Page:A Comprehensive History of India Vol 1.djvu/277

 Chap. I.]

SECOND VOYAGE TO THE EAST.

213

^^^

Tern ATE — From Nietthof.'

when they did not dare to use force, scrupled not to avail themselves of intrigue a.d. 1604. and misrepresentation, which were almost equally effectual in seeming the great object of their ambition — a complete monopoly of the spice trade.

The lied Dragon and Ascension, after remaining for some time in the Moluccas, though not in company, met again in the road of Bantam, from which they sailed for Europe on the 6th of October, 1G05. The Susan, which had sailed some time before, was never heard of; Rcsiutsof

the second

but the other three vessels, the Red Dragon, Hector, and Ascension, after voyage, rendezvousing in Saldanha Bay, proceeded home in company, and cast anchor in the Downs on the 6th of May, 1606. Notwithstanding the loss of the Susan the returns were favourable; and the two voyages, thrown, as already mentioned, into one account, nearly doubled the capital which had been adventured in them. It is still necessary, however, in calculating the profit, to remember that a con- siderable portion of it was derived not from trade, but from privateering ; and that the ninety-five per cent, said to have been returned was not realized in one year, but after a series of years, partly occvipied with the voyages, and jiartly spun out in long credits allowed to purchasers.

In 1 60 1, shortly after the vessels had sailed on their second voyage, King iie«"9e to

, Sir Kdw;ird

James I. granted a license to Sir Edward Michelborne, whose recommendation Miciieibomo. by Lord Burleigh for emplo^nnent by the Company has been already mentioned, to trade to " Cathaia, China, Japan, Corea, and Cambaya, &c." These comi- tries, though the Company had not yet visited them, are within the limits of their charter, and the license wjvs therefore an interference with the rights conferred by it. It was not, however, so indefensible a,s it is usually repre- sented. Sir Edward was a member of the Company, and was therefore entitled to the full use of all the privileges which they enjoyed. The intention, no doubt, was that a joint' stock should have been established, but the attempt had as yet failed ; and the voyages hitherto made, though carried on in the name of the Company, were truly for the benefit only of individual adventm-ei-s. In these circumstances, it might have been made a question whether every member was not entitled to claim a similar privilege in his o^vn name, and for his own behoof Even assuming that the aftirmative of this question could not be

' GesancUchaf von der IloUandischc-Oalindischcn Campagnie an den Kaiser in China, 1655.