THE FALL OF THE HANSA
During the reign of Henry VIII the Hanseatic League enjoyed its last
days of prosperity in England. Its ancient privileges, confirmed and
regularized by treaty with Edward IV, and precariously maintained in
face of the unsparing encroachments of Henry VII, continued to be
enjoyed in practically undiminished form throughout the life of the
second Tudor; being, in fact, justified in the king’s estimation by the
services, and still more by the potential disservices, which their
possessors had it in their power to render to the English State.
In the first Parliament of the reign, therefore, a short Act was passed
for the maintenance _in statu quo_ of the rights of the Steelyard; and
similar Acts were repeated at intervals by succeeding Parliaments. In
practice, however, the general privilege thus conferred was not held to
be immune from modification by the operation of statutes dealing with
particular branches of trade. Of this order were the laws governing the
manufacture and export of cloth, which were to the following effect: In
the session of 1511–12 the old Acts[104] forbidding the export of any
but fully-wrought cloth were resuscitated, with the proviso that they
should not apply to the cheaper qualities below the value of four marks
per piece. Two years later the law was amended by a new Act, of which
the preamble set forth the interests of the various parties concerned:
the weavers, scattered over the face of the country, and producing in
their cottages the raw, undressed fabric; the dyers, fullers, shearmen,
and other craftsmen who, as the names of their callings imply, completed
by their several processes the manufacture of the finished article, and
in whose interest the prohibition of the export of unwrought cloth had
been made; and the exporters, merchants who stood to lose by the
restrictions imposed. But let the statute-book speak for itself and
throw light on the most ancient of our manufactures as practised four
centuries ago:
‘Which act, [that of 1511–12, fixing the limit of cheap cloths at 4
marks] put in execution, shall not only turn to the abatement of the
King’s customs, but also grow to the utter undoing of his subjects the
clothmakers and merchants conveyers of the said cloths, forasmuch as
wool is risen of a far greater price than it was at the making of the
said act; for where a cloth was then commonly sold for 4 marks, it is
now sold for 5 marks; and also, by the said act, the merchants should
be bound to dress every white cloth above the value of 4 marks on this
side the sea after they have bought them; which white cloths so
dressed when they be brought into the parts beyond the sea and there
by the buyers of them dyed and put in colours, then they must be newly
dressed, barbed, shorn and rowed; and so they shall be less in
substance by themself, and the worse to the sale, and sold for less
price by 10 or 12 shillings apiece beyond the sea, than if they were
at first undressed.’
Accordingly it was now enacted that every white cloth under the price of
five marks might be exported undressed, but that all of greater value
must undergo complete manufacture at the hands of English craftsmen. The
continuous increase in the bulk of the precious metals in circulation,
and the consequent rise in prices, rendered a new alteration necessary
in 1535. An Act of that year repeated the above preamble almost word for
word, but fixed the price limits of ‘cheap cloths’ at £4 for white
cloths and £3 for coloured.[105]
The Easterling merchants, in common with other exporters, were included
in the scope of these Acts. That they considered them as an infraction
of their liberties is proved by a complaint on the subject addressed to
King Henry from Lubeck in 1517.[106] But it was idle for them to expect
exceptional redress in a matter which affected English merchants as
hardly as themselves. Economic change was producing terrible problems of
beggary and unemployment, and it was essential to maintain a certain
amount of protection for English industry.
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.
By this time there was on both sides a sufficient accumulation of
grievances to warrant the holding of another diet to clear the air. It
was fixed to take place at Antwerp in 1542. But the League made the
customary excuses when it came to the point. What they feared most was
a searching discussion of their whole position. They were conscious
that, whatever a parchment signed and sealed seventy years before
might say, their privileges were an absurdity in the light of common
sense, and that any modification could only be in one direction.
Accordingly the Consuls and Senators of Lubeck wrote to Henry thanking
him for appointing a day for the diet, but begging to be excused from
sending representatives as the wars rendered Antwerp an unsafe
meeting-place.[113] This persistent evasion of discussion shows the
weakness of their position. The morale of the attack was with the
English merchants and, even in an age when morality went for very
little in public matters, their sense of injustice rendered the
reduction of the preposterous advantages enjoyed by a company of
aliens only a matter of time. For the moment, however, the inevitable
conclusion was again postponed. A new war was in progress with
Scotland and in prospect with France, and, as usual, naval and
military necessities rendered peace with the Hansa indispensable.
The fact that the League’s naval power was never used against Henry VIII
must not be allowed to obscure the fact that it could have been so used,
and that, if it had been, the consequences to him would have been most
serious. As it was, in this last French war of his, the navies on either
side of the Channel were practically equal; the French, indeed, were
superior in material strength. Thus the king simply could not afford to
quarrel with the League, and, instead of pressing the matter of the
diet, he appears to have made extensive concessions. Such is the
implication to be derived from a letter from Lubeck dated April 6, 1543,
in which it is stated that the Hanse towns are greatly indebted to Henry
and will never do anything to his prejudice.[114] Two years later
several Hanse vessels served in his fleet against the French.
So ended the last passage of arms between the League and Henry VIII.
Friendly alliance persisted thenceforward to the end of the reign. In
1544 a large consignment of ships, rigging, and stores was received from
Danzig for the use of the Navy.[115] Henry was treacherously treated by
the emperor, who made an unexpected peace with France in 1544. The
hostile relations which resulted between England and the Imperial
Government placed the Merchant Adventurers in difficulties in the
Netherlands. Oppressive taxes were imposed on them and, for a time, they
and their goods were under arrest.[116] From these troubles the Hansa
made its profit, and was soon absorbing an ever-increasing share of the
cloth export to Antwerp, a trade which the Merchant Adventurers had
always regarded as peculiarly their own. When Henry died the prosperity
of the London Hansa was at its highest point, and formed a striking
contrast to the ruin which overtook it a few years later. Broadly
considered, it seems surprising that such an undoubted anachronism
should have survived so far into the noon-day of Tudor rule. The
explanation, as has been shown, is to be found in the wars of Henry VIII
and the relative weakness of his navy as compared with the demands he
made upon it. His personal position was so elevated and commanding that
he seldom needed to stoop to ignoble truckling with factions, as did the
rulers who immediately succeeded him. From his lofty standpoint he
viewed the interests of the nation as a whole, and placed its safety
above the more sectional desire of the merchants to score off their
foreign rivals. Consequently he seems to have been over-generous in his
treatment of the Hanseatic League, to have failed to realize that it
must be crushed before England could take a leading place among the
maritime nations. But it is doubtful if precipitate action would better
have advanced the interests of English commerce than did the policy
actually pursued. When the time was ripe the inevitable happened, and
our trade was free to expand without the drag of privileged competition
within our gates.
The accession to power of the Duke of Somerset did not produce any
immediate change in the position of the Hansa, although doubtless the
Merchant Adventurers were quick to see that their chance had come with
the troublous times of a minority. The Act granting tonnage and poundage
for the reign contained a clause in favour of the ancient privileges of
the Steelyard, but with a proviso for their maintenance during the
existing Parliament only. For the time being the prospect of trouble
with Scotland and France forced Somerset to hold his hand, if indeed he
had any intention of yielding to the demands of the League’s enemies.
The Protestant sympathies of the new Government tended rather towards
alliance with the German powers. Within two months of Henry’s death a
proposal was on foot to lend 50,000 crowns to the Duke of Saxony and the
Free Towns, to be repaid by the latter in cables, masts, anchors, pitch,
and other naval stores;[117] and in the same year the suspension of the
statutes limiting the export of unwrought cloth, and the permission of
the free export of the same by Englishmen, was extended to the Hansa
also for a limited period. This favourable treatment continued even
after the deposition of Somerset, during the two years from the autumn
of 1549 to autumn of 1551, in which Warwick was consolidating his power.
Thus, when the Hanse establishment at Hull was being oppressively used
by the civic authorities, letters were addressed to the Mayor and Jurats
enjoining them to cease their aggressions and to refrain from imposing
new imposts.[118] Hitherto the only measure suggestive of hostility to
the Hansa had been an Act passed in 1548 to suppress ‘colouring’. This
was a method of defrauding the customs and consisted in the passing of
the property of others through the custom-house as their own by those
who paid reduced duties, as did the Easterlings. The offence was
extensively charged against them, probably with good reason.
Apparently, therefore, the death of Henry had made no difference to the
position of the Hansa; and their privileges, which even he had never
seriously challenged, seemed more strongly rooted than ever. During
these years their business, by all accounts, increased to an enormous
extent. It is to be hoped that they made some sacrifice to Nemesis, in
the shape of insurance against the evil times that followed. The very
weakness of the Government, which seemed their best guarantee, was in
the end to be the cause of their ruin. By the year 1551 the
administration was in serious financial difficulties, and was resorting
to such desperate measures as the wholesale debasement of the coinage.
English credit diminished abroad, and the rate of exchange at Antwerp
fell alarmingly. Thomas Gresham, a protégé of Warwick’s, was sent to the
Low Countries to exercise his business genius in remedying matters;[119]
at the same time the Merchant Adventurers were called upon for extensive
loans, and, backed by Gresham, they were clamorous for the revocation,
in return, of the privileges of the Hansa. That momentous step was
accordingly resolved upon by Warwick, not as the culminating act in a
piece of patriotic diplomacy, but as a stake thrown on the table by an
irresponsible gambler, risking what is not his own. That the
consequences were not immediately disastrous may be admitted, but the
country was scarcely in a strong enough position for such a risk to be
taken, as the feebleness of the fleet in subsequent actions was to
demonstrate. The suppression of the Hanse privileges was necessary and
desirable; but it should have been deferred to a time when the English
navy was strong enough to maintain unaided the command of the narrow
seas. Such undoubtedly would have been the policy of Henry VIII.
Warwick was now on the point of consummating his triumph over the rival
faction of Somerset, crippled, though not destroyed, two years before.
In October 1551 he was created Duke of Northumberland by the pliant
young king. The second and final arrest of Somerset followed, and his
trial on fabricated charges began on December 1. On January 22, 1552,
Somerset’s head fell on the scaffold and Northumberland was henceforth,
in fact though not in name, supreme ruler of England.
Meanwhile the tragedy of the London Hansa was proceeding concomitantly
with that of the great protector. The first hint of its impending fate
was contained in an order sent on December 12 to the Clerk of Chancery
to search for the last letters patent granted by the king to the
Steelyard men, ‘about January was twelvemonth’, and to send a copy of
the same for immediate consideration.[120] As compared with the
prolonged diplomatic struggles which the Hansa had already survived, its
suppression was accomplished with surprising rapidity. On the 29th the
alderman and some of the merchants of the Steelyard were summoned before
the Council.[121] The information laid against them by the Merchant
Adventurers was recited and a copy delivered to them in writing.
Briefly, the charges were as follows: That there was no definition of
the exact extent of the League, and that thus it was enabled to admit
whom it liked to its liberties, to the detriment of the revenue and of
the trade of the English merchants; that the Steelyard men ‘coloured’
foreigners’ goods extensively; that their export of English cloth to the
Low Countries and elsewhere, and the import of goods from neutral
countries, constituted an infraction of their original privileges, which
provided only that they should deal in _suae merces_, a phrase
interpreted by the English as meaning the produce solely of their own
territories; and that the treaty of 1474, providing that Englishmen
should enjoy similar privileges in German ports, had not been adhered
to.[122]
It is probable that, although they had been living under the shadow of
some such crisis for over half a century, the blow fell unexpectedly at
last. No preliminary warning of a categorical nature is discoverable in
the surviving evidence, and it is natural to suppose that
Northumberland, Gresham, and the governing clique of the Merchant
Adventurers concerted their measures in secrecy. The whole process of
trial and judgement certainly reads like a foregone conclusion. The
Easterlings took nearly three weeks to consider their reply, which they
presented on January 18, 1552. The Solicitor-General and three other
lawyers were appointed to deal with it, and the matter was before the
Council on January 25 and February 9. The advocates of the rival
corporations argued their several cases, the Hansa showing ‘divers
writings and charters’, which, however, were not thought to be of
sufficient force. The hearing was adjourned to the 18th, when the
Merchant Adventurers made their retort to the defence and nothing
remained but for judgement to be pronounced.[123] Judgement was not slow
to follow, since the case had been decided before ever it was opened,
and it was desirable to make an end before the arrival of ambassadors
known to be on their way from the Baltic towns. These latter must, in
bare courtesy, be listened to, and their eloquence would but delay the
inevitable result.
Accordingly, on February 24, 1552, the decision was promulgated in a
document which still rests among the Public Records, endorsed in Cecil’s
hand as ‘The Decree against the Styllyard’. The _Calendar of Foreign
State Papers_ gives the pith of it as follows:
1. The pretended privileges are void because the merchants have no
sufficient corporation to receive the same.
2. These privileges extend to no certain persons or towns, but they
admit to be free with them whom they list, to the annual loss to the
customs of nearly £20,000.
3. Even were such privileges good according to the law of the land,
which they are not, they had only been granted on condition that the
merchants should not avow or colour any foreign goods or merchandise;
a condition which the merchants have not observed.
4. For more than a hundred years after these alleged privileges were
granted, the Hanse merchants exported no goods except to their own
countries, nor imported any but the produce of the same; whereas now
they do so to the Low Countries, Flanders, and elsewhere, contrary to
the terms of a recognisance made in the time of Henry VIII.
5. These privileges, which were at first beneficial to the merchants,
without any notable injury to the realm, have now by their exceeding
of the same grown so prejudicial to the state that they may no longer
without great hurt thereof be endured.
6. The treaty of reciprocity, made after the forfeiture of the alleged
privileges by war, in the time of Edward IV, whereby the English
should have similar liberties in Prussia and other places of the
Hansa, has been daily broken, especially in Danzig, by the prohibition
of Englishmen to buy and sell there: and though divers requests for
redress of such wrongs have been made, no reformation has ensued.
Wherefore, until the merchants can prove better and more sufficient
matter for their claim, all their liberties and franchises are seized
and returned into the king’s hands; reserving to the merchants the
ordinary privilege of trading, common to those of other nations.[124]
The privileges thus lost were considerable, arising principally from the
adjustment of the duties. On all foreign wares coming into the country,
wines excepted, the Easterlings paid only 3_d._ in the £ as subsidy or
poundage, while Englishmen paid 12_d._ and other foreigners 20_d._ For
the export of cloth Englishmen paid no subsidy, the Easterlings paid
12_d._ _per piece_, and other foreigners as much as 6_s._ 4_d._[125]
Here the English exporters had a slight advantage, but insufficient to
neutralize the discrimination of 9_d._ in the £ on imports. The 12_d._
per cloth paid by the Hansa was not very ruinous when compared with the
value of the goods—the average price of a piece of cloth for export
being about £5. To the other foreigners the cloth duties proved almost
prohibitive, with the result that in one year the Hansa shipped 44,000
cloths out of England as against 1,100 shipped by all other aliens.[126]
The great offence of the Easterlings was undoubtedly this successful
competition of theirs with the Merchant Adventurers in the cloth export
to the Low Countries. It would seem that, although they had practised it
to some extent as far back as the time of Henry VII, they had enormously
increased their operations during the last years of Henry VIII and
throughout the reign of his son, a period in which the English had been
in bad odour with the Imperial Government. But the Merchant Adventurers
claimed a monopoly in this direction quite as ancient as that of their
rivals—dating back, in fact, to the reign of Edward I, if we are to
believe Thomas Gresham—and they can hardly be blamed for striking hard
when the turn of political intrigue put it into their power to do so.
The numerous lists of grievances against the Easterlings all emphasize
the unprecedented increase of this branch of their business, and when,
under Mary, their liberties were partially restored, it was with special
safeguards against their selling cloth in Antwerp. If they had been
prepared to recognize that their day of power was past, and peaceably to
forgo this traffic, they might long have continued unmolested in London,
dealing on favourable terms in the special products of Germany and the
Baltic. But their obstinate insistence on a treaty close on a century
old, and embodying privileges more ancient still, granted when social,
economic, and national conditions had all been widely different, was
certain not to pass unchallenged in the new age of national awakening.
The new edict was rapidly put into execution. On February 27 the Council
sent letters to the customers of London and Hull ordering them to exact
from the Easterlings the ordinary customs as paid by other aliens. No
trace can be found of similar instructions being sent to Lynn, from
which it would appear that the Hanse dépôt at one time existing in that
place had already been abolished. On the following day the expected
ambassadors arrived from Hamburg and Lubeck to plead their cause, the
task of dealing with them being committed to the Lord Chancellor and a
committee of nine. On May 1 an answer was delivered which confirmed the
former judgement in all points. The Government was determined to stop
the Hanse export of cloth, and strict injunctions were issued to prevent
any one else from ‘colouring’ their goods. Later, after renewed
representations from the ambassadors, or ‘orators’ as they were styled,
they relented so far as to allow the export at the old rates of a
certain quantity of cloths, not exceeding 2,000 in number, which had
been purchased before the restraint.[127] An entry in the king’s journal
noting the above concession, concludes with the following words, which
seem to signify that the Government was still disposed to negotiate:
‘... in all other points the old decree to stand, till by a further
communication the matter should be ended and concluded.’ Again, in
October, it was resolved by the Council, ‘that the matter (of the Hansa)
shall be more fully heard in the Exchequer’. Second thoughts were
evidently giving rise to misgivings as to the possible disadvantages of
open war with the League.
The Hansa, in fact, never accepted defeat nor relaxed their efforts to
secure a reversal of the decree. On September 7, 1552, Sigismund
Augustus, King of Poland, wrote to Edward VI on behalf of the citizens
of Danzig, setting forth the intolerable burdens to which they were
subjected and desiring the restoration of their ancient liberties.[128]
But on the main point the Government held firm. No agreement was arrived
at, and the ‘restraint’ continued until after the death of Edward, which
event took place in July 1553.
With the opening of Mary’s reign the prospects of the Hansa brightened
for a short time, only to be extinguished again before its close. The
queen was naturally not prejudiced in favour of any policy of
Northumberland’s, and she found good reasons for treating the
Easterlings more leniently. Gresham, as a strong adherent of the duke’s
party, fell under a cloud, from which he only emerged when found to be
indispensable to the new Government. He was not reinstated in his
position at Antwerp until the middle of November.[129] The emperor, with
whose son Mary was already contemplating marriage, was opposed to the
infliction of extreme penalties on those who were theoretically his
subjects. His Flemings also were afraid that if the Merchant Adventurers
were freed from all competition they would raise their prices at
Antwerp. Influence was accordingly brought to bear upon the queen, with
the result that orders were given for the restraint to be removed in
September 1553, after a duration of nineteen months.[130] In spite of
this the usual Act granting tonnage, poundage, &c., for the reign,
passed in October, made no mention of the restoration of the Hanse
privileges, and the customers of London continued to exact from them the
usual duties payable by aliens. On complaint being made to the queen,
she issued definite instructions that the Easterlings were to pay no
more than in the time before the restraint. She further ruled that they
should be allowed to export unwrought cloths up to the value of £6 per
piece, the suspension of the statutes on this matter, which took place
in 1547, having lapsed.[131]
The Hansa was now better off than it had been for many years, but the
improvement was destined to be fleeting. The Merchant Adventurers did
not accept the reversal of their good fortune without a struggle. They
accumulated evidence of the malpractices of their enemies and clamoured
their discontent with a vigour and pertinacity which showed that the
Easterlings would never again enjoy an unchallenged supremacy in the
North Sea trade. In December 1554 an indictment was drawn up, setting
forth in detail the injuries suffered by the Crown and the merchants of
England by reason of ‘the usurped trade and traffic which the
Easterlings many years have used and yet do use’. It is typical of
numerous complaints current at the time, and contains most of the stock
charges and arguments against the Hansa, amongst which the question of
the cloth export holds a preponderating place. Some of the details must
be accepted with reserve: party statements, even in our own moral age,
are not apt to be over-scrupulous in the handling of figures:
Beginning with a specification of the reduced duties restored since the
lifting of the restraint, it went on to deplore the ‘decay’ of English
shipping and mariners caused by the carrying trade of the Easterlings:
where, in former times, thirty or forty large English ships would have
been freighted at once, now only three or four small crayers were
required. Next, the decay of the cloth manufacture, the diminishing
sales at Blackwell Hall, the rise of prices of all commodities, the fall
of the rate of exchange on Antwerp Bourse, and, in fact, all the
commercial evils of the time, were ascribed to the same ‘usurped’ trade.
The English merchants trading to the Low Countries were, in common with
everything else in this gloomy screed, ‘much decayed’, and likely within
few years to be utterly undone. The resident Germans being, by the rules
of the Steelyard, bachelors, and the Englishmen having wife and children
to support, the latter were again at a disadvantage. Their grievances
beyond the seas were still more bitter. The Hansa, paying lower import
duty, could afford to undersell them everywhere. Severe laws and
exactions had driven out those Englishmen who formerly had warehouses in
various German and Baltic ports. Not content with that, the Easterlings
had followed them into the Low Countries, and had made great sales of
English and foreign wares there. At Hamburg they had established a rival
mart for English cloth which they caused to be dressed in that city,
thus throwing English craftsmen out of work. The Hamburg mart, being
nearer than Antwerp to the interior of Germany, was threatening to do
away with most of the English trade to Antwerp.
Figures were then given in support of the foregoing and other charges.
Thirty-one Hanse merchants had between them shipped 11,200 cloths to
Antwerp in eleven months of the year 1554; thirty-four had in the same
period sent 23,250 cloths to Hamburg, Lubeck, and other German towns.
Twenty-seven persons, being only ‘shippers (skippers) and mariners’, had
brought cargoes to England, but had taken no merchandise away in return;
they must, therefore, have taken money out of the realm. Thirty-eight
Dutchmen, not members of the Hansa, were mentioned, who had exported
largely from England during the restraint, but who had not since shipped
a single cloth; from which it was deduced that the Easterlings must now
be colouring their goods. The charge of colouring was further supported
by a tabulation of exports and imports showing that the Hansa had sent
out of the country in eleven months goods to the value of £154,366 more
than those they had brought in; since it was certain that they had not
brought specie to anything like that amount, it was concluded that they
must have coloured cloths for the Flemings and other heavily taxed
aliens. But for this, the same cloth would have been purchased from the
Merchant Adventurers at Antwerp. To cap the whole indictment, it was
urged that the Easterlings studiously avoided chartering English
shipping: during the period named they had freighted about forty
vessels, not one of them English.[132]
The complaint was backed by a petition from the Merchant Adventurers to
the Council, deploring the falling-off of their trade and asking for the
following remedies: that the Hansa be forced to define precisely its own
extent; that it be allowed to export to its own cities, only coloured
cloths, ‘dyed, rowed, barbed, shorn, and fully dressed unto the proof’;
and that its trade in English goods to the Low Countries be
prohibited.[133] The petitioners pointed out that it was not sufficient
merely to restrain the traffic to Antwerp, but also that in white cloth
to the North German ports. The finishing of such cloth was becoming a
rising industry in that region, while English and Flemish craftsmen were
losing work. The inclusion of the Flemings in the argument was possibly
a bid for the favour of King Philip, who, however, consistently
supported the Hansa. But Philip had by no means an overwhelming
influence in the conduct of English affairs. The queen, no doubt,
usually gave way to him, but the Council, while rendering unlimited
lip-homage, generally contrived to thwart his desires when they ran
counter to their own; and, as time went on, their independence
increased. Such at least was the case with regard to maritime and
commercial matters.
The efforts of the Merchant Adventurers were crowned with success. On
March 25, 1555, the Council issued orders that, pending the holding of a
diet, the Hansa should export no cloth whatever to Antwerp, and to other
places only one white cloth for every three coloured ones.[134] If they
wished to make any shipments in excess of the above limits they were to
pay the ordinary aliens’ customs rates. With regard to imports, they
might import £1 worth of ‘foreign’ goods for every £3 of the produce of
their own countries. This order was to continue in force until a diet
should otherwise determine the matter.[135]
Thus, after eighteen months’ unrestricted enjoyment of their old
privileges, the Easterlings found them once more virtually suppressed by
an edict almost as severe as that of 1552. There could be no mistake as
to the intention of the proposal for a diet. Its only result would be to
tear up the treaty upon which their position was based, and to
regularize their reduction to the status of ordinary aliens. They
therefore refused to have anything to do with it. Yet they did not
despair of securing a modification of the latest sentence and, twelve
months later, an embassy arrived in London with proposals for a
settlement. The ambassadors pointed out that their own cities produced
little or nothing which could be sold in England, most of their
merchandise being brought, by the travail of their merchants and
sailors, from the remotest regions of the North and East. Accordingly
they asked that the term ‘foreign goods’ (_exoticae merces_) might be
interpreted to mean the goods of France, Spain, and Italy, and that they
might be free to import other merchandise without restriction. With
regard to the export of cloth from England, they declared that the
distinction between white and coloured cloth was intolerable and, if
persisted in, would exclude the majority of Easterlings from commerce
with this country. They asked therefore for the restoration of their
ancient liberty of exporting to their own cities any cloths, white or
coloured, and, if under the value of £6, unwrought. The emphasis laid
upon this demand makes it evident that cloth finishing was indeed a
growing industry in North Germany, as the Merchant Adventurers had
alleged, and that a supply of the rough fabric, obtainable only in
England, was indispensable. In return for the above concessions the
Hansa was willing to undertake to abstain altogether from selling
English cloth in the Low Countries, merely reserving the right to export
via Antwerp to its own cities without opening the packages in transit.
The letter to Sir William Petre, in which the above proposals were
enclosed, ends with a half-threatening recommendation that moderation
and friendship would prove the better course, and that the English would
do well not to make themselves unpopular on the Continent.[136]
The Hanse demands were countenanced by King Philip[137], who, as Regent
of the Netherlands, was by no means satisfied that his subjects’
interests were identical with those of the English. In deference to her
husband, Mary determined to make a show of concession, although it would
seem that she had by this time been entirely won over to the Merchant
Adventurers’ point of view. An answer was returned to the following
effect: That Their Majesties were mindful of the ancient friendship
between England and the Hansa, and were desirous to increase the same,
but that the rights claimed had not in former times been generally
admitted. As long as they had been used in moderation it was not a
matter of much importance, but of late they had been excessively used,
to the great prejudice of the revenue and merchants of England, and
could no longer be tolerated. Therefore Their Majesties’ proposal was
that a diet should be held in London within one year, for the settlement
of all questions in a manner useful to both parties. In the meanwhile
the absolute prohibition of the export of white cloth should be removed,
the liberty of exporting one white cloth for every two coloured ones
being substituted.[138] Nothing is here said about Antwerp, but it is
evident from other sources that the Hansa was held to its offer to
abstain from trading there.[139]
An agreement was concluded on the above lines on March 25, 1556, exactly
a year after the second revocation of the privileges. It was to endure
for one year only, or until the conclusion of the diet if held sooner.
At the same time the Easterlings of the London establishment were
granted relief from certain oppressive proceedings of the Lord Mayor,
and were given the right to buy cloth in warehouses adjoining the
Steelyard instead of at Blackwell Hall.[140]
In spite of all losses and interruptions the trade of the Hansa showed a
wonderful vitality. By the end of 1556 they were shipping cloth through
Antwerp in such quantities that their enemies could not help suspecting
that they meant to ‘utter’ some of it there. The Council threatened to
bind them over in the sum of £20,000, but they begged off and escaped
with a strict admonition to do nothing fraudulent.[141] The drawback to
all such agreements as that under which they were working was that the
resources of the administration were insufficient for the supervision of
intricate mercantile processes. Consequently it was as easy to evade—or
be suspected of evading—a commercial treaty, as it became in later days
to smuggle goods without paying duty. The fires of hatred and suspicion
were now thoroughly kindled, and it was not long before England and the
League were again at variance.
As always, the Hansa was strongly averse to the proposed diet for a
final settlement, and the allotted year in which it was to be held
slipped by without any steps being taken. Conscious that the diet was a
trap which would mutilate still further their diminished privileges,
they postponed the evil day as long as possible, trusting doubtless that
international complications would arise to save them, as had happened so
often on previous occasions. The year elapsed and no delegates appeared.
Nevertheless, on April 12, 1557, the Council resolved that,
notwithstanding the expiry of the last settlement, judgement should be
suspended for five weeks longer, during which period they might export
2,000 cloths, on the understanding that the diet should commence without
delay.[142] This produced yet another embassy. It arrived before the end
of the same month, and we read that Sir James Tregonwell was appointed
to conduct the negotiations. They were hopeless from the first; the
points of view of the two parties were irreconcilable, and in less than
a month the ambassadors were taking their departure, leaving the
business on the same footing as before.[143] Again, in October, the
queen was corresponding direct with Lubeck, still pressing the question
of the diet. The concessions of March 1556 had long expired, but the
Easterlings were still carrying on a languishing trade on the same terms
as other aliens. It was a situation their pride could not submit to, and
by the end of the year all intercourse was at an end between England and
the League.
The first hostilities emanated from the latter. During the summer all
English ships arriving at Danzig were arrested, compelled to land their
cargoes, and to pay extortionate duties on the same, forbidden to load
anything in return, and only allowed to depart on the merchants taking
oath that they would go home in ballast without purchasing grain
anywhere else. It was alleged that fifty-five English vessels were
served in this way. At Hamburg also the English were molested. Finally,
on August 24, a decree of the Council of the Hansa at Lubeck proclaimed
the banishment of all English ships, men, and goods from the Hanse
towns.[144] Negotiations were still continued by letter, but the
expulsion was enforced, as is shown by a missive from the Duke of
Schleswig to the queen. Writing on January 1, 1558, he suggested that
several places in his dominions might be found suitable for the trade of
English merchants, in consequence of the suspension of intercourse
between England and the Hansa.
The quarrel threatened to entail serious consequences to England and
Spain in their war with France. A shortage of corn in England emphasized
the closing of the Baltic marts and increased popular discontent against
the Government. Serious fears were entertained[145] of a maritime league
between the Hansa, Denmark, and the French; and King Philip was
unceasing in his recommendations of peace. But he had shown only too
thoroughly his utter callousness towards English interests, and no
attention was paid to his advice. Another embassy from the Hansa
appeared in March 1558, but failed as the others had done. No permanent
agreement was to be expected before the conclusion of a general European
pacification, in which all the international questions which had been
ripening for half a century might receive consideration. England and
Spain had for the past two years been fighting France. As far as England
was concerned, the war represented the last chapter in the history of
the great Burgundian alliance, which, after enduring for a century and a
half and bringing numerous benefits, was now ending in shame and ruin.
France had indeed been worsted on the Flemish frontier, but England had
sustained the disastrous loss of Calais. On all sides there was a
genuine weariness of strife.
The peace congress opened at Arras and concluded its labours at Câteau
Cambrésis, from which place the treaty took its name. To the conferences
the Hansa sent representatives,[146] and the English envoys received
instructions to conclude a peace with them if terms could possibly be
arranged.[147] But still both sides remained obstinate. The larger
questions were settled or in process of settlement, while the commercial
matter seemed insoluble. At this juncture the death of Mary introduced
fresh factors into the problem, which proved not to be auspicious to the
Hansa. One of the promoters of the original revocation of the Hanse
privileges, Sir William Cecil, was called to a prominent position in the
counsels of the new queen. Acting doubtless on his advice, Elizabeth
maintained a firm attitude, resolving to secure once and for all the
equitable treatment of English commerce in the North Sea.
In the ‘considerations’ delivered to the Parliament of 1559 it is
recommended that ‘the Queen’s Highness in no wise restore to the
Steelyard their liberties; for they not only intercepted much of the
English merchants’ trade but, by concealment of strangers’ goods, robbed
the Queen of customs 10,000 marks a year at least, which was so sweet to
them that, as some of them confess, they gained in Queen Mary’s time
among solicitors above £10,000 in bribes’.[148] Elizabeth pursued the
line of policy here indicated. On July 2, 1559, she wrote to the Council
of Lubeck saying that she had consulted the councillors of Queen Mary,
who had informed her that, during the reign of Edward VI, the privileges
had been withdrawn by the Crown in consequence of abuse. Although Queen
Mary, out of regard for them, had introduced certain just modifications,
they had neglected to observe them, and had behaved with great cruelty
to England, publicly forbidding intercourse. The late queen might have
retaliated, but did not, satisfying herself with imposing certain
reasonable conditions on the intercourse of the Hanse towns with
England. These regulations had again been violated, and the former acts
of ingratitude and inhumanity repeated. She (Elizabeth) would not
proceed to interdict all intercourse, but would continue things as Queen
Mary left them. If they had reasons against this they were to declare
them.[149]
Here was obviously an invitation to the Hansa to come to terms, although
the terms must be those formulated by England. Accordingly, after
further delay, the long struggle was finally settled in 1560. The
Easterlings were given the liberty of exporting cloth to their own
states at the same duty as paid by Englishmen, provided that they sent
none to the Low Countries or Italy. Goods imported by them into England
from other than their own states were to pay 1_d._ less in the £ than
those imported by other foreigners; while cloths exported by them to
other than their own states were to pay 12_d._ per cloth less.
Counter-balancing privileges were secured for Englishmen in the Hanse
towns.[150] Thus the two great questions of the cloth export and the
carrying trade were settled substantially in favour of England, an
auspicious opening to a reign which was to witness a hitherto
unprecedented expansion of her maritime interests. Shorn of a great part
of their ancient privileges, and with their pride humbled by defeat in a
long-contested struggle, the tenants of the Steelyard lived peaceably in
London for nearly half a century more, until their final expulsion in
1598. By that time England had become so relatively great and the Hansa
so small that the eviction of the Easterlings was accomplished with no
more stir than would have accompanied the seizure by the bailiffs of a
private debtor’s house.
-----
Footnote 104:
Of 7 Ed. IV and 3 Hen. VII.
Footnote 105:
A mark = 13_s._ 4_d._
Footnote 106:
_Letters and Papers_, ii, No. 3435.
Footnote 107:
_Letters and Papers_, iii, No. 1082.
Footnote 108:
_Foedera_, xiii, p. 722; _Letters and Papers_, iii, part i, Nos. 974,
979.
Footnote 109:
_Spanish Cal._ v, pp. 550, 563, &c.
Footnote 110:
_Letters and Papers_, xvi, No. 392.
Footnote 111:
_Letters and Papers_, xvi, No. 12.
Footnote 112:
_Proceedings of the Privy Council_, vii, 301, 308–9.
Footnote 113:
_Letters and Papers_, xvii, No. 736.
Footnote 114:
_Letters and Papers_, xviii, part i, No. 376.
Footnote 115:
_Cal. Cecil MSS._, i. 44.
Footnote 116:
_Letters and Papers_, xx, part i, No. 164.
Footnote 117:
_Acts of the Privy Council_, ii. 61.
Footnote 118:
In June 1548, and June and September 1551.
Footnote 119:
_Dict. Nat. Biog._
Footnote 120:
_Acts of the Privy Council_, iii. 441.
Footnote 121:
Ibid. 453.
Footnote 122:
_R. O., State Papers Dom., Ed. VI_, vol. xiv, No. 10, and other R. O.
MSS.
Footnote 123:
_Journal of Edward VI_, pp. 59, 61; _A. P. C._, iii. 460, 475.
Footnote 124:
This document is assigned in the Calendar to the year 1553, but it
obviously belongs to the sequence of events of 1551–2. At the end of
the original (_R. O., S. P. For. Ed. VI_, vol. xi, ff. 147–9) occur
the words: ‘This decree was made and given at Westmr. the xxiiii of
February in the sixt year of the reign.’ The sixth year of Edward VI
extended from January 29, 1552, to January 28, 1553. See also the
_Journal of Edward VI_ and _A. P. C._, iii. 487–9.
Footnote 125:
_R. O., S. P. Dom., Mary_, vol. iv, No. 36.
Footnote 126:
_Edward VI’s Journal_, p. 61.
Footnote 127:
For this embassy see _Edward VI’s Journal_, pp. 61, 62, 66, 73; and
_Acts of the Privy Council_, iv. 32, 43, 93, 98, 141.
Footnote 128:
_Cal. For. S. P., Ed. VI_, p. 220.
Footnote 129:
_Dict. Nat. Biog._
Footnote 130:
_R. O., S. P. Dom., Mary_, vol. v, No. 5.
Footnote 131:
_Foedera_, xv. 364.
Footnote 132:
_R. O., S. P. Dom., Mary_, vol. iv, No. 36.
Footnote 133:
Ibid., vol. v, No. 5.
Footnote 134:
Other evidence points to a total prohibition of the export of white
cloth (see p. 176). The point is doubtful.
Footnote 135:
_Lansdowne MSS._, 170, f. 155.
Footnote 136:
_R. O., S. P. For., Mary_, vol. viii, No. 481.
Footnote 137:
_Cotton MSS._, Titus B ii. 129b. Letter from Philip to Mary in support
of a Hanse petition (Dec. 1555).
Footnote 138:
_R. O., S. P. For., Mary_, vol. viii, No. 491; _Lansdowne MSS._, 170,
f. 156.
Footnote 139:
Report of Paget and Petre to King Philip, _R. O., S. P. For., Mary_,
vol. viii, No. 492; and _A. P. C._, vi. 33, 34.
Footnote 140:
_A. P. C._, v. 252–7.
Footnote 141:
Ibid., vi. 33, 34.
Footnote 142:
_A. P. C._, vi. 73.
Footnote 143:
_Lansdowne MSS._, 170, f. 156 b.
Footnote 144:
Ibid., ff. 200, 217 b.
Footnote 145:
Kervyn de Lettenhove, _Relations Politiques des Pays-Bas et de
l’Angleterre_, Brussels, 1882, i. 128, 144, 161, 184, &c.
Footnote 146:
_Foreign Cal._, 1553–8, pp. 393–4.
Footnote 147:
Ibid., p. 396.
Footnote 148:
_Cal. of Cecil MSS._, i, 164.
Footnote 149:
_Foreign Cal._, 1558–9, No. 922.
Footnote 150:
_Cotton MSS._, Claud E vii. 240, f. 250.