 159–60.

64 Ronald Burt, drawing on Georg Simmel, has argued that a “structural autonomy” emerges in a network in which two parties are linked together by a third, allowing that third to take advantage of “structural holes” in that network to form a relative advantage. Even though Burt means to develop a sociology of entrepreneurial advantage in modern capitalism (ironically, as defined precisely against “mercantilist” and monopolist structures), its lessons seem applicable to the kinds of “networks” we now understand as driving politics in the early modern period, particularly in the case of the European East India Companies. Burt, Ronald S., Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 47–48Google Scholar. See also R. Kemal, “British Sovereignty,” 147–49.

65 Instructions for Sir John Gayer, 26 May 1693, IOR E/3/92 fol. 272; Wright, Arnold, Annesley of Surat and His Times: The True Story of the Mythical Wesley Fortune (London, 1918), 152Google Scholar.

66 See, e.g., the wording of the resignation of George Weldon, Bombay's deputy governor, in 1695: “I intend not to concerne myselfe any more in publique Affairs, my reasons for wch I shall give my Rt H Masters when soe happy to see ym wch I hope will be in noe long time” (Attestation of Sir John Gayer, 12 June 1695, IOR E/3/51 fol. 87); also, Enoch Walsh, upon being made second of council at Bombay with the particular assignment to reconcile the Company's account books, wrote to the committees that “I have Acquited all pticular Affairs & private Interest purely to Serve the Publick & intreat your Honnours” (Enoch Walsh to Court of Committees, 11 May 1697, IOR E/3/53 fol. 45); or, as the committees instructed Persia in 1685, they were to consider themselves “Publick Persons, that represent the English Nation in that place” (Court of Committees to Persia, 23 December 1685, IOR E/3/91 fol. 12).

67 Bombay to Court of Committees, 5 December 1688, IOR E/3/47 fol. 200.

68 Bombay to FSG, 5 December 1688, IOR E/3/47 fol. 202; Surat to Bombay, 28 April 1696, IOR G/3/23, bk. 2, fol. 42; Court of Committees to FSG, 15 January 1688/9, IOR E/3/92 fol. 6.

69 Bombay to Court of Committees, 15 December 1696, IOR E/3/52 fols. 287–88.

70 Cases Argued and Adjudged in the High Court of Chancery, Published from the Manuscripts of Thomas Vernon, Late of the Middle Temple, Esq., By Order of the High Court of Chancery (Dublin, 1726), 1:128.

71 To some economic historians, such arguments centered on the validity of a “natural monopoly,” where the infrastructure, investments, and knowledge were so great that they amounted to a sort of perpetual patent that could not be accounted for by access fees or use payments (Barber, British Economic Thought and India, 49). A less generous reading holds the Company's defense of its rights as a form of cartel enforcement, used primarily to restrict interloping—not a defense of “public goods” but “public bads” in hindering the free operation of the market (Ekelund and Tollison, Politicized Economies, 184). On the place of Sandys in the political economy of the Glorious Revolution, see Pincus, Steve, “The Making of a Great Power? Universal Monarchy, Political Economy, and the Transformation of English Political Culture,” European Legacy 5, no. 4 (August 2000): 531–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 539, “Whigs, Political Economy, and the Revolution of 1688–89,” in “Cultures of Whiggism”: New Essays on English Literature and Culture in the Long Eighteenth Century, ed. David Womersley with Paddy Bullard and Abigail Williams (Newark, DE, 2005), 70–71, and England's Glorious Revolution, 1688–1689 (Houndmills, 2006).

72 Child, Josiah, A New Discourse of Trade Wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants, The Act of Navigation, Naturalization of Strangers, and our Woollen Manufactures, The Ballance of Trade, and the Nature of Plantations, and their Consequences in relation to the Kingdom are seriously discussed, And Some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies, relating to maritime Affairs, and for a Law of Transferance of Bills of Debts, are humbly Offered (1668; repr., London, 1694), 106, 110Google Scholar.

73 Although there exists some good argument to perhaps assume otherwise. See Letwin, William, Sir Josiah Child, Merchant Economist (Boston, 1959), 33–35Google Scholar.

74 Philopatris, , A Treatise Wherein is Demonstrated That the East-India Trade is the Most National of Foreign Trades (London, 1681), 1–2Google Scholar.

75 Molloy, Charles, De Jure Maritimo et Navali: Or, A Treatise of Affaires Maritime and of Commerce (London, 1677), 434Google Scholar.

76 Philopatris, Treatise, 34.

77 Court of Committees to Bengal, 30 May 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 80.

78 Child, New Discourse, 103.

79 Philopatris, Treatise, 36; The East-India-Trade A Most Profitable Trade, 18.

80 Report of the Attorney General Concerning Interlopers, 16 November 1681, The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO), CO 77/49 fol. 247; and “The Attorney General's Arguments in The Governour and Company of the Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, Plaintiffs, vs. Thomas Saunds, Defendant,” Bodl., MS Rawl D. 747 fols. 110–11.

81 Howell, T. B., ed., A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, With Notes and Other Illustrations, 21 vols. (London, 1816), 10:371–83Google Scholar.

82 Ibid., 10:375.

83 Ibid., 10:379–80.

84 This argument was taken up again in a way, after the Company's abolition, by no less a figure than John Stuart Mill, who argued that the only way for a free people to rule a dependency as different as Britain was from India, particularly with regard to religion, was to have a “delegated body of a comparatively permanent character,” which he lamented England, in fact, had in the East India Company. “I fear,” he added, “both India and England will pay a severe penalty for the shortsighted policy by which this intermediate instrument of government was done away with.” Mill, John Stuart, “Considerations on Representative Government” (1861), in Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government, and Selections from Auguste Compte and Positivism, ed. Acton, H. B. (London, 1972), 423–28Google Scholar; Metcalf, Thomas R., Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge, 1994), 50Google Scholar.

85 Howell, State Trials, 10:498.

86 Ibid., 10:385.

87 “The Humble Reply of Several Merchants and Others,” in A Journal of Some Remarkable Passages Before the Honourable House of Commons and the Right Honourable the Lords of their Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council (London, 1693), 26.

88 Coke, Roger, Reflections upon the East-Indy and Royal African Companies (London, 1695), 6–7Google Scholar.

89 Johnson, Ludwell H. III, “The Business of War: Trading with the Enemy in English and Early American Law,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 118, no. 5 (October 1974): 459–70Google Scholar; and Alexandrowicz, Law of Nations, 55–57.

90 On this issue, see Tuck, Rights of War and Peace, 93–94; Borschberg, Peter, “Hugo Grotius, East India Trade and the King of Johor,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 30, no. 2 (1999): 247–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Howell, State Trials, 10:381. See Pagden, Anthony, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France, c. 1500–c. 1800 (New Haven, CT, 1995), 64Google Scholar; MacMillan, Ken, Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: The Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640 (Cambridge, 2006)Google Scholar, and “Common and Civil Law? Taking Possession of the English Empire in America, 1575–1630,” Canadian Journal of History 38, no. 3 (December 2003): 409–23, 415–18; Muldoon, James, “Discovery, Grant, Charter, Conquest, or Purchase: John Adams on the Legal Basis for English Possession of North America,” in The Many Legalities of Early America, ed. Mann, Bruce and Tomlins, Christopher (Chapel Hill, NC, 2001), 25–46, 31, 36Google Scholar, and “The Contribution of the Medieval Canon Lawyers to the Formation of International Law,” Traditio 28 (1972): 483–97, 497; Sen, Distant Sovereignty, 5. On the parallels more generally, see Tuck, Rights of War and Peace, chaps. 1–3.

92 Muldoon, James, “Papal Responsibility for the Infidel: Another Look at Alexander VI's Inter Caetera,” Catholic Historical Review 64, no. 2 (1978): 168–84Google Scholar, 181, and “Who Owns the Sea?” in Fictions of the Sea: Critical Perspectives on the Ocean in British Literature and Culture, ed. Bernhard Klein (Aldershot, 2002), 13–27, 23–24. See also Henriques, H. S. Q., The Jews and the English Law (Oxford, 1908), 187–88Google Scholar.

93 Howell, State Trials, 10:484.

94 Knight, W. S. M., “Grotius in England: His Opposition There to the Principles of Mare Liberum,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 5 (1919): 1–38Google Scholar, 29; and Tuck, Rights of War and Peace, 90, 104–8, 174–75.

95 Seed, Patricia, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe's Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640 (Cambridge, 1995), 154–60Google Scholar.

96 As Philip Steinberg has argued, the Estado da India did not claim a form of absolute sovereignty in the Indian Ocean but what he calls a “stewardship,” defined as a “a right to exert control both over the resource or space being stewarded and over others who might wish to use the stewarded resource in a contrary manner” and justified by the papal bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas. Steinberg, Philip E., “Lines of Division, Lines of Connection: Stewardship in the World Ocean,” Geographical Review 89, no. 2 (April 1999): 254–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 257, and see also his The Social Construction of the Ocean (Cambridge, 2001).

97 Philopatris, Treatise, 15.

98 Arasaratnam, “Mare Clausum,” 73–91.

99 Mathew, K. S., “Trade in the Indian Ocean and the Portuguese System of Cartazes,” in The First Portuguese Colonial Empire, ed. Newitt, Malyn (Exeter, 1986), 69–83Google Scholar, 75; Bose, A Hundred Horizons, 45; Chaudhuri, Trading World of Asia, 115.

100 John Goldsborough to Christian Poke, 17 June 1693, IOR E/3/50 fol. 106.

101 Hont, Istvan, “Free Trade and the Economic Limits to National Politics: Neo-Machivaellian Political Economy Reconsidered,” in The Economic Limits to Modern Politics, ed. Dunn, John (Cambridge, 1990), 41–120, 62–63Google Scholar.

102 Court of Committees to Bombay, 3 August 1687, IOR E/3/91 fols. 160–61.

103 Minutes of the Court of Committees, 6 November 1674, in Calendar of Court Minutes of the East India Company, ed. E. B. Sainsbury, 11 vols. (Oxford, 1938), 10:107–8; Court of Committees to Surat, 28 October 1685, IOR E/3/91 fols. 5–6; and Lawson, East India Company, 47.

104 “Proposals Touching Bombay Island Recommended to the Honoble Compa by their Pt & Councell at Surratt,” n.d., in Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and Other State Papers Preserved in the Bombay Secretariat, ed. G. W. Forrest (Bombay, 1887), 53. Evidently, three women, with seemingly no concept of the purpose for which they were engaged, showed up at Madras in 1678 with no means of support; the council voted them forty fanams a month until they married, and by year's end, two of the three had done so. By 1681, the remaining woman, Mary Gainsford, had married a Company servant named Robert Bowyer, and two new women (including the schoolmaster's sister) had also arrived and were both married by 1683. In 1687, there were fourteen English marriages on the island. Henry Davison Love, Vestiges of Old Madras, 1640–1800, Traced from the East India Company's Records Preserved at Fort St. George and the India Office, and from Other Sources, 3 vols. (1913; repr., New York, 1968), 1:449–50; and Minutes of the Court of Committees, 21 August 1674, 26 August 1674, 5 January 1677, in Calendar of Court Minutes, 10:74–77, 11:2. Such efforts were, of course, similar to early efforts in the Dutch East Indies and the British Atlantic; see Stoler, Ann Laura, Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power (Berkeley, CA, 2002), 47Google Scholar; and Kupperman, Karen, The Jamestown Project (Cambridge, 2007), 287Google Scholar.

105 I have expanded elsewhere on the ways in which St. Helena fit into and exemplified this Company polity. See Stern, P. J., “Politics and Ideology in the Early East India Company-State: The Case of St. Helena, 1673–1709,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 35, no. 1 (March 2007): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 This statistic, which seems to be generally accepted by the little historiography on the issue, has survived, through several generations of work, from John Fryer's late seventeenth-century travelogue, where he asserted that the population “may be reckoned 60000 Souls; more by 50000 than the Portugals ever could.” Fryer, John, A New Account of East-India and Persia in Eight Letters Being Nine Years Travels, Begun 1672 and Finished 1681 (London, 1698), 68Google Scholar. The statistic became popular with historians, largely for the anti-Portuguese sentiment it conveyed. See Souza, J. P. De, “The Population of Bombay at the Beginning of British Rule,” Journal of Indian History 50, pt. 1, no. 148 (April 1972): 79–94, 81.Google Scholar

107 Court of Committees to FSG, 22 January 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fol. 172; Richards, John, “European City-States on the Coromandel Coast,” in Studies in the Foreign Relations of India, ed. Joshi, P. M. (Hyderabad, 1975), 514Google Scholar. Even the interloper Alexander Hamilton, no friend to the Company, reported upon his visit in the late 1710s that the “colony is well peopled, for there is computed to be 80000 Inhabitants in the Towns and Villages.” Alexander Hamilton, A New Account of the East Indies, being the observations and remarks of Captain Alexander Hamilton, who spent his time there from the year 1688 to 1723, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1727), 1:368.

108 Secret Committee to FSG, 31 October 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 123; Court of Committees to FSG, 8 April 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 144; Stoler, Carnal Knowledge, 46–51.

109 Haynes, Douglas E. and Roy, Tirthankar, “Conceiving Mobility: Weavers’ Migrations in Pre-Colonial and Colonial India,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 36, no. 1 (1999): 38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Bombay to Surat, 16 August 1694, IOR G/3/10 fol. 67.

111 Goldie, Mark, “The Unacknowledged Republic: Officeholding in Early Modern England,” in The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850, ed. Harris, Tim (Houndmills, 2001), 197–224, esp. 154–55Google Scholar.

112 Bombay to Court of Committees, 5 June 1695, IOR E/3/51 fol. 78.

113 Court of Committees to Bombay, 29 February 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fol. 215.

114 Court of Committees to FSG, 13 February 1684/5, IOR E/3/90 fol. 256.

115 EIC Secret Committee to Bombay, 16 November 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 128.

116 “Proposals Touching Bombay Island,” 51–53; Conlon, Frank, “Functions of Ethnicity in a Colonial Port City: British Initiatives and Policies in Early Bombay,” in The Rise and Growth of the Colonial Port Cities in Asia, ed. Basu, K. (Berkeley, CA, 1985), 49–54, 50Google Scholar.

117 Court of Committees to Bombay, 12 December 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 234; Court of Committees to FSG, 12 January 1687/8, IOR E/3/91 fols. 239–40; Court of Committees to Bombay, 27 August 1688, IOR E/3/91 fol. 274.

118 Court of Committees to Bombay, 27 August 1688, IOR E/3/91 fol. 274; Bombay to Court of Committees, 7 June 1689, IOR E/3/48 fols. 19–20; Court of Committees to FSG, 6 March 1694/5, IOR E/3/92 fol. 390.

119 Madras Consultation, 14 August 1684, in The Diary and Consultation Book of the Agent Governor and Council of Fort St. George, 1684, ed. Pringle, Arthur T. (Madras, 1894), 89Google Scholar.

120 Lewandowski, Susan J., “Changing Form and Function in the Ceremonial and the Colonial Port City in India: An Historical Analysis of Madurai and Madras,” Modern Asian Studies 11, no. 2 (1977): 183–212, 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Court of Committees to FSG, 6 March 1694/5, IOR E/3/92 fols. 392, 394.

122 Court of Committees to FSG, 29 February 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fol. 193; Court of Committees to FSG, 3 January 1693/4, IOR E/3/92 fol. 306.

123 Child, Josia, “A Discourse concerning Plantations” (1692), in Select Tracts Relating to Colonies (London, 1732), 32Google Scholar; Statt, Daniel, “The City of London and the Controversy over Immigration, 1660–1722,” Historical Journal 33, no. 1 (March 1990): 45–61Google Scholar, 47–48. See also Statt, Daniel, Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy over Immigration and Population, 1660–1760 (Newark, DE, 1995), 48–49, 66–98Google Scholar.

124 Court of Committees to FSG, 26 January 1697/8, IOR E/3/93 fol. 16.

125 Court of Committees to Surat, 13 May 1691, IOR E/3/92 fol. 162; Court of Committees to Bombay and Surat, July 1686, IOR E/3/91 fol. 80.

126 Court of Committees to Bombay, 29 February 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fols. 215–16.

127 Court of Committees to FSG, 14 January 1685/6, IOR E/3/91 fol. 17.

128 See, e.g., Madras Consultation, 27 December 1686, and Madras Consultation, 21 November 1687, both in Records of Fort St. George: Diary and Consultation Book of 1687 (Madras, 1894), 112 and 179, respectively.

129 Court of Committees to FSG, 22 January 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fol. 175.

130 John Gayer to “all Taverns and Victualling house keepers on the Island Bombay,” 13 August 1694, Bombay Diary (copy), IOR G/3/10a.

131 Court of Committees to Madras, 5 July 1682, IOR E/3/90 fol. 3.

132 Court of Committees to St. Helena, 1 August 1683, IOR E/3/90 fols. 89–98; Extract from Company letter 5 May 1708, BL Add. MS 20240 fol. 3.

133 Bilder, The Transatlantic Constitution, 48–49; and Court of Committees to St. Helena, 6 May 1685, IOR E/3/90 fol. 272; Court of Committees to Bombay, 28 July 1686, IOR E/3/91 fol. 83.

134 Court of Committees to Bombay, September 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 196.

135 See Love, Vestiges of Old Madras, 1:497–503; Court of Committees to FSG, 22 January 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fols. 172–73; Court of Committees to FSG, 3 January 1693/4, IOR E/3/92 fol. 301.

136 Court of Committees to FSG, 22 January 1691/2, IOR E/3/92 fol. 171.

137 Court of Committees to Bombay, 11 September 1689, IOR E/3/92 fol. 64.

138 Court of Committees to FSG, 20 September 1682, IOR E/3/90 fol. 26; and Court of Committees to FSG, 26 August 1685, IOR E/3/90 fol. 293.

139 Court of Committees to Bombay, 6 January 1687/8, IOR E/3/91 fol. 248.

140 Court of Committees to FSG, 6 June 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 154.

141 Bengal to Court of Committees, 14 December 1694, IOR E/3/50 fol. 283; Court of Committees to Bengal, 26 January 1697/8, IOR E/3/93 fol. 27.

142 Court of Committees to FSG, 14 January 1685/6, IOR E/3/91 fol. 17.

143 Court of Committees to St. Helena, 1 August 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 95.

144 Court of Committees to FSG, 31 May 1683, IOR E/3/90 fol. 81.

145 Court of Committees to FSG, 16 March 1684/5, IOR E/3/90 fol. 266.

146 Court of Committees to FSG, 28 September 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 209.

147 Court of Committees to FSG, 12 December 1687, IOR E/3/91 fol. 232.

148 Proposals for Settling the East-India Trade (London, 1696), 9.

149 Edmund Burke, 15 February 1788, in Speeches on the Impeachment of Warren Hastings, 2 vols. (Delhi, 1987), 1:23.

150 Bolts, William, Considerations on India Affairs; Particularly respecting the present state of Bengal and its dependencies (London, 1772), viiGoogle Scholar.