CAUSES OF THE QUARREL 107 Dutch accused the English of insufficient subsidies. The English replied that, while they found the money, the Dutch spent it, or pocketed it, as they pleased, and made no equal contribution on their part. The Dutch records themselves disclose some laxity in this respect. In 1621 the Dutch cut down the outlay on forts, garri- sons, and the governor's table allowances, yet warned their agents that " the English need not get the bene- fit of it," but are to be charged as before. Nor were the English to be allowed to " build or make anything at their own expense, on which hereafter they can claim ownership/ ' All this is clear from Dutch manuscript records in the India Office. The English retaliated for the imposts enforced from them for fortresses in the Eastern Archipelago, by levying dues from Flemish ships near Ormuz, to the wrath of the Dutch captains. The restitution of property clause furnished a fifth ground of wrangling, in which both sides thought them- selves overreached. The constant and bitter personal disputes between the local agents of the two Companies supplied a sixth cause, which would alone have ren- dered unworkable the treaty of 1619. Within two years King James himself recognized that it had broken down. In March, 1621, he pressed the Dutch Govern- ment to send commissioners again, and in July he hastened its decision by threatening letters of marque. The commissioners arrived in England in November, 1621, but their negotiations were spun out to January, 1623— too late to avert the impending tragedy. As Barne veldt's project for a United Dutch-English
