From Elizabeth I’s 1600 EIC Charter and Thomas Mun to the 1698 £2 Million Loan

On December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth I affixed the Great Seal of England to a royal charter incorporating 218 London merchants, aldermen, and Levant traders as “The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies.” Over the ensuing century, the English East India Company (EIC) stood at the center of England’s fiercest fiscal and monetary controversies. Dependent on royal exemptions to export Spanish silver coin in violation of traditional bullionist orthodoxy, the Company inspired director Thomas Mun’s foundational 1620s treatise on the balance of trade, transitioned from terminable voyage syndicates to a permanent £739,782 joint stock under Oliver Cromwell in 1657, and ultimately saw its monopoly auctioned on the altar of wartime state finance when Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Montagu chartered the rival New East India Company in 1698 in return for a £2,000,000 sovereign loan at 8 percent interest. ^[1]

Elizabeth I’s December 31, 1600 Charter and the Separate Voyages#

Throughout the late sixteenth century, English merchants watched first Portugal and then the Dutch voorcompagnieën reap extraordinary returns from Indonesian pepper, cloves, nutmeg, and mace. When Dutch merchants doubled the price of pepper in London from 3 shillings to 6 and 8 shillings per pound in 1599, a coalition of London merchants led by Lord Mayor Sir Stephen Soame and Levant Company veteran Sir Thomas Smythe petitioned the Privy Council for a royal charter to trade directly round the Cape of Good Hope. After peace talks with Spain collapsed, Elizabeth I signed the charter on the final day of 1600, granting Smythe (as first Governor), a twenty-four-member Court of Committees (directors), and 218 named incorporators an exclusive fifteen-year monopoly on English trade between the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan. ^[2]

From the outset, the charter was a fiscal compact between a revenue-hungry Tudor monarchy and London merchant capital. Although the Crown granted the Company a customs exemption on outward cargoes for its first four voyages and six to twelve months of credit on inward customs bonds, Asian trade quickly became a major source of customs duties and forced royal loans for the Stuart Exchequer. Unlike the Dutch VOC—which locked in 6.42 million guilders across ten years in 1602—the early EIC raised capital on a cautious, voyage-by-voyage basis. Between 1601 and 1613, investors subscribed separately to twelve “Separate Voyages” (beginning with Sir James Lancaster’s 1601 expedition of four ships backed by £68,373 in capital), winding up each syndicate’s books and distributing ships, pepper, and cash back to subscribers upon return. ^[3]

Even after transitioning to the First Joint Stock (1613–1621, raising £418,691), the Second Joint Stock (1621–1632, raising £1.6 million), and the Third Joint Stock (1632–1642), the Company’s capital remained terminable rather than permanent. Compounding this fragility, King James I and King Charles I repeatedly undermined the monopoly they were paid to protect—most notoriously in 1635, when Charles I accepted a secret share of profits to license Sir William Courteen’s rival Courteen Association to trade in the East Indies while pressing the EIC to buy 2,100 barrels of royal pepper on credit for £63,283 and immediately reselling it for cash to fund his Personal Rule. ^[4]

The £30,000 Silver Export Clause and Thomas Mun’s Balance-of-Trade Defense#

Because English heavy woolen broadcloths and kerseys found scant demand in tropical Asian ports, the 1600 charter included a controversial monetary dispensation: the EIC was authorized to export up to £30,000 per voyage in foreign silver coin and bullion (primarily Spanish-American pieces of eight, or reales), provided that the Company imported at least an equivalent quantity of silver within six months of each voyage’s completion and minted the first £6,000 at the Royal Mint in the Tower of London. Under James I and Charles I, as trade expanded in Surat, Madras, and Bantam, the Crown raised this annual bullion export ceiling to £60,000 and eventually £100,000 in foreign coin and bullion. ^[5]

When England suffered a severe trade depression and silver scarcity between 1620 and 1624—triggered by currency manipulations across Central Europe at the start of the Thirty Years’ War (the Kipper- und Wipperzeit)—bullionist critics led by Gerard de Malynes and Edward Misselden blamed the East India Company for draining the realm’s metallic money into the “bottomless sink” of Asia. To defend the Company before Parliament and the Privy Council’s Standing Commission on Trade, EIC director Thomas Mun published A Discourse of Trade, from England unto the East-Indies (1621) and drafted his classic treatise England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade (written circa 1628–1630 and published posthumously by his son in 1664). ^[6]

Mun demolished crude bullionism—the medieval belief that every individual merchant voyage or bilateral trade corridor had to bring back physical gold or silver—by articulating the macroeconomic doctrine of the multilateral general balance of trade. Using the EIC’s actual customs and invoice ledgers, Mun demonstrated two decisive financial mechanisms. First, by importing pepper, indigo, raw silk, saltpeter, and Indian cotton calicoes directly round the Cape of Good Hope rather than buying them at triple the price through Ottoman Aleppo and Venice, the Company saved England hundreds of thousands of pounds in foreign exchange each year. Second, English domestic consumption absorbed only a fraction of the Company’s Asian imports; the bulk of its pepper and Indian textiles was re-exported from London to France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in exchange for continental silver coin, ultimately returning far more bullion to England’s coffers than the £30,000 to £100,000 initially shipped out to India. ^[7]

Cromwell’s October 1657 Charter and the £739,782 Permanent Joint Stock#

During the English Civil War and the early Commonwealth (1642–1656), the EIC’s legal standing nearly disintegrated as interlopers and rival free-trade syndicates challenged its royal charter and Oliver Cromwell briefly experimented with open navigation to Asia between 1653 and 1656. Just as the Dutch had discovered prior to 1602, uncoordinated voyages drove up purchase prices in India and Persia, depressed London resale prices, and left English factories vulnerable to the heavily armed Dutch VOC following the First Anglo-Dutch War. ^[8]

When the EIC Directors threatened in January 1657 to auction off their Asian forts, islands, and customs rights unless their monopoly was restored by the state, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell reversed course. On October 19, 1657, Cromwell granted a landmark new charter that abolished terminable voyage accounting and transformed the East India Company into a permanent joint-stock corporation modeled on the Dutch VOC. Investors subscribed £739,782 10s in nominal equity, of which exactly half (£369,891 5s) was called up and paid in cash—a permanent capital base that financed the Company’s expansion for the next four decades, with corporate assets valued periodically (beginning in 1664) while shareholders traded their stock freely in Exchange Alley.

Sir Josiah Child’s Crown Gifts, the 1695 Bribery Scandal, and the 1698 £2 Million Loan#

Following the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660, the EIC’s permanent capital and surging imports of Indian chintz, calicoes, Bengal raw silk, and saltpeter turned its stock into the most lucrative security in London, with market prices climbing to 300 and even 500 percent of paid-in par during the early 1680s. Because the Company’s monopoly rested solely on royal prerogative charters rather than an Act of Parliament, Governor Sir Josiah Child—who dominated the Court of Committees during the 1670s and 1680s while personally holding more than £50,000 in stock—cemented an explicit Tory alliance with the Stuart monarchy. Between 1660 and 1688, the EIC advanced upwards of £170,000 in low-interest loans to Charles II and beginning in 1681 presented annual “New Year’s gifts” of 10,000 guineas (£10,750) directly to Charles II and his brother and successor James II, who became a personal EIC shareholder.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 overturned this royalist protection strategy. With King William III embroiled in the Nine Years’ War (1688–1697) against Louis XIV and dependent on a Whig-dominated House of Commons for war taxation, London interlopers and excluded Whig merchants organized the “Dowgate Syndicate” to break Child’s monopoly. Attempting to stave off parliamentary revocation, Child and Governor Sir Thomas Cooke spent nearly £90,000 in secret service money during 1693 alone (and close to £200,000 between 1688 and 1695) bribing privy councillors and Members of Parliament to secure a renewed royal charter in October 1693. When a parliamentary committee audited the Company’s cash books in 1695, the revelations triggered a major constitutional scandal: Speaker of the House of Commons Sir John Trevor was expelled for accepting a 1,000-guinea bribe, Lord President of the Council Thomas Osborne, Duke of Leeds (formerly Lord Danby), was impeached over a 5,500-guinea payment, and Governor Cooke was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

In 1698, facing severe wartime fiscal deficits, Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Montagu turned the East India monopoly into an open sovereign-debt auction. Although the “Old” East India Company offered to lend the Treasury £700,000 at 4 percent interest to confirm its charter, Montagu accepted a counter-offer from the Whig Dowgate Syndicate: a massive long-term loan of £2,000,000 to the Crown at 8 percent annual interest (£160,000 per year funded by earmarked salt and stamp duties). Under the East India Company Act of July 1698 (9 Will. III, c. 44) and a royal charter dated September 5, 1698, subscribers to the £2 million loan were incorporated as the “English Company Trading to the East Indies” (the “New” East India Company), while the Old Company received three years’ notice to wind up its exclusive trade.

In a brilliant defensive maneuver, however, the Old Company’s Treasurer, Charles Du Bois, secretly subscribed £315,000 directly into the New Company’s £2 million loan—making the Old Company the single largest shareholder in its own rival and entitling it to trade permanently for that proportion of capital even after its own charter expired. After four years of ruinous commercial warfare in India and bitter electoral bribery across English parliamentary boroughs, Queen Anne and Lord Treasurer Sidney Godolphin brokered the Indenture Tripartite of July 22, 1702, equalizing both companies’ capital contributions and merging their operations under Godolphin’s 1708 award (together with an additional £1,200,000 interest-free loan to the Exchequer, bringing the total state debt held by the Company to £3,200,000 at an effective 5 percent rate). In March 1709, the two rivals formally united as “The United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies,” anchoring the eighteenth-century British Empire on a permanent foundation of corporate-held sovereign debt.

Theoretical & Balance-Sheet Transmission Mechanism#

In the Kindleberger–Minsky taxonomy of financial instability (Kindleberger, 1978; Minsky, 1986) and Irving Fisher’s (1933) debt-deflation framework, speculative asset booms become systemic crises when credit expansion shifts balance sheets from hedge finance (cash flows covering principal and interest) to speculative and Ponzi finance (relying on rising asset prices and short-term margin roll-overs).

Once monetary tightening or an exogenous shock halts price appreciation, forced margin liquidations trigger Fisherian debt-deflation: fire-sale asset discounts erode bank collateral values, contracting credit supply across the real economy.

Sources and Further Reading

1. D. K. Bassett, “ K. N. Chaudhuri: The English East India Company: The Study of an Early Joint-Stock Company, 1600–1640,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1966. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
2. Lynn Muchmore, “ A Note on Thomas Mun’s ‘England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade’,” The Economic History Review, 1970. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
3. Emily Erikson, “ Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757,” Princeton University Press, 2014. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
4. Philip J. Stern, “ Alcohol and the Ambivalence of the Early English East India Company-State,” The Historical Journal, 2022. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
5. L. S. Sutherland, “ The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics,” The Economic History Review, 1947. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
6. Holden Furber, “ The East India Company,” The Economic History Review, 1949. Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research
7. Irving Fisher — "The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1, no. 4 (FRASER Federal Reserve Archive, 1933): 337–357 Central Bank / Monetary Authority
8. Charles P. Kindleberger & Robert Z. Aliber — Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (Palgrave Macmillan) Peer-Reviewed / Academic Research

Have an idea for another financial history documentary or article? Request a story →