The Spanish and Italian merchants in London were less unpopular than the Easterlings, and received considerably better treatment. Their competition was not so vital to English interests, and there were political reasons for dealing with them in a more civil manner. Harshness and insolence could not be displayed towards Spain, since the matrimonial alliance with that country was the keynote of Henry’s policy, to which mercantile considerations had necessarily to be subordinate. However, by careful and persistent pressure, he was able to place English trade to the south on as satisfactory a basis as that to the east. He was certainly fortunate in the choice which the Spanish sovereigns made of a representative in England.

Dr. de Puebla, who filled that office during the greater part of his reign, was a mean and venal figure, amenable alike to flattery, bullying, and bribes; and the king was able to read him like a book and play upon all his weaknesses in turn. His infidelity to his employers made it easier for Henry to enforce the Navigation Laws, already referred to, by which the Gascony trade was placed exclusively in English hands; and to strengthen the position of English merchants in Spain by getting the better of the bargain in most of the tariff negotiations. De Puebla was so miserly that he lived in a disorderly house for the sake of cheapness, and was well known as seizing every opportunity of getting himself and his servants fed at other people’s expense. But in spite of his conduct he enjoyed the confidence of Ferdinand and Isabella, who were certainly not ignorant of his shortcomings. Their motive in continuing him in his post seems to have been that, although Henry VII despised the man, he had also a certain regard for him, and occasionally confided intentions to him to which no one else was made privy. The Spanish sovereigns even went to the length of investing him with absolute judicial powers over all the Spanish merchants in London. The subjects of his jurisdiction hated him, and complained bitterly that he used his authority to extort bribes. They asserted further that he could have had the objectionable tariff dues lowered if he had chosen, but that he had sold their interests to the English Government.[[38]] Of the truth of the latter accusation there is no doubt. In Henry’s Privy Purse accounts there are entries of payments to de Puebla of £66 15s. on two occasions, and of £20 on another, it being stated that they were ‘in reward’. Henry VII was not the man to disburse such large sums unless in consideration of value received. Judging by other entries, however, the bribing of ambassadors seems to have been a common practice.

To the merchants of the various Italian cities Henry was generally gracious in his manner. The fierce competition which embittered relations in the north was absent, for England was not yet ready to take a preponderating share in Mediterranean trade. On the other hand, the Italians, and more particularly the Venetians, were in a position to cut off the supply of certain articles such as malmsey wines, spices, and other eastern goods, which had almost become necessaries to England, and which could not be obtained elsewhere. Friendly relations were established with Milan, and the Milanese merchants were taken under the king’s especial safe-conduct. In 1488 the Venetians, Genoese, Florentines, and Luccans petitioned that the export duties on wool and tin might be diminished. Since there was then little or no shipment of those articles to Italy in English bottoms, the king granted their request, and made alterations in the customs and subsidies amounting to a net reduction of 10s. per sack on wool and 12d. per £ value on tin.[[39]]

The Venetian factory in London was never subjected to the treatment which the merchants of the Steelyard received. The organization of this Venetian colony has many points of interest. It consisted of numerous merchants who were permanently resident in England, and were under the governance of a consul whose judicial powers were far more extensive than those of a similar official at the present time. The English law then took no cognizance of the disputes and crimes of foreigners in cases in which no Englishman was implicated. Hence the Italians were left to maintain order among themselves in the same way as the Spaniards and the Germans; and the Venetian consul represented among his compatriots the full majesty of their country’s law. He was also responsible for exacting the numerous fines and dues which, in addition to the English customs, were constantly imposed and varied by the strict regulations of the Venetian Senate.

A very firm control was exercised by the home government, and the consul himself, although he had disciplinary powers over the merchants, was carefully supervised in his turn. A regular service of couriers, travelling overland through Europe, maintained touch with the authorities in Venice, and the captains of the annual fleets of Flanders galleys were also charged with the duty of reporting on the affairs of the colony. In 1491, when it was suspected that certain of the merchants in London were covertly opposed to the policy of the Senate in maintaining a tariff war with Henry VII, the captain of the Flanders fleet was instructed to find out who the culprits were, and to report them in order that the Government might make a notable example of their presumption.[[40]] The factory had its corporate responsibilities as well as its rights: when some prominent Venetians were captured by French pirates at Southampton, the London factory was commanded to pay their ransoms, a duty which a state less careful of the welfare of its citizens would have allowed to fall on their own families. The consuls were sometimes slack in exacting the payment of dues, such as the additional 5d. in the £ which merchants had to pay when they preferred to send their goods to Venice overland rather than by sea. To remedy this, supervisors were appointed to audit the consul’s accounts and generally to keep him up to the mark.

In all these matters the strict discipline was apparent which permeated the whole state of Venice. It even extended to the control of the movements of privately owned merchant ships. A decree of 1497 gives detailed instructions to the captains of two such ships. They were to load wool, cloth, and tin in London; the numbers of their crews and the freights they were to charge were specified; they were to take no aliens' goods until all the goods of Venetians were shipped; and they were to sail in close company on the voyage. The masters were enjoined to obey these instructions under a penalty of 500 ducats and ten years' suspension of their licences.[[41]]

The management of the Flanders galleys, which have been so frequently referred to, vividly illustrates the centralized system of Venice. This fleet, which sailed annually with fair regularity for more than two centuries, consisted of large, oared ships which were the property of the State. When the time came for preparing for the voyage a public auction was held, at which the cargo space was disposed of to the highest bidders. The cargoes were thus the property of private merchants, although the conduct of the voyage was in the hands of the Government. The latter appointed the captains and gave instructions as to ports of call, the time to be spent at each, and similar matters. Each galley was manned by about 180 rowers, 30 archers, and numerous officers, merchants, servants, musicians, &c. After making calls at various Mediterranean ports the fleet proceeded to the Channel, where it divided, part going on to Flanders, and the remainder making for London, Sandwich, or, latterly, Southampton. Here the cargoes of Levant wines, silks, spices, and other eastern goods were disposed of, while the crews dispersed over the country to hawk the petty merchandises of their own which they were allowed to carry on board. Return freights of wool, cloth, hides, and tin were shipped; the English portion of the fleet then awaited the Flanders section, and the voyage home was made in company. The usual time taken was twelve months or a little longer. The Flanders galleys first sailed in 1517, and their last voyage was in 1552; towards the end of this period the sailings became very irregular, owing to wars in Italy and the gradual decline of the old trade routes.[[42]]

Before the close of the epoch now under discussion the great geographical discoveries which ushered in the oceanic era of commerce began to make their effects evident. In the last decade of the fifteenth century Columbus discovered the West Indies, Cabot voyaged to North America, and Vasco da Gama arrived at Calicut after the first passage round the Cape of Good Hope recorded in modern history. The Spanish discoveries poured into Europe a stream of the precious metals which upset the economic arrangements of every country, and, by creating a period of industrial unrest, broke up the old, stagnant organizations of the Middle Ages, and released a flood of energy which altered the face of the world. The Portuguese voyages to India soon proved that the sea route was far superior to the overland system of trading with the East, by which the Italian cities had risen to greatness. The western and northern nations, with free access to the Atlantic, were now the nations of the future; and the Mediterranean, which had for ages been the centre of civilization, began to decline. It is one of the ironies of history that Genoa and Venice owe their decay in large part to the achievements of their own offspring, Columbus and Cabot.

CHAPTER III
THE CABOT VOYAGES—JOHN CABOT, 1497 AND 1498

The subject of the Cabot voyages is one of the most puzzling in history, ranking indeed with the identity of Shakespeare as a battle-ground for the exponents of conflicting theories. The trouble arises from the fact that, while John and Sebastian Cabot actually lived and performed important discoveries in the dim days of England’s awakening from the sleep of mediaeval ignorance, few of their contemporaries felt sufficient interest in their exploits to write down a clear account of them for the benefit of posterity. Consequently the contemporary records are vague, ambiguous, and wofully incomplete, leaving (when purged of all uncertainties) little more of absolute truth than that John Cabot made two voyages across the Atlantic in 1497 and 1498, discovering some part of what is now British North America in the course of the first of them.