No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
It is difficult to decide exactly when English interest in Japan revived; as so often it seems to have been individuals who aroused the enthusiasm of important members of the court of committees. Except for the proposals of Hawley and Smethwick and the ensuing debates, the court minutes contain no reference to the possibility of resuming trade with Japan until 1658. In view of the important role later played by Quarles Browne, it may be worth referring to certain details of the preparations begun in that year. When the directors fitted out the Welcome in December, 1657, her destination was China; no mention was made of a voyage to Japan. The venture was abandoned in January, 1658, because of the lateness of the season. Quarles Browne, the former chief factor in Cambodia, arrived home from Bantam on the Society only on 24th December, 1657, and so cannot have influenced the decision to fit out the Welcome. Besides, Browne had come home under a cloud and it was not until 9th February, 1658, that his accounts for the Cambodian factory were approved by the Company's accountants. Browne then rose rapidly in the favour of the directors: in April he was appointed agent at Bantam but had to surrender his claim to that post because of certain unspecified charges against him. He remained in London to defend himself before the lord protector—successfully as it proved. It may well have been at his instigation that the directors began preparations on 6th September, 1658, to send ships to China and Japan; certainly his selection for the post of chief factor in Japan at the unusual salary of £300 per annum suggests that his influence was considerable. But his usefulness ended together with his employment, when the project collapsed in December, 1658.
page 145 note 1 Browne was to receive £200 per annum as chief factor of the Japan voyage and an additional £100 per annum if he succeeded in establishing a settlement. The corresponding figures for the chief factor in China, William Prideaux, were only £150 rising to £200. It may have been at Browne's suggestion, too, that the court considered (and negatived) the opening of factories in Cambodia and Tongking (Court Minutes, 20th October, 1658).
page 146 note 1 Company to Bantam, 21st September, 1671. Letter Book IV, f. 478.
page 146 note 2 Referred to by Browne in: Bantam to Company, 31st December, 1664. O.C. 3041, f. 6.
page 146 note 3 Vide Java Records, vol. iv, ff. 4–8, for the 1664 copy.
page 147 note 1 Vide supra, Part I, p. 45, JRAS., 1 & 2, 1960.
page 147 note 2 Court Minutes, 3rd July, 1663, vol. 24, p. 641.
page 147 note 3 Bantam to Company, 31st December, 1664, O.C. 3041, p. 40.
page 147 note 4 Company to Madras, 20th February, 1662–63. Letter Book III., p. 230.
page 147 note 5 5 Loc. cit.
page 148 note 1 Company to Bantam, 29th, February, 1663–64. Letter Book III, p. 371.
page 148 note 2 Company to Bantam, 30th June, 1663. Letter Book III, p. 267.
page 148 note 3 Vide supra, f.n. 1.
page 149 note 1 Bantam to Company, 31st December, 1664. O.C. 3041, pp. 6–8.
page 149 note 2 Bantam to Company, 27th January, 1664–65. Java Records, iv, p. 3.
page 149 note 3 Browne was buried near his wife, who had died a few months previously while giving birth to a daughter.
page 150 note 1 Court Minutes, 21st October, 1668. Vol. 25A, p. 62.
page 150 note 2 Company to Bantam, 7th April, 1671. Letter Book IV, p. 444.
page 150 note 3 Both Koxinga's father, Cheng Chih-lung, and Koxinga's son Cheng Ching appear to have been given this name by the English. Cheng Ching succeeded to his father's position on Koxinga's death in 1662, shortly after the conquest of Formosa from the Dutch.
page 151 note 1 The events leading to the abortive visit to Japan have been described in detail by ProfessorBoxer, C. R. in “Jan Compagnie in Japan, 1672–1674” (Trans. As. Soc. Japan, 1930)Google Scholar. The relevant facts have been repeated here to maintain continuity in an account which has a somewhat wider canvas, rather than as a claim to originality.
page 151 note 2 The factory in Tongking was certainly not intended as a poor alternative to direct trade with China. Cf. Pritchard: op. cit., p. 67, where the establishment of the factory is interpreted solely from this viewpoint.
page 152 note 1 Company to Bantam, 21st September, 1671. Letter Book IV, pp. 475–6, 479–480.
page 153 note 1 Bantam to Company, 5th October, 1674. Java Records, iv, p. 110.
page 153 note 2 Company to Bantam, 23rd October, 1674. Letter Book V, pp. 135, 138.
page 153 note 3 Company to Bantam, 5th October, 1677. Loc. cit., pp. 467–8.
page 153 note 4 Company to Bantam, 23rd October, 1674. Loc. cit., pp. 135, 138. Received in Tongking in 1675.
page 154 note 1 Loc. cit., p. 137.
page 154 note 2 Not to be confused at any time in this article with his son, John Dacres, who was the chief factor in Taiwan.
page 154 note 3 Bantam to Company, 4th December, 1674. Java Records, iv, p. 115.
page 154 note 4 Company to Bantam, 6th November, 1675. Letter Book V, p. 203.
page 155 note 1 Court Minutes, 31st 08, 1677. Vol. 30, p. 308Google Scholar.
page 155 note 2 Company to Bantam, 5th October, 1677. Letter Book V, p. 462.
page 155 note 3 Morse, H. B.: The East India Company Trading to China, i, p. 45Google Scholar.