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]