jurisdiction it was settled. But at home the circumstances and constitution of the two bodies reflected the differences of national character and political conditions then prevailing between the two mother countries. It is exceedingly instructive to examine the financial transactions of the French and English Companies, respectively, with their governments at this period, and to observe the remarkable contrast of situation, system, and administrative principles which the comparison brings out.
In France, the East India Company was closely connected with the government; it farmed monopolies, received treasury grants and subsidies, dealt largely in loans and lotteries, and being usually deep in the state's debt, was at the mercy of the Crown. From the year 1723 its directors had been appointed by the king, whose officers exercised such constant control over the management that, as the Company afterward declared, the interference of the government was the cause of all its misfortunes. After 1747 it was constantly borrowing large sums on the security of its privileges or revenue farms; it was from such revenues as these that their dividends were paid and their stock artificially maintained. Under an able minister paying serious attention to Indian affairs, it is quite possible that the administration of the French Company might have been directed on larger political principles and pursued with more force and consistency of aim than could be expected from a private mercantile association. But as the government of Louis XV
