THE ENGLISH IN THE NORTH SEA
The first half of the reign of Henry VIII was undoubtedly the palmiest
time in the history of the Merchant Adventurers. Under Henry VII their
position in the North Sea had been firmly established by the series of
treaties which that monarch had concluded with the Netherlands and by
his unbending attitude towards the Hansa. Their constitution had also
been settled on a permanent basis by the failure of the attempt of the
ring of London capitalists to form a small and exclusive society and by
the new charter of incorporation granted in 1505. Thus at the outset of
the new period which commenced in 1509 they had only to push on their
expansion along lines already laid down, and to gather strength for the
culminating struggle with the Hanseatic League which has been described
in the previous chapter.
The earlier wars and politics of Henry VIII had little, if any,
prejudicial effect on the North Sea merchants. French sea-power did not
often manifest itself east of the Straits of Dover, while that of
Scotland was so vastly inferior to the forces it had to face that it
constituted little hindrance to English trade. It is true that the
piracies of Andrew Barton and his associates created a great stir at the
time; but it is probable that the actual damage done was small in
proportion, and English warships were able to make the occupation of the
rovers much more risky than was that of their quarry. The cardinal point
of Henry’s policy, previous to the Reformation, was friendship with the
Empire. As long, therefore, as this state of affairs endured, Englishmen
enjoyed comparatively favourable treatment in the Netherlands. The ties
of self-interest united the two countries; England requiring a market
for her surplus produce of cloth and wool, and the Flemings needing raw
or semi-manufactured material for the refined products of their
craftsmen, who supplied the wealthy of the whole of northern Europe with
delicate garments, velvets, tapestries and metal ware. The cargoes
shipped into England from the Low Countries were now also beginning to
include the spices, drugs, sugar, and other oriental luxuries[151] which
had hitherto been brought by the carracks and galleys of the Italian
merchant states.
The warlike preparations consequent on Henry’s entry into the Holy
League were largely furthered by supplies drawn from the Netherlands.
The craft of gunfounding was in its infancy in England, and most of the
heavier weapons were obtained from the foundries of Mechlin. Hans
Popenruyter of that town supplied forty-eight heavy guns in 1512, the
largest weighing nearly two tons.[152] At this time the ships of the
Merchant Adventurers sailed as usual, proceeding in company for greater
safety, and being convoyed or ‘wafted’ by warships detailed for the
purpose.
When peace was restored the good relations between England and the
Netherlands continued until 1515, when a dispute with reference to the
interpretation of treaties arose. The intercourse between the two
countries was still based on the great treaty of 1496, supplemented by
later ones, and more especially that of 1506, which was so unpopular
with the Flemings. The young Prince Charles, afterwards the Emperor
Charles V, who succeeded Margaret of Savoy as Regent of the Netherlands
in 1515, determined to better the position of his subjects, and
denounced the validity of the treaties on the ground that they
terminated with the death of the contracting parties. New duties were
imposed and English merchants complained that they were worse treated in
the Low Countries than in Spain and Portugal. Charles, or rather his
guardians and councillors, attempted artificially to revive the decaying
prosperity of Bruges by so arranging tolls and dues as to compel the
English to resort only to that place. However, the English, as had been
abundantly shown in the reign of Henry VII, had in the last resort the
whip-hand, and rumours of a new cessation of intercourse brought about
an agreement in July to postpone the whole matter for six years until
Prince Charles should come of age, and in the meantime to maintain the
operation of the original treaties. In spite of this, the unfriendly
treatment of the English continued, and a complaint of 1516 mentions
that tolls were exacted at different places on the same goods, damage
was done by customs officers in examining goods, and that Englishmen
were hindered in buying and generally obstructed by officials. Some of
the disputes were settled in 1517, and others were provided for in an
agreement between the English merchants and the town of Antwerp, signed
on June 1, 1518. In 1520 a general commercial treaty, to endure for five
years, was signed between England and the emperor. It provided, in the
main, that intercourse and duties should continue on the former basis.
The vexed question of the _Malus Intercursus_ of 1506 was again left
unsettled.[153]
The inconveniences of trade above described were normal to the time and,
in spite of them, the relations between England and the Netherlands
during the first part of Henry’s reign may be described as good. In
1525, however, owing to the overwhelming success of Charles in his war
with Francis I, culminating in the capture of that monarch at Pavia on
February 24, the balance of Europe was in danger of being upset, and a
change of policy was initiated in England which entailed far-reaching
consequences. Wolsey’s new plan was an alliance with France, to be
sealed if possible by a royal marriage. The idea of a divorce from
Katherine of Aragon was taken up eagerly by Henry, but received in his
mind a direction totally unforeseen by Wolsey. Henry was soon intent,
not on a marriage with a French princess, but on a union with Anne
Boleyn, a lady of his own court. When it is remembered that Charles V
was a nephew of the king’s existing wife, it will be seen that the
divorce proposals could not fail to have a bad effect on the relations
between England and the Imperial dominions.
Moreover, owing to the course which affairs took, the whole question of
the religious position of England was opened up, to the detriment of the
papal power. Charles was committed to the pope’s side in religious
affairs in Germany, while Spain, also under his rule, was fanatically
Catholic. Hence a fresh cause of strife appeared between him and
England. The divorce case began in the middle of 1527, and, from the
first mention of it, the emperor showed himself violently hostile. A
hint of the possibilities of retaliation on the English side to any
imposition of commercial disabilities was contained in a proclamation by
the mayor of Calais on July 13. It was announced that English and
foreign merchants might trade at Calais on the same terms as at Antwerp,
and that the governor and Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers should
have the same jurisdiction at Calais as formerly at Antwerp.[154] This
could not fail to recall to the Flemings their sufferings during the
restraint of 1493 when a similar transference had taken place. The
prospects, however, became worse instead of better, and in March 1528 a
panic was caused by reports of the detention of all English merchants in
Spain and Flanders. There was a general paralysis of trade, workmen were
discharged, and large stocks of cloth remained unsold at Blackwell Hall.
It required all the skill of the Government to ‘quench the bruit’ and
restore confidence.[155] The crisis slowly passed away and the Merchant
Adventurers returned to Antwerp. A diet for settling grievances was held
at Bourbourg, near Dunkirk, in 1532. Another similar period of
depression and fear of war with the emperor occurred in 1535. The worst
crisis of all, that of 1538–9, has already been considered in a previous
chapter.
The organization of the Merchant Adventurers was of political as well as
commercial importance. Their colony at Antwerp, with its governor and
council of twenty-four, constituted an English outpost in the Low
Countries almost if not quite as valuable as Calais, and without the
disadvantage of requiring a large military outlay for its maintenance.
Just as the possession of Calais enabled English wool to be sold at a
vast profit to the Crown, so, until the competition of the Hansa became
severe, the produce of English craftsmen was disposed of at Antwerp on
more favourable terms than could have been obtained by a less
centralized organization. The merchants themselves were an intelligent
and respected class, and their governor was usually selected for the
possession of such qualities in the highest degree. Consequently it is
frequently found that there was the closest understanding between him
and the home Government, to which he was able to make himself useful in
many ways. Valuable information was sometimes acquired by the merchants
and transmitted before it reached the ears of the regular diplomatic
representative. They were also especially well placed for keeping a
watch on the movements of political exiles and traitors of all kinds. In
1533 John Coke, the Secretary of the Merchant Adventurers, was in
constant correspondence with Cromwell, sending him information as to
disloyal books and speeches about the king’s marriage with Anne Boleyn.
A few years later John Hutton, the governor, acted as Cromwell’s
political agent at Antwerp, while in the troubled times of Edward VI and
Mary the tie became closer, and financial aid was commonly rendered by
the one party, to be paid for by official attacks upon its rivals by the
other.
The circumstances of the time required the maintenance of strict
discipline in the Company, and for this purpose the governor was by the
charter of 1505 endued with full powers. In 1536 a merchant was
condemned to pay a fine of £150 for ‘misshipping’ cloths; and in the
following year William Castlyn, one of the most prominent members of the
Company, was fined 100 marks for shipping certain kerseys to Flanders in
ships other than those appointed to be used.[156] Here it may be
remarked that it was usual for the merchants to accumulate their stocks
of cloth in London until the date of the mart at Antwerp was at hand,
and then to ship all their cargoes at the same time in certain ships
specified for the purpose. As many as sixty vessels sometimes composed
one fleet, although they seldom exceeded 100 tons in burden. This
dispatching of merchantmen in large fleets was a characteristic of all
branches of maritime trade and afforded a convenient means of protection
and supervision.
In spite of the powers to fine and imprison enjoyed by the governor,
discipline was not easy to maintain, and the misfortunes due to the
growing hostility between Henry and the emperor did not conduce to the
better conduct of the English in the Netherlands. In 1542 a letter from
the deputy governor complained of the growing decay of good order and
the violation of their privileges, showing that internal dissension went
hand in hand with attacks from without. The office of governor was
vacant, and there was a difference in opinion between the merchants at
Antwerp and those in London as to the filling of the post. Two
successive appointments made by the Antwerp section were annulled by the
London head-quarters, who finally called in the aid of the Privy
Council. The latter addressed a strongly-worded letter to the refractory
brethren at Antwerp. The London party were described as ‘ancient, grave
and substantial men’ to whose choice the young and inexperienced at
Antwerp ought to submit. The latter were further upbraided for wishing
to have as their governor ‘one most unfit’ (John Knotting), who had been
living as a naturalized citizen of Antwerp and abjuring his own
nationality. The letter concluded by charging them to accept William
Castlyn, the London candidate, without demur, in default of which John
Knotting and the secretary were to repair to London for an investigation
of the case.[157] The chief leader of the older or London party in this
affair was Sir Richard Gresham, father of Thomas Gresham, the future
founder of the Royal Exchange. The division of the Company into two
factions, here indicated, became more or less chronic, and it was
perhaps inevitable that such should be the case. In a period of change
the interests of the older men, whose fortunes were made, lay rather in
keeping things as they were and resisting any alteration of the rules of
the game, while the young members, impatient to be rich, must frequently
have been guilty of actions offensive to their more conservative
seniors.
As will be remembered, the critical state of international politics in
the years 1538–9 caused Henry VIII to proclaim that for the space of
five years foreigners might trade with England on payment of the same
duties as were exacted from native merchants. This edict was modified in
1540 by an Act of Parliament which stated that foreigners availing
themselves of the privilege must ship their goods in English bottoms.
The resulting quarrel with the Imperial Government prejudiced the
position of the Merchant Adventurers, more especially as, in the end,
Henry was obliged to exempt the Flemings from the operation of the Act.
Scarcely was this dispute settled than another arose owing to the
imposition by the Regent of the Netherlands of a new duty of 1 per cent.
on the value of all exports, payable in addition to existing duties. The
new tax—called the _centième_—was for the purpose of defraying the
expenses of the war against France, and at first the English Government
was not inclined to cavil at it. The merchants, however, viewed the
matter differently and made strenuous protests. Finally, since an
alliance was in process of formation between England and the Empire, the
matter was compromised by the Merchant Adventurers paying a benevolence
of £1,000 and being excused from the duty on goods sent into
England.[158] The new alliance was not of long duration; in 1544 Charles
made a separate peace with France, leaving Henry to continue the war
alone. The English were furious at the trick played on them, and English
warships and privateers exercised little discrimination in making prizes
of any vessels suspected of carrying an ounce of French goods. The
Flemings complained of the damage thus done to their shipping and, in
retaliation, all the Merchant Adventurers at Antwerp were placed under
arrest on January 6, 1545.[159] The arrest lasted for some time, and the
Easterlings improved their opportunity by obtaining a firm grasp on the
cloth export, from which it was afterwards found so difficult to
dislodge them. It is true, of course, that they had exported cloth to
the Low Countries before, but it was during these years of hostility
between Henry and Charles V that their competition, coupled with the
disadvantages under which the English merchants laboured, threatened in
the end to extinguish altogether the trade of the latter. As early as
August 1538 a letter from Antwerp complained that, although money was
plentiful and good sales had been made, the Easterlings had been
beforehand with cloth shipments, ‘which hath skatched us in our sales
more than two thousand pound’.[160] In any case English cloth, by
whomsoever sold, was able to hold its own against anything of the same
sort which the Netherlands could produce, because it could be sold ready
finished at Antwerp for less price than the Flemings had to pay for a
proportionate amount of the raw wool at Calais.
The arrest of the Merchant Adventurers in 1545 seems to have done more
harm than good to the Flemings. An English emissary, writing to the
Council from Antwerp,[161] describes the consternation produced, all the
merchants remaining ‘in a marvellous stay, the Bourse unhaunted, their
hearts damped and made cold with fear that they had never to recover
again such things as were taken upon the seas. All the inhabitants of
this town shrunk at it, fearing the utter decay of their traffic. Great
numbers of fullers, shearmen, dyers, and others thought their livings
were utterly bereaved from them, so that if it had continued a little
longer it would have brought a wonderful alteration of things here. This
little arrest hath made many to confess to me that it were better for
this country to have twenty years’ war with France than one with
England, in so great fear were they of it’. The arrest was over and
cloth was again being dispatched to Flanders by the middle of May.
The course of events and the financial necessities of the Government in
the reigns of Edward and Mary threw considerable political power into
the hands of the Merchant Adventurers. The way in which they availed
themselves of it to secure the downfall of the Hansa has been described
in the previous chapter.
The strife of factions among the Adventurers at this time became
accentuated. On account of a dispute with the city of Antwerp they were
ordered in 1547 and 1548 not to resort to that town, but to make
Bergen-op-Zoom their temporary head-quarters. Some of them disregarded
the injunction and even talked of electing a new Governor and Secretary,
a sharp reprimand from the Privy Council being necessary to bring them
to order.[162] A letter from Thomas Chamberlain, the Governor, in this
connexion, is worth quoting:
‘And thus it is to be seen that the very folly and rashness of our
merchants is our disturbance, who do daily bring over clothes to
Bruges by stealth, notwithstanding my lord’s grace’ (Somerset)
prohibition and stay of their ships; and also do buy at Antwerp
contrary to their own statute and ordinance, whereby they have
forfeited large sums, of the which the King’s Majesty ought to have
his third part; and till his highness do take the same and make them
smart, they will never keep order, but for their own private lucre
undo, if they might, the common weal; for their fashion is even when
they make their statutes and swear to observe the same, even forthwith
by collusion and colour to break the same, generally saying, that
every man transgressing shall cause a general pardon among them, and
thus they mock with God and the world and are perjured daily, that it
is pity to think thereon, and that any such should have to do with
them....’[163]
In 1553 the quarrel broke out afresh, and representatives of the two
factions, called respectively the ‘Old Hanze’ and the ‘New Hanze’,[164]
were before the Council, which sided, on Thomas Gresham’s
recommendation, with the former.[165] The New Hanze were convicted of
behaving in a disorderly manner, trying to subvert the government of the
Fellowship, and endangering its privileges. They were commanded to make
humble submission to the Governor and the ringleaders to receive
punishment.[166] Gresham, although himself a member of the Company, was
acting primarily in the financial interests of the Government. For that
purpose his principal object was to raise the rate of exchange,
expressive of the state of English credit, on the Antwerp Bourse. To
attain it he sought to handicap the foreign capitalists, his
adversaries, by manipulating the cloth export, restraining or permitting
it as occasion demanded. Hence he was all in favour of maintaining
strict discipline among the Adventurers. In a letter to Northumberland
in 1553 he deplored their lack of experience and suggested a rigid
insistence on an eight years’ apprenticeship. He himself, he continued,
had been made to serve that time by his father’s wisdom, although he
might have evaded it.[167] Gresham’s character had much of the masterful
audacity typical of Tudor statesmanship, and he used his authority with
a high hand when the unruliness of the merchants threatened danger to
his plans. He succeeded in raising the exchange for the £ sterling from
16 to 22 shillings Flemish, and at the latter figure liquidated debts
contracted at the former.[168]
Although the Merchant Adventurers had succeeded in ousting their rivals
of the Steelyard from the Low Countries, their own position was by no
means secure during the reign of Edward VI. There was continual friction
with the Imperial Government, whose conduct became so irritating at one
time that Sir Thomas Chamberlain, English agent at Brussels and a former
Governor of the Company, advised that the merchants should be withdrawn
altogether from the country, ‘for truly these people will never know
what they have of us until they lack us,’ although he remarked elsewhere
that the English misfortunes were chiefly due to their own insatiable
greed and disorder. The anti-Protestant policy which Charles V
instituted in 1548, and the severe measures by which he enforced it in
the Netherlands, formed another disturbing factor in his relations with
England.[169] In 1550 a rupture was thought to be imminent on this
account, and the merchants were advised to withdraw their goods little
by little from the country. With the accession of Mary, however, the
danger temporarily passed away, although it was destined ultimately to
cause a profound modification of England’s industry and of the direction
of her maritime expansion. The merchants themselves were not very deeply
imbued with Protestantism; or, if they were, means were found of
converting them, since a report of 1556 mentions that all those then at
Antwerp were Catholics with the exception of four, against whom
proceedings were to be taken.[170]
The marts of the Low Countries had for long provided a sufficient outlet
for England’s surplus products, but circumstances were presently to
arise which should drive English enterprise farther afield. The civil
troubles in the Netherlands, which began soon after the death of Mary
and the overthrow of the Catholic régime in England, and became ever
more acute until they exploded into a war of eighty years’ duration, did
much to blight the commerce and industry of the southern provinces. The
northern or Dutch states which rose to pre-eminence in their place with
such astonishing rapidity were not a manufacturing community, and had
very little need of English cloth and wool. At the same time the German
ports and the Baltic became more accessible owing to the decay of the
Hanseatic League and the opening up of relations with Russia by
Chancellor and Jenkinson. Thus the death of Mary, though not of itself
of immediate importance, may be conveniently regarded as synchronizing
with the relative decline of the old Flanders trade. That trade, while
still extensive for many years, was no longer of primary importance. The
capital and energies of the bolder mercantile adventurers were
henceforth to be employed in penetrating the farther limits of the North
Sea, and still more in oceanic enterprises to the West and the tropic
East.
Long before the opening up of communications with Russia—in fact,
throughout the period now under discussion—a regular trade was
maintained with Sweden, Denmark, and Danzig, and also at intervals with
the north German ports. This traffic was free to all English merchants
and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Company of Merchant
Adventurers. The latter, it is true, sometimes exerted their influence
to induce the Government to secure better treatment for the English at
Danzig, but only because certain individuals of their Company were
trading in their private capacity to that place.
The principal article of English export to the above-named regions was
cloth. In return many articles of absolute necessity to an increasingly
maritime nation—canvas, hemp, ropes, pitch, and spars—were obtained,
together with supplies of grain and fish, for which there was a growing
demand as food prices steadily rose in England.
At all times the traders encountered hostility from the Hansa, which, as
they were not effectively incorporated, they were less able to cope with
than were the merchants in the Low Countries. On the other hand, they
suffered less from arbitrary exactions and oppressive restraints imposed
for political reasons, since England, until the end of Mary’s reign,
took practically no interest in the international dealings of the
northern powers. The English dépôt at Danzig was always of considerable
importance, as is evidenced by the trouble they took to maintain it in
the reign of Henry VII. The damage mutually suffered by the reprisals
which then took place convinced both parties that tranquillity was more
profitable to them, and peace was maintained for nearly fifty years.
Danzig was the principal source of the supply of naval stores, and
furnished on occasion not only materials but ships ready built. One such
consignment was received during the war of 1544.[171] Again in 1556 a
large quantity of naval stores was procured at that place. A letter from
the Council to the English merchants on this occasion is interesting as
showing the extent of their operations. Whereas, it pointed out, they
had bought up all the hemp and cable yarn in that city, and had also
secured the promise of the rope-makers to work exclusively for them
during the next six months, they were commanded to desist from such
practices until such time as William Watson, who was coming to buy for
the navy, should be furnished with what he required.[172] The
possibilities opened up by the employment of capital in large masses
were evidently well realized, as indeed other instances prove.
During the cessation of intercourse with the Hansa in 1557–60 the Duke
of Schleswig wrote to the queen to point out the suitability of various
places in his dominions for English trade. Some communication with North
Germany was essential owing to the scarcity of grain in England, and a
deputation of merchants went to Schleswig in the summer of 1558 to
inspect the ports and make arrangements for commerce.
The reopening of the communications with the Hanse towns early in
Elizabeth’s reign placed the North Sea and Baltic trade on a far more
favourable footing than had ever before been the case. For the first
time the English could do business in the northern ports on something
like equitable terms and with some assurance of security; a steady
increase of the volume of traffic was the result.
An important source of food supply was the Iceland fishery, which in the
sixteenth century was regularly frequented by English vessels, mainly
from the east coast ports. Bristol, which in the Middle Ages had had a
foremost share in the traffic, seems to have dropped out altogether in
Tudor times. The Bristol fishermen, like those of Normandy and Brittany,
preferred the Newfoundland banks—the Baccalaos of the Cabots—which,
although more distant, produced more plentiful supplies of fish. No
mention of Bristol ships going to Iceland is to be met with under Henry
VIII or his two successors.
It was customary for the fishing fleet to rendezvous at some point on
the east coast before the end of April and to proceed in company past
the Scottish coast, and thence through the Pentland Firth or between the
Orkney and Shetland Islands. The ships were laden with food to last the
crews for the summer, supplies of salt for the preservation of the
intended cargoes, and possibly also with cloth and other manufactured
articles for trade with the natives. In time of war with Scotland it was
necessary for the fleet to be wafted or convoyed until clear of the
coasts of the northern kingdom, and even then stragglers were frequently
snapped up. On arrival at the destination fishing for cod and ling was
carried on throughout the summer or until the holds were full, and the
return voyage was made before the end of September with the same
precautions as before.
The English had by no means a monopoly of the fishery, and the various
nations of the North Sea which sent out competing squadrons found them
troublesome neighbours on the coast. In 1532 an extensive affray
occurred between the English and the Hamburgers, and, in this or other
affairs of the same kind, forty or fifty Englishmen were slain. On
remonstrances being made to Frederick of Denmark, who, as sovereign of
Iceland, was apparently expected by Henry VIII to preserve order on the
coast, he replied by charging the English with being the authors of all
the trouble. They claimed a fishing-place which had never been theirs;
they reduced the people to bondage; they refused to pay tribute, and
stole fish.[173]
Olaus Magnus, in his _History of the Goths and Swedes_, has a paragraph
on the same subject:
‘Of the mutual slaughter of the merchants for the Harbours of Iceland.
‘It is a miserable spectacle of factors that fall foul one upon the
other, either at home or abroad, and kill one another for gain, or put
all their merchandise in danger to be lost, or to revenge their
Kindred.... Amongst these the chief, as it is supposed, are the
Bremers, or the cities of the Vandals, the Rostochians, Vismarians,
and Lubeckers. And lastly the merchants of England and Scotland, who
so stifly contend for the primacy and privilege of the Iceland ports
to ride in, as if they fought a fight at sea; and so wound one another
for gain, that whether one or the other gets the Victory, yet there is
always ready one of the officers of the Treasury, who knows how to
correct them both sufficiently, both in their moneys and bodies,
either by ordinary or extraordinary Exaction.’[174]
The Scots, too, had need to look to their defences when the fleet was
passing along their coast; for the fishermen, as James V complained in
1535, were in the habit of plundering the islands and catching the
unfortunate inhabitants on the way north, to serve as slaves during the
fishing season, and be landed again on the homeward voyage in the
autumn.[175] The suggestion of slave-hunting is supported by an existing
indenture of apprenticeship to an east-coast mariner of a boy, nine
years old, brought from ‘Lowsybaye’ in Iceland. It was a rough trade
with more than the usual maritime hardships of those times. In 1542,
Norfolk, writing to the Council on some proposal to utilize the returned
Iceland fleet for Government service, remarked that when the cargoes
were discharged the vessels stank so horribly that no man not used to
the same could endure it.
An interesting letter is preserved from the commissioners at York to the
Council during the Scottish war of 1542. A design was on foot for a raid
on the Orkneys and Shetlands, an idea which the commissioners wrote to
discourage. Touching the isles of ‘Shotland and Orkeney’, they said,
they were informed that Shotland was so distant that Englishmen who went
yearly to Iceland dared not tarry on those coasts after St. James’s
tide. They must pass through the Pentley Firth, the most dangerous place
in Christendom, and Scottishmen who knew it best dared not venture to
pass it at this season (October). Orkney was also very dangerous and
full of rocks; the people lived by fishing and had little to devastate
save oats and a few beasts, which were so wild that they could only be
taken by dogs. The enterprise would not quit a tenth part of its cost,
besides the danger of losing the ships.[176]
An accurate estimate of the extent of the Iceland trade is obtainable
from certain lists which still exist of ships engaged. In 1528, 149
ships sailed for Iceland, exclusively from east-coast ports, which
contributed as follows:[177] London, 8 ships; Harwich, Ipswich,
Manningtree, Dedham, Sudbury, and Colchester, 14 ships; Woodbridge, 3;
Aldborough, Sysewell, and Thorpe, 6; Dunwich, Walderswick, Southwold,
Easton, and Covehythe, 32; Lowestoft, 6; Yarmouth, 30; Claye, Blakeney,
and Cromer, 30; Wells, 6; Lynn, 10; and Boston, 4. Another list[178]
shows that, in 1533, 85 ships returned from Iceland, belonging to the
same ports, of which the southernmost was London, and the most
northerly, Boston. These vessels were all small, ranging from 30 to 150
tons, although the latter figure was exceptional, 100 tons being the
usual limit. In July 1557, owing to the naval activities of the French,
it was necessary to furnish a squadron to protect the homeward-bound
Iceland fleet. In addition to nine queen’s ships, twenty private vessels
were demanded from ports on the east and south coasts as far westward as
Dartmouth and Plymouth.[179] A force of this strength, in the then
debilitated state of the national defences, would only have been
employed to protect a convoy of the highest value.
On the other hand we find, in the lugubrious times of Edward VI, a
complaint of the decay of the fishing industry. Whereas, it runs, in the
twentieth year of Henry VIII (1528) 140 ships went to Iceland, now only
43 go, and a proportionate decrease is indicated in the fishing in the
North Sea itself.[180] The causes assigned are non-observance of fish
days owing to the progress of Protestantism, lack of enterprise on the
part of the fishermen, and burdensome regulations as to sales. The
Catholic reaction under Mary caused a revival of the trade, which
special legislation in the next reign attempted to maintain by enjoining
the eating of fish on certain days, although the religious incentive no
longer existed.
As has been indicated, the Bristol mariners preferred to do their
fishing on the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and desisted from
the Iceland voyage after the opening up of the new regions. There is no
categorical authority for this view, but it may be deduced from the
non-appearance of Bristol in the documents quoted above and from the
undoubted presence of English craft on the American coast quite early in
the sixteenth century. The obscure operations of the Bristol adventurers
subsequent to the Cabot discoveries have already been considered. The
_New Interlude_, of approximately the date 1519, also refers to the
Newfoundland fishery, while John Rut, in 1527, although he found only
foreigners fishing there on his arrival, spoke of fishing as a matter of
course and no novelty to the English. The first statutory mention of an
English fishery in Newfoundland is contained in an Act of 1541–2 for the
prohibition of the practice of buying fish at sea instead of catching
it, which was alleged to be deleterious to the common weal. This Act was
not to extend to the buying of fish in Iceland or ‘Newland’. In a map
drawn up for Henry VIII, in 1542,[181] Newfoundland is inscribed: ‘The
new fonde londe quhar men goeth a fisching.’ Again, in an Act of 1548,
there occurs a reference to fishing by Englishmen in Newefoundelande’.
Thenceforward the traffic was well established, and has given to the
Newfoundland and Labrador coasts the claim to be the oldest of English
settlements beyond the seas. From the beginning, however, the French,
Spaniards, and Portuguese were keen competitors. In 1542 a French fleet
of from 80 to 100 small vessels, returning from the fishery, were nearly
all taken by the Spaniards; and to the present day St. Malo and other
western ports of France send out every year wooden sailing craft which
fish all the summer on the Newfoundland banks and return to divide the
spoil in the autumn, the men being paid according to the profits of the
trip.
A few notes are necessary with reference to the affairs of the Staplers.
During the reign of Henry VIII the Staple continued to conduct its
business in the time-honoured manner. All wool for the consumption of
the north of Europe was exported to Calais from London and other ports,
while that intended for the Mediterranean was sent, at double duties, by
the Italian merchants of London into the Low Countries, and thence via
the Rhine to Italy. Occasionally English subjects, not belonging to the
Staple, obtained licences to export wool ‘beyond the Straits of Marrok’,
the duty payable being usually the subject of special arrangement with
the Crown.
It would seem that, in 1544, an attempt was made by some of the Staplers
to export wool to Italy themselves, probably by the overland route, and
that this was stopped by the Company. This at least is the most probable
inference to be drawn from a curious letter written at Venice by one
Henry Bostoke to John Johnson, merchant of the Staple of Calais.[182]
The writer refers to the success of the voyage, ‘having long since made
wholesale of our goods to an honest reckoning as the occasion required;
not perceiving but that we should have made better reckoning hereafter
if the laudable ordinance of our Company had permitted the continuance
of this said voyage, whereof the impeachment, I beseech Jesus, may not
in process of time be more prejudicial to the whole generality than now
disprofit to our masters in particularity’. The letter is very vague,
the writer refraining from stating the nature of his commodities and the
route by which they had reached Venice; but the reference to ‘our’
Company addressed to a merchant of the Staple is fairly conclusive, and
indeed there was no other company which could have exercised
jurisdiction over Englishmen in Venice. The Merchant Adventurers
concerned themselves only with the Low Countries and did not interfere
with the doings of their members elsewhere, while the Englishmen who
traded in general cargoes to the Mediterranean were free-lances without
any incorporation.
The keystone of the whole system of the Staple was the retention of
Calais, so conveniently placed for buyers from France, the Netherlands,
and Germany. An Act of 1515 provided that the Mayor and Fellowship of
the Company should retain the customs and subsidies on all wools from
England, paying the king £10,000 yearly in lieu of the same. The Company
were to defray the expenses of the Staple, the town, and the
fortifications, while the king was to pay the wages of the garrison.
This Act, which was to endure for twenty years, superseded one of
similar import passed by Henry VII. At its expiry another was passed in
1535–6, the preamble of which shows that the defences of the town had
fallen into great decay and weakness. Corruption was rife, and the
merchants were inevitably niggardly in their expenditure on them, for
they trusted that in case of danger the whole power of the country would
be put forth to save them. The system of farming the duties was
continued, but in course of time the bargain ceased to be profitable to
the Staplers, owing to the decrease in the shipments of wool. In 1551 a
petition on the subject complained of the great burdens imposed on the
merchants and of the increasing competition of wool sent from Spain to
the Netherlands.[183] The payments due to the king, it was represented,
amounted to more than the receipts from the customs. The remedy
suggested for Spanish competition was to allow only low-priced wools to
be shipped to Calais, to prohibit absolutely any export to other places,
and to be content with a reduced custom, so that the clothmakers who had
been draping Spanish wool might get ‘as good pennyworth’ at Calais as
they had been getting from the Spaniards.[184] The customs were not
reduced, but the suggested restriction of non-staple export was carried
out, and in the reign of Mary the Italian merchants were on the point of
quitting London in despair of obtaining leave to buy wools.
[Illustration:
CALAIS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
From Cott. MS. Aug. I. ii. 70.
]
The monopoly which had endured for so long was gradually breaking up
under the stress of changing conditions; and the loss of Calais in 1558
dealt it a blow from which it never recovered. The amount of wool
exported was in any case bound to decrease with the growth of home
manufactures,[185] so that the decay of the Staplers’ business must not
be regarded as a commercial loss to England: it was simply a diversion
of the channels of wealth into a new direction. Long-rooted
organizations die hard, and the Staplers survived precariously for many
decades after the fall of Calais, holding their marts at various places
in the Low Countries; but in course of time England, far from continuing
to export wool, became a wool-importing country, the native output being
insufficient to keep pace with the growth of manufacture. The completion
of the change is marked by an Act of 1660, prohibiting all export of
wool, and containing no mention whatever of the once mighty Staple.
-----
Footnote 151:
The Portuguese shipped a considerable quantity of their East Indian
merchandise to Antwerp, which formed the distributing centre for
northern Europe.
Footnote 152:
_Letters and Papers_, i, p. 464.
Footnote 153:
_Letters and Papers_, ii, Nos. 540, 649, 723, 724, 2738, 3647, 3649,
4210; _Cotton MSS._, Galba B ix. 69; _Foedera_, xiii. 714.
Footnote 154:
_Letters and Papers_, iv, No. 3262.
Footnote 155:
Ibid., No. 4044.
Footnote 156:
_Letters and Papers_, xii, part i, No. 415.
Footnote 157:
_Letters and Papers_, xvii, No. 1055, also Nos. 990 and 1062.
Footnote 158:
_Letters and Papers_, xviii, part i, Nos. 196, 259, 331, 773; _Cal. of
Cecil MSS._, i, No. 38.
Footnote 159:
_Letters and Papers_, xx, part i, No. 32.
Footnote 160:
_Cotton MSS._, Galba B x. 82.
Footnote 161:
_Letters and Papers_, xx, part i, No. 65.
Footnote 162:
_A. P. C._, ii. 545, 556.
Footnote 163:
_Cotton MSS._, Galba B xii, f. 28.
Footnote 164:
See _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_, vol. xvi (1902),
pp. 19–67. In an article by W. E. Lingelbach on the organization of
the Merchant Adventurers the suggestion is put forward that the Old
Hanze and the New Hanze were two separate grades of merchants with
differing privileges. Certain not very precise indications point to
such an arrangement, but, on the other hand, there is no hint of any
such thing in the Charter of Incorporation of 1505 or in any other
document of the same type.
Footnote 165:
In the previous autumn the Council, on receiving a loan of £30,000
from the Company, had promised to suppress disorders (_R. O., S. P.
Dom., Edw. VI_, vol. xv, No. 13).
Footnote 166:
_A. P. C._, iv. 279, 280.
Footnote 167:
_Foreign Cal._, 1547–53, No. 655.
Footnote 168:
_Dict. Nat. Biog._
Footnote 169:
John Wheeler, however, in his _Treatise of Commerce_ (1601), states
that the Emperor refrained from establishing the Inquisition at
Antwerp in 1550, for fear it should drive the English out of the city.
Footnote 170:
_Domestic Cal._, 1547–80, p. 87.
Footnote 171:
_Cal. Cecil MSS._, i. 44.
Footnote 172:
_A. P. C._, v. 236.
Footnote 173:
_Letters and Papers_, v, Nos. 1417 and 1633.
Footnote 174:
English translation, 1658, p. 127.
Footnote 175:
_Letters and Papers_, viii, No. 1153.
Footnote 176:
Ibid. xvii, No. 893.
Footnote 177:
_Letters and Papers_, iv, No. 5101.
Footnote 178:
Ibid., vi, No. 1380.
Footnote 179:
_R. O., S. P. Dom., Mary_, vol. xi, No. 38.
Footnote 180:
_Domestic Cal._, Addenda, 1547–65, p. 426.
Footnote 181:
_Royal MSS._, 20 E ix.
Footnote 182:
_R. O., S. P., Henry VIII_, § 195, f. 176; digest in _Letters and
Papers_, xix, part i, No. 85.
Footnote 183:
The Spaniards established a wool dépôt at Bruges: Kervyn de
Lettenhove, i, p. 152.
Footnote 184:
_R. O., S. P. Dom., Edw. VI_, vol. xiii, No. 81.
Footnote 185:
Under Henry VIII the wool export decreased by 50 per cent. as
estimated on the average number of sacks exported in the first five
and last five years of the reign.