Of more importance was another grievance exposed in the same complaint. This was that the Easterlings were only permitted to import, at their privileged rates of duty, the merchandise of their own cities. The dispute arose from the ambiguity of a phrase in a Latin treaty which gave the Hanse merchants the right to import suae merces. The English contention was that the words applied only to articles actually produced in the Hanse towns; the Hansa, on the other hand, claimed that the phrase covered all goods, however acquired. The matter was of some moment and considerable sums were involved, since barter, rather than manufacture, was the essence of the existence of the League. Its cities were rich and powerful, not because they gave shelter to thousands of skilful artisans, but because they formed the European extremity of a trade route which passed through Poland into Russia, and thence tapped the products of the Near and Middle East. But the time was unfavourable for the League to commence a serious controversy with England. A period of European peace had succeeded the war of the Holy League, and bade fair to continue indefinitely. Henry VIII was thus in no pressing need of ships or naval stores, and was disposed to be obdurate rather than compliant. German merchants were imprisoned in connexion with marine depredations dating back as far as 1511. On renewed protests by the Magistrates of Stralsund, backed by some neighbouring potentate, Wolsey said to their ambassador in the presence of many notable persons: ‘Your reverence has presented to us the letters of an unknown prince. He may be most Christian and powerful, as you say, but he is unknown to us, and we do not wish to have anything to do with him.’[[107]]
The Easterlings, however, were stubborn men, and were not prepared to submit tamely to such arrogant treatment. They were determined to maintain their privileges, which, as they said, they had bought with their money and blood. The dispute dragged on until 1520, when a diet was appointed to meet at Bruges to negotiate for a settlement. One of the English commissioners was Thomas More; another was John Hewster, Governor of the Merchant Adventurers at Antwerp. In September the diet met, but the representatives of the League offered excuses for being unready to begin business. Discussion of their privileges was not what they desired, since any modification would almost certainly be to their prejudice; what they asked was a sweeping reaffirmation of all their claims, however obsolete. Such was not the intention of the English commissioners, who took the initiative, presented extensive claims for injuries inflicted, and pressed the Easterlings to state exactly the names of the towns belonging to the League when the privileges were first granted. The latter demand touched the Hansa in its weakest spot. It was basing its claims on grants of privileges of very ancient date; yet it was undeniable that the scope of the League had been vastly extended since that date, and therefore that the whole of its relations with England ought in justice to be reconsidered. Its representatives at the diet had no answer to make; they could only profess themselves much shocked at the League’s integrity being doubted, and declare that such a suggestion had never been raised before. With such irreconcilable motives on either side a final settlement was impossible. The same questions continue to recur at intervals throughout the remainder of the history of the Hansa in England. Some minor concessions were agreed upon and the acerbity of the dispute was smoothed down.[[108]] A new European war was by this time looming on the horizon, a fact which rendered free access to the naval resources of the Baltic essential to England. The commercial question was of secondary importance, and could wait.
As may have been seen, the relations between Henry VIII and the Hansa depended, broadly speaking, on the fluctuations of foreign politics. When the prospect was peaceful and the country seemed secure, he was inimical to the Easterlings and openly favoured Englishmen at their expense; when danger threatened, he had to conciliate them on account of their strength in ships and seamen. There was at that time little structural difference between warships and merchantmen, and it was a simple matter to convert the one into the other. Hence on military grounds alone the enmity of the League was not to be despised.
Thus, with alternations of calm and storm, the denizens of the Steelyard pushed their fortunes, ever ready to seize an advantage and, if we are to believe jealous English accounts, steadily increasing their business and pressing hard on the younger and more tender commerce of England. As time went on, it is evident that the shackles on their activities, feeble as they were, were nevertheless gradually tightened. An Act of 1523 forbade the sale of white cloth to aliens except under certain conditions. In 1526 the Easterlings resident in London were proceeded against for heresy; and, in times of peace, all the oppressive laws in the statute-book were sharply enforced against them. Towards the end of 1535 they were subjected to a temporary restraint and sequestration of property, by reason, as Chapuys says, of the seizure of some English ships by the Swedes. After a few weeks, however, the matter was arranged and trade was resumed.[[109]] In 1540 the Council of Lubeck forwarded an extensive list of grievances to Henry, of which the following were the most important:[[110]]
1. Contrary to ancient grants they are now forbidden to load undressed cloth.
2. Whereas they were formerly free to export to England whatever they pleased (wines excepted), special licences are now demanded.
3. They are held responsible for losses sustained by English subjects within their princes’ territories.
4. Contrary to the treaty of 1474, they are subjected to the jurisdiction of the Admiral’s Court.
5. Unjust and dishonest conduct of customs officials.
As was usual in time of peace, the English exporters had the ear of Henry and his Council, and strained relations continued for some time longer. In September 1540 it was rumoured that the entire privileges of the Easterlings were to be revoked and that they were on the point of leaving the country.[[111]] But the time was not ripe for such a step, and Henry held his hand. In the great Act ‘For the maintainance of the Navy’, passed in the summer of the same year, wherein it was laid down that foreigners wishing to trade on payment of reduced customs must ship in English bottoms, it was expressly provided that nothing in the Act should be construed to the prejudice of the Hanse merchants. In their case it was merely enjoined that they should lade in English ships when none of their own were available. Whatever benefits the Act conferred on English merchants were also shared by the Easterlings, for, while leaving their own privileges intact, it curtailed those of other foreigners, thus leaving them in a relatively better position. In spite of this, charges and countercharges continued for some time to pass between England and the League. In 1542 some Englishmen complained to the Privy Council of injuries sustained at the hands of the inhabitants of Danzig. Representatives of the London Easterlings were summoned to answer the complaint, and alleged, first, that the charges were untrue, and secondly, that there were no Danzig men in their company. But corporate privileges were naturally held to entail corporate responsibility; and it was pointed out to them that, even though there might be no Danzig men in the London Hansa, as members of the same company they were liable, and must induce the Danzig authorities to make restitution.[[112]] Although this system of corporate responsibility bore hardly on individuals, it was the only available check on arbitrary proceedings, and maritime trade would have been an impossibility without it.