Lord Ashley spoke for the Prince and he seems to have demanded some definite payment besides a share in the enterprise; but there is no record of an agreement or of any exact sum, nor is there any basis for the conjecture that his share was ten thousand pounds. The charter of monopoly was an important one, and the King certainly not the man to fail in appreciating its value; but how much he did out of good will to his kinsman, and how much out of consideration for his own profit, will never be known. A perusal of the vast quantity of manuscript matter which exists relating to this arrangement leads to the conclusion that Charles sold the charter out of hand. And indeed one pamphleteer, intent on defaming the Company in 1766, even goes so far as to profess actual knowledge of the sum paid to his Majesty by the adventurers. Upon a consideration of all the speculations advanced, I have come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that the King received any immediate pecuniary advantage whatever on account of the charter. There is no shadow of evidence to support the charge; and there is at least some presumptive evidence against it. Charters were both commonly and cheaply given in those days. Even where consideration was given, the amount was insignificant. In 1668, for example, Charles transferred the province of Bombay, which had come to the British Crown as portion of the dower of Catherine of Braganza, to the East India Company for an annual rent of no more than £10. On the whole then the data, such as they are, strongly favour the belief that he granted the charter simply in the cause of friendship and at the urgent instance of his cousin; while, as an additional motive, it was probably also urged upon him that a charter boasting the royal signature would be a virtual assertion of his dominion over territory which was always somewhat in dispute. Prince Rupert himself in any case was paid a lump sum by the adventurers, but the amount will probably never be known. The early meetings of the Company seem to have been largely occupied in considering the question of cargoes. This was, no doubt, a very important business. The Company appear to have had two precedents which, in part, they naturally adopted, those of the Dutch (or West India Company) and the French Company. The East India Company's practice could have afforded them little assistance. They also struck out a line for themselves, and in their selection of goods for the purposes of barter they were greatly guided by the advice of Radisson, who had a very sound conception of the Indian character. From the first the Company rejected the policy of seeking to exchange glass beads and gilded kickshaws for furs. Not that they found it inexpedient to include these trifles in their cargoes: for we read in one of the news-letters of 1671, speaking of the doings at Garraway's:--