Increase of the English fleet, A.D. 1066—Its participation
in the Crusades to the Holy Land—Departure of the English
expedition—Arrival at Messina—Number of ships—Their order
of sailing—Arrival at, and capture of, Acre, 10th June,
1191—Richard returns to England—Maritime laws founded on the
“Rôles d’Oleron”—Power to pledge ship and tackle—The sailors
consulted—Laws relating to hiring—Drunkenness—Sickness—Damage
to ship and cargo—Quarrels—Mooring of ships—Partnership in
freight—Food—Obligation to carry the ship to her destination—Rules
as to sailors—Demurrage—Bottomry—A bad pilot forfeited his
head—Punishments—Shares in fishing vessels—Wreckers—Jetsam and
flotsam—Royal fish—Timber of wrecks—Remarks on these laws—Code
of Wisby—Magna Charta, A.D. 1215—Henry III., A.D. 1216—Naval
actions—Cinque Ports—Increase of piracy—Measures for its
suppression—Treaty of commerce with Norway, A.D. 1217, and
facilities afforded to foreign merchants—English merchants first
open trading establishments abroad—Origin of the Hanseatic League,
A.D. 1241—Corporate seals—Sandwich—Poole—Dover—Faversham—Stanhope,
vice-admiral of Suffolk—Duties of the Cinque Ports—Increased
privileges to foreign merchants—Letters of marque first issued—Law
for the recovery of debts, and adjustment of average—Shipping
of Scotland, A.D. 1249—Extremely liberal Navigation Act—Chief
ports of England, and extent of its shipping and commerce—Edward
II., A.D. 1307-1327—Edward III., A.D. 1326-7-1377—Extension of
English commerce—The discovery of coal—First complete roll of the
English fleet, A.D. 1347—Quota of different ports—Pay of soldiers,
sailors, &c.—War renewed, A.D. 1354—Death of Edward III., A.D.
1377—State of the merchant navy during his reign—Loss sustained by
war, and encouragement afforded thereby to foreign nations—Rapid
increase of the trade of Flanders—Trade between Italy and
Flanders—Commercial importance of Bruges and Antwerp—Wealth of
Flanders, and extent of its manufactures and commerce—Special
privileges to her merchants—Progress of the Hanseatic League, and
its system of business: its power too frequently abused.
[Sidenote: Increase of the English fleet, A.D. 1066.]
The accession of William the Conqueror to the throne of England
produced important changes in the maritime affairs of that country,
and gave to its over-sea commerce greatly increased security and
stability. In their anxiety to recover the throne of Canute, the
Danes had prepared a fleet for the purpose of invasion, which obliged
the Conqueror to summon to his aid the whole of the naval resources
of the island. Dover, Sandwich, and Romney were each called upon to
provide, at their own expense, twenty vessels, equipped for sea, with
crews of twenty-one men and provisions for fifteen days.[526] Rye and
Winchelsea rendered similar assistance, and in return had conferred on
them privileges similar to those which had been granted to the former
places by Edward the Confessor. These ports were then for the first
time styled the Cinque Ports, by which distinctive title they have ever
since been known. Other ports had also to provide their quota. The
fleet thus provided by the Conqueror was so fully maintained by Rufus,
his second son and successor, that the learned Selden dates England’s
maritime supremacy from that very early period. Still, for more than a
century after the Conquest, her ships seldom ventured beyond the Bay
of Biscay on the one hand, or the entrance to the Baltic on the other;
and there is no record of any long voyages by English ships until the
time of the Crusades, which, whatever they may have done for the cause
of the Cross, undoubtedly gave the first great impetus to the shipping
of England. The number of rich and powerful princes and nobles, who
embarked their fortunes in these extraordinary expeditions, offered
the chance of lucrative employment to any nation which could supply
the requisite amount of tonnage; and English shipowners made great
exertions to reap a share of the gains.
[Sidenote: Its participation in the Crusades to the Holy Land.]
The Earl of Essex appears to have been the first English nobleman
who fitted out an expedition for the Holy Land, while, twelve years
afterwards, Richard Cœur de Lion, on ascending the throne, made vast
levies on the people for the same object; and, with the aid of Philip
II. of France and of other princes, resolved to attempt to save the
Cross from the grasp of the Infidels. Extraordinary exertions were made
throughout both countries to provide the requisite armaments; and,
towards the close of 1189, two fleets had been collected, one at Dover,
to convey Richard and his followers (among whom were the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Chief Justice of England)
across the Channel; and a second and still larger one at Dartmouth,
consisting of numerous vessels from Normandy, Poitou, Brittany, and
Aquitaine, for the conveyance of the great bulk of the Crusaders, to
join Richard at Marseilles.
[Sidenote: Departure of the English expedition.]
This expedition from Dartmouth set sail, under the command of Robert
de Sabloil and Richard de Camville, towards the end of April 1190,
and, after a disastrous voyage, showing clearly the incompetence alike
of both officers and ships, succeeded in reaching Lisbon, where they
committed such a series of disgraceful outrages upon the inhabitants,
that seven hundred of them were for a time imprisoned: thence, they
passed on, and at length, on the 22nd of August, reached Marseilles,
from which, after a brief delay for necessary repairs, they followed
the kings to the Straits of Messina, where they were all assembled on
the 14th of September.[527]
[Sidenote: Arrival at Messina.]
Vinisauf[528] has described in glowing language the appearance of
the fleet as it entered Messina. “As soon as the people heard of its
arrival,” he says, “they rushed in crowds to the shore to behold the
glorious king of England, and at a distance saw the sea covered with
innumerable galleys, and the sounds of trumpets from afar, with the
sharper and shriller blasts of clarions, sounded in the rear, and
they beheld the galleys rowing in order nearer to the land, adorned
and furnished with all manner of arms, countless pennons floating in
the wind, ensigns at the ends of the lances, the beaks of the galleys
distinguished by various paintings, and glittering shields suspended
to the prows. The sea appeared to boil with the multitude of the
rowers. The clangour of their trumpets was deafening; the greatest
joy was testified at the arrival of the various multitudes, when thus
our magnificent king, attended by crowds of those who navigated the
galleys, as if to see what was unknown to him, or to be beheld by those
to whom he was unknown, stood on a prow more ornamented and higher than
the others, and, landing, displayed himself elegantly adorned to all
who pressed to the shore to see him.”
[Sidenote: Number of ships.]
It was not, however, till the following year (April 10) that the fleet
actually got under weigh for the Holy Land, numbering one hundred
ships[529] (that is, of a larger kind), and fourteen busses. Each
of the large ships carried, it is said, besides her crew of fifteen
sailors, forty soldiers and forty horses, and provisions for one
twelvemonth. The commander was also aided by fourteen other picked men,
whom the chronicler calls “slaves.” But these, and other accounts of
the capacity of ancient vessels are, like too many of the tales about
shipping, not now reconcilable. We can only account for the numerous
discrepancies as to the size of the vessels and the number of men and
horses embarked, by some misapprehension on the part of the writers,
or by some confusion in their application of the nautical expressions
used by ancient writers, few of whom had any practical knowledge of the
subject.
[Sidenote: Their order of sailing.]
Vinisauf describes the fleet as proceeding in the following order.
Three large ships, filled with soldiers and stores, formed the van.
The second line consisted of thirteen vessels, described as “dromons
and busses;”[530] the third of fourteen vessels; the fourth of twenty;
the fifth of thirty; the sixth of forty, and the seventh of sixty; the
king himself, with all his galleys, forming the eighth line, and thus
bringing up the rear for the better protection, as was considered, of
the whole convoy. The lines were sufficiently near for a trumpet to
be heard from one to the other; and each ship also was near enough to
her consort to communicate by hailing. But though such an order of
sailing might have succeeded during fine weather, the fleet was soon
after dispersed during a gale off Ætna, the crews being “sea-sick and
frightened;” while three ships were wholly lost on the island of Cyprus
and their crews drowned, together with the Vice-Chancellor of England,
whose body was washed on shore, with the Great Seal tied round his neck.
[Sidenote: Arrival at, and capture of, Acre, June 10, 1191.]
[Sidenote: Richard returns to England.]
After the successful capture of Acre, and a truce, as its consequence,
with Saládin, Richard set out for England, where, however, he did not
arrive till 13th March, 1194. On landing at Sandwich, he was received
“amidst the joyful acclamations of his subjects,” or, as we may
presume, of those chiefly who dwelt in the seaport towns; for these
could hardly have failed to greet joyfully a monarch who had opened
out the means of affording ample and lucrative employment to their
shipping and seafaring population. Nor, indeed, were the merchants
less handsomely remunerated; for to them, the progress of the Crusades
procured the opportunity of developing many new and valuable markets
for commercial enterprise.
[Sidenote: Maritime laws founded on the “Rôles d’Oleron.”]
Prevented by the jealousy and the restrictive policy of the Italian
cities, English traders had hitherto not ventured on voyages so
distant as the Levant, the general policy of the republics of the
south throwing various difficulties in the way of foreign shipping.
By the Crusades, however, the eyes of English merchants and mariners
were alike opened to the successful undertakings of the Mediterranean
traders; to them also is largely due the constitution of England’s
first shipping code, based, as this was, on more ancient laws, with
many improvements derived from the increased knowledge due to the
recent experience of her mariners.[531]
[Sidenote: Power to pledge ship and tackle.]
By the first article in these laws a master had power to pledge, with
the advice of his mariners, the tackle of the ship for the necessary
provisions; but could not sell the hull without special authority from
the owners. Previously, it had not been thought safe to entrust any
one with the command of a ship unless he was a part owner or a freeman;
but, by the laws of Richard I., these restrictions were abolished,
and the qualifications and duties of the captain for the first time
defined by statute. Everything on board being placed under the master’s
care, he was required to understand thoroughly the art of piloting
and navigation, that he might control the pilot. In a merchantman,
the first officer was then practically the master, the second, the
pilot;[532] the third, the mate; the fourth, the factor or supercargo;
then followed his assistant, and after him came the accountants,
surgeon, steward, four corporals, cook, gunner, and coxswain, the two
latter having their quarters before the mast with the ship’s crew, but
receiving higher wages.
[Sidenote: The sailors consulted.]
By the second article if a vessel lay in port, waiting for weather and
a wind, the master was instructed, when the time for departure arrived,
to call together his ship’s company and inquire what they thought of
the wind and weather. A difference of opinion arising, he was bound to
be guided by the majority, and was legally responsible, if any accident
happened, to make good damages caused by his unsupported act. It was,
in fact, a standing rule for the master to act with the advice of the
greater part of his ship’s company and of the merchants, if any were on
board.
The third clause provided, that if the ship’s crew should not, unless
under compulsion, do everything in their power to save the vessel and
cargo from shipwreck, they should forfeit their wages. If they saved a
part of the cargo they were sent home, by raising money on the goods so
saved.
The fourth article, relating to salvage, was very similar to that
enacted by the Rhodian law, the allowance of the half, third, or tenth
of the articles saved being regulated according to the depth of the
water out of which they were raised. Any promises extorted by danger
were either void or not too strictly interpreted.
The fifth article provided, that no sailors in port should leave the
vessel without the master’s consent. The practice of the time required
that the sailors should carefully look after everything that related
to the preservation of the ship and goods; and if any damage accrued
by their absence without licence, they were punished by a year’s
imprisonment and kept on bread and water. If any accident happened so
as to cause death, resulting from their absence, they were flogged.
Special punishments were by law, as well as practice, inflicted
for damaging the cargo; and very detailed instructions were given
how certain goods were to be stowed and delivered. The laws in all
cases against desertion were very severe. In some places the sailors
were marked in the face with a red-hot iron, so that they might be
recognised as long as they lived.
[Sidenote: Laws relating to hiring.]
Provision was, however, made for such seamen as ran away by reason of
ill-usage;[533] while in the case of a double engagement, the master
first hiring a sailor was entitled to claim him, and any master
knowingly engaging a hired sailor, was amerced in double the amount of
wages. The sailor became entitled to his discharge on four grounds:
in the event of his being made master or mate of another ship; if he
married, in which case, however, he was obliged to refund what he had
received; if he made any proviso in his articles for quitting the ship;
and if the voyage was concluded, and the ship disarmed and unloaded,
with her sails, tackle, and furniture taken away and secured. Provision
was also made for compensation to the sailor, in the case of a master
giving him his discharge at his pleasure only and without lawful cause.
A master, however, could dismiss a mariner for incompetency, especially
a pilot, and in such cases no wages were payable. Unqualified persons
were in many cases punished for having accepted situations on board for
which they were incompetent; and a sailor proved by two witnesses to
have any infectious distemper, could be put on shore. The law quaintly
laid down that a master might turn away any quarrelsome or thievish,
factious fellow, but as to the latter, “he should have a little
patience to see if he can be brought to reason.”
[Sidenote: Drunkenness.]
[Sidenote: Sickness.]
[Sidenote: Damage to ship and cargo.]
By article sixth, drunkenness, quarrelling, and fighting, were
severally punishable, and mutinous mariners were compelled to refund
their wages. Mariners wounded in the service of the ship were provided
for. The seventh regulation stipulated that in the case of sickness
seizing any of the crew while in the service of the ship, they were
to be sent on shore with a ship’s boy to attend upon them. The eighth
prescribed the formalities to be observed in throwing goods overboard
to lighten the ship, which were much in the same way as had been laid
down in the Rhodian laws. Similarly the proportional average, pound for
pound, payable by each party so damnified, was framed upon the French
law, _livre à livre_. The ninth article applied to the destruction
of the masts and sails, in order to save the ship and cargo; and the
rules to be followed were nearly the same for collecting the averages
as those which are now adopted. The tenth article relates to damage
arising from imperfect dunage, for which the master and mariners were
liable to the merchant in the event of any injury, through neglect in
this respect, to his merchandise.
Article eleventh refers to damage of goods, or loss of wines or other
liquids, by the breaking in of the head of the cask, and generally
to all damage arising from improper stowage. It would appear that
persons, like the present Stevedores, who look to the stowage of the
cargo, existed at a remote period, with the title of _arrimeurs_, or
stowers. They were then paid by the merchant, and their business was
“to dispose the cargo properly, stowing it closely, and arranging the
several casks, bales, boxes, bundles, in such a manner as to balance
both sides, fill up the vacant spaces, and manage everything to the
best advantage.” There was also a class called Sacquiers, who were
very ancient officers. Their business was to load and unload vessels
with cargoes of salt, corn, and fish, to prevent the ship’s crew
defrauding the merchant by false tale, or otherwise cheating him of his
merchandise.
[Sidenote: Quarrels.]
The twelfth article throws great light upon the existing manners of the
sailors of those days. The master having hired his crew was invested
with the duty of keeping peace. He was, in fact, their judge. If any
of them gave the lie to another at a table, where there was wine and
bread, he was fined four _deniers_; but the master himself offending
in that way had to pay a double fine. If any sailor impudently
contradicted the master, he was fined eight deniers; and if the master
struck him, whether with the fist or the open hand, he was required to
bear the stroke; but if he struck more than one blow the sailor might
defend himself; whereas, if the sailor committed the first assault, he
had to pay one hundred _sous_, or lose his hand. It would appear that
the master might call the sailor opprobrious names, and in such case he
was advised to submit, and hide himself in the forecastle out of his
superior’s sight; but if the master followed, the sailor might stand
upon his defence, for the master “ought not to pass into the forecastle
after him.”
The thirteenth article[534] enacted, that, if a difference arose
between the master and the seaman, the former ought to deny him his
mess thrice[535] before he turned him out of the ship. If the latter
offered satisfaction and was refused and turned out of the ship, he
could follow the ship to her port of discharge and claim full wages.
The master not taking any seaman in his stead, in such cases, rendered
himself liable for any damage accruing. The Hanseatic laws required
the master not to give the seamen any cause to mutiny; nor to provoke
them by calling them names, nor wrong them, nor “keep anything from
them that is theirs, but to use them well, and pay them honestly what
is their due.”
[Sidenote: Mooring of ships.]
The fourteenth and fifteenth articles relate to the regulations of
mooring ships, and to injuries sustained through “striking against each
other.” The law of damage is laid down at great length, and buoys, made
of empty barrels, pieces of any description of light wood, baskets,
or any articles which float buoyantly on the top of the water, are
required to be used to prevent accidents and show where the anchors
lie, when in port.
[Sidenote: Partnership in freight.]
The sixteenth clause required the master to ask the crew, when a
ship was ready to load, “Will you freight your share yourselves, or
be allowed for it in proportion with the ship’s general freight?”
and the sailors were there and then bound to answer, and make their
election.[536] If they elected to take their risk, a curious practice
resulted. In the event of taking on board a cask of water instead of a
cask of wine, they might deal with their own stowage as of right; and,
in the event of throwing cargo overboard, to lighten the ship, they had
the privilege of refusing to throw over a cask of water in preference
to a cask of wine. If the water, however, was thrown overboard, the
mariner came in upon the general average; although, by the common law
of England, a tun of water was never rated, pound by pound in value,
with a tun of wine.
[Sidenote: Food.]
By the seventeenth clause the sailors of Brittany were restricted to
one meal a day from the kitchen, while those of Normandy had two meals;
and when the ship arrived in a wine country, the master had to provide
them with wine.[537] The practice of serving out a certain allowance
of food is very ancient, and to prevent jealousies, complaints, and
quarrels on this account, the law prescribed a specified quantity to be
supplied to each man exactly alike. When wine was provided, the mariner
had one meal per day, but when water alone was served out, he had two
meals.
[Sidenote: Obligation to carry the ship to her destination.]
The eighteenth article provided, that when a ship was unladen, the
sailors could demand their freight; but from those of them having
neither bed, chest, nor trunk on board, the master could retain a
portion of their wages, till the vessel was brought back to her final
port of destination. It was ruled that the wages were not due till the
work had been entirely done, unless a special agreement subsisted to
the contrary, for “freight was the mother of wages.”[538]
[Sidenote: Rules as to sailors.]
The rights of sailors hired per day, or week, or month, where freight
was not procurable, were secured by the nineteenth article, which
stipulated that if an engagement was broken off by war, pirates, or the
command of his sovereign, the seaman was entitled to have a quarter
part of his wages for the full term of his engagement.
The twentieth clause provided that, when in a foreign port, only two
sailors from the ship might go on shore at a time, and take with them
one meal of victuals, “as much as they can eat at once,” but no drink.
They were bound to return to the ship in season, so as not to lose a
tide, and they were held responsible for any damage resulting from
their default.
[Sidenote: Demurrage.]
The twenty-first clause related to detentions, and provided for the
payment of demurrage. If a merchant, having freighted a ship, did not
load her by the time appointed, he was bound to make compensation for
such delay, and the sailors were entitled to a fourth part of the
amount; the remainder being allotted to the master, he finding the
crew in provisions. Formerly, eight days were allowed the merchant to
unload, which afterwards was extended to fifteen. But that did not
affect the payment of freight, which was required to be paid in eight
days, whether the ship was discharged or not. The master could not
detain the goods on board for freight, but when in a boat or lighter,
he was entitled to stop them until he was satisfied.
[Sidenote: Bottomry.]
The twenty-second clause relates to selling goods on board, to provide
for the ship, in which the laws of bottomry were enforced.[539]
[Sidenote: A bad pilot forfeited his head.]
The twenty-third clause was a frightful instance, copied from the
so-called Rhodian laws,[540] of barbarous legislation. It enacted
that if a pilot, or “lockman,”[541] for such was the term applied to
harbour pilots, undertook to carry a vessel into port, and the vessel
miscarried through his ignorance, and he had no means to make good the
damage, or otherwise render full satisfaction, he was condemned to
lose his head.[542] While the twenty-fourth clause actually gave the
master, or any of the mariners, or merchants on board, power to cut off
the head of the offender without being bound in law to answer for it;
they were only required to be very certain that the unlucky lockman who
was hired at every river to guide the ship, in order to avoid rocks,
shelves, shoals, and sand-banks, had not wherewith to make pecuniary
satisfaction.
[Sidenote: Punishments.]
The twenty-fifth clause aimed at altering “the unreasonable and
accursed custom” of lords of the coast, where a vessel was wrecked,
claiming and seizing the third or fourth part of the ship, leaving
only the remainder to the master, the merchant, and the mariners.
“Therefore, all pilots who, in connivance with the lords on the coast,”
or to ingratiate themselves with such nobles, ran the ship on shore,
were doomed to a most rigorous and unmerciful death on “high gibbets
near the place where these accursed pilots brought the ship to ruin,
which said gibbets are to abide and remain to succeeding ages on that
place, as a visible caution to other vessels that sail thereby.” The
lords or others, who took away any of the goods, were also declared to
be “accursed,” and were frequently punished as “robbers and thieves.”
Indeed the twenty-sixth clause declared that, “If the lord of the
place be so barbarous as not only to permit such inhuman people, but
also to maintain and assist them in such villanies, so that he may have
a share in such wrecks, the said lord shall be apprehended, and all
his goods confiscated and sold, in order to make restitution to the
parties, and himself be fastened to a post or stake in the midst of his
own mansion-house, which being fired at the four corners, all shall
be burned together; the walls thereof shall be demolished, the stones
pulled down, and the place converted into a marketplace for the sale of
hogs and swine only, to all posterity.”[543]
The frightful severity of this punishment was adopted to stop even
greater barbarities inflicted upon wrecked mariners, in addition
to the plundering of the ship and cargo. Neither the Gauls nor
Britons hesitated to sacrifice strangers cast on their shores; and,
unfortunately, the piracies of the Scandinavians and the Normans had
the effect of perpetuating this sanguinary custom. Foreigners cast
on shore were too frequently immediately despatched, and the right
of plundering a wrecked ship extended alike to friend and foe. The
execution of pirates, and such as were condemned for crimes committed
on the high seas, and their being left to hang in chains by the water
side, has survived in practice even to the present century.
Clause twenty-seven relates to the adjustment of losses by any accident
resulting from an inferior outfit, and stipulates that when a vessel
arrived at her port of discharge, she was to be hauled up on dry
ground, the sails taken down, and everything properly stowed away; and
that then the master ought to consider an increase of wages, “kenning
by kenning.”[544]
[Sidenote: Shares in fishing vessels.]
The twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth clauses adjust the
respective shares of fishing vessels, when several were working in
partnership, and provide that in the case of the loss of one vessel,
the representatives of the parties who had perished could claim their
quota of the fish caught as well as of the fishing instruments. They
further relate to the salvage of shipwrecked vessels, in which the
right of all shipwrecked persons to their goods is fully maintained;
and refer to derelict ships and goods whose owners have been drowned,
stipulating that such goods be kept a year, and if not claimed in that
time be vested in the Church under certain conditions.
[Sidenote: Wreckers.]
The thirty-first clause provides that any wreckers who plundered a
ship, or who, “more barbarous, cruel, and inhuman than mad dogs, did
sometimes, to gain their apparel, monies or goods, murder and destroy
poor distressed seamen; in this case, the lord of the country ought
to execute justice on such wretches, to punish corporally as well as
pecuniarily, to plunge them in the sea till they be half dead, and then
to have them drawn from the sea and stoned to death.”
[Sidenote: Jetsam and flotsam.]
The thirty-second to the thirty-sixth articles inclusive refer to the
laws of jetsam and flotsam, and provide that goods thrown overboard
to preserve the ship and cargo do not change their proprietorship.
Whilst the thirty-seventh clause relates to strays of the sea, such as
whales[545] and other oil-fish, stipulating that if a man on horseback
could reach the stray with his lance it was deemed a royalty belonging
to the lord. But if the fish was found farther off the shore, the lord
had no right to it, though afterwards brought or driven on shore.
[Sidenote: Royal fish.]
The five clauses which followed regulated the prevailing customs
relating to sturgeon, salmon, turbot, the sea dragon, the sea barbel,
and in general all fish fit for a king’s table; besides oil-fish
such as whales, and porpoises, or of any fish of which oil could be
made, and in which the lord had a title to a share. All other fish
were declared to be the property of those who caught them in the
sea, whether in deep or shallow waters; whilst the forty-third and
forty-fourth clauses adjusted the title to goods which had become
derelict. The forty-fifth provided that a vessel cutting her cables
and putting to sea through stress of weather was entitled to recover
their value. Buoys were directed to be placed over the anchors, and any
person detaining them from the lawful owners was to be reputed as “a
thief and a robber.”
[Sidenote: Timber of wrecks.]
The forty-sixth and forty-seventh articles applied to the timber
of wrecks, when the crew were lost and had perished. The pieces of
the ship were declared to belong to the owners, notwithstanding any
custom to the contrary. “And any participators of the said wreck,
whether bishops, prelates, or clerks, shall be deposed and deprived of
their benefices respectively.” If they were laymen, they incurred the
penalties previously recited.
[Sidenote: Remarks on these laws.]
Whatever opinion may be entertained of the barbarous character of the
punishments enforced by these laws, it is undeniable that they are
framed in a spirit of wisdom and justice towards the ship-owner. The
lawless spirit of piracy, prevailing along the coasts in the time of
Richard I., rendered it absolutely necessary, if a merchant navy was
desirable, to protect the ships and the mariners, as well as the goods
in them, by the stern authority of the civil law. The experience that
Richard had acquired in sea affairs during his voyage to the Holy
Land, made him sensible of the necessity of introducing into England
the most salutary maritime regulations in force abroad. Accordingly
the above code, of which we have furnished only a brief abstract, was
established by him, or shortly after his death, to afford protection
to those persons and interests, on which he saw clearly the commercial
prosperity of England in great measure depended.
[Sidenote: Code of Wisby.]
At a later period, the merchants of Wisby[546] framed their laws on the
Rôles d’Oleron, which became, in fact, during the succeeding century
and subsequently, the authoritative rule for deciding all maritime
controversies not only in the Hanse Towns, but among all nations on
the Baltic Sea. Further, it was declared by the forty-first article of
Magna Charta, A.D. 1215, “that all merchants shall have safe conduct
to go out of or come into England, and to stay there. To pass either
by land or by water, and to buy and sell by the ancient and allowed
customs without any civil tolls (an excessive tax on sales), except in
time of war, or when there shall happen to be any nation at war with
us.”
[Sidenote: Magna Charta, A.D. 1215.]
Lord Justice Coke, in his comments on this famous charter,[547] is
of opinion that the merchants here mentioned were strangers, as few
Englishmen at that time traded directly with foreign countries; some
years elapsing before an English association began conducting, on its
own account, a foreign trade with English wool, tin, lead, and leather.
But during the reign of King John, the merchant navy found abundance
of profitable employment, for the wars he engaged in required a large
amount of tonnage. Moreover, the ship-owners and seamen are known to
have supported him in his contentions with the nobles;[548] and William
of Malmesbury speaks of the fame of London for its extensive commerce,
and of the crowd of foreign merchants, especially Germans, who flocked
there, and filled the Thames with their ships. Bristol, also, appears
from the same authority to have been then a flourishing port for ships
from Ireland, Norway, or other foreign parts. But the people, and
especially the monks and nobles, complained loudly of the taxes levied
for the hire of the merchant shipping, although a large portion of the
great wealth amassed by the ecclesiastics of the period was undoubtedly
derived from trade, and most likely from their private and personal
investments in maritime pursuits.
[Sidenote: Henry III., A.D. 1216.]
[Sidenote: Naval actions.]
[Sidenote: Cinque Ports.]
When Henry III. ascended the throne, and the barons arrayed themselves
in opposition to Louis of France, their former ally, so many actions
by sea ensued that the maintenance of the navy became a necessity.
An English fleet of forty galleys and other vessels attacked and
defeated a French squadron of more than double its size; the English,
on the authority of Matthew Paris,[549] attacking their opponents by
“a dreadful discharge of arrows from the crossbow-men and archers,”
rushing against them with their iron beaks, “and availing themselves of
their position to windward by throwing pulverised quicklime into the
French, whereby the men were blinded.” In this celebrated action, which
some have called the commencement of England’s dominion of the sea,
the vessels contributed by the Cinque Ports[550] greatly distinguished
themselves, and obtained thereby further privileges. Thus they were
commissioned “to annoy the subjects of France,”—in other words, to
plunder, as they pleased, not merely the merchant vessels of that
country, but “all they met of whatever nation, not sparing even their
own acquaintances and relations,”[551]—a system of piracy which other
Channel ports were not slow in adopting. Indeed, between the privateer
and the pirate there was then so little distinction that, when Henry
attempted to suppress these lawless acts, he found it necessary to hang
indiscriminately about thirty of the most guilty.
[Sidenote: Increase of piracy.]
[Sidenote: Measures for its suppression.]
But piracy, under the plea of retaliation, rapidly spread among the
ships of other nations. The Normans, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh fitted
out their marauders, pillaging not merely every vessel they could
successfully cope with at sea, but also various towns along the coast.
The whole Channel swarmed with pirates, and the spoils of rapine were
too often preferred to the slower acquisitions of honest industry by
those who thought themselves powerful enough to be robbers; a state of
things naturally much increased during the long contest between Henry
III. and his nobles. During this period, indeed, foreign commerce was
almost annihilated. Wines, which used to sell for forty shillings,
realized ten marks; wax rose from forty shillings to eight marks, and
pepper from six pennies to three shillings a pound; while the scarcity
of ordinary merchandise, especially of salt, iron, steel, and cloth,
together with the stagnation in all exportable articles, owing to the
interruption to navigation, was so great, that the industrial classes
and many of the merchants were reduced to want and beggary. Still more
stringent measures were therefore found necessary to sweep the seas of
these pirates; for the English nation had become seriously alarmed.
A great increase was consequently made in the fleet. A lord high
admiral, and guardian of the sea and maritime ports, by the name of
Topham, was for the first time appointed; and to him all ships of war
were rendered responsible for their conduct.
[Sidenote: Treaty of commerce with Norway, A.D. 1217, and facilities
afforded to foreign merchants.]
But though so much trouble had arisen from pirates and other marauders,
many changes of great importance in the development of the maritime
commerce of England were inaugurated during the long, though generally
feeble, reign of Henry III. Thus a treaty of friendship between England
and Norway[552] formed one of his earliest acts, whereby the merchants
and subjects of both kingdoms obtained full liberty of personal
intercourse. The merchants of Cologne[553] were then also allowed to
establish a hall or factory (known as their Guildhall), which soon
became the general rendezvous in London of all German merchants, and
the place of business where they disposed of their merchandise, and
found safe and comfortable abodes; while, not long afterwards, they
were allowed to trade at all the fairs throughout England.[554] French
ships, laden with corn, wine, or provisions, then received permission
to come into, or go out of, English ports unfettered by former
restrictions. A quay was formed at Queenhithe, where vessels belonging
to the Cinque Ports could discharge their cargoes; and here, also, the
first fish market was established.
[Sidenote: English merchants first open trading establishments abroad.]
[Sidenote: Origin of the Hanseatic League, A.D. 1241.]
Liverpool then first became known as a place of maritime trade,
although it continued to be ranked as a “village,” attached to the
parish of Walton, till as late as 1699.[555] Brunswick was invited to
have commercial dealings with England, and protection was afforded to
its citizens. In Henry’s reign, too, there were built at Yarmouth,
Winchelsea, and other ports, many vessels of a superior description to
any that England had hitherto produced.[556] During the same period
an association of English merchants obtained privileges from the Earl
of Flanders (A.D. 1248), and established in the Netherlands depôts of
English wool, lead, and tin. These adventurers were long known as the
merchants of the staples of England. Previous to the reign of Henry
III. all foreign merchants had been compelled to sell their goods on
board their vessels; but in consideration of a payment of 100_l._
(cash) towards a supply of fresh water for the city of London, and of
fifty marks to the lord mayor (annually), the merchants of Amiens,
Nele, and Corbie, and of Normandy, were then allowed to land and store
their cargoes.[557]
The formation of the Hanseatic Association was, however, the most
important commercial event of Henry’s reign. Though its origin, like
that of many other great communities, cannot be precisely ascertained,
it seems probable that it arose out of an agreement, entered into
in the year 1241 between the merchants of Hamburg and Lubeck, to
establish a guard for the mutual protection of their merchandise
against robbers; a precaution the more necessary, as men of the first
rank were then but too ready to profess openly the trade of robbery on
land, and of piracy on the seas.[558] As this powerful corporation,
the most important in the commercial history of the middle ages, in
time exercised great influence over the commerce of England, and of the
whole of the north of Europe, we shall have frequent occasion to refer
to its commercial operations.
[Sidenote: Corporate Seals.]
It is to be regretted that no reliable information as to the number,
size, or form of the English merchant vessels of this period has been
preserved. We have, consequently, been obliged to seek information
on this subject from the Corporate Seals of different towns which
have fortunately been preserved, and are represented in the following
drawings.
[Sidenote: Sandwich.]
1. Is a corporate seal of the cinque port Sandwich, of about the
date A.D. 1238. This curious seal shows that English ships were then
provided with sails, which were furled aloft as at the present time,
and, further, that they carried their long-boat on deck amid-ships, as
do most merchant vessels now.
[Illustration: SANDWICH.]
[Sidenote: Poole.]
2. A seal of the town of Poole, A.D. 1325, exhibits a sheer of
remarkable height, with the representation of the castle aft and
forwards, the name of which is preserved in the present word
“forecastle,” for the portion of the vessel towards the bow. The anchor
may also be noticed, hanging clear over the bows and ready for use.
[Illustration: POOLE.]
[Sidenote: Dover.]
3. Is an exceedingly well preserved seal of Dover, of A.D. 1284,
exhibiting similar elevated portions at the stern and bow for the use
of the fighting men, with a curious representation, also, of a sailor
ascending the shrouds, across which, no doubt, ratline lines were
placed, though these can hardly be detected in the drawing. This seal
has some other special details, as on the forecastle two men blowing
trumpets in different directions; on the after deck, a man steering
with a long oar over the side; and on the main deck, two sailors
apparently coiling the cable.
[Illustration: DOVER.]
[Sidenote: Faversham.]
4. Is the seal of about the same period of the town of Faversham. It
is remarkable for the amount of detail preserved on it. On this, as on
the seal of Sandwich, two sailors may be noticed seated aloft on the
yard in the act of furling the sail. On the deck is an officer giving
the word of command, and in the castle over the poop a man holding
a standard. On the fore deck are five soldiers variously armed with
spears and axes, and, near the top of the mast, is the castellated
object often observed on similar seals, indicating the crow’s nest.
[Illustration: FAVERSHAM.]
[Sidenote: Stanhope, vice-admiral of Suffolk.]
5. A seal of Michael Stanhope, vice-admiral of Suffolk, of a somewhat
later date, is remarkable in that it represents a ship with _four_
masts and a bowsprit. Each mast has a single yard, with the lug sail
furled on the three smaller ones, and set on the fourth and largest.
The bow is ornamented with a crocodile’s head, his back appearing to
form the roof of the forecastle. Over the bow is the anchor triced up
to the side of the vessel.[559]
[Illustration: MICHAEL STANHOPE, VICE-ADMIRAL OF SUFFOLK.]
[Sidenote: Duties of the Cinque Ports.]
By the charter granted in the twenty-second year of the reign of Edward
I., the Cinque Ports[560] were bound to provide, at any time the king
passed over the sea, not less than fifty-seven ships fully equipped,
each to have twenty armed soldiers maintained at the cost of the
ship-owner for fifteen days. Soon afterwards, the constable of Dover
Castle set forth, in a proclamation, the proportion of ships which
these and other ports, admitted to certain privileges, were bound to
furnish. The total number thus collected amounted to seventy-eight
vessels, of which Hastings had to supply eighteen; Bekesbourne, in
Kent, seven; Rye, five; Winchelsea, ten; Dover, nineteen; Folkestone,
seven; Faversham, a similar number; and Sandwich with Deal and other
minor places, five: the whole to be ready and properly “armed and
arrayed,” each to carry twenty men besides the master and mariners, who
were to serve five days at the expense of the ports and afterwards at
that of the king’s.
The nucleus of a national navy was thus established. In cases of
emergency, other vessels were obtainable from London or built for the
occasion by the government; and to make certain of a still further
supply, the whole merchant service were required to be ready within
forty days from the time of the summons. The “Cinque Ports,” for
their five days’ service, paid the masters sixpence, and the sailors
threepence per day.[561]
[Sidenote: Increased privileges to foreign merchants.]
Although the reign of Edward, like that of his predecessor, was
unfortunately marked by many contentions at home and abroad, the
interests of commerce were not neglected, and foreigners obtained
privileges far beyond any they had previously enjoyed.[562] Those, for
instance, who repaired to England were not merely granted full quiet
and security, but they were exempted from all differential duties and
special restrictions, and from the payment of either “murage, pontage,
or pavage,” although in cities they were only allowed to sell their
goods by wholesale, except in the case of spices or mercery wares.
Goods of any kind might be exported or imported, with the exception of
wine, which could not be re-exported without a special licence. Foreign
merchants were also allowed to take up their abode at any town or
borough in the kingdom, subject only to the civil and municipal laws of
the country. The crown promised not to seize their goods without making
full satisfaction. Bargains were to be enforced after the “earnest
penny” had passed between the buyer and seller; and all bailiffs and
officers of fairs were commanded to do justice without delay, from
day to day, “according to the law of merchants.” Before goods were
weighed, it was stipulated that both buyer and seller were to see that
the scales were empty and of equal balance, and all weights were to
be of one standard. When the scales were balanced, “the weigher” was
expressly required to remove his hands. Moreover, in all trials by
jury, in which strangers were interested, the jury was to consist of
half Englishmen and half foreigners.
[Sidenote: Letters of marque first issued.]
It was also in the reign of Edward I. that letters of marque appear
to have been for the first time issued. A merchant of Bayonne,[563]
at that time a port of the English dominions in Gascony, had shipped
a cargo of fruit from Malaga, which, on its passage along the coast
of Portugal, was seized and carried into Lisbon by an armed cruiser
belonging to that country then at peace with England. The king of
Portugal, who had received one-tenth part of the property, declined
to restore the ship and cargo, or make good the loss; whereupon King
Edward’s lieutenant in Gascony granted the owner of the ship and his
heirs licence, to be in force for five years, to seize the property of
the Portuguese, and especially of the inhabitants of Lisbon, to the
extent of the loss he had sustained and of the expenses of recovery.
[Sidenote: Law for the recovery of debts, and adjustment of average.]
It was likewise during the reign of Edward (10th Oct., 1283) that
parliament passed the famous “statute of merchants,” which gave a
remedy for the due recovery of debts, “as for want of such a law many
merchants were impoverished, and many foreign merchants desisted from
trading with England.” It is remarkable that, in the required process,
the debtor was supposed incapable of writing, and was, therefore,
required to put his seal to a bill drawn by the mayor’s clerk, who
thereupon affixed the royal seal prepared for that purpose. If, on
judgment against him, the debtor was proved to have no property, he was
imprisoned and fed on bread and water until the just demands of the
creditors were satisfied.
Nor were Edward’s commercial enactments confined to those we have
thus briefly noticed; for, understanding that certain citizens of
London,[564] together with other merchants of England, Ireland,
Gascony, and Wales, were in the habit of compelling the barons of the
Cinque Ports and others to pay an average on articles which ought to
have been exempted, as in the case of goods thrown overboard in storms,
he ordained that the vessel with her apparel, provisions, and cooking
utensils, “the master’s ring, necklace, sash, and silver cup,” as well
as the freight for the goods brought into port, should be free of all
such payments: on the other hand, that all other things in the vessel,
not excepting even the seamen’s bedding, should bear a proportion of
the loss incurred, and that the master should not be permitted to claim
freight for goods so thrown overboard.[565]
[Sidenote: Shipping of Scotland, A.D. 1249.]
[Sidenote: Extremely liberal Navigation Act.]
In Scotland, as might have been expected, commerce was of even slower
growth than in England, nor was it till the reign of Alexander III.
that there was any real maritime force; and although the vassals
of Scotland, as, for instance, the king of Man, were required to
contribute ships for the use of the state in proportion to their lands,
the king does not appear to have considered that such merchant vessels
as these were of much value, as he passed a law whereby his merchants
were prohibited for a limited period from exporting any goods in their
own vessels, “because some of them had been captured by pirates, and
others lost by shipwreck and by arrestments in foreign ports.” Of
course, the inevitable result followed that, for a time, the merchant
vessels of Scotland were totally extinguished. The enactment, however,
for some unaccountable reason, seems to have given satisfaction, as
the historians of the period remark that—“in consequence of these laws
the kingdom abounded in a few years with corn, money, cattle, sheep,
and all kinds of merchandise, and the arts flourished.”[566] It is,
indeed, possible that Scotland may have imbibed the spirit of extreme
liberality in its maritime policy which then prevailed throughout
England, where it was evidently supposed that foreign merchants
brought wealth which England could not otherwise have obtained. It
is, perhaps, remarkable that we have no notice of any trading port of
Scotland except that of Dunbar, which, at that time, was subject to the
English crown.
[Sidenote: Chief ports of England, and extent of its shipping and
commerce.]
Fortunately, however, a document has been preserved which furnishes
the names of the chief ports of England during the reign of Edward
I.[567] It is interesting and instructive. They were then as follows:
Dover, Sandwich, Romney, Winchester, Rye, Hythe, Faversham, Hastings,
Shoreham, Seaford, Portsmouth, Southampton, Dartmouth, Lymington,
Weymouth, Poole, Humble, Lymne, Sidmouth, Chichester, Teignmouth,
Frome, Fowey, Looe, Bodmin, Wareham, Falmouth, Bristol, Haverford-West,
Caernarvon, Caermarthen, Landpadanour, Conway, Chester, Bridgewater,
Cardiff, Oystermouth, Rochester, Gravesend, Northfleet, London,
Harwich, Ipswich, Dunwich, Orford, Yarmouth, Blackney, Lynn, Boston,
Wainfleet, Saltfleet, Grimsby, Hull, Ravensburg, Scarborough,
Tynemouth, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and Dunbar. Such were
the principal ports of England at the commencement of the fourteenth
century. Some of these places are now hardly known for their trade,
while the very names of others among them have long since disappeared.
How changed since then are the seats and centres of England’s maritime
commerce!
But we know nothing of the amount of shipping belonging to these ports
for more than half a century afterwards; nor, till a comparatively
recent period, of the extent of business carried on in England. Had
such records been preserved, we should probably have seen that in the
port of Liverpool alone, then scarcely recognisable, a larger amount
of tonnage now arrives and departs during a week or even a day, than
entered and left all these ports in the course of a year. The only
document in the shape of statistics referring to shipping of the
thirteenth century that can be discovered, is a return which states
that, in the year ending 20th November, 1299, there arrived in the
port of London, and in all the other ports of the kingdom, except the
Cinque Ports, seventy-three vessels with cargoes of wine, of which the
smallest had not less than nineteen tuns on board, from each of which
the king, by ancient law, had the right to take, at a fixed price, two
tuns for the use of his household.
But even this return conveys but a very vague and imperfect idea of
the number of vessels then belonging to England, or of the extent of
its maritime commerce; moreover, the importation of wine was then much
larger in proportion to that of other articles of commerce than it is
now. The Cinque Ports, from their wealth and exclusive privileges,
were, doubtless, large consumers of wine and had great facilities for
its storage.[568] London had long been, as it is now, pre-eminently the
port for wine. To Edward I. is due the selection of the Vintry (a name
still remaining) on the banks of the Thames, where vessels delivered
their cargoes alongside the wharf. Thence they often proceeded up the
river Fleet, as far as Holborn Bridge, to take in their return cargoes,
the smaller ones occasionally ascending even as far as Battle Bridge,
near the present station of the Great Northern Railway at King’s Cross.
[Sidenote: Edward II., A.D. 1307-27.]
[Sidenote: Edward III., A.D. 1326-7—1377.]
[Sidenote: Extension of English commerce.]
The twenty years’ reign of Edward II. is not marked by any events
worthy of note relating to maritime commerce. Retrogression rather than
progress was the result of his policy and of his constant troubles
and contentions with neighbouring nations. When, however, he had been
deposed, indeed almost immediately after the accession of Edward
III., a considerable step in advance was made by the grant of fresh
patents and charters to secure for the merchants of England further
staples on the Continent. Nearly the whole of the wool trade had been
previously carried on by foreigners, but the English now aimed at
having “staples” in Brabant and Artois as well as in Flanders, whither
they could freely send their own wool and dispose of it themselves from
their own entrepôts. And in this they at length succeeded; for with
their own capital they bought their wool, and exporting it in their
own bottoms to a staple in Holland, Flanders, or France, disposed of
it in those countries without the intervention of any second party or
foreign merchant. This privilege was considered at the time a great
step in advance; but now it is not easy to understand how the laws of
any country could have withheld from its merchants the right to trade
wherever or whenever other nations did not object.
[Sidenote: The discovery of coal.]
Such changes in the mode of transacting business tended materially
to enlarge the knowledge of the English merchants, acquiring as they
did from year to year, by their intercourse with the more refined
and intelligent merchants of Holland and France, much information on
subjects they might have learnt at an earlier period of their history
had their rulers not embroiled them in constant wars with the very
nations with whom they were now in direct communication. Again, though
it is certain that, at least on the western side of England, the Romans
had worked coal on or near the surface,[569] the opening of the great
coal-fields near Newcastle first took place in the reign of this wise
monarch—though, curiously enough, its value was sooner appreciated by
foreigners than by the people of the country in which this vast source
of wealth was found. For a considerable period after its discovery, the
consumption of coal was supposed to be so unhealthy that a royal edict
prohibited its use in the city of London while the queen resided there,
in case it might prove “pernicious to her health.”[570] On the other
hand, while England was thus prohibiting the use of the article which
has made her by far the most famous commercial nation of either ancient
or modern times, France sent her ships laden with corn to Newcastle,
receiving coal as their return cargoes, and her merchants were the
first to carry this now great article of commerce to foreign countries.
[Sidenote: First complete roll of the English fleet, A.D. 1347.]
For the first time we obtain also at this period something like
reliable information with regard to the extent of trade of England
and the number and size of her merchant vessels. Hitherto everything
with regard to them, and indeed to the vessels of almost all other
countries, has been, in a great measure, a matter of conjecture, the
accounts preserved being so conflicting that scarcely more than the
vaguest idea of their form or size can be ascertained. Nor, indeed, so
far as we know, were there any returns of the actual strength of the
navy of England or of the number of vessels which each port could send
to sea on an emergency, until Edward III. ordered a roll to be prepared
of the fleet he employed in the blockade and siege of Calais.[571]
From the details given in this roll we have the means of forming a
tolerably correct impression of the merchant shipping of the time; and
it is remarkable how small was the proportion of ships and men which
the king himself supplied. Many of the ports, it will be seen, supplied
a larger number of both than the king himself, these being, obviously,
the merchant shipping at other times employed in the foreign trade of
the country. This interesting document clearly shows that from the
earliest period up to the siege of Calais, as was also the case for
a long period subsequently, the English fleets were composed almost
exclusively of merchant ships, contributed by the chief ports in the
kingdom or in the dependent provinces.
[Sidenote: Quota of different ports.]
That Yarmouth, in Norfolk, should have supplied the largest number of
vessels, is probably due to its herring fisheries, and to the great
quantities of wool which were then shipped from that port to Brabant
and the ports of Flanders and Holland.[572] Again, Fowey, in Cornwall,
furnished more seamen than London, in all likelihood on account of
the tin trade; while the now extinct port of Winchelsea, in Sussex,
occupied the first position amongst the Cinque Ports, perhaps from
its neighbourhood to the then chief ironworks in the country. Those
places directly interested in foreign trade contributed rateably, in
accordance with its extent, and not with reference to the number of
their inhabitants. For instance, the city of York furnished only one
small vessel with nine men on board; whilst the town of Newcastle,
now becoming important as the port of shipment of sea-borne coals,
furnished no fewer than seventeen ships.
[Sidenote: Pay of soldiers, sailors, &c.]
We also learn from this record that the Prince of Wales, who
distinguished himself greatly in the expedition, had as his wage
20_s._ per diem; the Bishop of Durham, 6_s._ 8_d._; thirteen earls
6_s._ 8_d._ each; forty-four barons and bannerets, 4_s._; one thousand
knights, 2_s._ Esquires, constables, captains and leaders, of whom
there were four thousand and twenty-two, received 1_s._ each. Masons,
carpenters, smiths, engineers, tent-makers, miners, armed gunners,
from 10_d._ to 3_d._ per day; mariners, 4_d._; whilst the Welshmen on
foot had 4_d._ and 2_d._ But this roll is also valuable for what it
omits to tell us. Thus if it be the record of the fleet before Calais,
we cannot doubt that England then had many other vessels of naval and
commercial importance, for, even at this period of English history,
we find organized piracy was not extinct: thus, in November 1347, a
Spanish fleet piratically seized and sunk (for the two nations were
then at peace) ten English ships, on which a fleet of fifty ships was
immediately sent to sea to make reprisals. In this fleet the King
himself, with the Prince of Wales, and many of the nobility, embarked,
and attacked off Winchelsea forty large Spanish carracks, fully manned
and armed, and richly laden with cloth and other valuable commodities,
capturing no less than one-half, and sinking or disabling most of the
others.
[Sidenote: War renewed, A.D. 1354.]
[Sidenote: Death of Edward III., A.D. 1377.]
Unfortunately, in 1354, France again became the scene of war, which
ended in the celebrated battle of Poictiers under Edward the Black
Prince. In the campaign which followed the expiration of the truce,
consequent upon the capture of the French king and the most of his army
on the field of Poictiers, Edward collected a fleet of no less than
eleven hundred vessels, in which were embarked one hundred thousand
men, by whom Paris was successfully invaded; but at the siege of La
Rochelle his good fortune deserted him, and his whole fleet, then under
the command of the Earl of Pembroke, became the prize of the combined
squadrons of France and of Castile. Although, on pressing demands for
succour, Edward was enabled to fit out a fresh fleet of four hundred
ships, of which he personally assumed the command, fortune and the
winds proved adverse; and, after having been nine weeks at sea, he
was unable to effect a landing on the French coast. Greater reverses
followed, and the vast territories which the English possessed in
France, and which they had maintained at so great a cost, soon sank
into comparatively insignificant proportions. The death of the Black
Prince, in 1376, preyed so heavily upon the king that he only survived
him for twelve months; and in June, 1377, he died, after a reign of
more than half a century, broken-hearted at the loss of his brave and
distinguished son.
[Sidenote: State of the merchant navy during his reign.]
[Sidenote: Loss sustained by war, and encouragement afforded thereby to
foreign nations.]
Although Edward, throughout the whole of his long reign, had encouraged
a liberal commercial policy, and had devoted, in an especial manner,
his attention to naval affairs, it was impossible for maritime commerce
to flourish in the midst of turmoil and war. England, though she lost
the greater portion of her unnatural territory in France, may have
preserved, as against the fleets of that country, her superiority at
sea, and her wars with France on the one hand, and with Scotland on
the other, may have developed the natural bull-dog courage of her
seamen; but war, while it lasted, transferred the bulk of her over-sea
carrying trade to the ships of Spain, Flanders, Holland, and of the
Mediterranean nations, the whole energy of her people, which might
have been better employed in the development of her natural resources
and manufactures, having been devoted to war and to the creation of
its instruments of destruction. Commissioners were even summoned to
London to hold a sort of naval parliament during these struggles with
France, and to render an account of the number of vessels which each
port could supply to the naval force of the country. The press warrants
authorized the appointed officers to seize not merely all vessels lying
in the several ports, but every vessel which came from sea during
the continuance of the commission; and these vessels were frequently
compelled immediately to discharge the whole of their cargoes, although
their last port of destination had not been reached, till Edward,
during the greater part of his reign, had actually more than one-half
of the merchant vessels of the kingdom in his service.[573] Operations
such as these could not fail to seriously injure the maritime commerce
of England, and, at the same time, afford encouragement to foreigners
to absorb her over-sea carrying trade.
But although the ships of Spain and of the Mediterranean were at
first the chief gainers by this state of things, those of the more
northern nations of Europe soon became, from the same causes, the
most formidable commercial rivals of England. While the English were
engaged in unprofitable conflicts, they were steadily increasing in
wealth and commercial greatness. Flemish ship-owners, taking advantage
of the constant disputes of England with France and Scotland, acquired
a considerable portion of the trade which would otherwise have fallen
to England, and materially increased their business relations with the
Mediterranean, with Egypt, and the East. Nor were they alone in their
efforts. The advantages to be derived from distant commerce had now
become known to all the nations of the North; while they were rapidly
gaining an insight into the most profitable mode of conducting it, and
ascertaining the class of goods best adapted for the markets of the
East, and the description of vessels most suitable for carrying on the
trade.
[Sidenote: Rapid increase of the trade of Flanders.]
The people occupying the Netherlands, observing on the one hand how
English genius and energy were being wasted in war, and, on the other,
perceiving the vast progress of the Italian republics, and the wealth
which their inhabitants had accumulated by their intercourse with the
East, endeavoured, and with success, to imitate their example. Besides
being carriers by sea they became themselves large manufacturers,
opening up an extensive trade with Persia through the medium of
Constantinople, and enjoying during the reign of Baldwin, Count of
Flanders, an amount of prosperity second only to that of Venice, then
the chief of the Italian republics. Protected by the franchises which
their energy had wrung from their lords paramount, the inhabitants
of Flanders were thus induced to apply themselves with vigour to
commercial and manufacturing pursuits. Almost every town emulated its
neighbour in works of usefulness or taste, exhibiting alike their
habits of industry and their inventive genius. Their population
increased to an astonishing extent, their wealth in a yet greater
ratio; and the modern traveller may note in buildings still extant the
superabundant pecuniary resources of that period, and the joint results
of freedom from war and of unwearied industry.
[Sidenote: Trade between Italy and Flanders.]
Somewhere towards the close of the thirteenth century the merchant
vessels of the Italian republics first began to frequent the markets
of the Netherlands, and in 1318 Venetian ships brought to Antwerp
spices, drugs, and silk-stuffs. The Hanseatic League, which had now
become a commercial association of considerable importance, readily
entered into relations with the Italian traders, so that the markets of
Flanders became the best supplied of any in the north of Europe with
the products and manufactures of the Mediterranean, Arabia and India,
furnishing in exchange from their factories a variety of fine cloths
in assortments adapted to the wants of the Eastern people. Thus, while
England was distracted and impoverished by war, foreign merchants
found safety and protection, and became greatly enriched, under the
government of the Count of Flanders. The Flemings were satisfied
with moderate duties. Whilst clearing their coasts of pirates and of
hostile corsairs to the utmost extent in their power, they in all cases
respected the property of shipwrecked vessels, which had too often been
considered the prize of any promiscuous wrecker, and encouraged traders
from all nations to frequent or settle on the banks of the Scheldt and
the Meuse, many of whom realized large profits out of England’s folly
or misfortunes.
[Sidenote: Commercial importance of Bruges and Antwerp.]
During the period of the commercial splendour of the Netherlands,
Bruges and Antwerp were the chief entrepôts of the north of Europe for
foreign goods. The former of these, in the course of the fourteenth
century, had successfully negotiated favourable commercial treaties
with the German empire, as also with Spain, Portugal, England,
Scotland, and Ireland, which, in the following century, were extended
with great advantage to Venice, Genoa, and Aragon; but, towards the
close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century
Bruges was surpassed by Antwerp, where, after the discovery of the
passage to India by the Cape, Flemish vessels trading with the East
landed their cargoes. Antwerp had, indeed, previously to that period
enjoyed a large and profitable maritime commerce. Apart from the many
advantages which the port possessed, the liberal policy established by
the Duke of Brabant and the privileges he conferred on foreigners had
induced English, German, Genoese, and Florentine merchants to make it a
rendezvous for their ships, and a depôt for storing their goods, whence
they were distributed throughout the continent and the whole of the
north of Europe.
[Sidenote: Wealth of Flanders, and extent of its manufactures and
commerce.]
Some idea may be formed of the importance of Flanders and the Low
Countries, and how they then surpassed all the other nations of
northern Europe in wealth and commercial enterprise, from the fact
that Ghent had no less than forty thousand looms constantly at work in
the manufacture of cotton and woollen cloths. She likewise supplied
in great abundance, and of superior quality, serges, fustians, and
tapestries. Courtray possessed, in the sixteenth century, six thousand
weavers’ looms; Ypres, four thousand, which produced very fine cloths,
especially those of the scarlet colour so frequently specified in the
tariffs of the countries of the South and East; while the Cloth Hall
of that place was considered one of the most beautiful edifices of all
Flanders. Oudenarde supplied tapestries which rivalled those of Arras:
Tournay was famed for a peculiar description of serges. Louvain,
though somewhat injured by the growth of other places, had employed in
the fourteenth century four thousand looms; Mechlin, three thousand
four hundred; and Brussels was, even at that early period, renowned for
its woollen fabrics.[574]
Middleburgh, in Zealand, had then attracted to its market the merchants
of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, who trafficked in its manufactures as
well as in the productions generally of the country. Haarlem wove in
its looms an extraordinary quantity of fine cloth and velvets much
in request by the wealthy and prosperous Italian republics. The Low
Countries received in return from Venice, spices, drugs, perfumes,
cotton-prints, and silk stuffs. Genoa, Florence, Ancona, and Bologna,
despatched also to Holland their silks, cloths of gold and silver,
corselets, pearls, cotton, silk twist, alum, oils, and other articles
of manufacture and produce. France sent to her ports the fine cloths of
Paris and of Rouen, the common velvets of Tours, and the linen yarns of
Lyons, besides wines in great abundance.
[Sidenote: Special privileges to her merchants.]
About this period the merchants of Brabant, Flanders, Zealand, and
Holland, obtained from the king of France the privilege of establishing
agencies in her chief commercial cities. Spain was likewise then
largely engaged in over-sea commerce, and competed with the merchants
of France and Italy in importing to the North sugar, cotton, dye-woods,
and other articles of foreign growth; but it appears that they were
so much molested by pirates, especially by the English, that in 1340
the cities of Ghent, Ypres, and Bruges, were obliged to seek and
obtain from Edward III. a safe conduct[575] for the merchant shipping
of Catalonia, Castille, and Majorca. In spite, however, of the king’s
protection, so daring and regardless of all law were these marauders,
that a few years afterwards two vessels laden with valuable cargoes,
and sent by the merchants of Barcelona and Valencia for Flanders, were
captured by pirates from Bayonne, and carried into an English port.[576]
[Sidenote: Progress of the Hanseatic League, and its system of
business.]
The Hanseatic League having now become by far the most important
commercial association in Europe, its merchants entered with zeal into
the rich and prosperous trade which made Flanders and the Low Countries
so conspicuous in the annals of the commercial history of the period.
More than seventy cities and towns were associated with the League. Its
chief agencies, firmly established at Bruges in Flanders, at Bergen in
Norway, and at Novgorod in Russia, entirely monopolized for many years
the trade of these countries. Its agents and factors, all of whom were
mercantile men, were guided by rules and instructions emanating from
head-quarters at Lubeck, and from these they had no power to deviate
unless under extraordinary circumstances. They were not permitted to
have any common interest with strangers, or to trust their goods on
board any other merchant ships than those belonging to the places with
which the association was in league. Wholly occupied in extending
their own privileges and in securing for themselves the business of any
place where they had established themselves, they soon became obnoxious
to their rivals, and their counting-houses were frequently exposed
to popular fury. When unable to obtain redress for the outrages thus
committed against it, the League closed its warehouses, and its members
withdrew from the place. They could inflict no more severe punishment
for the wrongs they had sustained; indeed, the withdrawal of their
trade was often considered so great a calamity to the inhabitants,
that large concessions were made and new privileges granted to induce
their return. More than once the League transferred their quarters from
Bruges to Dordrecht in Holland, and, on each occasion, obtained fresh
grants before they agreed to resume business in the former city.
[Sidenote: Its power too frequently abused.]
But the League was unable to obtain at Bruges the power and influence
it too frequently exercised at other places; for it had there to
contend with men of business habits and of considerable wealth, whose
firms had long conducted business with distant countries, and who
held large stocks of the same description of merchandise from which
the League itself derived its chief profits. Moreover, the Flemings
of Bruges imported in their own ships, or in those of the nations
with whom they were in direct correspondence, the products of the
East, the manufactures of Italy, and the wines of the South. At other
places, however, and especially in the North, where the League had
comparatively few competitors and none whom it could not crush when
necessary, it exercised, at times, an overbearing dominion. Arrogant
and despotic, it even claimed the right of having submitted for its
sanction the question of the succession of the Danish princes to the
throne. At Bergen it persecuted with inveterate rancour any foreigner
who attempted to oppose it in trade; and, at Novgorod, it behaved in
such a manner as more than once to arouse the severe displeasure of the
Russian government. Nor did it hesitate, when it suited its purpose, to
carry on maritime wars, frequently exercising the power of an European
sovereign; and more than one potentate of the North experienced the
terrible ravages caused by the fleets of this powerful and haughty
commercial association.[577]
FOOTNOTES:
[526] Domesday Book.
[527] Peter Langtoft says that Richard’s own ship was called the
“Trenche-le-mer,” a good name for a swift sailing vessel; and the name
of Trenchemer occurs frequently in subsequent records, even as late as
Henry V., as that of commanders of ships.
[528] Geoffry de Vinisauf, ap. Gale, Script. Hist. Anglic., vol. ii.
[529] These numbers are given from Richard of Devizes (p. 17), who
appears to be the only writer who gives details of the fleet at
Messina. The number given subsequently, during the passage of Richard
to the Holy Land, by Vinisauf and others, is considerably larger, and
probably comprehends vessels of all descriptions.—Sir H. Nicolas’s
“Hist. Roy. Navy,” vol. i. p. 77, &c.
[530] Buss, Bussa, Buscia, or Burcia, and Dromon, or Dromond, seem to
have been used indifferently for large vessels. As the specific name
given to the large ship belonging to Saladin which Richard I. captured,
it has been supposed that the word Dromond is of Arabic origin.—Spelman
in voc. Dromunda.
[531] The whole of these and of the more ancient maritime laws have
been recently edited (A.D. 1828-1847) by a learned French lawyer, M.
Pardessus. According to his researches, it appears most probable that
these documents belong to the ancient French code, called the “Rôles
ou Jugemens d’Oleron.” It is impossible to determine now who first
compiled them, hence they have been claimed for different nations and
tribes; Selden, Coke, Prynne, Godolphin, and others, deemed them of
English origin, and due to Richard I., but there is no evidence that he
ever went to Oleron. M. Pardessus has shown from the authority of MSS.
at Oxford and in the British Museum, and from their coincidence with a
very early translation into Spanish, that the first twenty-six articles
are the most genuine. The others he considers to be later additions,
as, indeed, their intrinsic evidence tends to show. The place of
the departure of the ships being generally Bordeaux suggests that
they were originally embodied for the coasting trade of the west of
France.—Pardessus’ “Collection de lois Maritimes,” Paris, 4to, 1828-47.
Sir Harris Nicolas, quoting from Brompton, Hoveden, and others, states
that Richard drew up at Chinon, on his way to Marseilles, what he
calls “the earliest articles of war.” (“Hist. Roy. Navy,” pp. 89-91.)
Still more recently (1871) Sir Travers Twiss, in his edition of “The
Black Book of the Admiralty,” has examined very fully the real or
supposed claims of Richard to be the author or the editor of the “Rôles
d’Oleron.” In doing so he quotes a memorandum of 12 Edw. III. (A.D.
1284), stating that these laws (i.e., the ten last articles of the
Rôles) “were by the Lord Richard, formerly king of England, on his
return from the Holy Land, corrected, interpreted, and declared, and
were published in the island of Oleron, and were named in the French
tongue (Gallica lingua) ‘La Ley Olyroun.’”—Introd. pp. lvii.-lviii.
[532] We need not point out that the order of precedency differs
nowadays. The supercargoes in after years claimed priority in
everything except in that which related to the navigation of the vessel.
[533] Some of the following rules are noted in the “Ordinances made by
King Richard to be observed among sea-faring men.” See Appendix No. 2,
628.
[534] This is the fourteenth article in Pardessus, p. 333. His article
thirteen relates to charter-parties to different places between
Bourdeaux and Yarmouth.
[535] The old Gascony phrase was _Oster la touaille_, which signifies
denying him the table-cloths or victuals for three meals, by which was
understood one day and a half.
[536] The fishermen of Blankeness, on the Elbe, and the sailors of the
Levant, and in various other places, still navigate in shares for wages.
[537] This article affords some evidence that these laws were drawn up
in France for French sailors.
[538] Pardessus refers to an unedited Rhodian Law, as having suggested
this article, p. 337.
[539] It was further ordained, that the wines on board the ship should
be sold at the price customary at the place to which she had come.
[540] It has been shown by Pardessus and others that these so-called
“Rhodian Laws” are a compilation of the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
and distinct from the one famous Rhodian Law whose title, “De Jactu,”
has been preserved.
[541] Pardessus retains this form of the word, but the MSS. read
“lodman” (_i.e._ leading-man, pilot), which is probably the true
form.—See Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 7965, fol. 89, &c.
[542] A French law, so late as Aug. 22, 1790, sent a pilot to the
galleys for three years who accidentally lost his vessel; and sentenced
him to death if he did so wilfully.—Pardessus, p. 341.
[543] These and the following Articles, which, doubtless, faithfully
represent the manners of the times, are found in early editions of
Garcia and Cleirac, but not in the MSS.—Pardessus, p. 346, note 3.
[544] “Kenning” is a very ancient word in sea language. It means view,
or course, “course by course,” and was employed when navigation was
performed by views and by observation from one land to another, prior
to the use of the compass. Admiral W. H. Smyth, in his “Sailor’s
Word Book,” states that “it was a mode of increasing wages formerly,
according to whaling law, by seeing how a man performed his duty.”
[545] For notice of whales caught so far south as Biarritz, see
“Syllabus of Rymer’s Fœdera,” Appendix No. 8, p. 648, s. a. 1338.
[546] In the island of Gothland, Baltic. These laws are believed to
have been reduced to three, their present form, by Magnus, who became
king of Sweden in A.D. 1320. (Pardessus, p. 426.) They are almost
identical with those in the Rôles d’Oleron, North German names of
places of departure, &c. being substituted for Bordeaux, &c.
[547] Cap. 30.
[548] King John, in his edict of Hastings, A.D. 1200, ordered his
captains to seize and to confiscate the cargoes of every ship that did
not strike their topsails to them. (Selden, “Mare Clausum,” ii. c. 26.)
He is also said to have destroyed the whole naval force of France.
Trivet, “Ann. ad ann. 1214,” quoted by Spelman, in his Glossary.
[549] M. Paris, p. 298. Ann. of Waverl. p. 183. Gale, ap. Robert of
Gloucester, p. 515.
[550] See Appendix No. 4, pp. 629-632, for charter of Edward I.
(1272-1307) to the Cinque Ports. This appears to be the earliest
charter that has been preserved, but it is only confirmatory of the
charters given by previous kings.
[551] M. Paris, p. 589.
[552] There is constant notice of intercourse between England and
Norway during this period of English history. See Appendix No. 3, p.
629.
[553] This was about A.D. 1220. This “Guild-hall” (“Gildalla
Teutonicorum”) was distinct from the guildhall of the merchants of the
Steel-yard. (Madox, Hist. Excheq. ii. 2.) The former obtained a charter
from Henry III. in A.D. 1259. Rymer, Fœd. v. 2.
[554] Hakluyt’s “Voyages,” vol. i. p. 130.
[555] Atkins’s “Manchester,” p. 332. Liverpool appears to have had
burgesses as early as A.D. 1207. Rot. Patent. 9 Johan.
[556] M. Paris, p. 889.
[557] Stow’s “Survey of London,” p. 130. Rymer, Fœd. vol. v. p. 105.
[558] Lambecii, Orig. Hamburg, ii. p. 26.
[559] The following are the legends, on the five seals, respectively:—
1. SANDWICH—SIGILL. CONSILII. BARONVM. DE. SANDWICO.
2. POOLE—SIGILLVM. COMMVNE. DE. LA. POLE.
3. DOVER—SIGILLVM. COMMVNE. BARONVM. DE. DOVORIA.
4. FAVERSHAM—SIGILLVM. BARONVM. DE. FAVERSHAM.
5. SUFFOLK—SIGILLVM. MICHAELIS. STANHOPE. ARMIGERI.
VICE-ADMIRALLI. COMITATVS. SVFFOLCIE.
[560] See Appendix No. 4.
[561] Hakluyt’s “Voyages,” vol. i. p. 17.
[562] A charter granting these privileges will be found at length in
Hakluyt, vol. i. p. 135. It was confirmed by Henry IV. and Henry V.
[563] Rymer, “Fœdera,” v. p. 691.
[564] Ibid. v. p. 298.
[565] Act. ii. Edward I.
[566] Ayloffe’s Calendar, p. 335.
[567] The Act of Edward I. prohibiting the exportation of bullion, and
relating to his new coinage, was ordered to be sent to all the chief
ports in the kingdom. For the wages of the sailors in the fleets of
Edward I., see Appendix No. 5, pp. 632-4.
[568] To this day the visitor to the quaint old town of Winchelsea may
observe under houses, now cottages, extensive cellars—some with roofs
of Gothic arches. The Ward-robe books of the 25th, 29th, and 32nd years
of Edward I. (now in the British Museum) give ample details on all
these subjects.
[569] Mr. Wright, in his excavations at Uriconium (Wroxeter), found
abundant evidences of the use of coal. Roman candles have also been met
with in some of the neighbouring mines. As early as A.D. 1253 there
was a lane behind Newgate, in London, called Sea-coal Lane. Ayloffe’s
Calend., p. 11. It appears also that coal was used in A.D. 1337 in the
manufacture of iron anchors. See “Syllabus of Rymer’s Fœdera,” Appendix
No. 8, p. 648, s. a. 1337.
[570] Stow’s “Survey of London,” p. 925.
[571] See Appendix No. 6, pp. 634-6, where the original documents
preserved in the Cotton and Harleian Collections are given in parallel
columns, to show their variations. At the end of this roll are also
notices of some of the more remarkable items in the repairs of Edward
III.’s galleys from another contemporary MS. Appendix No. 7, pp.
636-641.
[572] It appears also from the warrants contained in a MS. of the
Harleian Collection, No. 433, that besides the trade with Iceland
from Bristol, many vessels went thither from the ports of Norfolk and
Suffolk. See Appendix No. 12, p. 654.
[573] Rymer’s “Fœdera.”
[574] The great wealth of Flanders at this time is well shown by the
fact that, in A.D. 1339, the Duke of Brabant paid Edward 50,000_l._ as
the dowry for his daughter on her espousal to Prince Edward.—Rymer,
Fœd. v. pp. 113, 118.
[575] See a specimen of the “Safe Conduct” usually given on these
occasions from a MS. in the Harleian Collection. Appendix No. 6.
[576] Rymer’s Fœd. v. pp. 179-203.
[577] The following are the most important dates in connection with the
history of this celebrated confederacy.
Great German Hansa established A.D. 1241, with the view of clearing the
Baltic and adjacent coasts of pirates. Their first cities were Lubeck
and Hamburg, then Bremen, ultimately Bergen and Brunswick; they were
supported, generally, by the emperors as a commercial counterpoise to
the feudal nobility—Lubeck was chosen as queen of the Hansa.
In 1281 the citizens of the Hanseatic League were placed on the same
footing as those of London.
From A.D. 1303 to 1475 they possessed many houses in London, with a
jury, half English, half foreign, to try their causes, and two English
aldermen to act as their chiefs. This was the period of their greatest
power. The power of the League began to decline in 1547, after the
death in this year of Henry VIII. Though Edward VI. renewed their
privileges, the English “Merchant Adventurers” proved too strong for
them.
In 1666 their buildings of the Steel-yard were burnt in the great fire
of London, but were reconstructed in 1680.
In 1852 the premises of the Hanseatic League were finally alienated,
and are now built over by the Cannon Street railway station.