Peers, Politics and the Price of Pepper: Skinner v. the East India Company. (19th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paley, Ruth
• Is Part Of: Parliamentary history. Volume 36:Part 3(2017)
• Page Start: 314
• Page End: 332
• Publication Date: 2017-10-19
• Subjects: conventicles -- East India Company -- high court of parliament -- judicature -- law -- political confrontation -- presbyterians -- privilege of parliament -- Thomas Skinner; History -- Periodicals; 328.4109
• DOI: 10.1111/1750-0206.12315
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-2824

Abstract

Abstract: The case of Thomas Skinner v. the East India Company brought parliament to a standstill in 1668 in a confrontation between the Houses over their respective privileges that lasted nearly two years. There is no doubt that the case was exploited for political advantage by presbyterians anxious to block the passage of a new conventicles act, but that is far from being the whole story. This article examines for the first time the details of the case and reliability of Skinner's claims against the East India Company. It reveals that Thomas Skinner was somewhat of an obsessive fantasist who, far from being a presbyterian sympathiser, was close to the household of James, duke of York. At one stage his daughter was even reputed to be the mother of the 'pretended' prince of Wales. It concludes that Skinner was himself an unscrupulous opportunist, eager to exploit political and commercial uncertainty for private gain.