Innovation & Wealth › Trading companies & early capitalism › Dutch East India Company (VOC)
English East India Company
1600–1874· Company or fortune· Companies & fortunes
Well documentedSolid records, texts or physical evidence.
London merchants' company, chartered in 1600, that grew from a spice-trading venture into the ruler of much of India.
See it on the Innovation & Wealth map →What happened
Elizabeth I gave it a monopoly on English trade east of the Cape of Good Hope; 218 subscribers put up about £68,000. Squeezed out of the Spice Islands by the Dutch, it traded Indian cotton cloth, indigo, saltpeter and later Chinese tea, paid for with silver and opium. After Plassey (1757) it won Bengal's tax revenues in 1765 and had armies of about 260,000 by 1803. Parliament curbed it from 1773; the Crown took over after the 1857 rebellion.
Impact on society and the economy
Shareholders, officials and British consumers gained; Indian weavers and Bengal peasants lost, notably in the 1770 famine its tax policies worsened. It became the classic corporation wielding state power, prompting regulation.
How we know
The India Office Records at the British Library (miles of company files), parliamentary inquiries from the 1770s on, and Indian, Mughal and Chinese records.
Still debated
How much wealth it drained from India, and whether India's textile decline came mainly from company policy or cheaper British machine cloth, remain debated.
Inside this (3)
Connections (5)
▸The joint-stock company was the structure of English East India CompanyWell documented
The connection
Elizabeth I's 1600 charter created a corporation of London merchants, 218 founding subscribers sharing in a common stock. At first each voyage, or set of voyages, had its own subscription, paid out after return. Only with Oliver Cromwell's 1657 charter did it gain a permanent joint stock like the VOC's, helping it grow into a lasting shareholder-owned giant.
When and how
London, December 31, 1600; first governor Thomas Smythe; Cromwell's charter of 1657.
How we know
The charter and the company's court minutes, in the British Library's India Office Records, record subscribers, voyage stocks and dividends.
Debates
Historians date its shift to a true permanent company differently, citing 1613, 1657 or later; it also faced a rival English company until a merger in 1709.
▸Dutch East India Company (VOC) competed fiercely with English East India CompanyWell documented
The connection
The two companies fought for Asia's spice trade. The larger, better-funded VOC drove the English from the Spice Islands, most notoriously by executing ten English merchants at Amboyna in 1623. The English refocused on India's cloth trade. Three Anglo-Dutch wars followed; the 1667 peace left the Dutch the nutmeg island of Run while England kept New York.
When and how
The Banda Islands and Ambon, 1610s–1620s; the Anglo-Dutch wars of 1652–1674; and a fourth war in 1780–84 that helped ruin the VOC.
How we know
Both companies' archives, English pamphlets about Amboyna, and the treaties of Breda (1667) and Westminster (1674).
Debates
Whether the English at Amboyna were really plotting is disputed. Historians also stress cooperation, such as a 1619 defense treaty, alongside the rivalry.
▸English East India Company established East India Company rule in IndiaWell documented
The connection
The Company came to India to buy cloth and spices, fortifying trading posts at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. Competing with France and exploiting Mughal decline, its private army under Robert Clive won at Plassey in 1757. The 1765 grant of Bengal's tax revenue turned a trading firm into a ruler and paid for further conquests.
When and how
Bengal, 1757–1765, led by Robert Clive; expanded through wars with Mysore, the Marathas and the Sikhs until about 1849.
How we know
Treaties, the 1765 Mughal grant of the diwani, Company and Parliamentary records, and Indian chronicles of the period.
Debates
Historians debate whether conquest was planned in London or driven by ambitious men on the spot, and how much Indian bankers and rivals helped it happen.
▸English East India Company was restricted by Calico Acts banning Indian cotton clothWell documented
The connection
The company's imports of cheap, bright Indian cotton cloth grew so fast in the 1680s–90s that textiles became most of its imports by value. English wool and silk weavers blamed it for lost work and lobbied Parliament. The 1700 and 1721 acts barred most calico sales at home, so the company re-exported Indian cloth to Europe, Africa and the Americas.
When and how
London and Parliament, 1690s–1721; Spitalfields silk weavers, wool interests, and East India Company directors and defenders.
How we know
Company import records, petitions to Parliament, and pamphlets from both sides, including Considerations upon the East-India Trade (1701), attributed to Henry Martyn.
Debates
How much the acts actually cut calico use in England, given smuggling and loopholes, is debated.
▸English East India Company lost its China monopoly to traders like Jardine Matheson and the opium tradeWell documented
The connection
The Company held a monopoly on British trade with China, but private 'country traders' already carried Indian opium there under its licence. When Parliament ended the China monopoly in 1833, effective 1834, free-trade lobbyists won, and firms like Jardine Matheson, founded in 1832, took over the tea and opium business.
When and how
Canton (Guangzhou) and London, 1813–1834; the Charter Act of 1833 ended the monopoly.
How we know
The Charter Acts of 1813, which ended the India monopoly, and 1833, plus Jardine Matheson's own records of its fast-growing trade.
Debates
How much private China traders' lobbying shaped the decision, compared with Manchester manufacturers and free-trade ideas, is uncertain.