The East India Trade, The Politicians, and the Constitution: 1689-1702
The East India Trade, The Politicians, and the Constitution: 1689-1702
复制标题
东印度贸易、政治家和宪法：1689-1702 年
DOI：
10.1086/385719
复制
发表时间：
1978
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
H. Horwitz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Horwitz
对法战争是威廉三世统治时期英国政府和政治变革的最强大力量，但在同一年，对利润丰厚的东印度贸易控制权的争夺也在白厅、议会甚至选区引起了强烈反响。自17世纪50年代重组以来，东印度公司一直受到形形色色敌人的间歇性攻击：一些人质疑远东地区贪婪的黄金贸易的可取性，另一些人则对该公司在1661年和1683年的皇家特许状下的独家商业特权提出质疑，并主张成立一个受监管的公司，从17世纪80年代初开始，一些曾经杰出的公司成员（最著名的是托马斯帕皮隆）挑战乔赛亚·蔡尔德爵士的董事会。光荣革命也为东印度公司与其敌人之间的争端开启了决定性的阶段--这场争论直到威廉统治的最后几个月才最终和平结束。到1689年，争夺东印度贸易控制权的斗争已经发展到“宪法”层面，并带有政治色彩。一方面，早期斯图亚特王朝的批评者首先提出了一个问题，即是否任何集团都可以仅仅凭借皇家特许状而被赋予商业垄断权。另一方面，在17世纪80年代，儿童集团与斯图亚特王朝的关系密切--约西亚爵士及其同伙采取了一种“托利党”的姿态，以抵御对他们自己的统治地位和公司特权的挑战。
The war against France was the most potent force for change in English government and politics in William III's reign, but during those same years the contest for control of the lucrative East India trade also set off strong reverberations at Whitehall, in parliament, and even in the constituencies. Ever since its reorganization in the 1650s, the East India Company had been subjected to intermittent attack from a motley array of foes: some questioned the desirability of the bullion-greedy trade to the Far East, others disputed the Company's exclusive commercial privileges held under the royal charters of 1661 and 1683 and argued for a regulated company, and from the early 1680s onwards a number of once prominent Company members (most notably, Thomas Papillon) challenged the directorate of Sir Josiah Child. In turn, the Glorious Revolution ushered in the decisive phases of the dispute between the Company and its enemies — a controversy finally brought to a peaceful conclusion only in the closing months of William's reign. By 1689, the struggle for control of the East India trade had already developed a “constitutional” dimension and taken on a political tinge. On the one hand, there was the question, first raised by the critics of the early Stuarts, whether any group could be endowed with a commercial monopoly by virtue of royal charter alone. On the other hand, there was the issue of the Child clique's close identification with the Stuart Court during the 1680s — a “Tory” posture Sir Josiah and his associates had adopted in order to ward off challenges to their own predominance and to the Company's privileges.