AN ANSWER TO TWO LETTERS, CONCERNING THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY.  
Printed in the Year 1676.   

SIR,  
IN your last, I received two Letters in Print, Concerning the East India-Company; which, considering that you have been acquainted, how great a part of my Estate is entrusted to that Society, I cannot but take it as a Friendly Advertisement; for which, be pleased to accept my Hearty Thanks. And I assure you, whatever my Sentiments are of the affair, I do and shall own it for an evident Demonstration of your Affection, that in the midst of your great Affairs, you should be so mindful of my Concerns.  
I have perused the said Letters, and can see no reason to believe that such Discourses should be published by any person whose Estate was entrusted to the said Company; or that had any real desire of receiving or giving satisfaction concerning the security of Money lent to them. No Creditor can be supposed to act so contrary to his own interest, as to make it his endeavour to weaken or lessen his security, by Exposing and Ruining his Debtors Credit; or teaching him a way to defraud himself, which is the Language of those Papers. It must therefore be some other Person than a Creditor, and some other Design than a doubt about Security, that occasioned the Publishing these Letters. There hath been a report that the Dutch had in Design to propose at the Treaty at Nimegen, a Restraint of the Importation of calico into Europe, because it hinders the consumption of French, Holland, Flanders, and Germane Linens: And lately some here did Decry the East-India-Company and Trade, because calico (as they said) hindered the vent of Fustians and some other Native Manufactures. These corresponding so exactly, give ground to think they proceed from the same Council, and the Author of these Letters may be of that Cabal.  
He first endeavours to destroy the Credit of the Company, by telling us, That their Seal is less security, than the word of any one sufficient man among them; for that not any one of the Companies Persons or Estates, (he means beside what is in the joint stock of the Company) whether Real or Personal is thereby bound, neither can any of them be arrested or impleaded by virtue thereof, Who is there so ignorant, but knows this? though the Gentleman supposeth all are such Fools, that have lent money to the Company, that they were like fish drawn into the Net, by vainly imagining that every member in the Company in his Particular and Private capacity was bound to answer for the same. I dare say not one of forty that have lent money to the Company thought so. I have heard indeed of one that had a considerable sum there, who upon the advice of some Council of this Gentleman's Capacity, demanded his money, which being presently paid him by the East-India-Company, he lodged it in Lombardstreet, where it lies (and is like toly) till the opening of the Exchequer. I suppose he rendered the GEntleman no thanks for his advice, nor accounts himself the wiser man for following it. If it be seriously considered, on what grounds, persons have chosen to put their money into the East-India-Companies hands, rather than to entrust it elsewhere; it will appear they were no such Fools, as they are charactered for, nor the Security so slight, as the Gentleman would have us believe it to be.  
The Gentleman prefers a sufficient man's word, (I will suppose his bond which is more valid, in regard of the uncertainty of life.) It's difficult to know who is sufficient; all is not Gold that glisters, or every man sufficient that is thought so. If he be sufficient when you lend the money, who can assure himself, he will Continue either sufficient, or honest. Men are changeable, and their Estates subject to accidents. Doth not experience evidence, that losses at sea, losses by fire, losses by bad debts, and other Casualties, have rendered Persons insolvent, that had great Estates and Credit, as also that sometimes Persons have purchased lands in their children's names, and otherwise so conveyed away their Estates, that their Creditors could never reach them; and if they seize their Persons they can live in the Rules, and laugh at their Creditors. As for lending money on Mortgages and real security, which is esteemed the best security; Is it not very troublesome to attend on Council, to examine Titles, to make Conveyances? And when all is done with the greatest advice and circumspection; is it not very hazardous, in regard of bad Titles, Dormant Conveyances, and Precontracts? can the most eminent and subtle Lawyers secure themselves? have ot some of them been overreached? And sometimes when the security is good as to the main; yet what difficulty, trouble, and vexation is there to arrive at satisfaction, by attending long Suits in Chancery, accounting for profits, The Creditor being oftentimes made the Debtors steward, and that without Salary or Compensation for his pains. And on such Securities who can depend on his money to answer his Occasions.  
If he have a Daughter to Marry, a Son to prefer in Trade, or a Purchase to make, all his designs are frustrated, His money being (if not in Hell unretreviable, yet) in Purgatory, whence it cannot be delivered but in a long Tract of time, and that by patiented undergoing the smarting Torment of Tedious and Chargeable Suits. It must be acknowledged, that there is no absolute certainty or assurance of any thing in this World; and whoever believes otherwise, is gone beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion; and fit only to reside in the new Palace in moorfield's. All that can be desired in the putting out of money, is to have a visible fond engaged, that is morally (not only at the time of lending) most sufficient to secure it, but also in probability most likely to continue so, and to answer the Occasions of the Lender.  
1. Then, They that lend Money to the East India-Company, on their Common Seal, have a visible fond engaged that is sufficient to secure the same. Though the Members of the Company are neither responsible in their Persons, nor private Estates for what is taken up thereupon, yet all the Moneys, Goods, and Effects belonging to the Joint stock of the Company are engaged, as the Gentleman himself is necessitated to acknowledge. His insinuations concerning the case of the Merchant-Adventurers, and Grocer's Company, are not to the purpose; those Companies never had any Joint-stock, as a visible fund to secure what they borrowed, but were trusted upon their bare Reputation and Credit. It is fare otherwise here. Suppose there hath been lent to the Enst-Iudia-Company 5 or 600 thousand pound, the Lender's either do or might know, that there is in the Joint-stock of the said Company in real value upwards of 900 thousand pound, (I may say a Million of pounds sterling) besides their dead stock, which is also considerable. All which, being together a Million and Half of pounds sterling, stands by their Common Seal bound and engaged to pay their Creditors. The Gentleman doth Ignorantly, if not Maliciously assert, pag. 4. That the East-India-Company trade's wholly with their Creditors Money, and that it's seldom that they have above 600 thousand pounds in value in their India Factories, and on the Seas at the same time. To demonstrate the falsity of which, take but an account of what they sent out this last year, and it will be found to be upwards of 450 thousand pounds: And to that add the value of the 3 Ships already arrived this year from Bantam; and the 5 Ships from Surrat; with the other 6 or 7 Ships expected from the Coast Surrat and Bantam, which will amount at least to 800 thousand pounds (and as Sales may prove, to a great deal more) so that there appears to have been above 12 hundred thousand pounds value on the Seas at one time, beside all the remains of Goods and Debts in India and in England. There being then such a stock, it cannot be denied but that there is a visible and sufficient fond to secure the Creditors the Moneys that they have lent. But the Gentleman tells us, pag. 4. The Indians or Infidels may destroy their Factories, and Goods in India; their Ships and Cargoes may be lost or taken in War, or by Pirates, and the Company may make a Dividend to secure their own Estates, and leave the Creditors to find a thing in the Clouds. Therefore it will be necessary in the next place to evidence that the joint stock of the East-India-Company is on Moral and Rational grounds, most likely to continue sufficient to secure the moneys lent thereupon. That which might render it insufficient according to the Gentleman's suggestions, is either losses arriving from Foreign accidents, or dishonest practices either by concealment, or by making dividents of the stock amongst the Members of the Company, without regard to the payment of the Debtors.  
1. As to Casualties, whereby losses may happen to the stock; The Gentleman mentions a Concatenation of Evils, Destruction from the Indians, Losses by Storms, by War and by Pirates. Should we wrack our fancies to find out, and then suffer our thoughts to dwell on the consideration of the accidents that may fall out in Humane affairs, we should never enjoy quiet in our Minds; or else we should be deterred from resolving or setting upon any affair. For as the wise man tells us, He that observes the Wind shall not Sow, and he that regardeth the Clouds shall not Reap. It is sufficient, that we take the most probable ways of Security, and leave the rest to Divine Providence. Now if we consider the affairs of the East-India-Company without prejudice, we cannot but conclude that their stock of 1600 thousand pounds, will always be sufficient to answer 600 thousand pounds. For the whole at no time, is hazarded in one bottom, as it often falls out in private men's deal; Some part is in England in Goods and Debts, some part in India in Trade and Voyages, and some part is at Sea, Going and Coming; not in one Ship but in 30 Ships or more, not in one Course or Voyage, but in several: So that though a loss should happen to some part, yet in the ordinary course of providence, there is Rational ground to believe there would be always enough preserved to answer the Engagements.  
2dly. As to dishonest practices, is it Rationally to be supposed that a Number of men can so easily engage in wicked and cheating actions? The Government of the East-India stock is committed to 26 Persons, and no Affair can be Transacted without 13, so that if the Major part be Persons of Honesty and Conscience, you are secure; nothing can be done unworthily. Yea if there should be but one Honest man of 13, yet you are sure, seeing such an act of knavery, as would defraud the Creditors, would be detected. The Gentleman tell us, (pag. 3.) You may sue the Company on their common Seal, and have Execution against their Goods, but then asks where shall you find the Goods of the Company to pay 5 s. in the pound: and withal adds, That were there Goods of a greater value, the Company may divide them amongst themselves, and so the Creditors have never a penny, unless they can catch it in the Indies.  
Since the Establishment of the East-India Company in this present joint-stock, which is now near nineteen years, was ever any person that lent Money to the Company on their common Seal, forced to sue them? Have not all men been paid their Money readily whenever they demanded it?  
How is it possible that the Companies goods should be concealed, that must pass through so many hands, and are in such vast quantities, and of such sorts as may easily be distinguished from others? It hath been formerly a Maxim amongst the Committee of that Company (as I have heard) never to take up more money at Interest, than they had real Effects in England, in Debts or Goods to satisfy. If for the last two years they have exceeded, to expatiate and extend the Trade for the Benefit of the Kingdom; It is however but for a very small time that it is otherwise, for at the arrival of their Ships from India in June, July, and August, they have constantly a vast Estate in England over and above what will answer all their Debts. And if there be not always so much at the latter end of March, when their Ships are dispeeded for India; in a few months after, when the former years' Ships return, there is an abvudant Surplusage. So that if it should fall out (which never yet hath done, nor is it probable it should) that any person should sue the Company for Money lent them at Interest on their common Seal, and Execution against their Goods should be obtained, I say in such a Case every person concerned, might easily and without any difficulty find Effects in England, to discharge all he can claim or challenge, nor is he left to find a thing in the Clouds, nor yet send to India to catch it; which Expressions the Gentleman might well have spared.  
That the Company should make a Dividend among themselves of their Goods and Estate, to defraud their Creditors, is not only very uncharitably, but also very irrationally suggested. No Dividend can be made but by the Committee which (as before noted) consists of 26 Persons, and those (or at least most of them) of the best Reputation for honesty and integrity in the City of London, and can it be in Charity supposed, that they would join in such an Act? I am confident they do abominate the thoughts of it. Besides it is not in the power of the Committee, according to their Constitution, to make any Dividend in Goods. All Dividends are to be made in Money, and Goods are not to be sold by private Contract, but at a public Sale. So that it is impossible, according to the present Rules and constitution of the Company, that any Dividend can be made to the prejudice of the Creditors, but they must have sufficient notice thereof, and may secure themselves. But could it be imagined, that such Dividends might be made, and that the Committee should so far degenerate from all Principles of Honesty, yet notwithstanding what the Gentleman insinuates, viz. That this might be done so as to leave the Creditor remediless in Law, I cannot believe, but rather think, the Gentleman is mistaken, and that he hath not well studied or considered the Case.  
N. lends 1000 l. to the East-India Company on their common Seal, on this ground, that there is at that time a joint-stock of the Companies, of the value of 900 thousand pounds to secure and answer his Debt; the Committee divide this Stock of 900 thousand pounds (after the lending of the Money) amongst themselves and other the Members of the Company: I now inquire, whether the Committee that made this Dividend, be not in their own Persons and Estates obliged in Law or Equity to answer the Debt to N.  
For N. did not trust his Money on a vain Fancy, that the individual Members of the Company were in their private Capacities obliged to respond for his Money, but on this Foundation, That the joint-stock of the Company was to be his Security and guarant. This joint-stock was entrusted into the hands of the Committee to manage for the Benefit of the Adventurers, before they took up Money at Interest; but when they had taken up Money at Interest, than the joint-stock is in the hands of the Committee in trust, in the first place to answer and satisfy the moneys taken up at interest: So that now the Committee are trusties for N. till his Debt be paid. If Losses and Accidents in the Course of Trade should render the Stock incapable to answer the money to N. he must be content to sit down by the loss; but if the Committee by any wilful act of theirs dispose of the Stock, and convert it to their private use, before they have paid N, they are guilty of breach of trust, and thereby have rendered themselves answerable in their own private capacities to make satisfaction to N. This was the opinion of one of the most eminent and famous Lawyers of his time; (Sergeant Glyn;) and it seems so rational, that I am easily persuaded to believe it to be so. And were it but a doubtful Case, would it not be a most imprudent act of the Committee, to divide the Stock among the Members of the Company, and expose themselves in their own private capacities and Estates to answer the Creditors, or at least to be liable to Suits and Molestations.  
As to what the Gentleman observes, (p. 4.) That the King who impowered the Company to use a common Seal, thought it not sufficient security for his Customs: But provided in their Patent that they should give good and sufficient bond with surety for the payment thereof. However, whether it be so, or no, in the Patent, I know not; But this I'm well assured of, that it serves little to the purpose he intends it; it being evident that those words were not inserted out of any doubt that either the King or his Ministers had of the Companies security by their common-Seal, but put in as words of course, a form usual in such cases, for that the King's Officers have never refused, but always readily accepted the Companies Obligation by their common Seal, for the payment of the Customs.  
The Gentleman believes, as he tells us, (pag. 5.) That the Company had never been such Bankers, as to have deserved Court Letters about their Officers, if they had given Bond with Sureties for the Money they have borrowed. (p. 2.) It seems what passed between the Court and the Company, was not such a Noli me tangere, but he would have one fling at it. To this he subjoins a foolish insignificant pity, in reference to the Lombardstreet Bankers, to which I say, that as I leave him to his own belief, so for his pity, I am sure I shall never need it, upon the account of lending my money to the Company. Nor did the Gentleman's Friend deserve a reproof, for not advising with him before he parted with his money to the Company, though he might have had it so unusually cheap. For he may (if he have not already) receive his money from the Company when he pleaseth: But when he hath so done, he will be at a loss to find-where he may place it upon such rational grounds for security, it being evident by what hath been said, That there is such a visible Fond engaged by the Companies Seal, that is not only more sufficient at present, but also more likely to continue so, to answer the Occasions of the Lender, than is any where else at this time in England.  
The Gentleman in the next place, that he may effectually carry on his Design, having insinuated p. 5. That the Company hath no firm legal Foundation, and so was in no probability of standing, gives us a Transcript of some Clauses in the Companies Charter, and then takes the liberty to arraign the Kings Grant; Calls it a Monopoly, and a Monopoly of Monopolies; Quotes the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 3. citys some Lawcases; talks of Turkish and French Vassals; tells us, that he wonders, yea protests that he is astonished, to think how any durst draw such a patent; To omit other expressions of the like, if not a worse complexion.  
It would be improper for me, who you know am no Lawyer, to take upon me to answer these matters. The Gentleman is pleased to name Mr. Solicitor, and Mr. Attorney General, and they are able to do it to purpose. However I am persuaded, notwithstanding all the bluster and noise he makes, his zeal in the Design (rather than in his profession) hath carried him beyond his understanding, and that he is mistaken in the whole matter. He quotes the Statute of 21 Jac. c. 3. as the Devil doth Scripture by halves; for in the said Statute it is thus expressed. Provided also, and it is hereby further intended, declared, and enacted, that this Act, or any thing therein contained, shall not in any wise extend, or be prejudicial to the City of London, or to any City, Burrough, or Town Corporate within this Realm, for or concerning any Grants, Charters, or Letters Patents, to them or any of them, made or granted, or for or concerning, any Custom or Customs, used by or within them or any of them, Or to any Corporations or Fellowships of any Art Occupation or Mystery, or to any Companies or Societies of Merchants within this Realm, Erected for the Maintenance, Enlargement, or Ordering of any Trade of Merchandise. But that the same Charters, Customs, Corporations, Companies, Fellowships and Societies, and their Liberties, Privileges, Powers and Immunities, shall be, and continue of such Force and Effect, as they were before the making of the Act, and of none other, Any thing before in this Act contained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. At the time of the making that Act, the East-India-Company was in being, by virtue of a Charter granted to them by King Jams not much differing from the present Patent (as I am informed,) And by the abovesaid proviso, the Parliament did Confirm and Allow, rather than Censure the same.  
The Gentleman gives us a Definition of a Monopoly, and then tells us (pag. 6.) the Statute provides that all Persons, Bodies Politic and Corporate, which then were or thence after should be, should stand, and be disabled, to have use, or exercise, or put in use any such Monopolies. The word such, is not in the Statute in that place; and if we take the subsequent words in that Statute, to Define or Explain what a Monopoly is; It refers only to matters within the Realm, which will not concern the present case. But suppose the Definition the Gentleman gives of a Monopoly were as he expresseth it (by the Law-books) to be an institution or Allowance, by the King, by his Grant, Commission or otherwise, to any Person, Body Politic or Corporate, of or for the only buying, selling, or using of any thing, whereby any Person or Persons are sought to be restrained of any Freedom or Liberty which they had before, or hindered in their lawful Trade and Traffic. May we not understand this to be within the Kingdom only, for can any Subject of England lawfully Trade or Traffic with any Foreign Nation, without the allowance of the King, who hath the undoubted Prerogative of making War and Peace, upon which the same depends. I shall readily grant that as the King is Common Father of all his Subjects, so his Care and Protection of, and Provision for them, is in the General Equally and Indifferently to be extended. But in some Cases, and under some Circumstances, hath not his Majesty a Prerogative (nay, ought he not on the same right of Fatherhood) as to prefer the General Benefit, to that of Particular; so sometimes to extend special Privileges and Grants to some Particulars for the General Benefit, though other particulars may seem to receive prejudice thereby? Is not this the case of most of the Corporations in England? which yet neither our Barrister nor any other will account Monopolies. And that this is also the case of the East-India Trade, will appear when it is considered, that this Trade is not to be managed and carried on for the General Benefit and Profit of the Kingdom, so well in any other way as by a Company in a Joint-stock.  
Besides, if a Monopoly be a restraining of Persons from the freedom or Liberty they had before: I ask whether ever the People generally had the Freedom and Liberty of the East-India Trade? Except it was in the late unhappy times from 1653 to 1657? In which little time the Trade was almost totally ruined as to the Nation, The Experience whereof necessitated the then Powers, with the universal good liking and approbation of all persons, to resettle the Company.  
Suppose a Country that was undiscovered, or a Country that for the difficulty of passage to it, or chargeableness and hazard of the adventure, no Euglish had traded to formerly; and that some English men at their own Hazard and Charges should discover the One, Purchase land of the Natives, Settle a Colony, and Establish a Trade; and on the Other after great hazards and Adventures, with vast Charges and Expenses, arrive to the knowledge of a profitable Trade, and by presents obtain Liberty of Trade from the Prince of such a Country, Peculiarly for Themselves and their Assigns: May not the King by his Prerogative Confirm those Capitulations, and grant the Privilege of the Trade to the Discoverers and Adventurers, and their Successors, thereby to encourage others to the like Noble undertake, for the General good of his Kingdom? How could such a Grant be within the Compass of a Monopoly, Since no English man was denied or debarred of any Liberty that he before exercised or enjoyed? Is there any thing more reasonable, than that they who at a vast Charge, with great Hazard and Difficulty purchased a trade, should have the enjoyment of it? Shall not he that planteth a Vineyard eat the fruit thereof? And what can be more unjust than that another should come in and reap the fruits of my Achievements, that was either idle, ignorant, or afraid; that knew not, would not, or durst not adventure to obtain the same? May there not be a right of Propriety in a Trade, as well as in Lands and Houses? this is the Case of the East-India Company in a great measure.  
Further, Suppose there be a known Trade, that may be very advantageous to the Kingdom, and that for the obtaining and settling, and carrying on of which there is a necessity to be at a vast Expense, to settle and keep Factories and Agents in several places, and with several Princes, and on Occasion by War to force those Princes to perform their Capitulations, and to erect Forts and maintain Garrisons for security of the Trade, as also to cope with and prevent the designs of Enemies that would debar the English of such a Trade; all which could not be done, but on a public Charge of the Nation by some General Tax, or by some United Body of Men encouraged to undertake the same by special Privileges and Immunities, granted to them and their Successors; Suppose I say in such a Case that the King, to compass the obtaining and carrying on of such a Trade for the General benefit of his Kingdom, without a Tax on his People, should propose to give and grant to all his Subjects, that would voluntarily unite their Stocks in such an Affair, certain Privileges and Immunities, and amongst others the sole enjoyment of the Trade of such places to them and theirs, excluding all others that should refuse to join therein. On such an invitation and Proposal freely offered to all without exception, only a certain number of persons come in, Accept the Terms, and receive the Grant confirmed and settled, under the Broad-Seal of England. In some Process of time, after great hazards and vast Expenses to the Undertakers and Adventures, the Trade proving more advantageous and profitable to the particulars interessed, than at first was apprehended it would; Those others that would not intermeddle at first, make great exclamations because they are excluded, Cry out a Monopoly, a restraining the Subject the freedom and liberty of Trade. Have they any reason so to do? was not the fault their own? It was freely tendered to them, they had the liberty to have come in on the same terms that others did: Shall they that voluntarily excluded themselves, be angry that they are excluded, and charge it as a Crime either on the King that invited them, or on their fellow-Subjects that would at first have been glad of their assistance? Is not this most unjust and unreasonable? This is the Case of those that so highly exclaim against the East-India Company, which I suppose being rightly understood, the Companies Charter will not deserve the name of a Monopoly; nor shall the Companies Creditors need to sear that the Company should be rendered Insufficient to pay their Debts, by being condemned in Triple damages, or fined at the Common Laws for accepting such a Patent, (p. 9) to which our Barrister, without understanding, (if not without consulting his Books) thinks them liable.  
The Gentleman in the close of his Letter would insinuate, that the East-India Trade is of no Benefit to the Nation, and if it were, yet that it might be more advantageously managed than by a Company in a Joint-stock. This I guess to be his meaning, but lest I should mistake, I will repeat his own words, pag. 10. I that am no Trader know that the Parliament could, if it be an useful Trade to England, (which I am no proper Judge of) have established legally such Rules whereby the Trade, might have been managed, and Factories, Forts, and Castles maintained; and the liberty of Trade might have been preserved to every Englishman, and five times the trade gained, and the price of our own Manufactures of Cloth and others advanced, by the multitude and freedom of Buyers; and the price of the goods imported much lessened to the English, and much more Trade with these Commodities gained into other parts of the World. An Instance of this is well known in the Turkey Company, where no Merchant can be excluded or denied to trade with their particular Stock; yet the same pretence might have been for restraint, that some do vainly suggest in this.  
Who is so bold as blind Bayard? they that know least, are apt to think they know most. Ignorance and Confidence are often Companions. The Gentleman tells us, though he be no Trader, yet he knows. what doth he know? he doth not know whether the Trade to the East-Indies be an useful Trade to England; that he is not a proper Judge of, as he saith. He might with little study or observation have known, that it's a Trade all Nations have and do court at the highest rate: A Trade that the Dutch have adventured their All to purchase; A Trade which as it is carried on only by a Company in the way of Joint-stock, so the gain thereby accrueing, maintains the Republic in Honour, Power, and Opulency; A Trade whereby they have so increased to Riches and Strength, as almost to become Masters of the World: A Trade wherein the English Company employ and maintain above forty Ships, from 3 to 500 Tuns, and upwards of 3000 Seamen; a Trade that supplies the Nation with necessary Commodities, at a tenth part of the price the Nation must otherwise pay for them. Pepper would be as dear as Nutmegs, if the Dutch were sole Masters of it; calico must be supplied by French, Dutch and Flanders Linen; A Trade that makes us Masters of the Salt-petre, enables us to defend ourselves, frees our houses from those Vermin, (the Salt-petre-men) that dug up our rooms; A Trade that upholds our foreign Trades, by bringing us Commodities to carry abroad to France, Spain, Italy, and Turkey, to a farther increase of our Navigation. A Trade that besides the Customs to his Majesty, which are very considerable, brings an Annual Addition, of several 100000 pounds to the real Stock of the Kingdom. There are besides these, divers other advantages, too many to enumerate. All this is so perspicuous, that the Gentleman might easily have discerned it, were his sight clear, and not clouded by prejudice, or obstructed by the intervention of some private (if not foreign) interest. But though he knows not whether the Trade be useful for England, yet he knows if it were, the Parliament could have established such rules, etc. Excellent! how comes it to pass the Parliament hath not done it all this while? The Reason is suggested, It was not an useful trade for England. But might it not have been made an useful Trade, If such Rules had been made to have gained 5 times the Trade, to have advanced the price of our Manufactures, and lessened the price of Goods imported, and have gained much more trade into other parts of the World? Certainly the Parliament hath not been of the Gentleman's mind, neither to have Judged the Trade useless, For than they would have put it down; Nor yet to think that such Rules as he Imagines could have been made to effect what he fancies, for than they would have established them. The Gentleman might have done well for the Benefit of his Country (if he intended it) to have suggested (if he could) what these Rules were, that they might have been considered; and till he declares what Rules he means, I can make no other construction of his words, than that he knows that the Parliament, could have made such Rules, though he knows not what. I Readily grant, the Parliament, (which is the Wisdom, and Supreme Authority of the Nation) can and will make all necessary rules for the good of the Kingdom, and to say such Rules could have been made and yet never were, (though many Parliaments have been since the first Establishment of the East-India Trade) seems too much to reflect on that great Assembly. The Gentleman tells us, an instance of this is well known in the Turkey Company. An Instance of what? that the Parliament could have Established such Rules as to have gained 5 times, the East-India Trade? sure that cannot be the meaning; the Parliament having never made any Rules, much less such Rules for the Turkey Company. The Gentleman sure was so astonished, that he was in a Labyrinth, and lost his senses.  
To help him therefore out, though this be no Instance of the Parliaments making Rules, yet may it not be an Instance, that if the East-India Company did admit all Merchants to trade with their particular Stocks, (as he saith the Turkey Company do, though therein he mistakes; for its only their own Members that have liberty,) it would have increased and augmented the East-India Trade five times more than now it is? This certainly must be the thing he intended, yet I cannot find how it is an instance. The Turkey Company never were in a Joint-stock (that not being so necessary and suitable to that Trade) so it could never be known what Increase the alteration from one to the other would have made; and it is evident, that the East-India Trade hath been more increased and enlarged within these few years under a Joint-stock, than the Turkey-trade hath been under a Regulation. It is also certain (as before noted) that the East-India Trade in three or four years' time of open Trade was almost totally ruined, and could not have been upheld so much to the Interest and Benefit of the Kingdom, unless it had been reduced into a Company, and Joint-stock.  
The Inconfistency of maintaining and carrying on the East-India trade in a Regulation without a Company and a Joint stock, the great mischief and ruin it might be to the Kingdom, both in point of Wealth and Strength (which includes all,) If we should lose or be cheated of that Trade, and what may be further done for the securing and augmenting of it, are Subjects would require larger Discourses than my time at present will admit of. I hope, Sir, what I have said, may be enough to satisfy you, that the Joint-stock of the East-India Company is a sufficient security, and that the said Company is neither so obnoxious, nor myself or others that have lent Money to them, so ill advised, as the Gentleman in his Letter would insinuate. This is all I intended in answer to yours.  
Bristol the 30 June, 1676.   

The Bookseller to the Reader.  
THis Discourse coming accidentally to my hands, I presume so far upon the Author, as without either his Authority or Permission to commit it to the Press. If he be offended to find that offered to public View, which he designed only for the satisfaction of a private Friend, I shall say, that besides its being a Vindication of a Society, all whose Measures are just and honourable, and their Undertake great and successful, it is a service also to the Kingdom, to which so many Advantages are derived by them.  
FINIS.