MERCANTILE ORGANIZATION
It was the universal tendency of the Middle Ages for trades and
industries to organize themselves, more or less rigidly, for the purpose
of mutual defence and assistance. Such organizations accomplished their
object by successfully defending the interests of the calling when
isolated individuals would have fallen easy victims to tyranny; but the
success was concomitant with a stifling of individuality and a
stereotyping of personal relations, which were the bane of mediaeval
times, and against which the Renaissance was in large measure a revolt.
In England the great London Companies, with their counterparts in other
towns, became the arbiters of internal industry; while the greater part
of such over-sea traffic as was not in foreign hands became grouped into
two combinations of which the members were known as the Merchants of the
Staple and the Merchant Adventurers.
Of these, the Merchants of the Staple were the first established, dating
back to the thirteenth century, a time when raw wool and tin were
practically the only exports of England. At the beginning of the Tudor
period they formed a close corporation, under royal patronage, and had
in their hands the entire business of exporting unmanufactured wool,
wool-fells, and hides to Calais, at which place their dépôt or ‘staple’
had long been fixed. Thither the cloth manufacturers of the Low
Countries resorted for the purchase of their raw material.
A very heavy export duty was imposed on wool, yielding from one-third to
a half of the total receipts from all customs, and serving the
additional purpose of fostering home manufacture by making the raw
material more expensive to the foreigner than to the Englishman. The
entire expense of maintaining the garrison and fortifications of Calais
was defrayed from the wool duty. This political tie between the Crown
and the Staplers caused the interests of the latter to be well looked
after by the king, although their relative importance inevitably
declined as the export of manufactured goods increased. Their monopoly
gave them the entire handling of the wool export for Flanders and the
Rhine, all other persons being forbidden to engage in it. Italian
merchants, however, were allowed to export wool to their own states,
provided that none was sold north of the Alps; and other traders, both
Englishmen and foreigners, were granted licences from time to time to
ship wools to the Mediterranean. The export duties were so adjusted
that, generally speaking, non-Staplers paid double as much as Staplers.
Henry VII's contemplated extension of the Staple system to Pisa, and the
alarm occasioned in Venice thereby, have been referred to in the
previous chapter.
The Wool Staple was a typically mediaeval device, harsh and inelastic,
and its privileges were doomed to be submerged in the rising tide of
manufacturing enterprise. The growth of the latter continued to absorb
the surplus of wool until none was left for export. Political events
assisted the change: the loss of Calais in 1558 was a crushing blow; and
although, by transference to a Flemish town, it was sought to maintain a
foreign dépôt, the conflict between England and Spain at the end of the
century deprived it of a permanent resting-place. The manufactures of
the Netherlands, and consequently their demand for raw material, also
languished on the outbreak of their struggle for independence under
Philip II. The decline of the Staple was quite appreciable even before
the death of Henry VII. The average annual customs paid on wool during
the first five years of his reign amounted to £16,800; for the last five
years the figure fell just short of £10,000.[16] The corresponding
averages on all other wares were £17,500 and £29,000 respectively, a
very convincing testimony to the efficacy of the king’s policy. There is
no evidence that the decreased export of wool was in any way due to a
smaller output. To judge from social writers on the period the tendency
was all the other way; the conversion of arable land into sheep farms
being one of the gravest domestic problems of the time, owing to the
consequent falling off in the demand for agricultural labour. The
unexported wool must, therefore, have been taken up by the native
cloth-makers, and the striking increase in non-Staple trade was the
result.
The Merchant Adventurers were a society organized on similar lines to
the Staple, but perhaps not so strictly disciplined, and including all
traders engaged in the export of cloth to the Netherlands. According to
tradition they dated from the reign of King John,[17] but they received
their first undoubted charter of incorporation from Henry IV in
1407.[18] This charter, renewed by successive kings, remained in force
until 1505, when the society was reconstituted by a grant from Henry
VII. The preamble stated that, owing to injuries sustained abroad by
lack of proper governance, new regulations were necessary. The merchants
were therefore empowered to meet and choose a governor and twenty-four
assistant governors from among ‘the most sadde, discreete and honest
persones’ of their number. The Governor and Assistants were to have full
power of control over the English merchants resorting to the Low
Countries. Thirteen was fixed as the number forming a quorum for the
transaction of business, and any one refusing to take office when
elected was liable to a fine of £20.[19] An additional grant in the next
year gave power to the Governor and Council to fine and commit to prison
those who disobeyed their commands. This constitution worked fairly well
for the next fifty years, although complaints were sometimes made of the
indiscipline of the merchants. Unlike the Staplers at Calais, the
Merchant Adventurers were resident, when abroad, under the jurisdiction
of a foreign prince, which rendered them more difficult of control.
During the restraint of the Flanders trade, prior to the _Magnus
Intercursus_, they were ordered to shift their head-quarters to Calais;
‘notwithstanding, the said Low Countries were by disordered persons so
furnished with the said woollen commodities that very few merchants
repaired to Calais, either to buy the same or to bring foreign
commodities thither to be sold’.[20]
Shortly afterwards an attempt was made by the richer members of the
Company dwelling in London to squeeze out the minor traders by making
them pay heavy sums for admission to membership. But it proved a
failure, being contrary to the general spirit of the age. The prosperity
of the smaller seaports was threatened, and the aggrieved parties
complained to the king. An Act was therefore passed in the Parliament of
1497 by which the fee for a licence was limited to ten marks, on payment
of which sum any Englishman might trade. Thus the Merchant Adventurers
were saved from petrifying into an exclusive band of privileged
monopolists such as the Staple had become. With their freer and more
elastic organization, they moved with the times, and remained in the
forefront of commercial enterprise throughout the Tudor period. The
expansion of their business brought them into conflict with the
Hanseatic League, whose decline, as far as its hold upon England was
concerned, was thenceforward inevitable. The Merchant Adventurers proved
unsparing enemies, never letting slip any chance of discrediting their
rivals, and instigating the Government to annoy them whenever
opportunity offered. The course of the struggle and the final success
which crowned the efforts of the English merchants will be described in
a subsequent chapter.[21]
It is important to emphasize at this point the difference between the
cloth manufacture in England and in the Netherlands. The greater part of
the cloth at this time exported by the Merchant Adventurers was of a
coarse, heavy variety, which had not been subjected to the various
finishing processes of rowing, shearing, dyeing, &c. in which the
Flemish craftsmen were more expert. The Flemish industry was twofold: it
consisted in completing the manufacture of English cloth, and also in
making the lighter and more expensive fabrics such as chamlets, crapes,
and serges, from raw wool purchased at Calais. This ‘light drapery’
manufacture was not introduced into England until late in the sixteenth
century, being greatly assisted by Elizabeth’s wise policy of
encouraging Philip’s revolted subjects to settle in this country,
bringing the secrets of their craft with them.
The export and import duties of this period form an interesting subject.
Broadly speaking, they fall into two main divisions: the ‘subsidies’,
otherwise known as tonnage and poundage; and the ‘customs’. The
subsidies were a set of variable duties, granted to the king for life at
the beginning of his reign, and consisting of tonnage, or import duty
per tun of wine; poundage, a duty per pound sterling value on most other
goods exported or imported; and wool duties, levied on exported wool.
The customs, as distinct from the subsidies, were fixed duties of
ancient origin, primarily levied on the strength of the royal
prerogative, and were continued without much alteration[22] by the
tactful Tudors, who had no wish to raise a discussion on their legality.
It remained for James I to strain the prerogative by arbitrarily
increasing the old customs rates, and thus to precipitate a struggle
which ended in the abolition of the levying of imposts by royal
authority, and established the dependence of all duties on parliamentary
grant.
The principal and original object of the duties was undoubtedly the
raising of revenue during the wars of the Plantagenet kings; but, as
time went on, they came to be used as instruments of protection for
those classes of merchants who were particularly favoured by the Crown.
As will be shown, the royal favour, previous to Tudor times, was not
reserved exclusively for Englishmen. The protective function of the
duties was that which Henry VII sought to develop, in the interests of
English trade; and modifications were introduced in the subsidies
whenever it seemed expedient.
The following table gives the duties levied on some of the principal
classes of merchandise and payable by Englishmen and foreigners
respectively at the beginning of the reign. The subject is a somewhat
obscure one, and authorities are contradictory on certain points. The
customs are taken from Arnold’s _Chronicle_,[26] where they are included
in a list of which the exact date is not given.[27] Since, however, the
customs were practically invariable, the point is not one of great
importance. The subsidies are those granted by the Parliament of
1485.[28] They remained in force during the king’s life, with certain
modifications due to political exigencies.
────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────
_Article._ │ _Englishmen._ │ _Aliens._
────────────────────────┼────────────┬────────────┼────────────┬────────────
│ _Custom._ │ _Subsidy._ │ _Custom._ │ _Subsidy._
────────────────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────
Wool,[23] per sack[24] │6_s._ 8_d._ │33_s._ 4_d._│ 10_s._ │66_s._ 8_d._
Woolfells,[23] per 240 │6_s._ 8_d._ │33_s._ 4_d._│ 10_s._ │66_s._ 8_d._
Hides,[23] per last │13_s._ 4_d._│66_s._ 8_d._│ 20_s._ │73_s._ 4_d._
Wine, per tun │ nil │ 3_s._ │ 2_s._ │ 3_s._
Sweet wines, per tun │ nil │ 3_s._ │ 2_s._ │ 6_s._
Tin, per £ value │ nil │ 1_s._ │ 3_d._ │ 2_s._
Other goods,[25] per £ │ nil │ 1_s._ │ 3_d._ │ 1_s._
value │ │ │ │
────────────────────────┴────────────┴────────────┴────────────┴────────────
The wool duties were on exports only and the wine duties on imports
only. The poundage was levied on exports as well as imports. The
following goods were exempted from paying poundage: woollen cloth
exported by Englishmen; wool, woolfells and hides exported (taxed by the
special wool duties); corn, flour, fish, flesh, bestall,[29] and wine
imported; and victuals exported for the garrison of Calais. Goods were
valued for poundage on their original cost, on the oath of the merchant
or his servant, and fraudulent declaration was punished by forfeiture.
The wool duties were by far the heaviest in amount, and, to lighten the
excessive strain on the capital resources of the merchant, it was
provided that half the duty should be paid within six months after
shipment, and the other half within twelve months. If the wool were lost
at sea, by wreck, piracy, or war, a similar quantity might be shipped
duty free.
By the Act of 1485 which granted the subsidies for the reign, the Hanse
merchants, who had hitherto been exempt from paying the wine subsidy,
were specially included as being liable to that duty; but their other
existing privileges, which were considerable, were continued unaffected.
By another Act it was provided that if a foreigner had become a
naturalized Englishman he should nevertheless continue to pay duties as
a foreigner. On the other hand, to foster English shipping it was laid
down that if an Englishman shipped his goods in a ‘carryke or galley’,
that is, in a foreign ship, he must pay duties on the foreign scale. A
study of these duties shows how great a measure of protection was
afforded to English trade.
One of the most important of the colonies of foreign merchants settled
in England was the London branch of the Hanseatic League. This, the
greatest mercantile corporation in history, originated, like its smaller
counterparts in England, in the association of merchants from various
German towns for the purpose of mutual protection and co-operation while
trading to foreign countries. After many vicissitudes, it attained in
the fourteenth century to the status of a sovereign power, maintaining a
formidable fleet and waging wars with the northern nations in defence of
its interests. The London ‘factory’ was one of its largest oversea
branches, and, during the fifteenth century, saw its pre-eminence
threatened by the gradual growth of native mercantile enterprise, as
evidenced by the rise of the Merchant Adventurers. The rivalry thus
engendered was intense, but the Hanse merchants were able to take
advantage of the internal dissensions in England, and a long period of
privateering and reprisal was ended by an agreement which they extorted
from Edward IV. In 1473 and 1474 treaties were signed by which the
rights of the Hansa to trade in England under more advantageous terms
than other foreigners, and even, in certain cases, than Englishmen, were
recognized. Their group of warehouses and dwelling-places in the
Steelyard, ‘commonly called Guildhall Theutonicorum’, was also secured
to them in perpetuity, under the jurisdiction of officers appointed by
themselves.[30]
As manufactured woollen goods formed a principal item of their business,
it is illustrative to give in detail a list of the duties on those and
other articles, in which their privileged position is apparent:[31]
────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────
_Article._ │_Englishmen._│_Spaniards._ │ _Hansa_ │ _Others_
────────────────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────
│Custom│ Subs│Custom│ Subs│Custom│ Subs│Custom│ Subs
────────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
Cloth, without │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
‘greyn’, per │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
cloth │14_d._│ nil│14_d._│ nil│12_d._│ nil│33_d._│12_d._
Cloth, half │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
‘greyned’ │21_d._│ nil│21_d._│ nil│18_d._│ nil│49_d._│12_d._
Cloth ‘in greyn’│28_d._│ nil│28_d._│ nil│24_d._│ nil│66_d._│12_d._
Single worsted, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
per piece │ 1_d._│ 1_d._│ 1_d._│ 1_d._│ 1_d._│ 1_d._│1½_d._│12_d._
Double worsted, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
per piece │ 2_d._│ 1_d._│ 2_d._│ 1_d._│ 2_d._│ 1_d._│ 3_d._│12_d._
Every bed, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
single worsted│ 5_d._│ 1_d._│ 5_d._│ 1_d._│ 5_d._│ 1_d._│7½_d._│12_d._
Every bed, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
double worsted│ 9_d._│ 1_d._│ 9_d._│ 1_d._│ 9_d._│ 1_d._│13½_d._│12_d._
Wax, per cwt. │12_d._│ nil│12_d._│ nil│12_d._│ nil│12_d._│12_d._
Wines, per tun │ nil│36_d._│24_d._│36_d._│24_d._│ nil│24_d._│36_d._
────────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────
It will be seen that, although the Spaniards received very nearly equal
treatment with Englishmen, the Hansa had in nearly every case more
advantageous terms, and was thus enabled to sell its goods at a lower
price or at a better profit than native merchants. It must be borne in
mind also that the trade in cloth with Spain was comparatively small.
With their position thus strengthened, the members of the Hanseatic
League began to oust English traders from the Baltic, the German ports,
Scandinavia, and even Iceland. The English traffic with the last
mentioned country was further threatened with utter extinction by a
quarrel with the King of Denmark, who forbade Englishmen to resort
thither, although the prohibition was not made entirely effective.
On the accession of Henry VII public opinion demanded that he should
diminish the privileges of the Hansa, wrung, as they had been, from
Edward IV at a time when England was weak from a protracted civil war,
and certain, if unchecked, seriously to hinder the expansion of native
trade. He was unable, however, to denounce the treaty of 1473–4, as he
dared not risk open war with a maritime power which could retaliate by
assisting his numerous enemies to invade his realm. He therefore adopted
a policy which, while ostensibly upholding its legal rights, sought
every opportunity to nullify them in practice in favour of his own
subjects. Accordingly, in the first year of his reign, in spite of
protests, he granted a charter to the Hansa, renewing its privileges as
secured by the treaty.[32] The settlement of the Iceland dispute was
next effected. In 1489 Henry dispatched ambassadors to Denmark who, in
the following year, concluded a treaty with that country, by which peace
was restored, trade was resumed on its former basis, and the prohibition
of English voyages to Iceland was removed.[33]
This was a blow at the Hansa of which it could not legitimately
complain, although it abolished at a stroke its threatened supremacy in
the fish trade, which, in pre-Reformation days, was relatively much more
important than it has since become. It was followed up by a series of
annoyances in the matter of the interpretation of treaties and customs
laws. The Easterlings[34] retaliated with restrictions on English trade
with Prussia. A diet was held to adjust differences at Antwerp in 1491.
A long list of grievances against the English administration was
presented, which may be taken as illustrative of the policy pursued
towards the Hansa at all times when there was no special reason to
desire its goodwill. Ships and goods, it was alleged, were robbed in an
English port; Hanse vessels were arrested for shipping cloth to Antwerp
and for exporting unwrought cloths; the Act of Parliament granting
subsidies was interpreted as overriding the treaty privileges of the
League; the Lord Mayor arbitrarily fixed prices in London, and was
guilty of other unjust practices; the Hansa suffered under the
Navigation Acts prohibiting the import of Bordeaux wine and Toulouse
woad in other than English ships; unlawful customs were exacted on
certain articles, and the import of others was forbidden; the privileged
duty rates were only allowed on goods coming from the Hanse towns, full
duties being exacted on goods from other countries; the customs officers
overestimated the value of Easterlings' goods and, when the duties were
paid, delayed clearance so that English merchants might be first in the
market on the other side; arbitrary charges were made for convoy, the
Easterlings being forced to pay although they had not asked for
protection; and Hanse vessels unlading at Hull were forced to take in
cargoes at the same place, although frequently such cloths as they
wanted were not obtainable there.[35]
The above practices were plainly unjust, but were of such a nature,
proceeding as they did from the universal ill will of all grades of
officials and underlings, that only the strongest and most determined of
governments could have put them down. That of Henry VII had no desire to
exert itself in this direction, and undoubtedly connived at the
oppression. The only outcome of the diet was a formal reaffirmation of
the treaty of 1474, with a mutual promise of better conduct and a
provision for settling damages and stopping piracy.
During the quarrel with Margaret of Burgundy, in 1493, when all trade
with the Low Countries was prohibited, the Steelyard merchants were
forced to deposit £20,000 as security for their observance of the
order.[36] At this time they were so intensely unpopular in London that
it was unsafe for a German to walk in the streets alone. A rumour was
spread that they were continuing to trade with Flemish ports in spite of
the prohibition, and popular hatred rose to boiling-over point. A mob of
the unemployed and discontented gathered with the intention of sacking
the rich warehouses in the Steelyard. The Easterlings defended
themselves bravely, and were partially successful in beating off the
assault, although they afterwards claimed that much damage had been
done. While the issue was still in doubt the Lord Mayor assembled the
magistrates and officers of the city; and, at the approach of the forces
of order, the rioters fled. About eighty apprentices and workmen were
captured and locked up in the Tower. They were all subsequently
released.
Commercial hostilities continued on both sides, and were the subject of
renewed diets at Bruges in 1497 and 1499.[37] The Hansa brought forward
similar grievances to those already enumerated. They complained, in
addition, of being subjected to the oppressive jurisdiction of the
Admiral’s Court, which at that time took cognizance of all marine cases.
They also claimed damages for the riot of 1493 and for various piracies.
The English retaliated by putting in a much larger bill of damages, and
asserted that they had been expelled from the Hanse towns, and that
their house at Danzig had been confiscated. The English had more to gain
than to lose by the continuance of bad relations, for their interests in
the Baltic were not nearly so extensive as those of the Hansa in
England. Henry held firm in his contention that legislation, such as
that affecting the import of Bordeaux wine and Cologne silk and the
export of cloth, was binding on all merchants resorting to England,
special privileges notwithstanding. Further than this he did not care to
go. The English merchants would have been glad to see him expel once and
for all the tenants of the Steelyard, but he never liked to commit
himself to a position from which there was no retreat; and he could not
forget that the Hansa, driven to desperation, would be a formidable
enemy. He had done enough to set English North Sea traffic on its legs;
and the continued prosperity of the Merchant Adventurers is no bad
testimonial to the soundness of his cautious policy.
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 15_s._ 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 10_s._ per sack on wool and 12_d._ 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 5_d._ 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.
-----
Footnote 16:
For detailed figures as to customs payments see Schanz, _Englische
Handelspolitik gegen Ende des Mittelalters_, ii. 37–156.
Footnote 17:
_Harl. MSS._, 597, f. 211.
Footnote 18:
Thomas Gresham, writing to Northumberland in 1553, speaks of sending a
copy of their privileges dated 1296, but the document does not now
exist (_Cal. S. P. Dom._ 1547–80, p. 51).
Footnote 19:
_Cotton MSS._, Tib. D viii, f. 37. Printed by Schanz.
Footnote 20:
_Harl. MSS._, 597, f. 211.
Footnote 21:
Ancient histories of the Merchant Adventurers: _Harl. MSS._, 597, ff.
211–15, a general sketch written in the reign of Elizabeth; _Stowe
MSS._, 303, ff. 99–107, written in the time of Charles II, of very
slight value; _A Treatise of Commerce_ (printed), by John Wheeler,
1601, much fuller and better informed than the other two.
Footnote 22:
Some additions were made by Mary.
Footnote 23:
Staple articles: in their case ‘Englishmen’ means members of the
Staple, and ‘Aliens’ includes such Englishmen as exported cargoes of
wool, &c., to the Mediterranean.
Footnote 24:
A sack of wool contained 14 tods, each of 28 lb. weight, or 392 lb. in
all (_Lansd. MSS._, 152, f. 239).
Footnote 25:
Excluding cloth. Cloth duties are given separately below.
Footnote 26:
1811 ed., pp. 193–6.
Footnote 27:
On internal evidence it is probably slightly before the time of Henry
VII.
Footnote 28:
_Rolls of Parliament_, vi. 269, 270.
Footnote 29:
Live animals.
Footnote 30:
_Foedera_, xi. 793–803.
Footnote 31:
Arnold’s _Chronicle_, pp. 193–6. But compare the details of Hanse
privileges in 1552 (_inf._ p. 167). There is no evidence that any
alteration was made in the duties, and Arnold’s figures must therefore
be received with caution.
Footnote 32:
_Harl. MSS._, 306, f. 82.
Footnote 33:
_Foedera_, xii, pp. 374 and 381.
Footnote 34:
The merchants of the Hansa were commonly called Easterlings in
England, and their London dépôt was known as the Steelyard.
Footnote 35:
_Cologne Archives_, printed in Schanz, ii. 397.
Footnote 36:
Hall’s _Chronicle_, 1809 ed., pp. 467–8.
Footnote 37:
_Cologne Archives, Acta Anglicana_, 1434–1521, ff. 166, 188–9; printed
by Schanz, ii. 409, 419.
Footnote 38:
_Spanish Cal._ i, pp. 161–7.
Footnote 39:
_Foedera_, xii. 335.
Footnote 40:
_Venetian Cal._ i, p. 206.
Footnote 41:
_Venetian Cal._ i, p. 253–4.
Footnote 42:
For details on this subject see _Venetian Calendar_, vol. i and
Preface.