CHAPTER II

PORT AND TRADE OF LONDON

The limits of the Port of London, never defined until the reign

of Charles II., seem to have been always understood as reaching

from the North Foreland to London Bridge. Queenhithe, which, early

in the thirteenth century, employed thirty-eight men as carriers,

was the oldest landing-place and port. Its present appearance is,

save for the warehouses round it, nearly the same as it has always

been, substituting the small vessels then in use for the barges and

lighters which now lie in that muddy port. Billingsgate was another

landing-place at which the King’s Customs were collected. As trade

increased it was found necessary to provide increased accommodation,

and the following places were appointed, but long afterwards, for the

general lading and discharging places for all kinds of goods to be

landed and shipped between sunrise and sunset. (Strype.)

Brewers’ Quay.

Chesters’ Quay.

Galley Quay.

Wool Dock.

Custom House Quay.

Porter’s Quay.

Wiggon’s Quay.

Young’s Quay.

Ralph’s Quay.

Dice Quay.

Smart’s Quay.

Somer’s Quay.

Buttolph Wharf.

Hammon’s Quay.

Gaunt’s Quay.

Cock’s Quay.

Fresh Wharf.

Lyon Quay.

Sab’s Dock.

Bear Quay.

Billingsgate was appointed only for fish, corn, salt, stones, victuals,

and fruit. The Bridge House for corn and other provisions. The Steel

Yard for merchant strangers of that Guild.

“By far the most important results of the Norman Conquest, as far

as English Industry and Commerce were concerned, lay in the new

communications which were opened up with other parts of the Continent.”

(W. Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry_.) These words strike

a keynote. It was necessary for the growth and development of the

national spirit that the insular isolation of Britain should be swept

away. No doubt the close connection of the country with the richest

provinces of France for four hundred years brought with it many serious

evils, but the stimulus it gave to trade proved of incalculable

advantage. And the isolation of England was swept away just at the

right moment, when everywhere in western Europe there were springing

into wealth and power and independence cities, which had been the

private property of barons, or the mere ruins of what had once been

busy and populous places. The first essential to trade is some kind of

security that an agreement will be kept and a debt will be paid. This

security was then impossible unless in a fair, regularly and lawfully

held, with its own court; or in a town when the municipality defended

the foreign merchant.

The opening of Europe to England had its other side in the opening of

England to Europe. A large number of merchants from Rouen and Caen

came over both before and after the Norman Conquest to carry on their

trade in London. Flemish weavers came over and sought protection from

the Queen, a Flemish Princess. Builders in stone came over in great

numbers; most of the Churches throughout the country which were of

wood were rebuilt in stone. And in addition to these, there were the

foreigners who did not wish to settle, but came and went, bringing

their wares with them, carrying away the exports, and while they were

in Port, living according to their own rules in their own houses.

Of what kind was the Shipping of London, its growth, and its extent?

What were the most important lines of trade? These questions are

difficult to answer completely. First, we must remember that a merchant

ship was also a man o’ war. The great Flanders Fleet of Venice was

provided with a company of thirty-six archers for every galley, and the

sailors were all fighting men. Next, the shipping of London meant its

foreign trade, and this was continually rising and falling. Attempts

were made by King Alfred to create a navy; and Sir John Philpot, when

he set off to encounter the pirate, was able to lay his hand upon

ships enough to carry a thousand men. When the Bastard of Falconbridge

attacked the City there were no ships in the Port able to meet him;

this, however, was at the close of a long Civil War which greatly

damaged the trade of London.

The sailor has always been a creature distinct from his fellow-man.

It would seem, from such scanty notice as we can get, that the London

craftsman had never any great love for the sea; the sailor came from

Dover, Sandwich, Hythe, Dartmouth, and other places, but not from

London. In later years a riverside population grew up from the Tower

as far as the Isle of Dogs, and eventually these people were connected

with shipping. Among them was a whole multitude of sailors, together

with those who lived by working among and for the ships in the Pool.

There are glimpses of this invisible population within the walls of the

City, especially below the Bridge and near the Tower. To this day the

courts and lanes in which they lived remain. They are narrow, dark,

and noisome. Only the lowest craftsmen could live in such courts;

they contained drinking places for the sailors, native and foreign,

sleeping dens for them, fighting places for them, but not decent

living houses. In such a narrow street, where the houses were built

of wood and closely packed with people, broke out the Great Fire of

London. Chaucer’s sailor was a Dartmouth man. There were plenty like

him standing about on the quay and drinking in the taverns. Your true

seafaring man never does anything while he is on shore except stand

about on the quays, lean against a post, or carouse in a tavern. Many a

fight took place along these quays and in these narrow courts: fights

between Genoese and Venetian; between Englishman and Frenchman; between

Englishman and Fleming; fights with knife and dagger; fights which

began with a duello and ended in a _mêlée_, all begun, carried on, and

ended in a few minutes, leaving a man dying and half a dozen wounded;

fights between a man of Dover and a man of Yarmouth; fights over the

reckoning at the tavern; fights over Doll and Moll and Poll. Always

the riverside of London has been a place remarkable for its life,

and vividness, its riot and noise, the cheerful cry of battle, the

inspiriting song of the tippler, and the dulcet voice of love.

Every sailor was a fighting man. Until the reign of Henry IV. it was

easy to turn a merchant ship into a man o’ war by placing in her the

little “castles” from which the bowmen could work. Henry IV. seems to

have begun the practice of building ships exclusively for fighting;

his son had three very large ships called the _Trinity_, the _Grace de

Dieu_, and _The Holy Ghost_; his navy consisted in all of three great

vessels, six “nefs,” six “barges,” ten “balingers.” It is not easy

to distinguish between the different kinds of ships. The “nef” was a

ship of the largest size until the construction of the three great

vessels; the “barge” was a large vessel, as is known by the fact that

the City possessed one called the _Paul of London_, for river defence.

You may, if you please, learn how the City barge was equipped and

rigged and fitted out for sea from the pages of Riley’s _Memorials_.

The terms used, the nautical terms of the time, are translated in

footnotes, moreover they are mostly unintelligible. The list is perhaps

too technical for these pages. There were also the “balingers,” the

“craiez,” the “cogge,” the “katte,” the “galley,” and others.

As soon as riverside land became valuable and ships grew in size the

building of ships was carried on, of necessity, outside the walls.

When the Shipwrights’ Company was incorporated, in the reign of James

I., they built their Hall at Ratcliffe Cross, in the centre of their

industry. Shipbuilding yards were placed all along the north bank of

the Thames as far east as Northfleet. Until thirty or forty years

ago the industry was one of the most important of those belonging to

London. There might be occasionally, though its continuance could

not be relied upon, peace on land, but there was never peace at sea.

From the time when the Count of the Saxon Shore set up his forts from

Porchester to Bradwell, and sent out his fleets to sweep the narrow

seas, the pirates continued without cessation; they came out of the

Low Country ports, from Calais, from Dieppe, from St. Malo; they came

down from Scotland; they even came out of English ports to destroy the

English trade. They were attacked and dispersed, but they collected

again. If France and England were at open war, as was very often the

case, the pirates pretended to be in the service of the King most

convenient for the moment. They were called the Rovers of the Sea;

there was the instance of that Scottish pirate Mercer, who, as we

have seen, was attacked and killed by Philpot, most gallant of Lord

Mayors; there was Eustace the Monk, whose life and exploits have been

written by Thomas Wright; there was William de Marish, who from the

safe retreat of Lundy carried on piracy for a time with impunity; there

was Savery de Maloleone, the French pirate; there was John of Newport,

who murdered the crews of the ships which he took—he held possession

of the Isle of Wight; there were pirates of Lynn, Wells, Yarmouth, and

Dartmouth. The Cinque Ports were nests of pirates; the mouth of the

Rhine, the harbour of Calais, and that of St. Malo were filled with

pirates. The English coasts were ravaged by them; Portsmouth, Rye,

Southampton, Sandwich, the Isle of Wight, Scarborough, the coast of

Norfolk suffered from descents, from sieges, and from capture, by these

Rovers. Letters of license were granted. Henry III. granted license to

Adam Robertwolt and William le Sauvage to attack and to pillage the

King’s enemies where they could, on condition of giving him half the

plunder. In the following reign a merchant, having been plundered,

received from the King license to carry on reprisals up to the amount

which he had lost, but no more; and there is one instance in which

English ships despatched north for the defence of Berwick plundered

the coast of England on their way! In the twelfth century the same

danger attended men who sailed abroad as in the ninth. But in the ninth

century every merchant who voyaged three times over the wide seas in

his own ship was “of thane right-worthy.” This distinction the master

mariner and merchant lost in later years. Yet this kind of reward was

still remembered very unexpectedly, when, in the year 1780, James Cook,

who had voyaged three times across the wide seas, received after his

death the coat of arms which made his family “of thane right-worthy.”

During the later Saxon reigns there was a large merchant navy, together

with a regular royal navy. This navy was called out once a year for

training. Unfortunately for Harold this annual training was over, and

the men had gone home when William sailed. Harold’s son seized the

ships and sailed for Ireland, whence he carried on depredations for

some years on the west coast. England was for a while without a navy,

so the pirates began again, and the merchant service suffered.

The history of the next four hundred years, as regards the shipping

and the foreign trade of London, is one either of a weak police, or a

strong police in the Channel. The merchants of London never ceased to

struggle in order to get the foreign trade into their own hands, but,

during all this time, with only partial success: we have seen that the

men of Rouen, the men of the Emperor, the Venetians, the Genoese, the

Florentines, the Lombards, the people of the Hanseatic League, and

the Flemings all came to London and carried on their trade themselves.

Perhaps the worst time for the London merchant service was the

fourteenth century. Yet England still boasted the sovereignty of the

sea, and the device of Edward III.’s gold noble still proudly claimed

that supremacy—

“For four things our Noble showeth unto me

King, ship, and sword, and Power of the Sea.”

“Our enemies,” said Capgrave, “laugh at us. They say, ‘Take the ship off

your gold noble and impress a sheep instead.’” The origin of England’s

claim to the sovereignty of the sea, which was constantly advanced even

in times of national degradation, was, I believe, a survival from the

time when the Roman Fleet, which was maintained for the police of the

narrow seas, made and sustained an Emperor, first Carausius, and then

Allectus—this fleet had its headquarters sometimes at Southampton,

sometimes at Dover, and sometimes at Boulogne, and was undoubtedly

sovereign of the sea. The Fleet which King John—under whom the Channel

was safe—placed upon the sea was the successor and the heir of the

Fleet of Admiral Carausius. The first merchant ship whose name is

preserved is the _Little Edward_. She was lying off Margate in the year

1315, when she was attacked and carried off by the French. Her owner

and commander was one John Brand: she was bound for Antwerp: her cargo

of wool belonged to three merchants of the Hanse. The ship—probably

not a very large vessel—was valued at £40 and the cargo at £120. In

the same year a great galley or dromond of Genoa, laden with corn and

other provisions for London, was attacked and taken by French pirates.

She was estimated to be worth—cargo and ship—£5716: 12s., or about

£100,000 of our money. The incorporation of the Merchant Adventurer

gave a stimulus to foreign trade in English vessels. London Merchants

established themselves on the shores of the Baltic, in Sweden, in

the Netherlands, and in the Levant. In the north they encountered

the hostility of the Hansard: there was fighting continually: on one

occasion all the English merchants at Bergen were massacred. In the

Channel, during this century, piracy revived, and became again a great

and pressing evil. But that the English ships were not deterred by the

dangers innumerable which threatened them is proved by the fact that,

in 1438, all the Genoese merchants in London were arrested in a body,

put into prison and fined 6000 marks, because the ship belonging to

one Sturmyer, a merchant of Bristol, had been seized in the Levant on

an alleged charge of breaking the regulations of trade. If a Bristol

merchant traded so far, the London merchants, one may be quite certain,

penetrated to the same waters. There were also pilgrimages over the

seas, and especially during the fifteenth century, to the shrine of St.

Iago de Compostella, the tomb of the Apostle James himself. In the year

1434 two vessels sailed from London carrying eighty and sixty pilgrims

respectively. And in the reign of Edward IV. no English merchants were

allowed to ship goods in foreign ships unless there were no English

ships ready for them. At the same time the tonnage of ships had so

greatly increased that Canynges of Bristol owned a great ship of 900

tons.

The ships, lying off the quays of Billingsgate and Queenhithe, were

the great galleys of Gascony laden with casks of wine, the woad ships

of Picardy, the scuts of Flanders, the whelk-boats of Essex, the great

vessels of Almaine and Norway, the fleets that came every year sweeping

over the seas from Genoa to Southampton and London, the ships which

carried on the trade of the Hanse merchants, the fishing-boats and

trawlers, the sea-coal boats called “kattes,” the barges and lighters

which carried their cargoes up and down the river, the coasting boats

which brought stores for building, and which, when not lying off the

quays, were moored in the river below London Bridge. And always, all

day long, there was the uproar of the sailors and of those who loaded

and unloaded; and the din of the markets; and everywhere the serjeants’

men went in and out among the throng, seeing that trade regulations

were complied with, that every sack lay open, that foreigners dealt

not in retail, that foreigners cleared their goods in a certain time,

that there was no underselling. And high above the uproar arose, from

every ship of every country as she reached the Port and dropped her

anchor, the sailors’ Hymn of Praise to the Virgin that their voyage

was safely concluded. This Hymn was the same for all the countries of

Western Europe. It adds to the picturesque aspect of the Mediæval Port

that when the ships came up the river, when they rounded the point of

Deptford and Rotherhithe, the Genoese or Venetian galley, galliot,

galleasse—sweeping up against the tide with their banks of oars, the

heavy Bordeaux ship laden with wine, sailing up with wind and tide,

the craft whose names convey no meaning to us, from each as it arrived

in the Pool was heard the same hymn sung by all the ship’s company

together, in the midst of the noise of loading and unloading, the

dropping or the weighing of anchor, or the casting off of other ships,

with the sailors’ chanteys in their own language. It was by special

permission that the sailors in Greek ships were allowed to sing their

“Kyriele” instead of the Hymn to the Virgin, when the ship dropped

anchor below the Bridge.

The Rules of Trade, as set forth in the _Liber Albus_, are many and

stringent. I append the more important. The Ordinances bear date 13

Ed. I.

1. _Corn Dealers._ Corn brought to London by land is to be taken in

bulk to the Market within Newgate before the Friars Minors or at Gras

chirche (Gracechurch Street). That “none” of it is to be sold before

the hour of Prime, _i.e._ 6 A.M. to 7 A.M. And that corn brought by

water shall be offered to the common people by retail during a whole

day.

2. _On Forestalling._ It is forbidden to meet dealers coming with

their wares by land or water before they have put up their wares for

sale.

3. No one to sell anything dutiable until he has paid the duty.

4. No freeman of the City to enter into partnership with a stranger

(_i.e._ one who is not a freeman).

5. Bakers are to make loaves of two sizes, viz. two for a penny, and

four for a penny. Bread shall be sold in the market only. Every baker

to have his own stamp by which his bread may be known. The baker of

brown bread not to make white bread and the converse. A baker shall

not buy corn to sell it again. A baker shall not sell his flour to

cooks for making pastry. Once a month every baker’s bread shall be

examined.

If a baker be found to be selling bread under weight he is to be

placed on a hurdle with the faulty loaf hanging from his neck and

dragged through the “great streets where there may be most people

assembled and through the great streets which are the most dirty.”

For a second offence he is to be dragged in like manner and set in

pillory. For a third offence he is to be dragged, set in pillory, his

oven pulled down and himself forbidden to carry on that trade any

longer.

A baker is not allowed to give the regratess (_i.e._ the woman who

retails bread from house to house) the “handsel money” of sixpence on

Monday or the “curtesy-money” of threepence on Friday: but, instead,

he is to give her thirteen loaves as twelve.

6. _Of Brewers and Taverners._ No measures to be used except the

gallon, pottle, and quart. These are to be stamped by the Alderman.

The tun of the brewster (brewing was conducted principally by women)

to contain 150 gallons. And since the measures (which were made of

wood) do sometimes shrink from dryness, they are to be examined four

times a year.

7. No stranger to sell by retail in the City unless he has been

received into the freedom and enrolled at Guildhall.

No stranger to keep an Inn or to let lodgings in the City.

If a stranger, however, obtain the freedom of the City he may keep an

Inn in any part of the City except the river-side.

8. All citizens to be in scot and lot. Scot is the payment of

contributions and taxes, Lot, the assessment of it in due proportions.

9. No pigs to be allowed in the streets and lanes. If any man find a

pig in the street he may kill it and keep it.

10. Markets to be held only in places assigned. Retailers of

provisions not to buy before Prime.

11. None but freemen to receive apprentices. No time of apprenticeship

to be less than seven years. And an apprentice who has served his time

must take up his freedom and be enrolled before he carries on his

trade.

12. The Mayor, Sheriffs, Aldermen, or their serjeants, clerks, and

bedels, shall not keep a baker’s oven, or a tavern, or any trade of

low repute.

13. Carts carrying firewood, timber, or charcoal, not to stand in the

City except on Cornhill.

14. No one to go into Southwark for the purchase of corn, beasts, or

other merchandise whereby a market might be established.

15. Lepers not to go about the streets or to sleep in the City. They

are to have their common “attorney” or procter who shall go round the

Churches on Sunday morning to collect alms for them.

16. Sellers of fish not to throw their water into the streets but to

carry it to the Thames.

17. Schools for fencing and buckler play not to be kept within the

City.

18. Foreign butchers (_i.e._ butchers who have not the freedom of

the City) to bring into the City the hides and pelts of the oxen

and sheep: to be allowed to sell their meat until high noon (Riley

interprets this to mean from one to three o’clock).

19. All the lanes leading from Thames Street to the river to be kept

clear so that persons on horseback may ride up and down.

20. No tavern to be kept open after curfew.

21. Boatmen to have their boats moored by sunset.

22. Woolfels to be sold in open market.

23. Regulations as to the making of furs.

24. Merchants bringing goods to the City to be allowed to proceed

without molestation.

25. Labourers, _i.e._ carpenters, masons, plasterers, tilers, etc.,

are to be paid according to the orders of the Mayor and Aldermen.

26. Fishmongers not to buy fish before the hour of Prime.

No market was to be held on London Bridge, especially by Fripperers, or

dealers in old clothes. No market was to be made in Southwark.

Barbers were not to expose blood in their windows, but were ordered to

throw it into the river. They were also forbidden to carry on their

trade on Sundays. Bowyers were forbidden to send bows for sale to

Cornhill or to any other place in the City. What does this mean?

Goldsmiths were to have a private mark on every piece. Smiths were

to have their private mark on every sword or knife. Hostelers were

those who lodged and fed the servants and horses of their guests.

Herbergeours gave them lodging only. Strangers were not lodged in

taverns. Strangers and foreigners were not, as a rule, permitted to

let lodgings. A stranger could only be admitted for a day and a night.

After that, the hosteler had to be responsible for any offences a guest

might commit. Hostelers were forbidden to sell food and drink to any

but their guests. They were not allowed to brew or to make bread.

The “articles” of the ward motes overlapped in some particulars the

Trade Regulations. I take a few clauses. Strangers could only be

received for a night and a day unless the host became responsible for

them. No open fireplace was to be placed near partitions, or boards,

or in any upper room. All persons were to give their assistance to the

Officers of the Ward in arresting disorderly or rebellious persons.

Residents in great houses to keep a ladder or two for the use of their

neighbours. From Whit Sunday to St. Bartholomew’s a barrel full of

water to be kept before every house. The roof of every house to be of

tile, stone, or lead. Crooks and cords to be provided to pull down

houses in case of fire. No refuse to be thrown into the street. No pigs

or cows allowed within the houses. Stalls not to be more than 2½

feet in width before the house. Pent-houses to be so high that persons

can ride and walk below them.

Before every Ward Mote there is to be an Inquisition into the

observance of these ordinances and a few other points.

Viz.: If there is any huckster in the Ward.

If any swine or cows are reared within the Ward.

If any leper is resident within the Ward.

If any purprestures (_i.e._ encroachments) have been made in the

streets.

If any baker of “tourte,” or “trete” bread (_i.e._ the coarse brown

bread) make fine bread.

If an officer of the Ward has extorted money on any pretence.

If any bargain of usury has been made in the Ward since the last Ward

Mote.

The rule about pigs was constantly repeated and as often disregarded.

At one time in the thirteenth century four men were appointed to find

and kill all pigs wandering about the streets. St. Anthony’s Hospital

was an exception. This House was privileged to let its pigs go free in

the City provided that they had bells hanging from their necks and

that they were pigs bestowed upon the Hospital out of charity. (See

vol. ii. pt. iii. ch. viii.) Later on, however, it was forbidden to

keep pigs, cows, or oxen in the City at all.

The fuel used in the houses largely consisted of charcoal, which was

brought into the City from the forests in the north and south of

London in carts. It was ordered, temp. Richard II., that both charcoal

and firewood should be sold at 10d. a quarter between Michaelmas and

Easter, and at 8d. between Easter and Michaelmas. This price seems very

high in comparison with that of other commodities. It is not known

when coals began to be used. The name of Sea Coal Lane, near the Fleet

River, was so called from coal being there stored in the reign of Henry

III., if not much earlier. Coal paid custom at Billingsgate. The market

for wood was not Wood Street (? Woad Street) but at Smithfield and at

Cornhill. The carters sold “talwood, fagot, and busche”—words which

explain themselves. Fern, reeds and stubble were also used as fuel.

The sense in which a London craftsman was a “freeman” was, happily

for the growth of real freedom, extremely restricted. He must be

apprenticed, and during his term of seven years he was the servant, or

perhaps the adopted son of the man to whom he was bound; he must belong

to a Guild; he must obey the laws of that Guild; these were minute and

careful: they made a man work during stated hours and no longer; they

regulated the price of his work; they would not allow him to work on

Church festivals; they would not let him go to law with another of

the same Guild; they sent him to church regularly; if he disgraced

his moral character in any way they turned him out of his trade and

sent him out of the City. In other words, he could not exercise his

freedom in living idly or mischievously. The system was admirable on

paper, and in fact seems to have worked well. Above all, it taught the

lesson which we have since forgotten, that a workman does not belong

to himself alone, but to the community. That was the meaning of fixed

hours, fixed prices, fixed holidays.

“As regards wages, carpenters and that class of workman mostly

received, between Michaelmas and Martimas (11th Nov.) 4d. per day,

or else 1½d. ‘and their table,’ at the option of the employer;

between Martimas and the Purification (2nd Feb.), 3d., or 1d. and

their table; between the Purification and Easter, 4d., or 1½d. and

their table; and between Easter and Michaelmas, 5d., or 2d. and their

table. Saturdays and Vigils were to be paid for as whole days, the men

only working till the evening, and on Sundays and Feast-days they were

‘to take nothing,’ the meaning being, no doubt, that on those days

they did not work at all. Their servants, or under-workmen, and the

makers of clay walls, were to receive, between Michaelmas and Easter,

2d., and between Easter and Michaelmas, 3d., for all demands. Should

any person pay a workman beyond these rates, he was to pay to the

City a fine of 40s., and the workman to be subjected to forty days’

imprisonment. About seventy years later, the wages of certain of these

artisans had apparently increased, Masons, Carpenters, Plasterers,

and Sawyers receiving sixpence during the long days, and fivepence in

winter, but without being permitted to charge for the repair of their

implements. The wages of Tilers, however, had not made so great an

advance, being at the rate of 5½d. and 4½d. according to the

length of the days, and the wages of their boys (_garsons_) 3½d.

and 3d. ‘Master Daubers’ also were to be content with fivepence and

fourpence, according to the length of the days, their boys receiving

at the same rate as those of Tilers.”—Riley, _Liber Albus_, pp.

xxxvi.-xxxvii.

London made within its own walls almost everything that it wanted (see

p. 195). The subdivision of trade in a hundred branches was inevitable

as the town grew larger and its demands more imperious. For instance,

in the branch of arms and armour, there were wanted the bowyer who made

bows, the fletcher who made arrows, the bokelsmyth who made buckles,

the bracers who made armour for the arms, the gorgoaricer who made

gorgets, the tabourer who made drums, the heaulmere who made helmets,

the maker of haketons—a quilted jacket worn under armour and sometimes

used for armour—of gambesons—another lighter kind of jacket—of pikes,

swords, spears, and cross-bow bolts. Again, in the matter of clothing,

each kind of garment had its own maker. The wympler made wymples, or

those handkerchiefs for the neck worn by nuns and elderly ladies; the

capletmonger made and sold caps; the callere made cowls or coifs; the

chaloner made chalons or corselets; the bureller worked in coarse

cloth; the white tawyer in white leather; the names of the quilter,

the pinner, and the plumer, explain their branches. Many of the trades

were extremely offensive to the neighbours, and complaints were made

from time to time. Not even a mediæval Londoner, for instance, could

enjoy the neighbourhood of tallow-melting or of soap-making; nor could

the people at any time endure the sight and stink of the blood and

offal from the Shambles pouring down the narrow lanes into the river.

Therefore order was taken on these subjects. It must, however, be

remembered that the City of London, now a warehouse and a distributing

centre, was formerly a great hive of industries. Wherever one walked

there arose the busy hum and mingled sounds of work: the melodious

anvil rang out from a court; the cry of the prentices sounded in Chepe;

the song of those who retailed wares was heard about the street; the

women who sold fish cried aloud; the man who carried water also cried

his wares; and so did the baker who took round the loaves. In the

broad streets, Chepe and Cornhill and Bishopsgate Street, the knights

and men-at-arms rode slowly along; perhaps a great noble entered the

City with five hundred followers all wearing his livery; broad-wheeled

waggons heavily rumbled; the Queen was carried along in her cumbrous

but richly decorated carriage or her horse litter; the Mayor rode

down the street accompanied by the Sheriffs and the Aldermen on the

way to a City Function; a trumpeter, a drummer, and a piper preceded

a little procession in which the principal figure was a man tied on a

hurdle with a whetstone round his neck to show that he was a liar and

a cheat; thus was the attention of the people called to the culprit,

and they were invited to assist at his pillory, and were admonished of

the punishment meted out to offenders. And all the time from every shop

and stall and seld the voice of the prentice was uplifted crying, “Buy!

buy! buy! What d’ye lack? what d’ye lack?” Above all, and all day long,

was heard the ringing of the bells in the hundred and fifty churches

and chapels of the City. They sounded all together for early mass,

and all together for angelus; at other times for the various services

in the Religious Houses: even at midnight they sounded, when the monks

were summoned from their warm beds to Matins. It was a noisy, bustling

city full of life and animation; the people were always ready to fight,

always dreading fire, famine, and plague, yet always hopeful; and the

City was always young as befits a city continually at work.

The Trade of London covers the exports and the imports, the industries

and the productions, the wants and the luxuries, the superfluities and

the extravagances, of the City. There was no great change in these

respects during the whole period from the Norman Conquest to the

accession of the Tudors. That is to say, the Court of Edward IV. was in

all essentials the same as the court of Richard II. A dignitary of the

Church in the year 1480 was more magnificent than, but not otherwise

different from, one in the year 1280. The rank and state of a Mayor of

the later period were much like those of a Mayor in the former period.

There had been some development in art; there had been some changes

in arms, armour, and warfare: we will try to enumerate the callings,

trades, and industries of Mediæval London. It will be matter of

surprise to learn how many there were; how many have disappeared; and

how many have been merged in other trades. It was not machinery alone

that turned man into a machine and made him spend his whole life on one

little piece of work, always beginning, always ending, always repeated.

In the Appendix will be found a categorical list of trades. I do not

advance the list as complete, but it contains nearly all the trades

mentioned in the authorities for the time.

This list shows, what I have already stated, that nearly everything

wanted for the daily use of the people was made within the walls of the

City; here wool was made fit for use, flax was spun, cloth was woven,

weapons were hammered out and shaped, bow and arrow, lance, pike, and

sword; armour was made, became breastplate and cuirasses; skins were

converted into leather, leather into saddles; tiles and bricks were

made; the skins and furs were made fit for use; the gold and silver

cups, mazers and chalices were made in the City; the people of London

made blankets of shalloon, they also made the quilts and pillows;

beautiful things with silk, glass vessels, and dainty things for women;

in fine—everything that could be made in the City was made. This fact

not only limits the imports from foreign and native markets, but shows

how self-sufficient a mediæval city could be. This self-sufficiency is

further illustrated by the law (3 Ed. IV. c. 4), which prohibited the

importation—a measure of Protection—of a great number of goods on the

ground that the English artificers cannot compete against foreign-made

wares.

Here is a list of things made:—

“Woollen Caps, Woollen Cloth, Laces, Corses, Ribbands, Fringes of Silk

and Thread, Laces of Thread, Silk twined, Silk in any wise embroidered,

Laces of Gold, Tyres of silk or gold, Saddles, Stirrups, or any Harness

pertaining to Saddlery, Spurs, Bosses of Bridles, Aundirons, Gridirons,

any Manner of Locks, Pinsons, Fire-tongs, Dripping Pans, Dice, Tennis

Balls, Points, Purses, Gloves, Girdles, Harness for Girdles of Iron,

Latten Steel, Tin or of Alkemine, anything wrought of any Tawed

Leather, any Tawed Furrs, Buscans, Shoes, Galoches, or Corks, Knives,

Daggers, Wood-knives, Bodkins, Sheers for Taylors, Scissors, Razors,

Sheaths, Playing Cards, Pins, Pattens, Pack Needles, or any Painted

Ware, Forcers, Caskets, Rings of Copper or of Latten Gilt, or Chaffing

Dishes, Hanging Candlesticks, Chaffing Balls, Sacring Bells, Rings for

Curtains, Ladles, Scimmers, Counterfeit Basons, Ewers, Hats, Brushes,

Cards for Wool, Blanch Iron Thread commonly called White Wire.” (W.

Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry_.) (See also Appendix II.)

The following notes on the regulations of trade are by Riley:—

“The business of the Winedrawers (_Wyndrawers_) seems to have been

limited to the loading, carriage, and unloading, of tuns and pipes of

wine from the Quay cellars to other parts of the City. Their charges

were restricted by enactment to certain prices, according to the

distance; ten pence being the largest sum allowed for the carriage

of a tun of wine to any part within the walls, and eight pence for a

pipe.”

* * * * *

“The business of a Brewer was acknowledgedly one held in low

estimation; indeed ‘Breweress’ rather should be the term, as, in the

times now under consideration, the business was almost wholly in

the hands of females, and so continued to be till the close of the

fifteenth century, if not later; at which period Fleet Street was

tenanted almost wholly by breweresses or alewives, and makers of felt

caps. The brewers of ale generally, if not always, sold it also by

retail to the public, as well as wholesale, to such dealers as were

not brewers themselves, but privileged to sell it. Indeed, at some

periods, as already noticed, we meet with prohibitory enactments,

forbidding any person but brewers and hostelers to be sellers of ale.

The ale-tavern or ale-house seems to have been a distinct

establishment from the wine-tavern; the keeper of which, though the

fact does not appear [_Liber Albus_], was probably prohibited from

selling ale. For the present, it is proposed to call the reader’s

attention exclusively to the brewing and sale of ale.

Immediately a brewing was finished, it was the duty of the brewer or

breweress to send for the Ale-conner of the Ward in order to taste the

ale. Upon so doing, the Ale-conner, in case he did not find the ale

equal to the Assize, or, in other words, not so good as it ought to

be, with the assent of his Alderman set a lower price upon it, which,

upon sale thereof, was not to be exceeded. Fine, imprisonment, and

even punishment by pillory, were the result of reiterated breaches of

the Assize. The gallon, pottle, and quart of the brewer and taverner

were to be duly impressed with the seal of the Alderman of the Ward;

the tun also, or vat, of the brewery (containing 150 gallons) was

similarly sealed. The pottles and quarts, there is reason to believe,

were sometimes made of wood, as we find them spoken of as being made

when green, and as shrinking from dryness on getting cold. Consumers,

private probably as well as taverners, sent their vessel to the

brewery; and, by public enactment, there it was to stand the rest of

the day and through the night, for the purpose of giving the ale time

to work, another proof of its newness when consumed. The next morning

on being taken away by the customer, the vessel was to be ‘full of

good and clear ale.’

No brewer or breweress, or regrator or regratress of ale, was to

keep his or her doors open after Curfew rung, under heavy penalties.

Brewers, as well as hostelers, were ordered to retail their ale by

full and lawful measure, and not to sell it by the hanap, or metal

drinking-mug of the establishment.”

* * * * *

“The best ale, which was no better than _sweet-wort_, was probably

so thin that it might be drunk in ‘potations pottle deep’ without

disturbing the equilibrium of the drinker. Fermented liquors were

drunk too in these days as new as possible; and there can be little

doubt that the ale was used the moment it was made. This, combined

with its possible thinness and its lusciousness, would additionally

tend to prevent it from producing inebriety; and it is doubtful

whether the Londoners then deserved the character for drunkenness

which FitzStephen had seemed inclined to give them little better than

a century before. The fact, however, that the smallest ale-measure

here noticed is a quart would certainly seem, it must be admitted, to

militate somewhat against a belief in their comparative sobriety. The

extensive consumption, too, of wine, which, at one period, was little

more than twice as dear as ale, may have exercised some influence

in this respect. Wine at this low price would be no better than,

if indeed as good as, the _vin ordinaire_ of the present day; and

consequently, though largely drunk, there would be but little chance

of its causing inebriety.”

* * * * *

“Pastelers were a class of tradesmen who made pies, and probably other

kinds of pastry as well. By one enactment we find them ordered to make

pies for one halfpenny; the materials probably being found by those

who employed them. Pie-bakers (_pybakeres_), there seems reason to

believe, united the trade of baking pies for their customers with the

keeping of tables for guests on their own account; as already noticed,

like their brethren, the cooks, they are occasionally spoken of as

retailing ale. In one instance, we find an order made that no cook

shall charge more than one penny for putting a capon or a rabbit in a

crust; the materials for the pastry, with the exception perhaps of the

flour, being evidently found by the customer employing him.

The wholesale markets for corn, malt, and salt, brought to London

by water, were at Billingsgate, and Queen Hythe. Sometimes in the

reign of Edward III. and Richard II., we find it enacted, that the

commodities brought to these quays shall remain three days on sale

to the public, before the dealers shall be allowed to buy; at other

times, the period is limited to a single day. Corn coming to Queen

Hythe, _temp._ Edward II., the property of a stranger, or non-freeman,

was not to be put up for sale before prime rung at St. Paul’s, six

in the morning. _Temp._ Richard II., certain bells seem to have been

rung to announce to the dealers when the sale of corn at Queen Hythe,

Graschirche, and Billingsgate was about to commence. Corn and malt

were also sold at Smithfield in the times, apparently, of Edward I.,

and his successor. In the two following reigns, however, we find it

frequently enacted, that persons bringing corn and malt for sale in

carts or on horses from the Eastern parts, namely, from the counties

of Cambridge, Bedford, Huntingdon, and from Ware, shall take their

stand on the Pavement at Graschirche; and those coming from the West,

‘as from Barnet,’ shall expose their wares for sale on the Pavement

before the Friars Minors, at Newgate. As they were not allowed to sell

by sample, these extensive pavements would be particularly convenient

for the deposit and exposure of their sacks. Besides supplying the

City to a considerable extent with bread, Stratford, in Essex, was

evidently a great repository for corn and flour: which, _temp._ Edward

III., was brought to the City by carts, several times in the week

probably, as they paid 3d. _per week_ for Pavage.

Sellers and buyers of corn seem to have been watched at all times with

the greatest jealousy and suspicion; out of numerous regulations made

at various periods in reference to them, the following may deserve

notice:—Vendors of corn were forbidden to sell it by sample, or to

put it in any place out of public view. No monger or regrator of

corn, fish, or poultry, was to make purchase thereof, before the hour

of prime. Good corn was not to be mixed with bad, ‘in deceit of the

people,’ under pain of forfeiture. No one was to buy corn, malt, or

salt, and leave it in the hands of the original seller for the purpose

of selling it as his agent at a profit. No freeman of the City, a

regrator of corn, was to stand on the Pavements of Graschirche and

Newgate between the foreign sellers, but each class of dealers was

to have its separate stand. No retailer was to buy corn or malt for

resale except on market days.”

* * * * *

“Fishmongers, selling fish in large quantities to their customers,

were to sell by the basket; such basket to be capable of containing

one bushel of oats, and, if found deficient, to be burnt in open

market. Each basket was also to contain only one kind of sea-fish; and

the fishmongers were warned not to colour (_douber_) their baskets;

or, in other words, not to put good fish on the top and inferior

beneath. Fish arriving by water at night was not to be moved from

the boat till sunrise; but in case the night was rainy, it might be

landed on the Quay, under charge of the ‘Serjeant of the Street,’ till

the proper time for sale. Herrings, mackerel, and other fish brought

by cart, were not to be bought for resale before the hour of noon.

Fish brought by land in baskets, when purchased by the keeper of a

shop, was not to be taken into the shop, but to be exposed publicly

for sale in front of it; the case of a freeman excepted, who might

warehouse it for the night, on condition of selling it, without

subtraction, in open market next day.

Though, as already stated, fish was occasionally sold at places

lower down the river, dealers in the City were at times forbidden to

forestall sea-fish or freshwater fish, ‘for the purpose of sending

it to any great lord or to a house of religion, or of regrating

it,’ until the purveyors for the King had made their purchases for

their master’s use. At another period, a regulation was made that

no fishmonger should buy fish brought to the City ‘before the good

people have bought what they need.’ Very similar, too, in spirit were

the following enactments, belonging to various periods in the century

under notice:—No fish was to be bought till the vessel was moored.

Citizens of London might buy at the boat at the same price as the

dealers. Fishmongers were not to buy fresh fish till after mass sung

(probably at sunrise) at the Chapel on London Bridge, or at the Church

of St. Martin; and not to buy salt fish till after prime; though, by a

regulation, _temp._ Edward I., this last article applied only to salt

fish in which strangers had a share, that belonging to citizens being

allowed to be sold at sunrise, like the fresh. Freemen of the City,

too, were permitted to stand with the fishmongers at their stalls, and

to be partners with them in the sale of their wares. No apprentice

was to enter a vessel for the purpose of buying fish; and no porter,

unless he was called.

We find it also enacted, that no one shall sell fish upon the Quay

by retail; and that no one shall carry about cooked whelks for sale,

under pain of being amerced and losing his whelks. Fish coming by

land, and arriving after dinner, was allowed to be warehoused, whether

belonging to a freeman or not, and sold in the market on the morrow.

No seller of stockfish was allowed to enter a vessel for the purchase

of fish: his trade was wholly distinct from that of the ordinary

fishmonger.”

* * * * *

“The great cattle-market, of course, was Smithfield (Smooth field),

which is mentioned as a ‘_campus_,’ a plain, or open space; and

ordinances are met with, of an early date, for keeping it clean. Among

other animals sold at Smithfield, lean swine are mentioned, probably

for fattening in town or in its close vicinity. From the frequent

mention of pigs, it would seem probable that pork was more extensively

consumed than any other kind of butchers’ meat. _Temp._ Edward III.,

lambs are mentioned as being brought by boat to St. Botolph’s Wharf,

near the Tower. The great meat-markets were held at the Flesh-Shambles

of St. Nicholas, near Newgate, and at the stalls under the covered

place or market-house (_domus_) known as ‘Le Stokkes,’ afterwards

Stocks Market. At some periods, if not constantly, the meat-markets

were open on Sundays. _Temp._ Richard II., a regulation was made that

all butchers, keeping shops, should close them at dark, and not sell

their meat by candle-light; a rule which seems, at times, to have

applied to all other trades as well. On the same occasion, too, it

was ordered that no one should go out of the City for the purchase of

lambs, and that no lambs should be sold at a higher price than six

pence.

In the reign of Edward III., orders were issued that the offals of

St. Nicholas Flesh-Shambles should be buried in spots appointed

for the purpose; and at a later period, in the same reign, we find

proclamation made that the butchers of St. Nicholas shall no longer

carry the offals and filth of the market down to the Thames; a mandate

also being issued that large cattle shall in future be slaughtered

without the City.

In the early part of the reign of Edward I., it was ordered that

strange or foreign butchers should sell till _none_ (our noon) by

retail, and, after that, by wholesale, until Vespers rung at St.

Paul’s; at which time they must have finished the sale of their meat,

without carrying anything away to salt or store, under penalty of

forfeiting the same. In the reign of Edward III., the time for the

foreign butchers closing market had been prolonged to Curfew at St

Martin’s le Grand. Foreign butchers were also strictly forbidden to

bring any carcase to market without the hide or woolfel belonging

thereto. Among other ordinances, which seem to have applied equally

to free butchers and foreign, it was provided that they should not

sell hides or woolfels till after prime, or six in the morning; that

they should not sell a woolfel while the animal was alive; and an

injunction is to be met with more than once, that butchers, neither

themselves nor by their wives, should sell suet, tallow, or lard, for

the purpose of being taken beyond sea. Candles were made in these days

of tallow or wax, as now.”

* * * * *

“The persons whose business it was to receive guests for profit,

appear to have been divided into two classes, ‘_Hostelers_’ and the

‘_Herbergeours_.’ The line of distinction between these two classes

is not very evident, but it seems not improbable that it consisted

in the fact that the former lodged and fed the servants and horses

of their guests, while the latter did not. At all events, hostelers

are mentioned as supplying hay and corn for horses, but herbergeours

never.”

* * * * *

“_Temp._ Edward I., Barbers were forbidden to expose blood in their

windows, but were ordered to carry it privily to the Thames,—one of

the comparatively few ordinances of these times to the detriment of

that now much ill-used stream. _Temp._ Henry IV., an enactment is

found, to the effect that Barbers shall not follow their calling, or

keep their shops open on Sundays. At the close of Edward the Third’s

reign, Bowyers were forbidden to send bows to Cornhill, or to any

other place within the City, for sale. In the early part of the same

reign, Spurriers were ordered to sell spurs at the rate of 6d. and 8d.

the pair, the very best not to exceed 12d. In the same reign, it was

also enacted that every Goldsmith should put his mark on plate of his

manufacture; all Smiths, too, who made swords, and knives, were to

have their private mark. _Temp._ Edward I., the prices to be charged

and materials were regulated on the following terms: for putting on

a common horse-shoe with six nails, 1½d.; with eight nails, 2d.;

and for removing the same, 1/2d.; for putting a shoe on a courser,

2½d.; for putting a shoe on a charger, 3d.; and for removing a shoe

from either, 1d.

Carriage or cartage might at any time be seized by the serjeants and

grooms (_garsons_) of the City dignitaries and officials from the

‘_Traventers_,’ or persons who kept carts and horses for hire. The

carts, however, that carried away the filth of the City are mentioned

as being especially exempted; an enactment that has very much the

semblance of making a virtue of necessity. The serjeants and grooms

were especially directed, not to molest the carts and horses of the

poor persons who brought victuals and other wares to the City for

sale, and not ‘for their own private gain,’ to spare those of persons

who kept them for hire,—a rather strong hint as to the prevalence

of bribery, which in all probability was anything but uncalled for.

Carts used in the City for the carriage of sand, gravel, or potter’s

clay, contained one full quarter and no more.” (Riley, Introduction to

_Liber Albus_.)

To these trade regulations should be appended a most formidable

document (38 Ed. III.) issued against usurers. The preamble will

sufficiently expose the view held of usury at that time.

“Whereas heretofore the City of London has sustained great mischiefs,

scandals, and damages, and in time to come might sustain the same, by

reason of certain persons who, neither for fear of God nor for shame of

the world, cease, but rather do daily exert themselves, to maintain the

false and abominable contract of usury, under cover and colour of good

and lawful trading; which kind of contract, the more subtly to deceive

the people, they call ‘exchange’ or ‘chevisance’; whereas it might more

truly be called ‘wickedness,’ seeing that it ruins the honour and the

soul of the agent, and sweeps away the goods and property of him who

appears to be accommodated, and destroys all manner of right and lawful

traffic, whereby, as well throughout all the land as the said City,

they ought principally to be upheld and maintained. Wherefore, etc.”

Mints were anciently established in every important town, the work of

coinage being entrusted to private persons named moneyers.

In the reign of Edward I. there were mints in London, Canterbury,

Kingston-on-Hull, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Bristol, and Exeter, a system

which produced endless disorders and complaints as to light weight

and bad money. It was not until the reign of Elizabeth that all the

mints were reduced to one, and that in the Tower of London. Gold coins

were introduced by Henry III., but they were not liked, and, as it was

optional to take them, they were not in common use until the reign of

Edward III., who originated the noble, the half noble, and the quarter

noble.

When the King or Queen communicated, and on Twelfth Day, an offering

was made of a coin called a Besant, which was afterwards redeemed by

the King’s Chamberlain. The Besant was a circular piece of hammered

gold engraved on one side with the Trinity and on the other with

the Virgin Mary. Those worked for James I. were different. The

representation of the King showed him kneeling before an altar, with

four crowns before him, and the legend _Quid retribuam Domino pro

omnibus quæ tribuit mihi?_ On the other side was a lamb lying beside a

cross with the words _Cor contritum et humiliatum non despiciet Deus_.

On all occasions of state, such as a Coronation, a marriage, a baptism,

a funeral, or the installation of a Knight of the Garter, it was

customary for the King to offer a Besant. The custom is said to have

fallen into disuse when a certain Dean of Windsor refused to allow the

Besant to be redeemed with money. The moneyer to whom was entrusted the

engraving of the Besant was named after the coin. Thus we find in the

reign of Henry II. that the moneyers, as officers especially dependent

on the King, were assessed separately. The Moneyers of London paid a

tallage _ad filiam maritandam_. They were five in number, Achard, who

paid six shillings, Lefwine Besant, who paid five marks, Aylwin Finch,

who paid two marks, and two others.

Let us next ask what were the goods which London merchants had to offer

for exchange and for exportation?

Henry of Huntingdon, writing in the reign of Henry II., says that

England possessed mines of copper, iron, lead, and silver, the last

metal in very small quantities. “Silver, however, is received from the

neighbouring ports of Germany, with which an extensive commerce is

carried on by the Rhine in the abundant product of fish and meat, as

well as of fine wool and fat cattle which Britain supplies.... Britain

also furnishes large quantities of very excellent jet of a black and

brilliant hue.” One observes that he does not include slaves among the

exports. That trade had therefore disappeared. The statement of this

Chronicle stands good for four hundred years. The staple exports of

England continued to be wool, hides, iron, and tin. Sometimes grain

was also exported. England, for many centuries, was the greatest

wool-producing country of Europe. The chief reason appears to have been

the comparative peace enjoyed by the island at a time when the rest of

Western Europe was continually devastated by wars of all kinds, namely,

civil wars, foreign wars, wars between barons, wars between towns. The

Englishman was the only farmer who could keep his sheep. Therefore it

happened that the German Ocean was always covered with light ships

sailing to and fro laden with wool. Flanders was the manufacturing

country which received the wool; when there was a break in the friendly

relations of England and Flanders half the Flemish people were thrown

out of work. England sent abroad money by means of wool: the tribute

to the Pope was paid in sacks of wool sent to Bruges and there sold.

In the year 1343 the Deans of York, Lichfield, and Salisbury, and the

Archdeacon of Canterbury, who were all non-resident Italians, received

their stipends in wool. Even the taxes were calculated by sacks of wool.

Many efforts were made to make England a manufacturing country, but

for a long time in vain. Henry I. established the cloth fair at St.

Bartholomew’s. Edward III. brought weavers from Flanders and settled

them at Norwich. One has only to stand before the Guildhalls of Bruges

and Ghent, or in the splendid Hall of the Drapiers of Ypres, to

understand how great an industry was this of the cloth manufacture,

which the English people were so slow in learning.

Up to the fifteenth century the English ships went up to Bruges by

canal. When in the sixteenth century Maximilian dammed the canal at

Sluys, the English vessels then went to Antwerp.

The chief town of the wool trade was called the Staple. It was changed

from time to time: Bruges, St. Omer, Calais, Antwerp, were all in

succession Staples. When Antwerp was sacked in 1567 and 1585, London

took its place.

The imports may be classified under the division of the countries

whence they came. Thus, from Spain the port of London received figs,

raisins, bastard wine, dates, liquorice, Seville oil, grain, Castile

soap, wax, iron, wool, wadmoles, skins of goats and kids, saffron,

and quicksilver. But these goods were not received from Spain direct,

but through Bruges, the great Flemish emporium, where the English

bought the Spanish merchandise. Portugal exported wine, wax, grain,

figs, raisins, honey, cordovan, dates, salt, hides. Prussia exported

beer, bacon, wax, osmunds, copper, steel, bowstaves, peltry, pitch,

tar, boards, flax, Cologne thread, fustian, canvas, cards, buckram,

etc. The Genoese brought over cloth of gold, silk, pepper, woad, oil,

woodashes, cotton, alum, and gold. The Venetians brought all kinds of

spices and groceries, sweet wines, apes, and other foreign articles,

and many articles of luxury.

“The grete galleys of Venees and Fflorence

Be wel ladene with thynges of complacence:

Alle spicerye and of grocers ware.

With swete wynes, alle manere of chaffare

Apes and japes and marmasettes taylede

Trifles, trifles that littelle have availidde

And thynges with which they fetely blere oure eye

With thynges not enduring that we bye

Ffor moche of thys chaffare that is wastable

Might be fore borne for diere and dissevable.”

(_Libelle of English Polycie._)

From Brabant and Zealand came madder, woad, garlick, onions, and salt

fish. In the markets of Brabant were exposed for sale the wares of

France, Burgundy, and Hainault, brought overland in carts.

From Ireland came wool, hides, salt fish, such as salmon, haddock,

herring; limes, skins of martens, otters, rabbits, kids, etc. Scotland

exported direct, without passing through London, wool and hides.

From Brittany came wine, what wine? It must have been wine of the Loire

country shipped from St. Malo; salt and canvas. Iceland sent stockfish

and took corn, cloth, ale, and wine.

Thorold Rogers has compiled a list of English towns which produced and

exported. London is not in that list. London made nothing except for

its own use; it imported all the things which we have enumerated above,

but it made nothing for export. This is a remarkable fact. It proves

that the City was quite early regarded as a centre of distribution.

It will be observed in this list that in matters of necessity London

could do without foreign assistance altogether. The houses were

built of English oak and English stone; bread, butter, cheese, meat,

game, fish, ale, cider, perry, mead, salt, honey, could be made or

obtained; cloth, woollen stuffs of all kinds, linen, fur, fuel, all

these necessary things were provided at home. Even wine—of a kind—was

made of English grapes. The poorer classes had nothing to do with

foreign imports. Except for woad—and some of this was grown at home—the

manufactures and industries of the country could get along very well

without foreign help. The swords of Toledo and Damascus were very

beautiful, but an English cutlass made out of Sussex iron by an English

artificer was more serviceable in battle. The imports were either

luxuries for the wealthy classes, such as wine, preserved fruit, cloth

of gold, buckram, fur, etc., or they were things wanted to supplement

and make cheaper home products, as wax, honey, leather, salt fish,

onions, garlic, etc. For this reason the imports were not as a rule

equal to the exports, and the balance of trade was in favour of London.

Compare the craftsman of Edward III. with him of Victoria. The former

drank brews of various kinds but all home made, the latter drinks tea,

coffee, cocoa, sometimes German beer, whisky, brandy, rum, geneva,

and perhaps wine, all imported. The former ate bread, bacon, mutton,

beef, cheese, eggs, fish, which were all produced at home. Half of the

food stuffs of the latter come from abroad. The former made everything

that was wanted for the house; the latter imports everything, doors,

window-frames, coffins, matches, in fact everything that can be got

cheaper from abroad than at home. Cheapness has its dangers; we no

longer value what it costs no effort to procure; fine wheaten bread

lies unheeded in our gutters; the sense of conquest and possession is

lost; the struggle is no longer for the simple needs of life but for

the luxuries.

[Illustration: A HOUSEHOLD DINING

From MS. 28162 in British Museum.]

Mention has been frequently made of Fairs. There is nothing now in

existence which in the least resembles one of the great Fairs of this

time. The shops, which were sheds or stalls or booths covered with

canvas, were ranged side by side in streets, called after the kind

of goods sold in them. Thus, there was the “Spicery,” the “Portery,”

the “Drapery.” The Fair lasted for two or three weeks. It was a fair

for exchange as well as for sale; the wholesale merchants frequented

the Fair, exchanging silks for wool or skins; and the retailers

spread out their wares to catch the people. Everything was offered

for sale, while the Fair, which always contained a certain element of

feasting, was amply provided with taverns, eating and drinking shops,

musicians, dancers, tumblers, and jugglers. When the necessity for

the Fair gradually ceased, the entertainments remained. Yet down to

the ’fifties, in the nineteenth century, among the booths there were

always some which kept up the semblance of serious trade; between the

toy-stalls and the gingerbread were booths of cheap books and booths of

hosiery and clothing.

Let us go on to consider the conduct of the trade of London Port.

And, first, as regards the English merchants. When trade begins, all

the regulations of trade for its security, such as the enforcement of

debts, the due carrying out of contracts and agreements, must begin

at the same time. Hence there was created in every trading town an

organised Chamber of Commerce, anciently called the Merchant Gild. Of

this organisation I will speak in another place (see vol. ii. pt. i.

ch. ix.). This Chamber or association of traders assumed, as possessed

by Royal Charter, executive powers, it passed laws, regulated trade in

every branch, ordered prices, received foreign merchants and cargoes

from abroad, appointed the time of market, and punished offenders. The

Gild may have exercised all these functions not only in a prehistoric

but also in a non-historic manner. For in London we have no Merchant

Gild ever spoken of.

Among the foreign traders are mentioned in the _Liber Albus_ the

Cologne merchants, the Hanse merchants, and merchants of Lorraine,

Bavaria, Lemberg, Flanders, Antwerp, Bruges, Louvain, Perugia, Lucca,

Lombardy, Tuscany, Spain, Portugal, Catalonia, Navarre, Provence,

Aquitaine, Quercy, Gascony, Bordeaux, Genoa, and the Italian Societies

of Frescobaldi and Morori. Liberties are also mentioned as being

granted to the Merchants of Douay, Malines, and St. Omer; also to

numerous cities and corporations in England; and allocations were

granted to the citizens of Dublin and Cork.

All these merchants occupied their own houses, in which they were

expected to live by themselves, not associating more than was necessary

with the citizens, who, as far down as the nineteenth century, were

wont to hustle and abuse any foreigner who ventured unprotected into

the streets. The men of Germany had the Domus Teutonicorum, the

Steelyard, where is now Cannon Street Terminus: the men of Bordeaux had

the “Vintry”: the Flemings their own house near the Vintry. The history

of the trade of London for five hundred years is largely composed of

the jealousies and quarrels between the foreign merchants and the

merchants of London.

In the year 1000, strangers from France, Normandy, Rome, Flanders,

Liège, and the Emperor’s men, were permitted to trade at Billingsgate.

In the twelfth century a fleet, carrying wine as its principal cargo

from Germany, arrived at London once a year. It lay off the bank two

ebbs and one flood. This means that the vessels came up the river

with the flood, and lay off during the following ebb and one tide

afterwards. During this time the men were not permitted to land, nor

to sell their cargo. The King’s officers came on board and purchased

what was wanted for the King’s use—gems, plate, tapestry, as well as

wine. After this the traders were allowed to sell to merchants, but

not to go to the open market nor to sell by retail. When they carried

their wares on shore the Sheriff examined them, and they had to pay

scavage, _i.e._ “showage.” They could sell for the space of forty days,

after which they had to go away. But one suspects that the law was not

administered with great strictness. Some things they were forbidden to

buy, as lamb skins: and they were not to buy more than three live pigs!

In 1217, a convention was made between the merchants of London, Amiens,

and other towns. Those of the convention were permitted to load and

to unload, to warehouse in the City, and to sell to citizens, not

to foreigners. In return they were to pay fifty marks a year to the

Sheriffs. One of them might keep a hostel for a year, but not longer.

They were not to take provisions out of the City. These foreigners

contributed £100 towards the construction of a conduit from Tyburn into

the City. Before this time, in 1194, Richard I. had granted to Cologne

merchants the right to attend all Fairs “saving the franchise of the

City of London.”

The expansion of trade and the creation of industries in England

owed a great deal to the spirit of enterprise made possible, or even

engendered, by the new municipal life of the towns. All over the

country the towns asked for and obtained charters after the fashion

of London. There are everywhere, up to the end of the thirteenth

century, signs of activity and of prosperity: churches were rebuilt;

bridges were thrown over rivers; walls were repaired; gates, wharves,

aqueducts were constructed; new trading-ports arose such as Lynn,

Sandwich, Southampton, for instance; new manufactures were started

at Norwich, Worcester, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham, Reading,

and elsewhere; there are no complaints of poverty and misery; there

is no Piers Plowman for London; the merchants are seen to be buying

country estates; and whereas in the twelfth century England exported

little besides her wool, in the fifteenth century there are entries of

industry and manufactures everywhere. And for all these, London was the

recipient and the distributor.

The Hanseatic League was in existence as far back as the eighth

century. The members began to trade with London apparently very soon

after that date, and were esteemed as merchants who introduced wares

very useful and otherwise difficult to procure. In the reign of

Ethelred, A.D. 979, the “men of the Emperor” were accounted worthy of

“good laws.” They settled by the river-side, where they obtained a

house near Dowgate. Either before or after their settlement the “men of

Cologne” settled next to them. After disputes between the two Houses

they were amalgamated and formed the Gildhalla Teutonicorum. Their

merchandise consisted mainly of wheat, rye and other grain, cables,

masts, pitch, tar, flax, hemp, linen cloth, wainscots, wax, steel, and

other “profitable merchandize.” (Stow).

Not only the citizens of London but the country people looked on the

aliens with hate. No royal proclamation was of avail to protect

them against this hatred. Partly, no doubt, they were hated because

they were foreigners; but mainly, it is certain, because they were

monopolists and could charge what they pleased. Thus when Wat Tyler and

his merry men held possession of the City they murdered all the foreign

merchants, especially the Flemings, dragging them even from the altars.

Chaucer says (_Nonnes Prestes Tale_):—

“Certes, he Jacke Strawe and his meynee

Ne made never shoutes half so shrille,

When that they wolden any Fleming kille,

As thilke day was made upon the fox.”

The Hanseatic League was most powerful: to it belonged all the

important towns of North Germany, it had ships numbering hundreds,

and controlled the whole trade of the Baltic, that is to say, of

Scandinavia, Russia, Poland, and Germany, and exercised in England

for its own purposes the influence which everywhere belongs to the

purse. The members advanced money to the King on large interest; they

got him out of his difficulties, for a consideration. Thus Edward

III., in return for money advanced, let the Black Prince’s tin mines

in Cornwall to the Germans; and, for the same consideration, he gave

them a number of farms for a thousand years. One need not here follow

the Gildhalla Teutonicorum and its various charters and privileges.

It is sufficient to note that the continual wars of the English—civil

wars, as in the reign of Stephen, Henry III., Edward II., Richard II.,

Henry VI., Edward IV. and Richard III.; foreign wars with Scotland and

France; the repression of rebellion as in Ireland and in Wales—checked

the growth of commercial enterprise and made it impossible for the

English merchant to contend against the League. Yet when the Merchant

Adventurers began, early in the fifteenth century, they attacked the

Hanseatic trade in Norway and in Denmark and in Flanders. There was

fierce resistance; in Bergen the English merchants were murdered; on

the open sea the “Rovers” or pirates attacked and destroyed the English

ships; the Hanseatics pillaged the English coasts. The English power at

sea was unable to put down these acts of piracy or war. The King was

obliged to invite the arbitration of Charles, Duke of Burgundy, who

accorded to the English merchants the substantial benefit of trading in

the Baltic, but restored to the League all their former privileges and

more. This arbitration was called the Treaty of Utrecht. It remained in

force till the final expulsion of the League a hundred years later.

The Gildhalla Teutonicorum or Steelyard covered a large area in the

most crowded part of London. Its river front extended from Cousin

Lane—a narrow lane close to Dowgate Dock on the west—to Allhallows Lane

on the east; and from the river to Thames Street. This area contained

about 110,000 square feet. It was surrounded by a strong wall; the

chief building was a large hall called the Guildhall in which the

merchants and their clerks took common meals; the north front looking

on Thames Street possessed three arched gates, of which for greater

security the two side gates were walled up. Above the three gates were

the following inscriptions:—

(1) “Haec domus est laeta semper bonitate reputa:

Hic pax, hic requies, hic gaudia semper honesta.”

(2) “Aurum blanditiae frater est natusque doloris:

Qui caret hoc moeret, qui tenet hoc metuit.”

(3) “Qui bonis parere recusat, quasi vilato fumo in flammas cecidit.”

[Illustration:

_Grove and Boulton_

THE STEELYARD, THAMES STREET]

Another strong building was the residence of the Master overlooking the

river. Between the two houses was the garden planted with fruit-trees

and vines. Here later the merchants sold Rhenish wine. The quay, which

extended along the river front, was provided with a large crane, and

all the goods were landed on this quay. The life led by the residents

was monastic in its character. They were unmarried; no women were

allowed within the walls; cleanliness was strictly enforced; every man

was bound to have a complete suit of armour; they were not allowed to

fence or to play tennis with Englishmen, in order to avoid any occasion

for a brawl; and at a certain hour the gates were closed. Disputes

arose between the company of Merchant Adventurers and the Hanseatic

merchants. In 1552, in the reign of Edward VI., the monopoly of the

Hanseatic League was taken from them. The following is the entry made

by King Edward VI. in the resolution of the Privy Council:—

“Feb. 23. A decree was made by the board, that, upon knowledge and

information of their charters (those of the Stiliard), they had found:

First, that they were no sufficient corporation; Secondarily, that,

when they had forfeited their liberties, King Edward IV. did restore

them on this condition, that they should colour no strangers’ goods

(_i.e._ that they should pass no goods of other foreigners through

the Customs as if they were their own), which (yet) they had done.

Also, that, whereas in the beginning they shipped not past eighty

cloths, after 100, after 1,000, after that 6,000, now in their names

was shipped 14,000 cloths in one year, and but 1,100 of all other

strangers. For these considerations sentence was given that they had

forfeited their liberties, and were in like case with other strangers.”

They continued to trade like other foreign merchants until the year

1599, when Elizabeth ordered them to depart; yet many remained and

became merged in the general population of London. At the time of the

Great Fire the buildings were entirely destroyed; but the site still

belonged to the merchants, who obtained a charter from Charles II.

“granting permission to erect a church for themselves on a spot where

one had formerly stood.” What was that church? It was not Allhallows

the Great, which was rebuilt out of the coal dues. Nor Allhallows the

Less, which was never rebuilt. Perhaps there was a chapel within their

walls which these pious merchants desired to restore; but they never

carried out that laudable intention. It was resolved in 1599 that the

House should be taken from them and converted into an office for the

Queen’s Navy. Yet in 1666 we find that the site still belongs to them.

The two statements are difficult to reconcile.

But there were other foreign merchants besides the Hansards. The men of

Genoa had privileges. Bordeaux sent fleets containing wine; Rochelle

sent wine; Lorraine sent also an annual fleet containing wine; there

were ships from Genoa and Venice. Whatever they brought, they carried

away wool. England paid her Peter’s Pence in wool; she paid for

everything that she bought of these merchants in wool.

As regards the trading fleets, consider the “Flanders Fleet” of

Venice. This splendidly organised merchant service consisted of a

large number of galleys, each manned by 180 oarsmen not apparently

slaves, but Sclavonians who had their own fraternity at Southampton:

each ship had also on board thirty archers well equipped for purposes

of defence. This fleet, which was first sent out in 1307, “visited

Syracuse, Majorca, the coasts of Spain and Portugal, and proceeded

thence to England and to the low countries.” They did not always call

at London, but always at Southampton, which was their chief port in

England. There still remains at the church of North Stoneham a stone

marking the burial-place of certain Sclavonian oarsmen who died while

at Southampton. “Sepultura de la Schola de Sclavoni” (Cunningham).

Arrived at the Downs the fleet broke up and repaired to London, Rye,

Winchelsea, Sandwich, and other places.

The Italian Quarter in London was near the Tower. These Italians, men

of Pisa, Lucca, Genoa, and Venice, were called “Galleys men” because

they came up the river in galleys, and the quay where they landed their

wines and other merchandise was Galley Quay. Stow says:—

“In this lane of old time dwelt divers strangers, born of Genoa and

those parts; these were commonly called galley men, as men that came

up in the galleys brought up wines and other merchandise, which they

landed in Thames St. at a place called Galley key: they had a certain

coin of silver amongst themselves, which were halfpence of Genoa and

were called Galley halfpence: these halfpence were forbidden in the

13th of Henry IV., and again by Parliament in the 4th of Henry V. It

was, that if any person bring into this realm halfpence, suskinges,

or dodkins, he should be punished as a thief: and he that taketh

or payeth such money shall lose a hundred shillings, whereof the

king shall have the one half, and he that will sue the other half.

Notwithstanding in my youth, I have seen them pass current, but with

some difficulty, for that the English halfpence were then, though not

so broad, somewhat thicker and stronger.” (_Survey_, Book II.)

In the year 1353 Edward III. sent a Royal Injunction to the Mayor and

Sheriffs concerning two Genoese, named Francisco of Genoa, and Panimo

Guilliemi servant of Francisco de Spinola of Genoa. These foreigners

had opened a wine-shop consisting of two cellars, in one of which was

stored red and white wine, and in the other sweet wine (of Sicily,

Crete, Cyprus, Gaza, etc.). The City officers, fearing that these

foreigners would mix the wine, which was supposed to be extremely

prejudicial to health, made them shut their shop, and the Mayor took

the oath of the two men that they would not mix the sweet and the white

wine, before he suffered them to continue in their trade.

The Flemings were always in closer commercial relation with London than

any other nation. They were the greatest buyers of wool; they came over

here to settle first when William the Conqueror’s Queen protected them;

next, on the invitation of Edward III. The Weald of Kent was full of

wealthy Flemings in the fifteenth century; it is probable that Caxton

in his boyhood spoke Flemish as well as English, because he was born in

the Weald; and though these men remained among us for many generations

they did not become English. They were considered hard in their money

dealings; it was against their honour and good name that the famous

“Stews” were peopled with Flemish women; and when Jack Straw’s rebels

held the City, one of the first things they did was to murder the

Flemings.

There is another point of view from which we may consider the foreign

element of London, that of the so-called Caursini. The origin of the

name is generally assumed to be the town of Cahors. But why the

Italians of London should be called natives of Cahors is not easy

to understand. When merchants of Cahors are mentioned it is never

in connection with the great financial operations conducted by the

Italians, nor have the Caursini, mentioned in contemporary documents,

any connection at all with the city of Cahors. Another, and perhaps a

more likely derivation, is from an Italian family called Caursini. It

should be noted also that Matthew Paris in the curious specimen of a

deed or agreement between these merchants and a certain Religious House

calls them “of the City of ...” not mentioning Cahors. In another place

he distinctly calls them Transalpines.

The Italians came to London in the reign of King John, not as traders,

but as agents for the collection of the Papal revenue, especially that

part of it which was contributed, very much against their will, by the

Religious Houses. They came chiefly from Sienna, Lucca, and Florence.

They were members of trading companies, apparently of the joint stock

kind, of which all the substantial citizens of the flourishing towns of

Lombardy were members and shareholders, or fellow adventurers.

Their work as Papal agents was very soon supplemented by financial

operations on their own account. They became in communication with

the monasteries, not only on account of the Pope’s exactions, but

also in connection with the sale of wool, which constituted the chief

wealth of the Religious. They were able to give a higher price than

could be obtained from other merchants. They could advance money for

the building which was continually going on in the monasteries. When

a House had to send representatives to Rome the Caursini gave them

letters of credit which enabled them to bribe the officers of the Papal

courts.

But—a fact of far greater importance—their resources, which seemed

practically inexhaustible, enabled them to supply money to the English

Kings for nearly two hundred years.

They lent money at high rates of interest; but, as usury was forbidden

by the Church, and a thing hateful and in bad repute, they disguised

the real nature of their transactions. The actual money advanced

was repaid without any interest; but the lender was paid by various

arrangements called by different names, but all meaning the same thing,

though of course there was no affectation of not understanding the true

nature of the transaction. The Italians were regarded, especially by

ecclesiastics, with detestation. Matthew Paris says of them:—

“In these days prevailed the horrible nuisance of the Caursines, to

such a degree that there was hardly any one in all England, especially

among the bishops, who was not caught in their net. Even the King

himself was held indebted to them in an incalculable sum of money. For

they circumvented the needy in their necessities, cloaking their usury

under the show of trade, and pretending not to know that whatever is

added to the principal is usury, under whatever name it may be called.

For it is manifest that their loans lie not in the path of charity,

inasmuch as they do not hold out a helping hand to the poor to relieve

them, but to deceive them; not to aid others in their starvation, but

to gratify their own covetousness.” (Giles’s translation.)

He gives also a specimen of their ordinary form of agreement:—

“_To all who shall see the present writings—the Prior and Convent

of ..., Health in the Lord...._ Be it known to you that we have

received on loan, at London, for the purpose of usefully settling

matters concerning us and our church, from such an one, and such an

one, for themselves and their partners, citizens and merchants of the

city of ..., 104 marks of good and lawful money sterling, each mark

being computed at 13 shillings and 4 pence sterling. For which 104

marks, we, in our own name and in the name of our church, do declare

that we are quit, and do protest that we are fully paid, altogether

renouncing any exception of the money not being reckoned, and paid,

and handed over to us, and also the exception that the said money has

not been converted to our own uses and to the uses of our church. And

the aforesaid one hundred and four marks sterling, in the manner and

to the number aforesaid, to be reckoned to the said merchants, or to

one of them, or to their certain emissary, who shall bring with him

these present letters, on the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, namely,

the first day of the month of August, at the New Temple, London,

in the year of our Lord’s incarnation one thousand two hundred and

thirty-five, we promise by lawful covenant, and bind ourselves, in our

own name and in that of our church, that we will pay and discharge

in full. Adding moreover this condition, that if the aforesaid money

shall not be paid and discharged at the place and term aforesaid, as

has been said, we promise from that time, at the term always before

completed, and bind ourselves by the same covenant, to give and render

to the aforesaid merchants, or their certain emissary, every two

months, for every ten marks, one mark of the said money, in recompense

for losses, which losses and expenses these merchants might incur

or receive therefrom, so that the losses and expenses and principal

may effectually be claimed, as they have been stated above, and the

expenses of one merchant, with one horse and one servant, wherever the

merchant shall be, until the full payment of all the aforesaid. And the

expenses incurred and to be incurred, for recovering the same money,

we will render and restore to the same merchants, or one of them, or

their certain emissary. Which recompense for losses, interest, and

expenses, we promise the said merchants in no wise shall be reckoned

towards the principal of the said debt; and not to keep back the

said debt under pretence of the above-mentioned recompense, against

the will of the aforesaid merchants, beyond the term aforesaid. For

all which articles aforesaid, firmly and wholly to be fulfilled, and

inviolably to be observed, we bind ourselves and our church, and our

successors, and all our goods and those of our church, movable and

immovable, ecclesiastical and temporal, in possession and hereafter to

be in possession, wherever they shall be found, to the said merchants

and their heirs, until the full payment of all the aforesaid; which

goods we hereby recognise that we possess from them by a precarious

tenure. And we consent on all the aforesaid to be convened in all

places, and before any tribunal, and do renounce, for all the aforesaid

for ourselves and our successors, all the aid of law, both canon and

civil, the privilege both of clerkship and of court, the letter of

Saint Adrian, every custom and statute, all letters, indulgences, and

privileges obtained, or to be hereafter obtained from the Apostolic

See for the King of England and all the people of his kingdom, the

constitution _De duabus dietis_, the benefit of full repayment, the

benefit of appeal and of recusation, the inhibitory letters of the

King of England, and all other exception, real and personal, which

might be objected against this instrument or deed. All these things we

promise faithfully shall be observed. In testimony of which matter we

have thought it right to affix our seals to this present writing. Done

on the fifth day of Elphege, in the year of grace MCCXXXV.”—(Matthew

Paris, Giles’s translation, pp. 2-4.)

The rate of interest, it will be seen, was 60 per cent per annum.

In that same year—1235—the Bishop of London “perceiving that the

Caursines openly multiplied their usury without shame and led a most

filthy life, harassing the Religious with various injuries and amassing

heaps of riches from the numbers who were forced to submit to their

yoke,” arose and admonished them to desist from their practices and to

do penance for their misdeeds. But what is a Bishop of London compared

with the Pope of Rome? The Caursini laughed at the Bishop; they

appealed to Rome; they procured an order that the Bishop, then old and

ill, should repair to Rome with his complaints. The Bishop, therefore,

said no more.

In the year 1251, proceedings were taken against some of them. They

have the air of being a concession to popular prejudice, and also as a

means of raising money for the King.

Again, to quote Matthew Paris:—

“The Transalpine usurers whom we call Caursins were so multiplied

and became so rich that they built noble palaces for themselves at

London, and determined to take up a permanent abode there, like the

native-born citizens; and the prelates did not dare to murmur, as

they, the Caursins, asserted that they were the agents of the Pope;

nor did the citizens dare to express their discontent, as these men

were protected by the favour of certain nobles, whose money, as was

reported, they put out to amass interest after the fashion of the Roman

Court. However, about this time, by the wish and instrumentality of the

King, heavy accusations were made against them in the civil courts, and

were brought to trial before a judge, and whilst some one in London sat

as judge on the part of the King, who accused them, they were charged

with being schismatics, heretics, and guilty of treason against the

King, because, although they professed themselves Christians, they had

most evidently polluted the kingdom of England with their base trade

of usury; at which the most Christian King complained that he was

deeply wounded in conscience, as he had sworn to preserve uninjured

the holy institutes of the Church. As the Caursins could not deny the

charge, some of them were seized and committed to prison, and others

concealed themselves in out-of-the-way places. At this proceeding the

Jews were rejoiced, as they had now participators in their state of

slavery. At length, however, by the payment of a large sum of money,

these Caursins, the rivals of the Jews, were allowed to be at peace

for a time. One of them had told me, the writer of this work, of these

matters, and declared on his oath, that if they had not built these

costly houses at London, scarcely one of them would have remained in

England.”

[Illustration: THE MERCHANT

From the Ellesmere MS. of Chaucer’s _Canterbury Tales_.]

The methods of repayment by the King were various. The creditors

received a bill upon the Exchequer or the Keeper of the Wardrobe;

an assignment of a branch of the revenue—thus 27 Ed. I., the whole

revenues of Ireland were assigned to the Frescobaldi of Florence

in payment of a loan of £11,000; or the proceeds of a subsidy were

given—thus 8 Ed. I., the proceeds of a fifteenth were assigned to the

Italian merchants; or they took over the customs; or they received an

addition to the principal large communal privileges; or they received

offices of dignity and profit: they collected the customs; they took

charge of the Mint; they were ambassadors. In the year 1294 there were

twelve Florentines holding the title of ambassadors from throne states

of Europe.

Among the companies which lent money to English kings in the thirteenth

and fourteenth centuries were the Muzzi of Florence, the Company of

Jacopo Brabazen of Sienna, the Bardi of Florence, the Ammanati of

Pistoia, the Circuli Nerci and the Circuli Bianche of Florence, the

Company of the Sons of Beccori of Lucca, the Palci of Florence, the

Riccardi of Lucca, the Spini of Florence, the Company of Bestre of

Lucca, the Scali of Florence and the Peruzzi of Florence, besides the

Frescobaldi of Florence already mentioned. (See Appendix III.)

Enormous sums were advanced by these companies and repaid, during

these two centuries. In 1254 Henry III. was called upon by the Pope to

pay the sum of 130,541 marks sterling for expenses connected with the

business of Sicily. Between the years 1295 and 1309 the Frescobaldi

received of Edward I. and Edward II. the sum of £100,000. On the

accession of Edward II. he had to pay, on account of his father’s

debts, the sum of £118,000 and on his own account £28,000.

If, however, the Italians made immense profits out of the English kings

retribution fell upon them, because the English King caused their ruin.

Giovanni Villani tells the story:—

“At the period of the war between the kings of France and England,

the companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi, of Florence, were the King of

England’s merchants. All his revenues and wools came into their hands,

and they furnished from them all his expenses. But the expenses so

much exceeded the revenues that the King of England, when he returned

home from the war, found himself indebted for principal, assignments,

and rewards, to the Bardi more than 100,000 marks sterling, and to

the Peruzzi more than 135,000 marks. Of these sums a considerable

portion consisted in assignments which the King had made to them in

times passed: but they were rash enough, whether from covet of gain

or led on by the hope of recovering the entire debt, to give them

up, and entrust all their own property and that of others in their

keeping, to this one prince. And observe, that a large part of the

money they had lent was not their own capital, but had been borrowed

by them or received on trust from fellow-citizens and strangers. And

great danger thence accrued both to them and to the city of Florence.

For not being able to answer the calls of their creditors in England

and Florence, and elsewhere, where they trafficked, they lost their

credit on all sides, and became bankrupts; and especially the Peruzzi.

Yet they avoided complete ruin by their possessions in the city and

territory of Florence, and by the great power and rank which they

held in the republic. This failure, and the expenses of the state in

Lombardy, greatly reduced the wealth and condition of the merchants

and traders of Florence, and of the whole community. For the Bardi and

Peruzzi had held so large a share of the commerce of Christendom, that

upon their fall every other merchant was suspected and distrusted.

Our city of Florence, in consequence, received a shock, such as

had not been experienced before for many years. But, to add to the

reverses of these companies, the King of France caused them and other

Florentines throughout his dominions to be pillaged of all their

merchandise and property, both on account of the bankruptcy and because

we had been obliged to borrow money of his subjects, to expend on our

affairs in Lombardy and Lucca: and this caused the ruin of many other

smaller companies of Florence, as we shall afterwards make mention.”

(_Archæologia, XXVII.-XXVIII._ pp. 259-260.)

The power of the Caursini thus received a check from which it never

recovered. Italian merchants, however, continued to reside in London,

and to trade there. A curious story is told by Thomas of Walsingham,

and repeated by Stow, of a Genoese merchant resident in the City.

He is said to have proposed that if the King would erect a castle

at Southampton, he would make that place the principal Port in the

Kingdom, and the resort of foreign merchants from all parts. Some of

the merchants of London, however, apprehensive of their own interests,

caused the unfortunate Genoese to be murdered—for which crime one of

them, John Kirby, was executed.

One more story, of a later period, illustrates the still lingering

hatred of the Italians. I give the story in the words of Stow:—

“In the moneth of Maye, an Italians servaunte walkyng throughe Cheape

of London, wyth a dagger hangyng at hys gyrdle, a Merchauntes servaunt

that before tyme had bin in Italy and there blamed for wearing of the

like weapon, chalenged the straunger, howe hee durst be so bolde to

beare weapon, consydering he was out of hys Countrey, knowyng that

in hys Countrey no straunger was suffered to wear the like. To the

which question such answere was made by the straunger, that the Mercer

toke from him hys dagger and brake it upon his heade, whereupon the

stranger complayned to the Maior, who on the morrow sent for the yong

man to the Guilde Hall: wherfore after his aunswere made unto the

complaynt, by agreemente of a full Courte of Aldermen, he was sent

to ward, and after the Court was finished, the Maior and Sherifes

walking homewarde thoroughe Cheape, were there mette by suche a

number of Mercers servauntes and other, that they mighte not passe,

for ought they coulde speake or doe, till they hadde delivered the

young manne that before was by them sente to prison. And the same

daye in the afternoone sodainely was assembled a multitude of lewde

and pore people of the City, which without heade or guide ranne unto

certaine Italians houses, and especially to the Florentines, Lukesses

and Venetians, and there toke and spoyled what they found, and dyd

great hurt in sundry places, but moste in foure houses standing

in Breadstreete warde, whereof three stoode in Saint Bartholmewes

Parishe the little, and one in the Parish of Saint Benits Finke.

The Maior, Aldermen and worshipful Commoners of the Citie, with all

theyr diligence resisted them what they coulde, and sente diverse of

them to Newegate: and fynallye, not without shedding of bloude and

mayming of diverse Citizens, the rumour was appeased. The yong manne

beginner of all thys businesse, tooke Sanctuarie at Westminster, and

not long after the Duke of Buckingham with other noble menne were

sente from the kyng into the Cytie, who there charged the Maior by

Vertue of a Commission, that inquirie shoulde bee made of thys ryot,

and so called an Oyer determyner at the Guilde Hall, where satte for

Judges the Maior, as the kyngs Lieuetenaunte, the Duke of Buckingham

on hys ryghte hande, the chiefe Justice on the lefte hande, and manye

other men of name, where whyle they were enpanelyng theyr inquestes,

the other Commons of the Citie manye of them secretly putte them in

armour, and ment to have roong the common bell, so to have raysed

the whole force of the Citie, and to so have delivered such persons

as before for the robberie were committed to ward. But this matter

was discretely handled by the counsel and labour of some discrete

Commoners, which appeased their neighbours in such wise, that all

this furie was quenched: but when worde was brought to the Duke of

Buckingham, that the commonaltie were in harnesse, he with the other

Lordes tooke leaue of the Maior and departed, and so ceased the

inquirie for that day. Upon the morrow the Maior commaunded the common

Counsell with the Wardens of fellowships to appeare at the Guild

Hall, where by the Recorder in the King’s name and the Maior’s, was

commaunded every Warden, that in the afternoone eyther of them should

assemble his whole fellowship at their common Halles, and there to

give straight commaundement, that every man see the king’s peace kept

within the Citie. After which time the Citizens were brought to such

quietnesse, that after that day, the enquirie was duly perused, and

iij persons for the said ryot put in execution and hanged at Tyborne,

whereof ij were Sanctuarie men of Saint Martins le graunde, the other

a shipman, for robbing of Anthony Mowricine and other Lumbardes.”

(Stow’s _Chronicle_.)