Grand Union American Flag

The first flag of the colonists to have any resemblance to the present Stars and Stripes was the Grand Union Flag, sometimes referred to as the Congress Colors, the First Navy Ensign, and the Cambridge Flag. Its design consisted of 13 stripes, alternately red and white, representing the Thirteen Colonies, with a blue field in the upper left-hand corner bearing the red cross of St. George of England with the white cross of St. Andrew of Scotland.

As the flag of the Revolution it was used on many occasions. It was first flown by the ships of the Colonial Fleet on the Delaware River. On December 3, 1775, it was raised aboard Captain Esek Hopkin's flagship Alfred by John Paul Jones, then a Navy lieutenant. Later the flag was raised on the liberty pole at Prospect Hill, which was near George Washington's headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It was our unofficial national flag on July 4, 1776, Independence Day; and it remained the unofficial national flag and ensign of the Navy until June 14, 1777, when the Continental Congress authorized the Stars and Stripes.

Interestingly, the Grand Union Flag also was the standard of the British East India Company. It was only by degrees that the Union Flag of Great Britain was discarded. The final breach between the Colonies and Great Britain brought about the removal of the British Union from the canton of our striped flag and the substitution of stars on a blue field.



7 Countries with Absolute Monarchy Form of Government

The modern world has revolutionised to adopt the democratic and republic government as the best and functional system of governance. Over the years, there have been many wars and protests, waged at small and large scales to overthrow dynasties and monarchs and end the rule of single leaders. But even today, there are several countries where the monarchial system of government persists without disturbance. Most of these countries are amongst the world’s richest and have flourished both economically and culturally under the rule of their monarchs.

Here is a list of a countries with a monarchy form of government.

7. Qatar


Under the rule of Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani of the Thani dynasty, the country revolutionized from the traditional society into the modern welfare state it is today. He announced the country’s first legislative elections to take place in 2013. Emir Hamad is responsible for the freedom of press in the country, along with other social, educational and cultural changes. While the Emir is the sovereign power, he is bound by the Sharia Islamic Law and must consider the opinions of leading notables and religious establishments in the running of the country. Today, Qatar owes most of its wealth to its natural oil and gas resources, which has made it one of the world’s richest countries. Because of its economic prosperity, the country attracts a lot of international workforce. Qatar maintains close business and financial relations with the USA and Saudi Arabia. In 2006, Qatar pledged more than $100 billion to Hurricane Katrina relief to colleges and universities in Louisiana. The Qatar authorities have received lot of scrutiny from the western world for their strict policies in civil liberties and equality movements.

6. United Arab Emirates


The middle-eastern peninsula is made up of seven emirate countries that constitute the United Arab Emirates, ruled by a framework of federal, presidential, absolute monarchy. According to convention, the President of the United Arab Emirates and Head of State is given to the ruler of Abu Dhabi, currently Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, is the Prime Minister and Head of Government. Administratively, the UAE is divided into seven emirates with their own rulers governing the local governments. The country mostly depends on its oil and gas resources for its financial stability, although in the recent past, it has diversified to tourism and construction. Islam is the official state religion and the country does not have liberal policies regarding other religious practices. The laws of the land are governed by Islamic dictates and are very stringent. The culture has received a lot of criticism for its non-practice of equal human rights as seen in its treatment of women and criminals. In 2007, UAE announced its reform strategy for the coming years, which included various topics under social development, economic development, public sector development, justice and safe, infrastructure and rural area development. Since the implementation of this initiative, UAE has been considered as one of the most developed nations in west Asia and has a very high per capita income.

5. Andorra


Andorra is a small piece of land located between the border of France and Spain in South-Western Europe. In 1607, King Henry VII of France issued an edict that this country will be a co-principality, with the head of the French state and the Bishop of La Su d’Urgell serving as co-princes to the landlocked Andorra. This rather odd system of monarchy has continued since then to the present day, where the President of France Francois Hollande and the Bishop of Urgell Joan Enric Vives Sicilia co-rule this country now. In between, Andorra was annexed by the First French Empire together with Catalonia in 1812-1813 but after the Empire’s demise, it became independent again. The country derives most of its economy from tourism and because of its lenient tax laws, it attracts a lot of business. Because of its small size, Andorra is easily governable and the government has made many investments to improve the quality of public life.

4. Brunei


The nation of Brunei is a sovereign state located on the north coast of the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia. In the past, Bruneian empire, during its decline, was ceded to foreign powers and was a British protectorate for a long time. In 1984, Brunei regained its independence from United Kingdom and is now entirely governed by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah who is the monarchial head of the state and government with full executive power. The political system in the country is based on the concept of Melayu Islam Beraja which covers Malay culture, Islamic religion and political framework. The country does have a parliament, but the royal family enjoys venerated status within the country. Crude oil and natural gas production account for 90% of the country’s economy, the other 10% is substantiated with income from overseas investments in domestic production. The government provides for all medical services, rice subsidies and housing.

3. Oman


Oman’s hereditary sultan, Qabus Ibn Said as-Said, is both the head of the state and the government. He also serves as the supreme commander of the armed forces, prime minister, minister of defense, foreign affairs and finance. The Sultanate has neither political parties nor legislature, although many representative bodies provide the government with advice. The judicial system of the country allows for complains against the government to be made to the Administrative court. Largely, Oman enjoys a high degree of internal stability. But in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq war, Oman has designated large funds to defense. The current sultan has no direct heir and has not publically designated a successor. He has very few family members nominated into insignificant positions in his cabinet. As such, they have not acquired the administrative skills to succeed as his successor. In instance of his death, it will be upon the ruling family to designate a new Sultan. If that is not done within three days of his demise, then they shall open a letter from the deceased Sultan recommending the name of a new Sultan.

2. Swaziland


The head of the state is called the Ngwenyama (Lion) and is currently held by Mswati III, who ascended the throne in 1986. According to the constitution, the King and Ngwenyama is a symbol of unity and the eternity of the Swazi nation. He is assisted in ruling the country by a council of ministers and a national legislature. By tradition, the reigning role is shared by the king and his mother, who is a ritual substitute called Ndlovukati (she-elephant). If the king’s mother is no longer living, one of the king’s wives may act as Ndlovukati. This was in practice until the reign of Sobhuza II, where British policy and the strength of Sobhuza’s personality shifted the power decisively towards the king. The king is allowed by the constitution to appoint the prime minister and a few members to the parliament and legislature. Elections are held every five years. The Swaziland constitution has come under a lot of criticism from Amnesty International for their lack of protection of human rights.

1. Vatican City

Vatican city

Encircled by a 2-miles border with Italy, Vatican City is an independent city state that covers just over 100 acres, smaller than New York’s Central Park. Vatican City is governed by the Pope of the Catholic Church and is a form of absolute monarchy. Not only does the Vatican have its own flag and anthem, but it also mints its own Euros, prints its own stamps, issues passports and license plates and operates its own national and international media outlets. Very uniquely though, the Vatican has no system of taxation for the public. It generates its revenue mainly from tourism in the form of museum admission fees, stamp and souvenir sales and contributions. The new secular Italian government that was formed in 1870 had seized all the sovereign Papal States with the exception of the small patch of Vatican and a cold war of sorts ensued between the church and the Italian government. In the 1800s and 1900s, popes announced themselves as prisoners of Vatican and refused to leave the Vatican over a period of 60 years. They also refused to recognize the authority of the Italian government and Vatican remained beyond their jurisdictional control. The dispute was finally resolved in 1929 when Benito Mussolini, then head of the Italian government, signed the Lateran Pacts on behalf of King Emmanuel III, which allowed the Vatican to exist as its own sovereign state and the church received compensation worth $92 million for the Papal States. The city has a population of around 600 people, majority of which live abroad holding diplomatic positions. It is comprised mostly of the cardinals, clergy members and Swiss guards that protect the papacy and increases by one, every time a new Pope is announced.


East India Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the 16th-19th-century English and British trading company. For other uses, see East India Company (disambiguation).

East India Company (EIC)

Flag of the British East India Company (1801).svg
Company flag after 1801

Former type

International trade


31 December 1600

1 June 1874

London, England

Colonial India

British Indian Empire
Imperial entities of India

Dutch India

Danish India

French India

Portuguese India

Casa da Índia

Portuguese East India Company

British India

East India Company

Company rule in India

British Raj

British rule in Burma

Princely states

Partition of India


v ·
t ·

The East India Company (EIC), was an English joint-stock company,[1] formed to pursue trade with the East Indies, but which ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and Qing China.

Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies", the company rose to account for half of the world's trade, particularly trade in basic commodities that included cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium. The company also ruled the beginnings of the British Empire in India.[2]

The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth on 31 December 1600,[3] making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies. Wealthy merchants and aristocrats owned the Company's shares.[4] The government owned no shares and had only indirect control.

The company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its own private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[5] Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858 when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj.

Despite frequent government intervention, the company had recurring problems with its finances. The company was dissolved in 1874 as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act passed one year earlier, as the Government of India Act had by then rendered it vestigial, powerless, and obsolete. The official government machinery of British India had assumed its governmental functions and absorbed its armies.

Contents [hide]
1 Founding
2 Foothold in India
3 Expansion 3.1 Mughal convoy piracy incident of 1695

4 Forming a complete monopoly 4.1 Trade monopoly
4.2 Saltpetre trade

5 Basis for the monopoly 5.1 Colonial monopoly
5.2 Military expansion
5.3 Opium trade

6 Regulation of the company's affairs 6.1 Writers
6.2 Financial troubles
6.3 Regulating Acts of Parliament

7 Indian Rebellion and disestablishment
8 Establishments in Britain
9 Legacy and criticisms
10 Flags
11 Coat of arms
12 Ships
13 Records
14 See also
15 Notes and references
16 Bibliography
17 External links


James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601
Soon after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, London merchants presented a petition to Queen Elizabeth I for permission to sail to the Indian Ocean.[6] The permission was granted and on 10 April 1591 three ships sailed from Torbay around the Cape of Good Hope to the Arabian Sea on one of the earliest English overseas Indian expeditions. One of them, the Edward Bonventure, then sailed around Cape Comorin and on to the Malay Peninsula and subsequently returned to England in 1594.[6]

In 1596, three more ships sailed east; however, these were all lost at sea.[6] Three years later, on 22 September 1599,[7] another group of merchants met and stated their intention "to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure", committing £30,133.[8] Two days later, on 24 September, "the Adventurers" reconvened and resolved to apply to the queen for support of the project.[8]

Although their first attempt was not completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval, bought ships for their venture, increased their capital to £68,373[clarification needed], and convened again a year later.[6]

This time they succeeded, and on 31 December 1600, the Queen granted a Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[9] For a period of fifteen years the charter awarded the newly formed company a monopoly on trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan.[9] Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601[10] and in March 1604 Sir Henry Middleton commanded the second voyage.

Initially, the company struggled in the spice trade due to the competition from the already well-established Dutch East India Company. The company opened a factory in Bantam on the first voyage and imports of pepper from Java were an important part of the company's trade for twenty years. The factory in Bantam was closed in 1683. During this time ships belonging to the company arriving in India docked at Surat, which was established as a trade transit point in 1608.

In the next two years, the company built its first factory in south India in the town of Machilipatnam on the Coromandel Coast of the Bay of Bengal. The high profits reported by the company after landing in India initially prompted King James I to grant subsidiary licences to other trading companies in England. But in 1609 he renewed the charter given to the company for an indefinite period, including a clause which specified that the charter would cease to be in force if the trade turned unprofitable for three consecutive years.

The company was led by one governor and 24 directors, who made up the Court of Directors. They, in turn, reported to the Court of Proprietors which appointed them. Ten committees reported to the Court of Directors.

Foothold in India[edit]

See also: Establishment of English trade in Bengal (1600–1700)

Red Dragon fought the Portuguese at the Battle of Swally in 1612, and made several voyages to the East Indies.
English traders frequently engaged in hostilities with their Dutch and Portuguese counterparts in the Indian Ocean. The company achieved a major victory over the Portuguese in the Battle of Swally in 1612. The company decided to explore the feasibility of gaining a territorial foothold in mainland India, with official sanction of both countries, and requested that the Crown launch a diplomatic mission.[11]

Jahangir investing a courtier with a robe of honour watched by Sir Thomas Roe, English ambassador to the court of Jahangir at Agra from 1615–18, and others
In 1612, James I instructed Sir Thomas Roe to visit the Mughal Emperor Nuruddin Salim Jahangir (r. 1605–1627) to arrange for a commercial treaty that would give the company exclusive rights to reside and build factories in Surat and other areas. In return, the company offered to provide the Emperor with goods and rarities from the European market. This mission was highly successful as Jahangir sent a letter to James through Sir Thomas Roe:[11]

"Upon which assurance of your royal love I have given my general command to all the kingdoms and ports of my dominions to receive all the merchants of the English nation as the subjects of my friend; that in what place soever they choose to live, they may have free liberty without any restraint; and at what port soever they shall arrive, that neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet; and in what city soever they shall have residence, I have commanded all my governors and captains to give them freedom answerable to their own desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their pleasure.
For confirmation of our love and friendship, I desire your Majesty to command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of rarities and rich goods fit for my palace; and that you be pleased to send me your royal letters by every opportunity, that I may rejoice in your health and prosperous affairs; that our friendship may be interchanged and eternal"

—Nuruddin Salim Jahangir, Letter to James I.


[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2009)

East India House, London, painted by Thomas Malton in c.1800
The company which benefitted from the imperial patronage, soon expanded its commercial trading operations, eclipsing the Portuguese Estado da India, which had established bases in Goa, Chittagong and Bombay (which was later ceded to England as part of the dowry of Catherine de Braganza). The East India Company also launched a joint effort attack with the Dutch United East India Company on Portuguese and Spanish ships off the coast of China, which helped secure their ports in China.[12] The company created trading posts in Surat (where a factory was built in 1612), Madras (1639), Bombay (1668), and Calcutta (1690). By 1647, the company had 23 factories, each under the command of a factor or master merchant and governor if so chosen, and had 90 employees in India. The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras, and the Bombay Castle.

In 1634, the Mughal emperor extended his hospitality to the English traders to the region of Bengal, and in 1717 completely waived customs duties for the trade. The company's mainstay businesses were by then in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre and tea. The Dutch were aggressive competitors, and had meanwhile expanded their monopoly of the spice trade in the Malaccan straits by ousting the Portuguese in 1640–41. With reduced Portuguese and Spanish influence in the region, the EIC and Dutch East India Company (VOC) entered a period of intense competition, resulting in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Meanwhile, in 1657, Oliver Cromwell renewed the charter of 1609, and brought about minor changes in the holding of the company. The status of the company was further enhanced by the restoration of monarchy in England.

In an act aimed at strengthening the power of the EIC, King Charles II provisioned the EIC (in a series of five acts around 1670) with the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas.[13]

William Hedges was sent in 1682 to Shaista Khan, the Mughal governor of Bengal in order to obtain a firman, an imperial directive that would grant England regular trading privileges throughout the Mughal Empire. However, the company's governor in London, Sir Josiah Child, interfered with Hedges's mission, causing Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb to break off the negotiations.

In 1689 a Mughal fleet commanded by Sidi Yaqub attacked Bombay. After a year of resistance the EIC surrendered in 1690, and the company sent envoys to Aurangzeb's camp to plead for a pardon. The company's envoys had to prostrate themselves before the emperor, pay a large indemnity, and promise better behaviour in the future. The emperor withdrew his troops and the company subsequently reestablished itself in Bombay and set up a new base in Calcutta.[14]

Mughal convoy piracy incident of 1695[edit]

In September 1695, Captain Henry Every, an English pirate on board the Fancy, reached the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, where he teamed up with five other pirate captains to make an attack on the Indian fleet making the annual voyage to Mocha. The Mughal convoy included the treasure-laden Ganj-i-Sawai, reported to be the greatest in the Mughal fleet and the largest ship operational in the Indian Ocean, and its escort, the Fateh Muhammed. They were spotted passing the straits en route to Surat. The pirates gave chase and caught up with the Fateh Muhammed some days later, and meeting little resistance, took some £50,000 to £60,000 worth of treasure.[15]

English, Dutch and Danish factories at Mocha
Every continued in pursuit and managed to overhaul the Ganj-i-Sawai, who put up a fearsome fight but it too was eventually taken. The ship carried enormous wealth and, according to contemporary East India Company sources, was carrying a relative of the Grand Mughal, though there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue. The loot from the Ganj-i-Sawai totalled between £325,000 and £600,000, including 500,000 gold and silver pieces, and has become known as the richest ship ever taken by pirates.

In a letter sent to the Privy Council by Sir John Gayer, then governor of Bombay and head of the East India Company, Gayer claims that "it is certain the Pirates...did do very barbarously by the People of the Ganj-i-Sawai and Abdul Ghaffar's ship, to make them confess where their money was." The pirates set free the survivors who were left aboard their emptied ships, to continue their voyage back to India.

When the news arrived in England it caused an out-cry. In response, a combined bounty of £1,000 (considered massive by the standards of the time) was offered for Every's capture by the Privy Council and East India Company, leading to the first worldwide manhunt in recorded history. The plunder of Aurangzeb's treasure ship had serious consequences for the English East India Company. The furious Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb ordered Sidi Yaqub and Nawab Daud Khan to attack and close four of the company's factories in India and imprison their officers, who were almost lynched by a mob of angry Mughals, blaming them for their countryman's depredations, and threatened to put an end to all English trading in India. To appease Emperor Aurangzeb and particularly his Grand Vizier Asad Khan, Parliament exempted Every from all of the Acts of Grace (pardons) and amnesties it would subsequently issue to other pirates.[16]

An 18th-century depiction of Henry Every, with the Fancy shown engaging its prey in the background

British pirates that fought during the Child's War engaging the Ganj-i-Sawai

Depiction of Captain Every's encounter with the Mughal Emperor's granddaughter after his September 1695 capture of the Mughal trader Ganj-i-Sawai

Forming a complete monopoly[edit]

Trade monopoly[edit]

Rear view of the East India Company's Factory at Cossimbazar
The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them to return to Britain and establish sprawling estates and businesses, and to obtain political power. The company developed a lobby in the English parliament. Under pressure from ambitious tradesmen and former associates of the company (pejoratively termed Interlopers by the company), who wanted to establish private trading firms in India, a deregulating act was passed in 1694.[17]

This allowed any English firm to trade with India, unless specifically prohibited by act of parliament, thereby annulling the charter that had been in force for almost 100 years. By an act that was passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed indemnity of £2 million. The powerful stockholders of the old company quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000 in the new concern, and dominated the new body. The two companies wrestled with each other for some time, both in England and in India, for a dominant share of the trade.[17]

It quickly became evident that, in practice, the original company faced scarcely any measurable competition. The companies merged in 1708, by a tripartite indenture involving both companies and the state. Under this arrangement, the merged company lent to the Treasury a sum of £3,200,000, in return for exclusive privileges for the next three years, after which the situation was to be reviewed. The amalgamated company became the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies.[17]

In the following decades there was a constant battle between the company lobby and the Parliament. The company sought a permanent establishment, while the Parliament would not willingly allow it greater autonomy and so relinquish the opportunity to exploit the company's profits. In 1712, another act renewed the status of the company, though the debts were repaid. By 1720, 15% of British imports were from India, almost all passing through the company, which reasserted the influence of the company lobby. The licence was prolonged until 1766 by yet another act in 1730.

At this time, Britain and France became bitter rivals. Frequent skirmishes between them took place for control of colonial possessions. In 1742, fearing the monetary consequences of a war, the British government agreed to extend the deadline for the licensed exclusive trade by the company in India until 1783, in return for a further loan of £1 million. Between 1756 and 1763, the Seven Years' War diverted the state's attention towards consolidation and defence of its territorial possessions in Europe and its colonies in North America.[18]

The war took place on Indian soil, between the company troops and the French forces. In 1757, the Law Officers of the Crown delivered the Pratt-Yorke opinion distinguishing overseas territories acquired by right of conquest from those acquired by private treaty. The opinion asserted that, while the Crown of Great Britain enjoyed sovereignty over both, only the property of the former was vested in the Crown.[18]

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain surged ahead of its European rivals. Demand for Indian commodities was boosted by the need to sustain the troops and the economy during the war, and by the increased availability of raw materials and efficient methods of production. As home to the revolution, Britain experienced higher standards of living. Its spiralling cycle of prosperity, demand and production had a profound influence on overseas trade. The company became the single largest player in the British global market. William Henry Pyne notes in his book The Microcosm of London (1808) that:

On the 1 March 1801, the debts of the East India Company to £5,393,989 their effects to £15,404,736 and their sales increased since February 1793, from £4,988,300 to £7,602,041.

Saltpetre trade[edit]

Saltpetre used for gunpowder was one of the major trade goods of the company.
Sir John Banks, a businessman from Kent who negotiated an agreement between the king and the company, began his career in a syndicate arranging contracts for victualling the navy, an interest he kept up for most of his life. He knew that Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn had amassed a substantial fortune from the Levant and Indian trades.

He became a Director and later, as Governor of the East India Company in 1672, he arranged a contract which included a loan of £20,000 and £30,000 worth of saltpetre—also known as potassium nitrate, a primary ingredient in gunpowder—for the King "at the price it shall sell by the candle"[citation needed]—that is by auction—where bidding could continue as long as an inch-long candle remained alight.

Outstanding debts were also agreed and the company permitted to export 250 tons of saltpetre. Again in 1673, Banks successfully negotiated another contract for 700 tons of saltpetre at £37,000 between the king and the company. So urgent was the need to supply the armed forces in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere that the authorities sometimes turned a blind eye on the untaxed sales. One governor of the company was even reported as saying in 1864 that he would rather have the saltpetre made than the tax on salt.[19]

Basis for the monopoly[edit]

East India Company silver coin issued during William IV's reign, Indian Museum

Coins issued by East India Company during reign of Shah Alam II, Indian Museum
Colonial monopoly[edit]

Further information: Great Britain in the Seven Years' War

Robert Clive became the first British Governor of Bengal after he had instated the schismatic Mir Jafar as the Nawab of Bengal.
The Seven Years' War (1756–63) resulted in the defeat of the French forces, limited French imperial ambitions, and stunting the influence of the Industrial Revolution in French territories. Robert Clive, the Governor General, led the company to a victory against Joseph François Dupleix, the commander of the French forces in India, and recaptured Fort St George from the French. The company took this respite to seize Manila in 1762.[20]

By the Treaty of Paris (1763), France regained the five establishments captured by the British during the war (Pondichéry, Mahe, Karikal, Yanam and Chandernagar) but was prevented from erecting fortifications and keeping troops in Bengal (art. XI). Elsewhere in India, the French were to remain a military threat, particularly during the War of American Independence, and up to the capture of Pondichéry in 1793 at the outset of the French Revolutionary Wars without any military presence. Although these small outposts remained French possessions for the next two hundred years, French ambitions on Indian territories were effectively laid to rest, thus eliminating a major source of economic competition for the company.

Military expansion[edit]

Main article: Company rule in India

In its first century and half, the EIC used a few hundred soldiers as guards. The great expansion came after 1750, when it had 3000 regular troops. By 1763, it had 26,000; by 1778, it had 67,000. It recruited largely Indian troops, and trained them along European lines.[21] The company, fresh from a colossal victory, and with the backing of its own private well-disciplined and experienced army, was able to assert its interests in the Carnatic region from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta, without facing any further obstacles from other colonial powers.[22]

The Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, who with his allies fought against the East India Company during his early years (1760–64), only accepting the protection of the British in the year 1803, after he had been blinded by his enemies and deserted by his subjects
The company continued to experience resistance from local rulers during its expansion. Robert Clive led company forces against Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, Bihar, and Midnapore district in Odisha to victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, resulting in the conquest of Bengal. This victory estranged the British and the Mughals, since Siraj Ud Daulah was a Mughal feudatory ally.

With the gradual weakening of the Marathas in the aftermath of the three Anglo-Maratha wars, the British also secured the Ganges-Jumna Doab, the Delhi-Agra region, parts of Bundelkhand, Broach, some districts of Gujarat, the fort of Ahmmadnagar, province of Cuttack (which included Mughalbandi/the coastal part of Odisha, Garjat/the princely states of Odisha, Balasore Port, parts of Midnapore district of West Bengal), Bombay (Mumbai) and the surrounding areas, leading to a formal end of the Maratha empire and firm establishment of the British East India Company in India.

Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, the rulers of the Kingdom of Mysore, offered much resistance to the British forces. Having sided with the French during the Revolutionary War, the rulers of Mysore continued their struggle against the company with the four Anglo-Mysore Wars. Mysore finally fell to the company forces in 1799, with the death of Tipu Sultan.

The fall of Tipu Sultan and the Sultanate of Mysore, during the Battle of Seringapatam in 1799
The last vestiges of local administration were restricted to the northern regions of Delhi, Oudh, Rajputana, and Punjab, where the company's presence was ever increasing amidst infighting and offers of protection among the remaining princes. The hundred years from the Battle of Plassey in 1757 to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 were a period of consolidation for the company, which began to function more as an administrator and less as a trading concern.

A cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. 10,000 British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[23] Between 1736 and 1834 only some 10% of the East India Company's officers survived to take the final voyage home.[24]

In the early 19th century the Indian question of geopolitical dominance and empire holding remained with the East India Company. .[25] The three independent armies of the company's Presidencies, with some locally raised irregular forces, expanded to a total of 280,000 men by 1857.[26] First recruited from mercenaries and low-caste volunteers, the Bengal Army especially eventually became composed largely of high-caste Hindus and landowning Muslims.

Within the Army, British officers who initially trained at the company's own academy at the Addiscombe Military Seminary, always outranked Indians, no matter how long their service. The highest rank to which an Indian soldier could aspire was Subadar-Major (or Rissaldar-Major in cavalry units), effectively a senior subaltern equivalent. Promotion for both British and Indian soldiers was strictly by seniority, so Indian soldiers rarely reached the commissioned ranks of Jamadar or Subadar before they were middle aged at best. They received no training in administration or leadership to make them independent of their British officers.

During the wars against the French and their allies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the East India Company's armies were used to seize the colonial possessions of other European nations, including the islands of Réunion and Mauritius.

There was a systemic disrespect in the company for the spreading of Protestantism although it fostered respect for Hindu and Muslim, castes and ethnic groups. The growth of tensions between the EIC and the local religious and cultural groups grew in the 19th century as the Protestant revival grew in Great Britain. These tensions erupted at the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and the company ceased to exist when the company dissolved through the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873.[27]

Opium trade[edit]

Main articles: First Opium War and Second Opium War

The Nemesis destroying Chinese war junks during the Second Battle of Chuenpee, 7 January 1841, by Edward Duncan
In the 18th century, Britain had a huge trade deficit with Qing Dynasty China and so in 1773, the Company created a British monopoly on opium buying in Bengal by prohibiting licensing opium farmers and prohibiting private cultivation. The monopoly system established in 1799 continued with minimal changes until 1947.[28] As the opium trade was illegal in China, Company ships could not carry opium to China. So the opium produced in Bengal was sold in Calcutta on condition that it be sent to China.[29]

Despite the Chinese ban on opium imports, reaffirmed in 1799 by the Jiaqing Emperor, the drug was smuggled into China from Bengal by traffickers and agency houses such as Jardine, Matheson & Co and Dent & Co. in amounts averaging 900 tons a year. The proceeds of the drug-smugglers landing their cargoes at Lintin Island were paid into the Company's factory at Canton and by 1825, most of the money needed to buy tea in China was raised by the illegal opium trade.

The Company established a group of trading settlements centred on the Straits of Malacca called the Straits Settlements in 1826 to protect its trade route to China and to combat local piracy. The Settlements were also used as penal settlements for Indian civilian and military prisoners.

In 1838 with the amount of smuggled opium entering China approaching 1,400 tons a year, the Chinese imposed a death penalty for opium smuggling and sent a Special Imperial Commissioner, Lin Zexu, to curb smuggling. This resulted in the First Opium War (1839–42). After the war Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Nanking and the Chinese market opened to the opium traders of Britain and other nations.[28] The Jardines and Apcar and Company dominated the trade, although P&O also tried to take a share.[30] A Second Opium War fought by Britain and France against China lasted from 1856 until 1860 and led to the Treaty of Tientsin which legalised the importation of opium. Legalisation stimulated domestic Chinese opium production and increased the importation of opium from Turkey and Persia. This increased competition for the Chinese market led to India reducing its opium output and diversifying its exports.[28]

Regulation of the company's affairs[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)


Two ships in a harbour, one in the distance. On board, men stripped to the waist and wearing feathers in their hair are throwing crates overboard. A large crowd, mostly men, is standing on the dock, waving hats and cheering. A few people wave their hats from windows in a nearby building. Monopolistic activity by the company triggered the Boston Tea Party.

The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor, 1773
The Company employed many junior clerks, known as "writers", to record the details of accounting, managerial decisions, and activities related to the Company, such as minutes of meetings, copies of Company orders and contracts, and filings of reports and copies of ship's logs. Several well-known British scholars and literary men had Company writerships, such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke in India and Charles Lamb in England.

Financial troubles[edit]

Though the Company was becoming increasingly bold and ambitious in putting down resisting states, it was becoming clearer that the Company was incapable of governing the vast expanse of the captured territories. The Bengal famine of 1770, in which one-third of the local population died, caused distress in Britain. Military and administrative costs mounted beyond control in British-administered regions in Bengal due to the ensuing drop in labour productivity.

At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and trade depression throughout Europe. The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.

When the American colonists and tea merchants were told of this Act, they boycotted the Company tea. Although the price of tea had dropped because of the Act, it also validated the Townshend Acts, setting the precedent for the king to impose additional taxes in the future. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants, triggered the Boston Tea Party in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution.

Regulating Acts of Parliament[edit]

East India Company Act 1773[edit]

By the Regulating Act of 1773 (later known as the East India Company Act 1773), the Parliament of Great Britain imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms; this clearly established Parliament's sovereignty and ultimate control over the Company. The Act recognised the Company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right."

Despite stiff resistance from the East India lobby in parliament and from the Company's shareholders, the Act passed. It introduced substantial governmental control and allowed the British India to be formally under the control of the Crown, but leased back to the Company at £40,000 for two years. Under the Act's most important provision, a governing Council composed of five members was created in Calcutta. The three members nominated by Parliament and representing the Government's interest could, and invariably would, outvote the two Company members. The Council was headed by Warren Hastings, the incumbent Governor, who became the first Governor-General of Bengal, with an ill-defined authority over the Bombay and Madras Presidencies.[31] His nomination, made by the Court of Directors, would in future be subject to the approval of a Council of Four appointed by the Crown. Initially, the Council consisted of Lt. General Sir John Clavering, The Honourable Sir George Monson, Sir Richard Barwell, and Sir Philip Francis.[32]

Hastings was entrusted with the power of peace and war. British judges and magistrates would also be sent to India to administer the legal system. The Governor General and the council would have complete legislative powers. The company was allowed to maintain its virtual monopoly over trade in exchange for the biennial sum and was obligated to export a minimum quantity of goods yearly to Britain. The costs of administration were to be met by the company. The Company initially welcomed these provisions, but the annual burden of the payment contributed to the steady decline of its finances.[32]

East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)[edit]

The East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act) had two key aspects:
Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the East India Company's political functions from its commercial activities. In political matters the East India Company was subordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this, the Act created a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, usually referred to as the Board of Control. The members of the Board were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, and four Privy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the Secretary of State "shall preside at, and be President of the said Board".
Internal Administration of British India: the bill laid the foundation for the centralised and bureaucratic British administration of India which would reach its peak at the beginning of the 20th century during the governor-generalship of George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron Curzon.

Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became apparent that the boundaries between government control and the company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The government felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better treatment of local peoples in British-occupied territories. Edmund Burke, a former East India Company shareholder and diplomat, was moved to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783. The bill was defeated amid lobbying by company loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's recommendations for the appointment of councillors.

Act of 1786[edit]

The Act of 1786 (26 Geo. 3 c. 16) enacted the demand of Earl Cornwallis that the powers of the Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in special cases, to override the majority of his Council and act on his own special responsibility. The Act enabled the offices of the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the same official.

This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company. After this point, the Company functioned as a regularised subsidiary of the Crown, with greater accountability for its actions and reached a stable stage of expansion and consolidation. Having temporarily achieved a state of truce with the Crown, the Company continued to expand its influence to nearby territories through threats and coercive actions. By the middle of the 19th century, the Company's rule extended across most of India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and British Hong Kong, and a fifth of the world's population was under its trading influence.

East India Company Act 1793 (Charter Act)[edit]

The Company's charter was renewed for a further 20 years by the Charter Act of 1793. In contrast with the legislative proposals of the previous two decades, the 1793 Act was not a particularly controversial measure, and made only minimal changes to the system of government in India and to British oversight of the Company's activities.

Major-General Wellesley, meeting with Nawab Azim al-Daula, 1805
East India Company Act 1813 (Charter Act)[edit]

The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley and the Marquis of Hastings led to the Company gaining control of all India (except for the Punjab and Sindh), and some part of then kingdom of Nepal under the Sugauli Treaty. The Indian Princes had become vassals of the Company. But the expense of wars leading to the total control of India strained the Company's finances. The Company was forced to petition Parliament for assistance. This was the background to the Charter Act of 1813 which, among other things:
asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian territories held by the Company;
renewed the charter of the company for a further twenty years, but deprived the company of its Indian trade monopoly except for trade in tea and the trade with China
required the company to maintain separate and distinct its commercial and territorial accounts

opened India to missionaries

Government of India Act 1833[edit]

1835 gold Double Mohur (reverse), valued at 30 Rupees

File:India 1835 2 Mohurs.jpg
1835 gold Double Mohur (reverse), valued at 30 Rupees
The Industrial Revolution in Britain, the consequent search for markets, and the rise of laissez-faire economic ideology form the background to the Government of India Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 85). The Act:
removed the Company's remaining trade monopolies and divested it of all its commercial functions
renewed for another twenty years the Company's political and administrative authority
invested the Board of Control with full power and authority over the Company. As stated by Professor Sri Ram Sharma,[33] "The President of the Board of Control now became Minister for Indian Affairs."
carried further the ongoing process of administrative centralisation through investing the Governor-General in Council with, full power and authority to superintend and, control the Presidency Governments in all civil and military matters
initiated a machinery for the codification of laws
provided that no Indian subject of the Company would be debarred from holding any office under the Company by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent or colour
vested the Island of St Helena in the Crown [34]

British influence continued to expand; in 1845, Great Britain purchased the Danish colony of Tranquebar. The Company had at various stages extended its influence to China, the Philippines, and Java. It had solved its critical lack of cash needed to buy tea by exporting Indian-grown opium to China. China's efforts to end the trade led to the First Opium War (1839–1842).

English Education Act 1835[edit]

Main article: English Education Act 1835

The English Education Act by the Council of India in 1835 to reallocated funds from the East India Company to spend on education and literature in India.

Government of India Act 1853[edit]

This Act (16 & 17 Vict. c. 95) provided that British India would remain under the administration of the Company in trust for the Crown until Parliament should decide otherwise. It also introduced a system of open competition as the basis of recruitment for civil servants of the company and thus deprived the Directors of their patronage system.[35]

Under the act, for the first time the legislative and executive powers of the governor general's council were separated. It also added six additional members to the governor general's executive committee.[36]

Indian Rebellion and disestablishment[edit]

Main article: Indian Rebellion of 1857

Capture of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons by William Hodson in 1857
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 resulted in widespread devastation in India: many condemned the East India Company for permitting the events to occur.[citation needed] In the aftermath of the Rebellion, under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858, the British Government nationalised the Company. The Crown took over its Indian possessions, its administrative powers and machinery, and its armed forces.

The Company remained in existence in vestigial form, continuing to manage the tea trade on behalf of the British Government (and the supply of Saint Helena) until the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873 came into effect, on 1 January 1874. This Act provided for the formal dissolution of the company on 1 June 1874, after a final dividend payment and the commutation or redemption of its stock.[37] The Times reported, "It accomplished a work such as in the whole history of the human race no other company ever attempted and as such is ever likely to attempt in the years to come."

Establishments in Britain[edit]

The expanded East India House, Leadenhall Street, London, as reconstructed in 1796–1800. A drawing by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd of c.1817.
The Company's headquarters in London, from which much of India was governed, was East India House in Leadenhall Street. After occupying premises in Philpot Lane, Fenchurch Street, from 1600 to 1621; in Crosby House, Bishopsgate, from 1621 to 1638; and in Leadenhall Street from 1638 to 1648, the Company moved into Craven House, an Elizabethan mansion in Leadenhall Street. The building had become known as East India House by 1661. It was completely rebuilt and enlarged in 1726–9; and further significantly remodelled and expanded in 1796–1800. It was finally vacated in 1860 and demolished in 1861–62. The site is now occupied by the Lloyd's building.

In 1607, the Company decided to build its own ships and leased a yard on the River Thames at Deptford. By 1614, the yard having become too small, an alternative site was acquired at Blackwall: the new yard was fully operational by 1617. It was sold in 1656, although for some years East India Company ships continued to be built and repaired there under the new owners.

In 1803, an Act of Parliament, promoted by the East India Company, established the East India Dock Company, with the aim of establishing a new set of docks (the East India Docks) primarily for the use of ships trading with India. The existing Brunswick Dock, part of the Blackwall Yard site, became the Export Dock; while a new Import Dock was built to the north. In 1838 the East India Dock Company merged with the West India Dock Company. The docks were taken over by the Port of London Authority in 1909, and closed in 1967.

The East India College was founded in 1806 as a training establishment for "writers" (i.e. clerks) in the Company's service. It was initially located in Hertford Castle, but moved in 1809 to purpose-built premises at Hertford Heath, Hertfordshire. In 1858 the college closed; but in 1862 the buildings reopened as a public school, now Haileybury and Imperial Service College.

Addiscombe Seminary, photographed in c.1859, with cadets in the foreground.
The East India Company Military Seminary was founded in 1809 at Addiscombe, near Croydon, Surrey, to train young officers for service in the Company's armies in India. It was based in Addiscombe Place, an early 18th-century mansion. The government took it over in 1858, and renamed it the Royal Indian Military College. In 1861 it was closed, and the site was subsequently redeveloped.

In 1818, the Company entered into an agreement by which those of its servants who were certified insane in India might be cared for at Pembroke House, Hackney, London, a private lunatic asylum run by Dr George Rees until 1838, and thereafter by Dr William Williams. The arrangement outlasted the Company itself, continuing until 1870, when the India Office opened its own asylum, the Royal India Asylum, at Hanwell, Middlesex.[38]

The East India Club in London was formed in 1849 for officers of the Company. The Club still exists today as a private gentlemen's club with its club house situated at 16 St. James's Square, London.[39]

Legacy and criticisms[edit]

[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2015)

The East India Company has had a long lasting impact on the Indian Subcontinent. Although dissolved following the rebellion of 1857, it stimulated the growth of the British Empire. Its armies after 1857 were to become the armies of British India and it played a key role in introducing English as an official language in India.

The East India Company was the first company to record the Chinese usage of orange-flavoured tea which led to the development of Earl Grey tea.[40]

The East India Company introduced a system of merit-based appointments that provided a model for the British and Indian civil service.[41]


Downman (1685)

Lens (1700)

Rees (1820)

Laurie (1842)

National Geographic (1917)

Prior to the Acts of Union which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, the flag contained the St George's Cross in the canton representing the Kingdom of England

The flag had a Union Flag in the canton after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707

After 1801 the flag contained the Union Flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the canton (1810)

The English East India Company flag changed over time. From the period of 1600 to the 1707 Acts of Union between England and Scotland the flag consisted of a St George's cross in the canton and a number of alternating Red and White stripes. After 1707 the canton contained the original Union Flag consisting of a combined St George's cross and a St Andrew's cross. After the Acts of Union 1800 that joined Ireland with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom, the canton of the East India Company's flag was altered accordingly to include the new Union Flag with the additional Saint Patrick's Flag. There has been much debate and discussion regarding the number of stripes on the flag and the order of the stripes. Historical documents and paintings show many variations from 9 to 13 stripes, with some images showing the top stripe being red and others showing the top stripe being white.

At the time of the American Revolution the East India Company flag was identical to the Grand Union Flag. Historian Charles Fawcett argued that the East India Company Flag inspired the Stars and Stripes.[42]

Coat of arms[edit]

The later coat of arms of the East India Company
The East India Company's original coat of arms was granted in 1600. The arms was as follows:

"Azure, three ships with three masts, rigged and under full sail, the sails, pennants and ensigns Argent, each charged with a cross Gules; on a chief of the second a pale quarterly Azure and Gules, on the 1st and 4th a fleur-de-lis or, on the 2nd and 3rd a leopard or, between two roses Gules seeded Or barbed Vert." The shield had as a crest: "A sphere without a frame, bounded with the Zodiac in bend Or, between two pennants flottant Argent, each charged with a cross Gules, over the sphere the words DEUS INDICAT" (Latin: God Indicates). The supporters were two sea lions (lions with fishes' tails) and the motto was DEO DUCENTE NIL NOCET (Latin: Where God Leads, Nothing Hurts).[43]

The East India Company's arms, granted in 1698, were: "Argent a cross Gules; in the dexter chief quarter an escutcheon of the arms of France and England quarterly, the shield ornamentally and regally crowned Or." The crest was: "A lion rampant guardant Or holding between the forepaws a regal crown proper." The supporters were: "Two lions rampant guardant Or, each supporting a banner erect Argent, charged with a cross Gules." The motto was AUSPICIO REGIS ET SENATUS ANGLIÆ (Latin: By right of the King and the Senate of England).[43]


Ships of the East India Company were called East Indiamen or simply "Indiamen".[44] Some examples include:
Red Dragon (1595)
Doddington (East Indiaman) Lost 1755
Royal Captain (before 1773)
Grosvenor Lost 1782
General Goddard (1782)
Earl of Abergavenny (1796)
Earl of Mornington (1799); packet ship
Lord Nelson (1799)
David Clark (1816)
Kent (1820): Lost on her third voyage
Nemesis (1839): first British-built ocean-going iron warship
Agamemnon (1855)

During the period of the Napoleonic Wars, the East India Company arranged for letters of marque for its vessels such as the Lord Nelson. This was not so that they could carry cannon to fend off warships, privateers and pirates on their voyages to India and China (that they could do without permission) but so that, should they have the opportunity to take a prize, they could do so without being guilty of piracy. Similarly, the Earl of Mornington, an East India Company packet ship of only six guns, also sailed under a letter of marque.

In addition, the company had its own navy, the Bombay Marine, equipped with warships such as Grappler. These vessels often accompanied vessels of the Royal Navy on expeditions, such as the Invasion of Java (1811).

At the Battle of Pulo Aura, which was probably the company's most notable naval victory, Nathaniel Dance, Commodore of a convoy of Indiamen and sailing aboard the Warley, led several Indiamen in a skirmish with a French squadron, driving them off. Some six years earlier, on 28 January 1797, five Indiamen, the Woodford, under Captain Charles Lennox, the Taunton-Castle, Captain Edward Studd, Canton, Captain Abel Vyvyan, and Boddam, Captain George Palmer, and Ocean, Captain John Christian Lochner, had encountered Admiral de Sercey and his squadron of frigates. On this occasion the Indiamen also succeeded in bluffing their way to safety, and without any shots even being fired. Lastly, on 15 June 1795, the General Goddard played a large role in the capture of seven Dutch East Indiamen off St Helena.

East India Company (EIC)'s ships were well built, with the result that the Royal Navy bought several Company ships to convert to warships and transports. The Earl of Mornington became HMS Drake. Other examples include:
HMS Calcutta (1795)
HMS Glatton (1795)
HMS Hindostan (1795)
HMS Hindostan (1804)
HMS Malabar (1804)
HMS Buffalo (1813)

The company had many ports of call, some of which have seen their names changed over time.

Main article: List of ports of call of the British East India Company


Unlike all other British Government records, the records from the East India Company (and its successor the India Office) are not in The National Archives at Kew, London, but are stored by the British Library in London as part of the Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections: see India Office Records. The catalogue is searchable online in the Access to Archives catalogues.[45] Many of the East India Company records are freely available online under an agreement that the Families in British India Society has with the British Library. Published catalogues exist of East India Company ships' journals and logs, 1600–1834;[46] and of some of the Company's daughter institutions, including the East India Company College, Haileybury, and Addiscombe Military Seminary.[47]

See also[edit]

Portal icon British Empire portal
Portal icon Companies portal

East India Company:
Governor-General of India
List of trading companies
East India Company Cemetery in Macau

British Imperial Lifeline
Carnatic Wars
Commercial Revolution
Political warfare in British colonial India
Trade between Western Europe and the Mughal Empire in the 17th century
Whampoa anchorage

Notes and references[edit]

1.Jump up ^ The Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock.
2.Jump up ^ "Books associated with Trading Places - the East India Company and Asia 1600–1834, an Exhibition.".
3.Jump up ^ The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619. On page three, a letter written by Elizabeth I on 23 January 1601 ("Witnes or selfe at Westminster the xxiiijth of Ianuarie in the xliijth yeare of or Reigne.") states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto or said Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by or tres Pattents vnder or great seale of England beareing date at Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated or said Subjecte by the name of the Gournor & Companie of the merchaunts of London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XVteen yeares ..."
4.Jump up ^ Baladouni, Vahe (1983). "Accounting in the Early Years of the East India Company". The Accounting Historians Journal 10 (2): 63–80. Retrieved 13 November 2012.
5.Jump up ^ This is the argument of Robins (2006).
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 454[full citation needed]
7.Jump up ^ Wilbur, Marguerite Eyer (1945). The East India Company: And the British Empire in the Far East. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9780804728645.
8.^ Jump up to: a b
9.^ Jump up to: a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 6
10.Jump up ^ Gardner, Brian (1972). The East India Company: a History. McCall Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8415-0124-6.
11.^ Jump up to: a b The battle of Plassey ended the tax on the Indian goods. Indian History Sourcebook: England, India, and The East Indies, 1617 A.D
12.Jump up ^ Tyacke, Sarah (2008). "Gabriel Tatton's Maritime Atlas of the East Indies, 1620–1621: Portsmouth Royal Naval Museum, Admiralty Library Manuscript, MSS 352". Imago Mundi 60 (1): 39–62. doi:10.1080/03085690701669293.
13.Jump up ^ "East India Company" (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, Volume 8, p.835
14.Jump up ^ Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopaedia of the Early Modern World
15.Jump up ^ Burgess, Douglas R. (2009). The Pirates' Pact: The Secret Alliances Between History's Most Notorious Buccaneers and Colonial America. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-147476-4
16.Jump up ^ Fox, E. T. (2008). King of the Pirates: The Swashbuckling Life of Henry Every. London: Tempus Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7524-4718-6.
17.^ Jump up to: a b c "The British East India Company—the Company that Owned a Nation. George P. Landow".
18.^ Jump up to: a b Thomas, P. D. G. (2008) "Pratt, Charles, first Earl Camden (1714–1794)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, online edn, accessed 15 February 2008 (subscription or UK public library membership required)
19.Jump up ^ SALTPETER the secret salt – Salt made the world go round
20.Jump up ^ Company incursion, Manila 1762–1763. See the Bib. for the citation of Sirs Draper and Cornish; see also Cushner's citation at the Wayback Machine (archived July 10, 2004).
21.Jump up ^ Gerald Bryant, "Officers of the East India Company's army in the days of Clive and Hastings," The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (1978) 6#3 pp 203-27
22.Jump up ^ James Stuart Olson and Robert Shadle (1996). Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. Greenwood. pp. 252–54.
23.Jump up ^ Cholera's seven pandemics. CBC News. 2 December 2008
24.Jump up ^ Holmes, Richard (2005). Sahib: the British soldier in India, 1750–1914. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-713753-2.
25.Jump up ^ Note: as of 30 December 1600, the official name: Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies
26.Jump up ^ McElwee, William (1974). The Art of War: Waterloo to Mons. Purnell Book Services. p. 72.
27.Jump up ^ Tolan, John; Veinstein, Gilles and Henry Laurens (2013). "Europe and the Islamic World: A History". Princeton University Press. pp. 275–276. ISBN 978-0-691-14705-5.
28.^ Jump up to: a b c Windle, James (2012). "Insights for Contemporary Drug Policy: A Historical Account of Opium Control in India and Pakistan". Asian Journal of Criminology 7 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1007/s11417-011-9104-0.
29.Jump up ^ EAST INDIA COMPANY FACTORY RECORDS Sources from the British Library, LondonPart 1: China and Japan
30.Jump up ^ Harcourt, Freda (2006). Flagships of Imperialism: The P & O Company and the Politics of Empire from Its Origins to 1867. Manchester University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-84779-145-0.
31.Jump up ^ Keay, John (1991). The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York p. 385.
32.^ Jump up to: a b Anthony, Frank. Britain's Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo Indian Community. Second Edition. London: The Simon Wallenberg Press, 2007 Pages 18–19, 42, 45.
33.Jump up ^ "Kapur".
34.Jump up ^
35.Jump up ^ M. Laxhimikanth, Public Administration, TMH, Tenth Reprint, 2013
36.Jump up ^ Laxhimikanth, Public Administration, TMH, Tenth Reprint, 2013
37.Jump up ^ East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. 17) s. 36: "On the First day of June One thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, and on payment by the East India Company of all unclaimed dividends on East India Stock to such accounts as are herein-before mentioned in pursuance of the directions herein-before contained, the powers of the East India Company shall cease, and the said Company shall be dissolved." Where possible, the stock was redeemed through commutation (i.e. exchanging the stock for other securities or money) on terms agreed with the stockholders (ss. 5–8), but stockholders who did not agree to commute their holdings had their stock compulsorily redeemed on 30 April 1874 by payment of £200 for every £100 of stock held (s. 13).
38.Jump up ^ Farrington 1976, pp. 125–32.
39.Jump up ^ "East India Club".
40.Jump up ^ "Bringing back John Company".
41.Jump up ^ "The Company that ruled the waves", in The Economist, 17–30 December 2011, p. 111.
42.Jump up ^ The Striped Flag Of The East India Company, And Its Connexion With The American "Stars And Stripes"
43.^ Jump up to: a b "East India Company". Hubert Herald. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
44.Jump up ^ Sutton, Jean (1981) Lords of the East: The East India Company and Its Ships. London: Conway Maritime
45.Jump up ^ A2A – Access to Archives Home
46.Jump up ^ Farrington (ed.), Anthony (1999). Catalogue of East India Company ships' journals and logs: 1600–1834. London: British Library. ISBN 0-7123-4646-5.
47.Jump up ^ Farrington 1976.


Andrews, Kenneth R. (1985). Trade, Plunder, and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-25760-3.
Bowen, H. V. (1991). Revenue and Reform: The Indian Problem in British Politics, 1757–1773. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40316-2.
Bowen, H. V.; Margarette Lincoln, and Nigel Rigby, eds. (2003). The Worlds of the East India Company. Rochester, NY: Brewer. ISBN 0-85115-877-3. ; 14 essays by scholars
Brenner, Robert (1993). Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05594-7.
Carruthers, Bruce G. (1996). City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-04455-2.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1965). The English East India Company: The Study of an Early Joint-Stock Company, 1600–1640. London: Cass.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1978). The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-21716-4.
Chaudhury, S. (1999). Merchants, Companies, and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era. London: Cambridge University Press.
Farrington (ed.), Anthony (1976). The Records of the East India College, Haileybury, & other institutions. London: H.M.S.O.
Farrington, Anthony (2002). Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia, 1600–1834. London: British Library. ISBN 0-7123-4756-9.
Furber, Holden. John Company at Work: A study of European Expansion in India in the late Eighteenth century (Harvard University Press, 1948)
Furber, Holden (1976). Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600–1800. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-0787-7.
Harrington, Jack (2010), Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India, New York: Palgrave Macmillan., ISBN 978-0-230-10885-1
Keay, John (2010). The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company. HarperCollins UK. ISBN 978-0-00-739554-5. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
Lawson, Philip (1993). The East India Company: A History. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-07386-3.
Misra, B.B. . The Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773-1834 (1959) online
O'Connor, Daniel (2012). The Chaplains of the East India Company, 1601–1858. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-7534-2.
Philips, C. H. The East India Company 1784 - 1834 (2nd ed. 1961), on its internal workings
Riddick, John F. The history of British India: a chronology (2006) excerpt and text search, covers 1599–1947
Riddick, John F. Who Was Who in British India (1998), covers 1599–1947
Risley (ed.), Sir Herbert H. et al. (1908), The Indian Empire: Historical, Imperial Gazetteer of India 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, under the authority of H.M. Secretary of State for India
Risley (ed.), Sir Herbert H. et al. (1908), The Indian Empire: Administrative, Imperial Gazetteer of India 4, Oxford: Clarendon Press, under the authority of H.M Secretary of State for India
Robins, Nick (2006). The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-2524-6.
Sen, Sudipta (1998). Empire of Free Trade: The East India Company and the Making of the Colonial Marketplace. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3426-8.
Steensgaard, Niels (1975). The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-77138-5.
STern, Philip J. The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (2011) online
Sutherland, Lucy S. (1952). The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dirks, Nicholas (2006). The Scandal of Empire: India and the creation of Imperial Britain. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02166-5.
Robins, Nick (December 2004). The world's first multinational, in the New Statesman
Dalrymple, William (March 2015). The East India Company: The original corporate raiders. "For a century, the East India Company conquered, subjugated and plundered vast tracts of south Asia. The lessons of its brutal reign have never been more relevant." The Guardian

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to British East India Company.
Charter of 1600
East India Company on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen now)
Seals and Insignias of East India Company
The Secret Trade The basis of the monopoly.
Trading Places – a learning resource from the British Library
Port Cities: History of the East India Company
Ships of the East India Company
Plant Cultures: East India Company in India
The British East India Company
History and Politics: East India Company
Nick Robins, "The world's first multinational", 13 December 2004, New Statesman
East India Company: Its History and Results article by Karl Marx, MECW Volume 12, p. 148 in Marxists Internet Archive
Text of East India Company Act 1773
Text of East India Company Act 1784
"The East India Company – a corporate route to Europe" on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time featuring Huw Bowen, Linda Colley and Maria Misra
HistoryMole Timeline: The British East India Company

v ·
t ·

Chartered companies

Wikipedia book

v ·
t ·

European and American trade in Qing China

Categories: British East India Company
British India
British rule in Singapore
British Malaya
Colonial Indian companies
Defunct companies of England
Former monopolies
Chartered companies
1600 establishments in England
Trading companies
Mysore invasion of Kerala
History of Kolkata
History of Bengal
History of West Bengal
History of India
History of foreign trade in China
British Indian history
Defunct companies of the United Kingdom
Companies established in 1600
Companies disestablished in 1857
Age of Sail

Navigation menu

Create account
Log in





View history

Main page
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store


About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page


What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page


Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version


Bahasa Indonesia
Basa Jawa
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Tiếng Việt

Edit links

This page was last modified on 22 April 2015, at 12:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Contact Wikipedia
Mobile view



Recorded as Manning and the patronymic Mannings, this is an English surname but one of pre 7th century Norse Viking origins. According to the famous Victorian etymologist Canon Charles Bardsley writing in the year 1880, it derives from 'maningi,' a word which translates as valiant or strong. The name is preserved in such towns as Manningford or Manningtree. This seems to be the correct interpretation and this would seem to be confirmed by one of the earliest recordings of Henry Maninge of Cambridgeshire, in the Hundred Rolls of land owners of that county in 1273. Other early examples of the surname recordings taken from surviving church registers of the diocese of Greater London include: the christening of Johan, the daughter of Launcelot Manning, on January 14th 1564, at St. Mary Magdalene, and the christening of Katherine, the daughter of William Mannings, on September 6th 1570, at St. Mary Aldermary. Thomas Manning (1772 - 1840) was considered the first Chinese scholar in Europe and was the first Englishman to enter Lhasa, the holy city of Tibet. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Ainulf Manning. This was dated 1190, in the Pipe Rolls of Kent, during the reign of King Richard 1st of england, and known as "Lionheart", 1189 - 1199. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
© Copyright: Name Origin Research 1980 - 2015

Want to dig deeper into your family history? Take a look at our page on building a Family Tree. Or get scientific and enter the exciting world of Ancestral DNA!

Read more:


East India Company, lion's head with an axe,




According to the Count in Venice, John Francis Queeny—founder of The Monsanto Company—was a Knight of Malta. Irish-American Roman Catholic Queeny (1859-1933) founded the company in 1901 within the Jesuit stronghold of St. Lewis—hosting the Black Pope’s Saint Louis University since 1818. This is the same year J. P. Morgan, Papal Knight of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, founded U.S. Steel Corporation and in 1911 would appoint Knight of Malta John A. Farrell as its president. Interesting: Queeny, Morgan and Farrell were all wicked, pope-serving, White Gentiles—not a Jew in the mix!

Monsanto is a relatively new company. While we share the name and history of a company that was founded in 1901, the Monsanto of today is focused on agriculture and supporting farmers around the world in their mission to produce more while conserving more.

We’re an agricultural company. Below is an interactive presentation with photos, videos and Monsanto stories. We invite you to explore the Monsanto history today and ask questions about Monsanto.


Monsanto named one of the "100 Best Corporate Citizens" by CR Magazine.

Monsanto announces plans for $400 million expansion of Chesterfield Valley Research Center, including 36 new greenhouses, additional offices and laboratory space as well as additional plant growth chambers to facilitate development of its seed and trait pipeline, and adding 675 jobs over the next three years.

Monsanto forms Honeybee Advisory Council and pledges support for honeybee health.

The trait in Genuity® DroughtGard® Hybrids receives Chinese regulatory import approval, paving the way for U.S. farmers to market the DroughtGard Hybrids grain to export markets.

Monsanto’s Robert T. Fraley named 2013 World Food Prize Laureate.

Monsanto receives the Gulf Guardian Award from the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program for the company's Mississippi River Watershed Partnership. The partnership aimed to reduce nutrient runoff and sediment movement in the river system.


DEKALB® celebrates 100 years of service to agriculture.

Monsanto unveils its new Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System, designed to provide farmers with more consistent, flexible control of weeds, especially tough-to-manage and glyphosate-resistant weeds to maximize crop yield potential.

Monsanto launches its Ground Breakers® program, giving farmers the opportunity to experience Monsanto products in on-farm trials prior to commercial introduction.

Monsanto purchases planting technology developer Precision Planting, a leader in delivering yield through technology.

Monsanto establishes a program to fund corn rootworm research, the Corn Rootworm Knowledge Research Program.

Monsanto announces $3 million commitment to fight rural hunger through Invest an Acre program.

Monsanto named one of the World’s Best Multinational Workplaces by Great Places to Work Institute.


Monsanto Company opened a corn breeding facility today in Flora, Miss. The Flora Corn Breeding Station utilizes the latest breeding techniques and focuses on developing higher-yielding corn hybrids.

Monsanto received USDA authorization for the planting of Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa and Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets.

Monsanto acquired Divergence, Inc., a privately-held St. Louis-based biotechnology research and development company. Divergence works on controlling parasitic nematodes, including developing biotechnology traits for nematode control and nematicides with novel modes of action and superior safety profiles.

Monsanto announced the launch of “Grow St. Louis,” a new community grant program designed to help grow St. Louis and improve lives locally. Through the “Grow St. Louis” program, people in the St. Louis metropolitan area can nominate eligible projects at local schools and nonprofit organizations to receive a grant of up to $15,000 from Monsanto.

Monsanto acquired Beeologics, which researches and develops biological tools to provide targeted control of pests and diseases.


Monsanto wins a number of workplace awards such as FORTUNE Magazine '100 Best Companies to Work For', The Scientist 2010 Best Places to Work, CR Magazine's '100 Best Corporate Citizens', and the DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity.

Monsanto worked with the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, Kuehne + Nagel, USAID and UPS to put more than 130 tons of conventional corn and vegetable seeds in the hands of Haitian farmers to increase food production and aid long-term earthquake recovery

Monsanto reaffirms its strong ties to the St. Louis region with the reacquisition of the Chesterfield Village Research Center located in Chesterfield, Mo. from Pfizer Inc.

Monsanto’s vegetable brands introduce Beneforte Brocolli which naturally boosts the body’s antioxidant enzyme levels at least two times more compared to other leading broccoli varieties and the EverMild onions which delivers multiple benefits, including a natural sweetness and mildness that maximizes flavor and a low “bite”.

Monsanto announced the launch of a new herbicide for cotton and soybean acres called Warrant™ Herbicide.

Monsanto opened its research megasite in Lubbock. The Monsanto Texas Cotton Breeding and Technology Center is a central point for the company’s breeding and testing programs in the High Plains region.


Monsanto opens the Water Utilization Learning Center in Gothenburg, Nebraska. The facility is the first of its kind in agriculture and focuses on how to maintain or increase crop productivity by maximizing the crop’s water use – and what are the tools farmers need to do this.

Monsanto donates approximately 4,000 cotton molecular markers and associated information to Texas AgriLife Research, a part of the Texas A&M system. The donation is offered to the public domain through the globally accessible cotton genome databases, a move that will benefit research programs and breeders interested in one of world's key crops.

Monsanto announces a $10 million grant to establish Monsanto's Beachell-Borlaug International Scholars Program, which will help identify and support young scientists interested in improving research and production in rice and wheat, two of the world's most important staple crops, through plant breeding techniques.

Monsanto launches Genuity™, a new family of traits designed to work together to enhance crop potential and simplify trait selection for farmers.

Monsanto announces Project SHARE (Sustainable Harvest - Agriculture, Resources, Environment) – a sustainable yield initiative to improve farmer lives in India. Project SHARE, a pilot project in association with ISAP (Indian Society of Agribusiness Professionals), aims to improve the socio-economic conditions of 10,000 small-marginal cotton and corn farmers in 1,100 villages across three states within four years, by increasing their crop productivity.


Monsanto acquires Aly Participacoes Ltda., which operates the sugarcane and breeding technology companies, CanaVialis S.A. and Alellyx S.A., both based in Brazil. With this acquisition, Monsanto enters the sugarcane industry.

Monsanto introduces Acceleron® brand seed treatments. The Acceleron brand launched with Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, is expected to be available in SmartStax corn in 2010, Deltapine cotton in 2011 and in other crops in coming seasons.

Monsanto sells its POSILAC® bovine somatotropin brand and related business to Eli Lilly and Company.

Monsanto acquires Semillas Cristiani Burkard (SCB), a privately-held seed company headquartered in Guatemala City, Guatemala. SCB is the leading Central American corn seed company focused on hybrid corn production.

Monsanto acquires De Ruiter Seeds Group, B.V., a Dutch holding company that owns and operates De Ruiter Seeds. De Ruiter Seeds breeds, produces and sells hybrid vegetable seeds for top vegetable products such as tomato, cucumber, aubergine, pepper, melon and rootstock. De Ruiter Seeds is one of the top breeding companies in the world.

Monsanto announces its three-point commitment to sustainable agriculture. This commitment includes: helping farmers double yield in corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030, compared to a base year of 2000; developing seeds that will reduce by one-third per unit produced the aggregate amount of key resources, such as land, water and energy, required to grow crops by 2030; improving the lives of farmers, including an additional five million people in resource-poor farm families, by 2020.

Monsanto introduces Roundup Ready 2 Yield® soybean technology, the second generation of the popular Roundup Ready® technology farmers have used since 1996. This product offers the same effective weed control, simplicity and flexibility benefits of the Roundup Ready system and it increases soybean yield potential.


Monsanto joins the Chicago Climate Exchange® (CCX), North America's only voluntary, legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction, registry and trading program. As part of this program, Monsanto agrees to reduce its own direct carbon emissions from major U.S. operations or purchase carbon emission offsets. Additionally, the company will work with farmer groups to discuss reducing carbon dioxide in the air by practicing no-till agriculture.

Monsanto sells Monsanto Choice Genetics, Inc., the company’s swine genetics business, to Newsham Genetics, LLC.

Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announce a cross-licensing agreement aimed at launching SmartStax™, the industry’s first-ever eight-gene stacked combination in corn.

Monsanto and Bayer CropScience AG announce a series of long-term business and licensing agreements related to key agricultural technologies.

Monsanto acquires Delta and Pine Land Company and divests the Stoneville and NexGen cotton businesses.

Monsanto forms International Seed Group, Inc. (ISG), an investment holding company that provides specialized, regional vegetable and fruit seed companies with access to capital and technology.

Dr. John Franz is inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame® for the discovery of glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides.

Monsanto and BASF announce a long-term joint research and development (R&D) and commercialization collaboration in plant biotechnology. The collaboration will focus on the development of high-yielding crops that are more tolerant to adverse environmental conditions, such as drought.


Monsanto’s ASI subsidiary acquires several regional seed companies, including Diener Seeds, Sieben Hybrids, Kruger Seed Company, Trisler Seed Farms, Gold Country Seed, Inc., Heritage Seeds and the seed marketing and sales business of Campbell Seed.

Roundup Ready® Corn 2 technology is planted on more than 32 million acres – or about 40 percent of U.S. corn acres – during the 2006 crop season.

Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences LLC sign a global agreement cross-licensing intellectual property, product licenses in corn and soybeans, cotton technologies, and enabling technologies. This agreement will allow both companies to offer farmers new technology options and more choice in the products to meet their needs.

Monsanto introduces Roundup Ready Flex cotton, providing farmers with a wider over-the-top application window throughout the growing season, as compared to its original Roundup Ready cotton technology.
Monsanto becomes the first agriculture company to introduce a stacked second-generation product when it introduces Bollgard II insect-protected cotton with Roundup Ready Flex. The product provides farmers with the same benefits as its Bollgard II product as well as its Roundup Ready Flex technology.


Monsanto introduces Vistive low-linolenic soybeans. VISTIVE low-linolenic soybeans, which were produced through conventional breeding, offer the ability to reduce or eliminate trans fatty acids (trans fats) in processed soybean oil.

Monsanto acquires Seminis, Inc., a global leader in the vegetable and fruit seed industry. Seminis supplies more than 3,500 seed varieties to commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and wholesalers in more than 150 countries around the world. The company is headquarters in Oxnard, California

Monsanto introduces the first triple-trait technology offered by any company in the agriculture industry, YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2. The product offers three traits in one seed - including Monsanto's two YieldGard insect-protection products and its Roundup Ready technology.

Monsanto acquires the Stoneville cotton business, including its NexGen brand.

Monsanto's ASI subsidiary acquires NC+ Hybrids, Inc., headquartered in Lincoln, Neb.

Monsanto completes its sale of Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems Inc. to a new company formed by the Enviro-Chem management team and an outside investor. The new company is MECS, Inc.

Monsanto's ASI subsidiary acquires four companies that are the shareowners of the CORE Group - including Fontanelle Hybrids, based in Fontanelle, Neb.; Stewart Seeds, based in Greensburg, Ind.; Trelay Seeds, based in Livingston, Wis.; and, Stone Seeds, based in Pleasant Plains, Ill. In a separate transaction, ASI also acquires Specialty Hybrids, a leader serving the Eastern Corn Belt.

The 2005 crop season marked the tenth season that biotech crops were planted throughout the world. The 2005 season also marked the year in which the billionth acre was planted with biotech crops and the year in which the billionth acre harvested.


Monsanto introduces YieldGard Plus corn. This product is a stacked version of Monsanto's two YieldGard products in one seed product.

Monsanto forms American Seeds Inc. (ASI), a holding company for mostly corn and soybeans. ASI supports regional seed businesses with capital, genetics and technology investments.

Monsanto's ASI subsidiary acquires Channel Bio Corp. and its three seed brands: Crows Hybrid Corn, Midwest Seed Genetics and Wilson Seeds.


YieldGard Rootworm insect-protected corn is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed insect-protection against the corn rootworm.

Monsanto introduces YieldGard Rootworm insect-protected corn stacked with Roundup Ready Corn 2. The product offers two traits in one seed - including Monsanto's YieldGard Rootworm insect-protection and its Roundup Ready technology.

Monsanto becomes the first agriculture company to introduce a second-generation trait product in cotton when it introduces Bollgard II insect-protected cotton. The product provides farmers with the same benefits as its original Bollgard product as well as expanded protection against other cotton pests.


The new Monsanto Company is spun off from Pharmacia and is now a separate company.

Monsanto becomes the first company to identify and market specific corn hybrids that can yield more ethanol per bushel. The hybrids, sold as Processor Preferred Corn hybrids, help farmers get more ethanol out of their harvest.

Monsanto introduces Processor Preferred Soybean varieties. These varieties help farmers get more oil and protein out of their harvest.


Monsanto becomes the first agriculture company to introduce a second-generation trait product when it introduces Roundup Ready Corn 2. The product provides farmers with a wider application window than the first generation Roundup Ready Corn technology.

Monsanto places the first U.S. corporate order for the first full-size pickup trucks that run on E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.


A new Monsanto Company, based on the previous agricultural division of Pharmacia, is incorporated as a stand-alone subsidiary of the pharmaceutical company. (Pharmacia itself eventually becomes a subsidiary of Pfizer, in 2003).

Original Monsanto Company


The original Monsanto enters into a merger and changes its name to Pharmacia Corporation. (For a detailed history about the relationships among Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, Pfizer Inc., and Solutia Inc., please click here.)


The original Monsanto completes its purchase of DeKalb Genetics Corp.

Roundup Ready Corn is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed herbicide tolerance to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

The original Monsanto becomes the first company to introduce a stacked trait combination in corn when it introduces YieldGard Corn Borer insect-protected corn stacked with Roundup Ready Corn. The product offers two traits in one seed - including Monsanto's YieldGard Corn Borer insect-protection and its Roundup Ready technology.


YieldGard Corn Borer insect-protected corn is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed insect-protection against the European corn borer.

Asgrow agronomics seed business is purchased by the original Monsanto.

The original Monsanto purchases Holden's Foundation Seeds L.L.C. and Corn States Hybrid Service L.L.C., a supplier of high quality foundation seed for the corn seed industry. The original Monsanto maintains Holden's/Corn States policy of broadly licensing seed companies elite corn germplasm and trait technologies.

The original Monsanto spins off its industrial chemical and fibers business as Solutia Inc.

Roundup Ready Canola is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed herbicide tolerance to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

Roundup Ready Cotton is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed herbicide tolerance to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

The original Monsanto becomes the first company to introduce a stacked trait combination when it introduces Bollgard insect-protected cotton stacked with Roundup Ready Cotton. The product offers two traits in one seed - including Monsanto's Bollgard insect-protection and its Roundup Ready technology.


The original Monsanto acquires the plant biotechnology assets of Agracetus and purchases an interest in Calgene, another biotech research company. (The Calgene acquisition was completed the following year.)

Roundup Ready Soybeans are introduced, providing farmers with in-seed herbicide tolerance to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

Bollgard insect-protected cotton is introduced, providing farmers with in-seed insect-protection against the cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm and pink bollworm.


The original Monsanto's first biotechnology product to win regulatory approval, Posilac, bovine somatotropin (Bst) for dairy cows, goes on sale in the U.S.


The original Monsanto conducts the first U.S. field trials of plants with biotechnology traits.


The Life Sciences Research Center opens in Chesterfield, MO., United States


Scientists working for the original Monsanto are the first to genetically modify a plant cell.

The original Monsanto acquires the Jacob Hartz Seed Co., known for its soybean seed.


A molecular biology group has been set up and biotechnology is firmly established as Monsanto's strategic research focus.


Roundup herbicide is commercialized in the U.S.


A cell biology research program is established in the Agricultural Division.


Commercialization of Lasso herbicide in the U.S. begins the trend toward reduced-tillage farming.


Ramrod herbicide is introduced, beginning the use of Western theme names for the original Monsanto's brands of herbicides.


The Agricultural Division is established.


The original Monsanto produces and markets agricultural chemicals, including 2,4D.


John F. Queeny founds the original Monsanto. His wife was Olga Monsanto Queeny. The first product of that company was saccharine.

Precipitation enhancement, commonly called “cloud seeding,” artificially stimulates clouds to produce more rainfall or snowfall
than they would naturally.

Cloud seeding injects special substances into the clouds that enable snowflakes and raindrops
to form more easily.

Precipitation enhancement is the one form of weather modification done in California;

hail suppression (reducing the formation of large, damaging hailstones) and fog dispersal (when fog is below freezing temperature) projects are conducted in other states.

Rain and snow enhancement programs in California, 2002-2003 season:

Project Sponsor
1. Lake Almanor - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
2. Tahoe-Truckee - Desert Research Institute
3. Upper American River -Sacramento Municipal Utility District
4. Upper Mokelumne River - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
5. Carson and Walker Rivers - Desert Research Institute
6. Tuolumne River -Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts
7. San Joaquin River - Southern California Edison Co.
8. Eastern Sierra -City of Los Angeles
9. Kings River -Kings River Conservation District
10. Kaweah River - Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
11. Kern River - North Kern Water Storage District
12. Santa Barbara County -Santa Barbara County
13. San Gabriel Mountains - Los Angeles County

Four of the existing cloud seeding projects in California are sponsored by hydroelectric utilities. These four projects probably account for about a third of the estimated statewide water production by cloud seeding.

There is some concern that if these power plants are sold, either as part of deregulation or for other reasons, new owners may not be interested in continuing cloud seeding.

10 years later:

Selected References
ASCE Manual No. 81 “Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to
Augment Precipitation”, 1995
ASCE Policy Statement No. 275, “Atmospheric Water
Resources Management”, 2003
ASCE/EWRI 42-04 “Standard Practice for the Design and
Operation of Precipitation Enhancement Projects”, 2004.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada
American Meteorological Society
World Meteorological Organization
USBR Project Skywater publications, various, 1975-1987,
including those of the Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project
in California.
A. Givati and D. Rosenfeld, “Quantifying Precipitation
Suppression Due to Air Pollution”. 2004, Journal of Applied
Meteorology Vol 43, pp 1038-1056.
Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project, Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact, USBR,
Denver, 1981.
NRC report “Critical Issues in Weather Modification
Research”, The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC, 2003.
Chapter 14 Precipitation Enhancement 14 5
California Water Plan Update 2005
V. Ramanathan, P.J. Crutzen, J. T. Kiehl and D. Rosenfeld,
“Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrologic Cycle”, 2001,
Science magazine, Dec. 7, 2001.
V. Ramanathan and M. V. Ramana, “Atmospheric Brown
Clouds, Long Range Transport and Climate Impacts”, EM, Dec.
2003, pp 28-33.
UNEP and Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate,
2002, “The Asian Brown Cloud: Climate and Other
Environmental Impacts”, UNEP, Nairobi.
The Weather Modification Association’s Response to
the NRC Report “Critical Issues in Weather Modification
Research”, report of a review panel, pp 53-82, Journal
of Weather Modification, April, 2004.
North American Interstate Weather Modification Council
Response to the NRC Report, April 2004, 2 pp, on
Snowy Hydro Limited, Cooma, NSW, Australia, “Assessment
of the Environmental Toxicity of Silver Iodide and Indium
Iodide”, by Dr. Brian Williams, Adelaide University, 2004.

Energy Company's Shocking Plan to Spray Clouds with Toxic Chemical to Increase Rainfall -- and Make Hydropower Profits

The practice known as 'cloud seeding' has been done in California for decades. But the environmental costs are high and the regulations for corporations nonexistent.

By Jeff Conant / AlterNet

June 7, 2010



After a successful six-year campaign to prevent Nestle Waters from building a bottling plant in nearby McCloud, the town of Mt. Shasta, a mountain hamlet of fewer than 3000 residents in California's far-northern Siskiyou County, is taking up a new struggle: to prevent PG&E from seeding the region's clouds. The practice of 'cloud seeding' is a kind of weather modification in which silver iodide, a Class-C toxin, is disbursed aerially or from ground-based towers in an effort to induce rain.

On May 24, the Mt. Shasta City Council voted to put the Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance on the November ballot. The objective of the ordinance, which was brought to the City Council by an ad-hoc group called the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project, is to prohibit chemical cloud seeding and corporate water extraction in the city. If adopted, the law will protect the right to "sustainably access, use, consume, and preserve water drawn from natural water cycles;" more broadly, it will defend "the rights of citizens to self-government and the rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist, flourish, and evolve."

Despite the fact that Mt. Shasta is a small town with a strong liberal, environmental bent, and about 85 percent of people approached by organizers are in favor of a strong measure to protect the town's water, the ordinance is politically fraught. If it becomes law, the ordinance will not merely prevent cloud seeding and water extraction - it will empower citizens and the City Council to vote down similar proposals in the future.


Such an effort is not as benign, nor as easy, as it might at first appear. On the heels of their six year battle with Nestle, organizers in Mt. Shasta know that in order to secure the region from corporate resource extraction in the long-term, they need to do more than just say no to each threat as it appears; they need to circumvent legal precedent, which generally rules in favor of corporations. In order to do that, they need to overturn both state and federal law.

Water policy in California is infamously complicated, and the state, which is the world's seventh largest economy and one of the world's most vital agricultural regions, is facing an increasingly severe water crisis. Proponents of the Mt. Shasta ordinance say that it has far-reaching implications, both in protecting water and in empowering citizens; in the words of one resident testifying before the City Council on May 24, "this ordinance is the embryo of change for our state."

Mt. Shasta, Source of Northern California's Waters

In the Mt. Shasta City Park, at the bottom of a wooded hill, in a grove of yellow pine and cedar, clear water comes burbling out of the ground, splashing over rocks and rushing to form a sparkling creek, green with watercress and lined with horsetail and huckleberry. This spring, a sign announces, is the headwaters of the Sacramento River. As it flows south through the Central Valley toward its drainage in San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento River provides 75 percent of Northern California's water.

On a chill 40 degree morning in May, at the spot where one of California's most important rivers emerges from a hole in the ground, a local man appeared and filled several large jugs. "This is snowmelt on Mt. Shasta," he told me. "The water passes through lava rock for three years before it comes out here." In quick succession, several more people showed up to fill jugs for drinking. "This is as clean as water gets," one of them said, taking a deep drink.

Mt. Shasta, perpetually snow-capped and wrapped in a near-permanent cloud, rises 14,179 feet from the northern edge of California's Central Valley to mark the meeting point of the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Trinity Alps to the west, and the Cascade Range which runs northward through Oregon and Washington. Saddled by seven glaciers, Mt. Shasta also gives birth to the McCloud and Pit Rivers, which join the Sacramento at Lake Shasta to the south. Shasta Dam, the second-largest dam in the U.S., acts as the keystone of the Central Valley Project, the statewide engineering juggernaut that provides drinking water to most of California.

Given Mt. Shasta's legendary clean water and its location at the top of California's most vital watersheds, it's not surprising that alarms went off when residents learned of plans by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the state's powerful private utility company, to seed the region's clouds with silver iodide in an effort to bring rain.

PG&E's Bid to Seed the Clouds

In November 2008, McCloud resident Angelina Cook discovered a Notice of Intent buried in the local paper announcing that, in two weeks, PG&E was going to begin a cloud seeding project in the McCloud-Pit River basin, just east of Mt. Shasta. On the heels of a successful campaign to prevent Nestle, the multinational water giant, from building a water bottling plant in nearby McCloud, Cook was immediately alarmed.

Cook holds a degree in International Environmental Policy, but she abandoned her dreams of working abroad when she discovered Mt. Shasta. "I love this place," she said when we met for lunch at one of the tiny town's two health food stores. Despite her education, Cook told me, her first question on discovering PG&E's plan was simple: "What is cloud-seeding?"

Some quick research revealed that weather modification through cloud seeding with silver iodide is not new to California. Also known as "precipitation enhancement," the state's first significant cloud seeding operation was launched by California Electric Power Co. in 1948 in the Owens River basin. Since then, it has been done in several California river basins, in every case to increase water supply or hydroelectric power.

With a little more digging, Cook learned that PG&E's project is included in the draft 2009 California Water Plan, with the objective of increasing the energy yield of PG&E's McCloud-Pit hydropower project by 5 percent. Compared to other methods of capturing water, the financial cost of cloud seeding is relatively low, averaging around $20 per acre-foot of water. This, and PG&E's powerful lobby in Sacramento, undoubtedly appeal to state policy makers. However, opponents argue, the environmental costs of cloud seeding are prohibitive.

Cook was surprised to learn, as she researched the plan, that unlike other large-scale resource management practices with potential environmental impacts, cloud seeding is completely unregulated in California. "That is," she says, "if it is done by corporations or private landowners." If a municipality or other public sector entity wants to seed the clouds, she learned, they must go through a formal environmental impact review process.

Despite cloud seeding's decades-long history in California, the practice is poorly understood and its effects largely unknown. A 2003 report from the National Research Council entitled "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research" showed that there is no conclusive evidence of the efficacy of weather modification. Two reports published in Science, one the world's top-ranked scientific journals, also point to very few cases of measurable success.

What is known, on the other hand, is that levels of silver iodide (AgI) accumulated in non-biological materials are one to two orders of magnitude higher in cloud seeded areas than in non-cloud seeded areas, and are significantly elevated in fish and other biota; a report from the U.S. National Biological Service ("Silver Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates") calls silver in its ionic form "one of the most toxic metals known to aquatic organisms."

Biologist and Mt. Shasta resident Frances Mangels is the former District Wildlife Officer for the US Forest Service in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and a vocal opponent of cloud seeding. Mangels cites many concerns about the local ecology, including abnormal acidity of local waters, and a marked loss of aquatic insects.

"Silver-iodide is an aquatic insect poison," Mangels says. "Cloud-seeding has never been adequately shown to work; it fails ninety-five percent of the time, and it's poison. Doesn't that say it all?"

With her concerns apparently justified, Angelina Cook called the McCloud community service district and Siskiyou County's Natural Resource Specialist, and found that they knew nothing about PG&E's plan. Having worked for years as part of the effort to oust Nestle from McCloud, Cook had significant experience waging environmental campaigns; she and other residents lost no time in building similar momentum to take on PG&E.

"But what does the struggle against Nestle in McCloud have to do with the concern about cloud seeding here?" I asked her.

"This whole region is the headwaters of the Sacramento River, the aorta of California," she said. "Surface water, groundwater, and atmospheric waters are inherently linked," she said. "But while surface waters are protected under public trust, ground and atmospheric waters are totally unregulated. I find this absurd."

Another local constituency who find California's fragmented regulatory framework absurd are the region's first peoples. The Mt. Shasta area is the ancestral territory of several tribes, including the Winnemem Wintu, or Middle-water people. A small, unincorporated tribe of some 123 members, the Winnemem Wintu have been outspoken opponents of state and corporate water policies at least since several of their villages and sacred sites were relegated to oblivion by the construction of Shasta Dam decades ago.

Now, they say, most of PG&E's cloud generators are located on their land, and on private land immediately adjacent to it. Tribal representative Louisa Navejas says, "Our view of cloud-seeding is pretty simple. There is a reason why the rains come in the winter. It is meant that these rains flush the waters and heal the rivers and springs, and carry all the nutrients, the sediments and the food for all the life down the waterways to the ocean, where the ocean also needs to be fed. Silver iodide is neither a nutrient nor a purifier. It is a poison."

Many Mt. Shasta residents sympathize with this view; despite a flagging local economy and a dire need for jobs, many locals are aware that industry brings mixed blessings at best. Coca-Cola maintains a bottling plant just outside of town, and Crystal Geyser has a plant in Weed, just to the north; both plants extract unknown amounts of water, because the companies' right to free speech, as protected in both state and federal law, allows them not to disclose details about their extractive activities.

Seeing that the region would likely be under permanent threat due to its wealth of water, timber, geothermal resources and other natural wealth, Cook and her allies knew that an issue-oriented campaign would have only limited success. They sought a strategy that would not only prevent cloud seeding, but would get corporations out of their watershed once and for all. That was when they got a call from potential allies at the Community Rights Program of San Francisco-based Global Exchange and that program's key partner, the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), who were interested in taking precisely the same approach.

From a Regulatory Approach to a Rights-Based Approach

Founded in Pennsylvania in 1998, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a non-profit legal firm and advocacy group whose mission is to enable communities to challenge unsustainable economic and environmental policies set by state and federal law, and to construct legal frameworks that reject and overturn "corporate personhood."

Federal laws and state permitting processes, they argue, do not require corporations to seek community permission to site projects, no matter how dangerous or unpopular they may be. To the contrary, due to a century of legal precedent, corporations are given all the rights of "legal persons," which, coupled with their economic might, allows them to circumvent the rights of actual people.

A report on the Mt. Shasta case published by Global Exchange explains, "Corporations are created by State governments through the chartering process. Courts have bestowed upon corporations immense constitutional powers. Wielding those constitutional rights and freedoms, corporations routinely nullify laws adopted by communities, states, and the federal government. Nullification of those laws denies the people's inalienable and fundamental exercise of their right to govern themselves."

While all of the communities it has supported to date, in Pennsylvania, Maine and New Hampshire, are essentially facing environmental abuses, CELDF's strategy is to address these abuses not through the standard regulatory process, but through the restitution of communities' rights to self-government.

Having gained outside support for their efforts, locals formed the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project, an ad-hoc group devoted to drafting and promoting a rights-based ordinance to stop corporations in their tracks. Ami Marcus, one of the group's founders, says, "Regulatory ordinances don't allow us to say 'no'; rather, these laws dictate how much harm we have to tolerate. We found that only under a rights-based ordinance do we have the right to prohibit harmful activities."

In the summer of 2009, with legal support from CELDF, input from local ecologists, and feedback from then-mayor Tim Stearns, organizers began drafting language for what would become the Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance. By spring of 2010, they had gathered 700 signatures, representing more than a third of the town's residents, and the ordinance went to the City Council. With the requisite signatures, the Council had two choices: to enact the law as it was written, or to send it to a popular vote.

Mt. Shasta Is in for a Fight

On May 24, after a 30-day deliberation period, the Mt. Shasta City Council was to announce its decision. City Council meetings in the hamlet of Mt. Shasta are not generally exciting affairs; but the May 24th meeting was attended by over 120 citizens, making it one of the largest City Council meetings since the town voted down a proposed federal penitentiary there 15 years ago. The meeting, held in the town's Masonic Lodge, represented perhaps a typical Northern California mix of ex-loggers and New Agers, lifetime residents and recent refugees from the smog and congestion of Southern California, as well as members of a newly-established local Tea Party group sporting signs in red white and blue marker declaring, somewhat incongruously, "Taxed Enough Already!"

Commenting on the potential of the ordinance to unite diverse interests, resident Molly Brown said, "People, regardless of their political or environmental inclinations, can agree that we should decide what happens where we live."

Ben Price, an organizer with CELDF and one of the ordinance's authors, flew in from Pennsylvania to give the City Council his perspective: "This is a single-issue ordinance," he said. "The core of the ordinance is the right to water. Making it possible to assert that right is the assertion of pre-existing rights, such as the right to local self-government, the right to a healthy environment, the right not to have your environment or yourself poisoned, and the right not to have your authority to self-governed overturned by creatures of the state, namely corporations."

"Finally," Price said, "surrounding this multi-layered ordinance are two particular prohibitions: corporations may not engage in cloud seeding within the city of Mt. Shasta, and corporations may not engage in water withdrawals for export outside of the city."

Resident John Roshak said, "This is a chance for our community to stand with those communities in Appalachia facing mountaintop removal, with those in the Gulf facing the loss of their fisheries to the BP oil spill, and all communities seeing their environments massacred by corporate personhood."

After a meeting that stretched to 3 hours, with nearly everyone in the packed room offering testimony for or against, the City Council voted 5-to-0 to put the ordinance on November's ballot. However, despite the unanimous vote, several council members expressed deep concerns.

If the ordinance passes, Mt. Shasta will be the first community in California to pass a law asserting self-government, and stripping corporations of their rights within a local jurisdiction. Similar laws have been enacted in 125 communities in other states; these new laws excite advocates, who see such legal challenges as essential to reclaiming citizen power and promoting sustainability. But agencies and individuals tasked with enacting regulatory frameworks and upholding the law as it stands see ample cause for concern.

Ned Boss, a Mt. Shasta City Council member, said at the May 24 meeting, "The City does not have the power to enforce rules that are not in accordance with state law. This ordinance will have to be enforced by the courts. This could bankrupt the city."

Melinda Willey, a Mt. Shasta resident who had hosted an information-sharing event at her house the day before, told the City Council, "We are your bosses. But it is the state that sanctions your actions. So you are forced to choose between who you serve and who you are sanctioned by. This law will empower you to stand up for us."

A report prepared for the City Council by City Attorney John Kenney expressed concern about "logrolling," the common practice of combing numerous unrelated issues into a single initiative, said the ordinance "would create tremendous confusion," and declared it to be unconstitutional.

Chief among the report's concerns is precisely "the assertion of pre-existing rights": "The ordinance attempts to create new civil rights in contravention of those established by the California Civil Code. For example, it creates in all citizens of Mt. Shasta, the 'fundamental and inalienable right to a healthy environment...the right to a natural environmental climate unaltered by human intervention, and the right to protect the rights of natural communities and ecosystems....'" The ordinance, City Attorney Kenney's report states, "attempts to create new rights and liabilities that are contrary to the body of law establishing rights, liabilities and damages adopted by the state legislature. The City has no such authority."

The City Attorney's report, which served as the basis of the City Council's deliberation, concludes with an overarching concern: "What would happen if every city were allowed to pass ordinances superior to and conflicting with federal, state and other local laws? Each City's 'self-governance' ordinances would claim to be superior to any law of whatever origin to the contrary. Which would trump which? What would happen to the rule of law?"

Shannon Biggs, Director of Global Exchange's Community Rights Program, who spoke at the May 24 meeting, addressed that concern directly: "Slavery was legal and constitutional, but illegitimate and unjust, because it was depriving the rights of human beings. Our history has been peppered with opportunities for popular movements to drive new laws to protect rights. The suffragettes, civil rights.... Local self-governance is the new frontier in the ongoing movement for rights."

But City Council members are understandably reluctant to stand at this "new frontier." Despite their victory, members of the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project left the May 24 meeting concerned that they will face mounting opposition to the ordinance before November, not least from members of the City Council itself.

Jamie Lee, a resident of Anderson Valley in coastal Mendocino County, had driven for four hours to support the ordinance at the City Council meeting; his comments were addressed not to the council but to the organizers, and were prescient: "Don't think when you vote on this in November that you'll just check a box and go home and everything will be better," he said. "Mt. Shasta is in for a fight."

Jeff Conant is a writer based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the author of A Community Guide to Environmental Health (Hesperian Foundation, 2008) and A Poetics of Resistance (AK Press, 2010).


Nothing, for about 50 hours. This study was based on aluminum powder mixed with deionized water. The reaction with the 20 gram sample was significantly violent as it forcibly ejected some of the contents with sufficient force to embed it into the box cover.

"Silver-iodide is an aquatic insect poison," Mangels says. "Cloud-seeding has never been adequately shown to work; it fails ninety-five percent of the time, and it's poison. Doesn't that say it all?"

Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of
potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows:
Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”,which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes,skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.

Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous
substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant. Some industries have learned this all too well.