466 PARLIAMENTARY COLBERTISM 
results were most satisfactory; Canterbury “was become 
desolate, they are now returned to their Homes, as before 
they left them, in Shoals and Companies. Their Houses 
and their Bellies are full; They rather want Hands than 
Work, and there is at this Day neither Complaint nor Decay 
among them for lack of Employment,” while Norwich and 
London weavers were flourishing tool. The interest of 
English manufacturers served to reinforce the agitation, 
which had been growing among merchants, against the com- 
mercial and judicial privileges of this joint-stock Company, 
and imperilled its very existence? 
There i From the time of the conflict between the two Companies? 
80 Goo . . . oe . 
grounds for the principle of maintaining a joint-stock company for the 
criticising management of the East Indian trade appears to have been 
Fhe oy generally accepted; but there was frequent complaint as to 
the manner in which the Company's affairs were conducted. 
The troubles of different kinds, which arose, were not altogether 
the fault of the Company, but were partly its misfortune. 
The English Government burdened these privileged associa- 
tions with heavy political and judicial responsibilities, while 
the French and Dutch traders, with whom they had to com- 
pete, were under no similar obligations, It is true, too, that 
in order to purchase the right to exist, the East India 
Company had been compelled to sink a large part of their 
withre- wealth in purchasing concessions from Government, and that 
gard to the i 
employ- they were often hampered for want of sufficient ready money 
ment of with which to carry on their trade. It was the error of not 
a few commercial men, at this era, that they did not sufficiently 
realise the limits within which credit will serve to take the 
place of capital. 
of the Manufacturers of this Nation are become excessively burdensome and 
chargeable to their respective Parishes and others are thereby compelled to seek 
for Employment in Forreigne Parts.” East India goods were to be warehoused 
for re-exportation and not sold within the country. 
1 Reflections on the Prohibition Act (1708), p. 8 [Brit. Mus. 1029. ¢. 21 (10)]. 
3 It seems as if the East India Company owed its continuance to the fact that 
the Government was under heavy pecuniary obligations to these merchants, and 
was unable to discharge them immediately. See above, p. 268. Successive 
administrations were unable to consider the matter dispassionately and to view 
the question either as one of fair-play among merchants, or of British interests 
in India. See p. 261, note 9. 
3 Qep vn. 209 above. 
AD. 1689 
—1776.