Page:A Comprehensive History of India Vol 1.djvu/298

 2C1> ULSTORY OF INUIA. [Book II.

A.n. 1031. Ly the withdrawal of the Company'.s trade, ofFered term.s so favourable, that they were again induced to make that port their principal station.

a^iBcuss.vms I^i^i^'iiig these transactions the Dutch question continued open, and many

with tiio attempts were made, by commissioners appointed for that purpose, U) obtain an equitable adjustment. In proportion, however, as the domestic difficulties of the king increased, the Dutch were emboldened to refase redress; and the Company, losing patience, took the remarkable step of placing them.selves in direct communication with parliament. Hitherto they- had existed merely as creatm-es of the crown, and on several occasions had been made to feel liow little dependence was to be placed on its countenance and support. King James, at the very commencement of his reign, virtually ignored Queen Eliza- beth's charter, in the license by which he empowered Sir Edward Michelbome to trade within the prohibited limits ; and on a subsequent occasion, even after he had made the charter his own by renewing and confirming it, he leagued with his worthless favourite, the Duke of Buckingham, in arresting the ships of the Company, for the pui'pose of extorting a share in the prize money which they were alleged to have gained when assisting the Persians against the Portuguese in the capture of Ormuz. As yet. King Charles had not been implicated in any overt attack on the privileges or interests of the Company ; but the sluggish manner in which he urged their claim to redress for the injuries

Application sustaiued from the Dutch must have satisfied them that, at the best, he was a

of the Com- pany to very lukewarm friend. It is not sui-prising, therefore, that when, in 1628, the

great struggle between the king and the parliament assumed a definite shape by the presentation of the celebrated Petition of Right, the Company, impatient of the interminable delays to which they had been subjected, took the bold step of withdrawing their case from the exclusive cognizance of the crown by bring- ing it directly under the notice of the legislatm^e. Their memorial, prepared with this view, besides enumerating the hardships under which they laboured, founded their claims to public support on the benefits which they had, as a com})any, conferred on the nation. The question as to the expediency of the peculiar privileges which their charter conferred was thus fairly i-aised, and would doubtless have been fully discussed had not the parliament been sud- denly dissolved before the memorial could be taken into consideration. Prociama- The memorial, impljdng, as it obviously did, a censure on the dilatoriness

tion by the. ^

crown. of the crowu, and amounting to what many regarded as an interference with the royal prerogative, must have been very offensive to the king; but more urgent concerns engrossed his attention, and he so far concealed his displeasure as not only to leave the chartered rights of the Company unimpaired, but occa- sionally to issue proclamations in their favom One of these proclamations, dated 19th February, 1631, deals with an internal abase, and gives a striking manifestation of the helpless, or at least desponding state into which the Com- pany must have fallen before they deemed it necessary to seek the protection