________________
70
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(April, 1924
his cruise in the Samaritan, taking a number of native ships in the Red Sea, with the booty of which he rejoined Cobb at Socotra. Naturally the Agents of the East India Company were ready to oppose any efforts of Cobb to trade, but he was not intent on trading, and the outrages committed by Ayres gave good reason for the arrest of the twb Captains at the Comoros by Captain John Bond in 1636. He forced them to disgorge much of their booty but allowed them to go free with their ship. After a further cruise in the Red Sea, Cobb and Ayres returned to England in 1637 (Foster, Eng. Factories, 1634-6, pp. xx-xxix). The Company pressed charges of piracy against Cobb, and the case hung on at least as late as 1644. Cobb's behaviour had very serious consequences for the Company, already compromised in the eyes of the Mughal Government, not only by the Dutch and other foreigners who misused the English flag, but by English Interlopers who had some sort of right to use it. Now the Company had to explain that English ships carrying the King of England's license had no connection with the Company which claimed from that King an exclusive privilege. The-Mughal Governor did not believe what they said and imprisoned the President and English Council at Surat, , releasing them only on payment of £ 18,000 (Bruce, I, 337, 362).
276. Under date 11th May 1636 President Methwold of Surat mentions in his Diary some attacks by English pirates on native vessels.
277. The English and Portuguese having come to an agreement as to the China trade, Captain Weddell, of the Courteen Company, went with a small fleet to Canton. The Governor rofused to allow Weddell to trade and the Chinese fleet hoisted their bloody ensigna'. Weddell bombarded and took the castle and also & number of junks with the Chinese Admiral, whoroupon the Governor withdrew his prohibition (Ancient and Modern History of China, p. 72.) Peter Mundy, however (Travels, 9th August 1637) says that the Governor gave in at the sight of "our bloody ensigns ", so, if the Chinese did hoist the bloody flag, it is not clear what signification id bore. Sohouten (I, 134, 148) mentions the use of the red flag by both the Portuguese and the natives of Macassar in 1660.
278. Captain Weddoll's conduct in obtaining the release of Captain Clark and his crow (see next paragraph) was certainly to his credit, but the means he used must have appeared suspicious as showing the English connection with pirates. His use of force at Canton, however effective for the moment, could produce no lasting benefit. So also the high-handed proceedings of the Courteen Company's captains in Madagascar, where, at St. Augustine's Bay, they attempted to establish a post in 1645-6, committed great excesses against the natives and even coined false pagodas and reals, only added to the East India Company's "lifficulties (Bruce, I, 418). Bruce, (I, 338) draws the following conclusions on the effect of their proceedings :" This event is perhaps of consequence, not so much from the immediate offect of it as from its having been the first instance in which the Interlopers or Private Traders were permitted to carry on a kind of regulated commerce to the East Indies, and under their license had been charged with or had been guilty of depredation, which struck at the root of all furmans or grants, which the London Company liad prooured by heavy expenses from the Mughal Government, and from its having been the source of those oppressions and that in. justice by the native powers which, in the sequel, often interrupted and frequently endangered the existence of the trade of England to the East Indies. Nor was this the only consequence, for when the Interlopers were detected and subsequently punished, pirates, who could not be brought to justice, arose out of this example, the suppression. whom required for more than half a century the united efforts of the Crown and the London Company". Of Captain Weddell, he remarks: -" The excesses which he committed set the example, whilat his rich
