History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

CHAPTER XII.

Increase of the English fleet, A.D. 1066—Its participation in the Crusades to the Holy Land—Departure of the English expedition—Arrival at Messina—Number of ships—Their order of sailing—Arrival at, and capture of, Acre, 10th June, 1191—Richard returns to England—Maritime laws founded on the “Rôles d’Oleron”—Power to pledge ship and tackle—The sailors consulted—Laws relating to hiring—Drunkenness—Sickness—Damage to ship and cargo—Quarrels—Mooring of ships—Partnership in freight—Food—Obligation to carry the ship to her destination—Rules as to sailors—Demurrage—Bottomry—A bad pilot forfeited his head—Punishments—Shares in fishing vessels—Wreckers—Jetsam and flotsam—Royal fish—Timber of wrecks—Remarks on these laws—Code of Wisby—Magna Charta, A.D. 1215—Henry III., A.D. 1216—Naval actions—Cinque Ports—Increase of piracy—Measures for its suppression—Treaty of commerce with Norway, A.D. 1217, and facilities afforded to foreign merchants—English merchants first open trading establishments abroad—Origin of the Hanseatic League, A.D. 1241—Corporate seals—Sandwich—Poole—Dover—Faversham—Stanhope, vice-admiral of Suffolk—Duties of the Cinque Ports—Increased privileges to foreign merchants—Letters of marque first issued—Law for the recovery of debts, and adjustment of average—Shipping of Scotland, A.D. 1249—Extremely liberal Navigation Act—Chief ports of England, and extent of its shipping and commerce—Edward II., A.D. 1307-1327—Edward III., A.D. 1326-7-1377—Extension of English commerce—The discovery of coal—First complete roll of the English fleet, A.D. 1347—Quota of different ports—Pay of soldiers, sailors, &c.—War renewed, A.D. 1354—Death of Edward III., A.D. 1377—State of the merchant navy during his reign—Loss sustained by war, and encouragement afforded thereby to foreign nations—Rapid increase of the trade of Flanders—Trade between Italy and Flanders—Commercial importance of Bruges and Antwerp—Wealth of Flanders, and extent of its manufactures and commerce—Special privileges to her merchants—Progress of the Hanseatic League, and its system of business: its power too frequently abused.

Increase of the English fleet, A.D. 1066.

The accession of William the Conqueror to the throne of England produced important changes in the maritime affairs of that country, and gave to its over-sea commerce greatly increased security and stability. In their anxiety to recover the throne of Canute, the Danes had prepared a fleet for the purpose of invasion, which obliged the Conqueror to summon to his aid the whole of the naval resources of the island. Dover, Sandwich, and Romney were each called upon to provide, at their own expense, twenty vessels, equipped for sea, with crews of twenty-one men and provisions for fifteen days.[526] Rye and Winchelsea rendered similar assistance, and in return had conferred on them privileges similar to those which had been granted to the former places by Edward the Confessor. These ports were then for the first time styled the Cinque Ports, by which distinctive title they have ever since been known. Other ports had also to provide their quota. The fleet thus provided by the Conqueror was so fully maintained by Rufus, his second son and successor, that the learned Selden dates England’s maritime supremacy from that very early period. Still, for more than a century after the Conquest, her ships seldom ventured beyond the Bay of Biscay on the one hand, or the entrance to the Baltic on the other; and there is no record of any long voyages by English ships until the time of the Crusades, which, whatever they may have done for the cause of the Cross, undoubtedly gave the first great impetus to the shipping of England. The number of rich and powerful princes and nobles, who embarked their fortunes in these extraordinary expeditions, offered the chance of lucrative employment to any nation which could supply the requisite amount of tonnage; and English shipowners made great exertions to reap a share of the gains.

Its participation in the Crusades to the Holy Land.

The Earl of Essex appears to have been the first English nobleman who fitted out an expedition for the Holy Land, while, twelve years afterwards, Richard Cœur de Lion, on ascending the throne, made vast levies on the people for the same object; and, with the aid of Philip II. of France and of other princes, resolved to attempt to save the Cross from the grasp of the Infidels. Extraordinary exertions were made throughout both countries to provide the requisite armaments; and, towards the close of 1189, two fleets had been collected, one at Dover, to convey Richard and his followers (among whom were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Chief Justice of England) across the Channel; and a second and still larger one at Dartmouth, consisting of numerous vessels from Normandy, Poitou, Brittany, and Aquitaine, for the conveyance of the great bulk of the Crusaders, to join Richard at Marseilles.

Departure of the English expedition.

This expedition from Dartmouth set sail, under the command of Robert de Sabloil and Richard de Camville, towards the end of April 1190, and, after a disastrous voyage, showing clearly the incompetence alike of both officers and ships, succeeded in reaching Lisbon, where they committed such a series of disgraceful outrages upon the inhabitants, that seven hundred of them were for a time imprisoned: thence, they passed on, and at length, on the 22nd of August, reached Marseilles, from which, after a brief delay for necessary repairs, they followed the kings to the Straits of Messina, where they were all assembled on the 14th of September.[527]

Arrival at Messina.

Vinisauf[528] has described in glowing language the appearance of the fleet as it entered Messina. “As soon as the people heard of its arrival,” he says, “they rushed in crowds to the shore to behold the glorious king of England, and at a distance saw the sea covered with innumerable galleys, and the sounds of trumpets from afar, with the sharper and shriller blasts of clarions, sounded in the rear, and they beheld the galleys rowing in order nearer to the land, adorned and furnished with all manner of arms, countless pennons floating in the wind, ensigns at the ends of the lances, the beaks of the galleys distinguished by various paintings, and glittering shields suspended to the prows. The sea appeared to boil with the multitude of the rowers. The clangour of their trumpets was deafening; the greatest joy was testified at the arrival of the various multitudes, when thus our magnificent king, attended by crowds of those who navigated the galleys, as if to see what was unknown to him, or to be beheld by those to whom he was unknown, stood on a prow more ornamented and higher than the others, and, landing, displayed himself elegantly adorned to all who pressed to the shore to see him.”

Number of ships.

It was not, however, till the following year (April 10) that the fleet actually got under weigh for the Holy Land, numbering one hundred ships[529] (that is, of a larger kind), and fourteen busses. Each of the large ships carried, it is said, besides her crew of fifteen sailors, forty soldiers and forty horses, and provisions for one twelvemonth. The commander was also aided by fourteen other picked men, whom the chronicler calls “slaves.” But these, and other accounts of the capacity of ancient vessels are, like too many of the tales about shipping, not now reconcilable. We can only account for the numerous discrepancies as to the size of the vessels and the number of men and horses embarked, by some misapprehension on the part of the writers, or by some confusion in their application of the nautical expressions used by ancient writers, few of whom had any practical knowledge of the subject.

Their order of sailing.

Vinisauf describes the fleet as proceeding in the following order. Three large ships, filled with soldiers and stores, formed the van. The second line consisted of thirteen vessels, described as “dromons and busses;”[530] the third of fourteen vessels; the fourth of twenty; the fifth of thirty; the sixth of forty, and the seventh of sixty; the king himself, with all his galleys, forming the eighth line, and thus bringing up the rear for the better protection, as was considered, of the whole convoy. The lines were sufficiently near for a trumpet to be heard from one to the other; and each ship also was near enough to her consort to communicate by hailing. But though such an order of sailing might have succeeded during fine weather, the fleet was soon after dispersed during a gale off Ætna, the crews being “sea-sick and frightened;” while three ships were wholly lost on the island of Cyprus and their crews drowned, together with the Vice-Chancellor of England, whose body was washed on shore, with the Great Seal tied round his neck.

Arrival at, and capture of, Acre, June 10, 1191.

Richard returns to England.

After the successful capture of Acre, and a truce, as its consequence, with Saládin, Richard set out for England, where, however, he did not arrive till 13th March, 1194. On landing at Sandwich, he was received “amidst the joyful acclamations of his subjects,” or, as we may presume, of those chiefly who dwelt in the seaport towns; for these could hardly have failed to greet joyfully a monarch who had opened out the means of affording ample and lucrative employment to their shipping and seafaring population. Nor, indeed, were the merchants less handsomely remunerated; for to them, the progress of the Crusades procured the opportunity of developing many new and valuable markets for commercial enterprise.

Maritime laws founded on the “Rôles d’Oleron.”

Prevented by the jealousy and the restrictive policy of the Italian cities, English traders had hitherto not ventured on voyages so distant as the Levant, the general policy of the republics of the south throwing various difficulties in the way of foreign shipping. By the Crusades, however, the eyes of English merchants and mariners were alike opened to the successful undertakings of the Mediterranean traders; to them also is largely due the constitution of England’s first shipping code, based, as this was, on more ancient laws, with many improvements derived from the increased knowledge due to the recent experience of her mariners.[531]

Power to pledge ship and tackle.

By the first article in these laws a master had power to pledge, with the advice of his mariners, the tackle of the ship for the necessary provisions; but could not sell the hull without special authority from the owners. Previously, it had not been thought safe to entrust any one with the command of a ship unless he was a part owner or a freeman; but, by the laws of Richard I., these restrictions were abolished, and the qualifications and duties of the captain for the first time defined by statute. Everything on board being placed under the master’s care, he was required to understand thoroughly the art of piloting and navigation, that he might control the pilot. In a merchantman, the first officer was then practically the master, the second, the pilot;[532] the third, the mate; the fourth, the factor or supercargo; then followed his assistant, and after him came the accountants, surgeon, steward, four corporals, cook, gunner, and coxswain, the two latter having their quarters before the mast with the ship’s crew, but receiving higher wages.

The sailors consulted.

By the second article if a vessel lay in port, waiting for weather and a wind, the master was instructed, when the time for departure arrived, to call together his ship’s company and inquire what they thought of the wind and weather. A difference of opinion arising, he was bound to be guided by the majority, and was legally responsible, if any accident happened, to make good damages caused by his unsupported act. It was, in fact, a standing rule for the master to act with the advice of the greater part of his ship’s company and of the merchants, if any were on board.

The third clause provided, that if the ship’s crew should not, unless under compulsion, do everything in their power to save the vessel and cargo from shipwreck, they should forfeit their wages. If they saved a part of the cargo they were sent home, by raising money on the goods so saved.

The fourth article, relating to salvage, was very similar to that enacted by the Rhodian law, the allowance of the half, third, or tenth of the articles saved being regulated according to the depth of the water out of which they were raised. Any promises extorted by danger were either void or not too strictly interpreted.

The fifth article provided, that no sailors in port should leave the vessel without the master’s consent. The practice of the time required that the sailors should carefully look after everything that related to the preservation of the ship and goods; and if any damage accrued by their absence without licence, they were punished by a year’s imprisonment and kept on bread and water. If any accident happened so as to cause death, resulting from their absence, they were flogged. Special punishments were by law, as well as practice, inflicted for damaging the cargo; and very detailed instructions were given how certain goods were to be stowed and delivered. The laws in all cases against desertion were very severe. In some places the sailors were marked in the face with a red-hot iron, so that they might be recognised as long as they lived.

Laws relating to hiring.

Provision was, however, made for such seamen as ran away by reason of ill-usage;[533] while in the case of a double engagement, the master first hiring a sailor was entitled to claim him, and any master knowingly engaging a hired sailor, was amerced in double the amount of wages. The sailor became entitled to his discharge on four grounds: in the event of his being made master or mate of another ship; if he married, in which case, however, he was obliged to refund what he had received; if he made any proviso in his articles for quitting the ship; and if the voyage was concluded, and the ship disarmed and unloaded, with her sails, tackle, and furniture taken away and secured. Provision was also made for compensation to the sailor, in the case of a master giving him his discharge at his pleasure only and without lawful cause. A master, however, could dismiss a mariner for incompetency, especially a pilot, and in such cases no wages were payable. Unqualified persons were in many cases punished for having accepted situations on board for which they were incompetent; and a sailor proved by two witnesses to have any infectious distemper, could be put on shore. The law quaintly laid down that a master might turn away any quarrelsome or thievish, factious fellow, but as to the latter, “he should have a little patience to see if he can be brought to reason.”

Drunkenness.

Sickness.

Damage to ship and cargo.

By article sixth, drunkenness, quarrelling, and fighting, were severally punishable, and mutinous mariners were compelled to refund their wages. Mariners wounded in the service of the ship were provided for. The seventh regulation stipulated that in the case of sickness seizing any of the crew while in the service of the ship, they were to be sent on shore with a ship’s boy to attend upon them. The eighth prescribed the formalities to be observed in throwing goods overboard to lighten the ship, which were much in the same way as had been laid down in the Rhodian laws. Similarly the proportional average, pound for pound, payable by each party so damnified, was framed upon the French law, livre à livre. The ninth article applied to the destruction of the masts and sails, in order to save the ship and cargo; and the rules to be followed were nearly the same for collecting the averages as those which are now adopted. The tenth article relates to damage arising from imperfect dunage, for which the master and mariners were liable to the merchant in the event of any injury, through neglect in this respect, to his merchandise.

Article eleventh refers to damage of goods, or loss of wines or other liquids, by the breaking in of the head of the cask, and generally to all damage arising from improper stowage. It would appear that persons, like the present Stevedores, who look to the stowage of the cargo, existed at a remote period, with the title of arrimeurs, or stowers. They were then paid by the merchant, and their business was “to dispose the cargo properly, stowing it closely, and arranging the several casks, bales, boxes, bundles, in such a manner as to balance both sides, fill up the vacant spaces, and manage everything to the best advantage.” There was also a class called Sacquiers, who were very ancient officers. Their business was to load and unload vessels with cargoes of salt, corn, and fish, to prevent the ship’s crew defrauding the merchant by false tale, or otherwise cheating him of his merchandise.

Quarrels.

The twelfth article throws great light upon the existing manners of the sailors of those days. The master having hired his crew was invested with the duty of keeping peace. He was, in fact, their judge. If any of them gave the lie to another at a table, where there was wine and bread, he was fined four deniers; but the master himself offending in that way had to pay a double fine. If any sailor impudently contradicted the master, he was fined eight deniers; and if the master struck him, whether with the fist or the open hand, he was required to bear the stroke; but if he struck more than one blow the sailor might defend himself; whereas, if the sailor committed the first assault, he had to pay one hundred sous, or lose his hand. It would appear that the master might call the sailor opprobrious names, and in such case he was advised to submit, and hide himself in the forecastle out of his superior’s sight; but if the master followed, the sailor might stand upon his defence, for the master “ought not to pass into the forecastle after him.”

The thirteenth article[534] enacted, that, if a difference arose between the master and the seaman, the former ought to deny him his mess thrice[535] before he turned him out of the ship. If the latter offered satisfaction and was refused and turned out of the ship, he could follow the ship to her port of discharge and claim full wages. The master not taking any seaman in his stead, in such cases, rendered himself liable for any damage accruing. The Hanseatic laws required the master not to give the seamen any cause to mutiny; nor to provoke them by calling them names, nor wrong them, nor “keep anything from them that is theirs, but to use them well, and pay them honestly what is their due.”

Mooring of ships.

The fourteenth and fifteenth articles relate to the regulations of mooring ships, and to injuries sustained through “striking against each other.” The law of damage is laid down at great length, and buoys, made of empty barrels, pieces of any description of light wood, baskets, or any articles which float buoyantly on the top of the water, are required to be used to prevent accidents and show where the anchors lie, when in port.

Partnership in freight.

The sixteenth clause required the master to ask the crew, when a ship was ready to load, “Will you freight your share yourselves, or be allowed for it in proportion with the ship’s general freight?” and the sailors were there and then bound to answer, and make their election.[536] If they elected to take their risk, a curious practice resulted. In the event of taking on board a cask of water instead of a cask of wine, they might deal with their own stowage as of right; and, in the event of throwing cargo overboard, to lighten the ship, they had the privilege of refusing to throw over a cask of water in preference to a cask of wine. If the water, however, was thrown overboard, the mariner came in upon the general average; although, by the common law of England, a tun of water was never rated, pound by pound in value, with a tun of wine.

Food.

By the seventeenth clause the sailors of Brittany were restricted to one meal a day from the kitchen, while those of Normandy had two meals; and when the ship arrived in a wine country, the master had to provide them with wine.[537] The practice of serving out a certain allowance of food is very ancient, and to prevent jealousies, complaints, and quarrels on this account, the law prescribed a specified quantity to be supplied to each man exactly alike. When wine was provided, the mariner had one meal per day, but when water alone was served out, he had two meals.

Obligation to carry the ship to her destination.

The eighteenth article provided, that when a ship was unladen, the sailors could demand their freight; but from those of them having neither bed, chest, nor trunk on board, the master could retain a portion of their wages, till the vessel was brought back to her final port of destination. It was ruled that the wages were not due till the work had been entirely done, unless a special agreement subsisted to the contrary, for “freight was the mother of wages.”[538]

Rules as to sailors.

The rights of sailors hired per day, or week, or month, where freight was not procurable, were secured by the nineteenth article, which stipulated that if an engagement was broken off by war, pirates, or the command of his sovereign, the seaman was entitled to have a quarter part of his wages for the full term of his engagement.

The twentieth clause provided that, when in a foreign port, only two sailors from the ship might go on shore at a time, and take with them one meal of victuals, “as much as they can eat at once,” but no drink. They were bound to return to the ship in season, so as not to lose a tide, and they were held responsible for any damage resulting from their default.

Demurrage.

The twenty-first clause related to detentions, and provided for the payment of demurrage. If a merchant, having freighted a ship, did not load her by the time appointed, he was bound to make compensation for such delay, and the sailors were entitled to a fourth part of the amount; the remainder being allotted to the master, he finding the crew in provisions. Formerly, eight days were allowed the merchant to unload, which afterwards was extended to fifteen. But that did not affect the payment of freight, which was required to be paid in eight days, whether the ship was discharged or not. The master could not detain the goods on board for freight, but when in a boat or lighter, he was entitled to stop them until he was satisfied.

Bottomry.

The twenty-second clause relates to selling goods on board, to provide for the ship, in which the laws of bottomry were enforced.[539]

A bad pilot forfeited his head.

The twenty-third clause was a frightful instance, copied from the so-called Rhodian laws,[540] of barbarous legislation. It enacted that if a pilot, or “lockman,”[541] for such was the term applied to harbour pilots, undertook to carry a vessel into port, and the vessel miscarried through his ignorance, and he had no means to make good the damage, or otherwise render full satisfaction, he was condemned to lose his head.[542] While the twenty-fourth clause actually gave the master, or any of the mariners, or merchants on board, power to cut off the head of the offender without being bound in law to answer for it; they were only required to be very certain that the unlucky lockman who was hired at every river to guide the ship, in order to avoid rocks, shelves, shoals, and sand-banks, had not wherewith to make pecuniary satisfaction.

Punishments.

The twenty-fifth clause aimed at altering “the unreasonable and accursed custom” of lords of the coast, where a vessel was wrecked, claiming and seizing the third or fourth part of the ship, leaving only the remainder to the master, the merchant, and the mariners. “Therefore, all pilots who, in connivance with the lords on the coast,” or to ingratiate themselves with such nobles, ran the ship on shore, were doomed to a most rigorous and unmerciful death on “high gibbets near the place where these accursed pilots brought the ship to ruin, which said gibbets are to abide and remain to succeeding ages on that place, as a visible caution to other vessels that sail thereby.” The lords or others, who took away any of the goods, were also declared to be “accursed,” and were frequently punished as “robbers and thieves.” Indeed the twenty-sixth clause declared that, “If the lord of the place be so barbarous as not only to permit such inhuman people, but also to maintain and assist them in such villanies, so that he may have a share in such wrecks, the said lord shall be apprehended, and all his goods confiscated and sold, in order to make restitution to the parties, and himself be fastened to a post or stake in the midst of his own mansion-house, which being fired at the four corners, all shall be burned together; the walls thereof shall be demolished, the stones pulled down, and the place converted into a marketplace for the sale of hogs and swine only, to all posterity.”[543]

The frightful severity of this punishment was adopted to stop even greater barbarities inflicted upon wrecked mariners, in addition to the plundering of the ship and cargo. Neither the Gauls nor Britons hesitated to sacrifice strangers cast on their shores; and, unfortunately, the piracies of the Scandinavians and the Normans had the effect of perpetuating this sanguinary custom. Foreigners cast on shore were too frequently immediately despatched, and the right of plundering a wrecked ship extended alike to friend and foe. The execution of pirates, and such as were condemned for crimes committed on the high seas, and their being left to hang in chains by the water side, has survived in practice even to the present century.

Clause twenty-seven relates to the adjustment of losses by any accident resulting from an inferior outfit, and stipulates that when a vessel arrived at her port of discharge, she was to be hauled up on dry ground, the sails taken down, and everything properly stowed away; and that then the master ought to consider an increase of wages, “kenning by kenning.”[544]

Shares in fishing vessels.

The twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth clauses adjust the respective shares of fishing vessels, when several were working in partnership, and provide that in the case of the loss of one vessel, the representatives of the parties who had perished could claim their quota of the fish caught as well as of the fishing instruments. They further relate to the salvage of shipwrecked vessels, in which the right of all shipwrecked persons to their goods is fully maintained; and refer to derelict ships and goods whose owners have been drowned, stipulating that such goods be kept a year, and if not claimed in that time be vested in the Church under certain conditions.

Wreckers.

The thirty-first clause provides that any wreckers who plundered a ship, or who, “more barbarous, cruel, and inhuman than mad dogs, did sometimes, to gain their apparel, monies or goods, murder and destroy poor distressed seamen; in this case, the lord of the country ought to execute justice on such wretches, to punish corporally as well as pecuniarily, to plunge them in the sea till they be half dead, and then to have them drawn from the sea and stoned to death.”

Jetsam and flotsam.

The thirty-second to the thirty-sixth articles inclusive refer to the laws of jetsam and flotsam, and provide that goods thrown overboard to preserve the ship and cargo do not change their proprietorship. Whilst the thirty-seventh clause relates to strays of the sea, such as whales[545] and other oil-fish, stipulating that if a man on horseback could reach the stray with his lance it was deemed a royalty belonging to the lord. But if the fish was found farther off the shore, the lord had no right to it, though afterwards brought or driven on shore.

Royal fish.

The five clauses which followed regulated the prevailing customs relating to sturgeon, salmon, turbot, the sea dragon, the sea barbel, and in general all fish fit for a king’s table; besides oil-fish such as whales, and porpoises, or of any fish of which oil could be made, and in which the lord had a title to a share. All other fish were declared to be the property of those who caught them in the sea, whether in deep or shallow waters; whilst the forty-third and forty-fourth clauses adjusted the title to goods which had become derelict. The forty-fifth provided that a vessel cutting her cables and putting to sea through stress of weather was entitled to recover their value. Buoys were directed to be placed over the anchors, and any person detaining them from the lawful owners was to be reputed as “a thief and a robber.”

Timber of wrecks.

The forty-sixth and forty-seventh articles applied to the timber of wrecks, when the crew were lost and had perished. The pieces of the ship were declared to belong to the owners, notwithstanding any custom to the contrary. “And any participators of the said wreck, whether bishops, prelates, or clerks, shall be deposed and deprived of their benefices respectively.” If they were laymen, they incurred the penalties previously recited.

Remarks on these laws.

Whatever opinion may be entertained of the barbarous character of the punishments enforced by these laws, it is undeniable that they are framed in a spirit of wisdom and justice towards the ship-owner. The lawless spirit of piracy, prevailing along the coasts in the time of Richard I., rendered it absolutely necessary, if a merchant navy was desirable, to protect the ships and the mariners, as well as the goods in them, by the stern authority of the civil law. The experience that Richard had acquired in sea affairs during his voyage to the Holy Land, made him sensible of the necessity of introducing into England the most salutary maritime regulations in force abroad. Accordingly the above code, of which we have furnished only a brief abstract, was established by him, or shortly after his death, to afford protection to those persons and interests, on which he saw clearly the commercial prosperity of England in great measure depended.

Code of Wisby.

At a later period, the merchants of Wisby[546] framed their laws on the Rôles d’Oleron, which became, in fact, during the succeeding century and subsequently, the authoritative rule for deciding all maritime controversies not only in the Hanse Towns, but among all nations on the Baltic Sea. Further, it was declared by the forty-first article of Magna Charta, A.D. 1215, “that all merchants shall have safe conduct to go out of or come into England, and to stay there. To pass either by land or by water, and to buy and sell by the ancient and allowed customs without any civil tolls (an excessive tax on sales), except in time of war, or when there shall happen to be any nation at war with us.”

Magna Charta, A.D. 1215.

Lord Justice Coke, in his comments on this famous charter,[547] is of opinion that the merchants here mentioned were strangers, as few Englishmen at that time traded directly with foreign countries; some years elapsing before an English association began conducting, on its own account, a foreign trade with English wool, tin, lead, and leather. But during the reign of King John, the merchant navy found abundance of profitable employment, for the wars he engaged in required a large amount of tonnage. Moreover, the ship-owners and seamen are known to have supported him in his contentions with the nobles;[548] and William of Malmesbury speaks of the fame of London for its extensive commerce, and of the crowd of foreign merchants, especially Germans, who flocked there, and filled the Thames with their ships. Bristol, also, appears from the same authority to have been then a flourishing port for ships from Ireland, Norway, or other foreign parts. But the people, and especially the monks and nobles, complained loudly of the taxes levied for the hire of the merchant shipping, although a large portion of the great wealth amassed by the ecclesiastics of the period was undoubtedly derived from trade, and most likely from their private and personal investments in maritime pursuits.

Henry III., A.D. 1216.

Naval actions.

Cinque Ports.

When Henry III. ascended the throne, and the barons arrayed themselves in opposition to Louis of France, their former ally, so many actions by sea ensued that the maintenance of the navy became a necessity. An English fleet of forty galleys and other vessels attacked and defeated a French squadron of more than double its size; the English, on the authority of Matthew Paris,[549] attacking their opponents by “a dreadful discharge of arrows from the crossbow-men and archers,” rushing against them with their iron beaks, “and availing themselves of their position to windward by throwing pulverised quicklime into the French, whereby the men were blinded.” In this celebrated action, which some have called the commencement of England’s dominion of the sea, the vessels contributed by the Cinque Ports[550] greatly distinguished themselves, and obtained thereby further privileges. Thus they were commissioned “to annoy the subjects of France,”—in other words, to plunder, as they pleased, not merely the merchant vessels of that country, but “all they met of whatever nation, not sparing even their own acquaintances and relations,”[551]—a system of piracy which other Channel ports were not slow in adopting. Indeed, between the privateer and the pirate there was then so little distinction that, when Henry attempted to suppress these lawless acts, he found it necessary to hang indiscriminately about thirty of the most guilty.

Increase of piracy.

Measures for its suppression.

But piracy, under the plea of retaliation, rapidly spread among the ships of other nations. The Normans, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh fitted out their marauders, pillaging not merely every vessel they could successfully cope with at sea, but also various towns along the coast. The whole Channel swarmed with pirates, and the spoils of rapine were too often preferred to the slower acquisitions of honest industry by those who thought themselves powerful enough to be robbers; a state of things naturally much increased during the long contest between Henry III. and his nobles. During this period, indeed, foreign commerce was almost annihilated. Wines, which used to sell for forty shillings, realized ten marks; wax rose from forty shillings to eight marks, and pepper from six pennies to three shillings a pound; while the scarcity of ordinary merchandise, especially of salt, iron, steel, and cloth, together with the stagnation in all exportable articles, owing to the interruption to navigation, was so great, that the industrial classes and many of the merchants were reduced to want and beggary. Still more stringent measures were therefore found necessary to sweep the seas of these pirates; for the English nation had become seriously alarmed. A great increase was consequently made in the fleet. A lord high admiral, and guardian of the sea and maritime ports, by the name of Topham, was for the first time appointed; and to him all ships of war were rendered responsible for their conduct.

Treaty of commerce with Norway, A.D. 1217, and facilities afforded to foreign merchants.

But though so much trouble had arisen from pirates and other marauders, many changes of great importance in the development of the maritime commerce of England were inaugurated during the long, though generally feeble, reign of Henry III. Thus a treaty of friendship between England and Norway[552] formed one of his earliest acts, whereby the merchants and subjects of both kingdoms obtained full liberty of personal intercourse. The merchants of Cologne[553] were then also allowed to establish a hall or factory (known as their Guildhall), which soon became the general rendezvous in London of all German merchants, and the place of business where they disposed of their merchandise, and found safe and comfortable abodes; while, not long afterwards, they were allowed to trade at all the fairs throughout England.[554] French ships, laden with corn, wine, or provisions, then received permission to come into, or go out of, English ports unfettered by former restrictions. A quay was formed at Queenhithe, where vessels belonging to the Cinque Ports could discharge their cargoes; and here, also, the first fish market was established.

English merchants first open trading establishments abroad.

Origin of the Hanseatic League, A.D. 1241.

Liverpool then first became known as a place of maritime trade, although it continued to be ranked as a “village,” attached to the parish of Walton, till as late as 1699.[555] Brunswick was invited to have commercial dealings with England, and protection was afforded to its citizens. In Henry’s reign, too, there were built at Yarmouth, Winchelsea, and other ports, many vessels of a superior description to any that England had hitherto produced.[556] During the same period an association of English merchants obtained privileges from the Earl of Flanders (A.D. 1248), and established in the Netherlands depôts of English wool, lead, and tin. These adventurers were long known as the merchants of the staples of England. Previous to the reign of Henry III. all foreign merchants had been compelled to sell their goods on board their vessels; but in consideration of a payment of 100l. (cash) towards a supply of fresh water for the city of London, and of fifty marks to the lord mayor (annually), the merchants of Amiens, Nele, and Corbie, and of Normandy, were then allowed to land and store their cargoes.[557]

The formation of the Hanseatic Association was, however, the most important commercial event of Henry’s reign. Though its origin, like that of many other great communities, cannot be precisely ascertained, it seems probable that it arose out of an agreement, entered into in the year 1241 between the merchants of Hamburg and Lubeck, to establish a guard for the mutual protection of their merchandise against robbers; a precaution the more necessary, as men of the first rank were then but too ready to profess openly the trade of robbery on land, and of piracy on the seas.[558] As this powerful corporation, the most important in the commercial history of the middle ages, in time exercised great influence over the commerce of England, and of the whole of the north of Europe, we shall have frequent occasion to refer to its commercial operations.

Corporate Seals.

It is to be regretted that no reliable information as to the number, size, or form of the English merchant vessels of this period has been preserved. We have, consequently, been obliged to seek information on this subject from the Corporate Seals of different towns which have fortunately been preserved, and are represented in the following drawings.

Sandwich.

1. Is a corporate seal of the cinque port Sandwich, of about the date A.D. 1238. This curious seal shows that English ships were then provided with sails, which were furled aloft as at the present time, and, further, that they carried their long-boat on deck amid-ships, as do most merchant vessels now.

SANDWICH.

Poole.

2. A seal of the town of Poole, A.D. 1325, exhibits a sheer of remarkable height, with the representation of the castle aft and forwards, the name of which is preserved in the present word “forecastle,” for the portion of the vessel towards the bow. The anchor may also be noticed, hanging clear over the bows and ready for use.

POOLE.

Dover.

3. Is an exceedingly well preserved seal of Dover, of A.D. 1284, exhibiting similar elevated portions at the stern and bow for the use of the fighting men, with a curious representation, also, of a sailor ascending the shrouds, across which, no doubt, ratline lines were placed, though these can hardly be detected in the drawing. This seal has some other special details, as on the forecastle two men blowing trumpets in different directions; on the after deck, a man steering with a long oar over the side; and on the main deck, two sailors apparently coiling the cable.

DOVER.

Faversham.

4. Is the seal of about the same period of the town of Faversham. It is remarkable for the amount of detail preserved on it. On this, as on the seal of Sandwich, two sailors may be noticed seated aloft on the yard in the act of furling the sail. On the deck is an officer giving the word of command, and in the castle over the poop a man holding a standard. On the fore deck are five soldiers variously armed with spears and axes, and, near the top of the mast, is the castellated object often observed on similar seals, indicating the crow’s nest.

FAVERSHAM.

Stanhope, vice-admiral of Suffolk.

5. A seal of Michael Stanhope, vice-admiral of Suffolk, of a somewhat later date, is remarkable in that it represents a ship with four masts and a bowsprit. Each mast has a single yard, with the lug sail furled on the three smaller ones, and set on the fourth and largest. The bow is ornamented with a crocodile’s head, his back appearing to form the roof of the forecastle. Over the bow is the anchor triced up to the side of the vessel.[559]

MICHAEL STANHOPE, VICE-ADMIRAL OF SUFFOLK.

Duties of the Cinque Ports.

By the charter granted in the twenty-second year of the reign of Edward I., the Cinque Ports[560] were bound to provide, at any time the king passed over the sea, not less than fifty-seven ships fully equipped, each to have twenty armed soldiers maintained at the cost of the ship-owner for fifteen days. Soon afterwards, the constable of Dover Castle set forth, in a proclamation, the proportion of ships which these and other ports, admitted to certain privileges, were bound to furnish. The total number thus collected amounted to seventy-eight vessels, of which Hastings had to supply eighteen; Bekesbourne, in Kent, seven; Rye, five; Winchelsea, ten; Dover, nineteen; Folkestone, seven; Faversham, a similar number; and Sandwich with Deal and other minor places, five: the whole to be ready and properly “armed and arrayed,” each to carry twenty men besides the master and mariners, who were to serve five days at the expense of the ports and afterwards at that of the king’s.

The nucleus of a national navy was thus established. In cases of emergency, other vessels were obtainable from London or built for the occasion by the government; and to make certain of a still further supply, the whole merchant service were required to be ready within forty days from the time of the summons. The “Cinque Ports,” for their five days’ service, paid the masters sixpence, and the sailors threepence per day.[561]

Increased privileges to foreign merchants.

Although the reign of Edward, like that of his predecessor, was unfortunately marked by many contentions at home and abroad, the interests of commerce were not neglected, and foreigners obtained privileges far beyond any they had previously enjoyed.[562] Those, for instance, who repaired to England were not merely granted full quiet and security, but they were exempted from all differential duties and special restrictions, and from the payment of either “murage, pontage, or pavage,” although in cities they were only allowed to sell their goods by wholesale, except in the case of spices or mercery wares. Goods of any kind might be exported or imported, with the exception of wine, which could not be re-exported without a special licence. Foreign merchants were also allowed to take up their abode at any town or borough in the kingdom, subject only to the civil and municipal laws of the country. The crown promised not to seize their goods without making full satisfaction. Bargains were to be enforced after the “earnest penny” had passed between the buyer and seller; and all bailiffs and officers of fairs were commanded to do justice without delay, from day to day, “according to the law of merchants.” Before goods were weighed, it was stipulated that both buyer and seller were to see that the scales were empty and of equal balance, and all weights were to be of one standard. When the scales were balanced, “the weigher” was expressly required to remove his hands. Moreover, in all trials by jury, in which strangers were interested, the jury was to consist of half Englishmen and half foreigners.

Letters of marque first issued.

It was also in the reign of Edward I. that letters of marque appear to have been for the first time issued. A merchant of Bayonne,[563] at that time a port of the English dominions in Gascony, had shipped a cargo of fruit from Malaga, which, on its passage along the coast of Portugal, was seized and carried into Lisbon by an armed cruiser belonging to that country then at peace with England. The king of Portugal, who had received one-tenth part of the property, declined to restore the ship and cargo, or make good the loss; whereupon King Edward’s lieutenant in Gascony granted the owner of the ship and his heirs licence, to be in force for five years, to seize the property of the Portuguese, and especially of the inhabitants of Lisbon, to the extent of the loss he had sustained and of the expenses of recovery.

Law for the recovery of debts, and adjustment of average.

It was likewise during the reign of Edward (10th Oct., 1283) that parliament passed the famous “statute of merchants,” which gave a remedy for the due recovery of debts, “as for want of such a law many merchants were impoverished, and many foreign merchants desisted from trading with England.” It is remarkable that, in the required process, the debtor was supposed incapable of writing, and was, therefore, required to put his seal to a bill drawn by the mayor’s clerk, who thereupon affixed the royal seal prepared for that purpose. If, on judgment against him, the debtor was proved to have no property, he was imprisoned and fed on bread and water until the just demands of the creditors were satisfied.

Nor were Edward’s commercial enactments confined to those we have thus briefly noticed; for, understanding that certain citizens of London,[564] together with other merchants of England, Ireland, Gascony, and Wales, were in the habit of compelling the barons of the Cinque Ports and others to pay an average on articles which ought to have been exempted, as in the case of goods thrown overboard in storms, he ordained that the vessel with her apparel, provisions, and cooking utensils, “the master’s ring, necklace, sash, and silver cup,” as well as the freight for the goods brought into port, should be free of all such payments: on the other hand, that all other things in the vessel, not excepting even the seamen’s bedding, should bear a proportion of the loss incurred, and that the master should not be permitted to claim freight for goods so thrown overboard.[565]

Shipping of Scotland, A.D. 1249.

Extremely liberal Navigation Act.

In Scotland, as might have been expected, commerce was of even slower growth than in England, nor was it till the reign of Alexander III. that there was any real maritime force; and although the vassals of Scotland, as, for instance, the king of Man, were required to contribute ships for the use of the state in proportion to their lands, the king does not appear to have considered that such merchant vessels as these were of much value, as he passed a law whereby his merchants were prohibited for a limited period from exporting any goods in their own vessels, “because some of them had been captured by pirates, and others lost by shipwreck and by arrestments in foreign ports.” Of course, the inevitable result followed that, for a time, the merchant vessels of Scotland were totally extinguished. The enactment, however, for some unaccountable reason, seems to have given satisfaction, as the historians of the period remark that—“in consequence of these laws the kingdom abounded in a few years with corn, money, cattle, sheep, and all kinds of merchandise, and the arts flourished.”[566] It is, indeed, possible that Scotland may have imbibed the spirit of extreme liberality in its maritime policy which then prevailed throughout England, where it was evidently supposed that foreign merchants brought wealth which England could not otherwise have obtained. It is, perhaps, remarkable that we have no notice of any trading port of Scotland except that of Dunbar, which, at that time, was subject to the English crown.

Chief ports of England, and extent of its shipping and commerce.

Fortunately, however, a document has been preserved which furnishes the names of the chief ports of England during the reign of Edward I.[567] It is interesting and instructive. They were then as follows: Dover, Sandwich, Romney, Winchester, Rye, Hythe, Faversham, Hastings, Shoreham, Seaford, Portsmouth, Southampton, Dartmouth, Lymington, Weymouth, Poole, Humble, Lymne, Sidmouth, Chichester, Teignmouth, Frome, Fowey, Looe, Bodmin, Wareham, Falmouth, Bristol, Haverford-West, Caernarvon, Caermarthen, Landpadanour, Conway, Chester, Bridgewater, Cardiff, Oystermouth, Rochester, Gravesend, Northfleet, London, Harwich, Ipswich, Dunwich, Orford, Yarmouth, Blackney, Lynn, Boston, Wainfleet, Saltfleet, Grimsby, Hull, Ravensburg, Scarborough, Tynemouth, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and Dunbar. Such were the principal ports of England at the commencement of the fourteenth century. Some of these places are now hardly known for their trade, while the very names of others among them have long since disappeared. How changed since then are the seats and centres of England’s maritime commerce!

But we know nothing of the amount of shipping belonging to these ports for more than half a century afterwards; nor, till a comparatively recent period, of the extent of business carried on in England. Had such records been preserved, we should probably have seen that in the port of Liverpool alone, then scarcely recognisable, a larger amount of tonnage now arrives and departs during a week or even a day, than entered and left all these ports in the course of a year. The only document in the shape of statistics referring to shipping of the thirteenth century that can be discovered, is a return which states that, in the year ending 20th November, 1299, there arrived in the port of London, and in all the other ports of the kingdom, except the Cinque Ports, seventy-three vessels with cargoes of wine, of which the smallest had not less than nineteen tuns on board, from each of which the king, by ancient law, had the right to take, at a fixed price, two tuns for the use of his household.

But even this return conveys but a very vague and imperfect idea of the number of vessels then belonging to England, or of the extent of its maritime commerce; moreover, the importation of wine was then much larger in proportion to that of other articles of commerce than it is now. The Cinque Ports, from their wealth and exclusive privileges, were, doubtless, large consumers of wine and had great facilities for its storage.[568] London had long been, as it is now, pre-eminently the port for wine. To Edward I. is due the selection of the Vintry (a name still remaining) on the banks of the Thames, where vessels delivered their cargoes alongside the wharf. Thence they often proceeded up the river Fleet, as far as Holborn Bridge, to take in their return cargoes, the smaller ones occasionally ascending even as far as Battle Bridge, near the present station of the Great Northern Railway at King’s Cross.

Edward II., A.D. 1307-27.

Edward III., A.D. 1326-7—1377.

Extension of English commerce.

The twenty years’ reign of Edward II. is not marked by any events worthy of note relating to maritime commerce. Retrogression rather than progress was the result of his policy and of his constant troubles and contentions with neighbouring nations. When, however, he had been deposed, indeed almost immediately after the accession of Edward III., a considerable step in advance was made by the grant of fresh patents and charters to secure for the merchants of England further staples on the Continent. Nearly the whole of the wool trade had been previously carried on by foreigners, but the English now aimed at having “staples” in Brabant and Artois as well as in Flanders, whither they could freely send their own wool and dispose of it themselves from their own entrepôts. And in this they at length succeeded; for with their own capital they bought their wool, and exporting it in their own bottoms to a staple in Holland, Flanders, or France, disposed of it in those countries without the intervention of any second party or foreign merchant. This privilege was considered at the time a great step in advance; but now it is not easy to understand how the laws of any country could have withheld from its merchants the right to trade wherever or whenever other nations did not object.

The discovery of coal.

Such changes in the mode of transacting business tended materially to enlarge the knowledge of the English merchants, acquiring as they did from year to year, by their intercourse with the more refined and intelligent merchants of Holland and France, much information on subjects they might have learnt at an earlier period of their history had their rulers not embroiled them in constant wars with the very nations with whom they were now in direct communication. Again, though it is certain that, at least on the western side of England, the Romans had worked coal on or near the surface,[569] the opening of the great coal-fields near Newcastle first took place in the reign of this wise monarch—though, curiously enough, its value was sooner appreciated by foreigners than by the people of the country in which this vast source of wealth was found. For a considerable period after its discovery, the consumption of coal was supposed to be so unhealthy that a royal edict prohibited its use in the city of London while the queen resided there, in case it might prove “pernicious to her health.”[570] On the other hand, while England was thus prohibiting the use of the article which has made her by far the most famous commercial nation of either ancient or modern times, France sent her ships laden with corn to Newcastle, receiving coal as their return cargoes, and her merchants were the first to carry this now great article of commerce to foreign countries.

First complete roll of the English fleet, A.D. 1347.

For the first time we obtain also at this period something like reliable information with regard to the extent of trade of England and the number and size of her merchant vessels. Hitherto everything with regard to them, and indeed to the vessels of almost all other countries, has been, in a great measure, a matter of conjecture, the accounts preserved being so conflicting that scarcely more than the vaguest idea of their form or size can be ascertained. Nor, indeed, so far as we know, were there any returns of the actual strength of the navy of England or of the number of vessels which each port could send to sea on an emergency, until Edward III. ordered a roll to be prepared of the fleet he employed in the blockade and siege of Calais.[571]

From the details given in this roll we have the means of forming a tolerably correct impression of the merchant shipping of the time; and it is remarkable how small was the proportion of ships and men which the king himself supplied. Many of the ports, it will be seen, supplied a larger number of both than the king himself, these being, obviously, the merchant shipping at other times employed in the foreign trade of the country. This interesting document clearly shows that from the earliest period up to the siege of Calais, as was also the case for a long period subsequently, the English fleets were composed almost exclusively of merchant ships, contributed by the chief ports in the kingdom or in the dependent provinces.

Quota of different ports.

That Yarmouth, in Norfolk, should have supplied the largest number of vessels, is probably due to its herring fisheries, and to the great quantities of wool which were then shipped from that port to Brabant and the ports of Flanders and Holland.[572] Again, Fowey, in Cornwall, furnished more seamen than London, in all likelihood on account of the tin trade; while the now extinct port of Winchelsea, in Sussex, occupied the first position amongst the Cinque Ports, perhaps from its neighbourhood to the then chief ironworks in the country. Those places directly interested in foreign trade contributed rateably, in accordance with its extent, and not with reference to the number of their inhabitants. For instance, the city of York furnished only one small vessel with nine men on board; whilst the town of Newcastle, now becoming important as the port of shipment of sea-borne coals, furnished no fewer than seventeen ships.

Pay of soldiers, sailors, &c.

We also learn from this record that the Prince of Wales, who distinguished himself greatly in the expedition, had as his wage 20s. per diem; the Bishop of Durham, 6s. 8d.; thirteen earls 6s. 8d. each; forty-four barons and bannerets, 4s.; one thousand knights, 2s. Esquires, constables, captains and leaders, of whom there were four thousand and twenty-two, received 1s. each. Masons, carpenters, smiths, engineers, tent-makers, miners, armed gunners, from 10d. to 3d. per day; mariners, 4d.; whilst the Welshmen on foot had 4d. and 2d. But this roll is also valuable for what it omits to tell us. Thus if it be the record of the fleet before Calais, we cannot doubt that England then had many other vessels of naval and commercial importance, for, even at this period of English history, we find organized piracy was not extinct: thus, in November 1347, a Spanish fleet piratically seized and sunk (for the two nations were then at peace) ten English ships, on which a fleet of fifty ships was immediately sent to sea to make reprisals. In this fleet the King himself, with the Prince of Wales, and many of the nobility, embarked, and attacked off Winchelsea forty large Spanish carracks, fully manned and armed, and richly laden with cloth and other valuable commodities, capturing no less than one-half, and sinking or disabling most of the others.

War renewed, A.D. 1354.

Death of Edward III., A.D. 1377.

Unfortunately, in 1354, France again became the scene of war, which ended in the celebrated battle of Poictiers under Edward the Black Prince. In the campaign which followed the expiration of the truce, consequent upon the capture of the French king and the most of his army on the field of Poictiers, Edward collected a fleet of no less than eleven hundred vessels, in which were embarked one hundred thousand men, by whom Paris was successfully invaded; but at the siege of La Rochelle his good fortune deserted him, and his whole fleet, then under the command of the Earl of Pembroke, became the prize of the combined squadrons of France and of Castile. Although, on pressing demands for succour, Edward was enabled to fit out a fresh fleet of four hundred ships, of which he personally assumed the command, fortune and the winds proved adverse; and, after having been nine weeks at sea, he was unable to effect a landing on the French coast. Greater reverses followed, and the vast territories which the English possessed in France, and which they had maintained at so great a cost, soon sank into comparatively insignificant proportions. The death of the Black Prince, in 1376, preyed so heavily upon the king that he only survived him for twelve months; and in June, 1377, he died, after a reign of more than half a century, broken-hearted at the loss of his brave and distinguished son.

State of the merchant navy during his reign.

Loss sustained by war, and encouragement afforded thereby to foreign nations.

Although Edward, throughout the whole of his long reign, had encouraged a liberal commercial policy, and had devoted, in an especial manner, his attention to naval affairs, it was impossible for maritime commerce to flourish in the midst of turmoil and war. England, though she lost the greater portion of her unnatural territory in France, may have preserved, as against the fleets of that country, her superiority at sea, and her wars with France on the one hand, and with Scotland on the other, may have developed the natural bull-dog courage of her seamen; but war, while it lasted, transferred the bulk of her over-sea carrying trade to the ships of Spain, Flanders, Holland, and of the Mediterranean nations, the whole energy of her people, which might have been better employed in the development of her natural resources and manufactures, having been devoted to war and to the creation of its instruments of destruction. Commissioners were even summoned to London to hold a sort of naval parliament during these struggles with France, and to render an account of the number of vessels which each port could supply to the naval force of the country. The press warrants authorized the appointed officers to seize not merely all vessels lying in the several ports, but every vessel which came from sea during the continuance of the commission; and these vessels were frequently compelled immediately to discharge the whole of their cargoes, although their last port of destination had not been reached, till Edward, during the greater part of his reign, had actually more than one-half of the merchant vessels of the kingdom in his service.[573] Operations such as these could not fail to seriously injure the maritime commerce of England, and, at the same time, afford encouragement to foreigners to absorb her over-sea carrying trade.

But although the ships of Spain and of the Mediterranean were at first the chief gainers by this state of things, those of the more northern nations of Europe soon became, from the same causes, the most formidable commercial rivals of England. While the English were engaged in unprofitable conflicts, they were steadily increasing in wealth and commercial greatness. Flemish ship-owners, taking advantage of the constant disputes of England with France and Scotland, acquired a considerable portion of the trade which would otherwise have fallen to England, and materially increased their business relations with the Mediterranean, with Egypt, and the East. Nor were they alone in their efforts. The advantages to be derived from distant commerce had now become known to all the nations of the North; while they were rapidly gaining an insight into the most profitable mode of conducting it, and ascertaining the class of goods best adapted for the markets of the East, and the description of vessels most suitable for carrying on the trade.

Rapid increase of the trade of Flanders.

The people occupying the Netherlands, observing on the one hand how English genius and energy were being wasted in war, and, on the other, perceiving the vast progress of the Italian republics, and the wealth which their inhabitants had accumulated by their intercourse with the East, endeavoured, and with success, to imitate their example. Besides being carriers by sea they became themselves large manufacturers, opening up an extensive trade with Persia through the medium of Constantinople, and enjoying during the reign of Baldwin, Count of Flanders, an amount of prosperity second only to that of Venice, then the chief of the Italian republics. Protected by the franchises which their energy had wrung from their lords paramount, the inhabitants of Flanders were thus induced to apply themselves with vigour to commercial and manufacturing pursuits. Almost every town emulated its neighbour in works of usefulness or taste, exhibiting alike their habits of industry and their inventive genius. Their population increased to an astonishing extent, their wealth in a yet greater ratio; and the modern traveller may note in buildings still extant the superabundant pecuniary resources of that period, and the joint results of freedom from war and of unwearied industry.

Trade between Italy and Flanders.

Somewhere towards the close of the thirteenth century the merchant vessels of the Italian republics first began to frequent the markets of the Netherlands, and in 1318 Venetian ships brought to Antwerp spices, drugs, and silk-stuffs. The Hanseatic League, which had now become a commercial association of considerable importance, readily entered into relations with the Italian traders, so that the markets of Flanders became the best supplied of any in the north of Europe with the products and manufactures of the Mediterranean, Arabia and India, furnishing in exchange from their factories a variety of fine cloths in assortments adapted to the wants of the Eastern people. Thus, while England was distracted and impoverished by war, foreign merchants found safety and protection, and became greatly enriched, under the government of the Count of Flanders. The Flemings were satisfied with moderate duties. Whilst clearing their coasts of pirates and of hostile corsairs to the utmost extent in their power, they in all cases respected the property of shipwrecked vessels, which had too often been considered the prize of any promiscuous wrecker, and encouraged traders from all nations to frequent or settle on the banks of the Scheldt and the Meuse, many of whom realized large profits out of England’s folly or misfortunes.

Commercial importance of Bruges and Antwerp.

During the period of the commercial splendour of the Netherlands, Bruges and Antwerp were the chief entrepôts of the north of Europe for foreign goods. The former of these, in the course of the fourteenth century, had successfully negotiated favourable commercial treaties with the German empire, as also with Spain, Portugal, England, Scotland, and Ireland, which, in the following century, were extended with great advantage to Venice, Genoa, and Aragon; but, towards the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century Bruges was surpassed by Antwerp, where, after the discovery of the passage to India by the Cape, Flemish vessels trading with the East landed their cargoes. Antwerp had, indeed, previously to that period enjoyed a large and profitable maritime commerce. Apart from the many advantages which the port possessed, the liberal policy established by the Duke of Brabant and the privileges he conferred on foreigners had induced English, German, Genoese, and Florentine merchants to make it a rendezvous for their ships, and a depôt for storing their goods, whence they were distributed throughout the continent and the whole of the north of Europe.

Wealth of Flanders, and extent of its manufactures and commerce.

Some idea may be formed of the importance of Flanders and the Low Countries, and how they then surpassed all the other nations of northern Europe in wealth and commercial enterprise, from the fact that Ghent had no less than forty thousand looms constantly at work in the manufacture of cotton and woollen cloths. She likewise supplied in great abundance, and of superior quality, serges, fustians, and tapestries. Courtray possessed, in the sixteenth century, six thousand weavers’ looms; Ypres, four thousand, which produced very fine cloths, especially those of the scarlet colour so frequently specified in the tariffs of the countries of the South and East; while the Cloth Hall of that place was considered one of the most beautiful edifices of all Flanders. Oudenarde supplied tapestries which rivalled those of Arras: Tournay was famed for a peculiar description of serges. Louvain, though somewhat injured by the growth of other places, had employed in the fourteenth century four thousand looms; Mechlin, three thousand four hundred; and Brussels was, even at that early period, renowned for its woollen fabrics.[574]

Middleburgh, in Zealand, had then attracted to its market the merchants of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, who trafficked in its manufactures as well as in the productions generally of the country. Haarlem wove in its looms an extraordinary quantity of fine cloth and velvets much in request by the wealthy and prosperous Italian republics. The Low Countries received in return from Venice, spices, drugs, perfumes, cotton-prints, and silk stuffs. Genoa, Florence, Ancona, and Bologna, despatched also to Holland their silks, cloths of gold and silver, corselets, pearls, cotton, silk twist, alum, oils, and other articles of manufacture and produce. France sent to her ports the fine cloths of Paris and of Rouen, the common velvets of Tours, and the linen yarns of Lyons, besides wines in great abundance.

Special privileges to her merchants.

About this period the merchants of Brabant, Flanders, Zealand, and Holland, obtained from the king of France the privilege of establishing agencies in her chief commercial cities. Spain was likewise then largely engaged in over-sea commerce, and competed with the merchants of France and Italy in importing to the North sugar, cotton, dye-woods, and other articles of foreign growth; but it appears that they were so much molested by pirates, especially by the English, that in 1340 the cities of Ghent, Ypres, and Bruges, were obliged to seek and obtain from Edward III. a safe conduct[575] for the merchant shipping of Catalonia, Castille, and Majorca. In spite, however, of the king’s protection, so daring and regardless of all law were these marauders, that a few years afterwards two vessels laden with valuable cargoes, and sent by the merchants of Barcelona and Valencia for Flanders, were captured by pirates from Bayonne, and carried into an English port.[576]

Progress of the Hanseatic League, and its system of business.

The Hanseatic League having now become by far the most important commercial association in Europe, its merchants entered with zeal into the rich and prosperous trade which made Flanders and the Low Countries so conspicuous in the annals of the commercial history of the period. More than seventy cities and towns were associated with the League. Its chief agencies, firmly established at Bruges in Flanders, at Bergen in Norway, and at Novgorod in Russia, entirely monopolized for many years the trade of these countries. Its agents and factors, all of whom were mercantile men, were guided by rules and instructions emanating from head-quarters at Lubeck, and from these they had no power to deviate unless under extraordinary circumstances. They were not permitted to have any common interest with strangers, or to trust their goods on board any other merchant ships than those belonging to the places with which the association was in league. Wholly occupied in extending their own privileges and in securing for themselves the business of any place where they had established themselves, they soon became obnoxious to their rivals, and their counting-houses were frequently exposed to popular fury. When unable to obtain redress for the outrages thus committed against it, the League closed its warehouses, and its members withdrew from the place. They could inflict no more severe punishment for the wrongs they had sustained; indeed, the withdrawal of their trade was often considered so great a calamity to the inhabitants, that large concessions were made and new privileges granted to induce their return. More than once the League transferred their quarters from Bruges to Dordrecht in Holland, and, on each occasion, obtained fresh grants before they agreed to resume business in the former city.

Its power too frequently abused.

But the League was unable to obtain at Bruges the power and influence it too frequently exercised at other places; for it had there to contend with men of business habits and of considerable wealth, whose firms had long conducted business with distant countries, and who held large stocks of the same description of merchandise from which the League itself derived its chief profits. Moreover, the Flemings of Bruges imported in their own ships, or in those of the nations with whom they were in direct correspondence, the products of the East, the manufactures of Italy, and the wines of the South. At other places, however, and especially in the North, where the League had comparatively few competitors and none whom it could not crush when necessary, it exercised, at times, an overbearing dominion. Arrogant and despotic, it even claimed the right of having submitted for its sanction the question of the succession of the Danish princes to the throne. At Bergen it persecuted with inveterate rancour any foreigner who attempted to oppose it in trade; and, at Novgorod, it behaved in such a manner as more than once to arouse the severe displeasure of the Russian government. Nor did it hesitate, when it suited its purpose, to carry on maritime wars, frequently exercising the power of an European sovereign; and more than one potentate of the North experienced the terrible ravages caused by the fleets of this powerful and haughty commercial association.[577]