English trade with the East at a time of change: Captain Richard Etherington's voyages and networking in the maritime world in the late seventeenth century

After the formation of the English East India Company (EIC) at the end of 1600, there developed complicated but powerful links with the English monarchy and nobility that helped protect the EIC's monopoly on English trade in the East. ¹ Factories (trading bases) were established in India over the next 100 years by agreement with the ruling Mughal emperors. The first was at Surat in Gujarat in 1612, followed by Fort St. George (Madras) and Hughli, Bengal, by 1640. Bombay island was a special case. Formerly a Portuguese stronghold, it passed to King Charles II by marriage with Catherine of Braganza, and he soon handed it over to the EIC. Progress was gradual and uncertain, with many setbacks from a variety of economic and political factors, especially disputes with the Mughals, who provided goods for trade. There is continuing historiographic emphasis on the developing role of the EIC as a ‘Company state’ and its maritime trading activities. ² EIC personnel complicated trading patterns by conducting extensive private trade within (at least in theory) limits established by the EIC, as analysed for Bombay and Surat by Timothy Davies and for Madras by Søren Mentz. ³ After the accession of William and Mary in 1688 (the ‘Glorious Revolution’), the political influence of the EIC in England decreased. Its legal monopoly for trade with the East was increasingly challenged by independent merchants in England, who sent out private ships – ‘interlopers’ in the eyes of the EIC. They persistently lobbied the House of Commons and the Privy Council, and sought to establish a rival company. After lengthy deliberations in Parliament, the New EIC was formally established in 1698 but the Old EIC did its best to obstruct private merchants and the New EIC until the two companies formally merged in 1709. ⁴

Despite the increasing intensity of English mercantile trade in the region, it was greatly hampered from 1688 to 1697 by warfare with the French, which resulted in capture of both EIC and private ships. In India, there was intense warfare between powerful Mughal forces and the EIC between 1685 and 1690. In the Bombay region, the warfare was sparked by the EIC’s policy of capturing Mughal vessels and also piracy, which was blamed on the EIC by the Mughals. ⁵ English trade in the region was also influenced by competition from Asian and other European merchants, particularly the formidable Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC), which had its main base in Batavia, now Jakarta, and had increasing influence on politics in the East Indies throughout the seventeenth century. ⁶

In comparison with the EIC, the scarcity of archival material has resulted in relatively little attention being paid to the private merchants in England who engaged with trade in the East at the end of the seventeenth century, and especially to the voyages of the ships that they chartered. As with the EIC's ships, these voyages were often eventful because of warfare, piracy and shipwreck. This article focuses on Richard Etherington, who voyaged to the East as a commander of both EIC and private vessels. It was prompted partly by references to Etherington in the papers of Thomas Bowrey, who spent 19 years in the East as a private trader based mainly in India before returning to England. Bowrey's written accounts and ongoing interests in Eastern trade after his return were first discussed by Sir Richard Carnac Temple and are the subject of the recent detailed biography written by Sue Paul. ⁷ Bowrey provided Etherington with charts and information for a planned voyage to Borneo and for a later voyage, both in private ships. ⁸ The references are discussed later.

Etherington is also mentioned by Alexander Hamilton, a Scotsman whose detailed and opinionated account of countries in the East Indies and his activities there for the EIC and as a private ship's captain and merchant was first published in 1727. He said that ‘Captain Ethrington’ in a ship called Resolution travelled to Gilolo in the Moluccas ‘about the Year 1692’ and obtained a cargo of spice. The VOC officials in Batavia were said to be very curious as to where he had been, as the Moluccas lay within their sphere of influence, and Etherington retorted that ‘the English were not quite ignorant of that navigation if they had a mind to follow it’. ⁹

We have followed up these clues about Etherington and put together English and Dutch archival sources to describe his activities between 1688 and 1699, illustrating the various issues that influenced English trade and also the small world of maritime and mercantile activities in the region at the time. We also provide some family history for context. As will be seen, Etherington first commanded a ship chartered by the EIC for a voyage to India, the outcome of which was shipwreck. After an interlude in England that remains unexplained but significantly affected the EIC's future, he commanded a ship owned by private merchants, voyaging beyond the usual range of English trade in the region to Borneo and then to Timor.

Etherington’s early life

Etherington's early life and experiences as a mariner remain obscure, but he was probably born into a seafaring family and was not a ‘gentleman’ in the sense then in use. A son of Richard Etherington, mariner, and Katherine was christened Richard at St. Dunstan's, Stepney, in September 1643. ¹⁰ On 15 September 1685, a licence was issued by the Vicar-General in Canterbury for the marriage of Richard Etherington of Stepney, mariner and bachelor, said to be aged about 30, to Jane Bradnam of Wapping, spinster, said to be aged about 16. ¹¹ Consent was given by her mother, a widow, with the marriage to be at Leyton, Essex. ¹² They were married two days later at Wanstead, very close to Leyton. ¹³ Such licences removed the need for banns and allowed marriages to take place in parishes where neither party resided. Jane Bradnam was described in the parish register as a widow, presumably a misreading of the licence, and Etherington was named simply as a bachelor. Etherington's age does not fit at all well with the christening above, but the original entry may have been ‘upwards of 30’ – that is, older than 30. Jane is the name of Captain Richard Etherington's wife recorded in his will (mentioned later). Parish registers sometimes used ‘Captain’ when appropriate, so Etherington may have still been a ship's officer other than commander when he was married. As regards Jane's age at marriage, the only likely birth that has been found is that of a Jane Bradenham, daughter of John and Sarah, on 1 January 1670, recorded at the church of St. John, Wapping. ¹⁴ If this was the same person, it would mean that she was only 15 years old when she married Etherington. Jane Etherington, a daughter of Richard Etherington, mariner, and Jane, was baptised at St. John's, Wapping, on 3 February 1688, from which it can be concluded that he was in England in May 1687. Jane the daughter is also included in his will (mentioned later).

Etherington and the Shrewsbury

In April 1688, the EIC in London freighted a chartered ship, the Shrewsbury, presumably named after the influential Earl of Shrewsbury, and issued detailed instructions to its captain, Richard Etherington. ¹⁵ He was not a young man and would not have been appointed without previous experience as an officer on ships that voyaged to the East. The Shrewsbury had previously made a voyage to India and then on to China, ¹⁶ but Etherington could not have been an officer, given his marriage in England to Jane. For the second voyage, Etherington was instructed, in typically florid EIC style, to proceed as quickly as possible to Bombay, to keep ‘the Worship of God’ and take good care of those on board, and to return as soon as convenient via the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, from where he should travel in convoy with other English ships that might be there. He should always be on guard against enemies, which would include the pirates based at Salé, Morocco (‘the Turks of Sally’), and European nations with which England might be at war. Etherington was empowered to capture their vessels on his passage to Bombay and take them there for judgment by the Court of Admiralty, but was warned against injuring those on board or removing anything of value from the vessels (not even ‘the value of a peny’). He was told that, as the EIC was at war with Siam, he should also capture any of their vessels that he might encounter and deliver them to Bombay. If time permitted, he should call in at factories on the Malabar coast south of Bombay that had recently been established and take pepper that may have been bought to Bombay, and to seize any Portuguese vessels without bloodshed (which seems optimistic) because of ongoing EIC disputes with Portugal over the establishment of Bombay and its adjacent territories. Further, he was to capture interlopers and those without EIC passes.

Significantly, these instructions emphasise problems arising from warfare and piracy compared with trade, and the ship would have been well armed. On the previous voyage, the Shrewsbury, 350 tons, had a crew of 70 and 30 guns. ¹⁷ In 1686, King James II had renewed the EIC's charter and authorised ships’ captains voyaging to the East to assist the EIC in its warfare against the Mughals and other rulers in the region. Accordingly, the EIC mustered well-armed ships. ¹⁸ Hamilton commented that these ships had originally been intended for a counteroffensive against Bantam (Banten) in Java, from where merchants other than those of the VOC were deported following a civil war in 1682, but this plan was cancelled and the EIC subsequently employed them in its trade with India. ¹⁹

Etherington was provided with a packet that included correspondence for Bombay and other EIC factories, a list of ‘supernumaries’ and soldiers, details of the ship's cargo, the charter-party (the owner's contract with the EIC that the latter could hire the ship to transport cargo) and ‘treatises of the vindication’ of the EIC, which would have been responses to criticisms in England at the time. Finally, the EIC Council prayed that Etherington would have a prosperous voyage. The Shrewsbury departed from London around the end of April 1688 and arrived in Bombay, with the Mughal war then well under way, at the beginning of November. Alexander Hamilton was on board as a supernumerary seaman; this was his first arrival in the East. ²⁰ The log of the Royal James and Mary, another EIC ship that had arrived some months previously, includes the arrival of the Shrewsbury in Bombay about a month later, but this may have been a local voyage. ²¹ The log also records that, shortly afterwards, some crew members of the two ships were attacked by a number of Frenchmen. This must have been local hostility as, although what was to become the Nine Years’ War involving England and France had been declared in Europe at the end of September, this would not have been known in Bombay by early December. The log ends in February 1689 when most of Bombay island was occupied by forces allied to the Mughal emperor and the EIC fort was besieged.

Alexander Hamilton records that, when he arrived in Bombay on the Shrewsbury, he found that in the harbour there were many Mughal vessels captured by EIC ships, including the Royal James and Mary, which led to Mughal fury and the siege. When the Mughal forces landed, all available men were pressed into serving the EIC, as was usual with such attacks. There was also considerable support from Maratha forces, rivals of the Mughals for control of this area. There were naval encounters between Mughal and English ships, and EIC crews went ashore to help the defence, during which many EIC men and local allies deserted to the Mughals. James Hilton, an EIC military officer, wrote a diary during the siege, which has recently been published. ²² It mentions that, in mid March, a seaman from the Shrewsbury was killed while serving on a ship that served as a floating battery and, in August, the Shrewsbury was one of the ships sent northwards to disrupt the enemy as much possible, returning in October after the capture of a large Mughal vessel. ²³ Hamilton described the siege and had command of a small vessel, with success in taking prizes. ²⁴

The Shrewsbury moved northwards to Surat and returned to Bombay roads in mid March 1690 after Etherington was ordered to sail southwards to Karwar, a trading port south of Portuguese Goa and well beyond the region of warfare. ²⁵ The siege ended in April 1690, but the Mughal forces did not leave Bombay island until July. Warfare ended in September after negotiations and terms that humiliated the EIC to the extent that they were covered up as much as possible in England. ²⁶

In July 1690, the EIC officials in Surat sent to Madras a copy of the Mughals' demands that related to the EIC in Bengal and advised that Surat wanted the Shrewsbury and Royal James and Mary, and another ship, the Josia, to depart for England before the end of the year, as otherwise the charter-party times would expire. Little local trade could have been carried out because of the previous warfare, and the ships left Surat at the end of December, as learned by Madras in the middle of February 1691. ²⁷ The Shrewsbury did not complete the return voyage. After leaving India, it was lost on a sandbank in the Indian Ocean, perhaps in the Seychelles area. However, after nine days in the ship's boats, all on board arrived at Mauritius, from where they were taken to the Cape of Good Hope in a little vessel that was confusingly said to be French, but belonged to the Dutch. This information comes from a travel diary kept by an Englishman, Dr Brown or Browne, who met Etherington (named as ‘Etheringtonn’, and the ship as the ‘Shrosberrie’) in September 1691. ²⁸ How long Etherington spent at the Cape before returning to England has not been established.

Etherington probably suffered financially from the loss of the Shrewsbury because, as well as EIC cargo, the ships usually carried cargo bought privately by the officers. Nevertheless, he obtained prize money from the ships captured in the warfare with the Mughals along the west coast. English Treasury records in 1693 state that a contribution of prize money from the captured vessels was owed to the Crown. Etherington and the Shrewsbury are included in a long list with the Royal James and Mary and also many prominent EIC personnel in India who had obtained these or other benefits. In the end, the payment by the EIC was waived. ²⁹

The loss of the Shrewsbury is mentioned in petitions to the English Privy Council and Parliament at the end of 1693 by merchants who were seeking to overturn the EIC's official monopoly on trade with India. The complaints against the EIC related to poor cargos sent from England and cargos bought by the EIC in India, and the Shrewsbury was said to be poorly loaded with cargo on its return voyage. ³⁰ These petitions were aimed at setting up a new company, which the EIC was doing its best to prevent. The merchants said that trade could be made much better. In fact, the interruptions in trade caused by the Mughal war in India and the war with France had been a major factor in the large decrease in EIC profits.

Etherington, Bowrey and the Redbridge

Thomas Bowrey's unpublished papers include an agreement with Etherington dated 10 October 1693 for a voyage to Borneo and other places in the East Indies as ‘captain or commander’ of the Redbridge, a private ship. It may be that Etherington's association with the EIC had ended because he was held responsible for the loss of the Shrewsbury, but obviously Bowrey did not hold this against him, and how well they were previously acquainted, if at all, is not known. The agreement was witnessed by Phillip Gardiner, Bowrey's father-in-law and occasional attorney, and George Etherington, probably Richard's brother. The document notes that Bowrey had visited Borneo several times in his trade to the East and was ‘well skilled in the Ports, Creeks, and Havens … and also in the Goods and Merchandizes, Trade and Traffick of those Parts’. ³¹ Bowrey provided maps and charts of Borneo and information about trade there in return for a share of profits. Bowrey had an ongoing interest in trade with Borneo in particular and had owned a vessel called Borneo Merchant when he was based in India. It was lost in a storm off Madras not long before he departed for England. ³²

The outcome of the agreement is problematic regarding Etherington's maritime career. The petitions by the merchants who opposed the trade monopoly of the EIC requested permission for the departure of five ships to the East. ³³ In return, the EIC repeatedly restated its authority and, in mid 1693, discovered that a permit had been requested from the Admiralty and granted in April for a voyage by the ship Redbridge to Alicante in Spain. The EIC correctly regarded this permit as a pretext for a voyage to the East Indies and succeeded in delaying the departure, planned for the end of October. It was during this period that the agreement with Etherington was drawn up.

The owners of the Redbridge successfully convinced the authorities that Alicante was the furthest destination, and the ship was allowed to depart in December, but missed a rendezvous in the Downs with the other four ships, also said to be bound for Alicante, and so voided a covenant of ₤2,000 taken out by each of the ships to sail together for mutual protection. The Redbridge left for Spain with a large convoy of ships bound for the Mediterranean. ³⁴ In January 1694, the episode was discussed in Parliament after a committee was set up to consider the future of the EIC, the petitions and specifically the Redbridge affair. Three of the petitioners were interviewed and admitted that the final destination had been the East Indies. Gilbert Heathcoate, who was one of the owners of the Redbridge, said that he did not think it a sin to trade to the East and would continue to do so until there was an Act of Parliament to the contrary. The Commons voted that the stopping of the ship had been a discouragement to trade and contrary to the laws of England. ³⁵ A few days later, the Commons voted that all subjects of England had equal rights to trade to the East unless prohibited by Parliament. It has long been recognised that the Redbridge episode was influential with respect to the establishment in 1698 of the New EIC. ³⁶

The complication as regards Etherington is that the captain of the Redbridge was named repeatedly in the depositions as Edward Smith. ³⁷ It is inconceivable that there were two private ships with the same name planning to depart for the East at the same time. Possibly, the agreement with Bowrey lapsed at the last minute or Etherington might have been on board the ship to take over command for the planned stages of the voyage after leaving Spain. This might have been hidden from the EIC as it would have increased its suspicion of the real intended destination, given Etherington's previous experience as an EIC ship's captain. In any case, the Redbridge did not voyage on to the East but returned to England, and, in 1695, commanded by Smith, transported soldiers to Virginia. ³⁸ Despite the uncertainties, the episode establishes Etherington's business association with Thomas Bowrey, which was to continue.

Etherington and the Resolution

Etherington's next known voyage was to the East Indies in command of the Resolution, a private vessel and so an interloper in the eyes of the EIC, despite the opening up of trade following the English Parliament's intervention. Thomas Bowrey was part owner of this ship. ³⁹ The ship left England early in 1695 and proceeded to Spain to pick up supplies. It unsurprisingly avoided ports in India due to the EIC's presence, and information comes initially not from EIC sources but from the VOC Dagh-Register in Batavia – the equivalent of the Madras Diary. ⁴⁰ Thus, on 26 June 1695, the English freguat (‘frigate’) Resolution arrived in the Batavia roadstead for water, having departed from Cadiz in March. ⁴¹ Cadiz and other Spanish ports were used by private vessels to pick up and discharge cargo so as to thwart EIC control of shipping to the East, as in the planned voyage of the Redbridge. The captain of the Resolution was ‘Richart Etheringtson’. The ship brought news that Queen Mary II had died in England at the end of 1694. It departed only three days later, said to be bound for Tonkin, in present-day Vietnam and a significant centre of trade. ⁴² Whether the Resolution went as far as Tonkin is not known. The ship arrived back in Batavia from Banjarmasin, Borneo, about six months later in need of water and firewood, and departed on 16 January 1696 for England via Cadiz. ⁴³

The EIC in India had been aware of Etherington's arrival in the East. In response to a request from Bombay about his whereabouts, Madras replied on 14 October 1696 that they had not heard anything concerning him since his being at Batavia. ⁴⁴ By then, the Resolution had returned to Europe. In mid June 1696, the Admiralty in London received news from Corunna that the ship had arrived at Cadiz with pepper from Borneo; there was no mention of Tonkin. Etherington had reported that a pirate named Ben Long, in a ship with 40 guns, had earlier captured a Mughal ship, raped a princess and so enraged the people at Surat, north of Bombay, that they had imprisoned Englishmen, raped English women and gone on to attack Bombay. ⁴⁵ The name Ben Long reflects Long Ben, one of several aliases for the notorious Henry Every, sometimes called John Avery. He had been a commander in a pirate fleet that in August–September 1695 plundered a large Mughal convoy of pilgrims from Surat bound for Mecca, with the torture, rape and murder of the pilgrims. Although the EIC had not been involved, the Mughals were so enraged with the English that there was rioting in Surat and the arrest of EIC personnel there, forced closure of several other EIC factories, and threatened attacks on Bombay. Although the EIC in India worked hard to pay compensation and restore good relations, the episode contributed to the outbreak of the Mughal war against the EIC. Despite a worldwide manhunt by England, Every disappeared, although some of the crew were later caught and executed. ⁴⁶

No further details about Etherington's voyage have been uncovered, but it must have been profitable because pepper was valuable and there was a second voyage. Etherington wrote a will dated 20 April 1697 in which he said that he intended to proceed on a voyage ‘beyond the Seas’. ⁴⁷ Thomas Bowrey and Silvanus Landon (sometimes ‘Landen’), who was later a governor at the New EIC's short-lived factory at Banjarmasin, Borneo, were two of the four witnesses. The will has an undated codicil written in case Etherington's wife Jane was pregnant, and it was prepared shortly before departure. Bowrey's papers show that he had a strong financial interest in this voyage, with a letter from Cadiz saying that the ship had arrived there towards the end of May. ⁴⁸ In late October, the Resolution (said to be 300 tons) arrived in the Batavia roadstead via the Cape of Good Hope to take on water; it was said to be bound for Borneo. ⁴⁹ Its arrival and subsequent voyage and intentions greatly alarmed the VOC in the region. Chinese and Portuguese voyagers reported what they believed to be a pirate ship – apparently the Resolution. ⁵⁰ Despatches to Batavia confirmed that the ship cruised around the Moluccas (Maluku) seeking spices, with letters from Ambon in mid May, ⁵¹ and instructions from Batavia were sent to Banda that the ship should be made to surrender. ⁵²

Robert Bon, a deserter from the Resolution, gave an account to the VOC, which has been translated from Dutch by Hans Hägerdal. The account was reported by Willem Moerman, a VOC merchant, on 25 August 1698. ⁵³ The ship was said to have departed from London in 1697 with a cargo of wine, spirits, weapons, broadcloth textiles, mirrors, and Spanish currency, which was in demand because of its silver content (the wine, spirits and currency were probably picked up at Cadiz). After leaving Batavia, it went on to Flores, where there was an unsuccessful search for nutmeg, which was normally restricted by the Dutch monopoly. A month later, it went on to the Belu coast of Timor, where gold and wax were obtained in exchange for guns, hats and textiles. By then, the ship was short of supplies and eight of the crew jumped overboard. The ship left them behind and apparently returned to Ende on Flores to take on cinnamon and sandalwood. The deserters went to Lifau, now in Timor Leste, where half of them died of disease, but Bon was rescued by the Dutch. The account does not mention the Moluccas, which, not Flores, were the source of nutmeg (and cloves) – hence the Dutch interest. Bon was taken to Batavia in October 1698 in a Portuguese vessel and questioned again about the Resolution and his desertion. ⁵⁴

Meanwhile, the Resolution had proceeded in June to the east coast of India, calling first at St. Thomé, then at least partly controlled by the Portuguese despite its close proximity to Madras, and needing wood and water. The Portuguese were told that the ship came from Batavia and ‘the South Seas’ – that is, the South Pacific – and reported to the EIC in Madras that it was suspected to be a pirate ship. The EIC promptly sent ‘peons and spies’ to bring in intelligence. It was duly reported that Etherington wished to sell sugar for saltpetre. He remained on board, but the ship’s doctor and purser (unfortunately not named) went ashore with presents. Letters from the Portuguese again said that they were suspected to be pirates and had offered 30 ‘great guns’ for sale – presumably old guns that had been bought as cargo and were also useful ballast, rather than the ship's main armaments. The EIC warned the Portuguese to have no dealings with them because they were interlopers; however, the Portuguese officials said that they were offering hospitality ‘to a nation in friendship’ and denied that the local people had traded for saltpetre. They promised that such trade would not be carried out by the Portuguese. It was also reported that some merchants from Madras had made contact at St. Thomé in order to conduct trade, which they denied to the EIC when questioned. The ship left for the north after a few days. ⁵⁵

Soon afterwards, Madras received assurances from merchants at Pulicat, about 25 kilometres north of Madras, that they did not allow any trade. They reported that the ship had a ‘King's commission’ with two seals. ⁵⁶ Next, the EIC at Machilipatnam, further north of Madras, reported that the Resolution, captain Etherington, arrived there and produced a commission from the Admiralty dated 7 June 1697 that allowed them to trade in all parts. However, they were made to pay customs duties and buy goods ‘at unreasonable rates’, so they departed for Bengal on 12 July. ⁵⁷ Clearly, what was happening was that Etherington was trying to take advantage of the loosening up of trade that had been permitted earlier by Parliament in England and had an appropriate licence, and the EIC in India was resisting such trade. How long the Resolution spent in Bengal has not been uncovered but, on its return journey to England, the ship was at the Cape of Good Hope from 31 March until 8 April 1699, as mentioned in a diary kept by Sir William Norris, who was on his way to India as an ambassador to the Mughal emperor from the New EIC. ⁵⁸

Details of trade carried out during the voyage appear in a financial account in Bowrey's papers. ⁵⁹ A summary at the end mentions 40,000 Spanish dollars obtained at Cadiz. The details start with the costs of purchases and expenditure in Flores, so the first part may be missing. The ship went on to Ambon and Timor (details unfortunately are not included), then back to Flores (March–April 1698), to Jepara in Java (May) and then on to India, from where it eventually left for the Cape of Good Hope. The main goods bought in the islands were cubebs (small dried fruit, similar to peppercorns), cassia lignea (dried tree bark, similar to cinnamon but less pungent), rattans and (at Timor) bees’ wax. Trade goods included textiles, gunpowder, looking glasses, knives, spoons and hats ‘edged with gold’. The ports in India mentioned were Pulicat, Machilipatna and in Bengal, with purchases of textiles and saltpetre. A final summary mentions sale of lead, four ‘great guns’ and four small ones, but not where these sales were made. The details agree well with the information about the places that were visited as provided to the VOC by Robert Bon when he deserted, and also the references afterwards in the Fort St. George Diary.

Although incomplete, the financial account is a valuable detailed record of the wide range of goods traded by the English merchants in the East Indies at this time. It was completed at sea in January 1699. At the end, it mentions 460 Spanish dollars due to Mrs Etherington and a comment that Etherington's chest was opened, with some money found there, indicating that he had died. The Resolution arrived back in England between May and September 1699, according to a pamphlet published in London that listed departures and arrivals of ships at the time, ⁶⁰ but probably in May because Etherington's will went to probate in June.

Etherington, Bowrey and Silvanus Landon

After his arrival in Borneo in 1700 as the New EIC's governor at Banjarmasin, Silvanus Landon wrote a letter to Thomas Bowrey summarising developments in Banjarmasin. It ended with Landon asking Bowrey to give Etherington's widow Jane his ‘humble service’ and forgiveness for not taking leave of her, having had little time between his arrival from the East and departure from London in mid October 1699. Landon commented that ‘there is no person I esteem more than herself but in this age we ought to be cautious the envious world calling common civility either design or too much assiduity’ – an interesting comment to a young widow from a young unmarried man. In a second letter sent to Bowrey in 1701, Landon again expressed his ‘service’ to Jane. ⁶¹

Landon had originally trained as an apothecary and became a ship's doctor. He had previously sent plant and animal specimens to James Petiver in London. Petiver was also originally an apothecary, who practised as a surgeon and became a prominent collector. ⁶² Between 1695 and 1703, Petiver published lists of specimens that had been sent to him and, in one of them, published in August 1699, he acknowledged material sent by Landon, who was named as a ‘worthy gentleman and surgeon’. This material came from ports in Spain, Borneo, Flores, the Moluccas and Cape Town. These places correspond exactly with places visited by Etherington in the Resolution, suggesting that Landon was the ship's doctor. The date of the last list (August 1699) fits with the arrival of the Resolution after the second voyage on which Etherington died, and also Landon's comments in his letters to Thomas Bowrey that there had been little time to write between his arrival in England and departure in mid October. More intriguing is that Petiver's first list, published in May 1695, includes plant material collected by Landon on the Spanish coast. This date fits well with the return to England of the Redbridge. It also raises a possibility that Etherington did travel on the voyage to Spain, which would neatly explain how he came to know Landon well enough for the latter to witness Etherington's will in 1697.

At first sight, Landon's appointment as governor at Banjarmasin appears surprising because the New EIC had already despatched a ship with merchants to purchase pepper and other commodities at Banjarmasin and obtain permission to establish a factory. They were told to take the pepper to India and purchase a cargo for a return voyage to Banjarmasin. Bowrey, although not associated with the New EIC, had given advice that the cargo should be textiles and opium. ⁶³ When Landon returned to London from his voyage, apparently on the Resolution, he had told the New EIC directors about the benefits of trade at Banjarmasin, and it is possible that Bowrey recommended him for appointment as governor. He departed from London with a letter to the merchants who had left previously, in which the directors said that he was well qualified to become governor. However, when Etherington arrived not long after the merchants, they were not at all pleased, and disputes over alleged misuse of EIC funds soon arose, which Landon reported to London. ⁶⁴

Landon was initially optimistic in his reports and told Bowrey privately that he did not intend to remain long in Banjarmasin, and had suggested to London that Bowrey should be his successor if he was interested. Unfortunately, warfare developed between the aggressive Banjarese and the EIC personnel, and, in April 1702, the merchants left for Batavia. Landon refused to return and the disputes with the other merchants, which they too had reported to London, led to his dismissal, although it is not obvious that he was more at fault than they were. Landon left Batavia for the Netherlands and then England at the end of 1704 after preparing a will in which he freed his slaves, including his mistress and two children, to whom he granted considerable financial support. Obviously in poor health, Landon died in Bath in October 1705, aged only 32. ⁶⁵ Whether he had time to meet Jane Etherington again is not known.

Later Etherington family affairs

Etherington's short will made provision for his wife Jane and their daughter Jane, with bequests to his siblings George, John and Mary. Provision was also made in the codicil for a new child if Jane had been pregnant when Etherington departed from England. Details of the bequests for Etherington's wife, daughter and a possible further child depended as usual on future marriages and deaths. The will gives no indication of how wealthy he had been. At the time of his death, Etherington's home when he was not at sea was at Goodman's Fields, Whitechapel, a recently developed area of good-quality housing north of the Thames. ⁶⁶ Between 1704 and 1713, Thomas Bowrey had financial interests in houses there. ⁶⁷

Jane Etherington moved to Leigh, on the Thames Estuary, and maintained contact with Thomas Bowrey. She must have fitted in well socially at Leigh because she became very friendly with Lady Whitaker, who was the wife of Sir Edward Whitaker, a prominent naval officer with a house there. Jane mentioned the death of Lady Whitaker in one of the letters that she wrote to Bowrey in June1705, asking for help in a financial dispute with a neighbour arising from his (legal) closure of a roadway and consequent problems with the drainage of water. Jane accepted some responsibility for the latter but not all the costs demanded, and believed that the neighbour would be influenced by Bowrey. ⁶⁸ She commented on rents to be paid to her later, and she must have been in comfortable financial circumstances resulting from her husband's maritime and mercantile activities. In 1703, Jane invested in a voyage of Thomas Bowrey's ship Rising Sun to India. This venture was full of problems, including storm damage to the ship while it was being fitted out, trouble with the crew, disputes among officers and delays in India. The ship returned in 1706, and Bowrey unsuccessfully sued the captain for failure to make sufficient profit. Nevertheless, he paid Jane for her investment. ⁶⁹ Jane Etherington died in 1734 after outliving her daughter Jane, who had married Thomas Dalison (or Dalyson), a Kentish landowner, in 1709. She died in 1722, a few days after giving birth to a daughter, Jane, who in 1753 married Jeffrey Amherst, also from a Kentish land-owning family. It was not a successful marriage, as Amherst, a military officer, spent considerable time away from home on campaigns in Europe and then North America. There were no children, and Jane became depressed and lapsed into insanity. She died in 1765 after her husband eventually returned from North America. He ended his very successful but controversial military career as a field marshal and baron. ⁷⁰ Whatever Richard Etherington's social standing in his earlier life was, the family moved upwards into the English gentry.

Wider networking at the time

Richard Etherington was by no means the only mariner with varied career pathways in the East. William Dampier is a classic example. ⁷¹ Formerly a buccaneer in the West Indies, he crossed the Pacific on Captain Swan's piratical ship Cygnet, and was one of the mutineers who sailed away in the ship from Mindanao, leaving behind Captain Swan and other crew members. Some weeks previously, the mutineers had twice attempted to leave for Borneo but were prevented by Swan, who took their boat. They believed that the EIC had established a factory there, but this was a mistake arising from a letter from Bowrey, who believed that the EIC had established a factory in Mindanao. ⁷² In mid 1688, Dampier parted from the mutineers at the Nicobar Islands and went on to Aceh in Sumatra, where he met Bowrey, who was in the process of clearing up his affairs before returning to England. ⁷³ Dampier sailed with Bowrey for a short time, continued his voyages in the East and eventually returned to England in 1691. In 1694, he was an officer in an expedition planned to proceed to the West Indies, but it stalled at Corunna waiting for permission from Spain, and Dampier returned to England and proceeded to write the book that made him famous: A New Voyage Round the World, published in 1697. ⁷⁴ This received considerable attention in the Admiralty, and Dampier was appointed a naval ship's captain and led two more round-the-world voyages.

A related example is Thomas Gullock's maritime career. ⁷⁵ Gullock also crossed the Pacific on the Cygnet but remained in Mindanao for some time and, after he left, was detained by the VOC in Ternate. He became a VOC employee and returned from Batavia to England in 1690. Gullock joined the EIC as a merchant, went to Madras in 1691 and then had two private trading ventures to Sukadana on the ship Happy Return, which were funded by senior EIC personnel. These ended not with a happy return but with shipwreck in a storm off Madras, brief imprisonment for debt and escape back to England, arriving some time in 1697. Bowrey knew Gullock, having presumably met him in England in 1690–1691, and later received unfavourable reports about Gullock's activities from Charles Sherer, a free merchant in Madras. ⁷⁶ The EIC apparently did not further prosecute Gullock and, in March 1698, he left, bound for Borneo in command of the Adventure, a private ship that was partly owned by Gilbert Heathcote. Off Sumatra, some of the crew mutinied and took the ship to America – a common destination for pirates. Gullock and a few others were left behind, and he survived to return to England. Heathcote's political influence enabled Gullock to go to America to track down the pirates, and some were captured by colonial authorities and transferred by the Royal Navy to London. After an unsuccessful defence at their trial, claiming that Gullock was a cruel captain (which he and other survivors denied), they were hanged at Wapping in 1700. ⁷⁷ Lastly, Gullock voyaged to Bencoolen (Bengkulu, Sumatra) and Batavia on the Ann, a private vessel in which Thomas Bowrey, despite his knowledge of Gullock's possible character, had a strong financial interest. The voyage ended with an unexplained explosion and destruction of the ship when returning in 1702 in the English Channel, with the death of Gullock and probably all on board. ⁷⁸

In February 1699, the directors of the New EIC invited Bowrey and Kerril Roffey, then a captain in the Royal Navy with experience in the East, to present proposals for a factory in the East Indies to rival those long established by the Old EIC. Bowrey suggested one of the Karimata Islands, in West Borneo (now West Kalimantan) close to Sukadana, which he had visited from Madras. This was a rash proposal because Samuel Glover, another of Bowrey's contacts in India who had previously sailed to Borneo, had told Bowrey in 1696 that trade at Sukadana was poor because of warfare with inland Landak, the source of diamonds that were an important trade resource. The New EIC initially decided to set up a factory on the island but, after an objection, the proposal lapsed. Not long afterwards, the New EIC decided to establish the factory at Banjarmasin. ⁷⁹ Unknown to London at the time, Sukadana was attacked in May 1699 and destroyed by forces from Bantam aided by the Dutch. Samuel Glover was there along with another merchant. They wrote a long report, although it is not clear to whom. ⁸⁰ Roffey's proposal to the New EIC has not survived, but his maritime career pathway was not straightforward either, being formerly also an officer on Swan's Cygnet and a VOC employee in the East Indies. He went back to England on the same ship as Gullock and took up his very successful naval career. Francis Nelly, yet another of Swan's officers who later took up employment with the VOC, also returned to England with Gullock and Roffey, and later became an EIC ship's captain – another mixed maritime career pathway. ⁸¹

Last but not least in this context, there is Alexander Hamilton, who in 1727 published his experiences and made many comments on geography and history. After the Mughal war was over, he moved to Surat and began a long career in country trade in the region. In 1695, Hamilton was one of the Surat merchants who were imprisoned by the infuriated Mughals after Every's piracy. He met Thomas Gullock in 1694 on the latter's second voyage to Sukadana, and sold textiles to him. ⁸² He also met Silvanus Landon after the latter had left Banjarmasin. Hamilton said that Landon commented that he was surprised that the New EIC had established a factory there. Although not stated, this meeting would have been when Hamilton visited Batavia in August or September 1704. Hamilton then summarised the second phase of the Banjarmasin factory and its destruction by the Banjarese in 1707. ⁸³

One of the original clues about Etherington – Hamilton's mention of a voyage on the Resolution to Gilolo ‘about the year 1692’ to buy spices, followed by a visit to Batavia – is rather problematic. Etherington's first voyage to the East on this ship was from 1695–1696 and the second started in 1697. Very little is known about the first voyage, and the Batavia Dagh-Register does not record anything about a visit further east to purchase spices or concern about Etherington. The second voyage fits better with Hamilton's comment. Although there is no evidence that Etherington visited Gilolo, he did trade at Ambon, which was not far away. Also, the Batavia Dagh-Register does not record a visit to Batavia on the way back, contrary to Hamilton's comment, although Etherington did call at Jepara, which was nearby, as mentioned in the financial account. ⁸⁴ However, the VOC officials in Batavia were certainly interested in the voyage from the reports that they received.

Hamilton's wording suggests that he spoke to Etherington. If so, that must have been in India. Etherington avoided India on the first visit, and the meeting must have been in 1698 on Etherington's way back from the Moluccas and Timor. This is not an important issue, and Hamilton can be forgiven for possible errors in the detail and in the date, given that his book was written in the 1720s.

Thomas Bowrey became a central figure in this account due to his ongoing interest in trade to the East, and especially Borneo. Originally a private trader, licensed as a resident of Madras and mariner by the EIC, he took care to remain on good terms with the company. When the New EIC was established in 1698, Bowrey became a subscriber, although he was never a director. ⁸⁵ Subscriptions allowed private trade as well as trade within the New EIC. The financial situation was complicated because the Old EIC took up a large share of the New EIC, resulting in only limited commercial competition until they were formally amalgamated in 1702, although there was rivalry among officials in India. Overall, many of Bowrey's shipping ventures failed, and how wealthy Bowrey was at the time of his death in March 1713 is uncertain. ⁸⁶

Gilbert Heathcote was probably the most successful merchant of his generation in England. He had strong mercantile interests in the Baltic and the West Indies before expanding to the East. Heathcote was heavily involved in private trade and one of the most important promoters of the New EIC, of which he became a director. He was also heavily involved in negotiations to merge the two EIC companies, and became a Member of Parliament and a governor of the Bank of England. Heathcote was later knighted and made a baronet a few days before he died in 1733.

Conclusions

This contribution was originally designed as an investigation of historical biography to follow the previous accounts of the lives of Gullock and Landon that have been cited here and to explore the mentions of Etherington by Bowrey and Hamilton. The scope broadened as wider historical contexts and maritime networking were added. In his voyages, first on behalf of the EIC and then for private merchants, Etherington encountered nearly all of the issues summarised at the beginning of this article: warfare (especially with the Mughal wars), shipwreck, the establishment of the New EIC, Dutch rivalry and misfortunes at Banjarmasin. Fortunately, he did not encounter the piracy that was very common in the Indian Ocean at the time, hence his mention of the notorious Every and the concerns by the VOC and the Old EIC in India in 1698 that the Resolution was a pirate vessel.

Etherington's maritime activities before he commanded the Shrewsbury (then aged 42) must have been considerable, including voyages to India and possibly beyond, but EIC records of ships’ officers and supercargoes for this period are very few. Nevertheless, it would be nice to fill in the gap between the loss of the Shrewsbury and Etherington's appointment as commander of the Resolution, and help clear up his involvement in the Redbridge issue. If Etherington had been blamed by the EIC for the loss of the Shrewsbury, it would help explain why he left EIC service and also the EIC's strong disapproval when he arrived in Indian waters in 1698, even though Eastern trade was no longer the monopoly of the EIC.

Returning briefly to historical biography, a minor but intriguing issue is why, although Etherington was recorded as a resident of Stepney when he and Jane married, the marriage was at Wanstead, close to Leyton. At the time, Wanstead and Leyton were among the villages in Essex that were rapidly expanding, with houses built for merchants and other wealthy citizens who could afford a second house away from London, or who had retired. Sir Josiah Child, governor of the Old EIC, had a mansion in Wanstead until he died in 1699. ⁸⁷ Gilbert Heathcote purchased a mansion, Forest House, in Leyton in 1703, which he held in addition to other properties in and outside London. ⁸⁸ No doubt retirees in the area entertained relatives and friends. Also, some residents took in lodgers. The simplest explanation for the marriage of Richard and Jane Etherington at Wanstead is that they were there to escape unhealthy London in summertime, probably as lodgers, unless the widowed Mrs Bradnam had a house there. Heathcote's part ownership of the Redbridge brings to mind a place of that name adjacent to Wanstead, but Redbridge close to Southampton, an important shipbuilding centre by the end of the seventeenth century, is another possibility for the name.

Finally, the voyage of the Resolution to Timor was a very ambitious maritime venture at this time of change, which understandably alarmed the VOC in the East Indies, and it is a pity that Etherington did not survive it. Despite the gaps and uncertainties, information about his voyages and the circumstances is a useful addition to the rather sparse information about private voyages in the region in the later seventeenth century and the links with the merchants in England.