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

by W. S. Lindsay

CHAPTER XIII.

Treaties with Spain and the merchants of Portugal—Early claim of the right of search—Restrictive laws against the English, and in favour of foreign traders—Accession of Richard II., A.D. 1377—Character of the imports from Italy—Sudden change of policy—First Navigation Act, A.D. 1381—A rage for legislation—Relaxation of the Navigation Act, A.D. 1382-8—Free issue of letters of marque; and of commissions for privateering—Special tax for the support of the Navy, A.D. 1377—Superiority of English seamen—Their intrepidity and skill—Chaucer’s description of the seamen of his time—Henry IV., A.D. 1399-1413—Disputes between the Hanse and the English merchants—Agreement for guarding the English coasts—Henry V., A.D. 1413: his liberal policy, and ambition—The extent of his fleet—Size and splendour of the royal ships—Prologue of the “Dominion of the Sea”—England first formally claims dominion of the sea, about A.D. 1416—Prerogatives conferred thereby—First accounts of revenue and expenditure, A D. 1421—Law for the admeasurement of ships and coal barges—Henry VI. crowned, A.D. 1422—Marauding expedition of the Earl of Warwick—Distress among shipowners not royal favourites, A.D. 1461—Fresh legislative enactments—First “sliding scale” applied to the importation of corn—Relaxation of the laws by means of treaties, A.D. 1467—Treaties of reciprocity—Extension of distant maritime commerce, A.D. 1485—First English consul in the Mediterranean, A.D. 1490—The advantages derived from reciprocal intercourse.

Treaties with Spain and the merchants of Portugal.

Although Edward’s thoughts had been directed almost exclusively to the wars with France and Scotland, he found time to extend English enterprise beyond its then comparatively narrow limits by an advantageous treaty with Spain[578] in A.D. 1351, consisting mainly of an offensive and defensive alliance, so that neither nation were to afford any assistance to their enemies, nor injure each other, the merchants and seamen of both countries having, at the same time, full liberty to proceed by land or sea wherever they pleased with their merchandise. Spanish property found in any vessel taken by the English was to be restored to the owners, and English property similarly situated to be respected by Spanish captors; moreover, Spanish fishermen were permitted to fish on the coasts of England and Brittany, and were allowed to enter any English ports on the payment of the same duties and customs to which English vessels were subjected. A nearly similar treaty was concluded with Portugal in the name of the merchants, mariners, and communities of Lisbon and Oporto, in which, however, curiously enough, no mention is made of the king of Portugal.[579]

Early claim of the right of search.

Restrictive laws against the English, and in favour of foreign traders.

Accession of Richard II., A.D. 1377.

With the Flemings, treaties were made of a more restrictive character; thus, they were not to carry goods belonging to either the French or Spaniards; nor were the ship-owners of these countries allowed to become burgesses, so as to sail with Flemish papers. The papers of the Flemish ships were required to state the contents of their cargoes and their port of discharge, and to be attested by the magistrates of the port of departure, and also by the Count of Flanders. These treaties[580] contain the first suggestion of the simulation of a ship’s papers, so as to secure the ship and cargo from capture by making their owners denizens of a neutral power. Then arose, for the first time, those claims to the “Right of search” which England so long insisted upon, and maintained against the world in arms; claims not yet relinquished, though now rarely enforced. It must not, however, be supposed from these so far salutary regulations that Edward or his council had any knowledge of sound commercial legislation; for, in 1303, every English merchant was commanded to restrict his business to one commodity only, and to select at once the article he would trade in.[581] Five years afterwards they were by law prohibited from importing wine from Gascony, though, at that time, an English dependency;[582] while, with singular inconsistency, the Parliament of England, by an Act of 1378,[583] perceiving “the advantages derived from the resort of merchant strangers,” gave foreign merchants permission to remain in the kingdom as long as they had occasion, and to buy or to sell, wholesale or retail, provisions, spices, fruits, furs, silk, gold and silver wire or thread, and numerous other small wares. The merchant strangers could likewise dispose of various descriptions of cloths, linen, canvas, and other bulky articles of manufacture, in any city, fair, or market, though in quantities of not less than a piece, it being the privilege of freemen only to dispose of them by retail as well as wholesale, with the exclusive right also of retailing wines, foreigners being restricted to their sale in the casks in which they were imported.

In consequence of these changes in the laws, the merchants of Genoa, Venice, Catalonia, Aragon, and of other western countries, brought their carracks, galleys, and vessels of various descriptions to the ports of England, where, disposing freely of their merchandise, they received in exchange, wool, tin, lead, and other articles the produce of that country: Southampton proved so convenient and favourite a port of resort, that a Genoese merchant of great opulence offered to raise it to a pre-eminence above any other port of Western Europe, as the depôt for the Oriental goods the Genoese had hitherto conveyed to Flanders, Normandy, and Bretagne, provided the king would allow him to store his goods in the castle of Southampton. We cannot doubt that had this offer been accepted, this port would have become, to the great advantage of England, the entrepôt for the supply of the northern markets of Europe. The foul murder of this enterprising stranger, in the streets of London, put an end to his wisely-imagined scheme, English merchants ignorantly supposing that their own trade would prosper the more by the prevention of his plan.[584]

Character of the imports from Italy.

Feb. 10th, 1380.

Sudden change of policy.

From the accident of a Catalan ship, bound from Genoa to Sluys, the port of Bruges in Flanders, having been wrecked at Dunster in Somersetshire, an insight is obtained into the nature of the cargoes shipped at that period from Italy to Flanders. The merchants, in claiming the restoration of her cargo, enumerate its contents, viz., sulphur, wood, ginger, green and cured with lemon juice; raisins, writing paper, flax, white sugar, prunes, cinnamon, pepper, and a few other articles of minor importance;[585] thereby showing that this ship was freighted with the produce of India as well as of the Mediterranean. For all of these England might then have become the depôt, but her merchants could not, as yet, discern the advantages of a free intercourse with foreign nations; they still believed that a ruinous competition and the loss of their bullion would be the probable results; and in this spirit persuaded Parliament[586] to prohibit, unless under special circumstances, the exportation of bullion, either in the shape of coin or otherwise. They pretended, further, that under the existing regulations all their carrying trade passed into the hands of foreigners, who, in point of wealth, commercial experience, and command of shipping were far superior to themselves.

First Navigation Act, A.D. 1381.

Doubtless, there was some justice in these complaints. Foreigners, by law, were able to undersell the English in their own markets, as they could bring goods from foreign ports at rates of freight which would have been unremunerative to the shipowners of England. The first Navigation Act[587] was consequently passed, but, as one extreme frequently begets another, this law proved to be one of the most restrictive kind against foreign vessels. What effect it produced upon English shipping we have been unable to ascertain, as there are no statistical returns nor accounts, however crude, now extant, of the shipping and commerce of this period; but, unless it enhanced the rates of freight to the injury of the consumer, it could not have benefited those in whose interests it had been passed; while, on the other hand, any increase in the rates of freight would assuredly have tended to diminish the number of ships employed. The law of Edward I., in so far as it granted special privileges to foreign traders and their shipping, though it may have been necessary at the period, was certainly unjust towards the merchants and ship-owners of England; and it is not, therefore, surprising that they embraced the first opportunity to resort to extreme retaliatory measures against their wealthy and powerful foreign competitors.

Nevertheless, there was less wisdom in Richard’s law, “to freight none but English ships,” than there was in Edward’s answer to a petition to expel foreign shipping from his ports, “I am convinced that merchant strangers are useful and beneficial to the greatness of the kingdom, and therefore I shall not expel them:” but, while Edward’s policy encouraged the establishment of foreign trading associations in England, a clear advantage to the people generally, his ship-owners unquestionably suffered, as they had to struggle against laws the especial object of which had been the encouragement of foreign maritime enterprise. Edward would have displayed greater wisdom and sounder policy had he simply placed “merchant strangers” on an equal footing with his own people, and his country would have been spared the conflicts of navigation laws, which have raged with greater or less bitterness almost to the present day.

A rage for legislation.

As was natural, a protective system once inaugurated, other classes besides the ship-owners claimed its presumed advantages.[588] Thus, immediately afterwards, Richard issued a general proclamation, prohibiting the exportation of corn or malt to any foreign country, except to the king’s territories in Gascony, Bayonne, Calais, Brest, Cherburg, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other forts held for his majesty.[589] Nor was this all; frivolous pretensions led to frivolous laws: thus, the fishmongers of London were prohibited from buying any fresh fish to sell again, except eels or pikes.[590] No cloths could be exposed to sale except of a manufacture sanctioned by law;[591] dealers in provisions of all kinds were placed under the control of the mayor and aldermen of London;[592] no one was permitted to carry corn and malt, or food, or refreshments of any kind to Scotland;[593] while laws were passed with the idle object of maintaining the relative positions of the different classes of society, as though their rulers were hopeless of talent, industry, or honesty reaping their natural reward. Parliament actually enacted that no servant should remove from one hundred to another, unless travelling upon his master’s business; the wages for agricultural labour were fixed by law; children employed in husbandry up to twelve years of age were to be confined to that description of employment for life; farm servants were prohibited from carrying weapons, except bows and arrows for practice on Sundays and holidays; while enactments scarcely less absurd kept down the mechanics and labourers of the cities and boroughs.[594]

Relaxation of the Navigation Act, A.D. 1382-8.

But these evils found their natural remedy: the evasion of such restrictive laws was so general, that those affecting shipping were relaxed almost as soon as they had come into operation. In October, 1382, permission was given to English merchants in foreign ports, if they did not find in them sufficient native tonnage for their purpose, to ship their goods for England in foreign vessels;[595] aliens were allowed[596] to bring fish and provisions into any town or city, preparing them for sale in any manner they pleased; lastly, in 1388, it was enacted, in direct opposition to the recently adopted restrictive policy, that foreign merchants might sell their goods by retail or wholesale in London or elsewhere, any claims or privileges of corporations or individuals notwithstanding, while the late impositions on their merchandise were, at the same time, declared illegal and of no effect.[597]

It is alike curious and instructive to examine the many and inconsistent laws passed about this period to regulate maritime commerce, and to compel Englishmen as well as foreigners to conduct their business otherwise than they would have preferred for their own interests. Thus, in 1390,[598] foreign merchants bringing goods to England were required to give security to the officers of customs at the port of landing, that they would invest half of the proceeds in wool, hides, cloths, lead, tin, or other English commodities; while another law passed in the same year[599] provided that a merchant, drawing a bill of exchange on Rome or elsewhere, should lay out the whole money received for it within three months on articles of English growth or manufacture. But perhaps the most curious and unmeaning Act of this year was one[600] which, in order “to keep up the price of wool,” forbade any Englishman to buy that article from any one but the owners of sheep or of the tithes, unless in the staple, or to purchase wool, except on his own account for sale at the staple, or for manufacture into cloth: he was also forbidden to export either wools, hides, or wool-fells; although, by the same Act, full permission to do so when and how they pleased was granted to foreigners. By another Act, the merchants of England were obliged to export their merchandise in English vessels only; and the ship-owners were desired to carry them for “reasonable freights”!

Free issue of letters of marque, and of commissions for privateering.

Few reigns, in proportion to its extent, were likewise more prolific for the issue of letters of marque than that of Richard II. They were freely granted, for the purpose of revenging or compensating hostile aggressions on individuals, and also to enable the English creditor to recover debts, not only from foreign countries, but likewise from natives of his own country, whose property he could thus conveniently confiscate. Among the most conspicuous of these were the letters granted in 1399 to John de Waghen, of Beverley, against the subjects of the Count of Holland, because that prince had not compelled two of them to pay some money due to Waghen; while orders were actually issued to detain all vessels and property in England, belonging to Holland and Zealand, till the Count should determine this affair “according to justice.”[601] The people of Dartmouth took the lead in these semi-piratical acts, as they held from the king a general privateering commission, whereby they brought away (1385) various rich vessels from the mouth of the Seine, one of which, according to the testimony of Walsingham,[602] bore the name of “Clisson’s Barge”[603] (Clisson being at that time Constable of France), and “had not its equal in England or France;” while one of their merchants, with a fleet of his own, captured no less than thirty-three vessels, with fifteen hundred tuns of Rochelle wine.[604]

Special tax for the support of the Navy, A.D. 1377.

There can be no doubt that, at the period of Richard’s accession, the English navy was in a very neglected state, and wholly unfit to protect even the comparatively small number of English merchant vessels then engaged in foreign commerce. France, with fifty ships under the command of Admiral Sir John de Vienne, had made a descent on Rye, and, after plundering that town and neighbourhood, had levied a contribution of one thousand marks upon the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight; on the same occasion pillaging and burning Hastings, Plymouth, and Dartmouth; while the Scots, under Mercer, one of their most daring adventurers, plundered every English vessel that fell in his way, and thereby realised enormous booty.[605] The English government became, at length, seriously alarmed, and were induced, in October 1377, to pass the first law on record, whereby dues were levied on all merchant vessels frequenting English ports, for the purpose of restoring and maintaining an efficient royal navy.[606] The only exceptions made were those in favour of ships bringing merchandise from Flanders to London, and of the traders from London to Calais with wool and hides; every other vessel leaving the Thames was required to pay sixpence per ton; while a similar tax, payable weekly, was levied on boats engaged in the herring-fisheries, and one-third that amount on all other fishing-boats. A monthly duty of 6d. per ton had likewise to be paid by colliers, as well as by all merchant vessels sailing from any port in England to Russia, Norway, or Sweden.[607] In the belief that the Navy thus created would be applied as proposed, this tax was readily voted and as willingly paid by the shipowners; but, in the end, it was appropriated to entirely different purposes. There seems, in those days, to have been a restless desire, scarcely now wholly forgotten, to interfere with the affairs of other countries. Thus the “grand fleet,” when equipped, sailed under the command of the Duke of Lancaster and besieged St. Malo ineffectually, the natural result being that French cruisers ravaged the coasts of Cornwall, while a combined fleet of French and Spanish galleys sailed up the Thames to Gravesend, plundering and destroying the towns and villages along the Kentish shores.[608]

Superiority of English seamen.

Here again the merchant service came to the timely aid of the state.[609] The hostile galleys, on their way down the Channel with the view of ravaging every defenceless place on the coast, were met by a fleet of west-country merchantmen,[610] who had united for their mutual defence, and thus, for the present, checked their further course. Though their vessels were generally much smaller than those of the Spaniards and often more than over-matched by their superior equipment, the English far surpassed the seamen of the south in daring skill and hardihood. By the boldness of their attack, especially during inclement weather, they often, as in the present instance, achieved victories over their better found and more scientific adversaries. They had, however, a long career of thankless, though of noble and patriotic, struggles. Heavily taxed for the maintenance of a fleet, too often used for purposes of no concern to the nation, they were still obliged to create one of their own to protect their commerce and to defend their homes, at a time, too, when legislative enactments threw nearly the whole of their carrying trade into the hands of aliens and strangers.[611]

Their intrepidity and skill.

But while narrow prejudices and mistaken legislation depressed the maritime commerce of the country, English sailors continued to maintain, in spite of every national blunder and vicissitude, their superiority in activity and skill. During the whole period from the Conquest to the end of the fourteenth century, they showed the highest genius and daring in navigating their ships, and more and more courage in their contests with the French, as the sphere of their efforts became extended. The testimony of contemporary historians, foreign as well as English, attest this opinion; and the imperishable glory and renown of their exploits, under circumstances of the most adverse character and in the face of apparently insurmountable difficulties, contributed in a great measure to the extension of the maritime power of England over that of most other nations. The splendid victory of England off the Swyn, in 1340, had been mainly owing to the superiority in naval tactics of her seamen, a race, it must be remembered, not trained to fight in the disciplined manner of modern times, but, as has so often been the case on subsequent occasions, chiefly distinguished for their bravery, hearty exertions, and extraordinary, but natural skill.[612]

Chaucer’s description of the seamen of his time.

Among the most graphic descriptions of the character of the English seamen of the fourteenth century, is that of the renowned Chaucer[613] in his “Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.” Although it is the picture of a hardened, reckless “felawe,” who made no scruple to drown the prisoners whom he captured—“by water he sent them home to every land”—it affords an excellent insight into the manners and customs, as well as the dress, of the seamen of his time. Indeed, the poet’s description gives a good idea of the free-and-easy character of seamen at all periods of English history; a class of men scarcely less distinct and peculiar in their habits now than then; and while equally expert and ready in tempestuous weather, no less fond, when at ease on shore, of “their draught of wyn,” or of their glass of grog.

“A schipman was ther, wonyng fer by Weste:

For ought I woot, he was of Dertemouthe

He rood upon a rouncy, as he couthe,

In a gown of faldying to the kne.

A dagger hangyng on a laas hadde he

Aboute his nekke under his arm adoun.

The hoote somer had maad his hew al broun;

And certeinly he was a good felawe.

Ful many a draught of wyn had he drawe

From Burdeux-ward, whil that the chapman sleep.

Of nyce conscience took he no keep.

If that he foughte, and hadde the heigher hand,

By water he sente hem hoom to every land.

But of his craft to rikne wel the tydes,

His stremes and his dangers him bisides,

His herbergh and his mone, his lodemenage,

Ther was non such from Hulle to Cartage.

Hardy he was, and wys to undertake;

With many a tempest hadde his berd ben schake.

He knew wel alle the havenes, as thei were,

From Scotlond to the Cape of Fynestere,

And every cryk in Bretayne and in Spayne;

His barge y-clepud was the Magdelayne.”

It was, however, impossible, even with the aid of such daring and skilful mariners, for England to maintain her position at sea, or her commerce, in the face of the laws we have attempted briefly to describe, and the lawless acts of too many of those of her people engaged in maritime pursuits.

Henry IV. A.D. 1399-1413.

The reign of Henry IV., opening with conspiracies at home and troubles abroad, afforded at first little hope of improvement in the laws affecting English maritime commerce; that monarch, however, was able to make arrangements with Prussia so as to restore the long interrupted commercial intercourse between the two countries;[614] while two years later he concluded a treaty with the Hanse Towns. By this treaty were also settled many claims of those merchants and ship-owners against English cruisers, who, however, in turn, alleged that their property had been captured and destroyed by the Prussians, and their countrymen taken from their ships and thrown into prison. The merchants of Lynn, especially, “complained pitifully[615] that four of their ships, with cargoes on board, consisting chiefly of cloth and wine, were captured on their way to Prussia, some of their people being slain, while some were grievously injured, and others put to extreme ransoms.”

Disputes between the Hanse and the English merchants.

On the other hand, the complaints of the Hanse Towns merchants were not confined to losses sustained by the piratical acts of the cruisers, who, after due inquiry, really appear to have been the greatest delinquents; they alleged also not a few infringements by English traders of their chartered privileges. They urged that many new charges and duties had been exacted from their goods and shipping; that, besides the ancient duty of 3s. 4d. upon every sack of wool, a charge of 1s. 7d. was imposed by the town of Calais; that the officers of the Customs over-rated the value of their goods, exacting duties for various kinds of cloths formerly exempted by the charter of merchants; that, in order to remove their goods from one port of England to another, they had to pay duties twice over; and that needless delays were created, whereby they often lost the market for their goods, which were, further, sometimes damaged by lying three or four weeks on the wharves. This, they asserted, was mainly due to the neglect of the officers of the Customs. The English commissioners retorted that the Hanse merchants had combined to destroy the commerce and manufactures of England by refusing to hold intercourse with their merchants in the Hanse Towns, or to buy English cloth from Englishmen, and that they had even imposed fines on those who had English cloth in their possession. They accused them also of passing the goods of merchants not belonging to the Hanse under their name, to avoid paying the proper duties.[616]

These differences, which had their origin mainly in absurd laws framed to protect one nation from competition with another, though, in reality, by endeavouring to put a stop to all intercourse between nations, affording encouragement to violent dissensions, private warfare and piracy, were at last settled by the payment of modified sums to each of the claimants; but while England had to pay 32,326 nobles, there was found to be due to her people only 766! a pretty convincing proof that she had been by far the greater delinquent in fitting out these piratical expeditions.

Agreement for guarding the English coasts.

Although Henry made extraordinary exertions to provide England with a royal navy, the entire guardianship of the sea from May 1406 to Michaelmas of the following year was entrusted to her merchant vessels,[617] the law requiring their owners “to maintain certain ships on the seas.” They were further empowered to select out of their body two fit persons, to whom the king granted commissions to act as his admirals. As a recompense for their services, the owners of the vessels thus employed were allowed three shillings per tun on all wines imported during that period, and twelve pence per pound on the value of all other merchandise exported or imported, with the fourth part of the then existing subsidy on wool and leather. Although the king complained shortly after these privileges were granted that “they had not sufficiently guarded the seas according to contract,” the system of entrusting, if not wholly, at least in a great measure, the protection of its shores and maritime commerce to its merchant ship-owners, prevailed for many years: indeed, as already shown, it was upon them that England mainly depended in her maritime wars. In those early days they had also their own wrongs to redress as well as those of the nation.

Henry V., A.D. 1413: his liberal policy, and ambition.

When Henry V. ascended the throne, he, according to Rymer, confirmed the privileges which had been granted by some of his predecessors to foreign merchants and shipping frequenting his kingdom.[618] From the same authority[619] we learn that the king, who held the sole right of drawing bills of exchange for the use of persons visiting the papal court, Venice, and other places abroad, leased this right for three years at the annual rental of 133l. 16s. 8d., afterwards increased to 208l., the contractor being bound not to export any gold or silver on account of the bills he drew. Merchants, however, trading with these places were allowed to draw bills for their merchandise, but for no other purpose. In his reign also the exemption from the obligation of carrying the staple goods to Paris, granted to the commercial states of Italy and Spain by the act of the second year of Richard II., was renewed.

The short and, as it has been called, “brilliant reign of Henry V.” was disastrous to the commercial interests of England, in that it was devoted more to foreign conquests than to the internal affairs of his people. He had, indeed, hardly ascended the throne (March and April 1413), when he resolved to assert his claim to the crown of France by force of arms. Every vessel in England, of twenty tons and upwards, was pressed into the service and ordered to assemble at London, Southampton, Sandwich, Winchelsea, and Bristol, ready for immediate action. Nor could the ports of England supply his wants. Commissioners were despatched to engage on hire whatever vessels could be obtained in Holland and Zealand; his whole force, when collected ready for the invasion of France, consisting of fifteen hundred vessels, English and foreign, manned to a large extent by crews collected through the instrumentality of the press-gang.[620]

The extent of his fleet.

Size and splendour of the royal ships.

Perhaps no finer fleet had before been despatched from the shores of England, but it was created at an enormous cost. In vain the Parliament remonstrated against the outlay, and “humbly” represented that the conquest of France would be the ruin of England, while the merchants and ship-owners, exhausted by former unprofitable wars, were equally opposed to what they considered a vain-glorious expedition. But Henry paid no attention to either their remonstrances or prayers. He had fixed his mind upon the expedition. The expense was to him a matter of little or no consideration. Observing that the vessels brought to the assistance of the French by the Castilians and Genoese were larger and better than any he possessed, he ordered to be built at Southampton[621] the “Trinity,” “Holy Ghost,” and the “Grâce de Dieu,” vessels said, from their size, rig, and power, to have been “such as were never seen in the world before.”[622] But his two flag-ships, styled the king’s chamber and his hall, in one of which he embarked, were, from the descriptions preserved of them, the most magnificent of his fleet. Adorned with purple sails, whereon the arms of England and France were embroidered, they represented this proud monarch’s court and palace upon the sea.

Although Henry doubtless achieved his object by restoring Normandy to the dominion of England, the success of his expedition, however barren in its ultimate results, was mainly due to his command of the Channel.

A document in metrical verse, illustrative of the war, and written about this period, gives so graphic an account of the then existing state of maritime commerce, and so well points out the wisdom of England in maintaining her supremacy at sea, that a few extracts from it cannot fail to be interesting and instructive to our readers. It probably contains the views of the most enlightened men in England on the impolicy of the course of continental conquest on which Henry had embarked. This curious production, which occupies twenty-one or twenty-two folios of closely printed black letter in Hakluyt, and has been frequently referred to and quoted by writers upon English shipping, is entitled—

Prologue of the “Dominion of the Sea.”

“Here beginneth the Prologue of the Processe of the Libel of English policie, exhorting all England to keepe the sea, and namely the narrowe sea; and shewing what profite commeth thereof, and also what worship and saluation to England and to all Englishmen.”

However much the people of England may at the time have been flattered by Henry’s heroic deeds of arms, it is evident from this poem that a large class were thoroughly convinced of the impolicy of the aggressions of their monarch. But the all-important point the author has in view is the necessity of maintaining the command of the Channel as the only true safeguard of the shores of England; and almost every statesman since then has endeavoured to carry into effect what the author in his quaint old language so strongly recommends:

“The true Processe of English policie

Of otterward to keepe this regne in

Of our England, that no man may deny.

Ner say of sooth but it is one of the best,

Is this, that who seeth South, North, East and West,

Cherish marchandise, keepe the admiraltie;

That we bee Masters of the narrowe sea.

“For Sigismond[623] the great Emperour

Wich yet reigneth, when he was in this land

With King Henry the Fift, Prince of Honour

Here much glory, as him thought, he found,

A mightie land which had take in hand

To werre in France, and make mortalitie,

And euer well kept round about the sea.

“And to the king thus hee sayd: My Brother,

(When hee perceiued two Townes Caleis and Douer)

Of all your Townes to chuse of one and other,

To keepe the sea and soone to come ouer

To werre outwards and your regne to recouer:

Keepe these two Townes sure, and your Majestee

As your tweyne eyne: so keepe the narrowe sea.

“For if this sea be kept in time of werre,

Who can heere passe without danger and woe?

Who may escape, who may mischiefe differre?

What Marchandie may forby bee agoe?

For needs hem must take trewes every foe:

Flanders and Spain and othere, trust to mee,

Or ellis hindred all for this Narrow sea.

“Therefore I cast mee by a little writing

To shewe at eye this conclusion,

For conscience and for mine acquiting

Against God and ageyne abusion,

And cowardise, and to our enemies confusion.

For FOURE things our Noble sheweth to me,

King, Ship, and Swerd, and Power of the Sea.”

In the first chapter of his poem the author gives a very lucid account of the course of the commerce then carried on between England, Spain, and Flanders. No mention is made of France, as England was then engaged in hostilities with that country; but from Spain English merchants imported figs, raisins, wine, dates, licorice, oil, grains, white pastile soap,[624] wax, iron, wool, wadmolle, goat fell, saffron, and quicksilver; and, from Flanders, fine cloth of Ypres and of Courtray were carried in Spanish ships homewards, with fustians and also linen cloth. These cargoes requiring necessarily to pass between Calais and Dover going and coming, Spain and Flanders being then mutually dependent, while the raw material of the Flemish manufactures came from England, it followed that the interest of both these powers lay in keeping peace with that country, or the Flemish factories would be starved. In the second chapter the trade with Portugal is described. It represents that Portugal is England’s friend, her shipping resorting thither to trade in wines, wax, grain, figs, raisins, dates, honey, Cordovan leather, hides, &c., all of which merchandize were carried in great quantities to Flanders, justly described as the largest “staple” or market at that time in all Christendom. But Portugal is accused of being changeable; “she is in our power while we are masters of the narrow seas.”

In the third chapter, it is stated that the people of Bretagne were great rovers on the sea, and had often done much havoc on the coasts of England, landing, killing, and burning to her great disgrace, but that they durst not be her open foes so long as she had possession of the narrow seas. The vigour of Edward III. is extolled in granting letters of reprisals to the seamen of Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Fowey, by which the pirates from Brittany, especially those from St. Malo, were extirpated. The trade of Scotland is reported to have consisted of wool, wool-fells, and hides; but her wool was sent to Flanders to be dressed, as it was not equal in quality to the English wool, with which it was often mixed before being manufactured. Scotland, we are also informed, brought from Flanders mercery and haberdashery in great quantities: moreover, one-half of these Scottish ships were then generally laden home from Flanders with cart-wheels and wheel-barrows. The writer remarks that the Scotch ships must pass by the English coast on their way to Flanders, and might therefore be easily intercepted,

“——If they would not our friends bee

We might lightly stoppe hem in the sea.”

The trade of the Easterlings,[625] Prussia, and Germany, consisted of copper, beer, bacon, bow staves, steel, wax, pottery, pitch and tar, fir, oak planks, Cologne thread, wool cards, fustian, canvas, and buckram, exported to Flanders; whence were carried back silver plate and wedges, and silver (which came to Flanders in great plenty from Bohemia and Hungary); also woollen cloths of all colours. “And they aventure full greatly unto the Bay For salt that is needefull;”

“They should not passe our streems withouten leve

It would not be, but if we should hem greue.”

There then follows a description of the commerce of Genoa, whose merchants resorted to England in great caracks “arrayed withouten lacke,” with cloth of gold, silk, black pepper, woad, wool, oil, cotton, rock-alum, taking as a return cargo, wool, and woollen cloth made with home-spun wool, proceeding frequently from England to Flanders, then the chief market of north-eastern Europe.

“If they would be our full enemies,

They should not passe our streems with marchandise.”

The trade with Venice is next detailed in original and explicit terms, and extends to great length.

“The great Galees of Venice and Florence

Be well laden with things of complacence

All spicery and of grossers ware:

With sweete wines all maner of chaffare,

Apes and Japes and marmusets tayled,

Nifles and trifles that little have avayled:”

and so forth.

The author then alludes to the frauds committed by the Italian bankers and factors, all which he strongly and with the deep feelings of patriotic prejudice animadverts upon and condemns. He shows the disadvantages English merchants laboured under in point of trade with foreign markets. He claims at least reciprocal advantages, and after showing how valuable the trade is likely to become, he concludes—

“Keep then the sea, shippes should not bring ne fetch,

And then the carreys wold not thidre stretch:

And so those marts wold full evil thee,

If we manly kept about the sea.”

In his eighth chapter the author describes the trade of Brabant, Zealand, and Hainault, both by sea and land, and expatiates upon the value of English merchandise, adding that the English are the best customers at all the foreign fairs;

“As all the goods that come in shippes thider,

Which Englishmen bye most and bring it hither.”

He laments with deep regret the neglect of English shipping for the guard of the sea.

“A prince riding with his swerd ydraw

In the other side sitting, soth it is in saw

Betokening good rule and punishing

In very deed of England, by the king.

And it is so, God blessed mought he bee.

So in likewise I would were on the sea,

By the Noble, that swerde should haue power,

And the ships on the sea about us here.”

Throughout the whole document the dominion of the sea is urgently enforced, and the insolence of certain ships of the Hanse Towns loudly complained of. The folly of English merchants colouring the goods of foreigners is also condemned. The ninth chapter relates to the trade with Ireland, of which it furnishes a copious account. The author mentions gold and silver ore as being produced there in large quantities, and urges the importance of quelling the wild Irish, and keeping the country in strict obedience, all which, he states, cannot be done without good ships, and being masters of the seas. The trade of Iceland is also mentioned, and its important fisheries; and here follows a distinct mention of the mariner’s compass, as having been recently introduced by merchant mariners.

There can be no doubt that the mariner’s compass was at this period in general use as the “shipman’s card” on board of English vessels; and further, that English seamen were extensively employed in the trade with Spain and Brittany.

“Of Island to write is litle nede

Saue of stock-fish: yet forsooth indeed

Out of Bristowe (Bristol), and costes many one,

Men haue practised by nedle and by stone[626].

Thiderwardes, within litle a while,

Within twelue yeer, and without perill

Gon and come, as men were wont of old

Of Scarborough unto the costes cold.

And nowe so fele shippes this yeere there ware

That moch losse for unfreyght they beare.”

This chapter concludes with some remarks upon the importance of Calais, criticising several incidents in the reigns of Edgar, Edward III., and Henry V., and concluding with a most energetic exhortation to all English statesmen to consider the deep national importance of his arguments concerning English commerce, navigation, and the dominion of the sea, upon which he re-asserts that the peace, prosperity, and security of their island essentially depend.

“The ende of battaile is peace sikerly,

And power causeth peace finally.

Keepe then the sea, about in special

Which of England is the town-wall.

As though England were likened to a citie,

And the wall enuiron were the sea.

Kepe then the sea, that is the wall of England:

And then is England kept by Goddes hande;

That as for any thing that is without,

England were at ease, withouten doubt.”

England first formally claims dominion of the sea, about A.D. 1416.

That the author of these curious metrical rhymes represented the feelings of the age is, in some measure, confirmed by the fact that, towards the close of the reign of Henry V., the Parliament of England, for the first time, asserted their right to the dominion of the sea in all their more important formal documents, or rather to its sovereignty. “The Commons do pray,” ran these documents, “that seeing our sovereign lord the king and his noble progenitors have ever been lords of the sea,” &c., &c. Nor were these claims, then, whatever they may have been in former ages, nominal titles. Without citing the opinions of Hugo Grotius, and other jurisconsults, on the necessity of a prince proclaiming by an overt act that he is lord of the sea, there can be no doubt that the English, from the earliest periods, did at least assert, if unable at all times to maintain, the dominion of the English Channel and a large portion of the North Sea. In the year 1674[627] the extent of the dominions of the British sovereign in the eastern and southern sea was ascertained and admitted to reach from the middle point of the land of Vans Staten, in Norway, to Cape Finisterre in Spain; a large extent of sea which England then asserted, and has since the reign of Charles II. maintained by many hard-fought naval engagements. Indeed, so far back as the reign of King John, we have already noticed, in the records of his marine laws, one to the effect that if a lieutenant of a king’s ship encounter any vessel or vessels, laden or unladen, that will not strike and veil their bonnets[628] at the command of the lieutenant of the king, they were to be taken and condemned.

Prerogatives conferred thereby.

That this right was not then a barren title may be assumed from the fact, that it involved mercantile interests of the most important character, within the limits named, which were guarded with the utmost jealousy for centuries. The prerogative claimed by the crown included, 1st, the royalty of granting the liberty of fishing for pearl, coral, amber, and all other precious commodities. 2nd. The power of granting licences to fish for whales, sturgeon, pilchard, salmon, herring, and all other fish whatsoever, as then exercised in Spain and elsewhere. 3rd. The power of imposing tribute and custom on all merchant ships, and fishermen, trading and fishing within the limits of the sea, subjected to private dominion, in the same manner as if enjoying the state’s protection in its dominion on land. 4th. The regular execution of justice, by protecting the innocent, and punishing delinquents for all crimes committed within the limits described, protection being due to all who paid homage and tribute. 5th. The power of granting free passage through such sea to any number of ships of war belonging to any foreign prince, or of denying the same according to circumstances, in like manner as foreign potentates may grant or deny free passage of foreign troops through their territories by land. This right being exercised in peace as well as during war, all foreign vessels whatsoever, whether ships of war or others, navigating within those seas, and there meeting any of the ships of war or others bearing the colours of the sovereign of such seas, “are required to salute the said ships of war by striking the flag, or lowering,” as we have just mentioned, “one of her sails, by which sort of submission the saluters are put in remembrance that they have entered a territory in which there is sovereign power and jurisdiction to be acknowledged, and protection to be expected.”[629]

Although from the earliest periods of history successive nations have periodically claimed the sovereignty of certain seas, England appears to have been the only one of either ancient or modern times which not merely asserted and maintained that power in the English Channel and neighbouring waters, but was fully acknowledged to possess it by other nations, who admitted “the striking or veiling the bonnets” to be a ceremonious homage in recognition of her absolute sovereignty.

First accounts of revenue and expenditure, A.D. 1421.

Towards the close of the reign of Henry V. an account is, for the first time, published of the revenue of the kingdom. It appears to have amounted, in 1421, to the sum of 55,743l., obtained chiefly, if not altogether, by duties upon commerce; the customs and subsidy upon wool alone amounting to more than one-half, or 30,000l.; while the small customs, and a duty of twelve pence in the pound in value on other goods, realized 10,675l. Out of that year’s revenue there was expended no less than 38,619l.[630] in the custody and defence of Calais, Scotland, and Roxburgh, and their “marches;” while the custody and defence of England and Ireland were maintained for the comparatively moderate sum of 6,990l. The officers of customs at London and the outposts received 821l. for their services, but the salaries of “dukes, earls, knights, esquires, and the abbess of Shene,” amounted to 7,751l. A sum of 4,370l. was likewise charged on the customs for “annuities,” but no mention is made of how they were appropriated. A lump sum of 3,507l. appears to have been paid, without distinguishing the items, “to the king’s and queen’s household and wardrobe; the king’s works; the new tower at Portsmouth; the clerk of the king’s ships; the king’s lions, and the constable of the tower; artillery; the king’s prisoners, ambassadors, messengers, parchment, and the Duchess of Holland;”[631]—a curious enough medley, but perhaps not more promiscuous than some of the estimates of our own time, frequently smuggled in one sum through Parliament, from the difficulty and delicacy of defending many of them if produced in detail.

Law for the admeasurement of ships and coal barges.

Immediately before the close of the reign of Henry V., an Act[632] was passed requiring all ships to be measured according to prescribed forms, so as to ascertain their tonnage or capacity, and preclude the possibility of one ship deriving advantage over another. By a clause in this Act, the barges, or “keels,” then employed in the conveyance of coals from the colliery wharves to the ships in the Tyne were also required to be measured and marked by the Crown. From that day, until now, every keel contains 21 tons 4 cwt. of coals, and in the north of England the capacity of a ship is still better understood by the number of keels she can carry than by her registered tonnage.

Henry VI. crowned, A.D. 1422.

Marauding expedition of the Earl of Warwick.

It is not our province to notice the long and terrible wars between the Houses of York and Lancaster which followed the accession of the infant Henry VI. to the throne of England.[633] War, in all cases, would seem to have encouraged hordes of marauders to fit out armed vessels, too frequently under the pretence of the national defence, but practically for their own gain and aggrandisement. But the war which now raged for supremacy between the rival claimants to the crown of England was, perhaps, the one of all others which offered the greatest encouragement to these disgraceful expeditions. Forms of licence were hardly necessary, as the flags of Lancaster or of York were sufficient covers to many crimes. Thus, under plea of aiding the cause of the House of York, the Earl of Warwick, “the king-maker,” fitted out a fleet on his own account, with which he attacked, in the Straits of Dover, a fleet of Genoese merchantmen bound for Lubeck, with a cargo of Spanish merchandise, of which he captured six, rendered worthless twenty-six, slaughtered one thousand of their crews, and plundered merchandise to the value of 10,000l. sterling, with the loss, it is said, of only fifty of his own men. In the face of such an act as this, perpetrated by one of the most exalted of the English nobility, who filled the highly responsible office of governor of Calais, the reader of English history need not feel surprised at the acts of piracy which too frequently disgrace its pages. On the dethronement of Henry VI., after an inglorious reign of nearly forty years, the Earl of March, who had shortly before become Duke of York by his father’s death on the field of Wakefield, was proclaimed king of England as Edward IV.

Distress among shipowners, not royal favourites A.D. 1461.

These intestine commotions and civil wars, combined with the impolicy of the crown, had reduced the merchant shipping of England to a state of great distress. A few merchants, however, during the long but unfortunate reign of Henry VI. had been, by special favour, enabled to realize large fortunes. John Taverner, a ship-owner of Kingston-upon-Hull, having built in 1449 one of the largest merchant vessels of the period, received a licence to take on board wool, tin, lambs’-skins, hides, or any other merchandise, the property of English or foreign merchants, and carry them to Italy, on “paying alien’s duty.”[634] William Canynge, an eminent merchant of Bristol, who sent his factors to foreign parts, was likewise favoured by letters from the king to the grand master of Prussia and the magistrates of Danzig, recommending to their good offices the representatives of “his beloved and honourable merchant.”[635] Although prohibited by Act of Parliament, Canynge, when mayor of Bristol, on account of services said to have been rendered to the king, had a special licence to employ two ships, of whatever burden he pleased, during two years, in the trade between England and Iceland and Finmark, and to export any species of goods not restricted by the staple of Calais.[636] Canynge appears to have been one of the most important ship-owners of England of the period. He is said to have possessed ships of four, five, and even nine hundred tons burden, which were far above the average size of the merchant vessels of the period. On one occasion he supplied Edward IV. with two thousand six hundred and seventy tons of shipping, a fact recorded on his famous monument in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, itself one of the most beautiful structures of the fifteenth century.[637]

Fresh legislative enactments.

First “sliding scale,”

As the commercial legislation of England, previously to the reign of Edward IV., had been full of irregularities and inconsistencies, exhibiting itself as at one time liberal in the extreme to foreigners against its own subjects, at another retaliatory to its own prejudice and unwise in its prohibitions; this monarch, on his accession to the throne, introduced various legislative measures professing to regulate upon something like fixed principles the maritime commerce of the country. Thus Parliament, in the third year of his reign, granted the king, for life, a subsidy of 3s. upon every tun of wine imported, and a poundage of twelve pennies in perpetuity on the prime cost of all goods exported or imported for the defence of the realm and especially for the guard of the sea. Another Act in the same year, which had for its object the encouragement of home manufactures, prohibited foreigners from buying or shipping wool from either England or Wales; and ordained, adopting the permissive principles of a former Act, that no English merchant should ship any goods, outward or homeward, in foreign vessels unless sufficient space could not be found in English shipping.[638] In the following year the importation of corn, except the produce of Wales, Ireland, or of the islands belonging to England, was prohibited whenever wheat did not exceed 6s. 8d., rye, 4s., and barley 3s. per quarter.

applied to the importation of corn.

Nor did these prohibitory and protective laws end here. Another law[639] enacts, on the faith of “representations made by the male and female artificers of London, and of other cities, towns, and villages of England and Wales,” that as certain foreign articles were of inferior quality, their importation be limited for a time by the king’s pleasure; while the sale of woollen caps or cloths, ribands, fringes of silk or thread, saddles, stirrups, harness, spurs, fire-tongs, dripping-pans, dice, tennis-balls, purses, gloves, and innumerable other articles, were entirely prohibited. It soon, however, became apparent that the articles of foreign manufacture, which had been thus prohibited, were far superior in quality to similar articles produced in England; so that the change of the law, while greatly increasing their cost, to the benefit, it is true, of the manufacturer, entailed a corresponding loss upon those who were his customers.

Relaxation of the laws by means of treaties, A.D. 1467.

The Scottish Parliament, following the example of England, passed several Acts of a similar character, all, no doubt, intended for the advancement, but most of them probably operating for the obstruction, of commerce. Experience soon proved to even the framers of these prohibitory laws that considerable relaxation must be made. Indeed, towards the close of the very year on which the most stringent of them were passed, a treaty of alliance between England and Denmark allowed the merchants of both countries free access to the ports of the other; while a treaty between Edward and the Duke of Bretagne permitted the subjects of both princes a mutual liberty of trade in all merchandise not specially prohibited.[640]

A.D. 1471.

Various similar treaties appear to have been made in the fifth year of Edward’s reign. Desirous of fortifying himself against the rival house of Lancaster by the friendship of continental sovereigns, he entered into treaties of offensive and defensive alliance with as many of the neighbouring nations as possible, including the king of Castile, so that the merchants of each country might, reciprocally, buy and sell whatever merchandise they required, and be treated, in all respects, the same as his own subjects.[641] Moreover, the English people themselves soon perceived the evil effects of a prohibitory system, so that, at their instigation, Edward, in the sixth year of his reign, concluded a treaty with the Netherlands, whereby he and the Duke of Burgundy agreed that, for thirty years, the subjects of both countries were to have free access by land or water, with liberty to buy and sell all kinds of merchandise, except warlike stores, on paying the same duties as were established when formerly commerce had free course between the two countries.[642] Soon afterwards similar commercial treaties were made, with France, the towns of Flanders, and the people of Zealand; and in the fourteenth year of his reign, Edward granted to the Hanse merchants the absolute property of the Steelyard in London, with certain other privileges, which they may be said to have enjoyed, through various changes and vicissitudes, almost to our own time.[643] He also favoured the merchants of Italy with an exemption from most of the additional duties which had been imposed upon them during his own and former reigns.[644]

Treaties of reciprocity.

Extension of distant maritime commerce, A.D. 1485.

These treaties of reciprocity greatly encouraged the ship-owners of England in embarking on more distant voyages. Hitherto, their ships had been confined almost exclusively to a coasting trade with the Baltic and with the Spanish Peninsula. A few only of the more wealthy and enterprising traders had ventured through the Straits of Gibraltar to the Mediterranean ports; nor, indeed, had even they been able to compete on equal terms with the larger vessels of the north of Europe or with the still superior vessels of the Italian republics which, throughout the middle ages, monopolised the most important and most lucrative branches of the over-sea carrying trade. In the reign, however, of Richard III., English merchants had increased their distant operations to an extent sufficient to justify an application for the appointment of an English consul at Pisa, who should have the power of hearing and of summarily determining all disputes between English subjects resident in Italy or belonging to ships frequenting the ports of that country. Lorenzo Strozzi, a merchant of Florence, was, consequently, at the request of the English merchants then in Italy, appointed the first commercial representative of the English nation in the ports of the Mediterranean.[645]

First English consul in the Mediterranean, A.D. 1490.

The advantages derived from reciprocal intercourse.

From this time the trade of England with the Mediterranean, conducted in her own ships, steadily though slowly, increased. Five years afterwards, a treaty with Florence enabled the English to resort freely to all her territories, and carry thither any kind of lawful merchandise, whether the produce of England or of other countries, not even excepting those countries which might be at war with Florence. On the other hand, the Florentines agreed not to admit any wool produced in the English dominions, if imported in any vessels but those belonging to subjects of England; while the English bound themselves to carry every year to Pisa, the appointed staple port, as much wool as used to be imported annually, on an average of former years, to all the states of Italy, except Venice, unless circumstances, of which the king should be judge, rendered this impracticable. Privileges, similar to those which had been granted to the merchants of the Steelyard, were also then allowed to an association of English traders in Italy. In some respects, indeed, these were even more liberal. Besides having the privilege of forming themselves into a corporate body at Pisa, with power to frame their own regulations and to appoint their own officers, they had placed at their disposal a suitable edifice or a site on which to build one, and were to be independent of the jurisdiction of the city, while enjoying all the advantages of its citizens or those of Florence.[646]

From this period the business of the ship-owner may be considered as distinct from that of the merchant, although, to the present day, many of the latter are still owners of ships. For the first time English ships were engaged in the trade between England and Italy as carriers alone, deriving their remuneration entirely from the amount of freight they earned. About this time, also, the spirit for discovery in far distant and then unknown regions began to open up new and vast fields of employment for merchant shipping, from which England, in after years, derived greater advantages than any other nation.